@musterion99 - Then you don't believe in the "Young, restless and Reformed" movement.  Sadly not believing doesn't make them go away.

@Jenny_Wren - What many Roman Catholics believe is that their modern pope is an apostle like Peter, James, and John.  Peter and Paul were, in fact go betweens with the Churches and God, though each believer also has authority to appeal directly to God.   There are many things the RCC claims in dogma that are actually Biblically based.  Their view of communion, that it is the literal blood and flesh of Christ comes from John 6.   They go to far, but they are not the only Christians to do that. 

The Church of Christ doesn't allow musical instruments in their churches, not even a pitch pipe.  They don't have anything from the Bible to support their stance.  They claim that because there is no mention of musical instruments in the New Testament.  That is true, but silence is a terrible reason to create dogma. 

Every body of believers adds, or takes, or changes what Scripture teaches.  So if you're going to paint the RCC church as adding to the Scriptures, don't forget to splash that same paint on yourself.   That's one of the points I'm trying to make.  

@Jenny_Wren - There are many things the RCC teaches which come from the tradition of the first apostles.   The idea of bishops leading the church is found in the practice of the  first church.  The traditions laid out by the apostles wasn't always written down, but it was still practiced.  One of the vast differences between the church lead by Peter and James is that there was not a single bishop but many.  The Apostle Peter would never have understood the leadership structure of the modern Roman Catholic Church, i.e. a single bishop of Rome.  He would have understood that each Church had many bishops to lead a body of believers.  The first churches had multiple leaders, both male and female, but you find little evidence of that in the Bible we have.  When we look at the historical and cultural context what seems to be hidden comes out into the open.  

To really understand the Bible, history and context are very important.  Much of what is dismissed by modern Christians were actually accepted practices in the church at one time. 

When I wrote a pulse about praying for Pope Francis I, you said you would pray for his salvation.  Do you have any evidence that Francis is not already saved?  

@Jenny_Wren - @musterion99 - Yeah, I've seen them trot that out.  They also claim to be the true church founded by Jesus Christ.  The problem is the premise is completely fault.  Jesus did indeed found his Church, but the one he founded wasn't at Rome.  The Church was founded by Jesus in Jerusalem.   The first believers in Christ were all Jews, and for most of 10 years all Christ followers were Jews.  

Ephesians 2:8-9  "

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves;

it is

the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."
Matthew 18:20   "For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

It seems to me that Jesus has spoken on the matter.  I do believe that Christians are members of the universal church.of   I do believe that Christians need to be attached to a body of believers.  The Church is not part of salvation, but it is part of God's provision after salvation.  No one and nothing but Jesus Christ saves.  It is completely a work of grace we receive by faith.

@naphtali_deer -  Karen, you can see where I take a Roman Catholic to task over RCC dogma on communion.   http://www.revelife.com/771971994/recovering-catholicism-the-delicate-balance-of-tradition-and-personal-beliefs/  You'll need to read the whole thread of comments. 

And I suppose I keep going after the hypocrites because they keep going around attacking anyone not like them.  Honestly, I don't understand why you and others in the Reformed movement don't clean up your own houses instead of leaving it for people like me.   I have no problem with Michael Horton, Timothy Keller, and many other brothers and sisters in Christ.  I was a member of a Reformed Southern Baptist Church, and most of the people I know from there are very dear to me. If you're going to call me on the carpet then I'm going to call you on the carpet.  Why don't you start dealing with these Reformed bullies?   Of course they aren't picking on you, so perhaps you don't see the very real problem.  

When you start owning and dealing with the problem then feel free to come back to talk about wood in my own eye.  Until such a time, I'll continue to defend myself from the "Young, Restless, and Reformed" camp.

The link doesn't appear to be working, so you'll have to cut and paste.

@naphtali_deer - Karen I am, frankly, bothered by your attitude towards the "young, Reformed, restless,".  their leaders certainly do not have a problem slandering, maligning, and misrepresenting others.  I'll give you a published example.

