SLICE Finally Reveals What REAL Christians Are Supposed to Know/Believe
Scott on July 27, 2007 at 9:43 am
Ingrid over at Slice of Laodicea has provided an impressive list of questions that reveal just a bit of her perspective regarding what real/true Christians are supposed to know as followers of Christ. I have provided her list of questions below. Check out the link to her post for the answers.
I have a question of my own about her questions, though. If these questions touch on the most important things that Christians are supposed to know/believe, then what did the believers do in the early years of the church before things like “effectual calling,” sanctification and justification, and “communion of the saints” were codified in the Westminster Confession (which as we all know is THE litmus test for the quality and veracity of a believer’s faith)?
And of course it goes without saying that the thief on the cross was doomed from the start since most of what Ingrid’s questions touch upon hadn’t even been conceptualized yet, since the Church hadn’t been born.
Anyhow, on to Ingrid’s questions:
1. Name the Ten Commandments, in order.
2. Name the 12 Apostles
3. Give a concise biblical definition of sin
4. What is God?
5. What offices does Christ execute as our Redeemer?
6. How do we partake of the redemption purchased by Christ?
7. What does the term, “effectual calling” mean?
8. Give a concise definition of “justification.”
9. Give a concise definition of “sanctification.”
10. What duty does God require of man?
11. Where is the moral law summed up in the Scriptures?
12. What words from God are the preface to His Ten Commandments? Also, where in Scripture are the Ten Commandments found?
13. What do we pray for in the First Petition of the Lord’s prayer?
14. What about the Second Petition?
15. The Third?
16. The Fourth?
17. The Fifth? The Sixth?
18. How does the ministry of the Law bring us toward Christ?
19. How does the ministry of the Gospel help you in your accursed state?
20. What is prayer?
21. What is repentance?
22. What is meant by the “communion of the saints”?
23. What is the Bible?
-
Oddly enough, there does seem to be something missing from Ingrid’s whole perspective. She reveals much about her legalistic, narrow view of the Christian faith by what she leaves out of her questions. Things like…
Question: What is the most important commandment and how are we to regard God and live as Christians in light of this commandment?
Answer: Matthew 22:36-38 – “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied, ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.”
- AND -
Question: What expectations does the Lord place on believers as they actually live out their faith in the real world?
Answer: James 1:27 – “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
-
I don’t know. Maybe loving God with all your heart, soul and mind while being an active and effectual light in the world and being a conduit of God’s love into the lives of those in need is overrated. Maybe Ingrid is right. I better go blow the dust off my copy of the Westminster Confession and start-a-studyin’. I hear Ingrid’s been put in charge of pop quizzes up in Heaven. Anything less than 90% gets a person booted right over the pearly gates back out into the darkness.
Category: Religion & Faith |
Hi Scott,
And there’s this:
It’s not a pop quiz; it’s a doctoral examination.
July 27, 2007 @ 10:13 amScott,
There is a very clear and important distinction that needs to be made here. Ingrid posted her list not as a list to test whether a person was a true Christian or not. so I think if you count yourself as a Christian you need to publicly apologize for making a false accusation against her.
Ingird posted her quiz in response to a pop-quiz that used secular and non-Biblical examples to test your own Bible knowledge concerning Noah and the Flood. She was just making a very good point of saying if you are going to test your Biblical knowledge you should use Christian sources not secular pop culture sources. which in actual fact is the best way to test your knowledge of any specific subject: Always use the original source for the knowledge about the subject. It prevents degradation of the original truth about the subject
Your article on the other hand betrayed some very clear sarcasm, bitterness and personal bias against Ingrid for no good, valid, Biblical or Christian based reason.
in other words your post displayed some serious carnality. You quoted James 1:27 but you left out what Jesus said was the greatest commandment:
Matthew 22:36-40:
“Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love he Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. ”
Loving your neighbor as yourself is not just helping widows and orphans. you can be the greatest giver in the world, but if you do not have love, you are nothing, and Love is a multi-domensional word, it means if someone strikes you on one side of your face, turn your face and let them stike the other side.
You intiated an attack on Indrid for no other reason than fallen and sinful personal bias. And befroe you throw out there anything that you think she has done that did not show love. Remember this, it does not matter what anyone else does to you. You will be held accountable for what you do.
Again Ingrid was just making a very good point in defending where we all should be getting our Christian knowledge from, NOT a list of what makes you a Christian.
Now I will leave it up to you to decide whether you want to be honest and confess your unjust and wrong accusation against her or whether you choose to dig your tunel to hell a little bit deeper with another snide rude and unnecessary attack either against me or Ingrid.
July 27, 2007 @ 9:25 pmJohn,
You are accusing Scott of being a sinful, unconfessed, straight-to-hell hyprocrite just because he’s defending his faith and has the right to do so? (see the First Amendment).
And in doing so, you basically sent his opinions to hell, so that puts YOU in the same shoes – an intolerant, extremist writer with illusions of grandeur, who talks and quotes love, and may be an expert on the sutbject, as you said that it’s a “multidimensional” word (interesting; love is a feeling, not a measurable thing).
Love is also about respect. That list is ridiculous as a list of things all Christians should know; this almost sounds like NCLB and all its standardized, one-size fits-all testing, except in this case it is: No Christian Left Behind.
She should apologize to US for her self-proclaiming theologian syndrome, and for creating a diminutive list of know-hows, as if what every Christian should know was a magic formula and not a way of life.
July 27, 2007 @ 10:12 pmComment #3 (from the Slice… post)
Ingrid Says:
Peter,
Of course not all of this must be known to be saved…
Whew! I was worried there for a minute! If justification were by memorization (rather than faith) I’d be hell-bound too (even w/o being judged by “little john” as Scott was).
July 27, 2007 @ 11:33 pmCaution should be made when quoting Matthew and then accusing another of “digging a tunnel to hell”. I believe the chapter contains careful advice about judging our brothers.
July 27, 2007 @ 11:48 pmHey! You’re back!
It’s like you left and went to Florida or something.
July 28, 2007 @ 12:26 amAmen, Blondie – you said what I was going to say, but more succinctly.
To be fair to Ingrid, although I don’t agree with her point, I don’t think Scott represented it entirely accurately. But then, that’s satire for you.
There is a reasonable point contained within what she says, though. Once you become a Christian, you are saved, but you have a responsibility as an evangelist (like it or not) and some kind of guidance about where to look next in order to answer the questions people are likely to ask you would be very helpful. Maybe Ingrid isn’t the best person to provide that guidance for everybody.
July 28, 2007 @ 12:27 amI can answer most of her questions (iffy on #2 and 12a). Don’t think she’d like my answer to #7 at all.
Nothing wrong with a little pop quiz to sharpen people. As always with Ingrid, it’s the spirit of are-you-up-to-my-standards that makes it grating.
July 28, 2007 @ 12:32 amYes, I’m baaack… Although VS was there with us in Florida the whole time, being Mommy took precedent over sitting in front of the computer. But, by proxy, hubby got me caught up on all the happenings, while I swam laps in the pool, and played games with the boys. “)
I actually take no issue with Ingrid’s list when it is meant as a suggestion that we, as Christians, should have understanding about those topics. Since we are indeed meant to be ambassadors, we should, I think, have some Biblical knowledge to go along with our actions. Some people will watch us taking careful note of our actions, and others will take note of our answers to Biblical questions.
Creating within us a combination of both action, and knowledge, lends itself to reaching just that many more people.
I also understood John’s desire to defend Ingrid, and to try and shed possible light into what she was doing, as we all have a tendency to do that for those we feel we know better than someone else.
But – we need to tread lightly when pointing fingers at others, because as soon as judgmental and condemning words are used, all credence can be lost.
We need to reach out, not push away.
July 28, 2007 @ 1:57 amThe Mighty Red One says:
You are accusing Scott of being a sinful, unconfessed, straight-to-hell hyprocrite just because he’s defending his faith and has the right to do so? (see the First Amendment).
