Tullian Tchividjian Confesses Second Affair Concealed by Two Coral Ridge Elders

If this man wasn’t still trying to be a Pastor, then I wouldn’t think he was such a despicable fool.

We may forgive sins, but there are times the consequences must stay in place.

Should the church treasurer who embezzles funds be allowed to retake their role as treasurer?

Should the nursery worker who abuses a child be allowed to work with children again?

Should the pastor who willfully engages in immorality return to his role?

I’ve been saying this for 35 years: Pastors who are immoral need to find another line of work!

This is so sad,as well as damaging to the honor of Christ. If there is a silver lining, perhaps it may cause those who followed T’s erroneous teaching on “Grace”, to reconsider. His antinomian concepts encouraged him to sin with impunity and continue in Christian ministry. And he still doesn’t get it. He’s lobbying to continue in ministry. That doesn’t look like Biblical repentance,

His antinomian concepts encouraged him to sin with impunity and continue in Christian ministry. And he still doesn’t get it.

I would stop short of attributing this to his theological views. There have been a good many men of the opposite persuasion who have done just what Tchividjian did, and a good many men who share Tchividjian’s views who have not done what he did. This is the result of the depravity that we all have, which if left unchecked, will lead us down the same road. There are a lot of reasons to suspect Tchividjian’s theology. This is not one of them.

Larry, are you postulating that what one believes has no bearing on one’s behavior?

Not at all. I am saying that men with a biblical view of sanctification have done the same thing. If you were right, then no one who had the opposite view would have eve done it. And that’s simply not the case. And people with the same view as Tchividjian have not done it. Why? Because that’s not the issue.

I would actually say that what people say they believe and what they actually believe are often two different things. But the fact is that men from all over the theological spectrum have done this sort of thing. I don’t know of anything in Tchividjian’s theology that would allow this. He would still say it is sin and he shouldn’t have done it,

“If you were right, nobody with a Biblical view of sanctification would have done it.” Sorry, but that argument doesn’t fly. You are right that the basic problem is our sinful nature, which allows us to fall into nearly every kind of sinful temptation. But to say that a sound view of sanctification provides no better protection against falling than erroneous doctrine flies against the evidence. Sound theology produces better lives because it promotes right thinking about sin. Antinomian views encourage sinful license.

Sound theology produces better lives because it promotes right thinking about sin.

I agree, though I am not saying that sound view of theology provides no better protection. That wasn’t the claim you made, as I recall.

The question remains, how do you explain the fact that people who agree with you on theology and sanctification do the same thing that Tchividjian did?

Did I, or anyone claim that a Biblical view of sanctification eliminates the possibility of sin? What I said was that an un-Biblical view decreases God-given protections against sinning.

I would agree that an antinomian view of grace would be a contributing factor, but certainly not the only factor, in TT’s sin here. I would also suggest that his history of grievous sin (which he’s owned publicly) as a youth and his status as a celebrity were not terribly helpful, either. We own our sin no matter what our stated beliefs, of course, and of course there is the “man doth protest too much, methinks” phenomenon, but celebrity and antinomianism can’t be helpful here.

I also wonder what is going on in the minds of the elders who heard about this two years back and didn’t raise a ruckus about the matter. Exactly how is that appropriate? What had to happen in their minds to get them to think this was acceptable? Is it standard circling of the wagons, celebrity, antinomianism, whiskey in the communion wine, or what? A quick reminder as well; about the time that his admitted adulteries began to occur, he swapped suitcoats for tight fitting t shirts and began to show off a set of very well developed “guns” that were becoming more and more tattooed. The signs of mid life crisis were pretty obvious IMO.

Finally, notice that the author of the CT article is interpreting the “his opinion but not mine” comment of TT’s ex-wife as the possibility that she was not adulterous at all. If indeed this interpretation is correct—I obviously don’t know—TT needs to be not only defrocked but also slapped silly. This could be even uglier than I’d have guessed.

What I said was that an un-Biblical view decreases God-given protections against sinning.

No, what you said was, “His antinomian concepts encouraged him to sin with impunity.” My point is that we can’t say that. We don’t know what his mind was thinking about the reasoning behind his sin, or whether or not he thinks one can sin with impunity. (I don’t think he thinks that.) The point is that you didn’t say anything about decreasing protections. You said something about his theology encouraging him to sin with impunity, and I think those are two different things.

Had you said what you now say (about decreasing protections), I would completely agree. That is correct.

It seems to me that TT (and some fundamentalist pastors and people I have known) have adopted the belief that a demonstration of repentance can not only gain forgiveness but can also absolve them from the consequences of sin.

Well, this is getting a bit silly. We’re arguing over semantics. How about this? “His antinomian errors decreased God-given protections against sinning by encouraging TT to believe that he could sin with impunity. Or at least, that there were few serious consequences for sin.”

I don’t think it is silly. And it’s not really semantics. You said two different things. I agree with the second, not the first. Your first statement implies something about Tchividjian’s thought process and state of mind that I don’t think we can know, unless you are privy to some sort of knowledge I am not aware of. I don’t know that TT believed he could sin with impunity, and I don’t know how you would know that. In the heat of the moment, people think some pretty silly stuff. And TT has said that we cannot sin with impunity. Or at least he approvingly quoted Dane Ortland about those who would mishear this position as a license to sin with impunity (http://www.christianity.com/blogs/tullian-tchividjian/signing-off.html).

But my main point is that we should say only what we know, or can reasonably assert, unless we give some sort of qualification. I think your second statement is much better and is the one you should have made first.

But I also think that doesn’t explain why people with a proper theology of sin and sanctification do the same thing. That’s the bigger point, IMO.

TT may be relentlessly trying to return to “ministry” simply because he’s a narcissistic fool. Anybody who poses for glamor shots like he has does possess a narcissistic streak. Or, he may be deluded by his foolish antinomian-leaning views on sanctification. Or, more likely, both his narcissism and his antinomianism are feeding off of one another.

I would appreciate a bold, blunt and forthright statement from his denomination settling the matter once and for all. Something subtle and somber, but yet unmistakably clear - perhaps something along the lines of, “This loser will never soil a PCA pulpit again!” I doubt we’ll get one. Bureaucracies are notoriously cowardly about taking on what Carl Trueman has ingeniously termed “Big Eva.”

TT is the Anthony Weiner of evangelicalism. And, like Weiner, he is seemingly oblivious to the shame he should be feeling; the same shame which would send a better man fleeing for the hills of anonymity. Like Weiner, TT is too in love with himself to quit. Unlike Weiner, TT deliberately disguises his narcissism by a cloak of Gospel-esque humble-brag - and Christians are such suckers they fall for it, just as TT knew they would. After all, would this man lie to you?

The man is a disgrace. I know some people will think I’m “mean” for saying this, but hey … grace covers a multitude of sins, right?