*UPDATE* When and Where Does Hypocrisy Begin? *UPDATE*
Scott on July 1, 2008 at 9:58 am
** UPDATE ** (July 3, 2008)
Ingrid Schlueter and I have been emailing this morning. I emailed her to ask whether she planned on discussing Ray Comfort’s participation in the Inspiring Excellence conference, a conference sponsored by and promoting the teachings of Word Faith/Prosperity proponents. Her response was positive and congenial. She asked why I did not contact her earlier to inquire about her position on this matter, and she was right to do so. Before discussing my assumption that she (and others) would be silent on the matter, I should have attempted to contact her directly. I was wrong not to do so. I extended my apologies to her and I acknowledge here that I was wrong to jump the gun in this situation. Ingrid has given me permission to reprint her response here:
Scott,
Very interesting. It is possible that we actually may agree on something. I am working on this very issue as we speak after having behind the scenes conversations about this with several involved. Please give me a chance to actually get this together in a post I am preparing. I wholeheartedly agree with you, do not support Ray on this, and feel his presence gives an endorsement to these Word-Faith heretics who have harmed so many. I am having to rush because I had several other posts at Slice today and am hosting the show in San Antonio this afternoon for the third straight day in a row. I was actually emailing back and forth on this issue during commercials on KSLR between show segments. That’s how seriously I take it. Please stay tuned as I will be putting something up tonight after 6pm Central if I am able to compose something by then. Why didn’t you write me first and ask before posting? Don’t assume because something doesn’t go up immediately that I’m on the other side of it. I first heard about this yesterday when someone emailed me the link to the event Ray is speaking at. I can only do so much in a short amount of time.
Ingrid
Ingrid’s post just went up a short time ago. It can be read here.
-
** END UPDATE **
-
Ray Comfort and his Way of the Master radio/television/evangelism organization are beloved of many of those involved in “online discernment.” Two days ago, John took Comfort to task for his appalling behavior towards others when he goes out witnessing at the Huntington Beach Pier in SoCal.
To be clear, I don’t have a problem with the idea of evangelism. The ODM’s who laud Ray Comfort like to pretend that those people who disagree with Comfort’s WotM method are, in fact, disagreeing with the overall idea of evangelism in general. Nothing could be further from the truth. It’s just that many of us disagree with the pervasive belief/attitude among the ODMs that the WotM method is really the only true/valid approach to share the gospel with an unbelieving world. I believe that direct confrontation was certainly A METHOD employed by the Master, but it was not THE METHOD of the Master to the exclusion of every other approach.
But that is another post for another time. This post isn’t about a discussion of methods of evangelism. It is about something that Rick Frueh pointed out this morning in a comment he left here on Verum Serum. (Thanks for the heads-up Rick!) It appears as though Mr. Comfort is appearing at a conference called “Inspiring Excellence 2008.” What is interesting is that he is appearing at this conference with a rogue’s gallery of the prosperity gospel – Rod Parsley, John Avanzini, Jesse Duplantis, etc.
I KNOW that the peeps over at SLICE, CRN, etc have great concerns about the prosperity gospel and its pervasive influences in the Church. This is one area where we are all in complete agreement. I am just curious why it is that Ray Comfort can appear with and partner with these teachers of false doctrine and still be in good standing with the ODMs. Why am I not hearing or reading any sort of outcry related to Comfort’s willingness to cozy up to those teaching faulty doctrine. If Rob Bell appears at an event here the Dali Lama is also appearing, the ODM’s freak out. If Chris Rosebrough goes and meets with Rick Warren, the other ODM’s begin to wonder if Chris is selling out or if he might be falling under the sway of the evil Warren. If Shirley Dobson appears on Robert Schuller’s Hour of Power program to plug the National Day of Prayer, they devote A LOT of blog space to ripping her apart for aligning herself with the theologically suspect Schuller.
So how long it will it take for them to jump on Comfort and his alliance with these prosperity-shilling, Bible-twisting, name-it-and-claim-it teaching hucksters?
I won’t hold my breath, but it sure would be nice if they could actually demonstrate critical thinkings skills and impartial analysis and then apply their standards equally to both “sides.”
Perhaps I am asking/expecting too much. I guess I’ll have to wait and see.
Category: News |
The hypocrisy cake here has too many slices to count. Most of the preachers at this conference use Jesus as a cash cow and live opulent lives on the offerings of the gullible. I was floored when on a Christian TV network they showed an advertisement for this waste of time.
And the teachings were on money, and yet there was Ray Comfort. Where are the Calvinists who hold the WoM ministries in such high esteem. If Rob Bell were speaking at Parsley’s church he would have garned post time at SOL, CRN, and a host of ODM sites.
THIS is why I am not welcomed at the ODM table, even when I agree, because as a Christian I cannot turn my head on integrity because the end justifies the means. Partiality is nothing more than general hypocrisy. If you are going to call Rick Warren everything but a Christian, but let those from your camp compromise your parameters, you have no credibility. And people on Extreme Theology criticized Rosebrough for even alluding to Warren’s hospitality.
I may believe that Rob Bell and Rick Warren compromise the truth as I see it, but make no mistake, the 95 thesis of hypocrisy must be nailed to the door of mauch of the so called discernment ministries. (I guess that means I will again receive no invitation to do lunch.) :)
July 1, 2008 @ 11:42 amToo many “slices” to count!?! Was that on purpose? Funny! :-)
July 1, 2008 @ 11:57 amBut don’t worry, Rick, John and I will take you to lunch next time you are in our neck of woods.
July 1, 2008 @ 11:58 amGuys, I’m somewhat new to this. What does ODM mean?
July 1, 2008 @ 12:04 pmJim – Online Discernment Ministries.
Scott I saw the slice thing before I clicked and wondered if anyone would see it. This proves what we all have whispered for years, you are much more prescient than is John. He is in such a fog! :lol:
July 1, 2008 @ 12:08 pm“What does ODM mean?”
Shorthand by these guys. Essentially means: idiot.
July 1, 2008 @ 12:12 pmThere’s no “I” in ODM.
July 1, 2008 @ 12:16 pm:lol:
Hey Ken – what about Ray Comfort? Pastor Boy said he would call him and find out what is going on. If he goes will you post about it on CRN?
July 1, 2008 @ 12:19 pmOnline Discernment Ministry.
Sites like:
Slice of Laodicea
Apprising Ministries
Christian Research Network
Lighthouse Trails
and others TRY to function as grounded, wise, para-church resources and research-based organizations, but they frequently fall way short. ODM’s typically equate their own personal opinions and preferences with God’s will for the church. ODM’s spend much if not most of their time standing on the walls of the church firing INTO the city as opposed to standing guard against what might be attacking from outside. Think of them as 21st century pharisees, but with computers and the internet. Anything that is different from what they like is considered dangerous. Any theology that is not completely and totally in line with their beliefs is apostacy/heresy/whatever.
ODM’s TRY to act like they are one of the “big boys” like:
CRN (Christian Research Institute)
Ravi Zackarias
Stand to Reason
Unfortunately the ODM’s don’t really measure up when compared to the heavy weights in apologetics. They try, but without most of the logic, discernment and wisdom that is needed to truly be a help and resource for those with questions, they frequently fail.
July 1, 2008 @ 12:19 pmMrs. Schlueter recently crticized Ravi in an article she labeled as apostate. Oh yea, real discernment.
July 1, 2008 @ 12:22 pmHey Scott,
July 1, 2008 @ 12:23 pmI am glad you are not holding your breath! You would end up dead. he he
Thanks for all your help on my parenting dilemma’s!:-)
Will you tell Cindy that I did not get her e-mail address. Tell her to come back and leave it again or if you don’t mind passing mine along to her that would be fine as well.
Have a blessed day!
I hope all is working out for you guys and the schooling stuff. Seriously, they prep you for changing diapers and how to get them to sleep through the night, but say nothing about: education, should children ever fight to defend themselves or others, how to teach discernment to a seven year old, etc, etc, etc.
I will give Cindy the message, but since she ends of haunting the blog several times throughout the day, chances are she has already seen your comment. I’m telling you, you guys seem to be kindred spirits in a lot of ways. I bet you could spend hours talking as though you were old friends.
God Bless,
Scott
July 1, 2008 @ 12:27 pm“Hey Ken – what about Ray Comfort?”
Hey Rick, I don’t know Ray and have never really been a fan of his so why don’t you ask him?
Let me know what you find out, k.
July 1, 2008 @ 12:31 pm“frequently fall way short.”
Who knew that the peeps (see I can use hip hop lingo from the ’90s too) here would feel this way. I’m shocked.
“ODM’s typically equate their own personal opinions and preferences with God’s will for the church.” Yeah, good thing the peeps here never do that. Pah-leeze.
July 1, 2008 @ 12:33 pmThat isn’t good enough, Ken. You don’t know Warren either and you’re not a fan of his but you post about him. You are familiar with Friel and the rest, you’ve posted some of their stuff. You should step forward and post correction to Comfort or your credibility suffers greatly.
July 1, 2008 @ 12:38 pmRick,
“or your credibility suffers greatly.” Surely you jest. Exactly what credibility do I have as an ODM, by definition = equals falls short, there friend.
And by the way I do not post about him and haven’t since he got his closck cleaned in the debate.
I have never been someone who promotes him though I do have a little respect for the Way of the Master approach. Barking up the wrong tree here Rick.
Hey, maybe you can take a break from your silliness in your various comment-a-thons and write about it yourself on your own blog. Oh, but then you’d have to take time out from your grandstanding.
I notice you didn’t send the information privately first to see if I was going to write something about. Nah, better to butter up to your postevangelical pals and play the hypocrisy card. Fact is I didn’t even hear about this until today.
July 1, 2008 @ 12:50 pmErica,
Hi! I was thinking that my email address would pop up “behind the scenes” when I initially joined in as a commenter. I will send you a msg. in 5 minutes…
Looking forward to getting back in contact.
July 1, 2008 @ 12:55 pmDon’t worry, Ken, I am going to write about it. Not just Comfort, but all ODMs who turn a blind eye because Comfort is Calvinist. Then I will get back to grandstanding.
I love this game! :lol:
July 1, 2008 @ 1:00 pmWow – ask a question and there’s an explosion. To qoute that noted theologian, Rodney King, “Can’t we all just get along”. LOL
July 1, 2008 @ 1:01 pmCindy,
July 1, 2008 @ 1:02 pmI thought so too but it did not. I am not sure why.:-)
Is Comfort Calvinist? I don’t even know that much about him. And who says ODMs who have yet to even hear of this conference have turned a blind eye. O yeah, that’s you because you hate Calvinism so much.
July 1, 2008 @ 1:02 pmKen,
Come on, if this were Warren or Bell, you’d be typing up a new missive right now. Now that you know, what are you waiting for?
We’ll see just how many ODM’s come down on Ray and label him an apostate or a “tool of Satan.” I’m going to guess zero.
July 1, 2008 @ 1:16 pmKen, a few quick things:
1. Since when have you or Ingrid or whoever EVER let “I don’t know him” stand in your way of trying to rip into someone? I don’t believe you know or have ever spoken to Rob Bell, Rick Warren, Tony Jones, Tony Campollo, etc, etc, etc. That just sounds like a huge cop out. Now that you DO KNOW, what are you going to say about it?
2. When I use the term “peeps,” “posse,” etc, it is tongue in cheek, Ken. If I was looking to use “hip lingo,” I would zip it up much more than that. Know what I’m sayin’, boooyeeeeee?!?’
3. Ken, if I gave you full access to everything that we have ever written here at Verum Serum or on any other blog, you would NEVER be able to find an example of either John or I equating our opinion with God’s preferences. NEVER. EVER. You try and play this card of “well, you do it, too,” but that ONLY works if we are ACTUALLY conducting ourselves in a similar manner to you and your fellow ODM’s. Are we critical of much of what you guys say and how you behave in the blogosphere? Most definitely, because you speak to the exclusion of ALL other possibilities and interpretations. We are fully willing to acknowledge that when it comes to secondary issues, there is a breadth to the kingdom that we can only just begin to understand. WE ARE NOT THE SAME AS YOU. PERIOD.