I say:
Where is the first ammendment in the Bible? Show me where it is? So Called Christians who uneccessarily attack other Christians out of Personal Bias ARE digging themselves a tunnel to Hell!
Scott wasnt defending his faith, on the contrary he was unecessarily attacking someone for defending faith. So lets be clear on that.
Secondly Verum Serum is no better than a teenage MSN chat room, as the writers on it think it is OK to express, cultivate and make public personal biases against other Christians. Notice I said personal Biases! Which means they do not use the Bible to refute other Christians on a matter of Beliefs, they just let fly with sarcastic words for no better reason than they dont like someone.
This does cause unneccesary division and iinjury to another. The person doing this will be held accountable for doing so.
So before you bleat that this is your blog and you can say what you want, remember if you claim to be a Christian you can never just say what you want when you want. You will be held accountable for evey word that comes out of your mouth or every letter you type on your keep board.
So keep tunneling.
July 28, 2007 @ 6:48 amto the john who asked me to keep tunneling,
I used to be The Mighty Red One, well, not really, but it’s a long story.
Anyway, I apologize for coming across harshly; you are defending someone whom you believe we’ve attacked unnecesarily. I respect that.
However, I’d love to know how you came to the conclusion that I implied that the First Amendment was found in the Bible… ?!
July 28, 2007 @ 12:02 pmjohn
“the writers on it think it is OK to express, cultivate and make public personal biases against other Christians. Notice I said personal Biases! Which means they do not use the Bible to refute other Christians on a matter of Beliefs, they just let fly with sarcastic words for no better reason than they dont like someone.”
You don’t think (with the possible exception of the sarcasm bit) that sometimes applies to slice, too? That wouldn’t be a complete description of slice, but that certainly goes on ever there, too. Just maybe their prejudices are more in line with your own?
Whoever is without sin…..
Keith
July 28, 2007 @ 2:58 pmKeith Said:
You don’t think (with the possible exception of the sarcasm bit) that sometimes applies to slice, too? That wouldn’t be a complete description of slice, but that certainly goes on ever there, too. Just maybe their prejudices are more in line with your own?
I say:
No they dont post articles for the express intent of being sarcastic without just cause. And I think if you checked out my web site you would see that I dont.
Again Scott’s post was for the express intent of being sarcastic without cause due to a personal bias and not becuuse someone was making a mockery of Christianity, to another Christian who was defending the Faith and nothing more.
And your little quote “Whoever is without sin . . ” Is always the one trotted out and purposely misused partial verse used by those who want to attempt to justify doing wrong when they are caught out.
And lastly speaking hypothetically, even if Slice has said something that was the same as what Scott was doing. It does not release Scott from the fact that what he did was categorically anti-Christian. We are not to base our conduct on what we believe others do. We base our conduct on what the word tells us to do. And the last time I looked the word said if someone strikes you on your cheek, offer them the other one. no where does it say retaliate.
Keep tunneling.
July 28, 2007 @ 7:35 pmAll I know is that those of you that are without the gift of tongues are all going to hell (and if you don’t role in the aisles, shaking tambourines, you are suspect)!
[sarcasm off]
July 28, 2007 @ 7:54 pmjohn,
Thank you for stopping by VS. Before I comment on what you have said thus far, may I point out that at VS we have allowed you the freedom to express your views (1st Amendment in the blogosphere). While we will explain, expound upon and even defend what we say when necessary, we operate under the belief that all of us who interact here are bettered through the transparent exchange of ideas (including disagreements). The same can’t be said about Ingrid over at Slice or Ken Silva et al over at CRN. Ingrid screens comments and pretty much allows only the “AMEN” comments thru to be viewed by anyone visiting the site. All other comments that she deems dangerous or offensive or “argumentative” in tone (meaning in disagreement with her) are consigned to the ether. And Ken Silva can’t seem to handle disagreements at all without getting rude, abusive and snarky, thus his two sites don’t allow comments of any kind, period.
Now, on to what you have to say. As near as I can tell, your complaints are as follows:
1) According to you, “Ingrid posted her list not as a list to test whether a person was a true Christian.” Because of this belief, you are convinced that I have made a false accusation against her, which leads you believe that I have erred/sinned grievously and thus I need to repent and publicly apologize to Ingrid.
2) According to you, my article “betrayed some very clear sarcasm, bitterness and personal bias against Ingrid for no good, valid, Biblical or Christian based reason….in other words your post displayed some serious carnality.”
3) According to you, I “initiated an attack on Ingrid for no other reason than fallen and sinful personal bias.”
4) According to you, there is no such thing as the exercise of free speech in the Bible. (Your words…”Where is the first amendment in the Bible? Show me where it is?”)
5) According to you, “So Called Christians who unnecessarily attack other Christians out of Personal Bias ARE digging themselves a tunnel to Hell!”
6) According to you, Verum Serum is a blog where we (or at least I) “think it is OK to express, cultivate and make public personal biases against other Christians.” In doing so, we do not use the Bible to refute other Christians on the matter of beliefs. We just attack because we don’t like someone.
My initial post mentions “real/true Christians” and how it appears that Ingrid would define them. I am fully aware that the particular post that I referenced was in response to a quiz related to “Evan Almighty” and the crossroads between pop culture and Biblical knowledge. Forget the fact that in my opinion she completely missed the point of the quiz. Forget the fact that while she might have been appalled that the quiz was linking popular culture, the movie itself and various aspects of Biblical knowledge. Forget the fact that at the end of the quiz, the writer provides people with a whole series of links to some solid Biblical teaching about the Bible, the great flood, etc.
Forget all of that and just take Ingrid at her word, within the general context that she is attempting in her own very serious, very dower way to attempt to contrast what people in general and Christians specifically THINK they know about the Bible and the Christian faith verses what they SHOULD know. I’m not in complete disagreement with her on this point. There is certainly a dearth of Biblical knowledge and awareness within the world today, so what people think is valid/true can be very different from what is actual TRUTH.
Interestingly enough, while Ingrid typically bemoans today’s culture and pooh-poohs Evangelicals today for their level of Biblical knowledge, she freely points out in a comment connected to her initial post that Spurgeon had similar concerns back in his day…
The point I was trying to make in my post rises out of the tone of Ingrid’s entire site and the position that she takes regarding the Christian faith in general. This post just happens to be a very vivid/stark/clear example of what John described earlier as Ingrid’s “Are you up to MY standards” attitude. Her standards are at times certainly rooted in the Bible; but quite frequently they are rooted in her own personal style-preferences. Her rants against contemporary worship are legendary, while her passion for hymns and the belief that hymns are the only godly form of music within the Church are also legend. She heaps abuse upon abuse aimed at churches that offer various outlets for their congregants and the surrounding communities (singles gatherings, movie nights, carnivals and comedy performances, sporting events etc), yet her views are not rooted in the Bible. They are rooted in what she perceives as being unchristian, carnal, worldly, frivolous, etc.
In fact, as far as that goes john, as near as I can tell whenever she attacks a church or a church leader/pastor, she does so without attempting to contact them and without trying to gather further information as to the finer details, the strategies behind the planning, the end goals in mind, the follow-up for the unsaved, etc. She is reacting based on her own, personal biases. Now I’m pretty sure that somewhere in the Bible, Christians are given directives as to how they are to confront Christians whom they perceive to be in error. I think it has something to do with going to them in private, and then bringing a witness if they reject the rebuke, and then taking it to the larger church body of nothing happens. Denouncing them to the world on your own personal fiefdom/blog isn’t mentioned anywhere as one of the steps to take.
So it seems that Ingrid makes a living out of confronting others in a non-Biblical manner, ignoring the scriptural mandates in favor of her own personal preferences. As Keith has mentioned earlier, perhaps that doesn’t bother you because you are more sympathetic to her opinions than to others or mine with whom Ingrid disagrees.
