# Church members Angry: Listen to my Sermon



## Damon Rambo

O.k.

This is probably dangerous here, but I was wondering if anyone would listen to my sermon, and critique it.

My Pastor went on vacation, and I am the "switch hitter", so to speak. Anyway, there were some members who were teaching some classes by this guy...

Through the Bible with Les Feldick

Who I believe to be horrible, heretical, anti-Baptist, and dangerous. (I will point out egregious errors if need be, but this is not the point of the thread).

In any event, some of these teachings were being discussed as truth in the Church (and went directly against our Churches statement of faith). 

So when these certain people heard this sermon, they got angry. Listen to it, and tell me what you think...

"Guard your Doctrine: Refuting the Two Gospel Heresy"

Thanks so much, in advance.


----------



## Damon Rambo

65 views and no comments? Is it that bad, or were you shocked into silence?


----------



## BobVigneault

Damon, don't be discouraged if no one has listened yet. You only posted last night. You are new to the board, nobody knows you yet and you are asking folks to invest at least 40 minutes in listening to your sermon. These folks already have a regular listening routine, Piper, Moehler, Duncan, Seminary Lectures, etc. So you'll need to give this time and don't draw any conclusions about your message based on how many can find time to listen to it. Blessings friend.


----------



## he beholds

Good advice, Bawb!
Damon, maybe if you could post a little outline of what you said that angered them, we could respond to that. Since I have no idea who Les Feldick is, or even what the two Gospel heresy is, that's not much of a teaser for me to go take a listen. But I bet if I saw some of the points you are refuting listed, I would have an idea if you were legit or if your members were legitimately angered. That is not to say that you have to do this for my specific response, but I thought maybe my lack of motivation could be founded on the same as others.


----------



## Blue Tick

I'm listening to your sermon right now.


----------



## Damon Rambo

he beholds said:


> Good advice, Bawb!
> Damon, maybe if you could post a little outline of what you said that angered them, we could respond to that. Since I have no idea who Les Feldick is, or even what the two Gospel heresy is, that's not much of a teaser for me to go take a listen. But I bet if I saw some of the points you are refuting listed, I would have an idea if you were legit or if your members were legitimately angered. That is not to say that you have to do this for my specific response, but I thought maybe my lack of motivation could be founded on the same as others.



Sorry. Perhaps you are right.

Les Feldick (and many others) teach a doctrine that comes from a similar root to the "New Perspective on Paul" (going in the opposite direction). I call his brand of hyperdispensationlism the "two Gospel" (or three gospel) heresy.

Basically they teach that Jesus' call of repentance was only to the Jews, and was a different "gospel" than that preached to the Gentile, later, by Paul. Also, the "great commission" is not a command given to the Church, as we have it today, but was given only to the first 11 apostles.

So in essence, it has a "different gospel", that has no repentance necessary: simply intellectual assent. It is also heavily tied in with Hyper-dispensationalism, saying that the Jews will be forever separated from the Gentile.

FYI: I was in the middle of a song presentation when the lights went out. I preached the entire sermon in the dark, without being able to see my notes.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Hubby and I would listen, but you've already commented that one of your issues is "anti-baptist"....and well, we crossed that mosh pit several years back.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Looking over my posts, there are a couple of other things I need to touch on...

The "Two Gospel" heresy of Les Feldick teaches that Jesus' commands in the gospels have no bearing on the Church. All of the books of scripture, such as the Revelation, which were not written by Paul, are not applicable to Gentile Believers...

For instance, the word "ekklesia" in Revelation, according to him, is not referring to the seven Churches, but the seven synagogues. Lots of craziness, and dangerous doctrine.

Also, the "Gospel of Grace", according to this view, is only the one given by Paul, and was unknown to the other 11 apostles. The Church started half way through Acts (according to his view).

Here is a good article describing it. 

Critical Issues Commentary: Hyperdispensationalism and the Authority of Christ

Yes, it seems the Church of Christ is the only people to have properly addressed this growing problem. Sad, really...

