At one time I was a fan of Brannon Howse’s Worldview ministry. Years ago I attended one of his Worldview Weekend events where I first met David Noebel and David Barton and became admirers of their ministries. Since then Howse has become unbearable in his tone when speaking out against, well, anything. People involved in “discernment ministries” such as Howse’s would do well to learn how to present their positions without sounding like pompous jerks who do nothing but condemn everybody for everything. For a great lesson in how to do that I would recommend learning from someone like Gary Gilley, pastor of Southern View Chapel in Springfield, IL.
Lately Howse has joined forces with a man named Chris Pinto revealing a complete 180 degree turn from his past association with David Barton and his research of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Yes I agree that David Barton has been led astray due to his relationship with Glen Beck – he believes Glen Beck is a Christian despite of his Mormon beliefs – but his view of the founding fathers are more in line with what they believed, said, and taught than that of Chris Pinto and his conspiratorial view of them. Thus, Howse recently questioned Kirk Cameron‘s judgment for going on the Glen Beck show to promote his upcoming movie, “Monumental,” which deals with the beliefs of the Founding Fathers. If Cameron were going on Beck’s show for a reason other than promoting his movie, perhaps there would be cause for questioning Cameron’s reasoning. However, that is not the case. He was promoting a movie, that’s it.
Anyway, Howse is now promoting Chris Pinto and his belief that none, or few of our Founding Fathers were Christians and in fact that United States was founded by the Freemason’s who viewed it as a fulfillment of their occult belief that it would be the new Atlantis (yes, that Atlantis; the one that disapeared thousand so years ago) and usher in the age of whatever (insert diabolical laugh and eerie music here). To say that I disagree with Pinto and Howse would be an understatement. In fact, it makes me sick and I no longer view Howse as a legitimate voice to which discerning believers should listen.
Instead of spending the rest of the month researching and attempting to repudiate Howse and Pinto by myself I am turning to an expert with a capital E to do it for me. John Eidsmoe is a scholar’s scholar who is both a theologian and constitutional, well, expert with a capital E. I met him about a year ago when I was able to spend a weekend with him at a conference he was leading. Not too long ago he wrote a blog that deals directly with Chris Pinto and a DVD that he has produced promoting his beliefs concerning the founding fathers. Eidmoe’s blog is a must read and therefore it will be listed here as the conclusion of my blog. Please read it – http://morallaw.org/blog/2012/01/hidden-faith-of-the-founding-fathers-who-were-they-hiding-it-from/
God bless. I pray this will edify you.
44 thoughts on “A Repudiation of Brannon Howse and Chris Pinto”
Brannon and Chris in particular like to jump on the evangelical lie about Freemasonry industry to generate controversy and revenue. Freemasonry leaves the individual’s beliefs up to him or her self (and yes, I am a co-Mason). These guys want to make money off of distortions and are scared at the prospect of people discussing spiritual matters with those of other faiths which Freemasonry finds to be a benefit to human relations in this world. They also delete all my comments on the subject. But that is ok. I intend to keep tormenting then for my own entertainment.
Perhaps Pastor Spurlin should be more Christ-like and do as Brannon does and thrash the evil doers with a whip, but oh no that would be too caustic and straight up. We who are watchmen for Christ as defenders of Biblical Truths are pretty black and white with little gray. We tell it like it is. Whereas there are those who get rather mealy mouth about social, political, and spiritual issues. Why can’t people mature about how they speak about issues? I know this is not taught in public schools and churches are so concerned about “unity” and “grace” with one another that reality gets lost is mush.
I’m not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with my assessment. Will you please clarify?
Your main article was to point out the way Howse handles people he disagrees with, yet nearly every person who disagreed with you in this article got the same response from you.
You are correct. Consider me rebuked.
I consider your rebuke as accurate and accept it gratefully. However, I must stand by my assessment as to its content if not its tone.
if by the “same response” you mean the same as Howse I would beg to differ. Not once did Steve use many of the tactics that resorts to such as the label “false convert”.
Kim, thanks for your defense of me. I did get a little snarky. Oh well.
I have learned that I have at least small disagreements with nearly anyone. I do see things I don’t like or feel right about with things Howse and Pinto say or how they say them. I am careful not to accept everything they say, as we need to be with any man. This is to demonstrate that I try to keep bias to a minimum, save a bias for lining things up with scripture. I do however see nationalism as a weak point among American Christians. It is clearly, to me, part of the plan to unite everyone in the world under Satan’s direction. And as I believe the conspiracy of Satan with his men is much older than peripheral groups identified in modern conspiracy books and movies, I also believe the deception about the founding fathers to inspire Christians to nationalism is possible and even probable. I believe that it is possible that God allows even Christians to be deceived in certain areas, but that this can ultimately serve his final purposes. Often both sides of disagreements are partially wrong. This is part of none of us knowing everything and all being flawed. The mature Christian is moderate, not in beliefs but in speech and actions. (None of this is to be construed as an attack on your attitude, but rather encouragement.)
Nationalism is a stumbling block for many Americans, and most people through what I have learned of world history and human nature. We want to unite under something meaningful. Any research I do on conspiracy or false teachers only serves to make me lose faith in any worldly system or philosophy, no matter how Godly it is claimed to be, and to focus me wholly on Christ, working toward His purpose and His end. I’ll unite under that cause with anyone.
I have only watched 75% of “Hidden Faith…” and will finish it at some point and check the contexts of quotations. Preliminarily, I will say that the disagreement over what founders believed seems to be from lies by omission being the support for some of the most influential founders having a legitimate Christian faith. The quotations presented so far in the film only fill in gaps in what we have been told their beliefs were. The typical quotes supposedly showing their faith are presented and then held up to other things they said, where it becomes obvious if they are genuine, that the convention is false. Vague wording is explained further through other less popular letters they wrote.
It doesn’t matter that one “believes in Jesus Christ” it matters what that means. There are lots of new agers and other false groups that would say they “believe in Jesus Christ.” It’s what they believe about him that matters.
I’m not 100% percent sold on the documentary’s claims, and no doubt some are bound to be false, but they do seem to add to our knowledge of founders and not take away to then add something different.
I above most things am not looking for an argument with you and will do everything I can to avoid one. My heart is to focus on the Spirit’s leading to encourage and help lead believers into truth. If what is before me is untruth I trust Him to reveal that to me in time and I pray he will do the same for all believers, yourself included.
Sorry for the long, comma-ed sentences. These things just get so complex that they’re hard to get out in written form.
Jude 1:24-25 “Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, And to present you faultless Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, To God our Savior, Who alone is wise, Be glory and majesty, Dominion and power, Both now and forever.
I am currently not in a position to discuss this, but when I am I will write more concerning your concerns.
Please see my new post.
First, you quoted two salvation verses from the apostle Paul. Glenn Beck and millions of Mormons have laid claim to those very verses, taking them as they read and have laid claim to being just as saved as anyone else who believes them. Do you accept Beck and Mormons who stand on those verses as saved?
Second, I don’t know who you mean by “many of the Founders” being truly saved believers of the Gospel of the grace of God, but Pinto’s video focuses on Washington, Adams, Franklin and Jefferson, the ones most often trumpeted as Christian believers of that Gospel. These men COULD NOT have believed the Gospel because they all (especially Jefferson) rejected the very biblical accounts of Christ one must accept as true to BE saved.
Third, you also said in a comment above that the Founders need not have been perfect in their theology to have been saved. True; no one is. But you’re still ignoring the point that these four men openly rejected Christ AS THE BIBLE PRESENTS HIM and therefore could not have been saved.* If you’d look at Pinto’s video you’d see this for yourself, in THEIR words. The video is on Youtube in its entirety. I for one would look forward to your objective review of the whole thing, as I’m sure your other readers would.
*even if Washington did convert to Roman Catholicism on his deathbed, as some reports said, he still isn’t saved since the gospel of Rome is not the Gospel of the grace of God.
First, your assertion concerning Glenn Beck etc. means nothing. His mistaken and false beliefs do not change what the Word of God says. Salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ. They believe in a false Christ, which has absolutely no bearing on the truth of the Scriptures I quoted. Your original email had no mention of Beck therefore I did not address him and his beliefs.
Second, “many of the founders” means exactly that. I’m not going to offer a bunch of names because the testimony is there and Pinto and others, including yourself, refuse to believe. As for the four he focused on – by Washington’s own words, which I have read, I must accept his assertion that he was a Christian. You don’t want to, so don’t. Adams – from some of the things I’ve read that he wrote I believe he was a Christian and later in life drifted. Take it or leave it. Franklin – he is an enigma, but from some of what he wrote he MAY have been a Christian, but definitely not orthodox. Jefferson – highly doubtful that he was a Christian. I can’t read another man’s heart therefore cannot make a final dogmatic judgment on whether or not one is saved. The fact that you feel comfortable doing that troubles me.
