Bob Hyatt is a hypocrite! (according to CRN)

I don’t go to Christian Research Network any more… I used to, but ever since the day of prayer for Ken Silva, I have lost interest in them… so prayers were answered…

Now, I still go to Christian Research Network info and analysis where I found this.

This is the gist of the “hypocrisy”

“Well, Hyatt has now indeed done something rather foolish in linking this video at his Bob.Blog. You see this South Park production actually is mean-spirited and offensive to those of the Mormon “faith tradition” thereby exposing his own Hip Hip Hip Hy-pocrisy!”

So the bottom line is this,

You can attack and slander and lie about other Christians, yet if you show an accurate portrayal of the Mormons… even from “South Park” it is hypocrisy?!

There is a huge difference here… Bob never created South Park… which is accurate in its portrayal of Mormons. Team Pyro created the Emergent-See Po-Motivators For Emerging Christians posters which are mean spirited and an INACCURATE portrayal of the emerging Christians… Now, the kicker is CRN still linked to the video (via Bob’s blog) themselves… you know that foul mouthed video (he uses the word “ass”). So, they are complaining about Bob linking to the video while they link to Bob’s link to the video… (Can you say hip-hip- oh… oh come on! This is about as “dum” as it can get!)

Now, what makes me more angry (OK, let’s just say upset) is that CRN and Ken Silva made me watch South Park… and now seem to also defend the Mormon “faith tradition” thereby And worse they made me stumble by having me watch South Park! LOL! You see I had heard about the video, yet, because I do not like South Park, I did not watch it or had any desire to… until CRN decided to attack a friend of mine and claim it was “dirty” (spoken in that hushed kind of way). So thanks Ken and Crew!

Now, posts like the one at CRN seem just a little vindictive and petty to me.

be blessed,
iggy

Bob Hyatt is a hypocrite! (according to CRN)

I don’t go to Christian Research Network any more… I used to, but ever since the day of prayer for Ken Silva, I have lost interest in them… so prayers were answered…

Now, I still go to Christian Research Network info and analysis where I found this.

This is the gist of the “hypocrisy”

“Well, Hyatt has now indeed done something rather foolish in linking this video at his Bob.Blog. You see this South Park production actually is mean-spirited and offensive to those of the Mormon “faith tradition” thereby exposing his own Hip Hip Hip Hy-pocrisy!”

So the bottom line is this,

You can attack and slander and lie about other Christians, yet if you show an accurate portrayal of the Mormons… even from “South Park” it is hypocrisy?!

There is a huge difference here… Bob never created South Park… which is accurate in its portrayal of Mormons. Team Pyro created the Emergent-See Po-Motivators For Emerging Christians posters which are mean spirited and an INACCURATE portrayal of the emerging Christians… Now, the kicker is CRN still linked to the video (via Bob’s blog) themselves… you know that foul mouthed video (he uses the word “ass”). So, they are complaining about Bob linking to the video while they link to Bob’s link to the video… (Can you say hip-hip- oh… oh come on! This is about as “dum” as it can get!)

Now, what makes me more angry (OK, let’s just say upset) is that CRN and Ken Silva made me watch South Park… and now seem to also defend the Mormon “faith tradition” thereby And worse they made me stumble by having me watch South Park! LOL! You see I had heard about the video, yet, because I do not like South Park, I did not watch it or had any desire to… until CRN decided to attack a friend of mine and claim it was “dirty” (spoken in that hushed kind of way). So thanks Ken and Crew!

Now, posts like the one at CRN seem just a little vindictive and petty to me.

be blessed,
iggy

I am Anselm

You scored as Anselm, Anselm is the outstanding theologian of the medieval period. He sees man’s primary problem as having failed to render unto God what we owe him, so God becomes man in Christ and gives God what he is due. You should read ‘Cur Deus Homo?’ Anselm 87% John Calvin 73% Martin Luther 73% Friedrich Schleiermacher 60% Jürgen Moltmann 60% Jonathan Edwards 47% Karl Barth 47% Augustine 47% Charles Finney 33% Paul Tillich 27% Which theologian are you? created with QuizFarm.com

I have not ever heard of Anselm… as I just began to read a bit of his work… I love this part… as I often have this dialog in my own head.

BOSO. Just as right order requires that we believe the deep matters of the Christian faith before we presume to discuss them rationally, so it seems to me to be an instance of carelessness if, having been confirmed in faith, we do not eagerly desire to understand what we believe. Indeed, assisted by the prevenient grace of God I am, it seems to me, holding so steadfastly to faith in our redemption that even if I were not in any respect able to understand what I believe, nothing could wrest me from firmness of faith. Accordingly, I ask you to disclose to me that which, as you know, many are asking about along with me:viz., for what reason and on the basis of what necessity did God — although He is omnipotent — assume the lowliness and the weakness of human nature in order to restore it?

ANSELM. What you are asking of me exceeds my capacities. And so I fear to deal with matters too high for me, lest perhaps when someone suspects or even observes that I do not give him a satisfactory answer, he may think that I havedeparted from true doctrine rather than that my intellect is not powerful enough to comprehend this truth.

BOSO. You ought not so much to have this fear as you ought to remember that in a discussion of some problem it often happens; that God discloses what at first was hidden. Moreover, you ought to hope from the grace of God that if you willingly share those things which you have freely received, you will merit the receiving of the higher things to which you have not yet attained.

ANSELM. There is another reason why it seems to me that we cannot at all –or else can only scarcely — deal amply with this matter now. For in order to do so we need an analysis of ability and necessity and will and of certain other notions which are so interrelated that no one of them can be fully examined apart from others. And so to deal with these notions requires a separate work –one not easy [to compose], it seems to me, but nonetheless not altogether useless. For an ignorance of these notions produces certain difficulties which become easy [to deal with] as a result of understanding these notions.

BOSO. Where these notions become relevant you can speak briefly about them, so that we may have the knowledge which is adequate for the present work but may postpone to another time the additional points which need to be discussed.

ANSELM. I am also very reluctant to honor your request both because the topic is very important and because just as it deals with Him who is beautiful in appearance above the sons of men, so it is also adorned with a rationale which exceeds human understanding. Hence, I fear that just as I am accustomed to become indignant with untalented artists when I see the Lord Himself portrayed with an uncomely countenance, so I may provoke indignation if I presume to explore such an elegant topic by an inelegant and contemptible discourse.

BOSO. This fear ought not to deter you, since just as you permit whoever can to say these things better, so you forbid no one who does not like your discourse from writing more beautifully. But so that I may exclude all your excuses: [remember that] what I am asking of you, you will be writing not for the learned but for me and for those who are seeking this solution together with me.

Be Blessed,

iggy

I am Anselm

You scored as Anselm, Anselm is the outstanding theologian of the medieval period. He sees man’s primary problem as having failed to render unto God what we owe him, so God becomes man in Christ and gives God what he is due. You should read ‘Cur Deus Homo?’ Anselm 87% John Calvin 73% Martin Luther 73% Friedrich Schleiermacher 60% Jürgen Moltmann 60% Jonathan Edwards 47% Karl Barth 47% Augustine 47% Charles Finney 33% Paul Tillich 27% Which theologian are you? created with QuizFarm.com

I have not ever heard of Anselm… as I just began to read a bit of his work… I love this part… as I often have this dialog in my own head.

BOSO. Just as right order requires that we believe the deep matters of the Christian faith before we presume to discuss them rationally, so it seems to me to be an instance of carelessness if, having been confirmed in faith, we do not eagerly desire to understand what we believe. Indeed, assisted by the prevenient grace of God I am, it seems to me, holding so steadfastly to faith in our redemption that even if I were not in any respect able to understand what I believe, nothing could wrest me from firmness of faith. Accordingly, I ask you to disclose to me that which, as you know, many are asking about along with me:viz., for what reason and on the basis of what necessity did God — although He is omnipotent — assume the lowliness and the weakness of human nature in order to restore it?

ANSELM. What you are asking of me exceeds my capacities. And so I fear to deal with matters too high for me, lest perhaps when someone suspects or even observes that I do not give him a satisfactory answer, he may think that I havedeparted from true doctrine rather than that my intellect is not powerful enough to comprehend this truth.

BOSO. You ought not so much to have this fear as you ought to remember that in a discussion of some problem it often happens; that God discloses what at first was hidden. Moreover, you ought to hope from the grace of God that if you willingly share those things which you have freely received, you will merit the receiving of the higher things to which you have not yet attained.

ANSELM. There is another reason why it seems to me that we cannot at all –or else can only scarcely — deal amply with this matter now. For in order to do so we need an analysis of ability and necessity and will and of certain other notions which are so interrelated that no one of them can be fully examined apart from others. And so to deal with these notions requires a separate work –one not easy [to compose], it seems to me, but nonetheless not altogether useless. For an ignorance of these notions produces certain difficulties which become easy [to deal with] as a result of understanding these notions.

BOSO. Where these notions become relevant you can speak briefly about them, so that we may have the knowledge which is adequate for the present work but may postpone to another time the additional points which need to be discussed.

ANSELM. I am also very reluctant to honor your request both because the topic is very important and because just as it deals with Him who is beautiful in appearance above the sons of men, so it is also adorned with a rationale which exceeds human understanding. Hence, I fear that just as I am accustomed to become indignant with untalented artists when I see the Lord Himself portrayed with an uncomely countenance, so I may provoke indignation if I presume to explore such an elegant topic by an inelegant and contemptible discourse.

BOSO. This fear ought not to deter you, since just as you permit whoever can to say these things better, so you forbid no one who does not like your discourse from writing more beautifully. But so that I may exclude all your excuses: [remember that] what I am asking of you, you will be writing not for the learned but for me and for those who are seeking this solution together with me.

Be Blessed,

iggy

Walking through Romans: Romans 9:1-13 part 13

Romans 9
1I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen.

6It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[b] 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”[c]

10Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[d] 13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”[e]

————————————————————————————————

This will be interesting as I do not see that I can cover this chapter all in one swoop. In fact this chapter is so widely misunderstood that it may take the reader a bit to go over this so see my perspective. I will only be building on the theme that was coming out of Chapter 8 in how we are comforted by the Love of God and that we are to live life by the Spirit. It is God Who justifies and who can condemn you then?

(Romans 9: 1-6)That not all that is called Israel is “Israel”, gave Paul great sorrow as he saw the people of his own bloodline not seeing that it was “by the Spirit” we live and that it is God who justifies. In this he models Jesus in the willingness to lay down his own life so that his brothers would be spared. For it was through this chosen people that God gave us the Messiah Himself.

(Verses 7- 9) It would seem that Paul knew that some would say then that God failed. That since the natural born Jew is not able to fulfill all that was required even with all that God had given to and through them. Yet, again it is not of the natural birth one is saved… but of the Promise. God said, “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.” This coincides with the prophecy that YWYH God will return to Israel. It is that this promise of God returning and a Son is born…

(Verses 9 – 13) Paul makes the point more clear that it is that one is born of God by the Promise and not of the flesh by pointing out that Esau and Jacob had the same father yet, God loved Jacob and hated Esau.

I have taught a couple of places on this so I will not go into it now but please check out this post.
Now, I have heard some go one and on that this passage is about “Nations” and then the other rebuttal that it is “individuals” and I say it is both.

Of course Jacob and Esau are individuals.
Yet, both went on to be Fathers of Nations.

As I pointed out in my post on “Esau I hated…” it is clear that the direct quote comes from the passage in Malachi 1:2-3 and it is definitely about nations, yet also in the story of Esau and Jacob, they are individuals and we see that God may choose a nation but he also chooses by Grace, individuals.

I will point out that God promised Sarah that “at the appointed time” she would have a son, so also Jesus came “at the appointed time” (Titus 1:3) and God revealed His Light through Jesus Christ. Now, Interesting also is that the “younger will serve the older” I see that this as possibly the two covenants in that the Old Covenant of the Law is now over ruled by the New Convent and the Law of Love. Yet, there is a great significance in that Esau will also serve Jacob.

The Moabites are the descendants of Esau and few realize the “>Herod was also a descendant of the Edomites. In that Herod also represented Rome. So on tow levels Herod was the enemy of the Jew. This was part of the reason the Herod desired to be called King of the Jews as it would be the final victory for him as a descendant of Isaac. Yet, the issue is that the “blessings” were passed on to Jacob and not Esau.

Also in the story of Esau and Jacob, Jacob sought after the blessings and birthright and Esau cared nothing for his birthright trading it for food. This is important to realize as I will point out later.

Paul speaks that is by Grace so that “11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls” .

It was decided that Jacob and his descendants would carry the faith of Abraham. Though neither were yet born it was God’s decision to choose Jacob, so that His purpose of election might stand.

Many seem to think election is about individuals, yet if one looks closely at the passages in Ephesians concerning election, in chapter one versus 4-5 we read:

“For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will…”

Now, as I have talked to Calvinists I have heard them tell me over and over that this means “they” existed “in Christ” before the creation of the world… I do not see it that way. I see that God purposed “in Christ” that His plan of salvation would be done through Jesus. The Bible teaches that Jesus is the only Immortal (1 Timothy 6: 13-16) yet, it seems that Calvin taught that man existed before creation. Some try to say Paul is saying that, yet I see that Paul is simply stating that by His Grace that “those”, meaning a people whom God chooses, not necessarily individuals, will come to Jesus and be placed “in Christ” and be saved. To say somehow the “us” (which is plural btw) is about individuals… misses that though God will choose the individual, man was yet to exist and to exist in any form is more in line with Gnosticism and Mormonism.

To say that somehow man pre-existed is negates scripture:

John 6:46
“No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.”

1 Timothy 6: 13-16

“In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time–God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see.”

Roman 2:7

To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. (Note that Paul only refers to the future and not that they had any pre-existence.)

I Corinthians 15: 51-54

Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed– in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

(Notice that it is after the mortal is exchanged for the immortal that what is written will come true.)

To say that man somehow “pre-exists” is like I stated more in line with Mormonism and the Gnostic teachings of the Plermora and that man is somehow part of the aeons (eternal beings). Man is not an eternal being he is a created being. To state that man existed “in Christ” is to go against the clear teaching that man is not an eternal being and is mortal.

The Mormons teach that man is eternal. Here is their view.

“We believe in a God who is Himself progressive, whose majesty is intelligence; whose perfection consists in eternal advancement — a Being who has attained His exalted state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow, whose glory it is their heritage to share. In spite of the opposition of the sects, in the face of direct charges of blasphemy, the Church proclaims the eternal truth: ‘As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be.‘” (LDS Apostle James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, Ch.24, p.430 – p.431, LDS Collectors Library ’97 CD-ROM)

“‘It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God,’ the inspired word continues, ‘and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did.’ The Father is a glorified, perfected, resurrected, exalted man who worked out his salvation by obedience to the same laws he has given to us so that we may do the same.” (LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p.64, LDS Collectors Library ’97 CD-ROM)

God is not a uniquely eternal being. All spirit is self-existent matter and is eternal (without beginning or end) . Such “matter (called intelligences) sometimes becomes organized into a spirit being through birth to celestial parents. Then that spirit is born through human parents on earth. Like all people, God took this course and eventually reached Godhood. God would stop being God if intelligences stopped supporting him as God. (D&C 93:29, 33; Abraham 3:18-23; Mormon Doctrine, 1977 ed. p. 751)

Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be” (D&C 93:29)

Here is one Calvinists take:

Though I will point out that more well read Calvinists reject the “pre-existence of man”, many do hold to this doctrine as biblical.

To quote one I debated recently with where I pointed out that man would have to pre-exist in order to be “in Christ” as many teach or explain this passage.

“Iggy,
you wrote out Ephesians 1:4-5 and you can’t see election in it?
Then you say that the focus of that passage is not “us” but “in Him”.
So what is Paul saying about being in Him?
What or who is in Him? It is “us”. The focus is “us” in what Paul is saying and that we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world What you say Calvinists believe about being in Christ before He has even lived, been crucified and buried and resuurrected is true.
Yes, even before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit! You say, “What a Calvinist does without realizing it is making mortal humans who have not even been created, be known before they are even created.
”No, the Calvinists are not doing this without realizing it. They are believing this with all they got!
Must be that tricky little passage of Ephesians 1:4-5. Yep, that’s the cause of this “terrible” belief!”

Now some Calvinists do reject this and they should… but it seems they give no answer as to how we existed in Jesus without actually existing… Also, I might point out that I do see “election” taught in the Ephesians passage yet not in the way that this person was stating. Also, she needs to read a bit more of Calvin to see that even Calvin rejected her view.

“By saying that they were “elect before the creation of the world” [Ephesians 1:4], he takes away all regard for worth. For what basis for distinction is there among those who did not yet exist, and who were subsequently to be equals in Adam? Now if they are elect in Christ, it follows that not only is each man elected without respect to his own person but also certain ones are separated from others, since we see that not all are members of Christ.” (John Calvin Institutes III:22:2)

Yet many do believe this teaching and it is simply a heretical view.

Now, from what I see Calvin actually teaching I think is closer to what I believe, and many Calvinists twist at what I state and do not realize it pretty much what Calvin stated himself.

I see that the “election” was purposed that those “in Christ” would be saved. The “us” is about those of that “election”. It is not about the pre-existence of man in any way.

Here is the bible’ teaching regarding this:

Man is a finite being, not an eternal one. The first man Adam was created at a specific point in time (Ge 1:26-27; 2:7; 1Co 15:45-49). Man did not exist in the beginning when God was creating the universe, for if he had, God’s question to Job would have made no sense (Job 38:4).

Now, I see that God knew Jesus as Jesus was in the Father and that all things were made through Jesus. In that “things” did not exist before creation, God purposed a plan of Salvation “in Jesus Christ” that those who would believe and receive would be saved. The “us” Paul is referring to is those that were then in Christ.

Jesus died and rose at a specific point in time. and that was the “appointed time”.

The mystery hidden that is Jesus Christ was not known to man until it was revealed. Now, man was known by God, and that “some” would believe and receive Jesus was also known… as well that some would reject the Call and be lost. Now, this sounds close to Calvinism… yet I see that the point of focus is Jesus… and not the elect. Our focus is to always be Jesus.
We are only to verse 13… and this is already a bit too long. So this will be done in two posts… hopefully. LOL!

Cleck here for more thoughts on predestination.

Be blessed,
iggy

Walking through Romans: Romans 9:1-13 part 13

Romans 9
1I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen.

6It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[b] 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”[c]

10Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[d] 13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”[e]

————————————————————————————————

This will be interesting as I do not see that I can cover this chapter all in one swoop. In fact this chapter is so widely misunderstood that it may take the reader a bit to go over this so see my perspective. I will only be building on the theme that was coming out of Chapter 8 in how we are comforted by the Love of God and that we are to live life by the Spirit. It is God Who justifies and who can condemn you then?

(Romans 9: 1-6)That not all that is called Israel is “Israel”, gave Paul great sorrow as he saw the people of his own bloodline not seeing that it was “by the Spirit” we live and that it is God who justifies. In this he models Jesus in the willingness to lay down his own life so that his brothers would be spared. For it was through this chosen people that God gave us the Messiah Himself.

(Verses 7- 9) It would seem that Paul knew that some would say then that God failed. That since the natural born Jew is not able to fulfill all that was required even with all that God had given to and through them. Yet, again it is not of the natural birth one is saved… but of the Promise. God said, “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.” This coincides with the prophecy that YWYH God will return to Israel. It is that this promise of God returning and a Son is born…

(Verses 9 – 13) Paul makes the point more clear that it is that one is born of God by the Promise and not of the flesh by pointing out that Esau and Jacob had the same father yet, God loved Jacob and hated Esau.

I have taught a couple of places on this so I will not go into it now but please check out this post.
Now, I have heard some go one and on that this passage is about “Nations” and then the other rebuttal that it is “individuals” and I say it is both.

Of course Jacob and Esau are individuals.
Yet, both went on to be Fathers of Nations.

As I pointed out in my post on “Esau I hated…” it is clear that the direct quote comes from the passage in Malachi 1:2-3 and it is definitely about nations, yet also in the story of Esau and Jacob, they are individuals and we see that God may choose a nation but he also chooses by Grace, individuals.

I will point out that God promised Sarah that “at the appointed time” she would have a son, so also Jesus came “at the appointed time” (Titus 1:3) and God revealed His Light through Jesus Christ. Now, Interesting also is that the “younger will serve the older” I see that this as possibly the two covenants in that the Old Covenant of the Law is now over ruled by the New Convent and the Law of Love. Yet, there is a great significance in that Esau will also serve Jacob.

The Moabites are the descendants of Esau and few realize the “>Herod was also a descendant of the Edomites. In that Herod also represented Rome. So on tow levels Herod was the enemy of the Jew. This was part of the reason the Herod desired to be called King of the Jews as it would be the final victory for him as a descendant of Isaac. Yet, the issue is that the “blessings” were passed on to Jacob and not Esau.

Also in the story of Esau and Jacob, Jacob sought after the blessings and birthright and Esau cared nothing for his birthright trading it for food. This is important to realize as I will point out later.

Paul speaks that is by Grace so that “11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls” .

It was decided that Jacob and his descendants would carry the faith of Abraham. Though neither were yet born it was God’s decision to choose Jacob, so that His purpose of election might stand.

Many seem to think election is about individuals, yet if one looks closely at the passages in Ephesians concerning election, in chapter one versus 4-5 we read:

“For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will…”

Now, as I have talked to Calvinists I have heard them tell me over and over that this means “they” existed “in Christ” before the creation of the world… I do not see it that way. I see that God purposed “in Christ” that His plan of salvation would be done through Jesus. The Bible teaches that Jesus is the only Immortal (1 Timothy 6: 13-16) yet, it seems that Calvin taught that man existed before creation. Some try to say Paul is saying that, yet I see that Paul is simply stating that by His Grace that “those”, meaning a people whom God chooses, not necessarily individuals, will come to Jesus and be placed “in Christ” and be saved. To say somehow the “us” (which is plural btw) is about individuals… misses that though God will choose the individual, man was yet to exist and to exist in any form is more in line with Gnosticism and Mormonism.

To say that somehow man pre-existed is negates scripture:

John 6:46
“No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.”

1 Timothy 6: 13-16

“In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time–God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see.”

Roman 2:7

To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. (Note that Paul only refers to the future and not that they had any pre-existence.)

I Corinthians 15: 51-54

Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed– in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

(Notice that it is after the mortal is exchanged for the immortal that what is written will come true.)

To say that man somehow “pre-exists” is like I stated more in line with Mormonism and the Gnostic teachings of the Plermora and that man is somehow part of the aeons (eternal beings). Man is not an eternal being he is a created being. To state that man existed “in Christ” is to go against the clear teaching that man is not an eternal being and is mortal.

The Mormons teach that man is eternal. Here is their view.

“We believe in a God who is Himself progressive, whose majesty is intelligence; whose perfection consists in eternal advancement — a Being who has attained His exalted state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow, whose glory it is their heritage to share. In spite of the opposition of the sects, in the face of direct charges of blasphemy, the Church proclaims the eternal truth: ‘As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be.‘” (LDS Apostle James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, Ch.24, p.430 – p.431, LDS Collectors Library ’97 CD-ROM)

“‘It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God,’ the inspired word continues, ‘and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did.’ The Father is a glorified, perfected, resurrected, exalted man who worked out his salvation by obedience to the same laws he has given to us so that we may do the same.” (LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p.64, LDS Collectors Library ’97 CD-ROM)

God is not a uniquely eternal being. All spirit is self-existent matter and is eternal (without beginning or end) . Such “matter (called intelligences) sometimes becomes organized into a spirit being through birth to celestial parents. Then that spirit is born through human parents on earth. Like all people, God took this course and eventually reached Godhood. God would stop being God if intelligences stopped supporting him as God. (D&C 93:29, 33; Abraham 3:18-23; Mormon Doctrine, 1977 ed. p. 751)

Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be” (D&C 93:29)

Here is one Calvinists take:

Though I will point out that more well read Calvinists reject the “pre-existence of man”, many do hold to this doctrine as biblical.

To quote one I debated recently with where I pointed out that man would have to pre-exist in order to be “in Christ” as many teach or explain this passage.

“Iggy,
you wrote out Ephesians 1:4-5 and you can’t see election in it?
Then you say that the focus of that passage is not “us” but “in Him”.
So what is Paul saying about being in Him?
What or who is in Him? It is “us”. The focus is “us” in what Paul is saying and that we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world What you say Calvinists believe about being in Christ before He has even lived, been crucified and buried and resuurrected is true.
Yes, even before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit! You say, “What a Calvinist does without realizing it is making mortal humans who have not even been created, be known before they are even created.
”No, the Calvinists are not doing this without realizing it. They are believing this with all they got!
Must be that tricky little passage of Ephesians 1:4-5. Yep, that’s the cause of this “terrible” belief!”

Now some Calvinists do reject this and they should… but it seems they give no answer as to how we existed in Jesus without actually existing… Also, I might point out that I do see “election” taught in the Ephesians passage yet not in the way that this person was stating. Also, she needs to read a bit more of Calvin to see that even Calvin rejected her view.

“By saying that they were “elect before the creation of the world” [Ephesians 1:4], he takes away all regard for worth. For what basis for distinction is there among those who did not yet exist, and who were subsequently to be equals in Adam? Now if they are elect in Christ, it follows that not only is each man elected without respect to his own person but also certain ones are separated from others, since we see that not all are members of Christ.” (John Calvin Institutes III:22:2)

Yet many do believe this teaching and it is simply a heretical view.

Now, from what I see Calvin actually teaching I think is closer to what I believe, and many Calvinists twist at what I state and do not realize it pretty much what Calvin stated himself.

I see that the “election” was purposed that those “in Christ” would be saved. The “us” is about those of that “election”. It is not about the pre-existence of man in any way.

Here is the bible’ teaching regarding this:

Man is a finite being, not an eternal one. The first man Adam was created at a specific point in time (Ge 1:26-27; 2:7; 1Co 15:45-49). Man did not exist in the beginning when God was creating the universe, for if he had, God’s question to Job would have made no sense (Job 38:4).

Now, I see that God knew Jesus as Jesus was in the Father and that all things were made through Jesus. In that “things” did not exist before creation, God purposed a plan of Salvation “in Jesus Christ” that those who would believe and receive would be saved. The “us” Paul is referring to is those that were then in Christ.

Jesus died and rose at a specific point in time. and that was the “appointed time”.

The mystery hidden that is Jesus Christ was not known to man until it was revealed. Now, man was known by God, and that “some” would believe and receive Jesus was also known… as well that some would reject the Call and be lost. Now, this sounds close to Calvinism… yet I see that the point of focus is Jesus… and not the elect. Our focus is to always be Jesus.
We are only to verse 13… and this is already a bit too long. So this will be done in two posts… hopefully. LOL!

Cleck here for more thoughts on predestination.

Be blessed,
iggy

What the "Exchanged Life" is Not

Some have asked me what this “exchanged life” is that I often talk about. Though I openly admit I do not agree with their doctrinal statement on some finer points, the teaching of the “Exchange Life” is profound when one realizes what has happened to them when one is in Christ. Now here is what the “Exchanged Life” is not. Taken from Clarification of the Exchanged Life by Exchanged Life Ministries of Texas

Blessings,

iggy

The “Exchanged Life”…

• is not a new teaching.
• is not sinless perfection.
• is not a life of passivity.
• is not a self-help teaching.
• is not an undisciplined life.
• is not a second work of grace.
• is not a counseling technique.
• is not an improved “old man.”
• is not in any way deifying man.
• is not instant change in behavior.
• is not a formula for self to imitate Christ.
• is not peace through changed circumstances.
• is not dying to self (wiping out our personality).
• is not a guarantee that circumstances will improve.
• is not overlooking or approving sinful behavior (promoting license).
• is not a guarantee that emotions will line up consistently with truth

What the "Exchanged Life" is Not

Some have asked me what this “exchanged life” is that I often talk about. Though I openly admit I do not agree with their doctrinal statement on some finer points, the teaching of the “Exchange Life” is profound when one realizes what has happened to them when one is in Christ. Now here is what the “Exchanged Life” is not. Taken from Clarification of the Exchanged Life by Exchanged Life Ministries of Texas

