Mike Corly, who I will call one of the few friendly ODMs, recently went to Seattle to find out more about Mars Hill Church. Now I know what you are thinking, “There’s a novel concept –actually going to meet with the people you have differences with before you criticize.” Here’s Mike’s thoughts on his trip. I think it would do the ODMs some good to follow Corley’s example and make an attempt to connect with the people they say are destined for hell.

**UPDATE**

Direct from Mike Corley:

I read your piece on the site and wanted to say thanks for the kind words.

There were a few points I have noticed have been mentioned in the comments that I wanted to respond to. I dont know if you would like to post them as an update or prefer that I post them as a comment, but you can let me know.

I made the trip to Seattle at my own expense for the sole purpose of meeting and interviewing Mark Driscoll, for a book I am writing on the Emergent Church, but also to see for myself what Mars Hills is all about and to try to understand Mark’s ministry. We visited for about 2 hours which included an interview that was video taped by the MHC staff. I will be given a copy of the footage and Mars Hill will keep a copy as well. We will release the video in DVD form when production is completed, and we will feature portions of the audio on the radio program and online. I have come to appreciate Mark’s ministry, although his methods may be unorthodox in some ways. After meeting him I realized we have a lot in common and I hope to work with him again one day.

One comment was made about my expectations of visiting Mars Hill, mentioning lack of scripture reading and sitting in the dark. These rumors were sent to me by readers and listeners, and were not my statements, nor did I believe them before attending the services at MHC.

There also statements attributed to me regarding Mark, taken from a post on my blog dated June 26, 2007. The quote is actually that of Phil Johnson and not myself. I simply posted the Johnson quote on my site.

Lastly, I am writing a reflective piece on my personal meeting with Mark now. But I wanted to share that I have been harsh in the past and jumped to conclusions in some instances when I should have been more compassionate and merciful, and patient perhaps, before making judgements. I have been convicted of this, repented and asked for forgiveness. I will be the first one to my feet in the defense of the Gospel, and sometimes with a assertive tone or posture. But God help me not to do so with a mean spirit or proud attitude.

I think we could all learn something from this ODM.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Thursday, December 27th, 2007 at 1:35 am and is filed under Emergent Church, Linked Articles, Mike Corley, ODM Responses, ODM Writers. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

195 Comments(+Add)

1   robbymac    http://www.robbymac.org
December 27th, 2007 at 1:50 am

Wow. Kudos to Mike for breaking ranks with his rabid pack. I was impressed.

2   Russ N.    http://russ-ramblings.blogspot.com
December 27th, 2007 at 7:30 am

I likewise was impressed. More people should do that.

Look what happened when Chris L. and Chris P. got together for a meal…

3   Matt    
December 27th, 2007 at 7:32 am

Yeah, Mike Corley seems to be a good odm. I took him to task for playing David Crowder and for quoting C.S. Lewis. He has always had a gracious response. Come to think of it, I probably should have been kinder to him. I really wish more of the odms were like him. There would be no reason for this site.

4   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
December 27th, 2007 at 8:17 am

When can we expect the “CRN.Info” goes to Grace Community Church”post…written by Iggy or Tim!? 8^)>

(Before anyone gets their BVDs in a wad, that’s HUMOR.)

5   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
December 27th, 2007 at 9:18 am

Ziing.

The extra i is for extra zing.

6   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 27th, 2007 at 10:51 am

Keith,

If they sent me a ticket and paid expenses I would go, yet since I have never written against GCC church I really do not think I will need to attend. I have run ins with the congregants and others on a regular basis to see what flavor I would expect and I most likely would not attend if i was just passing through on my own. Now, if I was making money by writing criticisms against people I would make a point to go…

Notice I have never stated that Ken teaches wrong things at his church? I only have interacted with him in the arena he is most vocal.

Now I also say Kudo’s to Mike Corely who has a radio show and regularly speaks out against others he sees are heretics or has people like Ken Silva on who are outright invited and turn it down, though they make money in their ministry by attacking said people.

My only issue with JM is that I see he adds works to salvation with adding “repentance” as part of salvation. The way he teaches it is not as a response to what God has done, but as a way to “get” what God has done… and that is dangerous and works salvation.

Repentance is a response of love to love that is given by God. It is the realization that “I am wrong and cannot do anything to change and am totally at God’s mercy.” It is not about confessing all my sin so that I CAN get saved…

The other thing is that his people seem to claim grace but show others very little of it.

be blessed,
iggy

I now feel better since I have unwad my BVDs…

7   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 27th, 2007 at 10:56 am

Russ,

Look what happened when Chris L. and Chris P. got together for a meal…

Right afterward Chris P seemed changed…so Chris L and wife must be great people, but since it has turned rather ugly… like one Chris P left and 7 worse came back…

iggy

Now that was meant as humor… and I seek others to pray for Chris P. with me.

8   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 27th, 2007 at 11:00 am

Here’s my dirty little secret; I’ve already been. Twice. Met the Man, too.

9   Chris P.    
December 27th, 2007 at 11:07 am

“Now, if I was making money by writing criticisms against people I would make a point to go… ”

Who’s making money? Follow your own advice. Come see how I live. Someone has yet to inform my banker, or Ken’s for that matter, that we are raking in the bucks.
iggy doesn’t mind judging the congregants at Grace without having gone there.

As for Driscoll, I do not have as much a problem with him as others.
This is amusing. No one can question another’s theology or methods based on what is publicly presented as their views?
IOW, Driscoll, McClaren, Bell etc. etc cannot be judged by their blogs. books, “tours”, but only if I attend their services. Since that is a virtual impossibility for most, then no one can say anything about anyone. This includes you. So until you attend Ken’s services or Ingrid’s church, you must also quit criticizing.
This gives an opening for the pious blether we see from many here.
I am glad Mike Corley went to Mars Hill, as I would also do if I was visiting Seattle again. It’s an interesting city btw.
What he wrote, confirmed what I had already learned about that church,…… gee, without even going there.

10   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 27th, 2007 at 11:07 am

Oh Joe… I am so sorry… we will pray for you also…

iggy

11   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
December 27th, 2007 at 11:11 am

Keith,

Been there more times than I can count. You show me an article where we question the practices of GCC and I will head out there to do an article. The funny thing is that we are not against the churches and theology if the ODMs (we disagree but are not violently opposed to it). That is what makes us different. It is not us against each other. It is them against others and us for the others.

12   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 27th, 2007 at 11:12 am

Chris P,

Your beef is with Ken not me… Ken stated that “God has blessed him” so he did not have to work a day job… so it seems at least he is benefiting from his hate blog. If you are not, then maybe you are a better fellow than him.

iggy doesn’t mind judging the congregants at Grace without having gone there.

I have not judge anyone at GCC, other than the ones that have come and attacked me unprovoked. I have tried to talk to a few that “follow” JM… I do not know if they attend that church or not… so you are stating a lie and slander about me…

Please stop.

iggy

13   Chris P.    
December 27th, 2007 at 11:13 am

ah iggy, show what you really are.
Chris L and his wife must be great people because they appeared to change me???
I hope everyone really reads what you wrote.
After having met Chris, I am even more astounded that he allows people like you and Tim Reed anywhere near this blog.
We are not here to change one another. My core beliefs remain unchanged.
God acknowledges prayers prayed in His will and in Jesus’ name, that would exclude yours.

14   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 27th, 2007 at 11:16 am

The test of our Christlikeness is not when we sit down over dinner, or when you are a one time visitor at a church, it is when in the midst of substantive and serious disagreement among brethren. Additionally, the individual sides seem reluctant to speak correction to their own.

How many ODMs address hyperbole and name calling in their midst? How many emergent/emerging types address doctrinal error in their midst? It seems that so many are engulfed in winning the truth war on several sides but are blind to being like Jesus which is primary truth.

I am still bewildred that men like Mike Corley/Chris P. don’t address men like Ken, and people like Bell do not address people like MacLaren. Whichever side you happen to espouse dictates the volume, power, and direction of your attacks.

Ingrid says MH Seattle are not the Bride of Christ and Mike Corely gives them a thumbs up. Am I the only one who is shaking my head? And I see pure venom coming from all sides, not just the ODMs. The issues have become casualties of the flesh.

I doubt we will ever unravel the mess.

15   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
December 27th, 2007 at 11:16 am

Chris P.

once again, the point of this blog is not to criticize the churches of the ODMs. The subject occasionally comes up (like when Ken boast about only having 4 people), but it is not, nor has it ever been the focus here.

Second, when you talk about how “new aged” and evil the services of these men are, you’d better check it out before you proclaim to the world what goes on. Corley said he had hear all types of rumors about the church…. none were true. Maybe the emerging churches are not all chanting, labyrinth walking hippies.

16   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
December 27th, 2007 at 11:17 am

You know, judging by New Truth’s Jim Bublitz’s response the watchdoggies’ version of the gospel is so fragile that PG language is enough to shatter it.

17   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 27th, 2007 at 11:19 am

“God acknowledges prayers prayed in His will and in Jesus’ name, that would exclude yours.”

Chris P., your vitriol now rivals Ken’s, which may be what you were looking to achieve.

18   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 27th, 2007 at 11:23 am

Chris P,

ah iggy, show what you really are.

LOL! Chris, my prayers are with you that you can overcome this spirit of hate you have. Live by the higher law of Love my brother. This hate you have will not hurt anyone but yourself.

iggy

19   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
December 27th, 2007 at 11:26 am

After having met Chris, I am even more astounded that he allows people like you and Tim Reed anywhere near this blog.

For someone who tolerates Ken’s lies and fundraising, you have a funny way of talking about Chris L.

20   Matt    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
December 27th, 2007 at 11:31 am

Tim-

I thought Old Truth Jim’s comment was interesting and not in a good way. Can Jim name one disciple/apostle that was flawless in his ministry? Peter hung out with the circumcised group, Paul and Barnabas had a falling out.

Then look at the Old Testament. David, Solomon, Samuel, Noah, Samson all were human, filled with flaws. They sinned.

Anyway, here’s Jim’s comment:

Let’s also suppose there is some pastor out there who is like MacArthur in every way, but has some significant besetting sin that he engages in publicly on a regular basis (though maybe not every single week from the pulpit).

I can’t think of one Christian I know who doesn’t have some sort of significant besetting sin (or a thorn in the flesh), if you will.

You can go down the list with the Reformers: Calvin and Luther come to mind. All had some sort of significant besetting sin.

21   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 27th, 2007 at 11:32 am

Has anyone seen this post from Jim? You’ll have to cut and paste it into your nav bar. He leaves out the part of the quote where Bill H agrees with Phil Miller. I wonder if Jim is purposely being dishonest? I hope not but they say birds of a feather…

http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.881

Or just clicky clicky

22   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 27th, 2007 at 11:33 am

BTW Chris P,

God acknowledges prayers prayed in His will and in Jesus’ name, that would exclude yours.

My prayers have always been that the ODM’s be blessed…

Also, I might point out that in your own theology, sin keeps God from hearing your prayers… hating your brother in Christ is a sin… God has always heard my prayers and all I pray is that His will be done.

I do not or ever will hate you, in fact the only thing I have against you is your unchrist like behavior you often display here and your hatred against me.

You are not my enemy or Nemesis or whatever… and you were rather nice after your visit with Chris L… you turned nice for about a week… then you returned even nastier and angrier and meaner… and I believe all will affirm that.

Be blessed,
iggy

23   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 27th, 2007 at 11:37 am

God acknowledges prayers prayed in His will and in Jesus’ name, that would exclude yours.

Not only do they have their own copy of the Lamb’s Book of Life, they now know who’s prayers are answered and who’s are not. Shame on anyone for making such a statement.

24   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
December 27th, 2007 at 11:42 am

Regarding the post at Old Truth (which I hadn’t visited for a month, until now, so THANKS A LOT!): more dog graphics. Where are the cats? The way these discussions and comment sections get going, its more like a bunch of hissing, circling cats.

That’s about all I can say.

That, and that the comments selected were…selective. There have been times regular contributors to this blog have also voiced caution and such (recently, in fact, in regards to name-calling) but none of those comments were sampled because the point of Jim’s post was to say that the blog’s contributors were in need of the rebuke and were not capable of doing that amongst themselves. There are also times those commenters that were sampled have had decidedly different reactions to various topics and ODM sites.

But cats.

Cats is the answer.

25   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 27th, 2007 at 11:47 am

Rick,

Ingrid says MH Seattle are not the Bride of Christ and Mike Corely gives them a thumbs up. Am I the only one who is shaking my head? And I see pure venom coming from all sides, not just the ODMs. The issues have become casualties of the flesh.

Hopefully Mike Corley will start to distance himself from some of the ODM’s… Mike if you read this have Matt Slick on your show… I don’t agree with him on a few things but he is a much better researcher than Ken has shown to be.

iggy

26   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 27th, 2007 at 11:51 am

His quotes were selective, and some of the people he quoted seem to post under different names but the same IP. He’s being dishonest, I hope not intentionally.

27   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
December 27th, 2007 at 11:57 am

I don’t think I’m going to add myself to the Mike Corely cheerleading squad just yet.

It was a good post, and even more so, a good effort at backing up words with first-hand knowledge. Ingrid has had some pretty good posts, too. Even Old Truth has had good posts. I can’t say that I’ve ever really seen a good post at The Blog of the Blogger that Does Not Exist.

But I just prefer to be Switzerland instead of saying “now he’s OK.” Really, none of these people were, or are, ever our enemy. It seems quite odd, now, to say “well, now so and so is one of the good ODMs” or “for a while, Chris L. got Chris P. to be nice to us” or whatever. Strange battle lines. Battle lines for a battle that is against flesh and blood, too often, instead of against concept or thought or theory or interpretation.

Admittedly, I, in moments sans control of my thoughts, envision letting the air out of certain bloggers car tires. But that’s just me.

28   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
December 27th, 2007 at 11:58 am

Joe,
Regardless of whether or not he knows those are teh same people writing under different names he was already dishonest by making a claim and then only quoting people who agreed with him when he had ready access to the other side of the issue, and likely had to actively sift through them in order to get the quotes he had.

His post was not the fruit of a researching looking for truth. It is the product of a propagandist creating a hit piece.

29   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
December 27th, 2007 at 12:01 pm

I read the article, and I’m glad Mr. Corley seems to have given them a fair shake. One thing that I noted at first reading was this, though:

We really didn’t know what to expect when we arrived. The stories of the services at MHC have varied from no scripture reading to the congregation sitting in the dark,chanting.

Where in the world did he get an idea like that. If you’ve read anything by Driscoll or heard him speak at all, you would know he wouldn’t go for such a thing. Chanting? He really honestly thought MH was into that?

Now either that means that Driscoll just sucks at representing himself, or if there’s just a massive disinformation campaign by people. I suspect it’s the latter.

30   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
December 27th, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Julie,
I think its important to give kudos when kudos are deserved perhaps more-so than to criticize when criticism is deserved

31   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
December 27th, 2007 at 12:04 pm

He’s being dishonest, I hope not intentionally.

I doubt it’s intentional. I think of how, when I’m writing a blog post on a topic, I tend to go Google for the points I’m looking for to support the topic. I forget to get the information that would dispel my theory. It isn’t intentional, but in the end, I’ve selected information that supports and offered none that would say “here are examples that blow my cherry-picked research right out of the water.”

I remember a blog post on my first blog — political in nature — in which I did that in a really bad way. I have the text saved in a file as an example of what not to do.

I suspect that’s what has happened. It’s a natural thing for people to do, though it is laziness. “This is my theory. And these are the comments that prove it true.”

There are comments that suggest it untrue, particularly those written by blog writers, but that would change the main thrust of the original post.

It’s a good thing to remember for myself and anyone else writing: be as judicious in your research for things that do not support your theory. We’d probably have less of these inflammatory inferno blog posts and comments sections all over the internet if that were the case.

Cherry-picking is a special curse of blogging.

32   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 27th, 2007 at 12:07 pm

There seems to be little reflection. I have gotten caught up in discourse which upon the next day’s reflection and in prayer I am convicted about what I said and the flesh that came with it. How can anyone with any devotional and prayer life never be convicted and reproved of the Spirit?

How can any of us continue unswervingly with our sometimes obvious verbal breaches and yet claim we do business in the Spirit with our Lord? We are all undone on some level and I continue to be pessimistic as to any healing in view of the verbal instruments we use. Venum flows in all directions and from all sources and yet there seems to be little effective spiritual alterations at the hands of repentance.

Is it possible to feel strongly about issues, complete with serious and even confrontational verbiage, while mainting an atmosphere of respect and even love, internally dwelling and externally exhibited? I pray Jesus will have more to work with in my own life in 2008, He had quite a challenge in 2007.

I press on…

33   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
December 27th, 2007 at 12:10 pm

I think its important to give kudos when kudos are deserved perhaps more-so than to criticize when criticism is deserved

That’s a good point, Tim, a very good point. Nathan’s original post did that well. I would love to see more such posts, pointing out the good things found. Perhaps I should start doing that myself, though I admit to no longer frequenting many of those blogs.

I’m just commenting on the comments which seems to say what I indicated. Which is fine. I’m just not interested in eating my words later, as would be the case suggested in comments of “Ingrid said MHC was not the bride of Christ but now her buddy Corely wen there and says otherwise” — I’m sure Corely will have things to say in the future that may not be such pleasant eating to some over here, and there are irritating people like me who will come back to this post, lift a “Corely is great” quote, and drop it in the mix, just to prove a point.

I should be a better person and not do that.

Tomorrow, maybe.

34   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 27th, 2007 at 12:16 pm

Julie,

I agree to a point.

Yet, having dealt with JB in the past, he is VERY selective and can change his story…

We debated whether one can judge some one’s salvation… I said no that is God’s job and JB stated it was our mandate to judge other’s fruit…

Toward the end he stated he never said we can judge someones salvation, he changed it to “eternal destiny”.

To me there is not much difference between the two, but he needed a way out so i let it go… yet as I have gone around the blogosphere, there seems to be those that follow me and tell JB that I am slandering him… and he mentions that at times… Funny how it seems he actually follows me around and then in the middle of a almost good conversation shows up and them lies about me and turns the person against me….

I see Jim and others as sincere, yet grossly ill informed and too drunk on their selfish ambition to really care if they are honest or dishonest.

But I do get your point and must admit I also do as you stated.

iggy

35   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 27th, 2007 at 12:23 pm

The larger point is this, even if Jim identifies some authentic areas that need correction on crn.info, how can he never speak correction to some of the quotes and comments from his inner circle blog mates and retain impartial credibility?

I attempted to speak to Ken about some of his rhetoric for months before printing an open letter, even though I agree with many of his views and write about it myself. Are you telling me that Jim never sees any obvious demeaning and over the top verbiage from Ken or Ingrid or others?

We all must speak to those with whom we disagree, those with whom we agree, and mostly to ourselves.

36   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
December 27th, 2007 at 12:44 pm

having dealt with JB in the past, he is VERY selective and can change his story

I’m no stranger to that. (See the update at the bottom of this page.)

My thinking is this:

I can keep track of all these things (which I’ve apparently done, since I provided you a link) and sort of build this overwhelming case that gnaws at me and comes out in the way I respond and react to such people which lists all the history and says “see, this is how you are!”, or I can give them the benefit of the doubt (to the point of being naive, I know) and let it go and deal with the current hand instead of resurrecting the old ones.

I technically can’t know if someone did something intentionally or not — I’m not privy to what’s going on inside their mind — but I can affect the way I deal with it. Benefit of the doubt (and believe me, I seriously doubt the motives in many instances). This doesn’t mean I am some kind of Pollyanna. You know, walk softly, carry a big stick. A little Matthew 10:16, if you will.

37   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
December 27th, 2007 at 12:44 pm

For the record (as if my opinion actually counted), I thought the Mike Corley article was pretty well written.

===
Iggy:
1) I never accused you or anyone else here of writing ANYTHING “against GCC church.”

2) Was Mr. Corley’s only motivation in attending MH because he had previously written something against them? (You stated: “since I have never written against GCC church I really do not think I will need to attend”)

3) I wasn’t aware that MH paid Mr. Corley’s way to Seattle?

4) Where/how in the WORLD did you make a connection to Ken Silva based on my one sentence post??!!! You are AMAZING. Iggy’s “Six Degrees of Ken Silva” strikes again! Man, I don’t know what that guy did or didn’t do to you, but good grief…GIVE IT UP!!! It’s like a booger on your finger…wipe it flaming wood if you have to, but move on for crying out loud!

5) You’re a very “interesting” guy. I was encouraged to read one of your posts recently in which you alluded to holding to a preterist/amill escatology. I bet we’d be friends under different circumstances.

===
Nathan:
You’ve actually been to GCC more than a gajillion times? (You stated: “Been there more times than I can count”) You ought to be closing in on that perfect attendance pin by now. I’ve only been there two times–going back this Spring.

“It is not us against each other. It is them against others and us for the others.” Pa-ta-TOE, pa-TA-toe.

38   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 27th, 2007 at 1:09 pm

Julie,
Here’s the thing; I think that JB is probably of above average intelligence. As Tim pointed out he had to sift through the comments and the very next comment by Bill H agrees with Phil. I find it hard to believe that was an accident. I suppose it could have been

39   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
December 27th, 2007 at 1:13 pm

Keith,

GCC is about 30 minutes from my house. In my college days, I would drive out there every now-and-then over a four year period. Maybe not a agjillion times, but more than 100. it’s your typical traditional church.

As for Mike Corley… he obviously disagrees with us on many levels. However, I have had some conversations with Mike over the past few months. He seems to be looking for the truth about the modern movement of Jesus Christ (not just following mindless propaganda of his peers). he has toned down his harsh rhetoric, and seems to be more open and honest than others in his camp.

40   Bruce Gerencser    
December 27th, 2007 at 1:16 pm

I have found that are enemies are never as bad as we think they are when we meet them face to face. Meeting someone face to face forces us to see their humanity. As they stand there with their wife/kids, we think “wow they are human”

Discussing and debating truth has never been the problem for me. It is when we attack the person that I have a problem with. That’s the reason I stopped blogging. I started with good intentions but with time I became just like those I oppose.

Any step towards a mutual understanding is a good step in my opinion.

Bruce

41   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
December 27th, 2007 at 1:32 pm

1) I never accused you or anyone else here of writing ANYTHING “against GCC church.”

No but you humorously implied that an article should be written to refute an implied view of GCC.

2) Was Mr. Corley’s only motivation in attending MH because he had previously written something against them? (You stated: “since I have never written against GCC church I really do not think I will need to attend”

According to the article it was:


It was our first full day in Seattle and one of the main reasons for our trip was to attend worship at the very popular and controversial Mars Hill Church, where Mark Driscoll is pastor.

As for writing stuff against Driscoll in the past the only thing I could find on Mikes blog was the following:

This is the first time I have ever posted anything critical of Driscoll. I have appreciated his defense of the atonement and his willingness to confront the neo-liberalism of other Emerging leaders honestly. But I don’t think his perpetually coarse language in the pulpit and his apparent preoccupation with off-color terms and ribald subject matter are merely minor flaws in an otherwise healthy ministry. It is a serious shortcoming.


Found Here

42   Kyle in WI    
December 27th, 2007 at 1:47 pm

Yup I think Ingard went a little overboard. From everything I have seen and heard Mark D. is a good pastor. I also like that the whole service according to Mike was gospel and preaching centered. AMEN!

Couple side notes to stir the pot a little.

Joe M.

We can know whose prayers are answered. The bible tells us. I would say yours from your profession are becasue you are IN Christ.

Also is it a sin to have the wrong theology??
Is it a sin to preach the wrong theology??

43   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
December 27th, 2007 at 1:49 pm

Chris:
Key word= “humorously;”
adj.
1. Full of or characterized by humor; funny: i.e. a humorous story.
2. Employing or showing humor; witty: i.e. a humorous writer.

Yes, I “humorously” implied/inferred CRN.Info could write a nice review of GCC, just as Mike Corley had written a nice review of MH. You don’t have to if you don’t want to. Sheesh.

Every comment from someone other than a CRN.Info “regular” isn’t an attack. I try to balance my comments around here. I’m sure you’re all very nice people, that whole-heartedly believe the things you post. I don’t dislike or hate any of you. I was just trying to join in the conversation in a light-hearted way. If I’m not welcome to do that, just say so.

44   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 27th, 2007 at 1:51 pm

Which Theology Kyle? The wrong theology of Calvinism or Freewill? The wrong Theology of women being in ministry or not being in ministry? The wrong Theology that Ken Silva could possibly be right? The wrong Theology that it is OK to kill those who we deem heretics? Which Theology Kyle? How far up the Theological trail shall we go?

45   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 27th, 2007 at 1:52 pm

How about the wrong Theology of not proof reading your stuff? Who’s “Ingard?”

46   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 27th, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Everybody Relax. This medium is a hard way to understand inflections and every thing else that is being communicated. SHEESH

47   Kyle in WI    
December 27th, 2007 at 2:13 pm

Just a question. I never stated whose is right.
Just wondering if you guys think it a sin to have the wrong thoelogy and to preach the wrong theology?

48   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
December 27th, 2007 at 2:18 pm

Kyle,
I’m sure we all have wrong theology to some extent. There are some things that are non-negotiable, but on others there seems to be a lot of wiggle room.

If it’s a sin to preach wrong theology, Hell is going to be filled with a lot of pastors.

49   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 27th, 2007 at 2:57 pm

Jim has made an update to make the quote more accurate.

50   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 27th, 2007 at 3:36 pm

Keith,

Points 1,2,3,4, and whatever else…

You really put a lot of words in my mouth and seemed to only read and understand half of what I stated…

But I still see you as a good guy and a friend…

iggy

51   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
December 27th, 2007 at 4:11 pm

Iggy:
Seriously, where did I put words in your mouth? How could/did I misunderstand what you wrote? My original post contained NOT ONE single ref to Ken Silva and yet you managed to bring him up in your response to me. Your problem with Ken Silva is your problem with Ken Silva. I do not personally know the man; I have corresponded with him via email or my blog a few times, but couldn’t pick him out of a line up if my life depended on it.

I guess I’m not following you. It’s very hard for me to see an understandable response in “Points 1, 2, 3, 4, and whatever else…” Please expound if you time.

52   Bruce Gerencser    
December 27th, 2007 at 4:19 pm

Kyle,

We all have wrong theology. We are all sinners. All preachers preach wrong theology. So what we have is sinners that preach wrong theology. Welcome to the human race.

Anyone who says their theology is absolutely right is an arrogant fool AND probably pretty ignorant.

At one time I preaches premil/pretrib/dispy eschatology. I now preach amil/post trib eschatology. At one time I was a Calvinist. Now I am not. And I could go on and on……..

My right theology turned out to be the wrong theology and I am sure that will happen again, and again, and again. Is it a sin to be wrong?

Bruce

53   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 27th, 2007 at 4:23 pm

Keith said,

couldn’t pick him out of a line up if my life depended on it

.
There are some that would say that is because he and Curt Shillings blood on his sock have something in common. (Just adding a little humor)

54   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 27th, 2007 at 4:35 pm

Keith,

Comment from Keith
Time: December 27, 2007, 8:17 am

When can we expect the “CRN.Info” goes to Grace Community Church”post…written by Iggy or Tim!? 8^)>

(Before anyone gets their BVDs in a wad, that’s HUMOR.)

Now, let’s look at that “humorous” statement… which I took in that way.

1. You are stating there “humorously” I have written things against GCC which I have not. I only have spoken against JM’s theology…

2. As far as Mike Corley’s motive, as I can deduce from his own words, “We really didn’t know what to expect when we arrived. The stories of the services at MHC have varied from no scripture reading to the congregation sitting in the dark, chanting. So we were a wee bit anxious about what we would experience.” So I assume it was to see if anyone of those “stories” were true or not for himself… and to that I say “YEAH! KUDOS! GO MIKE! YIPPEEE! PRAISE GOD!!!” or something like that…. = )

3. I did not imply that MH paid for Mike to go there… but Ken has attacked viciously Tony Jones and was invited by Julie to have dinner… Ken has declined… I only stated that I would go if GCC paid my way to go… this does not mean the same thing that MH paid Mike… You seemed to read that in this yourself.

4. This must have been to my comment that stated,

“Now, if I was making money by writing criticisms against people I would make a point to go…

Notice I have never stated that Ken teaches wrong things at his church? I only have interacted with him in the arena he is most vocal.

JM makes money for his books and Ken makes money from his “ministry”… that was the connection. I stated if I made money that way I would make all the effort to go to the people and talk to them before I wrote things against them… Like Matt Slick does… check out how he does things… I do not agree with him on some things but I appreciate that he actually talks and discusses without PREJUDGING the person. As far as what Ken has done to me, I have earned my voice as I have gone to Ken in private and have been attacked publicly by him. Notice I never say he is not saved? Notice I often state pray for him and others? I have been mocked time and again for stating to pray for them and even earned a post by Ken stating I am his Nemesis… which is not true.

Now, I have even defended Ken here at times…. and once again I will… I think that you calling Ken a “booger” is uncalled for…

Keith, I consider us friends though I never met you… I take a lot of heat for my views, mostly because the other does not even take time to find out what I believe, such as Chris P. they just see some buzz words that they attached some bizarre definitions to and like a mad bull charge without a thought to the results… as long as they are right in their minds and can destroy the other they feel vindicated… and that is just sad.

I see Jesus as the Truth being my defender… He is God and defends me. I do not need to defend my defender and see that as saying God is not omnipotent and sovereign… I see many in the “Truth wars” actually stating things about God that makes Him less than God. They speak that He is sovereign, yet their “abstract detached truth” needs protecting from pagans and apostates… this demeans God for Who He is.

I stand that Truth is true… it needs no qualifier to be more true.. and to detach Truth from the Person of Jesus is to get really sick ideas of what our faith is about. That is what I stand against.

Apostates need fear God… heretics need to fear Truth… Truth will stand with or without me protecting it. There need be no war to protect truth for who can protect God? Can you?

be blessed,
iggy

55   Kyle in WI    
December 27th, 2007 at 4:40 pm

Keith

I would say yes. It is a sin to be wrong. But then there is a disciction between purposefully misrepresenting the truth and a person with a heart for God that just misunderstanding the bible. Both is a sin, but one is worse than the other. Like the devil he used the bible and twisted it into a lie!

This is why it is a fearful thing to be a preach/teacher. This is why we must study to show ourselves to be approved.

Phil,

Heaven will be full of pastor that taught the wrong theology also.

Bruce

I would not say all preachers teach wrong theology. That means that the bible is not clear enough for us to rightly understand it. Althouhg becasue of sin there was only one preacher to ever teach correctly all the time, Jesus. I also think it is a sin to be wrong about the bible, when teaching, but there are varying levels of sin for this.

There is a lot of wiggley room for many issues, Revaltions, but there are some things that are too clear to have any wiggle room at all.

Sorry i do not know how any of this relates to the topic at hand. Well it kinda does since it centers around a church and the pastor teaching/preaching.

56   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 27th, 2007 at 4:40 pm

Iggy,
You wrote a freaking novel and you didn’t once mention the brilliance that was my Shilling quote.

57   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 27th, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Kudos to Mr. Corley, and not so much to Old Jim at New Truth…

58   Matt    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
December 27th, 2007 at 4:51 pm

Kyle-

There are different levels of sin? I don’t find this in my Bible.

Is adultery worse then lying? Not in God’s eyes.

59   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 27th, 2007 at 4:54 pm

I might have been writing the nove at that point… it took some time to compose… = )

I had to look this all up so honestly I am missing the brilliance that I am sure is there…

So fake blood on Shillings socks is like picking Ken Silva out of a lineup…

Joe… let me in on the secret… I am stumped… LOL!

iggy

60   Kyle in WI    
December 27th, 2007 at 4:57 pm

Sure look at the punishments in the OT. There are worse sins than others, now they all brings death the punishments where different. Just like rewards in heaven, so is punishment in hell.

It all goes back to intent, look at killing someone in the OT and the punishment for the intent of the person comminting the sin.

Sin is sin, if you broke one part of the law you have broken the entire law but I believe that there will be different punishments, as was in the OT, in hell just as there will be different rewards for believers in heaven.

What do you guys think about this? Are the different levels of sin and punishment or am I total of base on this one??

61   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 27th, 2007 at 5:07 pm

“Is adultery worse then lying? Not in God’s eyes.”

Yes and no.

62   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
December 27th, 2007 at 5:07 pm

Kyle,

If you think it’s a sin to be wrong, all I can say is that I’m glad you weren’t my calculus teacher. I don’t think being wrong in and of itself is a sin. We will all hold some wrong thinking this side of eternity and probably won’t even realize most of it. Thankfully, God’s grace covers us.

I don’t being a Christian automatically make one correct. Actually, I think this is a common misunderstanding of a lot of Christians that just because they’re saved it means their opinions are correct.

63   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 27th, 2007 at 5:11 pm

It is not a sin to be wrong, it is a sin to disagree with me.

64   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
December 27th, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Sin is sin, but consequences of sins can vary. Actually, I think probably, though, the sins we consider “small” may end up being bigger than we think.

I think the idea of different types of punishment in Hell is not Biblical, though. That seems like a holdover from the Catholic idea of purgatory.

Also, I don’t really like the idea of presenting heaven as a system of rewards. In the end, isn’t that still a self-serving thing? If we’re serving God just for a reward, it seems to miss the point of a lot of what Jesus said.

65   Kyle in WI    
December 27th, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Well in genrally being wrong is not a sin, but I was more refering to handling God’s word, so it is a sin to be wrong. Again we only see in a mirror only deemly right now, but also God’s truth is understandable by us. That is where a genorous(loving) orthdox comes in and most understand this, there are a few that seem to think they have ever jot of the of God’s truth perfectly known by them but in reality there are so many secondary issues that we all miss. That is why God’ grace is amazing because it even covers this sin for all thos who believe in Christ.

66   Kyle in WI    
December 27th, 2007 at 5:31 pm

Well Jesus told us to store up for oursleves treaure in heaven. So he is saying that there is rewards for us in heaven and there are varying levels of reward as Paul said our works will be put through the fire and purified. Now i have no clue how this works and it has always confused me. We all are justified by Christ and have His perfect life imputed to us, so how can there be different rewards in heaven?!?

Also the idea of varying levels of punishment in hell is nothing like pugatory, but you already know that. Here is some of Jesus teaching on His judgment. Notice some people will be able to bear His judgment better than others.

Matt

21″Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths.[a] If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”

I agree there is no “small” sin. All sin leads to death! How is it that christian recieve different rewards in heaven? This has always preplexed me.

67   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
December 27th, 2007 at 5:31 pm

Old Jim at New Truth

Expert wordsmithing.

