Open Blogging

You may also like...

99 Responses

  1. Duane Arnold says:

    “The faith to which we are called will always be folly and scandal to the world, it cannot be in the usual sense of the word popular; it is a supernatural faith and it cannot adapt itself to every passing fashion of human thought. But it will be a faith alert to distinguish what is shaken, and is meant to go, and what is not shaken and is meant to remain. When men today tell us that they revere Jesus but find God or theism without meaning it sometimes is that the image of God as we Christians in our practice present it is the image of a God of religious concerns but not of compassion for all human life, and it is just not recognisable as the God and Father of Jesus Christ. So too when men reject theism it sometimes means that they cannot accept in this shaken world any easy, facile assumption that the universe has a plan, a centre, a purpose. It is for us Christians to be sure that our faith is no facile assumption but a costly conviction that in Christ crucified and risen, in suffering and victorious love and in no other way, there is a plan, a centre, a purpose. In dying to live, in losing life so as to find it – there is the place where divine sovereignty is found and theism has meaning and vindication. … Faith means standing near to the Cross in the heart of the contemporary world, and not only standing but acting. Our faith will be tested in our actions, not least in our actions concerning peace, concerning race, concerning poverty. Faith is a costly certainty, but no easy security as our God is blazing fire.”

    +Michael Ramsey

  2. bob1 says:

    Great quote, Duane.

    Is it from one of Ramsey’s books?

  3. Duane Arnold says:


    Many thanks! It’s from one of his addresses to the bishops at a Lambeth Conference. Found it in my papers…

  4. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    I think Ramsey has nailed the reason the church is shrinking in America. Folks aren’t willing to keep up the commitment. When they entered, they thought the faith to be a “facile assumption” and later found it to be a “costly conviction” and they bail.

    The culture has picked up on this and constantly challenges Christians with an “easier way” – but the road / gate are narrow.

  5. Duane Arnold says:

    “Faith is a costly certainty, but no easy security as our God is blazing fire.”

    Great last sentence…

  6. Em says:

    This is the only Christian life focused website that i visit… until last week when i visited a prayer request website on another site… Everyone (almost) here on the Phx Preacher site is concerned about the Faith with more depth and understanding than most i suspect…
    Are we, the churches, setting up the conditions for the acceptance of the final anti-christ? It looks like it from here? Dunno – don’t know whether to hope yay or nay. ?

  7. Jean says:

    The folly and the scandal are Christ crucified for sinners.

    The object of faith is Christ crucified for you.

    Faith means trusting that God your Father has forgiven you all your sins, apart from works of the Law (including the law of love), for the sake of His only begotten Son who gave himself for you as a ransom for your sins.

  8. Michael says:


    That’s one way to define faith.
    There are others.

  9. Eric says:

    Where I live it got to 47 degrees (117F) on Thursday, a new record. Everyone on Facebook talking about the heat, which is easier reading than what is usually there.

  10. Jean says:

    Eric, if you wouldn’t mind sharing a little of your heat, we were knee-knocking – 6F here today.

  11. Em says:

    The world sees Jesus Christ as just another human, an example of a good man in life and a deluded fool in death
    They are blind and i believe it is wilful … No one who has ever lived will come before God and say, “well i would have believed, but You tricked me!”
    Faith? That is just another word for what you believe, but can’t prove.
    Soul saving faith can only occur when the heart is humble and pride is in the dust. There maybe pride in one’s convictions, but that doesn’t validate them… errr… something … ?

  12. Michael says:

    I’ll take some of that for an hour or so…

  13. Jean says:


    “They are blind and i believe it is wilful”

    Yes! That is what it means to have Satan as one’s father. Or to use a metaphor: “people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.”

    What are **we** to do? We can’t do anything. Why? Because we are captives of a strong man, unless and until a stronger Man comes along and first binds the strong man and then plunders his house. In Baptism Jesus, the stronger Man, makes us His plunder. A pearl of great price; paid for with the blood of Jesus. Praise the Lord!

  14. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    You can read all about Jesus binding Satan and plundering his goods (we are the plunder) in Matthew 12 – a present tense to Jesus’ actions in the pericope.
    In baptism Jesus says “Mine!” – In baptism, Jesus doesn’t allow us to use our will – in baptism Jesus converts our will.

