This entry was posted
on Friday, February 5th, 2010 at 9:40 am and is filed under It's Friday, Open Thread.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
187 Comments(+Add)
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime/two-men-preaching-religion-shot-to-death-in-211257.html
Did they deserve it?
No, why do you even ask?
According to some, we all deserve it…
Because as the article states, they made the mistake of preaching.
Was it a mistake to preach the Gospel?
Is Rob Bell’s Bullhorn a call for this type of action in some minds?
#3 You nailed it…we all deserve to die!
But seriously, isn’t Rob Bell’s Bullhorn tacitly promoting hatred towards this? Is this type of disregard for brothers in Christ murder in the mind? (1John)
Joe, Chad, Iggy, and others stood in judgment against me and my friends for preaching the Gospel, even saying they hated the method. Are they guilty of murdering in the mind?
If we are truly followers of Christ, should we not be persecuted? Should we not be ready to be hated or even killed for the Gospel?
These young evangelists are in the presence of Jesus! They know it is better to die for their king. For them to live is Christ, to die is gain. Wake up, America! Wake up Church!
Cracking clip MLK at the begining if i’m not mistaking, off of their best album
I saw the tours for both albums he sings here, happy dayssss!!!
MLK plays at the M L King museum daily so i’m told…
Dont you just feel God in the roar of the people when they regonise a song, its so touching, i remember seeing Springsteen and the crowd just exploded with joy to the harp intro of The River, God is joy and i guess its just a glipse of it
Obviously that should be glimpse
That ridiculous and you know it. Bell has never said anything close to inciting people to perpetuate violence on street preachers. From the story it seems like this particular incident is more of a random act of violence than anything else.
If Bell is inciting people to be violent against street preachers than your criticism of Catholics, N.T. Wright, etc. could be described as the same thing.
No, I just don’t think you are preaching Good News. I think you do more harm than good.
We do?
This twisted thinking by you is what distorts your entire message.
God would disagree with you – strongly.
Pastorboy,
I must congratulate you for plowing new ground.
I have become accustomed to your uncharitable spirit toward those with whom you disagree.
I have become accustomed to your ability to cut and paste without regard to context and/or intent.
I have become accustomed to your culturally conditioned ethnocentric narrow-mindedness and you ability to limit God and his word.
But this, this plows new ground of being an ass. This plows new ground of twisting the meaning of the words of others beyond any recognizable intent.
To even think or hint, let alone say that Bell, Chad, Joe, or Iggy condone or promote such a thing means you have become a stench of offensiveness on a heretofore unimaginable level!
yeah, what Neil said.
Could – maybe.
Should – no, not necessarily.
Ready – yes.
You, you vomitous mass of self absorbed pugnaciousness, seem to be incapable or unwilling to recognize is that opposition based on tactics and hatred based on content are two entirely different things.
As much of a martyr as you think you are, the blood of true martyrs does not cry out “How long or Lord…” when fellow believers question your tactics.
What is all the fuss about? It was a concert to remember (I guess) those that lost their lives on 9/11. It has nothing to do with Christianity.
As far as who are the “greatest” followers of Christ? Most definitely they are ones whose names are not known except by God.
Those who preach the gospel publicly to different crowds are doing it in Jesus’ name even when too harsh. The exception to this is when these same people publicly chronicle their evangelistic efforts and use that to disparage others.
The same can be said by those who do not preach publicly and use that to disparage those who do. However the content is fair game for discussion.
I think anyone preaching ‘religion’ (as the link says) well…no one should be shot.
but there is a significant difference between preaching religion and preaching christ.
i won’t even listen to someone preaching religion. but i wouldn’t shoot them. i might flip them off though.
Jerry
we need to consider the source of “preach religion” – while I agree with your distinction, such distinctions are surely lost on the press.
true. my mistake.
REBUILDING HAITI:
Guys, just want to let you know that the company I work for, Salesforce.com, announced about 5 mins ago:
We have a ton of charitable organizations using our system. If you are aware of any projects that might benefit let me know. If you want to know precisely how a CRM can be leveraged by a charity, let me know as well.
#10,
A view based on a high view of scripture as well. Of course, if you toss out Romans, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Joihn, Ephesians, Revelation, 1, 2, 3, John, Jude…..The entire Old Testament….
# 11
miseo autos adelphos, in other words hates, that is has from a casual disregard all the way to and antithesis to agapeo, which is a love focused on a specific person, placing their needs above those of their own, cherishing with reverance.
The way that Rob Bell speaks about open-air preachers is at the very least a casual disregard, and he speaks as though that they (open air preachers) are all offensive and give a bad name to Christians.
My logic is this: There are those who preach that abortionists are murderers and need to be stopped. There have been cases where these people have been cited as inciting violence towards abortion doctors by (albeit) psychotic people. If the world can do this, why can I not question if Rob Bell (and others) have at the very least a disregard for open air preachers, and have told people via a wildly popular video that this is the wrong way, why wouldn’t or couldn’t someone take that to mean kill them?
Just wonderin’
So let me get this straight; you are sighting people you define and worldy and psychotic as your role models for this?
Yet another new field plowed…
Yay!!! PB has achieved a new level of crazy.
Congrats!
Can you imagine how much blood would shoot out of your eyeballs if any of us here intimated, much less outright asserted, that any critique from ODM’s was leading to the possibility of murder attempts on, well, anyone in the massive alphabet soup of people ODM’s actually spew hate toward?
classic.
i just about pissed myself from laughing.
PB…people stand in disagreement with the method.
that doesn’t mean they hate the Gospel or the preaching of it.
thanks for the giant leap…
Thurstin,
Not sure what you are trying to say there.
… as well as the massive pastorboy’s question is to the two guys who were gunned down.
I suppose the “nice” thing about an open thread is that it’s impossible to get off-topic.
I suppose the “not-so-nice” thing about an open thread is that they are sometimes an invitation for the tinfoil-hat and bomb-throwing crowd to have at it…
…but at least they expose themselves in the process (figuratively… not literally)
Well, many of them do. That doesn’t mean people who say that advocate shooting them down.
It’s not worth the pixels to even respond to you, really. This is a new level of asshat-erry…
I don’t think all are offensive and give a bad name to Christians. Just you, John Chisham.
#29
My dad won’t but I will…
You are so off base Chad Holtz both in your theology and your assessment of my Dad. I don’t handle things like he does. If I knew where you were we could have a man to man talk. Your idiot theological stanse is one thing, your attack on people who love the Lord is another.
#10
Your lack of knowledge of Man’s condition prior to salvation is astounding. I am just a student, and you are a divinity student? a Pastor? That is a sad commentary on the state of Duke Divinity and any church who would hire you, idiot.
Thanks for that. I needed a good laugh this evening.
Nevermind, I got an even bigger laugh just now. Everyone click on Thurstin’s web link – Needgod.com
Just for fun I answered all the questions the way you would if you were perfect and here are my test results:
It then gave me an option of heaven or hell. I chose heaven, and this pops up:
I was again allowed to answer yes or no. I chose NO. And this pops up:
HAHA!
What a bunch of nonsense.
our condition prior to salvation has nothing to do with what we “deserve” (as in, we deserve to die) but everything to do with what we NEED.
Saying we all deserve to die flies in the face of what God think of God’s creation – ALL of it.
Hey Brett S,
Today my worship and liturgics prof shared with us a time he and his wife were in Paris a few years back and went to mass at Notre Dame. He said there were over 4000 people there for Sunday Mass and they had order of worships printed up in 5 different languages. What was fascinating (and the reason he shared this story) was that at the bottom of each bulletin were these words: All who believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist are invited to the Table.
Is this something you are seeing in other RC churches? It’s quite a radical move.
Thurstin,
maybe your dad should teach you about the sinful character of “taking up offense”…especially given the reality that he isn’t really your father.
sheesh.
name calling too…even better.
by your own “father’s” standard we should judge him a failure as a pastor if that is the fruit of his ministry.
that being said, i don’t have to judge his ministry by such a petty, moralistic high-minded measure.
He speaks for himself just fine and reveals enough.
thurstin, it would also be nice for you and your dad to have the sack to take on the critique of, say, Neil…
he makes quite a vigorous response to him, but you both can’t go after him since he doesn’t give you anything to avoid the real issues.
it’s so easy on the face of John Chisham’s bad behavior to say to Chad…yeah, you bad Dukie you…
there’s that unflinching honesty and commitment to the truth…
you both can’t handle it when that cold, clear eyed “truth speaking” gets directed right at your own silliness and immaturity.
gimme a break.
Here’s how a convo with you and John Chisham goes.
Person A: We should show compassion to people
John Chisham/Thurstin:
that is liberal code from Rob Bell to teach people to hate the Gospel. You are all attackers of Christ and his Bride.
Person B:
That’s silly Chisham/Thurstin! Nobody said anything like that. Rob Bell isn’t even in the post. Stay on topic.
Chisham/Thurstin:
What do YOU know you don’t go to any approved school of mine! You Gospel Hater.
Person A: (joins back in) Please don’t say that person is Gospel Hater. You are way off to say that.
Thurstin:
You are so mean to “my dad”. Don’t rebuke him. Idiots.
so tiring…
@ Chad:
He will also make sure every liar, blasphemer, and adulterer is punished.
well, one small comfort is that most ODM’s will be there for their “ministry of lying”.
at least by their own standard…
nathan,
Do you think there will be an ODM site in heaven? They will spend eternity judging God for not living up to their standards of justice.
yikes, nathan.
really?
he isn’t…in past threads Thurstin has said so….
sorry if that was out of bounds…but i thought it was apropos.
or did you think i was talking about “God as Father”….?
I understand Thurstin to be the adopted son of Pastorboy, that’s why I thought the comment about their relationship unkind… course, after what I called him maybe I have no room to talk.
Chad, re:35
In a “spiritual sense” I agree with that.
I don’t know the specifics of the situation or the people you described. But in a real practical sense it could be heretical. You can’t just invite people to comeup and get their Jesus cookie because they get a warm fuzzy feeling.
I follow the bishops on this because:
a. it’s my job, and
b. it makes sense to me
Brett,
“Real Presence” is what we Methodists believe about the Eucharist. I am curious why Notre Dame, a Catholic Mecca outside of Rome, would offer communion to any and all who view the sacrament in this way. I’m happy about it, but still curious.
And to be sure, just because people don’t view the Eucharist in the same way as Catholics doesn’t mean they do it for a warm-fuzzy or to get a “Jesus cookie.”
#33 I feel compassion for you now, Chad. Not only are you ignorant, but you are unsaved and you mock God for His way of salvation by repentance and faith.
Nathan, you are next on my list. But like Chad you are just a sad mocker. You mustve gone to another liberal school like Princeton
Professing to be wise they have become fools.
No, Thurstin, I mock the idiocy you promote through that ridiculous site.
You are probably like your dad and can’t understand what irony is, but this is really funny! By your own admission, after declaring me unsaved (which must make you wise!) you have called yourself a fool.
I won’t argue with you
Thurstin,
Believe it or not, Chad and Nathan, while having many views in common, are thoroughly different people, from different denominations, and manners of treating people in debate.
jerry
Jerry, if you can’t see me, imagine me rolling my eyes
All that being said, I now have a new level of compassion for Chad, for he is truly in the dark, and has denied the truth of the scripture concerning mankind’s condition and the cure for it found only in Christ.
I now see him the same way I see the mockers in the open air, as lost, dead people who need to be regenerated, given life by Christ.
YAY! I now have John Chisham’s compassion! It will be fun to see how that plays.
PB,
I have a question. Is opposition to you, (not Christians, the Church, pastors, evangelists, etc.) but opposition specifically to you, Pastorboy, a sign that someone is not a Christian?
If someone hypothetically were to say to you “PB, I think that what you, and you alone, say is ignorant, hateful, and generally reflective of someone with a low IQ,” would you interpret that to mean that they hate Jesus?
#53 Nope, but it might be an indicator that they hate, which is an indicator of a lack of Love for the brothers, which is an indicator that they are not in the faith.
That’s good. Sometimes I get the sense that you think you’re the gospel. And who would believe something like that? A heretic, probably.
But, if someone opposes YOU, and you specifically, he or she may hate, yet you oppose all sorts of people, movements, churches, etc., but you do it all out of love?
John Chisham,
Humor aside, I am curious how you reach this conclusion. Where did I deny mankind’s condition pre-Christ, or, more importantly, the cure?
