What will Jesus do with the churchians?
Here's another nice note I got from a churchian blog:
I’ve deleted your latest post. You aren’t permitted to post at Tria[whateverthefuck] any longer. You were banned in the past, and you recently started posting again. I told you, in my last reply, to find somewhere else to post. You're banned.
Here's my response:
OK, churchian. Say hi to the devil next time he visits your ass. God you churchians are creeps.
Why are these churchian boys such creeps? I committed the crime this time of not mocking Sarah Palin as she must be mocked at all times on little Christian boy's club blogs. You know, because she doesn't have a penis, like their pastor.
36 Comments:
Any time I'm in a churchian environment I'm testing their limits. Their limits are basically the same limits of your central casting Aunt Erma who is thinking about what kind of finger foods she needs to have on hand for the visit from her book club companions. This month they are reading: Louisa May Alcott's Miss Farmington's Marriage. They were briefly scandalized that Miss Farmington was allowed to be alone with her pastor, who has a penis. But it turned out OK. They continued on. They're a degree more wary of Miss Alcott now, but they'll continue on.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Watch your language. Anyway, what did you write that inspired Hays' attack?
Granted, he is abusive and silly, as I commented elsewhere. Yet what interests me here is you:
Is there a church anywhere that you don't consider "churchian?"
Like most church Christians the Triablogue crew don't have much of an understanding of politics or how the devil operates in politics.
They were saying things about Sarah Palin that were just frankly ignorant. Saying her dumb 'followers' were going to get Obama reelected by taking votes away from the Republican candidate. I said if you think Palin would run on a third party ticket you don't understand anything about her. But basically they are intimidated by women, as all church boys are. Being a man-fearer also includes being intimidated by women.
Hays didn't seem involved, but he's a bit autistic anyway, so he usually sits on the sidelines thinking in logical formulas.
On churches and churchians...
This doesn't say all of it, but this article gets at a lot of what I discern regarding 'church':
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/069b-TheChurch.pdf
Nothing more worldly than a church. The man fearing (the demand to be a man fearer, the policing of the environment to maintain man fearing) the respecting of persons, the overall shallowness. The one thing they're suppose to do they don't do, proclaim the actual word of God, word for word. They can't even recognize the pure and whole word of God, let alone get up enough enthusiasm to proclaim it. It's just all shallow emptiness. Formality. Worse, actually.
Every real Christian knows, the world rejects you. So Christians are actually these individuals - pilgrims, strangers, in the world not of the world - that couldn't influence or even sit beside churchians if they tried. The devil knows when a regenerated individual is in the environment. Then the old hatred Cain had for Abel appears.
Each era of God's plan of redemption calls for different things regarding 'church'. In this era churches are shallow and worse. They are worldly dens where the devil has full control. No real Christian walks through the doors.
I get it. You don't like organized religion. Still, I don't see an answer to my question:
Is there a church anywhere that you don't consider "churchian?"
By "a church," I mean something with a name like First Baptist, Grace Presbyterian, or some such.
Let's deal with this before the Sarah Palin thing. (She goes to church. Assemblies of God, I believe.)
"Being a man-fearer also includes being intimidated by women."
So our "Puritan" is a she?
>Is there a church anywhere that you don't consider "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.
With this in mind there's a man from Arkansas who spends his time on satellite and internet or by recording or any other way actually reading through each book of the Bible, word for word, not caring if he's boring any potential audience. That is not a churchian. He happens to have strange doctrine, but it's not without its usefulness, if it's not exactly Federal Theology.
Now, the churchians will mock this person all day and all night (when they aren't sucking their thumbs), but look what he does: he sends out the call that is potentially effectual. The living word of God. What do churchians do? Ritual. Listen to a blowhard, shallow pastor telling them things that even if substantive they could get better from actual study from a book.
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.
Churchians sit around in 'family centers' on the lookout for any strangers they can mock or kick out if they try to enter. (Those would be Christians.) In this era Christians don't walk through their doors though. Christians know better.
The she is Palin.
As expected, you condemn all institutional churches. You cannot accept that even the best are mixed congregations, run by fallible humans. You would reject Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin if they were here.
(In a way, you are like Steve Hays, who sees being a confessional church member as equivalent to popery. Unlike you, he actually attends on Sunday, even though his attachments are nominal. At least he has them.)
BTW, there are situations where every church in town fails to uphold the minimal well-being of a true congregation. Then being stuck at home on Sunday is beyond the faithful Christian's control. Yet I am pretty certain this is not your problem.
In your mind, every pastor is a shallow blowhard, every member is a thumb-sucker, and every ordinance is ritualism. This attitude is clearly unbiblical.
P.S. Is Arnold Murray of Shepherd's Chapel your hero in Arkansas? He is a unitarian!
>P.S. Is Arnold Murray of Shepherd's Chapel your hero in Arkansas? He is a unitarian!
I'm a Calvinist. Murray would have me horse-whipped.
Yet what did I say? You church boys will mock someone like that all day and night (if your mothers let you stay up at night), yet he is doing the real work of sending out the call that is potentially effective. The living word of God. Not sermons. Not endless doctrinal debate (always learning, never coming to understanding of the truth), but the actual word of God.
How many Calvinists were hooked by the word proclaimed by a Murray type? Actually how many regenerate Calvinists are there? Few, most likely, yet of the regenerate Reformed how many heard the call of the word of God from a non-Reformed source? Many if not most. But their too stupid to factor this in to it all.
Humble your vain, inane, delinquent, juvenile, pathetic selves to the word of God and actually proclaim it.
On your other point... Certainly I wouldn't be in a Lutheran church. Zwingli caved in to politics and Calvin was someone to learn from, but not put myself 'under the care of', as the churchians say. I'm under the care of the Triune God, and in the Church of which Christ is King. Any appeal you make to come under the authority of man is a Romanist Beast appeal. Get thee behind me Satan. We'll deal with you all when the time comes.
This comment has been removed by the author.
So is Murray the guy in Arkansas or not?
Who else is on satellite, read the Bible word-for-word, comes out of Arkansas. I don't know of anybody else. Do you?
Again, mock away. There will be mockers in the end times. That old hick just reads the Bible. EVEN LEVITICUS!! HA! HA!
Where did I first hear the word of God at length? From an old hick from Arkansas. If I was in your church I'd have heard some half-gay, liberal (pretending to not be liberal) seminary graduate thinking getting through See it and Say it in Biblical Greek, Pt. 1 makes him a 'bible expert' and if his comrades put their hands on him he is 'dutifully ordained' and can now demand respect from the 'lay people' or...he has the power to bring fire down upon them, I guess, or just go into the back room and masturbate in anger. Men of God.
What regenerates, churchians? Man and ritual, or the word and the Spirit? Don't know? Try the latter. Just give it a try.
Do you follow that "hick" televangelist into unitarianism, British Israelism and Serpent Seedism?
>Do you follow that "hick" televangelist into unitarianism, British Israelism and Serpent Seedism?
You're being dishonest. You've read what I wrote. I'm a Calvinist. What about that don't you understand? Nothing about it. You just want to default to dishonesty. You don't want to openly mock because I've said you will do that, so you've opted for dishonesty. Basically, churchian, you've exposed yourself as the common creep you churchians are.
And for the record Murray isn't a 'unitarian' (one of your offspring, by the way). He just doesn't have patience for splitting hairs on descriptions of the Trinity. He uses one analogy and he gets from the mockers: "Oh, my God! He's a modalist!" He uses another analogy and steps on another land mine. He doesn't give a fuck after that point.
He's not British Israelite either. You don't even know what that is, so you couldn't know why Murray isn't that. This is territory where a Christian needs discernment that comes from the Holy Spirit. You only have mocking that comes from the devil.
Let's see, what was your other accusation...? Serpent Seedism... I really don't know what that is other than to say there are wheat and tares, children of God and children of the devil. Yes, I know, your church doesn't teach that all aren't children of God. No, we are children of the devil. We have to be *adopted* into God's family.
What you churchians really hate about a hick from Arkansas like Murray is he proclaims the actual word of God. He shows you up. Or he just does what you disdain to do, or what you think is 'evil.' Romanism is not just limited to a church in Rome.
Again, just because I don't want to let you churchians off the hook: who gave birth to Unitarianism? That's right, self-identified Calvinists just doing their thing and progressing down the road ritualists demands to progress down. All the real Calvinists left your filthy churches before you denied the Trinity.
Now you're denying the Covenant of Works. And justification by faith alone. And you mock others for not having a sophisticated knowledge of apostolic biblical doctrine. You teach your heresy from inside your own seminaries. And still call yourselves Reformed.
I'd rather be a hick who God can trust than a false teacher flying under a false flag with no future other than the pain of hell fire.
Randall, I don't know who you are, but I really have no patience for someone labeling me by the beliefs of another person and calling me their 'follower' when I make very clear what my beliefs are. That is chain-yanking and is part of the game the devil's children play with God's children. Do you really want to take part in it?
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. Regeneration is the main thing, and regeneration if effected, when it is effected, by the word and the Spirit. People gravitate towards on-the-mark doctrine if they become interested in doctrine beyond the basics. A regenerated person who has the Holy Spirit in them will gravitate towards Federal Theology (the real thing), five solas, doctrines of grace, Classcial Covenant - Federal - Theology. No denomination or group has a copyright on it, most all groups get it wrong or wobble on it or veer off if. God's own stay the true and narrow path.
Murray did one thing right: he read the Bible cover-to-cover and didn't care if he bored me. He challenged me to read it myself cover-to-cover, which I did. Going on seven times now. That is a man God will reward. His mockers? Wouldn't want to be in their shoes.
"I really have no patience for someone labeling me..."
Hey, I'm just asking a question. Do you have a similar rant defending Ouspensky?
How about Thucydides, does he scare you too?
Who else scares you?
And why wouldn't I defend someone if they are accused wrongly? In your world that's a crime?
Are you a Calvinist? Haven't you had your share of smears thrown your way, or seen them thrown Calvin's way, and felt like clearing up the matter?
Look how you so easily adopt the role of the accuser, by the way. That is the role of the devil and his children.
Does Plutarch scare you? Homer? How about books on the tactics and strategy of warfare? Economics?
A bit shallow, maybe?
Wait a minute, I'd forgotten that you're a well-known troll, Randall.
Seriously, why Ouspensky?
No offense to you, but the nature of this exchange is interrogation by the shallow church level of a Christian on the King's Highway and the battlefield, and I really don't want to drag anything above the church level through the shallow mud of the pig sty that is the church level. I have no patience for the church level.
I'll give you this: Jesus gave a language in the Gospels that theologians ignore in their shallowness and disdain for anything above the level of ritual and worldliness. The Puritans, especially the Dutch Puritans, but the Puritans in general came closest to understanding this practical level of the faith. There is a world of practical teaching in be watchful and love your enemy. The church level, if they had the political power, would burn anybody who followed Jesus' teaching at the practical level. I have no patience for the church level. To hell with the church level. Shallow and worldly and in willing bondage to the Beast. Most of them practical atheists when you talk to them long enough. They mock any notion of the supernatural like atheists. They are as shallow as atheists. They are as man-fearing and man-revering as atheists. I have no patience for the church level. No regenerate Christian does.
One of the moderators at the PuritanBoard is currently mocking the notion of Christians being pilgrims and strangers in this world. In this world, not of this world. He's basically saying: "Is that kind of like being an alien? Ha, ha..."
He mocks the notion because he's never experienced it. He's always gone with the easy current of the world. Never been against the current. He's never been confronted by the world, the devil, and his own inner fallen nature because he's never been anything but a tame slave in the Kingdom of Satan. He's never been noticeable, and he doesn't want to be noticeable. He wants to blend in, go with the flow. When God regenerates you though (not when man does a ritual on you, but when *God* regenerates you) you can't help but be conspicuous to the world and the devil. And your inner fallen nature fights you because there is a new presence it has to deal with called the Holy Spirit.
It's all called spiritual warfare and the progressive type of sanctification (which does not involve ritual). Two things modern day systematic theologians don't even want to think exist. To take those things seriously you have to be one of those scary, strange types that only depress and anger the churchians and their world...
CT, at first I thought Steve Hays was just being a jerk. Now I realize you have history going back several years. Unfortunately, Hays deleted comments like crazy, making old conversations (like this one) unreadable. Yet he's correct when he points out you're trapped in "an essentially Eastern philosophy and hermeneutical grid."
While glancing at the content on your turf, I can tell you're a prisoner of foreign religious ideals. You've been led to believe you're a "Work Christian," off on some super-spiritual level that makes you more elightened than other people.
Sadly, that means you're not really a Puritan. And that's a pity. You're imprisoned in Ouspensky's rules and theories.
Thanks to all that baggage, you misread some of the more pietistic or speculative Calvinists. You take a shallow (yes, I said shallow) read of what they say about self-denial, introspection and living as a pilgrim. You merge it together with superstition. Since you think you have special knowledge, you complain that everyone else is worldly, shallow and worse.
The Puritans would tell you to be baptized and go to Church on Sunday. (What do you think all those great writers did for a living? They preached in church!) These men would tell you to destroy your occult books and stop reading them. So would Berkhof, Kline, Dathenus, Owen, and Goldman.
Are you willing to take the next step, CT? Are you willing to show that you're not just an escapist? Isn't it time to move forward, tear down the heathen groves of the bookshelf, and look for a good church? Repent and be baptized.
You're all over the board confused, and quite ignorant of what you've been googling and wikipedia-ing.
The link you highlighted with the words 'like this one' is not a link to a conservation I had any part of. The quote is not of me, Hays was engaging someone else. Basically that link has nothing to do with me. The link you highlight with the word 'correct' can't be understood without the posts that moved Hays to make that separate post. It was most likely nothing more than me taking to task the usual juvenile notion that seminary Calvinists learn summed up in "Flesh is cool!" Followed by the seminary Calvinist lauding his easy chair, a cigar (which he probably doesn't have) and a glass of some kind of alcohol he's read of, because he probably doesn't even like the taste of alcohol. Maybe even a reference to Chesterton follows. (Then hopefully not the converstion to Rome.) It's not a conservation I can repeat here giving the necessary caveats to keep your mind from kneejerking to the usual boilerplate responses that don't apply.
What you're going to have to do is quote something I've written to demonstrate this being "trapped in an essentially Eastern philosophy and hermeneutical grid." Quote this blog, or anything else.
And this: "You've been led to believe you're a "Work Christian," off on some super-spiritual level that makes you more elightened than other people."
This is just a playground insult. A shout out of the doors of a church. "You just think you're better than us!" Maybe I smell death coming out of those doors.
>Sadly, that means you're not really a Puritan. And that's a pity. You're imprisoned in Ouspensky's rules and theories.
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' notioned of defensive warfare and is that hamstringing me as a Christian? Seriously, write something down.
>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.
>You take a shallow (yes, I said shallow) read of what they say about self-denial, introspection and living as a pilgrim.
How so? I mean, really, how do I do that? Do you even know? You don't know me nor have you read me all that much. You are jumping into this and making pronouncement. Give me something I can respond to. Quote me on this subject.
>You merge it together with superstition.
Really? Superstition? How are you defining superstition? Do I worship false idols? Do I wear garlic around my neck? Is superstition really the word you want to you? Are you really not just flailing around?
>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.
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 the 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.
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.
Guy in a cave: "See you got some 'special knowledge' there, eh Fred? Think you're better than us?"
Fred, in the next door cave: "It's a commentary on the Bible."
Guy in a cave: "We don't got no commentary. We got the Bible. We don't need no special knowledge."
Fred: "Also, I've got this one here... Institutes of the Christian Religion."
Guy in a cave: "More special knowledge, eh? You admit it? Think you're better than us?"
Fred: "Oh, look at this one: Christian in Complete Armour.
Guy in a cave: "You're just shameless over there with your library of special knowledge, ain't ya, Fred?"
Let's make it easy: One man's special knowledge is another man's Bible commentary.
Now let's judge of the worth of the Bible commentary. That requires discernment. And not fearing man. Man tells you this and that, you have to say, wait a minutes, I fear God alone. I don't care what man says. I'll judge this Bible commentary by the word of God.
Why is this difficult for the church Christian? Because the church Christian is not only taught to fear man, but is kept in line to do just that.
You can't exercise Spirit-enabled discernment if you fear man.
"There is also knowledge that is beyond the ordinary. Knowledge (and the practicing in real time of that knowledge) that gives us understanding of ourselves and the world around us. One has to venture into 'occult*' areas (fending off the voices of the world and the devil at every step, including shallow Christians; i.e. voices that attempt to dissuade you from seeking such knowledge). These types of writings (and schools) vary greatly in worth (it goes without saying), and one often has to search through acres of mud to find a nugget of gold (mixed metaphor, sorry). One has to be able to navigate unknown waters with hazards in them. The Spirit of discernment, the Holy Spirit Himself is helpful (needless, again, to say). Basically, one has to fear God alone and not man. This is what leads to wisdom and understanding."
*See Steve Rafalsky at the PuritanBoard on the definition of occult. Then BAN him! It just means hidden, though it can be right under your nose. Turn the Tee Vee off.
Your last paragraph got lost, sorry.
>Are you willing to take the next step, CT?
Sounding a bit cultish.
>Are you willing to show that you're not just an escapist?
Sounds like a pitch I received in the parking lot of a College I was attending when I was 18. She had handouts even.
>Isn't it time to move forward, tear down the heathen groves of the bookshelf, and look for a good church? Repent and be baptized.
Whoo! That's a relief! I thought you were recruiting for a cult for a moment there. OK, what's your church? Oh, you say it doesn't matter? You say repent and be baptized. I've already repented, and I've been baptized by the Holy Spirit. You've got something else in mind? What is a 'good' church? Do they use the Received Text? No? They mock it? That is part of the 'good' of a 'good church?' I'm learning!! So, this 'good church'... Do they follow a confession? Yes? Which one? The Westminster Confession of Faith? Good, I hate the Pope too! Oh, they took that out? Why? It's not 'good'? Follow the confession except where you change it every generation? Oh, but you say you're not perfect? That's reasonable. The Word of God is perfect, though, right? Yes? Why do you change that too then? Scholars say? What scholars? Most of those scholars by their own admission are atheists. You knew that? Yet they are your authority? I don't understand. That's pretty basic not to use atheists as your authority on something as foundational as the word of God. Yet you do. And you are a 'good church'? What else is 'good' about your church?
No, something doesn't smell right about you and your 'good church.'
In fact your 'good church' stinks like death.
Now, the Church of which Christ is King. That is a good church. Regeneration is good too, churchian. It's effected by the word and the Spirit, not by man and ritual. But you know that, don't you churchian? You know it, yet you hate it. You hate the fact of regeneration like Cain hated Abel. You hate real Christians like the filthy devil hates Jesus Christ.
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.
Just to clarify:
i.) I said superstition and I mean superstition. As in "an irrational spiritual discipline or religious practice not based on Scripture." Occult introspection fits as much as saying the rosary or playing with chicken bones.
ii.) Do I really need to demonstrate that God hates the occult? If Gurdjieff is OK, why not Crowley or Evola? How about Kabbalah, Wicca or Dianetics? Maybe those Jesuit teachings on the Enneagram?
>i.) I said superstition and I mean superstition. As in "an irrational spiritual discipline or religious practice not based on Scripture." Occult introspection fits as much as saying the rosary or playing with chicken bones.
Now we're just into your world here. I can't defend myself against every ignorant or dishonest statement you want to make.
I seriously doubt you know of *any* spiritual discipline based on Scripture that doesn't involve crackers and grape juice.
I mean, again, we're into your world here, your level of discernment for such things, and you are a bit shallow, churchian. Not to mention afraid. Fear God only, churchian, it's the beginning of wisdom. Ever pondered that? I know you havn't.
>ii.) Do I really need to demonstrate that God hates the occult?
Wow, you read 'occult' and say, "That's like a scary word and stuff. That's like Satanism and stuff." I used the word specifically to get that reaction from you. Do you think I'd use that word if I had a fear of man? Think about it. I couldn't give a fuck what scares you or how limited you are in discerning things that aren't breakfast cereals or what porn you like to look at.
>If Gurdjieff is OK,
Norman Shepherd or Peter Enns will take you to hell more quickly and more thoroughly than Gurdjieff ever would, and those creeps taught at one of your flagship seminaries for decades. (I mean, really, think about that. This is like talking to a Roman Catholic telling me that Protestants allow gays in the pulpit.)
But for the record, I don't read Gurdjieff. Why would you think I did? Did you google something and get a hit on Gurdjieff? Do you know what you're talking about? No, you don't. You're a shallow churchian. You don't know shit, because you're scared shitless of anything the men you fear want you to be scared shitless of. You fear man. You can't get around that.
Again, learn something. You won't hear this in your church:
You can't exercise Holy Spirit enabled discernment when you fear man.
>why not Crowley or Evola? How about Kabbalah, Wicca or Dianetics? Maybe those Jesuit teachings on the Enneagram?
Why not a good old fashioned inquisition? "Is it not true that you pissed on an icon of Christ?"
Again, we're deep into your shallow little psyche here, aren't we churchian.
Get something straight, churchian shit: I don't fear you, your shit pants finger up the ass of little children pastor, or any of your fellow churchian creeps who suck on the devil and shit on the Bible every day of your filthy, shallow, cowardly lives. I fear God alone. You are appealing to me to come under authority of man. You are no different than a Romanist Beast worshiping piece of shit. Get thee behind me Satan. You understand that? Get thee behind me, Satan. When Jesus returns you'll learn quickly who is and who isn't in the Kingdom of God. You man-fearing shit will be mocking Jesus as his soldiers (myself) are dragging your wicked souls into hell.
http://electofgod.blogspot.com/2011/05/some-highlights-from-exchange-with.html
Post a Comment
<< Home