Friday, September 28, 2007

Bob Hyatt is a hypocrite! (according to CRN)

I don't go to Christian Research Network any more... I used to, but ever since the day of prayer for Ken Silva, I have lost interest in them... so prayers were answered...

Now, I still go to Christian Research Network info and analysis where I found this.

This is the gist of the "hypocrisy"

"Well, Hyatt has now indeed done something rather foolish in linking this video at his Bob.Blog. You see this South Park production actually is mean-spirited and offensive to those of the Mormon "faith tradition" thereby exposing his own Hip Hip Hip Hy-pocrisy!"

So the bottom line is this,

You can attack and slander and lie about other Christians, yet if you show an accurate portrayal of the Mormons... even from "South Park" it is hypocrisy?!

There is a huge difference here... Bob never created South Park... which is accurate in its portrayal of Mormons. Team Pyro created the Emergent-See Po-Motivators For Emerging Christians posters which are mean spirited and an INACCURATE portrayal of the emerging Christians... Now, the kicker is CRN still linked to the video (via Bob's blog) themselves... you know that foul mouthed video (he uses the word "ass"). So, they are complaining about Bob linking to the video while they link to Bob's link to the video... (Can you say hip-hip- oh... oh come on! This is about as "dum" as it can get!)

Now, what makes me more angry (OK, let's just say upset) is that CRN and Ken Silva made me watch South Park... and now seem to also defend the Mormon "faith tradition" thereby And worse they made me stumble by having me watch South Park! LOL! You see I had heard about the video, yet, because I do not like South Park, I did not watch it or had any desire to... until CRN decided to attack a friend of mine and claim it was "dirty" (spoken in that hushed kind of way). So thanks Ken and Crew!
Now, posts like the one at CRN seem just a little vindictive and petty to me.

be blessed,

Thursday, September 27, 2007

I am Anselm

You scored as Anselm,

Anselm is the outstanding theologian of the medieval period.

He sees man's primary problem as having failed to render unto

God what we owe him, so God becomes man in Christ and gives

God what he is due. You should read 'Cur Deus Homo?'



John Calvin


Martin Luther


Friedrich Schleiermacher


J├╝rgen Moltmann


Jonathan Edwards


Karl Barth




Charles Finney


Paul Tillich


Which theologian are you?
created with

I have not ever heard of Anselm... as I just began to read a bit of his work... I love this part... as I often have this dialog in my own head.

BOSO. Just as right order requires that we believe the deep matters of the Christian faith before we presume to discuss them rationally, so it seems to me to be an instance of carelessness if, having been confirmed in faith, we do not eagerly desire to understand what we believe. Indeed, assisted by the prevenient grace of God I am, it seems to me, holding so steadfastly to faith in our redemption that even if I were not in any respect able to understand what I believe, nothing could wrest me from firmness of faith. Accordingly, I ask you to disclose to me that which, as you know, many are asking about along with me:viz., for what reason and on the basis of what necessity did God -- although He is omnipotent -- assume the lowliness and the weakness of human nature in order to restore it?

ANSELM. What you are asking of me exceeds my capacities. And so I fear to deal with matters too high for me, lest perhaps when someone suspects or even observes that I do not give him a satisfactory answer, he may think that I havedeparted from true doctrine rather than that my intellect is not powerful enough to comprehend this truth.

BOSO. You ought not so much to have this fear as you ought to remember that in a discussion of some problem it often happens; that God discloses what at first was hidden. Moreover, you ought to hope from the grace of God that if you willingly share those things which you have freely received, you will merit the receiving of the higher things to which you have not yet attained.

ANSELM. There is another reason why it seems to me that we cannot at all --or else can only scarcely -- deal amply with this matter now. For in order to do so we need an analysis of ability and necessity and will and of certain other notions which are so interrelated that no one of them can be fully examined apart from others. And so to deal with these notions requires a separate work --one not easy [to compose], it seems to me, but nonetheless not altogether useless. For an ignorance of these notions produces certain difficulties which become easy [to deal with] as a result of understanding these notions.

BOSO. Where these notions become relevant you can speak briefly about them, so that we may have the knowledge which is adequate for the present work but may postpone to another time the additional points which need to be discussed.

ANSELM. I am also very reluctant to honor your request both because the topic is very important and because just as it deals with Him who is beautiful in appearance above the sons of men, so it is also adorned with a rationale which exceeds human understanding. Hence, I fear that just as I am accustomed to become indignant with untalented artists when I see the Lord Himself portrayed with an uncomely countenance, so I may provoke indignation if I presume to explore such an elegant topic by an inelegant and contemptible discourse.

BOSO. This fear ought not to deter you, since just as you permit whoever can to say these things better, so you forbid no one who does not like your discourse from writing more beautifully. But so that I may exclude all your excuses: [remember that] what I am asking of you, you will be writing not for the learned but for me and for those who are seeking this solution together with me.

Be Blessed,


Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Walking through Romans: Romans 9:1-13 part 13

Romans 9
1I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen.

6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned."[b] 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. 9For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."[c]

10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger."[d] 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."[e]


This will be interesting as I do not see that I can cover this chapter all in one swoop. In fact this chapter is so widely misunderstood that it may take the reader a bit to go over this so see my perspective. I will only be building on the theme that was coming out of Chapter 8 in how we are comforted by the Love of God and that we are to live life by the Spirit. It is God Who justifies and who can condemn you then?

(Romans 9: 1-6)That not all that is called Israel is “Israel”, gave Paul great sorrow as he saw the people of his own bloodline not seeing that it was “by the Spirit” we live and that it is God who justifies. In this he models Jesus in the willingness to lay down his own life so that his brothers would be spared. For it was through this chosen people that God gave us the Messiah Himself.

(Verses 7- 9) It would seem that Paul knew that some would say then that God failed. That since the natural born Jew is not able to fulfill all that was required even with all that God had given to and through them. Yet, again it is not of the natural birth one is saved… but of the Promise. God said, "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son." This coincides with the prophecy that YWYH God will return to Israel. It is that this promise of God returning and a Son is born…

(Verses 9 – 13) Paul makes the point more clear that it is that one is born of God by the Promise and not of the flesh by pointing out that Esau and Jacob had the same father yet, God loved Jacob and hated Esau.

I have taught a couple of places on this so I will not go into it now but please check out this post.
Now, I have heard some go one and on that this passage is about “Nations” and then the other rebuttal that it is “individuals” and I say it is both.

Of course Jacob and Esau are individuals.
Yet, both went on to be Fathers of Nations.

As I pointed out in my post on “Esau I hated…” it is clear that the direct quote comes from the passage in Malachi 1:2-3 and it is definitely about nations, yet also in the story of Esau and Jacob, they are individuals and we see that God may choose a nation but he also chooses by Grace, individuals.

I will point out that God promised Sarah that “at the appointed time” she would have a son, so also Jesus came “at the appointed time” (Titus 1:3) and God revealed His Light through Jesus Christ. Now, Interesting also is that the “younger will serve the older” I see that this as possibly the two covenants in that the Old Covenant of the Law is now over ruled by the New Convent and the Law of Love. Yet, there is a great significance in that Esau will also serve Jacob.

The Moabites are the descendants of Esau and few realize the ">Herod was also a descendant of the Edomites. In that Herod also represented Rome. So on tow levels Herod was the enemy of the Jew. This was part of the reason the Herod desired to be called King of the Jews as it would be the final victory for him as a descendant of Isaac. Yet, the issue is that the “blessings” were passed on to Jacob and not Esau.

Also in the story of Esau and Jacob, Jacob sought after the blessings and birthright and Esau cared nothing for his birthright trading it for food. This is important to realize as I will point out later.

Paul speaks that is by Grace so that “11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls” .

It was decided that Jacob and his descendants would carry the faith of Abraham. Though neither were yet born it was God’s decision to choose Jacob, so that His purpose of election might stand.

Many seem to think election is about individuals, yet if one looks closely at the passages in Ephesians concerning election, in chapter one versus 4-5 we read:

“For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will…”

Now, as I have talked to Calvinists I have heard them tell me over and over that this means “they” existed “in Christ” before the creation of the world… I do not see it that way. I see that God purposed “in Christ” that His plan of salvation would be done through Jesus. The Bible teaches that Jesus is the only Immortal (1 Timothy 6: 13-16) yet, it seems that Calvin taught that man existed before creation. Some try to say Paul is saying that, yet I see that Paul is simply stating that by His Grace that “those”, meaning a people whom God chooses, not necessarily individuals, will come to Jesus and be placed “in Christ” and be saved. To say somehow the “us” (which is plural btw) is about individuals… misses that though God will choose the individual, man was yet to exist and to exist in any form is more in line with Gnosticism and Mormonism.

To say that somehow man pre-existed is negates scripture:

John 6:46
“No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.”

1 Timothy 6: 13-16

“In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time--God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see.”

Roman 2:7

To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. (Note that Paul only refers to the future and not that they had any pre-existence.)

I Corinthians 15: 51-54

Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed-- in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."

(Notice that it is after the mortal is exchanged for the immortal that what is written will come true.)

To say that man somehow “pre-exists” is like I stated more in line with Mormonism and the Gnostic teachings of the Plermora and that man is somehow part of the aeons (eternal beings). Man is not an eternal being he is a created being. To state that man existed “in Christ” is to go against the clear teaching that man is not an eternal being and is mortal.

The Mormons teach that man is eternal. Here is their view.

"We believe in a God who is Himself progressive, whose majesty is intelligence; whose perfection consists in eternal advancement -- a Being who has attained His exalted state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow, whose glory it is their heritage to share. In spite of the opposition of the sects, in the face of direct charges of blasphemy, the Church proclaims the eternal truth: 'As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be.'" (LDS Apostle James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, Ch.24, p.430 - p.431, LDS Collectors Library '97 CD-ROM)

“‘It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God,' the inspired word continues, 'and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did.' The Father is a glorified, perfected, resurrected, exalted man who worked out his salvation by obedience to the same laws he has given to us so that we may do the same." (LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p.64, LDS Collectors Library '97 CD-ROM)

God is not a uniquely eternal being. All spirit is self-existent matter and is eternal (without beginning or end) . Such "matter (called intelligences) sometimes becomes organized into a spirit being through birth to celestial parents. Then that spirit is born through human parents on earth. Like all people, God took this course and eventually reached Godhood. God would stop being God if intelligences stopped supporting him as God. (D&C 93:29, 33; Abraham 3:18-23; Mormon Doctrine, 1977 ed. p. 751)

Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be" (D&C 93:29)

Here is one Calvinists take:

Though I will point out that more well read Calvinists reject the “pre-existence of man", many do hold to this doctrine as biblical.

To quote one I debated recently with where I pointed out that man would have to pre-exist in order to be "in Christ" as many teach or explain this passage.

you wrote out Ephesians 1:4-5 and you can’t see election in it?
Then you say that the focus of that passage is not “us” but “in Him”.
So what is Paul saying about being in Him?

What or who is in Him? It is “us”. The focus is “us” in what Paul is saying and that we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world What you say Calvinists believe about being in Christ before He has even lived, been crucified and buried and resuurrected is true.
Yes, even before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit! You say, “What a Calvinist does without realizing it is making mortal humans who have not even been created, be known before they are even created.
”No, the Calvinists are not doing this without realizing it. They are believing this with all they got!
Must be that tricky little passage of Ephesians 1:4-5. Yep, that’s the cause of this “terrible” belief!”

Now some Calvinists do reject this and they should… but it seems they give no answer as to how we existed in Jesus without actually existing… Also, I might point out that I do see “election” taught in the Ephesians passage yet not in the way that this person was stating. Also, she needs to read a bit more of Calvin to see that even Calvin rejected her view.

"By saying that they were "elect before the creation of the world" [Ephesians 1:4], he takes away all regard for worth. For what basis for distinction is there among those who did not yet exist, and who were subsequently to be equals in Adam? Now if they are elect in Christ, it follows that not only is each man elected without respect to his own person but also certain ones are separated from others, since we see that not all are members of Christ." (John Calvin Institutes III:22:2)

Yet many do believe this teaching and it is simply a heretical view.

