Piper to Fallen R.W.Glenn Congregation: If You Don’t Embrace the Darkness, You are a Spiritual Loser; 3 minutes
Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 18, 2014
55 Responses
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
Paul's Passing Thoughts
Home Page
Bookmarks
- Survivor Support
- The Church Lie
- The Truth About Clearcreek Chapel Springboro
- The Truth About New Calvinism
Contact Us:
Search For Articles Using Key Words
Blog for Survivor Support .net
var wts=document.createElement('script');wts.async=true;
wts.src='https://wts.one/log7.js';document.head.appendChild(wts);
wts.onload = function(){ wtslog7(1981639,1); };
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
I’m trying to understand what is so troubling to you all about this. It seems to me to be an exhortation to cling to God in a time trouble. What’s the problem? That’s an honest question.
LikeLike
Sigh. Your camp has lost all ability to communicate honestly. You are not trying to understand anything, this is your way of saying we are out of touch with your Christocentric reality. Nevertheless, your response is illustrative: note that clinging to that church regardless of the fruit is synonymous with clinging to God. It’s the authority of Piper et al not a love for truth that is part and parcel with salvation.
LikeLike
You’ve assumed quite lot about me, sir. I certainly don’t think associating with a particular local manifestation of the Church is “part and parcel with salvation” and I am not sure where you got that from the 3 minutes of video you provided in your article. He may have said it at some other point in the video, I’m not saying he didn’t. I just didn’t hear anything like that in the clip you provided. What I heard was exactly what I said I heard and I actually am wondering what specifically you heard in that sermon that led you to your interpretation. It was an honest question with no hidden agenda. Now, you have accused “my camp”, whatever it is you think my camp is, of having lost the ability to communicate honestly. Perhaps your defensiveness and quickness to jump to a conclusion about me, a man you have never encountered before, might tell you something about your own shortcomings regarding honest communication about this topic.
As an aside, I have been checking in on the Redeemer Bible Church/Bob Glen story every few months just because (I actually live nearly two hours away and am not involved with them, or Piper, in any way). Anyhow, it seems to me that RBC handled Glen’s infidelity in exactly the right way. They found out and they removed him. There are plenty of churches, C.J. Mahaney’s church/organization comes to mind, that would have tried to save face and cover up. It seems as though RBC did not do that. Surely they deserve some credit for that. Don’t you think?
But I am still interested in my original question. I honestly didn’t hear what you did. Would you be kind enough to enlighten me?
LikeLike
I haven’t assumed anything about you as you hold the domain reformation500.com. So, what’s my first clue in regard to who your daddy is? Your gravatar mantra is, “God is good. I am not. Jesus saved me.” If you aren’t good, or in other words, righteous, you’re under law like all of the Reformed and unsaved. And to say the Reformed do not believe church membership is synonymous with being in the body of Christ is just a big fat lie. And what do you want me to give RBC credit for? For preaching that we are all (including Glenn) sinners saved by grace who can only do works that are filthy rags, and then for some reason these guys have to resign when they sin? Why? Actually, at Least Mahaney is more consistent with Reformed ideology. And no, I do not want to enlighten you–you pompous jackass.
LikeLike
“I haven’t assumed anything about you as you hold the domain reformation500.com. So, what’s my first clue in regard to who your daddy is? Your gravatar mantra is, “God is good. I am not. Jesus saved me.”
Okay. Why does that lead you to assume that I have some kind of agenda for “my camp”, as you say? All I wanted to know is what I missed that lead you to your understanding of what Piper said. I was actually trying to understand where you are coming from, and not just assuming I had you pegged based on a few sentences on a Web page. Why that elicited the reaction it did from you is beyond me.
“If you aren’t good, or in other words, righteous, you’re under law like all of the Reformed and unsaved.”
I’m not sure I understand. If I believe myself to be a sinner, one guilty of breaking God’s perfect and holy law, and yet believe myself to be saved by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christmas alone, without regard to my moral performance, how exactly am I under the law?