4. In terms of credibility, you would have MORE credibility with people like us and with nonbelievers who read your stuff if you were “fair and balanced” (to borrow a phrase) and applied your laser beam of righteous indignation to your “side” of the isle as well as to the other side. There is NOTHING to lose and MUCH to gain if you act with some perspective on things and behave as you believe God would have you behave and act as you believe God would have you act IN ALL MATTERS. If you are SO SURE you have been called to charge into the fray as a soldier of God, shouldn’t you be even more anxious to stand against what could potentially be a traitor in the midst of your camp (Ray Comfort) than you are to confront someone like Bell or Warren whom you believe to not even be on the same side of the battle?
5. Perhaps the other ODM’s WILL take a stand against Ray Comfort. I would hope they do. But look how quick Ingrid jumped on Ravi Zacharias and Shirley Dobson. How quick will she act now? She talks as though she has sources everywhere. Do you mean to tell me that she has never had a clue about Comfort’s appearances with some of these people? The question is, Ken, what are YOU going to say and do now that you know. If you stand for God’s Truth (which I believe is your sincere desire), and if you believe that dangerous ideas and teachings exist inside the church and must be dealt with, and since you know that Ray Comfort, a guy who is lauded and applauded on a regular basis by many of your associates, has agreed to appear at a conference supporting theologically aberrant philosophies, isn’t it your DUTY as a watchman to draw attention to what he is doing?
We’re just asking for consistency, Ken. If you DID say something and communicated with Ingrid and others who carry weight with a certain segment of the Church and THEY said something, don’t you think you all (together) would be able to get Ray Comfort to rethink his alliance with these guys? I mean, wouldn’t that be doing a lot of GOOD for the Church?
July 1, 2008 @ 1:47 pmHey Scott – You mentioned Tony Campallo. I receive an e-mail from him appreciating my articles on the gay issue.
http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2008/06/insulated-from-human-stories-w-e-as.html
http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2008/04/inconvenient-truth-matt.html
July 1, 2008 @ 1:55 pmFalse analogy. Comfort I have not been covering because he is considered by those within my personal camp within orthodoxy (apples).
Warren and Bell I have long been covering because they are not considered by those within my personal camp as within orthodoxy (oranges).
Thanks for playing though.
July 1, 2008 @ 1:58 pmWhether you are an apple or an orange, compromise on this level is post worthy. If Miley Cyrus genders several posts, perhaps Comfort could get one. Watch for mine at FJL, you will love it! :)
July 1, 2008 @ 2:08 pm“If Miley Cyrus genders several posts”…
Really Rick. I’d like you to produce just one post of mine re. Cyrus.
“Watch for mine at FJL, you will love it!” O, I’m sure I will. As you wish friend.
July 1, 2008 @ 2:12 pmScott,
Hey cuz, I spent two years circa 1996 as a professional musician in and around Bellflower, the LBC, Long Beach, L.A. and Redondo Beach dawg. An’ I ain’t frontin’.
I haven’t time or energy to read though your voluminous “quick” comment. Just know that I am so deeply moved by how you peeps have suddenly become so concerned for my *laugh* credibility.
Now if you’ll please excuse me I must go check my lisence to see if I was in fact born yesterday. :-)
July 1, 2008 @ 2:17 pmKen – after I wrote that I realized that one thing you do not do is post those type of gossip posts like SOL. I apologize to you. Call Mrs. Schlueter and let her know we are all waiting for the,
“Ray Comfort Commits Theological Apostacy” post.
July 1, 2008 @ 2:19 pmScott,
I think you got the acronym partially wrong:
It’s Online “Discernment” “Ministry” – the quotes are all-important…
July 1, 2008 @ 2:29 pmI thought it was Online Damnation Ministry.
July 1, 2008 @ 2:53 pmYeah, you know Chris L. is right. When you mock men called by God you really need to do like…O, say…call them “pastor” so it reads with some good derision.
July 1, 2008 @ 2:55 pmKen, you have brought up this same idea over the last couple years in a variety of contexts (be careful how we talk to you…you are a pastor; be careful how we criticize you…you are a pastor; show some respect to your opinion because you are a pastor and you’ve listened to every tape every recorded by Walter Martin; be careful because you’ve been “called of God” and/or “called by God;” etc, etc, etc). It does make me wonder who you are trying to convince – us or yourself?
For some reason you believe that you deserve special consideration at the table because you believe you were “called by God.” But when you have to keep reminding everyone, you reveal an insecurity that is sad. In fact, when I just read your last comment I was reminded of the pastor of the church many of us just left. (That is NOT a good thing.)
You are sincere in your love for the Lord and you have a great grasp on the Word and on some aspects of theology and apologetics. You shouldn’t get so caught up in trying to prove yourself.
July 1, 2008 @ 3:27 pmKen,
July 1, 2008 @ 4:06 pmIf what you are saying is true, that you are in fact a pastor then why can’t I find anything about you or your church. Why, when I talked to a live person at the SBC concerning you they knew nothing about you or your church? Just wondering?
“For some reason you believe that you deserve special consideration at the table because you believe you were ‘called by God.’”
So you say.
July 1, 2008 @ 4:21 pm“why can’t I find anything about you or your church.” How would I know?
“Why, when I talked to a live person at the SBC concerning you they knew nothing about you or your church?” I don’t know, you’d have to ask them.
July 1, 2008 @ 4:23 pmKen is the pastor of Connecticut River Baptist Church in Claremont, N. H.. It might have withdrawn from the SBC since I could not find it in the New Hampshire Baptist Association listins anymore. It used to be there.
July 1, 2008 @ 4:24 pmKen
“So you say…”
Your actions and attitude SCREAM that you feel you deserve special consideration. If I wanted to take the time, I could find at least 5 or 6 times over the last 12-18 months where you felt the need to specifically remind us that you were a pastor and the president of a discernment ministry (notice that I didn’t put discernment in “”). One of those times is so clear in my memory as you warned John and I to “be careful” about how we talked to you, someone whom God had called into the ministry. We were on your case about it for weeks afterwards.
YOU are the one who always brings it up, Ken! Do you think we’ve forgotten? YOU are the one that throws your title around as though it is supposed to give you cart blanch when it comes to passing judgment on others. Why do you think that so many people make it a point to deride your titles? It isn’t because nobody respects you and it isn’t because you are standing up for God’s truth in the face of liberal, neo-liberal emergent types. It is because YOU use your title so often in such a variety of contexts that it is hard NOT to poke fun.
You would get a lot more respect and tolerance from people if you actually just tried to act like a regular person yourself who has an opinion and information/research to back up that opinion. You go wading into the thick of things swinging your giant war club carved with the name “President of Apprising Ministries” and your giant sword etched with the name “Senior Editor of CRN” and your giant war hammer engraved with the name “Discipled Under the Teachings of Walter Martin” as though you expect everyone to just bow before you.
I know. I can hear it coming…”So you say…” We can only judge you by your actions and attitudes, and when you wade into it swinging with all your might, nobody is interested in dealing with you. Your actions and attitude speak just as loud as your words, if not more so.
In fact, sometimes you remind me of a great line from the movie The Untouchables where Sean Connery says something along the lines of, “Leave it to a Wop to bring a knife to a gun fight.” In your case, Ken, you tend to want to bring a nuclear warhead to a theological/philosophical debate.
July 1, 2008 @ 5:17 pmRick,
July 1, 2008 @ 6:33 pmI have found the name of his church but I have suspicion that is all it is-a name. My guess is, it is him and his parents or some other family members. Legally you can call that a church. Where does it meet? For all the “credentials” he has and as well known as he claims to be you would think I could google his name and find something. I can not even find where the church meets. If you google the address it takes you to an area were an apartment complex sits. I am not the only one who has tried to find his church before and no one is successful. It just makes me curious and apprehensive all at the same time. He never gives a clear answer when you ask him about it. Why? If you google Rob Bell you will find where he pastors and the name of his church and all sorts of stuff. Why when you google the ever so popular Ken Silva’s church, it appears the church no longer exists except maybe in name?
Seriously, I go to Robs church and everyone knows I defend him. Ken is supposedly popular where are his church members? Where are the people to stand up for his character?
“You would get a lot more respect and tolerance from people if you actually just tried to act like a regular person yourself who has an opinion and information/research to back up that opinion.”
If that were my goal, I agree completely.
“We can only judge you by your actions and attitudes,…”
I would counter that you simply see what you want to see. Is fine by me, but it just might not be with the Lord you claim to know.
July 1, 2008 @ 6:41 pmHey brothers,
Remember you are doing this before and watching and dying world… I wonder if some of this could have been done privately?
Please take care,
God bless you.
July 1, 2008 @ 7:39 pmKen,
No one is suggesting that you should have been watching Comfort all along. Granted, he’s considered a hero by many ODM’s, so he’s going to be above suspicion by default. The point is, now that he’s crossed a clear line — one that you’ve gone after others for crossing in the past — does he continue to get a pass?
If it’s okay for Ray to do this, why not Rob Bell?
July 1, 2008 @ 8:08 pm“does he continue to get a pass?” Well, who says he is getting one? You guys?
Do you know Comfort’s intent in being listed at that conference? I’ve read much over at CRN.Info that we need to be charitable about things like this. You know, he could be going there to share some truth concerning our differences with our Word Faith brothers.
And are you guys being charitable? Or are you ready to rush to judgment like you say those evil ODMs always do. I would like to think such erudite Christians such as yourselves would be above such nonsense.
After all, we’ve now upset CLS because we are doing this before the world. O, and congrats that your blog is now read by the world. Cool beans for you. :-)
July 1, 2008 @ 8:32 pmKen,
Yeah, I’m not sure when our “world readership” kicked it, but I guess that’s good!
Seriously, I’m all for being charitable. I do think that is frequently lacking from ODM sites. So why can’t you show some of that restraint when Rick Warren is invited to preach in North Korea? You guys were all over him for weeks before anything happened. And btw, when he went to Syria I agreed with many of the ODMs that it was a bad move, but waiting until events unfold hasn’t been your MO in the past.
As for Comfort setting the prosperity preachers straight, I very much doubt it. I guess we’ll see.
July 1, 2008 @ 9:15 pmHey CLS,
Curious unbelievers need to know that Christians can entertain more than one perspective on the issues and the blogoshphere is a great place for it to happen.
This has been an open and fair discussion, which you cannot have without a bit of fricttion, and it is great that any person on the street can see that “narrow mindedness” does not define Christianity (maybe some segments but not all).
To the credit of every side (I’m not sure there are only two) no one has taken their ball and gone home. It might be heated and a bit personal at times but that makes it balanced rather than cultic.
Acutally, unbelievers are particularly critical of Christians for being boorish, close minded, bigots who do nothing but parrot the party line. That assessment has often been true. This discussion proves that we can be otherwise.
July 2, 2008 @ 2:48 amhttp://judahslion.blogspot.com/2008/07/compromising-compromise-t-he-word-is.html
July 2, 2008 @ 5:44 amSince the primary motive here and at .info is to jump on anyhting that mentions ken, Ingrid and odms, I question you the hypocritical pots calling the kettle black.
I never cared for Ray Comfort or anything that appears at CBN,TBN or whatever. So how are all odms hypocritical?
I just “discovered” the add for this conference and will say I condone none of it.
When it is evident that this iste and others like it have pure motives, maybe I will actually give you a listen.
Please don’t accuse me of being arrogant by this comment, as I don’t care what your opinion of me is, good or bad.
I think that is the mind of Christ.
John 2:23-25
July 2, 2008 @ 6:03 amHe wouldn’t care what you think either.
Chris P. – not all discernment blogs are hypocritical, but Iam ineterested to see whether Comfort gets a Piper Pass. Thanks for the cd, your worship music is anointed! :)
July 2, 2008 @ 6:17 am“Inspiring Excellence 2008″ sounds like a heresy-fest. I’ve always like Comfort but can’t understand why he would attend that. I appreciate his direct style and willingness to address sin and Hell, but to suggest that his is the only good evangelistic style would be ridiculous.
