It was pointed out to me that I did not handle the situation prudently. The accusation of “hiding behind a bully pulpit” would require the Matthew 18 principle since that is my view of the situation. I was wrong for making that statement public.
When I wrote about receiving correction from the deacons, I was speaking for my self and not the Board of Deacons. That statement was not clear and gave the impression that Paul was not receiving correction from the board. I was not attempting to say Pastor Paul never receives correction, but that as a Deacon, I thought he would interact with me about the non-imputation of sin to unbelievers. In fact, I thought in a sense Paul had. I was wrong for giving a false impression in my poorly written statements.
Pastor Paul, please accept my apology.
8 comments:
"I do not have the audio to demonstrate what was actually 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.
Anonymous,
Are you unable to figure out how to identify yourself or are you simply afraid? How can you challenge Howard with a clear conscience while simultaneously hiding?
My name is Cory Kitch and I am a student pastor in South Dakota. I WAS (unlike those who commented on the post in question) present for the sermon and for Howie's personal reaction.
For what it's worth Paul's sermon violated nearly every standard for consistent biblical exegesis. Very few points were based on biblical evidence. Most points were not demonstrated from biblical texts. Some were based exclusively on Paul's personal opinion.
If I may be so bold - what is the big freakin deal with challenging Paul to a debate? Howie doesn't believe that Paul ISN'T a Christian and Howie loves Paul as a brother in Christ. Howie also loves Scripture and will lovingly and energetically defend it.
Paul need not be threatened by Howie. He should relish the opportunity to defend his view point from Scripture.
Believe it or not, Howie can still apologize for handling this situation the way he did, and still be right about the theological issue in question.
You claim Howie's behavior is unworthy of a deacon. How dare you. Do you even know Howie? Do you know how many times he has approached Paul privately about this very topic? Apparently, You don't.
This probably adds fuel to the fire that Howie is trying to put out - but I refuse to allow this man of God to be so flippantly attacked.
"Are you unable to figure out how to identify yourself or are you simply afraid?"
The latter.
"If I may be so bold - what is the big freakin deal with challenging Paul to a debate?"
He did not handle this as Scripture dictates. He publicly chastised Paul without first taking other brothers with him to correct him. Like I said, even if he had been correct in his understanding of Paul's sermon, his behavior was unscriptural and unworthy of a deacon.
Am I mistaken, or isn’t this something that has been told Howie privately and by more than one witness? Even so, if I'm wrong in pointing this out publicly, then how much more wrong is a deacon who did the same thing and now simply makes excuses?
The point is not Pastor Paul's exegesis or lack of it, it is the unscriptural response, which is far more offensive even if criticism of Paul is 100% correct.
And you simply illustrate that all who disagree should be treated the same way. And you wonder why more than one person chooses to remain anonymous?
“Believe it or not, Howie can still apologize for handling this situation the way he did,’
That’s the point. He’s really only apologized for not having “proof” in an audio record—not for handling this situation the way he did: "I do not have the audio to demonstrate what was actually said..." so he gives him "the benefit of the doubt."
This never should have been made a public circus, which is exactly what he made of it, and he had to have known that was exactly what he was doing.
By the way, believe it or not, it is also possible to believe scripture warns us not to reject salvation for a reason, and this needs to be reconciled with some people’s view of atonement.
"Pastor Paul, please accept my apology."
I guess it isn't my business, but before you go and hang Howard from your own church rafters, perhaps you might want to stop and notice that he did ask the man to forgive him, and you might want to give the fellow the opportunity to do so. Have a little charity: just a suggestion.
(Yeah, this would be a good time for me to toss in a barb about differences in understanding authority, but I'll hold off.)
The "Other" Anonymous
Anonymous 1, you stated Howie should have taken other brothers with him to correct him.
How do you do this when no one local agrees with you? It's interesting that you have assumed that Howie has not already taken step after step, graciously and privately to discuss these issues. You obviously have come to this forum with little respect for the publisher and presupposed certain things that aren't true so you can use his method of confrontation as a false ground for undermining his theological assertions.
The Apostle Paul did not shy away from public confrontation when he thought the gospel was being publicly undermined (Galatians 2). Paul didn't go through the Matthew 18 principle when confronting Peter. He just came out and said it. Is the Apostle Paul in violation of Scripture?
This - unless Howie states otherwise - is what he thought happened during the sermon in question. This is because Howie has a high view of Scripture. You have a low view of Scripture - because you see deep theological error as less offensive than a method of confrontation.
As far as your statement regarding the "rejection" of salvation - I can only assume you are referencing Hebrews 2:3, "how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation."
Yet again, your view of Scripture is evident - for you are ignorant (i.e. uninformed) of this passage's context. The audience of this book and therefore this verse are ALREADY SAVED, i.e. chosen, elect, predestined, called according to the will of God (Ephesians 1:3-8; Galatians 1:3-5).
The audience is a covenant people - freed from their slavery to sin (Romans 6) now free to serve Christ. This verse isn't talking about an altar call or the response of the individual's free will in the acceptance of the Gospel. It is talking about living in the freedom of Christ as opposed to Law.
You may want to reeavaluate your assumptions about this text.
And you may also want to heed the advice of anonymous #2.
I think perhaps - all that needs to be said in a forum such as this has been said and until you have the courage to face those who you accuse - we should all just shut up.
"You have a low view of Scripture - because you see deep theological error as less offensive than a method of confrontation."
Maybe I have a high view of scripture, because I see disobedience to scripture with regard to dealing with others a greater theological error than debateable exegesis.
"And you may also want to heed the advice of anonymous #2.
I think perhaps - all that needs to be said in a forum such as this has been said and until you have the courage to face those who you accuse - we should all just shut up."
OK. I admit you both make good points since I am not willing to identify myself, so I guess I will shut up and wait for Pastor Paul to speak for himself. But I will stay mindful of what I've seen and see in the future.
"I will stay mindful of what I've seen and see in the future"
I guess that sounds fair. I will truly and honestly pray for you as you wrestle with scripture. My prayer is that we all LOVE scripture and elevate it above our personal sense of theological pride and especially our own traditions.
It is painfully apparent that each of us differ on the proper application of Scripture in this situation.
I pray that each of us continue to struggle with the BIBLICAL evidence regarding confrontation and that we do so lovingly.
I know I seem like a "last word freak" here but I truly do wish to communicate the love I have for Christ's Revelation. Theology and Doctrine flows down into behavior. You cannot separate the two. Anyone who does not Love his brother for instance - does not truly love doctrine (that's just an example - I'm not implying anything).
If you would be interested in a continued dialogue I would by no means disparage the opportunity. I bring this up only because you failed to interact with or even attempt to contradict my question about Paul's method of confrontation and how it differs drastically from Matthew's account in chapter 18.
Sorry, "last word freak again". I promise I will say no more, unless you desire to continue through e-mail. It might not be smart to put my e-mail up here but if it gives two believers the chance to grow together in their knowledge of Christ's Revealed Word then so be it. You may e-mail at ckreformed@gmail.com. Perhaps, if we can begin to trust one another as Christians, your anonymity will become less of an issue.
God bless.
I was just going back through these posts (knowing no one will ever read them again but...) and notice Anonymous said, "Maybe I have a high view of scripture, because I see disobedience to scripture with regard to dealing with others a greater theological error than debateable exegesis."
Somehow I missed this in all of the hub bub. This disgusts me. I publicly accused Pastor Paul of preaching the non-imputation of sins based on a flawed understanding of the atonement for unbelievers.
If I was in error about what Paul has said, why didn't Paul tell me so for the past 15 months?
If this is so unclear, why does the NH Confession state that only believers receive the forgiveness of sins? Is this difficult?
Debatable exegesis? Are you saying that the bible is unclear as to how men are saved? As to what the Atonement accomplishes? As to how men receive the forgiveness of sins?
How dare you pit God's voice against some form of disobedience that you think is clearer! You are simply using this situation to attempt to make me look bad because I did something that makes people feel uncomfortable. No one to this day has used Scripture properly in their accusation that I violated some method of confrontation. To think that God's voice as to how we are saved is less clear than how one calls a man publicly to account for errors from the pulpit is amazing.
I apologized for my supposed misrepresentations of Paul and my supposed mean spiritedness. Yet it wasn't me that said men only go to hell for unbelief. How could that statement be unclear?
Perhaps I apologized too much.
Post a Comment