Repost- What I have learned from my critics

What I have learned from my critics.

Disclaimer: First off if you disagree with me, that is fine and to disagree and talk and discuss in a way that is respectful and thoughtful is a great and wonderful thing. In this we can grow with each other. This post is in no way about you. So please take this in the context of those who attack and judge… not seek to gain understanding. In this I see that it is out of love that many of you have approached me… and even ending our disagreements with kind words. It is not a sin to disagree, especially on minor things. Personally I have learned to hold tightly to the essentials, and loosely to the non essentials. In that I mean give grace in areas that though may be important, do not keep one from gaining salvation that comes from Jesus alone.


So what have I learned from my critics?

Truth: Romans 13: 9. The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10. Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. 11. And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed.

What I have learned: I learned that it is a good thing to harm your neighbor… especially if it concerns one that they have to be right in their view at the detriment of another. I have learned from you that Love your neighbor does not apply if it interferes with your doctrines. I see that it is better to fulfill the Law, than to Love.

Truth: 1 Corinthians 13

1. If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. 4. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10. but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

I have learned: If one is right and the other is wrong I can go off the handle at any moment and show no to little self control in my actions. I can call names and make fun or ruin someone’s reputation as long as I am right on my view of doctrine. If I see someone who seems to have strong views and may even envy them, it is better to mock them and tear them down because they could lead others astray and to trust God with judgment would be unheard of.

I have learned that politeness is not a ‘christian’ virtue, nor kindness, for anger as long as it is ‘righteous anger’ can justify most any action… and self justification is one of the main unwritten doctrines I have found you follow. I learned it is best to keep a long list of wrongs so I can pull them out and read them to mock or use them even if I have to twist someone’s words to make them look bad. I have learned to use evil to protect the truth.

I have learned to not trust that God is working outside of my own actions… so to trust in God is of no value… I must either judge and condemn now, as I am ‘truthing in love’ and save this person from their error. And to even consider what they may know would be an act of humility, which has no place in your unwritten doctrinal statement.

I have learned that love will not persevere if it interferes with your personal doctrine and to give up hope on someone if having any is of no value. I have learned that if love fails… hate prevails. For hate is a ‘christian’ value and a virtue.

Truth: 1 John 3: 13. Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you.
14. We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him. 16. This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. 17. If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? 18. Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.


1 John 4: 19. We love because he first loved us. 20. If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. 21. And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.


I have learned: I have learned that it is not only good but right to hate your brother if he thinks or speaks in any way contrary to my own personal view of doctrine. It is better to sacrifice the brother to be right than to give into self sacrifice. It is better to take away from someone else be it material or spiritual possessions and have no pity on him. It is better to speak the words of love like a seducer, than to love in action… It is better to hate one’s brother in the name of your doctrine, than to love him if I disagree. Jesus and the Bible are only for you to use to abuse others to get your way, and to prove how much you love your doctrines.


I want to thank you for setting me on the path or self righteousness. I now see that Gandhi was very wrong when he said;


“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”---Mahatma Gandhi

I wonder where Gandhi ever picked up on this view? Maybe because he was not a Christian as I have begun to learn to be, from my critics.

Blessings?
iggy

Piper versus Wright: Debating imputed righteousness

Versus




It seems that N.T Wright and John Piper are in a heavy debate over "righteousness". Andrew Perriman has an interesting post over at open source theology where he explores both views. Personally both view to me have merit. I do think that the idea of "court of justice" type righteousness may be a bit misunderstood due to contextualization with the "American" view of what courts and Justice might be. I see more merit in the "ledger" view as it just makes more sense in the context over all. (At least to me).

Yet, either way, in a sense we do end up with "imputation" of Christ's righteousness to us as by the Cross all things are being set right... so God's righteousness is imputed and imparted to all creation and to us as we believe on Jesus.

Maybe I see things a bit differently from both... I am more Reformed than I care to admit, yet at the same time I am not Reformed as I see that there are many restrictions in the same sense the Roman Catholic dogmas inhibit understanding of Scripture. Sometimes trying to prove a doctrinal statement clouds what Scripture actually teaches and states.

So I pass it on to you who read this blog, and ask, what is your take? Not just what side of this argument you fall on, but rather, what do you see the Bible teaching?

Tony and Doug let loose on those who are disappointed in "Emergent Village"

Personally the this all sounds like the old "I am not getting fed" statement I hear at some churches... to that I would reply, "Are you still a baby that needs to still be fed? Have you thought that maybe it is your turn to feed someone else?" Now I agree, maybe the failure is not the "so-called" leaders, but those who are out there sitting on their butts not doing anything!

OK, the other side of the coin is this. If emerging is a movement, then it WILL pass... if it is not just a movement, then it will continue and even grow into something else... but still leaving the seeds to continue. My personal view is that emerging itself (which is different from Emergent) is the ongoing conversation that God started in Genesis with... "Let there be..." so it will not fade, it was always there in some fashion (whether called emerging or not) and will always be as long as Jesus is.

To a point I agree with Doug and Tony... yet in a way I think they are missing the boat. How? Some think that that Doug jumped ship and is off doing his radio show and thinking of politics (to some that may be boring Doug... sorry) and some think maybe that Tony has sort of gone off the reservation... (Sorry Tony, I still want to discuss some of your views with you.) Maybe that is a little harsh, but if I feel that way I imagine others do also.

Really I don't suppose I will hear from either of these guys... (which may be part of the issue again) Do they have the right to feel as they do... of course, but all I ask is that they also try to step back and look at it from an outsider perspective... to take a look that others feelings may be a little hurt also.

Now, to me I saw Emergent Village as a great resource for ideas. I loved the podcasts and thought they gave some thought provoking insights... I think the issue is that instead of sticking with the strong points of being what they were good at they tried to become a community... sorry we already have communities going yet, to lose Emergent Village as a resource does sting a bit. The Podcast is still going yet, if Emergent Village would look to being a resource and think of ways to help the communities that are going, then they may find their strong point again.

The bummer thing is that no one wants to publish "emerging" books as they stated as they did not sell well... so... how about starting a emerging publishing company? I mean Brian Mclaren alone could probably get it going... and make it a ground roots type thing where people can get books published and sell them as part of the resource help. (Hmmm dang good idea to me!)

My greatest advice is that Tony and Doug try not to get defensive and go on the offensive... you are leaders of sorts... whether you want to be or not... and whether people want you to be or not... but if you have your finger on the pulse as some of us think you once really did... then help us make things happen.

I hope I am not coming across to cranky... I am not meaning to say I am not thankful for all Doug and Tony have done. I just pray that they can focus or refocus on helping others grow.


Tony's response to the "Death of Emergent" voices.

Tony has a post that gives others views of what is happening to Emergent Village

It's a matter of identity

Often I see critics of the emerging conversation take quotes out of context and then building straw men arguments against them.

I admit there are some issues in the emerging conversation... yet that is true in all "movements" or denominations. I feel sometimes that the critics actually hurt people like me who can speak to those in my camp and show them were error may lie. (I also still do not see the conversation as a movement as it loses its prophetic power to speak to this generation)

One area is the area of homosexuality. I agree with Brian McLaren that we need to step back and look at human sexuality as a whole and respond to thinks like divorce, fornication as well as homosexuality. The issue I have is that some are too "accepting" of the lifestyle and not seeing that it is not about accepting lifestyles but about accepting people and teaching them a proper identity as a new creation.

Yet, instead, I see the backlash of the gay bashing crowd... the back lash being "gay is ok"... and that is not even a question to me biblically. Gay is no more ok than if I cheated on my wife... grace covers it, but is not a license to sin, but to do what is good. Is cheating on my wife good? No! So also any sin, gossip, slander, homosexuality or fornication and one and on... are all harmful to us and others and is not expressing the love of God.

Now that does not negate that if we sin... or that we may struggle with sin... that we do not have a Mediator... yet the challenge is not to accept our sin and live in it.... but to overcome it and leave it.

This is not some over night success process... and I think God teaches us through the struggles.

If I cheated on my wife and she gave me the grace of not leaving me, we would have to learn together how to trust and love each other once again... or even for the first time. That would be hard... and not something God would just heal overnight in most cases...

Sexuality needs to be addressed in light of our new identity as New Creations and being Children of God... once that is in place, we no longer cling to "I am gay" or " I am a drunk" or " I am a doctor" or “I am a fireman" or “I am a schizophrenic” and so on... We may struggle with these things... (Pride with a job even) but we no longer identify as that being us.

We who are now in Christ are New Creations. Though we still have this corrupted suit of flesh, God now has given us to power and all the tools to live by the Spirit. This means we should listen to the Holy Spirit as he leads us in all truth and have our minds renewed. By having our minds renewed we learn that sin, though forgivable, is not just wrong, but stupid. By learning to live a confessional life, we learn to agree with God when we do stupid things. He does not condemn us and will lift us up and help us to be the living sacrifices he has called us to.

Living or “abiding” in Christ, is about learning to understand what God wants us to know about being fully human. To focus on just our sexuality or job or whatever and allowing it to be our identity we are not believing the Truth of who we are “in Christ”.

I think that anyone who sees sin as God does will realize that if someone is gay, or overweight or any other “sin” they are not allowing the Holy Spirit to teach them.

We all have a big “Fail” sign on our foreheads. Only Jesus has “accepted” on his… and when we are “in Christ” we too are accepted by the Father.

Again, this is not easy to learn for some… there is a struggle yet grace gives us a huge learning curve toward success. God loves us, and by that we learn to love ourselves and others as God does.

Face of Emerging changing?

I just read an interesting article at Emergent Village where Jonathan Brink is covering the latest Emerging Church conference. I found it interesting that as I have stated for over a year now that emerging will be morphing into something different. For a while emerging has been called, "young, white, rebellious, adolescent"... etc, yet, as one that is a bit older myself than the "average" emerging (whatever that is!) I found that the face of emerging is much older. Johnathan mentions, "The average age in the room was at least 50." BTW, if that is true, then I am one of the young ones at age 44! lol!

So is Emergent coming of age? I have more thoughts on this yet not enough time to get them written down. Suffice it to say, I remember many time as a youngster, that I would sit through teachings on how God used the young to bring on revival. My view is that emerging IS the revival that so many desire... and is spreading.

More thoughts on the emerging church.

I just read an article which the Emergent Village Twitter feed via Global Voices. Emergent Village raised the idea that there is an Emergent Islam. Now, before someone jumps to conclusions (and you know who you are LOL!) this does not mean the Tony Jones has set up a new camp in Morocco and changed to the Islamic faith. No, the idea that many miss is that other faiths are emerging as the Christian faith is. Now this is a side of emerging that is probably the most controversial and may be considered by some the most dangerous. It is the idea of questioning or "deconstructing" one's faith. Yet, many miss this is not just a "emerging Christian" phenomenon. In fact it is happening in many other faiths such as Judaism and Islam.

These religions are also looking at their belief systems and some in them are even challenging the systems and sometimes even the authorities. I point of interest to me is that all of these religions are based in the Biblical Patriarchs. In one way I see this as just a sign of the times. We are on a major time of "shaking" which I see is the prophetic "shaking" spoken in Luke 21:25-27

25. "There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 26. Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27. At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

Now don't get me wrong I do not mean this like the Left Behind series... though I believe in the Resurrection with the bodily return of Jesus to bring the regeneration of all things, I do not believe in the Rapture theory that we will be whisked away and not face tribulation. I also am a partial preterist though I see some of the prophecies as "near/far" meaning that though they have been fulfilled in one sense the often are fulfilled in a fuller sense later. (Some other time I will go into that deeper). Yet saying all that I point to this verse in that we now live in a time were people are living in fear and signs are all over that great changes are about to happen. I think that even that we in the USA have just voted a new president over his promise or "Change" should be an indication... though I do not see that this "Change" is coming as expected.

Yet, I do see that there is a shaking that has come where people of Islam, Judaism and Christianity are looking for something greater. I point of interest is that there is a rise in Messianic Muslims who are looking for the return of Jesus to set things right. Now debate whether this is the True Messiah could be very interesting, the point is that Jesus seems to be more and more a focal point in this time. The "heavenly bodies" to me could be the powers that run this worlds system being of a spiritual nature. These powers are being shaken in their authority and challenged on many levels. Not all call Christian is of true faith. There is much that is man-made that needs to be shaken as that is not of Christ will fall away.

It is an interesting and yet terrifying time. For some it is exciting as we see this unfolding of God's hand doing His works, yet it is also a time that could be terrifying for some that do not have the security of knowing the True God. The end times will come with judgment. For the faithful this judgment will be a time of the Blessed Hope yet for those without Jesus this will be a time of fear and condemnation. We need to be missional minded to reach those we consider as "others" for Jesus. This means to look for what God is doing in people which often we might not expect God is doing anything in. Also, this is a time where prayer is of the most importance, and that we seek God for direction and a heart to see His work in all around us so we can bring reconciliation to them.

I should be offended but it is so funny! LOL!

Andrew Jones (the long lost brother of Tony Jones) posted this hillarious video from the "enemy" as he put it... It is actually well done.

“The Last Dying Gasp…”: Updated

This has been an interesting discussion that has gone to a few different places around the internet. I wanted to point out some of them.

Jordon Cooper: I interact with Bob Hyatt over the topic more.
Bob Hyatt: His Facebook comments where Tony Jones has chimed in.
You may not be able to access that link unless you are friends with Bob or Tony.

“The Last Dying Gasp…”

I recently had the privilege to have an (all be it brief) conversation with Bob Hyatt via Facebook.com. He stated in his update a very intriguing statement.

“I think I heard the final gasp of the emerging church's ability to speak prophetically to the Church today. Shame.” (1)

This was in response to a recent statement made by Tony Jones concerning about monogamous homosexual couples:

“…I now believe that GLBTQ can live lives in accord with biblical Christianity (at least as much as any of us can!) and that their monogamy can and should be sanctioned and blessed by church and state” (2)

Now to be fair to Tony Jones, I believe he is really trying to work through this issue. I see he has a mixture of personal reasons as well as he is trying to work out theological reasons for his statement. In all I see the dialogue around Tony Jones on this is very refreshing though I do not hold his view point. Also, to be upfront, I am not addressing Tony’s statement at this time as I am holding back my thoughts until Tony can work through this more. I do have a great respect for Tony and believe over all he has some very insightful things to say in the emerging conversation.

Now, Bob Hyatt’s statement intrigued as well as bothered me. Not that I dislike Bob, rather I truly have great respect for him also. We have some theological differences yet over all I see that these are minor as opposed to some that hold his systematic viewpoint. Bob is a very open person to lively diologue and I have enjoyed his thoughts over the brief years I have known him.

The part that intrigued me was that Bob seemed to be saying that part of the history of the emerging church was that it came out of the conservitive evangelical church. I agree that in a fashion this is true. If one reads many of the writers like Tony Jones, Doug Paggit, Dan Kimball and Mark Driscoll they will state it all started with them as they were young pastors involved in Youth Specialties. I do not deny that this is true, rather I see it as short sited in the over all history of the emerging church.

Dan Kimball points out that the term is not new with his friends or him. In a post The Emerging Church circa 1970 Dan points out a book written by Bruce Larson and Ralph Osborne who address the church in the changing times Dan quotes the book:

"When historians of the future look back at the 1970's, they will doubtless see this is an era of chaotic change in the Church, a day of new beginnings, a strange mixture of despair and hope, frustration and boldness. disillusionment and expectancy."

Dan points out that this is very true... he states:

"Over 35 years have past since this was written, and how true those same words can be said of today's church. Chaotic change, new beginnings, frustrations and boldness, disillusionment and expectancy, despair and hope. Culture has changed since then, and quite a significant change in the church has emerged since then."

Yet, what bothers me about Bob’s assertion is that even though, as Dan Kimball points out, the term has been around much longer than Tony Jones or himself, is to me the actual “conversation” has been around before creation. I see that the conversation started with God Himself in Genesis 1:3 as God spoke “Let there be…” and it was. I see that this is the “Logos” of John 1 for the word “logos” means more than just “Word” as it is translated, rather it means a continuous thought in the form of a conversation.

Interestingly a Greek philosopher named Heraclitus who resided in Ephesus taught that logos was “the Word (Logos) as an ordering principle of the world” . (3) To connect the dots for you, John was referring to the same Logos that Heraclitus taught about yet instead of the impersonal “Logos” which was a “principal” John connected this “Logos” with Jesus. John wrote from Ephesus which was the very place Heraclitus was held in high regards.

So we must see that the idea, of this principal or logical order which Heraclitus used the word “Logos” held in its definition much more than “word” as we try to use it today. Further understanding of “logos” is that it is not only this eternal principal that holds all things together, it was also in thought a conversation. (4)

Again, all that is to say I see the emerging conversation is eternal and the very conversation God started in Genesis.

I see that to make the statement as Bob Hyatt stated, “I think I heard the final gasp of the emerging church's ability to speak prophetically to the Church today. Shame.” (1) as missing the big picture.

Now as far as Bob’s thoughts on whether the emerging church was historical conservative, I see his point, yet, I have been a part of the conversation for about 5 years and have seen that there are quite a few that are from the liberal side. So, as far as I am concerned Tony was and is a liberal and nothing has really changed in my mind about him. To be a liberal does not disqualify one’s voice from the conversation. In fact that is the beauty to me of the conversation is that all have a voice and labels do not matter that much.

As far as the other thing that bothered me. Bob spoke of the prophetic voice that now is “gasping”. This bothers me as I see the prophetic as God’s voice and not our own. Tony’s statement may or may not disqualify him as prophetic as it will yet to be seen. Yet, I see that to open the doors of the church to the GLBTQ communities is not a bad thing but a good thing as the Spirit can work in their lives as He does in my own. We must never underestimate the Power of God as He works through His Spirit Who was given to lead us in all Truth.

Again, I see Bob may be just shooting out a momentary reflexive thought. I hope he will unpack his thoughts on this. I see that all this disagreement as a really great thing. I see that it opens the door to healing the divisiveness that has harmed the GLBTQ communities. I pray that this be so. We must remember the emerging conversation is not “just” about us, but about the Kingdom of God. We must not lose sight that we are privileged to be part of the Greater Things of God. As I told Bob in our conversation, “Emerging to me is not a movement or organization. It is growth. Tony is on a journey and came to conclusion that I even disagree with. Yet, again, this is by far not the final gasp... I see it as taking on a new form in a sense... expanding outward as does the Kingdom of God”

References:

1. http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504050157&ref=ts
2. http://blog.beliefnet.com/tonyjones/2008/11/same-sex-marriage-blogalogue-h.html
3. http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/heraclit.htm
4. http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/heracli.htm

I am Chalcedon compliant... so shut up... LOL!

You Scored as Chalcedon compliant You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you're not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us in every respect, apart from sin. Officially approved in 451. Chalcedon compliant 100% Monophysitism 67% Nestorianism 50% Pelagianism 50% Modalism 33% Monarchianism 17% Albigensianism 0% Donatism 0% Socinianism 0% Apollanarian 0% Docetism 0% Adoptionist 0% Arianism 0% Gnosticism 0%

A funny and strange dream...

Just woke from a funny and strange dream.

I was on a tour bus with Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, Andrew Jones and a couple of other guys going to a conference of some sort. I realized I was the only one that did not have a laptop! I was very concerned over this so called Bob Hyatt for advise. He told me to just buy a pen and paper notebook. Bob is very smart! LOL!

I just woke up laughing over it! It was pretty absurd.

iggy

The New Christians Webisode 5

Tony Jones and pastorboy... the finished product. This is part of Tony Jones' “On the Road with Trucker Frank” series today, webisode 5 that promotes Tony's book "The New Christians".

These have been really good.




Be sure to watch them all.

To find the interview between Tony and John (pastorboy) you can see it here in it's unedited form.

Update: You can read a little more at CRN.info

Be blessed,
iggy

Happy Birthday!

We all know Brian McLaren reads my blog for inspiration.... (J/k)

So... HAPPY BIRTHDAY BRIAN!

iggy

Jack Chick... now in animation

I was a huge Jack Chick fan years ago, but as I grew I did not see things quite like Jack. This was pointed out by a new friend Michael Krahn. I found it compelling on many different levels. Watch it, read the write up on it then let's talk!

Talk points.

1. Do you think the polarization of the opposing men is fair?
2. Is the Fatherhood of God brotherhood of man not in the Bible as claimed?
3. Could the presentation have been more balanced?
4. When they are in hell, what do you think of Jack Chick stating it is only "temporary?"
5. Is "judgment" only bad?


Be blessed,
iggy

Tony Jones On Steve Brown Etc...

Tony Jones interview on Steve Brown Etc. Great show... great interview.

Download MP3 Play in Popup or you can listen to his show at 1PM mst on iggyRocks!

Blessings,

iggy

The New Christians: the video

Just to be super clear ... YES! I believe in life after death!

Just to be super clear ... YES! I believe in life after death!


I have not read the book "Everything Must Change", so I will not be so foolish as some to comment on a book I have nto read. Yet I have read many of Brian’s other books and listen to hours of lectures and on and on. Much I hear critics say about Brian I have not seen or heard from him. Recently a friend pointed to an article that was a bit disturbing as it was hard to understand what Brian was stating.

The first link was one I was glad to read as it seemed to clear up some things people have said against Brian. I think that most the critics of McLaren do not understand that other views and interpretations are out there about books like The Revelation. It seems that if one cannot grasp that even some interpretations that are considered the “most biblical” (as well as some doctrines” are relatively new in their development and often are based on summations of creeds and commentaries as well as traditions passed on by men. (Not to be confused with the traditions and teachings passed on by the Apostles.)

I do not recommend blindly trusting or believing anyone. Personally there are some political views I may differ from Brian and even some theological views. I hold that though the Revelation is apocalyptical it is also prophetic as it states it is.(“Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy,” Rev 1:3) I also read it as it states, “v19. "Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later.” I see that though as some see all has already happened, one thing remains, the Return of Jesus as the book states He will. (I do not see the day of Pentecost as the return of Jesus as it is evident in scripture that even after that day the Apostles looked forward to a literal day of Jesus’ return). I see that as in the OT at times there is a “Near/Far” theme. The example is that of the young girl (virgin) who is prophesied to give birth Isaiah (7:14) which is fulfilled in (2 Kings 16:9.) (I will not indulge in the “virgin” debate that claims that Matt was wrong and misused this “prophecy” I simply see that Matthew knew as most do, that a young girl most likely is a virgin…)

Being that Isaiah 7:14 is fulfilled, yet seems to still give more of a promise to be fully fulfilled later I see that this near far theme is carried out through out the bible. Though I see that almost every thing was fulfilled as Jesus stated it would be in that “generation” by 70AD, (Matthew 24:34) definitely gives a problem to those who only hold to the “future” view of Revelation as it then would make Jesus a liar!

Again, use wisdom and trust in the leading of the Holy Spirit. I found more just reading Revelation that lead me out of the “rapture” view. The deeper I looked at the scriptures that supposedly taught this view the less I saw it. (Though if pressed to have to believe the Rapture, I would be mid trib).

I see that we have a continuation of now until the New Creation comes. This earth and heaven are of the fallen creation. I do not subscribe to the “burn it all” idea, though I see that there will be a major meltdown to come… I see that as a purification of sin. The way I explain it is that God is not destroying this creation in the sense of annihilation as some teach. I see that as I will die and be raised again at the resurrection of the dead I will then be clothed in the imperishable and clothed in immortality. I will still be me. Likewise I see that this creation will rise as such and also be restored but even better… or as Jesus stated, “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” (John 10:10) I see that the Life is in the Son and in that we will rise to New Life in the New Creation as New created beings. The New Heavens and New Earth will be this one but in a much greater Glory. This is not denying that God will do some major things in the end of days rather it is fully acknowledging that there may be some terrible days ahead as God brings the two sided sword of justice. One side to set things right the other to punish those who have done wrong.

We must trust God first and foremost. Especially in that He knows His Word better than anyone. He promises to direct our path which to me means that as we read, there may be paths in the scripture we will never understand. It may be that we are not ready. Believe that God will teach you what He wants you to know. Often I have found God has different priorities than I do in what I think needs to be fixed in me. One point was that I was frustrated with a bad habit of swearing. I could control it most the time, yet I was shocked at times of what would flow out of my mouth! I would further feel condemned by it as I would read that fresh and salt water cannot flow from the same well… Yet, God dealt with me over my angry spirit. In that I found more control as he released me from the things that I would be angry about. (Rather God gave me tools to release anger before it worked its way in me too deeply).

Trust in Gods priorities.

Be blessed,
iggy

A Great Way of Reading Your Bible...

I want someone to tell me how this is wrong to do...

• READ: Read deeply - read fully - let your imagination wrap around the words. read for insight and discovery. pay attention to what grabs you.
• THINK: Seriously - give it time to soak into your head… meditate on what you’ve read. think through it. let your mind consider the ins and outs of the passage. again, pay attention to what sticks out to you.
• PRAY: talk to God about what He’s saying to you through this reading. tell Him what grabbed your attention. ask Him how you should apply it to your life.
• LIVE: don’t just be a hearer, be a DOER. apply the truths and revelations of the passage to your life.

Now go here and find out if you still think it is a good thing... as many people seem to be critiquing this method as evil and bad... yet I bet that they also practice this without realizing it!

be blessed,

iggy

Click here or more info on this method

Schrodinger's Cat: a reflection on faith

Sorry if this is way off or that it might not make sense. Schrodinger's Cat is the idea that if you took a cat and a box, and place some atomic material like Uranium and a vial of poison with a hammer poised ready to fall and break the vial if an atom of the uranium decays, the hammer smashes the vial and kills the cat.

A tenet of quantum mechanics, uranium atoms, cannot be said to be in a definite state they are neither decayed or undecayed until they are observed. Until then, atoms hover in a quantum limbo, stuck in both possible states at the same time. Schrodinger proposed that until we open the lid and observe we also cannot assume the cat be alive or dead. In fact he proposed that the cat is both at the same time.

Now, Schrodinger supposedly used this as an illustration to mock his more mystical minded colleges who believed that observation created reality.

Yet, in this we have great stories of science fiction where we can meander a bit in the possibilities of this if true.

What if in the quantum realm we have both death and life intermixed. In fact if we read Genesis we see that Adam and Eve at the time of the curse suffer such a fate. Though they are "alive" they somehow "died" that very day they partook of the forbidden fruit.

Man exists in this sort of limbo such as the fate of Schodinger's cat.

Scripture teaches we must have life and the Life is in the Son.

Can you imagine a world where there is no death mixed in life? No decay at all. In some ways that may be sad as I love the color of the leaves in fall... or the color of old barn wood. Yet, imagine no death and no decay?

I imagine that God in a sense lifted the lid at the Cross and the atoms made their decision... for He made them and they will obey.

Do you think this is too far fetched? Then explain how Jesus in a physical body like yours and mine walked through a closed door and stood before His disciples. Jesus being God, knew the molecular structure of that door thus He could pass through it. He made all things so He knows the physics and quantum physics involved to do such things. Not to mention being dead for three days and then out and about walking through doors.

So, I see again, it is not the atoms who decide the fate of the cat, but that the God of the Atom decides the fate of the cat... and in that tells the atom to not only let the cat live, but give it life with no death at all!

Again, I may be off a bit. I have no education in physics let alone quantum physics, yet it makes me wonder what is in store for us in the New Creation.

Be blessed,

iggy

What a different world some live in....

What a different world some live in....

On very rare occasions, and I mean rare as in someone almost never... Yet, since I have on occasion noticed a couple of my friends mention Dan Phillips I read one of his articles...
And I just don't even relate to the question at all...
Here is the idea. You are a Christian and someone accuses you of being a legalist.
Dan then gives these examples of legalism or what others have said to him or... and that is where I get a bit confused I guess... but here are the "legalist" accusations with the questions afterward.

A legalist is...

1. Anyone who thinks Christians are under the Ten Commandments
2. Anyone who thinks Christians are under the Law of Moses (more broadly)
3. Anyone who thinks that we must obey law (— any law, whether of Moses or of Christ) to merit salvation
4. Anyone who thinks a Christian should obey the commands of Christ and the apostles
5. Anyone whose example makes me feel bad about my life
6. Anyone who imposes man-made rules on other Christians' conscience
7. Anyone who lives by standards that I don't share
8. Anyone who tells me that I should not do something I want to do, or do something I don't want to do
9. Anyone who tells me that a sin I sinned was sin, that I must repent before
   God and man, and that I must make it right with those I've wronged
10. Anyone who seriously thinks that what the Bible says is more important than what I strongly feel
11. Anyone who seriously thinks that the Bible should be our only rule of faith and practice, and that it is wholly sufficient to that end
12. Anyone who quotes a Bible verse I don't want to hear
13. Anyone who affirms a Biblical truth I don't want to think about
14. Anyone who thinks that, just because I say I believe in Jesus, I should take seriously anything that Jesus or His apostles or prophets say, even if I don't want to
15. Anyone who evaluates my outpouring of emotions and reactions in a
    Biblical manner, however humanly and compassionately
16. Anyone who holds to a lot of rules
17. Anyone who applies the Bible accurately, but without so much as a breath of grace, patience, compassion or humility
18. Anyone who thinks we should ever say "No" to anything we really deeply feel in our hearts
19. Anyone who goes to church when he doesn't feel like it
20. Anyone who takes literally parts of the Bible that I don't take literally
21. Anyone who thinks I should go to church when I don't feel like it, just because I say I believe in Jesus
22. Anyone who thinks I should respect an authority I don't agree with
23. Anyone who thinks that, just because I call Jesus "Lord, Lord," I should actually do what He says

Update: Anyone who tries to hold another to a biblical standard [credit: Carrie]Update: Anyone who thinks that there is no problem that cannot be solved by more and better rules

In the meta, tell us:

Which of these have you heard most frequently?

Which do you think is (or are) accurate and legitimate uses — and on what basis?

Which do you think are inaccurate and illegitimate — and on what basis?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, there are some legitimate “legalism” there, but I see that the point is missed completely. If one adds one thing to the finished works of Christ Jesus, that is in itself, legalism.

So most of these, which some made me laugh out loud as things like, “22. Anyone who takes literally parts of the Bible that I don't take literally” when many people who claim to be “literalists” are not even close to being that, or say, Any of the “because I take Jesus seriously” ones which seem to totally miss what biblical obedience is.

The thing that gets me is that Dan Phillips is in the crowd that seems to get these statements aimed at them. Maybe for good reason? I never seem to get these statements aimed at me unless it is in the form or “you do it too!” when I try to rebuke someone in Dan’s crowd who hypocritically attacks a friend of mine or unjustly accuses someone I respect.

Before you think I am just on an anti Dan Phillips row here, I am not, I have also seen some legalism in my own camp which I do address, yet, I see more grace there than from many who propose their doctrines as “doctrines of grace”. I might even be as bold as to say that I have seen and experienced more grace from Arminians than from Calvinists… though I do not condemn all Calvinists in that manner nor I claim or state that most Arminians truly grasp Grace in its fullness (Nor do I for all its fullness).

Now, as far as these questions, most I see are just not even the right questions. If one is accused of these, then you need sit back and really consider what is being stated. I bet if one prays and truly considers the accusation against them they might see some truth to them all and might also be careful to consider oneself might fall into these traps of the faith.

So I see that before we try to justify or condemn someone for placing these statements at our feet, one should be wise to see if they really do apply to themselves.

