Some highlights from an exchange with a churchian

All the main reformers had one thing in common: they understood the importance and power of proclaiming the *actual* word of God to people. Not a closed society smug in some church building but to, like, entire cities. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin all specifically mentioned this. They knew this was their number one priority and without it nothing else mattered.

The churchian didn't get the above. Because it has to do with regeneration, which is effected, when it is, by the word and the Spirit. A foundational fact of the faith churchians are blank on.

People just need to hear the living word, it and the Spirit are what regenerates, and regeneration is the main thing. Once regenerated a person will gravitate towards on-the-mark biblical doctrine (if not full, sophisticated doctrine like Calvinist, Reformed doctrine, then certainly the on-the-mark basics), but they will also value it and truly understand it.

The churchian didn't want to interact with that one either. That's boring stuff. Besides, he doesn't understand any of it.

What regenerates, churchians? Man and ritual, or the word and the Spirit? Don't know? Try the latter.

Again, stupid talk from the scary stranger. Always talking about regen-, oh, whatever that word is.

Romanism is not just limited to a church in Rome.

Nope, it isn't. Hatred of the word and the Spirit occurs outside the Roman Beast church too. Churchian guy didn't want to interact on that subject either.

I'd rather be a hick who God can trust than a false teacher [with a fantastic seminary degree] flying under a false flag with no future other than the pain of hell fire.

Yes, the question: can God trust you? It's never asked in churchian environments, but they don't fear God. They fear man. And, no, God can't trust churchians. No matter how many crackers they eat or how much grape juice they gurgle down.

You owe a debt of gratitude to whoever it is that makes the effort to proclaim the actual words of the Old and New Testaments to you.

Yep. And, again, this went by the churchian leaving his consciousness unscathed and blank as usual. He was mocking a hick who read the Bible word for word and in effect made the call that was effectual for me. He doesn't value such an act because he doesn't think regeneration is a 'thing' let alone something effected by the word and the Spirit. He vaguely thinks (and is taught) that ritual regenerates him, but he doesn't even really think in such explicit terms regarding regeneration because it's not really an important thing in his churchian world.

Please write down a rule or a theory of Ouspensky's that I'm imprisoned to. Seriously, otherwise I can't know what you are talking about. Am I also imprisoned to Carl von Clausewitz' notions of defensive warfare and is that hamstringing me as a Christian? Seriously, write something down.

The churchian couldn't do that because he was just googling for cheap shot ammunition. He doesn't know much about anything, other than his favorite TV shows.

>Thanks to all that baggage, you misread some of the more pietistic or speculative Calvinists.

Who would they be? John Calvin? The Dutch Second Reformation Puritans? I'm reminded of R. Scott Clark who got to a point where he denied the very historical *existence* of Puritans so as to be able to not have to deal with them in the realm of Calvinism.

This confused the churchian as well. The irony of listing John Calvin as a "pietistic or speculative Calvinist" didn't crack his immunity to discerning irony. And the anecdote about Clark is not something he knows about nor could understand if he did know about it. Churchians don't know Puritans sought to 'reduce to practice' the faith. He doesn't know what that means either.

>Since you think you have special knowledge, you complain that everyone else is worldly, shallow and worse.

Worldliness in the church I define: I point out the man-fearing, the respecting of persons, the turning of the faith into all things 'family', etc. We can also talk about the worldly values of secular academia informing how churchians see the Bible. A lot of real worldliness going on in the churches. I define it. You? You are throwing empty words around.

I define what I'm talking about. The churchian just makes assertions based on the cheap shot ammunition his gets from google. Then he asks: "I'm doing good, right, pastor? Am I doing good?"

Let's talk about shallowness. What do I actually write along those lines? I talk about history, art, music, imaginative literature, science, religion, philosophy. But that is even a shallow gauge for shallowness. It doesn't take much to get up to speed with what the world has to offer regarding such influences. Shallowness really has its main cause in being in bondage to the fear of man. When you fear God alone you don't fear man. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

So there I give the churchian a very good definition of the cause of shallowness. It doesn't seem to have much effect on him.

And what of this 'special knowledge'? What's wrong with special knowledge? Is it good knowledge? Based on the authority of the word of God, does it measure up? Does it withstand the tribunal of Scripture? Is it necessary? Is is empty? Is it vain? Is it helpful knowledge? Again, quote something.

And here I was trying to get the churchian to ponder this all-purpose (much like the word 'gnostic') term 'special knowledge'. Usually they mean "is God talking to you directly? huh?", but in this case he can't say that, so he just says 'special knowledge.' No, he doesn't know what he's referring to. I'll explain it though, next...

Let's make it easy: One man's special knowledge is another man's Bible commentary.

"Uh, nuh uh." Oh, yes! churchian. One man's special knowledge is another man's Bible commentary. There are different languages and influences and sources for knowledge and understanding of ourselves and the world around us, churchian. Just because you are too shallow to discern between them and use a practical, on-the-mark one doesn't make them non-existent. In this area you are no better than a dim atheist, making demands that conform to your own level of shallowness and lack of development. Yes! I said 'development'! Do you deny degree in development among human beings? Really? You do? No... I can't believe that you would... No...

Your shallowness is not just a passive state you live in either is it, churchian? You *desire* to be shallow. It's like living in darkness. The better to keep your filthy desires and your ungodly hatreds secret.

Another insight that didn't seem to register on the church Christian's radar. Must have had stealth technology attached to it.

>I said superstition and I mean superstition. As in "an irrational spiritual discipline or religious practice not based on Scripture."

I seriously doubt you know of *any* spiritual discipline based on Scripture that doesn't involve crackers and grape juice.

This is a statement rather foundational to this exchange with the churchian. No, it didn't register with him at all. I'm use to it by now.