Here is my layman's concern about this, and I realize this is a general concern and doesn't necessarily pertain to the experience of any of the ministers on this thread.
It's been my experience that people hear sound teaching and preaching through the grid of whatever false beliefs they tend to hold. Thus they may cherry-pick and embrace a bit of reformed thinking, a bit of charismatic thinking, a bit of mysticism, etc. (bits of leaven in the lump! Which the apostles didn't tolerate.) Even apparently regenerate Christians do this.
It keeps people continuing to hold to and spread false doctrine, as they have not been plainly corrected. I realized some time ago that it's not enough to teach the truth positively to people who are in error; they must also, negatively, be plainly told that their false beliefs are wrong, that they are holding to error.. Otherwise, they don't get that what the sound teacher is telling them is the opposite of what they believe!
It's a fact in teaching that people must come to know that they don't know, that they are wrong, before they can learn and embrace the truth. So, for a minister to continue to speak to groups of people who are in serious error, and for those people to remain unoffended, can be a bad sign, can't it? I have seen this first-hand, coming from and being in churches where charismatic/mystical beliefs are embraced. The people liked John Piper and Joyce Meyer and Tommy Tinney equally- they took what they liked from each teacher. In God's mercy some may see the inconsistencies and start to dig deeper, and come to a better knowledge of the truth. But does this possibility or hope absolve the minister of a duty to plainly tell people they are in serious error? I'm just asking.
I know a minister doesn't want to lose his opportunity to speak to groups with false ideas of God, but Paul didn't seem to make retaining that opportunity a factor in what he told deceived people. He told the truth always, not just positively but negatively. So I'm wondering, should a minister be willing to speak to a group about the gospel, without the up-front understanding that this includes speaking to the false beliefs of the group- with the possibility of never being invited back (or maybe being stoned by the resulting angry mob!)
I've seen first-hand what can happen when, for instance, a reformed sbc minister came to an arminian/decisional leaning church and began teaching, though subtly, the doctrines of grace, and didn't get around to telling the people plainly that their false beliefs are wrong. It caused a long, drawn-out process where division and hurt were the painful and relationship-damaging fallout; not that good things didn't happen, as well. God is gracious.
So looking to the apostles (particularly Paul), and to Christ, wouldn't openly telling the people the truth in every way. both positively and negatively, so they walk away with no confusion or misunderstanding about what the minister is saying the Bible teaches, be the way to go? I understand that to really do this, fewer occasions to speak to such groups might be the result. I'm just positing that perhaps there's more damage done by giving deceived audiences the option to add to their cherry-picking than is realized. And I don't think any of the fine ministers here on PB would disagree with this.
It's been my experience that people hear sound teaching and preaching through the grid of whatever false beliefs they tend to hold. Thus they may cherry-pick and embrace a bit of reformed thinking, a bit of charismatic thinking, a bit of mysticism, etc. (bits of leaven in the lump! Which the apostles didn't tolerate.) Even apparently regenerate Christians do this.
It keeps people continuing to hold to and spread false doctrine, as they have not been plainly corrected. I realized some time ago that it's not enough to teach the truth positively to people who are in error; they must also, negatively, be plainly told that their false beliefs are wrong, that they are holding to error.. Otherwise, they don't get that what the sound teacher is telling them is the opposite of what they believe!
It's a fact in teaching that people must come to know that they don't know, that they are wrong, before they can learn and embrace the truth. So, for a minister to continue to speak to groups of people who are in serious error, and for those people to remain unoffended, can be a bad sign, can't it? I have seen this first-hand, coming from and being in churches where charismatic/mystical beliefs are embraced. The people liked John Piper and Joyce Meyer and Tommy Tinney equally- they took what they liked from each teacher. In God's mercy some may see the inconsistencies and start to dig deeper, and come to a better knowledge of the truth. But does this possibility or hope absolve the minister of a duty to plainly tell people they are in serious error? I'm just asking.
I know a minister doesn't want to lose his opportunity to speak to groups with false ideas of God, but Paul didn't seem to make retaining that opportunity a factor in what he told deceived people. He told the truth always, not just positively but negatively. So I'm wondering, should a minister be willing to speak to a group about the gospel, without the up-front understanding that this includes speaking to the false beliefs of the group- with the possibility of never being invited back (or maybe being stoned by the resulting angry mob!)
I've seen first-hand what can happen when, for instance, a reformed sbc minister came to an arminian/decisional leaning church and began teaching, though subtly, the doctrines of grace, and didn't get around to telling the people plainly that their false beliefs are wrong. It caused a long, drawn-out process where division and hurt were the painful and relationship-damaging fallout; not that good things didn't happen, as well. God is gracious.
So looking to the apostles (particularly Paul), and to Christ, wouldn't openly telling the people the truth in every way. both positively and negatively, so they walk away with no confusion or misunderstanding about what the minister is saying the Bible teaches, be the way to go? I understand that to really do this, fewer occasions to speak to such groups might be the result. I'm just positing that perhaps there's more damage done by giving deceived audiences the option to add to their cherry-picking than is realized. And I don't think any of the fine ministers here on PB would disagree with this.