I do not boast when I state I rarely hear people state these questions to me. For true Grace only comes from God and not from us. We can only love if we understand we are loved by God first. We can only give grace away if we have God’s grace to give away.

Be blessed,
iggy

Love the Higher Law

Love the Higher Law

There are some things I just can’t grasp. One thing that I just can’t grasp or might not agree with is Leron Shultzs’ idea that we cannot analogize God. I see his point to a degree, yet the Bible is full of “God is like a…” statements. Yet, God does not have a beak or wings and Jesus is not a literal lamb… and Peter as dense as he could be sometimes was not a literal rock. So if one takes analogies to their extreme results… they will fall very short. Though I do like his idea of God as “Being in relationship.”

Now, one area I have thought about since High School was the concept of opposites. I had a teacher that asked the question one time, “What is the opposite of love?” we all stated “hate” just like you probably just did. Yet, he pointed out that the opposite of love is not hate, but apathy or the lack of emotion.

The opposite of hate is not love, the opposite of sorrow is not joy but all being emotions, are opposite to apathy.

Now, I am not sure if that helps me or hurts me as far as theology.

Yet let’s look at something in scripture called the Higher Law of Love.

1 John 4:16b “God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.”

God dwells in the emotion of love. He calls us to live in those attributes that are of love. Grace itself can be best understood as the emotion God has for us, or knowing that God loves us.

Many people are quick to state that we are to “obey God” or it’s variation, that we are to “obey God’s Law”. Yet miss that to obey as they teach is actually “works”. For example, if you read this article you will note the author quotes verses on “He who does not love Me will not obey My teaching” yet misses that we cannot be obedient, for if we could, then we could obey the Law and would not have needed Jesus to die on the cross for the author only has half the teaching here… which is dangerous if one claims to be a teacher to only give half the teaching that one might mislead others down “works” salvation instead of total dependency on Christ Jesus for salvation. Though Jesus states “He who does not love Me will not obey My teaching” we must recognize a few things…

Jesus is talking to Judas who had his own agenda. Jesus knew Judas would betray him, yet, still gave Judas all the chances to turn. Jesus is stating that Judas to be filled with the Spirit of Truth by the Father because Judas believes on Jesus. Yet, most importantly one must understand what it was that Jesus “commanded” us to be obedient to. Here is what the bible teaches as to what the commands we are to be obedient to.

1 John 3: 23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.
1 John 4:21 And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.
Galatians 5:14 The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
2 John 1:6 And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.

Note that some seem to teach that we are still under the Mosaic law, while the bible teaches quite the opposite for Believers in Jesus.

Again there is more to obedience that so many miss, and that we as mere men, have no obedience in and of ourselves. 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.”

Though many quickly accept that we have no righteousness except Jesus as well as holiness of our own outside of the Holiness of Christ all imputed to us, for some reason many still believe wrongly that they have the ability to be obedient on and in their own power, or worse that they are “helped” by the Holy Spirit to be obedient. Now, there is some merit to the last one, yet we must realize that yet we must keep it in the biblical perspective. In a book by Chuck Smith “Charisma Versus Charismania” Chuck gives an example of lifting a table. We are on one side while God is on the other side and we lift and God helps. That is a terrible example… sorry to be so blunt.
The truth is any “works” we do will be tainted, yet the works God does are always good and perfect. So, if God is helping us God is defeating His own good and perfect will. Yet, if we understand that God lifts the table and we may look like we are lifting it, we are to only give God the glory in what He is doing by lifting the table. We are to be no less dependant on God than Jesus was Himself. In His own words he states in John 5: 19 “Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.”

Again if we look at Romans 5:19 we will notice that “through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners”. This many readily accept and have not issue with, yet, when we get to the second half many seem to balk at the very idea they cannot be obedient! They seem to hold to that our righteousness comes from our own obedience yet we read, “so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous”. It is from the obedience of the one man (Jesus) that we are made righteous. In Hebrews 5 we read, “8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10 and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.”

Jesus learned obedience Philippians 2: 5 “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.” Again we see that Jesus was obedient even unto death.

The only obedience we can give is the obedience to Love God and one another. Yet, even that is with the understanding that Love is not generated from us, but is a response to what God has already done. That God loved us first, 1 John 4:10 “This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.”

Since we have responded to the love of God, then we receive the Holy Spirit. God is love and if we have responded then God lives in us, (1 John 4:12)

Once one grasps that truth, then we can allow God to work in us and through us. The sign in that this is happening in us is how we treat others. God does not care if you “repent” to Him, if you have harmed someone, yet do nothing to bring reconciliation. If you do not have reconciliation in your heart, which is driven by the love of God, then whatever you do is really worthless no matter how good one can teach.

Be blessed,
iggy