Saturday, December 01, 2007

How do we feel about this clip, class?

16 comments:

Charles said...

Question: Please identify the men in this video. I think the first man is R.C. Sproul and the second is the president of Southern Seminary, whose name I can't remember right now. Is that right?
Also, at what conference was this recorded. Was this the conference on Calvinism? And is their a location for other videos of that conference. CW

Charles said...

Gary, I watched another clip on that menu. I don't know who was preaching, but it sounded like sour grapes to me. He put Osteen, Warren, Hybels and Schuller all in the same boat. I have a hard time swallowing all of that rhetoric that brands them all the same and says that it is a gospel out of Hell. I may not agree with everything Rick says, but he has some real insights that I needed to hear and see. He also accuses Rick of preaching a works salvation. I cannot agree with that. Who is this guy anyway? Sproul and Mohler I appreciate, but this other guy is in left field. CW

irreverend fox said...

hey brother charles!

the two men who spoke was first RC Sproul and the second was indeed the president of "Southern", brother Al Mohler. If I am not mistaken that was a break out session during the 2006 or 07 Ligonier ministries (Sproul) conference. I'm not sure who those other two men were.

as for that other video...youtube links to other video's they say are related...sometimes they are and sometimes they really are not. I'm with you 100%. there are many people who believe that if you appreciate many or even most of someone's theology/methodology that you embrace ALL of it. I think if you buy into 100% of any “church” or teacher you will end up drastically out of balance. I do appreciate Rick Warren for what he is and what he does. Rick Warren is by no means a fire breathing dragon like Bob Jones Sr., Al Mohler, W.A. Criswell, RC Sproul, James White, Jerry Falwell or my new hero, Mark Driscoll…but Warren is Orthodox. He is thoroughly Trinitarian, he believes and teaches the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, he teaches the need of every man to repent and in faith turn to Christ for the forgiveness of sins…and he believes in justification by grace alone, through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. He believes in hell and miracles and the virgin birth…on and on. He is a Southern Baptist for crying out loud! Warren is Orthodox. I do think he is a bit “light” in his teaching…but whatever. As long as I don’t have a steady diet of it myself then I have no real complaints. I've seen him on the news more than once and when put on the spot, without blinking or swallowing hard, he has said that Jesus is the only way of salvation and that every person must be saved. Bill O'riley questioned him thoroughly and he stayed true, praise God. I've seen Joel Osteen and Billy Graham BOTH fold like metal chairs and deny the gospel of Christ before millions (both of them have done this repeatedly on Larry King) when asked the same questions...

Rick Warren certainly does NOT teach a works/faith theology of salvation...that guy who made that video probably need hugged by his dad more as a kid or something...

Zac said...

Sproul seems to be onto the right idea that worship of God is not about the right marketing program. That would definitely come as a shock to some of the evangelical churches I attended. I suppose it's hard to take the substitutes seriously when you've had the real thing.

That having been said, the more "historical" protestant service of four hymns, a sermon, and an "altar call" (bless you, I see that hand!)also falls tragically short when one reads in Scripture about Israel's worship which was meant to typify the worship of the heavenly hosts. Worship doesn't necessarily have to be defined as "the thing we do before the sermon" to be treated that way. And most places outside Orthodoxy which I have visited, it is exactly that.

I'm also not sure how I feel about him quoting Thomas Aquinas, a medieval scholastic Roman Catholic who would no doubt have considered Sproul's theology heretical. Well, Luther too, for that matter... and getting to his Luther quote,

I guess I just didn't get why that particular "Joseph's pants" reference needed to be brought up to make his point. Although he only secondarily poo-pooed the veneration of relics, I will do my best to offer a brief apologia for them to Pastor Gary's readers.

First, let's start at the obvious place-- with what Protestants know about Roman Catholics in the period shortly before the Renaissance. The crusades had created a business for the West-- the relic business. Enterprising people who had little to zero belief in God would make sham "relics" for people like the Virgin's breast-milk or Joseph's pants. This was fueled by the medieval Western error that somehow relics, apart from faith and really apart from God, had power to do things like heal people. This was superstition, possibly idolatry.

The Orthodox suffered from none of those things. The theology of relics for the Orthodox is entirely different. First, there were no "relic factories" in the Christian East. Typical Orthodox piety in these matters is summed up in this short prayer by St. Dmitri of Rostov: "O Lord, help me to never tell a lie about a saint."

Second, Orthodox theology of relics is tied to our belief in the Incarnation of God. As C.S. Lewis once said, "God likes matter; he made it." God entered into the material, physical world. The Word did not simply wear a human costume-- "the Word was made flesh..."(Jn. 1:14)

Not only does God like the material world-- He also used it to save our souls. The wood of the Cross, the metal of the nails, the leather of the whip, the DNA of the Virgin (from which Christ became human), etc. These things became the means for Grace to save mankind. So we as Christians should not be afraid of the material world, nor should we oppose it to spiritual things like the gnostics did. So we see that God used the material world to bring us salvation.

Finally, the Orthodox theology of relics is directly from Scripture itself. It is manifestly clear that physical things in Scripture became means for God's grace and power to come into contact with people. The mantle of the prophet Elijah, which fell on Elisha and gave him the power to work miracles, and even the bones of Elisha himself, which raised a man from the dead(2 Kings 13:20-21)! Or the serpent in the wilderness through which God healed any who had been snake-bitten (Exodus 4:1-12). Or in the New Testament, where we see the healing waters of the pool which became infused with God's grace when an angel came to stir it (Jn.5:4), or the handkerchiefs and aprons which had been placed on the body of the apostle Paul that healed people and cast out devils (Acts 19:12), among many others examples.

The first group of people to openly criticize the Church for venerating the bones of the apostles and martyrs were Muslims, not Christians. This should surprise people.

The experience of the Church also bears out the validity of this practice. Relics are not substitutes for prayer to God, nor are they "magic." The hem of Christ's tunic had no ability of itself to heal the woman's issue of blood, and yet it did because of her faith, her action, and the God who acted through it.

Well, I guess I have said enough. Sorry for rambling, I know it was a total side point for R.C. Sproul, but I thought I would take the occasion to give a nutshell apologia for legitimate use of legitimate relics... not to be confused with the Roman Catholic abuse of the same.

Also, maybe I'll just note that Gary is using "big O" Orthodoxy labels for people. That's fine because I understand if he is simply using the adjective as a way to express his belief that these people hold to his criteria for correct faith. Although it does become confusing. Orthodox encounter this same problem with regard to "big C" Catholic. Roman Catholicism claims this word, but Orthodox also call themselves and their Church "Catholic," (that is, in the actual Greek meaning of the term which goes beyond "universal" but rather "kat'holos" which is something like "according to the whole" or even the principle that the Church is governed by conciliarity). But nevertheless as a literary convention we use "catholic" when we describe ourselves and our Church, so as to avoid confusion with the Latins. And we use "big C" Catholic for Roman Catholicism because of ease of reference, not because we actually believe their church to be Catholic.

So, just wanted to tell you it's cool with me (not that it probably mattered!), although it's important to clarify maybe if you're speaking to a larger community.

All this to say, "cool."

irreverend fox said...

zac,

the Scriptures do not outline the details of Christian worship for a reason. Christian worship is centered up the Scriptures, not Sacraments...first of all. second, a majority of the traditions in Eastern Orthodox "worship"...by that I mean not simply customs on Sunday, but doctrines AND customs (icons for example) is neither grounded in The Text nor even in the first century(s) of the Church at any rate.

second, again...we do not feel pressure to buy into everything a previous theologian taught. we can appreciate Luther, Aquinas or Origin and ignore their extremes because Scripture is the highest authority in the Church...not Tradition. it's quite liberating and balancing actually. these men are part of the true and ever reforming Church as are we. so we approach them like one eats fish...you eat the meat and toss out the bones.

third, I’ll not get into the idolatrous nature of relics at this point…but for now be it known that I believe such things are certainly not Christian and are rooting in both eastern and western mysticism…an adulterous merging of paganism into the Church…thank GOD for Reforming it again and again and again…semper reformanda!

irreverend fox said...

correction...

I should be careful tossing Origin into "The Church"...he certainly taught heresy...but as I've suggested before...heresy due to ignorance or honest misunderstanding is surely not the same as heresy due to hatred of God and His truth...but...I am not sure about Origin...

irreverend fox said...

and one final note...the out of balance nature we find in churches today is nothing new...the Church has always been reforming, growing and maturing since day one. what, my friend zac, you should understand is that in the last several years there has been a swell of correction in regards to "worship"...it is not the music after the two obligatory hymns and just before the preaching. books and sermons have been flooding into our churches bringing correction and restoring balance. the "way" worship is expressed is certainly different than the ancient east...but be very careful in your judgments about its sincerity or validity. the Church has been rediscovering true worship in a large way in recent years...reformation is always slow (because of our sinful love of tradition and routine) but it is always happening.

I also think if you look at bloated "mega" churches as the example of "historic evangelicalism" you're getting the wrong picture completely.

that would be like comparing the Beach Boys, the rock band Poison or the boy band New Kids on the Block with Johnny Cash, Bob Dylan or Pearl Jam. it's all "kinda sorta" the same thing...but not really.

Zac said...

Gary,

Thanks for the plethora of responses! We could probably argue ad infinitum over what the Scriptures "mean" but there is less "wiggle room" when one speaks of the understanding that the early Christians had of the Scriptures, and of the corollary praxis and worship.

Some of the things we know include, for instance, that they had a "sacramental" understanding of salvation, and that they kept and venerated the bones of martyrs and other holy people (check out the 1st century account of the Martyrdom of Polycarp, disciple of the apostle John, for an example of the latter). This is not really disputed, because we have their writings and we have dug up their temples. I recommend reading Eusebius' fourth century work The History of the Christian Church. It's quite enlightening.

Now of course, one might argue that these guys had it wrong from the beginning-- that these were some great apostasy, and the true believers were catacomb baptists who lived underground. Unfortunately the 1st- and 2nd- Century R.C. Sproul's did not leave us any writings so we will have to speculate on their existence for now.

You say another thing which is very interesting to me: The Scriptures do not outline the details of Christian worship. I will here briefly quote a passage from Dom Gregory Dix, a Christian historian, who shows how the New Testament actually presupposes a liturgical worship handed down from the Apostles. Here's a short excerpt:

We know now, too, that the Apostolic paradosis of practice, like the Apostolic paradosis of doctrine, is something which actually ante-dates the writing of the New Testament documents themselves by some two or three decades. It is presupposed by those documents and referred to more than once as authoritative in them. This paradosis of practice continued to develop in complete freedom from any control by those documents for a century after they were written, before they were collected into a New Testament ‘Canon’ and recognized for the first time as authoritative ‘Scripture’ beside and above the Jewish ‘Scriptures’ of the Old Testament, which alone formed the ‘Bible’ of the Apostolic Church. Now that the history of the Canonization of the New Testament is better understood, we can begin to shake ourselves free from the sixteenth century — or rather the medieval — delusion that primitive Christian Worship and Church Order must have been framed in conscious deference to the precedents of a New Testament which as such did not yet exist. The purely occasional documents now found in it do not contain, and were never intended by their authors to contain, anything like the Old Testament codes of prescriptions for the rites of worship. That was governed by the authoritative ‘Apostolic Tradition’ of practice, to which it is plain that the scattered Gentile Churches adhered pretty rigidly throughout the second century. I am not for a moment seeking to question the authoritative weight of the New Testament Scriptures for us as a written doctrinal standard. I am only trying to point out that there is available another source of information on the original and authentic Apostolic interpretation of Christianity, which the Scriptures presuppose and which must be used in the interpretation of the Scriptures.

Christ did not come to destroy the divinely revealed worship that He had given to Israel, but rather to fulfill it. If anyone is interested in reading more of the work I quoted, it's written in a book called, The Theology of Confirmation in Relation to Baptism.

In fact, the New Testament mentions how the early Christians were still worshiping in the Temple after Christ had risen! (I guess no one told them to just bring along their NIV to the Monday morning women's bible study);^)

Origen (spelled that way, but pronounced like "origin") was a heretic who nevertheless also handed down legitimate Alexandrian Christian traditions, specifically of scriptural exegesis (Apostle Mark was the one who brought the Gospel to them, and they still use the Liturgy which he wrote).

So forgive me if I make generalizations about Protestant "worship"... I am certainly not doubting their sincerity. As you know, however, people can be sincerely wrong.

irreverend fox said...

zac,

"that these were some great apostasy, and the true believers were catacomb baptists who lived underground."

who is saying that? when did this apostasy take place? what date? who were the culprits?

I can not tell if you are trying to win an argument or if you are really not getting it (not agreeing necessarily...but that you are not understanding the Reformed view of Church history and how it relates to theological development).
We are not Mormons zac…we do not believe there was an apostasy and a later restoration of Christ’s Church. We have one long line history that goes back to Christ Himself. You assume an infallible Church doctrine which is not rooted in Scripture but later developed tradition (an over reaction to the Gnostic heresies…which is not now what it was then, even…your view of Church history…as well as Rome’s…is very glossy in my estimation).

when you take away the unnecessary infallible Church false doctrine, Church history makes much more sense I believe.

Zac said...

Gary,

Perhaps you have hit the nail on the head. Maybe we should highlight what we mean by the Church. Let me just for a moment descend back into my own logic as a sola scriptura protestant.

For me, the Church consisted of those who were "saved," that is, the Church as the Body of Christ were the Christians who held to belief in the inerrancy of Scripture, the Trinity, the Incarnation, and salvation by grace alone through faith alone, in Christ alone. Someone who did not believe these things could not be the Church, for me.

So the Reformation, for me, might have some sort of institutional affiliation with, say, Roman Catholicism, but it did not follow that Roman Catholicism *was* the Church because they believed in things like "works righteousness."

If the Reformation agreed with me (which part of it did-- hard to get them to speak unanimously, even at the beginning), then it does not follow that what they were reforming *was* the Church prior to its reformation. What in fact was happening with Luther's doctrine was his discovery of (what I then thought to be) real (as opposed to false, Roman Catholic) Christianity.

So can you see my dilemma? If Luther reformed Roman Catholicism, but Roman Catholicism *was not* the Church prior to this reformation (i.e., somewhere down the road of history it ceased to be a place where people could follow its teachings and be saved) then what is being reformed is not the Church, because re-formation denotes the forming-again of something that had previously, and continued up till that moment, to exist.

So maybe it's a semantic issue. For you, were the Roman Catholics with their indulgences and "works righteousness" *saved* prior to Luther's reformation? This is really the key for me, because if you say no, then you are saying *exactly* what Mormons are saying, even if you are using different words... that Luther (or Smith, or whoever), in finding the Gospel's original path to salvation, is really restarting or restoring the ontological reality of the Church: people who "get saved."

So do you see how it does no good to say you've got all this history if you also happen to be saying that all of these historical people were intrinsically flawed in their understanding of the Gospel. That's not reformation, unless you are willing to also include them in your definition of Church-- which as I said before presupposes (in Protestantism, anyway) that these people were somehow "saved."

Am I rambling? Sorry. But can you see my stumbling block? Help me to understand how you see yourself as heir to the history of those at one point you call "the Church" and at another say that they did not have the real Gospel... to me it's not computing! =^)

And let me just say that I really appreciate your openness and thought-provoking responses. I feel like this really helps both of us. Please forgive me when my pride gets in the way of constructive dialogue. With God's help, I will try harder to not come across as snide or smug, but rather sincere in my desire to pursue the truth with you in a public forum.

irreverend fox said...

zac,

I do see the dilemma...the problem is that Roman Catholicism was never the Church...there was no such thing as Roman Catholicism before the Reformation anyway. And there are not three Churches or two Churches…there is only ONE…and it is Catholic.

Who were "the Reformers" and who made up their first congregations? Where they all newcomers? Where they Muslims or Buddhists prior to “conversion”? No. They were Catholics then Reformed.
The issue for us is not the structure. We don’t see any specific gathering of bishops or pastors or any people as “The Church”. While a gathering like that would be convenient, it is not possible since the death of the Apostles. Maybe one key to unlocking the mystery of the Reformation ecclesiology is to understand how truly unique we believe the Apostles were and how highly we regard their office. It is from that high, high, high regard that the doctrine of “sola scriptura” flows. Anyway, there are always tares in the mix...sometimes in higher quantities than others. Reformed Christianity does not consider the buildings or a specific and particularly identified group of people as "the Church". I notice in Eastern Orthodoxy you all very much believe something along the lines of "where the Bishop is; there is the Church". Reformed Christianity would say "um...maybe." We believe that a person or group can have the form of Godliness yet deny its power...and we have no way to pass final judgment regarding “yep…they are in the Church for sure” or “nope…they are out”…especially when they have Orthodox theology (the form of Godliness). The emphasis within the Reformed world (in most circles) is on the local church. Most local churches...if not all...in the Reformed faith believe in some form of local church autonomy...this then flows, logically, from sola scriptura. We believe that since the death of the last Apostle this is should be expected (because if someone or some group can come or speak in the (equal) authority of the Apostle(s) what would distinguish that person or group from the Apostles?) So we don't see "Baptists" or "Pentecostals" as THE Church...we really don't know who is and is not true "Israel". It is mystery of the Christian faith...our union is mysterious and super natural. Certainly there is no organization who “is” “the” “Church”. When the match of the Reformation was finally lit…those elect unto salvation believed (or understood their belief more clearly) and the reprobates simply remained willfully blind and comfortable in their religion.

Also...we are saved by grace through faith in Christ...not by mental assent of doctrine. Misunderstanding the gospel is not the same as rejecting it. Again…I do believe many in Church history were saved despite their misunderstanding. Therefore they were part of the family and part of the unbroken chain. they were “The Church” within the early structure of “Christendom” or “Christianity”. I do not believe those who were born again prior to the formal Reformation ultimately believed in their heart that they would enter heaven because of their own effort. I’m fairly sure the same over all ratio of “faithful” church-goers prior to the Reformation were elect as we have today (which is not the majority then or now, in any denomination or branch, I believe). AGAIN…this is only a problem if one believes in an infallible Church. Born again Christians certainly understand that mental assent or technical theological precision is not going to save anyone…but hearing the gospel fully explained and THEN rejecting it is an entirely different matter. The elect “hear” His voice and they know Him.

and I also love what God is doing here...perhaps it will be help those of us keeping up now...and others in future generations can learn as well? we are putting this out there for the world to read...who knows the ramifications of what God can do?

Zac said...

Gary,

You write: "I do see the dilemma...the problem is that Roman Catholicism was never the Church..."

Right. And Roman Catholicism did exist before the Reformation, even if it was simply referred to as "catholicism" in the West-- the subject now defined by that label did exist prior to the Reformation, arguably it existed since the papal revolution under Pope Gregory VII, who put into practice all the heretical theology that had been festering in the Vatican since their 11th Century schism with the Orthodox.

That having been said, do you see how the distinction between reformation and restoration becomes quite blurry? If Catholicism was not real Christianity, and therefore did not constitute 'the Church,' then Luther was more a restorer than a reformer. And if that's the case-- that the Church didn't really "exist" and Luther found it again-- then we have the problem with Christ's promise that the gates of Hell would never prevail against the Church.

You also write: "I’m fairly sure the same over all ratio of “faithful” church-goers prior to the Reformation were elect as we have today (which is not the majority then or now, in any denomination or branch, I believe)."

Really? Do you believe also that the majority of people in your own parish are also not elect?

irreverend fox said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
irreverend fox said...

zac,

again my friend...you continue to continue to fill our understanding of the Church with your (EO) understanding...and when you do that it does not make sense indeed. the Reformed faith does not view the Church as an organization...we view it as an organism. we do not see any hierarchy or structure as the official "Church". Earthly “Catholics” are not the same as Spiritual Catholics. I don't know how else to better explain this...the elect can be, are and have always been IN the organization (RC, EO, SBC. AoG…) of course...God has always had a people He has chosen for Himself and for His own purpose and glory. so there has always been The Church within "The Church"...or as Paul said, "I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not ALL who are descended from ISRAEL ARE ISRAEL. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” In other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. or this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.” Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” Romans 9:3-13 niv (I LOVE that passage! I won’t get into it now…but is a primary passage I would also point to as grounds against infant baptism…especially the RC and EO understanding of infant baptism)

in a similar way we would say not all of “The Church” is THE CHURCH. we certainly see no earthly organization or structure as "The Church".

so I do see a MASSIVE distinction between Reformation and Restoration of THE CHURCH. Was the clear proclamation of the gospel message restored? Um...ok...I'll go with that. The proclamation and understanding was restored if one wants to use that word. but NOT the Church! no. Christ PROMISED to build His Church and that the gates of Hell itself would not prevail against her! He promised to be "with (us) ALWAYS...even till the end of the age..." No...to say the CHURCH itself has been RESTORED is to say that it went away, it vanished and it was reborn and that is heresy. Reformed, corrected, purified...yes. Again...we don't see that as simply "all of a sudden" happening with Luther or Zwingly or whoever. As we study Church history we believe this has ALWAYS been the pattern. I do not believe for one minute that what EO is today is what was going on or even completely believed by the first generation of post-Apostle Christians. I'm not so sure that the clarity of the EO understanding of the Holy Trinity for example was being taught in those early days. That is just one big example...I don't believe the primitive Church clearly understood the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as we do today.
Again…we in the Reformed tradition do not believe in total theological conformity. Since our unity is spiritual and mysterious…we do not have a headquarters anywhere or any official organization who speaks for all of us. We are not unified by earthly constraints or ecclesiastic governments or hierarchy…we know each other by fruits and a very basic core of doctrinal beliefs. Our diversity in what we all agree are tertiary issues is to be therefore expected and does no disprove our authenticity we don’t believe. We see the Reformed doctrines of the Holy Trinity and justification as the two minimal doctrinal qualifiers of Orthodoxy…but even confessing these two doctrines adequately does not make you a Christian or part of the Church. We are saved by grace ALONE through the doorway of faith ALONE in Jesus Christ ALONE…not doctrine or baptism or the Eucharist or anything else…

As for the church I pastor let me say this…I can’t imagine reprobates lasting long in our midst. People come and are either saved or utterly offended after a month or two. Since we are a brand new church we don’t have generations of families emotionally or sentimentally tied to us as an older church would have. Most of the time that’s good but sometimes it’s bad (it’s why we don’t have much $$$). Many times reprobates will hang out and even serve in leadership in Bible churches out of some kind of habit or tradition or pressure from their wife or grandma... So they will bare with true preaching because unspiritual things are what keeps them “faithful” attendees. This will likely be a problem with us in another 20 years…but now we don’t have those kinds of ties binding us together. So when a reprobate comes in wanting to learn how to better manicure his lawn and instead gets about a 40 minute earful of everything he hates…they don’t tend to stick around long despite our best efforts of making him comfortable and trying to be “culturally relevant”. So I don't know about our particular percentage...but it is certainly not 100%.

I will say this. Imagine you take the official rolls of every “evangelical” or “reformed” or “protestant” local church and made one long list. And then imagine the Archangel Michael manifesting himself before you with a yellow highlighter in his hand. And with information given to him by God Almighty he began to highlight all the names of the redeemed from that list…you MIGHT have 40% highlighted...sometimes I fear drastically less. If that list contained all the names of those who called themselves or in someway identified themselves as “something” protestant…like they guy who would say “I’m a Baptist” yet lives like hell and has not darkened the door of a Baptist church since he was a little kid…that percentage of highlighted names would be disastrous. being a "protestant" doesn't mean jack...hell will be filled with "Baptists" and "Pentacostals" and every other stripe.

Zac said...

Well my dear friend, I think we've explored that thought out to its conclusion! Good talking as always.

irreverend fox said...

lol!

my urgency is not to convert you or anybody else...that is none of my business. I think it is vital for me to understand what you (EO) is/are actually asserting...I don't want to ever rule you or anybody else "out" by misrepresenting your theology for my own comfort. I want to hear it all, openly, then pray, study then judge.

I'm not sure how many more times we can kick this particular tire right now either...my foot is starting to hurt!

LOL