One Foot in Christianity, One Foot in Agnosticism – In a Faith Crisis

One Foot in Christianity, One Foot in Agnosticism  – In a Faith Crisis

November 2016. (There is a moderate amount of swear words in the post below)

Some of the points in the post, in brief (the long explanation is below):

  • I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior before I was ten years old
  • I have read the entire Bible.
  • I spent many years reading books ABOUT the Bible (e.g., books about its formation and history)
  • I spent years reading Christian apologetic literature
    – so do NOT tell me that I “do not understand Christianity” or that I was “never a REAL Christian to start with”
  • I currently have doubts about the Christian faith and/or aspects of the Bible
  • I have not rejected Jesus Christ Himself
    (he’s pretty much Christianity’s only good feature or selling point, as far as I can see at this point)
  • I am not an atheist
  • I am not a Charismatic
  • I am not a “Word of Faither”
  • I was brought up under conservative, Southern Baptist and evangelical teachings and churches
  • Even though conservative Christians claim to believe in the Bible, they
    • cannot agree on what the Bible means or how to apply it – this is a huge problem as I see it in the faith
    • they diminish the role of the Holy Spirit or deny Him and that He can work for Christians today, because they are “hyper sola scriptura” and have reduced the Trinity to “Father, Son, and Holy Bible,” (this is also problematic),
      they usually do this because they are hyper-cessationist and paranoid or hateful of Charismatic teachings or practices
    • they teach that most to all of the biblical promises are not for Christians today but are only for the Jews of 5,000 years ago, there-by teaching that the Bible is NOT relevant for people today  (this is also problematic)
  • If you are a Christian, do not act like a smug dick about any of this and immediately disregard any points I have to make about God, the Bible, or other topics, because in your view, I am a “Non-Christian who was ‘never’ really saved” -not to mention, that is not even true.
    I was in fact “truly” saved, and I am / was, a “real” Christian.
  • No, I don’t want to enumerate a detailed list of reasons why I have doubts about God, the Bible, or the faith.If I were to provide such a list or explanation, your average Christian would only want to debate each and every point to argue me back into fully believing. (A witnessing tip to Christians: doing that sort of thing is NOT an effective way of “winning back a lost sheep to Jesus.”)

DETAILED EXPLANATION

I find that people who are both Christian and Non-Christian (and several other categories of people I bump into on Twitter and other sites) get frustrated when they cannot easily box me in.

People seem to be more comfortable with labels, but I’m not sure what label I would give myself these days.

I have briefly tried to explain my current religious beliefs on my Twitter bio, and I explain them a little more on my blog’s “About” page and have mentioned them in a post or two over the course of the last few years I’ve been blogging here.

Here is my background:

I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior prior to turning the age of ten.

That means: I believed that Jesus took my sins upon himself, he was without sin, he paid the price for my sins, and was raised from the dead three days after having been crucified – and if I believe in all that, if I put “saving faith in” Jesus (as opposed to mere intellectual assent), my sins have been forgiven by God, and I go to heaven when I die.

I read the entire Bible through when I was 18 years old, and afterwards, I read a lot of the Bible in the years after. Prior to that age, I had read portions of the Bible when younger.

Continue reading “One Foot in Christianity, One Foot in Agnosticism – In a Faith Crisis”

Extrabiblical is Not Necessarily Unbiblical or Anti Biblical – Rosebrough, Osteen, Extrabiblical Revelation and Promptings – Denying one of the Works of the Holy Spirit

Extrabiblical is Not Necessarily Unbiblical or Anti Biblical – Rosebrough, Osteen, Extrabiblical Revelation and Promptings – Denying one of the Works of the Holy Spirit

I listened to this Rosebrough critique of Osteen’s sermon:
(Link): Osteen Proves That God is NOT Speaking to Him

I sometimes agree with Pirate Radio / Fighting for the Faith host Chris Rosebrough, but this is one of those times where I’m not in total agreement.

In the Osteen sermon portions aired on Rosebrough’s show (see link above), Osteen describes how, years ago, he got an inner feeling, or message, to start preaching at his father’s church. Osteen feels that this was God speaking to him.

That Osteen preaches in a style that Rosebrough disagrees with, or that Rosebrough believes that Osteen does not rail against sin and Hell enough, is proof enough for Rosebrough that Osteen’s inner prompting was not of God but of Satan – which I first of all find to be overstating one’s case.

