In a rather ironic twist, one of the writers at the Christian ? Network has posted a quote and called attention to our mission statement here at .info. I, for one, am pleased that the writers of C?N are finally recognizing what we have been saying all along.
So here’s the quote by J Gresham Machen posted by Stephen Macasil:
[W]hat is the trouble with the visible Church? What is the reason for its obvious weakness? There are perhaps many causes of weakness. But one cause is perfectly plain–the Church of today has been unfaithful to her Lord by admitting great companies of non-Christian persons, not only into her membership, but into her teaching agencies. It is indeed inevitable that some persons who are not truly Christian shall find their way into the visible Church; fallible men cannot discern the heart, and many a profession of faith which seems to be genuine may really be false. But it is not this kind of error to which we now refer. What is now meant is not the admission of individuals whose confessions of faith may not be sincere, but the admission of great companies of persons who have never made any really adequate confession of faith at all and whose entire attitude toward the gospel is the very reverse of the Christian attitude. Such persons, moreover, have been admitted not merely to the membership, but to the ministry of the Church, and to an increasing extent have been allowed to dominate its councils and determine its teaching. The greatest menace to the Christian Church today comes not from the enemies outside, but from the enemies within; it comes from the presence within the Church of a type of faith and practice that is anti-Christian to the core.
I am sure and certain that I speak for all of us here at CRN.info when I say, “Amen.”
By the way, all emphases in the above quote belong to Macasil. Thanks Stephen for posting this and for plugging us. I am glad you guys are coming around to see our point of view!
78 Comments(+Add)
Any honest assessment of the “visible church” will see that it is a mess on many levels. Hatred, impurity, hedonism, greed, shallowness, and a host of other issues plague the church. The Scriptures predicted such a time.
However, my biggest argument with the ODMs is that they are blind top their own sin. Even men like Mike Ratliff consistently tout his deep sadness over his own sin which is nothing more than public pride. How insidious is it to use your own sin to underscore your personal spirituality and Biblical obedience??
And while they point out legitimate gospel departures in others, their own churches have become beacons of judgment and condemnation to almost everyone outside the “club”. And while they see some emergents bowing their knees to idols, they themselves bow to America.
In essence they contend that God would never use a Beatle’s song as a message, however He desires to use the antichrist system of America to forward His purposes. Can you hear the hiss??
The difference is that you see the enemies within as those who contend for the faith.
The point of that quote, I think you know, is that the visible church is a mess because many visible churches today practice no discernment as to membership, church discipline, or even the calling of pastors. No, the church has become a business where the CEO Pastor tries to please the CFO and the rest of the board by preaching ear tickling messages lasting no more than 20 minutes after a rockin band brings emotions to a head using a cool multi media overhead projection set. If that is not enough, bring in clowns, motorcycles, animals, fireworks…you get the picture.
Even worse is the allowance of every religion into the church and not even preaching the gospel. Instead, give a message of inclusion to all the children of Abraham. Teach that belief is not what matters, instead just please the God of your understanding and practice your faith any way that you desire, because all roads lead to God. And after all, the Bible is irrelevant to today, so bring in your pet lifestyle sin also.
The enemies within, to use your phrase (I would not call them enemies, just lost people) are being welcomed in by those who lack discernment. I say let them come in, but do not try to keep them by compromising the message.
Rick,
Funny when Mark Driscoll repents in public, CRN states it is not legit… it was all show, but as you stated, Mike Ratliff does a public repentance and we are to go….
“Wow, that Mike is so humble!” …. blah…
Personally if someone does a bit of research there might be some interesting things concerning Macasil as he was Robert Morey’s right hand man during the email scam Morey did to raise funds. I wonder how low the guy had to go to get accepted by Ken Silva’s site. Talk about a fall from glory… or that he just isn’t accepted any where else? (BTW there is a lot of fuss over CRI’s fund raising “scam” yet Ken forgives Macasil…. strange huh?)
On another note, Team Pyro just don’t get NT Wright and grossly misrepresent him. http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/09/active-obedience-revisited.html
I tried to submit this on the submission page but it has issues.
If you sin against a brother, or if you sin publicly, you should repent publicly. But to make your own remorse over sin an example of true and deep discipleship is self righteousness. It is a nuanced attempt to judge other believers using your own spirituality as the template.
I also find the emphasis on the Greek, including pasting whole paragraphs, as another clandestine overture that what one says carries more weight and is completely in concert with God’s original language. The English is a challenge to believe and obey in and of itself.
But that kind of linguistic dissecting also reveals an emphasis on shades of meaning and doctrinal issues that many times are true on a page and not in our lives. And one can forcefully defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and even declaring other perspectives as heresy, yet when we show only judgment and condemnation to sinners we consider ourselves “orthodox”.
The word “orthodox” in these days has been redefined, repackaged, and prostituted to mean someone who says he espouses a certain small set of doctrines, usually ones with no appreciable visual applications (Trinity, election, limited atonement, etc), but he can marginalize all the other orthodox doctrines (love, mercy, grace, forbearance, patience, humility, etc) that call for open and visual evidence that would substantiate the veracity of his “orthodoxy”.
In short, much of the orthodox camp project a long shadow of words and a short shadow of works.
As per the mission statement:
Here is another example of the malignant spirit that spreads a bottom feeder mentality. While “reporting” about a gay man suing a publisher for anti-gay verses, Ingrid ignors his obvious confliction and, as per usual, offers no redemption, no compassion, no mercy, no cross, and certainly no love.
Ingrid’s self righteous heart produces this gem:
This cleaver and snarky remark reveals not just an ambivalence, but an appetite to see sinners suffer tethered with a reckless satire. What kind of Christianity loves a country more than sinners?
Paul said he wished himself accursed in place of his countrymen. People today covet prayers for their pregnancy complications but have nothing but disdain for the plight of today’s sinners. That crosstalk blog is a study in everything that is unchristian.
“I would not call them enemies, just lost people”
Since you actively pray for the destruction of God’s enemies, per your comments in another post, and listed Obama as such an enemy, I’m curious about how you define the difference?
deborah
If the destruction of God’s enemies was God’s desire, He could have easily accomplished that task all by Himself.
But instead He chose the cross. That seems at odds with a divine desire to see His enemies destroyed – that is IF you believe the New Testament.
Oh brother…How do you know that? Wait I know you read it on the internet.
Since when is there a time limit for effective preaching?
And this is wrong how? According the psalms worship should be emotional.
I have a friend who’s child is never allowed to do anything because she is fearful of this or that; injury, kidnapping, sexual abuse, etc… why? Cause she saw A story about it on the “news”.
I know this is lost on you PB but using the statement “many visible churches” and then using isolated examples negates your point.
The problem is that when men like PB identify legitimate issues with the “visible church”, they exclude themselves because they do not bring in “clowns, motorcycles, animals, fireworks”. And since they stand apart from these gimmicks, they cannot see the issues with their own hearts and churches.
It’s the continuing story of the “I’m not like them” principle. If given the choice, I am sure God would allow motorcycles in heaven before he invited self righteous hearts.
Ingrid is a (sorry Michael but that comment is not going to get in. Please in the future try to be constructive)
To the comment moderator:
Sorry about the last comment. (no problem. As you’ve noticed I’ve also edited the remainder of this one. Please refrain from personal invectives.)
Whatever Ingrid did in her past is between her and Christ. My own past makes hers look like a nun’s convention.
ugh…
I am uncertain as to why there is much silence here when there is so much occurring that pertains to the overall mission of this blog. I will provide you with some more
Yesterday on the crosstalk radio program there was a memorial to a man who was murdered while protesting abortions outside of a high school. As is the custom of such protests he has graphic photographs of dismembered fetuses. Of course that was tragic, but on yesterday’s radio program they had as a guest a man named Pastor Matt Trewhella. He is also associated with something they call a “mission to the unborn”.
Here are some aspects of Pastor Trewhella’s ministry:
Here he claims the California wildfires were started by God in response to the pro-gay legislature.
The pastor encourages all believers not to obtain a legal marriage license.
The pastor refuses to back McCain because he is spreading the evil of egalitarianism by choosing Sarah Palin.
The pastor openly encourages all Christians to arm themselves to combat evil.
The pastor encourage believers to see the evil of the property tax, and if God leads, take the necessary steps to refuse to pay them.
The pastor is consumed with political issues and routinely protests them.
These, my friends, are but a few of the incredible litany of things which define this man. And if take the time to read his tirades and actions, you will see an Old Testament ministry devoid of Christ Himself.
This is the man that crosstalk radio had on as an invited guest and man of God. Where is the outrage from Ken Silva? From Guzman? From everyone who associates with Ingrid and her ministry?
I hope someone here will provide some outrage that is appropriate to such unchristian cacophony. I publicly submit that Rob Bell’s Jesus is closer to authentic than is the Jesus represented by these people who are consumed with castigating Bell and ever sinner on the planet.
Now you know why they were so hateful towards the article by Clawson on the Molttman conversation. They are in love with the cross of Constantine, not the cross at Golgotha.
The more I read of Clawson’s re-cap of Moltmann the more I believe that Clawson and Moltmann are more gospel oriented than any of the ADMs.
Consider this quote from the second reflection:
#14: Rick, with all respect, how is this constant baying for blood any different from those you are against?
I saw this yesterday: The Pharisee & Me
I think the best approach is a biblical one.
Right now I’m reading Hudson Taylor’s biography. The ODMs in his day were much worse that what you see today. Yet he chose to never respond but allowed God to defend him. Was it painful for him? Yes. But he refused to be dragged into what his adversaries were praying for: open confrontation. It demonstrated an amazing spirit to his fellow missionaries, though it was painful.
When Christ’s adversaries were constructing allegations to condemn him, he wasn’t launching into some defense campaign. Rather he decided to carry on, business as usual, eating dinner at the house of Simon the leper (Matt 26).
I agree with you that American Christianity is an utter joke and is worse than the Emergent Church – well, almost. But I disagree that anyone needs to ODM the ODMs.
Personally, I have grown weary of even looking at the ODM type sites. I don’t do it that often, and there’s very little there that’s even worth writing about because it’s literally the same lies that they’ve been spreading for the last several years. I mean, I guess at this point if there are people stupid enough to still believe those things after they have been repeatedly refuted, it seems they are beyond the grasp of logic and common sense and it worthless trying to explain things to them.
It’s one thing to dialog with someone who’s willing to learn. It’s quite another to bang your head off a wall of willful ignorance.
17 – I guess you do not believe in correction. Your church’s site has many sermons that deal with correction.
18 – That abrogates the premise for this site entirely.
So with an entire archive of posts that deal with CRN, SoL, AM, and others (including this very one) the mission statement is now to ignore them altogether. I missed that memo.
BTW – I have received several e-mails from people who used to appreciate the ODMs and who visited this site and eventually came to see them much differently because of the posts and the comments.
Rick, with all due respect, who the hell are you to correct anybody like you’re some kind of pope or something? Who appointed you to the throne of Christianity to decide who is right and who’s not? You chip your teeth constantly on Ken and Ingrid and anybody else you think is unbiblical day after day. Every time I come on here that’s all you are doing. Why should anybody believe you have all doctrine and practice straight. I also have noticed you’re really good at calling people self righteous. If you’re right and all the ODM’s are wrong, are you some kind of special breed of Christian who has all his ducks in a row doctrinally? You were whining about the crosstalk show and the pro-life guy on there. Every issue you mentioned that you disagreed with him on was not even a doctrinal issue, it was a secondary issue of application. I’m really sick of your always acting like you have it all down so perfectly. Why should anybody listen to you more than say, Ken Silva? On what basis should we believe that you are right and he’s wrong? It all ends up being preference in the end. This is why Christianity is really making me sick these days. This site is just one that proves my belief that it’s really all just relative in the end as to who you listen to and what you believe. Christians can’t even get along, they all call each other unChristian and call for outrage, like you Rick. Agnosticism seems like a safe haven these days compared to this.
Rick, my pastor is a mentor to other pastors. We never chase after individuals but comment and reflect on the spirit of this age.
Cash – I have interacted with Rick for a couple years and have learned much from him, though on this issue of going after a woman is uncalled for.
If someone insists that they are right and will not consider their position, then it makes no sense to constantly complain.
Our vision can get locked on a person and inflate their impact.
Flesh and blood has not revealed that to you.
Paul C
Hudson Taylor is the one that coined the phrase ” the exchanged life”… I teach that… I consider myself “Emergent” and have many in the that organization (which is what Emergent is). In fact many in the emerging conversation seem to be exchanged life oriented.
So read Hudson Taylor.. who is a major influence on many emerging/Emergents… and you may start to see what we believe.
iggy
Cash,
All the ODM’s are mostly wrong… it is not what they mouth as far as their beliefs… but rather their actions and inability to love others… that shows their error.
Now saying that… remember the bible states… “No one is righteous…” Or as I say it… “no one is right.” Jesus is the only Righteous One… or Right One… that is why gentleness and humility must be in correction of others… and that is missing greatly from the ODM’s and sometimes from those they attack.
The term “enemies within” is used, on some part, tongue in cheek. We do not really judge others as outside the faith like ODM’s tend to.
That said, I wouls adjust your comment thus:
As we repeatedly point out… most of the objections raised by ODM’s are issues of style. So what they most often object to is the fact that others have decided to practice the faith in a manner that is different.
Iggy – in regards to your last sentence re Hudson Taylor – not likely.
Every movement likes to claim great people on their side – once they’re dead.
Exactly… and the point is, too many American Christians (as Crosstalk often serves as an example) equate those issues with biblical issues. It’s a new form of syncretism.
Pastorboy,
What’s funny is… I commented about your opening sentence, then read the rest of your comment.
And in it you bemoaned issues of music style and technology use… thanks for proving my point.
When all you have are secondary issues, and when Christ seems only present in your creed, then that becomes an important doctrinal issue. One can be “orthodox” in their creed and yet not have a valid gospel ministry.
#29
Then you missed the point of my post, something you accuse me of doing.
The point was not the style, it is the style over the substance of conversion that allows enemies within.
I’m beginning to think that PB is the Don Quixote of fundamentalism.
The passion, though, is admirable.
PB – There is no doubt that evangelical churches are full of questionable converts. The reasons for this are varied:
* Shallow preaching
* Paying building debt
* Activities
* Etc.
However, political involvement has compromised the church greatly and moral issues have diverted many from the gospel mission. Although many churches would abhor those things I listed by *, the other things I just mentioned are embraced by “discernment churches”.
As long as style does not interfere with the message it is irrelevant.
#32
Have you seen his post about Julie Clawson and his subsequent comment? Unbelievable.
Talk about double minded. He affirms salvation by faith alone in one sentence then immediately quotes 1 Cor 6 to justify his salvation by works theology. Immediately demonstrating what Julie Clawson was denouncing (gospel + something else = salvation). Ironically enough, “Pastor” Boy asked for proof that was going on earlier in his writing.
And that doesn’t even begin to approach the naked malevolence and condescension that is found through out that writing, and likely was the motivation for writing it in the first place.
I did not see where PB questioned her salvation. Now as one who unappoligetically and publicly believes that a practicing homosexual can be saved, I also must agree with PB when he warns against having such a person in leadership.
I am a complentarian, however I do not lose sleep over it. I just will not attend there. Aside from some of the satire, where did PB go wrong in expressing his views?
* I enjoyed PB’s use of the word elucidate!
First off, there is no such thing as “the church” in America, or anywhere – not in a visible sense.
Secondly, if this were true, if “the church” has become this than Jesus was wrong when he said she would prevail.
Thirdly, you reference a tickling ears sermon which comes after “a rockin band brings emotions to a head using a cool multi media overhead projection set” – which clearly bemoans the style. You say nothing of the content – you simply bemoan the style.
I am sick and tired of this CRAP!
OH… the church is this….
OH… the church is that…
Blah blah blah…
Churches have always been this and will always be that.
Nothing has changed.
Nothing will.
The church is just fine!
This is nothing new… it’s history being repetitive.
#36
He didn’t necessarily go wrong but he said that he called pastrix b/c she didn’t want to be called pastor. Either his comprehension skills are below the average 3rd graders or he’s just flat out lying or he’s being an ass.
Joe,
Nice.
When am I going to be off of moderation. I may make plays on names, but I do not call people ass.
haha. John Chisham (hey Ken used it today) after that comment I may have to go with reading comprehension. You crack me up John. No one called you an ass yet. At least not in writing on this thread. Oh what I would pay to be in a class with you. Seriously.
What do you call a person who is a female who, counter to scripture, is an elder in a church (at least in our church, Pastors are elders) Seriously, what do we call female preaching elders? She said she didn’t like Pastor or Priestess. Pastrix sounded logical to me.
“Pastor” John Chisham,
What she wrote was that she doesn’t like it when people make sure to undermine the legitimacy of her office by putting scare quotes around the word Pastor. She wrote it plainly enough that any English speaker can understand:
I have trouble believing even an aspiring ESL student would misunderstand that. So, I guess I’m just forced to take either the second or third of Joe’s options. Maybe both.
#43
And yet in your condemning judgment of me, you use the same mocking terms that she says she supposedly hates.
Now I get it.
Whatever she wants to be called, I am not clear on. None the less, she has no right from a Biblical standpoint to have authority over a man in a church. She can preach, she obviously is well read and thoughtful, but in our governance, anyway, it would require her to also hold the position of elder which has specific qualifications including being the husband of one wife. Except in the Episcopal Church and ELCA, this still means a man who is married to a woman, and is not describing the Butch partner in a lesbian relationship.
And Bo, as usual, I could really care less what you think. You are a small man/woman (I have no idea) who hides behind a fake name and a computer screen.
Ruach
With all due respect to Bo Diaz, I must say I find the ODM practice of abusing scare quotes to be distressing.
It’s so smarmy. Unctuous. Supercilious. Passive-aggressive. (Not to mention reflective of terrible writing. But no one ever accused the ODMs of being particularly gifted writers).
Was Jesus like that? Was Jesus ever unctuous? I don’t think so.
The quotes thing is minor. It is unfortunate, though, that when people make a legitimate point they cannot refrain from using linguistic tactics that detract from the issue. Ken does that as well when in the midst of making a very legitimate point he fills his post with clever slights, demeaning alliteration, and entertaining hyperbole. What is missing?
Well, there is a part of me that feels particularly distressed about some of the more prominent men in the emergent movement since they seem so sincere. There are many religious hucksters on TV and elsewhere, but men like Peter Rollins seem sincere and humble, even though I believe his theology is unchristian.
And then there is the realization that he is doing more to spread his theology than I am for mine. That is also personally lugubrious to me and before my God. When we lose that, even when we are spouting truth, we have become a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal for sure.
Without a profound sense of humility that is prominently manifested in our lives and speech, we cannot be an effective conduit for God’s correction.
I just can’t believe that people still buy into the ODMs stuff. It’s so, well, childish.
Seriously, why do the ODMs write as if they’re auditioning for a Zagat guide?
“Pastor” Smith was “preaching” on Sunday, but it the message was devoid of truth. God is surely waiting to judge his “teaching,” and will reveal the “pastor” for what he is. God, though, does report that the potluck was “top-notch,” and definitely “worth the wait.”
I am waiting for an ODM to admit that John Calvin was a murderer and not whitewash it be saying it was the culture and the times. Motorcycles in the service is a lesser sin than murder.
John Calvin was a murderer in the same way that Barak Obama is a murderer or George Bush is a murderer for sending kids off to war in that, as part of the government hierarchy at the time, they needed his approval (among many others) to approve of the death penalty and the way it was meted out. In the case of Servatus, Calvin wanted mercy for him, an easy beheading. The ruling class had him burned, instead, on a pile of his own books.
John Calvin did not directly kill anybody.
PB,
Just because your denomination would not allow her to be a pastor (at least currently, though that is not the history of the denomination as many of the early church planting pastors were women) does not mean that you can’t acknowledge her as a pastor. That is what and who she is. Your smarminess (is that a word?) doesn’t change that. All that happens when you use those demeaning tactics is that any good points you might make are disregarded because you have demonstrated that you are a person who is more interested in taking an insulting cheap shot than in discussing the actual issues.
“Pastor” John Chisham,
I do it for the same reason you and those like you claim to do it. You are unqualified to be an elder.
Unlike the issue of female elders where you have to infer to come to the conclusion that female eldership is unBiblical (as was pointed out earlier, not all denominations have made that inference), you are explicitly unqualified for eldership as the scriptures are clear that quarrelsome, deceitful and slanderous people are barred from leadership.
Have a good day, “Pastor”.
Pastorboy,
Are you still in moderation?
Neil
No. Where is it? Who is Julie Clawson?
Comment #49 is absurd but predictable. If Rick Warren had ordered someone killed you guys would have labelled him the antichrist.
There is a sort of great cosmic about the man whom people credit the “doctrines of grace” wanting to have someone killed. And Calvin did certainly want Servetus killed.
By the time Servetus was killed, Calvin may or may not have had the actual power to stop the killing, but remember that the city of Geneva was setup by his design. It’s kind of like how Congress sets up panels to make decisions when they decide they need to shut down certain military bases in different parts of the country. An individual Congressman knows that if a base in his state or district is shut down his constituents will be mad as heck, so they say “the independent panel made the decision”. They try to abdicate their responsibility to avoid the accountability for the decision.
#52 I am.
What does it say to one’s credibility when you can aggressively attack someone for a view on women in the ministry, but you refuse to admit the documented evidence against John Calvin being complicit in more than one murder?
It speaks of human idolatry and having men’s personages in admiration.
#57
You folks that hate Calvin also hate written history.
John Calvin may have hated Servatus (bad enough in the eyes of God) and Servatus was indeed a heretic, but Calvin did not murder Servatus, nor did the Geneva Political/Church establishment of which Calvin was an intregal part participate in the wholesale slaughter of those who disagreed. Anyone who says or believes differently is simply not a good student of history.
Though offenders within the church could be excommunicated, the church had no further power to discipline them. This was something that the civil government was responsible for. History shows no direct connection between John Calvin and the execution of Michael Servatus, or any other heretic. In fact, Servatus was more likely convicted on the power of the Libertines who controlled the Civil Government, with the strong support of the Catholics, who also wanted him executed.
Your accusation of Calvin is guilt by association, a tactic you bemoan of the ‘ODM’s’ yet participate in yourself here.
Too late, Rick (Frueh) – he’s already earned that label, despite the lack of ‘murderer’ qualifications
#53 Here
John Calvin:
“If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight.”
Even though Calvin was a murderer, he wasn’t a liar.
oh, yes…now the clear meaning of scripture doesn’t apply…
Calvin, in the eyes of Jesus, killed Servetus by simply hating him.
He’s a murderer one way or the other…
huh, if W gets thrown in there…then where was your moral indignation during his presidency?
Since this has been derailed, I will derail the derail.
In a thread a while back Pastorboy made some erroneous statements about our brother in Christ N. T. Wright. I challenged him with these comments:
and
and
To which pastorboy responded:
Time to put up or shut up about N. T. Wright!
When your entire theology is works based as ADMs like”Pastor” John Chisham teach then you can’t admit that your heroes of the faith were less than perfect, so you make ridiculous excuses for them.
Its neither truth, nor justice, though it is the ADM way.
Tim Challies had some fellowship with the antichrist and you know who calls him on it. If you remember, Challies called on blogs to steer away from tabloid journalism and IS took great offense. She gets her revenge including rehearsing her righteous refusal of Warren’s invitation to be his guest and see his ministry.
A man cannot even fellowship with someone without someone’s wife criticizing him for it. That’s post modern orthodoxy for ya!
Bo,
In all fairness, I don’t think Pastorboy’s theology is any more works based than Wright’s.
Neil
Neil,
I have no idea how you can say that since “Pastor” John Chisham over and over again teaches that you have to act in the proper way post-salvation in order to truly be saved. This doesn’t even begin to get into his teaching that you must repent perfectly in order to have your sins forgiven.
I think Pastorboy believes in the grace of God as the source and cause of salvation.
Unfortunately, he is also caught in the web of an ethnocentric/modernist version of Christianity.
So while salvation is based solely on grace, proof of that grace is expressed by certain extrabiblical behavior… or certain other behavior prove the lack thereof.
If post profession works are necessary for salvation then Luther and Calvin were not saved. I find it curious that someone can identify false conversions. What sin doomed the entire human race to eternal death?
One bite of a piece of fruit. Let me list sins that if practiced prove you are still lost.
* Self righteousness
* National idolatry
* Gossip
* Women without a quiet and meek spirit
* Saving up money
* Heterosexual self righteousness
* Birth control
* Overeating while children starve
* Speeding
* Hateful satire
* Evil speaking
* Not loving our enemies
* Divorce and remarriage
* Teaching that baptism saves
* Teaching that baptism doesn’t save
* Musical pride
* Teaching that communion is only symbolic
* Teaching transubstantiation
* Teaching consubstantiation
* Christian cruises while children starve
* Etc.
Any practice of these sins means you are doomed to hell unless you come into complete, or almost complete, or somewhat complete compliance like me. I want to stress that I do not practice any form of homosexual behavior so I have nothing to worry about. Grace can only be stretched so far before it breaks wide open and tosses your sorry sin commitin’ carcass into hell.
Exactly why PB goes to such ridiculous truth twisting lengths to absolve Calvin of obvious sins.
Re:71
It’s like watching a textbook case of cognitive dissonance unfold before your eyes.
The ODMs remind me of the OJ jury.
“If it doesn’t fit, you must aquit.”
That is one minor example amidst a literal cacophony of unchristian and horrific verbalizations of utter hatred. I am not saying Luther was not used of God or was not a Christian, but let us not whitewash his incredible and vicious hatred for all Jews.
When you refuse to admit the imperfections and sins of those to whom you have benefited spiritually you reveal human idolatry rather than a healthy gratitude for the Spirit’s ministry through another saved sinner.
So one (Warren) can with good motives construct a program that breaks down the gospel for the simplist of sinners and you are an unsaved heretic but you can HATE your fellow man, including murder, and some will follow you like Moses. What am I missing??
if your lawyer can rhyme, you don’t do time.
Guilty? The jury will deny it
To avoid another riot.
This post publishes Rick Warren’s tweet that says:
Now the “editor” suggest the presence of pride in that tweet. OK, but why is there no pride in this from Mike Ratliff referring to himself:
Here are the linguistic gymnastics necessary to surreptitiously publish your own spiritual proficiency: You must suggest your razor sharp spiritual senses with your left hand while seemingly attributing it all to God with your right hand. That is some really amazing self serving finesse!
* If Rick Warren had made the statements that Mike made every ODM worth his salt would have verbally disembowled him as the epitome of self righteousness.