  15. Michael says:

    Matthew 12 doesn’t mention baptism…

  16. Duane Arnold says:

    MLD and Jean

    All Christian doctrine cannot be reduced to a Lutheran paradigm…. sorry, but that’s just the way it is.

  17. Em says:

    If one concedes that there is a baptism of the Holy Spirit, i.e., a spirit baptism as a separate and apart occurrence from the water baptism, one doesn’t view the water baptism as what saves. Rather, water baptism is seen as an act of obedience which should signify allegiance and submission… But then some (most here?) don’t see it that way… ?. So?
    Just sayin’

  18. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Michael – I started a new paragraph. The baptism is the method used to plunder.

  19. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Duane, can you tell me what was particularly Lutheran about our use of binding Satan? If Anglicans don’t believe that line of thinking it in no way diminishes that what we laid out is common Christian thought.

    Actually your comments are quite rude. Your constant quoting of Ramsey do not bring forth charges of Anglican exclusivity from us. Why do you feel so compelled to level such charges in our direction?

  20. Jean says:


    “If one concedes that there is a baptism of the Holy Spirit, i.e., a spirit baptism as a separate and apart occurrence from the water baptism, one doesn’t view the water baptism as what saves.”

    If one thinks there are two baptisms, then one can’t confess either the Nicene Creed or Eph. 4:5.

  21. Michael says:

    “If one thinks there are two baptisms, then one can’t confess either the Nicene Creed or Eph. 4:5.”

    Here’s the deal.
    For most of my Christian life I was committed to the Reformed expression of the faith.
    For the first few years here I argued constantly and dogmatically from that position.
    The last few years I tried to preface those discussions with “in my tradition”…because there were other traditions here and I wanted to show them the respect they deserved.
    Now, I’m an Anglican and appreciate all the expressions of the faith with the approval of my bishop, my teachers and my church.
    I no longer have the stomach for dogmatic proclamations uttered by people who act as if they just returned from Sinai.
    If you Lutherans want to engage with some humility and grace then by all means, share what your tradition believes….understanding that most of us aren’t Lutherans, nor have any intention of being such.
    If you’re angling for debate or proselytizing, go hang out with Gene Veith…

  22. Michael says:

    My departure from the Reformed had far more to do with heart than theology.
    We thought we were the chosen ones…everyone else was either apostate or stupid…except Lutherans, who we liked despite the fact that they held us in contempt for the most part.
    The arrogance and the coldness made me question the theology that created such.
    I still have much respect for some in that tradition and no little regard for the theology…but arrogance and a superior attitude cannot coexist with the Spirit…

  23. Michael says:

    I wanted a heart like Xenia…who my tribe called a purveyor of a “false gospel”.
    I recognized the Holy Spirit in her even though I couldn’t fathom the theology.

    That’s what I hope people say about me someday…even if they don’t think I’m a doctrinal whiz anymore…

  24. Em says:

    i am not bothered by the Lute’s proclamations here… in fact, i find great truth and logic in a spirit baptism separate and apart from the water baptism and the folks who’ve followed this teaching in the past have been some of the most God-fearing, kind people i’ve known … but perhaps i should bow out because i don’t want to cause anyone here to doubt their grasp of The Faith … 🙂

  25. Michael says:


    I like big tents, but we all have to share the stage with respect.
    I don’t have to agree with your theology to honor you as a child of God and a precious sister in the faith.
    The object of our faith is Jesus…not necessarily in doctrines around Him…

  26. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Michael, this is so funny. Every time we opine about something, you play the “that’s Lutheran doctrine etc,” – but anytime I say you teach, write etc from strict Anglican point of view, you feign some form of neutrality stating “there is not strict Anglican doctrine.” Please, let’s at least be honest with each other about our biases.
    There are very few things I discuss that are held by Lutherans alone. What I said about the binding of Satan is held by dozens of denominations – hence charges such as those leveled by Duane are false.

    One other thing, when I make any of my statements I don’t say you need to believe it.

    Nice swipe at Gene Veith, a gentle, non confrontational man.

