Tags
apostate, Apprising, Apprising Ministries, Brian Houston, chameleon, Chris Rosebrough, false, fascism, Hillsong, Hillsong Church, houston, rick warren, Rosebrough, Saddleback, warren, wickedness
If you honestly think Hillsong Conference is a Christian movement, examine who they are inviting. Once again, Brian Houston has invited ministers that are attacking and desecrating Australian Christianity with their heretical and depraved teachings. Indeed it is a tragedy that Brian Houston has bent his knee to the Purpose Driven Chameleon, Rick Warren.
In 2006, Rick Warren spoke at Hillsong Conference.
Hillsong, Rick Warren And Fascism
At the beginning of this year, Brian Houston spoke at Rick Warren’s Saddleback church. Apprising Ministries reported that “Brian Houston, co-pastor of the nefarious Hillsong Church Australia with wife pastrix Bobbie” bought “his Word Faith mythology to the SBC church of Rick Warren, General of the Seeker Driven Army“. Rick Warren informed his Saddleback folk,
“Brian Houston at Saddleback: Dec.29-30
I’m so excited to announce that Pastor Brian Houston of the world-famous HILLSONG Church in Sydney, Australia will be speaking at Saddleback! Brian is flying over from Australia just to speak that weekend! Many of your favorite worship songs, like Shout To The Lord, came out of HILLSONG church. I’ll see you at this incredible end-of-the-year service!” – News & Views 12/19/12, http://saddleback.com/blogs/newsandviews/news–views-121912/. (Accessed 02/04/2013).
Chris Rosebrough covered the “intentionally deceitful” sermon of Brian Houston up there at Saddleback Church:
Rosebrough Says Brian Houston Was “Intentionally Deceitful”
But now Rick Warren is speaking at Hillsong Conference. And Christians have every right to be outraged by Houston’s despicable act of inviting this deceitful man to malign Australian Christianity for his own selfish and worldly purposes.
If Rick Warren is a Calvinist as he claims to be, then WHY does Warren endorse the universal cult of Roman Catholicism; peddle New Age mystical practices; support and praise the apostate and gay affirming Emergent Church Movement; peddle the fascist teachings and ideologies of Peter Drucker AND teach that Jesus and Allah are one and the same God? Serious scrutiny needs to come upon Rick Warren’s ecumeni-chameleon character and agenda.
This documentary shines light on this intriguing fellow.
If you know ANY Christian keen to go to the Hillsong Conference – warn them not to participate in Hillsong’s high-rank apostasy. We are to remain reformed to the Word of God not to the ways of the world and our own sinful desires.
“Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.” 2 John 1:9-11
If Brian Houston or Hillsong Church had any desire to worship God with their heart, they should search their heart for God’s truth. This is because Christ Himself declares to be, “The way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6). Jesus teaches His ways are narrow but the road to destruction is wide. Therefore we are to hold what he teaches and remain in his word, so he may remain in us. Christians can only be the disciples of Jesus if we follow Jesus’ teaching.
But just like a ship is “guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs”, so too has Brian Houston steered Hillsong Church into apostasy, emptying Christian truth from within it’s walls. The leadership of Hillsong are deceiving Christians everywhere into elevating mystical worship experiences over the truth of Christ and His Word. It is important for Hillsong to heed the words of Jesus. Jesus condemns people who lead people to worship in spirit and error,
“Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
“‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”” Mark 7:6-8
What good is Hillsong if the TRUE love of God is not in them? It is time that Hillsong clean up their act, contend for the Christian faith and cleanse their conferences from the diabolical teachers who oppose Christ, His work and mission here on earth. Please pray that Christian’s avoid this conference. If they attend, pray that the Holy Spirit opens their eyes to the false teaching.
Received a flyer in the mail promoting – THIS IS REVIVAL. I used Photoshop to make it more Biblical….
In Arabic the word for God is Allah. Arabic speaking Christians refer to God as Allah as that is the Arabic translation for God. Your statement is ambiguous as it doesn’t mention Islam.
Warren was accused of saying the Christian God and Muslim god are the same god. I can’t possibly accept such a statement, as there is only one God, and what the Muslims worship is a false god. Warren, however, has denied that he supports ‘Chrislam’.
Allah is a proper noun and does not translate in Arabic as the word god, nor does the word god in Arabic translate as the proper noun Allah.
Did you watch the documentary NewTaste? This will explain Rick Warren’s understanding of Rick Warren and Islam.
There is no doubt that Rick Warren is a Calvinist. He personally declares he is influenced by Calvin and it is clear from the book, Purpose Driven Life, that he teaches a simplistic Calvinism from the basic premise of God’s Sovereignty, the predestined course for every person, and the doctrine that God has His hand on every situation an individual faces.
The opening premise declares, “It is not about you!” This is a direct reference to God’s Sovereignty, and the fact that every purpose and every plan for man is orchestrated and designed from before the foundation of the world.
Whether or not he speaks favourably of catholicism or islam is neither here nor there, especially if he is teaching a reformed doctrine which declares that God has put in motion every man’s destiny and ultimate end, whether of the elect or not.
Why would he not attempt to embrace other religions and cultures if he believes God may have, in that mix, a person here or a person there destined for the elect, who must be ministered regardless of their cultural upbringing in the hope of being the vessel used to fulfil God’s ultimate plan to draw them as one of the elect from their cultural or religious base?
One would have to say that he has been hugely successful in persuading those who stand on the edges of faith to enter the waters of belief in Jesus.
I do not think you are appreciating the degree to which Warren has applied the concepts of rudimentary Calvinism, which, for all its certainty of dogma, has a highly contrasted element of fatalism, which Warren is only too willing to encapsulate in his best selling book.
I personally rejected it for his appeal to Calvin, fatalism and a very simplistic presentation which replaces the real need of faith with an appeal to God’s Sovereignty as the only decision required for salvation, with no part played by the recipient of His grace.
In view of the emphasis placed on Reformed theology on these pages, i am surprised you have not noted this in his book n general ministry.
Unfortunately other Calvinists will disagree with you – and you follow up with the statement ..
“The opening premise declares, “It is not about you!” This is a direct reference to God’s Sovereignty, and the fact that every purpose and every plan for man is orchestrated and designed from before the foundation of the world.”
In his book The Purpose-Driven Life, his opening statement is, “It is not about you,” then turns around and writes a whole book about “you.”
Well known Calvinist Phil Johnson on Rick Warren:
“I can’t think of anyone who would make a finer poster-boy for the pragmatic, spiritually impoverished, gospel-deprived message of modern and postmodern evangelicalism than Rick Warren. He is shallow, pragmatic, and chameleonic. He is a spiritual changeling who will say whatever his audience wants to hear. He wants desperately to be liked and accepted by Muslims, evangelicals, and everyone in between. The length to which he will go to indulge his ecumenical bent is seen in the fact that he was one of a handful of professing evangelicals who signed “A Common Word Between Us and You,” a declaration of spiritual accord between Muslims and Christians. His church’s Easter service at Angel Stadium last week was headlined by the Jonas Brothers (who sang a love song from a Disney movie as if it were a song of praise to God). And Warren’s sermon on the resurrection was a paean to Possibility Thinking—assuring people that God wanted to do a miracle to revive their broken dreams. That, Warren said, is the meaning of the resurrection. (And, “Remember, God isn’t mad at you, He’s mad about you.”)
Warren has squandered too many opportunities to proclaim the gospel accurately and muffed too many questions on national television to be given a platform by one of the leading figures of Together for the Gospel, The Gospel Coalition, and similar movements whose central goal, after all, is to undo the damage Warren’s philosophy has caused in the evangelical movement.
The massive problems with Warren’s ministry philosophy are well documented. The same with his practice of softening, omitting, or denying key gospel truths about sin, judgment, the wrath of God, and the necessity of repentance. A preacher doesn’t have to affirm heresy or overtly deny truth in order to be dangerous. It is entirely possible by one’s behavior to distort or obscure the gospel message. All Peter did to earn a public rebuke from Paul was change seats at the dinner table (Galatians 2:11-14). But in context, that seriously compromised the gospel. Deliberately and repeatedly giving short shrift to the greatest truths of the gospel is at least as serious an error as Peter’s hypocrisy.” http://teampyro.blogspot.com.au/2010/04/on-piper-warren-connection.html
Rick Warren absolutely denies that he has said that Christians and Muslims worship the same god. http://m.christianpost.com/news/exclusive-rick-warren-flat-out-wrong-that-muslims-christians-view-god-the-same–70767/ You don’t believe him. Why?
Newtaste – the problem is always going to be Warren’s ecumenical pragmatism….at the bottom of this article are even more links, many of which I have read or listened over the past few years.
http://www.holybibleprophecy.org/2012/02/28/rick-warren-acknowledges-christians-and-muslims-worship-same-god-by-elliott-nesch/
It doesn’t really matter what hardline Calvinists and reformists say about Warren. The fact is that he declares his influences as being Calvin, and his book, without question, reproduces calvinistic theology interspersed with populist life coaching throughout.
Whether it is ‘calvin light’ or not is not the point. He is one of yours, Watcher.
And the appeal to a ‘chameleon’ character is the escapism of the more dedicated reformed crew as they try to off-load the nuisance of having one of their actually run a mega-church and be far more influential than they would like to be.
Then there is the enigma of Willow Creek, and the neo-calvinism of Bill Hybels.
Hot diggety, even supposed Oneness Pentecostal T. D. Jakes is more Calvin than Hagin when you get right down to his actual teaching. You know Calvin is in his library when he starts talking more about sovereignty and what God is going to do to you than what he is doing through you.
Calvin is a love and well in the most inconvenient of places.
“The fact is that [Warren] declares his influences as being Calvin, and his book, without question, reproduces calvinistic theology […]”
You have a lot to say about other people’s theology, Ethel – but if you are asked whether Phil Pringle is doctrinally orthodox, you are suddenly and miraculously transformed into an ignoramus who hasn’t a clue as to what might constitute such orthodoxy. Either that, or you just can’t bring yourself to answer the question truthfully because you are a sell-out who has compromised your “faith”.
Which one is it, Ethel?
Well, once again, you’re taking us off the subject at hand, but, as I’ve requested several times before without response from you, what do you call orthodoxy?
My guess is that you consider your own doctrine to be orthodox.
In fact, seeing how you traverse these pages engaged in your own personal Spanish Inquisition, you must have a clear idea of what, for you, constitutes orthodox doctrine by which you measure all other doctrine.
Let’s call it the essential legal requirement for theological accuracy according to Zorro.
So, tell us, what is it?
It wouldn’t be connected strongly to Calvinism, would it? In which case you’d be far closer to Warren than you’d like to admit.
All men consider their own theology to be orthodox, so it is clearly relative, so, for expedience sake, let’s measure doctrinal orthodoxy by your own and then we can move on from there.
Squirming, squirming, squirming…
You’re not at all like an elephant, Evil Dumbo; you’re evasiveness is more reminiscent of a worm on a hook.
“All men consider their own theology to be orthodox, so it is clearly relative […]”
So orthodoxy is “relative”, is it? There we have your none-to-tacit admission that you move in the flesh rather than by the Holy Spirit, and that your estimation is according to this world and the ways thereof (something that is typical of pentecostals).
It is abundantly clear that you yourself are every bit as much a chameleon as is Warren; how ironic it is, then, that you have claimed that it is I who is far closer to Warren that I would like to admit. You think more highly of the praise that comes from men than that which comes from God alone. You are a sell-out.
Zorro, that’s not even a logical response. Why is it you always avoid my questions when they could, presumably, involve you saying something about your own beliefs and end the secretiveness which bars you from a reply to your obsessive questions?
I am asking you to outline your basic understanding of what is orthodox belief. Surely a man of your theological stature amongst this community has a position we can all use as a fulcrum for debate.
And your petty insults are very tiresome, even if they do fill out your responses into something more than the usual banalities.
What is orthodox?
You can’t answer the question, can you Ethel?
You know that if you say “yes” you would be lying, but if you say “no” then people will ask “Why then do you defend a heretic?”
If you were a pastor, would you let Phil Pringle preach at your church? Would you let him tell your congregation that they must “tithe” or else be cursed, or would you interrupt this supposed “apostle” to correct his error?
What do you care more for Ethel? The glory of God, or your own reputation and place? Do you protect the sheep from lying wolves, or do you shrug your shoulders and turn away as the flock is being scattered?
You are a sell-out.
I think you’re making a large number of assumptions there, Zorro, which is about he limit of your ability. The Guessing Monster! Aiming sloppy mud insults at the wind in the hope one will stick! But you’re right about one thing.
You said, You are a sell-out.
Indeed I am. You’re right.
I’m sold out to God for His purposes. I left everything I knew behind and went on a journey with the King of Glory long ago and I’m still on it.
I am His, and He knows it! Halleluiah!
That’s why your barbs are pointless.
Orthodoxy is relative.
You could have Greek Orthodoxy, Catholic Orthodoxy, Reformed Orthodoxy, Calvinistic Orthodoxy, Jewish Orthodoxy, Evangelical Orthodoxy, even Pentecostal Orthodoxy.
Do you get the drift?
Then there’s Charismatic Orthodoxy, Universalist Orthodoxy, Brethren Orthodoxy, Quaker Orthodoxy, Liberal Orthodoxy, W.C.C Orthodoxy, Anglican Orthodoxy, Methodist Orthodoxy, Baptist Orthodoxy, Lutheran Orthodoxy, Extremely Boring and Religious Self-Elevating Critical Blog Orthodoxy, Zoroastrian Orthodoxy, Zen Orthodoxy, Churchwatcher Orthodoxy, Zorro Orthodoxy.
Are you following me yet?
Now if you want to discuss what I consider orthodox, or debate with me whether your orthodoxy is OK or mine is, let’s go for it.
Last chance.
Ever.
What do you call orthodox?
“Extremely Boring and Religious Self-Elevating Critical Blog Orthodoxy”
Wasn’t it you in the past that told the bloggers of this site to get a life?
And yet you comment on this blog… What’s even more comical is that you blog about this blog. #doublestandardmuch
Well if you are unable or unwilling to even lay out a basic idea of what you consider to be orthodoxy I guess we’re done on this one.
I merely asked for qualification of an ambiguous question, that’s all.
If you can’t produce a reasonable response that’s your problem.
Sad to see Rick Warren’s son has died in difficult circumstances. My deepest commiserations to his family.
I have no more to say about his ministry here.
I hope he’ll be allowed time to mourn.
Just as it’s wrong to use the sad death of Rick Warren’s son as a chance to be ugly, it is equally wrong to say that because an internationally known spiritual leader has a personal tragedy within his family, their teachings are now off limits for honest Berean analysis.
Now is just not the time to debate.
Well thank you for the chastisement, Watcher.
I guess, on that basis, you consider Zorro correct to aim darts at a man who is down.
And you correct me for supporting the Warrens at this time and laying down arms.
I’ll leave you all to your Barean analysis of a broken man, then.
And your compassion.
We can have compassion for others and still hold to the Truth of the Word of God.
http://www.empoweredbychrist.org/6/post/2013/04/god-has-mercy-on-his-sheep-we-should-to-as-his-body.html
We’re still finding people are not aware that Rick Warren’s son died. Zorro may not have been aware of this.
http://ktla.com/2013/04/08/autopsy-planned-for-pastor-rick-warrens-son/#axzz2Q6lmcsdj
That’s a very touching defence of Zorro. It seems your loyalty to him ensures that he is given the benefit of the doubt. Of course a man should be presumed innocent unless proven guilty, so it would be proper to assume that an innocent mistake was made by Zorro in this case.
You would have to agree though that if he was aware that Rick Warren’s son had died in difficult circumstances such a remark might be considered extremely insensitive.
The thinig is that you appear to have overlooked the flow of conversation which led to Zorro’s remark. It went like this:
Ethel,
Sad to see Rick Warren’s son has died in difficult circumstances. My deepest commiserations to his family.
I have no more to say about his ministry here.
I hope he’ll be allowed time to mourn.
Zorro,
“I have no more to say about [Rick Warren’s] ministry here.”
Rick Warren doesn’t *have* a ministry, any more than Phil Pringle does.
Which would mean that for Zorro not to know that Rick Warren’s son had died he would have had to miss reading the first and third sentences I wrote and only read the second, on which he commented.
I find this highly unlikely, but you think that after 24 hours Zorro would have come up with an explanation and apology by now.
His silence is deafening.
And his comments are in the poorest taste.
Since Ethel cannot answer such a simple question, we’ll ask Zorro.
Do you think Pringle is orthodox Zorro? Provide evidence for your answer.
Back to Steve/Ethel – we would like to clarify.
Steve/Ethel: “Blogs from which I am banned because I am seen as a dissenting voice, even though my comments have been measured and straightforward.”
We do not see you as a dissenting voice. We do not question your salvation. However, you are an outstanding pawn of Phil Pringle. The only problem you face is that you turn you into a spiritual vegetable when questioned too hard. It has become apparent that you are a victim to surrendering your right state of mind to Phil Pringle’s spiritual and intellectual bankruptcy:
“I want to know my guys will be loyal to me when the attacks are unjustified, and when they are justified.” – Phil Pringle, You The Leader, pg 317-318.
It appears you defend his ‘integrity’ more then you defend the integrity of your own personal Savior. You have complete loyalty to him. As we’ve said in the past:
“Cults will often call people to pledge their loyalty to their leaders and movements. Integrity is the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles and moral uprightness. Integrity is greater then loyalty.”
Though you are the crop that Phil Pringle wants his people to be, you aren’t the best adert for the movement. Your very presence and opinions online make people question if Pringle and his movement are cult-like.
When it does come to you defending Pringle or God it appears you’re put in a conundrum trying to please two masters. We would like to call on your Christian integrity to engage in intellectual honesty. Don’t desperately cling to your straws of loyalty to Pringle. Prove to us you can think for yourself and express your opinions freely by answering the question:
“Is Phil Pringle orthodox?”
I think Zorro helped you a bit there by including the follow up questions:
“If you were a pastor, would you let Phil Pringle preach at your church? Would you let him tell your congregation that they must “tithe” or else be cursed, or would you interrupt this supposed “apostle” to correct his error?”
So with that, be brave! You can do it Ethel!
Well, look, that’s a completely unkind and unreasonable attitude and stance to take, churchwatcher, which requires a firm response, if you don’t mind.
What is it that is keeping you and Zorro from defining orthodoxy?
I have not said I will not answer your question. I have merely asked you to qualify it by stating what you consider orthodox. I will now add another qualification at the end of this comment.
I don’t speak for Phil Pringle. Nor am I obliged to defend him or condemn him. I have said that many times.
I am no more or no less of a Christian, a man, a father, a husband or a servant of God, or forgiven, or made righteous through faith in Christ if I choose to answer for my own doctrine rather than another man’s. Your accusations are baseless and without effect. They are empty words which fall short of their intended target.
I will talk face to face with you about what you say or do, but that is a scriptural thing to do, even though identities are hidden, which gives it a sort of emptiness and lack of reality.
Because, who are you? Who is Zorro? What have you to do with anything effectively spiritual by being anonymous in your judgment? Did Jesus parade Himself anonymous;y in His walk? Did He say to His disciples, “Make yourself hidden, men, in case you are persecuted, or your families are thrown to the dogs”? Or did He tell them they were being sent out as lambs to the wolves? Did He call them by name or by pseudonym?
I tink commenters should be allowed to have pseudonyms, but blog owners and their hench-men should reveal their identity of they are to have any credibility as critics, discerners or watchers.
Can you lay accusations at the feet of a man, even if he were guilty, and have any real plausibility if you fail to reveal yourselves?
Does anyone have to answer to a pseudonym or tremble at a pseudonym’s claimed authority? Can a pseudonym reasonably accuse anyone of anything and successfully be considered relevant or credible?
Both you and Zorro know the Biblical principles for approaching a saint who offends you. I do not need to remind you of this. If I had something to sort out with Phil Pringle I would not do so on this forum, where he is heavily criticised. I would find a way to go to him, after I had sought God with trembling and tears for the right thing to do. I have done this with a senior minister on more than one occasion. Have you? Has Zorro?
Neither did I raise this issue. That is entirely the doing of Zorro, backed up by you. I am answerable to neither. I did not rise the issue. I do not have to respond. i asked for qualification. The onus is on you to provide it.
I did not orchestrate or contrive this line of questioning. I am not in court. I am not being accused of anything apart from your subsequent false assumptions and disrespectful claims.
I will answer for the orthodoxy I claim. Ask me if I think I am orthodox. Tell me if you think you are orthodox. Let us discuss these things face to face in a civilised manner. I have no qualms about this.
The thing is that you assume to know my position, my loyalties and my ministry focus, but you are largely guessing, as is Zorro. You lay false assumptions at my feet and think that you have won some sort of contrived battle, but you have merely scarred your own cause with your poor judgment.
You claim I am a poor example of Christianity, and yet you do not know me, have not met me, have not seen me in ministry, do not know what I do, who I minster to, or where, do not know what God has asked me to do or how to do it, where I have been, where I am going, or anything else, including what I currently do.
The second thing is that I do not presume to know anything about either you or he because you refuse to disclose anything about yourselves. That is why I ask you to furnish more information about where you come from in regards to doctrine. That is reasonable.
So are you Pentecostal? Are you Catholic? Are you Baptist? Are you Methodist? Are you Universalist? Are you Reformed or Calvinist? Are you Lutheran? Jehovah’s Witness? Mormon? Presbyterian? Quakers? Brethren?
The answer to these questions will determine whether or not you might agree with my response and the potential follow up to the reply.
You also know very well that if I gave a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response there is no guarantee that yo will not take it further.
Am I right? Do you give the guarantee that if I simply give a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to your claimed ‘open’ question you will leave it at that?
Surely you have played chess at some stage in your life. Do you not know that I am matching Zorro’s ambit with my own?
Or am I conversing with unreasonable men?
“You’re a disgrace, and puffed up with it.”
But Phil Pringle can preach lies and not be “a disgrace”, is that correct?
And Phil Pringle can liken himself to Elijah and yet not be “puffed up”, is that so?
You live in a world where double-standards are not simply de rigueur, but are actually positively laudable; your mind has truly been darkened by your association with the well-heeled new agers of C3.
Your twisted reasoning and trammelled vision are writ large in your comments, and actually do more to clearly illustrate the true nature of C3 than anything else on this site.
Whatever!
You need to take ownership of your own shortcomings before challenging others.
You attack other people when I am confronting you with your insensitive remarks on this thread about Rick Warren in a time of tragedy, which you fail to say anything about.
Your obsession, which has nothing to do with me, is irrelevant to what I am putting before you.
You had every opportunity to explain your position but have chosen to remain accusative of others.
That only adds to the disgrace.
To Zorro,
It’s fascinating watching Ethel’s mind fail him. You can watch Mormon’s and Jehovah witnesses react the same way Ethel does. They simply defend those they don’t know. And when asked tough questions – you can witness their cognitive dissonance silence them.
We have resquested that Ethel does not comment on C3 Church Watch. We said this for his sake and for the image of Phil Pringle and C3 Church (or what’s left of their image anyway thanks to his behaviour). He is only re-inforcing readers how cult-like C3 Church is by his antics.
He is victim to the C3 system Pringle has created and will defend his master at all cost, his loyalty overriding his integrity. We do not know why Ethel has chosen to build his house on the sandy foundations of Phil Pringle but this will result in disastrous consequences in his future.
We believe in prayer and are deeply burdened for Ethel. If anyone is reading this conversation, please pray for Ethel to come to the truth of Christ and Christ’s finished work on the cross. Please pray that he sees that Jesus is truly his Lord and Master; Truth and personal Saviour; Righteousness and his true Foundation.
False doctrine divides. True doctrine unites. Prayer can always change people.
So please pray for Ethel. We hope one day we can see eye to eye with Ethel.
churchwatcher,
Hard words, indeed. Your comment requires a response.
You say,
To Zorro…
You defend the fact that Zorro was the author of a highly insensitive remark about Rick Warren, try to cover for Zorro, which he flatly ignores by making it clear that he did know that Rick Warren’s son had died, but, despite the fact Zorro continues to level accusations rather than apologise, you now compose a patronising comment which, in its way, supports Zorro’s lack of compassion rather than point out Zorro’s want of empathy for a family which has lost a son.
Then you, in tandem with Zorro, level an attack on Ethel, joining Zorro’s obsessive pursuit of another person, even though Ethel never brought up the issue.
It’s fascinating watching Ethel’s mind fail him. You can watch Mormon’s and Jehovah witnesses react the same way Ethel does. They simply defend those they don’t know. And when asked tough questions – you can witness their cognitive dissonance silence them.
My mind and cognisance have never been in question. I am lucid in response to anything I have been asked, and intelligent enough to see right through Zorro’s unwillingness to apply mercy in the current situation.
I’d like to know who you think I am defending, apart from a pastor who has just lost his son, and, in fact asking Zorro to show a merciful attitude. Is there a problem with this?
I have also stood with some commenters who have been handled in a very aggressive and unkind way by Zorro, something which you seem to support.
Otherwise I have provided a credible and scriptural theological discussion on various subjects. I am happy to discuss anything on any subject, but have merely declined to judge people in the same way you do.
I have actually not defended Phil Pringle, nor criticised him. I’ve said nothing, and clearly and concisely stated I am not his spokesperson, judge, critic or defence. If you or Zorro have an issue with him you should direct it to him. I am my own spokesperson. I do not answer for Phil Pringle.
That, I thought, was the problem you have with my commentary. I say nothing. You say I defend. On the contrary. I have not. That is why you level accusations at me. I am however very willing to discuss any subject with you on anything I believe.
We have resquested [sic] that Ethel does not comment on C3 Church Watch. We said this for his sake and for the image of Phil Pringle and C3 Church (or what’s left of their image anyway thanks to his behaviour). He is only re-inforcing readers how cult-like C3 Church is by his antics.
Well that is a very silly assumption in view of the fact that I have said nothing either way about Phil Pringle or C3.
You ask me to stop commenting because I have said nothing about someone in judgment? That doesn’t actually make rational sense.
You don’t even know for sure if I have an association. I haven’t confirmed a thing, ever. Maybe I do. and maybe I don’t. I’ve said I won’t comment on them, but will comment on my own doctrine or theology. So saying I am representative of the image of C3 when I have refused to say anything about them, or confirm an association is frankly nonsense.
Everything you have said has been an assumption. I have neither denied or confessed to anything you or Zorro or anyone else has claimed. The only association you can find on this blog I have with C3 is in your own presumptive commentary.
You see, accusations are not evidence. Assumptions are never proof. That is something you might have to learn as you go on.
He is victim to the C3 system Pringle has created and will defend his master at all cost, his loyalty overriding his integrity. We do not know why Ethel has chosen to build his house on the sandy foundations of Phil Pringle but this will result in disastrous consequences in his future.
As I have said, my Master is Christ, and He defends Himself, and I do not have to defend anyone, not even those you level accusations against. The gospel is the only thing I will defend. I will contend for the faith. I will give a reason for my confidence in Christ. He is the only person I have ever admitted to being my Master, Lord and Leader.
My integrity is intact. I am respected by my peers in the areas of ministry God has called me to. I owe C3 nothing but to love them. I owe Phil Pringle nothing but to love him. My Lord is Jesus.
My house is built on the foundation of Christ and His Apostles, on being a doer of the Word and not a hearer only. My house is on the solid Rock of Christ.
You predict disaster, but I say to you that ‘no weapon formed against me will prosper, and every tongue which rises against me in judgement the Lord will condemn, which is the inheritance of the saints’ (Isaiah 54:17), and ‘the curse causeless will not descend upon me’ (Proverbs 26:2), so let your prediction of disaster fall upon you.
Do you think I am afraid of suffering for Christ, or being persecuted for the gospel’s sake, or giving my life for Jesus?
Away with your curses, little man. Do you think your petty darts are match for the Shield of Faith? Protect yourself from the disaster your words pour on yourself, and the snare you find will entrap you with your presumption. Let God deal with me as He sees fit. He is my Judge, not you. You deal with yourself.
We believe in prayer and are deeply burdened for Ethel. If anyone is reading this conversation, please pray for Ethel to come to the truth of Christ and Christ’s finished work on the cross. Please pray that he sees that Jesus is truly his Lord and Master; Truth and personal Saviour; Righteousness and his true Foundation.
Please, whoever you are, despite this patronising attempt at backhand insult in the guise of a payer request, know that I gave my life to the Lord Jesus Christ before witnesses long ago and will never turn back, never backslide, or never leave my first love for Christ. I am thoroughly His forever.
My tears shed when I repented with sorrow before the Christ are forever sealed in heaven as a testimony to His saving grace.
I am saved, washed in the blood of the Lamb, sealed by the Spirit for the redemption of my body, born again, cleansed by the purifying Word of God, filled with the Spirit, called, chosen and sent as a son, as a royal priest in the Household of God, and active as a willing bond-servant to minister the gospel wherever He sends me. I am loved by God and chastened by Him as a son, so let that be my judgment. I am in the Beloved.
If you want to pray, please pray that I will be effective in ministry, that souls will be saved, that many will see the light of the gospel and turn to Jesus as I go about my call to preach the good news to everyman.
False doctrine divides. True doctrine unites. Prayer can always change people.
I’ll pray for you to find true doctrine.
So please pray for Ethel. We hope one day we can see eye to eye with Ethel.
If you want to be eye for eye with us, pray for souls. Pray for the harvest. Pray for labourers to join us in the harvest of souls who are ripe for salvation, everywhere we go, everywhere we are everywhere we will be sent, until we go to be with Jesus.
Thank you!
“I’ll pray for you to find true doctrine.”
That’s very nice of you, Ethel.
Phil Pringle maintains that we need to “tithe”, otherwise we are “cursed”. Is that an example of “true doctrine”, Ethel? Or is Phil a liar whose conscience has been seared with a hot iron?
Are we obliged to follow the OT law Ethel? Yes or no?
“Whatever!”
An interesting response. Did Phil Pringle or did he not state that maybe he was “Elijah” for some in his congregation?
Do you think that might be seen as being a tad puffed up, Ethel? Yes or no?
You’re an utter, heartless disgrace, Zorro, for your insensitivity towards Rick Warren’s family at this time.
Yes or no?
To Zorro,
Don’t keep talking to Ethel.Let him go. Clearly Phil Pringle is his Elijah. His pope and his Christ-like figure whom all the prophets longed to hear and see.
You can’t help someone like that. They will believe what they want to believe and contradict themselves when necessary. Leave him alone.
Wow, churchy! You removed Zorro’s comment, which was an insensitive dig at Rick Warren.
Never was such loyalty shown to such an ordinary fellow.
So even you were so ashamed of what Zorro wrote that you felt it was appropriate to remove the comment.
Zorro himself has been unable to bring himself to show any remorse for his heartless attack on Rick Warren’s family at this time, so you once again cover for him.
The first time you said he might not have known or noticed that Rick Warren’s son had died, but, when it was clearly shown that he must have known, you manipulate the thread by taking out the offending comment without letting your readers know why.
Now you’re pleading with him not to comment to Ethel in case he digs himself deeper into his own mud pit.
And, to add to this embarrassing episode, you make false and self-damnng claims against me, lying that I idolise a man, when I have made it clear to you that I am no man’s lackey, that Jesus is my Master, that I bow my knee to Him alone.
You are really not looking too good right now.
Perhaps you could have said something along the lines that you are saddened to hear that Rick Warren’s family have suffered a loss and it would be appropriate at this time to support them with prayer and good will.