Tuesday, August 19, 2008

News you don't want to miss--Todd Bentley is stepping down...

Todd Bentley will step down as head of Fresh Fire Ministries, after the ministry revealed he had an "unhealthy relationship" with a female staffer. That announcement comes one week after Bentley's ministry announced he and his wife were separating.

The announcement from the board of directors acknowledged that Bentley had an "unhealthy relationship" on an emotional level with the female staff member. Bentley is best known for leading a series of public meetings in Florida since April that have attracted around 300,000 people to churches and a baseball stadium.

The Canadian evangelist will also cease all public meetings, including a 38-city stadium tour of U.S. cities.

In a recent article in Charisma magazine on the meetings, editor Lee Grady said many of those who defended Bentley displayed a "lack of discernment," in part because of a "raw zeal for God."

Grady also pointed out that Bentley had serious credibility issues from the beginning of the meetings, claiming to have talked to an angel in his hotel room, and bragging about tackling a man and knocking his tooth out during prayer.

"Many of us would rather watch a noisy demonstration of miracles, signs, and wonders than have a quiet Bible study," the Christian journalist wrote. "Our adolescent craving for the wild and crazy makes us do stupid things. It's way past time for us to grow up."

Grady also criticized GodTV for telling people that any criticism of Bentley was "demonic." GodTV carried the Lakeland meetings live every night.

Article from: Allie Martin - OneNewsNow - 8/19/2008 11:05:00 AM

33 comments:

Javier said...

Praise God. An enemy of the faith has fallen.

GermanMike said...

At least Christians in America seem to have some standards.
As an atheist from Europe I've always stood in amazement what passes for Christianity in America. I guess you could still pass as respected pastor if you would teach the gospel according to Nietzsche as long as you would throw around evangelical lingo every now and then.
But dare to go through a divorce and you are out!

Some might be optimistic and call it the last bits of spiritual discernment - a bit less optimistic and it would just be another manifestation of a troubling superficiality when it comes to skeptical discernment.

Javier said...

At least Christians in America seem to have some standards.
As an atheist from Europe I've always stood in amazement what passes for Christianity in America. I guess you could still pass as respected pastor if you would teach the gospel according to Nietzsche as long as you would throw around evangelical lingo every now and then.
But dare to go through a divorce and you are out!

Some might be optimistic and call it the last bits of spiritual discernment - a bit less optimistic and it would just be another manifestation of a troubling superficiality when it comes to skeptical discernment.


Ah, it amazes me when the pagans can see more clearly than even some Post-Evangelicals.

GermanMike said...

Ah, it amazes me when the pagans can see more clearly than even some Post-Evangelicals.

I'm atheist. Not pagans. Pagans are always kind of insulted when their name is used for atheists.
Pagans are those who still believe in the polytheist Gods of antiquity, while Atheists don't believe in any God.

Javier said...

I'm atheist. Not pagans. Pagans are always kind of insulted when their name is used for atheists.
Pagans are those who still believe in the polytheist Gods of antiquity, while Atheists don't believe in any God.


I said pagan, not Pagan in the sense of Wiccan. When I say pagan, I mean the God-hating, truth suppressing, fool, who hates his creator. The one who so much loves his Sin he's been handed over to it as judgement. By this standard you are the atheist who suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. A pagan.

Lauren said...

Wow, and I wonder if that comment would help this man find Christ?

GermanMike said...

There are 2 definitions of the word pagan in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.

1: heathen 1; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome)
2: one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person

The first definition clearly points to the pagan self-understanding while the second definition point to a foreign-perception of pagan religiosity.

So while Pagans differ in religious practice and in philosophical grounding by a stronger emphases on hedonism from Christianity, modern Atheists differ by a more rationalistic or utilitarianist grounding from Christianity.

You might do your witnessing efforts a favor by recognizing those differences in your target groups by using two different words for those two different kinds of non-Christians.

utilitarianism: a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; specifically : a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number

Javier said...

There are 2 definitions of the word pagan in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.

1: heathen 1; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome)
2: one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person

The first definition clearly points to the pagan self-understanding while the second definition point to a foreign-perception of pagan religiosity.

So while Pagans differ in religious practice and in philosophical grounding by a stronger emphases on hedonism from Christianity, modern Atheists differ by a more rationalistic or utilitarianist grounding from Christianity.

You might do your witnessing efforts a favor by recognizing those differences in your target groups by using two different words for those two different kinds of non-Christians.

utilitarianism: a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; specifically : a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number

Javier said...

Oops...
There are 2 definitions of the word pagan in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.

1: heathen 1; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome)
2: one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person


You fit the second definition.



So while Pagans differ in religious practice and in philosophical grounding by a stronger emphases on hedonism from Christianity, modern Atheists differ by a more rationalistic or utilitarianist grounding from Christianity.


So they say...even if that were the case per the second definition of the term 'pagan' you fit the profile.

You might do your witnessing efforts a favor by recognizing those differences in your target groups by using two different words for those two different kinds of non-Christians.

The term wasn't used in a wrong context, it was appropriately used for someone who is irreligious per the definition above. You might do your witnessing efforts a favor by forgetting the petty issues and focusing on the more 'rationalistic' issues of your worldview.

Also, you claim to be a utilitarian can you tell me how an atheist can define 'good' or 'greater good' in a moral dillema? Doesn't utilitarianism presuppose an ethical standard that is beyond your worldviews ability to sustain? Afterall, are we not the product of omnipotent chance? So what if I eat my grandma. Hey, I have twenty kids to feed and they are hungry. Sounds good enough for me!

Lauren,
Thanks for commenting.I'm not sure if you know the particular commenter, but I've stumbled onto his blog a few times and he is an active critic of Way Of The Master, and therefore Trish who is affiliated with WOTM and The Albert Mohler Program. He isn't some 'innocent' bystander that was merely asking questions or making a comment.

Secondly, I can justify all I said Biblically. So, the question should be. Do you take the scripture seriously? I don't mean to suggest you don't, you may be misinformed. Its quite clear when we examine scripture that some people should be dealt with appropriately and that means that sometimes it involves a true exposure of their depravity.

So, here is my justification:

When I say pagan, I mean the God-hating,
John 15:18 "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first
truth suppressing,
Romans 1:18
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
fool,
Psalm 53:1
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good.
who hates his creator.

Romans 1:29,30...They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
The one who so much loves his Sin he's been handed over to it as judgement.
Romans 1:26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

Thanks for the comment and concern. May God give us more grace and bless his saints!

Melissa Spence said...

Javier, I have to say once again you come across boastful and all-knowing in your commenting. I'll have to agree with Lauren - the way you comment and the things you say come across very offensive and a turn-off to Christ. Whether you feel your words and warnings are justified by Scripture or not. What about all the Scripture where God commands us to love? Jesus' great commandment was to love God and one another.

And He said to him, "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'
This is the great and foremost commandment.
The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.'
On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."
Matthew 22:37-40

God is Love.

I'm sorry but you seem to stress more importance on "calling out or exposing" people of their depravity rather than witnessing to them conveying love.

Here's an insert from Carl Anderson's book (I suggest you read it! :-) "A Civilization of Love"...

"We are called to witness to what it means to be a people rooted in faith. Everything we possess has been given by God. Every talent is given as a gift. Every moment is a chance and an opportunity for conveying love. . . Fundamentally, one of the only ways in which we can show our love for God physically is through service to him through people."

You seem to look up to Trish and her husband - take note with how they often comment to people. In fact Trish commented on Germanmike's recent blog post, it was apparent with her wording what she said was with love.

Praying you really take to heart my constructive criticism. :-)

GermanMike said...

Dear Melissa,

interesting point that you make. Have you ever listened to The Way of the Master radio program that Trish gives authority to by appearing on their show?

Compared to what I've already heard on this program javier is a shining beacon of love.

Javier said...

Javier, I have to say once again you come across boastful and all-knowing in your commenting.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

I'll have to agree with Lauren - the way you comment and the things you say come across very offensive and a turn-off to Christ.
Firstly, Christ isn't appealing to any unregenerate sinner. Secondly, I gave a proper view of man according to scripture, you actually have a problem with scripture not what I said.

Whether you feel your words and warnings are justified by Scripture or not.

And there is the problem.

What about all the Scripture where God commands us to love?

What about them? Are they binding in all senses, at all times, in all places? And what is love? If you're going to presuppose this 'love' as a no-offense-make-you-feel-good-warm-fuzzy-cuddly-bear-love, then no. In fact, given this definition you are being unloving since I was extremely hurt and discouraged when I opened up the comments today.

Jesus' great commandment was to love God and one another.
Amen.

God is Love.
He's not only love. We cannot exalt his attributes of love above all others, also love remains to be defined.

I'm sorry but you seem to stress more importance on "calling out or exposing" people of their depravity rather than witnessing to them conveying love.

The most loving act is to tell people how they can be saved from God's furious wrath.

You seem to look up to Trish and her husband - take note with how they often comment to people. In fact Trish commented on Germanmike's recent blog post, it was apparent with her wording what she said was with love.

Perhaps Trish and I use a different means of demonstrating a common concern: salvation. Nonetheless we are both speaking in Biblical terms and using Biblical attitudes.

Now, perhaps Melissa can define love that doesn't make God out to be the big fluffy pillow, He's our comforter and our fortress, He's our King not our grandfather.

interesting point that you make. Have you ever listened to The Way of the Master radio program that Trish gives authority to by appearing on their show?

Compared to what I've already heard on this program javier is a shining beacon of love.