Now, from what I see Calvin actually teaching I think is closer to what I believe, and many Calvinists twist at what I state and do not realize it pretty much what Calvin stated himself.

I see that the “election” was purposed that those “in Christ” would be saved. The “us” is about those of that “election”. It is not about the pre-existence of man in any way.

Here is the bible’ teaching regarding this:

Man is a finite being, not an eternal one. The first man Adam was created at a specific point in time (Ge 1:26-27; 2:7; 1Co 15:45-49). Man did not exist in the beginning when God was creating the universe, for if he had, God's question to Job would have made no sense (Job 38:4).

Now, I see that God knew Jesus as Jesus was in the Father and that all things were made through Jesus. In that "things" did not exist before creation, God purposed a plan of Salvation "in Jesus Christ" that those who would believe and receive would be saved. The "us" Paul is referring to is those that were then in Christ.

Jesus died and rose at a specific point in time. and that was the "appointed time".

The mystery hidden that is Jesus Christ was not known to man until it was revealed. Now, man was known by God, and that "some" would believe and receive Jesus was also known... as well that some would reject the Call and be lost. Now, this sounds close to Calvinism... yet I see that the point of focus is Jesus... and not the elect. Our focus is to always be Jesus.
We are only to verse 13… and this is already a bit too long. So this will be done in two posts… hopefully. LOL!

Cleck here for more thoughts on predestination.

Be blessed,

Thursday, September 20, 2007

What the "Exchanged Life" is Not

Some have asked me what this "exchanged life" is that I often talk about. Though I openly admit I do not agree with their doctrinal statement on some finer points, the teaching of the "Exchange Life" is profound when one realizes what has happened to them when one is in Christ. Now here is what the "Exchanged Life" is not. Taken from Clarification of the Exchanged Life by Exchanged Life Ministries of Texas



The "Exchanged Life"...

  • is not a new teaching.
  • is not sinless perfection.
  • is not a life of passivity.
  • is not a self-help teaching.
  • is not an undisciplined life.
  • is not a second work of grace.
  • is not a counseling technique.
  • is not an improved "old man."
  • is not in any way deifying man.
  • is not instant change in behavior.
  • is not a formula for self to imitate Christ.
  • is not peace through changed circumstances.
  • is not dying to self (wiping out our personality).
  • is not a guarantee that circumstances will improve.
  • is not overlooking or approving sinful behavior (promoting license).
  • is not a guarantee that emotions will line up consistently with truth

Thoughts about John MacArthur quotes...

Monday Morning Insight has an article on John MacArthurs recent interview with Answers Magazine... Todd Rhoads has printed some of John's quotes...

I read these quotes and as a person of the hated “emerging” I have not heard anyone state the things JM is saying is being stated… I think he is missing that we are saying the bible cannot be understood with out the Holy Spirit revealing the truth… yet, JM promotes the lie and people like Faye over at Hope in Laodicea eat it up and spit it out as true.

It seems that JM has convinced himself of many lies and has no thought of actually looking into these things if they are true or not… or bothering to place comments into its context.
Yes, Spencer Burke espouses universalism… and Tony Jones uses bad language and referred to the bible as really scary book (using a strong profanity before scary) yet, most of us do not hold to those things and are still looking into some of the teachings that could be “traditions of men” over the clear teachings that are there.

JM over generalizes… it is like saying everyone at grace to you teaches grace but has no idea what it really is… may believe that as true… as from my perspective I have seen it as that, yet I suppose there are a half dozen or so that have gone to Masters and have a strong grasp on God’s Grace…

It amazes me that JM cannot hear others… and seems happy to inspire hate toward those who claim Jesus as their savior.

I just wonder if one day, JM will stand before God and say, “Lord, Lord, didn’t I fight for truth in your Name?” along with those who state, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?” Because if it is all about JM and his fight for truth, then it is not about truth at all it is about John MacArthur.
Now, I love JM enough in Christ to state these things… and I pray that one day JM will see what the Bible teaches.
1 Peter 1:22

“Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart. ”

This is the point of Truth… that we have sincere love for one another… and not fight for some “objective, detached, abstract, ideal” that many have come to take as truth… They have began to fight for Plato’s dualism instead of coming to the Person of Jesus who is Truth incarnate.

You can also

Be blessed,

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

A bit of my testimony...

I wanted to share a bit of my testimony.

I for one was never afraid of hell… I welcomed it before I was saved… It was the Love of God and His Kindness that won me over. Hell was to be the “party place” where one could do as they willed.

I also believed my father who had died when I was very young to be in hell, so desired to meet him there.

Again, Hell never has been a motivating factor other than when God was in pursuit of me and I began hear His call, Satan kept showing me my insignificance… to me heaven was not an option… I was damned when I was born… why did I believe that? Satan told me so… He showed me hell and the mixture of men’s souls who were too weak to accept Satan’s offer, they got there thinking they were good enough for heaven, but we who knew we were not were to reign with Satan.

Now, I did not consider myself a Satanist… but one who had knowledge. I did not worship Satan in some formal way… as they were not truly pure in their self sacrifice…
I was very young when Satan told me this…

12 maybe…

God revealed His love for me through a youth pastor who told me of the Cross… he told me of hell and I told him I was not afraid of it and welcomed it. He was shocked. He kept telling me about how Jesus gave His life for me… and invited me to a rock concert at his church… I listened to the man and talked about “if you have troubles with drugs, alcohol, sex, whatever, give it to Jesus… I thought about my life and that I had not really known love… so I prayed, “If you can keep me sober tonight, I will see what I can do for you.” At that moment a heavy load lifted form me and I was sober. Now that got my attention.

There is much more, but suffice it to say that each step I took with God was because of love and kindness and not out of fear of hell… even now I have little to no fear of hell, and I know Satan for who he is… a liar, and thief and a destroyer of people.

