Secular Attacks On Christians: Poor Ole’ Lionel the Christian
Dear Reader,
This posting is from my Gonzodave’s Blog inside a public group, The Free Book Express For Christian Authors, at WEbook.com. WEbook is a free to join, collaborative community of authors. Where, the sole commercial intent (for now) is to vote for author/members whose work is to be included in WEbook publications.
Please bear in mind, as a matter of accepted courtesy, a forum posting as a topic/thread belongs to the one who originated the topic. Anyone may add or comment to the topic. This is accepted. However, when a reply inside a topic is off-track, this is called hi-jacking a thread. A very rude act. Similar to calling out and maligning someone’s skin color when the topic is the price of bread.
http://www.webook.com/community/groupInfo.aspx?gId=38511ce63bd142b486810ec09a28a256
Dear Members,
This ramble is a bit extended. It will serve double duty at several of my blog sites.
First, is anyone ‘weirded out’ that I sent them a friend request as the owner of this Christian group? If you follow and read the profile page of the owner in the group mentioned below, you will see that their criteria for ‘friend’ is much more stringent than a friend in Christ.
Having moved that out of the way, the main theme of this article should be titled ‘Politics or Professionalism. What Do You Want From WEbook?’
Bloggers are often called citizen journalist. However, they are not the balanced and unbiased professional commonly associated with the word journalist. And, there is a style, a bend of thought where the citizen journalist is more than a bit subjective. Where the content of her/his output is considered radical. Having gone this far with the explanation I’ll conclude it with the word – gonzo. Thus, my penname – gonzodave. However, this penname is entirely branded by my over zealous insistence on the grace of God as all sufficient. A very radical theology. Now, on to the news that’s new.
I’ve been on something rather like a fact gathering tour today. As I acquired certain understandings, these begged a few obvious questions of their own. Questions, I will pose to you at the end of this ramble which you so kindly suffer.
WEbook facts on the ground:
A. The founding owner stated very recently (Guardian, uk) that there are tens of thousands of webookers. … I’ll accept that on the surface.
1. There are about 448 groups; 12 to a page and a total of a little less than a full 45 pages (two to be exact).
2. The WEbooks engineering group (private) is the last group listed. Hmm?
3. It appears that the private groups begin at about page 40-41.
4. I’m not sure how the groups are prioritized. It seems that a simple
‘latest posting time’ does not put a public group on the 1st page. Recently, The
Book Express has been near the first page, if not first of the 448.
5. I don’t think private groups are rated by latest posting dates. They are mostly gathered at the end. However, an occasional private group is listed on a lower page than 40. Does new membership activity somehow affect the placement of a group? Possibly.
What might be understood from these facts and why is it important to you? Good question. I think I’m going to answer it clearly enough. You decide. I can only propose an answer.
Groups formed by the whim of an individual here at WEbook are much like the thousands of membership pages at ning.com (membership that can be verified to total tens of thousands). At Ning there is a virtual bone yard of freely forgotten intentions in the form of inactive membership pages. Yet, some page/membership groups do separate themselves from the herd which is headed for the common graveyard of the internet dead, but not dead.
Here in WEbook, there is a private group formed at –
http://www.webook.com/community/groupInfo.aspx?gId=126002d53c0f48c2ad19c2207099e3fb
– titled I do solemnly Swear To Improve WeBook. This sounds much like a citizens group, does it not? I assumed so, until I recognized the pennames Melissa and TsungChi among the members Both are WEbook employees, Melissa writes the WEbook blog. You can follow the link above and read the ‘Manifesto’ began by the owner of this group that is under review and expansion by the membership. A kind of corporate ‘Mission Statement’ for the faithful. Their stated intention is to maintain a presence in the Community Forum. A mixed blessing of a sort of church and state.
All this information is more of a backdrop, the groundwork for the primary consideration of: What can you realistically expect from your time spent inside WEbook? As opposed to: What Do I Need From WEbook?