And Note – that doesn’t even touch on the touchy subject of Ingrid, who claims to be very conservative and reformed, deciding to take it upon herself to rebuke and denounce pastors when, according to a traditional/reformed view of gender roles within the church, the Bible seems to make it clear that women are not supposed to try and act in authority over men. In fact, she has been confronted about this in the past by a former Slice contributor, who was promptly consigned to the persona non grata file. I guess it’s OK for her to ignore that minor point theology if it serves her greater good.)
If I may point something out. You made this statement:
We have devoted a fairly large amount of time and space at VS to systematically and Biblically refute some of what Ingrid, Ken Silva and the gang say that we disagree with. In all of the instances when we have posted on these issues, others (like yourself) have come to defend Ingrid and Ken and to renounce us. In those other posts we have engaged others in dialogue and have worked systematically through their problems and disagreements, sometimes good naturedly and sometimes aggressively. If you haven’t done so in the past, you may want to check out these posts and the lengthy comments that follow them:
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=596 Slice on Worship
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=592 Slice on Alcohol
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=703 Slice on Dancing
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=529 A Letter to Reverend Ken Silva
In the end, while you believe I owe Ingrid an apology, I must disagree. I took what she said in her quiz, combined with what she has said numerous times before in regards to a plethora of other topics and in light of numerous other pronouncements and condemnations she has proclaimed into the confines of the blogosphere, and extrapolated what I believe to be her underlying beliefs and assumptions about what it means to be a “true Christian.”
Now, contrary to her habit of casting doubt onto the faith of those whom she deems to be unworthy of the label “Christian,” in NO WAY have I cast aspersions on her faith. I might disagree with how she expresses her brand of faith, and I certainly disagree with her habit of placing herself in the seat of judgment over all others who don’t tow her line, but I would never put myself in the position of assuming that I can evaluate the state of her soul. If I had done so, I would have indeed owed her an apology.
You seem to think I have a personal grudge against Ingrid. I do not. As I expressed earlier, I object to her judgmental attitude towards anything that isn’t in the Spurgeon/Tozer model of things. I object to her insistence that anything new (new music, new methods, new approaches, new venues) are all bad/wrong/carnal. I object to her habit of equating her preferences with God’s preferences, with the obvious inclination to view herself as a godly woman who is walking after the Lord and who is seeking His wisdom…and thus if her wisdom tells her something then it must be true and right and thus is the mandate for us all. I object to her condescension and denigration of anything that doesn’t mesh with her midwestern sensibilities. I object to how she holds the life she lives with her family up as the proper way to live (home schooling kids, children who relish singing hymns around the house, breathless fatigue over all of the things she is busy with related to her walk with God, etc).
I commend her for living a godly life and raising a godly family and doing her Christian radio thing. But she assumes that her way is the only way to do things. Her perspective on Christianity doesn’t have much relevance or connection to the life a Christian might lead in Muslim Egypt, or secular Germany, or inner-city New York, or sunny California. She makes the same assumption over and over again…if she doesn’t understand it or disagrees with it or is confused by it, then it must be wrong. If it is different, then it must be stopped.
One last thing…You said:
I agree that I am held accountable for what I do. I am curious, though, if you have ever given that same speech to Ingrid? Christians and non-Christians alike have commented here and elsewhere about the lack of love and compassion she demonstrates (and the sheer hatred at times). Have you reminder her as an outside/disinterested/impartial 3rd party observer that she is accountable for all of her attacks against fellow believers?
Or perhaps you are too busy in the Amen Corner.
July 28, 2007 @ 10:50 pmScott if only a large volumnous amount of typing and text proved a point correct, unfortunately it does not.
You rather extended monolgue was nothing more than ratonalization.
In regards to what comments Ingrid allows or disallows on her site that is her choice. It is not as if You or I or anyone else is forced on a daily basis to view her website so in regards to what she allows or doesnt allow, compared to what you allow has no bearing whatsoever.
My comment was strictly about you, and it is irregardless what Ingrid does or doesnt do. So you need to understand that. Your conduct is the subject here. You and others here keep reeching for the fact that you believe that because Ingrid did such and such then it is ok for you to do what you did.
I am hear to tell you that you are wrong, DEAD wrong. And you can dance around that Biblical fact all you want with as much typing as you want but it does not change that fact. And you know you are wrong and that what you did and continually do on this web site is against basic Christian principles.
What I find completley ironic though is that you cast dispersions on Ingrid for defending faith and you deride what you consider her low tolerence level for error and her high standards for what she considers to be Christian. But here at Verum Serum you too have your own tolerence level and standard for what you believe is Christian or Conservative.
So because your standard is lower you attack her. But becasuse others standards are lower than yours you attack them as well. So what are you trying to stake out here? A luke warm Christianity that relies on protestations that Christianity is supposed to be about helping widows and orphans? Funny but I dont see an emphasis on helping Widows and Orphans on this web site.
Scott Verum Serum is an atypical shallow sniping site for apostate Christians. you dont want to actually be serious Christians but then again the Liberal agenda horrifies you so you attack both! And when you get caught in your shallowness you bleat that Christianity is supposed to be about helping widows and orphans, and whoever is without sin cast the first stone etc etc etc. But those verse snippets are just a smoke screen thrown up so people might feel guilty for calling you to account.
Here is an insight for you, its not the liberal agenda that is destroying Christianity it is luke warm Christians who sit back and snipe at the serious Christians who are dedicated to actually defending real Christianity.
I dont agree with everything that Ingrid says but I respect her becasue she stands up for and is firm on what she believes. And what she believes is far more Biblical than what you find on Verum Serum.
You say you do not have a personal grudge against Ingrid, Sorry friend but here is another insight, your writings say otherwise.
in regards to you statement about Ingrid not knowing or ignoring what Chritianity is like in: “Muslim Egypt, or secular Germany, or inner-city New York, or sunny California”
My question is do you actually know what Christianity is like in those areas? I have tavelled to Africa, the Middle East, Eastern and Western Europe and all over the U.S. on Missions and I can tell you Christianity most other countries is no different than mid-west America. It has the same secular pressures from its society as does the American Church. But what is different in those countries is they have a greater respect for their Christian faith and fight more diligently to prevent secular pressures from coloring their Christian beliefs, and their Christian beliefs are much closer to Ingrids than they are yours. They would consider you an apostate.
The American Church is disintegrating because of the things she writes about and as much as you find Ingrids work not to your liking her work is necessary to awake people to the ongoing secularization of Western Evnagelical Christianity.
And I would far prefer to be in her shoes on judgment day than in yours. Her defense will be she was defending faith. your defense will be you defended your right to sit on the fence.
So I say again, keep digging your tunnel.
July 29, 2007 @ 3:06 amOk “little john”, let me see if I’ve got this straight – good boys go to heaven, and mean boys go to hell…. Sorry “little john”. If those are the rules, then you don’t make the cut.
July 29, 2007 @ 7:52 amHi john,
I take your comments to be serious in nature, so I have a serious question; How is Scott through his recent words/post (or past ones for that matter) pushing him further and further away from Heaven (the tunneling analogy)?
You are suggesting that his salvation is in jeopardy.
How can this be?
July 29, 2007 @ 10:10 amoops, john, I should have written:
“How is Scott through his recent words/post (or past ones for that matter) pushing himself further and further away from Heaven (the tunneling analogy)?”
(I was on my way out the door, and did not proofread before I posted.)
July 29, 2007 @ 2:43 pmjohn
your mind seems pretty made up here, so this may be a waste of all our time, but please let me try. Scott and John have an issue with the way Slice conducts itself. I understand that they have tried to take this up with Ingrid et al privately, but without success. Posting things on here seems to catch their attention, so they raise their issues on here.
You have a problem with that, because you think that they are attacking a defender of the faith publicly, and you believe that God will hold them accountable for that.
What I say to you is that Scott and John have tried to rebuke their fellow Christian privately for actions that (because of my personal views and prejudices) seem to me worthy of rebuke.
You, because of your own views and prejudices, do not see these actions as worthy of rebuke, but instead defend Ingrid’s position. That’s fair enough. But as soon as anybody raises a Biblical justification for any point opposed to yours, you call it a smokescreen. I’m sorry I didn’t finish the quote off, I sometimes do that with very well known verses, because if the person finishes them off in their own mind they remember it more. I’m sorry if it looked like laziness or a deliberate attempt to mislead – I still feel I used the verse appropriately.
What does seem to be stepping over the line is your confidence that God sees things your way. The further I walk in my journey of faith, the clearer it seems to be that God’s wisdom is beyond human comprehension. I would not presume to state that God agrees with me on this or any subject, but I hold the views I do in the sincere belief that this is what God wants me to do.
Please look back at your posts and see if they ever seem to become aggressive, harshly critical or judgmental. With respect, I think they do, and that you are basing much of your point on your own personal prejudice, which happens to be similar to the Slice worldview. For instance, you can attribute the decline of the American church to ‘luke warm’
Christians, as found on VS. You have no factual basis for that statement – it is something you believe, you can find evidence enough to convince you, but not enough to prove it objectively – it’s a prejudice. We all have them, but you appear to think they are the excusive property of people you disagree with.
As for judgement day, john, I’m not looking forward to that with any glee, but I seriously worry about anyone who can look at another Christian and think “I’ll be better of than you.” I firmly believe that if anyone is looking forward to judgement day when all the wrong’uns get what’s coming to them, they are in for a nasty surprise.
sorry for the length of my post,
Grace, peace and love
Keith
July 30, 2007 @ 6:30 amjohn, dude
July 30, 2007 @ 10:17 amgranted, your initial post was provocative and was defending Ingrid’s list. But now you’ve deteriorated to making heaven and hell judgements. Your credibility has tanked.
I always find it interesting how quickly the phrase “So Called Christians” (or just putting the word Christian in quotes) gets trotted out by Slice defenders. I guess when you become a true Christian, you’re handed a “Christian detector” to help you recognize the false ones instantly (and that disagreeing with Slice is a sure sign of apostasy).
Keep up the good work, guys!
July 30, 2007 @ 10:51 amFor Blondie:
Scott is tunneling himself to hell because he is making unjust attacks on a Christian for defending her faith. He does this with sarcasm and a personal Bias.
Mathew 5:22:
“But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.”
For Keith and all the others:
Scott has not shown any Biblical justification for his sarcastic personal attacks on Ingrid and neither has anyone else on this web site or thread. It is as I said before, internet blogs and web sites authored by “Christians” is paving the road to hell for them as they think because they have a blog or a web site they can say what they please and how they please. The Bible says otherwise. What is important is the intent in publicly denouncing another and also, is the denunciation in line with how the Bible says it should be done.
Many people have a problem with Discernment web sites because they say, have the discernment sites used the Matthew 18 principle first? But they are wrong to think that this principle applies to Discernment web sites such as Slice. It does not. And shows a very shallow of the word and an intent to manipulate the word for personal carnal purposes to say that it does apply.
The articles and issues that discernment sites like slice publish are ones that are in the public domain, the issue has been made public to the Church Body by the person who caused the issue. In this case it is perfectly Biblical to warn people publicly against the person and name them. And sometimes shame them.
On the other hand what Verum Serum does is it snipes at what Ingrid does, for personal reasons. And they have shown no Biblical Justification for their conduct. They have not shown that the reason they are being sarcastic or sniping, is to defend the Faith.
On the contrary the more they write the clearer it becomes that the only thing they are defending is their “right” to have an spew personal carnal sarcasm without Biblical Justification, and to defend the concept of “fence Sitting” This they will be held accountable for.
And as far as any other apostates on this web site having an issue with my “credibility” for making what they call “Heaven and Hell Judgments” their comments only prove that they too want to defend the right to fence sit, and hence their comments have no Biblical Validity” It s as if they want to say “here let me help you dig that tunnel, or hey lets make it wider so we all can fit down it”
It’s called the disease of the “me” society.
And as for Keith’s’ comments his is just more rationalization to defend unjustified sniping at serious Christians. I find it even more ironic how the writers at Verum Serum can be sarcastic and caustic through unbiblical personal grudges in their articles but then when they get called to account for them they suddenly become Choir Boys. And you Keith do this quite a bit. Its called being a Wolf in Sheep’s clothing. If you truly were as dedicated a Christian as you bleat on about in this thread you would not write or allow others to spew with their unjustified personal grudges, and you would equally know how the Bible absolutely forbids such conduct.
As for thinking God “sees things my way” I don’t. I use the word to guide my conduct and to know how God expects me and other Christians to speak to other Christians. Again Keith you are using the old refrain of all apostates by using this rationality. You try to make it seem that God is too remote for us to clearly know how he expects us to conduct ourselves. That my friend is the ultimate apostate get out of jail free card. It relieves you of any feeling that you need to control your tongue.
And Keith where is your Biblical justification for what you do here? And please use more than a misused fragment of a Bible verse!
And I never said I would be better of than anyone, again this is another refrain that apostates use to justify their unbiblical conduct when they are called to account for it.
It’s again, a disease of the “me” generation, and the internet blog generation: “I have a blog therefore I have a right to spew what I wish and still call myself a Christian, because I say I am” which always leads to bleatings of: “how dare you call me to account for not conducting myself in public like a Christian that’s downright Pharisee of you” So I think it had better be you who needs to read back through the comments there Keith.
And to say that I have no factual basis that the decline of the American Church is because of Apostates like Verum Serum is utterly delusional, and proves you have no knowledge of the core concept of the message that God reveals in the Bible and how it apply it to your life.
And lastly and in closing as this will be my last attempt to bring some sense to the willfully blind. I am not a amen corner fan of Slice. I think if you went there and reviewed all of the comments that you might find me commenting about twice in the entire history of Slice.
So I am not part of the amen crowd for Slice who thinks Ingrid does no wrong. But I am a person who knows the word and by the knowledge of the word knows and can recognize those who call themselves Christians but defile themselves with their mouths to defend their right to sit on the fence. As what you are doing is destroying the ability of others to know why the Christian faith IS different than all others and why it is the only faith by which we must be saved and can enter into Heaven instead of eternal damnation.
The Christian faith is different than all others because it is Truth, the only Truth and when you become serious about living in this Truth and vigorously defending it, then the spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit comes in power to use you as witness of the Truth to others. And anything to do with “me” or “self” or “my right” dies, and all that matters is speaking Truth, And that Truth is sharper than any two edged sword, it doesn’t unify, it divides! It angers, it makes people hate you. The soft love and acceptance that apostate sites like Verum Serum peddle is a stunted version of God’s truth, it appeals to apostates because it lets them keep “me” and “self” and “my right”. Living in the real “God’s Truth” will make you hated much more than it will make you liked. Anyone who says otherwise has absolutely no comprehension of Jesus’ message.
Accept it or reject it, it’s your decision but don’t defile yourselves by evermore rationalizing.
Good Day All!
July 30, 2007 @ 1:33 pmGoodness. Would someone point out the sarcasm in Scott’s post? I missed it entirely.
July 30, 2007 @ 2:00 pmjohn,
First let me say that I’ll do my best to be brief though given the amount of ground that needs to be covered, don’t hold your breath. At times my posts and comments can be lengthy, not out of an inability to be brief but out of a desire to cover a concept in detail so that there can’t/won’t be any misunderstandings. The length of my last comment seems to have offended you. At almost 1800 words, it was certainly long. Oddly enough, you don’t seem to have a problem with being wordy yourself, as your 1200 word reply to me evidenced quite clearly.
An interesting observation…I notice from time to time that people who are being pushed against the wall to defend themselves (or others) often take exception to people like myself providing them with a lengthy response covering points that have been brought up earlier in the exchange and which need to be addressed. I’m not sure if people like you don’t like lengthy responses because they give you brain and/or eye fatigue, or if it is because lengthy responses require that you follow a train of thought that challenges your own, which can be an uncomfortable exercise in self-examination. Either way, your little snipe about my long comment is certainly ironic given the length of yours.
Next, let’s look at some of the terminology that you seem to enjoy using:
APOSTATE: a defection or revolt, typically in the formal renunciation of one’s religion; the renunciation and criticism of, or opposition to, one’s former religion.
You have characterized me (and others) at this site of being “apostate.” To do so means that you have made an ENORMOUS, GIGANTIC, GINORMOUS judgment regarding my faith and me. By declaring me an “apostate,” you are saying that I am doomed to hell having either left the Christian faith – or – never having had “true salvation” in the first place.
Are you really comfortable placing yourself in that position, or is it more about using loaded words that seem to carry a lot of power? Are you so confident in your opinion and so convinced that there is no possible way that anyone with differing ideas could be right and/or saved that you don’t feel even a moment’s hesitation to toss that word around? I know that you gave the whole speech about how you use “the Word” to ground your views and about how your views and opinions are based on “the Word,” which of course seems to make you feel that you have the upper hand spiritually, morally, ethically, etc. And yet there are many others who hold opinions similar to mine, some of them well-respected for their traditional, grounded Biblical knowledge and world view (R.C. Sproul, Oz Guinness, C.S. Lewis, etc) Are you comfortable declaring them to be apostate as well? If memory serves me, didn’t the Pharisees do the same thing? Look where it got them.
CANALITY (CARNAL): Relating to the physical and especially sexual appetites (i.e.-carnal desire); Worldly or earthly; temporal (i.e.-the carnal world); of or relating to the body or flesh
You have described me, my words, my attitudes, etc as being “carnal” in nature several times. In other words, while you might think that “carnal” carries with it more spiritual weight and sounds more Biblical/judgmental, in essence what you are saying is that I am being worldly. I guess this fits given that you think I am apostate. Since in your mind I am unsaved and am on the fast track to hell, you will believe that everything that I say and do and believe is carnal/of the world, yes?
What is interesting is that so far you haven’t actually given solid rationale (Biblical, logical or otherwise) of how it is that I am carnal (or apostate for that matter). EVEN IF you believe that I am out of line with my post about Ingrid’s little quiz, how does that mean that I am living as an unsaved, apostate, carnal individual who is masquerading as a Christian? Because I am being vocal in criticizing someone that you believe shouldn’t be criticized? Before judging me as apostate, did you bother to read anything else that I have written? Did you email me to inquire about my stand on major tenants of the Christian faith? Or is it that you decided that you didn’t’ like my post and that since I am critical of SLICE then I must be one of “them?”
RATIONALIZATION (TO RATIONALIZE): To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for one’s behavior
Could you point to specific rationalizations that I have made in my effort to justify my words and actions? When I say specific, what I mean is…could you give clear, definite examples of when I have rationalized my behavior AND give me the Biblical foundations/citations that you use to support your accusation that I am rationalizing my behavior?
Now on to a few rebuttal observations:
To Mighty Red One, you said, “Scott wasn’t defending his faith, on the contrary he was unnecessarily attacking someone for defending faith. So lets be clear on that.”
Actually, what you seem to be so “clear” on isn’t really very clear at all. I do consider the time that we spend from time to time at VS addressing the “material” put out into the blogosphere by Ingrid, Ken and the gang as being spent in defending the faith. Having now looked at some of the stuff on your own site, I would say that you are in good company with the SLICE/CRN crowd.
I am not a relativist and I am not a moral/spiritual ambiguist. If you were to give me a checklist of all the things you believe as a Christian, I would probably be in agreement on all the essentials and much of the secondary “stuff.” But when people like Ingrid try to do things like set themselves and their opinions up as the be-all-end-all of Biblical interpretation and Christian authority, then I think it is the duty of others to step in and point out the errors. At times, Ingrid and others of her ilk are just as likely to give the Church of Christ a black eye as are the flakes over at TBN, but for the exact opposite reasons. The TBN crowd has very little grounding in solid, Biblical exegeses and hermeneutics, which sends them off on any and all tangents imaginable. The SLICE/CRN crowd has checklists, theology quizzes, personal preferences and the measuring rod of the collected works of John Macarthur. While the TBN crowd is blown about by the wind, unstable in their beliefs and in their perspectives on the spiritual world, the SLICE/CRN crowd is the Pharisees and Judaizers who have placed their own opinions and preferences in the place of God’s.
To Keith, you said, “Again Scott’s post was for the express intent of being sarcastic without cause due to a personal bias and not because someone was making a mockery of Christianity,”
To the contrary, I believe that Ingrid makes a mockery of Christianity quite regularly, not because her faith is invalid but because she adds to what is required for a saving faith in Christ. By making her quizzes and lists, and by ranting on and on about the shallowness of modern/contemporary worship songs, and by aiming her laser beam of judgment at any teacher, pastor and church whose methods don’t match up with what she deems proper, Ingrid makes faith in Christ into a sham of rules and regulations rather than a life-changing, life immersing, life affirming escape from the judgment we all deserve into the amazing, saving grace of Christ.
To me you say, “What I find completely ironic though is that you cast dispersions on Ingrid for defending faith and you deride what you consider her low tolerance level for error and her high standards for what she considers to be Christian…So because your standard is lower you attack her.”
Though I get the point of what you were trying to communicate, I believe you meant to say that I cast aspersions on Ingrid for defending the faith. You are saying that I am attacking Ingrid with false accusations and am impugning her character and her faith. To support this, you set up a ridiculous straw man argument about me having a problem with “her low tolerance level for error and her high standards for what she considers to be Christian.” According to you, I don’t like Ingrid because she tolerates less error than do I when dealing with and defining things of the faith, and I don’t like her because she has high standards and expectations for people who call themselves Christian.
Sorry to disappoint you, john, but you are shooting wide of the mark. I don’t accuse Ingrid of anything. I simply point out the things she has said and done that appear to be questionable in light of the Christian paradigm. I didn’t accuse her of making up a quiz to gage the level of knowledge that a Christian should have. She DID IN FACT make the quiz. I haven’t accused her in the past of claiming that contemporary worship is weak, shallow and without merit while hymns written at least 200 years ago are the preferred method of worship. She DID IN FACT makes those points herself. I didn’t accuse her of condemning churches for offering community events including singles gatherings for Christians, family comedy nights, community car shows, having worship services in movie theaters and restaurants, etc. SHE complains about these things on a regular basis. You say “accuse” and it makes it sound like things aren’t proven. There is a difference between an accusation and a point of fact. All of these things are points of fact related to Ingrid and her site.
My problem isn’t that Ingrid’s level of tolerance for error is lower than mine, or that she has higher standards for Christians. My problem with Ingrid is that her definition of error is sometimes rooted in the Bible and MANY TIMES it is NOT and is instead rooted in her own personal preferences and feelings and experiences. My problem with Ingrid isn’t that she has higher standards and expectations than do I. It’s that she makes the erroneous assumption that HER standards and expectations are GOD’S standards and expectations. In her mind, her preferences are God’s preferences and visa versa.
