skip to main |
skip to sidebar
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.
A week ago Jamin was gushing over a 'big win' by Sye here.
Hardly a big win. His opponent/Justin remains unjustified. There was no repentance.
No fault of Sye's. Sye called for repentance. Graciously and repeatedly.
But Justin was dull. Dull as distilled water. And lukewarm water at that.
Clear evidence of a mind 'given over' (Romans 1:28).
Not only that- but a mind that Christians should pay no mind to. And pray no prayer for.
Pretty harsh there, you say?
Well... only as harsh as the loving-apostle John. And the weeping-prophet Jeremiah.
So... let's have a look at what they have to say:
"There is a sin that leads to death. I am NOT saying that he should pray about that" (1 John 5:16 NIV).
and repeatedly by Jehovah,
"Therefore do NOT pray for these people" (Jeremiah 11:14, 7:16 and 14:11 NIV).
Which begs the question, "what people"? And "what sin"?
Well, in the latter verse it is clearly those that have forsaken the 'true God'- Jeremiah 16:11.
And in the former it is clearly those that have forsaken His testimony- 1 John 5:20.
Here's what Matthew Henry has to say on that former verse:
... a blaspheming of the Spirit of God in the testimony that he has given to Christ and his gospel, and a total apostasy from the light and convictive evidence of the truth of the Christian religion. These are sins involving the guilt of everlasting death... For what remains but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, to consume such adversaries? Heb. 10:27.
And Justin is well aware of his 'blasphemy of the Spirit'. As evidenced by his dull deleting of his confession:
Justin:... No, the Holy Spirit makes good arguments bad.
Yes, just as the atheist-Rational Response Squad is well aware of their blasphemy of the Spirit:
You may damn yourself to Hell however you would like, but somewhere in your video you must say this phrase: "I deny the Holy Spirit."
Why? Because, according to Mark 3:29 in the Holy Bible, "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." Jesus will forgive you for just about anything, but he won't forgive you for denying the existence of the Holy Spirit. Ever. This is a one-way road you're taking here.
Yes, this Fraud Squad recognizes this as a non-negotiable as well.
For it is an inherent Truth!
An inherent attribute of the God that is clearly seen. The God that is clearly felt.
And the God that is clearly 'telt' in scripture.
So that they are without excuse...
But Justin wasn't actually denying the Spirits' "existence", was he?
Wasn't he merely calling the Spirit "bad"?
Well, this is where the Fraud Squad did some dull deleting of their own. They neglected the subsequent verse of Mark. The textual qualifier. That it was calling the Spirit "unclean" which was actually 'their blasphemy'.
A blasphemy that clearly indicts Justin.
A blasphemy that does not leave him At The Brink.
A blasphemy that clearly pushes him over the brink.
And a blasphemer that should NOT be patronized with prayer.
Yup. Piggybacking on a Triablogue post again. This time at a different blog of mine. And this time about some comments that were posted there.
Comments made by some biker chick ;)
Comments made by some chick named Carrie.
Comments like:
1) Men have a much higher tendency to suffer from sexual sins, to points that are beyond comprehension. I do wonder theologically why that is.
2) It would just say that men struggle more with sexual sin while women struggle more with some other sin. As far as sinning overall, the two sexes are on an equal playing field.
3) This *almost* starts sounding like the rape victim being blamed for wearing a short skirt.
Well, let's work our way backwards on this one.
Rape victims 'shouldn't be blamed for wearing short skirts'-
For 'enticing'? For doing the 'slut walk'?
As analogy- cuckolded husbands are often charged with manslaughter rather than murder. Why? Because it often meets a Provocation Test. A test that recognizes a 'reduction in culpability'. A shared culpability. A shared blame (yet, for some reason the unfaithful wife sees no blame).
Is Carrie saying that this well-established (7th century B.C.) Provocation Test should be tossed?
And that there should be no Provocation Test for rape either?
That women should be free to provocate with impunity?
Free to entice 'without even slander'?
Hey Carrie, I'm even willing to grant others a Provocation Test for abortion.
But are you willing to grant others a Provocation Test for rape?
Men struggle more with sexual sin-
Well... should women be held more culpable for sexual sin then? Since it is an 'easier battle' for them?
As far as sin goes... both sexes are on an equal playing field-
So Satan and his demons are equal-opportunity tempters?
Not terribly convinced of that. Not terribly opportunistic of them.
It's like they subscribe to a Code of Ethics. Or God has them bound by a Code of Ethics.
Far too egalitarian for my liking. Some weird interpretation of Galatians 3:28?
Men are more pre-disposed to sexual sin. Why is that?
Well, it just may be that men have a greater appreciation for God-given material.
Material recognized and declared to be "Good!" ("He who finds a wife finds a good thing "- Prov. 18:22 ESV).
Yet, this rib-based material (BTW, did you know that ribs grow back?) was seduced by a fabulous fibber (1 Tim. 2:14).
Was enticed by a pitch of 'immaterial gains'. Only to find- an immense pit of intense agony.
Indeed, a pit that we all stand at the brink of. Branded as idolaters. Branded as eternal kindling.
Unless otherwise branded by an immaterial Spirit. To reflect the perfect material. To reflect the perfect idol. To reflect the perfect Son.
To the glory of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Truly exclusive glory- where exclusive glory is truly due.