Are you suggesting that a person much believe they deserve death in order to be saved? Sounds like you are placing yet one more “work” required for salvation.
Apparently you are only saved if you think Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron are good evangelists and have the best technique.
That site on Thurstin’s name is a load of crap, and so is that entire method of evangelizing (I hate to even call it that – it’s nothing more than manipulation).
If you have to sign off on that BS in order to be considered a Christian, I’ll convert to something else.
Pastorboy and Thurstin,
First off, Chad answered the questions as if he were perfect – a claim he has never made. So you are totally off base in you pronouncement that he can not be saved.
Secondly, while Chad may have denied man’s condition, wherein has he denied Christ as the cure?
Thirdly, how many of the mockers that you see are mocking Christ? Are they mocking the message or the messenger?
Fourthly, the irony of #54 is astounding… connecting the dots from lack of agreement to being unsaved. I don’t suppose you saw where Deborah at Discerning the World saved I was unsaved – in no uncertain terms – because I disagree with them on the use of the word “Pharisee”?
This twice is two days someone has added a condition to salvation which leaves me out… fortunately only one was actually serious.
Chad #46
I’m not arguing with you, just giving my honest opinion.
The Catholic church contains sinful people that at times disregard authority and want to go their own way. Whether it’s high mass at Notre Dame cathedral with incense or the humble liturgy at my suburban parish that looks kinda like a run-of-the-mill Methodist church; the same truth and disciplines apply.
Part of the beauty of catholicism in my opinion. Some wacky liberal priest in Paris (lets call him Father Berkinstock) can get a wild hair and try to impose his “views” on the rest of us. Or conversely some wacky radical that believes the mass can only be offered in Latin, spends considerable time condemning people to hell, and is generally more catholic than the pope (let’s call him Father Pastoboy) has no authority to change any truth or reality of the faith.
There is a structure in place to deal with these things.
Neil –
A fine point, but I did not “deny man’s condition.” I denied that God thinks we deserve death because of that condition.
I affirm the doctrine of total depravity. The problem is, many seem to think this means we are as bad as we possible can be and nothing but wretches in God’s eyes. That is not what TD teaches, rightly taught.
Brett,
That’s cool. I was just wondering if there was a trend developing in RC churches to make such an invitation.
I hope that is the case moving forward. In my tradition we invite all who strive to love Jesus to the table, regardless of church affiliation (or even profession of faith).
Chad,
Fair enough. Believe it or not, part of me wishes that your position was the right one.
One difference (I’m assuming) is, that you don’t have a tabernacle at your church, that remains occupied 24 hours a day, and that many parishioners would risk their very lives to defend from desacration.
part of me wishes that your position was the right one.
hehe
True. I don’t see that as a bad thing, though.
Chad,
What makes it even muddier is having the discussion in response to the young men who were murdered… as if they deserved it. No one, even the spiritually dead, deserves to be executed by a street thug.
Sometimes I do wonder about the Pastoboy’s impression of God.
The article does not say this.
Cannot tell from the article.
cf. comments 11 & 13
@ Thurstin,
you don’t know anything about me or the kind of school i went to.
but thanks for revealing a ton about yourself by your need to make a jab like that.
Considering that you would use Princeton as example of “liberal” further proves just how much you really don’t know or understand.
@ Everyone:
in PB/Thurstin’s world this is clearly how things work:
1. Disagreement/dislike with a METHOD = down the line rejection of the MESSAGE.
2. Disagreement/dislike with said CONFLATED METHOD/MESSAGE = personal hatred of persons who deploy the method.
3. Therefore lack of agreement = lack of salvation.
PB/Thurstin, how can you proclaim a Gospel of sola fide sola gratia–which i also affirm–and then add works to the Gospel so blatantly?
seriously?
Disagreement with or dislike for a METHOD is the jumping pad for a leap toward hatred for you personally…
gargantuan leap of logic–if it’s even logic at this point.
you act like you’re the only ones who understand/love the Gospel…why do you insist on adding to it?
by your own standard you stand accursed because you add to the Gospel, you add to what is necessary for Christian saving faith.
can you answer these questions without calling me an “idiot” or saying that I deny the power of the Gospel or am a mocker of Christ?
further, by the words of Jesus, you could stand under further judgement for calling me an idiot.
i have no hatred for you, but by responding with such name calling you actually demonstrate that you have murdered in your heart and that you, in fact, reveal yourselves as haters of fellow Christians.
Can you respond to these pertinent questions or will you just dance, accuse and hide?
oh yeah, and for the record,
I didn’t go to Princeton.
show me a person who has to call names and I’ll show you a person whose already lost the argument.
Just one more reason to distrust you, nathan
my personal favorite is moron.
I hear it a lot here
I don’t know which is worse: Chad’s thought that everyone is good to go or John’s/Thurstin’s that no one is.
Both points of view are rather boring.
Worse than all of that is you knowingly mischaracterizing my beliefs.
What happened to you, Jerry?
I expect that nonsense from John Chisham – not so much from you Jerry. Perhaps I was wrong to think of you any differently.
does this include my use of “vomitous mass of self absorbed pugnaciousness”?
isn’t that more a description of the behavior, not a value statement like “idiot”.
Sorry I’ve been out Jerry – apparently you’ve replaced me (briefly) as Chad’s verbal punching bag to make up positions and try to use flattery, etc. while using the whole universalist BS/sophistry/etc.
This is SOP for Chad – a backhand comparison of the targeted individual to PB/Ken/etc., followed by a “I thought you were better than this” bit of flattery…
I’ve not read the full thread yet, but the race card is sure to come up soon, if you don’t bend to his sophistry…
Be ready for him to take one of your statements and twist it in the way Silva does (by taking it to illogical ends) and then having a hissy fit over the straw man he’s created.
Oh wait a minute…
Right on cue.
I understand what you’re saying, Jerry, and that it doesn’t advocate some sort of “dualism”, but merely the difference between talking about the ideal and being able to live it out (which is always messier than what you’re able to actually write down in a coherent thought).
Just let Chad squeal and play the nattering crybaby for a bit, with lots and lots of little insults tossed in (like “I guess following Jerry’s dynamite confession of dualism”), and he’ll blow over once he realizes that the 200th time he’s spouted this trough full of horse skubala that it still doesn’t smell any sweeter, just a lot more ripe.
(Sorry about conflating two threads there, if anyone’s confused at some of the pulled quotes)
Bid daddy to the rescue! how funny.
You guys are like one happy circle jerk. I’m so glad you have each other.
That’s not what Jerry said at all, and if you read what I said, you saw that I even would have allowed for that, when I said:
But I guess if you have the “My nose is brown from smooching Chris L” blogocard you get a free pass.
but I’ll jump on and immediately attack someone just because I can.
Nathan, true enough, I was trying to speak to his behavior and character,
Same as when i said ; “To even think or hint, let alone say that…means you have become a stench of offensiveness on a heretofore unimaginable level!”
Here I was clearly addressing is repugnant behavior.
Hey Phil, I hope you’re watching – this is the part where Chris L tries to hold me accountable and you can tell him the same thing you told me. Ready?
(I realize you risk loosing your feudal lord’s protection should you do that, though).
Chris L.,
In you list of Chadisms you forgot the Junior High-esque biological reference… so he opened with that in his response.
Hey Chris L – glad to see you are feeling better. Our short email correspondence obviously was just that – short lived.
You are back to your mean, nasty self.
welcome back
here we go…
yay!!!
i just wish Chris L and Chad could grill up whatever it is between you two and eat it.
you’re both pretty sharp, you could become really good friends.
then again, i have the gift of faith.
nathan, i’m all for that.
but I think the record would clearly show I have never attacked Chris L or his views the way he consistently has me or my views.
when he is capable of disagreeing with me without name calling or insults or character assassinations we could see what is left for a friendship.
Now that is funny Chad, do you really consider yourself better than Chris L. in the name calling, the venom, the anger?
What say ye Chris?
I’d say you both have spewed rhetorical venom at each other in equal amounts.
Go review, Neil.
I don’t call Chris L names. I have never called him “deluded” or claimed he is following a false God or called him a false teacher or said he bows to satan or that he is a moron or …..geez, I have forgotten all the gems he has called me.
Show me where I have done that to him.
And where I may have slipped and fallen into the trap of playing his game, I would apologize. But I would bet the ranch that Chris L takes the cake on how often this happens.
Do you think I’m mistaken on that?
Well, it is kind of a color-by-numbers exercise, from the sanctimonious indignation to the stretches in logic, followed by the “disappointed” flattery, etc. If you’re at all familiar with the Meyers-Briggs typology, it actually plays out to form in the shifts that it takes (finishing up with the “wounded retreat” if the target of his wrath doesn’t let it go).
I usually tend to be civil and friendly with folks who aren’t needlessly casting aspersions and belittling in an attempt to justify what is rather broadly accepted as heresy – taking it so far as to act completely indignant that the audience at hand won’t define deviancy down even to an “agreement to disagree”.
LOL
You crack me up, Chris. Seriously.
All Methodists have to take a battery of tests for ordination, that being one of them.
My results read: Able to discern an asshole a mile away
Which would be quite odd if it said “able to…” anything, since Meyers-Briggs is about personality typing and not acumen or ability.
“and he’ll blow over once he realizes that the 200th time he’s spouted this trough full of horse skubala that it still doesn’t smell any sweeter, just a lot more ripe.”
I must always ackowledge literary creativity even when it deals with manure.
#92 – it was a joke, Chris L.
remove the stick
…except “Big Daddy” and “asshole” – in just the last few comments
anyone notice PB/Thurstin have fallen silent?
those boys are strange.
Nathan,
Sometimes it’s coincidence – like maybe they have something better to do… other times you are right – like when we proved him wrong in the other thread about Wright… he just waits to bring it up again later.
they remind me of Sarah Palin.
As soon as penetrating questions get asked, they question the heart/faith/motives of the asker OR just change the subject OR just run away.
Neil:
As to the Nathan, I was out preaching outside a college BBall game and Sunday Evening Mass. I stand by my assertion that your hateful comments about Street Preachers who are brothers in Christ are hateful and demonstrate at the least a non-love for them. What I am preaching, anyway, is straight from the Bible.
Chad, I feel compassion for you because you clearly are not understanding of the clear teachings of scripture. Man is evil from birth pre- conversion. You do not understand the condition of man, the Nature of God. Yes he is a God of love, mercy, and forgiveness, but he is also a God of Justice. He sent a Savior (Jesus) because people needed saving. You need saving, I need saving.
I pray that God would quicken your Spirit, and enlighten your understanding so that you could be saved. But that is an act of God of regeneration. Many will say to Him Lord, Lord on that day of judgment….
what “hateful comments” have I made about street preaching?
actually, i don’t think i’ve ever had a conversation with anyone here about the effect/value of street preaching.
your interlocuters on that particular subject have been other commenters AND the contributors on this site.
and, for the most part, they have never taken issue WITH YOU. They take issue with your method.
And as far as YOU evaluating who is “non-loving”…that’s pretty rich.
maybe you should speak to your “son” who curses people.
I still stand by how Jesus himself, in the Bible, said some things about people who curse others.
finally,
you haven’t answered how it’s ok for you to add to the Gospel.
still wondering.
PB, your and others need to bifurcate Love/Mercy from Justice shows just how deeply you dont’ understand the God you claim to have the highground with.
WOW, this thread has it all. I was pretty sick this weekend so I was unable to do any reading here. I was lied about by John Chisham (not new I know). Psychology was brought in, names were called. It literally has everything.
Who is adding to the Gospel?
One is saved by God’s grace alone through faith alone. It is God’s choosing, it is God’s action totally from beginning to end. I have nothing do with it. A dead person cannot respond, we need Jesus to quicken us by the power of the Holy Spirit.
That is the Gospel I preach, I have no idea what Gospel you are speaking about.
Joe, where did I lie about you. You wrote an entire post about me and my people about what if an Islamic street preacher showed up on your vacation justifying the acts of lost people and decrying the acts of people preaching the Gospel. How soon we forget. But you follow your godless pastor, so I can understand.
I do not bifrucate anything, they are all part and parcel of the God presented in the Scripture God is Love, God is Just, God is Holy, God is righteous. Because God is Just and omniscient, he has the right to judge our thoughts and intents of the heart.
John Chisham, I agree I did write that post. That’s a far cry from standing in judgment of you. Your lies of me are numerous. Your attacks on one of my pastors is actually humorous.
John Chisham, you are so far out in left field you are in another ball park. I really couldn’t care less what your opinion is of me or your judgments. Trying to reason with you is about as productive as reasoning with my 3 year old.
I’ve told you before I want nothing to do with your god. So if you think I need saved, I figure I am doing something right.
#106
I know you want nothing to do with the One True God of the Bible, who is my God, Chad, because you curse him, hold His holy name in contempt, tell lies about His character, and mock His Holy and right Judgment. You refuse to take His opinion of You and Me seriously, and thus you can mock Him. I pray He grants you repentance.
#105 Joe, you are under a strong delusion since you can sit under the teaching of Rob Bell and Shane Hipps as it is. Your Judgment of me and my friends was maybe not direct, but it was certainly implied. At least I am man enough to make the observations about your pastors directly; I do not hide behind a little story like ‘imagine if you went to grand rapids and someone told a story, a story about the wind and the sail. Imagine another person told you another story about a bullhorn and a concert. How would you feel? What would you do?
Nope I name names.
Pastorboy – I stand corrected on the comment about the article.
Did I really see the word ‘bifurcate’ in this thread.
Oy-vey!
Pastorboy,
We made the distinction between sinful/lost/under condemnation vs evil in previous threads.
When pressed, your biblical argument that all unsaved people are evil was lacking.
Yet you chose not to address them.
I totally forgot that I had insulted Chad in this thread. My bad.
Chris L., thanks for coming to my rescue Big Daddy. I don’t know how I would get along without you thinking for me and defending me and feeding me and putting up the seat for me when I have to piss.
Thank you Chris for channeling yourself through my fingers when I type otherwise I might not have an original thought in this puny little brain of mine. I am so stupid.
Chad, thanks for pointing out that I can’t think on my own. It’s so good to finally know what the problem has been all these years. (/sarcasm)
Do you not see the irony in this?
Let’s review your tack:
You assume addressing a method is attacking a person.
You belittle a tragic situation by comparing yourself to someone who was executed on the street for preaching.
You assume they were killed for preaching.
You equate addressing a method with attacking the person then use this to shed doubt on the salvation of those who do it…
…THEN you openly declare a pastor to be without God.
Now, by your own standards – who is the hater?
This is a question for all. If this is theologically acurate:
Why preach?
According to that so called theology, we are all pawns in a cosmic game of divine solataire. And tosay that a sinner came to Christ because I preached the absolute true gospel is self righteous.
No one in history has ever fully preached the everlasting gospel and no one has ever lived it either. God uses imperfect gospel presentations and imperfect lives.
A: Because God commands us to.
PB,
i love how you play coy when you get caught. It’s kinda cute.
you know very well that as soon as you start making claims about people’s state of salvation based on anything other than the grace of God you’ve added to the Gospel.
second,
you DO bifurcate the attributes of God.
You can claim they are all part and parcel, but as soon as you set Justice against God’s love then you’ve functionally done just that.
and, yes, you DID set justice against love.
Neil is asking the very same things that I’m asking.
why can’t you just say you overstated your position or that you were wrong to characterize things the way you did?
here’s a reminder:
you’ve accused people who do not like a particular METHOD with hatred of the PERSONS who use the method.
that’s plain silly.
why can’t you just admit that you over-react because YOU like the method and YOU feel slighted when someone doesn’t share in it?
not being exactly like you isn’t hatred OR a repudiation of who you are as a person OR an attack on your eternal worth in the eyes of God.
your insistence on this line of attack demonstrates real immaturity.
and NO i don’t hate you because i think you’re immature.
oh, by the way…
can you please apologize for saying that i’ve made hateful comments about outdoor preaching?
it would be a nice way to demonstrate you actually do care about the truth since I’ve never done what you accuse me of.
#115 Amen, Rick.
But that still does not justify preaching a false Gospel.
#116 – Yea, he likes to manipulate robots. Why didn’t God choose everyone to save? Why just a profoundly minscule number the majority of which dwell in North America and are overfed?
That God- He’s such a hoot!
i’m wondering when Thurstin will show up now that hard questions are being put to PB….
In Calvinist theology, and assessing history, God only chose 1 in 10,000 people He created.
What overflwoing love from the God who claims to BE love.
Pastorboy,
Leave it to you to take a serious theological question, dodge the real issue and reduce it a cliche that we all agree upon anyway.
A man sees ten men in ten different ditches. They will all die if not rescued. This man has ten ropes that he ncould let down and offer rescue to all ten men. Instead he only lets down one and offers rescue to only one man.
What does that say abot that man? It says he has little compassion for people.
#111 No, when pressed I gave a list of scriptures.
All unsaved people are lost – completely. Whether you desire to press the point about being evil is moot. Before Christ everyone is dead in their sins and not in the family of God.
Which is what I referred to when I wrote “your biblical argument that all unsaved people are evil was lacking.”
I know at least two were taken out of context… without going back I forget how the others failed.
Ultimately this is true. But I dislike theological sloppiness even on the nuanced level. I am stopping short of disagreeing with PB, I’m just asking him to defend how statement.
He has a knack for making wildly broad statements and oft times cannot back them up.
If he would, he could just say he got carried away, but, as in our recent correcting of him in regards to Wright and justification – he never… or very very rarely… admits his errors. Most of which are born from haste – I believe.
This is not Hasty:
NT Wright’s view of justification is more Catholic than Biblical, and is based on his new Perspective on Paul. He promotes an infused rather than an imputed or alien righteousness.
Mankind is EVIL. Prior to conversion, God describes us as children of Wrath.
I didn’t want to side track Jerry’s most recent article so I moved this comment here. You say hope. But I ask who’s hope?
The people we refer to, i.e., those who reject Christ in this life certainly aren’t exhibiting hope in Christ. You are the one exhibiting that hope in some kind of cosmic salve that has only the most tenuous basis in Scripture.
These people reject Christ and show no repentance in this life and yet after an undetermined time in some conveniently hypothesized purgatorial fires receive pardon and inclusion in the life of God in the next life.
Any sin can be forgiven. For example David Berkowitz’s conversion. But those choices must be made in this life. They cannot be made in the next.
