Answering a smorgasbord

"FunTime" writes in:

I like people that don't sit on the sidelines about something they believe in...BUT,  your thinking and position on abortion is not well thought out for many reasons.   I'm not offended by your actions, your  beliefs, you have that right, and I believe that you have the right to your religious views and practices , BUT remember,  others have the right to be FREE from your religious views and beliefs.
You are living in a vacuum if you think stopping LEGAL abortion will STOP ABORTION.  It will only put girls, and women in great risk of serious injury and death.  Have you spent anytime looking at what women had to do before abortion was legal?  You do realize they still got abortions don't you.    There are many reasons why women get abortions, and I can tell you from experience, most women who have abortions don't like doing it, and don't use it as a form of birth control, that's a FACT.. Most women don't make that choice easily
I find it interesting in this society that once the unwanted child is born, that mother is on her own...  If the republican party had it's way there would be no food stamps or welfare, and they are doing their best to cut these programs, NOW.    To ignore the reasons WHY many young girls and women get abortions in burying your head in the sand and not REALISTIC.    If you really wanted to stop abortion, you cause should be to teach and provide girls and women with the tools to not get PREGNANT in the first place, like free contraception and sexual education..  To ignore human sexuality and to think that abstinence is  the ANSWER is IGNORANT.    Women are raped, forced to have sex by a controlling partner, boyfriend, husband, birth control fails, incest..and many women believe sex is not only for procreation, if you can believe that!    You really think these circumstances will STOP.?    NOT!    Children born into unwanted pregnancies many times end up in the welfare system, and finally in the  criminal justice system, doing great damage to society along the way...Raping, killing, stealing.....   Again, your right to live you life abortion FREE is your RIGHT, BUT others have the RIGHT TO BE FREE OF YOUR BELIEFS.    You will not win this battle...this is just common sense.   You cannot legislate human nature....  Preach CONTRACEPTION, and you will save more lives, and prevent more ABORTIONS,  then you every will with your current approach.  If you really wanted to accomplish the goal of making abortion rare, then preventing pregnancies is the ANSWER.    Put all the energy you have into that goal and you will do mankind and GOD a great service.     Thank you for your time.

Hello Whatever Your Name Is,

I'm glad you're not offended. That's open minded of you.
On one level of course people have the right not to be persuaded by our arguments - that's 1st Amdmt. But on a deeper level, nobody is at liberty to murder children or think that Jesus is not Lord, and Jesus will not have patience forever. He will pour out wrath on evildoers like those who think abortion is OK. So that liberty is at a more important level totally imaginary, and we want to warn people.

We don't only want to illegalise abortion. Stick around; we very often say that we are at war with the worldview in which abortion is thinkable in the first place. But I LOL when you say that abolition puts women at risk of injury and death. Open your eyes. Women are seriously injured and killed by abortions all over the place TODAY. Further, babies ALWAYS die. So don't say that kind of foolish thing.

Why don't women make that choice easily? It's because they KNOW it's a CHILD they're MURDERING. If abortion is merely health care, it's the easiest decision in the world. Nobody frets over a tonsillectomy.

We don't want to leave the mother on her own. That's a lie that you've believed from the media b/c like most Americans you're probably a faithful sheeple. Open your eyes. Nanny-state healthcare is not the answer. We refuse to give a bad answer to a tough question. The answer is to awaken the culture to care for women in these situations and give them love and the Gospel of Jesus, and yes, to shame those who hate the truth and who think that murder is the answer to their own bad choices. that choice should be shamed.
Further, women can get free healthcare TODAY; 0bamacare isn't needed. A humble heart to ask for help is what is needed.

We do teach people not to get pregnant. there is a 100% effective means of doing so - abstinence. The Lord Jesus commands everyone to flee from sexual immorality. It's not ignorant. Condoms work 80% of the time WHEN THEY ARE USED. Abstinence works 100% of the time WHEN IT IS USED. Why would we push an inferior method? Why would we disobey Jesus? Give me a good reason to disobey Jesus.

Rape is a tiny, tiny subset of abortion. I see you checked the FAQ. I'm glad you did. Here's the specific link:
http://abolishhumanabortion.com/faq/#the-rape-exception

19th century slaveowners used to tell abolitionists they'd never abolish slavery. Yet here we are. The Lord Jesus is in control. You don't even have enough courage to use a real email address and name. LOL at your bravado.

Preach contraception, eh? That is advice straight from the devil. No, we will preach Christ, and Him crucified.
http://abolishhumanabortion.com/the-gospel/

Yes, we will help women who are in unexpected pregnancies, we have done so, and we will do so again. It doesn't matter what their father's crimes were. So we're not all talk. To say that shows you don't know anything about us. You probably think we're pro-life.

Say, I'd like to ask you a question. You seem to think hypocrisy is a bad thing. How do you know that hypocrisy is bad? What is your standard of moral measurement? Who made you Pope of Morality, that you can sit there and dictate to others that hypocrisy is evil? Speaking of critical thinking. Good luck answering that question in a way that doesn't make a total hash of your worldview.

Peace,
Rhology

Jesus Did

Extended email discussion with a professing Satanist. I urge him to repent and be reconciled to God.
He asks: Who makes peace with their greatest enemy?

I answer: Jesus did.

Romans 5:6For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. 10For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

1 Timothy 1:12I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service, 13even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief; 14and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus. 15It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. 16Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life. 17Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

How He is merciful and kind! Glorify Him today on the day in which we remember His propitiatory sacrifice!

A public call to repentance of calling people to repent publicly

I'm not sure how this makes much sense. I'm not sure how deeply the author (either Marcus Pittman or Jon Speed) thought about the statement. I'm not sure how deep runs the foolishness, but I know that after months and months of plumbing the depths, we haven't found the bottom yet.

Now we're deleting comments. We have received your response, AHA leaders. We urge you to repent of "Church Repent." When you have done that and are in good standing with your respective local churches...we will talk. Until then...please take the hint and stop commenting here.

(source) (screenshot)

So, let me get this straight. This is a public statement, made by one professing Christian who is a member of a different local church than the persons the author is addressing, to other professing Christians, calling them to repent of and stop calling members of a different local church than the persons the author is addressing to repentance over perceived sin.

In other words, they're publicly calling me to repent of publicly calling people to repent.

Sometimes...just, what do you say anymore?

Really, since that statement makes no sense, Christians who love God with all their mind should publicly call the Gospel Spam guys to repent of publicly calling to repentance Christians who publicly call professing Christians to repentance.

The Nomad

Follow me on the timing of this.

September 11, 2011, Tony Miano joins Faith Community Church.
(source) (screenshot)

~August 2012, Miano "began a process with my elders, the goal of which was to have my elders commission me, through the laying on of hands, to serve Faith Community Church as an evangelist, in keeping with the role of an evangelist as delineated in Ephesians 4:11-14".

~March 2013 - Jon Speed and the Babies Are Murdered Here / Gospel Spam / Street Preacher Guild group publicly dissociate from Abolish Human Abortion because of www.churchrepent.com.
Miano stands with them.

September 2, 2013 - Miano makes the following announcement on his Facebook page.














In other words, Tony Miano announces his intention to engage in a Church Repent activity toward Bethel Church in Redding, CA. Before his church elders have laid hands on and commissioned him to be an evangelist representing their church.
(source) (screenshot)


December 2013 - the elders of Faith Community Church "found aspects of my evangelistic gifting and ministry (namely, open-air preaching) philosophically incompatible with the evangelistic direction the elders have set forth for the Faith Community Church family. That being the case, the elders determined they could not lay hands on me and commission me to serve Faith Community Church as an evangelist."

In between December 2013 and February 2014 - Miano decides to leave that church because they won't officially commission him as an evangelist.


March 2, 2014 - Miano joins Grace Community Church because his other church wouldn't commission him an evangelist like I guess he wanted to be.

March 27, 2014 - Miano publishes his hatchet piece on abolition based partly on the fact that he thinks abolitionists lack local church elder authority to do what we do.
(His article) (Our refutation)

August 2016 - Miano leaves Grace Community Church (John MacArthur's church) to join up with some church in Iowa and "sit under the authority" of a pastor who has adultery and divorce in his past and yet who regularly "shepherds" women and girls one-on-one alone in private. And one of his closest allies, Chuck O'Neal, is sounding the alarm about Miano's discernment, which is either suffering from massive downgrade or has always been this bad. (I favor the latter hypothesis, personally.)
Sometimes... you just can't make this stuff up.



Now, if we were to ask whether Miano's elders at Faith CC thought it was permissible for him to engage in a Church Repent action toward Bethel Church, that would be less than helpful. One of the main thrusts of the criticism of Church Repent from the Babies Are Murdered Here / Gospel Spam / Street Preacher Guild group (of which Miano serves as one of the foremost luminaries and most listened-to voices) has always been that abolitionists have no authority to rebuke or exhort another local church, and that because our elders did not send us out for that specific purpose.


Leaving aside the fact that numerous abolitionists have been explicitly blessed in carrying out Church Repent by their elders, is it possible to escape the conclusion that Miano himself planned to rebuke a church without being sent out by his own elders?
And so he has decided to leave that church and forsake those elders because they wouldn't give him what he wanted - official commission as an evangelist. He could have stayed there and worked through the issues with those elders. He chose to leave and see if someone else would do so.

And what if we were to ask Phil Johnson at Grace Community Church of SoCal whether Miano was submitted to his pastoral/elder/overseer/bishop/episcopal authority when he decided to leave John MacArthur's church in favor of a guy who likes to take women into his confidence in the privacy of his office? It sounds like Miano is rootless and looking for anyone who will take him in and give him the affirmation he apparently desires from a father figure. 

What's the word for that? Ah, yes - nomadic.

Does Church Repent grieve you?

http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/2014/04/does-church-repent-grieve-you.html

Why Damon Rambo is Acting Like a Pharisee

---------------------------
UPDATE, 10 March 2017: 
Damon Rambo has made a public statement that looks mostly like repentance, so let's be gracious and give him credit for it. Combined with the fact that he has deleted the posts on his blog to which my own blogposts refer, I am noting the facts here in this update so that all may be informed of the current situation. Note that he has not taken down any comments on other blogs such as Gospel Spam, which probably means he has not done as rigorous and thorough a job of scrubbing his slanderous and wicked comments as I would ask if I had opportunity. Thus, my own posts will remain public and all links will point to Archive.org records of his posts until further notice. 
---------------------------

So Damon Rambo wonders why I deploy the "P" word regarding him.

What sort of extra-biblical, fundamentalist, outlandish rule have I invented? I dared to say that all Christians should be a part of a church, with a recognized membership, and at least one proper recognized and called pastor/elder. I have insisted that those who refuse the local church and its discipleship, fellowship and authority, are living in sin.

But that's not the problem here. He has misunderstood the objection. Let me try to clarify.

Here is his exact quote from before:

Such people are in grievous sin, and until that sin is repented of, further fellowship, discussion, and hashing out of differences cannot be had. Those who deliberately reject the visible expression of Christ's Bride must be excommunicated from any secondary fellowship, until such time as the Lord brings them to repentance.

Emphasis mine.
Look, I disagree that the people in question are in sin. Is Rambo willing to list postmillennialists, continuationists, Presbyterians, or Arminians as being in sin? Maybe he does; I'm just asking. Is he willing to say the same thing about them? Will he excommunicate Marcus Pittman for being Presbyterian and postmillennial? That's two areas in which Rambo disagrees with him.
If not, is he being consistent? What in the Scripture leads him to the conclusion that not having elders at one's church for the moment is something for which we should consider the offender damned and heretical? That's what excommunication is for, after all. It's way past saying "I disagree". We know Rambo disagrees. Disagreements happen all over the place about all sorts of issues. But we are not to excommunicate for minor issues. What is his argument that this differing ecclesiology jumps over the heresy fence? He didn't give one. But the thing is, if you're going to kick professing brethren out and deny them your fellowship, you need to have an argument.

That's why Rambo is a Pharisee - he is imposing this small issue on the conscience of other believers without the benefit of an argument, and in fact directly against what the New Testament teaches.
Who appointed Martin Luther? Zwingli? Calvin? Did they have elders?
Athanasius was removed from his bishopric several times and exiled, yet came back. Does Rambo have some evidence that another elder came alongside and re-appointed him? Does excommunication not mean anything? If church structures are only to be followed in some cases, where is Rambo's definition and explanation?
Acts 11:19-25 - Barnabas goes and helps preach the Gospel in Antioch, and yet doesn't stay to establish elders. Rather, he leaves to look for Paul. And yet there comes to be a church in Antioch (as soon as Acts 15:30). How?
Acts 13:44-52 - Paul and Barnabas are driven out of Pisidian Antioch after only about a week.
According to the qualifications for elders in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3, an elder can't be a new convert. I suppose we are to assume that no church existed in Pisidian Antioch at that time? Just... a ragtag bunch of people who loved Jesus?
Acts 17:32-18:1 - Paul sees converts in Athens but doesn't stay to train any elders.
The Epistle to Titus - Paul sends Titus to Crete to appoint elders in all the churches. There were churches there. They didn't have elders. Titus was supposed to appoint some. In the churches that already existed. Even though they didn't have elders at the time.

So that is what Rambo has done to deserve the label "Pharisee".

A few more comments on his article:
Its (sic) hard to throw people out of a group (1 Corinthians 5, Matthew 18) that is just a bunch of people hanging out in a field

1) Elders are not mentioned or even implied to be involved in any special or necessary sense in either of these passages.
2) How did Rambo get from the fact that this one local church in question doesn't have elders at the moment to "just a bunch of people hanging out in a field"? He does not inform us.


Wielding the story of the Good Samaritan like a club, the leadership of AHA insist that they are right, others are wrong...which they wield clumsily like a child swinging a sword

1) But is not Rambo "wielding" the NT passages about elders "like a club" or "like a sword"? Why is it so bad to try to persuade others, or defend one's church against divisive criticisms like that in which Rambo has heartily participated in recent months?
2) Of course we think we are right. Yet we remain open to biblical correction. Does Rambo think we ought to hold to positions we think are wrong? I don't understand the problem here.
3) Are these the words of someone who put a great deal of thought into his article?


any church that does not do exactly what they say in regards to abortion are in sinful rebellion and in need of repentance...ONLY abortion ministry matters

1) This is mistaken on his part. He does not understand the ideology, and I suspect it is b/c he has not done his homework.
2) Is it not true to say that any church that does not do exactly what Rambo says in regards to elder rule is in sinful rebellion and in need of repentance, in his mind?
3) Yet have abolitionists excommunicated anyone in that situation? No. Has Rambo, for his part? Yes.


Abolish Human Abortion calls out, pickets, and dare I say ATTACKS...pro-life churches

1) I don't know why Rambo is defending LifeChurch.tv.
2) It would be nice if he would explain how calls to repentance and exhortation are "attacks". Is this not merely his prejudiced language?


(Perhaps in order to stay in AHA's good graces, you need to purchase their materials? Just asking).

Accusations unbecoming of a pastor. Very unfair of him to say such a thing.


The abolitionist who gets in his car and drives two hours, past stranded motorists, nursing homes full of elderly patients

1) Rambo mistakenly believes that abolitionists think that going to the abortion mill is the way abortion is to be abolished. He is mistaken. It's probably because, again, he is ignorant. Sadly, he seems unwilling to learn what we actually believe.
2) Is it legal and culturally accepted to murder stranded motorists and nursing home residents en masse? Are 3500 of those kinds of people being murdered by their mothers and fathers every day?
3) For my part, if I were on my way to the abortuary and saw a stranded motorist, I would stop to help. Is Rambo being charitable and fair here?


There is only one litmus test for the health of a church, and that is the Gospel.

Preaching the correct Gospel correctly is a necessary condition for a healthy church but it is far from the sole sufficient condition. Holy living, non-heretical views on the Trinity and Christology, pastors that don't fleece the flock and such... these kinds of things also have a very large impact on the health of a church.


you understand that ANY proclamation of the Gospel is a blow against abortion

Agreed. Which is why we wish Rambo would turn his critical attention to the vastly compromised pro-life movement, who show that they do not agree with this statement with every action they take.


Not the Gospel plus abortion ministry done in accordance with AHA's extrabiblical requirements.

Another unfair characterisation of abolitionists' views.


And the Gospel is to be ministered through the local Church.

1) What does this mean?
2) I suspect we will wait in vain for him to argue for whatever his position means from Scripture.

Abolitionist ecclesiology

It should be noted that not all abolitionists agree on EVERY SINGLE FINE POINT of ecclesiology.
Kinda like single-pastor Baptists don't agree with plural-elder Baptists don't agree with Presbyterians, etc. Yet somehow the two latter groups work closely, make documentaries, street preach together and all that kind of stuff. Hmmm. Why are Damon Rambo and his friends so quick to dissociate from abolitionists?

Abolitionists do tend closely to one ecclesiological point, however - we reject quasi-papism such as the type that Speed, Pittman, Miano, and Rambo represent. Take that to the bank.

Damon Rambo makes more of a hash of Scripture

---------------------------
UPDATE, 10 March 2017: 
Damon Rambo has made a public statement that looks mostly like repentance, so let's be gracious and give him credit for it. Combined with the fact that he has deleted the posts on his blog to which my own blogposts refer, I am noting the facts here in this update so that all may be informed of the current situation. Note that he has not taken down any comments on other blogs such as Gospel Spam, which probably means he has not done as rigorous and thorough a job of scrubbing his slanderous and wicked comments as I would ask if I had opportunity. Thus, my own posts will remain public and all links will point to Archive.org records of his posts until further notice. 
---------------------------

Damon Rambo, a pastor in Texas whom we've seen before around here, decided to add his ever so helpful thoughts to the comment box of Tony Miano's hit piece at Gospel Spam. It would appear that the "Angry Pastor" not only pastors angry, but blogs angry too.

I am not sure why Tony "exited the conversation" but I can say for myself that the first question out of my mouth would have been "Are you preaching under the accountability of a local church, with established elder(s) and a recognized membership." If he said "no," the conversation would have ended right there. Such people are in grievous sin, and until that sin is repented of, further fellowship, discussion, and hashing out of differences cannot be had. Those who deliberately reject the visible expression of Christ's Bride must be excommunicated from any secondary fellowship, until such time as the Lord brings them to repentance.

To give a little background as to what he means, a few good brothers in the Lord have attempted to kick-start reconciliation talks between the Babies Are Murdered Here / Street Preacher Guild / Gospel Spam / quasi-papist / anti-Church Repent and therefore pro-Church Apathy / Pharisee crowd, among whom Rambo evidently prefers to be numbered, and abolitionists against whom the aforementioned Pharisees have sinned in numerous ways. I was party to one of these attempts; the brother started a group Facebook chat which included three abolitionists and three anti-abolitionist antagonists, and posted therein an impassioned plea for a beginning to reconciliation and cessation of social media hostilities. Marcus Pittman left the chat within thirty seconds of the appearance of the chat. Tony Miano exited a couple of minutes later after stating to the organiser of the chat that he'd talk to him privately.

 

Anyway, from the screenshots and the way that the various sides are talking, it should be clear to any objective observer who is open to God-honoring reconciliation and who is not, who wants to engage in serious discussion exposed to the light of truth, and who wants to cut off discussion and debate.

Damon Rambo, according to his own words here, is another Pharisee who would impose an extra-biblical standard upon others. Here, he lets us know in no uncertain terms that he would have excommunicated Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli, as well as any believers who dared to speak the Gospel to someone else before the apostles appointed elders in their local church in Acts 11:19-25, Acts 13:44-52, and Acts 17:32-18:1, to say nothing of Philip the evangelist who was just sort of wandering around when the Holy Spirit directed him to evangelise the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8, to say still less of the eunuch himself when he went back to his homeland and shared the Gospel with people there. If only Rambo had been around back then! The NT church would have been so much better organised and godly.

As a matter of fact, Toby's church is between elders at the moment. Rambo doesn't know the history of the church, doesn't know what they think about elders or whether they want elders. Why? Because he hasn't even cared enough to ask. He prefers to lob his tirades from afar, uncaring of the effect his dismissal has on the reader. This is not conduct conducive to demonstrating the NT qualifications of elder. Would the Apostle Paul be OK with blogging under the title "The Angry Pastor" or "The Angry Apostle"? Why doesn't 2 Timothy 4:1-2 read like the following?

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be angry in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great anger and hot-temperedness.

I feel genuinely sorry for the congregation at his church, but then again, his expressions are probably not nearly as evil in person as they are online. It's a learned skill, to be sure. One would think a pastor could manage it. But in my experience, churches usually deserve the kind of pastor they have, which is also a pretty sad thing.

He also speaks out of ignorance when he implies that Toby's church lacks recognised membership. He doesn't know that either. He has no idea what sort of accountability structures are in place there. Notice that to him, "under the accountability of a local church" is code for "elders". When these men say "submitted to the authority of a local church" or something similar, what they have in mind is one or more elders who do what the Lord Jesus and the Apostle Peter said they should not do - lord it over their people.

I find it quite interesting that Rambo, as a Baptist, thinks that dissent from his preferred ecclesiology is "grievous sin", for which one ought to be excommunicated and for which reason one ought not to cooperate on any level of Christian service or ministry. Why doesn't he say the same things about Marcus Pittman, a Presbyterian, again? Where is the consistency?

Who said anything about Toby or any abolitionist "deliberately reject(ing) the visible expression of Christ's Bride"? Does he think that Toby is not a member of his church? What does he know about that church? He doesn't know anything. Apparently, dissent from his preferred ecclesiology is equivalent to deliberate rejection of Christ's Bride. Needless to say, this is an enormous accusation. Can Rambo substantiate it from Scripture? He hasn't yet. Can he show that holding to a differing ecclesiology merits the same treatment as one would show to a material heretic and an unrepentant sexually immoral professing brother? If he can't (and let's be clear - he can't), is Damon Rambo not acting as a Pharisee?

Philippians 1:12-18 -

Now I want you to know, brethren, that my circumstances have turned out for the greater progress of the gospel, so that my imprisonment in the cause of Christ has become well known throughout the whole praetorian guard and to everyone else, and that most of the brethren, trusting in the Lord because of my imprisonment, have far more courage to speak the word of God without fear. Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice.

The false ecclesiology of Gospel Spam

...as represented by one Larry Bray, a contributor to the Gospel Spam blog.
See if you can count how many challenges and rebuttals he leaves unanswered or simply dismisses and ignores. This is the prevalent attitude with these quasi-papists.

• Larry Bray Toby Harmon, you go out preaching the gospel....and yet you are not an Elder...please show me in Scripture where someone other than an Elder is called to preach.

  March 27 at 12:32pm · Like
• 

  Larry Bray If God has appointed Elders for His Church...and if Elders are to "oversee" the things of the Church, then how can you justify not having Elders in your church?

  March 27 at 12:34pm · Like
• 

  Venchenza Settles Hey Larry Bray, I'm out at the mills sharing the Gospel with women who came to kill their child. Because I'm not an elder (which is not biblical in anyway shape or form....) does that mean I shouldn't be doing that? I'm asking...

  March 27 at 12:35pm · Like · 1
• 

  Larry Bray The great commission was not given to the general disciples of Christ but to the Apostles only. This is evidence enough that all Christians are not called to preach.

  March 27 at 12:35pm · Like
• 

  Larry Bray Venchenza Settles, all are called to share the Gospel, but that is much different from preaching.

  March 27 at 12:35pm · Like
• 

  Rho Logy Larry Bray,
  
  With all due respect, brother, please let me correct these things.
  
  \\Scripture says that we ought not cease from preaching: Act 5:42 And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus.\\
  
  Citing what happenED in Acts as a prescription for today is an exegetical fallacy.
  
  \\Toby's church says that they have no Elders or Deacons:\\
  
  They don't have one NOW. They DID until that elder admitted he was unfit and left the church.
  There were three churches and other examples in Acts that didn't have elders, too.
  
  \\Scripture says that we are to have elders in every church:
  Tit 1:5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you--\\
  
  But don't you see that you need to prove that Paul meant to talk to everyone and not just Titus in that?
  
  \\A true Church has historically been defined as one that\\
  
  With all due respect, was the church at Laodicaea a true or false church?
  Why does Jesus call them a true church?
  Also, push back 500 years - someone could have told Martin Luther that "A true Church has historically been defined as one that submits to the Pope" or something.
  
  \\It is impossible to rightly preach the word if they have no sermons and no Elders to preach.\\
  
  But how do you know that?
  
  \\It is impossible to rightly carry out discipline when there is no ecclesiastical authority invested in the Elders.\\
  
  Elders are mentioned ZERO times in all of the NT's church discipline passages.
  ZERO.
  
  \\And it is impossible to rightly administer the sacraments apart from Elders administering them.\\
  
  Please demonstrate from the NT that the sacraments were ONLY administered by elders.
  Why did Philip baptise the eunuch in Acts 8? He was a proto-deacon.
  
  \\The great commission was not given to the general disciples of Christ but to the Apostles only. This is evidence enough that all Christians are not called to preach.\\
  
  That is not true.
  Look at Luke 24. It was more than the apostles.
  Acts 1 - same deal.
  Also, the apostles are all dead. You don't believe in apostolic succession, do you?
  
  \\This is evidence enough that all Christians are not called to preach.\\
  
  What does "called" mean, here, and what NT passages use that language that way?

  March 27 at 12:38pm · Like · 1

  
  

The Gospel at Project Frontlines

http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/2014/03/sharing-gospel-at-project-frontlines.html

Beggars All: Roman Catholics Cannot Profess the Nicene Creed

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/03/roman-catholics-cannot-profess-nicene.html

Imprecatory Psalms and Fred Phelps

The 94th Psalm:

O LORD, God of vengeance, God of vengeance, shine forth!
Rise up, O Judge of the earth, render recompense to the proud.
How long shall the wicked, O LORD, how long shall the wicked exult?
They pour forth words, they speak arrogantly; all who do wickedness vaunt themselves.
They crush Your people, O LORD, and afflict Your heritage.
They slay the widow and the stranger and murder the orphans.
They have said, “The LORD does not see, nor does the God of Jacob pay heed.”
Pay heed, you senseless among the people; and when will you understand, stupid ones?
…He has brought back their wickedness upon them and will destroy them in their evil; the LORD our God will destroy them.

It is always an occasion for conflicted emotions when a bona fide enemy of the Gospel, a gross arch-heretic, passes into eternity to give an account of his life to the Creator and Judge, Jesus Christ.

John 5:22 – For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son.
John 3:17-18 – For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

On the one hand, the prospect of any individual passing into torment and destruction at the hands of his Creator is extremely saddening. God wrote His law on the heart. He made clear His existence and every human’s guilt before this powerful Maker. He gave the Bible and made provision so that it could pass into even very remote parts of the Earth and that people could read it there. On and on it goes, the story of God’s outreach to humanity, the Gospel of His grace spreading everywhere.

And yet savage wolves arise even from within the ranks of those who should be shepherding and serving the flocks entrusted to them, who rip the flock apart and bring shame and reproach upon the name of Jesus. And when we consider that when one of those, such as Fred Phelps, sees his days come to an end, bringing completion to his curses against the Bride of Christ, his lewd, foul, and false uses and expositions of the law of God, and his refusal, in the throes of his special brand of lunatic hyper-Calvinistic, to share the good news of Jesus Christ, shall we not also rejoice that the wicked has received his due?

You see, not everyone is Fred Phelps. Not many achieve his level of wickedness, and more importantly, not many do so while retaining the name and trappings of the Church of Jesus.

Proverbs 21:27 – The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination, How much more when he brings it with evil intent!

You see, it matters a lot in whose name one does a given activity, especially a very public one. When Westboro “Baptist” “Church” goes on the rampage at a soldier’s funeral with signs saying “God Hates America” and stick figures simulating anal sex acts, it brings reproach on the name of Jesus in much the same way that Westboro Hindu Veda Temple’s engaging in similar acts would not do. Nobody would connect Jesus to “God Hates Fags” if not for Fred Phelps. Thanks to him, and to the overwhelmingly disproportionate media coverage he and his cult have received for decades, millions of Americans make that precise connection now.

This connection has consequences. Let me give a couple of examples from my own life. Abolitionists of human abortion employ graphic images in our struggle to agitate and awaken our culture of death and the slumbering churches to the horror of the slaughter and sacrifice of children occurring 3,500 times per day in our midst. Often, people’s consciences are so seared, their hearts so deadened and hardened, that there is literally nothing we can say to try to get them to care, even a little. Nothing we can do, short of violence, which is of course impermissible. However, when we display graphic images much like Jesus did when He gave Himself over to be crucified in public (rather than, say, executed in a small, private dungeon via humane lethal injection), some of those people start to care again, and we pray that such encounters lead to repentance. As another example, street preachers stand up in public and proclaim the law of God and the glorious Gospel of Jesus.

And one of the single most frequent responses we receive is: “Shut up, Westboro freaks.” I heard that exact statement just this morning as I was pleading for the lives of the preborn at the local child sacrifice center/abortuary. It is to the point where virtually every time I preach in the open air or engage in a law and Gospel discussion on the streets with someone I don’t know, I have to try to remember to throw in the caveat: “We’re not like Westboro. Those guys will give an account for what they do.” We have to write articles to dispel the frequent comparison to Westboro. I’m not alone in this.

This man, despite the small size of his cult, has had a significantly negative impact on the general societal disposition toward these very necessary and difficult ministries. And why? Because he employs the same methods we do, and the message of Gospel-less condemnation and unrequited doom he communicates has the effect on the unregenerate masses that Romans 7 explains:

For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death…But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.

And this is Phelps’ legacy. He who preached a twisted version of the law of God, devoid of any Gospel, has now passed into eternity without the benefits of the Gospel. He who denied hope to his listeners has now lost any hope he would have had.

If there were ever a better time to pray imprecatory Psalms in modern America, I can’t think of one offhand.

Joel McDurmon almost apologises for the worst of his article on Ray Comfort

I am relieved to see that Dr McDurmon has in part come to his senses and, while not expressing the contrition I'd like to see for the severity of the charges he made, not only without, but in fact against all available evidence, I guess I can take him at his word that he really does think he sinned.

The main charges against Comfort were of money-grubbing and indeed extortion. Dr McDurmon apologised for saying "money-grubbing", yet didn't say anything about extortion in his apology article. That is a shame.

Dr McDurmon goes on to say:
And be sure, had I seen any of this, I would not have transgressed on this point.

This is a tacit admission that Dr McDurmon wrote his article in ignorance, which I pointed out earlier was likely. One hopes he will reconsider how much research he does in the future before dashing off such kinds of accusations against faithful brethren.

I searched the apology in vain for any mention of speaking so disrespectfully and flippantly about Comfort's street evangelism, for his calling it "high-pressure" (whatever that means), "hidden-agenda, stealth-attack approach", or "needl(ing) people on the spot about their sins". Sadly, nothing.

Speaking of which, there are a lot more areas in which this article is lacking.

No apology for attacking the video based on what he wanted to see in it.

No apology for implying that Comfort endorses an approach to evangelism that is summed up in, as Dr McDurmon put it, "nothing matters more than saving souls".

No retraction of the unhelpful (at best) line: "A gospel with questionable ethics is no gospel at all."


No apology for calling everything else Comfort has ever said into question, when he himself has demonstrably twisted Scripture in the past, thus tempting the objective reader to ignore all of Dr McDurmon's own writings.

No apology for accusing Comfort of hypocrisy.


All that to say, I am unimpressed at the apology, but my impression from watching and listening to many hours of Ray Comfort is that he is a deeply gracious man, who will doubtless be fine with Dr McDurmon's apology. Dr McDurmon would do well to follow such an example.

Joel McDurmon's hit piece on Ray Comfort's "Noah"

About week ago I bought and watched the digital download of Living Waters' "Noah and the Last Days" video. As with earlier LW movies like 180, Evolution vs God, Genius, etc, it was pre-launched in that format, for $20, before it was to be launched for free a little later. I have no problem supporting Living Waters' ministry, so I went ahead with it. 

To be honest, I found it to be the weakest of all of their movies so far, but I still applaud the effort and as always appreciate Ray Comfort's zeal to share the Gospel with the flakes, fruits, and nuts of California, the Cereal State. 

To my displeasure, a friend sent me a link to Joel McDurmon's recent attack piece on Ray Comfort and the movie, so I'd like to address it here. Let me cut to the chase first - Joel McDurmon has sinned against Ray Comfort in his article, and he should publicly repent and apologise for what he has said. It is even worse than his unhelpful critique of James White's debate against Bart Ehrman, which suggested even those years ago that there may be an unfortunate sort of pattern to Dr McDurmon's train of thought.

Disagreeing with someone doesn't obligate them to apologise. Dr McDurmon seems to be mostly correct in his review of the content, except for the way he dealt with 2 Peter 3, which was quite unclear to me. I don't see how 2 Peter 3 refers to 70 AD at all, and Dr McDurmon seems to imply that it does, though I wasn't too sure about what he meant in those sections.

It's the accusations of dishonesty and especially of money-grubbing that he should apologise for. A commenter made it quite clear that Dr McDurmon missed the boat on that one, badly, and he should repent.

-----------------------------

Michael Earley says:

Mar 17, 2014 at 4:35 pm

When you paid for the movie, did you miss this?:
“Those of you who took advantage of our pre-release download offer on “Evolution vs. God” enabled us to fund the production of “Noah—And the Last Days.” We would be grateful if you would consider doing the same with this movie, and in turn help us to continue producing similar projects in the future.
When you download this movie for $19.99, you will get a free downloadable Companion Guide (valued at $4.99) containing further evidence for the Ark and the worldwide Flood, plus a special video message by Ken Ham, “Creation and the Last Days” (valued at $12.99). “Noah—And the Last Days” will be available on YouTube and DVD starting March 28.”
I request you withdraw your slights about money. You sir, are in the wrong on that…

-----------------------------

This commenter Michael Earley is 100% right to say that and Dr McDurmon, in comparing Comfort to the Word of Faith heretics, acts sinfully.

The movie will be available on YouTube. That means it will be free of charge. Just like all the other Living Waters movies.  And you can buy their DVDs for like $2 apiece on March 29. That's money-grubbing? If Dr McDurmon resents it so much, he should contact LW; I bet they'd let him withdraw his charitable donation, if he wants to be such a jerk about it.

I knew precisely what I was getting when I paid my $20 - a video of Comfort evangelising people all by himself with a chest-mounted camera and handheld mic, and using his theme as a bit of a hook to talk to people. I was not expecting a volume of systematic theology. I was not expecting Russell Crowe engaging in hand-to-hand battle with CGI sharks or herding dinosaurs onto a big CGI ark. If Dr McDurmon was expecting that, he is ignorant of LW videos anyway and should have kept his mouth shut, so that his critique would not be tainted by valid accusations of a hatchet job. If he has a problem giving $20 to such a ministry, nobody put a gun to his head to do it. I have zero problem playing a small part in funding Comfort's ministry, and I don't think anyone should. It wouldn't've killed Dr McDurmon to delay his critique until March 29, the day after the movie comes out for free on YT.

Dr McDurmon says:
I will show you there is no other explanation short of a cavalier sloppiness with the text that would disqualify anyone from being a public teacher of Scripture.

Fine, fine. Comfort is not the best exegete any of us have ever seen.
Now, prove your charges of dishonesty. He can't and he doesn't do so. So he should repent of this sinful accusation.


Comfort begins with the claim that “according to Jesus, the events surrounding the life of Noah are directly related to you.” He refers to the text where Jesus says, “For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man” (Matt. 24:37; Luke 17:26–27). This all, of course, assumed Jesus was talking to you and not His audience, but more of that as we go.

Yet that is poor exegesis of Comfort's remark here. Part of Comfort's claim is that the end will come suddenly upon people, and while I agree with most of Dr McDurmon's discussion of how most of those passages refer to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the obvious parallel and principle remain, which is what Comfort alludes to during his evangelism efforts later on - the urgency of repenting now à la Hebrews 3.


an entire quarter-length of that very short time is devoted to a surprise gospel attack, not addressed at all to the subject the movie purports to be about. This is deceitful.

No, it's not deceitful. Dr McDurmon is just ignorant, and I would presume he didn't watch the trailer either. This is how LW movies are. If he doesn't like them, fine. "I don't like it" is not equivalent to "This is deceitful".


But this kind of hidden-agenda, stealth-attack approach is the very thing that turns away more people than it saves

I am amazed at how foolish this is. Dr McDurmon is supposed to be a Calvinist, and yet here he sounds just like the milquetoast evangellyfish he (rightly) critiques so much in other areas of his life. How precisely do people who are dead in sin get turned away from God more than they were before? And what is his evidence that more were turned away than not? What does he make of the many thoughtful conversations that Comfort had during the movie? Why does he imply that the approach is that which saves? This is just sloppy support for his sinful accusations.


It does not deliver what it promised...it borders on fraud...

Where precisely did it promise something that it did not deliver? Dr McDurmon seems to exegeting his own preconceived impressions of the movie. He judges it by what he thought it would be or wanted it to be and finds it so wanting that he accuses a godly man of deceit and money-grubbing dishonesty.


Some people will say that it’s OK because we should do anything we can do to save souls.

Dr McDurmon disingenuously implies that Comfort or other LW personnel have said this, when in fact they have a long history of saying precisely the opposite and have biblically defended their preferred methods of evangelism at length. Where is Dr McDurmon's refutation? What is Dr McDurmon's preferred method of evangelism? How "effective" is it? How "well" does it "work"? How often does he do it?


This “nothing matters more than saving souls” approach takes more away from Christ’s Commission than it wins.

But who said this? When? Where?
How did Dr McDurmon extract this intention from the hearts of Comfort and other LW personnel? Some private correspondence between Dr McDurmon and Comfort, where Comfort said "Yes, you're right, Joel, I'll do anything to save souls; it doesn't matter what"? What is Dr McDurmon talking about?


It shows the world that Christians will lie and extort in order to do what Christians are allegedly supposed to do.

Now it's not just money-grubbing. Comfort is extorting money from his viewers. Somehow Comfort found a skeleton in Dr McDurmon's closet and forced him to pay $20 to watch a half-hour film, and yet forgot to demand that Dr McDurmon not write a hatchet job review about how much he hated it.
Dr McDurmon should repent of this sinful language.


A gospel with questionable ethics is no gospel at all.

1) So Dr McDurmon believes that the sin of the man proclaiming the Gospel can in fact destroy its power. If I were American Vision, I'd want to check up on that pretty closely.
2) So I guess that means that the only people who should be proclaiming the Gospel are perfect preachers. Maybe we should all walk around like "Brother" Jed Smock and proclaim our sinlessness; at that point Dr McDurmon might say "OK, maybe you can preach the Gospel".
3) In fact Dr McDurmon himself has violated proper ethics in his sinful language about this faithful brother.


If a preacher is willing to twist scripture so transparently like this, how can you trust anything else he says?

Probably the same way Dr McDurmon presumably would like people to trust what he says even though he delivers poor exegesis at times. For example, not long ago he compared the charismatic church to a "wheat field with tares in it".
Yet in Matthew 13:37-38, Jesus explicitly states that the field is not the church, but the world.
And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one..."

Dr McDurmon twisted Scripture. I guess we should never trust anything else he says.

Or, maybe, he'd ask where our charity and patience with a brother are to be found. So I ask him the same question with respect to faithful brother Comfort.


What about hypocrisy in dozens of other areas? For example, say, Christian ministries bordering on false advertising and selling videos filled with half-truths and hidden agendas?

Again with the harsh accusations against brethren. I can't figure out what has prompted this sort of language from Dr McDurmon.
False advertising - where?
Selling videos? That will be given out for free in a week and a half?
Hidden agendas? You mean like sharing the Gospel and encouraging others with a video of how an experienced and skilled evangelist does it?


It was at this point, at about 21:10 through the video, that Comfort turns to his brand of high-pressure evangelism for the rest of the flick.

Perhaps the reason behind all of this is that Dr McDurmon's stomach turns when he thinks of approaching people you don't know on the street in order to share the Gospel with them. One is left wondering why. Could he not at least pat Comfort on the head and say "That's your calling, but not mine"? Why oppose this faithful evangelist in this way?
The very next line, he weakly protests "While I support evangelism, obviously", but it comes across as less than forthright.


I did not pay twenty bucks to watch Ray Comfort needle people on the spot about their sins. I paid to hear about Noah and the Last Days.

And there it is. Dr McDurmon did not want to support LW and their ministry and work. He wanted to be entertained.
And clearly he is not the kind of guy who finds entertainment in people being confronted with the truth of the Law and the Gospel. For my part, I like it a lot. I don't really fault Dr McDurmon for disliking it. I do fault him for his evil speech in his article.


he has to know exactly what he is doing.

My question is: How is it that Dr McDurmon doesn't know exactly what he is doing in this smear?


I want at least 25 percent of my money back.

If it would make Dr McDurmon feel better, if he values his Andrew Jackson that highly, I will personally send him $20. Just say the word, sir, and we will make it happen.


UPDATE: Dr McDurmon sort of apologises.

Joel McDurmon's hit piece on Ray Comfort's "Noah"

About week ago I bought and watched the digital download of Living Waters' "Noah and the Last Days" video. As with earlier LW movies like 180, Evolution vs God, Genius, etc, it was pre-launched in that format, for $20, before it was to be launched for free a little later. I have no problem supporting Living Waters' ministry, so I went ahead with it. 

To be honest, I found it to be the weakest of all of their movies so far, but I still applaud the effort and as always appreciate Ray Comfort's zeal to share the Gospel with the flakes, fruits, and nuts of California, the Cereal State. 

To my displeasure, a friend sent me a link to Joel McDurmon's recent attack piece on Ray Comfort and the movie, so I'd like to address it here. Let me cut to the chase first - Joel McDurmon has sinned against Ray Comfort in his article, and he should publicly repent and apologise for what he has said. It is even worse than his unhelpful critique of James White's debate against Bart Ehrman, which suggested even those years ago that there may be an unfortunate sort of pattern to Dr McDurmon's train of thought.

Disagreeing with someone doesn't obligate them to apologise. Dr McDurmon seems to be mostly correct in his review of the content, except for the way he dealt with 2 Peter 3, which was quite unclear to me. I don't see how 2 Peter 3 refers to 70 AD at all, and Dr McDurmon seems to imply that it does, though I wasn't too sure about what he meant in those sections.

It's the accusations of dishonesty and especially of money-grubbing that he should apologise for. A commenter made it quite clear that Dr McDurmon missed the boat on that one, badly, and he should repent.

-----------------------------

Michael Earley says:

Mar 17, 2014 at 4:35 pm

When you paid for the movie, did you miss this?:
“Those of you who took advantage of our pre-release download offer on “Evolution vs. God” enabled us to fund the production of “Noah—And the Last Days.” We would be grateful if you would consider doing the same with this movie, and in turn help us to continue producing similar projects in the future.
When you download this movie for $19.99, you will get a free downloadable Companion Guide (valued at $4.99) containing further evidence for the Ark and the worldwide Flood, plus a special video message by Ken Ham, “Creation and the Last Days” (valued at $12.99). “Noah—And the Last Days” will be available on YouTube and DVD starting March 28.”
I request you withdraw your slights about money. You sir, are in the wrong on that…

-----------------------------

This commenter Michael Earley is 100% right to say that and Dr McDurmon, in comparing Comfort to the Word of Faith heretics, acts sinfully.

The movie will be available on YouTube. That means it will be free of charge. Just like all the other Living Waters movies.  And you can buy their DVDs for like $2 apiece on March 29. That's money-grubbing? If Dr McDurmon resents it so much, he should contact LW; I bet they'd let him withdraw his charitable donation, if he wants to be such a jerk about it.

I knew precisely what I was getting when I paid my $20 - a video of Comfort evangelising people all by himself with a chest-mounted camera and handheld mic, and using his theme as a bit of a hook to talk to people. I was not expecting a volume of systematic theology. I was not expecting Russell Crowe engaging in hand-to-hand battle with CGI sharks or herding dinosaurs onto a big CGI ark. If Dr McDurmon was expecting that, he is ignorant of LW videos anyway and should have kept his mouth shut, so that his critique would not be tainted by valid accusations of a hatchet job. If he has a problem giving $20 to such a ministry, nobody put a gun to his head to do it. I have zero problem playing a small part in funding Comfort's ministry, and I don't think anyone should. It wouldn't've killed Dr McDurmon to delay his critique until March 29, the day after the movie comes out for free on YT.

Dr McDurmon says:
I will show you there is no other explanation short of a cavalier sloppiness with the text that would disqualify anyone from being a public teacher of Scripture.

Fine, fine. Comfort is not the best exegete any of us have ever seen.
Now, prove your charges of dishonesty. He can't and he doesn't do so. So he should repent of this sinful accusation.


Comfort begins with the claim that “according to Jesus, the events surrounding the life of Noah are directly related to you.” He refers to the text where Jesus says, “For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man” (Matt. 24:37; Luke 17:26–27). This all, of course, assumed Jesus was talking to you and not His audience, but more of that as we go.

Yet that is poor exegesis of Comfort's remark here. Part of Comfort's claim is that the end will come suddenly upon people, and while I agree with most of Dr McDurmon's discussion of how most of those passages refer to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the obvious parallel and principle remain, which is what Comfort alludes to during his evangelism efforts later on - the urgency of repenting now à la Hebrews 3.


an entire quarter-length of that very short time is devoted to a surprise gospel attack, not addressed at all to the subject the movie purports to be about. This is deceitful.

No, it's not deceitful. Dr McDurmon is just ignorant, and I would presume he didn't watch the trailer either. This is how LW movies are. If he doesn't like them, fine. "I don't like it" is not equivalent to "This is deceitful".


But this kind of hidden-agenda, stealth-attack approach is the very thing that turns away more people than it saves

I am amazed at how foolish this is. Dr McDurmon is supposed to be a Calvinist, and yet here he sounds just like the milquetoast evangellyfish he (rightly) critiques so much in other areas of his life. How precisely do people who are dead in sin get turned away from God more than they were before? And what is his evidence that more were turned away than not? What does he make of the many thoughtful conversations that Comfort had during the movie? Why does he imply that the approach is that which saves? This is just sloppy support for his sinful accusations.


It does not deliver what it promised...it borders on fraud...

Where precisely did it promise something that it did not deliver? Dr McDurmon seems to exegeting his own preconceived impressions of the movie. He judges it by what he thought it would be or wanted it to be and finds it so wanting that he accuses a godly man of deceit and money-grubbing dishonesty.


Some people will say that it’s OK because we should do anything we can do to save souls.

Dr McDurmon disingenuously implies that Comfort or other LW personnel have said this, when in fact they have a long history of saying precisely the opposite and have biblically defended their preferred methods of evangelism at length. Where is Dr McDurmon's refutation? What is Dr McDurmon's preferred method of evangelism? How "effective" is it? How "well" does it "work"? How often does he do it?


This “nothing matters more than saving souls” approach takes more away from Christ’s Commission than it wins.

But who said this? When? Where?
How did Dr McDurmon extract this intention from the hearts of Comfort and other LW personnel? Some private correspondence between Dr McDurmon and Comfort, where Comfort said "Yes, you're right, Joel, I'll do anything to save souls; it doesn't matter what"? What is Dr McDurmon talking about?


It shows the world that Christians will lie and extort in order to do what Christians are allegedly supposed to do.

Now it's not just money-grubbing. Comfort is extorting money from his viewers. Somehow Comfort found a skeleton in Dr McDurmon's closet and forced him to pay $20 to watch a half-hour film, and yet forgot to demand that Dr McDurmon not write a hatchet job review about how much he hated it.
Dr McDurmon should repent of this sinful language.


A gospel with questionable ethics is no gospel at all.

1) So Dr McDurmon believes that the sin of the man proclaiming the Gospel can in fact destroy its power. If I were American Vision, I'd want to check up on that pretty closely.
2) So I guess that means that the only people who should be proclaiming the Gospel are perfect preachers. Maybe we should all walk around like "Brother" Jed Smock and proclaim our sinlessness; at that point Dr McDurmon might say "OK, maybe you can preach the Gospel".
3) In fact Dr McDurmon himself has violated proper ethics in his sinful language about this faithful brother.


If a preacher is willing to twist scripture so transparently like this, how can you trust anything else he says?

Probably the same way Dr McDurmon presumably would like people to trust what he says even though he delivers poor exegesis at times. For example, not long ago he compared the charismatic church to a "wheat field with tares in it".
Yet in Matthew 13:37-38, Jesus explicitly states that the field is not the church, but the world.
And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one..."

Dr McDurmon twisted Scripture. I guess we should never trust anything else he says.

Or, maybe, he'd ask where our charity and patience with a brother are to be found. So I ask him the same question with respect to faithful brother Comfort.


What about hypocrisy in dozens of other areas? For example, say, Christian ministries bordering on false advertising and selling videos filled with half-truths and hidden agendas?

Again with the harsh accusations against brethren. I can't figure out what has prompted this sort of language from Dr McDurmon.
False advertising - where?
Selling videos? That will be given out for free in a week and a half?
Hidden agendas? You mean like sharing the Gospel and encouraging others with a video of how an experienced and skilled evangelist does it?


It was at this point, at about 21:10 through the video, that Comfort turns to his brand of high-pressure evangelism for the rest of the flick.

Perhaps the reason behind all of this is that Dr McDurmon's stomach turns when he thinks of approaching people you don't know on the street in order to share the Gospel with them. One is left wondering why. Could he not at least pat Comfort on the head and say "That's your calling, but not mine"? Why oppose this faithful evangelist in this way?
The very next line, he weakly protests "While I support evangelism, obviously", but it comes across as less than forthright.


I did not pay twenty bucks to watch Ray Comfort needle people on the spot about their sins. I paid to hear about Noah and the Last Days.

And there it is. Dr McDurmon did not want to support LW and their ministry and work. He wanted to be entertained.
And clearly he is not the kind of guy who finds entertainment in people being confronted with the truth of the Law and the Gospel. For my part, I like it a lot. I don't really fault Dr McDurmon for disliking it. I do fault him for his evil speech in his article.


he has to know exactly what he is doing.

My question is: How is it that Dr McDurmon doesn't know exactly what he is doing in this smear?


I want at least 25 percent of my money back.

If it would make Dr McDurmon feel better, if he values his Andrew Jackson that highly, I will personally send him $20. Just say the word, sir, and we will make it happen.


UPDATE: Dr McDurmon sort of apologises.