2 Timothy 4:3 "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry".

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Tony Jones Interview *UPDATED*


Thanks to Apprising Ministries, and Terriegal over at Purposedrivel for this transcription...

Tony has forgotten that he gave me implicit permission to post this video. Out of respect for him, I have taken it down. Here is the transcript of the video. Though this does not do justice to the expression and the insight of the video, these are the words that were used in the interview, and words do mean things.....


Tony Jones asked me to Minneapolis to Solomons Porch to do an off the cuff interview (or conversation) about my issues with Emergent. The edited version will soon be on YouTube, but this is the unedited version from my own camera which I shot with Tony's permission. Please observe the conversation points:
  • My objection to Emergent
  • How important it is to know God in truth
  • How one can be born again or have a relationship with Christ
  • What makes a Christian
  • Women in Ministry being a human rights issue
  • Point blank to Tony 'Are you born again'
I want to say to things about this: First, Tony is an extremely likeable guy, and I would definitely love to hang out with him and have lots of conversations with him. The second thing is that I found out how, in my view, and I think in the scriptural view, he and the scripture are miles apart. I truly think he thinks that he is right in his views, and I don't think he purposely wants to harm anybody. But his teachings are truly dangerous and scary when you take them through the filter of God's Word. 

I pray that Tony finds God in truth today, and can find what He is looking for so that he does not have those 'agnostic' days anymore. 


Matt Wilcoxen responds to Tony Jones' Challenge excellent post!

72 comments:

Dan said...

Hmmm...you could have done better pastorboy. Most of the time when I see guys like you (I am most likely much closer to you theologically than Tony) I just kind of sigh, thinking that you may be right, but you still don't get it.

I guess I would have formed my questions/responses in different ways. It looked like fun though. Just don't turn this into the garbage that comes from K. Silve...talk about not getting it.

Dan said...

Make that K. Silva...not Silve

Pastorboy said...

I hope you go into more detail here. I know I could have done better, but I was trying to be cordial, after all, it was his dime.

As to Ken Silva, I do not know what you mean. He is a good guy, doing his best to stand for the truth. We need guys like Ken, Ingrid, Mike, Chris R. et.al. to help us wake up to the garbage that passes as church and theology in contemporary society.

Scott said...

Hi,

Well, I have just finished watching this video and I must say that I am stunned at what I saw. There were so many logical fallacies and straw men presented that it is difficult to know where to begin.

It is clear from this interview that Mr. Jones defines other religions based on his experience with people who say they are adherents, regardless of the official teachings of the religion or if the person is indeed a faithful practitioner.

I for one am glad the my wife was a "bad" Roman Catholic, and I was a "bad" Lutheran, so that there was not too much resistance when God saved us out of those systems.

His conversions story at the end was told with dripping sarcasm, and his new version lacks any assurance, contrary to the Scriptures, which it sounds as if he doesn't believe anyway.

Most of what he had to say was nonsense, and recycled 20th century liberalism. From what I have read of his so called church, it is not one, and he is wolf in shepherds clothing.

As for you, I thought you did a good job of witnessing to "jello", and applaud you for consenting to the interview, which will undoubtedly be spun to fit their progrom. I liked your tie.

peace

Corey said...

So what did you confess when the camera went off???

Great meeting you face to face this week!

Pastorboy said...

I am not anti-emergent, I simply have some very serious questions about the teachings and the leaders of emergent. I didn't get very many answers to questions I posed in that interview, which is the frustrating part.

I do not dismiss any parts of the scripture. I interpret them according to the grammatical/historical methods. Tony took me down a rabbit trail that I was not prepared for when it came to women in ministry. I truly do not understand what seems to be inconsistent in my denomination with single women missionaries allowed, but not pastors. I do not see in scripture how that differs on the mission field.

I think in the 1 Corinthians passage discussing women there are both permanent and cultural issues being discussed. The headship of man over woman, for example, seems to me to be an enduring principle that began at the beginning and was reestablished throughout scripture. The head covering and other adornments seems to be both cultural (Greek) and/or related to the Corinthian church alone.

I might also add that the Christian culture was the first to truly honor women, improving on the Jewish culture that it came out of. Both cultures honored marriage as sacred, and as a foundation of society and had laws and traditions that protected families.

The culture Paul was writing to had no such protections, nor any restrictions which made it difficult to hold proper meetings. The Jewish culture (synagogues) had no such problems, for (and this will sound sexist) women knew their place, as did husbands. Their role was to be the priest of the home, and to teach and to bring up their wives and children in the way of the Lord.

Any other questions?

LukeMiller said...

oops. i accidentally deleted my comment/question.

REB said...

I think his response to the "born again" question speaks volumes. He reduces it to an emotional experience and then talks about wondering daily if Christ is a hoax.

I would not sit down and discuss those things with any Emerger unless each of us had a Bible and were prepared to examine the important issues in context.

Mike Ratliff said...

Way to go Pastorboy!!!! Thank you for this video. Tony's real theology was sure revealed here. I think you were much more gracious than I would be. :-)

iggy said...

Actually Mike, John's theology was shown how weak it is and how much he does not understand.

John I have an open letter to you at my blog.

Blessings,
iggy

Mike Ratliff said...

Iggy,

What? I would say that you must have been watching some other video. Pastoboy stated exactly what the Bible teaches and Tony attempted to refute it with universalism. You are a very confused man.

In Christ

Mike Ratliff

Corey said...

PB,
Gotta say, I'm not seeing much here that is 'dangerous and scary'. I don't think that you've demonstrated that 'he and the scripture are miles apart'. And I agree with the video guy that you guys don't seem to be as far apart as you might think.

Mike - There was no universalism in Tony's response. Universalism means everyone is saved no matter what. Tony didn't even remotely say that.

Corey

Mike Ratliff said...

Corey,

Let's see. Perhaps Universalism was not mentioned, but Tony's comments attacking PB's stance that his theology was correct were all leading to his conception that it does not matter what ones believes as long as one believes something. My point in mentioning universalism was that it is the endpoint of that sort of logic.

I suggest you watch it again.

In Christ

Mike Ratliff

Corey said...

Mike - "Tony's comments attacking PB's stance that his theology was correct were all leading to his conception that it does not matter what ones believes as long as one believes something."

OR...it was leading to the assumption that all of our theology must be held with humility. Every generation of Christians works out their theology anew. Every generation of faithful followers of Jesus has been WRONG about something, usually many things, yet at the time, they thought they were dead on. All Tony is saying is that the degree of certainty with which we hold to what we believe must be tempered by the humility of knowing that we are likely DEAD WRONG about certain theologies that we hold dear. This doesn't lead to universalism. It leads to a faith that is constantly searching to know truth and to know God.

Corey

Scott said...

Hi,

I have a question:

Does what a person says have to be viewed in context of what they have said, and written, in the past to be properly understood, or does what they say stand alone in the moment that it is said?

Josh Mc Alister said...

Wow. I've never found any kind of theological discussion interesting before I watched this. Thanks for posting this, it makes me want to discover where I really line up.

Pastorboy said...

Scott, I want to answer your Question, but I don't understand the scope of it. Please rephrase it

Corey, here is one example where we are miles apart. This is a quote from Tony on the video:

"if there’s one point where Jesus is clear talking about “some go to heaven and some go to hell” that’s it [Matthew 25:35-40] and it’s based not on “because I’m going to a cross to die for you” now…in Romans that’s how Paul understood how we go to heaven. But when Jesus talked about it that’s not what Jesus talked about."

So, Christ's substitutionary sacrifice on the cross was not how Paul or Jesus interpreted it, as a penal (or penalty) payment, the very propitiation for our sins. No, it is as Tony believes, that it is based on the way we treat other people in the (missed) context of Jesus teaching on the sheep and the goats.

Jones also claims that people receive Christ in the eucharist, a claim which in Orthodox only in the Catholic and Anglican traditions.

Jones mocks being born again as some sort of subjective experience that is had by a few (like my conversion story) by telling his own 'false' conversion story (at camp in 5th grade) and claims that he is an agnostic, that he doubts whether it is all real, or just a crock. He claims that anyone (like me) who knows it is real, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is intelectually dishonest.

Jones claims that you cannot know Jesus in truth, that truth is somehow determined by the hearer, and it cannot be known by one person.

Tony did tell me to deconstruct him on the tape. These are just a few of the areas where I believe that Jones, the scripture, and I are miles apart. I will continue to deconstruct this.

Scott said...

Hi PB,

My questions is this:

When a person says something in the context of your conversation, do we let that stand alone, apart from what he has said and written in the past, or do we understand what he is saying in the context of his previous writting and speaking?

I was responding really to Corey's comment that every Christian works out his or her theology anew.

BTW, you are invited to a group study on Tony's new book: The New Christians at http://newchristian.wordpress.com
if you have the time to participate.

peace

Pastorboy said...

I think that you take the whole body of work and theological bent when you judge what they say unless you distance yourself from previous statements.

For example, Doug Pagitt has denied that he is a universalist, however, before and since that comment he has made statements that indicate that he is.

Maybe, like orthodoxy, Jones believes that there is different meaning to Universalism that can be in flux.

windeypants said...

Pastorboy, I commend you on taking such a great opportunity to 'converse' with Tony and to clarify the viewpoints and what is and is not of Scripture. I just want to focus on one thing Tony said. From what i remember, I believe Tony stated that there is nothing in creation that proves there is a God, so we can only believein Him through faith. This is after he stated that somedays he is not sure if he can believe God exists, agnostic tendencies, and that he takes it a day at a time.

As he stated this, my mind flipped to Romans Ch. 1 18-20 when Paul targeted those who "suppress the truth" refering to them as "fools" and saying" since what may be know about God is plain to them..." And then his "plain" evidence for God's existence was in the creation of the world- in His "eternal power" and His "Divine Nature". Tony doesn't seem to see the 'writting on the walls" that God left us to prove Himself. I hope that next time he steps out his door and witnesses the awe of a sunrise, or tries to count the stars, or remembers a baby being born that he would not hesitate to give God all the glory for His creation and be converted on the spot! Paul also gives testiment to the power of Scripture at the very beginning of Rom. ch.1 saying that he is set apart for the gospel of God- the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son... when we examine the hundreds of prophecies about Christ that came true in Jesus Christ it is very clear that Jesus was God's son, and was sent as a sacrifice for our sins (Isaiah 53:5). Tony's testimony of being "born again" included a confession that the last day of camp brought about tears in most kids, and that when he went up during chapel with tears and 'prayed a prayer' he just did what his counselor said to do. What Tony left out from his testimony is why he was crying. Was it because he had a great time at camp and realized it was ending, or because he was truly Repentence for his sin? Can someone who does not have a clear understanding of their own sin, and of the purpose of Christ's death (for our sins) really be saved (from their sins)?

iggy said...

Mike,

There is a huge difference between saying God "Cannot" or God "will not" by saying God "Cannot" do such and such, without understanding the proper context, one then tosses the Sovereignty of God out the window... and that is just the starters of the issues of PB's theology...

Unless you also deny the Sovereignty of God?

PB stated that it is the lack of clarity of the emerging or the "squishiness" of the wording yet uses contradictory language throughout the interview.

Note also that by saying God is "bound" by the Law also subverts the sovereignty of God... for God is now submitting to a created thing.

I would go deeper as I did on my blog, but it goes deeper as it makes it so that if we are judged by the Law and then we could have been saved by it... thus saved by works... thus it negates Grace itself and makes it that God is unjust.

If you cannot see this you do not understand Grace nor the Cross.

Now this again is just for starters…

iggy

REB said...

Ken Silva has a transcript of the interview posted at http://www.apprising.org/archives/2008/03/interview_tony.html

Tony's response to the born-again question is essentially, 'Yeah, whatever.' This is why Emergers say they love the Bible and then refuse to follow it on doctrinal issues. Their leaders talk out of both sides of their mouths, saying one thing on the right and contradicting themselves on the left.

******
John: Have you been born again?

Tony: Yes...what does that mean.

John: Tell me about that.

Tony: Uh well, I'll tell you that when I was in fifth grade I went to summer camp and, you know, on the very last day of camp when all the kids were totally completely exhausted and already on the brink of tears because we were going home the next morning and camp was over; that they gave the Jesus talk about how much He bled for us and I went forward weeping and, you know, asked Jesus to come into my life and felt a whooshing in my body...because my counselor told me that's what would happen.

John: Ok...so were you born again at that time?

Tony: Sure was that...yeah. That's...from everything I can tell that's what people mean from your side of the...from your version of the Christian story. That that's what it means to be born again.

John: Ok, when were you born again?

Tony: But when did I really take on the Lordship of Jesus Christ?

John: Yes that's... (indistinct)

Tony: You know what? Today, this morning.
******

The kool-aide drinking cohorts are too willfully stupid to see the error. The unregenerate Emrgergent followers think that one can say they believe something and constantly question that something at the same time. It's the old 'what is truth?' game.

Tony Jones is spiritual leadership a hoax.

iggy said...

REB,

I guess you missed the part where Tony talks about making the decision on a daily basis to follow Jesus... in contrast what you are saying as in "saying a prayer" or "crossing a line" of "going to a n alter".

Even John agreed with Tony...

In other words you are totally misrepresenting what Tony stated... he was stating that he basis is salvation on the teachings of Jesus and not "the experience or the whooshing"

So do you base your salvation on an experience of some whooshing?

I had that also... it was very real, but I would not base my salvation on my "experience" as I also had experiences before salvation that were very spiritual and real that did nothing for me as far as salvation.

Again, you are missing the point and the essence of what Tony was saying.

iggy

REB said...

******
Tony: That's not a copout either I'm not like saying that to..."scramble your eggs" in your words, like really truly, I can't look back on one day and go "that was the day that I took on the Lordship of Jesus Christ in my life." I can't. It is an ongoing battle... (indistinct)

John: Is it a daily...

Tony: But for me John, listen, for me it's a daily...DAILY. I wonder if this whole thing's a total crock. DAILY. I think, "Is there really a God? Is my whole life based on a hoax?" Every day I make a decision to go one day more. I mean really. I really... I'm agnostic in that sense, in that I...every day I don't know.

John: I'm sorry.

Tony: No, no I think it's beautiful. I think it's a way to live as an intellectually honest person, because God is not a provable commodity. All the evidence in the world does not prove God. It ultimately depends on faith. As the Bible makes ABUNDANTLY clear.

There are people who saw Jesus face to face who didn't believe in him. There were Israelites who saw God leading them through the desert who chose to turn their backs...

John: That's correct.

Tony: So for me who has never seen God, if...how much greater for me to have faith.

John: The heavens declare the glory of God.

Tony: Jesus says - and listen - it is clear in Scripture...great for the ones who saw and had faith, how much greater still...

John: For those who have not seen...

Tony: For those who have not seen and yet have faith. That's where I am. I'm one who has not.. as I use an epigraph (for?) the book at the very beginning...like that man whose son Jesus healed, and he says, he cries out to Jesus, "I do believe, help me overcome my unbelief."
******

Tony Jones says unbelief is faith. And the kool-aide drinking Emergent cohorts are too willfully stupid to see the error.

iggy said...

REB,
You are totally distorting and misrepresenting Tony' statements...

In fact the way you are twisting would make Paul an unbeliever as he stated the same thing in Romans 8:24-26

"24. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?
25. But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
26. In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express."

You seem to miss that Tony is stating he has faith, yet everyday asks God to overcome his unbelief...

And that means to you he is not saved?

That sounds like perseverance of the saints to me!

I think you are acting like to be saved WE must know everything and never fail in our faith, let alone suffer through doubts.

That is satanic and a lie... if you believe that you are not walking in faith, but in Gnostic Dualism..

I have gone into all this at my site.

Mostly this sickens me how you have twisted things to fit you prejudice. I watched this 3 times then recorded and listened another 5 times... what you are stating is wrong. Remember also, as it is not that clear Tony is interviewing PB... so Tony is asking questions and sounds like he may not understand things as he is getting clarification of JOHN'S beliefs.

If it is taken as John interviewing Tony one might see it as Tony being confused.

Mostly again John's views are very much unbiblical... God cannot be sovereign and under "bounds" at the same time.

No one has addressed this let alone the squishiness of John's assertive "God cannot lie
" meaning God "cannot do something" for scripture is clear...

Matthew 19:26

"Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."


God "will not" do somethings becuase it is against His character and nature to do so. He is not a man that He would change His mind or lie. It does not mean God cannot lie, as God is God and can do all things.

So, the issue really is John's lack of clarity in his own theology which most here are overlooking completely.

iggy

iggy said...

REB,

I might point out that you are totally denying scripture also.

Mark 9:23-24
23. "`If you can'?" said Jesus. "Everything is possible for him who believes."
24. Immediately the boy's father exclaimed, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!"

Go an read it in context. The man believes in Jesus and proclaims it, yet asks Jesus for more faith... DO you not believe Faith comes from God? This very verse is a proclamation of "Faith" with the total acknowledgment that faith comes from God alone. In other words, "The just shall live by faith". (Romans 1:170

In fact, you are sinning against your brother in Christ by not accepting him IF he is a weaker brother... Romans 14: 1. "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters." You seem more intent on passing judgement on disputable matters than showing any Grace at all.

iggy

REB said...

Iggy,

You prove my point the way you blindly rush into defend error.

In the interview, to the born-again question, Tony Jones said "God is not a provable commodity". He cites the incident of the demon possessed boy in Mark 9 to support his assertion that unbelief is actually great faith.

Why did Jesus cast out the demon? Show us where it was to promote unbelief. Show us where is was to demonstrate that God can't be proven?

If you are an intellectually honest person, (as Tony says he is) you will see that Jesus did it to prove mighty the power of God (Luke 9:43). Jesus told the disciples that they failed to cast that same demon out because of their unbelief (Matthew 17:20.

I don't consider you a brother, Iggy. I don't believe the Holy Spirit would produce such a poor workman. Sorry, but you should read your Bible before you use scripture to defend error.

iggy said...

REB,

"In the interview, to the born-again question, Tony Jones said "God is not a provable commodity". He cites the incident of the demon possessed boy in Mark 9 to support his assertion that unbelief is actually great faith."


OK, Then back up your view... show us all were God is proved without going into a subjective explanation. Show us all a study that proves the existence of God.

Use Science to do this.

God is know because He reveals Himself, yet there is no way to “prove” God exists outside of revelation from the Father.

As I have debated a few atheists over the years, an honest Christian will understand that it is by faith… and that we hope in what is not seen.

Secondly you are twisting that scripture. Here a man comes to Jesus out of faith and asks Jesus to heal His son. The man states "If you can..." and Jesus states, ""`If you can'?" said Jesus. "Everything is possible for him who believes." The man then responds by faith, “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!"

You are stating that Jesus then proceeded to heal the boy out of the unbelief of the father? That is unscriptural and not at all what the passage is about. You are twisting it to fit your own view... that Tony is wrong.

I think you do not realize that you are denying "faith" in that passage and making it unbelief, and then placing that on Tony.

The point that it was out of faith is if you look at Mark 6:5-6 which states; “5. He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.6. And he was amazed at their lack of faith."

Jesus could not do any miracles if there was no faith... faith must be present for a miracle to happen. The man asked out of faith for Jesus to heal his son... and Jesus responded to his faith.

Jesus stated, in Luke 17: 3. So watch yourselves. "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. 4. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, `I repent,' forgive him."
5. The apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith!"
6. He replied, "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, `Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you.
7. "Suppose one of you had a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Would he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, `Come along now and sit down to eat'?

So using your argument and doctrine, the Apostles also did not believe in Jesus. Now, we know Judas had missed placed faith and did not understand Who Jesus was. Yet, Peter had already made the proclamation that Jesus was the Christ. In Luke 9:20. So again you are making Peter out to be not a true believer in that though he professes “Christ” he asked for more “faith” and even later doubted to the point of denying Jesus.

Again, you are twisting the scripture to fit your need and want to judge Tony.

“I don't consider you a brother, Iggy. I don't believe the Holy Spirit would produce such a poor workman. Sorry, but you should read your Bible before you use scripture to defend error.”

Actually, your last statement was most telling as to your “works righteousness” that you promote as gospel… which makes me really wonder if you even understand what “salvation by Grace through faith so none should boast” even means…


iggy

iggy said...

John,

“I don't consider you a brother, Iggy. I don't believe the Holy Spirit would produce such a poor workman. Sorry, but you should read your Bible before you use scripture to defend error.”

Here is the fruit of your labor... you did not even state this about Tony, yet I have only used the bible and am told I am not even a brother...

Thanks for all you hard work... ; ) Hope you like the promotion of condemnation against your brothers and sisters in Christ.

Also, I might point out that you stated Tony is a brother in Christ… yet REB here is stating you are wrong… so I guess you also are not saved?

Good thing we have REB to help us as I guess the Lamb’s Book of Life was lost and he found it… Jesus wants it back though REB. : )

iggy

Pastorboy said...

Iggy,

I did not state that Tony was a brother in Christ, I said that those who repent and trust in Christ are brothers in Christ. I don't know if he has done that or not, as he did not answer my question.

Your vitriol, however, makes me question your salvation. Look at the tests in 1 John, and note that those who hate their brother, even to the point of not actively loving them are ones who are not saved.

I did not call for the interview, Iggy. Tony asked if I would do it. He graciously allowed me to record it, and I posted it unedited. This is intended only as a conversation from which people will draw their own conclusions. I draw the conclusion that Tony is outside of orthodoxy in several very important areas. My largest concern does come in the area of his salvation, due to the sarcastic manner in which he answered the question 'are you born-again'.

iggy said...

John,

Fist off I think you are unfairly judging me and my words, let alone my motives by the limitations of this forum. I even acknowledged on my blog that I did this with you and that you seem much nicer in person than you do in this limited forum. Please extend the same grace to me.

Secondly, you are stating that you had given conditions, and with that now are stating that you seem to know that Tony never repented or whatever yet in your statement never stated that you saw Tony as not having done this and implied Tony was a “brother in Christ”

John: Ok, um, It's very hard to...and I don't wanna say...peg you people down...ah because that sounds really...you know, that's negative. I think if we're Christians if we have, um , if we've repented and placed our faith in Jesus Christ that we're brothers in Christ and we have all different ways of doing things.

Your sentence as constructed sounds inclusive, well in fact it is inclusive… “if we've repented and placed our faith in Jesus Christ that we're brothers in Christ” the “we’ve” seems that you included Tony in the you and he of “we’ve”.
Also later the conversation went into this:

John: Ok, when were you born again?
Tony: But when did I really take on the Lordship of Jesus Christ?
John: Yes that's... (indistinct)
Tony: You know what? Today, this morning.
John: This morning...every day. Daily.
Tony: Absolutely.
John: Daily, every day. And that's what you gotta do.
Tony: That's right.
John: Romans chapter 12.
Tony: That's not a copout either I'm not like saying that to...“scramble your eggs” in your words, like really truly, I can't look back on one day and go “that was the day that I took on the Lordship of Jesus Christ in my life.” I can't. It is an ongoing battle... (indistinct)
John: Is it a daily...
Tony: But for me John, listen, for me it's a daily...DAILY. I wonder if this whole thing's a total crock. DAILY. I think, “Is there really a God? Is my whole life based on a hoax?” Every day I make a decision to go one day more. I mean really. I really... I'm agnostic in that sense, in that I...every day I don't know.
John: I'm sorry.
Tony: No, no I think it's beautiful. I think it's a way to live as an intellectually honest person, because God is not a provable commodity. All the evidence in the world does not prove God. It ultimately depends on faith. As the Bible makes ABUNDANTLY clear.
There are people who saw Jesus face to face who didn't believe in him. There were Israelites who saw God leading them through the desert who chose to turn their backs...
John: That's correct.
Tony: So for me who has never seen God, if...how much greater for me to have faith.
John: The heavens declare the glory of God.
Tony: Jesus says - and listen - it is clear in Scripture...great for the ones who saw and had faith, how much greater still...
John: For those who have not seen...
Tony: For those who have not seen and yet have faith. That's where I am. I'm one who has not.. as I use an epigraph (for?) the book at the very beginning...like that man whose son Jesus healed, and he says, he cries out to Jesus, “I do believe, help me overcome my unbelief.”
John: “My unbelief,” yes.
Tony: Yep, that's me.
John: Yep. Cool.


So, now you are retracting the “Yep, Cool.” As that also implied you agreed with Tony in this area of conversation.

As far as the interview itself I was pointing out that Tony is interviewing you not you interviewing him so that Tony might come across as not knowing things if one does not have that context.

Now about Tony’s “sarcastic manner in which he answered the question 'are you born-again'.” I think you missed that he was moving the interview along as he already understood what you were getting at, yet was trying to get you to understand that salvation is not in what we do or based solely on an “experience”. I hope you agree that “saying a prayer” or “going to an alter” does not save us, nor does as you stated about yourself, “condemned” which as its own theological issues as there is no condemnation in Christ and it is His Kindness that leads us to repentance… which you do not state you ever did… repent.. You stated you threw yourself, “on the floor and I said, “God, forgive me!”” Which in itself implies “works”. You are implying that an experience is what saves us. Salvation can come in an experience as you and I may have had, yet my wife and many others did not have an “experience” so the point is do you think that “experience” is need for salvation?


As far as hating you when you stated this to me:

“Your vitriol, however, makes me question your salvation. Look at the tests in 1 John, and note that those who hate their brother, even to the point of not actively loving them are ones who are not saved.”

I have never stated I hate you.. nor do I. In fact this makes me wonder why you think you can question others “squishiness” but yet not feel you need give answer to your own… are you placing yourself above reproach and correction?

If you demand it from others, then you need to give answer yourself. I have some serious questions about your theology, not your salvation. You continue to not give answer and instead attack me as the bad guy… that is not honest of you…

Again, I have an open letter to you at my blog. Feel free to give answer.

iggy

Doug said...

Hi PB,

Unfortunately, the conversation seems to have taken an ugly turn, as most of these conversations do. So I'll keep my comments brief.

I agree that you need to take the whole body of work and theology when interpreting what someone says, but that seems particularly difficult when conversing with the emerging church. I listen and I hear double-talk most of the time.

It also seems that definitions of terms are part of the problem, as the EC folks seem to define terms based upon their understanding of their audience. For instance, I thought I heard a definition of being born again put forth in terms of "people on your side", and one put forth in terms of "people on our (his) side".

I wonder if the EC folks would accept a Biblical definition of a term, like "born again", or would they resort to the "That's just your interpretation" rhetoric in response?

Thanks for your reply.

Doug (a.k.a. Scott)
http://reconcile.wordpress.com

Doug said...

Hi PB,

Unfortunately, the conversation seems to have taken an ugly turn, as most of these conversations do. So I'll keep my comments brief.

I agree that you need to take the whole body of work and theology when interpreting what someone says, but that seems particularly difficult when conversing with the emerging church. I listen and I hear double-talk most of the time.

It also seems that definitions of terms are part of the problem, as the EC folks seem to define terms based upon their understanding of their audience. For instance, I thought I heard a definition of being born again put forth in terms of "people on your side", and one put forth in terms of "people on our (his) side".

I wonder if the EC folks would accept a Biblical definition of a term, like "born again", or would they resort to the "That's just your interpretation" rhetoric in response?

Thanks for your reply.

Doug (a.k.a. Scott)
http://reconcile.wordpress.com

Doug said...

Sorry... Don't know how that got posted twice....

Doug

iggy said...

Doug,

As Tony pointed out our definition of things like “born again” is based on the Bible...

As far as being "born again" Jesus was clear it is not just an experience such as when if we “shake” or “go to an alter, or say a prayer… again as I stated these things do tno save us… nor would the experience of going back into our mothers womb and being born physically… it is as the bible states being “born of the Spirit."

I hope in this we both agree. The issue is that John never stated it was about being born of the Spirit either… in fact all he stated was ‘condemnation’ and then threw himself “on the floor and I said, “God, forgive me.”

Not meaning to be flippant, but when did John “get born of the spirit” in that statement. I see more of a Benny Hinn thing going on by just looking at his statement though I know what he means.

John never explained it clearly himself and in fact as I pointed out made it sound like works… and based on his feelings and not on what Jesus did… in fact read the transcript John does not mention Jesus at all in his “experience” of salvation… If I was to go on just what was stated, John may not be saved, (I am not stating I think that or that he is not saved, just stating that if we go by JUST what was spoken as John’s “experience.”

I am not being mean; in fact John has mischaracterized me as it seem is what happens over and over when “we” of emerging/emergent ask for clarification from you.

iggy

Doug said...

Hi Iggy,

I must be missing something then, because I don't understand how someone can be agnostic about being born again, and be born of the Spirit (born again) at the same time.

It sounds like he is an agnostic, because he asserts that God is not a "provable commodity", contrary to the evidence.

What am I not understanding?

If someone is going to lay claim to being "born of the Spirit", then the existence of God should be a settled issue. Otherwise, someone would be right to question exactly what "spirit" the person in question was "born of".

God is not the author of confusion.

Doug

REB said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
REB said...

A postmodern babbler says, "Use science to prove the existence of God".

My reply to the postmodern babbler is that God proves Himself through His creation. And Jesus Christ proved the power of God, unto salvation, through His mighty works. How does God prove Himself and prove the wisdom of man foolishness? By proving the scientific fairy tale of Abiogenesis to be false.

Science claims to have the answers to the question of the origins of life. They reject God's account of creation and promote the notion of life arising spontaneously out of dead materials. They claim that "special natural conditions", which they cannot duplicate, existed at the moment that the first living organism came into being. Science has yet to produce life from dead matter, yet many people are taken in by the doctrines of Evolution as "proof" that life arose on its own.

Science proves itself to be a liar when it claims that the only truth that exists is that which is provable, and yet it fails to prove its own ridiculous theory of Abiogenesis.

God is the one who has the power to create life. The fool says otherwise, today. Therefore, I say that Science proves God through its own powerlessness.

iggy said...

REB,

Your attitude is not like Christ and i am not going to go into name calling with you. I can tell though you have not spent anytime debating Atheists so "My reply to the postmodern babbler is that God proves Himself through His creation. And Jesus Christ proved the power of God, unto salvation, through His mighty works. How does God prove Himself and prove the wisdom of man foolishness? By proving the scientific fairy tale of Abiogenesis to be false." which is "true" to us that believe and though you miss it, even Paul called it "follishnes" to those who are perishing. 1 Cor 1:18 I am not affirming science over the Gospel, but pointing out that God is not "provable" outside revelation... or do you deny the words of Jesus " 27. "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." Matt 11:27

Since I see you are really nothing more than an ataginistic name caller, I will not continue with you in conversation.

You have a lot of "babble" youself and relaly proved my point that science cannot prove God exists... yet you also seem to be attacking me for being in agreement with you though you are contridcting your own previous challenge. "Show us where is was to demonstrate that God can't be proven?" as you stated... and i said show me by science He does... you then show me by science that science is wrong... hmmm Though we agree you proved my point, you went back to faith to prove God existed... and some people have less faith than others yet God still loves them and is saving them as He is you and me.

Be blessed,
iggy

iggy said...

Doug,

Do you never have doubts in your faith? Personally I know of no one who has not struggled in their faith.

Tony never denied that we are "born of the Spirit" but that some "experience" always comes with being born of the Spirit.

iggy

REB said...

Iggy says
***Since I see you are really nothing more than an ataginistic name caller, I will not continue with you in conversation.***

Good! Your confusion is most tiresome.

iggy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Doug said...

Hi Iggy,

Do I ever have doubts about my faith? Sure. I think that most people at one time or another have doubts.

I heard Rod Rosenbladt say once that he thinks it is normal for the Christian to come into the assembly of believers and ask, "Am I still saved?"

Living in this world as we do, but being called out of it, is going to lead to conflict, battles, losses and victories.

But I beleive that the key lies in clinging to Jesus, the cross, and what He accomplished there in my place. Then, when doubts come, I can answer the doubts with the certainty of my salvation, because it rests completely in Christ, and is not based upon my performance, or lack of it.

Too many Christians think that the Gospel is something for the beginning part of faith, that jesus punches your ticket to get you in, but after that its all up to you. I don't see the Word talking that way. I believe that the Gospel is for both unbelievers AND believers. We should never stray too far away from the cross and the empty tomb in our thinking.

I am not understanding the use of the word agnostic, I guess. I understand having doubts, but agnosticism would lead me to conclude that one was perpetually undecided about faith, and I don't see the Spirit leading men into that kind of indecision.

The experience that should follow conversion, imho, is a certainty that locks you into a positional understanding of faith by being "In Christ", and that positional truth is an anchor when the waves of doubt hit the ship of faith.

Sorry for the long response, but I hope you see where I am coming from here.

Blessings, Doug

jazzact13 said...

We may have doubts, but doubt is not the highest virtue (if it is a virtue at all). Among the fruits of the spirit, 'doubt' is noticeably missing, but faith is there.

Doug said...

I agree. There is no virtue in doubting, and as I recall, Thomas was not commended for his doubts.

Doubts should be resolved at some point. Otherwise, how could it be called faith?

REB said...

Doug says
***I agree. There is no virtue in doubting, and as I recall, Thomas was not commended for his doubts.***

Amen, brother! That is Tony's error in a nutshell. He ties his unbelief to that passage in John 20 and calls his error beautiful.

His spiritual leadership is a hoax.

iggy said...

Then Doug, and REB,

Did the father in believe or not believe when he asked Jesus to heal his son? When he stated," I believe, help me in my unbeleif" which is what Tony stated his faith was like as he choose to follow Jesus every day.


Here is the passage from Mark 9:17-27...

Again the question:

Is the father of the boy a believer in Jesus or not?

" 17. A man in the crowd answered, "Teacher, I brought you my son, who is possessed by a spirit that has robbed him of speech. 18. Whenever it seizes him, it throws him to the ground. He foams at the mouth, gnashes his teeth and becomes rigid. I asked your disciples to drive out the spirit, but they could not." 19. "O unbelieving generation," Jesus replied, "how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy to me." 20. So they brought him. When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth. 21. Jesus asked the boy's father, "How long has he been like this?" "From childhood," he answered. 22. "It has often thrown him into fire or water to kill him. But if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us." 23. "`If you can'?" said Jesus. "Everything is possible for him who believes." 24. Immediately the boy's father exclaimed, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!" 25. When Jesus saw that a crowd was running to the scene, he rebuked the evil spirit. "You deaf and mute spirit," he said, "I command you, come out of him and never enter him again." 26. The spirit shrieked, convulsed him violently and came out. The boy looked so much like a corpse that many said, "He's dead." 27. But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him to his feet, and he stood up."


Also, how much faith is needed that one be saved? Luke 17:5-6 should be a great verse for that.


So before you continue to twist what Tony stated more, which is totally dishonest... answer those questions. Honestly....

iggy

iggy said...

Doug,

If you doubt then according to what REB's standard on Tony is, you also are not a believer.

The funny thing is for me, I have come to rarely doubt my salvation and walk in faith for all things of God... yet I am not saved according to REB.

So... again for all answer those two questions here or privately for yourselves.... then listen to what Tony actually stated.

the be blessed, =)
iggy

REB said...

I might as well take up the error in Tony's reference to the deamon possessed boy in Mark 9.

************
And when he came to his disciples, he saw a great multitude about them, and the scribes questioning with them. And straightway all the people, when they beheld him, were greatly amazed, and running to him saluted him. And he asked the scribes, What question ye with them?

And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit; And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not. He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me.

And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tore him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming. And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child. And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us. Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief. When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.

And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him: and he was as one dead; insomuch that many said, He is dead. But Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him up; and he arose. And when he was come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, Why could not we cast him out? And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting. (Mar 9:14-29)
************


Tony, and his defenders in this matter, uses the father's confession of unbelief as license to say unbelief is faith. The logical consequence of that assertion, that unbelief is faith, is to ignore the LORD's rebuke toward his disciples.

Tony, in speaking about his conversion, says he wonders whether his whole life is based on a hoax. And then Tony pulls in John 20 to assert that unbelief is not just faith, but great faith.

Tony and his Emergent defenders would, therefore, have the man bringing his son to Jesus daily, because faith is unbelief in the Emergent theology. Which all goes to mock Christ, because Jesus is not sufficient to do the job of casting out the deamon with finality. All of that according to Tony's logic.

iggy said...

REB,

OK,
you miss something totally in all that...

the man stated, "I believe" then stated, "help me overcome my unbelief."

How is that not a statement of faith? How is the man by saying, "I believe" meaning he he does not believe?

You are being very dishonest with the text and what the man stated...

Did you ever say to Jesus, "I believe" and then did you? Did you ever have a moment you called on Jesus to have faith enough to go through something?

That IS what the text is stating and what Tony stated.

You are twisting this verse to the point that man did not confess "I believe" to the point that you solely are focused on the second half of his statement.


This is really bad ISOGESIS... and perverse handling of the text to your own want to judge and condemn someone else.

repent.

iggy

Lori Magstadt said...

Reb said: "Tony, in speaking about his conversion, says he wonders whether his whole life is based on a hoax. And then Tony pulls in John 20 to assert that unbelief is not just faith, but great faith."

But what you're missing, Reb, is that every day when Tony asks those questions, he still chooses daily to live by faith in Jesus Christ. He doesn't call his unbelief beautiful...It is the act of choosing faith in the midst of doubt that he describes as beautiful, which is exactly what this passage describes.

iggy said...

Lori,

I stated that but REB is so focused on judging and condemning he seems to have no room for the ministry of reconciliation that we are given... also I know one of his "friends" locally who is pretty much the same mindset and writes regularly and proudly how he judges others as not saved and so on...


So once again, REB actually avoided the two questions... anyone else?

Did the man express faith?

Did he turn to Jesus from where faith comes?

Did ask Jesus to overcome his lack of belief out of faith?

Also, how is it you miss this confess of faith from this man in scripture?

iggy

Doug said...

Hi Iggy,

I don't think I am twisting what Tony said, just asking for clarification.

I don't think that "I believe, help my unbelief" is considered a normative view on the issue of saving faith.

Faith is a gift of God. How much one needs is "enough to be saved, whatever God gives".

I was just asking for clarification on the useage of "agnostic" in what He said, and still don't think that the Holy Spirit leads someone to be agnostic about their belief (doctrine) or about Jesus (the Object of faith).

So, I don't know what more I can say.

Doug said...

Oops. I guess I did think of something else to add.

Regarding the father of the boy, there is no indication that the father had faith in anything other than Jesus' ability to heal the boy, is there?

There is nothing that indicates that salvation came to him, the boy, or anyone else according to the text. All we really have is a healing, which is really great, but nothing more than the hundreds of healings that Jesus did and no indication that the Father or his sone were actually justified as a result.

So if anyone is looking for a normative experience to demonstrate saving faith, this is not it.

Just thought I'd add that point to the conversation.

Peace

iggy said...

Doug,

"Tony: But for me John, listen, for me it's a daily...DAILY. I wonder if this whole thing's a total crock. DAILY. I think, “Is there really a God? Is my whole life based on a hoax?” Every day I make a decision to go one day more. I mean really. I really... I'm agnostic in that sense, in that I...every day I don't know.


Tony confesses that within his faith he has questions but chooses to go one day more... and in that he has doubts at times (daily) he is in that sense agnostic. He is not stating he is "agnostic" and glorifying "unbelief" as REB states.

In fact the more we all talk about the not one of you mentioned praying for Tony on this so that he can less doubts and more faith.

All I see here is the usual "see how the emergent is not saved" routine.

Sad.

iggy

Doug said...

Hi Iggy,

Well, we all tend to see what we want to see.

Re: Praying for Tony
I didn't know I had to say it.

Re: Agnostic
Thanks for the clarification.

Re: Lumping
I don't know why you seem to be doing that to me, since all I did was ask a few questions.

Re: Tony & His faith
It's not his, it belongs to God the father. That goes for all of us.

Where would God the father lead?

peace.

iggy said...

Doug,

First off, you are arguing that the man is not a believer... yet he states "I believe"

WHat did he believe in"

Note what the man states to Jesus.

"But if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us."

Note that the man is addressing "you" meaning Jesus. "if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us."

He is addressing Jesus to do something out of pity (having mercy on us) and help us (Save us from this situation).

This is how I ahve always read this passage so this is not eve getting into Tony use of it.

So we have a man, turning to Jesus and asking for mercy to save him and his family from the demon possession.

Is this not faith?

So, becuase of even this little faith in the midst of the man's doubt, Jesus states "`If you can'?" and "Everything is possible for him who believes."

Jesus understands the man is addressing him, and states that everything is possible for him who believes.

The man responds in faith inspired by Jesus and states, "I believe"... and asks for more strength in his further asking "help me overcome my unbelief"

Again, note this.

1. A statement of faith, "I believe" after Jesus states, "everything is possible for him who believes."

Jesus states pretty clearly that if one believes on Him all things are possible... even the cleansing of a demon.

Further that the man means he believes and desires to go deeper is in the "help me overcome my unbelief"... this is not a declaration that unbelief is greater... but that he has the beginning of faith and desires to trust Jesus more.

I see this in Tony's works also, that he believes and desires and chooses to every day rise and overcome his unbelief by Jesus Christ.

I am actually pretty amazed that some here cannot see this and twist it around so much.

As far as lumping, I see that by me having to repeatedly go over the scripture and place Tony's statement in the context it was states seems that you at first chose to see it as some presented it... and that being twisted out of context.

I am only placing the statement together and looking a what the bible actually states and the passage is teaching. You have implied that there is no "salvation" yet the deliverance of the boy of the demon, brought salvation first to his father, then to his family.

I see it clearly.

Be blessed,
iggy

iggy said...

Doug,

Also you stated,

Re: Tony & His faith
It's not his, it belongs to God the father. That goes for all of us.

Then your salvation which is a gift is not yours?

I think that you miss that God gives gifts for us to use... they are from Him to us.

If I gave you a gift would it still be mine?

Yet, part of all gifts from God to us are not designed to be buried and be used just for ourselves. All gifts are designed to take us to "where the Father would lead" us.

So, "Where would God the father lead?"

That is what our salvation is all about. It is about the Genesis story lived out in us all. It is taking the chaos and bringing order... yet we should not judge someone who does not have the same peace we may have...

Also, there were many great men of God who did not have "peace" but were greatly troubled, William Wilberforce was so troubled he had a sleeping disorder, Calvin and Spurgeon both often were so sick Spurgeon would sometimes be carried to the pulpit to preach and Calvin was so driven by the though Jesus would come and find him not working for the Kingdom, that he died mid sentence as he wrote his commentary on Ezekiel. Which is why it ends in chapter 20...

I think that God gives us his desire, we ahve "peace" that passes all understanding, which goes very deep and I think Tony expresses that not just in his words but in his life. Yet, in exchange for that inner peace, we also are given the desires of God and sometimes those are not that peaceful in the sense that they can drive us to seek God more and more and desire more and more of Him.

This is part of the tension of faith that God gives us. Ever drawing us and ever sending us. The Kingdom is not static, but ever expanding... and so are we in our faith and understand of God.

be blessed,
iggy

Doug said...

Hi Iggy,

Read:

Re: Tony & His faith
It's not his, it belongs to God the father. That goes for all of us.

Then your salvation which is a gift is not yours?

>>> His FAITH is a gift, it comes from the Father, it is entirely sufficient to save, and does not doubt. <<<

Peace out.

iggy said...

Doug,

So IF Tony has been given "faith" and has received it... it is his faith unto God.

Though I am not sure how this is all applies to the man in Mark 9 or Tony has expressed anything but faith in Christ Jesus.

Also, I am not sure how calling Tony "not saved" as some here are doing becuase he "doubts" comes into play when Jude 1:22 states, "22. Be merciful to those who doubt;"

Show me where REB follows this mandate... and show me a verse that states that salvation is based on us never "doubting"... most verses about doubt are about prayer... not salvation.

Find a verse that backs the assertion that one that doubts is not saved.

Then let's talk about it. = )

Blessings,
iggy
P.S.
Doug, I am enjoying my conversation with you... and there is not malice or anger. If you read that into something I write (as I write a bit forcefully and confidently that is often taken as being angry or whatever)... I am rarely angry... so please if I do seem that way I assure you i am not... not even with REB.

Again I am truly enjoying our conversation and see this a very productive...

I am being blessed.

Doug said...

Hi Iggy,

See below:

First off, you are arguing that the man is not a believer...

yet he states "I believe"

<<< In what? >>>

Note what the man states to Jesus.
"But if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us."
Note that the man is addressing "you" meaning Jesus. "if you

can do anything, take pity on us and help us."

<<< That's it, just in Jesus ability to heal his son. Nothing more, and nothing less. >>>


He is addressing Jesus to do something out of pity (having

mercy on us) and help us (Save us from this situation).
This is how I ahve always read this passage so this is not

eve getting into Tony use of it.
So we have a man, turning to Jesus and asking for mercy to

save him and his family from the demon possession.

Is this not faith?

<<< Of a type. But there is nothing here about being saved,
being justified, forgiveness, being with jesus in paradise,
nothing. Just faith in the ability to heal, with some apparent reservations. >>>


So, becuase of even this little faith in the midst of the

man's doubt, Jesus states "`If you can'?" and "Everything is

possible for him who believes."
Jesus understands the man is addressing him, and states that

everything is possible for him who believes.

<<< So, based on that, should the man have been able to construct a spaceship and fly to the moon because "Everything is possible for him who believes"? Everything now means anything I want it to mean. Therefore, I believe
this passage teaches that the man believed, and since everything is possible for him who believes, he recieved large sacks of money the next day when he got home with his
son. My narrative is just as valid as yours. >>>

The man responds in faith inspired by Jesus and states, "I

believe"... and asks for more strength in his further asking

"help me overcome my unbelief"

Again, note this.

1. A statement of faith, "I believe" after Jesus states,

"everything is possible for him who believes."

Jesus states pretty clearly that if one believes on Him all

things are possible... even the cleansing of a demon.

<<< Bzzrrrttt. Wrong answer. All Jesus does here is confirm for the man that he is able to heal his son. Many in Jesus day were healed who DID NOT believe. Many followed Jesus who did not believe, as it was in the OT with the nation of Israel and is in our day. Many follow, but few believe. This
man could have been one of the multitude who did not believe, and were not saved, but who's son was healed anyway.

Profession does not equal possession. Just because someone
says they believe, does not mean that they are saved. The demons beleive, and they tremble. Are they saved too? >>>


Further that the man means he believes and desires to go

deeper is in the "help me overcome my unbelief"... this is

not a declaration that unbelief is greater... but that he

has the beginning of faith and desires to trust Jesus more.

I see this in Tony's works also, that he believes and

desires and chooses to every day rise and overcome his

unbelief by Jesus Christ.

I am actually pretty amazed that some here cannot see this

and twist it around so much.

<<< No one is twisting. Just reading the text for what it
says. >>>

As far as lumping, I see that by me having to repeatedly go

over the scripture and place Tony's statement in the context

it was states seems that you at first chose to see it as

some presented it... and that being twisted out of context.

<<< You made a faulty assumption. I am deeply hurt, and will be for quite some time. Ok, I'm over it... >>>

I am only placing the statement together and looking a what

the bible actually states and the passage is teaching. You

have implied that there is no "salvation" yet the

deliverance of the boy of the demon, brought salvation first

to his father, then to his family.

<<< I have not 'implied' that there is no salvation here. I
have stated it emphatically. It ain't there. Period. You
know, Narratives are generally not normative when it comes
to salvation experiences anyway. If they were, we should all
be knocked off our horse and blinded for three days before
being converted... Oh wait... that DID happen to me...
Drats! >>>


I see it clearly.

<<< Have you thought of cleaning off your glasses? >>>

Be blessed,
iggy

<<< I am, and I have been. Ditto to you! >>>

Signed, Doug, a.k.a. Lumpy

iggy said...

Doug,

then when you turned to Jesus, did you just turn to Jesus just save you?

Or did you not also turn to JESUS to save you?

What I mean, is, look closer the man is turning to Jesus, the Person of Jesus to do the miracle... and in that states not that he believes only for the miracle, but that the "if you will" being that if Jesus will"

Simply you cannot deny the man is coming to Jesus and asking Him do do His Will... Jesus states that if the man had not "prayed to Jesus"... then Jesus later in verse 29 would not have stated, ""This kind can come out only by prayer. "

Again as you go deeper into the text you realize that the disciples could not drive out the demon, as they had not prayed, while the father approached Jesus and asked Him directly to do it for him which is a "prayer" as we are told to pray for Jesus to do all things in and through us.

It is the act of faith of the father, asking Jesus in faith to deliver his son... this passage is all about faith and belief and trust and the power of prayer as we ask Jesus to do the Fathers will in and through us... I shows how this can be a powerful effect on our family and our community.

It is a powerful passage about how the Kingdom of God can grow by the act of one simple prayer to Jesus for Him to do His will in and through and for us.

To state the man was not a believer contradicts the passage itself and to state salvation did not come to him and to his family seems to miss the point.. and to see that his very words were a pray for salvation and that he received it in power and deed of Jesus Himself seems to not grasp all that is in this small section of the Gospel.

Again, I am not sure why this seems so hard to grasp so i am praying that God opens your eyes and heart to see it as it is.

Please do not take this as I am being belittling at all. I am just a bit confused as how this passage is misunderstood and mostly how some here (not you necessarily) have used in direct opposition to what it is teaching.


Be blessed,
iggy

iggy said...

Doug,

Also, whenever I approach scripture I pray that I am taken out of the equation as in regards to what the text states. It is not always possible as i am human but for the most part I simply read the text and if I have question pray and read different versions and then pray and let the Holy Spirit guide me. I ahve gone over this passage before this and before Tony stated anything. This is and was my view (though i ahve noticed more clearly a couple of details within that same view)rarely do I go to commentaries for understanding, other than understanding that person such as if i want to understand Calvin I read his institutes or Maj Ian Thomas as what is his views... and then I always go to scripture before I "believe" a man. Often from some who attack people like me I see them literally quote Spurgeon on par with scripture as if when they run out of scriptural proof, they can persuade me with Spurgeon... and that is dangerous stuff there! (I am not against Spurgeon though I do not agree with some things he taught. I am not a Calvinist... though much of my belief is the same as many reformed. I am like Zwingli who stated that he would never be a Lutheran as he would take not other name but Christ Jesus to follow. And Zwingli agree 99% the same as Luther.)

Tony's statement and use of this verse and passage seem to be in proper context and understanding.

What I see here with both the passage and scripture is some are adding into these their own view and more than is what stated.

How is a profession of belief in Jesus... which is what the man stated not come from faith of the Father who drew that man to Jesus... how is his "prayer" not acted upon by Jesus as an acknowledgment of the man's faith?

Again, this seems very clear to me regardless to my glasses as really I am not that hindered by the glasses or "theologies" as some are.

Blessings,
iggy

Corey said...

Iggy said - "really I am not that hindered by the glasses or 'theologies' as some are."

That's not the view of a postmodern emergent heretic! You're supposed to have no confidence in your own ability to lay aside the presuppositions that you bring to the text! ;)

Corey

iggy said...

Corey,

"That's not the view of a postmodern emergent heretic! You're supposed to have no confidence in your own ability to lay aside the presuppositions that you bring to the text! ;)"

I had a great laugh over this!

that is why i put in the caveat and here I push all arrogance and quote myself, " It is not always possible as i am human" (there is your postmodern heretical stuff...it was there you just need look for it) LOL!

Really I freely confess since I am not formerly "educated" in any way... I am ignorant of most
"theology" until I run into someone that speaks from their theological view. Then I go and study their view point... but most my doctrine and theology comes from reading the text, meditation (yep another emergent word) and prayer... I will look into historical context.

The tool I use the most is who, what, where, when, and why?

I will also confess I filter through the teaching of Grace as it has profoundly changed me through Christ Jesus.


blessings,
iggy

REB said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
REB said...

Iggy says
***So once again, REB actually avoided the two questions... anyone else?***

I have no patience with you, Carlos.

I first became acquainted with your deceitful blather about a year ago. You were mixed up in some questions about a phony, diploma-mill ordination that you were passing off as bona fide. You chronicle the phony ordination matter on your own blog (December 31, 2006).

I also find the following on your blog from July 15, 2006...

***I have learned: I have learned that it is not only good but right to hate your
brother if he thinks or speaks in any way contrary to my own personal view
of doctrine. It is better to sacrifice the brother to be right that to give into self
sacrifice. It is better to take away from someone else be it material or
spiritual possessions and have no pity on him. It is better to speak the words
of love like a seducer, than to love in action. It is better to hate one’s
brother in the name of my doctrine, than to love him if I disagree.***

Now I see that you tell me that you are going to quit conversing with me (March 3, 2008 5:46 PM). I begin to ignore you. You turn around and keep pretending as if we're having a conversation, with you playing both sides (March 4, 2008 1:18 PM). Then you claim I'm dodging you (March 4, 2008 1:25 PM).

You are a deceitful worker Mr. Shelton! Your pious talk is obviously phony.

iggy said...

REB,

I have been up front and not hid anything... anyone can go to my blog and read the story... it is posted in the part that states "Last words to my Hyper Critics"...

In fact the person you are talking about who started all these lies and rumors about me was reprehended for his lies and lost his job at a local bible college as he refused to submit to their requests to stop harassing people like me.

Mean while I am still in good standing in my ordination and have moved on to internship with a local Vineyard Church in Billings MT. Anyone can do a little research and check out any part of my story...

So, the only one here that is dishonest is the one that is still promoting lies and slander against a brother in Christ.

It also shows that you know nothing of forgiveness and reconciliation.

As far as UCMI where I am ordained, I do not even state I am ordained at all... in fact they are working toward improving their status and are far from a "ordination mill". They are working toward becoming a denomination.

So... once again instead of give answer you attack my character and spread lies and slander against me.

So again I say...

Repent.

Carlos (iggy) Shelton
Billings Mt
iggy@wwdb.org

iggy said...

This should read "reprimanded" instead of reprehended.. Good ole spell check did a number on me...

= )

iggy

Doug said...

Hi all,

To Iggy: Why do you ignore the points I made previously, and my questions?

All you have done is reassert your position over and over and over again without ever interacting with the text.

I don't see your approach as being constructive, helpful, or even remotely loving in the Christian sense of the word.

To Reb:
Please email me at sodezo@gmail.com

I would like to discuss something with you if you are so inclined.

Thank you.

To everyone else (who haven't been drive away by this idiocy):

I will continue to subscribe to this thread, but will refrain from commenting any further. People talking in concentric circles is a waste of time.

Blessings!

REB said...

Iggy says
***So... once again instead of give answer you attack my character and spread lies and slander against me.***

You said that weeks ago when I attacked bogus Emergent teaching and bad theology. I had not said a word to you or about you, but you accused me of personally attacking you.

That is your deceit in a nutshell.

Pretending to be something you are not in ministry with diploma-mill credentials is just another example of deceit. It goes to show that you minister to your own pride. It's all about Iggy!

Yes, let others decide what they will think of your credibility as a minister. You have no credibility with me.

Pastorboy said...

Guys, lets stick to comments directly regarding Tony's theology vs. my theology on this thread. I am thick skinned, believe me.

I point you to some more hypocrisy on my new post "I am proud of my wife" above. Interact with that one regarding Tony's clear diatribe against me because the Alliance does not ordain Women and the Bible clearly speaks about men's roles and women's roles in the home and church ( I think Tony is angry with the Bible on this one) Anyhow, my wife tried to send a private e-mail and snail mail and Tony cast her aside like some cheap dirty shirt. Is that hypocrisy in that he does not value a woman's opinion?