and we cant judge them by that.

That man is a seriously bullying and condescending man in my opinion.

That man is a seriously bullying and condescending man in my opinion.

I'm not sure I clearly understand your last comment. The topic of conversation is this particular interview on this blog. I have even offered correction for those on “my side” when I think they've crossed the line in their rhetoric.

I also did not hear the WHI hosts treat Schuller with disrespect or in an unloving manner. Along these lines a good book to biblically consider how “nice” Jesus was is The Jesus You Can't Ignore.

It can, at times, be tough to communicate on blogs and such. We can't always be sure how to take one another. However, just as you know nothing of my life in the church among God's people, I know nothing about yours. I think we can, in grace, give each other the benefit of the doubt despite our disagreements.

“Apart from your follow-up apology can you see…”. So in this and other apologist blogs you have never seen people who argue on your side go off on people who argue against? Without the nurturing, loving nature of God in Christ, you would not have a Christian blog, because there would be no such thing as a Christian.

I am out.

Regardless, I agree…he would never say such marvelous words as Wesley did (who I know well not to be a Calvinist). He would dare not address his listeners with a “Sinners, you are monsters. MONSTERS OF INIQUITY”, as Wesley once said.

Yes, it is sad…especially that he may even have 20 million deceived souls watching him. We must pray…

OK, I accept your apology about this crack.

But I think your interest is in nit-picking people to death while getting a lot of self-satisfaction, and dare I say, self-righteousness along with the fellow-members of your little cabal of small-minds.

Previously you claimed.

If I had not been introduced to a nurturing, loving Christian community, I would still be on the outside looking in.

Apart from your follow-up apology can you see how someone would see the “nurturing, loving Christian community” has having little future effect?

Unlike the White Horse Inn folks, you question and charged my heart and intent. Those questioning Schuller used the Bible, his own words and the doctrines of faith which he says he believes. Schuller did the interview and gave his answers.

I don't see the WHI guys telling people we should be “mean” to unbelievers and such. Maybe because Schuller mentioned being “kinder, gentler” that the inference is the others are not. Regardless of how “kind, gentle” we are the Gospel is still an offense.

Also, the WHI guys did not advocate “hellfire and brimstone”. They were seeking to be biblical and hold Schuller to what he says he believes.

That said, the church should be a Gospel community that is nurturing and loving. Loving and nurturing enough to humbly explain to someone that they are a sinner in need of Jesus' Gospel. That they too rely on and continue to need the Gospel.

Thanks for stopping by.

You are basically arguing theory and he is up to his neck in practice. You are trying to get your plane to mach 15 without crashing it, which takes a lot of detailed understanding of aerodynamics, and he is trying to get people on a plane that flies. Perhaps a better image is that you want people to fully understand all of the excruciating truth before they accept Christ, even if it means driving a bunch of them away, and he wants to draw them to Christ and then bring them to a full understanding of its meaning.

But I think your interest is in nit-picking people to death while getting a lot of self-satisfaction, and dare I say, self-righteousness along with the fellow-members of your little cabal of small-minds.

As for being harsh, just look at just one example from Wesley in his sermon The Way to the Kingdom. Would Schuller preach Wesley's words below?

Knowest thou not that every sinner, enochos estai eis tEn geennan tou pyros, not properly, “is in danger of hell-fire” is far too weak; but rather, “is under the sentence of hell-fire;” doomed already, just dragging to execution. Thou art guilty of everlasting death. It is the just reward of thy inward and outward wickedness. It is just that the sentence should now take place. Dost thou see, dost thou feel this? Art thou thoroughly convinced that thou deservest God's wrath, and everlasting damnation? Would God do thee no wrong, if he now commanded the earth to open, and swallow thee up? If thou wert now to go down quick into the pit, into the fire that never shall be quenched? If God hath given thee truly to repent, thou hast a deep sense that these things are so; and that it is of his mere mercy thou art not consumed, swept away from the face of the earth.

Would you agree with me that Schuller's is a false profession of Calvinism?