November 22, 2007

All These Evil Things Come From Within

Dear Guests:

The Bible says,

“And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man,” (Mark 7:20-23).

With some reluctance I am going to briefly address an issue of concern in the “Crossless” gospel debate.

Many are aware of a new blog that has been opened that has some of the most vile, unchristian like content imaginable. For what will be obvious reasons to some, I will not name or link to it. I was first encouraged to visit the new blog by an anonymous person who goes by the handle, “Flavio.” Mr. Flavio inserted a link to the new blog in a thread here at my blog, which I immediately deleted. Oddly, Mr. Flavio objected to my deletion of his comment in which he linked to the new blog

The author of the articles (who I will refer to as Mr. Crossless) is obviously educated, articulate, and familiar with the doctrinal controversy. Furthermore, when not penning filth, he is speaking in support of the GES and advocates of the “Crossless” gospel. That said, anyone could recognize the author’s conscience has been seared and his gifts have come under control of the flesh and Devil. To him I offer this:
“But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace,” (James 3:14-18).

“But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. Submit yourselves therefore to God.
Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you,” (James 4:6-8).

On November 11th Mr. Crossless posted two comments at Antonio da Rosa’s blog. See the thread under the article Question & Answer with a TFG

Until today (Thursday, 11/22) Antonio left those comments in tact. This morning Antonio deleted one of them, which contained some remarks and expletives that should not appear on any Christian based web or blog site. Only today, after ten days of his retaining that comment with a link to the new blog, why did Antonio finally express his displeasure and remove the one (of two) comments by Mr. Crossless?

Antonio has been very active in his and other blogs throughout the previous ten days, and therefore was aware of the offensive comments in his thread. A third party (Jon Perrault) encouraged Antonio to delete those comments, but that plea fell on deaf ears. Ten days after the fact, Antonio decided that the post and link to the new blog should be removed.

Antonio has, however, kept one of the comments up in his thread. Furthermore, Antonio leaves an open invitation for Mr. Crossless to return to his (Antonio’s blog) and post at will with only one caveat. Antonio wrote to Mr. Crossless,
I do not mind you leaving your comments here as long as you do not link to your blog or use any crudity here.”
Anyone who has spent any amount of time in the blogs is well aware that clicking on the name at the head of a comment will link to that author’s blog, if he/she has one. Therefore, allowing Mr. Crossless to have access to his (da Rosa’s site) will allow for continued linking to the blog Antonio claims is “vile and not Christ honoring.”

In my opinion, if Antonio was sincerely offended by the content of Mr. Crossless’ blog and does not want any linking to it from his FGT blog, he would ban Mr. Crossless from posting at his blog. Objective readers have seen Antonio delete comments for what he must surely consider far less offensive material than what he retained at his blog from Mr. Crossless for ten days .

Since Antonio does not respond to private e-mails I will close with two Open Questions to Antonio:
1) After your being aware of the offensive comments and the link by Mr. Crossless at your blog; Why did you leave it up for ten days?

2) During your Friday, Nov 17th meeting with Dr. Bing and Dr. Hixson did either of them ask you if you have any knowledge of this blog? If they did; why did it take you another five days to act on the vile…not Christ honoring remarks at your blog?


I may keep this article up only briefly so that it does not distract from the more important task of contending for the faith against the teachings and advocates of the “Crossless” gospel.


  1. Following is a copy (slightly edited) of what I originally posted to Antonio at his blog, but deleted it. I decided to respect Antonio’s wishes that I not post at his blog.

    Antonio you wrote, “Crossless, I have deleted your post with your link.”

    Ten days after the fact?

    If you were serious you would delete the remaining post. As you are well aware, anyone can link to that blog from his remaining post here. You do not want to allow your site to be used as a link to the Crossless blog; do you Antonio?

    Furthermore, your allowing him to post here [at da Rosa's blog] will keep that link capability established; won’t it?

    If you were truly offended and found that site “vile” why do you intend to allow Crossless to post at your blog and thereby keep the linking capability active?

    Ten days after allowing for that (now deleted) comment to appear at your blog indicated to any viewer your tacit approval of its content, nature and the blog from which the author originates.

    This late hour (disapproving statement and) deletion is a facade, and any objective viewer knows it.


  2. Lou,

    Even IF (and that's a big "if") Antonio is truly opposed to that blog, I find it interesting that the author of that blog chose Antonio's blog as his first (and so far only, that I know of) place to advertise. Even IF she/he was wrong, the author apparently felt that Antonio would be sympathetic toward his blog, and would be most likely to allow his/her advertisement. Surely that says something about how Antonio is perceived, even among those who agree with him.

  3. Rachel:

    You wrote, "Even IF she/he was wrong, the author apparently felt that Antonio would be sympathetic toward his blog, and would be most likely to allow his/her advertisement."

    Any notes from da Rosa to show disgust over it is purely window-dressing. Antonio was and is sympathetic toward that blog. He kept that initial comment up at his blog for ten days.

    IMO, he received some "encouragement" to take it down, and probably bristled over it.

    da Rosa's methods and poor behavior, including plagiarism are well-documented throughout the blogosphere, which is why he is often banned and/or reprimanded by other blogs, such as Expository Thoughts and Pyromaniacs.