Ditto Amanda! Well said!
@ exIFB: Lordship salvation? What about repentance? Isn’t that part of the salvation process? Didn’t Jesus say to the woman caught in adultery, “Go, and sin no more”? “Expent you repent, you will all likewise perish.” I’m talking about an evidence of repentance. If one knowingly repeatedly sins and has no desire to admit he/she has sinned before God, I would seriously question if that person is saved. I’ve had many personal and business dealings with many of the “brethren” over the years, and I have been amazed that they call themselves a followers of Jesus Christ. A no-repentance gospel, is no gospel at all and that is the gospel of most IFB’s.
And a stop sinning, process, examine your works gospel is no gospel at all either. There is no good news in “turn from your sins, examine your works, are you really saved?”. How is that good news? Here is good news – Jesus died for sinners, of whom I am chief!
Where did I say repentance wasn’t neccesary. I did say elsewhere that there are many men who misuse the word today.
And Richard – have you “gone and sinned no more”? Why is it your duty to question someone else salvation? Or have you lessened the gospel by reducing it to a “try hard and if you fail, repent again and try again” message. Paul says “you are dead to sin”. Paul says “I am alive in Christ” (I mean Paul the Apostle).
Don’t you see that when you do this fruit picking, you put yourself on a pedestal. Really, the only thing you “gauge” others salvation by is yourself.
Followers of Paul Washer and youtube calvinism (I guess I’ll have to call it that to seperate it from what Don or Amanda or others believe), are self righteous. You come to this site and see the errors of IFB’s, but you refuse to see your own legalism.
Salvation is not a process – salvation is a person. God gives us His Son – Jesus Christ. God is become my Saviour, King David wrote prophetically.
And just to finish up, I originally said:
” You must admit there is nothnig in you worth saving, you canâ€™t do anything, even commit to Christ, which totally destroys pride, ”
That is repentance – to think again – to admit and own your sinnership. Repentance is not “turn from your sins”. If it was, what do you do with Jonah 3:10
And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
Is God a sinner? Did God turn from his sins here? Also, notice that the ninevites did turn from their sins, and God calls this a work. And too often today, these youtube calvinists turn repentance into a work – something you must do.
So no, a sinner cannot be saved unless they repent – ie, think again, admit they are sinners. In Luke 13:3 who was he talking to? People who thought OTHERS were worse than them (and that God had punished these others for being such “great” sinners). Jesus said “unless you think again [repent], you shall likewise perish”. They didn’t see their own sinnership.
If they had, they might have turned to Christ to be freed from bondage to sin. Christ holds the key to the prison, not our repentance.
>>>>>There is no good news in â€œturn from your sins, examine your works, are you really saved?â€.
Yeah, I gotta agree with you. I think Paul was all wet on that “Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you– unless indeed you fail the test?” (2 Cor 13:5).
I mean … the nerve of the guy to contradict the gospel by saying we should examine ourselves.
You would think that someone who was planting churches all over and writing half the NT under the inspiration of the Spirit could get it right. That must have been a holdover from the “Pharisee of the Pharisees” era in Paul’s life that he just couldn’t shake, even when the Spirit was inspiring him.
Thank God that he preserved a remnant in this latter generation to correct this nonsense.
Washer tells us to examine ourselves by our WORKS … by what movies and TV we watch, what we wear, the jokes we laugh at, etc. THIS IS NOT A BIBLICAL EXAMINATION! Even if we were to examine ourselves by our works, it would be by how we loved (the greatest command ) and not this “Real love is telling you are a horrible, rotten, evil person who is destined to burn in hell if you don’t toe this line! “
I haven’t heard Washer, so I will stipulate that you are correct in your representation of him.
First, if you don’t examine works, what do you examine?
Second, you don’t think that what we watch on TV and movies is an indication of what we love? Is a man who watches pornography not indicating something about his love for his wife? Does a man who watches football obsessively not indicate that he loves football? Does a person who laughs at crude and/or blasphemous humor not demonstrating something about his love?
