Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Someone, somewhere, said something perceptibly wrong, on the internet. Ergo, someone else, somewhere else, needed to say something else about that, on the internet. Then, someone further, somewhere further, saw that someone else, somewhere else, said something else about aformenetioned someone. Ergo, the someone further needed to say something further, in defense of someone, somewhere . . . on the internet.Is there a summary of what this is all about?
Someone on another forum suggested that The Confessional Presbyterian host the debate under the Sic et Non rubric.From the comments copying posts from twitter on the Mark's facebook status, the report was, I think, not happening.
Where was this cruel suggestion made? Seriously, though, if not a live debate, maybe there would be an agreement to do papers? And it would not have to be for a journal; and it would certainly be better than nothing.Someone on another forum suggested that The Confessional Presbyterian host the debate under the Sic et Non rubric.
It was passed to me through Reddit, which I don't quite understand, so don't know if I could find it again for you!Where was this cruel suggestion made? Seriously, though, if not a live debate, maybe there would be an agreement to do papers? And it would not have to be for a journal; and it would certainly be better than nothing.
http://christopherjgordon.blogspot.com/2017/10/a-proposed-october-2017-meeting-dear.html?m=1Is there a summary of what this is all about?
Makes me wonder, "Why didn't he just say this in the first place??
The introduction of terms like "final salvation" and talking about salvation as if it is in any sense a two-stage process is what has led to so much controversy.
I probed Jones and some of his cohorts on FB on the issue and they just evaded it pointing me to RSC's twit.
I understand. Both are blaming the other...Personally, I side w/ RSC on this matter-I don't agree either party has handled the thing correctly, mind you; But I have read some of Jones' statements in amplifying what Piper originally said and I believe he has taken Piper out of context.
I am a pastor not a theologian
This is why the issue(s) even exist.
Calvin said he was first a scholar in order to be a good pastor.
If pastors do not want to be good theologians, they should quickly retire and spare their congregations the hurt they'll eventually cause.
Psyche, most of what you wrote I can add a hearty "Amen" to. The only issue I would raise is the issue of privately speaking to a person about his public ministry. Matthew 18 is not about public offenses, but private ("if your brother (singular) sins against you (singular)"). Galatians 2 shows us what happens with public offenses. Whatever arena the offense was committed in needs to be the arena in which the correction takes place. Not everything a pastor does is public, but his teaching and preaching ministry is definitely public. It is right to ask questions in public. The overheated rhetoric is not helpful, as it tends to cast more heat than light on matters. It needs to focus on the doctrinal matters at hand. But asking questions about a pastor's public teaching can certainly happen publicly, even while it is also realized that if charges need to be filed, then that needs to happen through the church courts.
Note that this controversy began because of some inflammatory statements on the Desiring God blog.Why do we not speak to our pastors in private before going to the blogs? Is there a great danger of us falling into gossip? Or into sin? Of destroying a pastor's reputation when there was no need? Of missing 1 Timothy 5:1 "Rebuke not an elder, but exhort him as a father, and the younger men as brethren..." Does John Piper feel he was exhorted as a respected and loved father?
Exactly.
I probed Jones and some of his cohorts on FB on the issue and they just evaded it pointing me to RSC's twit.
Intermingling justification and works, even in passing, tends to cause all sorts of unrest. The doctrine is important, but must be dealt with with sharp distinctions.
Anyone responsible would make these distinctions. Intermingling only causes confusion and at face value, to which I would agree w/ RSC, sounds like FV junk.
Thanks for your comment and thoughts, Rev. Keister. Although I greatly appreciate Mt 18 (which like you said is quite a different context regarding specific sins), my aim was not to apply it here. But simply encourage 1 Tim 5:1, common sense, treating others as you would want to be treated and putting others before ourselves. Additionally, imagine the chaos that would ensue if congregants and visitors who "heard something unexpected" immediately ran to blogs and social media to "warn the flock" and "destroy the career of that heretic" preacher.
Yes, I'm aware "we are able to go public if someone wrote/spoke publicly." But under this excuse of "being able to" I've seen professors slander others, rage wars, print falsehoods, cause great damage to the reputations of one another and divide and destroy the unity of Christ's church. This should not be. Yes, we are able. But there is a higher road and we should encourage one another to take it. That higher road is to love one another and treat one another as we would want to be treated and to put others before ourselves. If someone discovers I write something in error, I would certainly prefer and hope they would contacted me privately to correct me, rather than putting me on blast before the entire world - for a genuine mistake or oversight.