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.”

Source: http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap0602/perform.htm

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 oldtruth.com 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,

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Great Quotes: N.T.Wright

What does the church do when faced with this huge swirling set of cultural movements and tensions? Most of us learned our trade, learned Christianity, and learned to preach and live the gospel within the resolutely modernist and industrial world. Some branches of Christianity, it is true, have managed to hold onto a premodern way of thinking and even of living, holding the modern world, let alone the postmodern world, at arm’s length. But most of us traditionally have articulated the gospel to people who thought and felt as modern people, particularly as “progress” people—people who thought that if they worked a little harder and pulled their weight a bit more strongly, everything would pan out. That modernist dream, translated into theology, sustains a sort of Pelagianism: pull yourself up by your moral bootstraps, save yourself by your own efforts. And since that was what Martin Luther attacked with his doctrine of justification by faith, we have preached a message, of grace and faith to a world of eager Pelagians. We have announced a pure spiritual message, uncorrupted by political and social reflection.

That looks fine to begin with. If you meet a Pelagian coming down the street, give him Augustine or Luther. But there are two problems with this procedure. First, of course, it is not what Saint Paul himself meant by justification by faith, but that is another subject for another day. Second, with the move to postmodernity, most of our contemporaries already, and all of them soon, will not be Pelagians any longer. Those who have abandoned the smokestack economy for the microchip, those who have denied all objective knowledge in favor of a world of feelings and impulses, those who have abandoned the arrogant Enlightenment “I” for the deconstmcted mass of signifiers, those who have torn down the great metanarrative and now play with different interchangeable stories as they come along—those who live in this world, which is increasingly our world, are not trying to pull themselves up by their moral bootstraps. Where would they pull themselves up to? Why would they bother? Who are “they,” anyway? Goal, motive, identity—all of these have been undermined by the shifting sands of postmodernity.
Faced with this situation, many have tried—some are still trying—to deny the presence of postmodernity, to retain the modern world in which we felt so comfortable and in which (whether we realize it or not) we preached a modernist gospel. Many want to turn the clock back, culturally and theologically.

It cannot be done.

My proposal to you is that we should not be frightened of the postmodern critique. It had to come. It is, I believe, a necessary judgment on the arrogance of modernity, and it is essentially a judgment from within. Our task is to reflect on this moment of despair within our culture and, reflecting biblically and Christianly, to see our way through the moment of despair and out the other side. ~ N.T.Wright The Resurrection and the Postmodern Dilemma
(Originally published in Sewanee Theological Review 41.2, 1998. Reproduced by permission of the author.)

Read the whole article here.

I can't believe I am doing this

I was contacted by a pastor in Mauritius... and he wanted me to send him anything I could that teaches the grace of God...

I was/am excited! I asked for help with material a some of you sent some awesome teaching stuff... but...

I am looking as shipping costs and have been told a little box I am planning on sending will be about $200.00 bucks!

I was/am floored but determined to get this material to this pastor.

So... I can't believe I am doing this... I am appealing to you the reader to help...

Please donate to my paypal account... anything will help.

I plan on posting the receipt once I am done so that I am accountable as to where the money went.

If for some reason God super blesses above what the need is, I will donate the excess to a charity.
Here are some quick facts about Maurritius:
Languages: English less than 1% (official), Creole 81%, Bojpoori 12%, French 3% (2000)
Ethnicity/race: Indo-Mauritian 68%, Creole 27%, Sino-Mauritian 3%, Franco-Mauritian 2%
Religions: Hindu 48%, Roman Catholic 24%, other Christian 8%, Islam 17% (2000)
Literacy rate: 86% (2003 est.)

Be Blessed,

How does Choice work in Salvation?

How does Choice work in Salvation?

(Much of this is taken from a comment thread at CRN.info in which we were discussing how choice is part of our salvation I thought it a great discussion. I have taken my comments and added the main point of other’s questions in the article. I have also edited my comments to flow better than in the comment thread. I had not taken time before to really look at what I did believe on this but as I wrote I realized many things. I hope it helps others sort out much of the confusion on this matter though I know full well the debate will go on and on.)

