This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

Where Christianity intersects with politics, culture, and entertainment.


driscoll

Steal a soundboard, start a ministry?

by Jesse Locken

Mark Driscoll and his Seattle megachurch Mars Hill (MHC) has continued to draw increasing attention in the press, typically in reference to controversy. Whether it’s Driscoll’s views on male/female relationships and marriage, Mars Hill’s “church discipline” practices, and even acts of vandalism to church property, it seems as if there is no slowing down the continual stream of debate—-whether for or against the organization and its leader.

In addition to the typical secular liberal response one would expect to Dricoll’s polarizing statements and the organization’s seemingly traditional “conservative” Christian values, many Christians have expressed valid Biblical criticism of Driscoll’s theology and church practices. However, when questions of Driscoll’s character, church-growth techniques (and claims Driscoll and MHC make pertaining to said growth), and church hierarchy are brought into the discussion, many of the big names Driscoll is associated with–such as John Piper, Al Mohler, and even Doug Wilson (who is now apparently in support of Driscoll's Resurgence.com)–are surprisingly silent; it is almost as if the man and his church are above criticism from the “Neo-Reformed”. In my own research, I have not come across anyone questioning Driscoll and MHC’s lack of a stated Biblical stance with regard to subjects that lie outside the typical “theological” sphere, such as economics, politics, civil justice, education, and war. (If there are such resources, please make me aware of them).

An example of the lack of criticism in reference to Driscoll’s character can be found in a recent video in which Driscoll admits to stealing an audio board from another church in order to start his own “ministry” (at about the 9:20 mark in the video). Where are the big names Driscoll is associated with advising him to truly repent and follow the Biblical mandate of restitution (Exodus 22)? The man certainly makes enough money to restore fourfold what he’s taken from the church whose college ministry he used to formerly “pastor.” And why doesn’t Driscoll appear to have enough of a Biblical worldview to take such an opportunity to teach those who are following him and his church how Christ and the Word of God truly change the heart and actions of believers by following the basic principles found in Scripture?

Instead, Driscoll seems to actually boast about his theft and implements it into his video as a commendable thing in the quest of MHC to reach people so that they “meet Jesus.” Keep in mind this is in a video entitled “God’s Work, Our Witness.” As if God is pleased with a witness that approves of theft of property, as long as somehow it can be shown to “reach people for Christ.” I wonder how Driscoll would feel if others would deem his church as “unworthy” of the property they possess, choose to take it from him, and start their own church in some empty warehouse in Seattle? This is simply a small example of the contradictory nature of Driscoll and his organization that we know about and can easily document.

When one investigates who Driscoll claims as inspiration for his theology and ministry, it becomes clearer that he is (in a small way albeit) a part of a larger global plan for the future of the Evangelical Christian church. While on the surface much of the theology may be in line with what is considered Orthodox Christianity, when looked at in detail and taken in the context of the actions of Driscoll and his organization, we find some striking fundamental ideas that line up more with the philosophies of Wundt, Kant, Hegel, and even Marx. Such ideas have consequences, and there will be a generation of “Christians” who will have Driscoll's theology and teaching down pat, but who will be difficult to approach in conversation from a truly Biblical worldview; in fact, they already exist. I know; I've had discussions with them.

Megachurches along the lines of Mars Hill with leaders like Driscoll are not only teaching questionable theology, they are also leading people directly away from the Scriptures as applicable to all of life. They are replacing God's Word with a truncated, watered-down view of God, Jesus, the Bible, and the church. These watered-down views are heavily influenced by pragmatic philosophies that are more in line with occult mystery religions than with the Kingdom of God. It is not surprising then, that we find them externalizing these philosophies in their structures, hierarchies, and teaching. I will be examining this influence in further detail in future articles.


Jesse Locken is an average guy with a full-time job as a sales consultant who desires to apply God's Word to all of life. He resides in the beautiful Pacific Northwest in Seattle, WA. He blogs, rants, analyzes, and vents at his website, FrequencyPropogation.

 
Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • Vladimir

    "…leaders like Driscoll are not only teaching questionatble theology, they are also leading people directly away from the Scriptures as applicable to all of life."

    So who polices the megachurch leaders? Who polices the web preachers? If there is a web preacher who is attacking the U.S. Constitution, who calls him out?

    • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

      Valdimir, could it be you're wanting me called out because as a Mormon your "Doctrine and Covenants" claims the Constitution (along with your heretical Book of Mormon) is divinely inspired?

      Any time you want to publicly debate the Constitution's (or the Book of Mormon's) inspiration, I'm willing and waiting.

      • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

        Give credit where credit is due. Bull's eye Ted and hard smashing of Vlad's inconsistency and hypocrisy.

        • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

          Thanks Despeville! You can be a nice guy after all. I appreciate it.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Oh, yes I can and you and I would get along just fine as long as it does not come to discuss foundational truths…The good news is much of what you believe overlaps with what I believe.

          • Vladimir

            Despeville, does that mean you join Ted R. Weiland in his reviling of our Constitution?

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            No, it only means that you have put on your convenient seven miles boots to do mental shortcuts for yourself… :)

          • Vladimir

            Don't know what the seven miles boots analogy means, but glad you aren't in league with the likes of Ted R. Weiland as far as our Constitution is concerned.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Hmm, wonder what you read as a child…
            Lemme help ya: http://storynory.com/2007/09/10/puss-in-boots/

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            How does that help him? Puss-in-boots did not wear seven miles boots. He wore a pair that his master had made for him.

            “Do not look so sad, master. Just give me a bag and a pair of boots, and I will show you that you did not receive such a poor inheritance in me.”

            The Cat’s master had often seen him play a great many cunning tricks to catch rats and mice, as when he used to hang by the heels, or hide himself in the grain, and pretend to be dead; Thinking this over, he thought that it wasn’t impossible that the cat could help him after all. And so he gave the cat his bag and spent his last pennies on ordering a fine pair of boots to be made especially for the cat.
            http://storynory.com/2007/09/10/puss-in-boots/

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Depends which version Dodxon but as usual you strain out a gnat but swallow a camel…

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I used the story you provided, you loon.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Dodxon, shake off your baboon of your back. That still does not change the fact that there are other versions even if that one did not have what I wanted to point out.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Humpty, once again you show you have no idea what you are talking about.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            I know what I am talking about and you as well. I am talking about your baboon legacy myth.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            lol. Humpty, you live a such a delusional world.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Rubbish and more rubbish.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Try this one instead.

            Hop-o'-My-Thumb (Le Petit Poucet) is the youngest of seven children in a poor woodcutter's family. His greater wisdom compensates for his smallness of size. When the children are abandoned by their parents, he finds a variety of means to save his life and the lives of his brothers. After being threatened and pursued by a giant, Poucet steals the magic "seven-league boots" from the sleeping giant.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hop_o%27_My_Thumb

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            I am glad that you are making up on stories you should have learned 45 years ago but from all things your extensive usage of Wikipedia is a testament to your continuing abecedarian approach.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            What a surprise. You are shown to be wrong yet again, and you pretend it never occurred. You are a wonderful example of a lying hypocrite, Humpty.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Hahhaha yawn to a baboon enthusiast… can you be more pathetic than this? I do not think so although Joe will probably disagree.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I am sure you consider being shown wrong as pathetic. But it does not change the fact that you were wrong again.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            No, what is pathetic is your little prideful deranged and debased ego which needs to create for itself a mirage of self gratification by whining to some guy on a web. You have shown nothing beyond another proof that you are vastly ignorant Wikipedia feeding neophyte.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Humpty, you are a pompous blowhard who incapable of admitting that he is capable of mistakes.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Yawn, I make plenty of mistakes but not on your level and thankfully.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Humpty, you start with a mistake and are unable to move on to anywhere else.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            I think you're right, provided you cease falsely accusing me of teaching justification by the law, which I renounce as strongly as you do – as clearly stated in my writings.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Hard to see if this was directed to me Ted but if it was I must say that I am not convinced about your renunciation of legalism and Pharisaic view on law keeping as indicative of "justification". Having said that I must state that I have seen you speaking from both corners of your mouth so the question is are you that inconsistent or am I that unobservant or both?

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            Despeville, this was directed to you. Despite proof to the contrary, you chose to disregard my own statements such as the following:

            "The Bible is very clear that New Covenant Christians are not under the law, but under grace (Romans 6:14). We are no longer required to perfectly keep all of Yahweh’s moral laws for righteousness as were the Israelites under the Mosaic Covenant:

            'And YHWH commanded us [Old Covenant Israelites] to do all these statutes, to fear YHWH our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day. And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before YHWH our God, as he hath commanded us.' (Deuteronomy 6:24-25)

            'For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.' (Galatians 3:10)

            "It was specifically this aspect of the Mosaic Covenant that Jesus fulfilled on our behalf and then abolished:

            'For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.' (Romans 10:4)

            "In Galatians 3:11, the Apostle Paul wrote, 'no man is justified by the law in the sight of God' and in Galatians 5:4, "you [are] severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law, you have fallen from grace.' Justification (our legal standing before Yahweh) is what provides us our righteousness (our moral standing before Him). Justification, and thereby righteousness, is only attainable through Jesus’ propitiating sacrifice on our behalf.

            "Having fulfilled the Old Covenant requirement of perfect righteousness – perfect obedience to Yahweh’s laws, which equates with sinlessness – Jesus became our righteousness (1 Corinthians 1:26-31). Consequently, 'every one that believeth' is justified by the blood-atoning sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus the Christ and is no longer under the law, but under grace.

            "That Christians are not under the law has been perverted to mean that Yahweh’s laws have been abolished. If this were true, Jesus would have put an end to Yahweh’s morality, which would mean an end to Yahweh. What a horrific concept! Because Yahweh does not change (Malachi 3:6), His morality, or righteousness, has not changed either."

            I shared this very section from "Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant" with you on another occasion, if you will recall. You chose to disregard this and continued to malign me. It was then that I chose to apply Proverbs 26:4 to you.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Ted, thanks for that but you also said many, many things that were to the contrary of above so you must understand at least that I am not making up this as I go. You may say that I misunderstood you but I have seen you taking away with one hand what you have given with another in terms of justification solely and exclusively by grace and faith alone.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            Despeville, please provide me anything I've written anywhere that declares that justification comes through any means other than the blood atoning sacrifice and resurrection of Christ. I'm sorry, but this is simply the consequence of you're own inability to reconcile the Scriptures that declare we're not under the law for righteousness (e.g., Romans 10:4) and Scriptures that teach the moral law of Yahweh is still in effect under the New Covenant (e.g., Romans 3:31). Consequently, you pigeon hole and falsely accuse anyone, such as myself, who can reconcile the two as Judaizers.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            I agree with above and I have seen you stating perplexing things about both. I am sorry I do not have time to Google and search for something here from weeks or months ago as Dixon does for fun. If I see something I will show you.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            No need for you to waste your time Googling. I can assure you will look in vain for anything in which I've promoted keeping the law for our justification in Christ. This would indeed be a case of Judaizing of which you have falsely accused me.

            I agree with you that my position is perplexing to you. This is because from your antinomian position, you interpret any promotion of the law under the New Covenant as Judaizing. If this were true than Christ and the Apostles Paul, John, and Peter are all Judaizers.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            "This is because from your antinomian position"

            Bogus.

            Ha, isn't that interesting that you accuse me of falsely charging you with Phariseeism while you cavalierly throw around charges of antinomian? And what would be your proof for that charge besides you not liking my criticism of you and your theonomy and conflicting statemnts as to justification of sinners before Holy God?

            "you interpret any promotion of the law under the New Covenant as Judaizing."

            Bogus and false again. What are your proof for your "ANY" sweeping and overgeneralizing assertion? Your hurting ego is not proof, in fact it is not ANY proof whatsoever…

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            If I have misunderstood and misrepresented you, I apologize. However, please answer the following question: Do you believe that Yahweh's (without going bonkers over my use of Yahweh) moral law as contained in His commandments, statutes, and judgments is still relevant under the New Covenant and, if you do, in what fashion?

            You have yet to produce any conflicting statements regarding justification and you won't be able to because there are none.

            "Hurting ego?" Come on, I thought you were a nice guy. This is not only uncalled for, it's another false accusation, and without being God something you could never know in the first place.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            "Do you believe that Yahweh's (without going bonkers over my use of Yahweh) moral law as contained in His commandments, statutes, and judgments is still relevant under the New Covenant and, if you do, in what fashion? "

            I DO and in this inspired truth:

            "What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? God forbid. Nay, I knew not sin, but by the Law: for I had not known lust, except the Law had said, Thou shalt not lust. 08But sin took an occasion by the commandment, and wrought in me all manner of concupiscence: for without the Law sin is dead. 09For I once was alive, without the law: but when the commandment came, sin revived, 10But I died: and the same commandment which was ordained unto life, was found to be unto me unto death. 11For sin took occasion by the commandment, and deceived me, and thereby slew me. 12Wherefore the Law is holy, and that commandment is holy, and just, and good. 13Was that then which is good, made death unto me? God forbid: but sin, that it might appear sin, wrought death in me by that which is good, that sin might be out of measure sinful by the commandment. 14For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15For I allow not that which I do: for what I would, that do I not: but what I hate, that do I. 16If I do then that which I would not, I consent to the Law, that it is good. 17Now then, it is no more I, that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18For I know, that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me: but I find no means to perform that which is good, 19For I do not the good thing, which I would, but the evil, which I would not, that do I. 20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but the sin that dwelleth in me. 21I find then that when I would do good, I am thus yoked, that evil is present with me. 22For I delight in the Law of God, concerning the inner man. 23But I see another Law in my members, rebelling against the law of my mind, and leading me captive unto the law of sin, which is in my members. 24O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death! 25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Then I myself in my mind serve the Law of God, but in my flesh the law of sin."

            ~ Romans 7-25 Geneva Bible

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            Yes, I'm fully aware and fully agree with this passage, but it doesn't really answer my question. So let me rephrase: Do you believe that Yahweh intends for Christians to observe His commandments and their respective statutes and judgments under the New Covenant – not to be justified, but in loving service to their God and fellow man? Or, instead, do believer the commandments, statutes, and judgments have been abolished under the New Covenant by our faith in Christ?

            If you prefer, you can answer by Option 1 or Option 2. If neither represents your position, please explain.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            The scripture should really answer your question. It deals directly with it and beyond it too. I think your question is rather artificial and rudimentary. What is "intends"? Do you imply that God intends fulfillment? What he What do you mean by "observe"? Observing does no good in itself. Doing does but none can actually consistently "do" the law. Not on their best day either. We can be inspired and by the power of God strive and we should but we will always fail in the balance and fail miserably. That is why we do need and do trust for this Perfect Savior Jesus Christ the Lord of Glory.
            Law is holy and good but none can observe it as you imply. What they can observe is their daily and continuous shortcomings and breaking of the law . Yes, we should look into the law as perfect expression of holiness but apart of the mercy of God we are all condemned by it. Law does not bring life before God. It brings death and condemnation for the basic fact that none apart of God/man Jesus could live it and truly observe it as you would like to.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            Wow! Let's try this again:

            Do you believe Yahweh intends for Christians to observe His commandments and their respective statutes and judgments under the New Covenant – not to be justified, but in loving service to their God and fellow man? Yes or No, please.

            Do you beleiver the commandments, statutes, and judgments have been abolished under the New Covenant by our faith in Christ? Yes or No, please.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            I was very clear above and I wonder how can you ask this again but again define what you mean by "observe"…

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            Observe: to keep, comply with, or conform to.

            Please answer my two questions as they are pertinent to whether my use and accusation of antinomianism is justified and as to whether I owe you an apology or not.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Here is short and simple so you will not have a chance to get lost in your bias:

            Law is good and holy. No human being can truly and consistently "keep" nor "comply" nor "conform" to it.
            Therefore the Law KILLS and is a harbinger of death and condemnation before Holy God. Moses brought death. Jesus brought life as the one whose righteousness is keeping, complying and conforming to the law and far beyond it and that righteousness is imputed to His people and empowers them to live with eyes set on the law for that is a minuscule part of the One who fulfilled it perfectly for them.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            Why are you being so generic in your answers? This does not answer my questions. Why not just answer my questions with simple yes or no. Otherwise, you appear to being evasive.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Yes, I am so "generic" that I have to ask you to define in detail what you mean by "observe" :) Stop being silly. Your questions are set ups and rudimentary at that too. I responded biblically and I responded to your follow ups explaining what I mean. You are not interested in what I say you are really interested in getting me to say something that would allow you to more openly call me your names that you presupposed already and way before my answers. This is so dishonest Ted and combined with your whine for apologies is just purely hypocritical.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            My answer is to the first question is an unequivocal yes and my answer to the second question is an unequivocal no.

            Now, how about you try it? It's not that difficult.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            I gave my answers and I had them substantiated biblicaly too. I feel no need and no desire to submit to your expectations nor agenda. Your questions and your answers are too rudimentary and too misleading and not accounting for RIGHTEOUSNESS of Christ nor its IMPUTATION to redeemed.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            In order to determine whether I falsely accused you or not, it is not necessary for us to get into the righteous of Christ and its imputation to the redeemed (which you and I agree upon) nor into whether anyone is capable of keeping the law perfectly.

            Why don't you just admit it, you're being evasive. And because you have refused to directly answer two simple questions, you have given me no reason why I should think that you are not an antinomian.

            I tried to treat you decently; I was ready to make a public apology. But, enough is enough. I don't have time for your games.

            You need not answer this or my next answer; I won't be wasting any more time returning to see what it is. If you choose to finally be forthright with me, you can do on another page.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            "Why don't you just admit it, you're being evasive."

            Hahahaha because I do not want to box myself into your reductionist type questions? I gave plenty of concrete answers and just because I do not want to play your bickering games that does not validate your "evasive" charge mr. apology demanding yet insult throwing rhetorician. Here it is again for you in the simplest terms possible:

            Moses condemns. Christ redeems.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            I thought per chance you might apologize for your unnecessary and uncalled for nastiness, so I'll give you another chance.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            I don't think I was nasty Ted… I am very direct and blunt at times and I am that way purposefully. I think there is too much sissiness in the church which is largely feminized . It does not hurt to apologize so I do but your theology is still very troublesome on many levels while on others is orthodox.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            I accept your begrudging apology because it would appear it's the best I'll get. It would have spoken better of you had you simply humbled yourself and admitted you were out of line for playing God, judging my motives, and thereby falsely "accusing" me.

            Manliness does not justify the lack of civility.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            I do not "play" God Ted… That is an insult and you know it. It is amazing how your propensity to insult goes hand in hand with your demands for apologies…

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            It is not an insult but a perfectly justifiable interpretation of anyone who attempts to judge one's motives and thus one's heart, something only God Almighty can do.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Ted, asserting someone that he is a "God" is part and parcel of saying that he is a pagan. That is an insult which you feel justify to make… I do not care about your "heart" for I know that is a vain and empty exercise to try to understand it through cyberspace so stop being melodramatic and unrealistic. I care what you say in light of the faith once and for all delivered to the saints which is actually clearly, definitively and perspicuously presented in the Word of God.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            Then why dd you accuse one of my previous answers as coming from a hurting ego? Only God knows if this is true. In your responses to me and others, you often resort to judging people's motives instead of just responding the what's found in someone's submission. You really ought to be thanking me for pointing this out to you, that is, that, in so doing, you're "playing" God. And because you're not God and cannot know whether such heart judgments are correct or not, I may be also keeping you from more false accusations.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            'Then why dd you accuse one of my previous answers as coming from a hurting ego? "

            Because its plain to see that you have a big one and it drives a lot of what you do here. Besides that is not the same as accuse someone to be a pagan which is what you did in essence by implying to me "being like God"

            'udging people's motives instead of just responding the what's found in someone's submission"

            Nonsense. I always go after facts, quotes, references and real arguments. It can get personal at times by I always go after those things and I always ask for references to those facts. Stop your nonsensical and nonfactual smoke screen about anyone's heart here. It is entirely bogus and out of place. Facts, facts and facts.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            Oh, you don't!?! You've done it again in this reply: "…it's plain to see that you have a big one and it drives a lot of what you do here." Only Yahweh knows whether I have a big ego and whether my writings are driven by it. So, once again, as you so often do with nearly everyone you (usually caustically) respond to, you've once again usurped the place of God. And, this is not a judgment of your heart, but your own words – demonstrated time and again in your responses.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Listen miser I do not care what appears to you. Ego is not the same as your whimsical "heart" assertion. I have no interest in your personal bickering. You want to discuss theology I am up for it but do not try to seduce me into your personal games.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Humpty, you are such a hypocrite. If you are unable to show it, then simply admit you are once again making up lies about another.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            How is that baboon on you back?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            If there was one, it would be making a monkey out of you as well.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Tell us about your baboon legends…

          • myth buster

            The Bible doesn't teach that, though. If that were so, then the Anointing of the Sick, which Scripture commands for the forgiveness of the sins of the sick, is a dead work. The Bible is clear- to give life, faith must produce works.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            It is not dead work, it is absurd work.

          • Evermyrtle

            Prov. 26:4 is very apt for those who want to deny or to twist GOD'S WORD to suit themselves.

          • tbone

            There's more to Despeville than people give him credit for.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            :) Galatians 1:10

      • Vladimir

        I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. That makes you someone I will contend with. Your motives to do away with the U.S. Constitution are not biblical and to try and make them so to further your argument and your ministry is corrupt.

        You introduced your "ministry to destroy the U.S. Constitution" on this site. You are in pretty bad company, Ted; Obama, Alinsky, Cloward and Piven, Van Jones, and every socialist/communist/radical since Karl Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and many others.

        I took that oath long before I joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, so whether or not God inspired the Constitution is not relevant to my disgust with your actions regarding the Constitution. The Constitution is the document that allows you to preach your opinion without government intervention. And you revile it. Shame on you.

        • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

          Valdimir: "Your motives to do away with the U.S. Constitution are not biblical and to try and make them so to further your argument and your ministry is corrupt." Not only do you (and the entire Mormon Church) make a man-made document (excuse me, including the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, four documents) divinely inspired, you now claim to know my heart by judging my motives (something only God can do), thereby making yourself a god. Oh yeah, being you're Mormon that exactly what you believe you are!

          • keyboardshark

            If I might butt in here Ted, I'd like to ask you a question. I've read many of your posts which do indeed seem to revile our Constitution, but I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what it is you propose to do. My question is, what is your proposed solution to the 'problems' with the Constitution, in one, concise paragraph?

            BTW, I'm not a Mormon, so that is not an issue in my asking the question.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            It's a generational vision, which begins by convincing this generation of Christians that the Constitution is not the Christian or Biblical document they've been told it is and that, therefore, requires (like with Gideon of old) we repent of ours and our fathers' national idol. Because the Constitutional Republic is built on sand (Matthew 7), the day is coming when it will crumble. Consequently, we must also be doing everything we can to teach Christianity of Yahweh's perfect laws and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-9) that one day theirs, yours, and my progeny may one day be able to do things right(eous) and build a nation based upon Yahweh's morality as found in His moral law. Of course, there is much more to fleshing this all out and we are only at the very beginning of what will be a very long process, that is, unless speeded up by Yahweh's judgment.

          • keyboardshark

            Ted says: "Consequently, we must also be doing everything we can to teach Christianity of Yahweh's perfect laws and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-9) that one day theirs, yours, and my progeny may one day be able to do things right(eous) and build a nation based upon Yahweh's morality as found in His moral law."

            Sounds like what you are saying is that we need to faithfully teach the Bible to our children and anyone else who will listen. Sounds great to me. But shouldn't we be doing that regardless of what form of government we have, or what nation we live in?

            In other words, I agree with you on a conceptual basis, and I see that the Constitution does have its flaws, but since we are pretty much stuck with the form of government we have, I believe we can do more good by working with what we have, rather than simply bemoaning the fact that we live in an imperfect world. Granted, you did say there were more details to the plan, but simply following God's Word and working with the system we already have seems like a more practical approach.

          • Deep_Thinker

            That is the difference between a neocon conservative and an actual constitutionalist.

            Neocons say, here is our starting point, let's move forwards.

            Constitutionalists say here is where we should have been, let's get back to it.

            Our country was not founded upon a democracy, but a constitutional republic. We have gone far astray from our founding, and I for one want to go back to it, not accept where we are.

          • keyboardshark

            I didn't say "accept where we are", I said "following God's Word and working with the system we already have". I agree that we have drifted far from the founding principles. I was simply saying that we have to work with the system we have (a Constitutional Republic), meaning we should keep the Republic rather than attempting an overthrow or some other radical change in the form of government.

          • Deep_Thinker

            Can we catch a falling knife?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Some can, most shouldn't even try.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtmW-Qg3pAI

          • keyboardshark

            Ouch, don't try this at home!

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Dixon, I am hesitant to give that you but if you are into knifes…

            http://www.coldsteelknivesdirect.com

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I am not.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            Keyboard, you write, "we are pretty much stuck with the form of government we have."

            That sounds like what I'm sure many in the late 1700s thought before the War for Independence.

            You also wrote: "I believe we can do more good by working with what we have, rather than simply bemoaning the fact that we live in an imperfect world."

            Hmm! It's thinking like this that will certainly keep us right where were at (or worse to come), saltless, good for nothing but to be trampled under foot by the wicked (Matthew 5:13).

            Furthermore, there is no "working" with a seditious document that is antithetical, if not hostile, to Yahweh's morality and sovereignty in some fashion in nearly every article. I don't mean to be offensive, but you only go to prove the idol the Constitution is and the double-mindedness of most Christians today. Choose carefully whom you will serve: We the People or Yahweh! You cannot serve two opposing masters.

          • keyboardshark

            Ted says: "That sounds like what I'm sure many in the late 1700s thought before the War for Independence. "

            Not a comparable situation to today. The US at that time was a British colony, and had not yet been given the choice of a government. When the Revolutionary War had been fought and won, it was then that a Constitutional Republic was chosen. We are not starting from scratch today.

            "Hmm! It's thinking like this that will certainly keep us right where were at (or worse to come)…"
            Working with the system we have will make things worse? No, it's not the system that is the problem, it is the people within the system that is the problem. When the Bible loses its authority over the actions of its individual citizens, the whole nation suffers, regardless of the form of government.

            You seem to be arguing for a theocracy, and that is all well and good, as long as the recognized "god" is the God of the Bible. I would be entirely in favor of the Bible being the basis for all laws of the land. But what would happen if future rulers decided that Allah was actually the "god" that we needed to follow? Do you see the slippery slope a theocracy would pose? That is why we have a Constitutional Republic rather than a theocracy.

            "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance."
            Psalm 33:12

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            Immorality always begins in the heart of man, of course. However, otherwise moral men cannot produce a moral society with immoral laws, such as found in the U.S. Constitution.

            As for your statement regarding theocracy and that possibility of "rulers [deciding] that Allah [is] actually the 'god' that we [need] to follow." Under a government established upon Yahweh's law (including the First Commandment and Biblical qualifications for civil leadership) this couldn't happen.

            As I've pointed out to you on more than one occasion, there is no escaping theocracy. It's never a question of theocracy or no theocracy, but whose theocracy. So choose your theocracy carefully. Presently we're under the theocracy of WE THE PEOPLE.

          • Vladimir

            Ted R. Weiland, I thought you'd been schooled by this blog. We showed you that a theocracy is headed by God or in some people's mind a god. It is not headed by people. "WE THE PEOPLE" are people, Ted. The United States is a constitutional republic not a theocracy.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            Go away you antichrist Mormon! You not only cannot follow and purposefully ignore the logic I've provided to you on this on several occasions, you have no dog in this fight. First, surrender yourself to the Christ of the Bible and become a born from above genuine Christian, and then we'll have a foundation upon which to debate.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            He has got every dog in this fight, as does anyone who is a patriot and a concerned citizen of this Republic. Your desire is that the Constitution be overthrown. That makes you the problem, not Vlad.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            Jeff, you're right. Although, Vladimir has demonstrated here and on several other occasions that he cannot or refuses to follow logic and answer a specific line of reasoning, he does have a right to voice his opinion here. My apologies Vladimir.

          • keyboardshark

            Ted says: "Under a government established upon Yahweh's law (including the First Commandment and Biblical qualifications for civil leadership) this couldn't happen. "

            Sure, I agree it would be great to have a government like that, but it is unrealistic to expect when dealing with sinful mankind. The founders realized that one, very important fact–that mankind is sinful, and no matter who the current occupants of the government happen to be, or how godly they may appear, it is very dangerous to concentrate power in the hands of one or a small group of men. That is why the checks and balances are in place with the three branches of government–Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.

            Since God Himself cannot physically come down to earth and act as a direct ruler, you have to face the fact that any form of government, including a theocracy, has to rely upon sinful, fallen mankind to carry out the business of governing the people.

            Of course I'm not saying the present system is perfect, far from it. But if we institute a theocracy, then it will only be a matter of time until fallen man decides to place the wrong 'god' or philosophy at the head of the government, and then it will be no better than a dictatorship.

            You seem to believe that it is somehow possible to have a perfect form of government, staffed 100% by godly men. While I agree that would be wonderful, I can guarantee you, it ain't gonna happen, not on this side of eternity. Sounds like you are striving for some kind of paradise on earth. No thanks, I am content to wait until I make it to heaven. I will do all i can to improve things while I'm here, but unlike you, I am a realist, and I recognize that perfection is an unattainable goal.

          • Vladimir

            Common sense is alive and well and it's name is keyboardshark.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            Ted says: "Under a government established upon Yahweh's law (including the First Commandment and Biblical qualifications for civil leadership) this couldn't happen. "

            Keyboard says: "Sure, I agree it would be great to have a government like that, but it is unrealistic to expect when dealing with sinful mankind."