  27. Michael says:


    It’s not funny at all.
    I’m tired of having my dinners interrupted, my time schooling Trey interrupted, and the general felicity of my life interrupted, by people tired of you and Jean turning everything into “Issues Etc”.
    I’ve tried to be gracious, I’ve tried being stern, I’ve tried reason…to no avail.
    There is no “Anglican” point of view on anything but the Book of Common Prayer.
    Dr. Packer is very Reformed, Duane is Anglo Catholic, and I’m sampling from the full buffet. There are Lutheran and Orthodox leaning Anglicans and evangelical ones as well.
    None would have the temerity to claim their doctrine as the “only” Anglican expression.
    If there are dozens of sects that believe that God binds the strongman through baptism…then I missed that boat completely.
    You guys can choose to play nice in the sandbox or you can force my hand.
    I hope you know me better than that by now…

  28. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Going back to my statement at 4:54pm, can you tell me what was troubling, what was Issues etcish about it?
    Obviously something there rattled you and Duane – I don’t see what it was other than me making a statement on something Jean said.

    Earlier I said Ramsey made a good point that I linked to why the American Church is shrinking.

  29. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    See, you are so blinded to my comments. I did not say that Jesus binds through baptism. I said he claims his plunder (us) through baptism.
    Read it again and you will see. I do admit some here do not see any efficacy in baptism and they can hold that position – but both positions can’t be right. Perhaps I am wrong.

  30. bob1 says:

    Gene Veith? Good Lord.

    He’s just to the Right of Attila the Hun…

  31. I consider myself a nobody here. My 2.5 years of Lutheran school from 4th-6th grade wasn’t enough to dive deeply, despite religion period. I still don’t understand the concept of baptism from that perspective, as if it saves apart from preaching The Gospel. I recall my mother, raised Dutch Reformed, but later embracing The Jesus People evangelicalism, telling me that she baptized aborted babies as a nurse briefly working in an abortion clinic. If baptism has nothing to do with will, then why preach the Gospel?

    Maybe I should find this answer offline…

  32. Jean says:

    New Victor,

    “Maybe I should find this answer offline…”

    I would answer, but I anger Michael, as we’ve seen, which I don’t want to do. So, an offline inquiry may be best. If I listed Scripture, someone will accuse me of proof texting. If I summarize Scripture, I will be accused of being disrespectful.

  33. Michael says:


    This isn’t that difficult.
    If someone wants to know what the Lutheran perspective is, then they are ringing your bell.
    Otherwise, a simple acknowledgement that you are speaking from one tradition among many is all I’m looking for.
    We can share different perspectives with grace and humility.

  34. Jean says:


    I appreciate your grace here. The thing is, it is not my desire to draw attention to, or place on a pedestal, me or my tradition. (Not that I’m ashamed of it, and all the regulars know what it is.) Furthermore, I do not want to bore anyone with my opinions; who am I?

    My aim is to shine the light of the Word of God on a topic or question.

    So, for example, if on the topic of the number of baptisms, I point out that under the Nicene Creed, “
sins,” or Ephesians Chapter 4, “There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism,” my endeavor is not to give an opinion or tradition, but just the words “one.”

    Can one confess the “one” baptism, if we separate water baptism and Spirit baptism into two?

    My humility is in submission to the Scriptures and the rules of conduct on your blog. My honoring of Em, you and everyone here is manifested by not putting myself forward as anything, but putting Christ and His Word forward. Not to debate or proselytize, but to give God’s Light to all readers, this divine Light that gives life to mankind.

    Would it be kind, loving or honoring to someone, who in a given case may write anything mistaken from the Scriptures, to just leave them in their error, and perhaps have other people brought into error through reading the original thought? Can we find a way to correct those issues without causing a firestorm every time? I certainly do not want to be the source of any problems.

  35. Duane Arnold says:


    Perhaps it is enough to say that you have not “cornered the market” on either the Word of God, or its interpretation, or application…

  36. Michael says:

    “My aim is to shine the light of the Word of God on a topic or question.”
    Your aim is to shine a distinctly Lutheran interpretation of the Scriptures on topics and questions.
    I have no big issue with that as long as it’s understood that Lutheran theology is one theology among many and may or may not be what God intended to communicate.

    In regard to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, those who hold to a separate experience have their own scholars and scholarship that they believe can make a congruent case for the doctrine.

