To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:
These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I know your deeds. See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut. I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars. I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.
Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth. I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown. Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
This is sixth of seven articles on the seven cities mentioned in Revelation 2 and 3.
Part I: Ephesus
Part II: Smyrna
Part III: Pergamum
Part IV: Thyatira
Part V: Sardis
Philadelphia, the modern-day city of Ala?ehir, Turkey, sits midway on the route between Laodicea and Sardis on the Roman mail route which defined the Seven Cities of Revelation. Very little of the ancient city of Philadelphia remains, though, with only an unexcavated hill and the ruins of a 4th century church remaining. Because of this, we do not have much archaeological context for what was written in Revelation.
However, we do have a number of writings from this time, and records from nearby cities, including those of church fathers, like Polycarp (a talmid of John). From these, we see a picture of Jews (people of God) who were not acting in the manner of God’s people, as they were persecuting Christians [Current scholarship suggests this was out of a combination of doctrinal differences (leading to Judiazing) and jealousy of the success of Christianity in winning Jewish converts, while some speculate it was because of the Christian abandonment of Jerusalem in AD69]. Whatever the cause, this persecution was occurring in the church at Philadelphia against Messianic believers.
I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars. I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.
During the reign of Domitian (81-96), the Christians in Philadelphia escaped much of the persecution suffered by those in the coastal cities of Ephesus and Smyrna, and this may be what is referenced in verses 10-11:
Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth. I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown.
The Earth Shakes
In 17 AD, the city of Philadelphia was devastated by an earthquake, which completely destroyed Sardis and other nearby cities. Because of it location near the fault line, it suffered aftershocks for an additional 20+ years. As a result, its people lived in fear, and would frequently flee the city into the hills, where they would live in tents and booths, before returning when the aftershocks subsided. This is the imagery Jesus uses when he says:
Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it.
You see, pillars were usually the first architectural components to fail in an earthquake, which made standing, unbroken pillars a sign of permanence and strength.
What’s in a Name?
Philadelphia was founded by the kingdom of Pergamum during the second century BC, and underwent many name changes until it was given the name “Philadelphia” by Eumenes II in honor of the love he held for his brother, Attalus II (who kept the name out of love for Eumenes, upon his death in 160 BC). In 17AD, when Tiberius paid to rebuild the city, its name was changed to Neo-Ceasarca – a name the city’s residents came to despise. And so, it is interesting that this ‘naming’ imagery is also brought out by Jesus, through John:
I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name.
Once again, as we’ve seen with the other five cities, this letter in Revelation was sent to a church using phrases and symbols that would have had special meaning to them, words that would help them to feel the emotional punch that might be missed by others unfamiliar with them. The letters to the churches in Revelation aren’t impersonal platitudes or disconnected teachings or symbolic references to ages of the church – they are personal letters written to flesh-and-blood Christians known to their author. While its core teachings can be carried across cultures, to suggest that the content of Revelation is only (or even primarily) about futuristic events of no import or impact to its original recipients would require a great deal of hubris or ignorance on the part of the modern reader.
What can we learn from this?
In the day we live in, and in the American culture, there are opposing forces at work, both of which act toward the detriment of Christ’s bride, the Church. One of these forces, those that lead the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world (no, I’m not dispensationalist, but I still believe there may be unfulfilled prophetic passages pointing to such a time) are the forces actively seeking to dismantle the church, and those who wish to so completely water it down that it means nothing, killing it softly.
Against these forces of evil from without, Jesus will close the door, and what he shuts no one can open.
On the other side, we have the ’synagogue of Satan’, those Christians who would mock, slander and persecute brothers in the church by insisting on certain beliefs and actions above and beyond those given by Yeshua and his Apostles. Like the Judaizers of old, they insist on works for the purpose of salvation, or they insist on belief in specific man-made doctrines for inclusion in the kingdom. They try to close the door opened by Christ, the open door that no one can shut. Paul calls them out in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 -
For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.
To this end, those of us who are believers must persevere and test ourselves so that we do not join their ranks. If we do so and become spiritual citizens of Philadelphia, Jesus tells us:
I know your deeds. See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut. I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars. I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.
And so, I would hope that we, like the church in Philadelphia would endure persecution from without (the hour of trial) and from within (the synagogue of Satan) and that we would strive to ‘hold on’ to what we have been given by Yeshua, so that no one will take our crown.
590 Comments(+Add)
Very encouraging read, brother.
It’s easier, sometimes, to focus on the “persecution,” rather than on the promises.
Shalom
I think your way off base! Apprising Ministries and others you mentioned are reformed theologians who unlike the Roman Catholic Church believe justification is by grace, thru faith alone…not by works, what possibly could you be referring too in terms of adding works? They strongly believe the opposite of works salvation!
Persecution from within? What? This is baffling…nothing wrong with holding each other accountable to what is written in scripture and those websites you listed certainly call out people who have gone into error…for examply, they call out people who deny the virgin birth, diety of Christ, the resurrection…I think we can all agree that those things are very Biblical and anyone who would deny those things would also be denying what scripture clearly teaches…
What is wrong with the Calvinist website? Is this an armenian blogger?
Why was my post deleted? Nothing wrong with it, I was just wondering why you were accusing those reformed theology websites of salvation by works? The reformation was about justication by grace alone, thru faith alone?
I’m just curious where you are coming from on that? Just very confused and wanting clarification…
Hi Chris L,
Thanks for this post.In fact,I like your whole series on Revelation.
Amazing how you twisted scripture to present a personal hatred of those who are standing for truth. You are actually speaking against Christian ministries and blogs who have done so much for the Kingdom. Oh, that’s right… they are not defending your doctrine so they are enemies of Jesus.
I think you “Synogogue of Satan” menu is somewhat over the top. Although I disagree with Ken, and can hardly stand Ingrid and her melodramatic genre of imperial judgmentalism, I still would never call them the Synagogue of Satan, even though they, especially Ingrid, take on the role of the Accuser.
Ken, and the Dombrowski’s, and others are attempting to defend the faith even if they are sometimes over the top. I will not be discouraged from addressing things about which I find distasteful and/or unchristian on some of those sites, however we must be careful to address those issues strongly, confontationally, and with conviction but without assigning them as extentions of the evil One.
The devil has no part in us, and against him I would stand with Ingrid and Ken, even though I would disagree with their methodology.
* As a note of information, Ken is still the pastoir of the CRBC which is still a part of their local association.
This is a great and glorious teaching and from it I am able to discern that you speak forth unalloyed truth, oh Noble-heart!
It’s very clear that you are indeed a “voice crying in the wilderness!”
I salute you for standing steadfast as a champion of truth who is manifestly on the heavenly side of an impassable gulf which is fixed between you and the error-mongers you’ve exposed, my brother!
Away, away with the evildoers, those of the Synagogue of Satan! Away with their demagoguery and doctrines of demons! To the pit with them and all their scurvy ilk!
Thank you, thank you oh David for facing Goliath with only the smooth stones of unassailable truth, over which none of the legions of hell may prevail!
Victory in the face of persecution!
Victory over the evildoers!
Victory over the Jezebels and Judaizers!
In blissful, admiring (yet platonic) love,
E.S.
P.S. – the pic of that white rock with the Greek on it was SWEET, nice touch bro!
P.S.S. – Admittedly I didn’t pay much attention in my ancient language class, but I think that tablet is giving directions to the Vomitorium.
William,
The problem with “standing for truth” is that Ingrid, and to a lesser extent Ken, regularly twist, manipulate, and distort the truth to present their own particular version of American Christianity.
If Ingrid or Ken worked for a secular newspaper, they would get fired in a week for their basic lack of professional integrity.
How is that “standing for truth?”
I enjoyed this series, until now.
This site has sunk to a new low. Synangogue of Satan? nice exegesis. More like an attack piece.
You have no moral ground now to stand on to go after Ingrid or Ken. Not even they who you continuously villify use scripture in so cavalier a manner.
My dear brother and co-laborer in truth and all that’s holy and righteous,
I couldn’t help but take note that my careful, thoughtful, and tender-loving comment has somehow failed to appear on your site, no doubt due to the devilry of the enemy!
I plead with you oh stout-heart, may my words of encouragement grace your celestial combox that our brethren and fellow-laborers might take heart and prayerfully receive some small encouragement as our chorus of voices rise up and speak forth truth and light to the diabolical, hell-spawned denizens of the discernmentalist/fundamentalist/calvin-entalist camp!
With fervent, ardent (and purely platonic) love,
E.S.
P.S. – In case my original comment was hacked and deleted by the wicked one I am pasting it below for the edification of CRN.Info’s discriminating readership!
This is a great and glorious teaching and from it I am able to discern that you speak forth unalloyed truth, oh nobleheart!
It’s very clear that you are indeed a “voice crying in the wilderness!”
I salute you for standing steadfast as a champion of truth who is manifestly on the heavenly side of an impassable gulf which is fixed between you and the error-mongers you’ve exposed, my brother!
Away, away with the evildoers, those of the Synagogue of Satan! Away with their demagoguery and doctrines of demons! To the pit with them and all their scurvy ilk!
Thank you, thank you oh young David for facing down Goliath with only the smooth stones of unassailable truth, over which none of the legions of hell may prevail!
Victory in the face of persecution!
Victory over the evildoers!
Victory over the Jezebels and Judaizers!
In blissful, admiring (yet platonic) love,
E.S.
P.S. – the pic of that white rock with the Greek on it was SWEET, nice touch bro!
P.S.S. – Admittedly I didn’t pay much attention in my ancient language class, but I think that tablet is giving directions to the Vomitorium.
ES – First-time comments automatically go to moderation (to prevent spam-bots), and then appear when an administrator approves them. See comment #8.
This is not to defend Pastor Ken Silva, Ingrid Schlueter, Deborah Dombrowski or others.
These Christians are contending for The Faith. They need no defense.
Which makes me wonder for what or on who’s behalf is this site contending?
I think it may be time for someone to take their bat and ball and go home…before it gets dark outside.
Vomitorium: noun (vomitoria)
A passage located behind a tier of seats in an amphitheatre used as an exit for the crowds
I’m not exactly sure why one would need directions on how to exit an ampitheatre – it’s usually quite obvious where they are located…
I think comment 13 is the funniest thing I’ve read all week.
It’s not a defense, just a careful admonition for everyone to go home.
Almost Clintonian… it depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
PB, ES, and the yoyo’s –
Ken/Ingrid/etc. do about as much “contending for the faith” as Barak Obama does in “fostering a culture of life” and “protecting the unborn”. Only in an Orwell novel would Apprising.org qualify as a “ministry” to the faith…
Sorry, PB, but that is an actual apples-for-apples comparison, based upon the use of this phrase – “synagogue of Satan” – in contemporary literature to Revelation. Basically, it was a term given to ultra-legalistic Jews with a passion for the letter of the law and lip service to the spirit of the law (primarily those who followed the House of Shammai’s teaching).
In making a modern comparison, the ADM’s (AM, CR?N, etc.) are, in function, a nearly perfect match to this concept of externalism, legalism, ultra-narrow man-made theology, etc.
Rick – see my note on #17… My comparison is made, not on the basis of a historical-literal hermeneutic, but a combination of historical-critical and historical-contextual hermeneutics. In short – the phrase “synagogue of Satan” as applied in contemporary Jewish literature to Revelation.
Whether the literal application of “synagogue of Satan” is applicable is not my point (as I don’t claim to know their hearts), but the contextual one is right on target…
Dear most holy brother,
I am so pleased to know that the wicked one has no power here in the inner sanctuary of distilled, undiluted truth.
With respect to your musings upon properly marked exits in ancient Greece, perhaps our ancient (but evil and pagan) ancestors were required by their primitive (and evil and pagan) fire code regulations to post appropriate signage which would serve to direct foot traffic to the nearest vomitorium in case of fire, emergency, natural disaster, or perhaps an extremely urgent case of bowel distress.
Of course this is merely my own personal and subjective speculation and is not in any way supported by sacred Scripture.
Therefore shall we now return to the business at hand which is to summarily anathematize the evildoers for indulging in their absurd and heretical flights of doctrinal fancy in this most sacred combox!
Herein the eternal trajectories of human souls are literally and metaphysically at stake and we mustn’t tolerate the liars of the Synagogue of Satan until they have bowed the knee and fallen at our feet and acknowledged that He loves us!
With warm and affectionate (yet platonic) love,
E.S.
P.S. – fo’ shizzle!
What!? Are you referring to the rants found on this site, including a few by commenters on this very article?
Like my wise old granny used to say: “It takes one to know one”.
I missed this last phrase, M.G. – talk about comedy!
I didn’t realize that “contending for The Faith” was a description of branding churches as anathema based upon their building (if a movie theater), their pews (or lack therof), their lack of ‘hellfire & brimstone’, their music style, etc.
I think these need no defense, because much of what is contained therein is indefensible… Perhaps that is what Jim means…
This might be a good start…
Mocker Chris Rosebrough holds a degree in Religious Studies and Biblical Languages from (the worldly and wicked) Concordia University, Irvine a Masters Degree in Business Administration from the (damnable) Pepperdine University and teaches at (the heretical) Capo Valley Church in San Juan Capistrano, California and is the author of the (satanically inspired) blogs ExtremeTheology.com and alittleleaven.com. Rosebrough is also a contributor to (the reprobate and evil) Brannon Howse’s Christian Worldview Network and operates Pirate Christian Radio where he presumably traffics in unspeakable evil.
Chris Rosebrough is also considered by many to be “not handsome” according to an opinion poll that I recently conducted.
Anathema!
Let us strike while the iron is hot my brethren! Shibboleth!
With passionate and heartfelt (yet platonic) love,
E.S.
P.S. – I’ve eaten about a half bag of those PAAS malted milk eggs at one sitting, and now I’m feeling a bit ill, please fervently pray for me.
ES – I think you’re the first ADM sympathizer I’ve come in contact with that had (at least) an inkling of the literary form of satire.
What confuses me, though, is why you’re satirizing the ADM writing style…
Slanderer, Actioner, and Insister Ken Silva is the self-proclaimed “Pastor-Teacher” of Connecticut River Baptist Church and is the author of the (perfectly evil and anti-christ) blogs Christian Research Network and Apprising Ministries. Silva is also utilizes (occultic) discernmentalist techniques to propagate hellish ideas about the absolute objective truth of substitutionary atonement, the deity of Christ, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, and other deeply disturbing and obviously Satanically inspired doctrinal error.
Ken Silva is also known to play certain musical instruments which were invented by the devil.
Anathema!
Flee, flee from the light oh ye evildoers lest the fury of the truth consume you like dried nettles and thorns in the fire!
With a heaping helping of rapturous (yet platonic) love,
E.S.
P.S. – I sense a great disturbance in the force.
ES – FYI, this is your notice that a) w/o a real identity & email; and b) w/o dropping the satire, you will be put on moderation w/ at least a 12-hour lead time before your comments are posted…
ES – I think you’re the first ADM sympathizer I’ve come in contact with that had (at least) an inkling of the literary form of satire.
What confuses me, though, is why you’re satirizing the ADM writing style…
Don’t be confused or confounded, my brother!
What you’re experiencing is no doubt a supernatural “mind-haze” that’s being promulgated by the foul nether regions of the wicked minions of hell as they are bestirred from their demonic slumber by the holy and reverent work we are undertaking even now!
It’s time brother, time to take a stand, time for unflinching boldness, time for speaking forth truth and light in order that we might finally expose the Synagogue of Satan in all its sinister, twisted hideousness for as it is written: “To this end, those of us who are believers must persevere and test ourselves so that we do not join their ranks.” (Chris 3:3)
Amen and amen!
To the end, no matter what!
E.S.
Firebase CRN.Info
P.S. – the shameless plagiarist and rank heretic Ken Silva actually stole that tagline from me as a small child.
I do not subscribe to everything Ingrid or Ken says. I think they may be a bit over the top at times, especially Ingrid. However, it is good to know that some people aren’t buying into all the garbage that is infiltrating the church these days.
I also appreciate how Ken informs us of disciplines, e.g. contemplative spirituality, that are rampant in the church. I do not want to get caught up in these practices, and I appreciate him taking the time to inform those who don’t have time to research these things more fully.
On another note, Cal.vin.ist may have some of these guys on their blogroll, but their teaching is straight biblical. I’m kind of dumbfounded why you think they are the “synagogue of Satan”…
That makes me laugh for its absurdity. Do you not think that using Biblical terms such as false prophets, false brethren, antichrist, evil doers, wolves, denyers of the faith, and a litany of others applied to whomever suits their fancy is not being “cavalier” with the Scriptures? Do you not think that suggesting that Christ’s blood is only powerful enough to save but a few and does not contain the divine potential to wash clean all who come unto Him, even if were the whole human race, is not being cavalier with the Scriptures?
How about attaching the derisive term “Sodom” to teenager girls who are going to see a concert by Miley Cyrus, you consider that great exegesis? I need not go into baptism to expose further Scriptural cavalerity (I made that up!).
I consider Chris Lyon’s verbiage a misdemeaner when compared with the felonious stream of invective laden hate speech that continues to emanate from some of these sites, all to the applause of carnal onlookers who by their approval expose themselves as without the love and grace and humility to discern the voice of the Spirit.
How would WWII have ended up had the United States thought that just criticizing Hitler would be enough to recapture occupied land? If we desire to convince the hearts of men and women we will only do that through living and preaching the gospel of Christ, not by constructing blogs which verbally attack the ones who are taking and occupying much human land.
And all this discerment jibber-jabber by some who by their own theology believe the communities that are following the teachings of these “false teachers” are probably not even part of the elect anyway. But to be sure, there is a self righteous intoxication that comes from believing that you speak for God, and that propels you into a continuing scouring of earth and sea just to find another decaying tidbit upon which to feed.
If that’s Christianty I’m a Hindu. Fortunately Christianity is most exemplified by the cross and the practical articulations found in I Corinthians chapter 113 – which gets very little blog pub due to its lack of juicy gossip and the listing of the sins of others.
And the people cried,
And with this brand of discernment the hubristic tourniquet continues to strangle out the life of Jesus Christ among the very people who profess His name.