The Father draws men unto Jesus and men seek Jesus out…
It is all a work of the Holy Spirit, yet a man can be drawn to Christ and still walk away as in the story of the Rich young ruler.
One can look at Jesus and not mix faith with God’s word to have a saving belief in God.
Jesus states that we are to seek after the Kingdom of God (Matt 6:33) as well Jesus tells those in Matthew 7:7-11

“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. “Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!
So if one is drawn to Jesus by the Father and asks, seeks knocks… Jesus will and answer is found and open the door…

It is not a matter of either/or but of both…

The context of Matthew 7: 7-11where Jesus states to "seek" actually starts in chapter 5… to say then that in 5:1-2 that all in the crowd were believers.. I might agree, but they believed that they could enter into the Kingdom by the law making them righteous… which again Paul states: Galatians 2:21 21.
“I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” "

So to say it is to believers… yes it is, but those who saw that by their prayers out of their own righteousness, they could please God… and Jesus states that they need to seek Him… and enter in by faith… not works.

In Acts James speaks about the salvation that has come to the gentiles and clearly states that a remnant of men will seek God.

Acts 15: 13-18

When they finished, James spoke up: “Brothers, listen to me. Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: “`After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’ that have been known for ages.

Also to say men do not seek God negates that the Holy Spirit is now active… as Paul stated in Acts 17:24-27

“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

It is by faith we are to seek after God… as Hebrews 11:5-6 states.

“By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”
This is but a small sampling of how wrong the idea that men cannot seek after God is… In fact I see that the teaching that men cannot seek God negates and removes the Holy Spirit from the salvation equation is a gross distortion and of satanic origin. For since the Holy Spirit has been poured out men now can seek after God. Before this, God would seek after men individually as in the case of Enoch and Moses and later deal with men by the Law as with the Nation of Israel, yet still on an individual basis if one reads closely. It was never the case of "all men" but of a few men being able to seek God as the Holy Spirit would rest on them individually... but also not permanently.

Now one might ask, if man is free to choose God with no help from God, by his own volition…then why are there plenty of verses like this all throughout the OT and NT?
“When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.” Acts 13:48

Since no one had yet to receive the Holy Spirit … even the disciples… it seems that you have only people that may believe but are not yet sealed.

The difference from the OT to the NT is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Also, again if you understand the Jews did believe, but wrongly… or Paul is stating a lie in Romans 9 by stating that they sought God by works of the Law and not by Faith.
The point I think that is missed is that it is all free will now… it was not under the OT as it was either you were a lost Pagan (unless you were the exception and converted) or of the Chosen Hebrews. But all were under the bondage of sin. Now, since the Cross, sin was judged and died with Jesus on the Cross…

2 Cor 5:14 -21 is very clear on this…

"For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again. So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

Note a distinction in these verses...

1. That one died for all, and therefore all died.
This is all men it is not just those saved as Paul goes on to include them also…

2. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.

Paul now includes those who came to faith… and states that they now are new creations… and we should not look at people from a worldly view point…

3. Now this is the message of the Gospel and Kingdom…
God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.
Not just the saved as Jesus died for “all men”.

4. Again the Gospel is about reconciliation… not stopping sinning…
“We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

IF Jesus who had no sin became sin for us… and as sin died on the cross, then sin is dead. Death is the judgment of sin and sin was judged and died in Christ for us… so that we can be reconciled and not have our sins held against us.

Now, to just say that it is the Holy Spirit as some assert… to be just those “elect” but, yet God through Jesus calls “all men”, and draws all men unto Jesus… and men now by free will choose to enter into the Kingdom by works or faith… by self righteous acts or by the finished works of Jesus…. Jesus is the only Way in and it is by Faith… not works… but as Paul pointed out…

Romans 9: 30-33
"What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.
Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.”
As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”

Now the reason many verses are in the OT stating that man has no free will is because at that time man did not… the Holy Spirit had yet to be poured out on all men…
About the verse in Acts stating”

“When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.” Acts 13:48
The ones appointed entered in by Faith… and appointed can also be “ordained” as it was appointed/ordained by God that man would enter in by faith in Jesus and not by works… so the appointed here are those who entered in by the appointment of faith through Jesus unto eternal life.

My point is not that God does not draw men, but that God now by the out pouring of the Holy Spirit removed sin and now has restored our free will so that we can make the choice of works or faith in Christ Jesus… Salvation is all of God and not of men… but one must still freely choose… and by faith is the only way to freely love God as works only appears to appease God…

Choice is a response to the initiation that God started… it is only a “work” if one is depending on one’s self and not Jesus…. faith is a gift… it to is not a work…and it is the power in which the Holy Spirit draws men to Jesus. At that point a person needs to respond by mixing belief with faith… as Hebrews states. Hebrews 4: 1-2
“Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. “
We need to mix Faith with the message… that is not works as some state by far. It is the acknowledgement that one cannot “work” to please God. It is the realization that there is nothing I can do but fall on the mercy of God.
Jesus stated that He was like the serpent Moses raised up in the desert (John 3:14-15)

“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”
Those who were bitten by the serpent died unless they went to the bronzed serpent on the pole and simply gazed on it. They did not offer sacrifice… but by acknowledging, they were dead, went to the pole and gazed on the serpent for life… Jesus became sin on a pole (for cursed is anyone who is hung on a tree) and all we do is gaze on Him… by faith and are saved.
To say that faith is “works,” is not biblical at all… not is the idea that choice is works. One can never state “I am saved because of my choice”, as without Jesus doing the initial works one then cannot choose to trust in those works over ones own.

Is choosing a work and thus a contradiction as works is then mixed into faith?

I see no contradiction as even Jesus states:
John 7: 17. “If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.”
Jesus taught Jews as a Jew under the law... To show that by it righteousness cannot be obtained… it is only to point out that one is dead in their sins. Just as Paul taught… and Peter… and John… and Jude… and James… the OT.
This is the “choosing” that I am referring to… the will of God called predestination. That those in Christ, have chose to do God’s will and not their own… so they are part of the “eternal plan” that God foreknew in Christ…
But, still unlike Calvin’s version… man chooses between his own will or God’s and it must be free to be a choice. In a sense this is much easier to understand once one can set aside their Calvinist or Arminian views and focus on the teachings of the Bible.

We have seen the Father if we see Jesus. Yet, now we see Him only by faith.

By God revealing who He is by showing us Jesus, we still need respond to that. I see it as professing and possessing.

One can believe in Jesus and state so, yet not mix their belief with faith and still not be "saved". They live as practical atheists. Yet, one that professes and then mixes their belief with Faith, has found the Son and Life... in that they found the Son and Life, are now possessed by and possess this Life that brings us salvation.

We are not our own when we come to Christ... and though are free to walk in the obedience of Christ (not our own... but walk by the imputed obedience as we have none of our own) or walk by our own righteousness and be frustrated... though still technically saved must still remember daily we are dead to sin as opposed to when we were dead in our sin.

It is in the relational aspect of our faith we are saved, not in our doctrinal stances... I am not saying "no doctrine, doctrine" whatever that means, but rather that once one comes to life in Christ the "doctrine" is not "head knowledge" or "mental assent", but heart knowledge and receiving a clear conscience and the mind of Christ. He becomes our very Life and we are new creations... the new man.

We are drawn by the Father to Jesus by the Holy Spirit... this was not possible under the Old Covenant as that required one to die before they could get out from under it. Now, we have died in Christ and Jesus fulfilled the Law...every jot and tittle... and abolished it so that we now live in Him and by His righteousness. We are no longer under the ministry of death and condemnation, but the ministry of reconciliation and once one receives that reconciliation, receives Life eternal. If not eternal death for that is the covenant (the covenant of death as Isaiah states) that person chose to stay under.

To be drawn by the Father, is because He poured out the Holy Spirit and that is because Jesus became sin and sin died with Him on the Cross... so that we can become the righteousness of God in Christ.

Be blessed,

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Cool and weird around the web

First the weird... which is also a little disturbing...

Date rape drug found in children's toys... I was going to snope this...

"Scientists say a chemical coating on the beads, when ingested, metabolizes into the so-called date rape drug gamma hydroxy butyrate. When eaten, the compound _ made from common and easily available ingredients _ can induce unconsciousness, seizures, drowsiness, coma and death." Source.

News of the Weird reported this:

As several sightings were made around Washington, D.C., of dragonfly-looking bugs hovering in the air at political events, government agencies were denying that they had released any tiny surveillance robots, according to an October Washington Post investigation. "I look up and I'm like, 'What the hell is that?'" asked a college student at an antiwar rally in Washington. "They looked kind of like dragonflies or little helicopters. But ... those are not insects." Several agencies and private entities admitted to the Post that they were trying to develop such devices, but no one took credit for having them in the air yet. [Washington Post, 10-9-07]

I was skeptical... until I saw this article on the Washington Post site!

I just thought I might beat my friends at the Online Discernment Ministries to the punch on this one and point out it is NOT an emerging church... LOL! This guy needed to make a call and wanted to make it from church... but he was not calling home.

Now the weirdest thing today was that I found I agreed with Ingrid on something!

"Then I get a news story sent me that fundamentalist king pin Dr. Bob Jones III has endorsed the Mormon with pro-gay, pro-abortion leanings. Why?"

And now the cool... David Crowder 24/7 streaming live...

Well, I was a bit bored when I went there but check it out it might be cool when you go!


Be Blessed,

Monday, November 05, 2007

Bruce is Back... And introducing Joshua Guild

Bruce is back! No not this one... but my friend Bruce Gerencse has returned to the blogging world after a bit of a hiatus. Welcome back.

Also added to the ever growing blogroll.. is The Holy Triage with Joshua Guild.

Check 'em out...

Be blessed,

Friday, November 02, 2007

This is the Truth

Thanks to T.B. Vick

N.T. Wright view of Pelagian Heresy

Wright on the Pelagian Heresy

"I must insist, right away, that if you come upon anyone who genuinely thinks that they can fulfil Pelagius' programme, in whichever form or variation you like, you should gently but firmly set them right. There is simply no way that human beings can make themselves fit for the presence or salvation of God. What is more, I know of no serious theologian, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, who thinks otherwise; indeed, one of the best expositions of the Augustinian or Lutheran or Calvanist doctrine of justification I have ever heard was given by a Jesuit, Father Edward Yarnold, in an ecumenical meeting. If Pelagius survives at all today, it is at the level of popular secular moralism, which is in any case becoming harder and harder to find in the Western world."

- N. T. Wight, What Saint Paul Really Said, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997; p.116.

Thanks to T.B. Vick

iggy defined in the dictionary

iggy --

A real life muppet
'How will you be defined in the dictionary?' at QuizGalaxy.com

What the....HUH? Pat Robbinson and Iggy

No, Pat Robertson did not talk about me... in fact I vaguely heard about Ellen DeGeneres having some trouble in some dog adoption thing, but I thought it was some big joke she was playing and did not look to close at it... but I had a weird search that had "Pat Robertson Iggy" and at first thought in some narcissistic stupor I quickly over came, that PR had spoken about me! Did he quote me on the "700 Club"? LOL! (None of that really happened but I just wanted some of my favorite people out there to think that for a moment as they probably already did! LOL!)

Then I read the quote...

“It is God’s will for dogs to grow up in a loving home with a Dad and a Mom and I strongly praise [pet adoption agency] Mutts & Moms for removing Iggy from a harmful lesbian environment,” Robertson said on “The 700 Club” on Friday. (I searched for the best source on the quote and this one had the least comment... believe it or not!)

Now, some were saying that PR was even saying that he was going to get the president to push legislation through to prohibit same couple adoption of most other animals...