Third, how would you respond to Christ who said that what we do (obedience) reveals whether or not we have fellowship with him? He says if you don’t obey, you don’t have fellowship with him.
@Gene Aye Caramba.
@RobM … Curious as to what that means.
@Gene you just posted that you think you can both measure & define someone’s eternal status based on works. And that you can define those works based on how much or what television programming they are watching. Aye Caramba.
in the chicken and egg argument Gene must believe that works produce faith?
unless indeed you fail the test?â€
There’s a test?
Why did’nt someone tell me?
What, is it like the SAT? Is there a study guide?
Who is the test administrator?
Is it graded on a curve? (those darn sanctimonious fundies always skewing the curve…)
Is the hair on the ears, sin in the heart thingy on the test?
(be glad when my hair gets long enough to pull back off my ears in a ponytail… I hate having that sin in my heart because my hair is on my ears…. does long hair in the ears themselves count?)
Guess I better start crammin’ … “crank up the coffee pot darlin’ I gotta git studyin”
“does long hair in the ears themselves count?”
if it does, then I’m in a world of hurt.
I have heard this guy before. The pastor of one of the IFB churches I attended used to import him every year to be the speaker for the Children’s Crusade (unfortunate title). This was that church’s version of VBS. Not as much fun as VBS, either.
Richard Sullivan said,
“As far as Scofield, he was the key person to push the modern dispensational teachings that are so rampant today.
Ah, yes – “Doctor” Scofield! Never mind the fact that no educational institution on God’s green earth had ever granted him that title.
And noone I know ever called him Doctor either.
Besides, what I originally said was he had some beautiful non-dispensational literature. I don’t even own a Scofield.
I own the most ridiculous commentary ever written. It’s called the “Common Man’s Reference Bible” and the author is hilarious. I could fill this site with quotes from his commentary. Compared to some of what this guy says (most of it is weird patriotic stuff), would make Scofields notes look inspired.
Only reason I use it still is because it’s still got a Bible in it and it’s a good decent size for reading.
“Yeah, I gotta agree with you. I think Paul was all wet on that â€œTest yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in youâ€“ unless indeed you fail the test?â€ (2 Cor 13:5).”
Thanks for your agreement. It seems most Christians want to examine their WORKS today and prove their own salvation by their works, instead of examining their FAITH to see where their faith lies –
If it is in Christ, it is solid. If it is in self, it is shifting sand.
For example, openly randomly to 2 Kings 15, my CMRB has one note on the entire chapter. vs 20 note says “money talks through political payoffs.”
Well, that’s some real spiritual insight there…
“Second, you donâ€™t think that what we watch on TV and movies is an indication of what we love? Is a man who watches pornography not indicating something about his love for his wife? Does a man who watches football obsessively not indicate that he loves football? Does a person who laughs at crude and/or blasphemous humor not demonstrating something about his love?”
None of these things are an indication that a person is lost. A man who watches pornography may be hiding a huge struggle that you are unaware of. I am sure there are several Christian men on this site that could testify to doing things they hate and not knowing how to be free (the answer is not repentance – the freedom comes from accepting who you are in Christ). A man in love with sport… can he not be more in love with Jesus? My wife and I often make naughty jokes to each other. Naughty in the sense that you wouldn’t say them to someone you didn’t sleep with. I figured out that sexuality isn’t wrong a while back.
A man who views pornography may still trust Jesus Christ as his Saviour, but until he knows it is not his job to free himself, but that Christ has already freed him, he won’t find victory.
The man who is in love with sports may still trust Jesus Christ as his Saviour, but until he learns more of who Jesus Christ is and what he has done (learn of me for I am meek and lowly), he will not have rest in his soul.
The man who laughs at crude jokes may still trust Christ as his Saviour. You don’t know what goes through his mind after he hears a joke and laughs. Maybe he feels remorse.
None of those things are ideal, but praise God, He died for all my sins. I don’t have to “try” and get right with him. He made me right with Him. And as that reality becomes more real to me, He, in me, shines more and more brightly, unto the perfect day.