I didn’t catch that the first couple of reads.

68   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
December 27th, 2007 at 5:41 pm

Julie,
I agree.

69   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
December 27th, 2007 at 5:55 pm

Iggy: It is near quitting time here, so I’ll respond when I get home. Didn’t want you to think I was ignoring your “novel.” (Joe said that, not me.)

70   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 27th, 2007 at 5:58 pm

Iggy,
There are some that say Curt Shilling put Ketch-up on his sock and said that it was his ankle bleeding to “rally the troops.” There are some who believe that it was all a fabrication of Mr. Shilling and Mr. Epstein to whip the other Red Sox players into a frenzy. There are also some who believe that Mr. Silva is an amalgamation of writers who are hoping to whip the troops into a frenzy to take America back for God. I personally thought the correlation was beautiful and humorous all at once. My wife’s always telling me I’m not as funny as I think I am.

71   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 27th, 2007 at 6:26 pm

It was brilliant… but lost on one who is “Red Sox’s” impaired let alone sports impaired….

I had not heard that Ken was not real… that he was a bunch of different writers… boy that does explain a lot… like who the editor is and why there is no picture of Ken. (And my dart board needs a new center! j/k… )

I do think he is a real person… just highly motivated by things not so godly.

iggy

72   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 27th, 2007 at 6:29 pm

Keith,

I would never think that you would be ignoring me… I mean how could you? LOL!

i am not sure there is much more to say really…

So pray for me if you see a weakness and I will also for you… and let us all pray for Ken and Chris P and whoever else is caught up in all this nonsense of protecting God.. OK?

be blessed my friend,
iggy

73   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 27th, 2007 at 6:53 pm

Expert wordsmithing.

I didn’t catch that the first couple of reads.

I can’t claim it originally – I believe it was Tim’s…

74   F Whittenburg    http://www.christiannewbirth.com
December 27th, 2007 at 7:47 pm

“I stand that Truth is true… it needs no qualifier to be more true.. and to detach Truth from the Person of Jesus is to get really sick ideas of what our faith is about. That is what I stand against.”

I here that same concept spoken of in different forms:

The Reformers claim Sola Scriptura (Word alone).

Emergents say the Word of God has truth in it, but other religions have truth also. (Elephant analogy). You just can’t know the truth for sure.

Catholics say the Word of God is true, you just can’t personally interpet it. The Church has the final say so in the correct interpetation.

All these statments have some “truth”.

What did Jesus (the Word of God, Word made Flesh, Word of Truth) have to say about “Word alone”, Iggy?

If I bear witness of myself, my witness IS NOT TRUE. There is ANOTHER that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true (John 5:31,32 KJV).

Who was that other “witness”?

And GOD, which knoweth the hearts, BARE THEM WITNESS, giving them the HOLY GHOST, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith (Acts 15:8,9 KJV).

Yes Iggy, you can have the truth in Jesus, but without the “spiritual newbirth” you can never personally “know” that Truth! And all the other religions that Emergents look to for “truth” do not believe in the “spiritual newbirth”! Some religions believe that everyone is born with “a spark of divinity” but just need come in contact with it through some religion, spiritual leader, or mystic practice. The Bible plainly states that man is NOT born with a “spark of divinity”!

That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and WITHOUT GOD in the world: (Ephesians 2:12 KJV)

Natural man (in Adam) does not become “spiritual” (in Christ) until the Holy Spirit indwells them (i.e. born of the Spirit). That is why Jesus said, You must be born again!

F Whittenburg

75   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
December 27th, 2007 at 8:22 pm

Iggy:
Here’s how I see/understand things at this point:

1) I am not that familiar with Mike Corley, other than to know that he has a radio show, and according to this site, he has previously not spoken favorably re: Mars Hill or Mark Driscoll–don’t ask for quotes, I’m speaking in generalities here. In recent days, Mr. Corley wrote the review which sparked this current post/thread. Nathan liked what Mr. Corley wrote; you liked it; Robbymac and Matt liked it; all God’s chirren liked it.

I read this post; I then read Mike Corley’s review. I thought both were “good,” for lack of a better word. I made a simple statement/asked a simple question–tongue-in-cheek and you were ready to charge hell with a squirt gun!

2) I used yours and Tim’s names in my original post because you both write passionately about what you believe. I know–at least I think I do–that you do not agree with some of John MacArthur’s teachings, but I never intended to suggest that either of you had spoken ill of the man or Grace Community Church. IT WAS A JOKE!!!!!

3) I don’t know where Mike Corley lives, but I doubt he travelled across the entire United States at his own expense simply to write a review of a church or pastor he may or may not agree with. That was my point. YOU are the one that brought up the idea of someone else paying your way–why that matters is beyond me. I didn’t read anywhere that MH had invited Mike Corley to come to Seattle. I just assumed he had some other business there or was close enough and he dropped in.

4) I’m STILL not making the connection between this post, Mike Corley, Mars Hill AND KEN SILVA or TONY JONES! And I didn’t call Ken Silva anything!!! Good grief! It was an analogy based on the FACT that you always seem to bring the conversation back to this “feud” between you and Mr. Silva.

Me: Hey, Iggy. How’s it going?
Iggy: Hey Keith. I’m good. How ’bout you?
Me: Oh, I’m great, too.
Iggy: Speaking of great, that Ken Silva really grates on my nerves…..

Iggy, my “point” was if Ken is that repulsive, annoying or whatever to you (like a booger on your finger would be), just get rid of the thing! MOVE ON! PLEASE, MOOOVVVVVEEEEE OOOOOONNNNNNNNN!

Wrapping things up:
You probably wouldn’t take so much “heat for [your] views” if you didn’t approach most conversations as a personal attack.

No, I can’t protect God—but then, I didn’t ask a question related to that topic. Where did that one come from?

Iggy, Chris L., Tim, Nathan, Julie, Matt, Joe and anyone else I may have offended with my “Grace Community Church” comment-I’M SORRY!!!!! I repent in sackcloth and ashes. I don’t deserve to live

…and I’m not implying that ALL of you were offended; just making sure I cover my bases.

76   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
December 27th, 2007 at 8:24 pm

There are different levels of sin? I don’t find this in my Bible.

Actually… I’ve always wondered this. There appear to be different judgments according to what we’ve done, so I wonder if there isn’t something I’m missing here.

We started to talk about this at Sunday School this past Sunday, but class ended and I don’t recall feeling resolved about the discussion.

My first response would be “sin is sin — all bad” to which I now wonder if it isn’t “sin is sin — all bad, but different sin offering different judgment” which then indicates, to me at least, that if all sin isn’t judged exactly the same, there are worse sins. Of course, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (which I don’t get the definition of) is apparently the ultimate sin, again indicating a hierarchy of sin.

I’m actually annoyed with myself for now pondering this, since I often grow tired of Christians seemingly placing some sins on a “that’s way worse!” kind of pedestal and ignoring “lesser” sins.

Someone take this and explain it for me, if they have time, and if you understand what I’m clumsily trying to get at here.

77   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 27th, 2007 at 8:26 pm

Keith, no offense here. I’ve been quite open about my feelings in regards to this gentleman. And as I’ve already stated, been there. :)

78   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
December 27th, 2007 at 8:30 pm

Thanks, Joe. Not attempting to jack the thread here, but one thing I know you and I DO agree on is Pensacola CC is CRAZY!!!

79   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 27th, 2007 at 8:35 pm

Any sin makes us a sinner, and in that it is equal. Line up every person on the California coast and command them to swim to Hawaii and everyone drowns regardless how far they get. In that, sin is equal.

But even in the OT God had different punishments for different sins, and God lists certain sins in the NT as ones that should be avoided. And there is one unpardonable sin.

80   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 27th, 2007 at 8:43 pm

Keith,

LOL!

I have so moved on… oh by the way Ken Silva made a comment on my blog today stating more lies about me… funny huh?

LOL!

And it’s true!

iggy

81   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
December 27th, 2007 at 8:51 pm

Iggy, you and Ken need to go to “time out.” I have a brother-in-law that, for whatever reason, says stuff to me/about me all the time just to get a rise out of me. Mostly lies and dumb accusations. Don’t ask me why.

I just smile and thank him for his input. Just don’t acknowledge it. I usually return his comments by doing something nice for him. “Heap burning coals.”

82   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 27th, 2007 at 8:55 pm

That is why I asked you to pray for me Keith… I need friends like you.

iggy

83   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
December 27th, 2007 at 9:44 pm

Every comment from someone other than a CRN.Info “regular” isn’t an attack. I try to balance my comments around here. I’m sure you’re all very nice people, that whole-heartedly believe the things you post. I don’t dislike or hate any of you. I was just trying to join in the conversation in a light-hearted way. If I’m not welcome to do that, just say so.

Keith I didn’t mean anything negative about what you wrote. I very much appreciate your comments and the dialogue here. I was merely trying to clarify. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

Peace and blessings

84   F Whittenburg    http://www.christiannewbirth.com
December 27th, 2007 at 9:46 pm

“I would not say all preachers teach wrong theology. That means that the bible is not clear enough for us to rightly understand it. Althouhg becasue of sin there was only one preacher to ever teach correctly all the time, Jesus.”

But even Jesus left the “deeper” teaching’s of God’s truth to another source. Jesus said we need a “Spirit guide (Holy Spirit)”.

I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, HE WILL GUIDE you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come (John 16:12,13 KJV).

A pastor or teacher can speak the “words of truth” to you from scripture, but only the Holy Spirit can give you understanding of that truth.

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may KNOW him that IS TRUE, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This IS THE TRUE GOD, and eternal life (1 John 5:20 KJV).

Paul taught the same thing in 1 Corinthians 2:9-16 KJV.

F Whittenburg

85   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 27th, 2007 at 9:53 pm

Salvation theology is paramount. “No one comes to the Father but by me”. There are many important issues that are not directly germaine to salvation, but some issues if left to their own devices seem to chamge salvation theology.

Theology is interconnected, and some doctrines impact basic salvation doctrines. That is why all Scripture is given by inspiration and is beneficial for Spiritual growth. If we relegate some Scriptures as irrelevant, we run the risk of eventually considering all Scripture as ambiguous.

86   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
December 27th, 2007 at 9:54 pm

There are some that say Curt Shilling put Ketch-up on his sock and said that it was his ankle bleeding to “rally the troops.” There are some who believe that it was all a fabrication of Mr. Shilling and Mr. Epstein to whip the other Red Sox players into a frenzy.

I will not tolerate the blatant heresy coming from the mouth of Yankee fan about my beloved Red Sox.

LOL…Joe I’m still really upset that we have failed to get together.

If I put a gift in one of the boxes would you get it?

87   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 27th, 2007 at 10:08 pm

Chris, I don’t know. Probably, if it had my name on it. You might be able to leave it with Security. Or I could have a friend meet you, or we’ll hit up next time your in town. Probably the best bet would be to leave it in the prayer room. If you want to do that, I’ll let my friend Dan know.
BTW, you gotta admit that comparison was beautiful.

88   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
December 27th, 2007 at 10:16 pm

Yes Joe it was a brilliant!

Okay I’ll leave it with Dan.

Have a safe trip to Ohio!

89   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 27th, 2007 at 10:19 pm

He’ll be in the prayer room at the back of the shed.

90   F Whittenburg    http://www.christiannewbirth.com
December 27th, 2007 at 10:24 pm

“Salvation theology is paramount. “No one comes to the Father but by me”. ”

Paul expounds on that even further in his letter to the Ephesians. It’s still takes the Trinity, not just Father and Son.

For thru him (Jesus) we both have access by ONE SPIRIT (Holy Spirit) unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God (Ephesians 2:18,19 KJV).

Notice how this verse says we have access to God thru Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, and not thru a Pope, apostle, prohpet, Levitical prest, senior pastor, cell / small group leader, etc. That is why you cannot be kicked out or excommunicted out of the true church. The “roll” of the church is written in Heaven (Hebrews 12:22-24 KJV)! If a church on the earth was to strike my name from their roll, I tell you most assuredly, WHEN THE ROLL IS CALLED UP YONDER I”LL BE THERE :)

Halleljuah

91   robbymac    http://www.robbymac.org
December 27th, 2007 at 10:25 pm

I like Keith. He doesn’t pull punches but he doesn’t hit below the belt. We probably agree more than we disagree, if we were to compare notes more extensively.

Glad you’re stickin’ around, Keith, and while I can’t speak for anyone but myself, I find your comments interesting and intelligent, whether or not we’re 100% on the same page. :)

92   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
December 27th, 2007 at 10:29 pm

Iggy (and Ken if you’re reading this) to clarify: I am not implying anything about Ken in my comments. As I’ve previously stated, I don’t know Ken personally. We have communicated via internet/email. In my experience, he has always been cordial toward me. Iggy, your experience — sounds like — has been different. I cannot and will not speak to that. I’m sorry if that is the case. I will pray for you and for Ken. We better ALL start trying to get along around here—we’ve got an eternity of being neighbors headed our way.
===
Chris: Thanks for the clarification and apology.

93   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
December 28th, 2007 at 1:13 am

and I’m not implying that ALL of you were offended; just making sure I cover my bases.

I’m offended that you thought I was offended.

(bwahahahaha)

94   Kyle in WI    
December 28th, 2007 at 10:33 am

Julie. Here is alittle explaniation about varying degrees of punishment in hell. This is a possiblity, nowhere does it state it word for word in the bible. There are sundry rewards in heaven for our “works” on earth. There are lots of passages that refer to people’s being able to bear punishment(judgment) better than others. Also the different punishments in the OT would leave on to believe this also. So will Hitler recieve great punishment than say a great catholic saint like Mother Teresa?

This is not a debate about if Mother Teresa is saved or not just using here as an example of a great life that can still end up in hell despite all the “good works.”

Here is a little quote from gotquestion.org

“Although it does not specifically say so, the Bible does seem to indicate that there might be different levels of punishment in Hell. In Revelation 20:11-15, the people are judged “according to what they had done as recorded in the books” (Revelation 20:12). All the people at this judgment, though, are thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:13-15). So, perhaps, the purpose of the judgment is to determine how severe the punishment in Hell. Whatever the case, being thrown into a slightly less hot portion of the lake of fire is not consolation to those who are still doomed for eternity.”

Here is a book on hell also. I love these books, there is a whole series on sundy topics, because they give sundry views on a given christian topic.

http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=21268

95   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 10:36 am

Thanks, Kyle. I would submit, though, that the different levels in hell will be a small comfort to any who end up there regardless which depth of torure they warrant.

96   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 10:50 am

Kyle,

I would also note that, according to Rev 20:14-15, “Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”, which could be an indication of a cessation of existence for those souls.

The bottom line is: we don’t know, and apparently knowing about how it works isn’t all that important in the grand scheme of things.

97   Kyle in WI    
December 28th, 2007 at 10:54 am

Yup that is a possibility of God crushing use into non-exsitence. I really do not belieive in this one, cessastionisn, I think it is evdient through the bible that it is a enternal never ending punishment. These are secondary issues, I agree, but they are better conversations and i able to learn more from this stuff than all the bickering about the bickers.:)

98   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
December 28th, 2007 at 1:02 pm

My respect for Mike Corley has increased greatly. It saddens me greatly that Christians are sending ridiculous rumors to Mike about the nature of Mars Hill. That is sin, and those individuals need to repent. Gossip and slander have no place in a Christ-follower’s life.

99   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 1:20 pm

“which could be an indication of a cessation of existence for those souls.”

A giant leap. Beside no Pauline support, what possibly could be God’s purpose to torment some until the Lake of fire, or do you suggest the cessation of existance immediately upon the death of an unbeliever?

100   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 2:04 pm

“which could be an indication of a cessation of existence for those souls.”

A giant leap. Beside no Pauline support, what possibly could be God’s purpose to torment some until the Lake of fire, or do you suggest the cessation of existance immediately upon the death of an unbeliever?

One argument I have heard is that ‘torment’ between death and the final judgment would be separation from God and everyone else until that time, whereas ‘paradise’ would be spent in some sort of state with each other and with Jesus (per his comment to the thief on the cross) until that final time. Who knows if time will “flow” the same way we experience it there…

There are numerous views of the afterlife, each with varying degrees of scriptural support, with the “classic” view actually based on Jewish belief developed during the Babylonian captivity.

I’m just not sure how useful it is to decide which one is the most correct, since it is not explicitly spelled out in scripture, and since our temporal belief and action are stressed far more, and are much more concrete, than what will come in eternity – which is more a matter of faith in what has not been seen…

101   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
December 28th, 2007 at 2:06 pm

As someone who finds himself normally in support of what you guys call ODMs, I was very impressed with Mike Corley’s overall spirit and approach to this matter. Very mature and responsible (not to say that much can’t be gleaned from blogs and websites without actually visiting).

In regards to the question of what happens when we die, isn’t the bible very clear on this?

When any person (saved or unsaved) dies, they are dead (they don’t go to heaven or hell). It is at the Resurrection (future event marked by Jesus’ triumphal return) that the judgment is made – they that have done good receive the resurrection of life and they that have done evil, the resurrection of damnation.

In the end, death (or hell) itself DIES (as Chris L quoted in Rev 20).

102   Kyle in WI    
December 28th, 2007 at 2:09 pm

Rick
There is support for the desrtuction of souls in hell. Although I do not believe the doctrine to be correct. At one time I thought it to be totally unorthodox possible even meaning the person holding the view is an apostate.

The book I linked to gives agruments for that perspective and many orthdox people through history have held that view. So if intrested check out the book link above in my previous post.

What makes us think that the soul is immortal? Is more of a greek philosophy or is it biblical to think the soul of man is immortal?

103   Kyle in WI    
December 28th, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Paul

When we die we are present with the Lord and the heathen is in torment. Now this is not heaven as you correctly stated, but the other Pual, apstoles, says that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Maybe the whole space time things figures into this. But when we die we are with the Lord.

Also the man reason for an infinte hell is that we have an infinte punishment from an infinte God because our sins are against Him. That is why the incarnation was the only way to save us. The sacrifice had to be able to satisfy an infinte wrath and penalty for His sheep.

The man point is that there is a hell for the punishment of the unjust and there is a heaven for the rewards of the just. Praise God for sending Christ for us to resuce us from hell and give us eternal life!

104   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
December 28th, 2007 at 2:56 pm

I don’t think I’m going to add myself to the Mike Corely cheerleading squad just yet.

I might now quietly say a few cheers. Not so much for Corely, but for the example.

105   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 2:57 pm

It is just one more modern step in the complete dismantling of sound doctrine. The teaching of a non-eternal hell not only departs from hsitorical Christianity, it is partial universalism, meaning everyone will be saved while no one will exist that is not.

It is as my unsaved uncle suggested, “When you die that’s it, there is no life after death”. I suggested that view was his hope. I guess he might be correct.

Our Human fairness cannot embrace the horror of an eternal hell, which has overwhelming Biblical support. I guess Wesley, Calvin, Spurgeon, Moody, Tozer, Ravenhill, Whitefield, Finney, Luther, and a long list of men who spent much time in the Word and prayer, who knew Greek and Hebrew, were just poor unenlightend simpletons who did not have the advantage of our superior intellect.

Some save with fear…

106   Kyle in WI    
December 28th, 2007 at 3:21 pm

http://www.theopedia.com/Annihilationism#Popular_advocates

Here is a good link for Annihilism, it is not something new and some soundly orthdox people have held they view along with hereitics.

107   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
December 28th, 2007 at 3:22 pm

4 times in a single chapter – John 6:

39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Paul also clearly stated:

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.

108   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
December 28th, 2007 at 3:33 pm

It is just one more modern step in the complete dismantling of sound doctrine. The teaching of a non-eternal hell not only departs from hsitorical Christianity, it is partial universalism, meaning everyone will be saved while no one will exist that is not.

I am not an annhilationist but this type of rhetoric is really ratcheted up beyond what is called for. “The complete dismantling of sound doctrine”? I mean really. Can’t you just say its wrong?

Also, its interesting that you refer to this as “modern” and then use the inherently modern appeal to authority:

I guess Wesley, Calvin, Spurgeon, Moody, Tozer, Ravenhill, Whitefield, Finney, Luther, and a long list of men who spent much time in the Word and prayer, who knew Greek and Hebrew, were just poor unenlightend simpletons who did not have the advantage of our superior intellect.

109   Kyle in WI    
December 28th, 2007 at 3:34 pm

Yup

So it could be our view of time becasue paul also says that we we are away from this body we are with the Lord. Not sure how all of it works, but when I die and am absent from this body I will be with the Lord.

6So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, 7for we walk by faith, not by sight. 8Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

110   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 3:43 pm

Exactly, Tim.

I’m not annhilationist either, but I recognize that the view exists and that it is not heretical.

For what happens at the time we die, I’ve read/heard three beliefs, all with scriptural support:

1) We go to the grave, Sheol, “asleep” – unaware of what is happening until the time of judgment.
2) We go either to paradise or torment – awaiting the time of judgment
3) Freed from our bodies, we become timeless and move immediately to the final judgment

After judgment, I am familiar with these views:

1) Those who are covered by grace (with dispute on the method of this) go on to the new earth and the eternal kingdom and those who are not covered (with dispute on the method of this) go on to eternal torment.

2) Those who are covered by grace (with dispute on the method of this) go on to the new earth and the eternal kingdom and those who are not covered (with dispute on the method of this) are thrown into the lake of fire and cease to exist, as it is the ’second death’.

3) All are covered by grace and none are sent to eternal punishment.

In all of these views, I only consider the last one (Universalism) to be heretical. As far as picking one, I have not and don’t intend to, as I don’t see overwhelming scriptural support for any one view, particularly as it would relate to any implications relative to orthopraxy.

111   robbymac    http://www.robbymac.org
December 28th, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Universalism is heretical, I agree. The other views are interesting to debate, but I tend to not let that debate cloud certain personal issues for me: for example, my unsaved, non-Christ-following, pre-Christian (insert preferred label here _____________) younger brother. And his wife and teenaged daughter.

Real people, with real faces, names, and eternal destinies — kinda changes your heart and focus! :)

112   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
December 28th, 2007 at 3:55 pm

You’re right Chris L – this doesn’t necessarily relate directly with lifestyle… though our hope should be aligned with that of scripture and what Jesus taught and the apostles believed.

In regards your comments, I agree with:

1) We go to the grave, Sheol, “asleep” – unaware of what is happening until the time of judgment.

After Judgment:

2) Those who are covered by grace (with dispute on the method of this) go on to the new earth and the eternal kingdom and those who are not covered (with dispute on the method of this) are thrown into the lake of fire and cease to exist, as it is the ’second death’.

I think these are both clearly borne out in scripture.

113   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
December 28th, 2007 at 4:00 pm

Kyle,

In regards to the scripture you used, you forgot the context, which is presented in v 10:

10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

The question is, when does the judgment take place? Scripture is clear: at the return of Jesus Christ for the establishment of the kingdom upon this earth.

114   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
December 28th, 2007 at 4:07 pm

Universalism is heretical, I agree.

The term “universalism” is a bit ambigious. Unitarian Universalists are heretical. “Christ died for everyone universally” not heretical.

Before anyone thinks I’m playing semantics it should be understood that portions of the early church held a universalist view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation

115   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
December 28th, 2007 at 4:10 pm

I don’t know, neither annihilation nor eternity burning in a lake of fire sound too fun to me. It’s an odd argument to me, really. It’s like the old saw of whether you’d like to die by being shot or being poisoned.

Personally, I guess it’s just hard to fathom eternity in any way. It goes beyond our puny brains’ capacity.

116   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
December 28th, 2007 at 4:13 pm

puny brains’ capacity.

I have a puny brain? Oh look a shiny object…

“Mike Corley is the coolest man this side of Maine”

I’m making T-Shirts if anyone wants to buy one!

117   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 28th, 2007 at 4:21 pm

Rick would you mind telling us what those verses mean in Revelation? Before I am accused of throwing out all sound doctrine please note that I am not saying I agree with anything presented from either side.

118   Kyle in WI    
December 28th, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Here is a good sermon on being absent from the body.

http://www.jonathan-edwards.org/AbsentBody.html

Paul I just reread the chapter and Paul is talking about tents

3if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. 4For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.

So until we die we are not with God nor have the tent of immortality and life with Him. But we do have the seal until we die the Holy Spirit. Not sure if that is what Paul is communicating?? I will have to study this some more.

Any others views on this?? more.

119   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
December 28th, 2007 at 4:43 pm

Hey Kyle… I agree with what you say about the chapter, but the lead-up is to what v 10 states which is “the judgment”. When this occurs is what we’re discussing I think.

There are a ton of other references to this as well:

Daniel 12:1-2: “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

Job 14: But man dies and is laid low; he breathes his last and is no more. 11 As water disappears from the sea or a riverbed becomes parched and dry, 12 so man lies down and does not rise; till the heavens are no more, men will not awake or be roused from their sleep.

Acts 2:34: 34For David did not ascend to heaven… (in other words, David is dead until today)

Perhaps one of the clearest references is 1 Cor 15:23 (the whole preceding part of this chapter deals with the resurrection).

120   Kyle in WI    
December 28th, 2007 at 4:48 pm

So are we alseep(sheoul as some say) until then?

Will we relize the time elapsed? Or as soon as we die, from our prespective, we are with the Lord?

I would say that we we die we are with the Lord wether this envolves a laps of time, sleeping, I do not know. Just from our human perspective we die and then we are with Christ.

But the evidence is overwhelming that you have shown that we are not with the Lord till He returns, guess we will have to wait till He calls us home or He returns.

121   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
December 28th, 2007 at 4:53 pm

Yes, we are in sheol as you say – the state of the dead (which means dead, the absence of life). Remember what Acts says when Stephen died or Paul’s description in 1 Thessalonians 4.

But the concept is quite simple: you can only resurrect that which is dead (if we are with the Lord, then there is no resurrection at His coming).

The beauty of this teaching is that clearly opens the way to the understanding of the establishment of God’s kingdom upon this earth at the return of Christ (as opposed to everyone going to heaven as some erroneously, though sincerely, teach).

If you like I can send you some wonderful details about this Kyle – let me know.

122   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 4:54 pm

I agree that Universalism as in all are saved at the Cross… is heretical…

Yet as Chris pointed out above, there are different “types” of universalisms…

I am a universal atonement (though even that is not right as I see the NT as not an atonement but a propitiation… the difference between putting a blanket over vomit on the carpet or having the carpet made clean as if it was never messed up. Propitiation is the idea of a ransom given to pay for our sins so that we do not have to collect the “wages” of sin being death.) In that I see the Cross was universal to all mankind, I see that they still need the Life of Christ to be saved.

I see that there are varying types of this as with Spencer Burke’s (All in unless opt out) in which he claims “universalism” much in the same idea I do, yet that all are saved unless they reject Jesus… (though he would push that they not know the Name of Jesus to be saved) I may not say they need to know literally the Name, but if one cries out to God, God will reveal Jesus and Jesus will reveal God by the Holy Spirit… so it all works out.

But again, to use just the word “universalist” and deem it heretical, may miss that there are nuances that the person is missing.

Be blessed,
iggy
http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/2007/12/i-dont-get-substitutionary-atonement.html

123   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 5:07 pm

Joe – What verses?

Also, whatever they mean to me they don’t mean to others so what’s the point?

124   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 5:21 pm

Paul,

One of the verses often cited as contrary to the “sleep” interpretation of death comes from Luke 23, where Jesus is speaking to the thief/terrorist on the cross next to him:

Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”

125   Kyle in WI    
December 28th, 2007 at 5:22 pm

Well I could say that the bodily ressurection will happen at Christ return, but our soul/spirit will be with the Lord when we die. Because our spirit already have new life, they have been ressurected from death. So at my physical death my spirit is with the Lord and then at His return my body is glorified. That is pretty much the way I have understood this topic.

If you have matriels you can point me to, I will read them, always.

Iggy you made a great point at propitiation. So if Chrsit acutally propitiation all the wrath of God for every single person that lived then every singles perosn is saved. If Christ died for a His sheep given to Him by the Father, then only they are saved. But lets not aruge this, it will cause a giant rabbit trail. The gospel is universal, it is offered to all not just a few.

Rick he is taking about Rev 20 and death and hades being swalloed up, pretty sure that is what joe is talking about.

126   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 5:25 pm

“I agree that Universalism as in all are saved at the Cross… is heretical…”

Who says? At what line does the word heresy come into play. Are you willing to base your salvation that universalism is heretical? It becomes increasingly clear that there is no plumbline with which to measure our beliefs.

If the Scriptures are nothing more than doctrinal icebreakers that elicit wide and varied interpretations then we are nothing more than a band of confused religious debaters. If there is no eternal hell for the unsaved, then we have no need to have a burden for the lost.

I am either saved for eternity, or annihilated. Nothing real scary about that. The thousands upon thousands of messages over the centuries that proclaimed heaven or hell forever were misrepresentations of the truth. Legalistic fear-mongers were they, like Paul to Apollos we could have shown them a more perfect way!

127   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 28th, 2007 at 5:32 pm

That’s kind of cynical Rick, even from you. The verses in Rev. that talk about death and all being thrown into the lake of fire. I may not get to read your response here until tomorrow as I will be without internet for most of the evening, I think.

128   Kyle in WI    
December 28th, 2007 at 5:49 pm

While I do agree with you Rick you say with the fire and score of your archnemsis the watchdoggies;)

Also the people that hold this view say they lose out on heaven and that being annihilated is not all that pleaseant. Jesus does say do not fear the one who only has the power to kill your body but fear Him who has the power to kill both body and soul.

Again I believe the hell is literal and enternal because the sin is against and entrnal God who can never be repaid but by the blood of Christ. Praise God for the cross!

129   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 5:49 pm

If we as Bible believers have no definitive answer for the eternal destiny for unbelievers then we have emasculated the gospel. Hebrews 6 tells us we should have matured past arguing about basic doctrinal issues including eternal judgment. Many times our Lord refers to everlasting fire. Why is heaven everlasting and hell not?

That is why cults like mormons and JWs and Christian Science reserve heaven but remove hell. It is distasteful. The verses in Revelation are prophetic (another source of interpretation) and are not primarily doctrinal without the support of other Scriptures. Joe, my interpretation of them all is the lost are tormented consciously forever in hell and then the lake of fire.

Pretty basic stuff, I used to think.

130   Kyle in WI    
December 28th, 2007 at 5:53 pm

sorry I meant you say that “with the fire and scorn of…”

Also I was kidding around just incase people could not tell, it is hard to convey mood that is why I add this ;) .

131   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 6:04 pm

Rick,

I can think of nothing worse that not being with God for eternity… be it if one is annihilated or tortured…

Also, my point was that the different “types” of universalism, one of which you have also claimed to hold… that the “atonement” (finished works of Jesus on the Cross) is for all mankind. So, then if all is lumped as heretical and labeled universalism as many of ODM’s do then they add to the confusion and in reality distort true biblical teachings.

To not step back and see what people are saying and look at their definitions leads to people like Olsteem saying Mormons are “Christian”. (Which in a very generic sense they are until you look at the redefinition of the words they us… Jesus is Lord means something very different to a Mormon than to true Christians.)

iggy

132   Paul C    http://www.themidnightcry.com
December 28th, 2007 at 6:09 pm

Good point Chris L – I forgot to mention that (regarding the thief on the cross and being told he’d be with Christ in paradise). The question there: did Christ ascend to heaven then?

If He did, then why did he say to Mary, “Touch me not for I am not yet ascended to my Father…” (John 20:17). Jesus “died” and spent 3 days in the grave.

Jesus was not telling him he’d be in paradise today, but more like I’m telling you the truth right now, you’ll be with me in paradise on my return. (The thief asked Him to “remember me when you come into your kingdom.)

Let me categorically state that the evil/unbelieving will be punished: with death (nothing to do with universalism which I agree is heretical). The gift of God is eternal life for those who believe.

133   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
December 28th, 2007 at 6:30 pm

Yeah, late to the party, what’s new? At least I have the excuse of being out of town this time.

Regarding Joe Martino’s link to the Old Truth article, a few random thoughts:

1) Is it just me or is it interesting that a post that cites and quotes multiple people has its comments closed? (And not just in the way that all comments are closed for first-timers over there for the holidays.)
2) Was the year of this post always 2000? Or is this a semi-Schlueter that took a recent post off the front page and totally out of the archives?
3) Is it carnal of me to be glad that Jim considers it “unfortunate” that I have joined the contributors here?
4) I wonder if God gets as annoyed when His words get eisegeted.

134   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 28th, 2007 at 6:57 pm

It’s an interesting issue though, the idea that eternal life is for those who believe. Do the unbelievers than not have eternal life? What does that mean? At the risk of being called an immature believer or one who has thrown out the sound doctrines of yesteryear, I believe the church has failed miserably at fostering conversation about this issue.

135   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
December 28th, 2007 at 7:00 pm

Alas, Brendt.

I am an eisegete. A subjectivist.

Regarding the 2000 date at Old Truth…I didn’t think it was like that earlier. But not sure — didn’t do a page save. Posts over there do have a history of being changed, and I’ve noticed in my own interactions with OT that the posts I’ve linked to in my own blog are either AWOL or altered. You know, comments removed completely, deleted, etc. But I don’t know in this case; didn’t pay close enough attention. Didn’t want to linger there long.

Which is probably why I didn’t really note, until now, the scope of the comment “proof” collection and the realization that yes, indeed, someone went through a lot of work to sift through the gargantuan comment threads that get going here at CRN.info to cherry pick the useful ones. Either that, or, as I would do if I were such a person, someone visits this site regularly and copy/pastes comments of such interest for future use for such posts.

I guess I could do that, if I wanted to. Perhaps it would make an interesting kind of blog post “mad lib” — find comments across the board and assemble them willy-nilly to say something completely out of context.

Yeah, anyway, back to the hell discussion. Don’t let me interrupt.

136   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 7:11 pm

Julie,

Regarding the 2000 date at Old Truth…I didn’t think it was like that earlier. But not sure — didn’t do a page save. Posts over there do have a history of being changed, and I’ve noticed in my own interactions with OT that the posts I’ve linked to in my own blog are either AWOL or altered. You know, comments removed completely, deleted, etc. But I don’t know in this case; didn’t pay close enough attention. Didn’t want to linger there long.

I might add that “truth” changes there at times also… meaning that something someone stated is either deleted to make Jim look good yet he criticizes others for changing their posts and blogs…

I do not view him as that honest a person… at least on the web.

iggy

137   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
December 28th, 2007 at 7:27 pm

Well I can’t get to Old Truth so I guess my IP is blocked which is weird since I’ve never commented there.

138   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 28th, 2007 at 7:32 pm

Has anyone noticed Jim’s new assanination piece? Go to C?N and follow the links people. The 2000 date has been that way since it went up. This one has no date and of course allows no discussion.

139   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
December 28th, 2007 at 7:32 pm

My small contribution to this thread that has taken several turns: “Annihilism” is one of the major teachings of Seventh Day Adventists. I used to work with a man that was an Elder in a local SDA congregation and he really pushed the idea.

Actually, our conversations were quite enjoyable. He was SDA, another fella in our department was Mormon, two non-Christians, myself (raised in a Southern Baptist church, but at the time attending a Restoration Movement Christian church) and another guy that walked the isle, signed the card, got dunked and never went back to church–not sure where he fit in.

Talk amongst yourselves.

140   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 7:34 pm

“I believe the church has failed miserably at fostering conversation about this issue.”

I believe the issue was and is settled, conversation about that truth is raging today at the expense of that truth. I will agree, Joe, that the church has failed miserably at living out that which we believe, specifically Jesus the Christ. We do a disservice to the Word, and a disservice to the lost, to enetertain new and unbiblical teachings that remove the unimaginable and horrific truth of eternal punishment.

It is a truth that none of us really believe or in effect can believe with our finite minds, I will grant you that. But it is truth nonetheless, substantiated by Scripture, believed in church history, preached in the great revivals, espoused by orthodox Arminian and Calvinist alike, and indeed it places the utmost importance upon evangelism.

Against the backdrop of eternal torment for all unbelievers, we all fall incredibly short of mirroring what we say we believe. Unless of course we either do not believe it or have at least cast doubt upon it. I consider both views as part of the falling away.

141   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
December 28th, 2007 at 7:39 pm

and another guy that walked the isle

How to get to work? By boat or plane? LOL

142   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 8:00 pm

We do a disservice to the Word, and a disservice to the lost, to enetertain new and unbiblical teachings that remove the unimaginable and horrific truth of eternal punishment.

Nothing discussed here about what happens after death (aside from Universal salvation) is a “disservice to the lost” or “new and unbiblical teaching” – the honest answer to the question “does the Bible teach eternal punishment or eternal annihilation?” is “the Bible doesn’t say for sure which it is, but either one is bad…”

143   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
December 28th, 2007 at 8:14 pm

Oops…my Calvinist spell-checker missed that one.
“isle” should be “aisle”

If you knew where I worked…there are days I wish I were on an “isle!”

144   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 8:18 pm

“the Bible doesn’t say for sure which it is, but either one is bad…”

Two things:

1. One of those is eternally worse than the other.

2. There are an army of theologians who would vehemently disagree with your assuming statement.

145   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 28th, 2007 at 8:25 pm

Then Rick, tell me what Revelation means when it says all that will be thrown into the fire. With all of the bluster about how we can’t question anything I’ve yet to read a lucid answer on what those verses mean.

146   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
December 28th, 2007 at 8:26 pm

2. There are an army of theologians who would vehemently disagree with your assuming statement.

Uh…question? Could not the same be said for your position?

147   Chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
December 28th, 2007 at 8:29 pm

By the way; How many more times are we going to have this argument or some other strain of this argument?

148   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 8:34 pm

2. There are an army of theologians who would vehemently disagree with your assuming statement.

Chris, that was in reference to Chris’s statement that the Bible is ambiguous on the issue. That statement is challenged by many and as you pointed out accepted by many (more today than yesterday).

BTW – this seems to be an important argument/dialogue wouldn’t you agree?

149   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 8:35 pm

There are an army of theologians who would vehemently disagree with your assuming statement.

And an equal army that would agree, but in either case what does it matter who agrees and who doesn’t?

The truth is, that the Bible does NOT specifically say that hell is eternal, but rather, Revelation seems to indicate that both death and hell come to an end in the lake of fire.

The truth is that most of what we believe about the soul came as a result of Greek influence on the first 1000 years of the church, and that hell as eternal physical torture is a mideveil concept built on top of Jesus’ quoting of Isaiah in relation to hell in Mark. Is it possible? Certainly. Is it the only possible interpretation based upon good hermeneutics? Not by a long shot.

The truth is, if we are fully “present with the Lord”, then time will likely be much different than we experience it now, and “eternal” may be a meaningless concept, where life IS and death IS, and only those covered by the blood ARE.

The truth is – we don’t know, and the Holy Spirit inspiring scripture and those writing it apparently didn’t see it as something to spend a whole lot of time here on earth dwelling on, choosing instead to dwell on the message of the kingdom…

150   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 8:40 pm

BTW – this seems to be an important argument/dialogue wouldn’t you agree?

Not really, as the difference in orthopraxy (which is the mark of good/poor orthodoxy) is negligible… How does one act differently if hell is eternal torment vs. if it is eventual annihilation? If the answer is something other than “they don’t”, then their belief is misplaced, as it is based on fear and not love…

151   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 8:40 pm

Wow, Chris, so you know the truth and with that pronouncement you move from your interpretation of Scripture to pronouncing that all who disagree with your “truth” are basically in error. As you and I both have acknowledged, that list is somewhat long and includes many students of the Word.

So are you saying there is no chance that hell is eternal and inhabited by lost souls forever? You have said your view is truth. Case closed?

152   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 8:43 pm

“How does one act differently if hell is eternal torment vs. if it is eventual annihilation?”

Chris, millions of sinners hace come to faith through the centuries believing on Christ because of a message of an eternal hell, including my mother-in-law. That is orthodoxy that rises above “negligible”.

153   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
December 28th, 2007 at 8:43 pm

Well I can’t get to Old Truth so I guess my IP is blocked which is weird since I’ve never commented there.

For whatever reason Old Jim from New Truth is so insecure about his writing that he doesn’t like links coming from this web site and re-directs anyone clicking from this site. He has also IP banned anyone from here who’s IP he’s figured out.

Click here for a link to an image of the article.

154   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
December 28th, 2007 at 8:48 pm

I still think that the threat of Hell, whether eternal or some form of annihilation is a weak motivation for someone to come to know Christ. I know some people come to Christ as sort of a last-ditch, end-of-the-rope solution, but that more of a rescue out of a present Hell it seems.

Also, the verse in Jude that gets quoted isn’t really talking about pulling non-Christians from the fire. It’s talking about rescuing Christians from false teaching and being merciful to those who have doubts. It’s funny because people seem to take it and twist it into saying it’s alright to use fear and intimidation to save people.

155   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 8:50 pm

Phil – Jn.3:16 itself includes an avoidance element, and that verse is in red. I reiterate, millions have been “saved by fear”.

156   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
December 28th, 2007 at 8:51 pm

I reiterate, millions have been “saved by fear”.

Maybe. I’ve never met one though. I have, however, met people who have been scared into a church for an hour a week.

157   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 8:57 pm

Much of John the Baptist ministry was a call to repentance and “fleeing the wrath to come”. He even talks of God laying the ax and throwing the unfruitfal into the fire. Probably the reason, Tim, that you’ve never met one is because there is very little preaching about hell today.

158   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
December 28th, 2007 at 8:58 pm

Rick,
Well, I’ve been to plenty of services with altar calls where fire and brimstone were preached, and a majority of the audience went up. My experience tells me that most of those “conversions” don’t stick.

Personally, I don’t think it’s our descriptions and reasoning that turns a sinner to Christ. The Holy Spirit convicts. He reveals the weight and consequence of sin to people. I think that sometimes we end up quenching the Spirit by pushing too hard. I do believe that there was a genuine presence of God at a lot of the services I mentioned. The thing is, if a pastor pushes and pushes, it just gives a person a reason to look back at it and think he was just manipulated into making a decision. On the other hand, if we stand back and let the Spirit work, there’s no doubt of an authentic experience.

159   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 8:59 pm

So are you saying there is no chance that hell is eternal and inhabited by lost souls forever?

No, that is specifically not what I said. I said that that view is certainly possible. I happen to believe that view that hell is eternal and inhabited by lost souls is the most likely one, but I’m not going to base my faith on it – one way or another.

You have said your view is truth. Case closed?

If “truth” in this particular case is “there is not definitive biblical support for a clear, dogmatic statement on the workings of ‘hell’”, then yes. That is a pretty wide definition of “truth”, so I wouldn’t say “case closed”, but rather “what’s the point of arguing on the exact manifestation of hell when the Bible doesn’t state it plainly?”

Chris, millions of sinners hace come to faith through the centuries believing on Christ because of a message of an eternal hell, including my mother-in-law. That is orthodoxy that rises above “negligible”.

Millions of sinners have come to faith via other potentially fallible means, as well – like Purpose Driven. So are you suggesting that when it comes to evangelism that the end justifies the means?

Annihilationism doesn’t seem like all that “better” a picture of hell either…

160   F Whittenburg    http://www.christiannewbirth.com
December 28th, 2007 at 8:59 pm

Hello all,

Sorry I am late to this post, has anyone brought up these verses concerning eternal punishment?

And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and recieve his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall BE TORMENTED with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up FOR EVER AND EVER: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever recieveth the mark of his name (Revelation 14:9-11 KJV).

And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched (Mark 9:45 KJV).

F Whittenburg

161   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 9:01 pm

“I don’t think it’s our descriptions and reasoning that turns a sinner to Christ. ”

I agree with you, Phil, I am saying though that we must preach the truth. Not always hell, but the whole counsel of God. And yes there are many false conversions under a plethera of messages. Only the Holy Spirit knows who are His, but we must remain faithful to eternal truths.

162   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 9:02 pm

I remember someone saying something like “God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.”

This seems to contrast the motivation behind “millions have been “saved by fear”.”

Again – do the ends justify the means?

163   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 9:05 pm

Come on, Chris, of course there is balance and I no where insisted a constant fear component in preaching. But even Jesus talked of hell and the Pharisees making the unsuspecting more worthy of hell than themselves. My point in preaching is balance.

The means is preaching the truth, always.

164   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 28th, 2007 at 9:08 pm

Once again, Rick please answer the question. If those verses don’t mean annihilation, what do they mean?

165   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 9:11 pm

Taken in context the verses in Revelation refer to the lake that burns (present indicative) with fire and brimstone. To believe in annihilation you also must believe the devil and his angels are also annilihated as well.

The verses in Revelation teach an eternal torment. Saying that the lake of fire teaches annihilation is without support.

166   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 28th, 2007 at 9:14 pm

Thank you. Now, the computer I am on is ancient to say the least so you guys ahave a good night.

167   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 9:34 pm

Saying that the lake of fire teaches annihilation is without support.

Baloney. Hogwash. and about another 100 hyperboles…

Revelation 20 (in context)

Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

The lake of fire is the second death.

If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

The lake of fire is the second death.

This certainly doesn’t seem to be indicative of eternal conscious torment. Also, from the view that after the Final Judgment all will be as God intended, then those things which are apart from God – Satan, his angels, the dead in ‘hell’, etc. – would no longer exist.

Once again, though, just to reiterate – my personal belief is that your interpretation is more likely to be correct.

However, passages like Rev 20 seem to indicate a second death – which does not suggest conscious torment. Passages like Matthew 10:28 seem to indicate that the soul is not innately immortal. In Matthew 13, Jesus compares hell to weeds being thrown into a furnace (which implies destruction, not continual burning). Peter compares the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah to that of the dead in hell, which again suggests annihilation.

With discrepancies like these, it seems wiser to be less than dogmatic about the exact manifestation of hell than to suggest that any view differing from yours is “unbiblical”…

168   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 9:37 pm

OK, Chris, you can just go to…well…annihilation!

A little humor, and our thanks to Mr. Corley for bringing up this subject.

169   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
December 28th, 2007 at 9:40 pm

Seriously asking here: What is the meaning/teaching in Luke 16:19ff ?

170   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
December 28th, 2007 at 9:48 pm

I’m not saying this in a negative way, but sometimes it amazes me where we end up when considering where we started.

171   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 9:51 pm

Keith,

I have wondered that, myself.

I would note that what some translations give as “hell” in v. 23 is actually “Hades”, which is parallel to Sheol in the OT – that being “death” or “the grave” or “the underworld”.

So the question becomes – was Jesus making a parable based on actual knowledge of the mechanics of heaven/hell, or was he using the Greek/Babylonian mythology around Hades/Underworld (much the same way as Peter uses Tartarus (2 Peter 2:4)) for illustrative purposes? If the former, then this seems different than the description of “death” Paul C supports above (and which I tend to agree with, though not strongly). If the latter, then it would not preclude “death” as an unconscious state until the time of judgment.

Again, I find this discussion really weird because I have to end up arguing for the potential validity of a position I tend to disagree with (but do not see as “unbiblical”)…

172   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 9:53 pm

I’m not saying this in a negative way, but sometimes it amazes me where we end up when considering where we started.

And again, I would give kudos to Mr. Corley for doing the exact kind of “research” that the rest of CR?N and their idols (like Johnny Mac) eschew…

173   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 9:53 pm

“Again, I find this discussion really weird because I have to end up arguing for the potential validity of a position I tend to disagree with (but do not see as “unbiblical”)… ”

Generally defined as emergent.

174   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 9:55 pm

Generally defined as emergent.

?

“emergent” is a catch-all for whatever the ODM’s don’t like. Being willing to allow the scriptures to be definitive where they are definitive and to be uncertain where they are uncertain is not something new or “emergent/emerging”…

175   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
December 28th, 2007 at 10:02 pm

I find it interesting that Jesus gave a name to the beggar–as if he may have been talking about someone the hearers would have known. “I always wondered what happened to that beggar!”

I have to admit that annihilation is a more “comforting” concept…but my upbringing just can’t let me embrace it. Another subject to dive into when I have the time.

176   F Whittenburg    http://www.christiannewbirth.com
December 28th, 2007 at 10:15 pm

Hello Chris L,

I wrote some about this topic in my ebook “When Faith Came” which can found on my website as a free download in PDF. format.

http://www.christiannewbirth.com/whenfaithcame.html

It is just stuff I pondered about. Here are some excerpts that might help the discussion.

Page 133

The Bible speaks of an eternal “lake of fire” but some verses in the Bible also seem to refer to a hell on earth where people “burn” in passions and lust and exist in misery, torment, and sorrow. The unbelievers are referred to as “walking dead in trespasses and sins”. Could the Bible be referring to two “hells” a natural and a spiritual? The Bible speaks of hell as being “outer darkness”. Could this “hell” be referring to those living in spiritual darkness (outer darkness) and torment in this world until they finally die in their sins? Are they then delivered up later, judged and cast into an eternal lake of fire?

And the sea gave up the dead, which were in it; and DEATH AND HELL delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And DEATH AND HELL were cast into the LAKE OF FIRE. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:13-15).

The Christian walks in this world with “inner light” and has already been justified and judged “not guilty” by faith in Jesus Christ (Galatian 2:20). Jesus has already freed us from a “hell on earth” and spiritual death and is resurrecting us now to walk in a new and “living” way.

And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death (Revelation 1:18).

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and NOW IS, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live (John 5:24,25).

Page 140-141

When Jesus gave his life on the cross, where did his spirit go? Did it go to hell or directly into God’s hands?

And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, INTO THY HANDS I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost (Luke 23:46).

Following the same pattern as Jesus and taking up our cross like He commanded us to follow Him, we offer our life to God as a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1). Does our spirits then go to hell or a place called purgatory also, or do they go directly to the Father like Jesus?

If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye ARE DEAD, and YOUR LIFE is hid with Christ in God (Colossians 3:1-3).

The way of life IS ABOVE to the wise, that he may depart from HELL BENEATH (Proverbs 15:24).

Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led CAPTIVITY CAPTIVE, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) (Ephesians 4:8-10).

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to PREACH DELIVERENCE TO THE CAPTIVES, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, THIS DAY IS THIS SCRIPTURE FUFILLED in your ears (Luke 4:18-21).

When I died with Christ (Galatians 2:20), He took my judgment and God said, “that I deserve to live” (Justification of life). People that do not die with Christ still await judgment (Revelation 20:11-13).

What do you think about “leaving the body” and going to Heaven for a “visit” and then coming back?

It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) How that he was CAUGHT UP into PARADISE, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter (2 Corinthians 12:1).

How about just taking your body with you into the spiritual world?

And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord CAUGHT AWAY Philip, that the eunuch SAW HIM NO MORE: and he went on his way rejoicing. But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea (Acts 8:39).

F Whittenburg
http://www.christiannewbirth.com

177   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 10:17 pm

“Being willing to allow the scriptures to be definitive where they are definitive and to be uncertain where they are uncertain”

All subjective. Who decides what is definitive and what is uncertain?

178   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
December 28th, 2007 at 10:34 pm

Seriously, I think Jim has a man crush on us. Have you seen his latest? It’s almost comical.

179   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 10:38 pm

How come when you click of Old Truth you get a different post than the one linked to at CRN. I am so blog challenged!

180   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
December 28th, 2007 at 10:40 pm

Well I can’t get to Old Truth

I wouldn’t cry about that. Believe me.

I think Jim has a man crush on us

It’s the only kind of crush I’m familiar with. You know, since I’m not a guy. Since there are non-guys here.

Ha.

181   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
December 28th, 2007 at 10:44 pm

Seriously, when you go to his main page how do you find the article referenced on CRN? Does he have different rooms in his blog.

182   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
December 28th, 2007 at 10:52 pm

Good grief. The page at CRN.com is this one, not the one I was looking at with the link provided by Joe.

Wowser.

They got it in for Chris Lyons, for certain. His own page! With a screen shot from the “who we are” section.

Tim and Chris are postmodernists

As is the majority of the population under the age of — what — 40? Someone give me a number here…

Postmodern is a neutral thing, and isn’t bad, unless you’re a modernist who can’t let go of the bell bottoms. Postmodern is just the cyclical continuation of time. Oh, how those who came before the modernists must have loathed the modernists. What, Christianity doesn’t function correctly except in the modern age? It breaks down in postmodernist times?

Stupid thinking.

Christianity surpasses and exists outside of all our human ages.

“You are a postmodernist, you…you…postmodernist!!!”
“And your point is….?”

183   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
December 28th, 2007 at 11:02 pm

…unless they are referring to the specific thought or theory or style, instead of the era/age/time. In which case, they have a good friend in Noam Chomsky to back them up on the questionable nature of postmodern thought. That should bring comfort.

“Postmodern” a word thrown around like “conversation” and “emergent” and “thongs*” — they all used to mean something but now mean either nothing or something completely different.

*This used to be the shoes I wore growing up. Now they are “flip flops”, an annoying phrase if there ever was one.

184   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
December 28th, 2007 at 11:59 pm

Julie admitted: I am an eisegete.

Just to clarify — I wasn’t talking about JB eisegeting the comments from this site to “support” his “point”. Why would I care about you guys? (j/k)

I was talking about the way that my words got eisegeted in that post and the context that follows. Although he never actually whipped out the “h” word, I’m failing to see how he’s not calling me a “hypocrite” by his (mis)interpretation of what I said.

185   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
December 29th, 2007 at 12:42 am

Wow – a bunch of topics going a bunch of different ways.

As for Old Jim at New Truth, I wouldn’t expect a fair shake from him anyway – it’s rather apparent that ‘contending for the faith’ has come to mean ‘contending for one’s systematic theology’, regardless of the veracity of your position…

Rick,

You asked:

All subjective. Who decides what is definitive and what is uncertain?

Actually, in many cases (most cases) it is the writer/speaker. Often, when speaking prophetically, it is often expected that a certain amount of vagueness is involved – otherwise there is little ‘faith’ involved at all. Probably the key example would be all of the prophecies concerning the coming of Christ – if what was ‘definitive’ was so ‘definitive’ about the coming Messiah, the Jews would have known what to look for and would have recognized him…

In other cases – particularly when teaching/instructing, statements are made more definitively – I would say that Jesus’ physical resurrection is definitive and consistent throughout scripture. I would say that Jesus’ statements about the resurrection of the body were definitive. I would also note, though, that his parables had a number of facets of meaning, which makes them purposely less “definitive”.

With Revelation, we’re dealing with a completely different thing altogether, with it being apocalyptic literature, which is meant to be far more symbolic than definitive – purposely.

As for all the discussion on the afterlife, you’d think if knowing how it worked was so all-important to know and understand that the OT would have seriously delved into it and that the focus of Jesus’ teaching would have been on the subject. Rather, most of his teachings were related to the ‘kingdom of God’ and its manifestation in the temporal.

186   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
December 29th, 2007 at 12:57 am

As for Old Jim at New Truth, I wouldn’t expect a fair shake from him anyway – it’s rather apparent that ‘contending for the faith’ has come to mean ‘contending for one’s systematic theology’, regardless of the veracity of your position…

Likely true.

But I made my own “watch out for Julie” page, anyway.

Just a little envy, you know.

187   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 29th, 2007 at 1:52 am

Julie,

It shows that they are afraid… why else be so up aggressive in taking Chris L down…

I think it just exposes who they really are even more… sick and afraid that the god they need to protect with lies and slander is a god of fear and not truth and love.

I see them spitting on the Kindness of God.

My God, the True One protects us who believe on Him… He needs no protection from men.

iggy

188   Tim Reed    http://churchvoices.com
December 29th, 2007 at 2:59 am

Postmodern is a neutral thing, and isn’t bad, unless you’re a modernist who can’t let go of the bell bottoms. Postmodern is just the cyclical continuation of time. Oh, how those who came before the modernists must have loathed the modernists. What, Christianity doesn’t function correctly except in the modern age? It breaks down in postmodernist times?

This is the part they really don’t get. They’re so busy railing about postmodernism they don’t realize they’ve swallowed modernism. At this point if you reject modernism (as postmodernity does) you reject the watchkittie world view.

Its really comical watching them quote Spurgeon and then scurry about reflexively exhibiting classic modernist tendencies.

I also have to believe that their traffic isn’t what they’d have us believe, I’ve seen no uptick in traffic from their links to my websites. Or it could be their readers aren’t the of the discerning variety who would actually read the context they’ve linked. Its probably what Old Jim was counting on to get his New Truth accepted.

189   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
December 29th, 2007 at 11:21 am

Julie, re: “watch out for Julie” page

I don’t disperse these very often, because I don’t want their value to diminish any. And please know that I say this with the highest of praise.

I am officially awarding you the first YSILT in months.

You’re Sick. I Like That.

190   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
December 29th, 2007 at 12:24 pm

I’m adding the YSILT award to my listing of other important awards.

Thank you.

191   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
December 29th, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Julie,

Having been a victim of JB’s page making skills that was taken down with and “explanation page” that shows all the times I tried to email or comment on JB’s site and all which are implied I was nasty, mean and inconsiderate… I would prefer to have you make a page about me! LOL!

iggy

Jeff Spicoli: What Jefferson was saying was, Hey! You know, we left this England place ’cause it was bogus; so if we don’t get some cool rules ourselves – pronto – we’ll just be bogus too! Get it?

192   Brendt    http://csaproductions.com/blog/
December 29th, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Julie, I’ve created a button just for you and the one other YSILT winner. I’ll be emailing you a copy shortly.

193   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:13 pm

Pardon me for my ignorance….what the sam hill is an ODM

194   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:16 pm

Online “Discernment” Ministry (ODM)

195   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:30 pm

Should of gone to the terms tab. :)