biblicalthought.com

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?

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.

“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

“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 Or is the whole golden calf motif outdated now?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.

John you still live in North Carolina

No I moved back to where I grew up in Pennsylvania at the end of 1999.

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?

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.)

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…

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

“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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Steve,
I think it’s time to give mcumc the CRICKET!!!!!!!!!

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?

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

“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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 :P) 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I agree it is our choice to come back and get involved in discussion where people, disagree with us