At what point should Guilt by Association warrant a fair reading? At what point should I stand up and take notice? At what point can I merely dismiss it as a witch hunt? Or at what point should I ignore the see-I-told-you-so attitude of someone with an ax to grind?
There is a subtle, nuanced difference between helpful research and self justification. Helpful research is factual with substantial proof. Self justification looks for anything and everything that would bolster your case, no matter how many logical fallacies you have to commit to get there. While it is a small difference that often goes to motivation it is an important distinction that should be made by anyone claiming expertise in an area.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, August 26th, 2008 at 10:44 am and is filed under Commentary, Ingrid, Ken Silva, What Can You Say?, pastorboy.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
49 Comments(+Add)
I can’t believe I got here before Rick!
What is the meaning of this post? I am glad to see you got all your favorite ODM’s in one shot….
Unfortunately, SOL is down for some reason…so I can’t check the link.
How is CRN2 self justification? I have hardly spoken about myself at all!
I still contend that this site is a reactionary site that is self defeating when it comes to its purpose. The minute that you resort to tactics you claim are wrong you become just as wrong, in fact, you become a hypocrite. CRN2 simply displays those hypocrisies.
Next up: expose on Iggy’s fake ODM site. Should be interesting.
PB,
The link is to your OP on Rick Warren. Which is littered with conjecture, GBA, strawmen, witchhunts, tin foil hat theories, and grammatically errors.
The self-justification? Well if you don’t get satire I doubt that you seeing self-justification is a possibility.
PB,
How about just putting it up without editing out Ken’s comments?
What’s the matter, is that too honest for you? I thought you were a servant of the Most High God?
WOW!
There you have it.
Joe Martino # 4:
Done.
huh…how do you do an expose on something that’s so glaringly obvious?
I don’t see how this site does the same thing as your heroes, PB.
So, again,
how does it feel to be a man-centered sycophant?
Actually…that’s a purpose driven, man-centered sycophant.
Guilt by Association is a topic that was discussed at TheGreyCoats blog site awhile back. The blog has been shut down and moved to a .com site and little of the archives moved over.
We talked about this topic is regards to those who are in the “Third Wave”, Prophetic Movement”, who teach the things of dominionism, MSoG, etc., etc.
My example of “Guilt by Association” was having to be very careful about what is written and believed by a group of people using this “article of Faith. Does anyone have a problem with it?
1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
7. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly;
9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
10. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
11. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
I just started attending a new non-denominational church in my area. They have a neat way of defining their doctrines. They have closed hand doctrines and opened hand doctrines. Some of our doctrines are closed hand, we will fight you for them… Jesus died and rose again, he died for the sins of the world, the Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God, etc.
Other parts of our doctrine are opened hand, we may slap you around a bit, but we won’t fight you for them, lol. Things like how often to have communion, dunking or sprinkling at baptism, order of worship etc.
I had never heard that before, and it really put into perspective the whole Rick Warren discussion. Do I agree with Warren on everything, nope. But my disagreements with him involve open handed doctrine… so I won’t fight about it.
Iwantthetruth, there are some items I disagree with on that list, but they fall into my open hand doctrine areas, so, I won’t disagree with you on them.
Blessing,
Oh, and the pastor’s primary focus…preach Jesus, preach the Bible, be loving…
No arguments there.
-Blessings
Not having gone to your site, I say thank you John Chisham
MORMONISM!!!!!!
lol
Mike,
Thanks for responding, now let me add back what I took out of that Article of Faith and comment more…
We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
Here is the rub that most people have issues with. There are ministries whether it be IHOP, Todd Bentley, Rick Warren, Joe Blow down the street, where ever that post these types of statements on their sites, in their church by-laws, etc. yet what they seem to say or seem to teach are not always in line with the posted beliefs.
Then as others fall in line with what is percieved as their true beliefs by what they teach they become guilty by association.
Example, RW is believed to be teaching a semi-plegian theology by how he speaks and runs his ministry, though he post what looks like orthodox beliefs. Now, anybody who follows the same “method” is guilty of teaching a semi-plegian doctrine which was considered heresy by the early church. They are all guilty by association. Make sense?
Just a thought…
Pelagianism was an actual heresy that the church dealt with several hundred years ago. Semi-pelagianism is a term that a bunch of busybodies made up to demonize people who don’t see things their way.
My other point, I may believe in most of the articles of Faith in the Mormon church but certainly not all of them. Am I guilty by association of being a Mormon… NO!
I am not a mormon and maybe my logic is really poor, but I think I made my point.
I have definate beliefs in many of the different areas of the church that I would admit I think many are guilty by association, but I am trying to be very careful about how I speak about tehse brothers and sisters in the Lord and frankly, they will as we all will be acountable before the Lord in what we teach, preach, ETC.
Phil Miller,
Clarify?
Meaningthey are speaking out of place regarding RW?
You know what, I think as I reread what I wrote somebody ought to delete it all. I am not sure I made any sense and would like to start all over. In fact I really don’t know what I am talking about. Brother!!! Send me to the loony bin!!
Must not be my day today….
You’re already here.
Welcome.
Yes, that’s I’m meaning. “Semi-pelagianism” is basically a derogatory term that 5-pointers made up. To me, the way I’ve seen the term used, it’s synomynous with “Arminian” to most of Warren’s critics. To my knowledge, Arminianism isn’t considered a heresy, especially since more than 90% of Protestants probably adhere to it in some way or in another.
Warren can be criticized for some things, but let’s stick to the facts.
Thanks Phil Miller,
Let it be known in my poor attempt to make a point on GbA I did use the word “seem” so that I wasn’t in the place of making accusations as much as trying to make a point, which I think I failed miserably.
Anyway, next topic…..!
Quick note. Semi-pelagianism was regard as a hersy and condemed at the local Councils of Orangein in the early 6th century. Although the exact word of semi-pelagianism did not show up for about another 1000 years our so. Basically a monk tried to purpose a middle ground between Pelagianism and Augustinism back around the middle of the 4th century. So while that actual word was not used then the roots of it theology was a hearsy. But I do not think that modern day reformed persons use it the same was. I think they use it as an interchangable word for synergism.
So believing man has a choice to be saved or not = semi-pelagianism = heresy = not saved?
That’s the impression I get from Calvinists and the reformed camp, ala ODMs.
Joe
Pelagianism is basically a denial of original sin, saying that men are inherently good and can basically save themselves. I must say that regardless of the charges of the ODMs, I’ve not heard or read any of their usual targets say anything of that sort.
Like I said before, “Semi-Pelagianism” is a made up term that basically means whatever the ODMs want it to mean.
I agree Phil.
Well if you go with the really defetion of semi-p. It states that man must first come to God, then God’s grace will be there for man, but man makes the first move apart from God and grace than,.yes.
But with traditional Arminiamisn ala Welsey or Arminus then no. Because they also state that grace is needed before we can even come to God.
So if one holds that man can come to God apart from His grace then heresy which is the traditional sense of semi-p. that is why many arminaians do not like the term becasue it is not acutrate to there theology.
Semi P is not made up it origins are in the late 16th cenutry to descride an old heresy that says that man can come to God apart from grace and recive forgiveness. Which is heresy.
I see the difference you are making Kyle. I think we all agree it’s that God’s grace enables either A, all mankind/whosoever to be able to come to Him and receive forgiveness and reconcilliation, or only the ‘elect’ are able to come to God and receive that. Depending on if one is Arminian or Calvinist.
Joe
And like I said, I don’t know of anyone who calls himself a Christian who would say that man can come to God apart from grace. Even someone who was a complete universalist would say that all are saved through God’s grace.
It’s a straw man.
And by the way, Kyle, what you are describing is just Pelagianism. I don’t know when the “semi-” was added, but I imagine it was within the last 10 or 15 years by some disgruntled Calvinist.
“The Semi-Pelagian Theology of John Cassian” circa 400 AD
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/johncassian.html
No the actual word was used around 1590, and the root of it’s teaching was from Gaul around 430. The monk of Gaul was trying to make a comprimise between pelagianism and augustinism. That is the root of it’s theology and the actual word. Also it was condemned by the Council of Orange. Read the council’s writing, good stuff. Everyone should pretty much be able to agree with the council from 529 ad.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_orange.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semipelagianism
Kyle,
Not to belabor the point, but the only time I see the word “semi-pelagian” on that page you link is in the intro that isn’t part of the actual Canon. It’s whoever made that page giving a summary of the actual canon.
And being that this is posted from a website named “reformed.org” it seems you are confirming my suspicions on the history of the term.
Question: “What are Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism?”
Answer: Pelagius was a monk who lived in the late 300s and early 400s A.D. Pelagius taught that human beings were born innocent, without the stain of original or inherited sin. He believed that God created every human soul directly and therefore every human soul was originally free from sin. Pelagius believed that Adam’s sin did not effect future generations of humanity. This view became known as Pelagianism.
Pelagianism contradicts many Scriptures and scriptural principles. First, the Bible tells us that we are sinful from the moment of conception (Psalm 51:5). Further, the Bible teaches that all human beings die as a result of sin (Ezekiel 18:20; Romans 6:23). While Pelagianism says that human beings are not born with a natural inclination towards sin, the Bible says the opposite (Romans 3:10-18). Romans 5:12 clearly states that Adam’s sin is the reason that sin infects the rest of humanity. Anyone who has raised children can attest to the fact that infants must be taught to behave; they do not have to be taught how to sin. Pelagianism, therefore, is clearly unscriptural and should be rejected.
Semi-Pelagianism essentially teaches that humanity is tainted by sin, but not to the extent that we cannot cooperate with God’s grace on our own. Semi-Pelagianism is, in essence, partial depravity as opposed to total depravity. The same Scriptures that refute Pelagianism will also refute Semi-Pelagianism. Romans 3:10-18 most definitely does not describe humanity as only being partially tainted by sin. The Bible clearly teaches that without God “drawing” a person, we are incapable of cooperating with God’s grace. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him…” (John 6:44). Like pelagianism, semi-pelagianism is unbiblical and should be rejected.
Kyle,
By the way, I’m not denying that there was such a thing as Pelgianism and that some people held to it. I’m just saying that the term Semi-Pelagianism seems to be a much newer term that Calvinists generally use as derogatory term for Arminians.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/533895/semi-Pelagianism#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=semi-Pelagianism%20–%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia
I was giving a link to what the council said. Here in the 1590’s early 1600’s was when the actual word was coined.
Pelagianism Denies:
1. The sufficiency of grace;
2. The necessity of initial grace; and
3. The general necessity of grace.
Semi-Pelagianism Denies:
1. The sufficiency of grace; and
2. The necessity of initial grace.
Semi-semi-Pelagianism Denies:
1. The sufficiency of grace.
I’m still skeptical, as that article gave no real reference as to when the actual term was first used. The concept was there, but when was the actual word first used?
I have a hard time believing a hyphenated word such as that has an etymology of more than 100 years or so.
“The word appears to have been coined between 1590 and 1600 in connexion with Luis Molina’s doctrine of grace, in which the opponents of this theologian believed they saw a close resemblance to the heresy of the monks of Marseille.
In more recent times, the word has been used in the Reformed Protestant camp to designate anyone who deviates from the Augustinian or Calvinist doctrines of sin and grace, most notably Arminians. Many Arminians disagree with this generalization and believe it is libelous to Jacobus Arminius, John Wesley, and the many other Arminians who maintain original sin and the total depravity of the human race.”
This is from wikipedia, but I thought I would use Britianica because it is a way better source. Why can you not just accept the facts as they are? Does it really matter when the word was first coined?
Arminianism is a school of soteriological thought within Protestant Christianity based on the theological ideas of the Dutch Reformed theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609)[1] and his historic followers, the Remonstrants. The doctrines’ acceptance stretches through much of mainstream, evangelical Protestantism. Due to the influence of Anglican priest and evangelist John Wesley, Arminianism is perhaps most prominent in the Methodist movement.[citation needed]
Arminianism holds to the following tenets:
Humans are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation (see also prevenient grace).
Salvation is possible only by God’s grace, which cannot be merited.
No works of human effort can cause or contribute to salvation.
God’s election is conditional on faith in the sacrifice and Lordship of Jesus Christ.
Christ’s atonement was made on behalf of all people.