(I hope I’ve been clear)
I’m 18 and probably haven’t lived, but c’mon, labelling folks like Silva and Schlueter as the synagogue of Satan is a bit of a cheapshot. Granted – you have disagreements with them, but is responding to what you perceive to be evil with more evil and name-calling the answer? It’s like kids in the schoolyard – just stop already! If Silva is the synagogue of Satan, what does that make you guys? I would seriously your motivation for naming them such? Is it about absolute, Biblical truth…or is it a matter of “I hate you because of your treatment of X”
Here is a Spurgeon quote on CRN:
“I’d rather believe…”? That sounds like preference doctrine – sort of like the other side of the same coin – “I’d rather believe God will save everyone”.
On the other side, we have the ’synagogue of Satan’, those Christians who would mock, slander and persecute brothers in the church by insisting on certain beliefs and actions above and beyond those given by Yeshua and his Apostles. Like the Judaizers of old, they insist on works for the purpose of salvation, or they insist on belief in specific man-made doctrines for inclusion in the kingdom.
This is the quote to which I was referring….sorry!
So you are claiming that these people, who have made a claim to repent and trust the Savior- you are judging their motives- and their heart? No way, dude. I do not buy it.
NC should be committing blasphemy right now in accusing you of being the third person of the trinity.
Your description assigns motives to them, which you may perceive, but cannot know. How is it that you can say that their heart is that of a pharisee? Unless, like typical post-modern speak, you say a pharisee is one who loves the law of God (The Bible) and holds it in high esteem, as opposed to the flip-floppin post moderns who question everything, giving up faith for doubt.
Give me a break.
You cannot possibly judge that…. that is judging thoughts and intents of the heart.
Chris, still no response to my question? How are things websites adding works to salvation? That was the accusation you made in your article. When they are reformed theology which clearly emphasizes salvation by grace, thru faith…I’m guessing your not a fan of John McAurthor or John Piper, or Randy Alcorn either? All reformed theology authors and pastors..
Once again PB confuses “this site” with a commentator who really at this point one cannot tell how serious they even are…
but accordingly PB blames “this site” as having sunk to a new low…
talk about poor exegesis…
whateva!
iggy
PB,
I think you may be confused. Whether one conforms to the letter or the spirit of the law is an outward manifestation.
For instance, Christians are commanded not to be worldly. Some interpret that to mean that we are to wrap ourselves up in a cultural bubble. Which is a safe, easy, thing to do.
But what if, in the midst of running from, and heaping scorn upon, our surrounding culture, we accidentally, and tragically, end up conforming to much of the world around us?
That, I would argue, is precisely is what happened to Slice of Laodicea. That website is basically a “Christian Tabloid.” It has the feel, writing style, level of intellectual sophistication, and overall warmth of a National Enquirer, or a People magazine.
Essentially, Slice of Laodicea reeks of the aroma of the world. It has all of the snark, anger, and petty insults as the worst celebrity gossip blogs.
That I, would argue, is loving the letter and not the spirit of the law. And it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JUDGING MOTIVES OR HEARTS, but everything to do with judging actions.
Does this make sense?
MG
What is the color of the sky in your world?
PB,
So…
When someone arrogates to themself knowledge that only God can determine and/or know it is blasphemy to name that behavior?
really?
really?
It’s blasphemy to say that you’re trying to act like God when that is what is actually being done?
But it’s not blasphemy to accord to oneself the role of God in knowing people’s standing before God?
That’s not blasphemy…but naming that sinful attitude and behavior is?
Cool.
If that’s the case then I’m happy and proud to be a blasphemer in your world
When you call someone the Holy Spirit out of sarcasm or whatever to make a point, that is blasphemy in my world.
And, if you are going to do it, be consistent.
Your boy Chris L deserves a hearty serving of it after this article.
Peace, NC.
PB,
You illustrate my point well. I made an argument and you returned it it with an intimation that I’m mentally ill.
Not too classy.
Perhaps I’m old-fahioned, but I was taught that Christian gentlemen and ladies use the Word of God, prayerful humility, and good old hard thinking when conversing with other Christians and the world.
I was also taught that sarcasm, insults, and condescending nicknames were not the tools of gentlemen and ladies.
Your immediate use of insults reveals why you believe Ingrid and Ken comport themselves in a manner consistent with the New Testament.
But I believe that Christ calls us to something higher.
MG
You write this:
Please, if you are going to create a standard, at least try to live by it.
PB,
I meditate on the Scriptures daily. They inform my mind, my heart, and my words daily.
Please do not take a short comment left on a blog where I do not provide specific cites to passages as evidence of my use of scriptures.
It is both petty and offensive.
If you want specific cites, though, I would direct you to Galatians 5:2, 2 Timothy 2:24-26, James 3:17 and 1 Peter 3:16.
How you can reconcile these passages with a website that calls a child a painted girl of Sodom is beyond me.
Chris, you left a few off the list of the “synagogue of Satan”. One individual in particular springs to mind. I was in the proccess of reading something he wrote to one of the most respected theologians around. Lets see if he fits:
ultra-legalistic: In the sense you use the word, then certainly. He blasts his “opponent” for not holding to the same beliefs
loving the letter, but not the spirit, of the law: Of course.
slander/persecution of brothers in the faith: Since he published this, and sarcasticly mocks the other theologian throughout, then this would certainly fit.
Adherence to narrow, man-made doctrines: Without a Doubt! after all, He made them!
If only we had had men like you back then, to defend Erasmus from “satanic” men such as Martin Luther!
Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle
Galatians 5:2, (huh?) 1-6 5:1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
No one is saying that we are saved by a work of the law; in fact we preach repentance and faith in Christ alone, which magnifies the grace of God. FAIL
So, if you back up to 23, and you claim that Ingrid’s and Ken’s words are no better than the National Enquier, then WHY READ THEM and WHY COMMENT ON THEM? in direct disobedience to God’s Word? And why would Chris L call them a synangogue of Satan? Is that Gentle? Is that patiently enduring Evil? You guys are NO DIFFERENT (except you allow comments)
After this article? FAIL
Is this site Holy? Does it make a defense of the glory of God or does it wallow in the mud of the post-modern gobbelty goop that passes for Christianity? Does it call foul on Ken and Ingrid and others while doing the very same thing? This article shows it does. We need to be critical, but with respect. Calling a Christian ministry a synagogue of Satan? yep, thats gentle. FAIL
Vida Blue,
So naming exactly what someone is doing is blasphemy?
So much for people’s commitment to “the truth”.
Would it be helpful to you and PB’s sensitivities if I just said:
“(Name of whoever is sinning and blaspheming by acting like God),
You are materially arrogating to yourself the role of God. You are not God. That is sin. Repent.”
Furthermore,
Chris L is not “my boy”–don’t even know him. In fact, I disagree with him pretty consistently on a lot of things.
And that’s on the record here in the comments.
By the way,
Who is vida blue?
//On the other side, we have the ’synagogue of Satan’, those Christians who would mock, slander and persecute brothers in the church by insisting on certain beliefs and actions above and beyond those given by Yeshua and his Apostles. Like the Judaizers of old, they insist on works for the purpose of salvation, or they insist on belief in specific man-made doctrines for inclusion in the kingdom.//
What works for salvation are these people insisting on, Chris? Who is saying you must hold to certain manmade doctrines for inclusion into the kingdom, and what are these doctrines? You also accused people of saying it’s a sin to have church in a theater, at least I think that is what you said. Can you actually give any evidence that people are ACTUALLY saying that? Or could it just be that these people are questioning the MOTIVES and THEOLOGY of those who often hold services in a theatre?
I would like to see some links, some proof, to the claims that you make. If you can’t prove them, perhaps you should remove them.
Thanks.
For the record, I haven’t read the article.
Second, if there is something untoward in it, I know this website actually allows comments and disagreements. Therefore, it will get addressed. It’s not on me to police it.
Third, Chris L doesn’t claim to have a life calling to bitch and moan about every issue he disagrees with. He doesn’t have some fake ass “ministry of anger”. He’s actually accountable to people here and it is demonstrated again and again.
Fourth, I’m just a commenter here and I have no care to actually keep template/chris p/bitter-boy accountable or even see him change. (The same goes for you, vida blue and PB.) I just prefer to never see a drive-by dump–and I do mean dump–just sit and steam in the heat of the day. Welcome to the market-place of ideas.
Last, what does consistency have to do with anything? You seriously would want me to be consistent in “blasphemy” if that’s what I’m really doing?
Which brings us full circle:
Accurately describing what someone is doing is now “blasphemy”.
Are you sure you’re not bucking for the job too, vida blue? If you’re hired then you’ll have the right to re-define blasphemy for us all. You have something to look forward to, I guess.
Oh, yeah…if you need a reference, I’d be happy to be one.
Um, ok. Well, be one.
If someone has told you its a sin to have church in a theatre, obviously they are wrong. But, my point is that the people and websites that were posted as links in this original article are not saying that it is a sin to have church in a theatre.
51:
Let me know where you want it sent or if the heavenly HR will accept an email.
peace out.
HR? Not sure what that is. Well, why don’t you just put it up here, for everyone to see?
human resources….
the place where you typically have to send a job application, resume, references, etc.
It’s a joke.
A little levity…
Ah, gotcha. Forgive my ignorance.
I just don’t believe that those websites that Chris posted in his article actually say its a sin to go to hold church in a theatre. Nor do I see where any of them preach a works-based salavation.
Thomas,
Do a search for “theater” on Slice. It is pretty evident that she views meeting in a theater as symptomatic of her much lamented circus church phenomenon. I recall reading something like “sitting in their theater, with their itching ears.”
Seems pretty clear to me as to her thoughts on the subject.
Alright M.G. I’ll do a search.
Thomas,
How long have you been reading the sites listed?
M.G.
She does indeed say “sitting in their theater, with their itching ears.”
But that is at the end of her article, and in the context of the article, it is clear that the issue she has is not the building, but what is going on in the building, and like I said earlier, the reasoning for choosing to have church in a theater.
For example, her beef is with trying to take superbowl commercials, superheroes, and the Geico gecko and trying to somehow squeeze out cutesy sermons on them, instead of preaching from the Word of God.
The question is: Do these people who hold church services in theatres and preach sermons based off of superheroes ever get around to the Bible and the gospel?
Firstly, a church is supposed to be a place for the body of believers, not unbelievers. Jesus didn’t go to church to when converts, he went to the sinners where they were, on their own turf, and confronted them with their sinfulness. That is the issue that these websites, like slice, apprising, and so on, is concerned with, not that people are going to church in theaters.
#48
vida blue is a dead pitcher
we have a dead catcher…so…..
They are concerned with the true gospel being preached, not a false gospel. Ingrid gets “itching ears” from 2 Timothy 4:3. Here Paul is talking about holding to correct doctrine, and preaching the word correctly, convincing and rebuking in love. And Paul says we must do this because man is sinful and will not endure sound doctrine, but will heap up for themselves false teachers because of their “itching ears.”
I believe it is pretty clear that Slice and the other websites are not concerned so much with the building, but what goes on in the building (Is the Word of God being taught).
Thomas,
If it’s not an issue to go to church in a theatre then why does it get mentioned?
There’s clear rhetoric that there is a problem to meet in a theatre.
Otherwise, there would be no mention of it and there would only be commentary about the “content” of the preaching.
Furthermore, there would be no personal insults if this was simply about content.
#63 AMEN!
TB,
I’ve got about 30 seconds here:
Ingrid had a series of articles on how awful/worldly/sinful some churches were that were meeting in movie theaters instead of church buildings. They were on Slice 2.0 before it got wiped by her ISP.
I just chose that as one of the obvious examples.
I read apprising regularly, the others I have only read a few times.
Right, but I bet you she wasn’t saying they were sinful simply because they were meeting in movie theatres instead of church buildings.
TB – the only reason they got mentioned was because they were a new church using their meeting place as a “positive” in local advertising…
Well, I would need to see that. However, that does raise another question: What makes going to church in a theatre a positive?
Certainly a theatre carries with it certain implications. Typically, the last thing I think of when I look at a theatre is church, and vice versa. And if the church is intentionally set up to “feel” like a theatre, then, depending on the motives for that, that could be a bad thing as well.
Fiscal responsibility, for one. Many churches in big cities have found theatres to have lots of space available on Sunday mornings for very little in rental cost. For many churches, it is much more fiscally responsible to go with an option like this before building your first building.
Someone from one of the churches in question pointed this out to Ingrid in the comments, and – after lambasting him for not “looking like a church” – she deleted all of his comments when she started looking foolish…
“Certainly a theatre carries with it certain implications. Typically, the last thing I think of when I look at a theatre is church, and vice versa. ”
What, rows of seats and a stage? It’s actually kind of funny because the set up of sanctuaries and theaters have always reminded me of each other.
Anyway, a building is a building is a building.
Actually, I always did kind of wonder about the setup of sanctuaries. Why is it that they’re so remiscient of theaters, anyway?
I understand the point about financially being more cost-friendly. And IF that is how Ingrid responded, then that certainly was wrong. However, I would like to see some actual evidence of that, or even hear her opinion on this matter.
merry,
I am sorry, but when I think of theatre style seats and a stage, I am thinking about enternainment, not God and the Bible. That is probably one of the issues Ingrid has with theatre style churches, and I would concur with that. We don’t go to church to be entertained, we go to church to be convicted and fed from the Word of God. When I think of church, I think of pews and a pulpit and a preacher preaching how great God is and how sinful man is, and learning more about what God says about sin and combating lust and living holy and righteous lives.
I would agree that the content matters, but nobody has made the case that meeting in a theatre is wrong or suspect.
There a ton of churches that meet in theatres that have “a pulpit and a preacher” preaching as you describe.
This is just picking at nits.
To clarify:
The picking at nits is done by these other sites…I’m not talking about the honest discussion that’s happening here.
First of all, Chris L. doesn’t actually mention any of those sites in the article. He links them as illustrative. I think that’s important.
Secondly, apparently nobody has an issue with what Chris L. says about the text and the contemporary significance of the text. That, too, is important.
The issue of contention is that certain people and/or groups are associated with those condemned/criticized by the text. So what is the text condemning? Hearts or actions? Actions. How those “Jews” treated the Christians. What is Chris L. condemning? Actions. How certain people/groups have treated other Christians. That is what this site has been doing for a while now, condemning behavior, and you can search our archives to see specific examples of unChristian behavior.
Yes – if you’re a politician or a lawyer. This statement is laughable. Like saying, I didn’t kill the guy, I just pulled the trigger – the gun did it. Carry on…
Christian P,
Are not actions sprung from our hearts desires?
//On the other side, we have the ’synagogue of Satan’, those Christians…//
That is a statement made in the original article, referring to websites such as Slice and Apprsing, among others. To say that Christians can be the ’synagogue of Satan’ is an oxymoronic statement. Either the accused people are Christians, or they are children of the devil, but you can’t be ‘Christian children of the devil.’
So indeed, this article is not condemning merely the actions, but also the heart. Which, by the way, is what you seem to be accusing Slice and the other websites of doing.
That’s exactly how I read it as well. The first thing that popped to mind was in John 8 when Jesus said to the gathering:
“You are of your father the devil, and the works of your father will you do!”
The funny thing to consider is that while some posts here are fair, they sometimes go on wide detours to implicate the actions of their arch-nemeses in whatever way possible. This particular post seems to do that (notice no mention to the synagogue of Satan in today’s day and age being the RCC which more tightly fits the mold – that wouldn’t be convenient).
//The picking at nits is done by these other sites…//
nc,
I would have to disagree. These websites seem to defend Jesus as the ONE and ONLY way, truth, and light. Apprising for example constantly shows the apostasy of the Roman Catholic church, and not simply with opinons, but first and foremost with the Word of God, the only opinion that matters. Not only that, but these websited point out the false gospel messages/ideology coming from people like Rob Bell and others in the emergent church.
So, I disagree. I do not think contending for the faith (a biblical command by the way, found in Jude verse 3) is nit-picking.
If a church that met in a theatre yet taught biblically sound doctrine, and presented the true gospel, I think you wouldn’t see these websites make such a great complaint. But the fact is, many churches that do meet in theaters and the like meet there because they are compromising on the gospel and Scripture.
Also, nowhere in Scripture will you find Jesus, the disciples, or the apostles constructing a building, or in any other way, shape or form accomodating unbelievers. No, they went out to where the unbelievers were, and pulled them out of those places. It seems we have it quite backwards.
I find it interesting that some are so bent out of shape over the links to SoL, Apprising and such that are most often as are represented here. I see that their sites are most often petty and mostly a waste of time and would not even begin to defend them for their good as it is so hard to find.
Now also mentioned was emergent village which should be offensive to me and is not. I see Chris L has a perspective that I don’t share but realize that is just his perspective that EV is watering down the gospel… in fact I have found quite the opposite happening there as the site has pushed me to ever expand my view and challenged me on many points I had not considered. I don’t agree with all that is said there yet I see the good over all is worth mentioning and to me it is easier to spot both truth and error at EV than it is to filter through all the verbiage crap spewed out by Ken or Ingrid or any of hte their cronies.
Again, I should be offended… yet I understand what Chris L is saying… though I think he may confuse some recent statement from certain individuals who have stepped down from EV as still being the EV view. EV has many other views beside Tony Jones or Doug Pagitt… there is Anthony Smith, Steve Knight, and many others who are not as far “left” as Tony or Doug.
(BTW I think Tony may be off the rails a bit and Doug is wasting his time running for a gov’t office)
Yet for all its worth that Chris L states that EV is “watering down” the gospel… I am not offended… why should I be… its his opinion and he at least is not lying or slandering or attacking them by saying they are apostate.
iggy
This is the very definition of apostasy and error. And I’m not denying that they are doing what Chris L states, but clarifying for Iggy what was clearly written.
My question would be why something like the RCC, which is more obviously in error than the ODMs, are overlooked even though it is apostate.
iggy,
I have never been to emergent village or whatever. I can say that the Bible says if anyone preaches a gospel other than the truth, let him be accursed (Galatians 1:8-9). In fact it is repeated, it is stressed.
So if the emergent church is preaching a false gospel, they should be rebuked, sternly, and others should be informed that the gospel they preach is not the gospel of the Bible.
So now, my question to you Iggy would be: how do you know you are a Christian?
Thomas, my only point was that small issues such as building structures don’t matter, it’s our hearts and only our hearts that matter. It makes me uncomfortable when I see people defending Jesus by means of choosing to complain about the least significant issues. If they want to make an impact, why not go to the core and deal with the main issues of faith that matter? Starting with the miniscule such as theater seats doesn’t really help anyone.
merry,
you miss my point entirely. From beginning to end I have been saying that Slice, Apprising, and the other sites DO deal with the heart. That is their chief concern.
When I think of church, I think of people who desire to follow Christ 24/7, and who come together during the week to corporately worship, to share in certain ’sacraments’ together, and to learn/discuss/teach aspects of what we believe and how we live out those beliefs.
Whether it’s in a theater, a cathedral, a rented back-room in a public house (aka “pub”), or a picnic shelter is immaterial to what a church is.
To John/Jesus’ point, there are those who would consider themselves to be in the faith, but whose orthopraxy is legalistic and narrower than the gates of the kingdom of heaven. Jesus’ descriptions in Matthew 23 are also within the concept of “the Synagogue of Satan” – Jews who were not living in a way compatible with the heart of Judaism.
In the US Civil War, there were Christians on both sides of the conflict who believed they were serving “on God’s side”. This is either a) a paradox; b) only true for one side; or c) true for neither side. The point being made in the letter to the church at Philadelphia was that there were some who claimed to be (and believed in their hearts that they were) serving God, but their actions were NOT furthering His kingdom, but detracting from it.
I am not calling into question that Ken/Ingrid/et. al. believe in their hearts they are serving God. I just happen to see that most of the time, their methods and actions are accomplishing exactly the opposite of what is called for in the kingdom of God.
There are those within the RCC who hold it to be the only valid expression of Christianity, and who persecute those outside the RCC. They would be included, as well.
Rev: It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness.
Or – more accurately – they slander people like Rob Bell, purposely mischaracterize them, quote them out of context, and lie about them.
And you’re wondering why I note that these sites and their supporters are focused on externals (and thus, works), and not truly on faith and action. Perhaps you should put a (TM) after “the true gospel”, because the sites you’re defending add a whole heckuvalot to what “the true gospel(TM)” is.
Do you really want to go into that broad an application of the Regulative Principle? Really? I could point out that Christians in the first three centuries often met in Jewish synagogues (which were community centers, not “church buildings”) – I’ve seen first-hand archaeological evidence of this. I could also point out that Christians in Rome and other cities in the Roman Empire were known to meet for worship in Catacombs (basically underground graveyards).
Sorry – didn’t see the question.
1) Externals-based Christianity (what you wear, what you sing, where you worship, etc.) IS works-based theology. When non-essentials (preferences and convictions) are raised to the level of essentials (absolutes), you’re basing salvation on works, not faith.
2) “Reformed” theology. Where to begin? ANY systematic theology which treats itself as exclusive is adding to the gospel. Statements like “Calvinism IS the gospel” (Chuck Spurgeon), etc. which equate true Christianity with man-made systematic theologies (like Calvinism, Arminism, etc.), then they’re adding to the gospel. A writer on one of the linked blogs wrote:
There are two views concerning the Gospel of Jesus Christ. First, there is what we call Calvinism. Then, there are varying degrees of unbelief
If that ain’t “another gospel”, nothing is.
I don’t have problems with “Reformed” theology (or other Christian theological systems) until they fail to recognize that it is a system of Biblical interpretation made by man, and not a God-ordained belief system.
To be short – Jesus’ description of the “Synagogue of Satan” is culturally contextual to his criticisms of Pharisees in Matthew 23. It is their behavior that is being criticized – not their personhood.
Go away for a day and I miss the great pharisee revolt of ‘09. That’ll teach me!
Anyway, does anyone else find it interesting that all of the letters in Revelation are addressed to the “angel of the church at …”? None of Paul’s epistles use this type of terminology, and it seems that John is speaking to an actual spiritual entity assigned to watch over these believers in a way. Or in some sense it’s the spiritual gestalt of the church; kind of their collective consciousness.
In any case, it seems that John’s letter to these churches makes it clear that they are not just a collection of individuals like we like to think, but rather the spiritual health of one person in the church effects all the others. So the sin or struggle of one person in a church shouldn’t be ignored. If there is a person struggling with sin, all reasonable attempts should be made to restore that person, because if he is left by the wayside, it adversely affects the whole body. It makes you think twice about throwing some members under the bus, so to speak.
Thomas,
I think you miss that there is a great diversity in the Christian faith and that by the standard you are setting.
Are you saying it is wrong to ask and discuss theology and to explore areas of our faith that we might not yet have been exposed to?
The assumption here is astounding. I came to faith at age 16 and have been active in many different denominations… yet it is that I place my faith in the Risen Jesus Christ who came and took away the sins of the world on the Cross and gave me new life by the Resurrection I am saved. It is all by grace and not by works… which SoL and Apprising teach if you really read and look at what they say in their writings. They have Jesus+ I solely believe and trust in Jesus alone for my salvation.
Yet I suppose that is not enough to prove I am saved…
So how do you know I am not? How do you presuppose that anyone and everyone at EV are not saved as you are?
How can you truly prove to me that you are also saved? You could tell me all day, yet from what I have read, your discernment is greatly impaired if you think Ken Silva has any real discernment at all! LOL!…
So… prove to me you are saved… go ahead…
Never mind I will not judge your heart as you as insisting on doing with mine and will take your word for it and truth that you will be guided by the Holy Spirit to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
iggy
BTW Thomas. I have interacted with Ken personally for about 3 years now and he cannot have a real grown up conversation… he usually just puts me down and then states he does not want to discuss matters that I have brought up… it is as if he did, he would be faced with the lies he tells about people. Ingrid is more sincere as I have interacted with her… yet she preaches a works salvation…
Both mouth grace… yet what their focus is about is works of the flesh… dress this way, preach from pulpits, wear ties, sit in pews, etc… they mostly deal with the outside of the cup and judge the inside by what they see… or twist whatever they see to be as it is not.
Ken’s research is shallow at best… he may bring up a good point now and again, yet it is lost in the name calling and put-downs… if he was sincere he would engage in thoughtful conversation instead of writing attack pieces that are only out to harm those he is writing about.
So to me, I see that there is a false gospel being preached… and it is by those who focus on the externals and claim Grace yet give none to those they attack… they are modern day Pharisees that care nothing about the people they attack but only how to keep their ministries going and keeping the income coming in… I mean… Ken is outright doing that on his site…
That is the bottom line… I do not mean to judge their motive as I think the motive is that they believe they are doing God’s calling… yet so did Saul until He met Jesus on the road to Damascus… and I hope Ingrid and Ken and others have the same life changing experience Paul had as well as I have had…
I do not judge their motives only the ones I had when I was like them myself. Mean and legalistic.
iggy
Wow where to begin. I’ll start with Iggy.
First off, I never said you weren’t saved, I simply asked how do you know that you are a Christian. You can say whatever you want about what I was implying there, I just wanted to know, so I could understand your view of the gospel.
Secondly, I can understand why Ken would not want to talk to you, especially if you have acted like this for over three years.
To say Apprising Ministries concern is how people dress and whether or not they have pews in their church is ludicrous. Only a person that WANTS to put a ministry down would come to that conclusion. Looking at Ken’s articles, they are about theology and preserving the gospel. Correct doctrine yields correct living, and ALL Scripture is given by God and profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16). And why: So that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:17)
And that is what websites like Apprising are doing. How can you not see that? Seriously. I guess if I looked really hard to find some stuff about the lack of pews in churches, it MIGHT be there, but you act as if that is all Apprising talks about. And again, if pews are mentioned, its not gonna be because Ken is saying it’s a sin not to have pews in your church. Why don’t you actually read the articles before you spew forth such ignorance?
OK whatever… Thomas…
And really you are judging me… I called for a day of prayer for Ken and he mocked me… that is what he does… Ingrid was more gracious about it..
So until you have Ken state that you are not saved and say lies about you and mock you and you ministry all because you tried to converse with him… then judge me.
iggy
//Are you saying it is wrong to ask and discuss theology and to explore areas of our faith that we might not yet have been exposed to?//
Iggy I have no idea what you are saying here. Of course we should discuss theology, but that doesn’t mean that if there is a clear principle of Scripture that we should try to “explore” new areas. Should we search for the truth? Yes, abolutely. But when you search, when you read the Bible, you have to read it with no presuppositions. You cant read it and try to make it mean something you want, you have to read it and accept what it actually says, even if you don’t like it.
Chris L,
I think I can agree with what you think about when you think of a church. No problem there, although I am not sure why one would want to meet at a pub or theater, unless it was out of necessity.
//To John/Jesus’ point, there are those who would consider themselves to be in the faith, but whose orthopraxy is legalistic and narrower than the gates of the kingdom of heaven. Jesus’ descriptions in Matthew 23 are also within the concept of “the Synagogue of Satan” – Jews who were not living in a way compatible with the heart of Judaism.//
Ok, then the Synagogue of Satan would refer to unbelieves, because the Pharisees and people Jesus is referring to In Mattew 23 were not Christians. So, if that is what you are comparing people like Ken and Ingrid to, then you are saying that are pharisees, self-righteous, hypocrites, and ultimately unsaved, unregenerate, and fast on their way to hell.
But, the truth is, contrary to popular opinion around here, that Ken, Ingrid, and the rest of the sites that you have provided links to, seem to be very, very concerned about the inside of the cup. About true righteousness, about spreading the TRUE gospel. I’ll repeat, there is ONE true gospel. And nobody here is saying that the true gospel includes pews and pulpits. However, if churches take out pews and pulpits, because in fact THEY are more concerned with looking “cool” and “suave” and looking slick Rob Bell style, and less concerned with the Bible, theology, and holiness, then perhaps they are the ones being pharasaical.
As far as your Civil War analogy, that’s um, very broad. I would say though that those fighting for the south, to keep slavery, were certainly sinning, and if they thought they were doing it to serve God and please Him, chances are these people know nothing of the GOd of the Bible.
I mean, do you suppose that simply believing in your heart that you are doing God’s will saves you? Adolf Hitler thought he was doing God’s will. I’m pretty sure he is rotting in hell right now, and rightfully so. Unless we want to think that he somehow repented of his sins as he blew his brains out.
How about Matthew 7, where it says not everyone who says to me Lord Lord will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but HE WHO DOES THE WILL OF MY FATHER IN HEAVEN?
In fact, your very on verse that you used, Revelation 3:9, God says the synagogue of Satan “say they are Jews and are not, but lie…”
So, the synagogue of satan is unbelievers, and you sir have just called those over at Slice, Apprising, and the rest of the websites you listed, unbelievers, whom, by the way, as God goes on to say, will worship at your feet.
Perhaps we should all bow now?
I guess ignorance is bliss…
I have stated publicly that at times Ken has written good things mostly in the past… yet it is his lack of interaction and real research…
Funny how he went from “research” to just having an “opinion” when someone who he committed libel slander against started talking lawsuit…. talk about convictions!
Oh and I have a bad back, diabetes, and neuropathy… and I have at least three ministry websites and run an online Christian radio station… I also am interning in my church and am helping in church planting in other towns… I am in school and have a wife and two kids… I was recently laid off from my full time day job.
So any help with my ministry will be helpful.
(That last part is a joke… sort of)
iggy
Iggy, you act as if judging is a sin…
However, Jesus says in Matthew 7 to judge with righteous judgment.
And I am sure whatever Ken said to you, he had good reason to say it, and it seems quite likely that you misundersttod him. After all, you seem to think Ken is writing blog after blog about pews and pulpits.
//Oh and I have a bad back, diabetes, and neuropathy… and I have at least three ministry websites and run an online Christian radio station… I also am interning in my church and am helping in church planting in other towns… I am in school and have a wife and two kids… I was recently laid off from my full time day job.
So any help with my ministry will be helpful.//
WOW! Let’s applaud that hypocrisy! Iggy, you suddenly sound quite judgmental, something you were just falsely lambasting me for.
//I see that their sites are most often petty and mostly a waste of time and would not even begin to defend them for their good as it is so hard to find.//
That’s what you said above, and now you say,
//I have stated publicly that at times Ken has written good things mostly in the past… yet it is his lack of interaction and real research… //
Sounds like you are changing your tune a bit… kind of like how you accused Ken of going from doing research to just having an opinion. Instead of attacking so much of what he actually says in his blogs, like you were before, now your trying to push it off on his lack of interaction and real research. There is a fancy word for that but I can’t think of it… although I guess I could go with bull.
Thomas… you seem to only look for the bad in people don’t you… and for one who does not even know me… you seem to sure be able to judge my heart.
And there is “judging” that is looking at something or someone in kindness and finding ways to edify them and exhort them to find or grow in Christ… and there is judgmentalism which the Bible explicitedly states we should not do… try Romans 2 in context from 1 through 3 for starters.
So if I joke about the someone who complains about their back or other things while all they really do is sit in front of the computer and attack other ministries… so I am a hypocrite… whatever
There are those who are suffering much more than Ken is and yet I am not “complaining… in fact I joked about it! And you call me names.
… you live in a dark world of condeming others… and I feel sad for you…
iggy
//(That last part is a joke… SORT OF)//
I believe you did type the word “sort”, followed by the word “of”.
So, it was “sort of” a joke. Anybody being honest knows that that means it is NOT a joke, not for the most part at least.
So I think you are being quite hypocritical by your own standards…sort of.
I’m kind of stunned that Chris asserts works based salvation and yes I read his answer to those questions. I’m assuming he’s never read those websites…they assert no form of external Christianity, it’s all a matter of inward renewal, and never about external legalism…never about the church building to be saved, or the attire, or baptism, or anything else…all they are saying is that true believers will exhibit fruits of the spirit…and that is Biblical.
Chris is basically saying it is impossible to correctly interpret the Bible, but God gave us his Word and made it clear enough on the essentials for everyone. I think we all agree that to be saved it’s by grace thru, faith and not by works…faith in Jesus who is God, risen, and paid the penalty for our sins, and that repentance and obediance is a sign of regeneration….we could go into calvinism/armenian, but on most levels I think almost all Christians agree on some level about the cores…we could take limited atonement for example and the Bible clearly states that not everyone goes to heaven, in fact most go to hell…so whether or not you agree on the doctrine on election, you still believe that Jesus atonement is only effective for those who believe. That’s limited atonement by definition…
What would be more alarming is someone who believes that no one goes to hell..many people argue that Rob Bell believes that, but I can’t speak for that myself cuz I don’t know. He certainly has made statements in his books that leave on wondering what his intent was..
Thomas,
It seems you are not able to have a conversation… You do not seem to recognize there is a bit of history between Ken, Ingrid and myself… and choose only to try to show how bad I am. So I am content to let you be as you are and pray for you.
May you grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
iggy
Yoyo,
Are you serious? You read those sites and don’t see the viciousness and shallow version of Christianity they sell… let alone the emphasis on the externals? Ingrid is the Queen of mixing Law and Grace… Ken is just mixed up on many things but is so unteachable as he has set himself up as the Sole purveyor of Truth…
I often wonder how deep some people are in their faith… has it gone past going to church and into realizing that they no longer live but Christ lives in them?
I hope this is no true of you Yoyo, but I cannot see how someone can seriously read any of those sites and see them not teaching a form of external Christianity…
iggy
#78
But that’s not what’s being said or claimed, TB.
What’s being claimed implicitly and explicity (at times) is that meeting in theatres is necessarily evidence of compromise.
That’s just not the case.
The location itself is regularly cited as part of the evidence of compromise.
Then, add a heaping offering of sanctimony and high-mindedness, and you have the ADM’s.
Yoyo,
You mentioned the Calvinist/Arminian argument… Ken Silva will disagree with you though he claims not to be a Calvinist… He calls anyone that believes in free will a semi pleagian which shows Ken has no idea what that even means…
iggy
Again Thomas… you seem fixated on making me be the bad guy… and I am saddend by it. I hope someday you can see others as worthy of the same Grace you see youself having from God and give it to others…
Peace.
iggy
Thomas,
How am I hypocritical… I do not judge Ken in asking for help… I question that he needs support for his “ministry” as it was not too long ago Ken was stating how God was blessing him and his ministry for what he was doing! Now Ken is in trouble and is begging for help…
My point is that others have issues worse than Ken… and I am not out begging for help… I am trusting God to support me and my ministry and He has always come through…
I have not even sold songs to others to sing that I would not deem scriptural enough for myself to sing… as Ken is doing now.
So how again am I hypocritical? That I have not begged for financial support so I can continue to attack others ministries, families, churches with lies and poor research? Sorry I am not doing that…
iggy
Yoyo
Thank you SO much! You do not know how much I really needed a good laugh, which you have so wonderfully provided!
You do know what happens when you assume, right? Sadly, I’ve read those two (and other similar) websites for the past 3-4 years, and they are little more than petty (often fictional) sniping, often aimed at Christians whose primary “sins” are bringing Christ to a culture in a way that might actually be considered (*shudder*) relevant to the way one should live in this society…
Seriously, though, I wonder if you have ever read Ken/Ingrid/Mike Ratliff/etc. for more than a day. If you had, you’d know that your assessment is either foolish or some of the best satire I’ve ever read.
Really? How So? I would suggest that “correctly interpret” is somewhat loaded and ‘Western’ in thought pattern. This assumes that there is only one correct interpretation of every passage, when this is not the pattern evidenced in Scripture, which often has multiple layers and/or wider acceptable patterns of orthopraxy than you would grant.
I do believe that God’s Word makes the “essentials” clear enough for all, but I also believe that many Christians (sometimes myself, as well, even as I try to avoid doing so) add to such “essentials” their own cultural preferences and extra-Biblical convictions.
nc, forgive my lack of acronym knowledge, maybe it should be obvious to me, but when you use ADM idk what that is.
If you TRULY hold to free will, then you are a semi-pelagian. Unless you have a different understanding of free will. But the only thing free about the will of man is that we are free to sin.
Iggy, I suppose you think that if you are poor, financially, or if things go sour for you, that means you must be in some kind of sin or something like that. I looked at Ken’s songs, I don’t see anything wrong with them. So what if he tries to sell them, maybe the man needs a little money. But let’s not make this an ad hominem attack, alright?
Also Iggy, I am not trying to make you out to be anything other than what you are saying. I don’t know your heart, but you do seem to lack discernment. To make the claims about Ken’s website greatly diminshes your credibility on just about anything else you say. I don’t hate you, I only want you to see the truth, and that is what I am trying to show you.
nc,
yes that is being said and claimed.
