16 Comments


  1. Joel, Do you think this post demonstrates the love of Jesus Christ? It seems that blogs such as yours, which are viewed by unbelievers as well as Christians, should take that into consideration. Calling a brother out over perceived error is one thing; good debates are useful and needed. However, name-calling in this manner is counterproductive.
    John 13:34-35.

    Reply

    1. There is a huge difference between name calling and fact-stating.

      Let’s not forget that in John, Jesus beat the money changers and called his religious leaders children of the devil, vipers, etc…

      The love of Christ is not always hand holding, but sometimes demonstrated in letters like Galatians.

      Reply

      1. I absolutely agree. But when Jesus and Paul corrected someone it sounded just like that. The tone, though VERY stern, was corrective. Your tone seems derisive. It is more like something a non-christian would say. If you really think Jason is “heretical at best” (or his ideas), wouldn’t the Christlike thing be to instruct?
        “And the Lord’s servant must not strive, but be gentle towards all, apt to teach, forbearing, in meekness correcting them that oppose themselves; if peradventure God may give them repentance unto the knowledge of the truth, and they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him unto his will” (II Timothy 2:24-26).

        Reply

        1. Your comments, while appreciated, are highly subjective and only are focused on one exchange. This has gone on for a year or more, with no amount of instruction or help accepted. Everything is on his terms.

          Reply

          1. That is fair enough, Joel. However, I have just one suggestion. Think of how an unsaved person might react to how you are reacting to your brother. It seems the charitable thing to simply and quietly tell him that the communication is over. No fanfare. No uppercase pronouncements on his theological stand. (It is not as if he is denying the Trinity or the Deity of Christ.) Maybe even pray for him. Care about him. Love him. That’s all. .


          2. But, he is denying those things in a passive stance.

            And why should we seek to dance around the subject? There are times to do so, yes, but after a bit, no.


    1. When you deny the place of Tradition, development, etc… you then must deny those things Tradition has given us.

      Reply

  2. You seem to assume too much, Joel. I understand that you and Jason have far different presuppositions when you approach your exegetical tasks; however, it seems unfair to accuse him of heresy (denying the Trinity and/or the Deity of Christ). Such a strong accusation should be demonstrated with actual proof, rather than alluded to by his purported denial of tradition, development, etc. Please demonstrate your claim. And thank you for your interaction with me. It is much appreciated.

    Reply

    1. How do I assume? He denies the proper place of Scripture by calling it “inerrant” a term and concept found nowhere in Scripture, but denies the role of Tradition — it is all over his blog. Once you do this, the logical conclusion is that one is denying the role of the Church in shaping doctrine.

      Reply

  3. You assume by presenting a false dichotomy–those who believe in inerrancy must deny the Trinity and Deity of Christ. It seems safe to say that those of both persuasions could still orthodox views of God (i.e., that He is Triune & that Christ is God).

    Reply

    1. Actually, I didn’t say that.

      I said that his denial of the proper place of Scripture and Tradition, in part evidenced by his views on Scripture and his insertion of the word of inerrancy into the conversation, is part of the evidence of his passive denial of historical Christian doctrines.

      One can pretend to hold what they want to, but in the end, the logical conclusion of inerrancy and fundamentalism is the denial of Christian development, thus orthodox positions. I said this was passive, meaning that I suspect he doesn’t realize the full faultiness of his positions, but then again, many do not.

      Reply

  4. I had written, “It is not as if he is denying the Trinity or the Deity of Christ.” Your response was, “But, he is denying those things in a passive stance.” So, it appears that we have a communication problem. I thought you said he was a heretic by his denial of the Trinity & Deity of Christ. Apparently, you meant to say he passively denies unnamed “historical Christian doctrines.” Please clarify what those are. I will be off line for a couple of hours and will respond later.

    Reply

    1. I don’t see the problem… He is a heretic for a variety of reasons… namely for his stances on denying the role of Scripture, the role of Tradition, the liberal attitudes he takes to Scripture, and the such. Because of the liberality in which he treats Scripture, he passively denies the Trinity and other Orthodox doctrines.

      Passively – unknowingly, or without his attention

      Reply

  5. Joel,

    You are doing Master of Theology work. Surely you are aware that your accusation of heresy is not supported by evidence. Those who seek academic credibility would be wise to avoid condemning those who are either more or less conservative than themselves. It is inherently wrong to accuse anyone of heresy without hard proof. Innuendos will not do.

    Consider the benefit of emulating John as the apostle of love rather than John the son of thunder. And with that, I will stop my interaction here. I thank you for your time.

    Reply

    1. E,

      I’ve completed the work, actually.

      One cannot simply say “you don’t answer my question to my liking therefore you didn’t answer the question.”

      I’m not sure what other proof you need, beyond that of Jason’s denial of Tradition as valid, as Scripture within its proper role (inerrant it is not). Once those two things are mixed up, one takes that slippery slope to heresy, the current state of many Christians, I fear.

      What do you know about John, the brother of James?

      Anyway, I appreciate the interaction, but it seems your main purpose here was to defend that which you know nothing about.

      Reply

Leave a Reply, Please!