I started reading N.T. Wright’s new book, Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision, today.  I have been looking forward to reading this book ever since I heard it was coming out, and in fact I was almost giddy to start it.  I hope to offer a full review of it once I am finished.  But as I read the introduction, I came across this paragraph, and I think it is very applicable to what goes on here.

Test this out.  Go to the blogsites, if you dare.  It really is high time we developed a Christian ethic of blogging.  Bad temper is bad temper even in the apparent privacy of your own hard drive, and harsh and unjust words, when released into the wild, rampage around and do real damage.  And as for the practice of saying mean and untrue thing while hiding behind a pseudonym – well if I get a letter like that it goes straight in the bin.  But the cyberspace equivalents of road rage don’t happen by accident.  People who type, vicious, angry, slanderous and inaccurate accusations do so because they feel their worldview to be under attack.  Yes, I have a pastoral concern for such people.  (And, for that matter, a pastoral concern for anyone who spends more than a few minutes a day taking part in blogsite discussions, especially when they all use code names:  was it for this that the creator God made human beings?)  But sometimes worldviews have to be shaken.  They may become idolatrous and self-serving.  And I fear that that has happened, and continues to happen, even in well-regulated, shiny Christian contexts – including, of course, my own.  John Piper** writes, he tells us, as a pastor. So do I.

**Wright’s book is largely in response to John Piper’s book, The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Thursday, July 30th, 2009 at 7:58 pm and is filed under Blogging, Christian Living, Theology, quote. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

258 Comments(+Add)

1   J    
July 30th, 2009 at 8:35 pm

so, would that mean emergent church blogs who attack Rob Bell critics with hate would be required to follow these christian ethics

2   J    
July 30th, 2009 at 8:40 pm

BTW:

would this count as a christian ethic of blogging:

http://dougpagitt.com/uncategorized/laughing-with

Doug Pagitt calling Todd Friel and Kevin deYoung “crazy”

or lets say there is a blogger who compares Ingrid at SOL to Osama Bin Laden

because he dont like Ingrid for questioning Rick Warren and Rob Bell and Perry Noble ’s teachings

would they be required to have christian ethics on their blogs

3   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 30th, 2009 at 8:54 pm

so, would that mean emergent church blogs who attack Rob Bell critics with hate would be required to follow these christian ethics

I suppose so, but I’m unfamiliar with any such blog…

4   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net
July 30th, 2009 at 9:03 pm

Wait a minute…so Piper wrote a book in response to Wright, who then writes a book in response to the Piper book?

In a way, that’s like large scale blogging.

5   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 30th, 2009 at 9:15 pm

Wait a minute…so Piper wrote a book in response to Wright, who then writes a book in response to the Piper book?

In a way, that’s like large scale blogging.

In a way, lol…

Piper actually sent Wright a copy of his manuscript before his book was published, and Wright is very civil towards John Piper in his book. In fact he goes out of his way, in my opinion, to make sure that nothing he writes can be construed as a personal attack on Piper or a questioning of his commitment to Christ.

6   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
July 31st, 2009 at 12:01 am

J,

I agree with Doug Pagitt… at least Todd Friel is crazy… and can’t even back his own theology with logic… I don’t know the other guy… but if he is like Todd… Crazy!… If not… then he went crazy on Doug.

So… I can name a few more that line in the song remind me off.

Deborah at Discerning the World.
Ingrid at slice
Ken Silva
Pastorboy
Mike Ratliff
Tony Rose

and the list would go on and on

7   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
July 31st, 2009 at 12:02 am

BTW…. all of those people have attacked me or Doug and stated we are not “saved” so… I think Doug and myself are being very generous in just staying these people are crazy. Some I believe need real psychiatric help.

8   Discerning The World    http://www.discerningtheworld2.wordpress.com
July 31st, 2009 at 6:10 am

Iggy I never once said you were not saved. All I said was that your god is not my God – because you mock, insult and ridicule my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

You helped your ‘friend’ steal the identity of my blog and set up something that looks similar and wrote downright disgusting things on there. Why don’t you tell everyone about your http://www.itodyaso.wordpress.com website – where you show us what new world emerging love looks like – it’s hatred (satire) disguised as love.

Must born again Christians shut up because the gospel of Jesus Christ offends the new christian world view message?

Quoting scripture in context is enough to be viewed as full on hate speach. Just mention ‘repentance of sin’ and see the curses fly your way.

I feel for any born again Christian having to stand up for the truth.

I’ve been ‘metaphorically’ compared to a suicide bomber ready to pull the trigger.

I’ve been told that if I don’t change that, quote: “If so I ask God to do as He will be it blind you completely.”

Then because I am unrepentant for speaking the Gospel of Jesus Christ I had someone say this to me: quote: “And I will not ease the cancer that now eats at your heart as an unrepentant sinner.”

I will continue to stand up for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And if that means I am considered hateful, nasty, slanderous, etc. THEN SO BE IT!

One of these days we will be dragged off and imprisoned for preaching the gospel. Wonder if all those ‘concerned’ pastors out there will try come rescue us, or scoff and say, ‘well..I told ya so, you violated Hate Speech Act 1-98 by quoting those verses”:

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’,
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Revelation 20:15
anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

…. etc, etc, etc.

9   Eugene Roberts    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
July 31st, 2009 at 7:21 am

Deborah, welcome to a site where your comments won’t be deleted…

10   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 31st, 2009 at 8:14 am

You gotta love it when the first few (pseudonymous, I might add) comments on a thread like this confirm the point of the quote.

I also think that many Christians come across as so dour and scornful online, and it’s hard to imagine them being such sourpusses in real life. But I have met my share of sourpusses.

11   Neil    
July 31st, 2009 at 9:15 am

Deborah,

I have cringed at some of the things Iggy has said about others – but I have never seen him mock OUR Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

12   Neil    
July 31st, 2009 at 9:18 am

There is something to be commended for the way Piper and Wright had disagreed… and over something as foundational as justification.

Yet, they have treated each other with respect and brotherly kindness… not backing off from making their points and addressing what they see as the deficiencies of the other position… but also not assigning each other as heretics, false teachers, followers of other gods, liars, ad infinitum… ad nausium…

13   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
July 31st, 2009 at 9:26 am

but also not assigning each other as heretics, false teachers, followers of other gods, liars, ad infinitum

Neil,

According to your head writer at this site, I follow Caesar and am on a highway to hell while also encouraging others to join me. And why? All because I want to see people less privileged than I get health care.

You writers here publicly call out ADM’s or other commenters who charge pastors with far less when they don’t provide evidence or proof for their charges. Should I take by the silence of all the writers here that you agree with Chris’s rhetoric and insinuations about me and those I pastor?

14   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 31st, 2009 at 9:41 am

Chad,
Honestly, I think you are reading a bit into the answers that Chris gave you. If you are referring to Chris use of the phrase, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” – I do not believe Chris was using that in the literal sense. It’s a common idiom, and I don’t think the literal sense means that one is actually going to hell. It simply means that our good intentions can lead us places we don’t want to go.

Personally, I do agree with Chris’ point that we all probably rely on “Caesar” a bit too much in the US. I think both the left and right can be criticized equally. Perhaps an overly simplistic way of putting it would be right depends on Caesar too much for safety (protection from foreign attack, illegal immigrants, etc.) and the left depends on Caesar too much for security (social safety nets, general nanny-statism, etc)…

I don’t know I like you both, so I feel like this is sometimes being caught in the crossfire of friends who were dating and are now broken up (which is even more awkward considering you’re both dudes… :-) )

15   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
July 31st, 2009 at 9:54 am

Phil, I don’t think I’m reading into them at all. Chris is a smart guy and knows what he is saying when he picks a phrase.

in context, he said about me:

You consistently make the argument in favor of Caesar taking actions which create further dependency of the people. It may be well-intentioned, but, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions…

(emphasis mine).

I have asked him to show how I “consistently” argue for such a thing. As for the common idiom, I would never use that unless I felt that the actions of the person were truly leading in a direction anti-God. It’s more useless rhetoric or what Wright calls “inaccurate accusations.”

Or, how about this?

Sorry, Chad. I guess we will just have to disagree on whether or not Scripture is relevant to most aspects of life, including government.

Another low blow. Chris implies that I don’t think Scripture is relevant to most of life. On what grounds can he make this claim? It is nothing but slander of a pastor. And none of you speak up.

Or how about him claiming that my “hobby” is “shilling for Obama.”

Again, I asked for proof of this false accusation – NONE.

I even quoted myself from the blog he cited me from where I said:

Now it must be said that no system is nor will ever be perfect. As such it would be a mistake to place our hope and trust in any plan devised by any one. I am under no illusion that the plan being debated right now will fix all the problems or that it will not create new ones. I get that.

Yet Chris did not acknowledge this nor act as if it even matters. So WHO is reading into who’s comments?

Comment after comment your head writer makes charges about me that have no basis in reality and no one says a word.

Why?

16   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
July 31st, 2009 at 9:58 am

IN MY OWN WORDS above I make in EXPLICITLY clear that it is a mistake to place our hope or trust in any system or any one. I make it EXPLICITLY clear that this plan will not solve everyone’s problems and may even create new ones.

You guys have teared PB and Silva et.al a new one because they continue to say Bell denies the Virgin Birth. Even though his OWN WORDS deny that such a charge. They just insinuate and continue to draw false conclusions that have nothing to do with facts.

How is this any different? Please show me how Chris L is not being another Silva or PB in this matter?

17   Brett S    
July 31st, 2009 at 10:23 am

Chad,

No offense intended my friend, but I think you’re being a little disengenous with that question. I get the sense that maybe you’re taking all that stuff you learned in seminary and bible college a little to seriously.

I would bet that those good gentlemen that your dad invited you to the bible study with could tell you the difference between Chris L and Pastor Silva’s writings in 2 seconds.
And I’m pretty sure you recognize it also.

Peace

18   Brett S    
July 31st, 2009 at 10:29 am

Here’s an idea:

After President Obama solves our great nation’s healthcare dillema (and every American is once again healthy, happy and prosperous); maybe he could invite Chris L and Chad to the White House for another beer summit. Then all again will be well in Christendom! :)

19   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
July 31st, 2009 at 10:30 am

No, I don’t think so Brett. While their writings are indeed different Chris is doing the same thing Silva does by charging me with this and that without proof. He is also ignoring what I flat out say in favor of his own conclusions about what he thinks I mean.

That’s the ADM way.

20   Brett S    
July 31st, 2009 at 10:41 am

Hello Chad,

You may be right, but I disagree.
At least he has the common decency to discuss the matter with you. He may misunderstand you and be putting words in your mouth, but I don’t think his intent is to “charge” you with anything.

Anyone that has a wife may be familiar with the process.

21   Neil    
July 31st, 2009 at 11:11 am

Chad,

I stopped following the health care thread – I have only so much energy/time to devote. I made my case that the government is not the answer and left it at that… not really paying attention to the real point of the OP – the issue of revelation,the Beast, etc…

All that to say, I cannot comment on what Chris L. has said to you in that thread since I have not followed it – sorry if that is a cop out.

22   Neil    
July 31st, 2009 at 11:16 am

Chad,

As I said above, I have not been following the discussion, but in the context you quoted in comment 15 – I too would take “the road to hell” comment as an idiom for good intentions that create unintended negative consequences.

23   John Hughes    
July 31st, 2009 at 12:00 pm

Off-topic. Hey guys, I think Rick Freuh may have completed his ambassadorship to CRN Info and has left the building. His short goodbye on another thread was taken as “so long for the evening” but I think it may have really been a goodbye. Check out his latest post.

I’ll miss you Rick if that is the case!

24   Joe    
July 31st, 2009 at 12:02 pm

I need a link. I confess I don’t have his URL memorized.

25   Joe    http://joemartino.name
July 31st, 2009 at 12:09 pm

NM. I got it. Loved the last line.

26   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
July 31st, 2009 at 12:11 pm

Wow, the apocalypse is brought upon us by the use of the f-word… who knew?

27   Neil    
July 31st, 2009 at 12:19 pm

LINK

28   Neil    
July 31st, 2009 at 12:21 pm

Phil,

One one hand I agree with him in some of the particulars – if, indeed, his comments about Lamont are correct.

I do not think the church is in all that much of a spiral as he says though.

29   Joe    
July 31st, 2009 at 12:26 pm

#26
Indeed

30   Bo Diaz    
July 31st, 2009 at 12:51 pm

When you start with the assumption that everything is going to crap, chances are you’ll see that everything is going to crap.

31   John Hughes    
July 31st, 2009 at 12:57 pm

Wow, the apocalypse is brought upon us by the use of the f-word… who knew?

Phil, in all fairness I don’t think that was the linchpin of his assessment, but just symptomatic. :-)

32   John Hughes    
July 31st, 2009 at 1:00 pm

When you start with the assumption that everything is going to crap, chances are you’ll see that everything is going to crap.

How about when you examine the evidence and end-up with the conclusion “everything is going to crap”.

Personally, I always try to hold out hope, but my world view type tends towards fatalism if left unchecked.

33   Neil    
July 31st, 2009 at 1:14 pm

There is no such thing as “the American church” so any commentary that argues from that point is automatically too reductionist.

I believe the church will prevail, not in a post-millennialism sense, but in the sense Jesus promised.

34   Bo Diaz    
July 31st, 2009 at 1:23 pm

I have to believe the John the disciple would be a bit frustrated that the apocalyptic work he originally wrote, that was intended to bring comfort to a persecuted church is now used to bring fear to Christians living in an extraordinarily prosperous society.

35   John Hughes    
July 31st, 2009 at 1:27 pm

There is no such thing as “the American church” so any commentary that argues from that point is automatically too reductionist.

Good point. Perhaps the Church in America” would have been better worded. That “spiritual health” varies from geographic location to location, however, has firm biblical precedance, e.g., the 7 churches in Revelation, The Church in Corinth vs the Church in Ephesis, etc. So I believe making an assessment of a specific body of believers (i.e., the American Church) is a legitimate exercise. Jesus did. ;-)

I believe the church will prevail, not in a post-millennialism sense, but in the sense Jesus promised.

I agree, but it is possible for a particular city/country’s lampstand to be removed while others fare better.

36   John Hughes    
July 31st, 2009 at 1:38 pm

I have to believe the John the disciple would be a bit frustrated that the apocalyptic work he originally wrote, that was intended to bring comfort to a persecuted church is now used to bring fear to Christians living in an extraordinarily prosperous society.

Bo are we reading the same passage? The majority of the 7 churches received a strong rebuke in addition to encouragement meant to provoke fear and repentance. Not my idea of “comfort.”

Rev. 2:5 – ‘Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place–unless you repent.

2:15 ‘So you also have some who in the same way hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. ‘Therefore repent; or else I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of My mouth.

3:1b-3 – I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. ‘Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God.

5:16, 19 – ‘So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth . . . Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.

These admonitions were directed at the local church, not the Universal Church and I think it is completely legitimate to compare the spiritual health of a particular country or people group (e.g., the Church in China vs the Church in America or the Church in South Africa vs the Church in America, etc.).

37   John Hughes    
July 31st, 2009 at 1:43 pm

I think John the disciple would be frustrated that the Church in America has lost almost all reverential awe of God.

38   Robbo    http://goldcoastbereans.blogspot.com
July 31st, 2009 at 1:44 pm

to be fair and accurate, not a single one of the WRITERS here at crn.info said they found the joke about a 4 year old using the f-word funny. A minority of commenters found it amusing, some with qualification.

And take it from a minor lower case “p” prophet, he will be back… (and I don’t mind being proven wrong)

39   Joe    
July 31st, 2009 at 1:53 pm

And take it from a minor lower case “p” prophet, he will be back… (and I don’t mind being proven wrong)

Well, let’s be honest for the last few weeks there he would go after everyone and anyone (really surprised me when he went after Chris L. For a moment, I thought it was Chad taking over his computer–little humor there). But you’re probably right, he probably will be back. There was a time when he said he’d never be back and then went and wrote a post about the same ppl as this post and that anyone who supported them was a heretic. He also turned off comments that time.

(Hi Ken Silva!) (Hi Rick) I’d bet good money you’re both reading this one.

40   Bo Diaz    
July 31st, 2009 at 1:58 pm

John,
The overall theme of Revelation is the triumph of God and the church over death, sin and the world. It is imagery used over and over again throughout the book. It was meant to bring comfort to the church, now its used to scare Christians into voting Republican.

41   Neil    
July 31st, 2009 at 2:03 pm

That “spiritual health” varies from geographic location to location, however, has firm biblical precedance, e.g., the 7 churches in Revelation, The Church in Corinth vs the Church in Ephesis, etc. So I believe making an assessment of a specific body of believers (i.e., the American Church) is a legitimate exercise. Jesus did.

OK, with two caveat…

It was Jesus doing the assessing.

He was assessing local churches – individually.

42   Neil    
July 31st, 2009 at 2:07 pm

I agree, but it is possible for a particular city/country’s lampstand to be removed while others fare better.

Exactly – if you are speaking of individual churches.

I see history repeating itself. 150 years ago, or so, most of the liberal mainline denominations were thoroughly conservative – evangelical beforeit was a needed term.

Then they went liberal 100 years ago or so.

And I believe a case can be made that Jesus is removing these lamp stands.

I also believe that if blogging were around 100 years ago the same “The church is going to hell…” posts would have been made.

Ironically, the churches that are now seen as going to hell in a hand basket were the solution/reaction to the demise taking place then.

43   Neil    
July 31st, 2009 at 2:09 pm

These admonitions were directed at the local church, not the Universal Church and I think it is completely legitimate to compare the spiritual health of a particular country or people group (e.g., the Church in China vs the Church in America or the Church in South Africa vs the Church in America, etc.).

I beleive you have contradicted yourself.

It is true that the admonitions were directed at local churches… therefore they cannot be compared to the spiritual health of a whole country or people group.

44   Neil    
July 31st, 2009 at 2:12 pm

John,

It’s funny you mention China. I have a friend quite familair with churches in China and he says “Whatever you hear about the ‘Church in China’ is true” – because it is sooo big and sooo varied.

Do churches in China enjoy freedoms – yes.
Do churches in China suffer persecution – yes.

Are churches in China shallow and gov’t infiltrated – yes.
Are churches in China small, hidden, and deeply spiritual – yes.

You cannot make blanket spiritual assessments about large geographical areas encompassing millions of believers.

45   Neil    
July 31st, 2009 at 2:14 pm

I think John the disciple would be frustrated that the Church in America has lost almost all reverential awe of God.

This is exactly the kind of statement that can be dismissed due to it’s gross reductionism and overly simplistic content.

46   John Hughes    
July 31st, 2009 at 2:15 pm

Bo: The overall theme of Revelation is the triumph of God and the church over death, sin and the world. It is imagery used over and over again throughout the book. It was meant to bring comfort to the church, now its used to scare Christians into voting Republican.

Bo, I would agree the **overall** theme was meant to bring comfort to the church but there are also numerous admonitions (and quite fearful ones at that) also peppered throughout. Christ’s admonition “he who overcomes will . . .” calls for serious introspection not a “Rah, rah we win in the end” type of attitude to me.

By the way, I have been in conservative Southern Baptist, Bible Church, and Calvary Chapel churches all my life (54 years) and have NEVER been instructed how to vote.

47   John Hughes    
July 31st, 2009 at 2:17 pm

Neil: You cannot make blanket spiritual assessments about large geographical areas encompassing millions of believers.

Fair enough.

48   John Hughes    
July 31st, 2009 at 2:18 pm

This is exactly the kind of statement that can be dismissed due to it’s gross reductionism and overly simplistic content

.

So my comment is an example of gross reductionism and Bo’s is not? OKaaaaay.

49   John Hughes    
July 31st, 2009 at 2:19 pm

It is true that the admonitions were directed at local churches… therefore they cannot be compared to the spiritual health of a whole country or people group.

Well, the can in a gross reductionist type way. :-)

50   John Hughes    
July 31st, 2009 at 2:27 pm

Quick question: Is the Church in America today the same as the Church in America of 50 years ago? There are only three answers: “Yes”, “No”, “Can’t Tell” or shades thereof. One can only answer “Yes” or “No” (or shades thereof) by assessing the gross state of the Church in America. More conservative / less concervative. More fundamental / less fundamental. More evangelical / less evangelical. More community minded / less community minder. These are all generalizations, and although subject to opinion and debate it is possible and apparent that we all make such generalizations which I personally think are legitimate exercises.

Can anyone deny that there have been various and sundry “movements” within the Church in America over the years? Holiness, charismatic, health & wealth, seeker friendly, fundamentalist resurgence, emergent. These are all certainly valid, but generalized observations.

51   Bo Diaz    
July 31st, 2009 at 2:27 pm

By the way, I have been in conservative Southern Baptist, Bible Church, and Calvary Chapel churches all my life (54 years) and have NEVER been instructed how to vote.

And how many of your fellow congregants voted for Obama?

52   Neil    
July 31st, 2009 at 2:31 pm
This is exactly the kind of statement that can be dismissed due to it’s gross reductionism and overly simplistic content.

So my comment is an example of gross reductionism and Bo’s is not? OKaaaaay.

If you are referring to comment 40 – you addressed it, so I did not.

53   Neil    
July 31st, 2009 at 2:37 pm

Re 50:

Yet, these observations are purely anecdotal, highly subjective, and grossly reductionist… when applied to “the church in America.”

For example… one may point out statistics that show how Sunday morning worship attendance has dwindles as a % of the population over the past 50 years.

Yet, I would contend that 50 years ago there was a much stronger cultural expectation that people went to church… there was cultural pressure to do so… heck, even TV families in the 50’s went to church.

Today there is cultural pressure against going to church… to do so you must buck the cultural trend… and this is even truer for those under, say 35.

So,while a greater % attended worship in the 50’s, I would argue that we have a “purer” church today because the cultural pressure to attend has been, not only remove, but reversed.

54   John Hughes    
July 31st, 2009 at 2:46 pm

#51 – Bo. What does that have to do with anything about voting “instructions” from the pulpit? How many in your church voted for McCain? But since I go to a mega-church with a sizeable ethnic percentage I would say a lot did vote for Obama since exit polls indicated that blacks overwhelmingly voted for him. Not that it matters.

55   John Hughes    
July 31st, 2009 at 2:49 pm

Neil. Actually I agree with your logic in #53. My point is that I think it is a legitimate exercise to generalize trends and conditions of churches in nationalistic groupings. But as you point out this is subjective and arguable. Nevertheless there is a body of information to argue over.

56   John Hughes    
July 31st, 2009 at 2:52 pm

Neil “It was Jesus doing the assessing”

Exactly! And I think any “ranking” of Churches should be bibically based with scripture as the basis, not American politics for example.

57   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
July 31st, 2009 at 2:53 pm

Deborah… here are some of your loving quotes from your blog.

Iggy is also part of the Emergent Church (One World Religion) and is bent on mocking Christians who adhere to the Word of God.

A friend wrote:

I had no idea Iggy was bent on a one world religion. He seems to hide it so well, talking about how Jesus saves, loving Jesus, the grace of Jesus, that jesus died for us etc. Iggy must really hide his ‘one world religion’ deep down inside.

Your responded:

No he does not hide it at all well, I must say. His blog is exceptionally transparent, but of course only for those who want to see the truth and love Jesus Christ, and can’t stand to see their Lord and Saviour being mocked using Satire and Parody as a ‘cover up’.

In fact you’ve got to be pretty blind not to see it. Oh that was a joke by the way.

My quote was this:

Emergent does not mean “all religions lead to one God” unless you understand that all religion is WRONG even “religious” Christianity that denies Jesus and places works as the means of salvation.

You twisted it to mean…

I’M FLABBERGHASTED!! WOW!! YOU FINALLY ADMIT THAT ALL RELIGIONS ARE CORRECT AS PER YOUR BELIEFS. Took a while but you got there….AWESOME, Thanks for FINALLY being honest! I know you have tried so hard to wangle your way out of this one, and written in riddles and said one thing that sounded biblical and then another that was a complete contradiction, but FINALLY I am glad (for the purpose of everyone else reading this blog) that you came clean….great stuff!!

So you are either blind as can be, dishonest or a liar who twists people words from what they really stated.

Now as far as you “not” saying I am not saved?

So Iggy…as we can see your perverted interpretation of scripture is false, and as we can see the Word of God tells born again Christians to not engage in godless chatter with people who refuse to accept the truth. In fact we are not to engage with people who oppose the Word of God in any way. This includes those who quote verses from the bible as they try desperately to back up their NEW Kingdom knowledge and accept ideas from all religions around the world as well as being compatible to the Bible –which GOD also COMMANDS you NOT to do- because if you do, you deny Him.

You concluded that since (by your twisting of what I stated) that if I believed that way I was not a born again Christian… your words are above for all to see.

You went on to say this which I never stated… nor believe and continued you lie about me.

This is why Iggy you can say ridiculous things like, “all religion are the same as they are wrong” because the Emergent One World Religion will take the best from each Religion and merge them together to make a new religion that is acceptable to the entire WORLD. You can even be an Atheist, where you can deny the existence of any God. But even an Atheist will not deny himself if he finds out that is actually god!

You also went on after some rather poor exegesis…

“So Iggy…as we can see your perverted interpretation of scripture is false, and as we can see the Word of God tells born again Christians to not engage in godless chatter with people who refuse to accept the truth. In fact we are not to engage with people who oppose the Word of God in any way. This includes those who quote verses from the bible as they try desperately to back up their NEW Kingdom knowledge and accept ideas from all religions around the world as well as being compatible to the Bible –which GOD also COMMANDS you NOT to do- because if you do, you deny Him.”

In the end anyone reading these quote would conclude I am not saved as I teach error and believe (according to how you twisted my statements) that all religions lead to God.

You are not an honest person at all or very ill Deborah… either way repent from your lying ways.

iggy

58   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
July 31st, 2009 at 2:55 pm

Oh all this was taken from here and http://discerningtheworld2.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/discernamentalist-mafia/.

59   Bo Diaz    
July 31st, 2009 at 2:56 pm

John,
If true your mega church is one of the few that has any diversity in its voting.

Which means some how the message is getting across to everyone.

Many of the people in my church deliberately don’t take place in the struggle for power that the world takes part in every four years.

60   Neil    
July 31st, 2009 at 2:59 pm

My point is that I think it is a legitimate exercise to generalize trends and conditions of churches in nationalistic groupings.

I agree… unless you apply it as most ODM’s, Dispensationalists, and Rick have… as proof things are worse and getting worser.

61   Neil    
July 31st, 2009 at 3:00 pm

Exactly! And I think any “ranking” of Churches should be bibically based with scripture as the basis, not American politics for example.

Or style of music

or topic of study

or manner of dress

or use of technology

as we have seen done far too often.

62   John Hughes    
July 31st, 2009 at 3:34 pm

#61 – Agreed. Except for style of dress. Bo-ties are definately hell-spawned and of the Devilllllllllll.

63   John Hughes    
July 31st, 2009 at 3:44 pm

Deborah and Iggy – you know, extreme polar opposites are actually only different sides to the same sphere.

Curse you.
No. Curse you.
No. Curse you.
No. Curse you first.

I know you are, but what am I? (P.W. Herman, cir 1983)

Did.
Did not.

No, But you did. (God, Genesis 18:15)

64   Neil    
July 31st, 2009 at 3:49 pm

I know you are, but what am I…

65   John Hughes    
July 31st, 2009 at 3:50 pm

Neil. How does one define “modest apparel” in a cultural setting?

Should a topless African native christian woman be instructed to put on a top?

Should a Christian Latin America chica be instructed to lower her dress and button up her shirt a couple more buttons?

Should Chris be instructed not to wear spandex to church any more?

Serious questions (well except for the last one) :-)

66   John Hughes    
July 31st, 2009 at 3:50 pm

I know you are, but what am I…

You are a fine caring Christian sir, appears to me. :-)

67   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
July 31st, 2009 at 4:32 pm

Should Chris be instructed not to wear spandex to church any more?

I assume you’re referring to Chris Paytas and not me…

68   Joe    
July 31st, 2009 at 4:39 pm

#57.
Personally, I enjoy Deborah’s blog. It’s like free T.V. The amount of angst, lies, and dishonesty that goes into creating that monstrosity should go on her resume when she applies to HBO or Cinemax.
It honestly makes me laugh out loud when I go and read her stuff. Her twisting of comments would make a political speech writer proud and her anger always boiling just under the surface makes for interesting reading.
Like I said, Cable T.V. for free.

69   Neil    
July 31st, 2009 at 4:50 pm

Neil. How does one define “modest apparel” in a cultural setting?

The believers in that culture should decide.

Should a topless African native christian woman be instructed to put on a top?

Should a Christian Latin America chica be instructed to lower her dress and button up her shirt a couple more buttons?

