Anonymous number 1 said:
Even when you apologize, you still offer a disclaimer and an "out." "Benefit of the doubt," indeed.
Howie, even if you had been correct in your understanding of Paul's sermon, your behavior been unscriptural and unworthy of a deacon. You got a lot of 'splainin' to do.
I knew when I wrote this last night I would need to clarify this, but it was very late. So please allow me to eat some more crow (I don't know what that really means, but it doesn't taste good. ;-) ).
1) First of all, I have been consistent over the years as a layperson who occasionally fills pulpits, to tell the people that they should interact publicly with what I preach. I truly believe that sermons are not to be merely listened but are to be interacted with, ripped apart if need be, examined in light of Scripture, debated and discussed. Why pay me $50 to come and speak to a congregation for 40 minutes to an hour if everyone just goes home and forgets about it.
Yes, I am a sermon geek. I take notes. My wife takes notes. I am teaching my son to take notes. We go home after the Sunday morning sermon and do something radically weird. We talk about the laws of logic. We examine how the text was interpreted. We look for traditions that may be being assumed without our realizing it. We really attempt to benefit from the sermons preached.
(A little kiss up here). For example, Pastor Paul's sermon yesterday was simply excellent. I didn't even realize that 55 minutes went by. My son took notes. We discussed the sermon throughout the afternoon. We were greatly blessed. We are just weird that way.
2) I have for several years now, interacted with sermons and beliefs from a wide range of people including my own pastors. The problem with the recent post (as several friends pointed out to me) was the fact I was too personal. Anonymous pointed to my "out". Please allow me to explain. I should have gotten the actual audio and transcripts. I should have only interacted with the texts that were under discussion. I should never have mentioned anything about Paul's interaction with myself. I should have kept it professional. I did not. It was simply wrong. I apologize again.
Another reason to have the actual primary documents is that if I am challenged or I need to defend Paul's view (which ever may be the case) I would be able to demonstrate the factual claims. I did not nor do I have anything but my notes. After having read Paul's letter to me last night, I have discovered (yes, I gladly welcome being wrong in this case) that Paul does not believe that unbelievers are already forgiven of their sins. He stated, “If you reject the payment that has been provided for you in My Son, you have to pay for your own sins which is eternity in hell.”
There is a vast difference in saying that Jesus actually (not hypothetically) paid the sin debt of unbelievers even if they never believe, verses saying Jesus' death is sufficient for everyone who believes (or something to that effect). My original accusation must be wrong. That was the main point of the post. What I heard and wrote down and what two other people heard as well, were in fact wrong. Therefore, I again eat dirt and apologize.
3) Anonymous is also concerned mainly about how I handled this. Although I believe public sermons are publicly given and are to be interacted with publicly (isn't this all over the book of Acts and the NT in general?), I made a mistake in prudence. A friend of mine reminded me of the prudential argumentation. This coupled with "attacking Paul" personally makes for a bad situation. I handled the situation poorly. I apologize.
I also made this personal; I should not have done so. I apologize.
4) I did forget to mention that I apparently misrepresented Paul’s view of the tabernacle. I had originally stated, “I was not offended that as a Dispensationalist, it would be said the Tabernacle in the Wilderness is a replica of some building in heaven.”
Apparently, Paul’s views are not what I said, even in general (I think). The last thing I want to do is misrepresent someone. I do not like it when people do it to me. I dread the thought of doing it to someone else. This would also have to include Paul’s views of the non-imputation of sin to unbelievers. It is clear from the letter that Paul does not believe that unbelievers have their sin forgiven until they believe and receive Christ. I was greatly mistaken. I apologize.
5) I did want to mention my challenging Paul to some kind of public discussion. We live in a Postmodern culture. The idea of actually submitting ourselves to that kind of situation is a long gone idea. It was not prudent of me to do so. I truly thought this kind of thing benefits the people of God. Most people today would disagree with me. Here is an example of how it could be done. Albert Mohler of SBTS and Paige Patterson, President of SEBTS discussed similar topics.
Nevertheless, Pastor Paul did tell me he is not good at extemporaneous speaking. I was putting him on the spot. I should not have done so. I was wrong. I apologize.
6) The reaction of most was that I was mean-spirited. The post reflects that whether I meant it or not. I am passionate about the doctrine of imputation as it relates to Justification. These are not mere doctrines for me. They are my life-blood. Imputation gives me reason for getting out of bed in the morning, including this morning (yes, I felt bad and lost sleep over this.) I apologize for the “mean” tone that I wrote with. I apologize again.
7) Because of my love for this doctrine, I truly am glad to be wrong. I am glad that Paul doesn't believe what I understood him to have said. I truly am. I have said it to several people. I am glad to retract the statement that I made.
2 comments:
Howard, I think you've eaten enough crow.
would you consider blogging on atonement and its ramifications? As a Catholic, your statemnt in another post interested me, and it might be worth elaboration. However, I don't want to insert myself into you congregational discuaaion, which I hope is settled.
At any rate, you wrote:
"I love that by His atoning death, He, as the high Priest of His people, has forever dealt with their sin and nothing can separate the Elect from the Love of God"
This causes me to wonder whether you believe that as such, you no longer need to ask forgiveness of sin, or if you need to repent again / more once you are saved.
If you want to address this, you might want to remove this from this topic, to avoid confusion. If you're not up to it, given what's been going on here, that's fine too.
The "other" Anon
Actually, that would make a great discussion. Reformed exegetes have indeed discussed that at length. I do not have a lot of material in my possession in my library though. I would be working with what material I have plus the commentaries I have plus the sermons I have listened to. I am not saying I need these to discuss it. Just to be better informed.
Perhaps very soon.
I have also preached through 1 John which gives great insight into the question. For what you are asking is if we are already forgiven en-toto, why ask again?
Post a Comment