Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Comment on: Reformation Man

Is the Reformation Over? A Review by Iain Murray – Justification by Faith Alone

75 Comments
Sunday, July, 05, 2009 10:00 AM but God eph.2:4 writes:

Hitting the nail on the head.

My brother in Christ; what a great series!
Thank you. Let us pray that anyone that would disagree with Justification by Faith Alone,in Christ alone, by Grace alone will see the Holiness of God more clearly, the great sinfullness of his heart more deeply and the only hope he has...The Lord Jesus Christ.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, July, 05, 2009 10:46 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

Prince of Peace...


Dear brother, thank you for your prayer that Christ would be seen more clearly.

We are told to seek unity at the expense of truth. After all Jesus is called the Prince of Peace, but He said, ‘I did not come to bring peace, but a sword…' That is, the sharp, two edged sword of truth that is able to penetrate the heart hardened by sin.

But to those who are His, Jesus is the Prince of Peace. Two old sinners like us can embrace one another and rejoice in the grace of God and His revealed truth, come to full light in Jesus Christ.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, July, 06, 2009 9:12 AM caday5 writes:

Though the Reformers

were right about justification by faith alone, they, and their followers, have had their problems too. Burning people at the stake and all of the violent schisms do not show forth the fruit of the Spirit.

In addition, the RC church shows a greater sensitivity to social moral issues while the Reformed Churches, from my experiences, tend to call people to be narcissistic.

I think you should also mention the sins of the Reformers and where prominent reformers went wrong. Being reformed in doctrine is no guarantee of success.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, July, 06, 2009 11:54 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

C5…


If you want to dwell on those things, then why don’t you start your own blog? We make no claim here that ANY Reformer was without sin. What we do claim is that they were ALL bright and shining lights in the midst of darkness. The writer to the Hebrews has said it well…

‘Others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. Still others had trial of mockings and scourgings, yes, and of chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, were tempted, were slain with the sword. They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented— of whom the world was not worthy’ [Hebrews 11].
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, July, 06, 2009 1:33 PM caday5 writes:

Valiant

While you are waxing eloquently on the sins of the RC, I think we should remember Romans 2:1ff and then remember the sins of those in our group. You may have never said that the Reformers were without sin, but neither do you either list their sins as you attack other groups or do you invite discussion on the sins of the Reformers.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, July, 06, 2009 3:14 PM ValiantForTruth writes:

C5 again…


My purpose is to expose that which is contrary to the gospel, including a 'weak and flabby Protestantism that doesn't know what it believes' wherever it is. Now, what is your purpose?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, July, 07, 2009 9:06 PM caday5 writes:

Valiant

And what is also contrary to the Gospel is wrong behavior and the works of the flesh.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, July, 07, 2009 10:47 PM ValiantForTruth writes:

c5 final...


So is that your purpose to accuse me of sin? You might consider what is written in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 7:5...

"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, July, 07, 2009 11:45 PM caday5 writes:

Valiant

If you cannot take the log out of the reformers' eyes, how can you see the speck in the eyes of the RC Church.

Really there is a different issue, that issue is authoritarianism. You want the reformers to be accepted rather than examined. And you want the RC Church to be rejected rather than considered. That is why, IMO, you are so bold with the sins of the RC church and so defensive regarding the sins of the reformers.

I am no apologist for the RC Church. In fact, I belong to the OPC. But we do nothing for the Gospel if we are not honest with ourselves and that means we need to be honest with our own faults and honest about the strengths of those with whom we disagree.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, July, 08, 2009 6:49 AM Ed writes:

To Caday5

And now, finally, I can leave this site, in peace.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, July, 08, 2009 9:47 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

Ed…


What c5 doesn’t understand is that the articles on the Reformation are not about individuals; they are about a biblical and doctrinal Christianity versus errors in RC AND Protestantism. Take a look at the condition of the church in England. Lloyd-Jones was right 40 years ago; Packer was wrong then and his ilk are wrong now.

Again, the articles are not about individuals. My opinion of you has not changed. We are agreed in our love for Christ and His word. There is no stronger bond between men.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, July, 08, 2009 11:05 AM Ed writes:

Hog-Wash

Re-read your 6/21 post.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, July, 08, 2009 11:28 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

A favorite expression…


Ed, you have used a favorite expression of mine, and I thought it was a Southern term; so I get your meaning.

Would you explain what part of my post(s) you consider hog-wash?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, July, 08, 2009 11:44 AM Ed writes:

Oh

just the part where I worship a false-god.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, July, 08, 2009 1:57 PM ValiantForTruth writes:

Idolatry…


Ed, will you agree that we should worship God in spirit and truth? And what is the truth?

‘Sanctify them according to Thy truth; Thy word is truth’ [John 17].

The Bereans are commended for searching the Scriptures, even in verifying the words of the apostles. How much more should we hold our teachers accountable to the Bible? Does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura? It doesn’t get much plainer than this…

‘Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so’ [Acts 17:11].

