Featured How is God a Just God AND a Savior?

Yes. But I rejected that because it would make him a liar.

I believe we need to give people the benefit of the doubt.

But that (your idea of understanding a position before rejecting it) is where we need to head.

Contrary to the pastors claim, several positions present God as just and justifier. But these are competing positions (if one is correct then the others are wrong).

Instead of misleading people by saying that no other positiin exists that presents God as just and justifier we should simply state our interpretation and explain why we believe it correct.

We do not have to go into views other than our own, but we should not teach other people that those views do not exist.

 

This is not true. It demonstrates that you are the cantankerous one . You simply did not read my post. That's fine. There are many posts here to sift through.

I'll restate.

1. I agree with imputed righteousness.

2. The pastor claimed that his understanding was the only one that presented God as just and justifier.

3. That claim is a false statement. There are many interpretations that present God as just and the justifier of sinners.

4. I would not expect a preacher or pastor to teach those other views (that is for a theology class).

5. The problem is not that tge pastor didn't mention other interpretations. The problem is he told his church no other interpretation exists that presents God as just and justifier.

6. I was nitpicking, just making a comment in passing as that claim stuck out to me. I do not believe the pastor meant what he said (I believe he meant that his understanding is what he believes is true).

 

As long as you and @Martin Marprelate keep bringing it up and calling me back to the thread.

I listened to pastor Parker. I think his comment on the OP was simply poorly worded. I suspect that Pastor Parker knows that several interpretations present God as just and the justifier of sinners. But I don't think that was his point.

So I have plenty of room for Bill Parker. I respect him and have enjoyed his teaching. He reminds me of Billy Graham (how he talks).

How long do you intend on keeping this going?

 

OK. Good to know. That excludes my idea that he simply made the claim to emphasize his position rather than intending it as a factual theological statement.

As you know Parker, I'll rely on your feedback.

Is Parker simply unaware of the several other interpretations that give all glory to Christ while presenting God as just and the justifier of sinners OR is he lying to his congregation?

I assume Parker went to seminary and studied those other interpretations. If so, and if you are correct that my idea is wrong, then why did Parker intentionally make a false statement?

 

No, it really isn't.

It brings up questions regarding integrity in the pulpit.

I believe in the eternal security of the believer. Pretend I don't.

Suppose I am a free-will baptist pastor. I want my congregation to believe true doctrine.

Do you believe this would justify me telling my church that the only interpretation of Scripture that addresses sins after conversion is the doctrine that the believer forfeits his or her salvation?

Pastors need to stop trying to indoctrinate via false statements. They don't have to address opposing interpretations, but they shouldn't teach that those interpretations do not exist.

That is one reason churches dwindle. Young people talk to others outside of their congregation. It wouldn't take long for them to realize the pastor they trusted misled them.

 

That's my point. In the op he states that his understanding is the only one that glorifies Christ.

I'm not saying that other views are true. But when we go beyond God's Word (Pastor Parker does with the imputation of sin) then we have to tread carefully even if our understanding is the correct one.

 

No, he is going beyond "what is written". And that is fine (we have to, that is what constitutes understanding).

I don't dislike it at all. Christ became sin for us, we are "clothed" in His righteousness.

But we have to be careful that we lean not on our understanding.

 

I hope he doesn't (I suspect he doesn't).

But I'm not sure how his congregation takes his words. You seem to view Bill Parker as a vicar of God in the sense Parker's understanding equates to God's Word even though his understanding is not in the Bible itself.

Too many, mostly of the older generation, treat their pastor as a type of pope. They rely on tge pastors understanding as if it were the final authority rather than testing what was said

But we are human beings, and as such we can make mistakes. Even Bill Parker.

This is why, I believe, God gave us a warning if we aspire to teach others- that we will be held to a greater accountability.

Too many pastors forget that part.

 

No, I have not disagreed at all.

Had you bothered to read my posts you would have realized that your post is in line with what I have repeatedly posted.

Why do you think that I believe we have to talk about ANY position other than the one we hold?

You are making a strawman argument, Martin, and not for the first time. You make up a position for me and then go on pretending to argue against my post.


What I posted was that we should express our beliefs - NOT teach about all other views. I also posted that we need to be very careful in the pulpit, that this is a place for utmost integrity. We don't preach opposing interpretations, but at the same time we do not teach that ours is the only understanding within Christianity.

The question is whether you believe the high level of integrity a pastor should demonstrate in the pulpit applies to posting on the BB.

If so, why the strawman?