This page contains edited versions of users' comments and questions sent to me via the "send comments" forum. You could use the links below to just skip to the areas in which you are interested. Feel free to send your own feedback - negative or positive.
You're overlooking the overwhelming testimony of scripture that teaches positive thinking and confession, and just explaining away each one.
top of page send feedback home
Whenever you get a chance, read Romans 4. Paul had just finished teaching salvation by grace in chapter 3, now he is giving scriptural proof based on the old testament example of Abraham. Was salvation for the circumcised (Jews) or the uncircumcised (Gentiles)? Paul's answer was based on the fact that Abraham was declared righteous before he was circumcised, therefore salvation is not restricted to the Jews.
My point is this. Doctrine is not just based on the TEACHINGS of scripture, but also on the PRACTICE of scripture. How are the teachings evident in the lives and practices of the people in the Bible, especially those who knew the teachings. The practices of godly men and women in the Bible give us insight on how they interpreted the teachings. This is oftentimes a big clue to finding out the CORRECT interpretation of bible teachings. Even Jesus based his interpretation of the Sabbath law on the fact that David ate of the shewbread, which was not permitted, yet was guiltless in the matter (Mark 2:25-28).
If you say the Bible teaches positive confession, I dare you to name ONE person in the Bible who practiced positive confession. Give me one instance where a Bible character practiced positive confession as it is practiced today. And if you can't think of any, shouldn't that make you question your interpretation of those teachings? If Jesus didn't do it, if Paul didn't do it and if Peter didn't do it; why should we?
RE: POSITIVE THINKING
If there is nothing wrong with negative thinking, why are negative people always depressed and why do so many bad things happen to them?
top of page send feedback home
First of all, it is very questionable that bad things ONLY happen to negative people. Bad things happen to every one – in spite of their mental attitude. Now I stated in my article that the bible does have a lot to say about the mind and the tongue. One person (sorry I can’t remember who) said that optimists and pessimists are both right, but optimists are happier. Optimists – positive people as opposed to positive confessionists – are happier regardless of their circumstances. Negative people often do not accomplish much because they keep telling themselves they can never amount to anything, and as a result, THEY NEVER TRY. It’s not the confession that’s their downfall, it’s the lack of effort.
It is one thing to say that your mental state affects your state of happiness and your outlook on life. That’s all in order. But to say that your mental state can ALTER your circumstances – that’s heresy. That’s false doctrine. It’s actually cultic in origin. Dan McConnell, in his book A Different Gospel, traces positive mental attitude back to New Thought Metaphysics and Christian Science. Now it is clothed in Christian terminology hidden behind out-of-context biblical proof texts. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, modern Christianity is a mixture of the Bible and New Age philosophies. A little leaven leavens the lump.
RE: POSITIVE THINKING
All the disciples had the confession of Christ.
top of page send feedback home
Clearly that is not the same thing as positive confession. None of the disciples confessed healing, wealth, BMWs, etc. I know some people who confess "I am the righteousness of God". Yes you are the righteousness of God, but the Bible never tells us to confess that. It tells us to confess our sin and our sinfulness. What did Paul confess? "Oh wretched man that I am". Anyway, the confession of Christ is not the same thing as positive confession. The bible teaches one of them and not the other.
The Bible teaches that faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom 10:17). The Greek word here is rhema which refers to the revealed word rather than the written word (logos). Thus faith can come from a direct revelation from God.
top of page send feedback home
The belief that rhema refers to the spoken word while logos refers to the written word is totally false. Romans 10:17 says that faith comes by hearing, and hearing comes by the rhema. But verse 14 makes it clear that the word in question is the gospel message spoken by the preacher, not that which is revealed directly from God. In Hebrews 4:12, the logos word is said to be alive and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword. Also in Luke 7:7, the centurion just wanted Jesus to speak the logos. Thus this dichotomy between logos and rhema is unwarranted. They are used interchangeably in scripture.
How do I know whether a preacher is truly anointed or whether he is just a great orator or crowd control manipulator?
top of page send feedback home
I don't believe that we have to be concerned whether or not a preacher is anointed, just whether he is preaching sound or false doctrine, and that the preaching is edifying to you. Nowhere in the bible are we ever commanded to be anointed, so that is God's concern not ours. In Philippians 1:15-18, there were some people preaching Christ out of envy and strife. Paul's response was, "That doesn't bother me as long as they're preaching Christ".
I find it hard to believe that the saints have reached the status of perfection. I wonder how the saints in the early church guided themselves without scriptures.
top of page send feedback home
That's why there are pastors, teachers and evangelists. For
the perfecting of the saints. In the early church, they didn't have the NT as
you mentioned, but the bible makes it so clear that they continued in the
apostles' doctrine or teachings. They certainly did NOT "guide themselves
without scriptures" as you stated. They were guided doctrinally by what the
apostles taught them. Over and over Paul urged the believers to continue in what
they were taught. The NT is based on that apostolic doctrine.
The primary purpose of an apostle was to formulate the faith or the Christian
doctrine. For this reason, apostles had to have been personally commissioned by
Christ. If your apostles today are formulating new doctrines, then I'm sorry to
inform you that those guys are false apostles. The faith has been once and for
all delivered to the saints. And if your modern apostles are only planting
churches, then why call them apostles? Just call them evangelists. Is it the
status they want?
You have a really bitter spirit. I am a Pentecostal and I have never heard anyone squeal like a pig. You are brandishing the entire movement because of a minority group.
top of page send feedback home
You have obviously not read Matthew 23. The things Jesus said there make my comments seem like complements. I know my heart, and I know that what I've written was out of compassion and desire to see reform in the Pentecostal church. It was not out of bitterness. A friend's rebuke is better than an enemy's complement.
You are also obviously not familiar with the Brownsville revival or the Toronto Vineyard revival. People there have squealed like pigs. That and many other funny noises and manifestations - all done in the name of the Lord. Maybe those are the minority. But the problem is that there are so many Pentecostal and charismatic leaders who used to make the pilgrimage there just to bring some of that "anointing" back to their local churches. I am not making this up. The minority actually do it, but a much larger percentage covet and crave for a similar "revival" in their own churches.
Finally you are not familiar with all the positive emails I get from Pentecostals, including a couple from Pentecostal pastors, encouraging me to continue speaking the truth without fear or intimidation.
You are trying so hard to avoid calling masturbation what it is – gratifying the flesh.
top of page send feedback home
People seem to think that gratifying the flesh means to do something which feels good physically. If such is the case, then eating ice cream and cake would be gratifying the flesh. Gratifying the flesh means fulfilling the sinful desires of our unregenerate nature (flesh). The flesh and the body are not exactly the same thing, although there is a relation. The works of the flesh include the sexual sins as well as other things like envy and heresies, which do not necessarily feel good. If you think masturbation is gratifying the flesh, then you have to prove (not assert) that masturbation is a sin or a work of the flesh. You, unfortunately, do not have the bible to back you up.
Sexual desires are not works of the flesh unless they lead to fornication and adultery. Sexual desires are physical mechanisms that God placed within the human body to encourage procreation. Adam and Eve had sexual desires before the Fall. When a man does not ejaculate for 3 days or so, erotic thoughts begin to flood his mind. That’s a physiological fact about men. That’s his body’s way of trying to get his sperm out. As soon as he ejaculates, those desires just plummet. That’s a natural functioning of the male anatomy, not a work of the flesh. The flesh wants him to go and have sex with someone who is not his wife. Masturbating is not fulfilling the lust of the flesh. But ironically masturbating can actually help him deal with those erotic thoughts.
RE: MASTURBATION
There are many things the Bible does not say, but that does not make them right.
top of page send feedback home
I never said that masturbation was right. I said the bible does not call it a sin. What’s interesting though is that people like myself would be called liberals because I’m not afraid to interpret the bible in a non-traditional manner. A liberal is really someone who disregards the bible in favor of other authorities. A liberal would say something like, “The bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, but those scriptures are outdated.” That’s what a liberal would say. Therefore I am not a liberal. But then you have these hyper-conservatives who make doctrine on what the bible does not teach. One disregards what the bible clearly teaches, the other bases his beliefs on what the bible does not teach. Which is worse, you tell me. If the bible does not call it a sin, on what basis are you calling it wrong?
