It would probably curl your hair, er uh, scalp if you knew some of the things I “say are fine.” I’m pretty unorthodox in a couple of areas. That’s why I keep those thoughts more to myself (and God, of course.)

I guess I trust that God is bigger than my unorthodox ideas… if they are unorthodox…

I also think that there are others that are either trapped in bondage to similar “unorthodox” views I was trapped in and worked out of… or that they are also a bit further than I am so can help me…

I trust that God is guiding myself and others to be able to talk openly about things that are a bit “dangerous” to some…

Now, every doctrine I have faced and decontructed that then examined, I found I am stronger in my belief in that doctrine… to that the details are not at important as whether I trust God in His Word… (as in inerrancy and infallibility of scirpture which is important but seems to have been hijacked as to the definitions of those words from the original intent… I now state that I am certain that God is faithful at His Word and is faithful to keep it… and that from that it has authority… not whether I can find an error or not in a translation.)

I see that it is more healthy to openly dialog than to shut some things in a closet and have it come out in wrong ways if it is wrong.

be blessed,
iggy

…I cannot see how you justify some of the things you say are fine. It would probably curl your hair, er uh, scalp if you knew some of the things I “say are fine.” I’m pretty unorthodox in a couple of areas. That’s why I keep those thoughts more to myself (and God, of course.)

I never stated you said that or that you feel that… my point is that with all the criticism this is the one that is tossed out the most… and it seems that it is truly the other way around…

In that I then might add that the people one associates with on must be careful not to blindly trust them… I do not with those who are my friends in the emerging circles… I am careful who I listen to and even have spoken out and to many I disagree with as well as Bob Hyatt… in fact Bod is a Calvinist and we disagree on some major things… yet he has never treated me like Steve Camp, and team pyro… or those non Calvinist-Calvinists like Ken Silva… Bob and I disagree agreeably.

Now, as I have stated a few times here you and I had gotten off to a rough start, yet I consider you a friend and a brother. We disagree and quite frankly I cannot see how you justify some of the things you say are fine. Yet, we seem to be able to converse in a civil manner.

Again, it seems your “friends” are judging and condemning me and many others and though you may see that as a wrong thing to know… I just wonder, is it that you have gotten to know me and see that i am not some evil caricature that is on some poster… that I do not have dreadlocks (not that there is anything wrong with that) or that I deny things like “truth”, the authority of the bible, and so on… as these posters assert I do. I find it interesting as I generalized you felt a bit put off and graded me… you stated I got an “F”… hmmmm I hope you can connect the dots there yourself.

Be Blessed,
iggy

To use an example I’ve seen here:
“They” say Iggy isn’t saved.
Keith appears to be one of “they.
Therefore, Keith believes Iggy isn’t saved.

If that is the case, you made an “F” on this exam, because Keith has NEVER said Iggy wasn’t saved. You know the old saying: Be careful what you ASSUME…it can make an a** out of you and me.

But to suggest that reading and meditating on the Word of God is somehow simplistic indicates that maybe Pagitt has yet to fully experience the wonder and miracle of the ministry of God written Word.

I am sure that there is “comfort” in Gods word… yet there are times I am more stressed by reading it as it confronts who I am… To say that “just reading the Bible” is the only and best way to get rid of stress seem more simplistic to me… it also makes me wonder is one is reading the scripture and letting it wash over them and confront them… to allow them to be changed. So I can see it more from Doug’s perspective I guess.

Be Blessed,
iggy

I think you are right to point, yet, (as there are enough “buts” out there causing troubles already…) I see that there is a big difference between someone saying another is not saved because of their dreadlocks… and one that teaches “works” in how they are to be saved. I accepted Jesus for all He is, was, and is to be… yet to add “He must be Lord of YOUR life” and then say the other people are all about “me, me, me”…

Here is the truth…

us: It is about God and His Kingdom and we get to be part of it.

you guys: I get to get out of hell and I get to go to heaven.

us: Jesus died to reconcile all creation and draw all things into Himself

you guys: Jesus died to save me.

us: we are to love others and walk beside them saved or not in hope that they come to love and believe in Jesus. we do this by serving others unconditionally seeking to see Jesus in them.

you guys: WE need to get that guy saved and to get him to come to OUR church.

Hmmm which one has a “man based” focus?

us: God is sovereign, yet is big enough to do all things. He also limited Himself and became a man.

you guys: God is sovereign but cannot limit Himself.
(I always am confused by the “cannot” there).

Which one shows God is truly able to do “all things”?

So, that is the difference… I am not “reading” more into these things for I am told on almost a daily basis that i am not saved by “you guys”.

Be Blessed,
iggy

I have read his blog and he doesn’t deny anything, he just defends his position. I aslo believe that Pagitt and others have morphed into their present views about many things, having started with different and more “conservative” doctrinal views. What will a young man teach who has grown up under such teachings?

I still did not see anthing dramatic about yoga until I read some of the other books that MacLaen and Pagitt and Bell were reading as sources of thought. I am somewhat of a dreamer also, but I cannot see a parameterless journey that in the end defines the whole of church history as wrong. And of course God dealt with believers before the printing press and literacy, but we are part of an unfolding plan.

Stress – some drink, some temper, some drugs, some gamble, some exercise, and on and on. But to suggest that reading and meditating on the Word of God is somehow simplistic indicates that maybe Pagitt has yet to fully experience the wonder and miracle of the ministry of God written Word.

The Bible is clear, bodily exercise profits “a little”. So to insinuate that reading the Word is archaic and not in step with today’s array of stress relievers, especially coming from a preacher, is outrageous. Much of the Word unashamedly promotes ITSELF! We can fall into the trap of dismissing anything someone like MacArthur says because he can be a know it all, but he is correct on many things.

“Like MacLaren, I would venture a guess that most people who attend EC churches couldn’t point him out in a crowd or quote anything he’s written. ”

It isn’t MacLaren himself that is dangerous, it is what he teaches. That is what will eventually morph into something unchristian and judging by the book MacLaren said would save Jesus from Christianty, it has already begun.

I have not yet read the book Driscoll quotes, but I plan on picking it up and at least perusing the section by Padgitt to see how accurate Driscoll’s criticism is on the couple of sentences he pulled to quote.

I disagree with Padgitt’s position on homosexual practice not being sinful. In this case, I am taking Driscoll’s word on it, since it was part of a private conversation.

As for the recorded (thought to be private) comment afterward, I go back to my previous comment:

Not to condone Padgitt’s comment (though off-the-air and to a friend), but MacArthur’s answer seemed rather trite/simplistic, along the same lines as Paul Tautages (sp?) admonitions on the use of Christian counselors and psychiatric drugs.

Certainly we should go to scripture, but does that mean to the written scripture and quiet study? After all, we went 1400+ years between Jesus and the invention of the printing press.

My understanding of Christian “yoga” is that it includes meditation upon scripture. Additionally, we are to love God with mind, soul, heart and strength. In the ‘modernized’ world, people are generally MUCH less physically fit than in previous generations, and much of what is now seen as ’stress’ is partly caused by this – call it a lack of loving God with one’s strength. A number of physical activities – when taken in proper balance – are necessary. So the question becomes, is low-impact stretching (the physical component of “yoga”) an acceptable form of loving God with one’s strength?

MacArthur’s glib response, notwithstanding, gives no comprehensive answer.

Have you listened to the Mars Hill(GR) podcast from last week (Padgitt)? Have you listened to any recent podcasts from Mars Hill (Seattle)?

I think you’re going to be absent any widescale outrage in the ECM at Padgitt, because – unlike a denomination – Padgitt is accountable to his local church. There is no national organization to “dis-fellowship” him (or MacLaren, etc.). Like MacLaren, I would venture a guess that most people who attend EC churches couldn’t point him out in a crowd or quote anything he’s written. Those sympathetic to, but not part of, the movement, like myself, will likely say “I disagree with him on X”, but unless we’ve got friends in Minneapolis, we have no influence on his church.