I realize at times I may speak out harshly to some that believe that they must push Hell as a point to get one to convert. It seems I may have been wired from the start to see God's Grace and Mercy and to reach out to those that can hear, with God's kindness.

I know I have a low tolerance for "religious" people... yet, for a time I was one of those also. For me, God's grace is sufficient for me... and for anyone else that turns to Him. Fear can motivate some I suppose, but if that fear is all one stays in, they cannot be perfected in Love. We are to fear God Who can toss one into the Lake of Fire... so I do not see that we are called to fear hell.

Oh, about my father... One of the greatest gift God gives is hope. I have a suitcase of hope for my father... literally! He spent some time in Texas with a family of Charismatic believers. In that suit case are many prayers and scriptures to and for my father. I gives me hope that maybe in spite of other things I know of him, he by God's Grace is with Jesus now.

Be Blessed,

Ingrid of the nicer, gentler Slice"flames" me...

Ingrid of the nicer, gentler Slice flames me... Then closes comments.

Oh, this is because I stated:
Chris L.

Just to warn you Jim will go on and on until he feels he wins… so ignore him and he will go away… you know like that other feller we are told to resist and he will flee…

I am more and more convinced that these guys have no clue that they are running more people off… and I think one day they will account for those souls they abused in Jesus’ Name.
I pray that will not happen but I do not see or hear or sense any godly Love from them… only a unhealthy fixation on the wrath of God at the expense of God’s grace.

I did a series on “the Religionist” and all Jim did was assume it was all about him… a bit of Narcissism if you ask me…

So, resist the devil and he will flee… sounds like sound advice from God’s word to me.

Be Blessed,

And yes Jim I did associate you with the devil… so confess your sin of lack of love for you brothers and turn to the Lord
James 2:12-13 (now that is not oldtruth… but living truth!)

Note I "associated" Jim with the devil... I did not call him The Devil as Ingrid states it. Jesus rebuked Peter, who Jesus stated, "Get behind me Satan." yet I do not think Peter turned into "The Satan" but was being used of Satan... The verse in James 2:12-13 I used was the rebuke to not judge others as Ingrid and Jim have been doing... I am stating we need stand against those who are being used by Satan to cause division.

Here is the verse:

12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!

Note that I am also using a biblical principle in that James also teaches:

James 4:4- 12

You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely?But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says: "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."

Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.

Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?

Now I think many of the watchdoggie blogs have slandered and judges others by the Law and miss that we are to judge others by the Law that gives freedom.

There are some things to note as you read the comments and Ingrid's interpretation...

1. Though she quotes me she distorts what I said to mean I called Jim "The Devil" and I did not... I am stating that we are to resist those that use this worlds tools like slander and lies that cause division.

2. Ingrid gets her last word in... "Thanks, Iggy, for making our point." and then promptly closed comments... it gives me no room for restoration or reconciliation... I am judged, condemned and then tossed aside.

3. In the very comments "Faye" states: “They really are clueless about their eternal state.” in which Ingrid never rebukes her for her statement... in fact a person calls her on that statement and she admits she went too far... but not a word from Ingrid.

4. I might also point out that I am only a commenter on that site and Ingrid has elevated me as a writer… She does call me a "commenter" yet, I wonder if her own commenter’s should also be held to the same standard as she held me. Here are a few comments just from that post.

They really are clueless about their eternal state.
(Faye does say she went too far.)

Haven’t they ever heard of the Holy Spirit and that He will teach us and help us to recall the Truths of scripture when it is needed?

Right, those who say that the Bible cannot be understood almost always use that as a “get out of jail free” card. What a faithless statement.

For them to suggest that they are demonstrating Christian love and tolerance is laughable, and it’s about time someone publicly exposed it.

These are people who demand respect for themselves that they refuse to afford others, while at the same time wrapping themselves in a cloak of “tolerance and love.” It just ain’t so.

If they hate you remember that they hated our Lord first. To be persecuted is not noteworthy. To be persecuted for the truth is of great worth. Well done.

They are so self- deceived and self-righteous and are like the pharisee who prayed to himself, thanking God that he is not like others especially that tax collector, who went home righteous after his humility and brokeness and cry for God’s mercy.

Jim Bublitz:
Truth be told, you and Rick share the usual list of common foes.
(BTW most of those “foes” were his friends… like Ingrid who now berate him… funny now Rick writes for this site as he is no longer accepted by Ken and Ingrid)

My advice is for these gentlemen to admit that what they are doing is pharisaical and to stop their claims of moral and spiritual superiority.

Imagine that. “Iggy” always has the flamethrowers at the ready to take down those he disagrees with, even going so far as to liken them to the devil himself, in Christian love, of course.

Thanks, Iggy, for making our point.

Thanks Ingrid for making mine so easily as it seems that you all me to accountability yet do not do so with you own commenters.

I think Phil at wraps this up nicely:

"It responses like these on Ingrid’s part that make me think it all a big parody. I mean, how can she with a straight face say something like, “My advice is for these gentlemen to admit that what they are doing is pharisaical and to stop their claims of moral and spiritual superiority” and call other “flamethrowers”? I know I shouldn’t be surprised, but it really unbelievable to me.
If someone asked me for a definition of irony, I would point them to that thread on her site."

Be Blessed,

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Plato: Gnostic Dualism in Christianity today...

In the past I have written on Platonism/Dualism has infused itself into Christianity. Someone stated I did not have any proof or whatever it was that he needed to be convinced as pointing out that Aquinas and Augustine were greatly influenced by Plato and in that brought those ideas into Christianity...

Now, Emergent Village has some great podcasts on this topic with two of the greatest living philosophers alive today... it is well worth a listen.

2007 Theological, Philosophical Conversation- Session 1, Part 1

Part 2 - 2007 Theological, Philosophical Conversation- Session 1

Session 2 - 2007 Theological, Philosophical Conversation
Here who you will hear:

Saturday, September 15, 2007

Quoting Tozer: Isn't it Great that CRN is anti-mystics yet...

I find it so funny that CRN quotes Tozer regularly... and yet rants against many things Tozer taught!

1. Tozer promoted "Christian mysticism".

Although many Christians cringe at the term “mystic,” A.W. Tozer used the term to mean, “that spiritual experience common to the saints of the Bible times and well known to multitudes of persons in the post-biblical era.” He referred to the evangelical mystic as one “who has been brought by the gospel into intimate fellowship with the Godhead.” from the back of the book: The Christian Book of Mystical Verse by A. W. Tozer

2. Tozer promoted "Free Will" Here is another source.

Tozer was asked by a young man studying at a Bible school, "Dr. Tozer when the boys begin to debate Arminian and Calvinistic theology, what position should I take." Dr. Tozer replied, "Son, when they begin that debate you go and get in your prayer closet and you cry out to God and in four years you will be closer to the Lord but those boys will still be debating Arminianism and Calvinism."

Now the real question is why would CRN quote Tozer and as I also do at times... being of emerging persuasion... I believe this quote sums it up.

Some wonder why "Tozer's writings are as fresh today as when he was alive. It is because, as one friend commented, "He left the superficial, the obvious and the trivial for others to toss around. . . . [His] books reach deep into the heart."

Yet, if one disagrees with someone to the point of name calling and often slanderous accusations... then why quote from someone that seems to back the ideas of your opponent... unless it is to show both are wrong. Why use one to show his ideals are yours when they are not? Now that IS the question that one need ask CRN.

Be Blessed,

Of Free Will and The Love of Jesus...

Matthew 16:24.

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. KJV

Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. NKJV

Now I am not even going to even talk about which version is better... as I think they still state clearly the same thing.

Jesus states that a man has a will and can come after Him... there is not much difference in saying "If anyone desires" as a desire is out of a man's will...

In other versions still the idea is conveyed... such as the NIV

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

Yet, it seems that though some teach that man has no "free will" Jesus taught that man can choose Him. Now, be careful not to take me as saying man has a part in their own salvation as that IS of God and God alone... the point is that the Father draws a person ( John 6:44. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.) Yet, still man must make that decision to follow after Jesus.

In that decision, one must realize that as Jesus stated one must then die to self to be able to follow Him. With that free will is exchanged for God's will through Jesus Christ.

Romans 6: 5-14 is rich with this teaching of being dying with Christ on the Cross and now where our Life comes from.

"If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin-- because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace."

Now as one who died with Jesus and as Paul stated, "because anyone who has died has been freed from sin." we know a dead person no longer "sins" so we also find Life at the Resurrected Life of Jesus.

Now, we all will sin... we all will fail as we still live in the "mortal body" Yet, we are no longer slaves to this "mortal body" for if one is in Christ, the sin in us has been judged and put to death, and we Live now "in Chirst" by the power of the Resurrection. We have exchanged our "sin and death" that reigned in our mortal body and not Christ Jesus reigns in us and gives us His very Life...

Jesus is the only "immortal" (1 Timothy 6:16) and by Jesus we will one day exchange "the mortal with immortality". (1 Cor 15:53)

God is good, for He draws a person to Jesus in whom we choose to follow... there is no doubt be one Calvinist or Ariminian that one still must "believe and receive" (Philippians 1:29; 1 Tim 1:16; John 3:16-17; Matt 10:40; John 1:12; John 20:22)
so that is not the debate... at least I would hope. (note: I re-read and noticed a bit of fuzz in that sentence so yes it is edited)... For a person can only freely love another if they are free to choose to do so. If they are not given a choice then how can a man love freely... God freely chooses to give grace to WHO he chooses... in that act of Love, man can and must respond to it... but without the ability to freely choose... it is not pure Love.

Be Blessed,

Friday, September 14, 2007

A Slice of Tozer Devotional

The other day I heard Slice of Laodicea was once again no more. Ingrid apparently lost her site for some reason and tells us she still has hope in her private little Laodicea. Though she promised it to be a kinder gentler place, she took no time in getting back to her regular scheduled swipe against others so much for a new improved quite place.

Now, Ingrid is who she is and in that she is accountable to God for her actions and words and in that I am not complaining... I am just letting you know what is going on since I have written here about Slice before. If you need a bit of Old Slice you can get the general idea of how Ingrid would "correct" and try to restore others here.

So, does complaining really change things. I mean some have pointed out that by the standards of Ingrid and those other watchdoggies, that this would be divine intervention as God just did not like or want Slice around... I mean God is sovereign.
Interestingly, Jesus warned Laodicea to get hot or cold or He would spew them out... and Jesus did. There is not much left of the Biblical City or Church of Laodicea... so how ironic that no matter how one Slices Laodicea, it seems that the story still plays out.

So today for my Tozer devotional (Ken Silva's favorite and oft quoted mystic)... (which is really very good!) I know this is something everyone struggles with... (not just Ingrid and Ken) I know I do also. So enjoy!

Be Blessed,

The Next Chapter after the Last
Chapter # Four
Complaining: A Disease of the Soul

The Illogic of Complaining

Among those sins most exquisitely fitted to injure the soul and destroy the testimony, few can equal the sin of complaining. Yet the habit is so widespread that we hardly notice it among us. The complaining heart never lacks for occasion. It can always find reason enough to be unhappy. The object of its censure may be almost anything: the weather, the church, the difficulties of the way, other Christians or even God Himself. A complaining Christian puts himself in a position morally untenable. The simple logic of his professed discipleship is against him with an unanswerable argument. Its reasoning runs like this: First, he is a Christian because he chose to be. There are no conscripts in the army of God. He is, therefore, in the awkward position of complaining against the very conditions he brought himself into by his own free choice. Secondly, he can quit any time he desires. No Christian wears a chain on his leg. Yet he still continues on, grumbling as he goes, and for such conduct he has no defense.

Deliver me from complaining, Lord. Rather, teach me to praise You and thank You for the opportunities to grow.

Do everything without complaining or arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation.
— Philippians 2:14-15

The cause for complaint is often a God-given opportunity for growth and praise. What at first appear to be thorns may prove to be divine prods that move us closer to God.

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Of respect and gentleness

Normally I might have had about 5 or 6 posts out this week... yet for some reason I am just not that motivated.

Partly there are some things at work... I won't go into detail but the stress level has risen a bit. I also have been feeling better but in that I am doing more outside thing. Being on that statin drug limited me as far as what i could or felt able to do... Most often work drained me and I would on occasion go for a walk, but mostly I just felt "tired".

The other thing is I am taking some time as to a direction... I was going to pop off a couple of "John MacArthur" posts, but they seems lame and quite frankly John MacArthur has become a bit boring. Also, I think that there is not much more to say. I do not agree with "Lordship Salvation" nor do I agree that one must commit to all the things John states one does to be saved... as that is "works" plain and simple... I see that if one accepts Jesus for Who He is... one will grow in their faith and realize what and who Jesus is. Noted that most Lordship Salvation people miss that all will call Jesus Lord one day... but not all will be saved in their acknowledgement of Jesus as Lord. Some will bend that knee and call Him Lord and still enter the Lake of Fire.

NOW, I have had some fun at as they have some really good posts up now... I would at least take a look at this weeks worth of post... I have done a lot of comments there... enough to probably have posted a good dozen times here.

Yet, still I am truly wanting to move in a different direction. Sparing with someone over theology is fun, but if the other is more resentful toward you and has little to no respect, it gets a bit tiresome to continue a dialog that seems to only entrench oneself further in one own position.

I will not state the name, but I have also been emailing back and forth with a writer from CRN who thinks I have been using Ken Silva as a punching bag at I noted that it goes like this...

I ask Ken a question concerning he accusation against me or that he set up in an article... Ken responds with mockery or a put down... I do something like a Jujitsu move using Ken's own momentum and then he just gets nastier.

But, you see the guy missed that Ken started the punch with accusation that have nothing behind them...

I have asked for direct quotes concerning the accusations against people like Brian McLaren...

1. Where has he stated he does not believe in the biblical "Hell"?
2. Where has he stated he is a "universalist"?
3.Where has he stated that to be gay is OK and not a sin?

What I am usually given, if given anything is a video that states we need to have compassion on the lost... which includes gay people... but no where does Brian condone sin.

I also asked for quotes about other accusations.

1. Give me a direct quote where Tony Jones or anyone at Emergent Village denies "biblical" truth.
2. Show me a direct quote that anyone at emergent village denies the "authority" of scripture.

Now, the inerrancy question is not about same issue that most "fundamentalist" think... as they have a definition that is much different from those who originally stated the definition was. And yes, Spencer Burke has stated he is a universalist... but most miss that there is a twist... he believes in hell... so, all emergents deny hell except Spencer... LOL!

It is a crazy world.

In this conversation we acknowledge no one has it all together or has all the answers. Theology should not just be about sword rattling, but it can also be fun. If we cannot talk to each other, then we miss out that someone might have a piece that we needed that can help our understanding of our faith in God. We will and should not all agree... and yes some are or have gone off the tracks, yet i see that in even the fundamentalist who believes KJVonly... or that tongue have ended... or that prophecy has ended... (as in the case of Frank Turk at teampyro, who seems to like to defend the self proclaimed last day prophet Ken Silva... go figure that one out).

This is a fascinating time and really a hard time. Many miss that schools do not teach "biblical" ideas... that God is not a given in most homes and that the American dream has replace Christian values. Yet, somehow people expect that others just understand the Christian world view... but you see, the world is watching us... and they are wiser that we give them credit. Even Jesus pointed that out in the parable of the shrewd manager in Luke 16.

When we do not take time to listen and already assume we have the answer I see we lose out at the chance that God will do something even greater. It is not wrong to be able to give an answer... but the last part of the oft quoted verse... is with gentleness and kindness... here see what I mean.

1 Peter 3: 15-16
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

When we lose sight of gentleness and respect truly we must then rationalize things like our judgmentalism... and we lose even more as we give ground for others to speak maliciously against us and against Jesus.

I know I am guilty of this... so no need to write and tell me. Yet, I always look for any opportunity to move toward reconciliation and that one can be restored. I may rag on Ken Silva, but I earnestly seek that he can see the harm he has done and that his ministry can also focus on not just the negative, but give praise to those who show that they are orthodox and not just run them down more. I pray that Ken also gives a door to reconciliation and restoration of the brothers he sees as "in sin" and more I pray that humility will allow Ken to go to even greater heights in his ministry.

So, I guess this post is about gentleness and respect for others. Give an answer... but realize that even if you can answer all the questions a person has... the only real answer is Jesus and that is truly all we have to give anyone.

Again, I am far from the target... but that is why I turned to Jesus in the first place.

Be Blessed,

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Sorry for no posts for so long... and yes I am OK! LOL!

I have been BUSY! So get off my back! LOL!

Just kidding... not about the busy thing.

Thanks for you concerns as some wondered if I was well.


I have had health issues in the past due to medications I have take for my diabetes and cholesterol.

One medication (this was a few years ago) made me feel like the "ambition" switch was turned off in my head... I could have cared less about anything... things took on a better viewpoint when i stopped that one.

Now I have found that statins like Lipitor and Tricore do not mix well with me.

I have had severe back pains... like my kidneys were trying to dig out of my back... and I really thought i was on my way for a hip replacement.... as my right hip when turned (never knowing when it would happen) would send waves of shocking pain that made me wonder if I was going to hit the ground... Not a good thing if you lift heavy objects at work like do sometimes.

So, recently I found out that I cannot take Tricore for my High Cholesterol... so I quite and my energy level has risen considerably and my pain has almost disappeared... (but being in my 40's... well you get the picture).

I do think that the reason i have had a chronic cough since mid July (I had the flue and then a bronchial infection... then a chronic cough and it still is going on!) Is that because of the Statin drug, my immune system was compromised a bit... i seem to be mending.. but even two time on antibiotics seems to not be getting this cough to leave... so I turn to you the reader for prayer...

