A Pastor Finds a Way to Serve Two Disparate Flocks

Comments

[Gary]

Mr. Schultz needs to resign as a pastor because he is not qualified. One of the Biblical requirements for a pastor is that he be a born again believer. Schultz is not. He is described in II Timothy chapter 3, and the description is not complimentary.

[Tony Sisk]

Gary,

You and I have never conversed before so, greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

A question: Do you know Pastor Schultz? How can you make such a claim, that he is not saved, by only reading a few facts from a NYT article?

[Streak]

Tony, Gary doesn't need to "know" anyone. He can tell if they disagree with him (Gary) on any issue that he (Gary) thinks is central.

[Wm]

"If Conservative Christians are looking for salvation," Mr. Schultz wrote in one characteristic post, "they ought to start looking to save themselves from themselves. They have much to repent for, like the rest of us. But unlike the rest of us, they have a unique level of judgmentalism and separation to get out of their system."

It appears Mr. Shultz has no problem passing judgment on “Conservative Christians”.

[Tony Sisk]

Wm,

Whether you are addressing me or not, that is not my point. I am not talking about fruit borne after salvation. I am talking about the initial saving event and the judgmental arrogance and flippancy of some who will make an assumption about a person's salvation without personal knowledge.

[Gary]

Tony,

If you read the article, there is a good bit of evidence there that Schultz is lost. I have also read some of his other writings. Prove me wrong, if you can.

[Tony Sisk]

Gary,

I really have no desire to "prove you wrong." That is not the point of my argument. I am also familiar with Pastor Dan's writings, especially at the Street Prophets blog.

Let me come at this from another angle: what must one do in order to be saved? Please answer biblically.

[Gary]

Tony,

Believe God is. Hebrews 11:6
Repent of your sins. Luke 13: 3,5
Believe on/in Christ. John 3: 16, 36

[Tony Sisk]

Gary,

Thank you for your response. I agree with your assessment of the Gospel and it is very concise and to the point.That is always beneficial.

So, from my understanding of what you believe to be the way to be saved, then you are adding to the Gospel. You are in effect saying that if Dan (or any other person) does not believe in the same way you do, then that individual is lost. Rather than allowing Pastor Dan the freedom to develop his own convictions, which are different from your own (and mine incidentally), then you immediately draw the conclusion, that because he does not believe as you, that he is unsaved.

Do you understand that line of thought? Where in the Bible does it say that you must believe something other than the Gospel to be saved or the Gospel plus inerrancy, or the Gospel plus creationism, or the Gospel plus the virgin birth, ad infinitum? The Bible teaches, "Repent and believe the Gospel" (Mark 1:15).

That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved...for whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans 10:9-10, 13

God bless, Gary.

[Gary]

Tony,

What evidence is there that Pastor Dan is a believer? I can find evidence that would indicate he is not (support for homosexuals, being an evolutionist, etc.), but I have yet to see any evidence that would indicate he has real faith. His saying he is a Christian is not good enough.

The new birth produces evidence in the life of those that have it. Part of that evidence is agreeing with God about what sin is and believing the Bible is true even when it clashes with worldly reason and worldly philosophies.

[Tony Sisk]

Gary,

Neither upon your claim that you are a believer can I believe that you indeed are. You cannot use that line of thinking on Pastor Dan (or anyone else for that matter) and then not allow yourself to be placed under the same scrutiny. You say you are a Christian but yet by your same admonition, given that I do not know you personally, then I am supposed to believe that you are a Christian based on your claim that you are.

You simply say that you are, so I am supposed to believe that? According to your logic, then no, Gary, I am not supposed to believe that.

The new birth produces evidence in the life of those that have it. Part of that evidence is agreeing with God about what sin is and believing the Bible is true even when it clashes with worldly reason and worldly philosophies.

Again, you are going beyond my argument. As I responded to Wm, this is not about fruit borne after salvation. This is about the initial saving event. It is a bold claim on your behalf to simply declare that someone is lost, especially when the Bible says that Jesus Christ ALONE will judge the living and the dead (2 Timothy 4:1). You do not have that luxury, Gary.

It is therefore then up to that individual under the leadership of the Holy Spirit to cultivate and develop convictions.

Furthermore, if you have an argument with Pastor Dan's convictions, or any other individual, then be wary enough to address those convictions and argue against those without claiming that he or anyone else are not saved. That is the crux of my argument. I am happy to continue this conversation with you, if you choose.

Blessings, Gary.

[Gary]

Tony,

The Holy Ghost produces fruit in the believer. And that fruit is consistant with Bible doctrine. No good fruit, no Holy Ghost. No Holy Ghost, no Christian.

[Tony Sisk]

Gary,

I have not disagreed with that statement. I agree with you that the Holy Spirit regenerates an individual giving them new life and that same Holy Spirit prepares the believer for service and obedience.

Again, you totally ran past the point of my argument. Would you do me the service of re-reading my prior comments?

Your logic is as follows:

Dan says he is a Christian = we cannot believe him.

Gary says he is a Christian = we should believe him.

Again, I am not talking about fruit borne AFTER salvation. I am arguing for the basis of faith in an individual's life (not just Dan's). Now please, read the comments again, try to understand the argument, and learn, OK? Thank you and God bless.

[Gary]

Tony,

I understand that you think I am wrong to conclude that "Pastor Dan" is not a Christian. But, I see no convincing evidence that Pastor Dan possesses real faith. Feel free to disagree, if you want.

[JoeG]

OK. Proof that Gary is not a Christian.
He calls people names.
He judges others when the BIBLE tells him he should not be doing that.
He does not act as Christ expects his followers to act.
He does not show love for his enemy or turn the other cheek.
He does not preach the love of the gospel, or lovingly compel others toward what he considers the word of God, but instead talks down to those who don't believe as he does and discourages them from learning more about the Christian faith.
He shows hatred and bigotry toward homosexuals, even though Christ showed love toward those considered the worst sinners in his time.
So Gary, I see no convincing evidence that you possess real faith either. Feel free to disagree if you want.

[Tony Sisk]

Gary,

You still do not see the argument. Sincerely, Gary, I am not just trying to disagree with you.

My point is simply this: it is irrelevant whether you, me, or Dan possesses real (biblical) faith or not. Dan may be deluded; confused; mistaken; even in sin with some of his convictions. That is NOT the point. The point is your immediate assertion that he is lost.

For you to make such a claim that he is lost, even though he asserts he is, you yourself are being disobedient to the claims of inerrant Scripture and thereby I can only conclude that you also must be lost, by your reasoning.

Nevertheless, it is obvious that you neither read nor think through what is being said to you. Your mind (and sadly, your heart)is made up without introspection. Prayerfully, this comment will not fall on deaf ears.

God bless, Gary.

[Gary]

Tony,

Which claims of Scripture am I disobeying?

[Tony Sisk]

Gary,

It is not my intent to usurp the role of the Holy Spirit in your life. If you are truly saved as you claim, then the Holy Spirit can and indeed will work in your life.

I have attempted to trace out your irrational thought in this thread but obviously to no avail. This is no dodge Gary--I have been as explicit as I can--so, once again, I will ask you to re-read my comments to you and see where I have already shown you which claims and precepts in Scripture you are failing to follow and understand.

Sincere blessings in Christ.

[JoeG]

Tony -
You are clearly asking the impossible. He can dish it out very well, but when it comes to taking it, Gary deflects rather than defends. Apparently his own logic does not apply to him. You'll notice I gave my own reasons, based on Gary's own logic, why he wouldn't pass for a Christian. I told him to feel free to disagree. As usual, the post was ignored. Gary feels he has a 100% accurate interpretation of the bible. That would imply perfection. Clearly, the only perfect one is God. Gary will most likely come back and say that his interpretation is not 100% perfect, but rather than admit where he thinks he may be going wrong, he'll challenge us to show him where he is wrong. He leaves it up to us to prove it, rather than make any admissions himself.
Look back in the posting history. This is the same discussion that has been going on with Gary for at least 6 months. Nothing has changed. Good luck Tony, if you get anywhere please let us know. It will truly be a miracle.

[Gary]

Tony,

It seems to me your argument is either a. We are not able to know who is a believer and who is not, and therefore, any judgement we make about that is illegitimate, or b. Even if we can know, we are not allowed to make that determination. Both of those arguments conflict with what I find in the New Testament. And also conflict with what I find in life.

How would a church ever choose a pastor or deacon without making a judgement as to the genuineness of their profession of faith? Many a church has suffered by simply taking someone's word rather than examining them to see if there was some reality behind their words.

[Tony]

Gary,

I appreciate you conversing with me on this. You seem to have a great deal of patience and that is admirable.

Nevertheless, that is not my argument. You have set up a straw man; you have essentially created a new position for me and then attempted to refute it, thereby thinking you have won the argument when you still have not addressed my initial premise.

My position is that you have judged whether or not Dan is a believer without personal knowledge of him. I have been reading Dan's blog for over a year and he loves the Lord. He is quirky and opinionated and yes a liberal. However, he would agree with us on what the core essentials of what the Gospel are.

So I reiterate to you what I said in an earlier comment: it is irrelevant whether you, me, or Dan possesses real (biblical) faith or not. Dan may be deluded; confused; mistaken; even in sin with some of his convictions. That is NOT the point. The point is your immediate assertion that he is lost.

So, you are adding to the Gospel, plain and simple which is biblical disobedience. In order for Dan or anyone to believe and be saved, they must believe beyond the core requirements of the Gospel, according to you. There is a fancy biblical word for this; its called "legalism".

When you are out sharing Christ with folks, assuming you do this, and you present the Gospel, do you say something like this: "In order to be saved, you must believe you are a sinner. You must understand that Jesus' death paid the penalty for man's sin, making reconciliation with God possible, because sin separates you from God. You then must repent of your sin, and ask Jesus to come into your life. You must also then believe that God created the world in six days and He rested on the seventh. You must believe that evolution is a heretical lie and homosexuality is abominable. Moreover, you go to church every Sunday, and it must be a conservative church that believes the Bible is inerrant and immersion is the only appropriate method of baptism. When you believe all this you can be saved."

Or do you share just the core tenets we discussed a few posts ago? I don't think you witness that way, Gary but it sure sounds like it.

That is the way I witness and I have seen many people come to Christ. It is up to their cooperating with the Holy Spirit to develop convictions. Salvation is in God's hands and I am glad it is. Otherwise, we would be in a terrible mess. Wouldn't you agree?

[Gary]

Tony,

I agree with you that salvation is in God's hands.

I don't believe I am adding to the gospel. But I do strongly believe that IF a person has really been born again, and really knows God and really has God-given faith, when that person learns that the Bible says that God created the universe in six literal days and rested on the seventh day, they will accept and believe it. To not do so is, at best, a sign of rebellion, and, at worst, a sign that the person is not a real believer.

I believe that when a genuine Christian learns that God calls something sin, they will agree. They won't argue about it or try to say "That scripture is out of date", or "That's just Paul's opinion", or some other such nonsense.

You said, "My position is that you have judged whether or not Dan is a believer without personal knowledge of him." That is not true. To accuse anyone of anything without evidence of their guilt is wrong, and I have not done that. I believe I have seen sufficient evidence. If you think I am wrong, we'll just have to disagree.

[Streak]

Gary, you just admitted that you are adding to the gospel requirements of proof of salvation--that you determine. You determine that belief in a literal creation is a requirement for salvation. You determine that if someone isn't convinced that homosexuality is sin, then they can't be Christian.

For all your insistence on scripture, you have never produced scripture that says that "Verily, I say if you do not believe in a 6 day creation, or make friends with gay people, you will burn in hell." Probably because no such verse exists. As I have noted, there are verses that suggest that you might want to remove that Gigantic log in your eye, but that and the verses telling you to love your enemy seem less important than the ones that reinforce your sense of self-righteousness.

You refuse to acknowledge that you only accept people as Christian if they agree with you. I keep reminding you that you are not God.

More wasted typing on my part.

[Gary]

Streak,

Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." Mark 13:31
Jesus inspired the writing of the Bible and got written what he wanted.

Jesus said, "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." John 5:46
Moses wrote Genesis.

Why would a real believer argue with what the Bible says? If they are really a Christian, wouldn't they believe the Bible, as soon as they understand what it says? I did.

Is it logical to believe that Christians can believe whatever they want, especially when what they believe is contrary to what the Bible says, and still be considedered Christians? Where is the proof that is true?

[Streak]

Again, you are the one deciding who is in and who isn't. As Tony has ably noted, you are more than free to disagree over those points of interpretation. What is less acceptable is for you to decide (You decide) that they are not Christian.