I do not always agree with Osteen’s preaching style or focus of his messages, but I think it’s going overboard to attribute his ministry, or all his views, to Satan.

(As a side note, does Rosebrough grasp or not that two people can be sincere Christians but still have legitimate disagreements on some matters?

Sometimes I listen to Rosebrough’s show, or read his writings, and he makes it seem as though unless you agree with him 100% of the time on 100% of topics that you are an anti-Christ, or unsaved heretic.

Nobody but nobody (including Mr. Rosebrough) has across- the- board absolutely perfect biblically- related opinions, positions, or doctrine on everything – and that does not mean that person is unsaved, a pagan, or an anti-christ.)

Getting back to Rosebrough’s insistence that Osteen heard a prompting from Satan and not God:
I can see how a man can be a false teacher without necessarily being under direct Satanic control.

Some preachers are motivated by greed, control or power, not Satanic influence. Or maybe Osteen only thought he was hearing from God but was simply mistaken. Maybe Osteen’s inner prompting was due to emotions, feelings, and not from God. But Satan?

I mean goodness, Satan? We’re really going to go there? That’s pretty drastic.

I think Rosebrough is totally wrong on gender complementarianism (ie, women should not be preachers, etc).

How charitable would it be for me to accuse Rosebrough of being under Satanic influence, since his views on gender roles is so obviously wrong and unbiblical, and he is in error on this?

Secondly, whether Osteen’s claim that God prompted him to preach or not does not really prove or disprove if such a thing – God speaking to folks outside the Bible – is possible.

I also am not seeing a connection between these points:

1. Some Christians claim that the Holy Spirit speaks to them inwardly

2. Osteen is supposedly a Satanic or false teacher who believes the Holy Spirit speaks to him inwardly

3. Ergo, claim number one is supposedly false

That’s a bit like saying,

1. Some Christians say that two plus two equals four

2. Christian church piano player Mr. Hank Smith beats puppies for fun and says that two plus two equals four

3. Ergo, point one, that two plus two equals four, is incorrect

Sorry, but I don’t see how point 2 contradicts or disproves 1.

One point does not necessarily cause or lead to another, or the guy in point 2 being a heretic or puppy beater does not necessarily negate or disprove the claims, beliefs, and experiences of people in point 1.

What if I could find a Christian preacher who agrees with Rosebrough almost 100% on doctrinal matters, who preachers in a manner that Rosebrough approves of, EXCEPT for in this one area: that the preacher in question believes that God does speak to people today outside of Scripture?

This would make Rosebrough’s argument against Osteen rather moot, it seems to me.

As the Bible says, God did in fact communicate with people outside of the written word – sometimes audibly, through jackasses (literally; see Numbers 22:30), in or through burning bushes, and via angelic messengers in the Old Testament, and God spoke to humans via angels in the New as well.

God also spoke to people in dreams and visions – on record in both Old and New Testaments. Samuel heard God’s voice; Paul and John claimed to be taken up to Heaven and heard God.

Where is your verse saying these things are applicable to ONLY John and Paul? Where’s your one single verse or passage?

Bearing in mind that the first Christians already had the Scriptures: they had the OLD TESTAMENT. However, the New Testament records that the Holy Spirit spoke to them inwardly.

These first Christians did not always consult the written Old Testament to figure out what God wanted them to do.

The Holy Spirit spoke to some of the earliest believers; for example,

“2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” (Acts 13:2)

And,

“4 The two of them, sent on their way by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia and sailed from there to Cyprus. (Acts 13:4)”

And,

“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements… (Acts 15:28)”

And,

“I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me. (Acts 20:23)”

And,

“Coming over to us, he took Paul’s belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and said, “The Holy Spirit says, ‘In this way the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.’” (acts 21:11)”

And,

“I speak the truth in Christ — I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit … (Romans (9:1)”

He did not have his conscience confirmed by reading the written word of God, but by God speaking to him in his conscience.

Regarding the story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts Ch 5),

Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?

4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing?

You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

(— end quote —)

Now, how did Peter deduce that this couple had lied, if the Holy Spirit did not tell Peter in his spirit or mind about it?

There is no Old Testament passage that explicitly says, “Ananias will lie to Peter about the money.” It’s not as though Peter could consult the written word of God (for his era, the Old Testament) to figure this stuff out.

Rosebrough kept asking for an explicit passage of Scripture that says that God can or will or does speak to Christians today, outside of the Bible, or in addition to.

I want to see the opposite: where does the Bible clearly state that God never, ever will, can, or does speak to believers outside the Bible today?

As far as I can recall, there is no single passage or verse that says, “After the time of Acts (early church), God will never speak to believers outside the written word, not ever.”

Because I don’t see any such passage.

I see no indication that God limited any of this only to Peter or Old Testament believers only.

2 Tim 3.16 only supports the importance of Scripture but does not say, “And God will never speak to people outside the written word.”

Continue reading “Extrabiblical is Not Necessarily Unbiblical or Anti Biblical – Rosebrough, Osteen, Extrabiblical Revelation and Promptings – Denying one of the Works of the Holy Spirit”

Pope Francis Perpetuates Christian Falsehood that One Man, One Woman Married Equals Image of God – (which in effect leading to: ) Teaches Single / Unmarried Do Not Reflect God That Singles Are Sub Human or Only One Half A Person / This Is An Anti Singles View and Is Unbiblical

Pope Francis Perpetuates Christian Falsehood that One Man, One Woman Married Equals Image of God

If you are a Christian who is opposed to homosexual marriage, I understand trying to come up with apologetics to defend traditional (hetero) marriage, but it should not be done at the expense of un-married, celibate adulthood, which is what some Christians do.

Here is another example of that situation (though, and I’m sorry if I offend any Roman Catholic readers, I don’t usually view Popes as being actual Christians, unless it is known that they believe in sola fide and accepted Christ on those grounds (see my previous post, under “Mistake 3”)).

Considering that Paul said it is better to stay single than to marry (see this link), and that, if I remember rightly, nowhere does the Bible state that it takes a man married to a woman to reflect God’s image, I contend that Pope Francis is incorrect.

(Link): POPE FRANCIS: ‘THE IMAGE OF GOD IS THE MARRIED COUPLE: THE MAN AND THE WOMAN’

    By Michael W. Chapman

    CNSNews.com – Although the national gay magazine The Advocate named Pope Francis its “Person of the Year” in December 2013, the Pope repeated on Apr. 2 the Catholic Church’s teaching that marriage is reserved for one man and one woman, adding that this is part of “God’s design” and that “the image of God is the married couple: the man and the woman ….”

    During his General Audience speech at St. Peter’s Square on Apr. 2, before a crowd estimated at 45,000, Pope Francis first cited Genesis, saying, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them. … Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.”

    “The image of God is the married couple: the man and the woman; not only the man, not only the woman, but both of them together,” said the Pope. “God’s covenant with us is represented in that covenant between man and woman. And this is very beautiful.”

    “When a man and a woman celebrate the Sacrament of Matrimony, God as it were ‘is mirrored’ in them; He impresses in them his own features and the indelible character of his love,” said Pope Francis. “Marriage is the icon of God’s love for us.”

    He continued, “Indeed, God is communion too: the three Persons of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit live eternally in perfect unity. And this is precisely the mystery of matrimony: God makes of the two spouses one single life. The Bible uses a powerful expression and says ‘one flesh,’ so intimate is the union between man and woman in marriage. And this is precisely the mystery of marriage: the love of God which is reflected in the couple that decides to live together.”

Pope Francis is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

(Link): Pope Francis calls traditional marriage an icon of God’s love

(Link): Pope Francis Says Marriage Between Man And Woman As Icon Of God’s Love
——————–
Related posts:

(Link): Why Unmarried – Single Christians Should Be Concerned about the Gender Role Controversy – evangelicals, Southern Baptists and other Christians are teaching that an unmarried woman or unmarried man is not fully human, does not fully reflect God

(Link): ‘God’s Purpose for Women,’ by Matthew Hagee – Hagee Teaches that Single Unmarried Women Do Not Have a Purpose in Life God has no purpose for singles

(Link): Study: Conservative Protestants’ divorce rates spread to their red state neighbors

(Link): Divorced From My Husband, and My Faith by Tova Mirvis – Also: Why It May Be Wiser For Women to Enter First Marriage At Age 40+

(Link): Divorce Rates in America Decreasing But Divorce Rates on Increase Among Southern Baptists

(Link): Christian TV Personality ( Jimmy Evans ) Says You Cannot Meet God’s Destiny For Your Life Without A Spouse = Anti Singleness Singlehood Singles Bias Prejudice Making Idol out of Marriage

(Link): Roman Catholic meetings focus concern on marriage, family – also, remarriage and divorce

(Link): Christian TV Personality ( Jimmy Evans ) Says You Cannot Meet God’s Destiny For Your Life Without A Spouse = Anti Singleness Bias / Prejudice – Making Idol out of Marriage

(Link): Christian Patriarchy Group: God Demands You Marry and Have Babies to Defeat Paganism and Satan. Singles and the Childless Worthless (in this worldview)

(Link): Conservatives and Christians Fretting About U.S. Population Decline – We Must “Out-breed” Opponents Christian Host (Pat Robertson) Says

(Link): Is Singleness A Sin? by Camerin Courtney

(Link): Lies The Church Tells Single Women (by Sue Bohlin)

No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected

No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected

✹ What follows is actually the heart of my “No Man’s Land” view. This is what prompted me to write it: ✹

✹ TAKING THE OPPOSITE POSITION OF WHAT YOU USED TO BELIEVE BUT NOW HATE – DUE TO EMOTIONAL REASONS OR A KNEE JERK RESPONSE OR FROM SPITE – IS JUST AS WRONG AND MISTAKEN ✹

As to the forums and blogs by ex Christians, liberal Christians, self identifying post-evangelicals, or those still Christian who expose spiritual abuse…

I notice a number of the regular visitors to these sites – the ones who left an abusive or legalistic church or denomination – simply now operate in the reverse in their thinking, which is, IMO, just as bad or wrong as the thinking they are leaving.

There are different types of ex-Christians one must take into consideration when discussing this topic, so I shall present some sketches of them first.

IFBs (Independent Fundamentalist Baptists)

For example, there are ex IFBs (Independent Fundamentalist Baptists).

IFB preachers and churches are ridiculously legalistic. They make up rules that are not in the Bible, or twist or exaggerate the rules already there to the point those rules then become unbiblical.

IFBs are the contemporary, American versions of the Bible’s Pharisees: nit picky, anal retentive, legalists who make up man-made rules but insist they are “biblical” and thus binding on all believers.

IFBs concoct man-made traditions they expect all IFB members to adhere to, just like the Roman Catholic hierarchy does towards Roman Catholic members.

For example, IFB churches are legalistic about secular entertainment and clothing and physical appearance.

IFB churches teach their congregations that women should not wear pants but only skirts. And the skirts should be only so many inches above or below the knee.

According to IFBs, men should not have hair that touches the back shirt collar – not a mullet to be found in IFB, which may be a good thing. Secular music and television is sinful and should always be avoided.

IFBs have other legalistic rules for just about every aspect of life.

IFBs are vehemently anti-Roman Catholicism as well as anti-Calvinism.

Continue reading “No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected”

Stereotypes Against Singles Refuted Series: Married IFB Preacher Arrested for Being Serial Rapist

Stereotypes Against Singles Refuted Series: Married IFB Preacher Arrested for Being Serial Rapist

Before I post about the serial rapist preacher, I do want to point out that some churches may be turning their noses up at singles for positions of leadership not always out of an outright bias against singles or singlenes, but that many churches, especially of the IFB bent apparently, are cheapskates: they want a married pastor because they get two slave laborers for the price of one, a husband and his wife.

Apparently, a preacher’s wife is expected to fulfill unpaid roles at many churches and in many denominations, such as providing free church child care; running and organizing church activities; and playing the piano during church services.

Some people at one forum were copying “Pastor Wanted” ads into one thread, and a few of the advertisments specifically required that the pastor applying have a wife, and the wife’s duties were spelled out, as “she must be a piano player,” etc.

The thing I find sad and funny is that these are not biblical standards in the first place, and some of the churches adhering to these standards claim to be “KJV Only” or to care deeply about “biblical standards.” The Bible does not say all preachers/ teachers have to be married, or have to have children, or that a pastor must have a wife who plays musical instruments.

Note also that a lot of this abuse against women (and young girls) by Christians are in churches that have a low view of the female gender, which they call “traditional gender roles” or “biblical gender complementarianism.” They adhere to very strict gender role perspectives. These types of churches/ Christians typically believe a woman is suitable for only being barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. The males have very sexist views of women and usually blame females for being raped -much like Islamic honor killing culture.

Now, the star attraction of this post, the biggest reason you clicked the link to read this post:

Ah yes, another married person, and a pastor no less, was revealed to be less than saintly. The guy was arrested for being a serial rapist. He worked as a preacher. He hanged himself while in jail.

Mr. Pervy Pastor had two or three children, so he was a father, too, not just a husband.

And we know that conservative Christians think that fatherhood (or motherhood) automatically make a Christian more responsible and godly. *Snicker*
(See previous post on this blog: (Link): “Fatherhood Not Quite the Producer of Manly, Mature, Godly Men Some Conservative Christians Make It Out To Be”)

News reports such as these do not fit in with the paradigm held by a lot of conservative Christians, particularly Baptists (IFB and SBC and others) and conservative evangelicals that married people are more sexually pure, more morally upright, or more mature than never-married adults (or the divorced) over the age of 25 – 30.

The truth is that married people are no more godly, mature, responsible, or sexually upright than singles.

Most “sexual purity” sermons, books, and blogs about sexual sin assume that all singles, or at least those under the age of 30, are “randy” all the time and having sex with hundreds of partners per week, even though that is not true for all singles, especially not all Christian singles. (Note the ageism, not just the single stereotype in play: most churches don’t even stop to consider that singles over 30, 40 have sexual desire, or they don’t care.)

Here are some links and excerpts about the pervy rapist IFB preacher (even in death, his pastor friends, who knew the truth about the guy – that he was reportedly a rapist – gave him a glowing eulogy in one of their publications. Link to that below):

(Link): “Spinning Scandals Redux” (Deceased Pervy Pastor Known To Be Pervy By All Gets Glowing Obit from IFB Church Publication) (via “Stuff Fundies Like” site)

(Link): Pastor’s arrest, suicide stun church

(Link – from a blog): Two Sides of Matthew Jarrell

(Link): Former York County pastor’s arrest, travels spark nationwide sex-assault search (story dates from 2011)

    By TED CZECH
    Daily Record/Sunday News

    York, PA – In May 2007, the Rev. Matthew Dwayne Jarrell picked up a woman in Texas. She said he flashed a gold badge at her and told her if she did not do what he wanted, he would arrest her.

    Instead, San Antonio Police arrested him and charged him with sexual assault. In his vehicle they found two knives, a stun gun, leather gloves, video equipment and a machete.

    Last week, Jarrell, 41 — who at one time served as pastor of Old Paths Baptist Church in North Codorus Township — was again arrested on a sexual assault charge, this time in West Virginia.

    Police there say he offered a woman a ride home, drove to a secluded area and raped her.

    Continue reading “Stereotypes Against Singles Refuted Series: Married IFB Preacher Arrested for Being Serial Rapist”

Hyper Sola Scriptura

Hyper Sola Scriptura

I have briefly discussed this topic on older posts (such as a post about NDEs). If one is going to be a Christian, then yes, one needs to embrace sola scriptura.

I am down with sola scriptura. When some people drift from sola scriptura, they come up with some bizarre, false teachings.

However, some Christians, particularly Neo Calvinists, take sola scriptura to an extreme, to discount any sort of supernatural or spiritual experience or knowledge that a Christian did not get directly from the Bible – which is, ironically, an unbiblical view point on their part (they claim to be so very biblical), because, for example, Christ promised that His followers would do greater things than He, such as raise the dead and so forth.

I don’t always agree with blogger Rachel Held Evans on every topic, but this is one view I do share with her; here’s a post to her site about this topic:

(Link): Is God’s presence limited to Scripture?

The Bible does promise the Holy Spirit to every believer, and the Holy Spirit is said to speak to believers in a “still, small voice.” The Bible itself witnesses that God will and can speak to believers in other ways, and not just in the Bible alone.

I don’t see any support, and not even in 2 Timothy 3:16, that indicates that God will not use any other means other than the Bible to communicate to believers.

Obviously, if someone claims to be a Christian and that person claims God spoke to them, then their so-called revelation needs to be compared and measured against the Bible, and if it runs contrary to the Bible, it must not be from God. But to completely discount any and all methods outside the written word is a mistake.

There is even a portion of the New Testament, in Romans, that says God reveals Himself via nature.

When I was younger, and on one occasion, under the age of ten, and in a time of minor crisis after I prayed for help, God spoke to me directly (and I didn’t have a Bible near-by to turn to, even had I wanted). I’m not going to go into detail about the specific incident, but God did speak to me, inwardly (not in an audible voice), and what God spoke to me did not run counter to any teaching in the Bible. The point being I know for a fact God does speak to people, and not only in or from the published book we call The Bible, because He spoke to me once.

I just get so tired of ultra conservative Christians, and the Neo Calvinists, who laugh at, mock, and ridicule any one and every one who says they heard from God in some way. Their arrogance in this area is appalling.

Anyway, I encourage you to read the blog post at RH Evans’ site about the topic.

(Link): Is God’s presence limited to Scripture?

Added Blogroll – A few words about the sites I’m linking to

Added Blogroll – A Word About the Sites I Am Currently Linking To on my Blogroll

I added a blogroll to my blog a day ago.

Word Press won’t let me add a link to this site for some reason:

(Link): World – News Site from a Christian View

Please understand I am not always in agreement with all sources I link to, and that includes links in my blog roll.

I have currently linked to the Christian Pirate Radio Show (aka “Fighting for the Faith” blog, whose host is Chris R.), and the Janet Mefferd Radio Show.

I do not agree with Mefferd on some topics. She is a gender complementarian – I am not.

Mefferd tends to fret a bit too much over topics such as abortion, homosexual marriage, the deterioration of marriage (i.e., people delaying marriage) for my taste. These topics come up regularly on her radio show.

I do not support homosexuality, homosexual marriage, or abortion, but, it is now my view that many other Christians need to spend more time “lighting a candle rather than cursing the darkness.”

Get out there and help people, instead of ranting endlessly on radio, blogs, in books, and on TV shows, about how evil abortion is etc. and so on.

As far as the Pirate Radio show. I have so far listened to only about 6 or 7 of show host Chris R’s broadcasts. His shows are quite long. I will be listening to more in the future.

I have not confirmed it yet, but I take it that Chris R (the Pirate Show host) is also a gender complementarian (again, I am not).

While I am in agreement with Chris R. on some issues (such as: it’s not entirely good or proper for preachers to defer from the written word of God to make all sermons about themselves, or to turn all sermons into stand-up comedy routines; many mega church pastors are greedy and seeking to fleece people out of their money; preacher Ed Young Jr is shallow and his “Sexperiment” was tacky; and Mark Driscoll is a weirdo who needs to repent), I never- the- less depart with Chris R. on some points.

Chris R., in my view, is a bit of a “hyper- sola- scriptura-ist,” as many Calvinist types are (I assume Chris R. is Calvinist / Reformed).

If I remain a Christian (I have been flirting with agnosticism lately), yes, I do believe Christians should not accept or embrace doctrine that cannot be backed up by the written Word. I am there with Chris R. and guys like him on that one.

However, I believe many hypers (hyper – sola scriptura-ists) unnecessarily toss out any and every Christian report of hearing from God outside the Bible (i.e., the hypers do not accept “personal experience” or inward leading of the Holy Spirit).

I have discussed my views about sola scriptura vs personal experience a little bit (Link): here.

(In short, I believe God can and does communicate with believers outside the Bible today, but of course, if someone’s experience, if what they claim to hear from God, obviously contradicts the written word, their testimony should be rejected.)

The “hypers” seem to feel the Holy Spirit does not work in and through believers today, that we are to use the Bible only as a means of communication from God, or God limits His communication through the Bible alone (this is also a topic that comes up with various guests on the Janet Mefferd Radio show).

Out of the other Christian Pirate Radio programs I’ve listened to thus far, I would say there was one where the host was nit-picking the “Bible” mini-series, which was a turn of for me (see this post).

Not that I’m a huge fan of the Bible mini-series – I was rather “meh” about it, but I can’t understand the extreme critical spirit of the show by some Christians.

Continue reading “Added Blogroll – A few words about the sites I’m linking to”