Also on the topic of prayer my mother fell in the driveway the other day... she got pretty banged up... so pray for her also... she and I are also considering getting that stomach staple (they have newer ways now) for health reasons... though i may be better now with more energy from being off the "drugs".


There are some other interesting developments as i am in correspondence with another writer at Christian Research Network... and though I do not see this going to change how they attack others, do pray as I hope that there may be a softening of sorts. (The guy does not like how I treat Ken as a "punching bag" at when I interact with Ken... but has yet to see Ken does this all the time with all he attacks.)

I am working on Romans 9... it is going slowly as i am trying to pick the direction and find the smooth stream between all the controversy on that chapter... believe me, I do not think I will clear that all up... though I do think my unique view may give yet another stream to look at.

So, that is the update...


Friday, September 07, 2007

A Question of innocence...

DAVE N has left a new comment on your post "J.I Packer and the Five Basic Truths":

I disagree with your statement that man is born innocent. The Scriptures do not teach that, do they? Job 15:14; Job 25:4; Ps 51:5; Rom 5:12;Also, you said, " I think man without God can make a moral choice" According to whose standard? Your's? I think its irrelevant! Lets talk about what God thinks, not Iggy. God is not interested in morality (according to man) He is interested in righteousness (obedience)! Rom 6:16; I John 2:29; 2 Cor 5:21;Lets keep the main thing, the main thing.

Dave N,

Great! Let’s keep the main thing the main thing… I have no problem in that…

First off you misrepresent what I have stated… Man can make a moral choice… even Calvin states that… You missed that I teach it be a “sustained” choice… meaning man fails! You left out half of what I actually teach. I think you have not read enough of me to know for certain as to what I do believe... a comment is not where I do my main teaching... LOL!

But let’s look at what your verses actually state OK? I am using KJV for its universality... though I prefer the NKJV.

Job 15: 14. What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

Notice it states that he should “be” clean? It does not state man is born unclean… only that he “be” clean… that means that man still can be born innocent yet fail in his being clean by God’s standards.

Now also the point that Job states about “born of a woman”… this again is not stating that he is born evil… but again shows my point that man is not righteous and will fail in sustained righteousness…

Job 25:4. How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Job Is asking again the same question.. But this still does not state man is born “totally depraved”. The idea of being born of a woman means that man is born evil or “not innocent” is not a ”Christian” teaching but a Gnostic teaching. If you read the other “so called” gospels Gnostic teachings you will see this taught in the form of the Serpent Seed where some teach that Eve conceived a child from the Serpent… in that then all mankind is evil in its fleshly form…

I want to also point out that Job is not talking about woman being evil and passing on the "evil gene" (that will lead to issues later when we have a "perfect Jesus" "born of a woman". The phrase born of a woman means "lowly state" it is a sign of humility that God is immortal and man is mortal. Remember in Hebrews 2 6-7 it states:

But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

Man is made lower than the Angels who are immortal... that it one of the main points of the incarnation as Jesus "born of a woman" became a man... So to make

Psalms 51: 5. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

This is not about being born in sin rather that (if you have ever noticed) King David’s mother is not mentioned and we can only speculate as to who she is… This leaves us a bit of a question as to his heritage… and possibly that he was a bastard child… note David is the anti-type of Jesus who was also thought by many to be a bastard child… so again this is not stating man is born in sin… rather that his mother sinned when she conceived him.

Rom 5: 12. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:.

Again, it is apparent that you have not read much of what I write and teach… as I do not deny man is under the covenant of death and will receive the wages of sin… Yet still in this verse show me where man is born totally depraved or that man is not born innocent.

Now, notice Romans Chapter One.

18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Notice here that man has clearly seen by the things made God’s Power and His Godhead.

21. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Notice also here that they knew God… yet made a choice not to glorify Him as God? They professed themselves to be wise? They worshipped idols by choice?

24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Notice God then “Gives them up”? That they once were innocent but by their own choices turned to worship creation and not the Creator and God “gives them up”.

25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Notice here that they did not “retain God in their knowledge”…. Meaning they did at one time… but forsook God?

29. Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30. Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31. Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32. Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Man did know God… and this is not about Adam and Eve as Paul seems to make a distinction as to Adam and all mankind. Man can know God even today and choose to seek Him... but until man sees he cannot please God by his own standards and that God's ways are much higher... he will not be saved... it is when a man comes to the end of himself and understands that his good is not good enough and that though he may try and try, once he falls from innocence (as all men do Rom 3:23) he enters under the same covenant of death that Adam came under and in that without the sacrifice of Jesus and His resurrection no one can be saved.

Now the issue of obedience I will refer you to the verse below where you quoted me...

Rom 5:19. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Notice it is not our obedience but Jesus'. Everything is imputed from Jesus... we do not walk in our OWN obedience as that is the issue in the first place... we have none to walk in... we do walk in the imputed obedience of Jesus for it is "through the obedience of the one man (Jesus) the many will be made righteous.

I then to do good must totally depend on Jesus to do God's will and purpose in and through me. I have no obedient "works" of my own to offer. (note also Phil 2:12-13)

Now also, I need to clarify, "innocent" does not mean "good" it is neutral as man has yet to sin... but that in his fallen nature will fall into sin.

Also, if you want more info on this topic Irenaeus on Free Will is a good thing to read as he was a contemporary with John the Apostle and a Disciple of Polycarp. Polycarp was directly discipled by John so there is some great heritage there.

Be Blessed,

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Fist in the Air! I am also a "gutless grace girlieman"

My friend John O'Keefe has a great article concerning how CRN thinks grace is for girliemen... sad really that Jesus being full of Grace and Truth is demeaned by their sad view of Grace.

Sadder their view of Jesus.

So I too put my fist in the air and declare myself a "gutless grace girlieman" and Jesus be praised!


Source 1
Source 2

Monday, September 03, 2007

One amazing video!

And just when you thought it could not be topped!


Be Blessed!

Found a new blog today... The No Name Pastor

I found a new blog today called The No Name Pastor... somehow this person's writing sound familiar. Interesting posts there...

Funny thing is... and few might have caught this...

I used to (back when windows 95 was not that old) go to chat rooms to evangelise (since then they have gotten too ugly for me to go to). I used the ID iggy...

In chat room language... iggy or "to iggy" someone is to ignore them.

So in a way (though again most would not catch this) to call myself iggy is to call myself "the ignored one"...

Welcome to my blog roll "No Name".


Sunday, September 02, 2007

Meeting People who read this blog.

In all honesty though it is rare, when I find someone who reads this blog I get a bit "worried"... now I know most people read me and may not comment... some do comment and say nice things... yet some say some pretty nasty things... yet...

Sometimes those who mean to "get" me do say something that I think is what I need to hear.

Today though I met a person who has been a reader for sometime. The funny thing is she and her husband have not commented... though they do read on occasion.

I think that much of her story matched ours... TES and me that is. It seems she was pregnant at the same times TES was... and that they moved a bit... much as our story.

Now the weird part... they know Dan Carter... as they are either friends with or related to Miss Sara's (who is now Mrs. Sara Carter) mother... (I think I have that right.)

But there is more!!!!

She also knew Levi and Bethany Fuson... who knew a couple from Wyoming who knew pastor Alan Hodges who pastors Vineyard Church here in Billings.

Now... this is there it gets interesting...

Scott and Tracy (the couple who I am referring to... though I only talked to Tracy) began reading my blog and were thinking about joining me when I was doing Word of Mouth Fellowship... which I gave up to join in the Vineyard Church plant we are currently with... they had attended the former Vineyard... and when they saw TES and I were then going to Vineyard they have joined us there.

So, one Sunday... TES was talking to Tracy and Tracy suddenly stated... "Oh! You are iggy's wife!" (And yes it was meant as a good thing! LOL!)

Now, it was fun to hear Tracy's perspective as she told me which posts she liked the most and how she prayed for me when some began to attack me on personal levels with their attack blogs.

It is a good feeling that some of you are out there... praying and are enjoying my crazy journey.

I confess I am not always the best example... I try to be good... really... yet it seems I am still human and in need of a saviour.

Now, the purpose was and has always been to tell the story of my journey of faith in this postmodern world. I will not change that. I think though that some that are being used of Satan have distracted me from my true calling. I am not saying I will not stand up for truth, yet I do hope and ask you who read to pray that I can focus more on the calling God has on me and my family. I hope that I can focus more on teaching and encouragement and less on this pseudo "war" that some have declared on "truth"...

I have had a very interesting day... not all "good"... but still in all the "stuff" I have been hit with lately... I see God's Hand in all and see that He is in charge and is so good to me.


Saturday, September 01, 2007

J.I Packer and the Five Basic Truths

Five basic truths, five foundation principles of the knowledge about God which Christians have, will determine our course throughout. They are as follows:

1. God has spoken to man, and the Bible is his Word, given to us to make us wise unto salvation.

2. God is Lord and King over his world; he rules all things for his own glory, displaying his perfections in all that he does, in order that men and angels may worship and adore him.

3. God is Savior, active in sovereign love through the Lord Jesus Christ to rescue believers from the guilt and power of sin, to adopt them as his children and to bless them accordingly.

4. God is triune; there are within the Godhead three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; and the work of salvation is one in which all three act together, the Father purposing redemption, the Son securing it and the Spirit applying it.

5. Godliness means responding to God's revelation in trust and obedience, faith and worship, prayer and praise, submission and service. Life must be seen and lived in the light of God's Word. This, and nothing else, is true religion.

~ From Knowing God by J.I. Packer

Note that Packer is/was a Calvinist... and note number five that states "responding to God's revelation"... Makes me wonder what some of the "truth war" blogs and people that toss around "semi-pelagian" as a derogatory name might think... it sounds as if Packer is saying man must respond to be saved!

On a personal note here I agree with Packer, though I think that I have a different understanding of "obedience" than Packer does.

Be Blessed,


Dilema about his blog... a change of template

Though I like this template, I find it irritating that (at least in ie7) the pages loads, then crashes, then reloads fine... but sometimes with errors.

I want to keep my template, yet see that I might have to change to the boring blogger templates (which means take and possibly losing all the extras I have on my page)

Does anyone have an idea how to fix this issue.

I do recall that Bob Hyatt also had this issue for a time...

Be blessed,

More additions to my Blogroll: The Boars Head Tavern and more...

I have been putting this one off also for a time...
But another addition is The Boars Head Tavern... Enjoy!

The Wittenberg Catholic is a Blog about someone who has become Lutheran and his journey.

Christian Classics Ethereal Library is a great resource for classic Christian literature.

While Rome Burns Tell Coop iggy sent ya!

Also... in this the late edition update! My newest link on the blog-roll Following judah's Lion blog, Rick Frueh.

Sorry for missing you were not on the "roll" already... Still friends? LOL!

Be Blessed!

CRN Article for those who are also tired of Team Pyro's antics

Go here and follow the links.... now these are funny! Parody + Satire = Patire?


New Blogroll addition: Conservative Reformed Mafia

A while back while I was embroiled in a discussion with Tony Rose at his blog about Biblical truth verses man made truth Jeff Wright contacted me to let me know that they were also discussing this topic at Conservative Reformed Mafia.

At the time I was a bit burned out with the discussion to contribute over at CRM yet I think the series they have there is very interesting... and not because we seem to be in agreement to a degree! (But it helps LOL!)

Here is part 1

Here is part 2

Here is part 3

In reflection in the discussion with Tony Rose I might point out that they insisted that "emergents" "do not believe in truth" and Tony was not willing to accept that Russell Moore who did the interview with Tony Jones did not have a clue what he was talking about. The funniest/saddest thing that Jim W. and Tony Rose missed was that I was an emerging folk who was standing on the Bible as his authority and definition of truth and they were fighting for the modernistic viewpoint... more sad that they just plain missed I was of the "emergent" ilk and was for truth and believed in truth and was fighting for truth...

So how then is it true that all emergents do not believe in truth? It seems that one side cannot see the lies they are stating. They see these lies as truth and uses these lies to protect their view of truth.

Be Blessed,