Archive for the ‘American Gospel’ Category

h1

Great Quotes: Greg Boyd

September 8, 2009
“While those who wielded the Constantinian sword throughout history undoubtedly convinced themselves they were wielding the sword in love–this is a common self-delusion among religious power brokers–lording over, torturing, and killing people does not communicate their unsurpassable worth to them; it is not loving….One wonders why no one in church history as ever been considered a heretic for being unloving. People were anathematized and often tortured and killed for disagreeing on matters of doctrine or on the authority of the church. But no one on record has ever been so much as rebuked for not loving as Christ loved. Yet if love is to be placed above all other considerations, if nothing has any value apart from love, and if the only thing that matters is faith working in love, how is it that possessing Christlike love has never been considered the central test of orthodoxy? How is it that those who tortured and burned heretics were not themselves considered heretics for doing so? Was this not heresy of the worst sort? How is it that those who perpetuated such things were not only deemed heretics but often were (and yet are) held up as heroes of the faith?”
Greg Boyd – The Myth of a Christian Nation
Also thanks to Phil Miller for posting this here.
Share/Save/Bookmark

a2a_linkname=document.title;a2a_linkurl=location.href;

h1

The Power of the Gospel

October 20, 2008

The Power of The Gospel

There are many who preach about the Power of the Gospel yet often the gospel they preach about is not The Gospel. It seems to me often the gospel that is preached is that of a superficiality that promotes a certain powerlessness instead of offering people the Power of salvation.

Most often when I hear this other “gospel” I hear it taught as “getting saved from hell.” This is not the same gospel that Jesus taught. In fact it demeans the True Gospel.

To read the whole post click here.

h1

The Power of the Gospel

October 20, 2008

The Power of The Gospel

There are many who preach about the Power of the Gospel yet often the gospel they preach about is not The Gospel. It seems to me often the gospel that is preached is that of a superficiality that promotes a certain powerlessness instead of offering people the Power of salvation.

Most often when I hear this other “gospel” I hear it taught as “getting saved from hell.” This is not the same gospel that Jesus taught. In fact it demeans the True Gospel.

To read the whole post click here.

h1

2 Cor 4:4 Who Is The God of This World?

May 21, 2008

I have been in a discussion with someone on Twitter discussing 2 Cor 4:4 and that it seemed inconsistent with Paul’s theology to state this commonly quoted verse.

2 Cor 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

For some reason that verse had always bothered me as I saw it did not fit with other verses that Paul wrote.

Like.

Romans 1: 25. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen. 26. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

Notice it is God doing the deluding? Not Satan. Though I do think Satan plays a part in the turning from the knowledge of God, and adding to the “depraved mind”.

I also noted Paul stating things like:

Romans 3: 30. “since there is only one God,” I wondered why then Paul referred to Satan as the “god of this world”… it seemed that it was a bit of an exaggeration at best! LOL!

But the verses that made me wonder the most was in 1 Cor 8: 4. So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6. yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

If Paul was stating that there is only One God over and over here… and stating that “even if there are so-called gods”, then making a slighted reference to all the many “gods” and “lords” (possibly a reference to Caesar worship?) I just could not see him referring to Satan as a god, even in small letters. It seemed out of character for Paul… though he may at times go to extreme rhetoric as in the “height, width, depth of God’s love”…

Anyway I left it alone for quite a few years, but it still bothered me. Then about a year ago (maybe 3) I was reading Irenaeus and found that he was correcting how this passage should be read. Sorry for all the upcoming cut an past

Against Heresies
Chapter VII.—Reply to an objection founded on the words of St. Paul (2 Cor. iv. 4). St. Paul occasionally uses words not in their grammatical sequence.

1. As to their affirming that Paul said plainly in the Second [Epistle] to the Corinthians, “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not,”3358 and maintaining that there is indeed one god of this world, but another who is beyond all principality, and beginning, and power, we are not to blame if they, who give out that they do themselves know mysteries beyond God, know not how to read Paul. For if any one read the passage thus—according to Paul’s custom, as I show elsewhere, and by many examples, that he uses transposition of words—“In whom God,” then pointing it off, and making a slight interval, and at the same time read also the rest [of the sentence] in one [clause], “hath blinded the minds of them of this world that believe not,” he shall find out the true [sense]; that it is contained in the expression, “God hath blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this world.” And this is shown by means of the little interval [between the clause]. For Paul does not say, “the God of this world,” as if recognising any other beyond Him; but he confessed God as indeed God. And he says, “the unbelievers of this world,” because they shall not inherit the future age of incorruption. I shall show from Paul himself, how it is that God has blinded the minds of them that believe not, in the course of this work, that we may not just at present distract our mind from the matter in hand, [by wandering] at large.

2. From many other instances also, we may discover that the apostle frequently uses a transposed order in his sentences, due to the rapidity of his discourses, and the impetus of the Spirit which is in him. An example occurs in the [Epistle] to the Galatians, where he expresses himself as follows:
“Wherefore then the law of works?3359 It was added, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator.”3360 For the order of the words runs thus: “Wherefore then the law of works? Ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator, it was added until the seed should come to whom the promise was made,”— man thus asking the question, and the Spirit making answer. And again, in the Second to the Thessalonians, speaking of Antichrist, he says, “And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus Christ3361 shall slay with the Spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy him3362 with the presence of his coming; [even him] whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders.”3363 Now in these [sentences] the order of the words is this: “And then shall be revealed that wicked, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the Spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the presence of His coming.”
For he does not mean that the coming of the Lord is after the working of Satan; but the coming of the wicked one, whom we also call Antichrist. If, then, one does not attend to the [proper] reading [of the passage], and if he do not exhibit the intervals of breathing as they occur, there shall be not only incongruities, but also, when reading, he will utter blasphemy, as if the advent of the Lord could take place according to the working of Satan. So therefore, in such passages, the hyperbaton must be exhibited by the reading, and the apostle’s meaning following on, preserved; and thus we do not read in that passage, “the god of this world,” but, “God,” whom we do truly call God; and we hear [it declared of] the unbelieving and the blinded of this world, that they shall not inherit the world of life which is to come.


It really made me start thinking again on all this…

I started to look at the verse again so see what it might really be saying.

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Who veiled the gospel? It is our own unbelief. How is the veil removed, by believing in Jesus. We learned all this in 2 Cor 3
The Gospel is veiled to those who are perishing.

I see it should read:

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The God Eternal has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

It then flows so that we now (again as we learned in 2 Cor 3: 16. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.)

Verse 5. For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

It is God who blinds the unbeliever so that they cannot see Christ. They can see Christ when God reveals Jesus to them as Paul teaches in 1 Cor 1: 18. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Now here is my theory, call it conspiracy if you will. LOL!

Most of us are from the Protestant/reformed view. We spend our time in Calvin and Augustine and other 16th century guys who are well worth the read. I think many manuscripts are mostly from Alexandria which took a Platonist/ Gnostic view point of scripture. Somewhere I think we tossed the baby out with the bathwater in our zeal to attack the Roman Catholic Church. I had not read Irenaeus and when I did it was in my search to follow the disciples of John the Apostle. You might know Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of Ignatius and. So the linage is pretty straight forward as to what was taught from John. I see that maybe we just took to our own traditions instead of looking at our historians of past. Note many are pretty far out there, yet, some that we can see come from apostolic line of teaching, should be considered in their interpretations.

iggy

h1

2 Cor 4:4 Who Is The God of This World?

May 21, 2008

I have been in a discussion with someone on Twitter discussing 2 Cor 4:4 and that it seemed inconsistent with Paul’s theology to state this commonly quoted verse.

2 Cor 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

For some reason that verse had always bothered me as I saw it did not fit with other verses that Paul wrote.

Like.

Romans 1: 25. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen. 26. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

Notice it is God doing the deluding? Not Satan. Though I do think Satan plays a part in the turning from the knowledge of God, and adding to the “depraved mind”.

I also noted Paul stating things like:

Romans 3: 30. “since there is only one God,” I wondered why then Paul referred to Satan as the “god of this world”… it seemed that it was a bit of an exaggeration at best! LOL!

But the verses that made me wonder the most was in 1 Cor 8: 4. So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6. yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

If Paul was stating that there is only One God over and over here… and stating that “even if there are so-called gods”, then making a slighted reference to all the many “gods” and “lords” (possibly a reference to Caesar worship?) I just could not see him referring to Satan as a god, even in small letters. It seemed out of character for Paul… though he may at times go to extreme rhetoric as in the “height, width, depth of God’s love”…

Anyway I left it alone for quite a few years, but it still bothered me. Then about a year ago (maybe 3) I was reading Irenaeus and found that he was correcting how this passage should be read. Sorry for all the upcoming cut an past

Against Heresies
Chapter VII.—Reply to an objection founded on the words of St. Paul (2 Cor. iv. 4). St. Paul occasionally uses words not in their grammatical sequence.

1. As to their affirming that Paul said plainly in the Second [Epistle] to the Corinthians, “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not,”3358 and maintaining that there is indeed one god of this world, but another who is beyond all principality, and beginning, and power, we are not to blame if they, who give out that they do themselves know mysteries beyond God, know not how to read Paul. For if any one read the passage thus—according to Paul’s custom, as I show elsewhere, and by many examples, that he uses transposition of words—“In whom God,” then pointing it off, and making a slight interval, and at the same time read also the rest [of the sentence] in one [clause], “hath blinded the minds of them of this world that believe not,” he shall find out the true [sense]; that it is contained in the expression, “God hath blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this world.” And this is shown by means of the little interval [between the clause]. For Paul does not say, “the God of this world,” as if recognising any other beyond Him; but he confessed God as indeed God. And he says, “the unbelievers of this world,” because they shall not inherit the future age of incorruption. I shall show from Paul himself, how it is that God has blinded the minds of them that believe not, in the course of this work, that we may not just at present distract our mind from the matter in hand, [by wandering] at large.

2. From many other instances also, we may discover that the apostle frequently uses a transposed order in his sentences, due to the rapidity of his discourses, and the impetus of the Spirit which is in him. An example occurs in the [Epistle] to the Galatians, where he expresses himself as follows:
“Wherefore then the law of works?3359 It was added, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator.”3360 For the order of the words runs thus: “Wherefore then the law of works? Ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator, it was added until the seed should come to whom the promise was made,”— man thus asking the question, and the Spirit making answer. And again, in the Second to the Thessalonians, speaking of Antichrist, he says, “And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus Christ3361 shall slay with the Spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy him3362 with the presence of his coming; [even him] whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders.”3363 Now in these [sentences] the order of the words is this: “And then shall be revealed that wicked, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the Spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the presence of His coming.”
For he does not mean that the coming of the Lord is after the working of Satan; but the coming of the wicked one, whom we also call Antichrist. If, then, one does not attend to the [proper] reading [of the passage], and if he do not exhibit the intervals of breathing as they occur, there shall be not only incongruities, but also, when reading, he will utter blasphemy, as if the advent of the Lord could take place according to the working of Satan. So therefore, in such passages, the hyperbaton must be exhibited by the reading, and the apostle’s meaning following on, preserved; and thus we do not read in that passage, “the god of this world,” but, “God,” whom we do truly call God; and we hear [it declared of] the unbelieving and the blinded of this world, that they shall not inherit the world of life which is to come.


It really made me start thinking again on all this…

I started to look at the verse again so see what it might really be saying.

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Who veiled the gospel? It is our own unbelief. How is the veil removed, by believing in Jesus. We learned all this in 2 Cor 3
The Gospel is veiled to those who are perishing.

I see it should read:

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The God Eternal has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

It then flows so that we now (again as we learned in 2 Cor 3: 16. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.)

Verse 5. For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

It is God who blinds the unbeliever so that they cannot see Christ. They can see Christ when God reveals Jesus to them as Paul teaches in 1 Cor 1: 18. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Now here is my theory, call it conspiracy if you will. LOL!

Most of us are from the Protestant/reformed view. We spend our time in Calvin and Augustine and other 16th century guys who are well worth the read. I think many manuscripts are mostly from Alexandria which took a Platonist/ Gnostic view point of scripture. Somewhere I think we tossed the baby out with the bathwater in our zeal to attack the Roman Catholic Church. I had not read Irenaeus and when I did it was in my search to follow the disciples of John the Apostle. You might know Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of Ignatius and. So the linage is pretty straight forward as to what was taught from John. I see that maybe we just took to our own traditions instead of looking at our historians of past. Note many are pretty far out there, yet, some that we can see come from apostolic line of teaching, should be considered in their interpretations.

iggy

h1

New Blogroll addition: Conservative Reformed Mafia

September 1, 2007


A while back while I was embroiled in a discussion with Tony Rose at his blog about Biblical truth verses man made truth Jeff Wright contacted me to let me know that they were also discussing this topic at Conservative Reformed Mafia.

At the time I was a bit burned out with the discussion to contribute over at CRM yet I think the series they have there is very interesting… and not because we seem to be in agreement to a degree! (But it helps LOL!)

Here is part 1

Here is part 2

Here is part 3

In reflection in the discussion with Tony Rose I might point out that they insisted that “emergents” “do not believe in truth” and Tony was not willing to accept that Russell Moore who did the interview with Tony Jones did not have a clue what he was talking about. The funniest/saddest thing that Jim W. and Tony Rose missed was that I was an emerging folk who was standing on the Bible as his authority and definition of truth and they were fighting for the modernistic viewpoint… more sad that they just plain missed I was of the “emergent” ilk and was for truth and believed in truth and was fighting for truth…

So how then is it true that all emergents do not believe in truth? It seems that one side cannot see the lies they are stating. They see these lies as truth and uses these lies to protect their view of truth.

Be Blessed,
iggy

h1

New Blogroll addition: Conservative Reformed Mafia

September 1, 2007


A while back while I was embroiled in a discussion with Tony Rose at his blog about Biblical truth verses man made truth Jeff Wright contacted me to let me know that they were also discussing this topic at Conservative Reformed Mafia.

At the time I was a bit burned out with the discussion to contribute over at CRM yet I think the series they have there is very interesting… and not because we seem to be in agreement to a degree! (But it helps LOL!)

Here is part 1

Here is part 2

Here is part 3

In reflection in the discussion with Tony Rose I might point out that they insisted that “emergents” “do not believe in truth” and Tony was not willing to accept that Russell Moore who did the interview with Tony Jones did not have a clue what he was talking about. The funniest/saddest thing that Jim W. and Tony Rose missed was that I was an emerging folk who was standing on the Bible as his authority and definition of truth and they were fighting for the modernistic viewpoint… more sad that they just plain missed I was of the “emergent” ilk and was for truth and believed in truth and was fighting for truth…

So how then is it true that all emergents do not believe in truth? It seems that one side cannot see the lies they are stating. They see these lies as truth and uses these lies to protect their view of truth.

Be Blessed,
iggy

h1

"John MacArthur teaches(?) us who killed Jesus…" pt 2

September 1, 2007

I posted a video of John MacArthur where he stated some anti-Semitism statements and in response someone stated that I was taking John out of Context…

Here is a link to the context.

Note still that after John MacArthur makes his comment all hear what he states and takes it as anti semantic… also note that John states that the Law of the OT was not “true” which I think God and Moses would disagree with that statement! LOL! It was not that the “religion” was not true it was what and how the religious leaders used it that was wrong.

KING: Who killed him, John?

MACARTHUR: Well, the Romans executed him on the mountain, but they did it under duress and the pressure of Jewish leaders, who hated him, not because of the cure he offered but because of the indictment. I mean, he went to his own town. One of the most riveting portions of the whole New Testament, Luke Chapter 4, he goes to Nazareth, where he grew up, goes back to his synagogue where he attended every Sabbath, he’s with his family, his relatives, his friends that he grew up with. He preaches one sermon there, and they try to throw him off a cliff. It wasn’t that they didn’t want the kingdom of God or salvation or forgiveness or heaven or whatever. They couldn’t accept the diagnosis that their religion was not true, that it was not of the heart. And that was the issue that finally drove them to the cross.

KING: I want to see how a Jew reacts to that.

MANNING: That was a reaction especially significant to me, that what upset them was that Jesus was open to finding God’s presence even among people who were not Jews. And that really shocked them.

Though John does state these things are secondary, it still does not negate that all there on the panel and also Larry King heard what John stated and heard it as anti Semitic. I might add also that John seem to have a disconnect between “social issues” and “religious issues” which shows a great error of compartmentalizing the Gospel to fit one context and not another.

KING: How does a Jew react to that? You killed him.

PRAGER: No. That’s exactly it. I know you’re not blaming me. He’s not blaming me. He’s blaming me. He doesn’t like my politics. OK.

KING: I like you.

PRAGER: I know you do. And I appreciate it. It’s mutual. Listen, this is key. I have no issue. No Jew will have an issue with saying Jewish leaders of the time, along with the Romans, conspired to kill him, even though the Jews couldn’t do it alone, they didn’t have the death penalty or crucifixion. Plus the fact that tens of thousands of Jews were also crucified, other Jews, which is also necessary to point out.

The problem has only been if Christians said Jews are to blame forever, all Jews all the time. That’s, and unfortunately, in Europe, not in America, and I tell the Jews make a huge distinction between the Jewish experience with American Christians and European Christians. There, Jews were frequently blamed for something that they had no hand in, and that is evil. But to say that — but I have no problem in saying that there were probably Jewish leaders, who, according to the story, who conspired with the Romans.

KING: It begins the era of anti-Semitism.

PRAGER: Yes, it does. Because the reader — it’s up to the reader. And this is what I have learned, no matter how divine you find the text, it is still in our hands what we do with the text. This is the ultimate freedom God has given us.

KING: Your interpretation.

PRAGER: Two people can read the same text and one can say, that God ultimately killed him and we are of the branch of Judaism, as evangelical Christians and many Catholics will say today, and others will say damn the Jews. Reading the same text.

KING: Jon Meacham, I’ll come to you in a second. I got to take a break. You wanted to say something, John MacArthur?

MACARTHUR: It’s much deeper than that. No true Christian transformed on the inside by faith in Jesus Christ is going to be an anti-Semite. What you have is people who call themselves Christians, but who have not been transformed by the power of Christ. They’re the ones that would be anti-Semitic.

KING: In other words, if you’re a racist, you can’t be a Christian.

MACARTHUR: No, if you’re a Christian, you will be converted from your racism.

KING: You can’t be a racist if you’re a Christian.

MACARTHUR: That’s right. So true Christians…

KING: So when churches were segregated on Sunday morning, they were non-Christians.

MACARTHUR: You know, I have a real trouble believing — we’re talking about a different issue now. We’re talking about a social issue, not a religious.

KING: But they were Christian.

MACARTHUR: I think Christians act like Christians. I think Christians are transformed people. And lots of people take the label, but don’t know Christ.

KING: Wasn’t it Mark Twain who said, if Christ came back, the one thing he wouldn’t be is a Christian.

MACARTHUR: That’s another overstatement by Mark Twain.

So, that is the context, and it shows that John did state anti-Semitic statements… Whether that be that he was lost in his secondary points or that he just forgot that the Father’s Plan was that Jesus come and die for our sins… seems rather interesting as he has written books on this topic and is considered an authority. At least on enough to be on Larry King Live….

I will note also as one reads this, one will see John MacArthur’s double speak as pointed out by Prager:

No. That’s exactly it. I know you’re not blaming me. He’s not blaming me. He’s blaming me. He doesn’t like my politics. OK.

The point is this. If John holds others to a certain standard then does not live up to it… should he not then extend a Grace to them instead of declaring war on them?

Oh! Here is something to give a little more levity to all this from Bob Hyatt.

Be Blessed,
iggy

h1

"John MacArthur teaches(?) us who killed Jesus…" pt 2

September 1, 2007

I posted a video of John MacArthur where he stated some anti-Semitism statements and in response someone stated that I was taking John out of Context…

Here is a link to the context.

Note still that after John MacArthur makes his comment all hear what he states and takes it as anti semantic… also note that John states that the Law of the OT was not “true” which I think God and Moses would disagree with that statement! LOL! It was not that the “religion” was not true it was what and how the religious leaders used it that was wrong.

KING: Who killed him, John?

MACARTHUR: Well, the Romans executed him on the mountain, but they did it under duress and the pressure of Jewish leaders, who hated him, not because of the cure he offered but because of the indictment. I mean, he went to his own town. One of the most riveting portions of the whole New Testament, Luke Chapter 4, he goes to Nazareth, where he grew up, goes back to his synagogue where he attended every Sabbath, he’s with his family, his relatives, his friends that he grew up with. He preaches one sermon there, and they try to throw him off a cliff. It wasn’t that they didn’t want the kingdom of God or salvation or forgiveness or heaven or whatever. They couldn’t accept the diagnosis that their religion was not true, that it was not of the heart. And that was the issue that finally drove them to the cross.

KING: I want to see how a Jew reacts to that.

MANNING: That was a reaction especially significant to me, that what upset them was that Jesus was open to finding God’s presence even among people who were not Jews. And that really shocked them.

Though John does state these things are secondary, it still does not negate that all there on the panel and also Larry King heard what John stated and heard it as anti Semitic. I might add also that John seem to have a disconnect between “social issues” and “religious issues” which shows a great error of compartmentalizing the Gospel to fit one context and not another.

KING: How does a Jew react to that? You killed him.

PRAGER: No. That’s exactly it. I know you’re not blaming me. He’s not blaming me. He’s blaming me. He doesn’t like my politics. OK.

KING: I like you.

PRAGER: I know you do. And I appreciate it. It’s mutual. Listen, this is key. I have no issue. No Jew will have an issue with saying Jewish leaders of the time, along with the Romans, conspired to kill him, even though the Jews couldn’t do it alone, they didn’t have the death penalty or crucifixion. Plus the fact that tens of thousands of Jews were also crucified, other Jews, which is also necessary to point out.

The problem has only been if Christians said Jews are to blame forever, all Jews all the time. That’s, and unfortunately, in Europe, not in America, and I tell the Jews make a huge distinction between the Jewish experience with American Christians and European Christians. There, Jews were frequently blamed for something that they had no hand in, and that is evil. But to say that — but I have no problem in saying that there were probably Jewish leaders, who, according to the story, who conspired with the Romans.

KING: It begins the era of anti-Semitism.

PRAGER: Yes, it does. Because the reader — it’s up to the reader. And this is what I have learned, no matter how divine you find the text, it is still in our hands what we do with the text. This is the ultimate freedom God has given us.

KING: Your interpretation.

PRAGER: Two people can read the same text and one can say, that God ultimately killed him and we are of the branch of Judaism, as evangelical Christians and many Catholics will say today, and others will say damn the Jews. Reading the same text.

KING: Jon Meacham, I’ll come to you in a second. I got to take a break. You wanted to say something, John MacArthur?

MACARTHUR: It’s much deeper than that. No true Christian transformed on the inside by faith in Jesus Christ is going to be an anti-Semite. What you have is people who call themselves Christians, but who have not been transformed by the power of Christ. They’re the ones that would be anti-Semitic.

KING: In other words, if you’re a racist, you can’t be a Christian.

MACARTHUR: No, if you’re a Christian, you will be converted from your racism.

KING: You can’t be a racist if you’re a Christian.

MACARTHUR: That’s right. So true Christians…

KING: So when churches were segregated on Sunday morning, they were non-Christians.

MACARTHUR: You know, I have a real trouble believing — we’re talking about a different issue now. We’re talking about a social issue, not a religious.

KING: But they were Christian.

MACARTHUR: I think Christians act like Christians. I think Christians are transformed people. And lots of people take the label, but don’t know Christ.

KING: Wasn’t it Mark Twain who said, if Christ came back, the one thing he wouldn’t be is a Christian.

MACARTHUR: That’s another overstatement by Mark Twain.

So, that is the context, and it shows that John did state anti-Semitic statements… Whether that be that he was lost in his secondary points or that he just forgot that the Father’s Plan was that Jesus come and die for our sins… seems rather interesting as he has written books on this topic and is considered an authority. At least on enough to be on Larry King Live….

I will note also as one reads this, one will see John MacArthur’s double speak as pointed out by Prager:

No. That’s exactly it. I know you’re not blaming me. He’s not blaming me. He’s blaming me. He doesn’t like my politics. OK.

The point is this. If John holds others to a certain standard then does not live up to it… should he not then extend a Grace to them instead of declaring war on them?

Oh! Here is something to give a little more levity to all this from Bob Hyatt.

Be Blessed,
iggy

h1

The Ken Silva Implode continues… so pray for him!

August 2, 2007

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

He is still obsessed with semi pelagianism… and it seems his preferential “man-loving” label…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Isihah 58: 5 -8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blessings,
iggy