February 15, 2012

Chandler is baffled and appalled

by Jesse Johnson

I have stayed really far away from the elephant room boondoggle because there is such a thing as beating a dead elephant. But last week this tweet from Matt Chandler made the rounds on-line:

I am baffled and appalled by anyone who thinks @jamesmacdonald is a heretic. #crazytalk

and I feel compelled to respond.

Two things strike me about this tweet:

1. It is sad when saying a person is not a heretic counts as defending that person.

2. I honestly don’t know anyone who says James MacDonald is an actual heretic—like the kind of heretic that denies the trinity or who preaches a different gospel. You may quibble with his soteriology (would you call that 3 point Calvinism?), his eschatology (prewrath), or his ecclesiology (multi-site), but I haven’t come across anyone who would say he is an actual heretic. Maybe there are people at The Village that say this, but I have yet to meet or read anyone that makes this claim.

Chandler’s quote is bothersome because it presents a novel defense against the criticism MacDonald is rightly under. Obviously, many people warned MacDonald against giving Jakes a larger audience; and when I say “people warned MacDonald,” I’m not talking about bloggers. I’m talking about pastors of some renown. Yet for his own reasons, MacDonald did not heed those warnings.

But that doesn’t make him a heretic.

Did he act in a way that was wise? Well, if a shark has eaten all the fish in one tank, it is unwise to drop him in another tank (unless you want to see fish gobbled, but let’s assume MacDonald actually had good intentions). With the exception of Furtick, not many people have been willing to argue that Jakes is not a shark. So the most charitable thing to do is to grant that MacDonald wanted good to come from this, and just went about it in a really unwise way.

But that doesn’t make him a heretic.

Did his actions actually harm the church? Well, a Word-Faith, prosperity gospel, modalist was just catapulted in front of a whole world of people who otherwise would not have been exposed to him. For a few months, the Gospel Coalition churches got to endure what is a lifetime for black churches; namely, the constant pull from the power of Jakes’ personality toward his doctrine. Undiscerning college students who admire MacDonald and Driscoll just googled modalism, then saw their heroes pronounce it as sort-of-kosher. Fans of Furtick who have long thought his fascination with Jakes was strange, suddenly see it as vindicated. I would call that harmful.

But that does not make MacDonald a heretic.

When all the dust has settled from this affair, the net result will be that Jakes has increased his influence. Mark Driscoll and MacDonald have built empires of influence, and they just used their influence to expose people to Jakes. MacDonald has since stressed that the entire Room ® was a splendid time for brothers to come together and talk about their differences. That tacit endorsement of Jakes represents an almost surreal attempt by MacDonald to cling to the “success” of this event. While it may be surreal, it certainly does not make him a heretic.

There may be some people who think that this whole ER2 thing should be left alone, and that bloggers, writers and pastors who continue to criticize it or comment on it are wasting their time (strangely enough, MacDonald seems to think this). But there really is not a more important contemporary issue for us to talk about. Board members of the Gospel Coalition (ostensibly—by their own title—a group that defines the essentials of the gospel for evangelicals) are affiliating themselves with Jakes. An obvious question arises: can someone preach the prosperity gospel—while simultaneously holding to a leaky form of modalism, mind you—and still be considered a true Christian? That is a legitimate question, and one which even Keller and Carson, apparently the leaders of the coalition, urge us to answer carefully.

On the one hand it is disheartening that leaders in the gospel coalition are openly embracing Jakes as a brother. But on the other hand, it is encouraging that this has not gone unnoticed. People should respond, and they should be fairly outraged. They should feel betrayed by Driscoll, MacDonald, and Lorrits. They should ask hard questions about how the leadership of the gospel coalition got mainstream evangelicalism to this point. And if I may borrow a phrase from Chandler, Christians should be shocked and appalled that decades into its existence, the Word-Faith movement’s leader is being embraced as a brother by evangelical leaders.

The question of the month is how can MacDonald be seen as an evangelical leader while promoting and vindicating Jakes? To answer that question by simply saying that MacDonald is not a heretic is a neat trick, but is also not helpful. Can we grant that you can abuse your leadership, harm the church, and expose people to a renowned false teacher, and not be a heretic? The issue isn’t MacDonald’s orthodoxy, it is his leadership, and I am baffled and appalled by anyone who can’t see the difference.


