After the miraculous healing of his daughter from Celiacs (an inflammatory,immune-mediated disorder that affects primarily the gastrointestinal tract, but also affects other organ systems) Iosif Ton, the premier and respected Baptist Leader and Theologian states that he believes the gifts of the Holy Spirit are for today, that they never ceased and that we must focus on Jesus when reading the Bible.
Here is a 60 minute interview he gave on the alfaomega.TV a Romanian TV channel. The video was posted 12/10/2010 at Strajeri.ro website. It is very well worth your time to view; you will feel convicted by what he says, yet simultaneously hopeful and empowered. The discussion is of course in Romanian:
You can read Iosif Ton’s statement about where God is leading him here
puteti sa cititi scrisoarea cu marturia ficeii sale in Romineste aici
you can also read his daughter’s healing testimony in English here
All three statements are linked from the Strajeri.ro site.
agnus dei - english + romanian blog 
dec. 16, 2010 @ 00:07:06
I watched the video. He might be right, i dont know.But for me , to be honest his approach did not work, My whole adult life i tried to keep the commandments, without success. Went to a bunch of seminars, preachers, tapes that had all kinds of advices of how to live the christian life and follow the commands. After two weeks i was back to my old habits. Until 3 years ago when God got a hold of me ( trough a series named „True Gospel”)and my life changed when i saw Him and the beauty of the Cross, and i felt His love, praying and asking for help by the side of my bed. It is the Cross that helps me go every day, and it is the cross that makes me fall, also, when my eyes are looking at something else.I can not leave my live thinking of the 49 or so commands every minute, ( it was hard for me to learn the ten)but i can live my life having Christ in my heart , meditating on what he did for me, praying to God to give me the desire to love Him. I disagree with brother Ton when he says that the commands should be our center not the cross. His commands are impossible to keep, apart from the love for him and apart from us gazing at his cross daily( desire is a better word than love, i love my dog , i love my car, this word does not mean much anymore).He said whoever loves Me, will keep my commandments, he did not say keeping my commandments equals loving Me. It is out of the desire for Him that the fruit of the spirit comes out.And God prepared the ways and the means to get those affections, and they are personal prayer, meditating on the word, fasting, singing. Whenever i do all these i really dont have to think of the commands anymore. Lately i got hooked on too many blogs( most of them , bloguri de controversa and debate, what i love to do ), and my desire for Him is mostly gone. God Bless You.
dec. 16, 2010 @ 09:48:07
Gabi, I like your answer and the fact that you personalize what you hear in a sermon. I have my impressions of what I understood Iosif Ton to mean when he said that, but I am going to listen to it again from your perspective and take notes on what I understand him to say about the cross and come back and discuss it further. Hey, who said the lay people have stuff go in one ear and out the other?
dec. 16, 2010 @ 10:06:55
Listen to the the part where he makes a distinction between the gospels and Paul teaching.
dec. 16, 2010 @ 22:47:10
Gabi here’s what I heard when I listened to it again: He states that there is no contradiction between the teaching of Jesus and the teaching of Paul (around minute 4:50)But then he says'”Cind pleci de la Pavel,..primesti o alta perspectiva decit cind pornesti de la Domnul Isus.”I think he’s saying Jesus’s teaching should be our starting point for our theology. He correctly then says that ‘Pavel nu face dect sa le dezvolte’ (referring to Jesus’s teaching).Then somewhere around minute 6 or 7 he says ‘Domnul Isus ne arata cum sa trcem de la Imparatia diavolului la Imparatia lui Dumnezeu. Crucea Lui e necesara pentr ca El anuleaza dreptul diavolului asupra noastra ne impaca cu justitia lui Dumnezeu, si obtine la cruce iertarea pacatelor. Dar toate astea u sunt deci poarta pe care iesim de sub cel rau si intram sub Stapinirea lui Dumnezeu. Si Iosif Ton declara ca din cauza asta crucea Domnului Isus e foarte importanta.
But then he states the purpose of Jesus was ‘sa implineasca planul pe care l-a facut Sfinta Treime in Gen 1:26. Sa facem om dupa chipul si asemanarea noastra, cu accentul ne invata sa fim desavirsiti cu Tatal nostru e desaviirsit. Zice ca poruncile Domnului Isus nu sunt optionale. Then he elaborates on how it is possible to keep Jesus’s commandments (not through our own power)
I decided to transcribe the whole thing, because I think it is a very important piece of doctrine. Iosif Ton speaks in such simple terms that anyone can understand, and it makes a lot of sense. It is easier to keep track of the flow of his conversation if you see it in print. I will try to publish it on the blog shortly. Gabi, he is describing what we believe and his doctrine has a Biblical basis. Looking forward to your comments once I publish it.
dec. 17, 2010 @ 01:42:16
i will wait for your transcript
dec. 17, 2010 @ 21:45:08
I should have it up by tomorrow.
dec. 18, 2010 @ 01:14:24
If you have time, i listened to John Piper, How to Fight for Joy , one of the best( and scariest ) sermons i listen in my life. It is from a conference in 2005, #2 message out of the 3 messages.
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/how-to-fight-for-joy-session-2
I learn that things that are excellent for me, might not be the same for others, and vice versa. You mention Mere Christianity, Christian Audio Books, has it on MP3 format, i listened to it 3 times so far, is that good. The guy that reads it, brings C.S.Lewis back to life.
dec. 18, 2010 @ 01:26:42
sounds like a great one. Thanks, and please tell your sister Dana that a couple of nights ago, her song ‘Tu ma ridici’ was a big source of comfort to me when my dad was feeling real sick. I cried my eyes out, but felt so uplifted at the end. Do you have a better clip-the only glitch is the mike squeals towards the end. If not, I like it so much that I would like to post anyways by next week.
dec. 18, 2010 @ 01:29:49
I am sorry, i dont.I will forward this to Dana.Thank you. How did you figure this out?
dec. 18, 2010 @ 01:31:12
That Dana is my sys?
dec. 18, 2010 @ 02:10:37
one of the blogs (CI, I think) although I knew of her from an old convention where she sang with the brass band and blew us all away with her talent.
dec. 22, 2010 @ 01:12:29
This is a quote from fr. Chiu , about fr. Ton new theology .It is exactly what I thought the first time I heard it. I am always aware of anybody that says that they have a new way of looking at things. If in 2000 years nobody came up with it, most likely you wrong.
În ce priveşte radiografia ce i se face lui Iosif Ţon, ea poate fi executată la mai multe niveluri şi planuri. Am văzut că o evaluare etică a lui Iosif Ţon îl lasă foarte uşor în cumpănă, carenţele sale fiind pe cât de evidente pe atât de mari. Mi se pare că indivizii care preferă o evaluare scolastică a unei personalităţi în dauna celei morale, subordonează dimensiunea etică discursului cognitiv. Ori se ştie că în Biserica lui Christos nu cunoştinţele dau măsura adevărată a individului, ci integritatea trăirii (vezi cazul lui Iov). S-ar putea obiecta că o analiză etică este supusă abuzului putând să cadă uşor pradă subiectivismului sau calomniei (şi aşa este), dar putem oare refuza balanţa pe care ne-a îmbiat-o Domnul Isus spre a evalua indivizii când a afirmat că roadele sunt definitorii pentru stabilirea identităţii spirituale şi nu cunoştinţele? Conform acestei balanţe nu învăţătura oferită de Iosif Ţon în trecut certifică sau infirmă autenticitatea lui ca şi creştin şi lucrător, ci trăirea lui. Dar dacă unii au protestat împotriva caracterizării etice a lui Iosif Ţon, am văzut că nici evaluarea lui teologică nu a dus la o greutate mai mare. Salut studiul intreprins de fratele Radu Gheorghiţă asupra subţirilor dar megalomanicelor teze elaborate până acum de Iosif Ţon cu privire la noua lui înţelegere şi orientare teologică. Supusă unei analize exigente şi riguroase, noua teologie ce se vrea deschizătoare de drumuri s-a dovedit a nu fi decât un moft, ceea ce dovedeşte că atâta timp cât Iosif Ţon a rămas în barierele teologiei protestante tradiţionale a fost un bun învăţător (didact), pe când acum când este animat de morbul originalităţii nu este capabil decât de elaborări jalnice. Este dreaptă aprecierea propie că are darul de învăţător, dar îi lipsesc acele simţiri cumpătate despre sine atât de necesare în discernera darurilor şi a chemării acordate de Marele Păstor.
Disjuncţia acuzată de Iosif Ţon între Evanghelii şi Epistole, sesizată şi de Radu Gheorghiţă, este vinovată (în ultimul secol) de apariţia şcolii teologice ce denaturează învăţătura Domnului nostru substrăgându-i elemente esenţiale şi caricaturizând-o, iar pe apostolul Pavel îl face responsabil de „coruperea” creştinismului primar, şi nu în ultimul rând de apariţia feminismului. Nu ne putem aştepta decât la similare monstruozităţi teologice în cazul în care se urmăreşte aceeaşi pistă iluzorie. Distincţia între teologia Evangheliilor şi cea a Epistolelor este probabil una îndreptăţită sau necesară din raţiuni didactice, dar nicidecum dogmatice. Ea nu poate în nici un fel justifica percepţia că cele două segmente sunt divergente şi permit dezvoltarea unor teologii contradictorii.
dec. 22, 2010 @ 11:09:21
Gabi, I have also read some of these responses. My observation is that some are shot from the hip. By that I mean, the message was combed through with a fine tooth comb for any sentence or word that can then be criticized. I’ll tell you that listening to the message, versus reading it on paper gives you a whole different impression. Because, after you wince hearing fratele Ton say ‘new theology’ you think, by that, he means he is demolishing all previous theologies, and your mind ‘listens and looks’ for things to support that conclusion. And, quite honestly, I think some (a few) of those folks did not listen to the entire message, just up to the parts they heard or read about on blogs. Many people comment from Radu Gheorghita’s comments and assertions. As for me, I need to read word for word for myself, before I make up my mind. That is why I took hours to transcribe the message. Please encourage people to read the whole thing when you pass it along. And I respect diverse views, everyone will read into this message what is important to them and what helps them live out their life for Christ.
I can not understand how any theologian can feel threatened by Iosif Ton telling us to read and do what Jesus said in the Gospels. That leaves me dumbfounded.
If Jesus says, I am the vine and you are the branches see John 15:
1″I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
This IS Iosif Ton’s main point: To abide in Him- I must read what He (Jesus) said! First. (If I see something wrong with that statement. then my love for Christ has grown cold) There is a serious debate as to whether we should read Jesus more and before we read Paul?
Iosif Ton says that Paul expounds on what Jesus said. Therefore, read what Jesus said, and do what Jesus said, and then read Paul, who takes what Jesus said and expounds it. But the first importance should be given to whom? Paul or the Son of God. (same controversy in the Roman Catholic Church-first importance should be given to whom- the teachings of the Church or the Son of God)? May sound simplistic, but I don’t see how anyone can attack Iosif Ton’s view (I am referring here to the Baptist preachers and leaders) with a bunch of nitpicking and not address this central issue: IS IT WRONG TO GIVE FIRST IMPORTANCE TO THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS? That’s what I would like to see the detractors answer because if you read his entire statement, this is what Iosif Ton is affirming. And Gabi, I can tell you that there are many American (Reformed, Baptist) preachers (Matt Chandler to name one) who, led by the Holy Spirit also proclaim Jesus Christ first, and tie their messages/sermons to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Maybe the detractors don’t want to concede any points whatsoever to fratele Ton because after all they feel betrayed by his belief in the works of the Holy Spirit is contrary to their ‘traditional views’, but if we were honest, this one (Jesus as the central point) fratele Ton gets right.
dec. 22, 2010 @ 01:28:13
Here is another one. You dont have to post these.
another guy that takes on Ton and on his new way of seeing the bible. exactly what I thought when I heard the sermon
Raspunsul unui teolog mai tânar – Radu Gheorghita catre Iosif Ton
Articol adăugat în: 11/12/2010 23:21
[măreşte imaginea]
Draga frate Iosif,
Multumim pentru mesajul trimis si pentru clarificarile suplimentare. Inainte sa va raspund, vreau sa apreciez tonul decent al dialogului din ultimele mesaje, si sa va conving ca nu-l iau ca pe ceva de apucat. In ce ma priveste, am dorinta de a-l mentine la aceiasi parametri.
Sper ca cel putin acest lucru bun sa iasa din tumultul ultimelor saptamani … ca teologii romani stiu si sa dialogheze in mod decent, nu doar sa se certe si sa se cotonogeasca in public. Ideal ar fi sa stam laolalta la o sedere in care sa dezbatem aceste chestiuni; in lipsa acestui lux, trebuie sa ne multumim cu internetul, nu tocmai mediul ideal pentru un dialog substantial. Voi relua acest lucru spre final.
In raspunsul pe care vi-l dau nu intentionez sa ma fac un purtator de cuvant al celor de pe lista. Tinand insa cont de ultimul meu mesaj, care banuiesc ca v-a iritat mai mult decat am anticipat (cel putin asa mi-am explicat multiplele referinte la „tradare”) vreau sa va raspund interactionand pe scurt cu cateva ideile pe care le-ati inclus in mesaj, trimitand gandurile mele tuturor celor de pe lista. Nu ma voi lega de toate punctele din el pentru ca ar necesita prea mult timp si spatiu. Ma voi concentra doar asupra chestiunilor pe care le vad mai vulnerabile in pozitia pe care ne-ati prezentat-o.
1. … Am ajuns sa inteleg ca de la Martin Luther incoace teologia protestanta se construieste pe Epistola catre Romani (mai exact, se considera ca ”Evanghelia” se reduce la ceea ce Pavel scrie in Romani 3:1 – 5:2). Eu am devenit convins ca ”Evanghelia” este in cele patru Evanghelii si am luat decizia sa-mi construiesc teologia pe invataturile Domnului scrise in aceste patru Evanghelii. Dupa cate stiu eu, nimeni in epoca moderna n-a mai incercat un asemenea demers. Ceea ce am obtinut eu este o noua teologie crestina, sau, daca vreti, un nou fel de crestinism!
Ar fi atat de multe lucruri de discutat aici incat imi vine greu sa ma decid la care sa ma limitez. Voi evita in mod deliberat interactiunea cu ultimele doua, trei fraze pentru ca, sper, sunt scrise pentru a fi citite hiperbolic. Am sesizat de mai multe ori, si in predicile dumneavoastra, si in carti, ca apelati la astfel de afirmatii. Doar faptul ca Crestinismul si ideile lui au deja 2000 de ani si sunt raspandite pe tot globul ar impune o retinere fata de afirmatii de acest fel (chiar daca sunt calificate cu „in epoca moderna”). Cum vreti sa intelegem noi aceste afirmatii? Vreti sa sustineti ca de la apostoli pana la dumneavoastra nimeni nu a mai gandit lucrurile in felul acesta? Sau, ca de la scrierea Evangheliilor adevaratul Crestinism a intrat in con de umbra pana in sec. XXI? Va dati seama de implicatiile acestor afirmatii , si de motivul pentru care ele nu pot fi luate in serios?
Trec acum la miezul problemelor. Observati cum fortati o bresa in ruperea Cuvantului lui Dumnezeu (Noul Testament) in doua esaloane valorice: Pavel vs. Evanghelii. Ce se intelege din paragraful de mai sus este ca incercarea de a-ti construi teologia (evanghelizarea, sfintirea, slujirea, etc.) pe teologia cartii Romani este inferioara celei facute pe Evanghelii. In esenta, dumneavoastra considerati Evangheliile mai „autentice” decat invatatura lui Pavel.
Faceti aici doua greseli capitale, pe care biblistii le cunosc foarte bine. In primul rand, introduceti o ierarhizare a scrierilor canonice – exact ceea ce a facut si Luther, cu diferenta ca el s-a apropiat mai mult de Pavel. Este ca si cand ati spune, imprumutandu-i vocabularul colorat, „Epistolele lui Pavel sunt epistole de paie; eu merg la Evanghelii”…. Afirm cu cea mai mare serioziate ca nici un Crestin nu are dreptul sa faca acest lucru. Vocea lui Dumnezeu in Scripturile Noului Testament este la fel de audibila, valabila si necesara in Ep. lui Iuda ca si in Evanghelia lui Ioan. Nimeni nu are dreptul sa clasifice si sa ierarhizeze scrierile NT dupa cum li se pare (dupa cat sunt de largi, cat sunt de autentice, cand au fost scrise, etc). Toate sunt egale! Si adevaratul Crestin se va pozitiona echidistant fata de ele. Acesta este temelia pe care „Sola Scriptura” se bazeaza. Nu cred ca trebuie sa va reamintesc ca preferinta teologilor liberali din sec. XIX a fost tocmai aceasta rupere intre invataturile lui Isus din Evanghelii si cele din epistolele lui Pavel, pe care ei il fac responsabil de deraierea Crestinismului original.
A doua greseala comisa este exact opusul primeia: nu incercati sa observati, sa apreciati si sa exploatati la adevarata valoare diversitatea teologica a scrierilor NT. Pe de-o parte, valoric il puneti pe Pavel sub Evanghelii; de cealalta insa il puneti pe Ioan in aceeasi categorie cu Sinopticii. Aici va faceti vinovat de o inconsecventa metodologica ce nu poate ramane netaxata. Aceleasi ratiuni care va fac sa il cititi pe Pavel cu alti ochi decat Evangheliile, ar trebui sa fie si ratiunile pentru care Ioan sa fie citit altfel decat Sinopticii. Nu puteti sa-i departajati pe autorii NT unul de celalalt in unele cazuri si sa ii amestecati in altele, dupa cum va convine. Daca Pavel spune altceva decat Sinopticii si nu poate fi armonizat cu ei (si mi se pare ca dumneavoastra sustineti acest lucru) atunci si Ioan spune altceva decat Sinopticii si nici el nu poate fi armonizat cu ei.
Ca sa ma fac si mai bine inteles: Noul Testament are mai multe formule de evanghelizare (ma leg de evanghelizare pentru ca acest lucru il scoateti si dumneavoastra in evidenta). Sunt de acord cu dumneavoastra pana aici. Unde nu sunt de acord este faptul ca afirmati ca evanghelizarea dupa stilul Evangheliilor (unde ii puneti pe Ioan, Marcu, Matei, Luca laolalta FARA sa diferentiati nuantele teologice specifice fiecaruia) este superioara, mai corecta, mai autentica decat evanghelizarea dupa stilul lui Pavel. Inclin sa cred ca Pavel nu ar fi de acord cu dumneavoastra. In ultima instanta, primul secol de evanghelizare si implicit raspandirea exploziva a crestinismului intre ne-Iudei a fost mai mult rezultatul evanghelizarilor de tip Pavel si nu cel de tip Evanghelii. Deci nu cred ca ati gresit cu nimic in evanghelizarile din trecut: cererea de iertare pe care ati inaintat-o bisericii din Manastur a fost neavenita.
Spiritualitatea pe care o promovati isi are suport in Evanghelia lui Ioan – dar nu mai departe de aceasta evanghelie. Locuirea credinciosului de catre Sfanta Treime este nuanta teologica a lui Ioan, dar nu o veti gasi in Sinoptici. Ea se regaseste sub alte accente in Efeseni (plini de Dumnezeu, plini de IC, plini de DS) dar intrucat preferati sa renuntati la Pavel in creionarea spiritualitatii dumneavoastra, nu il puteti lua acum ca sprijin. De altfel, trebuie sa afirm cu aceeasi tarie ca Evanghelia lui Ioan trebuie echilibrata de celelalte evanghelii si de epistole. De aceea le avem pe toate. Nu degeaba gnosticii favorizau Evanghelia lui Ioan si cautau in ea suport pentru invataturile lor mistice, elitiste!
dec. 22, 2010 @ 11:25:27
I was just reading the difference between the Synoptics (Matthew,Mark,Luke) and the Gospel of John last night. From the last statement, in the Radu Gheorghita statement you pasted into your comment, I say this-Now who is saying that some books of the Bible (the Synoptics) are more important/useful than the Gospel of John because some gnostic heretics favored using the Gospel of John? Looks to me like the ‘pot calling the kettle black’, doesn’t it? Hopefully this debate will spur more love for the Word of God and study of what we believe and why. Doesn’t that seem to be the topic that exploded on Vasilica’s RM blog, started by you? 🙂
dec. 23, 2010 @ 00:14:15
Not that one, I started some other ones though. I have to check it out. Don’t go much on that blog anymore. Usually debates bring out the truth and help you know what you believe. Most of the big doctrines of our faith were formed out of controversy and heresies. What is interesting is first came the heresy and than the truth .
The problem with most blogs is that they do not debate ideas and the bible. I am not sure if you saw the one on C.I. blog around Calvinism. Every time when anyone tried to debate some text from the bible, it was ignored and everyone went back to stereotypes and name calling .
dec. 23, 2010 @ 07:38:06
I agree with you on the (non) debates taking place. And yes, I did read that piece. The style of debate is a non answer and it does not work for our generation. However I understand the point of view and style- it comes mainly by looking at the subject as potential heresy and then studying the subject from that point of view. That is why it’s hard to answer our questions. I think one of the fears is that by embracing predestination we touch on the atonement of Christ-the old John 3:16 verse, Christ died for all debate or just the elect.
There are so many verses in the Bible that clearly state that we are predestined, I remember when I started searching, I pulled out my old King James Bible, because I thought my ESV Bible might have had a different translation in the wording, it did not! I don’t have a cohesive understanding of it, but I know that when I started to believe that there was some sort of predestination, I did feel more indebted to God and Christ and my love for God and Christ grew, and my interest in His word and what it means to me, radically changed my life.
dec. 23, 2010 @ 01:01:12
We might have to agree to desagree on this one. It is like what’s more important the glass or the water? you can not drink water with no glass, but you can not quench your thirst with the glass only.My short opinion on the subject, is when the Lord came , he took the law from hard format to a impossible format. If we would have been left only with the gospels we would have been doomed. Piper in the sermon I gave you the link explains it better.I think by believing the Gospel, by looking at Christ every day and moment we will be able to fulfill the commands of Christ. I believe that whatever Pavel wrote is the same as if Jesus spoke, I can not make a difference . And I know why most of theologians do not like Paul, it is because his teachings on grace, specially first eleven chapters of Romans( with Romans 9), and the first 3 chapters of Epheseni. And Ton is somewhere between a semipalegian and a palegian, I heard him. He believes that you have to keep the commands in order to keep your salvation. I believe the opposite , I keep the commands for I love Christ.
I’ll give a illustration
A chemistry teacher comes in the class at the begining of the year and says: students, at the end of the year everyone gets a a regardless of what you do:
now you have 3 groups
#1 when they hear this they will walk out of class and do whatever they want to do for they know they will get an A.
#2 they don’t believe the teacher and they start studying like crazy , not sleeping at night, reading all kinds of books . This group usually burns out before the end of the year.
#3 this group when they hear that they are free to do whatever they like, they are all happy and almost never live the lab for they want to do as many experiments as possible.
See that? who are going to be the true scientists?
To be honest, I wish I could be out of the third group, but I am a little bit out of each, depends of the season, I guess.
dec. 23, 2010 @ 07:48:49
Maybe we disagree about the different route to get to the same point. (I think that statement can be made about Arminians/Calvinists too). What fratele Ton does for me is point me to Christ(God). And do you remember in school when they taught us math, how they taught us to check our answers? (Of 2+3=5, then 5-3=2) That whole piece I transcribed is to me a kind of well being check and example of checking my answer. If I say I am elect and God chose me (because anyone can believe they are ‘elect’ even someone who is not, who on that day will say ‘Lord, Lord didn’t I do this or that for you?’) how can I test myself to know? One way is to look at my life and see if I am abiding in Jesus. Yes, sin may still come, for no one is sinless while they are breathing, however, if I presist in sin for years, or a lifetime, then something is wrong and I am fooling myself.
dec. 23, 2010 @ 07:59:54
by the way, I am going to post John Piper’s audio clip ‘Fight for joy’ along with Paul Washer’s, and some others since many people are out of school, and life slows down for all of us, so I am hoping people make time to listen to them because they are so enriching.