            This is exactly what the 17th-century Puritans did. Were they wrong in doing so. Of course, man is sinful and, therefore, we will never get it perfect. But what you're implying is that unregenerate man with man-made capricious laws can do a better job of running society than can regenerate man with Yahweh's immutable and perfect law and altogether righteous judgments. You obviously don't truly believe Psalm 19:7-11.

            As for you being a realist. No, that's just a cover for your constitutional idolatry.

          • Vladimir

            Ted R. Weiland, why do you keep telling people what they are implying? Nobody is implying that unregenerate man can run society better than regenerate man.

            You and your ministry can't guarantee that regenerate man will ever have the chance to put society back together once your predicted fall transpires. Another hole in your narrative.

            Your whole line of reasoning is bogus. Babbling mingled with scripture in a vain attempt to give it substance to fool Christians. Your brand of anti-Americanism is embarrassingly transparent. Your goal of destruction of our Constitution is pitiful and evil. Better report back to Soros that you've been outed and return his money.

          • keyboardshark

            Ted says: "This is exactly what the 17th-century Puritans did."

            Maybe so, but they were a very small group aligned with basically the same denomination. Today, we have a nations of hundreds of millions of citizens, whose religious beliefs and political opinions run the gamut.

            "But what you're implying is that unregenerate man with man-made capricious laws can do a better job of running society than can regenerate man with Yahweh's immutable and perfect law and altogether righteous judgments."

            No, I am not implying that at all. I am simply saying that a society run entirely by God's Law, or Yahweh's law, as you call it, is an unrealistic fantasy.

            You claim that I obviously don't believe Psalm 19:7-11. Let's read it to find out what it says:

            "7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.

            8 The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.

            9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.

            10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.

            11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward."

            These verses are speaking of God's perfect (sure, right, etc) law, what it accomplishes (converts the soul, makes wise the simple, rejoices the heart, etc.), how much we are to desire it (more than gold, honey, or the honeycomb), and what the end result will be if we keep it (great reward). But nowhere does it talk about what form of government would be needed to bring this about.

            I believe 100% that God's Law is perfect and beneficial to mankind, as spelled out in the verses above, but what I do not believe is that we will ever have a national government that even approaches God's standard of perfection.

            Call me an "idolater" if you wish, but I simply believe that a Constitutional Republic is the best form of government we have available to govern a nation, and that our founders were wise to choose such a form of government. I am not placing the Constitution above the authority of the Bible by any means, nor am I worshiping the Constitution in any way, shape or form as possessing divine qualities, so I am puzzled by your description of me as an "idolator".

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            Keyboard: "I simply believe that a Constitutional Republic is the best form of government we have available to govern a nation, and that our founders were wise to choose such a form of government."

            Despite the fact that there is hardly an article or amendment that is not antithetical, if not hostile, to Yahweh's morality and sovereignty in some fashion. That is double-minded idolatry. By default, you have resigned government to man and his capricious, immoral laws over Yahweh's immutable and perfect laws.

          • myth buster

            Awfully boastful of you, since you cannot even rightly divide the Scriptures. If you did, you'd submit yourself to the authority of your bishop. Would you call Ignatius of Antioch an idolator for proclaiming that Communion is nothing short of the Flesh and Blood of Christ?

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            A. Provide a quote and reference for your assertion about Ignatius.
            B.Provide the context for that quote.
            C. I hope you realize that Ignatius was not in fact a 13th apostle.

          • keyboardshark

            Ted says: "By default, you have resigned government to man and his capricious, immoral laws over Yahweh's immutable and perfect laws."

            I have never once argued in favor of laws that were contrary to God's Laws. Just the opposite.

            "When the Bible loses its authority over the actions of its individual citizens, the whole nation suffers, regardless of the form of government." (keyboardshark, 5 hours ago)

            "I believe 100% that God's Law is perfect and beneficial to mankind,…" (2 hours ago)

            " I would be entirely in favor of the Bible being the basis for all laws of the land." (5 hours ago)

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            Keyboard, I know you are sincere, but I'm afraid you are blind to your own double mindedness. In my opinion, like most Christians who promote or even tolerate the seditious Constitution against the God and King they claim to love, you are in the same position the Israelites were on Mount Carmel. You give lip service to Psalm 19:7-9 but obviously don't believe that it should be used as the only standard for all levels of society. If you did, you would be joining me in the battle in exposing our national idol that stands in the way of doing so in government.

          • keyboardshark

            OK Ted, I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. It's obvious that neither one of us is going to be changing our position any time soon.

            Only thing I still can't figure out is why you keep referring to the Constitution as an "idol". I am certainly not worshiping the Constitution in any way, shape or form or believing that it possesses divine qualities, nor do I know of anyone else who is 'idolizing' it in that manner, either. I suppose it is possible to "idolize" just about anything in a material sense, such as celebrities, money, or political figures, but I doubt the Constitution would qualify as a "national idol", which would imply that the majority consider it divine or sacred.

            What about the Declaration of Independence? Do you also consider that as an "idol" too? How about the Articles of Confederation? Or for that matter, any legal document? Just curious.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            Idols are more about statutes than they are about statues.

          • Vladimir

            Ted R. Weiland, I can't believe you said "SEDITIOUS CONSTITUTION". Do you have any idea of the meaning of your words? A definition of seditious is subversion of a constitution. You just said the CONSTITUTION SUBVERTS ITSELF! You have embarrassed yourself, yet again.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            Seditious against Yahweh. For some reason, I'm not surprised that you didn't get that – or did you, and you instead decided to divert attention from the real issue with a curve ball?

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Yahweh? How about the real one please YHVH.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            How about I leave you to use the name you believe is correct and you leave me to use the name I believe is correct.

          • myth buster

            If they denied that Communion was the Flesh and Blood of Christ and called that belief idolatry, then yes, they were wrong to pronounce the death penalty for being a Bible-believing Christian.

          • myth buster

            Has not, not cannot, for indeed He will come in glory. Be careful not to inadvertently deny the Second Coming.

          • keyboardshark

            When He comes again in glory, it will mark the beginning of the end of earth's existence and there will be no need for earthly government. The elect will be the first to leave.

            "29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

            30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

            31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.."
            Matthew 24

            "14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

            15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

            16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

            17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."
            1 Thessalonians 4

            "10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

            11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

            12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?"

            2 Peter 3

          • bighoss

            I'll take "WE THE PEOPLE over WE THE CHRISTIAN NATIONALIST THEOCRATIC DOMINIONIST nutjobs any day!

        • Deep_Thinker

          And don't forget Patrick Henry, George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Robert Yates, Lysander Spooner,Richard Henry Lee etc.. I'm pretty sure they were instrumental in our countries founding, and they didn't want a constitution or centralized power.

          I don't think Mao, Stalin etc have anything to do with our constitution, and I don't think Ted would head towards dictatorship. (Which centralizes power even more).

          • Vladimir

            Stalin said, "America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold:
            its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas,
            America will collapse from within."

            Ted R. Weiland is trying to pit our spiritual life against our patriotism. He sure wants America to collapse from within. But Mr. Weiland is very vague about what happens after the collapse.

            This is right out of Rules for Radicals. Alinsky and his followers organized their power bases without naming the end game. Only vague descriptions of peace, universal love, no poverty, etc. Weiland declares along those same non-specific lines, "allow a new generation to build a nation based on upon Yahweh's morality." Like Alinsky, Weiland has no specific plan he's willing to declare for that would pin him down and subject him to analysis. His true effort is the destruction of the Constitution and thus our society. Ted R. Weiland fits the radical profile to a T.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Of course he is vague. There has never been a society set up that runs as he expects this fantasy government of his to operate. He acknowledges this, but still expects it will someone function perfectly anyway. He cannot be specific, because he has no model to point to.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            Vladimir, I'm defending my God and King's law against all comers to the contrary – including the framers and including all antichrist Mormons such as yourself, who believe and teach that man-made documents are divinely inspired. If it was divinely inspired document, like the Bible, it would not need amendment. Even the framers didn't believed the Constitution was flawed:

            Barely one year after the Constitution’s ratification, James Madison, the “father of the Constitution,” declared: "[It is] the best that could be obtained from the jarring interests of the States…." (James Madison (2 October 1788), quoted in Gaillard Hunt, ed., The Writings of James Madison, 9 vols. (New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904) vol. 5, p. 298.)

            "I am not a member, if there be any such, who think the Constitution lately adopted a faultless work…." (Madison (2 November 1788), ibid., vol. 5, p. 298.)

            Upon signing the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin predicted it “can only end in Despotism”? (Benjamin Franklin, Ormond Seavey, ed., “Speech in the Constitutional Convention at the Conclusion of it Deliberations,” Autobiography and Other Writings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998) p. 350.)

          • Vladimir

            Ted R. Weiland, do you suppose that you can know the mind of God. Has He told you He didn't inspire the framers of the Constitution? I think not. So we can dispense with that source of information.

            You stated that if the Constitutiion was a divinely inspired document, like the Bible, it would not need amendment. Is that the best you can do? THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF MAKES PROVISION FOR AMENDMENT. What's so uninspired about that ??????

            Got any more dumb proofs that the U.S. Constitution was uninspired?

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            Let's see. was prohibition inspired by Yahweh or Amendment 21 which repealed it? And while we're at it, was polygamy inspired or its later repudiation? Was the prohibition against blacks in the temple inspired or their allowance therein, both of the latter being forced upon the Mormon church by the United States government?

          • Vladimir

            Go ahead and enlighten us with your knowledge of who and what God inspires. Just remember, His ways are not our ways. What we perceive as uninspired may not be. But obviously you know more than the rest of us. So enlighten us, already.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            By your standard for divine inspiration, I could be inspired!!!

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Just wait for couple of angles visiting you with a "new" revelation but then there is Galatians 1:8 and Galatians 5:12…

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            Amen!

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Would these be Acute, Obtuse, Reflex, Straight or Right angles, Humpty?