Jesse Johnson

Posts Twitter Facebook

Jesse is the Teaching Pastor at Immanuel Bible Church in Springfield, VA. He also leads The Master's Seminary Washington DC location.
  • Well said about Jakes and them elephant room things.

  • Romabella50

    The Bible continually tells us that we are not to associate with evil, false teachers. If McDonald is not a heretic, he is in serious, deep sin.

  • Daniel J. Phillips

    Your response is good. Mine is brief: http://bit.ly/wcBnqc.

    • Thanks Dan. I actually really enjoyed your two tweets on Christian leadership. Are good leaders those that warn people before the crash, or those who tell people to clean up carefully afterwards?

  • Rhea

    I hadn’t really thought about it being a failing in leadership. Good post.

    • Thanks Rhea. To me, that is the most significant lesson of this ordeal. Leaders should be careful about who they expose their people to.

  • michael Henry

    Rather than take an opportunity to stick up for orthodox Christianity and all the brothers and sisters who rightfully criticized MacDonald and his friends, Chandler chooses to, in effect, do the opposite and attack the attackers. Crazytalk? Appalling? Sounds like more “Nazi” talk to me. If calling MacDonald a heretic is wrong, is calling his critics crazy any less wrong? No man, including Chandler, is without critics regarding some portion of their theology. But MacDonald has gone so far off, and refused to repent or even acknowledge he is in any way wrong, it is “baffling” why anyone would defend him at this point.

    • True. Although again, I’m not sure anyone is even calling him a heretic to begin with, which is why defending him from that charge is a little funny.

  • Great post, Jesse. Thanks for keeping the concern where it should be. I haven’t heard McDonald called heretic yet. I have heard his leadership called into question as it should be. The leadership issue in question is pastoral maturity. In what way did McDonald and Driscoll think that this would be beneficial to the body of Christ? Did they really take time to evaluate the effect this would have or did they just decide that people shouldn’t question their decision-making. In the end, they didn’t discuss any Trinitarian formulas, they just let Jakes say that he liked his wording better but that he was OK with their wording too (as if words didn’t matter).

    These guys do not take theology seriously; they take their influence seriously. Sadly, they sound like kids demanding that they are right.

    • They are the same pair that brought us this gem: “Ekklesia means ‘assembly’? According to who?”

  • I’m liking the example of Nehemiah more and more lately; he was a man who would not compromise. Take from this commentary from Ray Stedman what you can, or what speaks to your heart most intimately:

    The book closes with the matter of resistance to evil. Your strength will be maintained if you will take the attitude that Nehemiah took for God. He was ready to say “No! to the forces that would destroy what God was doing in his life. Look what he had to do. In chapter 13, verse 7, having gone back to Babylon and returned to Jerusalem, he says:

    I then discovered the evil that Eliashib had done for Tobiah [this man was first mentioned in the beginning of the book as an enemy of the Jews], preparing for him [the enemy of God] a chamber in the courts of the house of God.
    He had allowed Tobiah to move right into the temple! What did Nehemiah do? He said:

    I was very angry, and I threw all the household furniture of Tobiah out of the chamber.
    He went in and threw Tobiah’s furniture out into the street. And that isn’t all. He found that the priests had been cheated, so he restored the money that belonged to them. Then he discovered that throughout the city the people were violating the sabbath. They were bringing in merchandise and selling it in the streets. In verse 19 he says:

    When it began to be dark at the gates of Jerusalem before the sabbath, I commanded the the doors should be shut and gave orders that they should not be opened until after the sabbath.
    He kept them all out of the city. Then he discovered that some of them were waiting outside the doors all night, hoping that someone would come out and do a little business. So what did he do?

    I warned them and said to them, “Why do you lodge before the wall? If you do so again I will lay hands on you.”

    Then he discovered yet another problem. The people were still intermarrying with the forbidden races around them. Nehemiah became violent. In verse 25 he says:

    I contended with them and cursed them and beat some of them and pulled out their hair [What a man!]; and I made them take oath in the name of God, saying, “You shall not give your daughters to their sons, or take their daughters for your sons or for yourselves.”
    But that still isn’t all. He found that one of the fellows who was his foremost enemy, who had done more than any other to oppose the building of the wall, was Sanballat the Hornonite. In verse 28 we read:

    And one of the sons of Jehoiada, the son of Eliashib the high priest, was the son-in-law of Sanballat the Horonite; [So what did he do with him?] therefore I chased him from me.
    Now perhaps you feel that Nehemiah was too severe. But here, you see, is a man who has learned that there can be NO COMPROMISE WITH EVIL. He has learned one of the greatest lessons that the Spirit of God can ever teach anyone: TO SAY “NO” WHEN IT NEEDS TO BE SAID.

  • Bob Schilling

    Great post Jesse. 100% agree with all that you said. Looking at just the handful of responses (all favorable) you received, particularly the gentleman Michael Henry – though I haven’t heard people calling MacDonald a heretic- I can imagine that some are, given the insipient second and third degree separationism that still seems to unwittingly grip some folks. And with some of that you can’t help being sympathetic. When you read some of the DJ endorsement blurbs on old Robert Schuller books, you ask yourself about this other well known pastor, “How can you be endorsing Robert Schuller?” Or when Franklin Graham warmly shares mutual kudos and appreciation with Paul and Jan Crouch on TBN, you at least scratch your head, maybe more. But again, as you rightly mention, there is a major difference between a heretic (an advocate of doctrines incompatible with saving faith in Christ: Read chapter 4 of John MacArthur’s “Reckless Faith” entitled, “What are the Fundamentals of Christianity?”) and being without backbone and not calling a heretic a heretic. Jakes is plainly and bluntly not a Christian, but there are lots of believers both unwilling and some undiscerning to make that statement – that doesn’t make those “soft” believers heretics.

    But you’re so right in this post – the Chandler tweet (And I greatly admire Chandler) sidetracks this whole discussion. Throw out the extremes at both ends, there really is a good conversation that needs to continue regarding the wake of ER2. Major harm has been done in legitimizing a man like TD Jakes who has already been paraded as the black, modern Billy Graham (Billy was/is also soft on Mormonism, Catholicism, etc. – doesn’t make Billy a heretic). My two cents, some of these young bucks (relatively speaking) are not the Christian Statesmen that the church needs defending its orthodoxy (Driscoll, MacDonald, etc. – obviously Lorrits should be displaying greater maturity). And I really think that the Gospel Coalition needs to draw a circle of circumference or it’s going to degenerate into far less than its founders envisioned quickly. At the end of the day I’m grateful for the discussions that ER2 is forcing upon us – and your contribution Jesse, I applaud.

  • Matthew

    This a great and much needed post Jesse.
    Thank you.

  • David Sager

    Twitter, in my opinion, is not a great way to communicate. It is hard to know how take Chandler’s statement. Is he defending McDonald? I appreciate, Jesse, your comments and would agree with them. I still wonder is anyone saying McDonald is a heretic. I think he is unwise especially being a shepherd of a church but not a heretic.

    • Agreed. I sound like Neil Postman here, but sometimes the medium becomes the message.

  • Great post, Jesse. I appreciate your courage.

  • But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. – 2 Peter 2:1

  • Rachel

    Im a little confused as to why you had to use Matt Chandler’s tweet to fuel this post. There are a lot of people out there calling James MacDonald a heretic, and all Chandler is doing is defending a friend and brother in Christ. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing about what you had to say about Jakes and the elephant room, but why take a jab at Chandler? Couldn’t you have brought up your concerns about everything else without using Chandler’s tweet to do it? Maybe I am misunderstanding the tone of your post, but that’s the way it came off to me.

    • Matthew

      Hi Rachael,
      I’ll let Jesse respond to you in full; I just had one question:
      – Who is calling James MacDonald a heretic? (sources?)
      Thank you.

    • Rachel,

      That is a good question for me to answer. The reason I used the tweet as the lead off for this post is because my biggest frustration with this whole ordeal is how predictable it was, and then how people have been quick to criticize those who are demanding some sort of public statement from James or Driscol that comes anywhere close to being helpful. Instead of encouraging James or MD to say something, the approach those who prophesied the debacle it was by chiding them for questioning MacDonald. Again, you don’t have to say MacDonald is a heretic. But why go after those who are rightly demanding he speak for himself here?

      As for the actual content of his tweet. Jakes is obviously off the reservation, gospel wise. MD and MacDonald are calling him a brother publicly. Does that make them heretics as well? No. But certainly should not make anyone appalled if they are put in the same sentence as heresy. That is my point.

      I hope that helps. Thanks for your gracious question Rachel.

  • Rick

    I saw this tweet from Chandler as an effort to re-establish peace and collaboration with MacDonald and others after the unfortunate events of the Code Orange Revival. As much as the Reformed crowd may have liked the sermon Chandler preached at Furtick’s event I believe he was out of line for doing so. Guest speakers typically stay within bounds rather than forcing their particular bent on another flock. Isn’t that right Pastors? What Chandler did amounts to an ambush. It is one thing to agree with the content of Chandler’s message but another to condone the tactics he employed to preach it in that setting. If he had such a problem with all of it why was he even there? Chandler owed Furtick an apology and I believe he has done that. MacDonald supports/mentors/loves Furtick and I imagine he was equally disappointed with Chandler.

  • Jeff

    I remember Jakes making a statement a few years ago that he and his church were documenting the increase in the wealth of his congregants as proof of WF. I found your statement a bit surprising…”decades into its existence”. Shocked that WF has been taught so widely yet produces nothing. I would think that John 10— “If you don’t believe me, believe MY works” could be used nationally, by you folks who teach nationally in forums such as this, as effective refutation. If Jakes, Copeland, Creflo, et al, can not produce congregations with visible, verifiable wealth comparable to their own, then the evidence should be clear. It must be obvious to someone that not too many in Copeland’s congregation has a new “10”. Although it remains a mystery to me who is sending Hinn nearly $100M yearly. Their must be some measure effective refutation to stop such heresy. GOD BLESS.

  • z.

  • Jesse, I gotta say how impressed I am by all you wrote from a single tweet. I wonder if someone treated the Word of God the way you treated that text what you would call it? I would suggest eisegesis.

    • Hey Bryan. Fair point. I like Dan Phillip’s reply (in the thread above) better. That way the mediums match. Fortunately, I study for sermons differently than I study Twitter. Some days that is good news for my sermons, other days…
      Seriously though, to the issue at hand: do you think the invite of TD was good leadership, and that it was helpful to the church at large, or harmful? I am not asking rhetorically. I really am interested in your answer. I obviously respect your ministry tremendously, and value our friendship, so trust me when I say I’m really asking this question.

    • michael Henry

      Are you willing to hold a Chandler to the same standard? Eisegesis would suggest reading into something, whereas in this case the examination is from the evidence given in the tweet itself, and the body of evidence behind the tweet. Is calling critics “crazytalkers” treating the word of God in the right way?

      • Michael, I am holding Chandler to the same standard. My “exegesis” of the tweet (wow that sound awkward) is that people who call James MacDonald a heretic are crazy. Pretty straight forward. Any talk about Chandler’s motivation or underlying message is at best assumption. Everyone is free to agree or disagree with Chandler’s statement. But attacking everything that is NOT in his statement seems silly.

    • Jgilcher

      Bryan, please be careful brother about the “tone” that is communicated in a post like this. I suppose I can understand you wanting to caution Jesse if you felt him to be imbalanced, but perhaps to speak harshly to a man who: a) has godly character you can identify by first hand experience and observation; b) is no slouch when it comes to discerning issues in a Biblical way and who continually honors the original contexts of both Biblical texts and tweets, etc.; and c) is older than you (which could mean wiser simultaneously), means that maybe before posting this you should have: 1) believed the best about Jesse; 2) followed Paul’s guidelines (in 1 Timothy 5:1 about how to rebuke an older (although not that much older) man.

      I only take the time to write all of this because I know you personally, attended seminary with you and appreciate your ministry.



      • Jerod,

        Thanks for the kind rebuke. I appreciate a brother that wants to look out for me.

        I will say that I’ve commented more tonight than I have in my lifetime on a blog. Apparently it should stay that way. I’ll be the first to confess that I’m not a good writer. I’m not sure how to make “tone” come out of my keyboard, but clearly I failed in my original comment. I can tell you that it was said as a friend of Jesse’s and while I was laughing. I guess this will be my last comment on a blog unless I can find some emoticons or something to help my writing (insert smily face and a thumbs up).

        As for Jesse’s character, I fully concur to his godly example. As for his ability to honor the original biblical text, he is an example to me. As for his ability to honor the original context of a tweet…hmmm…this post has made me have my doubts (insert a smile, wink, and a high-five). As for Jesse being older, I’m not sure if he is or not. As for him being wiser, that is no contest. I’ll eat Jesse’s scraps off the floor!

        I am curious about your comment that I should have “believed the best about Jesse.” Wouldn’t that apply to how you read my “tone?” You don’t have to answer. You can tell me your thoughts as Sheph’s and also tell me how ministry is going for you.

        BTW, I do think many people could use your advice on “thinking the best about someone” in the context of James MacDonald.

        Hope to see you soon, Bryan

        • Jgilcher


          Thanks for your kind and humble words. It’s clear that I misunderstood your post, and yet your response was very gracious anyway. I appreciate that very much.You’re right, “tone” is extremely hard to put into type-written words. Perhaps I should have thought the best about you!! (Ah, found that log in my eye). Ha, ha. Oh man, blogs can be nuts!

          Again, thank you brother.


    • Jesse, I guess if I’m going to post I should probably check back more often. Sorry to leave you hanging.

      First, you know I appreciate you greatly and respect all you’ve invested in me and have continued to invest. I believe from your response, you knew how to take my post. If it came across harsh, my apologies. I was writing as if you and I were talking in your office. I think you know me well enough to “hear” how I would have said that comment in a conversation.

      Second, just to clarify, my point was that the tweet was about James NOT being a heretic. Maybe I’m wrong, but the thrust of your post seemed to be that Chandler was guarding MacDonald from criticism. My point is that Chandler DIDN’T say that. He was “guarding” him against those calling him a heretic. Therefore, it felt like the entire post was written about something the tweet DIDN’T say. If you just wrote the post without the tweet being your apparent foundation, then my comment would be without warrant. But it felt like eisegesis. Sorry, I know the “E” word in TMC/GCC land is like calling you a heretic:) For the record…I know you cut the Word straight and I’m very thankful you don’t spend time exegeting tweets!

      Third, I don’t question your legitimate desire to hear my thoughts about this situation. However, because I consider James MacDonald to be a dear friend and brother, I will speak generally in order to not betray confidentiality with him. I will say that I have spent personal face time talking through many of these issues with James, and I am thankful for his heart in the matter. I appreciate his desire to try to influence men with the truth and not building needless barriers. Even though I would not go about some things the way James has, I do NOT question his integrity, ability to lead a church, love for Christ and His glorious gospel, commitment to the truth, or his 100% dedication to the glory of God!

      Ultimately, the whole thing (IMO) comes down to an equation that no one can agree upon “X amount of association = X amount of endorsement.” For some, it seems that riding an elevator with someone means that you endorse everything that person has ever said or done. For others, it seems that you can marry someone and say, “This doesn’t mean I endorse anything about this person.” Most people probably aren’t fully at either of those extremes, but the question becomes, “Where do you fall between those?” James and I don’t land in the exact same place between those pendulums. But we both fully agree with one another on the “why” we stand where we stand. We want to influence as many people with the truth as possible.

      Trying to figure out the equation above is something that 9 out of 10 like-minded men will not agree on 100% (What conferences can I speak at and with who? Does it matter who has ever spoken at this conference in the past or just the present one? Is it ok to be on TBN? etc). I remember a call I took at GCC where a MacArthur-lover was ready to start rioting the streets because John’s ministry was listed on the TBN website in the address book of ministries. The man on the phone was ready to lynch MacArthur as a heretic! My point is not to say that MacArthur preaching on TBN is apples to apples with the Elephant Room. I am merely providing another example of something that people disagree over.

      Fourth, you stated that no one is calling James a heretic but you have a case before you in the comments of this blog. It actually made me laugh because I remember your MONEY comment on Dr. Snider’s page a few weeks ago when a commenter was just drilling his point home. The difference is that the person here is negating your statement.

      Last, forget blog post…I’m pumped about your new ministry. I can’t wait to see how the Lord uses you as you minister to a blood-bought flock of sheep in the D.C. area!

      Your brother, Bryan

      • Well said Bryan. BTW, I am fine with your original comment. I thought it was funny, and appreciated it. Thanks for taking the time to comment here. I know commenting on a blog goes against your DNA 🙂

  • Mark S

    I hate to say it, but I’ve been dubious of TGC, I appreciate and thank God for what they do well, but given some people on their core group, I won’t blindly accept their publications. I shouldn’t do the same with anything. But I am MORE trusting of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals — though if they ever accept on their council certain men who TGC embraces, that trust will crumble.

  • Texgrans

    It might be helpful to define terms. Just exactly what is a heretic? What constitutes heresy?

    Despite the mock outrage, let’s remember that the ones who are creating division are MacDonald and those who have gone off track, not those of us who believe historical, biblical Christianity.

    • I think this is a great point that has largely gone over the heads of those involved in this discussion. The call back to orthodoxy doesn’t divide. Embracing heresy is what divides.

  • Mike

    Chandler has to keep the peace with MacDonald and Driscoll. He was promoted to the lead board of Acts29 along with Driscoll who is taking over again as president. He is playing politics. Circle the wagons, shoot the bloggers & tweeters who disagree, claim it is more important to be missional instead of discussing doctrine (basically blaming the reformed community), and never actually deal with all the damage done. I feel like this happens every few years.

  • Romabella50

    McDonald endorsed a heretic and called him “brother”. That makes him a heretic.

    • Bob Schilling

      That’s the second-degree separation falacy that this whole discussion refuted from the beginning. Heresy is believing and advocating a soul-damning doctrine.

      For example, if the Bible says that you must believe a certain thing “to have eternal life” then to not believe that or to advocate something in contradiction to that is to embrace heresy. 1 John 5:1 says, “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.” So if you don’t believe that Jesus is the Messiah, you are not born of God and to teach that Jesus is not the Christ is heresy.

      Additionally, if the Bible says that believing a certain thing is of the antichrist or Scripture threatens damnation if you believe it, then that is a non-negotiable fundamental of the faith also. 2 John 7 says “Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is a deceiver and the antichrist. Thus if you embrace docetism, that Jesus only “appeared” to be a man you are a heretic. (Here’s a great overview of historical Christological heresies: http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Historic_Heresies)

      T.D. Jakes’ modalism is heresy. The fact that a brother or sister lacks discernment and isn’t sure that TD Jakes embraces modalism doesn’t necessarily make that person a heretic. Let’s stand firmly for the truth Romabella50, but lets be slow and careful about calling someone a heretic. Which means you have to distinuish between ‘soul-damning’ issues and secondary issues of error over which believers may and do differ. As MacArthur outlines in this blog (The chapter in his book I referred to above) those fundamental doctrines all have to do with the person and work of Christ – not necessarily with a person’s confusion regarding the beliefs of another person (http://www.gty.org/blog/B100317). Does MacDonald embrace modalism? No. Does he appear to be too soft on one that looks to many of us as still a modalist, and who definitely still preaches the false prosperity gospel? Yes. Does that raise big concerns about MacDonald or Driscoll? Yes. But does that warrant us calling them heretics? Absolutely not. And a misguided zeal that can’t see that certainly doesn’t impress me with the discernment to give credibility to their pronouncements of who’s a heretic and who isn’t. Oh, the pendulum swinging tendency to overcorrection.

      • Romabella50

        MacDonald embraces a heretic. We are suppossed to rebuke them. MacDonald is a heretic. We have not even mentioned the word of faith/prosperity garbage that these gutless wonders failed to call the evil Jakes on.

  • csrima

    It’s possible to not be a heretic, while still being unwise…the question is, at what point does someone lose your trust as a theological voice? I have always liked James, but now it’s hard to hear what he says without wishing I could feel completely at ease.

  • Pingback: Chandler is baffled and appalled via The Cripplegate Blog | Pilgrimage to Geneva()

  • Pastorjj

    Thanks Jesse. Great article, absolutely spot on.

  • Scott Welch

    Good word Jesse. You did a great job focusing on the fact that this abuse of leadership creates confusion and division in the sheep. Elders, leaders, and shepherds are to guide the sheep into unity under the truth of the Chief Shepherd. Muddying the boundaries of truth does not help anyone follow the narrow path.

  • Linda

    I don’t know that I’d go so far as to call James MacDonald a heretic. Yet, I’m very concerned with his acceptance and compromise of the Trinity the whole time. Is someone a heretic when they themselves can’t agree with the orthodox position of the Trinity? Anyone who is conceding to people and messing with an essential doctrine is treading on very dangerous ground for being a heretic.

    Jesus said one thing and that is “he who is not with me is against me and he who does not gather with me scatters”-

    Time will tell with James but until then, I don’t like what I’m seeing and I just wonder,, what would Paul say if he were here?