When one has objectified their God, they then can objectify anything.

If God is “Objective Truth”… then how much less is the value of the people you see and think are against that “Object”.

I still say that if it is wrong to objectify women, then why is it good to objectify God?

The infection of modernism that has injected itself into the very fiber of Christianity… Dualism and the ideals of German mathematician Gottlob Frege who coined the phrase “objective truth” seem more important to believe than what the Bible teaches… being the Truth is a Person and that Person is Jesus Christ.

Again, to set up a false god that is “objective” then you can justify objectifying people and give them lesser value than your own “beliefs”… it is sad and very Satanic at its very core.

Blessings,
iggy

John 1

1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2. He was with God in the beginning.
3. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
4. In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
5. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

A self-defining behavior.

The battlefield language goes against the premise of your post. It assumes that we are enemies. Can we ever get to the point that I can feel that Bell (for instance) is wavering from the core of the truth and yet exhibit and even feel true love for him? That has been so out of vogue in these days that I fear the trench has been dug much too deep.

I disagree with Bell on many levels, but I do not question his sincerety, his love for Jesus, his fatherhood, he as a husband, his love for his people, or his heart. The body of Christ is permeated with pride and self righteousness, and that has evaporated the love of God.

Come Holy Spirit…

Beyond this we’ll have to meet on the field of battle.

[...]

Please feel free to do with this whatever you wish but since I’m not open to discussing this with you I’m not going to be commenting here after this. The lines have now been drawn

What is up with the whole battle metaphor? Why were you content to get into a juvenile sniping war on the boards here, but now when hostilities have been called to an end that you feel you must leave?

If you are ‘meeting on a field of battle’ and ‘drawing lines’ but no longer discussing anything, does this not create a dichotomy of sorts?

this I intend to be the last I speak here. Beyond this we’ll have to meet on the field of battle.

Field of battle? I’m not sure I understand. Our battle is not against flesh and blood (each other), but against principalities and powers, rulers of this present darkness.

I know you are intellegent enough to realize that these “ideas” are expressed through “people”. Therefore as I deal with the ideas I then need to address the people through whom they come. And in addition please know that I will continue to do so as long as the Lord chooses to sustain me

Ideas may be expressed by people, but they are not the sum total of that person.

When we choose to attack people or people and ideas together, we muddle the issue. In attacking the person, you end up demonizing them and objectifying them into a characature, not a reflection of reality. You bring personality into the equation and sacrifice their complexity and humanity, ignoring the image of their creator.

When we choose to attack people rather than ideas, it then becomes necessary – as you have chosen to do with Bell, McManus and others – to use straw-men to say “what they really mean”, ad homenim and GBA attacks, and other dishonest means of demonization. It is exactly the opposite of what was taught by the Lord you claim to serve.

every time I write, or in this case further publish, something with which you disagree you immediately say it is, “yet another attempted smear via straw-man, ad homenim and eisogesis”. If you disagree then you’re welcome to try and disprove these but your continual assertions above do not make it so

On several occasions, as with this one, I and others have given detailed rebuttal, such as the ones here, here and numerous comment sections – to which you’ve not responded in any meaningful fashion. Despite your need to continue to try to prove that Bell denies sola Scripture when he has specifically and on more than one occasion directly said just the opposite (which, as I think about it, says far more about you than him…), it seems more prudent and in line with good stewardship of the time granted me to allow previous , undisputed refutation to continue to stand.

“Rob Bell, Erwin McManus and others” openly reject the doctrines of grace and are preaching heresy. I have nothing but a pure and deep hatred for the apostasy and division these men are sowing and I will be fighting their doctrine tooth and nail as long as I breathe.

But they don’t openly reject the doctrine of grace, nor have you shown open heresy – you constantly have to play the game of “in this particular sentence in this book they said this (apart from the context), and this is what they really meant…”

By every appearance, your actions show that you are fighting them, not their doctrine and that your ‘pure and deep hatred’ is not really directed at ‘their apostasy’. They have become the Moby Dick to your Ahab – which is what happens when we fight people rather than ideas.