          • Vladimir

            Sorry, Ted, my standard for divine inspiration doesn't list you as a candidate. Besides, I can go to the Lord and get confirmation of what is inspired. So can all of God's children. All it takes is a sincere heart, real intent, and faith in Jesus Christ. You might try it sometime on your compaign to destroy the US. Constitution. By the way, "stupor of thought" is a no. Burning in your bosom is a yes. Prayer is the method. Have fun.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            What if your "burning in the bosom" and my "burning in the bosom" are confirming polar opposites?

            "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9

            I think I'll go with Jeremiah rather than Mormon nonsense.

          • Vladimir

            Diss my religion and you answer to God, diss my country and you answer to me and millions of other patriotic Americans. I think your "ministry" is flopping. Better find another hook.

            Reviling the U.S. Constitution while quoting scripture probably isn't the big money maker you originally hoped for. Unless, of course, your fellow radicals and Marxist, Soci alists have deep pockets.

            Are you really on assignment from George Soros? Did he ask you to infiltrate the Christian community and turn them against the Constitution? The radicals are infiltrating everything else, so why not? How's that working out for you? Making a lot of $$?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I think you are being overly charitable as to whether Ted would be head towards a dictatorship or not. True believers often resort to force when others do not fall into line with their views.

        • Evermyrtle

          Maybe you should contend with Obam, too He is doing more harm to it than anybody else is. There is barely enough left to call it the Constitution. He is tho one that i against America and the Constitution.

          • Vladimir

            I'll contend with Obama at the polls, as all patriotic Americans will in November.

      • myth buster

        Vlad has a point- by what authority do these men call themselves pastors? The same applies to you, Ted, if you claim to be a pastor, or to your pastor if you do not. Unless you are ordained by a validly ordained bishop, you cannot be a pastor, for one must be a presbyter in order to be a pastor.

        • tbone

          Says you myth buster. People are called by God Himself into the ministry. No recognition from man is necessary. For an example see any of the Pauline epistles. We must always test what we hear from anyone who claims to be a pastor with the Word of God.

        • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

          'Unless you are ordained by a validly ordained bishop, you cannot be a pastor"

          But how do you know if that bishop comes from "true apostolic succession" given that Rome had multiple popes at the same time each one with his own "the only true succession" going forward and each one anathematizing the other two or one? Not too mention popes removed as heretics or popes who bought the office with money or sex or blood…

          • Pastor Dwayne

            There are many "ordained " pastors that don't have a clue as to what the calling of the Lord to be a pastor is!!! All they can teach and preach is what they learned in some Bible college .

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            And all you have learned is from traditions of men…

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            All any Christian has learned is a tradition of Man. Men wrote the bible.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Tell us what you should know, i.e. your baboon legends…

    • Scott

      Vladimir, the choice is simple. Choose Mormonism and you are choosing hell. I know a few ex-Mormons who came to their senses but I don't expect you to because you are still in the brainwashed stage. How tight do your secret underwear feel and how about that secret handshake and God, the Father having sex with Mary? Do you really believe all this heresy? If you are Mormon then that is what you need to defend and leave the Constitution out of it because you have bigger fish to fry, so to speak. I hope you find your way out of "The Church" that believes that satan and Jesus are brothers.

      Doesn't it sound silly when you see it all laid out like this?

      God have mercy on your soul.

  • RevJim46

    How very sad. Perhaps if we look hard enough we will be able to find something wrong with every ministry and every pastor. If I'm not mistaken there are many out there who find fault with the Master himself. Attacks like this are not "policing" the church they are simply tearing down. They create a vacuum into which the enemies of God move. If you are at odds with another I believe the scriptures prescribe a method of dealing with it. But you got the attention you craved.

    • Vladimir

      If we don't police the plumbers because they are a lowly profession and we don't police philosophers because they are a lofty profession, neither our pipes or theories will hold water.

  • GuyMacher

    This man will have much to answer for to Jesus. After that he will meet Lucifer.

  • http://www.divinenewsnetwork.com Min. Thomas Allen

    I heard a sermon where he said the ten commandments were nailed to the cross. Ok so then we can rob and steel without remorse? What does Jesus say?

    Matt. 19:17, "…if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (KJV)

    We even see the God's remnant who leave these organized churches in the last days keeping the commandments:

    Rev 12:17; 14:22, "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." (KJV)

    So as he preaching false theology to his flock he is preaching against the words of Christ:

    Rev. 22:14, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." (KJV)

    He also failed to see that the 4th Commandment is also repeated in Acts…

    Ex. 20:11, "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." (KJV)

    Acts 14:14-16, "Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein: Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways." (KJV)

    Rev. 14:7, "Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." (KJV)

    We just need to pray for them.

    • Kalev

      Watch it there Thomas, you are telling the truth, which many here do not want you to do and you might get cyber-attacked by many of them. You might be accussed of being a Judaizer for wanting to keep the seventh day as the Sabbath as God directed "in the beginning". The Commandments weren't nailed to the Cross, your sins are by faith in the One that took those nails for you and me.

      • Kalev

        Romans 3:31, Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

        • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

          Your capacity and propensity for preposterous mutilation of biblical texts for the sake of your Jewish fables never ceases to amaze me. There is a context to that which you have and must disregard in your cutting out selective verses and phrases:

          'For we consider that a person is declared righteous by faith apart from the works of the law."
          ~ Romans 3:28

          • Kalev

            New American Standard, 1995 updated used as my personal study Bible.
            False charge liar.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Three rules:

            #1. Context
            #2.Context
            #3.Context

            No matter what translation you read you avoid this or abuse this at best…

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            One rule repeated three times is not three rules, Humpty. Are you in real estate? They repeat ad nauseam location, location, location. And we both know how you enjoy repeating yourself.

      • Kalev

        Romans 7:7, 7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except [e]through the Law;…

        • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

          Yes, the law was guardian and condemner. Moses brought a sentence death. Jesus brought a pardon of life and fulfillment of the law. Law is good because it comes from God but none besides Jesus is good or able to live it. None.

          • Kalev

            Fulfillment of the Law will be completed with His Second Coming, until then the Law of God, given to Moses in the desert by God, remains in force except Messiah Yeshua is our High Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, having paid the ultimate price for our sin debt, which the Law was never meant or given to do. The Law was given as the standard of righteous living by our loving Heavenly Father. Through faith in the Son the Holy Spirit is given to help us live that righteous standard, but if one doesn't study that standard one will never learn how to properly walk it out.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            ' help us live that righteous standard, "

            The trouble and hidden reality by the Jewish fables enthusiast is that NONE lives that righteous standard. None so stop lying and condemning yourself by putting yourself under Moses and not Jesus.

          • Kalev

            Hebrain perspective not Jewish fables. Not under Moses, walking with Yeshua and obeying the Father's Law and will as He did.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            What is "hebrain perspective"? Did you mean hybrid perspective?

          • Kalev

            Oops, big finger misspelling, meant Hebraic as in the Hebrews God led oit of the house of slavery in Egypt, God's chosen people (Jewish ones included) Israel.

          • Kalev

            Because "NONE" live it doesn't mean we should not try with all ones' mind, soul and might to live it.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            The Gospel and salvation accomplished by God and through God/man is not a matter of "trying" Caleb. It is a matter of accomplished certainty according to the will and choice of God.

          • Kalev

            Just because John Calvin thought up that stuff doesn't make it so. You place your faith in Calvin, not the Word of God and you'll have to answer for that one, one thousand years after Yeshua's Second Coming.

    • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

      Read Romans 7 and 3 to begin with…

    • Tyler

      Matt. 19:17, "…if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (KJV) NOT SO Jesus was saying you can not get into Heaven by keeping the commandments. Learn to read the context. Tyler

  • http://twitter.com/lambsev11 @lambsev11

    We need a whole lot more of Jesus (and the Holy Ghost) and a lot less "parson"alities.

  • http://twitter.com/lambsev11 @lambsev11

    Isn't the real mark of believers the signs and wonders that follow them?
    Mark 18:14-18
    1 Corinthians 2:4-5
    4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
    5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

  • http://twitter.com/lambsev11 @lambsev11

    Mark 18:14-18
    14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
    15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
    16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
    17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
    18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

  • Robert De Leon

    Protestantism
    There is a big paradox in the case of the protestant movement. Former Catholics from XVI century tried to reform the Catholic Church and in the end they reformed – and still are reforming – themselves. In the end they were only “deformers” as well.
    Now there are two kinds of Christian Protestants. Those who misguided by the heretic errors from Luther, Calvin, Zwinglio, Knox, Queen Elizabeth I et al, believe in the Bible as the “Word of the Lord” (Catholics believe the same) and believe that Jesus Christ is our Savior as well (Catholics believe the same). After almost five centuries these separated brethren do not have any blame, they follow a false doctrine ignoring precisely that it’s false. They should go back to the origins, read the Bible carefully and reasoning it. They have to stop saying: “Jesus said this but He meant…” They have to stop reducing the Bible to a 10 pages booklet. They have to stop interpreting by themselves all what the Bible says. The Word of the Lord it’s not a matter of interpretation. Otherwise no wonder there are thousands of “biblical and evangelical” churches.
    Aside of being heretic, protestant churches from XVI Century tried to divide Christ’s Body in several pieces, breaking the unity needed for survival.
    The second kind of Biblical and Evangelical persons are those that carry his/her Bible, think that he/she was illuminated by the Holy Spirit and declares himself/herself a “Pastor”. Invites several people to read the Bible and – eureka – we have a new “biblical church”. Thus – as I said before – just in America we can find more than 35,000 Christian, biblical and evangelical “churches”.
    So sad! What an offense to Almighty God!
    Our Catholic Church is the only one Religion founded by our Dear Lord Jesus Christ, God Himself and is rooted on the Bible The rest of religions were founded by men and therefore as imperfect as men.
    I invite you to make a deep – a very deep – study on Catholic Faith, her 20 centuries tradition and rich History and with God’s will protestant people will be back home. Do not hate the Catholic Faith, rather understand her, and just as Our Dear Lord said, love her.
    Robert.

    • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

      What a devious, nonsensical, nonfactual misrepresentation for gullible of uneducated. You must be of that kind DeMelon.
      You do not miss a chance to jump on a wagon of your papist propaganda every time some loon from leavanjellycalism is being exposed. You have not read A SINGLE THING from reformers beyond your cliche mini pamphlets rpdicuded by your spin doctors of falsehood so do not mumble about what you have no earthly idea and your blind, cultist obedience to Apostate "church" of Rome does not qualify your to offer anything beyond your religious canards…

      At least loons like Driscoll do not have in writing that they worship one and the same God as Muslims do which is what your ecumenist religious whore of Rome has and practices:

      'The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

      Point 841
      Catechism of Roman Whore: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

      How is your Allah "god" DeMelon?

      • Robert De Leon

        Protestantism
        There is a big paradox in the case of the protestant movement. Former Catholics from XVI century tried to reform the Catholic Church and in the end they reformed – and still are reforming – themselves. In the end they were only “deformers” as well.
        Now there are two kinds of Christian Protestants. Those who misguided by the heretic errors from Luther, Calvin, Zwinglio, Knox, Queen Elizabeth I et al, believe in the Bible as the “Word of the Lord” (Catholics believe the same) and believe that Jesus Christ is our Savior as well (Catholics believe the same). After almost five centuries these separated brethren do not have any blame, they follow a false doctrine ignoring precisely that it’s false. They should go back to the origins, read the Bible carefully and reasoning it. They have to stop saying: “Jesus said this but He meant…” They have to stop reducing the Bible to a 10 pages booklet. They have to stop interpreting by themselves all what the Bible says. The Word of the Lord it’s not a matter of interpretation. Otherwise no wonder there are thousands of “biblical and evangelical” churches.
        Aside of being heretic, protestant churches from XVI Century tried to divide Christ’s Body in several pieces, breaking the unity needed for survival.
        The second kind of Biblical and Evangelical persons are those that carry his/her Bible, think that he/she was illuminated by the Holy Spirit and declares himself/herself a “Pastor”. Invites several people to read the Bible and – eureka – we have a new “biblical church”. Thus – as I said before – just in America we can find more than 35,000 Christian, biblical and evangelical “churches”.
        So sad! What an offense to Almighty God!
        Our Catholic Church is the only one Religion founded by our Dear Lord Jesus Christ, God Himself and is rooted on the Bible The rest of religions were founded by men and therefore as imperfect as men.
        I invite you to make a deep – a very deep – study on Catholic Faith, her 20 centuries tradition and rich History and with God’s will protestant people will be back home. Do not hate the Catholic Faith, rather understand her, and just as Our Dear Lord said, love her.
        Robert.

        • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

          'The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

          Point 841
          Catechism of Roman Whore: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

          HOW IS YOU ALLAH 'god" WORSHIP WITH YOUR MUSLIM BROTHERS AND PARTAKERS IN YOUR ROMAN "salvation" DeMelon???

          Here is a VIDEO sample of your wicked, nefarious, demonic idolatry you practice in your apostasy church worldwide:
          http://youtu.be/A6Ian6oV5RQ

    • Arek

      They should go back to the origins, read the Bible carefully and reasoning it. They have to stop saying: “Jesus said this but He meant…”

      I couldn't agree more. Too bad catholics don't do that. If they did, then they would see how wrong, and far from the truth, that whole church is.

      Let's take something simple, just to keep this..well…simple. Jesus said, in several places, to keep the Commandments. Right? Right. The 4th Commandment (as written in the Bible, NOT the altered version of the catholic church) is to keep the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week.

      8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy (set apart);
      9 six days you shall labor and do all your work;
      10 and the seventh day is a Sabbath to YAHWEH your Elohim; you shall not do any work, you, and your son,
      and your daughter, your male slave and your slave-girl, and your livestock, and your stranger who is in your gates.
      11 For in six days YAHWEH made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all which is in them, and He rested on the
      seventh day; on account of this YAHWEH blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it.

      NOWHERE in the Bible is that changed, or ordered done away with. Yet the catholic church, by no authority other than what it CLAIMS to possess, "changed" it to the first day of the week. Sort of like we are warned about in Daniel 7:25, isn't it?

      And let's also not forget some of the outright blasphemies historically spouted by the catholic church. Such gems as:

      From the Catholic National:"The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ, Himself, hidden under the veil of flesh."

      From Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, 1545: "All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that he is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope."

      Or this one, from the New York Catechism: "The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth…by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth"

      And finally this one:"The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God…The Pope alone is called most holy…Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of hell. Moreover the superiority and the power of the Roman Pontiff by no means pertains only to heavenly things, but also earthly things, and to things under the earth, and even over the angels, whom he his greater than. So that if it were possible that the angels might err in the faith, or might think contrary to the faith,they could be judged and excommunicated by the Pope…the Pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief of kings, having plenitude of power."

      There are countless other quotes of this type that I could provide. The catholic church and its popes have been a veritable cornucopia of blasphemous drivel over the centuries. Defending this sort of insult to the very God they claim to serve would be an exercise in futility.

      No, Mr. De Leon, true faith is not to be found anywhere within the catholic church. That is easily proven, and undeniable. Follow your own advice. Open your Bible, read it, and pray for guidance. Don't try, as you said yourself, to interpret it. Just read what it says, it speaks for itself, and it speaks very plainly, for all to understand.

      • Kalev

        Well written Arek, YHVH bless you, aleikhem shalom brother.

        • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

          I do not think he is your brother Caleb…

          • Kalev

            Yes he is, he is a Sabbath keeper and knows my Elohim, I can tell. Using the Anglecized name of Kalev? Typical of a disobedient son.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Caleb I do not think he entertains the erroneous Pharisaic idea and pure whimsical imagination of actually perfectly obeying the law as you and the rest of Jewish fables enchanters.

    • far2right

      The mass is the sacrificial offering of the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ over and over and over again. However, the Scriptures plainly declare He was offered once (Heb 7:27; 9:28). And by that one offering were the sanctified ones perfected forever (Heb 10:14). There is absolutely no need for additional sacrifice. To believe otherwise is to reject Christ's once for all sacrifice.

      Your belief and practice of the mass is a complete repudiation and rejection of the true body and blood of Christ that actually saved all His sheep by His one singular sacrifice at the cross.

      Not only do you not worship the Lord Jesus Christ, you stand in utter opposition to Him and His Gospel.

      This core doctrine of the Roman church is most repugnant of all to me.

      There are dozens more points of heresies and blasphemies born of the corrupt minds and hearts of all popes, bishops and priests of the Roman church.

      These are so patently apparent upon a casual comparison of your church's dogma with plain Scripture.

      But the hellish, demonic dogma of the mass is why I in good conscience had to leave the religion of my birth and young adult life.

      It is a false and repulsive view of Christ's work of righteousness in the very greatest sense.

      The fact you do not readily see this is testimony to your blindness and hardness of heart. I urge you to repent and leave your false form of Roman worship.

      As far as your rant against "Protestantism", there really is little difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. You both hold to justification by the sinner's faith changing faith into a work. You only add additional works-sacraments on top of this heresy for justification before God.

      I truly hope that for all your works-religion you do not hear the words of the Lord, "I never knew you".

      • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

        Indeed to most of it and watch of DeMelon's inane response and assertion of "hate, hate, hate all I see in you is hate" pseudo response if he offers any at all.

        "As far as your rant against "Protestantism", there really is little difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. You both hold to justification by the sinner's faith changing faith into a work. You only add additional works-sacraments on top of this heresy for justification before God. "

        Nope, you do not understand Christian Faith as expounded by true and historic Protestant church and to see massive differences in justification which you for whatever reason blur and deny read here:

        "Justification

        The Contrast Between the Biblical Teaching and Roman Catholicism
        By William Webster

        LINK: http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/justificat

      • myth buster

        What did the Lord say? "This is the work that God requires: believe in the One He has sent." (John 6:29) Since Christ Himself refers to faith as a work, albeit not according to the Law, who are you to contradict Him? The Bible plainly states that Baptism saves us (1 Peter 3:21), and that the Anointing of the Sick accomplishes forgiveness of sins (James 5:14-15). These indeed are works, but the Bible proclaims they are efficacious. Communion most certainly is the Flesh and Blood of Christ; if it were not so, how could Paul condemn those who take Communion unworthily as "sinning against the Body and Blood of the Lord?" (1 Corinthians 11:27-29) And why did Jesus not explain His meaning when people began departing from Him because He declared that they must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood in order to have eternal life? (John 6)

        • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

          Synergistic and damning rubbish.

    • Kalev

      The Roman Catholic Church is Nimrod's Babylonian worship system resurrected, that's the true facts.

      • myth buster

        No, that's the slander of a con artist named Alberto Rivera.

        • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

          Nope, that is a logical and historical conclusion. You are too forgone in your Roman religion to observe even the simplest of clues and there is a lot of them.

    • http://www.kidon.com/media-link MalikTous

      The original points of argument seem to have been between Martin Luther and the Catholics, and include whether the eucharist are symbolic of Yeshua's death or actually 'trans-substantiate' on offering, and on the idea of rich folks being able to 'buy their way into heaven' with 'indulgences'. As I don't buy into that cosmology anyway, it looks like a rather silly argument to me and I'd rather stick to worshipping my ancestral gods while letting other peaceful worshippers follow their choices. From those early protests, Protestantism has proliferated into multiple flavours of christianity. If any of them would actually make a serious effort to acquire and teach a complete Bible (not the hacked edits of the Nicæan and Trent councils or of perverts like King James), we might have something worthy of a capital C Christianity…

      • myth buster

        There was no disagreement between Martin Luther and the Catholic Church as to whether or not Christ was actually present in the Eucharist.

    • vocalvarieties

      How do you get priests can't be married when the Apostle Peter, whom the Catholic church is supposed to be built upon, had a wife?

      • myth buster

        We indeed do have married priests. While they are quite rare in the Roman Rite, they are common in the Eastern Rites. We do, however, have a discipline that says that no clergyman can take a wife after he has been ordained, and it is rare in the Roman Rite for married men to be ordained as priests. Nevertheless, the same discipline applies to deacons. Furthermore, the Bible explicitly states that clergymen are not to be married more than once, and that celibacy is preferable to marriage. Thus, the discipline that clergy are not to take wives after being ordained has Biblical support.

        • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

          "and that celibacy is preferable to marriage."

          Paul stated that in a context and that context was his expectancy of immediate return of Christ during his and others lifetime with preceding it and expected oppression. That is why he advocated celibacy when possible. Go back to the Scriptures and read it that context is there. Furthermore, whole Roman sacrificial priesthood is illegal blasphemous contraption. There is only one Priest and one sacrificed offering at the same time Jesus Christ the Lord of Glory. Anyone else declaring himself a "vicar" of Christ or priest is a sad devilish impostor and that is exactly a description of every single Roman Catholic priest.

  • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

    Let me just say (and this will be rather unknown to the most folks here) that “Neo-Reformed” is not Reformed at all… If anything it is old counter reformation, Roman Jesuit inspired remonstrance and amyraldianism and having nothing to do with true Reformation and Apostolic Church.

    Furthermore, let us remember that Driscoll along with his coach James MacDonald gave an easy, lame and set up "pass" into broader leavenjellyclaism to TD Jakes a prosperity "gospel" pimp and sabellian modalist heretic ( http://bit.ly/II6oFG ).
    It is also Driscoll who blasphemes God the Holy Spirit by asserting that He gives him pornographic visions of other people sex as documented. He sees "things" —> http://bit.ly/JFuq2Q

    Finally, Driscoll's book: "Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship, and Life Together" as a testimony to his falling away and embracing chi ching over biblical truth and real pastorship.

  • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

    "a recent video in which Driscoll admits to stealing an audio board from another church in order to start his own “ministry”

    By the way this video is about Driscoll although sprinkled with few references to "Jesus" is really about Driscoll and another proof to his sheer onanistic self-aggrandizement and massive pride swollen ego which drives him off the cliff.

  • Wordman

    Apart from the ALLEGED "theft" of a soundboard from another ministry, I see nothing concrete to back up the charges made in this article. I know almost nothing about Driscoll. But if one is going to publicly accuse a Christian leader of doctrinal error and assorted sins, he should provide FACTS to back up his charges. This fellow has failed to do so. He needs to put up or shut up.

  • Winston

    Mark Driscoll has set himself us as a form of "Niclolaitan" which Jesus said he hates. A "pastor" is NOT a church authority but is a spiritual gift of teaching and shepherding a group of followers. But when his followers are following him (Driscoll or any pastor), they have denied the Truth of God and become man-followers…whis is apostate to Biblical Christianity. My wife and I recently left a church because the Pastor was proud to say he was a "follower of Rick Warren, Piper", etc.. I asked him if he had in essence compromised Biblical faith, and he got very red in the face and walked off … proving he was guilty.

    • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville
    • Kalev

      Any "Pastor" that compromises Biblical faith should be challenged like you did. The last Sunday Church I went to, over 4 years ago, had a "Pastor" that said he thought Benny Hinn was a good Bible teacher and his congregants should listen to Hinn. That was a secondary reason for leaving the Sunday Church. The primary reason was that I realized shortly before that that Sunday is not the Biblical Sabbath, Sunday is. The Roman Catholic Church admits they changed the day to the first day without Biblical authority.

      • Eric

        "Sunday is not the Biblical Sabbath, Sunday is"

        Uhh, yeah. No argument here! ;)

        • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

          Hahhahahahaha, sharp as usual Eric the sad truth is that this kind of nonsense is symptomatic for his Jewish myths making and Jewish genealogies assertions. I think this text speaks to that:

          "For there are many disobedient and vain talkers and deceivers of minds, chiefly they of the Circumcision,Whose mouths must be stopped, which subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre`s sake. One of themselves, even one of their own Prophets said, The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.This witness is true: wherefore convince them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith. And not taking heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men, that turn away from the truth. Unto the pure are all things pure, but unto them that are defiled, and unbelieving, isnothing pure, but even their minds and consciences are defiled. They profess that they know God, but by works they deny him, and are abominable and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate."

          ~ Titus 1:10-16

        • Winston

          Every day should be a day of worship in the life of a sincere Biblical Christian; it's just that the sabbath is set aside for a day of rest. We pay no attention to rules set up my men as that is interpreted as Nicolaitanism.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            Indeed and there is nothing more poisonous than Pharisees denouncing everyone as Nicolaitans while them themselves controlling their sects as Nicolatians do.

        • Kalev

          Oops again, meant Saturday is the Sabbath.

    • myth buster

      No, what you are describing is a prophet, not a pastor. A pastor must be a presbyter, and that means he must be ordained by a bishop, who in turn was ordained by a bishop and so on back to the Apostles.

      • Winston

        And what denominational "handbook" did you get that out of? Quote us the scripture which stands behind your post.

  • FleshProfitsNothing

    My OPINION? A Jesuit plant.

    • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

      Agreed.

    • myth buster

      Did Alberto Rivera tell you that? Just because Jack Chick buys into that stuff doesn't mean you have to.

      • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

        ;0 do you anjoy wrestling with your straw men? None of us even look at stuff on the level of Chick. Apparently you do…

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          Your god is fixated on the topic, Humpty.

  • Vladimir

    Dear Keyboardshark, thank you for getting Ted R. Weiland to state his true goals.

    Ted R. Weiland admitted that
    1. The U.S. Constitution is a national idol.
    2. Our Constitutional Republic is built on sand.
    3. Our Constitutional Republic will crumble.
    4. His teaching of Christianity of Yahweh's perfect laws will allow a new generation to build a nation based on upon Yahweh's morality.

    Saul Alinsky begins his "Rule for Radicals" by telling readers exactly what a radical is. He is not a reformer of the system but its would-be destroyer. In his own mind the radical is building his own kingdom, which to him is a kingdom of heaven on earth. Since a kingdom of heaven built by humans beings is a fantasy, an impossible dream, the radical's only real world efforts are those which are aimed at subverting the society he lives in. He is a nihilist.

    Pretty ingenious, Ted, modifying Saul Alinsky's formula to fit the Christian mind.

    • Deep_Thinker

      Vladimir:

      Is the constitution a contract?

      • Kalev

        In a way it is a social contract of sorts and it is meant to define and limit the reach and power of the Federal government, which both parties conveniently ignore when they think we are to ignorant to think for and care for ourselves.

        • Deep_Thinker

          If it is a "Social" contract, then how come I have to follow it under compulsion?

          There is nothing social about it. Did I ever sign it? NO.

          A contract must be voluntary, whereas I am somehow made a slave to a contract I didn't sign because I was born in a territory?

          Furthermore, the Lockean view says that a contract is null and void when violated.

          • http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville

            I think Kalev is now looking for his jaw…. :)

          • Vladimir

            It is my understanding that the Constitution is a document intended to limit the federal government's authority and power by enumerating what it could do and list specific things it was prohibited from doing. Everything else was reserved for the states or the people.

            You decide if it is a social contract. I see it as a huge protection for all Americans.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            It is the law of the land. It was agreed upon by the people who lived at the time. So are rules against murder and rape. Are you saying that if you did not agree not to rape, you are entitled to do that action? I understand it harms another, but you never agreed not to rape anyone in a written contract.

          • Deep_Thinker

            That has nothing to do with contracts, but with property rights. Rape and murder harm anothers personal property, their body.

            Of course, this depends on if you believe in natural rights. I for one do not believe that someone gives me a right.

            I suggest you read Lysander Spooner – Constitution of no authority.

    • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

      Vladimir, yes, I would rather have Yahweh's kingdom (His will and righteousness) here on earth (Matthew 6:10, 33) than one of your fictitious Mormon planets I rule as my own god!

      • Vladimir

        Any enemy of this country who wants do destroy what we have by stealth, has to first destroy the Constitution. You, Ted R. Weiland, are acting as an enemy of this country. I have no trouble warning all patriotic Americans that you are a fraud.

        You are a radical posing as a Christian. You have stated your motives and convicted yourself out of your own mouth. How much does George Soros contribute to your efforts. Any contributions from the Tides Foundation or the Open Society? I once accused you of teaching the word of God for filthy lucre. I was wrong, because you aren't teaching the word of God at all. You are simply an anti-American, enjoying the protection of this country while trying to destroy it.

        • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

          Vladimir, I've got a sneaking suspicion that not many Christians are going to be real concerned about the mad ravings of a Christ denying Mormon.

          "…There are no such things done as thou sayest, but thou feignest them out of thine own [deceived Mormon] heart." (Nehemiah 6:8)

          • Vladimir

            Ted R. Weiland, I have a feeling that after being exposed as an enemy of the American Constitution with a half bake fraudulent theology not too many are taking you seriously anymore.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            You might be surprised. For those inclined, you might find the radio interview Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America conducted with me on December 31, 2011 very interesting in this regard. You can listen to or download it from Gun Owner's of America's website at http://irnusaradio.com/our-programs/gunowners-new…. See the seventeenth entry from the top, entitled "Ted Weiland: Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution." Disregard my remarks if you're so inclined, but listen carefully to Mr. Pratt's.

          • Vladimir

            Why should I or anyone for that matter be interested in what Larry Pratt has to say? I've heard what you have to say and exposed your real agenda. Speak for yourself, Ted. Unless you've gone dry.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            I didn't anticipate you would be interested. My comment was not meant for you but for others who aren't closed-minded cult Mormons.

          • Vladimir

            Saul Alinsky's rule 12, eh Ted. You are sooo transparent.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            And you're pathetic!

          • Vladimir

            Maybe, Ted, but I nailed you, big time.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            "There are no such things done as thou sayest, but thou feignest them out of thine own heart." (Nehemiah 6:8)

          • Vladimir

            And you are wise in your own conceit.

          • Boru44

            I, for one, am not interested, Ted….. I think I speak for most of the non-brain-dead population.

          • bighoss

            Coming from someone who embraces a fully-baked and crusted over, ultra-fictional crackpot theology like Mormonism, that critique, whether or not accurate, lacks credibility.

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        If you thought the Civil War was a bloodbath, try implementing Ted's idea of a a theocracy in this country.

        • Vladimir

          A bloodbath would be exactly what Ted would want. Anything to weaken or destroy this country.

  • http://www.kidon.com/media-link MalikTous

    Cue up Boy George and Culture Club 'Church of the Poisoned Mind'

    I'd rather join the Church of the Subgenius than this ridiculous quack preacher, he's no better than Filthy Phelps WBC, Obama's pet racist Jeremiah Wrong, or that recent idiot who got taped promoting parental child abuse. Even Ron Hubbard and his pyramid scheme Scientology is less disgusting than Mars Hill 'Church'.

  • Ralph Davis

    I think this is an illustration why so many strict reformed/presbyterian or fundamentalist churches are so small. Driscoll was employed as a pastor at the Bible Church where he borrowed (using ordinary language) an unused (and surely small and inexpensive) sound board. As a pastor, I'm sure he had the authority (and even encouragement) to use things at his church for ministry–which he did. No theft was involved. There is no reason to believe that when his ministry was fully launched–no longer employed by the Bible Church, they purchased a better board, and returned the old sound board to its rightful owner.

    In casual conversation in contemporary English usage to say in an exaggerated way "I STOLE this truck from my work to move my mother's couch." does NOT mean that one actually didn't have a right to use something, just that it isn't in the normal use of it. (Trucks are often driven home, for example, in small businesses. Would the IRS approve? I have no idea…but since when is God a bean counter?) One would know this if you are engaged in the culture.

    If not, well sit in your little Church and minister to your little congregation, and have little impact for Christ upon the world.

    • Peter

      I have nothing more to add except that I completely agree with the above comment by Ralph Davis even though I do have some disagreements with parts of Mark Driscoll's publicly espoused theology.

    • frequencypropogation

      Since when does the size of a church have anything to do with it's faithfulness to God? Your argument is illogical.

      You obviously have not watched the video. Driscoll says after he casually mentions that he "stole" the sound board, that he "took" it. He is boasting that he stole from another church. It's more than exagerration, it's conceited hypocrisy.

      Keep believing in your magachurches having an "impact for Christ upon the world." The only impact I see is exactly what Paul speaks of in Romans 2:24 "For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, even as it is written".

    • skeezicks

      Wow Ralph, this comment is truly amazing. You condemn the blogger even though he is ONLY using the very words that Driscoll said (watch the video). Yet YOU somehow know that Driscoll gave back the sound board! And because you have convinced yourself in your own mind without any proof whatsoever – THAT makes it all right? Please!
      "But those things which proceed out of the mouth, come from the heart, and they defile the man.
      For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies,
      slanders." (Matt 15:18-19)
      I think that this is exactly what MHC wants you all to think. Driscoll is the anointed one and as so HE can do no wrong. He will be defended by his blind followers even when he is admitting outright theft and then he boasts to all his sheeple as if
      what he did was somehow commendable because he was "stealing" for Jesus. If you would have ever attended there
      and interacted with any of the members or community groups you would understand – it's all about "please us" not "Jesus".

  • Pastormike

    this blogger connects Driscoll with Marx? Seriously?

    dude, Driscoll is orthodox. sorry it makes you jealous. get over it.

    • frequencypropogation

      Driscoll is far from Orthodox. Orthodox Christianity does not use lies and manipulation to make a bunch of money and keep people enslaved to the State.

    • Shunamite

      Seriously!? What kind of response is that from a "supposed learned pastor"? Where is your theology? "Dude Theology" from The Big Lebowski? "Dude, This aggression will not stand man". So you have no problem with the fact that the guy steals and brags about it – in the name of GOD?

    • buenpastor

      Pastormike,
      He doesn't sound jealous to me. He sounds like he is concerned for the people that attend MHC that are following
      a "personality" and who should be Bereans by testing what they are being told by what scriptures says. I also find
      it interesting that you, Pastormike, focus on the bloggers statement about Marx yet are silent about Driscoll's admitted
      theft. If you are the pastor Mike from Mars Hill then shame on you…you are no better than the leader of your cult.

      "Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees" and "Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth my Father’s will which is in heaven" and in another place "Thou shalt not steal" "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and TEACH men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall observe and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven"

      At the very least you too should be able to see that Mark Driscoll is bragging and boastful about taking the sound board.
      Driscoll claims that God audibly called him to minister to young men. In this "ministry" to young men he is implicitly saying to them that it is justifiable to steal if you are stealing for Jesus. He is saying that Jesus winks at his theft because somehow it was for the greater good of Mark Driscoll's God anointed "it's all about Jesus" ministry. If you are in the "leadership" of MHC then you should have called him out to own up to his admitted sin. MHC is all about church discipline these days – why is the discipline not applicable even to Mark Driscoll? Last I checked stealing was sin just much as adultery or fornication is. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."

  • keyboardshark

    Jeff says: "Key, I realize you want to believe the bible…" DO believe the Bible would be a better description of my position than "want to believe". I know, picky, picky, but there is a difference.

    "The Constitution, for all of its flaws, offers protections to all of its citizens."
    I totally agree.

    "The government that Ted is describing would eliminate that."
    The government Ted is describing does not exist except in the mind of Ted.

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      "The government Ted is describing does not exist except in the mind of Ted."

      I completely agree.

    • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

      You're correct in so far that it doesn't exist because late 18th-century Christians compromised and most Christians have been compromising ever since, willing to settle for finite man's capricious laws over the Infinite's immutable laws.

      The government I'm promoting was not created in my mind but is found throughout the Scriptures, at least with those with eyes to see. Obviously, this should not be expected of atheists like Jeff or antichrist Mormons like Vladimir.

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        The government you believe will function perfectly has never existed. As such, your belief that it would function perfectly is only in your mind.

      • keyboardshark

        I think the problem is that we need to realize that a 'government' and 'laws' are two different things. Any particular form of government is simply a framework for determining how leadership and legislation will be structured and operate, whereas laws give specific details about what can or cannot be done, and penalties for breaking of those laws.

        The Constitution itself is a framework, and though the Amendments do spell out in more detail what ought to be done, they are mainly a protection for the citizen's rights against the power of the government. In other words, they spell out what the government should not do, rather than what the people should or should not do. EX:

        "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (First Amendment)

        It tells us what Congress may or may not do. Of course, now the courts have twisted the meaning so that it is used against the citizens to stifle religious expression, but I digress. The point is, that the Constitution is a framework that establishes how laws are created while protecting the rights of the people. It sets up a Legislative branch that creates laws, an Executive branch that can accept or veto those laws, and a Judiciary that decides whether those laws are Constitutional, but the Constitution itself is not synonymous with laws.

        • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

          Government and law cannot be separated. There is also no neutrality in government nor is there in the U.S. Constitution itself. A government is either based upon and directly promoting Yahweh's laws or it is antithetical and/or hostile to Yahweh's law. In "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" (a nearly 600 page hardback with a 30 page bibliography), I examine every article and amendment by Yahweh's law and by this immutable standard the Constitution falls flat on its face. It's yours for the asking. Go to my web page and via our contact button, provide me your name and address and I'll get a copy right off to you. Your personal information will be kept completely confidential.

          • keyboardshark

            Government and law can be separated. You can have laws against murder in a communist government and the same laws in a Constitutional Republic, for example. But I do agree that there is no pure neutrality in government nor the Constitution. When developing a framework that concerns how the government will be constructed and citizen's interactions with that government, there will always be a bias in one direction or the other.

            I appreciate your offer for the book, and I can see you are passionate about this topic, but in all honesty, I would not be likely to read a 600 page book as I have too much on my plate already, and since I do not agree with the initial premise upon which it is based, I would be even less likely to read it. If you have a condensed version I might consider looking at that.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            How about the 85 page "Primer"?

          • keyboardshark

            That I might consider if you give me the details on obtaining a copy.

          • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

            You can either go to the web site http://www.missiontoisrael.org and provide your information by taking our Constitution Survey in the right-hand side column or by providing it through our Contact button at the bottom of the Home Page. Looking forward to hearing from you.

  • Disgusted

    This bunch of BS just proves to me that anyone can use the Bible to "prove" any point one wants to "prove". I think you are all stuck on yourselves and are keeping your eyes off of God and are full of your own minds.

    No one is going to be saved with his intellectual mind. You've missed the whole point of the Bible, IMO.

    Now it's trying to say it's all right to steal. Is this what Zionica is all about?

    We are directed to avoid the very appearance of evil. Stealing is not of God. He wasn't using it, was he? He "appropriated" someone else's property.

    • Guest

      You are confused. The post points out that Driscoll thinks it is all right to steal – not Zionica. You could at least
      read and understand that!

  • Vladimir

    Ted R. Weiland, you are now reduced to trying to convince us you know when something is or isn't inspired of God by using your human reasoning. The same human reasoning you used to launch your "ministry to revile the U.S. Constitution".

    We've shown you on this blog that your end game is pie in the sky (a future generalion will build a Yahwah centered nation after the evil Constitutional Repubic is destroyed). Those who want to go through the death and destruction to get to your "paradise on earth" are few indeed.

    Your use of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals is a dead giveaway of your real allegiance. You seem to be most partial to rule 5 (ridicule is man’s most potent weapon) and 12 (pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it). Like Alinsky, you are determined to win disciples to your cause which is to destroy this country so you and your fellow radicals can take over. Your attempt to win Christians to your cause has now been exposed on this blog.

  • Robert

    not sure what to make of this article and/or MHC. i hear alot about people not joining up with church for this or that reason, but God said not to forsake the assembling of yourselves together as the manner of some was then and which obviously continues to this day. you see at church you get insulted by your own; wounded in the house of your friends, yet you still must forgive even as God also forgave you and does continuously daily. what people are really saying is forgiveness is too hard and so they avoid the issues that prompt such display/action as they occur in the church. it's hard to deal with other's sins let alone ours, but God did… and it does not come easy, which means we truly have to face up to our sinful actions as we live out our faith. people seem to have a hard time coming to grips with that within the body.