Saturday, December 29, 2007

More on Atheism...

Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God. -- Heywood Broun

A while back I did a post on atheism and gave my three most used “arguments” against the view. Again I am not out to “change” anyone nor am I wanting to get into heavy debate. Yet, the one that most either thought was not strong or was not the best seemed to be the idea that all men are born with the idea of a god that exists and must suppress this view in order to be an atheist. To me this is actually the strongest view as I see that most atheists once did believe in “god” but rejected the idea. I know of not one that started out stating there is no god and then tried to prove their position… which is still at least to me a rather strange thing to do if a god does not exist. Why argue about a god that does not exist if one does not exist? It seems like one arguing that one cannot fly as they are falling from an airplane… trying to convince the other person that they also cannot fly as they hit the ground. If god did not exist then to me at least there need not be any reason to discuss it or to try to convince others that one does not exist.

It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists. --Mohandas Gandhi

Now, I found this idea is not new (at least not original with me) This is called theistic innatism, in fact the idea that there is no god is only recorded back as far as the 5th century bce so it seems that the view that one is born with the view that there is a god has more historical basis. Of course one might argue that superstitions and such also were more prevalent, yet that still does not prove that man is not born with the innate view that there is a god.

Still, as one person stated that he saw this view as not strong… it seems that if I was to ask this person, I bet he would reply his view that god does not exist came out of studying and science, both to me are not anti-god but if one can, would prove god more. I do not see science and faith as incompatible, in fact most of the greatest scientist professed a faith in God. I am not going to go through them now, yet Isaac Newton was one that even wrote a biblical commentary.

Now, I took the view out of Romans chapter one…
In Romans, Paul lays out that man has no excuse, “since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.” And that “men who suppress the truth by their wickedness”. Now, I am not stating that all atheists are “wicked” so please do not take that as what I am stating… What Paul is referring to is those who worshiped creation in place of the True God…

Now Paul does go on to state, “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

If one just looks at creation, then one must realize that there is a design. If there is a design there need be a designer. So, the one thing an atheist needs prove to me is that design can happen without a designer then I will take real look atheism as a valid view.

But, if there is a design, then there need be a designer… even in the natural world, such as the Grand Canyon, in its design, water became the designer of the erosion. Yet, still one must go back to ask how water was designed. Keep working back to the Big Bang and find that somehow something must come out of nothing… which then leads us to Genesis in which God creates all out of nothing.

Now recently a few scientists created matter from light. They have known that this can be done for many years, yet no one has taken the time to do it until recently. Interestingly the very first thing God spoke into existence out of nothing was… light… and from light all matter came.

If there were no God, there would be no atheists. --G.K. Chesterton

Now, to state that one “knows for certain there is no god” then places one into the category of being all knowing… and if that be so, then has make oneself a “god” in and of themselves. Now, I know of no atheists that claim to know all things. Though some are not willing to admit that they are really agnostic, to not know is to state still the possibility of the existence of a god.

To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge" --Ravi Zacharias

Now, I find this to be true, that one who truly is searching will find their way to a philosophy, and as they dig deeper they will find themselves involved in “religion”… the issue is that a little philosophy will bring us to the idea that man is truly the highest of being… yet, a little more thought will make one realize that this is not the truth. There has to be something or someone higher… the deeper one digs in philosophy they will realize that one can become lost in the faith of man and in all the ideas of man’s philosophy. I see it can shake one to the core, yet in the end if one truly seeking truth, truth reveals itself and pushes on deeper and deeper into the realm of faith. Can a man live as an atheist without faith… no, one must place all faith in one’s own understanding though… and I for one do not think I have that much faith!

A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion. --Francis Bacon

Again, I see that the idea that one must suppress belief in a god has more validity than to not believe. Yet, to believe in a god is not enough to find Truth. One must have faith. Faith is a gift from God it depends totally on what one places this faith in… yet if one cannot beleive in God, to admit that one lacks faith to do so, is the beginning of gaining enough faith for one's path to find Truth.

Be blessed,

Friday, December 28, 2007

Carrying the Cross... emails from TES

TES, my beautiful wife, received a email going around. Here is the series of picture, below is the email exchange we about it. (You may need to click on it to see it better.)
From: Tes Shelton [mailto:] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 4:24 PM
To: iggy
Subject: RE: The Cross

Is this accurate? What is the cross that we carry? Or do we have a cross to carry?
From: iggy [] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 10:57 PM
To: Tes Shelton
Subject: RE: The Cross

I hate this one…

The cross we carry is two things.

One each must carry their own death and in that realize that being dead we need the Life of Christ to live… so on a small level this is true…

The other cross we carry is that we partake in Christ’s sufferings and our salvation is perfected… yet to fail in our sufferings does not mean we lose salvation, for that means it then becomes works salvation and not by Grace.

Love ya
From: Tes Shelton [mailto:] Sent: Tue 12/11/2007 8:33 AM
To: iggy
Subject: RE: The Cross
I love you. I’m so blessed to have you as my husband. I love it that you study and think through why you believe what you believe. And, more importantly, that you let the Holy Spirit guide you and teach you His truth. I’m so proud to be your wife.

All I can say is I have a great wife!
be blessed,

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Mike Corley goes to Mars Hill... it was not as he was told.

Mike Corley decided to do what a real Online Discernment Ministry would do... go out and check on all the rumors.
With hit pieces like this one by Ingrid... which seemed more about her own lascivious mind than the reality of what was happening at Mars Hill. I am glad to see someone actual research instead of regurgitate the lies and slander that many others are content with spreading in their protecting of "truth".

Now, many have written about how bad Mark Driscoll is... yet to Mike Corley's surprise... it seemed not as he was told... surprised? Not me!

At least one ODM has actually done some research... I just hope he now realizes that some he has associated in the past with, may not have the gift of discernment they claim...

And KUDOS to you Mike!

be blessed,

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Ken Silva raises missing the point to a new art form

There is a post by Ken Silva at who help people with porn addiction. This ministry has helped many people and has even helped some porn-stars find Christ and leave the porn industry. Now, I may not agree with some of their tactics but I do see real fruit coming from this ministry.

But Ken seems to think that Jesus does not love porn-stars or people addicted to porn...

Here is part of what Ken Silva aka "Comment Author proporn Comment Time Apr 11th 2007" (interesting name that Ken Silva chose....) had to say:

"Since this supposed XXXchurch is quite a titillating and very questionable area of “ministry,” which young people would probably think is “cool,” I began to wonder if Rob Bell was involved in some way. Was I surprised to find out that Rob Bell “knew these guys.” Nope. Did it catch me off guard that Rob had been the one who would be instrumental in bringing, ahem, exposure to their “work” for Christ? O, most definitely not! Somehow I just knew Bell would be at the bottom of this spiritual sewer. And sure enough, clever Rob would be the one to come up with the catchy li’l title “Porn Sunday.”"

Ken was hoping to "catch" these "rebellious" emergents in all their vile nastiness... yet it seemed to backfire.

And why had Ken not really pointed this out? Because he would rather continue in the sin of slander against people and ministries that state the truth.

Be sure to read all the 21 (real nasty and rebellious) comments... and you will see the only nasty one is Ken Silva himself.


If you are having trouble with porn addiction and need help now... Sign Up for Pure Online Now!

Friday, December 21, 2007

Mini Me!

Mini Me!

I don’t get the “substitutionary atonement only" people…

I don’t get the “substitutionary atonement only" people…

1. It is not an “atonement” but a “propitiation” it is the difference between putting a blanket over vomit on the carpet or having the carpet made clean as if it was never messed up. Propitiation is the idea of a ransom given to pay for our sins so that we do not have to collect the “wages” of sin being death.

2. The gospel of Mark is about Christus Victory. To state that that the only view is substitutionary atonement means we need throw out that Gospel as it does not teach that idea, but it teaches the idea of the “suffering King”.

3. Atonement is an Old Testament and old covenant view. “Taking away the sins of the world” is the NT teaching and view. Jesus not only covers us, but also cleanses us… or as Hebrews states:

Hebrews 9:13-15 “The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

It seems funny that to teach just “penal atonement only" is to them more “biblical” as you need deny major passages of scripture to make that a “truth”.

If you want to learn more of different views this is a great article to read.


Tuesday, December 18, 2007

OK This guy usually bothers me... but... from poop emerges

This guy usually bothers me but at poop is emergent too he has an interesting take on Ken Silva and Tony Jones.. though I do not agree 100% I see that not all on Ken Silva's side agree with him and his tactics.

be blessed,


Monday, December 17, 2007

Oh the inhumanity of it all...

I was asked to show a picture of me as Mr. Incredible.

So here it is.

Now here is the background on this. It was 2004 and I worked as a local car dealership. Their name had "incredible" in it and the movie The Incredibles came out. So we did a promotional in which I was Mr. Incredible. I signed autographs for kids and the local theatres... I think at least 300 autograph pictures. I also did an appearance with the Power Team. No I did not tear any phone books in half! LOL!

Somewhere at one of the radio stations here in Billings, there is a picture of me flexing with the Power Team... if you know of it and can get it for me... I would like a copy.

OK, I am a bit embarrassed about the whole thing, but it was a bit fun to be a superhero for a while.

And no, they took the suit back when we were done...



One subtle deception of John MacArthur: Bad Quotes

I am amazed that more people do not understand that Truth protects us... we do not protect truth.

John MacArthur states in his book The Truth War...
“It is our duty to guard, proclaim, and pass that truth on to the next generation." [1 Timothy 6:20–21]

Now let's go look at his reference.
"O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge— 21 by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen."

Note how subtle this is... but that is how Satan works!

Yes, Paul is stating to Timothy to "Guard what was committed to your trust.." but does Paul go on to say "go out and fight and expose those who attack truth."? No.

Paul simply states to Timothy to guard Truth by, "avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge..."

Notice the word... "avoiding". It does not nor has ever meant to declare war on others.

My Truth is the Person of Jesus Christ. I see that He protects me... I cannot do anything to protect Jesus for He is God and I am a mere man.

So, my question is this... What kind of god needs protecting? And if that god does, how can a finite man protect an Almighty, all powerful God?

It seems to me that John MacArthur has diminished God from Who He really is in this "truth war" and the more I learn of John MacArthur's theology, the more I wonder if he thinks himself greater than God Himself...

Friday, December 14, 2007

So Ken Silva... What is your beef with Tony Jones?

I am going to just ask this open question.

I have read much of Ken Silva' "false" accusations against many... yet I am wondering what are the specific things Ken holds against Tony?

Now, if you use the "Tony used the "f" word... I will remind you Ken you used the headline,and the quote many more times than Tony has... and in fact I am on record as asking Tony to tame down his language... so let's move on from that one.

Yet, how can you justify the name calling?

What are the facts behind these "names"... that make them so true?

I am holding this out so that you can state your case. So far I see these as slander and lies... but then, it seems you thrive on those things.

So, without making this all about me... let's talk about Tony Jones... and all the facts (which seemed to become opinions as of late) that you have piling up against him.

Updated: This is an example of Ken's "research" (now opinion) in which as usual he gives only half the story.
So Ken... about the lies and slander (I mean "opinions") concerning Tony... I am still waiting for you to prove your lies and slander as Truth...

Monday, December 10, 2007

YWAM shootings... "we forgive."

I heard about the shootings both at the Denver YWAM base and at New Life Church early this morning.

Our prayers are with all.

The official stand from YWAM is "We Forgive".
It also seems the man responsible has been identified as a former attendee at that YWAM base.



Pray for Bridget Lambert

Janna and Bridget are coworkers. Please take some time to pray for Bridget.


Bridget Lambert

2:10pm Today

I've covered almost every prayer chain known to man, but I am asking you to pray for my best friend Bridget Lambert.
In October, after struggling with intense headaches for weeks, Bridget was admitted into the hospital. The doctors informed her that she had suffered from a pinpoint stroke and a blood clot lodged behind her left ear.

After almost two weeks in the hospital she was released and told that she would have to continue to take blood pressure medication as well as a high dose of blood thinner. They hoped that the clot would eventually dissolve in the blood stream and things would return to normal. Bridget has been unable to return to work (at the Billings Gazette) over the past 7 weeks and her short term disability is almost up. She has been extremely stressed about losing her job and having so many bills to pay.

On Tuesday she had an MRI and there was no change in the clot so they did a second spinal tap to check the pressure of her spinal fluid. The doctors did tell her that it was not as high as her initial visit but it was the only good news they could offer. They had planned to put a stint behind her eyes to try and relieve the pressure on her optic nerves to try and save her eyesight but the initial appointment eyesight has been deteriorating. We had all been hoping for some baby steps forward but instead she has had to take two big steps back.
Yesterday, Bridget complained of back pain and leg cramps/shooting pain so she was admitted into the hospital last night. The did another scan and found what they are calling "spontaneous internal bleeding" the size of a softball in her lower back on the left side. To reverse the affects of the blood thinner they are shooting her up with Vitamin K to help her blood clot to stop the internal bleeding. This puts her into high risk due to the stubborn blood clot. She is in a lot of pain and is very very scared right now.

Today she recieved the Vitamin K as well as a batch of platelets to hopefully stop the internal bleeding. Because she has been losing so much blood she has become anemic and they have asked her to consider a blood transfusion to refill her blood reserve. If she didn't take the transfusion she would risk bleeding out but by taking transfusion she still risks the chance of contracting blood born pathogens that could harm her.

Please please pray for healing and fantastic doctors to aid her in recovery. This has been a frustrating ordeal for her, her family and friends and she could use every prayer you can give.

Thank you and Merry Christmas to you and yours,
Janna and Bridget at the 2007 Relay for Life

Saturday, December 08, 2007

Devotional: Exchanged Life

By: Major W. Ian Thomas

Christian living is not a method or technique; it is an entirely different, revolutionary principle of life. It is the principle of an exchanged life" not I, but Christ liveth in me" (Galatians 2:20).

This is all part of our Gospel - it is not the Gospel plus! We must not get our terminology wrong. To divorce the behavior of the Christian from the Gospel is entirely false and is not true to the Word of God, yet all too often such is the characteristic of gospel preaching.

I would like to explore with you what is the true spiritual content of our Gospel ­ not just heaven one day, but Christ right now! Christ in you, on the grounds of redemption ­ this is the Gospel! To preach anything less than this must inevitably produce "Evan-jellyfish" ­ folk with no spiritual vertebrae, whose faith docs not "behave!"

Do you remember what James says in his epistle? "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead" (chapter 2:26). The "spirit" there means breath, and a body without breath is dead. Stop breathing ­ and folk will bury you! In other words, a living body breathes, and a living faith breathes, and a living faith breaths with divine action. A living faith breathes with the activity of Jesus Christ. That is why the Lord Jesus, in John 6:29, said, "This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent."

That is the work of God. It is your living faith in the adequacy of the One who is in you, which releases His divine action through you. It is the kind of activity that the Bible calls "good works," as opposed to "dead works."

"Good works" are those works that have their origin in Jesus Christ - - whose activity is released through your body, presented to Him as a living sacrifice by a faith that expresses total dependence, as opposed to the Adamic independence (Romans 12: 1,2).

It is only the life of the Lord Jesus -- His activity, clothed with you and displayed through you, that ultimately will find the approval of God.

From: The Saving Life of Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House. ©1961.

Thursday, December 06, 2007

Goodbye Major...

I just found out that Maj Ian Thomas passed on to be with the Lord last August 1st... somehow I missed this.

Major Ian has been a major influence on me for a few years now. I wish I had had the chance to meet him in person to thank him.

My condolences to his family both imediate family and extended famliy. To read more of what happened click here.

I know Jesus greated Him with open arms...

Goodbye Major... you have blessed me greatly.



I posted this Tuesday, August 29, 2006 not knowing if it was a true story. Then last Friday I received an email stating this.

Hi Iggy,
Just thought I'd let you know that this is, in fact, a true story. It was written by Kevin's sister 15 years ago. She read it again today at Kevin's memorial service. He passed away on Tuesday after a 13 month battle with colon cancer. But in usual Kevin style, he never complained and the last words he said were "Stay Home. Jesus is coming". And He did. Kevin will be deeply missed by many people. He touched so many lives and we are so gad that he is with his Father.
God Bless.

I went back to re-read the post and found myself weeping (as I remember the first time I read it) yet this time with the realization that it was a very real story about a very real person.

I took a while to respond as I did not really know how to, yet sent this back to "Bonnie" who sent me the email.


I am so sad to hear of Kevin’s passing, but rejoice that he is with the Lord whom he loved so much. It was quite a while ago I posted that story and with many stories out there I did not know that it was real or not…. But it did touch my heart and I knew I had to share it.

I am very blessed that you took the time to share with me that it was a true story. I am more blessed as I re-read the story and then your email and found myself weeping with both sadness and joy for Kevin… and even though I never knew Kevin, I have seen many other people with handicaps who also seemed to have the same innocent faith that Kevin had and now lives in all the fullness of.

May I share this email with my readers… my only reason is to share that we need sometimes to stop and realize that Jesus’ words are so true, that we can only truly come to God with faith of a child.

Again, my prayers are with you in your earthly lost, but I know that it is the Kingdom of God’s gain… and Kevin was greeted with so much rejoicing as our Lord Jesus held him in the most loving embraced and of all people the words would be, “Well done my good and faithful servant… my friend… my brother… come I have much to share with you here.”

May the Lord of all blessings give you the Grace and comfort you need in this time.


Please send a note here on this post or an email to me to pass on to Bonnie if this story blessed you in some way. I know the family would love to here it.


Don't start reading this one until you've got more than 3 or 4 minutes to just "scan" over it.
It deserves a bit of time for some reflection. I envy Kevin. My brother Kevin thinks God lives under his bed. At least that's what I heard him say one night.

He was praying out loud in his dark bedroom, and I stopped to listen, "Are you there, God?" he said. "Where are you? Oh, I see. Under the bed..."I giggled softly and tiptoed off to my own room. Kevin's unique perspectives are often a source of amusement. But that night something else lingered long after the humor. I realized for the first time the very different world Kevin lives in.

Kevin was born 30 years ago, mentally disabled as a result of difficulties during labor. Apart from his size (he's 6-foot-2), there are few ways in which he is an adult. He reasons and communicates with the capabilities of a 7-year-old, and he always will. He will probably always believe that God lives under his bed, that Santa Claus is the one who fills the space under our tree every Christmas and that airplanes stay up in the sky because angels carry them.

I remember wondering if Kevin realizes he is different.

Is he ever dissatisfied with his monotonous life?

Up before dawn each day, off to work at a workshop for the disabled, home to walk our cocker spaniel, return to eat his favorite macaroni-and-cheese for dinner, and later to bed.

The only variation in the entire scheme is laundry, when he hovers excitedly over the washing machine like a mother with her newborn child. He does not seem dissatisfied.

He lopes out to the bus every morning at 7:05, eager for a day of simple work. He wrings his hands excitedly while the water boils on the stove before dinner, and he stays up late twice a week to gather our dirty laundry for his next day's laundry chores.

And Saturdays-oh, the bliss of Saturdays! That's the day my Dad takes Kevin to the airport to have a soft drink, watch the planes land, and speculate loudly on the destination of each passenger inside. "That one's goin' to Chi-car-go!" Kevin shouts as he claps his hands. His anticipation is so great he can hardly sleep on Friday nights. And so goes his world of daily rituals and weekend field trips. He doesn't know what it means to be discontent. His life is simple. He will never know the entanglements of wealth of power, and he does not care what brand of clothing he wears or what kind of food he eats. His needs have always been met, and he never worries that one day they may not be. His hands are diligent. Kevin is never so happy as when he is working. When he unloads the dishwasher or vacuums the carpet, his heart is completely in it.