July 2, 2008 @ 6:25 amChrisP,
Jumping on Ken etc. is not anywhere close to our “primary motive.” At best it could be described as a minor sideline.
I never cared for Ray Comfort either, so we’re in agreement on that. From what I’ve heard on his site, he views the church in much the same way the folks at Slice do. On that issue at least (and let’s admit it’s your #1 issue), he’s in your camp. In fact, that’s one of the reasons I never liked him.
Anyway, the fact that you never liked him should make it that much easier to go after him now, the same way you’ve gone after others who were guilty by association.
July 2, 2008 @ 6:26 amIt’s not a matter of who likes who or approves of who. The clear call here is for consistency. That is not too much to ask.
Shalom
July 2, 2008 @ 6:30 amIn theory…but don’t hold your breath.
July 2, 2008 @ 6:57 amIf I do and pass out from lack of oxygen, will you catch me?
July 2, 2008 @ 7:40 amApparently Comofort also spoke at this conference in 2005 along with Kenneth Copeland.
http://www.winninginlife.org/archives/ie05.htm
July 2, 2008 @ 11:13 amBut these bottom feeders are not above ripping a young girl who apparently has bachslidden.
A Young Girl Who Once Walked With Christ is Struggling
LET’S EXPOSE HER TO THE WORLD!!
http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2008/07/young-girl-who-once-walked-with-christ.html
July 2, 2008 @ 1:52 pm“these bottom feeders”
Yee-ah baby; classy.
July 2, 2008 @ 2:09 pmThank you, Ennis. I do understand this. However, we are to speak the truth in love. Not that this is always so easy, but shouldn’t we really try to take it into consideration when its public?
I am not talking about going easy on false prophets and the likes, nor am I talking about going easy when it comes to contending for the faith. But, this has been a little rough between brothers.
I have gone to Apprising Ministries as well as Slice over the past two years (almost) and have really appreciated Ken and Ingrid’s work. I also appreciate the concerns here regarding Ray Comfort sharing the platform with deceitful teachers.
But, what I see here is a lot of personal attack that appears to be accomplishing very little.
God bless.
July 2, 2008 @ 2:19 pmI could have said much worse but still true. Anyone who has an ear open to the misery and tragedy of others just so they can post about it is a bottom feeder and encourages others to do so also.
July 2, 2008 @ 2:22 pmAnd you say you have visited SOL?
July 2, 2008 @ 2:25 pmWhat I always marvel at…from my flaming liberal perspective…is the radical disconnect between “discernment ministries” and the central principles of discernment. Musings on that here:
http://weblog.xanga.com/Beloved_Spear/664274630/discernment-ministries.html
July 2, 2008 @ 2:36 pmcls,
There’s a long history going back at least two years. We tried for a long time to reason with Ken and others. It was mostly a waste of time. They wouldn’t post our comments on their sites and when the discussion came here, Ken wouldn’t answer questions put to him. He usually responds (as he has above) by first saying we’re misjudging him, then with quips and finally with warnings not to touch the Lord’s annointed and vague threats of coming judgment for doing so.
You’re right that we consider Ken a brother, but he has a habit of doubting the salvation of anyone who disagrees with him. That’s true of Rob Bell and Rick Warren and everyone of the thousands of people that attend their churches, but he’s extended that to us at various times, saying things like we “claim” to have faith.
Ken has literally made a career out of bashing people. If the tone of his work hasn’t bothered you, I’m not sure why this thead would. Unlike Ken, no one here has called another believer a “tool of Satan.”
July 2, 2008 @ 3:45 pmCLS,
Similar to what John said there’s a long history going back at least two years. I originally tried for a long time to reason with John and Scott.
Indeed it was mostly a waste of time. They apparently couldn’t understand what I was saying nor do they seem to see there are many of us who disagree with the way they portray our views of the Christian faith in their comments on their site.
In my opinion when the discussion doesn’t go exactly as they expect that it should they lay the false charge that I wouldn’t answer questions put to me. However, as I see it they just didn’t agree with and/or didn’t like what I said.
So there you go.
July 2, 2008 @ 3:56 pmKen,
You are such a piece of work. Perhaps you should consider politics. You bob and weave like the best of them in the political arena, pretending as though you have answered questions put to you when, in fact, you have answered nothing. John’s description and characterization of you is quite accurate and actually quite nice. I don’t think I would put it quite so graciously.
Your last comment is a case in point. You come back and mock what John said by mirroring his comment, only adding your own unique brand of Silva snarkiness. We have demonstrated time and again that we understand exactly what you are saying, to the point that many times we prove that we understand the finer points of your arguments better than you do.
And we fully understand that there are some out there (including you) who disagree with our discussion of their (your) views. However, for the most part you come to throw rocks but never to actually engage on the matters of substance. You find some minor point to complain about in order to throw up a smoke screen to try and hide the fact that you can’t/won’t answer the serious and/or tough questions.
In nearly every post here at VS where you have come to comment, you have left a trail of unanswered questions, snarky comments, and veiled (and not-so-veiled) judgments. Like the one you threw out in Comment #40:
“Claim to know.” Interesting word choice. Once again you try to cast doubt on our relationships with Christ. Once again, you demonstrate your method of operation loud and clear.
July 2, 2008 @ 4:24 pmWell, thanks guys, for the background :)
I really only meant to give a little loving, sisterly suggestion :)
I don’t know enough about the authors of this site to say anything whatsoever… But, yes, I do believe if you read it in the spirit of concern, which I believe it is intended, I can appreciated very much Ken and Ingrid’s work. I was just listening to both on Crosstalk together and much can be said for the tone of one’s voice – and neither came across as condemning whatsoever, but loving, concerned and factual.
That said, I have gotten into trouble myself for things I have written when on could not see my “tone” either…
I believe Warren missed his calling in marketing, but I don’t judge members of his church I have never met. God, over the years has brought me through a few churches and has been faithful to lead me as I studied His Word.
I have only recently checked out this blog and I like it. Now that the jabs on the world readership are over especially (smile).
Take care and let us ALL remember that whatever we eat, whatever we drink, or whatever we do, let’s do it all for the glory of God :)
July 2, 2008 @ 4:32 pmOh cls, you have no idea. I could tell you stories that would curl your socks. Whatever you do, don’t give either John or Scott your address.
Both of them blog from prison. John’s last name is Hinkley. Scott’s is Peterson.
Must I say more? :)
July 2, 2008 @ 4:39 pmWell, Rick eats babies, sleeps in a coffin and leaves his car running just to damage the environment!
AND he gives 10% of his income to Anton LaVey!
And he listens to Milli Vanilli!
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
July 2, 2008 @ 4:51 pmLOLOLOLOL!!!!! You guys are too much!
The Milli Vanilli takes the cake!
July 2, 2008 @ 5:01 pmPS: I, too, am a southern CA gal, so I’m with you there :)
But possibly to your chagrin (not sure yet) MacArthur is my pastor… (Thankfully).
:)
July 2, 2008 @ 5:03 pm“We have demonstrated time and again that we understand exactly what you are saying, to the point that many times we prove that we understand the finer points of your arguments better than you do.”
Here’s the heart of the matter. So say you and your peeps. And my peeps, and most importantly me, say you haven’t a clue as to what I’m actually saying.
“many times we prove that we understand the finer points of your arguments better than you do.” Are you serious!? Mindreaders are we? And how many times have you criticized me for allegedly saying this same thing in regard to [insert semi-pelagian teacher here]?
I will close with a case in point of how you continually miss the mark, which I also repeat because one day you’ll find out this statement is dead on target: “I would counter that you simply see what you want to see. Is fine by me, but it just might not be with the Lord you claim to know.”
To this simple statement you then ascribe motive and say: “Once again you try to cast doubt on our relationships with Christ. Once again, you demonstrate your method of operation loud and clear.”
The part you highlighted is literally a fact: You claim to know the Lord. There’s nothing more there, but sadly, in an apparent attempt to show us just how astute you: “Once again, you demonstrate your method of operation loud and clear.”
And there you go.
July 2, 2008 @ 6:20 pmThat’s very slippery of you, Agent Starling!
July 2, 2008 @ 6:27 pmI think you just mentioned a curse word at this site “MacArthur”. If you’re a Calvinist to boot, Rick Frueh calls “Limited Atonement” a heresy. So there is plenty of open-mindedness to go around on this site. LOL
July 2, 2008 @ 6:40 pmHave I become your enemy because I tell you the truth?
I like much of what MacArthur teaches. Calvinism – not so much. :)
July 2, 2008 @ 6:42 pmWell, I don’t think even Calvin was 5 points :)
I’m not :)
But, yes, the expository preaching is excellent. I leave hungering more for the Word of God, more encouraged to share the gospel, and to live for Christ and His glory and excited to come back.
In fact, not everyone at Grace is a Calvinist… there are…. Arminians there! Horrors!
:)
July 2, 2008 @ 6:56 pmYou’re not my enemy Rick – I do have a dart board with your picture on it, but my access to the board is “limited” – it’s in the closet. LOL
CLS, my old church was Arminian. My new church is Arminian. Truth is, I really don’t care what a person’s soteriology is. I’ve met both annoying Calvinists (mostly of the Baptist fold) and annoying Arminians (saved by grace, kept by works).
I’ve read some of the ODM sites – they sound more like the annoying Reformed Baptists folks I run into from time to time. One can have their differences with Rick Warren, but to call the guy a non-believer is just plain goofy.
July 2, 2008 @ 7:05 pmI see strong arguments for both sides in the Word… the jury is out with me…
MUST DO LAUNDRY…… grrrrrrrrrr
July 2, 2008 @ 7:11 pmCLS,
Neither John or I have anything against MacArthur in terms of the basics. We do have a problem when he takes non-essentials (like eschatology) and elevates them to semi-essential/essential status. We do have a problem when he is so intent on superimposing his own culture (suites on Sunday demonstrate a respect for God and the Word; traditional hymns are superior in every way to more modern/contemporary worship; etc) that he ignores the fact that NONE of those things are relevant to the heart of the gospel. They are personal preference ONLY, and personal preference related to the culture of the U.S. His opinions on many of these issues would be nonsense in Africa, South America and Asia.
I have enjoyed some of MacArthur’s preaching over the years, and have read one or two of his books and found them solid. My personal opinion is that at some point over the last 5-10 years, he recognized that there was a need for some strong leaders in the American church. He recognized (and rightly so) that because of the success of his church, his radio broadcasts, his books, etc…he was uniquely positioned to be one of those leaders. But at some point, he lost sight of the need for being a leader in the essentials and began to want to talk about his personal preferences as well, and then eventually he began to believe that his preferences are what is best for everyone.
I can’t say that’s what happened for sure, but that’s been my supposition. I think MacArthur is a sincere, godly man with a desire to serve God and lead God’s people, but at times I think he takes himself too seriously…as do we ALL sometimes! :-)
July 2, 2008 @ 8:19 pmWell said.
July 2, 2008 @ 8:45 pmKen
Seriously, Ken, you aren’t that hard to figure out. It isn’t like you are breaking new theological and/or philosophical ground. Your points are about as subtle as a Mac truck!
We don’t have to be mind-readers to figure out what you are trying to say, Ken. We don’t have to be mind-readers to see that you have in inability to grapple with the meat of many of the issues you bring up and try to speak to with authority. To try and support your opinions, you self-reference as a matter of course, using your own words to prove your own words. You quote people out of context and ignore it when those same people speak out against your incorrect use and interpretations of their words. You cherry-pick scripture and proof-text without batting an eye. You do all of these in an effort to support your positions on a host of issues that are really just you spouting out your own opinions and trying to act like they are the opinions of God.
About your comment related to “the Lord you claim to know.” Ken, I don’t have to try and assign a motive to your words. You have, on this blog and elsewhere, made it clear that you do NOT believe that people who disagree with you (like John and I) are saved. You have tried to cast doubt on our relationship with Christ SO often. You have specifically said that John and I are “tools of the devil,” “walking in darkness” and “leading others into darkness.” So it isn’t much of a stretch, when you say “the Lord you claim to know,” to believe that once again you are doubting our faith in Christ and our very salvation.
