This is a five part series, authored by Brandon. Please read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4.
As we have looked into Scripture to consider if being forgiven means “it never happened,” the point of critical failure occurs when you insert the backsliding problem. If (1) sinners must give an account of all of their sins, and (2) if a Christian is capable of backsliding, then God cannot truly forget our sins until we are no longer capable of backsliding. The only way to maintain that forgiveness means that it never happened is to disprove either of the two premises just mentioned. I’m not aware of any person that has tried to disprove point (1): we all agree that sinners must account for each and every sin. The only way to overcome premise (2) is to invoke Calvinism, which I do not think Calvary Temple is interested in doing. At least not after they so artfully argued that Calvinists are heretics, after several ex-congregants chose to go to a Reformed church. Actually, it was a chance to hear Jon Miller at his best. I believe his argument was “Calvinism is stupid. You would have to be an idiot to believe it.” No, the irony was not lost on me.
Excluding Calvinism, we must conclude that God choosing not to remember our sin is much different from the human notion of forgetting. There is a sense in which God forgets our sin. But it must be pointed out that, if we really believe that God lives outside of time in such a manner that He sees past, present, and future simultaneously, and if we further believe that our God is all-knowing, it doesn’t make sense to then assert that He has forgotten our sins in the same way that we might forget things. He cannot lay aside His omniscience in the sense that He can forget our sin. Furthermore, Scripture indicates that we must give an account of everything that we have done. How can we give an account for something that God forgot? Since we aren’t Calvinist from the perspective of “once saved always saved,” the “forgetful God” argument forces us to hold to the notion that if one were to turn their back on Christ, the sins that God had forgotten would somehow be “unforgotten.” Of course that is nonsensical. As we have shown, the Bible indicates that God’s not remembering our sin has to do with a position of finality and right standing before His throne. He knows where our sin is: it has been vicariously placed on Christ’s account and Christ’s righteousness placed on our account. This effectively cancels the debt of our sin, but it does not mean that it did not originally occur in the first place. Such an extrapolation is dangerous because it would be used as a waiver for felonious crimes, and men who deserve to be in jail could justify dodging the law because it’s all “under the blood.”
The difference that must be understood is that God’s forgiveness is meant to absolve us of divine guilt, but it does not preclude us from earthly guilt. It couldn’t. That would be inconsistent with Romans 13 and 1 Peter 4, as stated previously. How should we then respond to different levels of sin, especially those that are also felonious crimes? God does not view all sin equally, and frankly neither should we. It is folly to suggest that the person who comes to Christ and continues to struggle with mental lust and the person who “comes to Christ” and continues to engage in child molestation are somehow both just learning how to walk out their sanctification. As Christians we may be called to meekness, but we are not called to be fools. It is our responsibility before God to use some measure of common sense as we apply the tests for conversion that have been given to us. We need to understand that the regeneration of a human heart necessarily must cause them to not spend the subsequent years molesting children.
Returning to Scott’s claims, it appears that his interpretation of God’s forgetfulness is different than David’s. Scott has made the jump from (1) “God does not remember my sins” to (2) “It is as though my sin never happened” to (3) “my sin really never happened.” Basically, he is playing a game of connect the dots and trying to convince you that the three dots on the page make a square. My point is that there is something missing in his logical sequence to get from step (2) to step (3). This is a classic case of “extrapolating from an extrapolation” as opposed to “extrapolating from the Bible,” which has occurred due to his prima facie reading of Psalm 103 and Micah 7 that didn’t consider the original context of those passages. Had he studied it out a little further, he would have noticed that at step (1), “God does not remember my sins in the sense that I have been freed from the divine penalty of my sins,” such that step (2) becomes “It is as though my sin never happened in the sight of God as it relates to the eternal consequence of my sin,” and then step (3) wouldn’t exist because he would note that steps (1) and (2) do not preclude him from earthly consequences.
Let us return to our thought experiment, only let us replace Jerry Sandusky with someone else. If we were to look at a young man who claimed to become a Christian in 1969 and chose to attend Bible school and spent the entirety of the years that he was at that school repeatedly and relentlessly abusing young girls, we would have to come to the conclusion that such a young man was never truly a Christian: much less called to ministry. I know people get catty about how only God knows if someone is truly a Christian, but if they fail the tests from 2 Corinthians 5 and 1 John, I think we have a responsibility to question their salvation. That’s before you get into the lists of what an elder should be. Certainly, any person would have the right to say “you know, I don’t feel comfortable with this man being my pastor because I don’t think he qualifies for eldership and I’m not sure he qualifies to be a pastor. I need to go to church somewhere else.”
If we are all supposed to forget the sins of every person who claimed to be a Christian, then there is no such thing as being beyond reproach. 1 Timothy 3 indicates that being “beyond reproach” is different than being “under the blood.” It further indicates that there are situations in which we are not expected to treat sin as though it never happened, or else the notion of being beyond reproach would be a nonsensical qualification. I maintain that Star Scott was not and is not beyond reproach. His reputation among the world is nauseating, and the behavior for which he alone is responsible makes a mockery of the holiness that we as Christians ought to walk in. If you are a current CT member and you are still reading, please pause and consider this: if his victims were ever able to draw up the courage to testify in court, there are police standing by that would arrest your pastor today and put him in jail for the rest of his life. I mean, if we decided that the most basic litmus test for being beyond reproach was that you shouldn’t be able to be arrested for child molestation and thrown in prison for the rest of your life, would that be taking too much upon ourselves? No, rather the man who begun in such hideous sin and continued in such grave error fits every characterization of a wolf that the Bible gives us. This isn’t about being empathetic. It’s about being wise, and applying the tests that the Bible and our God-given common sense compel us to apply.
A CT congregant might point out that the Apostle Paul had a dark past, and apparently he was beyond reproach. There are several issues that must be addressed with the Star Scott/Apostle Paul analogy. First off, Saul was not saved when he was doing these things, whereas Star Scott insists that he was. It is important to really understand how this affects his candidacy to be a pastor, which I will outline below:
- If someone says that they have become a Christian, and they spend the next three years repeatedly and relentless molesting children, their conversion was not genuine.
It’s time that as Christians we stopped beating around the bush when it comes to basic Bible tests. If Scott spent the first few years after he supposedly became a Christian continuing to live a habitual life of sin, he was not born of God. If he had truly been born of God, he could not go on sinning. This is the plain as day meaning of 1 John 3:9, “No one who is born of God will continue to sin…they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.” There simply is no way around it. Furthermore, as we have already established, not all sin is equal. Certainly there exist cases where new Christians have to learn to walk in sanctification. But in extreme cases like serial murder, lifestyles of rape, and continual child molestation, we cannot broaden God’s path to include these categories when 1 John 3:9 makes it clear that they do not qualify. That being said, there is an out for Star Scott. He could claim that his original conversion was not genuine but he eventually repented and truly became a Christian some time after this was all sorted out. As we continue on, we will see the difficulty of such a stance.
- If someone is not a Christian, they cannot hear from God.
This is one that has flown under the radar for too long. Too many TV preachers claim that God endorsed their ministry before they ever came to Christ, as though that somehow adds validity to what otherwise appears to be a failed ministry. In our hyper-Charismatic culture, we’re almost terrified to point out that someone might not have heard from God, lest we risk “speaking against the Spirit.” The problem is that we fall into that very error by attributing to the Spirit things He did not say. I don’t care which flaky televangelist says otherwise, non-Christians can hear nothing from God except His call to repentance. To believe otherwise flies directly in the face of 1 Corinthians 2:14, which says “The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.” This further applies to the knowledge gained while at Bible College. Without the Spirit’s nurturing, any heathen in Bible College would be unable to grasp the actual meaning of the Word and would be practically destined to become a slipshod, uninformed, biased, and deceitful preacher.
- Just because you pay tuition at a Bible College does not mean you meet the basic qualifications for ministry.
In this case, you have a man who dare I say was not a Christian, could not have heard any call from God besides the call to repentance, and failed almost every prerequisite laid out in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. He was not (1) blameless, (2) of good behavior, (3) able to teach, (4) not violent, (5) not a novice, or (6) of good testimony among those who are outside (beyond reproach). Star Scott was the polar opposite of every one of these qualities. As we have already stated, being “under the blood” does not mean that you are de facto “beyond reproach,” which indicates that God expects more of church leaders than even the basic qualifications for being a Christian, which Scott also miserably failed to meet.
With all these things in mind, it is interesting to note that Scott maintains that he was saved before attending Bible College. He has to insist that he was saved, or else he has to explain how he was qualified for ministry before being a Christian, which is a hard argument even for him to attempt. If he tries to use the Apostle Paul analogy, there are two other reasons it doesn’t fit. Secondly, Saul wasn’t actually breaking any governmental laws, whereas Star Scott would be charged with dozens if not hundreds of felonies. As mentioned previously, being “under the blood” does not mean being “beyond reproach.” In the case of Paul, there was no legitimate reproach such as those mentioned in 1 Peter 4:15-16 that the world could accuse him of. Thirdly, Paul actually reminded his audience in several of his epistles of exactly what his sin was, whereas Star Scott has actually lied to his congregation with his smoke and mirror statements designed for the congregants to infer that it was some kind of a one night stand with a grown woman.
Often ex-CT members try to talk to their friends and families that are still in CT and bring these alarming facts to their attention. Congregants respond to our heartfelt efforts with “he’s been forgiven” as though that somehow means the same thing as “he’s qualified to be a pastor.” A second response is “it was dealt with in California,” to which I respond “No it absolutely wasn’t.” I don’t know what happened in Scott’s old church with his old pastor, but it was not “dealt with.” The only way to deal with it would be to send the man to jail. A third response from CT members is “but it was a long time ago” to which I respond “that does not preclude him from the earthly consequences of his sin.”
Furthermore, any notion that perhaps he “started out bad” but God “turned it for good” is simply inconsistent with his track record. He makes up miracles that he supposedly performed and acts as though Jesus Himself endorsed his ministry, and has spent his time destroying families in the name of Matthew 10:34 as though the “sword” that Jesus was speaking of is indicative that the “man’s enemies will be those of his own household” is referring to the people who leave his church! Ironically, what he seems to be completely oblivious to is the fact that Jesus was quoting Micah 7 which in exegetical context is speaking of a time when heathens will remove the righteous from the land, indicating that Scott has put himself and his church in the place of heathens who are removing the righteous! And it ought to terrify them that, if my exegesis of Micah 7:6 and resulting interpretation of Matthew 10:34 is correct—and I will mention that it has been the accepted interpretation of Micah 7:6 and Matthew 10:34 from virtually every major Christian writer in Church history—then that places Calvary Temple directly in line with John 16:2 “They shall put you out of the synagogues (churches): yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.” And when people approach him to inform him that his church looks nothing like the body of Christ, he deceives his people to the point that they would find themselves on the wrong side of the Bible by shunning believers, yet think that they are doing God’s work by doing so.
Another objection that Scott’s supporters will mention is that Ron Walrobe “saw a vision of Jesus” and was told that Scott was to be the pastor at Calvary Temple. Aside from the fact that this story has grown from the 1980’s version where Ron Walrobe “heard a voice” to the 2000’s version with Ron Walrobe “seeing Jesus,” which seems to break a few Scriptural principles, I will address this issue. I did not know Mr. Walrobe, so I am speaking solely with the privilege of retrospection that frankly, the 70’s was a time in Charismatic circles where pretty much “anything flew” as far as hearing from God. I have a strong feeling that, had Mr. Walrobe seen a vision of Star Scott molesting young girls for the three years immediately before coming to Virginia, he probably wouldn’t have heard any voices telling him that Star Scott was supposed to be the pastor of Herndon Assemblies of God, later to become Calvary Temple. I doubt that, had he known of this scandal, he would have encouraged Scott to remain in ministry.
Lastly, I want to briefly address the notion that Scott purports concerning the “gifts and calling of God are without repentance.” There are several things to mention about this, but let’s look at the passage in Romans first to determine if it was meant to apply to pastors:
“I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”
As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. “
The first question we have to ask is “who was Paul talking about?” What he talking about pastors? Is this a passage about being in the ministry? No. This is a passage about Israel. Paul specifically mentions who he is talking about, and clarifies for us that the gifts and callings are because of Israel’s patriarchs. Really what Paul is talking about is the promise that God made to Abraham and how He will always honor His covenant: when God made His covenant with Abraham, it was irrevocable. This has nothing to do with pastors. The original audience would not have thought of it applying to pastors, so we cannot either. There is zero evidence in Scripture or Church history that pastors were “called” for life. Certainly, we understand that if Paul could have been disqualified from the race he speaks of in 1 Corinthians 9:27, that must include being disqualified from ministry as well. Even the Calvinists believe a pastor can be disqualified! If there are qualifications to get into the ministry (1 Timothy 3:1-7), and there are qualifications for staying in the ministry (by logical deduction from 1 Corinthians 9:27), then the possibility must exist that you can lose your ministry.
The Bible does not directly say “pastors can lose their pastorate” just as it does not say “pastors cannot lose their pastorate.” That doesn’t mean that we can’t derive the proper meaning from Biblical examples and principles. As stated above, 1 Timothy 3 and 1 Corinthians 9 provide excellent support to the stance that a pastor’s call is not irrevocable. Concerning examples of similar situations in the Bible, there are many stories of men losing their positions or God stripping them of their roles, including
- Saul being stripped on his kingship in 1 Samuel 15:23 “Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected you as king.”
- Eli’s house being removed from the priesthood in 1 Samuel 2:30 “Therefore the Lord, the God of Israel, declares: ‘I promised that members of your family would minister before me forever.’ But now the Lord declares: ‘Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained.”
- Demas losing his place on Paul’s ministry team in 2 Timothy 4:10 “for Demas, having loved this present world, has deserted me”
- The churches in Revelation 2 and 3 having their lampstands (candlesticks) removed. Revelation 2:5 “…if you do not repent, I will come and remove your lampstand from its place.”
This notion of an “irrevocable call” being applied to pastors is nonsense and purely heterodox, being found nowhere in Church history until the 1970’s Charismatic renewal.
Ultimately, this really all seems to circle back to Scott’s desire to be let off the hook for his sins and crimes, while at the same time keeping a black book of all of your sins in case you choose to leave. On the one hand he desperately wants his crimes to be forgotten and for him to be viewed as something other than a child molester. On the other hand, he can only do that by creating an ultra perfectionist environment in which he is somehow this gifted zealot who deserves to be taken seriously. If anyone wants to take their family and leave Calvary Temple, he will keep them there through intimidation and by dredging up their sins to remind them of how much they need him, because ultimately his greatest fear is to find himself preaching to empty pews. The key indicator that his doctrine is false should be his inconsistency in applying it. What he really wants is the Bible to say that once he was forgiven, it really never happened. Jerry Sandusky also wishes God’s forgiveness meant it never really happened. But it did. And just like Jerry Sandusky, Star Scott needs to be behind bars. And certainly not behind a pulpit.