Home > Questions, Voegtlin > When Were You Going to Do That?

When Were You Going to Do That?

January 1, 2007

I want to start the month of questions out by asking, “When were you going to do that?” Today is the first of the year. It’s a great time to start stopping procrastination. This is a personal battle for me also. I was encouraged recently by this post by Dan Phillips. Dan is my favorite of the Pyromaniacs. Phil and Frank are humorous and write good things often, but Dan seems to consistently write down-to-earth, convicting posts that challenge me.

So, don’t put off following this link and read the whole post. Then let it be a challenge to you for today and January and 2007.

Only one life, ’twill soon be past;
Only what’s done for Christ will last.

Advertisements
Categories: Questions, Voegtlin
  1. January 1, 2007 at 12:16 pm

    Wow. That is an awesome post. Thanks for the recommendation to read it.

  2. January 1, 2007 at 9:22 pm

    None of the pyromaniacs are my favorites of anything. The fact is that even a broken clock is right twice a day, so the particular article you are referring to may be good, however, I am surprised that Jackhammer.org is recommending Pyromania without giving any sort of disclaimer.

    I have one young man in the church that I have recommended Jackhammer to. I’m writing this so that he and others that know I comment here will know that I hope they have nothing to do with the pyromaniacs.

  3. January 1, 2007 at 11:43 pm

    I am surprized too, Maybe Pastor Voegtlin should come talk to me about Phil,

  4. January 2, 2007 at 6:02 pm

    I have other questions I am going to address in a more original fashion later this month. But, I had read Dan’s post and was very challenged by it. I decided to link to it. I could have reworded the ideas a little, but I am not a thief. I hope you were helped by it and if I offended you by linking to it, please accept my apologies.

    As a matter of communication, I did not say the pyromaniacs were my favorites of anything either. What I said was Dan was my favorite of the pyromaniacs, which is the same as saying he is the one I dislike the least. Take it however you all want.

    If you read here consistently, you’ll find out what each of us believes.

  5. January 3, 2007 at 7:53 am

    Who is pyromaniacs?

  6. January 3, 2007 at 4:40 pm

    I would also add (ask): Did you read the article? Were you challenged by it? If so, it is biblical to give honor where honor is due. Which, to me, is the point of a comment thread.

    I understand pointing out the faults of the pyromaniacs, but I also see the benefit of reading good, biblical writing. Dan writes consistently biblical posts. Just look at all the Bible references in most of his posts. I’d like to be able to have such an understanding of Scripture and put the Bible to such use in my own life.

    But, back to the main point. Were you challenged by the article? Did it help you as it did me?

    Thanks,

  7. January 3, 2007 at 8:38 pm

    Jeff,

    I’m not trying to be hard and ugly here, but Dan Philips is a Calvinist who believes in a universal church and lists the rock band Chicago as his favorite music. He is a also a new-evangelical. I’m not interested in getting Biblical challenges from that region of “Christendom.”

    My issue is that a recommendation of his article and the Pyromaniac site was made here without any sort of disclaimer. Our stand and separation unto the Lord and His Word needs to be plain. I fellowship with you, Pastor Mallinak, and Pastor Brandenburg via this website. I have recommended this website to others. If this website is going to promote the Pyromaniac site then I want the readers of this site to know that I am opposed to this.

  8. January 4, 2007 at 9:38 am

    Bobby,

    Spurgeon was a Calvinist who believed in a universal church, and every year on the first Sunday of the year, he preached from a text provided by the Anglican Archbishop, whom he called a “dear friend”.

    Jonathan Edwards was a Calvinist who believed in a universal church. George Whitefield was a Calvinist who believed in a universal church. John Newton was a Calvinist who believed in a universal church. Isaac Watts was a Calvinist who believed in a universal church. Where does it end?

    Is a link considered “fellowship”?

  9. January 4, 2007 at 11:57 am

    Hey, guys, a link isn’t fellowship, but to keep from confusion, disclaimers should usually be given.

