Hutch had this great idea! The following contest, sponsored by Vision Forum through Homeschooling Today Magazine, was posted on Doug’s blog today. See if you can spot any Scripture twisting (or history twisting) to make Jamestown fit Doug’s agenda. It is sad to see this misuse of God’s Word. This contest is based on the Jamestown Quadricentennial celebration this year.
***********************************************************************************************
Simply pick one of the Scripture discussion points below (or choose another of interest to your family) and write a persuasive essay expanding on the topic. Explain whether the settlers were operating under the truth of the Bible, or under a worldly deception.
Scripture discussion: The Founding Fathers of our nation were well-versed in the Bible — more so than we are today. Their views on all issues of life were therefore colored by Scripture. How do the following Scriptures help us better understand the settlers’ perspectives on the following? Upon which other Scriptures might they have based their actions? Also, which ideas and passages from the Bible can be found in the suggested readings and primary resources?
1. Land ownership (Ex. 20:12, Joshua 13-19, Acts 17:26, Deut. 32:7-8, Ex. 20:15 and Deut. 19:14)
Ex. 20:12 – “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you.”
Josh 13-19 – Dividing the Promised Land
Acts 17:26 – “And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,”
Deut. 32:7-8 – “Remember the days of old, Consider the years of many generations. Ask your father, and he will show you; Your elders, and they will tell you: When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations, When He separated the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the peoples According to the number of the children of Israel.”
Ex. 20:15 – “You shall not steal.”
Deut. 19:14 – “You shall not remove your neighbor’s landmark, which the men of old have set, in your inheritance which you will inherit in the land that the LORD your God is giving you to possess.”
2. “Interracial” marriage (2 Cor. 6:14, Gal. 3:28, Acts 17:26)
II Cor 6:14 – “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?”
Gal. 3:28 – “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Acts 17:26 – “And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,”
3. Building a population through native births, rather than sending over more colonists from England (Gen. 1:28, 8:16)
Gen. 1:28 – “Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Gen. 8:16 – “Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you.”
4. Evangelizing the natives (Matt. 28:18-20)
Matt. 28:18-20 – “And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.”
5. Pocahontas dressing like the settlers as an “Englishwoman” after her conversion rather than remaining in her native clothing (Gen 3:21)
Gen. 3:21 – “Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.”
Scripture discussion: Many, even in their native Virginia, are shying away from calling the Jamestown Quadricentennial a celebration, but instead refer to it as a commemoration. Discuss as a family the Scriptural basis for each of the following:
1. Remembrance of Jamestown, what the settlers did there, and teaching these things to our children (Deut. 32:7-8, Ps. 78; Ex. 20:12)
Deut. 32:7-8 – “Remember the days of old, Consider the years of many generations. Ask your father, and he will show you; Your elders, and they will tell you: When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations, When He separated the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the peoples According to the number of the children of Israel.”
Ps. 78:(4-8) – “We will not hide them from their children, Telling to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, And His strength and His wonderful works that He has done.
For He established a testimony in Jacob, And appointed a law in Israel, Which He commanded our fathers, That they should make them known to their children;
That the generation to come might know them, The children who would be born, That they may arise and declare them to their children,
That they may set their hope in God, And not forget the works of God, But keep His commandments;
And may not be like their fathers, A stubborn and rebellious generation, A generation that did not set its heart aright, And whose spirit was not faithful to God.”
Ex. 20:12 – “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you.”
2. Erecting a memorial to God’s providential deliverance of a people (Prov. 22:28, Josh. 4:19-20, Gen. 28:16-22, 1 Sam. 7:10-12)
Prov. 22:28 – “Do not remove the ancient landmark Which your fathers have set.”
Josh. 4:19-20 – “Now the people came up from the Jordan on the tenth day of the first month, and they camped in Gilgal on the east border of Jericho. And those twelve stones which they took out of the Jordan, Joshua set up in Gilgal.”
Gen. 28:16-22 – “Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, “Surely the LORD is in this place, and I did not know it.” And he was afraid and said, “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven!”
Then Jacob rose early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put at his head, set it up as a pillar, and poured oil on top of it. And he called the name of that place Bethel; but the name of that city had been Luz previously. Then Jacob made a vow, saying, “If God will be with me, and keep me in this way that I am going, and give me bread to eat and clothing to put on, so that I come back to my father’s house in peace, then the LORD shall be my God. And this stone which I have set as a pillar shall be God’s house, and of all that You give me I will surely give a tenth to You.”
I Sam. 7:10-12 – “Now as Samuel was offering up the burnt offering, the Philistines drew near to battle against Israel. But the LORD thundered with a loud thunder upon the Philistines that day, and so confused them that they were overcome before Israel. And the men of Israel went out of Mizpah and pursued the Philistines, and drove them back as far as below Beth Car. Then Samuel took a stone and set it up between Mizpah and Shen, and called its name Ebenezer, saying, “Thus far the LORD has helped us.”
3. Understanding the original words of the settlers from primary source documents, with the meaning that would have been understood at the time (Lev. 19:16; Prov. 15:14, 20:5, 23:23, 28:2b)
Lev. 19:16 – “You shall not go about as a talebearer among your people; nor shall you take a stand against the life of your neighbor: I am the LORD.”
Prov. 15:14 – “The heart of him who has understanding seeks knowledge, But the mouth of fools feeds on foolishness.”
Prov. 20:5 – “Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water, But a man of understanding will draw it out.”
Prov. 23:23 – “Buy the truth, and do not sell it, Also wisdom and instruction and understanding.”
Prov. 28:2b – “But by a man of understanding and knowledge Right will be prolonged.”
Be sure to include in the discussion, why it is right to honor our fathers and ancestors, rather than look down our noses at them. Should we wonder how they could have sinned in this way or that way? We would be wise to recognize that they were sinners just like us, and to consider ways in which we fail to honor them by sinning as they did — or in finding new and uniquely foolish ways to sin.
Jen's Gems -- Doug Phillips' Ecclesiastical Tyranny and Abuse 
July 25, 2007 at 12:24 pm
“The question really is, “What is God’s Law?” I do not follow theonomy or autonomy, and I know many of my commenters here do not either.”
Kevin:
“You do not follow God’s Law or man’s law then?”
Kevin, I wrote a response about the Law being abolished a while back, which has not received comments.
Ephesians 2 states Jesus’ death abolished the Old Testament law. In Acts 15 the apostles said “no” to directing the new Gentile converts to observe the Law of Moses, and they didn’t come even remotely close to directing them toward theonomy.
Hence, for you insinuated Jen doesn’t follow God’s law or man’s law, when Jen has already stated she doesn’t agree with theonomy, and that she believes God’s law *after* the cross is something different from what you believe, is presenting a false dichotomy in the form of a question, and is skirting the argument.
July 25, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Sorry, that this post to K. Theodore doesn’t quite read very well. I’ve noticed after it posted that I use some redundant terms, etc. It was difficult to write and painful to discuss. Let me know if anything is unclear.
It’s been a long, hard road out of the trappings and evils of Pentecost. Thank God for my youth pastor and Christian school teacher for encouraging me to read Francis Schaeffer (eventually leading to both Van Til AND Clark!) as a young teen. He attended Lee College (Church of God) in Cleavland, TN where Reformed teachings still figure strongly. The progeny of this school and professors like Bob O’Bannon still live on (eg. Craig DuMont, VP of Center for Cultural Leadership ala Sandlin). (Praise God that my education did not depend soley on a patriarch).
We also have the disadvantage of no personal contact with the accompanying non-verbal communication. (It’s essentially a type of induced brain damage, without the ability to interpret voice and facial expression…) These types of things can be difficult to figure out. I don’t use the emotocons (somehow cheapens written language and makes us more lazy.) Somehow, I don’t peg K. Theodore as an emotocon man, either.
July 25, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Hutch, I am linking to your article on Passover and I am deleting your long comment. If anyone is interested in reading the answer to Hutch’s question about Passover, you can click on the above link.
July 25, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Jen-
I promise not to do that again!
July 25, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Hutch — no problem! Just write me about it next time!
Kevin, here is the comment Lynn is referring you to.
July 25, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Lynn wrote:
“Ephesians 2 states Jesus’ death abolished the Old Testament law. In Acts 15 the apostles said “no” to directing the new Gentile converts to observe the Law of Moses, and they didn’t come even remotely close to directing them toward theonomy.”
Morgan: Clarification:
In the OT the LAW (ceremonial, tort, scarificial, festival) was the mediator between God and man. In the New Covenant JESUS is the mediator between God and man.
In order for Jesus to become the mediator between God and man He had to Sacrifice Himself (become the payment)as the payment for sin.
🙂 🙂 🙂 FOR OBVIOUS reasons I am not going to get into the elect and non elect issues here
Cindy: My loss of love for the Jews was also mentioned in this last conversation with her. So yes, the issue of “affection for the Jews” which was very much like Zionism played a significant role in their shunning me.
Morgan: well honey you can show up at my house anytime for falafel and hummus. I am sure you still retained your affection for the food…no? What? No FOOD??????
Your mom sounds like my jewish mom…we (you and I )both got shunned for the same thing…just on different sides of the fence!!!!
July 25, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Morgan: well honey you can show up at my house anytime for falafel and hummus. I am sure you still retained your affection for the food…no? What? No FOOD??????
Your mom sounds like my jewish mom…we (you and I )both got shunned for the same thing…just on different sides of the fence!!!!
I’ll come and bring my shofar (the pretty antelope one)! The tamborine doesn’t travel well… I never thought of this in quite this way before. How very odd.
It’s even more odd since I still have contact with Jewish (unbeliever) friends and still occasionally visit Messianic churches. And Barry Levine asked me if I had a “Jewish Mother” when all of this unravelled!
At least the phone calls from her friends and some of our relatives have stopped. I stopped answering the phone for a long time, with people trying to pull me back into line. I’m especially glad that her one friend gave up: she wanted me to go with her and my mother to Branson, MO to see Jim Bakker (of PTL fame, now out of prison) for deliverance. The pastor that pastored my Assemblies of God church lives there, so they hoped that I would agree to their little “intervention” to save my soul. I don’t think that I answered my phone for nearly a year after that call.
The good thing is that I know that I can trust God to work all these things for our good and His Glory. That’s the confidence that we have in Him, knowing that we can rest in His care and providence. It’s still very difficult for me sometimes, though. I love my family and am grateful for them. They feel that I have rejected them. What a complicated mess.
July 25, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Lynn, here is my response to your comment. I hope it’s satisfactory, though perhaps rather basic.
Here are some Scriptures to ponder when thinking about this question. The brackets mean the words have been inserted, and without them is a more literal rendering:
This is why I have a problem when I argue biblical passages with people. You present a verse, it is completely ignored, and offered in its place are other verses to cancel out the first passage you gave. This is the criticism Calvinists often get from Lutherans, and others as well, and I think it’s sadly pretty accurate. The whole notion of “problem passages” bothers me. You seemingly ignored the passage I gave from St. Matthew, the very words of Christ, except to say He didn’t really mean what he said.
Ephesians 2: 14-15
For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, [which is] the Law of commandments [contained] in ordinances,”
This passage would make the Word of God a lie if interpreted the way you seem to be using it for. Christ said “I came not to abolish” and here it says, “by abolishing His flesh in the enmity, the Law of commandments in ordinances”. Clearly, it’s talking about the gap between Jew and Gentile, especially as it relates to the Jewish sense of superiority to the Gentile (Talmudism). This is made manifest by the use of the word, “enmity”. If it was talking about the whole Law of God, rather than just the ceremonial, the Bible then would contradict itself, and be vain and unauthoritative.
From Hebrews 7 and 8:
“For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.”
Sure. We no longer have to be circumcised or partake of the ceremonial aspect of the Law, as Christ has fulfilled (set into effect) these laws in His person and being. This does not mean God ditched Moses, or that we’re free to commit bestiality -something never condemned in the New Testament (only the Old).
“For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.”
Setting aside of the laws pertaining to circumcision and certain dietary restrictions. Are you interpreting this to say Paul wanted Christians to set aside the Ten Commandments? Clearly Romans 13:9 shows he viewed Mosaic Law as being the essence of love. What this passages teaches us is that the law does not justify us, and that the New Covenant is the perfection and completion of the Old, not a “scratch that, my bad” act of providence.
“For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. For finding fault with them, He says,
‘Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,
When I will effect a new covenant
With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;’”
“When He said, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.”
Again, if “Thou Shalt not Kill” and “Thou Shalt not Covet” are growing old and ready to disappear, why, in his Epistle to the Romans, did Paul say that Mosaic law was the essence of loving one’s neighbor? Why is loving thy neighbor first commanded in Leviticus? Was Paul saying that was made obsolete? Clearly not. What this is referring to are those laws which were shadows of that which was to come, and came; the New Covenant. Ceremonial laws restricted to the nation-race of the Hebrews are what this passage of Scripture is talking about, not the moral and judicial laws of Moses.
The death of Jesus abolished the Law.
Jesus said the opposite, “I did not come to abolish the Law” (Matthew 5:17).
The enmity between Jew and Gentile was the Law, and Jesus abolished it in his flesh.
Ephesians 2 says so. Hebrews explains in detail how and why it was abolished.
The ceremonial aspect certainly was. There was no need for it anymore. The ordinances of circumcision and Passover were realized in Holy Baptism and Holy Eucharist. Why keep that which is greater and superior to the Old? Loving your neighbor, defined as obedience to the Ten Commandments and charity toward all men, was never abolished. The prohibition against bestiality or incest remain authoritative as well. As do the mandates to punish evil-doers to prevent God’s judgment.
In Matthew 5 and in Ephesians 2, there are two different words used which the NASB (unfortunately) renders as “abolish,” and “abolishing.” When you read the English NASB, it does look like a contradiction.
In my Logos software Strong’s Lexicon, the word “abolishing,” (AV – “abolished”) used in Ephesians 2 is “katargeo”:
1) to render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative
1a) to cause a person or thing to have no further efficiency
1b) to deprive of force, influence, power
2) to cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul, abolish
2a) to cease, to pass away, be done away
2b) to be severed from, separated from, discharged from, loosed from any one
2c) to terminate all intercourse with one”
In Matthew 5:17, the Greek word “abolish” (AV – “destoy”) is “kataluo.” Here is Strong’s again:
“1) to dissolve, disunite
1a) (what has been joined together), to destroy, demolish
1b) metaph. to overthrow i.e. render vain, deprive of success, bring to naught
1b1) to subvert, overthrow
1b1a) of institutions, forms of government, laws, etc., to deprive of force, annul, abrogate, discard
1c) of travellers, to halt on a journey, to put up, lodge (the figurative expression originating in the circumstance that, to put up for the night, the straps and packs of the beasts of burden are unbound and taken off; or, more correctly from the fact that the traveller’s garments, tied up when he is on the journey, are unloosed at it end)”
My response to this, after looking up the Greek words used in Matthew 5:17 and Ephesians 2:15, noting they are different, and taking Matthew 5, Ephesians 2, and Hebrews 7 and 8 (which quotes the New Covenant mentioned in Jeremiah) into account, is that Jesus comes to fulful the Law. He fulfilled it in His first coming, and He will fulfill it in His second coming. When He died on the cross, He brought in the New Covenant spoken of in Jeremiah, which made the Mosaic Covenant obsolete, as Hebrews says.
In this way, Jesus did not destroy the Law at all, for the OT prophets indeed said there would be a New Covenant made which was not like the Old, and Hebrews says this bringing in of a better hope makes the Old obsolete.
So Jesus did not at all “kataluo” the law. But His death did “katargeo” it. I tend to think “destroy” or “demolish” might be a better English rendering of what is in Matthew 5:17, and “abolished” and “abolishing” are fine choices for Ephesians 2:15, and especially so when you consider Hebrews 7 and 8 and Ephesians 2 together.
I have no idea how you are getting that from that passage, or the etymology and definitions you supplied. I cannot base my interpretation of Scripture on “what [you] tend to think”. One could come to a totally different conclusion based on the information you supplied here. And we are still faced with the sins condemned in the Old Testament that were not in the New. You also have the theme of Apostolic teaching that lawlessness is sinful, and sinfulness is lawlessness (1 John 3:3-5), that lawlessness is not to have dominion over us (Rom. 6:12-13), and the Holy Spirit fulfills the law within the heart of a believer (Romans 8:4). Was Paul saying the Holy Spirit closes and does away with the law in the heart of a believer? No, and this use of fulfill is the one Christ used in St. Matthew’s Gospel. No one in Christendom believed anything you’re saying until approximately one-hundred years ago.
Jesus’ whole earthly ministry was one wherein he condemned the religious leaders of the day, saying they hearkened not unto Moses, and would’ve killed the prophets had they the opportunity. He didn’t say their problem was listening to Moses’, but blaspheming the commandments of God that Moses gave to the people of Israel.
And by the way, as Mike teaches, the Bible does not divide the Law of Moses into “moral,” “civil,” and “ceremonial” parts. Human beings did that. It was the *whole* law that was abolished, and if there is any commandment that we still need to pay attention to and obey as believers, they have been amply written down for us by the apostles and other authors of Scripture.
New Testament only, eh? That’s called Campbellism, and is the heresy of “the Church of Christ”, as well as a slightly modified form of the heresy of the Marcionites. The New Testament never condemns bestiality explicitly, so how are we to know it’s considered a sexual sin since it is not referred as such in the New Testament?
And why is it God’s perfect law of liberty, given to us by Moses, is so harsh and over-bearing for believers, but somehow certain cups have to be used during the Lord’s Supper. Where is that in Scripture? That’s continuity with the ceremonial law, even going to extra-biblical sources for the purpose of doing the ritual properly!
So, in one sense I do agree that the moral laws — what is universally moral, according to God, are still in force.
God told us what he views as immoral in His Law. Except where specifically altered, wisdom always assumes continuity (Proverbs 24:21).
But I do not equate the 10 Commandments to the moral law, because Paul the apostle plainly says that it is permissable for one man to view every day alike, and for another to regard one day above another. And that would include the Sabbath. It would appear that the NT commandments and teachings view 9 of the 10 Commandments as universally moral.
So you’re for nine commandments? A Nine-Commandments Christian?
July 25, 2007 at 8:45 pm
“This does not mean God ditched Moses, or that we’re free to commit bestiality -something never condemned in the New Testament (only the Old).”
Nitpicking here, but ALL sexual immorality is condemned in the NT:
” 1Cr 6:18 – Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. “
July 25, 2007 at 8:53 pm
“So you’re for nine commandments? A Nine-Commandments Christian?”
Actually we are to be TWO Commandment Christians, who use loving discernment in exercising our liberty in Christ.
Jesus gave us common sense and the Holy Spirit, and He gave us two commandments to keep: to love God and to love our neighbor. We are to use our noggins and follow the Holy Spirit’s leading in loving God and our neighbor, and all else will follow, should it be necessary.
July 25, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Some idiot wrote:
“The death of Jesus abolished the Law.”
Kevin:
Jesus said the opposite, “I did not come to abolish the Law” (Matthew 5:17).
Lynn:
The AV says “I did not come to destroy the Law.”
Can some thing be fulfilled and set aside (abolished), yet not destroyed? I think it can.
I also think the moral precepts the NT teaches are sufficient to keep us from things like bestiality, etc.. There is a difference in the law of the OT and the NT. In the NT, the commands are much more general, and we are expected to walk in the Spirit, because we are in Christ. Paul said we’d come to maturity and are free from the tutor. It is an organic union we experience when we are placed in Christ. In the OT the commands were much more detailed, and the Spirit had not come on all of faith.
Having said that, I also believe there is a lot to glean from the Law, and Psalms, and Proverbs. Please don’t think I’m saying the OT can’t teach anything about upright conduct that pleases God.
About the 9 commandments — I guess you could call me a nine commandments person.
I read briefly through your response — can’t take much time now (out of town company and I need to get to bed), but will look at it more later on, and probably comment, and if Jen allows, I hope others will as well. I know this response was brief and not detailed, just writing quickly for now. Thanks for replying.
July 26, 2007 at 5:10 am
Kevin:
“This is why I have a problem when I argue biblical passages with people. You present a verse, it is completely ignored, and offered in its place are other verses to cancel out the first passage you gave. . . . You seemingly ignored the passage I gave from St. Matthew, the very words of Christ, except to say He didn’t really mean what he said.”
Kevin meant that he brought up Matthew 5: 17:
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.”
And he said I claimed Christ didn’t really mean what he said. He also said that my comment ignored the verse he brought up.
I re-read my comment. There is no way you can say I “seemingly ignored” Matthew 5:17. I see I talked about Matthew 5:17 quite a bit in that comment. I noticed, for example, that the NIV and the NASB use the word “abolish,” but the AV uses the word “destroy” in that particular verse. And I went on to explain why I thought the AV’s (KJV’s) choice was a better choice.
I also brought up Ephesians 2: 14-15a which states:
“For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances,”
And this is, arguably, the most literal English rendering:
“For He Himself is our peace, who made both one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, the Law of commandments in ordinances,”
The reason I brought up Ephesians is because Ephesians uses the word “abolishing” to describe what Jesus did to the Law, and you should not ignore that fact when you look at Matthew 5:17 and try to arrive at a correct interpretation of the verse. It is important to know all the sections of Scripture which speak of the OT law being abolished, and compare Scripture with Scripture.
I also noted the two Greek words used by the NASB (but not the KJV), and translated as “abolish,” and “abolishing” respectively, are two different Greek words. When I did this I also, again, spoke about Matthew 5:17.
I wrote:
“So Jesus did not at all “kataluo” the law. But His death did “katargeo” it. I tend to think “destroy” or “demolish” might be a better English rendering of what is in Matthew 5:17, and “abolished” and “abolishing” are fine choices for Ephesians 2:15, and especially so when you consider Hebrews 7 and 8 and Ephesians 2 together.”
Kevin:
“I have no idea how you are getting that from that passage, or the etymology and definitions you supplied.”
Matthew 5:17 uses the word “kataluo” for “abolish,” which can also be translated as “destroy,” “cast down,” and Ephesians 2:15 uses the word “katargeo,” which is translated “abolished,” or “abolishing.”
I basically just said that I think the KJV (AV) translated the word better in Matthew 5:17.
I see more I would like to talk about, but it’ll have to wait. But your charge that I ignored the verse you brought up, and wound up saying Christ didn’t mean what he said, is, IMO, a bit over the top.
July 26, 2007 at 8:53 am
The Law as MEDIATOR between God and man was cast down..aside…kicked to the curb…..destroyed…abolished…the point is there is a new mediator…JESUS.
July 26, 2007 at 9:45 am
Lynn and Kevin,
It seems over the past couple of days that we have all been caught over the specific use of language and terminology. Terms have their definitive etymologies, but I see much reaction to the connotative use of terms in these arguments. I am guilty of this (if there is a guilt aspect to it since it is a human quality) for I also reacted a few weeks ago to the term “abolish” in reference to the law. In our English and more so our American understanding of the original word, abolish means something more violent to us. I made a long comment in response to “Jesus abolishing the law” that essentially described what Lynn does here as an “organic union” in Christ. The Amplified Bible choses the term “annulled” along with “abolished” in Eph 2:15. I seek to aspire to the principles of the accuracy of language (“general semantics”/philosophy of language) in an effort to be the best advocate and ambassador for the cause of Christ. Sometimes I sit with my majority text NT and wish that I’d never undertaken the study, as it often opens up the text to more possibilities like a can of worms. I remember debating something in class and bringing this up many years ago, and the professor just smiled wide with eyes brighter than Gothard’s best.
Not to say that the debates here are not delightfully stimulating and challenging either. As Mike described some weeks back, debate done respectfully reveals truth and sharpens our iron, as we have delved into the Word with zeal as a result. But along with this, I see a great deal of reaction over semantics and misunderstandings over the use of words that demonstrate more issues of communication about perspective. There is also an adversarial tone that may just be personal style (beyond that of the use of trenchant language), as we also lack the non-verbal cues and delayed responses that accompany this limited medium of communication. We speak different language, some by means of our English language and some through the understanding of our different experiences.
So I just wanted to bring that to our attention (and my own) that we may be arguing rather than debating, or reacting to connotation/semantic rather than observing considerations of “general semantics.” Also, we may be neglecting the limits of the medium of our communications here. We also have a great advantage over the world (hopefully), for we have the mind and spirit imparted unto us in Christ. I pray that all of us (myself, first and foremost) can continue to aspire to know and understand all the nuances of abiding in Him , even within this little box of cyberspace.
July 26, 2007 at 9:49 am
CINDY!!!! xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
KISS (keep it simple silly) is the best way to go is it not? I swear to my mind sometimes this blog sounds like Purtian Board!!!!
😉 morgan
July 26, 2007 at 10:25 am
Oh Morgan,
Your comment above about the law (no longer our mediator) is very good. I think, in my big ignorant reaction to “abolished” as it was used, I said that our relationship to the law changed because we were now in Christ.
The other thing that comes to mind about all this is that we are all in process. Paul was at one time a Pharisee, and Luther a Catholic (for two choice examples :). It’s easy to get all frustrated with other people or ourselves for not meeting our expectations while still in the process of being conformed to Christ’s image.
Ah, and “in Christ” solves that dilemma also. How cool.
July 26, 2007 at 10:55 am
Yes Cindy Dear and me as usual…red faced in christ!
July 26, 2007 at 10:59 am
Here’s a picture worth a thousand words on the subject of communication:
July 26, 2007 at 11:27 am
Cindy that is really neat. I am going to forward that page to my visual communication designer.
WOW talking about process … yes it is a process called sanctification….we finish when we die.
July 26, 2007 at 5:33 pm
CynthiaGee:
Nitpicking here, but ALL sexual immorality is condemned in the NT:
” 1Cr 6:18 – Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. “
When I write my logic textbook, do you mind if I use this a quintessential example of Begging the Question?
Actually we are to be TWO Commandment Christians
Two commandment Christians? I know what passage you got this idea from…would you care to show us how exactly this idea of only two commandments can be supported from scripture? Those “two commandments,” as Christ and Paul said, were the summation of the 10, not a negation thereof. (Matt 22:40, Gal 5:14, Rom 13) It is ironic beyond reason that in a blog about how Phillips twists scripture, we have people throwing out the Laws of God left and right.
John said that “hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments“…how exactly does that jive with “9 commandment Christian” or “2 commandment Christian”?
Jesus gave us common sense and the Holy Spirit, and He gave us two commandments to keep: to love God and to love our neighbor.
Common sense? “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man…”
Two commandments? Yep…sure did, gave us two commandments to keep…only wait….”And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another. And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.” (2 John 1:5-6) Ok, so we know if we are to “love God” (commandment) and love our neighbor (commandment)…it is by keeping his commandments: by obeying the Law of God…”Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.” and “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” You cannot divorce the “new” from the “old”…there is no such thing, as Christ clearly said. Paul said it too in 1 Corinthians 10.
He gave us his Law-Word, not “common sense and the holy spirit.” Paul told Timothy to “study to shew thyself approved unto God”…what do you think he was telling him to study? What was it that Christ used when speaking with the two men on the road to Emmaus? (after the resurrection) What were the Breans searching? Paul in Galatians is constantly talking about the “scriptures.” What do you think he is talking about? The red-lettered KJV New Testament?
We are to use our noggins and follow the Holy Spirit’s leading in loving God and our neighbor, and all else will follow, should it be necessary.
Not every spirit is of God…and without his Law and Commandments, you can’t discern which is which. Without the Law, the NT is meaningless.
Lynn
Paul said we’d come to maturity and are free from the tutor.
Lets look at that passage…
“But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.” ~ Galatians 3
And while we’re at it, lets look and see what Paul said in Romans about the Law…
“Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.”
“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” (glad to see Paul is consistent..seeing a pattern of what he is talking about…)
And…
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. (Rom 3:31)
So we’ve got some perspective on what Paul thought of the Law, and what he was saying to the Galatians…we are not justified by the Law, but justified by faith through Christ…hmmm….doesn’t sound like he has thrown out the Law. But lets not stop there…
What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
I want you to read that carefully…because it completely destroys your idea that from “basic principles of the NT” we can avoid sins…sin is defined, the standard upheld, BY THE LAW. Without the Law, as Paul clearly states, we would not know sin, and thus have no need of Christ.
Moving on…
It is an organic union we experience when we are placed in Christ.
Organic union? Ambiguous at best, and meaningless at worse. Would you care to define the exact perimeters of what an “organic union” is? Since we mentioned Gordon Clark earlier in this thread, I would highly recommend checking out his book “Reason, Religion, and Revelation”…experiential Christianity is not Christianity, it is an idea that gain popularity in the 19th century with writers such as Kierkegaard, and the second great awakening and the “method-ists.” Experience it…
Can you please explain how these two statements aren’t contradictory?
Please don’t think I’m saying the OT can’t teach anything about upright conduct that pleases God.
the moral precepts the NT teaches are sufficient to keep us from things like bestiality, etc..
Ok, which is it…either we need the Law to teach us to know what sin is, or the NT is sufficient by itself…it can’t be both. If something pleases God…then not doing it is displeasing…and if the Law teaches us how to please God…then we should observe the commandments of God.
About the 9 commandments — I guess you could call me a nine commandments person.
I guess since you have no problem taking a hatchet to the Law of God, the warning given by Moses would also be irrelevant to you….
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.” (Deut. 12:32)
It is amazing to me that in an effort to expose Doug Phillips, so many of you are exposing yourselves…I mean, tossing out one of the 10 commandments? *THAT* is orthodox? That is NOT cultic? That is NOT “twisting scripture to fit” an agenda?
Lynn you said to K. Theodore…
“In Acts 15 the apostles said “no” to directing the new Gentile converts to observe the Law of Moses, and they didn’t come even remotely close to directing them toward theonomy.”
I seriously cannot figure out how on earth you get that out of Acts 15….because that is not what was said. Lets look at Acts and see what is actually recorded…
Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.”
So, tell me, how do you get out of that passage that the Apostles said at the First Jerusalem Council “no” to following the Law of Moses…considering that they thought that since it was being read to them every day, they only needed to mention these few things. Acts 15 is an argument FOR Moses and the Law, not against it.
July 26, 2007 at 6:11 pm
I know this is off-topic, but I need to get this information out. It has come to my attention that some young men under my immediate care (details not important to the general public) have misused my home computer network to do some very malicious damage to not only my family, my co-workers but some internet contacts, as well. With that said, I have done nothing but damage control in the last 48 hours, so this blog was kind of low on the totem pole. I have had to close down my blog because of the damage they did to it. I have had to e-mail apologies to people I work with, family and dear friends. I have been under some distress in the last 2 days. I have sent apologies to Jen, Cindy and Corrie, and wanted to post this publicly to everyone else here. This is what I sent Jen to explain what has happened:
“Jen,
You and I have e-mailed several times, and I hope by the tone of our e-mails you would assume that what was written to those two ladies was not from me. After they sent me e-mails, I begin to do some research.
You see, my wife and I live at and manage a home for troubled teens and young men and women. In addition to teaching at a public school, this is our “gig” as well. It is a ministry, for sure. Long story short…there are a few boys that live here that have been “acting out” recently, against my wife and I especially. In our attempts to reconcile them with their folks, this acting out has increased. After some interrogation by myself, I indeed discovered that the boys used their computer, which is on our local network, to “hack”, for lack of a better term, into my computer. They are intelligent buggers. What damage did they do? Obviously they sent 2 nasty e-mails, but that is all you know about. They also logged into my work e-mail, and sent nasty e-mails to my principal and superintendent. Well, that has been less than fun to try and explain. They understood, but the irritation and embarrassment on my part is quite high. They also sent nasty e-mails to my mother, of all people. The e-mail fallout has been quite severe, and for that I am sorry that it occurred. I am still putting out fires.
What they essentially did was to connect to my computer, since that can be done with how the network is set up, and they then accessed my Internet history and e-mail history to do the damage they did. They even posted some on your blog that was not from me.
Well, I have since fixed the problem by taking the computer away until I can figure out a better, more fool-proof system. I cannot seem to find Corrie or Cindy’s e-mails, so could you possibly send this to them? Thank you. E-mail me with any questions or concerns. Thank you!
Micah Gelatt”
With that, I now put an end to the great mystery, and tuck my head and walk away. God bless.
July 26, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Micah wrote: “They even posted some on your blog that was not from me.”
Which postings are these? Point us to them, please.
July 26, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Kriegerwulff:
“Acts 15 is an argument FOR Moses and the Law, not against it.”
Let me be very specific in saying I don’t believe it is for directing the Gentiles to observe the Mosaic covenant made at Sinai. They didn’t even need to be circumcised, which was from Abraham:
Acts 15:
“But certain ones of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed, stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.”
And the apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. “And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. “Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? “But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.””
The decision was against the Law of Moses (meaning the covenant at Sinai), and FOR sexual purity, and some things associated with idolatry, and eating blood. Therefore I believe the best interpretation when they said that the Law was read in the synagogues every sabbath, that meant that Jews who were hearing the gospel would still be very sensitive to certain matters, and that Gentile converts were to show deference in the intimate matters of life. Sexual purity, worship, and eating together. Jen has pointed out to me (because I have always wondered why this particular list of few things the apostles did mention) that what they DID mention had to do with intimacy — marriage and family, eating together, and worship. For Gentiles to be aware of and follow these regulations would help as the two groups were now one in Christ. And the Pharisees had to learn that the Gentiles were not placed under the Law of Moses — and by that, I again mean the covenant at Sinai.
That had to have been what “not to trouble them” meant. That they didn’t have to be circumcised, become Jews, and be directed to observe the Law of Moses. I know you probably disagree with me.
You quoted:
“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. (Rom 3:31)”
Kriegerwulff, what comes clearly in context, BEFORE this verse is that righteousness is by faith, apart from law, to which the law (itself) and the prophets (such as Habakkuk) testify, has now been made known.
What comes IMMEDIATELY after this verse is a segment from one of the books of the Law — Genesis, NOT the Law code given at Sinai. This is why the use of the word “law” is a difficulty — it has to be defined each time we use it. Paul is establishing that the Law itself teaches about justification by faith. He taught there faith in Christ DOES establish the law, NOT nullify it, and he goes BACK to the Law (Genesis is the Torah) to teach that Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness even before he was circumcised. In no way is it establishing the Law code given at Sinai. It is establishing that the Law taught about justification by faith. Praise the Lord! It is not teaching that we are under the covenant made at Sinai. Where there is a new priesthood, of necessity there is a change of law. Hebrews teaches we are not under that system any more.
IOW — we establish what is taught in the Law and the Prophets in the book of Genesis and in Habakkuk when we teach that the just shall live by faith.
I know there are a lot more items in both your and Kevin’s comments that I wish I could respond to, but I have some concerns — I know Jen wants this discussion, but it isn’t the main issue on this blog. Number two, this is such a vast subject that it is bothering me to talk about it in bits and snatches like this, and especially so since I know we are coming from vastly differing beliefs concerning what some of these Scriptures mean.
July 26, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Observation of my husband as near to a quote as my typing will allow?:
Why is it that many of the men who post on this site frequenly redirecting the threads and discussions away to minor points or narrow issues that are foreign to the central idea or the central tenet of this blog. Why is this? Why redirect the focus of the blog away from the subject of Ecclesiastical Tyranny and onto albeit interesting but peripheral subjects? Are we working at common purpose to redirect Jen’s Gems to have a different focus or purpose? I don’t mean to sound paranoid here, but why does it seem to be men doing it?
quote, my husband in response to Kriegerwulf’s recent comment and the ongoing comments from Micah.
July 26, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Acuz the women who were doing so are all silent for now — K, Ann, Lucy, etc. But don’t worry. They’ll be back. How can I be so sure? Because they told us they wouldn’t! LOL!
July 26, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Lynn just wrote: I know there are a lot more items in both your and Kevin’s comments that I wish I could respond to, but I have some concerns — I know Jen wants this discussion, but it isn’t the main issue on this blog. Number two, this is such a vast subject that it is bothering me to talk about it in bits and snatches like this, and especially so since I know we are coming from vastly differing beliefs concerning what some of these Scriptures mean.
Couldn’t have said it better myself, although I’ve tried all day. This has been stimulating to a different end, but why are we so critical? Debating that the two greatest commandments negate the ten and all of this stuff that is clearly described in Scriptures. The law has been written on our hearts, we have the schoolmaster, we have the mind of Christ, we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. Why do things seem so adversarial here in a place where we should be encouraging and edifying one another. Rather, it is an “I know where you got that and you’re wrong.” This is an attempt at socratic method, but it sure sounds inflammatory to me.
I’m here looking at a host of books. I’ve got Bahnsens Theonomy in Christian Ethics right up against Clark’s Thales to Dewey. Rushdooney’s Systematic Theology is up against that set of Clark. Does that mean that my bookshelf is going to spontaneously combust?
What are we doing here?
What kind of spirit is this: “It is amazing to me that in an effort to expose Doug Phillips, so many of you are exposing yourselves…I mean, tossing out one of the 10 commandments? *THAT* is orthodox? That is NOT cultic? That is NOT “twisting scripture to fit” an agenda?”
No one threw out anything. What is this?
July 26, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Micah, I hope you don’t mind, but I have a few more questions about your explanation. I must confess that I am pretty confused about it. In order to maintain some sense of order, I will try confine myself to one main question, or to a small group of related questions, per post. I would really appreciate some answers before we can put this to rest.
You say that two troubled young men hacked your computer, got your internet history [which anyone can do from any computer, without hacking yours], and got your email account — and wrote those two nasty letters to Cindy and Corrie, pretending to be Doug Phillips supporters. Would you please ask these two fellows how they decided to target just Cindy and Corrie from this blog, and no one else?
Why didn’t they just target Jen, for example, since she is the one you say you have been corresponding with? Why did they zero in on just these two women — the exact same two women you scuffled with just before this all happened — and no one else, out of all the people you have interacted with during the last month?
What is it that caused them to focus their attention on these two women? How did they know anything about this discussion about Doug Phillips, so as to write messages like that? Why didn’t they just post some nasty stuff to the whole blog, if their purpose was to act out against you and embarrass you? Wouldn’t that have made more sense TO THEM — to target the whole blog, or at least several more people than just these two?
The scenario would have to look like this: These two young men looked at your posting history and focused on these two women only — then they went to these women’s blogs to get their email addresses — then they created a new account and sent those letters out from that new account, instead of from yours. Have I got this right?
You say they also wrote some posts to the blog. Were those posts written in your name, and from your account? I have looked at every post from your account that was sent to this blog throughout the entire month of July — 99 of them, BTW — and I can’t find any that seem to be out-of-character for you. In fact, it appears that the only two that are even remotely “nasty” or “mean” are the two you already admitted to writing yourself and apologized for — just before all this came up.
Related to these questions — if the purpose in these messages was to act out AGAINST YOU — then why didn’t these two young men send the messages from your own email account, instead of going to the trouble of creating a new one and sending them anonymously? And if they used your account to write to this blog — then why not go ahead and use your account to write the other stuff, too?
Please ask them these questions for me. Thanks.
Sign me: Very confused by all this.
July 26, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Lynn, I see your comment, but am having severe problems with my internet. I’m not sure when I’ll be able to reply.
But yes, re-reading your comment, I think my charge was a bit over the top. You did address, albeit at a later part of the post. I initially thought you were ignoring it when I wrote that response, and didn’t edit that out when I got toward the end. My apologies.
July 26, 2007 at 8:19 pm
I am truly sorry regarding your confusion. Allow me to side-step your questions as they seem a bit accusatory.
Let me reiterate some things. I am a very open person. I am one of the very few on this blog that puts out my first and last name. I have nothing to hide, or cover up. In all of my conversations on this blog or through e-mails, I have had a consistent tone and quality. I may have disagreed with some, and ruffled some feathers, yet that is a far cry from that e-mail that was sent.
As to why the boys (more than 2 by the by) did what they did, well, I don’t know. I do know, and I stated, that they did use my e-mail, as well as fabricating others. As to why they only picked on some, well they didn’t. They e-mailed others on this blog that I may have had disagreements with. Several people were e-mailed just stupid things, or insulting remarks just for their fun of it.
Mike, IF I had done this (which would not at all fit my character) I certainly would not take the time to explain myself. I would simply walk away, and not check this website again. IF I was the type to send e-mails of this sort, you better believe I wouldn’t put my name and city and state online. I would hide and lurk like several people on here who flame by, say rude things and leave. Though I may have disagreed with some, I have by and large agreed much and tried to wade through some theological issues in a gracious way. I have enjoyed that process, and would not resort to pettiness to attempt to ruin it.
Perhaps your confusion is not much clearer now. I can’t help that. Yet, I do know myself, and what I am capable of, and what i have done and have not done online. So, take that for what it may be worth.
July 26, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Micah, I am very direct in my communication, so please do not read “accusatory” into any of my questions. I am genuinely confused, and it is my opinion that vigorous questions help us understand the truth better when they are met with clear, factual answers.
You spent a lot of time answering questions I didn’t ask — while calling the questions I did ask “accusatory.” But logically — even if my questions were accusatory, answering them would only redound to your credit. So avoiding them because of some perceived “tone” is really a major misstep.
You wrote a lot of things about yourself — but I didn’t ask anything about you. I asked about those two young boys you told us about. I wanted you to ask them why they did what they did. You said you interrogated them. I think it would be a good idea to ask them these further questions, and to report their answers to us, so that those of us who are confused or skeptical can be more accepting of your answers.
I will admit that I am somewhat skeptical. I am trying to have an open mind about this, but your original explanation raised so many perplexing questions in my mind — and your response to my honest inquiry has heightened the tension in my mind, rather than lowered it.
I have often explained, in many different venues, that I always try to give others the benefit of the doubt online, until and unless they force me to give that position up. When I end up calling someone a liar or a hypocrite, for example, I don’t do so lightly, and I make very sure I have the strongest evidence possible.
I am not trying to call you a liar here. I am trying to get some answers so that I will NOT consider you a liar. I do not know the facts, and I am not trying to trap you. I am just seeking clear, straightforward answers, if indeed it is possible to get such answers.
Like I said — even if I were seeking to accuse you, it would only redound to your credit to answer my questions and to seek answers for those you don’t know the answer to. You say that you would not have come back to read this blog if you were trying to hide something.
That’s great. Then what would be the harm in answering my question, for example, concerning just what posts those young men wrote to this blog? You stated they did so, and I would like to see which ones those were. Can you see how that could help me and others as I try to evaluate your statements?
Have you told Jen what those specific posts were? Have you asked her to remove them, since they were clearly, as you say, maliciously sent? If not — then why not show them to me, so I can see what was written? I fail to see how this is an accusatory question. It is not asked in a prosecutorial sense — but in a fact-gathering sense.
I teach logic, and one of the principles I try to hammer home is that one is not ready to argue about something, or reach conclusions about it, until he has gathered as many facts as possible in support of what is being claimed. I can’t talk to these two young men, but you can. I can’t ask them these questions, but you can.
But I can read what they wrote on this blog, if you’ll point me to those postings. What could be the harm in that?
“As to why the boys (more than 2 by the by) did what they did, well, I don’t know.”
And that’s why I asked you to ask them. See — considering the victims in this case, I would think you would want to go out of your way to cover all these bases, so that others will believe you and trust you when you make these claims. I want to believe you, and I, as yet, do not DISbelieve you. I am still trying to get more information.
“As to why they only picked on some, well they didn’t. They e-mailed others on this blog that I may have had disagreements with.”
That’s an important point! Thanks for that information. I would ask those others on this blog to please speak up and tell us about this. Please speak up and confirm this for me. What was written to you, and through what account was it sent to you? Please — do this for all of us, especially for Micah.
“Perhaps your confusion is not much clearer now. I can’t help that.”
I believe you can. I believe there are still several things you can do to help me clear up this confusion. Perhaps some of them can and should be done privately — but there are some specific things that I think you SHOULD do, beginning with trying to get some answers to my questions.
“Yet, I do know myself, and what I am capable of, and what i have done and have not done online. So, take that for what it may be worth.”
I don’t know what it’s worth right now. It may be worth a lot, but I just don’t know yet. In my plea on this blog last night — I wrote about “track record.” You have built up somewhat of a track record in here in the last few weeks, and it is true that those letters are WAY out of character for what I saw from you in here.
Track record speaks volumes. And your track record — before this happened — was not bad. Your exchange with Cindy and Corrie deteriorated badly, though, and ended badly [although, to your credit, you did apologize] — and that raises eyebrows when we then see that these are the two who were targeted by those extreme messages.
This is why it would help to see some of the other stuff written by these young men. This is why I am asking other victims of their maliciousness to speak up. If you are just as much a victim as they are, then I am ready and willing to support you all the way — and I know that Jen, Corrie, and Cindy are, as well.
But we need more information than you have given us in order to do so. We feel “burned.” We are wary — cautious — and as I said, I am somewhat skeptical, at this point. But please believe me when I say I want to believe everything you have said!
Please go to a little trouble and look into doing a few things to help me get to that point. At this point — let me just ask for two things:
1) Write to Jen, Corrie, Cindy, and me, and let’s get a dialog started. We can talk about these questions and our problems with all this privately for now.
2) Please tell us where to find those posts IN HERE written by those young men, so we can see what you are talking about.
And one last time: To others who were targeted: PLEASE speak up and help us out. If you want to do so privately, you can write to Jen, or me, or Corrie, or Cindy — or all of us. But please tell us what happened.
I know — I hope — I pray — that almost everyone in here is basically honest. I am not naive enough to believe that everyone is. But I figure most of us are. An honest person who has been victimized by these young men would respond and let us know this. I am trusting in that. Doesn’t this sound reasonable to you, too, Micah?
Okay — enough from me on this for now. I will wait to see if we should take this private now — and I will expect to see a list of posts written in here by those boys as soon as possible. It’s a reasonable request.
Thanks, Micah. You know how important this is. We all do. I’m willing to help you and eager and ready to believe you. Give me a chance.
July 26, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Mike:
“You wrote a lot of things about yourself — but I didn’t ask anything about you. I asked about those two young boys you told us about. I wanted you to ask them why they did what they did. You said you interrogated them. I think it would be a good idea to ask them these further questions, and to report their answers to us, so that those of us who are confused or skeptical can be more accepting of your answers.”
Mike, with all due respect, those were private letters that went out. Well, now Micah is telling people that some of the posts on the board under his name were not from him. If this can be verified *privately* between Micah, Jen, Corrie, and Cindy, all who give out their real names, I don’t know that we need a public explanation of why these youthful trolls did what they did, other than to know what comments were not from Micah.
It would make for an interesting diversion, but it’s off the main purpose of this blog. If Jen and her helpers, along with Cindy and Corrie can verify these things off-line, I think that would be far better. If they come to have problems off-line, then they should feel free to talk about it publicly.
My two cents.
July 26, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Lynn — I quote from my post:
“Write to Jen, Corrie, Cindy, and me, and let’s get a dialog started. We can talk about these questions and our problems with all this privately for now.”
The things they wrote to the blog were public. I think it’s reasonable to ask to see them publicly.
July 26, 2007 at 10:10 pm
” Well, now Micah is telling people that some of the posts on the board under his name were not from him. If this can be verified *privately* between Micah, Jen, Corrie, and Cindy, all who give out their real names, I don’t know that we need a public explanation of why these youthful trolls did what they did, other than to know what comments were not from Micah.”
Lynn,
This (the letters sent to Cynthia and I) can be resolved privately but since Micah stated that there were posts put on this blog by his borders that were malicious in nature, I think that part should be answered publicly. It is a public matter that should be addressed publicly and there should be no reason to be reticent to point those posts out.
Which posts were posted to Jen’s Gems by the boys? That way we can all know which ones they are and ignore them and not attribute them to anyone falsely and then Jen can delete them since it was done with malicious motives on the part of the boys under Micah’s care.
BTW, this sounds all very illegal. I would definitely report all of these things to the authorities. I would think it is in these boys’ best interests to nip this in the bud before they do far more serious damage by their hijinks. You could have lost your job. And the letters sent were very vile. I have to admit that I laughed hysterically thinking it was a joke but my husband didn’t laugh at all. Yahoo responded to me and told me that it was not only a TOS violation but that I might want to report it to the authorities because it was threatening. My husband was going to do just that until we found out the whole story behind this.
July 26, 2007 at 10:20 pm
I wrote:
“I don’t know that we need a public explanation of why these youthful trolls did what they did, other than to know what comments were not from Micah.”
Mike responded:
“The things they wrote to the blog were public. I think it’s reasonable to ask to see them publicly.”
Isn’t that what I just said?
July 26, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Who are the other people who received nastygrams? Perhaps Micah can respond with them since he knows who they are because he would have found them along with the emails sent to Corrie and me.
And which posts are bogus? Micah would be the only one who could answer to that.
Did they use Micah’s name for the bogus posts or did they make up pseudonyms?
July 26, 2007 at 10:45 pm
“Isn’t that what I just said?”
I’ve read it several times, and it kept looking as if you were saying to keep that private. That last little phrase did not register the way you apparently meant it. Sorry.
July 26, 2007 at 10:48 pm
And how did they get all those other people’s email addresses????
July 26, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Maybe they communicate like sin cooties?
July 26, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Well — I’m ready to take it to private mail, now. I’ll stop posting questions and comments.
July 27, 2007 at 8:14 am
K Theodore and KWulff are into the dust up about the law.
One cannot speak of ‘the law’ in one phrase and have it mena the same thing. As with ALL LAW…secular OR Mosaic ..law serves as a mediator between man and whatever higher authority ‘the law’ is representing in its sphere of authority.
THE LAW as we know it in our everyday lives serves as our mediator between us as individuals and the secular justice system. That is…if we obey the law we will not be the next episode on Law & Order or LA&O SVU.
THE LAW as given to Moses for the nation is Israel was intended by God to be their earthly mediator between the nation and God…..anyone remember the sacrifices(?) a precursor to Christs sacrifice. Israel was at first a theocracy…later it became more and more secular as God honored the peoples request for a king beginning with Saul. With Jesus’ death HE NOW becomes our mediator with God..through HIM we have direct access to God in prayer…we no longer need the temple priests to sacrifice the bulls on the altar for us.
LAW is not one dimensional. Law is one thing in the secular world of understanding another in the theological world of understanding as it pertains to the application of forgiveness of sins.
There are those of you out there that are just going to plumb smooth howl at the simplistic nature of my understanding. That is fine…but being able to describe a thing simply means I do not need to further argue my position.
Cindy wrote:….”sin cooties”
in my best Paul Lynde: “Get the Raid!”
July 27, 2007 at 8:21 am
Kevin:
“You do not follow God’s Law or man’s law then? Maybe natural law? Pagan statist law? New Testament only? I’m confused, as I know you advocate keeping the Jewish feast of the Passover (and I believe Hanukkah too).”
Jen, I know you like to discuss these matters, and that you are allowing this off-topic conversation.
I responded to the first part of Kevin’s remark above.
However, I was uneasy with my first response. It was in the back of my mind that in the *whole* of Kevin’s comment he was trying to figure out where you are coming from, and stated some things in the present tense as though they are still true. So he probably argued with the idea in mind that you believe such and such, and are still doing such and such, when something else is true. In this case, some clarification would be good. Otherwise, people might make assumptions about differing theologies which are not true.
Especially note that last sentence of Kevin’s above, which I copied. Things have changed for you. Perhaps you could clarify to Kevin what you believe now, either here or privately?
Kevin, just from me personally, I *was* Dispensational, and now do not believe the Bible makes a distinction between Israel and the Church any more. I do not believe in keeping the Jewish feasts. I believe in at least four points of TULIP.
Regarding what we have been discussing, I believe that the New Covenant, spoken of in Jeremiah, came into effect at the cross of Christ, and that it replaces the covenant made at Sinai (the Sinai covenant was the one Jeremiah compared the New covenant to). That is why you might see me saying,
“I am not under the 10 commandments.”
You might also see,
“I believe we understand what is universally moral by studying what commands are the same in the NT and the OT.”
And you would think this is a contradiction. But because I think there are moral teachings from the OT that are universally true, and should still be followed. is not the same thing as saying I am under the Old Covenant.
However . . . when the subject of bestiality came up, and the verse about Paul saying he wouldn’t have known what sin is, except for the Law (Romans 7), my mind IMMEDIATELY went back to Romans 1 and 2 where Paul asserted sinners *know* that those who sin deserve death, and chap. 2 the righteous requirements of the Law is written on the Gentiles’ hearts even though they don’t have the Law. What Paul said in Romans 7, and how it squares with Romans 1 and 2, has stymied me for a bit. I want to read what other commentaries say, because I want to fully understand why Paul would say even if you don’t have the Law, you know what sin is, because the righteousness of the Law is written on your heart, and then a few chapters later say he wouldn’t have know what sin was except for the law. I *think* I know an explanation for this which would make Romans consistent, but I want to read more on it.
July 27, 2007 at 9:10 am
Lynn Says:
July 27th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Kevin:
“You do not follow God’s Law or man’s law then? Maybe natural law? Pagan statist law? New Testament only? I’m confused, as I know you advocate keeping the Jewish feast of the Passover (and I believe Hanukkah too).”
Morgan: See my above comment about NOT viewing the law as one dimensional. The comment I quoted shows the law in several dimensions: Theological…secular…humanistic..pagan..NT salvific…festival…
July 27, 2007 at 9:43 am
I agree with what you are saying, Morgan, and that is why when we say, “law,” we have to spell out just what we are speaking of.
July 27, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Mike,
Thanks for your response. This is what I know. 4 other people were sent e-mails. They were people that had e-mailed me, and were strong Doug supporters. I am not sure who they are, because they give “fake” screen names, and do not sign their e-mail messages. They also have no blog or website link for further information. So, “who” they are I do not know. They had sent me messages several weeks ago when I had made the comment that Doug’s teachings were “deplorable.” They e-mail me to essentially curse me upside and down the other. As always, I disregarded what they said, and seemingly forgot about it, leaving their messages in my inbox. The boys had essentially gone through my inbox, and responded to people in ways 9according to them) that would either be funny or insulting. Since I am involved in dozens of blogs and forums online (this being just 1 of many) they e-mailed all kinds of people, either saying outright silly things, or hurtful things.
Now, I asked them about what posts they put on this blog, because they had said they did just that. I also read through my posts on here, and found everything to be mine. I am assuming that was a lie on their part, or perhaps since they did so much damage, they were confused. I found nothing on here that was not from me, and in need of deleting.
I had apologized about my comments, although that apology did not seem to “stick” with some. For that I am indeed sorry. I never meant harm, I was just speaking out of irritation. I asked for forgiveness, and do so again at this time.
As to the boys responsible, they do not really even know who Doug Phillips is. They live with us, and hear and are involved in many conversations with my wife and I. So, in these times, they would have heard me mention Corrie and Cindy’s names. I speak open with my wife about my online activities, and had mentioned to her several times my frustrations. They would have heard them, as well.
I am trying to be more forthright in answering some things here, Mike. I do hope my track record does count for something. When I was in error a few weeks ago, I did indeed apologize. These e-mails, although happening under my care, did not originate from me. I will say that once again.
July 27, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Hi, Micah! Thanks for coming back to explain. I have been thinking about your story a lot since you emailed me. It’s a fascinating story, to say the least!
I didn’t realize you worked with troubled youth. I thought you were just on vacation for the summer. I’d like to hear more about this ministry. Is it like an official home for troubled youth, or is this just something you do for some kids at church, or what? Do they live WITH you? I thought you had a bunch of little children. How does that work? I might be afraid to have troubled youth living with me if I had little children. Is your wife ever afraid of them? Are they all boys? I don’t know if I’d be willing to be live in a house with a bunch of rebellious teenage boys! She must be a saint!
July 27, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Hi Jen!
What we have done is to open our home for troubled families in our area. It is not an “official” home, and we try not to attract attention to ourselves, as to not become an issue with the families bringing their kids to us. We attempt to reconcile moms with dads, and parents with their kids. So, our home is essentially a revolving door. I was a Youth Pastor for a great many years, so am used to dealing with teens in this way. And, yes, youth ministry can be used by God!!!! lol
Yes, we also have little ones at home. Thanks for the comment!
July 27, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Yes, my wife is a saint! Namely for putting up with me.
July 27, 2007 at 4:24 pm
So, Micah, I’m curious as to why troubled youth would have access to computers and the internet. That seems rather dangerous, especially after what just happened. Even with my non-rebellious kids, I’m really careful about their computer use. Do you have rules for that?
Also, what kind of retribution will there be for this? Do you think they should apologize to each and every person they hurt?
July 27, 2007 at 9:34 pm
” 4 other people were sent e-mails. They were people that had e-mailed me, and were strong Doug supporters. I am not sure who they are, because they give “fake” screen names, and do not sign their e-mail messages. They also have no blog or website link for further information. So, “who” they are I do not know. They had sent me messages several weeks ago when I had made the comment that Doug’s teachings were “deplorable.” They e-mail me to essentially curse me upside and down the other. As always, I disregarded what they said, and seemingly forgot about it, leaving their messages in my inbox. ”
Funny this.
I have had many (with at least 4 people) behind the scenes conversations with various “Doug supporters” and they have all been cordial and I have never been cursed up one side and down the other. Oh sure, we would share our viewpoints and talk about our differences but there was never any cursing. I have really appreciated my interactions with them. After all, they are my brothers and sisters in Christ and I am going to spend the rest of eternity praising the Lord with them.
I just wanted to be fair here and let people know that I have had a postive experience.
These boys sound quite savvy as far as computers! Wow! You really have your work cut out with them. Maybe you can put their hacking skills to good use! 🙂 Am I understanding you correctly when you said that they “used their computer” that they had one of their own that belonged to them or that they used one of yours that was designated for the troubled teens you care for?
There are some really neat programs out there that keep track of all computer activity and then will send out a report to a designated person each month. That might be one option for you?
July 27, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Mike Says:
Well — I’m ready to take it to private mail, now. I’ll stop posting questions and comments.
You know, so much of this has become so complicated, I have many questions about all of this myself. When I first recieved the nasty-gram, I believed that this was from a young girl who was all to familiar with some vile language. Those concerns still remain, but have shifted to this (these) other parties. Jen, Mike, Corrie and I would like to get some closure here, but the online dialogue just doesn’t seem all that productive.
Could this all be taken to a private venue? Really, that’s what Matthew 18 calls for in this type of thing.
Mike also noted this last evening: “And that’s why I asked you to ask them. See — considering the victims in this case, I would think you would want to go out of your way to cover all these bases, so that others will believe you and trust you when you make these claims. I want to believe you, and I, as yet, do not DISbelieve you. I am still trying to get more information.”
I don’t think that we’ve moved beyond this point yet. So I ask, as Mike has several times, to take this offline and keep an open dialogue. Given all that has transpired, is that all that unreasonable of a request?
I’m looking forward to clearing this up and getting all things reconciled.
July 28, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Ok,
here is the deal. I can take a lot of things thrown at me. What I can’t take is threats and harassment and unsolicited communication.
I have apologized on this blog repeatedly for what has happened, and I have explained what happened. However, I just received a phone call from someone on here, and that just stepped over the line. WAY over the line! You do NOT have the right to call me! Simply because my cell phone # is in my e-mail signature does NOT give you the right to call me. That is beyond inappropriate.
I was done with this whole thing, until that phone call. I hereby ask you to leave me alone, and to stop all contact with me. That is an honest request, now please honor it! I do not desire to post here anymore, or to e-mail anyone on here. Honor that!
I have apologized where necessary, and explained where necessary. Enough is enough! Do not contact me anymore, please!
Cindy – I am truly, truly sorry. Corrie – I am truly, truly sorry. I meant no harm by my posts, and I am sorry the e-mails were sent to you.
Now, for those who tried to call me on the phone, please stop it!
Stop the e-mails! Stop the phone calls! Please!
If you do not honor this request, than you have stepped into the area of harassment. Not appropriate. Not cool. Stop the interrogation. Stop the inquisition. Leave me alone please. I am stepping away from this blog, never having to force you to read my posts again. I will not be e-mailing anyone here again. I offer you that. Now leave me alone. When you call me, you immediately invade my privacy, and that of my family. That is not acceptable.
I have apologized! I have explained! Now end it! Please!
Several of you will respond on this blog as if I will be reading it. Well, I will not come back after this. I will not unless someone again goes against what I am asking. If someone e-mails me or calls me, I will come back here, and please again for the communication to end. Otherwise, I bid you farewell, and will see you in heaven someday. Until then…
July 28, 2007 at 8:16 pm
This is Micah, because I believe my post under my name was deleted:
Ok,
here is the deal. I can take a lot of things thrown at me. What I can’t take is threats and harassment and unsolicited communication.
I have apologized on this blog repeatedly for what has happened, and I have explained what happened. However, I just received a phone call from someone on here, and that just stepped over the line. WAY over the line! You do NOT have the right to call me! Simply because my cell phone # is in my e-mail signature does NOT give you the right to call me. That is beyond inappropriate.
I was done with this whole thing, until that phone call. I hereby ask you to leave me alone, and to stop all contact with me. That is an honest request, now please honor it! I do not desire to post here anymore, or to e-mail anyone on here. Honor that!
I have apologized where necessary, and explained where necessary. Enough is enough! Do not contact me anymore, please!
Cindy – I am truly, truly sorry. Corrie – I am truly, truly sorry. I meant no harm by my posts, and I am sorry the e-mails were sent to you.
Now, for those who tried to call me on the phone, please stop it!
Stop the e-mails! Stop the phone calls! Please!
If you do not honor this request, than you have stepped into the area of harassment. Not appropriate. Not cool. Stop the interrogation. Stop the inquisition. Leave me alone please. I am stepping away from this blog, never having to force you to read my posts again. I will not be e-mailing anyone here again. I offer you that. Now leave me alone. When you call me, you immediately invade my privacy, and that of my family. That is not acceptable.
I have apologized! I have explained! Now end it! Please!
Several of you will respond on this blog as if I will be reading it. Well, I will not come back after this. I will not unless someone again goes against what I am asking. If someone e-mails me or calls me, I will come back here, and please again for the communication to end. Otherwise, I bid you farewell, and will see you in heaven someday. Until then…
August 24, 2007 at 8:47 am
So changing from native clothing to Western garb is a sign of Pocohantas’ conversion? What garbage is that! I don’t recall anything immodest about the clothing of Native Americans to warrant her having to change it. Once again, the European model of Christianity is held up by Doug Phillips as the ideal! All non-whites must conform to his image in order to be considered “Christian”. Yeah, right!
August 25, 2007 at 4:15 pm
“So changing from native clothing to Western garb is a sign of Pocahantas’ conversion? What garbage is that! I don’t recall anything immodest about the clothing of Native Americans to warrant her having to change it.”
Well — you do have to remember that the first record of Pocahantas was when John Smith was in her village, and he saw her, at about age twelve, somersaulting through the village completely nude! LOL!
But I do get your point. Many missionaries did seem bent on making every native group conform to European manners and dress and customs. The first missionary who took a different approach, and tried to fit in with those he was evangelizing — was Adonirum Judson, the Baptist missionary to China.