It’s always interesting when ODMs quote a famous person, pretending that said famous person agrees with them. Then, you look into many these heroes of the ODMs and you find all kinds of things that don’t line up.
Here’s some examples:
- CR?N displays a video by John Piper, implying that Piper shares their ODM belief system. Fact: John Piper wrote an article for the most recent issue of Relevant (a somewhat progressive Christian magazine). He has also spoken at a Mars Hill Seattle conference. Mark Driscoll, pastor at Mars Hill Seattle, spoke at Piper’s most recent Desiring God conference. Mark Driscoll is considered by some to be a leader in the emerging church.
- Mike Corley quotes C.S. Lewis, implying that Lewis shares his ODM belief system. Fact: Lewis wasn’t a fundamentalists, nor held to an ODM belief system, nor was reformed. In fact, Lewis wrote in Surprised By Joy that a key person in bringing him to faith was Tolkien, a devout Catholic.
- ODMs love Calvin, Luther, and Spurgeon and yet speak out against alcohol. Fact: Calvin, Luther, and Spurgeon all drank alcohol. Most Presbyterian and Lutheran churches use wine in their Eucharist.
In fact most of these men listed above, when you look at them closely, don’t meet the requirements of perfect ODM Christians. In this ODM worldview, will anyone, besides themselves, get to spend an eternity with the Father?
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, September 5th, 2007 at 10:51 pm and is filed under Commentary.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
169 Comments(+Add)
CS Lewis wasn’t even an Evangelical.
It is amazing to see everyone trying to claim him as one of their own. Now even Mormons have joined his fan club.
Interesting I pointed out in another thread that Ken Silva believes that the Kingdom is now…
“The following is really an all too common misconception concerning the beliefs of those of us who believe the doctrines of grace: “because in addition to all those things I also believe in the present reality of the kingdom of God…” So do we.”
While MacArthur plainly stated Brian McLaren is wrong, wrong, wrong because the Kingdom is “only spiritual” and will come in the future.
So here we have Ken agreeing with Brian McLaren and disagreeing with MacArthur!
Frank Turk is a cessasionist… yet he stated on my blog that he supports Ken Silva who declared himself a modern day prophet!
It would be hilarious if so many people were not sucked into the vacuum of lies double speak and hypocrisy that those who claim to be on the side of truth have shown themselves to be…
God does resist the proud and gives grace to the weak… even us “grace girliemen”… like Jesus who was full of Grace and Truth…
Yet, I bet not one person who has been here a while is surprised by this at all!
LOL!
Be Blessed…
iggy
“God does resist the proud and gives grace to the weak”
Weak should be humble… sorry!
iggy
C.S. Lweis would be considered a heretic today for some of his beliefs. Luther was given to wine and temper, was a foul mouthed anti-semite, and still retained some Catholic beliefs. The church of Jesus Christ was always flawed and in need of God’s grace, just like it is today.
And here is where I can rely on God’s sovereignty seemingly more than some Calvinists, God will take care of His church without histrionics and unchristlike behavior from His followers. And if the church strays too far God can bring revival, we belong to Him.
Should we study, should we speak, or should we rebuke? Yes. But should we be imitators of Christ and remain entrenched in deep humitiy.
Absolutely.
Luther never wanted to leave the RCC. Anyone with even rudimentary research skills can discover that.
Just like Washington never wanted to break from England. Good point, Joe, revisionist history, I love it!
Rick
You guys are, of course, welcome back to Mother England anytime you like!!
Ian – I love the movie “The Great Escape” even though it gives the Americans a greater role than they had in the original camp. But when one of the Englishmen good heartedly remarked to Steve McQueen “How are you guys making out over therewithout us” it was priceless. We have no greater friend than England, of course that is if I was a staunch American.
I am a believing follower of the Lord Jesus who happens to live on a piece of ground same call America, but my fellow citizens come from all over the world!
Amen Rick
You guys kill your own Princesses!
I’ll stay here where we just rotate through out guys every now and then and a sex scandal doesn’t usually lead to murder. There was that one intern a few years back, what was her name…that’s terrible I can’t remember
It seems the ODM’s would rather keep these idealized vision of the people they quote the same way most people keep idealized visions of people in the Bible. I just rocked one of my students worlds when I pointed out Joeseph practiced divination in the Bible.
“Luther never wanted to leave the RCC. Anyone with even rudimentary research skills can discover that.”
Uh-huh, and “Anyone with even rudimentary research skills can discover that” these apostates branded Luther as heretical when he tried to work for reform. Further, “Anyone with even rudimentary research skills can discover that” absolutely NOTHING has changed re. the false gospel preached by the RCC since Trent anathematized the actual Gospel of Jesus Christ.
God didn’t want a phony unity then and He doesn’t want it now, and “Anyone with even rudimentary research skills can discover that” the ecumenical emerging church movement which Rob Bell embraces couldn’t be a move of God.
This has got to be one of the silliest non-sequitur arguments I have ever seen. I was laughing so hard when I read it I had to wipe the tears from my eyes.
If you want people to take you seriously you are going to have to do a lot better than this.
But then again I’m a Lutheran so that means I can quote Luther and other Christians who drink alcohol. But I’d better not quote the teetotalers otherwise be accused of quoting a person who doesn’t agree with me and pretending they’d agree with what I’m saying or doing. LOL!
If this were even remotely close to a valid argument (which it isn’t) then no one could ever quote anybody.
Chris Rosebrough,
And THEY accuse us of guilt by association! LOL!
It is not the over use of alcohol that is most disturbing about Luther, it is his RCC carryovers including infant baptism, consubstantiation, litergical worship, and a rabid hatred of Jews worldwide.
He was used of God but let’s not build a statue.
Chris R,
Glad to see you agree with us. The part of the point that Matt B is making is that the guilt by association tactics used by watchdoggies condemn the watchdoggies themselves when applied to them.
Amen to that Rick….has anybody seen my wineglass and cigar? LOL
Chris and Ken,
This is not a “guilt by association” argument. They are not arguing that you are just like these men if you quote them, or that it’s *necessarily* incorrect to rely upon their teachings.
However, there is an argument to make that ODMs are *inconsistent* when they rely on certain teachers.
Wouldn’t it be somewhat inconsistent to criticize other Evangelicals for a lack of ecclesial purity because they associate with persons of imperfect doctrine, drinkers, or other sinners, but then *rely* on the teachings of drinkers, anti-semites, persons of imperfect doctrine, and other sinners to do so?
I think it’s a fair point.
ODMs teach us that following certain dead theologians (Calvin, Luther, Spurgeon) is better than what the evangelical church is doing now. Which parts do we follow: Calvin burning people at the stake? Luther’s anti-Semitism? Spurgeon’s drinking and smoking?
Actually, it seems that the ODMs are in love with the orthodoxy of these men, however, when pressed, less then thrilled with their orthopraxy.
I’m imagining Luther hanging out at Ken’s bible study…errrr…church. What would Ken excommunicate him for? Drinking? Swearing? Infant Baptism? Views on the Eucharist?
And Chris R., your church teaches that infant baptism washes away sins. That is salvation by ceremonial ordinance or otherwise known as “works”. Why is that overlooked by people like Ken?
It’s because of the common enemy “strange bedfellows” principle. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Infant sin forgiving baptism is OK as long as you dislike Warren et. al.. That is reverse compromise.
Rick,
My church teaches that baptism washes away sins BECAUSE the Bible teaches that. Here are a couple of cogent verses on that topic.
The scriptures clearly say that baptism is FOR the remission of sins and that it WASHES AWAY our sins. If you want to fault me for believing the scriptures go right ahead.
Ken doesn’t agree with my church’s position on Baptism (and he’s wrong to do so but that doesn’t mean he’s not a Christian brother). But Ken does agree that we are Saved by Grace Alone Through Faith Alone in Christ Alone.
Walter Martin (a baptist) and John Warwick Montgomery (a Lutheran) also vigorously disagreed on baptism yet found enough critical common ground to work together in the field of apologetics.
I don’t agree with everything Ken or the other ODM people believe, say or do. The reason I side with Ken, Ingrid, Mike Corley, Phil Johnson, Jim Bublitz and others in this fight against the Emergents, neo-liberals, KJV ONLY Legalists, prosperity teachers and self-help infomercial evangelicals is because everyone of the groups I mentioned is twisting and distorting the gospel of Christ and are deceiving people and sending them to hell.
I have put away the less important doctrinal differences that I have with other ODM folk in order to contend for the true faith.
Wow, sounds like us here. I have put away the less important doctrinal differences that I have with other Christians in order to live out the true faith.
Matt,
The true faith begins with sound doctrine and the true gospel. You cannot ‘live out’ the true faith if you believe the wrong message.
Chris R,
So you believe that baptism is required to wash away sins, yet you ally yourself with people who don’t teach that, and explicitly deny baptism to infants. Are you not allying yourself with false teachers who are leading people to hell?
–But Ken does agree that we are Saved by Grace Alone Through Faith Alone in Christ Alone.–
So, you’re saved by grace through faith in Christ alone–but you still need baptism to wash your sins away?
Or does that mean you can dunk anyone, even an atheist, and suddenly their sins are washed away?
Methinkest thine position is contradictory, and shalt split thee as thou splitest a wishbone.
Regarding Baptism if you would like to know more about what scripture teaches on the matter please consult this document.
http://podcast.extremetheology.com/extreme/TSBaptism.pdf
If you would like to debate the topic I recommend doing so at this blog entry…
http://www.extremetheology.com/2006/06/treasures_of_sc.html
The reason I am recommending that the baptism discussion occur elsewhere is because this posting is NOT about baptism.
Chris R.
“But Ken does agree that we are Saved by Grace Alone Through Faith Alone in Christ Alone.”
except for me… I believe this also have professed it often and claim Jesus alone as salvation and Ken says I am not saved and serve another god….
So defend him on that will ya!?
LOL!
be blessed,
iggy
Chris R,
“I don’t agree with everything Ken or the other ODM people believe, say or do. The reason I side with Ken, Ingrid, Mike Corley, Phil Johnson, Jim Bublitz and others in this fight against the Emergents, neo-liberals, KJV ONLY Legalists, prosperity teachers and self-help infomercial evangelicals is because everyone of the groups I mentioned is twisting and distorting the gospel of Christ and are deceiving people and sending them to hell.”
If I am not saved by Grace and cannot seem to show Ken I have a “saving” faith in Christ… as when I try I am mocked… condemned and accused of more junk… All I see is that Ken is more guilty of twisting the Gospel than anyone on your list as he has usurped the Throne from Jesus and can decided who gets grace to be saved and who cannot…
As long as I am here and profess Christ for the last 26(ish) years.. proves Ken to be saying one thing and doing another.
As far as guilt by association… It seems rampant to me as each person i try to talk to just sees a “link to Brian McLaren” on my blog and states “you can’t be saved and have that link”… meanwhile missing I have Chuck Missler, J. Vernon McGee, Iraenius, and on and on also in my links…
I have asked over and over for direct quotes from you guys that show McLaren stating. “I do not believe in a literal hell” or “I am a universalist” or “To be gay is OK and is a good thing.” as he is accused of over and over and no one has yet to produce one single thing… they give me quotes where they read into it what they are told or what they think he has to be saying as he is a “liberal heretic”.
This goes for many others also….
It seem it is a sin to discuss theology and more if you disagree with the theology of John MacArthur… but seeing the lies, slander and other crap coming from them… makes me sick.
I am really surprised that they let a “semi pelagian” such as yourself who believes in “baptism” for salvation… is let in their little myopic hate club… I cannot see any reason why one would want to be in that club… (Though Mike Ratliff stated it has helped his ministry grow! Which makes me really sick that one would allow the abuse, lies and slander of others to further their own ministry… that to me is worse that any “word of faith” ministry!
Be Blessed, : )
iggy ( you know the guy Ken Silva hates and calls his Nemesis and has condemned to hell because Ken serves another god… as he has stated.)
Iggy,
That is between you and Ken. If he has wrongfully accused you of adhering to or promoting false doctrine then the burden of proof is with him. If he is wrong then he has a Biblical duty to repent and apologize for breaking the 8th commandment.
I will say this. I’ve read many of your posts and comments and have a very difficult time getting a radar fix on the doctrines you confess. Sometimes you say things that are very orthodox and other times I am left scratching my head in confusion (and I’ve read a lot of theological works in my lifetime). I’m still not sure I know what you believe even though you’ve sent me the Jesus Creed.
Iggy,
One more thing, I am not semi-pelagian by any stretch of the imagination.
I simply believe that baptism delivers the things that scripture says that it delivers. Nothing more and nothing less.
Semi-pelagianism teaches that man participates in part in his conversion. Scripture does not teach this.
If you would like a more complete list of the doctrines that I confess, I would point you to 4 documents that I believe correctly summarize true BIBLICAL doctrine. They are NOT the scriptures but I do believe they correctly outline sound Biblical teaching.
1. The Apostles Creed
2. The Nicene Creed
3. The Athanasian Creed
4. The Augsburg confession
Chris,
I was wondering if you had a response to my earlier comment. Basically, I said that the ODMs are being inconsistent by 1.) Denouncing people they disagree with to hell and 2.) Quoting famous dead people they disagree with, by overlooking with the fact that they disagree with them.
I’d be interested in knowing whether the argument is 1.) valid and 2.) sound. And I’m specifically interested in knowing why you think such an argument amounts to “non-sequiters.”
Rick,
FYI – my church baptizes, as well (though not infants), though our aproach is not as dogmatic as it used to be in our non-denominational denomination (Tim will get this joke). Here’s the FAQ we’ve published on our own -doxy and -praxy.
I’ve seen plenty of KJV only people leaving splendidly bad comments on Slice. I don’t know how you can say you side with Ingrid et. al. against them, since she allows those comments on her site while not others.
I don’t think they’re fighting quite as hard against the KJV-only folks as they are the others.
Which is fine. Less fighting is good. Particularly, as has been mentioned here often, when we aren’t fighting against flesh and blood. Which, as I’ve discovered, are what people are made of, people with the label of KJV-Only, Emergent, etc.
Just saying.
Chris R,
Thanks for your response… I am not attacking your faith nor do I see you as semi pelagian… I was stating that Ken would as he does many others who believe close to the things you do… in fact, some of the things against Rick Warren he has stated might also be held against the Lutherans… but Ken is so myopic in building his own kingdom that he misses many things and commits double speak right and left…
I have pointed these out here adn elsewhere… and given sources… but then who cares about facts… like Ken denying that Luther did not intend to leave the RCC when he hammered to 95 Thesis to the Wittenburg door as that was what all did when they found things in the scirpture. It was the post it board for the church in its day…
Yet, Ken gets it right when he says they declared him a apostate… but see? He revised history right there and denied that Luther first was trying to work within the system and then turned around to slam the RCC.
Again… he does this all the time.
Also, this is not just about “Ken and me”… as others have tried to talk to Team Pyro… one friend of mine is not an “emergent” and is a Calvinist… yet they have banned him because he has tried to get them to prove what they are doing with the “posters” is biblically right… and they just quoted Spurgeon and banned him!
Again… if YOU are saying things about any of the groups you mentioned… the give direct proof… I mean i even have stated that Spencer Burke’s book was heretical… yet tell me that Scot Knight is!…
As far as my beliefs… I read the bible and see what IT states… in that I try to not add filters. My theology is very streamline and simple. God is God and I am not… I am His imperfect Creation and by Grace i am saved.
Keep reading… I am going to go through Romans 9 in a couple of weeks.
I think that someone need rebuke Ken who Ken considers his equal… I dare you… I bet he distances himself from you very quickly!
Be Blessed,
iggy
Chris R,
I’m still interested in how you ally yourself with people who are denying baptism which “delivers” salvation to infants?
Also, an earlier commenter stated that emergents deny substitutionary atonement. I dropped comments from the three or four major targets of the watchdoggies, all affirming substitutionary atonement.
So what’s the difference between these targets and your allies? Seems to me its more about style than substance.
iggy,
Dude get over it! If I’m such [insert emerging new evangelical non-reasoning here] then just pay no attention to what I say. Man, how hard is that?
Ken, you going to take your own advice when it comes to Warren, Bell, McManus, Noble, etc?
Tim, always do.
Then why do you write on at least three different sites dedicated to watch (dogging) everything they do?
Tim,
You specifically asked me: “you going to take your own advice when it comes to Warren, Bell, McManus, Noble, etc?”
And I answered you: “always do.” As in I always do take my own advice when it comes to Warren, Bell, McManus, Noble, etc. which is why I write in order to expose their false infomercial quasi-Christianity.
Ken,
There is no reason to be intentionally obtuse. It’s counter-productive and childish.
You said earlier that this was guilt by association. I wrote a comment disputing that. Do you have a response?
I’m also still waiting for a response regarding strawman arguments. Do you have one?
Instead of kindergarten antics, why doesn’t everyone engage in serious and thoughtful discussions of these issues? It doesn’t have to be personal.
Ken – I think Tim is referring to “get over it”. As in, why don’t you get over Warren, Bell, McManus, Noble, etc?
Ken,
“iggy,
Dude get over it! If I’m such [insert emerging new evangelical non-reasoning here] then just pay no attention to what I say. Man, how hard is that?”
The truth is Ken… you can’t give apologies, and you cannot address others without put-downs as you have again above…
I have only called you to give actual quotes from people you accuse and you have not… I have called on your double speak and how you condemn others and you refuse to listen and only again mock…
You have mocked me as I prayed for you… You have mocked my faith… you have mocked Christ in me…
So… I can “get over it” but I see a brother who is heading for a huge amount of trouble and refuses to listen to anyone.
And people like Chris R are saying they are your friends and just stand by and watch the train wreck happen…
I you could only see I may be your only and truest best friend you have… I have stood up to you and told you the truth while your friends have only stroked your ego.
be blessed,
iggy
Ken,
Much like when you read scripture, you took my words out of context. I didn’t write “Ken, you going to take your own advice when it comes to Warren, Bell, McManus, Noble, etc?”, first I quoted you when you wrote: “Dude get over it! If I’m such [insert emerging new evangelical non-reasoning here] then just pay no attention to what I say. Man, how hard is that?” and in that context asked if you’d take the advice you offered Iggy.
After so long in reading your distortions of others I understand that its very difficult for you to understand someone who doesn’t believe exactly as you do, so if you need further explanation just ask. Otherwise answer the question. Are you going to follow the advice you offered Iggy, or is this just a case of you saying one thing and doing another?
I do believe that baptismal regeneration or any form of that is as important as some of the issues that are addressed on watch blogs. Does it get any more serious than attributing the forgiveness of sins to anything other than faith in the Sinbearer alone?
It is a holdover from the Roman Church and Luther carried it out of Egypt. That is works plain and simple and if methodology is reason for division, surely that is also. I do not know this for a fact but Ingrid’s church may alo belive that.
Chris knows. There are a number of Lutheran strains that differ on that issue.
Ken – you are the perfect example of someone who has “perfect” orthodoxy but no Christian orthopraxy.
Carlos,
You said “I think that someone need rebuke Ken who Ken considers his equal… I dare you… I bet he distances himself from you very quickly!”
It sounds like you have something personal against Ken. I had to comment because you speak against someone you do not know.
DT
Gentlemen,
I was wondering since God has called you to be the police of us watchdoggies how does this site build up the body of Christ and point the lost to Him?
DT
You said “I think that someone need rebuke Ken who Ken
Or, perhaps, more likely, he speaks as someone who does know Ken and how Mr. Infallible works…
“I was wondering since God has called you to be the police of us watchdoggies how does this site build up the body of Christ and point the lost to Him?”
God hasn’t called me, I just do it on my spare time.
DT,
The conversations we carry on here are aimed at Christians, those within the church. To defend truth as taught by Jesus, not a systematic theology. To defend and protect those who have fallen victim to Christian snipers from their lone watchtowers. To stop the deranged tour guides who try to close of multiple wings of God’s Temple. All of these things build the body – just like your own immune system attacks viruses and bacteria which pit one body function against another.
While I believe I am heeding God’s calling in this particular matter, the purpose of this site is not directly reaching the lost – that best requires shoe leather, personal contact, tears and time and happens apart from this site (which is not even close to the sum total of my walk). Where this site helps reach the lost is by defending those people, like Rob Bell and Erwin McManus, who are very effective at doing this in the current culture, from having their ministries blunted by spiritual back-stabbers and prima donnas who may try to convince Christians who listen to men like this to stop doing so.
“Rob Bell and Erwin McManus, who are very effective at doing this in the current culture, from having their ministries blunted by spiritual back-stabbers and prima donnas…”
Yeah, sure glad you elite “Christians” here at CRN.(Mis)Info? are above name-calling.
O, and if these guys are so “effective” with their infomercial non-gospel, and if you are so concerned that their effective ministries could be “blunted” by those “spiritual back-stabbers and prima donnas” then why risk calling attention to those people?
Wouldn’t this just bring all the more attention to their evil deeds of daring to touch “the Lord’s anointed”? After all, if great men of God like Rob Bell and Erwin McManus are really sent by Christ then no one should be able to stop their mighty man-centered ministries on that broad path of ecumenical unity.
Ken,
In your response, you (facetiously) argue that if Rob Bell is sent by God, then why defend him when 1.) you risk calling undue attention to his critics and 2.) no one could stop what God is doing through Rob Bell.
Do you realize that these are inconsistent positions? You should stick to one facetious argument.
What about your claim that the original post was a case of guilt by association? What about the old thread and your argument that it was a series of strawmen?
My problem with your ministry, Ken, is that it is so poorly reasoned. You never make any sense at all. You make all sorts of logical errors on a regular basis and then disappear when someone calls you out on it. If what you write is really from the Lord, then it would make sense. But your writing is just, well, terrible.
I’m sympathetic to all arguments about the current state of evangelicalism. But why can’t it be done with some semblance of 1.) charity towards those you disagree with 2.) basic reasoning?
I’m sorry Ken, did you actually say something there amidst all the invective? Your current kick (”infomercial gospel”) is as much an empty straw man as that which it wishes to charactarutize. All the cr*p about “man-centerdness”, etc. is just that – cr*p you’ve made up out of the ether, like most of the rest of the lies that comprise you’re so called “ministry”, “Pastor” Silva.
The only “man-centeredness” there is in line with “love your neighbor as yourself” (which happens to be something Jesus said, though I’m not sure you’ve read that yet…)
BtW, I thought you took your ball and went home a couple months ago. Why exactly are you crawling out from under your rock now? Perhaps Dr. Aikman was right, and this is just the attention-whoring of an attack blogger…
Ken – about the name calling thing, I think we’re moving toward compromise on that. As you can well imagine my name calling think tank is churning. I mean with electron elf I’m just chumming the waters. You think you are a class A name caller, oh my, you’re in kindergarten.
I will sell for $1.00/piece a creative, appropriate, defined, somewhat humorous, and well deserved name for Ken. Those are for the on file group, if you would like me to create one let me know which detestable aspect of Ken’s personality, approach, or “ministry” you would like demeaned. Those of course will be $2.00/piece.
A sampling:
Goofball guru
Meaningless Menace
Internet Idiot
Witless Watchman
OK, OK, I’m out of control. Watch for my two for one specials!
I’m bursting!
Rick,
You seem to have totally forgotten your “If These Were My only Options” post.
Or did someone else write that?
Who are you, really? Are you making plenty of links to this site from your personal site so that people can see both sides of you?
Amy – humor sister, humor. Boy in several minutes you come to rebuke and elder but in two years I am waiting for you to rebuke Ken when he SERIOUSLY slanders people. You are a respecter of persons and have disobeyed the Word by openly rebuking me an ordaine elder. Next time bring your hsuband, until then just laugh at what is OBVIOUSLY meant as humor to those without an axe to grind.
BTW – I de-spammed your comment.
Chris Lyons pontificates: “Your current kick (’infomercial gospel’) is as much an empty straw man as that which it wishes to charactarutize. All the cr*p about ‘man-centerdness’, etc. is just that – cr*p you’ve made up out of the ether,…”
Whiny effete new evangelicalism translation:
“You’re wrong because…um…well, because I’m right!”
O, and by the way Chris L. infomercial gospel was coined by my dear Lutheran brother in arms Chris Rosebrough.
Amy – Ken just said “whiny effete new evangelicalism”, please correct him. He MEANT it!
Ken – my “brother in arms” not in Christ? What arms? I got two how many do you have?
“You are a respecter of persons and have disobeyed the Word by openly rebuking me an ordaine elder.”
Wow! If I had said that, why I would have been roundly rebuked for being full of myself. Hmm, could it be the contributors here are themselves respecters of persons!?
Ken,
You’re not wrong because I’m right – you’re just wrong. One need only observe the actual data, rather than take your word for it. My opinion isn’t necessary to prove your drivel incorrect…
The difference being that Rick made this comment in half-jest (satirizing your modus operandi), whereas your pomposity has no jest…
I would not faulted you for that, you know full well I believe the Bible forbids public rebuking of male elders by women and even male non elders. Any accusations must be before two elders.
The issue which you reference is when you contend that other preachers or anyone cannot fault your teachings because you are a pastor/teacher. I have no problem discussing Biblical issues with women.
Hey Chris – what is humorously satirizing someone’s mean spirited satire called?
Satire squared?
DT,
If someone who does not know you states plainly that you are “not saved” and “you serve a different god”… yet all you do is profess Christ risen! and proclaim the great salvation of our God… would you not also take offense to someone like that?
It seems that you do not have any background in this “fight” I have with Ken… It is one sided mostly as Ken will not discuss his accusations of my lack of salvation and apologize for referring to Christ in me my only Hope of Glory as “another god”.
When you of those who claim to stand up for truth do nothing when confronted with the lies and abuse or slanders of someone like Ken… I cannot take much of you or anyone else seriously as of much you say to me. It is that you let the SIN in your camp lead you and produce things like those slanderous posters… and laugh like unsaved men who mock the very blood of Jesus.
It seems that a brother filled with the Holy Spirit and saved by the same Blood and resurrection of Jesus is not worthy of some people like Ken or Tony Rose, or Jim W. of Jim Bublitz who have all also condemned me or mocked my Faith in Jesus.
It is not God who mocks others… the Spirit of God edifies… as those here have edified me and i have them.
I will note that you have been the most civil and welcoming… yet I will also hope you will attest that though we may differ that you can in no way state that you believe me not “saved”.
In that I call then you and others to rebuke Ken and Phil Johnson to stop the lies and slander against the Body of Christ they are committing before God stops it Himself… (either way God will but I hope it be of a Graced filled heart and no out of God’s chastisement.)
Be Blessed,
iggy
I have rebuked Ken.
We have discussed your reasoning for this position – that women should not rebuke an ordained elder – before; I don’t think that your position is biblical, although I think in most real life situations I would go with my husband to rebuke any man, whether or not that man was an elder.
blockquote>Next time bring your hsuband, until then just laugh at what is OBVIOUSLY meant as humor to those without an axe to grind.
Perhaps “the lost” mentioned in your last article on your personal site might not see the humour in your remark.
There is often an element of truth in people’s joking. Surely you cannot claim, after all you’ve written, that there is not an element of truth in your humour.
Surely if someone joked about you in such a way, you would not like it.
It would be nice if my comments could stop going through the spam filter. Surely there is a way to stop this? About half of them have been lost. Have you seen them? I believe the ones that got lost you would also consider inappropriate rebukes, not because of inappropriate content but because I am a woman and you are an ordained elder. I can’t help but wonder if they have really been lost, or purposely not posted. Forgive my suspicions if inappropriately placed.
Chris L,
Rick’s position on this is absolutely not a “half-jest.”
To both sides in the debate,
Why all the sniping? Why is it so personal? Why do you people hate each other so much?
To Ken,
I have repeatedly questioned you about some of the logic claims you make on this website. You ignore me, but then have time to engage in pointless bickering with everyone here. Why? Let’s have a grown-up discussion. I’m still interested in hearing from you.
Amy – I have called myself a goofball among other things. If you’re looking to find fault with me you are welcome, it is an endless pit. But my humor is obvious, Ken’s is not humor. I am glad to see you are studying my posts.
I do not know why you are being spammed, I recovered this one too. I am glad to see you’ve rebuked Ken, please give me the name of his post where you commented like you are doing here. Oh yea, sorry, I forgot. A little different wouldn’t you say?
amy,
Recently I have had to rescue a number of your posts from the spam filter, as well. I suspect it has to do with your not having a real email address compounded by your stated address not being associated with your IP domain – both of which are spammer tactics…
BTW Chris L., I know what humorous satire about mean spirited satire is called.
A satire exorcism!
A joke, Amy, a joke.
I would say that I think Rick just confirmed that he was saying this in jest, though with an element of truth behind it.
You are correct, Amy, my position on women publicly rebuking elders is not in jest so I would appreciate it if you honor my position by discussing issues and not insinuating that I am a hypocrite. You do not know me and my attempts at humor do not qualify me as a hypocrite.
My wife is in possession of much more convincing evidence!
Chris,
Right, but that address hasn’t been a problem for a very long time. What made it change? I originally did that for Slice because readers could have access to the given e-mail address whether I wanted them to or not.
Chris L,
I was referring to his position on women not confronting elders, as that was what Ken’s comment referred to:
Amy – Please do not misrepresent my position. I have no problem with being confronted and debated on Biblical issues by anyone. I believe an elder should not be PUBLICLY REBUKED by a woman or even any believer. An issue that is so serious it necessitates a rebuke to an elder must be brought first privately to the elder body, and if substaniated he should be rebuke publicly by the ELDER BODY.
I believe your insinuations that I was a hypocrite because of my obvious humor were out of bounds. Let me get this straight, Ken and Ingrid and others incessantly and relentlessly call people scornful names and demean their ministries with “man love” titles for YEARS, and I list a couple of “goofball” names (4 to be exact) and I am a hypocrite?
Why do I see some partiality in your assessment?
Rick,
Look at all the PERSONAL rebukes on this site, including one by Joe calling another person’s arguments “dog excrement;’” look at all the sarcasm, exaggeration, meanness, etc, etc, WHICH YOU REFUSE TO ADDRESS and acknowledge even when they are defending things you say you don’t believe in . . . .
You let all that go by, because they’re your buddies. But I can’t personally rebuke you, because I’m a woman, and you are an elder.
I have tried addressing issues with you. You don’t respond. Sound familiar?
Sad.
If you equate one reference by Joe as equal to the avalanche of disdain and scorn coming from “your buddies” then the emperor has no clothes.
Keep reading my comments, I often disagree with some of the writers – IN A SPIRIT OF BROTHERHOOD. Please note we take all comments from all perspectives here, unlike some blogs who either restrict comments or do not allow them at all. Your comments, even when critical of me, have been de-spammed by…me.
Please do not act impartial unless you are being humorous.
Sad.
Rick,
Do you honestly think that I would decide that a person is acting like “a hypocrite” based on one post? Surely you don’t think that?
I’m not sure if “hypocrite” is how I would describe what I think you are. Honestly I am completely confused about who I thought you were and who you seem to have become.
Perhaps it’s best if we end this unpleasant discussion.
Ken,
To think that we are accused of bloodletting is hilarious. Can anyone say “rabid dogs?”
DT
“Perhaps it’s best if we end this unpleasant discussion. ”
Yep. Remember I was trying humor, you brought in unpleasantness.
DT – OK, rabid dogs is a little funny, the humor judge lets it pass!
Because I mentioned “one reference by Joe” certainly doesn’t mean there aren’t others, indeed an “avalanche of disdain and scorn.” (I do love copying your eloquent phrases.)
I started a paper listing various quotes from here under categories of “If I had No other Option,” but decided it wasn’t a good use of my time. It would have been WAY TOO LONG to post.
.
Unfortunately, I could have probably found some of my own writing to put in there.
In all seriousness, I wish that you would stay away from this site for a couple of weeks and just read the Bible. Then come back and start reading through this. Let God speak to your heart. I say this as a sister and this is not a rebuke but an exhortation
.
Certainly there is room for Ken and other “watchmen” to be rebuked, with an intense looking into the actual issues from a biblical viewpoint. This site ignores the seriousness of the issues being discussed.
Carlos,
Are any of us above reproof, including you and I?
DT
Amy – Should I tell you what your friends at Pyro told me when I did not agree?
Don’t come here anymore.
Of course we won’t say that. Maybe you should take a couple of weeks off and read your…
never mind. Sometimes the journey gets crazy. (if I knew how to print a smiley face it would go right here!)
Just for the record – not all my comments have been de-spammed and it’s been a bit frustrating. But that’s okay.
Hey Chris, how come you get off scot free? You are as much of a hypocrite as I am…maybe more. I’ll have to get an update from Zan!
DT,
We have nothing on this bunch for sure! I find it amazing they can’t see that they actually exhibit for real the behavior they accuse us of.
Please, Ken – you have no credibility on this issue for years to come…
Ken,
“We have nothing on this bunch for sure! I find it amazing they can’t see that they actually exhibit for real the behavior they accuse us of.”
Even if that where true it give you no excuse…
What I do see here is that we are willing to apologize if we hurt someone… that i do not agree with Chris L. or Rick F. on a few things (along with others here) and they in no way agree with me totally… yet we respect and share our faith with each other… edifying each other…
What I find as I wander over to Ken’s side is accusations, slander, misrepresentation… and the funniest thing… when they agree with me… they deny they ever had and that somehow I am still wrong!
So tell me… do I travel a path of honest peoples who love God and seek to serve Him in all the ways they can… or join a group that seems to only mock those who beleive differently… and often even when they agree!
Blessings,
iggy
Amy,
“I have rebuked Ken.”
Then it shows he has less respect for you than us… as you are in his camp and he does not care to listen to you.
Be Blessed,
iggy
DT,
“Carlos,
Are any of us above reproof, including you and I?
DT”
I am not even sure why you are asking this… but apparently Ken and a few others have placed themselves in that position…
Be Blessed,
iggy
Right Chris L. thanks, but I’m afraid that in spite of your high opinon of…well, you…the sad truth is that you really have zero idea of what you’re think you know so much about…
Ken,
“Right Chris L. thanks, but I’m afraid that in spite of your high opinon of…well, you…the sad truth is that you really have zero idea of what you’re think you know so much about…”
LOL! and YOU are talking about a high opinion of one’s self! LOL!
You also spelled opinion wrong!
That is so funny!
Blessed,
iggy
Yep Ken is the guy who told me once I was “not even in his league”. LOL!
And I really do not care to be… which bowling lane was that again?
Blessed,
iggy
Chris R,
“I have put away the less important doctrinal differences that I have with other ODM folk in order to contend for the true faith.”
If “baptism delivers the things that scripture says that it delivers. Nothing more and nothing less.” then I personally do not see that as a less important doctrinal difference! In fact I see that as a complete and utter compromise of what you do really believe!
Also, if you seem to think that is OK then why is it wrong for me to fellowship with the emergents who practice this also?
It seems you compromise to fellowship with those who would hold that “doctrine” against you… in order to please THEM…
I do not see anyone in the emergent camp that would ever do that… they would debate and discuss their point of view… as that is what we do… but with respect!
Be Blessed,
iggy
Igs,
I asked those questions earlier, I haven’t seen a response yet. Apparently denying baptism to infants (which delivers the promises of scripture) isn’t a problem as long as you do it with the right kind of style.
Regarding the rebuking of elders in public by women or non-male elders… is this blog a church? Is it my church? Are you my elder?
To be blunt, that’s just a fancy way of shutting women up when you don’t want to deal with them. Don’t get me started again on this.
That’s the same kind of cop-out Ken uses when he shrugs off any negative comments by saying he is called of God and we aren’t and therefore we need to be quiet and let the called speak. I would say that if you don’t want to be rebuked by women, you should:
a) Not take part in a discussion on a public blog.
b) Not take part in a discussion on a public blog where women comment.
c) Not take part in a discussion on a public blog where women comment who are known to have a couple of IQ points to rub together.
Really, all this call to “go get your husband” is out of line here, Rick. This isn’t a church. I don’t have a husband. I think it’s a weak cop-out and it gets annoying to see half of the general population use God (I should say, Paul) as a reason to get the other half to shut their yap.
http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/preus.htm
Thought this was an interesting article on how RCC and Lutherans seem to agree on Justification…
So, Ken, are the Lutherans as bad now as Rick Warren the new ecumenical papist as you guy call him?
Be Blessed,
iggy
Igs,
I suspect the answer to that depends on what the Lutheran in question has to say about Warren, McManus et al.
“You also spelled opinion wrong!” *tee hee* How old r u Igs?
Ken,
we all know you are so much older than me… I mean what do I know of only living 42 years on this planet? LOL!
You cannot rob me of my hope and joy… my foundation is on Christ… go and try to steal and destroy somewhere else…
iggy
Chris R.
I respect you a lot. (not so much for the people you hang out with but so be it). You completely missed the point of this post.
Amy,
You continue to bring a smile to my face. You employ every known method of spammers and yet make a somewhat tepid accusation against us that we deliberately remove your comments.
Ken,
Didn’t you say that you were no longer going to post here? What happened?
O Joe, I just love you too much to stay away. You want me to go so you can revel in ignorance?
Just say the word “brother.”
You guys better watch out. You’ll “rue the day” you messed with Julie!
Keith,
Did you see Julie said: “use God (I should say, Paul)…” You reckon she knows that it was God Who spoke through Paul i.e. what Paul says God says?
Joe,
Ken lied… but what news is that!?
LOL!
Be Blessed,
iggy
What? Do I have some kind of reputation that I’m not aware of?
Julie – You again misrepresent my position. You use the word discussion, and with that I discuss with everyone as much as anybody. I comment on many blogs run by women including yours. I do not believe it is Biblical to call an elder a hypocrite publicy unless you have followed the proper channels or you are an elder. And even if you do not recognize me as any Biblical office holder I still resist the hypocrite label. The “goofball” genre is acceptable being a general term but having no real value. Hypocrite indicates something Biblical and far more serious.
So please don’t list my options as if I said something else. This hardly ever comes up but it might be good when it does to discuss it in a calm way that first accuarately assesses what I said. Because I had some fun with Ken, Amy suggested I was a hypocrite. Did you find anything wrong with that, Juile?
When Ken claims Biblical office as a shield he many times means the teaching he gives has greater authority so he is not making the same issue as I was. Go ahead and say I’m wrong on ever Biblical issue I’ve ever espoused, but do not call me a hypocrite or a bad husband or a bad father/grandfather, and if you feel the compulsion is just too great to avoid that then do not “discuss” with me.
I may think way too highly of my comment demeaner but I used to think I was easy to get along with including de-spamming comments that were mean spirited and claimed I was two-faced. I stand corrected and I will be much more vigilant from now on about who I interact with. Please let me know if you are one with whom you desire not to discuss issues with me, I will make my own humble assessment from my vantige point.
Duck…incoming! (for anyone who might have been offended I was joking about the incoming, it was not meant to slight or demean and it did represent anyone personally and it was gender neutral)
Julie: On Sept 1, (Parody + Satire) you said:
Then I said:
You’ve got to keep up with the banter, here! (Oh, yeah. I also commented on the high quality of graphics on the Pyro site. Those guys are GOOD!)
Real Genius.
My college friend’s brother used to call me Lazlo because he thought I crept and slinked about her house like Lazlo.
I have to say that though I think I have a pretty good sense of humor, there are some people’s humor that completely bombs for me. It comes off as not funny or purely mean-spirited. Kind of like…
…doesn’t strike me as funny. So I apologize for not being able to roll with the funny punches. It just doesn’t seem funny to me.
“Again.” OK…so I’ve apparently got a jones for misrepresentation.
OK. But then…
What is the difference between rebuke and confrontational debate, then? Who decides when they’ve been rebuked or just had toes stepped on?
I agree that there’s way to much “you’re a hypocrite!” “no, you are!” “no, you are!” going on, and it’s one thing to say to anyone, man or woman, to not do that. But to tell the woman to go get her husband…
What is the message there?
I don’t have an axe to grind with you. However, I saw no obvious humor. I only saw a pattern of telling women commenters to go get their husbands, as you did to Ginger in this post. Why do you do that to the women commenters on this blog?
Yes, you are ordained. Yes, you are older. Yes, you are a Christian brother. You deserve respect for all of these reasons and more. But again, this is a blog and not a church. Rebuke/debate — whatever you call it — happens here. Men and women are here. It is simply not feasible to tell women to go get their husbands when they say something to you that if a male commenter had said to you, you would directly address.
I told Ginger to let her hsuband lead in the situation I thought was getting to her. I did not tell her to go get her husband. You probably missed the “I apologize” I posted also.
I would not let my wife publicly rebuke an elder. That is my Biblical position and it was adhered to by church history. This IS the church, Julie, the body of Christ. The church is not a building, not a denomination, not a local non profit, it is the believing members of the body of Christ.
Debate and rebuke for positions is different than publicly calling someone a hypocrite. That crosses the line. I still believe a husband should lead his familily and the Ginger thread you site you should reread. I believe I attempted to help her.
Wrong again.
Wow and to think I missed all the fun because I didn’t scroll down a few posts.
So how’s everyone doing?
Rick I do find it a bit non-sequiter for you to raise question about Amy rebuking you and then suggest that she rebuke Ken. I’m certain that I’m not fully understanding your phrasing.
DO NOT PROCEED ANY FURTHER PAST THIS LINE IF YOU GET OFFENDED EASILY.
Ken the list of biblical offenses that I could list against you is HUGE. But I’ll start with the big ones. Speck versus Plank, Pride, Lack of Love, Lack of Commision, Lack of Forgiveness. I could go on put to the meat of my statements.
Let’s put out a few facts shall we: 1) You are no longer ordained the SBC removed your ordaination when you drove that little church in Conneticut in the ground. 2) You do not measure up to the requirements set forth by God to be an Elder or Deacon laid out in Timothy and Titus. 3) Your so called “Ministry” is not accountable to anyone. If it were you would be called to task for your continued abuse of scripture. Quite frankly you have aligned yourself with a buch of parrots who all sing the same song. That is not accountability; it’s a choir. 4) God did not give your blog…You signed up for an account just like Joe, Chris, Iggy, Julie, Rick, Myself, etc…did. Now you may use that platform to proclaim what God is showing you but let’s not try to pretend that it was some divine intervention that allowed you an internet pulpit. 5) The best thing that every happened to your “ministry” is David Aikman not Ingrid, not CRN, not Slice. CT gave you your 15 minutes. Congratulations. The plus side for all of us is that we recieved further confirmation on how the world sees you. That and about 2 million other people now know to stay clear of your “ministry”. 6)Proof of your claims against Rob, Rick, Erwin, etc…may win some to your side, but with all of your vitriol and inane non-sequiter banter it is a liitle tough to want to hear anything you say. 7)Hermenuetics, Exegesis, Greek, Hebrew all really helpful in getting a full grasp on Scripture. Not a dogmatic view that pines for a by gone era of purity and wholeness. Ken that time never existed since the fruit salad Eve made. Spend more time sharing your faith and less time attacking others. The world that you desire will never arrive this side of Heaven. Spend a little more time sharing the Salvation message and less time attacking the methodology of those you don’t agree with.
Actually have dialogue that progresses. Let me show you how this works a) I believe XYZ b) Hmmm that’s interesting I believe XUZ a) really hmmm how did you arrive at that conclusion. etc… Let me show you what you do Iggy) I’m not a semi-pelagian Ken) Your a heretical whore who sleeps with “info-mercial” new age pastors. You see that really doesn’t progress. Just a thought.
Well thanks for the ear. Back to work.
Question: What happens when a single woman has a question, disagreement or reason to call a pastor or deacon/elder into correction?
So, using that definition of the church, are all the elders of every church building/group elders of the greater church in general across the world? Does being an elder of a specific church in say…Tennessee, make you my elder?
Because, if so, that opens up an interesting can of worms in regards to different discussions I’ve seen here about people making judgment calls on the pastors and leaders of churches they do not personally attend.
I think it is a dangerously similar to what Ken and others in the ODM do when you use your elder and ordination status as a way of silencing or reprimanding someone beyond the boundaries of what is and isn’t appropriate for anyone to say to another “regular Joe” who isn’t ordained.
Surely you can see that telling women to get their husbands, or suggesting that they aren’t letting their husbands lead merely because the woman happened to be the one posting and telling the story on the blog would be hurtful.
I did note your apology on that post, by the way, back when that post was still fresh. I don’t know that that changes what I am trying to say here, though.
Thank you, Sandman.
That’s the question I’ve wanted to know for years, being single and female.
I’ve never gotten a good answer, beyond the “well, where’s your father” comment.
I have, essentially, no voice in certain situations. Is that what God intended? Is that what Paul was saying? That I am not technically “whole” (i.e. there are some situations where I can’t communicate) until I am married?
Frankly, the “complementarian-women have a place-let your husband lead” people have no answer for someone like me beyond praying for a husband and living life as if I’m not complete or fully functional in God’s kingdom until then. If ever.
I hesitate to enter this fray….
Here’s the thing. This is a multi-contributor, multi-commenter BLOG. Women are not only welcome, they are encouraged to interact with all of us. While I often find some of those women to crack me up in their worrying over my use of the term dog excrement (would dog crap have been better?) all are encouraged to enter the discussion.
Rick by posting here you have to realize that you accept the fact that women are not only going to read your post, they are going to react to it and respond to the measure they feel is appropriate. We all know your position on women and elders. Some agree, others do not.
My question is are you currently serving as an elder at a church? Does that effect your policy?
chris,
Dude you ever consider writing a book of fiction? Wow, now that’s a GREAT fantasy you’ve cooked up there!
Question: What happens when a single woman has a question, disagreement or reason to call a pastor or deacon/elder into correction?
I have said this before and it bears repeating. First you go privately to that elder with either another elder, a mature woman of faith who you trust, a man of faith who you trust, or the entire elder body. What you do not do is stand up on a blog or in a congregtion and say,”You are a hypocrite Mr. Elder!”
So Julie, you have as much of a voice as anyone. You can confront and/or rebuke an elder in the right setting and after addressing your concern to that elder and not having it resolved you have the option of going public with other elders. Decently and in order. Now if all the other elders believe you are wrong, you must obey them which have the rule over you or leave. They still might be wrong, all of them, but they will answer to God not you.
I did think you and I were on an e-mail basis with things like this but I was wrong.
I’m not going to threadjack here anymore, since this is not what the original post was about. I did blog about it on my own site, and I’ll just let it go at that.
I am a non paid elder but not a pastor at this time. My ONLY objection was to have been called a hypocrite since I have not used that term.
“Rick by posting here you have to realize that you accept the fact that women are not only going to read your post, they are going to react to it and respond to the measure they feel is appropriate.”
A straw man. React to it, criticize it, rebuke the premise, make fun of it, but do not insinuate that I am a two faced hypocrite because I made some humor including referrencing my personal blog. If you do that and feel you have a right to do it, then do not contend that I do not have a right to let my Biblical beliefs be known.
I have had solid and confrontational dialogue with Erica, I forget what the only issue was about but it was about some of the terminology. I mean no harm, there is no male or female in Christ, I feel that personal rebukes should be measured and well thought out with a defference to office unless the person has so consistantly proven himself unworthy of that office.
OK, I am a goofball, not a hypocrite.
Rick, Thank you for answering my question. Although I am not sure how my argument was a straw man. I was simply stating that part of the joy’s of being a contributor (whether through posts or comments or both) people of all genders are going to respond and to some what we write might seem to make us hypocrites. So be it.
OK, I’m off to find bolthouse hall. How hard can that be?
Joe – You are a goofball! In a good way!
So when are we going to get a straight answer from Chris R over baptismal regeneration and the lack of infant baptism from his allies?
When hell, if there was such a place, freezes over.
Amy – We are done with that topic here.
Rick,
I am a goofball. But I am now posting from said, “Bolthouse Hall” so I’m online at school! Now, if I can find the library, I’ll be GOLDEN! BTW, Rick care to wager anything on the game this weekend? It would have to be in the Mike and Mike vein as I am poor and cannot afford to gamble money for real.
Are you speaking of the ND and PennState game?
Penn State vs. ND? Wow – it’s tough for me to decide who I want to lose the most in that one… I’d have to go with ND, though
I will warn you Chris, more language like that and your comments will be spammed! I cannot wait for Purdue, please let Phoenix know Mary is on our side!
Absolutely! Where I come from there is but one God and JoePa is his prophet. If you want to take this discussion offline, email me!
Dang, all this college football talk. I’m about to level the greatest insult known to man.
Ken Silva is a Michigan fan.
BOOM!
I’m assuming you’re speaking to Chris L.?
chris,
It seems that anyone who disagrees in HOW Ken and others may “discern” and then try to “correct” others. that they are not given any grace.
I try very hard to have scriptural backing for all my beliefs (If I have to do gymnastics to make it fit I usually toss it or shelve it).
Yet, when i give biblical reasons and even have used “cut and paste” scripture within my statements… Ken has mocked those words. IOW, Ken mocks the scripture. I have yet to see anyone who has a real backbone (other than Rick Frueh, who was part of them and stood up to them to let them know when they did go out of line… and he was ostracized and mocked and demeaned!
they have no respect for anyone but their own opinions.
Ken tries to level that accusation at me, yet misses that anytime I am asked a question… I do try to give an answer… and i am willing if given good biblical proof to change my view… Ken on the other hand only gives mockery and put downs and calls people names.
To me they mock themselves as they find Christ in you… Meaning that the same Jesus living in them lives in me also and they mock Him… not me.
And that is serious.
They demean God’s grace and call those who live by it…”gutless grace girliemen” which is more of a put down of Jesus as He is full of Grace and Truth…
When one shows inconsistencies in their belief system they cannot even give an answer…
Scripture speaks of these men and that we avoid them… so… Unless Ken can actually back up any of his lies and slander… and stop mocking Jesus… I think then I will be glad to converse… but as you can see rarely if given a straight answer do these men stand up and defend Truth…
Be blessed,
iggy
What topic? I haven’t been in this discussion all morning. Were you perhaps speaking to Julie?
I posted two posts earlier today that have not been posted. Have you seen them?
Is there no one running this site who knows how to permanently de-spam someone’s incoming comments?
Julie:
No apology necessary. You commented on the Pyro’s Photoshop skills and I commented about your comment. Then you commented about my comment about your comment…well, I think you get my drift.
Amy – resend them and I’ll see them through. I do not know how to permantly de-spam anything. However I will not engage in that topic with you anymore on this thread.
Iggy said, “I have yet to see anyone who has a real backbone (other than Rick Frueh, who was part of them and stood up to them to let them know when they did go out of line… and he was ostracized and mocked and demeaned!”
Pick me!!
Rick are you mad at me?
Rick,
“Resend them.”
I did not want to accuse, you, Rick, of de-spamming my posts and then choosing not to post them. It appears you did so. At least you’re not trying to hide it.
Chris,
Please suggest what I can do. I have good reasons for having a different e-mail address. I don’t want to change that, but may be able to find a way if necessary.
It seems like this problem came up before, and you fixed it.
I don’t understand how my e-mail address is the problem, since it has not been a problem for a long time.
Is it possible that someone intentionally or unintentionally did something to my address to make my comments spammed? I would really like to know. I know exactly when (after which comment) they started getting spammed.
chris – absolutely not, I’m not mad at anyone but the devil. I find your comments very edifying and balanced. Hey, DT has agreed to create a post about elders and their role in the church. That will be where we can discuss that subject more fully.
We just had a good one on baptism. And for the record (DT can substantiate this), I engaged in a confrontational exchange with a woman named ds who demonstrably disagreed with me. A great back and forth and she told me many times I was wrong and challenged my Scriptural interpretation a lot.
No name calling and respectfully assertive. I hope that clears my semi-good name!
Is there no one running this site who knows how to permanently de-spam someone’s incoming comments?
Amy,
You can do this yourself by registering and using a real email address. Otherwise, the spam filter (which is managed by Akismet for most WordPress blogs) will continue to call your items spam and delete them. We can see the most recent ones filtered, but there are sometimes 100’s (if not 1000’s) of rather perturbing posts that land there each day.
The ball is in your court…
Scotty,
You’re picked and God be with you … may the favor of god rest on you so that those who are in error may see their ways and turn to God. Actually, there has to be someone out there that these guys respect who might be able to get through to them…
Be Blessed,
iggy
Chris,
Why did the spamming suddenly start happening? NOTHING has changed about my e-mail address.
Nothing.
Rick,
I assume that you read my two comments, which were directed to you. You decided not to post them. Based on what principle?
Of the other comments that I have sent in, that have not been posted, did you also read them and decide not to post them? Or were they simply overlooked?
Chris L,
I know mine are even filtered out at times… but I don’t take offense… I just try, try again! LOL!
Blessings,
iggy
When the problem came up before, there were multiple people (including me) who had their comments sent to the spam filter. I wrote to Akismet, and several days later the problem went away (other blogs were having similar issues at that time, as well).
Now, though, yours are the only ones that get caught in there. I have rescued several of yours there recently, but may have accidentally deleted some yesterday or early this morning, when there were about 150-200 posts in the filter. Please realize that most of these posts range from 5 – 500 lines long with up to as many links, all labelled with things I would never utter, nor wish to linger on any longer than is necessary to do a quick scan for non-spam.
We have 2 folders – one is labelled “moderation” and the other “Akismet spam”. Oft-times when spammers change techniques, we will get 10-50 spam messages in the “moderation” folder for a few days until Akismet tweaks their algorythm, and these go away again.
Akismet is always in the process of updating their algorythms to catch new spamming techniques. They do not publish these, for obvious reasons, but one of the most recent techniques for this type of software (which my company uses) targets email addresses and IP addresses, looking for discrepancies to flag.
Amy,
You wrote:
I have not seen any comments of yours today in the spam filter, and I have reiterated that we should not delete any comments. As I just noted, it is possible that I accidentally deleted them (it would not have been intentional), if they were there…
I deleted them because I will not engage with you on that topic here anymore. When I e-mailed Chris about comment deleting he reiterated his position of only deleting profanity.
If you construct your comments I will see them through, tha’s all I can do at this point.
Your address/IP is not in the moderation list, besides which, it would send your comments to the ‘moderation’ file, and not the ’spam’ one. The ones of yours that I have recently recovered were in the ’spam’ one, which we don’t control what goes in…
Ah, thank you Rick. I didn’t realize you had deleted comments before that email… This would be my fault, though, for not making the policy clear to you before giving that access…
My apologies, Amy.
This, however, doesn’t answer the question of why they go into the spam filter in the first place. Your comments have not contained recognizable ’spam’ words/phrases or too many links, and the email address is the most likely culprit, still.
Chris,
My comments are being spammed, which is a headache for me, and at least as much if not more of a headache for you. I guess I will have to try to do what you have suggested, though I will have to get a new e-mail address.
In the meantime, I see Rick’s choice to not post my unspammed posts after he read them as a contradiction to the claims this site makes about letting everyone post.
The problem this creates for me is that, in the future, if for any reason my comments don’t go through, I won’t know if
1)they have been spammed, and will appear later, if someone finds them
2)they have been spammed, and will appear later, unless someone decides for some nebulous reason or personal reason that they shouldn’t appear.
I will be honest and say that I still wonder if my comments have been intentionally spammed so that someone can decide to look through them first. Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE that this has not happened? I know this sounds like an extremely suspicious question, and maybe it’s an ignorant one as well. I risk looking like a suspicious fool because I would really like to know.
I had a comment last week go to spam. I had to go in and free my own comment. ’tis true ’tis true
Rick,
And was the policy really not clear to you?
How can that be?
Unspammed but unappreciated post #1:
Um, Rick, I’ve already asked you if you really thought I would “suggest you were a hypocrite” based on one post.
Let’s review this post where you said I “suggested you were a hypocrite:”
Point 1: You insist that I shouldn’t say things like this without my husband present, or should have had my husband say it.
Point 2: You keep insisting that your post was humor. I’ll get to that later.
Point 1 is important to you. I honestly don’t know how to honor it. I think in reality it’s not just outright rebuke you don’t want, but disagreement, period, and disagreement by a woman, especially.
Let’s consider an area of respect that is very important to me, and which I believe could be backed up from scripture MORE than your “women not rebuking an elder” scripture.
That is this: treating women as the “weaker vessel.” Which in my southern culture translates as “Men should show utmost respect to a woman.”
Julie asked, “What is the difference between rebuke and confrontational debate, then?” For the record, Rick, I always hesitate before bringing up any ISSUE with you. Issue, not personal rebuke. Why, because I feel that you are more than capable of being offended by a woman’s disagreeing with you. You have communicated this in a number of ways:
1) By avoiding addressing the issues
2) By making statements, like “Well, if that’s all you got out of what I said” or “Surprise, you disagree.”
I do think that at this time in your life you are probably going to treat any “watchmen” type commenter with disrespect, whether they are man or woman. All I’m saying is that, from my point of view, if you are talking to a woman you should take even more care to show respect by actually trying to address the issue in question with a respectful attitude.
My next post will address the humor aspect of your post.
Unspammed, unappreciated, and fortunately much shorter, Post 2, also addressed to Rick:
The humor of the post I rebuked you for and how that relates to respect for women:
If someone spent a lot of time keeping my husband in line and rebuking his ministry and that same someone made a public “joke” about all the names they could call my husband, I wouldn’t think it was funny. If they were “rebuked” by someone and insisted that it was just “humor” I’d have a hard time believing it. Even if I did come to believe it, I’d have a hard time trying to rationalize how such “humor” could possibly glorify God.
My daughters would definitely get angry over such a “joke” directed towards their dad.
Have you considered how Donna Silva just died laughing when she read your joke? Have you considered how, if Ken made such a joke about you on his site, your wife would just be in pain from laughing so hard?
Guys can get away with this kind of humor with each other. When they are actually friends.
You call it humor. I call it creative hate.
Bottom line: what does God think about it?
Amy,
Rick is the first person I have given a writer account to in recent history since I sent out a message that dealt with never deleting comments. He did not get this information, and it was my fault in not conveying it to him before that access was given.
This will not happen again, and it was contrary to our policy. Were it possible to find them and post them, we would do so.
Your comment above went straight to the spam folder. I have it open in a background window on my computer and have been watching it purposefully to see how/when things are caught. The only ’spam-trigger’ I see is your email address. It is also possible, if you are using a public terminal, that the IP address you’re using may also be flagged.
It will only be #1. Should #2 happen again, I will once again (as it used to be) set all moderation/spam check privileges to my account alone (which will be inconvenient for everyone, including me). I do not doubt Rick’s or any other writer’s integrity in not deleting comments (save for overt blasphemy or profanity) in the future. This time was completely my fault for not communicating this.
None of us have the power to do this. Your comments are going to straight to the ’spam’ folder (which we do not control), not the ‘moderation’ folder (which we do control).
Chris,
Thanks for taking the time to explain.
Amy,
Yours posts were rescued from the filter (all went directly there, along with a couple ads for Viagra and some other unmentionables). As Rick noted, he probably won’t reply.
I would just note, that, I wonder how Mrs. Bell, Mrs. Warren and Mrs. McManus feel when they read the utter crap written about their husbands and the names of a completely different degree of magnitude spewed by the likes of Ken at them…
Spam, baptism, and women-confronting-elder-men.
What a post.
This is a full-service site.
(Amy, if you need a new email, I can give you a loneprairie.net one…)
I know. My main point was that if the ODMs controlled the Pearly Gates, Calvin, Luther, Spurgeon, Tozer, etc wouldn’t even make it in.
*hand raised high* me too, me too, meeeeeeeeee toooooooo!
First of all, wasn’t there a post here called something like “They Did it First?”
Secondly, I sympathize with these wives (Mrs. Warren, Mrs. Mcmanus, and Mrs. Bell) whenever untrue, unnecessary, and exaggerated things are said regarding their husbands by anyone.
Reality: we would disagree about what some of those untrue, unnecessary, and exaggerated things are.
To specifically address Rick’s humor: I would find a similar “joke” about any of the above-mentioned men just as distasteful.
Can we all be from loneprairie.net?
Julie,
So hopefully you won’t mind if I make an off-topic apology?
Weeks ago after there was some tension between us I was sitting in the car waiting for one of my kids to get done with soccer practice and the thought came that I needed to apologize to you.
Just a general feeling that I needed to say I was sorry for any hurt and or frustration I caused you.
My son’s soccer practice lasted a few minutes, then I had to drive home in the worst weather I’ve ever driven in. I had on a radio station with hymns on and I kept thinking, maybe I need to turn NPR on to see if there is a weather report telling me if I should get off the road. I did change the station once, but felt like, no, I’ve got to go back to the hymn station: I need all the “spiritual” help I can get right now.
And all the way through that difficult driving I kept thinking I needed to apologize to you.
But I guess somehow I rationalized it away, or got too busy, or . . . anyway, I’m thinking now that it would help me to realize that many personal interactions are like my “driving in that bad weather.” I need the spiritual help to do what’s difficult. I need to apologize even if it I still feel like I was “right” in what I said. So, here with God’s help, I finally offer you an apology: I am sorry for way things rose up between us and for any hurt I caused you.
1. Amy, apology accepted, except….it was all OK. I don’t nor did I have hard feelings toward you. In the same vein of thinking, I ought to apologize to you as well.
I don’t generally let things like this really ruin me, so please don’t worry about it, OK?
2. No, we can’t all be from loneprairie.net! Ha.
166 posts and STILL going, this is a killer for my attention span!!
Iggy, by pick me I meant I’m sporting the same scars!
Scotty,
Sorry to hear that… and all Ken will say is, “get over it.”
But my heart sincerly hurts for you.
Be Blessed,
iggy
To the original post.
Tozer was Arminian.
Ravenhill was Arminian.
Both men believed you could pray down a revival.
If I’m not mistaken, the Christian Missionary Alliance believes in personal apostacy. Much Wesleyan influence. Would reject all forms of Calvinism.