What if there was true persecution in America?

I was laughing about a recent article that an ODM had written stating he was being so very persecuted over having to move his blog. I also was sort of angry as he compared this with being a Viet Nam war vet. I though what a dishonorable thing to say about true war vets.

What if we did have real persecution? Is having a blog deleted anything compared to having one's wife and children murdered in front of you just because one is a Christian? How about if someone was tossed to wild animals or ripped apart alive...? Yes these are sick things...

Yet, things like this are happening now. My friend Preacherman has a great post called "Crucifixion Legalized and Practiced In Darfur" . Also, please check out the links he has. This IS real... this IS sad... and this is a REAL WAR and not some so called "truth war" that seems more interesting in promoting some peoples relativistic view of truth filtered through their preferred theological system.

Be blessed,

iggy

Stick it where? Ask Chris Pajak!

Chris Pajak as a real knack with words... he loves to tell others how sinful they are and how "emergents" are going to hell amongst the "nicer" things he states... He also writes for Christian Research Net for Ken Silva.

And in a recent "loving" comment on the topic of reductionism at CRN.info Chris Pajak had this to say!

"At the risk of sounding crudely reductionist; put it where the sun don’t shine. This blog is going to criticize others for sweeping generalizations? I pray for the soon return of the King." ~ Chris Pajak Christian Research Network contributor.

No Chris, you just sound as crude as all those you condemn for not being Christ like...

If you would like to tell Chris how offensive this is... his blog is here...

These are the new holiness police...

Beware!

iggy

Great Quotes: Spurgeon

"To be laughed at is no great hardship to me. I can delight in scoffs and jeers. Caricatures, lampoons, and slanders are my glory. But that you should turn from your own mercy, this is my sorrow. Spit on me, but, oh, repent! Laugh at me, but, oh, believe in my Master! Make my body as the dirt of the streets, but damn not your own souls!" ~ Charles Haddon Spurgeon

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,
iggy

More on a day or prayer and fasting for ken Silva

This last week I have been praying about how to do the day of prayer and fasting for Ken Silva.

Originally the idea is that whether one is for him or sees that what he is doing is harming the Body of Christ, that we all pray a prayer of blessing.

The reasoning is that Jesus taught us to do so.

Luke 6: 27-31

"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.”

Ken has decided to hate others and curse them… and in that mistreat them. I intend that Ken be blessed…

Here is the kicker on all this. If you agree with Ken then you have nothing to lose! In fact pray for him to be blessed immensely! I am in full agreement as for one to be blessed, from God they must be humbles by God to receive the blessings.

I am sincere in that I want Ken to be blessed… and I pray in all earnest that he receives the fullness of God’s best for him.

As far as a date to do this. I have not decided on one. In fact I sense that if I did pick one, someone will say I am being a hypocrite and showy in that I am letting everyone know I am doing this, yet I see a good thing in our uniting in this.

So, I am still praying on that note… yet I think at least this far I see next week that maybe we all can set aside a day and fast and pray for God to bless Ken Silva who has declared that many of us are his enemy and also that he is at war against our God… (Ken has stated that I am not saved and serve a different god… I may agree in the last part of that as I think I serve a different God from the one of wrath, war and hate that Ken seems to declare is sovereign.)

If you think that you want to join me in this and want to pick a specific date, email me. iggy@wwdb.org

Blessings,
iggy

The Ken Silva Implode continues... so pray for him!

At Ken Silva's alternate universe called CRN, Ken seems to be getting worse and worse... in his most recent post Revealing Details about the Emerging Church and Semi-Pelagianism Ken calls everyone as many names as he can... and washes everyone in one article (?) with his mad spittle. (Can I have a towel please)

He is still obsessed with semi pelagianism... and it seems his preferential "man-loving" label...


"man-loving semi-pelagian new evangelicals embracing the neo-liberal cult of the Emergent Church" ~ Ken Silva

So I wonder if Ken will ever come out of the closet with the "man loving" obsession he has? = )

The best (? saddest) part is that last paragraph where Ken loses it completely...

"And a word to these man-loving semi-pelagian new evangelicals embracing the neo-liberal cult of the Emergent Church like Rob Bell and Erwin McManus. Rephrasing what was mused elsewhere, when you start yakking on about being "culturally relevant," "missional," and "embrace mystery" etc. it’s like our brain converts anything you say after that into “blah, blah, blah … explore the human spirit, social reformer, rabbis say blah, blah, blah”, and our mind wanders to "why we don’t take you seriously." "


And without the Love, Mercy, and Grace of God everyone is condemned by the Great Ken Silva as he writes people off with a Seinfeldian "blah, blah, blah”.

It seems that to be a "man loving semi pelagian" is worse than ignoring the commandments of our Lord, to love Him and to love one another.


The most interesting part of this exchange is this... Ken actually in a rare occasion gives answers... something he has never done with or for me. I guess just stating to me that I am not "saved" was enough for Ken.

Yet, here is Kens answers and I will add my thoughts in bold.
Ken Silva

Mike,

The noted Christian philosopher and apologist Dr. Francis Schaeffer used to say: "Honest questions deserve honest answers." I believe this as well and so I will respond from a position of no offense taken and no intention of causing any. Setting this upfront due to the limitations of the written language.

You say: "Yes Ken, you and I do seem to be proclaiming very different understandings of the gospel." You may believe me when I say that I do appreciate your candor and respect your sincerity. I now will respond in kind.

You say: "You seem to be following the gospel of John MacArthur (and John Calvin?) while I do my best (though imperfectly) to follow the gospel Jesus proclaimed..." This looks to me as if in your mind there is a divide between "the gospel" of MacArthur and "the gospel" Jesus proclaimed.
But the truth is, I follow no man. The MacArthur reference is simply a current illustrative example of men who proclaim that Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is what is meant by the doctrines of grace. These were proclaimed by the ancient Church long before there ever was a Calvin.

Iggy: Ken has a huge double standard he is expressing here… “But the truth is, I follow no man.” Yet, all emergents are following Tony Jones, Brian McLaren, Rob Bell and in some way Rick Warren would be tossed in by Ken. So the “truth” is that Ken can state “I follow no man” and then state “while I do my best (though imperfectly) to follow the gospel Jesus proclaimed” as if in some contrast all emergents do not do this also!

You point out: "But I wouldn't describe our views as complete 'opposites'." Ah, but they are. I say God alone chooses whom He will save according to His will and grace and nothing whatsoever to do with anything any human being ever does. You say, at least on some level, man cooperates with God. Monergism vs. synergism. Opposites.

Then you say: "I don't deny the central aspects of the gospel you proclaim. I believe in the divinity of Christ, his death and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins, and that we can be saved because of his sacrifice. I believe in Heaven and Hell and think that some people do end up in both."

I am purposely trying to be as non-offensive as I know how (really, I am *smile*) but I hope you realize that even Satan himself "believes", and even knows, these things are in fact true. You see, this would actually prove nothing.

Iggy: One of the criticisms of Kenites are that emergents are throwing out the great reformers… in fact there is some very colorful language in how they state this… but I digress. Yet, Ken can wipe clean 1400 years of history and ignore it as he overlooks much that happened before and even after the reformation. Notice also that Ken makes judgmental swipe at Mike’s salvation by stating that “even the devils believe” but in all actuality does not even attempt to answer the question. Ken has stated that he is “obeying God” and that he listens to Gods voice, “I felt led” is a common phrase Ken uses… and in that negates that he is an autobot that just does what God makes him do. Yet, he states that here that “I [Ken] say God alone chooses whom He will save according to His will and grace and nothing whatsoever to do with anything any human being ever does.” No one negates that but as I showed even Ken “at least on some level, man cooperates with God.” Or how can he say that “he felt led” as he does… (if you need references just go to Ken’s Apprising Ministries website put the phrase in his search engine and then search the phrase in all the missives that come up… and see how much as some level Ken “cooperates with God”. One note also is that many of the “leaders” in emergent are Calvinist… so I guess Ken is stating that Calvinists emergents are also semi pelagian… it only shows to the extent of Ken’s ignorance of what emerging is about.

Now, one will say he is talking about salvation… yet, then to use the standard of Ken’s gospel one would judge his fruit and see if he is not cooperating with God, he is not producing his OWN good fruit and thus is not saved. At least that is how I have had it explained and used against me… by people who do not even know me.

Next you go on to say: "IMHO the evangelical gospel is not wrong, just incomplete,..." Being that you are one who believes in synergism you would be able to say this. I, however, left evangelicalism because of its semi-pelagianism and undercutting of God's total sovereignty.

The following is really an all too common misconception concerning the beliefs of those of us who believe the doctrines of grace: "because in addition to all those things I also believe in the present reality of the kingdom of God..." So do we.

iggy: I recommend that Ken listen to John’s statements at The Way of the Master where John states rather clearly that the difference is that their Kingdom is “only spiritual” while most other traditions see the Kingdom as present now, spiritual, and to come in it’s fullness. Listen Now Download it here. (It starts at the 22:44 mark.)

(A side line here point on this notice how they take a small portion of what Brian actually states and twists it to mean something totally other than what Brian states? John then states we are not to give justice here on earth! Note they state that Kingdom is not now here..." The Kingdom is a spiritual Kingdom and we populate it by witnessing to people and preaching the Gospel." This then negates the Resurrection of Jesus as being the first fruits of the Kingdom.)

But here's where we part company: "and that Christ's gospel was less focused on where we go in the afterlife (did you know that Jesus only preaches on the Resurrection once?) and much more on calling people to live in his kingdom way here and now." We are to do all we can to help our fellow man and be good stewards of this world.

Personally I even think we've not done such a good job. That aside, the Bible is quite clear that this "here and now" will be destroyed by fire. God is not recreating THIS heavens and earth; He is preparing (or has prepared) a new heaven and a new earth.
This is why according to Scripture you are wrong when you speculate: "God is not just concerned with forgiving the sins of individual people, he wants to reconcile the whole world (cf. Romans 8:19-21)."

Iggy: Ken misses some interesting nuances. In the New Creation we who are resurrected are not destroyed though the perishable is clothed with imperishable. The New Creation is like that it too is resurrected and purified and made new. What Ken is doing is misunderstanding that we are stating that this world is to be as IT IS in the new creation and that is far from the truth…. Yet, we live here now and we must learn to take care and be good stewards with this planet and its resources. In a sense this earth will be like us, in that it will be purified from corruption and be redeemed at the revealing of the Sons of God. Again, Ken shows a real lack of understanding and is rather trapped in his fundamentalist view of the future of earth in the New Creation. IN his version if the though be carried out. We will not exist and will be annihilated even as those redeemed, and then be completely recreated… the Bible does not state that about mankind, it does not state that about the New Heavens and New Earth.
Ken seems then to negate that God wants to reconcile the whole world… so he does not believe scripture when it states in Romans 8: 19 -24;
“The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.”
Ken is denying that there is more happening in salvation than just getting our own butts into heaven and out of hell… and then says of Mike that God is “just” concerned about getting us saved.

And here is an extension of your earlier misconception: "Social gospel vs. evangelical gospel is not an 'either/or', it's a 'both/and'." The evangelical gospel has actually become your emerging repainted social gospel ala Walter Rauschenbusch. We are not saying that there is no social aspect to Christ's gospel. We are saying it is secondary to Christ's mandate follow His example to seek and save those who are lost.

Iggy: here is the extension alright! I know of not one emergent that sees that Walter Rauschenbusch taught the idea of “social gospel” in a full fleshed out way. In fact, it seems that even if WR got part of it right, he is all wrong… so Ken cannot see that God’s heart is and was always about social reform… or in others words, how we treat other people. Ken again negates the bibles teachings on this in exchange for his “doctrines”.

Isihah 58: 5 -8

“Is this the kind of fast I have chosen, only a day for a man to humble himself? Is it only for bowing one's head like a reed and for lying on sackcloth and ashes? Is that what you call a fast, a day acceptable to the LORD?
"Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter-- when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood? Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear; then your righteousness will go before you, and the glory of the LORD will be your rear guard.”

You say: "At any rate, you can rest assured that I'm very practiced in considering other points of view and entertaining the possibility that I could be wrong." Mike, I have no reason to doubt your word here. And I don't.

You ask: "How do you think I ended up in the emerging church? I was once very much like you - a Calvinist Baptist minister who thought that his way was the only possible right one." Sincerely and with gentleness; I will say that in my mind you would have just described an apostate.

Iggy: “Sincerely and with gentleness; I will say that in my mind you would have just described an apostate.” With that Ken has called Luther and all the Great Reformers apostates… it is in true Ken style logic… or rather illogical style. Ken here is also admitting he cannot see things from others views. This is also a symptom of what is called “borderline personality disorder”… or the inability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes.


Next you say: "But it was by listening to other points of view, and especially by coming back to the Bible without my Calvinist theological lenses that I began to see things differently." My response is that I personally was saved in an Arminian and Charismatic church. I began believing in synergism.

Long story short; I have zero formal theological training and have never studied Calvinism. My testimony is that by simple private study of the texts of the Bible, God the Holy Spirit led me to believe His monergism and in the doctrines of grace. It was only after this that I went and began my studies of theology.

Iggy: This is similar to my own testimony, yet Ken seems to think that only what he has read and come to believe is right… this is a logical fallacy as without some other tools one can come out with some bad theology as evident in Ken.

Then you point out: "I will take the time to entertain the possibility that your way may still be right and that I may in the wrong." Mike, I think we know this is really not seriously very likely. That's fine, you've made your stand. I disagree with you, but please know that I do respect your defense of it.

Iggy: Ken is now omniscient and can read minds and hearts of other men? LOL!


And finally you ask: "But I wonder, can you say the same? Will you actually, seriously and honestly consider whether you may be wrong in your theology and people in the emerging church may actually have some truth to teach you?" Honestly, absolutely no. I have also made my stand.

In 1994, well before their even was an emerging church, I was still Arminian in theology and planted Rock Springs Mission Church. I was doing the "emerging thing" even before you. Attempting to be "relevant" and "missional" with hair down the middle of my back and my secular rock band coming out of the church. Played in bars, hung out with sinners...well, you know.

Doesn't work in producing real converts to Christianity, because while the sympathy to the plights of our fellow man is obviously sincere, in the end the version of the gospel - the one you currently espouse - is deficient. Through my studies I began to see the reason why; and this was long before I looked into the Reformers: Salvation is through the grace of God alone; by the faith alone given to us by God, in Christ alone.

Two very radically different views of the Christian faith. Only one could be right, there is no middle ground here. There isn't supposed to be.

Mike, I do appreciate your willingness to dialogue. So as an offering of good will, and out of respect, I have tried to be thorough enough to do justice to your well thought-out response.

Knowing we are both very busy I envision this to be the last I'm going to say here. And I also say shalom.

Iggy: This last part shows again Ken has no grasp of emerging. He claims to have tried it but bore no fruit… hmmm maybe that was the problem Ken it was ALL YOU.
I see that even when we as emergents agree we are taken done some dark corridor of Ken’s mind and proven wrong no matter how bad the logical leaps and twistings of what is actually true.
I have in my life changed often as I read and discovered the truths in Scripture. I still do not see myself as having arrived as one such as Ken.
I do not want one to think I am doing all this out of vengeance or anger; in fact I love Ken… for some strange reason God has placed him on my heart to pray for. I ask that you take a moment to do so also. This is not a battle of flesh and blood and Ken is not my enemy. He is a man, though a bit confused about the great Grace and freedom of our Lord… loves Jesus.

Blessings,
iggy

The accusations fly and the implode continues....

This article seem to not even need any comments it speaks volumes itself as to how far Ken and Crew will go to slander and lie.

Note: There are a few that are discussing and exploring Universalism... yet not the type that all get "saved" in the end... as even Spenser Burke states: "I am a universalist that believes in Hell"... which should be an indication he is not "that" type of universalist as in "all get saved in the end". His view is that all are saved, unless you "opt out".

I do not agree with him ( ~ emerging thought in Montana ~: Universalism: Why I do not agree) as I do not see that Spenser has built he case, nor did Scot McKnight (Jesus Creed » Heretic’s Guide to Eternity 4) and many, many others... Spenser is a voice, who still believes in Hell... so the statement, "and exposes his universalism and his panentheism only to be told that he doesn’t speak for Emergent." is still not accurate... maybe "speaks within" out speaks as part of".

My other point is what is to be made of the statement that Paul states about the gaol of God through Jesus as in 1 Cor 15:28 " When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." I think this verse sounds a little "panentheism" (What is panentheism?) I think there is a good case for the topic though I myself have not pursued that as a possibility.

The real issue is the insistent connection with the occult... it has become a sick obsession of Ken Silva. His statements like these are sadly what make him lose more and more credibility (if he had any);

"These words were written by Julie Clawson whose husband Mike was one of the planners of the Mideast Emergent "Gathering", which by the way also happens to a term Wiccans use as well for their meetings."

I guess anyone who "gathers" is now in league with Satan...

Acts 12:44. "On the next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord."
Matthew 18:20. "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

The logic is just not there unless Ken is saying...

Well that is the over simplicity of his allegations.

SO it seems the only whining ( And the Whining of the Emergent Church Continues…) that does continue is Kens is somehow shocked about the response to the slanderous posters of Phil Johnson... That they were more Christ-like than the attack could ever be. As Ken shows his nasty side by calling this article "hit piece". (Motivation or Ridicule?) Yep, Julie Clawson is so vicious in her attack against Ken and Phil... LOL! It seems that Ken is opposed to anything that resemble Jesus Christ in action. I ma just wonder how Ken did not fit "semi-pelagian" in the article. Oh wait! He did! LOL!

Notice that Ken calls for fire from heaven?

"You see, "soon" it’s going to get mighty hot up in here…O Lord send us Thy fire…" ~Ken Silva


Maybe he needs reminded of the words of Jesus...

Luke 9: 54 - 56. "When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them ?" But Jesus turned and rebuked them, and they went to another village. "


Be blessed,
iggy

And now the fruit of Lordship Salvation... by Jim W.

I received this comment from Jim W. who wanted to express the Love of Jesus and show me His great grace and mercy. I was overwhelmed by this as his expression to me of the loving kindness he displayed reminded me of how Jesus would be. I am truly thinking of changing to his way of thinking and converting to his type of religious Calvinism.

Here is his loving letter to me from this comment.

Jim W on July 24th, 2007

I see iggy is striking again and so far, no one is getting any further than they have any previous time.
iggy can twist any statement into a pretzel faster than a pretzel machine can.
“1. One accepting Jesus in a certain manner. meaning that they MUST accept Him as Lord… the bible teaches Jesus is to be our very Life… So I see that John right off the bat has added a “condition” to the grace that is freely given.”
John Mac doesn’t teach any works, iggy, no matter how much you’d like to believe it. Believing and accepting Jesus as Lord is part of our repentance. Understanding our fallen, sin nature is critical. If we do not grasp our utter inability to reach God on our own merit, we will never be accepted into God’s kingdom. recognizing that Jesus is Lord is part of this.
“2. John looks at man’s fruit as a way to see if one is “saved” or not… all men’s fruit is bad, we are all bad trees. God is the only Good Tree and we are called to bear HIS Fruit and not just polish our own. This leads to a performance and shame based faith that is not biblical”
We are not bad trees, iggy. Our fruit isn’t bad, either. Not once we are reborn into the family of Christ. We can still produce bad fruit by failing to do what God commands us to do, but if we are following God’s commands, we will produce good fruit. Examining a person’s fruit is exactly what is commanded in John’s epistles. No matter how much you would like to deny the rest of the Bible, it still applies to us.
To Tony and Quitin, have you read iggy’s blog about JM’s “Truth Wars”? This is a classic case of iggy-twisting if I ever saw one. He refers his comments to “Tall Skinny Kiwi” where there is a review of “Truth Wars”. In “Truth Wars”, JM refers to Jude where Jude compares false teaches to stained clothing. Kiwi infers this to mean that JM is comparing emergents to filthy clothes. iggy goes it even farther. He claims that JM is calling Jesus stained clothing. iggy takes it even further. I won’t even write what iggy says, but it calls Jesus stained underwear. Talk about twisting a comment to suit an agenda. And to even imply that someone who has lived a life devoted to God would refer to his (our) Lord as stained underwear is disgusting.
iggy, I’ve said it before, I guess I have to say it again: you’re a pathetic little man. You read with no comprehension and then insert your own thoughts into everyone’s writings. You truly need help. If nothing else, take a class on reading comprehension. That alone will help. Quit trying to read German mathmatians and esoteric philosophers. You cannot understand the things you read, so go back to basics.
BTW, nice equivocation on all your answers to Quitins questions. You answered everything while leaving yourself “outs” on everything. You can’t be pinned down to any position because of your postmodern mindset. You obviously have studied Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt.

I might state here that Jim W. makes an interesting accusation. He states that I made up the thing about being a stain on the garment of Jesus? That was what JM stated! Also, note that I answered these "certain" questions... Here is what i stated and my answers that Jim W. claims I gave myself an "out"... Take notice at what I did say... "All of these questions would need to be fleshed out much more and that would take more time that i want to take here on this blog." I think that great theologians have worked on these questions for an entire life time and Jim W. expects me to give full and complete answers here and now... He places his

Your questions:
Let me first state that these are not easy questions to answer. You are wanting a specific answer and i will fail at giving you THAT answer. All of these questions would need to be fleshed out much more and that would take more time that i want to take here on this blog.

2. Give me the emergent position. Give it clear.
a) What is sin?
Unbelief which manifests itself as disobedience.

b) How do people discover Jesus Christ?

By the calling of God through the Holy Spirit though it can happen in many ways.

c) What role does the bible play?

Jesus own words are this: “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” So the scriptures role is to lead us to Jesus according to Jesus. In that it is the written revelation from God to man to help us learn by the guidance of the Holy Spirit of God through Jesus Christ.

c.1) Is the bible infallible?
In all that it speaks of yes.

c.2) Is the bible inerrant?
In all that it speaks of yes.

c.2) Is the bible true, for what it says, as it says it? Yes… which is what I have been trying to state to you throughout this whole thread.

Now, let me add this. I do not believe that there is any TRANSLATIONS of the bible that are infallible or inerrant… that does not mean I do not see that God’s written word is not either. I am willing to admit I struggle with inerrancy and infallibility as I see that the definition has changed from the time it was first used and how you are using them now. I am most certainly confident in the ability that God can overcome any shortcomings in bad translations. I am confident that God is true to His word. So i see even my struggle I am trusting God at His word and have placed my faith in Him. I trust Him completely.

AND THEY WONDER WHY I AM EMERGING!? Did you notice that James W. denies the words of Jesus who stated:

Matthew 7:17
Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

Matthew 7:18
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

Matthew 12:33
"Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit.

Luke 6:43
[ A Tree and Its Fruit ] "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.

i will note that Jim misses this verse also:

Matthew 10:17 "As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone."

We bear good fruit only because we are engrafted onto the Good Tree... we do not bear good fruit on our own. It is that we are engrafted on the Good Tree we bear His Good Fruit it is and never was and never will be ours until we are clothed in perfection and are changed from perishable to imperishable. We must be totally dependant on the works of Jesus for He is our Sabbath Rest. Jim negates this by adding "works" and justifies judging others fruit... and sorely misses the plank in his own eye. He has seemed to have forgotten that no one is worthy, no one is righteous... and that we are at the mercy of God Who has give us His great Grace... Jim has forgotten that "Mercy Triumphs over Judgment".

In one breath Jim W. stated "If we do not grasp our utter inability to reach God on our own merit, we will never be accepted into God’s kingdom." And then denied we are bad trees that need to totally depend on Jesus to bear any good fruit. He states that it is by us "obeying" God. Yet, he misses that 1 John states what this obedience is:

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."

He then showed me his love for me... yet God seemed to bring this verse to mind. 1 John 4: 15 - 21.

"If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him.
There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
We love because he first loved us.
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.
And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother."

They speak out both sides of their mouths... as I have stated before. I think these speaks volumes of the fruit of Lordship Salvation. Now excuse me I think I need a towel from all the frothing spittle baptism I just received.

I would rather be a "pathetic little man" than be one who has forgotten how great the grace of God is and that I owe all to God and should only give away God's forgiveness, mercy, grace, and love... and in that be justified as I do that for it is all by God's Holy Spirit... for the greatest gift is love. I know that I have to forgotten this great love at times... so I in no way condemn Jim White... but i hope he sees the error of his ways and turns to Jesus to bear God's fruit instead of trying to produce it on his own by attempting to please God by his own obedience.

Paul stated in Galatans 5:1 - 26

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.
You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope.
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth?
That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough."
I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be.
Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature ; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.
For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

In closing I also quote Paul in Galatians 3:1-5

Galatians 3

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?
Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have you suffered so much for nothing--if it really was for nothing? Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

I stand firmly in Christ who is the Author and Finisher of my faith and salvation.

Be Blessed,
iggy

Text here is part two

While some bicker some face major persecution.

While some bicker about their doctrines other Christians face major persecution... so pray for the Christians in Iraq.

Blessings,
iggy