This past Tuesday, I just got a new book titled The Bravehearted Gospel by Eric Ludy. I must say, it’s revolutionary, it’s bold, it’s uncomfortable, and I love it. It has awakened my soul. It seems almost native to me and is almost as if it’s the cry of my inner most being that has been waiting to burst out of me since I was born.

It teaches the “manly stuff” of the Gospel, as Eric puts it. It reveals the loss of boldness in the Church in the past few decades. It’s a call to go back to the historic Christianity where men and women were willing to die for the glory of God. It reveals the fluffy stuff and extreme femininity that exists in today’s western Church.

An emergent movement has risen up in the Church that desires to move away from the old, religious, traditional stuff that was in the Church. However, it is going in the other extreme and losing it’s power against sin and fighting spirit for justice. Instead we’re basing beliefs off of the philosophies of men such as Rob Bell’s teaching on “springy” truth. We need a healthy balance of femininity and masculinity. We’re going in the wrong direction and I am willing to stand against it even if everyone is against me and falsely calls me a legalist.

I’m a man and the desire to fight for truth and justice is ingrained  into my very being. This attribute is often discouraged in modern times and it’s time for a revival of this feature to take hold in the heart of men (and women) in the Church to fight for what’s His. There is going to be no revival with fancy music, pretty light shows, and comfortable sermons. True revival will convict people and lead them to repentance. It will cause us to start seeking righteousness, holiness, and purity. Whenever we stop falsely calling truth – legalism, conviction – condemnation, and correction – judgment to selfishly defend our sins and turn away from the loving act of our family in Christ seeking to build us up (no matter how tough that is), then hearts will begin to soften and men will humble themselves before God and real revival will spread. True revival will have people on their faces crying out to God because they see the seriousness of their sin.

I believe that these two points have been widely redefined and wrongly taught in modern times: truth and love.

The second section in Andrew Farley’s The Naked Gospel is called Religion is a Headache. I couldn’t agree more.   The idea that our relationship with God is dependent upon us, and our works, is not only burdensome but untrue.

The nature of justification is that it is an act of God’s free grace in which He imputes the righteousness of Christ to all who receive Christ as He is presented to us in gospel.  It is not increased nor decreased by our works, good or bad.

The trouble is, Farley never defines justification.  Farley never defines sanctification, and never distinguishes between the two.  This is at the root of the problem.  Like Roman Catholicism, he does not distinguish between the two.  Unlike Roman Catholicism which then declares that faith AND works are necessary for justification, he says that the law has NO role in our sanctification.

He continually makes two appeals.  The first is that “legalism” as he defines it, makes Christianity look unattractive to non-Christians.  Our lack of joy and satisfaction resulting from our misunderstanding of Christianity drive people away.  The second is to say that if we are to follow the Law we must follow ALL of it, and how absurd it would be for us to follow the 600+ laws given in the Pentateuch.

In the first case, I guess any level of dissatisfaction with marriage should mean that no one should get married.  No, our relationship with God is, at times, dissatisfying and frustrating because we have not yet been made perfect.  We are still adjusting to life with Christ, just as two spouses continually adjust to life together.  Just as no marriage is an entirely blissful relationship, our relationship with God is not all pure bliss and joy this side of heaven.  You get no indication that this is so from Acts or any of the Epistles.  Life was hard and God’s people struggled with sin even though they were on this side of the cross and indwelt by the Holy Spirit.   That last point is one of the ways in which we have a better covenant, but Farley seems to take too much of the “not yet” and deposit it into the “already” aspects of salvation.  He sets people up for false expectations, like the children’s song about being happy all the time since I asked Jesus into my heart.

Secondly, he ignores that the ceremonial aspects of the Law have been declared to have been fulfilled.  Jesus declared all foods clean- I don’t have to follow the dietary laws.  Jesus fulfilled all the sacrifices and other stipulations of the laws of worship, so we do not keep them anymore (Hebrews).  To do so would be to turn back the redemptive clock.  The moral law is more than just a list of dos and don’ts.  It also reveals the character of God, the very likeness we are being conformed into.

This connects with his failure to distinguish between justification and sanctification.  When Paul is addressing the law in terms of justification in Galatians (and Romans), Farley also applies this to sanctification.  He does not keep the context of those passages in mind and therefore misinterprets and misapplies them.

“The New (covenant) involves God’s desires being written inside of us, so that we have the guarantee of being his people no matter what.”

So what are God’s desires?  Wouldn’t that be contained in the 10 Commandments?  Farley refers to Hebrews 8:10, in which he claims “the author of Hebrews actually misquotes the Old Testament.”  Huh?  The Holy Spirit inspiring someone to misquote the Old Testament?  No, not quite.  He claims that the author of Hebrews is clarifying things.  I can agree with that, but not misquoting.  But his clarification is that God is not writing the Law of Moses on our hearts (though  in Ezekiel 27, a parallel promise of the new covenant,  He puts His Spirit in us to move us to follow & keep his laws and decrees, not his desires, which explains Jeremiah 31).  He draws a distinction between the Law (the whole system) and laws (nothing in the Law).    Farley makes a strange, unprovable, distinction between the Law of Moses and God’s laws.  Moses received those laws from God.  It is to the moral law that James refers to which gives us freedom (note how he uses it in the mirror illustration).  But Farley retreats again to the absurdity of saying that if it is the Mosaic covenant it must refer to everything including diet, wardrobe etc.

In his discussion of Hebrews in chapters 4 & 5 he never addresses the context of Hebrews.  Hebrew Christians, under the pressure of persecution, where considering returning to Jewish forms of worship.  To go back would be to reject that which is greater, for Jesus is the greatest prophet, priest and king the One to whom the law pointed and in whom the law is fulfilled.

So what purpose does the law fulfill?  Here is Farley’s answer:

“Today, the law speaks to only one group, namely, unbelievers.  … The law is irrelevant to life in Christ. … Its sole purpose is to convict the ungodly of their spiritually dead state.”

He recognizes that the law is good, holy and righteous.  He recognizes that the problem is with us, not the law.  So rather than Jesus changing us through regeneration and sanctification, Farley argues that God merely gets rid of the law.  The presence of the Holy Spirit in us is supposed to be enough.

Here is where Farley makes a number of errors based on his erroneous definition of legalism.  Though the moral law remains a guide, the power to obey it comes only from Jesus in the presence of the Spirit (granted, I have not yet gotten to the place where he defines the ‘desires’ of God the Spirit writes on us).  He again fails to distinguish between justification and sanctification.  He neglects the fact that when Paul explains love in Romans 13 (within the context of sanctification) he says this:

8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.  9 The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”  10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (NIV)

Love is the goal of the commandments.  Paul was not afraid of the Law, but saw it as useful for us to understand what love does.  So, the law is our guide to show us how to love God and our neighbor.  Paul does not share Farley’s perspective of the Law.  Paul and James use the Law to convict Christians of their sin.  Those letters are addressed to particular churches, they are not evangelistic.  They are not legalistic in that they do not teach that our acceptance with God is derived or maintained by law keeping.  But they do believe that as new creatures, regenerate persons, God is working in us to conform us to the likeness of His Son (Rom. 8:29) and the Law continues to reveal our sin (that we might confess it) and direct our love.  As Packer notes, it is the rails for love.  The law teaches us what direction love moves in particular situations.

Farley thinks that if we have the Law as our guide we are “under law” and therefore dominated by sin.  In his passages on sanctification, Paul does not say we put the law to death, but our sinful desires to death.  Those sinful desires are revealed by the Law.  We do this in the power of the Spirit- grace!  We remain under grace for we do all of this by faith and in the power of the Spirit, not the flesh.

Farley thinks the leading of the Spirit is enough.  But how does the Spirit lead?  Does He not lead through the Word?  The Spirit leads me into marital faithfulness, generosity rather than greed, guarding the reputation of others rather than gossip, etc.  He leads me to fulfill the Law which hangs upon love for God and neighbor.  We do not think the law changes us- the Spirit does that.  Yet Farley talks of victory over sin.  What is sin but lawlessness (1 John 3:4).  So, obedience is to live in keeping with the law, right?

“Understanding the law’s place in the world today keeps us from the error of antinomianism (“law hating”).”

Here, Farley defines antinomianism as hating the law in a way that denies its place in the world today (according to him) is to convict the world of sin.  So, antinomianism is supposedly hating the law which convicts me of my sin.

“Antinomianism so stresses Christian freedom from the condemnation of the law that it underemphasizes the need of the believer to confess sins daily and to pursue sanctification earnestly.  It may fail to teach that sanctification inevitably follows justification.”  The New Dictionary of Theology

By this more common and accepted definition of antinomianism, Andrew Farley is, in fact, an antinomian who is advocating antinomianism.  He is against the law for its proper use among those who have been redeemed (not even the context of the law in Exodus 20 & Deuteronomy 5-6.  it is given in the context of redemption not to earn justification).

“those who deny the place of the law in the life of the Christian are advocates of free vice in the guise of free grace.”  Thomas Shepherd

Farley gets the relationship between law and gospel correct in matters of justification.  But he fails to get the relationship correct in matters of sanctification.  As a result, Sinclair Ferguson would say in his lectures on the  Marrow Controversy, he distorts both law and gospel.  While we do need to declare the gospel of free grace freely in matters of justification, we also need to declare how grace works in our sanctification freely.  Paul did both, and so should we, if we are to be healthy, biblical churches.  To avoid one error by embracing another does no one any good.

Last week I taught on John 9 where Jesus heals the blind man on the Sabbath and encounters opposition by the religious leaders for breaking their oral tradition concerning what is permissible on the Sabbath.  Although this principle is not the main point of the passage, I was reminded that throughout the Gospels, it is the religious people who persecute Jesus.  In Acts, it is the religious Jews who persecute the early church.  Why is this?

First, let me explain what I mean by ‘religious people’.  I use the term ‘religion’ to describe any system of thought that teaches implicitly or explicitly that it is through our own moral effort, choices, commitments, discipline, or insights that we are saved.  Religious people are those who trust in these things either doctrinally or functionally.  I use the term legalism here as well.  Religious people may claim to be Christians who believe in grace, but they functionally rely on their own goodness, choice, discipline, cultural conformity, etc. for their sense of security before God.

One of the patterns we find in the Scriptures is that anytime people trust in their works to save them, they inevitably create a list of necessary works that go beyond what God has commanded in Scripture which always misses the heart of true spirituality.  Why is this?  If we must please God through our works, and if we honestly evaluate what God commands, we will realize that we can never please God because we cannot change our wicked hearts through moral effort, discipline, or decisions.  Thus, we have to create a list that we think we have a chance at keeping in order to feel secure before God.  This list that religious people create is always culturally narrow, meaning, because we are all people who live in a cultural context, we tend to bring our own culture into the list we invent which consequently excludes all persons who do not conform to our culture.

This is what we see in the Gospels and in the early church.  The Jews who claimed to accept Christ as the Messiah but still trusted in their own works taught that Gentiles must become culturally Jewish in order to truly be saved (Galatians).  Throughout church history, we have seen the same pattern.  Asceticism along with countless lists of what one must eat and pray and wear grew in popularity in the first 400 years of the church because people thought that through their intense discipline, they could be secure before God.  The Roman Catholic Church has developed its own oral tradition that requires all sorts of actions to be undertaken in order for people to gain access to the infusion of grace.  In Protestantism, we have seen Christians equate their subcultural lifestyle and taboos with Christianity.

This is why the gospel offends religious people.  The gospel of Jesus Christ is a message of grace from beginning to end.  We are saved by God’s grace from start (God’s election and the new birth) to finish (God glorifying us and giving us new bodies at the return of Christ so that we might enter the kingdom and being on God’s presence).

So, when the gospel is preached, the religious people will stand up and cry out against it because it shatters their presumption and empty lists of righteousness.  The gospel teaches us that no obedience can merit God’s favor because we need new hearts since our hearts will only choose to trust in ourselves unless we are born again by God’s grace!  Objections will come to this sort of preaching.  Some will say that this radical grace destroys human responsibility.  Others will argue that this is not fair since anyone can be saved.  Others will argue that it isn’t fair because we don’t have the power ourselves to choose this grace!  But, that is the gospel.  We are enslaved sinners with wicked hearts who are blind to the truth, and before we sought or loved God, he sent his Son to die for us in our place, so that all who believe in Jesus might have new life and the forgiveness of sins in his name.

So, first and foremost, flee from works-righteousness and cling to God’s grace in Jesus Christ.  Place all your hope in him and flee from trusting in your culturally narrow list of obedience.  Trust in God’s grace and examine Scripture on how to serve God out of love for him not fear.  Secondly, be prepared to be persecuted by people in your own church!  There are many religious people in churches, even though their lists may differ (conservative values of hard work, sexual purity, and ‘clean livin’ or liberal values of tolerance, accepting love, and diversity).  Some might call you arrogant for going against the dominate church culture.  Others might call you immoral because you don’t conform to their invented morality.  But we must only seek to please God, and without faith, it is impossible to please him.

Many weeks have passed since I published parts one and two of “Confessions of a Former Legalist.”  Those posts examined definitions of legalism, dangers of legalism, ease of becoming a legalist, and my former life as a legalist.  It has taken several weeks for me to put into words the thoughts I want to share in this new post.  My hope is to discuss my deliverance from legalism and my life now as a former legalist.  Describing my life now will not be a problem.  The difficult part will be trying to reveal the pain I experienced in order to discover I was a legalist and the events that transpired that helped me walk away from legalism.My Deliverance from Legalism

Today, there are many legalists, non-legalists, future legalists, and former legalists.  Each will experience legalism in a different way.  My story may sound similar to some but it personal to me.  I had come to the point in my legalism where I had become very alone due to the fact that I had condemned pretty much everyone around me.  Whether friend, family, or stranger, no one rose to the level of standards I had created for myself to be a “good” Christian.  I judged everyone on those criteria and they fell short every time.  They became lost or liberals in my eyes.  My deliverance took losing everything and everyone I loved or considered dear. The sad part is that it was way too late before I realized this.  I do not want to sound pseudo-spiritual but I had to be in a humbled position in order to see the Lord for who He is and to see myself for what I was.

Over a period of months, I lost everything.  I had transitioned from a ministry position and was selling insurance. I was one who used to make fun of the former ministers who were selling insurance or cars.  Yet, there I was among their ranks.  Over time, most of my friends and many in my family made the decision to separate themselves from me.  They grew tired of the judgmental and constant condemnation.  In addition, I transitioned from a house into an apartment.  Money and friendship both were becoming few and far between.  Overwhelmed, I even changed churches.  This decision may have been my saving grace.  It took starting over from scratch for me to see what the grace of God was all about.  Through it all, the Lord continued to love me and reveal himself to me.  To make a long story short, I humbled myself and repented of what I had become.  I remembered it was about Him and not about me.  This, of course, is the short version.  I left out a lot of the gory details.  In conclusion, I saw the error of my ways and returned to fellowship with the Lord.

My Life since Legalism

I have recently read several articles and blogs by other former legalists.  Many of them have a much different experience from my own.  I have discovered that deliverance from legalism can cause a person to go in one of two directions. The individual either draws closer to the Lord or runs as far away as possible.  Many of the students I used to teach at a Christian school are no longer in the church.  I attempted to contact many of them and apologize for the person I have become and the way I had treated many of them.  My hope is that someday they will see the love of God for what it really is and not as I portrayed it in front of them.

My transition back into the real world was very interesting and many times comical.  The line between legalism, legalistic tendencies, and care for others often blurred as I tried to adjust to my new life. Eventually, I settled on a simple formula.  The Lord is the most important person in my life. Second, I should always think of others more than myself.  It is the old JOY acrostic: Jesus first, yourself last, and others in between.  In addition to spiritual aspects, there were many plain everyday things I had to adjust in my life.

I still remember the day I changed from a KJV to NKJV.  That was a huge step at the time.  To some of my friends, I was joining leagues with the liberals.  Today, I love the Word of God and no longer worship it.  Shopping was fun.  I had to buy a whole new wardrobe.  I did not own any “normal” clothes.  I only had church clothes and dozens of ties.  I had to purchase jeans that I used to preach against.  Shopping for shorts and t-shirts was especially exciting.  I did not have a clue what to buy.  I just knew I wanted some.  You get the picture.  I had to learn how to look and live like regular folks.  Due to a few extra pounds, a few years ago I began to wear Hawaiian shirts.  I felt uncomfortable with tucked in shirts and Hawaiian shirts could be left un-tucked.  Now, most days if you spot a guy in a Hawaiian shirt, jeans, and Crocs, nine times out of ten it might be me.  Then, there is the story of my goatee. I will leave that for another day.

Final Thoughts

I pray that no one who reads these blogs would ever think that I have been facetious or unkind.  I had become someone very unlovely.  Today, my hope is that all who know me would consider me someone who is kind and who cares about others.  Millions around the world are perishing without the Gospel.  There are eternal things at stake.  God looks on the heart of a man and changes him from the inside out.  I still believe sin is sin.  Now, I let God determine the sin and I try to keep loving the sinner.  If these blog posts have helped anyone in any way, please leave a comment and let me know.  If they have angered anyone, please leave a comment and let me know.  I would love to have further dialogue on the subject.  May God bless all who read this.  Thanks for taking the time.

Evil Emergents believe in Contemplative Prayer. Contemplative  Prayer was invented by Hindus and Papists. Romanists/Papists, Hindus and Muslims are of the devil and are members of the Synagogues of Satan. Barak Obama is a Muslim and the  political anti-Christ. Evil Emergents voted for Obama therefore Contemplative Prayer is destroying America and the Church:

Our excellent discernmentalist and researchmentalist skills which God gifted us with Himself have led  us to conclude these Absolute Truth facts—so if you are anything like us (Elect of God, regenerate, American, Ultra Right Wing Conservative Fundamentalist Calvinist Republicans, warmongers, capitalist materialists, non-Marxists, Saved, inerrant, etc.),  you should avoid Contemplative Prayer like the plague. And if you are an Evil Emergent then all we have to say to you is Repent that is if God lets you repent—because We Know with Absolute Certainty that you Emergents are of the non-Elect, unregenerate, anti-American, Arminian, Neo-Marxist, socialist, communist, anti-capitalists, reprobated and unsaved—because of your impure doctrines. Afterall, God only listens to Imprecatory Prayers   which we are praying against  you Emergents right now—and the only meditation one needs is on the Holy Inerrant Infallible Word Of God—the King James Bible AV1611.

An acquaintance asked me if I’d read The Naked Gospel: the Truth You May Never Hear in Church by Andrew Farley.  Read it, I hadn’t even heard of it.  He provided me with a copy so he could get my impressions of the book.  The packaging was a bit different, and fairly cool.

In the first few pages I knew that danger was ahead.  Sometimes I think pastors should not write books.  They assert things without demonstrating how they are true.  This book suffers from this problem in spades.  Sorry I’ve already shown you my cards.

It starts provocatively with a quote from Arthur Bury, whose 1691 book entitled The Naked Gospel was burned by the church of his day.  This sort of sets up a martyr complex of sorts if he too is rejected.

“The naked gospel [is] discovering what was the gospel which our Lord and his apostles preached; what additions and alterations latter ages have made in it; what advantages and damages have thereupon ensued.”

That is a noble and desirable task.  I have never heard of Arthur Bury, but other influences of note are Hannah Whitall Smith (author the The Christians’ Secret to a Happy Life which I read decades ago) and Andrew Murray (a devotional writer).  They are advocates of Christian passivism often portrayed as “let go and let God”.  Pastor Farley is very excited about discovering this view.

In some ways I don’t blame him.  His description of his life before this discovery of “the naked gospel” was one of intense legalism and frustration.  He was laboring under a serious misunderstanding of the gospel.  He believed he must do certain good things to maintain God’s acceptance.  Sadly, I fear he went to the opposite extreme though he denies being an antinomian.  But he uses his own unsatisfactory definitions of both legalism and antinomianism rather than the usual theological definitions.  This is proof positive of why the Marrow Controversy is so important to us today- it addresses the very issues a play here.

Many Christians still walk in Old Covenant bondage.  Regarding the law as a Divine ordinance for our direction, they consider themselves prepared and fitted by conversion to take up the fulfillment of the law as a natural duty. – Andrew Murray

So, any use of the law as a guide is legalism in Farley’s mind.  This is far different from relying on the Law for your initial or continuing acceptance from God.  Antinomianism is defined as being against the law, not a theological, exegetical or practical view that the law has no place in the Christian’s life- which is Farley’s view.  But we get ahead of ourselves.

Here is a quiz he offers, answer whether or not each statement is true.

1. Christians should ask God to forgive and cleanse them when they sin.
2. Christians struggle with sin because of their old self within.
3. We should wait on God even before making everyday decisions.
4. When we sin against God, we’re out of fellowship until we repent.
5. Old Testament law is written on Christians’ hearts so we want to obey it.
6. The Bible tells us that Christians can obtain many rewards in heaven.
7. Christians will give an account for their sins at the great white throne.
8. Christians should tithe at least 10 percent of their income to the church.
9. God gets angry with us when we repeatedly sin against him.
10. God looks at us as though we’re righteous, even though we’re really not.

He says the answer to each one is false.  His book then sets out to show why.  And we’ll look at that in posts to come.

According to our local Church of Christ on-air TV personalities, we should be taking the Lord’s Supper each first day of the week (Sunday).  If we don’t do this, we are being disobedient, and sinning.

I’d be curious if Johnny Robertson, Shawn Paden or James Oldfield would like to substantiate this doctrine, and give arguments in support of this?

Also, I understand that Johnny, Shawn and James teach that we must use grape juice. What is the Scriptural justification for this argument?

You know without a few forms of doing church like weekly communion only on Sunday the cofC is no different than the next church denomination next door.

Just a question for people who like to use Acts 20:7 as their so called authority this idea. In Acts 2:42 it says that they met and “broke bread” just like it says in Acts 20:7, but here it says it was done in houses and everyday, not just on the first day of the week. So by what thinking or whose authority do we determine that Acts 20:7 was prescribed pattern instead of 2:42?

The real sin comes not in what days we are or aren’t suppose to take the Lord Supper, but rather using a flawed inconsistent hermeneutic or thinking to tell everyone else that they are sinning and in danger of loosing their salvation because they take the Lord Supper on Saturday or Tuesday.

By the way, in Acts 20 it states that Paul went up and ate after he healed the boy who fell out of the window of the house where he was preaching and that it was after midnight; uh the next day! So if this was the pattern for every Sunday ‘only on Sunday’ Paul was in violation of his own rule!

Maybe the story of Paul’s journey to Troas here in Acts 20 is to show that when preachers have sermons that are too long then people fall asleep and kill themselves

Do you think that fundamentalists blur the gospel and come near to replacing it with moralism?

Ben at Paleoevangelical thinks so, and notes that there is a parallel in the Manhattan Declaration.

Over these past few years I know what it has been like to be on the top of your faith and I know what it is like to almost lose it. I know the arguments for both accepting and rejecting faith in Christ. I know how true Christianity and false Christianity look like and have experienced both sides of the proverbial coin.

And one major problem has allowed me to examine why I truly believe in Christ: hypocrisy.  This one major problem that has spread throughout the body of Christ is why I have wondered why I believe in Christ in the first place. This one major problem has made me wonder is it worth fellowshipping with those who call themselves Christians. And this one major problem has almost destroyed my faith, my ministry, and my life.

Jerks—I can’t stand them. If anyone is honest with himself or herself they would probably say the same thing. I mean, who says that they love jerks? I mean anyone with half a brain would probably say, “I can’t stand jerks.” I mean that’s just me, but who knows these days. But it seems like the epidemic of “jerk-itis” is on the flippin’ rise. I see girls that are in love with macho jerks; I see people in government that are elitist jerks; I see corporate executives that are greedy and are ravenous jerks; I see jerks, jerks, and more jerks.

But the one place I have seen more jerks in my life than any other place unfortunately is not in the clubs, Washington, D.C. , or on Wall Street—nope, the place I have seen my fair share of jerks is in the church. Now it is one thing for some atheist to write this statement; but this is coming from someone who is a passionate believer in Christ, who loves Christ and His church, and was a former “jerk.”

You see, when I first became a Christian I was brought up more with the mentality of being a legalist jerk than being a compassionate servant. For me it was all about being right and wrong and it was about who could be the most holy and dress in the best suit. It was about politics and about CCM (hating it, then liking it, then having to hear it is the “devil’s music,” then finally liking it). It was about going to that “Christian college,” and abstinence and about dating is bad and courtship is good. In the end it was about me, myself, and I. I didn’t even grasp the picture of what authentic Christianity looked like until recently in life. All I was seeing previously was hypocrisy, fundamentalism, legalism, and everything that the Lord hates but the things that permeate the Church.

Jerks are everywhere man and they come in all shapes and sizes. They are nonbelievers but they are believers as well. I am not saying that the things above like CCM, abstinence, and courtship are bad things. But having the attitude that because I like or practice those things makes me better than you is “jerkish.” What we need to do to eradicate the “jerk-itis” syndrome that is going around the church today is replace everything “we hate” with the royal law as James puts it: to love God and to love others. If we would become a band of believers that were known more for who we love than for what we hate—the world wouldn’t have to see us as bold-face bigots or hatemongers; we could be seen as revolutionaries, as compassionate servants of the kingdom desiring life change in every individual life.

I have been there and done that when it comes to being a “jerk,” and now I abandon it for something authentic—a true servant of Christ. Laying aside any fundamentalism, or legalism, or judgmentalism, or homophobia, or hypocrisy, or anything that would hinder me from opening up the truth of the gospel with others—I serve God with all my heart and love God and love others.

Here’s a “short test” to see if you pass or fail the “jerk test”:

“With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be.” (James 3:9-10)

So if you praise God yet curse men, you pass the “jerk test” with flying colors, and if you don’t, well then you fail. If we were honest with ourselves, I would say we all have passed and have been there, done that. Let’s resolve never to commit the act that James has spoken of, but let us always do the following:

“If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing right.” (James 2:8)

[this is from a series of articles entitled: “Why I Hate…”]

My understanding from sources close to the subject is that Jason (former conservative CofC preacher) has trouble with his spiritual identity after his time spent with these fundamentalist Church of Christ men.

Unfortunately, this is not an exclusive result for exposure to men like this – just go over and take a look at the website for ex-church of Christ folks – click this link – you’ll see plenty of people who have been damaged in similar ways to Jason – some to the point of renouncing belief in God altogether.

I’ve realized that there are some pretty big errors in their teaching – mostly dealing with the bonds they put on others and themselves. And even their arguments for “speak where the Bible speaks, silent where the Bible is silent” (is that a creed?) are inconsistent when you put them under the microscope.

The impression I get from watching these men is that they get their biggest joy from putting other people in their place. After interacting with Shawn Paden over at www.topix.com and here, I’m beginning to wonder if it is possible for these men to be able to show grace and mercy – or even to admit that they are wrong about something – not even doctrinally, but personally.

Well, that’s enough for now. I don’t have a beef with all Churches of Christ – just these sorts who claim that if you aren’t in the church where they assemble, or if you aren’t in a church that teaches exactly what they teach, then you aren’t in the Lord’s Church.

Click here for video:   The Grave Influence of Karl Marx.

Click here to offer feedback on this video

Brannon Howse speaking on Karl Marx and the Marxist revolution taking place in America with the help of liberal churches, the social gospel and social justice. Karl Marx is one of the radicals Brannon exposes in his new book, Grave Influence: 21 Radicals and Their Worldviews That Rule America From The Grave.
Click here to purchase your copy of the book Grave Influence

Distributed by www.WorldviewTube.com

Views: 1319

Return to home

Jesse Morrell is an open air preacher and campus speaker who travels around the USA preaching everywhere. He writes somewhat extensively on theological subjects and operates under the banner of the ministry he founded, “Open Air Outreach”. His influences seem to span wide and far as he is constantly on the move and preaching his version of what he calls “the gospel”.

Yet, despite the outward appearance of zeal in evangelism and devotion to theological subjects, there is reason to have grave concern about this man and the ministry he leads. Not only has he employed unscriptural and cruel tactics of “shock and awe” preaching where crude statements are shouted in the open air in the hopes of offending people so that a heckler will rise up and yell and then a crowd will gather, and not only does he align himself with false evangelists who are known for their shockingly offensive and anti-biblical methods of ministry, but he believes and promotes a theology which denies the essential truths of the Gospel. In this short article, I’m going to briefly explain how Jesse’s theology is anti-biblical and denies the real Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the Word of God.

I have already communicated with Jesse on numerous occasions pleading with him from God’s Word to recognize his error and to renounce the false doctrines he believes, and have communicated with him numerous times and even rebuked him sharply, all to no avail. Seeing that he won’t repent, and that his influence is still expanding, I am now releasing this as a public warning to all that this man, Jesse Morrell, is promoting doctrines of demons disguised as Christian dogma.

In this short article, I will briefly explain: (1) The essential Christian truths which Jesse denies, and (2) the absolute heresies which Jesse believes and promotes under the banner of Moral Government Theology. Then I will conclude with a short word of exhortation.

Also let me state that this is not meant to be an in-depth look at the scope and depth of Jesse’s theology and the ins and outs of all its error, or a thorough teaching on what is right theology, but just a brief overview of some of the fundamental errors held by this man. And this is not a personal vendetta against Jesse, but rather a public announcement released in love, looking forward to the possibility of Jesse’s repentance, and looking out for the precious souls who are potentially in danger of being deceived through his influence. Oh, dear soul, if you are in any way in contact with Jesse and subject yourself to his teachings, I ask you in the name of Christ, pray for the truth and search the Scriptures. Keep your eyes on Christ. So, as we continue, read this prayerfully, and measure all things to the Scriptures. Let us begin.

ESSENTIAL CHRISTIAN TRUTHS DENIED BY JESSE MORRELL:

-The doctrine of God’s Omniscience: Simply stated and summarized, Jesse does not believe that God immutably knows the future, but that God just makes really good guesses. This is the result of exalting the free will of all “moral agents” to a Deified position, exalting free will even above God Himself. Therefore, Jesse thinks that even God has to submit to the free will of man, and doesn’t know what any man will choose to do before that man actually makes the choice and does it. Because of this, Jesse believes that God doesn’t know the future, but kind of just makes the best choices He can as He finds out what free moral agents decide. This is in direct contradiction to the teaching of the whole Bible! In Jesse’s theology, God Almighty has been stripped of His Omniscience! Yet the fact that God knows the future and declares it immutably is one of the glorious attributes of His character that distinguishes Him from false pagan gods and from every other being in creation:

Isaiah 42:9 – “Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.”

Isaiah 46:5-10 – “To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like? They lavish gold out of the bag, and weigh silver in the balance, and hire a goldsmith; and he maketh it a god: they fall down, yea, they worship. They bear him upon the shoulder, they carry him, and set him in his place, and he standeth; from his place shall he not remove: yea, one shall cry unto him, yet can he not answer, nor save him out of his trouble. Remember this, and shew yourselves men: bring it again to mind, O ye transgressors. Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.”

Jeremiah 1:5 – “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”

Acts 15:18 – “Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.”

Romans 8:29-30 – ”For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”

-The doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement: The real doctrine of the Atonement as taught in the Bible teaches us that Christ died as a literal Substitute for sinners; that Christ took our sin and was punished on behalf of our sin as our Substitute under the wrath of God so that the righteous demands of God’s holy Law could be satisfied and we could receive the forgiveness of sins and His righteousness and eternal life as a free gift of grace. Simply put, He bore our sins and our punishment so we could receive His righteousness and reward. Any denial of this truth is a denial of the essential truth of the biblical Gospel. To deny that Christ literally suffered in our place on the Cross in order to bear the wrath of God which we deserve, as our Substitute, in order to avert God’s wrath and condemnation from us and to purchase our redemption, is to deny the Gospel. Jesse Morrell believes that Christ did not actually bear our sin on the Cross, that our sin could have never been imputed to Christ, and therefore Christ could have never been punished for our sin. This is heresy, and if this is true, we are all yet dead in our sins and there is no forgiveness in Christ since there can only be forgiveness if He actually bore our sin and took it away. Yet the Bible clearly refutes Jesse’s (and Moral Government Theology’s) heretical doctrine of the Atonement:

2 Corinthians 5:21 – “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

1 Peter 3:18 – “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.”

Romans 3:23-26 – “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.”

Galatians 3:13-14 – “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”

Isaiah 53:4-6 – “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

Isaiah 53:10 – “Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.”

-The doctrine of Original Sin: This core Christian belief states that all men enter this world with an inherently sinful nature and all men possess an inherent moral corruptness in their own flesh. All men are therefore sinners by nature and apart from redemption through the grace of Christ, are under the curse of the Law, abide under the wrath of God, are by nature children of wrath, are dead in trespasses and sins, do nothing that pleases God, and sin continually against God as a manifestation of the wicked sinful nature in their own hearts. The Bible teaches that we (commit acts of) sin because we’re sinners (by nature), not that we are sinners only because we (commit acts of) sin; that outward acts of sin are manifestations of the moral depravity of our own hearts. Moral Government Theology and Jesse Morrell deny that this is true, and believe that all come into this world in a morally neutral state and deny that all of Adam’s posterity died spiritually in Adam’s original sin in the beginning. Further, they declare that all sin is a choice and only a choice, and therefore all must make the choice to “stop sinning” and become morally perfect in order to be accepted by God. Since Jesse believes that there is no sinful nature in man, therefore he believes that when a man chooses to stop sinning, that man can enter a state of sinless and moral perfection and must keep his right-standing with God based on his own works by maintaining such a state of sinless perfection. The Bible condemns this as heresy:

Genesis 6:5 – “And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (See also Gen. 8:21)

Psalms 51:5 –“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

Ecclesiastes 7:20 – “For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.”

Romans 5:12-19 – “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”

Ephesians 2:1-3 – “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.”

1 John 1:8 – “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”

-The doctrine of Justification by Faith alone: The Bible teaches that salvation is by grace through faith alone, apart from works, based not on what we do, but solely on what Jesus Christ did for us. Since all have sinned, there is therefore no difference between men and all are sinners deserving of God’s just punishment, but since Jesus Christ purchased our redemption, we can be saved by believing in Him with a true saving faith in our hearts and upon believing, have our sins forgiven and receive the perfect righteousness of God. Furthermore, the Bible teaches that God doesn’t justify those already righteous, but that He justifies the wicked, the sinner, the rebel, while that person is still a sinner. Of course, with this justification of the sinner comes regeneration, which gives that sinner a new heart and a new nature which will choose to hate sin and love the holy things of God, and this will be evident in his life by a radical change of life. Nevertheless, the Gospel is that through Christ, God justifies the ungodly and makes them Godly, that God transforms the sinner into a saint by His free unmerited grace. Since our sin was imputed to Christ and He bore the punishment in full, now His righteousness is imputed to us as a free gift by faith in Him. Moral Government Theology and Jesse Morrell deny the biblical doctrine of justification by faith and believe that salvation is conditional upon abiding in a state of sinless perfection, that one has to completely stop sinning in order to be justified before God. Jesse denies that Christ’s righteousness could be imputed to us as a free gift, and states that we must earn our own salvation by offering our own righteousness to God. This is salvation by works, not by grace, and is condemned with an “Anathema” in the book of Galatians for adding works to the Gospel of grace, and is refuted by the entire Bible’s teaching on the plan of salvation:

Galatians 1:9 – “As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”

Romans 3:20-22 – “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference.”

Romans 4:5 – “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”

Romans 5:1 – “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Romans 5:6-10 – “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.”

(In fact, read all of Romans chapters 3, 4 and 5 and the book of Galatians for a solid biblical teaching on justification by faith)

Ephesians 2:8-9 – “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

-The doctrine of Biblical Regeneration: The Bible teaches that regeneration, or in other words, the New Birth, is a supernatural miracle of God’s sovereign grace that imparts to us a new nature by the power of the Holy Spirit and changes us and transforms us by God’s power to create in us the very nature of Christ Himself and thereby imparts to us the ability to please God. It involves receiving a new heart and a new spirit and being given the ability by God to habitually glorify God and take pleasure in the commands of Christ in the Gospel. Jesse Morrell teaches that regeneration is not a miracle which gives one the ability to obey God (since he believes that all sinners have this ability in and of their own selves), but Jesse teaches that regeneration is simply a change of life that is effected by the sinner’s own willpower. This is a denial of one of the most glorious and essential truths of the Gospel and what it does, essentially, is turn Jesse’s “gospel” into one that calls sinners to exercise their own ability, willpower, and morality in order to change their own selves and make their own selves holy and acceptable to God. This is not in accordance with God’s Word and equates to “another gospel”. The Bible teaches that regeneration is a supernatural miracle performed by God apart from human willpower, ability, or morality:

Ezekiel 36:25-27 – “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.”

John 1:12-13 – “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

John 3:3-8 – “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.”

2 Corinthians 5:17-18 – “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation.”

Titus 3:5 – “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”

THEOLOGICAL INFLUENCE:

Furthermore, one of the most well known Moral Government Theologians, and a big theological role model for Jesse, is the late Charles G. Finney. Despite his wide acceptance in many “evangelical” circles, Finney’s theology propagated in his theological writings was nothing short of theological heresy (see bottom of page for links to further online resources about Finney which examine his theology and teachings with what the Bible says).

I do not wish to jump on a tangent and speak much about Finney, but I thought it necessary here to mention these facts because Jesse Morrell has been highly influenced by the writings and systematic theology of Finney. Therefore to examine the teachings of Finney and to find out what Finney taught and believed can also be a good way to find out what Jesse himself believes and teaches. Those who actually care about Biblical doctrine and believe what the Bible says with a simple child-like heart of faith and examine the teachings of Finney quickly find that Finney seriously deviated from historically recognized essential doctrines of Christianity, such as those mentioned above (including Justification by Faith, which was the glorious restored truth of the Reformation that caused the Protestants to split from the yoke of bondage of Roman Catholicism –to deny Justification by Faith is to return to Rome).

THE HERESIES BELIEVED (IN ADDITION TO THOSE STATED ABOVE):

Along with this theology, Jesse has embraced some other very serious heresies. These include, under the banner of Moral Government Theology:

The heresy of Pelagianism: This is a historically recognized heresy and has been universally recognized as such since the 5th Century A.D. This heretical system of theology comes from the early monk named Pelagius who lived in the 4th and 5th centuries A.D. Pelagius taught that no man is tainted by the sin of Adam but that all sin is only a choice, and therefore since Adam’s sin didn’t taint us then Christ’s death doesn’t literally save us but instead provides a good example to us. Thus the cross of Christ is made of none effect in this theology. Thus Adam set a bad example to us and Christ set a good example for us, and now it’s up to us to save ourselves by our own ability and morality. In Pelagianism, salvation is of man, and not of God, and therefore not all of grace.

The heresy of Sinless Perfection: This is a teaching that Christians can enter and abide in a state of absolute sinlessness, being just as sinless as Adam before the Fall of man, or just as without sin as Jesus Christ Himself as He walked this earth. Many of those who hold to sinless perfection also believe that it is essential to attain to this state of sinless perfection in order to be “sanctified” and even saved. This is heresy according to 1 John 1:8, and those who believe this only deceive themselves; furthermore, they don’t understand the grace of God and therefore the Apostle tells us in that verse that the truth is not in them. While it is true that no real Christian will want to sin and will desire perfect holiness, the Bible teaches that all Christians still carry around a corrupt flesh that is affected by sin and therefore needs to be crucified, denied, and put to death all the time (see bottom of this article for links to various articles about sinless perfection).

The heresy of Legalism: This is a teaching that we need to attribute to our salvation by our own works and that there is merit before God in our own works. This is the heresy that is refuted by the Apostle Paul in his epistle to the Galatians. As one Moral Government Theologian stated, “There can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense, but upon the ground of universal, perfect, and uninterrupted obedience to law.” [Finney’s Systematic Theology]. And thus justification before God becomes conditional upon perfect obedience to the perfect moral Law of God, and justification is conditional upon works, and not solely upon faith. This is not just a slight deviation from the truth, but a serious heresy that is contrary to essential salvation truth.

The heresy of Open Theism: As already stated above, this is a denial that God knows the future, and a belief that God changes His mind regularly and reforms His own decisions and judgments as He learns new things. This is a denial of the Omniscience of God, and leads to tons of other practical theological errors.

These are doctrines that deny the essential truth of the Bible and the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore anyone who holds to them dogmatically must not be considered a brother in Christ, but treated as a false believer or false teacher, pleaded with in love to repent, and shunned from Christian fellowship until they come to be ashamed of their false doctrines and repent. We cannot tolerate false teachings that deny the core truth of the Gospel of Christ but must stand firm and earnestly contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

IN CONCLUSION:

Jesse Morrell does not believe in evangelical Christianity. He believes another system of religion that makes the grace of God of none effect and denies the most central, important truths of the Gospel. It is nothing short of a cult-like system of belief. Therefore, Jesse is not fit to be in ministry, to be preaching anywhere, and is not fit to be recognized as a brother with Christian fellowship and acceptance. He is to be pleaded with in love and in boldness to turn from his wicked dogmas and come back to the simplicity of Christ in the Gospel of God’s wondrous grace. I have personally confronted Jesse numerous times and strove with him and corrected him with Scripture and have even rebuked him sharply and dis-fellowshipped him, all to no avail.

Zeal in evangelism means nothing; the Pharisees themselves were zealous to travel land and sea to make a single convert but were still rebuked by Christ (Matthew 23:15). That’s because when they made the convert they indoctrinated him with their traditions and false beliefs and brought him under the bondage of legalism and therefore made him twice the son of Hell. This is what Jesse is doing. His doctrine is at least just as bad as the Pharisees whom the Lord rebuked because he makes salvation the work of man’s own works and abilities. Don’t be deceived by Jesse’s desire to preach all over the world. Instead, examine his theology in light of the Word of God and obey what the infallible Word of God teaches.

I know assuredly that Jesse will state that the points brought up in this article, and the disagreements I have, are all a result of my “Calvinism”. Anything that disagrees with him he calls “Calvinism” and is out on a wild witch-hunt against the doctrines of grace with the same ferocity that the Pharisees themselves attacked the doctrines preached by the Son of God. However, let me be clear, what I am promoting in this article is not just the doctrines associated with Calvinistic belief, but these are things that historical Arminians and Calvinists alike agree on. Both “Arminians” and “Calvinists” believe that God knows the future, that Christ is the substitute for our sins, that there is a such thing as inherent sinfulness in all men (original sin), that all that are saved are justified by faith alone apart from works, and that regeneration is a miracle of God. The majority of both “Arminians” and “Calvinists” alike agree that Pelagianism is absolute heresy, that sinless perfection is false, and that there is no merit in striving to obey the Law of God to earn our own righteousness. Only cults and offshoot heretical sects disagree on these essential truths of the Gospel.

Jesse Morrell’s theology is false and is “another gospel”. Though I care deeply for him and long for the day when he would renounce such deviations from the truth of the Scriptures, and would rejoice to see him do such, I must stand firm and speak out against the deceptions that he is promoting which are leading many astray. “It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.” (Luke 17:1-2)

A WORD TO JESSE MORRELL:

Dear Jesse, mark my words, you will face the Judgment Seat of a holy God and give an account for all those you influenced and led astray from the grace of the Gospel. Yet I believe that as long as you have the breath of life in you that there’s hope for you to repent and believe the Gospel and trust in the imputed righteousness of Christ alone to save you. Salvation is by grace, not by works. Your works profit you nothing. Trust in Christ alone and renounce your own will and ability and yield it all to Christ and beg Him to have mercy on your soul. Cry out for a real revelation of the grace of God in the Gospel. I fear for you Jesse. You are in grave danger and have chosen a slippery path that promises Heaven but leads to Hell. My greatest fear though is that you’re not content to hold such doctrines to yourself, but must spread such lies around and indoctrinate as many as you can on your path of deception. Turn from the doctrines of men, the doctrines you learned from Finney, and Olson, and Pelagius, and come to the Lord Jesus Christ alone and the truth of the Gospel as revealed in the Bible. “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him” (2 Corinthians 11:3-4).

While reading today, I was doing some research and ran across a list of Church of Christ congregations.  Well, really two list.  There is one list for the “conservative and non-institutional” and another directory for the “world wide” Churches of Christ.  The Author points out the division but then states that he doesn’t personally vouch for any particular characteristics of any particular group.  Really – are you sure?  Because, it seems to me that he does vouch for a particular group.  Below is his statement.

My intent is to list only congregations that would describe themselves as ” Conservative and non-institutional.” I am not here to act as arbiter. I merely ask the simple question: “Would this congregation describe itself in this way?” I take people’s word as true except in rare cases where I have strong reason to suspect otherwise. I do not personally vouch for any particular characteristics of any particular group.

If this offends you, then I suggest that you visit the World wide directory of the churches of Christ. You may find it much more to your liking. In any case, please try to refrain yourself from telling me what a divisive, mean-spirited heathen I really am for even maintaining such a project. I assure you, I’ve already heard it in detail.

He provides a link that states his position.  Below is what he says regarding conservative and non-institutional: 

The word Conservative is related, but by it I refer to congregations which do not seek to “innovate” in worship or doctrine, including things like kitchens, instruments of music, “Mom’s day out” (i.e., church-sponsored day-care), couples retreats, church-sponsored youth clubs and recreational outings, coffee and donuts at worship, women preachers, accepting divorce for reasons other than adultery, etc.

These are specific examples, but the two words are referring to sort of broad schools of approach to the Scriptures. Note that I am not “creating labels”. Rather, I am using words the way they are meant to be used – to define, describe, and inform. All accusations to the contrary will be cheerfully ignored.

By Non-institutional, I refer to congregations which do not, as a body and from their treasury, support human institutions or organizations (like missionary societies, orphan’s homes, “Christian” schools, publishing cooperatives, soup kitchens, United Way, etc.), and which do not support institutions or preachers by sending money to another congregation (the ’sponsoring’ church) for their elders or decision-makers to decide how to redistribute. 

He then provides another link http://www.goodfight.com/notes/Institutionalism.html 

 He ends it by stating:

So What’s the Answer? But a bit of objectivity and reasoning clearly shows that they are peas in a pod. Likewise schools, hospitals, or any other organization set up and supported by churches in the pursuit of “good works”. The question remains: “Do they violate the pattern?”

The answer is simple – insofar as they are completely absent from the pattern, they cannot be said to adhere to the pattern. And what is not in the pattern is outside the pattern. And when we venture outside the pattern which God has given us, we have ventured outside the Truth.

In short, he is calling the other brethren false Christians/Churches, seeing they have went outside of what he calls ‘the pattern.’   Now, to the million dollar question:   Which group does Johnny, James and crew belong to?  hhmmmmmmm

Great post from David Mathis at the Desiring God blog. When questioned about how to be productive, he responds:

I would actually say: realize that you don’t have to be productive. By this I mean: your significance does not come from your productivity. It comes from Christ, who obeyed God perfectly on our behalf such that our significance and standing before God comes from him, not anything we do. Then, on that basis, we pursue good works (which is what productivity is) and do so eagerly, as it says in Titus 2:14.

Can I get an “Amen”?

It doesn’t say in the Bible that I can’t do that, so technically it’s not a sin. If I don’t go that far, it’s alright. For a good while, I found myself asking God, how far can I go? What exactly can I do? Many times we have this attitude in life where we want to know exactly how far we can go before we get in trouble. How close we can stand next to sin without sinning.

While some things aren’t necessarily sins, God always reminds me of our purpose. Our purpose to ultimately glorify Him in all that we do. A thought that I keep close to my heart is this, how much can I do for God because I love Him? I’m not saying we must not do these “things” because they can totally be alright to do, we just need to ask ourselves for what purpose are we doing these things? A pastor said this during a sermon,

“A heart that’s willing to stand next to sin, is willing to sin.”

At first, I thought that’s not necessarily true. It sort of depends on the situation. And I still think it kind of does. However when I examined my life and my situation, and saw myself trying to justify certain actions, this for sure was the case. We need to read His word, be in prayer, be focused on Him. And when we do this, we set our minds on things above and not of this world.

It’s not how much we can get away with, but how much we can do for Him. How much we can do for God to glorify His Name, and His Name ALONE.

“Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved.” -1 Corinthians 10: 31-33

I tend to make a nuisance of myself around the blogosphere.  Fortunately, most bloggers are pretty tolerant and I’m thankful as the interaction often leaves me with some lovely gems to think over.

A while back, I came across a blog discussion in which one woman was relating a particularly distressing time in her life.  She made a comment that caught my attention.  I don’t recall her exact words, but, the gist of her statement was that her unhappy experience nearly caused her to lose her faith.

While I do understand that some Christians believe that it is possible to lose one’s salvation, I had never contemplated the idea of losing one’s faith.  Don’t know why, as the two would probably naturally go together, if such a loss is possible.

Is it possible to lose one’s faith in God?

I honestly don’t have a definite answer to that one, but I thought it might be interesting to take a brief  (is that possible for me?) look at faith and see where it takes me.

Hebrews 11 has a lot about faith, so I thought I’d post a snippet here for reference:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
For by it the elders obtained a good report.
By faith we understand that the ages were framed by a word of God, so that the things being seen not to have come into being out of the things that appear.

But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. (Hebrews 11: 1-3, 6)

This verse from Romans has always scared me a bit:

But, the one doubting, if he eats, he has been condemned, because it is not of faith; and all that is not of faith is sin. (Romans 14:23)

That one leaves me wondering how often I really sin during the day, as there are many times I don’t actually consult the Lord but instead just go with what I think might be right.  Often the results are unpleasant.

This is another potentially disturbing passage:

Take heed to yourselves. If your brother trespasses against you, rebuke him. And if he repents, forgive him.
And if he trespasses against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turns again to you, saying, I repent, you shall forgive him.
And the apostles said to the Lord, Give us more faith.
And the Lord said, If you had faith as a grain of mustard seed, you might say to this sycamine tree, Be rooted up and be planted in the sea! And it would obey you. Luke 17:3-6

I use the word “disturbing” because the subject here is forgiveness and the apostles apparently recognize that Jesus is requiring something of them (us) that is humanly impossible–unlimited forgiveness.  The friends ask Him to increase their faith (so that they would be able to accomplish this inhuman requirement) and Jesus’ answer seems to be that the quality of one’s faith is more important than the quantity.

So, I’m thinking it is crucial to be sure my faith is genuine and has a proper foundation.

The Bible is full of references to faith and I’m never going to be able to do an exhaustive topical study on this subject.

Instead, I’m going to attempt to distill “faith” down to a working understanding rather than try to develop a comprehensive definition.

After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.”
But Abram said, “O Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Elie’zer of Damascus?”
And Abram said, “Behold, thou hast given me no offspring; and a slave born in my house will be my heir.”
And behold, the word of the LORD came to him, “This man shall not be your heir; your own son shall be your heir.”
And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your descendants be.”
And he believed the LORD; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness.
And he said to him, “I am the LORD who brought you from Ur of the Chalde’ans, to give you this land to possess.”
But he said, “O Lord GOD, how am I to know that I shall possess it?” Genesis 15:1-8

God made a promise to Abraham concerning an heir (and descendants) and a land to call his own home.   And although Abraham did not understand how or when exactly the Lord would fulfill that promise, he believed that God was telling the truth.

Craig posted about the covenant that God made with Abraham, and I want to direct readers to that post because I think it is important for Christians to understand how God intends to make sure  the  imperfect human with whom He made His agreement would not end up messing up his end of the deal.  In fact, we can read in the very next chapter that  Abraham’s faith  in God’s promise stumbled tremendously  with his attempt to use human wisdom to get God’s plan to somehow work out. It is important for us to remember who actually are the “two parties” who signed their names to this agreement.

Thank God that He did not leave the keeping of Abraham’s (or our) end of salvation up to fallible humanity.

Yet,in spite of Abraham’s faults,  we read that he  had genuine faith.  We are told that he believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. (Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:6, James 2:23). James also says he was called “Friend of God”. Yet, he still asked God for some sort of proof that God was going to do what He said.  And, as I read the remainder of the chapter, the Lord did not angrily strike down Abraham but gave him a reassuring sign that the promise cannot be negated by any foolishly disobedient choice of one of God’s true children  (see Craig’s post).  This seems similar to  the discussion He had with Moses from the burning bush.  Moses repeatedly questioned whether he was the guy for the job and God repeatedly answered his lack of belief and had no intention of backing away from His plan to save His people because Moses was hesitant about the way He was going to go about it  (Exodus 3 and 4).  Perhaps these instances might echo the statement made by the man with the demon possessed son  during the exchange with Jesus:

(Father of demon-possessed son:) “  And it has often cast him into the fire and into the water, to destroy him; but if you can do anything, have pity on us and help us.”
And Jesus said to him, “If you can! All things are possible to him who believes.”
Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, “I believe; help my unbelief!” Mark 9:22-24

How often I have found myself saying “Lord, I do believe You, but my humanness is constantly getting in the way of an unwavering faith in Your everlasting goodness and perfect capability”.

I think it is particularly interesting that (with the exception of James’ discussion of obedience) it is simply “belief” that is mentioned in the cited passages.  James makes a good point that true, living faith is accompanied by obedient action.  If we believe that God is trustworthy, and have a relationship with Him, we will do what He tells us to do, yes?

I’ve noticed that when a Bible personality believes God, it is (usually) followed with obedient action.  When that person fails to obey (or trust in God’s care) there is usually recognition of guilt and eventual repentance for disbelief.

Adam was told by God that he wasn’t to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.   Adam chose to disbelieve what God said.  Then, he acted based on that disbelief. The results were disastrous.

This brings me back around  to the subject of my own faith and whether or not *I* can lose it.  Again, I don’t claim to have a definite answer here, but will share my observations.

Count it all joy, my brethren, when you meet various trials,
for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.
And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. James 1:2-4

I’m thinking that for believers, the “covenantal sign” we receive is the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts.  It is the proof that God is keeping His promise to redeem His people and one day give us a land of our own–with Him as King.  Forever.  Our faith in His promise keeps us clinging to this hope and so we willingly allow Him to continue to draw us to Himself–even when it hurts.

I’ve come to recognize the truth of James’ statement.  As various hardships, fears or struggles surface, my faith (belief) in God’s goodness and His ultimately perfect plan is tested.  As I stumble or stand, the foundation of my faith is revealed for what it really is.

If  my life is falling apart and I can see that the things in which I previously trusted are no longer trustworthy, it is time to re-evaluate that faith and turn away from my idolatrous affections.

On the other hand, if the trials of life are driving me to cling more tightly to the promise that the Father has made with the Son (on my behalf), I can see that both the quality and strength of my faith are being perfected and I can be assured that I am in the right place.

So, in the course of my life,  if my hope is proven to be set in the “goodness” of humanity, political  guarantees of certain freedoms, good health, my ability to be a good mom, my husband’s walk with Christ, favorable financial circumstances, or any other thing that is not God’s promise to  Himself, I had better be asking Him  to strip me  of  such faulty “faith”.   And I need to be thankful that it is being shown for the destructive nature of such dependency on the undependable.  The loss of that sort of faith has a purifying effect and will eventually leave me with the simple truth that God alone is worthy of my undivided loyalty.

We of God’s Only Inerrant Party and The Online Discernmentalist Mafia do hereby award you, R. R., Redneck Republican, this  honorary diploma of academic excellence and achievements in the online world of Redneck GOIP Republican Discernmentalism. Congratulations!

We will now recite your essay that you wrote for your graduation speech:

The Problem with Liberals

…  Grade: A- for suggesting that Liebrals can actually go  to heaven as they are of the unregenerate, reprobated, unsaved, non-Elect sinners.

Liberals are gullible. Liberals are being led around by the nose by the liberal media. Take global warming as an example. Liberals want to believe all of these liberal chicken-little scientists that the earth is warming. The reality is that we are just going through a little hot spell, and they are using that as a trick to have the government control our lives.

We of the OD Mafia and GOIP agree as the earth warming is a Sign of Jesus’ sure return and the Blessed Rapture. Praise God!

Liberals are naive. Remember when Saddam Hussein told the UN that he had no weapons of mass destruction? The liberals and the idiot United Nations wanted to do give Hussein the benefit of the doubt and do an inspection. Saddam Hussein was a liar and an evil man and we needed to take him out whether he had WMD or not. Believing anything other than that is naive.

Yes the UN is the Anti-Christ’s headquarters of a New World Order Of A One World Religious  Government. Evil indeed—we heard from Brannon Howse that Saddam controlled the UN while he was alive.

Liberals are weak. One of the first things our idiot Communist president, Barry Obama, did was close down Guantanomo where we were torturing some of the most evil enemies of our great nation. Liberals are against torture because they are weak. For America to succeed in the war against terror, we must torture MORE not less. We should be opening up a chain of Guantanomo prisons throughout the world. Only then will the world realize how strong we are as a nation.

We know—Dr. Truthslayer warns that even preaching on gentleness leads to liebralism.—Don Jobson. How dare those liberal fools try to turn our Jesus (the True one)  into Mister Rogers when we who are God’s True Elect know that He was like General Patton and General Douglas (John) McArthur.—Arthur McJohn.

Liberals are no fun. Liberals like to point at Abu Ghraib as American foreign policy gone bad. In fact, it is the opposite. During George W Bush’s term, America had the best foreign policy in the history of time. Actually, Final President Reagan had the greatest foreign policy of all time as it is the Pure Biblical Standard for all foreign policy for all time. The Bible clearly teaches this Absolute Truth. Insofar as Bush followed the political Gospel of Reaganism which the Bible teaches, he was okay in our book. However, George W. Bush is a closet socialist and a globalist. Abu Ghraib was just a few of the youngsters having a little fun at the expense of the evil Muslims. Liberals definitely need to lighten up a bit.

Amen!—only we Fundamentalists are fun as our system begins with the word fun, whereas liberalism begins with lie.—Arthur again.

Liberals are going to hell. This is a key and critical point. Not all liberals are going to hell, but a lot of them are. We are concerned with your wording here. The reason is that God is a Republican. God wants liberals to fail but he also gave humans free will because he wants all humanity to choose Republican. Here. The ramifications are dire because heaven is full of Republicans and HELL has a lot of Democrats. Liberals need to get their heart right with God. And here.

Actually all liberals and Demon-c-rats are going to hell as they were born unregenerate, reprobated, unsaved, non-Elect sinners and God chose them as vessels of Wrath and destruction from the foundation of the world. However, we True GOIP Republicans were born regenerate, predestined Elect, saved vessels of Glory according to God’s Absolutely Sovereignty. If you don’t like this Pure and Sound Bible teaching—suck it up,  because this is the Pure Gospel. We thought your opening thesis was strong until you fell into the error of the man-centered Grace-hating man-loving romanist papist semi-Pelagian heresy of Arminianism. This is why we had no choice but to give you an A- for effort despite your critical, heretical and soul destroying error.

Liberals are bad with money. The reason that we are in the current economic crisis is 100% because of liberals. Of course, liberals are doing everything in their power to escape blame by blaming tons of innocent people. They want to blame the Fed for printing too much money. Then on top of that, they blame Bush for entering a costly war with no exit. Can you believe it? They think that Bush was not frugal. The reality is that liberals need to own up for creating this crisis so we can move on.

We agree—Capitalism is the Absolute Truth Biblical economic system.—Arthur McJohn.

Liberals hate our military. This one makes me a little perturbed. We owe our freedom and the best quality of life on the planet to our military. It is the ultimate in disrespect. This is also related to why liberals are so weak.

Yes war is God’s Divine Command to His Holy Elect. This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare; 1 Timothy 1:18 King James Bible AV1611

Liberals hate freedom. Liberals want all of us to be slaves to a Orwellian Big Brother government. The government tells us what to do, and we just nod our head like puppy dogs. Liberals are submissive, and conservatives love freedom.

Theocracy is the only True Freedom. 

“A new heresy has been discovered,” he said. “We must stamp out this burst of hell-fire before it spreads over the surface of the earth…. Freedom of conscience is a doctrine of the devil…. Better to have a tyrant, however cruel, than permit everyone to do what he pleases.”

—John Calvin. Which is why we must triumph over Satan’s philosophy of liebralism.

Conclusion. There is more, but liberals should start working on improving themselves as people. It is not only important for themselves but for the nation as a whole. Rush Limbaugh (another one of the great ones) has it right. We are in a battle between good and evil. Right now, Satan is winning and the hateful racist non America Barry Obama is president. For America to succeed Obama must fail. We must unite as a nation again the evil that Obama represents. Liberals repent.

Checked and graded by: Don Jobson and Arthur McJohn, Online Discernmentalists and key GOIP Officials.

‘Beautiful Feet’ from  http://www.topix.com/forum/city/martinsville-va/  ( post 93 ) defends his position of banning musical instruments by stating:

9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.(Heb.10:9,10)

What men done under the OT was removed,taken out of the way,abolished.

Now Christians follow the NT law. Nowhere does the NT say to “PLAY” an instrument in NT worship. When I think of Nadab and Abihu in (Lev 10:1-3) something tells me to follow what the Lord commanded or pay the price for departing from truth.(Jn 12:48)

(Jer.10:23)(Prov 3:6)(Prov.14:12)

Much can be said about (Hebrews 10:9,10) but clearly the context is speaking nothing about Musical Instruments.  This is a feeble attempt from ‘Beautiful Feet’ to make application from Scriptures to support a view not found in Scripture.

^{10:9 The point is that the first is annulled in order to establish the second. There has been a progression in the author’s argument that is brought to its finish: in 7:12 the levitical order was set aside, 7:12 and 18 abrogated the mosaic law, then in 8:7ff. the old covenant was deemed obsolete, now the sacrifices of the mosaic cult are abolished.}

^{10:10 In this verse Hebrews goes beyond a strict commentary on Psalm 40 to sum up his whole position. This verse is also the first place in the book that the full name “Jesus Christ” appears. This use of the full name, the shift from third person to first person plural, and the final occurrence of “once for all” (efapax) contribute to the climactic feel of the verse.}

^{The phrase “by this will” (en w qelhmati) leaves open the question of whose will it is, and just how does that will affect the sacrifice itself? While many modern translations replace the relative pronoun with “God,” correctly connecting it to the content of the psalm, it may also denote Christ’s will. The question is, Was the offering made by God or by Jesus? The answer is both.}

^{The term ‘body’ shows that the contrast the writer wishes to establish is not between the sacrifice of animals and the sacrifice of obedience, but between the ineffective sacrifice of animals and the personal offering of Christ’s own body as the one complete and effective sacrifice.}

^{Hebrews is trying to anticipate an objection that his readers might have had, How can you set aside the sacrifices of the law when they were what God wanted? I.e., they were God’s will. Instead, scripture itself (Psalm 40) says that God’s will was not for animal sacrifices, but for the sacrifice of a human “body.” Jesus truly fulfilled God’s will by making the correct sacrifice: not the sacrifices of the law, but the one sacrifice that conformed to the will of God.}

]]> http://donjobson.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/zoeincarnates-evil-and-blasphemous-heresies/ Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:54:44 +0000 donjobson http://donjobson.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/zoeincarnates-evil-and-blasphemous-heresies/

First, we are concerned with ZOEINCARNATE’S absurd notion that “God is a recovering practitioner of violence.” We agree with our fellow Absolute Truth Warrior and Discernmentalist John 14:6 :

Your blasphemy and those of your ilk apparently knows no bounds.

“By this he means that God used to think violence was a good idea, but then gave up on it.”

Are you people serious? What God is this that you claim to follow? A fallible deity who learns from his own mistakes!

Repent of these heretic, man-centered imaginations!

An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, — Proverbs 6:18

Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; — 2 Cor 10:5

Strawman do not position make. Funny how quoting the Bible leads heretics to the accusation that “you alone know blah blah blah”.

It has nothing to do with me. It has everything to do with Holy Scripture. To even entertain the idea that God is a “recovering” anything promotes a position of fallibility to the INFALLIBLE. That is heresy.

You are the created, lest you forget. And you are seeking to assign human frailties and shortcomings to the Creator. That is, also, heresy. God is not like you, get over it.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. – Isa 55:8

Holy God recovers from nothing. His ways are not our ways. Humble yourself and repent for this heretical thinking.

How many more times will emergents, liberals, and progressive hid behind “cast the first stone”. Are you to utter this to Holy God when you stand before Him? What will you say then, when all your noble thinking, philosophy, and bludgeoning of God’s Holy Word are laid before you and you are found guilty?

I pray for all of you amazing lost people. You truly are promoting high things that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God. Does Scripture tells us God “recovered” from violence? It does not, so put this thought away and repent.

We also pray for Mike Morrell’s unregenerate and non-elect reprobated soul—we pray that God’s Absolute Sovereign Glory is shown when Mike gets cast away like all those other heretics, sinners and unsaved non-Elect heathens:

We also assert the Biblical Truth that God’s very nature is violence against sinners, for God hates sinners with a holy passion. In fact, He hates them so much that He chose from the foundation of the world to only save  Johh Calvin, John MacArthur, some other guys named John, Phil Johnson, Al Mohler, Charles Spurgeon, James White, Todd Friel, Will Kinney and 137,000 other Elected and Predestined Calvinist saints including we of God’s Only Inerrant Party and the Online Discernmentalist Mafia—the rest of humanity then is going to hell because God chose to destroy them before even creating humanity.

Also we wish to point out these 9 other propositions of Biblical Absolute Truths that we know with Absolute Certainty:

1. God never changes. (Malachi 3:6)

2. Therefore God never changes His mind about anything. [ie. Law vs. Grace, Old vs. New Covenants, repented that He made humanity, promised no more Noah type floods, sacrifice vs. mercy, walks with Adam and Eve in Eden vs. unseen in Heaven vs. incarnated Jesus vs. the unseen Risen Lord Jesus of faith, etc. (Genesis 6:6;  Gen. 9:8-17; Hosea 6:6, Matthew 9:13, Matthew 12:7; etc).

3. As change sounds too much like evilution.

4. Therefore change is evil in and of itself

5. As all is Absolute, black and white and in stone.

6. Evilution is a human invention.

7. So therefore God has nothing whatsoever to do with humanity not even in His incarnated form (the fully human-fully God—Jesus).

8. Also God is Absolute.

9. And therefore has nothing whatsoever to do with change aka. evilution.

We also agree with John 14:6 ’s namesake: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Indeed we are not  the way, the truth, and the life: so that no man cometh unto the Father, but by us and our discernmentalizations, for we hold the Absolute Truth the King James Bible AV1611 in our hands (instead of God/Jesus the Absolute Truth holding us in His hands). Therefore since we do not hold  the Absolute Truth in our hands, we do not have the rite/right to judgementalize others who do not hold to our opinions of truth the Absolute Truth, ‘for we  alone have a direct line to God in the King James Bible AV1611—the literal words and mind of God. For the King James Bible AV1611 is literally Jesus/God:  

We alone do not have the one true interpretation of scripture as first established by our Final Prophet John Calvin—the perfect exegete whose fruits were nothing but Pure. Afterall, John Calvin is not the Holy Spirit incarnate—the Advocate and Comforter promised in the Bible—the final word on all Christianity:

The doctrine of the work of the Holy Spirit is a gift from John Calvin to the Church of Christ.  He did not, of course, invent it. The whole of it lay spread out on the pages of Scripture with a clearness and fullness of utterance which one would think would secure that even he who ran should read it; and doubtless he who ran did read it, and it has fed the soul of the true believer in all ages.

We alone—the True Chosen Elect of God are not Pure enough in our ontological certainty to go casting the first stone and hurling accusations of missives and discernmentalizations that  correct and refute the errors of non-blasphemy and non-heresy.’

These are keen observations.

However, for the very few of us who represent the icky part of the antithesis—those who, for our own principled reasons, don’t either home school or Christian school but elect to employ state institutions—there is another interesting dimension to all this.

In the course of these sorts of discussions it seems inevitable that things turn from questions of sin to questions of wisdom. Certainly, whatever is sinful is also unwise. But what doesn’t seem quite as obvious is that what is permissible is also suspect.  It is difficult to take the charges of certain educational choices as “sinful” by those who seem to be lax on questions of church membership. (It is sinful for me to send my children to public school but others may take religious oaths that contradict your vows to Christ alone. Huh?)  But the well meaning downgrade from “sinful” to “unwise, misguided or otherwise spiritually immature” doesn’t go down so well, since the arguments align so well with those of the modern American Temperance Society that classes substance use the same way.

If one has spent any reasonable time around any pietist variety of frontier Fundamentalism or broad evangelicalism (marrying into it helps), he is familiar with substance use legalism. It has its hard-liners, but mostly in our day it is staffed with a kinder, gentler soldier anymore. The soft legalist prizes health and well being. So the argument against using substances (or “worldly amusements,” as the old timers called it) has to do with avoiding certain things that aren’t construed as very conducive to a healthy existence. Wise or spiritual believers avoid them, while second class believers employ them or at least don’t make much hay one way or another. One tactic here is “our time isn’t like others, so best to be prudent.” Building upon the relative modern arrogance that one’s time and place is radically unique from any other, what this means is that we live in day and time that knows things like drug wars and a society addicted to one thing or another and in constant rehab, so Christian prudence seems to demand avoidance in these unchartered times. The educational parallel is that we have never seen the sort of attack on religion as we have in the last century or so as we’ve seen in educational theory and practice.  So wisdom seems to demand that, to the extent that we’re able, we should keep our children out of harm’s way. One is concerned for bodily health, the other for intellectual well being. But both, not realizing that body and mind are temporal realities, seem to presume that natural development has something directly to do with supernatural formation. It is quite true that, contra the Gnostics, temporal does not mean negligible; mind and body are very good things and ought to be attended to with sober and godly care.  Thus it seems smart enough to steer children away from those influences that would unduly endanger their physical and intellectual health, even as we understand that perfect protection is quite unrealistic. But, speaking of wisdom, is it really all that wise to suggest that public school is the educational version of the corner drug dealer?

If one has spent any reasonable time within its enclaves, one knows that Reformed and Presbyterian like to rest and rely on the notion that they are well clear of legalism, so long as legalism is only and ever defined as substance use and worldly amusements. One should afford them some rope since many seem to be exorcising their Fundamentalist demons. But legalism is legalism. Hard legalism certainly is unfortunate, to say the least. But soft legalism isn’t really much better—it may be worse to the extent that it simply makes the world safe for hard legalism. And when it comes to the issue of compulsory education, one knows he’s in the midst of soft legalism when it is suggested that those who deliberately public school probably ought not to be called to extraordinary office on the grounds that it demonstrates spiritual immaturity or lack of wisdom. This reasoning is common in temperance circles as well. At least the hard-liners have chutzpa. But like their substance use counterparts using the flaccid category of “wisdom” instead of “sin,” the soft-liners seem to want all the power of discouragement without any of the responsibility.

*Why I am not a member of the Church of Christ denomination.*  

fideism.googlepages.com

Here’s a list of the pages:

Fideism

Church of Christ Hermeneutic

Application of CENI

Church of Christ Culture

Contemporary Issues in the Church of Christ