Home

An Example of an Example

Rush Limbaugh got into a little hot water with political liberals when he said: "I hope Obama fails" (source) So then it should be no surprise that I get into trouble with theological liberals when I make it clear that I hope the heresy of hyperpreterism and those who promote it fail. (source) The liberal religionist that got upset was a man named Phil Naessens. I then pointed out how unchristian it was to NOT desire the failure for those things and people who oppose God, this was in response to Naessens comment:

"You don't want to root against anyone. Especially if you're a Christian. You don't want to root for others to fail. Do you ever see people that have done that. Just rooted for people to fail?" -- Phil Naessens, a liberal religionist complaining that I desire the failure of hyperpreterism and those who promote it. -- listen to the 40 second audio clip of Naessens saying it

My point then, and now is the same as Limbaugh's point was in the political world. If there is a right and wrong ideology, be it political or theological; then of course we want to "root against" those who advocate the wrong ideology. We do want them to FAIL in the promotion and advancement of the wrong ideology. My original posting on this issue can be found here, and other places frequented by Naessens and supporters of Naessens. My point WASN'T about sourcing or not sourcing, as I AM known for sourcing so that people can follow the point and context. However, the example of Naessens I was using wasn't so Naessens' narcissism could be fed by people going to his website. Feel free to google him if you are interested. The example was restricted to the one comment Naessens made while he was actually participating in validating the very thing I hope fails; hyperpreterism. The context needed no further explanation.

I've posted this new article because Naessens seems a bit miffed that he once again was exposed (Eph 5:11, Jude 1:3, Romans 16:17-18, and very especially 2 Timothy 3:2-7 which tags Naessens to a T), exposed for being on the wrong side of God's care and consideration for Christians. But it doesn't end there. Naessens, thought he was going to score a home run with his new complaint, but Naessens' main supporter, Dee Dee Warren quickly shot him down.

Dee Dee, who clearly has no love for me, still honestly replied to Naessens faulty reasoning:

"...personally, I don’t think it is wrong to root for someone to fail, if the way we are doing it is to pray first for their repentance, and if they don’t repent, for God to sovereignly cause their failure." (source)

Dee Dee rebuffs Naessens further, after Naessens tried to make it look like he was talking about not rooting for people's financial failure.

"Hi Phil, I still respectfully disagree. I pray for the financial ruin of abortionists. FIRST for their repentance but if not, then for them to be foiled in every way." (source)

Exactly Dee Dee. I guess Dee Dee isn't going to be completely led astray by Naessens, the liberal REAL vendetta-driven religionist that validates and supports the heresy of hyperpreterism.
Listen to 40 second clip:

You may need: Adobe Flash Player.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Much Ado About Nothing?

I'm not convinced the two of you are even really disagreeing. Scripture points a pretty clear picture:

(1) We should, as you say, pray for the ruin of those things contrary to the will of God. As Dee Dee said, we should pray that abortionists find their practices in ruin, and are unable to book a single appointment. Psalm 9 is a prayer of thanksgiving for the ruin of David's enemies, and a perfect model for this.

(2) At the same time, however, and this is Phil's apparent point, we're called to love our enemies (Luke 6:27-28). Phil's point was that we don't want to be uncharitable even towards our enemies.

I don't really think Phil disagrees with (1); nor do I think that you disagree with (2). More than that, I think we'd all agree that the ruin of our evil ways is a grace, and we're better off for it. Bernard Nathanson stopped being an abortionist and started being a pro-life Catholic. Was his abortion practice ruined? Yes, praise God! But was he ruined? No: he was better than he'd ever been. Again, praise God! So to use Dee Dee's example, we should hate abortion, but love the abortionist, and want the ruin of his practice in part because God loves him and desires something much better for him.

You're right that we should desire the ruin of all evil ways; Phil's right that we don't want to root against the evildoers themselves, but should love them and desire a better way. Psalm 9 ends on a hopeful note, with David's prayer that in crushing his enemies, God will remind them of His might and their mortality [see Psalm 9:20]. That is, David loved his enemies enough to worry about their eternal fates. Do either you or Phil disagree with this?

Agreed

Thank you Mr. Heschmeyer for the comments. If Phil's comments were simply about not praying for the ruin of a person, I would totally agree but Phil was SPECIFICALLY on a podcast with a heretic -- a hyperpreteristi, who even chimed in about people praying for the failure of his hyperpreterist podcast. Phil had the perfect opportunity to make the distinction and admonish this heresy and he did not do so. I NEVER claimed we should root against evildoers themselves but we should root against the promotion of evildoing and of evil doctrine.

Phil specifically said: "You don't want to root for others to fail."

I think you'd agree that is wrong. We DO sometimes want to root for others to fail -- as in fail to be abortionists.

Perhaps the issue is that Phil just was not very precise in his words, and I could have given him more latitude in that area had he not been saying this on a heretical podcast with a heretic chiming in on the topic, trying to deflect against the Church's opposition to his heresy.

But again, thanks for your words Mr. Heschmeyer. I will take them to heart.

The Example continues

The subject of this posting, continues to show forth as an example of liberalism. Phil Naessens, after being confronted not only by my original article, by Dee Dee Warren, his own supporter, and by this follow-up article; Naessens CONTINUES to claim he and the hyperpreteristi host were "...discussing people and not ideas.".

So??? Does that change anything? Both I and Naessens' supporter, Dee Dee Warren directly addressed that we DO think there are correct times to "root for the failure of people" -- Abortionists for example. I do root that they fail to provide that service. I root for their financial failure from that practice. Naessens is such an arrogant liberal he just can't accept it when he is wrong; whether it is his enemies or his friends telling him he is wrong.