//This assumes that there is only one correct interpretation of every passage, when this is not the pattern evidenced in Scripture, which often has multiple layers and/or wider acceptable patterns of orthopraxy than you would grant.//
Chris L, seriously? lol. Wider acceptance as a pattern of Scripture? What book are you reading? For a passage of Scripture to have two different, seperate meanings, is impossible. That would be like saying the sun produces not only beams of light but also raindrops.
How can one passage have several meanings? So maybe one is true for me, but not for you eh? Wow, so I guess the inerrancy of Scripture takes on a whole new, bizarre meaning.
BTW this might blow some of you people’s minds, but did you know that God has a holy hatred for unsaved people?
There are probably a few things I don’t completely agree with in regards to Ken Silva, but he certainly holds to the calvinist view, as does John McAurthor, and others.
Chris, your assertion that there can be more than one interpretation of scripture is not accurate. True, many layers and applications, but opposing interpretations can never both be true. A paradox is not a true contridiction, any true contridiction would make part of the Bible untrue…which none of us here would say we believe that. So, no not every doctrine or viewpoint one holds is correct…obviously, calvinist, armenians, and those in between can’t all be right on everything. Someone is wrong on something somewhere in there.
For example, eternal security…one interpretation is obviously wrong and one is right…I do believe that both sets of believers can be saved but one camp has fallen into error on that doctrinal point and they debate each other on who is in error (obviously)…
So, yes scripture has one interpretation..but many applications and layers, but no doctrine like eternal security or conditional security cannot both be true, neither can the idea that all men go to heaven or only some men…they can’t both be true.
TB,
1) ADM = Armchair “Discernment” “Ministry” (two lies for the price of one)
2) Believing in free will does not require semi-pelagianism. Christians (and Jews, prior to them) primarily believed in free will, until gnosticism and fatalism rose in prominent thought. It is possible to believe both in predestination and true free will, and that they can exist w/o threatening God’s sovereignty. It is also possible to believe that none of these matter a whit to the gospel, and that such distinctions are idle chattering and detrimental to Christianity.
blah, blah, blah. (paging Rick Frueh – I’ll let you take this one, Rick)
Just a bit of history – Ken has attacked the character of at least one Christian partially based upon his CD collection, which had “Rascal Flatts, Jimmy Wayne, Tim McGraw, [and] Green Day”
So, being willing to sell music that you would no longer record and would criticize (if you hadn’t written it) does seem rather… odd…
I agree completely with yoyo
So, is Isaiah’s prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 about events relevant to Ahaz or about Jesus’ birth – or both?
When Jesus cries out “Father, father, why have you forsaken me?” on the cross, is he making a statement about his feelings of abandonment, or is he making a statement of triumph by quoting Psalm 22 (since the common practice was to quote the first verse of a Psalm to denote the entirety of the Psalm) – or both?
I can list a rather large number of verses which have differing interpretations, with multiple truths expressed.
Again incorrect. It is a paradox that free will and predestination can both be true, but it was a common belief in Jesus’ time (and ours), and it is possible if you assume that time is not unilinear for God.
I agree that there are a number of scriptures that may have a “correct” interpretation, but I would also note that many (but not all) of these would fall into the realm of “non-essentials” and discerning the “correct” interpretation may be as important as telling the number of angels which can dance on the head of a pin…
The important ones, though, are pretty clear – Jesus lived. Jesus was the Son of God. Jesus died. Jesus rose from the dead. There is One God. Jesus’ sacrifice and resurrection made it possible for men to escape their sinful nature.
So does that make you a yoyo, too?
(sorry – just a bit of levity)…
What’s funny is that you won’t let Ken speak for himself on him because you have him on moderation.
Also, to say blah blah blah to the truth that all we can do is sin, provokes the wrath of God buddy.
God’s sovereignty/ free will. They can’t co-exist. Funny that you think it can though.
Ever read Romans 3? How about Romans 6? how about Romans 8-9? How about Ephesians 1:11?
How about John 6:65, Jesus said “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
How much other Scripture do you ignore my friend? I think when Jesus said “no one can come” it means, um, NO ONE CAN COME!
So why don’t you address this verse, anybody, just address John 6:65 for me. Please, give me some explanation for it. At least try. Blah Blah Blah isn’t a very good answer.
Holy hatred? That’s pretty rich. And twisted.
Yeah.
Twisted best describes such a view.
Sadly, it doesn’t “blow my mind”…
It just proves that you have a poor understanding of Scripture and don’t understand progressive revelation.
Thomas I am also on moderation… so? Ken can speak all he wants… he is on moderation for a reason… he is nasty and mean and does not add to the conversation.
iggy
When Ken posts something other than name-calling, his comments are usually approved within minutes.
When he just calls names or plays his “you can’t criticize me because I’m a ‘pastor-teacher’ schtick”, the comments sit awhile longer.
Whatever. While I definitely fear God and His power, I don’t fear your rather trite (and unwarranted) references to it. Disagreeing with your man-made theological musings doesn’t do anything to stir God’s wrath.
Sure they can. You just don’t happen to believe that God is powerful enough to allow it to be, and you assume that He experiences time in the same way that we do.
First off, I’m not going to prooftext Scripture to death or play the Calvin/Arminian/OT game of “who’s prooftext is best?”
Second, I’ve already dealt with the full context of John 6 a number of times in the past.
Psalm 5:4-6
“For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness, nor shall evil dwell with You. The boastful shall not stand in Your sight;
YOU HATE ALL WORKERS OF INIQUITY.
You shall destroy those who speak falsehood; The Lord ABHORS the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.
now, lets go to ROmans 3.
Romans 3: 9-18 says NOBODY is righteous, NOBODY understands, NOBODY seeks God, NOBODY does good, and not only that but our mouths are full of lies and deceit, we are all together unprofitable, we are full of cursing and bitterness, we are quick to shed blood, destruction and misery are in our ways, and we have not known the way of peace, NOBODY has any fear of God.
So, I do believe that if NOBODY includes us, which I am pretty sure it does, then we do qualify for God’s holy wrath and hatred, until God saved us from our sins of course.
Chris you ignore Scripture like nobodies business. So what did God save you from exactly?
Refuting Calvinism, while rather simple, gets pretty boring the 2,000th time.
You wanna take this one, Rick?
Wow, these are such low hanging curves you’re lobbing TB, that any Arminian could easily knock them out of the park. But like Chris said, we are not here to debate Calvinism verses Arminianism.
I will say, though, it is always dangerous to try to interpret the New Testament through the lens of the Old, which is what you’re doing. Our picture of what God is like and what His final revelation to humanity is needs to be purely focused on the person of Jesus Christ. He fulfills and interprets the Old Testament – it’s not the other way around.
I would go as far to say that a person who sees God primarily as wrathful and full of vengeance does not understand Christ or what was accomplished on the cross. I’m not saying they aren’t Christians, but I believe they have a warped view of God.
Thomas,
Wow… Not even close! And really there is nothing “wrong” with Ken’s songs so you are totally missing the point! Ken attacks others for much less than he states in his songs… one of his songs states:
If Rob Bell or anyone else stated this they are instantly an Universalist… yet Ken states it and gets a free ride… and that is the point… Then Ken states:
Saying this after all his attacks on PDL and Seeker style churches seems hypocritical… if you have actually read his attack pieces against those who talk this way you should understand what I am saying.
I feel this way about you! To take Ken or Ingrid serious seems to lack discernment and to me even mocks it! Ken who used to claim he was “mentored” by Walter Martin until this site busted him noting that he never met WM and that it was only that Ken had listened to WM tapes showed that Ken is willing to stretch the truth to make him look better than he is… I mean I have done the same thing so I guess I was mentored by WM, John MacArthur, and scores of others! Yet I see it dishonest to state I am “mentored” by them… I have been mentored by some great men that I have met an worked with directly… but really I would not brag about who they were as it does not matter. So if you had more history about Ken I think you might realize why his credibility is so low… and why people are begining to see him for what he is and not supporting him.
Now back to that… that is actually so funny that you would accuse me of thinking that one with more bless financially is more blessed from God… that was Ken’s point to me and others! It is Ken who pushed that idea and I was stating it was wrong…
So far your discernment about me is so far off… don’t you think it would be better to get to know me before y0u toss out your own ad hominem attacks at me?
iggy
No Chris, I believe you have a twisted view of God.
Thomas,
Also you never did answer my questions I had in the first comment to you. Why not?
iggy
repost the question for me, Iggy.
Seeking God?
Or
Or
Or
Or
Or in Acts
Now – to Romans 3 –
I would note that Paul is quoting from Psalm 14, in which David has written a Psalm about “fools” whose hearts are set upon evil. If you don’t bother with Paul’s context, then sure, you can prooftext much of what he’s written to mean whatever you would like it to.
No, I ignore systematic theologies like nobody’s business. There’s a difference between Scripture and systematic theology. You just happen to be espousing the latter and treating the former as if it had magically fallen out of the sky without any context to it.
Thems be stake burnin’ words, boy…
Better hide the matches!
Thomas,
Sorry I can’t find them myself… it has been a long day for me so I may have misspoken to you about not answering the questions…so I apologize for that.
They are though:
Is it a sin to look and question our faith? Is it a sin to question doctrines? Is it a sin to listen to someone we might not agree with yet find good things in what they say? Is it a sin to listen to something controversial and though not fully agree with it, consider some of it and allow it to expand our own spiritual viewpoint?
iggy
Paul C,
I notices a reference to me earlier and I ask you the same questions…
And also I feel the same way… actually worse when I read Ken or Ingrid or one of the many others… It seems that so much error can be overlooked about them that the truth suffers… yet instead of acknowledging that, many people seem to feel they can attack those Ken and Ingrid do for their error… which for the most part is not biblical error but differences is style and preferences such as music or chairs or whether one should be in a theater.
iggy
//Now back to that… that is actually so funny that you would accuse me of thinking that one with more bless financially is more blessed from God… that was Ken’s point to me and others! It is Ken who pushed that idea and I was stating it was wrong… //
I never accused you, I asked you. WOrld of difference there bub. I doubt your understanding of what Ken said was correct either.
//“Jesus died, He shed His blood, He’s not willing to lose — anyone.”//
Where can I find the lyrics to that entire song?
//Saying this after all his attacks on PDL and Seeker style churches seems hypocritical… if you have actually read his attack pieces against those who talk this way you should understand what I am saying.//
No that is not hypocritical at all. I don’t see Ken trying to use secular music to save people or in church services. Your argument makes no sense here.
Iggy, basically you are asking me if it is a sin to use discernment. On that level I will answer. Of course not. but when you start saying things like expand, idk what you mean.
But, I just want to know Iggy, how do you think God views an unsaved person?
Speaking of what God hates, I’ve always found this passage quite telling:
Even more interesting is the prescription for Israel’s problem:
Seek justice, encourage the oppressed, and take care of the fatherless and the widow…well that ol’ social gospeler Isaiah! Where did he get such crazy ideas?
Chris L,
How do you define free will?
Also, why don’t you just read Psalm 14? Especially verses 2-3. THis is referring to ALL of mankind that is not saved. Which means we were all fools and godless before we were saved. While we are in the book of Psalm, why dont you address Psalm 5:4-6, or Psalm 7, where GOd says He is angry with the wicked every day?
Also, give me the references to the verses you put up about seeking God, because of course, we do seek out God, but none of those verses say anything one way or the other about our ability to seek out God. So I really have no disagreements with them at all, after all nobody can come to the Jesus unless it has been granted by God (John 6:65). So of course, after God has convicted our hearts, and shows us mercy, and opens our eyes, we can respond to the gospel call. But we only choose God because he first chose us. Jesus Himself says that in John 15:16.
//Seek justice, encourage the oppressed, and take care of the fatherless and the widow…well that ol’ social gospeler Isaiah! Where did he get such crazy ideas?//
lol Phil, again you misunderstand. Nobody is saying we shouldn’t do that. We should, however, if all we do is feed the poor, and we never tell them about the gospel, then we just send them to hell with a full stomach. But the social gospel says just feed the poor and be nice to everyone and we will all go to heaven.
God has given man permission to accept or reject the gift of grace He offers.
FYI – heading to bed here.
I’m sure once Rick Frueh realizes we got (yet another) proselytizing Calvinist on the line, he’ll answer all of your favorite Calvinist prooftexts tomorrow…
So if God gives man permission… yet says we can only come to Jesus IF it is granted by God, and IF God will grant us repentance…
it seems to me your view of free will is unbiblical. I mean, if the golden standard is the Bible that is.
Thomas,
God views the unsaved that same as Jesus did… so how did Jesus view them?
iggy
Jesus viewed them as lost and in need of a Savior, and Jesus told them to repent or perish, and that they were under the wrath and condemnation of God.
That is how Jesus viewed the lost. Agree?
Whatever, Thomas.
You’ve made an idol of your theological “system”, and mistakenly equated your man-made system of belief with Scripture.
Agreed, yet it seems you miss that sin died with Jesus “once for all” on the Cross… it was a one time thing for all people past, present and future…
Yet, saying that, forgiveness does not equal salvation… for the Life is in the Son and one needs a relationship to have the Life.
Forgiveness is offered to all, yet if rejected there is nothing left except judgment.. Yet it all hinges on what one does with JEsus and not about “stopping sinning”…
It is when we come to Christ Jesus and abide in Him we no longer are “sinners” as we now dwell in Christ who has not sin… and sin is dealt with.
Now God is compassionate and just… to say God is still angry with sinners means that the Cross is negated… for God so loved the world He gave his only Son…
Again, there is wrath, but the wrath you are stating sounds very OT and not under the NT any longer. Many seem to mix Law and Grace over this issue… and miss we are no longer under the old covenant unless one still wants to stay there and so be judged by it as Paul teaches in Galatians.
So Jesus was willing to call out to sinners, forgive them… love them… and die for them… and take on the Fathers wrath for them… and that is how God views sinners… with a sacrificial love, kindness and compassion for them.
To understand what I am stating do a study on “propitiation” as opposed to atonement… atonement is OT and what Jesus did was not a perpetual sacrifice, but a one time sacrifice of perpetual efficacy. What I think teaching you are under is one of perpetual sacrifice… and there is a huge difference between that and the biblical teachings on forgiveness and salvation.
iggy
I guess Iggy, you think that God somehow changed his view of man after Jesus died, yet God’s plan all along was to have His Son die on the cross, that was prophesied about in the OT. God’s view didnt magically change once Jesus died on the cross.
For instance, after Jesus had already died, in the book of Acts, God strikes dead Ananias and Saphira, simply because they lied.
How about John 3:36? It says those who do not accept Christ has the wrath of God upon them?
And what about Jesus’ ministry? It was repentance for remission of sins. Everywhere Jesus went, that is what He taught, that is what he begun with (Mat. 4:17) and what He ended with (Luke 24:47).
His parables were about sin, he confronted people about their sin (for example, the rich young ruler and the woman at the well).
Not to mention, Jesus straight told people to repent of their sins, or to go to hell. You can find that in Luke 13 for starters.
Did you know that Jesus spoke in parables intentionally so people COULDN”T understand them? It was only for those who seeked to decipher the truth. But to some, God did not give people an ear to hear. ANd parables were meant to be confusing so some wouldn’t understand and wouldnt be forgiven (thats in Mark 4:10-12).
ANd of course, Romans makes it clear that it is God who saves, and it is based on His SOvereign choice. GOd hardens hearts (ROmans 9:18) and salvation has nothing to do with our will, which isn’t free, except to sin (Romans 9:16).
By the way, last time I checked, Romans was written by Paul, who, wouldn’t you know it, lived after Jesus’ death! Hmmmm.
How about the first gospel presentation after Jesus ascended into heaven? Go to Acts 2, Peter didn’t say “God loves you, you unsaved people.” Nope, and Peter didn’t say “Just believe God is real and tell him to save you, and you will be saved.” Nope, thats not the gospel either.
Peter laid it out, he explained that the very person they nailed to the cross and crucified, had risen from the dead, and was made both Lord and Christ by God. He went straight after their sins, and the Bible says in Acts 2:37 that these people were cut to the heart, and asked “WHat do we do?” And what did Peter say? He didnt just have them repeat a prayer saying they believe it is true. No, Peter said in Acts 2:38 “REPENT, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the ggift of the Holy Spirit.”
Jesus said to preach repentance for remission of sins. That is what Peter did. That is not what many churches are preaching today. They are preaching a false gospel, which is one of the chiefest of sins, and that is why Ingrid and Ken have their ministries, because they are doing the work of an evangelist, which we are all biblically commanded to do.
//Yet, saying that, forgiveness does not equal salvation…//
It doesn’t? Are you sure? See, you can’t say that Jesus forgave everyone when He died on the cross, unless you are a Universalist, which is clearly heresy.
And, Jesus didn’t die for every single man on the earth. He died for God’s elect. He died for whom God sovereingly chose to save. Yet you are correct, Jesus does offer salvation to every man that will repent and believe. The power of Jesus’ death on the cross is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect. But the truth is, if God completely left it up to man to choose who we will serve, we would all go to hell because none of us would choose God, because we are incapable of doing so because of our sinfulness.
God even made vessels of wrath prepared beforehand for destruction (Romans 9:22).
So, I think it is safe to say that God and Jesus view the unsaved now the same way they did in the OT.
Also, just to throw one more stick in, Romans 2 speaks much of GOd’s wrath, and that the unbeliever stores up GOd’s wrath for the day of judgment. Then, Romans 3 defends God’s judgment, and that is where we see, restated from the OT, that no one is righteous, that we are all wretches and incapable of doing good.
Now, notice Romans 3:17. In context, this verse applies to all mankind, it says “And the way of peace they have not known.”
So we do not know peace, yet, in many places, there is peace on earth. And if we can create peace, it is not us who is doing it, bbut rather it is God’s grace working through us to do it.
Now notice in Revelation 6:4 it says “Another horse, fiery red, went out. And it was granted to the one who sat on it to take peace from the earth, and that people should kill one another; and there was given to him a great sword.”
Ah, so you see, God is not taking anything away that man created, God is simply judging man and revealing to man what they really are. He is drawing back His grace and mercy because it is judgment time.
Now what I just showed you wasn’t some scheme, it was all Scripture, not Calvinism, not systematic theology, just the Bible and what it teaches. Revelation is a picture of God’s wrath stored up against mankind because of their sinfulness and total depravity. And it is Jesus Christ Himself who is to be the Judge! So it seems that the view of sin from the Trinity is completely consistent from cover to cover of the Bible. Of course, that makes perfect sense when you study the BIble that that would be true.
Thomas,
It seems that again instead of a conversation you want to condescend and talk at and down to me. I see that you are a Calvinist and much of what you are saying contradicts Calvin’s teachings…
Not to mention again.. God is not looking for us to be obedient… for if it is by obedience we are saved it is works….
So really you have some really messed up views that are unbiblical. I know because I was under much the same sort of teaching until God revealed his Grace to me in a life changing way.
So accuse me all you want, but it seems you are mired in a theological system that has taken many basic bible teachings and twisted them to mean quite the opposite the bible teaches.
God is only pleased with Jesus.. and we are privileged to be able to respond to the loving kindness of God who sent his Son… outside of Jesus there is no salvation for anyone and they will suffer unneeded wrath… for all were given the possibility to be saved at by the Cross and Resurrection.
To me it seems this conversation is not going anywhere as you are still casting attacks instead of conversing…
Interestingly, Iraenius who was a direct disciple in the linage of John wrote that man has a free will… funny how this Apostolic teaching that was past on from John to Polycarp to Iraenius was somehow wrong when Calvin comes along 14oo yrs or so later. Could Calvin had been wrong?
I think you miss this.. that God initiates all that is salvation… and man responds or not.. for God alone is salvation… so we do have free will yet to gain salvation is to lay it down and exchange it for God’s will… we exchange our life (or death to be more accurate for we are dead in our sins) for His Life and that is salvation…
So I am not sure what most of your rant is even about… Yes Paul wrote his letters after Jesus and much I have stated came from his teachings… so again it seems you are misreading much of Paul’s writings. And when was the last time God struck someone down for lying…
Also as far as Ananias.. where does it state that God struck them down? It does not… Peter revealed their lie by the Holy Spirit and they just dropped dead… but it does not say God struck them down. If anything Satan did as Peter states that Satan had so filled Ananias’ heart… so show me where it states God struck them down. Personally I think it was that they were playing a religious game of showmanship and when their plan was revealed they simply died of shock that it was all real!
Also context needs to be taken in much you are stating… the Gospels were before the Cross and Jesus spoke as one under the Law to others under the Law… often what he stated was to show that keeping the Law could not give righteousness and life… (John 5)
So when you state that Jesus said this or that… keep in mind who he is talking to… Jews under the Law… who think that that will save them instead of Jesus…
iggy
I love it. When non-Calvinists say something about their theology they say “you dpn’t understand Calvinism”. Well, Thomas, I for one believe in original sin, and I also believe that man has a free will but can only choose Christ by the illumination of the Spirit. Pelagius would disagree with all my theology. So obviously you have a “limited” understanding of my free will theology.
All “Calvinism evangelists” grow exceedingly tiresome, as is evident by Chris’s comments. Just this balsphemous statement (”Calvinism is the gospel“) made by a particular favorite preacher of mine and heralded as an inside joke by Calvinists, reveals the idolatry they have toward their systematic theology.
The theological ground you wish to cross has been tilled ad infinitum on this blog, but as of yet I have been able to resist God’s will by the power of my own. I remain a self righteous, low view Scriptured, sovereignty doubting, and completely reprobate theolgian who still considers Calvin a murderous politician who strained at a doctrinal gnat and swallowed a camel named affectionately, “Huebby”, which is a nickname for hubris.
And just to add to your doctrinal angst, I find some aspects of open theism very attractive and Biblical. The main problem I have with most Calvinists is that the level of their intellects prohibit any real and substantive grasp of deep theological truths. I do not blame them, though, I just assume it’s God’s will for their lives.
****ATTENTION****
Cat fight alert!!
(Sometimes I crack myself up.
)
Rick,
Interestingly to my Thomas brings up Romans 9 which need be taken in context with chapter 8 and 10… but he most likely stops at verse 18…
He will only notice that God made some vessels of wrath and some vessels of mercy… yet miss that at the end of Romans 9 and into Romans 10 Paul does a flip and it is clear he means that the Jew was the vessel of mercy originally and now is the vessel of wrath so that the original vessels of wrath, the gentiles could now be vessels of mercy…
Meaning this is not about God being like Allah and arbitrarily taking some as good and tossing them over one should to heaven and some as bad and tossing them over his other shoulder to hell, but it is that God has forsaken the Jew to redeem the gentile.
Calvin had a very poor understanding of Romans 9 and has screwed up many good teachers as they use his view in understanding that passage… that is why context and reading the fuller text helps gain insight and is also one of the huge reasons I am not a follower of
AllahCalviniggy
Thomas,
When you started commenting on this thread, you seemed courteous and open to dialogue, which is always welcome here.
As you got more and more worked up over the lack of Calvinism beliefs by commenters, you descended to this:
Anyone who seriously studies the Word discovers that truths of Calvinism are clearly spelled out as are truths of Arminism.
As Chris L. and Rick insinuated, this thread could go to 500 comments back and forth of each giving verses to back up their theology. And by comment 501, no one would be convinced otherwise.
That is the nature of theology.
And to hold theology to a higher standard than Jesus is a subtle and dangerous error.
So please be careful, and please be gracious.
Shalom
The theology of “calvinism is the gospel ” almost sent me to the wrong end of a gun while I still considered myself a calvinist.I was like a dog chasing his tail and jumping through exegetical hoops . I am done with it.I am simply a Christian.Praise God for His grace through Jesus Christ!!
Grace and peace to all,
Opus
Amen and amen.
Opus,
I am neither Calvinist or Arminian… I am believe the bible as it is written and trust my salvation to Jesus… to me that is enough… Calvin had some good things and some bad… Arminius was the same to me. I prefer to go back to the early church fathers if I am looking for something that I am thinking about yet in the end… trust bible and the Holy Spirits leading.
To me there is nothing wrong in reading anyone… even those I disagree with… but I am not staking my salvation on another man’s interpretation of scripture.
iggy
//Not to mention again.. God is not looking for us to be obedient… for if it is by obedience we are saved it is works….//
You can think I am being condescending, or whatever you want, but it is quite evident that all of you are ignorant of what I am saying. You can call it Calvinism, I call it what the Bible clearly teaches. I am not saying our obedience saves us, I am saying that IF we are saved we WILL be obedient, because it is GOD who has SUPERNATURALLY changed our hearts. An unsaved person recognizes their sinfulness through the gospel, and then they repent of their sins and turn to Christ as Lord and Savior for their salvation. NOw, you can say that if they repent, that is works to, but I am not saying that man repents of their own ability. No, Christ gives them the ability to repent supernaturally through the hearing of the gospel.
I’ll write more in a second, I have to eat some chicken tenders…
Thomas,
Repentance is a natural outflow in response to the Kindness of God in that he is willing to forgive and save us… if taken as part of a formula for salvation… then it is a work…
Again instead of just assuming you know what I am saying and then telling me I am wrong… try just talking to me and finding out what I believe.
Calvin did not die on a cross or rise from the grave to save us… he was a man with flaws and to put too much trust in anyone besides Jesus can be dangerous.
iggy
And those who hold to the truths of Arminism would say the same thing.
Opus,
Amen! We’re Christians.
And that is amazing!
A few months ago, my brother and I were discussing Calvinism and Arminism.
He asked which I was, since I seemed to be arguing for both sides.
I told him I am a Bibli-ist. (pronounced bib’-lee-ist)
He said that was a cop-out.
OK – a sinner makes a false profession of faith and indeed is not truly saved – so what? What do you suggest, more human intervention? Insisting to them that they are not saved? According to Calvin salavtion is initiated by God and only God, so apparently He has not as yet initiated that sinner’s salvation – or – that sinner isn’t one of the elect.
I cannot undertand all the handwringing by those that wear God’s sovereignty as a badge about false professions of faith. It just makes for argument concerning something of which God is in complete control and we cannot change.
(I would make such a good Calvinist!)
I was wondering if there is a flood of comments waiting in moderation since AM invited its constituency on Mar. 3 to comment on this article.
It is still kind of funny how the high flown jargon is thrown around:
“fully integrated auxiliaries of CRBC”…
Isn’t CRBC more like an auxiliary of AM?
I guess that “official” sounding language is all you have when you need the seeming seal of good housekeeping of a local church…and there’s nothing else lending credibility to what you do or say.
It’s kind of sad.
Anyway…where’s all the comments?
Nathanael,
Really, many seem to think that these are the only choices… but what about the Greek Orthodox or Ethiopian Church? What did people do before the 1600’s when there was no Calvin, Luther or Arminius? How did anyone get saved before Calvin!?!?!
It was only by Jesus we are saved… all other men are born in and of corruption… so again, I for one will not and do not put all my eggs into a man made system for my salvation…
One of the major breakthroughs for me was when I was able to start reading the bible for what it says outside of my taught systematic theology… and that was only because of Grace that I was able to do so…
iggy
Thomas,
I’ve said this before here.
My testimony (in the Reader’s Digest version of the Reader’s Digest version) goes something like this.
I never, ever in a million years, would have pursued or sought after God if He did not first relentlessly pursue and seek me first.
My parents fervently prayed for my salvation.
And at 21, at a serious cross-road in my life, I surrendered my life to the risen Christ.
So I believe in both. I believe that the Spirit of the living God chose me. But I had to surrender and choose Him.
And now He continues to relentlessy pursue and seek me. And I continue to either choose to respond and seek Him, or seek my own way.
It’s all about grace.
I love God only because He first loved me.
I believe love wins.
That’s my story…and I’m sticking to it…
Amen, iggy, amen.
WHy do you people think we have pastors for? preachers? WHy do you think the BIble says that ALL scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, and correction? Obviously, there is ONE correct interpretation, and if we seek the truth through diligent study and prayer, we can rigthly handle the Word of Truth. The Bible IS understandable. But if we want it to mean something, instead of looking to see what the BIble actually says, well then you get all kinds of wacky beliefs.
You don’t like what I say because you don’t like what the Bible says, NOT because I am a calvinist. That is just your excuse. I wouldn’t be a calvinist unless I believed that is what the BIble taught. And, believe it or not, EVERYONE approaches the BIble with some sort of systematic interpretation, so to say that I have somehow put theology above the words of Christ is ludicrous.
However, when I put forth verses that supports what I believe the Bible says, which just so happens to be Calvinism, you people go bonkers. You can’t even address the verses. Except when you say stuff like “Well Romans 8 and 10 makes it clear that it’s talking about Jews being vessels of wrath now and gentiles are now the vessels of mercy.”
Lol, wow I mean seriously iggy? So I guess God hates all Jews then eh? I guess that’s convenient for you, assuming your not a Jew. I guess that means that all Gentiles are going to heaven then, and all Jews are going to hell. And I guess you conveniently skip the verse right after it talks about vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy Iggy, what do you say about Romans 9:24, “Even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but ALSO of the GENTILES?”
How about Romans 10:12, where Paul says GOd makes no distinction between Jew and Greek? And Romans 9:1-13 makes it clear that “They are not all Israel who are of Israel” and “the children of promise (children of God) are conted as the seed.”
Then verse 11 makes it clear that the children of promise are God’s elect, and that faith is not by works, or even of our own merit, but of God who calls. And again, Romans 9:24 makes it clear that the vessels of wrath and vessels of destruction sees no racial boundaries. It says God calls both the Jews and the Gentiles. It is quite clear.
I don’t have a dog in this hunt…
but I will say this:
TB,
If you’re frustrated by the responses of people in your conversation, fine.
I’ve been frustrated here too at times.
But please don’t say people don’t like the Bible because they disagree with you.
If anything the people here have demonstrated a real commitment to wrestling with the Scriptures.
Obviously to you it is.
I agree with you on one thing:
I would like to think I’m objective, but I”m not. I was not raised in the culture in which the Bible was written. I was raised in the western, capitalistic world. I’m still learning.
I’ve had to unlearn some things that a few years ago I was adamant about.
Some things that were black and white have somehow become gray the more I study the scripture and the more I seek the living God.
Another thing,
different interpretations don’t mean that the “wrong” person doesn’t have confidence in the usefulness of the texts.
I love the mysteries in the scriptures.
I love them.
I love it when I don’t have an immediate answer.
I love being led by the Spirit into and through these mysteries.
Typical ADM response. Once their assertions of their positions don’t magically work on everyone around them the next step is to anathematize all those who disagree with “you don’t like the Bible”.
No we just think you’re wrong and you won’t bother to interact with anyone who doesn’t march in lockstep with you.
I love being wrong.
It’s so freeing.
//So I believe in both. I believe that the Spirit of the living God chose me. But I had to surrender and choose Him.//
Nathaniel, I believe that too! And that IS what Calvinists believe! We love God because he first loved us, and we chose God because He first chose us. And not only that, but God enabled us to choose Him and to have faith.
Yet, we also see that man is responsible for their sins, and that God is NOT the author of sin, man is, and the devil is. We can not reconcile the responsiblity of man to respond to the gospel and the sovereignty of God. But that is one of the reasons that God is God and man is man. We don’t understand why God does not enable some to believe in Him and place their faith in Him, and we do not understand why God does not grant everyone repentance. Nonetheless, that is what the Bible clearly teaches, in Romans, particularly chapter 9. But, Romans 9 does offer an explanation. It says God has vessels of wrath to show His wrath to the vessels of mercy. So you see, if we are Christians, it helps us better understand how great and wonderful GOd is! That he actually SAVED us from our wickedness! He didnt merely make it possible for us to choose Him, no, He went all the way and saved us from and out of our sins, because we were unable to choose Him!
And the truth is, this is ever more than fair. In fact, you could say that it is unfair that none of us go to hell. Because that is what we all deserve because of our sinfulness. None of us deserve eternal life. All of us deserve the full extent of God’s wrath. And that is because Adam and Eve rebelled against God, and became fallen. And that extends to all of us, to the fullest extent. If God backed off from us and left us to our own wicked hearts, there would be no peace on earth, as the Bible says. Literally, all hell would break loose, because we are really little demons. It is only by the grace of God that we are saved, through faith, and not of works, lest any man should boast.
Romans 10 also makes it clear that we come to faith by the hearing of the word of God, so it is God that saves us. Yet, he uses His means of saving people through the hearing of the preaching of the gospel. That is why we should spread the gospel, because that is how God brings about His people, His elect, to salvation, and we are commanded as Christians to spread the gospel fervently to all nations and lands.
Rick Frueh – circa A.D. 2009
And now, by the grace of God, we are little Christs.
Not everyone has a system, but everyone has biases that are funded by their experiences, prior learning, etc.
I believe the Bible is true and conveys salvific truth. I just don’t believe it’s an organized system.
Calvinism, as a system, is predicated on a prior decision to foreground God’s “sovereignty” as the primary category of description and emphasis for God. Everything is read through that emphasis.
That prior decision sets the trajectory for the whole system and how it hermeneutically handles the text.
There’s a ton of “prologue” before you get to a conscious system. If you concede/believe that prologue, the system will look and sound perfectly logical.
nc,
yes, bias is a better word
Iggy, hear the words of Jesus Christ: “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to uffer and to rise from the dead the thrid day, and that repentance for remission of sins should be preached in HIs name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”
Jesus said that, that was part of the Great Comission. How do we get saved? By repenting. How is our sins taken away from us? By repenting.
But how do we repent? Only by the grace of God.
So faith and repentance are indeed necesarry when one gets saved, yet neither of them are works, because it is Christ who grants us both faith and repentance.
Tom,
This is not necessarily directed at you, but it always amazes me how many people say, “this is what Calvinists believe….”
Two things crack me up about that:
1. Put 100 Calvinists in a room and you’ll get about 98 different nuanced versions of “what they believe”
2. Many, many self proclaimed Calvinists have never read Calvin.
Thomas,
Do you really think convert people to your system with your “you people” attitude?Get down off your throne and converse with people like they are brothers in Christ.We have not denied the essentials of the faith.
No, I believe that through reading the Scriptures the Bible teaches that God is Sovereign over all, because well, that’s what the Bible says all over the place. I believe God is solely responsible for our salvation, because the BIble says so, I believe we are all totally depraved, because the BIble says so, and I believe we are totally unable to not only save ourselves but to even accept Christ as our Lord and Savior without God first choosing us, because the BIble CLEARLY says so.
I believe what I believe because of what the BIble says, not because of what John Calvin says. It just so happens that much of what Calvinism believes, is also what I see the Bible to teach.
Before i even knew of Calvinism, I was basically a four-point Calvinist. The only reason I wasn’t a five point Calvinist is because I went to a private high school that was free will/arminian to the core, yet even then I knew what they were saying was often contrary to Scripture. It wasn’t until about eight months ago that I discovered Paul Washer, and everything he said in his sermon to youth I agreed with. Then, I found out that what he held to was reformed theology, so I researched it, and I found that practically everything I believed was what reformed theology taught. Soon, I discovered limited atonement, and because it is so contrary to what I had been taught all my life, I was in disbelief. I didn’t like how it sounded, because I didn’t understand how God could still be loving and yet die for the elect in a way that He didnt die for the non-elect. But, I went to Scripture, and the evidence was overwhelming: The Bible taught the doctrine of limited atonement.
So you see, I didn’t really want to believe in limited atonement, and I was largely unaware of reformed theology/ Calvinism until about eight months ago. Prior to that, I had went to a school my whole life that taught free will/arminianism basically, yet I still retained four point Calvinism basically by my own private study of Scripture, even though I didnt even know what Calvinsim was harldy or what it stood for at the time.
By the way, I am 19, so it’s not like I am some seminarian that has been manipulated into believing Calvinism. If you go to the Scripture seeking the truth of what it teaches, you will see that the general principles of Calvinism are true. Now, of course, Calvinist’s themselves have disagreemetns, and I have no doubt that some things that I hold to are not correct, but what I do believe to be true I adamantly proclaim, and I believe it to be true not because of John Calvin, but because of what the BIble plainly teaches.
Thomas,
If what you wrote is true, its a real shame that God wasn’t sovereign enough to communicate that plainly written truth until 1500 years after the scriptures were done being written.
I am sorry, I do not mean you people to be condescending, if it sounds that way I do apologize. However, I am not certain if you do hold to the fundamentals of the faith.
So perhaps we should start there. What do you consider to be the fundamentals of the faith?
The resurrection.
Also if you want to sound condescending, you might start with insinuating that we aren’t christians and that we have to prove ourselves to a one-off commenter.
Thomas,
Sometimes I can’t see what you are saying as serious…
Does God hate all Jews?
No…
I guess though that you miss that Paul states:
Now did Paul hate the Jews in stating that God put a spirit of stupor on them? Does Paul hate the Jews by stating God has darken their eyes so that the Gentile may come to salvation?
Seriously…
I see you are 19… that explains a lot to me… I am not meaning that as a put down at all. Yet, I am 44 and came to faith at age 16 and have been a student of the bible all these years. I have had major changes in my theology over the years as God has humbled me and shown me grace and mercy in areas I was wrong…
I pray you find Grace… it comes through humility… both are a gift from God… but without humility one cannot receive grace…
It is ever the challenge of the believer to remain humble… even after many years.
iggy
Bo, you act as if people before the time of Luther and Calvin didn’t hold to that. Certainly Roman Catholicism had taken hold, and Luther discovered what the BIble said: That man is justified by faith alone. And that faith is granted by God and His grace and mercy. The truth has always been there in the Bible, but man is responsible for their actions and interpretations, it says that in the Bible as well.
Spoken like a man who lives in the late 20th century or later, since you assume easy access to both the scriptures and literacy.
That sort of interpretation would have been alien to anyone who lived outside of the west and outside of the last 100 years. In other words, the vast majority of Christians who have ever lived.
Bo,
Explain #180
Iggy,
I am glad you see that God doesn’t hate all Jews, but from what you said before it sounded like that. However, the verses you just posted doesn’t really show me much, other than you don’t think God hates all Jews.
//Repentance is a natural outflow in response to the Kindness of God in that he is willing to forgive and save us… if taken as part of a formula for salvation… then it is a work…//
Again, you never addressed that. Above I responded to that, saying I dont believe repentance is a work of man, but it is a part of our salvation, which is granted to us by God. So to say that it isn’t part of salvation is wrong, if that is what you are saying. If you are saying it is a part of salvation, but something that we do naturally after God shows us HIs love and mercy, well then it really would be a work, and that is likewise wrong.
Repentance is a gift of God, granted to us. I am pretty sure that the disciples and apostles understood that, since John the Baptist, Jesus Himself, the disciples and apostles all preached repentance for remission of sins, ans commaded by Jesus Himself at the Great Commision. Obviously they understood that salvation is not by works, yet they taught that man must repent in order to be saved. that is what Jesus Himself taught. Obviously, Jesus can not sin, so He didn’t preach a false gospel. So it is quite evident that repentance and faith is granted to us by God Himself, in fact I can show you verses that even say that if you would like.
Thomas,
I would agree with comment 187, yet it seems I have a much broader understanding of Church history. May I be bold enough to recommend that you audit a course by a Calvinist school
http://www.worldwide-classroom.com/
Any of the history ones are good. Though I had to work past the Calvinist bias, I found overall it was well rounded and informational.
After you listen to the lectures maybe we can talk further.
There is also a good series on Calvin’s institutes there. Though I found that there was a bit of white washing of the person of Calvin… but that was to be expected. Yet I think it will help you better understand you own systematic theology better as it seems that you miss certain nuances of Paul.
Now while not Calvinist I really recommend anything by N.T Wright. Especially his work on Paul’s writings… It will help flesh out Romans a bit more for you.
I hope that you can see that there is a whole world of Christians outside of your understanding of Calvinism… and also be able to extend the Grace to others.
iggy
Bo, I am not ignorant to the fact that prior before Luther, and even for a while after Luther, man did not have access to Bibles. I am aware of how the Catholics dictated to people what to believe and you had to be member of clergy to read the BIble for yourself.
Joe,
I didn’t write #180.
Thomas,
Then why are formulating theology that doesn’t make sense without widespread literacy and easy access to the scriptures?
Thomas…
Again are we saved by a formula or the person of Jesus?
It sounds like you do not even grasp your own theology as far as repentance… from what you are arguing, repentance is part of a formula that saves us… it is not… as I stated, it is a natural outflowing response to what God has done in Christ Jesus… Though some will not respond in faith those that do and “repent” (which is turning from going away from God to turning toward God) they are then on the road to salvation.
Yet I can ‘repent” all day and not be saved… I can confess all my sins I can and still not be saved. So repentance does not save us. Salvation is not the work of repentance but by Grace through faith… the works of repentance that follow the believer are those that one lives as they persevere in the faith and grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ.
To turn repentance, baptism, saying a salvation prayer, going to an alter… all mean nothing unless one comes to the Person of Jesus. Otherwise they are all works and works do not save us.
iggy
Iggy, was it you, or maybe it was someone else, who was just saying that you don’t follow people’s systems of interpretation to understand the BIble, but you simply go to the Bible for the truth? That doesn’t make sense to me that you would then recommend me to go to that website and listen to those people with their biases to learn from the BIble.
But, I will check them out.
Also, I have never said that you had to be a Calvinist to be a Christian. Nope, I don’t believe that, I believe there are many who hold to free will that indeed are Christians, I just believe they actually at heart reject their very own theology and they how it contradicts how they were actually saved.
Nonetheless, free will/arminianism seems to have very detrimental side affects, particularly in regards to the presentation of the true gospel.
The Christian high school that I went to went on a senior trip/missions trip to the Dominican Republic. There we went from village to village playing with the kids for about an hour, then huddling them up and telling them for about four minutes how God loves them, and if you believe that and just repeat this prayer then you will be saved. Sin was barely even discussed, the wrath of God upon them wasn’t even mentioned (for one they probably don’t even believe that God is angry with the unsaved), and they just had the kids, who didnt even speak english, to just say a prayer, asking God to save them.
That’s not the gospel, and these kids were not saved. To make it worse, after the stupid prayer we asked them if they said it and meant it, and of course every kid raised their hands, and then our leaders had the audacity to declare these kids Christians and saved!
That is horrible, and that type of false gospel was evoked from their lack of understanding of Scripture. And that is a sin on the part of the leaders, and on my part for not having the faith and courage to stand up and tell my leaders that what they were doing was wrong and sin. And I feel horrible that I stood by idly and watched as we led hundreds of kids ever closer to the doorsteps of hell.
Spoken with the discernment of a 19 year old. How many years of original language studies do you have? Where can you find the “fundamentals of the faith” listed together in Scripture?
And when Jesus scolded Jerusalem for not repenting and resisting His call He was in effect scolding them for something He did not give them.
As your spiritual journey continues, you will find certain verses interpreted in many different ways. But just to guide you:
World does not mean world
All does not mean all
Everyone does not mean everyone
The Lord that bought them does not mean what it says
The bottom line is do not entertain the notion that the plain and open meaning of Scriptures can be understood as plain and open, it must be molded and massaged to fit into a predetermined systematic theology. Remember that, start a blog, and you are well on your way, grasshopper.
Oh, you’re 19…that explains a lot.
Seriously, I can admire your zeal, but I imagine your theology will change quite a bit in the ten years or so. I know I think a lot differently now then when I was that age.
One thing I would suggest it to a bit more study into the history of the church and see where these different beliefs developed. A major thread in church history has to do with accommodating the way God is described in Scripture with the Greek conception of how a god should be. Calvinism is pretty much the pinnacle of this effort.
It’s also not as if everyone prior to the Reformation was totally lost. Luther sort of took advantage of a growing tide of people realizing there were problems. Actually, Erasmus was a person who planted the seeds of the Reformation. He ended disagreeing mightily with Luther on a number of things, though.
Thomas,
I just got out of treatment for alcoholism. At this point I will not get into any debate with you about essentials.I dont have the energy .I am currently looking for a job.I also see you are 19 and in the cage phase of calvinism.I do not despise you for your youth.You are idealistic in your calvinism right now and there will be no talking to you for a long time .I suggest you humbly take a step back and look at how you speek to others so you can cut this cage phase short.I dont mean to sound condecending because iI have been where you are.
Grace and peace,
Opus
In #180 I forgot to put a “you can ” before convert
//And when Jesus scolded Jerusalem for not repenting and resisting His call He was in effect scolding them for something He did not give them.//
ALright Rick, I heard you were the great refuter of Calvinism, so a 19 year old that has only looked into Calvinism for eight months should be no sweat for you, right?
Apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, people would never want to repent in the first place. Why? Because of our sin natures. So, repentance, faith, it’s all a gift of God, that none of us deserve because of our sinfulness and wickedness. We all deserve to go to hell. I am not deserving of the grace of God and the granting of faith and repentance and the new heart that He has given me.
Do you think that you deserved to have been saved, Rick?
Opus,
In case you did not notice, I did apologize for saying you people. Although I did not mean for that to be condescending, I did say that out of much frustration, and I need to be more patient. However, I do believe it is your Christian responsibility to accept my apology.
You understand very little of true free will theology. Even our free will was a gift from God, and no one can be enlightened to Christ except the Spirit draws him. However, the Spirit draws “all” men according to the unambiguous words of Christ Himself, and, as in the case of Jeresalem, God has granted us the right to say no.
Calvinism in its basic form is nothing more than divine solataire.
Thomas,
Your entire response in #200 is so filled with pre-suppositions and assumptions that its impossible to interact with you in any serious way.
Until you are capable of examining those assumptions you won’t be able to do anything but attack anyone who’s different.
Also, what do you people ( and I say “you people” not to be condescending, but because yall isn’t really a word, and if I simply say “you” a person might take it personally rather than you meaning everyone else that is in disagreement with me) believe the fundamentals of faith are? I think we need to start there if we are going to find some common ground.
Bo,
what presuppostions have I made? I am completely prepared to back up all of my statements with Scripture, and if you look above I have in fact already done so in earlier posts.
But, do you believe that we are deseriving of salvation Bo?
FUNDAMENTALS O THE FAITH
#1 – Avoid the temptation to thoroughly disprove doctrinal terrain that you have already thoroughly disproved.
#2 – Believe the Bible
* Used with permission from the systematic chronicles of the Frueh Institute for Higher Theological Truths
Thomas,
I accept your apology.Thank you.
Grace and peace,
Opus
I’ve already pointed out one to you, the idea that the scriptures are readily available and literacy is widely spread. You’ve already grounded a large part of your theodicy on that assumption alone.
No Seriously, what are the fundamentals of the faith.
I already told you. The resurrection.
Until we discuss the very basic, fundamentals, everything else we say is going to be disagreements, so let’s just go back to the fundamentals.
And I want your complete list of the fundamentals, meaning everything that you think is necesarry, not just one or two of them, unless that is all you think that is necessary.
Bo has no idea what the fundamentals of the faith are, for he is a compromising doctrinal renegade who is out to doom the world with his lies.
Wait a minute, I think I got Bo mixed up with someone else.
Thomas,
Here’s a question for you. When it comes to your list of fundamentals, how many of them use terminology not found in the scriptures?
Things like “total depravity”, or “original sin”.
After you’re done, I have to ask you, do you still believe you’re not dragging all sorts of extra-Biblical assumptions and pre-suppositions?
Is that your list Bo, the resurrection?
Also, I never said that Calvinsim= fundamentals of the faith. Don’t put words in my mouth.
Maybe I should rephrase it: What must a person know/do in order to get saved?
Thomas,
I asked you to do a very simple exercise. It doesn’t have to be online, just do it mentally.
List your fundamentals, then go through them and see how much non-Biblical terminology is used.
“What must a person know/do in order to get saved?”
Call upon the name of the Lord.
“From beginning to end I have been saying that Slice, Apprising, and the other sites DO deal with the heart. That is their chief concern.”
They deal with it differently than I do, I guess.
Bo,
I did it. None.
I don’t how you could even begin to know what the spiritual state of these kids was/is. It seems to take a lot of nerve to assume they’re all false converts.
I have seen people try to drag professions of faith out of people as well, but I do think god can sometime work around this as well. Luckily His grace is bigger than our idiocy.
I also find it odd that you have a problem with people telling people that God loves them. God does love sinners. He’s desperately searching for them. He’s running after them. If there’s not room for that in your theology, than I’m afraid you’re not understanding the Gospel.
I’ve never understood where people get this idea where the Gospel is “God wants to save you has a wonderful plan for your life, but in reality, He wants to kill you”.
And yet somehow you’ve managed to sling bunches of them about in this thread as you’ve attempted to paint everyone who isn’t a calvinist as a damnable heretic.
Which is weird because if those things aren’t fundamentals of the faith then its impossible to be a damnable heretic no matter what we believe concerning them.
Thomas,
Wow, you should become an ODM as you like to twist things I say like pretzels!
To say I do not follow someone else’s interpretation does not mean I do not read and study other views… In fact what I stated was that I do not just accept what is fed to me by other people without further study and looking at how it lines up with the Bible as guided by the Holy Spirit…
So I am not sure where you get that I do not read or study or whatever other people. In fact in that same comment I stated I prefer to read the early church Fathers over 16th century interpretation… Luther had some things write… but he also (for all the talk of Sola Scriptura) did not see James or Hebrews and a few other books as authentic… in fact he called James the
“Epistle of straw” so do I just accept his view? No.
Calvin had many things right, yet when it comes to total depravity, Romans states this:
So how can someone who is already “Totally depraved” be turned over to a depraved mind? If one is totally depraved, then their mind is also… So this verse is really silly in view of Total depravity… Again… if one is already “TOTALLY DEPRAVED” then there is nothing to turn them over to! Yet, Paul, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit writes that God turns these people over to a depraved mind they already have… isn’ t that a bit strange?
As far as Limited Atonement… Calvin realized that if the Atonement (which is actually “propitiation not atonement) is true then that could lead to Universalism… so Calvin invented Limited Atonement… Calvin confused salvation as being at the Cross and not the Resurrection as Paul teaches.
Notice that Paul teaches we are not saved by the death of Jesus (though that is part of salvation) but we are saved by the Live of Christ Jesus. Calvin did not understand this and instead created a view that was contrary to the Bible’s teaching… The bible is clear that the death of Christ which took away the sins of the world as John states in his Gospels and Epistles, was once for all as repeatedly stated in Hebrews and by Paul in Romans 6:10… 1 John states it this way…
So the bible is clear that the sacrifice was sufficient and effective to save all, yet we are not saved by the sacrifice alone but by the Life of Christ as I pointed out.
So though I do not agree, I have taken much time in my life to study out what I do believe and what I see as error taught by other men…
iggy
//you’ve attempted to paint everyone who isn’t a calvinist as a damnable heretic.//
Ah, and where have I done that?
I don’t know what your definition of original sin is, although it sounds like you don’t believe in it, whatever your definition of it may be. That is why I wanted to know what your fundamentals of the faith were.
So, will you please just give me what you believe to be the fundamentals of the faith?
How is it that you managed to do exactly what you said you didn’t do?
Original sin? Where can I find that terminology in teh scriptures?
And why would my belief or disbelief in this variably defined extra-Biblical term trigger your questions about the fundamentals of the faith if you didn’t consider it a fundamental of the faith?
I’m suddenly a bit skeptical of your earlier answer of “none”.
//he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.//
Iggy, do you not see that God was withdrawing His grace from them, and giving them over to what their minds were already like? God has extended grace to all men, even to a degree to the unsaved. The reason that unsaved people aren’t constantly commiting sins and murdering, and the only reason their is peace on earth, is because of the amazing grace of God.
Ephesians also said that God works all things to the counsel of his will, so we could sit here and say “Well how can it be that these people rebelled, yet God works all things to his will?” And truthfully we cant understand that, but that is why God is God and we are man. We may not be able to understand it, yet that is what the Bible teaches. We may not be able to understand the trinity or the fact that Jesus was both 100 percent God and 100 percent man here on earth, yet we accept it because it is what the Bible teaches.
Bo, ever heard of the word doctrine?
That’s in the Bible, and all Scripture is profitable for doctrine.
Just because you don’t see the literal words “original sin” doesn’t mean the Bible teaches it.
I don’t see the words “Bo Diaz” in the Bible either, so be your logic it would seem that Jesus didn’t die for you because the words “Bo Diaz” are not mentioned in the BIble…
Thomas,
As long as we’re clear that as far as you’re concerned the fundamentals of the faith aren’t actually found in the Bible.
//Thomas,
As long as we’re clear that as far as you’re concerned the fundamentals of the faith aren’t actually found in the Bible.//
um, what? I’m saying the opposite of that, I dont know what your talking about.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect!
Sorry…I couldn’t resist.
Thomas,
What you’re arguing is, is that in order to be an orthodox believer you have to believe in extra-Biblical terminology like “original sin” or “total depravity”.
Of course I suppose you’re going to argue that while the terminology is extra-Biblical they’re built entirely on scripture. Which raises the earlier problem I alluded to. In order for the scriptures to communicate the “fundamentals of the faith” they had to be written, sit around for 1500 years and then finally be interpreted correctly by the Reformers.
Thomas…
The bible does not say that God turned them over to what they already had… it states since the left the knowledge of God… God gave them over to a depraved mind. Again… how does one who is totally depraved get given over to what they already are?
And notice also it states “they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God”? So they had knowledge before and then became depraved.
This is what I mean when one needs to read the bible for what it states as opposed to reading into it something that is not there. It is impossible to become more depraved if one is already totally depraved… and more impossible if totally depraved to one have the knowledge of God and not retain it. It is fallacious logic… Paul would have stated that they never had knowledge of God in the first place thus being already totally depraved God left them as they were.
So if you look at the structure and thought logically, the verse does not mean as you state it does and rubs the Calvinist view in the wrong way… one needs to do a lot of calisthenics to make it mean as you state… but it makes perfect sense if you leave out total depravity and realize that Man can see God in creation and choose to believe in Him, yet chose to worship the creation instead which led to corrupted worship and depravity and because of that, God gave them over to their depravity.
For an exercise try to read it as it is and let it soak in…
As far as understanding for the most part I agree, yet there are some things that are clear and understandable if one allows the Bible to read as it is and not as someone imposes their presupposed belief on it. It is hard to do… it takes practice and I still fail at times… yet if one can do it, the Bible begins to take on more meaning and the Holy Spirit can give more understanding..
iggy
Bo, I am not saying you have to use the same terminology, but have the same concept.
So, maybe I can ask it like this: What are your concepts of…saving faith? What happens when a man becomes a Christian?
According to Calvinism – nothing…
Everything that happens has really already happened because it was decreed since the beginning of time. So the fact that anything “happens” is really a type of illusion.
All of this talk about “what happens when a man becomes a Christian” is just hot-air that we have the luxury of discussing as we sit in our cubicles or bedrooms typing away.