To the extent that we go outside the Scriptures in our doctrine and practice and worship, then to that extent we are all idolaters, including the Reformers.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, July, 08, 2009 2:44 PM caday5 writes:

Valiant

Because we disagree, they are about both. We have to examine the articles if, on a consistent basis, our lives do not measure up. And by measure up, I mean feeling free to confess our faults and sins. Otherwise, all the fault finding you have done with the non-believer and the Roman Catholic sounds much like the Pharisee when he prays.

Think about it, if we are saved by grace alone and we believe in total depravity, why are we so resistant to acknowledging our faults and the faults of those we agree with?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, July, 08, 2009 7:10 PM Ed writes:

And Now

I can leave in peace.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, July, 09, 2009 11:14 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

Gospel-C5

2 Corinthians 11
2For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

3But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.


Can Caday 5 "define" the Gospel according to the Word of God?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, July, 10, 2009 7:48 AM caday5 writes:

Chief

Again, you come on as the judge rather than an equal. Lighten up. Realize we are equals here.

The Gospel is that man is hopelessly lost in sin and has one and only one recourse to be at peace with God, that is faith in Christ. We are saved by faith alone because we are trusting completely in the work of someone else besides ourselves. At the same time, such faith produces, to some extent, the fruit of the Spirit because God's Spirit enters us fully when we believe in Christ.

In addition, we must be concerned with the reputation of God which we either further or harm by our actions. Nothing hurts God's reputation more than when we act as hypocrites. And one way by which we act as hypocrites is to live by one standard while charging others to follow another--this is the sin Paul charged Peter with.

When we choose to point out the sins of nonbelievers but are defensive about the sins of fellow believers, we do harm to any evangelistic effort that follows. A more Gospel consistent way of dealing with the sins of nonbelievers and believers is to be equally up front when mentioning them and to mention these sins, not as a way of hurting anyone's reputation, but out of concern for the person sinning and a way of finding commonality and equality with the sinner.

It is as I said in a previous note to Valiant. We are all in the same boat when it comes to being sinners; what we want to do is to transfer as many as possible from the boat of unbelief to the boat of faith.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, July, 10, 2009 11:58 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

Chiefest…


May I interject here because this has a bearing on the central issue of these articles. C5 in his own way has articulated the controversy that separated Lloyd-Jones and Packer; separated from a cooperative ministry, not as friends.

‘Packer believed that ML-J’s position represented a withdrawal from the historic fellowship which evangelicals had always shared on essentials. ML-J held that it was Anglican evangelicals who were introducing serious change for they were acting as though the evangelical understanding of how an individual comes into the possession of salvation was not uniquely different from contrary teaching.’ [Iain Murray, Lloyd-Jones Messenger of Grace, chapter 9 – End of the Puritan Conference]

I have already quoted from Matthew 23 in regards to C5, so now we have each called the other hypocrite. Lloyd-Jones and Packer displayed more charity towards one another, but they had the history of close personal relationship to draw on. We do not have that with C5.

We can look at the Anglican Church today and see which one was the prophet. So, even though C5 appeals to unity, it appears to me as a unity without content where doctrinal clarity is sacrificed. If we must choose sides, and we must because our practice will reflect our choice, then I must side with Lloyd-Jones, agreeing with him that a biblical and doctrinal Christianity is the great need of the church and that this is something that cannot be compromised.

This choice does not come without cost. It cost Lloyd-Jones the loss of close friendships, and he was accused by some of a narrow minded and rigid Christianity without charity.

I cannot escape the conclusion that the great enemy of the church once called Pelagianism and first wounded by Augustine is alive and well again.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, July, 10, 2009 12:52 PM WorldlyWiseMan writes:

Who cares about reformation?

What does this have to do with anything? Why don't you go off and join the other religious nut jobs somewhere else?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, July, 11, 2009 9:27 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

What does it matter?


WWM, please look at the Anglican Church. The church of the Puritans is now debating sodomite officers. They have left off the authority of the Bible in faith and practice for the wisdom of men. Now, look at the influence of the church in the culture. It is irrelevant rather than being salt and light; as theology goes, so goes the nation.

Do you think that the same thing is not happening in America? Conservatism depends on sound theology. Constitutionalism did not arise in the influence of Arminianism, nor can it be maintained if this is the dominant theology.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, July, 11, 2009 3:10 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

More "judgment" from CofSinners-C5

"The Gospel is that man is hopelessly lost in sin and has one and only one recourse to be at peace with God, that is faith in Christ. We are saved by faith alone because we are trusting completely in the work of someone else besides ourselves. At the same time, such faith produces, to some extent, the fruit of the Spirit because God's Spirit enters us fully when we believe in Christ."-C5

Question. Does this Spirit of God constantly remind us of the sins of others, which we have not committed? Or, of the sins we HAVE committed, does it remind us of those? Is this forgiveness as defined by the Word of God?