    Jeff, I did follow the link, but didn’t get as much from it as you did. The essence of the article was contained in your brief post. Beyond that, the longer post didn’t do much for me. But, then, I don’t like the pyros that much anyway, and only go there when others link to them.

    Regards,
    Don Johnson
    Jer 33.3

  10. January 4, 2007 at 2:24 pm

    DISCLAIMER:

    I don’t believe the same things that the Pyromaniacs do.

    Everybody happy now? 🙂

  11. January 4, 2007 at 3:00 pm

    Dave,

    I recommend Spurgeon with disclaimers.

    I do not recommend Whitefield, Edwards, Newton, and Watts. I do not recommend them because they did not practice as NT believers practice. They were protestant baby-sprinklers, not NT Baptists.

    Besides, they are all “old” or “true” evangelicals. It is apples and oranges to compare them to the “new” evangelicals like Johnson and company.

    Is a link fellowship? Well, a link without a disclaimer could lead unsuspecting souls to a lot of trouble. We are called to be careful and diligent watchmen. I don’t want people thinking that Pyro is a healthy place for old-fashioned, NT, Baptists in training. It is that simple.

    Jeff,

    I can’t speak for others, but I wasn’t unhappy. The Bible tells me I’m happy when I do the Lord’s will. By His grace I am. Let’s not play the New Evangelical game that runs on the notion that anyone who “proves all things” or “tries the spirit” or practices discernment is unhappy, mean, bitter, etc.

  12. January 4, 2007 at 5:00 pm

    I think I need a disclaimer for this blog. I need you all to know that I almost agree with Kent less than I agree with Jeff, although I don’t agree with either as much as I agree with Dave, although I hardly ever agree with Dave, although Dave sometimes drives me insane with his inane sense of idiocy, so I prefer Kent to Dave, but I prefer Jeff to JackHammer, who really isn’t anybody anyway, which is why I prefer him least of all, but I’d rather say that Kent is to Jeff what jacks are to rubber bouncy balls.

  13. January 4, 2007 at 8:10 pm

    Jeff and Dave,

    I have noticed a pattern here when I cross swords with the two of you. You usually fire off a question designed to prove a point, but when I answer it either with Scripture, or by stating my practice that you inquired of, you either ignore it or try funny stuff. This has been the case with the closed/open discussion, the practical side of ordination, and now this conversation. Now, that is fine. No hard feelings. After all, Just Kidding can be fun, right?

    But, it would be nice to, once in a while, have a real response to my statements that you ask for.

    Are we hammering stuff out here or are we just sharpening spatulas?

  14. January 4, 2007 at 8:50 pm

    Pastor Voegtlin sorry I didn’t get back at your second post. I wasn’t offended, just surprized. I am sorry if I offended you by saying I was surprized and if it sounded critical. It just really appeared to me that you actually may approve of what these men stand for. Now that I know you don’t thank you for clarifying

  15. January 4, 2007 at 8:52 pm

    Bobby,

    This was your point: “My issue is that a recommendation of his article and the Pyromaniac site was made here without any sort of disclaimer.” So I obliged with my disclaimer. I did not think you were unhappy in the happy/sad sense of the word. I, for one, did not know that people would be offended or think a disclaimer was in order. So, when I found out, I provided one. Maybe “satisfied” would have been a better word instead of “happy.”

    On your other point, I don’t remember the closed/open discussion, sorry. On the practical side of ordination, I believe I asked a question and you answered it. My response that I didn’t type up was, “Oh.” Should I have? If that would be better blog manners, I’m up for it. I just don’t normally post one or two word comments (I don’t think).

  16. January 4, 2007 at 8:57 pm

    BTW I did read the article and the idea presented isn’t anything new under the sun here. We all live with regrets, because didn’t take that “Only” oppurtunity we had. I will celebrating that on Feb 9th, every year.

  17. January 4, 2007 at 9:29 pm

    No offense, just ” I am surprised that Jackhammer.org is recommending Pyromania without giving any sort of disclaimer.” That was my original statement and ‘nuf said.

    This is your blog (along with Kent and Dave), so I won’t tell you how to run it. It is just my opinion that you ought not link to New Evangelicals without a disclaimer.

  18. January 4, 2007 at 9:32 pm

    Jeff, “oh” might be rude, so I would suggest: “Thanks, Brother Mitchell, for that incredible insight and perfect explanation. You are 100% right and anyone who does not agree with you is off his rocker. What a blessing it would be to have an army of Bobby’s raised up in these last days!”

    Smiles!!

  19. January 4, 2007 at 10:03 pm

    Bobby said…

    “I have noticed a pattern here when I cross swords with the two of you. You usually fire off a question designed to prove a point, but when I answer it either with Scripture, or by stating my practice that you inquired of, you either ignore it or try funny stuff. This has been the case with the closed/open discussion, the practical side of ordination, and now this conversation.”

    First, I thought I went to great lengths to give Scriptural objections to the closed communion position. As I recall, I was the only one to take the opposing position, and (in my probably flawless memory) I thought that I made a Scriptural case for the other. The last comment I made was intentionally mocking… my arguments were being dismissed, sleight of hand was being used, and so I gave it the once over. Apparently you are still miffed about it, or maybe it just bothers you that we aren’t all stretching texts enough to make ourselves be closed.

    I did not realize that there was a controversy on the issue of the practical side of ordination. Maybe you can refresh my mind. I don’t want you to feel ignored on here.

    And in this conversation, referring back to comment #8, it seems to me that I neither ignored you nor used “funny business”. If you disliked my response, that is fine. But to say that I ignored you or tried to be funny?

    Everybody needs a disclaimer. That was my point, in a straightforward fashion. And I disagree with the notion that we need a list of “safe” books and “safe” authors, that we can’t read anyone who baptized infants or saw church as more broad than your particular church. Is error so powerful that the truth cannot overcome it?

    But there I go, asking questions again. Shame on me.

  20. January 4, 2007 at 10:08 pm

    By the way, all of that is coming from a guy who can’t stand pyros and was less than excited that we were linking to them.

    You can say that you aren’t offended as much as you like. We are all reading your posts… If #13 isn’t whining, at the very least the lip is curling. But there I go with the “funny stuff” once again.

    “But, it would be nice to, once in a while, have a real response to my statements that you ask for.

    Are we hammering stuff out here or are we just sharpening spatulas?”

  21. January 5, 2007 at 4:25 am

    Oh.

  22. January 5, 2007 at 4:45 am

     🙂

    I replied again to your comments on the “bar” post.

  23. January 5, 2007 at 7:48 am

    Yes, Dave, my little lip was pooching and I was enjoying a pacifier. Sure. That’s me. Yep. All the way.

    Have a great weekend.

  24. January 5, 2007 at 10:11 am

    Glad to hear you owning up to it.

  25. January 5, 2007 at 10:21 am

    Don’t you have a Kincaid painting to meditate on or a garden to walk in? If we keep this up, this is going to look like Phil Kidd’s guestbook!

  26. January 5, 2007 at 11:06 am

    Who is Phil Kidd?

    For a minute, I thought you said Phil Johnson* (* means there is a disclaimer). But then I thought that if we really want to be like Pyros, we need 51 comments (come on, all you readers out there, get with it) all saying some form of “atta-boy”.

    But then, that would be so unlike us. We only get a large number of comments when we’re fighting.

  27. January 5, 2007 at 12:00 pm

    Ask Jeff. PK is his favorite preacher and the one he models himself after.

    Atta boy!!!

  28. January 5, 2007 at 1:38 pm

    Here you go Pastor Mallinak
    http://www.drphilkidd.com

    If you want to boost your comments all you have to do is ask a Calvinist question 🙂

  29. January 7, 2007 at 3:08 pm

    Another way to boost comments is not to give a disclaimer!

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: