Theological Hospitality: 2 responses to Beckwith’s conversion

A few weeks ago, as Beckwith’s reversion to Roman Catholicism was the town buzz, I came across these two comments in response to Frank’s post/announcement. The first was posted by New Testamant scholar Craig Blomberg, and the second by pastor Greg Miller. Notice any differences?

This is the comment by Dr. Craig Blomberg:

Dear Frank:

One of my students gave me your news this afternoon and pointed me to your website. I so appreciate your wrestling with all the ethical issues involved, as your blog recounts, though I wouldn’t have expected any less, knowing you as I do. What an array of responses you’ve received, which doesn’t surprise me either but still saddens me how folks can express their concern or disagreement with such vitriol. I’ve known enough folks over the years representing a huge diversity of experiences with Catholicism both inside and outside the church to have no doubt about your genuine hope to find an evangelical wing or parish or fellowship in which you can thrive, even while they may remain a minority within the worldwide Catholic communion. I hope you can do great things for the movement from within, though I don’t underestimate the struggles you may have. I suspect, though, that it will be at least a little more courteous than all the incredible “crap” you had to put (up) with from Baylor and certain Southern Baptists! You’re still my friend with lots of admiration even if I don’t anticipate following your pilgrimage.

Posted by: Craig Blomberg | May 7, 2007 5:22 PM

This is the next comment by Pastor Greg Miller:

I do not expect that you will post my comments, but I do hope that you will read them.

Your post made me ill. To think that someone would go back to the Whore of Revelation 17 and base his decision (according to your post) upon the tripe of the Church Infants (you call “fathers”) who consistently contradict the APOSTLES and Jesus Christ. Such is a fulfillment of prophecy. A dog returns to his vomit.

However, it is fitting that the Evangelical Theological Society would find it’s president fornicating with Rome. Your “society” has pushed the apostate Alexandrian Bible upon the evangelical church for decades. You truly have returned to your mother.

You are one of thousands who are deluded and living a lie as we approach the end of this present world. You will answer for this reproach upon the blood of Jesus Christ and His martyrs. You did not once mention the 20 million souls butchered by the Whore you now join yourself to.

This is not intended as an insult, but as a statement of fact. You have succeeded in making me sick this night. May God have mercy on your blind soul.

And rest assured. I will continue to fight your Whorish “mother church” and her soul damning false gospel until the Lord takes me home and the Beast arrives to assume his post in the city on seven hills.

Pastor Greg Miller
Bible Believers Fellowship PO Box 662
Worthington, OH 43085

Posted by: Greg Miller | May 7, 2007 6:29 PM

Is there anything right or wrong with either of these comments? Are they both appropriate responses to Frank Beckwith’s post? It was interesting to me that Pastor Miller’s comment was 7 below Blomberg’s comment, highlighting the emotional and intellectual gamma of comments for Frank’s post. What are your thoughts?


20 Responses to Theological Hospitality: 2 responses to Beckwith’s conversion

  1. Kevin says:

    I see four question in this post: one before the two quoted comments, and three after. I have a hard time thinking that the first three questions are anything other than retorical.

    As for the fourth question, I have found the reaction by the Christian community to be largely heartbreaking. While perhaps Miller’s comment is the most virulent, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of similar reactions. Though I myself am not Roman Catholic (despite heavy leanings in that direction), I cannot help but find many of the views of Roman Catholocism expressed to be decidedly un-Church-like. While these responses indicate that there is much disagreement about how to understand the ‘catholic and apostolic’ designations in ‘one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church’, it appears to me that the ‘one’ and ‘holy’ are also open to questioning.

    Here are four links to related blog posts. The first two are by Beckwith himself. The third is a reaction of David Howard (another past-president of the ETS). The last is another similar announcement by the philosopher Robert Koons.

  2. Ben says:

    I read through most of the comments from his post, but I must have missed Pastor Greg’s. What a shining example of 1 Cor 13. I too was amazed at the vitriol poured out on FB. Even Blomberg’s post still pokes a little too much for me. But maybe I’m just too post-modern to get mad at someone who professes Christ.