Or perhaps THIS is the forgiveness mentioned in the Word, and relavent to my questions:

Hebrews 8:12
For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Hebrews 10:17
And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

Rhetorically, why do you seek to confound the work of Christ talking about the "sins of the reformers", or the "sins of America", etc? No believer can repent of such sins. Sin is individual and not collective. Oops, there goes that socialist word again.

Perhaps, simply stated, the Gospel is Good news, in that we no longer have to be bound by sin, but are delivered through faith in the work of Christ, made a new creature, and no longer under sin's dominion.

I, and all believers are not accountable for anyone's sins but their own. You mislead others, and cast stumbling blocks when you infer otherwise.

Why do you persist? Simply, because you do the work of your father. Jesus said so.

John 8
36If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

37I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

38I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.





EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, July, 11, 2009 3:18 PM caday5 writes:

Chief

What did the Spirit remind the prophets of in the OT?

It seems that you are selective in your protests here. You have no problem in reminding the left, the Catholics, and the atheists of their sins. Remind one of your sacred cows of sin and you protest.

I don't see a mutually exclusive relation between being reminded of one's own sins and being reminded of the sins of others. We are only warned not to judge anyone as superiors because of our own sins.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, July, 11, 2009 5:45 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

Old vs New-C5

In case you don't know, we are not living under the OT system of doing things. The scriptures I gave you indicate this as they quoted the OT prophesies of the coming new covenant. That means the old way was imperfect:

Hebrews 8
7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

The imperfections were done away with, but you insist on comparing the present to that which was imperfect. Again, I say you cast stumblingblocks for the weak by not acknowleging the Truth.

You say I judge, but as the scripture is true, you condemn yourself. For the things you accuse me of, you do yourself. Your posts contain accusations, judgments, half truths, and guile. You don't rightly divide the Word, for to do so would reveal your deviations.
Your version of the gospel has repeatedly been dismantled on this site by many, yet you post here merely to continue your agitation. Everything that is written here, other than by athiests, you seem to do your best to contradict, and commandeer.
You talk of the fruit of the Spirit, yet it is obvious your heart is on this world and the things of the flesh. If any question this, research Caday's site, and come back and tell me if he minds the things of the Spirit or the things of the flesh.

We talk of the Word here, and the Truth. You try to steer the conversation onto worldly social issues every chance you get.



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, July, 11, 2009 9:36 PM caday5 writes:

Chief

That is not entirely true is it? For example, we are not to murder, steal, covet, commit adultery, and so forth. We are suppose to challenge people to repent of sin.

What does not apply from the OT is what? Certainly not everything.

How about this, quit fishing for reasons to disagree. If you do and you cannot think of a scriptural reason, then be honest and admit it.

And btw, you and Valiant pronounce more judgments on others here than anyone. But it is always selective. Yous guys only judge those outside of your group. That brings us to my original challenge to Valiant. We are not going to succeed in evangelism if we enthusiastically point to the sins of others while be defensive about the sins of our own group.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, July, 11, 2009 11:52 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

succeeding-C5

I cannot repent of "group" sins, only my own, which keeps me busy enough. I am not one to have confidence in this flesh, but the life I live..."...I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Galatians 2:20

And for the record, my comments are entirely true, until the Spirit of God reveals them unto me to be otherwise. If that happens, then I'll repent of them, not because you say so.

Philippians 3
15Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.


"We are not going to succeed in evangelism if ..."-C5

If you REALLY want to succeed in evangelism, preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified, and leave off your social gospel. This is the New Covenant of the grace of God-THE Gospel.
Only through HIM can we live a changed life; irregardless of how many stump speeches you give about the ills and woes of your country.
With a changed life comes the fruits of righteousness; not with social activism from those dead in sin.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, July, 12, 2009 12:06 AM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

re:OT-C5

BTW, concerning your reference to the OT prophets. It wasn't enough that God gave His Spirit only to them (Num 11:29). If you'll look at the references I provided, you'll see that the change of the New Covenant was to put the laws of God in the heart of His people(Jer 31:31-34), so that they WOULD do them. Making us taught (1 John 2:20, 27) and led (Rom 8:14)by the Spirit, so there SHOULD BE no doubt as to our participation in God's grace.

You sir, are a naysayer. To what purpose, except to confound those who struggle?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, July, 12, 2009 12:09 AM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

Vft

Is all well?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, July, 12, 2009 8:35 AM caday5 writes:

Chief

If you lived in Nazi Germany, would you have a responsibility to repent of your nation's sins and to do what you can to correct them? WOuld you speak out against the crimes they committed or would you secretly resist? Or would your Christian duty be to go to work, come back, and take care of the family?

Well, we are not living in Nazi Germany. So when our country does what is sinful, we have far more opportunity to speak out, and to do so openly, than those who resisted the Nazis.

There are many ways to preach Jesus. Right now, just being at protests and sharing with those on the left has left many several opportunities to share the Gospel. If that is not good enough for you, so be it.