"The plain fact is that same sex couples should not be allowed to raise dogs, fish, birds, hamsters, ferrets, lizards, or any other animal. “However, cats are the exception from the rule because "only liberals and pagans would ever want to raise those spawn of Beelzebub." (This source had more comments that seemed at least funny to me)

I agree about the cats...

Yet... if not offensive enough (if not silly) Pat Robertson who apparently can leg press an impressive 1000 lbs, says Jesus will not come into fat peoples hearts anymore! (I am just trying to see how close people look at the source of these comments)

Now, it seems that it is getting harder and harder to take anything seriously from PR these days. In fact there is not much difference from the "made up quotes" and the real ones... here is some examples collected by John Bill :

Pat on woman's rights:
"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

Pat on 9/11:
"We have insulted God" with legal abortion and restrictions on religion in public places. "Then we say 'why does this happen?' Well, why it's happening is that God Almighty is lifting his protection from us."

Pat on the courts:
"The Supreme Court is bringing upon this nation the wrath of God" by ruling in favor of abortion rights and gay rights.

Pat on other churches:
"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist."

Pat on gay people:
"Many of those people involved with Adolf Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals--the two things seem to go together." -Note: Adolf Hitler was a practicing Catholic.

Pat on other TV channels:
"Popular television is flooded with filth and violence; MTV, VH-1, and pop radio stations are sewers of obscenity, rebellion and violence; pop magazines promote the vilest forms of pornography and a form of materialism, selfishness, and greed that has fallen to the lowest levels in human history." -Note: Nobody on the Real World-Austin has called for hits on democratically elected leaders.

Pat on private property and banking:
"Modern experience has shown that usury inevitably leads to subservience. And God did not want that for his people but rather intend for them to rule...He directed that every 50 years, all debt would be cancelled, all property would be redistributed, and the cycle would begin again. Notwithstanding the sneers of many in the banking community, it may be that God's way is the only one open to us - a year of jubilee to straighten us out. -Note: Pat has yet to redistribute his or The 700 Club's money.

Now, I am not meaning to bash Pat Robertson. I see his quotes are actually reprehensive (oops this should be representative but after some thought I think I like this word better! LOL!) of many people out there on the conservative Christian right... It is not that PR is "all" wrong... in fact within most, (OK some maybe?) of these quotes there is a kernel of truth. It is the thoughtlessness in the delivery that really kind of makes it hard to take the man serious.

Be blessed,

Thursday, November 01, 2007

The Gospel According to John MacArthur

John W. Robbins wrote an interesting article that when I read it I had to laugh as much of what i have found true of Macarthur's "Gospel" is stated by Dr. Robbins.

A bit about J.W. Robbins. First he is no fly by night "Trout" anti MacArthur propagandist. In fact even if much that is right on about some of those guys, there is also much to be said about staying away from them also. So many that "attack" MacArthur are on the fringe.

Now though there are many that are biblical scholars that stand up and review the actual theology of MacArthur. I see Dr. Robbins in this category.

Here is his bio.

Here is a bit of the article on John MacArthur's theology:

"MacArthur rejects the Biblical view of justification and adopts the Roman Catholic view: “Many people believe justified means ‘just-as-if-I’d-never-sinned.’ In other words, God says, ‘I count you righteous even though you’re really not.’ It is true that God makes that declaration, but there is also a reality of righteousness. We are not only declared righteous; we are made righteous”(Justification by Faith, 1988, 98). This making righteous is accomplished by infusing Christ’s righteousness into Christians: “God actually credits righteousness to our account. He imputes righteousness to us; he infuses divine life into us. He regenerates and sanctifies us. He makes the unholy holy, and therefore declares that we are righteous.... There is a reality--God gives us righteousness, and thus he can declare that we are righteous” (Justification, 121). MacArthur writes: “The believing sinner is justified by righteousness infused into him” (Justification, 122)."

Here is the whole article.

Download the PDF version of this review.

Here is a link to the The Westminster Confession of Faith at the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics

Be blessed,