Polemecists
I offer this without much comment, understanding that many will see irony in posting it here.
In his anti-Wright book, Piper says:
“Faithful Christians do not love controversy; they love peace. They love their brothers and sisters who disagree with them. They long for a common mind for the cause of Christ. But for this very reason they are bound by their conscience and by the Word of God to try to persuade the church concerning the fullness of the truth and beauty of God’s Word†(31-32).
I simply don’t believe that most polemicists love their opponents in any way, desire peace or want a common mind. They want and need to fight. I think they have a psychological need to right, and will divide from anyone in order to establish that game and win it. They redefine love and discipleship so that arguing and the various tools for winning arguments become “loving.†This may not be true for all, but it’s true enough to make Piper’s statement absurd in many cases.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:45 am
I’ve not read the book…BUT
if after this irenic, sincere statement Piper employs sarcasm, etc. a la’ his buddy D.A. Carson…then the critique is born out.
We’ll have to wait and see.
The sad thing is this…there really isn’t many people in the AMerican evangelical theological world that can hold a candle to acumen of someone like N.T. Wright, Rowan Williams, etc.
The more and more I talk about some of these people with key people in academia I learn that John Piper, MacArthur, Carson, et. al are virtual unknowns outside the confines of evangelicalism.
something they would, and their disciples, do well to recognize and have a little humility over. In other words, they’re just preaching to the choir–their choirs
December 1st, 2007 at 10:52 am
NC,
I’m not sure why that would come as a surprise, they spend all their time writing tomes that would appeal to an already Christian base. I’ve been edified by quite a bit of Carson’s work, but I can’t see it appealing to anyone who isn’t already a Christian.
I don’t see it as a negative that they’re unknown, just as a symptom of where they’ve chosen to work. I’m not going to knock them for it, because their work is needed and good. But you’re right that they need to keep some perspective (and we all do) that there’s life outside our communities, life that God cares about.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:55 am
Nice words that do not accurately reflect the manifested climate in today’s ecclesiastical melee. I know many Christians who thrive on controversy, and the devotional room of their “ministry” is a perfunctory copy and paste from pre 1900 Christian writings.
They do not “long to persuade”, they ridicule, mock, namecall, and generally dismiss entire men and their ministries. They never admit to personal fault and they project themselves as keepers of the grail. Their writings are dripping with self righteousness and they present famous men of God as supporters of their views.
They claim to believe women should not be preachers but they will support women who call out and castigate ordained pastors from churches they’ve never visited. So the lovely words that came from Piper’s pen are more wishful thinking than reality.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:32 am
I don’t think that some of these men, for all their intellectual prowess, would be received in the halls of the very environments where their voices are needed. NOT because of persecution, but simply because of their comportment.
Stan Grenz, before he died, was in the process of being offered the chair of “evangelical theology” at Harvard. A place that needs voices like that. (And a sign that those institutions are not all they are made out by evangelicals.)
It’s because he comported himself in such a way that these people knew he respected them, disagreed, but still respected them and was no slouch when it came to understanding the content of their own theology on it’s own terms. (He was a student of Pannenberg.)
I don’t think people like Carson, Mohler, etc. could penetrate those halls the way Grenz could.
Don’t get me wrong. I appreciated Carson’s “gagging of God” book. But these people even castigated Grenz for his views.
I think they represent the institutionalization of an inward focused evangelicalism that would rather poke people in the eye when they disagree then seriously sit down and engage someone they disagree with. Or simply ignore them, “because they’re right”.
Just my nickel
December 1st, 2007 at 11:53 am
I think that’s mostly fair.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:29 pm
those watchdogies are nothing but a bunch of unloving and judge-MENTAL dolts! All they do is argue. I bet they if they ever found themselves mates that if they reproduced they’d actually eat their own young. Did you see the latest screed/missive by the ubiquitous “editor” over at C?N?
That sicko actually said that false teachers will suffer and goes on and on about punishment, judgement and darkness. I don’t know what religion they follow but it doesn’t sound anything like the love of Jesus.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:40 pm
I’m not completely sure how to read these comments. There are some correct references to some pretty ugly stuff done by some that wear the “evangelical” tag - more specifically they hold to the doctrine of election and reformed theology, they are complementarians, etc.. While John Piper is in that theological vein, I’m not aware that he is guilty of the things that many of his peers are.
NT Wright himself has written how Piper has made real effort to properly and accurately represent him.
I only comment on this because Piper’s words are wonderful and yet I sense the point here is disbelief. Let’s see what he actually says but historically, the man is generally a model of Christian humility and love.
In the meantime, do you not agree with what he said? I found it excellent.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Abigale,
That seems a bit harsh. They are unloving at times, but that certainly doesn’t justify random insults.
I suspect, though, that you are being ironic… if that’s the case, well, that’s just sad.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:43 pm
I have no problem with Piper but his words are well intentioned but many times do not reflect the ambiance of the blog discourse.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Abby,
That was actually a piece of scripture they posted (which oddly enough in keeping with their fear of attribution they didn’t properly footnote. The amount of hubris needed to plagiarize God outweighs even my talent for hyperbole).
But it does show their lack of discernment in using the scriptures. Virtually everyone they’ve criticized, as far as anyone can tell, legitimately believe what they are writing and living. The scripture quoted drives directly to the motivations of false teachers. The false teachers being addressed in scripture are deliberately teaching what they believe is false in order to gain, not to mention are denying the existence of God. None of who the watchdoggies write about do any such thing.
Then again if they had the ability to discern either scripture or reality, they wouldn’t be watchdoggies. Silva keeps referring to us as new evangelicals, a better term would be the New Reformers since watchdoggie tradition is driving their beliefs.
December 1st, 2007 at 1:50 pm
–“Faithful Christians do not love controversy; they love peace…–
–I simply don’t believe that most polemicists love their opponents in any way, desire peace or want a common mind.–
I was struck first by what Piper said and what he said to have said. He didn’t say “most polemicists”, he said “faithful Christians”. Whether the one is always the other is of course debatable.
–if after this irenic, sincere statement Piper employs sarcasm, etc. a la’ his buddy D.A. Carson…then the critique is born out.
We’ll have to wait and see.–
That would only be true if there is no room for “faithful Christians” to be sarcastic, or any of the things that fit in the etc.
Considering how often sarcasm itself is employed on this blog, one would have to question why Piper would then be forbidden to use it.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Francis Schaeffer where are you?
December 1st, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Tim,
I don’t think you’re interpreting 2 Peter 2 correctly.
You make it sound like unless a teacher knows what they are teaching is wrong that they would somehow be a sound teacher. This is patently not true. Then you say…
Wow! That is a terribly misinformed statement.
Here is a short list of the people the ODM’s do critique…
Benny Hinn - preaches a false gospel for the money
Joel Osteen - preaches a false gospel and makes loads of money doing it
Brian McLaren - denies the Lord who bought him by denying the Substitionary Atonement
Rick Warren - who mis-interprets scripture left and right and preaches a gospel of works
Paula White - preaches a false gospel for the money
Doug Pagitt - denies the Lord who bought him by denying the Substitionary Atonement
I think this list proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that your statement that “None of who the watchdoggies write about do any such thing” is way off the mark.
Do you care to rescind your statement or would you prefer to set about proving that all of the teachers I listed above are actually ’sound’ Bible teachers who’ve been wrongfully demonized by those mean ol’ ODM’s?
December 1st, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Chris R,
While I’m not a big fan of any health and wealth teachers I don’t think they’re preaching something they don’t believe is true.
McLaren has written on the atonement and included in that statement 9 different areas that Christ has atoned for us.
Rick Warren does occasionally misinterpret scripture, but he doesn’t teach a works based gospel, and he gets scripture right more often than do most watchdoggies.
And here we have on display a classic example of watchdoggie myopia concerning both scripture and reality. As I pointed out, this piece of scripture concerns those who are deliberately teaching something they know to be false. No where has any watchdoggie posted anything about these people showing that (in fact in over 1/2 the cases you haven’t even accurately represented their actual positions).
I’ll just be here waiting for you to rescind you statements Chris R.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Tim,
I’d like a little clarification from you.
Are you really saying that a person isn’t a false teacher if they believe what they are teaching is true?
If all it takes is somebody believing that their ‘message is true’ for them to NOT be a false teacher then there is no such thing as a false teacher.
Is that really your position? Is that really what you think 2 Peter 2 is teaching?
December 1st, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Chris R,
You are a classic example of how watchdoggies can’t understand anyone who is not a watchdoggie.
This has nothing to do with the definition of a false teacher. It has to do with what is being addressed in 2 Peter 2, which is people who are deliberately manipulating the church for their own purposes and are willing to teach what they don’t believe in order to do so.
It begins with comparing false teachers to false prophets from the OT, the examples who I can think of were falsely prophesying to accomplish their own ends, whether that was to maintain a place in the king’s pecking order or to soothe the people. Verse 3 says, “In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up.” It continues with the use of words like “slander” which isn’t just making a mistake, but knowing it is a lie.
BTW, considering all the lies that Silva has been caught in, you might do well to send him 2 Peter 2.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Tim,
Another thing.
You said “NONE of who the watchdoggies write about do any such thing.”
Words have meaning Tim. None means None, Zero, Not One.
You accused the ODM’s of being MYOPIC yet you are the one with MYOPIA because you claim that NONE of the people the watchdoggies write against do any of the things listed in 2 Peter 2.
The only thing necessary to prove you wrong is to find ONE false teacher that they write against.
I provided more than a sufficient list to prove you wrong.
The point of 2 Peter 2 is that there are FALSE TEACHERS in the church. You have literally just poo-pooed the list of false teachers that I provided you because YOU think that what they are teaching is correct (as if that somehow gets them off the hook).
You are a perfect example of why DOODM’s are sooooo dangerous to the Body of Christ.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Chris R,
I’ll take that as your withdrawal from this conversation since you’ve stopped addressing what I brought up, and in addition you’re completely ignoring the scripture in question.
Which is a perfect example of why watchdoggies are dangerous to the Body of Christ.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Tim,
I’ve done nothing of the sort.
You’ve misinterpreted the passage and are now saying that I’m withdrawing because I won’t agree with your mis-interpretation. That’s just silly!
You are the one who’s withdrawn.
Your mis-interpretation of the passage turns a false teacher into a sound teacher as long as they ‘believe’ that what they are preaching is true.
That is NOT what the passage teaches. You are twisting God’s word and the only motivation that I can think of for you doing that is to save your own face.
Furthermore, I provided you with a list false teachers who fit the description found in 2 Peter 2 and you just brushed the entire list aside because YOU claim they ‘believe their message to be true’ (as if that is some type of escape hatch in the text, which it ISN’T)
Based on your mis-interpretation of scripture we would have to believe that it ISN’T false teaching that makes a false teacher false, but bad motivation or a lack of believing their own message.
Conversely, the only thing necessary for a True Teacher to be true is that they have good motives and sincerely believe what they are teaching is true.
That is ABSURD!
Sorry Tim that is NOT what scripture teaches.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Chris R,
You haven’t dealt with scripture at all. You’ve just brushed aside what I’ve written and assumed you are correct. Then again, that is how watchdoggies do exegesis, isn’t it? As easy and as fun as that is, its not dealing with scripture seriously.
And you’ve created a strawman as to what I’ve actually written. Why do you keep claiming that I’ve put forth a definition of either a false or a true teacher? I’ve done nothing of the sort. Just look at my first response in which I wrote, “This has nothing to do with the definition of a false teacher.”
So once we remove the sentences in your post that are assumptions about scripture, or a strawman about what I’ve written, we’re left with nothing.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Chris R.,
Tim’s interpretation of this passage is sound and in context, but you’ve failed to discern the difference between the title of “false teacher” (which has the curses attached to it) and someone who is mistaken. It is possible to have a difference of opinion on scripture between two teachers in which neither is a “false teacher”, but at neither, one or both are mistaken.
Chris - its not an escape hatch, the instruction points to motive and not a simple matter of error. Thish is what a reading of 2 Peter in context would yield (and why eisegesis can be so dangerous) - otherwise “false teacher” becomes a free-for-all accusation-fest whenever you perceive the least bit of error on the part of someone you disagree with.
While I suspect that some of the health/wealth folks very well may be in it for the money (the ulterior motive), at least half of your list has no apparent ulterior motive for error - if your description is even accurate (which it may not be for McL’s denial of Substitutionary Atonement, as Tim cited, and for Warren).
Tim
You need to dial it back just a bit in your disagreement here. I agree with what you’re saying, but it seems you’re a escalating a little quickly…
I would agree with Chris’ assessment that you’ve gone too far with “none” of who the watchdoggies write about. Think of Rick’s “nickle in a spittoon” - even blind squirrels find a nut occasionally, but that doesn’t mean that blindness is the key to the survival of the squirrel species. Generally, in matters of opinion, I try to avoid absolutes, because there’s almost always one exception to the rule…
December 1st, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Tim,
I am the one who started this dialog with you because of your PATENT LIE about ODM’s. You said…
“NONE” of the people the watchdogies write about fit the description of 2 Peter 2.
I supplied a list that showed you to be lying. YOU brushed the ENTIRE list aside.
YOU excused the Prosperity Teachers aside because YOU said “I don’t think they’re preaching something they don’t believe is true”
The prosperity teachers alone, which the ODM’s write about all the time, prove your statement to be a LIE.
So either rescind your statement or prove that the prosperity preachers are Biblically sound and don’t match the description in 2 Peter 2 (which they most clearly do).
December 1st, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Wow…
LoL…Chris..
That’s not what he is saying at all, no one is suggesting that lol. He’s saying that the people you listed do not apply to 2 Peter 2 because they believe in what they’re preaching, they don’t really know they’re wrong. They’re still wrong and teaching false things, but they’re not doing what the false teachers described in 2 Peter 2 are doing exactly. That’s what’s being said. From an outside perspective, it looks like you’re misrepresenting Tim, and on purpose too, because it’s obvious what he’s saying, and what he’s not. And you’re not ‘getting it’. I think you’re just looking for an argument. You know you don’t agree with these guys barely ever, so why else would you come here? No one said anything against you specifically, you don’t even need to come in here to defend yourself.
Both of you just quit it. It just sounds like a lot of “Watchdoggies are right!!” “No! Watchdoggies of Watchdoggies are right!!” lol…kinda silly guys.
Joe
December 1st, 2007 at 3:21 pm
1) Your list didn’t prove anything - it just was a list of people who in your opinion meet a definition based on mis-interpretation of what a “false teacher” is
2) It is possible that one or more of the people on your list (most likely those of the health/wealth variety) are intentional (subconsciously or consciously) in their falsehood.
3) If #2 is correct, then Tim would be mistaken (i.e. wrong), but not lying (i.e. intentionally telling a falsehood). Perhaps it would have been best if he used the words “almost none”, allowing for the occasional nickel to surface…
December 1st, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Really we’re just looking for ammo and attack against each other here. This is NOT edifying, nor Christian. We need to stop and get back on track.
Chris L, thanks for bringing some sanity.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:31 pm
QFT.
Unsurprisingly a non-watchdoggie nailed it the first time, easily and clearly.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:32 pm
This is all so sadly typical. All who disagree with this blog are “odm watchdoggies”. They redefined love?
What a joke. The post-modern aberration that arrogantly calls itself the church, has turned Jesus into a affable bobblehead, petting lambs, and being nice to children. That was His sole purpose in entering creation.
Piper is quite correct. The real love of God is that He put all humanity to death on the cross, as it was already dead in its sins, so that some can actually choose life. That option was lost the day man ate the fruit, which enabled him to know good and evil. Man has been trying to deconstruct and reconstruct God into his own image and likeness ever since.
Post-modern churchianity is the oldest theology on the planet.
Btw, Chris R. answered the point, it is you that are avoiding his. So what’s new?
December 1st, 2007 at 3:32 pm
what’s QFT?
December 1st, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Chris P, nice vitrol brother. Come on dude. No one here is espousing anything you just said. Petting lambs?
I’m not a watch-doggie, so I’ll assume that was directed to anyone that isn’t a watch-doggie. Thanks a lot. =(
December 1st, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Joe C,
Quoted for truth.
Chris P,
Nothing but hatred and bile from you. You’ve made the internent monk’s words true when he said, “it’s true enough to make Piper’s statement absurd in many cases.”
December 1st, 2007 at 3:41 pm
I hear people make this accusation quite often, but I’ve never seen evidence to back up the claim. Substitutionary Atonement is one of several theories put forth to explain what Jesus’ death and resurection did. It is not the only or even the best explanation in my opinion.
I can’t say I’ve heard or read anything by Doug Pagitt dealing with this issue, but I don’t have reason to believe that he denies the theory of Substitutionary Atonement. Brain McClaren doesn’t deny it either; he just says it is one way to view atonement. In fact, in McLaren’s book, The Story We Find Ourselves In, he explains six or so different theories and doesn’t really say one is better than the other. He says they are are all windows that give us incomplete views of the big picture.
Getting back to N.T. Wright, I think many EC writers seem to be borrowing Wright’s view of justification, and indeed McLaren quotes Wright a lot in his new book. As far his view goes, I certainly find him much more grace-filled than a lot of the writers from the Calvinist camp. I haven’t read Piper’s new book, and I’m debating whether or not I should. From the reviews I’ve read, it seems there will probably some base assumptions on his part that will make it hard for to see the reasoning throughout the rest of the book.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:45 pm
So what you are saying in re: 2 Peter 2 is that is okay to preach another Gospel as long as you don’t know you are doing it? If that is true, then it sounds like there is a need for discerment ministry. If it is not true, then you are preaching predestination.
2 Peter 2:
2And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
2 Thess 2:
9The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Those who preach that there is no absolute Truth hate the Truth. Sensuality is not exclusively consigned to sexuality, but actually speaks of humanism.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:46 pm
I’ve never heard of anything except ’substitutionary atonement’. Are the other views exclusive of each other? Or are they all parts of a greater holistic whole? I can’t think of another view, could someone share some with me?
Joe
December 1st, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Haven’t you seen thos esappy pictures of Jesus?
Petting lambs is a metaphor for the redefining of God’s love into humanistic touchy feely pablum, which is what you and Boarshead have done.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Chris P,
You are the opposite of discerning. Which is why I never use the term “ODM” to refer to watchdoggies. I’ve now twice explained why that’s not what I was saying, and endorsed Joe C’s explanation of what I was saying which also points out I never said that.
Here are quotes from earlier in the conversation from me about what I said:
And then Joe C’s accurate representation of what I said:
It really seems like watchdoggies are incapable of understanding anyone but themselves.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:52 pm
LoL…what I’ve done? I think you have me confused with someone else, like Satan or something. I’ve done nothing of the sort. My Jesus is a conquering returning King who is the Word of God, and the Lamb of God, Creator and Sustainer, God and Savior.
Jesus petting lambs isn’t heresy. How do you know He didn’t?
Chris P…are you Jesus? :gasp!:
LoL, lighten up man….Jesus WAS nice to the children. Still is, last time I checked. Is it a misrepresentation to make a painting of Him doing that? Of course not. Everyone HERE knows thats not even close to ALL He did. So you’re just mischaracterizing most here. Not cool.
:best Charlton Heston impression: “Reeepennnt….and thou shalllltt beeee saaaaved….”
Joe
December 1st, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Joe,
The Wikipedia article is decent, but of course short.
I don’t see them as mutually exclusive, they are all really just different attempts at describing the same thing. I think to adhere to one at the expense of others is when it becomes problematic. Personally, I find the Christus Victor the most convincing, and I think a good case can be made that a lot of Christians throughout history have held it.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Chris, you have read too much into it and extrapolated beyond the discussion at hand.
Preaching “another gospel” is covered elsewhere, specifically, but you are mixing metaphors by combining this with “false teachers”. Additionally, in my observation, Paul’s definition of “gospel” seems to get treated pretty broadly to things that aren’t the gospel…
December 1st, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Joe,
It is kind of like the blind men and the elephant. Many different views of the atonement contain reductions of the truth, but as man-made systematic theologies, they are all incomplete in describing the whole thing.
Substitutionary Penal Atonement gets most of the press because it is a view that is solely centered on the final judgment, which is pretty much what most of “reformed” theology has limited Christ’s sacrifice to be about…
December 1st, 2007 at 3:57 pm
This little clinic put on by Chris P and Chris R in strawmannary combined with Ken’s lying is exactly why I don’t trust a single thing published on watchdoggie sites. They are completely incapable of accurately understanding or representing non-watchdoggie views.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Phil,
I see what’s being said. None of them deny Jesus died for our sins, and we have forgiveness through Him. The different theories just talk about how such a thing could have came about. Got it. It seems like 2nd order doctrine if we use the standard of what the Gospel is according to 1 Corinthians 15:2-5. I just never knew there were other views other than substitutionary atonement. Thanks for the heads up Phil.
Joe
December 1st, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Chris R. - I believe all the preachers you listed are false teachers except Rick Warren. Although he over pragmatizes the gospel and has questionable associations, he is not in the class of the others.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Well after reading up on the different views a bit, I’m still going to have to stick with SA, because it’s the one that fits the Bible on a whole the best, considering the metaphorical nature of the Jewish Sacrificial system as a shadow of what was to come. I also agree with CV though, and see them both as a part of what Christ did. I wouldn’t see it as heresy to talk about both with an unbeliever. Not at all.
Joe
December 1st, 2007 at 4:10 pm
“In fact, in McLaren’s book, The Story We Find Ourselves In, he explains six or so different theories and doesn’t really say one is better than the other. He says they are are all windows that give us incomplete views of the big picture.”
Phil - That view in and of itself represents the problem with MacLaren, Pagitt, Burke, and much of the emergent movement. Here is a small sample of MacLaren’s thoughts about the atonement:
“The traditional understanding says that God asks of us something that God is incapable of Himself. God asks us to forgive people. But God is incapable of forgiving. God can’t forgive unless He punishes somebody in place of the person He was going to forgive. God doesn’t say things to you—Forgive your wife, and then go kick the dog to vent your anger. God asks you to actually forgive
And there’s a certain sense that, a common understanding of the atonement presents a God who is incapable of forgiving. Unless He kicks somebody else.”
That’s real orthodox.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Rick, if Mclaren is wrong in that statement, and misrepresenting SA, then how would you counter what he has said there? I agree, what he said there isn’t very orthodox, but I can’t answer it. -.-;;
Maybe I’m overtired and can’t think from being up all night with the new baby. Or maybe I’m stupid lol.
Joe
December 1st, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Tim and Joe,
It is now the both of you that are engaged in obfuscation.
Let’s review…
1. Tim said that ““None of who the watchdoggies write about do any such thing.†(refering to the things written about in 2 Peter 2).
2. I proved that Tim was lying by providing a list of false teachers that fit the description of a false teacher in 2 Peter 2.
3. Tim brushed the entire list aside in order to defend his lie that “None of who the watchdoggies write about do any such thing.â€
4. The ‘escape clause’ that Tim is trying to employ in order to be able to deny that he was lying about ODM’s is HIS claim that the false teachers I listed do NOT (in his opinion) fit the description of the false teachers given in 2 Peter 2.
5. This is a ridiculously flimsy defense of his lie.
6. The ODM’s write frequently about Benny Hinn, Paula White, and Ken Copeland.
7. One of the descriptions of false teachers given in 2nd Peter 2 is that they “In their greed these false teachers are exploiting the church with stories they have made up.”
8. The entire “ministries” of teachers like Hinn, White, and Copeland is one long litany of crazy stories, pleas for money and promises of blessings to those who send them money.
9. This PERFECTLY fits the description given in 2nd Peter 2.
Therefore: Tim LIED about the ODM’s. This is an UNDENIABLE FACT!
I find it both ironic and telling that a DOODM site engages in the very same tactics that they claim the ODM’s engage in.
In order for this site to have ANY credibility, its contributors are going to have to stop lying about ODM’s.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Regarding McLaren and Pagitt.
Read McLaren’s latest book “Everything Must Change” he clearly spells out his Emergent ‘gospel’.
Regarding Pagitt. I have spoken to him and in his conversation with me he flat out denied the Substitionary Atonement.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Ok Chris R, you win. Happy?
Even if this site was doing this, and they stopped, this still wouldn’t solve the ODMs problems of nearly always doing this. Don’t throw stones in glass houses.
Plus, Chris, even if Tim did lie, when was the last time you lied? I bet you lie a lot too. Like me and everyone else. I’m still not convinced Tim lied, and I have nothing to lose or gain here by saying that, you’re all just words on a computer screen anyways.
But your my brothers and sisters in Christ, as words on a computer screen. That does make a difference. LOL.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:21 pm
PS, prove Mclaren denied SA to you. We can’t take your word for it, per above, as we’re all liars. I think Mclaren is way off on many things, but I won’t agree with you that he denies SA just because he said she said.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Chris R., would you not allow Warren a little wiggle room in that he doesn’t deny substitutionary atonement?
December 1st, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Rick,
Well, I do think that is a potential shortcoming of that view. I think it can be presented that people do view God as wrathful and unforgiving. It stems from people misunderstanding of Scripture, but that doesn’t mean we can’t explain things in such a way to minimize misunderstanding. I’ve met quite a few people who just assume God is angry with them.
Joe,
To get back to the crux of the issue as it pertains to Piper and Wright. I think Wright would say people are justified because they are part of the Elect. (I’m using Elect in the sense of ‘chosen’, not predestined) Piper would say that people need to be justified to be part of the Elect. Wright would say that Jews made sacrifices out of obedience, not as a way to be cleansed from sins. God already forgave the sin, sacrifice acknowledged that.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Interesting Phil.
Aren’t those two views just speaking about the same thing in a different way? Holistically, they just both fit.
Kind of like ….”The Apple is red…” “Red is the Apple!!”
December 1st, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Aren’t all the ‘elect’, justified? And don’t those who become justified in God’s sight, become ‘elect’?
I think that’s what I’m saying. LOL
December 1st, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Rick,
Basically, McLaren has identified the extreme of SPA where it falls apart as an explanation.
There is an argument to be made that the sacrifice system was not in place for the purpose of appeasing God (see Psalm 50), but that it was put in place by God as a way to allow men to be free of the guilt of their sin so that they could truly follow Him.
Jesus, however, in this view (Christus Victor), is a perfect sacrifice, in that he paid the ransom price due to the accuser (Satan) so that in him (Jesus), they would be free of Satan (accusation) - now and for eternity.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Here is another gem from MacLaren:
“Look, we could look at Ghandi’s live as an example of self sacrificial love or Martin Luther King Junior’s life. There would be a lot of people we could look at. And so wouldn’t it be better to just talk about Jesus as one among many, rather than lift Him up as some extraordinary example. Because by doing that we create, we perpetuate this Christian elitism and exclusivism, et cetera, et cetera.”
That is absolute heresy.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Joe,
I did not talk with McLaren I talked with Pagitt. If you don’t want to believe me that is fine, you don’t have too. But, you could always call Pagitt yourself. He is very easy to get ahold of and he’s actually pretty fun to talk with. He’s a very intelligent and likable guy.
As for McLaren he lays out “his gospel” very clearly in his new book. I strongly recommend that you read it. In it he boldly and nastily attacks and deconstructs the SA and lays out his “emergent alternative”.
McLaren CLEARLY teaches that his theory regarding Jesus death on the cross. In his opinion the reason Jesus died on the cross was to show us the brutality of the Imperial Roman System and framing story. He even cleary denies that the Biblical call for Repentance and Belief in the Gospel had anything to do with repentance of sins and forgiveness of sins. Instead, he argues that was repentance means to defect from Imperial framing stories and belief in the good news of Jesus’ framing story of hope and justice.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:33 pm
I’m too comfortable in SA, and I see everything primarily through that viewpoint. I don’t think that, without years of studying praying first, I could ever get past SA as the primary purpose of the Cross. I’m not even sure if that’s a wise thing to do.
I didn’t grow up with Christian culture or anything like that When I got saved at a church, I didn’t really have any theological strings attatched, biases, etc. Someone gave me a Bible, told me to read it every day until I finished, and then to keep reading it forever more. Also taught to do a study each week, and memorize Scripture. I’ve kept that up till this day. I never read any commentaries or the like, and I didn’t even know the term “substitutionary atonement” until I heard another guy use it. When I asked what it was, it turns out it was exactly what I believed about the Cross, from what I had been reading in the Bible, what I thought was plainly, for years. So that’s why it’d be so hard for me to see another view. Though I don’t think CV is wrong. I think it fits nicely with SA.
Joe
December 1st, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Joe,
Yeah, it is sort of an argument about semantics. You are right, in both views, the Elect would be justified. Of course, Piper would say the Elect are predestined as well. It’s just a matter of when and how people are justified. I don’t think anyone will go to Hell because of disagreement over it.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:35 pm
This would probably be more interesting if I’d have to do something other than copy/paste what I’ve already written.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Rick,
Regarding Warren. You ask a good question. Warren will never come out and deny SA. Instead, he publicly claims allegiance to it but then denies its power by adding works to it.
Listen to my latest podcast. I lay this out pretty clearly.
http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2007/11/rick-warrens-go.html
December 1st, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Wow, Chris R.
Are you just ignorant, blind or just not paying attention?
Lying requires intent to deceive, whereas being mistaken/incorrect/wrong can occur without intent. If Tim is incorrect with his “None”, that does not prove lying - it just proves that he exaggerated.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Chris R,
If that’s what Mclaren believes really, and what he wrote about in his new book, then of course I disagree, and according to 1 Cor. 15:2-5, he is speaking heresy. Sorry about mistaking Mclaren with Pagitt, I do that sometimes. I didn’t mean to misrepresent what you said. I’m pretty trusting, and I normally would just ‘believe’ a brother, but the internet has betrayed me one too many times, and I like to do my own research. Don’t take personal offense. Like I said, all men are liars. Intentionally, or unintentionally.
Rick,
I agree, that quote, and just the quote, not taking in to account the surrounding context, is heresy. Rank heresy. Jesus should always be far exalted, infinitely so, above all other people or things. He is God.
Joe
December 1st, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Rick,
I will agree with you on that particular quote (assuming that it accurately reflects what McLaren was saying, and not him laying out an argument to be refuted) that it is heretical.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Tim,
How do you know that Hinn, White and Copeland don’t actually know that what they are teaching is a lie? They tell some whoppers.
Do you really think they don’t know what they are saying is false? Do you really think they are not saying these things for the money?
December 1st, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Chris - I respect you as a brother. It is time to call off the troops to defend MacLaren, he hasn’t just pushed the envelope, he has left Biblical Christianity. There will be more that follow his example.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Chris R.,
There is a difference between being “wrong” and “lying.” Tim may be wrong, but you have chosen the more emotive (and inaccurate) “liar” card.
And why is it, in every thread, eventually it is said… “Well, what you’re doing is exactly what they do…” - which, of course, is a comically ironic statement since “they” prohibit discussion.
Neil S.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Yeah Chris R,
I do see your point on that. I find them increddibly disingenuous. Surely some of them know they’re teaching wrong things, in order for them to make more money. Listen, I agree with you, those guys are false teachers, plainly. But I still think you’re missing what Tim was trying to say. PLEASE try to get what he’s saying, it’s not that hard if you stop hating on him for a second LOL, jk jk..come on.
Joe
December 1st, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Come on, Chris R., people get deceived and start to teach greater and greater heresies. But just because they teach heresies unawares does not mean they are not false teachers, they are.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Tim, Chris L, Neil,
If Tim would like to plead guilty to the lesser crime of being wrong and mistaken then I will accept his confession and forgive accordingly.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Yeah, I heard Warren say something to this effect:
What good is faith if there are no deeds to go with it? Can this kind of faith save anyone? Suppose that you knew someone who was without food or adequate clothing and you just say to them “go and keep warm and fed” but you didn’t do anything about it? What good would that be? In the same way, faith by itself, it is not accompanied by works, it meaningless.
What heresy!
December 1st, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Chris L, funny. Very funny.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Rick,
I’m don’t want to get in fight about McLaren either, but that last quote was taken out of context. It was McLaren restating the interviewer’s view in a radio interview. The whole quote is this:
December 1st, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Oooh..out of context quote. That’s bad on you Rick, honestly, if you knew the full quote when you posted what you did. But hey, what’s being said itself, if someone really said that and meant it, would be heresy.
Joe
December 1st, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Now they question is, did Mclaren agree with that statement?
December 1st, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Rick,
I didn’t realize that I was a MacLaren defender. He makes me very uncomfortable with his universalist leanings, which I’ve made clear several places. At the same time, though, I think he often asks questions or makes observations which poke holes in systematic theologies that may (or may not) be spot on.
My comments above about Christus Victor should not be any way construed to be a defense of MacLaren, but as a demonstration that the exact nature of Jesus’ atonement is not fully explained in penal atonement theory.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Rick Frueh,
Sadly, I think you are right in your assessment of McLaren.
But, I’ve been really wrestling with a thought these past few weeks. Scripture tells us to correct and rebuke those who engage in error, but that isn’t the Church’s primary duty. We are called to make disciples. I fear that all of the digital ink that is being spilled about false teachers may have become a distraction that is impacting our ability to fulfill the great commission.
Warning about error can never be an end in itself. I am coming to the conclusion that warning about error must done in the context of proclaiming and teaching the deep truths and doctrines of scripture.
I fear that things may be off balance. If that is the case then I may be just as guilty as men like McLaren even though I hold sound doctrine.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Phil - you now have clouded what he said. He said he was very interested in that view and that it would have a prominent place in his new book. Please don’t quote it as if someone else believed it and not him. That interview is full of eye opening statements and views by MacLaren.
If you are going to defend MacLaren then who will you not defend? If any of the emergent movement will have any credibility it will have to address obvious departures as significant as MacLaren’s. This is a no brainer and some correction will help others to pay attention and not make the same mistakes.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Rick,
I wrote:
Now, Phil has supplied the entire quote (which was McLaren summing up somebody else’s view), getting to the heart of my caveat. What was McLaren’s answer to this question?
December 1st, 2007 at 4:54 pm
How do you know all your doctrine is sound?
How much doctrine must one believe in at the time of their salvation?
Good questions, I think.
December 1st, 2007 at 4:54 pm
McLaren expose? Still waiting…
Rick it would be appreciated when sharing quotes from books, essays, or speeches from McLaren if you could provide a “bibliography”.
Chris P. Wow actually multiple comments in the same post. I’m impressed.
Chris R. You crack me up!
December 1st, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Chris L,
You are quoting James. That is a good place to take this conversation!
Sadly, what Warren is teaching is different than the point the James is making.
Let me say it this way. I believe that Faith Alone Saves. But, like James I believe that Saving Faith is NEVER alone.
James’ point is that true faith produces good works and that you can tell that faith is alive by Good works. (Think Fruit)
Warren is teaching the Catholic view that it takes more than faith to please God. Warren’s teaching undermines salvation by grace alone through faith alone. He is adding conditions that are Just not there.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Here is the entire interview:
http://www.understandthetimes.org/mclarentrans.shtml
What sacres me is that most of you guys have read more of MacLaren than have I. And just so I am not further accused of misrepresenting MacLaren’s quotes here is the context in question:
McLaren: Right. If I understand what you’re saying. These are important subjects. I understand you’re saying: Look, we could look at Ghandi’s live as an example of self sacrificial love or Martin Luther King Junior’s life. There would be a lot of people we could look at. And so wouldn’t it be better to just talk about Jesus as one among many, rather than lift Him up as some extraordinary example. Because by doing that we create, we perpetuate this Christian elitism and exclusivism, et cetera, et cetera. Is that what you’re saying?
Hansen: Bingo! Yeah, that’s really right on.
McLaren: Well, this is a subject that I am really interested in. And in fact, it’s going to be part of the book I am going to write this year that is, kind of will be sequel to this book of The Kingdom Seeker Messages of Jesus
Did I misrepresent it?
December 1st, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Chris R.
I could ask the same question of you. In fact, this technique works on everyone.
I think that the health and wealth “gospel” is attractive and believed by many people. Unlike you, I’m not willing to believe someone is a liar because “how do we know they’re not lying?”
If you really were so offended by lying you’d be rebuking Ken publicly instead of twisting my words to make me into a liar.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:04 pm
I bet if you asked Rick Warren if he agreed with your assessment of him, and whether he believes what you just said he does, he would disagree.
Hey, how many times have you taught something wrong, Chris R? Even once makes you a false teacher. How many false teachings before you’re not a Christian anymore?
We’re all liars and false teachers. I’m gladly saved by Jesus’ works and not my own, thank God.
It’s just…Benny Hinn…well…lol
Joe
December 1st, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Rick,
)
I don’t agree with McLaren on everything. I just think if we are going to debate these things it should be done on the up and up. I would be upset if you took Hillary Clinton out of context, too. (OK, honestly, I might be more inclined to let that slide
I just think that if we’re going to talk about these things, as Christians, we should be a step above how things are done in the world. Ultimately, that’s what bugs me most about the ODM’s. They may have some legitimate concerns, but it seems they have no problem being dishonest doing it. By the way, Rick, I’m not accusing you of being dishonest.
Here’s the whole transcript.
McClaren doesn’t say he agrees with the interviewer’s assumption - he says in the end of the next paragraph:
December 1st, 2007 at 5:05 pm
I like you more all the time Joe C. Grace is so much larger than we’re able to comprehend, as is our our sin, which are much smaller than grace.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Let me say also that I would NEVER purposely misquote someone in order to promote my point of view. I have often disagreed with some of Ken and Ingrid’s misquotes even if I disagree with the people they are misquoting, so I am somewhat offended to so quickly be accused of doing something like that.
It is wrong and I would not do it.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:07 pm
I was using a broad term ‘false teacher’ as many people online use it, not how the BIble does. By the way.
Also, Rick, Mclaren never said he believed in what the Hansen guy was saying, he just said he was interested in addressing it. It’s not an endorsement, until he does endorse it publicly or in the book.
I agree with you about Mclaren overall, but on this one, I don’t think there;s enough evidence to say “He believes Jesus shouldnt be talked about as anyone more special than Ghandi”.
Joe
December 1st, 2007 at 5:11 pm
On the ‘we’re all false teachers’ thing I said…
We’re all false teachers in the sense that we don’t know everything about God, and even if we have the best intentions, sometimes we misrepresent Him (blasphemy), even if we don’t want to, and we teach something “false” about God, even if we don’t want to. Since we teach something false, we are “false teachers”. Sometimes we do it on purpose, because we’re prideful. Same result.
If you teach something false, even if you don’t know it’s false or wrong, and you have good intents, it’s still false teaching. The real question is, how many times do you get to be wrong before you’re not saved by Jesus’ work anymore?
Joe
December 1st, 2007 at 5:15 pm
CHRIS R:
Brian McLaren articulates HIS understanding of the gospel
NOT the emergent gospel
How hard is that to understand?
It’s ironic though that YOU would get bent out of shape about FALSE teachers when you’re a baptismal regenerationist.
Talk about false teachers…
Well at least you’ll have company during the judgement you so gleefully proclaim for everyone else.
CHRIS P:
Have you every interacted with anything regarding emergent other than books that you’ve already made up your mind to not like?
December 1st, 2007 at 5:16 pm
I will say one more thing about McLaren. I guess the reason I would be uncomfortable calling him a false teacher is that he really presents what he says in a pretty humble manner. He says right from the get-go in the introduction of pretty much all his book that he understands people will not agree with everything he says. He challenges people to find the truth for themselves.
Also at the end of all his books, I think, he tells people how to enter into a relationship with Christ and encourages them to find a local church or Christian friend to talk to and to start reading the Bible. Those seem like pretty safe recommendations to me.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Rick,
I wasn’t suggesting you did this on purpose - I didn’t know where you got the quote. I don’t think you would do this on purpose, either, as you’ve already proven this. I think we all need to be careful quoting others, as we may end up making them say things they wouldn’t agree with. I know I have done it before, unintentionally…
December 1st, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Phil - I agree, MacLaren is a very humble and winsome man and in that we all could be exhorted. But that doesn’t equal truth. I agree with nc, MacLaren doesn’t speak for many emergents and although he is one of the pioneers amny emergents now discard his theology.
I have a folder that I still work on from time to time but I really think MacLaren has obviously left the mainstream. And it is somewhat ironic that some of the ones who would scathe MacLaren are themselves harsh, self righteous, and mean. It is a strange world.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:23 pm
folks - can we all just turn the dial back from “10″ to at least “7″ or so?
I don’t see anyone in this conversation that I would not be willing to call a brother. Having a flesh and blood brother, I know that disagreements can escalate in a hurry, but it just seems that this has more talking past each other than to each other…
December 1st, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Yes, I know what you are saying. And even more ironic, I think, is that in reacting in this way, they probably end up pushing more people toward McLaren. I think McLaren taps into the frustration of young people who have grown up in the church, and the harsh, self-righteous reactions of his critics probably just is more fodder for those fed up with more traditional churches.
It’s like these people shoot themselves in the foot. If they reacted in a calm and humble way, I think their message could maybe actually be heard by some. Instead, all people hear is the screeching.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:34 pm
And that is why the ODMs do not embrace me because I don’t just confront their targets, I confront them and me as well. I am sometimes caught between two worlds although once you’re anathematized by the Calvinistic college of cardinals you usually are an outcast forever.
I am free and I’m lovin’ it!
December 1st, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Rick, yes, you’re the last American cowboy….
December 1st, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Wow. I spend the day away from the internet, and THIS happens?! This thread reminds me of this…
December 1st, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Keith, you’re always good for an edifying comment. :slight sarcasm: @_@
lol
Joe
December 1st, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Joe C: Just trying to liven things up a bit. Actually, this thread has got some pretty sad moments.
What does “@_@” mean?
December 1st, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Gotta say it again…sorry…BUT
Just because there is an organization that helps coordinate the activities of a NETWORK OF FRIENDS
DOES NOOOOOOOOOOOOOT MEAN
that they all agree on everything just because someone writes a book.
We support Brian’s right to speak his mind, write his books and be subjected to FAIR critique about THE ISSUES.
ChrisP, Kengrid, Chris R, TEam PYro and all the others whine about be “tired” of the emergents…
I never knew being friends with someone you might disagree with was such a sin.
Shoot.
I don’t agree with Keith much on these threads, sometime I disagree with Rick…but good heavens! They’re still welcome to my scotch…or bottled water…or chocolate milk…or whatever they prefer to wet their whistles with.
I don’t understand why this nuanced difference is lost on people
And I still stand on the IRONY—and delicious it is—that Chris R would ever get on a high horse about false teaching when he believes in baptismal regeneration.
Gimme a break.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:44 pm
The other thing is…
If Chris P, KEn, etc. are sooooooooooooo concerned for the TRUTH they and their ilk would stop using terms like “emergents” to refer to anyone who happens to be friends with people they disagree with.
I could even put up with their tantruming load of crap if they just kept it about the particular people they critique.
They wrote the books…it’s on them to deal with the response.
Just don’t lump a bunch of people in with it…ya know?
December 1st, 2007 at 6:47 pm
nc - bottled water. I am a diabetic and old fashioned fundie as well. But I am a riot a parties!
December 1st, 2007 at 6:49 pm
“Chris R believes in baptismal regeneration…” Really? Care to expound on that one? Just curious.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Even though Chris L. called for a “dialing back” I must ask the question:
Rick why would you pull an out of context quote from Brian McLaren and not bother to check the whole interview? Really I must know.
Several months back you stated (paraphrased) “I’m working on a piece about Brian that will prove he is a heretic”. Then you pull an out of context quote. If you have so much proof of heresy; why would you not be better informed on this interview?
December 1st, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Keith,
I’d email him if I were you. He believes in Baptismal Regeneration and can lay out his entire case for you.
December 1st, 2007 at 7:55 pm
chris - I did not pull it out of context and I have provided the entire interview in a previous comment. Are you infering that I purposely attempted to misrepresent him? I read the entire interview SEVERAL times and stand by my understanding of macLaren’s position.
I provided the context that the statement came from in a previous comment. Do you agree with the things MacLaren said in that interview? Show me where I misrepresented him or quit telling me that I did.
I did not nor would I.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:16 pm
I never said you misrepresented him. I said that you pulled a quote out of context. However if no one questioned the quote it would have sat as truth on this blog. Which is not an accurate view.
Then why not post the whole question and whole answer?
I don’t agree with Brian on everything, very little in fact, but I have no problem with him pushing the status quo. As I’ve evaluated this whole “battle” in the blogosphere I’ve come to the conclusion that the status quo does need to be pushed.
Some among us hold deeply entrenched views on issues that have little or no biblical support as being accurate. So in that regard I want “conversation”.
December 1st, 2007 at 8:45 pm
BTW,
Re: Conversation.
I’m sick of people bashing the “conversation”.
People are conversing.
Someone shows up and lobs bombs, insinuations and condescension.
They get a negative reaction.
Connect a reaction TO THEIR behavior to the issues.
And then denigrate “the conversation” as hypocritical.
If you come to “the conversation” to dominate it, get called out for your agenda driven approach–which IS unloving. Period.–and then get rebuked for that. You’re not being persecuted or attacked or rejected from the conversation.
You’re being admonished to “play well with others”.
there’s a big difference.
If you can’t see that…well…then you’re probably part of the problem.
Another thing on conversation:
There are voices that have dominated the discourse for years in evangelicalism.
When other voices get a chance to speak or bring other marginalized voices to speak about the environment, labor laws, immigration, etc. that’s not rejecting you,
that’s you enjoying the opportunity to learn to be quiet and listen, and be humble while you’re challenged because you’ve had the microphone and the bully pulpit for years. (In some cases…emphasis on bully)
Some people “in the conversation” do have a need to play their part…That part: it’s to shutup and listen, get over yourself and have the humility to seriously consider a view other than the validation of middle class social respectability posing as real Christian witness.
phew…
I’m done.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:19 pm
I should have thought of that myself, Rev Joe. I just did (email him).
December 1st, 2007 at 11:17 pm
@_@ = my facial expression towards you Keith. Two eyes and a mouth. See it? I’m staring at you with an expression of surprised/weirded out/incredulity.
Does that help any?
I like this one too
-.-
It means unimpressed or like a ’sighing’ expression, like squinting and frowning at someone.
Or…-.-;;; the “;;;” means sweating, like nervousness.
That’s your lesson in emoticons in plain text for the evening.
JOe
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:16 am
It’s PolemIcist. In case you want someone to be able to find your post with a search engine. Just trying to help…
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:50 am
Yes, but it’ll be #1 for the misspelling.
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:35 am
I’m stunned by this thread! How many hours have you guys been on here and for what point? Don’t you have families/ wives and kids who need you ??
December 2nd, 2007 at 7:57 am
I was busy trying to not listening to HS bands using our church.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:06 am
Joe C: Quit staring at me! It’s freaking me out! 8^)>
(That’s my emoticon for my glasses, cheerful smile and “Rick Warren look-alike” goatee)
Have a great Lord’s day. Seriously. Really. We may look at each other with “surprised/weirded out/incredulity,” but praise God, He looks at us through the blood of Christ.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:49 am
w00t Keith!
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Thank you for coming to the defense of my family. Really appreciate your
contemptconcern.