Removal of John Piper post

I have deleted the entire post due to the way it got out of hand.

I acknowledge and have acknowledged before that there are times when my mouth gets carried away.

I for one am not happy that Disciple of Christ (the commentor fromerly known as Q, formerly known as Mucho Man, formerly known as Sad little Man) has felt the need to leave us…up until the John Piper post he was one we could count on as being a voice of reasonableness and calm.   It is a shame that we inevatably run out of things to say and then decend into mud slinging – and this is not juts me adn Bones – its all of us – Bones and I are certainly a lot quicker to head down that road, we feel comfortable with that – a lot don’t – however it is not right to blame us for the deterioration of this blog into a shit fight at times; we all do it and we are all responsable for the way we respond to each other – I can’t make you talk crap to me and you can’t make me talk crap to you – I choose to and you choose to.

Anyhoo…lets see where this blog ends up…I suspect I know.

58 thoughts on “Removal of John Piper post

  1. I avhe also deleted every post in which the word ‘F%@K appears in its full and undisguised beauty, becasue it obviously causes so much pain and agnst that people go all apoplectic over it.

  2. That’s a typical outcome, Greg, to be frank. An expected climax to a fraught month of savagery.

    So we, who do not use profane language, take the time to write out comments, some of which took considerable time and thought, and you wipe them out, just like that, to rid the threads of your own bad manners, which were remarked upon form the outset and could have been dealt with long ago.

    I’ve commented sparingly in the last few days because it was plain that this was coming. You wee even warned.

    It’s an utter disgrace to delete the work of other people, when you could have taken the time to remove your own comments.

    This blog was never that well-mannered, but the recent disgraceful behaviour tops it.

    You are no more than a reactionary. I’m very disappointed with the trend and the outcome, given that there were many attempts to lift the game.

  3. Uhm..not of my bad manners young Steve – I didn’t do or say a thing on that thread – all your friend DiC’s doing i’m afraid. Not a single bad comment was mine.

    There was nothing of any value on that thread…hardly a comment worth keeping.

    And if you didn;t use the word F$%K in all its undisguised glory your comments were not deleted – other than all comments on the John Piper thread.

  4. On that thread? I am not talking about that thread. I lost interest in it some time ago. I lost the will to comment.

    I’m talking about your behaviour generally over the last few weeks. You now want to blame others when several of us were advising, nay, begging almost, that you cool down somewhat, but you insisted your behaviour was acceptable and found allies to support you.

  5. You said you removed every ‘post’, Greg. Did you man every ‘comment’? A post is the article at the beginning everyone comments on in the thread.

    If so, then I’ll revise my complaint.

    Regardless, you are still to blame for what happened, in that you insisted on proceeding with foul language even though it was pointed out to you that it was offensive to some regular commenters. That should have been enough, but you went ahead anyway, and in provocative fashion.

    DoC was always attempting to be reasonable and controlled. It was only at the end after severe provocation that he gave you and Bones a serve.

    I don’t know why Bones has to be quite so insulting of people’s intelligence with some of his over-the-top commentary, but it was becoming so wearing I couldn’t actually be bothered.

    The site has been taken over by extremists.

  6. Actually, no. This site has always been run by extremists, apart from, maybe, Bull and RP, but now it has shifted to another kind of extreme.

  7. yes, sorry i meant everty comment – not post.

    Uhm..I haven’t posted a rude word in the past week – so I’m sorry but DiC is totally to blame – I took your advice on board adn have calmed it down – DiC flared things up and became very abusive…unnnecessarily so. I am not to blame for DiC’s actions or comments – he is entriely in control fo what he says and posts. He decided to inflame the thread and so i burned it.

  8. This blog my dear friend is as much run by you as it is me – you have exactly the same posting rights as i do – so suck it up buddy – you are equally responsible for the direction we take – you don;t like the quality fo my posts or comments? Easily solved – take it in a different direction…you have that power Steve. Don;t sit there and play all hard done by when you have the power to do something about it.

    My foul language had no baring on DiC’s blow up – my foul langauge was over a week ago so had he blown up then i’d accept that – but a week later? Nope – all down to him I’m afraid.

  9. In fact I avhe not posted a negaitev comment since Friday March 15th when i posted the video fo the dancing granny to try to nmake things nice adn sweet for you and the then Q, so sorry buddy – 11 days later and you and he still try to blame me for his attitude? No way am I taking that on board.

  10. “This site has always been run by extremists…”

    Greg’s theology would be reflected in mainstream Anglicanism and the Uniting Church.

    Hardly extremist.

  11. So, then Greg, why are you still calling DoC ‘DiC’? Is it because you agree with Bones on this provocative epithet, or are you just plan ignorant?

    As to your posts. I, fact most of the recent ones have been acceptable, if somewhat liberal. That’s not the issue. Your opinion is respected even if not agreed with.

    Nor is your theology, which, again, is liberal. Not at all ‘mainstream’, as Bones is attempting to manufacture. he thinks he’s an orthodox Christian, and is making major attempts at promoting this erroneous idea by quoting any liberal theology which agrees with his perspective. But it’s far more limited than he makes out.

    This isn’t the main issue. You and Bones miss the point.

    It’s the way you and he approach people during a discussion that is at stake here. You treat evangelicals as the enemy on many occasions. It is extreme.

    And being ‘nice’ for a week isn’t really evidence enough of change. What went before was not only intensified, but defended, until a few days ago when you realised other people might actually have a point. Let’s see how it continues.

  12. Greg,
    Easily solved – take it in a different direction…you have that power Steve.

    Well, we’ve been saying for a while that the commentary needed to be less aggressive, but it fell on deaf type pads.

    It takes two to tango, as they say.

    Most of the posts I have put up have been eventually turned into a Bonesian rant against Hillsong, C3 , Phil or Brian. That is not really down to me, obviously. It is not an encouragement for cane, or for putting up a range of topics.

  13. “Not at all ‘mainstream’, as Bones is attempting to manufacture.”

    You need to get out more.

    “he thinks he’s an orthodox Christian, and is making major attempts at promoting this erroneous idea ”

    What idea is that?

    Unfortunately those in the Evangelical and Fundamentalists camp are unable to have a debate without it turning into a heathen v the righteous because their pet theories are being challenged.

  14. You notice how yo had to add ‘fundamentalists’ to ‘evangelicals’ for effect, because your argument wouldn’t look strong enough without it.

    You can’t even comment without being extreme on this thread. You must not even know you do it, you’re so used to it!

  15. So tell me what’s orthodox about your doctrine?

    Anti-creationism/pro-Darwinism/pro-evolution theory
    Genesis as fable, Revelation as historically fulfilled allegorical myth
    Adam and Eve as folk-lore, the fall as fiction, the sin nature as fantasy
    Promotion of the 5 Marian dogmas: Mary, Mother of God, Mary Perpetual Virgin, Mary’s Immaculate Birth/Sinless Perfection, Mary’s Heavenly Ascension, Mary, Mediatrix
    Promotion of Mary adoration
    Belief in purgatory, transubstantiation, canonisation of saints, prayer through dead saints
    Denial of eternal damnation for the lost
    Denial of the wrath of God on a fallen world
    Denial of the judgment seat of God for all sinners
    Denial of the judgment of the devil/Satan/serpent/fallen angels
    Denial of the existence of the devil, who is accuser/opposer/tempter
    Denial of the existence of Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna as literal spiritual places
    Denial of the existence of heaven as a real, spiritual place
    Doctrine of the devil and demons as figments of the human imagination
    Doctrine of the devil and demons as the evil intents of the human mind
    Promotion of justification by works
    Promotion of mixed religion and Christian belief
    Promotion of homosexual marriage as acceptable to God
    Promotion of Hezbollah, Hamas and Fatah as viable political agencies and dismissal of Israel as unviable

    There are others, I know, but this is a starting point. There is nothing orthodox, unless you count marian catholicism as evangelically orthodox, about this list of known beliefs.

  16. Is that all you’ve got? What the hell is “evangelically orthodox'”?

    The majority of Christians believe most of those btw.