Third, your assertion that “these four men openly rejected Christ AS THE BIBLE PRESENTS HIM” needs to be proven to me. Washington most certainly did not. Adams didn’t in his younger days. As to Franklin I have never read anything that even resembled what you have stated. Jefferson – yes, probably.
I’ve watched many of Pinto’s video’s but not this one. I probably will not use my time to view it.
Finally, since the people who disagree with me, such as yourself, would not accept any amount of proof that goes against their beliefs I am finished with this discussion. If Washington himself came back and proclaimed boldly his faith in Jesus Christ his detractors, such as Pinto, would question him anyway.
“I can’t read another man’s heart therefore cannot make a final dogmatic judgment on whether or not one is saved. The fact that you feel comfortable doing that troubles me.”
You accuse ME of judging wrongly? I know what these men said *in context* yet you pontificate on Pinto’s video which you REFUSE to watch? That is a tad hypocritical, sir. You’re better than that. Watch the video.
As to my judging the Founders: If someone doubts who and what the Bible says He was and is – which these men DID – then I’m not presumptuously judging them for saying they’re in the same boat as Beck (the only reason I mentioned him), and whatever Christ they may have happened to believe in was a false one. That’s not my opinion, that’s what the Word already says. Don’t believe me? Watch the video.
Honestly, you look foolish slamming a video the content of which would lay to rest much of your objections, or at least allow you to address them on an informed basis, while admitting you can’t be bothered to take the time to view it. Very sad. What’s the real reason you don’t want to view it? Perhaps too much personal investment in what you already want to believe that you can’t risk seeing if for the deception it is? Because it IS a deception. I am not questioning your salvation at all since I know nothing about you but I’ll say this – you’ve bought into a ear-tickling myth that is even now helping set the stage for the eventual reign of Antichrist.
It’s okay with me if you neither post nor reply to this – this will be my last attempt to contact you. I just wanted you to hear how hypocritical you’re being about this.
Watch the video already. I’ll bookmark you and check back for your inevitable recantation.
First, typical response of one with a weak argument – call me a name if it makes you feel better.
Second, read John Eidsmoe’s work. Of course he’s deceived also, so on second thought don’t.
Third, if you’re basing your “in context” remark on Pinto’s “context” then your argument gets weaker. If you mean in actual context, then you don’t understand what you’ve read.
Fourth, I’ve watched several of his videos all of which basically say the same thing. The intention behind the post that you’ve obviously missed was to direct attention to John Eidsmoe’s work. I don’t have to listen to every speech made by our current president to know that I will disagree with 99% of it.
Fifth, Simon the sorcerer (Acts 8:4-24) believed and was therefore saved (v.13). He later was rebuked by Peter for false beliefs. He very well may have been the same Simon Magus who was later very much a heretic. Was he saved?
Sixth, the antichrist is coming. What the founding fathers taught has no bearing on that. The revisionist history of today does. I’d rather be busy trying to get people on the ark before it leaves and he arrives than to worry about revising what our founding fathers said and did. We have the greatest system of gov’t every created by mortal man, when followed. That’s because it was based upon the principles found in Scripture. Proof and pudding go spoon in bowl.
I’m a Bible only fundamentalist. As such, I have never believed America ever was “a Christian nation” since such, no matter how one defines it, would seem biblically and logically impossible. I have held this view for many years, LONG before Mr. Barton began with his message.
The other day I took the time to watch the almost 3 hour documentary put out by Mr. Pinto. I did NOT go into with preconceptions that it’d be something I’d already agree with — I honestly set out to be objective and judge it on its own merits (if it had any). I can assure you that Pinto’s case is most convincing only because, if he did not fabricate the quotes out of wholecloth, the Founders are allowed to speak for themselves — here’s the important thing — IN THE CONTEXT of their discussing the non-negotiable Bible doctrines which MUST be held in order to even be a Christian.
Allow me to put it this way: if the Founders were alive today, Bible believers would not fellowship with them but would share the Gospel with them. The only churches which would welcome them are the apostate leftist churches which perish even as we speak. That is a simple fact concerning all of them. Washington appears a bit more ambiguous but there is no doubt that Adams, Franklin and Jefferson were Christ-rejecting infidels, based on their own opinions of Him.
Thank you for your comments. The only need in salvation according to Paul is, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). The gospel he proclaimed that leads to that belief: 1) Christ died according to the Scriptures, 2) was buried, 3) He was raised on the third day according to Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:1-4).
Many of the founders believed this as can be seen in their writings, even some who held otherwise heretical views or later developed heretical views. Not all were believers but clearly many were regardless of Pinto’s claims.
When we refer to the United States as “Christian” we mean that it’s foundations are biblical and Christian. This is true and has been established in the past by multiple sources, de Tocqueville being one. Also, it was the universal belief until about 60 years ago when progressives and communists began to change our culture through revising history.
I would like to thank you for your blog post and your responses to your commenters. I have recently written my own refutation of Mr. Pinto’s position which garnered me a response from Mr. Pinto that extended through three of his radio shows. I have now written a reply to his set of broadcasts, and I would be honored to have you read both of my articles. The first can be read at: http://www.increasinglearning.com/hiding-the-faith-of-the-founders.html, and the second is available at: http://www.increasinglearning.com/smoke-and-mirrors.html.
Thank you again for your writings.
Bill, I’ve read the posts that you wrote and am overwhelmed by the scholarly research and presentation. It truly humbles me that you would have the slightest appreciation for my feeble meanderings. Thank you for your firm stance on and defense of our nation’s founding and the men who pledged their lives and sacred honors in the fight for freedom. It is my plan to provide a link to your website as soon as I can.
I realize its long after the fact but I have to thank you for your blog post.
Like you, I used to listen to Brannon Howse, and like you again, the nastiness I experienced on his show got to be too much. I used to consider Brannon a friend so when I saw this starting I attempted to correct the inaccuracies and notify him how abrasive his show was starting to sound. Such emails were usually ignored or childishly mocked on air. Convinced that I just came off wrong, I continued to try to get through to Brannon and listed to his radio show.
On july 26th of last year the majority of Brannon’s show was taken word for word from one of MacAurthur’s sermons titled “The Deadly Dangers of Moralism found at http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/80-257 .
At no time in the radio show did Brannon ever credit anyone Dr MacArthur or give any indication that the words he was using were not his own. The fact that Dr MacAurthur didn’t object doesn’t change the fact that Brannon did exactly what he on his website April 16th accused Richard Land of doing the same thing, “Richard Land’s rant is not his. It’s a plagiarized rant.“ http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/news.php?categoryid=8 If its ok when Brannon does it why is it suddenly not ok when Richard Land does the same? Of course, Emails on this again went ignored and most of the facebook postings were deleted by Brannon.
A short time later in August a guest on Brannon’s show labeled Joel Rosenberg a “false teacher” for the almighty sin of not teaching pre-trib rapture. While Brannon didn’t make the initial charge, his “rebuke” was done merely in the form of a laugh, presumably in Christian love.
Since then I have been on his site a few times only to see that things have only gotten worse. Many Brannon Howse’s followers went out of their way to brand Kirk Cameron a “false convert” or worse. When anyone attempts to point out that such comments are legalistic or going too far they are treated to insulting personal messages which I can only assume where written with the same “Christian Love” Brannon shows to others on his show. While Brannon did not make the comment, it shows the kind of audience you can wind up with when you go for the low hanging fruit replacing love of scripture with childish name calling and temper tantrums. It is a real shame, Brannon has allot of potential and his organization used to do allot of good, I can only continue to pray for him.
Ben, I am truly thankful for your comments. You are not the first person who has contacted me who was at one time a friend of Brannon’s. It is sad to see what was once a promising ministry turn into what it has become. Please do continue to pray for him. That is the only hope for his return to usefulness for the Lord. God bless.
Your choice of Eidsmoe’s commentary on the subject is disappointing. One can grant that Pinto may overplay his hand on the conspiracies, nevertheless, on the writings of these five founding fathers it is difficult to dispute. It is sad that in a supposed defense of Christianity Eidsmoe:
“To summarize: Adams appears to have been an orthodox Christian in his earlier years and at all times relevant to America’s founding. Later in life he appears to have questioned or rejected the Athanasian formulation of Trinitarian doctrine, but to the end he firmly embraced Christianity itself.”
How is that he embraced Christianity and rejected the Trinity? An oxymoron.
Also, what is missing in all of these claims is a clear affirmation of the miraculous.
In another quote of Adams:
“Conclude not from all this that I have renounced the Christian religion, or that I agree with Dupuis in all his sentiments. Far from it. I see in every page something to recommend Christianity in its purity, and something to discredit its corruption.”
But it is clear that, like Jefferson, Adams believed that it was the miraculous virgin birth, miracles and resurrection that were the corruptions, and the purity was Christ’s moral teachings..
Thanks for your comments. However, I must admit that your disregard for both the writings of our founding fathers and Eidsmoe’s defense of them is just as disappointing to me. Not many of the founding fathers were theologians, and it is not to them that we turn to find our theology. The truth is that one does not have to be perfect in all points of theology throughout their entire life in order to be Christian or a follower of Christ. If that were the case, then no one would be a Christian because as hard as you and I may try we will not be perfect in our theology until the Lord returns and sets us straight. That is not to say that we do not continue to seek 100% purity in our doctrine, but we are fallible humans. So were the founders.
It is possible for Adams to have turned from an orthodox view to a heretical view. A few examples may be seen in the behavior of Phygelus and Hermogenes (2 Tim. 1:12-18), and the early Church father Tertullian who all would agree was at one time, “Pronouncedly orthodox” (Latourette, A History of Christianity, 1:129), but who later converted to Montanism. Montanism is considered heretical. Yet many writings of Reformed writers contain appeals to Tertullian on any number of topics.
Regardless of all of these arguments, the founding of this nation was unquestionably rooted in Christianity, Christian principles, and in truth, the Bible itself. One only needs to do a cursory study of Church history from the Reformation to the founding to find the true history behind the birth and success of our nation.
Sir, your arrogance only exceeds your arrogance.
How does one respond to such an assessment?
“So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful.” Colossians 3:12-15 (NASB)
I just wanted to let you know that Chris Pinto publicly challenged Mr. Eidsmoe to a debate last Thursday on this radio program. Chris, said that he had already talked to Brannon Howse about being the moderator.
Then he said if Mr. Eidsmoe didn’t want to debate on Brannon’s program (just in case Mr. Eidsmoe thought it would be 2-on-1), Chris Pinto said he would debate Mr. Eidsmoe on David Barton radio program. Maybe you can contact Mr. Eidsmoe? Maybe you can be the moderator?
I agree with you above statement & would prefer a head to head discussion. Maybe Mr. Eidsmoe will agree. I know in the past Chris Pinto has publicly challenged David Barton & Dr. Catherine Millard, but never of them has agreed to debate Chris Pinto. I must ask the question. Why won’t they debate him?
Can I you question. Let say you wrote a well documented research paper. Then I wrote a critique or rebuttal to your work saying your information was wrong. Then you publicly challenge me to debate the issue. Then I don’t accept your challenge. What would that say about my position by not accepting your challenge?
To answer your last question first, it wouldn’t necessarily say anything if you didn’t accept my challenge. Yet I know that if none of them accept Pinto’s challenge it must mean they don’t have faith in what they believe is true. At least that is the conclusion to which I believe you are headed.
I won’t speculate as to why no one will debate him, but I can tell why I wouldn’t. First, I have never seen a debate that changed minds. That is as long as one side doesn’t sound like a babbling idiot. In those cases, even if the right view is held the fact that one is not well spoken will cause people to be turned off, and even those who hold erroneous views on things can offer compelling arguments, at least if they are well spoken. Debates most often end with one side saying my guy one while the other says the opposite. Secondly, I wouldn’t wish to give him anymore publicity. People are more likely to be persuaded to believe his side if they watch a well produced documentary. I recall the fact that in the Kennedy/Nixon debate those who listened to it believed that Nixon won, but those who watched it could see Kennedy’s good looks (gag) and Nixon’s nervous sweating and believed that Kennedy won. People are easy like that.
For 150 years or more American history was taught in schools stating that our Founding Fathers, though not all Christians, were guided by a Christian worldview; the prevalent worldview of the colonies for over 100 years before the Constitution. Then in the late 19th-early 20th century the progressive/liberal/marxists began to teach a revisionist history that they were all deists and other such things. Now, a few Christians have joined the mantra of the left. Why? I don’t know. Perhaps they have bought into a lie, or maybe for 150 years the majority in our nation believed a lie. Ockham’s razor anyone?
As to Eidsmoe’s taking up the challenge: I’ve met him once and he probably wouldn’t know me from Adam. Therefore I would have no opportunity to persuade him to take or reject the challenge. However, I would make one suggestion; be careful what you ask for. He may take Pinto up on it.
I have watched Riddles in Stone and Eye of the Phoenix. I have also watched one or two lectures/speeches that Mr. Pinto has given.
I am not a supporter of David Barton. I have some of his material and appreciate some of his past work, but his current views concerning what constitutes a Christian puts us at odds. My concern is with the attempt to paint our Founding Fathers as something they were not. No, not all were Christians and obviously some were not. No, not all who were Christians were orthodox in all their beliefs. Not all Christians today are orthodox in all their beliefs – doesn’t mean they are not Christians but simply that they have some errant views.
If Mr. Pinto wants to deal with a true expert in the matter then I suggest he debate Dr. Eidsmoe. I hear that he has been dealing with Eidsmoe’s review of his film on his radio program, but I would prefer a head to head discussion such as you suggest to Mr. Barton.
Just curious…..Have you taken the 3 hrs. to watch “Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers”?
It’s on youtube…can watch it for free, Probably ,the honest and fair place to start….Me thinks.?
I have(Watched it)….!, And I, like many others,….was once a fan of David Barton’s and His side co-host Mr Green.
As I also, at one time ,was a fan of Beck’s, “For exposing what he was, to do with the corruption ,that up to then…..nobody was really going after and exposing” . To that end…..I tried to do my part (to help) by emailing Beck and Introducing him to David Barton (WallBuider’s), because of the respect I Had for him (them)……and yes I have a considerable amount of his printed (Book’s) and numerous downloaded Document’s and video documentary’s.
Soooooo… , when Brannon first brought up the subject ….that he had heard about this person that had done a DVD about the founding father’s ….he was skeptical about thing’s he heard , because they were considerably different than David Barton’s account….., With no pre-conceived thought’s ,(but ,serious apprehension ) he agreed to watch the DVD that Chris Pinto sent to him. From that viewing he decided to have Mr Pinto on his (radio)show to further explore the claims, (he ,Brannon) was still not really that comfortable with what was being documented…why?, ….because David had been a friend for a long time , and if it’s not obvious , two views, that are different on the founders (Beliefs), can not both be correct ,(CORRECT)?? No conspiracy ,Lets just look at evidence……just food for thought,( I’ve bought into everything David’s been saying for years), how do ya think I’m feeling bout now??) , But being a good Berean , I know ,I need to seek for the truth, regardless where it leads,…..correct??
Long story short…..As it goes….Brannon contacted and talked to David and requested they get together ,(David&Chris) w/ Brannon and talk about some of these differences that were coming to light , which at the least , were disconcerting …….,but David, I guess you could say, declined. (I’ll say it, refused,!! hummmm, why? ,”Just prove this Pinto guy out to be a fraud and that’ll be the end of him”)(“emphasis mine”)………………….crickets…………………………., David, seriously your the authority in this, I’ve got the material’s that tell me so, Dave ……Dave,………..Dave, WHY WON”T YOU TAKE THE CHALLENGE ……???? Hummmmm, Some thinnnnns not right…..!! And so this is where it stands today, Period!
I am a Born Again follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, And when Brannon started explaining to listeners, that the Lord had convicted his heart ,(Are you truly mine, or a false convert) ,that is when he realized , the Bible ( THY WORD IS TRUTH ,GOD’S WORD ) ,Had to be elevated above the Flag………., and I concur ……………….”Here I stand. I can do no other”
Sorry my comment did not make much sense to you.
My first point was that you did indeed CALL Brannon a “pompous jerk”. The following quote is exactly what you said.
“People involved in “discernment ministries” such as Howse’s would do well to learn how to present their positions without sounding like pompous jerks who do nothing but condemn everybody for everything”
That statement implys or in-sinuates that Howse himself is a “pompous jerk”. Most people would consider that the same as “calling” him a “pompous jerk”.
My second point had nothing to do with that except to say you were again “implying” something, by refering to his ministry as a discernment ministry.
I believe my last statement made that clear.
As far as your confusion about quote marks, I made it clear I was refering to the three times you mentioned, “disernment ministry”, in your reply to Mr Moreland. You did not put it in qoutes there, only in your article.
With your statement – “In my opinion, Howse has become too abrasive and his attitude seems to be more along the lines that if someone doesn’t agree with him 100% of the time then you are simply out of God’s will.”- you seem to be the one with the divine insight into someone else’s motives.
There was no need to thank me for my interest in your blog, as I have none. Nor did I have an interest in the central theme of your blog. I only made a comment in reply to the “pompous jerk” thing which Mr Moreland mentioned in his comment. And to point out that Brannon’s Worldview Radio ministry is NOT a “disernment ministry”. Obviously you have only listened to a couple of his broadcasts.
Thank you once again for proving my point that you read into what I wrote to find something to defend the one to whom you are committed.
Mr. Howse certainly does have what is called a discernment ministry regardless of your desire for me not to label it as such. “Discernment ministry” (with or without quotation marks) is not a pejorative or negative term, it is just a descriptive term that identifies the fact that his is a ministry that attempts to expose false doctrine etc. That is exactly what Brannon Howse does and I commend him for it. It is indeed sad to see someone, such as yourself, who has such a poor ability to comprehend the English language and has such an agenda oriented view of things that he must read into what is written something that simply isn’t there. I have friends with discernment ministries such as Dr. Gary Gilley. I enjoy Jan Markell and her discernment ministry as well as others. Brannon’s ministry is similar to theirs. It is a discernment ministry.
Also, when using the word “seems” there is a definite meaning to it – “to give the impression or sensation of being something or having a particular quality” – therefore, when I say that it seems to me that he has an attitude that reflects such and such, I am not making a definitive statement that he believes that if you disagree with him then you are out of God’s will. It means that he gives that impression. One main reason for using the word “seems” was because I don’t have divine insight. I am forced to go on what appears to be the case based on tone, etc. Besides, I clearly identified that statement as my opinion.
Speaking of divine insight, I see that you’ve once again exercised yours. However, you’ve missed a couple of things in your assessment of me such as the fact that I own books written and distributed by Howse, I receive his magazine, I have watched numerous videos produced by his Worldview Weekend ministry, and have attended at least two in person. Beyond that, the church that I pastor hosted a Worldview Weekend Web event last year.
Although you did not CALL Brannon a pompous jerk you most definantly did imply he was one.
In your reply to Mr. Moreland you refered three times to Brannon’s “discernment ministry”.
I believe this is what you are, also doing, with the “discernment ministry” statements. Just because
Brannon sometimes does his Christian duty and uses he show to inform his brothers and sisters of
possible wolves on his show, (as the bible tells us to do), does not change the entire purpose of
Thanks for your interest in my blog and your comments. You seem to have some divine insight into my motives to which I am not privy. I assume that you are a fan of Brannon Howse and therefore you are responding to my criticism of him. I also thank you for proving my point about people reading/hearing what they want to read/hear.
I really don’t understand what your point is. Your reply doesn’t make much sense to me, but I think that you are trying to say that I am calling Howse a jerk, but I’m unsure as to how I am supposed to have done that if I “did not CALL” him that.
Are you referring to my putting the “discernment ministry” moniker in quotes or that I call his a “discernment ministry”? Either way, neither the quotation marks nor the moniker “discernment ministry” have any derogatory intent behind them. The quotation marks are simply to set the term off as a title and it is a common title that is given to ministries such as Howse’s.
If your were consistent in your thinking then you would also have to say that I am calling my good friend Gary Gilley a jerk since I included him in the realm of discernment ministries. Also, if you are referencing the use of quotation marks, then you would have to say that I am calling Kirk Cameron a jerk because I put the title of his movie, “Monumental”, in quotations.
Beyond all of this, have you or Mr. Moreland bothered to deal with the central theme of my blog? I obviously did a poor job of making it known. I would like for you to deal with Brannon’s association with Chris Pinto and his views concerning the founding of our nation. I want you to read John Eidsmoe’s blog that repudiates Pinto’s bogus research. Howse and Pinto are engaged in a revision of history based upon a conspiracy theory. Dr. Eidsmoe has forgotten more about the Founding Fathers, the constitution and their belief systems than either Pinto or Howse ever knew.
I’m all in favor of discernment ministries as long as they focus on the subject matter without being unnecessarily abrasive in the process. In my opinion, Howse has become too abrasive and his attitude seems to be more along the lines that if someone doesn’t agree with him 100% of the time then you are simply out of God’s will.
Again, thanks for proving my point that people read and hear what they want to read and hear. You were so ready to defend Howse against my calling him a jerk by either the quotation marks or the title discernment ministry that you didn’t even deal with the central focus of the blog – Brannon Howse and Christ Pinto are wrong concerning their conspiratorial view of the founding of our nation and are disparaging many great men in the process.
In my previous response I didn’t fully address my apparent inconsistency. Please allow me to do that here.
Could I have chosen different words in describing how some come across in presenting their case? Obviously, but I didn’t. I can’t change that, but I can’t apologize for something that never happened either, i.e., calling Brannon Howse a pompous jerk. However, I will attempt to be more careful in the future. Thank you for pointing that out.
I also noticed as I read your article you said you didn’t like Brannon tone, but then you call Brannon a “pompous jerk.” If you think Brannon is being “unkind” is that type of language call him a “pompous jerk” being loving and kind towards him?
I listen to Brannon Howse just about everyday & I have never heard Brannon mock anyone.
Listen to David Barton tone as he talks about Brannon Howse in this video link.
Mr. Moreland, so you’re the one who reads my blog. Thanks for that and thanks for your response.
As is often the case people often hear what they want to hear and read want they want to read. In other words, what is said and meant is not always taken the way they were said and meant instead suffering the reinterpretation of the one listening or reading. Thus, when we like what someone has to say we overlook what has been said and how it was said (or written as the case may be) and visa-versa. I would suggest that it is possible that both of us have engaged in such a practice.
First of all let me say that we’re not talking about David Barton’s tone. We’re talking about Brannon Howse and various other discernment ministries. Barton was on the defense against the continuing onslaught of Howse, a defense that in some cases was ill advised since Howse’s concern over the obvious doctrinal issues was justified. My point is that one can present a compelling case for or against what he believes/doesn’t believe without alienating all who don’t hold his view. That is why I point to Dr. Gary Gilley of Southernview Chapel. I believe that Dr. Gilley would be able to argue against someone’s contrary view with more persuasiveness than Howse because Mr. Howse would not be allowed a hearing long enough due to what I consider to be abrasive technique. Another case in point is to watch both Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort as they debate with unbelievers on the street. If Mr. Howse attempted to confront the unbelievers that Cameron and Comfort do he’d not have an audience for long unless it was drawn by the fact that he was in a heated debate with someone screaming at him. I’m not saying that he wouldn’t use a softer tactic with an unbeliever, but that if he used his usual tactics he would end up with nothing but an argument.
I’ve listened to the program clip that you sent and do not hear what I hear when I listen to Howse. Although I disagree with much of what Mr. Barton believes about who or what constitutes being a Christian he said nothing rude about Howse. Fact is, he is on target in many ways. Howse has made a complete 180 degree turn in his beliefs based upon a conspiracy theorist and his razor thin, and sometimes non existing evidence. He’s gone from believing that many of our FF were believers based on Barton’s research of their own writings to believing that they were mostly occultists and Masons who wanted to establish a one-world government. I find that poor discernment for one in a discernment ministry. It’s the same revisionist history that the liberal/socialists have been pushing for years only with a Christian pushing it.
The closest thing that could be construed as rude was said by the co-host when he stated that Howse’s view of Christianity was “we four and no more.” In my opinion Howse comes across exactly like that when speaking about Kirk Cameron, Christian worship music that isn’t a hymn written in the fashion of 16th c. composers, and now, American History and the Christian faith of some of our Founding Fathers.
As to your second comment, I reiterate, people read what they want to read. I never called Brannon Howse a pompous jerk. I said that people in discernment ministries such as his need to learn to present their positions without sounding like pompous jerks. That may imply that I think that he “sounds” like a pompous jerk, or that others “sound” like pompous jerks, but I never said “Brannon Howse is a pompous jerk.” Words have meaning and sentences convey ideas and our society has lost the ability to understand what has been written or said. I don’t know if Howse is a pompous jerk. I’ve only met him a couple of times and only briefly. He seems like a very congenial fellow. I just don’t care for his tone.
Again, thank you for reading my blog and responding. I’d hate to lose my only reader, but I’m afraid that I’ve not said anything that you want to hear. Regardless, thanks for your concern and response.
Don’t forget to read Dr. Eidsmoe’s blog to which I linked. It’s great reading and research.
I believe that Brannon Howse is correct in his assessment of Glen Beck and David Barton. The both of them are promoting lies that can be clearly documented concerning the founding fathers. Why are they supporting an agenda to regain the culture anyway, when the culture war is clearly lost? They have gained nothing in this approach over the decades, and it us utterly unbiblical. The world is going to do exactly what the Bible says in it’s continual heading towards a one-world global order. America will lose its sovereignty and all attempts to unite false teachers with the clear truths of Scripture are futile and an abomination to the Lord. Christians are to be separate from those teaching a false gospel and to simply preach the true Gospel.
Shannon, just in case you did not receive my message I wanted to let you know that I’ve responded to you in my latest post.
Comments are closed.