Saint Joseph – Real Estate Agent with the Mojo
Facing foreclosure? Need a quick sale of your home? Never fear, sell your home for as little as $7.95! This site is pushing all sorts of Roman Catholic propaganda, including a chance to buy your very own St. Joseph Home Sale Kit. Catholic Company claims, “Simply stand the St. Joseph statue in a place of honor and ask St. Joseph to help you sell your house. The statue will be a visible reminder to you to pray and thank God for His many blessings. Next, believe that he will hear your prayer. Finally, trust that God will answer your prayer.”
Dear would-be homeseller, if you really believe in this stuff, please consider this. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that we are justified or declared righteous by faith plus works. The following scripture references clearly refute this teaching:
Romans 3:28 – For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
Romans 4:5 – But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.
Titus 3:5 – He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.
Rome teaches that Mary should be exalted as mediatrix and other saints can intercede on our behalf. Consider the following scripture:
1 Timothy 2:5 – For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
Rome teaches that the Pope is the head of the church, however scripture teaches:
Colossian 1:18 – He (Jesus Christ) is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
We all know nice Roman Catholic old ladies that make really good plates of lasagna and they may share their chocolate chip cookies at Easter or Christmas. However, if some devout Catholic ladies commit a “mortal” sin at the end of their lives then they are told by their priests that they will go to hell. What is your source for truth? Do you trust the Pope and the tradition of the Roman Catholic church for truth? If you are a Roman Catholic and have read this, then you have been confronted with the truth of God’s holy word. The Christian looks to Scripture that tells us in John 10: 27-30 that believers “will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” The amount of good deeds we do in this life including, keeping the sacraments or participating in the sacrifice of the Mass will never save anybody. Grace is God’s undeserved favor and is unmerited. We must put our faith in Jesus Christ who cancels out the certificate of debt (Colossians 2:14) once for all with His sacrifice on the cross.
140 Comments, Comment or Ping
Rosanna
This was seen on the news, on how people stick the lil’ saint in the ground of the home they are trying to sell and they testify that it does wonders, even sells their Home QUICKLY! It’s quite silly.
We need to know that our hope and trust is in the name of the Lord. He’s the One that makes things happen. People can end up setting up Idols in their lives when they put their trust in a different “god” and not the True and Living God.
What’s this world coming to?
Who are you trusting in? In a Idol or the one who made the Heavens and the Earth?
Apr 16th, 2008
Speedy Camez
Drew,
I will be inviting my cousins who are catholic to review this good word. Thank you my brother for putting the “good news” out there.
Apr 16th, 2008
Fusion
Wow, you guys should start your version of “A Little Leaven”. It’s a pretty funny site. Sad thing is. it wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of evangelicals fell for this.
Apr 16th, 2008
Hebba
Amen Rosanna.
I heard about this a while ago but thought it was a joke. It goes along with the Pope on a rope soap. ..
“Bath time just got more interesting! Have a daily audience with your Pope Soap-on-a-Rope and wash your most stubborn sins away, it’s that simple. “
Apr 16th, 2008
Reformed Mama
“Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord…”-Deut 18:10-12
“When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word,they have no light of dawn.”-Isaiah 8:19-20
“For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten. Their love, their hate and their jealousy have long since vanished; never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun.”-Eccl 9:5-6
Apr 16th, 2008
OverCommiTad2theWord
Just a new form of indulgences, whatever it takes to fleece the flock. God help the people so mislead by the RC church!
Apr 16th, 2008
agogley
“ask St. Joseph to help you sell your house. The statue will be a visible reminder to you to pray and thank God for His many blessings. Next, believe that he will hear your prayer. Finally, trust that God will answer your prayer.”
Typical contradiction. I’m confused. Is the prayer to St. Joseph or to God?
And can you get the statue in gold? At least gold plated? Or is the whole golden calf motif outdated now? If you are going to pray to an idol…er, Saint…, you might as well go whole hog and get something that’s shiny and expensive too. If you want to get full asking price for your home shouldn’t your god, I mean prayer aid, be more extravagant? Not to mention you don’t want any potential buyers to be more impressed by some other seller’s golden buddha.
Apr 16th, 2008
John Romann
The people that sold me the house I owned in North Carolina, called me on the telephone after I had been living in the house for several months. They asked me to go out and look in the front flower bed under a bush and see if the “Saint Whoever” statue was still there wrapped in Aluminum foil. It was. They asked me to give it to my neighbors across the street who they were good friends with and would be seeing shortly, so they could have their statue back.
Oh that God might open blind eyes.
John
Apr 16th, 2008
Travis
John you still live in North Carolina
Apr 16th, 2008
Ian
Not everyone who is Catholic believes in this St. Joseph Statue stuff. We have never sold these kits and always tell people not to bury statues of St. Joseph when they come in looking for them.
As to the Pope being considered the head of the Church, there isn’t a single Catholic who knows anything about his Faith and no official Church statement that has ever claimed that.
The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. That means he is in charge to the limit of the authority Christ gave him until Christ comes back at the second coming.
Apr 16th, 2008
John Romann
No I moved back to where I grew up in Pennsylvania at the end of 1999.
Apr 16th, 2008
Will
Right on target, Drew. I told my RC Mother that 80% of RC Doctrine is false. Isn’t that about right? By the way, I just saw the movie “Elizabeth”, about Queen Elizabeth I. The movie opens when her sister, Queen Mary (Bloody Mary), is still the Queen, and some of the Reformers, including Ridley, are shown being burned at the stake. This is the first movie in my “Reformed Collection” of DVD’s, which will include “Luther” and “Cromwell”, and maybe others as they are discovered. On EWTN, a Catholic Cable TV network, they stated how important it was to study the scriptures. I had to cry to keep from laughing. If any Catholic looked seriously at the Bible for five minutes, the truth would whack them to the floor.
Apr 16th, 2008
Mario
Amazing, the things people believe. I heard on the radio today, something along the lines of the pope saying that the Roman Catholic Church is going to make sure that pedophiles don’t become priests. Sad to say but how does he actually stop priests from becoming pedophiles?
Apr 16th, 2008
Richone
The word indulgence (Latin indulgentia, from indulgeo, to be kind or tender) originally meant kindness or favor; in post-classic Latin it came to mean the remission of a tax or debt. In Roman law and in the Vulgate of the Old Testament (Isaiah 61:1) it was used to express release from captivity or punishment. In theological language also the word is sometimes employed in its primary sense to signify the kindness and mercy of God. But in the special sense in which it is here considered, an indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, the guilt of which has been forgiven. Among the equivalent terms used in antiquity were pax, remissio, donatio, condonatio.
The catholic church is at it again. They need to sell indulgences so they don’t close any more perishes do to there sex scandles. Oh catholic church don’t cheepen what Christ Jesus did on the Cross. Jesus payed the price for sin any thing else is a shame. (Movie Martin Luther) Saint Cecilia for sore throats, Ssint Paul for bad backs and swollen feet, Saint Joe for chapped hands, and the Grand Daddy of them all Saint Pepto-Bismol the paytrant saint of CRAP!!
http://www.newadvent.org
Apr 17th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Ian said: “As to the Pope being considered the head of the Church, there isn’t a single…official Church statement that has ever claimed that.”
Are you saying that “Vicarius Christi” is not asserted by the Roman Catholic Church as a title that best expresses the Pope’s supreme headship of the Church on earth? Does Rome not claim that the Pope has “supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ.?” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV. Published 1912.)
Apr 17th, 2008
Drew Kerr
Ian – thanks for visiting the blog. I’d like to add a bit to the quote that Stephen has mentioned.
Line 882 of the Cathechism says, “The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”
Line 891 says, “”The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine for belief as being divinely revealed, and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions must be adhered to with the obedience of faith. This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.”
These quotes were obtained here: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p4.htm#I
I have questions for you: Do you sell statues of saints? Do you have statues of saints in your home? Do you pray to the saints?
Thanks,
-Drew
Apr 17th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Ugh…I’m so sick of all the gushing over the Pope’s visit! I think Laura Ingraham wants to have his baby…no wait that doesn’t sound right…
Rush Limbaugh just had a call from The President during which he repeatedly thanked Bush for the warm welcome ceremony for the Pope…Bush kept referring to the Pope as The Holy Father! They both talked about the feelings they had in seeing and hearing the Pope…President Bush remarked that you “could feel the spirit there”…uh huh…
But you are not to be called Rabbi, for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father’ , for you have one Father, and He is in heaven”.-Matthew 23:8-9
ONE FATHER…case closed…
Apr 18th, 2008
MCUMC
Ugh…I’m so sick of all the gushing over the Pope’s visit!
I imagine it is the same “gushing” that would be done by most of you all if Spurgeon were still alive and coming to town.
The reason why Bush referred to him as the “Holy Father” is because that is one of his titles. And why be so surprised that they “could feel the spirit there”? Do you doubt that the Spirit can move where he will and when he so pleases? Don’t be so sure that your box is the only place God plays.
Apr 18th, 2008
Travis
So you consider those that hold to the Catholic Doctrines of Salvation to be brothers and sisters?
Holy Father, I thought we were to compare the Pope to Scripture, doesnt really sound holy anymore.
The spirit can work anywhere he chooses, but we still have to test what spirit it is.
Apr 18th, 2008
MCUMC
Yes, I count them to be brothers and sisters.
What you all hate about the Catholics is really no different from what you are doing yourself. You have merely switched from a system of penance to a system of doctrine and mental assent. One could argue based on what I have seen written on this blog that this is the biggest works righteousness gig in town. Salvation truly is by grace – it is a free gift. You guys make it something only merited if you have all your T’s crossed and I’s dotted on doctrine. That’s not grace, it’s another form of works. What is even worse is anyone who doesn’t line up with your form of “works” is damned – don’t pass go, dont’ collect $200.
I think it will be a wonderful ironic twist if God makes those who spend their earthly time daming others and calling people heretics and antichrists that they be given the job in heaven of serving for all eternity the very people they slandered and maligned and hated.
Apr 18th, 2008
Travis
something only merited if you have all your T’s crossed and I’s dotted on doctrine.
The doctrines of scripture are important, we need to understand that it is by Grace through Faith, both are gifts, how is understanding these doctrines requiering someone to do what you have said. In order to be saved what must someone do? Repent and believe in Jesus Christ, but why should they repent, because they are seperated from God and his wrath is upon them. How is understanding this a bad thing? These are the simple doctrines that are required of us to know for salvation. We need to know why we need Christ, and how to have the free gift!
Apr 18th, 2008
MCUMC
Travis,
What you articulated is more or less the gospel as it is has been passed down from the apostles. Here is a surprise: Catholics believe what you just stated.
Where you guys make this into “works” is when you make the gospel into something that it is not. I have watched you all tear others apart because they dont’ believe in predestination, for instance. Predestination is a DOCTRINE and to believe in it is not a requirement for salvation. You know what Luther said? He said grace by faith alone – everything else, ADIAPHORA! You know what adiaphora means? Non essentials. What he meant is that everything outside of teaching that salvation is a free gift through Jesus Christ is a non-essential as it relates to our relationship with God and our salvation. You guys, however, make EVERYTHING else the foci of salvation. In other words, unless someone believes in TULIP, for instance, you guys call them heretics and write them off. If you need examples, I’d be happy to show you countless on this website. But you are smart enough to know that is exactly what is being done here. I have no doubt that someone will follow this post (maybe Bob himself) and denounce me as a heretic for saying what I have just said. That’s cool – it will only prove my point.
Apr 18th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
MCUMC,
“…unless someone believes in TULIP, for instance, you guys call them heretics and write them off. If you need examples, I’d be happy to show you countless on this website.”
Please provide countless examples of any of us writing off as heretics those that do not believe in TULIP.
“He [Luther] said grace by faith alone – everything else, ADIAPHORA!”
His argument was that justification was solely by faith (sola fide), as in, not by faith AND works – solely by faith. He argued against the idea that justification was by a combination of faith plus works. So you have oversimplified and misrepresented a critical distinction in Protestant theology that was the basis for protest against Rome. But this is simply a point in passing. I’ll wait for those examples of doctrinal regeneration that you have claimed exist here in great volume.
Apr 18th, 2008
Travis
If you are an Arminian it doesnt mean we cant have fellowship with you and be called your brothers and sisters. We fight for the truths of scripture becuase we think the Arminian view is flawed, if someone believes they are saved by grace through faith is not the only issue. one of the issues is, that I see, is whether I have faith before it is given to me, which would cause salvation to be because of my faith I recieved the gift of God.
Apr 18th, 2008
MCUMC
Stephen,
First, do you deny that you or any of your fellow cohorts here have called others heretics over doctrinal disagreements that have nothing to do with how one is brought into right relatioship with God? A simple yes or no will do.
I didn’t miss represent Luther at all. It goes without saying that justification is not by works. That much is obvious. What is less obvious, apparently to you and others, is that beyond that everything else was a non essential. Your website here seems to tout a different works-righteousness, however, Your works are proper mental assent to doctrines. That’s a form of works. Unless you have a different definition of works that I don’t know of.
Apr 18th, 2008
Travis
Should I repent for being over here, and killing people, though we are at war, and I am under the Law?
If so explained to me why?
Apr 18th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
MCUMC,
“Stephen,
First, do you deny that you or any of your fellow cohorts here have called others heretics over doctrinal disagreements that have nothing to do with how one is brought into right relatioship with God? A simple yes or no will do.”
Yes. Please provide the countless examples where I or anyone here has.
You have missed the issue as well as your own point. If justification is solely by faith, not of works, and if Rome denies this and states that it *is* by works added to faith, then there is a legitimate disagreement. If justification solely by faith *is* an essential, then Romes doctrine of salvation cannot fall under adiophora. They are polar opposites and mutually exclusive.
Apr 18th, 2008
MCUMC
Rome does not confess that salvation is by works, Stephen. That is a straw man. Do you deny that works flow from a life saved by grace?
Tomorrow when I have some time I will cut and paste several examples of you and your friends calling people heretics over things that have nothing to do with how one is justified.
Apr 18th, 2008
MCUMC
Travis,
I can’t answer that for you, friend. That is between you and God.
I can only say what I would do at this stage in my walk with God.
peace.
Apr 18th, 2008
OverCommiTad2theWord
Does anyone other than Reformed Mama and me think the correct spelling of MCUMC is Chad?
Apr 18th, 2008
agogley
Dearest Brother Travis:
“Should I repent for being over here, and killing people, though we are at war, and I am under the Law?
If so explained to me why?”
What purpose does it serve to invite criticism from persons unknown to you, especially when their theological views are suspect? Stand Fast, Brother! You have already been assured of the truth by Christian brothers whom you respect for their devotion to Scripture (i.e. Dr. Morey, Stephen, and others)!! By INVITING others unknown to you to question your actions or choices is to allow the seeds of doubt to enter into your thoughts. Your job is hard enough without allowing the opportunity for Satan to distract you with unnecessary confusion and doubt.
Apr 18th, 2008
MCUMC
Forgive me, agogley, but by saying this: “Your job is hard enough without allowing the opportunity for Satan to distract you with unnecessary confusion and doubt,” did you just in a round about way put me in league with Satan?
Stephen, I’ll add this to the list I was going to cut and paste for you tomorrow. Unless you or anyone else can tell me what a theological view of pacifism has with one’s justification or how that might mean they are in league with Satan.
Apr 18th, 2008
agogley
“Tomorrow when I have some time I will cut and paste several examples of you and your friends calling people heretics over things that have nothing to do with how one is justified.”
I can’t wait to see this. Most of our discussions on this forum have to do with doctrines that have evolved from the root of false views of justification.
Apr 18th, 2008
agogley
MCUMC: Stephen, I’ll add this to the list I was going to cut and paste for you tomorrow. Unless you or anyone else can tell me what a theological view of pacifism has with one’s justification or how that might mean they are in league with Satan.
AGOGLEY: LOL. I guess we can expect some rabbit trails tomorrow. Nobody said you were in league with Satan and secondly, I thought you were cutting and pasting instances where Stephen and his friends were calling people heretics? I don’t see any reference to heretics here.
MCUMC: “did you just in a round about way put me in league with Satan?”
AGOGLEY: To quote Matthew Henry: “Even the kindnesses of our friends are often abused by Satan, and made use of as temptations to us. Those who have their spiritual senses exercised, will be aware of the voice of Satan, even in a friend, a disciple, a minister, that dissuades them from their duty. We must not regard who speaks, so much as what is spoken; we should learn to know the devil’s voice when he speaks in a saint as well as when he speaks in a serpent.”
Apr 18th, 2008
agogley
“Does anyone other than Reformed Mama and me think the correct spelling of MCUMC is Chad?”
Who is Chad again? Is that the emergent defender?
Apr 18th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Yes!
Apr 18th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
MCUMC said: “The reason why Bush referred to him as the “Holy Father” is because that is one of his titles.”
According to this reasoning, Caesar is Lord, after all, it’s only a title.
Travis asked MCUMC: “So you consider those that hold to the Catholic Doctrines of Salvation to be brothers and sisters?” MCUMC answered: “Yes, I count them to be brothers and sisters.”
This reveals that MCUMC does not count the doctrine of justification as an essential, rather he sweeps it under adiaphora. This will soon be contradicted later by MCUMC.
Travis said: “In order to be saved what must someone do? Repent and believe in Jesus Christ, but why should they repent, because they are seperated from God and his wrath is upon them.”
MCUMC replied: “What you articulated is more or less the gospel as it is has been passed down from the apostles. Here is a surprise: Catholics believe what you just stated.”
Many Catholics would probably rather not be defended by a liberal. This is a good example of why. Where are the Catholics that teach repentance and faith in order to remove God’s alienation and wrath? This is silly. They require confession to an earthly priest among other things in order to obtain the forgiveness of some sins. To say that Catholics believe Travis’ articulation of the Gospel is a misrepresentation of Catholic theology, and is made from ignorance.
MCUMC goes on to establish some sort of argument that says that we here at BT are teaching a works-based salvation. Rather than pointing to any evidence to support his assertion, he continues on in his self-deception by saying: “I have watched you all tear others apart because they dont’ believe in predestination, for instance. Predestination is a DOCTRINE and to believe in it is not a requirement for salvation.” – This is an outright lie, and an immediate rebuke is in order so that this may not spread into more gossip and slander.
So MCUMC must provide proof of this charge or publicly admit his sin. Until he does, he should be viewed as a divisive liar, unwilling to repent! I cannot remember any of us ever making predestination into an essential for salvation. MCUMC, we will not allow you to accuse the brethren of such things. Prove it or repent!
MCUMC said: “You guys, however, make EVERYTHING else the foci of salvation. In other words, unless someone believes in TULIP, for instance, you guys call them heretics and write them off. If you need examples, I’d be happy to show you countless on this website.”
After a horribly ignorant misrepresentation of Luther, MCUMC makes the charge against us that we have written off those that reject TULIP as heretics. He continues his rhetoric by giving the false impression that he has proof and is able to provide many examples of it, or as he says “countless.” Unless he is able to do so, he must be viewed as a hostile and malicious liar – not merely one who is confused or deceived. MCUMC, you must make good on these claims – we’re calling you on it. The strange thing is that id he had really been paying attention as he’s said, he would have learned that most here reject TULIP as it is.
MCUMC said: “It goes without saying that justification is not by works. That much is obvious.”
Here he states that Protestantism is correct in its view on justification. He makes it clear that outside of this essential, everything else is non-essential, yet earlier he claimed that Catholics were brothers. Now, you can’t have it both ways. Either justification via the Protestant view is correct or justification via Rome is correct. They are mutually exclusive and cannot coexist as coessentials. A cannot be A and non-A at the same time, right? I suggest a reading on the Council of Trent’s document on justification. By the way, Trent condemns all that believe justification is solely by faith. So don’t get too cozy in that bed with Rome, Chad. They’ll slit your throat while you’re sleeping!
MCUMC said: “Your website here seems to tout a different works-righteousness, however, Your works are proper mental assent to doctrines. That’s a form of works.”
Rather than just doing drive-by’s, why not take the time to actually support your statements. This is the type of mindset that falls prey to Rob Bell and Brian MacLaren’s books. It’s just being stupid. Under your own definition, a mental assent of some kind MUST be made in order to believe (unless you are positing Kierkegaardian faith). All we’re saying is that that mental assent must be to truth; to what has been revealed in Scripture. It’s silly to weave knowledge into the definition of works without severe equivocation.
MCUMC said: “Rome does not confess that salvation is by works, Stephen. That is a straw man.”
The comment he responded to said, “You have missed the issue as well as your own point. If justification is solely by faith, not of works, and if Rome denies this and states that it *is* by works added to faith, then there is a legitimate disagreement. If justification solely by faith *is* an essential, then Romes doctrine of salvation cannot fall under adiophora. They are polar opposites and mutually exclusive.”
As the world can clearly see, I didn’t say Rome confesses salvation by works. Read the quote, it says that Rome denies justification solely by faith and says it is faith plus works or works added to faith (however you want to word that). So I am being criticized for erecting a straw-man?
MCUMC said: “Tomorrow when I have some time I will cut and paste several examples of you and your friends calling people heretics over things that have nothing to do with how one is justified.”
Since you plan on taking the time, make sure you do it so that it doesn’t waste ours. You have made specific claims and charges here that require support or they will be written off as lies! We can see through forked-tongued speech and it is looking like a lot is coming from you. Prove your accusations or repent of your sin!
Regarding AGOGLEY’s comment to Travis, MCUMC said: “Forgive me, agogley, but by saying this: “Your job is hard enough without allowing the opportunity for Satan to distract you with unnecessary confusion and doubt,” did you just in a round about way put me in league with Satan?”
AGOGLEY being the big boy that he is, handled his own quite nicely. Good job brother!
Like always, the top-commenter “OVERCOMMITAD2THEWORD” says more in one or two sentences than most can say in a whole page, by saying: “Does anyone other than Reformed Mama and me think the correct spelling of MCUMC is Chad?”
Nice observation, if it is, get ready for some Methodist, Universalist, Emergent, Liberal, Arminian, Holiness, Ecumenical, you name it! These guys (like Chad) pick up on the latest trends in American religion and prostitute any truth of Scripture in them to fit these satanic categories. It’s like going to Borders or Starbucks for them, hmmm, let me see, I think I’ll go with a grande vanilla frap – no whip, nonfat, nontrue heresy – with room, for Rome, EO, Ghandi, Teresa, and anyone else that will make me look cool if I say I love. Poor Chad, a great example of one who has left the pool of truth for the ocean of liberalism. No wonder he’s so nervous about being called a heretic.
Apr 19th, 2008
MCUMC
Drew Kerr’s blog on Rick Warren 12/13/07
There we have it Ladies and Gentleman! This message by Rick Warren is void of biblical doctrine and exhibits his false teaching. Why the Southern Baptist Convention hasn’t exercised any kind of discipline on him is beyond me? The Baptists may have independent churches, but the association of churches needs to speak out against heretical teaching.
His reason for calling him a heretic?
He tells you here: The fans of Rick Warren need to understand that if God is just, then He cannot forgive sinful man without a substitutionary sacrifice.
Rick, according to Drew, is not a heretic because he denies that we are saved by grace through faith but because Rick doesn’t believe in your theory of the atonement, of which there are FIVE. Once again we see that proper mental assent to a doctrine is a requirement for salvation.
In Stephen’s “Apostasy Warning: Tim Keller”
There is too much here to show – the entire post is evidence, really. Denise smears anyone who denies a literal 6 day creation. Stephen hints that Keller is lost because Billy Graham endorsed his book (another example in Graham, btw), and because he likes Mere Christianity. Is C.S. Lewis a heretic as well? Sure he is, according to your posts. Can you show that all of these people deny that salvation comes through Jesus Christ by grace through faith?
No, you cannot show anything of the sort, but you smear these people because they don’t line up with you doctrinally. Again, you make salvation all about mental assent to your pet doctrines.
There are many, many more. Stephen, you called N.T. Wright a heretic on Mar. 27th in Review of Greg Boyd’s book. Why?
You say: Yeah, Wright is a heretic. This can be understood by reading “The Challenge of Jesus” by N.T. Wright, especially chapter 5, in particular pgs. 111-125 on the vocation and self-understanding of Jesus. After a long line of arguments leading to Wright’s understanding of Jesus and God (I will argue elsewhere that from an ontological basis Wright’s Christology is thoroughly destructive), Wright admits that he still recites the historic Christian creeds ex animo, which means “from the heart,” but says “I now mean something very different by them.” (pg.124).
Again, can you show that Wright has denied justification is through faith in Christ and by grace?
Also, Greg Boyd you all named as a heretic because he does not line up with traditional views on how God is bringing history to pass. This, though not orthodox I would call hetero-orthodox and very much call him a brother in Christ. You would not, nor would anyone else on that post.
“Heretic” is probably not even getting the gist of what you guys (at least most of you) mean when you use that word. You people use it as a label for all those on their way to hell or have turned their back on God. Do you deny this? And yet, all the charges you bring up against these Christian men and women has nothing to do with how one is justified but has everything to do with your doctrinal disagreements. It is on these that you feel you can damn someone to hell.
I’d have no bone to pick with you or anyone else if you would simply claim that so-and-so has departed from a reformed perspective of the faith. But you guys don’t do this – you gossip about them and belittle people and say that they are not only departed from a reformed perspective of faith but that they are apostates, heretics and damned.
The best one of all is your very own “teacher,” Bob, who says in that same review of Greg Boyd’s book:
You have now rushed out and purchased or borrowed a copy of the book in question and now say that you agree with it. Thus you are not only a fool according to Proverbs, but a heretic and anti-Christ.
You have finnaly thrown off the sheep’s skin and revealed that you are a wolf.
In reviewing all of your blogs, it is clear that you are stranger to truth. Since you have been admonished more than twice, Titus 3:10 directly applies to you:
hereticum hominem
post unam et secundam correptionem
devita
I hereby renounce you as a heretic and an anti-Christ. You are a false brother who preaches a false gospel with a false Jesus. It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of an angry God even if you do not believe in Him. You have trampled underfoot the Son of God, insulted the Spirit of grace, and crucified the Son of God afresh.
And why, Stephen, has Bob said this? Because, “you have…a copy of the book in question and now say that you agree with it.” WOW! You can be called all that, and even in Greek(!), just for offering a sympathetic read to a book that was awfully and erroneously reviewed! Amazing.
The above is how people who disagree with you people are treated and spoken of. And on what basis, Stephen? Who put you people in charge and as judge of people’s souls?
Apr 19th, 2008
MCUMC
Stephen,
I see you are a good disciple of Bob- he must be so proud of you. Your tactics are just like his – publically defame someone so that anything they have to say is suspect and can be just written off because of your ad hom attacks.
All you people do is live by labeling others. How pathetic is that? The biggest joke on this website is Bob making a post about talking about “gossipers” and “busy-bodies”!!! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. And then what is so funny is he makes the rules about what can be discussed, when everyone knows he’s posting this to try to vent on the people who have called him out. Is this how they teach apologetics in unaccredited schools these days? I guess you don’t have to have an argument when you just name call and censor people you disagree with.
Apr 19th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
You have yet to provide a single quote that proves that any of us have ever written off one who denies TULIP.
“And why, Stephen, has Bob said this?”
He said, “You have finally thrown off the sheep’s skin and revealed that you are a wolf. In reviewing all of your blogs, it is clear that you are stranger to truth.”
Maybe he clicked through to your blog and saw what you believe and what you teach your congregation.
FYI – that’s not Greek, it’s Latin.
Apr 19th, 2008
MCUMC
Sorry, Stephen, you aren’t going to wiggle out of this that easily. I asked you this:
“
Stephen,
First, do you deny that you or any of your fellow cohorts here have called others heretics over doctrinal disagreements that have nothing to do with how one is brought into right relatioship with God? A simple yes or no will do.”
And you answered:
Yes. Please provide the countless examples where I or anyone here has.
I have provided plenty that meets the above, and it is now up to you to responde to each of those. I’m not wasting any more time reading through more nonsense, but I’ll be happy to discuss the current issues on the table, your insults aside.
As for Bob’s remarks – you say that you can click through my blog and discover I’m a heretic and, um, what words did he use…oh: I hereby renounce you as a heretic and an anti-Christ. You are a false brother who preaches a false gospel with a false Jesus. It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of an angry God even if you do not believe in Him. You have trampled underfoot the Son of God, insulted the Spirit of grace, and crucified the Son of God afresh.
Very well. I charge you or Bob to provide the evidence for this charge. Why don’t you practice what you preach, Stephen? Either produce it or be declared a liar and repent, as you and your teacher so often say.
I will be happy to even send you every sermon I have ever preached and you can see if you can prove that I am one who has “trampled underfoot the Son of God” or that I am a “false brother” and all the other things Bob called me.
http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com
I look forward to seeing your evidence.
Apr 19th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
“Very well. I charge you or Bob to provide the evidence for this charge. Why don’t you practice what you preach, Stephen? Either produce it or be declared a liar and repent, as you and your teacher so often say.”
I said: “Maybe he clicked through to your blog and saw what you believe and what you teach your congregation.”
I’ll dismiss this an an emotional over-reaction and not hold it against you, as long as it doesn’t continue for too long. Maybe he clicked through and read what you have written on your blog. I have no idea what exactly he was referring to. I know for one, you promote popular heretics on your blog. That may be something he saw. I also know that you recommend some heretical books on your blog. I also know that Professor Cerula cornered you several times with the text of Scripture and you were unwilling to submit to the Word of God. That could be taken as trampling underfoot or being a false brother. I don’t know for sure, that’s why I said “maybe.”
You’re really sensitive about being outed as a heretic. I wonder if you’re really a child of God that has strayed because of your wandering heart into emergent literature, and God is giving you some of that sweet Hebrews 12 love to bring you back, or if you’re really a false brother making crooked the straight path of the Lord and He’s bumping you off as a casualty of Revival/Reformation. Only God knows. What we do know is that it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of an angry God, as it has already been stated.
Besides, you’re a pastor, and you will receive a stricter judgment having to give an account for those souls sent your way. Feeding your sheep with Rob Bell and Scot McKnight (et al) will send them to hell for eternal punishment. You really should stop doing that – if you love those folks.
Apr 19th, 2008
MCUMC
You are truly unbelievable, Stephen. Again, either produce the evidence or repent of your lies. Do you practice what you preach?
Harold hasn’t been by lately. And you bringing that topic up only proves my point further. What were we debating, Stephen? Predestination and the scope of the atonment! Didn’t you just say that someone can’t be called a heretic for disagreements in TULIP? *sigh*
And you can be called a false brother and antichrist because of books you read or who you hang out with? Oh brother. What is this, romper room? Who did Jesus spend the majority of his time with, Stephen? Would you call him a false brother and antichrist because he ate with sinners and tax collectors?
If you have even read my blog you will find that I said I count it a compliment to be called a heretic by you and Bob – it means I am doing something right. You seem to be projecting your own feeling onto me. I don’t get upset over such things because I know where I stand. Your entire post to me is caustic and evidence of someone who hides behind lies and insults to avoid having to prove your accusations.
Again, I charge you: Either provide evidence that I am what Bob said or admit that people on your website here have called people heretics and antichrists and every other god awful name for no reason other than their own selfish interests.
To remind you of the initial query, you said no one on here would call someone a heretic unless they differed on justification by grace through faith. In case you have forgotten, here is the question to which you affirmed: “First, do you deny that you or any of your fellow cohorts here have called others heretics over doctrinal disagreements that have nothing to do with how one is brought into right relatioship with God? A simple yes or no will do.”
I have shown how Bob has called me everything under the sun. What was it based on, Stephen? My blog? Show where I don’t confess the faith as handed down by the early church from my blog, Stephen. If all you can come up with is who I read or what web sites I visit than I truly feel sorry for you.
Apr 19th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
“Who did Jesus spend the majority of his time with, Stephen? Would you call him a false brother and antichrist because he ate with sinners and tax collectors?”
You’re not just eating with them. You are taking in their theology and spoon-feeding it to naive and unsuspecting sheep. As a pastor, you are commanded to hold firm to the faith and refute those that oppose. Your typical emergent arguments hold no water. Jesus never adopted the sinners’ practices and promoted them as truth. This is something you have done. So don’t try to use Jesus as an example of your wickedness. He rebuked sin whenever and wherever He saw it. He also held the highest view of Scripture and offered Himself as a substitute for God’s elect in His sacrificial death on the Cross. The authors you promote deny this, you promote them, thus you share in their eternal reward.
Apr 19th, 2008
Reformed Rich
Steve,
I think it’s time to give mcumc the CRICKET!!!!!!!!!
Apr 19th, 2008
MCUMC
Once more, Stephen, either provide the proof that I am a heretic based on my blog or else admit that you are a liar and repent.
Do you not practice what you preach?
You continue to use insults and character attacks to defend yourself. If I am truly an antichrist and heretic as Bob declares based on my blogs, than you should be able to provide ample proof, wouldn’t you think? When Marcion is called a heretic I can pull text after text that shows exactly why. Where is your proof, Stephen?
I’m beginning to feel sorry for you.
Apr 19th, 2008
MCUMC
I asked Stephen:
First, do you deny that you or any of your fellow cohorts here have called others heretics over doctrinal disagreements that have nothing to do with how one is brought into right relatioship with God? A simple yes or no will do.”
And you answered:
Yes. Please provide the countless examples where I or anyone here has.
Stephen, I know you haven’t asked but I affirm and believe 100% in the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed. I do not trample Jesus underfoot as Bob said of me but teach, preach and proclaim him as the Savior and Lord of lords, as the 2nd person of the Trinity who was born, died, and rose again physically on the 3rd day and will return again to judge the living and the dead and to establish his eternal kingdom. I believe we saved by grace through faith alone and that nothing I or anyone can do or has done merits their salvation. I believe that at birth every aspect of human nature is bent and depraved and that on our own we are unable to move towards God or even love him.
That is what I believe, Stephen. Now, you have stated that you or your buddies here do NOT call people heretics over adiphora. Who is on my blog or what books I read are adiaphora, Stephen. Either show the proof from what I have written that I am what Bob says I am or admit that you are wrong and apologize for your insults and lies.
Do you practice what you preach, Stephen?
Apr 19th, 2008
MCUMC
Here are Stephen’s words to me in a previous post:
Since you plan on taking the time, make sure you do it so that it doesn’t waste ours. You have made specific claims and charges here that require support or they will be written off as lies! We can see through forked-tongued speech and it is looking like a lot is coming from you. Prove your accusations or repent of your sin!
I have shown the proof and now Stephen will not do the same. Who is the “forked tongue” talker now? I would think, Stephen, that a man of your integrity would want to have pretty solid proof and evidence before you allow yourself or your buddies to damn someone to hell. Don’t you think that is a pretty big judgment to make? I do. I would tremble before God in using such bold words unless I had a lock solid case and words from my own mouth to prove it beyond doubt.
Bob is right about one thing: God hates gossipers and busy-bodies.
Apr 19th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
MCUMC, It’s like being in a tree with a bb-gun tring to pick off little rabbits running around on the field below. Every now and again one of the bolder wittle wabbits climbs up onto a rock, shakes his rabbit-fist and runs back into the assortment of conveniently placed holes. I just don’t have the time or desire to go searching out which little ball of gray fur said what, when, where, etc.
Quote me saying what you want to have me respond to, provide your commentary and allow for me to respond. This is the method I used with you. I quoted you, provided commentary, and allowed for you to respond. You however, displayed a dishonest modus operandi and tried to turn the tables on me with your “do you practice what you preach?” campaign. You need to find out from those that know me whether I practice what I preach or not.
Your proof is insufficient. You have provided quotes from where we have used the word heretic, that has not been denied. But you have made specific claims that had specific challenges. Here is an example:
QUOTE:
Travis said: “In order to be saved what must someone do? Repent and believe in Jesus Christ, but why should they repent, because they are seperated from God and his wrath is upon them.”
MCUMC replied: “What you articulated is more or less the gospel as it is has been passed down from the apostles. Here is a surprise: Catholics believe what you just stated.”
Many Catholics would probably rather not be defended by a liberal. This is a good example of why. Where are the Catholics that teach repentance and faith in order to remove God’s alienation and wrath? This is silly. They require confession to an earthly priest among other things in order to obtain the forgiveness of some sins. To say that Catholics believe Travis’ articulation of the Gospel is a misrepresentation of Catholic theology, and is made from ignorance.
MCUMC goes on to establish some sort of argument that says that we here at BT are teaching a works-based salvation. Rather than pointing to any evidence to support his assertion, he continues on in his self-deception by saying: “I have watched you all tear others apart because they dont’ believe in predestination, for instance. Predestination is a DOCTRINE and to believe in it is not a requirement for salvation.” – This is an outright lie, and an immediate rebuke is in order so that this may not spread into more gossip and slander.
So MCUMC must provide proof of this charge or publicly admit his sin. Until he does, he should be viewed as a divisive liar, unwilling to repent! I cannot remember any of us ever making predestination into an essential for salvation. MCUMC, we will not allow you to accuse the brethren of such things. Prove it or repent!
MCUMC said: “You guys, however, make EVERYTHING else the foci of salvation. In other words, unless someone believes in TULIP, for instance, you guys call them heretics and write them off. If you need examples, I’d be happy to show you countless on this website.”
After a horribly ignorant misrepresentation of Luther, MCUMC makes the charge against us that we have written off those that reject TULIP as heretics. He continues his rhetoric by giving the false impression that he has proof and is able to provide many examples of it, or as he says “countless.” Unless he is able to do so, he must be viewed as a hostile and malicious liar – not merely one who is confused or deceived. MCUMC, you must make good on these claims – we’re calling you on it. The strange thing is that id he had really been paying attention as he’s said, he would have learned that most here reject TULIP as it is.
MCUMC said: “It goes without saying that justification is not by works. That much is obvious.”
Here he states that Protestantism is correct in its view on justification. He makes it clear that outside of this essential, everything else is non-essential, yet earlier he claimed that Catholics were brothers. Now, you can’t have it both ways. Either justification via the Protestant view is correct or justification via Rome is correct. They are mutually exclusive and cannot coexist as coessentials. A cannot be A and non-A at the same time, right? I suggest a reading on the Council of Trent’s document on justification. By the way, Trent condemns all that believe justification is solely by faith. So don’t get too cozy in that bed with Rome, Chad. They’ll slit your throat while you’re sleeping!
MCUMC said: “Your website here seems to tout a different works-righteousness, however, Your works are proper mental assent to doctrines. That’s a form of works.”
Rather than just doing drive-by’s, why not take the time to actually support your statements. This is the type of mindset that falls prey to Rob Bell and Brian MacLaren’s books. It’s just being stupid. Under your own definition, a mental assent of some kind MUST be made in order to believe (unless you are positing Kierkegaardian faith). All we’re saying is that that mental assent must be to truth; to what has been revealed in Scripture. It’s silly to weave knowledge into the definition of works without severe equivocation.
MCUMC said: “Rome does not confess that salvation is by works, Stephen. That is a straw man.”
The comment he responded to said, “You have missed the issue as well as your own point. If justification is solely by faith, not of works, and if Rome denies this and states that it *is* by works added to faith, then there is a legitimate disagreement. If justification solely by faith *is* an essential, then Romes doctrine of salvation cannot fall under adiophora. They are polar opposites and mutually exclusive.”
As the world can clearly see, I didn’t say Rome confesses salvation by works. Read the quote, it says that Rome denies justification solely by faith and says it is faith plus works or works added to faith (however you want to word that). So I am being criticized for erecting a straw-man?
MCUMC said: “Tomorrow when I have some time I will cut and paste several examples of you and your friends calling people heretics over things that have nothing to do with how one is justified.”
Since you plan on taking the time, make sure you do it so that it doesn’t waste ours. You have made specific claims and charges here that require support or they will be written off as lies! We can see through forked-tongued speech and it is looking like a lot is coming from you. Prove your accusations or repent of your sin!
END QUOTE
Apr 19th, 2008
MCUMC
Stephen,
I’m still waiting for your proof that I am a heretic. Did Bob call me a heretic? Yes. Did YOU say that you guys don’t do that unless it’s warranted? Yes. Did YOU say that you don’t call people heretics over matters that are non-essentials? Yes. Your nice little rabbit stories mean nothing. Either produce the evidence or admit that you and your teacher are liars, or at the very least, don’t have a clue what your talking about.
You said:
and tried to turn the tables on me with your “do you practice what you preach?” campaign. You need to find out from those that know me whether I practice what I preach or not.
This is probably the funniest thing I have seen on here! Thanks for the laugh, Stephen. You guys are nothing but hypocrites, Stephen. You
You have some nerve to tell me to more or less “get to know you” before making accusations and yet you and your buddies have no problem in castigating people over who’s blogs they visit. What a joke.
Do you practice what you preach or not Stephen? Where’s your evidence? You claim it is so easy to spot, like rabbits, huh? Then it should be a piece of cake to provide some here for everyone to read.
Apr 19th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
“You have some nerve to tell me to more or less “get to know you” before making accusations and yet you and your buddies have no problem in castigating people over who’s blogs they visit. What a joke.”
I din’t say you need to get to know me before making accusations. I cannot help but assume that you have some sort of learning disability. You asked me a question. Your question was whether or not I practice what I preach. If I were to answer affirmatively, would you simply take my word for it? I pointed to those that would be able to give you a satisfactory answer, one you would possibly accept, otherwise I merely would be commending myself.
Although I am convinced that questions posed to you will go unanswered, lest your heresy be exposed, I will charge you in the presence of all as a Heretic. Notice the capitalized “H.”
First Charge: Universalism. Since you believe that the preaching of the Gospel is not necessary for salvation and that heaven will be filled with people that have never heard the Gospel, you are a universalist, thus an Heretic.
Evidence of your heresy shall be provided should you deny this charge.
Apr 19th, 2008
MCUMC
Stephen,
I deny the charge of universalism. I’d be happy to discuss the finer points of what universalism is and is not if you so wish and if you can promise not to censor me as you have before.
Preaching of the gosple IS necessary for salvation, Stephen. However, I am not in a position to judge or damn those who die in a death camp for instance. Such a belief does not deny that one is saved by Christ alone. It is a doctrinal dispute that I would argue is what the early church taught.
If that is all you got, you better have more. Again, you make the term “heretic” something to do with your own pet doctrines, thus making salvation a requirement of mental assent to YOUR truth.
“I cannot help but assume you have sort of learning disability.” Stephen, that is lower than Travis saying “[REMOVED BY MODERATOR - LANGUAGE].” You should be ashamed for making such comments. It shows a severe lack of maturity and highlights your continual inability to engage in respectful, intelligent dialogue. Are you really a teacher of others? They should take note of your indecency towards fellow Christians.
Apr 19th, 2008
MCUMC
Stephen, one question for you before I head out for dinner-
Can a heretic go to heaven? In other words, can a heretic be a Christian?
Thanks.
Apr 19th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
“They should take note of your indecency towards fellow Christians.”
If any of you are reading, he is right. Take note of it. But do not follow the red-herring. Also take note of the grounds for my assumption that he has some sort of learning disability. In one breath he affirms the necessity of the preaching of the Gospel for salvation, and in the other, puts forth the possibility of one dying in some death camp, implying that they may still be saved without ever hearing of the Gospel.
Also take notice of his indecency toward me, all of you, and our Lord Jesus Christ, in repeating a particular term that was removed for indecency, disciplined, repented of, and forgiven. This is the contentious, divisive, and unregenerate spirit of heretics in that they disregard any and all forms of authority and rather struggle against righteousness to bring others to dwell in the lowest pits of wickedness with them – so that they are not alone. I can assure you, with the authority of the name of Jesus Christ that all such wickedness will be punished for eternity beginning on that DAY.
Apr 19th, 2008
MCUMC
lol, Stephen. So I guess your answer to my question is a “yes”?
Once again, you have proven everything I say to be right. In fact, you have now just damed me to hell for repeating something that one of your buddies said here. How wonderfully magnanimous of you. Must be fun to play God, huh?
Please provide the evidence of my universalism. I would love to revisit that conversation. Yes, I do believe in the necessity to preach the Good News. I also believe in a God who will do what is right and just. If He so chooses to bring into his eternal banquet those that are mentally handicapped, tortured, raped and abused their entire lives and have never heard the gospel because of the hell they live in today then I will praise Him for it. Doesn’t God have the right to have mercy on whomever He chooses? You deny Him that right based on your own monstrous theology.
So please, lets see the evidence. And stop the grand standing. It’s unbecoming.
Apr 19th, 2008
MCUMC
Stephen unleashed this line of attack on me:
**Also take notice of his indecency toward me, all of you, and our Lord Jesus Christ, in repeating a particular term that was removed for indecency, disciplined, repented of, and forgiven. This is the contentious, divisive, and unregenerate spirit of heretics in that they disregard any and all forms of authority and rather struggle against righteousness to bring others to dwell in the lowest pits of wickedness with them – so that they are not alone. I can assure you, with the authority of the name of Jesus Christ that all such wickedness will be punished for eternity beginning on that DAY.**
What set him off in his anger? The fact that I compared his caustic and insenstive remarks with a fellow poster here, Travis, of WHOM HE, STEPHEN, REBUKED FOR SAYING THEM! *sigh* Stephen, you rebuke Travis and tell him to apologize for using that phrase and when I tell you that your remarks are worse than those, and of greater insensitivity, you damn me to hell. Good grief.
You are incapable of seeing the plank in your own eye because you are such the busy body in finding the speck in everyone elses. This is what heresy hunting does to good people – it turns them into ravenous wolves who can do nothing but simmer in their own hate towards others while they arrogantly parade their intelligence and authority over others.
How very, very sad. What is the greatest shame is that you take on the name Christian. A name unbefitting anyone who mocks the very nature and character of Christ by your judgmental attitude and insulting language.
Apr 19th, 2008
MCUMC
Stephen,
In an earlier post you have said that you do not call anyone a heretic for adiaphora and you denied making salvation a work based on mental assent to doctrines outside that which is essential to the gospel message (i.e. grace through faith).
I then showed you a brief statement of my beliefs, here:
I affirm and believe 100% in the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed. I do not trample Jesus underfoot as Bob said of me but teach, preach and proclaim him as the Savior and Lord of lords, as the 2nd person of the Trinity who was born, died, and rose again physically on the 3rd day and will return again to judge the living and the dead and to establish his eternal kingdom. I believe we saved by grace through faith alone and that nothing I or anyone can do or has done merits their salvation. I believe that at birth every aspect of human nature is bent and depraved and that on our own we are unable to move towards God or even love him.
Now on two different counts you have just called me unregenerate, a heretic, wicked, contentious and divisive and on my way to hell for things that are adiaphora. First, the fact that I believe God may choose to show mercy on those that do not outright reject Him but who die without ever hearing the Good News while they live in complete hell on earth. This extends to mentally handicapped who cannot make a conscious decision of faith and repentance. Thus, you have made salvation a matter of mental assent – it is a work, whether you like it or not, and not a free gift. Second, you damned me because I repeated what Travis said so that you might see how low you have sunk in trying to defend yourself. That too, is adiaphora, Stephen.
Care to explain yourself? Better yet, apologize?
Apr 19th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
ONE PROOF THAT PASTOR CHAD HOLTZ IS AN HERETIC:
Read this exchange taken from the Emergent Village blog.
Jeff Straka said (to Travis): After watching the movie “The Devil Came on Horseback” (http://www.thedevilcameonhorseback.com/)
last night, I had many more questions on your “solid” heaven and hell theology. If you can watch that movie and see the ABSOLUTE HELL these people in Darfur are living and dying in – women and girls being raped, babies being hacked to death in front of their mothers, people being burned alive in their huts – and then still tell me that “the God of your understanding” will toss them into eternal hell because they weren’t fortunate enough to have someone tell them about Jesus, well, I’m not sure I want to follow “the God of your understanding”. And if “the God of your understanding” plans on throwing the Jewish students of STAND – students that are trying to stop the brutal genocide – into hell because they don’t say “the prayer”, I’m not sure I want to trust “the God of your understanding”. I don’t think I’d want to go to the heaven of “the God of your understanding”, because that surely wouldn’t be a very party-like atmosphere either. Playing harps all day sitting on a cloud with judgmental, spiteful “saved” souls, while the smell of burnt flesh wafts up?…Boring!
Chad Holtz replied to Jeff:
Awesome post, friend. I agree 100%.
I am always weary of conversation that centers predominately around the status of disembodied souls in some yet-to-be-determined future in a place called “heaven” or “hell.” It reminds me of my stoic evangelical upbringing where our only concern was for the eternal status of “souls.”
*Pastor Chad Holtz agrees with Mr. Straka 100% in saying that the God of his (their) understanding will not throw sinners into hell that haven’t heard the Gospel. Pastor Chad Holtz also agrees with Mr. Straka in saying that a God that would do that is not a God he (they) wants to
a) follow
b) trust
c) go to
“because that surely wouldn’t be a very party-like atmosphere either.”
Both of these heretics (Straka and Holtz) believe and teach that human suffering on earth can appease God’s demand for perfection, thus gaining them heaven. This doctrine of circumventing the substitutionary death of Christ on the Cross is trampling underfoot the Son of God, making His suffering and death once for all nothing more than one of the way[s] to God; thus Christ died in vain.
Apr 19th, 2008
Travis
I agree 100%, this rejects the teaching of Justifacation of sins, maybe ill get my name on the heritic list with you Stephen.
I hope this dosnt get misconstrude to saying “we think we arnt to help the poor and orphans” this is NOT what stephen is sayiing. Maybe we should all sell our possesions and move to Darfur so we can be in hell and be saved from it, by some person that has money and food.
Apr 19th, 2008
Travis
MCUMC said
I affirm and believe 100% in the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed. I do not trample Jesus underfoot as Bob said of me but teach, preach and proclaim him as the Savior and Lord of lords, as the 2nd person of the Trinity who was born, died, and rose again physically on the 3rd day and will return again to judge the living and the dead and to establish his eternal kingdom. I believe we saved by grace through faith alone and that nothing I or anyone can do or has done merits their salvation. I believe that at birth every aspect of human nature is bent and depraved and that on our own we are unable to move towards God or even love him.
You can verbally affirm this all you want, but do you not see how these two contrast?
MCUMC
women and girls being raped, babies being hacked to death in front of their mothers, people being burned alive in their huts – and then still tell me that “the God of your understanding” will toss them into eternal hell because they weren’t fortunate enough to have someone tell them about Jesus
you affirm that no one can merit salvation——-then say—-they can enter heaven without knowing Jesus.
you affirm he will judge the living and the dead when he comes back—–then say—–BUT he wont judge the dead in Darfar the same as the dead in America becuase the suffered already, and didint have a chance to hear the gospel.
I dont understand Chad!!!!
Apr 19th, 2008
MCUMC
Stephen,
I could say one word to sum up your entire post: Adiaphora. However, you show once again that the apple does not fall far from the tree in that you, like Bob, are unable to understand what you read and then crique it honestly.
You quote me here saying:
**I am always weary of conversation that centers predominately around the status of disembodied souls in some yet-to-be-determined future in a place called “heaven” or “hell.” It reminds me of my stoic evangelical upbringing where our only concern was for the eternal status of “souls.” **
Care to tell me which part of this you disagree with, exactly? We were talking about the fact that some people make heaven into an escape hatch and then feel as though they no longer have to care about the current “hell” on earth that many are going through. That was the point, and you missed it.
Second, you then sum up things saying:
**Both of these heretics (Straka and Holtz) believe and teach that human suffering on earth can appease God’s demand for perfection, thus gaining them heaven. This doctrine of circumventing the substitutionary death of Christ on the Cross is trampling underfoot the Son of God, making His suffering and death once for all nothing more than one of the way[s] to God; thus Christ died in vain.**
Nothing could be FURTHER from the truth, Stephen. This is almost laughable. No one said a single thing about “appeasing” God’d demand for perfection, thus gaining heaven. Where is that in my words? You have created a straw man. Second, I reject your characterization in totem that what I said makes Christ death in vain. On the CONTRARY it makes Christ’s death VICTORIOUS! It’s called Christus Victor, Stephen, and is one of the oldest, orthodox understanding of the atonement and is very scriptural. Christ’s death and resurrection have actually done something – it has conquered evil. Those who are in severe suffering in this life time (Darfur, those with severe handicaps, those who know nothing but rape and pillage and, um, bloggers like you
) can have hope in the God who has trampled Satan underfoot and promises to judge the evil of this world.
How can you POSSIBLY say I make Christ’s death in vain? Only one who has no idea what they are talking about and cares ONLY in smearing others and rejecting truth.
I hope you have more than this to back up your slander.
Apr 19th, 2008
MCUMC
Travis,
They aren’t contradictory at all. God has mercy on whom He will. Don’t fall prey to the judging game, Travis. That is and never was our place – it is for God alone.
If you want to paint me a horrible person because I beleive in the God who IS LOVE, and I affirm a Christ who’s death actually paid the penalty and freed the world, than so be it. The fact is, we who have repented and get to follow Jesus in this life time are truly blessed. Some will reject the clear truth and reject that God has done something for them through His Son, Jesus, and has freed them from their sins. Those, trajically, will live a life eternally separated from their Creator. Others, like the people who live horrific lives in this world and never get the opportunity to accept or reject the Gospel — I prefer to say of them, “I don’t know.” I believe in a good and just and loving God – one who loves every human being because ALL are created in HIS IMAGE. I believe in a God who longs for EVERY soul to not perish but have ever lasting life. Therefore, you and STephen can claim that I do not line up with Reformed theology – very well. I thank God for that. But dont call me a heretic or one who is a false brother or tramples Christ underfoot or is an antichrist or a liar and deceiver. That is slander and malicious lies on Stephen’s and Bob’s part – lies they will one day answer for.
Apr 19th, 2008
Travis
MCUMC said
Those, trajically, will live a life eternally separated from their Creator. Others, like the people who live horrific lives in this world and never get the opportunity to accept or reject the Gospel — I prefer to say of them, “I don’t know.”
I think this is the major reason you are labeled a heretic! To say you dont know that someone is going to be seperated from God for eternity, because of circumstances in this life, and yet you affirm
“I believe that at birth every aspect of human nature is bent and depraved and that on our own we are unable to move towards God or even love him.”
ultimatly saying God must “move towards us” to give us life! If God has to move towards these people because of his Love than he has to move towards everyone that hasnt heard the gospel. Which means I should not worry about evangelism, because God will have mercy on them beccause they do not know Christ.
I hope what Im saying is clear. If not just ask I will try and get back to you
Apr 19th, 2008
MCUMC
Travis,
If you are correct, then you have the same dilemna for evangelism either way: Why bother spreading the Good News if God has already predestined those who will be saved and those who will not? Why bother? You might answer: because we are commanded to do so.
Of course God must move towards us to give us life. You wouldn’t want to say that we can move ourselves, would you? God HAS moved towards us, Travis – it was called the Incarnation, the Cross and the Resurrection and Pentecost.
It is only the height of intellectual and theological arrogance that would presume to know the mind of God and whom He will save or have mercy upon when it comes to horrific examples such as the ones given. If I am going to err, I would far rather err on the side that announces God’s love and mercy and shut my mouth when it comes to damning people rather than open my mouth and be made a fool one day when I am standing right beside worshiping God next to the very people I condemned in my arrogance!
We are told that one day EVERY knee shall bow and EVERY tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Are you so certain that God has not reserved a special place in his heart for his own creation that suffered immeasurable cruelty from evil doers in this life?
Travis, what happens to the 20 year old vegetable that dies without every uttering a coherant word in his or her lifetime? Does God send him or her to hell because they never heard or understood the gospel?
Apr 19th, 2008
Travis
err, I would far rather err on the side that announces God’s love and mercy and shut my mouth when it comes to damning people
What if this is an error?
Are you so certain that God has not reserved a special place in his heart for his own creation that suffered immeasurable cruelty from evil doers in this life?
I am so certain on what scripture says, and about the veggietable, and my son who has Down syndrom, what I do know is that your comment is correct still, he is born completly depraived, which leaves me saying God could send him to hell if he wishes or could bring him to salvation if he wishes. But the bible is clear “that who ever believes” which makes these persons able to believe will have eternal life, and this believeing is the only way to heaven.
Apr 19th, 2008
MCUMC
Travis,
IF it is an error, than so what? What are the requirements for salvation? Is my being saved contingent on me signing on the dotted line that I am IN (yay for me!) and others are damned (too bad for you!)? Of course not. How it plays out though in this life makes a world of difference though (ie., whereas Stephen and his gang come off as self-righteous and judgmental I come accross as loving and open to God’s grace and mercy to work).
I am sorry about your son. Know this: God IS LOVE. He is not going to damn your son. He created him and loves him just as he is and will spend eternity with his heavenly Father with a new body and new mind and will be made whole, apart from the falleness of this world and the sin that has caused such pain. Why?? Because Jesus Christ conquered death and sickness and sin and evil on the cross. THIS IS WHY THE GOSPEL IS GOOD NEWS!!!! It is why we shout it from the rooftops!
And YES! WHO EVER believes in the name of the Lord will be saved and can experience the start of eternity TODAY with their Creator! That is GOOD NEWS! What does the next line say, Travis? FOR GOD DID NOT SEND THE SON INTO THE WORLD TO CONDEMN THE WORLD, BUT IN ORDER THAT THE WORLD MIGHT BE SAVED THROUGH HIM. I’m using caps because I can’t help but getting excited about the gospel message, brother.
Satan has been trampled under foot, Travis, with the work of the cross. Your son will be clothed in glory with you one day. This is the hope we have in Christ. To beleive otherwise makes a mockery of Christ’s work on the cross – INDEED, as Stephen says, it makes his death to be in vain!
Apr 19th, 2008
agogley
Actually, I really didn’t need the entire debate to come to my own conclusion. I’m pretty sure that Chad posted under the name “Chad” before. Now he’s posting under a different name. That action alone implies intentional deception.
Apr 19th, 2008
MCUMC
lol….agogley, I haven’t deceived anyone. Ask me and I will happily tell you anything you’d like to know. The reason for the acronym is because your buddies who claim to want to know truth censored me and deleted the last posts I posted under “chad.” Shall I point out to you how your friend Brian lied to get on a radio interview with Greg Boyd? Mind me asking if you told him that his actions “alone imply intentional deception”? Or do people who toe the party line here get a free pass at that sort of thing?
Apr 19th, 2008
Travis
MCUMC on the issue of signing in on another name, I would have to agree with you, its aloud there is no deseption, you are fighting for something you believe in, and thats okay, I would do it if someone kicked me of another blog, becuause I believe in the message I am preaching.
Apr 19th, 2008
Travis
Back to the issue though,
Satan has been trampled under foot, Travis, with the work of the cross. Your son will be clothed in glory with you one day. This is the hope we have in Christ.
How can you be sure my son will be what if he rejects the gospel?
can you show this to me in scripture?
Apr 19th, 2008
MCUMC
Thank you, Travis.
I may not be on much more tonight. We have a stray cat we have been taking care of and she’s going into labor right now. My wife thinks I should so something constructive! lol.
peace.
Apr 19th, 2008
MCUMC
Oops…caught your last post after I submitted my last comment…
The answer is in your question, Travis. You said, “IF he REJECTS the gospel.” That is contra what I am saying. If he or anyone willingly rejects the gospel and turns their back on what Christ has done than scripture teaches we will perish in such a state and be eternally separated from God. But what of the one who has no capacity to either accept or reject? What do you do with them? What does God do with them?
peace.
Apr 19th, 2008
MCUMC
oh, one last thing I meant to add…
the above is WHY Stephen is wrong to label me as a universalist. A universalist would say that someone who rejects the gospel will go to heaven anyways. All paths lead to God, blah blah blah. Stephen tried to twist me words to make it sound like that is what I said but in fact, I did not and do not say such a thing.
Apr 19th, 2008
agogley
MCUMC: lol….agogley, I haven’t deceived anyone.
Agogley: I disagree. You deceived me and in my opinion and experience it was intentional.
MCUMC: Ask me and I will happily tell you anything you’d like to know.
AGogley: Yes, now that we’ve discovered who you are.
MCUMC: The reason for the acronym is because your buddies who claim to want to know truth censored me and deleted the last posts I posted under “chad.”
Agogley: I don’t know who “your buddies” refers to, because I’m not entirely sure who has moderator authority except for Stephen. But, obviously they know who you are now and yet have not deleted your posts or otherwise censored you. And you didn’t seem all that quick to admit your identity when others were guessing about it.
MCUMC: Shall I point out to you how your friend Brian lied to get on a radio interview with Greg Boyd? Mind me asking if you told him that his actions “alone imply intentional deception”? Or do people who toe the party line here get a free pass at that sort of thing?
AGogley: I have two points here. First, I don’t know Brian and I certainly was not aware that he lied to get on a radio interview with Greg Boyd. If I did know him and found that he pulled such a stunt, I would certainly express my disapproval unless somebody could offer a Scriptural argument to support such an action. As it stands now, I believe it to be wrong. It most certainly is contradictory to your own pacifist doctrines. My second point is that two wrongs don’t make a right. Pointing to somebody else’s sin isn’t a defense for one’s own actions. As a Pastor you ought to know better.
P.S. Your tone during this discussion has only served to reinforce my beliefs. You deftly refer to others as “your buddies” and “your friend” in a manner that suggests some sort of aspersion. In my opinion, this is quite demonstrative of the true nature of your convictions.
Travis: MCUMC on the issue of signing in on another name, I would have to agree with you, its aloud there is no deseption, you are fighting for something you believe in, and thats okay, I would do it if someone kicked me of another blog, because I believe in the message I am preaching.
AGogley: Travis, the very action is deceptive. The moderators aren’t deleting your posts because of your screenname, they are deleting your posts because of YOU. By using another screenname a person is concealing their identity because once the moderators find out who you really are they’ll just delete your posts again.
You want to argue that Scripture justifies the deception, fine, make your argument. I’ll certainly entertain it. But please don’t try to convince me that it’s not deceptive because it is.
Apr 20th, 2008
Travis
AGogley: Travis, the very action is deceptive. The moderators aren’t deleting your posts because of your screenname, they are deleting your posts because of YOU. By using another screenname a person is concealing their identity because once the moderators find out who you really are they’ll just delete your posts again.
I never said you shouldnt uphold your decision. I just dont think its very deceptive in this online world, if I get kicked off of an atheists or cults site why wouldnt I go back and speak against false teaching? Thats what he believes he is doing. Its not my call, but I wouldnt even delete his posts, I think its encouraging to see how All of you handled Chad,
I would like you to explain to me how it is scripturaly deceptive? Its just like Dr. Bob or others have done when they go on radio shows, and use there middle name or last name, because people wont engadge them under “Dr. Morey, or Chad” because they dont want to face the truth. Thats the way Chad thinks, he thinks we are wrong and he wants to show us “the truth” If your gonna correct me your gonna have to correct Dr. Bob also.
Apr 20th, 2008
MCUMC
Agogley,
Your whole hang up over my screen name is just silliness and a further attempt to not deal with the content of my posts but just further smear someone you disagree with yet can’t argue why.
Why is your argument “silly” you might ask? It is as silly as me saying you are deceptive or a liar because you post under the screen name “agogley.” Is that your real name? No? Well then, I find that deceptive.
I am sorry for referring to the people on here as your buddies. From what I could tell I thought you saw the people who post on here as your friends. Forgive me for calling them that. I can see why you wouldn’t want to be.
peace.
Apr 20th, 2008
MCUMC
Stephen,
I’m still waiting for you to provide all the “evidence” you claim to have that justifies your slander towards me.
You said of the evidence: “MCUMC, It’s like being in a tree with a bb-gun tring to pick off little rabbits running around on the field below.”
So where is it? All you have said is I am a universalist which I have refuted in the above posts. Where is the rest?
Agogley: See why I had to come in under a new name? I wasn’t aware that Stephen was the moderator. I tried for days to post under my original name (I have nothing to hide, afterall), and they all said, “waiting for moderation” and then were subsequently just deleted. Why might that have been? Do you think it’s possible that my posts where deleted because I was right and it was easier to just delete my posts rather than someone here to admit they were wrong? I broke no rules, insulted no one and the only thing I am guilty of is that I am not Reformed. I’m a Christian. That’s why I was censored. I dare you or anyone else to prove otherwise. As is already evident on this website most of the people here think they can curse anyone they like – you guys have made a sport out of gossip and judging. How Christ-like.
Apr 20th, 2008
agogley
I don’t know or care at this point. Perhaps you should ask. BTW, you don’t have to keep coming back if you don’t like the content.
Apr 20th, 2008
Travis
I agree it is our choice to come back and get involved in discussion where people, disagree with us
Apr 20th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Pastor Chad Holtz is an Apostate by his own admission:
Chad says to Harold: “It appears you have one view of the atonement, a view that I would argue is not all emcompassing of Christ’s work on the cross.
I say this because you take issue with Jeff saying that the people in Darfur who are already in a living hell may not be damned to an eternal hell by the God we find revealed in Jesus Christ. I hear you saying otherwise, correct? Will you say unequivocally that the teenaged girl who knew nothing but rape and pillage and famine her entire young life and never heard the name of Jesus before she bled to death from a botched female circumcision that she will now spend an eternity in fire and brimstone? This is a simple yes or no question, but I would settle for an “I don’t know.”
Harold replies to Chad: “Chad, yes. There is no other possibility. God has spoken, who am I to correct Him? I don’t like this doctrine, but nonetheless it is true. Whether or not i like it changes nothing. It is revealed as truth in Scripture – Jesus Himself said so.
How do you answer?”
Chad answers: “Harold, If pressed, my answer would be that those already living in hell on earth who never hear the name of Jesus will in the day of resurrection be wearing the largest of crowns and being served hand and foot by everyone who thought being “loving” was teaching that they were damned to eternal hellfire.”
In Chad’s rationalization of his answer he clearly denies the necessity of the preaching of the Gospel for salvation. Although Scripture clearly teaches that the preaching the Gospel is the means by which sinners are brought into a saving union with Christ, Pastor Chad Holtz laughs at God’s Word and says:
“The Gospel, Harold, is GOOD NEWS. Your gospel is only good news to those who are lucky enough to hear it. Your gospel makes God into someone whose work on the cross is only as effective as WE make it to be…The way you (and I assume Travis) are framing God and his salvific work through Christ completely reliquinishes [sic] God’s sovereignty, making salvation solely dependent on how well humans “get the news out” and on how well “we recieve [sic] it” and tough to all you who die in some remote village who never get visited by a missionary. God is not powerful nor merciful nor loving enough to save such wretches like you – you should have been born in America where you can find a pastor on every corner or on TV – here’s your eternal ticket to hell.”
Below you will read Harold’s response to Chad, then Chad’s response to Harold, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Pastor Chad Holtz is an apostate of the Christian Faith. Carefully examine Harold’s arguments. Then notice that Pastor Chad Holtz admits that he held those same views not too long ago and now rejects them. Notice the absence of the Holy Spirit in Pastor Chad Holtz as he is presented with the very Word of God twice, in full context, to support the very argument Harold is making, and Pastor Chad Holtz fails to submit to Scripture because he cannot.
>>>>>If pressed, my answer would be that those already living in hell on earth who never hear the name of Jesus will in the day of resurrection be wearing the largest of crowns and being served hand and foot by everyone who thought being “loving” was teaching that they were damned to eternal hellfire.
That is a nice-sounding theory, Chad. However, it is mere speculation. The task for you is to justify that belief. Otherwise, any Tom, Dick, or Harry can jump up at any time and assert seemingly plausible theories that contradict and possibly refute your theory. After all, it’s just a theory, isn’t it? On what grounds is your theory true? Where did the idea of hell on earth come from? What is the day of resurrection? Where did that idea come from? Why will they be wearing crowns? Largest crowns imply crowns of various size; what do you mean? These concepts all have an entry-point into history. Some are from God’s revelation, some are developed by pagan philosophies without revelation from God, etc. As a Christian, I look to scripture for what to believe and how to live. Since the Scriptures themselves warn not to go beyond what is written, and since a follower of Jesus must emulate as best s/he can His view of Scripture, I must hold fast to what God has said concerning these things.
Scripture reveals a Sovereign God over all things – including the roll of the dice! Luck, chance, freewill, etc., are all pagan concepts that find their origin outside of revealed religion, and contradict what God has revealed about Himself in Scripture, thus my rejection of them. Those who hear and believe the gospel are the elect of God, whom he foreknew from all eternity. This is challenged, although unconvincingly, by saying that God’s foreknowledge and predestination are based on His omniscient ability to look down the “corridor of time” and see professions of faith. This is also a nice-sounding idea. The fatal flaw is that the text says “whom” not “what” he foreknew.
>>>>>Your gospel makes God into someone whose work on the cross is only as effective as WE make it to be.
The sufficiency of the atonement and the efficacy of the atonement are two different things. His blood is sufficient for a billion universes filled with lost souls, but only efficient for His elect. This means that Christ came with the purpose to save, which He accomplished, not merely to make salvation possible.
We are commanded to evangelize. The sovereignty of God in salvation does not negate Christians’ accountability to fulfill their duty in communicating the word of truth; the message of the gospel. The Apostle Paul addressed this in Romans 10. He wrote:
But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
“How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”
I submit to you that the necessity of communicating the message of the gospel does not relinquish God of His sovereignty. I also posit that it is absurd to assert that it does on the basis that preaching the gospel is the means that God sovereignly ordained to accomplish His purpose. This is what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 1:21-25
“For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”
So, as you can see, the sovereignty of God in salvation is on magnificent display when one comes to Christ through the preaching of the cross – for it is a miracle of God!
Here is Pastor Chad Holtz’ own admission of his apostasy: “Harold… I can see that you are well read and well convinced of your beliefs. I can admire that. It wasn’t too long ago that I would have been giving the same arguments you present here – I know them well. I also thank God I am no longer convinced by them.
Once again, read what Harold had to say. While you’re re-reading it, know that Pastor Chad Holtz used to believe all this and now no longer does. I think it may be time to notify his congregation, his denomination, etc. We have an apostate heretic in Pastor Chad Holtz.
Apr 20th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Dear Chad~
I was praying about this situation on our blog…earlier today…I have a suggestion.
Why don’t you go back and reread all of your posts beginning with Boyd…maybe even have your wife read them. Consider your tone. I pray that you will come to see how your way of writing comes across and causes others to feel defensive. Once someone feels defensive they really can’t hear your heart anymore.
You have made it clear what we do agree on in a couple of posts and you have made it abundantly clear what we don’t! You count it a compliment to be called a heretic by this blog…so we even agree there…in a wierd way…lol
Reformed faith…as it lines up with Scripture…is our passion here…we totally understand you don’t care for it but…we can’t be moved!
I know you don’t see it this way but my brother-in-Christ…Stephen whom I know personally and love in Christ…is a precious godly man. Though imperfect…he is an excellent soldier for our Lord…a loving husband…a contender for the faith with all his heart…he can’t be moved either.
Perhaps if you wrote in a more humble way…others would respond in like manner. It seems that some threads have moved past debate and into argument…which is sin.
We totally get that you don’t want anything to do with the Biblical Reformed faith that we embrace. Many of us here have seen the cost of going outside of God’s word…therefore we gaurd ourselves against anything that even smells like it is going to go there. We are very disciplined in this area. Our Messiah, while on earth, rebuked, called names and named names etc,as do we. He also taught Scripture, showed compassion and discipled others etc, as do we.
Perhaps this is just not the forum for you. We seem to make you terribly unhappy and as I said…we cannot be moved.
Apr 20th, 2008
Travis
Stephen,
I enjoy reading this article, and how you aloud Chads words to speak for themselves, I would say Chad as far as scripture goes I see no other way to interpret your remarks on those not hearing the gospel, and not repenting, being able to go to heaven and ennjoy the freedom of Christ now, This is heretical. I personally dont take this as a shot to your character, but an Angel with good character and that is good with words has decieved you.
Apr 21st, 2008
MCUMC
Oh poor Stephen. You have no idea what you are talking about.
You have proven nothing other than I allow for God to do the judging in the end whereas you decide you want to do it for him. You claim you believe in a Sovereign God whereas I actually live it out in my faith by allowing Him to show mercy on whom He will show mercy.
If you wish to call me apostate because I believe God will show mercy on the mentally handicapped (or, as you called them, those with learning disabilities) or on those that live in complete horror and hell here on earth and never get a chance to even reject the gospel then so be it. You are wrong, but you have been for quite some time it would appear.
That is NOT, Stephen, an apostate view of God’s work on the cross. It is simply just not a small minded Reformed view of God’s work. I’m not Reformed, Stephen. That doesn’t make me a heretic anymore than you not being a Wesleyan makes you a heretic.
I hope you have more to show than this.
Apr 21st, 2008
MCUMC
RM-
Thank you for your words. I encourage you to do what you advised me to do. It has been you and your friends, not me, who has been abusive with their language, insulting, demeaning and arrogant from the very first post. If you read my first post on this site I asked Brian if it was OK to lie in order to cheat his way onto a radio show. Stephen soon came on and made fun of me for being “nice.” It went down hill quickly from there when I quoted directly from Boyd’s book that shows Bob Morey twisted Boyd’s words and was saying the exacty opposite of what Boyd REALLY said. And Bob’s response? He called me an antichrist.
So you tell me: Who has the right to be defensive if anyone? You guys have been shameful in the way you arrogantly flaunt your reformed view. I can tell you this: NO ONE who reads you people will care how much you know because none of you show that you care about anything but being right and making others who disagree with you look bad. Did you miss Stephen saying he thinks I have a learning disability? Did he apologize when I called him on that and told him how offensive that is? What of all the people reading this with loved ones with learning disabilities and they read Stephen using it in a deragatory way? What was STephen’s response when I told him that was uncalled for? He called me a false brother and heretic. *sigh*
You guys preach all this “repent!” business and not one of you lives it but Travis. He is the only one I have seen on this site who has been rebuked for something and came back saying he was sorry.
I don’t care to change your views on being Reformed. You are welcome to that. What I do care about though is how you take on the name of Christ and yet do not display his character in the least bit because not one of you his humble, meek or mild nor loving. What I DO care about is perhaps, even slightly, making some of you realize that God is bigger than your theology. YES! God is far bigger than the box you place him in and it is a shame to watch you people make God subject and subservient to your system of reformed beliefs.
That is very sad.
Apr 21st, 2008
MCUMC
Also, Stephen, please feel free to contact my denomination and/or my congregation. See, we believe in a God of love, not hate. We believe in a God who loved the world so much and the people God created (you haven’t forgotten, have you, that the women being raped in Darfur and who never hear the gospel were still created by the God who IS love, right?) that He sent His own Son to die on the cross to defeat death and evil and to take upon himself the wrath they and we all deserve. We as Methodists believe that the atonement has FAR MORE reaching ability than you allow for it (in other words, it is not LIMITED) and we believe that God, in the end, will do what is right and what is just, and that we really do not judge, lest we ourselves be judged. Therefore, we are perfectly comfortable and feel we are articulating and living out the gospel as best we can when we say God may very well rescue those who die in Darfur for instance, who never got a chance to hear the Good News.
Please, feel free to call them and tell them that you know God’s mind so well that you are happy to damn them and anyone else to hell who disagrees with you. Maybe they can convince you of your arrogance and errors better than I.
peace,
Chad
Apr 21st, 2008
MCUMC
The definition of “apostate”: a person who forsakes his religion, cause, party, etc.
Stephen, if by calling me apostate you mean that I am no longer Reformed, then that is fine. However, if by calling me apostate you are trying to infer that I have forsaken God or that I do not believe this:
I affirm and believe 100% in the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed. I do not trample Jesus underfoot as Bob said of me but teach, preach and proclaim him as the Savior and Lord of lords, as the 2nd person of the Trinity who was born, died, and rose again physically on the 3rd day and will return again to judge the living and the dead and to establish his eternal kingdom. I believe we saved by grace through faith alone and that nothing I or anyone can do or has done merits their salvation. I believe that at birth every aspect of human nature is bent and depraved and that on our own we are unable to move towards God or even love him.
…then you are at best ignorant of what you are saying and at worst a liar and slanderer of another Christian and a pastor.
I hope you mean only to say that I am not reformed. Otherwise, you have some explaining to do.
peace.
Apr 21st, 2008
MCUMC
The following are from the UMC.org website, the official page for the United Methodist Church. The last section is an article written by another UMC pastor in answering a question about what happens to those who never hear the gospel. You will find that what I have articulated throughout my posts lines up with all of this. You are more than welcome to call the UMC, Stephen – they might ask you why you presume to know the mind of God and wonder, as I do, why you do it so arrogantly.
Question: Do United Methodists believe that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary to go to heaven?
Answer: Yes, United Methodists do believe that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way the Bible gives as clearly God’s gift and way of salvation and heaven. God can save anyone that God chooses to save and we cannot decide whom God will save. We simply trust the plain teaching of scripture. See John 3:16, Acts 4:12 and many other texts.
Our belief in this unique path of salvation can never be used to put down other religions and the gifts that they have to give to the world, even to Christians. That we have a gospel to proclaim is not grounds for hurting others. We can and must be friends with Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and others. In dialogue with them we learn and they learn. In a time when religion is so much in the news and on our minds, we need to be vigilant against our own hostility and follow Jesus in the way of love.
Our Book of Resolutions says, “While we as Christians respond faithfully to the call to proclaim the gospel in all places, we can never presume to know the full extent of God’s work in the world, and we recognize the reality of God’s activity outside the Christian church. It is central to our faith that salvation is accomplished not by human beings, but by God. We know that judgment as to the ultimate salvation of persons from any faith community, including Christianity and Judaism, belongs to God alone.”
Question: Does The United Methodist Church believe in universal salvation?
Answer: The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church includes a section titled Doctrinal Standards and Our Theological Task, which records the official theology of The United Methodist Church.
The section on Distinctive Wesleyan Emphases includes a description of prevenient, justifying, and sanctifying grace. When a person, by the grace of God, accepts God’s “pardoning love,” he or she enters into a transformational process of salvation.
The Articles of Religion of The Methodist Church make the same point. Article XX – Of the One Oblation of Christ, Finished Upon the Cross affirms the salvific act of crucifixion and resurrection of Christ for salvation for all persons. The added Article “Of Sanctification” states that position in other words. The Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren Church echoes the beliefs stated in the doctrinal statements of The Methodist Church (see particularly Articles VIII, IX, XI, and XII).
While these statements of doctrine state that salvation is AVAILABLE to all persons, they stop short of saying that salvation is GUARANTEED to all persons. There is the stated or implied condition that, while God’s grace is necessary for salvation and that humankind cannot in any way attain salvation without God, that there is certainly an element of awareness and cooperation on our part to order our lives after the image of Christ if we have the capacity to do so.
God does love the world … the whole world. That is why He sent His only son, Jesus Christ, to die for the sins of the whole world. At the same time, the Christian faith affirms that the only way to enter into God’s Kingdom it through faith in Jesus Christ. This is not a contradiction. United Methodists believe that the Kingdom of God is present now, within the Church of Jesus Christ, and also still to come when Christ returns in final glory. Hence, entrance into the Kingdom comes when one is Baptized into the Christ and then, at some point (either immediately or even years later) professes faith in Christ as Lord and Savior. By professing Faith, the believer is making a connection between themselves and the gift of forgiveness which Christ has offered on the Cross for our sins. The grace of the cross is made effective for us through faith in Jesus Christ.
Now, what about those who never make a profession of faith in Jesus Christ? Paul makes it clear that, for those who have never received the light of the Gospel, God makes provision for them which we cannot comprehend. For those who have heard the Gospel, but rejected it, while God still loves them, all we as Christians can assert is that the only sure way to enter the Kingdom is through Faith in Jesus Christ. IF God wants to save ANYBODY, regardless of their faith, He can because Jesus died for all, but the ONLY SURE way we know of entering the Kingdom is through Faith in Jesus Christ.
What I do in connection with Jews and Muslims who never profess faith in Jesus is commit them entirely to God; I never stop preaching the Gospel, and the necessity of Faith, however I also refuse to make any judgment as to the eternal state of those who die without professing Faith in Jesus. In other words, I trust in the Grace of God and keep preaching the Gospel. That’s all any of us can do.
Apr 21st, 2008
MCUMC
Oh Stephen, you once again prove by censoring me that your words, slander and position are indefensible. People who are scared of truth use censorship as their tool. You should be ashamed of yourself parading as a lover of truth and God and yet your actions and words betray you at every turn. How do you expect others to hear your calls to repentance when you are so arrogant and consider yourself above reproach? You have learned well from your teacher, Bob, I suppose. He used the same tactics on the Greg Boyd thread.
You should be ashamed.
Apr 21st, 2008
MCUMC
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Stephen,
You never answered my question I posed to you and the group earlier:
Does the 20 year old living life as a vegetable and has never had a coherant word or thought his or her entire life and is unable to comprehend anything go to hell for all eternity when he or she dies?
Yes or No?
Apr 21st, 2008
MCUMC
For those who might be wondering what began all this, it is several things. One though, is that Stephen denied calling anyone a heretic or writing anyone off for adiaphora OR simply because they don’t espouse to TULIP. Stephen said: “You have yet to provide a single quote that proves that any of us have ever written off one who denies TULIP. ”
What Stephen fails to realize is that his words above and his charge of universalism to me (which I refuted) only prove that I do not espouse to the theory of Limited Atonement. Stephen, in his haste to prove me a heretic, has only proven that he labels people a heretic who do not believe in TULIP, something he claimed he nor anyone here ever does.
Limited Atonement is a reformed doctrine (notice I did not say biblical doctrine) that teaches Jesus’ death on the cross was only sufficient for the elect who were predestined before the foundations of the world. IOW, Jesus died for only a select number of people. In another post, Stephen accuses me of denying the power of the cross. That is absurd because it is only those who espouse limited atonement (or who claim no cross at all) that could possibly deny the power of the cross. Rather, the biblical teaching about Christ’s work on the cross is that Jesus died for ALL the world, not just some. IOW, the cross is IMMENSELY powerful and heightens God’s Sovereignty rather than weakens it. Limited atonement makes Christ’s death far weaker and less significant than what the Good News proclaims from the rooftops.
Because I believe that Jesus’ death and resurrection effected the entire universe (not just a handfull of people) I can say with confidence that justice will be done. It is because I believe the Bible teaches God loves the world (contrary to the hate gospel preached on this site) I can say with confidence that those who are mentally incapacitated or those who suffer terrible brutality at the hands of evil doers and never hear the good news – such people are the sort of people Jesus came to earth to die for. The sick need a doctor, not the well.
So, Stephen has accused me of universalism. That is a false charge. All he has proven is that I don’t agree to the “L” in TULIP. He has therefore called me a heretic based on his own reformed point of view, violating something he claims he never does.
Apr 21st, 2008
Reformed Mama
WE CAN’T BE MOVED!
Apr 21st, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hi MCUMC,
I read a few of your posts. You seem to be confused objectively speaking on some elements of reformed thinking.
It is one thing to disagree, that is fine. But it is a good idea to objectively represent what you are disagreeing with, otherwise you are wasting time and eliminating fruitful conversation. It would be like me saying that Roman Catholism is sola opus (or sola opera). Since this is not what Roman Catholicism teaches it would be a waste of time to talk about why this is wrong via Papist thinking. (Rome is = opera et fide)
Adiaphora is in reference to secondary doctrines. An example of this was attempted at the Regensburg Conference of 1541.
Regarding heresy. The Roman Church only considered heretics in relation to those that have been baptised and have left the Roman community. The Reformers also had this hang-over. Both Boyd and the Pope are essential heretics meaning they are outside the Christianity.
So many things have been said it would be impossible to address them all. There has been several logical fallacies asserted in all sorts of directions.
Remember, there’s a different between the profession, and the possession in relationship to the reality of genuine Christian substance.
Jean Cauvin
Apr 21st, 2008
MCUMC
RM,
What do you mean when you say, “We won’t be moved!”? Does this mean you have it all figured out? Didn’t the reformers also have a saying: Always reforming? What won’t you be moved from? Your obstinancy? Your lack of humilty? Your arrogance? (I use “your” in a general sense). Instead of saying you refuse to change, why not call upon your “teachers” and “godly men” to either prove their accusations or apologize for their slander?
Apr 21st, 2008
MCUMC
Jean,
You say: You seem to be confused objectively speaking on some elements of reformed thinking.
Would you mind elaborating? I do my best to be a sympathetic reader of all people. I am a firm believer that you cannot offer a valid critique until you at first understand who you are trying to critique. I have studied extensively on reformed faith and believe I have given it a fair “read” here on my posts. Can you show where I have misrepresented it? I’d be grateful.
Apr 21st, 2008
agogley
“Does the 20 year old living life as a vegetable and has never had a coherant word or thought his or her entire life and is unable to comprehend anything go to hell for all eternity when he or she dies?
Yes or No?”
Answer your own question and then support it from Scripture.
This thread is out of control.
Apr 21st, 2008
Travis
Yeah I agree way off post, I was trying to get to a point with salvation
When MCUMC said this “I affirm and believe 100% in the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed” but, all of these threads were trying to point out he can profess these creeds but interprets them in his own ways, ie salvation. So, me not really pulling scripture together and understanding how to link everything has caused it to rabbit trail away from the post.
I dont think Chad and the rest of us are not getting anywhere, a down fall to Blogism, but this may influence someone else, Chad has made his point in many issues, and he is already convinced due to emotions not knowladge he is right, this can be seen by the post stephen posted, that he will not repent and serve a God that hates and Loves, even though scripture is clear he does.
Thanks Agogley
Apr 21st, 2008
Jean Cauvin
MCUMC,
I have a few moments now and then at work to review posts. I can only skim due to time restraints.
I do not know you personally. But instead of unfruitfully throwing insults around with Stephen, perhaps pick a topic or set of topics to stick with and follow through with it. Perhaps no one has done this with you.
Here are some of your errors regarding reformation thinking:
1. “Ugh…I’m so sick of all the gushing over the Pope’s visit!
I imagine it is the same “gushing” that would be done by most of you all if Spurgeon were still alive and coming to town.”
Spurgeon was not the Head of the Body of Christ as the Pope is claimed to be. He is not altus Christus or ex persona Christi. So no reformed thinker would view Spurgeon or anybody else as the Papists view the Pope.
2. “Yes, I count them (Papists) to be brothers and sisters.
What you all hate about the Catholics is really no different from what you are doing yourself. You have merely switched from a system of penance to a system of doctrine and mental assent.”
This is no where to be found in any reformed thinking. The Reformers viewed faith via a threefold means. assent is not the same as fiducia. While all elements are a gift. Notice 1 Thess 1:9. Exegeticallly speaking, they did not turn from idols to God, they turned to God from idols. This is a fascinating verse to study via reformation thinking of notisha, assensus, fiducia. This assent is not works because it is given to elect and some non-elect, but fiducia only to elect (James 2:19)
3. “Where you guys make this into “works” is when you make the gospel into something that it is not. I have watched you all tear others apart because they dont’ believe in predestination, for instance. Predestination is a DOCTRINE and to believe in it is not a requirement for salvation. You know what Luther said? He said grace by faith alone – everything else, ADIAPHORA! “”
Predestination is not essential to salvation (in terms of belief). God can save ignorant people. If He keeps them immature in the faith, that’s His right to do so. Luther did not just say that last line. He said:
“We are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.”
4. “1. Rome does not confess that salvation is by works, Stephen. That is a straw man. Do you deny that works flow from a life saved by grace?”
This is a logical fallacy called asserting the consequent. Space does not allow room to ellaborate. Rome confesses that salvation is via faith and works which the reformers have shown as self-refuting.A simple study on the sacraments would should this easy.
5. “All you people do is live by labeling others. How pathetic is that? ”
Though not related to the reformation, this too is self-refuting since you’ve labled the lablers as pathetic lablers.
6. “I believe that at birth every aspect of human nature is bent and depraved and that on our own we are unable to move towards God or even love him.”
You do not logically believe this. You have theological schizophrenia. If you really believed this then you would have to adhere to predestination. If you remain inconsistent you can reject this however.
The rest of your posts are strange tid-bits. If we could discuss things pleasantly that would be appreciated. A few questions for you please.
1) Are you a member of the United Methodist Church?
Do you believe in a literal place of torment for people like Hitler?
2) Do you believe the Bible is inspired by God 100%
3) Do you believe the Bible is inerrant 100% in all matters
4) If you adhere to #2, but not #3, how can you do this logically?
5) Was Mary actually a literal virgin when she gave birth to Jesus?
6) Is homosexual activity a sin in all cases 100%?
7) Is ‘abortion a sin or does God give woman the right of choice?
If you want to be a good methodist, I would recommend for your reading one of the greatest Methodist evangelists of all times, George Whitfield. He was a Calvinist and wrote to Wesley on this subject. The letter are probably available on the net somewhere. Wesley couldn’t answer him and mainly ignored his attempts of contact on this issue.
Otterbain rejected reformation thinking out of a reaction to reformers treating him poorly. Not via a theological position at first. I’m afraid this may be your case as well (I’m not sure though).
If you could address these questions I would appreciate it. I don’t mean to offend or nit-pick. Let’s be real and get to the bottom of what’s really going on here.
Jean Cauvin
Apr 21st, 2008
Jean Cauvin
That face under #7 was a typo/accident. If we address the root of this perhaps we can end this post. Only a few posts will be needed to discern via Scripture whether or not you are a Christian via the position of Reformed thinking.
Jean Cauvin
Apr 21st, 2008
MCUMC
Agogley (is that your real name?), Travis, and Jean, and Stephen –
Will any of you answer the question I have asked a few times now or continue to avoid it? Here it is again:
“Does the 20 year old living life as a vegetable and has never had a coherant word or thought his or her entire life and is unable to comprehend anything go to hell for all eternity when he or she dies?
Yes or No?”
Thanks.
Apr 22nd, 2008
MCUMC
Jean-
I’ll respond to your questions in your post after everyone stops dodging the question above that I have asked a few times now.
Thank you for taking the time to ask some insightful questions. And I am glad you at least had the decency to qualify your labeling of me based on the position of reformed thinking. At least you didn’t make the mistake of saying orthodoxy.
peace.
Apr 22nd, 2008
MCUMC
Jean,
I have finished a rather lengthy response to each of your questions and the points you attempted to make. I look forward to posting it here and discussing it at greater length. I’ll be happy to post it as soon as the question above gets answered by those to whom I asked it. I think that is only fair, don’t you?
peace.
Apr 22nd, 2008
Jean Cauvin
MCUMC
“Does the 20 year old living life as a vegetable and has never had a coherant word or thought his or her entire life and is unable to comprehend anything go to hell for all eternity when he or she dies?
Yes or No?”
The BIble wasn’t written to vegetables or babies. It wasn’t even written to Christians per sa. It was written to coherent individulas that professed to be Christian.
Since God is infinite and we are finite we will never for all eternity know the Will of God exhaustively. God has not revealed everything to us for He does have a secret Will (See. Deut 29:29). Paul tells us that we are not to go beyond what is written (1st Corinthians 4:6).
So the Bibilcal answer to this question is we don’t know. To claim knowledge beyond the claim of our epistemological infinite reference point (Scripture) would be nothing more then hot puffed up air (Ist Timothy 6:4).
Jean Cauvin
Apr 22nd, 2008
Harold Cerula
>>>>>Chad asked: “Does the 20 year old living life as a vegetable and has never had a coherant word or thought his or her entire life and is unable to comprehend anything go to hell for all eternity when he or she dies?
Yes or No?”
*****HC: Chad, were you not satisfied with my answers? This has been addressed ad nausium Here
See comments #8, #10, and #34.
Here is an excerpt from that thread:
>>>>>Chad asked: “What do you believe happens to the unbaptized infant who dies an untimely death? Where do they spend eternity?”
*****HC: 1. I do not believe in untimely deaths. Scripture reveals that God is sovereign over all things (life, death, evil, etc.). Scripture also reveals that each man’s day of death is appointed and cannot be delayed or brought about before the “time” ordained by God before the foundation of the world.
2. The question of what happens to the soul of humans that die in infancy is one that is asked often. It is also asked of those that are born with mental deficiencies such as retardation, etc. Since Scripture is silent on this issue, we cannot answer with certainty. To do so requires the elevation of something other than Scripture as the final arbiter of truth.
Scripture tells us that Jesus is the only way.
Scripture tells us that repentance and faith is essential to salvation.
Scripture tells us that the preaching of the word, the hearing of the word, and the Holy Spirit’s “opening of the eyes” of the hearer, are all required in salvation.
Scripture tells us that God is good.
Scripture tells us that God is just.
Scripture asks the question, “will not the judge do what is just?”
Bottom line is that Scripture is silent, thus we cannot answer with certainty. As an exegetical theologian, I can only shimmy out on to the limbs of Scripture, but no further, lest I fall off.
>>>>>Chad replied: Dear Harold,
As a pastor sitting next to a grieving parent who just lost their infant son, they might use a word like “untimely” or “tragic” and I would choose not to correct them – I wan to assume you would feel the same way as I on that respect.
I agree with you that this is an issue on which Scripture is silent. It is why I asked it. I am glad to see that you fall back on certain attributes of God (good, just, etc.) to help forge an answer, yet I am confused why you only are willing to go so far. You all but come out and declare that they will not suffer an eternity in hell (had you done so I’d stand and applaud).
You say we cannot answer with certainty. This is actually not a bad limb to be on. It is one that I would argue most emerging Christians are on most often and finding a way to be comfortable there. It is also the same position taken by most of the early church and onwards with the doctrine of assurance becoming somewhat of a new kid on the block a few centuries ago.
Anyways, I am really interested in how you can tip toe around the issue of infant salvation saying that we cannot answer with certainty because scripture is unclear and yet answer with downright conviction that the teenage girl in Rwanda who never had anyone tell her about Christ who watched her family be killed while she was raped to her death is going to hell because she never confessed Christ as her Lord? Where is your “good” and “just” God at such times? Does God only have the power to save infants who haven’t professed Christ as Lord but not the power to save the tribespeople of Rwanda?
*****HC: Chad, I am not arguing for infant salvation. I said it is something of which the Bible does not speak about. The Bible has plenty to say about salvation, but nothing explicit about whether or not one is saved that dies in infancy. The fact that God is good, just, holy, righteous, etc., is clearly revealed in Scripture. I do not think you are contesting that. But it is not the basis of any argument by me to say that they all go to heaven. If it were the case, I would be an avid proponent for abortion. How much more of a noble thing can a Christian do than send all souls straight to heaven to be with God forever, preventing them from ever messing things up during their earthly lifetime? Obviously, that would make abortion the greatest heaven-filling act any man could ever do. When I appealed to God’s revealed attributes, it was meant to infer that whatever happened to those souls would be just. If He decided to save them all, damn them all, save some, damn some, etc., whatever He decided to do – would be just, because He is just. There isn’t a higher standard that God is held to, meaning, He doesn’t do what is just because it is just, it is just because He did it – an age-old philosophical question.
The teenage girl in Rwanda scenario is not equivalent to the infant death scenario. See my comment #6 for a rough outline of the general objections and categories pertaining to the heathen. After describing an awful and horrible event that no doubt is a reality to some, you asked, *Where is your “good” and “just” God at such times?*
Chad, God doesn’t owe anything to anybody. If He would have prevented the attack, or spared those lives, it would be by grace (undeserved favor). Our Savior is such a powerful Savior, that even those evil murdering rapists could be forgiven and be justified before God. But for a moment, ask yourself which offense is greater; the murder and rape of the teenage girl in Rwanda (and her family), or the family’s (and the girl’s) idolatry and sin?
Chad, please behave and answer Jean’s questions. We are prepared to discuss them.
Apr 22nd, 2008
MCUMC
Jean,
Thank you for offering a response. I agree with you on principle but based on what God has revealed about Himself en totem, through the whole counsel of Scritpure, I can say with some confidence that God loves him or her and desires that none should perish but all have everlasting life – therefore, I would say they will be made whole in the resurrection of the dead and live with God forever and ever.
You do realize, don’t you, that even by admitting “you don’t know” that you have joined me in my camp as a heretic as professed by Stephen? Stephen says that because I allow room for mercy to be shown to those who never hear the gospel and therefore cannot respond (much the same as the vegetable) that I am a heretic for I deny the necessity of one to assent to the gospel. An “I don’t know” is as good as saying “yeah, maybe God will save them” and therefore, according to Stephen, you are a heretic. Welcome to the club
Apr 22nd, 2008
Jean Cauvin
An “I don’t know” is as good as saying “yeah, maybe God will save them” and therefore, according to Stephen, you are a heretic. Welcome to the club
Again, this is a logical fallacy known as asserting the consequent.
To say I don’t know does not mean maybe. It is completely unknown. To not go beyond what is written is trusting God that whatever He does is righteous. To speculate based on my own emotions and experiences (a posterori) is satanic and finds its orgins in the Garden with Eve and the snake.
So we disagree. I answered your question. I stick with the objective means of knowing (sola Scriptura) while you stick with feelings. This is typical of the United Methodoist.
Now that you have been answered I’ll await my questions now.
Respectfully,
Jean Cauvin
Apr 22nd, 2008
MCUMC
Harold,
Good to see you again! Long time no see.
Your infant scenario aside, you have left my question unanswered. Shall I assume that you apply the same logic to the 20 year old vegetable as you do to the infant? If so, then you may join myself and Jean in the heretic club formed by Stephen. It’s getting crowded in here!
As for your abortion scenario, I notice you did not add my response. Remember I told you that abortion is murder and that to do so takes the power of life and death out of God’s hands and assumes it is in yours. Two wrongs don’t make a right, so your illustration falls flat.
You forgot in your listing of what Scripture tells us is that God desires that none should perish but have everlasting life. No doubt you have ways of twisting the plain meaning of the text like with John 3:16, but there you have it.
“Behave” myself? Harold, you still make me laugh
Good to see you again!
peace,
Chad
p.s. Harold, someone on here referred to you as “professor.” Where are you a professor at?
Apr 22nd, 2008
MCUMC
Jean,
Now, in the words of Harold, “behave.” Don’t go getting nasty like everyone else here (comments like, ‘typical among Methodists” is an uncalled for attack and shows ignorance more than anything else).
The point is all the same. Have you read this entire thread? You will notice that Stephen exhibits all the qualities that you just labeled “satanic.” He has gone beyond what scripture teaches and called me a heretic because I am happy to say “I don’t know” or go as far as saying that “yes, God in his infinite love and mercy may save” those who die with mental handicaps or in places of complete horror and hell whom never hear the gospel proclaimed.
Do you not agree that this issue, in whatever capacity we disagree, is not one worthy of slandering another brother as “heretic” or “antichrist” over?
Apr 22nd, 2008
Jean Cauvin
MCUMC
I’ve agreed to answer your previous question on vegetables. Now I am not as yet calling you a liar, but you did agree to answer my questions after I answered your question on the vegetable.
Eve was using her own experiences and emotions on whether or not she should have eaten the fruit. The very notion of questioning God’s commands is satanic and the snake knew this. The satanic means is the method of thinking you implore. It is identical to Eve in the garden
I did not say it this is typical among Methodist. I said this is typical among United Methodist. Read more carefully.
Please answer my questions so we can get to the root of it. I will assume as of yet that you are not a liar and that you will now hold up your end of the deal. I will now await your post to my questions as you have agreed to do.
Jean Cauvin
Apr 22nd, 2008
Jean Cauvin
MCUMC
Here is the list of my questions again for your convenience. I appreciate you keeping the end of your promise:
1) Are you a member of the United Methodist Church?
Do you believe in a literal place of torment for people like Hitler?
2) Do you believe the Bible is inspired by God 100%
3) Do you believe the Bible is inerrant 100% in all matters
4) If you adhere to #2, but not #3, how can you do this logically?
5) Was Mary actually a literal virgin when she gave birth to Jesus?
6) Is homosexual activity a sin in all cases 100%?
7) Is ‘abortion a sin or does God give woman the right of choice?
Jean Cauvin
Apr 22nd, 2008
MCUMC
Jean,
Please read more carefully. What I said was: I’ll be happy to post it as soon as the question above gets answered by those to whom I asked it.
Are you a “those”? Agogley, Stephen and Travis have yet to answer, right?
United Methodists refer to themselves as Methodist, Jean. Stop evading the issue. What you said was ignorant, whether it was to United Methodists, Methodists, or anyone else.
Apr 22nd, 2008
Jean Cauvin
MCUMC,
I am assuming that Agogley, Stephen and Travis are Reformed. If they are then their answer would be identifcal. I can’t control their actions. This is a unique setting between me and you.
This is between us now. Scripture tells us to not be ashamed of the gospel (Romans 1:16). Are you ashamed of the gospel MCUMC? With boldness adress the questions.
If you continue to not address the questions I posed to you then you are a coward. As a United Methodist (if you are) you are not a consistent Methodist at all (John Wesley would not be happy). If you are consistent, then a simple answer of the questions would show otherwise. (I view some Methodist as Christians just as George Whitfield viewed John Wesly as a Christian).
I do not know if you are personally a Christian or not. And you know how you answer my questions will give you away. It sounds like you want to simply bicker at God’s people as the homosexuals do.
If you do not answer my questions I will presume that you are playing some sort of game.
I answered your question. I have no control of anybody else. If you continue to ignore the issue then you are acting as the cults act when they come to my door.
If you don’t answer my questions you will need to grow a pair. I cannot continue corresponding with a theological eunuch.
Jean Cauvin
Apr 22nd, 2008
MCUMC
Jean,
Even though not everyone has answered I’ll go ahead and post my response to your post since you have been demonstrably more kind than anyone else here (snide remarks about Methodists, oh, sorry, United Methodists, aside).
1. I do not know you personally. But instead of unfruitfully throwing insults around with Stephen, perhaps pick a topic or set of topics to stick with and follow through with it. Perhaps no one has done this with you.
Here are some of your errors regarding reformation thinking:
1. “Ugh…I’m so sick of all the gushing over the Pope’s visit!
I imagine it is the same “gushing” that would be done by most of you all if Spurgeon were still alive and coming to town.”
Jean:Spurgeon was not the Head of the Body of Christ as the Pope is claimed to be. He is not altus Christus or ex persona Christi. So no reformed thinker would view Spurgeon or anybody else as the Papists view the Pope.
Me: I never said he was. “gushing” is not an emotion restricted to Papists over a Pope. Unless you are arguing that reformers, or at least the ones on this blog, are emotionless and joyless (an argument, mind you, that I wouldn’t fault you for making) that I think “gushing” would accurately convey the sentiment that many here would have if Spurgeon came for a visit. I mean, a cursory glance at the way several here fawn, or “gush” over Bob Morey is a perfect example.
2. “Yes, I count them (Papists) to be brothers and sisters.
What you all hate about the Catholics is really no different from what you are doing yourself. You have merely switched from a system of penance to a system of doctrine and mental assent.”
Jean: This is no where to be found in any reformed thinking. The Reformers viewed faith via a threefold means. assent is not the same as fiducia. While all elements are a gift. Notice 1 Thess 1:9. Exegeticallly speaking, they did not turn from idols to God, they turned to God from idols. This is a fascinating verse to study via reformation thinking of notisha, assensus, fiducia. This assent is not works because it is given to elect and some non-elect, but fiducia only to elect (James 2:19)
Me: Of course it is “nowhere to be found in reformed thinking.” Because proper reformed thinking does not condition one’s position before God upon proper mental assent to a synod, council or doctrinal position. Correct? However, those posting on this blog are either woefully ignorant of their own tradition or they are indeed embarking on a “NEW Reformation” (as many of them here refer to themselves as) and have turned completely away from a gospel of grace, as the true reformers embraced.
You seem to have fallen for the same trap, even if you want to call it something else (as you attempt to do). To illustrate, you ask me these questions:
1) Are you a member of the United Methodist Church?
2) Do you believe the Bible is inspired by God 100%
3) Do you believe the Bible is inerrant 100% in all matters
4) If you adhere to #2, but not #3, how can you do this logically?
5) Was Mary actually a literal virgin when she gave birth to Jesus?
6) Is homosexual activity a sin in all cases 100%?
7) Is ‘abortion a sin or does God give woman the right of choice?
Do you believe in a literal place of torment for people like Hitler?
And then you conclude based on how I answer these questions by saying:
“Only a few posts will be needed to discern via Scripture whether or not you are a Christian via the position of Reformed thinking.”
Now, I assume you equate being a “Christian” with being “saved.” Would you mind explaining how the above set of questions do not amount to a form of “works” by which proper mental assent, or the “right answers” based on your own understanding of scripture, results in determining whether one is “saved” or not? To further complicate the issue, is there some formal decree that states one can tell whether one is “elect” or not based on the answers to these seven questions? I believe you have effectively truncated salvation and relationship with God into a box of your own making, picking and choosing which doctrines and/or beliefs are damning or not. This will be more clear when get to those questions.
3. “Where you guys make this into “works” is when you make the gospel into something that it is not. I have watched you all tear others apart because they dont’ believe in predestination, for instance. Predestination is a DOCTRINE and to believe in it is not a requirement for salvation. You know what Luther said? He said grace by faith alone – everything else, ADIAPHORA! “”
Jean: Predestination is not essential to salvation (in terms of belief). God can save ignorant people. If He keeps them immature in the faith, that’s His right to do so. Luther did not just say that last line. He said:
“We are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.”
Me: Again, you (or certainly Stephen and others here) are not taking your convictions to their logical conclusion. You say that belief in predestination is not essential to salvation and that God can save ignorant people. I agree. You then say, “If He keeps them immature in the faith, that’s His right to do so.” Very well. I’ll give you that for the time being. If you truly believe this, then on what grounds do you allow yourself to determine whether one is a Christian or not based on the answers given to your 7 questions? If you really believed what you say here, then your logical conclusion can only be “well, we don’t know who the elect are and it is not our place to judge – perhaps Chad is still immature in the faith, yet a Christian all the same.”
4. “1. Rome does not confess that salvation is by works, Stephen. That is a straw man. Do you deny that works flow from a life saved by grace?”
Jean:This is a logical fallacy called asserting the consequent. Space does not allow room to ellaborate. Rome confesses that salvation is via faith and works which the reformers have shown as self-refuting.A simple study on the sacraments would should this easy.
Me: I disagree with you. Yes, Rome has confused the two in the past. They are thankfully coming to a more moderate position with regards to faith and works as of late. The Catholicism of today is not what it was in the 16th century. Yet some of you keep fighting the same tired arguments. As for the sacraments are concerned I assume you are implying a difference between infused righteousness and imputed? A simple answer is that scripture teaches both – it is not either/or but perhaps more of a both/and.
5. “All you people do is live by labeling others. How pathetic is that? ”
Jean: Though not related to the reformation, this too is self-refuting since you’ve labled the lablers as pathetic lablers.
Me: You’re grasping.
6. “I believe that at birth every aspect of human nature is bent and depraved and that on our own we are unable to move towards God or even love him.”
Jean: You do not logically believe this. You have theological schizophrenia. If you really believed this then you would have to adhere to predestination. If you remain inconsistent you can reject this however.
Me: Your statement above reveals much. Either you have never read Wesley or you have and do not understand him. It wouldn’t surprise me, as most reformed people I know only read within their club and Wesley is difficult for people with a fatalist/deterministic worldview to grasp.
The simple answer to what you perceive as a paradox is prevenient grace. It is Wesley’s answer to predestination – a doctrine I wholly disagree with.
1) Are you a member of the United Methodist Church?
Yes, and a pastor within in.
2) Do you believe the Bible is inspired by God 100%
Yes. But this is a loaded question, you do realize that, don’t you? Luther said the Bible is not inspired because it is the Bible but because it contains Jesus Christ. Therefore, it must be inspired to have such a story.
3) Do you believe the Bible is inerrant 100% in all matters
Again, inerrant comes with so much baggage it must be properly understood. This is a word that is new in theological discussions and only came on the scene recently. When you say “all matter” that tips the scale to say more than anyone ever said before the Enlightenment. The party line for we Methodists to which I affirm is that “the Holy Bible, Old and New Testaments, reveals the Word of God so far as it is necessary for our salvation. It is to be received through the Holy Spirit as the true rule and guide for faith and practice.” In this sense, yes, it is inerrant. Such a view is consistent with orthodoxy for the past 2000 years.
4) If you adhere to #2, but not #3, how can you do this logically?
The same way I can maintain that Jesus Christ was 100% divine and 100% human. How do you do this “logically,” Jean?
5) Was Mary actually a literal virgin when she gave birth to Jesus?
Yep.
6) Is homosexual activity a sin in all cases 100%?
This is a dumb question, Jean, and one that I ought to just ignore and assume you know no better. To imply that people struggling with how this issue resolves is not a Christian shows a real lack of maturity in matters of faith. But to answer your question, I believe homosexual lifestyles are incompatible with the way God has created us to live. I further believe that the greater “sin” being propounded in the church today is that we vilify one sin to the exclusion of everything else and in so doing we have all become complacent and forgetful about the Church’s true purpose and mission. I don’t think homosexuality is any different than a person struggling with lust, or gluttony, or the people on here who revel in gossip and backbiting or find joy in their arrogance on difficult, complex matters of faith, as though they know the mind of God 100%. The obese pastor who rants and raves about homosexuality and then goes and gorges himself on cake is in my opinion every bit as guilty. This is why I began this by saying your question is a dumb one and shows a lack of maturity about matters of faith. Sin is sin, and to elevate one over everything else and use it as the scarlet “A” that you will determine if one is a Christian or not is nonsense, or worse yet, another form of your works-based righteousness.
7) Is ‘abortion a sin or does God give woman the right of choice?
I believe abortion is murder, and therefore a violation of God’s command to not kill. (therefore, Harold can’t do it to save babies lives eternally). That is not to say God cannot forgive and redeem a person who has had an abortion. These are complex issues, Jean, and they do not deserve a short “yes and no” answer, but prayerful dialogue.
What? Just Hitler? What about bloggers who judge and condemn fellow Christians and spend their time in idle words and tearing the body of Christ down rather than building it up?
Jean: If you want to be a good methodist, I would recommend for your reading one of the greatest Methodist evangelists of all times, George Whitfield. He was a Calvinist and wrote to Wesley on this subject. The letter are probably available on the net somewhere. Wesley couldn’t answer him and mainly ignored his attempts of contact on this issue.
Me: Jean, first, I want to be a good disciple of Christ more than I want to be a “good Methodist,” which is something most Methodists would say. I realize that many of you in the reformed camp see it as a sign of being a good Christian if you “shall not be moved” and defend your system of belief better than anyone else.
You do know that Whitfield, though a Calvinist, was friends with Wesley, right? In fact, for a long time Wesley thought it a vile thing to preach the word of God in the fields but his friend George convinced him otherwise and the two launched a wonderful campaign together of tent revivals and camp meetings. From there Wesley began taking the word to the streets because that was where the people were. Of course the two had their disagreements, but they saw each other as brothers in Christ – a lesson for many on this blog to consider.
Jean: Otterbain rejected reformation thinking out of a reaction to reformers treating him poorly. Not via a theological position at first. I’m afraid this may be your case as well (I’m not sure though).
Me: That’s funny. Really, it made me laugh. But no, Jean, I reject the reformed articulation of faith because I find it woefully lacking in taking in the breadth and depth of Scripture and God’s sovereignty and love. By me it had been tried and found wanting, sorely wanting. The fact that the people who espouse it are often time arrogant jerks is just one more among many reasons why I find the God of reformers to more of a God created in their own image rather than the radical and life transforming, counter-cultural God that the Bible gives witness to.
By the way, your namesake, Jean Cauvin, would probably despair over where many of the people who took up the name Calvinist have taken his teachings.
Now, can YOU behave and have an intelligent conversation without resorting to name calling and ostracizing like your fellow reformers here?
It would be nice to have a level of civility and brotherly love return to this crazy place.
Apr 22nd, 2008
MCUMC
Lol….I posted the above while you must have been posting your last. Forgive me for jumping the gun and saying you have been demonstrably more kind than everyone else here
You appear to be no different.
Apr 22nd, 2008
Harold Cerula
>>>>>”You do realize, don’t you, that even by admitting “you don’t know” that you have joined me in my camp as a heretic as professed by Stephen? Stephen says that because I allow room for mercy to be shown to those who never hear the gospel and therefore cannot respond (much the same as the vegetable) that I am a heretic for I deny the necessity of one to assent to the gospel. An “I don’t know” is as good as saying “yeah, maybe God will save them” and therefore, according to Stephen, you are a heretic.”
>>>>>”…then you [Harold] may join myself and Jean in the heretic club formed by Stephen.”
Chad, I feel like I’m having to come on here as a youth pastor, of sorts. There isn’t any heretic club formed by Stephen. If there is, then he is in it as well since he is also one who answers “I don’t know.” Jean has pointed out your logical fallacy, as I have during our Hebrews 12 debate regarding the syllogism of A.P.’s argument. The question you have asked has already been answered, and that sufficiently. It is ridiculous to demand the ransom that Stephen, Agogley, and Travis answer before you release your answers to Jean’s questions. If there is any maturity and intellectual credibility associated with the name Pastor Chad Holtz, now would be the perfect time to put it on display while hundreds of not thousands are standing by – watching.
>>>>>”As for your abortion scenario, I notice you did not add my response. Remember I told you that abortion is murder and that to do so takes the power of life and death out of God’s hands and assumes it is in yours.”
Chad, the “heaven-filling-abortion” argument is specifically designed to illustrate that in order for your counter argument to be valid, an appeal to Scripture as the objective reference point must be made. The goal is to point out one’s inconsistency with their selective use of Scripture.
>>>>>”You forgot in your listing of what Scripture tells us is that God desires that none should perish but have everlasting life.”
This is a red herring. Perhaps we can discuss and exegete 2 Peter 3 afterwards.
Apr 22nd, 2008
MCUMC
Oh yes, the “that is a red herring” argument. Birds of a feather, flock together.
Harold, I heard you are a professor? Mind sharing with me what school you profess at?
If you think Stephen doesn’t have a “heretic club” than you haven’t read his posts. Do you think I’m a heretic, Harold, because I leave room for God’s love and mercy for the suffering people of Darfur?
Please, just answer the simple question, Harold. Hundreds, if not thousands, are waiting to hear your judgment call.
A simple yes or no will do.
Apr 22nd, 2008
Harold Cerula
>>>>>”Harold, I heard you are a professor? Mind sharing with me what school you profess at?”
It is only a nickname. But for kicks, it could be IUI (International University of the Imagination)!
>>>>>”Do you think I’m a heretic, Harold, because I leave room for God’s love and mercy for the suffering people of Darfur?
Please, just answer the simple question, Harold. Hundreds, if not thousands, are waiting to hear your judgment call.
A simple yes or no will do.”
Yes, Chad, I do. And I am deeply saddened by it, especially since I love you with a love that I do not believe you ever have received from another. My interaction with you on both blogs (EV&CH), and now (BT), is heartbreaking.
Apr 22nd, 2008
MCUMC
Well, Harold, thank “professor.” Thank God I do not need your endorsement.
While we are exchanging nicieties, I am deeply saddened by the lack of Christian charity on this site. Jean said something that I dismissed perahps too hastily. He said that Otterbain rejected reformed thinking because they treated him poorly. While many of my close friends are reformed (and they act nothing like you people here), I will say that if all I had to go on was you people I wouldn’t make the mistake of confusing you all with Jesus Christ. The arrogance, pride and pompous regard to Scripture and Jesus is sickening, to be frank.
I have watched you guys use scritpure like a bludgeon to simply win debates. That is not what God’s Word was ever meant to be. One of my first comments on this site was that even the KKK use scripture to prove their arguments and I wasn’t going to use it as a tool in that way. Reformed Mama took offense to that – I guess the truth hurts.
As for calling me a heretic, I really don’t care. Anyone can read on my blog http://www.chadholtz.wordpress.com that I consider it a compliment to be as distant from the cult-like teachings on this site as possible. What does worry me is how you all have watered down the term heretic to mean nothing more than those who you disagree with. It has nothing to do with the early Creeds of the church or a confession of the diety of Christ and his bodily resurrection. You all have hijacked the word and now use it to marginalize those who are not reformed. It’s sad, really.
Although i find it laughable that thousands, let alone hundreds, would waste their time here, I do hope at least a handfull have come to see what a mockery many of you make of God and His holy Word and how you have turned doctrine into a weapon rather than a tool to help grow disciples in Jesus Christ. Jean asked if there is such a place reserved for Hitler that is eternal torment. Probably – and it is serviced by people at Biblical Thought.com
peace.
Apr 22nd, 2008
Jean Cauvin
MCUMC,
You went ahead and provided evidence of a pair. The language prior to posting your answers were sounding evasive . I appreciate your response and now find your inquiries sincere. Civil discourage would be encouraged at this point.
Two questions were avoided however, perhaps on accident.
#3 The party line for we Methodists to which I affirm is that “the Holy Bible, Old and New Testaments, reveals the Word of God so far as it is necessary for our salvation. It is to be received through the Holy Spirit as the true rule and guide for faith and practice.”
—-This is a close quote to your book of discipline (see pg. 44, paragraph 101, 2004 edition). The UMC does not directly comment on this issue but may address it at the conference it will begin having starting tomorrow in Florida. Your denomination is split over this.
Your comment on this however is somewhat ambiguous and seems Barthian (neo-orthodox). It sounds similar to Rudolph Bultmann’s language. Please clarify.
Is Scripture inerrant “when it speaks” on issues of science, history, psycology, philosophy, etc (e.g. Genesis 1). Or is it just inerrant in the way Barth viewed it regarding matters of religious experience? This is why I asked you with the qualification of 100%. Please elaborate. Is it inerrant in all matters 100% in every way, relationship, and manner?
#7 You did not answer regarding your position on a literal hell.
Do you believe there is a actual place called heaven as well as hell. You see MCUMC, when you approach these subjects as a UMC pastor, you must use your
1) Experience
2) Tradition
3) Reason
on these matters. So while we allow the subjectivity of our fatih (internal testimony of the Holy Spirit) to follow the objectivity of the Word, your Quadrilateral formed by Albert Outler demands the objectivity of the Word to be followed (or digested) via your subjectivity.
Thank you for your clarifications.
Jean Cauvin
Apr 22nd, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Civil discourse would be encoouraged, not Civil discourage. I am very busy today at work so I don’t have the luxury all the time for spelling error check.
Jean Cauvin
Apr 22nd, 2008
MCUMC
Jean,
I’m probably closer to Barth on my understanding of Scripture. It is a witness to that which is inerrant and infallible, Jesus Christ.
In other words, I do not hold to a literal 6 day creation, if that is what you want to hear. The Bible is not a science book, it is a theology book. Getting the two confused only causes problems.
As to the last question, yes, I believe in a literal heaven and hell. If you would like to learn more about my where I line up on that read N.T. Wright. I’m doing a study on his book Surprised by Hope on my blog.
peace.
Apr 22nd, 2008
Jean Cauvin
MCUMC
Scripture is essential to the Christian faith (2nd Timothy 3:16, 2nd Peter 1:20-21, 1st TImothy 5:18 (quoting Luke), 2nd Peter 3:15-16, Col 4:16, etc, etc). Thus if one abandons any essential quality of the system (i.e. inerrancy), they abandon the system all together.
It would be like anatomy. A Heart is essential to life. An arm is not. If I have a liver, brain, kidneys, etc, but no heart, I still die. Even though I have other essential elements of life. It is the same with Christianity (or any system).
One cannot embrace the Words of Christ who denies the Words of Christ.
Again, your humanistic Outler Quadlateral is in play here. Your personal experiences determine what passages apply to you and which don’t on a subjective level.
Since the Bible is probably errant on some things, your foundation is based upon some probable errors. Thus since your foundational is probably full of errors, your conclusions may be full of errors. As long as you stay in the subjective, you stay in the probable which traps you in the probable realm of error.
To discern the errors, you become almost mystical. Whatever is in line with your means of experience/reason/tradition is all that matters.
So, via your denial of inerrancy, you are not a Biblical Christian. You are outside the faith and unless God decides to save (sozo – rescue) you, you will dwell in a permanent place of torment in the afterlife 2nd Peter 2:9.
If you were close by I still wouldn’t mind having a hamburger with you though. I have many pagan friends.
Thank you for your discourse.
Case Closed.
Jean Cauvin
Apr 22nd, 2008
MCUMC
oopss…meant to add in there, to be sure, I do believe in a literal heaven and hell.
Sorry if that didn’t come out clearly.
As for inerrancy of scripture, that is nuanced in so many ways that I would be happy to discuss it elsewhere if you’d like. I line up with my denominations position on it which as far as I’m concerned is consistent with Christian thought from the 1st century onward.
Apr 22nd, 2008
MCUMC
Jean,
I’m sure you already had that response ready to go. I really don’t care what your very subjective view is. Inerrancy is a man-made doctrine. You wish to use it as a divisive tool, that is your doing, and you will be held accountable for it.
You make so many assumptions by saying one who does not hold to inerrancy denies the very words of Christ. That is utter nonsense and shows once again your ignorance on the topic, as you have demonstrated by other comments you have made.
The only thing that you have proven is that you guys call people heretics that are not reformed, something Stephen on here said you people do not do. Or, worse yet, you think that the highly nuanced and complex issue of inerrancy, based on one answer to a question, marks one as a pagan. That is just immaturity on your part, Jean, and I won’t hold that against you. But do grow up.
Apr 22nd, 2008
MCUMC
Jean, to help you grow up I recommend Peter Enn’s book, Inspiration and Incarnation. There he refutes your fallacious conclusion one need not hold to the man made doctrine of inerrancy to hold to the teachings that Scripture is useful in all that it teaches and is indeed the Word of God, inspired by God, and witnesses to the ineffable Jesus Christ.
Prove that the early church, even up to Luther himself, held to a doctrine of inerrancy. You can’t.
And again, you have shown your works based righteousness – i.e, salvation is dependent upon one’s mental assent to your doctrines.
case closed.
Pastor Chad Holtz
Apr 22nd, 2008
agogley
MCUMC: Agogley (is that your real name?)
agogley: Again an attempt to avoid the truth that you intentionally deceived us and the moderators in an effort to post on this blog. But even this little diversion doesn’t work out for you since agogley is, in fact, my real name.
Apr 22nd, 2008
Stephen Macasil
For those that attended my lecture on the Reformed doctrine of Scripture: Chapter One of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Peter Enns is one of those names I mentioned (along with N.T. Wright, James Dunn, et al) that have rejected it. Pete Enns has recently been suspended from Westminster Seminary over the heresy in this book.
I agree with Paul Helm when he says that Pete Enns begins “from the wrong end. Not from Christ’s and the apostles’ teaching regarding the nature of Scripture, but from ‘problems’, the difficulties identified by his own specialism, Old Testament scholarship.”
Also, here is a summary of Beale’s critique:
(1) He affirms that some of the narratives in Genesis (e.g. of Creation and the Flood) are shot through with myth, much of which the biblical narrator did not know lacked correspondence to actual past reality.
(2) Enns appears to assume that since biblical writers, especially, for example, the Genesis narrator, were not objective in narrating history, then their presuppositions distorted significantly the events that they reported. He appears too often to assume that the socially constructed realities of these ancient biblical writers (e.g. their mythical mindsets) prevented them from being able to describe past events in a way that had significant correspondence with how a person in the modern world would observe and report events.
(3) Enns never spells out in any detail the model of Jesus’ incarnation with which he is drawing analogies for his view of Scripture.
(4) Enns affirms that one cannot use modern definitions of “truth” and “error” in order to perceive whether or not Scripture contains “truth” or “error.” First, this is non-falsifiable, since Enns never says what would count as an “error” according to ancient standards. second, this is reductionistic, since there were some rational and even scientific categories at the disposal of ancient peoples for evaluating the observable world that are in some important ways commensurable to our own.
(5) Enns does not follow at significant points his own excellent proposal of guidelines for evaluating the views of others with whom one disagrees.
(6) Enns’s book is marked by ambiguities at important junctures of his discussion.
(7) Enns does not attempt to present to and discuss for the reader significant alternative viewpoints other than his own, which is needed in a book dealing with such crucial issues.
(8) Enns appears to caricature the views of past evangelical scholarship by not distinguishing the views of so-called fundamentalists from that of good conservative scholarly work.
D.A. Carson has also reviewed the book and found it wanting. I can’t look for the link right now, but if anyone else can, post it here. I found a few with 404’s.
Apr 22nd, 2008
agogley
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
(Mat 7:15-16)
MCUMC: I think Jesus was commanding us to be pacifists. After all, he did say love thine enemy, pray for your enemy, turn the other cheek, and pick up your cross and follow me. Paul also says to imitate Christ.
AGogley: Christ was talking about personal interaction not telling us to be walking doormats.
MCUMC: Yes he is! How could Jesus be any clearer when he said “Do not resist evil?”
AGogley: But didn’t you say that you agreed 100% Mr. Straka in saying that the God of his (their) understanding will not throw sinners into hell that haven’t heard the Gospel. Pastor Chad Holtz also agrees with Mr. Straka in saying that a God that would do that is not a God he wants to follow because that surely wouldn’t be a very party-like atmosphere either?
MCUMC: I wasn’t saying I believe in Universalism. That’s not what that post was trying to say.
AGogley: So we should look further when evaluating your statements but we shouldn’t view Christ’s statements in full context? Fine…I’ll move on. How does deceiving us imitate Christ? I believe that MCUMC intentionally deceived us in posting under another name when prior thereto, he posted under Chad.
MCUMC: I didn’t deceive anybody! The moderators wouldn’t let me post under “Chad” anymore so I had to post under a new name. But that you all know who I am and nobody has stopped me from posting, I’ll end every post with “Chad” now.
AGogley: How is that not deceptive? You thought the moderators just didn’t like your screenname?
MCUMC: But YOUR FRIEND Brian did it on a radio show.
AGogley: I’m sorry…did you say Paul said imitate Christ or imitate Brian? I don’t know Brian and am not sure why you you are lumping me in with him.
MCUMC: I’m sorry I referred to him as your friend but I can see now why you wouldn’t want to be associated with these people.
AGogley: What happened to turning the other cheek? I just see you throwing back insults..
MCUMC: What me? You and your friends are a bunch of back biting, gossip mongering, heretic labeling……wait a second I have somebody else on the line: Forgive me for jumping the gun and saying you have been demonstrably more kind than everyone else here You appear to be no different…….where was I, oh yeah, you and your buddies are a bunch of haters.
But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”
(1Co 5:11-13)
Respectfully, I recommend such.
Apr 22nd, 2008
agogley
TRAVIS SAID “I never said you shouldnt uphold your decision. I just dont think its very deceptive in this online world, if I get kicked off of an atheists or cults site why wouldnt I go back and speak against false teaching? Thats what he believes he is doing. Its not my call, but I wouldnt even delete his posts, I think its encouraging to see how All of you handled Chad,
I would like you to explain to me how it is scripturaly deceptive? Its just like Dr. Bob or others have done when they go on radio shows, and use there middle name or last name, because people wont engadge them under “Dr. Morey, or Chad” because they dont want to face the truth. Thats the way Chad thinks, he thinks we are wrong and he wants to show us “the truth” If your gonna correct me your gonna have to correct Dr. Bob also.”
AGOGLEY RESPONSE: Brother, it’s deceptive!!! What does that mean? It means that you are intentionally misleading by false statement or appearance. You call into a radio show that you know wont accept your call. They ask your name and you know they are expecting you to give them your real first and/or last name. But instead you give them your middle name. Did you actually misstate the truth, after all you did give them your real name even if it is your middle name. The answer to that is YES. You knew they wanted one thing and you intentionally gave them another so that you could mislead them or deceive them into allowing you on the air. The same is true on a blog. If somebody kicks you off a website and then you come back under another screenname you and I both know that you are being deceptive in that you are concealing the fact that you are the person they just kicked off.
Now, if you want to argue and discuss the notion that you have Biblical warrant and justification for deceiving others in order to preach the gospel to them (or other forms of such, debates, etc.) then let’s discuss that. As I said earlier, I’ll entertain the idea. But let’s dispense with this pretense that you aren’t decieving somebody by using a middle name or some other name in order to get past the call screener. You and I know that’s exactly what you are doing because if they knew who you were, they wouldn’t let you on.
Lastly, I have no idea what Dr. Bob or anyone else on this website has done in this regard and therefore, am not in a position to judge them.
Apr 22nd, 2008
Travis
I found 3 or 4 sites that were stand alone copies of DA Carsons review of Pete Enns book, and they will not pull up.
Apr 22nd, 2008
Travis
Agogoley, you are correct, it would be deceptive, what I should have asked or said was what you replied, Is there biblical warrent for certain forms of deception? For example Rehab helping the spies, and being eternally rewarded in scripture and by the Lord? But on the flip side you see wrong deception in Peter “I do not know him” trying to decieve the people that he did not know Christ, so that he would not be killed.
If there is a better place for this discussion I would like to hear the remarks.
Apr 22nd, 2008
Travis
Stephen I found a good peice of DA Carsons review on http://www.markandlauraward.com/blog/?p=90 here it is
in the three substantive chapters, most of the space is devoted instead to convincing the reader that the difficulties Enns isolates are real, and must be taken more seriously by evangelicals than is usually the case. In other words, despite his initial claim that he is writing the book to comfort the disturbed, as it were, the actual performance aims to disturb the comfortable. This makes the book rather difficult to evaluate. Moreover, Enns’s ambitions are vaulting: the evidence cast up by biblical scholarship, we are told, is of the sort that requires that an “adjustment” be made in how we think of Scripture, akin to the re-interpretation generated by the Copernican revolution (13). Wow. So are we explaining how evangelical faith accommodates biblical scholarship, or are we asserting that a Copernican revolution must take place within evangelical faith so as to accommodate biblical scholarship?
…when Enns writes (his italics), “It is essential to the very nature of revelation that the Bible is not unique to its environment. The human dimension of Scripture is essential to its being Scripture” (20), the statement is formally true and hopelessly muddled. Using the incarnational analog, the “human dimension” of the God/man not only places him in the human environment, but leaves him unique in that environment since only he is without sin. And even more strikingly, of course, what makes Jesus most strikingly unique to the human environment is that, without gainsaying his thorough, perfect, humanness for an instant, he is also God, and thus the perfect revealer of God, such that what Jesus says and does, God says and does. But when Enns speaks of “the very nature of the revelation of the Bible” as “not unique in its environment,” he looks only at its “human dimension” and integrates nothing of what else must be said if we are to understand what the Bible is in this “human environment.” I hasten to add that I am as rigorously opposed to what he thinks of as a docetic understanding of Scripture as he. But I am no less suspicious of an Arian understanding of Scripture—or, if we may get away from the incarnational analog, I am no less suspicious of assorted non-supernatural and domesticated understandings of the Bible, understandings of the Bible that are far removed from, say, that of the Lord Jesus.
Methodologically, Enns gets himself into these problems because he has spelled out neither what he understands of the doctrine of the incarnation, nor how well analogical arguments work in this case, and what limitations might be applicable.
The failure to get this tension right—by “right,” I mean in line with what Scripture actually says of itself—is what makes Enns sound disturbingly like my Doktorvater on one point. Barnabas Lindars’s first book was New Testament Apologetic. The thesis was very simple, the writing elegant: the New Testament writers came to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and that he had been crucified and raised from the dead. They then ransacked their Bible, what we call the Old Testament, to find proof texts to justify their new-found theology, and ended up yanking things out of context, distorting the original context, and so forth. Enns is more respectful, but it is difficult to see how his position differs substantively from that of Lindars.
Apr 22nd, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Agogley, Travis, and whoever else it may concern:
Chad Holtz (the person) was blocked from this site because the spirit behind that name is wicked. Since I cannot block one’s spirit, I blocked his IP address, his email address, his first and last name, and his url. Upon learning that his comments were not being posted publicly, he attempted to post comments using a different screen name from the same computer. Since the computer had the same IP address, the comment was still blocked. Once he figured that out, he attempted to post from another computer (different IP address), using a different screen name (his initials), and a different email address. Since all first time comments are automatically held for moderation, I blocked the new identifying data and he still found a way to get in. I gave up trying because I figured that soon enough he would hang himself. The people here can sniff out a rat when they’re near one and I just trusted that God would bring forth Chad Holtz’ spirit for all to see regardless of what name he posted under. That is why I commended OVERCOMITTAD2THEWORD for his clever comment asking if he and Reformed Mama were the only ones that thought the correct spelling of MCUMC was C-H-A-D. That is probably our 2008 BT comment gold medal winner. Now, whenever Chad Holtz posts here, or wherever, he will be in open shame unless he repents.
I have no problem with users choosing pseudonyms rather than their birth names. The issue with Chad Holtz is that he was restricted for being an unwelcomed guest intent on disturbing the peace, unwilling to be rational, unwilling to yield to Scripture, and all around a divisive fool with square-miles of foothold for Satan. Despite our efforts, he disrespectfully and unethically circumvented our decision to ban him and devised a way to spew his poison, rather than finding something (or somewhere) else to do.
BT does not block those that disagree with our doctrine. All one has to do is lurk the threads here and read the many debates with Eastern Orthodox heretics, Universal heretics, Roman Catholic heretics, and more.
To this day, there have only been four individuals blocked, Chad Holtz is one of them. The other three are people that have displayed the same satanic spirit as Chad Holtz, including 2 from the biblicalpuke.com fan club AKA moreycentricslandering.com. We welcome opposition but we will not tolerate unruly spirits such as these.
The purpose of this blog forum is to bring glory to God, namely by:
a) refuting all ideologies that contradict Revealed Theology;
b) edifying the saints that labor in like (frontline) ministry;
c) providing “fellowship” and “relationships” on the battlefield;
d) providing education and training for the next generation;
e) facilitating discussions regarding topics of mutual interest;
and things like this.
We are not here to replace the local church, nor are we here to be the sole source of spiritual food for our readers. We expect every Christian to be joined to a local body of believers and use the resources here as secondary sources at best.
Distractions like Chad Holtz will continue to emerge (no pun intended) until the Lord returns in glory with flaming fire and vengeance! Until then, we will, and we hope you will too, take it upon ourselves to regulate our dominion as commanded under the cultural mandate in Genesis 1:26-31.
Apr 22nd, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Travis, thanks for the link. I read Carson’s review a while back, but many of them seem to be gone now (404). What was this thread originally about? Poor Drew. Each one of these comments is automatically populated into his email. Sorry Drew. If you want to shut down the thread for good, go ahead brother!
Apr 22nd, 2008
agogley
Agogoley, you are correct, it would be deceptive, what I should have asked or said was what you replied, Is there biblical warrent for certain forms of deception? For example Rehab helping the spies, and being eternally rewarded in scripture and by the Lord? But on the flip side you see wrong deception in Peter “I do not know him” trying to decieve the people that he did not know Christ, so that he would not be killed.
If there is a better place for this discussion I would like to hear the remarks.
Ok, now we are on the same page. I am open to the discussion that deception may be called for in certain instances. We’ll need to explore that issue together.
Apr 22nd, 2008
Reformed Mama
We know you didn’t want to do it Stephen…Chad was given grace upon grace…he said some very wicked things…may God grant him repentance 2 Tim 2:25…for we would rejoice with him in that…
God’s peace…
Apr 22nd, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hello,
I probably shouldn’t say anything but I’m typing.
It is not my authority to censor or allow people on here. This is via the moderators as allowed by Dr.Morey. That is fine. It is your blog and your website so you have the right to do as you may.
But I do have a personal/opinion on the matter. If it was me I would allow pagans to participate. I was offered the opportunity to lead Chad to his logical conclusions to show that he is not a Chrisitan by definition. If he is not a convert he is sure convicted most likely.
Now that I have established systematically that Chad is a pagan, I would welcome all his questions or any other pagan (except those who are profane of course).
But then again I do not know the purpose of this blog. What is the purpose? For anybody? Only Christians?
Is apologetics only for evangelism? Is it not also for conviction?
Chad was a typical United Methodist pagan. After I demolished him it would have been nice to build on that in different conversations.
But no harm done. No big deal. It is your blog and do as you will.
In Christ,
Jean Cauvin
Apr 22nd, 2008
Travis
I hold to the same opinion, and I do ask the same thing, what is this blogs purpose? It is obviously a blessing but its also to get people to think, I enjoyed watching you guys handle Chad, and the rest of the people that come to this blog.
Apr 23rd, 2008
MCUMC
You people are insane.
The reasons I referred to you all as a cult from the very beginning is now very clear.
Enjoy making a mockery of Christ by your gossip, lies and slander.
Apr 23rd, 2008
MCUMC
[THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT IS FROM CHAD]
Apr 23rd, 2008
MCUMC
[THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT IS FROM CHAD]
Apr 23rd, 2008
Reply to “Saint Joseph – Real Estate Agent with the Mojo”