January 22, 2009

The Sacredness Of Grace

The Catholic church treats the handling of the communion elements with utmost respect. When it is blessed it becomes for them the actual body and blood of Christ. The officiating priest carries a cloth to wipe the cup lest any excesses be spilt. The wafer crumbs are to be caught and placed in the silver plate. A cloth is used to wipe any residue and then shook into the plate. If any of the wine is spilt it is wiped with a dampened cloth and rung back into the chalice.

The remaining host is consumed by the priest and the wine is either drank by the priest or placed back in the sanctuary where it can be used in another service or served to the sick-at-home. Any misuse of the elements is considered a sacrilege.

This is symbolism of irresistible and effectual grace. No grace is ever wasted and to consider grace an unholy thing to be wasted by the sanctified is to insult the Spirit of grace. This is trampling under foot the son of God. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God.

Adrian Rogers' misleading his followers into Pelagianism is guilty of a sacrilege of grace. He was a careless and indifferent priest, mockingly spilling the blood and scattering the bread to be trampled underfoot. There is no forgiveness for this and to do so is to fall into the hands of an angry God!

The blood is effectual and irresistible and not to be cast out carelessly. Not a drop of holy blood will be carried into the lake of fire. Every drop will be carried through the portals of heaven to be displayed before the Father for his glory.


W said...

You definitely need to get some counseling about your unnatural preoccupation with Adrian Rogers. These attacks are sick.

Anonymous said...

Look this guy is closet homo besides whatever else he claims to be. We know what he really likes and enjoys. It is time he came out and joined the rest of us.

WatchingHISstory said...


Explain to us how my attacks are sick.

Is Dr Rogers your hero and i don't have the right to critique him? I have consistently said I will refrain from personality attacks. Just his theology and methodology.

W said...

Why are you even bothering with messing with Adrian Rogers' legacy. The man is dead (even though a bunch think he isn't), so let him rest in peace.

You might argue with his theology (but then I would assume he knew much more than you will ever know) but his methodology speaks for itself since he helped grow one the greatest churches in America.

If you want to attack someone and their theology and methodology, why don't you go after someone who is alive and can defend himself and maybe even speak to you in person.

By the way, are you actually a closet homosexual??

WatchingHISstory said...


Are you happy that I am attacking Dr Rogers living widow? She has contributed greatly to his theology and methodology. Perhaps there is time for her to repent and do her first works over and avoid the fires of heaven.

W yopu are as silly as anon. No I am not a homosexual, though I am casting my pearls to swine to say that to you and anon. You won't believe it.

But that is exactly my point. I would never dare say such a thing about Dr Rogers and his wife. That is a crude character assassination that has no place in Christian communications.

Now it is not character assassination to say that Paul Williams is a homosexual pedophile who should be rotting in prison.

He was tried in an ecclesiastical 'tribunal,' pronounced guilty of 'egregious and perverse sexual activity' (with his son) fired from his job and set free to roam the countryside.

Anonymous said...

W: Charles is in fact a closet homosexual but he has been over to see me a few times. And we weren't in the closet were we Charline? He likes being the lady because he does not have what it takes to take on a living preacher like you suggest and he calls you a coward?