I for one, cannot take seriously a group membership that reads like a WHO’s WHO of those that harangue specifically poor ole’ Lionel the Christian in the one Community Forum or General Chat with Anti-Christian moralizing. Out of several hundred replies in a single thread, Lionel owns maybe two dozen. Another Christian will occasionally reply inside this topic; but, alas, they don’t stay long when the gang goes into full-metal-jacket combat mode. (See Lionel’s thread Humanism – a religion: The Impossibility of the Separation of Church and State for a terrific slice-of-real-life take on secular intolerance at:
http://www.webook.com/forums/messageIndex.aspx?topic=18209d7d7a2a4d4e9b477e8c9d32d10f&fview=true )
The balance of the replies under this topic are malicious cawing against Christianity and poor ole’ Lionel himself. Lionel, who like the Apostle Paul, gets beaten up by a gang every time he opens his mouth. Proving that wisdom/prudence is the better part of valor, the ex-Navy Electrician’s Mate, poor ole’ Lionel the Christian, does not accept any internal messages from anyone.
As the replies prove, a rule #5 is totally ignored by any number in this membership of hypocrites bent on solemnly improving WEbook. By the way, rule #5 is borrowed from the forum guidelines at Theologica.ning.com.
Rule 5. Irenic. You are kind, gentle, respectful, and understanding, accurately representing opposing parties, even when you disagree.
What’s my point? Beware the politics. And, I hope you are spending time improving your writing for the sole sake of your writing. It’s an extension of you. I say this because the commercial reality is that the AVERAGE print run for a new, hardback book is 3000 copies. How many writers around the world are going to beat the odds? WEbook has one published book that may sell one copy a month. Someone offered the projection of one per year. Regardless how accurate this may be, the facts on the ground remain – politics can be more immediate, tangible, and rewarding than the vehicle in which it rides. In this case, it is your writing.
My kind regards and go well in Christ Jesus,
~gonzodave
An Article Defending Obama Against Slanderous Misinformation
Dear Reader,
This is a FIRST for this page – a political comment. I do not support one or the other canidate. However, I do support anyone who is unfairly maligned. Therefore, I post this article.
My regards in Christ Jesus,
gonzodave
Chapters 1-4: The Execution of Sweeney Todd
Dear Reader,
Just click the Book Cover to go to the link at WEbooks and preview chapters one through four for a look inside the practical doctrine of grace.
Go well in Christ Jesus,
gonzodave
Chapter One: The Execution of Sweeney Todd
Dear Reader,
Just click the Book Cover to go to the link at WEbooks and preview chapter one for a look inside the practical doctrine of grace.
Go well in Christ Jesus,
gonzodave
The X-istence Files
Foreword
Dear Reader,
This writer is all too aware of the many contemporary sub-arguments between an assured now and an undetermined future salvation. The secessionist account of Christian division in 1-3 John hinged upon the interpretation of the Gospel of John to determine when Jesus became Christ. The deity and the humanity of Christ Jesus was in question. And, accordingly, primary in evaluating the meaning and the value of His death.
Ironically – from today’s Protestant perspective – the opposing sides did not dispute the assurance of salvation. Rather, the importance of Christian sin and the demonstration of love for other believers – who were in need – was the contention that created the separation between the two groups. Thus, historically, far from being an issue for unity and agreement, it can be proved that the meaning and value in the death of Christ has always been in dispute. That, at one time or another, a lesser value has had prominence within Christianity.
I for one, do not hold to the progressive revelation of biblical doctrine as an accomplishment of men. Progressive understanding, like spiritual maturity and growth, does indeed naturally proceed. In our post New Testament time, divine revelation – any true revelation that might be arrived at – is already contained in the Bible. The revelation never moves. However, I do know, because of the disciplines of political science, the popularity and prominence of certain ideas rise and fall as a result of the activities of men. For this reason, I propose the core argument in Christian salvation lies in the assertions made by the Governmental theory of atonement. A de-valuation of and an inferior meaning for the death of Christ is the foundation upon which this theory is built.
The error is to confuse human forgiveness with divine forgiveness; to confuse the human and divine actions of Christ with the acts of men. To move the deity of the incarnate Christ Jesus down is to move man up. To move Christ down is to move more of the man Jesus onto the horizontal field with man. This is to over-evaluate His humanity at the expense of His deity. Biblically, Christ suffered and was tempted like anyone. Nowhere does Scripture say Christ accomplished His sinlessness like anyone. The example of Christ applies to what He experienced in common with all humanity, not how He achieved sinlessness. His perfect innocence as a man qualified Him to be the uniquely sinless (unblemished) substitute for the spiritual death of all men. Because of His innocence – death could not hold Him. Christ rose, not because He earned it, but because resurrection into a new state of humanity was the magnificent proof that He, Jesus the Man, was God. Believers are given salvation and promised resurrection, not because they must proceed to earn it. Rather, because Who Christ is and what He achieved. Who you trust – not what you do – determines salvation. The object of saving faith – not a mistaken objective – guarantees salvation. An impossible example of achievement is the moral example of Christ. For these reasons, the basic assumptions behind the loss of salvation are in error.
To support the rational basis for the loss of salvation, the Governmental theory must allow man not only the responsibility to “obey the gospel”; but, in addition, she/he need maintain their salvation by self-determination and actions. Under the express threat of punishment derived as the example from the Cross, this theory teaches that by successfully following the example in the sinless accomplishments of “The Anointed One,” a Christian may become sanctified. Sanctified by self to receive heaven’s final reward of eternal salvation. Did the Apostles preach a gospel that required progressive moral achievement to earn a future salvation? This is the question to be answered.
Introduction
Well beyond a majority of Protestant Christianity is practiced by denominations grounded in Arminian salvation theory. Reformed theology is not an aberration of free will as argued by Arminians who would defend their interpretation of the Bible. To claim that one is a biblicist who only believes in the Bible is a thin disguise. What authority do Reformed and Arminians use? To argue the extent of the atonement made by Christ, limited or unlimited; or, the hurly-burly of free will, is a dodge, a side-step from the real or primary issue of salvation. And, to put it simply, salvation is Christianity. Christ is at the center of soteriology or He is not. Salvation can be lost or it cannot. This is the question to be answered.
If you have ever wondered why salvation can be lost – it is because new seminarians are taught Arminian theology. And, the Arminian Governmental theory of atonement claims that one’s future salvation can be lost because of personal sin or forfeited by choice. This discussion publishes a statement defending a necessary rectoral meaning (e.g., Lord Rector and Rector Magnificus, pertaining to someone who rules, and by extension one who has the power of government to defend and punish) in the atonement. In other words, salvation was accomplished by God in that the crucifixion of Christ was a demonstration, an example of punishment for the benefit of sinners; but not a substitutionary penal death where the sin of all men was imputed to a sinless Savior. The statement was written by the highly regarded Arminian theologian, Dr. John Miley. This discussion details why it is a flawed theory.
My desire, purpose, and hope is that you may gain a more clear understanding and a greater appreciation for the completed work of Christ in the 3 divisions that follow:
ONE
A 16 page discussion, in a PDF format is available @
TWO
The link, adapted from Tim Keller, is a one page comparison of religion versus the gospel of God's grace. This example may be better understood after reading my 16 page discussion. This PDF page may be downloaded and printed.
THREE
The link is to, what I consider, the very best 'plain language' rendering of the gospel of God's saving grace. Surfoutsider.net is to be given much credit for their Power Point presentation and ministry.
Enjoy the read!
ONE
*Download a free e-brochure of this 16 page discussion from LuLu Publishing @ The X-istence Files: A072908G
TWO
A comparison of Religion to the Gospel
THREE
The Gospel
My kind regards in Christ Jesus,
gonzodave
_____________
The X-istence Files: A072908G – The Doctrine of Moral Achievement and Why the Loss of Salvation is a Non-Christian Theory
*Download a free e-brochure of this 16 page discussion from Lulu Publishing @ The X-istence Files: A072908G
My kind regards in Christ Jesus,
gonzodave
Koinonia: The Communication of Grace 