Author Topic: How Dare I Speak Bad About His Pet Preacher  (Read 290 times)

Offline creationliberty

  • Administrator
  • (LVL7) Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 953
  • Edification: 42
    • View Profile
    • Creation Liberty Evangelism
  • First Name: Christopher
  • Belief: Christianity
  • Location: Indiana (USA)
How Dare I Speak Bad About His Pet Preacher
« on: July 11, 2017, 01:41:54 PM »
I had a guy write me this morning, but he must have typed in his email address wrong (because certainly he wouldn't lie and give me a false email address), so I couldn't send this back to him; however, I'm not going to let this letter go to waste. The rest of you can read it. This is Allen from Texas, who writes:

I am writing you to address one specific portion of your article regarding whether or not women maybe pastors in the church.  First of all, I want you to know that I am a member of an elder led church. And it is our  belief that the word of God clearly outlines the position of Elder and overseer to be filled by men only.  So I'm not writing in opposition to your view in general. I'm  writing specifically to address your handling, or rather non-handling, of Greg Koukl's arguements. I feel that your comments regarding him and his arguments are little more than slander,  and you should be ashamed of them.
Okay, so what we need to do first is address the fact that you are obviously a Greg Koukl/Stand to Reason fan, which means you're also coming at this from a presuppositional bias. I didn't even remember writing about him, and had to go look him up before I continued reading your letter to make sure I knew who you were talking about. Within about 60 seconds of research, I found that he uses new-age bible versions, he's 501c3 incorporated, he believes in the one-pastor church system (which is unbiblical), he digs into lexicons and concordances for his interpretations which were authored by men who did not believe on Christ, and this is only what I could see on the surface. I'd hate to think of what I would find if I dug deeper. Now that his corruption has been established, and we state clearly that you're a fan of his that's defending his corruption, let's continue...

I understand your concern about the Greek game.  I have seen it done many times and it is damaging to the truth. But I don't see how a careful reading of his view could have left you with that conclusion about him.
So, if you don't understand it, would it have not been better to write me and ASK me about it, rather than jump in and accuse me of slander? (By the way, if you were reading my article, that means you're accusing me of LIBEL, not slander; you should learn the definitions of those words.) So I just want to also clarify that not only are you defending this man's corruption, you also started your letter by admitting that you don't understand what I wrote and why I wrote it, which doesn't mean you're wrong (i.e. we'll see), but I want to point out your approach.

You accuse him of ignoring the truth for his own personal views, because he says, "I personally believe..."  might I suggest a more charitable reading that harmonizes with the end of his article. I saying he personally believe something, he's not ignoring facts. Rather, he is humbly acknowledging his own limitations and the possibility that he could have gotten something wrong. Here is quoted the end of his article: "There may be some problems with my understanding here, I am willing to acknowledge that.  But I think that it is less problematic than the other view."
Did you even consider taking the time to find out what it was he found "problematic?" I don't know if you did yet because I haven't read the rest of your letter, I'm responding as I go. Just for your sake, I went back and re-read his blog post because I don't remember going over it from how ever many years ago I did this teaching. Aside from how boring it is because he spends most of it in speculation, Koukl claims the "problems" are with the text (i.e. He does not believe in the perfect Word of God.) He says:
"My problem with either of those two views is that they simply do not accord with the text itself if we are to take the text strictly at face value."
No, the real problem is with Greg Koukl, because he relies on his own interpretations, not the context, and I had that exactly correct, which you'll know if you bothered to read his whole blog post carefully. He tries to change "man" and "woman" to "husband" and "wife," on the basis of his own person belief; nothing more. (i.e. That means I was right in my article.) He changes those words, but if you actually read 1Ti 2, there is no contextual reason to change those words to husband/wife; he does that on the basis of his own personal belief (and based on his analysis of Westcott and Hort's corrupt Greek manuscript), meaning that he's taking whatever liberties he wants with God's Word. It's dreadful to think that any born-again Christian would learn from this man, and it makes my job harder because I have to try and unbrainwash Christians from that garbage, but you want to defend him, so let's hear it...

Further, I found it offensive that you just blamed the "Greek game" When at the end of his article he adds that there just aren't many place there that is a real possibility.  "Frankly, there are not too many other places in the scripture except for 1 Corinthians 7 where you have a similar kind of situation and the traditional translation there also breaks the pattern. So, I think this is as good a way as interpreting the passage as the other."
I find it offensive when men like Koukl teach other people to rely on unbelievers and new-age scholarship, and I find it offenseive when he changes the Word of God to his own liking, but apparently, since you study with this guy, you don't find that offensive at all, and that means you certainly don't care that it offends me or all the other elect of the church. As I already said, I just went back and re-read his blog post for myself. It's about what HE thinks, not what the Scripture says. He doesn't read it by its context, but you're telling me I'm wrong about my accusations of his playing the Greek game? Did you read the whole thing? He went back to his corrupt Westcott and Hort Greek manuscript via his lexicons and concordances:
"When I did my own word study on the words man and woman, I found out that the word man is aner and the word woman is gune ."
It doesn't take a genius to figure out where he got that from. He had to go look it up because he doesn't know the language, so where do you think he found it? So you should write him and ask him why he's playing the Greek game, but you won't because either you don't care, or you already know he'll excuse it away. (If you hear from him at all; which is why you'll write me because at least you know I'll personally get back with you.) If there's something specific about that you don't understand, try asking me instead of accusing me, because you haven't presented anything yet to show me where I'm at fault for something, but there's still more of your letter, so I'll keep reading to see if you have something else...

You basically called him a teacher of false doctrine that suits his own purposes while failing respond or answer any of his arguements.  I assume that you don't believe it is wrong to use Greek when used properly. So please, rather than name-calling, show where and how he used the Greek game incorrectly. You may be right, but all you did in your article was throw mud.
So that means you aren't going to listen to me; I just figured that out by that last sentence. It's sad because I'm sitting here wasting my time. If you were truly open to me being "right," then you wouldn't have followed it up with a clear, definite, accusatory statement that all I'm doing is "throwing mud." If all I'm doing is slinging mud, then you should abandon our ministry and go to Koukl's. If he's in the right, and I'm in the wrong, and I'm not repentant of that wrong, then what I'm saying and doing is not of God. However, if Koukl is in the wrong (and let's face it, we both know he won't repent of what he writes), then you're defending someone who is changing the Word of God to his own liking. Since you're so accustomed to defending what someone personally thinks, do you personally think that might warrant a little self-reflection on your part?

Finally, if you read his article to the end, you'll find that he believes that men are to be the head of the church. It is only the verse in 1 Tim 2 that may be misused.
But he comes to that conclusion based on, as he stated, tradition, and his own personal thoughts after cutting and pasting with God's Word based on the traditions he learned from his corrupt manuscripts written by unbelieving men. So I'm here to put people on the Word of God as a foundation, where he is here to put people on Koukl's word as a foundation, and if you like what he's doing, then go support him. I've got work to do.

"1 Timothy 2 talks about the relationship between husband and wife; itís chapter 3 that talks about church leadership.  And itís there that Paul is clear that men are to be in the roles of authority in the church as elders, overseers, and deacons."
Did you open up the KJB and read 1Ti 2? Try double checking what he says. Koukl's right about chapter 3's context, but he's wrong about chapter 2 because he's NOT interpreting by context, he's interpreting by HIS OWN BELIEF in which he changed the Word of God to his own liking. As I stated earlier, contextually, it's not talking about husbands and wives. It's talking about Christ in the first half, and then it talks about women specifically in the second half, but Koukl changes this because he's playing the Greek game.

I don't know you and I don't know the state of mind you were in while writing  your article. Still, it left me with the feeling that you did not read his full article. Maybe you did I can't know that, but I don't understand how you could've come to your conclusions about him if you had read is full explanation.
Well, in the future, it would be prudent to NOT ASK anyone if you don't understand what they said, but rather, just jump to accusations. That's obviously the tradition of the church, right? And don't do this thing where you say "but you didn't ask Koukl;" there's a reason for that. Koukl made a public teaching on the matter, and he said more than enough for me to draw very simple conclusions based on the evidence he provided.

I do not agree with everything Mr. Koukl  teachers, but I have always found him to be faithful to the text of Scripture. He is a faithful brother and  teacher in the body of Christ, so it upset me to see him treated in such a way without due cause.
Faithful to the text of Scripture? He just changed the text of Scripture! To me, it's clear as day because he told everyone what he did in his blog.
Nonetheless, thank you for that statement; that actually proved my original suspicion that you are a fan of Koukl. I just wish people would be a bit more honest when they write me. Your #1 intention of writing me was to protect your view of Koukl, because you have already presupposed he's a Christian and a man of God (when I would seriously question it based on what he does and what he's involved in), and if he was not teaching what was right, that would be a crisis of conscience for you. That's why you jumped on me so quickly, because it's easier for some scrubby, useless, nobody like me to take that heat, than the holy, righteous, prestigious Greg Koukl to be, as you put it, "dragged through the mud" to dirty his oh-so-clean phylacteries. (Mat 23:5)

Please consider what I've written you and consider changing what you wrote about him he has not deserve your scorn.
I did consider it, and I think I might. I think I might go back and give more details than what I did originally because if I quote more of his blog post, that will help more clearly prove the point I made. I thought this letter was a waste of time at first, but now that I consider it, I appreciate you writing this because now I can add in more quotes from Koukl's blog post to help others understand his deception easier and more clearly, so that way they know to beware of men like him. I hope that, one day, the Lord God will show you that deception so you can be free from it as well.

Next time, try not to get "telling the truth" mixed up with "scorn," just because you didn't like what I wrote. Oh, and don't forget to sanctify yourself from us if we're doing what's wrong, because that's what the Bible instructs us to do. (Rom 16:17) Have a wonderful day. :)

Just as a note, I did go back into the article this afternoon and add in more information on Koukl. I also found that I originally accused him of justifying women elders and such, which was an error. I did correct that, but it's strange that Allen never brought that up in his letter, nor did he quote me on that. I fixed that problem, and I added in quotations and some extra writing to explain it. It should now be much more accurate and easier to understand.
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. -2Ti 2:15
CLE Website || Free Audio Teachings || Free Video Teachings

Offline TonyaJ

  • Born-Again Christian
  • (LVL4) Experienced
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • Edification: 1
    • View Profile
    • The Chicken Whisperer
  • First Name: Tonya
  • Belief: Christianity
  • Location: Nowhere, Indiana
Re: How Dare I Speak Bad About His Pet Preacher
« Reply #1 on: July 12, 2017, 09:35:43 AM »
 Oh my word! I don't know how you do this. My head was pounding in my eyes wouldn't even focus toward the end.
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 2 Cor. 6:17