Keith,

I think it admirable that you reach out to Tim with kindness.

good on ya…

Keith,

I thank you for being one of the few that do converse.

I hope you have noticed that this “place” is open to dialog… yeah we may get back in your face, but at least your comment was let through and another person spoke with you.

I have tried with you to be nice and polite and answer your questions honestly and straight forward… and you still have cast a few stones my way. But that comes with a conversation…

Stay around and agitate us all you want LOL!… I like you here for one.

iggy

Now watch and see how long it takes Jim B to show up!
iggy

Clearly, are the majority of the people that comment here civil or not? We all don’t agree with eachother, and that is OK, that’s what conversation is for. It’s actually EDIFYING, and we LEARN stuff.

I personally, and I don’t think others here would either, would never ‘desparage’ the ODM sites with my comments, if they were even allowed.

But look at how desparaging they are to everyone else. Come on…that’s kind of pushing a double standard dont you think?

Joe

Any disparaging comments could be moderated. The most hypocrital aspect is that Ken comments on other blogs while notallowing comments on his own. Ingrid goes back and forth sometimes allowing comments and sometimes shutting them down.

Tim,

Suddenly i undestand how you feel when the ”watchdoggies” reject your comments and use ad homenin to critique you. Sometimes i think that they can’t stand people who they think heretic or foolish make civil comments.

Its sunday! So go easy on the blood pressure. Hope you have a great day.

Okay, I’m back. After wrestling with a few of you trying to get name of someone that is teaching false doctrine and leading people away, someone that fits the description of 2 Peter 2.

“They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.”

Now, after asking about 20 times for a name, Mr. Frueh was kind enough to give me not only 1 but two of them. He said that Pagitt (spelling???) and McClaren are 2 that he believes would fit that description.

So here’s my point. So, I was wondering if you would name these people that you guys keep talking about on this site. For example, the comment above this one, (made by my new friend Mr. Frueh) is complaining that Ken and Ingrid are hypocrites.

Now no one named any of these people as teaching damnable heresies. So why are you acting just like them and retuning friendly fire. I understand your anger about being fired upon by them, but why do you act just like them by firing back?

Shouldn’t you have a site called http://www.mcclarenandpagitt.info where you show that they are teaching damnable heresies?

Shouldn’t you be reaching out to McClaren and Pagitt trying to help them come to a correct understanding so that they stop teaching whatever it is that you consider to be heretical?

Let’s stop with this friendly fire thing.

Right now, it seems that some of you guys, (like my friend Mr. Frueh) are the ones that are being hypocritical.

This reminds me of when my older brother used to call me names. I would lash out and say something bad about him and then I’d get in to trouble. I’d say, “but mom, he started it” and she’d say, “just ignore him.”

Most of you here are doing just that. “But he started it”

Who cares?

Let’s not go after those that are teaching people to have faith in Christ, lest, in your act of calling them hypocrites you become one yourself.

No more friendly fire okay guys?

I know you don’t like what they say about you, and I know you don’t like how they act. But I didn’t like how my older brother acted either. That didn’t give me the right to act just like him.

What time is it there?

Overwhelming yes. But I find the blog and radio program work well together.

Inquisitor – let’s not thread-jack this conversation. There are a number of articles which talk about 1) why we exist and 2) how what we do is different than the ODM’s we often (but not always) criticize.

Probably the heart of the answer to your question why we aren’t heretic hunters is in my article yesterday. And, in terms of the McLaren and Padgitt, we have specifically pointed out where/when we disagree with them, and when/where we thing they are being attacked for specious reasons. None of us, that I know of, has stated that either of them is going to hell (or creating hell on earth)…

Ingrid has stated that she does not want comments due to they way they turn ugly and/or she does not have time to moderate them (i.e. read and respond to those that disagree). She does not realize that while her articles are profanty free, some of them are not real nice either.

I think some blogs fear accountablility.

I do not blame those that do not want to have to read through every comment for fear of the trash some people include. It is like the offensive junk mail that I must wade through to find my legitimate minstry related e-mail.

With those three points in mind, they all have e-mail and there is nothing to stop you from sending them e-mails and if they reply, posting that interaction. E-mail them, stay on topic, use Scripture, and be nice.

yep, Darren.
Send emails to an already un-accountable fake ministry so they can write posts about it and call you “vicious”.

It’s admirable advice, but a bit naive given actual history with some of these folks.

But i know…
It’s just soooooooooooooo hard when people disagree with you. If someone thinks I’m wrong then they are being vicious and attacking the Lord’s annointed. Talking about nickels and spittoons is just so harsh and evil.

For all their protestations against alcohol they sure indulge the whine–it leaves them drunk on their own self-righteousness and stinking piety.

Many of those blogs should rejoice that the printing press was invented before 1950 or they wouldn’t have any nickels.

I think most watcher blogs are quite uncivil towards people with known declarations of faith because they just don’t like to be proved wrong by someone they think to be ‘heretics’ or ‘mistaken’ or ‘confused’.

Somehow they think they know everything. Sometimes we might be guilty of it too. I think its a problem at both ends. While they tell us that we do not listen, they unfortuately, in human sinful nature, fail to do the same too.

Sometimes their hatred for the other party is so great that they do not listen to even scriptural arguements, which makes it really sad. – of course, at the end of the day, because these watchers fail to consider sound advice (even from heretics), they become the same thing they hate: heretics/apostates/false teachers.

I think one thing we should always keep at the back of our minds is that every individual has a propensity to be correct but Scripture eventually is final. What do you all think?

nc: If your e-mail is above reproach with Scripture, then let them argue with Scripture, not you. I don’t think it’s naive because I have done this several times with good results.

Tim: I am talking about two different things. 1) Ingrid not having time to write four paragraphs to refute comments she disagrees with instead of just posting them and letting them stand on their own. That’s an arrogance issue. 2) Not wanting to even read any comment due to fear of profanity or personal attack. If they do have that fear, they should not even have a blog.

Only God can know for sure, but those men seem to have altered the atonement by faith teaching and have broadened the definition of what it means to be saved. I cannot say they are not saved, only that their teachings are significantly unorthodox.

Tim asked:

Don’t you find it the least bit absurd to think that documents written ~2k years ago by mostly Jewish men in ancient Greek would contain in them a list of English words that are forbidden?

I’ve given this topic – and your comment – some thought; my opinion goes something like this:
.
- I don’t believe the Bible contains a list of forbidden words. That one’s pretty easy. On a side note, I believe the Bible DOES contains lists of forbidden sins (10 Commandments; Gal 5:19-21), fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23), Spiritual armor (Eph 6:10-18). Those lists are fairly easy to understand.
.
- To expound upon my answer to your original question, I believe Paul and others must have had SOMETHING in mind when they condemned “coarse language” (e.g. Eph 5:4; James 1:26), what exactly that was remains unknown based on what I read in Scripture. I believe that there had to be some sort of “standard” of what was and what wasn’t acceptable behavior and language during that time (the Corinthians excepted) or he wouldn’t have mentioned it. So, I conclude that Scripture instructs us to refrain from what is generally deemed unacceptable by the social norm of the day. We are at a loss in that we don’t know WHAT words Paul had in mind, but he obviously considered certain words to be “coarse.” How do we know that skubalon is in fact the EXACT translation for our English “S” word? How do we know it carried that exact, same impact? I think most people are intelligent enough to understand Paul’s intent without his being too graphic.
.
I understand that times do change and things that were once thought to be unacceptable are now just every day. Ricky and Lucy had single beds; Fred and Wilma Flintstone did not. We could discuss changes in language, hair styles, clothing, television, radio, etc. Some of the changes have been for “good,” some—eh, they really don’t matter, and others, have been for the worse. Again, my opinion.
.
The problem I see with some of the changes is that they tend to push the envelope as close to “unacceptable” without crossing the line. This, I believe can and does (in my experiece) send a mixed message when it comes to Christians and their witness to non-believers. Like it or not, some words (the FCC list for example) are still considered unacceptable, but that list seems to be getting shorter every day. Many of George Carlin’s “Seven Words You Can’t Say on Television” have been off the list for a while and I predict ALL of them will soon be used with regularity on network television (cable has made use of those words for quite some time now). I remember reading somewhere that Steven Bochco—writer and producer of television series Hill Street Blues, L.A. Law, NYPD Blue, declared he would produce the first network TV show that used the “F” word in primetime. Not sure if he succeeded, but it sounds like a pretty shallow goal to me.
.
All this said, even though we may be able to make the argument that Paul used the “S” word or that Jude makes a pretty gross analogy (Jude 1:23), people STILL view some words as unacceptable. I live in Oklahoma. For many years, our state was inhabited by Native Americans that in many cases wore nothing but a loin cloth. That’s what they all wore—hence, socially acceptable. Today, that wouldn’t go over; in fact, I have yet to see a Cherokee walking down the street in a loin cloth. Why? Times/standards of acceptable behavior, dress, and even language change. So Paul’s use of certain words may have been OK in his day, in most circles today however, that same word (if that’s actually what he said) spoken publicly would not.
.
I work with a fellow that came to Christ several years ago—at least that’s his story. To this day, I see no evidence of salvation. Am I SAYING he’s not saved? No. But I have witnessed to some people that have referred to this guy and commented (paraphrased):”Why do I need to be saved? What do I need to be saved from? Jeff says he’s saved, but I don’t see any difference in him, except that he goes to church on Sunday. I’m just as good as him and I’ve still got my Sundays off.”
.
That’s my opinion. That’s how I understand it. You asked.

I think the Mormon church could agree with the Nicene Creed, and the “one baptism for the remission of sins” phrase is troubling.

Tim said:

…scripture should never be compromised for the sake of propriety.

I agree, but do you believe it is compromising to state “Rahab was prostitute” and leave it at that or is it necessary to go into graphic detail (which I won’t do, but I hope you understand the question) to make the point? You could say: “Rahab was a prostitue, a lady of the evening. She wuddn’t no Sunday School teacher!” I get it.

Tim, what do you think Paul was referring to as “coarse” language? Again, he had to be referring to some type of language that would/could be deemed offensive. Right?

Rick,

You said…
“The most hypocrital aspect is that Ken comments on other blogs while notallowing comments on his own. Ingrid goes back and forth sometimes allowing comments and sometimes shutting them down.”

In the end, isn’t that their choice since it is their blog/site?

DT

Why do they fear conversation?

Possibly because they fear anything they can’t control.

Which also makes me pause to re-examine my own heart…

Tim: If you want to split hairs between “coarse joking” and “coarse language” (one would have to use some type of language, be it verbal, written, sign language, etc to tell a joke), I would still like to hear your explanation of what Paul was alluding to. Again, there obviously was SOMETHING Paul was referring to as unacceptable or “coarse” otherwise he wouldn’t have brought up the subject.

As far as your “Rahab” example: a whore is a whore is a whore. I think people are pretty savvy on that one around here. No need for additional details.

Anxiously awaiting your “coarse” definition.

Inquisitor,

Just because one person sees that Brian and Doug “might” fit your definition, does not then make your point at all.

You miss the point that while Doug and Brian may have “aberrant” views, they do hold to Jesus as their saviour… and do seem to walk as they talk. (BTW it seems this word is totally lost from the ODM”s vocabulary and there is a huge difference between false teacher, heretic and aberrant teachings. A true heretic teaches a different Jesus, a false teacher teaches false doctrines but holds to Jesus as saviour, and an aberrant teacher holds to many biblical truths but may add prosperity or a odd belief within overall orthodox views. I see most of emergent/emerging in the aberrant in almost all the cases the ODM’s hold up. This does not constitute being a heretic. If one wants to understand where these view come from they are from Ken Silva’s so called mentor, Walter Martin.

Ingrid claims grace, yet promotes works righteousness… as well as Ken… this is hypocrisy. In their name calling they also judge and condemn Walter Martin who according to Ken’s standard was a “man-loving-semi-pelagian”. Again, Ingrid states “salvation by faith through grace” but teaches people are lost for the things they do, even if they came to Jesus… in other words she negates grace by her words.

Steve Camp attacks Mark Driscoll for his language, but then holds up and honors Martin Luther who swore much worse than Mark Driscoll ever has.

So being a teacher who teaches aberrant doctrine such as some THINK Brian and Doug do, (which again I have yet to see solid proof that this is true of either of these men and I have read and listened to Brian pretty extensively, though admittedly not so much Doug, but still have only a second hand comment by Mark Driscoll)

Also, I noticed that not one person really addressed the topic on this thread. Keith slightly touched on it as well as myself and Julie… Mike Corely was worried that we were talking about him… while in another thread Mike Rattlif lived up to #5

So here we are stating that there is hypocrisy and instead of looking at their own house, these seem more concerned with their neighbors.

So the hypocrisy goes on and in all honesty the scales still show that there is great unbalance on the ODM’s side. For every one hit there is eight misses… here for every eight hits, there is 2 misses… so as far as accuracy, even then we are dealing with ODM’s who seem to change reality at a whim (as in the case of Jim Bublitz who heavily re-edits is comments!).

iggy

so iggy, what you’re saying is there is error on your part, as well as error on the watchdog part.
You claim that they are pointing out the log in your eye, as you return the favor by pointing out the log in their eye.

I’m just saying that because this site is acting as a watchdog to the watchdogs, then by your actions you are simply doing to them what you are criticizing them for doing to you.

Can you sense the hypocrisy here or are you losing your senses too?

Keith,

I did slightly 7 paragraphs in one comment! so you gotta try harder! = )

ig

I am having a really difficult time following this. It’s as if there are four conversations going between two pairs of people each: one about the time in Singapore, hypocrites and Rick, something “inquisitor” is trying to say and I’m not sure about…I I think Mike Corely talked about his radio program in there somewhere…

I’m thinking about the original question: “Why do they fear conversation?”

I don’t know that they do or, at least, if “fear” is the correct word.

I can, to a degree, understand why someone might not want comments; it can be a huge headache if you feel responsibility for keeping things open and fair. Either you let them all go, or you moderate and let most of them in and maybe note corrections or gentle admonitions to settle down which turns into a big monster…

Oddly, I think not allowing permalinks to specific posts and doing wacky things with URL redirect is more troublesome since the nature of the Internet and the nature of blogging is conversation, to a degree, and those things deny that to a level not only in the comments section, but in other blogs. I do remember on the old Slice (the brown-themed one) that Ingrid had in her comments policy the admonition that if you were a blogger and had a beef with something (she used different terminology) it was recommended that you go back to your blog and blog it there because there was no guarantee that she’d post the comment. Something like that. Essentially “go blog it on your own site.” The lack of permalinks and URL redirect is an attempt to negate even that.

It’s like handing out tracts but refusing to let people take it out of your hand.

Or something.

Blindness, pride, arrogance, selfishness…

and all in the name of Jesus.

I could just picture Jesus saying to all of us, “You brood of vipers!”

And no I am not a “watchdoggie”, nor am I a watchdoggie watching the watchdoggies –

I am merely a servant of Christ witnessing a fleshly battle – and saddened by what we become
when we allow our motives, thoughts, feelings, and our own wisdom, tempt to outshine our Lord.

We have forgotten our First Love.

Inquisitor,

I am tired of trying to explain.

I let these guys come to my personal blog and call me all sorts of names. I go to their blog to discuss and am called crazy for pointing out that what they have stated about a person is so far off it is laughable if not slander.

I am treated with disrespect as I feel you are marginally doing right now by not even trying to understand but only push your own view which seems to miss the difference between critiquing for betterment and criticizing just to “b*tch” with no room for the other to change.

I pointed out that Dan Kimball proved he was orthodox yet, Ken refused to give grace… I pointed out that I am told I am not saved, yet not anyone here that is for this blog would or has ever stated Ken of Ingrid is not.

I ahve held up what the Bible states… and some have criticised me for stating that Ken and Ingrid are not saved… yet I only stated they seem to “fit” what Paul stated here and gave the verse… the verse thus condemned by their own words and standard… I did not.

It seems that you cannot see that to critique in hope of betterment and out of love is not the same as to slander and attack and try to destroy the other out “selfish ambition” is nto the same.

I had called for a day of prayer and fasting out of love for Ken and Ken mocked me… I still pray daily for Ken and Ingrid and call others to do so. I call for reconciliation…

And that is the huge difference you miss.

The ODM’s minister out of the ministry of death and condemnation of the law as they mix law and grace and I for one minister out of the ministry of reconciliation that has been given to us from Christ Jesus. If you cannot see the difference then I pray for you that your eyes also are open to the Spirit of reconciliation.

Be blessed,
iggy

Inquisitor,

What it comes down to is accountability, and that we, as Christians, should be accountable to one another. In taking a public platform from which to say all sorts of vile things “in the name of Christ” and then refusing any accountability in the form of feedback/comments (or compounding the unaccountability, in the case of CR?N, by making the vile postings anonymous) speaks volumes of difference.

If we were no different from those we seek to hold accountable in Christian love, you wouldn’t be writing anything here…

Of the five things listed in the OP, which of them is in itself wrong?

No, really, why are they or anyone else under obligation to do or not do any of those things?

For example, why should Old Truth not be allowed to exercise his right to choose who may link to his sight? Or why should they indiscrimately allow comments? The only one I would have problems with is the one about not linking to some sites they disagree with, and even with that I’m pretty sure I’d have qualms about linking to some places.

I don’t think that simply because they don’t run their blogs like other people that such as is a justified reason for criticism. Those is, after all, their own sites, and they may choose to do what they wish with them.

That isn’t a blanket commendation of all they do or say, only that I think it is not just to play this ‘we are better then they are because we allow comments’ game.

Good points, Phil. It is one thing to have a devotional site without comments, it’s another thing to publicly rebuke and challenge and name call people without being challenged. It is cowardly on some level even though it is their choice.