Tag Archives: Marty Minto

Bent Out of Shape

3 Replies

I’m listening to the Marty Minto show right now (M – F, 3PM – 6PM on
101.5 WORD-FM in Pittsburgh) and he’s about to have a coronary because
a day care
center is teaching yoga to kids. He’s yelling for people to repent
and generally carrying on like a corner apocalyptic preacher. I called
the show and gave him an earful about the fear-monger he is. In his
eyes, there is no way anyone can practice yoga without being drawn into
Hindu. Oy!

For more about yoga and Christianity, check out this
Messy Christian post. Let me know what you think.

Is Yoga unChristian?

Just a year ago, my answer would’ve been absolutely. But the funny thing that happens when your worldview comes crashing down is that you start to question everything that you once so firmly believed in. I learnt, in the past few months, that one’s “version” of Christianity or how one practices it is largely influenced by cultural and societal pressures/factors. I even start to question the validity of the word “true Christianity” because one’s true Christianity is another’s “backslidden” Christianity.

This post is not to discuss why Yoga is B.A.D. I’ve heard them all, people. Nor is it to discuss why yoga is good.

I want to think beyond the good/bad mentality that many of us Christians have where we’re forced to choose sides. I want to get above that. One, because I’m tired of this line of reasoning. Two, because life is just not so simple!

Going It Alone

4 Replies

There was a very interesting Marty Minto show recently. His Catholic producer, Shaun "Powerball" Pierce, received a booklet by R.C. Sproul called "Justification by Faith Alone". In it, Sproul examines what justification is according to Scripture, compares the Roman Catholic and evangelical stances on this core doctrine, and discusses the relationship of faith and works–all to show why "by faith alone" is so essential. As Sproul puts it, "The crucial issue of infusion versus imputation remains irreconcilable. We are either justified by a righteousness that is in us or by a righteousness that is apart from us. There is no third way." Pierce’s Catholic sensibilities were offended and a two-page response was the result. I’ve obtained his permission to reprint it here. I’d like to hear your reactions to it.

Continue reading →

Talk Soup

Leave a reply

Since I’ve been listening to quite a bit of Marty
Minto lately, I decided to search Google for at-large opinions about him. He
doesn’t seem to make much of a splash in the blogosphere (not surprising, since
his broadcast is local to Pittsburgh), but I did find the following.

Talking
the Talk, Driving the Drive
Why I unprogrammed WORD-FM from my car radio

There are two kinds of people one should never argue with. The first is drunks. There’s no point in arguing with a drunk. As a paramedic, I found that it was often better to confuse them into doing what I wanted, or jujst call the cops to cuff the intox so that the intox had to do as instructed. The second kind of people one should never argue with are talk-show hosts. They have the control: the off switch.

I have to agree with this blogger that “Unfortunately, it would seem that Mr.
Minto has trapped in the materialist culture.” However, I disagree that teachings
against homosexuality are “based on some New Testament verses that actually
refer to pedophiles, not homosexuals.”

The post is a mix of points I agree and disagree with, but it’s interesting to me
as another viewpoint on Pittsburgh’s loudest Christian.

Saved

Leave a reply

I forgot to mention something yesterday. Marty Minto‘s been on a bit of an anti-Catholic tirade for the last week. One of his listeners wrote in to ask if anyone who truly loved Jesus could go to Hell, even Catholics. I sent the following as part of an email to him during his broadcast.

“I was saved when Christ died for man’s sins.

I am being saved as I attempt carry my cross daily.

I hope to be saved when I face final judgment.

I love Jesus. He is my Lord and Savior. I know you feel the same way. We should work with each other, not against each other.”

He responded by saying he doesn’t think I’m saved! He said that those who are truly born again in the Spirit have assurance of salvation and to think otherwise suggests a lack of rebirth. I sent the following as a rebuttal, but he didn’t respond to all of it on-air.

Paul spoke of running a race (1 Cor 9:24), working out salvation with fear trembling (Phil 2:12), and completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions (Col 1:24). Obviously, endurance is called for.

When I say that I was saved, I mean that Christ’s sacrificial act redeemed mankind. Through baptism by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we are buried with Christ and are entitled to rise with Him. Salvation is a gift. In order to be saved, however, we must actively accept that gift. Furthermore, that gift is not irrevocable. If we accept Christ one day and reject Him the next, we cannot possibly expect to be saved.

When I say that I am being saved, I mean that every day is a struggle and I know I can be led astray, lose hope, and lose faith.

When I say that I hope to be saved at the last judgment, I mean that I hope to persevere in Christ until the day I die. I pray that I will be counted among the sheep, rather than the goats. Not all who say “Lord, Lord” shall be allowed into the wedding banquet of Heaven.” I pray to be one who is.

Do I have any Evangelical Protestant readers who’d like to comment on this exchange? Anybody of any denomination want to chime in? What part of what I said is incompatible with “mere” Christianity (c.f. C.S. Lewis)?

To Amend or Not to Amend?

Leave a reply

I heard a caller on the Marty Minto Show today say something on the line of, “If we leave homosexual marriage to the states, the liberal state governments will screw it up.”This, to me, seems to miss the whole point of the question. It would be an abuse of the U.S. Constitution and contrary to the desires of the framers to amend marriage specifications into law. Homosexuality is mainly a Judeo-Christian sin. Everyone in this country is free to hold whatever religious beliefs they wish, if they wish. If a state wishes to defend Judeo-Christian beliefs, that is an appropriate recognitionof the balance between federal and state powers. The residents of such a state can try to fight such a law and/or leave the state if they disagreed.

Just because the state governments might screw things up, doesn’t mean the Constitution should be altered willy-nilly. It could set a bad precedent for federal invasion of privacy and curtailing of freedoms. The very people who support such an amendment could one day find themselves and their beliefs suppressed by its progeny.