Greg Boyd: Pathology of the "Religious"

So Ken Silva... What is your beef with Tony Jones?

I am going to just ask this open question.

I have read much of Ken Silva' "false" accusations against many... yet I am wondering what are the specific things Ken holds against Tony?

Now, if you use the "Tony used the "f" word... I will remind you Ken you used the headline,and the quote many more times than Tony has... and in fact I am on record as asking Tony to tame down his language... so let's move on from that one.

Yet, how can you justify the name calling?

What are the facts behind these "names"... that make them so true?

I am holding this out so that you can state your case. So far I see these as slander and lies... but then, it seems you thrive on those things.

So, without making this all about me... let's talk about Tony Jones... and all the facts (which seemed to become opinions as of late) that you have piling up against him.

iggy

Updated: This is an example of Ken's "research" (now opinion) in which as usual he gives only half the story.

Source 1: Ken lies and slanders Bruce.

Source 2: Bruce tells the rest of the story.

So Ken... about the lies and slander (I mean "opinions") concerning Tony... I am still waiting for you to prove your lies and slander as Truth...

Jim Bublitz accuses me of slandering him?

Jim Bublitz has some sort of sick vendetta against me and I have found that he seems to follow me around slandering me!

Now, Jim has followed me to Justin Taylor's blog over the Steve Camp attacking Mark Driscoll scandal and accused me of slandering him again!

And what was the slanderous thing I said that was so heinous?

In fact the only people I "fight" with, I stopped going to their sites, like Christian Research Network and oldtruth.com and such as there is no conversation and if there is one you must agree with them... or you are mocked and attacked. ~ iggy being sooo mean and slandering Jim Bublitz! LOL!

And this is what Jim Bublitz calls slander?

By his comments he confesses HE DOES FOLLOW ME AROUND AND SLANDER ME!


It's not uncommon for me to get "Iggy is slandering you on XYZ blog" notices, and with his mention of me above, I have landed here. ~ Jim Bublitz

But, whatever... I guess it is because his truth is old and my truth is eternal... LOL!

I think it is because I did a series on "the religionist" (part 4)and it was too close to home!

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

blessings,
iggy

Great Quotes (kind of): Steve Camp

"When a pastor continually makes light of the character of our Lord by speaking in scatological tones about the Son of Man’s bodily functions in incarnation or wearing T-Shirts that rather mock the King of Righteousness rather than glorify Him, then something is terribly awry." ~ Steve Camp on Mark Driscoll in comments.

Then he holds up Martin Luther with great reverence... promoting this "Great Reformer".

Yet, here is the real Martin Luther... btw there is a warning that this site is very crude... as these are real Martin Luther quotes and anti Semitic statements.

(A bit of a disclaimer about the link here... the quotes are accurate and Luther seemed to also like to say the "s" word... yep that "scatological tone" was not just a tone as with Driscoll... the man had no qualms using it as one of his favorite cuss words... But the guy at this site made me laugh as he uses some bizarre reasoning to say Luther was not even saved! LOL!... Then basically states what Luther based his whole life on as the only way to salvation.... "saved by grace through faith"! LOL! So, I do not endorse the site but found it entertaining in his circular reasoning... again the quotes are pure Luther.)


Now, I am not a fan of Mark Driscoll... and I admit I may have gone a bit overboard at the link above were Camp is quoted. Yet, this continual double standard that comes from Steve Camp is at best embarrassing and at worse a sore blind spot he has yet to acknowledge in himself before he attacks others.

Also, I am not against Martin Luther. I just think that candy-coating him or any of the "great reformers" is dishonest. They were all frail men with huge flaws just like myself.

I point to Steve Camp only to show that some who cast stones and hold a righteousness of themselves over others, fail to see that no one is righteous... and all have sinned. To attack Driscoll as Camp is doing then hold up a foul mouthed reformer... is very hypocritical.

Now, before you state I am doing the same thing, this is the huge difference. I have an open door to reconciliation... and as you may have read, Steve is attacking Driscoll over a supposedly offended brother, (which we have no idea if he was actually offended) and not giving Driscoll any grace over his confession in lacking humility... in fact as you read the "MacArthurite" comments even his confession is held suspect. That is not only sad, but sick. I hold that Steve is already forgiven, but will be held in bondage by his own legalistic standard... and not truly experience the Grace of God in all fullness unless he can see his own double standards and turn to God. I hope to only warn Steve in the Love of Jesus... and not attacking him personally.

Oh if you think I am being unkind to Steve Camp... here are some other quotes by him concerning Mark...

Carla:

"Very good post--thank you.

Mark is a marketeer and that's what all this is about. He has some books coming out first quarter next year; he wants to stir some additional attention to himself; so he promotes in acerbic tones this ridiculous campaign that some people think is a serious theological venture; he snarkastically mocks those who post serious biblical questions (see last Sunday's message); he's again relishing in all the attention.

For some zealous bloggers who are enamored with Mark to suggest that he's the next Billy Graham is beyond funny. In fact I was laughing so hard when reading that, that some reformed brothers I was with thought I had experienced the Toronto Blessing.

Mark hasn't done anything for biblical evangelism to date. His church grows primarily through attrition; not first time conversions. (*Note: Lordship Salvation offers no assurance, but makes one constantly look at their own fruit to make sure they are still elect! It is a performance based theology based on works. Also, I am not sure Steve knows what attrition means as how can a church grow bigger and smaller at the same time? If he means that it grew out of the other churches in the area losing members, then he need look at how John MacArthur's church grew out of the population of Roman Catholics who left that church in the early days and joined Macarthur's... ) I was at Mark'sHill about a month ago and attended a service there. A few observations: there was no public reading of God's Word; there was no corporate worship taking place; there was no time of corporate prayer; there was no biblical instruction before the entire church took communion; there was no sense of community or connectedness whatsoever; it was not a worship service, it was a very well produced performance. There was event security everywhere just hanging out with black t-shirts on that you would find at any professional wrestling event. It's all part of the image.On the positive side: the technology out there is second to none; very organized - really great. It's obvious that's where the money goes. And I have to say, that the coffee in the coffee bar afterwards was really fantastic!

Mark's not an expositor, he's a performer. The sermon was lightweight in terms of biblical content and doctrine. In fact, he missed the text that day (Phil.1:1) - but hey, what does it matter, the videos, computer graphics and lights were amazing. If he spent as much time on the text as he did on the technology it might be different. And then there is the music. Oh my. Poorly executed, very trendy, alternative, garage band tunes. I don't know who was up there leading that particular service, but the guy couldn't sing--I mean it was painful - dogs and cats screaming! (*Note: I might mention the first time I heard Steve he sounded very forced and marginal at best, but I loved his early stuff as he had a very strong evangelistic spirit about his music.)

What's all this mean? It means that Mark is young, inexperienced as a Bible teacher, and needs time to mature in the faith. It means that he is more promoter than pastor. Is he the next Billy Graham? - not unless you do ministry by comic books. Will he do more for Christian evangelism since Billy Graham by just answering nine questions on a blog turned book? Not a chance; it will have the same impact as Kathy Lee Gifford singing "You Light Up My Life" on The View.

Mark'sHill Church is really just a giant youth group meeting; and if it took place on a Friday night at a large pragmatic, seeker friendly church say in the Chicago area, it would fit in quite nicely. This is not serious, deep, biblical theology being presented. In Seattle language, it is a nonfat, caffeine free latte, with a shot of air. Mostly foam, little bean. (* Like songs about foul mouthed Martin Luther and the Wittenburg door? Just asking...)

Ask-anything-Mark? Why... he has little to say. If you want your questions answered just read your Bibles and study with great men like MacArthur, Sproul, Edwards, Owens, Watson, Pink, Calvin and Spurgeon--you won't be disappointed.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Keep on Carla - this was a really good article. Steve 2 Cor. 4:5-7 SJ Camp"

Really nice stuff there huh? Lot's of name calling and very little Grace to Mark.

Now remember Steve Camp goes to John MacArthur's (Grace to you) church (thus the name drop in the midst of some truly great bible teachers) and was introduced as "Keith Green with theology." Personally, I would rather be introduced as one who truly loves Jesus and not that I am "theological"... but all this points to the type of arrogance that is produced by the theology at "Grace to you"... as it all points to Steve being more right(ous) than Mark and Steve putting Mark down as a fraud out to sell books and not truly having a confessional faith in Jesus Christ... He shows the lack of true faith and grace that comes with knowing Jesus in a personal way and that is why I call out that Steve return to his first love Jesus and forsake mental assent in a belief in God through doctrines. Note, I am in no way stating Steve is not saved... I believe him to be a sincere believer... but under some very bad doctrine.

All that said, I really commend Carla for this comment to Frank Turk of Team Pyro fame...