  3. Jiang Lu says:

    Why, thanking for posting this story, I like it much! Being a Roman Catholic convert myself, I am very pleased with the decision of Dr. Beckwith. But I think Pastor Greg Miller is also doing well, in his way. And please don’t misunderstand me, I do believe the ecumenical solution is the right one for all the diverse Christian confessions. What the language and stile used by Pastor Miller impresses me: it is so traditionally puritan! And I enjoy it culturally! It belongs to his Puritan tradition, and I am really delighted to find that it has so much resemblance to the literature of the 17th. and 18th. century I read. I don’t think it is possible to be ecumenical in the way that the Catholics should persuade the Protestants what the Church teaches about the primacy of the Pope and so on. But I think we can be ecumenical in the way that we live peaceful with each other and are ready to work with other to defend the Christian faith. And why should the Protestants abandon their own tradition! It is so precious, as the Catholic tradition is precious and so shouldn’t given up. I think you enjoy the organ musics of J.S. Bach more if you have a concept of the Protestant liturgy. And you can’t understand such wonderful literature like “The Pilgrim’s Progress” and the history of the Colonization of North American without an understanding of Protestantism. And the Catholic Church has contributed so much to logic and sciences (Copernicus was a Roman Catholic Church himself and Galileo a good Catholic and friend of the Pope, his story was misused by many people to attack the Church, but there are plenty of academical writings and researches done by Non-Catholics to show that accusation of the Catholic Church is wrong). Well, I can enumerate more example why both the Protestantism and the Catholicism are the foundation of the western culture. And Christianity is now growing global, it contains now millions of people in Asia, Africa and so on. And I am sure and confident, that our common faith will let new cultural developments grow. And such tragedies like the thirty-years-war in Germany should never occur, and I am confident that they won’t. But do let us pray together for a peaceful coexistences of different confessions and traditions, and do let us hold on together to keep peace between them, let us work on the growth of all Christian communities.

  4. Tony says:

    If this is how pastor Greg treats an evangelical Christian intellectual converting to R. Catholicism on the basis of his examination of the evidence, I’d hate to see how he reacts when his parishioners come to him needing to confess heinous sins or desiring counseling to correct sinful behavior in their lives! But it wouldn’t surprise me if ole’ Greg sees converting to Catholicism as akin to the sin of Sodom, given these remarks. It must be a comforting fiction to live in Greg’s world where everything is so starkly godly or irredeemably wicked–of course, he’s got it all nailed down…

  5. Jiang Lu says:

    I meant “Copernicus was a Roman Catholic priest”, sorry for this error.

  6. Pastor Greg’s post is a perfect example of presuppositions and biases that drive a person to make heinous, immature, unknowledgeable and trite comments like that—
    “a dog returning to its vomit” is his own medicine for sleeping well at night.

  7. Xavier says:

    I can’t help but shiver everytime I read this pastor’s reference to the early Fathers as “Church Infants.” The sheer arrogance and irony of the statement. This is a perfect example of how many evangelicals think of Christian history: After Christ and the apostles, nothing important happend until the Reformation.

  8. Cranky says:

    Pastor Greg is one more angry fundamentalist. I shake the dust and pray for him as yI leave his small and shrinking world to check out how I am just as mean-spirited.

  9. I will share with you exactly what I pointed out in personal correspondence with Dr. Blomberg: You people are stark raving mad.

    Not one of the responses on this page actually deals with anything I SAID. Your heads are so completely soaked with psycho-babble that you can’t even hold a legitimate conversation. You’re more concerned with how I treat puppies and whether I was breast fed than you are with the WORDS used. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

    Beckwith read a few books from January to May, got a heart-wrenching request from his nephew to commit blasphemy (i.e., “communion”) and made the leap to Rome. And you take this man as an “intellectual”???

    Dear Xavier, My quote regarding the church infants, it was pointed out to me later, is nearly word for word LUTHER.

