What You Say Must Be What You Believe
“We need to adjust our presentation of the gospel. We cannot dismiss the fact that God hates sin and punishes sinners with eternal torment. How can we begin a gospel presentation by telling people on their way to hell that God has a wonderful plan for their lives?†It is true that God has a wonderful plan for their lives—but it is that they would repent and trust the Savior, and receive the righteousness of Christ.â€
- John MacArthur
The re-examination of the gospel presentation is a continuing process that is a combination of evaluating the common understandings and the sincere and uncompromising desire to include all the vital components of the saving message. Of what use is preaching the gospel if it either cannot be understood or equally that it is incomplete or deficient? A hundred section bridge is not a bridge with only ninety-nine sections, and the bridge with all one hundred sections is of no use if it cannot be found. So the suggestion that we should always communicate the gospel in truth and completeness and with the core spiritual components that makes it eternal and trans-cultural is imperative.
But as one of my constant observations I must again take issue with the last sentence as it is presented in a reformed context.This theology is what it is and those who espouse it cannot run from it, neither should we allow them to. When Dr. MacArthur states that “It is true that God has a wonderful plan for their lives - but it is that they would repent and trust the Savior, and receive the righteousness of Christ†he is overstating and actually misrepresenting his own theology. How can he encourage believers to present the gospel to sinners and inform them that God’s plan is for them to trust Christ, as it were, when that statement just may be a lie if the sinner to whom they are witnessing is not included in the redemptive plan of God?So while it is true that many of the formula gospel presentations are ineffectively pragmatic and remove much of the Biblical completeness in the message, the essence of the gospel presentation in the reformed (et. al.) persuasion must be tailored to accurately reflect what they believe. They cannot assure the person of any plan that God has for them, in fact, it just might be that God’s plan is hell for the individual with whom they are sharing Christ. You cannot have it all ways and if you embrace some form of Calvinism you should not be offended by remaining consistent with your theology, you should desire to be as consistent as possible in what you communicate to saint and sinner alike.
Now a Christian who believes Christ died for every man and that salvation has been made available to all sinners can with a clear conscience share the good news that Christ died for their sins and offers them eternal life in Him. But if a Christian believes that Christ only died for a few, would it not be Biblically honest and in the interest of full disclosure to communicate that fact to the sinner himself? Why not? If that sinner is predestined to be saved it cannot alter his conversion, and it would surely give a more Biblical view of salvation and even help to prevent false professions of faith based on the assumption that the person is assured of being chosen. The presentation of John 3:16 must include a defining of the word “world†in order not to mislead the person and again encourage a false understanding that Christ died for everyone in the entire world, no, this sinner must understand that he may or may not be a candidate for salvation lest he make a false profession based upon faulty assumptions and not the direct drawing of the Spirit which is reserved for only the pre-elected and not the desire/will of the listener. The sinner may desire to trust Christ but how can he be sure that this feeling is the Spirit and not his own counterfeit will which would give him a tragic sense of security when if fact he was still lost.
My contention is that in order to insure the most authentic conversion experiences, which I believe is the thrust of Dr. MacArthur’s point, we all must present the gospel truth in the most clear and complete way. For me that means I can with all confidence and Biblical authority offer everyone the gift of eternal life through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But for men like John MacArthur this should mean that their message must include a caveat of caution that includes the truth that Christ only died for the limited elect, not so the sinner can better discern if the Spirit is drawing him, no, the sinner’s place is only reactionary to the Spirit’s will, but the message should be accurately and completely presented for God’s glory and Biblical consistency. No?
Now the amazing thing is that the gospel presentations of the reformed group never seem to make a clear revelation of the limited scope of redemption and the cross of Christ. Why not? Well, you say, it doesn’t really matter in the presentation, we are supposed to preach the same to all creatures and God will do the work. If that is true, then why does it matter at all and why does everyone make such an important issue of it if that truth doesn’t even need to be told to lost sinners to whom it affects most directly? And what would be the most effective way to avoid shallow and fleshly professions of faith than informing the lost person of the limited scope of Christ’s death? Doesn’t the Scripture exhort people to examine themselves to see whether they are in the faith? And doesn’t that Scripture by implication warn of false conversions? So are we saying that we can only warn of false conversions after the false conversion is made? And are we saying that the witness to sinners must be limited in truth, and that informing a sinner that he may not be chosen is for some reason unwise.
And in Dr. MacArthur’s theology the completeness of the message is uneventful in the salvation of souls, the Spirit will save who God wills to be saved not predicated on the completeness of the gospel presentation, hence the obvious truth that many are saved under a free will message. But the reformed group would stress, and correctly so, that we should endeavor to most completely and accurately communicate the truth of salvation’s gospel because of God’s glory and the sacredness of His Word. And that brings us back to the original point, if I am reformed, and part of my understanding of the gospel scope is its limitations, should I not make that clear for God’s glory?
Therefore, a reformed believer can never and should never tell a sinner that God’s will for his life is to believe the gospel and be saved. That perhaps is a misspeak by Dr. MacArthur, but he should immediately see the incongruous nature of such a statement and abandon any further implications in the future. And he should not be offended when it is pointed out to him, he should embrace it because, after all, he desires to present God’s truth as he believes it, right? And what offense could anyone take by being exhorted to make clear that which you believe? The discussion of those beliefs is for another time, but since we are all avidly examining everyone’s gospel presentation we all need to let our own words come under the scrutiny of what we believe. It’s only right.
August 25th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Rick,
Very astute observations! Interestingly, whenever I hear/see an ad for Dr. Mac’s radio show, all I can think of is the Soup Nazi character on Seinfeld saying “No grace for you!”…
August 25th, 2007 at 7:31 am
Rick,
I think this and other posts by you reek of your hypocrisy in posting of late.
You said “And in two years of seeing these posts, I cannot remember once reading for everyone to pray for these fallen brothers or sister.”
and
“complete with some of the shocking details, and with comment sections that mirrored wolves gathered around the carcass of a fresh kill.”
It seems that you are ALSO good at wielding the sword. Where is the healing balm in your tone for SOL and CRN?
DT
August 25th, 2007 at 7:38 am
Rick,
One more thing.
What is the premise or purpose of this site? To promote division and point out the “foolishness” of others. You being part of it proves my point perfectly.
Now, I see where you are coming from. I once thought that you really cared about truth and wanted to call out wrongdoing.
We have a case of the wolf guarding the hen house.
DT
August 25th, 2007 at 8:37 am
This is not my site but I would guess the overall purpose is the glory of God. The pragmatic purpose is most likely correction. Chris has allowed me to post pastoral teachings as well. And like all things spiritual this site hopefully will continue to grow into a more perfect reflection od God’s purposes and not ours.
The calling out of wrongdoing, as you put it, continues. Only its scope is much more inclusive than you assumed.
And only three comments into this thread I am already a wolf. Last post (which you refered to) I was an apostate, and now a wolf. Are they merit badges I can have sewn on my robe? OK, Julie, I invoke the Christian Pirate Flag early here!
August 25th, 2007 at 8:40 am
DT,
You wrote:
Actually, what you have here at CRN.info is a farmhand protecting the chickens from rabid watchdawgs, who sadly cannot discern friend from foe…
You also wrote:
Our purpose is to tend to the wounds of Christians suffering from “friendly fire” and to frame what true, Godly discernment would teach the church about being relevant to a culture without sacrificing the Word.
For instance, as a case in point, contrasting Pharisaical views of tattoos with a non-legalistic, biblical view on the orthopraxy of body art.
Even while there are areas where I have disagreed (or still disagree) with Rick in the past, I have always respected his love, depth and wit, and I have always considered him a brother in Christ (as I consider you, as well). We try (though we do not always succeed, I will grant you) to do what many watchdawg sites will not: to treat each other from a standpoint of Christian brotherhood (which does not preclude disagreement), and let God sort out “false converts” via separating wheat from tares.
I would consider Galatians 6:1-10 to give a good summation to our purpose (which, again, I will grant you, we do not always fulfill)
August 25th, 2007 at 8:57 am
And everyone please feel free to print out this comment and frame it to reference at appropriate intervals.
I am as imperfect as anyone esle who comments. I do not pray as much as I should, I do not read the Word as much as I should, I do not privately worship as much as I should, I sometimes do not love people as I should, I sometimes take fleshly pride in my writings, I do not witness as much as I should, I fall short as a husband, I fall short as a father, I fall short as a grandfather, I fall short as a follower of Christ, and my views are not perfect.
But I am not an apostate and I am not a wolf. So when you comment feel free to disect my views, question my approach, confront my conclusions, but perhaps we all might discard the apostate and wolf cards because they immediately reveal a disinterest in brotherly dialogue and poison the atmosphere for all of us. I will not remove your comment, but it may be best to avoid the personal invectives that describe us other than imperfect followers of the only Perfect One.
OK, the howling has stopped.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:35 am
I am a Calvinist/Reformed/Predestinarian/[add your own label here]. I believe what you have stated: that Christ only died for the limited elect. Although I do follow your logic from a human perspective, I think you’re making this harder than it is. I’ve been on both sides of this fence and it seems pretty clear to me.
Interesting and thought provoking post, though.
God does have a wonderful plan–it is to save lost sinners, specifically those He has chosen for salvation from eternity past. The caveat is just as you have essentially stated: that plan does not include every man, woman, boy and girl that has lived or will ever live. I have no problem with that. He is God; I am not. He does as He pleases.
What I do know is that Jesus’ last recorded words on this earth–specifically to the Apostles, by implication to all Christians–is that we are to go out, and “make disciples,” i.e present the Gospel. Nowhere does Jesus or any of the other NT writers imply it is my job to determine BEFOREHAND who may or may not respond, which is what you are essentially arguing. I don’t know HOW God saves; I just know that He does and that he has chosen to use human beings, declaring the Gospel message to make that happen in the lives of some people.
You state: For me that means I can with all confidence and Biblical authority offer everyone the gift of eternal life through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. You can do that, but the fact remains that EVERYONE will not be saved. In fact, that isn’t even a possibility.
You state: …the amazing thing is that the gospel presentations of the reformed group never seem to make a clear revelation of the limited scope of redemption and the cross of Christ. Neither did Jesus’ or the Apostle’s presentations, but you and I know full well that some were not saved that heard the message. (e.g. John 6). Jesus saw no need to qualify His message.
We (Calvinists) encourage all people (a general call if you will) to cry out to God, to repent, to put their trust in Jesus’ death on the cross to pay the price for their sins, but we also understand that only those who have been drawn by God, regenerated in their hearts to receive/understand the message will actually hear and respond. Again, the “how” of salvation is God’s business.
The offering of the gospel only become “incongruos” if I know in advance the individual will NEVER respond—I don’t have that knowledge and neither do you.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Thank you, Keith, for a legitimate response. My overall point is that the sentence itself that MacArthur used is faulty. Everything else you said is reasonable, however, the points I made are legitimate questions from the free will perspectives.
Thanks.
August 25th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Amazing! A cordial dialog — and we still disagree without throwing punches.
What a wonderful way to begin a Saturday. Praying yours is a great Lord’s Day tomorrow.
August 25th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Keith,
Sometimes this is taken as a debate of Calvinist versus Arminian. and with me being neither… I sometimes can see how both side interact.
The most interesting thing I have found is that you have Calvinist that argue with other Calvinists…. Though they are are all “reformed” in theology, one still is calling the other “Apostate” for their peripheral view and non salvic views.
We have John Macarthur and his crew who are calling people Like Bob Hyatt and Rick Iannielo apostates and why?
Bob is associated with the emerging church and Rick is with the Vineyard denomination as i am… Both are “reformed” in theology yet according to Johnny Mac’s truth war, apostates.
To me that is sad that a group of Christians who are in the same camp claim the other a apostate… To me this is what the bible calls divisiveness and that is what MacArthur has become… a divisive ministry .
We are to stay way from divisive men…
Blessings,
iggy
August 25th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Iggy,
Where do you get that both the Vineyard and Emerging movements are reformed? Just because Driscoll has been hanging out with Piper and Mahaney does not one make.
Chris L.,
You said “Pharisaical views of tattoos with a non-legalistic, biblical view on the orthopraxy of body art.”
“Body art” That is rich.
I do love it when a nerve has been touched. Isn’t it hilarious that you can call my post on tattoos “Pharisaical”? What do you call your post opposite mine? Loving enlightenment or loving encouragement?
So, our (CRN and SOL) “discernment” is head-hunting, witch-hunting, watch-dogging and yours is …?
DT
August 25th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
DT,
You asked:
Did you actually read the article?
I would call it both loving enlightenment and encouragement, as it is a matter of the heart, not a legalistic set of rules we create in the belief that it will please God (which is the very definition of legalism.
I would also disagree that your article “touched a nerve”, since I had already begun preparation/study on the topic, and your article led me to post mine about a week earlier than it otherwise would have been. If you don’t believe me, you can check the date on the picture I used, which was well before your article was published…
August 25th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Rick,
Thought provoking article, but before I comment on it, I would first like to acknowledge your comment (number 6). I believe all of us as Christians should be able to echo this sentiment about ourselves. Too few times we hold ourselves in too high opinion and are not willing to look at ourselves as we really are. Now on to commenting on the actual article.
First, some clarification. MacArthur is Calvinistic, not Reformed. There is more to Reformed Theology than Calvinism. Secondly, I agree that MacArthur is in error on the statement above, because as you pointed out, a Calvinist or for that matter a Reformed person can not honestly say God’s will is that you repent and trust because our theology dictates otherwise. That is why those in Reformed and Presbyterian circles do not tell people that. We tell them in order to be saved, the Biblical command is to repent and trust. Also, about telling a group of lost sinners that some will be saved and some will be damned based on God’s will leads to fatalism, which Calvinist and Reformed alike have been accused. Read Reformed literature and listen to Reformed preachers, and you will see the balance struck between God’s Soverign Will and Man’s Responsibility. I agree with your assessment of MacArthur. I just wanted to clarify from an actual Reformed perspective what we preach and what we hold true. Again thanks for the article, but especially thank you for your edifying comment.
By His Grace and For His Glory,
Ricky Rickard, Jr.
August 25th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Chris,
Please do not think that I meant “touched YOUR nerve.” I just meant touched a nerve in general or you would not have posted it.
I still fail to see how your site edifies and encourages when in reality you are gouging those of us who are born again. The people listed more often than not on CRN and SOL are definitely apostate and in many cases heretics.
You feel it is your responsibility to expose our fallacies while helping us all get along
“Slice of Laodicea, a blight in the Christian Blogosphere, had reached a point where, like The Onion, ignorant folks sometimes mistook it for having well-researched stories or news of substance. It was a home to writers who referred to leaders in churches they don’t like as ‘Spiritual Pedophiles’, ‘Anti-Christs’, or (sometimes) ‘the False Prophet of Revelation’, referring to these churches as ‘whorehouses’ or worse. (And this is when they’re being nice.)”
This is good ammo for the pagan as we fire away at each other.
DT
August 25th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Hey DT, I must own the “Spiritual Pedophiles” label and article. That was me and I am still and always will be sorry for it. Anytime it is brought up I own it publicly so that everyone can see that I still disagree with Warren and MacLaren and Bell and others, but that the Lord convicted me of my caustic rhetoric that only fueled my pride.
We as Christ followers can do much better.
August 25th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Thanks Rick for the honesty. I appreciate it.
DT
August 25th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
DT,
I would agree that there are some issues C?N/SoL bring up that should be discussed, and some individuals who do outrageous things. However:
1) Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, which is why we try (though we do not always succeed) to address the issues more than the individuals, in our articles.
2) A number of the legitimate concerns raised by a number of these ODM’s require the same level of discernment that my sixth grader displays.
3) A significant number of individuals singled out (Erwin McManus, Rob Bell, Dan Kimball, Rick Warren and Mark Driscoll, just to name a few) are Christian brothers, not heretics or apostates, and are slandered and smeared via dishonest rhetoric. We believe that God calls us to defend our brothers when they are slandered and take on ‘friendly fire’.
Seeing how a recent issue of Christianity Today called out one bloggers on C?N specifically as one of these loose cannon attack dogs, I think the focus of our defense of unfairly maligned Christian brothers and sisters is somewhere close to where it should be…
August 25th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
So, what you are saying Chris is that you want to turn the canons on us and that will build up the kingdom? Where is your request for prayer for us?
McManus, Bell, Kimball and Warren definitely need to watch what they are espousing. I do not subscribe to the Rodney King Theology (Can’t we all just get along?).
We are to judge by the fruit that they bear.
In my opinion, this appears to be a place to grind axes. I could be wrong.
DT
August 25th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
No, I’m saying that we have to stop up the cannons themselves, not try to turn them around.
Here’s an example:
Phil Johnson/Team Pyro created those Despair.com knock-off posters to make a caricature of the already inaccurately caricatured brothers in the emerging church. Our response was to ask EC folks who read this blog to NOT respond in kind (an eye for an eye), but to find a way to turn the other cheek. Some did (which we felt was miles better than our own response), while others did not (which could be viewed as a simple ‘tit-for-tat’, which solves nothing).
I can only speak for myself, and I pray daily that God would find a way to reveal the evil and harm being done in His name in such a way as to bring those doing so to repentance. One of our frequent commenters is holding a day of prayer and fasting specifically for one of the C?N writers.
Neither do I, to a point. The church I have grown up in and belong to sums up our philosophy best:
In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
In all things love.
August 25th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
If those sites stepped over the line accasionally it would be one thing. If they posted a daily verse by verse study that confronted some teaching of one of those guys you mentioned that also would be acceptable. But the relentless attacks, demeaning labels, personal hyperbole, and self righteous scorn is so overwhelming it must be addressed.
I addressed it long before I was asked to post on this blog. And DT if you are suggesting that this site sometimes steps over the line we plead “guilty” But we do not approve of our mistakes as well as others. I enjoyed your blog though and was treated fairly.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
DT,
Let me ask you this… let’s say a site was created that accused John MacArthur and John Piper of being heretics, gay and new age. Those same websites called themselves voices of God, research networks and considered themselves the ultimate authority on orthodoxy. Would it be wrong to create a website countering some of those claims and accusations?
August 26th, 2007 at 12:14 am
DT,
“Where do you get that both the Vineyard and Emerging movements are reformed? Just because Driscoll has been hanging out with Piper and Mahaney does not one make.”
I did not say that… what I stated was that the people I mentioned are in one of those “movements” and have reformed theology…
It seems by your very question you lack knowledge of what reformed is…
Did you realize that Armius was a reformer also!?
And that Calvin’s theology was mostly to refute him… yet both are reformers.
Reformed theology is more than just Calvin… and Luther… There are a few more that were around.
Also you question show a lack of knowledge of the emerging movement… and Vineyard.
Also you stated elsewhere:
“This is good ammo for the pagan as we fire away at each other. ”
I think you miss the point… it was never from “our” side the shots were fired… what this site and others are trying to do is point out the harm those who are doing such name callings and other slanderings… that they are doing wrong and are giving “pagans ammo” as you stated. We want it to stop… so I hope you are also stating these things to the originators of this ordeal.
Your comment to Chris was pretty sad here…
“So, what you are saying Chris is that you want to turn the canons on us and that will build up the kingdom? Where is your request for prayer for us?”
Since I have been organizing a day of fasting and prayer to bless Ken Silva…
And all his response was a mocking post at both his sites… so will you join me on the 28th of August to pray and fast for Ken to be blessed? I have never heard anyone ask or even state that they will do this… other than Frank Turk who state he was going to ask a blessing on Ken so he could destroy the abomination called the emerging movement… but I appreciate that he is willing to pray…
So… who had ever stated on “your side” (I hate to phrase it that way) that they would do that for Rick Warren or the emerging church? Put your faith to action dude.
It seems as usual all I hear is a bunch of words from people over there and no action that reflects the Kindness of God… only hostile war and false accusations and slander… so will you pray that also stops?
Be Blessed,
iggy
“
August 26th, 2007 at 6:04 am
Nathan,
If Mac and Piper were preaching wicked things I would be on the same side with you. I would be calling for their repentance and correction. They would be misleading many of God’s people. As I said earlier, many people that are listed on CRN and SOL are in many cases spiritually deficient. They are in many case wicked pragmatic deceivers. Should they not be called out?
iggy pop,
You said “It seems by your very question you lack knowledge of what reformed is…
Did you realize that Armius was a reformer also!?”
Who is Armius?
When 90% of people bring up the word “reformed” in theological circles we know what they are meaning. I am sorry you did not.
You said “Also you question show a lack of knowledge of the emerging movement… and Vineyard.”
I know exactly what these movements are about.
You said “I think you miss the point… it was never from “our†side the shots were fired…”
Chris L. may be a great guy but this site is the antithesis of CRN and SOL. You may find this great. To me you should be calling out the wolves in sheep’s clothing that are misleading God’s people and lost people. Instead you want a site that corrects and chastens God’s people who you think are being to judgmental or “Pharisaical.”
God calls us to stand for truth, not court the misled or pamper the heretic.
It appears one problem that others have with me and other sites/ministries is that we will call names. Someone has to. I don’t do this for pleasure.
Others would have me say “Now there is a ministry that is preaching a works salvation but I don’t want to hurt feelings by calling out their name.” Hogwash.
You are calling names. Ken Silva prayer meeting .
I suppose this falls in line with “pray for your enemies.”
DT
August 26th, 2007 at 9:12 am
DT,
Your answer mean nothing…
OK I spelled Arminius’ name wrong but if you had any idea of the reformation and the history you would have caught who I meant which proves my point.
Arminius was a Dutch reformer in the 16th century who started Arminianism… “Arminianism is closely related to Calvinism (or Reformed theology), and the two systems share both history and many doctrines in common.” as stated here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism
If you knew your reformed history as you claimed, then you would have realized that Calvin wrote much of his work to refute Arminius.
Also, I have no idea to how to respond to this:
“I know exactly what these movements are about.”
Again, by your answer I really doubt you know anything… if you do know something then you only have one side and a distorted view.
You seem to be full of “don’t pick on us” without realizing that the “us” you defend are the one out picking on others! You miss that John MacArthur teaches the Kingdom of God is “only spiritual” and “will only come in the future”… which negates the teachings of scripture concerning the Resurrection and the very incarnation… not to mention that Jesus being Lord and sitting on the throne NOW is negated as Jesus is now (according to JM) only Lord over some spiritual kingdom off in the future! JM negates his own Lordship Salvation by his own teachings!!!!!!!
So, tell me how much you know so far I am far from impressed with your vast knowledge and underwhelmed by your lack of substinent argument for anything.
Blessings,
iggy
August 26th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Iggy,
As I stated on my blog in one comment I am a seminary professor of apologetics, church history and hermeneutics. I had a feeling that you meant Arminius. I was not going to assume. I actually thought you meant someone that I had not heard of.
You said…
-Your answer mean nothing
-if you had any idea of the reformation and the history you would have caught who I meant which proves my point.
-If you knew your reformed history as you claimed
-So, tell me how much you know so far I am far from impressed with your vast knowledge and underwhelmed by your lack of substinent argument for anything.
Your sarcasm is not appreciated and discredits most of what you are saying.
Chris L,
I was willing to consider your points and try to figure where you and your site is coming from and going. With Iggy’s arrogance and with him being a contributor I cannot support spending my time here. I will bow out.
Thanks for the dialogue.
DT
August 26th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Per the Wikipedia article linked above, under the heading “Comparison to other views”, only two similarities are listed between Arminianism and Calvinism. I don’t think that constitutes “many.”
August 26th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
DT,
I am sure Jesus is impressed with your credentials…
(That was sarcasm)
Your answers still underwhelm me… (that is not sarcasm… and never was! LOL!)
I never went to your blog or have I ever read anything by you… so I think it a bit presumptuous you expect me to know who and how well educated you are… by you answers you seem to not know much. (again not sarcasm but the observation from this threads conversation)
“As I stated on my blog in one comment I am a seminary professor of apologetics, church history and hermeneutics. I had a feeling that you meant Arminius. I was not going to assume. I actually thought you meant someone that I had not heard of. ”
From you first statement to me you took what I stated and twisted it around to say something else… you did not ask for clarification… you made an assumption and then took what I stated wrongly… whether on purpose or because you misread what I stated i do not know. So I see your statement seems a bit disingenuous to me especially now as you state your educational background to me! LOL!
You stated:
“In my opinion, this appears to be a place to grind axes. I could be wrong.”
Of course there are some axes to grind here… yet the motive here is not the same motive at these other sites… and how do I know their motives… I don’t sometimes, yet, when someone who does not know me and accuses me of many false things…. such as Ken Silva has done… to the point of saying “we serve different Gods” and “you are not saved” I think one can judge the fruit there easily… It seems one has the Lamb’s book of Life on his coffee table LOL!.
Your statement here”
“Just because Driscoll has been hanging out with Piper and Mahaney does not one make.”
I think that you might want to ask Driscoll about his theology… I was refused to be helped at a church plant from ACTS29 because i was not a Calvinist… though I am emerging, I was not reformed enough for their church plant ministry. So to say something as you have there is rather a cursory overview to me.
BTW I have absolutely no formal religious or otherwise education… I dropped out of college. All my studies have been by reading the bible and about it and studying the different theological view points over the last 26 years. I have been ordained and have turned down ordination from many different organization. I am Holy Spirit taught and have learned more from my mistakes which have painfully humbled me and I lean heavily on God’s Grace.
And in all of this you have yet to answer my questions and have only told me you are well educated… all which is fine and I am sure helped you get a good position at the place you teach (again that WAS sarcasm).
Be blessed,
iggy
August 26th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
DT,
Be careful with revealing your credentials. The anti-emerging crew LOVES to slap the “pride in man’s knowledge” label on anyone who dares to suggest that they’ve got solid theological education.
It works kinda like this: They accuse us, “You are a biblically-illiterate and mentally-stunted person”, to which some of us might reply, “no, in fact I’ve got a couple of degrees in theology and Biblical studies, as well as over 20 years of pastoral experience”, and they respond, “you’re full of pride in your education but God doesn’t care about your degrees”.
You can’t win with these people.
Second, the Vineyard movement is predominantly, but not exclusively, Reformed in its theology, and by that I mean predominantly Calvinist in its understanding of salvation.
August 26th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Iggy,
For clarification I have to mention something.
“I never went to your blog or have I ever read anything by you… so I think it a bit presumptuous you expect me to know who and how well educated you are… by you answers you seem to not know much. (again not sarcasm but the observation from this threads conversation)”
Don’t lie to your readers. I have a post at
dead-theologians.blogspot.com on tattoos where you posted not once but 5 times.
You said “BTW I have absolutely no formal religious or otherwise education… I dropped out of college. All my studies have been by reading the bible and about it and studying the different theological view points over the last 26 years. I have been ordained and have turned down ordination from many different organization. I am Holy Spirit taught and have learned more from my mistakes which have painfully humbled me and I lean heavily on God’s Grace.”
I am equally impressed by your humility.
You said “And in all of this you have yet to answer my questions and have only told me you are well educated… all which is fine and I am sure helped you get a good position at the place you teach (again that WAS sarcasm).”
Iggy, you deserve no response. You are right and everyone else is wrong.
Robbymac, thanks for the heads-up. People that do not have substance have to cover it up with sarcasm and arrogance.
DT
August 26th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
DT,
I went to your blog today. I was interested in you opening statement “I prefer to read the works of Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Edwards, Whitefield and the like rather than 99% of today’s wasted ink on paper.” What about the future scares you so much that you would rather live in the past?
August 26th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
DT,
“Don’t lie to your readers. I have a post at
dead-theologians.blogspot.com on tattoos where you posted not once but 5 times.”
For clarification I posted on a comment but I never read you bio… I was not “lying” as I did not know THAT WAS YOUR BLOG… so please don’t throw out the LIE word unless you know for certain…. It seems you are fast to judge and cast stones without caring if you have all the facts… and how gracious… (sarcasm)
“Iggy, you deserve no response. You are right and everyone else is wrong.”
This is the thing that is wrong and totally anti book of James… you seem to think that some are more worthy and give partiality to some men over others. My point to you was that I could care less of your credentials as I have found many people well educated… are educated beyond intelligence. I hope that not true of you.
Again, you give no answer….
1. I am not worthy of you
2. You are more educated than me.
So tell me more about humility will ya! (not sarcasm).
I am so sorry you find me not worthy of dialog nor giving an answer since you were the one that engaged me first… I gave you answer… (1 Cor. 8:1) So can you humble yourself a bit to lower you standards to talk to a lowly uneducated pion in the Kingdom of God?
Be blessed,
iggy
August 26th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
DT,
BTW way did you notice i was “wrong” and admitted it?
Sheesh!
Be Blessed,
iggy
August 27th, 2007 at 8:06 am
DT,
You wrote:
Just for the record - Iggy is a commenter here, not an author/contributor, though we consider him a brother in Christ, as do we you…
August 27th, 2007 at 8:19 am
DT - The dialogue continues and you should not bow out. We all make verbal mistakes, after speaking with you I’m sure you don’t believe I’m a wolf, right? All perspectives are welcome and valid as they are flushed out in the light of Scripture.
I hop you come back.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Dt,
I is not my intention to “run you off” rather that since you started a dialog with me and I responded with questions… that you might give answer instead of giving me credentials…
I have not issue with you if you decide to continue in a dialog, but I do not care to be told how smart you are, that i am a liar or that you imply I am “not worthy”…
These things are a waste of time and do little to help move a conversation along.
I hope you can see this and will continue to converse.
Blessings,
iggy
August 27th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Iggy - You are not a liar, and you are worthy in Christ.
I refuse to hear how smart DT is, however, if he were to make a case about how dumb you were…then I must give a loving ear.
August 27th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
I guess he misses that I am asking him to show me how dumb I am… and he finds me not worthy of that challenge! LOL!
Blessings,
iggy
August 27th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Iggy,
In reference to your request I will comment a moment longer.
You made constant jabs at how impressed you were with how little I knew. You jabbed at how little knowledge I have of the Vineyard Church and Reformed theology. I simply shared “my credentials” to show you that I might know just a bit.
You then shared (humbly?) how you did not have a seminary education. That is fine. I was sharing to validate a point that you are not the only one who has views that could be right.
You seem to take joy in the art of arguing and demeaning people, ie. my orginal tattoo post. This is not honorable nor is it the behavior of a gentleman.
DT
August 28th, 2007 at 12:38 am
DT,
I do not consider myself that ALL my views are right.. and do wonder how you come to conclude without knowing me how humble I am… LOL!
You engaged me in a dialog and I asked a question… you gave me credentials… and as of yet (and i say this without any demeaning in anyway, have yet to answer.
Also, if you read I think you might notice workmanapproved at your site does more of his share of put-downs toward me… and that i used scripture to answer all his objections to whether OT saints are “filled” by the Holy Spirit the same as NT saints… I think then you need rebuke your friend over there also… will you? Since as you state:
I think you just have issues with me because of the label I choose… and in that have decided me “not worthy”.
So, will you do the honorable thing and answer the questions or will you continue in this “how dishonorable and what a liar iggy is” streak you seem to “enjoy” so much… I for one prefer to have a civil discussion but if the other will not and gives jabs I will playfully play THEIR game. The difference is though I still respect that person while it is obvious you and workman(approved?) have no respect for others unless they agree with you en total.
btw the only reason I brought up my lack of education was because you seemed more interested in sharing that info than continuing the conversation you initiated… so I went with it in hopes you would come around to answer the questions… and you still have not even done that! LOL! Most the time I would rather not confess my shortcomings in education with others.
Yet, even lacking this education I am willing to go toe to toe with anyone concerning my faith in Jesus Christ and the accusations laid against me and my fellow brothers in Christ.
Be Blessed,
iggy
August 28th, 2007 at 7:28 am
Iggy,
You said “I think you just have issues with me because of the label I choose… and in that have decided me “not worthyâ€.
Sounds like a personal problem. I have not said you are “not worthy” nor have I addressed or considered your “label.”
You said “So, will you do the honorable thing and answer the questions or will you continue in this “how dishonorable and what a liar iggy is†streak you seem to “enjoy†so much…”
I do not care to joust with you. There is no real civil discourse of differing opinins on this cite.
If I thought a real difference was being made by letting us reason together I would not be so reluctant to answer your questions. To trade jabs is like the jab session that guys do in high school. Not interested in that.
The lying issue was on one point; you saying that you had not been to my blog. You are beating a dead horse.
DT
August 28th, 2007 at 8:22 am
DT,
I am sorry you did not say I was unworthy of a response… but you did say…
“Iggy, you deserve no response. You are right and everyone else is wrong. ”
I guess I am confused as unworthy and undeserving seem to mean about the same to me… but whatever… again.
“The lying issue was on one point; you saying that you had not been to my blog. You are beating a dead horse.”
The lying issue was that I had no idea who you were… not that I lied as you state.
I am also tired of this… and next time you engage me in a conversation, please at least answer the questions i have asked and then maybe we could move on from this silliness you seem to like to engage in though you claim you do not…
btw I did admit i posted on your blog when I realized who you were and I still have yet to read you bio as to how wonderfully you are educated….
I guess I might as well through out one more question that will not be answered…
Why is it that when I ask questions of people such as you that you start in on the “dishonest liar” and such and never once actually answer the questions?
It seems though that you still deem my undeserving of your high intellect and refuse to humble yourself to even finish what you started…
I won’t be fooled again by you… this has been one of the most boring exchanges i have had in a long time. (no sarcasm)
be blessed,
iggy
August 28th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Iggy,
You have kept this “boring exchange” going.
Why don’t we answer your questions?
Dishonest liar? This really got to you huh?
If I felt that you really wanted to engage and not slice and dice I would. Satire is one thing constant sarcasm is another.
I will give it one last try. What was the question that you want answered?
DT
August 28th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
I will summarize them…
What do you know about the Vineyard as far as theology of all its members?
What do you really know about the emerging church’s theology?
I ask this as you stated,
Since I IS ONE, I think that I may know a bit more of both than you seem to want to acknowledge… I think being within both gives me a perspective you will never have from the outside and by reading others view… as most of them are distorted…
I pointed to at least one Calvinist in the Vineyard that i am a friend with…
And I can name at least two Calvinists in the emerging church… Bob Hyatt and Mark Driscoll.
And you poopooed me! LOL!
How can one rationalize attacking their brothers who are of the same reformed theology?
OK that is more than 2, but it is still out of the original conversation. I will admit that those “questions” were not that fleshed out, but if you had taken the road of conversation instead of accusation… I think this would have gone better… I do admit I had a hand in this… and I hope though that I have shown that if one want so to converse with me instead of throwing barbs I am more than willing to do so… as i have shown you at your own blog Dead Theologians
(See i even gave you the olive branch in the form of a plug for your blog! LOL!)
Blessings,
iggy