Not by western missionaries. If the church decides women should start covering their breasts that’s there call… but we should not impose our standards. Extreme example: I have friends who work with a tribe where the men wear penis gourds and the women go topless… he said it took some getting used to particularly since he has daughters living with him (the daughters did not go topless of course but they had to learn to deal with the penis gourds). But even as he has started a small church he is not instructing them to put on pants… or starting a bra-ministry.

70   Neil    
July 31st, 2009 at 4:59 pm

I don’t know where I have been, but this is the first I have seen her blog.

71   John Hughes    
July 31st, 2009 at 11:18 pm

Neil,

If he has the opportunity to preach expositorily from time to time the appropriate scriptures would come up eventually. At some point biblical precepts must trump culture and I guess the place to start would be the 1st century mileu in which Paul and Peter based their Holy Spirit inspired instructions on modest dress.

I am not insinuating I have all this worked out on a personal level.

72   Neil    
August 1st, 2009 at 1:09 am

John,

Exactly – and when topics come up I believe the outsider can guide the new convert but should not dictate what are cultural norms (such as modesty) from one culture to another.

There are some things which transcend culture – such as theological truth and absolutes like the sanctity of life.

Then there are culturally derived applications – like the definition of modesty.

An African native with bare breasts may look upon a fully clothed American and see a lack of modesty because she is also adored with jewels, gold, and make-up.

No one I know uses the 1st Century Roman Empire as our modesty guide, nor should we.

73   John Hughes    
August 1st, 2009 at 9:07 am

No one I know uses the 1st Century Roman Empire as our modesty guide, nor should we.

Neil. We basically know the clothing styles from this era in the Greco/Roman civilization and Judiah we know Paul’s and Peter’s instructions and interactions with it. So I think it would be safe to extrapolate from there. :-)

74   John Hughes    
August 1st, 2009 at 9:08 am

P.S. Penis gourds don’t sound very comfortable to me so that’s definately out and probably would not go over well in Texas anyway.

75   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
August 1st, 2009 at 10:14 am

I never would have in a million years guessed that putting a quote up by N.T. Wright about blogging would result in a discussion about penis gourds…

Anyway, Paul’s admonitions about dress and jewelry in the various epistles have more to do with how those related to idol worship in that culture than anything like the Victorian concept of modesty. Paul was basically telling the churches to make sure to separate themselves from those practices.

Nudity from a Jewish perspective was something that generally considered shameful, however, there really isn’t anything in Scripture that directly prohibits it. It was sort of a given in ancient near eastern cultures that being seen naked or looking upon nakedness was a shameful thing. In our culture, I would say that not looking at nudity is an example of a fence law that actually makes sense. Since we are a culture that is very much into visual stimulation, it makes sense not to put ourselves into situations which will cause us to lust and fall into others behavior not honoring to God.

So as far as the African village, I’d say that the way nudity is looked at in those cultures is something that is very hard for us to get our heads around. But I agree with Neil. There’s no reason we should try to impose our western ethic on them.

76   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 1st, 2009 at 12:13 pm

John, I am not cursing Deborah… I was pointing out that she lied here and at her own blog… It is not revenge or hate that drives me contrary to what she says and thinks about me. But rather setting the record straight. Do you understand she called all the people on my blog that I linked to “those that inspire iggy’s hate” or something similar… these are fine people that she smeared without a care or second thought. Would you sit back and must let some idiot lie and spread rumors and hate about your friends?

She is either mentally ill or something more sinister in my book and people should be warned of her… just as people should be warned of Benny Hinn or TBN…

I say she must be mentally ill or worse as no one can honestly read what I stated above and come to the conclusion that I believe in one world religion… except under Christ Jesus.

On the other hand I sometimes read what she writes and wonder if she is a marvelous satire that tops my own site as she outdoes I. Todyaso on many levels.

77   Joe C    
August 1st, 2009 at 3:27 pm

Ig and Deborah,

You should take the side fight elsewhere, like to email. It’s not really pertinent to this thread and honestly it’s kind of frustrating to read. It really is a mudslinging fest. You’ve done some pretty risky stuff Iggy that I wouldn’t be all about, love you anyway, and she’s obviously doing something upsetting to others (though I don’t know her so I won’t say), but it’s damaging to slug it out in front of everyone. So…drop it. Doesn’t look like you guys can make amends anyways.

This is exactly the kind of stuff the OP was about, but we’re totally off track from that.

Joe

78   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 1st, 2009 at 3:29 pm

Bye Joe… I get it… bye again.

79   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 1st, 2009 at 3:31 pm

BTW Joe, I see that this IS on topic as Deborah has not ethics in blogging…But my opinion seems nihl here as far as I see so… see ya when I see ya.

I get tired of this crap Joe… sorry…

80   Joe C    
August 1st, 2009 at 5:02 pm

Iggy,

It’s not that I don’t personally value your opinion (I do, and I’m sure others do as well). That’s not the issue here, the issue is dragging a fight out in front of everyone else who are amicably trying to carry out a poignant discussion. It’s off topic and poorly carried out and why should you do that? There have been more protracted ‘arguments’, fights, and mudslinging fits recently by others too and it’s just getting in the way. I’d write a post on it but I figure it would just give people an excuse to fight again.

So, I’m just asking you as a friend, that if someone is lying about you, and you can’t win them over, just forget it instead of having a ridiculous side conversation, or a thread jacking fight. I suppose if you want to fight over a subject, fine, just no low blows, but I just don’t see how you and Deborah’s spat is poignant.

With all that said, if you want to talk about the OP or other points, that’s cool, I always like hearing what you have to say, and I’m sure others do too.

PS, I in no way have the authority to tell you what or what not to do, I just thought I’d say all this as a friend who’s sick of seeing stuff like this go on. Thanks.

Joe C

Oh and what do you mean “bye again”? I never said bye to you in the first place?

81   nc    
August 2nd, 2009 at 12:17 am

different issue:

Did Rick really bail from around here?

82   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 2nd, 2009 at 1:37 pm

Did Rick really bail from around here?

If so, this is the third or fourth time…

83   Joe    
August 2nd, 2009 at 4:36 pm

#80
My guess is that he thinks you are me.

84   Joe C    
August 2nd, 2009 at 8:47 pm

He should know the difference. I’m the Joe with a C for the first letter of my last name. Pshh.

85   Sandman    
August 4th, 2009 at 1:41 am

As far as a Christian ethic to blogging, how about love God with all your heart, mind and strength, and loving your neighbor as you love yourself?

Did Iggy exile himself again?

This is kind of sad that pastor types are acting like this, but such is life in a fallen world. Seriously, it looks like a series of grudge matches going on here.

If it’s not Chris L and Chad, it’s PB and anyone who’s been irritated by him, or Rick and whoever he decides to scrap with, or Iggy vs. whoever has offended Iggy, blah blah snore…

In a lot these exchanges here and elsewhere, people are gratifying their own egos at the expense of others, but I wonder if anyone’s considering their behavior online can possibly be damaging to one’s walk as well as one’s witness?

Maybe what you’re intending for good, Satan is intending for evil? And let’s face it, some people aren’t intending any good at all.

While we publicly argue and cut each other down over (what?) past offenses, old grudges, and other things people are carrying around like luggage, hookers are still hitting the streets, kids are still being abused, addicts are still looking for their next fix, and so on. And the unbelieving passersby look at this and say “I got enough drama on my own without being a Christian.”

86   Eugene    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
August 4th, 2009 at 9:12 am

Good point Sandman…

I have been thinking about writing a post about it and it seems it’s on the mind of quite a few others.

http://www.emergingafrica.info/blog/2009/08/03/responsible-blogging

87   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
August 4th, 2009 at 10:32 am

Test this out. Go to the blogsites, if you dare. It really is high time we developed a Christian ethic of blogging. (Amen. Only intelligent thing NT Wright ever said) Bad temper is bad temper even in the apparent privacy of your own hard drive, and harsh and unjust words, when released into the wild, rampage around and do real damage. And as for the practice of saying mean and untrue thing while hiding behind a pseudonym (like Bo Diaz, NC, Iggy, MG…etc etc etc) – well if I get a letter like that it goes straight in the bin. But the cyberspace equivalents of road rage don’t happen by accident. People who type, vicious, angry, slanderous and inaccurate accusations do so because they feel their worldview to be under attack.(like Chad, Iggy, Bo Diaz…etc. etc. etc.) Yes, I have a pastoral concern for such people. (And, for that matter, a pastoral concern for anyone who spends more than a few minutes a day taking part in blogsite discussions, especially when they all use code names: was it for this that the creator God made human beings?) (Nope…But that is what this site is all about! Do you people have JOBS?!?!?!)But sometimes worldviews have to be shaken. They may become idolatrous (amen…serving a false hippie God of the ‘Shack) who saves everybody and cares nothing for Justice and Truth) and self-serving. And I fear that that has happened, and continues to happen, even in well-regulated, shiny Christian contexts – including, of course, my own. John Piper** writes, he tells us, as a pastor. So do I.

Fixed it.

88   Neil    
August 4th, 2009 at 12:33 pm

Pastorboy,

Just as Iggy and Deborah have illustrated N. T. Wright’s point (the need for a Christian blogging ethic) – you have as well.

First off, your swipe at Wright is as un-Christ-like as it is untrue. Wright is a brilliant brother in Christ… his stance on the uniqueness of Christ, his stance on the need for salvation, even his stance on issues like homosexuality are highly controversial in his world because he holds such conservative views.

I trust there is considerably more on which you and the Bishop agree than you disagree.

Second, your participation in accusation flinging in undeniable… as is your unwillingness to discuss them once made.

Finally, you take a swipe at what this site is all about – but in so doing you name only those who comment here – none of the contributors. Are you suggesting we filter comments to only allow those who agree?

89   DMac    
August 4th, 2009 at 8:31 pm

In re to #85 – Sandman I couldn’t agree more. These kinds of interactions are in no edifying. I’m not even sure why they get past the moderation process. The amount of times I have come away from this site feeling both discouraged and embarrassed. Seriously guys it really does this site a disservice.

Peace

90   Brett S    
August 4th, 2009 at 10:13 pm

I agree with Bishop Wright’s sentiment in theory, but I think some of you guys may be getting carried away with the “ethics” of blogging. I like this blog and I actually like argueing with some of you guys (where’s Paul C been by the way?) Sometimes I’m even proven wrong and learn things in the process.

I don’t find anything wrong with Christians fighting occasionally, and even going to war if the need arises. I was reading Chesterton’s biography of St. Francis recently and loved this line:

It is evident that he had not at this time any notion of abandoning the military, still less of adopting the monastic life. It is true that there is not, as the pacifists and prigs imagine, the least inconsistency between loving men and fighting them, if we fight them fairly and for a good cause.

I’m not so bothered by fighting and argueing with my fellow Christians. I’m aware we’ve all still got growing and changing to do, but I’m more troubled by “inconsistency” in my fellow churchmen. For example: If I ever had the honor of meeting any of you fine gentlemen in person, I would have genuine respect for pastorboy if he were just as much of a pompous know-it-all in real life.

91   M.G.    
August 4th, 2009 at 10:23 pm

Pastorboy,

I’m a bit disheartened that you believe that I have written untrue or mean things here. It saddens me to no end, in fact.

I have tried at all times to speak clearly, fairly, and kindly. If I have failed, you have my most hearty apology.

In fact, if it is truly your belief that my words have hurt the Church, then you have my promise that I’ll never post here again.

Most people make the decision for themselves whether to post here or not.

In this case, though, I leave it to you. Please tell me, honestly, if I have erred, and you have word that all comments will cease. Thank you.

92   Joe    http://joemartino.name
August 4th, 2009 at 10:49 pm

#91
Really? here’s a guy who’s lied, twisted the truth, called people unregenerate and generally said things that are about as unchristlike as can be. What could you be hoping to prove?

93   M.G.    
August 4th, 2009 at 11:03 pm

Re:92

I’m not trying to prove anything, really.

If PB truly believes that I’m hurting the body of Christ with my words.. . well then, it would not really hurt anything if I took a timeout from these types of things and focused on God’s Word.

That’s a serious charge he leveled at me, after all. And he is a Pastor, worthy of my respect.

The internet is a funny thing. A million voices, all of us thinking we’re pretty smart, pretty clever, pretty awesome.

When, by definition, most of us are pretty average, me especially included.

So if it blesses Pastorboy for me to say “I defer to you, friend, and I’ll be quiet if you want me to be,” then let me bless away.

94   Joe    http://joemartino.name
August 4th, 2009 at 11:19 pm

M.G.

“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
~Edmund Burke (updated by Joe)

Even though we have disagreed on here, you are a good man (or woman, come to think of it I don’t really know your gender) don’t go away because one Pharisee leveled a charge. Jesus never went away when they did that.

95   Sandman    
August 4th, 2009 at 11:30 pm

Brett, I don’t have a problem with fights, arguments and squabbles. Conflict exists in any gathering of two or more, after all. But not every argument needs to be engaged.

What bothers me is the way people go about it.

Some fights really need to be conducted in private, not out in front of people who likely have more of a voyeuristic interest than a genuine interest in reaching clarity and reconciliation. And some of the combatants refuse to take an argument offline because they play better to an audience and are only interested it seems in disparaging the other person.

96   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
August 5th, 2009 at 8:10 am

I just find it funny that in his rant, someone using the pseudonym “Pastorboy” complains about other people using pseudonyms… If the product of a certain theological system is to make people more hateful toward other Christians, than I think it’s fair to question the validity of said theological system.

I’m often reminded of the Chagall Guevera song, Violent Blue when I read some of these angry comments.

Hey, don’t I know you from some other life?
You were wide-eyed and green
And a little bit taller
And you didn’t look away
When spoken to

Do you still take two sugars?
You seem a little tense
And I can’t help but notice how hard you appear
When I look into your eyes
A violent blue

Was it sudden?
Was it clean?
Were there a lot of shades in between?

Step away
Let off
Throw it down
And lose yourself

Hey, are you in there?
Or don’t you recall
When the perfume of belief was all we needed
It was all we needed
To set our sights

So when did you throw out
The rest of the world
Deaf from the din of your self-righteous babble?
I think you’ve been blinded
By your own light

Was it hatred?
Was it pride?
Or did you just have a lot to hide?

Come away
Throw down
Let it burn
And lose yourself

Passion
To ashes
To smoldering ruins
Are you in there?
Are you in there?

Am I boring you?
I could say more
We were destined for somewhere but that was before
You traded in your peace sign
For a finger

And I don’t believe it’s the way you were raised
Or the cards you were dealt
Or a poor self-image
I think you love yourself too much

You want to rule some sovereign state?
You want to smother in all that hate?

Get away
Lay down
Strip it off
And lose yourself

97   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
August 5th, 2009 at 8:51 am

#93
I don’t believe I said you ever said anything unkind, MG, I was refering to your pseudonym.

My pastorboy handle is actually linked to my site and e-mail. Since I have a Jr. (my son) I so not want internet searchers finding him.

But, of course, Joe utterly disrespects that by referring by my name.

Joe, be blessed.

98   Neil    
August 5th, 2009 at 9:31 am

DMac,

RE #89 – Since the ADM’s do not, as a general rule, allow discussion and since, as another rule, when they did they filtered them to only post comments that agreed – we have the tradition of a much more allowable commenting blog.

That said, You and Sandman are correct that allowing petty arguments to escalate and continue is embarrassing.

All who write here and comment here are free to call someone on their behavior.

99   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
August 5th, 2009 at 9:35 am

DMac and Neil:

All of my sites are open to commenters. I do not delete any unless they contain potty language and/or blasphemy.

100   Neil    
August 5th, 2009 at 9:36 am

Pastorboy,

I believe i too, from time to time, have addressed you by name in the hopes it would be more personal. I was unaware your posted under the knick-name for security purposes. Could it be that Joe was unaware as well?

101   Neil    
August 5th, 2009 at 9:37 am

What bothers me is the way people go about it.

This is the crux of the discussion.

102   Neil    
August 5th, 2009 at 9:40 am

#91
Really? here’s a guy who’s lied, twisted the truth, called people unregenerate and generally said things that are about as unchristlike as can be. What could you be hoping to prove?

Joe,

While I agree offering to never comment again at Pastorboy’s bidding is a bit extreme. On the other hand, I find M.G.’s comments conciliatory.

As as we see, Pastorboy responded in kind. Although in the process he took a swipe at you.

103   Brett S    
August 5th, 2009 at 10:18 am

they play better to an audience and are only interested it seems in disparaging the other person #95

Good point, Sandman.
That’s way I complete understand using pseudonyms to protect one’s identity and family from wackos. I just don’t think an internet pseudonym gives you the right to develop an alter-ego like a WWF star.

I think Christians should strive to be the same person when we interact with the people we go to church with, our families, or the people we see at Walmart. I don’t think we technically need a seperate “ethic for blogging”.

104   Brett S    
August 5th, 2009 at 2:37 pm

I do not delete any unless they contain potty language – Pastorboy

Pastorboy,
Potty language? So if I’m understanding you correctly, you find it acceptable and righteous to post comments that contain unsheltered gossip, innuendo, false allegations, inaccurate doctrinal interpretations, and which bear false witness against one’s neighbor (one of the top 10).

But you would automatically delete a comment suggesting that you might be an arrogant a**hole. Even though using potty words is not specifically forbidden by the bible.

Is this your scriptural rational for determining acceptable comments, or are you just keeping it G rated for the kids that read your blog?

105   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
August 5th, 2009 at 4:48 pm

#104
That is not what I am saying at all.

Yet that is the example I see here when we take Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, etc. as gospel truth.

106   joe    
August 5th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

His john. You’ve never brought this up before. Did you tell Ken Silva about it. You have truth issues.

107   joe    
August 5th, 2009 at 6:29 pm

Neil if you believe the security claim, find it one time. He corrected the spelling of his name here once. Go to ??n and count how often his name is used. It was used today with his church. I will say it again, John is lying.

108   Neil    
August 5th, 2009 at 9:00 pm

Pastorboy,

If your blog is anything like your rhetoric here, then I kinda have to agree with Brett. Although I think there is a biblical injunction against course language – is there not?

Though I do believe it is probably a less crime then bearing false witness against a brother in Christ.

109   Brett S    
August 5th, 2009 at 9:21 pm

Pastorboy, #105

Fair enough, sorry for the misunderstanding.
I don’t take any of those guys you mentioned as gospel truth, but I don’t have anything against any of them. I don’t mean to offend you but I do have a hard time understanding the point of your comments.

110   Joe    
August 6th, 2009 at 12:10 am

John Chisham,
I forgive you for your blatant lie in this thread. Be blessed today.

111   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
August 6th, 2009 at 8:49 am

#110
There, he did it again.

I forgive you, Joe, for attempting to reveal my identity by using my full name, something I won’t do to you because of your little girls and your wife may be prone to stalkers as a result.

Joe, I hope you are blessed as well.

112   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
August 6th, 2009 at 9:13 am

PB,
Not to be contentious, but everytime the editor of CRN links to your site, he uses your full name.
What’s the difference?

113   Joe    http://joemartino.name
August 6th, 2009 at 9:17 am

John Chisham,
Have you talked to Ken Silva about this? Just yesterday, Ken Silva used your whole name, John Chisham, whos is a pastor at such and such church. Can you bring up one time where you’ve brought this up before? No, of course you can’t because you are being dishonest. I have a really nice screen shot where you spelled your whole name out for me here.
What scares me is you are a pastor and you are willing to lie like a politician.
I’ll not be discussing this with you further John Chisham unless you can bring up actual proof that this isn’t a cute little diversion. I will refuse to call you pastorboy and I’ll still call you John ChisHam. (remember when you put that capitol H in there for me?).
One other little lie that you’ve said John. You said, you wouldn’t use my first and last name because you were concerned for my family. Really? Every time you write about Rob, you tag me in it, with my first and last name. Once again John you are a liar.
I’ve got a beautiful screen shot of Ken’s post with your name in it.

114   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
August 6th, 2009 at 9:18 am

I forgive you, Joe, for attempting to reveal my identity by using my full name, something I won’t do to you because of your little girls and your wife may be prone to stalkers as a result.

Attempting to reveal your identity? What the heck are you talking about? If you’re trying to keep your identity secret, you’re doing a crappy job of it. I’s be willing to bet that everyone who comments here know your true identity. Heck, your name isn’t kept a secret when you’re mentioned on C?N.

Maybe you should get a pair of glasses a la Clark Kent….

115   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 6th, 2009 at 9:22 am

I have never heard John Chisham say anything about protecting his identity. In fact, I have called him “John” most times when responding to him and not once has he asked me not to.

John Chisham, you are being dishonest.

116   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
August 6th, 2009 at 9:28 am

Wake up, O ye moderators, and release PB’s response!

:)

117   Christian P    http://www.churchvoices.com
August 6th, 2009 at 9:49 am

There’s nothing in there to be released.

118   Phil Naessens    http://phillyflash.wordpress.com
August 6th, 2009 at 12:16 pm

Hi,

Even I know John Chisham……..and if you are worried about stalkers stalking your family why do you have your family picture on your website with your full name and where your church meets…

Geesh,

Phil

119   Joe    
August 6th, 2009 at 12:35 pm

UH-Oh the emperor is missing his clothes…

120   Phil Naessens    http://phillyflash.wordpress.com
August 6th, 2009 at 12:40 pm

Hi Joe,

I think it has more to do with being able to make comments like he did on my blog a few months back without it showing up on a Google search if anyone is trying to find out more about him…….BTW his comment was a doozy………

http://phillyflash.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/its-never-ken-silva-its-always-someone-else/#comment-9561

Phil

121   Jerry    http://www.dongoldfish.wordpress.com
August 6th, 2009 at 2:18 pm

Remember a while back when some guy doing some video thing about ‘on the road’ or something like that had John Chisham in one of his video interviews?

Remember when John Chisham went to Florida to badger people with legalism and plastered the youtube videos all over the internet ‘for the benefit of the church?’

Remember yesterday when someone at SOL even told us the name of the church that John Chisham served, where John Chisham blogged at, and why we should read John Chisham’s critique of some other pastor?

Man John Chisham sure is lost on this one.

Thanks John Chisham for embarrassing yourself and distracting us from the OP. Again.

122   Neil    
August 6th, 2009 at 3:20 pm

I think the point has been made.

123   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
August 6th, 2009 at 3:22 pm

I was bored. Excuse me.

124   Christian P    http://www.churchvoices.com
August 6th, 2009 at 3:59 pm

Normally, I’d agree Neil. But this has probably been the most appropriate railing I’ve seen to date.

125   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 6th, 2009 at 4:53 pm

LOL!

John Chisham is a riot!

126   Joe    
August 6th, 2009 at 7:05 pm

Now, honestly that’s funny satire.

127   Eugene    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
August 7th, 2009 at 7:20 am

Is PB busy somewhere or is he in hiding?

Silence screams, the echo’s roar…

128   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
August 7th, 2009 at 7:38 am

Yep, you guys are demonstrating the ethics of blogging, the ethics of love. You guys are following your emergent Pope NT Wright. Perfect.

And Why am I on moderation? I am the one being cyber-stalked by your people.

129   M.G.    
August 7th, 2009 at 9:09 am

PB,

Friend, instead of sarcasm and insults, why do you not address everyone’s complaint? Namely, that you were being less than completely honest regarding concerns over your name.

How do you reconcile your earlier comment with repeated use of your name by Pastor Ken Silva on his own website?

130   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
August 7th, 2009 at 9:16 am

And Why am I on moderation? I am the one being cyber-stalked by your people.

I never knew I had people. If it’s the case that I do, I haven’t been using my minions to their full potential…

131   Eugene    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
August 7th, 2009 at 9:20 am

Pastorboy, a confession will be good for your soul. Let me help you…

I am sorry that I demanded that my identity be kept a secret on the internet while I do not keep it a secret myself. I am sorry that I accused you that you purposely ignored my wish to stay anonymous for it was never my wish to stay anonymous in the first place. Please forgive me.

Oh, and while I’m busy, I’m sorry that I switch topics whenever I am in a corner to distract attention from the previous topic in which I could not substantiate my claims.

That is a good start John…

132   Eugene    http://eugeneroberts.wordpress.com
August 7th, 2009 at 9:24 am

I am the one being cyber-stalked by your people.

Don’t flatter yourself.

133   Neil    
August 7th, 2009 at 9:45 am

And Why am I on moderation?

Pastorboy,

You are in moderation for your abuse of Rob Bell’s name… not your disagreement with him, but for calling him “Rob Baal.”

Albeit that was clever, you were asked to use his given name… but refused.

134   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
August 7th, 2009 at 9:45 am

You guys are following your emergent Pope NT Wright. Perfect.

Tell you what, I’d follow him before I’d follow a lot of the people you follow.

135   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
August 7th, 2009 at 9:51 am

Tell you what, I’d follow him before I’d follow a lot of the people you follow.

I was going to say something similar to this. I would much rather serve under someone like Wright whom has no shown no inclination of getting up in everyone’s business than someone like John MacArthur whom I actually suspect wouldn’t mind becoming the Protestant Pope.

136   Neil    
August 7th, 2009 at 9:58 am

You guys are following your emergent Pope NT Wright. – Pastorboy

I am not sure why I bother addressing your swipes, since you rarely ever respond to defend your comments… you seem disinterested in conversation…

– but for the sake of those who might not know N. T. Wright:
*
*
He is anything but emergent. He’s an Anglican Bishop for crying out loud! I think you just drop phrases in to demean others – whether they fit or not.

I challenge you here and now to show how N. T. Wright is not an orthodox Christian. Show me his errors that disqualify him the respect as a brother in the Lord and fellow servant of our King.

He has been clear (much more so than Bell) on the uniqueness of Christ and the necessity of salvation – so he IS NOT a universalist (Christian or otherwise).

He has been clear (much more so than his colleagues in the Anglican church) on the veracity and reliability of Scripture.

Until I see otherwise from you, on this matter you are a fool… you obviously have not read Wright but are only spouting back things you have heard from those who condemn him for wearing clerical vestments…

Your interpretation of those such as Bell has proven to be questionable at best… but at least you have the point that Bell writes in a manner that is provocative and can be vague.
*
*
Show me what you have read of Wright that you call him emergent!

Show me what you have read of Wright that you disparage him as anything other than an incredible scholar in love with his Lord and the study of his revealed Word.

Show me what you have read of Wright where he departs from any of the foundational truth of the historic faith.

Show me what you have read from Wright that he deserves to be judged by you.
*
*
Any comments directed in response to this challenge will be approved as soon as they are seen by a moderator.

137   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
August 7th, 2009 at 10:19 am

I admit, I have not read anything of Wright that shows that he is emergent. However, I use the term ‘Emergent Pope’ because all the emergents I know personally look to him as their favorite theologian.

While I believe Wright loves the Lord as he knows him, He has issues with God;s Word and with me because of his stands on Justification (which is a pretty traditional anglican stand faith +works= justification) whereas the Bible teaches faith +nothing= Justification, works are evidence of fruit bearing which is evidence of faith. I do not agree with him on his stance on heaven or hell or who goes there. I believe he is an incredible scholar (as is Steven Hawkins) but I depart from him where he departs from the Bible.

So, I believe he is the emergent pope (new perspectives on Paul, etc.) in the same way McArthur is the reformed pope- in a completely pedantic way.

And to put me on moderation for Rob Baal? Shoot, Iggy and Deborah and Joe and Jerry and Chris L have used far worse terms towards me and Ken Silva and Ingrid…But…we know where the bread is buttered I guess.

138   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
August 7th, 2009 at 10:32 am

While I believe Wright loves the Lord as he knows him, He has issues with God;s Word and with me because of his stands on Justification (which is a pretty traditional anglican stand faith +works= justification) whereas the Bible teaches faith +nothing= Justification, works are evidence of fruit bearing which is evidence of faith. I do not agree with him on his stance on heaven or hell or who goes there. I believe he is an incredible scholar (as is Steven Hawkins) but I depart from him where he departs from the Bible.

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

This is not what Wright says about justification at all. Wright explains that justification, as Paul uses the term, isn’t necessarily equated with salvation. Justification isn’t about our righteousness or God imputing His righteousness to us at all. It’s about God’s righteousness. We are justified because God through Christ was faithful to His covenant and we are the verdict God has issued is “not guilty”. Which as Wright points out is not a declaration of our moral condition, but rather simply a definition of our standing – much like in a courtroom today. If a judge declares someone not guilty, that doesn’t mean they are completely blameless – it simply means they have been found in the right on whatever issue the court was looking at. In this case, the issue is who can rightly be called a member of God’s covenant family.

139   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
August 7th, 2009 at 10:42 am

#139
This is a wrong view of justification, only in the fat that we are seen as completely blameless because in Justification we are not only declared ‘not guilty’ but we are also imputed the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

NT Wright does believe the traditional anglican view. He expounds on what it is. I chose not to.

140   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
August 7th, 2009 at 10:44 am

I admit, I have not read anything of Wright that shows that he is emergent. However, I use the term ‘Emergent Pope’ because all the emergents I know personally look to him as their favorite theologian

I now consider myself fairly emergent and my favorite theologian is DA Carson (and David Wells). And Eugene Peterson–three men who are not emergent in any way.

While I believe Wright loves the Lord as he knows him, He has issues with God;s Word and with me because of his stands on Justification (which is a pretty traditional anglican stand faith +works= justification) whereas the Bible teaches faith +nothing= Justification, works are evidence of fruit bearing which is evidence of faith. I do not agree with him on his stance on heaven or hell or who goes there. I believe he is an incredible scholar (as is Steven Hawkins) but I depart from him where he departs from the Bible

I have a good friend who is an Anglican pastor. He would be surprised to learn that his traditional faith is what you have just described. I do not know a pastor in my community who believes more in the grace of God and salvation by grace through faith than my Anglican friend and pastor. You simply have no idea what you are talking about at all.

And to your point: how do you know he ‘departs from the bible.’ You disagree with him because Piper and Johnny Mac do–but even Piper wouldn’t say that Wright ‘departs from the Bible.’ His books are filled with Scripture, exposition of Scripture, and thoughts about Scripture. He has a different interpretation of things that he reads in the Bible, but his makes a lot more sense than some of the blather put out by your so-called Reformed theologians (the ones I actually like and listen to).

You are way off base.

PS–I have never referred to Kenny as anything but my friend.

141   Joe    
August 7th, 2009 at 10:49 am

LOL, Has anyone seen John Chisham’s comment on Iggy’s satire site. He threatens to sue for slander (think you mean libel, John Chisham) and would you mind showing what Iggy did that was inaccurate. He linked to your own stuff. Have fun getting an attorney. I may have to do a month of posts on you John.

142   Joe    
August 7th, 2009 at 10:52 am

Maybe I should get an attorney and sue Ken for calling me a Christian Agnostic. Now, see that’s a lie…nah the LORD seems to be taking care of Ken just fine.

143   Joe    http://joemartino.name
August 7th, 2009 at 10:56 am

If you google “John Chisham” you get mostly his own stuff. Heck his open Twitter page is #5! Click here on John Chisham for the results.

144   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
August 7th, 2009 at 10:57 am

This is a wrong view of justification, only in the fat that we are seen as completely blameless because in Justification we are not only declared ‘not guilty’ but we are also imputed the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

NT Wright does believe the traditional anglican view. He expounds on what it is. I chose not to.

Ahhh, yes, the old “it’s right because that’s what I believe” defense. Really, John, there’s no point in discussing any of this with you since you’ve already admitted you haven’t read any of his books.

All I can say, is that I’ve read many books from many different theologians, and Wright is probably the most thorough exegetes I have read. It’s one thing to say you don’t agree with a certain exegesis and offer up evidence to support your case, but it’s quite another to simply say you don’t agree because you don’t agree.

By the way, even J.I. Packer, one of the most respected conservative theologians alive, has said that the idea of imputed righteousness doesn’t have much, if any, Biblical support.

145   Bo Diaz    
August 7th, 2009 at 11:02 am

Pastorboy,
I’m a little confused here. In an earlier conversation we had on this site you told me that Anglican church was all good up until recently. But now, you’re telling me that tradition Anglican theology is something you profoundly disagree with.

Which is it?

You’re reminding me an awful lot of a guy who sees his own image in a mirror and then forgets what he looks like as soon as he walks away.

146   Neil    
August 7th, 2009 at 11:11 am

Pastorboy,

Your accusation that Wright advocates a faith + works salvation is incorrect.

“John Piper…said that salvation is accomplished by the sovereign God, operating through the death of Jesus Christ in our place and on our behalf, and appropriated through faith alone. Absolutely. I agree a hundred percent. There is not one syllable of that summary that I would complain about.”
N. T. Wright (Justification)

No works here.

147   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 7th, 2009 at 11:13 am

And to put me on moderation for Rob Baal?

Actually, PB, that was just one of many straws that broke the proverbial camel’s back that day.

The moderation occurred in response to the other items mentioned – the drive-by responses that often had nothing to do with the OP, inserted baseless and derogatory claims, and then refused to deal with refutation of those claims, all the while becoming more belligerent and disrespectful. And, for me, it was Neil’s suggestion in this thread that prompted me to review your most recent 20 comments, which revealed the downward vector you seem to have chosen.

In general, I believe I have addressed you by your pseudonym, not out of privacy concerns (which, you must admit, seems to be pretty doggone silly argument, in light of your plastering your name out on the ‘net in most other regards), but out of convenience to the reader.

I know the identities of other commenters who, like yourself, use short-hand names or nicknames for themselves in comments (MG, nc, Bo, etc.), so I do not consider them to be (nor do they act as if they are) anonymous, in the purest sense of the word.

As for the Baal thing, the reason it was a “straw” on the back of the proverbial camel was not because of it being used with Rob, but because of its specific scriptural implications – attributing a person who is made in the image of God as, instead, an image of Satan. While we may disagree with certain doctrines and actions of those we disagree with – and while there very well may be doctrines and actions which are more aligned with the evil one, the people themselves are not “of Satan”, and attributing the handiwork of God as that of the evil one is the textbook definition of blasphemy.

Example: Do I believe that Ken Silva’s entire “ministry” is a tool of Satan, used to spread dissension, slander and evil within the church? I’m pretty certain that it is, and if you wish, I am willing to provide proof and debate it – question by question, without dissembling and switching the subject when in a corner. Do I believe that Silva, himself, is Satanic? No. Deluded, yes – but still a child of God.

148   Neil    
August 7th, 2009 at 11:27 am

I do not agree with him on his stance on heaven or hell or who goes there. – Pastor

I also do not agree with some of the things that Wright has said regarding Hell.

What do you disgree with regarding heaven and who goes there? Having read Surprised by Hope I found it a thoroughly biblical exposition on the eternal state of believers.

In it he describes the eternal state with God for those “in Christ” and a condemnation for those who are not. We dis agree on the details of what this looks like – but that is certainly an in house debate.

149   Neil    
August 7th, 2009 at 11:30 am

However, I use the term ‘Emergent Pope’ because all the emergents I know personally look to him as their favorite theologian.

So, he is to be mocked (and do not deny calling him the Emergent Pope is not mocking him) based on those who like to read him?

150   Neil    
August 7th, 2009 at 11:33 am

When I am out of this stinkin airport/airplane I will transcribe the end of that video and post it. I guess I am not shocked that the fellow haters of the real Gospel would begin name calling. Rob Bell is preaching another Gospel in that video.

This was the exact phrase that served as the tipping point for me to suggest moderation. It is not in your place to decide who hates the Gospel.

151   Neil    
August 7th, 2009 at 11:35 am

Example: Do I believe that Ken Silva’s entire “ministry” is a tool of Satan, used to spread dissension, slander and evil within the church? I’m pretty certain that it is, and if you wish, I am willing to provide proof and debate it – question by question, without dissembling and switching the subject when in a corner. Do I believe that Silva, himself, is Satanic? No. Deluded, yes – but still a child of God.

Nor would we call Silva a “hater of the Gospel.” I believe he does it great harm… but I do not believe he hates it.

152   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 7th, 2009 at 11:38 am

John Chisham aka pastorboy threatens to sue me! LOL!

153   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
August 7th, 2009 at 11:43 am

Ken Silva, my friend, might not hate the gospel, but he doesn’t care much for people.

154   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
August 7th, 2009 at 11:47 am

Ken Silva, my friend, might not hate the gospel, but he doesn’t care much for people.

Reminds me of something I heard a pastor say once – “ministry would be great if it weren’t for having to deal with the people.”

155   Neil    
August 7th, 2009 at 11:47 am

Let’s let Wright speak for himself:

3. Justification in the present is based on God’s past accomplishment in Christ, and anticipates the future verdict. This present justification has exactly the same pattern.

(a) God vindicates in the present, in advance of the last day, all those who believe in Jesus as Messiah and Lord (Rom. 3.21-31; 4.13-25; 10.9-13). The lawcourt language indicates what is meant. ‘Justification’ itself is not God’s act of changing the heart or character of the person; that is what Paul means by the ‘call’, which comes through the word and the Spirit. ‘Justification’ has a specific, and narrower, reference: it is God’s declaration that the person is now in the right, which confers on them the status ‘righteous’. (We may note that, since ‘righteous’ here, within the lawcourt metaphor, refers to ’status’, not ‘character’, we correctly say that God’s declaration makes the person ‘righteous’, i.e. in good standing.)

Those who are justified are those who believe in Jesus as Messiah and Lord.

No works here.
No confusion of who get to heaven.

156   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
August 7th, 2009 at 11:54 am

Yes, Neil, as you’ve shown the debate about what Wright says about justification is really on a quite narrow subject area – namely “imputed righteousness” and the role of the Law. I honestly think that the vast majority of people who say they don’t agree with Wright simply don’t understand what he’s saying, which is sad.

I also see a lot of people use the excuse that Wright’s explanation are simply too confusing, as if all Biblical concepts are beholden to be simple for some unexplained reason. Actually, though, I don’t even think Wright’s explanations are really confusing when you get down to it.

I’ve been in the church literally all my life, and it wasn’t until I read Wright that some of the verses really came to life. I’ve had so many ‘aha!’ moments while reading him. I don’t worship the man, nor do I think he’s infallible, but it saddens me to see people attacked for no other reason than some people seem to feel threatened by him.

157   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 7th, 2009 at 11:58 am

Talk about libel! http://crninfo.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/hypocrisy-thy-name-is-crn-info/

What a hypocrite John Chisham is… but we already knew that. Especially after you read all your comments out of context and what he states at the end… what a buffoon. (John you can quote me on that if you want.)

158   Joe    http://joemartino.name
August 7th, 2009 at 11:59 am

Could you imagine if John won his lawsuit? How long do you think it would take for people to line up to sue Ken, and Ingrid and even John himself? That would almost be worth it.

159   Joe    http://joemartino.name
August 7th, 2009 at 12:03 pm

When did Nathaniel become a contributor here? John says that he is. Score one more for the ***Cough** cough*** discernment ministries. Seriously, this week has made me feel badly for John. I wonder if he isn’t having some sort of mental breakdown. Poor guy.

160   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
August 7th, 2009 at 12:04 pm

In that article, he states “(Those noted in BOLD are contributers, not just commenters to C??RN.info)”

My name is in bold in his article.
I did not realize I was a contributor to this site.
When can I start posting?
I’m tired of being just a commenter.

161   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
August 7th, 2009 at 12:05 pm

Joe, you’re too quick, you cyber-stalker guy, you.

162   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 7th, 2009 at 12:05 pm

My site is satire… and I only reported what happened here yesterday… LOL! I doubt that any lawyer would take the case… unless it was only to take PB’s money.

I only stated one lie which was that John would never put his real name out on the internet… (that was the satire part btw)

iggy

163   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 7th, 2009 at 12:08 pm

Nathanael, you should sue PB for libel over the accusation you are a contributor at this site! I will now pass the Holy Spirit lawsuit bucket around and take a collection for you lawyer!

164   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
August 7th, 2009 at 12:14 pm

At first I was flattered…then I was offended…now I’m torn…

165   Neil    
August 7th, 2009 at 12:18 pm

Phil,

I have never seen Wright deny imputed righteousness. has he done so explicitly, or is he just emphasizing the declarative nature of Justification.

I have started Justification by Wright – but I’m still in the earlier stages.

166   Neil    
August 7th, 2009 at 12:29 pm

I am kinda at a loss what to think about Pastorboy’s post on his satire site.

I have used his name when wanting to be more personal than a user name and he never said anything.

Further, in a post about using his name quotes my joke about how he uses “ruach” – not sure how it fits.

When he says we “…worship and defen[d] of all things emergent” – is he reading this site?

We defend false accusations, misinterpretations, poor logic, etc… but we also discuss what we do and do not like about various things emerging. There is no uniformity here.

He also claims our “hatred for the brethren” – which is false. Which we have stated to be false. Which even Chris L.’s recent post regarding Silva argues against.

What is really really offensive as well as unbelievably arrogant is his hope that we “repent and trust the Savior before it is too late.”

So – now John has decided that I do not trust Jesus!

167   Neil    
August 7th, 2009 at 12:31 pm

Pastorboy,

I was annoyed that the whole site bantering stuff was going on and on and on – I think it petty.

Then I read where you claim I do not trust Jesus.

I am sorry I have stood up for you.

168   nc    
August 7th, 2009 at 12:35 pm

“thy name is…”

how poetic…so educated and flowery….

169   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
August 7th, 2009 at 12:37 pm

I have never seen Wright deny imputed righteousness. has he done so explicitly, or is he just emphasizing the declarative nature of Justification.

I have started Justification by Wright – but I’m still in the earlier stages.

Well, you’ll get to in the book pretty soon. He simply says that imputed righteousness in the way that it gets explained in Reformed circles simply wasn’t what Paul was getting at. He does not see Justification as a moral transaction (our sin for God’s righteousness), but rather as an act of God declaring something about our status. Saying someone is justified isn’t saying anything about their moral purity, at least not directly.

Although he certainly does point out that sanctification is the expected process that a believer should undergo through the work of the Holy Spirit.

I guess it’s not so much that he denies imputed righteousness, as much as he simply doesn’t think it’s a Biblically supported concept. His point is that it’s a concept that has been forced upon Scripture rather than something that has been properly exegeted from Scripture.

170   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
August 7th, 2009 at 12:45 pm

From the article:

I will not sue them like their boy Richard Abanes did to Ken

Two things, not only does Phil have people, but Richard is our boy. And Richard did not sue Ken.

171   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
August 7th, 2009 at 12:51 pm

I guess the point I failed to make, Neil, is that according to Wright, and I think he’s correct on this, “righteousness” was not a word that a Jew during the Second Temple period would use to describe a person, at least not in the way Reformed theologians have put – it was not a moral quality that could be bestowed on something. Righteousness and justice come from the same root, and they are used to described God’s actions – His faithfulness to the covenant and the ones who are in that covenant.

So when Paul says Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness, it doesn’t mean Abraham was somehow seen by God as being morally perfect – it just means that God had declared Him to be in right standing via the covenant.

172   Neil    
August 7th, 2009 at 12:56 pm

Phil,

Understood – thanks.

It’s this kind of discussion I wish we could have ore of… where we discuss what people say and how that stacks up against our understanding of the Bible… etc…

Instead of the “He’s a liar…” – “He’s an enemy of the Gospel…” – “He hates Jesus…” – stuff

173   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 7th, 2009 at 12:59 pm

My understanding is that we were justified at the Cross… and when we come to faith we are then… Just, When walk in this justification we receive the Grace of God… then we are made righteous through Jesus.

But then Paul states it better than me:

Romans 5:16. Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

iggy

174   Neil    
August 7th, 2009 at 1:00 pm

From the article:

I will not sue them like their boy Richard Abanes did to Ken – Pastorboy

Two things, not only does Phil have people, but Richard is our boy. And Richard did not sue Ken. – Nathanel

This (as well as Pastorboy’s admission on not reading Wright) illustrates what I think is an intellectual laziness that is endemic to ODMdom. Not that this is always the case, but it is far too acceptable.

It is laziness to assume that everyone who writes and comments here agrees with everyone else – as if we are all a unified block.

Also, I find the use of “boy” annoying – not that it’s racial – just petty and condescending.

175   Neil    
August 7th, 2009 at 1:02 pm

…and just to show you how we are not a monolithic block – I thought Iggy calling Pastorboy a buffoon was inappropriate as well.

Not that I have not had similar thoughts, I must admit.

176   Neil    
August 7th, 2009 at 1:04 pm

Iggy,

I would say justification became available and/or a possibility through the cross (and resurrection).

We become justified through faith.

I’m not sure we ever become just until we ourselves are resurrected.

177   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 7th, 2009 at 1:05 pm

Neil,

PB is what he is… and I make no apologies… he is a buffoon.
buf·foon (b-fn) KEY

NOUN:

A clown; a jester: a court buffoon.
A person given to clowning and joking.
A ludicrous or bumbling person; a fool.

178   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 7th, 2009 at 1:10 pm

Neil,

The Just shall live by faith… so as I stated, at the Cross. We are justified at the Cross. Yet, at the resurrection we now can receive the Life. After we receive the Life, (Romans 5:10) we then are made… Just… and Live by Faith in Jesus.

Yes the Resurrection is needed, but not as far as justification… after we were (note the past tense in reference to the Cross) we are then saved by the Life of Christ… or the Resurrection.

iggy

179   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 7th, 2009 at 1:20 pm

Meaning that at the Cross we were justified… but those that receive the Life of Christ thanks to the Resurrection, we then become the Just that live by faith.

Romans 5 is one of my favorite passages… = )

180   Sandman    
August 7th, 2009 at 2:10 pm

Also, I find the use of “boy” annoying – not that it’s racial – just petty and condescending.

Sometimes it’s not a petty and condescending term, Neil. Give Nathanael a chance to explain how he meant it.

181   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
August 7th, 2009 at 2:31 pm

Sandman,
I was quoting the article on Pastorboy’s site…nothing more or less.

Shalom

182   Neil    
August 7th, 2009 at 2:38 pm

Sandman,

I was attributing the petty and condescending use to Pastorboy on his site, not to Nathaniel… Sorry for the confusion.

I updated the comment to make this clearer.

183   Sandman    
August 7th, 2009 at 2:53 pm

My bad, guys. I totally missed that.

184   Nathanael    http://www.borrowedbreath.com/
August 7th, 2009 at 4:15 pm

No worries.

185   Neil    
August 8th, 2009 at 9:48 am

So far Pastorboy has shown his objection to Wright on the issue of justification.

Not that Wright is wrong on what he says it is just his denial of the inclusion of imputation of righteousness.

So PB sides with Piper.
*
*
What we have not seen is Pastorboy addressing my correction of his erroneous statement that Wright believies in a faith + works justification.

What we have not seen is Pastorboy showing any cause why he would not consider Wright a fine brother in Christ, on par with any other theologically conservative Christian.

What we have not seen is Pastorboy showing how Wright is wrong on Justification.

What we have not seen is Pastorboy showing how Wright is wrong on heaven.

What we have not seen is Pastorboy showing how Wright is wrong on who gets to heaven.

186   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
August 8th, 2009 at 10:46 am

Neil,

I will post your answers as soon as I am off moderation. I am also dealing with Itodyaso/Iggy/Carlos right now.

God bless you.

187   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 8th, 2009 at 4:07 pm

Chris L and Rick (if you are still lurking), I thought of you as I wrote this sermon for tomorrow…

http://chadholtz.wordpress.com/2009/08/08/let-us-bow-to-our-father/

188   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 8th, 2009 at 4:12 pm

Yeah… PB send a email to my pastor…

Funny that PB posts all over the web both his name and alias… and lets Ken Silva even post his churches name… yet, if I do it, he gets all upset.

Hypocrite… and big baby who can’t takes what he dishes out to others…

You are truly a sad man PB… and really to be pitied.

Oh and you lied about something in the email to my pastor… but really that is how you roll…

iggy

189   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 8th, 2009 at 4:13 pm

End of discussion on my part about PB… sorry to bring it all up here…

190   Neil    
August 8th, 2009 at 4:18 pm

Pastorboy,

OK.

And as long as you and Iggy fight it out elsewhere.

191   Neil    
August 8th, 2009 at 4:24 pm

Pastorboy,

I suspect, when you look into what Wright has to say, you will not find the caricature portrayed by so many who mindlessly oppose him.

Sure, he has some ideas I (and you will) disagree with, but I think you will find him much more orthodox than you expect.

It’s not like I have exhaustively read him, so it is possible I may discover some here-to-for unknown (to me) heresey… but, I do not expect to find that in N. T. Wright.

192   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 8th, 2009 at 4:51 pm

Chad -

I’ve never said that hell ought to be emphasized or made a core emphasis in teaching. I’ve just said we ought not teach something about it that has no basis in what we have been taught about it in Scripture. I think that when we do speak of it, it ought to be a balance of the temporal and the eternal, since they are both sides of the same coin…

I am always fascinated when I hear a person tell me that unless there is the consequence of a literal, eternal hell than no one will do what is right.

I assume this is coming from conversations elsewhere, that I’ve not been privy to, as this is not a line of argument I’ve seen here.

Saying that I believe in the existence of an eternal hell (whether it be a place, or a conscious, eternal state of torment, or a state of annihilation) and that it is not “population = 0″ is not the same as saying that it must be doctrine of constant emphasis.

193   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 8th, 2009 at 9:42 pm

Chris,
We have a problem here. Apparently someone has hi-jacked your user ID in the past and has been posting under “Chris L.” Perhaps it could be John Chisham in an attempt to further his anonymity?

I assume this because you say that you have not been part of nor seen any line of argument around here that would suggest that if we do not believe in a literal, eternal hell than we will have no motivation to serve God. And yet, in a very quick and simply perusal of the last thread this was discussed I find this…

#446
Chris L wrote:
Screwtape: Just tell ‘em that there is no such thing as hell – or better yet, if there is one it will be empty – and that the wicked will just get a do-over after a slap on the wrist. There will be no real need for evangelism, and the wicked will be left to their own ends…

#445
Rick F said: Regardless of how you slice it, if everyone winds up in heaven then the gospel mission is nothing more than information spreading without any power for redemption. Additionally it renders faith as an elective and not a necessity.

To which Chris L responds:

Exactly, Rick.
Universal “Reconciliation” is such a sham, there is no real “redemption” to be had. Redeemed from what? A slap on the wrist. Faith in what? Whatever you want, it doesn’t really matter.
Ho-hum. Why even bother?

#437:
Chris L said:
The praxis of the fallacy of UR is quite evident and (as you have now loudly proclaimed) has no practical need – temporal or eternal – for the spread of the gospel (even as toothless and impotent a “gospel” as UR claims).

#425
Chris L said:
Besides which, if I’m wrong, I’ve only potentially got a temporary time-out to deal with. Eat, drink and be merry

#154
Rick F said:
You are correct, my interaction with universalists is limited but I have read some articles and have dialogued with some as well. Just by definition a person who believes in an eternal hell has more motivation than others.

#125
I said: The person who think they can just live however they want because it doesn’t matter in the end is one who does not really know the one who saved them.

Paul C said:
So what? There’s nothing I can do to lose out on life eternal, or so your argument goes. I am saved.

#122
Rick F said:
Even if people like Chad are not encouraging people to live any way they want, their theology still openly teaches that the way you live, or what you believe, will not preclude everyone from living eternally with Jesus Christ.

#117
Paul C said:
This means, irrespective of a person’s acceptance of Christ or even out-and-out rejection, he or she will still be saved. In essence, confessing and professing Christ is a ‘nice-to-have’, discipleship is not required and we can essentially live however we want.

****

Either you are really confused or you have an impersonator or you just aren’t paying much attention.

Which is it?

194   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 8th, 2009 at 9:55 pm

In any event, Chris, you have repeatedly asserted that I am a follower of Satan rather than God and that universalism must lead one to the conclusion that they can live and do as they please since there is no threat of hell.
It would be nice if you could actually prove those assertions from what I actually preach or type here rather than call me what you have and judge me the way you have based on nothing more than your own assumptions about me or about a doctrine that threatens your world view. Sort of like what N.T. Wright says..

People who type, vicious, angry, slanderous and inaccurate accusations do so because they feel their worldview to be under attack.

195   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 8th, 2009 at 10:41 pm

I am always fascinated when I hear a person tell me that unless there is the consequence of a literal, eternal hell than no one will do what is right.

Reading comprehension again, Chad.

This is not the same thing as any of the quotes you’ve given from me – You can do all the “right” things and still not believe…

196   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 8th, 2009 at 10:49 pm

You aren’t being very clear, Chris. But let’s forget all that for the moment. Just make it clear as mud for me:

Are you saying that a person can live a life conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, have the fullness of God, with him as their Lord, without believing in a literal and eternal hell?

197   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 8th, 2009 at 10:50 pm

It would be nice if you could actually prove those assertions from what I actually preach or type here rather than call me what you have and judge me the way you have based on nothing more than your own assumptions about me or about a doctrine that threatens your world view.

Since I’ve not made the assertions in the exact manner in which you’ve stated them, I don’t know that I need defend what you’ve characterized.

Your doctrine certainly doesn’t threaten my “world view” – it’s just basically heresy. Whether it’s damnable heresy isn’t up to me. I certainly feel no threat from it, as I’m not so open-minded that I need to worry about my brains falling out…

198   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 8th, 2009 at 10:52 pm

You can do all the “right” things and still not believe…

what do you mean by this?

“believe” in what?

Are you saying that belief in hell is a requirement for salvation?

199   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 8th, 2009 at 10:56 pm

Are you saying that a person can live a life conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, have the fullness of God, with him as their Lord, without believing in a literal and eternal hell?

That’s not up to me. I believe that God’s grace is quite wide – much wider than we often give him credit for. My criticism is not so much directed at the belief as it is at one teaching that belief. And I’m not going to be complicit in it, so I make it quite clear on this site, since I bear some responsibility for what is here…

200   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 8th, 2009 at 10:57 pm

Since I’ve not made the assertions in the exact manner in which you’ve stated them, I don’t know that I need defend what you’ve characterized.

So you deny that you have said that I follow Satan rather than God, that I am a false teacher, deluded by Satan, possibly leading others to hell, encouraging hedonism, and more?
I’ll be happy to hear that you deny all this. I’ll just assume the guy who said it all before was your impersonator.

Doesn’t change the fact that you have intimated as much (if not said it directly) without ever proving this by anything I have actually said.

Just do this, which should be simple for someone so convinced about universalists: Take my sermons apart. Show me and everyone else how someone who believes God will save and redeem everyone encourages a “eat, drink and be merry” lifestyle or that you can do and believe anything you like because “it doesn’t matter.”

Can you prove that from what I have actually said or written? Yes or no?

201   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 8th, 2009 at 11:01 pm

That’s not up to me. I believe that God’s grace is quite wide – much wider than we often give him credit for. My criticism is not so much directed at the belief as it is at one teaching that belief. And I’m not going to be complicit in it, so I make it quite clear on this site, since I bear some responsibility for what is here…

That’s not up to you? I’m not asking you to judge whether someone is saved or not. I am asking you to say whether or not a person can grow to the full stature or maturity in Jesus Christ without believing in hell? If I asked you if a person can grow to maturity and fullness in Christ without believing Jesus is Lord you most certainly would answer, “no.” I know I would. So which is it? Is a belief in hell required for one to be like Christ?

Yes or no?

202   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 8th, 2009 at 11:03 pm

Are you saying that belief in hell is a requirement for salvation?

*sigh* No.

You can do all the right things, but still not really believe that Jesus is Lord.

In your system, I can do all the right things, but still believe that Allah – or Vishnu – or Joseph Smith – or Sum Yung Moon – etc. – is lord, and that’s really perfectly OK in the end analysis.

I can say “Jesus is a really good template for how I should live”, but as for Scripture? Well, they didn’t have the scientific enlightenment back then that we have now, so it’s all a crap shoot I can spin however I want. I haven’t really bothered to submit anything to him, other than what I would have him be like. But that’s OK…

203   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 8th, 2009 at 11:04 pm

My criticism is not so much directed at the belief as it is at one teaching that belief.

This is just a lie, Chris, and you and I both know it.

You have leveled your most vindictive words towards UR. You have called it “impotent, toothless” and have even said it “destroys the sacrifice of Christ.”

And what is it about me who is teaching it that deserves your criticism? If this were true you would actually be looking at my teachings, my sermons, and showing how it is “destroying the sacrifice of Christ.” Please enlighten me. Where is ONE instance in all I have written or said here or elsewhere that gives even the slightest impression that Christ’s life, death and resurrection are not central to EVERYTHING I believe.

Where??

204   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 8th, 2009 at 11:06 pm

You can do all the right things, but still not really believe that Jesus is Lord.

Who needs reading comprehension now? Is this John Chisham??

I did not ask if you can “do the right things.” I am not asking about being a good person. I am asking if a person can be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, which you should know far surpasses just “doing the right things.”

Furthermore, I am not asking if they can be filled with the fullness of God without believing Jesus is Lord. That is a given. I’m asking if they can be filled with the fullness of God and be conformed to the image of Christ WITHOUT BELIEVING IN A LITERAL HELL.

Stop changing the question to suit yourself.

yes or no?

205   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
August 8th, 2009 at 11:07 pm

I think you guys are just seriously missing each others’ points.