"Frank: I have deleted your second comment here simply because I cannot tolerate that sort of insulting tone here at this blog. Just FYI. Carla Rolfe"

So even some of the reformed fans are also getting a bit irritated with these guys!

Be blessed,
iggy

You Might Be A Pharisee If...

You Might Be A Pharisee If...

(With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy)

• If you missed a family reunion or a funeral of a close friend because you didn’t want to miss the midweek service…you might be a Pharisee.
• If you ever worried about whether or not you should read the italicized words in you King James Bible because they weren’t in the original text …you might be a Pharisee.
• If you ever gave your pastor a doctor’s excuse for missing a Sunday evening service …you might be a Pharisee.
• If you ever tried to exchange your bratwurst for an Italian sausage because you found out they were beer brats …you might be a Pharisee.
• If you say grace before in-between-meal snacks …you might be a Pharisee.
• If you won’t let your kids read The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe because there is a witch in the book …you might be a Pharisee.
• If you object to the new church hymnals because they have “contemporary” songs from the likes of Andrae Crouch and Dallas Holm …you might be a Pharisee.
• If you think the new youth pastor should not be trusted with the care of your children because he has an ICHTHUS tattoo…you might be a Pharisee.
• If you rebuked the visiting preacher for not wearing a tie when he was in the pulpit …you might be a Pharisee.
• If you boycotted The End of the Spear because the part of Nate Saint was played by a homosexual …you might be a Pharisee.
• If you refuse to watch The Passion of the Christ because it borrows too heavily from Catholic tradition …you might be a Pharisee.
  

Feel free to add any "You might be a Pharisee if..." ideas to the comments section below.

This is all from Gamaliel's Desk by Rick Presley. BTW the comments are about as funny as some of the other "mights".

Be blessed,

iggy

Are we really called to "defend" truth?

I find it interesting that people teach that we are to defend truth... or defend The Truth. Did you know there is not one verse that states that or teaches that?

Here is a short list of who and what we are to defend:

• The Gospel (I know that the Gospel is truth... and I will get back to this)
• The Weak
• The afflicted among the people.
• The cause of the weak and fatherless.

Now, there is much more and I challenge one to do a study on "defending".

Still not one verse that states to defend the truth... and some base their whole ministry on this idea.

Now.. we are to defend the Gospel... and the Gospel is truth. Now that is as close as one can get to this idea. Yet, the Gospel is this... for there is only One Gospel that was in Christ and taught by Christ and handed down to the Apostles... Jesus tells us this Gospel in Matthew 24:14

"...gospel of the kingdom..." it is not just about the death burial and resurrection though that is a major part of it... it is and was always and will always be about God's Kingdom.

Some teach that it is yet to come... but here in Matthew and elsewhere Jesus preached the Gospel of the Kingdom and no other Gospel.

How sad that some seek to defend Truth... For if they realized that Jesus is The Truth and God's Word does not return void to Him, they would see that Truth defends itself! It does not need man to defend it... or rather let me state it this way... Jesus does not need man to defend Him! He is our defender.

Now there is a verse that is used as a hammer to batter other brother and sisters in Christ with. And the sad thing is it is one of the most powerful verses in the bible... in it is a warning and an eternal truth that those who teach man must defend Truth miss...

Jude 1: 3-5

"Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. "

Now the focus is on "I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints."

Many read this without a thought that "contend" means to defend... rather it means to strive for... A quick look at the verses that use contend will show this true.

Now, in boxing a contender is not the champion who holds the title... it is the one who is striving toward the goal to win the title. What some have done with this verse is turn the contender into the defender and that is wrong.

We are to earnestly contend for the faith. We are to strive and seek after it. Paul used the idea of running the race... that we are to persevere and endure whatever comes at us and to strive toward the goal which is Jesus and His great salvation.

I see that this basic misunderstanding has caused much division out there. In our futile attempt to defend Truth, we miss that Jesus being truth and by His truth defends us as we trust Him at His word. To take that from Jesus is stating that we really do not trust Jesus defence of us or Himself and that we can do it better than Jesus can. It is arrogance to thing we can defend Truth better than God Himself...

We are to stand on the truth... as Moses was instructed "There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock." (Exodus 33:21) we also are to stand on the Rock which is Jesus Christ and not depend on our own works to defend that Rock... that Rock is our defense!

It is by Grace we can even stand... Romans 5:1-2

"Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God."

As we stand in His grace by faith we are earnestly contending for the faith.

We may debate and instruct as to God's word... we may rebuke and be rebuked by God's word and fall into conviction of the Holy Spirit... yet this is not defending... if one turns it into that it is no longer in love as it is then confrontation in the sense that one person is greater than the other. We are to esteem others greater than ourselves... and in love contend for the faith and while we do that encourage others to contend with us.

Now if someone is tries to state I am against truth... you really need to re-read this post again... I think that if I place my trust in Jesus who is Truth incarnate... that I place a high value on truth.

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

A bit of my testimony...

I wanted to share a bit of my testimony.


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

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

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

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

12 maybe…

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

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

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

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

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

Be Blessed,
iggy

New Posters From the People of "Grace to You"

Interestingly as i look over these new posters... I can't help but want them to make more! I mean with each one we see a spiralling down in that they reveal each dark chamber of their own heart and their own doctrine.

Remember these are the "Grace to you" people doing this! Grace to you... seems to have become a mocking ground to put down others.

So, let them keep pumping them out. They show they care little for truth and even less for compassion and have lost sight completely of this "Grace to You".

You see they are upset that they were responded to by these more accurate posters.

It seems it is only "Grace to You" if you agree with John MacArthur. Otherwise it is just a poke in your eye.

This is really sad and people need to start praying against this sort of harm against the Body of Christ.


Be Blessed,
iggy

(Update: Dan, we do notice things like that you turn off the "comments links" on your page. It seems a little dishonest, but expected. )

Matt 26: 67-68
Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him and said, "Prophesy to us, Christ. Who hit you?"

Romans 8: 16-17
The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.
Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

Matt 5: 38-48
""You have heard that it was said, `Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
"You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. "

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

What the heck does this even mean?

I am often accused of this... and have not one clue as to what it means!

"anti-doctrinal-Christian"


I affirm all sound doctrine flows from Christ Jesus... so how am I ""anti-doctrinal-Christian" which means absolutely nothing to me! LOL! It is right up there with the accusation of... believing that "no-doctrine-doctrine" again, what does that even mean?

If one states they are against "man-made doctrine" and state that they are not, but are for "sound doctrine" I think that the person stating the accusation need be aware that they are bearing false witness...

Which I do forgive them of... regardless to their acceptance of being actually "wrong". (That will get a comment I guarantee!)

LOL!

It has been a very strange and wonderful day, Jesus is still and always Good! = )

Be Blessed,
iggy

More of the fruit of Lordship Salvation with Jim W.

I am really getting tired of this... but Jim W. wanted to let me know more of his love for me.

So here is an update here: I errored that this was James White (who has his own issues) and that this is the mysterious Jim W. It seems with this last comment he still thinks himself of some kind of superior Christian than me and others.

Here is the final comment toward me it is on the same link as above.

Jim W on July 24th, 2007
iggy, you just dont learn, do you? Now you claim
that I am “James White”. I wish I had half his Biblical knowledge. Shoot, I’d
settle for 1/4.
So, once again, you twist and slander someone who points out
your error by slandering someone else.
I have no idea how you arrive that
producing good fruit is works salvation. We produce good fruit by the grace of
God. Unless we are born again, all our works as as filthy rags. Once we are born
again, we do the will of God which is to grow in His Word, His grace, His
knowledge and by doing what He wills, we produce good fruit. That has nothing to
do with our salvation. Faith without works is dead. Remember that verse? It’s
popular with the emergent crowd. Usually used to say that we must do good works
to be saved. That’s works righteousness, which is false, and neither John Mac,
nor I, nor Jim B, nor Tony (here) believe that line of thought. Instead, our
faith in God produces good works (fruit).
And again, you claim I’m spitting
on you in my denunciation of you. How sad that you need to see correction as
people spitting on you. Do you accuse God of spitting on you when He chastens
you as He would a wayward child? Only if you are truly saved will God do this,
if you are still unregenerate, God could care less. So, maybe, just maybe,
you’re relying on your human understanding too far, relying on your sad
“friends”, MacLaren and Jones and their twisted lore for your faith and perhaps
God is using people like Tony and Jim B to show you the errors of your way.
When you learn how to read and comprehend, maybe we can talk. Until then, I
have nothing further to say to you.

Jim W's understanding of fruit is a bit off from the biblical teachings.. yet in the core we agree... yet for some reason as the same with Tony Rose and Jim Bublitz Jim W. cannot see this or admit it... notice he seems to also equate his chastisement of me with the chastisement of God... as if he is God at that point here to correct me in the things we agree on... and I can't read and comprehend! LOL!

He truly furthers my conviction to stay away from divisive people like him... If this is conforming to the image of Chirst, God have mercy on us all! I think this further shows the condition of his heart and why people need to beware of Lordship Salvation and its fruit. You see even when he agrees with me, I am wrong... and am lesser than him.

Before someone criticizes me over this please realize that I was defending Biblical truth over "absolute truth" which definition would mean that Jesus and the Bible are "just an abstract thought". This is the position Jim W. was defending. I was standing on the Biblical definition which is that Truth is the Person of Jesus Christ and from Him all Truth comes... remember it was through Jesus Christ all things were created... and He was full of Grace and Truth. (John 1)

I only am showing this to show what kind of people these are and how they treat others in the Name of Jesus... and how sad it is.

Blessed?
iggy

Here is part one

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

How Right I Am!!!

I accidentally found a great video by Brian McLaren... Where? On CRN...



This post confirms what I have been saying for some time, that the "Truth War" is not about "truth" but about different views of the Kingdom of God.

Yet, as I stated many times here and elsewhere, this is not a war about truth, but about whether Jesus Resurrection brought the Kingdom to earth as in the Lords Pray.

Funny thing, the "editor" seems to be against the Lord's Prayer. He seems to be pointing out that the Kingdom of God is not here... that Jesus death, burial and resurrection were a huge waste of time... and the only reason Jesus died was to get our butts out of hell into heaven.

A version of the Kingdom that Jesus came to bring it... failed so left and will come again as the wrathful and angry God they worship, unless the emergent take over the church and all is lost...

or

A version in which Jesus being the first born of the New Creation ushered in the Kingdom of God, on Earth as it is in Heaven. It is not in it's fullness but it will be soon.

I think the second one seems a bit more biblical... well at least from what the scripture states being true.

So one can believe the truth, enter into God's Kingdom through Jesus Christ... or believe a lie...

Maybe this is a truth war... and the truth is some hate the Kingdom of God so much that they willingly exchange the truth for a lie and worship their own creation of what the bible says.

Beware false teachers.

I think the reason they think Brian McLaren is so dangerous, is that he makes them face what the bible actually teaches.

blessings,

iggy

Tozer: The Sanctification of the Secular Chapter 13

Recently A.W. Tozer has been being used by some as one that would approve of a hate/judgementalism/shame based faith. I would beg to say this is far from the truth. These same people condemn and write against Christian mystics yet then quote Tozer proudly as one of themselves. This just goes to show the depravity of the "religionists" in their hatred to the Grace, Mercy, and Freedom that is in Jesus Christ. They argue over "words" like "meditate", "contemplation" and such as if these words are evil in and of themselves... they twist "mysticism" to be an unholy thing as if seeking after God was also evil. Here is a great chapter that should show that Tozer was actually writing against these people who proudly post his comments and twist what he taught to mean something quite contrary to what he did teach.

Blessings,
iggy


The Sanctification of the Secular (Chapter 13)

THE NEW TESTAMENT TEACHES that all things are pure to the pure, and I think we may assume that to the evil man all things are evil. The thing itself is not good or bad; goodness or badness belongs to human personality.

Everything depends upon the state of our interior lives and our heart's relation to God. The man that walks with God will see and know that for him there is no strict line separating the sacred from the secular. He will acknowledge that there lies around him a world of created things that are innocent in themselves; and he will know, too, that there are a thousand human acts that are neither good nor bad except as they may be done by good or bad men. The busy world around us is filled with work, travel, marrying, rearing our young, burying our dead, buying, selling, sleeping, eating and mixing in common social intercourse with our fellowmen.

These activities and all else that goes to fill up our days are usually separated in our minds from prayer, church attendance and such specific religious acts as are performed by ministers most of the week and by laymen briefly once or twice weekly.

Because the vast majority of men engage in the complicated business of living while trusting wholly in themselves, without reference to God or redemption, we Christians have come to call these common activities "secular" and to attribute to them at least a degree of evil, an evil which is not inherent in them and which they do not necessarily possess.

The Apostle Paul teaches that every simple act of our lives may be sacramental. "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." And again, "Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him."

Some of the great saints, who were great because they took such admonitions seriously and sought to practice them, managed to achieve the sanctification of the secular, or perhaps I should say the abolition of the secular. Their attitude toward life's common things raised those above the common and imparted to them an aura of divinity. These pure souls broke down the high walls that separated the various areas of their lives from each other and saw all as one; and that one they offered to God as a holy oblation acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Nicholas Herman (Brother Lawrence) made his most common act one of devotion: "The time of business does not with me differ from the time of prayer," he said, "and in the noise and clatter of my kitchen, while several persons are at the same time calling for different things, I possess God in as great tranquility as if I were upon my knees at the blessed sacrament."

Francis of Assisi accepted the whole creation as his house of worship and called upon everything great and small to join him in adoration of the Godhead. Mother earth, the burning sun, the silver moon, the stars of evening, wind, water, flowers, fruits-all were invited to praise with him their God and King. Hardly a spot was left that could be called secular. The whole world glowed like Moses' bush with the light of God, and before it the saint kneeled and removed his shoes.

Thomas Traherne, the seventeenth century Christian writer, declared that the children of the King can never enjoy the world aright till every morning they wake up in heaven, see themselves in the Father's palace, and look upon the skies, the earth and the air as celestial joys, having such a reverent esteem for all as if they were among the angels.

All this is not to ignore the fall of man nor to deny the presence of sin in the world. No believing man can deny the Fall, as no observing man can deny the reality of sin; and as far as I know no responsible thinker has ever held that sin could ever be made other than sinful, whether by prayer or faith or spiritual ministrations. Neither the inspired writers of Holy Scripture nor those illuminated souls who have based their teachings upon those Scriptures have tried to make sin other than exceedingly sinful. It is possible to recognize the sacredness of all things even while admitting that for the time the mystery of sin worketh in the children of disobedience and the whole creation groaneth and travaileth, waiting for the manifestation of the children of God.

Traherne saw the apparent contradiction and explained it: "To contemn the world and to enjoy the world are things contrary to each other. How can we contemn the world, which we are born to enjoy? Truly there are two worlds. One was made by God, and the other by men. That made by God was great and beautiful. Before the Fall it was Adam's joy and the temple of his glory. That made by men is a Babel of confusions: invented riches, pomps and vanities, brought in by sin. Give all (saith Thomas a Kempis) for all. Leave the one that you may enjoy the other."

Such souls as these achieved the sanctification of the secular. The church today is suffering from the secularization of the sacred. By accepting the world's values, thinking its thoughts and adopting its ways we have dimmed the glory that shines overhead. We have not been able to bring earth to the judgment of heaven so we have brought heaven to the judgment of the earth. Pity us, Lord, for we know not what we do!

A good Laugh!

I have not been to a certain website that has banned me from viewing his site for about a week... I did notice a "counter" and a message to me from this person...

The last time i was there it counted 26... I knew I had not been there that many times...

Yet, today I went to see this counter again... mind you I have not been there for almost a week.

I read this message to me.

"There have been 217 page visits since May 9th . . . by those who "do not care nor desire to ever go to this site" and those who "don't have time for this persons issues" :-)"

Funny thing to me is that I realized this guy banned my ISP! It is one of the largest in Montana, Wyoming and about 3 other states... so without realizing this, he has banned many people going to his site or at least many loyal readers are getting this obsessed man's message to me... this means that by blocking me, he has block other people at least 210 times... and i still do not have time for that person's personal issues! LOL!

I thought that I might just keep this a secret as I don't care how many other people are blocked from his site... in fact this post may come down soon.

Now, this is the same guy who was upset that he could not comment to me on my blog, in fact has gone around asking why I do not accept comments...

Simple. Mean people suck... even if they have the banner of Christ (supposedly) over their heads. I just got tired of their comments so stopped accepting them as I have my email on this blog at least 3 places... if one really wanted to actually be mature and discuss things as he claims... yet, no email has yet come from him, only childish games...

It only proves that this person is as I suspected very immature.

Blessings,
iggy

The “Religionist” revealed!!!!!

The “Religionist” revealed!!!!!


In the past few weeks I have been a bit inspired to write on the “Religionist” and even share what others like Tozer and Spurgeon (even though I am not a Calvinist) had to say about such people… yet it seems that there is one out there ranting that all these posts are solely about him… which if one reads them closely never once mentions his name… (Though, I did notice that he inserted his own name in the quote when I was one time let through to see his blog by a proxy server). This person I will still leave unnamed in the Name of Peace, has done everything to discredit me and still is misplacing the truth as to our recent encounter. In that I deleted an entire blog and still received only scorn from this person… I do see that he has identified himself as the "Relgionist" I write about, which seems a rather tragic irony.

So, who is the “Religionist”? He is a conglomerate of many… the person mentioned above is maybe 1% of the persons I wrote about. In fact he may credit as to the praying that I did so ask God as to what to write about… and in that my inspiration was from God.

The person above seemed perplex on another blog as to why I decided to close comments. Which I did for at least three reasons:

1. I desired to not read his comments as they were spiteful and very condescending.
2. The people that come from his blog left even more nasty and mean spirited comments as to my eternal destiny
3. I counseled with other godly men who told me to close them as I have a message to write and teaching to teach… and that these type of people seem to pull me into futile, infantile and vain arguments that really do nothing for the cause of Christ.

This person claims that he has tried to contact me to resolve this ongoing dispute (which seems really one-sided at this point) yet has overlooked my email is on my blog in about 3 different places... I have done all I can and will do. He has made not attempt to contact me to reconcile and in that I am glad.

I cannot change the message that God has laid on my heart. As I stated that this person may be "part" of the many, many persons that are the "Religionist" but believe it or not so is John Wesley, my best friend from high school, who deemed me as not saved over my view on eternal security and also the many IFB pastors I used to debate on my discussion group who even condemned me to hell for "looking and studying" at any view other than the pre trib rapture view! LOL!

Also, I am out of that tradition and have come out to the progressive sanctification teachings (John Wesley) which I deem a false teaching and what ruined Wesley in his once powerful preaching.

I think that there is nothing I can to work toward reconciliation... and if this links to me, so he links to me... It seems if he took a little bit of time to actually "talk" to me this would not have gotten as far as it did... and yes I do take responsibility for what I have done also which is the reason I decided to delete the blog in the first place as I desired peace and not "war' with these people... and still do and will live at peace as best I can.

On a personal note I too was that religionist... so it is a bit about my own heart before I found grace. I too, like this person is now with me, hated the person who pointed out I was one. I vowed to attack that destroy that ministry, until I actually read and studied their view and found God's grace... I was changed. I pray for that to happen to anyone and think to a degree with this obsession it may be happening even now. In fact this person seems so obssess with me that even when I delete a post he linked to he went and linked to Google Cache to prove how "right" he was... Get that? A deleted post!!!! I have since reposted that post, yet it shows how far this man will go to discredit me.

So as far as sending him an email... even if I could as my ISP is still banned... I think that he would just mock it and twist it as an attack as he has with the last few I sent so do not see any reason (if I could) to continue any dialog with him.

I hope this all makes sense as really I don't have time for this persons issues at this point other than praying for him.

On a slightly different note on Calvinism...

Some state I am misrepresenting Calvinism... that I speak of some who teach this and that and it is not true... I am only stating what Calvinists themselves have stated to me what they believe and what I have read and studied. If there is something untrue that I speak of about Calvinism then is should be addressed to the Calvinist the misinformed me as to his beliefs... In that I can only speak from what I have read, studied, and heard from Calvinist themselves... if they are wrong then it seems that they are wrong in the representation of themselves.

Blessings,
iggy

Open Letter to Ken Silva

This is an open letter from a former contributor of Slice of Laodicia.

I will make no comments.

Blessings,
iggy

Walking through Romans PT 5: Romans 2: 11 - 29

Walking through Romans PT 5: Romans 2: 11 - 29

2:11 For there is no partiality with God. 2:12 For all who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 2:13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous before God, but those who do the law will be declared righteous. 2:14 For whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, these who do not have the law are a law to themselves. 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend them, 2:16 on the day when God will judge the secrets of human hearts, according to my gospel through Christ Jesus.
2:17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of your relationship to God 2:18 and know his will and approve the superior things because you receive instruction from the law, 2:19 and if you are convinced that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 2:20 an educator of the senseless, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the essential features of knowledge and of the truth – 2:21 therefore you who teach someone else, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 2:22 You who tell others not to commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 2:23 You who boast in the law dishonor God by transgressing the law! 2:24 For just as it is written, “the name of God is being blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”
2:25 For circumcision has its value if you practice the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcised man obeys the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 2:27 And will not the physically uncircumcised man who keeps the law judge you who, despite the written code and circumcision, transgress the law? 2:28 For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision something that is outward in the flesh, 2:29 but someone is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart by the Spirit and not by the written code. This person’s praise is not from people but from God.


God does not play favoritism:

God does not play favorites. He does choose us by Grace through faith. Yet, to think it is that we are “good” misses the point of the Law. While one who is not under the Law or “apart from the Law” who sins will still be under judgment, one under the Law will will also be judged. To one reading they might ask, “What good is the Law?” If it does not help to be under the Law, then how does it help one?... The answer is that whether one has heard the Law or not does not mean anything… it is he who does the Law that will benefit from it… yet… there is still an issue.
The Jewish believer in Christ in Rome saw that they had an advantage as they had the Law and regarded the Gentile believers as lesser as they did not. Because of this they felt the Gentile must come under the Law as they were to receive the benefits… and in that they must first convert to Judaism then come to Jesus.

The issue was though, that the Jewish believer had the Law and could not do it… and the Gentile by the Holy Spirit was keeping the Law as it was now written on their hearts.

In Ezekiel 36:26 God promised “I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you. I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a heart of flesh.” In that the Gentiles received this promise in Christ Jesus. “They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend them, on the day when God will judge the secrets of human hearts, according to my gospel through Christ Jesus.”


This was a bit confounding to the Jewish believer as they had Christ yet still held to the Law that was written on stone… Paul admonishes them that since they are the trusted ones of this Law, why do they not keep it… or rather understand it?

The Jewish Laws held that it was wrong to divorce yet a divorce was rather easy in those days. The Law also taught that no one should steal, yet since the Gentiles were not “chosen” and were the “others”, a lesser than human… it was deemed not a sin to enter their temples and plunder them. Paul was stating, stealing itself is a sin regardless of whom one is stealing from. In these things the Gentiles looked at the Jew and saw him as a hypocrite… and stated, “the name of God is being blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you”.

May we not fall into categorizing others as lesser than ourselves. That be it the Religionist or the Righteous we are all in need of Jesus… equal by our sin and fallen state… and equally worthy of the wages of sin… Death.

So being a Jew outwardly has no value if one does not live out the teachings of the Law. In such the person who is not circumcised yet keeps the Law will look at the person who is circumcised and think that that person is lesser as he knows what to do yet chooses not to.


No, one is not a Jew by the physical removing of the foreskin as one is not a “Christian” by any physical works… it is only by the Holy Spirit who cuts one heart… that leaves it raw and sensitive that makes one a Jew, as well as a Christian. We are not made a believer by the “written code” as some teach… but by the Holy Spirit.

Blessings,
iggy

I am told I hate, I warn in Love...

The Religionist sees the warnings of his folly as hate, yet it is love that drives a man to face those who oppose him so that God will be glorified in the Religionists turning...

Tozer wrote of a warning in the Pursiut of God to the relgionist to not see that resting on ones justification and thinking that union with God is the end of all things. “We have been snared in the coils of a spurious logic which insists that if we have found Him, we need no more seek Him” Yet, to find God or to be found by God, is not the end of our relationship with God. We need to still press in to His Heart. Or as Tozer also states, "To have found God and still to pursue Him is the Soul’s paradox of love, scorned indeed by the too easily satisfied religionist, but justified in happy experience by the children of the burning heart”.

The Religionist thinks in his "rationalist mind" that once he has found Jesus he then has no need and can learn doctrines which then replace Jesus... This is subtle and dangerous... for doctrines are useless to a man if a man depends on them for salvation... For it is Christ Jesus Who is the foundation of anything built by a believer which must be built on. A Religionist will fight for his doctrine over the very Grace and Mercy of God... even forsaking the Ministry of Reconciliation to appease his own desires to justify himself before other men... for he does not fear God. If he did he would turn in great wonder and lament in his own works and rejoice in the Coming of his salvation.

The Religionist only hears his own thunder... it echos and he likes that he can hear himself... He loves it more when others join in his thunder as this feeds his ego.

The Religionst proudly calls himself a Religionist... as he should and pride is second nature to him. He cares little for the feelings of others. He cares only that he hears "Amen's" to his voice... even if in his heart he fears he may be wrong! Yet, pride blinds him from guenuine love... and if he rebukes you... it is like an abusive father who beats his children in his anger.

A religionist does have one good thing. He drives the True Believer from his church... and his "truth". He drives him farther away into the very arms of our Savior... In that the rebuke will only one day be laid at the feet of the Religionist... not as a prize but as retribution for causing harm to one of His Little Ones...

Again, if a Religionist read this he sees himself, yet will only go and justify himself and deceived weak willed women to his persuasive arguments...

Before a Religionist accuses me and states i am a hypocrite... I might remind him that the rebuke I give is the rebuke that every great Christian preacher has stated before. To stand against this rebuke is to stand against Spurgeon, Tozer, Paul and Jesus Himself.

Blessings,

iggy