August 14, 2016

The Most Important Thing You’ll Ever Hear (Pastor Eric Anderson, LCMS)

What you hear matters. Jesus warns that you can’t assume what you’re hearing is true, even in church. And so He warns about wolves who come in sheep’s clothing. Satan will distract you with friendly pastors and catchy songs so you don’t notice as he’s stealing God’s Word from you. The devil disguises himself as an angel of light. The minute you lower your guard and something becomes more important than hearing the voice of your Shepherd, Satan will devour you. What you hear matters.
Read more here https://seelsorge40.wordpress.com/2016/08/14/the-most-important-thing-youll-ever-hear-a-sermon-for-the-twelfth-sunday-after-trinity/

August 7, 2016

Pr Mark Surburg - several posts on Antinomianism in Lutheran circles

Pr Mark Surburg has collected a few articles which deal with antinomianism and law/sanctification preaching in Lutheran churches.

Several of them have additional further reading.  Worth going through especially in light of the previous post about Higher Things, Rosebrough, and "John Philoponus"

Read pastor Mark's posts here (be sure to click "older posts" at the bottom to get through all the pages of posts).
http://surburg.blogspot.com/search?q=antinomian

August 5, 2016

Yet another friendly fire attack from the Piratey one against someone trying to express concerns about antinomianism

A Dinatarian Higher Things Conference

  by "John Philoponus" (apparently a pseudonym)

He makes the case that they are leaving out any discussion of sanctification.  After reading a few paragraphs I realized that "Dinatarian" is being used in contrast to "trinitarian" because the writer makes the case that the conference left out the third  article of the creed, the work of the Holy Spirit, and his work of sanctification in our lives.

This gels with some of the attitudes I've observed in some of the younger voices in the LCMS as well.  Especially those who have been enamored of LIBERATE and Mockingbird and Christ Hold Fast.  It is discouraging to see that this is not being put down more decisively. Sandra Ostapowich and Ellie Corrow, along with Donavon Riley all seem to have a huge attachment to Nadia Bolz Weber.  Any time she's mentioned, they tend to mock everyone who thinks there's that much of a problem with the woman.  I have experienced especially Sandra O's constant deconstructing interrogation every time a discussion is begun in Lutheran Facebook groups regarding Nadia especially, but it happened more times than I can count, and I'm sure we didn't discuss Nadia that much.  It became insufferable for quite a few of us and yet the moderators let her run around all over the place slipping in her shivs. No amount of asking the moderators to notice it could get them to see it.  They also made sure to trash women who promoted godliness in the comments section at the Sisters of Katie Luther. I should be clear to mention that not all the SKL contributors are like that.  But when you let catty women like those, who seem only interested in undermining any admonitions to godly behavior because they are still in their cage stage overreacting to  perceived moralism or pietism, women don't always stick around enduring the needling, to find out about the others.

But then, the LCMS couldn't even figure out what to do about Matt Becker, whose errors were so much more blatant.  Instead they tried to attack those who were concerned about the do-nothing result of the discipline proceedings. So...it's not surprising.

So of course, Chris Rosebrough has responded. He just cannot resist trashing someone who sees a problem before he does.  Either he doesn't actually see it or he wants to discredit them so later he can take credit for exposing it, as the LCMS and AALC's anointed watchman. He makes a point to hammer home the fact that the author of the above article used "dinitarian" rather than "binitarian."  Maybe because Rosebrough subconsciously has an idea that that's the biggest error worth attacking.  So might as well draw attention to it.  Also, because someone  They are automatically guilty of bearing false witness and have to repent.  Thus spake Pope Rosebrough:

A Call for John Philoponus to Repent



When Chris outright lied to me in the beginning of 2015 when I asked him why he changed the story about what happened regarding our big huge fight in 2010-2011, I gave up.  I mildly tried to request an explanation.  He saw my response, and I waited a few days to see if he would offer me anything worth considering.  Changing the narrative is changing the narrative. It's lying.  He claimed he had to do it to avoid looking like he was self justifying.  But his changing the narrative actually had the exact opposite effect.   It made his former apology null and void because we (those of us who had concerns back then) were once again the bad guys.

Nothing came, so he was written off.  It wasn't worth the fight anymore.  That was such a bullying manipulative roller coaster, I haven't dealt with anything like that since high school. Well I shouldn't say that.  There was one job I had where a couple coworkers were having an affair and he broke up with her (she was married/separated, with two children) and she tried to pit us all against the guy to punish him for his unfaithfulness to her, (yes, seriously!) when she was actually much more the problem. Not to mention that he was 18 and she was in her 30s. Yeah it was pretty sick.  I kinda felt sorry for the kid by the end of it.

Rosebrough proves once more that has learned nothing.  He is still the same.  Once again I'm reminded it's not worth bothering with him anymore.  Lying is ok I guess if you're the captain of your own Pirate Ship.  But at least we know there's one rule they live by - do not question the leadership.


Btw if you wonder why I'm bothering again, let's just blame someone in my house that alerted me to the story. :-)  I'll tell this nameless person to quit giving me news regarding Rosebrough unless it changes substantially in behavior pattern.



July 21, 2016

Some of the most disappointing Christian responses to something they should be thrilled about (edited)

(edited -  -added examples and info)

I honestly was all set up to be disappointed by Cruz last night, because the loyalty pledge he took was a foolhardy idea in the first place. Just like his misplaced trust in Boehner.    I honestly did not expect him to do what he did.   I expected him to buckle to the ridiculous legalism of the RNC, like every other politician eventually has done.  That was a line I would not want to have to walk.  But those are minor disappointments with Cruz, and he has publicly realized his misjudgments.  On the other hand, Trump and Hillary never admit their wrongs and go ahead and make such gaffes and misjudgments and tell outright lies with impunity daily.

The very thing that caused me to rejoice is the thing that everyone is flipping out about and condemning him for that one speck in Ted's eye, that speck he finally had removed. The fact that he refused to fulfill an evil oath.

When Christians cannot discern something so BLATANTLY obvious, it makes me really wonder whether they actually have faith at all.  I know I probably shouldn't feel that way, because everyone has blind spots. But hey we're all about honesty here aren't we?

There have been some real doozy Christian pharisees out there condemning this 'broken pledge.'
Yeah the Graham family wouldn't know ANYTHING about broken vows, would they...

Another guy here who regularly gets flak for not doing things the 'right way.'


Andrew Klavan, saying Ted made a "moral error" (in which case, then Jesus made moral errors too because he broke the sabbath, insulted the spiritual leaders, etc)  and comparing Ted Cruz's comments to Obama insulting the police and insinuating the police really are racists:
 https://soundcloud.com/andrewklavanshow/ep160

Here is one of the most disappointing and frankly ridiculous responses I saw last night from a Christian broadcaster who really ought to know better.


You can see that I responded to her a number of times if you're interested. She finally blocked me this morning. *yawn* well ok.  She apparently doesn't quite understand the fig leaf style block feature that twitter gives a person.

Seems to me she's still smarting from when she was unfairly attacked for the technicality of not following Matt 18 exposing Driscoll's plagiarism, while demonstrating that she is not above the same ability to attack people on such specious technicalities.  The hypocrisy  among the Christian broadcasting and 'discernment' set is indeed rampant. Too much time spent among the Evangelical Industrial Complex has the same effect as spending too much time in Washington DC. I wonder if she would be OK with a public and forced apology for having signed the pledge?

So here are an assortment of pretty priceless responses I saw though:










Walsh had some great ones last night.

Steve Berman at The Resurgent paints a pretty decent picture of Martin Luther and compares it pretty well to the political scene today. (Remember that church and state politics were not separate in the time of Luther, so there is every reason in the world to make this comparison, as well as the fact that people operate the same sinful way in church a lot of time as they do in the left hand kingdom.)

Source:Ted Cruz is a Heretic
Campaign manager Paul Manafort let Cruz know that if he didn’t change his speech and endorse Trump (which was not a requirement to speak), then Cruz would suffer consequences.

Erick reported that these consequences included: Being booed on the stage, being criticized by specific media and talk radio personalities, and having cover stories planted by the RNC to indicate that Cruz altered his speech. Cruz did not endorse Trump from the stage, and all of Manafort’s threats have come to pass.

Trump had the power to require an endorsement from Cruz as a condition of speaking. Instead of holding to that, Trump tried to trap Cruz into an endorsement against his own conscience, placing him in the same situation as Martin Luther: Recant or be cast as a heretic. Why would Trump do this? Why does he need Cruz’s endorsement in the first place?

He needs it because Cruz represents to Trump and the GOP what Martin Luther represented to the Catholic Church. Cruz said “don’t stay home in November.” He said “If you love our country, and love our children as much as you do, stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom, and to be faithful to the constitution.”

What Trump and his supporters wanted from Cruz was an indulgence. His supporters wanted absolution for their candidate. They wanted to hear Cruz recant. They wanted their consciences assuaged for their support of Trump. Cruz did not offer that. He offered a defense of conservative principles, and the mores of the Republican Party. He attacked Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. He urged people to vote. And Trump supporters booed him for it.

They were given instructions to boo if it appeared Cruz would not offer a by-name endorsement to Trump, which, again, was not a requirement for Cruz to speak. Cruz did his best to support his party, and stand on conscience. But he would not offer an indulgence.
Seems like some protestant Christians would rather go back to 1500s Rome.

I find only one reason to vote for Trump. To ensure that the mindless trumpons and fake Cruz supporters who cant wait to turn around and backstab him can find out what he really is. Like the whole Walton's scene about making kids smoke a whole package of cigarettes to teach them not to smoke.

But that's not really enough for me.
SaveSave

April 14, 2016

Thank you Todd Pruitt for taking on the SGM / CJ Mahaney / T4G scandal

Todd Pruitt has weighed in on the continuing coverup by Mahaney's friends of Mahaney's misdeeds.

An Appeal to the Organizers of Together for the Gospel
I understand and value loyalty to friends. I understand that false accusations are made. But I also understand that loyalty has its limits. The details that have been revealed about the various SGM scandals show that there is indeed at least some fire behind the smoke.  
read more at Alliancenet.org

The Evangelical Industrial Complex just keeps rolling along, squashing children and biblical dissenters with impunity.

Lord, have mercy. Christ, have mercy.

March 25, 2016

I see a pattern here (Donald Trump Attacking Families)


It is amazing how Trump supporters blindly repeat the mantras tweeted out by their Messiah, not even bothering to verify the facts.  Still claiming Ted Cruz was affiliated with the ad showing the GQ cover, when it stated plainly on the ad that it was not endorsed by any candidate or candidate's committee.  And then another question comes to mind.  Why are Trump and his supporters upset about a publicly available GQ cover (which happens to have been photographed in Trump's plane) being put in a political ad in the first place? Is there something wrong with the cover?  Enquiring minds want to know!

Btw - this from 10-2015, a pattern of attacking families, false accusations using his friends from the Nat'l Enquirer.

Donald Trump’s Alliance With the National Enquirer
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/10/trumps-alliance-with-the-national-enquirer.html
Now, as Carson overtakes Trump as the GOP front-runner, it appears Trump is getting help from a media outlet known for ending presidential candidacies: the National Enquirer. Earlier this month, the Enquirer published a cover story on Carson headlined “Bungling Surgeon Ben Carson Left Sponge in Patient’s Brain!” The article called Carson a “White House wannabe” and claimed he “brandished a scalpel like a meat cleaver!” It went on to quote angry former patients saying he botched surgeries that left them disfigured and in pain; one patient who sued Carson said he forgot to remove a surgical sponge from her brain after a procedure. “His presidential campaign should be dead on arrival!” Enquirer reporter Sharon Churcher wrote.
So yeah.  People like the Satanic Trump resort to very desperate measures to stay on top of the heap.  He is the epitome of anti constitutionalist, and would be better suited to running a drug cartel.

Any Christian that makes excuses for voting for this evil person FOR ANY REASON (even "anybody but Hillary) is pretty much demonstrating that their faith means very little to their thought processes regarding politics.

And no, I don't and won't apologize for that statement.  Ever.