    And, dearest Tony, my “parishioners” are not subjected to the Hellish doctrines of Rome which leave her followers without any real knowledge of salvation. (1 John 5:13) The Bible students that make up our church family fully understand the grace of God–a polar opposite of Rome’s wicked counterfeit. They need not confess sin to me or any other human being. (1 John 1:9) They have a one to one with the Father through the Son (1 Timothy 2:5).

    By the way, the blessed Mother of our Lord isn’t within reach of the throne of God. She doesn’t hear your prayers and doesn’t moonlight as “co-redemptrix”. She’s a lovely, saved SINNER who believed on the Man she gave birth to. Your last “pope” went to Hell trusting a demon imposter named “Mary” who received worship, requested prayer and counterfeited the REAL Mary.

    Only Rome seeks to hold such a grip on “the souls of men” (Revelation 18:13)

    The saddest sites during my visits to the deathbed in hospitals are atheists and Romanists. Both walk ignorantly into a dark abyss while that Papists follow a godless “priest” class (that you won’t find in ANY Bible, anywhere) mislead them into believing that there is NO assurance except an indeterminable number of years in purgatory, wailing and gnashing their teeth.

    See Canons 13-16, Council of Trent, 1547 and NEVER rescinded or corrected by any council or canon since.

    How sad that these unregenerate dupes of Rome will land in Hades–thinking they are temporarily in “Purgatory”, only to be coughed up to a Great White Throne (Revelation 20:11-15) and cast into an everlasting Lake of Fire for believing the lying son of Perdition–at the moment, filled by John Ratzinger– and his false “gospel” that is NOT the Gospel of Paul and which Paul said Ratz and all Romanists are CURSED for preaching.

    I could care less how people think of Greg Miller. It’s not about me. It’s about Jesus Christ and the purity and simplicity of His Gospel (2 Corinthians 11:3). And the fact that a bunch of “post-modern” maggots join in a chorus of condemnation against me doesn’t cost me a moments rest. Meanwhile, your blasphemous distortions of the wonderful grace of Jesus Christ is a symphony to the ears of Satan.

    1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (King James Version)

    Pastor Greg Miller
    Bible Believers Fellowship
    PO Box 662
    Worthington, OH 43085

  10. Clint says:

    Pastor Greg:

    Thanks for your reply. We welcome the dialogue.

    Just to help me process some of the ambiguity in your comment, could you more fully explain why you call us “stark-raving mad.” And who exactly are “you people”? This is a pretty uncharitable categorization, especially considering that it presumably includes me, even though I stayed neutral in my own post concerning your own comment and Blomberg’s.

    You said: “Beckwith read a few books from January to May, got a heart-wrenching request from his nephew to commit blasphemy (i.e., “communion”) and made the leap to Rome. And you take this man as an “intellectual”???”

    Come on Greg! Everyone knows that his post a few weeks ago was not an apologetic for his conversion. Please use the rule or charitable interpretation that every first year logic/philosophy student learns about. He was not writing a defense! When he does (as he has mentioned he will do in the next year), critique his reasons in that context and then decide if he is worthy of being called an “intellectual.” But PLEASE, don’t belabour serious dialogue with your hasty generalizations. It is always easy to critique reasons that aren’t meant to be a defense.

    Concerning Xaviers point about the church fathers and your reply about Luther. Could you please provide a reference for your “word for word” quote? And again, if it is indeed “LUTHER” as you say, does that mean that it is de facto right?

    You said: “The Bible students that make up our church family fully understand the grace of God–a polar opposite of Rome’s wicked counterfeit”
    WOW! Your “Bible students” have managed to wrap their finite minds around God’s infinite grace so as to exhaust it capability to be known. Can you come teach at my church…or is this, again, another one of your presumptuous, over-generalized claims.


  11. Clint,

    You appear to have been beguiled, as Paul warned in his second letter to Corinth, and have been corrupted from the simplicity of Christ. His grace is full and free (Ephesians 2:8-10) and the Bible students at BBF don’t complicate the matter so as to sound “scholarly” and impress others. We accept God’s grace as stated in God’s word, thereby, not needing some extra-biblical Pope or priestclass.

    You commit the error you accuse me of. I never said that we “have managed to wrap” our “finite minds around God’s infinite grace so as to exhaust it (sic) capability to be known.”

    Did Clint just over-generalize and commit the heinous act of presumption?

    Did Clint just break that “rule of charitable interpretation” that he was supposed to have learned in first year philosophy, by attacking my statement, even though it was obviously not an apologetic?

    Rome’s false gospel damns every soul who buys it (literally–a works-based, for profit system of demonism).

    You are neutral? Then you are with Satan. Matthew 12:30

    Pick a side. You can’t be neutral. Jesus made that clear.


  12. Kevin says:

    A relatively minor, and I would think uncontroversial, point:

    “Being neutral in a blog post about a disagreement between X and Y” is logically distinct from “being neutral between God and Satan”.

    In order for the former to have any entailment for the latter, argumentation would be needed.

  13. Clint says:


    Thanks for opening my eyes to the truth.


  14. You are so very welcome, Clint.

    I have not found the specific reference to Luther’s quote calling the church “fathers” the “church infants”. But I did find these in my set of Phillip Schaff’s, “History of the Christian Church”, Volume Seven, Chapter Five.

    “The fathers have written many things that are pious and useful (multa pia et salutaria), but they must be read with discrimination, and judged by the Scriptures.”
    “The dear fathers lived better than they wrote; we write better than we live.”
    (Schaff sites, “Melius vixerunt quam scripserunt: nos Deo juvante melius scribimus quam vivimus. Bindseil, l.c. III. 140; Erl. ed., LXII. 103.”)

    Luther on Augustine and the “other fathers”:

    “Although good and holy, he was yet lacking in the true faith, as well as the other fathers.”
    “When the door was opened to me for the understanding of Paul, I was done, with Augustin”
    (Schaff sites, “da war es aus mit ihm. Erl. ed., LXII. 119”)

    I’m no Luther fan, but I can appreciate any man who says, “This teaching [of the supremacy of the pope] shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ, because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God. This is, properly speaking, to exalt himself above all that is called God. . . . The Pope, however, prohibits this faith, saying that to be saved a person must obey him” (Smalcald Articles, II, IV, 10-12).

    He hit that nail right on the head.


  15. Brethren Pastor Greg,

    I have followed this debate between you and Clint ferverently since its inseption with a quivering lip, an open heart, and eyes glued to the Scriptures of Jesus Christ. You have convinced me that the Pope is Satan’s puppet, Catholicism a hell bound entity which will be swallowed up by the river Styx, and any and all acts of “Biblical interpretation” outside of the most Holy and praiseworthy King James Version is shere blasphemy. It makes me want to wear sackcloth and pour ash on my head in utter distaste and repentance. Thank you kind sir for your gentle spirited words and overwhelmingly convincing argument for the eternal demise of Satan and his Roman minions.

    Living in Eternal Bliss with the Holy Protestant Church,


  16. Tony says:

    You mention in your post of 5/29 that no one has responded to anything you have said, but rather you disparage us because our heads are so “soaked in psycho-babble” that we are unable to engage in “legitimate conversation.” No that’s really not it, Greg. The problem here is that you are unable to communicate in a loving, gracious, and tactful manner, AND this is ESSENTIAL for Christians to do according to scripture. I Cor 13 tells us that if we speak without love we are nothing more than a clanging cymbal. Whether it is Greg or anyone else on this blog who communicates without love, scripture is clear that we are reduced to the status of clanging cymbals. You see Greg, it isn’t all about what we say, but also how we say it that matters to God. Calling us “post-modern maggots” isn’t exactly going to win us to hear you out, and far worse, contradicts the clear teaching of scripture concerning the MANNER in which we communicate. Being concerned about how we communicate doesn’t make me postmodern, it makes me acknowledge the authority of scripture in my verbal life. I only hope and pray that you modify your verbal behavior in your future interactions out of submission to the clear teaching of scripture.

  17. Greg Miller says:


    I’ll look forward to witnessing the grand event at the Bema Seat when you lecture Jesus for not talking like an effeminate evangelical. You seem to picture Jesus with a limp wrist, lisp, batting eye brows and prissy walk. Possibly with the English accent to boot! (Which would be fine if it sounded like Alexander Scourby, but your “jesus” would most like sound like George Michael or Elton John.) Read Matthew 22-23.

    Then at that great Judgment of the Saints, you can sit down with the greatest of the Prophets, John the Baptist, and explain how his nasty demeanor is probably what got his head cut off. Read Matthew 3:7-12.

    The fun will never end!

    Tony can straighten out the Apostle Paul, “For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.” 2 Corinthians 10:10

    On and on, for those of us who read the REAL Bible, we see that Bible Christianity does not compare to this modern, dead, useless, spineless, sodomite-mimicking, effeminate evangelical “church” that is lukewarm like malaria-infested water, making God want to vomit. You preach Papists and Iconists into Hell with smooth words because you haven’t the knowledge or Spiritual nerve to be counted a fool for Christ and speak the TRUTH in love. “Speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits!” Isaiah 30:10

    Because your version of “love” resembles Day of our Lives more than the love of Jesus Christ. You know, like calling a gentile woman a “dog” (Matthew 7:27) or calling religious false teachers like Beckwith “dogs” and swine” (Matthew 7:6) or calling religious hypocrites the offspring of snakes (Matthew 23:33) or calling the political leader a fox (Luke 13:32) or calling Peter SATAN (Mark 8:33).

    Your Psych-drenched brain still remains incapable of dealing with the issues. Did I hurt your self-esteem? GOOD.

    Now, quit talking like a teenage girl and discuss the facts. Rome is a murderous, blood-thirsty whore, tempered in our day only by her lack of military ability. Rest assured, that power will come when the slut finally re-marries the Euro-state. In the meantime, apostates like Beckwith continue to empower the Beast and the dead evangelical “church” sits around contemplating and talking themselves PINK.

    Enjoy your Laodicean stupor.

  18. Tony says:

    Sadly, you have chosen not to heed the clear teaching of I Cor 13 with respect to the manner in which believers are called to communicate with others and have chosen, primarily, to personally attack me, as well as grossly misrepresent me in a public forum. Please point out where I explicitly said or implied that I pictured Jesus with a “limp wrist, lisp, batting eye brows and prissy walk.” If you cannot do this, then you have misrepresented me and should apologize.
    You cite Matt 3:7-12 and imply that his “nasty demeanor” here is what got his head cut off. Sorry, Greg, but the reason for his beheading comes much later in Matt 14:1-10. John was beheaded because he angered Herod by condemning his marriage to his brother’s wife Herodias. A surprising misread for the pastor of a church called “Bible Believer’s Fellowship.” You cite II Cor 10:10 without explanation, but I imagine you want me to see that Paul’s speech was described as “contemptible.” A quick glance in Bauer’s authoritative Greek lexicon tells us that the participle “exouthenemenos” (rough transliteration) means “to show by one’s attitude or manner of treatment that an entity has no merit or worth, disdain.” Basically, Paul’s critics are saying that they think his speaking ability in person amounts to nothing; therefore, it doesn’t support whatever false understanding of “contemptible” that you have in mind.
    Again, presumption and absurd caricature gets the best of you when you say that I “preach Papists and Iconists [sic] into Hell with smooth words.” Greg, I ask you, on what basis do you make such ridiculous claims about me?
    You yourself admit that we are to “speak the TRUTH in love.” Why don’t you embody your own beliefs? Instead, you choose to shoehorn me into some narrow compartment that is an easy target for you and proceed to personally attack me rather than deal with the simple fact that you are in outright rebellion against the clear teaching of I Cor 13 with respect to HOW we communicate.
    You say that my “version of ‘love’ resembles Day [sic] of our Lives more than the love of Jesus Christ.” Again, please point out where I have written about the nature of love itself here, otherwise you are once again attacking a figment of your imagination. Also, throughout your comment to me you seem to assume that I am advocating ‘love’ at the expense of ‘truth.’ This is a false dichotomy that I reject. Of course, we are compelled to tell others the truth about sin and judgment and all of those other politically incorrect realities, but, again, God is also concerned about HOW we engage others, namely in a loving manner. We can tell people the truth about sin and judgment without being unnecessarily offensive and abrasive, and we should seek to do this.
    Also, your Bible knowledge again appears deficient as you cite Matt 7:27 as containing the story of Jesus calling a Gentile woman a “dog.” The story actually appears in Matt 15:21-28 and Mk 7:24-30. In calling this woman a “dog,” a derogatory term used by Jews to insult the Gentiles, Jesus is probably testing her faith, since she persists and Jesus praises her faith and exorcises the demon from her daughter. I could go on in addressing your shoddy exegesis, but I fear it is probably a waste of time (though I hope it is not).
    You’re entitled to believe that the Roman Catholic Church is apostate and doctrinally unsound, as well as to attempt to convince others of this as well. The problem comes in when you go about doing this without genuine love for others; for if love is not present, then you are nothing more than a clanging cymbal. If you want to consider Paul’s teaching here as “psych-drenched [whatever that means]” and “effeminate,” you can do that; but for those of us who acknowledge the authority of ALL of scripture, we are called to submit ourselves to this clear teaching.
    One final comment about your R. Catholic comments. You mention that “Papists follow a godless ‘priest’ class (that you won’t find in any Bible, anywhere).” Let me demonstrate the falsity of this statement right now by pointing out Num 1:48-53. According to official Catholic teaching (NOT Chick tracts), the Catholic Church sees in the “priesthood of Aaron and the service of the Levites, as in the institution of the seventy elders (Num 11:24-25), a prefiguring of the ordained ministry of the New Covenant [Catechism of the Catholic Church, Para. 1541].” Priests, then, are viewed as ministers and servants in the sanctuary of God akin to OT priests. Of course, the work of Catholic priests is quite different from OT priests, given the redemptive sacrifice of Christ. The catechism quotes Aquinas approvingly: “Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers.” So, not surprisingly, Greg’s careless words continue his pattern of ridiculous overstatement. If you’re going to disagree with the Catholic Church, at least disagree with their official doctrine—not what some Chick tract tells you. Also, a very minor point, the current pope’s real name is Joseph Ratzinger, not John.
    This will be my last response to you, unless you demonstrate that you have submitted to I Cor 13 in your posts.

  19. Greg Miller says:


    Excuse me while I get something to wipe the tears from my eyes as I weep from the fear that you might not respond to my post with another gay diatribe.

    You demonstrate a real inability to understand what you are reading. I never said John lost his head because he was mean. I said that YOU make it appear that way, if you are consistent with your completely unbalanced hang up with what you are calling “love”. You equate “love” with talking to people like a girl scout.

    Example. You said, “You cite Matt. 3:7-12 and imply that his “nasty demeanor” here is what got his head cut off.”

    No, Tony. I said that if you are consistent (as in, your girlish hangup about my being a “meanie”), then I would expect YOU to hold that opinion and look forward to setting Johnny straight on his violation of 1 Corinthians 13 when he called Pharisees the offspring of a poisonous snake in Matthew 3.

    Was that nice? Where was the soap opera type of “love” that you are pushing in THAT statement? Shame on Johnny, that malicious, pugnacious Baptist who only immersed and, at that, only adult believers who had repented. Tsk. Tsk.

    Of course, you now appear to be inconsistent and not willing to hold the prophets and apostles to the same definition of “love” that your pushing off on me.

    Every lukewarm evangelical loves 1 Corinthians 13. It gives them an excuse to embrace apostasy. 1,188 chapters of the Bible lie without much light of day, while the shallow evangelical meditates upon the depths of 1 Corinthians 13. All the while, it’s about CHARITY.

    And true charity loves the sinner enough to share the Gospel, even if it pisses him off. True charity leads the true man of God to tell Tony that he talks like a girl and is defending a satanic church’s abuse of Scripture. True charity HATES every false way. Unless you think God the Holy Ghost has it all wrong in Psalm 119:104 & 128 and that all the mean things that YOU ignore, but were uttered by the men of God in Scripture, are simply errors in our Bible.

    Sadly, because he wouldn’t know love if it ran up his nose, the lukewarm evangelical can’t commit to accurate “exegesis” of the text. So, he thinks it says something about how you make people “feel about themselves” or whether you are soft and gentle and all things sodomite.

    Go preach on the street, visit door-to-door, preach in the jails, preach to the living dead in nursing homes, etc., like all of us hateful Bible Believers do and THEN call me and lecture me about your faggish type of “love”.

    I will give you credit for being the FIRST to actually discuss the substance of my post, although you whine like a little girl who hasn’t gotten her way throughout your entire response and then threaten to take your dolls and go home if I don’t talk like you.

    Your claim about “exouthenemonos” misses the context. His speech is what is “being despised” or considered “contemptible”. Why? Maybe 1 Corinthians 15:36 would help explain it, “Thou fool…”

    Here’s how I see it.

    England is dead. It’s church is filled with apostates, many of whom are practicing sodomites. The Gospel is rarely preached in their “cathedrals”. Why?

    The 19th century English church (Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, etc.) were a bunch of limp-wristed bums who were so hung up on being nice that they sent a nation to Hell in a handbasket. They produced a Satanic Bible via apostates Westcott and Hort–BOTH of whom embrace Darwin and Mariolotry. They tried to export the dung-pile WH text in the ASV of 1901 and largely failed. They tried again in 1954 and, again, largely succeeded (via Nestle-Aland).

    It’s been downhill in America ever since. The 60’s, 70’s, 80’s… NIV, NASV, NKJV… Alexandria’s Satanic text from the self-castrated Arian heretic named Origen in EGYPT (Alexandrinus). The Satanic monk Siniatic text from St. Catherine’s monastery in EGYPT (Siniaticus). And the doctored hack-job text from the VATICAN in the “city on seven mountains” of Revelation 17 (Vaticanus).

    D. Martin Lloyd Jones was a little soft at times, but he called it right as he describes Tony’s version of Christianity:

    “What matters, we are told, is that a man should have ‘the spirit of Christ’ and that he should desire to imitate Christ’s example. That makes him a Christian! Dontrinal correctness, they maintain, has been over-emphasized in the past. A man may be shaky on the very Person of Christ, may not believe in the doctrine of the resurrection of our Lord, but if he has an open mind, an dis tolerant of other opinions, and is kind and friendly and ‘gracious’ and concerned about others, and especially about suffering and need and ancious to right all wrongs, political and social, he is a true Christian. What a man is, and does, we are told, is of much greater importance than his doctrinal views. Moreover, it is argued, nothing but a demonstration of this so-called ‘Christian spirit’ will have any effect upon those outside the Church who have no interest whatsoever in doctrine. Indeed, to hold doctrinal views strongly and to criticize other views is virtually regarded as sinful an dis frequently described as being ‘sub-Christian’. This is how the phrase ‘speaking the truth in love’ is being commonly interpreted.”

    “That seems to be his one test of scholarship! ‘Scholarship’ has come to mean that you find all views very interesting, and tht there is something to be said for all points of view. If you want to be regarded as scholarly you must not say that one view is right and the other wrong; you must not criticize, for to criticize is to deny the spirit of Christ, and to be entirely devoid of love. ‘Speaking the truth in love’ has coem to mean that you more or less praise everything, but above all, that you never criticize any view strongly, because, after all, there is a certain amount of right and truth in everything.”

    D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, “An Exposition of Ephesians 4:1-16: Christian Unity. Chapter 20, “Speaking the Truth In Love,” page 243.

  20. Keith says:

    Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread! A simple reading of Clint’s original post will reveal that he made no claim whatsoever, though the comments have themselves made a clear point to any who read them. That said, we are closing this post to additional comments.

    Greg, you’ve made quite a case, though I’m confident it’s not the one you hoped for. We permitted you to remain vocal in this “discussion” as a courtesy, as you were part of the subject of the original post. You have, however, worn out your welcome.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: