Debating Fundamentalists...

For some reason this just resonated with me... LOL!

be blessed,

iggy

Is Doug Pagitt a Universalist? Truth war update!

Is Doug Pagitt a Universalist?

I was poking around and keep running into people who claim Doug is a Universalist…

Here is one example;

“Doug Pagitt is apparently one of the spokespeople for the emergent movement. His well reasoned response to the charge of universalism can be found here. Too much. Just too much. To give you a feel for the discussion, you can hear his views as they were broadcast here and here. Pagitt disagrees with the dualistic-Platonic understanding of the cosmos and denies heaven as a real place.”

-->Interestingly as I read this I went to Doug’s supposed admission (Ironically linked above) or whatever and found rather slanderous accusations by John MacArthur against Doug.

Now this all starts in an interview at Crosswalk.com

"Edwards: [When “Emergents” and many seeker-sensitive church advocates say “We do church a certain way,”] it seems to me that they do it by totally ignoring the book of Acts and the Epistles."

"John MacArthur: Let me just cut to the chase on this one: [Doug] Pagitt is a Universalist. What he was saying is real simple. He was saying when you die your spirit goes to God and judgment means that whatever was not right about you, whatever was bad about you, whatever was substantially lacking about you, gets all resolved. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a Buddhist, a Hindu or a Muslim—doesn’t matter whether you’re a Christian really; we’re all going to end up in this wonderful, warm and fuzzy relationship with God. That’s just classic universalism.
I think you know it’s most helpful, Paul, to go back and kind of recast how we view these people. He’s not a pastor; he’s not a Christian; that’s not a church. When you call yourself a Christian and you call yourself a pastor and you say you have a church, all of that has to be—to be legitimate—defined biblically. And if it’s not, that’s not a church and you’re not a pastor and you’re not even a Christian. What you have here is a form of false religion"

BTW Doug was “classic” in his interjections…

Yet, as one reads further, we find something interesting that Doug states…

“A couple of thoughts.

For those who want me to respond to allegations of being a universalist and a false teacher I will say I am not.But for most that will not suffice. I have written a number of books on this topic and have one coming in May called A Christianity Worth Believing. But I am also sure that all this will not remove such concerns.

And more importantly, thank you all for the kind words but do know that I am not at all hurt by such comments nor do I feel attacked. I feel sorry that people would talk about each other like I was talked about in the interview, but that is more on principle than personal hurtfulness.
So, please feel free to send all your good wishes and concerns but know also that what we read each week as a community of Solomon's Porch from Jude is true -

To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore!

Amen.
Posted by: Doug Pagitt December 12, 2007 at 08:59 AM “

So, I wonder which side of the ”Truth” those are, who must defend their truth and their god who cannot defend himself?

Jeremiah 50:34

"Yet their Redeemer is strong; the LORD Almighty is his name. He will vigorously defend their cause so that he may bring rest to their land, but unrest to those who live in Babylon."

Isaiah 51:22

"This is what your Sovereign LORD says, your God, who defends his people: "See, I have taken out of your hand the cup that made you stagger; from that cup, the goblet of my wrath, you will never drink again."

Yep, I will stand back and let God defend me... I think that I will believe the bible over anyone who uses slander and lies to defend their god in some false "truth" war.

iggy

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,
iggy

Doug Padgitt and a stolen bit from my other blog site.

First off those at mychurch.com will notice that this was a comment in the last post. But since this blog is originally at Blogger.com, not everyone has read those comments.

I finally listened to Doug Padgitt on Way of the Master Radio... and first off... Todd Friel is truly a rude individual. Doug did a great job. What I noticed is that this will of course be touted as Doug is a heretic and a win for their side... but I see that Doug pointed out the issues that are in the so called "systematic theology" that Todd was pushing on that site. I do wish Doug expounded a bit on the difference of Todd's version of "systematic theology" and true "systematic theology" as Todd just pieced about four out of context quotes of Jesus and ran them together in a sick display of proof-texting that only showed that Todd was proving his own preconceived doctrine.

Now, I do also wish Doug (who I admit sounded a bit arrogant, yet truly under the conditions was way beyond being gracious to Todd's rudeness) also unpacked a bit more on the idea of the narrative story that he believes... I do get that "Heaven is not a place" in the sense that Doug pointed out to Todd, yet confess it is a bit hard to wrap one's mind around if all you know is the view that Todd has been taught and which as Tony Jones pointed out about 90% of Christianity believes... so I do see Doug could have slowed down and walked Todd through this a bit.

Yet, that being my only real critique that thing that is being touted is that Doug stated that a Muslim or Buddhist will enter the New Creation... in other words that he stated that someone can be saved without Jesus. To be truthful, after listening to it twice I did not hear Doug say that. I heard that all men will be judged the same. I also heard that we are to lead people to Christ Jesus. I do wish Doug connected the thoughts.

Now we are dealing with people who have an escapist mentality and theology... they believe in the "Left Behind" theology that truly even distorts the traditional "Rapture" theology. These people do not see that judgment is a good thing that will set things right... and Doug alluded to a bit stating that anything that is not of God will be purged... (Sorry I can't remember the exact phrase he used).

The flip side is that if one is on the other side of this judgment then you will be purged also.

Interestingly, Todd used the word "destroyed" when talking about people being judged... I see that if Todd believes that in his own "systematic theology" then he is a heretic as a person cannot be "destroyed" and be "tormented forever" for a destroyed person does not exist!

Which leads me to these thoughts which were a bit in the same vein as the conversation lead my at mychurch.com site.

I find it interesting that much that is taught in Romans 9 is that some are created for wrath and some are created for mercy... and then most Calvinists stop at verse 18 or 24... yet in the next few verses, Paul does the punchline and states that those very vessels of wrath did not seek God and found Him, while the vessels of mercy had God and now were to be judged by God.

What that means is that many are being deceived that they are vessels of mercy by definition of Calvin when in fact it is about Jew and Gentile being made into one man and the Jew thinking he is saved by being a descendant of Abraham by blood and have turned faith into works, are now vessels of wrath, while the Gentiles which were considered the vessels of wrath, are not vessels of mercy! And this all by Grace!

Again, it is in this subtle misunderstanding that I see things go askew with Calvinism.Now, as I stated, I see Arninianism having some quirks also... and many lean on works to maintain salvation which negates Galatians chapter 3 or really the whole book of Galatians as well the bulk of Paul's writings.

Still I see both as branches of Christianity, and in a sense both polluted by Gnostic/Platonic dualism which makes the whole a little warped as it over emphasizes the existing heaven and hell as eternal destinations and goal of our faith over salvation and eternal life in the New Heaven and New Earth... I just see that many are trapped in a faulty theology that denies that Hell will be cast into the Lake of Fire and in one breath state men will burn forever and the other that they will be destroyed... it can't be both... but that is what is taught...

The New Creation, that we are now a part of as of the Resurrection and are called by Paul as believers... is the continuation and regeneration of all Creation being restored to and maybe beyond its original glory... I see that like we are resurrected and clothed in the imperishable it will still be us, that this will still be the earth and heaven only also clothed or purged of all evil and sin and what a glory that will be to behold.

be blessed,
iggy

I forgot about mychurch...

I forgot at some point I signed up for mychurch.com and had my blog at blogger.com being posted there also... the last post on "John MacArthur: Can one be an Arminian and still be saved?" has been developing some interesting conversation over there.

Be blessed,

iggy

John MacArthur: Can one be an Arminian and still be saved?

I read from two different sources what John MacArthur thinks concerning salvation of Arminians... and really I ended up scratching my head... what does he really believe?

"So, they are diametrically opposed. The question comes, “Can somebody who holds an Arminian view be a Christian?” And I would hate to say they couldn’t be. I really believe that it is possible to be Arminian and to be a Christian…to misunderstand your human capability, to misunderstand the election, to misunderstand the extent of the atonement, even to misunderstand the irresistible nature of God’s saving grace, and even to think you could lose your salvation. But, at the same time--while being confused or ignorant of those things--to know that you’re a sinner and know that the only way of salvation is through Jesus Christ. I guess you could say that someone could be an Arminian and push those points far enough, where they could jeopardize my confidence that they really are a Christian. You could push the point of not being totally depraved far enough where you’re actually being saved by your own works, by your own belief, by your own ingenuity, by your own self-induced faith. And you could get to the point where you could really wonder whether someone understands that it’s all a work of God.
But, I think it would be going too far to say someone who holds an Arminian view, or anyone who holds an Arminian view, is, by virtue of that view, not a Christian. I think there are people who just don’t understand rightly those things, but who know they’re sinners and who cry out in their sin for the Lord to save them. They don’t understand how what they’re doing works together with the great purposes and power of God, and consequently can’t give God fully the glory He deserves for all of that, but they could be genuinely saved, by hoping in Christ and Christ alone." Source

Or this?

"He (Spurgeon) preached that both predestination and (limited) free-will were simultaneously in full force. He believed that in the end that salvation was wholly of God from start to finish, and yet God secures the complete cooperation of our wills in so-doing. He decried both antinomianism and fatalism (only predestination) and Arminianism (only free will) and said that anyone who denied either of these two truths was engaged in heresy.
He openly called both heresy. I tend to agree. I really like what this guy says since I had come to the same conclusions myself.
But he said something that confused me for a long time and said that John Wesley (a famous Arminian) was a man of God, yes he disagreed with him, but he said he had great respect for the man.
The best explanation I can come up for this is that Arminians are confused about how they came to Christ, but their definition of the atonement, and who Christ is is accurate, as is their view of sanctification (no striving by works), so it is possible Biblically to admit that Arminians are our brothers and sisters in Christ. It took me a lot of thought to get here however as at first glance I thought a heretical viewpoint always produces heretics who aren't saved.
The message I heard was that Arminians might be on the the right side of the line, but just barely, just a little more confused thinking about other related issues and the line is easily crossed. You don't have to get the finer points of theology to be saved, but certain basics are required and Arminianism appears to pass the test, barely, and only if you are willing admit that a faulty view of the atonment is not sufficient to block salvation. As time passes I realize that Spurgeon is essentially spouting double-speak, the definition of heresy is a soul-destroying perversion of either the Gospel or the nature of God. There is no such thing as a heresy that doesn't kill. Therefore, to be technically accurate, if you believe an Arminian can be a Christian, then to you, Arminianism is not heresy. However, many Arminians of today have swallowed enough other false doctrines to sink their ships so there is no need to argue about Arminianism. I for example was such a one. Spurgeon is consistent with most of his forebears however, including Augustine, who first faced a theology similar to Arminianism, and dealt with it as one would to a brother in Christ, and not as one would deal with a heretic who is outside the body. "
Source

Now, talk about double speak! On one hand Arminians are saved, but are heretics and heresy kills... but as you keep reading John he is clear that they are not saved!

So which is it... or is he double minded?

Be Blessed,
iggy

Tony Jones is Reformed!

Tony Jones is Reformed! But then who will listen when we have MacArthurites to say Tony is not…

I thought it was a good read though a bit old now. Oh! and don't forget to update your links to Tony's new blog. http://tonyj.net/

Be Blessed,
iggy

Interesting points on the blogsphere

Ken Silva misses the point that he and Tony Jones agree that most American Christians are “Semi-palegian” and only focuses on the point that “John MacArthur” is mentioned as a "soft gnostic"… now even Calvin admitted to having been influenced by Plato, (many real scholars and researchers agree that this is true) so I see not reason why this is an issue to Ken Silva other than fanning the flames of discontent.



Now the comments at Tony Jone's site are well worth the read. Oh, Tony is moving to http://tonyj.net/ so update your blogrolls.


Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

Vanguard Church is doing an interesting series on John MacArthur's "truth war" book.

1: John MacArthur’s Post-Enlightenment Philosophical Understanding of “Truth”
2: Is Rob Bell a Godless Man, Condemned by God?
3: Is Postmodernism Primarily Concerned with Truth?
4: Straw Men – The Emerging Church is Filled with Hard Postmodernists
5: MacArthur Fits His Own Criteria for an Apostate

I know this video is a bit old... but it still hits me and somehow seems appropriate.



Be Blessed,
iggy

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 read more at CRN.info

Be blessed,
iggy

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,

iggy

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?

Blessings,
iggy

"John MacArthur teaches(?) us who killed Jesus..." pt 2

I posted a video of John MacArthur where he stated some anti-Semitism statements and in response someone stated that I was taking John out of Context...

Here is a link to the context.


Note still that after John MacArthur makes his comment all hear what he states and takes it as anti semantic... also note that John states that the Law of the OT was not "true" which I think God and Moses would disagree with that statement! LOL! It was not that the "religion" was not true it was what and how the religious leaders used it that was wrong.

KING: Who killed him, John?

MACARTHUR: Well, the Romans executed him on the mountain, but they did it under duress and the pressure of Jewish leaders, who hated him, not because of the cure he offered but because of the indictment. I mean, he went to his own town. One of the most riveting portions of the whole New Testament, Luke Chapter 4, he goes to Nazareth, where he grew up, goes back to his synagogue where he attended every Sabbath, he's with his family, his relatives, his friends that he grew up with. He preaches one sermon there, and they try to throw him off a cliff. It wasn't that they didn't want the kingdom of God or salvation or forgiveness or heaven or whatever. They couldn't accept the diagnosis that their religion was not true, that it was not of the heart. And that was the issue that finally drove them to the cross.

KING: I want to see how a Jew reacts to that.

MANNING: That was a reaction especially significant to me, that what upset them was that Jesus was open to finding God's presence even among people who were not Jews. And that really shocked them.

Though John does state these things are secondary, it still does not negate that all there on the panel and also Larry King heard what John stated and heard it as anti Semitic. I might add also that John seem to have a disconnect between "social issues" and "religious issues" which shows a great error of compartmentalizing the Gospel to fit one context and not another.

KING: How does a Jew react to that? You killed him.

PRAGER: No. That's exactly it. I know you're not blaming me. He's not blaming me. He's blaming me. He doesn't like my politics. OK.

KING: I like you.

PRAGER: I know you do. And I appreciate it. It's mutual. Listen, this is key. I have no issue. No Jew will have an issue with saying Jewish leaders of the time, along with the Romans, conspired to kill him, even though the Jews couldn't do it alone, they didn't have the death penalty or crucifixion. Plus the fact that tens of thousands of Jews were also crucified, other Jews, which is also necessary to point out.

The problem has only been if Christians said Jews are to blame forever, all Jews all the time. That's, and unfortunately, in Europe, not in America, and I tell the Jews make a huge distinction between the Jewish experience with American Christians and European Christians. There, Jews were frequently blamed for something that they had no hand in, and that is evil. But to say that -- but I have no problem in saying that there were probably Jewish leaders, who, according to the story, who conspired with the Romans.

KING: It begins the era of anti-Semitism.

PRAGER: Yes, it does. Because the reader -- it's up to the reader. And this is what I have learned, no matter how divine you find the text, it is still in our hands what we do with the text. This is the ultimate freedom God has given us.

KING: Your interpretation.

PRAGER: Two people can read the same text and one can say, that God ultimately killed him and we are of the branch of Judaism, as evangelical Christians and many Catholics will say today, and others will say damn the Jews. Reading the same text.

KING: Jon Meacham, I'll come to you in a second. I got to take a break. You wanted to say something, John MacArthur?

MACARTHUR: It's much deeper than that. No true Christian transformed on the inside by faith in Jesus Christ is going to be an anti-Semite. What you have is people who call themselves Christians, but who have not been transformed by the power of Christ. They're the ones that would be anti-Semitic.

KING: In other words, if you're a racist, you can't be a Christian.

MACARTHUR: No, if you're a Christian, you will be converted from your racism.

KING: You can't be a racist if you're a Christian.

MACARTHUR: That's right. So true Christians...

KING: So when churches were segregated on Sunday morning, they were non-Christians.

MACARTHUR: You know, I have a real trouble believing -- we're talking about a different issue now. We're talking about a social issue, not a religious.

KING: But they were Christian.

MACARTHUR: I think Christians act like Christians. I think Christians are transformed people. And lots of people take the label, but don't know Christ.

KING: Wasn't it Mark Twain who said, if Christ came back, the one thing he wouldn't be is a Christian.

MACARTHUR: That's another overstatement by Mark Twain.

So, that is the context, and it shows that John did state anti-Semitic statements... Whether that be that he was lost in his secondary points or that he just forgot that the Father's Plan was that Jesus come and die for our sins... seems rather interesting as he has written books on this topic and is considered an authority. At least on enough to be on Larry King Live....

I will note also as one reads this, one will see John MacArthur's double speak as pointed out by Prager:

No. That's exactly it. I know you're not blaming me. He's not blaming me. He's blaming me. He doesn't like my politics. OK.

The point is this. If John holds others to a certain standard then does not live up to it... should he not then extend a Grace to them instead of declaring war on them?

Oh! Here is something to give a little more levity to all this from Bob Hyatt.



Be Blessed,
iggy

MacArthurite Values... Modernity double speak

I found this one poster the first and maybe the only poster that was remotely close... Personally I see that we all still use the "tools" of modernity as well as "post-modernity" yet the values of both are not "Christian". In fact as I learned that in the emerging church from other emerging Christians! We do not believe in "post-modernity" as THE answer.


Yet, the hypocrisy becomes clearly evident from Phil Johnson and Crew who developed these posters. These men are also apologist fro John MacArthur so this double speaking hypocrisy does not surprise me at all considering the source.


Here is a quote from Phil Johnson as he once promoted an pro Spurgeon/anti modernity stance in contrast to this poster that seemingly pokes fun at "emergents" but reveals that they are FOR MODERNITY! LOL!

"Even if I lived well into my eighties, I could probably
post Spurgeon excerpts twice a week from now until I die and still not run out of material where Spurgeon was declaring his contempt for modernism. All of it would demonstrate conclusively that the various paradigm-shifts convulsing the evangelical movement today are nothing but recycled versions of the same old errors that were being foisted on church leaders by so-called "advanced thinkers" in the Victorian era. That movement ultimately grew stronger despite the opposition of Spurgeon and others like him. Modernism finally commandeered most of the mainstream denominations, then quickly piloted them to their demise." ~ Phil Johnson (source 2)

Here is a quote from Spurgeon against modernity:

"The school of modern thought laughs at the ridiculous positiveness of Reformers and Puritans; it is advancing in glorious liberality, and before long will publish a grand alliance between heaven and hell, or, rather, an amalgamation of the two establishments upon terms of mutual concession, allowing falsehood and truth to lie side by side, like the lion with the lamb." ~ Spurgeon ( Source 2)

Note the source is still Phil Johnson's now pro modernity blog?


Here is another quote against modernity from Pyromaniac's Phil Johnson:

"It's hard not to notice that Spurgeon was on the same side of all these issues—and he was saying exactly the same kinds of things—as those who are most troubled about the drift today. There's little question that Spurgeon would have appreciated and sympathized with "Slice of Laodicea"; he would have been scoffed at and derided as an intolerant "TR" ("Truly Reformed") by certain small-minded critics who apparently cannot imagine a more scathing insult; and he would have been mocked and dismissed by more "enlightened" minds who (in the name of
catholicity) reject and exclude every person who raises any biblical concern about the direction they want to go." ~ Phil Johnson

Again, with this poster Phil seems to have flipped flopped his position like Al Gore when he began to run with Bill Clinton, to now say by this poster that:

"Modernity now is alive and is a good thing because emergents are against it."

(*Phil never stated that other than what is implied by this poster.)

I wanted to thank CRNinfo for bringing this to my attention.

Source 1: Looks like the Spurgeon-followers finally got one right
Source 2: Pyromaniacs
Source 3: More Signs of the Times

Blessings,
iggy

Paul the Pragmatist. or All Pragmatism is Wrong?

Philippians 1:15-18 (New International Version)


"It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice."

Thanks to Tim Reed in the comments at CRNinfo

More on this topic later, just getting the creative juices flowing!

Blessings,
iggy

John MacArthur teaches(?) us who killed Jesus...

Interesting to me that the plan of salvation was of the Father and did not originate in the hearts and minds of men... but in the heart and mind of the Father!

John asserts that the Crucifixion was a "man" thing... that Jesus died because the Jews felt threatened as He taught against their "religion"... that is furthest from the truth... it was because he taught with authority and challenged them to return TO THEIR RELIGION and why it was given for. The issue was that they kept the legalities and missed the Spirit behind the Law. (Matt 23:23) The Jewish leaders hated Jesus, yes, not because He taught against their religion, but because Jesus taught with authority. (Mark 1:22)

John negates that it was the Father gave His Son... it was that Jesus gave His own life willingly! It was that Jesus died because of His obedience to the Father.

John distorts the true gospel with antisemitic teachings... and that is truly sad.

Scriptures to back my points.

Matt 20:28 "...the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Matt 27: 50. And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

John 3:16-18 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

John 19: 10-11 "Do you refuse to speak to me?" Pilate said. "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?"
Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."

Again, Jesus states this pretty clearly...

This was the plan from the Father as I stated...

Romans 14:9. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

MacArthur denied in this interview that the Father had this planned and foretold in scripture...

1 Cor 15: 3-6. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers.

Hebrews 5:7-10. During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.


Romans 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 that it was Christs own obedience to the Father's plan that killed Jesus... and it was for our sake...

Romans 6:10-11 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.

Romans 4: 25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

Here is the last verse as to why and who killed Jesus... as I stated, it was the plan of the Father from the begining and Jesus laid His own life down... willingly out of obedience to the Father and to fulfill scripture.

Philippians 2: 5-11 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

If this is the type of teaching one gets out of Johnny Mac... I would stay far away from him.

Blessings,
iggy

Newest MacArthurite Value! War!

Disclaimer: This is meant in good humor as the same with the "emerging posters" at team pyro by Phil Johnson. Any resemblance to them is truly not my fault.

John MacArthur Claims Jesus was pro war...

Man, you gotta hear this.... here are some things to look for.

1. Johnny Mac claims Jesus was pro war.

2. Johnny Mac flounders around in his answers or sounds like some sort of drone.

3. Ironically a charismatic (Bob Jones) comes to Johnny Mac's defense! (UPDATE Oct 17/o7: oops! Wrong Bob Jones, this one is the Founder of BJU and is not a Charismatic)

4. This is the worst exegeses of scripture I have ever heard... from Johnny Mac.

5. Johnny Mac claims again that Kingdom of God is only spiritual...

6. When another pastor brings up that Jesus, teaching on the Kingdom taught "blessed are the peacemakers" Johnny refutes him!

It seems that Johnny really can justify and claim the bible teaches anything... he does it right there on Larry King.

Just in case the player does not work here... here is the link to see it on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS3F2YHU7Yc

For a transcript of this conversation click here.

Blessings,

iggy

How crazy this has gotten...

Here is a link to Bob Hyatt, who is one of my favorite Calvinists... and of the emerging conversation...

Rick (another one of my favorite Calvinists though is not "emerging" at this point) and Bob go head to head with Frank Turk of Team Pyro over the posters they created...


Interesting to me is that Frank, Bob and Rick... are all on the same team and yet, Frank sees that he is not hurting anyone and wants someone to stand up to them... meaning the Pryoteam of "bullies". (Hey Frank admitted he was! LOL!)

I did make a few but I guess I have not been noticed... (BTW: my posters are not meant to be mean spirited, they come out of my experience in dealing with those in that crowd... if they resemble them... well that is not my fault is it?)

Blessed?
iggy

Ken Silva will be blessed next week!

I've decided that Tuesday the 28th of August will be the day.

Please join us to pray and fast for Ken Silva to be blessed of God and in the greater hope to end this so called Truth War...

"Blessed are the peace makers." ~ Jesus The Messiah

Blessings,
iggy

MacArthurite Values: More Fun!

(Update: Please join me in ending this "war"... join myself and others in a day of fasting and praying for Ken Silva Tuesday the 28th of August.)

Here are some more links for more info:

Link 1
Link 2