This is Frank Rue's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Frank Rue's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Frank Rue
Recent Activity
Here is the PDF for the same... http://www.calvarypgh.org/seuss/Seusscharist-CalvaryPittsburgh.pdf Very scary how well it was written.
Toggle Commented Nov 6, 2010 on Seusscharist!?!? at The Museum of Idolatry
Incredible. Seeker-sensitivity for children? Even if it was exclusively geared toward believers, it does two things: 1) it blasphemes the holiness of God; and 2) it still shows up to unbelievers as an example of how we regard the sacraments—neither of which is acceptable! Gene Veith did point out, in the First Things' comment thread (link below), that Theodore Geisel (a lifelone, active member of LCMS) would never have sanctioned such an act. http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/11/04/of-you-and-your-works-are-we-always-awed/ Frank
Toggle Commented Nov 6, 2010 on Seusscharist!?!? at The Museum of Idolatry
Dime a dozen, unfortunately. Here's a question that still vexes me: How do these people get their Doctorates? What accredited institution is giving them away to charlatans?!
Shouldn't this also be tagged as "Relevancy FAIL"? I motion that it be tagged as such. :)
Toggle Commented Aug 9, 2010 on Space Church?!? at The Museum of Idolatry
Your analogy is akin to something Paul actually speaks on in 2 Corinthians 12. So how does your personal interpretation play against the idea that Paul, an Apostle of Christ, had a thorn in his side that was *never* removed, and God *left* it there intentionally? You make an excellent point about God seeing the beginning and the end. You also make an excellent point that we may not realize what is best for us in the long run (relating to the point above). I like that you said that something that we think we need and love and will kill us if its gone is really something that will hurt us, poison us, and kill us if we leave it in. A word of caution, though... When we speak in generalities like this, it leaves much room for personal interpretation by each reader. Here's a clarification: specifically, the only thing that we can apply to this approach is *sin*. It is the only thing that God abhors and wants to see removed from us. Sin has a broad definition, but it is still more constrained than "anything that causes us pain". After all, disciplining a child can be painful to the child, but will benefit him/her in the long run. Thoughts?
Toggle Commented Jul 16, 2010 on [The Splinters.] at .::life of laura::.
So, if I attend Cornerstone Church and give a contribution, this is where my money is spent?
This post brings two things to mind. First, there is a feeling of hopelessness—that the church is still screwing up stuff the same way we always have. Second, there is a feeling of hope—that we have already seen the twisting of Scripture and the catering to man's ears come and go. All in all... I love that you posted these canons. Reading the historical accounts of the church defending itself against heresy shows me that those of us who stand vigilant, trying our best and by whatever means reasonable to protect the message of the Gospel are not alone; we stand in the company of many intelligent people before us who have studied the Scripture (probably moreso than all of us) and who have come to similar if not identical conclusions in its defense. @Shirley - The reason these canons were written is because of the consequence of relinquishing the intellectual part of theology. Without studying and understanding Scripture—without coming into a better understanding and knowledge of Christ from the very book He provided—we are in danger of reverting to messages that omit or obfuscate the Gospel, not the other way around! If we don't ensure that people understand the nuances of theology, they will be swayed in believing things like mysticism, gnosticism, and the like. Things that "sound spiritual". Without the discernment of an understanding of Scripture, Joe the Plumber will not know how to determine if something that "sounds spiritual" is actually Scriptural. The degrees may only be a bit off at the *beginning* of the journey, but by the *end*, who knows what he'll believe?! The beauty of canons, creeds, catechisms and hymns is that they DO try to condense the essentials of theology into something digestible. With them, people are more inclined to have answers to questions like, "So why do you believe in the Trinity?" Instead, nowadays, most people say something like, "Oh, I don't get into all of that. I just love Jesus." That sort of argument sounds good until someone says, "Well, then you can agree with me that there is only one God who manifests Himself in different modes, right?" And then they start listing verses from Scripture. Now Joe doesn't have an argument, and can be swayed into modalism, then maybe into the belief that if he wasn't "baptized in the name of Jesus—the onlyoOne true God" that he's not saved (this is a common belief held by Oneness Pentecostals). Joe's very SALVATION is now in question, and he has no information with which to respond. And this, of course, is one of hundreds of examples throughout history. I vote for more intelligent theology to be taught in more churches every Sunday and more (classes available throughout the week or in Sunday School, etc.). People need to know more about their faiths to be less susceptible to false doctrine.
Frank Rue is now following The Typepad Team
Jul 2, 2010