An Open Blog Post To the Interim Pastor,
Well, I didn’t want to make a big deal out of it, but I was taken aback. I was amazed that with no exegesis of the text, I heard more contradictory claims in 45 minutes from Paul than I think I have heard in any other sermon.
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. I was not even offended that the color silver on the posts of the gate of the Tabernacle somehow by an ipsi dixit claim means the Word of God. I was not even offended at the oft-repeated claim that Jesus had to be born of a virgin because the sin nature is inherited through the male and not the female. I was not even overly concerned with the claim that the Jewish sacrifices at the Tabernacle were intended for the whole world and not just for the Jewish people, thereby ignoring the established Dividing Wall between circumcised and uncircumcised due to the nature of the Old Covenant. I was, however, offended that someone could take a phrase with an historical definition for hundreds of years and redefine it without the slightest concern for truth or Biblical warrant.
For a pastor in a pulpit to redefine Vicarious, Substitutionary Atonement knowing full well that I have tried several times to interact with him is simply hiding behind a “Bully Pulpit”. It is a shame that one who claims that pastors are subject to Deacons and are to receive correction when demonstrated to be in error would refuse to be consistent and actually interact with his fellow leaders in the local church.
Pastor Paul, I love the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement. I love the truth that Jesus Christ has taken my sin and has imputed to me by faith in Him His righteousness. 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.
I believe I must publicly warn you and those, whom you have taught, are on the border of Universalism. Historically, men who recognize that Jesus’ atoning work is not hypothetical and yet believe “World” means “every single person ever” (1 John 2:2) almost always lead a movement into Universalism. Your understanding that Jesus propitiated the sins of every single individual ever is flawed. Your attempt to prove by an illustration instead of the Biblical text that men go to hell because they don’t choose to receive the gift, while at the same time have their sins forgiven is flawed at best.
For example, to argue that Jesus paid the sin debt owed by man and at the same time man rejects that payment is a clear contradiction. Either Christ paid the sin debt by His death or He didn’t. If He did pay the sin debt through His substitutionary death and as you say “men choose not to go to heaven”, only proves logically and soundly that there must there must be a third place for men to go, who don’t believe in Christ but have their sins forgiven.
24 comments:
"For example, to argue that Jesus paid the sin debt owed by man and at the same time man rejects that payment is a clear contradiction."
As the wildfire was bearing down on the little contry church, an angel of God appeard to the pastor and told him not to fear the flames, because God already paid for the pastor's escape. Much relieved, the pastor went about his normal business.
A stranger passing in a taxi cab saw the pastor outide of the church and offered to share his ride to safer ground, but the pastor kindly declined.
"God has already paid for my escape, but thank you anyway."
Unable to get the pastor to get into his car and leave with him, the stranger and the cappibe left for safer ground without him.
Within ten minutes, a wind whipped up the flames to a firestorm that consumed the church and burnt the poor pastor to ashes.
When he arrived in heaven he asked God what went wrong. God replied, "You refused to take the cab I sent you. I paid for it, but you refused it. That's why the flames took you."
Anonymous, I deleted the others responses, for they are ignorant of the New Testament and how the church is to function from a Biblical perspective. They were simply ridiculous and mean-spirited.
This last one I wish to let Pastor Paul respond to if he likes. For Theology Matters. I assume you are the Roman Catholic that I have interacted (one-sided that is) with before. Your analogy demonstrates my pastor's inconsistent viewpoints of the nature of man and God is not able to withstand the Roman Catholic Apologetic, because in essence, his view of man is exactly like yours! He even offered an illustration in his sermon that is exactly like yours!
God Bless
You should not assume.
"He even offered an illustration in his sermon that is exactly like yours"
Well, good for him!
By the way, I also believe Jesus is God. does that also render that doctrine suspect?
"You should not assume."
Well, you have my apology. I have been interacting with someone with that nick for well over a week. He was also mean-spirited and misunderstood what I believe. It is hard to know who the anonymous are when they are anonymous.
"By the way, I also believe Jesus is God. does that also render that doctrine suspect?"
I have no idea what you are getting at.
As for the other posts that I deleted, you are clearly being mean-spirited. I reject your assertions and your assumptions about what I believe. If you truly want to know what I believe then have a real conversation with honest questions.
God Bless
"If you truly want to know what I believe then have a real conversation with honest questions."
I try, but you keep deleting my questions.
Why would it be "unbiblical" as you say, for you to leave that church or to start your own? What made it "biblical" for Calvin?
I honestly want to know why your view does not lead you to leave this church or start one of your own. I also want to know why you think it is "mean spirited" to ask you.
"Why would it be "unbiblical" as you say, for you to leave that church or to start your own? What made it "biblical" for Calvin?"
1) The Reformers have already made their defense of what they did.
2) You seem to have a very different view of the meaning of church, in its structure and authority.
3) I have a very high view of Scripture.
4) I also have a very high view of the local church. It is not just a group of people that are members of the New Covenant, but all that New Covenant entails. We become in covenant membership with one another. To throw that under the bus every time something happens in a local church is nonsense.
5) The Apostle Paul and the rest of the NT writers explained that false doctrines will always be in and outside of the local church.
I am attempting to deal with the problem Scripturally.
Going back to the Calvin issue, remember, Luther before him did not seek to leave the church. They sought to kill him. Don't think for a moment they would not have done the same to Calvin.
Ultimately though, it comes down to the truth that the Gospel defines the local and universal church.
So your questions are filled with false images of the Reformers and a false understanding of the Gospel and a false understanding of the local church.
God Bless
"1) The Reformers have already made their defense of what they did.'
Then why can't you do the same as they did? You obviously believe their leaving heresy behind and forming their own churches is defended. What makes their leaving defensible, but prevents you from doing so.
2) You seem to have a very different view of the meaning of church, in its structure and authority.
That is true, which is why I'm trying to understand yours.
3) I have a very high view of Scripture.
OK. I also have a very high view of scripture. So...?
4) I also have a very high view of the local church. It is not just a group of people that are members of the New Covenant, but all that New Covenant entails. We become in covenant membership with one another. To throw that under the bus every time something happens in a local church is nonsense.
I'm not sure what you mean by "I also have a very high view of the local church." If you start your own church, then that's about as "local" as you can get, isn't it?
Why is it bad to throw your covenant with the local church under the buss, but it is OK for the reformers to have done so, not only with their local churches, but the church worldwide? Is local church heresy exempt from "reformation?"
Or are you saying that it would be bad to break with your local church, but it would be fine for you to break with the Reformed Baptist church?
5) The Apostle Paul and the rest of the NT writers explained that false doctrines will always be in and outside of the local church.
Apparently Luther did not realize this. Using your argument, you ought to be a Catholic.
"I am attempting to deal with the problem Scripturally."
Have you gone to the elders? Did you take some brothers / elders with you and speak to this pastor privately before you publicly chastised him? Exactly what "scriptural" procedure are you trying to follow? If he refuses to "repent" will you remove him from your midst? If he refuses to go, then what?
By the way,
I've not seen an response from your pastor. Has he read your blog? Has he replied to you in any way?
Anonymous, I can not believe you are not the RC I have been interacting with. All your questions have a presupposition that I do not believe. You have never bothered to defend your presuppositions for the basis of your knowledge from past conversations.
You are trying to trick me into accepting Rome's ultimate authority claim. I have been down this path several times, including with you.
"Apparently Luther did not realize this. Using your argument, you ought to be a Catholic."
Vast problems here. You want to discuss this. I don't believe you do. It is not even the point of this post. If you want, email me from the side bar.
"I've not seen an response from your pastor. Has he read your blog? Has he replied to you in any way?"
This issue has nothing to do with you. So don't worry.
Howie... I personally was not here to hear the Tabernacle series that Paul preached, therefore I won't bother with any of the scriptural arguments that have been presented...right now anyways. My biggest problem here is the manner at which you have confronted this issue that you have with Paul's teachings. I understand that you have different pressuppositions than Paul, and that your view on pre-destination is obviously very different. This does not mean however that you have the right to attack Paul publically on your blog. The manner at which you have confronted this problem seems "mean-spirited"...whether with good intentions or not. This issue comes solely down to interpretation of the scripture. Essentially it's "Paul's word V Howie's" If you truely have a problem with his teaching, then I think it would be wise to talk to Paul privately...and pray.
As for my $0.02 worth... I find it hard to believe that God would choose some, and condemn the rest to Hell. Under my personal views, since we're born again Christians, we will both find ourselves in Heaven with Christ. Following your views of being "elect", what are we living for? We could both be chosen, and go to Heaven... or both strive hard after God's heart spreading His word...and go to hell. What if I'm not of the elect...what if you're not? That being said, what's the point of faith? You can post a rebuttal if you'd like... however, I've listened to this very topic enough in your sunday school class to know what you will more than likely say.
God Bless,
A former student
Former Student,
Nice of you to comment. I hope you don't mind my interacting with a coupe of things.
1) "his does not mean however that you have the right to attack Paul publicly on your blog."
First, I never attacked Paul. Paul preached a particular perspective from the Pulpit. Once he preaches from the pulpit, errors that are preached are not in the same arena as say someone that needs correction in private. Would you think critiquing Benny Hinn publicly to be wrong? Of course not. His teachings are public.
I have tried to talk to Paul privately. He insisted on preaching from the pulpit this belief that contradicts all of the Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation. This just isn’t my personal opinion verses Paul’s. Paul is preaching inconsistently with the text and what Protestants have exegeted Scripture to say about imputation for centuries.
Also, I never attacked Paul personally. This is not personal. I disagreed with his doctrine. This is about the Gospel.
2) "This issue comes solely down to interpretation of the scripture. Essentially it's "Paul's word V Howie's""
This statement presupposes that Scripture is unclear on this subject. It is not. Christians that deny the clarity of Scripture must do so in order to maintain their traditions for all kinds of various reasons.
I more than demonstrated his error on this point several times and in different ways.
This is not just a teaching that we may all agree to disagree. The doctrine of imputation has had an historical meaning for several hundred years. If we are going to disagree with it, we need to come up with more than just a proof text.
3) "I understand that you have different pressuppositions than Paul, and that your view on pre-destination is obviously very different."
You are in fact wrong. Paul did preach on Ephesians chapter 1, and in his sermon on predestination he said exactly what I would have said. I do remember that after he dealt with the text and exposited it, he then added his "personal opinions", which contradicted himself. But he stated those were his opinions and not what the text he had just exegeted said.
Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument. But it does not mean that Paul is some kind of heretic as the other anonymous said. There is a vast difference between someone who is inconsistent in their theology than someone who knowingly and willfully rejects the Gospel en-Toto.
4) As for your other comments on election and faith and works, they have nothing to do with what I believe. Whatever it is you think I have said in the past, you might want to email me and clarify your understanding. This format is not the place.
As a former Student, I would hope you would accurately represent what I have taught. I expect nothing less from my former students. :-)
God Bless
Howard
Former Student,
"I've listened to this very topic enough in your sunday school class to know what you will more than likely say."
Based on that last paragraph and rereading it again this morning, I don't think you do know what I will say. If you did you would never say:
"Following your views of being "elect", what are we living for? We could both be chosen, and go to Heaven... or both strive hard after God's heart spreading His word...and go to hell."
Again, I don't know what you heard me say, for I rarely spoke on election. In fact, I don't remember if I ever really went through it at all (aside from the high school debate on the nature of grace). I did however speak at great lengths on the doctrine of justification and imputation, which is what this post is about.
I am always amazed at what people hear as opposed to what is said. If you go back to that debate between the high school class and myself, the cross examination period is very clear that the students were not able to understand the simple Biblical concepts of original sin verses original righteousness when we discussed the nature of man verses the resurrection power of Christ.
Anyway, thanks for the comment.
God Bless
"As for your other comments on election and faith and works, they have nothing to do with what I believe. Whatever it is you think I have said in the past, you might want to email me and clarify your understanding. This format is not the place."
Then why is this format is the place for you to confront Paul?
Former Student,
"Then why is this format is the place for you to confront Paul?"
Because that is not what this post is about. I have written on that topic in other places. This is supposed to be about Paul's view of the non-imputation of sin and Paul's view of Justification.
If you would like for me to clarify the issue of election with you, then please write to me or comment where I have written about that in particular.
You need not remain anonymous. I really do not hold it against people when they disagree with me. I do not think Paul is some kind of heretic as the other anonymous implied. Paul is a good Christian man who is being inconsistent at this point. I am challenging him publicly because he has refused private correction and instead chosen to preach this view from the pulpit.
We don't the next minister to come in and preach the Biblical view of jusification and imputation only to contradict Paul. This sends a confusing message to the Congregation.
The other problem that I am attempting to deal with is the "how" we interpret Scripture from the Pulpit. If we give "sound bite theology" and "proof texts" as our means of proving our assertions, then we indirectly teach the layperson how to mishandle the Word of God.
Hope this helps.
God Bless
"You have never bothered to defend your presuppositions for the basis of your knowledge from past conversations."
Huh? I couldn't if I wanted to, as I have no idea what that is supposed to mean?
Again. Do not assume. More than one person in the world might be reading the same sort of things into what you present on this blog. I've read a fair amount of your writing, looking at samples from your earliest on--and I see the same themes over and over that you regard anyone who does not understand atonement in the same way that you do is preaching "another gospel" and is pretty much damned.
Why do you make an exception for this pastor?
"I see the same themes over and over that you regard anyone who does not understand atonement in the same way that you do is preaching "another gospel" and is pretty much damned."
Interesting assertion. Care to back that up? This post is about Pastor Paul's view of justification and imputation. I have no idea why you want me to go in all other kinds of directions.
Also, it is not just "my view". I could cite Creeds and Confessions that show I didn't make this up, but that those who take Sola Scriptura seriously have come to these conclusions for centuries.
Again, if you want to have these kinds of discussions please go tot he debate board where this kind of thing is much easier to follow.
http://pub7.bravenet.com/forum/551833608
I realize this is a free board with advertisements, but wouldn't that be simpler to answer all of these other objections?
"Do not assume. More than one person in the world might be reading the same sort of things into what you present on this blog."
You ask the same things as Anonymous of last week asked. You are obviously coming from an RC perspective. If you want to convert my thinking to Rome's go to the other board and give it your best shot.
Confused: did you ever respond to this question?
"Have you gone to the elders? Did you take some brothers / elders with you and speak to this pastor privately before you publicly chastised him? Exactly what "scriptural" procedure are you trying to follow? If he refuses to "repent" will you remove him from your midst? If he refuses to go, then what?"
Howie,
Seems to me by the looks of things that you have managed to upset quite a few people. After reading your post and some of the responses to it, I must say that I am a little disappointed. You speak of not wanting to publically clarify responses in this format yet you openly discuss your issues with Paul here. What is the difference? If you are willing to talk about YOUR Pastor, whether his teachings be public or not, (referal to Benny Henn here is just sad), in a public forum then why not address said issues? I don't see the difference.
Along those lines you speak of all the issues in Paul's sermon that supposedly do not offend you, is that really necessary? From personal experience I have found that if someone deems it necessary to bring up issues that don't bother them, especially in something like this, its usually because they really are offended, and don't want to completely focus on it but want to make their issues known.
I was not able to hear Paul's sermon, so I do not know what was said but from my understanding to what you posted it obviously struck a cord with you. I don't know where your issue is. Is it with what was said or with the fact that Paul won't debate with you? I know you have different views on some christian beliefs. We've discussed them before. Just because someone doesnt agree with you doesnt make them wrong and just because they wont aruge with you doesnt make it right to publically rant about them in this manner. I for one am not impressed. Paul is not obligated to discuss his view points with you even though you are a deacon, especially if confronted the way he was. And you as a deacon in the church should know the right way to go about this matter.
Although I disagree with some of the statements made about men choosing whether or not they go to Heaven or Hell, I choose not to discuss that for we have already had this discussion on more than one occasion.
Howie, I think you need to look at your actions in this matter. They were by far inappropriate and the responses that you have gotten confirm that. I would suggest that you take a look back and reflect on them for a while.
Also a former student who chooses not to remain annon.
Lesli Taylor
Howdy Leslie,
"You speak of not wanting to publically clarify responses in this format yet you openly discuss your issues with Paul here."
I only meant that I was not willing to go down paths that a Roman Catholic was trying to go in defending Rome.
I am more than willing to interact with what I wrote and what this particular post is about. Blog forums get bogged down much too quickly to discuss whether or not Luther and Calvin were wrong for leaving Rome when the topic is about a particular point of doctrine.
"Along those lines you speak of all the issues in Paul's sermon that supposedly do not offend you, is that really necessary?"
Perhaps you have a point here. I was simply trying to avoid the criticism that I got anyway. (That I was being picky about everything.) I was simply trying to show that I, like many, may disagree with many things yet those things do not bring me to the point of saying "he should go". Instead, the issue for me is the Gospel.
"I don't know where your issue is. Is it with what was said or with the fact that Paul won't debate with you?"
My issue was the non-imputation of sin to unbelievers. Apparently, since so many are misunderstanding what was said, I must be unclear on this. Therefore, I should take the blame.
"Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them wrong and just because they wont argue with you doesn't make it right to publicly rant about them in this manner."
It seems that I was not taking the prudent route. I agree. I still do not see how remaining silent about the fundamental aspect of the Gospel is right. He preached from the pulpit that unbelievers have the forgiveness of sin, whether they believe that or not. This is just wrong and should be publicly stated.
"Howie, I think you need to look at your actions in this matter. They were by far inappropriate and the responses that you have gotten confirm that."
I will do so.
Thanks for your comments, Leslie. I really do appreciate them.
Howard
Anon,
"Have you gone to the elders? Did you take some brothers / elders with you and speak to this pastor privately before you publicly chastised him?"
We do not have Elders, plural. I had written a letter to the Deacon board but that would be after the fact.
Exactly what "scriptural" procedure are you trying to follow?
A public proclamation that tells unbelievers they are already forgiven is something I chose to publicly say is wrong. Prudentially, it has been argued that I was wrong.
"If he refuses to "repent" will you remove him from your midst? If he refuses to go, then what?"
I have no authority to do anything of the sort.
God Bless
"I only meant that I was not willing to go down paths that a Roman Catholic was trying to go in defending Rome."
I've read and re-read these comments, and I don't see where a "Roman Catholic was trying to go in defending Rome." What are you talking about?
"I've read and re-read these comments, and I don't see where a "Roman Catholic was trying to go in defending Rome." What are you talking about?"
for the record, I am indeed a Catholic and Howard is correct in a way: I was trying to shed light on this situation ion a way that would compare and contrast Protestant views of authority and salvation with Catholic views.
However, this post has obviously hit on some congregational issues that really are not my business, and that I'm not helping by inserting my commentary into it. Sorry.
So rather than let my silence allow you to snipe at Howard for evading you, please know that he deleted some of my comments that were (in my view) not defnding Rome (as he said) but questioning Protestantism. In other words: he is telling you the truth as he understnds it. Ah---perspective.
The bottom line: As I noted in the combox of his apology post, lighten up, OK? Give the guy a break.
The "Other" Anonymous
thanks anon for the admission:
"for the record, I am indeed a Catholic and Howard is correct in a way: I was trying to shed light on this situation ion a way that would compare and contrast Protestant views of authority and salvation with Catholic views."
The reason I deleted them was because I knew you were trying to assert your views of Romanism and authority and this was not the forum. There have been other posts for that. This post was specifically dealing with the non-imputation of sin.
You are about converting people to Rome via the authority issue. I simply wasn't going to allow that at this time. You were being far to subtle and others did not recognize what you were trying to do. Fortunately, I am aware of a few of the RC tactics.
Sorry if I offended you by deleting posts that were unhelpful to what I was trying to accomplish. I may have picked a terrible way to bring out this discussion, but at least we had it and it has more or less come to an end.
Post a Comment