RE: MASTURBATION
God has given us a conscience to know what is right and wrong. When people masturbate, it’s not condemnation they feel, it is their conscience telling them it is wrong.
top of page send feedback home
Contrary to popular opinion, our conscience is not an infallible source of doctrine. In fact your conscience is anything but infallible. Read Rom 14 and 1 Cor 8. People have weak consciences and strong consciences, depending on the level of knowledge they have. Some people feel convicted if they eat meat, others don’t. Is eating meat a sin because some people feel conviction? No, it is a sin for them. Conscience does not tell you what is right and wrong ABSOLUTELY, but what is right and wrong FOR YOU. If all you know about masturbation is that people say it’s wrong, and you’ve never studied the scriptures for yourself, is it any wonder you feel conviction. Get knowledge. But according to Rom 14, if your conscience convicts you when you masturbate, then FOR YOU it becomes sin.
RE: MASTURBATION
Masturbation is the same thing as burning with passion, which Paul spoke against in 1 Cor. 7:9.
top of page send feedback home
Paul did teach that it is better to marry than to burn with passion. Is this what masturbation is? Clearly what Paul talked about in 1 Cor. 7 is something which exists in the context of a courting relationship. Paul's advice to such couples was to get married. If you were to be consistent with Paul, do you teach teenaged boys that if they can't help masturbating they should get married? No you don't. Instead you tell them to stop thinking "lustful thoughts". This tells me that even you know that masturbating is not the same thing as the burning with passion Paul spoke of. Paul's solution to passion was not restraint, but marriage.
Passion is simply the burning desire couples have to make love to each other. This passion may lead to masturbation. For example, if a couple engages in a heavy make out session, but don't have sex, the guy may be so turned on that he would masturbate when he gets home. But would it be any less passion if he did not masturbate? But masturbation does not have to be fueled by such passion. There is the normal male sex drive, which operates even outside of any romantic relationship. Sexual desire may be stirred up by couples getting too close, or it may churn up all on it's own. Masturbation may or may not be in the context of passion. It is the burning passion couples need to beware of.
What's interesting though, is that Paul never even called burning with passion a sin. Fornication is a sin, and he suggests that couples should get married to avoid fornication (1 Cor. 7:2). Burning with passion is only a danger zone in that it may lead to fornication (unless they got married), but Paul did not condemn it as sin. Paul never said that those who can't control their passions should repent and crucify the flesh. He said they should marry. In fact Paul strongly implies that the ability to be free of any sexual passion is a gift that not every one has.
RE: MASTURBATION
Masturbation reveals a lack of self control, which is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:23).
top of page send feedback home
Would you also say that sex in marriage reveals a lack of self control? In 1 Cor. 7:5, Paul intimates that Satan may tempt even married people for their "lack of self control", thus they should have regular sex with each other. Paul is saying that married people should have sex as a solution to their lack of self control. But if self control is a fruit of the Spirit, why is it OK for married people to lack self control, but not singles? Why didn't Paul condemn the lack of self control as a work of the flesh and tell them to crucify it? Is this the same Paul who said "make no provision for the flesh"?
Adultery and fornication are works of the flesh regardless of one's marital status. Both married and single people are capable of adultery and fornication. But Paul recognized that sexual appetites need to be fulfilled (1 Cor. 7:5). Therefore, self control cannot mean a total denial of sexual appetites, otherwise we have an inconsistency. If you believe that the need to masturbate reveals a lack of self control, then you must logically conclude that the need for marital sex also reveals a lack of self control. The bible never says that when you get married, you no longer need the fruit of self control. So it's the definition of self control that now becomes important.
The KJV's translation of self control is temperance. To be tempered means to be moderate, not extreme or excessive. Temperance or self control is best understood as not being controlled by our passions, desires and appetites; not a total denial of them. We need self control to MANAGE our passions. Paul presents marital sex as a tool to help married people manage their lack of self control. In other words, God does not expect us to have self control in a vacuum. He gives us "gifts" to help us achieve self control. I maintain that masturbation is actually an effective way for singles, especially teenagers, to control their sexual passions. If masturbation were a sin, then Paul missed a really good opportunity to say so in 1 Cor. 7.
RE: MASTURBATION
If masturbation is a legitimate means of fulfilling your God-given sexual desires while not married, then why not allow unmarried men and women to fulfill these desires by having sex?
top of page send feedback home
The difference between masturbation and fornication is simple. The bible expressly forbids one of them, and is remarkably silent on the other. Personally I find it hard to be loud in areas where the bible is silent.
