Can someone please stop the record? (UPDATED)
Is it just me, or does Silva seem like a broken issue over this quote from Mandela / Marianne Williamson? He continually attacks anyone who uses the quote — most notably Rob Bell. There has been alot of confusion over who said it… many have attributed it to Mandela, including the hit movie Akeela and the Bee.
Regardless, one should not look at the speaker, but what was spoken. If Marilyn Mason were to say “God is omnipotent over all creation, and reigns in the heavens above”, would it be less true because he said it and not John MacArthur? No. What if the Manson quote was then commonly mistaken as a statement by John Piper — would it then be accptable to accuse them of following Manson by ahearing to the words that are true? Of Course not. So, it is ridiculous to say that “Bell agrees with New Age Guru Marianne Williamson” when he uses one of her quotes that is commonly mistaken as Mandela’s.
It seems that when there is no hot gossip on the ODM market, Ken simply rewrites one of his missives. Can someone please stop the broken record?
_____________________
UPDATE: Just to be clear, Silva is taking a single quote from a sermon of more than two and a half years ago out of context. If anyone would like a copy of the sermon, I still have a copy that I can email to you (if you’re really interested in the truth, and not just finding fault…)
Chris L
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
85 Comments(+Add)
Truth.
Moderation.
Meekness.
Restraint.
Proportion.
Honesty.
The list of ODM allergies.
My absolute favorite is when Ken calls Rick Warren the “New Charles Finney”. He does that because he cannot stand Arminians and attacking Finney gives him some enjoyment because he thinks it gives heartburn to someone like me who likes Finney.
nathan – re-read this post and edit it.
Actually, that quote does worry me a little bit. And not just because Ken Silva complained about it. It would worry me no matter who said it and no matter who complains about it. I need to see it in context before I analyze it, but taken by itself it sounds a bit self-absorbed.
oh boy…I hope we won’t go round and round on the merits of this quote.
The issue is Pastor Silva re-vomiting old material to because he’s a one trick pony.
I’m not going to argue about the quote.
Complaining about something over and over may not solve anything, but then neither does complaining about someone else complaining about something over and over again. I don’t think that it’s that big of a deal.
Hey everyone, let’s complain about Ken… again. That’ll show’em that it’s wrong to complain!
Great, Inquisitor!
That’s not the point.
Good try though.
Criticizing those who complain about those who complain – that’ll show’em it’s wrong to complain!
Inquisitor…
Do you have any problem with Ken’s tactics, if not his tactics?
Yes or no?
ooops…I meant:
“…if not his content”?
Question stands….
NC,
I like to look at the bigger picture… the more important issue.
For example, I don’t know much about Ken, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and let’s say that you’re right. So what? Big deal! In the scheme of eternity the personality type, and or, tactics of Ken Silva don’t really amount to anything at all.
However, I must agree with Ken when he says that (the quote in question, regardless of who said it,) is a poisonous ideology.
So did Mandela say it? did Brittney Spears say it? did Dr. Seuss say it? It doesn’t really matter who said it, it’s poisonous, and the fact that RB is promoting it, is the BIGGER issue when compared to Ken’s tactics, or the fact that it’s a rehashed issue.
It’s like there’s a robber coming into the bank with a gun and someone comes along and says “there’s a maniac with a gun coming into the bank” and everyone in the bank says “don’t call him a maniac, that’s not right!”
This is what you’re doing. Rob has brought in some destructive theology into his teaching and everyone here wants to jump on KS because of ‘the way’ that he pointed it out.
There’s an anti-Biblical statement if I ever saw one. Methodology is just as much a point of theology as message.
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
- John 13:35
I think “the way” someone points something out IS a theology.
We DO what we really believe.
Rob Bell, IN YOUR and others, opinions has destructive theology.
That’s what COULD be discussed if the water wasn’t poisoned by the: lies, mischaracterizations, etc.
How often are people supposed to engage the critics when they are consistently shot down, attacked, disparaged, etc. when people (in the beginning) tried to engage these accusations, etc.?
To the quote above…this thing was hashed over here a while back. The point is NOT the post, the sentiment, etc.
The point is that it has to be dredged up again BY KEN.
Why do you insist on defending indefensible behavior?
inquisitor,
I think you miss that scripture is given so that one can be rebuked… but it seems no issue that one is corrected but refuses to stand corrected if wrong…. Ken is wrong on many points.
So, you seem to condone his sin and make light of God’s word… so far I am not impressed at all with any of your biblical knowledge.
Your own words bear witness to your heart.
iggy
I think you misunderstand me a little. I’m not defending KS. I even said that I’d give you the benefit of the doubt and concede that perhaps he is wrong in the way that he points it out.
But again, what has more of a consequence in the long finality of eternity, KS’s behavior, or RB’s endorsing such a poisonous ideology.
Iggy,
I’m not trying to ‘impress’ anyone. I’m simply trying to get to the truth… or perhaps better put, the “more important” truth. (the issue that has eternal implications).
If you can show me how KS’s attitude is affecting eternity then we can discuss it. However, at the moment the only one that I see affecting eternity is RB. This is the issue that should be discussed. Simply because it has eternal implications.
Since Rob Bell communicates the gospel in words, tone, and action, that makes it Ken by default since you’ve conceded there is no gospel in at least his tone and action.
Inquisitor -
Question: Ken is giving an isolated quote from a sermon 7+ months ago, without any context whatsoever (and basically recycling his gripe from back then, based on nothing new, other than a need to smear Bell). Have you listened to this sermon?
If not, how is it you know Rob is “endorsing such a poisonous ideology”? Could it possibly be that Ken is quoting Rob out of context and not giving the whole story? Surely Ken wouldn’t do that. Surely this wouldn’t be the methodology used by a “pastor”?
Oh – wait a minute – it is exactly his modus operandi!
If you would like a copy of the actual sermon this was taken from before making spurious claims, I could send you one, as I still have it on iTunes. If, however, you would like to cast aspersions based on something you have no clue about, please continue…
Inquisitor,
Ken is lying and Rob Bell is not… Ken does not even do anything evanglistic… he only critiques and complains… Rob is leading people to Jesus…
So, I do not see how you can even justify much you are saying…
If Jesus be preached then how can you say Rob is effecting eternity… in which according to the Bible Salvation is all in God’s hands anyway… or do you not believe that also?
iggy
Inquisitor, you said:
“If you can show me how KS’s attitude is affecting eternity then we can discuss it”
If you read the book of Job, especially the first couple of chapters, you’ll see how our attitude can have an effect on the bigger picture, if not eternity. Our attitudes can also be a testimony to what Christ has done for us; if we constantly show a bad attitude we can inadvertantly “turn off” people’s interest in Christianity.
If you want truth, Inquisitor, reading the Bible and seeing what God has to say is the way to go. Listening to Christians argue is not helpful in your quest for truth.
Like I’ve said before, I just don’t think this post is a big deal. Not worth arguing over, at least.
Iggy,
Ken is lying? Did RB not really say those things?
Rob is leading people to Jesus? That’s why he said, “we are powerful beyond measure” Seems like he’s leading us to ourselves. If he were leading people to Christ he would say “Christ is powerful beyond measure”
BIG difference!
ChrisL,
You have listened to the sermon. If RB meant the quote in a different context than KS stated, why didn’t you just come out and say it. I really don’t have time to listen to the sermon, but you could tell us in what context Rob meant the quote.
Was he saying that all men have greatness and power and glory? or was he saying something else?
Inq,
Jesus taught we would do even greater things than He did… or did Jesus lie?
Also, we are becoming more truly human as we are in Christ… that is what the New Creation is about in us… or again do you deny these biblical teachings?
So far your record for being biblical is very low…
At least Rob Preaches Jesus… Ken preaches against anything he deems is wrong. He deemed me not saved by the blood of Jesus… and you seem to think that is good that a man deem another who confess the risen Savior and not saved? I have yet to hear Ken confess his “own” belief… he confesses Tozer’s faith who thought Christian mysticism as good, while Ken condemns all who “contemplates” as they pray or read scripture… Ken is a trouble full of contradiction and false acusations… slander and lies are his food along with the Gossip he replaces the Gospel with.
Ken condemns and calls names of those who HE deems unworthy… such as me… of the blood of Jesus… as if he, Ken can see and read men’s hearts…
And you still defend his sinful arrogance.
I wonder if you truly have come to Christ Jesus or see that you somehow in yourself have a righteousness that pleases God… it seems you think that way by your words and actions.
iggy
Inquisitor – actually, I had to go back a lot further, because the sermon Ken is quoting is over 2.5 years old – with no recent references (the most recent being – surprise – when Ken dredged it up this past April). We addressed this back in April, in an article entitled “The Nitpicker’s Ball“.
The gist of the sermon is that we sell God and His Holy Spirit short when we make excuses for why we can’t serve Him – and that what is good in us is what comes from Him -> a far cry from an eisegetical quote taken out of context…
Iggy,
As far as my beliefs are concerned, allow me to set the record straight, just so that it doesn’t get brought up again.
I have done nothing, nor could I ever do anything to obtain salvation. Everything that could be done was done by Christ, “it is finished.” I can now add NOTHING to the work that He completed.
However, as far the the comment that you made “your record for being biblical is very low” I don’t know how you can make such a statement.
Is your interpretation of the Bible superior to mine?
Are you suggesting that my interpretation of scripture is, to put it simply, wrong?
Are you the pope in disguise? If that be the case, I’m sorry your immanence. I didn’t know.
Okay, sorry for the sarcasm but I think that you get my point.
You really can’t say such a thing. But I bet you’re going to try to explain why you can, so please do.
“Also, we are becoming more truly human as we are in Christ… that is what the New Creation is about in us”
?
chrisL,
I would agree with that sermon. At least I agree that we shouldn’t make excuses as to why we can’t serve God. However, this is still not what RB said. He said that we were afraid of our OWN power, and glory. Not that we were afraid of God’s power working through us.
He said that “it is OUR light” he did not say that it was the light of Christ in us.
Even in the context of RB’s sermon this things are wrong.
This wasn’t even Jesus’ attitude. Jesus gave up His rights becoming nothing.
It sounds like RB would accuse Jesus of “playing small” and living up to His full potential. Can’t you hear someone telling Jesus, “You ask yourself, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, famous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn’t serve the world.”
Sounds like what Satan was telling Jesus in the wilderness.
Inq,
So far you have stated things against the Blood of Christ and that misrepresented scripture… so it might be that my interpretation is superior to yours.
now to answer your other mocking questions…
If you would make an argument from scripture that was based on scripture my comments would have been unwarrented. Also, I am open to correction…
Now, are you saying that no one is right or wrong in their interpretation? That is where your logic goes to…
If so think that way, the relativist biblical understanding then why attack Rob Bell?
You seem to have much confusion and come across double minded…
It also seems you have placed yourself above reproach…
So once agian… IF you can prove you stand by the bible… DO SO… but so far you have not…
iggy
Also, do you not agree that we are light to the world? Jesus called us that… so why are you condemning Rob for teaching what Jesus did?
SHeesh…. prove that one wrong again from scripture!
LOL!
iggy
Inquisitor said:
This is what really gets me. You say you don’t have time to listen to Bell’s sermons. OK, that’s fine. But somehow you feel free to pass judgement on him based on what other people say about him. That’s just plain ridiculous.
It would be analagous, if not worse, than writing a movie review based on the trailer, or maybe even writing one after asking a stranger on the street what they thought about it. It one thing to make an informed decision based on the facts at hand, but quite another to do it based on hearsay.
OK, Sorry I was there. He did not say that. He did not say our light. He said “the light”
Here’s my interpretation of the quote and why I like it so much. There are hundreds of thousands of “children of God” that lead comfortable, small and insignificant lives. They go to all three services on Sunday, prayer meetings on Tuesdays, small group on Wednesdays and then have the missionary union on Fridays. They will never meet a non believer, they will never leave their town, they will really have little impact when it is all over.
But, when you ask most people, they will say that there are dreams and passions within themselves that they will never admit… go to Africa, help cure AIDS, be an actress, help change world hunger. Maybe God actually places these desires within us. But, we are afraid of attempting these things because they are so huge and the possibility of failure is so huge. So, we shrink down and live afraid of our “potential”.
But, who would want to raise up and actually do something when there is a huge static Christian population that will hurl blog articles at you when you try to cure AIDS.
Okay, let’s go to scripture then.
Let’s look at your interpretation of “you are the light of the world.”
Now, if you read that verse in the context of every other verse in the Bible it becomes clearly visible that Christ is not telling them that they have a light of their own, but that Jesus Himself is the light within them. He later said, “I am THE light of the world” Notice that He didn’t say that he was “A” light.
He is the ONLY light that the world will ever see. When He told His disciples that “they” were the light of the world, He was not telling them that they had a light of their own.
I went for a walk last night under the light of the moon.
Does the moon have it’s own light?
I don’t interpret the phrase “under the light of the moon” to mean that the moon has it’s own light because I am familiar with how the solar system works.
I don’t interpret the phrase “you are the light of the world” to mean that the disciples have their own light because I am familiar with the rest of scripture.
I could use other scripture to prove this, but your interpretation of those verses will be different than mine, so my using them to show you anything will be superfluous because you’ll simply say that they don’t mean what I claim that they mean.
Your interpretation of scripture seems pretty twisted to me. I’ve heard several verses from you so far and not one of them has been an interpretation with which I am familiar. I’ve heard a lot of different views of a lot of different scriptures, however your interpretations seem to be very new and they don’t seem to adhere to any type of interpretation put forth within the last 2000 years.
Honestly they don’t jive with the rest of scripture, but I bet they jive with your interpretation of the rest of scripture.
So at least we can say this.
1. I have my interpretation of scripture.
2. You have your interpretation of scripture.
3. One of us is right OR both of us are wrong.
So the BIG question that remains IS: (drum roll please)
If we are truly searching for truth, then how do we determine and differentiate between Correct and Incorrect interpretations of scripture??????
How can one KNOW when they are right?
That’s really what this whole thing is all about.
Every post, every comment, hinging on the question “who’s interpretation is right?”
“Every post, every comment, hinging on the question “who’s interpretation is right?†”
Mine.
Way to avoid the issue Rick.
Good night everyone!
Iggy, perhaps you could tell us where you got your interpretation of “we are a new creation” even Mr. Frueh is confused about that one. Do you just make up your own interpretations? Do you have some other scripture that might give credence to your claim?
Just to refresh your memory:
“Also, we are becoming more truly human as we are in Christ… that is what the New Creation is about in usâ€
I believe that the more we become like Christ, the more “human’ we truly become. Remember, the definition of being a human is not being broken, depraved or sinful. Those were given to humanity at the fall… the are as foreign to what a “human” is as death. I believe that when we enter heaven, we will be more human than ever.
“If any man be in Christ he is a New Creation…”
it is in the bible…
it was taught by Paul…
so be therefore reconciled…
I do not even conceive of a “Christian” having to ask your question… and I do not see Rick having a question on this… only you… so how do you think you can include him in your confusion?
iggy
iggy
Nathan,
I agree, we are becoming the second Adam… and one day will be as Jesus is… perfect and incorruptable.
iggy
Nathan – I believe the opposite. The Scriptures say we will be “like Him”, not like pre-fall Adam. We are to die to the flesh and be conformed to Christ, as a matter of fact, it is He that lives through us. We will one day be freed from being human and this mortal (human) will put on immortality (divine).
We will be changed into His likeness, not human. In heaven no more human relationships such as marriage et. al. Nathan, I believe you misdefine human and if you examine God’s future promises you will see we will be more divine than human.
Rick,
What you are explaining almost sounds like a form of gnosticism where flesh is bad and spirit is good. When God made man, He declared him good. Yes we are all fallen, and are flesh is corrupted, but we will be renewed. I believe that we get a glimpse of what a restored creation will look like when the Gospels talk of Jesus’ resurrected body. It seems He still had a real body with flesh, but yet He was made perfect.
My point is not to accuse you of being a gnostic; I just think that we can take the doctrine of original sin a bit too far. I think that Jesus was the second Adam – He was the perfect human. To follow Him and to be made like Him is the only way we can only ever experience God’s true plan for humanity.
Inq,
If you are not interested in listening to the sermon in context, given the opportunity, then you are not really interested in the truth – just fault-finding (which is exactly where Silva and Satan sit on this one)
QFT
If you’re not willing to read the book, don’t review it. If you’re not willing to listen to the sermon, don’t criticize it. Its really a simple formula and works for all forms of communication.
Phil – I understand what you mean but to describe Jesus as the perfect human is significantly misrepresenting who he was and is. The flesh as we know it will give way to a celestial body, incoruptible and made like unto the Risen Christ, not a super Adam. Jesus was the Last Adam which identified Him as the final sacrifice, Adam was earthly and Jesus was the Lord from heaven.
Jesus borrowed a human body but He was fully divine, Jehovah Himself. He no longer has human vestiges (even His wounds are imprined upon His divinity) and neither will we one day.
Rick,
There is a huge difference in believing one will be “like him” in that one will be “divine” or of the “last Adamâ€.
When Paul speaks of us believers he uses phrases like, “put on the new man” (Ephesians 2)
Jesus is the “firstfruit” of those who are raised from the dead… (1 Cor 15:20) and James calls us this same phrase, “firstfruit” James 1:18)
We will not need to be married because we will be immortal and have no need for marriage as the sacred union of marriage in the bible is to bear children. Once immortal we need no longer to procreate.
I think that this verse is the clearest as to what we will be in heaven…
Jesus is the second man, the new man, the firstfruit, and the last Adam.
Since Jesus was man as we are, He died, and in that was the Last Adam as far as sin. He was raised as the firstfruit and is the New Man, the Second Man.
And in our humanity, we will be like Him… as we were in the Garden, yet unlike Adam and Eve… better as we will be immortal.
I agree with Phil that the other narrative of us becoming more and more like “god” is more Gnostic than biblical… in fact I see it worse than that… that it is the Lie in the Garden.
We will be “godlike” in that we will be pure and immortal, but we will still be purely human as God meant… remember the Tree of Life in the original Garden? After we live in Christ and then die, we will be raised again and given the right to eat of that very Tree… (Rev 2:7; 22:2)
Where does the bible say “celestial body”? Jesus still had his same body with holes in it… but was raised bodily as we will be. To state “celestial body” is stating just spiritual… and negates that He was raise physically. This is the core truth of Christian belief, always was and will always be. For without the physical resurrection, we have nothing. It is also again “Gnosticism.”
Actually I am a bit shocked at your confession of such beliefs… I know of no one who states his wounds are taken away… where is that spoken of in Scriture?
Be blessed,
iggy
I find it interesting that Ken can only seem to use this common misquote that was even attributed to mandela in a 2006 film as PROOF that Rob Bell is a New Age Guru…
Aside from the quote not being that bad… It is not saying that one must be “brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous”, but that we should not let fear of being or not being those things hold us back from being “children of God” or what God desires us to be.
The OT is full of stories of people who did not think themselves able to do things… and let fear hold them back until God got a hold of them.
So though the quote is from a passage in a book that is not Christian I think that the quote itself is not as bad as some make it out to be. LOL!!
My thinking is if this quote is so far off… the so is this quote…
I know that is it true, yet taken out of context sounds a bit like MacArthur is pushing psychology or prosperity teaching…
I am sure he is not but it sure sounds like it… and to use Ken’s logic though he must be because he sounds like he is! LOL!
So to quote someone as this is stating
1. Does not give the whole picture.
2. Does not mean that the quote is being used as intended
3. Does not mean that the person endorses all the person quoted believes.
It could mean.
1. The quote has some merit in and of itself
2. Truth is truth even if spoken by unbelievers (remember truth does not change)
iggy
One of the ways to de-legitimize a view is to give it a name. The reformed crowd is adept at this. Iggy, I never said said Christ’s wounds would disappear, I said they would appear on His divine body not a perfect human body.
Our discipleship is not to become more and more human, it is to become more like Jesus. He was and is divine and His humanity was in the body He borrowed while on earth. He now exists as omnipresent and any human likeness is now glorified and is completely divine, not human. We will be completely the sons of God not the sons of Adam.
Rick,
I think you completely are missing the concept of what we are stating… Yes, we become like Jesus, but Jesus is God and we will not become little gods…
I think also you miss that Jesus will be the humanity side of God that will rule in the Kingdom of God… and at one point, yes we will be the sons of God, bu not that we are all little gods… this sounds more like Mormonism or Gnosticism….
We will be as He is… and see Him face to face… yes glorified, but still had flesh and bone… see Luke 24:39.
He was glorified when he sat on the throne… Mark 16:19 states this and Hebrew explains how and the why of what Jesus does in this glorified state as the King, Priest and Prophet…
I think you are hung up on flesh is evil and it is not… it is the desires of the flesh that are evil… Jesus will return and it is not fully known what we will be, but we will be like Him. We will not become little gods like Him, but will be truly human, clothed in incorruption and immortality… walking in the light as He walks in the Light as John states in 1 john 1:7.
If you need further study on this 1 Cor 15: 47-49 states this fact that Jesus is the man from heaven…
Note it does not say will will be little gods, but like the “man” from heaven.
Even to Timothy in 1 Tim 2:5 Paul refers to the risen Jesus as, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,”
Again, this is how Gnosticism has infused itself into Christianity. This is the area that it affected the most.
Blessings,
iggy
No one said we would be little gods, what we will be is heavenly beings in heavenly bodies and no longer human in the general sense. We will be like Him forever regardless if you have a catagorical name for it.
Chris L.,
Aren’t you misrepresenting the facts here? The Bell sermon quoted by Ken is actually not based on “a single quote”, but is actually a few quotes brought together to make the point that Bell is unquestionably talking about a greatness in all of mankind, and he is not talking about people who are believers in Christ – though they would be included in the view of man that Bell is advancing.
This is also the point of the “Mandela” quote which Bell himself is using in that sermon. Only the main point is that this ISN’T Mandela at all! Instead, it is New Age teacher Marianne Williamson and without question SHE means all of mankind. It looks like there’s no way around that.
In the interest of fairness, so people can make up their own minds, here is what Ken actually placed in his article, and it is Bell himself speaking. The quotation marks are used when Bell references the Bible text and/or what he thinks is Mandela. However the quotes Bell uses – though he apparently doesn’t know it – actually come from Marianne Wiliamson’s A Return To Love, pp.190,191:
There is a greatness [in mankind]. The writer here [of Psalm 8] uses the word “glory and honor†that resides in every single human being. Fragile and yet filled with the potential for glory and honor. I love how Nelson Mandela puts it in one of his writings. He says, “Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us.â€
And then he concludes by saying, “Your playing small doesn’t serve the world. We were born to manifest the glory—put on display, to show—the glory of God that is within us.†He says, “you may be a dirt clod, but there is greatness and power and glory that resides in every singe human being.†(Week 330 05/29/05, audio sermon 12:27-13:28, transcription on file)
DT
I do not believe the potential for greatness resides within every man, I believe it is the potential for great evil. And oneof the geatest evils is earthly greatness, even benevolent humanitarian acts, which without Christ are probably the deepest evil of all spiritually speaking.
But when dealing with manifesting God’s glory, I agree with Bell about that beingour large targetgoal. However, he fails to mention that the door to accomplishing that goal is completely counter to the world’s view. The world uses self help, strategies, marketing, confidence, human strength, and a “I can do it” montra to accomplish greatness and fulfill potential.
The Christ follower uses humility, meekness, no fleshly confidence, a “He can do it” mindset, and foundational to all of it the msytery of the cross. God is still looking for a people who will not be concerned with who gets the glory or who gets criticized.
The only greatness and power and glory that ever resides in a human being is when Chrsit enters his spirit. Until then he is God’s enemy.
Rick,
And this is not what I am stating either… I am stating we are to fully human and more… Jesus was fully human and the one and only true human without corruption of sin… and in that we will eat of the tree of life and will also will no longer be corrupted but dressed in the imperishable and God will be our light and our life…
We will be humans as we were meant to be…
This is not human potential… but Christ potential for the human… it is only to be so if one is in Christ… it cannot come about by man’s will or desires… for these are corrupt.
Be blessed,
iggy
DT,
Have you approached Ken’s failure to follow Matthew 18 on this issue? Or does that only apply to people you disagree with?
The full poem
Just to name a few:
According to scripture I am powerful beyond measure. For even if I had the faith of a mustard seed I could move a mountain.
I’ve provided the poem now go and listen to the sermon.
I think perhaps this is the key point. If you haven’t listened to the sermon, you probably shouldn’t be screaming about it.
DT you are so petty!
Mandela referenced/quoted in his 1994 inagural address. Which you can still find on the internet.
Correction that should read:
Mandela is referenced/quoted as saying in his 1994 inagural address. Which you can still find on the internet.
Funny how when you type or say something quickly some words get lost in translation.
Even calvinists would agree that beleivers have the choice to either obey and live in the greatness that Christ has planned in and thru their lives, or choose not to. As an artist, the thing that scares me to death is the attempt to reach LA thru the arts. What scares me is that thru Christ I could actually do it. However, even if it is thru Christ, there is HUGE responsibility on our part to live out the greatness of our calling. Any pastor will tell you that. it’s not as if Christ takes us over and we are simply robots in the scheme. We are the ones that have to move into it.
Tim,
“Have you approached Ken’s failure to follow Matthew 18 on this issue?”
On what issue? His dealings with you, Chris L., Bell and etc.?
DT
DT,
Specifically on this issue. You’ve come on here to defend Ken’s position, but earlier you wouldn’t even address whether or not Ken’s lying was an issue because you didn’t believe Matthew 18 had been followed. This is a troubling double standard.
DT,
So have you listened to the entire 2.5-year-old sermon, or are you basing your entire witch-hunting commentary on a single out-of-context quote?
From: http://www.quotationspage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2406
Posted by Marianne Williamson on July 21, 1996 at 09:56:08:
In Reply to: Mandela’s speech posted by Bill Cecil on July 20, 1996 at 17:57:49:
Dear Bill,
Yep, that writing is two paragraphs from my l992 book “A RETURN TO LOVE.”(In the WORK section, in a chapter called PERSONAL POWER) Seeing it printed everywhere as a Nelson Mandela quote has been a rather strange experience .. he definitely did not quote it in his inaugural, by the way. I have heard that he used the material in a lesser speech (so said his office), but I have never seen the text, so I don’t know what the context or attribution was.
Thanks for the compliment.
Please keep visiting.
My best,
Marianne
“Our worst fear is not that we are inadequate, our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, ‘who am I to be so brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous?’ Actually, who are we not to be? You are a child of God: Your playing small doesn’t serve the world. There is nothing enlightening about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. We were born to make manifest the glory of God within us. It is not just in some of us, it is in everyone and as we let our own light shine we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”
~Marianne Williamson
Widely mis-attributed to Nelson Mandela
http://www.spiritualgrowth.com/worstfear.html
http://www.goddessvision.net/rice.htm
You will find it attributed as “Nelson Mandela, 1994 Inaugural Speech”
It is not
http://www.hopesite.ca/reflect/quotes/mandela.html
“He never spoke these words in his speeches that year.”
http://www.goodworksonearth.org/nelsonmandela2.html
It is correctly attributed to
© Marianne Williamson, 1992
Found in “A Return To Love: Reflections on the Principles of A Course in Miracles” Harper Collins, Chapter 7, Section 3, 1992.
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/lawrence/583/OKStella.html
http://www.lifeenhancement.cc/quotes.php3
Here is Mandela’s 1994 Inaugural Speech
http://www.yoga.com/raw/readings/mandela.html
http://www.polity.org.za/govdocs/speeches/1994/inaugpta.html
Tim,
It seems all of the ODM’s in question have this double-standard. Why should Todd be any different?
Chris L.,
Thanks for putting me on moderation. Now I feel like someone important OR…someone that you don’t agree with.
DT
You’re not on moderation – I suspect you’ve got a reply in the spam filter – gimme a sec…
DT,
You are insufferable in your condemnation. Your post was caught in moderation because you had more than two links in it. Every post, including the authors of this blog are held in moderation when they contain more than two links.
You’ve commented often enough here to know that the spam filter occasionally has false positives, it happened to Joe Martino in one of the threads you were very active in. Why do you assume you were put in moderation, rather than having a false positive. As you can see I’ve freed your post from moderation.
It’d be nice if you could give a little bit of the grace you’ve gotten.
Your comment had a bunch of links in it, so it was held by the filter (as much of the spam comments are full of links)…
I’m a bit baffled, though, why anyone gives a hill of beans who wrote what and why its mis-attribution is so important… Unless, I suppose, we’re trying to play a game of Guilt-by-Association (GBA), something that is covered in our FAQ on the use of logic…
DT,
You seriously need help.
testy, testy!
I go away for a day and look at all this hoo-hah!
How entertaining…
I just posted a comment with the exact date of Christ’s return and you’ve got me on moderation. That date is copyrighted so don’t try and steal it, I will sue!
If God used an ass to speak truth in the Old Testament, there’s no reason He won’t do it today.
DT I take it that you didn’t get my sarcasm from my post about the inagural address.
I guess that shouldn’t surprise me since your wind so tightly.
ouch…
Reverend Joe,
“You seriously need help”
Well then, help me Reverend.
It is nice seeing the real colors come out of everyone. A picture of the grace that y’all preach so fervently but show so infrequently to those you adamantly oppose.
Tim,
I have never had a comment blocked before so don’t tell me “You’ve commented often enough here to know that the spam filter occasionally has false positives.”
DT
DT,
My mistake. I didn’t realize you were actively not reading the complaints Joe made that he was being spam-filtered on the earlier thread you were active on.
Also as far as “true colors” go, you’ve been met with far more respect here when you’ve been directly confronting us, than the watchdoggies have to people who aren’t confronting them. Again I ask you, why the double standard? You come on here to ask us if we’ve been following Matthew 18, meanwhile you direct no such questions to watchdoggies. Now you claim we’re being nasty and mean, yet you fail to make the same statements concerning those you agree with.
I’ll ask one more time. Why the double standards?
Yes, DT.
Why the double standard?
Watch out!
Vigorous disagreement means your true colors show…
Funny how we can disagree here and not be banned… like I was from Mike Ratliff and Jim Bublitz, and threatened by Tony Rose all because I asked why they are not guilty by association and I am…
They all just mocked me and called me names and one stated i was not saved…
So… why the double standard that these men care so little to converse with whom they disagree and are quick to judge and condemn another brother in Christ….
And why do you DT, hold these men up as not having a double standard yet we have one here when we may all disagree at times but give each other grace and not one here has call the other “not saved”…
So, how do you justify that double standard DT, please let me know when many of us went through the Matthew 18 scenario with many of the writers at CRN but only received an assault on one character and ended up bearing more slander and lies.
Tell me how you justify telling us that we have not done as scripture teaches… and yet to have one at CRN do any such thing for any of us.
Tell me how you justify all that… use as much scripture as you want… just tell me how lies and slander promote truth… and protect it… show me one scripture where Jesus taught that… and I will humbly give all of the ODM’s personally for my apology for standing up to their double standard you seem to see as a form of Godliness…
iggy
Double standard guys (I had to say it because it was getting a little repetitive),
I have talked about this with Ken. So, once again Tim, you speak about something you have no idea about.
“meanwhile you direct no such questions to watchdoggies”
My conversation with him does not need to aired publically.
DT
Iggy,
‘And why do you DT, hold these men up as not having a double standard yet we have one here when we may all disagree at times but give each other grace and not one here has call the other “not savedâ€â€¦’
In all seriousness if someone said that I “need to be save” or that I was “not saved” I would laugh in their face or laugh at the screen. It appears to really bother you that someone said this to you because you have brought this up on several occassions. Don’t let unforgiveness wear you down with this.
DT
DT,
If you have talked about it with Ken then you know the next step. Have you gathered together several witnesses to confront him?
Also, I’m just curious why you think Matthew 18 applies here, and yet you haven’t come to me privately? Isn’t that the first step? My email is all over this site and my own site.
DT,
I have forgiven them, and this is about you coming here and judging me as you just did… again… instead of facing your own “friends” sin… and helping them to stop.
Instead of judging us and telling me to forgive, which I have… and do not hold any malice toward Ken… nor Ingrid… but fear that they miss the grace that God has given to them. I see them in bondage, and I see that you do not care that they are in it.
DT, this is the next step of the several witnesses confronting these people, and I agree with Tim R… that we are following the biblical teachings… but it seems that as we do it you judge us for doing it.
I also want you to note that you did not answer one question I had for you as you turned it all around and made it about me… I see that you CANNOT face your own sin in this matter and seem to want to project it on others.
This seems to run rampant…
I do forgive them and i also forgive you in the Name of Jesus as He has taught us to do.
So you are forgiven… now go and sin no more and tell your friend so stop their sins also.
iggy
DT,
If he is unrepentant it does… or you condone his sin and have not finished the steps in Matthew 18. You are then letting him not come to “public shame” and still leave him in his sin.
iggy
Only the Holy Spirit can genuinely change someone including Ken. Most of what you are discussing is history and should be discarded by now. To say that Ken has become irrelevant is to overstate his importance.
To provide some accurate perspective on his posts is one thing, to dwell on his past deeds is counter productive. The sad part is that there are genuine issues within the evangelical church that could use some calm, scholarly, and accurate discourse without the hyperbolic revelry which draws attention to the writer and not the issue.
Do we really desire to live as Christ? Then most of those issues do not have Ken as an ingredient.