206   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 8th, 2009 at 11:08 pm

Is a belief in hell required for one to be like Christ?

Well, in actual definition, yes.

Since Jesus believed in a literal hell, then one would not be as fully like Christ as it would be capable for them to be if they did not believe what Jesus believed.

Personally, I’d rather get it right than have an entire army of divinity students pat me on the back and be happy how tolerant I was if their “world view”…

207   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 8th, 2009 at 11:13 pm

Since Jesus believed in a literal hell, then one would not be as fully like Christ as it would be capable for them to be if they did not believe what Jesus believed.

Your jumping to conclusions that are not yet proven.
And you know very well that I am not speaking about being like Christ in every way. We obviously will not have Christ’s divinity or knowledge of things unseen or eternal, let alone a number of other things.

Let me make it simple for you since you seem to desire nothing more than dance around the question:

Can a person be a faithful Christian, one who loves God with all their heart, body, soul and mind, without believing in a literal, eternal hell?

Yes or no?

Personally, I’d rather get it right than have an entire army of divinity students pat me on the back and be happy how tolerant I was if their “world view”…

More asinine assumptions on your part that have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. You really are no different from the people you set this site up to speak out against.
It’s sad to see you act this way, Chris.

208   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 8th, 2009 at 11:16 pm

Let me put it in bold so you get it this time:

Can a person be a faithful Christian, one who loves God with all their heart, body, soul and mind, without believing in a literal, eternal hell?

Yes or no?

I can’t be more clear than this, Chris.

209   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 8th, 2009 at 11:26 pm

Personally, I’d rather get it right than have an entire army of divinity students pat me on the back and be happy how tolerant I was if their “world view”…

Gonna keep this quote by you on speed dial and show it every time you accuse an ADM of assuming the motives of the people they judge.

210   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
August 8th, 2009 at 11:29 pm

Honestly Chad, the difference between Chris and most ODMs should be abundantly clear. I think you’re just very angry that he finds UR aberrant and dangerous to teach.

Plus, how is insinuating he’s like, say, Ken Silva any better than what you accuse him of doing to you?

This exchange is all very mind-boggling to me.

211   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 8th, 2009 at 11:34 pm

Joe C,

The difference is I can prove how he is being like Ken Silva. I’m rather surprised you can’t see it.

He has questioned my motives (see 210).
He has insinuated all sorts of things about what I teach and it’s consequences without ever taking seriously my actual sermons, teachings or words.
When asked a very simple question that could get to the bottom of the confusion he evades it, even changes the question to suit his own ends.

Don’t you agree that those are the same tactics of the ADM’s?

212   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 8th, 2009 at 11:40 pm

I think you’re just very angry that he finds UR aberrant and dangerous to teach.

Not really. Actually I don’t really care what he finds abhorrent. What does bother me, however, is how he claims it is dangerous because according to him it leads one to live a lifestyle of “eat, drink and be merry.” I have asked him repeatedly to prove this and he does not. I think say in my sermon, this:

This brings me to the recent discussions I have had about hell. I am always fascinated when I hear a person tell me that unless there is the consequence of a literal, eternal hell than no one will do what is right. We will live as hedonists as though there were no God. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. For many, many years this has been the mantra of the Church. Many of you sitting here today may have first come to know God out of a fear of going to hell. All the more proof that God can use any thing, even bad preaching, to wake us up to the salvation that is ours in Jesus.

So while there is indeed a place and time to speak of hell, and make no mistake about it, all of us will face judgment before a holy and righteous God, I am not convinced that it does us any good when it comes to conforming us to the image of Jesus Christ, which ought to be the aim or telos of every Christian (Eph. 4:15). It is not hell that motivates us to be better followers of Christ. No, just the opposite. It is love.

And the only part he quotes is the part I put in bold, and he claims that…

I assume this is coming from conversations elsewhere, that I’ve not been privy to, as this is not a line of argument I’ve seen here

Yet when I show him by his own words he actually HAS made the argument that one must believe in hell or else they will live however they want, he changes the question. He claims that it’s about “believing Jesus is Lord.” Huh? That isn’t the question, and it has nothing to do with what I said in my sermon.

His antics are textbook ADM. It’s unfair and dishonest. So let me ask again:

Can a person be a faithful Christian, one who loves God with all their heart, body, soul and mind, without believing in a literal, eternal hell?

Yes or no?

213   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 8th, 2009 at 11:49 pm

Sorry – helping my son learn chord charts…

My criticism is not so much directed at the belief as it is at one teaching that belief.

This is just a lie, Chris, and you and I both know it.

No lie – I hold teachers to more account than students. That is a concept based in scripture. Were you only a deluded student, I’d be much less persistent in challenging you, because your delusion would be contained to yourself.

You have called it “impotent, toothless” and have even said it “destroys the sacrifice of Christ.”

Well, that’s because it is, and it does.

Apparently Jesus need not have died, because there was nothing really to save us from. He need not have claimed exclusivity, because if his exclusivity is completely relegated to the eternal, there is no temporal application or belief one need associate with it. It is superfluous.

And what is it about me who is teaching it that deserves your criticism?

Accountability.

I did not ask if you can “do the right things.” I am not asking about being a good person.

That’s not what you wrote in your ’sermon’ – what you wrote was:

I am always fascinated when I hear a person tell me that unless there is the consequence of a literal, eternal hell than no one will do what is right.

(emphasis mine)

I’m asking if they can be filled with the fullness of God and be conformed to the image of Christ

Can someone be filled with the fullness of God and be conformed to the image of Christ if they believe that they can inject their own desired meanings into Scripture wherever they feel like it?

Since Jesus believed in a literal hell, then one would not be as fully like Christ as it would be capable for them to be if they did not believe what Jesus believed.

Your jumping to conclusions that are not yet proven.

I think you missed the comment about my mind not being so open that my brains have leaked out. They’re proven with all of the certainty required in this particular case.

Personally, I’d rather get it right than have an entire army of divinity students pat me on the back and be happy how tolerant I was if their “world view”…

Gonna keep this quote by you on speed dial and show it every time you accuse an ADM of assuming the motives of the people they judge.

I’m failing to see how I’m judging the motives of the divinity students. The only motive I’m judging in this particular case is my own for being ‘tolerant’…

Can a person be a faithful Christian, one who loves God with all their heart, body, soul and mind, without believing in a literal, eternal hell?

Yes or no?

Can a person be a faithful Christian, one who loves God with all their heart, body, soul and mind, if they believe they can inject their own meanings into Scripture wherever they so desire?

Yes or no?

214   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 8th, 2009 at 11:53 pm

Heading to bed. I look forward to your answer to this question, Chris:

Can a person be a faithful Christian, one who loves God with all their heart, body, soul and mind, if they believe they can inject their own meanings into Scripture wherever they so desire?

I’ll be content with any answer you give.

If you say “yes” than we have made some progress and you are beginning to realize that a belief in UR does not mean “eat, drink and be merry” (as you have so often characterized it).

If you say “no” than the portion of my sermon you chose to take issue with is right on, even more so than I might have realized when I wrote it earlier today.

g’night.

215   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 8th, 2009 at 11:56 pm

Can a person be a faithful Christian, one who loves God with all their heart, body, soul and mind, if they believe they can inject their own meanings into Scripture wherever they so desire?

You see, Joe C? He changes the question and refuses to answer the one asked of him.

Typical ADM style.

216   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
August 8th, 2009 at 11:56 pm

Yes. But it gets a bit confusing after that for me. I’m not saying you’re not Christian.

I still overall don’t see how Chris is like the ADMs. I really do think you both completely miss each others’ points. Chris has to address you himself, I won’t speak for him.

But you do seem angry Chad, much as I like you…=)

And I did actually mean aberrant, not abhorrent…lol

217   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 8th, 2009 at 11:58 pm

Chad – whatever the answer is to my question:

Can a person be a faithful Christian, one who loves God with all their heart, body, soul and mind, if they believe they can inject their own meanings into Scripture wherever they so desire?

that is the answer to your question:

Can a person be a faithful Christian, one who loves God with all their heart, body, soul and mind, without believing in a literal, eternal hell?

Because the questions are, in essence, identical.

218   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 8th, 2009 at 11:58 pm

That’s not what you wrote in your ’sermon’- what you wrote was:
I am always fascinated when I hear a person tell me that unless there is the consequence of a literal, eternal hell than no one will do what is right.

And you quoted me out of context, without taking the rest of it into consideration (the whole context is in 213).

And why did you put the word sermon in quotes? What are you implying, Chris?

219   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
August 9th, 2009 at 12:00 am

I think it’s just hard to sit and go “no hell = no Christian”. I think he’s right in leaving you being a Christian up to you and God, just like I believe me being Christian is up to me and God.

220   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 9th, 2009 at 12:02 am

You see, Joe C? He changes the question and refuses to answer the one asked of him.

Typical ADM style.

Actually, no, it is Jesus’ style to answer a question with a question. And, in rabbinic form, the answer to the second question is the answer to the first.

Example:

Jesus entered the temple courts, and, while he was teaching, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him. “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you this authority?”

Jesus replied, “I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. John’s baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or from men?”

They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ But if we say, ‘From men’—we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a prophet.”

So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.”

Then he said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.

221   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
August 9th, 2009 at 12:02 am

That is to say, I still find UR pretty problematic for reasons that have been discussed ad nauseum already.

222   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 9th, 2009 at 12:03 am

And why did you put the word sermon in quotes? What are you implying, Chris?

Since it is a blog post, it is not really the sermon preached, unless it is given word-for-word. I am only assuming it is an outline or intent and not a transcript. Nothing more or less being insinuated.

223   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 9th, 2009 at 12:04 am

218: No, Chris, they are not identical questions in the least.

For one, YOUR question assumes that fallible human beings will interpret Scripture rightly in every instance and on every doctrinal issue. I have very sincere and devout friends who are convinced that it is a misinterpretation of Scripture for any of us to drink a glass of wine with our meal or have a beer. And yet neither of us believe that both can’t be conformed to the image of Christ, can’t love God with all their heart body, soul and mind and live as faithful Christians despite the fact that one if not both of us are wrong.

Why are you so afraid to answer a simple question? I’ll ask it one more time:

Can a person be a faithful Christian, one who loves God with all their heart, body, soul and mind, without believing in a literal, eternal hell?

yes or no?

224   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
August 9th, 2009 at 12:06 am

He obviously has his reasons for not wanting to answer ‘yes or no’. Consider that without being mad at him for it. He’s not an ADM because of that.

225   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 9th, 2009 at 12:08 am

Actually, no, it is Jesus’ style to answer a question with a question. And, in rabbinic form, the answer to the second question is the answer to the first.
Example:

LOL.

Everyone here knows this is not the reason you keep changing the question or evading it altogether. Nice try, though.

Since it is a blog post, it is not really the sermon preached, unless it is given word-for-word. I am only assuming it is an outline or intent and not a transcript. Nothing more or less being insinuated.

Chris, I think you are a liar.

When you get called on something you have done that is unfair or dishonest you weasel your way out of it by making up some excuse. When I introduce the sermon, I don’t say this is my ’sermon’ for Sunday. You put “sermon” in quotes because you were being snarky, trying to say that it isn’t really a sermon.

Own it. Coward.

226   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
August 9th, 2009 at 12:11 am

Chad you can’t seriously say he’s a liar and coward with a straight face and still be pissed at him and accusatory to him for what he’s supposedly done to you?

This conversation is bunk. It ain’t Christian and if he did you wrong than now you’re definitely no better. I’m out.

227   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 9th, 2009 at 12:14 am

Joe C, don’t forget your nose…

you might want to clean it off.

228   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
August 9th, 2009 at 12:19 am

Thanks dude. I’ll take that in to consideration. What’s your problem Chad, gotta throw a low-blow like that why?

Good job guessing my motives. Couldn’t be that I was just trying to keep the comments from getting out of hand, or watch some Christians tear in to each other, or see you do exactly what you just accused Chris of doing. Seriously? Maybe instead of tearing me down, which I NEVER did to you…lol…you know what? This is stupid, I’m going to go spend time with my wife. Goodnight.

229   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 9th, 2009 at 12:19 am
Actually, no, it is Jesus’ style to answer a question with a question. And, in rabbinic form, the answer to the second question is the answer to the first.

Everyone here knows this is not the reason you keep changing the question or evading it altogether. Nice try, though.

No evasion. It’s something I do quite often, even moreso in real life – for exactly the reasons I’ve described.

The answer to my question is the answer to your question.

You might as well have also asked “how much heresy is too much?”

You see, the difference between being a deluded student and a false teacher is quite wide. I believe that one can believe a number of wrong things and still be saved in the end. I also believe that one can teach wrong things that – in and of themselves, may not be damnable – but may lead to others’ damnation, because they have made “logical conslusions” based upon the false teachings that led into damnable heresy.

The question you’re asking me is about the deluded student, and frankly, the answer to the question is up to God.

Since it is a blog post, it is not really the sermon preached, unless it is given word-for-word. I am only assuming it is an outline or intent and not a transcript. Nothing more or less being insinuated.

Chris, I think you are a liar.

My apologies for giving you a false impression, then, as there was nothing meant by it. I think I initially typed blog post and then changed it to sermon (even though it is a blog post). I’m working on multiple screens and helping a son with chord charts for a band tryout – you’re reading far too much into my answers…

230   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 9th, 2009 at 12:22 am

Joe – thanks for stepping in. I think you had it right, and I’m sorry if I was not being clear. My lack of a “straight answer” is because I don’t think it is mine to give, but that the question-as-answer leads to the heart of (what I see as) the issue.

take care,

Chris

231   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 9th, 2009 at 12:26 am

for the record, you refuse to answer this question:

Can a person be a faithful Christian, one who loves God with all their heart, body, soul and mind, without believing in a literal, eternal hell?

yes or no?

And it has NOTHING to do with your revised question, as I show in #224 (which you didn’t address).

The question you’re asking me is about the deluded student, and frankly, the answer to the question is up to God

.

Nope. It’s just a simple question. You are adding all these qualifications to it that I never made.

I’ll just assume that, no, you believe a person cannot live a life faithful to Christ, cannot love God with heart, body, soul and mind, without believing in a literal hell. Perhaps we should change the Creeds of the church to include a confession of a literal and eternal hell.

You see? My sermon illustration is spot-on.

232   Joe    http://joemartino.name
August 9th, 2009 at 12:36 am

#232. I believe yes they can. I also miss the old Chad. The one who could debate for hundreds of comments and never stoop to some of the swipes in this thread. I know, I know I’ll go check my nose now. Chad, we’ve never met, but I love you and I LOVE your passion but sometimes man, you can be mean.

233   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 9th, 2009 at 12:44 am

for the record, you refuse to answer this question:

Can a person be a faithful Christian, one who loves God with all their heart, body, soul and mind, without believing in a literal, eternal hell?

yes or no?

I don’t refuse to answer it. I just refuse to answer it in the way you’ve asked it.

And it has NOTHING to do with your revised question, as I show in #224

#224 doesn’t “show” anything.

You said:

For one, YOUR question assumes that fallible human beings will interpret Scripture rightly in every instance and on every doctrinal issue.

No, my question assumes one has moved from simple error to unconscious eisegesis.

How much heresy is too much?

I’ll just assume that…

And we all know what “assuming” leads to, and how accurate your assumptions have been, historically…

Now – back to your question

Can a person be a faithful Christian, one who loves God with all their heart, body, soul and mind, without believing in a literal, eternal hell?

yes or no?

I believe that almost 99.99999% of Christians fail at living as a faithful Christian, who loves God with all their heart, body, soul and mind – regardless of whether they believe in a literal, eternal hell, so your question is moot. If they’re mistaken on that point, only God can decide the import of that mistake.

However, teaching it has much wider implications, and can lead others into eternal damnation, should they choose to believe your false premise (there is no eternal hell) without accepting your message of Jesus’ Lordship.

234   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 9th, 2009 at 2:44 am

OK I finally get it… after reading Chad and Chris L go on and on and on and on… I mean take to email guys… or don’t complain about others who debate off the topic… or fight on and on and on…

Hey Joe C, where are you? Why not admonish these guys also? This argument they have had has gone on for about a year now… at least be consistent and complain about others besides me… OK? = )

Sheesh…

235   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 9th, 2009 at 2:46 am

Wait… I see Joe C is in the fray… hmmm… guess he should not be admonishing others for fighting on and on… since he is doing also.

LOL!

236   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 9th, 2009 at 7:45 am

don’t refuse to answer it. I just refuse to answer it in the way you’ve asked it.

Sure, John Chisham, Chris.

No, my question assumes one has moved from simple error to unconscious eisegesis.

No, your question assumes that one is infallible in interpreting Scripture. No one is. Your question is far too general whereas mine is specific. I could ask a number of others, like…

Can a person be a faithful Christian and be a Republican?
Can a person be a faithful Christian and believe universal health care is the way to go?
Can a person b a faithful Christian and believe it is OK to drink moderately?
Can a person be a faithful Christian without believing the doctrine of the Trinity?
Can a person be a faithful Christian without believing in a literal, eternal hell?

You see, you seem to forget the entire reason I would ask this question. For months you have argued that UR leads to hedonism. You have argued that without the fear of hell there is no reason to be faithful to Christ. When I say as much in my sermon you take issue with it. So I am asking you to clarify yourself, which you refuse to do now.

I believe that almost 99.99999% of Christians fail at living as a faithful Christian, who loves God with all their heart, body, soul and mind – regardless of whether they believe in a literal, eternal hell, so your question is moot. If they’re mistaken on that point, only God can decide the import of that mistake.

Your pessimism aside, you are once more side-stepping the question.

I’m not asking if people ARE faithful Christians 100% of the time in all things. I am asking you if a person can live a life faithful to Christ Jesus, one that is not “eat, drink and be merry” but one that is holy and righteous, WITHOUT BELIEVING IN A LITERAL, ETERNAL HELL?

Joe M answered the question rightly. What is keeping you from simply answering the question, John Chisham Chris?

However, teaching it has much wider implications, and can lead others into eternal damnation, should they choose to believe your false premise (there is no eternal hell) without accepting your message of Jesus’ Lordship.

This is such a stupid thing to say, Chris. It’s as stupid and unfair for you to assume that people like myself start off from the premise that there is no hell as it would be for me to assume that people who believe in hell begin from there as well. We share with people that Jesus Christ died for their sins and the sins of the world. We share that Jesus is Lord, not whatever idol they are presently bowing to. We share that God loves them and desires life for them, not death.

You appear to have some childish concept of UR that would suggest we go around saying, “Hey, there is no hell! There are no consequences for your actions! Live how you want! Oh, but you might want to consider this guy Jesus…”

What will be your reason for avoiding the question this time? One way in which you are not like the ADM’s is you at least offer entertaining reasons as to why you wont answer a question.

237   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 9th, 2009 at 8:07 am

However, teaching it has much wider implications, and can lead others into eternal damnation, should they choose to believe your false premise (there is no eternal hell) without accepting your message of Jesus’ Lordship.

The funny part about you saying this is you have never ONCE argued this from what I actually teach. It has ALWAYS been about your assumptions of UR and never about substance from anything I have ever said, written or done.

This is yet again why you are no different from the ADM’s you criticize. How many times have we all asked them to prove their allegations with what the pastor has actually said or taught? You are doing the same thing here.

If I had one conversation like this I have had a million:

ADM: Rob Bell denies the Virgin Birth.

Chad: No, he doesn’t.

ADM: Yes, he does.

Chad: Prove it.

ADM: Well, if you read VE the natural conclusion of his “theology” is a denial of the historic Christian faith. That’s what he is trying to do. His teaching undermines everything Christians believe…..

Chad: Prove it. What has he actually said that undermines everything Christians believe?

ADM: *crickets*

Chad: Would you like to see a direct quote where Rob Bell affirms the Virgin Birth?

ADM: It doesn’t matter – he still doesn’t believe it and teaches others it doesn’t matter.

You are what you hate, John Chisham Chris.

238   Phil Miller    http://pmwords.blogspot.com
August 9th, 2009 at 8:28 am

A literal hell for certain exists. It is a place where people argue constantly of the same things again and again knowing the person they’re arguing has already up his mind.

239   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 9th, 2009 at 9:06 am

Phil,
I didn’t bring this up. Chris picked on something in my sermon and claimed it wasn’t the case.

All he needs to do is answer the question to either a) prove that he is right for picking at my sermon the way he did or b) prove that he had no reason to pick at it the way he did.

My question is to simply clarify whether or not Chris believes one must believe in a literal, eternal hell in order to live faithfully for Christ.

Can you show me where he answered? Do you not agree that he is evading the question?

I can’t believe you guys can condone this sort of tactic when you so willfully and easily point it out in others.

240   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 9th, 2009 at 11:35 am

I’m in hell right now with the UR discussion… it seems to be burning on in such a punishing eternal way.

241   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
August 9th, 2009 at 1:39 pm

Iggy, give me some credit, if you’ll just look at my comments it’s obvious I really didn’t treat this situation much differently than yours. Since it actually had a theological topic to address, it was worth seeing resolved here. I was trying to keep things cool and moderated and Chad took a shot at me; hardly ‘fighting’ on my part. The discussion can continue, since it’s a topic worth discussing (much different from your fight with Deborah), but without the insults. That’s what I was going for.

Why is everyone acting so defensive and hurt?

242   Pastorboy    http://crninfo.wordpress.com
August 9th, 2009 at 7:28 pm

What does hell have to do with this post?

I thought it was about NT Wright and ethics of Christian Blogging.

My view is this: Simply, what does the Bible teach. It teaches about Hell. Jesus Describes Hell clearly. Jesus taught about an abode of the righteous dead and the unrighteous dead. In Revelation, at the Judgment, the unrighteous dead (that is, those not found in the Lamb’s book of Life) and hell are cast into the lake of fire for eternity.

The problem is that we are allowing the teachings of the church fathers and liberal theologians to cloud our judgment. Read what the Bible teaches. If you believe it, you believe God. If you do not believe it, you have a problem with God and His written revelation.

My question is, why do you desire to remove the very real righteous judgment of God? It says a lot about God’s grace that he would send His son to pay that penalty, to bear the wrath on our behalf. It makes his love much greater, and His grace more amazing.

243   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 9th, 2009 at 9:27 pm

I didn’t bring this up. Chris picked on something in my sermon and claimed it wasn’t the case.

FYI – you flagged the post specifically for me (and Rick) to evaluate. I simply noted that you’ve created a straw man (just as you’ve done w/ the Rob Bell/Virgin Birth example – apples and oranges) by staking out a position nobody here has taken. You said, in essence “hey Chris and Rick, take a look at this…”, which I always tend to take to mean that some response/evaluation is requested.

If you don’t really want a response, you may not want to post links asking people to read them. My apologies for responding.

My question is to simply clarify whether or not Chris believes one must believe in a literal, eternal hell in order to live faithfully for Christ.

Can you show me where he answered? Do you not agree that he is evading the question?

I’ve given you the answer in multiple ways – attempting to do so in a way that “sticks”. I’m not “evading the answer”, because you’re begging the question.

It is the classic “have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no?” fallacy. There are too many assumptions & issues which must underlie the question to give a simple “yes or no” answer.

And even so, it is the wrong question regarding this specific issue, because the most danger inherent in this doctrine is in its propagation…

You see, you seem to forget the entire reason I would ask this question. For months you have argued that UR leads to hedonism. You have argued that without the fear of hell there is no reason to be faithful to Christ. When I say as much in my sermon you take issue with it.

Actually, my argument has not as much focused on orthopraxy as it was orthodoxy, and in particular, the results of teaching false doctrine.

You appear to have some childish concept of UR that would suggest we go around saying, “Hey, there is no hell! There are no consequences for your actions! Live how you want! Oh, but you might want to consider this guy Jesus…”

I don’t assume this – I assume that the way you present it would be very palatable…”what hath God said?” … The best lies are the ones that include the most truth packaged in the most convincing manner, so I would assume you’d be all about the desired orthopraxy and the ideal belief, but that you would fudge on temporal exclusivity, because – as you’ve indicated – you don’t believe in it.

I just don’t assume that all of your listeners are complete idiots who would miss the underlying, false calculus you’ve applied. It comes back to the responsibility and accountability of teachers – and leading these little ones to stumble.

244   Jerry    http://www.dangoldfinch.wordpress.com
August 9th, 2009 at 10:47 pm

“When we all, get to heaven. What a day of rejoicing that will be!

“When we all, see Jesus, we’ll sing and shout the victory!”

245   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 10th, 2009 at 12:07 pm

Jerry – we sang that song at during our service yesterday :)

great hymn!

246   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 10th, 2009 at 2:30 pm

Joe C,

Actually Deborah was an example of BAD ethics in blogging and everything I posted fit the thread… much better than this ongoing stupid going nowhere argument over UR…

Hurt… not hurt… aggressively pushing or consistency and fairness.

that’s all.

still friends.

247   Joe C    
August 10th, 2009 at 2:51 pm

Fair is fair Iggy, if you think I was being unfair then I can accept that and try harder.

248   Sandman    
August 10th, 2009 at 3:08 pm

You know… never mind.

249   Neil    
August 10th, 2009 at 3:16 pm

I believe a person be a Christian (in the truest sense), one who loves God with all their heart, body, soul and mind, without believing in a literal, eternal hell?

I see no where in Scripture that makes this a requirement… although John 5:24 does come to mind, I think employing it here is too mcuh of a stretch.

That said, I left out “faithful” (I believe other variations of the question said “mature”) since a literal hell is so obvious in Scripture I do not know how one can avoid it.

250   Neil    
August 10th, 2009 at 3:17 pm

And by “literal Hell” I mean a place of eternal separation from the presence of the Lord. Whether or not this involves flame, or even eternal punishment is another discussion.

251   merry    
August 10th, 2009 at 4:46 pm

If there isn’t a hell then what’s the point of believing in heaven?

252   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 10th, 2009 at 8:58 pm

I was told to just be me… that ole lovable iggy here and try not to go after (name removed upon request) as I guess others want that pleasure for themselves. So I will try my best to stay out of (name removed upon request)’s way and be lovable iggy… if you don’t like that then just bugger off!

= )

253   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
August 10th, 2009 at 10:01 pm

It’s all very juvenile, I don’t blame you for being upset Ig.

254   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 10th, 2009 at 10:52 pm

So Joe C, Between you and me, and anyone else that cares… here is the break down I see between Chad and Chris L.

Chad: I believe ___________
Chris L: Then you are a heretic because a + b = heresy
Chad: You are misrepresenting my view.
CL: Am not
Chad: Am too
CL: Am not.

Months later:

Chad: Am too
CL: Am not
Chad: Liar!
CL: Am not
Chad Am too!

Months later:

CL: Am not
Chad: Am too

A year goes by:

CL: You are a heretic because a + b = heresy
Chad: Am not
CL: Am too

At least the arguments between PB and myself have some variance of topic… though the arguing mostly remains the same…

Joe C: Does not!
iggy: Does too!

PB: (It really does not matter what silly thing he says)
Everyone: Wow… how silly can you be!

One week later:

PB: (Again, it really does not matter what silly thing he says)

Everyone else: PB, you just topped last weeks silly statement… How incredible that is!

PB: Did not!
iggy: Did too!

Joe C or someone else: iggy stop

Everyone else: Did too
PB: did not

iggy slinks off wondering why he is told to not do what everyone else is doing….

Chris L: Chad, you are a heretic!
Chad: Am not!
and so it goes on and on…

Funny huh?

iggy

255   Chad    http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
August 10th, 2009 at 10:59 pm

Iggy: Funny huh?

Chad: No!

iggy: Is too.

Chad: is not.

Iggy: Is too.

Chad: Ok, it is.

:)

256   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
August 10th, 2009 at 11:51 pm

That was pretty funny Iggy, little mean to PB though, I wouldn’t give him fuel for the fire lol.

Anyways, listen dude, I try my best but you know what? I haven’t been around a lot at all so I can’t catch everything. So I mean, try to cut me some slack, I’m only trying to help. I can only comment on what I see after all. I broke my wrist recently so I’m practically useless to the military until I heal, so now I have more time to write and chat and moderate or whatever and all that jazz, so I’ll try harder. Sorry you feel discriminated against. Nothing personal.

Peace

257   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 10th, 2009 at 11:56 pm

Joe C

Nothing personal.

iggy: is too!

258   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
August 11th, 2009 at 12:01 am

-_-;;

Really? lol….

One Trackback/Ping

  1. John Chisham aka Pastorboy demands CRNinfo to stop using his real name « The Online Discernmentalist Mafia    Aug 06 2009 / 7pm:

    [...] the comments Pastorboy Says: August 6th, 2009 at 8:49 am #110 There, he did it [...]