"Mohler did this to me once.  So I know this it (i.e., misrepresenting
others’ views) happens.  I believe it happens in the article in
question here.  But let me offer my own experience as an example.  In a
book published by Crossway entitled A Confessing Theology for Postmodern
Times Mohler wrote of me that “Olson seems to agree with postliberals
that the biblical narrative is ‘history-like’ rather than history” (pp.
143-144).  He cited as justification for that claim my article “Back to
the Bible (Almost): Why Yale Postliberal Theologians Deserve an
Evangelical Hearing” (Christianity Today, May 20, 1996).

In fact,
one strongly made point of my article about postliberal theology is its
ambiguity about the historicity of the Bible.  I related a story there
about leaving a church because the pastor revealed that he did not think
it mattered whether biblical stories had any historical basis.  (The
pastor said he thought all that matters is the transforming power of the
stories.)  My article made abundantly clear that I think postliberals
need to come clean more clearly about the historicity of, for example,
the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Mohler’s published claim about me was wholly unjustified by anything I had written in that article or elsewhere.

So
I wrote him a letter pointing out his error.  He wrote back apologizing
but half defending his claim based on my alleged postmodern
proclivities.  I accepted his apology, but wrote to the book’s publisher
about the matter as Mohler’s misrepresentation of my views could damage
institutions where I taught then and teach now.  The publisher withdrew
the book from publication.  I was satisfied.  However, I’m sure some
damage was already done (in people’s perceptions of my theology).

Sometime
later, Mohler’s colleague Russell Moore wrote a piece for the Baptist
Press (disseminated to many Southern Baptist-related state newspapers)
where he wrote about me that “Olson, who calls himself ‘open to open
theism,’ denies he is an open theist, but calls the new view more
biblical than the traditional orthodox view of God as all-knowing,
all-powerful and unchanging.” (“Cooperative Baptists, Texas partners
ponder whether God knows the future,” July, 2002)

Nowhere have I
ever said or written the statement attributed to me by Moore in that
article.  It totally misrepresents my view.  If I thought that, then I
would be an open theist.  When I e-mailed Moore about it and asked for
his citation of a source (in my writing or speaking) he responded by
claiming it was justified by something I wrote in a review of Greg
Boyd’s book The God of the Possible at Amazon.com.  What he said I wrote
that justified his statement was that the view of God presented in God
of the Possible is more biblical than the caricatures of it often
presented by open theism’s critics.  Huh?

Look at those two
statements carefully and compare them.  I wrote that open theism, as
presented in God of the Possible, is more biblical than the caricatures
of open theism often presented by its critics.  I did NOT say it is more
biblical than the traditional view of God.

I asked Moore to retract what he wrote and he refused."

You can find the rest of the post by Dr. Roger Olson, here:  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/09/al-mohler-stirs-the-rob-bell-pot-some-more/

Karen I consider you to be a fair minded fellow believer.  I do not know how you can in any way defend Piper, Mohler, MacArthur, and others who so full of hubris and disdain for fellow Christians.  I take what Mohler has done to Dr. Olson, and too many others, to be reprehensible behavior.  Will you defend such disgusting, divisive, bullies?   I am frankly surprised at your stance here Karen.  Perhaps you should take some time and look at what critics have to say about the behavior of leaders of the "young, aggressively restless and Reformed", movement.  I would greatly appreciate it if you would take the time to look carefully into the accusations, before accusing me attacking Christ's servants.  I do not believe these men serve Christ's purposes at all.  I believe, and there are many who believe this, these men serve themselves, in God's name.  I will not be quiet when such men so grossly misrepresent Christ. 

@naphtali_deer - Karen, I can't imagine how anything I said about Mohler, Piper, and MacArthur could make you feel badly.  You aren't of their cloth.  When I think about you I think about Michael Horton and Timothy Keller.  You are nothing like a Mohler or a Piper.  You may share some things in common, but you are not of that ilk.   I would cross the street to hear you preach from the word of God, but I would cross the street to escape the shadow of Mohler.   You serve God.  I don't honestly believe those other men do, and I believe the evidence exists to prove my stance. 

Karen I have no issue or problem with you.  You have never been a target for me, and I am very sorry for making you believe you are my target, please forgive me.  I place you in a completely different category.  I'm certainly not saying you are better, than anyone else, but you have nothing of the bearing of a Piper.