This seems to be the most significant post in the thread (for now) I’m still wading through it. I just wanted to mark this for myself for later review.
To me at first blush (without having watched the edited videos GPH provided or the full ones roamer did, again, as of right now hopefully I’ll have time later) but to me at first blush this doesn’t seem that significant a criticism as it seems to fall into, ironically, the kind of debates we have in the Religion forum, which reduce to basically: which brand of Christianity is best.
The main points that seem lost in GPH’s post, and really the only ones that could disqualify Cruz to anyone serious about his faith are: Does Cruz himself embrace this “Dominionism”? Does he (Cruz) reject the Trinity? Does he embrace any kind of “prosperity gospel”?
Again I’m not done reading the thread and really just wanted to save this post of roamer’s, but I think it’s worth pointing out that despite all the associations GPH shows, he doesn’t show that Cruz himself embraces anything New Agey or “prosperity gospelish”.
Those things, and/or if shown he rejects the Trinity, while claiming to be a Christian, would be a problem. But I’m not seeing that. And there’s still the video that roamer provides to examine for context. I will post something that demonstrates anything taken out of context I can assure you.
Thank you for your sanity.
FourtySeven, when this subject first raised it's head (this is merely where it has finally been coalesced into a full form), I thought to drag it into the RF, where the subject matter might be dissected completely, among folks who might be more invested in the subject at hand.
One of the things I am rather worried for, is that folks here will not do the heavy lifting necessary to winnow the evidence - Folks may not be willing to sit through the sermon, not to mention the several sermons one might consider necessary to get a reasonable opinion of the man's position. Since Cruz is a traveling preacher, it isn't as easy as just pulling down the credz of a single church, or denomination, to establish his own beliefs or his credentials. I think the only way to do the man justice is to listen to him across several sermons, to see if he is in fact delivering a Christian message.
Part of the problem (and the reason this particular sermon has been selected for his destruction) is the church this particular sermon was delivered to - It's a bit of a mega-church thing, with a Pentecostal/Praise-Evangelical feel, and a Messianic bend. That alone is going to weird-out folks that are used to a more staid and orderly event. It has an altar-call, prophetic word, and laying-on of hands... Things the Spirit-Filled will take in stride, but which will feel awfully strange to your average Reformed, Lutheran, or Catholic congregant.
I can understand why church-lady types (ala Dana Carvey) might wax apoplectic. But take that sermon out of that hall, and it becomes a whole lot more benign... Which is why I would encourage listening to several arbitrary sermons delivered by Cruz, in different settings.
**Note to all: As a matter of disclosure, I myself am a Christian Messianic.
The main points that seem lost in GPH’s post, and really the only ones that could disqualify Cruz to anyone serious about his faith are: Does Cruz himself embrace this “Dominionism”? Does he (Cruz) reject the Trinity? Does he embrace any kind of “prosperity gospel”?
That is the point in fact - This is really just a rather blatant attempt to smear Cruz with his 'crazy old man'. But I think the way forward is to actually listen to the old man and see if he is in fact 'crazy' in the first place. I think that best inoculates Ted Cruz against this attack, even though it doesn't touch upon his own beliefs at all (which should in fact be the point)... And it could be said that the apple does not fall far from the tree, or the horse, if you get my drift - So intrinsically, proving Rafael inevitably credits the root that Ted grew from.
And having listened to Rafael in depth, with Ted's own faith aside, I would declare that Rafael as his father surely had a powerful impact upon his son. Bravo, Rafael.
I have listened to several of his sermons (somewhere between 10-20, I suppose), delivered in both churches and political settings... I find him somewhat repetitive, but enjoyable - One of the things that comes roaring out consistently is a deep love for this country and it's Christian foundation - A point of patriotism that is almost uncomfortable woven into a Christian message, but inevitably TRUE... And something he speaks perfectly to, coming to us from Cuba.
In that I find a rather broad form of dominionism - He does encourage American Christians to go forth and take back that which is undeniably their heritage - And a broad form of prosperity gospel - That America prospered within her Christian heritage, and can do so again. But I don't believe any American Christian would fault him on those points.
As to the rest of the screed originally posted - Much ado about nothing... I would point you to Springfield Reformer's post wrt 'Transfer', which I see as not only accurate but apparent on it's face. To include the 'almost association' with Hinn...