Comments on: this and that

By: Brian Ernsberger

Brian Ernsberger — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 17:38:58 +0000

Is “this” “harmony” four part or two part? ;)

By: ox

ox — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 10:29:28 +0000

In reply to Brian Ernsberger.

Good! I can see we are coming to harmony on ‘this’!

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jeremiah 33.3

By: Brian Ernsberger

Brian Ernsberger — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 05:02:52 +0000

Okay, I apologize for “that” too. Boy, it sure is rough out in blogosphere land.

By: ox

ox — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 02:19:11 +0000

In reply to Brian Ernsberger.

Now, remember, Brian, the motivations connecting ‘this’ with ‘that’ are indiscernible. You’ll have to apologize for ‘that’ too.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jeremiah 33.3

By: Brian Ernsberger

Brian Ernsberger — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 19:16:02 +0000

Is Dave Doran’s “this” and “that” confusion for a purpose? Regardless of what is at stake, those who start to move from an original position of something, one, state that they are not moving; two, seek to explain away their moving by a bunch of “this” and “that;” and three, level personal attacks against those who disagree with them on their “non-moving” movement.
IMO, I believe this is confusion with a purpose.

As an aside, and with a bit of sarcasm, Don, I do apologize for leaving a comment here on your blog. There is a prof. at a seminary in the upper mid-west who thinks pastors of pretty small churches should not be on the internet blogging. And in case some consider that my words were a blunt instrument, I apologize for that too.

By: ox

ox — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 23:40:11 +0000

In reply to T. Pennock.

I haven’t heard anything from McCune.

As for taking to the streets, I think everyone is looking for the ‘this’ that talks about torches and pitchforks. Surely ‘this’ is in ‘there’ somewhere!!!

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jeremiah 33.3

By: T. Pennock

T. Pennock — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 23:34:25 +0000

Don,

Do you know if McCune has expressed any opinion on Dave’s recent lurch toward Dever and friends? Has any of the old guard at the seminary said anything? All this is quite puzzling to me.

Have a good one!

tjp

P.S. Again, I ask about Minnick. If Bauder and Doran’s yoking up with Dever constitutes compromise, then doesn’t Minnick’s sharing the platform with Bauder and Doran also constitute compromise on Minnick’s part? What’s going on here? How do you evaluate this? Why haven’t separatists taken to the streets?

Just curious.

By: ox

ox — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 22:44:23 +0000

In reply to Kent.

“That” can’t be it, can it?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jeremiah 33.3

By: Kent

Kent — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 22:19:03 +0000

Don,

At one point, believers have almost unanimously on the same page on both this and that. And then “that” becomes more difficult in the world and now “that” has some room to maneuver. We look at history and almost everybody believed “that.” Now they don’t. Because they don’t now, does it mean “that” is no longer the application of “this”? I don’t think so. The Holy Spirit was involved in “that” all those years. Does it mean now we can go ahead and find “that” acceptable, just because even a majority don’t find “that” to be the application any more? I think it is a cop-out.

I know we’re talking about what is a basis for fellowship or unity or separation. I see Driscoll with Dever sitting in fellowship—no problem, fine with each other. Now I see Doran and Dever sitting in fellowship—no problem, fine with each other. What does this mean? They’re all together on “this” so we’re OK. Really. The “that” we can’t agree upon, but it doesn’t so much matter as long as we’re together on “this.”