h1

Why propositional truth is not Biblical Truth

May 23, 2006

Why propositional truth is not Biblical Truth

(Note: I do think what is written is valid, though I have reconsidered that the title is a bit misleading… or could have been better. In that I would rename this; “Is your faith based on propositional truth or on Christ”. Otherwise I will leave it the same. 6/27/06)

In some recent discussions I found some that do not understand as to why many of us do not think much of propositional truth. First off as I have said before Truth is a Person… Jesus Himself.

The issue then is that some say that we are saying propositional truth is a farce, miss this nuance.

  • Propositional truth is only true “relative” to the situation.
  • Iggy loves cheese cake he often says, “I would never miss out on cheesecake!”
  • Iggy has the flue and feels like he is dying…. He is offered cheese cake and turns it down.

Both situations are “true”, I do love cheese cake and would never turn it down… thus my wonderful once stealthy body is no more!

Yet, in the situation of being sick, I do not care for much except to get better and the last thing I want is to throw up cheese cake!

What I am saying is that we can only say what is true, from our own knowledge perspective… which means that if we do not know everything there is to know we are missing something… which means we can not have true propositional truth as it is perverted by our experience and limitations as human beings…

Now saying that, God is in a very good position for not only having this “knowledge”, for He is That Knowledge itself in the person of Jesus!

To further this point, if someone thinks they have all truth wrapped up and believe they know all things, they are either God Himself, or insane…. Or at least very deceived.

To defend the position that we can come to knowledge of truth out side of Christ is a dangerous thing. If one believes in total depravity, and also claims to believe in propositional truth, they are in trouble as being a corrupt and fallen creature, we would filter that pure truth and pervert it by the fact we are totally depraved! If you are not a Calvinist, being that “all have sinned” there may have been a time that we could receive truth in it’s pure form, and that is called innocence, yet, the scripture says ALL have sinned and fallen short the Glory of God! So even if innocence could be carried to the farthest extreme, we do fall, and in that no longer can see truth in it’s purity as we are now clouded in shame. Bonhoeffer calls this “disunion”. At the fall we became divided, we are between “self concealment, and self revelation” or “Between solitude and fellowship”… which is as he defines… shame.

In the state of shame we can not see things as they really are. That is why I sometime rail against a shame based faith for it clouds us from the Truth (Jesus). Only in Jesus do we have no shame. Only in the state of restored union can we then by our relationship with Christ Jesus, get to know Truth as we get to know Him.

Blessings,
iggy

Advertisements

106 comments

  1. Hey iggy,

    Been a while since i popped by here. Looks like quite a few things have been going on in your life since then.

    A few comments on your post:
    Firstly, Calvinists are not the only Christians to belive in total depravity. Cathoolics, Orthodox, and i believe Episcopal all have similar theologies (allthough the episcopals are all over the place these days so don’t hold me to that one).

    Secondly, if propositional truth is so flawed then how can we come to Christ who is Truth? If we come to Him as Armenians believe then we would have to give some credence. If on the other hand we do not come to Him but rather He comes to us by His grace, then can’t we leave open the idea that we can have unperverted propositional truth through that same grace? Not to say that we would know all things, but rather that we have enough information (i.e. scripture) and be blessed with holy wisdom as to come to a true conclusion.
    It seems to me that if we rally against propositional truth entirely then the only truth we can know is through divine revelation apart from language. This means no Bible, no fellowship (unless we all sit around feeling each other, but yet even that is tainted), no apologetics, etc. It basically leaves us sitting in a room being beamed truth from God tuning out our thoughts and sensations since they are both corrupted.


  2. Hey iggy,

    Been a while since i popped by here. Looks like quite a few things have been going on in your life since then.

    A few comments on your post:
    Firstly, Calvinists are not the only Christians to belive in total depravity. Cathoolics, Orthodox, and i believe Episcopal all have similar theologies (allthough the episcopals are all over the place these days so don’t hold me to that one).

    Secondly, if propositional truth is so flawed then how can we come to Christ who is Truth? If we come to Him as Armenians believe then we would have to give some credence. If on the other hand we do not come to Him but rather He comes to us by His grace, then can’t we leave open the idea that we can have unperverted propositional truth through that same grace? Not to say that we would know all things, but rather that we have enough information (i.e. scripture) and be blessed with holy wisdom as to come to a true conclusion.
    It seems to me that if we rally against propositional truth entirely then the only truth we can know is through divine revelation apart from language. This means no Bible, no fellowship (unless we all sit around feeling each other, but yet even that is tainted), no apologetics, etc. It basically leaves us sitting in a room being beamed truth from God tuning out our thoughts and sensations since they are both corrupted.


  3. dan,
    Good to hear from you.

    I know I am way oversimplifying propositional truth vs. Biblical Truth. Yet, the issue is the difference in knowing doctrines and beleiving in teaching versus getting to know the Person of Jesus through our relatioship with Him.

    I am saying that God reveals to us… as in the time Peter proclaimed Jesus was the Messiah… Jesus said it was His Father that revealed it to Peter and man did not reveal it.

    I am not against reason, jsut that it be tempored with the knowledge in our relationsip with Jesus.

    If the Holy Spirit opens ones eyes they can not only know what the Bible says, but understand it. this take revelation as in when the two disciples walked with Jesus and He gave them a bible study through the scripture concering all about Jesus… only then did they realize that this person was Jesus!

    My stand is Truth is the person of Jesus, and without knowing Jesus, we can not know truth for it willl be perverted.

    I know that there are more traditions than Calvinism that believe in Total Depravity. I do not as I see it leads to issues concerning the incarnation and that it also cantend toward the gnostic beleif that flesh is evil and spirit is good.

    I see that man can not in his own power in no way approach God on human terms. Jesus said unless your righteousness surpasses that of the pharisees you wwill not get into heaven… and that was a very political statement in itself.

    I have in other posts said that Truth that is revealed is kept pure as we are “in Christ”. But, I see that I must depend totally on Christ for His Truth, His Life, and everything else!

    Blessings,
    iggy


  4. dan,
    Good to hear from you.

    I know I am way oversimplifying propositional truth vs. Biblical Truth. Yet, the issue is the difference in knowing doctrines and beleiving in teaching versus getting to know the Person of Jesus through our relatioship with Him.

    I am saying that God reveals to us… as in the time Peter proclaimed Jesus was the Messiah… Jesus said it was His Father that revealed it to Peter and man did not reveal it.

    I am not against reason, jsut that it be tempored with the knowledge in our relationsip with Jesus.

    If the Holy Spirit opens ones eyes they can not only know what the Bible says, but understand it. this take revelation as in when the two disciples walked with Jesus and He gave them a bible study through the scripture concering all about Jesus… only then did they realize that this person was Jesus!

    My stand is Truth is the person of Jesus, and without knowing Jesus, we can not know truth for it willl be perverted.

    I know that there are more traditions than Calvinism that believe in Total Depravity. I do not as I see it leads to issues concerning the incarnation and that it also cantend toward the gnostic beleif that flesh is evil and spirit is good.

    I see that man can not in his own power in no way approach God on human terms. Jesus said unless your righteousness surpasses that of the pharisees you wwill not get into heaven… and that was a very political statement in itself.

    I have in other posts said that Truth that is revealed is kept pure as we are “in Christ”. But, I see that I must depend totally on Christ for His Truth, His Life, and everything else!

    Blessings,
    iggy


  5. “Propositional truth” is such a strange phrase. I suppose a definition would be “a statement considered to be true”. The key is that it’s “considered” true. The Bible is written Truth. Our doctrines our proposed truths that we have obtained from the Bible. Just because something taught is “doctrinally sound” doesn’t mean it’s true. Only Jesus is Truth Incarnate and anything taught that doesn’t help us walk closer to Him is either false or not worth our consideration.

    Also, I find it interesting that Jesus’s teachings had more to do with our relationship with others than anything else.


  6. “Propositional truth” is such a strange phrase. I suppose a definition would be “a statement considered to be true”. The key is that it’s “considered” true. The Bible is written Truth. Our doctrines our proposed truths that we have obtained from the Bible. Just because something taught is “doctrinally sound” doesn’t mean it’s true. Only Jesus is Truth Incarnate and anything taught that doesn’t help us walk closer to Him is either false or not worth our consideration.

    Also, I find it interesting that Jesus’s teachings had more to do with our relationship with others than anything else.


  7. so, thank God for His Holy Spirit, that we can be led by His Spirit.

    what armenism? calvanism? i know no such people in the bible. i only know one thing: brothers and sisters. and we are in Christ.

    well, i dun dwell in anyone’s doctrine. i follow the Spirit and know the bible through Him.

    i am not saying do not fellowship or attend church. i am just saying this: be led by Holy Spirit, not empty words of men.

    in Him,
    Elson


  8. so, thank God for His Holy Spirit, that we can be led by His Spirit.

    what armenism? calvanism? i know no such people in the bible. i only know one thing: brothers and sisters. and we are in Christ.

    well, i dun dwell in anyone’s doctrine. i follow the Spirit and know the bible through Him.

    i am not saying do not fellowship or attend church. i am just saying this: be led by Holy Spirit, not empty words of men.

    in Him,
    Elson


  9. But Elson, the Holy Spirit can lead the words of men. I agree with what has been said so far, that Christ is the ultimate truth and that knowledge of Him is our ultimate goal, but we must also recognize that the Holy Spirit still works though people today. Let us not assume that everything that there is to know about God was available only once 2000 years ago. The theologies that men work on (though at times misguided by our sinful nature) is a way in which we are led to deeper knowledge of God through the Holy Spirit who “searches all things, even the depths of God.”
    So let’s not be overly critical of the “words of men.” because, although i agree with you that I see no armenians or clavanists in the Bible, I don’t see you or me either. The Bible is many things but it is by no means a complete history of God’s work in mankind.


  10. But Elson, the Holy Spirit can lead the words of men. I agree with what has been said so far, that Christ is the ultimate truth and that knowledge of Him is our ultimate goal, but we must also recognize that the Holy Spirit still works though people today. Let us not assume that everything that there is to know about God was available only once 2000 years ago. The theologies that men work on (though at times misguided by our sinful nature) is a way in which we are led to deeper knowledge of God through the Holy Spirit who “searches all things, even the depths of God.”
    So let’s not be overly critical of the “words of men.” because, although i agree with you that I see no armenians or clavanists in the Bible, I don’t see you or me either. The Bible is many things but it is by no means a complete history of God’s work in mankind.


  11. Dan,

    Wow, I leave for vactation for a week and have more action on my blog than I did in weeks!
    Maybe I should leave more often. LOL!

    I think Elson is proof that God still speaks though man. I am often amazed at his insight.

    The main point that I hope to be making is that Truth is a person and only in our relationship with Him… do we and can we even begin to grasp what anything we might consider “truth” is.

    To me to add any identifier to “truth” diminishes it from being the Person of Jesus. When man attempts to “think” or “reason” his way up to God, he will never grasp any truth. There is a way that seems right to a man, but leads to death….

    We are to reason first with CHrist, then with each other…

    One of the dangers of modernism… and ever PM/E/e (can I but another vowel?) is that we can begin to think our way to the Kingdom… and miss it completely. Modernism is set in stone as to it’s belief, and “we” others can over think and not gain insight that is revealed only through Jesus.

    Blessings,
    iggy


  12. Dan,

    Wow, I leave for vactation for a week and have more action on my blog than I did in weeks!
    Maybe I should leave more often. LOL!

    I think Elson is proof that God still speaks though man. I am often amazed at his insight.

    The main point that I hope to be making is that Truth is a person and only in our relationship with Him… do we and can we even begin to grasp what anything we might consider “truth” is.

    To me to add any identifier to “truth” diminishes it from being the Person of Jesus. When man attempts to “think” or “reason” his way up to God, he will never grasp any truth. There is a way that seems right to a man, but leads to death….

    We are to reason first with CHrist, then with each other…

    One of the dangers of modernism… and ever PM/E/e (can I but another vowel?) is that we can begin to think our way to the Kingdom… and miss it completely. Modernism is set in stone as to it’s belief, and “we” others can over think and not gain insight that is revealed only through Jesus.

    Blessings,
    iggy


  13. Elson,
    I love your thoughts!

    It sounds like Paul… “who is Apollos, who is Paul?”

    I would add, “who is iggy!?!?”

    Blessings,
    iggy


  14. Elson,
    I love your thoughts!

    It sounds like Paul… “who is Apollos, who is Paul?”

    I would add, “who is iggy!?!?”

    Blessings,
    iggy


  15. hahahaha brother, that’s cool! thanks!! hey brother, i changed my blog to sonofel.multiply.com

    only member can leave a comment. but if you wanna leave me a msg, remember that i have an email account in hotmail?

    heehee.. :d

    hey Dan, i see you and me in Christ when i read the bible… and when bible mention about brothers and sisters, that is you and me 😀

    loving you bcos i saw on the cross how He died for you,
    Elson


  16. hahahaha brother, that’s cool! thanks!! hey brother, i changed my blog to sonofel.multiply.com

    only member can leave a comment. but if you wanna leave me a msg, remember that i have an email account in hotmail?

    heehee.. :d

    hey Dan, i see you and me in Christ when i read the bible… and when bible mention about brothers and sisters, that is you and me 😀

    loving you bcos i saw on the cross how He died for you,
    Elson


  17. Iggy,
    I just read this and your last post on your no-doctrine doctrine.

    Remember the joke about linguistic analysis? You’re it.

    On the no-doctrine doctrine, how it is that the no-doctrine doctrine is okay and other doctrines are not?

    On the propositional truth stuff, answer me this: You say “Propositional Truth is Not Biblical.” So are you proposing this as true? If you are, you are “not Biblical” by your own definition. You just ate your own baby.

    Reading Dan’s remarks, you should listen to him.

    Since Jesus is Truth and (in your paradigm) that means that propositional truth is of no account, why did He quiz his students? What did He quiz them on, since there was no truth to speak of?

    Ben


  18. Iggy,
    I just read this and your last post on your no-doctrine doctrine.

    Remember the joke about linguistic analysis? You’re it.

    On the no-doctrine doctrine, how it is that the no-doctrine doctrine is okay and other doctrines are not?

    On the propositional truth stuff, answer me this: You say “Propositional Truth is Not Biblical.” So are you proposing this as true? If you are, you are “not Biblical” by your own definition. You just ate your own baby.

    Reading Dan’s remarks, you should listen to him.

    Since Jesus is Truth and (in your paradigm) that means that propositional truth is of no account, why did He quiz his students? What did He quiz them on, since there was no truth to speak of?

    Ben


  19. Ben,
    Here is the real question Ben,
    Did Jesus say He was “The Way, The Truth and The Life?”.

    Do you believe what Jesus said of Himself? Or do you deny that Jesus is “THE TRUTH”?

    This is not my “paridgm”, but scripture and Jesus’ own words you argue against.

    Really Ben, the joke is that you don’t get it… I am talking of a real relationship with a Real Person Who was and is and will be, God. Who was incarnate flesh, that died for you and me on a cross… spilling His Real Blood, so you can have first forgivness, then His resurrected Life which is Eternal.

    You argue against the Bible and Jesus… You argue against not me… and fight for a man made system of belief based on a ‘system’ and not a LIFE.

    I choose LIFE… I pray you do also.

    Blessings,
    iggy


  20. Ben,
    Here is the real question Ben,
    Did Jesus say He was “The Way, The Truth and The Life?”.

    Do you believe what Jesus said of Himself? Or do you deny that Jesus is “THE TRUTH”?

    This is not my “paridgm”, but scripture and Jesus’ own words you argue against.

    Really Ben, the joke is that you don’t get it… I am talking of a real relationship with a Real Person Who was and is and will be, God. Who was incarnate flesh, that died for you and me on a cross… spilling His Real Blood, so you can have first forgivness, then His resurrected Life which is Eternal.

    You argue against the Bible and Jesus… You argue against not me… and fight for a man made system of belief based on a ‘system’ and not a LIFE.

    I choose LIFE… I pray you do also.

    Blessings,
    iggy


  21. Ben,
    I was not going to answer your questions until you answered mine.. but I realized you missed some basic things as you read what I wrote.

    Ben:”On the no-doctrine doctrine, how it is that the no-doctrine doctrine is okay and other doctrines are not?”

    iggy: I never said I was against ‘doctrine’ go back and reread what I did write then this question will be answered.

    Ben:”On the propositional truth stuff, answer me this: You say “Propositional Truth is Not Biblical.” So are you proposing this as true? If you are, you are “not Biblical” by your own definition.”

    iggy: Either you must choose Truth as the Person of Jesus… or something less. I choose Jesus as Truth and go from there. You are working up to God, I am saying God reaches down and reveals Who He is. So either I must assume you are not a Christian or have had some erroneous teachings that cloud you from seeing Who Jesus is and that He is THE TRUTH revealed.

    Ben:”Since Jesus is Truth and (in your paradigm) that means that propositional truth is of no account, why did He quiz his students? What did He quiz them on, since there was no truth to speak of?

    iggy: I answered part of this already… but this is the main point you miss. Jesus being Truth “quizzed” His disciples… They where in relationship with Him and He revealed Who He was to them… just as He still does today.
    Jesus being, for lack of a better term “Pure Propostional Truth in the flesh” taught His disciples. You are missing the “relational” element in your understanding.
    Also, I never said there was “no truth”, but that Jesus is THE TRUTH.

    Again, read more careful and you will see that many of your questions are addressed… you seem to be reading with expectations to catch me in something wrong… in that I let you ask yourself, “why?”

    Blessings,
    iggy


  22. Ben,
    I was not going to answer your questions until you answered mine.. but I realized you missed some basic things as you read what I wrote.

    Ben:”On the no-doctrine doctrine, how it is that the no-doctrine doctrine is okay and other doctrines are not?”

    iggy: I never said I was against ‘doctrine’ go back and reread what I did write then this question will be answered.

    Ben:”On the propositional truth stuff, answer me this: You say “Propositional Truth is Not Biblical.” So are you proposing this as true? If you are, you are “not Biblical” by your own definition.”

    iggy: Either you must choose Truth as the Person of Jesus… or something less. I choose Jesus as Truth and go from there. You are working up to God, I am saying God reaches down and reveals Who He is. So either I must assume you are not a Christian or have had some erroneous teachings that cloud you from seeing Who Jesus is and that He is THE TRUTH revealed.

    Ben:”Since Jesus is Truth and (in your paradigm) that means that propositional truth is of no account, why did He quiz his students? What did He quiz them on, since there was no truth to speak of?

    iggy: I answered part of this already… but this is the main point you miss. Jesus being Truth “quizzed” His disciples… They where in relationship with Him and He revealed Who He was to them… just as He still does today.
    Jesus being, for lack of a better term “Pure Propostional Truth in the flesh” taught His disciples. You are missing the “relational” element in your understanding.
    Also, I never said there was “no truth”, but that Jesus is THE TRUTH.