    Your submission is to a Lutheran interpretation of the scriptures and the confession of your tradition.
    I have no issue with that…as long as we understand again that it’s one tradition among many.

    As to correcting error…I think you’re in error on a number of things and I’m sure you feel likewise about me.
    I don’t worry about it…I believe your confession of Christ and that is sufficient.

  37. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Michael – I agree with you when you say “as long as it’s understood that Lutheran theology is one theology among many and may or may not be what God intended to communicate.”

    However, is it up to me and Jean to disclose this every time we comment or is it up to the reader to be able to discern? The reason I ask is that everyone knows that I speak from a Lutheran view, people argue against that Lutheran perspective even to the point of disturbing your dinner – so why would I need to identify my position and then slight my own position by disclosing it may not be correct?

    I didn’t see a disclaimer on the Ramsey quote above stating that this was his point of view alone and may not be what God wanted to communicate.

  38. Michael says:


    There is no way in hell I should be having to continue this discussion.

    I own the freaking blog and have had no problem prefacing my comments with “in my tradition” or “in my opinion”…anything that reflects the reality that there are multiple traditions here and if I choose to participate here then I really shouldn’t act as if God handed me the tablets and interpretation.

    You and Jean frame everything as if you’re the last living defenders of “the Word of God”…and that’s a steaming crock of mess.

    You are both able defenders of your tradition…which may or may not be what God intended to communicate.

  39. Xenia says:

    I usually preface some of my comments with “In Ortholandia, we believe/ do thus and so.”

    Now, I actually believe it’s 100 percent correct, what we say and do in Ortholandia. I think you all know that by now. However, I’m interested in having meaningful conversations here, with some back and forth. If I said “This is the Gospel truth, listen and be saved!” that’s the end of the conversation. I want to preserve the conversation. If someone says something blatantly heretical, I’ll say so. If I want to discuss the correct Orthodox opinion on a certain topic, there’s plenty of EO message boards where I can hash it out. But here, I want to share my experiences with Christ with other folks who love Him, not convert anyone to Eastern Orthodoxy, (although if anyone is interested I am happy to talk to you. 🙂 )

    I have learned a lot from MLD over the years. Probably not the lessons he intended me to absorb, but good stuff nonetheless.

    I’ve learned good stuff from all of you. Not theology lessons, most of the time, but other things.

  40. Michael says:

    “I want to preserve the conversation.”
    Those were the words I was looking for…

  41. Duane Arnold says:

    Yes, I quote Ramsey… and John Henry Newman… and John Meyendorf… and Larry Norman… and Augustine… and Luther… and Francis Schaeffer… and James Atkinson… and CFD Moule…. and Kingsely Barrett… and CS Lewis… and…

    I see them as being in conversation with each other and us…

  42. Nathan Priddis says:

    Why is it important what the Lutheran view on binding is? Satan is not bound. If the same view is held by 2 or 6 or 14 other groups, it doesn’t matter, he still is not nound. Its irrelevant what group a or group b holds in regards to this or that idea. Something either is or its not true.

  43. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Nathan, you are breaking the rules of conversation here.
    1.) You cannot say that something is true or it is not. Binary answers are not allowed.
    2.) You must identify where your position originates and it is only the position of your tribe.
    3.) You must state that your position may be wrong.

    Have you read the Matthew 12 passage? It sounds pretty straight forward to me. Jesus is questioned on what authority he casts out demons. He says he is able to do so because he has bound the strongman (Satan – or I guess it could be Schwarzenegger). Anyway, he is saying that he is present tense casting out demons because the strongman has present tense been bound.
    If Satan has not been bound, then none of his goodies (us) have been plundered (rescued / saved)
    Those who don’t think Satan has been bound are usually the premillenial dispensationalists.

    *** this is my view – I may be wrong and this may not be what God wanted to communicate ***

  44. Jean says:

    Hi Nathan,

    “Satan is not bound.”

    I would concur with the the late Anglican scholar, R. T. France, who in his commentary on Matthew 12 wrote:

    “The robbing of the strong man recalls the imagery of [OT cit. omit.], where it symbolizes God’s rescue of his people from their oppressors. This little parable is left uninterpreted, but the context in which it is set leaves little doubt of its meaning for Matthew. Jesus’ exorcisms, far from being in collusion with Satan, are a direct assault on his ‘possessions’; his ‘kingdom’ is under attack.

