Russel Moore, sitting in for Albert Mohler, had an on-air discussion with Tony Jones – a leader in the leaderless emerging church movement. In this dialog, Tony Jones gives us a great example of how to say a lot of words, but never answer any questions.
Notice when listening, how Dr. Moore asks him specific questions about truth, evangelism, Scripture, and how he talks for days in response, but never answers the questions.
In one key segment, Dr. Moore asks him about whether there are any doctrinal lines in the professions of emergents, and the example he gives is, “What about if a bunch of emerging Jehovah Witnesses showed up?”Mr. Jones replies with “Well that is a really good question,” (usually a sign that an emergent is getting ready to talk a lot but say nothing), and then comences to talk about interracial marriage and how the church’s changed views on that issue somehow equates to changing truths. Amazing.
Give it a listen, but I warn you, it’ll drive you crazy. If you have ever gotten tangled up with talking to an emergent, Dr. Moore demonstrates that it isn’t just the novice that can’t get real answers from them.
Filed under: Apologetics, Emergent Church
Do some emergents’ non-answer answers and ‘questioning’ relate in any way to what Paul warns Timothy about in 1 Timothy 1:4?
Not necessarily myths and genealogies but is the result the same? The KJV makes it a bit clearer than the NASB,
Is it fair to say that emergent ambiguity can also get in the way of ‘godly edifying’?
Absolutely.
I’m downloading it now. From the description it sounds much like the 3hr debate between Bob DeWaay and Doug Pagitt (affiliated with the Evangelical Covenant, a denomination pushing all kinds of heresy)which is available from http://www.twincityfellowship.com. Doug repeatedly says what he is against if you suggest he might be promoting something unscriptural… but never can clearly articulate what he really does believe. I must admit, he’s an engaging personality, and a nice guy, but he really says nothing.
Tony,
Hi again,
My question is this…
” Can you show me the verse that states, absolute truth and that it is objective?”
Now I am not asking for you to show me that these phrases are true, rather that these phrases are used as asserted that they are biblical.
Again show me a verse… any translation even that states the phrases… “absolute truth” and or states that truth is “objective” in the bible and only using the Bible.
Then I ask you to look up where the phrase “absolute truth” was used and who developed the concept…
After that, what was the most amazing thing in that radio show was the inability to listen and understand what Tony stated… he never denied the “truths” that Russel Moore stated he did, he state that he affirmed them but saw that we must not deny that fullness of our history.
Tony never once stated that Jesus was not The Truth or that Truth is a Person… in fact I myself state that and get criticised for that by people like Russel Moore and others who cannot seem to hear anything outside of what they seem to approve.
I could go on, but first answer those questions… and when you do, in all honesty… please tell me how you can say that Truth needs more of anything to more true…
Be Blessed,
iggy
The sentence:”Tony never once stated that Jesus was not The Truth or that Truth is a Person…”
Should be Tony never once stated that Jesus was not The Truth or that Truth was not a Person…
sorry about that.
iggy
“truth is “objective””
How about you tell me where it says in the bible that the sky is blue?
I would have loved to be there.
pj,
You are doing exactly the thing I was saying and missing the point… BTW there is at least a reference to there being a sky… and that it has changed to different colors…so at least one can build that it was at least a stable color at one time… but this is so far off the topic that I am not even sure why I am addressing it…
If one asserts that “truth is objective” then show me a verse that backs up that Jesus is an “object”…
So, please try again.
Blessings,
iggy
Also,
the point Tony Jones was making was not that “Truth” as in the Person of Jesus “changes”… but that our view of what is true does… and that was totally missed by Moore.
In fact Moore claimed to be going to actually “talk” to an emerging but only talked at and down to and around Tony Jones… and never really engaged in a conversation let alone a real discussion.
This was truly a farce and a great representation of what we as emerging folks face from the prejudice and labeling that is running rampant in modernistic Christianity… though Moore acknowledged our critique as valid he then refused or cannot grasp that we do in fact speak different languages… on that is engaged in dialog with the culture to reach it for Christ… and the other that is out of touch and seems to not truly care for any view if they cannot understand of see that their “box” view might have to stretch.
We are on the same team… but the issue is that some view truth as an object and emergents view truth as the Person of Jesus Christ… we do not objectionalize Jesus…
This is the core issue… without realizing that modernism has infected the church with Dualism and the 19th century German mathematician Gottlob Frege giving us “absolute truth” and have not seen that this is not biblical truth but man made philosophies that have replaced biblical truth.
I stand on the Bibles teaching of truth… that truth is a Person and that Person is Jesus Christ… no matter how Russel Moore twists and perverts what I or Tony Jones or any other emerging person I know actual beliefs.
Blessings,
iggy
Iggy,
With regard to objective truth – you have to be prepared to accept the definition. In all honesty, whether you believe in objective truth or not makes very little difference. The definition is (www.oed.com) “Of a person or their judgment: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts; impartial, detached.” It either exists or it does not. There is no gray area.
So now we have a premise: there is either a truth that is external and consistent, without contextual parameters, or there is not. What is amusing is the argument for subjective truth: They are all absolute statements. If we are standing at opposite sides of the table and I say “the cup is on the left” obviously I am making an absolute statement about something from my absolute perspective. Objectivity is either everywhere or nowhere.
I work on the principle that it is everywhere. In order to understand anything – you must have an objective approach. It is the subjectivist that misinterprets the word of God, or any other communication. And everyone is guilty of this – some more than others. We apply our own feelings and beliefs to the bible and therefor miss its meaning. It has to be objective to be understood properly.
Lets move on to the bible. “emergents view truth as the Person of Jesus Christ” – As far as I understand the emergent position on the bible is that it is out of date, being biased to the social contexts of that era. Please correct me if I am wrong here. What objective statements do you have on Jesus Christ outside of the bible? As far as I know, the Bible is the only book that mentions him and his life. To secular historians, he was just another Jew being hung on a cross. If that book is tainted, we have lost Jesus to history. So therefor, either the bible is the authority or it is not. You cannot pick and choose out of it.
You have to be objective in communication. If you are subjective, you would lose the meaning. This all revolves around context. If a man is talking about how much he loves to take pictures of animals and says “I don’t just shoot cats, I shoot many other animals as well,” am I expected to call the animal anti-cruelty league? Based on his context, you know he is talking about taking pictures.
Now if something claims to be true, there are two options: either it is true or it is not. This seems obvious, but even this can be blurred. One might say “that is true for you”. When talking about the bible, it either is true (all of it) or it is not true, regardless of what person is looking at it or not. You can believe what you like, but you cannot change the truth.
Does the bible proclaim itself to be true then? I would like to point out that although God and Jesus are the ultimate truths, from whence all truth comes and that we can look at ’smaller’ truths. In John 18:37 Jesus says that he has “… come to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Ironically Pilate is an emerging church fellow. He replies with “What is truth?” in the very next verse.
So how then can we be fore bearers of the truth? We have to listen to Jesus’ voice. He is, unfortunately, not with us in person at the moment, so the ONLY way we can do this is from the bible.
Again show me a verse… any translation even that states the phrases… “absolute truth” and or states that truth is “objective” in the bible and only using the Bible.
As for the bible making reference to absolute truth (as in truth that is not Jesus and is yet absolute) – Romans 1:25 “because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.” [Emphasis added] This verse clearly indicates (as does the context) that there is DEFINITE truth (by usage of the definite article ‘the’), and that truth relates to God and is not God Himself. Galatians 2:5 “to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you” – this is saying that the Gospel is true as well, which would mean (according to my statement above) that it is from God. Ephesians 4:21 “assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus”
I find that your argument sounds similar to the evolutionist – “There are no dinosaurs in the bible!” Sure, the terms aren’t used explicitly, but the Bible does not deny it. Dinosaur is a modern term. And when the bible speaks of truth, it cannot mean anything but absolute truth. Consider the ninth commandment to not bear false witness.
You may draw in as many gray areas as you like, but the real question is “What am I avoiding?” Remember that the bible is all about teaching submission to God; being humble and accepting the dark and horrible aspects of life because there is a savior from it. I think that if you refute parts of the bible it is exactly those parts that you are guilty of betraying. The gospel is offensive, yes, but that doesn’t change whether or not it is truth.
My point is as you are actually making it… is not that “objective” cannot be used, but to say God is “objective” and call it “biblical”.
To add to True… diminishes it… to add to the Cross or to take away from it diminishes…
By adding a qualifier to Truth as taught in the Bible diminishes it..
Now this is the real issue… you will not agree becasue you are entrenched in the “modernist” mindset… and that is fine in YOUR context… but there are millions of people who will not agree with you and will actually laugh at you…
I don’t, as i understand…
But, as i speak to these, they relate and understand and find Jesus…
Why is that? I think it is because instead of forcing my “view” of truth… as limited as all of our views are, I listen and help them to see that they need Truth.
Post-moderns are very relational… in that they relate to Jesus being a Person being… Truth… but have a hard time leaping to making Jesus a person then be an “object” in which we objectify… like I have stated… as a man may do to a woman…
Again, as a woman if she likes being objectified?
Then I would wonder again why we think God would like that same thing
Now using your illustration…
Romans 1:25 “because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.”
Notice here as I have been stating that truth needed no qualifier… and that they exchanged it for a lie? They did not exchange some abstract Platonic Realism for a lie… they exchanged the Creator…. who is a person we call God for a lie…
Again, Plato’s realism taught that truth was only an abstraction… Plato believed that “ideas” were more real than real things. Plato created a vision of two worlds… or what is called “Dualism”. In these two worlds one was of “unchanging ideas” while the other was of changing physical objects.
In that you are exchanging biblical truth (which you seem to insinuate I am denying as i am debating for it over a none biblical view) for the lie of Gnostic Dualism as taught by Plato and passed on by Augustine and then by Calvin… not intentionally, but that is what happened.
Yes, the gospel is offensive… yet again to add to truth is offensive also… it is saying truth is not good enough to stand on its own… and since Truth is the Person of Jesus Christ, I see that rather blasphemous if you follow through on the logical thought.
It seem you also seem to think I am drawing “grey areas” but it seems you accept these more than I do as you have accepted some ambiguous detached version of Truth that is not taught in the scirpture.
Be careful what you are fighting for as Truth is Jesus… as Scriptures teaches and to replace this truth with anything… or to add to it, or take away from it is accepting a lie.
Be Blessed,
iggy
BTW,
“As far as I understand the emergent position on the bible is that it is out of date,”
Is a gross misunderstanding of the emergent position… and a lie.
Be careful who you listen to… there is a lot of misinformation out there.
The issue of inerrancy is not that the bible is not inerrant or that it has no authority… but that we stand that it being God’s word it does not need us to prove it is “true” but SUBJECTING IT TO SCIENCE…meaning that science is of higher truth and that by SCIENCE we judge God’s word…
Again this is what Tony was saying as he was shut down and then Moore told everyone what emerger’s believe… which was not factual at all and full of misinformation… IOW, Russel Moore did not have a clue as to what he was talking about as the told everyone what “we” believe…
I think Tony was too gracious as Moore seemed fine in stating falsehood after falsehood.
We do believe in Truth… and contrary to Moore’s assertion we do not, we believe Truth is the Person of Jesus Christ…
It was funny that they agreed but Moore never even seemed to care to actually listen…
the whole show actually verified much to me as an “emerger” that I am on the right track and that modernistic Christianity is way out of touch and unwilling to listen to anyone that cannot parrot back their own thoughts.
Again, it seems that you are fighting for the position that science is of higher truth than God’s Word… and I see God’s word much higher that science…
be Blessed,
iggy
Some thoughts:
1. I take offense (in a brotherly manner) that you call me a modernist. I am anything but that. “Modernism is a trend of thought that affirms the power of human beings to create, improve, and reshape their environment… I particularly take (brotherly) offense to the insinuation that I am a Christian modernist(by calling me a modernist): “For Christian theological modernism, see Liberal Christianity and Modernism (Roman Catholicism).”
2. By adding a qualifier to Truth as taught in the Bible diminishes it.
At least we agree on something. I had never tried to add the qualifier, that is the liberals! They try to assert that truth (of Jesus, of the bible) is relative. I have to then define what truth already is: objective as the opposition. Think about it: relative truth is an oxymoron, but since these guys say that it is not, I must respond to them in their context, that truth can only be absolute. “Absolute truth” is a tautology: saying the same thing twice!
3. “they relate and understand and find Jesus”
I am not too sure what you are saying here, so please forgive me if I misinterpret you. What Jesus do you speak about? Jesus can be 1 of three things:
a) A liar. He can be saying he is the truth, but be a misrepresentation.
b) A madman. A lunatic that, once again, misrepresenting the truth.
c) God incarnate and Holy Lord of all that requires nothing from humanity but blesses every person far beyond his true worth, making the only natural reaction to rub our faces in the dirt in awe and unworthiness.
Now c is generally where Christians stand. But there are many religions that accept Jesus on other grounds:
“He is just a prophet/good person” – To which you have to address the claims that Jesus claimed he is God: “I am” (John 8:58)
Have these people found Jesus? Jesus is so much more than a name and a concept. He is the living almighty God. No one can even know or understand him, but that does not make truth unattainable to mankind.
I would also like to ask: How does one understand Jesus without an objective reading from the bible? Surely we need to be corrected if we are wrong? That is why there must be fellowship amoung believers. That is why we need a preacher who is willing to practice church discipline.
4. “help them to see that they need Truth.”
I would really like to see how you achieve this while you claim that “instead of forcing my “view” of truth”
I believe you are qualifying truth again. Either something is true or it is not. I would like to hear you opinions on sin (what sin is). Sin is sin, whether you like it or not. The bible is very clear (absolute) on what sin is. We should never “lean to our own understanding,” but live “by every word” of God our father, as revealed in the bible. There is no other way. We cannot know the true Jesus unless we get Him from scripture.
4. Objectifying God. We are but simple creatures. I don’t say that God is love or God is truth in the sense that that is all there is to God. He has emotions like us, he is a complete supernatural being. However, to say that God is truth means that God does not have anything to do with giving untruths or half(or relative)-truths. I think to objectify God would to deny Him as a sentient omnipitent being. To say that he is only truth, or that there are no truths about him would be objectifying him.
5. “they exchanged the Creator…. who is a person we call God for a lie”
You must please read the verse again.. It clearly says ‘the truth about God for a lie.’ Then it mentions worshiping the creator over the creation. These are very two different things. It does not say replacing the creator for a lie. It is saying they replaced the truth about the creator for a lie.
6. Philosophy is the search for the truth. If the truth were found philosophy class would be over. The bible is the truth and therefor has nothing to do with philosophy. Where philosophy ends the bible begins: “In the beginning God created…” is an absolute statement that does not even bother with the question of whether God (or truth) exists or not.
7. “…passed on by Augustine and then by Calvin”
These are my teachers / hero’s so I would like to see the references where they taught gnostic dualism. However they are men and so subject to err. For example, I know Augustine was no saint when it came to prostitution.
Just a point on Gnostism. “…humans are divine souls trapped in a material world created by an imperfect spirit“ [emphasis added] does not sound like a very Christian position to me – nor one that Augustine or Calvin would take. The levels of dualism seems, to me, quite interesting, until I remembered that “man became a living soul.” God created us in spirit and in body. While there is some ‘duality’ here this does not exempt the soul from sin.
8. (which you seem to insinuate I am denying as i am debating for it over a none biblical view)
I am not trying to insinuate anything by the specific verse I chose. I did a word search and that was the first one. That verse is really clear that there is truth about God.
9. “I see that rather blasphemous if you follow through on the logical thought.”
What is your opinion of the letters of Paul? Revelation? Even the gospels themselves? Are they the truth or are they not? Jesus certainly did not write anything down. There is no secular record of Jesus that I have found. This sounds like agnostism: The claim that there must be a God, but it is impossible to know Him. How do you know Jesus without the bible? How do you believe / love Him without obeying his commands? Either it’s all true or it’s all false.
10. “Be careful what you are fighting for as Truth is Jesus”
This is not exactly what I say. There has to be a truth that relates to Jesus and God, otherwise there is no way to get to Him. I believe that God has made His truth known and complete (for earthly purposes) in the bible.
What is the truth of Jesus, in your opinion? Where is it found? Is the bible subjective? If the bible is subjective, then I cannot be sure of what it says. It will mean one thing the one day and another the next. This makes God fit to me and my situation.
11.“Is a gross misunderstanding of the emergent position… and a lie”
I apologize. I have never had too much contact with the emerging church. However I can’t say I agree with what I have read at wikipedia. I do not think that scripture is subjective or that modern secular music can be used to praise God. This is a “what’s right for me” view of doctrine which goes all the way back to Aleister Crowley: “Do what thy wilt shall be the whole of the law”. Just because it feels right and spiritual does not mean it is right Deuteronomy 6:5 “And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.” And when God says that we are to pray saying “your will be done” it seems like I am going to have to foresake quite a lot in terms of the life I want. This is not true just for me, this is true for all bible believing Christians.
12. “but that we stand that it being God’s word it does not need us to prove it is “true” but SUBJECTING IT TO SCIENCE”
In my opinion, this is way too defensive – and it seems like you are scared of the world. I say let the scientists come. If God cannot be trusted to tell us truths on the real things then on what basis do I trust the spiritual things. All the scientists have are their “theories”. Some theories work, others do not. The bible, being an objective truth, supports that which is true in the physical world. God’s word is so amazing! I say, rather, let us use the bible to aid us in science. I don’t think the two conflict and I do not accuse you of saying that either, but if the bible says it, it is true. If science says something else, then science is flawed and needs to get back on track.
13. “I see God’s word much higher that science”
God created science. Of course his word is higher, because with his words came science. I’m sorry if I stated that in any way. But we can use science for discovering how great God truly is. Let the bible defend itself. Since it is objective, they cannot refute it. It is the liberal interpretation that fails with regard to science. In fact, bad science makes liberal christians.
I feel like I’m going around in circles. I’m not sure exactly what you believe. Is scripture objective? If it is, then we are on the same playground. If it is not, then we are going to be dancing around all day because we can make scripture say anything we want it to say. I believe that scripture must talk to us, not us to scripture. Christianity is a call to a life of humility, as described in the bible. There are no exceptions (Proverbs 3:34 “Toward the scorners he is scornful, but to the humble he gives favor”) This means self denial when it comes to the world.
If you want to really practice your theology, this guy has some links I think you’ll find quite time consuming. I am no theology student, but this, I find interesting.
May God bless you in your study of His word.
WOW I made a mistake!
“creator over the creation” I apologize I mixed up the terms here. It really is “creation over creator”
I’m also sorry about the HUGE Aleister Crowley link… it stops at “If you want to really practice your theology,”
Apologies for “Of course his word is higher” it should read “Of course His word is higher” This tiny text block is quite annoying…
Peace!
Iggy,
Your question is a ridiculous logical fallacy and demonstrates your misunderstanding of the matter. The Bible does not talk about “absolute truth” and “objective truth” with phrases like you and I are familiar with, and those precise concepts and terms. The reason is because in pre-modernity times, these concepts were assumed and not separated from reality like they are in our postmodern age.
What is true, is what God thinks. What is true, is what IS. Whatever is consistent with reality, is true. Jesus said in John 17:17, “Thy Word is true.” That’s about as clear and pro- absolute objective truth you can get.
Your assertion that the phases you are familiar with “aren’t in the Bible” is like a Jehovah Witness saying “the word ‘Trinity’ isn’t in the Bible.” The point is mute. The word is just something that was coined to describe the doctrine, that is clearly taught in the Bible, in a pity manner. In the same way, the concepts of absolute and objective truth is what the Bible is all about, and to point to the absence of a recently developed phrase that has been coined to define that concept proves nothing. Standing in 2007 and yelling “where does the Bible teach objective truth” is like a fish swimming in the ocean yelling “where is the water!” It’s a ridiculous point.
My point regarding the radio interview was not that Tony denied truths as you claim. The point was that he didn’t answer any questions he was asked, but said a lot of words. Just as all your lengthy post here on this thread – lots of words but no legitimate points. Its no wonder you defend him, you sound just like him.
When Dr. Moore asked him about emergent doctrinal lines and asked “What if some emergent Jehovah Witnesses showed up?” Tony was in a bind. In his answer he went to describe inter-racial marriage, and how people have changed their view of that doctrine. But the fallacy that Tony committed in that answer is not recognizing that Dr. Moore’s question was over an essential doctrine of the faith (Trinity vs. JW’s view), but the subject of Tony’s answer was over a non-essential issue (inter-racial marriage). He used that to avoid the hard question which he had no honest answer for.
Tony could not answer the question because the appropriate answer conflicted with his views. In order to remain orthodox and not be deemed a heretic, he had to say something other than “well we’d welcome them all in.” But he couldn’t say that answer because it would have refuted all that he stands for in the emergent circles regarding letting all in and not having doctrinal lines. In reality it was a masterful question by Dr. Moore.
Dr. Moore answered by explaining that people recognizing that they are wrong about inter-racial marriage, and coming to a different view because they later come to realize that the Bible doesn’t teach what they originally thought it did, is not a defense of truth changing. What God believed about the issue never changed, and never did His Word. The truth remained constant…people’s errors changed. That is not the opposite of absolute truth.
You make the same error Tony Jones does. You are too wrapped up in thinking that truth is what people think, and when what people think changes, you think truth has changed. However, truth is not what people think. Truth is what God thinks. Truth is what is. Truth is whatever is consistent with reality. That doesn’t change.
tr
tr,
“Your question is a ridiculous logical fallacy and demonstrates your misunderstanding of the matter. The Bible does not talk about “absolute truth” and “objective truth” with phrases like you and I are familiar with, and those precise concepts and terms. The reason is because in pre-modernity times, these concepts were assumed and not separated from reality like they are in our postmodern age.”
This is as far as I read and see no need to read any further as you seem intent to just put me down and not actually engage in a thought… in fact as I skim that last line… I see you have absolutely no idea what I have been talking about and are even more pompous that I realized…
Sorry to have returned and most definitely will not return to abusers of others like you.
Sorry to try to engage in a thoughtful dialog with you.
If you feel the need to add to “truth” to make it more true… God have mercy on you… I am content in Jesus Christ.
iggy
You review even lacks more lack of insight and understanding… as I did read more and see that your reasoning as to why Tony “could not answer” is so far off… try this… he did answer, he gave the “right” answer yet Moore and you cannot hear that you and he are throwing out thousands of CHRISTIAN history and in fact seem to want to sterilize it from real seekers of Jesus…
Also, it is hard to talk to someone like Moore as they talk over you and tell everyone what you believe… and you don’t believe that at all… this is as I was raised… what is called being rude.
Tony was much to gracious and held back too much… I think he was underwhelmed by the lack of actual real and original thought from Moore…
Again, you assessment leaves me with the desire to never engage you or your “type” again… You unkindness overwhelms me and I see that you value your own “beliefs” over people Jesus died on a Cross for…
If you dear call me unloving I think you need to look at WHO Jesus spoke most harshly to… and that was the pompous and self righteous religious leaders who paid more attention to tithing everything than helping their own parents… let alone loving their enemies…
Again, Tony never stated Truth change in the way you are stating… he stated OUR VIEW of truth changed… and Moore and yourself have missed that.
If Truth never changed… then the idea of inter-racial marriage would have never changed. Tony was trying to connect and Moore had no desire to do so. That is what was gong on… You seem more wanting to JUDGE Tony as a person than to listen. You sound like the Pharisees who judged Jesus for hanging with tax collectors and prostitutes. They too judged Jesus as one who denied their truths and missed the very truth He taught.
It seems you too have not learned to do this… so spin this however you want… but it is a lie and slander and truly bearing false witness against a brother in Christ…
One more thing…
Please stop telling us what we believe… you have no clue. In fact why don’t you guys spend as much time on reaching the lost than trying to play the Holy Spirit and clean Jesus… I think Jesus is pure enough and does not need your help… No one helped Him clear the temple before, He certainly does not need you help now… that is “works”…
iggy
Quintin,
None of you responses answer the questions… they just attack me…
To me truth is living and relational… God’s word is living. Jesus did not use objective/subjective as the bible is more holistic than those modern terms.
It is both… The bible on some levels interacts apart and beyond us, yet that same truth must work in and trough us… if it does not it is not living.
iggy
Quitin,
I would like to take this off board if you want to pursue a conversation…
Honesty I may be over reacting a bit with you… but my experience here has never been that welcoming and I have a hard time sorting through personal attacks and a certain “view” and “label” of me… (I am guilty of this also I am aware…)
Please feel free to email me… the contact info is on my blog.
Blessings,
iggy
Iggy,
I am not being mean or rude and I don’t intend to be. I can see though, honestly speaking, that you still need the psychological help that was recommended to you by many since our last conversation.
This conversation from you has evolved, just like the last, almost as if you have template.
First you say you aren’t going to read, but then you do. You then claim I don’t know what I am talking about without evidence to your claim. Then you call me names like “abusers” and claim you won’t return, but then you do. Then you state something untruthful that you image I’ve said, like “if you feel you have to add truth to truth,” when I actually haven’t said such a thing. Then you go into some psycho-babble about history backing up your claims, without any evidence of course. Then you again threaten to leave, but return yet again. Then you dare me to call you unloving when I haven’t alluded to doing such, and also call me a Pharisee because that is the boogieman of me you have made in your mind. Then you claim people who are giving you loving answers are attacking you. All the while, addressing none of the points or clear answers you were previously given.
Iggy, just as before when you followed this same template, this is not the behavior of rational, sane, communicating human beings. Again, I urge you to seek professional counseling as my response to you. There is no need to give you further legitimate answers when you ignore their substance, call me names, and turn the conversation into how it is about you being persecuted instead of the topic at hand.
tr
tr,
Really if you can’t see how you are abusive and rude I pray your eyes to be opened.
I have stayed on topic but will not be abused by you… If you want to have a civil discussion… which I doubt you can with me, I am more than willing… but your insistence on me needing help tops the insult list.
You seem to embrace that Jesus is Truth, and yet when I state that I am wrong… So, it seems you are double minded and need to figure out what you actually believe…
Is Jesus detached and some abstract unchanging idea? Or is He a Person…
Is Jesus an object or Is He a Person?
Do we on one level see God out and beyond our understanding and knowledge of things… and still on a personal level living within us?
that is objective and subjective together as opposed to one over the other.
Yet, these views are not able to fully give us understanding and are good “tools” to begin but to understand as taught in the bible we must go much deeper than a 19th century mathematician who first developed the idea of absolute truth…
You fight against post-modernism, using modernism and then say you don’t…. again double minded and unstable to me as can be…
So, heed your own advise, seek counsel and maybe one day you will see how double minded you are in your theology.
It seems the only boogieman that has been created is the continuous lies and slander that is promoted by people like you against people like me in the emerging church.
iggy
A small question if I may (I neither have the time or the compulsion to examine the history of this feud) Iggy,
Does not the fact that you are able to recognize that “we on one level see God…” bear witness to the supremacy of objectivity?
Without the supremacy of objectivity how can such an assertion even be reached?
So,
Objectivity is supreme over God in your view?
Or is God supreme and a Person and from Him all truth comes?
this was argue before between tr and myself and he stated this was not so.
Yes, truth needs a source, but to say that truth is “objective” and not acknowledge that God is the source then places “truth” over God Himself denying that the Person’s in the Trinity are in all reality Truth itself.
Jesus being Truth incarnated and dwelling amongst us, and now that same truth dwells within us in the Person of the Holy Spirit.
But, again, to blanketed state truth is objective to me is a lie. I usurps God as TRUTH.
Blessings,
iggy
Ig,
you didn’t answer my question
It’s silly to say that objectivity is superior to God.
We can agree that there is a source of truth outside of us right? God is the source. God has revealed Himself through Scripture right? I believe the term is special revelation. Is it fair to say that His Word (whatever you want this to mean hold that up to Psalm 119).
God’s Word is truth (Ps 119:151, John 17:17) Could it be said that it is objectively true? That is it is true regardless of our personal feelings or opinions?
It is true for everyone universally and w/o exception, it is absolutely true.
If so then objectivity is a quality inherent of God’s Word, right?
Truth is a Person (John 14:6) and this em, truth is absolute, that is it’s true for everyone regardless of feelings, impressions, or opinions.
sorry man I lost you here…
I did some research on the Emerging church movement. What I found is that “the bible is still the center, just not the same kind of center” – Whatever that means…
I think I’m fighting a losing battle. They say that they follow the bible but do not treat it the same way. We are arguing that truth is external, while they say that it is purely internal. I’m losing because I don’t know where they stand. I don’t know where they stand, because they keep on changing positions.
I have found a lot of quotes from Brian McLaren, Mark Driscoll, Robert “Rob” Bell and Doug Patchett. These seem to be the men behind the emerging movement.
If what I have found them saying is true, then there is no point in continuing this fruitless argument. Quotes like the bible is a “dead book” (Pg 44 “Preaching Re-Imaged” by Patchett), “The bible was not given to correct error” by Driscoll , “The achievement of right thinking therefor recedes happily further beyond our grasp the more we pursue it” (”A generous orthodoxy”, B. McLaren) and Bell stating that “The bible is primarily a human product.” These are disturbing quotes, but I have yet to double check my references
If this is the case I can see why I feel like I’m running around in circles, losing the battle. Apparently the emerging church feels that revelation comes from the people, not in a charismatic sense, but rather from ordinary discussion. They have done away with traditional preaching, or as they call it, “speaching.” No one ever corrects anyone and the truth is what is discussed. ‘Jesus’ is alive in the people at the discussion, as far as my understanding has it. No one concludes either…
As far as I can tell, emerging and emergent are two different things, so we need to define that properly. My original thoughts of them on the bible were not completely wrong, although they keep the bible, they “emerginize” © (can I copyright that?) the bible. Since the bible says what it says, it does not emerge very well, so the meaning and truthfulness must be distorted.
I am sorry Iggy, if I ever attacked you or your religion. We believe in very different things. I do not have the time to focus on the emergent church as of yet, but I must warn you that you had me worried from the moment you said that “truth is a Person and that Person is Jesus Christ.” I was not worried about that statement itself, but the manner in which Jesus Christ is found. I will keep your offer for discussion in mind, but I cannot make any promises to engage you.
I’m also sorry tr, for perhaps going overboard on your blog. I will keep my arguments concise and I will research them properly in the future, as well as get my HTML right.
Here are some more quotes from Driscoll:
And here is why I believe it is futile to argue bible truths with an emerger from the perspective that truth is, by definition , is absolute(Still Driscoll):
Quintin,
Your suspicions are very accurate. No need to apologize. I appreciate your comments.
Laz,
I agree, don’t waste you time with the history. The short of it is that Iggy thinks Jesus and doctrines are separated and that everyone who disagrees is attacking him. You’re not the only one who looses him. Don’t sweat it.
If you are interested in the history, here is the other post where he went postal:
http://galatiansc4v16.wordpress.com/2007/03/12/how-john-macarthur-prepares-a-sunday-sermon/
tr
Quinten,
The offer to actually try to understand our and my position is open.
tr has some bad ideas as to what HE thinks he knows about emerging and really has no clue. So you can listen to someone who insists that lies and slander are true or talk to someone and see what we believe.
Laz,
In short, the only history tr and I have is that tr seems to engage in some sort of double speak where he states that he believes one thing then as i explain i agree, or see it as that and a bit more i am demonized as some sort of sicko to stay away from.
Again, if you really want history, Jim Bublitz went on the attack against me in a very nasty way a about a month before and then “showed up” and began his assault again. Instead of just engaging in debate, tr listened to Jim who slandered me greatly.
If you need to beware of someone, stay away from people who disregard truth and see lies and slander are tools to use to protect truth.
Again, I am open to dialog.
tr states above what he thinks my position is.
“Jesus and doctrines are separated”
That is not even close, that is his twisting of what I do believe and have stated. I stated that Jesus is the Truth incarnate and that all wound doctrine must flow from Him. I also stated that not all doctrine is good and that some accepted doctrines need to be looked at closer as they may and are man made doctrines.
But Mr. Spin here seems to not hear that at all and seems to either disagree with it, or has twisted what I believe again to demonize me.
Truly he has no idea what I believe and think and
does not care to even try.
Be blessed in the Truth that is Christ,
iggy
the word “wound doctrine” should be “sound doctrine”… sorry I have neuropathy and my fingers do not always work as they should.
iggy
Iggy,
I’ve posted the link above to the previous conversation, and I will again here:
http://galatiansc4v16.wordpress.com/2007/03/12/how-john-macarthur-prepares-a-sunday-sermon/
I am perfectly content to let any reader who is so inclined to read the dialog and come to their on conclusion of how you describe history.
If you recall, our whole dialog began because of you taking the offensive position in your antagonism towards MacArthur, and your perception that anyone who defends historical orthodox positions is attacking you.
I will not rehash the old arguments with you and go through that circle again. This blog is not about you Iggy.
You lie and slander when you accuse me of lying and slandering. I have never banned anyone from posting on my blog, but you are skidding fast towards becoming the first.
tr
tr,
Ban me… that seems to be what you guys do.
No hard feelings.
It just seems you can’t have a civil conversation with me… and seem to be accusing me of the very thing you are doing.
So, post that away as it shows how people like Jim White speak to and about me and also how Jim B also did… and does.
It should confirm also what I stated in that you misrepresent me and that even when we agreed you refused to see it.
So whatever man… do your thing it’s your blog.
Funny thing is you say I am calling you names, but I am just pointing to scripture… your the one insinuating I am in need of psychological help. Considering I have people that actually know me or work with me who seem to love me and listen and have took time to know me… your assessment seems shallow and lazy. The community I belong to would say i am nutz as in fun… but never as in crazy as you are stating. So unless you have a degree in psychology and practice I think you should stay out of the diagnosis business.
truly once again this has bee an experience in dealing with you and yours…
Again, I recommend to others to not just take tr’s word and seek out for yourself the truth. Slander is a sin, and to keep lying and stating someone believes such and such when they don’t as tr has done is a sin… come out of this sin and sin no more… the truth will set you free.
It seems the real issue is that when confronted with truth and your view is challanged, you only want to silence that person by censoring them.
iggy
btw tr,
Anger is a sin also…
I am not angry with you at all… frustrated at you in ability to speak to others respectfully and listen… and that you seem to not care to know what I beleive without twisting it someway…
This is a limited media… and some seem to read into what another states what they want to hear and not what is meant… I am guilty of this also… but truly i am not angry… sad and frustrated.
Be Blessed,
iggy
“you” “me” “you” “me” “you” “me”…..
Iggy, do you realize how many times your posts say “you” “me” ?”
tr
That seems really important to you for some reason….
Maybe it is because i am expressing MY view… really you seem to have a lot of time to count things like that…
Did you know that you too use those words a lot? They are pretty common words.
In fact lets see if I play YOUR silly game here:
In my second to the last post above… not counting this one… I count about 6 to 8 I and me out of 298 words…
Your post with 138 word count… give or take a few had in it 13 total “I” and “you”s… so again I am not sure what YOUR point is… that you win?
; )
LOL!
It seems your focus is on things like this instead of the issues I bring up. YOU try to imply things like… hmmm I am narcissistic?
When in fact the numbers show by your evaluation… that you are more. So again, if that was your point about me… YOU WIN! LOL! You are more interested in “I” and “you” than I am…
LOL! (Really this is about as silly as someone accusing me of not being saved because I have a link to Brian Mclaren on my blog… over looking that I have J Vernon McGee there also! It sounds more condescending and juvenile than anything.)
Again, my point is made that you would rather insult me than treat me with any respect as a person… a person Jesus died for on a Cross.
Please. This is so sad. Sorry but this was one of the best laughs I had for a while… counting “I” and “You”’s! Thanks for proving how shallow you guys are in your evaluation of me and my friends…
iggy
Laz,
When I stated:
“But, again, to blanketed state truth is objective to me is a lie. I(t) usurps God as TRUTH.”
This means that to just say that Truth is objective… meaning that it is as it is defined…
Objective
1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence — used chiefly in medieval philosophy b : of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind — compare SUBJECTIVE 3a c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual — compare SUBJECTIVE 4c d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects , conditions, or phenomena
2: relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs
3 a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations b of a test: limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum
Now follow me on this…
Is Jesus just as the definition states?
1. Relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence — used chiefly in medieval philosophy
No, Jesus is not just an object of thought… that is Platonism… and dualism
2. Of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers
Is Jesus an object or phenomenon or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers?
Again, I hope you say no… Jesus is not an Object… that is what JW’s believe… He is God incarnate… part of the Trinity and Who all objects were created. Also Jesus is not a phenomenon or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and nor is Jesus perceptible by all observers… In fact without the Holy Spirit, Jesus in not perceivable for Who He is.
3. Is Jesus just about expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations?
No, He is again a Person and whom all things were created. Jesus is not just facts or conditions as we perceive them at all… in fact again without the Holy Spirit we cannot but distort who He is… and even with the Holy Spirit we often get only a fleeting glimpse of His Person. Yet, still our interpretations of the Bible and who Jesus is, often is tainted by our own interpretations.
So all that to say that if someone just says Truth is objective… they miss that Jesus is Truth incarnate and is much more than a medieval/modernistic view we have place on him called “objective truth”.
If one places the idea of “Objective truth” and holds to that as the biblical view they then miss that the bible is only true because of the Author… what I mean is this.
Though we may say the truth in the bible is objectively true, it is more as I have shown above. The speaker of those truths makes them truth… they are not true just on their own… So unless there is an Author with authority, then the bible is just words.
Yet, the word of God is said to be living and active. (Hebrews 4:12) So I still see it as more than the above definition says of it. Being that it is Living as it is described, work through the definition of “objective truth” and see if you still think is adequately describes the bible… I see that the definition falls very short and is not even close to a truth biblical understanding of Truth.
Be Blessed,
iggy
tr,
If you are still counting… I think there is only 4 or 5 “I”’s in this and I don’t see any “you”s, but lets say that there are at least 1 or 2 just in case…
So fyi, out of 648 words I used “I” and maybe “you” a total of 4 to 7 times…
I hope that means something to YOU as it means nothing to me.
Be Blessed,
iggy
that last comment was meant in fun… LOL! I am still laughing over this obsession of “I”’s and “you”s, that seem to have nothing to do with the topic… but it is your blog as you pointed out… LOL!
Off to bed…
be blessed!
iggy
As usual Iggy, you missed my point, which was, not the counting of numbers of usage, but that the focus of your posts are constantly about people calling you names, persecuting you, etc. You see to have an innate ability to change any discussion into how people are attacking you, when they aren’t.
What is sad is that you aren’t even aware that you do this, which is particularly why I am pointing it out to you, and avoiding other discussions with you.
It is pointless to try to have a cordial conversation with someone who makes up things you say, calls you names, and turns the discussion into “why are you attacking me?” all the time.
I’ve got better things to do than to run through your template every time you post.
Sorry,
tr
tr,
No I don’t’ get your point as I came here to discuss the inaccuracies and inadequacies of the radio program and your post and you flat out attack my by saying I need psychological help.
Then YOU start counting words to show how defensive i am… well as nicely as I can say this…. DUH!
I am here defending my friend Tony and myself…
against the lies and slander that you are promoting… this is not a template, it is really that YOU have no ability to listen and see that we do agree on many points.
I have stayed very much on topic… except when you sidebar me with this sort of nonsensical attacks trying to show how ‘defensive” I am.
It seems you miss very simple cues in conversations which IS THE POINT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO MAKE FROM MY FIRST POST.
GO a read it and you will see it was not an attack, but legitimate questions that I believe you have yet to really answer… except with your first post that seems to me right off the bat stating “Your question is a ridiculous logical fallacy and demonstrates your misunderstanding of the matter”…. There was not even an attempt at being civil in that opening question. Talk about a template.
I too have better things to do than to keep being side barred by you in your attempt to make me look bad… in fact while you are doing that I am have quite nice and civil dialogs with others in the comments above.
I also already read your post which was what the bulk of your first comment was to me.
Now, by the definitions given by Websters, do you still think the Bible and Jesus as “objective truth”?
Even in your first comment you attacked me with phrases like “Just as all your lengthy post here on this thread – lots of words but no legitimate points. Its no wonder you defend him, you sound just like him.” Do you feel that way about the others that post things here… oh wait they usually agree with you.
Good grief, you abuse me and call me names, then say I am the one that is off…
Again, it seems you are very double minded and insecure… so whatever man. LOL!
I will continue to converse with those that are civil and want to actually learn what “we” emergents believe instead of just listening to you and others make things up…
Tony never once denied truth as i am stating it… in fact it was Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt that opened my eyes to the realization that Christianity is infused with Platonist dualism and a poor biblical understanding of truth. So once again you are wrong.
Be blessed,
iggy
Thanks for demonstrating my point Iggy.
tr
I am sure it is missed by more than just me…
It seems YOU care little to know the truth and would rather spread rumor and lies against others.
I have stayed on point until you seem to go off on me as you do… even then I tried to bring it back to the topic, but as you say, it’s your blog! LOL!
You seem obsessed in showing I am crazy… I think that is a sickness that you should look at possibly going for help over. Judging others in such a critical manner can make one not see their own faults. I have admitted mine here and have not issue is stating my own short comings… but you seem to be obsessed with this notion you are never wrong and i am always right, even when we do agree! LOL! BTW, Mercy triumphs over judgment! as James states. I have not yet experience mercy from you. I doubt I ever will.
The Bible warns us to stay away from people like that.
You have proven my points so many times that it seems as if this is a satire! I mean I am almost looking over my shoulder for the camera… so thanks for the laughs.
Goodbye. I think I will leave here and go back to reality now,
iggy
Thanks for your opinion Iggy.
tr
Not to be one to add fuel to the fire here, but
EXCUSE ME?
and
I did not want to bring this up, but I think we ALL need to take a good look out ourselves:
1. Iggy, just what is a false teacher? I took a look at your post calling John MacArthur a false teacher. and I was quite angered at what you had to say – I have to continuously clam down. This comes not because of any special love for John MacArthur, but rather out of noticing blatant hypocrisy.
a) You are doing to JM exactly what you claim TR is doing here. At least TR does not say that TJ is a false teacher. You make far worse accusations than anyone else.
b) Do you know how to recognize a false teacher? You point to some fruit – which is biblical. Well this surely is fruit, did JM pull the trigger? Where is your evidence, from both sides? I have done A LOT of research on that particular subject – and the stories in the papers do not even match up! I can’t even prove that someone actually said (as the parents accuse someone of saying) to the poor boy “of course you will go to heaven.” There is further inconsistency – in the article you pointed out JM even says: “We don’t refer them to psychologists or psychiatrists or whatever.” And then people turn around and say that JM (or members of the counseling team) eventually did, but too little too late. This indicates that something is screwey!
I’m not saying these things didn’t happen. I’m not even saying they didn’t go down the way some newspapers said it went down. But I find it funny that you would come here and accuse us of something and then turn around and do it yourself. Specifics of the Nally story aside I want to ask you something: How come you can make criticisms against a reformer but reformers cannot make criticisms against emergents?
2. Give me the emergent position. Give it clear.
a) What is sin?
b) How do people discover Jesus Christ?
c) What role does the bible play?
c.1) Is the bible infallible?
c.2) Is the bible inerrant?
c.2) Is the bible true, for what it says, as it says it?
Quintin,
Thanks for your posts, I truly appreciate them. I don’t know if you went back and read that former post that I posted above when Iggy first showed up on this blog. He started here with a snippy response to an article I did on MacArthur’s sermon preparation. I did just as you, and visited his site and was abhorred at what I found on his site in regards to John MacArthur. You can see my comments after his first post here:
http://galatiansc4v16.wordpress.com/2007/03/12/how-john-macarthur-prepares-a-sunday-sermon/
I know to you and other new readers it may sound like I have been short with Iggy, and the reality is that I have. If you go back and read that whole dialog you’ll see I poured my heart out to Iggy trying to explain things to him. However, he is very quick to turn facts into attacks, and tailor a conversation to “what you said about me” rather than over the issues. You’ll see that in my dialog with him before.
You’ve asked some good questions and ones I’d love to hear his answers too. I would exhort you to read through the other post so you’ll know where he is coming from if/when he does answer them.
He has a very strange hermeneutic coupled with an inability to have a conversation with someone he disagrees with. That’s why I’ve recoiled into prayer for him rather than deep conversation.
tr
Tr,
I did see the posts and I have been looking at his blog as well as the comments you made there.
It is such a pity that the church is so divided. I do not mind people having a variance in opinion, in fact I encourage it. What I have a problem with is when people do not define their position. I may have to clearly define my position, perhaps I’ll do a blog on it.
God bless, I love reading your blog, definitely a lot of interesting things come out of here! I feel sorry for you sometimes because people really take your words and shred them!
Amen brother, amen.
Interestingly Tony never wanted to discuss my issues with John MacArthur… which was the topic of that discussion he is referring to.. . Notice that even now Tony is the one to bring that up. Tony just got all ruffled and defensive.
I never once mentioned JM here in this thread… so his insistence that I am obsessed seems to be only on his side.
Also, I have had a very civil discussion with at least two people in this thread. It seems that to a degree Tony is admitting HIS inability to do so with me. I admit I have had a real hard time conversing with Tony as he insists on knowing what I believe more than I do myself… It seems that I know nothing of what I believe and that as I have studied and engaged with the different leaders and have had great conversations with a few of them… that for the three years being immerses in the ‘emerging conversation” I should know a bit more on this topic that Tony. Yet, I have found that even if we agree, I am wrong.
I still do not see that Jesus nor the bible is “just objective truth” as that is saying (according to its definition) that both Jesus and the bible are “just an abstract thought”. I see that position as heretical at best. I see that Jesus is THE Reality as stated in Hebrews and much more than that of the definition Tony has placed on Who Jesus is and what the word of God is.
In spite of being told I need “psychological help” I think I did very well and was a civil as Tony allowed me to be as he seemed intent on derailing the discussion from the topic to me over and over again.
I still hold to the bibles teaching of Truth and how it is defined by it. I do not hold to the definition of Webster, Plato’s realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_idealism) or German mathematician Gottlob Frege’s view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottlob_Frege) in this abstract God Tony Rose is fighting for. I stand on the reality that is Christ Jesus.
Be Blessed,
iggy
Quintin,
Sorry i lost sight of you comments there as I was being derailed.
I consider anyone that adds works to the finished work of Christ Jesus a false teacher. JM teaches a form of grace that is conditional on:
1. One accepting Jesus in a certain manner. meaning that they MUST accept Him as Lord… the bible teaches Jesus is to be our very Life… So I see that John right off the bat has added a “condition” to the grace that is freely given.
2. John looks at man’s fruit as a way to see if one is “saved” or not… all men’s fruit is bad, we are all bad trees. God is the only Good Tree and we are called to bear HIS Fruit and not just polish our own. This leads to a performance and shame based faith that is not biblical…
these are the big two I have that Johns teaching are false. It is in the double speak that he states grace here and then negates it there.
Note I have never once stated John is not saved, which is what I get from many that follow him. I think I am told at least once a day by a JM follower I am not saved.
Now you are asking some questions of me, yet have still not answered my questions concerning that the definition of “objective truth” is that it is a “abstract thought” so to state that Jesus and God’s word are “just objective truth” as with the assertion, would mean that you think Jesus is just an abstract thought and that God’s word is also. I see that as Gnostic heresy… but still there seems to be no answer as to how Jesus and the Scripture fit in the definition I gave above.
Your questions:
Let me first state that these are not easy questions to answer. You are wanting a specific answer and i will fail at giving you THAT answer. All of these questions would need to be fleshed out much more and that would take more time that i want to take here on this blog.
2. Give me the emergent position. Give it clear.
a) What is sin?
Unbelief which manifests itself as disobedience.
b) How do people discover Jesus Christ?
By the calling of God through the Holy Spirit though it can happen in many ways.
c) What role does the bible play?
Jesus own words are this: “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” So the scriptures role is to lead us to Jesus according to Jesus. In that it is the written revelation from God to man to help us learn by the guidance of the Holy Spirit of God through Jesus Christ.
c.1) Is the bible infallible?
In all that it speaks of yes.
c.2) Is the bible inerrant?
In all that it speaks of yes.
c.2) Is the bible true, for what it says, as it says it? Yes… which is what I have been trying to state to you throughout this whole thread.
Now, let me add this. I do not believe that there is any TRANSLATIONS of the bible that are infallible or inerrant… that does not mean I do not see that God’s written word is not either. I am willing to admit I struggle with inerrancy and infallibility as I see that the definition has changed from the time it was first used and how you are using them now. I am most certainly confident in the ability that God can overcome any shortcomings in bad translations. I am confident that God is true to His word. So i see even my struggle I am trusting God at His word and have placed my faith in Him. I trust Him completely.
Now, I played your game, answer my question… by the definition that is given by every dictionary and by by German mathematician Gottlob Frege use of it, that objective truth is an “abstract thought”, do you believe that Jesus and the bible are “just abstract thoughts”?
It is an easy question.
Blessings,
iggy
I see iggy is striking again and so far, no one is getting any further than they have any previous time.
iggy can twist any statement into a pretzel faster than a pretzel machine can.
“1. One accepting Jesus in a certain manner. meaning that they MUST accept Him as Lord… the bible teaches Jesus is to be our very Life… So I see that John right off the bat has added a “condition” to the grace that is freely given.”
John Mac doesn’t teach any works, iggy, no matter how much you’d like to believe it. Believing and accepting Jesus as Lord is part of our repentance. Understanding our fallen, sin nature is critical. If we do not grasp our utter inability to reach God on our own merit, we will never be accepted into God’s kingdom. recognizing that Jesus is Lord is part of this.
“2. John looks at man’s fruit as a way to see if one is “saved” or not… all men’s fruit is bad, we are all bad trees. God is the only Good Tree and we are called to bear HIS Fruit and not just polish our own. This leads to a performance and shame based faith that is not biblical”
We are not bad trees, iggy. Our fruit isn’t bad, either. Not once we are reborn into the family of Christ. We can still produce bad fruit by failing to do what God commands us to do, but if we are following God’s commands, we will produce good fruit. Examining a person’s fruit is exactly what is commanded in John’s epistles. No matter how much you would like to deny the rest of the Bible, it still applies to us.
To Tony and Quitin, have you read iggy’s blog about JM’s “Truth Wars”? This is a classic case of iggy-twisting if I ever saw one. He refers his comments to “Tall Skinny Kiwi” where there is a review of “Truth Wars”. In “Truth Wars”, JM refers to Jude where Jude compares false teaches to stained clothing. Kiwi infers this to mean that JM is comparing emergents to filthy clothes. iggy goes it even farther. He claims that JM is calling Jesus stained clothing. iggy takes it even further. I won’t even write what iggy says, but it calls Jesus stained underwear. Talk about twisting a comment to suit an agenda. And to even imply that someone who has lived a life devoted to God would refer to his (our) Lord as stained underwear is disgusting.
iggy, I’ve said it before, I guess I have to say it again: you’re a pathetic little man. You read with no comprehension and then insert your own thoughts into everyone’s writings. You truly need help. If nothing else, take a class on reading comprehension. That alone will help. Quit trying to read German mathmatians and esoteric philosophers. You cannot understand the things you read, so go back to basics.
BTW, nice equivocation on all your answers to Quitins questions. You answered everything while leaving yourself “outs” on everything. You can’t be pinned down to any position because of your postmodern mindset. You obviously have studied Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt.
Jim W,
LOL!
Bless you in the Name of Jesus.
iggy
Iggy,
Your words on this post and on the former one speak for themselves. I have no need to explain or defend what you do to my words. It is obvious to me that others see clearly through you, and I thank God for that.
I pray daily for you, and for those who may follow you. Perhaps we will just have to leave it at that.
tr
Iggy I noticed your cutesy blog post where you claim to be banned for standing on the truth of Scripture on my blog.
First of all, you weren’t banned.
Second of all, you were told you would be banned, not for standing for the truth of Scripture, but for lying about what I said and calling me names.
Third of all, you are the one who has been arguing AGAINST the truth of Scripture, not for it.
It is spin like this that generates your critics.
I posted the following comments on your blog, if they make it through your moderation:
I never stated I was banned from this blog…
and you have yet to give answer if Jesus is just an “abstract thought” to you… as is the definition of “absolute truth”
Be Blessed,
iggy
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. – Matthew 12:36 (right back at ya! as the only name calling here has been from you.)
Iggy I have no idea what you even mean by Jesus being “just an abstract thought.” I’ve never said that and don’t even know what you mean by it, or by claiming that I have said it.
Jesus is certainly not just an abstract thought, whatever you mean by that.
tr
You are defending “absolute truth” and in a post above I gave the Websters definition of absolute truth and showed that it does not fit Jesus or the Bible… but you have been too busy attacking me and derailing me from the main point of the conversation…
So as websters and other dictionaries define “absoulte truth” do you see Jesus as “just an abstract thought”… Do you see the Bible as “just an abstract thought”?
This really proves what I have stated about you… you are so focused on me that you have not even listened and focused on the discussion… and your friends! Whew I am so baptized by the loving spittle of James White I had to towel off… he showed me the true fruit of Lordship Salvation… which seem pretty consistent with those i have talked to. Did you notice he states:
” Our fruit isn’t bad, either. Not once we are reborn into the family of Christ. We can still produce bad fruit by failing to do what God commands us to do, but if we are following God’s commands, we will produce good fruit. Examining a person’s fruit is exactly what is commanded in John’s epistles. No matter how much you would like to deny the rest of the Bible, it still applies to us.”
which seems to be “works salvation” as we must “produce good fruit”… WE CAN”T on our own… we can only bear God’s good fruit… Jim in one breath calls me a liar then proves my point as he states his bearing of fruit is based on his ability obey God’s commands… which as John in his 1st epistle states is: 23. “And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.” and boy did I feel the love in his comments!
So, go and see the dialog I have been having with others then answer my question… by the definition that all the dictionaries give of “absolute truth” do any one of them adequately describe Jesus or the bible? Do you think Jesus and the bible are only “abstract thoughts”?
I await and wait, and await some more.
Be Blessed,
iggy
oops i noticed the last line in your last post…
Then you agree with me and again i ask why are you arguing with me if you think Jesus is more than an abstract thought which is what absolute truth is?
It seems you have anger issues or worse are under some ery bad theology.
Be Blessed,
iggy
Whatever Iggy.
tr
So your final answer to us agreeing is “whatever iggy” as you posted on my blog.
I am sad for you that you believe and make up lies against your brothers in Christ.
I do hope and pray that the Spirit of reconciliation comes and fills your heart.
Blessings,
iggy
iggy, you just dont learn, do you? Now you claim that I am “James White”. I wish I had half his Biblical knowledge. Shoot, I’d settle for 1/4.
So, once again, you twist and slander someone who points out your error by slandering someone else.
I have no idea how you arrive that producing good fruit is works salvation. We produce good fruit by the grace of God. Unless we are born again, all our works as as filthy rags. Once we are born again, we do the will of God which is to grow in His Word, His grace, His knowledge and by doing what He wills, we produce good fruit. That has nothing to do with our salvation. Faith without works is dead. Remember that verse? It’s popular with the emergent crowd. Usually used to say that we must do good works to be saved. That’s works righteousness, which is false, and neither John Mac, nor I, nor Jim B, nor Tony (here) believe that line of thought. Instead, our faith in God produces good works (fruit).
And again, you claim I’m spitting on you in my denunciation of you. How sad that you need to see correction as people spitting on you. Do you accuse God of spitting on you when He chastens you as He would a wayward child? Only if you are truly saved will God do this, if you are still unregenerate, God could care less. So, maybe, just maybe, you’re relying on your human understanding too far, relying on your sad “friends”, MacLaren and Jones and their twisted lore for your faith and perhaps God is using people like Tony and Jim B to show you the errors of your way.
When you learn how to read and comprehend, maybe we can talk. Until then, I have nothing further to say to you.
That’s good, I thought you had dummied down a bit… so you are not James White… good for him… I will retract it but leave up your very edifying comments of love toward me.
Be Blessed,
iggy
Good for James White that you are not him!
Yet, it seems that if you do believe this way… we agree and you have slandered me… and called me names and still do not get it that.
You can believe the lies you guys make up… or believe in truth.
So here i have learned something from Tony…
whatever man!
Be blessed with your “abstract thought of a god of absolute truth”.
iggy
I updated the post you referred to.. thank for helping me make my point on the true fruit of Lordship Salvation…
iggy
Iggy, I refuse to be dragged down to your childish word games. That’s why I said “whatever.”
I meant it in love, “whatever.”
tr
Oh… then Whatever back to you…
If you think that the infusion of the Gnostic religion in Christianity and that you are promoting “abstract thoughts” as God… well i have grave issue with that. especially after how you and Jim W. have treated me.
If someone wrote like that against you on my blog i would have defended you… but you probably sat back and smiled and thought “go get him Jim”.
that is the difference between you and me… I hope for the best and you care little for the person and when they make their point, you call it “childish word games”..
Salvation is not a game. Truth is not a game. The bible is not a game… Jesus is not a game.
I think this is a rather sad commentary on your view of this great faith and God we have.
iggy
Iggy,
I believe nothing that you have spun back to me in your hostile words. When you say things like,
My response is, “What?” I don’t believe that, have never said it, and would have issues with it too.
I have no idea where you have come up with such words as being espoused by me, nor do I quite honestly even know what you mean by them.
And when you say things like,
You are demonstrating how you leap to conclusions via speculations about people when you have no idea what you are talking about.
You don’t listen to what I say, and then respond to your speculations about what you think my words mean. I don’t have time for that.
It is because of your spin and hostility that I choose not to continue the conversation with you. I’m sorry if that hurts your self-esteem and you can’t get over it.
tr
Hostile words…
I speak truth to you and you call me a lair…
My self-esteem is fine… even your abusive language and in ability to admit you are wrong does not bother me…
What does is that you care so little for the Kingdom of God and The Truth you claim to profess.
You stated this: “Jesus is certainly not just an abstract thought, whatever you mean by that.”
Which is the point I have trying to get through to you… you finally agree yet seem to not be able to comprehend what you are agreeing with…
Here is the definition from Websters again…
i am basically re-posting the entire comment above again… as you seem to not be able to find it.
Objective Truth (Websters Dictionary)
1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence — used chiefly in medieval philosophy b : of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind — compare SUBJECTIVE 3a c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual — compare SUBJECTIVE 4c d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects , conditions, or phenomena
2: relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs
3 a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations b of a test: limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum
Now follow me on this…
Is Jesus just as the definition states?
1. Relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence — used chiefly in medieval philosophy
No, Jesus is not just an object of thought… that is Platonism… and dualism
2. Of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers
Is Jesus an object or phenomenon or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers?
Again, I hope you say no… Jesus is not an Object… that is what JW’s believe… He is God incarnate… part of the Trinity and Who all objects were created. Also Jesus is not a phenomenon or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and nor is Jesus perceptible by all observers… In fact without the Holy Spirit, Jesus in not perceivable for Who He is.
3. Is Jesus just about expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations?
No, He is again a Person and whom all things were created. Jesus is not just facts or conditions as we perceive them at all… in fact again without the Holy Spirit we cannot but distort who He is… and even with the Holy Spirit we often get only a fleeting glimpse of His Person. Yet, still our interpretations of the Bible and who Jesus is, often is tainted by our own interpretations.
So all that to say that if someone just says Truth is objective… they miss that Jesus is Truth incarnate and is much more than a medieval/modernistic view we have place on him called “objective truth”.
If one places the idea of “Objective truth” and holds to that as the biblical view they then miss that the bible is only true because of the Author… what I mean is this.
Though we may say the truth in the bible is objectively true, it is more as I have shown above. The speaker of those truths makes them truth… they are not true just on their own… So unless there is an Author with authority, then the bible is just words.
Yet, the word of God is said to be living and active. (Hebrews 4:12) So I still see it as more than the above definition says of it. Being that it is Living as it is described, work through the definition of “objective truth” and see if you still think is adequately describes the bible… I see that the definition falls very short and is not even close to a truth biblical understanding of Truth.
Be Blessed,
iggy
2 parts – 1st part, playing the ‘game’. 2nd part – continuing the discussion.
1st part:
Let me ask you this: Is anything abstract? I think that there are many abstract things in this world – take information for an example. I think that because we are bound to fleshly bodies and God is not (being pure spirit) that abstractness is one element to explaining God. Of course God is real, but not in the sense of our reality. I ask this: Was reality (as we define it) there before God was? I think God created our reality (Genesis 1) and therefore exists outside it. So then, we can say that God does invade our reality but is not confined to it. This makes the complete God abstract to us. But parts of him may be exposed as an object, like his truth, his love, his power and his omniscience.
In short, I don’t think that God is just an abstract thought, but there is a lot of abstractness there.
2nd part:
I think I’m starting to get your picture here – you say that since Jesus IS truth then truth must be applied to a subject. Lets follow this thought on:
“I am … the Way” – This must mean that Jesus is a path to follow and a means to an end. I don’t believe this.
“I am … the Life” – This means you cannot live (have life) unless you have Jesus. In addition this verse must mean Jesus wants us to be eaters of his humanly flesh: John 6:51 “…I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” (Emphasis added)
Here is what I believe: that Jesus is speaking about objects. They do not define Him as God, but rather portray his Godly qualities. These are parts to Him, but not all of him. If you think of it, we have parts to ourselves, they are objects that make us up. But the whole unit of ourselves is not simply the construction of these parts, there is more to it. Jesus is not just the truth, the way, the life. He is all these things and more! What is more is revealed in the Bible. There are 6 “I am” statements, one of which is simply “I am”.
I think that since Jesus is a subject, the object of truth is simply an element of his person.
Iggy,
Let’s look at your last post for a second and what you say to me…
I have not called you a liar.
I have not abused you in language. Unless correcting you like this is considered abusive to you.
You claim arrogantly that,
This is pure speculation. You have no idea about how much I care and are making a judgment call on something you have no idea about.
My inability to comprehend your rhetoric is not indicative of my inability to comprehend what I am supposedly agreeing with. For the record let me put it like this:
I have agreed to nothing as you have phrased it because you twist my words into things I don’t mean. My statements that I don’t believe something as you put it, such as Jesus being abstract, does mean that I agree with anything as you phrase it because I don’t understand what you mean by what you say – a typical purposeful way to have a “conversation” from an emergent such as yourself, in my opinion.
Iggy, it is precisely that you can’t post a comment without claiming that I’ve called you a liar when I haven’t, that I’ve abused you with language when I haven’t, and state that I believe things I don’t, is why I don’t give any homage to the remainder of your comment.
I see no point in continuing a dialog of substance with you while you are doing these things. Such a stance is not intellectual suicide, it is a smart decision.
If you want to prove me wrong, then retract the fallacious statements and respond in your next comment about substance only and I’ll reconsider my stance. But if you continue to claim these fallacious things and continue to say I’ve done or believe things I haven’t or don’t, we are done.
tr
tony,
I tried…
you wont listen… You can go ahead and say whatever you want of me and my friends…
I give up and will trust not in my own works nor my own obedience but solely in Christ’s obedience (Romans 5:19) for only Jesus could please the Father and only He was and can be obedient. You can add to truth all you want. I will stand firmly and solely on Jesus for all He is and believe the words of Peter.
“Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.”
Be blessed,
iggy
“Yet, it seems that if you do believe this way… we agree and you have slandered me… and called me names and still do not get it that.”
Please, iggy, so all can understand finally, point out where you have been called names and slandered. Direct us to specific posts with specific dates and times so everyone can see where we did these things you accuse us of. There have been no names called except by you. You are the one who keeps calling us liars and slanderers. You have called John MacArthur a liar and slanderer. You have called Jim Bublitz a liar and a slanderer. You have called james White a liar and a slanderer. Funny how I don’t see those things coming from anyone but you. You are the only one calling any names around here.
I’m very surprized that TR hasn’t banned you. I admit that you provide some comic relief so I guess that explains it. At least, I guess it could be called comic. Your posts are so obviously a product of a delusional mind that it must be a sick attempt at humor. Isn’t it?
Jim W.
If someone states falsehood are they then not a liar?
If someone says “All such people are such and such” and not all are… then are they not expressing a falsehood?
If I stated that you beleive that Jesus was the reincarnation of Adam and you did not would that not be lying aobut you?
I have expressed that i see that by you depending on your own obedience you are still depending on your own works.. I ahve stated that in Romans 5:19 that we must depend soley on Jesus’ obedience as we have none of our own… that even beleive on Jesus and love one another is God doing this in and through us… and you state I am wrong… and a liar…
To answer your question:
“Please, iggy, so all can understand finally, point out where you have been called names and slandered.”
I only need to point to your last line… “Your posts are so obviously a product of a delusional mind” which is abusive and name calling.
If you cannot see that then really you are the one that needs help.
Blessings,
iggy
JIm W,
I never called James White any of those things… as I thought YOU were James White… I made a mistake and corrected it a soon as i saw the mistake…
As far Jim B, I deleted a whole blog and apologized… I have posted the apology in a couple of different place even… but it seems forgiveness is not your forte’. I still see he had not ability to see that he was also wrong… and that he did change his argument in the end… I gracefully gave him a way out and he still attacks me every chance he gets.
John MacArthur has published two books that have slandered and lied about charismatics and now about the emerging church… and I came here to correct that and was called a liar. His research is faulty and no one seems to be able to get through to any one of you guy as to that John stated falsehoods. If fact it seems to you guys JM is above reproach and can do no wrong. When people come to you to correct this we are demonized and called names… as in your last post as i pointed out.
Your insistence on that you know more than I do is rather arrogant as well as every time you write to me all I sense from you is hate. What about loving your enemies?
So, as far as your accusations, it seems that you are so ready to play god and condemn others that you miss even the most basic of teachings of our faith. You my friend are a banging gong and a crashing cymbal… yet that seems almost a put down to those fine instruments.
iggy
Yep, delusional. Nothing more to say.
Is this not an attack on us? Where did he condemn you?
Again I would like to ask you where you can make crits on reformers, not having the full knowledge of that situation and then say we cannot criticize a public transmission?
You will know them by their fruits.
Oh, but Quintin, don’t you know? iggy has said that our fruits are all bad anyway. And besides, fruits are a “work”. They don’t do any good.
Quintin,
As you have no doubt witnessed, Iggy does not seem to have the ability to see how he does exactly what he criticizes others for, even when they haven’t done it. So many times when I read his responses, I say to myself, “What? I have not done/said that, but you are currently doing exactly that with what you are saying!” It is twisted double-speak.
This behavior, and how he turns every post into a “what you did to me” debate, is why I have said in the past that I truly believe he has some issues he needs help with. I exhorted him after the first post he chimed in on, to seek help. I don’t mean that to be mean or haughty, and it has nothing to do with disagreeing or agreeing with me. I truly believe he has some mental problems. He needs help and prayer.
“A wise man’s heart guides his mouth,
and his lips promote instruction.”
Prov 16:23
tr
Jim W and tr,
You are twisting what I said again… LOL! But that is what I guess you guys like to do.
I said all men are bad trees and bear bad fruit… God is the Good Tree and only He bears Good Fruit…
As with works if the produce is of ourselves it is wood, hay and stubble… and not God’s gold, silver and precious stones.
If we are to have any good fruit it must be His Good fruit…
The fruit we bear of our own works is only going to be bad, we are to be totally dependant on Jesus and walk in His obedience as taught in Romans 5:19.
It seems you insist that you can depend on your own obedience to produce good fruit. And that is works.
So please don’t twist this to be as you say… that proves you do not care to be accurate at all.
Quintin,
So you think Jim W calling me a “pathetic little man” is acceptable? Is that not name calling? Is that not attack me? Notice he keeps calling me delusional and tr has said in his own way I am crazy? Is that not a personal attack on my person? When have I attack you in any way personally on that level? If so show me.
be blessed,
iggy
Better to meet a bear robbed of her cubs than a fool in his folly.- Proverbs 17:12
tr
A truthful witness gives honest testimony, but a false witness tells lies. Proverbs 12:17
ig
Amen,
tr
I think we’ve gone down a side-path.
Do you know I haven’t even listened to that debate yet?
Talk about a truth war…
tr,
I have not judged you in the same way… you are saying things about emergents that are false. I have tried to explain why they are false and you take that as an attack on your person instead of being able to hear that the thing stated was not true.
You cannot separate a falsehood that is stated from a correction without taking it on a personal level and stooping got name calling and attacking me on a personal level… and Jim W. is even worse.
When I tried further explain Tony’s position on things a little clearer than Moore allowed in that 20 minute show in which Moore talked over TJ you just tole me I needed psychological help…
I then tried to further explain it and you guys just got nastier.
I have received emails from people who have read theses threads who can see this and have yet to receive any that agree with you and how you have treated me.
I have even converse in a very civil an graceful manner with the real James R White out of this who treated me with great grace. You could learn from him.
Yet, I suppose even this last comment will be met with nastiness of Jim W and yourself so it really is a wasted of time.
The only truth war is that I see is that one side want to actually talk and discuss things and the other wants to make things up about us and put us down and then call us names.
The question Moore asked about the emerging JW’s was so ignorant and irrelevant to us… JW’s in their own structure would not and cannot “emerge” and it showed the true lack of understanding Moore has. Tony was answering the question on another level altogether in that he heard Moore asking “if truth changes”… and Tony stated in effect, “No, but our perspective of it changes.” then gave the example of interracial marriage. Tony gracefully let a stupid question go and actually made Moore sound smarter.
The spin you give it is so far off from the reality it is a parallel universe.
Be blessed,
iggy
Quintin,
Your confession is refreshing.
Thanks,
iggy
Iggy,
Your alternate reality is refreshing.
tr
Iggy,
I love the way you spun the James White comments as if you guys had some intellectual discussion with him. He came to your site because his search engine caught that you said he “had issues.” (Because he noticed that you attacked him even when you had properly identified him). He then explained that your identification mistake was unnecessary because he doesn’t run around the blogosphere in secret, but clearly labels his comments on blogs as himself, so no one can be misconstrue him.
I am very familiar with James White and his ministry, and as a reformed theologian he would reject everything you’ve written about, if he had time for your nonsense.
Oh that I wish he’d chime in on the discussions, as I am sure he’d come away with the same treatment others who demonstrate your errors do.
You said,
Hello!?!? Iggy, you did it in the very next sentence.
No Iggy, you don’t explain things that you think are false, but you couple incoherent words with responses to attacks that don’t exist.
I explained to you earlier that if you would respond with an example of something you think is in error, and do it without coupling it with how you think people are persecuting you, I’ll respond to the substance of your words. But as along as you continue to include how everyone is mistreating you (when they aren’t), your words will continue to be ignored because a coherent dialog with you is impossible while you do that.
Quinten, remember above when I told you about Iggy’s words and said,
Well here is a prime example:
tr
iggy, stating facts is not name-calling. You may not like it, but sometimes the truth hurts. I have no doubt that you are an intelligent person. But…
It is obvious that you have a persecution complex. That has nothing to do with intelligence, it has everything to do with your own sense of worth. You also have a driving need to be right, no matter what. You cannot just carry on a conversation in one place, you have to carry it over to other venues and distort the facts even further.
To even try to twist anything I or Quintin or Tony has said is indicative of a serious reading comprehension issue. And I don’t think you have an actual disability (such as dyslexia), I think you just are so blinded by your need to be right that you refuse to truly read what is written.
So, iggy, to sum up: stating the truth isn’t name calling. You are the liar and twister of statements. Any rational person reading your diatribes can see that. It’s easy to say you’ve received many e-mails supporting your point, I could say the same. I don’t need to lie, however, to build my own ego.
This isn’t my blog, so I can’t tell you to go away, but I think it’s time for you to quit blogging, both here and your own place, and spend that time on your knees in prayer. You need to recognize the lies and slander you are spreading are hateful and a harm to the body of Christ.
Well said Jim. I think I have to agree with you and change my mind from previous statements regarding a disability. What you’ve written seems much more plausible in light of the evidence of his words.
Right now, I think we should all “stop blogging” and pause to pray for Iggy. Not that we shouldn’t keep responding here, but that we should deliberately take a moment to pause and pray for him and for his eyes to be opened to the things Jim has said. As we all know, this is not a battle of the flesh or words, but a spiritual battle that can’t be won without the Spirit’s conviction and movement.
Let’s do that,
tr
Thanks, Tony. I appreciate you and your blog and you are absolutely correct; we, too should be praying as well. I didn’t convey that well, if at all, but you said it, and I do agree. Thanks again.
Finally got around to listening to this conversation.
I wonder why Tony didn’t answer the JW question? If he did by providing the interracial marriage illustration, that is a pretty poor answer. Does he mean to imply that JW’s will one day be welcomed as brothers by the Church? I doubt that the JWs themselves will go for this.
Also Jones states that the Council of Ephesus took place 2 years before Chalcedon, it was more like 20 years but what’s 18 years between friends?
Also had a listen, very interesting. I am not sure I understood why TJ went into inter-racial marriages. It did not seem to make sense. I have to listen to it again.
I think that the fact that they have no uniforming doctrinal statement is the scariest thing. In Acts they kept lists of people who belonged to the church, and they have statements like: “There is no other name by which a man may be saved.” This does not seem an unreasonable request.
However, before arguing with an emergent, I have realised it is important to find out what they are emerging from, and what, exactly, that means.
I can say with firmness now that truth is not a person. There is a person that is truth, but that is not the same thing. Jesus -> Truth (like the bible says) not Truth -> Jesus.
I think we should get Atheists to emerge. At least the nothingness would get better for them.
I agree with praying for Iggy. I couldn’t take it anymore. If he does not publish my comment to this blog, I will.
Thanks Laz and Quin for listening. I’m sure that perspective helped in understanding my initial comments and why criticism of Tony Jones talking like that makes emergents like Iggy go postal.
Quintin, I think the most enlightening statment was when you said you’d have to listen to it again. Cha Ching! That is the goal of the emergent “converstion.” Be so non-specific and unclear as to say lots of words but conclude nothing.
Praying,
tr
Thanks to you to Jim. I think you did convey the right attitude too, I just wanted to point it out to the lurkers who are following this, that we are not in this for the fleshly battle of who is right and who is wrong. This is a spiritual battle and we recognize that and appeal to God with petitions for those who are in error that their eyes may be opened.
tr
TR, could you fix your e-mail link on the main page or just send me an e-mail – you should have it… I have something I wish to discuss off-board. I have very good reason.
Quintin,
I didn’t know the email link was broke. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I’ve fixed it and it is on the bottom right column of this blog now.
tr
You want Tony Jones’ opinion of the bible?
Apparently it’s a [expletive] scary book…
{original source]
Why? Is it necessary? Is it righteous? Edifying? Nice?