-----Added 5/20/2009 at 10:18:12 EST-----



LadyFlynt said:


> Hubby and I would listen, but you've already commented that one of your issues is "anti-baptist"....and well, we crossed that mosh pit several years back.



The issues in question are equally anti-Pesbyterian. As a heavily reformed Baptist, I do not believe anything I said in the Sermon would be regarded as incorrect by most Presbyterian believers, although I could be wrong.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Damon Rambo said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hubby and I would listen, but you've already commented that one of your issues is "anti-baptist"....and well, we crossed that mosh pit several years back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issues in question are equally anti-Pesbyterian. As a heavily reformed Baptist, I do not believe anything I said in the Sermon would be regarded as incorrect by most Presbyterian believers, although I could be wrong.
Click to expand...



Okay, I mistook your post then. I thought one of your issues mentioned was the baptism issue. We'll give it a listen to.


----------



## Blue Tick

Brother Damon,

First I would I like to say that you have a good working knowledge of God’s word. You appear to have promising communication skills and a passion for truth. Your zeal to see God’s word preached correctly and accurately comes through as well. In regards to this situation within your church and the people “teaching” this two-gospel heresy your sermon sounded more like a open rebuke to these folks. However, your exposition was accurate there is only one gospel for all people. You did a fine job of explaining this. If this was a response to what has been going on in your church I would suggest going to these folks and instructing them with meekness and gentleness. Seek to restore them in the spirit of humility and humbleness instructing those who are ignorant to the truth of God’s word. Remember Matthew 18 and Galatians 6:1. This can save us a lot strife and division within the church. If they refuse to repent and stand corrected then take the proper means of discipline. But try to avoid an open rebuke from the pulpit this earlier in the game.

Blessings to you.


----------



## Wannabee

Damon,

I think your message was accurate, and needed. However, here are some observations and questions.

What was the basis of your sermon? It often helps to have a purpose statement based on a passage of Scripture. That keeps you in line and makes your message more focused.

You sound angry. If I was sitting there I would have thought that this guy has a chip on his shoulder and is flogging someone. It might have come across differently in person. But that's what I get from listening. 

Do you love these people? If so, then hold their souls gently. You are accountable to God for your care of His people (Heb 13:17). Attack the sin by exposing it as what it is, but do so in a manner that shows that you're combating it with them, rather than combating them.

You unloaded the whole enchilada on them. This gets back to my first comment. It might have been more effective to simply give them some teaching that exposes the root of the problem. What doctrinal issue is at stake in some of the wrong thinking going on? Use a text that directly addresses this and preach that text well, perhaps using examples you see around you.


Please understand that I can't know the dynamic of your church and your relationship with them. These comments are merely based on what you've given and listening to your sermon. And, I really don't see why someone would be angry. I would imagine that those who are felt personally assaulted by you; perhaps singled out. It might be good for you to talk to them personally and work it out with love and humility, while still standing firm on biblical doctrine.

I preached a similar sermon a while back from Acts 2:41, the apostles' doctrine. One of my points was that it is not doctrine, in and of itself, that divides. It's false doctrine that brings division. If we all saw the teaching of Scripture correctly and believed the truth then we'd all be united. But where there is departure from the truth there is division. There are really only two sides - united in the truth of Scripture and everybody else. That's simplified, but gives a general thought process. Another thought is that adding to the Gospel takes away from it just as much as if we subtracted from it. It's either THE Gospel or it detracts and is a lie - anathema. 

May God give you wisdom and do a mighty work in you and those entrusted to your ministry.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Damon Rambo said:


> Les Feldick (and many others) teach a doctrine that is tied in with the "New Perspective on Paul", which I refer to as "two Gospel" (or three gospel) heresy.
> 
> Basically they teach that Jesus' call of repentance was only to the Jews, and was a different "gospel" than that preached to the Gentile, later, by Paul. Also, the "great commission" is not a command given to the Church, as we have it today, but was given only to the first 11 apostles.
> 
> So in essence, it has a "different gospel", that has no repentance necessary: simply intellectual assent. It is also heavily tied in with Hyper-dispensationalism, saying that the Jews will be forever separated from the Gentile.
> 
> FYI: I was in the middle of a song presentation when the lights went out. I preached the entire sermon in the dark, without being able to see my notes.



That doesn't sound like the New Paul Perspective. That sounds like classical dispensationalism as taught by Darby, Scoffield, J. Vernon McGee, Charles Ryrie, etc. 

I will listen to it also.


----------



## Damon Rambo

LadyFlynt said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hubby and I would listen, but you've already commented that one of your issues is "anti-baptist"....and well, we crossed that mosh pit several years back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issues in question are equally anti-Pesbyterian. As a heavily reformed Baptist, I do not believe anything I said in the Sermon would be regarded as incorrect by most Presbyterian believers, although I could be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I mistook your post then. I thought one of your issues mentioned was the baptism issue. We'll give it a listen to.
Click to expand...


No, although the Baptism thing is an issue too, I did not address this in my sermon. "Anti-Baptist" was referring to his direct attack on the teachings of repentance, and faith, as expressed by historic Baptist confessions.

Mr. Feldick teaches that Baptism is not something the Church is supposed to be doing. This was part of the "Gospel of the Kingdom", preached by Jesus, according to him, and has no place in the Church today. So in this, even, we would be united, for we both believe that Baptism is for today: we just disagree on mode and timing...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Great advice Joe. Wannabee

Pastor Joe's advice


----------



## Damon Rambo

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Les Feldick (and many others) teach a doctrine that is tied in with the "New Perspective on Paul", which I refer to as "two Gospel" (or three gospel) heresy.
> 
> Basically they teach that Jesus' call of repentance was only to the Jews, and was a different "gospel" than that preached to the Gentile, later, by Paul. Also, the "great commission" is not a command given to the Church, as we have it today, but was given only to the first 11 apostles.
> 
> So in essence, it has a "different gospel", that has no repentance necessary: simply intellectual assent. It is also heavily tied in with Hyper-dispensationalism, saying that the Jews will be forever separated from the Gentile.
> 
> FYI: I was in the middle of a song presentation when the lights went out. I preached the entire sermon in the dark, without being able to see my notes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't sound like the New Paul Perspective. That sounds like classical dispensationalism as taught by Darby, Scoffield, J. Vernon McGee, Charles Ryrie, etc.
> 
> I will listen to it also.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I should have been more clear...

It is quite different from the "New Perspective" (obviously does not have the works righteousness aspects, etc.). However, the supposed cultural issues of the first century, used to support the "New Perspective", are the same issues, Mr. Feldick uses to support his conclusions. He just goes in a different direction with it.

It is hyper-dispensationalism, no doubt. But their are some new elements to it. I do not believe Mcghee ever said that the Gospels do not apply to us, and we can disregard Jesus' earthly teachings. I also do not believe (though I might be wrong, as I have not listened much to him) that Mcghee taught that the we should not Baptize believers, or that sinful licentiousness was permissible for a believer.


----------



## baron

Damon, just finished your sermon not bad. I also have heard people teach of two gospels one by Paul for the Gentiles and another by Peter just for the Jews. They say you have to know who you are speaking with because if the person is a Jew and you use Paul's gospel they can't be saved. So you must know both Gospels. (They also tend to be bullheaded regarding this). When I ask them the difference between the two they can't answer or as you stated in your sermon they say Gentiles need not repent, only assent to the truth.

I agree doctrine unites believers and divides us from non believers. When ever I'm struggleing I love to run to doctrines. Doctrines always take me back to God and I see how little I'am.

As far as coming out bodily in sermon I will leave that to others. I have heard it sad many time's to come in the back door and do not break the front door down. (Or you catch more flies with honey than vinegar). I personaly do not agree and believe error should be confronted directly. But that is my opinion. I know people in churches that have to think twice about what they preach or teach due to hurting other people's feelings.


----------



## smhbbag

Did you discuss these issues with anyone before preaching this? Did the pastor know what you were going to cover? Is he in agreement with you?

I don't know the situation at all. But I would imagine your pastor is in agreement with you, and may have had his own plans for addressing this, in a different manner or in an upcoming sermon. If I were him, and you pushed it like this without letting me know first, I'd be pretty upset.

You are, of course, right on the issue. But I would be very concerned if you brought this kind of sermon out as a first-response to the errant teaching going on.

This kind of sermon is plenty justified and it is worth this kind of confrontation. But going at it alone with no warning or talks beforehand can actually work against your cause, making others feel you simply took an opportunity to rant.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

McGee did say that the Sermon on the Mount didn't apply to the Church. He held a very strong dichotomy of church and Isreal. And he made distinctions in the New Testament on what the Church was to apply and what was meant for Isreal. He believed Jews would be saved by law in some instances. I was a listener to J. Vernon McGee for many years. I didn't buy what he said as I held to Covenant Theology, but I did like listening to his Southern drawl. It was kinda old fashioned. And I liked his down to earth demeanor.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Wannabee said:


> Damon,
> 
> I think your message was accurate, and needed. However, here are some observations and questions.
> 
> What was the basis of your sermon? It often helps to have a purpose statement based on a passage of Scripture. That keeps you in line and makes your message more focused.
> 
> You sound angry. If I was sitting there I would have thought that this guy has a chip on his shoulder and is flogging someone. It might have come across differently in person. But that's what I get from listening.
> 
> Do you love these people? If so, then hold their souls gently. You are accountable to God for your care of His people (Heb 13:17). Attack the sin by exposing it as what it is, but do so in a manner that shows that you're combating it with them, rather than combating them.
> 
> You unloaded the whole enchilada on them. This gets back to my first comment. It might have been more effective to simply give them some teaching that exposes the root of the problem. What doctrinal issue is at stake in some of the wrong thinking going on? Use a text that directly addresses this and preach that text well, perhaps using examples you see around you.
> 
> 
> Please understand that I can't know the dynamic of your church and your relationship with them. These comments are merely based on what you've given and listening to your sermon. And, I really don't see why someone would be angry. I would imagine that those who are felt personally assaulted by you; perhaps singled out. It might be good for you to talk to them personally and work it out with love and humility, while still standing firm on biblical doctrine.
> 
> I preached a similar sermon a while back from Acts 2:41, the apostles' doctrine. One of my points was that it is not doctrine, in and of itself, that divides. It's false doctrine that brings division. If we all saw the teaching of Scripture correctly and believed the truth then we'd all be united. But where there is departure from the truth there is division. There are really only two sides - united in the truth of Scripture and everybody else. That's simplified, but gives a general thought process. Another thought is that adding to the Gospel takes away from it just as much as if we subtracted from it. It's either THE Gospel or it detracts and is a lie - anathema.
> 
> May God give you wisdom and do a mighty work in you and those entrusted to your ministry.



Thank you for the honesty, brother.

In all honesty, I did not mean to address these particular people. I was simply trying to correct error, which was getting a foothold in our church. 

Since the teaching of this "Two Gospel" heresy is contrary to our Churches (very broad!) statement of faith, I did not really figure on any fallout from it (my own naivete' I guess!). Looking back, I wish that I had thought to incorporate our Statement of Faith into my sermon.

But this is the way I look at it. I love Ligon Duncan. But if I were showing videos of Ligon in our Baptist Church, and the Pastor that next sunday decided to preach a fiery sermon on Baptism (if their is such a thing), I could hardly be justified getting angry at him.

Anyway, thanks for the advice. I will consider it, my friend.


----------



## Craig

I plan on listening to the sermon...having not listened, take this with a grain of salt:

I have experience with people that believe in "2 Gospels"/antinomianism...they are factious and rarely teachable (the ones I've been in contact with are of the Bob Enyart variety).

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that these people needed a rod. I trust you didn't catch the flock completely off-guard, that you've tried addressing this error previously, or that your pastor has.


----------



## Damon Rambo

smhbbag said:


> Did you discuss these issues with anyone before preaching this? Did the pastor know what you were going to cover? Is he in agreement with you?
> 
> I don't know the situation at all. But I would imagine your pastor is in agreement with you, and may have had his own plans for addressing this, in a different manner or in an upcoming sermon. If I were him, and you pushed it like this without letting me know first, I'd be pretty upset.
> 
> You are, of course, right on the issue. But I would be very concerned if you brought this kind of sermon out as a first-response to the errant teaching going on.
> 
> This kind of sermon is plenty justified and it is worth this kind of confrontation. But going at it alone with no warning or talks beforehand can actually work against your cause, making others feel you simply took an opportunity to rant.



My Pastor is in 100 percent agreement with me, and really liked the sermon (he listened to it when got back). He had already spoken in private with the members one on one. I was NOT confronting the members: I was squashing a growing, disturbing doctrine in our church, and showing how it did not measure up, biblically.


----------



## smhbbag

> My Pastor is in 100 percent agreement with me, and really liked the sermon (he listened to it when got back). He had already spoken in private with the members one on one.



Then, in that case, excellent sermon and praise God you delivered it. Having known his views, and knowing that he would support you using this opportunity, then you were definitely in the clear. Without that, though, it would have called for different measures. Thanks for clearing it up for me.


----------



## Wannabee

That piece of information definitely puts a different setting on the table. Much of what I said would still stand, but with a better context it should be understood differently. It was encouraging to hear the people laugh with you too, showing that they were engaged and that you hadn't lost them, as a whole.


----------



## greenbaggins

One of the things I had to struggle with in the first two or three years (I'm still only 4 1/2 years into the ministry) was a desire not only to change everything, and have that happen quickly, but also to go out and slay the dragons immediately. I am not saying that this is what you are doing. I am merely saying that it is a temptation. But people in the congregation do not normally change that quickly, either for heresy or against. Of course, there are exceptions, and maybe it is making inroads that fast (Paul did mention that the Galatians were falling into heresy quickly). But this is something that always needs to be judged carefully by getting the know the people and what their strengths and weaknesses are. Patient, careful, instruction is usually better than broadsides. 

As a matter of fact, Damon, the two-Gospel view is something that N.T. Wright, for one, has strenuously argued _against_ the likes of Lloyd Gaston. It is not NPP at all, as far as I can tell. The whole tenor of the NPP is against such readings of the NT.


----------



## LadyFlynt

I enjoyed it  Hubby said you sounded fine. However, whenever you pull a wheel out from under someone's bandwagon, you are bound to ruffle their feathers


----------



## BJClark

I haven't heard the entire sermon and am currently listening to it, but at this point, I don't hear where you have called anyone out specifically..to where any should be offended or angry. 

So why would they 'feel' as if you are attacking them personally? well, that is an easy one to answer, because THEY believe the false gospel, and are being confronted with that truth, that they believe a lie..and if your pastor is in agreement with you, this will certainly open the door for him to expound on those truths even more..

If they are angry at you, then they are angry at the messenger, which is quite common..many people get angry at the messenger, when they don't like what He is saying.

I'm curious, if there are some in your church who are teaching this man's material..and it is a false Gospel, then who is approving the material being taught???


----------



## BobVigneault

Thanks little brother, I was typing faster than the speed of thought again.



Joshua said:


> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> 
> D These folks already have a regular listening routine, Piper, Moehler, Duncan, Seminary Lectures, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like that Moehler fella. He's pretty heretical, Bawb. Al Mohler, on the other hand, he's alright . . . for a Baptist.
Click to expand...


----------



## kevin.carroll

PuritanCovenanter said:


> That doesn't sound like the New Paul Perspective. That sounds like classical dispensationalism as taught by Darby, Scoffield, J. Vernon McGee, Charles Ryrie, etc. I will listen to it also.



I don't think that's classic dispensationalism (having been gloriously delivered from it, myself), but I agree that it is dispensational. Probably the hyper brand.


----------



## Damon Rambo

greenbaggins said:


> As a matter of fact, Damon, the two-Gospel view is something that N.T. Wright, for one, has strenuously argued _against_ the likes of Lloyd Gaston. It is not NPP at all, as far as I can tell. The whole tenor of the NPP is against such readings of the NT.



If you will read my post above, you will note that I stated, they are different, but come from the same root. The NPOP and the Two Gospel hyperdispensationalist errors, come from a redefining of what Paul is saying, based on supposed cultural issues. They both stem from blaming "modern" interpretations (reformation onward), on a medieval or enlightenment mindset, forced upon a first century text.


----------



## greenbaggins

Damon Rambo said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, Damon, the two-Gospel view is something that N.T. Wright, for one, has strenuously argued _against_ the likes of Lloyd Gaston. It is not NPP at all, as far as I can tell. The whole tenor of the NPP is against such readings of the NT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you will read my post above, you will note that I stated, they are different, but come from the same root. The NPOP and the Two Gospel hyperdispensationalist errors, come from a redefining of what Paul is saying, based on supposed cultural issues. They both stem from blaming "modern" interpretations (reformation onward), on a medieval or enlightenment mindset, forced upon a first century text.
Click to expand...


In my opinion, the similarity in root is rather dwarfed not only by the differences in theory, but also by the fundamentally opposing view of Scripture offered by the two. The NPP is almost a hyper-reaction to dispensationalism. It goes in the opposite direction, towards reducing the differences between OT and NT, whereas the two-Gospel teaching augments the differences between OT and NT.


----------



## Damon Rambo

BJClark said:


> I'm curious, if there are some in your church who are teaching this man's material..and it is a false Gospel, then who is approving the material being taught???



One of the people is a deacon: this presents a problem, I suppose. My Pastor has unashamedly spoken against the bad doctrine, but allowed the class to continue. I suppose he believes it is o.k. to examine these views, as long as he (my Pastor) makes it clear on the points where the man is wrong.


----------



## Calvinist Cowboy

Damon Rambo said:


> BJClark said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious, if there are some in your church who are teaching this man's material..and it is a false Gospel, then who is approving the material being taught???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the people is a deacon: this presents a problem, I suppose. My Pastor has unashamedly spoken against the bad doctrine, but allowed the class to continue. I suppose he believes it is o.k. to examine these views, as long as he (my Pastor) makes it clear on the points where the man is wrong.
Click to expand...


That could be dangerous.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Calvinist Cowboy said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BJClark said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious, if there are some in your church who are teaching this man's material..and it is a false Gospel, then who is approving the material being taught???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the people is a deacon: this presents a problem, I suppose. My Pastor has unashamedly spoken against the bad doctrine, but allowed the class to continue. I suppose he believes it is o.k. to examine these views, as long as he (my Pastor) makes it clear on the points where the man is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That could be dangerous.
Click to expand...


I think it is very dangerous, but what can I do, other than simply confronting the false teaching?


----------



## BJClark

Damon Rambo;




> I think it is very dangerous, but what can I do, other than simply confronting the false teaching?



there are a few things you could do..

1. pray

2. Talk to your pastor as both a friend and brother..and ask him if the class was supposed to be taught as if it is Gospel or if they are supposed to be 'examining the views' holding it up against God's word. 

With that, if the pastor assumed it would be taught one way, then maybe he could ask more questions next time? If he asked and the deacon withheld that information..then that should be addressed with the deacon..and in that you are the Youth Pastor, I would hope he would take your input on how to come up with a solution.

I can't speak for others, but for me, I would appreciate it if a pastor would acknowledge he wasn't as attentive as he could have been in what was being taught or even how something was being presented to his flock..it would show a humble heart and heart that really cares about what his flock is being taught. In that it would also remind me that I too need to be diligent in knowing God's word, so as not to be deceived, and it would remind me that our elders, deacons and pastor need our prayers so they can be discerning about what they teach. 

Others may have other ideas..but those are mine..


----------



## GTMOPC

Damon, you said that you were not confronting specific members but rather addressing erroneous doctrine seeking to take hold in the church. Whether you like it or not you can't separate the error from the parties who are promoting them. For if there were no one selling these errors no one would've gotten angry. To be sure I think you meant you were not attacking these members personally. That being said these particular members couldn't help but make the connection when you preached against what they were promoting. To them, attacking their ideas _was_ attacking them. Barring all other options that could have addressed this error I feel like a last resort sermon like yours was justifiable.


----------



## Damon Rambo

GMcClain20 said:


> Damon, you said that you were not confronting specific members but rather addressing erroneous doctrine seeking to take hold in the church. Whether you like it or not you can't separate the error from the parties who are promoting them. For if there were no one selling these errors no one would've gotten angry. To be sure I think you meant you were not attacking these members personally. That being said these particular members couldn't help but make the connection when you preached against what they were promoting. To them, attacking their ideas _was_ attacking them. Barring all other options that could have addressed this error I feel like a last resort sermon like yours was justifiable.




Why would it even have to be a last resort? Everything I spoke of in the sermon was 100 percent in line with our Churches statement of faith.

I believe this type of exhortation (perhaps preached with more skill than I myself have), should be the standard fare of Churches. Biblical truth is being swamped by trendy heresy in our Churches, even in our reformed Churches, because people softball truth.

People respond to a mighty cry; rarely will they respond to a gentle whisper. I like what Charles Spurgeon said...

*“Ho, Ho, Sir Surgeon. You are too delicate to tell the man that he is ill. You hope to heal the sick
without their knowing it. You therefore flatter them. And what happens? They laugh at you. They dance upon their own
graves and at last they die. Your delicacy is cruelty, your flatteries are poisons you are a murderer. Shall we keep men in
a fool's paradise? Shall we lull them into soft slumber from which they will awake in hell? Are we to become helpers of
their damnation by our smooth speeches? In the name of God we will not!"*


----------



## GTMOPC

Damon Rambo said:


> GMcClain20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damon, you said that you were not confronting specific members but rather addressing erroneous doctrine seeking to take hold in the church. Whether you like it or not you can't separate the error from the parties who are promoting them. For if there were no one selling these errors no one would've gotten angry. To be sure I think you meant you were not attacking these members personally. That being said these particular members couldn't help but make the connection when you preached against what they were promoting. To them, attacking their ideas _was_ attacking them. Barring all other options that could have addressed this error I feel like a last resort sermon like yours was justifiable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would it even have to be a last resort? Everything I spoke of in the sermon was 100 percent in line with our Churches statement of faith.
> 
> I believe this type of exhortation (perhaps preached with more skill than I myself have), should be the standard fare of Churches. Biblical truth is being swamped by trendy heresy in our Churches, even in our reformed Churches, because people softball truth.
> 
> People respond to a mighty cry; rarely will they respond to a gentle whisper. I like what Charles Spurgeon said...
> 
> *“Ho, Ho, Sir Surgeon. You are too delicate to tell the man that he is ill. You hope to heal the sick
> without their knowing it. You therefore flatter them. And what happens? They laugh at you. They dance upon their own
> graves and at last they die. Your delicacy is cruelty, your flatteries are poisons you are a murderer. Shall we keep men in
> a fool's paradise? Shall we lull them into soft slumber from which they will awake in hell? Are we to become helpers of
> their damnation by our smooth speeches? In the name of God we will not!"*
Click to expand...


Why a last resort? Because I think within the proper confines of church discipline having to address the entire congregation from the pulpit concerning a matter of heresy when the pastor is absent is a last resort. I totally sympathize with your actions and I am in agreement with you. However I feel that in general circumstances the Lord's Day should be devoted primarily to worship. And I mean _general circumstances_ because there are times when circumstances are special.


----------



## kalawine

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Great advice Joe. Wannabee
> 
> Pastor Joe's advice





So glad I'm not a pastor!  Not that us laymen have a right to hurt feelings but you guys have to walk on egg shells. Don't forget... being a pastor is not an easy job. You are to keep in mind the different levels of maturity among these people. But summing it all up... I love your zeal for truth and your urge to protect the sheep from error. God bless your ministry.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Well, we had a fellowship tonight at Church: our annual "Fish Fry". They actually spoke to me, so maybe things will smooth themselves out...


----------



## GTMOPC

There may be some headway! I'll keep the matter in my prayers.


----------

