Featured How is God a Just God AND a Savior?

It does not matter who is a friend of who. I'm not talking bad about the pastor. I might even agree with his view of imputation.

But in the end of the day he is asking people to believe his view is the only one that glorifies Christ and presents God as just and the justifier of sinners. That is asking people to believe a lie.

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. If you are correct, then the pastor is intentionally dishonest.

Maybe he isn't ignorant of other views. Maybe he knows his isn't the only one that glorifies Christ while presenting God as just and justifier. Maybe he is lying to the church so that they will depend on him rather than God. I don't know.

But I prefer to think better of people.

Romans 10:3 offers no support for your position. It also does not justify your pastor friend teaching his own understanding as if it was God's Word.

I've preached from the same ground on which your friend now stands. He needs to be more careful.

 

I agree that the gospel is the only view that glorifies Christ and presents God as just God AND a Savior.

And I don't doubt that Pastor Parker is a faithful preacher of the gospel of Christ.

My point is that faithful preachers of the gospel of Christ should not diminish one another's positions by claiming theirs is the only interpretation that glorifies Christ and preserves God as just and justifier.

 

@KenH

Let me give you an example of what I mean.

I could be a preacher who holds Recapitulation as true (I'm not) and be faithful to the gospel of Christ. Now, Recapitulation highlights Christ as the "Last Adam". But if I were to say that Recapitulation is the ONLY understanding that views Christ as the "Last Adam" then I would have made a false statement.

There are two possibilities that could account for the error.

I could simply not understand other views (ignorance of how Ransom Theory, Christus Victor, Satisfaction, Penal Substitution Theory, etc. view Christ as "the Last Adam"). Were this the case then I may be an honest teacher, just ignorant in that I lack in understanding other views.

OR, I could understand the other views and that they also present Christ as the "Last Adam" yet choose to lie to the congregation. Maybe this is so that they would not stray from my understanding (what I believe is the correct view). If I keep them ignorant of other views then they are more likely to hold what I believe is true. Then I may be a pastor with good intentions, but I would also be dishonest and leaning on my own understanding by forcing it upon others without their knowledge.

A good Pastor would teach Scripture, explain other interpretations, offer tge reason he believes his correct, and let God's Word stand.

 

We may, but that is why I am asking (to flesh out if you truly believe "another gospel").

Here is where we now stand:

I have not disagreed with your position of imputation (I have not said either way, other than pointing to Isaiah 61:10...and I susoect we agree there)..


Where we disagree is if it is appropriate for a pastor to mislead a congregation (regardless of intent) into believing the pastor's interpretation of Scripture is the only interpretation that addresses the issues in question. I believe it is wrong (it is lening on one's own understanding).

You present the pastors understanding of imputation as the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Regardless of the validity of that pastors interpretation, if it is taken as the gospel of Christ then it is "another gospel".

There is only one true gospel. What you need to do is provide a passage that teaches one must agree with your pastors interpretation of imputation in order to be saved. Prove all of those Christians who hold different interpretations are lost.

There is only one gospel. This gospel is held by Calvinists, non-Calvinists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics, Lutherans....by ANY person who is a child of God.

They may disagree in understandings, but these are disagreements in understanding the same gospel that was the power of their salvation.

 

Exactly. And this is what @KenH is doing.

He is telling us that his pastors understanding on imputation IS the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I'm not saying his view of imputed righteousness is wrong. I am, however, saying that it is not the gospel itself.

Christians, even we'll meaning ones, often overstate their position. I pray this is what Padtor Parker and Ken have done. But I don't know that. Both could hold to "another gospel". Both could lean on their understanding of imputed righteousness as the gospel itself.

 

I know we disagree.

To be clear - so that I understand your position - and no foul regarding your answer (I am asking you....nobody else....and you will not be penalized for your answer).

I believe the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded as the gospel itself (the gospel, literally, is Christ).

But what you are talking about is doctrines about the gospel.

A man may believe the boat will save him if he gets in. Your argument is the man must get in, but also understand physics as it reates to buoyancy, the construction process of the boat, etc.

I believe that the Father made His Son - who knew no sin - sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.

But I believe your doctrine - NOT the passage - is false.

So in your mind I believe "another gospel" because I reject your understanding of that passage.

To you, does that mean I am not saved or does that mean that there are many gospels of Jesus Christ that is the power of salvation?

 

The problem here is Christians (true Christians) teaching a false gospel (their understanding of Scripture in addition to the gospel of Jesus Christ).

I was saved believing a general free will presentation of the gospel. I came to reject that free will presentation, but it was still the same gospel that saved me.

Many here are like that. Several on this board have testified of being saved in Arminian churches only to become a Calvinist later in their Christian walk. Others were saved in Reformed churches and abandoned Reformed doctrine later in life.

To say that one's understanding of the effects of the gospel is the gospel itself is to teach "another gospel".

@KenH suggests that anybody who rejects Pastor Parkers understanding of imputation is lost (they believe "another gospel"). That is simply a false teaching.

And that is probably why God commanded us not to make such judgments of other Christians.

People can hold incorrect beliefs about the gospel by which they were saved. If this were not true then spiritual growth and learning them rough studying God's Word is a myth.