The post you referenced was against Stephen, but I saw some of his other posts. It appears rzhblog exists only to blog about all anybody and everything related to Morey. Apparently he has now taken a liking to bashing Denise’s blog too. I think rzhblog’s defense of Driscoll is pretty funny too. He harps on Stephen but Stephen’s criticism of Driscoll is tame compared to MacArthur’s shop.

There is no excuse for a Christian posting anybody’s home address and photos of such on a public blog. rhzblog is gossip blog and nothing more. It reminds me of the magazine US Weekly which is a magazine that gossips about celebrities.

you may wish to take a look at this guy’s post here in which he uses Challies’ post to attack Morey. (http://rzhblog.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/stephen-macasil-attacks-tim-challiess-posts-attacking-watchblogs/). This guy certainly has a huge ego, as if anybody is interested in attacking him! I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when I see the nonsense posts he writes attacking me.

P.S. He evidently lurks around in this blog collecting decontextualized quotes to use against all who blog here. So to rzhblog: You’re not worth it; don’t think I am going to bother with you. Unlike you, I rather spend time reaching out than attacking certain groups of people.

I agree with you. Such ‘Christians’ need to be silenced. Thing is: Guess which side most of such ‘Christians’ think they are on? They most certainly are not calling themselves watchblogs; at least most of them aren’t. I have stumbled onto an anti-Morey pro-Driscoll blog – rhzblog, and guess which side he thinks he is in?

I do have a growing concern that some Christians are engaging in gossip rather than discernment when blogging about certain issues. The regular attacks against Dr. Morey are examples that readily come to mind.

Apology accepted. With regards to Challies’ opinion, my doubt is not that Challies does not agree with Phil Johnson. My doubt is that he does not agree with Johnson’s emphasis. His constant refusal to differentiate between legitimate and ilegitimate watchblogs aids the enemy, as can be seen in the AODMers’ hypocritical watchbogs.

I don’t get offended. As you’ll see in the meta, initially you agreed with me. It wasn’t until you “doubted” that Challies agreed with Phil Johnson that things got ugly.

“We attack the brethren and are nice to heretics.” Who is the we that does this? All I see is mere subjective opinions and ad-hominem attacks. Really? Where do you see subjective opinions? Did I defend Challies post? No. I didn’t even offer an opinion about Challies post. In fact, I told you that Challies was criticized by many and that he actually repented. Therefore, I actually supported both yours and Stephen’s point of view. But YOU said you “doubted” that Challies actually believed what Phil said. You didn’t even offer a basis for such doubts. Pure ad hominem. Then YOU started with the “bellicose and shallow” comments. And then you were the last one to throw the term around. So where are the ad hominem and subjective opinions coming from again?

Stephen:

Brother, did I say I opposed your critique? Did I even say you were wrong in your analysis? NO! Nobody is arguing that Scripture shouldn’t be our guide. I’m not even arguing that Challies was correct. I only pointed out that Challies made some points with which you said you agree and that I would have liked to see you put forth some effort into showing us how to arrive at those points from a Biblical basis rather than using introspection. You didn’t. And btw, somebody can arrive at a conclusion, for example, “murder is wrong,” through introspection. Granted, the methodology is wrong and that should be corrected but the conclusion is still valid and can be supported from Scripture (even if the person needs some help in that regard).

So I am NOT saying is that your critique is wrong. I just wish you would have expanded on the points with which you agreed and showed us how one could have used Scripture to arrive at those points. And Tim Challies, after he was called out by Phil, did graciously admit error (despite Daniel’s “doubts”).

I do hope you aren’t suggesting that I don’t have a teachable spirit (because that is the implication from my perspective) especially as long as you have known me.

Denise:

I have much to say to you, but I have to spend some time pondering the appropriate time, place, and substance of what it is I plan to say. Perhaps one day we’ll be able to clear the air. Until then, the grace of the Lord Jesus be with you.

P.S. This conversation has unfolded so slowly, I have to reread the whole thing everytime I post just to recall what was said.

Ok, As you were.

Sorry!

Also, to be clear, I hold to the Doctrines of Grace because they are biblically and clearly taught throughout Scripture.

I have observed and have experience the same frustrations and horrid treatment simply because I “touched the Reformed anointed” (and as a woman, at that!). I continue to see the sin of favortism wallowed in and excused by folks in these circles and it amazes me that for so many who claim to be knowledgable in the Scriptures and well-read, they miss the simplicity of Truth AND commands. Moreover, they are FAR MORE TOLERANT of those in error than those in Truth!

What has emerged is a Magesterium menality: if Prof. So and So,or Dr. Such and Such says it, it MUST be true, and who cares if he’s a little “off” in practice or doctrine and has no Scripture to support this? The little truth the man gives is EVIDENCE that he must be listened to, right? If he’s got the stamp of approval by a seminary or famous author he must be good! Right? WRONG! This IS how false teachers SECRETLY SNEEK IN AMONG YOU.

Claiming “Sola Scriptura” they hold see Scripture as mere milk, but theologians as the REAL MEAT.

One of the problems with this group of people is that they hold to “all truth is God’s truth” therefore they are unwilling to reject a heretic after the first and second warning. They rather ignore the heresies, but keep the man. Funny how they don’t see the TRUTH proclaimed by those who try to hold God’s Word above all things (Ps. 138:2). They will NOT separate from error. They are not concerned with purity in doctrine and practice. “Who’s got perfect doctrine?” is their view, not unlike the typical liberals in other camps.

Jas 2:9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

Read James 2 and see–whether its the rich or the intellectual or famous elite, favoritism is condemned by God.

you are right. It it frustrating interacting with people who refuse to listen. I don’t know why, but generally, the more “biblical” and “reformed” a person is, the less teacheable they are. I must admit I am not above this unfortunate weakness myself, but I so much admire new Christians with their desire to know God and His Word, which really puts me to shame.