He does not shrink from a job when it is begun, and he does not leave a job until it is finished. But when his tasks are done, Kevin knows how to relax.

He is not obsessed with his work or the work of others. His heart is pure. He still believes everyone tells the truth, promises must be kept, and when you are wrong, you apologize instead of argue. Free from pride and unconcerned with appearances, Kevin is not afraid to cry when he is hurt, angry or sorry.

He is always transparent, always sincere.

And he trusts God.

Not confined by intellectual reasoning, when he comes to Christ, he comes as a child. Kevin seems to know God - to really be friends with Him in a way that is difficult for an "educated" person to grasp. God seems like his closest companion.

In my moments of doubt and frustrations with my Christianity I envy the security Kevin has in his simple faith.

It is then that I am most willing to admit that he has some divine knowledge that rises above my mortal questions.

It is then I realize that perhaps he is not the one with the handicap . . I am.

My obligations, my fear, my pride, my circumstances - they all become disabilities when I do not trust them to God's care.

Who knows if Kevin comprehends things I can never learn? After all, he has spent his whole life in that kind of innocence, praying after dark and soaking up the goodness and love of God. And one day, when the mysteries of heaven are opened, and we are all amazed at how close God really is to our hearts, I'll realize that God heard the simple prayers of a boy who believed that God lived under his bed.

Kevin won't be surprised at all!

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

An Open Letter to Matt Slick


I wanted to thank you for having Doug Pagitt on. I am also part of the "emerging church". Though I am not a "member" of emergent, I have seen much value in the things they discuss. I see that they are especially of value in the area of Christoplatonism.

I wanted to also thank you for not being rude. So often these type of interviews are reduced to just that. I was a bit worried though with the opening. =) You might also find it interesting that I really appreciate Doug yet do not agree with him on all points... especially in the area of "eternal security". Yet, there are orthodox people on both sides of that issue.

In the ec I hope you realize that there is much room in our conversation. As you might have already noticed there are some that view women pastors are fine and some like Mark Driscoll (who some of us no longer see as "emerging"), who do not see that is fine. Yet, within the "movement" (which is still an in-house debate whether to call it that or if it is one) we are open to challenging one another... with respect.

In regards to Karen Ward, I am not that read up on her myself. She may be considered a "leader" but there are some that consider ME that also... which I have to chuckle over as I am not that much of one if I am! LOL!

Yet, in this case you were unkind and did admit it to Doug. I think you should apologize.
Now, having said that, I agree with you that if she did state that it was OK to not believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus then she is in error... and most other emerging/emergent I have run into would not agree with her at all.

Now, how we work though is if she is in error, and this is brought to the table of discussion so to say, she would be challenged by the rest of us. Again, mutual respect is help as one of the highest of values as we view commonly that God places high value on all humans be they believer or not. He sent His Son to die for us so we see that as one of the greatest values.
In this type of discussion we will firmly debate with one another. If one cannot "back their view" biblically... then we will agree to place in the secondary position of "is this an essential".
In this iron sharpens iron... and I am sure Doug will talk with Karen and if it is as you state will discuss this.

As far as your ministry, I agree that you are in a very interesting place. To look for "orthodoxy" and to find whether one is a heretic or not would be tough to do. Yet, still if a person be a Mormon or JW, I would still place love in front of all things as I approached them. Mostly I would allow God to work as I did converse with them. I would challenge their view but not deride the person.

Walter Martin, who I understand mentored you, (unlike that other guy who stated he was mentored by Walter as he listened to a bunch of tapes) stated that this was very important to do... to not put down their leaders or attack their person... but focus solely on their doctrines.

As far as how this is done, I think it depends on the person. I have had to confront unbelievers who were sick from drinking binges... and after the second or third time I ran them to the emergency room I would be straight forward and tell them they needed help... and I would not let them get away with saying they had a "disease". As, I am diabetic and have an actual disease I see that someone who places a substance purposely in their body, as in the case of alcohol is a drunk, not "sick" in the same way as someone with cancer. They need help but they do need to be confronted with their "sin" that is killing them. Cancer never comes in a glass nor did my diabetes. (I understand that this is a bit out of the AA understanding, but the bible calls a drunk a drunk) This may sound harsh but I am meaning that I have built a bit of a relationship... and in that can give that person my honest and blunt opinion. Also, I see that this person is dying and in that do not care to waste much time "just to be nice" though I do not want to be unkind.

I think that Doug was very much in your face, yet you could sense he cared and still had genuine love for you as you talked... I see that this is the way you need to confront others also.

Over all I wanted to thank you as I did. I have been attacked by some very harshly and called an apostate and told I am not saved, just becuase I have a link to Brian McLaren on my website... that is a bit silly as I also have Dr. J Vernon McGee and Chuck Missler. They seemed to not care in my confession of faith in Jesus but only that they hate those they see outside their own narrow belief and doctrine... in fact many of these get confused when I state things like "having a relationship with Jesus" or "must recieve the Life of Christ" which seems to me the most crucial of beliefs one should have as a believer in Jesus.

I wanted to recommend two other "emerging" folk.

Andrew Jones is a great guy and I think you would enjoy interviewing him. He is also known as the Tall Skinny Kiwi. I would also recommend Scot McKnight who is a professor and author and considered to be one of the finest up and coming theologians out there today. His blog is called Jesus Creed like his book of hte same name. Allen Roxburgh of ALLELON would be another person as he is very close to Brian McLaren.

Be blessed,


Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Great Calvinists: Abraham Piper article

Sometimes I just get frustrated with some Calvinists, and in that see all in the same light, but thank God some are not just mean spirited cusses... Some are truly Desiring God.

Here is an excerpt from an article by Abraham Piper .

"There is a letter on Scot McKnight's blog from a pastor who is very frustrated with certain Calvinists in his church. It would be easy enough to disregard it, pointing out that not all Calvinists are like that or that his use of the word "hyper-Calvinist" doesn't match correct theological jargon. But that would be missing the point. And, ironically, that reaction would only lend credence to the frustration that motivated the letter in the first place."

Read the whole article here. Be a Kinder Calvinist

I for one was refreshed and blessed by this article.


Tozer devotional

Collective Writings from the Books of A.W. Tozer
That Incredible Christian
Chapter # One
That Incredible Christian

Amid Contradictions

The Christian soon learns that if he would be victorious as a son of heaven among men on earth he must not follow the common pattern of mankind, but rather the contrary. That he may be safe he puts himself in jeopardy; he loses his life to save it and is in danger of losing it if he attempts to preserve it. He goes down to get up. If he refuses to go down he is already down, but when he starts down he is on his way up. He is strongest when he is weakest and weakest when he is strong. Though poor he has the power to make others rich, but when he becomes rich his ability to enrich others vanishes. He has most after he has given most away and has least when he possesses most. He may be and often is highest when he feels lowest and most sinless when he is most conscious of sin. He is wisest when he knows that he knows not and knows least when he has acquired the greatest amount of knowledge. He sometimes does most by doing nothing and goes furthest when standing still. In heaviness he manages to rejoice and keeps his heart glad even in sorrow.
Lord, Your pattern of life for me is antithetical to that of this world. But it is in You I live. Deliver me from the enemy's deception that I may see clearly Your way and follow it. In Jesus' name.

Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight.
— 1 Corinthians 3:18-19
Strong when weak and weak when strong! To embrace that truth--not just in mind but in heart and life expression--is to take a giant leap in spiritual maturity!

Monday, November 26, 2007

Yikes... stupid computers

Sometimes I hate computers. At least when they decide to go belly up and destroy things like family photos and other things one cherishes.
Now, I finally have the computer up and running but still have no sound. From what I gather this is a common issue, yet having done all the things everyone on the Internet suggested, I still have no sound.
Also, I am still trying to gather funds to send the books and teaching materials... I need $184 to send the materials to Mauritius... so if you want to help click the paypal link and help out with what you can...
Now, with all this I am also very short handed at work and have been working nights and days... and am a bit out of sorts... but I think things have worked out a bit for this week.
All said, God has been reminding me of His Sabbath Rest... Jesus.

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Around the blogosphere...

Under two birds with one stone:

Robbymac tells us Emerging Grace has moved to wordpress and is now Kingdom Grace, so you will need to update your links. (I am still here at blogger after many experiments... I wonder if I will be the last hold out!)

Under our buy one you get two sale:
Fellow blogger user and Vineyard guy, (not to mention one of my favorite Calvinists... and I am not kidding), Rick Ianniello has two posts one on prophecy is not preaching and in the other he goes retro cool on us with Larry Norman.

More on preaching department:

Out of Ur has an interesting article if you preach with Preaching to Express, not Impress.

Under the I have not read that one yet... but he has department:

Scott at Theopraxis has an article on Brian McLaren's book Everything Must Change and shares his thoughts on it.

Under the personal thoughts and open to discussion department:

Dan Kimball has an post where he talks on his view of hell a bit. And I agree that we should talk a bit more about it.
Oh that picture is by Matthew Hurst who has been mapping the blogosphere... I thought it was pretty cool.

Be blessed,

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Performatism: post-postmodernism

Performatism: post-postmodernism

Disclaimer: I know that this is very much over simplified, yet there is not much out there on this topic.

I wrote about the next thing beyond postmodernism… and I saw two different things happening at the same time.

Pragmatism and Performatism.

Most are familiar with pragmatism.

Here is a bit, (as it is still developing) on Performatism

In a book on City as landscape: a post-postmodern view of design and planning (E&F Spon, 1986], Tom Turner argues that:
The modernist age, of "one way, one truth, one city", is dead and gone. The postmodernist age of "anything goes" is on the way out. Reason can take us a long way, but it has limits. Let us embrace post-postmodernism—and pray for a better name.
"Performatism" was coined by Raoul Eshelman, as a term to describe or replace the term "Post-Postmodernism". He goes on to describe it as "a new epoch in which subject, sign, and thing come together in ways that create an aesthetic experience of transcendency"...a place where meaning is created.[1] See also his other works.[2]
Mikhail Epstein also argues that "Post-postmodernism witnesses the re-birth of utopia after its own death, after its subjection to postmodernism's severe scepticism, relativism and its anti-utopian consciousness". Post-postmodernism has also been described as renewed faith.[3]

Here is a bit more on the subject and the “change” that is coming.

“The way out of postmodernism does therefore not lead through the intensified search for meaning, through the introduction of new, surprising forms or through the return to an authentic origin. Instead, it must take place through a mechanism completely impervious to postmodernism's modes of dispersal, deconstruction and proliferation. This mechanism, which has been making itself felt with increasing strength in the cultural events of the last few years, can be best understood using the notion of performance. Performance in itself is, of course, not a phenomenon new or unknown. In Austin's speech-act theory it refers to a language act that does what it promises ("I now pronounce you man and wife"). In the sense of an artistic event in the modernist avant-garde, a performance foregrounds or "makes strange" the border between life and art; in the happenings and performance art of postmodernism it integrates the human body or subject into an artistic context. The concept of performance I am suggesting here is, however, a different one. The new notion of performativity serves neither to foreground nor contextualize the subject, but rather to preserve it: the subject is presented (or presents itself) as a holistic, irreducible unit that makes a binding impression on a reader or observer. This holistic incarnation of the subject can, however, only succeed when the subject does not offer a semantically differentiated surface that can be absorbed and dispersed in the surrounding context. For this reason the new subject always appears to the observer as reduced and "solid," as single- or simple-minded and in a certain sense identical with the things it stands for. This closed, simple whole acquires a potency that can almost only be defined in theological terms. For with it is created a refuge in which all those things are brought together that postmodernism and poststructuralism thought definitively dissolved: the telos, the author, belief, love, dogma and much, much more.”


Now to break that down to be a bit more “user friendly”, If you buy a razor that advertises the “closest shave ever” it will deliver that promise. Or if you buy a car that has the “best gas mileage” it will deliver just that... The best gas mileage you ever got!

In it is also the idea of part become part of the bigger or whole picture. In that many make up the one… singular become the plurality. It is also about seeing people as a whole person. If one looks at the single person in all their complexity, they will be seeing the person as a whole being and how they fit into the big picture.

Now, if we take this into the context of Christianity and faith… it has many incredible and some scary ramifications.

People will fall between the pragmatic and the performativity of their religion… whatever works and what ever performs and get results and the people see real results will be the future of all religions and faiths.

People will still justify if it works it must be true.

Now, as a person of faith in Christ Jesus, I see that this is no problem in how I approach my faith, yet many will not find that their faith is stable to withstand the ideals of “it does as it promises”.

So, does a fundamentalist who shouts that the devil is everywhere… and that wearing a suite is more respectful to God than wearing jeans to preach in have a chance in the future… most probably as they will stay in the pre-modern/modern view… yet will see that even less people are listening to their “old truth” and searching for “eternal truth” that has been around and proven.

The difference between “old truth” and “eternal truth” is that one is based on a reinterpretation and return to scripture (which is not bad) in the 16th century, and “eternal truth” is something that has and is and will always be. In that the truth from the “eternal” is more “holistic, irreducible unit that makes a binding impression on a reader or observer.”

If we as Christians do not look very close at our beliefs and doctrines we will find churches losing more people as the “promises given” have not given the results. If for an example your church promises that God heals, you better produce that fruit. Or, say that you teach your doctrine will change one’s life then the fruit better follow suite from the promise. If you preach prosperity, then your church better be getting very rich!

Yet even more I see that a person will seek out to see that they can be a part of a bigger picture that is making a difference. They seek to be a part of the whole. In that we need to help bring people into the bigger picture and understanding of being part of the Body of Christ.

Now, I see where the real struggle will be is that the fundamentalist will be seen as not matching what they stand for.. and to survive as people of true faith, we must better represent what or Who we stand for. Otherwise, people will look as us and see a fraud or a representation of Jesus Christ.

Now, here is the “eternal truth”. Man is dead in his sin. He will always “sin” and die, unless these issues are dealt with. You see the promise is of the resurrection that is in the future… yet we also experience this resurrection now in that lives are changed.

Churches better see men and women becoming more and more like Jesus. To be not reaching to become more “god-like” (meaning we seek to be divine and “like-god” as the serpent seduced Eve with.) but to reach to be the fully human God created us to be and that Jesus was and is. (Yes, Jesus is fully God and it seems I have to state this as some will think I am talking human potential and this is like that, but not anything like it… it is not about humans become more and better “sinful” humans… but that we are becoming the New Human that is born of Heaven as Jesus was and we are to realize our New Human potential as we are “in Christ”.)

We are being transformed in to the image of Christ by the renewal of our minds… for now as we are still in the perishable body, we must be changed now in our thinking. Later we will be clothed in the imperishable.

The idea that what we teach must be able to work in the lives of those we teach must be based on these “eternal truths” that before creation Christ Jesus was “the plan” for the “us” and that we would be placed in Him at just the right time.

It is now more than ever we must depend on the Holy Spirit to guide us.

I hope to develop these thoughts more fully as I see we are fast moving from the “post-modern” to the “post-post-modern” and into this Performatism.

For a more down to earth hands way of getting this is to look at people's lives like Mother Teresa... or Shane Claiborne. To me these are people who walked or still walk as they believe... their performance of their faith matches their faith.

We must start to learn what it means to love one another... as we have just begun to learn to love God. This means we must attempt by God's power to do this... even if it is not done well but to do it over and over until we can transcend what drags us down. In a biblical sense also to learn what it means to become overcomers... and that by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of our testimony.

Friday, November 16, 2007

Three arguments against anti Theism. (updated title)

(Update: In recent days I have been conversing more with "Atheists" who state I have the definition of Atheist wrong. In this piece most people's understanding of "atheist" is that they do not believe in a god. I have changed it anti theist as I see it more accurately goes with their own definitions. Please as reading this also note that all people until recently have used agnostic as one that does not know if God exists or not as they do not see proof. It seems this also is differently defined as "one that does not believe a god exists". My post here was not posted out of ignorance as I have never heard these re-definitions until recently though most my encounters have been over the last 10 to 15 years. The point is not that one moves from one label to another, but that if one claims that there is no god that they will see that that is irrational and that they if honest will have to admit that there is the possibility of a god existing. Dear reader, please read the following in that context. The post itself remains unchanged except for the title.)
1. Evil

The point that one seems to understand that there is good and evil negates that God does not exist. To state that God does not exist then negates that there is also the reality of good or evil. To acknowledge evil exists then is to say at the very least there is a principle of good and evil which is higher than man. If then this principle is higher and one must acknowledge it, then it in itself is a "god" man must acknowledge. Though not a personal God, it is a type of god.

2. To even argue that God does not exist prove he does.

In the bible one must abandon that they know God exists. In the same way if God did not exist one would have to abandon that God did not exist to believe in Him. Since a person must abandon the belief in God or a god, they must rationalize Him away... but if a god did not exist this in itself would be an act of futility as most would just wonder why the need to do so is needed. To see what I mean just read Romans chapter one.

3. There is no true atheist or at least one who is a honest intellectual one.

All atheist if they really understood the logical flaw behind their assertion would realize they are actually agnostic. I have yet to meet one atheist I have not turned into an agnostic.

And here is how. Box one is all that is known in creation (yes I saw the miss spelled word but it was too late! LOL!)

Box two is a really smart person who knows as much as can be know in the known universe.

Notice though for all the white space, that there is still blue visible... in that area one must be honest enough to admit that outside of their own knowledge a God can possibly exist.

To state that one knows all that is possibly known then makes them "god" themselves.

Now, these are simplistic ways, and may admittedly be over simplistic, but sometimes the more simplistic the argument the truer it is. This also is not the ultimate in the "answer" to evil... I am no talking about he existence of evil only that it proves that God exists because we acknowledge evil exists.

I am also stating the argue that God does not exist proves He does as to argue against something that does not exist is nonsensical and truly would be a waste of time... If God does not exist then we would argue He did exist and need try to prove that.

And there is no such thing as a true atheist. The honest ones are agnostic.

So what are your thoughts?

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

In the mail: Paul Vieira

I received this from Paul Vieira to day. Just thought I would pass it on. He is the author of "Jesus has left the building" if you have not read it, you should!

Be blessed!

I hope things are going well with you. I thought I would send you a short note to let you know that I'm making my book available for free to listen to in a downloadable audio file. Each week I'm reading a chapter from my book Jesus Has Left The Building in a new audio podcast. To subscribe in iTunes visit this link.
Once you've installed iTunes and subscribed to the podcasts, each time you launch iTunes, the latest episode will automatically be downloaded. You can then store and play these audio files using your iPod device, other portable MP3 player, or computer. Best of all, these podcasts are FREE!

Feel free to forward this message to anyone else you think would enjoy these podcasts.


Jim Bublitz accuses me of slandering him?

Jim Bublitz has some sort of sick vendetta against me and I have found that he seems to follow me around slandering me!

Now, Jim has followed me to Justin Taylor's blog over the Steve Camp attacking Mark Driscoll scandal and accused me of slandering him again!

And what was the slanderous thing I said that was so heinous?

In fact the only people I "fight" with, I stopped going to their sites, like Christian Research Network and and such as there is no conversation and if there is one you must agree with them... or you are mocked and attacked. ~ iggy being sooo mean and slandering Jim Bublitz! LOL!

And this is what Jim Bublitz calls slander?

By his comments he confesses HE DOES FOLLOW ME AROUND AND SLANDER ME!

It's not uncommon for me to get "Iggy is slandering you on XYZ blog" notices, and with his mention of me above, I have landed here. ~ Jim Bublitz

But, whatever... I guess it is because his truth is old and my truth is eternal... LOL!

I think it is because I did a series on "the religionist" (part 4)and it was too close to home!

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4


I'm not your critic, don't even know you.

I received this in the comments on my post My last words to my HYPER CRITICS . Originally I posted a comment back but then decided not to... but I have decided to let you the reader read this and post your comments to this person.

Be blessed,

I'm not your critic, don't even know you. If your involved in the Vineyard movement, I'll just consider that you have not come to your right mind.

My question has to do with your introductory comment:

"I find it rather strange how some will demand perfect doctrine from others…"

How do you square that with:

I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another...and

...As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace: 11 whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God...and

...knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation...and

... Do not add to his words,
lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar...and

...I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book....

Though no one can demand you must believe perfect doctrine and hold it, the Scripture does. It does it in this way. That which is opinion is not truth. Only that which can be established as true is to be taught. That is what Paul and Peter, Solomon and Jesus were saying: Do not go beyond what is written. Simply, and profound. The rule is this, if you do not know it to be the truth and the only truth, keep your mouth shut, or as Proverbs would say: Even a fool is counted wise when he remains silent, or a fool does not wait to hear the end of a matter before speaking. There are sound words to learn and if there are not, then we have no Bible, even a poorly translated one to refer to.

I will leave you with this:
Teach and urge these things. If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain...So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter...I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them...charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine...If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed...Command and teach these things. Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you. Practice these things, immerse yourself in them, so that all may see your progress. Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers...

The fact is iggy, the Word of God, that is Jesus Himself (ref Revelation) commands us to hold perfect doctrine. It is a simple thing, as I said. Stay within the bounds of what you know. To do more or less is to condemn yourself: “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

To put it in the language of the emergent, get your pompous head out of your posterior cavity and come into the light...

Sorry for the crudeness, but these are straight forward statements of Scripture all agreeing with one another, simple enough that even a child can understand them. I have simple words for my children: The world is not pink, your head is not your butt, and don't piss on a flat rock. Crude but effective with children and all Biblical, in a weird sort of way. I would not preach it that way except to my kids. They understand it though.

One last thing: What do you have that you did not receive?

Posted by lordodamanor 11/14/2007 12:06:00 AM

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

3 Beers

A cowboy, who is visiting Wyoming from Texas, walks into a bar and orders three mugs of Bud. He sits in the back of the room, drinking a sip out of each one in turn. When he finishes them, he comes back to the bar and orders three more.

The bartender approaches and tells the cowboy, "You know, a mug goes flat after I draw it. It would taste better if you bought one at a time."

The cowboy replies, "Well, you see, I have two brothers. One is in Arizona , the other is in Colorado When we all left our home in Texas , we promised that we'd drink this way to remember the days when we drank together. So I'm drinking one beer for each of my brothers and one for myself."

The bartender admits that this is a nice custom, and leaves it there.

The cowboy becomes a regular in the bar, and always drinks the same way. He orders three mugs and drinks them in turn.

One day, he comes in and only orders two mugs. All the regulars take notice and fall silent. When he comes back to the bar for the second round, the bartender says, "I don't want to intrude on your grief, but I wanted to offer my condolences on your loss."

The cowboy looks quit puzzled for a moment, then a light dawns in his eyes and he laughs.
"Oh, no, everybody's just fine," he explains, "It's just that my wife and I joined the Baptist Church and I had to quit drinking."
"Hasn't affected my brothers though."

The Irony of Steve Camp calling for an apology from Mark Driscoll

Steve Camp "publicly" called for an apology at Justin Taylor's site:


I am addressing this here publicly to you for you made a derogatory comment about it this past Sunday publicly and indirectly about Timmy's character and person. What made it very ironic, was that your sarcasm directed specifically to this brother's question was in the context of a sermon on humility, the incarnation, humiliation, and coronation of Jesus Christ in your Philippians series. You confessed to your church body about the need in your own life for humility and the subsequent pride that has infected others (some men you mentioned) and that it has in turn hurt the church. "

Now the irony is that "Timmy" does not seem to be so "offended" as Steve Camp is. So, it seems that it is Steve who has a beef against Mark than any need for an apology.

Again, Steve finds no issue in slandering "publicly" Mark Driscoll in stating he offended a brother and harmed the body of Christ, when the so call offended one is not even offended...

So again I call Steve to publicly repent of his own slander and false accusations against his brother Mark and harming the Body of Christ by his actions.

For more about this issue here is more.

And how is this different from this CCM event except that Steve is putting on the cruise himself? I see no difference in the two except one person getting more profit and emulating the world under the guise of living a "worship centered life". Personally, I see that is not the same as a Christ centered life...

Be blessed,

Monday, November 12, 2007

Finally a GOPUSA article I agree with!

Doug Patton has written a rather insightful article on Pat Robertson... and the weird thing is I agree.

I subscribed to this group many years ago when I was more aligned with Rush Limbaugh in my politics... and really have found them a bit out there... they seem to think that the whole reason Ford's sales are down is because of their boycott (for advertising Advocate in a gay magazine) and not just because car sales are down anyway... Once I followed their source on the Gay Olympics to see if the "near porno pictures" where actually on the Gay Olympics website as they claimed... and after digging deeper into link after link, found something like they posted from Australia in a Mardi Gra parade and never did find the "near porno picture) they claimed was on the Gay Olympics website... I found that less than honest. Personally I see much these guys do is only to raise funds to keep their own "watch group" open. But again I agreed with this assessment of Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani.

Here is part of the story.

"Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy Giuliani for the presidency. Excuse me while I yawn.

Apparently, Pat didn't get the memo that Rudy stands for all the things he (Robertson) has claimed to oppose with every fiber of his being for the last forty years. And apparently Rudy didn't get the memo that Pat's influence with the so-called "religious right" peaked about a decade ago and has been declining rapidly ever since."

You can read the rest here.

Be blessed,

Teaching on Grace podcast

Subscribe Free
Add to my Page

This is the teaching I did on Grace at Billings Vineyard Church. This was the same teaching I posted here.

Be blessed,

You can own songs by Stryper!

Yes you too can own Styper songs... for more info go here!

Be blessed,

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Great Quotes (kind of): Steve Camp

"When a pastor continually makes light of the character of our Lord by speaking in scatological tones about the Son of Man’s bodily functions in incarnation or wearing T-Shirts that rather mock the King of Righteousness rather than glorify Him, then something is terribly awry." ~ Steve Camp on Mark Driscoll in comments.

Then he holds up Martin Luther with great reverence... promoting this "Great Reformer".

Yet, here is the real Martin Luther... btw there is a warning that this site is very crude... as these are real Martin Luther quotes and anti Semitic statements.

(A bit of a disclaimer about the link here... the quotes are accurate and Luther seemed to also like to say the "s" word... yep that "scatological tone" was not just a tone as with Driscoll... the man had no qualms using it as one of his favorite cuss words... But the guy at this site made me laugh as he uses some bizarre reasoning to say Luther was not even saved! LOL!... Then basically states what Luther based his whole life on as the only way to salvation.... "saved by grace through faith"! LOL! So, I do not endorse the site but found it entertaining in his circular reasoning... again the quotes are pure Luther.)

Now, I am not a fan of Mark Driscoll... and I admit I may have gone a bit overboard at the link above were Camp is quoted. Yet, this continual double standard that comes from Steve Camp is at best embarrassing and at worse a sore blind spot he has yet to acknowledge in himself before he attacks others.

Also, I am not against Martin Luther. I just think that candy-coating him or any of the "great reformers" is dishonest. They were all frail men with huge flaws just like myself.

I point to Steve Camp only to show that some who cast stones and hold a righteousness of themselves over others, fail to see that no one is righteous... and all have sinned. To attack Driscoll as Camp is doing then hold up a foul mouthed reformer... is very hypocritical.

Now, before you state I am doing the same thing, this is the huge difference. I have an open door to reconciliation... and as you may have read, Steve is attacking Driscoll over a supposedly offended brother, (which we have no idea if he was actually offended) and not giving Driscoll any grace over his confession in lacking humility... in fact as you read the "MacArthurite" comments even his confession is held suspect. That is not only sad, but sick. I hold that Steve is already forgiven, but will be held in bondage by his own legalistic standard... and not truly experience the Grace of God in all fullness unless he can see his own double standards and turn to God. I hope to only warn Steve in the Love of Jesus... and not attacking him personally.
Oh if you think I am being unkind to Steve Camp... here are some other quotes by him concerning Mark...
"Very good post--thank you.
Mark is a marketeer and that's what all this is about. He has some books coming out first quarter next year; he wants to stir some additional attention to himself; so he promotes in acerbic tones this ridiculous campaign that some people think is a serious theological venture; he snarkastically mocks those who post serious biblical questions (see last Sunday's message); he's again relishing in all the attention.
For some zealous bloggers who are enamored with Mark to suggest that he's the next Billy Graham is beyond funny. In fact I was laughing so hard when reading that, that some reformed brothers I was with thought I had experienced the Toronto Blessing.
Mark hasn't done anything for biblical evangelism to date. His church grows primarily through attrition; not first time conversions. (*Note: Lordship Salvation offers no assurance, but makes one constantly look at their own fruit to make sure they are still elect! It is a performance based theology based on works. Also, I am not sure Steve knows what attrition means as how can a church grow bigger and smaller at the same time? If he means that it grew out of the other churches in the area losing members, then he need look at how John MacArthur's church grew out of the population of Roman Catholics who left that church in the early days and joined Macarthur's... ) I was at Mark'sHill about a month ago and attended a service there. A few observations: there was no public reading of God's Word; there was no corporate worship taking place; there was no time of corporate prayer; there was no biblical instruction before the entire church took communion; there was no sense of community or connectedness whatsoever; it was not a worship service, it was a very well produced performance. There was event security everywhere just hanging out with black t-shirts on that you would find at any professional wrestling event. It's all part of the image.On the positive side: the technology out there is second to none; very organized - really great. It's obvious that's where the money goes. And I have to say, that the coffee in the coffee bar afterwards was really fantastic!
Mark's not an expositor, he's a performer. The sermon was lightweight in terms of biblical content and doctrine. In fact, he missed the text that day (Phil.1:1) - but hey, what does it matter, the videos, computer graphics and lights were amazing. If he spent as much time on the text as he did on the technology it might be different. And then there is the music. Oh my. Poorly executed, very trendy, alternative, garage band tunes. I don't know who was up there leading that particular service, but the guy couldn't sing--I mean it was painful - dogs and cats screaming! (*Note: I might mention the first time I heard Steve he sounded very forced and marginal at best, but I loved his early stuff as he had a very strong evangelistic spirit about his music.)
What's all this mean? It means that Mark is young, inexperienced as a Bible teacher, and needs time to mature in the faith. It means that he is more promoter than pastor. Is he the next Billy Graham? - not unless you do ministry by comic books. Will he do more for Christian evangelism since Billy Graham by just answering nine questions on a blog turned book? Not a chance; it will have the same impact as Kathy Lee Gifford singing "You Light Up My Life" on The View.
Mark'sHill Church is really just a giant youth group meeting; and if it took place on a Friday night at a large pragmatic, seeker friendly church say in the Chicago area, it would fit in quite nicely. This is not serious, deep, biblical theology being presented. In Seattle language, it is a nonfat, caffeine free latte, with a shot of air. Mostly foam, little bean. (* Like songs about foul mouthed Martin Luther and the Wittenburg door? Just asking...)
Ask-anything-Mark? Why... he has little to say. If you want your questions answered just read your Bibles and study with great men like MacArthur, Sproul, Edwards, Owens, Watson, Pink, Calvin and Spurgeon--you won't be disappointed.
That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Keep on Carla - this was a really good article. Steve 2 Cor. 4:5-7 SJ Camp"
Really nice stuff there huh? Lot's of name calling and very little Grace to Mark.
Now remember Steve Camp goes to John MacArthur's (Grace to you) church (thus the name drop in the midst of some truly great bible teachers) and was introduced as "Keith Green with theology." Personally, I would rather be introduced as one who truly loves Jesus and not that I am "theological"... but all this points to the type of arrogance that is produced by the theology at "Grace to you"... as it all points to Steve being more right(ous) than Mark and Steve putting Mark down as a fraud out to sell books and not truly having a confessional faith in Jesus Christ... He shows the lack of true faith and grace that comes with knowing Jesus in a personal way and that is why I call out that Steve return to his first love Jesus and forsake mental assent in a belief in God through doctrines. Note, I am in no way stating Steve is not saved... I believe him to be a sincere believer... but under some very bad doctrine.
All that said, I really commend Carla for this comment to Frank Turk of Team Pyro fame...
"Frank: I have deleted your second comment here simply because I cannot tolerate that sort of insulting tone here at this blog. Just FYI. Carla Rolfe"
So even some of the reformed fans are also getting a bit irritated with these guys!

Be blessed,