Finally, what you said about the OT and the change over to the NT still implies nothing about speaking out when your country does what is wrong.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, July, 12, 2009 10:03 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

Chiefest & Eph.2:4…


Yes, all is well. You and ‘eph.2:4’ have given me good encouragement. Thank you both.

I am feeling my weaknesses as one prone to the fear of men and desiring the approval of men. As a believer in the Providence of God I was troubled by c5; is he a messenger from God or an accuser and tempter?

“How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God?” [John 5:44]

There it is. Men are more interested in the approval of other men; they will not jeopardize that for anything else, including the honor God. They are not convinced that the Scriptures mean what they say.

Packer has been calling me, but Lloyd-Jones stands on the Rock as a true guide pointing the way. Thanks for your faithful application of the truth.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, July, 12, 2009 10:30 AM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

Now we're Nazi's!!-c5

So now you're comparing your country to the Nazi's?? Hitler couldn't gain power by coup, so he got himself elected. If you want to keep people like that out of power, preach the truth and convert the electorate to true Christianity.

Obama HAS called for a "civilian" force to rival the military in power and the FBI in authority. Much as the brown shirts and later the SS of Hitler. Can we say "national service" and "ACORN"?
He also got elected because people like you twist the truth and convince those who are malleable that "change" was needed. Much like Hitler did. Well, Hitler did change things, didn't he? By God's grace, America was then strong and able to bring him to nought.

The sedition and disloyalty you preach are not traits that would lead me to Christ, nor will it lead others. But it does help to destroy this country from within, your goal, and I believe it will happen. But I won't be a part of it. David wouldn't do away with Saul either, but it had to come to pass.

Revelation 22:20
He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, July, 12, 2009 1:38 PM caday5 writes:

Chief

If you were more interested in reading rather than opportunities to negate and discount others, you would have never written the last note.

Why not give the exact quote from which you drew your conclusion?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, July, 12, 2009 4:55 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

quote?-c5

I assume you mean where you compared "the sins" of America to those of the Nazi government of Hitler's Germany. Let me quote your words that led me to that conclusion:

"If you lived in Nazi Germany, would you have a responsibility to repent of your nation's sins and to do what you can to correct them? WOuld you speak out against the crimes they committed or would you secretly resist? Or would your Christian duty be to go to work, come back, and take care of the family?

Well, we are not living in Nazi Germany. So when our country does what is sinful, we have far more opportunity to speak out, and to do so openly, than those who resisted the Nazis."-C5


Did you not use the Nazi's for comparison with our own government?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, July, 12, 2009 5:13 PM caday5 writes:

Chief

You showed nothing that implied that I said America is Nazi Germany? Nothing. The point was obvious. If you were in Nazi Germany, would it not be your Christian duty to speak out or resist>

So then I said that we are not living in Nazi Germany. So why your insistence? Could it be that you merely want to discount what I said?

Does a country you live in have to be as bad as Nazi Germany for you to either speak out or resist? If so, aren't you making Nazi Germany the minimal standard of evil?

We aren't living in Nazi Germany; but that doesn't mean that we should not speak out or resist when our country does wrong. And since we have far more opportunities to speak out than those who resisted the 3rd Reich, shouldn't we do so to protest when our nation sins?

I said explicitly that we are not living in Nazi Germany and you said that I said the opposite. Perhaps the reason you said that is because you were avoiding the questions raised in the original note.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, July, 12, 2009 8:21 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

C5

"We aren't living in Nazi Germany; but that doesn't mean that we should not speak out or resist when our country does wrong. And since we have far more opportunities to speak out than those who resisted the 3rd Reich, shouldn't we do so to protest when our nation sins?"-C5

Perhaps you could give your interpretation of Christian instruction in these verses:

Philippians 2
14Do all things without murmurings and disputings:

15That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

16Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.


It seems to me that the world to whom the light is supposed to shine, looks on those who complain, dispute, and murmur rather dimly. Where do you hold forth the Word of Life? Or do you, in effect, say, "follow Christ, emulate Him who died for your sins, who resisted the Roman government whose sins were many, and protested in the streets for the sins of His government?" We know that is not true.

That is why I said:

"The sedition and disloyalty you preach are not traits that would lead me to Christ, nor will it lead others."-CofS, posted previously

The scripture also says that sedition is ranked right in there with adultery, drunkeness and envyings.(Gal 5:19-21). It was also one of the crimes that Barabbas was accused of, when he was jailed and condemned, before, through the work of Christ, he was set free (Luke 23:19).

Can you defend your seditious work?



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, July, 12, 2009 8:22 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

BtW-C5

Also, are you not likening the "sins" of America to those of Nazi Germany, in saying "at least we can speak out against our government?" and in so doing, incite discontent?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, July, 12, 2009 11:09 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

re: Vft pt 1

"I was troubled by c5; is he a messenger from God or an accuser and tempter?"-Vft

I assumed as much, but let me give my opinion. I would not follow C5 across the street, let alone follow his interpretation of the Gospel. If you have to ask (you may have done so rhetorically, I don't know), that alone should tell you something. There is something that is not right. Are his the words of the Shepherd or another shepherd? We know the Master's voice, do we not?
I can have no confidence in him who pleasures himself in sowing discontent among the people. Were the reformers without sin? Of course not. Were the fathers of this nation without sin? Of course not. Are any of the rulers of our nation without sin? Of course not. Do they rule corruptly? Sometimes, and more so of late. Are they in place by the providence of God? Most assuredly. Does this make them without fault? (Romans 3:5-7; 9:19).
How can the Spirit of Truth abide in a man who defends the blasphemy of Rev Wright? or the "rights" of homosexuals? who preaches another gospel, one of social equalization? One who teaches that "group" sins can be repented of? Why would I listen to such? only to expose him.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, July, 12, 2009 11:09 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

re: Vft pt 2

I may not agree with all my nation has done in the past, but this I know: for my nation to change, the people in it much change. We are a government of the people, therefore the representatives are a mirror of the people.
I would not attempt to cure a disease by bewailing its symptoms, I would attack the disease itself-in this case sin.
Preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified- when He takes up His abode within us, will we then be led of the Spirit (Rom 8:14) and do righteous works?
When I fixed my water leak, I didn't start replacing what the water had damaged firstly, instead I stopped the leak. Then I was free to see and fix the damage done.
This is where C5 is in error. He sows discontent with his leftist diatribe. Aren't Christians supposed to be content (1 Timothy 6:1-6) in their situations (Proverbs 16:33)? Isn't godliness with contentment "great gain"? How can we preach Christ, then sow discontent in the minds of those who we would have believe in His providence?
The Word calls his actions sedition, murmuring and disputing (Phil 2), speaking evil of dignities (Jude) and warns Christians of traitors in the last days (2 Tim 3).

We know what he is about. He shall not turn my heart unto fables (2 Tim 4:4).
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, July, 13, 2009 9:03 AM ValiantForTruth writes:

Chiefest…


Thanks for being there. I know these things, but I think you may know why his words would have any weight with me.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, July, 13, 2009 9:06 AM caday5 writes:

Again Chief

what you are forgetting, or tried to discount, are the words and actions of the Prophets as they spoke against leaders when the leaders did wrong. Even Moses spoke against Pharaoh for mistreating God's people.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, July, 13, 2009 9:09 AM caday5 writes:

Cheif

There is a difference between sedition and following the examples of the prophets. However, one must ask whether there is a difference between silence and complicity to practice evil.

Let's get back to the original question. According to your interpretation of the Scriptures, was it Biblical for German Christians to resist the Nazi regime?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, July, 13, 2009 10:57 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

sedition-c5

No time to play your games tonight. However let me help you with a definition:

se·di·tion /s?'d???n/ [si-dish-uhn] –noun
1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.
2. any action, esp. in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.
3. Archaic. rebellious disorder.

In you world sedition means something different?


Btw, the 'original question' was your interpretation of the Gospel. Again, you play fuzzy with the facts to push your agenda.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, July, 14, 2009 7:49 AM caday5 writes:

Chief

I guess, then, that the OT prophets were seditious and thus they should have been persecuted.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, July, 14, 2009 8:29 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

C5

Hardly an answer, Caday. If appears we're getting too close to home by your flip answer.

If your understanding of sedition is no different from the dictionary's, then how do you justify your behavior?

Btw, the prophets WERE persecuted, but not for sedition.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, July, 14, 2009 8:48 PM caday5 writes:

Chief

Don't you remember what Elijah, I believe, was called? He was called a "troubler" of Israel. That isn't a charge of sedition?

PLus, please quote the words I have used that even indicate sedition. I have criticized our foreign policies, I have never called for the overthrow of the gov't nor would I.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, July, 15, 2009 10:04 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

Elijah-C5

So the same Spirit of God that moved the prophets, moved Elijah to sedition (according to you)? This same Spirit then moved Paul to write that sedition is a work of the flesh (Gal 5)? Did God change His mind?

You say have never advocated the overthrow of the government?

"There is a point where I don't think the military troops should overthrow the President. What I think is that moral responsibility requires that they do not blindly follow orders. That those in the military need to think after hearing orders to attack others."-C5 post to 'Glen' on his own site-A July 4th Thought For Our Troops: What We Can Learn From Iran

You allude to a point at which they should overthrow the government. Or is this more leftist doublespeak? I'm sure if I tried I could dig up more examples.

Are not your words designed to incite confusion and discontent? (see definition of sedition).

Hardly the message of the Gospel.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, July, 16, 2009 12:14 AM caday5 writes:

Chief

You are the one who called my work sedition, not me. And what you are calling sedition is when I speak out saying that what my country is doing is immoral. That is hardly sedition.

You try to make your point by taking an explicit statement that contradicts your assertion and call it doublespeak. Is that how you make your point?

You can play all the games you want. You seem to especially enjoy the game where you condemn the world and see yourself as a suffering servant. You seem to enjoy that.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, July, 16, 2009 7:47 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

C5

Caday, what I have done IS prove my points about you, and you don't like it when I use your own words to reveal who you really are.

I like "games"?? Is that what we're doing? The Truth is no game, but eternally significant.

Do you believe suffering as a servant of Christ is truly necessary? Perhaps you don't thing so; that would be why your 'social equality gospel' is so important to you. You seem to mind earthly things not the heavenly.
Where are your affections?

And yes, I call your work sedition, because it goes beyond voicing your opinion. It is vitriolic.

I ask again-did Jesus spend His efforts to change the government under which He was born, OR the hearts of men by reconciling them to God?
Is your "work" Christian then?
Do you expect to lead others to Christ by preaching defiance of authority? Are not the powers that be placed by God's providence? Is not Christianity 'authoritarian' by its very nature?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, July, 16, 2009 9:55 PM caday5 writes:

Chief

What have you proven? How can you say you have proven that I advocate sedition when my own statements contradict you? You have the solution. Claim that my words are double speech.

All you have done is made a claim. You have not proven anything. ANd with regards to me advocating sedition, you can't prove what is not true.

One of the subjects I teach is logic. And to tell you the truth, you have proven a lot less than you claim to. My guess is that you do not even know what a formal proof is and how to construct one.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, July, 16, 2009 10:32 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

c5

Once more you attack me, and not the questions in my posts. You imply I am incapable of educated discourse. Others will judge.

Logically, I'd say you can't answer my questions because you have no defense but the 'red herring'.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, July, 17, 2009 12:00 AM caday5 writes:

Chief

You are being humorous. You make the accusations and then you claim I am attacking you. Go ahead and float your own boat if you wish.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, July, 17, 2009 7:02 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

C5

If I am being humorous, then humor me. Go back over the last half dozen of my posts to you and answer my questions, one by one.

The fact that you are being dismissive is telling.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, July, 17, 2009 7:51 PM caday5 writes:

Chief

I didn't imply anything about your education except that you do not know how to formulate a proof and thus you confuse assertion or claim with proof. You are the one spouting negative charges and claiming that you have proven your point. I simply replied that all you have done is claimed that I practice sedition, despite my clear statement against it, and that I hate America--something I don't nor do I espouse. However, you think not regarding America as special is the same as hating America. You react to criticism of America as if it were attacks meant to bring America down.

It is like you are monarch. Always making demands of everyone but yourself.

finally, you know scriptures. You know the command against false testimony. And yet you frivolously make one charge after another.

I think it is time for you to grow up and act like an equal, something I said to you a long time ago. You don't suffer from any education deficit, you suffer from immaturity. That is why you are so eager to denounce people.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, July, 17, 2009 8:48 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

grasping -C5

Again, you demean me in an effort to redirect attention from the shortcomings of your positions, instead of addressing my questions.

Perhaps if you did, my "accusations" might not seem so "false"?

Is your own mother special? She ought to be, for she bore you. By God's grace, America has borne me and others like me, and allowed me and others to achieve things that I could not have achieved any other place.
So yes, she is SPECIAL, and you are an affront to those who think so, in "spouting" your twisted characterizations of her shortcomings.

"Frivolous charges"? Any charge I have made is reinforced by Scripture (), you admitted yourself that I know them.
The rest is merely my opinion-which you may find to rest on falsehoods, but others just may find to be rooted in fact. My opinion, or as Paul said, "after my judgment"(1 Corinthians 7:40). I believe also, that I too have the Spirit of God.

Those who disagree with you are now "immature"? Another telling statement. Perhaps not being intimidated or being afraid to question your assertions, and by not falling into lockstep with you, we are indeed, very "mature". It is my opinion, that it is usually those who accuse others of immaturity, who need to "grow up". They are usually "grasping AT straws".

Denunciations? I denounce wolves (Matthew 7:15) in sheeps clothing, you can be sure of that. And I attempt to raise an alarm (Eze 33:6,7) to those who may not see.

We can be sure that Christ will be the eventual judge (Rom 8:34). Are you comfortable with that?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, July, 17, 2009 9:56 PM caday5 writes:

Chief

The first time you said I attacked you was because I said that neither did you prove your point nor did you know how to construct a proof. That was an attack?

This is why I say you are immature. You feel free to judge everyone as if you were running the inquisition but saying you do not know how to construct a valid proof is an attack.

Who cares. When you are ready to talk as an equal, I will be glad to answer your questions. Until then, you seem bent on showing immaturity and pride, the latter characteristic is not smiled on by God's Word. Until then, I will ignore you on this board. You are acting better on my board.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, July, 17, 2009 11:29 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

upset -C5

You always get upset and find some 'reason' to refuse to answer my pointed questions. You typically ignore them, unless you can give one of your "canned answers".

