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

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…

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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!

NM. I got it. Loved the last line.

LINK

#26
Indeed

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Fair enough.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

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)

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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…

different issue:

Did Rick really bail from around here?

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

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.”

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

#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.

DMac and Neil:

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

What bothers me is the way people go about it.

This is the crux of the discussion.

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
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.

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.

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
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.

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.

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.

There’s nothing in there to be released.

UH-Oh the emperor is missing his clothes…

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.

I was bored. Excuse me.

LOL!

John Chisham is a riot!

Is PB busy somewhere or is he in hiding?

Silence screams, the echo’s roar…

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?

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…

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.

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.

#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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.)

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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

…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.

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.

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… = )

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

Shalom

My bad, guys. I totally missed that.

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.

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/

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

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.

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?

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…

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…

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…

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?

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??

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

Joe C, don’t forget your nose…

you might want to clean it off.

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…

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

Jerry – we sang that song at during our service yesterday

great hymn!

Fair is fair Iggy, if you think I was being unfair then I can accept that and try harder.

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.

If there isn’t a hell then what’s the point of believing in heaven?

It’s all very juvenile, I don’t blame you for being upset Ig.

Iggy: Funny huh?

Chad: No!

iggy: Is too.

Chad: is not.

Iggy: Is too.

Chad: Ok, it is.

Joe C

Nothing personal.

iggy: is too!