At The Brink

Do NOT Pray for Rome

2012-02-14T07:11:00.000-05:00

Continuingin this Do NOT Pray series,

Now,the passage we will consider in this post is 1 Samuel 12:19-23. How the LORD had spooked Israel- as Samuel hadasked the LORD to spook them. For their rejecting the LORD as King (8:7). And for their demanding another.

Wewill consider how Israel was spooked by great thunder. Causing“all the people” to fear for their lives. Just as the nasty Philistines had just been spooked by “great thunder”…which caused the Philistines to fear for their lives and be routed by Israel (7:10).

Wewill consider how Israel was so spooked by the “thunder and rain” that theyasked Samuel to pray for them (after praying against them). And Samuelreplied that it would be a sin NOT to pray for them! A sin to “cease praying” for Israel. At least for him. Now why would that be a sin, you ask?

Well,I submit that it is because it was Samuel’s jobto pray for Israel. Because Samuelremained Israel’s high priest. Remainedconstrained to “listen to Israel’s voice” (8:9). And remained constrained to serve hiscalling.

Andthat job description given to Samuel had NOT been abrogated by the LORD. Despite Israel’s arrogant demands that the jobdescription of their LORD be abrogated.

Justas Matthew Henry states on this passage,

It is a sin against God not to pray for theIsrael of God, especially for those of them that are under our charge.

Which begs the rhetorical question, ‘Ismighty Rome “under our charge”’? Ismighty Rome under our job description?

AndHenry continues,

Our rule is to praywithout ceasing; we sin if we restrain prayer in general, and in particularif we cease praying for the church

Which begs the question, ‘Is Rome actually“the church”’?

Now we could dig into the Old Covenanttheology stuff of Henry. And dig intoRome’s current Latitude of Grace… but we won’t. Suffice to say, ‘The church is not necessarily Rome’. And not necessarily of Romish ‘desire’ either. No matter how Rome tries to qualify this.

And we should consider where Henry’s “praywithout ceasing” is intended. We areinstructed to “not cease praying” for the “saints and faithful brethren in Christ” (cf. Col. 1:2,9). Which leaves little time for the unfaithfuland the aints that are NOT in Christ.

And we should consider if Rome is the “Israelof God” as well. Because they lookpretty much like the Israel that demanded a new king. Pretty much like those people that demanded a king to leadthem… because the King of kings is kind of spooky.

Yes, Rome looks pretty much like a peoplethat would prefer to serve the Baals and his mysterious Ashtaroth [a ‘female consort to Baal’-not unlike the “Mother of God”/ Mary]. Despite being repeatedly told to serve theLORD alone (1 Samuel 7:3,4).

Now,Rome will tell you that they do not actually serve the Pope. Or that they do not actually worship the“Mother of God”. But then Israel wasn’treally serving other gods. Or worshippinga golden calf either. Or were they (cf.1 Samuel 8:8, Deut. 9:12)?

Israelwas just using this golden calf as a catalyst, right? Just an iconicsupplement, right? They were just making a little “god who will go before us”(Exodus 32:23), right? A god with alittle “g”, right? A little god to supplement the big God, right?

AndIsrael was just making a little king that might “go out before us and fight ourbattles” (1 Samuel 8:20), right? A kingwith a little “k”, right? A little kingto supplement the big King, right?

AndRome was just making a little pope that will ‘go out before the Church… tofight the churches battles’, right? Apope with a little “p”, right? A littlepriest to supplement the big Priest, right?

Well,the big King wasn’t buying this hooey and He thundered. And just as He thundered with Hiscommandments (Exodus 20:18)… He thundered at their sinfulness. Thundered at their unfaithfulness (1 Samuel8:7). Yet granted them their tyrannicalking. Not to bless them- but to oppressthem.

Whichbegs the historical question, ‘When andwhere was the thunder that spooked Rome to appoint a pope’? The overwhelming noise needed to frighten apeople into granting universal kingship to a man?

Well…at the risk of appearing ahistorical, I would defer to historian- Philip Schaff. Defer to him in suggesting that “Rome assumed universalitysomewhere between 604 and 715 A.D”. Somewhere between Gregory the First (who actually protested his job description ofUniversal Bishop) and Gregorythe Second.