The hope you intimate in your comment above is certainly not held by non-repentant sinners. Hope in God is the last thing they are thinking of.
Christ is their only hope, but that hope is available only in this life for it is appointed for man to die once and then comes the judgement. That revelation knowledge is what spurs evangelism.
Which, is of course, NOT the accusation that you made that we thoroughly disproved.
And repeating the claim with even less biblical evidence serves no purpose. Being under wrath is not tantamount to be evil.
John to be fair, and accurate, I believe Chad would say that at some point they do find their hope in Christ. If I understand Chad, it’s not that they attain eternal life in-spite of their rejection, it’s that they will ultimate attain faith… that’s God’s love will prevail over all rejection.
I do not think this is biblical, but I think it only fair to address what someone actually believes.
[are you listening Pastorboy?]
Actually, PB is simply just plain wrong. Based on what he says in the book, I believe Wright would say that righteousness can’t be imputed or infused (whatever the hell that means). Both of those ideas are founded on the idea that our righteousness is stored up in some sort of account somewhere, or measured against some standard of righteousness, which is a very medieval idea.
Righteousness is a term which is wholly based on one’s actions, specifically one’s actions which show faithfulness to the covenant. So that’s why Christ’s faithfulness is so important. His life, death, and resurrection were the perfect righteousness, and because of that, we can be justified. So through the Holy Spirit working in our lives, we can to be righteous, that is live in a way that is faithful to the Law God has given us.
No No NO!!! Righteousness may be evidenced by our actions but it is not based on our actions.
We have an alien, imputed righteousness void of any cooperation. It is based on the grace of God alone, given us through the death, burial, and resurection of Christ. It is a great exchange; my sin for His righteousness. It is once for all reality, yet by the power of the Holy Spirit we grow in holiness as we, by the power of God in us, are conformed more to the image of His Son through humility and being submitted to His revealed will through the Word.
Sorry, PB, but you’re simply wrong.
Think of it like this. If someone is described as a faithful spouse, that term is meaningless apart from how he lives in regards to observing his wedding vows. I cannot be described as a faithful spouse if I have never done anything to show myself faithful. The word faithfulness (which diakonos can and should be translated as many times) implies action. God is righteous because He is actively true to His word.
Of course, our righteousness can add nothing to our salvation, and Wright is very clear on that. All Wright is doing, really, is clarifying and correcting the definition of the term “justification” as it pertains to righteousness.
Herein lies another problem – Pastorboy did not quote Wright – he quoted what others said about Wright.
It is, after all, a theological exercise. And while I cannot agree with Wright as strongly as Phil does, it seem consistent that righteousness and justification are both declarations.
Justification is a declaration. We are not “made” just or innocent – that is an impossibility once we are guilty… but we can be declared such. We can be acquitted.
Why then is it not the same for righteousness. How can we be made righteous when we are not? Yet, the righteousness of Christ can be credited to us – if I understand Wright right.
Yes, I fully understand that concept. And though I understand the concept, I still totally reject it.
All protestations aside, when extrapolated to its ultimate conclusion the bottom line of this belief is that any decisions in this life regarding Christ are totally moot and of no consequence as everyone gets one cosmic do over in the next.
This is the bottom line of this reasoning no matter how one tries to mitigate it.
wow.
John, is your life no different since knowing Jesus than it was before?
As I shared before, I have hope in something greater than myself that I never knew before knowing Christ.
The way you talk about faith makes it sound like you would snub Jesus unless there is some eternal reward waiting for you.
That’s sad.
As do I. My point was just a caution about rejecting his actual position, not a caricature of it.
There is no righteousness but Christ’s. Our works either provide a prism or a wall to that righteousness. Our works add nothing to perfect righteousness.
Good try to deflect the tenor of the post. My point still stands. The topic is eternal salvation, not its temporal benefits. Of course there are benefits of knowing Christ in this life.
That statement is just as self serving on many levels as it still implies benefits to **you.** And there are, obviously, personal benefits in this life and the next for a relationship with Christ. I certainly am not arguging against that. But your statement doesn’t take a more noble “high road”. It is just as self-serving in the final analysis.
Wow, indeed.
To gain Christ is the prize. EVERYTHING else is is just lagniappe.
Just for the personal integrity of my world view, as a believer in the concept of OSAS (or more precicesly the eternal security of the believer), I feel it important to accept a critic’s charge that well “if you believe that then it doesn’t matter what you do or what sin you commit, you will still be saved”. Now I will argue that well, a **true** believer will not continue in sin because of the indwelling Spirit, etc., but at the end of the day I have to admit, when extrapolated to its logical conclusion, my world view does say you cannot sin yourself out of heaven and in that sense my critic is correct. I can mitigate it, but that is what the ultimate extrapolation of my world view says. Well it’s the end of the day and I really hope you can come to the point where you can just admit that in your world view, eternity wise, it matters not what one does with Christ
in regards to eternity and that the only benefits of evangelism are (1) just for the supposed side benefits of the Christian walk in this life and (2) an early, but not necessary **lock** on eternity.
Sorry, got some formatting off at the end. Try this.
Good try to deflect the tenor of the post. My point still stands. The topic is eternal salvation, not its temporal benefits. Of course there are benefits of knowing Christ in this life.
That statement is just as self serving on many levels as it still implies benefits to **you.** And there are, obviously, personal benefits in this life and the next for a relationship with Christ. I certainly am not arguging against that. But your statement doesn’t take a more noble “high road”. It is just as self-serving in the final analysis.
Wow, indeed.
To gain Christ is the prize. EVERYTHING else is is just lagniappe.
Just for the personal integrity of my world view, as a believer in the concept of OSAS (or more precicesly the eternal security of the believer), I feel it important to accept a critic’s charge that well “if you believe that then it doesn’t matter what you do or what sin you commit, you will still be saved”. Now I will argue that well, a **true** believer will not continue in sin because of the indwelling Spirit, etc., but at the end of the day I have to admit, when extrapolated to its logical conclusion, my world view does say you cannot sin yourself out of heaven and in that sense my critic is correct. I can mitigate it, but that is what the ultimate extrapolation of my world view says. Well it’s the end of the day and I really hope you can come to the point where you can just admit that in your world view, eternity wise, it matters not what one does with Christ in this life in regards to eternity and that the only benefits of evangelism are (1) just for the supposed side benefits of the Christian walk in this life and (2) an early, but not necessary **lock** on eternity.
One would not know that if they saw only what you and a few others here write about salvation. One would easily conclude that it’s all about getting out of hell in the life after.
John H – would you still love and serve Jesus Christ if you knew there was no guarantee you’d get rewarded after death?
Assuming you are married or have children, would you still love them and lay your life down for them if you knew there was no reward in it for you?
So, why do I love Jesus and tell others about Jesus?
(note: what is NOT said is every bit as important there as what is said).
Chad, this life is but a vapor and we are nothing more than flowers of the morning withering in the afternoon. The saints of old understood this and their allegiances were not to this life but to the life hereafter. The Scriptures are replete with this.
Our thoughts are to be eternity-ward. This is the common theme throughout the Scriptures. This life is but a vapor. We are but passers by here and strangers. We are citizens of heaven and that is where our affections should be. And yes there are benefits in this life in knowing Christ. Of course. And at least in my worldview, the decisions made in this incredibly short life do have eternal consequences (not so in yours).
That being said, there is a balance and we are told how we should behave while here and particularly we should be living a life that brings glory to God and we should be about introducing others to the One who found us.
But you have avoided coming to terms with (or at least publically admitting) that the outworking of your world view ultimately means that while believing in Christ in this age may have some temporal benefits it is really not critial to the eternal and **that** reduces evangelism to something nice, but not necessary.
John H – I disagree.
I don’t have time to explain now. Maybe later
It’s later than we think.
John H –
I’m sorry I am not as quick in responding as you might like. I mentioned before that my dad had a major heart attack this weekend and we have been spending time together (a special thanks again to Neil, the only person who put aside disagreements and offer prayer for my dad – great Christian community here!)
This is a presupposition that I find untenable. Most of the texts you picked to prove your point could be read the other way. For instance, the first, where Jesus said his kingdom is not of this realm is not to set up some other heaven over and against this present world but to say that the WAYS of his kingdom do not work like the ways of our fallen kingdoms. Yet at the same time, “The Kingdom of God is at hand.” Why at hand? Because Jesus is here, inaugurating a new rule. Jesus is not talking about life after death but this present life.
Same goes for the last one you cite. “Eternal life” literally means “life of the ages.” It is the sort of life that transcends the muck and mire of this present one. Having an eternal destiny after this life is not the goal of Christianity. I realize that this has been the main (if not the sole) selling point for a good number of years but it’s simply not true.
Yes, we are citizens of heaven. Guess when? NOW! Not after we die – TODAY!. Today is the day of your salvation, Paul says. Not after you die.
I get asked this a lot and have addressed it on my blog HERE.
Also, you might read what N.T. Wright says about evangelism HERE.
I evangelize because I love people, John H. That is something God works in me and continues to do. I don’t evangelize because I think that there eternal destiny hinges on my ability to persuade. I think their eternity (and yours and my own) rests solely in the person and work of Jesus Christ – something already done.
John H – in the long time it took me to respond I thought you would have at least answered my questions above. I’ll repeat them here:
Let me ask one more: Would you still be a Christian if there were no guarantees of heaven?
Chad,
)
Nice. Real. Nice.
jerry
Thanks for the support, Jerry.
what an ass.
Seriously, jerry, you have degenerated into a pathetic human being. On your last post where you shared your struggles I looked beyond our recent disagreements and your hostile attitude towards everything I say and was sincere in my prayers for you and for your peace.
I share here that my dad had a major heart attack and the ONLY person who offered any words of support was Neil. Now, feel free to say you didn’t know or share that you were too busy acting like a self-absorbed asshole to care or whatever, but what does your wasted breath in #150 do for anyone?
To think I once thought of you as a friend.
Wow! i totally missed the thing about Chad’s dad.
so sorry to hear that, friend.
thanks, nathan.
we are up in PA with him and family. we were able to bring him home from the hospital yesterday. He’s doing well. Very fortunate.
I missed that one too Chad-
Wish your Dad a speedy recovery and total healing. I will pray for him even now.
I thought I had already answered the first one. Christ is the goal, everything else is just laignappe (look it up).
#2. Of course. However, my reward would be their life. If this is a metaphor for Christ then it fails on certain levels because
a. Not all His creation (whom He does love) are His Children. One reason He died was to redeem His children and secure His family. Joh 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,”. But not all believe and thus all are not His children even though whosoever **will** may come.
b. Christ was rewarded for his sacrifice and being God knew He would be rewarded. (Phil 2:8-12). But that is an aside. His motive was love.
Chad,
I prayed for your dad last night and this morning. Sorry for not saying anything sooner.
Sorry to hear about your dad, Chad, but glad to hear he is doing better. I’ll pray…
Thanks, John C, John H and Eugene.
Ok, but that is not the same as a personal reward for yourself. The point is, I (and I assume you) follow Jesus as Lord not because it gets me into heaven but because he first loved me. Granted, there are lots of motivations for coming to Christ (fear tactics, etc) but the hope is as we mature in our relationship with God (just like we mature in our relationships with our spouses) we are sticking it out for the right reasons.
Eph 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
There is an ontological reality (we are ALL children of God) and a subjective one (see John 1:12).
Because of Christ, ALL things (not just those who believe) have been reconciled to God (see. 2 Cor. 5). The curse that was over ALL humanity because of the first Adam has been lifted for the same group (ALL) because of the second Adam (see Rom. 5).
Because of Christ we can now “become” children of God (John 1:12) – Christ has made it possible for us to live INTO the reality that is true for all of us. Without Christ, we would be lost.
Take my adoptive children, for instance. They ARE my children. Nothing can change the reality of the fact they I am their daddy and they are my kids. But they could live in rejection of that reality. They could choose to snub me as their father, thus not truly “becoming” my children. But they are still my kids.
Maybe I missed it, but did you answer about whether or not you’d be a Christian if there was no guarantee of heaven?
I did not come to Christ because I was convicted about sin, or desired heaven, or was afraid of hell. I became a believer when the Spirit opened my eyes to see Who Jesus really was and is.
All the heaven and hell stuff came later. If one makes a profession based upon reward or fear there is a danger that he has never really met the Risen Christ and that his profession was based soley upon what Jesus can do for him.
If you are convinced that Jesus is the only God then you will embrace Him with your life.
The reason we all missed it is because it was on another thread.
Chad,
I know you are, but what am I? Why don’t you take a break, concentrate on your family for a while, and come back after you have rolled around in the snow for a bit.
Seriously. Once again, Pastor Rev Chad, time to grow down. You’re starting to remind me of some old people I know.
To think I still consider you a friend.
jerry
Chad,
I didn’t degenerate. I have always been a pathetic human being.
jerry
Honestly, jerry, there was a time when I wondered how a church could fire you. I don’t wonder anymore.
I understand what you’re getting at Chad with your question about following Christ simply based on the rewards you get. I’ve certainly heard people put it that way before.
I guess my response to your question is that in some sense, following Christ because of His victory over sin and death is a Biblical motivation. It especially shows up in the book of Hebrews. The whole book gives the image of Christ as our High Priest leading out of slavery to sin and death, into the freedom of God’s presence. So, yes, we follow Christ just because He is Christ, but had He not defeated death and given us eternal life, He wouldn’t really be the Christ.
#164 – Talk about going for the juglar. Did Jesus really live or was he a fairy tale?
True, Chad. And I wonder how a church hasn’t fired you. But then again, is the UMC even a ‘church’ anymore?
We can play this game until the end of the world when every one goes to your magical heaven if you like.
A very odd question coming from someone who has found a home in the Episcopal church
#164…WOW.
Excuse me Chad, I found a home in the Anglican Church. Big, massive, major, huge difference.
And they will know we are Christians by our love by our love yes they will know we are Christians by our love.
#170: lol Jerry. not really.
Look, I don’t know where you and I fell off the tracks. I’ll let you have the last word and I’ll do us both a favor and just ignore you from here on out.
Jerry – I think the response to Chad’s comment about his father’s heart attack was – well, what was the point? Please don’t answer, it’s a rhetorical question.
Chad – Seriously dude, I know you are in pain, but the comment about Jerry being fired is a low blow.
Chad,
I think it an impossible question to ask, regarding following Christ without the promise of eternal life.
If like asking; “If you wife had a different body and a different personality would you still love her?
it’s impossible to answer since she’d be a different person.
Neil,
I’m not so sure. And i don’t think the parallel with the wife holds. For one, I don’t tie the “personality” of Christ to his promise of heaven. There is much more to a relationship with Jesus than that, don’t you agree?
So I guess I am asking whether or not knowing Christ in this life has made a difference. Would you still love Jesus if you were not guaranteed heaven? Frankly, many groups of Christians in the past have held that as a tenant of belief – if you knew you were going to heaven you probably weren’t (Puritans, for example).
Jesus said he came to give us life and life abundantly. Does that abundant life begin only after one dies?
“Does that abundant life begin only after one dies?”
Of course not. But as Hebrews tells us that man has feared death since Adam. But John 3:16 tells us that God sent Christ so that sinners will not persih but have everlasting life – which – is a whole lot more than 80 years.
Let us not minimze the eternal afterlife.
Chad,
You are pushing the wife illustration too far. The point is you have created an impossible scenario to answer – just as I did with the wife question.
I agree, and I think I said this recently in another thread, that in too many cases modernism reduced the Gospel to just going to heaven.
That said, it is impossible to answer a question that swings the pendulum in the other extreme.
actually, the Episcopal church is part of the Anglican communion.
For how long, i know not…but the differentiation of Anglican from Episcopal in the N.A. context is part of the contentiousness going on in the communion itself.
just say’n….
love to all!
you guys need to cool it and forgive each other…
just say’n…
love to all!!!
I guess one way to look at the question of the value of following Christ now compared to the reward in the future is through the lens of the conservative/liberal split. When fundamentalism took root in the US, it really did tend to make the decision to follow Christ one of “fire insurance”. It almost boiled down Christianity to little more than a form of gnosticism. I guess it would be kind of fair that they elevated Jesus’ divinity over His humanity.
However, on the liberal side of that split, you have people who more or less denied Christ was divine. He was little more than a wise rabbi who told us how to live. So they emphasized His humanity while either downplaying or outright denying His divinity.
I guess the key is to live in truth of both – Jesus was completely God and completely man. This whole hypostatic union thing has been tripping people up almost from the get-go.
actually, the Episcopal church is part of the Anglican communion.
This may well be true. But the congregation I have affiliated with has nothing to do with the Episcopal church as Rev Holtz stated. In fact, our congregation is one of many congregations that have disaffiliated with that stream of the communion and are currently involved in a contentious battle over property.
In this sense, we are not at all a part of the Episcopal church and they are not a part of ‘us’ unless being sued is a new way of belonging to one another.
Neil,
I didn’t make a comment about ‘Chad’s dad’s heart attack.’ I made a comment about his snide remark about our ‘great Christian community’ in #148.
I should have shortened my blockquote so as to avoid the confusion. I am sorry for any trouble that I may have caused in that regard.
jerry
Re:181
Disassociation is a tricky issue, especially when property is concerned. It’s a shame things ever come to lawsuits.
Who are you in communion with? The Bishop of Nigeria?
Jerry,
It is true that Chad leveraged the lack of response to his dad’s heart attack to take a swipe at us… that said, your comment hurt him.
Thanks for the apology.
ummm, i understand your point Jerry, i was only trying to point out that the terms Anglican and Episcopal really don’t get us anywhere until there is a communion wide solution.
I’ve been involved in the church for a long time.
It’s true there is contentiousness, and the lawsuits are unfortunate…
that being said, dioceses are within their rights to retain the property that is theirs…something parishes knew when they chose their course of action.
That being said, i think that dioceses should allow parishes to leave and waive their rights…
because the attitude behind the lawsuits is punitive and meanspirited.
OR, in the case of Virginia bishop Lee, he was forced into lawsuits after he had set up a process for parishes to leave with their property…
it’s a real mess…
183,
CANA
LOL. I don’t know if you meant that to be funny, MG, but it brought a smile to my face. It is good to see my West African cousins in Nigeria being recognized for stuff other than email probably originating in Indiana and claiming to be sent from Lagos
By the way, from Wikipedia, the Anglican Church in Nigeria had 122 Bishops as at May 2007, so you have to be more specific with your question.