You also never answered the question
Have you “gone and sinned no more”? Because you added that as a part of the “process of salvation”.
@Richard: I think that because of you used the phrase go and sin no more in proximity of your question to exIFB about repentence he equating repentence with ceasing from sin. You were using the woman taken in adultery as an example of the way one is to live their life after forgivenes am I right?
@exIFB: I think Richard is talking about living in un-repentant sin(Titus1:16). When Jesus said go and sin no more I think he was specifically talking about adutery not don’t ever commit one sin again.
Washer is specifically on a war path against people who have prayed the sinners prayer and use to live how they want to. He may have gone overboard in what he’s doing. I can’t say cause I have not realy listened to him that much. When I quote TitusI am not advocating what Robin says Washer abdicates.
@Gene: I don’t think your sarcasm helped the conversation.
ExIFB is a very wise person
I know you aren’t advocating that bro 🙂
You said “Washer is specifically on a war path against people who have prayed the sinners prayer and use to live how they want to. He may have gone overboard in what heâ€™s doing. I canâ€™t say cause I have not realy listened to him that much. When I quote TitusI am not advocating what Robin says Washer abdicates.”
Yes, he has gone overboard. Or perhaps he has not, because I agree with him in regards to the fact that many have prayed a prayer and are trusting in that prayer, but those that follow him have gone way overboard. So much so that anyone who claims to believe in God’s free grace is automatically railed against as believing in “cheap grace” or “greasy grace” or something else, and they don’t even bother to understand what I believe, but lump me with the “quick prayerism” crowd.
As Robin said, Washer exhorts his listeners to examine their works to see if they have fruit. But fruit of the spirit is not a work – it is rest – peace, joy, love, righteousness IN the holy Ghost, and not apart from Him.
Paul the Apostle nowhere exhorts believers to examine their works for proof of salvation, but rather, to look to Christ as His grace is sufficient to overcome any sinful behaviour in those that have trusted Christ.
I’ve found Charlie Bings gracenotes really helpful recently
God bless 🙂
Loren – I am not wise. Not by any means. In fact, it is only by God’s grace that he has taught me any lessons – and many of them came very hard due to my stubbornness. I’ve been abusive, hateful, prideful, arrogant and some of those attributes probably still come through sometimes.
I used to love that kind of preaching (both in this video, and the Paul Washer stuff too). It would “move” me. It would make me emotional. I would cry and want to do better for God. And I completely missed out on the truth – He has already made me righteous. I was so busy looking at my self that the most beautiful treasure in Heaven and Earth was outside my vision.
And because I was so angry at my own failures, I took it out on others. I stood up in the street and screamed and ranted against alcohol, sexual perversion and all other kinds of sin (There is still a video of me on youtube doing this. I am not going to link to it, but it’s not on my YT account, so I can’t remove it). The listeners didn’t know my own struggles with the very things I spoke against. I thought if I hated the sin enough, I wouldn’t be tempted by it. Wrong. I have found that when I know the Saviour more, I am not tempted by it.
Sorry Loren, I didn’t mean to sound like that was a rebuke. It totally wasn’t 🙂 Just explaining where I am coming from 🙂
@ Phil: Thank you for highlighting my points. I couldn’t have wrote it any better.
@ exIFB: I sin every single day, do you? I’m not putting myself on a “pedestal” as you so judgmentally phrased it. There are fruits and living associated with being a follower of Jesus Christ. If there aren’t any, then we are truly no different from the world. James 1:21-27, 2:14-26
Legalist? Come, come, now. Who’s being judgmental now? You don’t even know me and my own life as a believer. I was talking about evidences of a believer. I wasn’t even implying legalistic things about Bible versions, hair length, dresses on woman, etc., etc. which fundies thrive on. If you would have read some of my other posts (especially my exchanges with Phil), you might have seen how opposed I am to legalism.
You wrote, “Repentance is not â€œturn from your sinsâ€”. I remember hearing that so many times from so many IFB preachers. Repentance is a God-given ability to turn from sin to the Savior and his forgiveness.
I do not agree with Washer and others about musical preferences, dress codes, etc. as a litmus test for spirituality. I abhor anything like it. I listen to and play (guitar) prog rock. I like beer and wine. I like to do other things that I’m sure that are not “Washer-approved”. I have liberty as a believer to do those things and I don’t need “approval” from anyone. I mentioned that Paul Washer is preaching to many-a-crowd trusting in a “Sinner’s Prayer” but have never trusted in the Savior. Period.
You made a few statements that were very judgmental on your part. You call yourself “exIFB” but truthfully you have some left over thinking and judging yourself that still exemplifies a fundy. Before you start calling someone a “legalist” and telling them there on a “pedestal”, I’d make sure you get all the facts first before the name-calling. Matthew 7:1-5
Grace & Peace- Rich
“You call yourself â€œexIFBâ€ but truthfully you have some left over thinking and judging yourself that still exemplifies a fundy.”
Duh… I know. It’s hard to shake old habits mate. I just finished saying that to Loren too. I still get frustrated very easily and the abusive attitude comes out. God’s working on that 🙂
You wrote:” I remember hearing that so many times from so many IFB preachers. ”
I’ve also heard many IFB’s that teach repentance is “turning from sin”. Regardless, whether or not an IFB says something does not make it true or not. There are many good preachers who are not IFB’s who also believe that repentance is a change of mind (towards sin, the Savior etc) – Charlie Bing above is one of them 😀
Let’s leave it there with no hard feelings. I see where you are coming from, and I apologise if I caused you any distress or misrepresented you.
Grace and peace definitely 🙂
Gene you just posted that you think you can both measure & define someoneâ€™s eternal status based on works. And that you can define those works based on how much or what television programming they are watching. Aye Caramba.
My apologies, Rob. I must have missed that because for the life of me, I don’t recall saying either one of those things (and I think you know I didn’t say that, and if you don’t know it, then go back and read).
You guys are good representatives for what’s wrong with fundamentalism. You don’t read well. You don’t think well. You make bad arguments and don’t know it. And you parade around like you know it all. All the while refusing to actually talk about the Bible.
So tell us, in 2 Cor 13:5, what is the test? By what standard are we to see if we are in the faith? And in 1 John 2, what does it mean when it says that if you don’t obey him, you do not have fellowship with him?
I know you guys here are big on sitting around and making fun. Actually knowing what you are talking about is a far different matter though.
You donâ€™t read well. You donâ€™t think well.
Huh? That’s really, really, really odd and out-of-the-blue. And typical. Stick to the facts and leave the hoist-them-on-their-own-petard bullying for another group. It won’t fly here.
@exIFB: We are all “diamonds in the rough”. I know exactly where you are coming from. I still have fundy flashbacks now and again but they have lessened over the years. No harm, no foul. It’s good to chat with you though. Grace & Peace – Rich
There is no test to pass. Regardless of your stand regarding Bible versions – the NIV and many modern translations have translated it wrongly. The last part says in several translations “except ye be reprobates”
Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
The “test” here is assurance – trust/faith in Christ alone – knowing He is in you. Knowing that your faith is in the proper object of faith – Jesus.
But even reading it from a newer translation
“Examine yourselves to see if your faith is genuine. Test yourselves. Surely you know that Jesus Christ is among you; if not, you have failed the test of genuine faith.” – NLT
The test here is knowing that Jesus is among you. I think the word among is wrong, and should be in, since Christ is not only amongst us, but more specifically, in us.
So that’s the “test” – trusting and believing Christ has saved you and dwells in you. There are no set of rules to live up to to pass this test. You can’t say “I don’t watch TV shows therefore that is evidence I am saved”, nor can you say “Well, exIFB watches FRINGE on tv, so he must not be saved”.
@Richard – my last comment was directed at Gene, who asked about 2 Cor 13:5 🙂
And now back to our regular program…I forgot, what were we watching?