When I became a Christian this is what happened: for the first time in my life I felt like I had stepped outside the box I had been in all my life and could see the sunshine and the beauty of life now that the Lord was a part of it.
A couple weeks after, in my zeal I marched up the street to the local Nation of Islam office and asked to see the “boss”. I had my Bible tucked under my arm (literally). He actually took the time to meet me with another gentleman. I fumbled through a presentation of the gospel and then they proceeded to literally dissect me piece-by-piece as I didn’t know the difference between Joshua and Jonah. But I knew one thing: that Jesus Christ died for me and gave me life.
Needless to say it was an embarrassing day (and I’ve had a few more like it
)
You seem very reasonable and zealous. I also like the fact you hold the Bible in high regard – exemplary for a young man.
Thomas,
Before I answer your question about fundamentals, I’ve got a few for you that don’t require laundry lists:
1) The topic Jesus most preached about was “the kingdom of God/Heaven”. What is this kingdom? Where is it? When is it?
2) What is salvation? When do its effects manifest themselves?
3) What is the purpose of the gospel?
Rick – was the misspelling intentional, or divine intervention?
FYI:
A few of the writers have suggested to me that I could have avoided some misunderstanding (in the original article) had I linked to specific articles at the linked sites, rather than to the entire sites, themselves. I think they are correct. I should have taken the extra 10-20 minutes to pull some of the articles I had in mind, keeping the Frueh Axiom of Nickles and Spittoons, rather than leaving it up to the reader to search out such things on their own.
My apologies for the error.
//The bible does not say that God turned them over to what they already had… it states since the left the knowledge of God… God gave them over to a depraved mind. Again… how does one who is totally depraved get given over to what they already are?//
Of course all of mankind knows God Iggy. There is no such thing as an atheist, only a man in denial of God. Knowing God here obviously does not mean that these people are saved, but merely that they know of the existence of God. Which, even that has been given to us by God, for the only way we know of GOd is through revelation. Either the Bible or the creation.
Now, we can not interpret the Bible in a way that contradicts itself. In Ephesians 1:4-5 Paul says that God has predestined us and chosen us beofre the foundation of the world to be saved. And not merely saved, but holy and blameless. And why? All because of Jesus’ will, to bring praise to His glorious grace.
So, are we responsible for responding to the gospel, and what God has revealed to us? yes. But, can we do that if God does not first enable us? No, because of our sinfulness, as it says in Romans 3. Now, do we choose Him, do we place our faith in Him, and do we repent when we are saved? Yes, absolutely, but that is only because Christ has first led us to Him, and persuaded us to do so.
Romans 9:16 spells it out. “So then, it is not of Him who wills or runs, but of God who shows mercy.”
How much plainer do you need it to be? NOT of him who wills, or strives, but of God who shows mercy.
And verse 18 says God hardens whomever He wants to, and He has mercy and whomever He wants to. It doesnt say, He just let us all be and enabled us on our own to choose Him or reject Him. No, it doesnt say that. It says He reveals the truth to some, and enables them to respond, and on others he hardens.
Thomas….
OK… Then if you want we can go into Calvin’s misunderstanding of predestination.
Look at the scripture you are referencing…
If we take it in the way you understand it… God made some people bad… and then now judges them for that…. and how is that truly Just?
But, now look at what it says.
Notice first off we did not exist before creation…
also, that God chose us in Him… being Jesus… and in Jesus we are adopted as his sons. Note that the predestination is about Jesus and not necessarily about “us” … the eternal plan of God was always Jesus… and us in Him… when one comes to Jesus they are then predestined as Sons… not that also this same thought runs through Romans 8:29…
Notice this about those who love God… and who have been called. To be called means there is to be a willful response to the calling. God does know who will respond and I agree with you on that… yet, the predestination is not about us but about Jesus and that when we answer the call, we then are predestined to conform to the likeness of Christ Jesus.
Predestination is not about God created a group that is saved and another that is created to go to hell… man was not created to go to hell but to be the image of God… So when one comes to Christ they are then predestined to become once again the Image God intended.
To make it about God creating some for glory and some for hell means then God in his eternal plan did not see fit that man, made in God’s own image fit for salvation.
So Calvin’s view of predestination twists the teaching of the bible as far as why God created man and makes a subclass of void images that God creates for no purpose other than to burn in hell. Also it means that Jesus did not need to die as those “predestined” in Calvin’s view are already saved as God created them that way.
This is not biblical.. it is Islam… God made it possible for all mankind to return to their created purpose of being the Image of God through Jesus. The eternal plan was the redemption of fallen man in Christ. Predestination is about Jesus being that plan for man to be redeemed and that man might choose by responding by the gift of faith to the loving kindness God expressed by giving His Son to die for us so we no longer need pay our own wages of sin… being our own death.
Now a person must choose Life in Christ Jesus or to remain in their sin and have eternal death.
iggy
Do you all just sit here and fight all day and night? Get up from your computor and go preach the gospel.
Chad… don’t you see I am trying to lead a Calvinist to Jesus?
Sheeesh!
igs
1) The topic Jesus most preached about was “the kingdom of God/Heaven”. What is this kingdom? Where is it? When is it?
2) What is salvation? When do its effects manifest themselves?
3) What is the purpose of the gospel?
1) The kingdom of God and heaven refers to the rule of God which has been manifested in human history in different forms. It was manifested in the OT towards the Israelites. It is not only a future event but it is going on right now and has been going on.
2) Salvation is the the supernatural act by which God saves man from the power and presence of sin, and ultimately God’s own wrath, and creates a new heart and will for man to desire to do God’s will and to hate sin. This restores fellowship with God and man, and when a saved man dies, he will go to heaven instead of hell, because God has justified and forgived him of his sins.
3) the purpose of the gospel is to make man aware of his sinfulness and wickedness, and that he is under the wrath of God because he has offended a perfect righteous, and holy God. Yet, because of God’s abundant mercy and love, He has extended the gift of salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who lived a perfect and sinless life, and died for sinners. If man would come to Christ, confessing and repenting of their sins, God will save them. (Of course, the ability to confess and repent is granted by GOd Himself, not a work of man).
The gospel is basically the command of God to inform the unsaved of their enmity with God and their urgent need of a Savior to wash them clean of their wickedness.
So, do you agree with that Chris?
chad, I do indeed talk to people in person about the gospel, and it is a great concern of mine. I also think that it is necessary to understand and, if possible, persuade those who are in error here to the truth of the gospel as well.
Did anyone see Mike Ratliffe’s post about this thread? Talk about a guy with anger and control issues. I find it interesting that the only people who can comment on his blog are those that agree with him.
Mike Ratliff Posts:
Paul and Luanne say Amen
Josh says Amen
Someone disagrees.
Mike calls that person unregenerate
Mike tells that person to read his “deep stuff”
It’s deep all right. Deep as what’s circulating in my barn right now.
Iggy, what you just posted about predestination is laughable.
//when one comes to Jesus they are then predestined as Sons… //
oh really? You can’t be “predestined” to something that you yourself control! That makes no sense whatsoever. God does predestine us to be in Christ, but then He also does not predestine some to be in Christ, I mean, you can dodge Romans 9 all you want, but that’s what it says. And, you even posted Romans 8:30 yourself. Those He predestined, He also called, justified, and glorified.
Foreknew emphasises God’s special choice for his people(Gen 18:19, Jer. 1:5, AMos 3:2). ALso, notice how it is used in this manner in Romans 11:2 and how it is also contrasted with rejection. The Israelites did not “seek God out.” No, GOd came to them, of His own volition.
And you seem to have conveniently disregarded Romans 9:16: “So it is not of him who wills or runs, but on God, who shows mercy.”
I clearly discern that this “Thomas Booher” character is a pawn of the wicked one out to spread division and heresy within the body of true believers here at CRN.Info!
As it is written: ” those of us who are believers must persevere and test ourselves so that we do not join their ranks.” (Chris 3:3)
Begone Mr. Boo-hoo and take your evil doctrines of demons with you! We who are the true believers will never join your ranks, but one day by the power of God Himself you and your ilk will “come and fall down at [our] feet and acknowledge that [He has] loved us!”
We true believers alone have the mind of Christ and we alone are truly saved, unlike you, and Ken Silva, and Chris Rosebrough, and Ingrid Schlueter, and all Calvinists who ever lived, are alive, or ever will live to the praise and glory of God alone!
But don’t despair! It’s not too late even for you, my poor, deceived, misinformed sinful friend because God loves you so much that He sent His Son into the world to die for the sins of everyone who ever lived, is alive, or ever will live and everyone has a chance to make a decision for Jesus and be saved (except all those folks who were already burning in hell before the incarnation but they obviously deserve not having a chance unlike everyone else who lived after the cross, and heard the gospel, and had a chance to decide for themselves).
God will save you if you’ll just say the sinner’s prayer at least once and really, really believe it in your heart. It’s like a burning in the bosom, you’ll know the feeling, trust me.
And don’t worry if you “backslide” or continue in unbroken patterns of sin and rebellion against God’s Word because that is completely normal for the carnal Christian, but you’re still saved no matter what. A tip here is to write the date and time you said the sinners prayer and made a decision for Christ in your Bible so you can remind the devil that you’re a child of God!
That accusing voice when you sin isn’t the Holy Spirit because He would never convict or make you feel bad in that way, it’s the accuser of the brethren the devil trying to steal your joy and confidence in your decision, rebuke that liar in the name of the Lord and he’ll flee from you!
Just hold on tight, and don’t let go, and if you remain faithful to the end you’ll make it to heaven. But even if you don’t remain faithful to the end, even if you deny Christ and curse God as long as you’ve said that prayer you can never finally fall away and you’re safe in the everlasting arms!
I know all this seems hard to believe, but if you have faith as a mustard seed you’ll do just fine because all that matters is that Jesus came to forgive the whole world of their sins (except for the people already in hell) and that includes you, brother!
In real and unfeigned (yet platonic) love,
E.S.
I know I’m late to this but why is predestination a “fundamental” of the faith?
Joe, can I get a link to that?
Nobody said it was Joe.
although if you would like to address Romans 9:16 that would be great, or any of the other passages I have posted.
Link to what? I was asking if this is a fundamental of the faith
Joe,
I just posted this for Mike “Calvinism is the Gospel” Ratliff:
19 times out of 20, he won’t approve comments which are contrary to his narrow set of beliefs, and those he does post, he nearly wets himself over, fretting about ‘persecution’…
Talk about fragile…
iggy said: Now a person must choose Life in Christ Jesus or to remain in their sin and have eternal death.
Now maybe Mr. Thomas Boo-hoo can finally understand and admire the beauty of the unvarnished truth of decisionism!
Can’t you see the blinding beauty of the truth of this fact, Mr. Boo-hoo? Men must decide for Christ or die in their sins (unless they were already burning in hell prior to Christ’s incarnation)!
Let me give you a simple illustration that even a massively deluded Calvinist like you can comprehend.
Consider Noah’s Ark. The Holy Bible, God’s Word, frequently employs “types” of Christ throughout the OT, and Noah’s Ark is one such type.
1 John teaches us that those who have the Son have life, and those who do not have the Son do not have life. In other words those who are IN CHRIST live with Him eternally and those who are not IN CHRIST die in their sins.
The same application can be made with Noah’s Ark. Noah preached the truth for 120 years and everyone in the whole world was free to make a decision and come into the ark and live.
Clearly Noah’s invitation was genuine and everyone alive on planet Earth at that time could have made the decision to enter the Ark, but sadly no one outside Noah’s family chose wisely, instead they all chose poorly, and they were all destroyed. Clearly this wasn’t God’s will, but we can see that man’s free will is sovereign in the final analysis.
Nevertheless the unassailable truth remains that the entire world of humanity could have decided for Noah and entered the Ark, exactly as the whole world can decide for Christ!
So you see Noah’s ark is exactly like Jesus, only different. Everyone who ever existed, exists, or will exist in the whole world has the potential to be saved by Christ (except for all of the people who were already burning in hell prior to His incarnation), but the decision is man’s to make in his sovereign free will and from the wellspring of goodness hidden within his noble heart, his divine spark, his inner-Christ, he can choose wisely.
But we’re persuaded that God will also decide to save some people who have never heard the gospel, yet they live good lives based upon the truth they had.
I’m sure you can agree with us here at CRN.Info now that you’ve seen the light.
Just believe and receive, brother! Let go and let God!
Repeat this prayer: “Jesus, I’m a sinner and I need to be pardoned. I ask you to come into my heart and forgive me of my sins. In Jesus name, Amen.”
If you’ve said that hurry and get your Bible and write down the date and time you made your decision and congratulate yourself brother, because you’re now a true born-again child of God and all the legions of hell can’t change the fact! It’s just that easy!
In generous and orthodox (yet platonic) love,
E.S.
My holy and pious brother Chris L. said: “19 times out of 20, he won’t approve comments which are contrary to his narrow set of beliefs, and those he does post, he nearly wets himself over, fretting about ‘persecution’…
Talk about fragile…”
I praise the Lord that you’re not fragile Chris L. and I’m so very thankful that CRN.Info allows and even encourages divergent opinions and thoughts to see the light of day for open discussion, debate, and edification for the body!
In uncompromising and fundamentalist (yet platonic) love,
E.S.
This reminds me of Dave M’s Calvinist Bible:
Wonderful gems, all…
Chris, why don’t you post the purpose for Mikes blog that you so so much disdain for.
Chris, it seems to me that if you were really concerned about God and doing His will, then you would address what gospel it is that you preach.
So, since you won’t answer what the fundamentals of the faith are, at least tell me what you think the gospel is.
Most anointed and seraphic brother Chris L.,
I just left a comment over at the evildoer Mike Ratliff’s blog commanding him in the name of all that is holy to appear here at CRN.Info before our Tribunal of Truth in order that he may officially be exposed as a member of the Synagogue of Satan!
One by one we’ll find them out my brother, you and I laboring side by side, and they’ll be completely exposed before all of our eyes (metaphorically speaking)!!
Then we’ll force them to make a decision! Either a decision for Christ or a decision for their current master Satan! They must choose this day whom they will serve!
I know I’ve chosen well because I’m a true Christian, unlike Mike Ratliff, Ken Silva, Ingrid Schlueter, Chris Rosebrough and all Calvinists everywhere who are of the Synagogue of Satan!
Yes! Amen and amen! Halleleujah!
In excitable, furtive and wild-eyed (yet platonic) love,
E.S.
Thomas – I was trying to save him the embarrassment of displaying his arrogance and hubris in wider form…
Unless, of course, God isn’t bound by linear, unidirectional time, in which case, God may grant one permission to choose, but also ‘predestine’ the answer, no matter which one is chosen. While this may appear to be a paradox, early Christianity (and Judaism just before it) accepted that both free will and predestination could coexist as a mystery of God. Even today, we can affirm this and understand a little bit more via string theory that these concepts need not be contradictory.
Amen and amen to your holy and righteous quote #252 Chris L!
I perceive that you are indeed a mighty man of God and a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth!
Let us now examine the TRUE manner in which those glorious passages of scripture ought to be understood by every God-fearing, true, born-again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ!
For God so loved everyone who ever lived, is living, or will ever live (except for those who were already burning in hell before the Incarnation), that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever makes a decision in favor of him over burning in hell forever will be saved, period. (John 3:16)
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely have suffer from low self-esteem. And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet to submit to him so that I can watch and see what they might choose to do, because I’m not sure since free will could go either way, but if they mess up I’ll come up with a really good back-up plan, maybe I’ll even take on human form or something similar, anyway I can figure all that out later if they choose badly, after all I have eternity! (Gen 2:16-18)
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of everyone who ever lived, is alive, or will ever live (except for the people who were already burning in hell prior to the Incarnation)! (John 1:29)
Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. (translators note: They had the choice to resist or not resist but they chose badly in this instance, however they could have chosen well, they were just lacking in enough information to choose well or else they were predisposed to bad decision making due to hereditary or environmental factors) (Acts 7:51)
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is a no respecter of persons: that he allows everyone an equal chance to decide for Christ (except for all the people who were already burning in hell prior to the Incarnation), and it’s His true desire that all humanity everywhere and at all times should inviteth Jesus into his heart, and do what he seems best afterward according to his or her own private interpretation of scripture since once they have decided for Christ they are definitely accepted with him forever and ever. (Acts 10:34-35)
This is the gospel, turn or burn.
Speaking truth with superheated turbocharged (yet platonic) love,
E.S.
Thomas!
Holy Cow! You are even denying your own doctrine as well as mine!
The bible states what I said plainly.. and I find it interesting that THIS is the point your argue over!!!
If one is in Christ… they are predestined to be conformed to His Image…
Laughable…
Here is the very scripture that states it as so! In fact you first quoted it!
Really we are getting no where… but if you don’t agree that we are adopted as sons as I stated… then I will not even try to attempt to go into the other things you could have disagreed with that made much more sense!
So yes it is all laughable..
iggy
Ah – I didn’t see that you answered my three questions.
I’m rather surprised you got the first one correct (at least as I and many other ‘non-Reformed’ folks have come to read it). You won’t win any friends in the ADM world with that answer, though.
The second one I would mostly agree with, though I would balance emphasis on the temporal as the eternal, and I would take a more Christus Victor view of the atonement.
Your third one, though, is a rather twisted, complicated, modernist view of the gospel. The focus of the gospel is love, not appeasement of wrath. Your answer, though, is more in the vein of the error of the Sixth Type of Pharisee.
Now to your questions:
What is the gospel? I would just go with Paul’s definition of the gospel:
I would say that this is my basic “fundamental” of the faith, in terms of orthodoxy.
In terms of orthopraxy, I would go with Jesus’ answer:
In terms of process, I would go with Paul’s answer:
As Jesus said, “my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” One need not have a roadmap through a systematic theology or an MDiv to understand the basics of faith.
Chris L. said to Mike Ratliff: But, since you won’t even have the stomach to post this (since it doesn’t agree with your Kool-Aid drinkers), I’ll just leave it at that…
Amen brother! Like you I utterly despise the bottom-feeding lowlife hypocrites who don’t have the stomach to allow comments to appear simply because they don’t agree with the line that’s being toed at that particular blog!
Away with such gutless, spineless, weak-kneed, effeminate, yellow-bellied, cowards!
Such men-in-skirts spiritual sissies deserve nothing but contempt, because they speak from both sides of their mouth!
Such rank hypocrites will rail against a practice, like comment moderation, but then they’ll turn around and do the exact same thing they criticize themselves!
But they know who they are and what they are…they are small-minded and timid and they just can’t take what they so eagerly dish out.
In prison they’re known as “punks”, and on the outside they’re pansies, and in everyplace they’re loathsome and pathetic.
Speaking the truth in love,
E.S.
Comment #258 is spot-on accurate!
In fact I personally know a number of good, practicing Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons who would and do heartily affirm each and every one of those points!
Praise God for his wide mercies!
Heaven looks fuller every minute and I’m more and more persuaded that the devil and his angels will be all alone in the lake of fire apart from the souls of those men and women who died and went to hell prior to Christ’s Incarnation!
The way is indeed broad and wide is the gate, beloved! Praise the Lord!
With a generous, broad and wide (yet platonic) love,
E.S.
Chris, do you believe that any man goes to hell? If so, why?
Thomas Boo-hoo asks yet another ridiculous question with an obvious answer!
Chris, do you believe that any man goes to hell? If so, why?
Of course there are people who “go to hell” and are even in hell at this very moment! All the people who died and went to hell prior to Christ’s Incarnation (because they couldn’t make a decision for Him) are in hell, but this is only because they didn’t have the chance to make a choice for Him and His death on the cross couldn’t pay for their sins because they were already roasting!
What an absurd inquiry! What are they teaching at the Calvinist churches these days? Tiddlywinks?
Slamming the brakes on narrow grace and putting the pedal to the metal for wide open mercy,
E.S.
Good grief. I’m not going into the full hell discussion again.
Yes, I do.
Because their name is not written in the Lamb’s book of life.
When was the Lamb’s book of life written?
(Hint: The answer to my prior question is found in Revelation 13:8)
Rev 13:8 NAS]:
“And all who dwell on the earth will worship him, [the Antichrist, v. 4] every one whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the Book of Life of the Lamb Who has been slain.”
ES – Please see comment #25…
Well Chris, why do you think there name was not written in the book of life? Furthermore, if God isn’t angry with them, and if He is so loving, then why would such a loving God throw anyone into the lake of fire?
Actually, ES – the syntax of the Greek in Rev 13:8 more likely supports “written from the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain”.
I think your clock might be broken, brother, because some of my comments from yesterday are much older than 12 hours, and a number of my comments tonight have been completely satire-free, and I’ve provided an e-mail adress and weblink…and if the final request you’re making is for me to select a different moniker then I can easily pick one like “iggy”, or “nc” or “chad” if you’d like, but E.S. seems just as good.
Just let me know what I’m missing, bro.
E.S.
Re: 266 how does your revision change the fact that names contained within the book were “written” (past tense) from the foundation of the world?
If the names were written in the book from the foundation of the world and we know from scripture that Jesus is the Lamb of God who was slain from the foundation of the world we have a balanced equation.
The sacrifice is eternal, the gift is eternal, salvation is of the Lord (Eph.), Amen?
Just wondering why it’s my business to figure out who’s going to hell and who’s not? I don’t recall being given the job of separating the wheat from the tares.
The most simplistic answer is that they have not chosen to accept the grace freely offered by Jesus, and have instead chosen to follow their own way. And so, they’re not “going to hell” – they’re already there, and with no change, they’re on track to continue that way on past death.
And you should seriously free up those comments bro, because SOME of your readers are SERIOUSLY gonna get it, even as it makes others angry.
Peace.
Or an equally simplistic answer is that their names weren’t written there because the Author and Creator of life who wrote the names in the book “before the foundation of the world” simply didn’t write them in there.
That’s the whole potter and clay thing…you know, God decides because He’s actually God. Seems simple enough to me, and Biblical to boot!
ES – there’s nothing more than 90 minutes old in queue (and they all fit the description what I told you yesterday would be held), and the ones from yesterday are posted.
Since the observations in Revelation 13 are being written at the time of the end, “written” is, of course, the correct tense. One possible interpretation is that they were written as time unfolded. Another valid interpretation (using your syntax) would be that they were written in the past as future events unfolded.
I’m not interested in “possible interpretations”, I’m interested in the truth, and the truth is what the Bible teaches.
The inspired Apostle certainly codified the revelation he received by “writing it down”, but his epistle isn’t the same thing as The Lamb’s Book of Life, the book is a specific thing he’s writing about.
And the thing he’s writing about that’s in view here – the Lamb’s Book of Life -is claimed to have been written (past tense) before the foundations of the world exactly as Christ is the Lamb of God who was slain before the foundations of the world. Eternal truths are in view in both of these cases and there’s simply no legitimate, Biblical way of slipping around this objective revealed truth, brother.
Grace and peace,
E.S.
Ok, so why do these people not accept the grace freely offered by Jesus? Why is it that they go their own way?
Well, since you note that this is “before the foundation of the world” – what existed before the beginning?
Again, we get to the question of God and time. All of your systematic theology hinges on God being trapped within time, but falls apart like a paper-mache boat if God exists apart from time (i.e. “before the beginning”, as you say). You see – if God exists apart from time, then He has the capability of seeing all possible futures, and exertions of His will in matters only blot out some potential futures while leaving a nearly infinite combination still within His will. He is also not bound by past, present and future. An event can occur (for us) in the future, and He can write about it (for us) in the past, and to Him they are all happening concurrently.
Rather than try to shove God into a man-made box (be it “Calvinism”, “Open Theism”, “Arminianism”, etc.), I’ll just prefer to let God be God and man to be man. Otherwise, the systems will lead to errors in orthopraxy. After all, if Calvinists truly believe what they claim to believe, they’d have no reason to evangelize.
As Rick so correctly and succinctly notes: Calvinism in its basic form is nothing more than divine solataire.
You can choose Calvin, but I’ll choose Christ every time.
Because they were offered grace and they rejected it. God offered, and in their hearts they said “no thanks”.
Thomas Booher,
Did you have any say in being born in the natural? No? Nor I.
According to the Bible does God give anyone the choice of being born, or alternatively not being born? There’s clearly no scriptural support for the existence of such volition, amen?
So why then would men imagine that they should have any choice as to whether or not they are to be born-again, if they hadn’t any choice in being born in the first place?
Why do they complain of one but not the other?
In truth men have precisely as much power to will their second birth as they do their first birth.
Grace and peace,
E.S.
I’m sorry your faith is so small that you insist on certainty in interpretation where none may exist.
Again – the Greek in Rev 13:8 more likely supports “written from the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain”. This syntax would actually suggest that since the beginning of the world, the book of life has been written as time unfolded.
But (again), even if your translation choices are correct (”before the beginning”), then time is no longer a component that is fixed, and the future and the past co-exist concurrently.
I’m not “slipping around” anything. You’re just locked into a hermeneutical eisegesis, since your system must be true and Scripture must, therefore, fit it.
But why did they say “no thanks” Chris?
I’m sorry – and who’s building their theology out of man-made logic?
Because God allowed them to choose, in the same way He allowed Esther to choose:
Esther had permission to choose to follow God or not. Regardless of her choice, His will would be done.
The Jews in Egypt had a choice of whether to put the blood on their doorposts or not. If they did not, their firstborn would die. The Egyptians could have put the blood on their doorposts, as well, signifying that they were fearers of God, as well, and their firstborn would have lived. God’s response was declared in advance, but the choice was theirs to make…
Heading to bed here.
ES – if you continue actually discussing, I’ll remove you from the mod-list tomorrow morning…
Chris L.,
I’m not talking about Calvin, or systematic theologies, or putting God in a box – you’ve suddenly just brought all that baggage in to muddy the waters which is a poor man’s method of argumentation, brother.
Please don’t change the subject.
You asked what existed before the beginning and we only need to look at the opening of Genesis for your answer, “In the beginning, God”.
You say you want to let God be God and let man be man, and I say AMEN! to that!
The scriptures say that Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who was slain before the foundations of the world, that’s eternal, that’s outside of time.
The scriptures say that the Lamb’s Book of Life was written before the foundations of the world, that’s also eternal, that’s also outside of time.
Yet even though they are eternal and outside of time the Spirit of God makes it clear that this eternal covenental reality is COMPLETE and is always and everywhere in scripture recorded as PAST TENSE, a finished work.
This is why the Bible can speak of predestination, because God not only knows all realities and contingencies and possibilities, but He as actually ordained them according to His inscrutable and perfect will.
Because God reveals Himself as God Almighty, the omnipotent Potter and He reveals man as the creature, the rebellious clay.
We submit to His revealed truth and His authority and declare the Lord is in the heavens, He does whatsoever He pleases and trust that He works all things to the good of those who love Him, who are the called according to His purposes.
Grace and peace,
E.S.
Do you not realize Chris, that God wrote the Bible so that man could understand? He said things in human terminology?
btw, the greek word for written, “gegraptai”
is the third person singular, perfect indicative passive, which means something that is completed in the past, but has a continuing result. Meaning, the writing of the names in the Lamb’s book of life was completed at that time, and there has been no change, according to my Dad who is a graduate from Westminster theological seminary who has a master of divinity.
Then what does ROmans 9:16 mean Chris? If it is not of us who wills, but of God who shows mercy, how is it that man has a free will?
I’m sorry your faith is so small that you insist on certainty in interpretation where none may exist.
You don’t need to apologize for my weak faith, Chris L., His grace is sufficient for me and in my weakness He is made strong. I’ll make my boast in the Lord and trust in Him, leaning not to my own understanding.
Again – the Greek in Rev 13:8 more likely supports “written from the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain”. This syntax would actually suggest that since the beginning of the world, the book of life has been written as time unfolded.
But (again), even if your translation choices are correct (”before the beginning”), then time is no longer a component that is fixed, and the future and the past co-exist concurrently.
That’s a fancy imagination you have there, but there’s nothing in scripture to support such a fantasy as you’re proposing. If you want to ignore the obvious use of past, present and future in the scriptures then you’re guilty just as Hymeneus and Philetus whom Paul condemned in 2 Tim for claiming the resurrection had already occurred, overturning the faith of some.
Words actually mean things and God uses His Word to convey actual truth.
I’m not “slipping around” anything. You’re just locked into a hermeneutical eisegesis, since your system must be true and Scripture must, therefore, fit it.
You’ve not demonstrated any eisegesis on my part that’s just a baseless allegation (and more dodging), yet you yourself are guilty of foisting an alternative interpretation on a plain, literal understanding of scripture that has stood and been embraced by Christians for nearly 2,000 years.
But you’re right about one thing, you’re not slipping around anything, because you can’t and the text won’t allow it.
Grace and peace,
E.S.
Emergin Spurgeon,
AMEN! You are right, that is an excellent point. If we did not have any say in our first birth, then why should we think we have any say in being born again?
In fact, if you follow this free will logic, they should be complaining that they didn’t get any say in their first birth. In fact, I guess nobody should go to hell, because we didn’t get to choose whether or not we had a sin nature! I mean, it wasn’t our fault that Adam and Eve sinned, so why should we have to respond to God for salvation for something we didn’t even do?
Chris maybe you should be a universalist…
I’m sorry – and who’s building their theology out of man-made logic?
Man didn’t make logic Chris L., God made logic.
The laws of logic are transcendental and universal and this is true for a reason, because God is a God of reason and He created man to be a creature of reason.
Reason isn’t evil in and of itself, but unregenerate, sinful man’s unsanctified reasoning powers are without exception prone to deify man’s own reason, lifting himself up and making the Infinite Creator and Judge of the universe stand trial in man’s own sinfully corrupted high court of reason.
Of course this is an evil role reversal and this is one of the by-products of the fall. Until the Holy Spirit enlightens him and a sinful man’s soul comes to Christ his reason is darkened and wicked and self-exalting.
When Christ comes sinful man is dethroned and his corrupted reason is sanctified by the Holy Spirit. We know this because we are taught from the scriptures that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and again all the treasures of knowledge are hidden in Christ.
It’s only in His light that men see light, and until then lost sinners are consigned to futility in their minds, but once they are born-again they have the mind of Christ and are able to think God’s thoughts after Him, as His thoughts are revealed in the Holy Bible.
People always and everywhere choose according to their strongest desire, and dead in his trespasses sinful fallen man’s strongest desire is to sin and continue in sin until he is miraculously translated from death unto life by the Holy Spirit after which he desires Christ. This is the new birth.
This is what Jesus and the Apostles and even the OT taught; salvation is of the Lord.
Grace and peace,
E.S.
I read your sixth type of Pharisee as you described me Chris.
So, I guess according to you I am on my way to hell, or as you said, already in hell?
We had no part in our natural birth, however we have a part in our new birth. Even Calvinists believe God gives the elect the faith to believe on Christ . My question is why? Why doesn’t God just regenerate an elect sinner without going through a process that leads to that sinner choosing Christ by faith?
There are indeed many verses that seem to substantiate the Calvinist’s position, however they refuse to admit that there are many more which temper that position with verses and teachings that openly reveal a God given free will and the fallacy of limited atonement.
I am willing to dialogue with anyone, however I find it unbearable and unScriptural to read a 19 year old scold his elders and even suggest they do not believe the Word of God. I have no age limit before I will enter into discourse, I do however have a respect-o-meter which must not be exceeded. That meter has been overworked many times in this thread.
There are many posts that Mike writes that I find excellent, however statements like “The doctrines of grace stand alone above all other forms of Christianity in being completely Biblical” are very unfortunate. And when the first commenter laments that people reject TULIP as a sign of spiritual blindness, well it reveals how some believers view their systematic theology. It is an unhealthy construct that sometimes becomes idolatrous. And this same commenter’sstatement adds to the confusion:
“you think they’d get that and then BEG God to open their eyes and ears so they could see what we are talking about.”
So the spirutually blind are supposed to see that they are blind and ask God to open their eyes? I thought God would do what He wanted, not what you asked Him to do. I guess sovereignty can go just so far.
I openly reject TULIP and therefore I must be spiritually blind. Some don’t play nice with others.
“Arminianism – I mean full blown, wacked out, no holds barred, and just short of universalism Arminianism – is the gospel.”
Rick Frueh circa A.D. 2009
It’s a wonder that anyone can even read the scriptures without your deep understanding of Greek and grammatical syntax. How ridiculous.
As usual, this thread has veered off the course of your post (not your fault) into all sorts of discussion, but your claims that certain people who are pointing out the fallacy of the modern-day, American church are the synagogue of Satan demonstrates the tunnel vision you have developed here. It seems you are now interpreting your Bible in light of your interactions in the blogosphere. I guess this is to be expected.
I just went to SoL: what particular posts, on the home page as of right now, would you relegate to posts from the Evil One? How about on CRN?
They correctly point out the error of some churches promoting Sex Campaigns or Youth Groups assaulting one another with paintball guns. There are some good devotionals. There are some key areas of compromise pointed out as well.
On this post you have missed the mark – it wouldn’t hurt you to retract your statement rather than digging in.
Paul C,
Actually if you look over the many verses concerning the Book of Life, sometimes names are blotted out and some times written in.. so it seems that Chris L has a strong argument….
The scroll existed (figuratively or in reality) and has not been a static book as far as Scripture. The “Righteous” are written in… as Psalms states… yet “no one is righteous” except JEsus as Paul points out and John states that only the Lamb of God was worthy…
Yet, I see that those who are ‘in CHrist” are in “The Book of Life” meaning that it is all about Jesus and those who have found Life in Him.
Really it is not about a book but about who Lives in Jesus and who does not.
The eternal plan was that all would be in Christ Jesus to receive His righteousness and that we would be the righteousness of God in Christ.
iggy
Iggy – you miss my point. The point is that Chris attempts to make something more complex than it is.
More important I think are the questions I ask regarding the posts at SoL and CRN, but since you are not in the habit of remembering wrongs, you’d probably be the wrong person to answer.
Chris L,
I was wondering if you could just keep doing the whole book of Revelation as a study. I am interested in your view on it.
iggy
Paul C,
Actually I think your question is a bit unfair as Chris L address this already and people do state when there is a good post at those sites.
I for one have even stated that Ken Silva has written good articles though they were done many years ago… Ingrid was highlighted at this site when she wrote on adoption… so again, I think you miss the point.
As far as more complicated… Calvin has made many things much more complicated than they really are… and I think that the improper view of predestination has made simple things like the Book of Life more complicated.
So as far as my list it seems that there are some good things there and it is not all bad.
Also, did you note what I wrote in comment 32 here?
Can you find in your heart to extend me the grace you want me to show Ingrid… which I really do! I mean… man… I forgive her and Ken all the time for the rotten things they have stated to and about me…
So forgive me for not being perfect and getting frustrated at times when Ken or Ingrid use Jesus and the bible to attack and abuse others and point that out… I mean… if a child was running in front of a moving car would it be unloving to not try to stop them? If a man came to your door with a gun and I saw it would you not want me to call you to tell you to get out and also call the police? If I warn people of the harm and abuse at these sites how am I unloving? If I point out to them where they overstep the bounds of Christian love toward others who is that unloving?
It is not that complicated at all Paul… really it is not and you are making it much more complicated by stating things that are not true about this site as will as me about it just keep a list of wrongs…
If you want more to add to your list about me just ask I am positive I have much more for you.
peace!
iggy
A better question might be what isn’t a part of the ministry of Satan on SOL and CRN. Virtually every article is an attack on believers. Not to mention a posting of a sermon by Paul Washer, who is the ultimate in works-based preaching.
You’ve got Mike Ratliff posting an article that expository preaching is an essential of the faith (not to mention the outright lies that this article even addressed it at all, that guy couldn’t tell the truth if his life depended on it). This is the same guy that consistently equates the gospel with Calvinism, then when called on it backs off until the next time he posts.
The Apprising Ministries (which astonishingly is a title that has as many lies as words in it) mailbag in which Kenne Silva anathematizes emerging, and evangelical believers and re-cycles lies about Rob Bell and others undermining scripture (no actual evidence is presented mind you, just the assertion).
The “10 marks of a false convert” which have not a single reference to scripture in them (and ironically enough appear on the same page as asccusations of not believing the scriptures, “researcher” slander thyself).
The U2 article is on there, in which the writer somehow links U2 to Rick Warren’s use of the Arabic rendering of the name “Jesus”, no comment on how he got there, it just did. Not to mention some extremely liberal interpreting of a single line of lyrics (I guess they didn’t use “damn” enough for Kenne Silva’s tastes).
I could go on, but really, when their entire ministries are bearing the fruit of Satan its just a matter of reading down the page.