Yesterday, on my Radio Show I had a conversation with Chris Rosebrough of Fighting For The Faith and Pirate Christian Radio about his take on why people from his network and stream of faith are so willing to speak about me and others the way they do. I wanted to reflect on it a bit more here.
(I sent this post to Chris and got his “sign-off on it” in an effort to “talk-with” and not “talk-about” people and to be sure I did not mischaracterize him .)
Here is a selection of things said about me just from the last week that I asked Chris to help me understand:
Comments From a Youtube video promoting my book:
Hi Doug, “Just curious as to know what it feels like to be apart of the apostate church? Just watched a video of one of your disciples and couldn’t help but notice her comment about how we need to stop focusing on sin which seperates us from God and just focus on our relationship with God. Funny, the word says it is our sin which seperates us from the Lord and until we REPENT for our sins, we cannot have a relationship with God nor can we be apart of the church. Although in your case I guess that means nothing though right? I know this message might seem harsh, critical and unfriendly, but you know, I’ve come to a conclusion, having hunted wolves, that I have no more patience for promoters of heresies in the church which are leading untold many to hell, thinking they are right. But there is hope, I ask that you repent for the false teachings you are supporting and that you seek God for the lies that you have promoted.”From A Blog post about my book Preaching Reimagined taking to task the reviewer for not being harder on me:
Tim, I am actually shocked to read the positive notes in your review. I know Doug Pagitt, studied his ministry (from afar), and he is no friend to biblical preaching. I’ve read his book(s), and find his views on preaching to be dangerous and a disservice to those who love the Word and the flock of God. (kinda strong? yup).This from a blog post called The Truth Wars:
In this, we see the thesis for John MacArthur’s The Truth War. Using the New Testament Epistle of Jude as the foundation, he uses Sacred Scripture in contrast to actual quotes from Emergents such as Doug Pagitt and Seeker-Sensitive advocates such as Rick Warren, to cement home to the believer why the Church is so apostate in our time. The missing part is submission to God’s Truth as The Truth. Hence, we are in the midst of a war.
“Hunting wolves”, ”surprised to see positive notes”, “we are in the midst of a war”.
I wanted Chris to help me and my listeners to understand why people, who I know are followers of Jesus, talk about other professing followers of Jesus in these disparaging ways.
Chris basically said, I am paraphrasing (but Chris did see this and gave his ok on it), “We know there are false teachers and deceivers in the world – Jesus said there would be, the devil tempted Eve, and Paul warns against them – and so when we hear you saying the stuff you say, it is clear that you are in the group we have been looking for and are on the lookout for”. You can hear the interview here – January 17, last half of hour 1, and first 10 minutes of hour 2.
I suggest this view is a distorted version of faith that does not reflect the Biblical story at all, but that argument is part of our ongoing conversation. What I am sure of is that their reactions are driven from fear. I am not sure where the fear come from, but, in my opinion, it causes them to look at people with suspicion and distrust which taints everything. Looking at the world in the terms Chris suggested creates “the good” and “the evil”, and “the good” are always fearful of “the evil”. This kind of fear does strange things to people.
It made me think of this Springsteen Song (as I am prone to do):
I got my finger on the trigger But I don’t know who to trust
When I look into your eyes There’s just devils and dust
We’re a long, long way from home, Bobbie Home’s a long, long way from us
I feel a dirty wind blowing Devils and dust
I got God on my side And I’m just trying to survive
What if what you do to survive Kills the things you love
Fear’s a powerful thing, baby, It can turn your heart black you can trust
It’ll take your God filled soul And fill it with devils and dust
This song, according to Springsteen, is about a guy at a guard post in Iraq and sees a car coming at him and needs to decide if it is a danger or not. He has his finger on the trigger and doesn’t know who to trust. Does he shoot and kill an innocent, or trust the wrong person and die himself? Fear causes you to see in others “devils and dust”. And, this fear produces in you “devils and dust”.
I think there is much fear going on in the lives of these critics. I believe they see themselves in this life and death situation and they will be held accountable -they are “the guards at the gate”.
I wish, for their sake, that this wasn’t so. I am most sad because this kind of fear causes them to work against the very people of God and ultimately to trust their judgment over trusting God.
I want to be careful not to misuse Bible passages to simply make my point, but I keep thinking of Jesus being accused of doing what he did by the power of Beelzebub. He clearly wasn’t, he was doing the work of God, but the “religious purists” of his day could only see “devils and dust”. There were only two options and they knew he was not on their “side” so, that leaves no other option of which “side” he is on.
From Matthew 12:
Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.”
(I am quite sure this post will bring comments suggesting that I have misapplied this passage along with many other “proofs” of my anathema-ness. And I am sure there will be many more verses exchanged in the comments.)
People who heard the radio show interview were offering their condolences to me for being called and “anathema” by Chris (end of the segment in the second hour). I did not feel hurt or insulted, rather I feel pain for him and others that their fear causes them to see the story so wrongly and to see devils and dust in me and others. That they credit the work of the spirit to the “devil” is amongst the most tragic missteps.
The words from 1John 4 capture my hope and desire in all this:
This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
We love because he first loved us. If we say we love God yet hate a brother or sister, we are liars. For if we do not love a fellow believer, whom we have seen, we cannot love God, whom we have not seen. And he has given us this command: Those who love God must also love one another.
May the love of God remove blinding fear from us all.
{ 72 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Darius, there will be other times I am sure, and hope.
I am heading into a meeting so will be offline now
“I think if you read the comments you will see that is the point of this discussion – not that you are being unloving, but that I and others are loving, and that comes from God.”
Well… I did read the comments and I also read the OP above them in full.
In your OP you write, “I wanted Chris to help me and my listeners to understand why people, who I know are followers of Jesus, talk about other professing followers of Jesus in these disparaging ways.” and in the comments section you responded to Chris, “So, when you say that I, or anyone else is an enemy of God, and the life they leads testifies against you, it shows the errors of your judgement,
So, yes being unloving is a sign and so is loving. Read the signs my friend.”
It sure does look like the point of the exchange has been about being loving. There is also the inference that Chris Rosebrough’s remarks are unloving.
I think you made a mistake in continuing to frame disagreement around who is being loving, which implies others are not being loving and namely your opponents.
Fwiw
PS—What is the point with my comments? That rather than slinging mud over one side of a debate being those who are loving or who are fearful, that we stick to the issues themselves. I think we can all agree that nobody but Jesus ever loves perfectly, and that as sinful beings we are prone to fear and not trusting God perfectly.
Stick with the issues.
Last comments after having read through this meta …
(1) You’re right that salvation is not dependent on our knowing things (or doing things, or feeling things for that matter). It’s dependent on God’s sovereign saving activity which expresses itself in our ability to trust Him for our deliverance from sin and death. But when He saves, we increase in our knowledge of truth. It’s a mistake to think that because salvation doesn’t depend on our knowing that there’s no such thing as knowledge.
(2) You’re right that doctrine is not the same as Holy Scripture. But it’s a big (and logically fallacious) leap from there to say that doctrine is valueless. The fact that our knowledge of the truth is partial and partially expressed does not imply that there’s no such thing as truth and error. I couldn’t agree more that people should read the Scripture. In doing so, the major themes will become clear – viz., God’s sovereignty, sin, God’s wrath against it and against sinners, propitiation by a substitute, and God’s redeeming love. It’s a positively good thing to hold those major themes as “received teachings” or “doctrines”, the contravention of which is implication that someone ought to be rejected as a teacher. See I Tim and Titus, as well as the Pastorals and Jude, as well as Jesus many warnings about false teachers and prophets.
I think we would all admit, as it is clearly seen in this discussion, that we are limited by language…but what we believe about the Scripture determined everything about our faith! After all, how do we know about the love of God? We know about the love of God from the Word of God! I do not elevant one portion of Scripture over the other…the Gospel is from cover to cover. It is creation, fall, and redemption from Genesis to Revelation…but there are certain things the Bible speaks of as doctrine. The Scripture is Scripture, but it teaches doctrine. This is why Paul told Timothy to “Watch his life and doctrine closely…and that there would come a time when men would reject sound doctrine and would accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires.” This is what we are talking about…to teach an incomplete Gospel is to teach false doctrine! There is a such thing as false doctrine and Doug, from what I have read of you (and I have read most, if not all of your stuff), you are presenting a gospel foreign to that in Scripture! Correct me if I am wrong, but you do not teach original sin, which is crystal clear in Scripture; you do not teach substitutionary atonement, which is clearly taught in Scripture; you do not teach repentance, which is clearly taught in Scripture…need I go on? If you say you do teach those things, I would be glad to quote from your writings. How can you say you are teaching the Gospel when you deny these basic things? Also, 1 John 5:13 says, “I write these things that you might KNOW that you have eternal life.” What we believe and know is important! You say above, “The proof of our being born of God is not what we know.” That is crazy to say! What we do as Christians comes from what we know and believe and understand to be true about God! This is why Paul said we need to “Be transformed by the renewing of our mind.” Doug, my greatest problem with you is that you minimize truth…I cannot even tell if you belief in any truth. Yes, love comes from God…but God is truth! He is truth and has revealed truth (both in the person of His Son and in HIs Word)…so in essence, true biblical loves flows from the nature/character of God and the revealed Word of God…and what we believe about those things! However, because there is truth, absolute truth, there is also false truth, or untruth. I would be curious to see what you, Doug, would classify as false doctrine or untruth. It obviously exists…so what is it?
There could be a couple different biblical mandates to do what they do.
In Romans Paul instructed to mark those who do not carry this doctrine-mark them and have nothing to do with them.
Besides this, what would you expect if you attack the methodology of preaching and then pick up any ole McLaren tome and see whsat he says about fundamentslists
From what I recollevr MacArthur does claim fundamentalism and all the things spoken in books against fundamentalism and Calvinism-really, if the same was done to youm woulkd you stay silent? Even this blog post is a public nedium you are using to speak against others.
I know many emergents believe there is no such thing as absolute truth and is wrong to criticze others unless it is a liberal postmodern emergent believer as many see-trying to muzzle good teachers and sound doctrine which has only one pirpose-destroy fundamentalism and conservatism in Chistianity.
How can I say this objectively.
When one is a fundamentalist and know our own history and then see many bring na revisionist understanding i.e. fundamentalism built on modernism.
My question tends to buy do emergents lie and decieve when there is nothing else to do when you cannot speak biblically abount fundamentalists.
Of course when Fundamentalists are will versed in scriptures and theological principles-how do you fight against this? Redefine and change the rules. The bible does not teach truth, despite whatever the bible affirms that it does.
Of course when in the scriptures when Jesus Christ said I am the way, the truth, and the life and no one gains entrance intto these except through Christ, is this to mean the oposite since the bible is not an answer book or encyclopedia-what can we draw from this understanings? If the bible is not truth then it is a lie as lies are oposite from truth. So then-does this now mean that Christ is the way of salvation despite Christ teraching this. Is Christ the truth? Did he ever teach truth?
Of course all this dove tails into fundamentalism as the first tenant is the preserved word of God without error.
When ever someone teaches something about some one or some group painted as erroneous and now this error based on misconceptions of Fundamentalism lumped with Liberalism.
The fact is, modernism was that which used Rationalism, Emperecism, and skepticism and theefore the first three chapters of Genesis is not valid for truth but perhaps a morality play.
Here is the point-fundamentalism is built on faith not modernism. In fact if you look at all fundamentalists originated under Torey-these beliefs are directly related to that which we can prove but by faith believe it.
Certainly many times others will see something else and I think this is the problem. Most conservatives and fundamentalists speak about a belief which cannot be proven but with so much conviction and confidance, perhaps I can see why many think our beliefs are based on modernism. Of course I happen to think most in American Christianity cannot prove much i.e. the Hypostatic union of Christ or the Trinity. These are those which will not equate to understanding in our finite minds, but since many times it is even hard to describe a belief let alone seeing we are unable to prove anything.
Here is the central point-many are fundamentalists and absolutely never built anything on modernism.
So those fundamentalists who know why we are fundamentalists-it was a defence, an apoogetic against liberalism
When liberalism and retionalism becomes the understanding of many trying to make rational sense of an irrational fath i.e. 7 day creation and then to see many judge we have the same origins and therefore must see both discarded and accept this thing over here as the newtruth. When doing much reading and studying on this-emergent is nothing nless then a new modernism.
Do not believe me-go learn the beliefs of liberal social gospel modernist and put it side by side wioth the teachings of emergent philosophy-you will not nsee much differance.
How can one define incarnational, missional, and Kingdom of God ideas as a new way to view things when modernism teaches amillinealism. Teaching that we must rescue and collaborate to win society which ends up being dominion theology to take control and change Christianity. Emergent views are very much reintroducing the sma beliefs that were destroyed after World war 2(the teaching there is a spark of God in every man so all we need to do is cultivate it.
I do not apologise. After all of this, don’t you think many emergent beliefs are less than honest when many never bother investigating Fundamentalism let alone understand the history of it or correctly define fundamrentalism. If it is written in a book, it must true-boys and girls get your crayons out and start coloring in the bible.
When one start learning all this perhaps you might understand why people preach against you and your movement. I see this no differently as people through the enlightenment kept taring down authority. This is no different.
Look, mock me and belittle me as emotional if you like. I can’t help it I am lover and not a fighter.
Here’s the rub for me. On some topics, I might theologically identify more with evangelicals than emergents when it comes to black and white beliefs. But I am so abhorred by the arrogance and lack of Christ-centered behavior…. Honestly, if many of you were to speak to me in person, the way that you have spoken on this blog, I’d pound you and repent later. Well, I guess I’m more of a fighter than I thought.
I’m more than happy to leave the philosophical heavy lifting to you theological erudites. But I will call you on the tenor and tone of this discussion. Especially when it is hateful, and especially when it is about my friends. However, if you want to argue pneumatology, I’ll clean all of your clocks.
Seriously though, before pontificating on what love is, when was the last time that any of you meditated on 1 Corinthians 13? Maybe you should prior setting upon to devour my friend. Even St. Paul said that if he could fathom all mysteries and knowledge but not have love, that he is NOTHING. I think we could safely say that If we had perfect beliefs and taught the scriptures with divine perfection and had not love, we would gain nothing! Yes, one component of love is telling another when you think they are going astray. But even Jude tells us to do so with love and with mercy! Paul himself tells us to speak the truth in love. This doesn’t mean heartless zealotism but lovingly.
Those of us who think of ourselves as confident in biblical things should heed the words of Jesus in John 5 when he tells the Pharisees, “You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me! Yet you refuse to come to me to receive this life.” Just as Jesus was pointing to their rejection of him, even more so, he was highlighting the absence of love in their lives: “Your approval means nothing to me, because I know you don’t have God’s love within you.” How did he know this? By their actions of course.
Through all these shenanigans I am hearing a few things:
1. That is biblically acceptable to treat another person poorly because their beliefs are different from yours.
2. That it is acceptable to rebuke and correct someone with whom you have no relationship.
3. That believing correctly trumps believing and behaving correctly.
4. That the gospel is so weak that a four nippled contrarian pastor can bring it to ruin and must be stopped.
5. That within new media, kindness, gentleness, patience can be replaced with rudeness and anger.
6. That the fruit of the Spirit has no place in such discussions, more so if you are right.
7. That most of you don’t know Doug Pagitt. For if you did, you would know that your arguing and name calling is more amusing than it is potent.
Alright, talk amognst yourselves…
1. I am sorry if people on this response have treated Doug (or others) poorly due to a disagreement in theology. You are right…this is completely unacceptable, but let us not confuse disagreeing with someone’s theology “unloving” and “treating them poorly”.
2. I have to have a relationship with someone to rebuke or correct them? Has anyone you personally know said anything about how poor Pat Robertson’s theology is in the past couple of days? I would argue that Jesus did not have a personal relationship with the Pharisees and Sadducees, nor did John the Baptist know the men by name when he called them a brood of vipers that God was going to separate and toss into the fire.
3. No, believing does not trump believing AND behaving correctly. But, if the pendulum has swung so to the “let’s just act correctly” extreme, it must be corrected or we fall into something poor. The same can be said if we were all theology and not focused on Biblical behavior.
4. No, I (I cannot speak for others) do not believe that the gospel is so weak that a single pastor can bring it to ruin, but should he be stopped? Yes. No virus has ever been powerful enough to destroy ALL mankind, but there have been some big enough to do a good deal of damage. The Gospel is the power of God for salvation. I do not believe God’s power can be stopped, but Jude was very sure that something had to be done when error crept into the fellowship he was writing to, no?
5. Rudeness is unnecessary, but anger is one of the most Biblical emotions someone can show, if they are angry about the right things. I am a married man, and LOVE my wife. If someone killed her I would be angry. If I were not angry you would have to question my supposed love for my wife. If a man LOVES truth he must become angry when that truth is being turned on its head. Paul was perfectly fine when people preached the true gospel with the motive of trying to do him harm (Phil. 1), but he pronounced condemnation on those who preached a different gospel (Gal. 1).
6. Again, if the fruit of the Spirit is lacking then that is completely unbiblical and MUST be addressed. Those who have not shown love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control need to repent lest they be disciplined by God. But I would argue that not everyone here who has a disagreement with Doug or others have been void of the Fruit of the Spirit, just as one cannot say that all who would rally behind him are themselves filled with the Spirit.
7. Arguing and name calling are never affective, I would agree completely. This does not simply apply to Doug, but to must people I would assume.
Darius, I took off your last comment.
It crossed my rule of people not being rude on my blog. I know some will think I am unfair, but it is my blog and I make the call.
By the way all, the rules are use your real name, don’t be rude (by my standards), and preferably buy my books after commenting, but I often waive that one.
I am intrigued by men like Claiborne and his rejection of hedonism. I am intrigued by the emergent reconnection of humanitarian deeds so often neglected by evangelicalism. I am a decidely non-political and non-nationalistic believer who has left the political arena completely as well as not even saluting the American flag for many years. I reject some of the hyperbolic and demeaning verbiage by some of the discernment ministries. I am decidely a non-Calvinist and I believe in the universality of the gospel offer. I have little patience for those who castigate the gay community and suggest they must leave the lifestyle to be saved.
But here is the issue distilled down to its common denominator. If a sinner dies in his sins and has not believed on Jesus (or Yeshua, etc.) he will not spend eternity with Jesus. That is what bars me personally from embracing the emergent movement (there may be exceptions) as a Biblical evangelical “movement” that is challenging us on certain issues but retains the core of the redemptive message. In short, many, like you Doug, used to be quite mercurial and nebulous concerning the exclusivity of Jesus Christ and the necessity of personal faith in that same Jesus.
I do not believe you are unclear anymore, and in fact, just recently many have admitted such. I applaud honesty, even it it reveals profound error at the basic level. Thank you for allowing a comment section even when addressing such an incendiary issue. I pray I can behave like a Christian even when confronting unchristian teachings.
Doug,
I have two questions and I would be grateful if you would answer them (I would be glad to answer any question(s) you might have of me):
In this entire post, the subject of love as being proof of being born of God has come through very clearly in your postings. I think we all agree that the all of the fruits of the Spirit should be evident in a Christian’s life, however, I feel that you have indicated that anyone who loves is born of God. Do you think that there are people who exhibit love that are not Christians, or maybe another way of saying it is, are all people who exhibit, regardless of belief, Christians (according to you)? Secondly, what is your defintion of an unbeliever…who are the people who will not inherit the Kingdom of God?
That’s fine Doug… personally I find John to be rude by making intellectually dishonest claims, but that’s just me.
The one question I would like to see answered is this: Since the New Testament writers (and Jesus) spent considerable amount of time on the topic of sound doctrine versus false doctrine, what does false doctrine look like today and how should Christians combat it (or should they not worry about it)? And why is Jesus’ prescription on how to address bad teaching no longer good and useful?
False doctrine is something that is constant, yet ever shifting. Much like a wisp of smoke: Smoke is always smoke. It may take a different form, different shape, but it is always smoke. Let me explain what I mean:
Paul, in Galatians, was so passionate about the Gospel that he pronounced curses upon those who would dare to come in and change it. The Gospel is the center-piece of Scriptures, and so to get the Gospel wrong would be a false doctrine, but it goes deeper than that.
When people get the Gospel wrong they normally get the Gospel wrong because they have gotten God wrong. For example, at the base of a works based salvation is the idea that God is so easily pleased that all I have to do is “be good” and every thing will be fine. The idea of Universalism (all will be saved eventually) is based upon the idea that God’s justice is weaker than His love. We can even look at those who say that Scripture is not the inspired word of God and show that they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of God and that He is, by His very nature, TRUTH and in Him there is no contradiction nor confusion.
How do we deal with false teaching? I would say we deal with it in the same way Scripture does. Let’s look at Jude: Jude told the people to watch out for those who have crept into the church and started spreading dangerous false theology around their members. Paul told believers to not even associate with those who were teaching according to sound doctrine. Much of how we are to deal with false teaching comes from the pastoral letters and Galatians.
Let me know if that was unclear in anyway. I wrote much of it off the top of my head.
Christopher, I was more looking for my question to be answered by Doug or John or one of the other Emergents on here.
I knew how you would answer it.
LOL! Wow, guess I could have figured that one out before I answered.
Carry on.
I’m a little late to make this connection, but I realized that I listened to Chris’s podcast right after the Moltmann Theological Conversation, and noticed the same element of fear. I mean, he and his co-host might have been being hyperbolic for the sake of humor, but it seemed to me that they were genuinely afraid that God would literally bring lightening or an earthquake to end that meeting. Which says a lot about their view of God, and of their understanding of God’s attitude toward creation.
What was even more disconcerting was that they felt the need to sequester themselves after each session to avoid further soiling themselves with those of us gathered there. Which seemed even sadder, since it might have done them some good to actually interact with and listen to people other than themselves.
Anyway, I wrote about it here: http://comingtolife.blogspot.com/2009/09/moltmannia-questions-for-accusers.html
Wonder if it’s as obvious to others as it is to me:
Did anyone hear the rhetoric surrounding the Health Care “debate” over the last several months? While Republicans constructed a bill of their own, and was essentially shut out of special meetings (effectively killing any worthwhile debate) because they viewed the House and Senate bills as unfeasible and sustainable (according to the report from the Congressional Budget Office), Democrats pontificated about how afraid Republicans are of change.
Two quick questions for Doug:
1. In regards to what the Bible says about false teachers, you state: “I suggest this view is a distorted version of faith that does not reflect the Biblical story at all, but that argument is part of our ongoing conversation. What I am sure of is that their reactions are driven from fear.”
Warning after warning after warning. If these numerous NT passages, in which Jesus, Paul, and most of the other apostles warn us against false teachers, are not speaking about false teachers, then to what are they are speaking?
2. Why do you automatically assume that fear must be at the center of one’s disagreement with you? Sure, it’s a great political maneuver to cast out your dissenters as fear-mongers, but doesn’t your basic premise – that a community of believers coming around the Word of God can thereby determine what His Word means and says to them – allow for every possible communal interpretation? Or does it only disallow those positions contrary to your own?
Trying to understand / want to be fair / know that you can’t paint every dissenter w/ the same brush and call yourself fair,
Chris
http://www.redpen.org | the red pen
Not sure about others but from my opinion-taking a certain philosophy and saying it is no longer valid(modernism)and certainty a condition of modernism(because of foundationalism)so any certainty in the bible on anything-doctrine, theology, Christ, the cross. Sometomes some emergents say they believe in truth and others say they do not. Me, I tend to think you do not until someone calls you on your words-when did I ever say I do not believe in truth hence the ideal of no certainty in anything. Vesides Romans 12 teaching we are not to be conformed to the world and see moderns and postmmoderns(please what is the differance between the kingdom of God and Amillinealism or incarnational anbd the spark of divinity creating the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God and really what is the differance between missional and social gospel-as I see it-sure you deny modern certainty and decide to teach the same exact beliefs as postmodernists that modernists taught)
Besides all this-my question always is-what is the purpose in not beloieving in certainty or absolute truth. You will say postmodernism despite God forbidding taking the teachinmg of man and calling it the word of God.
As quite often seems seem so easy to get people to believe. The clearest example is homosexuality. Now I know our sweet emergents in denying absolute truth in the bible and sex is dealt with in the bible as prohibited except as husband and wife which certainly crosses up Gays-you, Jones, and McLaren can say all ypou want about gay, lesbian, and cross sexual relationships-please tell me it is no longer a
gainst the law and no longer moralyy reprehensible for men to rape boys and girls.
See, to say the bible does not teach absolute truth despite our laws built on biblical laws the real burning question to me is if you and anyone else teach there is no such thing as absolute truth and you tell me that raping childeren should be seen as morally wrong and against the law-by your words and thoughts-you just lied-either there is absolute truth or you are unable to make value judgments about raping childeren.
Not that I have some great desiure but as i see it in the free grace movement when preachers speak there is no commitment to not sin in salvation by grace=I ask the same type of questions as when i have witnessed to gay men about the gospel=it always comes down to this as telling the truth=no you do not need to give up being gay to become born again. As Christ sanctifies your life-that sin God will take from you and almost every time they want nothing to do with
Ch
rist and I get accused of teaching salvation by works until I bring this up in the context as I did here-i am preaching a false gospel until i bring up gay men raping and molesting boys and all of a sudden no one wants to ralk about the sanctifying work of Christ
I really have a liking for girls with open mouths and discovered femaletongues.com which seems to be the best place for photos of female tongues, pierced tongues, and sexy girls with open mouths.
Great job
You should really take a look at the $50 free chip being offered at our brand new Bet Phoenix Casino. Only available now at: Bet Phoenix. Good luck!
I’ll just refer to the Truth:
2 Timothy 4:3-4
3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
← Previous Comments
{ 7 trackbacks }