Blessings,

iggy

The “Exchanged Life”…

• is not a new teaching.
• is not sinless perfection.
• is not a life of passivity.
• is not a self-help teaching.
• is not an undisciplined life.
• is not a second work of grace.
• is not a counseling technique.
• is not an improved “old man.”
• is not in any way deifying man.
• is not instant change in behavior.
• is not a formula for self to imitate Christ.
• is not peace through changed circumstances.
• is not dying to self (wiping out our personality).
• is not a guarantee that circumstances will improve.
• is not overlooking or approving sinful behavior (promoting license).
• is not a guarantee that emotions will line up consistently with truth

Thoughts about John MacArthur quotes…

Monday Morning Insight has an article on John MacArthurs recent interview with Answers Magazine… Todd Rhoads has printed some of John’s quotes…

I read these quotes and as a person of the hated “emerging” I have not heard anyone state the things JM is saying is being stated… I think he is missing that we are saying the bible cannot be understood with out the Holy Spirit revealing the truth… yet, JM promotes the lie and people like Faye over at Hope in Laodicea eat it up and spit it out as true.

It seems that JM has convinced himself of many lies and has no thought of actually looking into these things if they are true or not… or bothering to place comments into its context.
Yes, Spencer Burke espouses universalism… and Tony Jones uses bad language and referred to the bible as really scary book (using a strong profanity before scary) yet, most of us do not hold to those things and are still looking into some of the teachings that could be “traditions of men” over the clear teachings that are there.

JM over generalizes… it is like saying everyone at grace to you teaches grace but has no idea what it really is… may believe that as true… as from my perspective I have seen it as that, yet I suppose there are a half dozen or so that have gone to Masters and have a strong grasp on God’s Grace…

It amazes me that JM cannot hear others… and seems happy to inspire hate toward those who claim Jesus as their savior.

I just wonder if one day, JM will stand before God and say, “Lord, Lord, didn’t I fight for truth in your Name?” along with those who state, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?” Because if it is all about JM and his fight for truth, then it is not about truth at all it is about John MacArthur.
Now, I love JM enough in Christ to state these things… and I pray that one day JM will see what the Bible teaches.
1 Peter 1:22

“Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart. ”

This is the point of Truth… that we have sincere love for one another… and not fight for some “objective, detached, abstract, ideal” that many have come to take as truth… They have began to fight for Plato’s dualism instead of coming to the Person of Jesus who is Truth incarnate.

You can also read more at CRN.info

Be blessed,
iggy

Thoughts about John MacArthur quotes…

Monday Morning Insight has an article on John MacArthurs recent interview with Answers Magazine… Todd Rhoads has printed some of John’s quotes…

I read these quotes and as a person of the hated “emerging” I have not heard anyone state the things JM is saying is being stated… I think he is missing that we are saying the bible cannot be understood with out the Holy Spirit revealing the truth… yet, JM promotes the lie and people like Faye over at Hope in Laodicea eat it up and spit it out as true.

It seems that JM has convinced himself of many lies and has no thought of actually looking into these things if they are true or not… or bothering to place comments into its context.
Yes, Spencer Burke espouses universalism… and Tony Jones uses bad language and referred to the bible as really scary book (using a strong profanity before scary) yet, most of us do not hold to those things and are still looking into some of the teachings that could be “traditions of men” over the clear teachings that are there.

JM over generalizes… it is like saying everyone at grace to you teaches grace but has no idea what it really is… may believe that as true… as from my perspective I have seen it as that, yet I suppose there are a half dozen or so that have gone to Masters and have a strong grasp on God’s Grace…

It amazes me that JM cannot hear others… and seems happy to inspire hate toward those who claim Jesus as their savior.

I just wonder if one day, JM will stand before God and say, “Lord, Lord, didn’t I fight for truth in your Name?” along with those who state, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?” Because if it is all about JM and his fight for truth, then it is not about truth at all it is about John MacArthur.
Now, I love JM enough in Christ to state these things… and I pray that one day JM will see what the Bible teaches.
1 Peter 1:22

“Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart. ”

This is the point of Truth… that we have sincere love for one another… and not fight for some “objective, detached, abstract, ideal” that many have come to take as truth… They have began to fight for Plato’s dualism instead of coming to the Person of Jesus who is Truth incarnate.

You can also read more at CRN.info

Be blessed,
iggy