Tag Archives: Rev. Gary Nicolosi

Rev. Gary Nicolosi ruminates on how 9/11 shows us what God is like

Posted on by
Reply

From here:

God is like the firefighters who ascended the steps of burning buildings to save those who could not save themselves…

And who could forget the stories of airline passengers and workers at the Twin Towers, knowing they would die, who called others to say, “I love you.”…

And how about all the rescue workers who ploughed through the rubble in the coming days…

True enough, but there was one curious omission which, because of its nature, I can’t help thinking was deliberate.
God is also like this on Flight 93:

The passenger revolt on Flight 93 began at 09:57 after the passengers took a vote amongst themselves about whether to act. By this time, Flight 77 had struck the Pentagon and Flights 11 and 175 had struck the World Trade Center towers. The hijackers in the cockpit became aware of the revolt at 09:57:55, exclaiming, “Is there something? A fight?”…….

The cockpit voice recorder captured the sounds of crashing, screaming, and the shattering of glass. Jarrah stabilized the plane at 10:00:03. Five seconds later, he asked, “Is that it? Shall we finish it off?” Another hijacker responded, “No. Not yet. When they all come, we finish it off.” Jarrah once again pitched the airplane up and down. A passenger in the background cried, “In the cockpit. If we don’t, we’ll die” at 10:00:25. Sixteen seconds later, another passenger yelled, “Roll it!”……

The 9/11 Commission Report concluded that “the hijackers remained at the controls but must have judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them”. However, many of the passengers’ family members, having heard the audio recordings, believe that the passengers breached the cockpit and killed at least one or all of the hijackers.

The passengers of Flight 93 sacrificed their live for others so you would think they might deserve a mention – if it weren’t for that deeply troubling last sentence: they may have  killed some of the hijackers. That’s just not very inclusive is it.

 

 

Anglicans deal with heretical bishops by waiting for them to die

Posted on by
1

That seems to be Rev. Gary Nicolosi’s approach in this article. While waiting for wayward bishops to die might appear to be gentler than summarily defrocking them – assuming the process isn’t artificially hastened – it doesn’t work particularly well in a church like the Anglican Church of Canada which is producing new heretical bishops at a greater rate than it is burying them.

Bishop Paul Moore of New York told a story several years ago about an incident that occurred in his junior year at General Theological Seminary. Some of the students were upset by a headline in The New York Times stating that the bishop of Birmingham (England) did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus. The students rushed to their theology professor, Dr. Marshall Boyer Stewart. “Dr. Stewart, Dr. Stewart,” said the students, “what are we going to do? The bishop of Birmingham, a real English bishop, does not believe in the resurrection!” Dr. Stewart put his face in his hands, sighed and said, “Well, the bishop of Birmingham will die someday, and the next bishop of Birmingham probably will believe in the resurrection.” That, Bishop Moore said, is how Anglicans deal with heresy!

Nicolisi’s article deliberately muddles the necessity for confronting heresy by quoting Matthew 13:24-30, the parable of the weeds: in his view, heresy is a weed that, if uprooted, might also uproot the wheat. This, of course is a typically devious liberal misapplication of a parable. While we are not to uproot possible unbelievers from the church, allowing teachers – bishops – to spout anti-Christian nonsense is an entirely different issue.

2 Peter 2:1-3 puts pay to the idea of  tolerance  for false teachers; unsurprisingly, Nicolosi doesn’t quote from it.

Rev. Gary Nicolosi enlightens us on being “right wing”

Posted on by
Reply

From here:

[T]he media—both in Canada and the United States—have not been helpful in reporting the Norwegian tragedy. They have repeatedly characterized Anders Breivik as a “right wing, Christian fundamentalist.” However, at least two of these three assertions are not true.

[…..]

To put it bluntly, Mr. Breivik is a racist and a bigot who upholds a Scandinavian version of a master race—an ethnocentric superiority that views foreigners, and especially Muslims, as a virus to be eliminated. Whatever else his philosophy may be, it is NOT Christian.

Nor is Mr. Breivik a fundamentalist, if one means a Christian fundamentalist. I know some Christian fundamentalists, and none would ever consider murdering innocent people.

Only two assertions not true? According to Rev. Nicolosi, Breivik is definitely not a Christian or a fundamentalist. That leaves us with his being merely “right wing”, just like William F Buckley and Ronald Reagan.

How helpful, Rev. Nicolosi.

How does the Anglican Church of Canada plan on attracting people?

Posted on by
7

By lowering the standards for membership. Of course, by doing so, everyone will catch on to the obvious fact that by requiring little from its followers, the church has little of value to offer: the lower the cost, the lower the value, the less the desirability of the merchandise, the fewer people interested.

In its ceaseless striving to become worthless, the Anglican Church of Canada is considering offering Communion to those who don’t believe in it. From here:

Should we invite persons who are not baptized to receive Holy Communion? The church is discussing this question today. Anglicans traditionally have believed that the eucharist is a family meal, reserved for members of the church through baptism. Those who are not baptized are not members of the church; therefore, they cannot participate in the family meal.

This exclusive view of the eucharist has a long history. St. Paul warns against eating and drinking in an “unworthy manner” (I Cor. 11:27), though he seems to leave the decision whether to partake in the meal to each person’s conscience (I Cor. 11:28). Closed communion is standard practice in some Christian churches, including the Roman Catholic and Orthodox. However, many Anglican churches throughout the world now practice open communion. There are good reasons, both missional and theological, for doing so.

 

What does the Anglican Church stand for?

Posted on by
2

A question posed by The Rev. Dr. Gary Nicolosi here:

Did you know that more people around the world can identify the golden arches of McDonald’s than the cross of Jesus Christ?

Why is that?

Ask any bystander what the Anglican Church of Canada stands for and you will probably get a blank stare.

If it comes to that, ask any Anglican and you will probably get a blank stare. The Anglican Church of Canada has gone to great pains not to stand unequivocally for the foundational beliefs of the faith for which it thinks it is a merchant. Bishops and priests routinely dither on questions of Jesus’ divinity, his atoning sacrifice on the cross, his bodily resurrection and man’s innate sinfulness. Many priests say that they cannot, in good conscience, recite the creeds and some no longer hold with antiquated ideas such as heaven and hell.

Perhaps that is why.