Since it is my blog, I'll ask the rest of you who suffer through reading my blog to simply ignore Xeno if you cannot offer Xeno friendly advice on self-improvement. Let me demonstrate why this is important.
Here's what I said in a response to him:
I would also caution you about how you handle criticizing a pastor in God's church. Just because some of what Pastor Wilson says is in cahoots with a view of the NT and the Gospel which -- though it may be wrong -- offers a broader definition of "Christian" than you and I may be comfortable with, that doesn't make him worthy of careless scorn. I think I demonstrated what "having a care" is in this post -- and a large part of it is addressing the mistakes and not the man.And I also offered him this bit of Scriptural advice:
1Pet 5:5Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.And all that in reference to how he offers criticism to a person like Doug Wilson -- who I admit I had criticized in the previous post.
6Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:
7Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.
8Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour
To which Xenophon replied:
He's not my elder. I wouldn't be so foolish to be in his church.See: I didn't think anyone actually listened to Harold Camping anymore, but apparently some still do. Anyone who is willing to say what this fellow says here requires spiritual help. If you cannot offer him that help, I'm asking you to simply ignore him or pray for him rather than post to see how high you can escalate his blood pressure and rhetoric.
In fact, in these end times the devil controls the visible churches. My church is the Church of which Christ is King. It becomes visible whenever two or more believers come together.
Don't suffer fools.
Do not suffer fools -- but anyone who calls his brother a fool is in danger of hell fire.
-- EDIT --
BTW -- this is a GREAT lead in to my next update to the "by which you are being saved" series, and I can't wait to finish writing it so you all can read it.
As you undoubtedly noticed, I like comics. I wouldn't call myself a "fan boy" because I don't give a flying FOOM what they are worth. That said, almost all the images on my blog are scanned from comics I own -- so they are scanned from comics I own and are used under what I assume is 
17 comments:
I don't listen to any man, centuriOn, when it comes to discerning the devil in the visible churches. Your Mr. Camping (who seems to be on the radar screen of much more people than anywhere I've ever lived) can speak for himself, whatever he and you are saying.
I follow God and His Word. And whether you and the other sacramentalists like Dougie Wilsom like it or not the Church of which Christ is King exists and is made up of God's elect, in the flesh now or with God now. The visible church appears wherever two or more believers meet in His name.
Sorry to break the news to you, and if it hurts real bad, so be it.
And, centuriOn... You got burned. That's because you affected to rebuke an elect of God on a subject that requires not only the discernment of the Spirit of Truth, but requires boldness. You lack the latter. Your state regarding the former I'll leave between you and God...
And rather than characterizing me as a troll on your blog when I only came here (and posted a rather un-troll-like single comment to one post) after you responded to some comment I made on another blog, why don't you take a deep breath, gather your wits, and rest assured that I won't make any more comments on your blog. It is obvious when a person is very touchy about 'outside influences' writing on their personal territory, and I usually respect that, so... You're safe from my influence...
Mt 12:31Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
One should think about that before he says the devil controls the church.
1Cor 4: 9For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.
10We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.
11Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace;
12And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:
13Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.
14I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
One should think about that because he starts trumpeting his superiority over anyone else.
One should also stop commenting if one is going to stop commenting. Let your "yes" mean "yes" and all that.
As for my boldness, punching someone in the face is not the only way to be bold.
"One should also stop commenting if one is going to stop commenting."
Don't respond.
I'll leave you with this: one of the fundamental points of doctrine the Wilsons of the AA, FV, NPP, rC clownworld need to undermine (they mock it) is the fundamental point of doctrine of the distinction between the invisible and the visible church.
The Church of which Christ is King is not and never will be taken over by the devil. In the end times the DEVIL WILL BE IN THE TEMPLE. Understand that, pilgrim.
This is not absolute. The visible church exists wherever two or more believers gather.
You show deference to fools (your teaching elder Douglas Wilson) and petulance to those who commit the crime of not being a lukewarm, seminary-conformed, man-fearing fool.
Fear God, don't fear man. Fear God, it's the beginning of wisdom.
Xeno....
Uhmmm...what's the best way to say this ?
Not that I disagree with you on the FV,NPP,rC and other folks being flat out wrong, but take a look at your presentation and tone. Do you see yourself anywhere in here ?
There are times to be Isaiah and curse the darkness. There are times to be Daniel and/or Joseph and influence change through relationship.