German Mike,

WOTM is not an effeminate post-modern show that reflects cultural trends and social understandings of 'love' and 'tolerance'. Its a show based on Biblical principles.I've seen nothing but a concern for the lost (as yourself) and proper doctrine. The fact that you get offended is evidence that they are doing their job, the Gospel is an offense. Good job to the guys at WOTM.

-Javy

Melissa Spence said...

Germanmike,
Yes I am familiar with WOTM, my brother in-law actually works there! I just felt the need to say what I said to Javier...we've debated before on a different post on this blog (I'm Catholic and Javy feels I am going to Hell because of my Faith).

I think it's very important to have respectful, mature dialogues with other's of different faiths, or those with no faith at all...that's how we learn and grow. But in my opinion Javier needs to work on his dialogue and the things he says to people. I understand the basis behind what he says, which is to get non-believers to believe (an awesome intent) but his way about it is a complete turn off.

What I said about him to take note on how Trish responds did not necessarily mean that I agree with her, but my most current reference of her comment that I briefly saw on your lastest blog post came across to me less boastful.

Melissa Spence said...

@ Javier

"I'm not sure I understand what you mean."

Look up the definition to the word boastful, really think about it, re-read your comments I see if they come across that way to you. They do to me, and I'm obviously not the only commentor on this post that thought so.

"Firstly, Christ isn't appealing to any unregenerate sinner. Secondly, I gave a proper view of man according to scripture, you actually have a problem with scripture not what I said."

My point exactly! So instead of making it more appealing/attractive/desirable to them you think you'll convert them over by offending them, judging them (ya I know backed by Scripture), and tagging them according to your interpretation of the standards said in Scripture? In my personal opinion not such a good tactic. But if you disagree and I can't convince you otherwise, then so be it. So no I do not have a problem with Scripture but of what you said and the way you said it.

You respond "Amen" to the statement I made about Jesus' great commandment yet the paragraph right above that you contradict yourself questioning the action of Love God speaks of. Like it's not all that important!

But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love. 1 Cor 13:13
So are you telling me it's much more important to stress having faith in an offensive manner, than to show Christ's love?

"The most loving act is to tell people how they can be saved from God's furious wrath."
Not to tell them in an offensive manner, but to help them see God's light in a loving way.

Why don't you define what love means Javy?

Being a Christian is the presence of the Spirit of Christ in the spirit of an individual who receives Him by faith. Javy I challenge you to allow the Spirit of our loving Christ shine through you better.

Javier said...

Melissa,

Look up the definition to the word boastful, really think about it, re-read your comments I see if they come across that way to you. They do to me, and I'm obviously not the only commentor on this post that thought so.

I know what boastful means, I'm not sure how I come across as boastful.

My point exactly! So instead of making it more appealing/attractive/desirable to them you think you'll convert them over by offending them, judging them (ya I know backed by Scripture), and tagging them according to your interpretation of the standards said in Scripture?

This is silly, I cannot make Christ attractive. Only the Spirit can. The man listens to Way Of the Master - I'm sure he's heard the Gospel . So what does he do? He creates a website that attacks Way Of The Master, and Albert Mohler. How did Jesus treat the pharisees when they became sophistic? He wasn't the 'nicest' guy according to American standards.

Secondly, you assume Rome. As always your disastrous doctrine leads to disastrous and unfruitful dialogue b/w Catholics and Protestants. Instead of appealing to the sinner for repentance you attack the Protestant. How do you know the verses you interpreted privately mean what you say they mean? Has Rome infallibly defined them? Where? When? If you dont, them your mere interpretation of scripture is just private opinion.

In my personal opinion not such a good tactic. But if you disagree and I can't convince you otherwise, then so be it.

I'm glad its only your personal opinion, you can't really know what scripture says anyway.

So no I do not have a problem with Scripture but of what you said and the way you said it.

Yes, but you cannot support the reason you had a problem.

You respond "Amen" to the statement I made about Jesus' great commandment yet the paragraph right above that you contradict yourself questioning the action of Love God speaks of. Like it's not all that important!

No, I understand God's love in a proper manner and don't exalt it above his other attributes. Again scripture speaks of children of wrath, children of satan, enemies of God, God-haters etc...I only described this person per scripture. Finally, since German Mike called me a 'beacon of love' in comparison to Way Of The Master, then it only demonstrates that his view of 'love' means an all encompassing tolerant view of men who care nothing about truth or what is right. I'm sure you can appreciate that. You see, your definition of love is defined according to cultural social standards set forth by post-modern philosophy that dominates our churches, and your institution.


But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love. 1 Cor 13:13
So are you telling me it's much more important to stress having faith in an offensive manner, than to show Christ's love?


Are you telling me that you can interpret that passage without an infallible aid? How do you know thats what it says? And how does this escape the necessity of infallible interpretation?

Not to tell them in an offensive manner, but to help them see God's light in a loving way.

Why don't you define what love means Javy?

Why should I define it? Perhaps you should demonstrate why you objected to my 'mistreatment' of German Mike on the basis of your definition of love. Contrary to your view, my view of love is correction, and ultimately sacrificial. But this doesn't reflect on my treatment of Mike, afterall he should be corrected and repent and believe the Gospel.

I'm sure Paul, and Jesus were being 'unloving' when they called people fools, and liars. Given your standards if they wrote on this blog you'd be chiding them too.

Javy I challenge you to allow the Spirit of our loving Christ shine through you better.

With all due respect, your 'love' isn't Biblical love.

GermanMike said...

Dear Javier,

I did neither attack Dr. Mohler nor WOTM in an appropriate way over the internet. I debated them.

Whenever you bring your personal convictions or opinions into the public forum you make them subject to full scrutiny. - This is how a republic works.
If you don't want your religious convictions to be debated then keep them out of the public forum and within the private realm.

Melissa Spence said...

@ Javier

"With all due respect, your 'love' isn't Biblical love."

There you go again tagging me and acting all-knowing.

"I'm sure Paul, and Jesus were being 'unloving' when they called people fools, and liars. Given your standards if they wrote on this blog you'd be chiding them too."

Wow, I think when most people read about the life of Jesus, the adjective to describe Him certainly wouldn't be "unloving". I believe He was the greatest lover of all...
This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. John 15:12-13

And no I would not scold Jesus if He wrote on this blog, how could I disapprove the only "good person" that ever walked on this Earth!?

It's obvious you're still stuck on the "infallible interpretation" topic - probably one of the main reasons you hate the Catholic church. Let me just end this by saying I BY FAR more trust the interpretation of the Scripture done by the Early Church Fathers and the popes over the past 2000 years than your personal interpretaion of the Scripture.

Peace out brother.

Javier said...

Dear Javier,

I did neither attack Dr. Mohler nor WOTM in an appropriate way over the internet. I debated them.

Whenever you bring your personal convictions or opinions into the public forum you make them subject to full scrutiny. - This is how a republic works.
If you don't want your religious convictions to be debated then keep them out of the public forum and within the private realm.


Of course what I've said is exactly what you confirmed. You're point is to create a polemic against Way Of The Master and Al Mohler, which is why I dragged you into the discussion.

Secondly, you were not someone innocently posting on the blog, you're actively campaigning against WOTM. Like you said, to debate. Sadly, we've been knocked off the path by a culturally conditioned Catholic.

Of course you haven't answered my initial questions on utitilitarianism, and how a 'greater good' can be defined when a 'lesser good' is unknown. For that matter, what is good anyway? Can you demonstrate how your worldview can sustain this position?

Furthermore, I'm sure you would agree that I didn't name call anyone. What I said is true if I accept the scriptures, I'm not advocating death, or execution of non-Christian homosexuals I'm only pointing out what the scripture says when it speaks of those who are pagan.

Wow, I think when most people read about the life of Jesus, the adjective to describe Him certainly wouldn't be "unloving". I believe He was the greatest lover of all...
This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. John 15:12-13


Melissa,
Have you read how Jesus spoke to the pharisees when they approached him and questioned him? In their incessant questions and ad homs Christ responded appropriately. He called them fools, hypocrties, liars and white washed tombs. Do you seriously think that Jesus was acting unbiblically?

Melissa, I'm concerned for your soul. But I'm also concerned that what could have turned into an apologetic dialogue has turned into a counter debate about how 'charitable' I am. You have made this conversation quite the stumbling block.

Melissa Spence said...

@ Javier

"Have you read how Jesus spoke to the pharisees when they approached him and questioned him? In their incessant questions and ad homs Christ responded appropriately. He called them fools, hypocrties, liars and white washed tombs. Do you seriously think that Jesus was acting unbiblically"

No, once again I have no right to judge how Jesus acted. And it wasn't my intent to paint this picture that Jesus was "lovey-dovey". I'm aware He was firm in certain aspects. But what does that have to do with you saying boastful, all-knowing offensive things?

"But I'm also concerned that what could have turned into an apologetic dialogue has turned into a counter debate about how 'charitable' I am."

Can you seriously not see that "your way" of apologetic dialogue is not constructive? I have yet to see a person you've talked down to thank you for your comment or mention that you really made them think.

"What I said is true if I accept the scriptures, I'm not advocating death, or execution of non-Christian homosexuals I'm only pointing out what the scripture says when it speaks of those who are pagan."

Come on, then why say it in your own words first, offend the person, and then back up your rudeness with "What I said is true if I accept the scriptures". Next time maybe you should just keep quiet and just refer the person to the specific Scripture verses.

I felt it necessary to stumble on your dialogue here, so at least it's present to other non-believer commenters that there are other Christians out there willing to have an apologetic dialogue in an understanding, respectful, and mature way.

Melissa Spence said...

P.S. Javier, you seem to point out to Germanmike that he has yet to answer some of your questions. Well there were a few questions still unanswered by you that Amontoya and I both asked you on the previous post we had a dialogue through. I'd like to hear them.

Javier said...

It's obvious you're still stuck on the "infallible interpretation" topic - probably one of the main reasons you hate the Catholic church.

Its obvious you don't consider the practicality of the doctrines set forth by your 'infallible' Church.

Let me just end this by saying I BY FAR more trust the interpretation of the Scripture done by the Early Church Fathers and the popes over the past 2000 years than your personal interpretaion of the Scripture.

Do you trust Origens teaching of universalism?
How about Ireneaus teaching that Jesus was fifty when he died?
or perhaps you'll follow the great Tertullian who eventually became a heretic, a Montanist.

So how much do you trust of what they teach? Oh, right, what Rome says. I'm not stuck on any 'infallible' Church, you are. Which is why you flounder around as if it gives you any security, in fact it causes a whole new score of problems.

No, once again I have no right to judge how Jesus acted. And it wasn't my intent to paint this picture that Jesus was "lovey-dovey". I'm aware He was firm in certain aspects. But what does that have to do with you saying boastful, all-knowing offensive things?

I don't care about offense, I care about the Gospel and its defense. If you're offended by what I say, its only because you're not consistent in your 'Christianity' and do not embrace the totaliy of the Christian worldview. Secondly, if you are going to say that Jesus was 'firm' and that we shouldn't be 'firm' like Jesus was 'firm' then on what basis do you argue that we should be 'less firm' as Jesus was? Afterall, why pick and choose? It would seem you play cafeteria with the text. If I'm loving like Jesus, then I should be 'firm' like Jesus when its necessary. Considering that German Mike has created a blog that is for the purpose of offering a polemic I'm not going to pansy around and say 'Well...[insernt any post-modern pop-apologetic you can muster here].' That is, its necessary to be 'firm' when you are being attacked. And indeed as German Mike has already admitted his blog is for that very purpose.

Can you seriously not see that "your way" of apologetic dialogue is not constructive?

Can you seriously not see that you've destroyed this blog post and turned it into a debate over your post-modern culture vs my Biblical worldview? The concern you have for your pride over the concern for the lost is easily seen.
I have yet to see a person you've talked down to thank you for your comment or mention that you really made them think.

I haven't written much so I'm not surprised.

Come on, then why say it in your own words first, offend the person, and then back up your rudeness with "What I said is true if I accept the scriptures". Next time maybe you should just keep quiet and just refer the person to the specific Scripture verses.

Melissa, all of what I said was taken from the scripture. You obviously have a problem with the scripture.

I felt it necessary to stumble on your dialogue here, so at least it's present to other non-believer commenters that there are other Christians out there willing to have an apologetic dialogue in an understanding, respectful, and mature way.

The fact is, Melissa not only is the worldview of German Mike not true, but Biblically foolish. If you have a problem with using words such as these with unbelievers, or using tactics that would cause the unbeliever to understand that his sophistry and incessant mockery of God's Gospel will not be tolerated then you should consider your commitment to His scripture.

Melissa Spence said...

@ Javier.

I guess since we have a difference in interpretation of the Scriptures, it's not surprising we differ in defining words. LOL

Firm does not mean the same as Offensive or Rude. When I said Jesus was Firm I define that to mean He was solid, steadfast and unwavering. Also none of those adjectives mean Offensive or Rude. You definitely need to take yourself off that high horse and commend yourself for being "Christ-like" in EVERYTHING you write and say. Stop trying to turn this around by saying I am against Scripture because I am against some of the things you say and the offensive, rudeness of your demeanor. I understand, it's much easier to point the finger and the blame elsewhere - but it doesn't make it right.

I wouldn't mind to hear from German mike again to see if he withdrew from this dialogue because of my interruption or because of the way you hold your apologetic dialogue. My apologies to German mike if I high-jacked your "constructive" apologetic dialogue with Javier!

Javier said...

I guess since we have a difference in interpretation of the Scriptures, it's not surprising we differ in defining words. LOL

No, it doesn't follow. We don't share our understanding of the scriptures because of your assumption of the Roman magisterium. Unlike your God, mine speaks clearly. Secondly, I defined love, its a correcting disposition that is ultimately sacrificial. Christ corrected men and women in love, even when he used harsh language. So did Peter, and the Apostles. They weren't post-modern Americans. In fact, so did the Church Fathers, and the Reformers.

Firm does not mean the same as Offensive or Rude.

I never said it did. But perhaps you'd like to present the Gospel to German Mike? Tell me Melissa, how does one present the Gospel from a Romanist perspective?
When I said Jesus was Firm I define that to mean He was solid, steadfast and unwavering. Also none of those adjectives mean Offensive or Rude.

I agree. Now tell me, when I act as Jesus did in response to people who mock his Gospel and actively campaign against His people, am I being 'offensive' or 'rude'?

You definitely need to take yourself off that high horse and commend yourself for being "Christ-like" in EVERYTHING you write and say. Stop trying to turn this around by saying I am against Scripture because I am against some of the things you say and the offensive, rudeness of your demeanor.

No ma'am. The fact remains:
Germanmike posts mocking comments on this blog, and actively posts responses to The Way of The Master. In the same manner, when the Pharisees approached Christ and asked questions in order to corner Him, or argued with Him to try to disprove Him, He responded appropriately (Matt 23). You may perhaps object to this debate/apologetic tactic, however; Christ used it. Apparently you are more wise than He is.


I wouldn't mind to hear from German mike again to see if he withdrew from this dialogue because of my interruption or because of the way you hold your apologetic dialogue. My apologies to German mike if I high-jacked your "constructive" apologetic dialogue with Javier!

I thought that was apparent.

Melissa Spence said...

"I agree. Now tell me, when I act as Jesus did in response to people who mock his Gospel and actively campaign against His people, am I being 'offensive' or 'rude'?"

In who's opinion are you "acting as Jesus did in response to people who mock His Gospel"...in your own opinion?

Are you Jesus, Javier? You're constantly saying in your posts "I'm concerned for your soul..." It's ever so hard to hear any genuineness in those words because your disposition (especially when taken with your blog) makes you appear as someone more concerned with lordliness than with saving souls. Maybe it's best you get back to sharing the Truth rather than playing Mr. Policeman and "responding appropriately" to those that mock this blog and WOTM. Quite frankly I see your responses back to them being the same, mockery and not a constructive way to share the Truth. Lastly, if Trish or Ray were ever offended by mocking done by German Mike or other Atheist - why approve their comments to their blogs? Here's some food for thought...

"Has someone offended you? Be merciful to him, then; do not hate him. Weep and lament for him, but do not show aversion. For it is not you who have offended God, but he; you will do well to put up with it.

Recall how Christ was content to be crucified— and yet shed tears over those who did it. That must be your disposition also: the more you are wronged, the more you must lament for the wrongdoers. For it is we who profit from this— and greatly— but not they."
St. John Chrysostom

Javier said...

In who's opinion are you "acting as Jesus did in response to people who mock His Gospel"...in your own opinion?

Read Matthew 23.

Are you Jesus, Javier? You're constantly saying in your posts "I'm concerned for your soul..." It's ever so hard to hear any genuineness in those words because your disposition (especially when taken with your blog) makes you appear as someone more concerned with lordliness than with saving souls.

Firstly,I am concerned for your soul. Secondly my blog is irrelevant. If you would read it more clearly its gearded towards a satirical view of Evangelicalism and not Rome, although there are things I've written against Rome as well because of its absurdities. But all of this is irrelevant.

I've responded appropriately to the atheist. You've responded to my response because of my initial attitude calling it 'offensive' and 'rude'. I've yet to see the source of your ethical assumptions. You can cite scripture, but the scriptures you cite are based upon an assumed standard and you cite them at the expense of others which clearly go against a Melissa Spence view of how one is to treat a pagan.

Also, Jesus did this to the Pharisees and he was much more harsh in his treatment of the Pharisees. Now, if Melissa Spence wants to follow Christ she should follow Christ in his zeal for the truth against scoffers and mockers and not attempt to pass off her false piety as some sort of Christ like character. If Melissa wants to demand I be Christ like in my compassion for people who are lost, then she should not pick and choose when I can and cannot act like Christ. On what basis did Melissa determine when I can and cannot act as Christ did? You are also unable to even attempt argue against my consistency in acting as Christ did when confronted with people who reject His truth and hate His gospel.

Maybe it's best you get back to sharing the Truth rather than playing Mr. Policeman and "responding appropriately" to those that mock this blog and WOTM.

Actually, you are the policeman. Afterall this conversation would not have happened were it not for the post-modern Roman Catholic attempting to impose her flawed understandings of what the scripture teaches regarding 'love' and how to confront the unbeliever.

Quite frankly I see your responses back to them being the same, mockery and not a constructive way to share the Truth.

It seems that I can say nothing to please you, there will always be something to argue about. Are you sure, I'm the one who is the policeman?

Lastly, if Trish or Ray were ever offended by mocking done by German Mike or other Atheist - why approve their comments to their blogs? Here's some food for thought...

What if Trish likes publicity? Good or bad? There is nothing inherently wrong in her allowing the comments to be published, what is inherently wrong is the unbelievers continued supression of the truth in unrighteousness. His hatred for the Gospel, and His mockery of His Gospel.

Melissa Spence said...

Javier, Read Matthew 23, still does not answer my question. Why do you keep repeating my name in your last comment and speaking of me in the 3rd person?

How can I argue how Christ acted? I wasn't present or alive at the time. Sure I can read words and interperet them in different tones. That is irrelevant.

Please stop labeling me as a post-modern Catholic (I am neither hostile nor do I hold any resentment & rejection of the authority of my Church), haven't you gotten the message that "tagging" people is rude? My 4 year old daughter just got in serious trouble for name calling today - it's immature although expected from a child, not an adult.