    Again, read more careful and you will see that many of your questions are addressed… you seem to be reading with expectations to catch me in something wrong… in that I let you ask yourself, “why?”

    Blessings,
    iggy


  23. Iggy,
    Yes, you DID slam doctrine. If you want to split hairs you slammed people that pay attention to doctrine. In some ways that is even worse, because you slam Christ Himself, who said, “If you are ashamed of Me and My words before men, I will be ashamed of you before My Father.” He seemed to care about right doctrine and called us to proclaim it publicly.

    You said, “…so many place such high importance on “believing” as in “Keeping good doctrine.” I wonder if they have come to Christ at all.” This characterizes “many” as unrepentant because you think they care too much about doctrine. This slams Paul, too, who urged us to guard our doctrine. I Tim. 1:10 says to avoid all sorts of sin because they are contrary to sound doctrine. In I Tim. 4 Paul tells us to gaurd our lives and doctrine. My guess is that he would be one of the “many” you refer to. One can please you and just forget about doctrine or one can obey Paul’s Scripture and be very mindful of it. I think I will go with Paul and Jesus.

    So, yes, you have made a big issue against those who care to educate themselves in Scripture and its doctrine.

    Now, again, why is your no-doctrine so important and other doctrines so bad? Further, please give a Scriptural reference for your no-doctrine doctrine.

    On the prosition that propositional truth is not biblical, you still haven’t explained that. And don’t go back to the name calling and insults. I have just asked questions here. And you do share the problem of British Lingustic Analysis. Do you know what that is? I will explain if you need it.

    You dichotomy between Christ and propositional (1.) will not relieve you of the logical jam you are in and (2.) is a false dichotomy. Jesus is truth. But that does not mean He did not teach truths. He did. Your claim against truth is evidence that you believe in propositional truth. You have proposed one here; it’s just wrong. On the other hand you just refuse to submit to Scripture, which is stuffed with it.

    Here is an example of propositional truth in Scripture: Ready, Iggy. This is really, really, really hard. I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE.

    Get that one? Guess who said that one? Any guesses? Will we have to excise that one out of the Bible since it is more of that nasty propositional what-not?

    Ben


  24. Iggy,
    Yes, you DID slam doctrine. If you want to split hairs you slammed people that pay attention to doctrine. In some ways that is even worse, because you slam Christ Himself, who said, “If you are ashamed of Me and My words before men, I will be ashamed of you before My Father.” He seemed to care about right doctrine and called us to proclaim it publicly.

    You said, “…so many place such high importance on “believing” as in “Keeping good doctrine.” I wonder if they have come to Christ at all.” This characterizes “many” as unrepentant because you think they care too much about doctrine. This slams Paul, too, who urged us to guard our doctrine. I Tim. 1:10 says to avoid all sorts of sin because they are contrary to sound doctrine. In I Tim. 4 Paul tells us to gaurd our lives and doctrine. My guess is that he would be one of the “many” you refer to. One can please you and just forget about doctrine or one can obey Paul’s Scripture and be very mindful of it. I think I will go with Paul and Jesus.

    So, yes, you have made a big issue against those who care to educate themselves in Scripture and its doctrine.

    Now, again, why is your no-doctrine so important and other doctrines so bad? Further, please give a Scriptural reference for your no-doctrine doctrine.

    On the prosition that propositional truth is not biblical, you still haven’t explained that. And don’t go back to the name calling and insults. I have just asked questions here. And you do share the problem of British Lingustic Analysis. Do you know what that is? I will explain if you need it.

    You dichotomy between Christ and propositional (1.) will not relieve you of the logical jam you are in and (2.) is a false dichotomy. Jesus is truth. But that does not mean He did not teach truths. He did. Your claim against truth is evidence that you believe in propositional truth. You have proposed one here; it’s just wrong. On the other hand you just refuse to submit to Scripture, which is stuffed with it.

    Here is an example of propositional truth in Scripture: Ready, Iggy. This is really, really, really hard. I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE.

    Get that one? Guess who said that one? Any guesses? Will we have to excise that one out of the Bible since it is more of that nasty propositional what-not?

    Ben


  25. Iggy,
    You said, “Here is the real question Ben,
    Did Jesus say He was “The Way, The Truth and The Life?”

    Yes, Iggy, He proposed that truth.

    Ben.


  26. Iggy,
    You said, “Here is the real question Ben,
    Did Jesus say He was “The Way, The Truth and The Life?”

    Yes, Iggy, He proposed that truth.

    Ben.


  27. Nighty night.

    Ben.


  28. Nighty night.

    Ben.


  29. Iggy,
    If you need a primer on Linguistic Analysis, don’t be afraid to ask. Perhaps it will be good for your readers, too. Will be back in a couple days to see if you have answered anything yet.

    Basing my doctrine on what Jesus proposed as truth,
    Ben.


  30. Iggy,
    If you need a primer on Linguistic Analysis, don’t be afraid to ask. Perhaps it will be good for your readers, too. Will be back in a couple days to see if you have answered anything yet.

    Basing my doctrine on what Jesus proposed as truth,
    Ben.


  31. Wow,
    again I am surprised with your anger…

    Here is a quote from what i said…

    “Now, again I am not against doctrine, I am trying to help us get a perspective on “sound doctrine”.”

    Yey true to the modernist form, you over look that I even said that.

    You seem to only read what you want and miss what is being said… in that I can’t help you.

    But again do not be decieved with “man made” doctrine and return to the One Who is Truth…

    Do not trust in anything but Christ alone… and be saved.

    So the real question is what Jesus asked …

    WHo do you say I Am?

    Doctrine or Truth Ben… was Jesus a doctrine?

    No.

    Blessings,
    iggy


  32. Wow,
    again I am surprised with your anger…

    Here is a quote from what i said…

    “Now, again I am not against doctrine, I am trying to help us get a perspective on “sound doctrine”.”

    Yey true to the modernist form, you over look that I even said that.

    You seem to only read what you want and miss what is being said… in that I can’t help you.

    But again do not be decieved with “man made” doctrine and return to the One Who is Truth…

    Do not trust in anything but Christ alone… and be saved.

    So the real question is what Jesus asked …

    WHo do you say I Am?

    Doctrine or Truth Ben… was Jesus a doctrine?

    No.

    Blessings,
    iggy


  33. Ben,
    You also seem to miss that I am saying that all Truth comes from Jesus… not books, doctrines,or whatever man makes up.

    I have never said i am against that Jesus also teaches truth. That is something you read into what I wrote…

    again, reread what I wrote.

    Also, I do have a book I highly reccomend as far as discerning truth… it is the bible.

    And, I am taking your insults with a sense of humor. LOL!

    Basing my life on the He who died for me, to give His life to me, to Live His Life Through me… And abiding in Him Who is Truth.

    Blessings,
    iggy


  34. Ben,
    You also seem to miss that I am saying that all Truth comes from Jesus… not books, doctrines,or whatever man makes up.

    I have never said i am against that Jesus also teaches truth. That is something you read into what I wrote…

    again, reread what I wrote.

    Also, I do have a book I highly reccomend as far as discerning truth… it is the bible.

    And, I am taking your insults with a sense of humor. LOL!

    Basing my life on the He who died for me, to give His life to me, to Live His Life Through me… And abiding in Him Who is Truth.

    Blessings,
    iggy


  35. Ben,
    BTW…

    when you quote someone don’t just pick some part that seems to make your point…

    use the whole quote… as when you quoted me you seemed to have left off some of the qualifiers I used….

    The whole quote you used to bend what I was saying is this:

    “I have been to so many churches that teach “principles”. They claim them to be godly, yet often I wondered if that was so. Many also push “belief”, which in and of itself has nothing wrong as we are to believe in Christ. Yet, again, so many place such high importance on “believing” as in “Keeping good doctrine.” I wonder if they have come to Christ at all. You see, I know of no doctrine that became a man, lived a perfect life, then died in my place by being nailed to a cross…. Nope I have searched the scripture for years and have not found a doctrine that had done that! LOL!”

    This was following “Colossians 2:20. Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules:
    21. “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”?
    22. These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. NIV”

    In which Paul seems to be saying very much what I have said.

    Please quote in context and not add to what I am saying.

    The real issue to me of many churches… is that they have forsaken Christ. That they have become dependent on their own reasoning…

    There is a way that seems right to a man… that leads to death.

    We are to reason with God and with each other on those things that God has revealed… in that humbly submitting to each other we abide in Truth and live out His Life. The issue is that many have replaced the natural flow of revelation with “man’s reasoning”. It is like a waterfall that flowes uphill. Unnatural and contrary to those laws and principles you are fighting so hard for.

    My prayer for you is that of Paul’s…Ephesians 1:17. I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18. I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19. and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, 20. which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21. far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23. which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

    Amen,

    iggy


  36. Ben,
    BTW…

    when you quote someone don’t just pick some part that seems to make your point…

    use the whole quote… as when you quoted me you seemed to have left off some of the qualifiers I used….

    The whole quote you used to bend what I was saying is this:

    “I have been to so many churches that teach “principles”. They claim them to be godly, yet often I wondered if that was so. Many also push “belief”, which in and of itself has nothing wrong as we are to believe in Christ. Yet, again, so many place such high importance on “believing” as in “Keeping good doctrine.” I wonder if they have come to Christ at all. You see, I know of no doctrine that became a man, lived a perfect life, then died in my place by being nailed to a cross…. Nope I have searched the scripture for years and have not found a doctrine that had done that! LOL!”

    This was following “Colossians 2:20. Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules:
    21. “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”?
    22. These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence. NIV”

    In which Paul seems to be saying very much what I have said.

    Please quote in context and not add to what I am saying.

    The real issue to me of many churches… is that they have forsaken Christ. That they have become dependent on their own reasoning…

    There is a way that seems right to a man… that leads to death.

    We are to reason with God and with each other on those things that God has revealed… in that humbly submitting to each other we abide in Truth and live out His Life. The issue is that many have replaced the natural flow of revelation with “man’s reasoning”. It is like a waterfall that flowes uphill. Unnatural and contrary to those laws and principles you are fighting so hard for.

    My prayer for you is that of Paul’s…Ephesians 1:17. I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18. I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19. and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, 20. which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21. far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23. which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

    Amen,

    iggy


  37. Hmmm, something tells me that Ben has been here before.

    Let me touch on a few things that I’ve missed.

    Iggy said,
    “When man attempts to “think” or “reason” his way up to God, he will never grasp any truth. There is a way that seems right to a man, but leads to death…”

    I see what you’re going for here, but i think you have overstepped a bit. Our ability to reason is entirely from God. The ability to not only use logic and deduction but to be aware of it and look at it abstractly is a blessing found (apart from God) in mankind alone. When we use reason and logic, we inevitably move towards the divine. And it is through our reason that God does bring us to Him for the simple reason that reason is the language of existence. Luckily for us that while Descartes, Locke, Kant and countless other individuals were questioning sensation and reason the human body kept on working with the same assumptions it always has, that there is true and there is false and they are never the same. This stove is either hot or cold, that train is coming to me or away from me, my heart is beating or it is not. We cannot escape reason. “I know God loves me because He told me so.” Even such a simply proclaimation of faith is in the language of reason.
    I think we need to redirect our focus. It is not reason that is the enemy, but the corruption of reason. Too often people have a conclusion they wish to reach before they even begin to reason out a problem. Look at the Jesus Seminar for example. Their goal is to find the “real” Jesus that isn’t found in the fairy tales of the church. They begin their quest presuming Christ is be man and nothing more. Any guesses on what they concluded?

    Elson said,
    “Hey Dan, i see you and me in Christ when i read the bible… and when bible mention about brothers and sisters, that is you and me :D”

    I would certainly agree with that 🙂 And in those passages you will also see armenians, and calvinists, etc. Those brothers and sisters that Paul and the other NT writers referred to had a variety of doctines developed even in the first decades of the church. These men referred to them all as brothers and sisters. But they also didn’t mince words when it came to sustaining proper doctrine. Just look as Paul talking about the circumcision sect or the misuse of the Eucharist.

    Iggy said,
    “I am saying that all Truth comes from Jesus… not books, doctrines,or whatever man makes up.”

    A couple things here. There is again this assumption that these things are “made up” by man. Shouldn’t we consider the fact that it is possible and in fact probable that things written by Christians since the canon are Godly? Maybe saying that ‘Truth can be found in books and doctrine with Christ as their source’ would be more realistic.


  38. Hmmm, something tells me that Ben has been here before.

    Let me touch on a few things that I’ve missed.

    Iggy said,
    “When man attempts to “think” or “reason” his way up to God, he will never grasp any truth. There is a way that seems right to a man, but leads to death…”

    I see what you’re going for here, but i think you have overstepped a bit. Our ability to reason is entirely from God. The ability to not only use logic and deduction but to be aware of it and look at it abstractly is a blessing found (apart from God) in mankind alone. When we use reason and logic, we inevitably move towards the divine. And it is through our reason that God does bring us to Him for the simple reason that reason is the language of existence. Luckily for us that while Descartes, Locke, Kant and countless other individuals were questioning sensation and reason the human body kept on working with the same assumptions it always has, that there is true and there is false and they are never the same. This stove is either hot or cold, that train is coming to me or away from me, my heart is beating or it is not. We cannot escape reason. “I know God loves me because He told me so.” Even such a simply proclaimation of faith is in the language of reason.
    I think we need to redirect our focus. It is not reason that is the enemy, but the corruption of reason. Too often people have a conclusion they wish to reach before they even begin to reason out a problem. Look at the Jesus Seminar for example. Their goal is to find the “real” Jesus that isn’t found in the fairy tales of the church. They begin their quest presuming Christ is be man and nothing more. Any guesses on what they concluded?

    Elson said,
    “Hey Dan, i see you and me in Christ when i read the bible… and when bible mention about brothers and sisters, that is you and me :D”

    I would certainly agree with that 🙂 And in those passages you will also see armenians, and calvinists, etc. Those brothers and sisters that Paul and the other NT writers referred to had a variety of doctines developed even in the first decades of the church. These men referred to them all as brothers and sisters. But they also didn’t mince words when it came to sustaining proper doctrine. Just look as Paul talking about the circumcision sect or the misuse of the Eucharist.

    Iggy said,
    “I am saying that all Truth comes from Jesus… not books, doctrines,or whatever man makes up.”

    A couple things here. There is again this assumption that these things are “made up” by man. Shouldn’t we consider the fact that it is possible and in fact probable that things written by Christians since the canon are Godly? Maybe saying that ‘Truth can be found in books and doctrine with Christ as their source’ would be more realistic.


  39. hello Dan,

    you said: i would certainly agree with that 🙂 And in those passages you will also see armenians, and calvinists, etc.

    i didnt say they are not inside there. i am saying, put aside differences in doctrine, i dun know any creature armenist or calvinist. i see them as brothers and sisters. hope you are reading it with love.

    alright, all are reading and arguing to devour one another.

    stop it. Spirit never tell u to do that. Jesus says: FOCUS ON THE PRAISEWORTHY…

    look at what all have posted. see the praise worhty part and in everything, read the context..

    did you read what iggy has posted in context? did you know from which mountain is he preaching? mount sinai or zion?

    discern with the Spirit and follow the way of love.

    in Christ with all who believe,
    Elson


  40. hello Dan,

    you said: i would certainly agree with that 🙂 And in those passages you will also see armenians, and calvinists, etc.

    i didnt say they are not inside there. i am saying, put aside differences in doctrine, i dun know any creature armenist or calvinist. i see them as brothers and sisters. hope you are reading it with love.

    alright, all are reading and arguing to devour one another.

    stop it. Spirit never tell u to do that. Jesus says: FOCUS ON THE PRAISEWORTHY…

    look at what all have posted. see the praise worhty part and in everything, read the context..

    did you read what iggy has posted in context? did you know from which mountain is he preaching? mount sinai or zion?

    discern with the Spirit and follow the way of love.

    in Christ with all who believe,
    Elson


  41. and finally, give grace to your hearer…

    in meekness, and gentleness, knowing that words typed here have no tone, let’s be sensitive in the usage of words…. having respect for each other, for Christ’s skae.

    exhort elder men as father and younger ones as brother.

    words like ‘should listen’ adds bondage to the hearer.

    firstly, we do not know each other in real life. not knowing how one treats one another.

    give grace to iggy. and pls stop telling him you should what you should what…

    and of course, we (iggy and me) are to give grace to u guys too.. in which i address you all as my brothers.

    in rebuking, which course are you taking? the way of love or just out of your head, solely for the reason of wanting Iggy to bow down and say sorry?

    again, we do not know u well enough that we cannot say what your motive is.

    you have your dfinitions, we have ours. but one thing i know. despite these difference, if Christ really abide in us, we will love one another. and this will overwhelm every differences.

    if a Japanese believer can live along well with a african believer, what more you when our language is english? words are use to love, not to spear one to death. this is the way of darkness, which none of us belong to! Amen!

    love one another not in just words,
    Elson


  42. and finally, give grace to your hearer…

    in meekness, and gentleness, knowing that words typed here have no tone, let’s be sensitive in the usage of words…. having respect for each other, for Christ’s skae.

    exhort elder men as father and younger ones as brother.

    words like ‘should listen’ adds bondage to the hearer.

    firstly, we do not know each other in real life. not knowing how one treats one another.

    give grace to iggy. and pls stop telling him you should what you should what…

    and of course, we (iggy and me) are to give grace to u guys too.. in which i address you all as my brothers.

    in rebuking, which course are you taking? the way of love or just out of your head, solely for the reason of wanting Iggy to bow down and say sorry?

    again, we do not know u well enough that we cannot say what your motive is.

    you have your dfinitions, we have ours. but one thing i know. despite these difference, if Christ really abide in us, we will love one another. and this will overwhelm every differences.

    if a Japanese believer can live along well with a african believer, what more you when our language is english? words are use to love, not to spear one to death. this is the way of darkness, which none of us belong to! Amen!

    love one another not in just words,
    Elson


  43. Dear Brother Elson,

    You are a light in this dark world…

    I am very blessed we have crossed paths.

    In His Love,
    iggy


  44. Dear Brother Elson,

    You are a light in this dark world…

    I am very blessed we have crossed paths.

    In His Love,
    iggy


  45. dan,
    What assumption?

    I have been in church after church that teaches right down the line of the Colosians verse… and Paul said it:
    20. Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules:
    21. “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22. These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

    So, t ome this is not an assumption but something I have wittnessed over and over…

    As far as reasoning and finding truth… that truth can only be recognized for truth if Jesus reveals it. To me it can be in a Bible verse, a song, a talk with a friend, a book, and whatever else… but still without Jesus revealing that truth, it is not understood as truth.

    Also, man is corrupt in his fallen state. Without Jesus breaking through and giving revelation… one would corrupt truth as it passes the filter of one’s mind… being part of the fallen nature. The Bible is clear that this world is blinded by the dominion of Satan and death. Yet, it is christ alone Who now holds the keys to the Kingdom! (glory!)

    Man can do nothing to get saved… in and by himself… only Jesus can save and by His Grace we are saved. It is by His grace we can for but a moment see truth… yet then what we do with it… that it can remain truth… is only by our relationship with Jesus Who is Truth.

    To me thisis very simple yet, I do remember back in the day… using the same I used this worlds logic and reasoning to gain understanding… it did not happen. I only became puffed up with pride over my knowledge… it was only when I was ready to give up and walk away that I found Grace, or rather it found me…

    In that though it may not come across on this media, I have great compassion for those who still think and reason out of this world’s principles… and hope to only share the Life that now lives in me.

    blessings,
    iggy


  46. dan,
    What assumption?

    I have been in church after church that teaches right down the line of the Colosians verse… and Paul said it:
    20. Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules:
    21. “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22. These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

    So, t ome this is not an assumption but something I have wittnessed over and over…

    As far as reasoning and finding truth… that truth can only be recognized for truth if Jesus reveals it. To me it can be in a Bible verse, a song, a talk with a friend, a book, and whatever else… but still without Jesus revealing that truth, it is not understood as truth.

    Also, man is corrupt in his fallen state. Without Jesus breaking through and giving revelation… one would corrupt truth as it passes the filter of one’s mind… being part of the fallen nature. The Bible is clear that this world is blinded by the dominion of Satan and death. Yet, it is christ alone Who now holds the keys to the Kingdom! (glory!)

    Man can do nothing to get saved… in and by himself… only Jesus can save and by His Grace we are saved. It is by His grace we can for but a moment see truth… yet then what we do with it… that it can remain truth… is only by our relationship with Jesus Who is Truth.

    To me thisis very simple yet, I do remember back in the day… using the same I used this worlds logic and reasoning to gain understanding… it did not happen. I only became puffed up with pride over my knowledge… it was only when I was ready to give up and walk away that I found Grace, or rather it found me…

    In that though it may not come across on this media, I have great compassion for those who still think and reason out of this world’s principles… and hope to only share the Life that now lives in me.

    blessings,
    iggy


  47. Iggy,

    the assumption i referred to was that books and doctrines were made up by man and in conflict with the Truth of Christ. (“I am saying that all Truth comes from Jesus… not books, doctrines,or whatever man makes up.”)

    I think the verse that you have used is a bit out of context as well. Here Paul is speaking out against false teachings and practices that are infiltrating the church. Most noteable of these are Jewish religious practices (which we learn from Galatians were problematic because they make justification and sanctification dependant on works) and certain ascetic groups that would practice flagellation and starve themselves (that is what the verses you have quoted refer to). What’s really interesting in this chapter is verse 17 which reads:
    “These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.”
    This is Platonic language! And it is not without precedent. Paul’s writings are filled with influence of Plato and other Greek philosophers.
    So what we have nere is Paul denouncing two groups that would have been followers of Christ or at least the Judeo-Christian God (despite their bad teachings) and using the language of a pagan to do so.
    I am sorry if logic and reasoning left such a sour taste in your mouth and did not bring you closer to Christ, but for many it has. I agree with you that it is only Christ who saves and that no man can come to Him by his own reasoning. But Christ can certainly bless someone with His divine reason in order to lead Him to salvation. He may also continue to bless His children with wisdom to understand things in a logical framework. As Paul’s use of PLato shows, we cannot dismiss or accept teachings or doctrine based on the relationship of a person to Christ alone (or even at all realy since we cannot judge a man’s heart). We must measure it by the truth given to us through the Word.


  48. Iggy,

    the assumption i referred to was that books and doctrines were made up by man and in conflict with the Truth of Christ. (“I am saying that all Truth comes from Jesus… not books, doctrines,or whatever man makes up.”)

    I think the verse that you have used is a bit out of context as well. Here Paul is speaking out against false teachings and practices that are infiltrating the church. Most noteable of these are Jewish religious practices (which we learn from Galatians were problematic because they make justification and sanctification dependant on works) and certain ascetic groups that would practice flagellation and starve themselves (that is what the verses you have quoted refer to). What’s really interesting in this chapter is verse 17 which reads:
    “These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.”
    This is Platonic language! And it is not without precedent. Paul’s writings are filled with influence of Plato and other Greek philosophers.
    So what we have nere is Paul denouncing two groups that would have been followers of Christ or at least the Judeo-Christian God (despite their bad teachings) and using the language of a pagan to do so.
    I am sorry if logic and reasoning left such a sour taste in your mouth and did not bring you closer to Christ, but for many it has. I agree with you that it is only Christ who saves and that no man can come to Him by his own reasoning. But Christ can certainly bless someone with His divine reason in order to lead Him to salvation. He may also continue to bless His children with wisdom to understand things in a logical framework. As Paul’s use of PLato shows, we cannot dismiss or accept teachings or doctrine based on the relationship of a person to Christ alone (or even at all realy since we cannot judge a man’s heart). We must measure it by the truth given to us through the Word.


  49. Iggy,
    I’m back. Just read your stuff. I have to apologize. I just assumed that whatever appeared on your blog was put there by you. But since you say you didn’t slam doctrine and insult those that care about it, it is obvious that someone else did that. Sorry.

    Perhaps your cat did a tap dance on your keyboard and it just came out that way. I apologize all over myself.

    Now, you still haven’t answered why your no-doctrine doctrine is okay and the doctrines of Scripture are not. And, yes, I read your caveat saying that you are not actually saying what you said. But that is a needle of denial in a haystack of slams. For instance, your title said, “Do you live by doctrine or by the life of Christ?” Clearly, you were drawing a dichotomy. And one was to be preferred over the other. Oh–that’s right–the cat.

    This is a gnostic notion. Namely that you can know God without objective propositional revelation, but by an inner light or some such. It is a special knowledge that no one else is privvy to. Hence the name Gnostic.

    You still have not informed us whether you propose as truth the propositional-truth-is-not-biblical thing. Why not just deal with the issue?

    And I still await how much of Scripture is “not biblical” since most of it is declarative sentences about facts or, in your rubric, propositional truth. How much? Strictly speaking, if you take the term “propositional truth” in its usual sense we have to rid ourselves of all the Bible except the parables. And that is only true if you take the parables to be fictional stories for illustration only. Deal with the issue, please.

    In answer, no, Jesus is not a doctrine and you know I said no such thing, and you know it.

    Have you asked yourself why John demanded the exclusion from the church any man who came “not bearing this doctrine?” Perhaps he thought Jesus was a doctrine.

    According to your blogs John was quite a yahoo. Who is wrong, John or the Emergent Gnostics?

    Finally, I read about your affliction. I hope it is not catching. No, God does not tolerate, let alone bless, ignorance. God said to “study to show yourself approved,” not remain lazy and hope for the best. If you have spent lo these many years reading the Scripture as I believe you have said (and I believe you are telling the truth on that) you would have read that passage. Start obeying it.

    And oh–how DID your cat get your password?

    I’ll be away again until Saturday. Will look for answers then. In vain or not.

    Ben.


  50. Iggy,
    I’m back. Just read your stuff. I have to apologize. I just assumed that whatever appeared on your blog was put there by you. But since you say you didn’t slam doctrine and insult those that care about it, it is obvious that someone else did that. Sorry.

    Perhaps your cat did a tap dance on your keyboard and it just came out that way. I apologize all over myself.

    Now, you still haven’t answered why your no-doctrine doctrine is okay and the doctrines of Scripture are not. And, yes, I read your caveat saying that you are not actually saying what you said. But that is a needle of denial in a haystack of slams. For instance, your title said, “Do you live by doctrine or by the life of Christ?” Clearly, you were drawing a dichotomy. And one was to be preferred over the other. Oh–that’s right–the cat.

    This is a gnostic notion. Namely that you can know God without objective propositional revelation, but by an inner light or some such. It is a special knowledge that no one else is privvy to. Hence the name Gnostic.

    You still have not informed us whether you propose as truth the propositional-truth-is-not-biblical thing. Why not just deal with the issue?

    And I still await how much of Scripture is “not biblical” since most of it is declarative sentences about facts or, in your rubric, propositional truth. How much? Strictly speaking, if you take the term “propositional truth” in its usual sense we have to rid ourselves of all the Bible except the parables. And that is only true if you take the parables to be fictional stories for illustration only. Deal with the issue, please.

    In answer, no, Jesus is not a doctrine and you know I said no such thing, and you know it.

    Have you asked yourself why John demanded the exclusion from the church any man who came “not bearing this doctrine?” Perhaps he thought Jesus was a doctrine.

    According to your blogs John was quite a yahoo. Who is wrong, John or the Emergent Gnostics?

    Finally, I read about your affliction. I hope it is not catching. No, God does not tolerate, let alone bless, ignorance. God said to “study to show yourself approved,” not remain lazy and hope for the best. If you have spent lo these many years reading the Scripture as I believe you have said (and I believe you are telling the truth on that) you would have read that passage. Start obeying it.

    And oh–how DID your cat get your password?

    I’ll be away again until Saturday. Will look for answers then. In vain or not.

    Ben.


  51. Ben,

    Insults are not a conversation.
    You have not even begun to understand what I have written, and I even think you may not have a grasp on what you think you believe!

    If you really bother to read what you have wrote. I will point out what you have stated…

    1. You deny Jesus being the Truth and that He only “taught truth”.
    I asked do you believe Jesus is The Truth…

    You replied: “Yes, Iggy, He proposed that truth.”

    Yet you never said He was Truth… so with that can I infer that you do not believe Jesus was The Truth? With that then from what authority did He teach? If He was not then would He then be a liar and then how can ‘truth’ of any sort come from a lie?

    2. I quoted scripture and you recommended a college book. Which to you has more authority? I trust in the scripture.

    3. Even when I have repeatedly said that Jesus being Truth taught truth… and that I agree with that… you insist that I don’t… I even quoted sections that said I am not against doctrine, that we must have a proper perspective of ‘sound doctrine’.

    You: “Since Jesus is Truth and (in your paradigm) that means that propositional truth is of no account, why did He quiz his students? What did He quiz them on, since there was no truth to speak of?”

    4. You claim I deny scripture yet all I teach from is scripture.

    5. You simply can not get past your misunderstanding of Emergent. You seem to read into what I write more than is written and ignore that I have said I am not against “doctrine”.

    6. You promote Modernism… so I guess you believe science over all which is the core of modernistic thought. Scripture is clear that to “Live is Christ, to die is gain”. I guess that is Gnostic to you? I never said anything of an inner light, but refer to having the “Jesus being The Way, The Truth and The Life”.
    This is having the mind of Christ in which Paul refers to which Jesus reveals and gives understanding to those He has relationship with. I am standing against legalism and against trusting in anything other that Jesus Christ for one’s salvation… to add a qualifier to truth diminishes it if Truth is the Person of Jesus… just as adding anything more to the works of Christ diminishes the finished work of Christ. I am proclaiming all can have and grow in the knowledge of Grace and Truth as they grow in their relationship with Jesus. I have never talk of Gnostic “special knowledge”… only Truth, being Jesus, revealing Himself by revelation through Scripture by grace in our relationship with Him… (See the book of Revelation!!!!) In that by this revelation we, in our relationship with Christ grow in the grace and knowledge of Him as we grow in truth that is from Him. This is much different than believing your churches doctrinal statement… for which churches doctrinal statement is “Truth”? The Church of God, the Assembly of God, the Baptists? Which denomination has the perfect doctrine? Yours? Not from what I have read from you. I have mentioned in the posts that “sound doctrine has it’s place…. Yet you seem to ignore that.

    You: This is a gnostic notion. Namely that you can know God without objective propositional revelation, but by an inner light or some such. It is a special knowledge that no one else is privvy to. Hence the name Gnostic.

    8. You seem to miss the real core of our faith and that is humility and love… hate of a brother is not a fruit of the Spirit.
    You resort to name calling and calling me ignorant… making judgments about my knowledge of scripture and implying my cat wrote my blog… though you may think yourself witty or clever, you only come across immature and unloving and very judgmental. Not one of those things are fruits of the Spirit… I am wondering of which vine you drink from?
    You have made many accusations which have no merit. You defend the defenseless in putting anything above Christ…. have you ever read Hebrews? All things have been placed under Christ… and truth is included in all things! The proper way to gain and understand truth is now from the source… given to us by grace through faith!
    We have been restored to the only Truth by our relationship with Christ alone and not by doctrine. In this sound doctrine will come, but not of the will of man nor out of the heart of man. For man’s heart is wicked…

    9. I have stated that all truth comes from Christ who is Truth, and that any doctrine must be based on that… that man can not reason his way to heaven without God’s Grace… you have ignored that over and over…

    10. It seems to me that you have denied many of your own doctrines in the course of defending them…. how ironic!

    11. You deny that man is a fallen sinful creature… that man can understand truth outside of any relationship with Jesus Who is Truth.

    12. You have place “propositional truth” over one’s relationship with Jesus… making “propositional truth” God… in and of itself without any connection to the True God. This is most complexing as how can you be a Christian and deny Christ and place man’s knowledge over God Himself? You have created a dichotomy for yourself by believing and denying at the same time… A double minded man is unstable in all his ways…
    If you have bothered to read what I wrote… I am talking about “man made doctrine” and have made a distinction between that and “sound doctrine”. I am for sound doctrine as for living out the Life of Christ in us. You have misread and misunderstood and continue to show that you have no real grasp ion what I wrote.

    Yet, you said: Yes, you DID slam doctrine. If you want to split hairs you slammed people that pay attention to doctrine. In some ways that is even worse, because you slam Christ Himself, who said, “If you are ashamed of Me and My words before men, I will be ashamed of you before My Father.” He seemed to care about right doctrine and called us to proclaim it publicly.

    Again, Ben… I said “You see, I know of no doctrine that became a man, lived a perfect life, then died in my place by being nailed to a cross…. Nope I have searched the scripture for years and have not found a doctrine that had done that! LOL!”

    I never said anything about no-doctrine doctrine… that is just your presumption.

    I recommend you take some courses in conversation… for all your logic; you have no real grasp on how to talk to someone… and some basic literature courses to better understand what you read.

    BTW, in what way is depending totally on Jesus being lazy? He calls us to His Sabbath rest. You really need to either get your own cat… or “study yourself approved” as it stands you seem to miss that to hate your brother is a sign that the “truth is not in you.”
    I am beginning to wonder…. So it also seems you deny depending on Christ and deny his Sabbath rest?

    My cat says “Good day”.
    iggy


  52. Ben,

    Insults are not a conversation.
    You have not even begun to understand what I have written, and I even think you may not have a grasp on what you think you believe!

    If you really bother to read what you have wrote. I will point out what you have stated…

    1. You deny Jesus being the Truth and that He only “taught truth”.
    I asked do you believe Jesus is The Truth…

    You replied: “Yes, Iggy, He proposed that truth.”

    Yet you never said He was Truth… so with that can I infer that you do not believe Jesus was The Truth? With that then from what authority did He teach? If He was not then would He then be a liar and then how can ‘truth’ of any sort come from a lie?

    2. I quoted scripture and you recommended a college book. Which to you has more authority? I trust in the scripture.

    3. Even when I have repeatedly said that Jesus being Truth taught truth… and that I agree with that… you insist that I don’t… I even quoted sections that said I am not against doctrine, that we must have a proper perspective of ‘sound doctrine’.

    You: “Since Jesus is Truth and (in your paradigm) that means that propositional truth is of no account, why did He quiz his students? What did He quiz them on, since there was no truth to speak of?”

    4. You claim I deny scripture yet all I teach from is scripture.

    5. You simply can not get past your misunderstanding of Emergent. You seem to read into what I write more than is written and ignore that I have said I am not against “doctrine”.

    6. You promote Modernism… so I guess you believe science over all which is the core of modernistic thought. Scripture is clear that to “Live is Christ, to die is gain”. I guess that is Gnostic to you? I never said anything of an inner light, but refer to having the “Jesus being The Way, The Truth and The Life”.
    This is having the mind of Christ in which Paul refers to which Jesus reveals and gives understanding to those He has relationship with. I am standing against legalism and against trusting in anything other that Jesus Christ for one’s salvation… to add a qualifier to truth diminishes it if Truth is the Person of Jesus… just as adding anything more to the works of Christ diminishes the finished work of Christ. I am proclaiming all can have and grow in the knowledge of Grace and Truth as they grow in their relationship with Jesus. I have never talk of Gnostic “special knowledge”… only Truth, being Jesus, revealing Himself by revelation through Scripture by grace in our relationship with Him… (See the book of Revelation!!!!) In that by this revelation we, in our relationship with Christ grow in the grace and knowledge of Him as we grow in truth that is from Him. This is much different than believing your churches doctrinal statement… for which churches doctrinal statement is “Truth”? The Church of God, the Assembly of God, the Baptists? Which denomination has the perfect doctrine? Yours? Not from what I have read from you. I have mentioned in the posts that “sound doctrine has it’s place…. Yet you seem to ignore that.

    You: This is a gnostic notion. Namely that you can know God without objective propositional revelation, but by an inner light or some such. It is a special knowledge that no one else is privvy to. Hence the name Gnostic.

    8. You seem to miss the real core of our faith and that is humility and love… hate of a brother is not a fruit of the Spirit.
    You resort to name calling and calling me ignorant… making judgments about my knowledge of scripture and implying my cat wrote my blog… though you may think yourself witty or clever, you only come across immature and unloving and very judgmental. Not one of those things are fruits of the Spirit… I am wondering of which vine you drink from?
    You have made many accusations which have no merit. You defend the defenseless in putting anything above Christ…. have you ever read Hebrews? All things have been placed under Christ… and truth is included in all things! The proper way to gain and understand truth is now from the source… given to us by grace through faith!
    We have been restored to the only Truth by our relationship with Christ alone and not by doctrine. In this sound doctrine will come, but not of the will of man nor out of the heart of man. For man’s heart is wicked…

    9. I have stated that all truth comes from Christ who is Truth, and that any doctrine must be based on that… that man can not reason his way to heaven without God’s Grace… you have ignored that over and over…

    10. It seems to me that you have denied many of your own doctrines in the course of defending them…. how ironic!

    11. You deny that man is a fallen sinful creature… that man can understand truth outside of any relationship with Jesus Who is Truth.

    12. You have place “propositional truth” over one’s relationship with Jesus… making “propositional truth” God… in and of itself without any connection to the True God. This is most complexing as how can you be a Christian and deny Christ and place man’s knowledge over God Himself? You have created a dichotomy for yourself by believing and denying at the same time… A double minded man is unstable in all his ways…
    If you have bothered to read what I wrote… I am talking about “man made doctrine” and have made a distinction between that and “sound doctrine”. I am for sound doctrine as for living out the Life of Christ in us. You have misread and misunderstood and continue to show that you have no real grasp ion what I wrote.

    Yet, you said: Yes, you DID slam doctrine. If you want to split hairs you slammed people that pay attention to doctrine. In some ways that is even worse, because you slam Christ Himself, who said, “If you are ashamed of Me and My words before men, I will be ashamed of you before My Father.” He seemed to care about right doctrine and called us to proclaim it publicly.

    Again, Ben… I said “You see, I know of no doctrine that became a man, lived a perfect life, then died in my place by being nailed to a cross…. Nope I have searched the scripture for years and have not found a doctrine that had done that! LOL!”

    I never said anything about no-doctrine doctrine… that is just your presumption.

    I recommend you take some courses in conversation… for all your logic; you have no real grasp on how to talk to someone… and some basic literature courses to better understand what you read.

    BTW, in what way is depending totally on Jesus being lazy? He calls us to His Sabbath rest. You really need to either get your own cat… or “study yourself approved” as it stands you seem to miss that to hate your brother is a sign that the “truth is not in you.”
    I am beginning to wonder…. So it also seems you deny depending on Christ and deny his Sabbath rest?

    My cat says “Good day”.
    iggy


  53. Alright you two, back to your corners.

    I think that this has crossed an line into very unhealthy territory. Now I haven’t seen all the conversations between you two (I am assuming from this discourse that you two have a history), so I’ll try not to presume too much from what has been said here, but from what I can glean there are some issue that need to be addressed.

    Ben, you have made some good points and stated them better than I would have. Again, I’m not really familiar with any of your past posts so I don’t know what the intentions of your rhetoric are. You use a lot of irony which I can certainly appreciate, and I would have to admit that i was cracking up at the cat remark. But sarcasm is too often used in a malicious way and, whether you intended it to be or not, can be very hurtful. If you did intend your remarks to be harmful then I suggest you find another place to get your jollies and stop trolling around here. If you didn’t then for the sake of those here perhaps you could lighten up on the sarcasm just to save people the confusion. If you ever stop by my blog you can unleash it all you want, I have no problem with a good natured jab.

    Iggy,
    I understand that your frustrated, but don’t let that guide what you write. If Ben’s intentions were bad natured then i suggest your either ignore anything you find insulting or erase his posts altogether. The last couple of posts you have made have been pretty harsh. In responding to ben you have done the very thing you accuse him of by taking his posts way out of context and gone as far as to question whether he is Christian at all! Iggy, you put a lot of focus on relationships both with Christ and His Church and I respect that a great deal, but your last post doesn’t reflect that ideal. You should give any brother or sister the benefit of the doubt and if you suspect that they hate you, ask them if this is the case. Seek to reconcile. If they want to be a prick, then let them be but don’t let them bring you down in the process. Again, I’m not presuming to know what anyone’s intentions were here and I would like to believe that Ben’s comments were meant to be funny and not hurtful.

    (cont)


  54. Alright you two, back to your corners.

    I think that this has crossed an line into very unhealthy territory. Now I haven’t seen all the conversations between you two (I am assuming from this discourse that you two have a history), so I’ll try not to presume too much from what has been said here, but from what I can glean there are some issue that need to be addressed.

    Ben, you have made some good points and stated them better than I would have. Again, I’m not really familiar with any of your past posts so I don’t know what the intentions of your rhetoric are. You use a lot of irony which I can certainly appreciate, and I would have to admit that i was cracking up at the cat remark. But sarcasm is too often used in a malicious way and, whether you intended it to be or not, can be very hurtful. If you did intend your remarks to be harmful then I suggest you find another place to get your jollies and stop trolling around here. If you didn’t then for the sake of those here perhaps you could lighten up on the sarcasm just to save people the confusion. If you ever stop by my blog you can unleash it all you want, I have no problem with a good natured jab.

    Iggy,
    I understand that your frustrated, but don’t let that guide what you write. If Ben’s intentions were bad natured then i suggest your either ignore anything you find insulting or erase his posts altogether. The last couple of posts you have made have been pretty harsh. In responding to ben you have done the very thing you accuse him of by taking his posts way out of context and gone as far as to question whether he is Christian at all! Iggy, you put a lot of focus on relationships both with Christ and His Church and I respect that a great deal, but your last post doesn’t reflect that ideal. You should give any brother or sister the benefit of the doubt and if you suspect that they hate you, ask them if this is the case. Seek to reconcile. If they want to be a prick, then let them be but don’t let them bring you down in the process. Again, I’m not presuming to know what anyone’s intentions were here and I would like to believe that Ben’s comments were meant to be funny and not hurtful.

    (cont)


  55. Elson,
    I just looked back at your post and noticed this:

    “give grace to iggy. and pls stop telling him you should what you should what…

    and of course, we (iggy and me) are to give grace to u guys too.. in which i address you all as my brothers.

    in rebuking, which course are you taking? the way of love or just out of your head, solely for the reason of wanting Iggy to bow down and say sorry?”

    I don’t know how I got lumped into this, but i would hardly call anything that I’ve posted “rebuking” nor have I told Iggy that he should do anything. If I do say so myself, I have been polite and direct with all of my posts. I haven’t insulted anyone, questioned their knowledge, or made any comments about their view points except to simply say that i disagree. If you can find fault in anything I have said in this thread then please let me know but I think that I have been pretty straightforward and considerate in my posts.

    Overall I think we just need to be mindful of how things are discussed here. This is a place for conversation between people of different beliefs and disagreements are inevitable. This is also a format that is by its nature impersonal and therefore lacks most of the social graces that we would have in an actual conversation. Keeping these things in mind i would suggest that we reserve our criticism to ideas and not people. For example.
    “The cat is blue”
    “I disagree according to the Acme study, the cat is infact green.”
    Thing to avoid would include:
    -attacking intelligence or knowledge-
    “Nope, the cat is green, if your mother had bothered to teach you how to read you would have known that.”
    -being holier than thou-
    “The cat is green. I believed the cat is blue when i was younger/less experienced/an undergrad but now I have come to relize the truth.”
    -attacking the person-
    “The cat is green and the only people who believe it is blue are Nazis and child molesters.”
    This certainly doesn’t shed light on the subtlety of certain subject but hey, it couldn’t hurt. (**quick note, these examples were just humorous hypothticals they are not meant to reflect anyone). Anyways, i hope everyone’s cool with one another.

    Dan


  56. Elson,
    I just looked back at your post and noticed this:

    “give grace to iggy. and pls stop telling him you should what you should what…

    and of course, we (iggy and me) are to give grace to u guys too.. in which i address you all as my brothers.

    in rebuking, which course are you taking? the way of love or just out of your head, solely for the reason of wanting Iggy to bow down and say sorry?”

    I don’t know how I got lumped into this, but i would hardly call anything that I’ve posted “rebuking” nor have I told Iggy that he should do anything. If I do say so myself, I have been polite and direct with all of my posts. I haven’t insulted anyone, questioned their knowledge, or made any comments about their view points except to simply say that i disagree. If you can find fault in anything I have said in this thread then please let me know but I think that I have been pretty straightforward and considerate in my posts.

    Overall I think we just need to be mindful of how things are discussed here. This is a place for conversation between people of different beliefs and disagreements are inevitable. This is also a format that is by its nature impersonal and therefore lacks most of the social graces that we would have in an actual conversation. Keeping these things in mind i would suggest that we reserve our criticism to ideas and not people. For example.
    “The cat is blue”
    “I disagree according to the Acme study, the cat is infact green.”
    Thing to avoid would include:
    -attacking intelligence or knowledge-
    “Nope, the cat is green, if your mother had bothered to teach you how to read you would have known that.”
    -being holier than thou-
    “The cat is green. I believed the cat is blue when i was younger/less experienced/an undergrad but now I have come to relize the truth.”
    -attacking the person-
    “The cat is green and the only people who believe it is blue are Nazis and child molesters.”
    This certainly doesn’t shed light on the subtlety of certain subject but hey, it couldn’t hurt. (**quick note, these examples were just humorous hypothticals they are not meant to reflect anyone). Anyways, i hope everyone’s cool with one another.

    Dan


  57. Dan,
    Your rebuke is noted… and glad you caught my bit of…. well sarcasm. I intended to used the same language and tone as Ben used… taking things and adding innuendo as he had… I think that he has mischaracterized and taken things way out of context… and even to the point of putting words in my mouth and he did it in a haughty unloving spirit.

    In that I get tired of those who come and “attack” with no respect for me and with no intention in conversing, but only to show that I am wrong and they are right… most often they seem blinded by PM/E/e labels and become inflamed with some sort of Pharisee zealotness, that to me is just plain rude and abusive. I hope as Ben reads that he sees how he came across and that though I hope I am wrong with certain assumptions of his theology that by his own writing, he can come across as more heretical that anything he accused me of.

    To me there is a line where abuse is not tolerated. Sarcasm is fine if Ben or someone has laid the foundation of friendship. Yet, right from the start Ben came out blasting… and ignoring finer points that I had pointed out over and over… then he went after my cat and that really set me off. Nino, (my cat) is a fine animal and has a fairly high intelligent for a cat. He is suffering from diabetes and takes the same insulin as I do… to malign him with out understanding him, is just not only right, but not good. One should understand he has a big schedule with play and sleep and ghost writing for me.

    Seriously, Ben needs to not attack but show more of the fruit of the Spirit. he needs to read the scripture on how to rebuke in love and to give grace.

    He should learn from you in how to carry on a discourse that can include disagreement without judgmentalism and condescension. He needs to learn to remember that Jesus was not as concerned with doctrine… he rebuked the Pharisees many times over their misunderstanding of it and that it is not about rules… but about how the scripture pointed to himself…

    I feel the post should be as it is… as I do not mean him any harm but only an enriched faith in a closer relationship with and in Christ.

    Blessings,
    iggy


  58. Dan,
    Your rebuke is noted… and glad you caught my bit of…. well sarcasm. I intended to used the same language and tone as Ben used… taking things and adding innuendo as he had… I think that he has mischaracterized and taken things way out of context… and even to the point of putting words in my mouth and he did it in a haughty unloving spirit.

    In that I get tired of those who come and “attack” with no respect for me and with no intention in conversing, but only to show that I am wrong and they are right… most often they seem blinded by PM/E/e labels and become inflamed with some sort of Pharisee zealotness, that to me is just plain rude and abusive. I hope as Ben reads that he sees how he came across and that though I hope I am wrong with certain assumptions of his theology that by his own writing, he can come across as more heretical that anything he accused me of.

    To me there is a line where abuse is not tolerated. Sarcasm is fine if Ben or someone has laid the foundation of friendship. Yet, right from the start Ben came out blasting… and ignoring finer points that I had pointed out over and over… then he went after my cat and that really set me off. Nino, (my cat) is a fine animal and has a fairly high intelligent for a cat. He is suffering from diabetes and takes the same insulin as I do… to malign him with out understanding him, is just not only right, but not good. One should understand he has a big schedule with play and sleep and ghost writing for me.

    Seriously, Ben needs to not attack but show more of the fruit of the Spirit. he needs to read the scripture on how to rebuke in love and to give grace.

    He should learn from you in how to carry on a discourse that can include disagreement without judgmentalism and condescension. He needs to learn to remember that Jesus was not as concerned with doctrine… he rebuked the Pharisees many times over their misunderstanding of it and that it is not about rules… but about how the scripture pointed to himself…

    I feel the post should be as it is… as I do not mean him any harm but only an enriched faith in a closer relationship with and in Christ.

    Blessings,
    iggy


  59. Dan and all.
    I appreciate the discussion that has gone on here. Mostly with some exception it has been fun and I hope that those that conversed got something out of it from each other.

    I had hoped to go farther into the area of whether Paul was Platonist in thought…
    I a will ascend to “in style” but I do not see Paul a Platonist of any sorts. If so Paul would have come to the same conclusions as Plato… but is one reads they are worlds apart on many things, on for example is that Plato believed in a pre-existing soul, and Paul does not. I think that the reason behind this is as I have been saying. Plato may have gotten ‘truth’ yet reasoned without enlightenment… meaning not know Jesus who is Truth. In that he only reasoned his way to hell. Paul was tapped into the source of Truth… Jesus. Thus enlightened and given revelation from Jesus pertaining to this truth. Then Paul would reason with man.

    That is the image I am trying to convey. Look at the cross. Truth comes down and intersects with life. We reason in a deep and rich relationship and have our lives changed… we live this out by the reasoning with other believers. And that is the cross beam. So in our vertical relationship we gain ‘truth’ from ‘The Truth’. If one wants to say this is propositional or what not I don’t care. I do not see it needing a qualifier.

    Then we reason together out of this relationship with Jesus that is working out in our brothers and sisters. This is where and how we must get “sound doctrine”.

    “Man made doctrine” bypasses this and tries to replace God and nullifies our relationship with Jesus.

    I will say thank you to Ben as it seems that sometime those who fight against me help me to become clearer in what I am saying. So with that, Thanks Ben!
    Love you all with the Love of Christ that dwells in me.

    Blessings,
    iggy


  60. Dan and all.
    I appreciate the discussion that has gone on here. Mostly with some exception it has been fun and I hope that those that conversed got something out of it from each other.

    I had hoped to go farther into the area of whether Paul was Platonist in thought…
    I a will ascend to “in style” but I do not see Paul a Platonist of any sorts. If so Paul would have come to the same conclusions as Plato… but is one reads they are worlds apart on many things, on for example is that Plato believed in a pre-existing soul, and Paul does not. I think that the reason behind this is as I have been saying. Plato may have gotten ‘truth’ yet reasoned without enlightenment… meaning not know Jesus who is Truth. In that he only reasoned his way to hell. Paul was tapped into the source of Truth… Jesus. Thus enlightened and given revelation from Jesus pertaining to this truth. Then Paul would reason with man.

    That is the image I am trying to convey. Look at the cross. Truth comes down and intersects with life. We reason in a deep and rich relationship and have our lives changed… we live this out by the reasoning with other believers. And that is the cross beam. So in our vertical relationship we gain ‘truth’ from ‘The Truth’. If one wants to say this is propositional or what not I don’t care. I do not see it needing a qualifier.

    Then we reason together out of this relationship with Jesus that is working out in our brothers and sisters. This is where and how we must get “sound doctrine”.

    “Man made doctrine” bypasses this and tries to replace God and nullifies our relationship with Jesus.

    I will say thank you to Ben as it seems that sometime those who fight against me help me to become clearer in what I am saying. So with that, Thanks Ben!
    Love you all with the Love of Christ that dwells in me.

    Blessings,
    iggy


  61. Hey guys,
    Just got back. Stirred up a hornest’snest did I? Well, good. I don’t have time to get all into it until this evening or later tomorrow. But a couple things need answered right away.

    First, Iggy says I’m out of line by getting on him hard. Not so. I have made fun of him about the cat. That’s fine. Here is the point. He lied. He said that he did not speak against doctrine. He did–over and over again.

    Why is it okay to put something in writing and then deny having written it? Why should we, as Christians pretend to be fools to protect the ego of a deceiver?

    Why couldn’t Iggy, just take instruction and repent?

    Why did Elijah get sarcastic with the prophets of Baal? He asked if their god couldn’t hear them because mabe he was turned aside–a possible euphemism for taking a potty break. The point was to make fun of the fantasy they taught as doctrine. He was nice enough not to call them liars. They were, but the prophet chose to use irony. Jesus did the same but more bitingly when He called the Pharisees piles of garbage/sewage.

    By your standards Jesus is a jerk. Hosea called the Jews whores and accused them of “taking the wages (of a whore) on every barn floor.

    None of the prophets or apostles would be nice enough for the modern church. We have become effeminate.

    If you can show from Scripture that my language is wrong, I will accept that. But you can’t. While you can go to passages that tell us to comport ourselves with dignity and patience, the example of Jesus, the apostles, and prophets should give an accurate example of exactly what that means. And that were much harsher than I.

    Second, here is a point that Iggy probably has actually missed and is not being dishonest, but simply mistaken. He said, “I never said anything about no-doctrine doctrine… that is just your presumption.”

    No, that is not a presumption. You said that living by the “Life of Christ” is better than living by doctrine. That is a doctrine that you have proposed as true.

    “Doctrine” is anything that is taught. You taught it. You cannot know anything of Christ without the teachings (doctrine) of Scripture. Where do you find out about Christ if you dispose of what Scripture teaches?

    Please, tell us, Iggy, how you can live “by the live of Christ” without knowing anything about Him?
    And tell us how we are to live–what we are to do–when living “by the life of Christ.” What does that look like. And don’t just say love–define that.

    To be really blunt, how is it “loving” for Iggy to espouse getting rid of truth? Romans says that those that do so are condemned.

    Ben


  62. Hey guys,
    Just got back. Stirred up a hornest’snest did I? Well, good. I don’t have time to get all into it until this evening or later tomorrow. But a couple things need answered right away.

    First, Iggy says I’m out of line by getting on him hard. Not so. I have made fun of him about the cat. That’s fine. Here is the point. He lied. He said that he did not speak against doctrine. He did–over and over again.

    Why is it okay to put something in writing and then deny having written it? Why should we, as Christians pretend to be fools to protect the ego of a deceiver?

    Why couldn’t Iggy, just take instruction and repent?

    Why did Elijah get sarcastic with the prophets of Baal? He asked if their god couldn’t hear them because mabe he was turned aside–a possible euphemism for taking a potty break. The point was to make fun of the fantasy they taught as doctrine. He was nice enough not to call them liars. They were, but the prophet chose to use irony. Jesus did the same but more bitingly when He called the Pharisees piles of garbage/sewage.

    By your standards Jesus is a jerk. Hosea called the Jews whores and accused them of “taking the wages (of a whore) on every barn floor.

    None of the prophets or apostles would be nice enough for the modern church. We have become effeminate.

    If you can show from Scripture that my language is wrong, I will accept that. But you can’t. While you can go to passages that tell us to comport ourselves with dignity and patience, the example of Jesus, the apostles, and prophets should give an accurate example of exactly what that means. And that were much harsher than I.

    Second, here is a point that Iggy probably has actually missed and is not being dishonest, but simply mistaken. He said, “I never said anything about no-doctrine doctrine… that is just your presumption.”

    No, that is not a presumption. You said that living by the “Life of Christ” is better than living by doctrine. That is a doctrine that you have proposed as true.

    “Doctrine” is anything that is taught. You taught it. You cannot know anything of Christ without the teachings (doctrine) of Scripture. Where do you find out about Christ if you dispose of what Scripture teaches?

    Please, tell us, Iggy, how you can live “by the live of Christ” without knowing anything about Him?
    And tell us how we are to live–what we are to do–when living “by the life of Christ.” What does that look like. And don’t just say love–define that.

    To be really blunt, how is it “loving” for Iggy to espouse getting rid of truth? Romans says that those that do so are condemned.

    Ben


  63. well, Bible does say do everything for edification..

    hopefully your heart ben, is to edify Iggy with love.

    and Iggy, in everything, turn to Him. He will be your shield and truth.

    ben, since you love the truth, i see something in common with me and you, do visit me at sonofel.multiply.com

    wa, anger kills! love edifies! Amen!

    give grace to Iggy. who can change overnight? did you become sinless when you become a Christian?

    🙂 one more, everyone has pride in them. you have pride in other area. in anywhere that we fall short in, we have pride, for we did not turn to Him and ask Him to lead us out.

    but Romans, the book you mentioned so often says, “where sin abounds, grace abounds.”

    Jesus told harsh things to the Pharisees. old testaments saints told harsh things to the Israelites.

    BUT Iggy is different. hey look! Jesus is dwelling in him.

    Jesus will tell you,
    “Give grace to Iggy. He is my son.”

    in Christ,
    Elson


  64. well, Bible does say do everything for edification..

    hopefully your heart ben, is to edify Iggy with love.

    and Iggy, in everything, turn to Him. He will be your shield and truth.

    ben, since you love the truth, i see something in common with me and you, do visit me at sonofel.multiply.com

    wa, anger kills! love edifies! Amen!

    give grace to Iggy. who can change overnight? did you become sinless when you become a Christian?

    🙂 one more, everyone has pride in them. you have pride in other area. in anywhere that we fall short in, we have pride, for we did not turn to Him and ask Him to lead us out.

    but Romans, the book you mentioned so often says, “where sin abounds, grace abounds.”

    Jesus told harsh things to the Pharisees. old testaments saints told harsh things to the Israelites.

    BUT Iggy is different. hey look! Jesus is dwelling in him.

    Jesus will tell you,
    “Give grace to Iggy. He is my son.”

    in Christ,
    Elson


  65. Ben,
    By this post you have fully shown you have not even come close to understanding what I have written… that is ok. Jesus has not revealed this to you so you can not.

    You have called me dishonest… and the real thing is this. You have been dishonest that you have only quoted a small section of what I said taken out of the whole… and made it say what you wanted it to say.

    I have not said there is “no truth”. I have said very clearly that Jesus is Truth… and He reveals it to us… and out of that we have sound doctrine… as we have tapped into Jesus Who is the Truth. So, if Jesus is Truth… how then in your logic can there be no Truth? How can you say i am saying this? Show me the quote… that I have said there is “no truth”.

    Have you ever read? 1 John 2: 20. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.
    21. I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth.
    22. Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist–he denies the Father and the Son.
    23. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
    24. See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father.
    25. And this is what he promised us–even eternal life.

    Can you not see that truth is in direct relation to our relationship with Christ Jesus? To possess Christ is to possess Truth? Can you not see that He is Truth as other passages say, lives in us… and to depend on “man made doctrine” over sound doctrine as I have been saying, is to not depend on Jesus, but man for one’s salvation? You are saying that “anything taught is doctrine”… then to you anything taught is sound? I fully disagree.

    Ben quote: “”Doctrine” is anything that is taught. You taught it. You cannot know anything of Christ without the teachings (doctrine) of Scripture. Where do you find out about Christ if you dispose of what Scripture teaches?”

    I have not said what you claim in that statement… you are misrepresenting my words in a very dishonest way. In fact if you read close you may see that we are in some way agreeing!!!!!!! You just seem fixed on “being right” and making me “wrong”. That means you are fixated on making yourself more righteous than me!!!!! I depend on the Righteousness of Christ and not mine own… yet you push a form of humanism by your words!!!!!

    Truth can not come from a lie… so if a “man made doctrine” is not first of God, and then revealed by God… it is not truth but a lie. It is distorted. Yet, you disagree with this?

    You fight for “man made doctrines” over Living the Life of Christ?

    Rom 4: 17. As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed–the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.

    Rom 4: 20. Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21. being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22. This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.”
    23. The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24. but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness–for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

    Rom 5: 8. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!
    10. For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

    Rom 6: 9. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.
    10. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.
    11. In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

    Do you not grasp we live by the Spirit that dwells in us?

    Rom 8: Romans 8

    1. Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2.because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.

    This is the verse where we are at an impasse… I believe the scripture…

    1 John 5: 9. We accept man’s testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son.
    10. Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son.
    11. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
    12. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.
    13. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

    You are placing man’s testimony over God’s and calling God a liar… that is what “scripture” say… and so i teach it… you are denying this as revealed truth from He Who is Truth.

    You can not have it both ways…

    You need to choose Ben… Jesus or “man made doctrines”…

    I have chosen the Life of Christ and found everything else less just as the scripture teaches.

    I hope you grasp what the Spirit of Truth… is saying.

    Blessings,
    iggy


  66. Ben,
    By this post you have fully shown you have not even come close to understanding what I have written… that is ok. Jesus has not revealed this to you so you can not.

    You have called me dishonest… and the real thing is this. You have been dishonest that you have only quoted a small section of what I said taken out of the whole… and made it say what you wanted it to say.

    I have not said there is “no truth”. I have said very clearly that Jesus is Truth… and He reveals it to us… and out of that we have sound doctrine… as we have tapped into Jesus Who is the Truth. So, if Jesus is Truth… how then in your logic can there be no Truth? How can you say i am saying this? Show me the quote… that I have said there is “no truth”.

    Have you ever read? 1 John 2: 20. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.
    21. I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth.
    22. Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist–he denies the Father and the Son.
    23. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
    24. See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father.
    25. And this is what he promised us–even eternal life.

    Can you not see that truth is in direct relation to our relationship with Christ Jesus? To possess Christ is to possess Truth? Can you not see that He is Truth as other passages say, lives in us… and to depend on “man made doctrine” over sound doctrine as I have been saying, is to not depend on Jesus, but man for one’s salvation? You are saying that “anything taught is doctrine”… then to you anything taught is sound? I fully disagree.

    Ben quote: “”Doctrine” is anything that is taught. You taught it. You cannot know anything of Christ without the teachings (doctrine) of Scripture. Where do you find out about Christ if you dispose of what Scripture teaches?”

    I have not said what you claim in that statement… you are misrepresenting my words in a very dishonest way. In fact if you read close you may see that we are in some way agreeing!!!!!!! You just seem fixed on “being right” and making me “wrong”. That means you are fixated on making yourself more righteous than me!!!!! I depend on the Righteousness of Christ and not mine own… yet you push a form of humanism by your words!!!!!

    Truth can not come from a lie… so if a “man made doctrine” is not first of God, and then revealed by God… it is not truth but a lie. It is distorted. Yet, you disagree with this?

    You fight for “man made doctrines” over Living the Life of Christ?

    Rom 4: 17. As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed–the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.

    Rom 4: 20. Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21. being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22. This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.”
    23. The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24. but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness–for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

    Rom 5: 8. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!
    10. For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

    Rom 6: 9. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.
    10. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.
    11. In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

    Do you not grasp we live by the Spirit that dwells in us?

    Rom 8: Romans 8

    1. Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2.because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.

    This is the verse where we are at an impasse… I believe the scripture…

    1 John 5: 9. We accept man’s testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son.
    10. Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son.
    11. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
    12. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.
    13. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

    You are placing man’s testimony over God’s and calling God a liar… that is what “scripture” say… and so i teach it… you are denying this as revealed truth from He Who is Truth.

    You can not have it both ways…

    You need to choose Ben… Jesus or “man made doctrines”…

    I have chosen the Life of Christ and found everything else less just as the scripture teaches.

    I hope you grasp what the Spirit of Truth… is saying.

    Blessings,
    iggy


  67. Iggy,

    I’m gonna have to side with Ben on a lot of this stuff. Maybe some of the things that you have posted earlier were mis-stating what you actually believe, but you still have to admit that your earlier statements at best confuse what you are now saying and at worst contradict it.
    You did by your very title “Propositional Truth is not Biblical Truth” create a dichotomy. But as Ben has pointed out the Bible is full of propositional truth as is the Christian experience and this blog itself! I understand what you are saying, Truth comes only from Christ and that Man cannot know truth without Him. But what does this have to do with propositional truth? Why is propositional truth held to be the bad guy when any type of “truth” you could list would be just as guilty of fault without Christ as its center. It seems that ultimately your problem is with pride and not a particular type of reasoning. You have said as much in your later posts but you can’t get past the fact that your earlier posts were attacking propositional truth as the enemy.
    You did the same thing with doctrine by placing it against a relationship with Christ (“the issue is the difference in knowing doctrines and beleiving in teaching versus getting to know the Person of Jesus through our relationship with Him.”) Again this isn’t a fair assessment of the relationship between doctrine and our relationship to Christ. You acknowledged this yourself in your last post when you said:
    “Truth can not come from a lie… so if a “man made doctrine” is not first of God, and then revealed by God… it is not truth but a lie. It is distorted. Yet, you disagree with this?”

    But in the very next sentence you return to describing the two as in opposition to each other!!!

    “You fight for “man made doctrines” over Living the Life of Christ?”

    You may very well have not intended to portray these ideas as opposed to eahc other, but you have to admit that your earlier comments made it appear that you did intend to do so.
    This begs the question, if you in fact don’t have a problem with propositional truth or doctrine if they are centered in Christ, why bother mentioning them at all in the first place? The fact that they were even brought up in such a way would lead anyone to believe that you do have a problem with doctrine and prop. truth.
    Iggy, i realize that you are passionate in what you believe and you should be. How can anyone who has experience Christ’s love and grace not be? But you yourself have said that humility is the core of faith. Taking this into account, it doesn’t seem very humble to assume that someone doesn’t understand your point because “Jesus has not revealed this to [them]” rather than accepting the it may have been poorly explained on your part.
    Also, you cannot say with any certainty that Ben was being dishonest in his discussion with you. That speaks of intention and you cannot know his heart.
    Seriously iggy, I don’t know where you’re getting a lot of this stuff from. In your last post you said:
    “You are placing man’s testimony over God’s and calling God a liar… that is what “scripture” say… and so i teach it… you are denying this as revealed truth from He Who is Truth.”

    This is just one of many statements you have made against Ben’s beliefs. But I have looked back over the posts, and Ben says almost nothing about what he himself believes. All he has done was raised some good questions about the things that you have posted. The only times I have seen anything about what Ben believes is what you have told him he does! You are making straw man arguements based on false assumptions. You in a sense have chosen to argue with an effigy rather than respond to criticism. I don’t think this does justice to the points you are trying to make here.

    Dan


  68. Iggy,

    I’m gonna have to side with Ben on a lot of this stuff. Maybe some of the things that you have posted earlier were mis-stating what you actually believe, but you still have to admit that your earlier statements at best confuse what you are now saying and at worst contradict it.
    You did by your very title “Propositional Truth is not Biblical Truth” create a dichotomy. But as Ben has pointed out the Bible is full of propositional truth as is the Christian experience and this blog itself! I understand what you are saying, Truth comes only from Christ and that Man cannot know truth without Him. But what does this have to do with propositional truth? Why is propositional truth held to be the bad guy when any type of “truth” you could list would be just as guilty of fault without Christ as its center. It seems that ultimately your problem is with pride and not a particular type of reasoning. You have said as much in your later posts but you can’t get past the fact that your earlier posts were attacking propositional truth as the enemy.
    You did the same thing with doctrine by placing it against a relationship with Christ (“the issue is the difference in knowing doctrines and beleiving in teaching versus getting to know the Person of Jesus through our relationship with Him.”) Again this isn’t a fair assessment of the relationship between doctrine and our relationship to Christ. You acknowledged this yourself in your last post when you said:
    “Truth can not come from a lie… so if a “man made doctrine” is not first of God, and then revealed by God… it is not truth but a lie. It is distorted. Yet, you disagree with this?”

    But in the very next sentence you return to describing the two as in opposition to each other!!!

    “You fight for “man made doctrines” over Living the Life of Christ?”

    You may very well have not intended to portray these ideas as opposed to eahc other, but you have to admit that your earlier comments made it appear that you did intend to do so.
    This begs the question, if you in fact don’t have a problem with propositional truth or doctrine if they are centered in Christ, why bother mentioning them at all in the first place? The fact that they were even brought up in such a way would lead anyone to believe that you do have a problem with doctrine and prop. truth.
    Iggy, i realize that you are passionate in what you believe and you should be. How can anyone who has experience Christ’s love and grace not be? But you yourself have said that humility is the core of faith. Taking this into account, it doesn’t seem very humble to assume that someone doesn’t understand your point because “Jesus has not revealed this to [them]” rather than accepting the it may have been poorly explained on your part.
    Also, you cannot say with any certainty that Ben was being dishonest in his discussion with you. That speaks of intention and you cannot know his heart.
    Seriously iggy, I don’t know where you’re getting a lot of this stuff from. In your last post you said:
    “You are placing man’s testimony over God’s and calling God a liar… that is what “scripture” say… and so i teach it… you are denying this as revealed truth from He Who is Truth.”

    This is just one of many statements you have made against Ben’s beliefs. But I have looked back over the posts, and Ben says almost nothing about what he himself believes. All he has done was raised some good questions about the things that you have posted. The only times I have seen anything about what Ben believes is what you have told him he does! You are making straw man arguements based on false assumptions. You in a sense have chosen to argue with an effigy rather than respond to criticism. I don’t think this does justice to the points you are trying to make here.

    Dan


  69. Dan,

    Yes I did create a dichotomy… from the perspective of approaching man on our own righteousness and by our own wisdom.
    It contrasted pleasing God by our own works as opposed to resting in Christ and His finished works.

    It has been said I said I am against “doctrine”… with the implication I mean “all doctrine”. Ben, does not seem to be consistently arguing for anything… only against what he think is wrong… In that he has not given any real addition other that expressing my views in a twisted manner and not allowing me to expound the thought further. He has and you must admit not honesty represented what I have said, so how can his “agreements” be valid in any way?

    I said: “I have been to so many churches that teach “principles”. They claim them to be godly, yet often I wondered if that was so. Many also push “belief”, which in and of itself has nothing wrong as we are to believe in Christ. Yet, again, so many place such high importance on “believing” as in “Keeping good doctrine.” I wonder if they have come to Christ at all. You see, I know of no doctrine that became a man, lived a perfect life, then died in my place by being nailed to a cross…. Nope I have searched the scripture for years and have not found a doctrine that had done that! LOL!

    The Pharisees of Jesus day had perfect doctrine. They kept the rules like you would not have believed. They were as perfect about these doctrines as one could be… and you know what? Jesus was not impressed one bit. In fact He said things like, “Vipers!” “Whitewashed tombs!”, “You teach other’s to be twice a fit for hell as you are yourself!””

    Again, it is Jesus who died on the cross… not a doctrine. We can believe, yet James tells us “even the demons believe”.

    So simply “believing” does not equal being saved.

    To say we can approach a God and please Him by our own knowledge and understanding of truth is not Biblical… I have used many scriptures to show that.

    Rom 5:8. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
    9. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!
    10. For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

    Here it says we were God’s enemies! How then can an enemy find God… how were we God’s enemy? Because we were sinners!

    As sinners we are separated from the Truth… separated from the Head… so how can any truth come from the world? How can truth come from the darkness that is blinding this world… unless it comes from outside and shines in… And that is what Jesus did… He was Truth incarnate and opened the door… to Heaven.

    Jesus said in John 10: 7. “Therefore Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep.”

    So in order to get truth we need to enter the Gate (Jesus) to receive truth.

    Again, I am said to be against all doctrine… and I have stated… and continued as we conversed that that is not so…

    I stated: “To defend the position that we can come to knowledge of truth out side of Christ is a dangerous thing. If one believes in total depravity, and also claims to believe in propositional truth, they are in trouble as being a corrupt and fallen creature, we would filter that pure truth and pervert it by the fact we are totally depraved! If you are not a Calvinist, being that “all have sinned” there may have been a time that we could receive truth in it’s pure form, and that is called innocence, yet, the scripture says ALL have sinned and fallen short the Glory of God! So even if innocence could be carried to the farthest extreme, we do fall, and in that no longer can see truth in it’s purity as we are now clouded in shame. Bonhoeffer calls this “disunion”. At the fall we became divided, we are between “self concealment, and self revelation” or “Between solitude and fellowship”… which is as he defines… shame.”

    Did everyone notice the first sentence… it sets up the rest of the paragraph!

    “To defend the position that we can come to knowledge of truth out side of Christ is a dangerous thing.”

    Sin keeps us from being able to grasp truth outside of the Holy Spirit (Spirit of Christ ~ Spirit of Truth) for if no the world is under darkness and under the father of lies, how can in the fallen state this world is and also man is state we know “propositionally” that anything is true… We do not know all things as I have stated. We are not God… only God knows ALL THINGS!

    I have even conceded that if on wants to call the truth that Jesus passed on “propositional” they can… that is right in my first response to you Dan.

    I have already said to you this: “I know I am way oversimplifying propositional truth vs. Biblical Truth. Yet, the issue is the difference in knowing doctrines and believing in teaching versus getting to know the Person of Jesus through our relationship with Him.”

    Do you think it better to know doctrine or know Jesus… if we just know doctrine we may not know Jesus… I would rather build my doctrine on Jesus, than man… Why is that so hard to understand?

    To me it is like putting the foundation on the roof! How stable of house would that be.

    I have even in the course of conversation tried to clarify the difference between “sound doctrine” and “man made doctrine”. This is not changing my position at all… only as i said clarifying it more so that one can understand… yet it seems Ben can not build upon and grow and seems to just want to pick a fight and not enter into a conversation.

    That is sad to me as I created a starting point to build off of with the original post, not to argue, but to discuss and with this I am a liar according to Ben.
    Ben has only solidified my stand more, mostly, because of his attitude toward me. I have had others, who like Ben who think they are out to save me or whatever, Yet, I only see where I used to be in them and shudder and desire more to let Christ live in and do His good and perfect will in and through me.

    My life is not mine; I was bought and paid for by the Blood of Jesus. I want the Mind of Christ and not depend on man’s knowledge or wisdom. I pray that for you and Ben also.
    I have found LIFE and LIFE abundant!

    So, agree with Ben, you are free to, yet I have lived that way and I choose to live the life of Christ in me, my hope of glory. I am no longer bound by the principles of THIS WORLD, but bound to the Law of Love in Christ. The straw man is the one built on man’s knowledge and thinks by his own righteousness he can obtain Heaven by his own merit… but I know better things of you Dan.

    Blessings,
    iggy


  70. Dan,

    Yes I did create a dichotomy… from the perspective of approaching man on our own righteousness and by our own wisdom.
    It contrasted pleasing God by our own works as opposed to resting in Christ and His finished works.

    It has been said I said I am against “doctrine”… with the implication I mean “all doctrine”. Ben, does not seem to be consistently arguing for anything… only against what he think is wrong… In that he has not given any real addition other that expressing my views in a twisted manner and not allowing me to expound the thought further. He has and you must admit not honesty represented what I have said, so how can his “agreements” be valid in any way?

    I said: “I have been to so many churches that teach “principles”. They claim them to be godly, yet often I wondered if that was so. Many also push “belief”, which in and of itself has nothing wrong as we are to believe in Christ. Yet, again, so many place such high importance on “believing” as in “Keeping good doctrine.” I wonder if they have come to Christ at all. You see, I know of no doctrine that became a man, lived a perfect life, then died in my place by being nailed to a cross…. Nope I have searched the scripture for years and have not found a doctrine that had done that! LOL!

    The Pharisees of Jesus day had perfect doctrine. They kept the rules like you would not have believed. They were as perfect about these doctrines as one could be… and you know what? Jesus was not impressed one bit. In fact He said things like, “Vipers!” “Whitewashed tombs!”, “You teach other’s to be twice a fit for hell as you are yourself!””

    Again, it is Jesus who died on the cross… not a doctrine. We can believe, yet James tells us “even the demons believe”.

    So simply “believing” does not equal being saved.

    To say we can approach a God and please Him by our own knowledge and understanding of truth is not Biblical… I have used many scriptures to show that.

    Rom 5:8. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
    9. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!
    10. For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

    Here it says we were God’s enemies! How then can an enemy find God… how were we God’s enemy? Because we were sinners!

    As sinners we are separated from the Truth… separated from the Head… so how can any truth come from the world? How can truth come from the darkness that is blinding this world… unless it comes from outside and shines in… And that is what Jesus did… He was Truth incarnate and opened the door… to Heaven.

    Jesus said in John 10: 7. “Therefore Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep.”

    So in order to get truth we need to enter the Gate (Jesus) to receive truth.

    Again, I am said to be against all doctrine… and I have stated… and continued as we conversed that that is not so…

    I stated: “To defend the position that we can come to knowledge of truth out side of Christ is a dangerous thing. If one believes in total depravity, and also claims to believe in propositional truth, they are in trouble as being a corrupt and fallen creature, we would filter that pure truth and pervert it by the fact we are totally depraved! If you are not a Calvinist, being that “all have sinned” there may have been a time that we could receive truth in it’s pure form, and that is called innocence, yet, the scripture says ALL have sinned and fallen short the Glory of God! So even if innocence could be carried to the farthest extreme, we do fall, and in that no longer can see truth in it’s purity as we are now clouded in shame. Bonhoeffer calls this “disunion”. At the fall we became divided, we are between “self concealment, and self revelation” or “Between solitude and fellowship”… which is as he defines… shame.”

    Did everyone notice the first sentence… it sets up the rest of the paragraph!

    “To defend the position that we can come to knowledge of truth out side of Christ is a dangerous thing.”

    Sin keeps us from being able to grasp truth outside of the Holy Spirit (Spirit of Christ ~ Spirit of Truth) for if no the world is under darkness and under the father of lies, how can in the fallen state this world is and also man is state we know “propositionally” that anything is true… We do not know all things as I have stated. We are not God… only God knows ALL THINGS!

    I have even conceded that if on wants to call the truth that Jesus passed on “propositional” they can… that is right in my first response to you Dan.

    I have already said to you this: “I know I am way oversimplifying propositional truth vs. Biblical Truth. Yet, the issue is the difference in knowing doctrines and believing in teaching versus getting to know the Person of Jesus through our relationship with Him.”

    Do you think it better to know doctrine or know Jesus… if we just know doctrine we may not know Jesus… I would rather build my doctrine on Jesus, than man… Why is that so hard to understand?

    To me it is like putting the foundation on the roof! How stable of house would that be.

    I have even in the course of conversation tried to clarify the difference between “sound doctrine” and “man made doctrine”. This is not changing my position at all… only as i said clarifying it more so that one can understand… yet it seems Ben can not build upon and grow and seems to just want to pick a fight and not enter into a conversation.

    That is sad to me as I created a starting point to build off of with the original post, not to argue, but to discuss and with this I am a liar according to Ben.
    Ben has only solidified my stand more, mostly, because of his attitude toward me. I have had others, who like Ben who think they are out to save me or whatever, Yet, I only see where I used to be in them and shudder and desire more to let Christ live in and do His good and perfect will in and through me.

    My life is not mine; I was bought and paid for by the Blood of Jesus. I want the Mind of Christ and not depend on man’s knowledge or wisdom. I pray that for you and Ben also.
    I have found LIFE and LIFE abundant!

    So, agree with Ben, you are free to, yet I have lived that way and I choose to live the life of Christ in me, my hope of glory. I am no longer bound by the principles of THIS WORLD, but bound to the Law of Love in Christ. The straw man is the one built on man’s knowledge and thinks by his own righteousness he can obtain Heaven by his own merit… but I know better things of you Dan.

    Blessings,
    iggy


  71. iggy,

    i don’t know where the communication is breaking down, so I will try to explain this simply. I’m not questioning your position that doctrines are bad if they are not centered on Christ. All I am saying is that your title wasn’t a good choice for this topic and that several poits in your consequent posts were not clear.
    Yes you did acknowledge that you were oversimplifying the matter in your first reply, but you still continued to use this dichotomy despite the fact that you ackowledged that it didn’t accurately reflect this topic.
    As far as your last paragraph in the previous post, just cool your jets a bit. We don’t have to be so dire about everything. i don’t even know why made that remark about the straw man, it had nothing to do with what my reference was in the previous post (I was referring to a straw man arguement which was what you were using against Ben).
    I know that Ben upset you with the way he commented here, but you have been equally offensive in your posts. There are two things that I have seen in this discussion that i would advice you to curb. One is the “experience” card that you play where you basically say “I used to be like you then I wised up.” An example here would be where you said of people like Ben “Yet, I only see where I used to be in them and shudder.” You have said similar things to me in past discussions and i will just tell you plainly, it does nothing for your arguement and it makes you look pompous. The second thing is presuming to know where someone is in their relationship to Christ. You did this earlier when you questioned whether Ben had a relationship with Christ at all as well as at the end of your last post (though in a milder tone). These things reflect the kind of arrogance that is often attributed to people of the emergent movement. I’m not saying these things to be a prick, but these things need to be dealt with. Here in this discussion you have 2 people who are very skeptical about the offerings of the emergent movement and, in many of the things you have said, you have validated our skepticism.


  72. iggy,

    i don’t know where the communication is breaking down, so I will try to explain this simply. I’m not questioning your position that doctrines are bad if they are not centered on Christ. All I am saying is that your title wasn’t a good choice for this topic and that several poits in your consequent posts were not clear.
    Yes you did acknowledge that you were oversimplifying the matter in your first reply, but you still continued to use this dichotomy despite the fact that you ackowledged that it didn’t accurately reflect this topic.
    As far as your last paragraph in the previous post, just cool your jets a bit. We don’t have to be so dire about everything. i don’t even know why made that remark about the straw man, it had nothing to do with what my reference was in the previous post (I was referring to a straw man arguement which was what you were using against Ben).
    I know that Ben upset you with the way he commented here, but you have been equally offensive in your posts. There are two things that I have seen in this discussion that i would advice you to curb. One is the “experience” card that you play where you basically say “I used to be like you then I wised up.” An example here would be where you said of people like Ben “Yet, I only see where I used to be in them and shudder.” You have said similar things to me in past discussions and i will just tell you plainly, it does nothing for your arguement and it makes you look pompous. The second thing is presuming to know where someone is in their relationship to Christ. You did this earlier when you questioned whether Ben had a relationship with Christ at all as well as at the end of your last post (though in a milder tone). These things reflect the kind of arrogance that is often attributed to people of the emergent movement. I’m not saying these things to be a prick, but these things need to be dealt with. Here in this discussion you have 2 people who are very skeptical about the offerings of the emergent movement and, in many of the things you have said, you have validated our skepticism.


  73. Well said Dan.

    Yet, if you really read, I am not questioning Ben’s salvation… but his argument and to where falls short.

    To say: Yes, Jesus taught that truth, without acknowledgment that Jesus is Truth… is perplexing… Ben never did acknowledged whether or not Jesus was Truth…. so as in form of the “modernist” absent style argument I was pushing him to give that Jesus is Truth as the scritpure and Jesus own words, said of Himself.

    Ben never once acknowleged that Jesus was Truth… only that truth is “propositonal”.

    Wikipedia: Propositional logic or sentential logic is the logic of propositions, sentences, or clauses. Unlike predicate logic or syllogistic logic, the internal structure of a clause or sentence has no effect on validity in propositional logic. Instead, validity is determined by the relationship of the clauses to each other in sentences compounded with words like ‘and’, ‘or’, and ‘if … then …’. So the smallest possible expressions in a propositional logic (its atomic formulas) are clauses or variables that stand for clauses. Such variables are called propositional variables.

    Jesus never said. ‘if… then…’He did say “I Am”.

    In that he did not say, “If I am perfect, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He simply stated… I am.

    That is not propositionally.

    In that I am saying we then can reason with Jesus… Jesus can use propositional style… if that is the term one desires to use… and in that I (using P logic) Jesus can say if you are like A, then why are you being like B?

    Yet to say Jesus is Propostional truth is a farce…

    Ben has added nothing to the conversation. Yet, you have and do. I will agree I have overstepped a bit.. yet, that is to drive forth with the conversation.

    Man can reason, if such and such is A, then B is true… yet even in quantum physics 1 + 1 may not always add up to 2… it can have an outside force causing it to not be true in all cases.

    Say from a 2 dimensional perspective a 3 dimensional orb will look like a circle with a point in the middle… but it will not look like an orb to those in that 2 dimensional person who is observing. Being that it then will be not a true representation of what a orb is, it is not recognized to its fullest. It may be observed, yet without more knowledge of the 3rd dimension, those in the 2 dimension will not grasp the orb as a concept….

    I see this as true with us. We are (without Christ) trapped in this world ruled by darkness. The bible says, Jesus was the Light yet the world did not recognize it.

    We must humbly acknowledge that there is a possibility… that we do not know everything and that outside of our own minds even with their vast knowledge that truth to an un-renewed (ing) mind is only relative to that vast knowledge.

    Propositional truth is only true if the “if” and the “then” are truly true. And there is no way to verify that our perception of truth is based on reality… or if it is based on only our perception of that reality.

    Man can not know truth…

    I know that technically I am using propositional truth in this argument… yet that is the limitations of our dimension. That is the limitation of our knowledge of truth.

    When we then add the element of Jesus and our relationship with Him, we then add the one variable we lacked… and that is the source of Truth… in the Person of Jesus.
    Only then can we have “propositional truth” if it is from the source Who has the authority to back up the claims of “if and then”. Yet, to me, to add a qualifier to the word truth is not necessary. It only adds to the confusion of the purity of truth we receive… it becomes less that as James says:

    1: 17. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. 18. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.

    Truth is a gift from God… It is from God and is proven.

    I was asked by you… “Secondly, if propositional truth is so flawed then how can we come to Christ who is Truth?”

    And the answer was by revelation and by the Grace of God. I will add that it is like a pin prick into our dimension of darkness that a little light shines… in that moment truth is revealed and by Grace we are able to receive it.

    Ephesians 2: 8. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God– 9. not by works, so that no one can boast.

    If we can reason our way to God then this verse is not true… (and that is propositional truth based on the authority of God’s word)… To say we can reason and find God… then denies that it is God who finds us… It is by the One who spoke all into existence we then can receive truth in it’s purity.

    As scripture says;

    Hebrews 1:1. In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2.but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

    God has spoken Truth to us by the Person of Jesus, appointed as the authority. And who better? Since it was through Jesus all creation was made!

    This is the direction I have hoped to go in our conversation. To be attacked and called arrogant… To be called a liar…

    I have been broken in spirit and that is how I have come to understand what I do. I never claim to be better, smarter than anyone.

    I can not understand why someone has to attack… instead of give grace and gently and humbly converse… In that maybe I could learn more from Ben… yet now I am only more convinced I am going in the correct path of my journey. I never desire to go back to being judgmental.

    Yes, I am not perfect, and yes I do react instead of respond… I tried to but have very little patience with someone who claims to have Christ who was full of Grace and Truth… in their hearts yet come across as one who hates their brother. That to me is a more disturbing “dichotomy” and a contradiction of heart.

    I do not hate Ben or anyone else who comes here and show no respect. Yet, be sure that when they do, most people in emergent will not view that voice as a valid voice and they lose the privilege to converse. This is not condescension, but boundaries to protect from abuse.

    Blessings,
    iggy


  74. Well said Dan.

    Yet, if you really read, I am not questioning Ben’s salvation… but his argument and to where falls short.

    To say: Yes, Jesus taught that truth, without acknowledgment that Jesus is Truth… is perplexing… Ben never did acknowledged whether or not Jesus was Truth…. so as in form of the “modernist” absent style argument I was pushing him to give that Jesus is Truth as the scritpure and Jesus own words, said of Himself.

    Ben never once acknowleged that Jesus was Truth… only that truth is “propositonal”.

    Wikipedia: Propositional logic or sentential logic is the logic of propositions, sentences, or clauses. Unlike predicate logic or syllogistic logic, the internal structure of a clause or sentence has no effect on validity in propositional logic. Instead, validity is determined by the relationship of the clauses to each other in sentences compounded with words like ‘and’, ‘or’, and ‘if … then …’. So the smallest possible expressions in a propositional logic (its atomic formulas) are clauses or variables that stand for clauses. Such variables are called propositional variables.

    Jesus never said. ‘if… then…’He did say “I Am”.

    In that he did not say, “If I am perfect, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He simply stated… I am.

    That is not propositionally.

    In that I am saying we then can reason with Jesus… Jesus can use propositional style… if that is the term one desires to use… and in that I (using P logic) Jesus can say if you are like A, then why are you being like B?

    Yet to say Jesus is Propostional truth is a farce…

    Ben has added nothing to the conversation. Yet, you have and do. I will agree I have overstepped a bit.. yet, that is to drive forth with the conversation.

    Man can reason, if such and such is A, then B is true… yet even in quantum physics 1 + 1 may not always add up to 2… it can have an outside force causing it to not be true in all cases.

    Say from a 2 dimensional perspective a 3 dimensional orb will look like a circle with a point in the middle… but it will not look like an orb to those in that 2 dimensional person who is observing. Being that it then will be not a true representation of what a orb is, it is not recognized to its fullest. It may be observed, yet without more knowledge of the 3rd dimension, those in the 2 dimension will not grasp the orb as a concept….

    I see this as true with us. We are (without Christ) trapped in this world ruled by darkness. The bible says, Jesus was the Light yet the world did not recognize it.

    We must humbly acknowledge that there is a possibility… that we do not know everything and that outside of our own minds even with their vast knowledge that truth to an un-renewed (ing) mind is only relative to that vast knowledge.

    Propositional truth is only true if the “if” and the “then” are truly true. And there is no way to verify that our perception of truth is based on reality… or if it is based on only our perception of that reality.

    Man can not know truth…

    I know that technically I am using propositional truth in this argument… yet that is the limitations of our dimension. That is the limitation of our knowledge of truth.

    When we then add the element of Jesus and our relationship with Him, we then add the one variable we lacked… and that is the source of Truth… in the Person of Jesus.
    Only then can we have “propositional truth” if it is from the source Who has the authority to back up the claims of “if and then”. Yet, to me, to add a qualifier to the word truth is not necessary. It only adds to the confusion of the purity of truth we receive… it becomes less that as James says:

    1: 17. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. 18. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.

    Truth is a gift from God… It is from God and is proven.

    I was asked by you… “Secondly, if propositional truth is so flawed then how can we come to Christ who is Truth?”

    And the answer was by revelation and by the Grace of God. I will add that it is like a pin prick into our dimension of darkness that a little light shines… in that moment truth is revealed and by Grace we are able to receive it.

    Ephesians 2: 8. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God– 9. not by works, so that no one can boast.

    If we can reason our way to God then this verse is not true… (and that is propositional truth based on the authority of God’s word)… To say we can reason and find God… then denies that it is God who finds us… It is by the One who spoke all into existence we then can receive truth in it’s purity.

    As scripture says;

    Hebrews 1:1. In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2.but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

    God has spoken Truth to us by the Person of Jesus, appointed as the authority. And who better? Since it was through Jesus all creation was made!

    This is the direction I have hoped to go in our conversation. To be attacked and called arrogant… To be called a liar…

    I have been broken in spirit and that is how I have come to understand what I do. I never claim to be better, smarter than anyone.

    I can not understand why someone has to attack… instead of give grace and gently and humbly converse… In that maybe I could learn more from Ben… yet now I am only more convinced I am going in the correct path of my journey. I never desire to go back to being judgmental.

    Yes, I am not perfect, and yes I do react instead of respond… I tried to but have very little patience with someone who claims to have Christ who was full of Grace and Truth… in their hearts yet come across as one who hates their brother. That to me is a more disturbing “dichotomy” and a contradiction of heart.

    I do not hate Ben or anyone else who comes here and show no respect. Yet, be sure that when they do, most people in emergent will not view that voice as a valid voice and they lose the privilege to converse. This is not condescension, but boundaries to protect from abuse.

    Blessings,
    iggy


  75. Dan,
    I will also concede that I may have needed a better title… yet as far as posts are concerned it has driven a lot of comments has it not? LOL!

    Maybe a better title would be ‘man can not perceive truth without know Truth’.

    Also, one must acknowledge, and I realize I fail at this at times, that this is a limited forum of discussion. I would rather be sitting in a coffee shop pounding the table in a hearty yet friendly debate while downing my Venti Coffee Americano with triple shot expresso… a little cream and 4 splendas… i can then read the faces, hear the voice inflections.. catch the sarcasm that is to hurt or to just have fun…(there is a difference in those two).

    Yet, instead we have words without the personality attatched… so to speak…

    So, sometimes I may come across angry or even frustrated… and maybe at times I am.. but never in my heart do I judge someone who claims he is saved… to not be. I fI question it is to push them to answer the question in their own heart. To judege their salvation is God’s territory.

    I may see that maybe that person lacks some insight… or may have received some erroneous teachings… believe me I have. That is what has been so great about my involvment in emerging… I have bene able to lay down certain “for granteds” and streamline my theology.

    I really think if you asked Jesus about propsitional truth, he would give a rowdy laugh and just smile!

    He would then take you in His arms and say,”walk with me, let me tell you somethings.”

    Blessings,
    iggy


  76. Dan,
    I will also concede that I may have needed a better title… yet as far as posts are concerned it has driven a lot of comments has it not? LOL!

    Maybe a better title would be ‘man can not perceive truth without know Truth’.

    Also, one must acknowledge, and I realize I fail at this at times, that this is a limited forum of discussion. I would rather be sitting in a coffee shop pounding the table in a hearty yet friendly debate while downing my Venti Coffee Americano with triple shot expresso… a little cream and 4 splendas… i can then read the faces, hear the voice inflections.. catch the sarcasm that is to hurt or to just have fun…(there is a difference in those two).

    Yet, instead we have words without the personality attatched… so to speak…

    So, sometimes I may come across angry or even frustrated… and maybe at times I am.. but never in my heart do I judge someone who claims he is saved… to not be. I fI question it is to push them to answer the question in their own heart. To judege their salvation is God’s territory.

    I may see that maybe that person lacks some insight… or may have received some erroneous teachings… believe me I have. That is what has been so great about my involvment in emerging… I have bene able to lay down certain “for granteds” and streamline my theology.

    I really think if you asked Jesus about propsitional truth, he would give a rowdy laugh and just smile!

    He would then take you in His arms and say,”walk with me, let me tell you somethings.”

    Blessings,
    iggy


  77. Iggy,
    You said, “If we can reason our way to God then this verse is not true… (and that is propositional truth based on the authority of God’s word)…” Now which is it? Is propositional truth “not biblical” or not?

    That IS a contradiction.

    Another point of dishonesty on your part, Iggy, is the constant misrepresentation of what I have said. I quote you and you deny that you typed it. (It was the cat again!) Then you attribute thoughts to me that have no basis at all, such as: we can reason our way to God and Jesus is a doctrine.

    Stop lying, Iggy.

    Then you have stated that you hate no one. I have read some of your blogs. You call names and you simply hate anyone that points out the biblical errors that make up the Emergent church and that permeate your writings. You said that you doubted the Christianity of those who guard their doctrine. That was an attack on a whole group of folk that have done nothing to you. You should follow suit and be concerned with doctrine. God commands it.

    Why not, Iggy?

    By the way, while we are on the subject of other parts of this blog, how do you excuse the promotion of deceivers like Leonard Sweet? He basically pushes a new age approach to knowing a god. That is his doctrine. Why do you push his doctrine and denegrate biblical doctrine?

    Now here is another contradiction. You said, “God has spoken Truth to us by the Person of Jesus…” How stupid your god is, that it speaks that which we cannot know.

    Here is the real skinny: In the first paragraph, you stated the obvious. No statement is true if it is not truly true. You fall down when you extrapolate from that that we cannot verify anything. If we cannot verify anything, why did God tell us in Romans one, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”? And why did He say in Philippians one. “And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment…”?

    DEAL with this issue, Iggy.

    One last note. You said that you did not say there is no truth. Without realizing it you have. All truth other than God Himself can be formulated in declarative sentences. Thus all truth is propositional. You have down played truth a lot. Do you want me to quote you more? I did not make these sentences up?

    When you call me dishonest for quoting you it is simply lying. And that is something you may wish to think over. You expressed some concern for being called a liar. A tip: lie less. It’ll help.

    At any rate you push Emergent stuff. That stuff is all about shedding the obligations truth puts on us. That is why it is heresy.

    Last, you mentioned that some claim to know Christ, but come across as if they hate their brother. That is exactly what you have done by reviling those that love the doctrines once delivered to the saints.

    Ben.


  78. Iggy,
    You said, “If we can reason our way to God then this verse is not true… (and that is propositional truth based on the authority of God’s word)…” Now which is it? Is propositional truth “not biblical” or not?

    That IS a contradiction.

    Another point of dishonesty on your part, Iggy, is the constant misrepresentation of what I have said. I quote you and you deny that you typed it. (It was the cat again!) Then you attribute thoughts to me that have no basis at all, such as: we can reason our way to God and Jesus is a doctrine.

    Stop lying, Iggy.

    Then you have stated that you hate no one. I have read some of your blogs. You call names and you simply hate anyone that points out the biblical errors that make up the Emergent church and that permeate your writings. You said that you doubted the Christianity of those who guard their doctrine. That was an attack on a whole group of folk that have done nothing to you. You should follow suit and be concerned with doctrine. God commands it.

    Why not, Iggy?

    By the way, while we are on the subject of other parts of this blog, how do you excuse the promotion of deceivers like Leonard Sweet? He basically pushes a new age approach to knowing a god. That is his doctrine. Why do you push his doctrine and denegrate biblical doctrine?

    Now here is another contradiction. You said, “God has spoken Truth to us by the Person of Jesus…” How stupid your god is, that it speaks that which we cannot know.

    Here is the real skinny: In the first paragraph, you stated the obvious. No statement is true if it is not truly true. You fall down when you extrapolate from that that we cannot verify anything. If we cannot verify anything, why did God tell us in Romans one, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”? And why did He say in Philippians one. “And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment…”?

    DEAL with this issue, Iggy.

    One last note. You said that you did not say there is no truth. Without realizing it you have. All truth other than God Himself can be formulated in declarative sentences. Thus all truth is propositional. You have down played truth a lot. Do you want me to quote you more? I did not make these sentences up?

    When you call me dishonest for quoting you it is simply lying. And that is something you may wish to think over. You expressed some concern for being called a liar. A tip: lie less. It’ll help.

    At any rate you push Emergent stuff. That stuff is all about shedding the obligations truth puts on us. That is why it is heresy.

    Last, you mentioned that some claim to know Christ, but come across as if they hate their brother. That is exactly what you have done by reviling those that love the doctrines once delivered to the saints.

    Ben.


  79. Whoa. Guys… seriously… less vitriol please! I think we’re all Christians here (am I right?), and though I don’t suggest we all just go ahead and agree (or agree to disagree), this post has turned into a pissing contest. I don’t think this type of talk is becoming of the bride of Christ.


  80. Whoa. Guys… seriously… less vitriol please! I think we’re all Christians here (am I right?), and though I don’t suggest we all just go ahead and agree (or agree to disagree), this post has turned into a pissing contest. I don’t think this type of talk is becoming of the bride of Christ.


  81. LOL! Love your post Miss Sarah.

    I agree. Though it is hard to converse with someone who has a chip on their shoulder and has already judged one before the dialog begins.

    I know I have not handled this very well… All I have really wanted was clarity as to Ben’s position. I am going to respond one last time. In a more civil manner… now that I see clearly where Ben is coming from. then i will let him have the last say…

    Blessings,
    iggy


  82. LOL! Love your post Miss Sarah.

    I agree. Though it is hard to converse with someone who has a chip on their shoulder and has already judged one before the dialog begins.

    I know I have not handled this very well… All I have really wanted was clarity as to Ben’s position. I am going to respond one last time. In a more civil manner… now that I see clearly where Ben is coming from. then i will let him have the last say…

    Blessings,
    iggy


  83. Sarah,
    Here’s some vitriol for you. “I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.”

    Guess who said that? And to whom? Was the speaker wrong?

    Ben.


  84. Sarah,
    Here’s some vitriol for you. “I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.”

    Guess who said that? And to whom? Was the speaker wrong?

    Ben.


  85. Yes, Ben, I do know who said that, and to whom. Paul had quite a bit of spiritual authority on the matter of which he was speaking, and I could be wrong, but it seems that by using that verse you’re trying to justify your rudeness to Iggy, (not that you have been the only rude one, mind you) as if you see yourself on the same plane of spiritual authority as Paul.


  86. Yes, Ben, I do know who said that, and to whom. Paul had quite a bit of spiritual authority on the matter of which he was speaking, and I could be wrong, but it seems that by using that verse you’re trying to justify your rudeness to Iggy, (not that you have been the only rude one, mind you) as if you see yourself on the same plane of spiritual authority as Paul.


  87. Ben,

    Ben 1. “Now which is it? Is propositional truth “not biblical” or not?”

    Ben, I have conceded already that if one wants to call the ‘truth’ that we receive ‘propositional’ one can… I don’t care. You may have missed that in the conversation with Dan I was having. Again, the main point is that this has to be pure in it reception or it is not truth but only our perception of truth. Just because something is a propostition it is not always truth.

    If the ground is white, then the snow has fallen.
    Is that a truth?

    Not in 120 degree weather in Nevada, it could be alkali. Or if I am on Carmel Beach, it could be white sand… To be true it has to be the “if” must be from a verifiable source. I view that source as Jesus. So, if Jesus said it, it must be truth! Pretty simple. I have not thrown out ALL truth, but have been attempting to draw a distinction between being connected to the Head (Jesus) and if one is not. You have missed this distinction either on purpose or unintentionally… of that I am not clear as you are very ambiguous in your questions. In your statements you have just said, ‘doctrines’, so I added qualifiers to help with the idea I am expounding. You ignore these qualifiers and fire more acuusations… to the point of calling me a liar, without giving grace that I may have miswritten, or that I have intentionally set forth a lie. I am humble enough to acknowledge I can be wrong… and in the course of the real conversation I have been having with Dan, have condeded some of the points you are still saying I have not!

    Ben 2. “Another point of dishonesty on your part, Iggy, is the constant misrepresentation of what I have said. I quote you and you deny that you typed it. (It was the cat again!) Then you attribute thoughts to me that have no basis at all, such as: we can reason our way to God and Jesus is a doctrine.”

    You are frustrating. In that I will confess to you and to all. I have not misrepresented but I have tried to “extrapolate” your stand… I asked was Jesus “The Way, The Truth, and The Life” and all you stated was, “He taught that truth.” I asked, mostly tongue in cheek, “How can truth come from not come from the source?” and you ignored the question.

    I do not hate (yet I am not perfect), yet I will stand against false teachers as one should… isn’t that what you are doing? Then are you hating me? Or are you just rebuking me in love? Mostly you must realize that there is criticism that is for the betterment and then there is judging. I agree early on as one is seeing things from an emerging way, it can sound judgmental. In fact I was told I was being arrogant when years ago God pulled me out of legalism into His Grace. Yet, to receive grace one must be humble. I was change completely by grace… I was trying to express this change and would contrast my faith before and after… just as Paul would in the Bible. Yet, people will interpret what they will. Really you have been rude, Ben. You have been like someone who brings a pet to someone’s house they just met and lets the dog pee on the rug… yet you have forgotten the dog so pee on the carpet yourself. You showed no respect and right off without any foundation… attacked me. This set the tone in OUR dialog which then spilt over to some others. If you notice we never really had a conversation… In that, I did that on purpose as I wanted make a point… see the post I wrote after Dan rebuked me and you will see.

    In the course of the conversation you have fought for ‘doctrine’ I have qualified the difference between the two types of ‘doctrine’ I have been talking about. You have not. I have been trying to get you to converse and not just attack by clarifying you own position. Since you did not I was using the “modern” method of silence. Since you did not qualify which type of doctrine, I took to mean you where saying “all doctrine” both man made and sound doctrine. Yet, as Dan pointed out you have never stated what you believe. It is hard to find a point where one can agree and develop from there understanding of each others view. In not letting me know your understand, instead of attack I may have agreed with you on some level and may still. Yet, from the start your tone has not been loving.

    Ben 3. By the way, while we are on the subject of other parts of this blog, how do you excuse the promotion of deceivers like Leonard Sweet? He basically pushes a new age approach to knowing a god. That is his doctrine. Why do you push his doctrine and denegrate biblical doctrine?

    Aha! I thought this was the main issue with me… You would be surprised that I have many who are not “emerging” by anyway who know Len Sweet and have conversed with him. I will take their opinion over yours. I really do not know if you have met him, but my guess is you have only read something somewhere about him… and based your judgment on that. From what I have read, I do not see shifting values as he promotes as unbiblical.

    Ben 4. “Now here is another contradiction. You said, “God has spoken Truth to us by the Person of Jesus…” How stupid your god is, that it speaks that which we cannot know.”

    Please notice verse 4.
    John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. He was with God in the beginning.
    3. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

    Really you should ask, “How stupid is man that God speaks and we do not hear?” As scripture is pretty clear on my point in verse 5.

    Ben 5. Here is the real skinny: In the first paragraph, you stated the obvious. No statement is true if it is not truly true. You fall down when you extrapolate from that that we cannot verify anything. If we cannot verify anything, why did God tell us in Romans one, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”? And why did He say in Philippians one. “And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment…”?

    I am using a classic argument that is used by Norman Geisler. You can not say any person knows all that is to know… that a person can know much but still have something they do not know? You then, believe that man knows everything? (That is not putting words in you mouth, but a question that I have asked a few times and has been ignored. I am trying to get you to clarify this for me…..)

    Creation is the first point of revelation… and I believe God does use it to reveal Himself… yet man still will choose not to see. This is one of the first things that brought me to God… His creation. If one is to study creation they will see attributes of God. Yet, one may see, yet not understand. God judges on what one knows… so man has no excuse to say there is no God. Yet, still creation is “truth” from God. So I am not sure what your point is here.
    Ben 6. “When you call me dishonest for quoting you it is simply lying. And that is something you may wish to think over. You expressed some concern for being called a liar. A tip: lie less. It’ll help.
    At any rate you push Emergent stuff. That stuff is all about shedding the obligations truth puts on us. That is why it is heresy.
    Last, you mentioned that some claim to know Christ, but come across as if they hate their brother. That is exactly what you have done by reviling those that love the doctrines once delivered to the saints. Talk”

    Ben again, you call me a liar… yet I see that you have been dishonest in how you have pull a sentence out of context to twist something I said to mean what you wanted it to mean.. I even quoted you and pointed out the whole paragraph… someone else even pointed out you did this also… yet…

    Again, this is the crux and real issue. You are against “Emergent stuff” Yet, I can see you have not really looked into it. Most of the people against Emergent read ant Emergent blogs and really, these are a source of misinformation. Case in point. Slice of Laodicea just ran a story about a NUDE ministry that was a April fools joke. They saw it and without checking facts posted it as true… many in emergent tried to let them know it was a joke. Yet, slice ran it for some time… and it is in the archive still. I can point to many other cases like this. Mostly the tone of these are very judgmental and often censored meaning that they only allow those who agree with them to have a voice.

    One must be careful that they do not overstep in their discernment and move into judgment… this often happens also… as in the recent case on another anti emergent blog where the person stated Dan Kimball is an apostate, then recanted, yet still says all who are involved in emergent thought are apostate. He is trying to have it both ways. The main point is that not all of us think alike whether PM/E/e or not.

    Which leads me to one of your statements that concerns me. You say, “That is exactly what you have done by reviling those that love the doctrines once delivered to the saints.” Yet, first off where have I reviled those that love the “Doctrine once delivered to the saints.”? I never wrote that… I have point that there are two types… man made and sound doctrine. You have added this to the thought…

    And the question is then, which tradition and doctrines are you speaking of? Eastern Orthodox? Catholic? Baptist? Calvinist? Armenianism? Your statements are so vague and ambiguous… so there is not foundation to really answer your question. Do you accept all? And which saints? The saints of the RCC? The saints of the Bible? The saints alive today? The saints of the Eastern orthodox? Russian?

    You need to give better questions to get better answers. I will say if all you want is to “get me in a lie”, then you do not have a pure motive in rebuking me.

    Now, if I have offended you, with a real offense which I may have… as some seem to say I have… in that and of that in itself I ask you forgiveness. I hope you can forgive me. I forgive you as Christ has forgiven me. I never have thought you were not saved… I only hoped to have you see that your style is not going to get you very far in as you approach people… not just of emerging… but anyone.

    I hope we at least can live at peace with each other. If you desire to continue in a conversation I will reply, yet I have no desire to carry on defending my character to you. I will love to allow you to give more clarity without judgment if you are able. If not I suggest you stop coming here and getting aggravated with me and start your own blog.

    I will continue to pray that God fulfills His good and perfect will in and through you as you journey in your faith.

    Be at Peace,
    iggy


  88. Ben,

    Ben 1. “Now which is it? Is propositional truth “not biblical” or not?”

    Ben, I have conceded already that if one wants to call the ‘truth’ that we receive ‘propositional’ one can… I don’t care. You may have missed that in the conversation with Dan I was having. Again, the main point is that this has to be pure in it reception or it is not truth but only our perception of truth. Just because something is a propostition it is not always truth.

    If the ground is white, then the snow has fallen.
    Is that a truth?

    Not in 120 degree weather in Nevada, it could be alkali. Or if I am on Carmel Beach, it could be white sand… To be true it has to be the “if” must be from a verifiable source. I view that source as Jesus. So, if Jesus said it, it must be truth! Pretty simple. I have not thrown out ALL truth, but have been attempting to draw a distinction between being connected to the Head (Jesus) and if one is not. You have missed this distinction either on purpose or unintentionally… of that I am not clear as you are very ambiguous in your questions. In your statements you have just said, ‘doctrines’, so I added qualifiers to help with the idea I am expounding. You ignore these qualifiers and fire more acuusations… to the point of calling me a liar, without giving grace that I may have miswritten, or that I have intentionally set forth a lie. I am humble enough to acknowledge I can be wrong… and in the course of the real conversation I have been having with Dan, have condeded some of the points you are still saying I have not!

    Ben 2. “Another point of dishonesty on your part, Iggy, is the constant misrepresentation of what I have said. I quote you and you deny that you typed it. (It was the cat again!) Then you attribute thoughts to me that have no basis at all, such as: we can reason our way to God and Jesus is a doctrine.”

    You are frustrating. In that I will confess to you and to all. I have not misrepresented but I have tried to “extrapolate” your stand… I asked was Jesus “The Way, The Truth, and The Life” and all you stated was, “He taught that truth.” I asked, mostly tongue in cheek, “How can truth come from not come from the source?” and you ignored the question.

    I do not hate (yet I am not perfect), yet I will stand against false teachers as one should… isn’t that what you are doing? Then are you hating me? Or are you just rebuking me in love? Mostly you must realize that there is criticism that is for the betterment and then there is judging. I agree early on as one is seeing things from an emerging way, it can sound judgmental. In fact I was told I was being arrogant when years ago God pulled me out of legalism into His Grace. Yet, to receive grace one must be humble. I was change completely by grace… I was trying to express this change and would contrast my faith before and after… just as Paul would in the Bible. Yet, people will interpret what they will. Really you have been rude, Ben. You have been like someone who brings a pet to someone’s house they just met and lets the dog pee on the rug… yet you have forgotten the dog so pee on the carpet yourself. You showed no respect and right off without any foundation… attacked me. This set the tone in OUR dialog which then spilt over to some others. If you notice we never really had a conversation… In that, I did that on purpose as I wanted make a point… see the post I wrote after Dan rebuked me and you will see.

    In the course of the conversation you have fought for ‘doctrine’ I have qualified the difference between the two types of ‘doctrine’ I have been talking about. You have not. I have been trying to get you to converse and not just attack by clarifying you own position. Since you did not I was using the “modern” method of silence. Since you did not qualify which type of doctrine, I took to mean you where saying “all doctrine” both man made and sound doctrine. Yet, as Dan pointed out you have never stated what you believe. It is hard to find a point where one can agree and develop from there understanding of each others view. In not letting me know your understand, instead of attack I may have agreed with you on some level and may still. Yet, from the start your tone has not been loving.

    Ben 3. By the way, while we are on the subject of other parts of this blog, how do you excuse the promotion of deceivers like Leonard Sweet? He basically pushes a new age approach to knowing a god. That is his doctrine. Why do you push his doctrine and denegrate biblical doctrine?

    Aha! I thought this was the main issue with me… You would be surprised that I have many who are not “emerging” by anyway who know Len Sweet and have conversed with him. I will take their opinion over yours. I really do not know if you have met him, but my guess is you have only read something somewhere about him… and based your judgment on that. From what I have read, I do not see shifting values as he promotes as unbiblical.

    Ben 4. “Now here is another contradiction. You said, “God has spoken Truth to us by the Person of Jesus…” How stupid your god is, that it speaks that which we cannot know.”

    Please notice verse 4.
    John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. He was with God in the beginning.
    3. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

    Really you should ask, “How stupid is man that God speaks and we do not hear?” As scripture is pretty clear on my point in verse 5.

    Ben 5. Here is the real skinny: In the first paragraph, you stated the obvious. No statement is true if it is not truly true. You fall down when you extrapolate from that that we cannot verify anything. If we cannot verify anything, why did God tell us in Romans one, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”? And why did He say in Philippians one. “And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment…”?

    I am using a classic argument that is used by Norman Geisler. You can not say any person knows all that is to know… that a person can know much but still have something they do not know? You then, believe that man knows everything? (That is not putting words in you mouth, but a question that I have asked a few times and has been ignored. I am trying to get you to clarify this for me…..)

    Creation is the first point of revelation… and I believe God does use it to reveal Himself… yet man still will choose not to see. This is one of the first things that brought me to God… His creation. If one is to study creation they will see attributes of God. Yet, one may see, yet not understand. God judges on what one knows… so man has no excuse to say there is no God. Yet, still creation is “truth” from God. So I am not sure what your point is here.
    Ben 6. “When you call me dishonest for quoting you it is simply lying. And that is something you may wish to think over. You expressed some concern for being called a liar. A tip: lie less. It’ll help.
    At any rate you push Emergent stuff. That stuff is all about shedding the obligations truth puts on us. That is why it is heresy.
    Last, you mentioned that some claim to know Christ, but come across as if they hate their brother. That is exactly what you have done by reviling those that love the doctrines once delivered to the saints. Talk”

    Ben again, you call me a liar… yet I see that you have been dishonest in how you have pull a sentence out of context to twist something I said to mean what you wanted it to mean.. I even quoted you and pointed out the whole paragraph… someone else even pointed out you did this also… yet…

    Again, this is the crux and real issue. You are against “Emergent stuff” Yet, I can see you have not really looked into it. Most of the people against Emergent read ant Emergent blogs and really, these are a source of misinformation. Case in point. Slice of Laodicea just ran a story about a NUDE ministry that was a April fools joke. They saw it and without checking facts posted it as true… many in emergent tried to let them know it was a joke. Yet, slice ran it for some time… and it is in the archive still. I can point to many other cases like this. Mostly the tone of these are very judgmental and often censored meaning that they only allow those who agree with them to have a voice.

    One must be careful that they do not overstep in their discernment and move into judgment… this often happens also… as in the recent case on another anti emergent blog where the person stated Dan Kimball is an apostate, then recanted, yet still says all who are involved in emergent thought are apostate. He is trying to have it both ways. The main point is that not all of us think alike whether PM/E/e or not.

    Which leads me to one of your statements that concerns me. You say, “That is exactly what you have done by reviling those that love the doctrines once delivered to the saints.” Yet, first off where have I reviled those that love the “Doctrine once delivered to the saints.”? I never wrote that… I have point that there are two types… man made and sound doctrine. You have added this to the thought…

    And the question is then, which tradition and doctrines are you speaking of? Eastern Orthodox? Catholic? Baptist? Calvinist? Armenianism? Your statements are so vague and ambiguous… so there is not foundation to really answer your question. Do you accept all? And which saints? The saints of the RCC? The saints of the Bible? The saints alive today? The saints of the Eastern orthodox? Russian?

    You need to give better questions to get better answers. I will say if all you want is to “get me in a lie”, then you do not have a pure motive in rebuking me.

    Now, if I have offended you, with a real offense which I may have… as some seem to say I have… in that and of that in itself I ask you forgiveness. I hope you can forgive me. I forgive you as Christ has forgiven me. I never have thought you were not saved… I only hoped to have you see that your style is not going to get you very far in as you approach people… not just of emerging… but anyone.

    I hope we at least can live at peace with each other. If you desire to continue in a conversation I will reply, yet I have no desire to carry on defending my character to you. I will love to allow you to give more clarity without judgment if you are able. If not I suggest you stop coming here and getting aggravated with me and start your own blog.

    I will continue to pray that God fulfills His good and perfect will in and through you as you journey in your faith.

    Be at Peace,
    iggy


  89. Sarah,
    Rude or to the point?

    The point is that Iggy has repeatedly lied, made excuses, and evaded.

    Did you know that many of the Emergents he recommends right here in this blog actually excuse homosexuality, deride biblical study and concern for biblical doctrine, deny the reality of hell, espouse panentheism and more?

    What do you think David (and, therefore, God) meant when he said, “The fear of the LORD is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverted mouth, I hate?”

    So, let me get this right, Paul was right to be emphatic, but I am wrong to be so. What about David? Was he rude?

    What did Jude mean when he said, “For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ?”

    Was Jude (and, therefore, God) rude?

    Hosea called the Hebrews whores that “loved the wages of a whore on every barn floor.”

    Was Hosea (and, therefore, God) rude?

    We are in a very effeminate (read postmodern) culture, where it is more important to be soothing, than godly.

    Iggy is, to quote God via Jude, one of “the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever.”

    How do I know that Iggy is one of these?

    Let me Quote Jude and God again. “For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”

    How do I know it is my duty (and yours Sarah) to oppose Iggy and other false teachers. Guess I’ll quote God and Jude again. “I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.”

    If you read Emergent stuff, they yak and yak and yak about love and grace. If you mention holiness and the importance of biblical doctrine they will call you rude. Using grace as an excuse for sin and lying about doctrine–exACTly what Jude described. In fact, read Iggy from May 2, 2006. He has a whole blog to refute a call to holiness by Jim Bublitz. (He called him Biblitz.) And his reason was grace. Once again using grace as an excuse for sin, just like Jude said.

    Sarah, you have challenged me on my manner of speaking, even though there are many examples of good people in Scripture much harsher than I. I do not agree with your rules for the same reason Jesus disagreed with the Pharisees, because they are not biblical.

    If I am wrong, explain–biblically.
    Ben.


  90. Sarah,
    Rude or to the point?

    The point is that Iggy has repeatedly lied, made excuses, and evaded.

    Did you know that many of the Emergents he recommends right here in this blog actually excuse homosexuality, deride biblical study and concern for biblical doctrine, deny the reality of hell, espouse panentheism and more?

    What do you think David (and, therefore, God) meant when he said, “The fear of the LORD is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverted mouth, I hate?”

    So, let me get this right, Paul was right to be emphatic, but I am wrong to be so. What about David? Was he rude?

    What did Jude mean when he said, “For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ?”

    Was Jude (and, therefore, God) rude?

    Hosea called the Hebrews whores that “loved the wages of a whore on every barn floor.”

    Was Hosea (and, therefore, God) rude?

    We are in a very effeminate (read postmodern) culture, where it is more important to be soothing, than godly.

    Iggy is, to quote God via Jude, one of “the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever.”

    How do I know that Iggy is one of these?

    Let me Quote Jude and God again. “For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”

    How do I know it is my duty (and yours Sarah) to oppose Iggy and other false teachers. Guess I’ll quote God and Jude again. “I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.”

    If you read Emergent stuff, they yak and yak and yak about love and grace. If you mention holiness and the importance of biblical doctrine they will call you rude. Using grace as an excuse for sin and lying about doctrine–exACTly what Jude described. In fact, read Iggy from May 2, 2006. He has a whole blog to refute a call to holiness by Jim Bublitz. (He called him Biblitz.) And his reason was grace. Once again using grace as an excuse for sin, just like Jude said.

    Sarah, you have challenged me on my manner of speaking, even though there are many examples of good people in Scripture much harsher than I. I do not agree with your rules for the same reason Jesus disagreed with the Pharisees, because they are not biblical.

    If I am wrong, explain–biblically.
    Ben.


  91. Sarah,
    One correction and one clarification. First, the Bublitz blog is May 9, not 2. Second, if you read it Iggy uses all sorts of reasoning against Bublitz. He seems hell-bent (literally) on refuting this guy for some reason. Bublitz simply says that if a doctrine or religion leads to excusing sin, it is wrong.

    Iggy thinks it is okay. It is really wierd. His reasoning is convoluted, using all sorts of reasoning to try to refute the guy. It is really strained.

    At one point Iggy sounds like he is going into universal salvation–a heresy currently held by Brian McLaren. At another point he seems to push holiness, as in the “holiness movement.” That is to say he claims that if we are really in Christ, we do not sin.

    At any rate, to be both clear and honest, he uses all sorts of reasons to reject Bublitz’ call to right living, including grace among many others.

    After reading it a couple of times, I have come to the conclusion that it is hard to understand simply because it is incoherent. And it seems that the incoherence comes from some emotional response to Bublitz or something.

    That’s the best I can make of it–mostly jibberish.

    I’ll be gone for a couple days again. I do appreciate the spirit of both you and Dan. I hope I have been clear.

    Ben.


  92. Sarah,
    One correction and one clarification. First, the Bublitz blog is May 9, not 2. Second, if you read it Iggy uses all sorts of reasoning against Bublitz. He seems hell-bent (literally) on refuting this guy for some reason. Bublitz simply says that if a doctrine or religion leads to excusing sin, it is wrong.

    Iggy thinks it is okay. It is really wierd. His reasoning is convoluted, using all sorts of reasoning to try to refute the guy. It is really strained.

    At one point Iggy sounds like he is going into universal salvation–a heresy currently held by Brian McLaren. At another point he seems to push holiness, as in the “holiness movement.” That is to say he claims that if we are really in Christ, we do not sin.

    At any rate, to be both clear and honest, he uses all sorts of reasons to reject Bublitz’ call to right living, including grace among many others.

    After reading it a couple of times, I have come to the conclusion that it is hard to understand simply because it is incoherent. And it seems that the incoherence comes from some emotional response to Bublitz or something.

    That’s the best I can make of it–mostly jibberish.

    I’ll be gone for a couple days again. I do appreciate the spirit of both you and Dan. I hope I have been clear.

    Ben.


  93. Ben,

    I confess that I did not know the extent of your disagreement with Iggy, nor do I know exactly what Iggy believes (and I will not pretend to know, having never met him personally). I have tried to understand the emergent point of view, and it seems full of contradictions to me (perhaps I’m not “enlightened”) ;), but that’s another topic for another day.

    I responded simply because it just seemed like the argument was going back and forth without getting anywhere.

    “You’re a liar!”
    “I’m not a liar, you’re lying when you call me a liar!”
    “No I’m not, you liar!”

    …back and forth all day.

    That’s the reason why I suggested that you guys maybe cool out a little bit.

    I’m all for Biblical correction and speaking out against false teachers. I just hate to see people get torn down with personal insults when it’s unnecessary to the topic at hand. I think it’s best to stick to the issues of contention, and not attack the person directly by calling them ignorant, needlessly mocking them, or questioning their salvation (something I have seen on both sides of this particular discussion).

    You both are obviously extremely passionate about what you believe, and as I have not been involved in this conversation until recently, and have nothing meaningful to add to the actual topic at hand, I’m going to butt out now.


  94. Ben,

    I confess that I did not know the extent of your disagreement with Iggy, nor do I know exactly what Iggy believes (and I will not pretend to know, having never met him personally). I have tried to understand the emergent point of view, and it seems full of contradictions to me (perhaps I’m not “enlightened”) ;), but that’s another topic for another day.

    I responded simply because it just seemed like the argument was going back and forth without getting anywhere.

    “You’re a liar!”
    “I’m not a liar, you’re lying when you call me a liar!”
    “No I’m not, you liar!”

    …back and forth all day.

    That’s the reason why I suggested that you guys maybe cool out a little bit.

    I’m all for Biblical correction and speaking out against false teachers. I just hate to see people get torn down with personal insults when it’s unnecessary to the topic at hand. I think it’s best to stick to the issues of contention, and not attack the person directly by calling them ignorant, needlessly mocking them, or questioning their salvation (something I have seen on both sides of this particular discussion).

    You both are obviously extremely passionate about what you believe, and as I have not been involved in this conversation until recently, and have nothing meaningful to add to the actual topic at hand, I’m going to butt out now.


  95. Ben,
    Thanks for the clarification. I will give that article a read and see what I make of it.

    I’m also going to do a little bit more research into emergent theology and see what I can gather from that.

    Have a good few days.

    Sara


  96. Ben,
    Thanks for the clarification. I will give that article a read and see what I make of it.

    I’m also going to do a little bit more research into emergent theology and see what I can gather from that.

    Have a good few days.

    Sara


  97. Sara,
    I just got the urge to come back once more. Don’t feel like you have to butt out on my account.

    OOOOh–and sorry about the mispelling. I feel like a dope.

    I am glad this has spurred curiosity. Read the ooze.com. Back in April there was an article on “biblically informed” panentheism. Also, read articles on the website you get if you click on Iggy’s “Friend of Emergent” logo in the margin. If you believe in the Scripture, you will have your head explode.

    For good sites to read from a biblical perspective, go to sliceoflaodicea.com or emergentno.blogspot.com.

    Then go and tell everyone you know.

    Ben.


  98. Sara,
    I just got the urge to come back once more. Don’t feel like you have to butt out on my account.

    OOOOh–and sorry about the mispelling. I feel like a dope.

    I am glad this has spurred curiosity. Read the ooze.com. Back in April there was an article on “biblically informed” panentheism. Also, read articles on the website you get if you click on Iggy’s “Friend of Emergent” logo in the margin. If you believe in the Scripture, you will have your head explode.

    For good sites to read from a biblical perspective, go to sliceoflaodicea.com or emergentno.blogspot.com.

    Then go and tell everyone you know.

    Ben.


  99. No worries, Ben. I do have the “non-Biblical” spelling. 😉

    I’m not butting out on your account, but simply because I haven’t read enough about the emergent movement to be able to offer an informed opinion.

    I’ll check out those sites. I wonder, Iggy, if those are all ones that you’d recommend? Do you have any other recommendations for things I might read to better understand the emergent perspective?

    Thanks,
    Sara


  100. No worries, Ben. I do have the “non-Biblical” spelling. 😉

    I’m not butting out on your account, but simply because I haven’t read enough about the emergent movement to be able to offer an informed opinion.

    I’ll check out those sites. I wonder, Iggy, if those are all ones that you’d recommend? Do you have any other recommendations for things I might read to better understand the emergent perspective?

    Thanks,
    Sara


  101. Sara,
    The link I reccomend are from friends and minsitries from many different views. I Hope that people will see the divesity that is the Body.

    So, I link to Brian McLaren not because I “endores homosexuality” but rather because he inspires thought.

    The same with Len Sweet.

    People to People because They teach Grace.

    So for someone to say the things that recently have been said, is to use a very broad blanket… and is proof that person has not truly looked into who I am and what I do beleive… you see that would be the result of a relationship.

    I am not reaching out to the Bens or Phils… but to those who are in this world looking for Jesus and do not know it. That is were I am coming from.

    I don’t have much more time but is you want to ask what I do believe i would be glad to post my answers.

    Blessings,
    iggy


  102. Sara,
    The link I reccomend are from friends and minsitries from many different views. I Hope that people will see the divesity that is the Body.

    So, I link to Brian McLaren not because I “endores homosexuality” but rather because he inspires thought.

    The same with Len Sweet.

    People to People because They teach Grace.

    So for someone to say the things that recently have been said, is to use a very broad blanket… and is proof that person has not truly looked into who I am and what I do beleive… you see that would be the result of a relationship.

    I am not reaching out to the Bens or Phils… but to those who are in this world looking for Jesus and do not know it. That is were I am coming from.

    I don’t have much more time but is you want to ask what I do believe i would be glad to post my answers.

    Blessings,
    iggy


  103. Iggy,
    Mein Kampf, Das Kapital, and Hustler.

    God said, “But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints…” But I suppose it is okay to put it on your web site. You can always blame your cat.

    You HAVE endorsed McLaren vociferously and you know it. Do I have to read back through and prove it? I will.

    Why do you disobey God in this?

    A friend of discernment,
    Ben.


  104. Iggy,
    Mein Kampf, Das Kapital, and Hustler.

    God said, “But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints…” But I suppose it is okay to put it on your web site. You can always blame your cat.

    You HAVE endorsed McLaren vociferously and you know it. Do I have to read back through and prove it? I will.

    Why do you disobey God in this?

    A friend of discernment,
    Ben.


  105. Ben,
    This is my last post to you…

    I have endorsed Brian McLaren… I never have denied that…

    I do not agree with him on all points…

    Be at peace,
    iggy


  106. Ben,
    This is my last post to you…

    I have endorsed Brian McLaren… I never have denied that…

    I do not agree with him on all points…

    Be at peace,
    iggy



Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: