March 19, 2011

Chris backs out...

(note as of 2-24-2015: I am no longer a Pirate Christian supporter.  On 9-2013 there was an update on the Ingrid/ChrisR situation - please go here:  Ingrid and Chris had reconciled.  This was a good thing.  We were all friends again.)

 Further update here:
I am no longer a Pirate Christian supporter.  Too much hypocrisy, too many double standards, too many false accusations. I apologize for all the confusion.  I pray it won't happen again.)

Apparently Jason has gotten Chris's final "thanks but no thanks" in response to his offer to discuss this publicly, one on one, without the distraction of everyone else commenting.

You can read it here:
Chris Gets the Last Word

I have real heretics and real false teachers that I need to spend my time warning the church about. I've already publicly laid out what the Biblical doctrine of Unity and Separation is on my radio program and I stand by that teaching.
So, looks like Chris has better things to do with his time than respond to an offer to reconcile or at least reach an understanding with people he's offended.  Only if it will fit into the space of a phone call apparently.  The work of real reconciliation is just too hard.

And of course, it's much easier to warn people about William Tapley (aka Third Eagle of the Apocalypse).  Because without Chris, none of us would be able to figure out that he's goofy.  But that's right, Chris likes to stick with picking the low hanging bananas... er... fruit.  It's simply just not as amusing to analyze a Jon Falwell sermon.  Because he's pretty normal and everyone thinks his message is just fine.

But, while you're warning the church about men like Michael Horton and myself,
Once again, no one was warning anyone about Horton, (in spite of the out of context audio Chris swiped from Olive Tree Views where they were talking about Piper linking arms with Warren).  If anything, it sounded to me like Ingrid was warning the Reformed camp about Warren using Horton, which Chris agreed was the case (Warren using Horton and others). About all that I ever said about Horton was that he didn't seem to clearly rebuke Warren except to those of us who understood the difference in the first place. I said that last summer, too. I was disappointed then and I remain disappointed, and I am always concerned for sound Biblical teachers, that they may be tripped up.  Is that so bad? Is that really insulting to them to realize they are human and capable of being deceived?  I worry that I myself might be tripped up, as well.

"Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. "-- 1 Cor 10:12
"Dr. Horton and I will be warning the Body of Christ about the real threats that she's facing and equipping her to stand against her real enemies with real Biblical doctrine that centers on Christ and Him crucified for our sins. And when permitted, will even challenge the false doctrines and teachings of heretics to their faces and call them to repentance in their presence or in a personal conversation, knowing that heresy is not spread through casual contact nor does conversing privately or publicly with a heretic make one 'unclean' or a partaker in their heresies, nor does the Bible forbid a Christian to do that."
So Hm, does the Bible forbid considering heretics our "dear friends"?  Maybe it says we can just call them our "good friends."

But I guess if Chris wants to spend his time warning the church about orthodox proclaimers and defenders of the Biblical Gospel because he believes they are guilty of not properly understanding the doctrines of primary or secondary separation the way he does, he is free to have at it.
and if you want to adopt Ingrid's newly discovered rank in the army of Satan known as the "Bridger"
Wait, I thought Chris said he never claimed Ingrid called anyone a heretic.  And yet here he is AGAIN defining Bridger as someone in the army of Satan. Wouldn't that be... a heretic?  When he says "show me where Michael Horton has compromised the primary doctrines of the faith" as an answer to the idea that he could possibly be lending credibility to Rick Warren, is he not saying that to be put in this category (according to Chris) then someone has to have compromised the orthodox doctrines of the faith?

So according to Chris, you can publicly call someone who disagrees on separation a liar, but someone who is a woman pastrix, who liberally uses the F word, who is Ok with homosexuality... well they are called his "dear friend."  All righty then.  I'm tired of living in Wonderland, and very grateful to be off that roller coaster.

Why do I get the impression that Chris is just not gonna make sense no matter who talks to him...

In fact our friend Bob DeWaay once wrote a very good segment in Chapter 8 of his book Redefining Christianity about file cabinet orthodoxy.  (scroll down to where he references the concept).  Is Chris going to attack him now too for suggesting that a person could claim to have an orthodox confession of faith and still be a heretic/false teacher?  Chris himself talked about 'bridge building' back in 2007:
Sadly, Rick Warren is trying to portray himself as being 'magnanimous' by working with leaders from all faiths and "building bridges" with them. But, when you compare what he is doing to what God’s Word tells us to do you'll discover that the correct word to describe Warren's behavior IS "divisive". The reason for this is because he is being openly rebellious to God's clear commands which forbid Christians to be in partnership with false churches and unbelievers.
So Chris must be retracting his assertion that Rick Warren is a pelagian, then, in order to be OK with Horton speaking there and speaking somewhat favorably of him.
I appreciated the generous spirit in which Rick asked the questions and encouraged me to lay out the case we have for a new Reformation. It’s great to be able to discuss our differences as well as our common convictions in a spirit of friendship as well as mutual challenge. source
And if he's going to make the differentiation that Rick Warren is "partnering" with them and Horton is NOT partnering with them, look at what Chris has said constitutes partnering.  Where has Rick "partnered" with these other false religions other than by encouraging them and speaking favorably of them?

And here again in 2008, re building bridges:
So, I'll make a deal with you. When Warren stops saying 'deeds NOT creeds' but instead changes his schtick to say "deeds AND creeds" or the "deeds that flow from correct creeds" THEN I will publicly applaud him for making that change and speaking correctly about this issue.
Next, yes I invented the scenario about the homosexual minister and I am willing to concede your point that not all pastors in mainline denominations are liberals (however conservative pastors are in the minority in these mainline churches). The real issue at stake is the ramifications of 'telling white lies' as a means of building bridges and reaching out to mainline liberals.
So the concept is not just out of Ingrid's head.

We also have the SBC and their "building bridges" conference about Calvinism.

The entire idea of "building bridges" aka spiritual compromise has been around for ages.  The concept of people infiltrating the church has also been around for ages, as well as of people drifting into error and eventually apostasy.  Does he think people just wake up one day and say "I'm going to be a heretic now"?  Chris can't really think we can take him seriously when he tries to discredit Ingrid for just using "bridger" or "bridge people" or even "bridge builder" to discuss this very Biblical concept.   You'd have to be very obtuse or have zero discernment to think it isn't in Scripture.

He goes on in his note to Jason:
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching[a] you received from us.
Would that include the teaching to separate from heretics who pervert the gospel, and to not consider them "dear friends" or "good friends"?  Because that teaching is found throughout Scripture, not just in the New Testament.  And the one who doesn't separate from these people is considered to be in disobedience and rebellion against the clear teaching of Scripture.  We are to separate also from the disobedient and divisive/disruptive brother or sister who wants us to accept their voluntary close friendship with heretics.
“As for you, brothers, do not grow weary in doing good. If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.
I agree with Chris.  That's exactly what Ingrid has tried to do with him, and actually quite a few have tried to do with him, because if you trace this back to the original cause, all of this really seems to be more about him and his associations with cool and trendy heretics and compromisers.  Thou Shalt Not Question the Chris about his confusing/heretical "dear friends."

All of this behavior reminds me of girls in high school who get mad when you tell them the bad guy they are dating is not good for them.  All of a sudden, you become the enemy.  Well I guess Chris will just have to graduate from high school and grow up a bit before he understands.  And that makes me sad.  Because he's a handful of years older than me already and I graduated 23 years ago.
Like I said, anyone who claims to have the gift of discernment but cannot properly identify friend and foe needs to take up a different career.
I would agree wholeheartedly!  So I wonder if Chris is making plans to attend the next career fair in his area.
Conversing with with a heretic is not a sin. But lying about a brother and gossiping and slandering is.
Why does he keep hacking at those straw men? It's very disturbing to watch the logic professor do this... over... and over... and over...  Who said conversing with a heretic was a sin?  Chris was the one who said they were his 'dear friends' and "good friends" (far more than a 'conversation') and slandered and bullied and falsely accused a sister in Christ.   What is with all this justification of public hypocrisy?

Sigh.  I am simply going to have to redefine those terms, I guess, so we can all be happy. I just hope I can get the right algorithm down for predicting what the next new definition will be, is all.  I'm not very good at that sort of thing.

And now back to a much more profitable conversation:
There was a long pause.

`Is that all?' Alice timidly asked.

`That's all,' said Humpty Dumpty. Good-bye.'

This was rather sudden, Alice thought: but, after such a very strong hint that she ought to be going, she felt that it would hardly be civil to stay. So she got up, and held out her hand. `Good-bye, till we meet again!' she said as cheerfully as she could.

`I shouldn't know you again if we did meet,' Humpty Dumpty replied in a discontented tone, giving her one of his fingers to shake; `you're so exactly like other people.'

`The face is what one goes by, generally,' Alice remarked in a thoughtful tone.

`That`s just what I complain of,' said Humpty Dumpty. `Your face is that same as everybody has -- the two eyes, so -- ' (marking their places in the air with this thumb) `nose in the middle, mouth under. It's always the same. Now if you had the two eyes on the same side of the nose, for instance -- or the mouth at the top -- that would be some help.'

`It wouldn't look nice,' Alice objected. But Humpty Dumpty only shut his eyes and said `Wait till you've tried.'

Alice waited a minute to see if he would speak again, but as he never opened his eyes or took any further notice of her, she said `Good-bye!' once more, and, getting no answer to this, she quietly walked away: but she couldn't help saying to herself as she went, `Of all the unsatisfactory -- ' (she repeated this aloud, as it was a great comfort have such a long word to say) `of all the unsatisfactory people I ever met."