Oddly enough, Ingrid never bothers to address the things in the Bible that contradict her standards, expectations and preferences. When the Bible mentions that people DANCED in worship before the Lord, she doesn’t bother to explain away her conflicting conviction that any dance in a church service is worldly and unacceptable. When she complains about contemporary worship songs and how they aren’t Biblically based and/or focused on true worship of the Lord because they are man centered, she ignores that much of the Psalms are written from the perspective of man’s view/perspective of God. She also ignores that many of the hymns she venerates that were written hundreds of years ago were criticized when they were written as being “songs of human invention” that weren’t focused enough on God. When she complains about evangelical Christians not having a “proper” understanding of what she believes to be major theological concepts and concerns, she ignores the Bible when it talks about Christ telling the thief on the cross that he would be joining Jesus in paradise. She doesn’t bother to explain how this is possible when the thief never had a chance to come to a correct understanding of substitutionary atonement, “effectual calling,” justification and sanctification, etc.
You say, “Verum Serum is an atypical shallow sniping site for apostate Christians. You don’t want to actually be serious Christians.”
HOW would you know our level of desire to be serious Christians? Because you disagree with something that I said about something Ingrid wrote? Because we have taken issue with Ingrid and Ken (and you, it appears) on a variety of issues where they have taken on the mantle of self-appointed juries and judges? Because we have pointed out at various times the incidents where they proof-text scripture to make it appear that it supports an absurd position of secondary importance to the Christian faith. Because we have pointed out the times when they have DELIBERATELY quoted pastors and writers out of context to support some larger point that they want to make? Because we have demonstrated that there are, at times, more than one acceptable perspective on a Biblical passage, and have proven the logical fallacies with which they operate their little fiefdoms of phariseeism?
THIS makes VS a sniping site for apostate Christians?
You objected to my statement: “I commend her (Ingrid) for living a godly life and raising a godly family and doing her Christian radio thing. But she assumes that her way is the only way to do things. Her perspective on Christianity doesn’t have much relevance or connection to the life a Christian might lead in Muslim Egypt, or secular Germany, or inner-city New York, or sunny California. She makes the same assumption over and over again…if she doesn’t understand it or disagrees with it or is confused by it, then it must be wrong. If it is different, then it must be stopped.”
Unfortunately, you turned around and completely mischaracterized/misquoted my statement. I didn’t say anything “about Ingrid NOT KNOWING OR IGNORING WHAT CHRITIANITY IS LIKE in: “Muslim Egypt, or secular Germany, or inner-city New York, or sunny California.”
There is a HUGE difference between what I actually said about Ingrid’s perspective not having much relevance or connection to the Christian life in those parts of the world – and what you claim I said about Ingrid not knowing about or ignoring what Christianity is like in those areas.
Let me rephrase my point to make it clearer for you…
Ingrid complains about dance having a place in worship services or as a part of any church in general. In parts of Africa, the Caribbean Islands, the Pacific Islands, etc, dance is a major part of the culture and the cultural tradition (and even a part of the methods and styles of communication). Her preferences about dance don’t have any real relevance to churches in those areas that use dance to worship the Lord, express joy and sadness, etc.
Ingrid complains about tattoos by people who claim to be “Christian.” But in some of the same areas I mentioned above, marking and tattooing are cultural and communicate levels of maturity and authority, family lineage, life achievements, etc.
Smoking in the Middle and Far East, as well as in Europe and Central and South America is a non-issue. Nobody cares who smokes and who doesn’t. In areas like Egypt, the use of tobacco isn’t even always a health issue (the whole body being a temple of the Holy Spirit argument) because of the use of shisha/hooka, which filter everything through the water in the pipe.
Ingrid pitched a fit last year when a seminary student posted a picture of himself on his blog, and in the picture in the corner was a beer. She freaked. The use of alcohol is such a nit-picky thing to object to that it seems like it shouldn’t even need to be pointed out that kids in Germany and many parts of Asia drink beer, and that other forms of fermented drinks and cooking agents have been around and used for 1000s of years. And then there’s the obvious point that Jesus turned the water into wine, Paul encouraged the drinking of wine as a medicinal agent, etc.
To answer you question, I do know what Christianity is like in those areas. My wife is Egyptian and we have traveled to the Middle East. Through her extended family and connections from her parents, we have participated in a variety of outreaches and ministries connected to the Middle East. We have traveled in Mexico and Canada. My wife has traveled extensively in Europe (Eastern and Western). We have good friends that are missionaries in various parts of Africa as well as in Communist China, Muslim Egypt and Muslim Indonesia. Does my travel experience meet with your approval?
I must disagree with your statement that “Christianity in most other countries is no different than mid-west America.” If you traveled as widely as you claim, then you must have been in some very sheltered tour groups! Christians in Egypt, Sudan, China and the like don’t have time to be petty and complain about minor concerns of methodology. They focus on the ESSENTIALS of the faith…those things that directly affect the salvation of an individual. Theological concepts like efficacious grace, communion of the saints, the 6 petitions in the Lord’s Prayer, effectual calling of the believer, etc don’t really fall into the realm of immediate concern. Now ask them about the wages of sin, the need for grace and forgiveness and knowing Jesus and him crucified, and then they’ll be with you. But the other stuff they could only WISH to have time to worry about.
I guess I’ll stop there, though there is a lot more I could say. The name of your website (True Discernment) does reveal quite a bit about how you view yourself, your position as a believer, your view of others who either agree with or disagree with you, etc. A quick perusal of your content reveals a tendency towards believing in the dwindling remnant, conspiracies within the Church, etc. I don’t doubt the sincerity of your faith or your love for Christ. I would point out that just because I don’t agree with you on some of your more extreme views doesn’t mean that my relationship with Christ is any less real than yours.
(Nearly 3000 words…Sorry!)
July 30, 2007 @ 10:09 pmjohn
“I find it even more ironic how the writers at Verum Serum can be sarcastic and caustic through unbiblical personal grudges in their articles but then when they get called to account for them they suddenly become Choir Boys. And you Keith do this quite a bit. Its called being a Wolf in Sheep’s clothing. If you truly were as dedicated a Christian as you bleat on about in this thread you would not write or allow others to spew with their unjustified personal grudges, and you would equally know how the Bible absolutely forbids such conduct.”
Please show me one example of this behaviour that I do quite a bit. I’ve re-read everything I’ve written on this post, as you suggested and I don’t see it.
“And Keith where is your Biblical justification for what you do here? And please use more than a misused fragment of a Bible verse!”
What is it that I do here that you want me to justify?
“And I never said I would be better of than anyone,”
“And I would far prefer to be in her shoes on judgment day than in yours. Her defense will be she was defending faith. your defense will be you defended your right to sit on the fence.
So I say again, keep digging your tunnel.”
The implication there seems pretty solid that you’re not digging a tunnel to hell, like Scott and John. Bringing that together with the comment on judgment day was extrapolation, but seems fair enough to me. If you think you are not going to hell, but John and Scott are, surely you think you’ll be better off than them?
As I see it, john, you’ve levelled false accusations against me, you’ve denied things that you have done. I have suggested that your posts have been harsh and judgemental and reflected your personal bias, whilst admitting to personal bias myself, and all that has earned me is unfair and unBiblical judgement from you. I can hear your response in my head, but how can your accusations against me be Biblical if they are entirely without foundation? I am sure Exodus 20:16 isn’t out of context here.
Keith
July 31, 2007 @ 6:48 amTo Scott and Keith,
I am not going to continure to get into long monolgues with those who as I said before are willingly blind.
I will end this discourse with this:
Scott, whether you know it or not, accept it or not, your articles and your comments are caustic, sarcastic, and demeaning. and just because the vast majority of those who comment on your site do not agree with me, it doesnt matter one bit, You know why? Because we are in era and society where heresy and apostasy are the norm, so much so that peoples minds are seared with the ideology of inclusion and accpetance. So they do not know how to think in any other way. They have been turned over to a reprobate mind and have been given a strong delusion for their complacency.
It is of no profit to continue to dialogue with somene who does not realize their serious flaws especially when that person considers themselves a “Christian”.
I didnt come here to debate with you. I came here to point out that you demean and discredit the definition of a Christian. And I know you dont like ANYONE clearly defnining what a Christian is.
So for the last time even though it may make you gnash your teeth, you guys are on the road to H-E-L-L. you DO NOT defend the faith of Christianity, you snipe at those who do, you DO DEFEND the right to be FENCE SITTERS, to be LUKE WARM, You ARE those Luke Warm “Christians” that Jesus said:
“I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth”
Adn you cant be more clear than that.
July 31, 2007 @ 11:00 amIn other words “Keith, I’m not going to address any of the points you made, because I can’t, because I’ve looked and you’re right, I can’t find anything to back up what I accused you of doing ‘quite a bit’. But I’m not going to be big enough to say ‘sorry’ or admit that I was wrong, I’m going to say “I didn’t come here to debate with you” and then dam you to hell and hope you don’t notice me ducking the issue.”
In case you didn’t get me the first time, I pointed out that you had borne false witness against me in direct contradiction to one of the ten commandments. I hope that’s not too luke warm for you. Now I’m asking “What do you have to say about that, john?”
July 31, 2007 @ 11:41 amjohn,
Try as you might, you can’t paint me with your broad “emergent” brush. People like you get so uptight when people like me don’t fit in to your very narrow opinion of what you consider to be the acceptable definition of a Christian.
I’m certainly not Calvinist. I’m not really Reformed. I don’t immediately point to a conspiracy of the coming antichrist whenever I see something weird going on in the world. I believe that there are probably a variety of acceptable forms of expressing one’s love for God including music, dance, art, poetry, etc. I think that it is important that people learn to study the Word, but I don’t think that necessarily needs to be done on Sunday mornings when many nonbelievers are likely to make their first approach into a house of God. I’m not a check-list-making-rules-follower. I don’t keep quiet when I see someone within the Body of Christ doing something that is harmful to the Body and to the witness that the Body shares with the watching world, even if it makes that person look bad.
Contrary to what you might like to believe, I don’t have a problem with people trying to define what a Christian is. I absolutely believe in absolutes and also believe in the infallibility of the Word of God and the exclusivity of Christ as the one and only way to salvation thru God’s grace and justification.
You have condemned me as apostate and have passed judgment on me, not because my Christian fundamentals don’t line up with yours. You’ve never bothered to go that far in discovering what I believe about the essentials of the faith. You have done so because you take exception to things that I say about secondary issues and about how various people conduct themselves and their “discernment” ministries.
How can you condemn me (and Keith and others) to Hell when you haven’t demonstrated that my fundamental Christian beliefs and my underlying Christian faith are flawed/faulty/invalid?
As Keith pointed out, time and again you have ignored questions that have been placed to you and have ignored points that have been made that have refuted specific things that you have said. You have ignored it all.
Just like Ken Silva before you, you gloss over any and all points that might make your position and your opinions appear weak and invalid. Instead, you resort to grand and ominous pronouncements of judgment and retribution. In fact, your method of communicating is so similar to Ken’s that I wonder if you are a disciple of his.
If you notice, every time you leave a comment I take the time to go through your comment and address most of the major points that you seem to be trying to make. Keith has done the same thing. And yet you don’t come back with anything other than name calling and predictions of eternal judgment.
When the non-Christians stop by to read the posts at VS, who do you think appears more Christian and/or Christ-like – people like you whose knee-jerk reaction is to condemn anyone to hell who disagrees with your pet opinions -or- people like those here at VS who are willing to give your views a fair hearing and then analyze your views and test them against the Bible and sound, logical reasoning?
If that is how you conducted the numerous missions trips that you alluded to earlier, then I wonder how much success you were able to have in sharing the Gospel of the Good News with the needy, thirsty world.
July 31, 2007 @ 12:05 pmI find it so very ironic that john would bring the concept of the “lukewarm believer” into this thread. I spent the majority of my life in the reformed, liturgy-speaking, hymn-singing church (three of them, to be exact). Having been both a deacon and an elder in these churches, and having a great deal of mid-week contact with the membership, I can honestly say that the vast majority of those that I came to know in those years would fall under the biblical definition of “lukewarm” believers.
Prior to moving to H.B. and getting involved with more evangelical/discipleship oriented churches, the concept of knowing believers “by their fruit” was relatively foreign to me. Now I see it everywhere I look. The congregants of the reformed churches tend to have an exclusive, country club mentality. It’s very difficult to “bear fruit” when you are growing inward.
I am so grateful to God that he has freed me from the “New Catholicism” of the traditional reformed church, and allowed me to become a servant of Christ rather than a ritual-keeping “fence-sitter” (another ironic accusation of john’s) with one foot in the religious world and the other in the temporal (a very hypocritical place to live)…
July 31, 2007 @ 8:04 pmTim,
That was VERY eloquent. The Quiet One speaks sparingly, but when he does he speaks profoundly!
As Bill and Ted would say, “Most Excellent!”
July 31, 2007 @ 8:52 pm[...] Check it out here. [...]
August 2, 2007 @ 8:29 am“digging a tunnel to hell”
I love it! Would that be reverse plagianism?
August 2, 2007 @ 10:55 amLOL!
Rick,
You really are a pathetic example…
August 2, 2007 @ 11:16 amAn example of what, Ken? …an example of a reverse pelagian? Do you truly believe that your ‘club’ is that exclusive that you are also claiming Henry is condemned to hell?
August 2, 2007 @ 12:58 pmMaybe it’s because I spelled it wrong.
August 2, 2007 @ 1:59 pmI was thinking that maybe it was Ken’s odd attempt at humor, though I’m not sure how funny it is to say that someone is a “pathetic example” of something.
Rick/Henry, exactly what ARE you a pathetic example of?
Inquiring minds want to know!!!
Scott
August 2, 2007 @ 2:42 pmPretty much everything, but maybe Ken was saying I was a pathetic example of an orthodox watchman. If Ken is the template, I can live with my pathetic self.
August 2, 2007 @ 2:47 pmI don’t know whether I’m more confused by why Ken called Henry Rick, or what he meant by a pathetic example, or what a pathetic example of a reverse pelagian would be, let alone whether I’ve seen one round here.
If anyone can shed any light on these questions please do. Then wait for someone to dam you to hell for it.
Oh – what’s an orthodox watchman? Is that like a Greek chronograph repairman?
August 3, 2007 @ 6:58 amKeith,
Here’s the deal:
Henry Frueh also goes by Rick (I believe that Rick is his given name), which is how Ken Silva came to know him.
About the whole “pelagian” thing, I would recommend you check out this post titled “Who You Callin’ What?” This is a write-up that takes a look at that very thing. It is posted on the site CRN.Info and Analysis. Out of concern for how sites like Slice of Laodicea and Christian Research Network present a “jacked up” view of the Christian faith, Chris over at CRN keeps a running analysis going of the stuff that sites like this put out on the blogosphere. Chris is a great writer and does some excellent work in taking a close look at those who claim to be watching over the rest of us. (Chris has another site called Fishing the Abyss which is also offers some excellent reading).
The whole “watchman” thing is a slightly longer story/explanation. Ken Silva and people like him tend to call themselves “watchmen” over the Church, feeling called to be the ones who declare when they see danger in and around the flock. They use verses like this one to justify their self-appointed positions as guardians of the Body of Christ:
“But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet and the people are not warned, and a sword comes and takes a person from them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require from the watchmans hand.” Eze. 33:6 NASV
Use of this passage, ignores the context of this verse as it is talking about invading armies, not disagreements over theology, methodology, eschatology, etc. But unfortunately context doesn’t usually mean much to these people.
Chis Lyons, the guy I mentioned above, uses a Latin phrase in the header of his blog, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodies” which translates to, “Who will watch the watchmen?” Sites like Slice of Laeodicea, Christian Research Network, Apprising Ministries, True Discernment, Team Pyro, Lighting the Way, etc, etc, etc all operate under the assumption that they have been called to act as “watchmen” for the Church, but rather than standing on the walls of the city looking outward into the countryside waiting for signs of attack, they spend all their time facing inward, looking for signs of attack from within.
These watchmen/watchdogs (or watchdoggies/watchbloggies as they have come to be called) don’t like it when people take exception to their methods, their tone, their content (or lack there of), etc. When someone does take exception to something they have said, they are usually quick to send someone over to start hurling the condemnations (as “john” did regarding this post).
Hope this was helpful.
August 3, 2007 @ 7:57 amAnd just to add to Scott’s description, the reason Ken and Ingrid reject me is partially because I am Arminian, but mainly because when I was accepted by them I would point out that we needed to deal with pride in our own lives.
Strangely that assessment was not met with open arms. So viola, I am a pathetic example of something. I still contend that the pride of people like that, the truth of their observations notwithstanding, is disgusting and not Christian.
signed, a pathetic example, esq.
August 3, 2007 @ 9:33 amScott,
August 3, 2007 @ 10:56 amYou’re objecting to a simple doctrinal quiz? The spite evident in your post was hardly a Christian example. Time to remove you from my blogroll, just like I did Slice. Not like you’ll care.
Henry,
To be honest, I wish Ken would have finished his sentence. To say, “You really are a pathetic example…” is just being a tease! What is the “…” supposed to represent? A pathetic example of being a Christian? A pathetic example of a watchdog? A pathetic example of a neo-Pelagian, pseudo-orthodox, hyper-Arminian crackpot.
I’ve GOT to know!!!
Scott
August 3, 2007 @ 11:01 amActually, since the church is the fulfillment of the typological purpose of Israel, Eze 33:6 applies just fine to ministers and the like who should warn the church about heresies and the like.
August 3, 2007 @ 11:01 amDear “PR,”
Interesting that you would say that.
I’m not sure where you stand on “replacement theology,” but Ingrid and the like are terrified of the thought that the Church has replaced the Jews/Israel as the conduit of His grace and blessings in the world. The idea that Israel no longer stands as God’s chosen people is anathema to them, which certainly fits into the very narrow Calvinistic and Dispensational view of things that they believe everyone should hold onto.
Be careful. You just might end up at the other end of the SLICE laser beam of judgment.
My point, though, is that as many people have said before me, “interpreting scripture out of context is a pretext.” In this case, it is a pretext to provide themselves with some form of rationale to justify what they do. To use this passage, they ignore the larger context that it is taken from and apply it to themselves in a very narrow, very self-serving fashion. If they are correct in its use, then they should not have any problem with people who are watching over what they do as watchmen…and yet they strenuously object any time someone someone turns the tables on them and warns the church about their habit of misquoting, proof-texting, scripture-twisting and the like.
I know, I know…but with them it is different because they are actually RIGHT, whereas those who are watching the watchmen are wrong.
Well…whatever!
August 3, 2007 @ 4:08 pmThe all powerful “I hereby remove you from my blogroll” makes an appearance. I don’t agree with you, Scott, on some things but I visit once in a while just to keep you on your toes. I don’t care for the political posts, but I do like the ones that deal with ecclesiastical issues.
A brotherly warning to all. Next year, when Hillary is elected and the troops are well on their way home, 3 billion dollars a day will cease to pump into the economy. We will be left with debt and more than half of the economy gone. There will be a coming depression so I would think twice about getting quickly out of debt.
August 3, 2007 @ 4:16 pmSorry, Henry, but you lost me…
I’m confused about “The all powerful ‘I hereby remove you from my blogroll’ ” thing.
Anyhow, I’m glad that you stop by from time to time, Henry. We enjoy the interplay of ideas and the ability to disagree with a brother and grow through the interchange/exchange of differing points of view.
You will always be welcomed here, even if you ARE a pathetic excuse… !!! ; – )
Scott
August 3, 2007 @ 4:25 pmDidn’t PRCal say he is removing you or was he jesting?
August 3, 2007 @ 4:34 pmBy the way the only real difference is when you allowed someone to fully blaspheme even denying the Lord Jesus Himself (antichrist). It is your blog so I don’t have a beef, just a personal perspective.
August 3, 2007 @ 4:35 pmHas anybody actually read what Calvin had to say on the subject of Israel? In order to be Calvinistic, you’d have to find it in some of his writings, like the Institutes. Otherwise, using the term ‘Calvinistic’ is just coopting the term.
He applies tons of Old Testament passages to Israel directly to the church. If you look at Book IV of the Institutes, Calvin sees complete continuity between the Church under the Abrahamic covenant, the Law, and the New Covenant. He said in his commentaries regard Romans 11 that Israel would be re-grafted into the Church under the New Covenant through Christ, ‘until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled.’
August 3, 2007 @ 4:55 pmI reject replacement theology since the Bride of Christ is a unique creation that has no continuation through Israel. The Spirit came on Pentecost and a new body was born.
Although the specifics seem less than clear, it is clear that God will fulfill His covenant to Abraham in the end. As far as Calvin, I grow weary of his name. He has coopted Jesus Name. (I would not want to be his close friend)
August 3, 2007 @ 7:36 pmHenry said:
Unfortunately, Henry, I believe you are probably right about “Billary” (or someone equally dangerous), but my economics are a little rusty. Are you saying that we will be better off remaining in debt?
August 3, 2007 @ 9:22 pm“PR,”
My apologies. I misspoke/miswrote. I was simply trying to allude to the general parameters of the narrow view of things that are taken by SLICE, CRN, etc. Looking back now I see that my comment was poorly worded.
I would have no idea about Calvin’s view on Israel and the Church, replacement theology, etc. I take your word for it that Calvin believed in Israel’s eventual “re-grafting.”
I am familiar with that concept, though I can’t say I agree with it. I would offer the possibility that Israel’s place as God’s chosen people was fulfilled at the coming of Messiah and the creation/birth of the Church. Israel was God’s conduit of blessing to the world, and the Advent was the final/ultimate fulfillment of promises that God made to humanity that began with Adam and Eve in the garden and carried through to Abraham and then to the prophets all the way to 1st century Palestine.
August 3, 2007 @ 11:45 pmI am saying that our economy has been fueled by the war with debt dolars. After the war ends, only the debt will remain and the weekly billions that employ millions will disappear. I look for 15% mortgages and massive unemployment.
Not only will Hillary be elected, both houses of congress will be swept by the Democrats. Keep looking up
August 4, 2007 @ 12:20 pmTake a look at the pre 9/11 DOD budget. It was something like 450 billion per year. The Iraq expenses are something on the order of 200 billion per year, less than half the pre-existing peacetime military budget. The difference in spending is negligible considering the US GDP is 13 trillion per year. Besides, CNN just told me that 700 American bridges will definitely fall down tomorrow so just the near term bridge repair bills alone will make up for any lack of military spending.
I wouldn’t worry If I was you. The US economy is doing fine.
August 4, 2007 @ 2:55 pmWhy do you care what they think? Some of the stuff over there is pretty good. A lot of it isn’t. Whatever happened to taking things with a grain of salt.
I’d say that you understand it well.
I’m not sure about that. The economy started to do better when tax cuts were passed. The federal government took in the biggest return ever in 2004 with the tax cuts. If they raise taxes, watch out. Also, we’re importing third world workers who have territorial claims to the United States and who aren’t upwardly mobile because they refuse to integrate into our society. That worries me quite a bit more.
August 6, 2007 @ 9:12 amSince I’m fairly new to this blogging thing I may be less informed than others about this but…
After visiting several sites I’ve seen the above quote many times in varying forms e.g. Grain of Salt, Hyperbole, etc… As though this justifies the spirit in which they speak. Additionally Ingrid, Ken, and others never apply this rationale to other peoples blogs. Rather they strain it so finely to find any error it becomes non-sequiter.
Anywhoo love the site!
August 9, 2007 @ 7:06 am