I'm not stupid enough to think I'm smart enough to set Jack up for anything. Actually, I am stupid enough, but am not going to attempt it regardless.



I was just wondering if you ever participated or believed in a sacramental faith. I suppose I could include Anglican and some forms of Lutherernism as well, but I don't count usually count these.

Forgive me father ... I miisspelled... 2 times

I honestly didnt think Nathan would set anyone up for anything... ever.

He puts me in mind of Adam... before the fall. I get the sense(honestly) that Jesus loves Nathan dearly.

When he asked that question ...He just reminded me of bygones ... and how much the board has changed.

Nathan, I think Obi misunderstood the intention of my comment.... and you are far from stupid. In the past the question that you asked was almost invariably a dead givaway. I knew your intentions were honorable and it struck me how a phrase/ question shifts with context.

BTW, to fill in the blanks, I was born and raised Roman Catholic for 30 years (altar boy, Catholic School, innumerable stations of the cross), Charismatic Catholic for ten of those years. Attended an Evangelical Anglican Church for 5 yrs... though I never went through the process of becoming an official member. For the last 25 yrs(give or take) I have attended an evangelical/ charismatic church ... The Vineyard Christian Fellowship. There are about 1500 congregations worldwide.

Fr. Kenobi, yes. So if the Pope makes an infallible statement which states something that every Christian knows, something that is self-evident, and is not denied by opponents -- then he won't be convicted of heresy, of course. Still he will be convicted -- "as a braggart". To repeat, Fourth Ecumenical Council stated the following:

he who of his own will without an opponent takes pride in an exposition in his own words would deservedly be convicted as a braggart

On another hand, if Pope makes an infallible statement in a situation when opponents exist -- then he will be convicted of negligence to rule established by the Apostles -- namely, that in such situation a Council should make an explanation, and not a single person -- be him Apostle or Pope. This was explained to the then Pope Vigilius by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, in the quotation that I provided here.

So papal infallible statements can never be accepted, because either the Pope just wants to become famous, to inscribe his name in history by stating something that is self-evident; or, when opponents exist and so an explanation of Faith is really needed, then, by issuing an explanation on his own, the Pope neglects the Apostolic rule of importance of Councils in such situations.

Not sacramental in the sense you would say it. I grew up Baptist which is about as non-sacramental as you can get. But my own views are a little more middle of the road but still fundamentally non-sacramental. I take what you call sacraments more seriously, I think, than my baptisticly oriented brethren. I did consider becoming Lutheran but couldn't get along on too many fundamental issues, and the sacraments were among them.

Isn't whether something is "self-evident" a matter of opinion? I mean no one denied the Assumption at the time it was defined by Pius XII and yet some Orthodox (reflexively?) denied it after the definition (at least according to Kallistos Ware).

Ec2, It seems that you are saying that it doesn't matter which denomination/church one belongs to. How do you reconcile this with John 4; Jesus & the Samaritan woman? The Samaritans had their own system of worshiping the same God as the Jews, they had a rival temple & their own scriptures somewhat different to that of the Jews ( sound familiar) & yet Jesus says :

" You Samaritans worship without knowledge , while we Jews worship with Knowledge, for salvation comes from the Jews."

What is important, Jesus goes on to explain, is that we worship God in spirit & truth. By necessity that entails belonging to & adhering to the teachings of the church He established, especially since the church He established is the fulfilment of Judaism.

Ec2 wrote:



Where you aware that Lonnie Frisbee is considered to be the "charismatic spark" behind the Vineyard movement & that he was a practising homosexual who died of aids?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_Frisbee

Your church has an interesting history.

Seriously? I would have expected this sort of innuendo from Katie Couric or Michael Moore.

If the following Biblical principle/ example had been adhered to by leadership in all expressions of Christianity... perhaps the last 50 years would have produced a better outcome for all of us.

An article in The Orange County Weekly, headlined "The First Jesus Freak," chronicles Frisbee's life, in which Matt Coker writes, "Chuck Smith Jr. says he was having lunch with Wimber one day when he asked how the pastor reconciled working with a known homosexual like Frisbee. Wimber asked how the younger Smith knew this. Smith said he’d received a call from a pastor who’d just heard a young man confess to having been in a six-month relationship with Frisbee. Wimber called Smith the next day to say he’d confronted Frisbee, who openly admitted to the affair and agreed to leave.

