# Mark Jones has Challenged Scott Clark to a Debate



## TylerRay (Oct 19, 2017)

A Proposed Debate



> I propose, for the sake of the church, and especially the Reformed community, that R. Scott Clark and I debate these matters of justification, salvation, good works, etc.


----------



## Parakaleo (Oct 19, 2017)

What would the affirmation/denial be, you think?


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 19, 2017)

Parakaleo said:


> What would the affirmation/denial be, you think?


I don't know. I've never followed either of these men closely, but I'd definitely be interested to watch a public debate between the two.


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 19, 2017)

I would love to hear it as I am still on the fence about some things being said.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9 (Oct 19, 2017)

Dr. Jones reply tells me this has escalated. I would like to see a discussion about this and I hope they could walk away reconciled and friends......

*embarrassing edit* I saw "Mark Jones", but pictured Peter Jones and thought "wow, he's pretty spunky for his age"........ I was hoping Peter and Scott weren't at odds.....


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 19, 2017)

I am interacting w/ MJ on the issue. in my opinion, it looks as if Jones has issues w/ RSC's charge that there is a 'coup' of liberalism afoot. From what I know of Dr. Clark, he is spot on and is charging the nominals/normative (c)onfessionals-to which, I agree. The coup is subconsciously happening-especially in the PCA.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 19, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> I am interacting w/ MJ on the issue. in my opinion, it looks as if Jones has issues w/ RSC's charge that there is a 'coup' of liberalism afoot. From what I know of Dr. Clark, he is spot on and is charging the nominals/normative (c)onfessionals-to which, I agree. The coup is subconsciously happening-especially in the PCA.



I agree that there is an attempted coup in the PCA, but I don't think it will be along FV lines. It will be along the lines of #gimmedat. Most FV guys, except perhaps some softies, are usually anti-SJW and anti-Marxist. But that might be more of the first generation guys.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 19, 2017)

Jacob,
How did you interpret RSC's statement about a 'coup'?

Was he referring to the racial tension issue or general nominism, theologically and confessionally?


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 19, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I agree that there is an attempted coup in the PCA, but I don't think it will be along FV lines. It will be along the lines of #gimmedat. Most FV guys, except perhaps some softies, are usually anti-SJW and anti-Marxist. But that might be more of the first generation guys.


Whether the FV guys are SJWs or not, both are groups that the "big tent" folks will want to protect. It may well be that the "Can't we all just get along?" attitude is what kills the PCA; these are just two instantiations of it.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 19, 2017)

Is this private or online?


Scott Bushey said:


> I am interacting w/ MJ on the issue. in my opinion, it looks as if Jones has issues w/ RSC's charge that there is a 'coup' of liberalism afoot. From what I know of Dr. Clark, he is spot on and is charging the nominals/normative (c)onfessionals-to which, I agree. The coup is subconsciously happening-especially in the PCA.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 19, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Jacob,
> How did you interpret RSC's statement about a 'coup'?
> 
> Was he referring to the racial tension issue or general nominism, theologically and confessionally?



From what I saw of RSC on Twitter I think he is only talking about "FV". I haven't seem him really comment in regards to Jones (who is anti-Keller) about liberalism in the PCA.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 19, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Jacob,
> How did you interpret RSC's statement about a 'coup'?
> 
> Was he referring to the racial tension issue or general nominism, theologically and confessionally?



It has to be along lines of nomism. If he is worried about race warriors, it isn't evident in this.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 19, 2017)

Online-FB


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 19, 2017)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> From what I saw of RSC on Twitter I think he is only talking about "FV". I haven't seem him really comment in regards to Jones (who is anti-Keller) about liberalism in the PCA.



I revere the ministry of RSC, but he does tend to see FV and nomism behind many things.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 19, 2017)

Ben,
One can easily see he has been arguing against Shepherdism and JBFA, on his twit feeds as of recently. I have no idea why this would incite MJ's, however? This is why I say it must be nominism in his regard.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 19, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Online-FB


okay; found that. I would like to see such a debate and it is too bad it is not going to happen, at least as of now; but calling RSC a bully after his refusal and saying one didn't think he'd accept because he is one, tends to take any virtue out of the original offer.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 19, 2017)

Yea, both are throwing particularly large stones at each other. I really don't see what the issue is that MJ's is upset about.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 19, 2017)

NaphtaliPress said:


> okay; found that. I would like to see such a debate and it is too bad it is not going to happen, at least as of now; but calling RSC a bully after his refusal and saying one didn't think he'd accept because he is one, tends to take any virtue out of the original offer.


Indeed. No one should take that sort of bait or attempting to poison the well beforehand.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 19, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Ben,
> One can easily see he has been arguing against Shepherdism and JBFA, on his twit feeds as of recently. I have no idea why this would incite MJ's, however? This is why I say it must be nominism in his regard.



This whole thing started because of a Desiring God tweet/post. Mark Jones was pulled into it because he defended the DG post on FB and on Calvinist International. Jones is not on twitter, but that is where Clark has largely been critiquing Jones for defending Piper.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jw (Oct 19, 2017)

Imagine a world without FB, Twitter, Blogs, _______________ (fill in blank with with whatever ungoverned media you can think of) etc . . .

We've a pretty good tight-knit group here, but even it has its potential dangers, fueled by personal penchants toward focusing more on the goings-on without (not caused by anything inherent of the medium), rather than the stirrings-up within.

Imagine a world where one's best efforts were spent _first_ personally, _then _locally, _then_ presbyterially, _then_ denominationally/general assembly-ly, _then_ synodly, so on so forth.

I sometimes wonder if we're all too virtually "connected" for our own good. Distracted from our _primary_ spheres of influence, and too mixed up/concerned with things outside, beyond, or irrelevant to our place, station, and circumstances, such that much inner man work, family work, local chapters of Zion work, are severely neglected. Of course, this might just be me recognizing my own proclivity toward such an infirmity.

Reactions: Like 7 | Edifying 4 | Amen 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 19, 2017)

I guess my concern is why is MJ's upset. I don't see anything on RSC's tweets that is concerning or that I disagree with.


----------



## lynnie (Oct 19, 2017)

Did MJ defend the actual terminology of our salvation depending on our good works? Or was it more like defending a young guy who is trying to say obedience matters and antinomianism is wrong? I can accept young people are trying to say something and saying it really badly, and need adjusting, but was it more than that?

Can you explain in a nutshell? Thanks.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 19, 2017)

https://calvinistinternational.com/2017/10/17/means-way-salvation/


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 19, 2017)

Joshua said:


> Imagine a world without FB, Twitter, Blogs, _______________ (fill in blank with with whatever ungoverned media you can think of) etc . . .
> 
> We've a pretty good tight-knit group here, but even it has its potential dangers, fueled by personal penchants toward focusing more on the goings-on without (not caused by anything inherent of the medium), rather than the stirrings-up within.
> 
> ...


Wise insights, as always, brother.

We do need to be more focused in our little group. Of course, then we we must turn our attention to wondering why nicely made pulled pork must be accompanied by some sort of bean soup.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Oct 19, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I revere the ministry of RSC, but he does tend to see FV and nomism behind many things.



And MJ tends to excuse it in many things. He loves to take a few lines from carefully nuanced tomes by orthodox theologians about works and salvation (or worship, or other matters) and act as if someone who says something similar without the necessary caveats or nuance is doing the same thing. Desiring God's twitter account is not a Zanchius disputation.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 19, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I agree that there is an attempted coup in the PCA, but I don't think it will be along FV lines. It will be along the lines of #gimmedat. Most FV guys, except perhaps some softies, are usually anti-SJW and anti-Marxist. But that might be more of the first generation guys.



Hope I don't incur an auto de fe of this but... I'm good friends with a very prominent 1st Generation FV guy. This year at GA he bailed on a number of worship services due to the "propaganda angle" of the respective liturgies. He's also disgusted by what's going on at the Seminary with the SJW nonsense.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 19, 2017)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I would like to see such a debate and it is too bad it is not going to happen, at least as of now


Is that official? Has Clark declined?


----------



## JimmyH (Oct 19, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> https://calvinistinternational.com/2017/10/17/means-way-salvation/


Not to hijack this thread, but at the bottom of the linked page above, is an October 3rd MJ blog post with a scathing rebuke of Paul Zahl's suggestion that Tullian Tchividjian should be preaching again as an Elder. Interesting to read the comments. There are actually a couple of people defending the pernicious idea.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 19, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> Is that official? Has Clark declined?


From the comments copying posts from twitter on the Mark's facebook status, the report was, I think, not happening.


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 19, 2017)

NaphtaliPress said:


> From the comments copying posts from twitter on the Mark's facebook status, the report was, I think, not happening.


BOO!!!!


----------



## ZackF (Oct 20, 2017)

Wow this all blew up quick!


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 20, 2017)

Let's make it a steel cage death match.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## chuckd (Oct 20, 2017)

Is there a summary of what this is all about?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jw (Oct 20, 2017)

chuckd said:


> Is there a summary of what this is all about?


Someone, somewhere, said something perceptibly wrong, on the internet. Ergo, someone else, somewhere else, needed to say something else about that, on the internet. Then, someone further, somewhere further, saw that someone else, somewhere else, said something else about aformenetioned someone. Ergo, the someone further needed to say something further, in defense of someone, somewhere . . . on the internet.

Reactions: Like 5 | Funny 8


----------



## Nate (Oct 20, 2017)

NaphtaliPress said:


> From the comments copying posts from twitter on the Mark's facebook status, the report was, I think, not happening.


Someone on another forum suggested that The Confessional Presbyterian host the debate under the Sic et Non rubric.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 20, 2017)

Nate said:


> Someone on another forum suggested that The Confessional Presbyterian host the debate under the Sic et Non rubric.


Where was this cruel suggestion made?  Seriously, though, if not a live debate, maybe there would be an agreement to do papers? And it would not have to be for a journal; and it would certainly be better than nothing.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Nate (Oct 20, 2017)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Where was this cruel suggestion made?  Seriously, though, if not a live debate, maybe there would be an agreement to do papers? And it would not have to be for a journal; and it would certainly be better than nothing.


It was passed to me through Reddit, which I don't quite understand, so don't know if I could find it again for you! 
Better than nothing for sure.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 20, 2017)

Mark Jones wrote a series of articles on Justification for Ref 21 a few years ago. Here is one he reposted today that may help clarify things.

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/10/one-or-two-justifications.php


----------



## yeutter (Oct 20, 2017)

A focused exchange of papers would be preferable from my perspective.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 20, 2017)

@R. Scott Clark: do you care to share your thoughts?


----------



## bookslover (Oct 20, 2017)

I haven't read why Dr. Clark declined to debate. One reason, though, might be that he has said that he's currently in the middle of three large writing projects. Those are probably eating up most of his spare time.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 20, 2017)

chuckd said:


> Is there a summary of what this is all about?


http://christopherjgordon.blogspot.com/2017/10/a-proposed-october-2017-meeting-dear.html?m=1

Don't skip the comments section.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 3


----------



## Jerome Rosana (Oct 20, 2017)

I read the comment section of Gordon's blog.. MJ suddenly changed his tone after his first comment. He honestly admitted somethings.

1. I am a pastor not a theologian
2. Open on correction about Ursinus
3. Haven't read a Norman Sheperd stuff
4. He admitted his offence.


----------



## Parakaleo (Oct 21, 2017)

The latest from Dr. Jones.

Makes me wonder, "Why didn't he just say this in the first place??" The introduction of terms like "final salvation" and talking about salvation as if it is in any sense a two-stage process is what has led to so much controversy.

Something I came across that I think is very helpful here:

_This faith, we teach, purifies the heart, and always inclines us to holiness of life. Nor do we hold any faith to be true and saving that does not show itself by good works, without which no man is or can be justified, either in his own conscience, or before men. But it does not follow from this that we cannot be justified in the sight of God by faith only — because the apostle Paul asserts the latter, and the apostle James the former, both in good agreement. – Robert Traill_

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 21, 2017)

> Makes me wonder, "Why didn't he just say this in the first place??



Exactly.

I probed Jones and some of his cohorts on FB on the issue and they just evaded it pointing me to RSC's twit.



> The introduction of terms like "final salvation" and talking about salvation as if it is in any sense a two-stage process is what has led to so much controversy.



Intermingling justification and works, even in passing, tends to cause all sorts of unrest. The doctrine is important, but must be dealt with with sharp distinctions.

Anyone responsible would make these distinctions. Intermingling only causes confusion and at face value, to which I would agree w/ RSC, sounds like FV junk.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 21, 2017)

'Pardon our lack of clarity, but it's the other guy's fault'?


Scott Bushey said:


> I probed Jones and some of his cohorts on FB on the issue and they just evaded it pointing me to RSC's twit.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 21, 2017)

I understand. Both are blaming the other...Personally, I side w/ RSC on this matter-I don't agree either party has handled the thing correctly, mind you; But I have read some of Jones' statements in amplifying what Piper originally said and I believe he has taken Piper out of context.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 21, 2017)

Correct on blame (I have my bias but have not read enough to say I take a side; the whole manner of this thing leaves a lot to be desired); though I was mainly characterizing the evasiveness you said you got from the one side on that FB exchange. 


Scott Bushey said:


> I understand. Both are blaming the other...Personally, I side w/ RSC on this matter-I don't agree either party has handled the thing correctly, mind you; But I have read some of Jones' statements in amplifying what Piper originally said and I believe he has taken Piper out of context.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 21, 2017)

1,000 years of muddying the distinctions with little access to the Scriptures, I wonder if this is how Rome got to the point of writing Trent and condemning our position.


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 21, 2017)

The comments section in which Dr. Jones clarified helped immensely. I too, though, have not read enough to come down on either side but, I did not disagree with what Dr. Jones said in those comments.


----------



## jw (Oct 21, 2017)

Perhaps I am too simplistic (I mean this earnestly), but I have always thought one of the best pithy expressions on this matter under discussion is from our own Larger Catechism (WLC #32). It can easily be passed over, but notice the careful language of the Westminster Divines (my *emphases* added):

*Q. *32. How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?
*
A. *The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator, _and life and salvation *by him*_; and, _requiring *faith* as the *condition*_ to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to _enable them unto all *holy obedience*_, as the *evidence* of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and _*as the way* which he hath appointed them *to salvation*_.​
1. Faith is the "condition" to interest sinners in Christ.
2. Justifying faith is the gift of God given to His elect (Eph. 2).
3. The _effects_ -not the _cause_- of justifying faith are good works, "which God hath foreordained that we should walk in them," (Eph. 2.10).
4. Even the best of these "good works" are tainted with sin, which is proof enough that they are not the _cause _of, nor anyway contributory to, our justification.
5. In this vale of tears, all of these things serve not only as the _evidence_ of the truth of our faith, but are also _means _God has appointed along the path to salvation. In other words, they are a part of the package.
6. Christianity is a path, a journey, a way, a race, to a final destination in eternity. There is a definitive road (I'm think of the Pilgrim's Progress), and if one strays perpetually from that path, it will not be on the way to that eternal Zion.
7. Those truly regenerated, justified by Christ through saving faith, will never stray too far nor too long from that path, and will always find that way back, having their feet washed from the dirt of the world. Clinging to the promises and to Christ Himself.

So, it seems, a healthy dose of preaching the whole counsel of God, patiently giving words of encouragement of the unequivocal promises of the Gospel to tender consciences, while not giving comfort to the presumptuous hypocrisy of _mere _professors (and do we not see seeds of both temperaments in our hearts? I certainly do!) to stay in their sins, is in order. Another good statement from our Confessional Standards (WCF 16.2, my emphases added):

II. These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, _are the *fruits* and *evidences* of a true and lively faith_; and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, _having their fruit *unto holiness*_, they may _have the *end,* *eternal life*_.​

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 3 | Amen 2


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 21, 2017)

Jerome Rosana said:


> I am a pastor not a theologian



This is why the issue(s) even exist.

Calvin said he was first a scholar in order to be a good pastor.

If pastors do not want to be good theologians, they should quickly retire and spare their congregations the hurt they'll eventually cause.

Reactions: Like 5 | Sad 1


----------



## psycheives (Oct 22, 2017)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> This is why the issue(s) even exist.
> 
> Calvin said he was first a scholar in order to be a good pastor.
> 
> If pastors do not want to be good theologians, they should quickly retire and spare their congregations the hurt they'll eventually cause.



I don't think this comment is fair or helpful. Whatever Mark Jones meant by that comment, clearly we all know he IS both a theologian and a pastor. And like Calvin, he was a theologian (Doctorate) before a pastor. Please be more gracious in how we speak about a Reformed pastor, who our Lord has called.


----------



## psycheives (Oct 22, 2017)

Please pause to consider this debate from a different perspective. For those who seem to suggest Mark Jones or John Piper have introduced "final justification" or "final salvation" as some "new dangerous terminology" that is muddying the waters... hasn't this terminology been used for years and years? I don't see many people complaining too much about WTS' Greg Beale's usage of the phrase which has been going on since what - at least 2011? And Michael Horton's use of "final salvation" since at least 2006? How many other Reformed pastors and professors today are using similar terminology without it causing mass confusion? If they are causing great confusion, have we heard about it? And it seems that even though we have read them use these terms, most of us just haven't noticed or blinked an eye when we read the term - we knew what they meant.

Do we have a clearer term in "vindication"? Sure. But that hasn't stopped some from using these phrases for whatever reason. Some of them haven't taken too much heat, while others have. Could they have been clearer? Probably. But how hard should we come down on them if they were unclear? "I believe you meant well. Please be clearer in the future?" Or "Watch out! He's a heretic who denies justification by faith alone! Burn his books!"

Yes, we know that N.T. Wright's use of the phrase has been criticized and R. Scott Clark has loudly denounced the phrase as a Federal Vision term. But isn't it one thing to suggest to our pastors: "Please, let's be clearer and use vindication," but another to throw the "FV" label at a few of the guys who use the term? It would have been nice if this debate had been less heated from the start and more grace shown.

Why do we not speak to our pastors in private before going to the blogs? Is there a great danger of us falling into gossip? Or into sin? Of destroying a pastor's reputation when there was no need? Of missing 1 Timothy 5:1 "Rebuke not an elder, but exhort him as a father, _and_ the younger men as brethren..." Does John Piper feel he was exhorted as a respected and loved father?

Isn't it in our church orders to speak to pastors privately first? If your pastor speaks unclearly or you are confused by something they said, graciously go talk to him PRIVATELY and ask him to explain what he meant. Don't assume the worst of a man trained and called by God. Don't assume you have super discernment and without a doubt discovered "some FV heretic" in your midst and his elders and the rest of the congregation are all blind. Give him the benefit of the doubt. We are humans and we error - both the speaker and the listener. And if it's not us, language can just be confusing itself. Give him a chance to speak clearer. Don't be too hasty to cause division among God's church and seek to destroy the calling and career of a Reformed minister. A pastor's heart does not seek to mislead the layman. We should not jump to assume our pastors are "FV liars" and we should be very careful with our accusations - especially public ones.

P.S. And please, let us check our hearts and make sure we actually love John Piper. And love R. Scott Clark. And love Mark Jones. Really. Not love only one and not the others. And not seek to destroy or harm any of God's precious teachers or the flock. Guard against our natural sinful desire to choose sides in this one family - as if it is okay for there to even be any sides.

Reactions: Like 5 | Funny 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Oct 22, 2017)

Psyche, most of what you wrote I can add a hearty "Amen" to. The only issue I would raise is the issue of _privately_ speaking to a person about his _public_ ministry. Matthew 18 is not about public offenses, but private ("if your brother (singular) sins against you (singular)"). Galatians 2 shows us what happens with public offenses. Whatever arena the offense was committed in needs to be the arena in which the correction takes place. Not everything a pastor does is public, but his teaching and preaching ministry is definitely public. It is right to ask questions in public. The overheated rhetoric is not helpful, as it tends to cast more heat than light on matters. It needs to focus on the doctrinal matters at hand. But asking questions about a pastor's public teaching can certainly happen publicly, even while it is also realized that if charges need to be filed, then that needs to happen through the church courts.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Amen 2


----------



## psycheives (Oct 22, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Psyche, most of what you wrote I can add a hearty "Amen" to. The only issue I would raise is the issue of _privately_ speaking to a person about his _public_ ministry. Matthew 18 is not about public offenses, but private ("if your brother (singular) sins against you (singular)"). Galatians 2 shows us what happens with public offenses. Whatever arena the offense was committed in needs to be the arena in which the correction takes place. Not everything a pastor does is public, but his teaching and preaching ministry is definitely public. It is right to ask questions in public. The overheated rhetoric is not helpful, as it tends to cast more heat than light on matters. It needs to focus on the doctrinal matters at hand. But asking questions about a pastor's public teaching can certainly happen publicly, even while it is also realized that if charges need to be filed, then that needs to happen through the church courts.



Thanks for your comment and thoughts, Rev. Keister. Although I greatly appreciate Mt 18 (which like you said is quite a different context regarding specific sins), my aim was not to apply it here. But simply encourage 1 Tim 5:1, common sense, treating others as you would want to be treated and putting others before ourselves. Additionally, imagine the chaos that would ensue if congregants and visitors who "heard something unexpected" immediately ran to blogs and social media to "warn the flock" and "destroy the career of that heretic" preacher.

Yes, I'm aware "we are *able* to go public if someone wrote/spoke publicly." But under this excuse of "being able to" I've seen professors slander others, rage wars, print falsehoods, cause great damage to the reputations of one another and divide and destroy the unity of Christ's church. This should not be. Yes, we are able. But there is a higher road and we should encourage one another to take it. That higher road is to love one another and treat one another as we would want to be treated and to put others before ourselves. If someone discovers I write something in error, I would certainly prefer and hope they would contacted me privately to correct me, rather than putting me on blast before the entire world - for a genuine mistake or oversight.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 23, 2017)

psycheives said:


> Why do we not speak to our pastors in private before going to the blogs? Is there a great danger of us falling into gossip? Or into sin? Of destroying a pastor's reputation when there was no need? Of missing 1 Timothy 5:1 "Rebuke not an elder, but exhort him as a father, _and_ the younger men as brethren..." Does John Piper feel he was exhorted as a respected and loved father?


Note that this controversy began because of some inflammatory statements on the Desiring God blog.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## Jerome Rosana (Oct 23, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I probed Jones and some of his cohorts on FB on the issue and they just evaded it pointing me to RSC's twit.
> 
> ...



Who is the editor of calvinistinternational anyway?


----------



## greenbaggins (Oct 23, 2017)

psycheives said:


> Thanks for your comment and thoughts, Rev. Keister. Although I greatly appreciate Mt 18 (which like you said is quite a different context regarding specific sins), my aim was not to apply it here. But simply encourage 1 Tim 5:1, common sense, treating others as you would want to be treated and putting others before ourselves. Additionally, imagine the chaos that would ensue if congregants and visitors who "heard something unexpected" immediately ran to blogs and social media to "warn the flock" and "destroy the career of that heretic" preacher.
> 
> Yes, I'm aware "we are *able* to go public if someone wrote/spoke publicly." But under this excuse of "being able to" I've seen professors slander others, rage wars, print falsehoods, cause great damage to the reputations of one another and divide and destroy the unity of Christ's church. This should not be. Yes, we are able. But there is a higher road and we should encourage one another to take it. That higher road is to love one another and treat one another as we would want to be treated and to put others before ourselves. If someone discovers I write something in error, I would certainly prefer and hope they would contacted me privately to correct me, rather than putting me on blast before the entire world - for a genuine mistake or oversight.



Psyche, there is no doubt that much harm has been done by rushing too quickly to conclusions about an off-handed comment that is taken out of context. It reminds me of this cartoon, which is SO apropos. As has been pointed out, the original comment was already on a blog. So, there should be great thought and prayer put into any attempt to correct a person's theological statements, especially online. I wrote about it here. But the correction should be in the same forum. 

What must also be considered, however, is that a public statement, if incorrect and uncorrected can do just as much damage online to the sheep as a reckless dealing with it could. That is why the forum for correction needs to be as close as possible to the forum of the original error, so that the people involved in the original incident will be as close as possible to the number of people who are involved in the correction. 

When I take a vow concerning submission to my brothers in the Lord, part of that involves being willing to have my public teaching and preaching come under public scrutiny. If someone misunderstands me, I can correct that gently and with understanding. As pastors, our public teaching is (and should be!) _constantly_ under scrutiny. I would not want that any other way, because the cost of having it any other way is too great: misleading the sheep. I would _much_ rather submit to various indignities and slights to my good name (and I have had _plenty_ in my current years of ministry, make no mistake) than to have one sheep be misled by something I say.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Jerome Rosana (Oct 24, 2017)

*It's Hardly Wrapped-Up: A Response From John Lewis:*

https://christopherjgordon.blogspot.com/2017/10/its-hardly-wrapped-up-response-from.html?m=1


----------

