Ted Haggard’s is another terrible story that we have heard too many times to even be shocked any more. But why am I not shocked? Is it really because I became all too use to these types of stories after Swaggart and Bakker? Or is it because I don’t really have REAL confidence in such men? In other words, if this story was about certain Reformed pastors would it effect me differently? I think so.
Do I have blinders on, or have the majority of these scandals been among men and women with unbiblical doctrines? Just asking…
And I wonder… is it possible that these unbiblical doctrines have opened these men to such scandals? or, at least, not protected them? In other words, are men of sound doctrine more protected and less likely to fall into such scandalous sin? Quite a few Scriptures are coming to mind…
Steve Hays shares my concerns. I recommend this article from TRIABLOGUE.
PS – I haven’t accused or convicted Haggard in this post. I am speaking of such scandals in general.
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
What unbiblical doctrines are you speaking of? Are these doctrines espoused by Haggard himself, others at New Life Church or the NAE in general?
If Haggard is guilty he should be removed from ministry. From most reports he has admitted guilt to some extent already.
However, the dog pile on the evangelical church’s of today that seems to be taking place as a result of this news is ludicrous. All over the reformed blogosphere people are making sweeping statements about unbiblical doctrine being disseminated through, for example, the NAE which is comprised of 45,000 individual church’s. Such mischaracterizations are sinful.
I’m not saying you guy’s specifically are doing this, I’m simply asking for some degree of caution before branding 45,000 individual church’s as heretical.
I appreciate that you noticed that I did not “dogpile” as others may have. I agree with your “caution.”
My post was just a reflection of my own reaction to such news.
I am heartbroken.
I am grieved for the sake of Christ’s name.
But I am not shocked any more.
And the doctrines that I am speaking of range from Charismatic doctrines to Arminian doctrines.
Could it be that there is a correlation between holding to unbiblical doctrines and being more susceptible to sin? Again there are several passages of Scripture that come to my mind including to whole of 2 Timothy, the Corinthian church, and the warnings of Jude.
If someone doesn’t think that Charismatic doctrines and Arminianism are false teachings, then you don’t need to even waste your time reading my post. You probably won’t get it.
I regret this has happened, but it could not have, from my personal perspective have occurred @ a better time, as my church’s leadership is dialoging with some of Haggard’s followers who are in leadership @ a local church in our area. They eat up everything this man says and does and, frankly, are leading their church down the primrose path. This will make them, I hope, think twice.
As to his doctrines, his doctrinal teaching has ranged from Arminianism, –which I consider schismatic and error-laden, usually leading to one or more other errors, since history has demonstrated time and again that the crossroads to liberalism, Socinianism, Open Theism, and any number of larger errors cross through Arminianism,– to charismaticism. He’s no semi-cessationist either; and he’s not your average run of the mill charismatic.
Ted Haggard is a Pentecostal Pastor and a graduate of Oral Roberts University. I’ve read some of what he and his followers think passes for good theology and epistemology.
Here are some quotes from him in Primary Purpose:
“Two weeks later Bob and a group of young men were in our sanctuary on a Friday night praying over a five-gallon metal bucket of cooking oil. ‘We asked God what to do, and He told us to anoint the city with oil,’ Bob explained. ‘We’ve seen people go forward and get a drop of oil on their foreheads, so for the city we got a pump-up garden sprayer to take out with us when we pray.”
He affirms spiritual “mapping” for geographical demons:
During this same time period [1980 - 1993], our prayer teams were reporting a major decline in satanic activity. We tracked this through reports from new converts who had been involved in the occult. During the early days of the church, new converts would describe a prospering occult community with thousands of participants. But by the nineties, people were telling us how the number of covens had dwindled to five at the most and that there were very few people left in them.”
But he clearly is Resolution 5 compliant:
“What happens when you choose Mountain Dew over Budweiser? You open your heart for the ministry of the Holy Spirit and eliminate demonic opportunities.”
I’m a bit concerned about product placement though.
Demons, demons, and more demons:
In October 1993 I led a team of thirty-one people on a prayer journey to pray strategically for Albania. While there we had three vivid experiences in which member of our team experienced strategic-level spiritual warfare. One of those occurred when I accompanied three others to a cave in the side of a mountain where a local Islamic boy had told us demonic activity was taking place. Fifteen hundred years earlier a man went to the top of this mountain to pray because he was so burdened by his sin. While praying he realized that he needed an atonement for his sins. This grieved him terribly. In this midst of his sin and because of his lack of knowledge, he entered a large cave in the side of the mountain and killed himself, hoping to make atonement for his own sinfulness. Our guide led us to the narrow stairway built into the face of the cliff leading to the cave. We saw drops of fresh blood shimmering on the stone steps. The guide was so frightened as we neared the entrance of the cave that, as soon as he had pointed out the place we were looking for, he took off. The rest of us realized that this high place had become an evil stronghold centuries earlier and we had to do all we could to neutralize the demonic activity. As wee walked down into the cave, we noticed a pair of shoes at the entrance, characteristic of a place of worship in Eastern countries. Because of the shoes, we realized that one of the worshippers was still present from the morning sacrifice. Upon entering the worship area, we noted Islamic religious symbols distorted by their makers into satanic symbols. (I had seen the same type of distortions in American Satanism, except that in America they use Christian or Jewish symbols and distort them.)…Cheri Will, a homemaker and intercessor, and I started breaking curses, anointing altars with oil, driving demons out of the cave and asking God’s glory to fill the place in Jesus’ name…As terror subsided and confidence increased, we left the cave wondering why we never located the owner of the shoes at the entrance. By now the blood was dry on the steps. As we walked away from the cave, we saw a group of nationals who had gathered at the top of the mountain and were running about and yelling. They were telling people excitedly that a group of Americans had come to drive the demons away from the cave. In the midst of joy and excitement, though , at the pinnacle of the mountain stood a small woman in a black dress, pointing at us with one hand and spinning her demonic prayer wheel with the other. We saw her and began praying for her and walking toward her. She ran away from us toward a wooded area while continuing to spin her prayer wheel. While Vince and I diverted the attention of the nationals who had gathered, Tina and Cheri went to the top of the mountain and prayed for God’s blessing and mercy to come upon the people of this region. That is strategic-level spiritual warfare.”
Everything here goes hand in hand with Word of Faith or Word of Faith like teaching. Phrases like “strategic level spiritual warfare” are often also typical of those that get wrapped up in Arminian Keswickism, which is little more than Wesleyan perfectionism in Baptist clothing. This also the language of the radical charismatics who often cross into Benny Hinn territory.
Keep in mind that Haggard is one of the voices calling for “evangelical unity.” Now, in theory, for the naive, that’s attractive. The NAE is a hotpotch of groups that range from the orthodox to the whacky. However, this is little more than a naive outworking of early 20th century fundamentalists who believed it was better to set aside their differences on certain issues to unite around “the Fundamentals.” Well, that worked until Keswickism and Arminianism came to full flower and bore the fruit of subjectivist epistemology in the postmodern context. That worked as long as they understood the objective nature of revelation. What we’ve learned since, however, is that the church and the world were relatively speaking better for it when Lutherans, Arminians, and Calvinists were divided. Denominationally, for example, Baptists and Presby’s would work together, Lutherans were doing their own thing, and the Arminians were watched closely by all but left to themselves. Then, we had Spilsburys, Gills, Keaches, Bunyans, Giradeaus, Wesleys, Hodges, Boyces, and Mells, Mileys, and Broaduses. Today, instead of Knowing God by Packer being popular, we have PDL and Primary Purpose. How far we have fallen. I’m sorry, but the “evangelical” unity that Haggard and some of his buddies have promoted has done nothing but cast the church into ties with church and state and numbers driven seeker friendliness, subjectivism, and radical charismaticism that has done nothing but create nominal Christians. It is this environment where we see these things happen most frequently, and so I agree with the overall sentiments expressed by Jason here. You shall know them by their fruit.
Gene, I read the same book by Haggard. It was required reading for a class when I attended New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. I thought the professor wanted us to read it to know what not to do and how to combat it in our church. Boy was I wrong. The prof loved the book and Haggard’s principles and ideas. This was one of the reasons why I left.
I remember two other passages. The first dealt with the cooking oil being blessed and turned into holy oil. Ted had the members go and spray oil on the “witches” houses in the late hours of the night. I joked with the prof that the reason the “witches” left the area was that they got tired of slipping and falling.
The second was worst and I think revealed a great problem with Haggard and his movement. They, his church, would go out at night. Again in the late hours so not to be seen. They would spray the holy oil around to drive away demons. But the standing order was to run and hide if you set off any alarm systems, so the police would not question or arrest you. With this readership, I do not think I need to list the problems with this.
I wonder what will be the reaction now that he has admitted guilt?
I always found the oil method of getting rid of evil spirits odd. There is zero scripture to support it. Does anyone know where that practice might have started. It sounds really pagan.
Scott,
I looked it up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edition, copyright 2000.
Catechisms 1289-1301 deal with oil in baptism. They refer primarily to canon law (of which I do not have a copy). They refered also to works of St Cyprian and St Hippolytus. But there are not any direct quotes. Scripture references as Ps 23:5, 104:15, Is 1:6, Luke 10:34. Slim support at best. These do deal with annointing people with oil. In that vein they could have used 1 Sam 10:1 and 16:1-16 where Saul and David were annointed. And James 5:13-18 annointing of the sick.
Catechisms 1237 and 1673 deals with exorcism and mention oil to drive out the devil. References again to early saints and canon law. Scripture references to the Gospel according to Mark 1:25-26,3:15,6:7 and 13, 16:17, Romans 6:17. The references to Mark deal with casting out demons. Though only 6:7 mentions oil and annointing with oil. Romans 6:17 deals with a changing heart.
In the catechism there is references to the eastern rites for such churches as the Greek and Russian.
There are more scriptures that are used, but just quickly looking through them, the ones I mentioned are the best or closes to supporting the practice of the Roman Catholic Church. Now as to what supports Haggard and those of his beliefs use, I would not know. Unless they use the catechism of the Roman Catholic Church.
I must mention, that the catechism of the Roman church do not allow for anyone to go spraying an area or town with “holy oil” or chism as they call it. It is annointed directly upon the individual person. Holy water I have seen annointed, not with a garden pump, on a congregation during a service or over an area such as a church to consencrate it.
(PSA) The above is not necessarily the views of the author or the blog upon which it was written. Just information drawn from a church (Roman)document of instruction.
Mark
The use of oil for exorcisms was one of the early practices associated with baptism in the Ante-Nicene church. Pick up Baptism In the Early Church by Profs. Hendrick F. Stander and Prof. Johannes P. Louw. The Orthodox church still continues a similar practice during their ceremony of “chrismation.”
However, nobody “sprayed it” on houses or any such thing. This is just plain, old fashioned sympathetic magic, which is ironic considering the fear of witchcraft that runs through this man’s theology and practices.
And don’t think this hasn’t had some affect among his readers. For some reason the Greensboro and Lexington areas of NC are rife with these people. They are very religious but don’t seem to understand that where the gospel itself is, the land is “exorcised” of demons. If they are hearing voices and demonically oppressed, then the problem isn’t a lack of oil, its an imbalance of superstition to the gospel in their own churches that’s a problem. Just to cite one example, recently, a local youth pastor’s daughter became very ill. He took oil and poured it all around his house, but it on her, the doorknob to her room, her bedposts, and her pillow. “Two weeks later, she got better.” He didn’t attribute this to two weeks of bedrest and medicine, but to the oil! When confronted by local pastors and lay people about this, he got angry and said that “it worked for him,” and he didn’t seem to care if it was superstition run amok. Where did he get this idea…you guessed it, from reading this book and following teachers of this mess.
Jason: [Do I have blinders on, or have the majority of these scandals been among men and women with unbiblical doctrines?]
tjp: Humm. Let’s see. King David confessed Biblical doctrine. And so did Solomon. AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM!
And then there’s John Gerstner’s pervert son. He wore the TULIP with the honor of a gold medal winner, but it didn’t keep him from stalking little girls.
And of course there’s the pedophile coot Bob Gray from Trinity Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Fl. If memory serves me correctly, he also professed the TULIP–along with his “love” for over twenty little girls and one little boy.
Yup, you’re right. Bad doctrine leads to serious immorality.
Sent,
Guess you did not see the word majority? Did you go to the link and checkout if Jason was off base?
The link is wikipedia. Last I knew it was not a reformed or calvinist or even christian site.
Don’t circle the wagon. Sin where ever it occurs needs to be confronted and dealt with accordingly.
Now, how did the congregations, God and the church act in your examples to the sin? That is a defining revelation on their stance to biblical doctrine.
Bad doctrine leads to serious immorality
Yes, it does, when it does not transform a life. Right doctrine is a proper root for right practice.
tjp: Humm. Let’s see. King David confessed Biblical doctrine. And so did Solomon. AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM!
There is precious little telling us about the doctrine that these men believed. It appears that they didn’t comply with Deut. 17:14 ff.
Nobody here is arguing that Calvinists are immune from sin. Likewise nobody here is defining Calvinism by the “five points.” Rather it is a theocentric worldiview that encompasses much more. When it is consistently applied, it is a highly stablizing force in a manner Arminianism is not, because Arminianism simply lacks the metaphysical machinery for such stability because it is an admixture of truth and error; add a healthy dose of subjectivism and charismania, and it ultimately has to pander to self-interest of the individual and superstition in order to do it.
Gene,
NONSENSE!
To assert Arminianism is somehow more de-stabilizing spiritually than Calvinism is spectacularly stupid. It’s the kind of statement that breads contempt.
I dare say Calvinists, no less than Arminians, are susceptible to sin and failure. After all, the flesh is the flesh. Professing Calvinism will no more preserve one from sin than professing Arminianism will lead one into sin.
Yet for decades now we’ve endured the Genevan insinuation that Calvinism is the sole cure for everything from the cancer to herpes. But the truth is…IT AIN’T SO. Calvinism itself is a colossal failure, a moral and religious wreck.
The idea that if the church would only embrace Geneva, all things would improve is the the wishful thinking of someone crippled too high for crutches.
To say if you’re a non-Calvinist you’re at greater risk of homosexuality than if you’re a Calvinist is the logic we find among the Westboro Baptists.
Have a good one!
Haggard’s situation should grieve us, not cause us to point out all of his “false” doctrine and point fingers. Christians really are famous for shooting their wounded. Every one of us is susceptible to all kinds of sin. We shouldn’t think of ourselves more highly than we ought to. If we think we stand, we should taked heed lest we fall.
Mark Driscoll wrote a great article on this debacle and the practical things we can implement to keep out of such sin:
Click Here
Sentinel you must have learned your conversation skills in a barn, because I see straw flying everywhere. Obviously, you have some issues with Calvinism you might want to work out in counseling. However, you haven’t actually dealt with the post yet. Forget what doctrines you actually think are the right ones.
Do you think accurate doctrine will help keep men from falling into this kind of sin?
Interesting question. I’m not a big fan of the Charismatics but they always seem vulnerable. Atheist Dan Barker and agnostic Ed Babinski were influenced by the charismatic movement before they deconverted.
Scott: [Sentinel you must have learned your conversation skills in a barn, because I see straw flying everywhere.]
tjp: Sorry. Only a hayseed would see straw flying everywhere. On a more serious note, I’ll bet you see a lot of pink elephants, too, huh? Yes, sir, delusions are a dime a dozen.
Scott: [Obviously, you have some issues with Calvinism you might want to work out in counseling.]
I already have. In fact, I consulted the famous 66 Counselors and took their advice to reject the mind-rotting, soul-damning philosophy of the Genevan heresy peddlers.
But thanks for your concern, anyway.
Scott: [However, you haven't actually dealt with the post yet.].
tjp: Really, what’s there to deal with? To suggest Arminians commit more immorality than Calvinists has no concern. It’s absurd. And its very suggestion is its own refutation. I’m surprised you can’t see that. In fact, such a suggestion makes no more sense than saying infralapsarians have a greater tendency to homosexuality than supralapsarians. Or we could assert, out of a perfectly blank mind, that Covenantalists are at greater risk for adultery and pedophilia than Dispensationalists.
Scott: [Do you think accurate doctrine will help keep men from falling into this kind of sin?]
tjp: The short answer of course is NO. Of itself accurate doctrine will keep neither believers nor unbelievers from sin. Professing undying adherence, for instance, to the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons of Dort, or the Westminster Confession will neither keep supralapsarians from their neighbor’s wives or infralapsarians from the homosexual dens.
The fact is apart from a serious commitment to the truths of Scripture (Ro. 12:1,2 and Gal. 5:16-26, for instance), no amount of orthodoxy will necessarily keep men from the kinds of sins that have recently come to light. In short, Christian living takes more than doctrinal accuracy (an important matter, to be sure); it also takes devotional integrity.
To assert Arminianism is somehow more de-stabilizing spiritually than Calvinism is spectacularly stupid. It’s the kind of statement that breads contempt.
On the contrary, let’s take trip through the historical legacy of Arminianism. Let’s take a look at Finney. How many of his converts fell away? His close friends admitted nearly all of them fell away. Let’s look at the history of the Free Will Baptists. Oops, they were almost wiped out by Socinianism. In fact, the Arminians and Socinians allied quite closely on the Continent. Let’s look at the SBC. At present, the SBC claims 16.4 million members. Less than half show up on any given Sunday. Tell us, how many theological liberals have been consistent Calvinists? How many Arminians have been liberals? Open Theists? Ah, but didn’t Calvinism spawn Neo-orthodoxy? Yep, and how many of them are Calvinists? Hyper-Calvinism? Yep, and it operates on the same principles as Arminianism, so you actually have to abandon your Calvinism to actually be a hyper-Calvinist. Arminianism tends toward neo-sacramentalism in Baptist churches where it takes hold, contrary to our eccelsiology. We do not affirm baptismal regeneration, yet so much emphasis is put on aisle walking and hand raising and sacramental prayers (decisional regeneration) that we end up creating neo-Campbellite sacraments of our own when we do this. Pragmatism, the gospel that panders to the self-interest of sinners, is that a Calvinist phenomenon?
The idea that if the church would only embrace Geneva, all things would improve is the the wishful thinking of someone crippled too high for crutches. And if you would bother to check my online writing, you’ll find that I went out of my way this past summer to defend Five-Point Arminianism as a seaworthy vessel to get a person to the other side. I even did this in a pamphlet published and distributed widely at this year’s SBC. I’ve even defended Lutheranism in the past.
I dare say Calvinists, no less than Arminians, are susceptible to sin and failure. After all, the flesh is the flesh. Professing Calvinism will no more preserve one from sin than professing Arminianism will lead one into sin….To suggest Arminians commit more immorality than Calvinists has no concern.
Of course, this is not what I said at all. It’s always telling when an opponent feels the need to lie about what one has stated.
My point, and one which you consistently ignore is that Arminianism contains within it the metaphysical machinery to be less stabilizing than Calvinism and is thus more prone to this at a conceptual level. Why? Because it fundamentally turns on the notion of libertarian freedom (See Miley’s very own Systematic Theology for that admission), and thereby panders to the self-interests of the sinner. Moreover, historical theology and church history prove it.
Take a trip through, oh the Bible, and you’ll find that synergism is very clearly depicted as a destabilizing force. Eve in the Garden? She thought she could improve on God’s grace. Cain did too. And so did Sarah when she got Abraham to have a child by Hagar. Monergism, by way of contrast, is depicted as stablizing society, because that’s how God works. If you really believe that synergism is more stablizing or as stablizing a force, conceptually speaking, I submit you don’t believe the Bible.
As I have further noted, Arminianism is not the problem here, rather it is the radical charismaticism of his theology, and orthopraxy is predicated on orthodoxy.
Pentecostalism, especially in its popular forms, is apt to look for a shortcut to sanctification. You deal with temptation by receiving the baptism of the Spirit, or having an “anointed” preacher pray over you and cast out that demon of alcoholism, drug-addiction, sodomy, pornography, compulsive gambling, &c.
Pentecostalism is also an extension of Wesleyan Arminianism. With that comes all the attendant problems with perfectionism.
Yet for decades now we’ve endured the Genevan insinuation that Calvinism is the sole cure for everything from the cancer to herpes. But the truth is…IT AIN’T SO. Calvinism itself is a colossal failure, a moral and religious wreck.
Ah, this is the part when ad homineum invective is supposed to do the work of reasoned argument. Tell us, how many consistent Calvinists are “moral and religious wrecks?” Or is this just a frank admission that there are no exegetical arguments against Calvinism so all you’re left with are ethical objections? People need to be taught a correct understanding of conversion and sanctification.
The short answer of course is NO. Of itself accurate doctrine will keep neither believers nor unbelievers from sin.In short, Christian living takes more than doctrinal accuracy (an important matter, to be sure); it also takes devotional integrity.
Notice that this was in answer to the question “Do you think accurate doctrine will help keep men from falling into this kind of sin?”
A. So you’re saying right doctrine will not help keep a man from falling into serious sin?
B. But Jesus said, “If you abide in my Word, you shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
C. You then give a marvelous answer, which shows some promise, but where, pray tell is mention of the grace of God? It is by knowledge of the truth (right doctrine) that the grace of God comes to us and transforms us, thereby resulting in “devotional integrity.” It’s an ends-means relation. Piety won’t get you but so far if you doctrine is out of sorts too.
D. You continue to ignore what I stated earlier. I’m not defining “Calvinism” by the Five Points or the confessions. Rather, I am defining it as something else that is inclusive of both doctrine and practice, not simply doctrinal propositions, namely a comprehesive worldview. Perhaps you were too involved in your emotional jeremiad to notice.
To borrow from Packer: Calvinism is something much broader than the ‘five points’ indicate. Calvinism is a whole world-view, stemming from a clear vision of God as the whole world’s Maker and King. Calvinism is the consistent endeavor to acknowledge the Creator as the Lord, working all things after the counsel of his will. Calvinism is a theocentric way of thinking about all life under the direction and control of God’s own word. Calvinism, in other words, is the theology of the Bible viewed from the perspective of the Bible – the God-centered outlook which sees the Creator as the source, and means, and end, of everything that is, both in nature and in grace. Calvinism is thus theism (belief in God as the ground of all things), religion (dependence on God as the giver of all things), and evangelicalism (trust in God through Christ for all things), all in their purest and most highly developed form. And Calvinism is a unified philosophy of history which sees the whole diversity of processes and events that take place in God’s world as no more, and no less, than the outworking of his great preordained plan for his creatures and his church. The five points assert no more than God is sovereign in saving the individual, but Calvinism, as such, is concerned with the much broader assertion that he is sovereign everywhere.
The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content. One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God who enables man to save himself. One view presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind – election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit – as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly. The other view gives each act a different reference (the objects of redemption being all mankind, of calling, all who hear the gospel, and of election, those hearers who respond), and denies that man’s salvation is secured by any of them. One tells men they can believe, the other says that they cannot. One panders to the self-interest of the sinner; the other does not. The two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation and consequently the proper way to perceive oneself in relation to God and one’s overall worldview in quite different terms, and if that is so, then it logically follows that their doctrine of sanctification and thus its consistent practice in the individual is affected. Conceptually, when the Five Solas are taken together, and glory is given to God and God alone what happens to materialism, pragmatism, secularism, etc.?
Actually, ANYONE who has not been led by the Holy Spirit to be faithful to the doctrine they espouse will be made to look like the sham they are. Doesn’t matter if they eat TULIPs for breakfast or if they go jogging with Falwell every day (smile). Those who have been “Calvinists” and have fallen in public view have been no different than Arminians who have done so. They have shown what tree they are by their fruit. I know we don’t like to say such things, but Jesus beat me to the punch. Not everyone who says Lord, Lord will enter… bad trees make bad fruit. Period. Save your tears for those who are truly regenerate and are getting prepared (through trials that God sends) for the persecution and death at the hands of the antichrist that the believer has been told to expect. Come quickly, Lord Jesus.
In spite of Haggard’s theological foibles and pecadillos, let us keep in mind the human perspective. This fellow is someone’s husband and father. There will be much shame he will need to work through not only with the public, but his family. Think of his sons, if he has them, and the embarrassing shame they are going to struggle through as a result of the sin their dad was involved in.
This does not absolve him of the consequences of his sin or excuses the deplorable theology he advocated, but just a reminder to let our criticisms be wrapped in mercy. We are men of the flesh like he is, and unless we are vigilant to guard our hearts and minds, we can bring great ruin upon our lives and ministries and heap scorn upon the name of our precious savior.
Fred
To assert Arminianism is somehow more de-stabilizing spiritually than Calvinism is spectacularly stupid. It’s the kind of statement that breads contempt.
Gene: [On the contrary, let's take trip through the historical legacy of Arminianism. Let's take a look at Finney. How many of his converts fell away? His close friends admitted nearly all of them fell away.]
tjp: On the contrary, let’s take a look at Whitefield (or even Jonathan Edwards, for that matter). How many of his coverts fell away? Does he have any fruit that remains? I can visit virtually any town in America and find a Methodist church, a Nazarene church, and Holiness church, Wesleyan church, etc. But, really, where’s Whitefield’s legacy?
It’s interesting you should choose the Finney, a real headcase in many ways, as your example and not, say, John Wesley or even Bob Jones, Sr. I say it’s interesting because even many Arminians look askance at Finney and his vulgarized Arminianism. That he rejected original sin is certain; that he was a semi-Pelagian is also certain. But that he represented classical or Reformation Arminianism is false. He was no where near the theology either Arminius, Watson, Pope, Summers, Wiley, or Wesley.
Besides, making Finney the face of Arminianism is like making Friedrich Schleiermacher, the father of liberal theology, the face of Calvinism. (You see, Schleiermacher remained a Calvinist his entire life.) Even better, it’s like making Fred Phelps, of Westboro Baptist fame, and a deeply committed Calvinist, no less, the face of modern Calvinism.
Let’s get off the Finney thing. It’s old and shopworn. He no more encapsulates Arminianism than Robert Schuller or Norman Vincent Peale do Calvinism. (And, yes, they were both Calvinists.)
Gene: [Let's look at the history of the Free Will Baptists. Oops, they were almost wiped out by Socinianism. In fact, the Arminians and Socinians allied quite closely on the Continent.
tjp: Following your lead, let's look at the history of the Presbyterian Church USA. Oops, they ARE being wiped out by homos, lesbians, and women preachers. And they have yoked up with the World Council of Churches which means they have allied themselves with the worst of the reprobates and Christ-rejectors. Obviously, this shows where Calvinism will take you. Clearly if you tarry long at the TULIP, you'll end up in error. So beware!
Gene: [Let's look at the SBC. At present, the SBC claims 16.4 million members. Less than half show up on any given Sunday.]
tjp: And your statement proves what? That SBC churches have a lot of dead or backslidden members on the rolls? That they have people who’ve moved away and have never had their names removed from the membership registry? That many have joined other churches? That some have died and have not been removed? That most are lost because they don’t show up for the head count? That some are now in nursing homes and care centers and can no longer come to church? What’s you’re point? If you’re suggesting church attendance confirms conversion, I say you’re a heretic.
Gene: [Tell us, how many theological liberals have been consistent Calvinists?]
tjp: Your question is cute, but unfortunately it cuts both ways: namely, How many theological liberals have been consistent Arminians? The only way you can cite an example is if you gratuitously define a liberal as a non Calvinist, which only the foolhardy and pinheaded would do. And of course when you do that, than you commit the fallacy of victory by definition. Besides, your question contains mutually exclusive terms which may be true of any number of sets, for instance, theological liberals..consistent.four point Calvinists (Amaraldyans), theological liberals…consistent Lutherans, etc. Because your query suggests too much, it really doesn’t suggest anything. Sorry.
Gene: [How many Arminians have been liberals?]
tjp: Quite a few. But equally: How many Calvinists have been liberals? Quite a few, judging from the Presbyterian church situation (PCA; PCUSA, etc) and the old fundamentalist-modernist controversy.
Gene: [Open Theists?]
tjp: I don’t know. Only time will tell. Clark Pinnock, Sanders, and Richard Rice stand out right now. But the sun hasn’t set yet. So the numbers may change in the meantime. It’s funny, though, how Open Theism attracts disgruntled Calvinists.
Gene: [Ah, but didn't Calvinism spawn Neo-orthodoxy? Yep, and how many of them are Calvinists? Hyper-Calvinism?
tjp: Correct. And I believe it also spawned Unitarianism. I can't answer your second question. I have no way of knowing. Nevertheless, your question holds true for Arminianism, too. How many Open Theists, for instance are true Arminians, that is, Classical or Reformation Arminians (those who follow Episcopius, Pope, Wiley, Wesley, Summers, Forelines, Picirilli, etc.)?
Gene: [Yep, and it operates on the same principles as Arminianism, so you actually have to abandon your Calvinism to actually be a hyper-Calvinist.]
tjp: This is the ignorance that draws a sigh from true Arminians, equating Arminianism with every possible theological defect and making it the necessary outcome of every error. I find it telling, if not completely hypocritical, that you ask for a distinction between Calvinism and Neo-orthodoxy and even between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism, but you won’t grant the same privilege to Arminians to distinguish between vulgarized Arminianism (Finney and some of Miley) and Classical or Reformation Arminianism (Pope, Summers, Watson, Wesley, Wiley, Forelines, Picirilli).
Gene: [Arminianism tends toward neo-sacramentalism in Baptist churches where it takes hold, contrary to our eccelsiology.]
tjp: A mere opinion, and a very poor one at that.
Gene: [We do not affirm baptismal regeneration, yet so much emphasis is put on aisle walking and hand raising and sacramental prayers (decisional regeneration) that we end up creating neo-Campbellite sacraments of our own when we do this.]
tjp: Really? Is this something you cooked up, or did God tell you this? A sinner responding to an invitation or walking an isle or praying for deliverance is sacramental? Are you for real? Only in the eye of one whose mind has been eaten away by Calvinism is this so.
Gene: [Pragmatism, the gospel that panders to the self-interest of sinners, is that a Calvinist phenomenon?]
tjp: Calling people to Christ is pandering to them? Calling people to submit to the gospel is pragmatism? Calling people to receive Christ by faith is self-interest? Satan couldn’t have criticized gospel ministry any better. Man, friend, you better seek out a good wigpicker and a comfortable couch because you have issues. Serious issues.
But you’re right on one account: Calvinist preaching is not a phenomenon. Generally, it lies somewhere between the death rattle of Abraham and the Valley of Dry Bones.
—————————-.
“The idea that if the church would only embrace Geneva, all things would improve is the the wishful thinking of someone crippled too high for crutches.”
Gene: [And if you would bother to check my online writing, you'll find that I went out of my way this past summer to defend Five-Point Arminianism as a seaworthy vessel to get a person to the other side.]
tjp: No. I won’t bother. You don’t impress me as someone deserving a “bother.” Besides, I don’t know you, and I don’t care to know you. You come off as a recovering crackhead, as someone who’s tiptoed through the TULIPs more than he ought. But, hey, I’m sure Arminians will appreciate your vote of confidence.
Gene: [I even did this in a pamphlet published and distributed widely at this year's SBC. tjp:
tjp; That's scary. One can only imagine the serpentine logic, carnal fiats, and Genevan puffing that went into that little screed. Whew!
Gene: [I've even defended Lutheranism in the past.]
tjp: Bully for you.
———————————–
“I dare say Calvinists, no less than Arminians, are susceptible to sin and failure. After all, the flesh is the flesh. Professing Calvinism will no more preserve one from sin than professing Arminianism will lead one into sin….To suggest Arminians commit more immorality than Calvinists has no concern.”
Gene: [Of course, this is not what I said at all. It's always telling when an opponent feels the need to lie about what one has stated.]
tjp: Lie? Where did I lie? Please document.
To be accurate, here’s what Jason said, “And I wonder… is it possible that these unbiblical doctrines have opened these men to such scandals? or, at least, not protected them? In other words, are men of sound doctrine more protected and less likely to fall into such scandalous sin? Quite a few Scriptures are coming to mind…”
And here’s what Scott asked, “Do you think accurate doctrine will help keep men from falling into this kind of sin?”
All my replies until now have addressed those comments. There’ve been no lies.
Gene: [My point, and one which you consistently ignore is that Arminianism contains within it the metaphysical machinery to be less stabilizing than Calvinism and is thus more prone to this at a conceptual level.]
tjp: Three words: puke, rot, and balderdash. Tell me, Mr. Psycho Analyst, was the same “metaphysical machinery” (you gotta love that expression) whirring and grinding when Rev. Brent Dugan, pastor of Community Presbyterian Church of Ben Avon, PA, committed suicide after being caught in illicit behavior? Apparently his metaphysical machinery was no different than Ted Haggard’s.
And what about Peter Kim, a youth pastor at Central Presbyterian Church of Longmount, TX? Authorities arrested him for repeated sexual assault on a teen. How come his Calvinist metaphysical machinery didn’t deliver him from the clutches of perversity? The truth is you’re blowing off like a jake brake, and you know it. You have NO empirical data to support your wild “metaphysical machinery” scheme and your “conceptual level” hogwash. It’s the pure fabrication of a fallen imagination. Nothing more.
Gene: [Why? Because it fundamentally turns on the notion of libertarian freedom (See Miley's very own Systematic Theology for that admission), and thereby panders to the self-interests of the sinner.]
tjp: Again, nonsense. All nonsense. Guesstimtion at its worst. The only thing “it” turns on is your overheated imagination and Calamite spoofery.
Your “theology” smells more like the Koran than the Bible. And your disdain for free will or, should I say, freed will is embarrassing, but I guess some folks don’t know their own shame, huh? Creating one false doctrine (metaphysical machinery) and supporting it by denying a true doctrine (free will) pretty well sums up the Genevan “orthodoxy” and apologetic integrity.
By the way, Miley proves nothing. Of all the Classic Arminians, he was certainly the weakest. While he had some really fine stuff, to be sure, in several areas he lacked. He rejected inherited guilt (though not depravity), held to the governmental theory of the atonement (a doctrine not all Arminians hold), and “defined justification simply as forgiveness rather than as imputation of Christ’s active and passive obedience (righteousness.” Apart from these shortcomings, though, he wrote a very useful theology.
Gene: [Moreover, historical theology and church history prove it.]
tjp: Oh, please.
Gene: [Take a trip through, oh the Bible, and you'll find that synergism is very clearly depicted as a destabilizing force. Eve in the Garden? She thought she could improve on God's grace. Cain did too. And so did Sarah when she got Abraham to have a child by Hagar.]
tjp: Yes, sir, synergism. Now there’s a Genevan whipping boy. He’s received more lashes than all the Genevan prisoners combined.
Gene: [Monergism, by way of contrast, is depicted as stablizing society, because that's how God works.]
tjp: Monergism is how God works, huh? Well, congratulations, buddy, for turning Jehovah into the original sinner-god. I knew you would get there it sooner or later. Now, I know you determinists have a whole sheaf of qualifications for your monergism. But I especially like your disclaimer. On the one hand you assert God is the author of all things: thoughts, deeds, impulses, the whole she-bang; but on the other, you say He’s the Author of all things but in such a way He’s not the Author of all things. I’ve always found that cute and revealing. I think your monergism is a huge blunder and ultimately dies the death of a thousand qualifications.
Gene: [If you really believe that synergism is more stablizing or as stablizing a force, conceptually speaking, I submit you don't believe the Bible.]
tjp: You’ve been struggling with victory by definition through your entire rant, and now comes your coup de grace: Tjp doesn’t believe the Bible. Eeks! I’m finished. Tekel. Tekel. Tekel.
Gene: [As I have further noted, Arminianism is not the problem here, rather it is the radical charismaticism of his theology, and orthopraxy is predicated on orthodoxy.]
tjp: I’m not sure what “the radical charismaticism of his theology” is, but I’m sure you have a definition for it. “Orthopraxy is predicated on orthodoxy” is both largely so and ideally true. At least that’s the way things are supposed to work.
Gene: [Pentecostalism, especially in its popular forms, is apt to look for a shortcut to sanctification. You deal with temptation by receiving the baptism of the Spirit, or having an "anointed" preacher pray over you and cast out that demon of alcoholism, drug-addiction, sodomy, pornography, compulsive gambling, &c].
tjp: True. And disgusting. Yet Cals fumble around with the “use of means” theology, a system largely developed to escape the charge of antinomianism and to scare folks into right living. Arminians like the “use” teaching, too. For them they use it to keep their salvation; for Cals they use it to prove their salvation. Both are disgusting and cloud the face and promises of God.
Gene: [Pentecostalism is also an extension of Wesleyan Arminianism. With that comes all the attendant problems with perfectionism].
tjp: Again, entirely true. But let’s not forget: There are “attendant problems” with IMPERFECTIONISM, as well, though I believe imperfection theology carries a Biblical expectation and cure.
———————————–
“Yet for decades now we’ve endured the Genevan insinuation that Calvinism is the sole cure for everything from the cancer to herpes. But the truth is…IT AIN’T SO. Calvinism itself is a colossal failure, a moral and religious wreck.”
Gene: [Ah, this is the part when ad homineum invective is supposed to do the work of reasoned argument.]
tjp: What can I say? Some folks can never distinguish between ad hominem invective and truth. Apparently you’re in that class.
Gene: [Tell us, how many consistent Calvinists are "moral and religious wrecks?"]
tjp: Again, Gene, your question works the same for authentic Arminians, hence, “How many consistently true Arminians are “moral and religious wrecks?”
I’ve known a few of Cals who’ve dumped the faith and trotted off into modernism. But I wouldn’t call them “consistent Calvinists” (or maybe I should!). From what I’ve seen, true Arminians are as godly and Biblical as authentic Calvinists. But your implication that somehow their “metaphysical machinery” is on the blink is the kind of pontificating claptrap that brings a sneer.
Gene: [Or is this just a frank admission that there are no exegetical arguments against Calvinism so all you're left with are ethical objections?]
tjp: If nothing else, you persistently confuse things. True, I’ve not dealt with exegetical arguments any more than you have. That wasn’t the nature of our discussion. I’ve directed my comments simply to the mean-spirited and arrogant manner in which you and your hipmates have implied that Arminians are more susceptible to immorality than Calvinists. I say that’s a “crock” (and I’m not speaking of a gator).
The only thing you’ve offered as proof is your own purblind assertions and quirky scheme of “metaphysical machinery.” But I noticed you never quoted any Scripture. And I noticed, too, you offered no exegesis in support of your contentions. What I did notice, though, was that you spewed the party line and simply regurgitated the same worthless rhetoric of the madman of Geneva.
Gene: [People need to be taught a correct understanding of conversion and sanctification.]
tjp: I agree.
—————————–
“The short answer of course is NO. Of itself accurate doctrine will keep neither believers nor unbelievers from sin.In short, Christian living takes more than doctrinal accuracy (an important matter, to be sure); it also takes devotional integrity.”
Gene: [A. So you're saying right doctrine will not help keep a man from falling into serious sin?]
tjp: Correct. Doctrine alone–no matter how accurate and pure–is insufficient.
Gene: [B. But Jesus said, "If you abide in my Word, you shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free."]
tjp: Correct. But this has to do with ABIDING IN THE WORD, not simply confessing or acknowledging it. Infact, it complements my assertion that doctrine alone won’t keep a man in his own bedroom, not even a professing Calamite. We must abide in the truth we profess. If we don’t, we could end up like Donald Trump, who’s also a professing Calvinist.
Gene: [C. You then give a marvelous answer, which shows some promise, but where, pray tell is mention of the grace of God?]
tjp: I wasn’t giving an exhaustive explanation, nor was I attempting to parse every aspect of the question. I simply gave brief answer fitting the question. Yes, grace is the key.
Gene: [It is by knowledge of the truth (right doctrine) that the grace of God comes to us and transforms us, thereby resulting in "devotional integrity."
tjp: If your speaking in general terms, your statement is incorrect. The grace of God has appeared to all men--saved or lost--for the purpose of salvation and instruction (Titus 2:11). It has come to all men apart from any "right doctrine" whatsoever. Clearly God's grace has already come, and He hasn't conditioned its presence on any saint or sinner's "right doctrine." Yet who would doubt He's conditioned its saving enjoyment on a knowledge of the gospel? As a Calvinist, I'm surprised you condition the coming of grace on a "knowledge of the truth," unless of course you had in mind its coming in saving efficacy and not simply its appearance.
Gene: [It's an ends-means relation. Piety won't get you but so far if you doctrine is out of sorts too.]
tjp: True. But it’s a very fragile end-means relationship. Besides, as with piety, doctrine will only get you so far, as well. That’s why I argue for both doctrine and piety, truth and commtment to it, acknowledging it and abiding in it. Even then there are mess ups.
Gene: [D. You continue to ignore what I stated earlier. I'm not defining "Calvinism" by the Five Points or the confessions. Rather, I am defining it as something else that is inclusive of both doctrine and practice, not simply doctrinal propositions, namely a comprehesive worldview.]
tjp: I could care less how you define or tweak your Calvinism. Have at it. Yours won’t be the first designer version of it, for sure. Modify it a thousand times if you wish; others have. But the ugly reality is Calvinism is still Calvinism, and no matter how you perfume it, it still reeks. Big time.
Gene: [Perhaps you were too involved in your emotional jeremiad to notice.]
tjp: Perhaps.
Have a good one!
(Oh, by the way, I’m not an Arminian.)