By making it about them, you have to demonize them, making them evil, larger-than-life characters, “sowing division” wherever they go. This flies in the face of the fruit in evidence in the church communities they lead. Pure religion gives evidence in both personal purity and in service to the oppressed, per James, the brother of Jesus – something in evidence in Mosaic, Mars Hill (GRap and Seattle) and in other parts of the body you have chosen to attack. In this matter, between Bell, McManus and yourself, the only person sowing discord appears to be you…

Our struggle is not against flesh and blood. By trying to rationalize and justify your ignoring of Paul’s observation, you detract from any fruitful discussion that could actually be had in regards to ideas which may or may not be in line with orthodox Christianity. Rather than saying here is what I believe to be the best understanding of the text and how to live it out, while here is another interpretation which I believe falls short for this reason, you have chosen to say this person is apostate because if you read between the lines they reject this interpretation of scripture. In doing so, you have made the person the point of contention, rather than the idea, itself. If your hypothesis about the person is inaccurate – even in the slightest – or requires ‘what they really mean’ interpretation, you completely lose sight of the idea/issue, because the argument then becomes the person instead of the idea/issue at hand.

By the way, in my view the “tons of semi-related hyperbole” is in your imagination and that of those who follow those fools]

1) The ’semi-related hyperbole’ includes the need for pulling in “the apostate church of Rome”, “Hollow Men”, and all of the hyperbolic titles and invective that seem to accompany the lion’s share of your ‘miss-ives’, whether actually related to the heart of the story or not.
2) I will not go into it in depth, but the propensity to demonize via name-calling, particularly with the term ‘fools’ as noted in Matthew 5:22, says more about you, again, than those you have choosen to demonize. I have seen your rationalization for allowing yourself to do so, but Jesus does seem rather clear on the point…

There are plenty of people writing in such a way as to define belief and how it is manifested in practice. However, the growing proliference of semi-pelagian new evangelicalism and contemplative spirituality within the American Christian Church doesn’t appear to bear out that this style of writing is all that useful in this hour.

So, do the ends justify the means, then?

While I am certain that the Jerry Springer Show is probably more ‘entertaining’ on a base level than a reasoned discussion on how to recover from addictive behaviors with a Christian counselor, I suspect that the latter is far more in line with a Biblical model of confrontation and correction than the former.

If showing the world that we can be as much of a self-righteous jerk to each other are we are to everyone else appears to be ‘more useful’, I’m not sure I’d want to be a part of that…

Specific people bring forth specific ideas and I am among those God is sending forth to call these people out.

Ken, our struggle is not against flesh and blood – which God makes rather clear. As such, He does not send us forth to ‘call individuals out’.

Of all that you write, what raises my hackles more than anything is this particular bit of invective, which, at the least is a violation of the Third Commandment, and at most could even be termed blasphemy.

It is the root of the distrust in Christianiaty across the centuries, whether it was Pope Urban declaring that ‘God’ wanted the infidels removed from Jerusalem, or Torquemada declaring that ‘God’ needed to cleanse the church via the Inquisition, or Jim Jones declaring that God wanted him to take his church to Guyana to ‘cleanse’ it.

Gods words are His and they are infallible. When we choose to inject them and our situational interpretation of them as if, combined, they are still Gods words alone and infallible, we desecrate them. When we presume to speak for God, and declare in battle with other individuals that He is ‘on our side’ (implying that those we fight against are NOT ‘on God’s side’), we discredit Him rather than honoring Him.

Let your yes be yes and your no be no. Acceptance and allowance that your situational interpretation of God’s word may be fallible and that your ‘fight’ may be of your own making – which it IS if it is against flesh and blood – is not a sign of weakness. It is a sign of humility before your Creator, and it honors him. Language like “I am among those God is sending forth to call these people out” grants no allowance, nor gives any appearance of such acceptance.

No matter how you wish to rationalize it.

And if you don’t see the attacks pushed forward against the doctrines of grace I would suggest you pray that the Lord would mercifully give you eyes that see

The arrogance displayed in this and the previous quote are thoroughly saddening. Again, I will let God speak for God and you to speak for Ken. You don’t speak for Him, and neither do I, thankfully.

Please feel free to do with this whatever you wish but since I’m not open to discussing this with you I’m not going to be commenting here after this. The lines have now been drawn…

Why the battle language again? Why the willingness to snipe and harp and zing when we were all too willing to snipe harp and zing right back, and now the battle language (’the lines have now been drawn…’ – What’s up with that?) when we have decided to try to step out of the boxing ring and into the coffee house?

I just don’t get it…

Just kidding!

Love you man!

iggy

Disdain, contempt, and scorn.

I have looked at the beginning of the gospel itself, the cross, and I cannot seem to find those words. How can we have disdain for a brother or a sister? Even if we believe that some are not saved and indeed never can be, are we still prompted by the Spirit to show contempt? Not for their view, but for them personally?

Some of these men are husbands and fathers and even grandfathers. Some of these men have experienced great tragedies concerning the Spiritual condition of their loved ones, and some of these men have been broken by the actions and words of their own flesh and blood. Are we, in Jesus’ name, supposed to show them scorn?

Dialogue and even combative dialogue, yes. But disdain, contempt, and scorn? Would I want my sons or daughter to read that someone called me a “Spiritual Pedophile”? I have found so much of the hateful talk to be so self serving and soothing to the flesh. If indeed a person is deceived, major league deceived, he has been so by the Deceiver himself. And ultimately disdain, contempt, and scorn remove any substantive dialogue and surely removed any possibility for true and Christlike love with one another.

Even if Rob Bell is departing from the faith once delivered to the saints, he is not my enemy. And if Jesus loved him enough to die for him, what is my divinely reflective calling toward him?

It is obvious…

That is one of the real things discernment is all about… context.

I can make anyone sound like a raving heretic if I take a small soundbite of a sentence and use it to prove they are “bad”.

McManus has had this happen a lot… I read one persons review which was really sad as he stated right up front he was “not a barbarian” and of the “civilized Christianity”.

He placed himself firmly in opposition and then took McManus out of context over and over… it was very sad how stupid this guy looked at the end of his review if one took the time to read “The Barbarian Way”…

It seems more often than not context means very little.

Blessings,
iggy

When you listen to these men speak (in context) – wow! Slammed by some in the watchblog crowd, but passionate, committed men of God nonetheless.

[Out of respect for you I will answer, and this I intend to be the last I speak here. Beyond this we'll have to meet on the field of battle.]

If you, indeed, agree that it is about ideas and not people, why is it you still are still writing hit-pieces about people rather than ideas?

[First, I take except to "hit pieces". Also, I know you are intellegent enough to realize that these "ideas" are expressed through "people". Therefore as I deal with the ideas I then need to address the people through whom they come. And in addition please know that I will continue to do so as long as the Lord chooses to sustain me.]

Today, you’ve published yet another attempted smear via straw-man, ad homenim and eisogesis against Rob Bell, though this time by proxy, covering no real new ground (which would suggest trying to build proof-by-assertion, as well).

[While you are entitled to your opinion, mine happens to be that every time I write, or in this case further publish, something with which you disagree you immediately say it is, "yet another attempted smear via straw-man, ad homenim and eisogesis". If you disagree then you're welcome to try and disprove these but your continual assertions above do not make it so.]

If your struggle is with ideas and not flesh and blood, why the need to attack people – Rob Bell, Erwin McManus and others – and to drag in tons of semi-related hyperbole as well?

[I addressed this partially above re. the ideas come through the people, but "Rob Bell, Erwin McManus and others" openly reject the doctrines of grace and are preaching heresy. I have nothing but a pure and deep hatred for the apostasy and division these men are sowing and I will be fighting their doctrine tooth and nail as long as I breathe. By the way, in my view the "tons of semi-related hyperbole" is in your imagination and that of those who follow those fools.]

Why the need to tangentially attempt to prove what a person does or does not believe, when defining what that belief is and discussing how it is manifested in practice is far more useful?

[There are plenty of people writing in such a way as to define belief and how it is manifested in practice. However, the growing proliference of semi-pelagian new evangelicalism and contemplative spirituality within the American Christian Church doesn't appear to bear out that this style of writing is all that useful in this hour. Still, let them write what they write and I'll write what I write.]

Why the need to attach a specific person to your attacks?

[Again, I covered this. Specific people bring forth specific ideas and I am among those God is sending forth to call these people out. And if you don't see the attacks pushed forward against the doctrines of grace I would suggest you pray that the Lord would mercifully give you eyes that see. Please feel free to do with this whatever you wish but since I'm not open to discussing this with you I'm not going to be commenting here after this. The lines have now been drawn...]