    Of course the question is who says that any of those beliefs are unorthodox.

    That’s right Steve does.

    Of course there’s nothing unorthodox in Steve’s beliefs is there.

    This is wat I believe and the early church believed was orthodox belief.

    I believe in God, the Father almighty,
    creator of heaven and earth.

    I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord,
    who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
    born of the Virgin Mary,
    suffered under Pontius Pilate,
    was crucified, died, and was buried;
    he descended to the dead.
    On the third day he rose again;
    he ascended into heaven,
    he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
    and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.

    I believe in the Holy Spirit,
    the holy catholic church,
    the communion of saints,
    the forgiveness of sins,
    the resurrection of the body,
    and the life everlasting. AMEN.

    I can see you having problems with the communion of saints bit.

  17. Bones,
    I can see you having problems with the communion of saints bit.

    Only if you don’t understand what it means.

  18. Promotion of Hezbollah, Hamas and Fatah as viable political agencies and dismissal of Israel as unviable

    I fail to see how any of these beliefs could be orthodox or un-orthodox Christian beliefs at all. They are political opinions.

    And Fatah is the current government of the State of Palestine which the UN has recognised. It is a sovereign state by vote of the other member states of the UN, so it seems that it is a basic fact that its current Fatah government is a viable political agency.

    Israel for the same reasons is also a viable political entity – that is just a fact.

  19. Pro-Darwinism Pro-evolutionism

    Brian Houston said :

    I believe in creation. The Bible starts in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. If I waver on the first 10 words of the Bible I think I’m going to have problems properly representing the rest of the Bible. However, timeframes, over what period of time that was, whether there was room for any evolving in some areas of life as well, I’m more than open to that. I’m happy to leave that to the experts.

    Is he un-orthodox too? Who actually is orthodox besides you Steve?

  20. Pro-Darwinism Pro-evolutionism

    From the AoG USA Enrichment Journal

    A Brief Overview Of Pentecostal Views on Origins

    Pentecostal Christians today do not share a single viewpoint on evolution. Pentecostals concur that God exists and is the Creator, but they do not speak with one voice on how ancient creation is, how much evolution has occurred, or whether science provides evidence for an intelligent designer.

    Historically, because of Pentecostal theology’s fundamentalist roots, Pentecostals have interpreted Genesis as historical narrative that is scientifically accurate, and they reject those scientific findings that contradict this interpretation. But today many people who are technologically savvy and immersed in the popular media’s representation of science are members of our congregations. Many of them are uncomfortable rejecting out-of-hand the findings of science that seem to conflict with traditional interpretations of the Genesis creation account. They are increasingly interested in fostering an integrated view of Christian faith and natural sciences.

    As science teachers, we believe pastors need to seek coherence between these two realms and provide ways for their congregations to see truth in both the general revelation (the world) and the special revelation (the Word). Pastors can use the origins debate to help people more thoroughly integrate these two divine revelations.

    As educators, we have been investigating the views of Pentecostals on origins for several years. Over the past 5 years we have seen a significant trend toward a decrease in the numbers of recent creation adherents and a simultaneous increase in those favoring an ancient creation (old earth creation, evolutionary creation).1

    Pentecostals today typically embrace one of the first three views (young earth creation, old earth creation, evolutionary creation). Since atheism and deism are incompatible with Christianity, thinking believers invariably reject deistic and atheistic evolution. Below we outline the salient features of each of these five positions.

    1. Young Earth Creation. Also known as Scientific Creation or Creation Science, these creationists believe God created everything in six consecutive 24-hour periods approximately 6,000-10,000 years ago. They reject macroevolution including theories of speciation (one kind of life changing into another kind) and common descent (life forms all share a common ancestor) but they embrace microevolutionary theory (evolutionary changes within a kind). They view the Genesis creation account as historical narrative that is scientifically accurate and claim any other interpretation leads to a slippery slope of eventual denial of the salvation work of Christ. They reject the presupposition of uniformitarianism (natural processes occur in the same way and rate today as in the past) and all scientific findings that do not support a recent creation. Contemporary proponents of this view are Henry Morris (Institute for Creation Research) and Ken Ham (Answers in Genesis).

    Approximately 35 percent of faculty and students at Assemblies of God institutions of higher learning embrace this view.

    2. Old Earth Creation. Also known as Progressive Creation, these creationists believe God created the universe and life billions of years ago. They believe the Genesis creation account is mostly historical narrative, but not scientific. They reject speciation and common ancestry, and like young earth creationists, accept microevolutionary theory. They believe God’s multiple creative actions through history gave rise to the various life forms present today. Bernard Ramm advocated this view in the 1950s and Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe) promotes it today.

    Approximately 31 percent of students and faculty at Assemblies of God colleges and universities Assemblies of God hold this view.

    3. Evolutionary Creation. Also known as Theistic Evolution, these creationists believe God created the universe and life billions of years ago. They embrace both micro- and macroevolution, with the proviso that God guided evolution throughout history. They feel the Genesis creation account is not historical narrative. Instead they see it as God accommodating His revelation to the understandings of the people of that culture. Most evolutionary creation proponents doubt the existence of a literal Adam and Eve but see them as figurative. Francis Collins (Human Genome Project, National Institutes of Health, Biologos) and Denis Lamoureaux (professor of science and religion) promote this position.

    About 16 percent of faculty and students at Assemblies of God schools hold this view.

  21. So you have one political issue and a theory which you are willing to defend. The rest you have left.

    Of course, it would be a simple tactical task for Bones or wazza to take these doctrines and denials one at a time and, worked around separately and individually, each, on its own, could be shown to have support from one unconnected group or another, but taken as a whole as Bone’s admitted theology there is no question of his unorthodox beliefs.

    My point is that he has, of late, attempted to persuade us that his is, in fact, the orthodox position, making everyone else, despite the weight of scripture to support them, unorthodox (in Bones’ argument), which is why I brought this up.

    What I don’t get is why he is such a high church catholic when he is also such a Darwinian, Hezbollah supporting liberal. Those don’t seem to hang well together. They also make his unorthodoxy unique.

  22. wazza, I call orthodoxy a belief in the fundamental teachings of the Bible, as handed to us in the generally approved canon, and as interpreted by the New Testament writers who apply new covenant principles to Christians.

    Subsequent writers have added some understanding of their interpretation of scripture, but should not be viewed as apostolic in the same way the canon is. The traditions cannot supersede the canon. Where there is a discrepancy the canon must always have the ascendancy in regard to authenticity.

    Now I know you will challenge this because you will attempt to demerit the authenticity of scripture, which is what makes you, Bones and Greg unorthodox in terms of evangelical theology.

    You are, in short, liberals who have serious doubts about the authenticity of scripture. You even doubt the authority and miraculous capability of God, although Bones has said he believes in miracles.

    I have never claimed to have ultimate orthodoxy. Bones, of late, has.

    Now watch as Bones makes erroneous claims by association, as he already has with the prosperity thing.

  23. I think it’s hilarious Steve that you’ll accept that the early church fathers got it right when they produced the canon…but everything else they believed is unorthodox!! You crazy crazy Pentecostal!

  24. How about a few of your unorthodox anti-Biblical beliefs Steve :

    Round-earthism and denial of the flat world sitting on pillars (Job 9:6)
    Copernicism – denial that the sun moves around the earth (Joshua 10:12)
    Anti Sea-Monsterism – (Job 41)
    Acceptance of adulterous re-marriages (Matt 19:9)
    Promotion of women speaking in church (1 Cor 14:34)
    Anti-transubstantiationism (Luke 22:19)
    Denial that bats are birds (Lev 11:13-19)

    And from memory you believe that portions of Job and some of the books of Solomon are not the inspired words of God – which is surely un-orthodox.

  25. “I call orthodoxy a belief in the fundamental teachings of the Bible […]”

    So do tell us, Steve: is Phil Pringle orthodox?

  26. I rest my case!

    I think your memory needs upgrading wazza. A bit of guesswork there! LOL!

    Anonymous! You can’t be serious about being called ‘anonymous’, surely. You need a name. How about ‘Faceless Comment’!

    So, Empty Vacuous Hidden Apparition, is Calvin orthodox? Are you real? Do you exist? Are a figment of your own imagination? Who would know? Who cares?

    Who is orthodox? Greg the evolutionist who denies miracles and struggles with God’s own recorded words? Wazza, the great doubter of all things Biblical? Bones, the liberal catholic Muslim Christian?

    Poor wazza had to scramble for his list of controversial scriptures as ‘proof’! Of what? The unorthodoxy of scripture itself! Hilarious!

    Prepare, oh Evangelicals everywhere lurking at this site (and what a site it has become), for an onslaught of neo-paganism, liberal deconstructionism and evolutionary theory, mingled with catholic dogma, unbelief, doubt and fear of the supernatural on an unprecedented scale from the Three Amigos of orthodox agnosticism, interspersed with Faceless Comments attacking Pentecostalism from the Unknown Mystery Scribe of the netherworld!

    Buckle up folks, and enjoy the ride!

  27. And, of course, it could become sinfully hot in the kitchen when the swear boys get going.

    But don’t worry. Bones’ universalism says we all make it through regardless of what we say or what we do. We can sin away right up until the end and God will still not hold it against us. The stories about his wrath being over a sinful world but covered by grace are a myth. God only has grace and mercy and there is no truth in the rumour he is a Jealous God.

    Plus! Greg agrees that there is no devil tempting us, and it is all a figment of our imagination, in fact, the devil is our own imagination telling us wicked things, and there is no eternal torment, anyway, because Jesus, he says, got it wrong, and there is only a time of refining under the universal blowtorch of God’s holiness, a sort of purgatory with an intensive laser light show scraping off the barnacles and limpets of excessive living after we die, and not in our lifetime at all, when the foolish evangelicals think it is, trying to walk circumspectly and going along with the instructions in the New Testament, written to help keep them, so they think, until Jesus comes for the Church, so eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die, and then the fiery trial in the crucible of God’s intense attention begins.

    And there is no Gehenna, no Lake of Fire, so why fear eternity? Why fear anything. Why fear God? What is all this nonsense about working out our salvation with fear and trembling, living in holiness, being separate from the world?

    What need is there of a fire if everyone gets through? You have to wonder what the hell Jesus was talking about, don’t you, if Greg and Bones’ orthodoxy holds true.

    So where’s the party boys this fine Easter weekend? Surely we should all be out ripping up the town. There is no issue with sin if there is a guarantee of eternal life with him regardless of what we do.

    And why bother with preaching the gospel. Why do anything? Why have churches, preachers, teachers, overseers?

    Oh gosh! Why have a Bible at all? Why talk about Jesus, and the work of the cross, and the resurrection?

    We all get through, so why bother at all?

    Why even believe, eh?

  28. Let’s play spot the heretic (heterodox) game. Steve has been playing that by himself (or is that with himself).

    So let’s all play.

    The way it works is I give some teachings or quotes from a respected Bible teacher/ pastor and we get to bless or burn them.

    Here’s two quotes from a well known pastor.

    Thumbs up = orthodox

    Thumbs down = heterodox

    “This especially applies in the world of tithing. Tithing in one sense is not actually giving. The tithe belongs to God, not to us. Malachi the prophet says that when we keep the tithe we are actually “robbing God”.”

    “When we withhold the tithe we bring upon ourselves a curse.”

    I’ll start.

    Thumbs down.

  29. Poor wazza had to scramble for his list of controversial scriptures as ‘proof’! Of what? The unorthodoxy of scripture itself! Hilarious!

    Glad you had a laugh, but it wasnt to prove that scripture was unorthodox but that no-one is orthodox to a plain and literal reading of the scriptures. No one, not even you. Do you let women speak in church? Heretic! Do you let divorced people remarry? Liberal scumbag!

    You go on and on about your pet subjects, mainly homosexuality and hell, but when I suggest others you just say “thats ridiculous”, or “if you want to discuss that put it on another thread – here we are discussing homosexuality”

    I think your memory needs upgrading wazza. A bit of guesswork there! LOL!

    Then upgrade it, Steve. Is it your position that every word of the Book of Job is inspired by God?

  30. “[…] interspersed with Faceless Comments attacking Pentecostalism […]”

    Actually, it was a question. Although, of course, it might be construed as an attack by someone who has a vested interest and a marked penchant for displays of hypersensitivity and defensiveness.

    “When we withhold the tithe we bring upon ourselves a curse.”

    Thumbs down – it’s not merely heterodox; it’s a bare-faced lie.

  31. P.S.

    “[the tithing heresy] is a bare-faced lie.”

    Steve, could you please remind us: where is it that liars end up?

  32. So where’s the party boys this fine Easter weekend? Surely we should all be out ripping up the town. There is no issue with sin if there is a guarantee of eternal life with him regardless of what we do.

    So you would like to sin, but the only thing stopping you is the threat of Hell? Your orthodox gospel is merely a form of fire insurance?

  33. wazza,
    You go on and on about your pet subjects, mainly homosexuality and hell

    Actually, I don’t. These are all subjects frequently raised by Bones and Greg, to which I respond. I have a clear and settled understanding of what scripture says about these things. It is Bones and Greg who seek to obscure the way it is written in the Bible by attempting to revise the original intention of the writers.

    Of course I do not say every word of Job is spoken by God. Much of it is spoken by people who did not know God. It is the same for Sanballat and Josiah (who are so close to you, Bones and Greg it is almost uncanny), who opposed God, whose words were obviously not inspired by God, and the devil himself who opposed God, whose words are obviously not God’s words.

    You are being pedantic and, yes, ridiculous. You know ver well scripture is inspired by God but there are obviously qualifying conversations which are not his words but give the reasons he spoke his words or did what he did. Yu are talking tripe to make an erroneous point. As you do.

    You are again going over old arguments in a deconstructionist way, choosing bits here and pieces there to miss the profound whole.

    Rather than find something you can believe and build that onto your life you seek things to break down and sow into your unbelief. A totally pointless exercise.

    No. These are all your pet subjects.

  34. wazza,
    So you would like to sin, but the only thing stopping you is the threat of Hell? Your orthodox gospel is merely a form of fire insurance?

    Well, what a heap of crock!

    You must be sitting at your computer this fine day thinking of negatives to blast the Pentecostal with!

    In fact, the reason I don;t sin is because I have been made the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus, and have become a tool of righteousness rather than a weapon of sin.

    Through the cross and resurrection of the the Lord Jesus Christ I have been empowered to resist temptation and walk in the light.

    I don’t ven think about hell, since I have been redeemed form the curse of the law and set free from the law of sin and death. The subject merely came up in a conversation on this site and was poorly presented by Bones and Greg, so i commented.

    The fact of the judgment of sinners has not been removed for the equation, however, so my only interest in death, the grave, the wrath and judgment of God is to warn people, as Jesus did, and as he commanded us to, that they should repent because the Kingdom of God is at hand.

    I’ll qualify that before you go off into some other unscriptural tangent, by saying I preach the good news of the cross and resurrection of Christ which redeems those who are presently set for wrath and eternal judgment. That is all I am admonished ot preach.

    The final destination of sinners is not my concern. God will determine this. Knowing the doctrine, however, is important when teaching coverts the significance of what Christ has done for us in rescuing us form the possibility of eternal separation.

    To ignore this or deny it is not only heretical, but irresponsible.

  35. Bones,
    Seeing you have no response to or defence of my charge that your doctrine, as listed above, is thoroughly unorthodox and your only course of action is to attempt to bring up often discussed ad nausium week-in week-out pet pentecostal peeves of yours, I’ll conclude that it is a done deal and you concur.

    When you have no place to go your response is:

    a) change the subject
    b) attack a pentectostal ministry
    c) cut’n’paste a huge detour quote

    if you want to challenge my doctrine and what I believe go ahead. I’ll talk to you about what I believe in regards to the tithe, or prosperity, or whatever. I have many times. If you want to judge another ministry on what they say. Feel free. But don’t condemn me for what you perceive others teach or say or believe. Talk to me personally on what I believe. On that I am answerable. But not to anonymous cretins.

    And I will talk to you on what you believe, not what your pastor says, or your church, or your movement, if I knew what or who they were, unless by accident, or n the course of a discussion, but certainly not by design or as a means to distract the conversation away from the things i have asked you about what you believe, or as a weapon as a put-down, or evasion, or cowardice, especially when I have been only too happy to state my own position.

    We may be on a blog, and some of us anonymous, but we can still discuss our own doctrines, beliefs and understandings face to face, or pseudonym to pseudonym.

    You want to talk to Phil Pringle, or Brian Houston, or whosoever? Go for it. But I am not, as I have said a thousand times, their spokesman, or their defence counsel, or their representative.

    The difference between Bones, Greg and wazza, and people like Zorro and Anonymous????? (what a pretentious feeble name), is that I do know something about you, blogging wise, and trust you to say what you think about what you believe. Wazza and Greg have shared who they are. You are probably are called ‘Bones’ as a nickname.

    But Zorro? And Anonymous, who may be one and the same for all we know? They are the dregs of so called christian commentary. They are empty clouds devoid of rain. Sneaky little vacuous voices with big megaphones and no substance, no sense of being, no will to stand up and be seen. People who secretly fart in crowded rooms and pretend it wasn’t them.

    Pathetic! No time for them.

  36. But even Zorro and Anonymous, whoever they are, can be washed in the blood of Jesus. Maybe they are already. Who knows?

    I admit I was pretty upset about the DoC thing and Greg’s seeming to pass the buck, as well as removing comments again, which stirs me up, and I rolled up my sleeves a bit there, so forgive me. I agree we all get passionate at times, and that’s OK as long as we don’t crush one another. Or bite and devour one another as Paul reminds us.

    Who cares who is orthodox. After years of having Pentecostal doctrine challenged and frowned on like a lamb chop at a vegan convention, I wonder whether it’s worth worrying about. God loves us anyway.

    Anyway, I hope you have a great family weekend and God shines His countenance on you.

  37. “You want to talk to Phil Pringle, or Brian Houston, or whosoever? Go for it.”

    No Steve, I don’t want to talk to them – if I did, I would be addressing them, rather than you. The question is not about them, it is about you; specifically, it is how you regard Phil’s doctrinal position.

    So let me restate the question for you: “Is Phil Pringle orthodox?”

    It’s a very simple question; for the life of me I cannot understand why it is that you appear to be choking on the answer.

  38. Anonymous,
    for the life of me I cannot understand why it is that you appear to be choking on the answer.

    For the life of ‘who’? Who is ‘me’?

    You don’t get it so you? You are a hater of Phil Pringle of the most detestable kind, you hide behind a mask of anonymity and you still think you are in a position to list off your already well discussed list of predatory claims.

    Choking? Hardly. Just not stupid.

    So are you washed in the blood, nameless one? Are you saved? Are you born again? Do yo believe it’s necessary to be born again? Or are you of the opinion that Gd has a;ready selected His elect and no one else gets into the fold so there is no point to preaching the gospel. Or am I misunderstanding what you teach your church about predestination and the gospel message?

    Tell us a little about yourself. Let us know at least what you believe.

    Are you still a lay-pastor in a small church which teaches Reformed Theology? Do you have an outreach program to your community? Do you have a plan to grow the church, or are you satisfied with being in a smaller church which is settled at its present number? Does Calvinism teach on church growth, or do you expect God to draw people when the time is right? Is it along time since the last person was brought in, or are you having a steady stream of new people? Visitors? Unsaved people? Searchers after truth?

    Do you still work in the world of Commercial Brokerage, making money for the already wealthy top 1%? You must be in a major city. Le’s say Sydney, or Melbourne, or are you in a regional centre doing the leg work for your company?

    Do you use examples from your vocation to teach your little flock when you are given the pulpit, or are you a systematic theology teacher going through Books of the Bible one at a time?

    Let’s get to know each other here, Ano. You can’t come here and be totally faceless. Otherwise we have no level playing field and no basis of trust by which we can discuss the things we really want to know. It’s not nice to come into another person’s space and demand answers without getting to know one another is it?

    You must know, as a lay-pastor, that the key ingredient to asking the hard questions of a client or a person you are probing is to get to know them first.

    People hate being prodded by a man with a taser. Or didn’t they teach you that at seminary? You did go to seminary, didn’t you, Ano, to gain you qualifications for being a lay-pastor in a tiny flock?

    Come on, now, you seem to think you know all about me. Let’s know something about you so we can go on with this conversation in a relaxed manner.

  39. You see, Ano, if you’re going to carry on asking questions outside of the portfolio I gave you earlier, on the basis of guessing who I am or what I do by what has been said by me or by others on this blog, then I am going to take the liberty of guessing who you are and asking questions outside of your portfolio, whatever that may be, because, to be honest, you are in very deep cover, and you have to wonder why, don’t you, when we all know you’re not that threatened by anyone or anything, so why hide when there’s absolutely no point?

    Are you important or something? Or just afraid that we might treat you, your people and your beliefs with the same contempt you treat ours from your secret lair?

    But guessing is never good is it, Ano? You can get things terribly wrong about people and cause pain and hurt in the most awful ways when you don’t actually know for sure.

    Or don’t you care?

  40. Ask me if I am orthodox, and I will answer.

    That’s funy.

    Because you spend most of your time telling us who isn’t orthodox.

    At least none of us here are pastors peddling our wares.

  41. I admit I was pretty upset about the DoC thing and Greg’s seeming to pass the buck

    I didn’t seem to, I actually did. 11 days after someone does something you can’t then act in a particular way or say certain things and then blame a person who did sorting you didn’t like 11 days previously. There was no connection between my swearing and DoC (I shortened it it DiC innocently thinking Disciple IN Christ…although I was aware of what the shortening then spelt…I just thought that actually was the shortening) carrying in like he did. He was pissed off at Bones and dragged me into it for some reason.

  42. “Because [Steve] spend[s] most of [his] time telling us who isn’t orthodox.”

    Exactly what I was thinking. Steve is quite forthcoming about what is right and wrong in this regard; his appearance here is as the quintessential theological traffic policeman. But ask him a very simple and straightforward question about Phil Pringle’s theological stance, and he gets quite huffy and has nothing to say. One is tempted to venture the opinion that Steve may be suffering from a serious case of spiritual cognitive dissonance.

    Come on Steve, you can answer if you try – is Phil Pringle’s theology orthodox, or is it not?

  43. It would seem that my contribution is not appreciated anywhere, unless interrogated and stood up against a wall and shot as a C3 conspirator.

    My defence of DoC was clearly without having seen the apparently offending comments which were removed. I think he was frustrated by the way things were going a couple of weeks ago, and I was too.

    Bones I have never contributed as a pastor here, only as steve. I would not want to impose on your anti-pastor world, however.

    Maybe you’re right. I interfere too much with your equilibrium.

    I apologised because the nature of this weekend, being a time when we remember the death and resurrection of Jesus, reminded me that my attitude was unacceptable, even if I had a point.

    If I can’t answer for myself alone without criticism for not being a defence for others, there is no point in continuing.

  44. Just name one person (even yourself) who is an orthodox evangelical Christian (besides Christ). Just one. You are fond of calling us unorthodox but tell me one person who isnt.

  45. “It would seem that my contribution is not appreciated anywhere, unless interrogated and stood up against a wall and shot as a C3 conspirator.”

    So is that a “yes” or a “no”?

  46. Normally I don’t learn article on blogs, but I would like to say that this write-up very compelled me to try and do it! Your writing style has been surprised me. Thanks, quite nice article.

  47. Thanks Computer repair, very nice sentiments. Also, you reminded me that Steve hasnt answered my question. Can you name one person who is orthodox?

Comments are closed.