There are times to be Jesus in John 4 and talk to people relationally (still telling the truth in love). And there are times to be authoratitive (Jesus in John 6). There are also times to call a snake a snake (Jesus in John 8). I pray that the Lord takes the 'edge' off of you (hint: spend time talking to women. If you can learn to come off non-offensive, but still convey the message (uncompromised) you want to get across to them, you'll be better for it). Knowledge without love is dead orthodoxy.
I'll keep you in prayer.
When somebody 'councels' me to show deference to cleric fools like a Doug Wilson it kind of gets me going.
But look at this from Vincent Cheung, he doesn't suffer fools either; notice he's not lukewarm with his theology (Calvinism) either, agree or disagree:
http://www.vincentcheung.com/2005/06/03/seminary-and-elitism-1/
http://www.vincentcheung.com/2005/06/04/seminary-and-elitism-2/
Black Calvinist:
I am sorry to inform you that your web site has been added to my new favorite links. I didn't want to do it, but if I was going to keep Pedantic Protestant there, I had to add you.
If linking to you here garners you any future disrepute, blame it on that schleprock centuri0n.
"hint: spend time talking to women". You kill me.
___________________________________
Xeno:
Let's assume for one minute that there is nothing refutable in the two links to Cheung's web log and that I have to accept his arguments and suggestions in a speechless and much-effaced manner.
Can you demonstrate for me in what way your statement "In fact, in these end times the devil controls the visible churches" fits into anything that Cheung has affirmed on those two pages? I'm just curious how it in some way reproaches Doug Wilson for you to say that "the visible churches" are, with charity for your broad brush, under the control of the devil.
It is interesting that I can offer a clear and certain correction of a blog bite from Wilson without casting fire down from heaven, but you cannot accept challenge the assertion that Wilson is a Pastor and a teacher of the Gospel (flaws in him and all) without casting fire down on the whole visible church.
Is that bold, or is that reckless?
Your comment is a little wacky in syntax and meaning to be able to respond to it very seriously, but...
Drawing a connection between the Cheung posts I linked and my statement about the visible churches and the devil is something you are doing.
For evidence of the devil controlling the visible churches (a) ask God go send the Spirit of Truth into you so you can have discernment of such matters then (b) take a look around at the state of the visible churches today.
And while your at it go back and read what I wrote about the Church of which Christ is King and also how the devil's control in the visible churches is not absolute (wherever two or more believer meet in His name you have a visible 'church').
Call the evidence of the devil's control of the visible churches anecdotal, if you like, I'd advise you to consider that in these end times what you see in the visible churches is just a little bit more 'unbound', if you will...but to each his own ability to discern...
On Wilson,
Look into Auburn Avenue theology and Federal Vision theology. It is not innocent. It is deeply, wickedly, dishonest, and its motivation is to defile Biblical doctrine in the direction of Rome.
Call Wilson a clown, a moron, or a consciously evil defiler of Reformed doctrine, whatever. The fact that he sets himself up as a teacher makes him a legitimate target to the kind of criticism I give him.
My approach to the Wilsons of the current theological scene is this: be who you are, whatever, just don't call yourself Reformed or Calvinist. When you do that you deserve everything you get. They operate from within the tent of Calvinism to get attention and to defile apostolic Biblical doctrine.
This is an old subject, and I suspect you are not as familiar with Wilson's full output and personality and have been charmed by his writings against postmoderism or something.
He's a clown with alot of bad theology, and he pushes that theology in a rather energetic and multi-tasking manner. I make no apologies identifying him and his comrades for what they are.
CenturiOn, for the record, I've read your comments on sites here and there over some time, and I always considered you to be an interesting read. I mean, don't take my brusk style to suggest I think you're an idiot or anything. You're obviously just a bit more deferential to men than I tend to be. I fear God only, I don't fear men or their opinions. I call things as I see them. I may exploit man for teaching, separating the wheat from the chaff, but I only fear God and am only deferential to the Word of God in every way to the utmost degree...
I tend not to care to judge a Doug Wilson by a standard of degree because some people - like the NPP, AA, FV, rC - are wholly dishonest and wholly worthless. They want - demand - that you compromise to such an extent to come to their level that if you do you are very far away from the Gospel of Christ. They are satanic, pure and simple. Not just confused, but wicked, because they seek to teach and to reformulate the most central and important doctrine. They are pure poison. Allow them to tempt you into the darkness if you will, not me. They tend to run from me, anyway... Devils have that quality about them when confronted by an elect of God.
