Bluecollar Clan Award
posted by Gojira at 9:12 PM
LOOKING TO PRAISE AND WORSHIP JESUS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD. 18 No man has ever seen God at any time; the only unique Son, or the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He has made Him known].
23 Comments:
Mr. Mabry - Thanks, kind sir.
Give me a call sometime. Email me if you are interested.
July 28, 2007 9:30 PM
Just shot you one over.
July 28, 2007 11:03 PM
Hey Mark, If I was to write a post about the stupidity of the latest Free Grace idioticy, would I get into trouble if I accidently claimed that Free Gracers have a low reading comprehension in that post? Just wondering about how much I am going to have to edit out. I would have emailed, but it isn't working properly.
July 29, 2007 9:04 PM
There are some FG'ers that are friends. I hate the system, but love them. Hmmm, what to do?
How does one lead friends out of a Holy Spirit-less, error filled heresy? Again, Hmmm... (I'm speaking more of the Hodges/Wilkin variety, of course).
July 29, 2007 9:14 PM
These comments are funny - Mark calls Doug "kind sir" and then Doug calls other Christians idiots.
Also - how can one award one's own blog an award?
July 30, 2007 9:56 AM
"Anon" has a very distinctive writing style. Her syntax always gets messed up when she's upset.
Example: "Also - how can one award one's own blog an award?"
Note my response: "There are some FG'ers that are friends. I hate the system, but love them. "
July 30, 2007 10:32 AM
Mark, like me, you use the femminine where the gender is uncertain.
July 30, 2007 10:49 AM
Matthew, friend, I believe "her" and "she" is a friend you and I have in common.
July 30, 2007 10:57 AM
Must be Paris Hilton.
July 30, 2007 11:01 AM
"then Doug calls other Christians idiots."
No, I didn't call other Christians a name. I did call a certain brand of extremism a name. Sorry if I hurt your feelings Ro....anon.
July 30, 2007 11:17 AM
"Must be Paris Hilton."
You know Paris Hilton, Matthew?
July 30, 2007 11:18 AM
I've flown over Paris on the ways to and from Israel and India. Hilton is a vilage 10 miles west of my house.
July 30, 2007 11:25 AM
Anon, don't you think your friend is contradictory? Your friend tells you not to base anything on fallible men. He says, "3)Quoted fallible men" Yet your friend endlessly quotes Zane Hodges, and he does so to establish doctrine.
Now unless Zane Hodges is infallbile, your friend is either a)contradicting himself and doesn't know it, or b)playing the part of a hypocrite, or c)and you can guess what "C" is. So which is it, do you think? A, B, or C?
Your friend tells you: "2)Used proof-texting..." Now he was making that comment in light of an article that talks about certain FG extremeists. Yet do you not find it odd that your friend does the same with the Gospel of John? Admittedly, John 20:30-31 talks about the ***SIGNS*** that he had written about so that one may believe. This means the whole narritive of the Gospel of John, which bears witness to not only the deity of Christ from the very opening, nuy also bears witness to the death of Chrit as well as calling the resurrection a sign. Look, for instance at 19:35. This totally refutes your friend. In that verse, believe what? That Christ died. Is that just prooftexting? Is considering the full narrative of John, which was his purpose, merely nothing more than "prooftexting" when your friend only pulls out certain verses and does not pay attention to the whole narritive account? Your friend is either quilty of prooftexting himself, and doesn't know it, or b) plaing the part of a hypocrite for judging others for what he himself does, or c).
Your friend wrote: "1)Did not give a biblical argument" Did your friend ever point out just how no one gives a "Biblical agrument"? Did no one give a Biblical argument, or does your friend not know that he himself has failed to give such an argument the only thing he gives is a few verses out of their full narritive context?
Your friend writes: "4)Merely balked, charged, and gnashed their teeth about something they continue to mischaracterize" What, may I ask was ever mischaracterized? Did you friend NOT write: "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that you consider my position that the cross and resurrection are not the conscious and necessary objects/content to saving faith, and my position that a man may be born again apart from an understanding of Christ's death for sin, is heresy" If that is what he himself admits to, then just how was he ever been mischarachterized? That is what the whole thing is about. If it isn't necessary then, anon, just when does belief in Christ's resurrection become necessary? It is quite simple, never. Yet that is a denial of the very gospel Paul himself expresses as given to him directly from God. It is that gospel that he himself says is the power of God for salvation.
Your friend is wicked in what he denies, anon. Why do you persist in defending what is wicked?
July 30, 2007 11:51 AM
One more thing, anon. Your friend talks about checklist evangelism. Considering that your friend demands a belief in eternal security, and assurance, at the initial moment of saving faith, your friend himself has his own version of "checklist evangelism" which makes him either a) a hypocrite for approving the very thing he himself does, b) is ignorant of his hypocrisy, or c).
Now think about that, anon, your friend denies heaven to anyone who does not make a logical connection at the moment of saving faith in respect to their salvation, and he denies heaven to anyone who, at the moment of saving faith, does not give mental assent to the doctrine of eternal security. In light of that, can you explain the thief on the cross who gave no sign of understanding eternal security. He also had no assurance that he would be in Christ's kingdom. Your FG extremist friend, to be consistant, has to deny the salvation of the thief. And do you know why? Because of his "checklist."
July 30, 2007 12:04 PM
"Also - how can one award one's own blog an award?"
From the post that I wrote:
"The nomination goes to the blog as one whole. I love each of them. I don't say that because I am part of the blog, as my contributions are far below that of my teammates. I say that because each brings a unique perspective to their very fine posts."
That means anon. that I was giving it to the team, with my contrabutions far below them in quality. You see, giving it like that means that Mark got it, that Gayla got it, that Susan got it, that Dave got it, that Scribe got it, that Cristina got it, that John got it, that Wayne got it. It was given as a whole in appreciation of them. Hopefully you don't mind too much if I show them that appreciation? Thanks.
July 30, 2007 12:26 PM
Doug, thank you for the award.
July 30, 2007 12:35 PM
Douglas, please feel free to turn your comments here into a post at bluecollar.
July 30, 2007 1:09 PM
Ro....anon
Is that Reasonable Other-than-Calvinists Anonymous?
July 30, 2007 4:37 PM
Must be Paris Hilton.
funny
(let's play--guess the anon. winner gets a copy of Charles Finney's systematic theology)
July 30, 2007 5:53 PM
(let's play--guess the anon. winner gets a copy of Charles Finney's systematic theology)
When Joel Olsteen bequeaths us his codified systematic framework, then shall I participate seriously in this game...and not a moment sooner!!
July 30, 2007 10:22 PM
What? No use of the word "incidious"? Very rube.
July 31, 2007 5:44 AM
Okay, me thinks I done messed up trying to guess who "anon" was. (for the record, my original guess... well, that person is a friend, a friend that I have no ill feelings for).
Now I would say that "anon" is male and loves Finney, so therefore is a rank heretic. Does this person remember that they were banned this past April?!
July 31, 2007 8:38 AM
The original anon who wrote this sarcastic comment:
You all really enjoy making others the butt of your jokes over here, don't you? Are you persevering in love?
And this:
It seems obvious it was a joke.
(And yet she doesn’t seem to find our obvious humor to be jokes) –
She seems to not be the same person writing the comments (or at least some of them) for this particular post.
This is another reason, Mark, why we should ban anon comments. I’m not sure if these different anons know one another and they’re just playing games with us, but it seems likely that they are frequent and familiar visitors to this blog
For one reason or another (none of which are honorable that I can think of) she (and I’m assuming he in this post) want to remain anonymous. Perhaps anon could explain herself, and then himself, but I doubt either one will. If she and he are not courageous enough to stand by their own already well-known blogger IDs, then they won’t necessarily have the courage to explain why they choose to remain anonymous to jab us with their accusations.
Mark, other than the cat-and-mouse game we can play to figure out who they are (and Gojira was successful in determining who the first female commenter was) the anonymous comments are just annoying and distracting.
Also, that would take care of folks who were previously banned (if them) from reposting comments - if they can't jump back in as anonymous.
July 31, 2007 9:13 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home