Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Answering A Critic

Anonymous said...
"Shawn may be wrong regarding his position on eschatology which is a non essential btw, but his soteriology (essential doctrine) is correct and is something he has not changed throughout his ministry. Is there room in the body to be incorrect on non essential doctrines and still be in the fold? If yes, you understand salvation. If no, you have no business pointing out errant doctrines."
------------------------------------------------------

I agree that we can differ on various "non-essential" points of doctrine and yet be considered all part of the "Body". . . . But instantly, there will be some differences in interpretation as to what is and what is NOT "non-essential".  For instance, you say that Shawn's soteriology is correct . . . but I wonder. . . .

I (and many others) believe that it is bordering on (if not outright) heresy to suggest that WE can do ANYTHING to warrant our salvation--and that would include "choosing".  We would say that you, in your utterly depraved, fallen, dead-in-sin condition are completely INCAPABLE of "choosing" God, of "opening the door" to "let Him into your heart."  We would say that any idea of an individual being ABLE in any way (even in a small way, like, ie., "grabbing the life-line thrown to you as you are drowning") to act in such a way, that then, God's grace follows . . . is WORKS!  And we would say that works-based soteriology . . . is simply what Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses and most all other cults teach. 

On top of this, Shawn also teaches that you can lose your salvation.  Again, I would suggest that that is also bordering on, if not outright, heresy.  If you can lose your salvation (which means that YOU can DO something to thwart God's will) then you are basically calling God a liar and a failure.  Was Jesus' work on the cross effective?  Did it only give the opportunity for salvation?  Or was it a perfect sacrifice that saved exactly who it was intended for?  Jesus said He would deliver to the Father ALL that the Father gave Him--that He would lose NONE.  So . . . if you can thwart His will by DOING something that loses your salvation--you have made God a liar and a failure. 

Also, Shawn is not exactly honest, which is a big problem for a pastor (for anyone, of course, but ESPECIALLY someone in a position of authority handling the Word of God.)
He keeps insisting that the only problem some critics have with him in regards to his position on the Trinity . . . is in merely whether he uses the WORD "Trinity" or not.  Which is not an honest representation of the issue.  It is not whether he uses the word "Trinity" or not which we have a problem with . . . but the clear fact that he REJECTS the DOCTRINE of the Trinity.  Most orthodox believers agree that that IS an essential point of doctrine.  It is another thing that separates the cults from Biblical Christianity as it goes straight to the essential character and nature of God.  If you teach that God is not three distinct persons in one being, being one God, you are teaching a different God than the one shown in the Bible.

At what point, when you are incorrect on nearly all the main "non-essential" points of doctrine . . . AND borderline or cross the line on a few of the essentials as well . . . do you in essence cease becoming a Christian at all?  Why do we say that Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses are not "Christian"?  Because they teach a different Jesus and a different Gospel.  I am afraid Shawn has practically moved into that camp, when you tally ALL of his errant ideas and proclamations together.

He has said that the Bible isn't really for our time--that it was intended for a certain people at a certain time. . . . He says the 2nd Coming already happened.  He rejects the Trinity. He says you can lose your salvation.  He has taught that believers will be judged (at the Bema seat judgment) and may yet be sent to Hell. . . . He has suggested (I heard it myself) that God may not be omniscient, omnipotent.  He is a universalist, teaching that Hell is not eternal (which many consider an essential matter of doctrine) . . . . He teaches that one can be saved by other than the "name of Jesus" . . . and on and on. . . .

My big concern regarding Shawn and what he is doing is what was evidenced recently in one of his shows.  Well, more than a year ago, I published my worry that Mormons who had left the LDS church would come to him seeking real Biblical Christianity . . . and end up getting McCraneyism instead and thus, would end up more confused and disheartened than ever.  And this appears to be what is happening.  On a recent show of his . . . he had an atheist caller who called in to thank Shawn for solidifying his atheist worldview (and to "keep up the good work") and Shawn talked about  several people (new believers left from Mormonism) who had come to him saying that the things he was teaching was making them more confused and faithless than ever.  His message is NOT "good news".  Does not offer hope. . . . It contradicts the Bible and new believers are being demoralized by his attacks on other Christian churches, doctrines, pastors etc.

This was my fear and this is what's happening . . . and I sincerely worry about the responsibility he has in his position, causing so many now to stumble. . . .     

Yes, I agree, there is room in the Body to disagree on "non-essentials" . . . "adiaphora" . . . . . . But at what point, when you are disagreeing on so many non-essentials AND seriously muddying the waters (if not outright contradicting) on a few ESSENTIALS as well . . . do I not have a right to concerned and questioning Shawn?

Anyway, thanks for your comment and the chance to respond . . . God bless.

1 comment:

Mark said...

Matthew 16:18"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

This is an arrant doctrine that deeply involves Christianity.This doctrine up to this point has been taught as a lie.It is in error due those in Catholic church are trapped and enslaved over a misundrrstanding of one word.

Jesus would never leave his church in the responsibility of a man(Peter/petros/petra).All men/wo-men are fallible and prone to sin and men create religions(idol worship).

Jesus would or need something more enduring to stand through time.Take for instance leaving a message on or in stone/rock(peter/petros/petra) For those of christlike or in place of christ in the future.

Flesh dies the spirit lives!

This is just one example of many doctrines taught in error and they should be questioned.

Brother Thomas ©2015

MySpace Tracker