What I’d like to do is to track the discussion by date/time. OK Xeno?
On 6/16, I posted a critique of Wilson’s use of Machen.
In the comments on that post, you said a lot of things, to which I replied, at 12:04:
{
(1) I would also caution you about how you handle criticizing a pastor in God's church. Just because some of what Pastor Wilson says is in cahoots with a view of the NT and the Gospel which -- though it may be wrong -- offers a broader definition of "CHristian" than you and I may be comfortable with, that doesn't make him worthy of careless scorn. I think I demonstrated what "having a care" is in this post -- and a large part of it is addressing the mistakes and not the man.
}
Fair enough, Right? At 2:36 PM you then replied:
{
He's not my elder. I wouldn't be so foolish to be in his church.
In fact, these end times the devil controls the visible churches church is the Church of which Christ is King. It becomes visible whenever two or more believers come together.
} {Emph. Added}
That, of course, prompted my post “Don’t suffer fools”, which can be read on its own, on that same day. It was a critique of your posts – and notice how in that post I don’t call you any names but stick to the matter of what you have said and how you have said it.
Your “councel” to me about being lukewarm noted, in response to BlackCalvinist’s words of wisdom, you said (at 6:45 today):
{
When somebody 'councels' me to show deference to cleric fools like a Doug Wilson it kind of gets me going.
But look at this from Vincent Cheung, he doesn't suffer fools either; notice he's not lukewarm with his theology (Calvinism) either, agree or disagree:
http://www.vincentcheung.com/2005/06/03/seminary-and-elitism-1/
http://www.vincentcheung.com/2005/06/04/seminary-and-elitism-2/
}
Now what’s that mean? It means you think that Cheung’s advice here justifies the way in which you have addressed Wilson (and, apparently, me – which frankly is your call as I am only a blogger who risks his own problems with Christ in the end time for doing a little teaching here at the blog, and not a minister of the Gospel per se). Yet Cheung doesn’t say, “it would be exactly right to condemn all churches in order to codemn one man in particular for being a false teacher.”
Yet, that is exactly what you did: you said “these end times the devil controls the visible churches”. You have unequivocally condemned any visible body of the church as being under the power of the devil – and why?
Then, today at 10:36, I asked a question, and since you found my syntax “wacky, I’ll break it down for you.
(1) I read your links to Cheung
(2) As I read them, I might have found some things useful and some things refutable or debatable.
(3) However, for the sake of the question I want to ask you, I am going to table any refutation about Cheung.
(4) In fact, I am going to ask my question assuming that there is nothing wrong with what you linked to, and that I must accept all of what Cheung posted there as indisputable fact.
(5) If Cheung is irrefutable, in what way is your statement "In fact, in these end times the devil controls the visible churches" supported by or endorsed by Cheung’s point in those two posts?
That’s the simple question, Xeno: Where does Cheung say anything in those two posts which support your frankly-outrageous claim that "In fact, in these end times the devil controls the visible churches"?
You are the one who made the link by using the devil’s alleged control of the visible churches as a justification for treating Doug Wilson like a piece of human filth.
Perhaps in the future you will choose your words a little more carefully to avoid saying things you don’t really mean.
centuriOn, I take back my compliment to you. This last comment alone exposes you as wacked.
You're connecting blog comments (by time stamps even!) as if they were meant to be a multi-part treatise.
No, the infamous Cheung links were not meant as a defense for remarks regarding Wilson (Wilson's cumulative history and writings and statements condemn him).
Good God, centuriOn, redeem your time more wisely. What you're doing here is empty (and more than a little silly).
Xeno then said:
|| I tend not to care to judge a Doug Wilson by a standard of
|| degree because some people - like the NPP, AA, FV, rC -
|| are wholly dishonest and wholly worthless. They want -
|| demand - that you compromise to such an extent to come to
|| their level that if you do you are very far away from the
|| Gospel of Christ. They are satanic, pure and simple. Not
|| just confused, but wicked, because they seek to teach and to
|| reformulate the most central and important doctrine. They
|| are pure poison. Allow them to tempt you into the darkness
|| if you will, not me. They tend to run from me, anyway...
|| Devils have that quality about them when confronted by an
|| elect of God.