My understandings of the Scripture are not flawed they just oppose your understandings, and on what authority do you base your understandings to be correct over mine?

Javier said...

Javier, Read Matthew 23, still does not answer my question. Why do you keep repeating my name in your last comment and speaking of me in the 3rd person?

Oh, you know Melissa, because I'm so high and lofty and think of myself so much better. Because, I'm amazing and like to talk down to people. Thats really why.

The fact is you can't answer my response because my response is Biblical.

How can I argue how Christ acted? I wasn't present or alive at the time. Sure I can read words and interperet them in different tones. That is irrelevant.

Then you can know nothing of Christ and his actions and cannot cite scripture in support of your position that we are to only be 'kind' and 'gentle' to non-Christians. You refute yourself.

Lets take this further, since you cannot know what Christ said, then you cannot know you are a Christian. You cannot know Jesus died, rose again or is coming back. How then is it that you can call yourself a Christian at all?

Please stop labeling me as a post-modern Catholic (I am neither hostile nor do I hold any resentment & rejection of the authority of my Church), haven't you gotten the message that "tagging" people is rude? My 4 year old daughter just got in serious trouble for name calling today - it's immature although expected from a child, not an adult.

Name calling is invalid if its not true. You are truely a post-modern Roman Catholic, therefore its true to call you one. German Mike is also an unbeliever its right to call him one.

My understandings of the Scripture are not flawed they just oppose your understandings, and on what authority do you base your understandings to be correct over mine?

Ah, now we see. Lurking in the shadows of this whole conversation is the imaginary authority of the Roman Magisterium, its quite easy to demonstrate how a Romanist exalts Rome before scripture. My understandings are correct because God is not a fool and has revealed himself clearly. Thats why.

Melissa Spence said...

Where does Jesus teach name calling to be valid if true?! Boy you have an excuse for everything.

I am a Christian because I profess Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I believe in His teachings, and I belong to a religion that bases their teachings from Christ. I am a Christian because I always try to exemplify the teachings of Christ, exhibiting a spirit that is decent, respectable, humane...to be Christ-like to me means to be more compassionate; more caring; more willing to serve others and more able to love the unlovely. Javier, what sort of Christian do you claim to be? What sort of person does God want us to be? Do you want a Scripture answer for this question...well here you go:

1 Corinthians 13:12-13 "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love."

The greatest is love Javier, a charitable love, not doing great spiritual things. In fact Jesus condemned people who did spiritual things at the expense of showing love to others...read Mat 7:21. Jesus has a special heart for the poor of spirit...read Mat 5:1-10. It seems to me that Jesus was compassionate, forgiving and serving and we are all called to be like that.

"My understandings are correct because God is not a fool and has revealed himself clearly."
Huh...I feel the same way - so therefore I must be correct. :-)

P.S. Trish, do you want to help end this ongoing debate and give Javier and I your thoughts on how you know you are a Christian and what it means to be Christ-like?

GermanMike said...

Dear javier,

It took me some time since I've been busy lately to write the response.
You can find the answer as the most recent article on my blog.
It is kind of lengthy and therefor I don't wanted to post it here. (And furthermore I want to be able to refer to it again when I'm asked about it again - that's also the reason why I have an article on my atheism online)

Javier said...

Where does Jesus teach name calling to be valid if true?! Boy you have an excuse for everything.

I already demonstrated the Biblical basis for calling out unbelievers who mock the Gospel. It seems you have a problem that I used terms such as 'fool, God-hater, and truth supresser' all of these terms are used of unbelievers. Jesus used them, Paul used them. Now again, if you can demonstrate how you pick and choose the 'positive' qualities of Jesus and demand that I conform to His example all while denying the necessity of consistency and denying me the ability to be act as Christ did when approached by unbelieving scoffers, please do so.

You can't have it both ways Melissa, either you demand I be Christ like in toto, or demonstrate what standard you use to demonstrate how I can act. This standard is ultimately a useless cultural concoction that you refuse to admit you submit yourself too. Ultimately your authority is Rome and you are as inconsistent read Vatican II and its ecumenism and read Vatican I or the decrees of the Council of Trent. They are hardly consistent.

I am a Christian because I profess Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I believe in His teachings, and I belong to a religion that bases their teachings from Christ.

Wrong. Your religion bases its teachings on the Bishop of Rome and his fantastical claims as the Vicar of Christ all of which are baseless unfounded assertions.
I am a Christian because I always try to exemplify the teachings of Christ, exhibiting a spirit that is decent, respectable, humane...to be Christ-like to me means to be more compassionate; more caring; more willing to serve others and more able to love the unlovely.

Muslims, Mormons, Jehovas Witnesses all exhibit the same character, by this standard they are also Christians and Christ-like. Which is why its false.

The difference in our view comes from our understanding of God, He's not a therapist He's a King. Repent and trust in Christ alone for salvation Melissa.

Javier, what sort of Christian do you claim to be? What sort of person does God want us to be?

I am a Christian with a zeal to defend and proclaim His gospel. A justified sinner by faith alone, not works and have no mediator but Christ. I don't pray to Mary, and don't believe in purgatory. My God justifies the wicked by faith alone and He deserves all honor and glory.

God wants us to believe and obey His Gospel.
Do you want a Scripture answer for this question...well here you go:

1 Corinthians 13:12-13 "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love."


All of this irrelevant. Considering we're talking about dealing with a specific type of unbeliever and not the different functions of the body of Christ, or our gifts. And considering the fact that I think yourself, and German Mike are outside the body its irrelevant to cite.

The greatest is love Javier, a charitable love, not doing great spiritual things. In fact Jesus condemned people who did spiritual things at the expense of showing love to others...read Mat 7:21.

All of this is, again, irrelevant. Sadly you refuse to remain on topic, you have yet to demonstrate:

-An external standard by which to judge my actions or sayings.
-A Biblical standard that is binding on me that doesn't disqualify you demand my actions be 'Christ-like'in the 'positive' sense.
-The justification of how you can know what the scriptures you cite say, given the fact that Rome hasn't infallibly defined them, reducing your position to mere opinion and an inability to understand God-breathed scripture.

Until you answer these arguments you are refuted.


Jesus has a special heart for the poor of spirit...read Mat 5:1-10. It seems to me that Jesus was compassionate, forgiving and serving and we are all called to be like that.

Jesus also called people 'fools, liars and hypocrites' you must have ripped that piece out of your Bible.

"My understandings are correct because God is not a fool and has revealed himself clearly."
Huh...I feel the same way - so therefore I must be correct. :-)


Given that you have ripped out parts of Matthew, yes it is possibly correct.

Melissa Spence said...

Javier you didn't just name call with German mike, but with me as well. Your name calling with me isn't factual...but since this is an open forum if you continue to do so at least put the words "In my opinion you're a...". Otherwise once again you prove my point that you say things like you are "all-knowing"...and frankly, you are not.

"Wrong. Your religion bases its teachings on the Bishop of Rome and his fantastical claims as the Vicar of Christ all of which are baseless unfounded assertions."

Wow still spreading misconceptions and misunderstandings of the Catholic faith huh? You may want to actually learn what Catholicism teaches before you go on these boards saying what we believe. All things taught in the Church are backed by Scripture and before the Word was compiled into the Bible it was backed by Orally. Amontoya and I have already given you all the verses. Ya I know you believe in Sola Scriptura and one of your arguements is Purgatory is not mentioned in the Bible, the exact word is not but it is certainly implied in Scripture - just like the word Trinity is never mentioned, it's certainly implied. You don't pray to Mary...great neither do Catholics, we certainly give her reverent homage, shame on you for not (in my opinion).

"I am a Christian with a zeal to defend and proclaim His gospel."

Zeal, interesting way to describe your demeanor (you're definitely passionate about pointing out to people that they are fools or God-haters, I'll give you that)...my BIL (who works at WOTM) used to have that same zeal or rather in my opinion a hostile-offensive shouting if you will. You helped bring back a memory of a conversation he had with one of his other brothers (not my husband) who is also Catholic. He claimed this "zeal" of defending and proclaiming was done in a way because he wanted to shout at these people who were walking right off a cliff. So the other brother replied, "well have you ever thought your shouting may possibly scare that person right off that cliff, or offend them so much they go running for the cliff instead of listening and coming back to you to hear the Truth?". That conversation took place approx. 10 years ago and my BIL was close in age to you at the time - thankfully he's grown, learned and changed that hostile-offensive zeal into mature-respectful zeal. I pray that happens with you.

All this time I've been trying to give you constructive criticism on "your tactics" when I seem to have forgotten that not all people are brought up by families, professors, bosses, or pastors that give them constructive criticism. It's unfortunate because I believe it is such a great learning experience and gives us something to grow on. For example I was an Art/Architecture major in college - my professors were always critiquing my pieces of work...and if I was not "demonstrating or communicating" the assignment well, I was told how I could've done it better next time. Sometimes it was hard to not get defensive, cause I did, it was my work that I put "zeal/passion" into if you will...but I knew if I wanted to grow I better take their advice into consideration. Obviously I'm of no relation to you, or a teacher or boss of yours...but I am a sister in Christ.

I'm concluding my dialogue with you. I've spent an abundance of time on it and it seems to be going no where. Maybe this last post will strike a chord. Thanks Trish for providing this blog/forum in which we can have these dialogues.

Melissa

Javier said...

Melissa,
For what its worth, I responded on my blog. Click on my profile.

GermanMike said...

So Javier, did you loose your interest in secular ethics?
I just wonder because there came no comment after I told you that I gave you the answer on my blog.

best wished

Michael