The Vineyard that I attend started and financially supports a ministry 15 yrs ago in Pattaya Thailand, (one of the centers of sex trade in the Pacific Rim), that ministry brings men and women out of the sex trade and deviant lifestyle and introduces them to the love of Christ/ teaches them a productive trade so that they can live a solid Christian life. I have been there several times and two of the people, my good friends, that now help administer the ministry were sex traffickers themselves. They now teach English to children all over Thailand. Our little congregation of about 200 has given millions of dollars and untold time and intercession/ prayer to such work all over the Pacific Rim during the past 40 years.

Ec2 wrote:



Frisbees homosexuality was an "open church secret" he was known for partying on Saturday night & preaching on Sunday. It's all in the link i posted previously.

Moral failure is everywhere to be found. Within every large institution & every small house church you will find moral failure. Clearly Vadim is taking this verse of scripture out of context in his attempt to attack the Catholic church, the only church which can claim to have God Himself as it's founder & which is the largest charity organisation in the world.

I'm going to turn this entire argument around.

GK Chesterton is often quoted as saying that 'the best argument against Christianity is Christians.'

I think we can all concede the truth of that fact.

But he followed that up by saying that the best argument for Christianity is the lives of the saints.

I dare say that no other Christian ecclesial body, not even the Orthodox Churches of the east, has produced the great saints that have been produced by the Catholic Church, men like St Francis of Assisi, Father Damien, Maximilian Kolbe, or Mother Theresa.

Pray tell, who is the Protestant or Orthodox equivalent of Mother Theresa? I dare assert that there isn't one.

Apparently not to John Wimber ...who, upon swift verification, immediately accepted his resignation. (It's all in the link that you posted previously) ...and Wimber's adherence to Biblical principle in a crisis supports the point and focus of my input into the discussion. He exercised the kind of decisive leadership that refuses to allow a good old boy system or political games. Precisely what the people I described are looking for.

Props for doubling down on the cherry picking/ innuendo thing though.
What is it ... a year or so since we've talked. You havent changed a bit.

Ec2 wrote:




No, I haven't changed, still serving up the truth even when it's not nice. But seriously Ec2, you don't need to justify your choice of man made religion to me. If you want to entrust your soul to a mere man whose ministry was highly influenced by the likes of Frisbee, a drug using, occult practising, active homosexual who died of aids that's your business but please don't come here waving the big stick at the failure of large institutions when the origin of your church is so marvellously flawed.

Wimber took decisive action once the wider church community got to know about Frisbee ,.....hmmmm talk about cherry picking. But whether or not you accept this as fact is beside the point. Frisbee, whether you like it or not , was the "charismatic spark" behind your church. That is troubling enough in itself.

Previous Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia Alexy II (not an "equivalent", because we don't consider people who were outside of the Church to be saint). He is on my avatar. Roman Catholic author Angelica Carpifave wrote a book of her conversations with him. In the foreword to this book she had quoted words of condolence which were said to her on occasion of death of Alexy II, and had confirmed these words as being fully correct:

"You loved His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II as if he was your own father, and revered him as a saint."

This is his visit to Jerusalem and conversation with Patriarch of Jerusalem Diodorus.

A half truth from one site, a half truth from another obviously hostile source ... and there you have it... whole truth!


Here, add this to your list of those that destroyed their credibility by your acid test:
Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!"

Here is a list of some saints canonized by Russian Orthodox Church:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_saints

I am sure I could find plenty more. This article is dated 1991. http://www.religionnewsblog.com/16929/m ... misconduct

Vineyard Columbus welcomes back Pastor Steve Robbins who takes advantage of women he is counseling.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories ... ffair.html

"takes"or "took"?

Good catch. Took. I suppose I have the common habit of associating people with their sin when it is a more serious offense.

The point is simple. Vineyard church is no exception. We can find tons of sinfulness in Protestant churches. Mankind is sinful. Mankind has a particular problem with sexual sins. No group is immune. There are men in every walk of life and every church group who commit sins, some of a lesser or greater nature. I don't see how that reflects on a given religion in regards to its theology or authenticity. Does Catholicism teach that we should be like Mother Theresa or some lowlife child abuser?