As I said before, Ken, you aren’t that subtle. “Claim to know,” in light of your past statements here and elsewhere, is a pretty clear indicator of your opinion on our standing in the Kingdom…namely that we have no standing in the Kingdom. Don’t try to be clever and turn it around to say, “Gosh, it is just a statement of fact.” You are right. It is a statement of fact that we claim to know the Lord. But you are forgetting to include that it is a claim that YOU disagree with.
Of course, if you would like to take back some of your earlier statements about us and others and the status of our salvation, the floor is all yours.
July 2, 2008 @ 8:57 pmHmmmmmmm, well, that hasn’t been my experience at Grace.
But, I have a great deal of respect for him and as long as he keeps preaching the Word in season and out of season, I’ll be there :) And probably after, God willing. The other day I was there in the front row on the side sitting next to a guy who was tatted down, with shorts and flip flops on and he seemed to be fine :) There is a huge mix at Grace. Which, I love…
Its hard to say what someone’s motives are… But I concur, we can all take ourselves waaaay too seriously…
Duty calls! Off to be a Prov. 31, Titus 2 mom… or trying to be :)
July 2, 2008 @ 9:01 pmNow… we just need Roger to return from being away for a “very very long time” and all the planets will be aligned.
July 2, 2008 @ 9:49 pmYou are right, Cindy. There is a certain feeling of deja vu going on right now!
Ken, I have engaged you on this thread enough.
Come back when you have a real contribution to make to the discussion, unless of course you want to apologize.
The floor is still open…
July 2, 2008 @ 11:06 pmHow dare you speak against a man of God like Pastor John MacArthur suggesting the Truth he preaches is his own preferences. He is an anointed man of God who truly knows the Truth and preaches nothing but the Truth. You will be judged and executed for this! Yes burned!
And you further heap up condemnation against yourselves by undiscriminatingly attacking an innocent Discernmentalist and Defender of the Truth, the esteemed Pastor-Teacher Ken Sliva. Shame on you.
Will Farel XV
Lying for the Truth
Burning
forthe TruthP.S. I have quite enough fire wood for all of you. PB has supplied me with a truck load of planks previously used for shoving.
July 3, 2008 @ 5:33 amThanks a lot, John and Scott. Now I am in real hot water! I called blogs that like to post the sins of others as “bottom feeders” and Mrs. Schlueter cannot take it.
The correction machine seems to be a one way street! :)
July 3, 2008 @ 6:09 amOK, a little off-topic and not meant to play divide-and-conquer but this is a serious thought that has played on my mind for a long time and in the comments on this blog I see some evidence for it. So here goes:
Scott said:
If one Christian denies another Christian to be saved, whereas both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, how can this be? Since both can’t be right at the same time, at least one is wrong. This in itself is not uncommon, one scientist may deny the conclusion another scientist has drawn from his work. A historian may interpret a certain ancient text different from another historian. So far so good. But, if religion really is more than just using your brain, i.e. not merely interpreting and analysing information, but guided by divine inspiration, wouldn’t you expect LESS division in the religion you pose to be the correct one? According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, no less than 34.000 separate Christian groups have been identified. Say that 1% (seems to be modest estimate) could be said to have fundamental differences in interpretation of the Bible. When I say fundamental what I mean is that each ‘group’, based on their theological interpretation of the Bible, denies at least some other ‘groups’ entrance to heaven. I think it’s safe to assume that the followers of each of these ‘groups’ are regularly praying to the same God and would be therefore unwilling to accept their belief is merely based on human interpretation, not divine inspiration. Since Christianity’s inception, sectarianism within the Christian church has only increased rather than decreased, so it seems God feels rather indifferent on how any Christian chooses to interpret Scripture. This leads me to these five options:
1) God is giving divine inspiration only to those with the correct interpretation of the Bible.
2) God is giving divine inspiration to all but only some out of the 340 groups are interpreting the divine inspiration correctly.
3) God is sending contradictory messages
4) God isn’t giving any divine inspiration at all
5) there is no God and all followers of the 340 Christian interpretations (or religious people in general for that matter) are deluding themselves
I’ve included option 3 only for logical reasons but I don’t expect anyone to take that seriously. In my view the God in option 1 is cruel and the God in option 4 might as well not exist, given the razor sharp blade of Occam. The interesting option is number 2. If this option is true then there are Christians that, despite praying to the same God and indeed receiving divine inspiration in return, continue to wrongly interpret the Bible. As a reward they will fathom perpetual damnation. Personally I find it far-fetched and a miserable ideology to live by but it appears more probable than options 1,3 and 4.
July 3, 2008 @ 6:40 amTo my mind option 5 is the most probable. But then again that might be related to my presuppositions. Perhaps I’ve overlooked something, if you think so.. I’d be interested to hear.
Wow, Rick! You REALLY got under her skin, and I don’t think that what you wrote in that post was that bad. You could have said a lot worse! :-) Especially noteworthy to me was this:
Funny, but I have read over your post twice and I still can’t find where you say that “the only thing we should do is show grace and pray for the woman.” I don’t think you have a problem with pointing out the sadness of this girl’s lifestyle and the corruption of this song, do you? Correct me if I am wrong, but what I got out of your post was that the problem with some catfish blogs (catfish are bottom feeders, right?) is that they spend so much of their time just looking for the bits of trash and refuse that floats down to the bottom. They feel it is their duty to trumpet the sins of others to the waiting/watching world, all the while never saying anything about the need for love and grace and prayer for these lost and damaged souls.
I don’t think you would have a problem with a post discussing the girl you mentioned and the dangerous influences of her “I Kissed a Girl” lyrics. I think that your problem with blogs like Ingrid’s is that they can’t wait to jump on the sensational and salacious news stories implicating Christians or those Christians who have fallen, just so that they can pronounce judgment and have some additional content on their blog.
As I see it, the problem with Ingrid’s story is that she is judging this woman and discussing her as though she were a Christian singing these lyrics. The woman’s lifestyle and her song content are worldly and wrong. It doesn’t take an online “discernment” ministry to see that. But at this point in time, this woman has rejected her faith and is walking a path obscured by darkness. To try and somehow tie it the faith she no longer espouses is just ridiculous. Ingrid has every right to point out the dangers of what this girls is singing about, but to try and somehow link it to this girl’s past in the church and in Christian music is wrong. This person has no faith right now. I can only imagine how much pain and grief the Father is going through at the loss of one of His children. Maybe Ingrid should consider THAT and include some of THAT kind of consideration before the next time she zealously and almost gleefully presents another example of her ability to “discern.”
July 3, 2008 @ 6:50 amTico,
Good thoughts.
One important thing to remember, though, is that though there are a myriad of various Christian groups (34,000) which are formed because of various interpretations of the scriptures, you will find a lot more than your 1% agree on the essentials of the Christian faith. It’s on side issues that they disagree, and therefore congregate with others of like passions.
And the problem arises when those non-essentials become essentials in the minds of some.
Did that make sense?
July 3, 2008 @ 6:55 amOr did I miss your point entirely?
Nathanael,
It’s actually the reverse, for argument’s sake (I had a generous day today) I assumed that 99% of these groups agree on essentials. This leaves 340 groups that do deny at least one other group (some groups deny all others except themselves, such as Jehovahs Witnesses, if I’m correct) the entrance to heaven based on Biblical interpretation.
July 3, 2008 @ 7:06 amGot it.
July 3, 2008 @ 7:25 amHmmm…
Tico,
Hey, whateverer happened to the other two discussions we were having. The extrinsic vs. intrinsic was all the rage a couple days ago and you seem to have dropped it entirely. Was that a way of saying you agree with my arguments or what?
July 3, 2008 @ 7:33 amSo from that 1%, you conclude that there is no God? Help me out on that one, Tico.
July 3, 2008 @ 7:36 amIf, as I first incorrectly interpreted your post, the 99% were wrong, #5 could be the most obvious conclusion. But I’m a little confused how it trumps the other options you stated if only 340 of the interpretations are wrong.
Rick,
Ingrid has some nerve getting righteously indignant about name calling.
Ingrid if you’re reading this, how about spending a little time policing your own people. Ken Silva has used the most spiritually abusive possible language of others on many occasions. I’ve never heard you utter a peep about that (except to defend him as you do here).
And btw, taking a post down is NOT the way things are done on the web. If you say something it should remain where it is so long as the site exists. What you are doing is called whitewashing. The appropriate response would be to apologize to those you offended, not make the evidence of the offense disappear down the memory hole.
And, hey, we’re still waiting on that post taking Ray Comfort to task for sharing the stage with prosperity gospel preachers. Gonna make time for that?
July 3, 2008 @ 7:41 amNathanael,
The actual amount of groups that disagree with each other is relative and not essential to my argument. Boil it down to two Christian denominations that each deny each other to go to Heaven. Then the 5 points I raised still need to be answered.
July 3, 2008 @ 7:52 amI do not have a problem with warning young believers of the dangers of this world. We do not know this girl and perhaps there are believers praying for her who knew her when she was walking with Christ. The continuing tone in SOL is self righteous and eager to expose.
And she desires grace and mercy for herself withoutshowing any for others. Does she mean there should not be any correction?
Am I allowed to say she is arrogant for questioning a pastor/teacher like Ken does? To say there is a double standard with many of the ODMs is to state the obvious to everyone but them.
PS – I am going to blame it on the bad influence I receive here! :)
July 3, 2008 @ 8:00 amTico,
I’m still a little unclear how two denominations who believe that they are right (in) and the other is wrong (out) leads to the conclusion that there is no God.
Maybe I’m just missing a vital ingredient in the train of logic.
To me, when two groups disagree to this degree, several other conclusions can be drawn:
1) They are both going to heaven and are merely wrong in their criteria,
2) One is right and the other is wrong,
3) Both are wrong.
None of these lead me to conclude that there is no God unless I am already inclined in that direction and consider discord just another proof to my conclusion.
July 3, 2008 @ 8:07 amNathanael,
The vital ingredient is divine inspiration. The ultimate denial (‘backstabbing’) is when one denomination (or believer for that matter) denies another denomination / believer entrance to heaven. This kind of claim is not made on such a relative basis as being personal interpretation. Ask the Jehovah’s witnesses if what they believe is merely their interpretation or divine inspiration.
That’s why I made the distinction between scientists and historians because there disagreement is based on human, errable nature, without claims of divine inspiration.
July 3, 2008 @ 8:22 amSo is the concept of divine inspiration odious to you?
July 3, 2008 @ 8:25 amThankfully the merciful, wise and highly intellectual Mrs. Schlueter has called out the slandering Lion Follower. (Where have you ever heard that one should follow a beast to get salvation?!) Her wonderful expose full of logic reasoning and without any emotionally loaded arguments clearly shows him to be a heretic.
I am already kindling the fire.
Will Farel VX
July 3, 2008 @ 8:27 amBurning
forthe Truth:twisted:
Her reasoning is “I can expose and slander others when I call Hannah Montana followers the “painted girls of Sodom”, but do not question me because that is not fair.”
Waaah Waaah.
I will call her out every time she prints an article about some struggling young person’s sin. By her own admission she had some younger struggles herself, and she was brought up in an orthodox Christian home.
July 3, 2008 @ 9:04 amTico,
Christian’s believe that the scripture is “divinely inspired.” That’s not the same as saying each and every person who interprets it is inspired. To use your framework, it’s the data that’s inspired not the people working on it.
Christians do believe that they can be guided and aided by the Holy Spirit (I know you know all this but I’m including it for anyone who comes across this and doesn’t). However, the Holy Spirit is described as a “helper” not as a controller. God never forces anyone to believe anything in general (even that he exists) or in particular (like a particular doctrine of salvation). The scriptural view (as I understand it) is that humility leads to faith which leads to obedience which leads to understanding.
The result of all this — what it should look like over time — is human freedom applied to divinely inspired data, i.e. a mess. There are moments of striking clarity mixed together with moments of completely missing the point. We see this exact pattern in the Gospels themselves where Peter is both the most eager of the apostles and also the one most likely to stick his foot in his mouth. Even in Acts he is still being corrected by Paul for getting it wrong theologically.
It’s a curious thing that God revealed himself in an event and the record thereof, not in a theology text per se. He lets us work that part out ourselves and overtime the majority of people do find agreement on the core issues, but none of it can be achieved without faith and its precursor, humility.
So it’s extremely unlikely that God will correct someone directly (via a vision, say). More likely is that God will present someone with correction from some other person and see if they are humble enough to accept it. If I may say so, I think he uses this approach for atheists as well as believers.
July 3, 2008 @ 9:08 am* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * NOTE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
July 3, 2008 @ 9:09 amIngrid has put up a post on Slice about the Ray Comfort situation. She and I had a short but pleasant email exchange, which I placed at the top of this post.
Criticising the elect AGAIN.
Rick Frueh,
You are you are a beast following heretic! My friend Frank will agree with me.
Will Farel VX
July 3, 2008 @ 9:13 amLying for the Truth
I was ignorant about e-mail services that can alert you to any news about pastors and Christians. Not for a prayer chain, but for post fodder.
This is about Ray Comfort’s compromise, not a personal moral failure. I will never agree that God directs people to publicly join with secular news agencies to report the the details of Miley Cyrus’s mistakes to buttress your asessment of societal decline.
It is not redemptive and it is wrong. I do not believe Mrs. Sclueter e-mailed Miley befor she wrote about her either.
July 3, 2008 @ 9:23 amIt would have been good and honourable of Mrs. Schlueter to email Brian McLaren before posting this about him: Brian McLaren: Emissary for Barack Obama to Evangelicals *Updated*
July 3, 2008 @ 9:39 amAnd then she adds an update with the snide remark:
Actually, Rick, I subscribe to a service that emails me each and every time you sin…and I get A LOT of email about you. Seriously, you should be ashamed! :-)
July 3, 2008 @ 9:40 amAnd Scott, I catch most of it in my spam filter before you get it.
Seriously, we should confont compromise and error, esepcially in leaders. But two of my three children struggled in their teenage years. They are now serving Christ by His grace, but I know how I would feel if someone had posted their sins in front of people who for the most part did not care.
It is unseemly and in fact makes us accomplices to the ministry of the Accuser.
July 3, 2008 @ 9:53 amJohn said:
haha, that’s subtle. Well John, I need to remind myself to stay humble but only as long as someone comes up with a rational argument that stands up to mine. I can not except on face/faith value that you were divinely inspired to correct me. So I’m going to read your post again and then respond on topic in due time.
July 3, 2008 @ 10:05 amJohn,
Spot on in comment #99.
The scriptures, not me, are inspired.
Well said.
Shalom
July 3, 2008 @ 10:09 amI fully agree, Rick.
I do wonder if Ingrid would have done the Ray Comfort post if it wouldn’t have gotten a lot of attention here and elsewhere. I think she may have felt some pressure, which in the end was/is a good thing. Sometimes it takes people on the outside to open our eyes to what is right in front of us. I know that has been true of me at times.
And I, too, am uncomfortable when “Christian blogs” trumpet out the sins of the fallen as fodder for the news day. I think it seems “tabloidish.” Discussion of such events and issues can certainly be instructional, but not in the method that Slice tends to use when approaching them.
July 3, 2008 @ 10:10 amSo, this is a sign of the apocalypse, right? Slice and VS in agreement, cats and dogs living together…
I read Ingrid’s post. As usual, it’s well written. I completely agree with her that the word-faith teachers she’s mentioned are a repulsive caricature of the faith. She hangs them with their own foolish statements, which seems entirely just and appropriate. In that regard, I support most of what she says.
However (you saw that coming, right), she takes issue with “speaking where one is given the opportunity.” On this I can not agree with her and neither I think should any believer. Paul went to the center of polytheistic Athens and spoke to a group of non-believers on their home territory. He accepted their invitation. No agreement to speak at a convention of new age gurus could be any more dramatic than what Paul did.
Thus, when Rob Bell goes to a meeting of faiths in Seattle and talks about Jesus’ resurrection, it seems to me that too is appropriate. When Rick Warren is invited to North Korea and agrees to go so long as he can preach the Gospel, that’s good. If one is invited to speak to a group of atheists or mormons or porn stars or skinheads or whatever… sorry, but isn’t that how Jesus did it? He “ate with sinners” (and got taken to task for doing so). He was still witnessing to the theives on the cross (who were guilty of serious crimes) at the end. This idea that we don’t talk to people far from God is not scriptural at all.
Ingrid doesn’t seem to have a place for this in her theology. Well, since we’re playing nice, let me rephrase that… Perhaps she does have a place for it and I just don’t see it. I’d honestly like to. I’d love to understand how she makes sense of Jesus eating with sinners and Paul preaching to skeptics. How does that translate into the modern world? Based on her current post, it seems she draws that line well short of the Biblical data. Jesus touched the lepers, does she really think he’d refuse to speak to the KKK? I don’t. I only wish I could hear what he’d say to them. It would be priceless.
Ingrid says that she will never allow her “smiling face” to appear in some other group’s bulletin. I think she’s getting to the real issue, though I’m not sure she sees it. It’s not so much who you speak to, it’s how you approach it. If Ray Comfort going to this conference to confront a clear problem (an apostasy I would say) that’s good. If, on the other hand, he’s going to pal around with these folks as if he has no essential disagreement with them, that’s another matter. I can’t claim to know which is the case, having never spoken to the man. However, if he’s doing the former I’m all for it. As much as I disagree with his approach, I recognize him as well within the faith, unlike those word-faith preachers who are following another gospel.
And for the record, I don’t think you have to take your one shot and insult people or scowl a lot to show you disapprove. Again, this is not what Paul did and doesn’t seem to be what Jesus did either. It’s possible that Ray sees this as an ongoing relationship which allows him to have an impact on some wayward men. If so, more power to him. If he’s just going to collect an honorarium from guys with money, that’s shameful. Without talking to him, I don’t think we can know. Maybe he’ll be kind enough to drop by and explain his intentions.
July 3, 2008 @ 10:14 amNice, John. Well said.
And regarding VS being in agreement with Slice, Fox News just reported on a related story – Hell just froze over.
Bill O’Reilly will have film of it on his show this evening.
July 3, 2008 @ 10:27 amTico,
Fair enough. I’m not opposed to a little discussion (obviously).
But faith is the coin of the realm, so to speak. There are many unnecessary barriers to faith (dare I bring up young earth creationism – yeah, I dare). But ultimately, there’s no path to really appreciate Christianity apart from faith. From my reading of the Bible, God has very intentionally and carefully left himself epistomologically underdetermined (which is not the same as without evidence). If this weren’t so, we’d all be Christians whether we liked it or not.
July 3, 2008 @ 10:28 amAbout Comfort appearing with these guys. I have seen how they operate. Image and stage control are key ingredients to their whole schtick. So is keeping dissenting voices at a distance, if not completely silent. I don’t see any of those guys allowing Comfort anywhere near them if he is there to confront. These guys like their ears itched like nobody’s business. Why else does TBN load up the stage every night on Praise the Lord with anywhere from 5 to 10 people at a time? So that they can all agree with each other and shout “amen” to each other’s statements about wealth, prosperity, healing, etc. If Comfort were to confront any of these guys, I can almost bet that they would make sure he was never asked back.
July 3, 2008 @ 10:32 amScott,
You may be right. I think it would be better if he’d just go visit these guys at home. Still, I don’t think Ingrid’s plan to preach the Gospel while avoiding sinners is a good one.
July 3, 2008 @ 10:34 amMrs. Schlueter owes me! :)
I ageed with Rob Bell going to the Seeds of Compassion on one condtion – that he openly shares the gospel. He did not, therefore it was compromise. He and Pagitt are creative guys, they could have just woven in their testimony.
Paul would have accepted the invitation and used it to God’s glory. The Word of Faith guys may be even more of a compromise since they claim to preach the Bible. They do not and Comfort’s presence just adds to the confusion.
July 3, 2008 @ 10:40 amJohn and Rick, I agree with you both. I wonder what kind of flack Paul took from Christians after speaking on Mars Hill, if any. Maybe the infant Church had not as yet lost the understanding that you can’t reach and influence people unless you interact with them. In fact, this whole thing has got me reconsidering those invitations to join a certain group when they have dinner with Benny Hinn. I still may decline if another invitation comes, simply because I don’t know if a dinner gathering would be the place for me to have a “sit down” with Brother Benny, but it is making me re-evaluate.
July 3, 2008 @ 10:40 amI grew up in a church that took the following verse very seriously. And I’ve posted it in KJV on purpose, because that was the version we used.
July 3, 2008 @ 10:45 am“Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you” (II Cor. 6.17 KJV).
In adherence to that verse, there were certain people with whom you just did not interact. They would come to us when they were ready to repent.
Nathanael,
“To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure.”
Lepers were an “unclean thing” in every sense yet Jesus touched them. Jesus spoke to the woman at the well and ate with the tax-collectors. He went to the wedding at Cana and made wine (which had theological significance appreciated by few who drank it). Going where invited is appropriate.
July 3, 2008 @ 11:08 amAmen, brother.
July 3, 2008 @ 11:10 amOur Lord has been breaking down many strongholds in my life, and this is one of them.
Good verse.
If you do not have love you are nothing. That is the missing ingredient in all of us sometimes, but that can be a great liability when you are attempting to speak correction to someone.
And just the fact of speaking correct does not love define.
July 3, 2008 @ 1:34 pmScott wrote:
Wow, Scott. I clearly and unmistakably told you that I was unable to post anything any sooner. Am I somehow accountable to you to do things in your time frame or get labeled a hypocrite? I told you that I encountered the link to Ray’s involvement at the Word of Faith conference during a live radio show yesterday I was hosting in San Antonio. Three hours of radio, yesterday, Scott, plus a fourth hour on my own radio show, a family to prepare supper for, and sleep to catch. I was supposed to come up with a full response to this issue for my blog in those hours? Are you calling me a liar when I told you this in writing this morning? You “wonder” if I would have done anything without pressure? What a slap. I am and continue to be opposed to what Ray is doing, and I’ve risked my reputation among conservatives by even breathing a criticism of his name. This is the first time I have ever read your blog. I had heard of it but never visited it that I know of. Reading the comment section is quite an experience. If you are concerned about blogs trumpeting the sins of others, you might begin here, at this blog. Re-read your comment section. It is nothing but pure personal attack, criticism and gossip, most of it singularly mean-spirited. That is exactly, Scott, what you accuse us of. I promise not to come back, but I have to say that it has been eye-opening, to say the least. I wrote to you in good faith, but even that was not respected. You can see why “dialog” is such a waste of time in these cases. Even when I speak the truth to you, you doubt my motives publicly. There’s not much that can be done with that.
July 3, 2008 @ 7:27 pmIngrid,
You’ve been here before at least once because you’ve left a comment before. You’ve also sent an e-mail to me once (about comments never posted on Slice) and Ken discussed me (without naming me) on a Slicecast with you. Not to put to fine a point on it, but I’m fairly sure our blog contributed to the shutting down of Slice 1.0. All of that to say — we have a long, mostly unpleasant history.
And I’ll say again…you have some nerve criticising the tone here. Your blog is consistently one of the most hyper-critical, slash and burn outlets on the web. What you don’t do yourself you hand over to Ken who is so jugmental and condemnatory that even the guys at Pyromaniacs couldn’t take it, and that’s saying something. Nothing on this blog or in this thread approaches the sort of thing posted on Slice regularly. The only difference is that here we’re talking about you. Suddenly, something which doesn’t even approach your own level is intolerable. Perhaps you need to reflect on that insight a little.
For the record, Scott didn’t call you a hypocrite. He wondered if the discussion might have influenced you in some way. Clearly Ken was aware of the discussion since he joined it. It’s not unreasonable to suspect he may have communicated with you about that. So I know you’re used to twisting people’s statements out of context to make your case, but it won’t work here.
July 3, 2008 @ 9:17 pmIngrid,
To borrow a line from Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” -
Wow, talk about an over-the-top reaction. John actually said almost everything I would have said to you. I said nothing about you being a hypocrite. I didn’t lay any sort of expectations out for you to meet my time line. I simply wondered if you (and by extension CRN) would have talked about the Ray Comfort situation had it NOT received so much attention.
In my update to the post I clearly acknowledged my appreciation for your willingness to take on a subject that, I am sure, will generate quite a bit of heat against you from people who are typically your allies. My speculation was not, in any way, intended as a slap in the face to you or your blog. If the roles were reversed, I think that you would have wondered the same thing.
As far as this blog being filled with “nothing but pure personal attack, criticism and gossip, most of it singularly mean-spirited,” you might want to review the words of Jesus in Matthew 7 about the eye with an enormous plank in it. Before you come and criticize the content of VS, you might want to review the content of Slice. Do I at times push the line? Unfortunately the answer is yes, though I have been working hard at getting better. That being said, if you review the comment thread of this post and others like it, you will notice that it is your colleague Ken who typically swings by, tosses a few verbal and theological grenades, and then runs away. How often do you get after him?
July 3, 2008 @ 10:47 pmSpeaking of disagreeing with each other, I have to admit that I’ve been out of touch with all of the popular trends in theology since my graduaton from Fuller in 1985. I’ve restriced my main involvement at church with the teaching of Scripture. Now I read tonight that there is actually an “Emergent” church. LOL. Even my old friend (we were on staff at a church in the 80′s) Spencer Burke has a site dedicated to this phenomenon (the Ooze). I’ve read interviews on the net with such confused individuals as Rob Bell, Brian McLaren and Dan Kimball. Man, some people get lost in the weeds! This phenomenon reminds me of a quote that a Historical Theology professor of mine once made in class, “Some people will make up whatever hogwash that’s available, just to say they’ve done something new”.
July 3, 2008 @ 11:58 pmOnce you deceive yourself into thinking you are some sort of a truth warrior you begin to lose the carefulness in your approach and methodology because your eyes are blinded by your goal and the inflated view you have of yourself. You ignore broad teachings of Scripture in order to continue in your narcissistic journey of uncovering compromise in doctrine and personal behavior from any source available.
It doesn’t matter that as you profess to hold the Scripture as paramount in certain doctrines you willingly are blind to the fact that the New Testament never gives license for a woman to rebuke ordained elders in the church, not to mention rebuking elders around the world. By her own admission her day is filled with “stuff” landing back home to be a “keeper at home” as an appendage.
Regardless, Mrs. Schlueter operates unscripturally both in her gender and many times in her tone and scope. She professes to be an authority on almost everything, from doctrine to dress to music, she promelgates her judgment relentlessly and resists any contention that she operates in disobedience to Scripture. And even when wrong her “apologies” are veiled with finger pointing at secular press innaccuracies of ignorance which is hardly the point.
She doesn’t allow comments yet has no quams about criticizing how others police their comment sections. How convenient. I have never seen one post on someone who fell and later was restored because that is not what tabloids do, they need the sensationalism of gossip, and in the church you have the added bonus of feeling the publicanesque self righteousness.
And when they need it these truth warriors use the cleansing of the Temple as their template of methodology, but when someone correct them they desire “grace and mercy”. Such hypocrites. They define love as telling the truth but when correction flows toward them they even redifine it as an attack of Satan because they are such faithful warriors of the Most High God. They scent the blog world with their spiritual hubris.
I do not agree with everything John and Scott believe and they will tell you I speak freely and sometimes forcefully, but they are borthers in Christ and maintain the parameters of Christianity on this site. All are welcome, some I would not, but sites like SOL will continue to be in the bondage of their own spiritual narcissism as they ride high upon the steed of doctrinal and moral warefare, leaving people from all walks strewn on their journalistic battlefield, as well as any grace or mercy and Christianity.
We will always have oddities like this in the blog world so let us not act surprised, but make no mistake, these type of sites serve themselves and not Christ. He was a friend of sinners and if Christ came back as a man, he would look and live much more like Shane Clairborne than the dungeon masters on site like these.
(Mrs. Schlueter feel free to use the “dungeon master” in the heading of another post about me, it just spikes my blog hits!) :)
July 4, 2008 @ 2:37 amJohn, I’ll be off for a week but rest assured that I will not leave your last response unanswered. By that time I expect the ‘fire’ in this discussion to have died down, which seems a more appropriate time to respond rather than generate dual lane traffic conversation.
July 4, 2008 @ 6:25 amTico,
Enjoy your vacation/time away.
July 4, 2008 @ 7:18 amKen, “A’ight blood?”
from England
Scott/John
I haven’t read every word of this thread, but it does seem to me that Ingrid was already on this before being aware that you guys were. I can understand her feeling put out by what she’s read here.
July 4, 2008 @ 2:55 pmKeith,
You might be right. In fact, I think most of us assumed that she had heard the news of this conference days before the rest of us because she seems to have eyes and ears everywhere. That assumption lead us to question why it is that none of the ODM sites had posted anything about it. If it wasn’t for Rick Frueh giving us a heads-up in a comment, I wouldn’t have been aware of it. When I emailed Ingrid, she said that she had caught wind of Comfort’s involvement in the conference and was working on a response, which lead me to post my apology and the context of her email (by her permission). I wanted to be upfront about our exchange and about how I should have emailed her first before making assumptions. What she appears to have taken even more of an exception to is that I wondered whether she would have posted on the topic at all had not it received so much attention by quite a few blogs and Christian sites. She took this to mean that I was calling her a hypocrite, which I did not intend to do at all. Perhaps that speculation was out of line on my part. I haven’t decided yet. I appreciate your opinion, and I think I’ll ask a few other people to read over the thread and my last comment that put Ingrid over the top. If they think that I was out of line, I will submit myself to their opinion and will apologize to Ingrid and will post that apology here as well.
July 4, 2008 @ 11:32 pmRick,
There seems to be some sort of “history” with you and Ingrid/Ken. It seems to be beyond what perhaps Scott/John and the other few of us might have. Am I right?
Scott,
Entertaining the thought of a B. Hinn dinner invite?! Wow, I never thought I’d see the day.
On the topic of Ingrid… I can possibly see where Ingrid felt disjointed by your comment. No, you did not call her a hypocrite – but as a female reading another female’s emotional response (perhaps indignant), I can see how and why it went awry.
She does not, however, have any available fingers to point at VS and call this blog “nothing but pure personal attack, criticism and gossip, most of it singularly mean-spirited…”. I have watched SOL over the years, and seen more hurtful and harmful things said there in one post than you could ever see here. And as Rick mentioned, everyone is welcome here, even those who come here for nothing more than to launch verbal “grenades” and leave.
John,
July 5, 2008 @ 1:50 amI think you’re right & Ingrid has been here before. My guess would be in 2006, right before Slice fell apart and changed the way it did business.
Cindy – We have known each other through the internet for several years. To both Ken and Mrs. Schlueter’s credit, they both have come out very strong against this conference and Comfort’s appearance.
July 5, 2008 @ 4:56 amI see Rick, thanks for explaining. I thought perhaps you actually knew one another, personally.
That is interesting to hear that both Ken and Ingrid have spoken out against this conference. I don’t think we have seen something from the same vantage point before. Rather shocking – in a good way.
John,
I like your comment 117, when you state “going where invited is appropriate”. Comfort’s intent is indeed is key, and knowing his intent could change this entire comment section. I guess it is a wait-and-see situation.
It could very well be a “porn for pancakes” type scenario, which was mind-boggling to me when I first heard about it, but the more I understood their intent the more I understood their philosophy, which seem pure and driven by the love of Christ.
July 5, 2008 @ 10:17 amSome interesting discussion on this site related to this. In particular this comment:
I had no idea that Ravi had declined into apostasy! And Rob Bell has ALWAYS been an apostate false teacher?!?
Who Knew?!?!?!?
July 5, 2008 @ 10:18 amDid you happen to read Ray Comfort’s statement about his intent at this conference? Just found it on a link from that site you got the comment (above) from.
It’s here, in case you haven’t.
July 5, 2008 @ 10:37 amI read it. I think he just put it up yesterday.
To be honest, I am torn. I do agree with rationale that he presents…presenting the gospel where ever he can; and yet how can he present the gospel if he isn’t pointing out the total fallacy that is the Prosperity Gospel? I don’t necessarily agree with his statement that all the conversions at these churches are false, but it seems that if he was really being honest about it, he would need to point out both the gospel and the false gospel. So at that point I guess I am (gulp) in partial agreement with Ingrid.
But at the same time Ingrid’s approach does seem to ignore Paul’s approach on Mars Hill. Paul didn’t try to specifically address every heresy found in Athens. He framed the gospel in a context that his listeners could/would relate to.
July 5, 2008 @ 11:19 amTo call Ravi an apostate removes any credibility you might have had and relegates you into some caricature rather than a serious discerner. Even if you disagreed with Ravi’s involvement with the National Day of Prayer, he has been a bold witness for Christ around the world, even sometimes at the expense of his safety.
July 5, 2008 @ 11:45 amJohn said:
Let me be clear in my definition of ‘divine inspiration’: like you I do not consider merely reading alleged divinely inspired text as receiving divine inspiration. True divine inspiration should consist of receiving a supernatural conviction that a certain interpretation is correct. It can be separated temporally from the interpretation process but it doesn’t necessarily have to be. In other words, I include ‘divine guidance’ (divine inspiration working simultaneous with interpretation) as well as ‘divine feedback’ (divine inspiration after interpretation, confirming or correcting one’s interpretation).
Without divine inspiration there is only (the assumption of) divinely inspired ‘data’ that has to be interpreted by a fallible human mind. This would come down to option 4: God isn’t giving any divine inspiration at all.
Imagine your local priest / pastor preceding his theological points of view from now on with ‘I believe’ which would be the only correct way to frame an ambiguous theological position if there is no divine inspiration. Such a relativist message is a killer and many folk would leave the church soon I imagine. People want definite answers, even if that means the message in their church contradicts with that given in the church two blocks down the road. In my opinion differentiation within a religion is essential because it generates a stronger feeling of belonging. But I digress…
Compared to a religion where a guiding Holy Spirit can be invoked, a belief based only on human interpretation must be regarded as inferior in terms of it’s proximity to truth. I’m not surprised therefore to find the inevitable cop-out: “Christians do believe that they can be guided and aided by the Holy Spirit.” Indeed, I have yet to meet just one Christian who considers himself ‘born again’ and who is at the same time happy to assert that her/his position is based ONLY on her/his personal interpretation of the Bible.
Once the existence or influence of the Holy Spirit as a guideline is dismissed, the foundations of one’s belief collapse like a sandcastle on a beach where the tide is coming in. There is no longer an objective basis to decide why one position is ‘holier’ than another. Without the Holy Spirit, Paul’s attitude to Peter should be regarded as self-righteous. Only once it is assumed he is guided by the Holy Spirit does it become acceptable. From an objective point of view this far from erases the problem: in any dispute, who is to decide which of the Christians is guided by the Holy Spirit? If Paul is more eloquent and/or has a more charismatic personality than Peter, people are most likely persuaded to believe the Holy Spirit is on Paul’s side.
You also said:
Actually, whether the data is divinely inspired or not can NOT be deduced by the outcome that Christians and non-Christians alike observe; a plurality of interpretations. A non-divinely inspired, ambiguously worded text will also lead to scholars taking opposing positions. With Occam’s razor firmly in hand I would like to remove the redundant facial hair that is the alleged divine inspiration of the Bible. Without substantial evidence that indeed the Bible was divinely inspired, this argument is the CRUCIAL assumption on which rests the circular argument:
My premise was that if God exists, it seems he feels rather indifferent on how any Christian chooses to interpret Scripture. I proposed five different reasons for why fundamental disagreement can exist within the Christian church.
July 12, 2008 @ 3:34 amFrom your response it is very clear that you do believe in divine inspiration, either directly or indirectly. Unless you hold a position different from the five I listed, your/the Christian position seems to match best with position 1, do you accept that?
Just for clarity: the response above is a reaction on John’s response on my initial post.
July 12, 2008 @ 6:20 amTico:
As an agnostic (after being raised a Catholic) I dismissed Christianity alltogether. It wasn’t until I studied how the text of the New Testament was accurately transmitted over a 2,000 year period, that I had to answer some uncomfortable questions regarding it. The authors were either lying to me, mentally unstable or were telling me the truth. The evidence to support the first two options was sparse. Logically, I was left with the third choice.
We can engage in all forms of philosophical debate about a variety of topics, but Christianity rises or falls on whether Jesus rose from the dead. This IS the central issue relative to the faith. Granted, it takes faith to blelieve this – but this faith is founded on solid evidence.
July 12, 2008 @ 9:40 amJim,
Thanks for your response. I am familiar with the Lord, Liar or Lunatic trilemma and I’m happy to discuss this (interesting) argument if it comes up at some point in some blog but I will not go into it here because I don’t want this discussion get side-tracked. When I responded to John I had to summarise his views into the context of my original response.
July 12, 2008 @ 10:58 amI realise we have different objectives, you want to cling onto your faith and I want to remove ‘faith’ out of the equation altogether. I want to be the judge who gets a casea discussion based on logical arguments only. I want
Jim,
Thanks for your response. I am familiar with the Lord, Liar or Lunatic trilemma and I’m happy to discuss this (interesting) argument if it comes up at some point in some blog but I will not go into it here because I don’t want this discussion get side-tracked. When I responded to John I had to summarise his views into the context of my original response.
July 12, 2008 @ 10:58 amI realise we have different objectives, you want to cling onto your faith and I want to remove ‘faith’ out of the equation altogether. I want to be the judge who gets a casea discussion based on logical arguments only. I want
I accidentally pressed the ‘Submit Comment’ button prematurely, but it’s $%&*.ing annoying that I can not edit/delete comments.
Anyway… the bottom line of what I wanted to express is there: if you want to respond please do so with regard to the actual argument. Thanks.
July 12, 2008 @ 11:05 amFortunately, the guys at VS allow us to respond freely to anything posted, and to respond in a manner of our own choosing. I enjoy that liberty. Incidentally, my response to you was not motivated out of me wanting to “cling onto my faith”. Over the last twenty-nine years I have had a plethora of discussions with atheists about the faith. Although side issues are interesting to discuss, I prefer looking at the hard evidence on which our faith is grounded. When I read “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” in 1978, I was trying to disprove what the author was presenting. I obvioulsy came to the opposite conclusion.
July 12, 2008 @ 12:39 pmJim said:
Jim, I try to treat others the way I expect to be treated. Had you brought up the LLL-trilemma on your blog then I could have commented on it with the above (initial post) as a response. But it wouldn’t address the issue you raised. If I did this deliberately to try and seduce you into discussing a topic that I’m more comfortable with, that would be disrespectful from my side. Since you can’t know my intentions you should not accuse me of being disrespectful, but you certainly have the right to ask me to address the LLL-trilemma instead of bringing up an unrelated issue.
Because of the premature posting, the wording is a little unpolished but I stand behind the essence of it. If you write a blog on the LLL-trilemma I promise that I will respond on-topic, granted that you pay me the same respect with regards to the above issue.
July 12, 2008 @ 1:22 pmI know what you mean, but there are times when it’s beneficial that people can be held to what they’ve posted. Saying that, I’ve pressed submit with some appalling spelling/grammar errors, or nonsensical arguments, or indeed, unfinished posts, so you have my sympathy there.
I must confess, I’ve not read your longer earlier post, so I’ll probably catch up with that later.
July 12, 2008 @ 1:57 pmTico,
Assuming God exists, he could choose to divinely inspire the authors of scripture and yet not inspire interpreters. There is no necessity that he do both. Nor would inspiring interpreters prove that he had inspired scripture. One does not prove the other. At best, proving one may prove the other is possible.
Of course the real issue is proof itself. Is there any proof for claims such as the inspiration of the Bible. Certainly in theory there is, but in reality the information necessary to prove it one way or the other doesn’t seem to be available to us.
And here’s where we get back to that point I anticipated more than a week ago (see comment #111). God isn’t offering proof if by that you mean deductive certainty. Atheists often seem to have the idea that God’s intent with scripture was something like science. Surely, if God exists, he would prove it categorically and error would be eliminated. But Christianity (and Judaism) never start from this assumption. God has always been interested in faith. It’s not his fallback plan. Faith has always been a prerequisite to being part of his kingdom.
As I stated above, I believe he did inspire scripture and that he does sometimes inspire or assist individuals to better understand its meaning. You seem intent on presenting a rather mechanical assumption of how this might work, a view which would better lend itself to your argument. However, there is no reason to suppose that all individuals are inspired equally or that inspiration in one area (soteriology) must extend to all areas (eschatology). God isn’t a vending machine.
Inspiration is just another word for insight or understanding of the mind of God. In any group of students, there are some with more and some with less aptitude. There are some who work harder and some less hard. Some get As and some fail. The same is true when it comes to theological inspiration. God does not download the truth (a la Johnny Mnemonic) into brains who then carry out his will like automatons. He teaches a group of unruly, confused people patiently. You see Jesus doing this with the disciples in the Gospels. Some are better students than others.
In practice, I think this means that the church down the street may be right on some things and it may be wrong on some others. However, the chances are that the differences (however tightly held on to) tend to be superficial, i.e. music styles, style of dress, high or low liturgy. Beneath all that are the fundamentals which Jim already alluded too, i.e. Jesus died for our sins and rose again. As he said, that’s the centerpiece. Most churches agree on that.
July 12, 2008 @ 2:39 pmI never accused you of being disrespectful. I would say though that your attitude is “unusual”. People post all the time on this site and get multiple respondents to their post even if their original posting was to a particular person (in this case, to John). That’s the way this blog works.
Your original argument, noted above, comes to the conclusion that there must be no God. It appears you only want John to respond to this and to respond within the framework of your immediate argument. Sorry pal, it doesn’t work that way here. People jump into other people’s postings all the time with their own particular spin on an argument.
I think your best approach would be to ignore postings that annoy you.
July 12, 2008 @ 2:40 pmWhat would have happened if God only created the Sun, Earth, and the Moon, and people complained that God didn’t prove His existence more openly? Then one night God created all the stars and galaxies in a moment, and the earthlings suddenly saw them as the night came.
The world would come to e greater faith in some deity/creator. However in 5 generations, the stories would lose their impact and many would not be convinced. Such is the fallen subjectivity of mankind. Even the innate subjectivity that lives and breathes in the philisophical meanderings that we believe are objective observations and logical thought processes.
In the end, philosophy is is an exchange of serotonin that appeases our deep need to feel important and not at the mercy of the creation in which we live. It is in fact a pre-Copernican view of reality that places man at the center of universal intelligence.
And against that backdrop the Master insists we become as little children as opposed to self deluded knowledge emporiums. :cool:
July 12, 2008 @ 2:58 pmRick: you’ve completely depressed me! I was so impressed with my intellect that I was going to apply for inclusion into the Trinity.
July 12, 2008 @ 3:12 pmRick: by the way (and don’t tell anyone), I went to your website and read your piece on “repentance”. I thought it was well done, and I loved your last sentence!
July 12, 2008 @ 3:16 pmJim,
Perhaps I should have followed the advice in your last line already, but it bothers me that you misinterpret my last post. You indeed never accused me of being disrespectful. Please read that post again, I only tried to put you in my shoes. To do so I narrated the hypothetical situation in which you posted a clear question and I would give you a non-related answer.
Let me reassure you that apart from addressing John as the person to which I responded I accept anyone’s response. Only thing is, I much appreciate it if it’s to the point, if it’s not, like Nathanael’s last post, I struggle to find any desire to carry the discussion further.
July 12, 2008 @ 3:16 pmTico: I liked Nathanael’s response to you. He was drawing an obvious conclusion from your prior postings. In fact, your subsequent postings have confirmed the validity of his question.
Regarding Paul and Peter – Paul was right in his correction of Peter because he (Peter) had fallen back into a situation that had already been ruled on at a prior council. Paul knew from our Lord’s teachings that the gospel was not to be restricted to the Jewish people. The Comforter that Jesus promised to send and who resided in both Peter and Paul, opted for the correction in order to bring Peter back in-line with Jesus’ teachings.
July 12, 2008 @ 4:08 pmPeter himself submitted to Paul’s authority both in Acts and in his epistle. God chose Paul for many reasons to be The Apostle to the Church, but here are a few similarities that Paul has with Moses, the chosen vessel to Israel.
http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2006/10/unique-calling-of-apostle-paul-in.html
July 12, 2008 @ 4:19 pmThanks for the post Rick, but I think Tico is about as interested in the Christian faith as Hitler was in teaching Hebrew school. He reminds me of an atheist I use to work with who would bring up all types of arguments just for the sake of arguing. In fact, he gravitated to Christians because he knew they would be interested in talking about God. He could then engage in arguments drenched in mental masturbation as a way of showcasing his superior intellect.
John has been kind to him and refuted all of his “red herrings”. I think I’ll ask the Lord to “inspire” me to have a heart more like John’s.
July 12, 2008 @ 4:53 pmRick said:
If God allows clear evidence for his existence to some people but not to many others, that amounts to discrimination, an act incompatible with a ‘just’ God. If indeed God is just AND he wanted the game to be played on ‘FAITH-only mode’ AND people have genuine free will then he ought to have given each human being:
1 an equal capacity to have faith
2 an equal amount of evidence
I see a fundamental problem with free will and predestination that I will not address right now.
Do people have an equal capacity to have faith? NO! Like you said, the Bible commands us to become like little children. Children are naturally gullible, you don’t have to teach them to behave like that but for adolescents and adults it gets a little harder. Adolescents and adults raised in a non-religious society have not been taught/indoctrinated that gullibility is a virtue, therefore each day they grow older their capacity to have faith reduces.
Is there an equal amount of evidence? From a Christian point of view the answer is NO again. All the civilisations that existed prior to Jesus’ arrival did not have any knowledge about the Bible. Right now, even reputed scholars have different opinions on the veracity of the resurrection. Everyone has to acknowledge the existence of vibrant mutually exclusive religions. Either just one or none out of all religions is true, but regardless of which of the two options is correct, the irrefutable conclusion has to be that humankind is naturally gullible. This observation requires us to look for evidence before accepting faith. “Just be like a child” doesn’t solve Pascal’s Wager, a choice for religion still has to be made.
Imagine the following situation: tomorrow I will walk through the streets of New York urging people to believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn (with accompanying theology). Some might ask me to give them one objective reason why they should believe that the pink unicorn actually exist. If I were to tell them that there is none, as the pink unicorn has ordained that he be epistemologically undeterminable to test people’s faith, I will be laughed at. People make the intuitive (rational) decision that it is more likely that no pink unicorn exists than a pink unicorn that is playing mind-games. Why is your God any different from a pink unicorn? After all, your prayer is worth as much as that of a Muslim.
As a last comment: do I need to remind you that a little child is more likely to be “self deluded” in imagining and believing in non-existent organisms than a knowledge emporium? The old civilisations posited gods for natural phenomena like lightning, we get rid of these self delusions exactly because we increase knowledge. It may be comforting to be like a little child but the question is whether it is as truthful.
July 12, 2008 @ 4:57 pmA drunken man who has just murdered a child walks unknowingly toward a cliff and steps over the edge and plunges to his death.
A two year old child wanders from her mother and accidently steps over the same cliff to her death.
From our perspective we subjectively see the child’s death as massively unfortunate and the drunk’s as not so much. From gravity’s persepective it knows no bias, it fulfills its creative purpose.
We can never understand fully God’s perspective, we can only receive what He has revealed. But if God created and manipulated his creation to his satisfaction he would be playing cosmic solatiare.
Oh yes, it is impossible to please God without faith because whether we are willing to admit it, faith is all we have. And like Jackie Gleason said “How sweet it is!”. :)
July 12, 2008 @ 5:06 pmTico: The scholars who don’t believe in the resurrection are those who worship at the altar of Bultmann. I did not go to a conservative seminary to earn my graduate degree in theology. I’m very familiar with his demythologizing of the New Testament. I suggest you read Bultmann and then Metzger’s, “The Text of the New Testament”.
Actually, ditch the above – you’re not interested in it. Maybe a “Jesus Seminar” will be touring a neighborhood near you soon.
Rick: responding to this guy is like responding to the drunk at the end of the bar. No matter what you say, he’ll keep dribbling on to anyone who’ll give him some attention.
July 12, 2008 @ 5:17 pmJohn said in comment 111:
With the previous response addressing Rick Frueh’s comment I addressed the idea of proof for existence and I hope that covers your response as well. If not, let me know. As you may have noticed I do make an effort to compartmentalise my answers, not addressing two different responses in the same reply but I always wanted to come back to your argument in 111. I have three questions: I don’t understand how God can be both “epistemologically undetermined” but “with evidence”. Perhaps you can explain that. Secondly, which parts of the Bible do you refer to? Thirdly, if the invisible pink unicorn is too far-fetched for you, why is God not?
July 12, 2008 @ 5:25 pmJim,
Contrary to what you may believe I am interested in Christianity and God. Why else would I spend my time here? I am ‘just’ very skeptic and I approach each argument from a different angle than you and other Christians do.
I feel slightly upset about the fact that you’ve started attacking me personally again. Since your ‘Christian brothers’ seem to be a little hesitant in openly addressing your unchristian behavior towards me I have just thought about a challenge. The next time you address me in an unchristian way, just prior to clicking ‘Submit’, why don’t you go to your room and pray to God for divine inspiration. If I see a change in your behaviour I might be tempted to consider it as evidence for his existence and if not at least we can be nice to each other.
Good night.
July 12, 2008 @ 5:45 pmOK, you made me laugh at that! Good one. :) Remember “I laugh, therefore I am!”.
July 12, 2008 @ 5:53 pmTico – your comments taken in totality at this site wouldn’t convince the harshest skeptic that you have the slighest interest in the Christian faith. I’ve roughed you up a bit in the manner that our Lord took with the Pharisees who were always trying to get the best of Jesus in their encounters with Him. His statements to them were less than charitable. His cousin called the Pharisees a “brood of vipers”. Understood in it’s proper context, this was clearly an insult.
Nonetheless, my apologies for offending you. Had you not have been as staunch an apologist for atheism, maybe I would have a different view of your motives. I remain extraordinarily unconvinced of your newfound interest in the faith. Hopefully, these sidebar arguments you raise will dissipate and we can get down to more substantive matters (i.e. the transmission of the New Testament text, the veracity of it’s authors, the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, etc).
July 12, 2008 @ 9:38 pmTico said (155)…
Tico,
Because Jesus spoke in Matthew 18 about people changing and becoming like children doesn’t mean that people were told to be gullible, that is what you are choosing say this means. The very next sentence continues on to tell us that in being like children we are to humble ourselves like children.
I am not saying that children are not gullible, but Jesus spoke specifically, and yet you did not use that in your argument, you chose the word gullible instead.
Humbleness and gullibility are completely different.
July 12, 2008 @ 11:47 pmP.S. Psalm 14:1 says, “The fool says in his heart, there is no God”. There you have it. Scripture calls you a fool Tico. And I didn’t even have to pray before hitting the submit button.
I know your game and I’m not that gullible. In my 29 years as a Christian, I’ve seen this movie before. Nice try.
July 12, 2008 @ 11:47 pmGood morning, Tico.
I apologize if my question in commnet #96 seemed irrelevant to you and not worthy of a response.
I felt at the time that it was pertinent to the discussion. And as I look back over it, I still feel it was a simple question prompted by your previous statements that I asked with no other motive than to continue to converse with you.
Shalom, dear friend.
July 13, 2008 @ 5:52 amJim,
You are obviously emotionally engaged when our Lord’s glory and name are at stake. And that is commendable.
But please do try to be a little more charitable in your responses. To an observer reading these comments, the typed tone of your posts could appear eerily similar to the very tone you charged Tico of conveying in his.
And Jim, I do appreciate you pointing out that my statement earlier was relevant to the discussion at hand. Thank you.
Shalom, dear brother
July 13, 2008 @ 6:01 amThanks for the kind words Nathanael. As I said in an earlier post relative to John’s handling of Tico, I’ll have to ask the Lord to give me a softer heart. Obviously, if Tico were here as an honest seeker explaining to us his desire to become a Christian, and that his desire to become one was being hindered by a few difficult questions, then I would have responded in a completely different manner. I view him as a proselyte for atheism. It would be hard to come to any other conclusion given the sum of his postings here at VS. With that said, I appreciate your comments to tone it down. Thanks brother.
July 13, 2008 @ 6:57 amJim – I do not mind, in fact I welcome, someone like Tico who uses his logic and is someone who is frustrating to us and challenges our patience. There have been others who commented on this blog who purposely blaspheme the Lord Jesus and is obviously attempting to demean the faith with coarse language and mocking.
That is unproductive and unacceptable.
July 13, 2008 @ 10:36 amI agree Rick. I should be more welcoming of the guy – something I’ll have to ask the Lord to help me with (I’ll add it to the list!).
July 13, 2008 @ 12:21 pmHi Cindy,
I took Rick’s words “become as little children” and indeed I freely interpreted this as being the command to be as “gullible” as children. After your response I decided to research this a little further; this website goes into the question “What does it mean to be like a child? and it concludes that “Jesus never defines for us what He means by when He wants us to become like children.” It then lists 8 traits that are thought to be typical for children. Traits 5,6 and 7 refer to the innocence or lack of responsibility that is typical of children; I can’t see how Jesus could have referred to these traits. Traits 3 and 8 refer to children being still dependent, that is indeed relevant; it’s more tempting for wealthy people to leave religion than it is for poor people. To me however, the key traits are 1,2 and 4, not by accident in the top of the list. They characterise the most fundamental difference between children and adults: compared to adults, children tend to absorb new information without questioning and solely based on authority. The definition of gullible is:
so in my opinion, in general when compared to adults children are gullible. I have watched ‘Jesus Camp’ and because I’ve just received some friendly words from people here I will try and keep my choice of word decent. This movie epitomizes the exploitation of the gullibility of children. At some point Becky Fisher says:
After watching this movie, anyone should start to feel concerned about the potential indoctrination of religion. So, when Jesus says we have to become like children I feel a great dislike to that. It is like designing a Nascar race car and then commanding the driver to drive 50 km/hr.
July 13, 2008 @ 12:40 pmTo Rick, Nathanael and Jim..
I appreciate your friendly words!
I can not guarantee that in our discussions I will not offend you by airing my view of Christianity and religion in general. In doing so I aim to be like a child: “brutally honest”, but I always try not to resort to personal attacks and name calling.
regards, Tico
July 13, 2008 @ 12:53 pmJim – sorry, I just caught up with this thread, and before reading Tico’s piece about fellow Christians taking you to task, had already thought I should do so. We can’t know someone else’s heart through a keyboard and monitor. Like Rick, I value a forthright and honest argument about these issues. Beats Roger, any day.
Tico. Of course God gives us ‘evidence’ – the story of Jesus recorded in the gospels is evidence of God’s existence. But proof renders faith meaningless. I’m going to have to think of a useful way to discuss faith with you that will have some meaning to you.
July 13, 2008 @ 1:46 pmKeith said:
Looking forward to that ;-)
I’ve often noticed that frustration arises because atheists and theists broadcast at different wavelenghts. An example is that theists often try to support their arguments based on the Bible. For example you say “the story of Jesus recorded in the gospels is evidence of God’s existence” but that rests on the acceptance of the literal truth of the Bible. Atheists by default do not accept that the Bible should be literally understood, at least regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ and creation.
July 13, 2008 @ 2:11 pmI look forward to dsimantling Tico’s intellect through an half hearted and nonattentive use of the atrophied section of my cerebellum. That’s all I’ll need. :lol:
Respectfully, Rick. :cool”
July 13, 2008 @ 2:25 pmTico – Mt.18 concerns the disciples question about who would be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Jesus says that one must “turn” (Greek word is straphete, a strict passive, denoting that the turning is not something that man can bring about by himself – man needs supernatural assistance here), and “become like children….”. I think Jesus is saying here, as Tasker rightly notes, “He is pointing out that arrogant men and women can only possess the humility necessary for entrance into the kingdom of heaven if they are prepared to be insignificant, as little children were in the ancient world.”
Jesus deals with “kingdom greatness” in other portions of the Synoptics and the central theme always comes back to humility and the ability to serve and not elevate one above his fellow man.
July 13, 2008 @ 5:02 pmAs an adjunct to the above, the disciples in Mk.10 are jockeying for position when Jesus comes in His glory (kingdom language). They are concerned with who will sit at the places of honor in His kingdom (sitting to the right and to the left). Jesus states, “But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.”
Servanthood and humility are key here. Gullibility has absolutely nothing to do with any of these passages.
July 13, 2008 @ 5:18 pmShit Jim,
you were only supposed to ask God for politeness not wisdom! Leon Morris in The Gospel according to Matthew agrees with you (or vice versa).
July 13, 2008 @ 6:00 pmTico,
We were talking about divine inspiration but I guess we’re moving on (or back?) to the existence of God himself. You asked me the ubiquitous unicorn question (pink rather than invisible)…so I guess I’ll go with that.
As to why you should believe I guess my first thought is that it’s really okay with me if you don’t. You clearly see faith as a weakness and I’m not sure there’s anything I can say that could possibly change your mind. I haven’t seen Jesus Camp, but I’m sure it’s as bad as you make it sound. Frankly, I’d probably be repulsed by it too. If you’re hoping I can somehow atone for the sins of misguided believers, I’m afraid I can’t. My advice would be to not assume this is the sum of Christianity.
As for me, I was impressed by the changed lives of Christians I knew (people I knew before they became believers as well as after). And after I became a believer I saw some of that in my own life.
To my knowledge there is no one claiming that a pink unicorn rescued them from a life of misery and loneliness, but if there were I suppose I would have to give it a look.
Broadly speaking, I think the best evidence for the truth of Christianity is the good done by Christians in the world. If the apologist for pink unicorns comes to my door my first question won’t be “Can you prove it?” it’ll likely be “What has he done for you?”
July 13, 2008 @ 7:13 pmYou’re keeping good company if you’re reading Morris Tico.
July 13, 2008 @ 8:10 pmChristian apologetics has always been wanting to me. When we look in the mirror we must always be looking at the mirror, with only one mirror we can only see our selves looking at ourselves.
The same with God, we can only really be convinced ourselves, when we attempt to convince others it loses potency. Charles Colson, an Ivey League grad, was not a Christian and gave it no real thought. It wasn’t until Watergate and he was stipped of his success did he allow God’s Spirit to speak to him.
I highly recommend the book he wrote “Born Again”. He is no 6th grade educated farmer, he tackles the tough issues of faith without intellectually removing the spiritual core – Jesus was the revelation of the Creator in human flesh.
Yea, roll that around in your over hyped serotonin river we call our mind. BTW – I didn’t have any parents!
July 14, 2008 @ 3:51 amI disagree. I think its credibilty as evidence rests on the extent to which you accept the Bible as literal truth. The fact is that for a two thousand years people have kept this story alive. Historians of the time seemed to accept the existence and ministry of Jesus. There’s something in it – even the sternest skeptic would agree with that, I should think. The question is, what? Is it largely made up, largely accurate, something in between? I don’t see its status as evidence as a binary thing.
I’m quite conscious that you are being engaged here on different strands of discussion by a number of people. That seems almost like ganging up on you, so I won’t be offended if you concentrate on other responses.
July 14, 2008 @ 5:20 amYeah, Rick just wandered out of a castle in Germany after a particularly violent thunderstorm. Which explains the bolts sticking out either side of his head.
July 14, 2008 @ 5:23 amTico,
July 14, 2008 @ 5:23 am“Jesus Camp” did turn my stomach as well. I cringed through most of it.
You seem well informed, so you must realize that the portrayals in that documentary reflect a minority of Christianity in America, and especially in the world.
Rick: It was through apologetics that God saved me (reading “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”). Certainly God is not limited on how He saves people, but He chose the apologetics route for me.
July 14, 2008 @ 9:54 am