And now back to our regular programâ€¦I forgot, what were we watching?
Something sinful, like CNN.
May God have mercy on his poor soulâ€¦
Speaking of guiltâ€¦I remember back in the day when I was so easily manipulated by guilt. I remember our pastor saying that, if we don’t tell someone about Jesus, we will be at fault and the blood will be on our hands. Yeah. And for whatever reason then, I went with it. And then, while at some shopping plaza place, I saw some guy and felt the urge to witness to him. Granted, I didn’t know him. But I didn’t talk to him. So I felt guilty.
Then later, after I exited Fundyland 1, I realized how bull that was and how dumb I felt for thinking that. Thankfully God is sovereign enough to save whom He wills and not leave us to fault for whatever reasons.
@ Camile Yepzedoozers, that flight’s cancelled fo sho.
btw The command in 2 Cor. 13:5, 2 Peter 1:3, and 1:10 is for the individual to be sure of his/her own relationship with his/her Savior… not for any self-appointed self-anointed fruit inspector to be issuing their stamp of approval.
First, if you donâ€™t examine works, what do you examine?
Well, we are to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrines of scripture.
-But what does a Christian “look” like?
-Can you look and tell who is and who isn’t a Christian?
-What works makes a Christian?
-Can someone do mighty works and not be a Christian? (trick question see Matthew chapter 7)
-You donâ€™t read well.
-You donâ€™t think well.
-You make bad arguments and donâ€™t know it.
-And you parade around like you know it all.
-All the while refusing to actually talk about the Bible.
-Actually knowing what you are talking about is a far different matter though.
Sorry man that flight’s been cancelled… Hope you enjoyed flying SFL airlines… we’ll be happy to let you pop the emergency slide.
@Don dang sounds like SFL airlines hired that Jet Blue flight attendant!
🙂 once he got on that slippery slope… it was all downhill from there.
@Camille, You said Stick to the facts and leave the hoist-them-on-their-own-petard bullying for another group. It wonâ€™t fly here.
First off, this is a blog based on satire. Some of it is good, some if funny, some is juvenile, and some is bad. But satire, by nature plays loose with facts by distorting them, caricaturing them, or using an extreme example to generalize about a broad segment. So to say to stick to the facts is contrary to the purpose of this blog, and to “hoist them on their own petard bullying” is exactly what this blog is about. You yourself do it all the time. It “flies” quite well here.
Second, I was sticking to the facts. The fact is that he didn’t read closely because what he accused me of is not what I said. And it’s all too typical. People here like mock and cut and whine which is certainly humorous at times, but the same group gets testy when it’s pointed out just how poor the thinking is at times. I have no problem with someone disagreeing. But at least properly present what you are disagreeing with.
The fact is that I asked three questions, none of which were responded to except for exIFB, I think. And from those three questions, RobM drew a conclusion which was false. The fact is that I can’t measure or determine anyone’s eternal status and certainly not by what they watch on TV. So RobM was simply incorrect.
Third, if it’s “really, really, really odd and out of the blue,” how is it also typical? Typical usually means it happens a lot; “really, really, odd and out of the blue” usually means it doesn’t happen a lot. Can it be both?
@exIFB, Thanks for a civil reply and I hope mine is likewise (which means it may seem out of place here). This may be a bit too pedantic for this fun loving forum, so my apologies. Feel free to disregard if you like, but I hope you will interact a bit at least to help me understand your point.
There is no test to pass.
So I am honestly confused by this and would love to clarification. According to Paul, we are to test ourselves. but according to you there is no test to pass? So what was Paul commanding? Is your point that we don’t have to pass the test? Later you talk about the test, so I think you admit there is a test (I think I am reading you rightly there), so the key seems to be passing, in which case I wonder why Paul would say to take a test that you didn’t have to pass anyway.
The last part says in several translations â€œexcept ye be reprobatesâ€
I admit that for the first time in years, I looked something up in the KJV, and in fact it has this phrase (which I didn’t know). What other versions make up your “several translations”? Just curious because I am not familiar with other translations who do this. Most seem to say something about “fail the test” or “fail to meet the test.” The Greek word there is adokimoi, which means to fail, to be disapproved, or disqualified, or something along those lines. So “fail the test” is certainly legitimate.
The â€œtestâ€ here is assurance â€“ trust/faith in Christ alone â€“ knowing He is in you. Knowing that your faith is in the proper object of faith â€“ Jesus.
I think that is iffy, at best, unless I am misunderstanding you, because the purpose of the test seems to be to have assurance. The test is not assurance itself. Your position seems to make it a tautology of sorts: “Be assured so that you can have assurance.” Isn’t Paul’s point is that we are to test something so that we can have assurance. My question is, What are we to test?
“Faith/believing” is one answer, but I hardly think it fits the context of Corinth since surely all of them would claim to believe. But in 1 Cor 15, Paul talks about the possibility of “vain faith.” I think that is what he is addressing. How do we know we have not believed in vain? By testing ourselves. But according to what do we test ourselves to know that our faith is not empty faith? Wouldn’t that be something like what James talks about in James 2? Or Paul in Col 1, or Hebrews 3?
The test here is knowing that Jesus is among you.
You sure? I think “Jesus in you” is what is trying to be established. The purpose of the test is to know that Jesus is in you, and he is in you unless you fail the test. In other words, Paul’s assumption is that Jesus is in them, unless they fail the test.
If you are correct, it would seem to read something like “Jesus is in you unless Jesus is not in you.” Again, I may simply be misunderstanding you.
How would you know if Jesus is in you? Jesus said it was by keeping his commandments, didn’t he?
So thatâ€™s the â€œtestâ€ â€“ trusting and believing Christ has saved you and dwells in you.
So again, what’s the point of 1 John 2, where obedience is connected directly with salvation. You say that ” There are no set of rules to live up to to pass this test,” but 1 John is all about “how we know that we have eternal life” and it directly connects it to “rules,” or better put, biblical obedience to Scripture (not to manmade nonsense).
Given the turmoil at Corinth, it is surely true that all Corinthians would claim to trust and believe that Christ has saved them. Yet the whole book is addressing spiritual/ethical/moral deficiencies that should cause them great concern. They have been testing Paul; Paul is saying, “You should be testing yourselves.”
Murray Harris in the NIGTC puts it this way: “But in a context that emphasizes the need for proper Christian action (12:20â€“21; 13:7, á¼µÎ½Î± á½‘Î¼Îµá¿–Ï‚ Ï„á½¸ ÎºÎ±Î»á½¸Î½ Ï€Î¿Î¹á¿†Ï„Îµ) the most satisfactory option is to take á¼¡ Ï€Î¯ÏƒÏ„Î¹Ï‚ in a broad sense as referring to Christian conduct that accords with Christian doctrine. That is, â€œbeing in the faithâ€ means continuing true to the faith in conduct as well as in belief” (920).
You canâ€™t say â€œI donâ€™t watch TV shows therefore that is evidence I am savedâ€, nor can you say â€œWell, exIFB watches FRINGE on tv, so he must not be savedâ€.
Then I am glad you agree with me, because I never said anything of the sort.
PS – I haven’t seen the video here and have no idea who it is. I don’t do flash video, so I can’t see it.
The command in 2 Cor. 13:5, 2 Peter 1:3, and 1:10 is for the individual to be sure of his/her own relationship with his/her Saviorâ€¦ not for any self-appointed self-anointed fruit inspector to be issuing their stamp of approval.
So you agree with me. I am glad. But why mock me? I don’t get that. Usually we mock people who disagree with us, not those who agree with us.
Well, we are to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrines of scripture.
-But what does a Christian â€œlookâ€ like?
1 John helps us here tremendously, as do a number of other passages. I was reading Ephesians 4:1-2 where it talks about walking worthy of your calling (your salvation) which includes humility, gentleness, patience, and showing tolerance for one another in love.
How do you think you’re doing with that list? I am trying to be gentle and humble here and teachable. My first response was overboard in sarcasm. I wish I had it back, but I don’t. I shouldn’t have said it the way I did. I confess that and ask forgiveness for it.
-Can you look and tell who is and who isnâ€™t a Christian?
Not always, but there are some indicators. That’s the point of church discipline, isn’t it? When their profession is no longer credible because of their life, you are treat them as unbelievers; you are to evict them from the church and not to eat with any “so-called” brother. Because you can look at their lives and see they are not living as a Christian and there is therefore no reason to treat them as a Christian.
-What works makes a Christian?
Jesus works make a Christian. No other works are good enough to make a Christian.
-Can someone do mighty works and not be a Christian? (trick question see Matthew chapter 7)
Of course. (Where’s the trick? That was the easiest question you asked.)
@Gene: I was not trying to mock you, but your very first comment sounded sarcastic.
@Phil, Yes it was. In my previous post (right above yours), I acknowledged that it was overboard in sarcasm and I should not have done that. Unfortunately, I cannot undo it. The others were not in the least.
@ Camille – my thoughts exactly.
Kudos to Gene. I hadn’t looked at any comments on this post until tonight, and I read through the whole thread. Whether or not you agree with Gene, I think he’s the only one who consistently made sense.
@ Camille – Don’t take too much offense, but after the many things I’ve read from you (including your blog), I was dissapointed in your replies.
One more point to all – humanity is a complex mess. Here we have a blog that jabs (mostly) in fun at some obvious problems. But when the jabbers get jabbed back, they react in much the same way as those who they repeatedly jab. Sorry, that was sort of wierd. What I mean is that I don’t see much of the “laughing at yourself” attitude portrayed here, which is, I think, the major point of SFL.
Here’s the issue.
Fundyism is rife with those who use outward appearance to judge who is and who isn’t worthy, who is and who isn’t spiritual and who is and who isn’t a Christian. That is why we are a wee bit touchy about the whole external worthiness thingy.
The truth of the matter is we cannot see the heart. We do not know what God is doing in that heart. Now if there is blatent sin we are commanded to go to that brother or sister and help them. But in the end it is between the individual and Christ to examine and make their calling and election sure…. not some outside fruit inspector.
I have a sneaking suspicion that when we get to heaven there will be folks there that would suprise us now… and many others who won’t be there that would suprise us just a well.
You know Don, from my experience in Fundyism, it wasn’t just the fundies that did this. The kind of people I ran into in various forums that weren’t fundamentalists were just as judgmental and fruit inspecting as any of us at the time. They just went about it in different ways. For example, the Ray Comfort crowd (I fear that mentioning his name is liable to start another riot), often say things like “if you aren’t out sharing your faith you probably aren’t saved”. I actually have it on tape of him saying that, and in writing as well, somewhere around this old house. Fruit inspecting isn’t just limited to the fundies 🙂
Very true, very true 🙂
Donâ€™t take too much offense, but after the many things Iâ€™ve read from you (including your blog), I was dissapointed in your replies.
Well, at least you got your money’s worth.
The thing is, my dear still-in-fundyland fundies, the “satire” here isn’t just satire. It’s therapy. The entire THING is laughing at ourselves. All of it. This stuff here *is* us. We’re in on the joke. We’re not talking about “them.” We’re talking about ourselves.
When I said “stick to the facts,” I’m trying to positively state what I could otherwise say negatively: QUIT ACCUSING. When I said it was out of the blue and typical, I meant that it was not relevant to the flow of conversation and yet it’s a predictable fundamentalist trope. That you can’t get the meaning or the “joke” is proof that we’re just not at all talking the same language.
That’s okay in a sense. But when you interrupt a conversation to confront and provoke and accuse . . . well, Poe’s Law covers it.
@Camille: Owned. 🙂
“i would think his mouth would stink more than his hind leg, though, on account of all the [expletive deleted] coming out of it.”
My beloved, I believe the word you’re looking for is “bullschaap”.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.