    The ‘strength of Satan as the ‘god of this world’ [NT cit. omit.], is acknowledged [NT cit. omit.], but now at least he has met his match. Jesus has ‘tied him up’ and so is now free to appropriate his possessions – or, in the imagery of [OT cit. omit.], to release his captives.”

    I hope this helps.

  45. Michael says:


    Simply coming on and declaring someone wrong is pointless.
    Present your case, engage with those who disagree, and perhaps we all will be edified.

  46. pstrmike says:

    This thread has been an interesting read. What’s funny is I do not feel like I have a dog in this fight, so I had to restrain from telling all of you how unimportant this conversation is in the grand scheme of things. Admittedly, I would have felt differently if I felt like I had some skin in the game. Everyone works out their own salvation as they see fit.

    I think we too often miss the value of what this community can bring into our lives. Michael said it well:

    “Simply coming on and declaring someone wrong is pointless. Present your case, engage with those who disagree, and perhaps we all will be edified.”

    There have been times when we actually had some good dialogue here, and with the various views that are represented, this forum can be a great resource to us all if . . . we hold to some sense of self restraint and humility.

    Everyone here speaks the truth—as they understand it. This doesn’t mean it is truth, but if it has been incorporated into some system of the Christian faith, it does at least deserve some form of irenic reception. I’ve had to learn this the hard way in dealing with my former tribe, in giving them credit for being, if nothing else, one of the instruments that formed me to who I am today.

    Debate these things vigorously, intelligently, and with a spirit of charity. Don’t try to convert someone, that’s above your pay grade anyway. That’s what benefits us all.

    If all goes well, I will be awarded my third advanced degree next month. I’ve been a part of this community for many years. Some of the good dialogues were part of what motivated me to pursue advanced theological education, and to that end, I am grateful for many of you.

  47. Michael says:

    There is paradox here.
    While we read about Jesus binding the strongman we also read this;
    “Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”
    (1 Peter 5:8 ESV)

    Any satisfactory answer has to consider both perspectives…the answer will be nuanced and maintain a bit of mystery.

  48. Michael says:

    Well said, pstrmike…

  49. Duane Arnold says:



  50. Em says:

    Seldom can i say that someone’s take on The Faith is wrong (even if i think it is. ? ). For the record, even tho i don’t see one’s salvation depending on water baptism, i do see it as volitional. To not submit in obedience is serious, perhaps even hindering our spiritual growth….

    That said, i am a bit of a problem here i know as i am unable to give anyone’s interpretation the final say. Not Calvin not Luther….
    It seems to me that, after Peter and Paul left, we’ve floundered a bit with the details… However, God indeed does judge hearts, not I.Q.s…. Of that i’m pretty certain. So?
    So we should never forget that our hearts are deceitful … wicked, even – always be ready to learn and grow, neither open or closed minds, but prayerful and Spirit controlled…
    Too vague? Too esotsric? Nah ?
    God keep

  51. Jean says:

    “Any satisfactory answer has to consider both perspectives…the answer will be nuanced and maintain a bit of mystery.”

    I will take a shot, and invite responses:

    Jesus brings light which overcomes darkness, life which overcomes death, holiness which overcomes uncleanness, order which overcomes chaos, and goodness which overcomes evil. His presence and the presence of the Spirit accomplish all those things in those who believe in Jesus. “Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?” If the Spirit dwells in you, then Satan has been cast out. The Spirit is promised in Baptism according to, among many other passages, Acts Two, Thirty-Eight and Twenty-Two, Sixteen.

    However, the Spirit dwells in us by faith. Satan would love to see our hearts swept clean (of faith and the Spirit), so that he might re-enter, either he or seven unclean spirits as his representatives. This would leave us worse off than before.

    Thus, the warning to be sober-minded and watchful is a warning to us to remain in the faith and God’s Word, particularly to endure suffering. Suffering does not mean God is not faithful or has abandoned us; those are the lies of Satan which he uses when we suffer to draw us away from Christ and to despise His Word.

    I hope this helps.

  52. Jim says:

    Who wants to join me in a moment of silent meditation, focusing on all we are grateful for?

    Nah, lets just bicker…

    I heard this somewhere this week-“social media didn’t change us, it exposed us”.

    Happy Thanksgiving!

  53. Jean says:

    Is discussing Scripture and differing readings to be considered bickering? What a tactic to silence the Word of God even among Christians, to say nothing of the world.

  54. Duane Arnold says:


    It isn’t bickering… it’s tedious.

  55. Em says:

    Jim brings up being thankful – amen to that – to take it into territory a little less comfortable, let us not forget to reflect on our need for confession… are we biased? I confess that my experiences with the Lutherans out in the real world colors my view of their expressions of The Faith and i suspect it bleeds thru here… Forgive me, Lutes, MLD, Jean and others…

    Jean (and others( say that Satan is bound, but Peter warns us from a slightly more nuanced view, does he not? 1Peter 5:8

  56. Nathan Priddis says:

    You made an astounding claim about our adversary. You said it is told to us in Matthew 12. If I am following correctly, we know this because those who went before left instructions behind that it is so.

    It is ironic that Matthew 12 is a dispute over the nature of reality and who has the authority to make that reality known.

    In the second verse the Pharesses pronounce unlawfulness. They are using the authority of those who went before them, in their group. But they where not the only group. They had rivals in the Sadducees who had their own fathers.

    -I don’t know that those before us where right about everything.
    – It doesn’t appear the Matthew 12 dispute was ever settled.
    – It does not appear Satan is bound.
    -It does appear the House of God had been divided all along.

    Are you sure Matthew 12 says what you think it says?

  57. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Nathan, yes I am sure that Matt 12:22-30 says what I am telling you what it says. I’m just not allowed here to say I am sure of anything.

  58. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Jim, why did you interrupt your meditation to come here and bicker with us about our bickering? 🙂

  59. Nathan Priddis says:

    Here is something that is not being noticed. The Pharesses did not say Satan, nor did Jesus. It ‘s a different name and details matter.
    Satan talks. It doesn’t matter if you bind him, he still talks.

    Those who went before us left instructions behind. Maybe they made mistakes. Maybe a lot.

  60. Jim says:

    It appeared a little “bickery” to me, but I could be wrong. I have no tactics here, Jean. MLD is one of my favs here. We had a tiff once (that I can remember) here back in around 2007, as I was becoming interested in Lutheran thought, and I discovered where I disagree. I see no reason to state my disagreement every time you or he writes something.

    Anyway, happy thanksgiving!

    I had a big realization this morning as I was pondering the things I’m grateful for in my life. I discovered that I’m genuinely grateful for something in my life that I complain about a lot, and was strongly considering discarding. I suppose I considered today’s visit to my favorite blog a buzz-kill, which was selfish. It’s cool now, I’m back in my happy place…

  61. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Nathan, you can believe what you want – it doesn’t bother me. Perhaps you are right, perhaps those before us made mistakes – perhaps there is no God, perhaps there is no Jesus, perhaps there is no sin, perhaps there is no salvation, life after death or purpose.
    So go with that if you wish – perhaps they got nothing right.

  62. Dan from Georgia says:

    Since this is Open Blogging and since it’s the weekend….

    …Yes, the Minnesota Twins COULD be in the market for Bryce Harper and/or Manny Machado.

  63. Jim says:

    MLD, because I do dumb stuff…

  64. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Jim – LOL

  65. Em says:

    MLD @2:07 … re-read that post… It sounds petulant and….
    stupid … like a teenage girl …. Sorry, but it does ?

  66. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Em, quite the slam on teenage girls.
    Look, I will admit that was my narrow minded Lutheran slant towards Biblical truth coming out against someone who continually says that the writers of scripture were wrong and mistake ridden.
    So sue me.

  67. Em says:

    Well, MLD, i am old enough to be your mother so it is going to cone out once in a while … Aren’t you glad i wasn’t? Your mother, that is. LOL

  68. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Ok mom – me and the wife are going down to the lake for a couple of beers – 4:30 here and still 71° – I don’t want to pass that up.

  69. Mud Man says:

    I think I missed something in the casual reading of this thread so I looked up Luke 11 and the casting of demons, I don’t see “binding” being mentioned there.

    I do see a the word which means “overpowers,” “defeats,” and a bit more.

    I also see a whole lot of reference to ideas of the day, such as “the finger of God.” Where have I heard that statement before and what does that have to do with casting out demons?

    The question I believe Jesus is posing or answering is multiple,

    “Finger of God”
    “takes away… his armor on which he had relied and distributes his plunder.”
    either against or for me
    “An empty house”
    The man is worse off

    So what filled the house when the demon was cast out to prevent the demons from returning greater than before?

    Oh well the subject was “binding.”

  70. Mud Man says:

    Oh the debate is on the Matthew version of the story and the Greek used there is “bind” or “tie.”

    I think the Luke version is better and neither really says Satan is being literally bound, it’s a teaching tool.

    I’m just slow.

  71. Jean says:

    Is “I think the Luke version is better” a hermeneutic?

  72. Mud Man says:

    “Hermeneutics is the philosophy and methodology of text interpretation, especially the interpretation of biblical texts, wisdom literature, and philosophical texts.”

    Yes we all have the right and might I say the responsibility to do such a thing.

    No man is an island,
    Entire of itself,
    Every man is a piece of the continent,
    A part of the main.
    If a clod be washed away by the sea,
    Europe is the less.
    As well as if a promontory were.
    As well as if a manor of thy friend’s
    Or of thine own were:
    Any man’s death diminishes me,
    Because I am involved in mankind,
    And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
    It tolls for thee.

    John Donne

    And which version of the casting question is the best?

    Maybe they are also a combination and remembrance of those who heard the stories of Jesus and His life.

    Maybe your ideas are better than mine, but it really doesn’t matter because I can only live out my existence and not yours.

    That’s the beauty of God’s gift of life.

  73. Jean says:

    Mud Man,

    It’s all good. I learn a lot from everyone here. It’s a great benefit to learn what people believe and where they are coming from.

    I try not to have my own ideas. I know people impute what I say to my ideas, but that is not my endeavor.

  74. Jim says:

    You know Jean, after reading through the comments again, this is really one heck of a thing to say. I have an agenda and my tactic is to silence the Word of God? (???!!!??!?) I think that you should apologize for judging motives. You aren’t very good at it, and it’s not a good thing to do.

    “Is discussing Scripture and differing readings to be considered bickering? What a tactic to silence the Word of God even among Christians, to say nothing of the world.”

    Happy thanksgiving.

  75. Michael says:

    Jim and I have been friends and co laborers for a long, long time.
    We can show you the scars from standing…
    I’m about to lose it…

  76. Jean says:

    There are many here that consider the exchange of differing readings of Scripture, either bickering, tedious, acrimonious or whatever. So, what is the alternative? Just amen whatever anyone writes or keep his/her peace? That is a solution, but does it benefit anyone?

    Are we not committed to speak truth to power? If we cannot speak truth to one another, how on earth can we speak truth to power? What is truth? Well, we have the Word of God, that is, we have the Way, the Truth and the Life.

    About hurt feelings. Are we snowflakes? Em calls MLD’s comment “stupid” and childish (like a teenage girl). Is she rebuked? Does MLD wilt like a daffodil? No and no. We’re just a bunch of blog friends sharing the Scriptures and our lives, more or less.

    But, let us at least be open to the Spirit, who preaches God’s Word to our hearts.

  77. Michael says:


    When you accuse a man like Jim who has stood tall for the church and the Word of God of trying to silence that Word you are crossing a line that I won’t allow.

    That man has been a warrior and I will not allow him to be disrespected.

  78. Jean says:


    You wrote in your original comment:

    “Nah, lets just bicker…”

    I don’t know you at all, and regrettably assigned motives to your comment, which came in without further context, and which I wrongly lumped in with others who dislike discussing differences in the reading of Scripture.

    So, I guess I don’t know what your motive was for saying “let’s just bicker.” I do apologize for attributing a motive of silencing the Word, if that was not your motive.

  79. Jim says:

    Thanks Jean. That was almost an apology, so I almost forgive you.

  80. Jim says:

    Just kidding. No hard feelings on my end. My note to you was for your sake, not for mine.

  81. Jean says:

    Thanks Jim. Assigning motives on social media is a dicey game. I should have known better. The only one I know who has mastered the art is MLD. 🙂

  82. Jim says:


    This is the only Christian blog I read, and the only blog I ever comment on. These days, I usually say nothing, as I regret many of my past interactions here. I disagree with both sides politically, but I’ve lost interest in dividing or even arguing about it. I’m sort of reformed and conservatively charismatic, but have no interest in defining or defending my beliefs to other believers, nor do think criticizing someone here for their beliefs is right of fruitful.

    Sometimes I pop off and say something goofy. Please take it with a wink. If I listed the people here who I really like, they would be shocked, as some of them really don’t like me. I regret this and own the blame.

    Michael has achieved many of his goals here, one of which is to allow different streams of the same river to play in his pond. The denominational diversity here is astounding!

    I really think that we should step back and consider the miracle of the PP and be grateful. Although I think being nice to one another would be a good way to show our gratitude (to God, Michael, and the participants here), I wont call you a heretic if you choose not to.

  83. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    It’s Open Blogging Sunday – something to put everyone on a spiritual high. It’s from a friend’s posting who is a seminary professor in the PNW

    Here is your Sunday sermon:

    Grace and Peace to you, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

    Christ has accomplished everything for your sake. We are total and complete freeloaders. Thanks be to God. Amen.

    Go in peace. Christ has covered you.

    Now I am off to church 🙂

  84. Nathan Priddis says:

    Thanks MLD. I needed to hear that after the last week.

  85. Dan from Georgia says:

    MLD, I like that….complete freeloaders!

    Cold weather got you down? Could be in Cotton, MN where it was -56F yesterday morning, with a “balmy” -46F at International Falls. Pays to live in the south.


  86. Em says:

    There’s no such thing as -56 degrees farenheit. ?

  87. London says:

    Someone should tell the weatherman on CBS that then. He just said MN will be -60F tomorrow and Chicago -50F.

  88. Xenia says:

    I think the -60 in Minnesota is wind chill, not the actual temperature.

  89. Xenia says:

    It is currently +2 degrees F. at my daughter’s apartment near Minneapolis.

  90. Em says:

    Hope that’s not the temp IN the apartment…
    I shouldn’t be joking as people and creatures, too, will die in this

  91. Dan from Georgia says:

    Xenia, yes they are predicting-30 to -60 wind chills across the Upper Midwest. Btw, Tower, MN on February 2, 1996 recorded an air temperature of -60F. Not the wind chill. There are little towns and spots in northeastern MN that record low temps of -40F or colder EVERY winter, with some plummeting to -50F every few winters.

    Ok I’m done geeking out on my home state’s weather wonders!

  92. Dan from Georgia says:

    Mea culpa? I’m checking on the veracity of that -56F in Cotton, MN with the State Climatologist. Seems the only “reliaable” readings I could find were -46F at International Falls and -49F at Kabetogama.

    Yes, I know you are all waiting breathlessly for the results…ha!

    In all seriousness, for those in the Upper Midwest, exposed skin can freeze in under a minute with those wind chills. And from what I hear, it is VERY PAINFUL and itchy when you run warm water over nearly-frozen skin.

  93. Em says:

    With Michael’s permission i am going to kill a cat… half of a really good apple pie relocated from the kitchen counter to the floor – upside down out of the pie plate! ! I think some animals, like some people, are evil… err something (it’s my daughter’s cat, but i will just tell her it ran off. ? ).

  94. Michael says:


    No cat killing allowed…mine are so spoiled I’d make sure it was cool enough for them to eat.

  95. Em says:

    Michael, 🙂 i knew you’d save me from myself LOL

  96. Duane Arnold says:

    Five degrees below zero here… I hope saying the Morning Office will warm me up…

  97. Jean says:

    The current weather report from SE Iowa:

    feels like -43°

  98. Dan from Georgia says:

    +20F here where I live in west-central GA this morning. -28F in my old stomping grounds of Minneapolis, MN this morning with -50F wind chill. I am not complaining at all.

  99. Xenia says:

    -28 at my daughter’s house near Minneapolis. She and her husband are working from home today, thank God!

    It’s in the sixties here. I just came in from gardening. There is so much to do out there I will never catch up. 🙁

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Phoenix Preacher

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading