(This is an old post done during the time when I considered that Tim Snell actually may have support for his Abuse of me. Here is a link to December 2009 proving that Tim Snell has NO SUPPORT for his claims about Modeling God: Tim Snell's Formal Support.)
(The most alarming claim by Tim Snell and the Christian Law Association (Dr. Gibbs) is that they don't believe that Jesus was fully man! They don't believe that Jesus could choose to do evil. This is stating Jesus was unable to bridge the gap for our Salvation. This is deception. Worse, this is a contradiction of the most famous Old Testament prophecy concerning Jesus:
"14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good." (Isaiah 7:14-15)
It ALL begins with understanding God's Nature. I don't understand HOW anyone can teach God's Word when they deny God's Being.)
This post is the effect of the last two posts and months of events. If you are new to this blog, please read your way into this post.
Here are the links to the previous two posts:
Four Causes
One Way Justice
To those of you familiar with this blog, this post is going to begin a new era on this blog. With the sequel to "Modeling God" being posted on a separate blog, this blog will become more personal. For those who are looking to grow in their understanding of God and the Bible, the sequel will keep you busy for some time. Especially since there will be an opportunity for much more discussion on the other blog and an encouragement to all to help write the story, so that ought to also keep you busy.
Also, this is by far the longest post I have ever presented...and that's okay because the only people who ought to read this are the ones who really want to read this. The new era on this blog is not going to be about extremely long posts.
I have spent the last two years teaching these principles to a group in Appleton, Wisconsin. One of the benefits they have is I have shared a lot about myself both personally and professionally. I appreciate those of you who are "regulars" to this blog. You have invested your time without knowing much about me personally and that says a lot about you. There are those who actually reach out to correct me, teach me, challenge me, etc...without actually knowing me. The people in that group always amaze me. I truly believe they are led of God and the fruit from their ability to obey God has blessed me and others tremendously. To that end, I believe God is telling me I'm the one holding up further profitability...whether I like it or not, I'm the hub of the exchanges on this blog and I haven't done a good job of encouraging sharing because I haven't shared very much about myself.
Those who know me have reinforced this point...I ought to share more. You will see in the sequel each chapter in Part I begins with a vignette from my professional background. It serves several purposes...the most important is for me to share more about myself. To that end, I'm going to spend the month of June sharing about my personal background on this blog. I plan on sharing from childhood all the way through the wild and soap opera like events that have occurred during the last two years. I have no doubt you will find the events of the last two years hard to believe because I have seen the looks of disbelief on the faces of friends when I share my story...but I have the proof. In fact, the culmination of an important chapter recently occurred on this blog...
In the previous post, I shared how I have been praying for over ten years for a pastor to take a stand (either accept or reject) the teaching in "Modeling God". With each pastor who effectively ducked a stance, I began to wonder if any pastor would ever take a stand. Then early this year, I heard from several sources there was a pastor in Appleton who was telling people he was writing a refutation of "Modeling God". I was actually excited...
First, I have actively invited criticism because when I am found to be wrong, it always leads to the right answer...and I'm all about finding out the right answer in the Long Term. Second, I want to practice dealing with criticism because I want to be able to handle criticism from experts in a public setting. Third, when the criticism isn't correct, it can lead to me understanding the why and flesh out the connection between other areas. The comments in the previous post are a great example of this.
The people who know me know this is truly my heart attitude. I have had several people say to others, "I know people say they want to be corrected, but this guy really means it." So I had several people telling this pastor to talk with me in person. That is when I realized this wasn't going to be pretty...
I have easily had over 100 instances of valid criticism...all of them have been incorporated in "Modeling God". In fact, over the years, I've noticed a pattern in valid criticism and unfounded criticism. The main difference is in three areas:
1. Willing to Meet With Me
Those who have valid criticism are very anxious to tell me in person or over the phone. People who have baseless criticism seem to be the most creative people on this planet, because they have several reasons for not meeting with me and the reasons constantly change.
2. Brevity and Clarity
Every valid criticism I have received has been able to be stated in three sentences or less. For example, one of the last criticisms I got before the manuscript was finalized had to do with faith. I had written that faith is based on knowledge and experience. Someone told me: "If faith is based on knowledge and experience then the devil has faith because he has knowledge and experience. He certainly has experience but it must be based on something else he doesn't have." No argument from me. The first words out of my mouth after a short chuckle was: "Awesome! Thank you! You are completely right! What would that be?" (It was "understanding" and led to revelation in several areas...some I have shared and most I haven't.) Unfounded criticism is a lot more than three sentences...usually it is a ten minute explanation...and, so far, it has led to me understanding why what was written is even more right than I realized.
3. Telephone Game
This is an effect of #2...every valid criticism has been able to be told to me by others who heard the person say it. There has been criticism that got to me through others that has been valid. The follow up is that people have encouraged the person to tell me either in person or over the phone...and they do. Unfounded criticism usually sounds like this:
Them: "Someone told me you are wrong about an area of your book"
Me: "What did they say?"
Them: "It had something to do with "faith" but I didn't really understand it"
Me: "Was it the "Faith" chapter or "Faith Examples"?"
Them: "I'm not sure"
With this pastor in Appleton, he refused to meet with me, changed his excuse each time: "John is too smart"..."He is not a brother"..."If his heresy was less extreme I would meet with him"..."The work should stand on its own"...
He had set the record with area #1...he also broke the record for area #2: his explanation was over 30 pages! I knew something was backwards. Then when people who talked with him about his explanation tried to explain it to others it got very disappointing. Several times when they would tell someone how I was wrong about a passage in "Modeling God", the listener would open "Modeling God" to the passage in question and then read the paragraph before or shortly after...only to have the messenger walk away mumbling.
It became obvious this pastor's objective wasn't creation...it was destruction. He didn't want to tell me in order to help me or check to see if his conclusions are valid Long Term...the objective was something else...and the explanation kept changing.
Around March 23rd he began sending the refutation to area pastors and leaders. He went on Amazon and wrote a "review". Days later he sent me a copy of the refutation. I read the refutation and was extremely disappointed in the factual inaccuracies (over 200) as well as the logical and theological inaccuracies.
I e-mailed him on March 27th to thank him for reading "Modeling God" and sharing his thoughts...my prayers had been answered! I asked him some questions to better understand his perspective. (At the end of this post, I will share how to go to these links to see this for yourself.)
We exchanged e-mails where he answered questions different than what I asked. I clarified the questions and how he hadn't answered them. He then stated he intentionally didn't answer the questions...this made me realize his goal was to be right, right now.
My goal was to be about his best interests...to help him understand as much as possible so he could make an intentional choice. My goal was to let God flow through me. To that end, I wrote several e-mails giving him as much information as possible about the people he was being influenced by and the actions he had done...one of which was his participating in gossip with his Amazon review. I also am more afraid of God than man, so I personally don't care if everyone reads all of my e-mails to Tim because God has already read them. To be afraid of sharing in public is to be more afraid of man than God.
(By the way, there were two huge responses on Amazon from people who knew me. One of them was from a guy who posted a negative "review" who had never read the book but wanted to displace pain on me for events that happened in Appleton. He even came to my defense because the pastor's "review" sickened him! The other review came from the wife of a former pastor who was ashamed at this type of behavior from a pastor. There were several other points she made that proved the pastor's "review" was gossip and inaccurate. She posted under the name "joojie".)
On April 1 he stated he didn't have to share where he got his information for the gossip...he also stated he was going to put the refutation on the web.
Also on April 1, I gave him the list of the 200+ factual inaccuracies. We had agreed I was going to give him a list of logical and theological inaccuracies before he put the refutation up on the web. He wrote back that he was going to look at the list...
On April 5 I met with Wayne Swokowski, one of the people I am in Fellowship with. There are a group of seven people I am in Fellowship with...they have permission to speak into my life for my benefit...this means I invite them to confront me in every area of my life...especially where I'm wrong. True to the pattern of criticism, Wayne told me in two sentences how one of the sentences I had written to this pastor was wrong. I agreed so quickly, Wayne thought I was making fun of him.
What I had stated was incorrect. There was a way to state what I wanted to say correctly, but God has dealt with me in this area years ago...I have learned not to defend myself when I am wrong. I wrote this pastor, referenced the sentence, and stated the following:
"I met with Wayne today.
He showed my how the above sentence that I had written to you is wrong.
I was wrong to write that sentence...no excuses.
I will work to not do that again."
That is the entirety of the e-mail. Try it sometime...it is a humbling experience and very rewarding spiritually. When you are wrong: confess (admit it) and repent (work to not do it again)...no excuses...no explanation. Trust me, it builds character that is sorely lacking especially in the "Christian" community.
HUGE POINT: If you don't have anyone who can reach you when you are wrong, get someone soon! The last two years has taught me the people who do the most damage are those who have no one who can talk sense into them when they are wrong...I call it "contrastive". I believe Tim thinks he has someone, but I don't see evidence of it. In fact, you may want to refresh your understanding on: What is a Cult?
This pastor's response was to e-mail me the next day to say he made some changes and posted his refutation on www.modelinggodheresy.com. Pastor Tim Snell had made this discussion available to the world. He wrote me later to say that he would be willing to trade links. He would post a link to my blog on his refutation if I would post a link to his refutation on my blog. The thing is I was putting a link to his website on my blog when he wrote to me...so, I agreed.
I still didn't want to make this discussion the focus so he could have the opportunity to back down once he realized what had really happened...he was telling the world he was a pastor participating in gossip and he was unable to interpret a 225 page book accurately without having about one factual inaccuracy per page in the book. After all, a big part of his job is his ability to interpret text (hermeneutics). And the Bible is much more difficult to interpret than my book. He was showing the world he is unable to interpret text...and I wanted to give him every opportunity to wake up and change his mind with the minimum damage to him. However, I had to give people who follow the blog the ability to get information.
I put the link on two often hit posts: Table of Contents and Experience. The next day, Tim Snell said he wanted the link to be "more accessible". I told him it is on the sublayer of my blog just like the link to my blog will be on the sublayer of his ministry. He wasn't going to put the link to my blog on his church's website (even though he used church stationery to spread the word). As far as I know he never put a link to my blog...
In the same e-mail he told me he wanted to see me deal with his refutation in a logical fashion...he wanted a rebuttal.
Weeks before, I felt God tell me to "sink" five posts. That is, I was to write five posts but not publish them. However, I was not supposed to delete them. The thing is, when I did decide to publish them, they would show up at the date they were first opened...which would not be on the front page. What was the point? I didn't know, but I did it anyway.
Now, Tim was asking for a rebuttal and I wanted to keep this as low key as possible for his sake. I wanted to publish but not take everyone's focus off of what was being written because it was a vital topic. In fact, one of the posts during that time is easily my most googled post: "Masculinity and Pornography". I constantly get hits directed by people searching for the Biblical definition of masculinity or how to deal with addiction to pornography. The posts during this period make up a key portion of the sequel...it would have been destructive to take the focus off of the revelation that was being presented.
The rebuttal had to be available but not on the front page. The sunken posts were the answer! I needed all five posts. I used one for the rebuttal. I needed two to list the factual inaccuracies from each half of the refutation. I used one to post the Amazon review and the last post to show the initial e-mails from me to Tim. I couldn't have planned this better...here are the links:
The Rebuttal
Refutation Inaccuracies (Part 1)
Refutation Inaccuracies (Part 2)
e-mails to Tim Snell
Tim's Amazon "Review"
One of the things Tim stated in his correspondence was that he was going to get a group of pastors together and meet with me to discuss the theology of "Modeling God". I wholeheartedly invited it. However, I'm still wondering why it was right for him to meet with me while he had a group of pastors and not right for him to meet with me without a group of pastors...
(This still hasn't happened to this day...)
The biggest thing that concerned me about his refutation was the number of factual inaccuracies. Some of them are mindboggling. He misquotes the book...he misinterprets passages...he makes wild projections for emotional effect. What's more...I spelled some of these out specifically to him in the e-mail. For example, point #3 was:
"3. There are some blatant misrepresentations of text EVEN when you give a reference. For instance, the definition of GRACE from "Modeling God" is NOT what you state. Check YOUR reference page stated. Is this an example of your ability to translate?"
He still left a blatant misrepresentation of grace (and other passages) in the refutation after it was blatantly pointed out. Something else is going on here...
My concern is for him...he is misleading people. He ought to tell people to read "Modeling God" before reading his refutation. When you go to my rebuttal, I say you ought to read "Modeling God", then the refutation before you read the rebuttal. The only way his refutation makes any sense is if you take his word on his representation of "Modeling God"...even then, there are parts of the refutation that are wrong without even reading "Modeling God". Later, Tim told me you can get to his website by going to www.lenharteatsrocks.com
The MAIN POINT is that Tim uses a process to prove my process is flawed. In order for him to be right, his process HAS TO BE BETTER than my process. Actually, his process is more flawed than my process...mostly because there appears to be no way to improve his process. Eventually I will post his refutation on this (or a separate) blog and go through it section by section because it is a great teaching aid to realize how today's pastors think. Before you get mad at me for projecting Tim's thought process on other pastors as a group, I would remind you that he is the only pastor who has been able to put his thoughts together and share them...it is most likely that other pastors' have an even more flawed thought process.
Both of the next steps were his responsibility: get a group of pastors together to meet with me and show his step by step process on interpreting Ephesians 2:8-9 without using tradition.
Like I stated yesterday:
"Let me be clear...the Greek word "charis" has many meanings depending on usage. In some cases it is translated into English as "thank", "favor", and "gift". Where it has been translated into "grace" (except for James 1:11) by people who are the experts at language, etc., its definition is "the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life"."
How does one get to "unmerited favor" from charis without bringing in man-made tradition? The "unmerited" is the issue...
Even if charis was interpreted as favor from a superior or favor for no reason other than the goodness of the heart of the giver...how do you get to "unmerited"? How do you go from the perspective of the giver to the need of the receiver?...and make a value judgment?
A billion dollar movie studio pays an actor 20 million to star in a movie. The movie makes over 100 million during its first weekend. The movie company gives the movie star a $300,000 car...the only reason they did it was because they felt great. Does this mean the movie star NEEDED the car? The first thing some people say is, "Oh...like they really needed that!"
If I give you a used pen out of the goodness of my heart, does this mean you needed it? Does this mean that you didn't deserve it?
We do need God's grace...we don't earn it...however, NOWHERE in the definition of CHARIS is there "unmerited"...man put that in. This is wrong and the sequel shows that we are currently paying for 500 year old traditions being in place of the Word of God in our most public and crucial doctrines.
I was willing to let the works stand on their own while Tim handled the two next steps...but he kept writing to people defending his work. "One Way Justice" was again rearing its ugly head. He didn't want people to talk to me (including members of his congregation), yet he wanted people to discuss his work with him...my published work was supposed to stand on its own, while he encouraged the same people to discuss his published work with him. He seemed to be focused on "grace"...he seemed to want attention.
On Friday, May 16th, I wrote about "Leadership: Community and Church". It was a long post dealing with profitability and exchanges with others. At the end was one paragraph about "grace".
On May 21st, the following comment was posted twice. The first post is below. The second post was minutes later with the link to the refutation at the end. The post was under the name "Anonymous".
Anonymous wrote:
J G Lenhart said:
Bonus Jesus Saying: Tradition has defined "grace" (charis) as "unmerited favor". The Greek word for "unmerited favor" is not "charis". Charis is "the divine influence on the heart and its reflection in the life".
Your work here seeking to get give definitions is sophmorish at best. While the definition you give above is accurate, it doesn't fit everywhere the word is used in scripture. Giving one-size-fits-all definitions rarely (if ever) do. That the word can and does mean "unmerited favor" in various usages of it is clearly seen. Check out just a few of the following Greek references.
1. [Note: #1 has sub-points as I am quoting from one source with many sub-points. All subpoints are from the same source under the same heading of “grace.” The following quotes represent some of the key things this source states.] “charis, grace, gracefulness, graciousness, favour, goodwill; …charizomai, show favour or kindness, give as a favour, to be gracious to some, to pardon; charitoo, endue with grace.”
a. “Words formed from the Gk. Root ‘char’ indicate things which produce wellbeing.”
b. [Outside the Bible]
i. “The vb. Charizomai…does not occur with God as its subject until Aelius Aristides (2nd cent. A.D.), when it means to give graciously. …In the context of ethics and law it means to grant, remit, forgive, or pardon… It is used particularly in the sense of granting someone’s life (to a third party), i.e. to set him free to please someone.”
c. [In the O.T]
i. [….charis = hen] “The use of the word hen clarifies the meaning of ‘grace’ in history and actions. It denotes the stronger coming to the help of the weaker who stands in need of help by reason of his circumstances or natural weakness. He acts by a voluntary decision, though he is moved by the dependence or the request of the weaker party. A typical expression used to describe such an event from the standpoint of the weak is the formula to find favour in someone’s eyes, i.e. to acquire his favor… The action itself is what makes the weaker party acceptable….”
d. [In the N.T.]
i. “In Jesus’ teaching the concept of grace in the sense of the undeserved gift of God evidently did not occur.”
ii. “In Acts grace is that power which flows from God or from the exalted Christ and accompanies the activity of the apostles giving success to their mission (Acts 6:8; 11:23; 14:26; 15:40; 18:27)…. It is that which enables men to believe (18:47).”
iii. “For Paul charis is the essence of God’s decisive saving act in Jesus Christ.”
1. “The apostle unfolds the reality and power of charis in stubborn conflict with Rab. Ideas of justification by works and synergism… This leads him to set up in contrast two antithetical, mutually exclusive series of ideas: grace, gift, the righteousness of God…on one side; and law, reward, sin, works accomplishment owed, one’s own righteousness… on the other side. The person and work of the Son made it possible for justice in the judge’s pardon not to conflict with grace (Rom 3:21ff.; 8:32; Gal. 2:20f.; Phil 2:8ff.)…. This also means that grace can never become a quality which an individual may possess in his own right, nor may it ever be placed at his disposal.”
2. “Romans 5:15-21 and 6:1: Rom. 5:15 declares that ‘the free gift [charisma] is not like the trespass [paraptoma]. Here chrisma is used in the sense of charis. Charisma is the gift of life, which as ‘the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded to many.’”
3. “Arising out of the basic act of pardon and legal acquittal (Rom. 8:31gg), Paul understands the whole movement of the Christian life from beginning to end as grace…. Human weakness, not self-determination, is its sphere of activity (2 Cor. 12:9)”
( This entire section is taken from The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol. 2 p. 115 – 123.)
2. “Charis has various uses, (a) objective, that which bestows or occasions pleasure, delight, or causes favourable regard; it is applied, e.g., to beauty, or gracefulness of person, Luke 2:40, …’words of grace’…Col. 4:6; (b) subjective, (I) on the part of the bestower, the friendly disposition from which the kindly act proceeds, graciousness, lovingkindness, goodwill generally, e.g. Acts 7:10; especially with reference to the Divine faour or grace, e.g., Acts 14:26; in this respect there is stress on its freeness and universality, its spontaneous character, as in the case of God’s redemptive mercy and the pleasure or joy He designs for the recipient; thus it is set in contrast with debt, Rom. 4:4, 16, with works, Rom 11:6, and the law, John 1:17;…”
( Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. P. 509-510)
4. “Already in the ethical terminology of the Greek schools charis implied ever a favour freely done, without claim or expectation of return – the word thus being predisposed to receive its new emphasis, its religious, I may say its dogmatic, significance; to set forth the entire and absolute freeness of the lovingkindness of God to men. Thus Aristotle, defining charis, lays the whole stress on this very point, that it is conferred freely, with no expectation of return, and finding its only motive in the bounty and free-heartedness of the giver (Rhet. ii. 7)… Agreeing with this we have charis kai dorea, Polybuis i. 36. 6… Compare Romans xi. 6 where St. Paul sets charis and epga over against one another in directest antithesis, showing that they mutually exclude one another, it being of whatever is owed to charis that it is unearned and unmerited.”
( Synonyms of the New Testament by Richard Trench p 166.)
6. 5483 χαρίζομαι [charizomai /khar•id•zom•ahee/] v. Middle voice from 5485; TDNT 9:372; TDNTA 1298; GK 5919; 23 occurrences; AV translates as “forgive” 11 times, “give” six times, “freely give” twice, “deliver” twice, “grant” once, and “frankly forgive” once. 1 to do something pleasant or agreeable (to one), to do a favour to, gratify. 1a to show one’s self gracious, kind, benevolent. 1b to grant forgiveness, to pardon. 1c to give graciously, give freely, bestow. 1c1 to forgive. 1c2 graciously to restore one to another. 1c3 to preserve for one a person in peril.
( Strong, J. (1996). Enhanced Strong's Lexicon (G5483). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.)
You evidently haven't done enough work in researching these things in the Greek to be aware of that.
Here are some questions: Have you ever taken Greek at College or Graduate School? If so, how many hours?
Have you ever taken a course in hermeneutics?
Relying on non-contradiction ALONE simply isn't sufficient to get to bottom rung definitions. These must be done employing the tools of hermeneutics and etymology. I'll be interested to see what your background is as you answer the above questions... And how you deal with a more thorough analysis of the Greek than you have evidently done before.
I find myself in agreement with pastor Snell's refutation of your work.
(End of Post)
First of all, this post has nothing to do with the topic that was posted. Second, it would fit with the rebuttal post. Third, this post confuses the issue and doesn't get to the heart of the matter...how do you get to "unmerited favor" from charis in Ephesians 2:8-9 without using tradition? Fourth, the fact that it was reposted minutes later with the address to the refutation shows the intent. Finally, sitemeter tracks the location of the hits to the blog. Sometime the location isn't determined, sometimes it is...this one was tracked right to Tim Snell's church!
Think about that...a post that gives an endorsement of Tim Snell is written anonymously from the computer(s) at Tim Snell's church. The post is eerily similar to Tim Snell's latest discussions on grace. Either the poster is Tim Snell, a leader at Tim's church, or someone who is not a leader but has access to the computers at Tim's church...which is actually the most alarming option.
The first case (Tim) would mean Tim is endorsing himself and trying not to appear like he is Tim.
The second case (leader) would mean someone who gets a paycheck from Tim is endorsing Tim and trying not to appear like they are affiliated with Tim.
The third case is that the computers at Tim's church are open for public use...
I pulled the posts and wrote the following two posts:
Post #1:
"If you are going to assert something as truth, have the guts to identify yourself. Tim Snell did..."
and
Post #2:
"For the rest of you...the first two posts were replicates posted by "Anonymous".
I have the post and will share it with everyone because it makes for a great teaching aid. However, in the meantime, I would ask "Anonymous" some questions (in case they come back):
1. Did you write this or get it from Tim Snell?
2. Are you affiliated with Tim Snell's church (Christ's Church of the Valley)?
3. Do you think this is Christian behavior?
Tim knows the next two steps are:
1. Get a group of pastors to meet with me
2. Give his hermeneutical process for interpreting Ephesians 2:8.
I am and have always been willing to meet with Tim Snell anytime..."
The next day, there was a post from an IP Address that tracked to Green Bay. The post was under "Anonymous" again and purports to be the same person.
I happened to be by the computer and we fired back and forth. I want you to read it for yourself, but notice the "One Way Justice"...I answer their questions and give them every opportunity to answer mine.
Here is the transcript of what followed after I removed the first two posts by Anonymous:
Anonymous said...
Why delete the comment? Are you afraid of the truth? Afraid to discuss things openingly on your blog?
BTW, isn't it true that you sometimes use pseudonyms to hide your identity when you post comments elsehwere?
7:00 AM
jg lenhart said...
I embrace the truth. The post was misleading and by people who are not interested in standing up for it publicly.
I don't post under "anonymous"...which is not a pseudonym.
I've answered your questions...as I always strive to do.
Now show us your heart and objectives by responding (or not responding) to my questions.
8:19 AM
jg lenhart said...
I have posted under screen names, etc.
I've never hidden my identity when asked.
By the way, my response to Tim's work is in the "Rebuttal" post on this blog. It is public and documents that Tim intentionally misrepresented and misquoted "Modeling God". Read that and make your comments over there.
8:25 AM
Anonymous said...
How was the original post misleading. 85% was either quoting you directly from this blog post...or quoting numerous Greek sources disagreeing with you.
And no - you haven't answered my questions. Have you ever taken any courses on Greek? If so, how many credit hours? What institutions? Any courses on Hermeneutics.
I think you are afraid to have that post up because multiple Greek sources refute what you claim.
9:04 AM
jg lenhart said...
The Devil quoted the Bible...so 100% of what was quoted was from God...yet it still wasn't truth.
What is your objective? Is it to create or destroy?
IF you are interested in creating, take this to the rebuttal post.
I haven't taken any credit hours of Greek, etc. I have spent 14 years studying the Bible and talking with "experts". My information is public on this blog.
You have yet to answer the questions.
I don't want to hide anything because God sees everything. We will all be judged. To think that Christians can get away with being un-Christian and destroying is a belief that God has lower expectations for us than for unbelievers.
Please use all your hermeneutical skills to explain how your actions are justified.
9:35 AM
Anonymous said...
If you don't want to hide anything, why don't you repost the post you deleted? There is nothing destructive in that post unless you are afraid of what the Greek actually says.
9:45 AM
jg lenhart said...
I will post it when I can go through it point by point for the public...otherwise it is misleading.
Some people can't tell the difference between what I write and what others write...then they quote the assertion of facts by others as if I wrote it. I have deleted posts before that have done this.
So I will post it and I will show how the thought process is contradictory...
Now there is the issue of you answering the questions. It is time to show your morality...
Will you answer the questions or not?
9:52 AM
Anonymous said...
I didn't think you had taken any Greek.
As I thought, you wouldn't allow the direct quote from Vine's, Strong's Exhaustive, or other sources...or really anything that might refute your claims. That is a sign of a very weak argument.
9:57 AM
jg lenhart said...
I didn't take any Greek courses for credit. Your interpretation skills are lacking.
The sign of a weak argument is avoidance and contradiction...
Tim Snell told people to buy a CS Lewis book instead of my book. What was CS Lewis' background? How much Greek did he take? Where did he get his theology degree? Tim Snell publicly declared CS Lewis the "expert"...
CS Lewis wasn't a Greek "expert", yet Tim considers him to be a source. Likewise, taking courses in Greek doesn't PROVE understanding.
As for avoidance, apparently, you are choosing not to answer the question after being given several chances. If you don't answer with your next post, I'm taking that as a sign you are either unable or unwilling...
10:04 AM
Anonymous said...
Take it as you will. Your unwillingness to repost the first post shows your fear of people actually knowing the truth and deciding for themselves. It is when TRUTH contradicts you that you have the problem...not when you do not contradict yourself (even though what you are saying has no basis in truth.)
BTW, I'm not writing about Tim's work...I'm writing about the last paragraph of YOUR blog from last Friday. Sounds like you are too afraid to discuss that.
10:21 AM
Anonymous said...
Speaking of avoidance...look who is avoiding posting and discussing the first post. You violate your own rules.
10:24 AM
jg lenhart said...
Yesterday, sitemeter recorded two hits between 10 AM and 1 PM.
There was a hit that began at 10:23 AM from an unknown location that had two page views.
There was a hit that began at 11:31AM that had three page views and went for fifteen minutes.
There wasn't another post for well over 90 minutes.
The original two posts on this thread that ended with "I find myself in agreement with pastor Snell's refutation of your work." occurred during the session that began at 11:31 AM.
The location?
"66.202.72.# (christ church of the valley)"
It ACTUALLY NAMED Tim's church!!!!
Someone on a computer located at Pastor Tim's church wrote that post. Who has access to computers at Christ Church of the Valley? What is the real reason they find themself in agreement with Pastor Snell?
Numbers 32:23:
"But if ye will not do so, behold, ye have sinned against the LORD: and be sure your sin will find you out."
I'm still going to post the original comment and go through it for the public, but I will also include this thread because it demonstrates a heart attitude held by our current "Christian leaders".
10:24 AM
Anonymous said...
Where in the Bible is it a sin to post anonymously or under a pseudonym. You yourself acknowledge you do it. Can you give me the book, chapter and verse on that one?
10:28 AM
Anonymous said...
Come on John,
Deal with the Post...not who is writing something or where it is written from. That is a red herring - a form of illogical argumentation and debate. Deal with the arguments in an open discussion. Or can you?
I wish I was making this all up, but if you see where I'm wrong, please tell me how to deal with this better. These posts finally confirmed that Tim Snell wants to publicly stick to his position (whether it is through an associate or himself) and I can put the sequel out. Also, if you think this has been crazy, the explanation of the last two years makes this look almost sane.
I also wish this was the end of the story, but the previous post elicited a comment:
joojie said...
200 years prior to Christ Aristotle used the word charis to mean unmerited favor. It didn't originate with Luther. Your statement is factually inaccurate.
8:48 AM
jg lenhart said...
Thank you for the correction...I've adjusted the blog to account for this information.
I'm always appreciative of people who take the time to correct me...in fact, I invite it.
Again, thank you.
First of all, I truly appreciated the comment. It lead to me learning a ton about Aristotle and WHY we get off track with "unmerited favor". (Read the two paragraphs in parentheses in the previous post). Second, sitemeter tracked the post to the same IP Address as the source of the second day of comments from "Anonymous". Third, they use the term "factually inaccurate" which I used in the rebuttal. Fourth, look at the name they used..."joojie"...the same name as the wife of the former pastor who replied to Tim Snell on Amazon. The real "joojie" wrote to me to let me know it wasn't her...but I think anyone with an average IQ would have realized that...
The ironic thing is that the poster also ended up being wrong. In a post about "One Way Justice", is this poster going to admit their error...or are they going to cling to "One Way Justice"?
The world is watching...
Next Post
No comments:
Post a Comment