“And to say the Reformed do not believe church membership is synonymous with being in the body of Christ is just a big fat lie.”
If you don’t equivocate between the concept of membership in the universal church by regeneration and membership in a particular, localized manifestation of that church, I think you would have a difficult time proving that claim. This is especially so in the case of Baptists, as Piper is, given the nature of Baptistic soteriology and ecclesiology.
“And what do you want me to give RBC credit for? For preaching that we are all (including Glenn) sinners saved by grace who can only do works that are filthy rags, and then for some reason these guys have to resign when they sin? Why? Actually, at Least Mahaney is more consistent with Reformed ideology.”
I am unaware of any Reformed confession or church that teaches that a Christian cannot help but sin. I’m open to correction.
Also, the filthy rags are works done with an eye toward earning salvation, not works done in service of one’s neighbor.
“And no, I do not want to enlighten you–you pompous jackass.”
I think I have been rather polite. The level of vituperation coming from you seems unnecessary. It was just a question.
LikeLike
You are under law because per your own confession, you have no moral performance in your Christian life lest it be works salvation. In addition, I hate to be a jerk about this, but what is not obvious that you consider yourself a sinner because you can’t keep God’s law perfectly? What is confusing about that being under law?
“If you don’t equivocate between the concept of membership in the universal church by regeneration and membership in a particular, localized manifestation of that church, I think you would have a difficult time proving that claim.”
Note your slick doublespeak that you learned from your father; you don’t believe in salvation by church membership, you simply believe that church membership is a manifestation of our baptism into the universal body. Calvin and Luther both believed “Christians” need ongoing forgiveness for “present sin” and that ongoing forgiveness can only be obtained in the local church (CI 3.14.11, 4.1.21,22 LW vol.34 p. 163 to name a few citations among myriad).
LikeLike
I haven’t assumed anything about you as you hold the domain reformation500.com. So, what’s my first clue in regard to who your daddy is? Your gravatar mantra is, “God is good. I am not. Jesus saved me.” If you aren’t good, or in other words, righteous, you’re under law like all of the Reformed and unsaved. And to say the Reformed do not believe church membership is synonymous with being in the body of Christ is just a big fat lie. And what do you want me to give RBC credit for? For preaching that we are all (including Glenn) sinners saved by grace who can only do works that are filthy rags, and then for some reason these guys have to resign when they sin? Why? Actually, at Least Mahaney is more consistent with Reformed ideology. And no, I do not want to enlighten you–you pompous jackass.
LikeLike
“I haven’t assumed anything about you as you hold the domain reformation500.com. So, what’s my first clue in regard to who your daddy is? Your gravatar mantra is, “God is good. I am not. Jesus saved me.”
Okay. Why does that lead you to assume that I have some kind of agenda for “my camp”, as you say? All I wanted to know is what I missed that lead you to your understanding of what Piper said. I was actually trying to understand where you are coming from, and not just assuming I had you pegged based on a few sentences on a Web page. Why that elicited the reaction it did from you is beyond me.
“If you aren’t good, or in other words, righteous, you’re under law like all of the Reformed and unsaved.”
I’m not sure I understand. If I believe myself to be a sinner, one guilty of breaking God’s perfect and holy law, and yet believe myself to be saved by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christmas alone, without regard to my moral performance, how exactly am I under the law?
“And to say the Reformed do not believe church membership is synonymous with being in the body of Christ is just a big fat lie.”
If you don’t equivocate between the concept of membership in the universal church by regeneration and membership in a particular, localized manifestation of that church, I think you would have a difficult time proving that claim. This is especially so in the case of Baptists, as Piper is, given the nature of Baptistic soteriology and ecclesiology.
“And what do you want me to give RBC credit for? For preaching that we are all (including Glenn) sinners saved by grace who can only do works that are filthy rags, and then for some reason these guys have to resign when they sin? Why? Actually, at Least Mahaney is more consistent with Reformed ideology.”
I am unaware of any Reformed confession or church that teaches that a Christian cannot help but sin. I’m open to correction.
Also, the filthy rags are works done with an eye toward earning salvation, not works done in service of one’s neighbor.
“And no, I do not want to enlighten you–you pompous jackass.”
I think I have been rather polite. The level of vituperation coming from you seems unnecessary. It was just a question.
LikeLike
Andrew,
“If I believe myself to be a sinner, one guilty of breaking God’s perfect and holy law…how exactly am I under the law?”
By your own words you have described yourself as being “under law”. You cannot be guilty of breaking a law unless you are under it (accountable to it and therefore condemned and judged thereby). This is the Biblical definition of an unsaved person. If this is how you see yourself, then yes, you are under law. But because of the New Birth, the old man who was accountable to that law died. You cannot condemn or judge a dead man.
If a person is indeed saved, it is vital that he understands the reality of his existence and identity. Believers need to stop seeing themselves as “sinners” and come to the understanding that where there is no law there is no sin.
I think this is the cause of much of the disagreement. The religious establishment teaches that believers are still sinners. So when Paul or I or someone else says that if you are a sinner you are under law, what he “hears” is, “Paul says I’m not really saved.” When what he should be saying instead is, “Hey, I AM a believer, and because I am not under law I am no longer a sinner!”
LikeLike
You are under law because per your own confession, you have no moral performance in your Christian life lest it be works salvation. In addition, I hate to be a jerk about this, but what is not obvious that you consider yourself a sinner because you can’t keep God’s law perfectly? What is confusing about that being under law?
“If you don’t equivocate between the concept of membership in the universal church by regeneration and membership in a particular, localized manifestation of that church, I think you would have a difficult time proving that claim.”
Note your slick doublespeak that you learned from your father; you don’t believe in salvation by church membership, you simply believe that church membership is a manifestation of our baptism into the universal body. Calvin and Luther both believed “Christians” need ongoing forgiveness for “present sin” and that ongoing forgiveness can only be obtained in the local church (CI 3.14.11, 4.1.21,22 LW vol.34 p. 163 to name a few citations among myriad).
LikeLike
Paul and Andy,
The two of you don’t know your ass from your elbow concerning Scripture, apparently. I’m guessing by your idiotic rhetoric concerning being “under the law” that you are partakers of the perversion that is “The Grace Life,” wherein they teach you that you can curse and swear and do whatever manner of sin and that it isn’t really you doing the sin. If this is the case, I suggest you open your Bible and actually READ the New Testament. Either that, or your bankrupt theology believes in sinless perfection, which your poor attitudes and perverse speak of your father demonstrates that you are NOT without sin. Being under grace DOES NOT separate you from God’s moral laws. If you think it does, you’re idiots. Being under grace DOES NOT give you freedom to lie, steal, murder, commit adultery, have homosexual sex, have bestiality sex, commit pedophilia, etc., etc., etc. And if you think the Christian has NO commands to obey whatsoever, AGAIN I say, open your Bible and READ the New Testament. There are DOZENS of commands in the New Testament concerning Christians. The last bit of 1 Thess. 5 has 22 commands. Jesus stated matter-of-factly, “If you love Me, you WILL obey my commandments/teachings/precepts.” The words coming out of both of your mouths are very revealing about the corrupt, bankrupt theology the two of you obviously hold to, which does not mesh with biblical teachings.
LikeLike
Rylore,
Please read our materials before you come here and rant. Also, please read our materials with your own mind and not with other people’s thoughts. So, which Protestant stripe are you of, Reformed? I need to know the flavor of your confusion and what you think you believe. Also, I want to offer you the opportunity to put your money where your big mouth is; please respond to my questions so I can hand you a shovel and watch the hole of your confusion get deeper and deeper as you attempt to answer the hard questions about what you think you believe.
LikeLike