PDA

View Full Version : Johnny Mac on Nancy Grace tonight @ 8:00pm (est)



Single Eye
02-02-2007, 10:20 AM
My pastor sent this out via e-mail:


This came today from Master's Seminary


John MacArthur has been requested to join a panel on the Nancy Grace show tomorrow, Friday, February 2, at 8:00 p.m. (EST), 5:00 p.m. (PDT). The topic will be “A Sinner Versus a Hypocrite,” regarding Pastor Ted Haggard and the accusation made by a male prostitute. The panel will be made up of a local reporter to give the highlights of the story, Mike Jones (the “gay escort”), and someone from the New Life Church. John MacArthur has been asked to give the bigger picture, i.e., the biblical view of homosexuality.

It is very possible that the program will be canceled at the last minute. Therefore, we request that you do not call the seminary or Grace Church to find out if it’s really going to happen; instead, please check the CNN website to verify that the show will be broadcasted as originally planned: http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/nancy.grace.

As a note of clarification, there are two different CNN channels: CNN and Headline News. Both are owned and operated by the CNN network, but Nancy Grace is on the Headline News channel (not the CNN channel). At 5:00 p.m. (PDT), the program on Headline News is Nancy Grace, while the program on CNN is Paula Zahn Now.

Thank you for your prayers on Dr. MacArthur’s behalf.

The_Expositor
02-02-2007, 11:39 AM
hmmmmm. I wonder why they'd cancel it........actually, I don't

BondServant
02-02-2007, 11:41 AM
Because J-Mac is no punk. Go to youtube and watch how he gets down. He doen't budge so people will like him, he tells it like it is and how it's supposed to be.

Too bad I'd miss it anyway.

eternal
02-02-2007, 11:54 AM
Nancy Grace is disgusting and a blackspot on all of Journalism. MaCarthur should watch his back.

The_Expositor
02-02-2007, 12:55 PM
Nancy Grace is disgusting and a blackspot on all of Journalism. MaCarthur should watch his back.

Don't worry. J Mac will bring it regardless.

BondServant
02-02-2007, 12:57 PM
Nancy Grace is disgusting and a blackspot on all of Journalism. MaCarthur should watch his back.

She is pretty bad

clayfilms
02-02-2007, 03:01 PM
Nancy Grace is disgusting and a blackspot on all of Journalism. MaCarthur should watch his back.


LOL @ "blackspot"....

ayo i dont know ANYONE who likes her....how does she stay on TV?!?!? LOL

eve
02-02-2007, 03:10 PM
i hope somene tapes it because i'll be in bible study at that time. i really want to see it!!!

I AM SOOO GLAD A SOUND BIBLE TEACHER WILL BE ON A TELEVISION PANEL OF THIS KIND REPRESENTING THE BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW ...

... instead of the usual punk-out kind of dude who, when confronted with a "hard" issue, says "da bible ain't never told me about no AIDS" or "the way that i perceive heaven is ..." or something bizarre and irrelevant like that.

DJ Links
02-02-2007, 03:18 PM
Grace is a nasty woman. When she was a prosecutor here in Atlanta she caught caught out there for doing shady stuff just to get a conviction. Mac sho nuff better watch his back.

The_Expositor
02-02-2007, 03:19 PM
i hope somene tapes it because i'll be in bible study at that time. i really want to see it!!!

I AM SOOO GLAD A SOUND BIBLE TEACHER WILL BE ON A TELEVISION PANEL OF THIS KIND REPRESENTING THE BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW ...

... instead of the usual punk-out kind of dude who, when confronted with a "hard" issue, says "da bible ain't never told me about no AIDS" or "the way that i perceive heaven is ..." or something bizarre and irrelevant like that.

ummmm like when Ted Haggard represented all of evangelical Christianity on the ABC special about heaven? He said that we have the only "assurance" of heaven, leaving it wide open for others to believe there is another way. One verse.....John 14:6

Johnny Mac always brings it.

Tony Stone
02-02-2007, 03:26 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2BZ-N4pruFo

look at J Mac having to explain to a supposed Christian bishop that Jesus is the only way....on larry king live. lol

LifeInReturn
02-02-2007, 03:45 PM
Ahh, praise God for J Mac - "You can believe that you could fly and jump off a 5 story building; it doesn't make it real" ... :D CHEA BOYEE!

Johnny Mac is the absolute bomb. Look at that man glorifying our Father! Go Johnny!

Devin
02-02-2007, 04:23 PM
i hope somene tapes it because i'll be in bible study at that time. i really want to see it!!!

I AM SOOO GLAD A SOUND BIBLE TEACHER WILL BE ON A TELEVISION PANEL OF THIS KIND REPRESENTING THE BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW ...

... instead of the usual punk-out kind of dude who, when confronted with a "hard" issue, says "da bible ain't never told me about no AIDS" or "the way that i perceive heaven is ..." or something bizarre and irrelevant like that.

LOL.

simplyG
02-02-2007, 04:42 PM
I can't wait. It should be entertaining.

taylor
02-02-2007, 08:22 PM
just tuned in... has he come on yet?

LaRosa
02-02-2007, 09:00 PM
he didn't get to say much, but what he said was on point

lj.

clayfilms
02-05-2007, 04:56 PM
i'm posting this here b/c a brother on the yuinon forum brought a good point about something that rev. macarthur says. when asked about the issue of the "restoration" of ted haggard, johnny mac says:

MACARTHUR: Well, first of all, there is no restoration to pastoral ministry or public ministry of any kind. He has breached the biblical standard. No man can be a preacher or a pastor who is not above reproach, who is not a one-woman man. That is explicit in the New Testament. The Bible says, the one who lives a blameless life will minister to me. Paul said, "I buffet my body into submission so that, in preaching to others, I do not become disqualified."

HOW DO YALL FEEL ABOUT THAT STATEMENT??

The scriptures do say:

1Ti 3:1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

but does the bible say that if you are a pastor and fall into public sin that you can't restored to that office?? i don't know...


MacArthur explains homosexuality is sin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBcTzZ9BZCA

MacArthur Comments on The fall of Evangelicals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L_l7y0-AXk


you can read the entire transcript here:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/02/ng.01.html

the answer
02-05-2007, 05:43 PM
i'm posting this here b/c a brother on the yuinon forum brought a good point about something that rev. macarthur says. when asked about the issue of the "restoration" of ted haggard, johnny mac says:

MACARTHUR: Well, first of all, there is no restoration to pastoral ministry or public ministry of any kind. He has breached the biblical standard. No man can be a preacher or a pastor who is not above reproach, who is not a one-woman man. That is explicit in the New Testament. The Bible says, the one who lives a blameless life will minister to me. Paul said, "I buffet my body into submission so that, in preaching to others, I do not become disqualified."

HOW DO YALL FEEL ABOUT THAT STATEMENT??

The scriptures do say:

1Ti 3:1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

but does the bible say that if you are a pastor and fall into public sin that you can't restored to that office?? i don't know...


MacArthur explains homosexuality is sin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBcTzZ9BZCA

MacArthur Comments on The fall of Evangelicals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L_l7y0-AXk


you can read the entire transcript here:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/02/ng.01.html



I don't think he will ever be a senior Pastor ( nor should he) But I think he can still do some sort of ministry, after he has taken some time away from the ministry, and gets back on track. That offense will never leave the minds of the people he ministers to, and that could cause a problem in their growth


its Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29

1-Lyfe
02-05-2007, 06:02 PM
i wouldn't feel comfortable again with him assuming a pastoral office just like i wouldn't feel comfortable with g. craige being a youth pastor again.

simplyG
02-05-2007, 06:22 PM
i wouldn't feel comfortable again with him assuming a pastoral office just like i wouldn't feel comfortable with g. craige being a youth pastor again.

Not to rekindle any soaked kindling, but with the haggard case, the people and the situation is out in the open. It isn't "verified" by a person's voice over the phone. When the church, its ministers, the alleged victims, and g. craige come together in a public forum and shed mutual light on the "incident(s)" it would have more credibility.

The_Expositor
02-05-2007, 06:27 PM
Did I miss something? What did G. Craige do or allegedly do?

seal
02-05-2007, 06:30 PM
Did I miss something? What did G. Craige do or allegedly do?


G. Craig did something terrible to a little girl and the Church didn't even turn him in. What Injustice to the little girl that he did this to?

Read inbetween the lines brother to know what I'm talking about.

Grace and Peace,
seal

DJ Links
02-05-2007, 07:48 PM
Rom 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God [are] without repentance

The_Expositor
02-05-2007, 07:57 PM
Rom 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God [are] without repentance

That's true, for those who are genuinely called and given gifts.

eternal
02-05-2007, 08:17 PM
That's true, for those who are genuinely called and given gifts.

Do you think Haggard or any other person operating in ANY gift or office of the Spirit/body of Christ are "genuine" if they fall at some point?

Jason718
02-05-2007, 08:20 PM
I agree with johnnymac up until the point where he makes it seem as though the disqualification is irrevocable. The bible doesn't say that specifically, so i don't think that we should go around and enforce it as though it is straight from the bible.

This seems like a good time for some careful exegesis and exhaustive concordance usage (blows dust off of strongs)

1 tim 3:2- anepileptos- unrebukeable; blameless
titus 1:6&7 - anegklletos- blameless

pretty rigid words. That didn't get us anywhere, but I left it here because i figured that we should all know that I tried. :o

Does blameless in this case mean that the pastor is to be completely without sin? Romans 7 leads me to say no. Looking at Peter and the fact that he had to repent of certain behavior would also lead me to say no.

I can't think of anywhere in the bible where it says that a pastor shouldn't be restored, but if the pastor falls into gross sin, he fails to meet this requirement:

1tim 3:7


Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil

A laughing stock and a publicly exposed hypocrite cannot be someone that we could ever consider to be thought well of by outsiders.

Moreover, if a pastor is falling into gross sin and is repenting only after public exposure, his salvation should be questioned (is it Godly sorrow or sorrow over consequences?) and it should be noted that he fails to meet this requirement:


He must not be a recent convert

If he's doing drugs and prostitutes then he isn't sober minded, self controlled or respectable.

I think JonnyMac has his verdict correct, but i don't think that we should take blameless to mean what he's getting at. I don't think what Teddyhag did will irrevocably disqualify him.

PLEASE correct me if i'm wrong.

eternal
02-05-2007, 08:20 PM
Anyone who caught this, did Johnny Mac present the gospel? And how did he do it?

**EDITED**

Ok, I found the transcript: Here is his segment where he talks:


GRACE: I want to go out to our two pastors tonight, Pastor Rob Brindle, the associate pastor who took over leadership there at New Life Church, and also highly acclaimed John Macarthur, pastor of Grace Community Church.

Reverend Macarthur, are you convinced in your heart that homosexuality is a sin?

MACARTHUR: Absolutely, it`s a sin. And it`s not a matter of some conviction in my heart; it`s a matter of what the scripture says. It`s absolutely crystal clear in scripture that it is a sin, and there`s no question about it.

And the response that I have to the situation with Ted Haggard, while there`s certainly compassion and sympathy, is just plain outrage. And before all the talk about restoration, and he`s our friend and we love him...

GRACE: OK, what`s restoration? What is restoration?

MACARTHUR: Well, first of all, there is no restoration to pastoral ministry or public ministry of any kind. He has breached the biblical standard. No man can be a preacher or a pastor who is not above reproach, who is not a one-woman man. That is explicit in the New Testament.

The Bible says, the one who lives a blameless life will minister to me. Paul said, "I buffet my body into submission so that, in preaching to others, I do not become disqualified."

GRACE: Well, I have a question. And I am not a biblical scholar, although I`ve tried to read the whole thing. To you, Pastor Rob Brindle, why do we hear so many attacks and pointing out how wrong homosexuality is, when every time it is mentioned, I`ve noticed that also cheating, adultery, many other crimes are mentioned, as well? And you don`t see an expose on adultery, or cheating, or lying like you do on homosexuality.

BRINDLE: Well, Nancy, first, you have to understand that the Bible makes clear that sexual immorality is a sin, unquestionably, and also that God doesn`t grade sin on a curve. He looks at sin and recognizes...

GRACE: Well, wasn`t Mary Magdalene...

BRINDLE: ... let me finish -- that it categorically separates people from God. The difference is, homosexuality is a politically charged issue, where somebody stealing from the 7-Eleven down the road isn`t as interesting to differing political factions.

GRACE: Well-put.

MACARTHUR: But, Nancy...

GRACE: Let me get one thing straight. And maybe I`m wrong. You`re certainly the scholars. Wasn`t Mary Magdalene a prostitute, yet she basically served as the 13th disciple?

MACARTHUR: Well, let me correct that real fast. No, she was not a prostitute. There`s nothing in the scripture to indicate that at all, whatsoever. And she certainly was not the 13th apostle, or apostlette, I guess you`d have to say.

No, the apostle who was added when Judas defected was a man named Matthias, took his place, later on the apostle Paul. And that alone constitutes the apostolate. And she is not a prostitute. That is a legend that grew up through history but has no foundation in scripture.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/02/ng.01.html

Dang, no gospel presentation at all. Did he compromise? Was he fearful? Or has he been poorly discipled? What exactly happened here?

DJ Links
02-05-2007, 08:51 PM
That's true, for those who are genuinely called and given gifts.

So those who are genuinely called can't fall and repent and be restored? I look at David as one who can fit the bill.

Shock~Therapy
02-05-2007, 08:53 PM
Anyone who caught this, did Johnny Mac present the gospel? And how did he do it?

**EDITED**

Ok, I found the transcript: Here is his segment where he talks:



http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/02/ng.01.html

Dang, no gospel presentation at all. Did he compromise? Was he fearful? Or has he been poorly discipled? What exactly happened here?

eternal, what was wrong with what he said? Just because he didn't have an opportunity to go into a full exposition of man's sinfulness, seperation from God, and God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone? Remember this is not a platform where he can speak freely, this is a interview/debate. As you can see MacArthur was cut off serveral times by Nancy Grace. When he did speak he spoke the truth without shame, and that is a witness to Christ. Everytime we speak before others we do not always have an opportunity to speak present the whole gospel to them. Should you be condemned because you did not give a gospel presentation to the clerk at 711, the guy in the 2nd row from the back of the #9 bus, the lady at the toll station? See where I'm going with this? Often your actions will speak louder than words. John MacArthur still gave witness to Christ even though he was not provided with the opportunity to give a full gospel presentation.

Quiet storm
02-05-2007, 08:57 PM
eternal, what was wrong with what he said? Just because he didn't have an opportunity to go into a full exposition of man's sinfulness, seperation from God, and God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone? Remember this is not a platform where he can speak freely, this is a interview/debate. As you can see MacArthur was cut off serveral times by Nancy Grace. When he did speak he spoke the truth without shame, and that is a witness to Christ. Everytime we speak before others we do not always have an opportunity to speak present the whole gospel to them. Should you be condemned because you did not give a gospel presentation to the clerk at 711, the guy in the 2nd row from the back of the #9 bus, the lady at the toll station? See where I'm going with this? Often your actions will speak louder than words. John MacArthur still gave witness to Christ even though he was not provided with the opportunity to give a full gospel presentation.


I think you proved the point Eternal was trying to make. :)

The_Expositor
02-05-2007, 08:58 PM
Do you think Haggard or any other person operating in ANY gift or office of the Spirit/body of Christ are "genuine" if they fall at some point?

How long can a person live in unrepentant sin and be a Christian? A week? A month? A year? Three years? Don't know. The Bible doesn't say. However, the Bible does say what a true Christian will be like. 1 John 3:8-10 says that a Christian cannot live habitually sinful. Is it not at all possible that pastor Haggard, like so many others, could himself have been a false convert whom the Lord graciously exposed so that he and others would repent of their sin and be saved?

The_Expositor
02-05-2007, 08:59 PM
So those who are genuinely called can't fall and repent and be restored? I look at David as one who can fit the bill.

Did David fall and repent, or did David fall into sin, stay there and only repent when he got caught? Even though David struggled with sin, wasn't he one to constantly seek God afterward? Also, David didn't have the benefit of the indwelling Holy Spirit as we do today.

Shock~Therapy
02-05-2007, 09:01 PM
I think you proved the point Eternal was trying to make. :)

:confused: I'm lost.

Christhead
02-05-2007, 09:01 PM
eternal, what was wrong with what he said? Just because he didn't have an opportunity to go into a full exposition of man's sinfulness, seperation from God, and God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone? Remember this is not a platform where he can speak freely, this is a interview/debate. As you can see MacArthur was cut off serveral times by Nancy Grace. When he did speak he spoke the truth without shame, and that is a witness to Christ. Everytime we speak before others we do not always have an opportunity to speak present the whole gospel to them. Should you be condemned because you did not give a gospel presentation to the clerk at 711, the guy in the 2nd row from the back of the #9 bus, the lady at the toll station? See where I'm going with this? Often your actions will speak louder than words. John MacArthur still gave witness to Christ even though he was not provided with the opportunity to give a full gospel presentation.



I think he was trying to get at the trend, with kinda saddens me, around here that there is only one super specific way the gospel is presented, and how others are being hypercritical of certain proclamations of Christ, ie the thread on Tony Dungy for example....

I don't think he has a problem with what John MacAurthur did, but since he's looked up to around here, but didn't do specifically what some want to be said every single time during an open witnessing or evangelism opportunity. He was seeing how consistent they were gonna be with the one track only evangelism critique made here often. I've seen it as a lurker very much so....

sorry, I'm sure he will come and tell u his intentions, sorry for possibly speaking out of turn.

Shock~Therapy
02-05-2007, 09:05 PM
I think he was trying to get at the trend, with kinda saddens me, around here that there is only one super specific way the gospel is presented, and how others are being hypercritical of certain proclamations of Christ, ie the thread on Tony Dungy for example....

I don't think he has a problem with what John MacAurthur did, but since he's looked up to around here, but didn't do specifically what some want to be said every single time during an open witnessing or evangelism opportunity. He was seeing how consistent they were gonna be with the one track only evangelism critique made here often. I've seen it as a lurker very much so....

sorry, I'm sure he will come and tell u his intentions, sorry for possibly speaking out of turn.

oh. ok. I get it now. thanks for clearing that up. :o

BondServant
02-05-2007, 09:15 PM
I don't see the point of what you said eternal. I get what you're trying to say, but in context, you stretched a lil too far. Anytime I see criticism on here is when one is asked a simple question, whether it be in regards to the gospel or is homosexuality a sin, and the questioneer gets scared or doesn't defend truth.

Had J Mac not told the truth or pulled a Joel Osteen, then he needs to be called out as well.

Had J Mac been asked is Jesus the only way, like he has already, and pulled a Joel "I don't know" Osteen, then he should have been called out. But he hasn't.

People have only griped when cats get up there and act like they don't know what scripture says.

DJ Links
02-05-2007, 09:17 PM
How long can a person live in unrepentant sin and be a Christian? A week? A month? A year? Three years? Don't know. The Bible doesn't say. However, the Bible does say what a true Christian will be like. 1 John 3:8-10 says that a Christian cannot live habitually sinful. Is it not at all possible that pastor Haggard, like so many others, could himself have been a false convert whom the Lord graciously exposed so that he and others would repent of their sin and be saved?

It's quite possible that the Lord exposed Haggard to bring others to repentance; however that wasn't my question. My question was are those that are genuinely called of the Lord susceptible to falling into sin and repenting and being restored? I say yes and can see several examples of men called of God, falling into sin and being restored.

I guess the issue that no one wants to address is that this was homosexual sin that Haggard fell to. I think many of us subconciously think that homosexual sin is the be all of sins. Isn't our merciful God able to forgive this man and restore him?


Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.


1Cr 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,* nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

The_Expositor
02-05-2007, 09:20 PM
I don't see the point of what you said eternal. I get what you're trying to say, but in context, you stretched a lil too far. Anytime I see criticism on here is when one is asked a simple question, whether it be in regards to the gospel or is homosexuality a sin, and the questioneer gets scared or doesn't defend truth.

Had J Mac not told the truth or pulled a Joel Osteen, then he needs to be called out as well.

Had J Mac been asked is Jesus the only way, like he has already, and pulled a Joel "I don't know" Osteen, then he should have been called out. But he hasn't.

People have only griped when cats get up there and act like they don't know what scripture says.

Let's not go down the road of homosexuality. Some don't believe loving, committed gay relationships are necessarily wrong.

DJ Links
02-05-2007, 09:22 PM
Did David fall and repent, or did David fall into sin, stay there and only repent when he got caught? Even though David struggled with sin, wasn't he one to constantly seek God afterward? Also, David didn't have the benefit of the indwelling Holy Spirit as we do today.

Well Ex David struggled with sexual sin until his death; however God called him a man after his own heart.


Psa 51:9 Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. 10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. 11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.

BondServant
02-05-2007, 09:24 PM
Let's not go down the road of homosexuality. Some don't believe loving, committed gay relationships are necessarily wrong.

I'm only using it as an example of the topics that are discussed among the pastors.

The_Expositor
02-05-2007, 09:30 PM
It's quite possible that the Lord exposed Haggard to bring others to repentance; however that wasn't my question. My question was are those that are genuinely called of the Lord susceptible to falling into sin and repenting and being restored? I say yes and can see several examples of men called of God, falling into sin and being restored.

I guess the issue that no one wants to address is that this was homosexual sin that Haggard fell to. I think many of us subconciously think that homosexual sin is the be all of sins. Isn't our merciful God able to forgive this man and restore him?

Homosexual sin or not, that doesn't even matter to me. He also was using drugs habitually. Dude could have been watching pornography everyday. The particular sin itself is not the problem, at least not in my case. Sin is sin.

To answer your question, I'd say yes. But every man who claims to be of God is not necessarily of God, either. Am I wrong with that statement?

invisible man
02-05-2007, 09:31 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2BZ-N4pruFo

look at J Mac having to explain to a supposed Christian bishop that Jesus is the only way....on larry king live. lol


He needs to take the collar off and straight retire. I'm also straight trippin because that dude Father Micheal Manning doesn't believe Jesus is the only way. He has a featured show on the Network Known for mad Heresy. The sad part is somebody will try to say I'm wrong for pointing this out!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XVfwlzf-DAE&mode=related&search=

eternal
02-05-2007, 09:32 PM
Let's not go down the road of homosexuality. Some don't believe loving, committed gay relationships are necessarily wrong.

On this board? Who? Maybe you can PM me this as well.

eternal
02-05-2007, 09:33 PM
:confused: I'm lost.

Read the Tony Dungy Thread.

eternal
02-05-2007, 09:35 PM
How long can a person live in unrepentant sin and be a Christian? A week? A month? A year? Three years? Don't know. The Bible doesn't say. However, the Bible does say what a true Christian will be like. 1 John 3:8-10 says that a Christian cannot live habitually sinful. Is it not at all possible that pastor Haggard, like so many others, could himself have been a false convert whom the Lord graciously exposed so that he and others would repent of their sin and be saved?

My question was not answered. I asked,


Do you think Haggard or any other person operating in ANY gift or office of the Spirit/body of Christ are "genuine" if they fall at some point?

The_Expositor
02-05-2007, 09:40 PM
My question was not answered. I asked,

Your question wasn't clear to me. I'll try to answer as best I can. I don't think anyone falling makes them not genuine. We all fall at some point. But holding an office in the church doesn't automatically make someone genuine either.

DJ Links
02-05-2007, 09:44 PM
Homosexual sin or not, that doesn't even matter to me. He also was using drugs habitually. Dude could have been watching pornography everyday. The particular sin itself is not the problem, at least not in my case. Sin is sin.

To answer your question, I'd say yes. But every man who claims to be of God is not necessarily of God, either. Am I wrong with that statement?

No you are not wrong in that statement. However in your prior posts there was an inference that Haggard may have been a false convert. I am just sharing the flip side that Haggard could very well be a geniune believer yet still have fallen. Doesn't the bible say a just man falls seven times and gets back up?

eternal
02-05-2007, 09:45 PM
Your question wasn't clear to me. I'll try to answer as best I can. I don't think anyone falling makes them not genuine. We all fall at some point. But holding an office in the church doesn't automatically make someone genuine either.

Cool. I asked because of your response to what Links wrote.


Rom 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God [are] without repentance


That's true, for those who are genuinely called and given gifts.

So I asked,


Do you think Haggard or any other person operating in ANY gift or office of the Spirit/body of Christ are "genuine" if they fall at some point?

Your reply to Links gave the impression that you agreed God's gifts are irrevocable. But you qualified that apparently with the notion that its only true "for those who are genuinely called and given gifts." Is it fair to get from that you are suggesting that those who are in Haggard's position who fall so as to not be "beyond reproach" according to MacArthur, they were not "genuinely called and given gifts?"

If not, then do you disagree with MacArthur, that those who fall into reproach can still maintain their calling and gifting?

The_Expositor
02-05-2007, 09:50 PM
He needs to take the collar off and straight retire. I'm also straight trippin because that dude Father Micheal Manning doesn't believe Jesus is the only way. He has a featured show on the Network Known for mad Heresy. The sad part is somebody will try to say I'm wrong for pointing this out!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XVfwlzf-DAE&mode=related&search=

Just read the catechism of the RCC. Check around paragraph 840-843, somewhere in there.

The_Expositor
02-05-2007, 09:55 PM
No you are not wrong in that statement. However in your prior posts there was an inference that Haggard may have been a false convert. I am just sharing the flip side that Haggard could very well be a geniune believer yet still have fallen. Doesn't the bible say a just man falls seven times and gets back up?

Okay, we agree on that. But there's still a possibility either way. But isn't it better that God would expose his sin, so that if he was a false convert, he could repent and believe? What about his congregants who were also living a double life? How gracious is God to allow them to see this before leaving this earth?

The_Expositor
02-05-2007, 09:57 PM
Cool. I asked because of your response to what Links wrote.





So I asked,



Your reply to Links gave the impression that you agreed God's gifts are irrevocable. But you qualified that apparently with the notion that its only true "for those who are genuinely called and given gifts." Is it fair to get from that you are suggesting that those who are in Haggard's position who fall so as to not be "beyond reproach" according to MacArthur, they were not "genuinely called and given gifts?"

If not, then do you disagree with MacArthur, that those who fall into reproach can still maintain their calling and gifting?

I didn't even reference MacArthur's comments. All I said was what you just quoted me as saying. I said that the gifts and callings that are irrevocable are only for those who are genuinely called. That's all I said, bro.

eternal
02-05-2007, 10:00 PM
I didn't even reference MacArthur's comments. All I said was what you just quoted me as saying. I said that the gifts and callings that are irrevocable are only for those who are genuinely called. That's all I said, bro.

I never said you referenced MacArthur. I asked you a question you are not answering.

Let me rephrase myself. Can someone who is genuinely called, fall? And if they do, can they be restored to that position?

invisible man
02-05-2007, 10:02 PM
Just read the catechism of the RCC. Check around paragraph 840-843, somewhere in there.


http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/newcat.htm

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."[330]

This paragraph essentially proclaims that "the plan of salvation" includes all faiths that acknowledge the true creator. The reasoning given is that since the Muslims claim the faith of Abraham, and worship the one true God, they are not only among the saved, but are at the top of any such list.

In preceding paragraphs (839, 840) the Jews are discussed, and parallels drawn between Christians and Jews. Both it is said, are awaiting the advent of the Messiah, though the Jews do so in unbelief relative to Jesus.

Footnote 330 directs one to Lumen Gentium, (DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH), POPE PAUL VI, November 21, 1964, section 16:

16. ... But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.

Footnote 330 also directs one to NOSTRA AETATE, (DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS), POPE PAUL VI, October 28, 1965, section 3:

clayfilms
02-05-2007, 11:46 PM
Can someone who is genuinely called, fall? And if they do, can they be restored to that position?

good question bro..i think that's where we started out 3 pages ago....:)

i think the bible clearly shows us by the examples of abraham, david, moses, solomon, peter etc...that people can be genuinely called of God into positions of leadership and fall into sin..horrible, despicable sin...

but i guess a good question would be is why Christians are SO disturbed by Ted Haggard's sin? (and we are..we really really are)


Is it because it makes us look bad and prone to just ridicule by non Christians?

Is it because it makes God looks bad and prone to just ridicule by non Christians?

i think i need to prayerfully answer those questions...

be blessed yall and lets please try to keep this discussion Christ-like...be blessed!!

the answer
02-06-2007, 04:11 AM
I never said you referenced MacArthur. I asked you a question you are not answering.

Let me rephrase myself. Can someone who is genuinely called, fall? And if they do, can they be restored to that position?

What "kind" of fall? We fall daily. THere are different kinds of falls.

It also makes me nervous when we refernce DAvid. His life was BOO BOO NEGATIVE after his sin. He was never the same, nor was his family. Just cuz "he was a man after God's own heart" does not mean you can sin and be restored for any sin.

If David jumped off the Jerusalem State bridge, and lived, should we do it too?

I agree that certain sins disqualify u from certain offices. otherwise why even care how some one lives, as long as they repent?


its Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29

MoeMan
02-06-2007, 05:50 AM
Let me Chime in. I don't think he will every serve in the capacity as pastor any longer. I think what he's dealing with is serious and he has a lot of work to do on his first ministry (AT HOME WITH HIS WIFE). Yeah John Mac is a very cut to the chase brother, and I appreciate it. I do believe he has a ministry in his struggle. I think God can use this struggle to really help people deal with this issue. It's not the fact that man exposed him. God exposed him.

I think that people take the position of the Pastorate (or should I say Elder) very lightly. To many people are popping up young and old as Pastors. A lot of thier characters can not handle the weight of the position. This is going to happen more often in the future, because of this lack of care and responsibility for being a Pastor.

My advice is that Haggard should really focus on his family cause this embarassment, hurt, and shame is not going to take a few years to recover from.

Also it's not like we screaming for other Pastors to be restored. I've seen some Pastors do the same stuff and be sat down. I think it's best and I think they need to find other means of serving. This stuff is serious and this does a lot of damage.

Now can a man return to Position, YES he can. Can he be used by God in the position, YES he can, Will God take back his salvation, NO he won't.

I think it's really a issue of discernment and conscience.

Jason718
02-06-2007, 08:03 AM
If David jumped off the Jerusalem State bridge, and lived, should we do it too?



excellent point. change your signature. ;)

eternal
02-06-2007, 09:51 AM
I agree that certain sins disqualify u from certain offices. otherwise why even care how some one lives, as long as they repent?


its Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29

Because sin destroys lives?

Because it hurts God?

Because it hurts us and the people we love?

Because it tarnishes our witness and may cause others to distance themselves from Christ?


There is a whole slew of reasons not to sin.

Remember, the question was asked in light of the Romans passage.

DJ Links
02-06-2007, 12:15 PM
Hate to do this but what about our boy J.E. Look at his involment with slavery. He owned slaves until his death yet he was still preaching, sharing revelation and is still looked up to by people today. We all know that there were abolitionists around his time speaking out against slavery. So are we saying that JE was not in habitial sin yet he was still used by God?

Shock~Therapy
02-06-2007, 12:25 PM
Hate to do this but what about our boy J.E. Look at his involment with slavery. He owned slaves until his death yet he was still preaching, sharing revelation and the father of the reformed movement. We all know that there were abolitionist around his time speaking out against it. So are we saying that JE was not in habitial sin yet he was still used by God?

Do you know that he didn't pay consequences for his actions? If not in this life then maybe in eternity? Some people's sins are exposed and consequented openly, others may be consequented in private. Understand that open rebuke is often leads some to repentance. Because Ted Haggard was openly rebuked, he lost his ministry position, Yes, but so that his soul may be saved. Yes, the social viewpoint of the time heavily influences what sins the public jumps on and exposes. But the reality is that sin is sin, and whether it costs you a ministry position or not habitual sin WILL cost you something.

DJ Links
02-06-2007, 12:27 PM
Do you know that he didn't pay consequences for his actions? If not in this life then maybe in eternity? Some people's sins are exposed and consequented openly, others may be consequented in private. Understand that open rebuke is often leads some to repentance. Because Ted Haggard was openly rebuked, he lost his ministry position, Yes, but so that his soul may be saved. Yes, the social viewpoint of the time heavily influences what sins the public jumps on and exposes. But the reality is that sin is sin, and whether it costs you a ministry position or not habitual sin WILL cost you something.

I forget the passage, but I posted it in another JE thread. The passage had to do with slavery and saying (paraphrasing) that anyone engaged in the stealing of a man (slavery) would surely die. When I checked out what die meant in that passage it was talking about premature death which Edwards experiencd.

Xegesis aka Q-D.O.G.
02-06-2007, 01:41 PM
Two points to add here:

1) Eternal - unfortunately, your use of the Romans 11:29 passage re biblical standards for pastoral ministry is out of context and not even relevant to the discussion. The gifts and callings are in reference to Israel and that God had not abandoned them - not that those who sin grossly in the pastoral office can be restored back to it.

To All -

But, to an extent - there is a "restoration" (defining restoration as being restored to office of leadership) for elders who sin (1 Tim 5:19-21). Elders who persist in sin should be rebuked before all - so that all will fear. The question is whether or not it is a disqualifying sin. For that we have to look at the relevant texts 1 Tim 3, Titus 1.

Yes, Haggard could definitely be restored as a believer (only time and eternity will tell if his repentence is sincere) - but, probably not as a pastor because he has grossly violated one of the standards for the office. To restore him after so gross of a sin would be to minimize the standards for the pastoral office (and minimize sin within the church).

Remember - Ted didn't come to the Light in repentance - God brought his sins to light from hidden places. We don't know if Ted would be as repentant if he wasn't found out. (??????)

So, the issue isn't whether or not a pastor sins at all and can be restored to office - but whether or not the sin is disqualifying, i.e., persistant/without repentance and the nature and extent of the sin. Would you restore a pastor who raped someone; a pastor who murdered someone; or a pastor who imbellished churches funds?

Pastors can be rebuked for sin and remain pastors (if they are found to be in genuine repentance); but the issue is what sin was committed and to what extent. It's a case by case application of the biblical standards. In Ted's case - it's pretty obvious.

2) DJ Links - unfortunately - the JE issue is a smoke screen...it's even debated as to whether or not he was even in sin as a slave owner (not a man stealer) - that should be saved for another thread. (Please don't read into my statements everyone - I am only saying that JE was not a man stealer. If you want to take issue with what I've said - we can start another thread.) But, we need to deal with the relevant biblical texts on the issue and apply that to Ted Haggard.

So, the issue needs to be understood - not in light of Romans 11:29 (not a relevant biblical text) - but in light of 1 Tim 3, Titus 1, etc.

Jude 2,

Q

StreetSermonz
02-06-2007, 01:59 PM
Can GOD restore a man to the position of a pastor after so grevious a sin? It's possible. But in this case, as Q said, the sin was exposed by God, the person in question did not willingly repent before it was pointed out. People in positions of authority have much more accountability and their judgment is much more harsh. Can he be restored and be reconciled back the Father through Jesus? Absolutely, and I pray that he is! But to be on such a platform and defame the name of the LORD in such a way as he did is dangerous! And if he is to become a shephard again, it would be a miracle, but our God is good at performing the miraculous :D Keep in mind that if you sow to the flesh you will reap corruption, so he is likely going through some hell right now, so let's pray for his restoration!

I agree with Links and others that the gifts of God are without repentence, but when you abuse those gifts there are repercussions. He may still have a great gift of teaching and leading, but one's true authority is connected to one's submission to the LORD, in word and in deed.

David was a man who commited great sins, who did not repent until the LORD exposed his sin through the prophet Nathan. David was restored because of his heart towards God. It is all an issue of the heart.

I believe that it is possible for Ted Haggard to be restored and his life one day falling in line with 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

I exort everyone to pray for Ted Haggard. We have no business talking about people, especially those who hold or have held positions of authority within the church, without first, during and afterwards praying for them.

Shock~Therapy
02-06-2007, 02:01 PM
Two points to add here:

1) Eternal - unfortunately, your use of the Romans 11:29 passage re biblical standards for pastoral ministry is out of context and not even relevant to the discussion. The gifts and callings are in reference to Israel and that God had not abandoned them - not that those who sin grossly in the pastoral office can be restored back to it.

To All -

But, to an extent - there is a "restoration" (defining restoration as being restored to office of leadership) for elders who sin (1 Tim 5:19-21). Elders who persist in sin should be rebuked before all - so that all will fear. The question is whether or not it is a disqualifying sin. For that we have to look at the relevant texts 1 Tim 3, Titus 1.

Yes, Haggard could definitely be restored as a believer (only time and eternity will tell if his repentence is sincere) - but, probably not as a pastor because he has grossly violated one of the standards for the office. To restore him after so gross of a sin would be to minimize the standards for the pastoral office (and minimize sin within the church).

Remember - Ted didn't come to the Light in repentance - God brought his sins to light from hidden places. We don't know if Ted would be as repentant if he wasn't found out. (??????)

So, the issue isn't whether or not a pastor sins at all and can be restored to office - but whether or not the sin is disqualifying, i.e., persistant/without repentance and the nature and extent of the sin. Would you restore a pastor who raped someone; a pastor who murdered someone; or a pastor who imbellished churches funds?

Pastors can be rebuked for sin and remain pastors (if they are found to be in genuine repentance); but the issue is what sin was committed and to what extent. It's a case by case application of the biblical standards. In Ted's case - it's pretty obvious.

2) DJ Links - unfortunately - the JE issue is a smoke screen...it's even debated as to whether or not he was even in sin as a slave owner (not a man stealer) - that should be saved for another thread. (Please don't read into my statements everyone - I am only saying that JE was not a man stealer. If you want to take issue with what I've said - we can start another thread.) But, we need to deal with the relevant biblical texts on the issue and apply that to Ted Haggard.

So, the issue needs to be understood - not in light of Romans 11:29 (not a relevant biblical text) - but in light of 1 Tim 3, Titus 1, etc.

Jude 2,

Q Very well said.

eternal
02-06-2007, 02:05 PM
Two points to add here:

1) Eternal - unfortunately, your use of the Romans 11:29 passage re biblical standards for pastoral ministry is out of context and not even relevant to the discussion. The gifts and callings are in reference to Israel and that God had not abandoned them - not that those who sin grossly in the pastoral office can be restored back to it.


Where did I use it? I thought I simply quoted others, and asked about THEIR responses to it? No biggie I guess.

But I do disagree that since Paul is speaking of Israel, that the issue of "gifts and callings" are exclussive to them. This is a poor application or restriction of context. I doubt you would hold as exclussive to the 12 all the teachings that Jesus gave them? Or as exclussive to the ephesians all the words of wisdom Paul taught there? Context is bigger than the immediate paragraphs surrouding them.

My questions on your post is why do you differentiate between sins? And why is there such a reliance on speculation about repentance?

I am inquiring on God's will. If God equips a person to ministry and they fall, can they be restored to that position, and what is the biblical grounds for doing so? MacArthur seems to argue that the qualifications for appointment are necessary for re-evaluation, which I agree with. But where is it suggested what "reproach" constitutes, or that there is no possibility of one to be beyond reproach again? Can ex drug addicts ever be pastors? Or those who held CEO positions? Etc? Reproach all over. It is a very broad concept.

Xegesis aka Q-D.O.G.
02-06-2007, 02:14 PM
But I do disagree that since Paul is speaking of Israel, that the issue of "gifts and callings" are exclussive to them. This is a poor application or restriction of context. I doubt you would hold as exclussive to the 12 all the teachings that Jesus gave them? Or as exclussive to the ephesians all the words of wisdom Paul taught there? Context is bigger than the immediate paragraphs surrouding them.

My questions on your post is why do you differentiate between sins? And why is there such a reliance on speculation about repentance?



Eternal,

My lunch break just ended - so I'm going to have to answer more extensively later. But, I think you pose good questions that should be asked. The first is a larger hermeneutic issue which may not get hashed out on this thread. the second is a more clear cut answer. But again, I'll have to get back at it later this evening if I can (have a meeting at church tonight) or tomorrow. I'm sure by then I'll have some other comments to answer to as well.

Jude 2,

Q

Xegesis aka Q-D.O.G.
02-07-2007, 11:55 PM
Ahhh...brother Eternal...sorry for the long wait - it's been busy - but here are my responses to your questions (It's a long post - just remember - you asked! :))...

1) Hermeneutics...

But I do disagree that since Paul is speaking of Israel, that the issue of "gifts and callings" are exclussive to them. This is a poor application or restriction of context. I doubt you would hold as exclussive to the 12 all the teachings that Jesus gave them? Or as exclussive to the ephesians all the words of wisdom Paul taught there? Context is bigger than the immediate paragraphs surrouding them.

I guess we have to ask the question "what is poor application or restriction of context" - application and interpretation are not mutually exclusive. The reader must apply the meaning as the author intended as well as interpret the meaning as the author intended. Applications are broader only as the rest of Scripture affirms the same teaching elsewhere, i.e., a broader application cannot contradict another teaching of Scripture - hermeneutic principle: Scripture cannot contradict itself.

So to take Romans 11:29 and say that because "the gifts and callings are without repentance" restoration to the office of ministry is warranted after gross sin is not consistent with the biblical teaching on the qualifications for being a pastor (1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:6) or the requirement for usefulness in for ministry (2 Tim 2:20-22). While God's gift's and callings are without repentance - they are not without condition. But, again, the intent of that passage is not to deal with a sinning elder/pastor/leader so we are hard pressed to apply it to that issue - God has given us other light for that very purpose. The light of Romans 11:29 has it's own intent.


2) Differentation of Sin/Speculation of Repentance


My questions on your post is why do you differentiate between sins? And why is there such a reliance on speculation about repentance?

The differentiation in sin is because the Scripture seems to differentiate between sin. There are degrees to sin (e.g., James 1:14-15); the qualifications for office seem to do so. While "above reproach" doesn't mean sinless - it does mean that there is no consistant sinful trait in the persons character. So, the differentiation is that, while the elder may commit a sin, the elder must not be in habitual/unrepentant sin and that particularly of a shameless nature.

Re "reliance on speculation about repentance" - no one is relying on the speculation of repentance in terms of determination of restoration - it is a matter of the sin itself. Genuine repentance doesn't necessitate that one be restored back to the same office of leadership. That doesn't mean they can't serve the Lord again in the church - but probably not in leadership; again, it depends on the issue.


3) Can God restore an "equipped" man?
I am inquiring on God's will. If God equips a person to ministry and they fall, can they be restored to that position, and what is the biblical grounds for doing so? MacArthur seems to argue that the qualifications for appointment are necessary for re-evaluation, which I agree with. But where is it suggested what "reproach" constitutes, or that there is no possibility of one to be beyond reproach again? Can ex drug addicts ever be pastors? Or those who held CEO positions? Etc? Reproach all over. It is a very broad concept.

Can God restore a sinning pastor - yes - and often does (1 Tim 5:19-21); but, not always. Again, as I mentioned in my first post, I think it is case by case.

Where is it suggested that "reproach" constitutes no possibility that a man can be "above reproach" again after gross sin? Well, 1 Tim 3:7: "Moreover, he must be thought well of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil." This disgrace is never said to be able to be removed - and particularly from unbelievers. With such sins as Haggard, a man will forever bear the scars, speculation, ridicule of outsiders. Should we subject the church, the gospel, and Christ to that again?

I think one thing that we are missing here is the reproach brought on Christ and the church. And that a man, who was caught in gross/hanious sin would do far more for the cause of Christ to humbly sit down for the rest of his days from leadership admitting that he has done irreperable damage to the ministry, the Church, and the gospel then to return with an air of pride saying, "the gifts and callings of God are without repentance." When a man subjects himself, the church, the gospel, and Christ to such shame and everyone is immediately talking restoration to the office - it shows that we don't take sin seriously - that is sin is of no consequence. It also shows the low view that we have of the man of God bearing the very words of God to His people.

But, your last statements "can ex drug addicts ever be pastors?, etc." are not questions of restoration but of blessings of regeneration. Of course they can be pastors because they are "ex" (repentant) drug addicts...the reproach is gone before they enter the pastorate. We are all "ex" something (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Lord willing, if He is pleased to appoint me to service in the pastorate, I will be an ex crack/cess dealing, laced blunt smoking, heroin/cocaine sniffing, pint a day drinking, theif, sexual hedonist, lying, lazy non-working, etc. Pastor. Yes, God can change a man, make him a Christian, continue to change him and put him in the pastorate - and I will be one of them.

If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be....