In a mailing to his followers, Ed Smith, the originator of TheoPhostic Counseling, demonstrates his ignorance of who we are, what we have written, and why Matthew18:15-17 does not apply to our critiquing his work. Contrary to Smith’s remarks about a “he,” the book TheoPhostic Counseling: Divine Revelation? or PsychoHeresy was coauthored by us. Smith complains about our critique but reveals nothing to demonstrate that we have erred in our evaluation of his work. However, and this should be embarrassing to him and his followers, Smith says that there was a failure to apply the simple principles of Matthew 18. In Matthew 18 Jesus refers to one brother sinning against another. There is nothing in our book that indicates that Smith has sinned against us. We have exposed Smith’s doctrinal errors to the church publicly because his teaching is public. In this we followed Paul’s example in correcting Peter in Galatians 2:11,14. Peter was public in his actions regarding the Gentile Christians and this required a public correction. We have done likewise. Also, we followed Jude 3 and 2 Timothy 3:16 and 4:2. If Smith’s TheoPhostic invention had been sent to us privately and not published publicly, we would not have written a public book about it. But his work is very public and thus requires a public response.
We have invited Smith’s followers who have written to us to quote from our book where they believe we are in error and to demonstrate how we are in error. So far no takers on the specifics, only individuals who are upset about the book without justifying why. We repeat: we have at no time and in no place and in no way ever indicated or implied that Smith “trespassed” or sinned against us personally. Therefore, Smith’s followers who are parroting him on this issue need to be doctrinally corrected on Matthew 18, as well as on the doctrinal errors in Smith’s TheoPhostic doctrines and biblical misapplications.
Think about the Reformation; remember the great doctrinal debates that occurred. There was no need for using Matthew 18 when it came to public verbal combats that took place over publicly declared doctrine. If the reformers logically followed Smith’s theology and reasoning on Matthew 18 there would have been no Reformation.
(PAL V8N5 * September-October 2000)