RE: MASTURBATION
If you do not believe that sexual fantasy is wrong, do you also believe that pornography is not wrong?
top of page send feedback home
Good question. I do believe pornography is wrong for the following reasons. 1) It entails the enjoyment of other people’s sins of fornication. 2) It promotes the treatment of women which is less than respectful. 3) Pornography is a perversion of normal sexual desires. It does not create those desires, but rather feeds off them and perverts them. Pornography is much more than a mere expression of normal sexual desire.
RE: MASTURBATION
Masturbation is wrong because when a man does it, it deprives his wife of that pleasure which should have been for her (1 Corinthians 7:5).
top of page send feedback home
1 Corinthians 7:5 rightly states that husbands are not to defraud their wives, and vice versa. But I think that this is an argument borne out of desperation, because only a small percentage of marriages actually report such a problem. In the vast majority of marriages, it is the wife who is usually less sexual and often not in the mood, and as a result the husband finds himself with little other choice. Think about it. Doesn’t the fact that a married man has to masturbate tell us something about that marriage situation? How many wives actually complain that they want to have sex, but because their husband has already masturbated, their need goes unmet? How many wives really have that problem? Come on! The majority problem in marriages today is that the husband wants sex, but the wife is not in the mood. If however, there really is a marriage on this planet where the wife is deprived because her husband jumped the gun, then in such a case masturbation becomes wrong, not a sin, but wrong. I just don’t understand why a husband whose wife is so erotic would actually need to masturbate. That would be every man’s dream.
RE: MASTURBATION
The story of Onan teaches us that it is wrong for a man to “spill his seed”.
top of page send feedback home
Although the word onanism has become synonymous with masturbation, I omitted any discussion on Onan from my article on masturbation for the following reason: I didn’t see how any serious student of scripture would conclude that God killed Onan because he masturbated (Genesis 38:8-10). First of all, Onan did not masturbate. He was commanded to have sexual relations with his brother’s widow to raise an heir for his (deceased) brother. Because the heir would not be his, but his brother’s, he withdrew and ejaculated on the floor. Onan actually had sex with the woman. At what point did he masturbate? Onan was more guilty of contraception than masturbation, but God judged him for disobedience.
And what is this nonsense about spilling your seed being wrong? Talk about missing the point of the scripture. God killed Onan for disobedience, not because he spilled his seed. If spilling your seed is wrong, then using a condom is wrong because the seed ends up in the bin. Wet dreams would also have to be wrong. In fact, regular sex would have to be wrong too, because at best one sperm out of millions actually find its target – the rest eventually die just as if they were spilled. What people don’t get is that sperm is meant to come out. If a man does not masturbate, it will come out during a wet dream. But it will come out.
The fact that people have to resort to this extra-biblical line of argumentation just proves my point. The bible does not teach that masturbation is a sin.
Consider Leviticus 15:16,18
16 If any man has an emission of semen, then he shall … be unclean until evening.
18 Also when a woman lies with a man, and there is an emission of semen, they shall … be unclean until evening.
Verse 16 speaks of an emission of semen other than during sex, e.g. masturbation and wet dreams. Why do I say that? Because verse 18 specifies when the emission is during sex. But according to OT standards, an emission of semen was considered unclean whether or not it occurred during sex. The rest of the chapter goes on to discuss how a woman was unclean because of her “customary impurity” (her periods). My point is this. Why do you single out the “spilling of seed” during masturbation and call it wrong? Why not also call the emission of semen during legitimate male-female sex wrong? Why not call a woman spilling her blood a sin? They are all equally unclean by OT standards. The bible places them all on the same moral plateau.
You say that drinking alcohol is not a sin, but I know many cases where alcohol has ruined lives and marriages and families.
top of page send feedback home
I never said that drinking alcohol is not a sin. I said that social drinking may be a sin, depending on the circumstances. And I said that being drunk is a sin. In other words, I stated that drinking alcohol is not necessarily a sin, but could be. It’s grey area, just like eating meat (Romans 14:21). What destroys families and lives is not alcohol (C2H5OH). It is people who abuse it. Food has also destroyed lives of those who abused it. Why not make eating food a sin? Cars have killed many people, why not make driving a car a sin? Anything that is abused can destroy you. The problem is not with the thing being abused, it is the abuse of the thing. The problem is irresponsible people who cannot handle freedom.
RE: ALCOHOL
I was always convicted by scriptures like “Wine is a mocker”.
top of page send feedback home
Good for you. Romans 14 teaches that if eating meat violates your conscience, then FOR YOU, eating meat becomes sin. Also if someone else’s eating meat causes you to stumble, the FOR THEM, eating meat becomes sin. Drinking wine is in the same category as eating meat (See Rom 14:21). So if you are convicted by drinking wine, then don’t.
But don’t make doctrine for the rest of us. Don’t go beyond what the bible teaches. Proverbs 20:1 states that “wine is a mocker”, but what does that mean? “Strong drink is a brawler”. Does it brawl? Then it goes on to say, “Whoever is led astray [or controlled] by it is not wise”. Once again, this is talking about the controlling influence of being DRUNK with wine. It does not really condemn alcohol in moderation. God does not want us to be drunk with wine because it lowers our resistance against the desires of the flesh. In contrast, He wants us to be filled with the Spirit.
There are many pastors today who say that Paul allowed for divorce and remarriage in other cases other than marital infidelity (1 Cor 7). So for every one who says that Paul did not allow remarriage, there are a dozen others who say that he did.
top of page send feedback home
Because the majority of people believe something does not make them right. It is superficial to base an argument on HOW MANY people hold to your viewpoint. It is more useful to know WHY they hold to your viewpoint. Most pastors today adopt a liberal view of divorce and remarriage because they are catering to the many divorced and remarried people in their congregations. There, I said it. They are compromising the word of God because of the fear of man. Here is a quiz for you. Why was God angry with King Saul?
RE: DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE
I know many divorced and remarried people who are committed Christians and anointed men and women of God.
top of page send feedback home
So do I. Bless God. God continued to bless David after he committed adultery. Jesus was called the son of David, and will sit on David’s throne. But God NEVER considered Bathsheba to be David’s wife (see for example Matthew 1:6). His adultery was still wrong. Similarly there is no reason why God can’t bless or work through divorced and remarried people, even if their remarriage is sinful. We have this heavenly treasure in EARTHEN vessels (2 Cor 4:7). Sin and weakness are no reasons why God can’t work through us. We all have sin and weakness. That actually proves that the power is from God and not us. So because someone exhibits the power of God in their life, that doesn’t mean their life is necessarily above reproach. And it certainly does not mean that remarriage after an “illegitimate” divorce is OK.
RE: DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE
The Bible does not allow for remarriage at all. Divorce only applied to the betrothal or engagement period, never to the actual marriage.
top of page send feedback home
If this viewpoint is correct, then Jesus only permitted an engaged couple to break up if fornication took place. Engaged couples could not break up for any other reason? This makes no sense. This position is stricter than the word of God, and it is incorrect.
In Matthew 19, the Jews trying to test Jesus, asked him a question that had divided the Jewish community of the day. That question was whether a man could divorce his WIFE for any reason, or only for adultery. That was the question Jesus answered. There is every indication that he was speaking of marriage and not betrothal.
Someone may argue that fornication is a sin committed by unmarried people while adultery is a sin committed by married people. So when Jesus said that you cannot divorce except for fornication, he could not have been referring to married people, but engaged people, otherwise he would have said adultery and not fornication. But look at Matt. 5:32 and 19:9. They both say that if a man divorces his wife except for fornication, he causes her to commit adultery. But wait a minute. If this is referring to engaged (but not married) people, then how could he cause her to commit adultery? Do you see why this view is not correct? It contradicts itself.
The difference between adultery and fornication is not married vs. unmarried. Fornication is any general illegitimate sexual act. Adultery is a special case of fornication involving married people. Married people could commit fornication and adultery. Single people could commit adultery if they have affairs with married people. And adultery may not necessarily involve fornication (See Matt. 5:28).
Many young people would never come to Christ if Christianity were boring and dull.
top of page send feedback home
So how would they fare if they had to give up their life for the gospel? Do you think there is anything exciting about being stoned to death? Christianity is not about excitement. It is about dying daily and taking up our cross. Just because a ministry draws large crowds does not mean that it is bearing fruit that endures. Just because people jump, dance and run around the church, does not mean that they are worshiping God. We need to stop being so gullible.
I have seen ministers use music to try to excite young people into serving God. I'm afraid that is not the right way to use music. What eventually happens? They get bored and they backslide. Music can be a tool through which you communicate the gospel truths or exercise your spiritual gifts of comfort etc. Music can also be a means of expressing our worship to God. Music cannot create excitement that will lead to any permanent change in people's lives. Only the gospel can change people - it is the power of God unto salvation. The devil does not have a problem with young people dancing and getting excited in church because he knows that sort of excitement cannot keep them. He is afraid, however, of them developing a truly meaningful relationship with God built upon the solid foundation of His everlasting Word.
I attend a church where only men are deacons, but women are allowed to teach in Sunday School. Are we being hypocritical when we break with Paul in allowing women to teach, while following Paul in only allowing men to be deacons?
top of page send feedback home
There are quite a few issues surrounding this whole topic. One is the definition of elders and deacons. I know churches today define these terms differently, but in the Bible and elder was someone with a pastoral ministry, while a deacon was one with a physical ministry or “helps” (Rom 12). A deacon was also an office in the church (Acts 6 and 1 Tim 3).
Another issue is how scriptures apply to us today. Every scripture was written to a specific audience within a local, cultural and historical context. The question is HOW to apply those scriptures across cultural and historical boundaries. The following are my interpretation of the pertinent scriptures.
I don’t believe that Paul forbade women to teach small classes or to speak in church. There are scriptures like 1 Cor 11:5 which allow women to prophesy. However you choose to interpret prophesy – whether or not it is for the church today – the fact is that in Paul’s day women prophesied in church. But then you get to 1 Cor 14:34, where in the context of spiritual gifts, Paul urges women to keep silent. So how do you reconcile that? Some believe that chapter 14 prohibits women from prophesying in a large service (with men) while chapter 11 allows women to prophesy in a small service (with women and children). If that is the case, then Paul did not prohibit women from speaking, in an absolute sense.
Also I do not believe that Paul prohibited women from being deacons – at least not based on 1 Tim 3:12. The expression “husband of one wife” simply meant that the person in question should not be promiscuous or polygamous. These were huge issues among the Greeks. If you were to take that expression more literally than that, then you would have to conclude that single men could not be elders or deacons. But Paul was an apostle, yet single. In fact, Timothy most likely was single since there is not one reference to his wife or family in Paul’s two epistles to him. Paul referred to deacons in the masculine primarily because deacons were for the most part men. Whether Paul was just sticking to the cultural status quo or setting the tone for all ages, he did not say. I think verse 13 sums up the intent of Paul, when he states that the person should be in good standing in the community. In 1 Tim 2, Paul did refer to Adam and Eve, which suggests that there may be something inherently wrong with women being in authority over men. But deacons don’t have any real authority over anyone. Elders may have a lot more authority that goes with their office. So I don’t believe that Paul necessarily prohibited women from being deacons.
There may have even been a reference to a deaconess in Romans 16:1. Phoebe was called a servant (same Greek word as deacon) because she “helped” many. That’s what a deacon does. Did she hold the office of a deacon or simply performed the functions of one? It does not say, except that Paul was commending her to the Romans, and she was called a servant/deaconess of the church at Cenchrea. I hope this helps you to answer your own questions.
What a mixed bag of scripture plus your own personal opinions!
top of page send feedback home
Everyone has personal opinions. Every bible scholar and teacher who ever lived had personal opinions, biases, and prejudices. NO ONE is 100% objective. The real question is not whether I have personal opinions and whether those opinions are reflected in my writings. Of course I do and of course they are. The real question is whether my opinions are consistent with the scriptures. Most people's opinions are based on their tradition, denominational background, cultural conditioning, etc. But it is possible for traditions of men to nullify the word of God (Matt. 15:1-6).
At least I am trying to base my beliefs on the principle of sola scriptura. In fact, I have changed a few of my beliefs over the years based on what I think to be more correct interpretations of scripture. Remember scripture can be twisted (2 Pet. 3:16), so not every interpretation is correct. I once believed in the faith healing practiced in charismatic circles, now I don't. I once was a strong Armenian, now I'm a moderate Calvinist. At least I'm continually challenging myself and my own opinions. Some people don't even have the guts to challenge traditions, much less denominational beliefs. I find that to be so sickening and repulsive, really I do - that a person would place traditional beliefs on a higher plateau than scripture, and that a person would be so enslaved by what other people tell them truth is. What are the bases of your opinions?