God allows his grace to be resisted by those who freely reject Christ.
Salvation can be lost, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith.
Arminianism is most accurately used to define those who affirm the original beliefs of Jacobus Arminius himself, but the term can also be understood as an umbrella for a larger grouping of ideas including those of Hugo Grotius, John and Charles Wesley, and others. There are two primary perspectives on how the system is applied in detail: Classical Arminianism, which sees Arminius as its figurehead, and Wesleyan Arminianism, which sees John Wesley as its figurehead. Wesleyan Arminianism is sometimes synonymous with Methodism. In addition, Arminianism is understood by some of its critics to also include Semipelagianism or even Pelagianism, though proponents of both primary perspectives vehemently deny these claims.
Isn’t this just the cat’s meow… may be some likeness in both heh!
Within the broad scope of Church history, Arminianism is closely related to Calvinism (or Reformed theology), and the two systems share both history and many doctrines in common. Nonetheless, they are often viewed as rivals within Evangelicalism because of their disagreement over the doctrines of predestination and salvation.
It matters because it’s the typical game that Calvinists, and unfortunately a lot of other Christians, have played throughout history. By defining our “enemies” however we like, we can freely demonize them.
Even in the articles you put up, I don’t see anyone who would freely call themself a “semi-Pelagian”. Even if it is 500 years old (I’m still skeptical), it has always been a term one group used to denigrate another. It’s one group defining the beliefs of another – that never ends well.
I am not calling anyone semi-pelegian just give background on where it is from and origins of the word itself.
Although I am sure there are people out there who would hold this poistion.
THIS JUST IN -
Zapruder’s film proves it was Rick Warren in the grassy noll.
I do not care what Pelagian believes just as much as I do not care what Calvin believes.
I am a Fruehist, and I reject any semi-Fruehists who dilute and destroy the foundations of my teachings.
I’m sitting here thinking, if we went back in time and really think about it, could it be that the closer to when Christ walked the earth the better the doctrine and theology was?
So as we move away say 60 years, 100 years, 450 years 1500 years the more tainted the truth became until now, nobody has it right but it is just a hodge podge mix of it all?
Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. What does that mean and if we are told that then we must have the capacity to be moving in that direction?
I like Matthew Henry’s take on it;
“Lastly, Our Saviour concludes this subject with this exhortation (v. 48), Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Which may be understood, 1. In general, including all those things wherein we must be followers of God as dear children. Note, It is the duty of Christians to desire, and aim at, and press toward a perfection in grace and holiness, Phil. 3:12–14. And therein we must study to conform ourselves to the example of our heavenly Father, 1 Pt. 1:15, 16. Or, 2. In this particular before mentioned, of doing good to our enemies; see Lu. 6:36. It is God’s perfection to forgive injuries and to entertain strangers, and to do good to the evil and unthankful, and it will be ours to be like him. We that owe so much, that owe our all, to the divine bounty, ought to copy it out as well as we can. “
I don’t know, I am just thinking that we seem battle over so much and yet the commands of Christ are very simple, there’s only 2. You know what they are?
I am responsibile for my own walk with Christ and I must live and act, with everything I do, within those two commandments.
PB,
Great I am anticipating all the extra hits from people that “get” satire. Maybe I should do a post on how you stated you don’t understand or get it… that should be a great one for you to post to.
BTW Ingrid accused me of spreading rumors… these rumors were from something she stated from her own mouth and on her own show… someone must commented on it…
Then when that same person mentioned something else I defended Ingrid and stated that that comment was not proper…
So do what you want and will… but the hate you see is the reflection of the ODM world as many see it. Go look in the mirror and work out your own ya-ya’s before coming to my door and telling me about mine.
But, then every link I get my hits go up another 100… except for the time Ingrid did a post on me… then beards had many more hits than what came from Slice…
I might even link back and state how your site is a satire… more people would believe I. Todyaso than you… LOL!
Be blessed,
iggy
PB,
http://pastorboy.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/repent-and-witness-nyc-2008/
If you wish to be consistent, perhaps removing the “whole lotta love” guitar rift from this video would be helpful?
BCP- That was a mix from a Christian Rap CD my buddy put together!
Christian Rap?
Guilt by association, indeed!