Wacko Fundamentalists who teach false doctrine.

Sorry, just gotta rant a bit here…

Just finished talking to a wacko fundamentalist who thinks that reconciliation is just for believers…

Here is his quote: “I read what you wrote, and am more than familiar with Jesus’ words about reconciling with one’s brother. But that isn’t the ‘ministry of reconciliation’ that Paul spoke about in 2 Cor. 5. Read it for yourself, and see.”

Really God reconciled us while we were still enemies…

“Rom 5: 10. For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!”

He asked me how those who are not saved are reconciled… and stated that reconciliation is only in one verse in Corinthians… (I will correct myself here. He stated that the phrase “ministry of reconciliation” is only mentioned once which is true, yet he still denies it is more than just for believers) blah read up on your bible dude! How about the whole “go and be reconciled to your brother” verse in Matt 5:23-24, or the verse often used out of context in Matt 18: 19-20 “19. “Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.” I guess that Jesus was NOT teaching reconciliation there either? If one reads the verse in context it sure is. In its context it is about reconciliation… We are to bring peace to others through Christ… that is the fullness of the ministry of reconciliation… for if we are not at peace with our brothers and sisters, we are not at peace with Christ. Without forgiveness of others we are not walking in Christ’s forgiveness… and not reconciled. Matt 6:14-15 14. For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins

When we were God’s enemies, we WERE reconciled through the death of Jesus on the Cross… Jesus reconciled SINNERS on the Cross… opening salvation that came… at the Resurrection… as Romans states..

The sad thing is, when I pointed him to links showing Glenn Beck lied, he then played the “I am being so persecuted card.” All the while accusing me of all sorts of things.

We are saved through Jesus’ life… not death. Again… read the bible and learn what it says instead of following Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh! Sheesh! And they call me the heretic… LOL! All in all, I see that following idols will give you only bad fruit…

I find it odd that when I lift up Christ over politics I get “Christians” angry. “Keep yourselves from idols…” 1 John 5:21 I believe this also includes political idols also. We are not of this world’s kingdoms… we are part of God’s Kingdom. I know Martin Luther talks of being of two kingdoms… yet, the Bible says, “Be a good citizen” I take that as living at peace in any kingdom… and at times… if it is ungodly… live in it as best you can. (taking in the broader ideas of Scripture.)

My politics are… Love others and live at peace as best you can. Look of ways to bring solutions to problems instead of polarization. Bring reconciliation instead of division. When we disagree, work out a reasonable solution. This is not my home, my world and my system I live under. I am accountable to God and must strive to live with a clear … Read Moreconscience between God and man. I believe in turning the other cheek… going the extra mile… even when those that are against will not. I believe we must strive to correct injustice with peaceful means if we can and if not (as a nation) leave it to God to sort out. (I am a pacifist) I will speak out against those who are hurting out nation and pray for them as well. Over all I recognize that Jesus is King over all creation, even the USA. Those are my politics… and with the aid of Jesus I will live at peace as best I can with my Fundamentalist wacko brothers and sisters in Christ. But I will not be silent when they teach false doctrine.

2 Corinthians 5: 14. For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again. 16. So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18. All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19. that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

I see this guy as a false teacher… Though I am not saying he is not saved. I leave that to God to judge.

Now go forth and be the Righteousness of God and bring reconciliation to those who need to know Jesus. Reconciliaiton is not just for the believer… but for those lost. It was given to us by the death of Christ on the Cross… it was given to ALL.

Blessings!

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

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

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

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

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

Letters from Camp Krusty…

This article on heretics set me straight…

be blessed,

iggy

Letters from Camp Krusty…

This article on heretics set me straight…

be blessed,

iggy

Tim, Ingrid and the Great Cover up.

Titus 2: 11-15

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.

In a way I do not want to write this, yet after praying I realized that many of us need to speak out on this topic. It pains me as far as the examples I will use, yet I hope to give a real life presentation of the Gospel in action against the false teachings of some. One of the examples is a friend and I do not wish to bring any more pain to him so I hope that this will not add to his hurt, but lift him out of the pain of those who deem themselves as more worthy sinners than others.

Tim Reed is a good guy. I really enjoy his thoughts and have gained things from him. He is a pastor of Owasso Church of Christ. The first thing I want you to note is that I do not agree with Tim on some doctrinal issues, yet I see those issues as secondary to his faith in Christ so I focus on that instead of where we disagree.

Now, Tim loves to play some sort of “Fantasy” game which seems to include that one might become an evil dictator who wants to rule the world. Tim stated that he had played these games for many years before coming to Jesus.

Ingrid is a radio show host and “watchdoggie” blog. She likes to report on the failings of those she sees as heretics. Now, I agree with her on some things so this is not a total “I am against Ingrid” post. In fact, if I was to percentage out what she talks about, I would agree more with her than against her… yet she seems to think that all falls on the emerging church and is very vocal against those that have a differing “style” of worship ie, pastors should not wear jeans to preach in, churchs should have pews (though I understand she attends a house church) and music for worship can be performed by a secular choir, but not rock music by believers who desire to worship Jesus. So, my “beef” is that she confuses preference with God’s holiness and style with biblical mandates.

Now, my biggest issue with Online Discernment Ministries, (ODM’s) is that they often go way overboard in their zeal to expose and shame those they deemed as worse sinners as themselves. In this case Ingrid parsed through 1 and ½ years of posts to find one comment made by Tim (which I will not post here as it is very distasteful). Many of these comments were in defense against atheists who attacked him for his beliefs at the discussion forum, yet he made this one comment that later came back to haunt him.

Soon after Tim made the comment he was IM’d by a friend and the moderator who both rebuked Tim for his overboard comment. He saw his wrong and apologized to all offended parties and was forgiven by them.
Now, again 1 ½ years later, Ingrid finds times forgiven sins and resurrects them publically to shame Tim and expose him as one of the “new pastors today” she seems to dispise.

Now, remember Tim does not deny he stated the things Ingrid posted… and he does show remorse and did all he could to make it right with the people around him. He even went so far as to create a new story line for himself in the game so he would nto be so evil.

1. Tim sinned.
2. Tim was rebuked.
3. Tim repented.
4. Tim was forgiven.
5. All was well with the world again.

Tim later, (after the post at SoL), deleted his account where Ingrid quoted him as supporters at SoL were attacking those at the forum and judging and condemning them. He openly admits to all this.

Then came Ingrid who even after reading all the facts having already stated Tim to be one of the “enemies of Jesus Christ”, states he is being “deceptive”.

Here is Tim’s side if you want to read it.

As far as living out the obedience to Jesus by forgiving others as He commanded, Ingrid seems to think that is not a command that applies to her.

Forgiveness is not part of the ODM’s doctrine when it comes to those they hate. I am sorry, but out of all this I do not see these verses coming out of the ODM’s side at all.

“Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.”

“Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?” Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.”

“So watch yourselves. “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, `I repent,’ forgive him.”

I have heard the ODM’s state things as, “You redefine fundamentalist. You redefine pharisee You redefine salvation. You redefine Jesus and the Gospel. You are a credit to post-modern dogma. The Gospel is all about reconciliation and forgiveness. It is not an excuse to blow-off sin.” Yet, then miss the very opportunity to forgive the stated sin… but instead cast more self righteous stones at Tim or whoever.

Now, what motivates such people to hate others so much? I will not get into Ingrid’s or others motives, as they will be exposed by God in His due time. Yet, I have found from experience, both out of my life as one who would at one time cast stones without thought to giving forgiveness, and having received the stones from the ODM’s myself. They seem to express some sort of maturity yet seem to miss the core of the Gospel of Reconciliation. In fact these (again I include myself as I did this myself) mock the very Gospel they proclaim. I will add that a person who is inclined to cast stones often does not understand the forgivness and Grace of God as they trust their own works as the “back-up” if God’s grace is not sufficient for them after all.

Is sin forgiven? According to the bible there is not one doubt and without hesitation I must state yes! Yet, it seems that if one does not like a person, a religionist will not accept the “so called” offender repentance. In this lack of grasping the Gospel of reconciliation they give no reconciliation to the other and only mock God and the gospel as they leave the other in their sin.

I will state this about Tim; he did all that God required so no man (or woman) has a right to add to that. To those who dig up old dirt then use it to shame and “expose” others only expose that they know not Grace nor love the Kindness of God. They seek only to show how right they are in their own eyes. Such a person need be avoided for they shame the Gospel and count Jesus Blood as nothing. I see that often the very sins one notices in others is the type of sin we see in ourselves. If one is under the performance type faith and sees God as the “God Father” instead of God the Father, then they well view obedience as “payment” to keep their god happy. They deceive themselves as only Jesus pleased the Father and we all need be in Christ to also be pleasing to God. Without Jesus no one is pleasing to God. In that being the truth, no one can boast that they are more pleasing to God than another. That is called humility.

Tim is being accused of covering up his sins… he is not. I see though that some sin openly against their brothers and sisters in the role of being the Accuser of them. They then cover their own sin in a thin veil of self righteous prater that only drive more away from Jesus or more into a false gospel of works.

Tim has grown from this and sees the error of his ways… yet it seems that God teaching someone and freeing them of their past sins, is not enough for Ingrid and others. I see the Great Cover Up is about those who condone the sin of Ingrid, Ken and others as they slander and lie and continue to set a standard of righteouness that is not biblical and in fact cuts across the grain of the Gospel. If one though did repent and confess their sin, I for one would be fighting for a place in line to offer forgivness and a huge hug.

Not only is this so, butI would also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. (Romans 5:11)

iggy

Tim, Ingrid and the Great Cover up.

Titus 2: 11-15

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.

In a way I do not want to write this, yet after praying I realized that many of us need to speak out on this topic. It pains me as far as the examples I will use, yet I hope to give a real life presentation of the Gospel in action against the false teachings of some. One of the examples is a friend and I do not wish to bring any more pain to him so I hope that this will not add to his hurt, but lift him out of the pain of those who deem themselves as more worthy sinners than others.

Tim Reed is a good guy. I really enjoy his thoughts and have gained things from him. He is a pastor of Owasso Church of Christ. The first thing I want you to note is that I do not agree with Tim on some doctrinal issues, yet I see those issues as secondary to his faith in Christ so I focus on that instead of where we disagree.

Now, Tim loves to play some sort of “Fantasy” game which seems to include that one might become an evil dictator who wants to rule the world. Tim stated that he had played these games for many years before coming to Jesus.

Ingrid is a radio show host and “watchdoggie” blog. She likes to report on the failings of those she sees as heretics. Now, I agree with her on some things so this is not a total “I am against Ingrid” post. In fact, if I was to percentage out what she talks about, I would agree more with her than against her… yet she seems to think that all falls on the emerging church and is very vocal against those that have a differing “style” of worship ie, pastors should not wear jeans to preach in, churchs should have pews (though I understand she attends a house church) and music for worship can be performed by a secular choir, but not rock music by believers who desire to worship Jesus. So, my “beef” is that she confuses preference with God’s holiness and style with biblical mandates.

Now, my biggest issue with Online Discernment Ministries, (ODM’s) is that they often go way overboard in their zeal to expose and shame those they deemed as worse sinners as themselves. In this case Ingrid parsed through 1 and ½ years of posts to find one comment made by Tim (which I will not post here as it is very distasteful). Many of these comments were in defense against atheists who attacked him for his beliefs at the discussion forum, yet he made this one comment that later came back to haunt him.

Soon after Tim made the comment he was IM’d by a friend and the moderator who both rebuked Tim for his overboard comment. He saw his wrong and apologized to all offended parties and was forgiven by them.
Now, again 1 ½ years later, Ingrid finds times forgiven sins and resurrects them publically to shame Tim and expose him as one of the “new pastors today” she seems to dispise.

Now, remember Tim does not deny he stated the things Ingrid posted… and he does show remorse and did all he could to make it right with the people around him. He even went so far as to create a new story line for himself in the game so he would nto be so evil.

1. Tim sinned.
2. Tim was rebuked.
3. Tim repented.
4. Tim was forgiven.
5. All was well with the world again.

Tim later, (after the post at SoL), deleted his account where Ingrid quoted him as supporters at SoL were attacking those at the forum and judging and condemning them. He openly admits to all this.

Then came Ingrid who even after reading all the facts having already stated Tim to be one of the “enemies of Jesus Christ”, states he is being “deceptive”.

Here is Tim’s side if you want to read it.

As far as living out the obedience to Jesus by forgiving others as He commanded, Ingrid seems to think that is not a command that applies to her.

Forgiveness is not part of the ODM’s doctrine when it comes to those they hate. I am sorry, but out of all this I do not see these verses coming out of the ODM’s side at all.

“Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.”

“Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?” Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.”

“So watch yourselves. “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, `I repent,’ forgive him.”

I have heard the ODM’s state things as, “You redefine fundamentalist. You redefine pharisee You redefine salvation. You redefine Jesus and the Gospel. You are a credit to post-modern dogma. The Gospel is all about reconciliation and forgiveness. It is not an excuse to blow-off sin.” Yet, then miss the very opportunity to forgive the stated sin… but instead cast more self righteous stones at Tim or whoever.

Now, what motivates such people to hate others so much? I will not get into Ingrid’s or others motives, as they will be exposed by God in His due time. Yet, I have found from experience, both out of my life as one who would at one time cast stones without thought to giving forgiveness, and having received the stones from the ODM’s myself. They seem to express some sort of maturity yet seem to miss the core of the Gospel of Reconciliation. In fact these (again I include myself as I did this myself) mock the very Gospel they proclaim. I will add that a person who is inclined to cast stones often does not understand the forgivness and Grace of God as they trust their own works as the “back-up” if God’s grace is not sufficient for them after all.

Is sin forgiven? According to the bible there is not one doubt and without hesitation I must state yes! Yet, it seems that if one does not like a person, a religionist will not accept the “so called” offender repentance. In this lack of grasping the Gospel of reconciliation they give no reconciliation to the other and only mock God and the gospel as they leave the other in their sin.

I will state this about Tim; he did all that God required so no man (or woman) has a right to add to that. To those who dig up old dirt then use it to shame and “expose” others only expose that they know not Grace nor love the Kindness of God. They seek only to show how right they are in their own eyes. Such a person need be avoided for they shame the Gospel and count Jesus Blood as nothing. I see that often the very sins one notices in others is the type of sin we see in ourselves. If one is under the performance type faith and sees God as the “God Father” instead of God the Father, then they well view obedience as “payment” to keep their god happy. They deceive themselves as only Jesus pleased the Father and we all need be in Christ to also be pleasing to God. Without Jesus no one is pleasing to God. In that being the truth, no one can boast that they are more pleasing to God than another. That is called humility.

Tim is being accused of covering up his sins… he is not. I see though that some sin openly against their brothers and sisters in the role of being the Accuser of them. They then cover their own sin in a thin veil of self righteous prater that only drive more away from Jesus or more into a false gospel of works.

Tim has grown from this and sees the error of his ways… yet it seems that God teaching someone and freeing them of their past sins, is not enough for Ingrid and others. I see the Great Cover Up is about those who condone the sin of Ingrid, Ken and others as they slander and lie and continue to set a standard of righteouness that is not biblical and in fact cuts across the grain of the Gospel. If one though did repent and confess their sin, I for one would be fighting for a place in line to offer forgivness and a huge hug.

Not only is this so, butI would also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. (Romans 5:11)

iggy

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

I am going to just ask this open question.

I have read much of Ken Silva’ “false” accusations against many… yet I am wondering what are the specific things Ken holds against Tony?

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

Yet, how can you justify the name calling?

What are the facts behind these “names”… that make them so true?

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

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

iggy

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

Source 1: Ken lies and slanders Bruce.

Source 2: Bruce tells the rest of the story.

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

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

I am going to just ask this open question.

I have read much of Ken Silva’ “false” accusations against many… yet I am wondering what are the specific things Ken holds against Tony?

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

Yet, how can you justify the name calling?

What are the facts behind these “names”… that make them so true?

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

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

iggy

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

Source 1: Ken lies and slanders Bruce.

Source 2: Bruce tells the rest of the story.

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

An Open Letter to Matt Slick

Matt,

I wanted to thank you for having Doug Pagitt on. I am also part of the “emerging church”. Though I am not a “member” of emergent, I have seen much value in the things they discuss. I see that they are especially of value in the area of Christoplatonism.

I wanted to also thank you for not being rude. So often these type of interviews are reduced to just that. I was a bit worried though with the opening. =) You might also find it interesting that I really appreciate Doug yet do not agree with him on all points… especially in the area of “eternal security”. Yet, there are orthodox people on both sides of that issue.

In the ec I hope you realize that there is much room in our conversation. As you might have already noticed there are some that view women pastors are fine and some like Mark Driscoll (who some of us no longer see as “emerging”), who do not see that is fine. Yet, within the “movement” (which is still an in-house debate whether to call it that or if it is one) we are open to challenging one another… with respect.

In regards to Karen Ward, I am not that read up on her myself. She may be considered a “leader” but there are some that consider ME that also… which I have to chuckle over as I am not that much of one if I am! LOL!

Yet, in this case you were unkind and did admit it to Doug. I think you should apologize.
Now, having said that, I agree with you that if she did state that it was OK to not believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus then she is in error… and most other emerging/emergent I have run into would not agree with her at all.

Now, how we work though is if she is in error, and this is brought to the table of discussion so to say, she would be challenged by the rest of us. Again, mutual respect is help as one of the highest of values as we view commonly that God places high value on all humans be they believer or not. He sent His Son to die for us so we see that as one of the greatest values.
In this type of discussion we will firmly debate with one another. If one cannot “back their view” biblically… then we will agree to place in the secondary position of “is this an essential”.
In this iron sharpens iron… and I am sure Doug will talk with Karen and if it is as you state will discuss this.

As far as your ministry, I agree that you are in a very interesting place. To look for “orthodoxy” and to find whether one is a heretic or not would be tough to do. Yet, still if a person be a Mormon or JW, I would still place love in front of all things as I approached them. Mostly I would allow God to work as I did converse with them. I would challenge their view but not deride the person.

Walter Martin, who I understand mentored you, (unlike that other guy who stated he was mentored by Walter as he listened to a bunch of tapes) stated that this was very important to do… to not put down their leaders or attack their person… but focus solely on their doctrines.

As far as how this is done, I think it depends on the person. I have had to confront unbelievers who were sick from drinking binges… and after the second or third time I ran them to the emergency room I would be straight forward and tell them they needed help… and I would not let them get away with saying they had a “disease”. As, I am diabetic and have an actual disease I see that someone who places a substance purposely in their body, as in the case of alcohol is a drunk, not “sick” in the same way as someone with cancer. They need help but they do need to be confronted with their “sin” that is killing them. Cancer never comes in a glass nor did my diabetes. (I understand that this is a bit out of the AA understanding, but the bible calls a drunk a drunk) This may sound harsh but I am meaning that I have built a bit of a relationship… and in that can give that person my honest and blunt opinion. Also, I see that this person is dying and in that do not care to waste much time “just to be nice” though I do not want to be unkind.

I think that Doug was very much in your face, yet you could sense he cared and still had genuine love for you as you talked… I see that this is the way you need to confront others also.

Over all I wanted to thank you as I did. I have been attacked by some very harshly and called an apostate and told I am not saved, just becuase I have a link to Brian McLaren on my website… that is a bit silly as I also have Dr. J Vernon McGee and Chuck Missler. They seemed to not care in my confession of faith in Jesus but only that they hate those they see outside their own narrow belief and doctrine… in fact many of these get confused when I state things like “having a relationship with Jesus” or “must recieve the Life of Christ” which seems to me the most crucial of beliefs one should have as a believer in Jesus.

I wanted to recommend two other “emerging” folk.

Andrew Jones is a great guy and I think you would enjoy interviewing him. He is also known as the Tall Skinny Kiwi. I would also recommend Scot McKnight who is a professor and author and considered to be one of the finest up and coming theologians out there today. His blog is called Jesus Creed like his book of hte same name. Allen Roxburgh of ALLELON would be another person as he is very close to Brian McLaren.

Be blessed,

iggy