Who Said That?

Who Said That?

"We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls. . . . We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity . . .in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people."

Leave your guess in the comments section below.  Please no google searches . . .  This one may surprise you! 

Update on Sunday, August 26, 2007 at 06:04PM by Kim Riddlebarger

Yup, politicians will say just about anything to get elected.  This comes from a speech Adolf Hitler gave in Passau, on October 27, 1928.  Amazing, isn't it.  

I wonder if anyone has ever done a study on the things such despots say before and then after they come to power. 

Who Said That?

Who Said That?

 "Fact is, as we continue to study these matters, our conclusions are confirmed again and again. We find more and more evidence of the likelihood that 2011 could well be the end-time year. Thus, we are greatly stimulated to send forth the Gospel so that as many people as possible can hear the Gospel in the shortest possible time.  If this world is still in existence after the end of 2011, we will know that there is still much more we can learn from the Bible. Before that time, or at that time, we surely will receive correction from the Bible concerning any conclusions which prove to be in error."

Place your guesses in the comments section below.  Please, no google searches or cheating.   

Update on Monday, August 20, 2007 at 05:27PM by Kim Riddlebarger

He's at it again . . .  This comes from Harold Camping's book The Time Is At Hand? (page xxii).  How can anybody still listen to this guy?  He's either a kook, senile or a false prophet.

Who Said That?

Who said that?

"From this we should learn that everything which is not united with our God and Christ cannot be other than an abomination which we should shun and flee from. By this is meant all popish and antipopish works and church services, meetings and church attendance, drinking houses, civic affairs, the commitments [made in] unbelief and other things of that kind, which are highly regarded by the world and yet are carried on in flat contradiction to the command of God, in accordance with all the unrighteouness which is in the world. From all these things we shall be separated and have no part with them for they are nothing but an abomination, and they are the cause of our being hated before our Christ Jesus, Who has set us free from the slavery of the flesh and fitted us for the service of God through the Spirit Whom He has given us."

You know the drill . . .  Leave your guesses in the comments section below.  Please don't cheat and spoil it for everyone else. 

Update on Sunday, August 12, 2007 at 06:03PM by Kim Riddlebarger

This comes from the Schleitheim Confession of 1527.  Michael Sattler, head of the Swiss brethren, was the principle author.  While not a confession per se, it is a statement of general Anabaptist conviction, especially the need to withdraw from all things "worldly." 

While you might make a good case that a Christian shouldn't spend all his time and his paycheck in a "drinking house," the confession exhorts Christians to avoid all civic affairs, and worship services of non-Anabaptist churches (that would include Reformed and Lutheran churches, who practice  what Sattler considered the chief lie of the papacy--infant baptism). 

Much of what is said here was said in the fundamentalist churches of my youth-churches now dominated by pop-psych, Christian activism and politics, and works-righteousness.  You can easily see how the Anabaptist concern about worldliness has been rejected in these same circles for a form of cultural accommodation.

Who Said That?

Who Said That?

 “This clash (between evolution and creationism) is an absurdity because on the one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

Please leave your guesses in the comments section below.  Please no google searches! 

Update on Monday, July 30, 2007 at 08:32AM by Kim Riddlebarger

These comments come from Pope Benedict XVI (Reuters, July 26) as he reflected upon the debate between creationism and evolution.  Benedict did go on to say that evolution falls short of answering “the great philosophical question `where does everything come from?”'

The Pope would benefit greatly from reading Fuz Rana's Who Was Adam?  Genetics will eventually kill evolution as a viable theory of origins.

Who Said That?

Who Said That?

"If I do not return to the pulpit this weekend, millions of people will go to hell."

Leave your guess in the comments section below.  Please, no google searches.  The fun is in the guessing!

If you wish to look at past "Who Said That" entries, click on the "Index to Current Posts," then find the index to "Who Said That?" 

Update on Monday, July 23, 2007 at 09:43AM by Kim Riddlebarger

These words were uttered by the famed televangelist and anti-Calvinist, Jimmy Swaggart.  How ironic that the same man who denies effectual calling and sovereign election, nevertheless had so much confidence in his own preaching.  When the Assemblies of God suspended Swaggart from ministry while in the midst of a series of sex scandals (Swaggart got caught cavorting with prostitutes), Swaggart boasted that unless he return to his pulpit before his suspension was over, millions would perish.  The Assemblies of God stood their ground and defrocked him.  Meanwhile, Swaggart (and his wife) keep showing us all how happy they are.

Who Said That?

Who said that?

"Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence. . . . There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world."

Please leave your guesses in the comments section below.  Please no google searches.  You must guess! 

Update on Monday, July 16, 2007 at 11:27AM by Kim Riddlebarger

This offensive screed can be found on page 24 of the "booklet" Southern Slavery As It Was, edited by Steve Wilkins and Doug Wilson.  Even if the distinction between race-based slavery as a sin and slavery as an institution can be sustained--and I am not sure it can be--the fact of the matter is that these sentiments are repugnant and Reformed Christians must repudiate them.

Southern slavery was race-based, and the subsequent failure of Reconstruction cannot be used to justify the supposed "idyllic" conditions of "Christian" antebellum south. 

Who Said That?

Who Said That?

"There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time."

You know the drill!  Leave your guesses in the comments section below.  No google searches please.  To check out past "Who Said That?" posts, Click here: Riddleblog - The Latest Post

Update on Monday, July 2, 2007 at 10:53AM by Kim Riddlebarger

These words come from the apostate Bishop, John Shelby Spong.  As some of you pointed out, these words are part of Spong's call for a "new Reformation."  Click here: A Call for a New Reformation

Who Said That?

Who Said That?

"Our government makes no sense unless it is founded on a deeply felt religious faith--and I don't care what it is."

Leave your guesses in the comments section below.  No google searches!  The fun is in the guessing!

Update on Monday, June 18, 2007 at 11:14AM by Kim Riddlebarger

These words come from a speech President Dwight David Eisenhower gave on Flag Day in 1954.  Civil religion in all its glory . . .

Who Said That?

Who Said That?

"If any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.  And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified."

OK, leave your guess in the comments section below. . .   No google searches!

Update on Monday, June 11, 2007 at 01:02PM by Kim Riddlebarger

These words, it is claimed, come from Jesus himself, speaking to his people through Joseph Smith's 12 July 1843 polygamy revelation on plural marriage and his demand that Emma Smith, the first wife, accept all of Joseph Smith's plural wives; The Doctrine and Covenants, 132:1–4, 19, 20, 24, 34, 35, 38, 39, 52, 60–62.  Lucky Emma . . .

Who Said That?

Who Said That?

"This [the obedience of the One] was our Lord's death, as an act of obedience. 'He became obedient unto death, yea the death of the cross.' He was, of course, always obedient to His Father, but it cannot be too strongly stressed that His life before the cross, His 'active obedience,' as it is called, is not in any sense counted to us for righteousness. 'I delivered to you,' says Paul, 'first of all, that Christ died for our sins.' Before His death He was 'holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners.' He Himself said, 'Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.' Do you not see that those who claim that our Lord's righteous life under Moses' Law is reckoned to us for our 'active' righteousness, while His death in which He put away our sins, is, as they claim, the 'passive' side, are really leaving you, and the Lord, too, under the authority of the Law?"

Please leave your answer (guess) in the comments section below.  No google searches, please. 

Update on Sunday, June 3, 2007 at 06:55PM by Kim Riddlebarger

This comes from Donald Gray Barnhouse's Romans: Expositions of Bible Doctrines, Eerdmans, 1966). III.105.  Barnhouse was a dispensationalist (as some of you noted, he often quotes Newell's commentary on Romans approvingly) and advocated a Keswick view of sanctification.  It is amazing how much Barnhouse's view sounds like some of the federal vision folk (i.e., the denial of the imputation of Christ's active obedience).  But in this case, Barnhouse's denial of Christ's active obedience is the fruit of his dispensationalism.