Let's stop a minute and agree that their assertion that Rome is a legitimate church is off the map. 'K? I don't think Rome is a legitimate church, and their arguments are based on very overtaxed exegesis and application of confessions. So let's not cross a bridge that doesn't exist.
That said, it is not fear of men that requires me to be humble (insofar as I am ever humble) or to be in submission to any other person: it is fear of the Lord.
Let me give a personal example, then make the application, and then you let 'er rip. Our church just called a new pastor becuase the old one got away -- that is to say, he quit. He quit in the midst of controversy, and very little of it was doctrinal. For example, one of the reasons he quit (without giving too much away) was that he did not like being questioned by people in the church -- and I don't mean just anybody, but by the deacons and those whom he helped raise up into positions of authority.
In the last go-round with him, there were no public stand-offs. The deacons met with him, talked with him, and they did not agree with him. But they did not ever get "bold" with him in the way you have gotten "bold" here. Two of the guiding principles of their approach were that the ministers of the word deserve a double-helping of respect, and that we should be subject to one another and not lord over each other.
They reached a point of impasse, and after prayer, he stepped down after prayer and consideration.
It was only the fear of the Lord which allowed those men to stand with resolve but with patience and kindness for the standard the pastor ought to have been holding up. As a man, he could have stood before the church from the pulpit and condemned them as instigators and back-biters -- but he didn't because he had the fear of the Lord.
Fear of the Lord does not make us crazy: it makes us right-hearted. And even if Doug Wilson is preaching something that is condemnable, you have an obligation to treat him right-heartedly.
You might point your finger back in centuri0n's face and say, "after the way you have treated Dave Armstrong, you think you can tell me about right-heartedness? Hypocrite much?" The reality is that I have publicly apologized to Armstrong for the things I did wrong-heartedly, and his only reply is that the only apology I can make to him is to abandon the reformation and confess that Rome is not wrong. And let's also remember: DA's not a minister of the word. He's a delivery guy who can turn out 50 pages of typed manuscript every day, and he still got his apology.
So with that said, your charge of "fear of men" is unfounded. I was baptized out of Catholicism and did not hide it from my family, who were at the time almost all Catholics. I still take the Gospel to my father every chance I get because he hasn't heard it yet. And today I blog and forum with all stripe of Catholic and way-out Arminian and Ecumenicist that will string two words together -- not to mention the unchurched, and those in cultic bondage.
But I speak the truth in love, and I offer my defense of the hope within me with the humility that it is not my Gospel but it is Christ's Gospel which has the power to save men -- something I do not have the power to do.
I am only a workman, a bondslave, and a second-rate one at that. And I am still a sinner. So for me to throw out words like "satanic" and "Devils" is uncalled for.
Christ came to bring a sword, not peace, right? But what sword was he bringing? And why, then, does Paul say that we can at last have peace with God in Christ? The answer to this "riddle" is what you are missing in your zeal.
If you don't like Doug Wilson, fine: I don't really like his teaching much either, but that doesn't mean it gives me the right to call him a devil. Was I a devil when I only knew enough of the Gospel to say, "All I know is that Chirst died for my sins"? That's a mighty small circle.
As for anecdotal evidence, you can draw any line with two points. Unless you yourself are taking instruction from the Lord who knocked Paul off his horse on the way to Damascus -- and I mean directly, personally, with Him standing before you and telling you what to do -- then you better not rely on an acedote which denies what the Bible teaches us about the church.
And you take the Lord's name in vain to tell me I'm wacked.
yes: it must be me who is out of place.
Wilson teaches and attempts to reformulate Reformed doctrine (and puts alot of energy into it). That makes him different from you when you were just fresh from being regenerated and didn't yet know doctrine.
I see and understand your cooler ways. I get off-the-mark when I turn the fire on people who actually are on-the-mark (I do that sometimes, because I'm looking for a fight). That's the troll in me.
I shouldn't do that, needless to say. But these Auburn Avenue, Federal Vision, NPP, rC people...please. They are not confused, they are up to mischief.
But you clearly aren't, I grant that; and I actually admire your respect for authority (recognizing and accepting chain-of-command is part of what having faith is about...if you recognize and accept Jesus as the Commander-in-Chief that is)...
The episode with the centurion, wouldn't you know it, illustrates that...
Hey, I think I've identified you. Your the centurion in that episode who understood and respected chain-of-command! (This is like meeting a mythological figure...)
Wouldn't you know it I walked right in to your unique issue...
Post a Comment