Archive for March, 2013

wrong side of the argument #3

Posted: March 28, 2013 in NSFE

Mark DriscollMark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, gets it from both sides. Conservatives bash him because he doesn’t wear a tie when he’s in the shower — which, if one believes meteorological stereotypes, is 24/7 in his home city. Liberals hate on him because he actually believes that stuff in the Bible about Jesus conquering Satan with absolute finality one day and Mark thinks that that may require a bit of violence.

Had God not called Driscoll to be a pastor, he surely would have been an MMA fighter — although he’d probably take all his opponents out for pizza afterwards and tell them about the love of Jesus.

So why is it that, given how they are incessantly spoiling for a fight, Mark’s conservative critics don’t fully embrace him?


just call me ‘cache’

Posted: March 21, 2013 in general

So I’m looking at a recent TeamPyro post (I go there to relieve my hypotension) by “Dan” “Phillips” and there are so many links in the article, that it looks like a remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre (red being the color they use for unvisited links). I look a bit closer and realize that EIGHT of those links are self-referential (linking to other posts on that same blog). I hadn’t even read the post yet, but I just had to comment — the narcissism was overwhelming — so I wrote:

I haven’t seen that many self-referential links since the last time I read Ken Silva.

Naturally, with no actual evidence, “Dan” assumed what my comment was really about, and replied thusly:

So that’s another vote for “True, untrue, who cares? Just shut up about it.”

Every false teacher and irresponsible leader is indebted to such as you, Ted.

Now, like I said, I hadn’t even read the post yet. So I had no clue what he was talking about.  I replied:

My comment — a mere statement of fact — stands on its own, and is in no way commentary on the content of the post.

But, I take back my Ken Silva reference — it’s not fair. Ken never read THAT MUCH into something someone else said.

Two minutes later, either embarrassed by the fact that he made a really bad assumption or angry about the fact that he’s worse than Silva, “Dan” deleted the entire exchange. And then even cobbled together a quick “move along; nothing to see here” comment to make it look like there had been no activity in the last couple hours.

But there really should be a record of it somewhere.

(click to embiggen)

destroying evidence is a crime in most states

wrong side of the argument #1a

Posted: March 17, 2013 in NSFE

most offensive movie ever to CalvinistsThis post is actually a follow-up to this one that I wrote a couple weeks ago.

After that post hit someone’s radar, they accused me of committing the “the part-to-whole fallacy”. Now I have a friend who is a logical fallacy ninja, so I’ve learned a good bit about such things in recent years. Therefore, I knew what the accuser was talking about.

I explained that “I was using absurdity to illustrate absurdity”, and that seemed to satisfy the other person. However, it occurred to me that the absurdity that I was illustrating might still not have been clear — if it was, he might not have been as satisfied. I decided not to pursue it further, though.

But then, “Dan” “Phillips” went and gave Exhibit A with this Twitter gem the other day:

If the Bible you have features a God who can be defeated by human “free will,” better #CheckYourBible

See, in order to buy into Calvinism (or at least the brand that most neo-Refs buy into) you have to be violently opposed to the concept of free will. There is no middle ground or alternate explanation in the neo-Ref’s eyes.

This line of thinking is so incredibly fallacious that it doesn’t even have to depend on which part of the Arminianism-Calvinsim spectrum that you fall on. Because to conflate free will and defeating God is an absolute absurdity. By this same logic, every sin that is committed is a defeat of God (at least temporarily). After all, if free will is in stark opposition to God — and it certainly is if one equates it with defeating him (or at least attempting to do so) — then sin (which is clearly in opposition to God) is of equal measure in defeating him.

See, “Dan”, there’s this thing called God’s permissive will. He allows things to happen that aren’t necessarily in his perfect will. Abortion. Murder. Natural disasters. Towers falling on people and killing them. Pauly Shore’s career.

I mean, really, do you want to serve an entity that caused Bio-Dome ?

we must not forget the cross

Posted: March 14, 2013 in NSFE


We can walk all we want, we can build many things, but if we don’t proclaim Jesus Christ, something is wrong. We would become a compassionate [non-governmental organization] and not a Church which is the bride of Christ.

When we walk without the cross, when we build without the cross and when we proclaim Christ without the cross, we are not disciples of the Lord. We are worldly.

Some great words, focusing on what’s truly important about the Christian faith — very convicting and (hopefully) inspiring. So who said them?

“Dan” “Phillips”?  No.

Chris Rosebrough?  No.

Tim Challies?  No.

John MacArthur?  No.

These words were spoken by Jorge Bergoglio — more recently known as Pope Francis I.

All the Romophobes can shut up now.

wrong side of the argument #2

Posted: March 10, 2013 in NSFE, NSFW

Rob BellThe next two paragraphs are a repeat of an earlier post. If you read that post recently, you can skip them and go to “Now, Calvinists are …”

While there are many who are critical of Rob Bell, no camp is louder in their criticism than the neo-Reformed crowd. And their loudest criticism — at least since the release of the “Love Wins” promo video (they didn’t wait for the book) — is that Bell is a universalist.

Now, having not read the book, I don’t have enough information yet to form an opinion one way or the other. But I know and respect too many people who have read the book who have said, “How anyone can read this and come to the conclusion that Bell is a universalist is beyond me.” But let’s assume that my friends and others of similar beliefs are all wrong and the neo-Refs are right. In other words, let’s assume that Bell is a universalist.

Now, Calvinists are really big into the sovereignty of God. It’s the foundation upon which a lot of TULIP rests.

(I’m big into God’s sovereignty, too, but I don’t have a theological construct surrounding it. And seeing as how many Calvinists seem to think they have the corner on a belief in God’s sovereignty, let’s assume that this pathetic little Arminian  doesn’t prize it.)

One of the ramifications of God’s sovereignty  is illustrated several times in the Bible, but perhaps no more clearly than in the parable of the vineyard workers. In case you arem’t familiar with the parable, here’s a modern-day retelling:

A landowner goes to the Home Depot at 6 AM to get parts for a DIY project back at the house. While there, he sees some day laborers standing off to the side. He tells them that he’ll give them $100 to work in his vineyard until 6 that night. (I wonder if he asked to see their green cards?) They agree and pile in the back of his pickup.

At 9:00 AM, he goes back to the Home Depot because they sold him the wrong part. As he’s leaving, he sees more day laborers there. He tells them that he has work, and that if they’ll work his vineyard until 6:00, that he’ll do right by them. Despite the vagueness of the terms, they agree and pile in. At noon, he goes out to lunch. He sees more workers, says the same thing, and they agree. Then at 3:00 and 5:00 he goes back to the Home Depot (no one ever goes there only once in a day) and each time he hires more workers.

The end of the day rolls around and it’s pay time. The landowner hands his foreman a wad of bills and tells him to work backwards (starting with the guys that started at 5:00 and ending with the guys that worked all day). The guys who started at 5:00 each get $100. One of the all-day guys sees this and gets excited. “We’re gonna be rolling in it,” he tells his buddies. “That guy just got $100 for one hour of work!”

Ten minutes later, the all-day guys get paid. And they each get $100. “No fair,” they complain. “We busted it all day in the sweltering heat and get the same pay as these clowns that wandered in at the last minute. Besides, that guy over there spent half the time texting with his girlfriend!”

And what was the landowner’s response?

Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for [$100]? Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?

As Revelation 7:10 says, “Salvation belongs to our God”. It is one of his “own things”. Or look at Romans 9:15:

For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”

The all-day guys struck a deal ($100 for 12 hours’ work) with the landowner. When the landowner gave others a different deal, the all-day guys had no right whatsoever to complain.

Do you get the point? Because of his sovereignty, God can damn well do whatever he wants.

Bell’s looking more like a Calvinist every day.