A tumultuous period,when Boniface IV expanded the Pantheon. Whenthis alleged pope dedicated the Roman Pantheon of the gods… into a churchdedicated to the Virgin Mary. Creating an Ashtaroth of sorts.

Amonumental dedication that Mohammed was contemporous (608A.D.) with.

A dedication which may very well haveinfluenced Mohammed to consider Mary as being a Christian consort of God.

Butprimarily a period where “the progressof Mohammedanism and its encroachment on the Greek empire likewise contributedto the rise of their [Rome’s]independence”.

Indeed,a period where a Universal Pope was considered absolutely necessary to fightthe churches battle against these neo-Philistines. Against the marauding Muslims. Against a thunderousMuslim expansion.

An expansion thatrazed Alexandria (the greatest library of that time) in 633 A.D. An expansion that plundered Jerusalem in 637A.D. An expansion that ruled over arealm as large as the Roman Empire in 653 A.D. An expansion that was subjugating Spain in 711 A.D... and was headed forSt. Peter’s and their beloved Pantheon. An enormously spooky expansion.

Spookyenough for Rome to annoint a Pope. A UniversalBishop… to counter this expansion.

Butenough history. Suffice to say, thatRome looks pretty much like an unfaithful Israel anointing a king there. And as history shows… a tyrannical king.

So,if we were to find time, and if it were our calling… how would wepray for an unfaithful Rome? Would it belike the prayers of Samuel? Not praying forRome- but rather praying againstRome? Praying that Rome be spooked?

Spookedenough to abandon her king and consort? And return to the King to kings?

Hmmm, sounds pretty much like the prayers of theReformation!

Deeds of Darkness

2012-01-13T07:30:00.001-05:00

Wouldnormally post this at my other blog… but this one relates to apologetics in general. And as you will see, is not specificallyrelating to sex.

A response to an excellent apologetics site here. A sitewhere their apologists were afraid to provide some serious exegesis of the relevant text recently. Some Berean issuesthere. But they have lots of good stufftoo.

Now, insteadof these apologists exegeting their volatile text (as apologists ought to do)-I was sent elsewhere for exegesis. I wasreferred to another well to ask for water- since these apologists were afraid to draw from theirs. For fear of drowning in the well, it seems. Yet, there is wealth in the well for thoseunafraid. Fear not and prepare to beblessed.

So… forthose of you not afraid of drowning in the well in your search for truth, thoseof you not afraid of having your Pyro dampened- here is someexegesis of the text in question. Overflowing exegesis. Profoundexegesis from Calvin. And a profound paradigmas well.

A paradigmthat I have provided numerous times at my other blog. A not so novel paradigm that should resolvethis Driscoll/Pyro dispute. Adispute between two very different paradigms.

So let’slook at the Eph. 5:12 proof-text in question then. Let’s look at what the “Deeds of Darkness” reallyare in their proper context. And let’slook at what defines them as “deeds of darkness”.

To startwith- the text does not say, “deeds done in darkness”. How these apologists got that reading isbeyond me. It’s not in any reputabletranslation.

Not onlythat, but “deeds done” is redundant. And“deeds done in” is repetitive. Trippingat the starting line. Not a good start.

Now, a lot ofthis dispute revolves around Grace Driscoll’s revealing of her “deed done indarkness”. About this being “disgraceful”. Well, I don’t really know if Grace Driscoll’sdeed was actually done indarkness. I haven’t read the book. And I’m not disputing that. But it is irrelevant anyway. Because the biblical text actually says, “deedsof darkness”. And it indisputably was a deed of darkness. It is also indisputable that Grace wants tobring her deed of darkness to light. As did Paul with his deeds of darkness.

And I amconvinced that this bringing of herdarkness to light is clearly permissible- since she is not actually bringingthe “deeds of darkness” of others tolight. The actual prohibition of this proof-text.

A bringingthat would be just as permissible as it would be for someone who had obtainedan abortion… to bring their own abortion to light. In order to encourage others not to obtain abortions. An illumination of greater import… albeitless “titillating”.

But let’sbring Calvin in on this text. Let’s seewhat he has to say on this “darkness”.

As Calvincomments on verse 8:

“Darkness[italics in the original] isthe name here given to the whole nature [not just the sexual nature] of man beforeregeneration”.

Also, Calvin comments that, ‘Paul is actually speaking of “unbelievers”and their darkness’. A continuation ofthe “darkness” and the “impurity” spoken of the “Gentiles” in the previouschapter.

And somehowI doubt that Calvin believes that Paul is changing the sense of “darkness” amere three verses later. That Paul is changing the sense to ‘night-time’. But rather, Calvin shows that this is a farlarger category than mere sex-in-the night-time in his commentary on verse 3, 4and 5.

And Calvin goes out of his way to define this “particular type” of darkness as well. Goes out of his way to bless us big-time.

Goes out of his way by criticizing his primary source (The LatinVulgate) for obscuring the definition of “darkness”. Obscuring it with an “unhappy chapterdivision”. A division which drops thefirst verse of this chapter out of the picture. A division which drops “love” out of the picture. As do some apologists.

For it is clear to Calvin that this darkness is… the darkness of “notwalking in love” (v.1).

And the paradigm that Calvin presents is? Walking in Love.

Of “love”determining whether something is light or darkness. Of “love” determining whether something isright or wrong. And of “love” beingdefined as… “an offering and a sacrifice” (v.2). Of which darknesshas nothing to offer. And light has muchto sacrifice (v.8).

A sacrificeof your glory for the glory of others. Asacrifice of your glory... for the glory of God. A sacrifice not unlike the sacrifice thatGrace Driscoll made. A sacrifice that weare instructed to imitate (v.1)!

And as such,I would contend that it is not“disgraceful for Grace to speak of herdeeds of darkness” (v.12). Not to speakof her disgrace so that others might notbe disgraced. So that others might not commit similar deeds of darkness.

And why isthat instructed by Paul? So that the “aroma”of others might be pleasing to God as well (v.2).

And such isthe overwhelming smell of this chapter. The overwhelming smell of Calvin. The overwhelming smell of Paul. Andthe overwhelming smell of Scripture.

To love God...and love your neighbor as yourself.

A pleasing smell.

Generous Dave

2011-12-25T07:29:00.000-05:00

Before we continue in this Do NOT Pray series:

We will pause to consider Dave's latest rebuff of my argument. Of Dave's eventual revealing of the actual context of his own "generous" argument. And his being less generous by refusing to interact with me on the more obvious context of his post. On whether "St. Paul is the model of behavior for Rome".

Now, I would offer a response at the posts that Dave linked me to... but then I would be out of context. I would be "off topic". Because my argument was not about whether "St. Paul was superior to St. Peter" or what "St. Paul's rebuke of St. Peter proved". But my argument was that Rome 'more closely' identifies with St. Peter as their "model of behavior" in Paul's letter to the Galatians. Unlike Dave's claim to the contrary.
An inference that we shall examine.

We will also examine Dave's inference of whether Paul considered all the "Galatians as Fellow Christians". And examine Dave's reply that "Paul was guilty of hypocrisy as well".

And for the sake of argument, let's just use arguments from Calvin. Since Dave is so fond of trying to use Calvin against me.

And thanks to CCEL, we will use arguments from Calvin's Commentary on Galatians and Ephesians.
Commentary from Calvin that seems far more generous to Rome on this topic- than commentary from Matthew Henry, Erasmus, Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose or Augustine.

And let's work our way backwards... starting with Paul's "hypocrisy":

Here Calvin claims that Paul was NOT being guilty of hypocrisy. That Paul was merely being utilitarian. That Paul was not in fact presenting a different Gospel... but was trying to be 'all things to all men'. All things... in order to receive the opportunity to proclaim the true Gospel. Paul was being opportunistic, so-to-speak. Which is not all bad.

He circumcises Timothy, (Acts 16:3,)in order to take away a ground of offense from weak minds; for he was at thattime dealing with weak minds, which it was his duty to treat with tenderness.And he would gladly have done the same thing with Titus, for he was unweariedin his endeavors to “support (Acts20:35) the weak;” but the case wasdifferent.

Yet, I'm willing to concede to Dave on the hypocrisy charge, anyway. That the case wasn't terribly different. That Paul was in fact quite fallible here. But that still doesn't acquit Peter of the charges.

Now, let's work on Dave's inference that all the Galatians addressed by Paul were "Fellow Christians"
The inference in Dave's post that Paul actually knew all their hearts. That Paul was a profound prophet. And that as a prophet, Paul's omniscience extended to the existing faith of all Galatian churches. An enormous claim for an enormous province.

Tothe churches of Galatia. It was an extensivecountry, and therefore contained many

churchesscattered through it. But is it not wonderful that the term “Church”, whichalways

impliesunity of faith, should have been applied to the Galatians, who had almostentirely

revolted from Christ?

Imake this observation, because the Papists, seizing on the single word Church, think

thatwhatever they choose to force upon us is sanctioned; though the condition andaspect

of the Church of Romeare widely different from what existed in Galatia.

Yet, I'm willing to concede that Paul may have been given some divine omniscience in this matter. That the Holy Spirit was actually giving eternal assurance to all Galatians by including them in the "Church". As apostate as they were. But that's hardly likely, is it?

But let's look at my actual issue of contention- that contrary to Dave, Peter is in fact a far closer model of Rome's behavior than Paul is in Galatians. An issue that is very hard to concede:

Between those men [the apostate Galatians] and the Papists there is no difference;and therefore, in refuting them, we are at liberty to employ Paul’s argument.

And why is Peter a closer model?

With what effronterythen will the Papists boast that they possess the gospel, which is not onlycorrupted by many inventions, but more than adulterated by many wickeddoctrines?

And why does it matter?

Augustine is therefore right in asserting, that this was nopreviously arranged plan, but that Paul, out of Christian zeal, opposed thesinful and unseasonable dissimulation of Peter, because he saw that it would beinjurious to the Church.

And was Calvin talking about the Universal Church? The Catholic Church?

Inshort, the word Church is often applied by a

figureof speech in which a part is taken for the whole, to any portion of the church,even

though it may notfully answer to the name.

And not so strangely, what else do we find in Calvin's Commentary on Galatians 2?

We find yet another refutation of the universalism that Calvin is alleged to hold by Dave et al. Yet another indication of Calvin actually holding to the Reformed tenant of Limited Atonement. Who knew?

It will not be enough for any man to contemplateChrist as having died for the salvation of the world, unless he has experiencedthe consequences of this death, and is enabled to claim it as his own.

In closing, we find Calvin making another all too generous claim:

If they [Catholics] wish to have God appearing on their side, a newBible must be manufactured; if they do not wish to have him for an open enemy,those two chapters [Galatians 1 and 2] of the Holy Scriptures must be expunged.

Now, I'm sure Calvin knew of many more chapters that must be expunged. But he was generously- just referring to Paul's letter to the Galatians. Far too generous perhaps.

But then we must also find Dave guilty- of being far too generous.

Far too generous to "Anti-Catholics".

Far too generous in claiming Anti-Catholics as his "brothers".
Far more generous than numerous popes and councils were to Anti-Catholics.
And far more generous than his beloved Calvin.

Do NOT Pray for the Pope

2011-12-11T07:41:00.001-05:00

Continuing in this Do NOT Pray series:

In addition to the principles, precepts and precedents already presented (does this sound like Pippi in Mr. Popper's Penguins?)... let's observe some textual criticism of some relevant verses. Verses which neither the present Pope, nor previous Popes have given an infallible interpretation to. Yet verses which his supporters admonish me with.

So first let's look at Matthew 5:44- as Maroun is wont to do in his admonition of me:
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; (Mat 5:44 KJV)

Now, contrary to Borland, I believe the above text is a prime example of textual expansion. Of scribes importing the italicized words from Luke 6 into Mathew 5... to expand the understanding of their readers. A virtuous expansion... but an expansion that didn't pay import duties . Prominent textual-critics Aland and Comfort give numerous reasons for this virtuous expansion of the text. Reasons accepted by most translation committees. So most translations do not include this textual expansion.

But for the sake of argument- let's go with this textual expansion. Let's see how universal this portion of the Beatitudes really is in Luke's Sermon on the Plains. Then we'll look at how universal this portion of the Beatitudes really are in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount.

So, looking at this Lukan portion- it should be apparent that this maxim is based on the Principle of Mercy. Of us being merciful, "just as your Father is merciful" (Luke 6:36).
But does this portion presume equal mercy to both? Friends as much as enemies? As much mercy on the hard heart as on the softened heart?
Clearly this presumes too much. And delivers far too little... from an all-powerful God.

Also, such is contrary to the claim, "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy" (Exo 33:19 KJV). A claim not even endorsed by Rome's Douay-Rheims translation, "I will have mercy on whom I will, and I will be merciful to whom it shall please me" (Exo 33:19 DRA). A peculiar translation that reserves for God at least a little mercy unshewn. And thus reserves for us at least a little mercy unshewn as well.

And the verse preceding this portion? "Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets" (Luke 6:26 KJV). Does this not belittle universal endorsement of prophets? Encourage at least a little discernment of who you endorse?

And the verse following this portion? "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven" (Luke 6:37 KJV). A maxim promoting general Christian charity. Hardly applies to all judgement, condemnation or forgiveness, does it? Certainly doesn't apply to civil judgement. Civil war would surely result.

Now, the Matthean portion is based on the Principle of Mercy as well. Based on God sending rain on the "righteous and the unrighteous" (Matt. 5:45). But this doesn't mean that he sends rain equally. Or send rain indiscriminately, folks. And we have plenty of biblical evidence against that claim, now don't we? Plenty of evidence that righteous Noah was spared from rain. And unrighteous men were not (cf. Amos 4:7).

Which brings us back to the admonition in question. That I should pray for the universe. And by extension, even the Universalis Episcopus. No mere enemy... but an apostate of the Gospel of Grace. Who stands condemned- just as Peter stood to Paul in his letter to the Galatians (Galatians 2:11). Not for importing numerous specious graces- but rather for importing Works into the Gospel. Works that haven't paid their import duties.

Yet let's have a look at another passage in this post.
Let's have a look at James 5:16... where we are told that the "effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much".
Are the Popes prayers more effectual then? Is he more righteous than I?

Then let him pray for himself. Let him pray for his own rain then . Let him pray for his own mercy.
He doesn't need my puny prayers then. Mine wouldn't avail him much more. And he wouldn't want my prayers and petitions anyways.

Since my prayers would call for the Popes repentance. Since my prayers would call for him to repent of his misplaced faith... and place his faith in Christ alone.

But the Pope is likely beyond that call. Waaay beyond that call...

Way beyond that call- when he assumed the title of Universalis Episcopus. Way beyond that call- when he assumed the title of "Vicar of Peter, Vicar of Christ and Vicar of God Almighty". Beyond that call- when he assumed the Patrimony of St. Peter.

A patrimony given to Pope Stephen III in 755A.D. A patrimony given to him by a puny man named Pippin. After the Pope promised Pippin the pittance of, "long life and the most glorious mansions in heaven" for the patrimony of much of Italy (funny how Pippi's and Popper's repeat themselves....).

A patrimony that was lost "a few weeks (1870 A.D.) after the Pope proclaimed to the world his own infallibility in all matters of faith and morals" [Schaff]. A patrimony that was removed from the Pope. A patrimony that was given to Victor Emanuel. With the Popes patrimony "confined" to The Vatican.

And it is my prayer, that prayers for the Pope also be confined to The Vatican.
Confined to the Popes repentance. Confined to a faith in our Victor.

Confined to a faith in Emmanuel (Isaiah 8:8). The only Vicar of God.

Do NOT Pray for Dave

2011-11-27T06:20:00.000-05:00

Continuing in this Do NOT Pray series:

Fascinating discussion over at Dave's site.
A complete inability to deal with any of the biblical passages that I provided. Or even try.

Instead Calvin is invoked as a straw man (a man that I never invoked). And Calvin is claimed to be a Universalist in regards to prayer. And a Universalist in regards to salvation. Bizarre misrepresentations.

But I'm not going to play their Calvin card. Not going to try dredge up some peculiar sermon. Not going to take Calvin out of context as they were shown that they did.
Not because I can't find a refutation- but because (as I said) I am not slavish to Calvin but to Scripture.

Now, having provided considerable scripture (numerous precepts and precedents) as to why a Christian should not pray for apostates (but rather "pray against them")... we will now turn to several principles surrounding this special pleading. Several principles against Universal Prayer.

1. It presumes too much-
Jesus did not "ask on behalf of the world" (John 17:9). Did not ask on behalf of the Universe. Did not pray for the Universe. Did not pray for "all men". So what gives us the right to?

2. It presumes too little-
Perhaps we should be praying for Satan and his angels as well then? Bugs and bunnies?

3. Different strokes for different folks-
Some folks need different types of prayer. As I mentioned, some need imprecatory prayer. A 'kicking of the pricks' (Acts 9:5 KJV).

4. Argument from silence-
After tossing the bum from church (Matt. 18:18)- the church is not asked to pray for him. He is left to his own devices. Solitary devices. A Jewish device.

5. Waste of time-
Don't waste perfectly good prayer time on those that give strong indication of being apostates.
If they are- it is IMPOSSIBLE to renew them again to repentance (Hebrews 6:6).

6. Waste of love-
i) Now some Universalists will claim that we are to love our enemies. That is true.
But to extend that to 'loving our enemies as ourselves'... is false. A false extension.
To extend that to 'loving our enemies to the same extent' (Marouns argument) is contrary to Gal 6:10.
A biblical distinction that should be upheld... with prioritized prayer for "those of the household of faith".
And prioritized providence for your own household (1 Tim. 5:8).

ii) And Universalists often appeal to the parable of The Good Samaritan. That we should be Good Samaritans to everyone. But there is no indication that the waylaid man was an enemy in this parable. An enemy to the Gospel. Or least of all an apostate. We are only told that he was "a man".

Yet, we have far more information on Dave. Lots of information on Dave. Lots of indication that Dave is an enemy. The worst kind of enemy... an enemy of the Gospel.
Lots of indication that Dave is an enemy of the sufficiency of Christ. A false brother. A brother intent on bringing us back into sacramental bondage (Gal 2:4). Into "dead works" (Hebrews 6:1). A brother that "nullifies the grace of God" (Gal. 2:21).

Indications that the apostle Paul deemed sufficient- to hand lotsa folks over to Satan for.
Indications that Rome considers sufficient to hand me over ("anathematize") to Satan for.
And indications that I would deem sufficient to hand 'brother Dave' over to Satan for.

So then should I pray for Dave... after handing him over?
That would be schizophrenic. Double-minded and dumb.

Don't be dumb, folks.

Do NOT Pray for Patty!

2011-11-06T08:35:00.005-05:00

Continuing in this Do NOT Pray series:

Went to daring-Dave Armstrong's site via TurretinFan. And found Patty Bonds drooling over one of Dave's posts on masturbation.
A tipping point for Dave. And a tipping point for Patty ("an allegedly virtuous device... that I turned into an idolatrous vice").

Have covered that topic extensively at my adult blog... but I thought I'd chronicle Patty's fall from grace here.
Patty's drifting from the virtuous church of her childhood... to her fall [a Hebrews 6:6 distinction] into a vacuous cloister of sacraments.
From her own testimonies here and here:

As many of you know, Patty is the sister of premier Protestant-apologist James White. And daughter of a Protestant pastor.
Born in '56. 'Prayed the prayer' at the age of six. And married at 25.
But she converted to Catholicism 16 years ago, despite tremendous opportunity to see Jesus as sufficient. And continues to be a tremendous thorn in James and his fathers side.
Her mothers side.
And her ex-husbands side.

Patty divorced her husband of 21 years because "he couldn't deal with the fact that I had not been open with him" [her deception and manipulation].
Because "he was not as sensitive as he should have been" [despite going to numerous counseling sessions to deal with her numerous issues].
And because her marriage "wasn't all that it could be" [even after he became a Catholic for her].

Patty later applied for and was granted "the 8th sacrament" (an Annulment).   A grand illusion.
Was granted the delusion that it never was a "sacramental" marriage.
The delusion that it never was a "true" marriage [as if only "sacramental marriages" are "true" marriages].
And now promotes this vacuous delusion.

Patty later applied for and was granted the Sacrament of Consecration.   Granted the delusion that she is now a Sacred spouse of Christ [and that her children are now Sacred]. And now promotes this vacuous delusion as well.

She made the Vow of Celibacy in '05. Another vacuous vow. Considering her circumstances.
A vow clearly made without an elementary understanding of her "Matthew 19:12 theme".

Ans a vow of questionable value at best. From a single mother of three. And a grandmother of one. To now dedicate her life to proclaiming a questionable gospel... while remaining a civil servant.

Yet Patty may be applying for yet another vacuous sacrament soon. The Sacrament of Final Unction.

You see, Patty continues to have her problems. Major physical problems.
Patty will be seeing a breast surgeon this week. To have one of her "ladies" taken care of.
Something that she "should have done long ago... but had procrastinated".
Procrastination "due to a cyst on her kidneys. spots on her lungs, and brain tumors impacting her senses".

Yup, here is a lady that is far from healed. Either physically or spiritually.
And of course, it's never her fault. It's her husbands fault, her fathers fault, her mothers fault...

Yet somehow she feels these faults are "re-storing her to the person that she should be".
As she continues "trying to restore" her daddy to the person he should be.
A daddy of her fantasies.

You see, "Daddy's little girl" continues to accuse her daddy of atrocious things. Fantastical things. And can't get past her fantastical past. An enormously improbable past (considering even some of the factors).
A fantastical past that many patients develop after entering therapy.
A past that her mother thinks was generated from a therapist at Moody.
A therapy that was all the rage at the time. A therapy that has seen numerous lawsuits.

Yet, "Daddy's little girl" continues to slander her father and mother.
Knowingly, "trampling on the law of God". The fifth commandment.
A commandment granting longevity... for those that honor their father and mother.

And the 'restoring spirit' that Patty thinks she is bringing to bear on her father... is a dishonoring spirit.
A malicious spirit. A destructive spirit. A spirit eager to accuse.
To accuse her father, mother, husband and brother.

And I should support Patty's spirit? I should pray for Patty?

Well... pray like King David often prayed, perhaps.
Imprecatory prayers. Praying against her.
Pray that she might fall into the pit... the pit that she laid for her father (Psalm 57:6).
Pray that the Patty we currently know "may be no more (Psalm 59:13)".

Or as Oswald Chambers would pray, "Pray that things might get a hundred times worse for her"...
that she might see the sufficiency of Jesus.
The insufficiency of Rome and the vacuity of her sacraments... including the Final Sacrament.

The "Walking Dead" Gospel

2011-09-25T07:10:00.001-04:00

Lots of comments on an article posted by Christianity Today. About remaining married to the "walking dead" (my comments on that aspect here). And about "repudiating the gospel". Russell slamming Robertson.
On an invisible mat.

Sure, Robertson was a little over the top in a question period. Yet, Russell was surely more than a little over the top in his submitted article. Was being more than a little hyperbolic. Was making irrelevant allusions to cartoon characters, pole-worship, sex therapists and giggling evangelists. And was seriously misrepresenting Robertson (ht. Tim and Bethany). But all of Russell's weak allusions aside... was Robertson actually "repudiating the gospel"?

Well... only in a corollary way. And Russell didn't help matters much. Didn't say what gospel was being repudiated. Didn't say what the gospel actually was.

Sure, Russell spoke of "a cross"... but he didn't speak of sin.
Our sin that required the cross. Not "a cross".

And sure, Russell spoke of "the church"... but not how to become one of "the church".
Or what actually defines a member of the 'true' church.

And sure, Russell spoke of fidelity... a "sacrificial fidelity".
But a "sacrificial fidelity" to whom? And why?

And don't give me that "icon" stuff. And then defer to "ancient mystery".
Marriage is much more than an "icon". And this mystery has been revealed (Col 1:26).

Besides... lots of folks have "a cross".
And lots of folks have a "church".
And lots of folks have a "sacrificial fidelity".
And lots of folks have a "marriage".
For a whole lot of different reasons.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE GOSPEL!

So... where does Russell present the gospel here?
Where does Russell say "repent and believe" in his article? Or even mention "sin"?
That the good news of reconciliation may be proclaimed!

It's all well and good to promote a social gospel in this article. But where is the real gospel?
Surely Russell knows this gospel (as does Robertson).
But did he think he would just be preaching to the choir?

Did he reach his cyber word-limit with CT?
Or was CT just interested in his slanderous hyperbole?

This article is disappointing.
Mere pole-dancing by Russell and CT.
Around an invisible pole.