Who cares? You should.

Ignore me if you like. Stomp your feet and throw things, roll in the floor and scream. Just go ahead and take your ball and go home if you can't have it your way.

Who's immature? Your post proves my point.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, July, 18, 2009 8:34 AM Ed writes:

To Chiefest and Caday5

Why are You (pl) going on like this? Okay, why are You (pl) going on like this!!!!!!

Cut it out. Or as we say in Philly, "quit it!".

I've posted with both of you, and both of you are much better than whats going on here. If either of you wants to tell me to go to hell and mind my own business, Feel Free. I mean, after-all, I'm going there anyway for worshipping a false god. Neither of you have been hit-with-that-one.

Do I really care about the accusation? No, because I know its untrue. And the ONE TRUE GOD WHO I worship knows its untrue - and thats all thats important. Please remember something : we will all render an account for every idle word to the God Who reads hearts.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, July, 18, 2009 9:36 AM caday5 writes:

Ed

I appreciate what you said. What I find with Chief is a person who provokes with accusations and then plays the victim whatever answer is given. And he does all of this to try to discredit people rather than discuss the issues.

For me, I will not answer his posts and then perhaps issues can be discussed here.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, July, 18, 2009 12:53 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

Ed pt 1

Nice to hear from you, Ed. But I am sorry to hear that you feel C5 should be able to spout his twisted version of the Gospel, unchallenged. This is a great danger, as evidenced in C5's beliefs, when one mixes enough of the Truth in with error, so that it mostly sounds right, but in reality a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump (Galatians 5:9). This is exactly what the serpent did in the garden with Eve. He told her what God said, yet put his spin on it. She was decieved, and the fall of man was precipitated. Isn't it curious that C5 will always find a way not to answer my questions? Did Jesus ignore those who would question Him?

Now I can understand the attitude of "wanting everyone to get along", that is a fine thing and one to be desired. But God never said to compromise the truth for unity. When we can "get along" at the expense of the truth, something is wrong. Caday is Caday, I won't change him, but neither am I trying to. What I do attempt is to point out his deviation from what IS scriptural, thereby providing a backdrop of truth for the reader.

You on the other hand, are a different story. You have questions, and on this site you have been handled differently. I believed I had glimpsed a heart being led of the Spirit into truth. Valiant told C5 to leave, but you he has not. Why? because there is hope for you.
You may feel disparaged at some of the comments concerning your denomination, but why are you suprised? This is a reformed site, a protestant one, not a Catholic one. The fact that you are still here (with the questions you have posed in the past), seem to indicate (at least to me) you are uncertain of the validity of RCC doctrine. It is with this understanding, that we here have attemted, gently for the most part, to guide you in your efforts to find THE truth.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, July, 18, 2009 12:54 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

Ed pt 2

That we believe your doctrine to be in error should be of no suprise. I may be off base with my assumptions of your intent, and if I am let me apologize in advance. I would not cause you to stumble, but to know the Truth-the scriptural truth.
Let me also say, that I know next to nothing of the RCC doctine except what I have superficially seen and heard. But I can say that any religion that would put someone between God and man, other than the mediator Jesus Christ, is not scriptural. As a matter of fact, that is the system that Jesus did away with in that He ushered in the New Covenant.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, July, 18, 2009 3:04 PM Ed writes:

Chiefest

I hope you and yours are well.

You have always been good to me, and I greatly appreciate that. I really do.

You said some things in those 2 posts that are incorrect. We will just have to let it stand as it is. I know in my heart that your heart is good, that you care about my eternity. Don't worry about me. Regardless what others might say or think, I worship God : Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I'm sorry I got in the middle between you and Caday. I take no sides in that argument, or in those arguments. The fighting and name-calling and accusations are disturbing, at least to me.

Take care my friend, and thanks again for all the goodnesses you showed to me.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, July, 19, 2009 7:36 AM Ed writes:

To Chiefest

After re-reading those 2 posts a couple times I do feel a need to respond.

You are correct that I asked questions (lots of questions). Why were those questions asked? Were they asked to challenge Protestant beliefs?, or were they asked to learn why Protestants and Catholics believe different things?

I think I was pretty clear that my interest was in learning why Protestants and Catholics believe different things. I never wavered from that. I was also clear about my history :born and raised catholic for 20 years; left the church; searched; tried Protestantism, but got no help from anyone on important questions because I was told, "everyone here becomes their own pope"; re-verted to the CC after 20 years.

I made it clear that the CC was not perfect. I made it clear that I really believed its where God wanted me to be, and that I was happy there.

I did not come to this site to try to convert anyone. I never asked anyone to read catholic literature. And the just-above paragraph should have been clear that I was not looking to be converted.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, July, 19, 2009 8:05 AM Ed writes:

To Chiefest (con't)

"But I am sorry to hear that you feel C5 should be able to spout his twisted version of the Gospel, unchallenged. This is a great danger, as evidenced in C5's beliefs, when one mixes enough of the truth in with error, so that it mostly sounds right, but in reality a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump (Gal.5:9)
C of S
and
"now I understand the attitude of 'wanting everyone to get along', that is a fine thing and one to be desired. But God never said to compromise the truth for unity. When we can 'get along' at the expense of the truth, something is wrong"
C os S

Chiefest, I totally agree with both your quotes. But what do you think has happened at this site, and at a site in AK. The truth has been twisted about many of the so-called teachings of the CC. You yourself, who admit to knowing very little about the teachings of the CC, now claim that the CC teaches that there is more than one mediator between God and man.

Why does this happen? Is it only disagreement?, or is there more to it than just disagreement?

Disagree if you want with: sacraments; infant Baptism; Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; purgatory (and other ACTUAL teachings). But lets leave out the garbage. And theres lots and lots of garbage.

An honest question, my friend : why is there so much of this garbage? Is is because people are misinformed?, or is it ill-will, or hatred?

I truly believe that "most" of it is from people being misinformed. But I also believe there are a "couple" who post here who are driven with a hatred for all things catholic.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, July, 19, 2009 8:24 AM Ed writes:

To Chiefest (con't 2)

Was I surprised at what has happened here? My honest answer is, "no". Red warning flags have been shooting-up all over the place for some time now. Actually, I thought it would happen about 8 weeks ago when I took my self-imposed exile. So, no, I wasn't surprised.

When people have honest disagreements a wall-of-trust can exist. The building-blocks of that "wall" is truth (small t). When truth gets tossed aside, even by misinformation but especially by ill-will, the wall begins to crumble. IMO, that is what happened here.

All that said, I have to believe the intent was good. But you're correct, disregarding the truth for the sake of unity is unacceptable. And I can't disregard, for sake of unity or friendship, the false statements made about my beliefs and those of the church where I worship. To disagree with actual teachings is fine, but to put out garbage teachings as actual teachings has crossed the line.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, July, 19, 2009 8:53 PM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

Ed

Glad you responded Ed, though I'm not sure the entirety of your post was for me.

You did mention my comment about the mediator, though, so I would like to explore this; I would like to know if I'm in error.

The plain reading of the scripture indicates the following to me:

There were priests ordained to do God's service. These were sinful men, in that all men are sinners, yet they were consecrated for God's service. This is mentioned and explained in Hebrews concerning the OT laws and ordinances.

When Christ died upon the cross, the Bible very clearly indicates that the veil of the Temple was rent from top to bottom, symbolically opening the way for all to approach the throne without need of a priest. Christ (related in Hebrews) had become our High Priest, reconciling us back to God. The wall, so to speak, had been breached.

Now, with my limited knowledge, my problem overall with the RCC is the priest is placed between God and man, in that confession of sins is made to him and not to God the father through Christ Jesus, who is our advocate. To confess to a man, representative of God (or Christ) would seem to me to be a regression in the plan of God, and negate the work of Christ.

If I am ignorant, please advise me.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, July, 20, 2009 6:45 AM Ed writes:

Chiefest

Right now we are dealing with a death in our family. I have neither the time, heart, or desire to re-hash old "stuff".
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, July, 20, 2009 8:22 AM Chiefest of Sinners writes:

Ed

My condolences.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, July, 20, 2009 6:53 PM ValiantForTruth writes:

To Ed on ought…


I particularly like the Old KJV here because of the word “ought”…

“Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” [Matthew 5:23-24]


If your brother has “ought” against you, go and be reconciled to thy brother. The word “ought” leaves no room for any accuses. I must apologize to you and seek your forgiveness. I would be reconciled to you if you are able to grant forgiveness.

I join Chiefest in offering our condolences.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, July, 20, 2009 9:38 PM caday5 writes:

Ed

I am sorry for you your loss.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, July, 21, 2009 3:58 PM Ed writes:

To Caday5

Thank You. I'm Grateful
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, July, 21, 2009 4:00 PM Ed writes:

To Chiefest

Thank You. I'm Grateful.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, July, 21, 2009 4:02 PM Ed writes:

To Chiefest

Thank You. I'm Grateful.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, July, 21, 2009 4:25 PM Ed writes:

To Valiant

No apology necessary. Do we stop loving someone over a "disappointment"? If we do that none of us will love, or be loved.

If it will help, then yes, absolutely, positively, without question you are forgiven. But its not needed.

I'm very sorry for making such an announcement on your blog. Just so you will know, it was not my mom.

My problem going on from here will be to face reality of Matt. 5:43-44. I know where the answer is because I look at it everyday :The Cross of Jesus Christ (I think you know of whom I speak). God Bless.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, July, 21, 2009 5:29 PM ValiantForTruth writes:

Ed…


What you say of love is true for love covers a multitude of sins. Your response to me and your reference to Matthew 5:44 are humbling. And I thought it applied only to Catholic on Protestant persecution. You are putting content to the teaching and speaking with things greater than words.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive