Human Responsibility vs. Inability

Human Responsibility to Come to Christ vs. Human Inability to Come to Christ

Inviting or Commanding a Sinner to Come	Stating That a Sinner Cannot Come
Josh. 24:15 Matt. 11:28 John 7:17 John 7:37 Acts 2:38 Acts 3:19 Acts 16:31 Acts 17:30 Rev. 22:17	Matt. 19:25-26 John 3:3 John 6:44 John 6:65 John 12:39-40 Rom. 8:8 1 Cor. 2:14

Sinners are responsible to repent, believe, and come to Christ. Yet, at the same time, they are unable to repent, believe, and come to Christ.

There are 0 verses in Scripture that say a sinner can come to Christ. All verses attempted to be quoted invite or command the sinner to repent, believe, or come to Christ, but 0 say they can!

Salvation comes from God. It is the result of grace. It has nothing to do with you! A dead man lying at the bottom of the ocean floor cannot reach up to grab a life preserver. Life must be breathed into him before he can do so, and he will do so because he can do nothing else.

Israel's 'Oracle' Says "Messiah Is Here"

Daniel (the only name he is known by) and Binyamin Golden, two Israelites with autism, are nothing more than false prophets. In early July of 2020, Daniel proclaimed a message that purports that Messiah is already here and waiting, but he is being delayed because of Jews living in America and other places around the world. Daniel is calling for their return to Israel. Here is his message:

The situation is very bad, very bad Abba (father). Most people just don’t understand what is going on. And they don’t want to make teshuva (repent) now. Those who don’t want to make teshuva by now, Hashem (God) will force them to answer later for their sins, and much more suffering and tears.

We’re already beginning to feel what is happening in the world. The world we live in today has become harsh. We live in a world that is now ruled by the most wicked people that ever lived, incarnations of the most wicked people of all of the generations that lived in the past. Abba, you don’t understand how scary it is. And what is more scary is that the people of Israel do not understand.

I’m talking to all the Jews that live in the United States. Your life will not go back to what it used to be. Although now it seems as if it’s quiet and peaceful, but it’s not the case. Do you think that you will hang out in the United States until the redemption? No, no, it’s not like that!

Sure, in the past you came to Israel for vacation... but the situation is different now. Now you have to come to Israel for good, to come to Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel), even if you have to live in tents. Yes! Come with a strong desire, knowing that salvation is very near and that the Moshiach (messiah) is already here.

If you come out of your exile with the feeling that it is our duty as Jews to come to Eretz Yisrael, to make aliyah to the land that God gave us, then you will survive more easily. But, if you wait too long, for whatever reason, such as that you don’t have enough money to buy an apartment in this country, or some other reasons, then no! Woe to you! No good!

So anyone who wants to save himself, he must make aliyah to Israel now. The Land of Israel belongs exclusively to Hashem. And if we are in the Land of Israel, Hashem will protect us. If you believe in God, then you need to come. This is the place to be, and the place to receive the Moshiach.

Even though it seems like it’s the most dangerous place at the moment, it is really the safest place to be. Come to Eretz Yisrael. I’m not [only] talking to the American Jews. I’m talking to all the Jews all over the world and especially the Jews in Europe and England. It is very dangerous to be there. It [will be] very dangerous for you soon. The Shechina (Divine presence) has already left these countries. So there’s no more protection for the Jews abroad anymore. Am Yisrael (the Jewish nation), this is not a joke. This is real.

So I ask, I beg the people of Israel, come home! Come home! Moshaich is here and he’s waiting but Hashem is not giving him the sign to be revealed. But obviously, come, no matter what you have or what you don’t have. Just come. You will not lose in the end. You will only win and you will rejoice.

Although we’re currently suffering from the coronavirus, there will be more. There will be more things to come, much more difficult things in the near future because we’re at fault. We said we do not want to make teshuva. So that’s why it’s happening. Please make teshuva. That’s it. Thank you.

First of all, contrary to Daniel's claims, and that of many ignorant people these days, autistic individuals are not "more soul than body." They are not on a higher plane of intelligence than the "normal" folks, as one movie recently tried advocating. Many, if not most, have serious issues navigating life, not to mention any social issues.

Second of all, I am sorry, Jews, but you guys have already missed the Messiah. He was already here 2,000 years ago, and the majority of your people rejected Him. The majority of you still reject Him. His name is Jesus (a transliteration of the Greek, Iesous, which comes from the Hebrew, Yeshua). When He returns, "every eye will see Him" (Rev. 1:7). He will be returning as Judge of the world.

Jews, read your scriptures and pay attention to them! Read Isaiah 53. As Jesus told the Jews of His time, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. ... For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" (John 5:39-40, 46-47). "Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He [Jesus] explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures" (Luke 24:27).

When Jesus returns, those who have accepted Him as the Messiah and their Saviour will be ushered into the everlasting kingdom, while those who have denied Him and rejected Him will be cast into utter darkness.

Biblical Church* Practice

First Corinthians 11-14 constitutes a four-chapter section on congregational practice when the saints assemble. As Paul points out in the last five verses of chapter 14, the Corinthian congregation did not have the authority to change what all of the congregations did. Paul taught the same things in all the congregations (1 Cor. 4:17c; 7:17d; 11:16c; 14:33b).

Let me ask you a couple questions...

Was it from the 'church' in North America that the Word of God came? No!

Was it from the __________ (insert denomination here) that the Word of God came? No!

Is the 'church' in North America the only Christians the Word of God has reached? No!

Are the __________ (insert denomination here) the only ones the Word of God has reached? No!

Does the 'church' in North America have the right, authority, and permission from God to do 'church' any differently than what we read in the Scriptures? No!

Do the __________ (insert denomination here) have the right, authority, and permission from God to do 'church' any differently than what we read in the Scriptures? No!

What does 1 Corinthians 14:37 say? Does it say that the things Paul has just told them are "a good suggestion"? "creative ideas"? "just Paul's opinion"? No!

They are "a command of the Lord."

"By and large the history of the church points to the fact that in worship we do not greatly trust the diversity of the body. Edification must always be the rule, and that carries with it orderliness so that all may learn and all be encouraged. But it is no great credit to the historical church that in opting for 'order' it also opted for silencing of the ministry of the many."

—Gordon Fee

Jesus taught the apostles, and they in turn taught and set traditions in place that ought not to be tampered with. God has a pattern for worship in the New Testament just as He did in the Old Testament; and they are not the same. The early church fathers did not have the right, authority, or permission from God to alter any of these practices and traditions. Yet, through the heresy of apostolic succession, that is precisely what occurred. Baptism was no longer administered immediately, but longer and longer waiting periods were introduced. The Lord's Supper went from a feast to a tiny cup and a cracker or piece of bread. Things got worse under Emperor Constantine, and then through the Catholic denomination. The Congregation has never recovered (save for groups of individuals around the world who seek to be obedient to the Scriptures and are mocked and ridiculed by the vast majority who spit in the face of what the Scriptures teach). The Reformation attempted to recover some of the lost biblical doctrines, but never attempted to recover the lost biblical practices and traditions. Instead, they carried on with Catholic practices, tweaking them here and there only to be slightly different. Either Scripture is your absolute authority, or something else is...

Did you know there is a penalty involved with this? "If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized." In other words, ignore anyone who tells you that you do not have to do it this way. They are liars, and the truth is not in them.

---

* "Church" is a terrible translation for the Greek ekklesia, which literally means "to call out" (a compound of ek—a preposition meaning "out of"—and kaleo—a verb signifying "to call"), and it has only served to foster confusion. Outside of the New Testament, ekklesia was originally a government word, which meant a political assembly of a Greek city-state that was regularly convened for the purpose of making decisions. It was for full citizens only! You can see two secular uses of the word in Acts 19:32, 39, 41. The New Testament use of the word has the same weight. It is "a gathering," "an assembly," or "a congregation" (as the word came to mean) of those "called out from" the world and to God. There is a decision-making mandate involved. It is for members only, for citizens of Heaven only! The word "church" is derived from the Greek kuriakon, which means "belonging to the Lord." Tyndale translated ekklesia correctly as "congregation," while King James set a restrictive rule on his translators that they had to retain the erroneous "church" instead.

My Concerns About Ravi Zacharias

It is difficult to tell whether Ravi Zacharias was a complete charlatan and a fraud, or whether he was truly sincere and believed the words he said but was living a double life. Ravi's sins were not only ongoing and heavily pre-meditated, but also predatory in nature. As far as we are aware, Ravi went to his death bed completely unrepentant over these sins.

There are several problems I see with Ravi, that apparently nobody else wanted to pay attention to:

First, watch any of his speaking engagements over the past 20 years and note how not once does Ravi ever speak about sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come. Not once!

Second, note how every time he tells his "testimony," there is never mention of being convicted over his sin, his need for Jesus, realizing that Jesus died for him while he was yet a sinner, turning from his sin and putting his wholehearted trust in the Lord. The Gospel was never present in Ravi's "testimony." Instead, when Ravi talked about his "testimony," he did as he always does and told a story. Ravi was a storyteller.

Third, his consistent lack of biblical discernment. Ravi had said that Rick Warren was one of the greatest Bible teachers our age has ever seen. He said that Joyce Meyer was a phenomenal Bible teacher. He said that Hillsong Church and their music are a blessing, and recommended them to others. He attended the Mormon Tabernacle and failed to draw a distinction between their "Jesus" and the Jesus of the Bible, preaching the Gospel to them, but instead referred to them as "brothers and sisters." He attended gatherings where the Pope made the opening address. When asked about transgenderism, Ravi side-stepped the issue. In fact, Ravi would frequently talk much, tell stories, but then never actually answer the questions asked of him. As Ray Comfort has said, you could listen to Ravi in awe, but come away not having a clue what he had just said. The reason being because he never actually said anything. To me, that is one of the poorest examples of an apologist there is.

Fourth, Ravi's theology was extremely cotton-candy-like. He was very much an ecumenicalist. Meeting with cults and false teachers, and praising them up with flattering words.

Because of those things, and because of the ongoing pre-meditated predatory sexual misconduct, it is extremely difficult for me to believe Ravi was ever a genuine convert to Christianity. He may have been. He may have been a Christian who just kept taking baby step after baby step toward sin, and justifying it, until he was so deep in it that he had no clue which way was up and was too proud to confess it because of what it would mean to his ministry. The fact is, Ravi's conduct disqualified him from public ministry a long time ago. But how is he any different from many others who have disqualified themselves and ought to shut their ministries down?

There are several "discernment" ministries and "apologetics" ministries and other ministries whose "celebrity" persona has disqualified himself/herself from ministry. Yet, few of these men/women have stepped down. Even for the rarer few who have confessed to their sin, they have continued trudging on through with their ministry. Why have none of these individuals shut their ministries down, shut their mouths, and sat at the feet of God to learn? Pride! These men/women are arrogant, egotistical, and prideful. They think God needs them, in spite of their egregious sins. I have some words for these leaders...

Get over yourselves!!!

Your ministry is not that important. You are not that important. God can raise up a ministry one hundred times better than yours. God can raise up a minister one hundred times better than you. You are not God's gift to mankind! Neither am I. None of us are.

I have a number of followers (maybe even fans?), and I always try to remind them not to believe something just because I have said it (or anyone else has said it), but to be like the Bereans and "search the Scriptures." I do not want anyone turning me into an idol. I do not want people making me their authority. The Bible is, or should be, our only authority. God may use me to expose its authority to you, and that is good, but do not ever replace Jesus, the Word, and the Spirit with me or anybody else! The only man you should be looking to is the Lord Jesus. He may use me, but I am just a man. I never want people to worship me as a leader. Being some kind of leader is one of my greatest fears, because I am not sure how I would handle it.

If you learn something from me and are drawn into a closer relationship with the Lord Jesus and His Word, then all praise, honour, and glory to God Almighty! I am nothing more than a vessel that He may use for His purposes. I am happy if He uses me at all, and I probably will not know how much He has used me until I get to Heaven. Could you imagine the testimonies that would include my name, all to the glory of God? That is humbling. It reminds me of the lyrics to the song "Thank You" by Ray Boltz.

"Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall." 1 Corinthians 10:12

"Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before stumbling." Proverbs 16:18

Wolves In Sheep's Clothing

A preacher elicits information about the faith and financial situation of certain women, not only within his congregation, but also elsewhere as he travels for speaking engagements. He arranges for his ministry to provide these women with financial support, but requires sex from them. This preacher uses religious expressions in order to gain compliance, since these women were raised to be persons of faith. This preacher prays with these women, giving thanks to God for the "opportunity" they are receiving; calls these women his "reward" for living a life of service to God; and references "godly men" in the Bible who had more than one wife. But he also warns these women that they aren't to "speak against God's anointed" by sharing this event with others.

Sound familiar? It should.

This is what apologist Ravi Zacharias did for over a decade. He preyed on women. But he lost credibility with me a long time ago. If you can preach your messages inside a Jewish synagogue or a Mormon tabernacle or anywhere else and it be accepted, then your message is not a Christian message; it is not the Gospel.

But the above descriptive paragraph is not only about Ravi Zacharias. There are dozens of preachers who are guilty of the same thing, and this is tragic. In Waco, Texas, David Koresh brainwashed his members into letting him sleep with their daughters of varying ages. In London, Ontario, some preacher brainwashed his members into a similar sex scandal. I have since forgotten the details of this one, but if memory serves I believe he was convincing older women (married or unmarried) to have sex with him. I do not think it involved young girls, but I could be wrong.

The thing is, there are a lot of wolves in sheep's clothing standing behind the pulpit who have never received the saving grace of the Lord Jesus. Whether they are there for the money (which they should not be receiving), or because they think they were called just because they have some degree (and the congregation blindly expected a degree to mean something or make some kind of difference), or because they wanted to be important, or whatever, many congregations have someone standing behind the pulpit who should not be there (really, none of them should be there because this is not a biblical practice).

Anyone can learn Christian-ese and modify their behaviour. That does not make them born again, nor brothers and sisters in the faith. We have fallen so far from biblical standards that it is not funny. Nowadays if anyone claims themselves to be a Christian, people blindly high-five them and go, "Alright! Me too!" Then their conversation goes to something worldly and that is the end of it. There are many people who have grown up in the "church" who have never been saved who think they are "Christians" just because their parents are Christians and they attend religious services. God does not have any grandchildren. You cannot ride the coattails of your parents into Heaven. You need to make the faith your own. Not make your own faith, creating a god in your own image to suit your own desires. You need to own the faith. It must be personal. Just because your parents know Jesus does not mean you do.

A lot of these "celebrity pastors" are these kinds of people. They are committing sexual misconduct just like Ravi Zacharias, but they have also never truly been regenerated and born again. For several of them, their daddy was a preacher and because of the "big bucks" he made, they decided to pursue the same venture. But God had never called them to it.

There needs to be a greater system of accountability in place. Of greater importance, one's own family and/or employees should not be part of that system. There is a natural bias. Too many "churches" do not have accountability systems in place, and even more refuse to hold their head "pastor" accountable when he does do things that are not above board (like hang out with and endorse known false teachers). Many of the subordinates do not speak out because they are cowards and hirelings. They do not want to lose their unbiblical salary and get fired, so they defend their "boss."

There needs to be transparency. This is near impossible with large organized religious institutions. It is not for biblical small-sized house churches, where everyone should be confessing their sins to one another and praying for one another and restoring each other through the process of repentance. (Restoration does not mean to former positions where abuse took place, and doing so demonstrates an ignorance of that particular "church.")

The Disciple's Prayer

"Pray, then, in this way: 'Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.'" Matthew 6:9-13

"And He said to them, "When you pray, say: 'Father, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, For we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.'"" Luke 11:2-4

What does this phrase, "Give us each/this day our daily bread," mean? Some preachers have explained that during the first century they did not know where their next meal was coming from and so they prayed that God would give them that next meal. This explanation is completely false!

The literal translation of this phrase is, "The bread of us belonging to the coming day, give us today," and, "The bread of us belonging to the coming day, give us daily." The Greek here is ton epiousion (τὸν ἐπιούσιον), which means "for the coming day, for the morrow." There is a future element here. The bread of the coming Kingdom, the bread that Jesus said He would not eat again until the Kingdom comes, give us this bread today. They are praying for His return. Remember the words from Jesus' Revelation to John? "Come, Lord Jesus."

Why Do 99% of Denominations Get the Lord's Supper Wrong?

"When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him. And He said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God."" Luke 22:14-16

"And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, "Take this and share it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes."" Luke 22:17-18

The word translated as "until" in both of these passages is heos hetou (ἕως ὅτου). It is informing us when. There is a future element here.

"For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." 1 Corinthians 11:26

The word translated as "until in this passage is achri hou (ἄχρι οὗ). It denotes an objective, a goal. It is informing us why. In other words, "You proclaim His death so that He comes."

"And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."" Luke 22:19

The translation "remembrance" is incorrect. The word here is anamnesis. The an is negative, meaning "not." Amnesis means amnesia. In other words, "not forgetting." The correct translation here would be "reminder." Both the bread and the cup are a reminder of the past and reminder of the future. The Lord's Supper is not a funeral event, though the practice in most denominations feels precisely like such. Yes, we remember what the Lord Jesus did on our behalf, but we look forward to His second coming (or at least we should be).

The typical ambiguous word for "me" or "my" is mou (μου), which by its usage indicates that the person can either be the subject or the owner. If your photo was in a magazine and there was an article about you, you are the subject. If the magazine belonged to you, you are the owner. That is not the word used here. The word used here is the emphatic emen (ἐμὴν), which indicates possession. It is Jesus' reminder. In other words, "Do My reminder! Remind yourselves of my return."

When you partake of the Lord's Supper, do the words "joy" or "fellowship" come to your mind? Probably not. Do you know why? Because your local congregation is practicing it incorrectly! The Lord's Supper was an actual, full meal. A banquet! The text bears it out itself, but let us hear from several scholars on the issue:

[Paul] "sets the Lord's Supper in the context of the fellowship meal." -Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology, p. 758.

"From the beginning the Lord's Supper was for Christians not an annual Christian Passover, but a regularly repeated meal in 'honor of the Lord,' hence the Lord's Supper." -Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT

"Holy Communion was not simply a token meal as with us, but an actual meal. Moreover it seems clear that it was a meal to which each of the participants brought food." -Leon Morris, Commentary on First Corinthians

"The name Lord's Supper, though legitimately derived from 1 Cor. 11v20, is not there applied to the sacrament itself, but to the Love Feast or Agape, a meal commemorating the Last Supper..." -J. G. Simpson, The Dictionary of the Bible

"This simple rite was observed by His disciples, at first as part of a communal meal, Sunday by Sunday." -I. Howard Marshall, Christian Beliefs: An Introductory Study Guide

"the early church associated the Lord's Supper with a proper meal" -I. Howard Marshall, Christian Beliefs: An Introductory Study Guide

"In the first century, the Lord's Supper included not only the bread and the cup, but an entire meal." - John Gooch, Christian History, Issue 37, p. 3.

If Jesus set it up this way, if the apostles set it up this way, do you not think there was a specific reason for doing so?

"The early church observed the Lord's Supper as an exclusive community meal." -John Drane, The New Lion Encyclopedia, p. 173.

"They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. ..." Acts 2:42-47

There are three (3) elements here; not four (4). Perhaps you will see it better if we lay it out like this:

They were continually devoting themselves
to the apostles' teaching
and
to fellowship, to the breaking of bread
and
to prayer.

The fellowship is the breaking of bread. That is why they came together. The fellowship meal was the central matter surrounding their gathering. Not the singing. Not the teaching or preaching. Not anything else. The fellowship is what creates the unity.

"Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread." 1 Corinthians 10:17

The Lord's Supper consisted of a single loaf. Why? Paul just explained it. It is a picture of unity. The same with the single cup. What picture is portrayed by the vast majority of local congregations today in their unbiblical practice? Disunity! Again, let us hear from some of the scholars:

"Because all have eaten portions of the same element, they have become a unity in which they have come as close to one another as members of the same body, as if the bodily boundaries between and among people had been transcended." -Gerd Theissen

"The single loaf is a symbol and an instrument of unity." -Robertson and Plummer, Int'l Critical Commentary

Gordon Fee wrote of the "solidarity of the fellowship of believers created by their sharing 'the one loaf.'"

How do we know that the Lord's Supper was a full meal? "One is hungry and another is drunk." You cannot go home hungry, or drunk, off the token meal 99% of denominations practice today! Go ahead and read 1 Corinthians 11. There is no question that they ate it as a full meal. So why is every single denomination practicing it wrong today? Of greater consequence, why do they not seem to care to fix it?

What is one of the reasons why so many denominations follow an unbiblical practice today? Because of the erroneous translation found in the King James Version. The KJV has the word "unworthily," which conveys a lack of worth in the person taking the element. But what does the Greek word used actually mean? It means an "unworthy manner." What is meant by that? Divisions. The rich did not want to eat with the poor, so they would take off work early and eat the meal before the poor could arrive. The poor, working for the man, would arrive late and there would be no food remaining for them, and several of the rich people would be drunk. Because of this, several of them were dying. God was killing them because they were eating and drinking in an unworthy manner. They were creating divisions. Similar divisions to the rich/poor dynamic would be the black/white dynamic. If members in a congregation do not want to eat with members of a different ethnicity, their eating is in an unworthy manner. They are perverting the unity the bread and cup were meant to stand for.

What does the Old Testament say about worshipping God? The pattern shown to Moses on Sinai was to be followed exactly. Why? Because everything foreshadowed and pictured something else. God determines how we are to worship Him. The pattern set up in the New Testament is different than the pattern set up in the Old Testament. Each denomination does not get to decide how they would like to "do church." God tells you how to do it! Jesus and His apostles set up certain traditions and they are to be followed by every Christian! Period End of sentence. End of discussion. Your congregation does not get to make up its own tradition(s) for worshipping God. Everything Jesus and His apostles set in place was done for a reason. Hence why Paul repeated mentions the fact that in all the congregations, he teaches them the exact same things. Our pattern is not the Old Testament Hebrew religion; try reading Hebrews some time. Our pattern is not what the early church fathers chose to do in contradiction to Scripture through their creation and use of the heresy of apostolic succession. Our pattern is not what pagan Emperor Constantine set up, or the cultural Roman elements used by the Catholic churches. Our pattern is not what Luther or Calvin or anyone else set up. Our pattern is to be derived from the pages of the New Testament alone! Scripture is our absolute and final authority on such matters; not any other pragmatic considerations!

Let us get back to the Bible, and show the world what true Christian fellowship, love, and unity look like!

Why Do Most People Not Understand the New Testament?

If you were studying history, this is the order in which you would study it:

01. The Middle Ages (A.D. 476 -A.D. 1450 )

02. Renaissance Humanism (A.D. 1400 to A.D. 1500 )

03. Protestant Reformation (A.D. 1517 to A.D. 1648)

04. The European Renaissance (A.D. 1450 to A.D. 1600)

05. The Enlightenment (A.D. 1650 to A.D. 1800)

06. First Industrial Revolution (A.D. 1760 to A.D. 1840)

07. Revolutionary Period (A.D. 1764 to A.D. 1848)

08. Age of Imperialism (A.D. 1800 to A.D. 1914)

09. Victorian Era (A.D. 1837 to A.D. 1901)

10. Second Industrial Revolution (A.D. 1869 to A.D. 1914 )

11. World War I (A.D. 1914 to A.D. 1918)

12. Great Depression (A.D. 1929 to A.D. 1939)

13. World War II (A.D. 1939 to A.D. 1945)

This would tell you what happened, why, and what led to the next era. But imagine wanting to learn history and the book you pick up orders it instead like this:

04. The European Renaissance (A.D. 1450 to A.D. 1600)

08. Age of Imperialism (A.D. 1800 to A.D. 1914)

09. Victorian Era (A.D. 1837 to A.D. 1901)

02. Renaissance Humanism (A.D. 1400 to A.D. 1500 )

03. Protestant Reformation (A.D. 1517 to A.D. 1648)

01. The Middle Ages (A.D. 476 -A.D. 1450 )

13. World War II (A.D. 1939 to A.D. 1945)

07. Revolutionary Period (A.D. 1764 to A.D. 1848)

05. The Enlightenment (A.D. 1650 to A.D. 1800)

06. First Industrial Revolution (A.D. 1760 to A.D. 1840)

10. Second Industrial Revolution (A.D. 1869 to A.D. 1914 )

12. Great Depression (A.D. 1929 to A.D. 1939)

11. World War I (A.D. 1914 to A.D. 1918)

You have no dates to know which period of history comes first, or when it happened. This is the order in which the New Testament has been placed in the Bible for the past 1800 years. This is just how book binders used to do it. You'll find the order applied to the works of Pliny, Socrates, Plato, etc. They are arranged from longest piece of work first, to shortest piece of work last. It ignores why they were written, what was happening at the time, etc. Because the Bible is not in correct chronological order, it is read chaotically. People have no clue what is going on. Heap on top of this the imposition of chapters and verses that distract the reader from the natural divisions the authors had included in their own works.

Imagine I were a counselor of some kind, like a marriage counselor. Imagine that throughout my career I had written many letters to both groups of people and single individuals. But after I had died, only 9 letters written to groups could be found, and 4 letters written to individuals. Some time later, someone has the idea to add chapters and verses to my letters. If you were to take one sentence from one letter and try to tie it together with another sentence from another letter, unless the context surrounding the one agrees with the context surrounding the other, you have just created a false teaching from my letters. The two sentences are in no way, shape, or form related or complementary.

This is what Christians of every denomination have done with the Bible ever since the addition of chapters and verses. They continuously proof-text the Bible in order to support all sorts of ridiculous and unbiblical teachings. They treat each individual verse as if it is the Word of God wholly by itself, which is simply untrue. Compound this upon the problem of not having the books in their correct order and not knowing anything of the events that led to the writing of each book or letter.

If you want to understand the New Testament correctly (or even the Old Testament), you need to read it in the correct historical-chronological order. The book of Acts is historical. Most of the epistles fall into certain locations throughout that book. When it's all put together, you're able to understand the New Testament in a way that most do not today, and have never for the past 1800 years. These books aren't disjointed. They flow in a natural order, revealing what was happening, what the Body was facing, the struggles at that particular time, and tie in with other history taking place at the same time.

People have been after Bible publishers to publish the Bible in the correct historical-chronological order for at least the last 50 years. They understand that when arranged properly, it benefits the student immensely. This is why I released ABIDE: A Chronological Reader's Bible project. Not only does it not contain the distracting chapters and verses, but it arranges the books and letters in their correct order. I'm am working on another project right now that deals with the life of the Body after Jesus. The first 100 years. This work will bring so much clarity to the New Testament chronology and understanding.

You'll also find that because of the order we have it in today, and because so many people have been influenced by various philosophers (Plato, Socrates, Aristotle), they approached Scripture as if it were philosophy. This is what led to Roman Catholicism. The wrong historical-chronological order, the addition of chapters and verses, and the idea of approaching it as philosophy has led to many errors in approach, including the Reformation. They did not seek to understand the natural flowing living story; they sought to find doctrines (whether they exist or not). There's a reason Scripture says "you have no need to be taught by anyone." When it's in its correct order and you know the history related to it, what happened between each letter, everything makes sense and it's EASY to understand . . . even by a child.

Individuals like T. Austin Sparks argue that the order our Bibles are in today was "divinely preserved and ordered by God." Sorry, but this argument is completely ignorant, as is the argument that the chapters and verses were "divinely inspired." No doubt he was a KJV-Onlyist or a Ruckmanite. These people like to argue a great many man-made concepts as having something to do with the "divine"; e.g., the atrocious spelling of the 1611 KJV was "divinely inspired" and we should retain that spelling today. Give me a break! Usually, whatever it is that has to do with the 1611 KJV, they argue it is obviously "God's divine inspiration" that it be like that. The order our Bibles are in today have nothing to do with God's preservation and inspiration. These people are so hung up on ridiculous traditions and the past, that they cannot bring themselves to fix what's broken.

The Test of All Preaching

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11

The Bible should be the test of all preaching! That man who desires to make himself the umpire and final standard of appeal to the congregation, involves himself in a fearful responsibility and virtually claims for himself infallibility. Yet some ministers appear offended if their authority is questioned, or if their preaching is tested by the Word of God.

Paul did not do so! Though inspired, he commended the course of those, who, instead of taking his word for it, examined the Scriptures for themselves, to see whether those things which he taught them were so. To adopt a contrary course, and blindly follow a minister or priest, is downright Romanism! And, if pursued universally, this would . . .
. . . arrest the progress of the Gospel,
. . . and clog the wheels of truth,
. . . and stamp error with immutability.

No, my brethren, your minister is not to be the umpire or standard. There is but one who could say, "Follow Me!" and that was Christ! We point you to Him. We direct you to His Word as the standard of your beliefs, and to His example as the pattern of your lives.

"To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20

—John Quincy Adams, 1876

His example is Solus Christus. We are to imitate Christ Jesus in all things. We are to love what He loved, and hate what He hated. We are to pattern our lives, in every aspect, after Him. If we are not trying to be like Him, if we are not being made in His image, then we have no right trying to call ourselves His disciples.

His Word is Sola Scriptura. Scripture, the Bible, is to be our only and final authority on all matters pertaining to doctrine, congregational practice, family life, and personal holiness. The Bible is not an end in and of itself, but it points us to Christ Jesus. Most Christians have some other source as their authority instead of God's Word: what the early church fathers taught; what church traditions taught; what creeds, confessions, catechisms, and constitutions teach; what the Reformers taught; what a particular system of theology teaches; what their particular denomination teaches; what the "experts" tell them; what they have "experienced"; and various other pragmatic considerations.

"The Bible should be the test of all preaching!" Period! In context!

Grabbing a particular verse and then preaching on it tends to predominantly result in eisegesis—from every denomination. The same is true of people who do verse memorization and who have "life verses." A verse independent of its passage is used predominantly to support false interpretations. If you are going to preach, you should be preaching on full passages so that you convey the correct context. If you want to memorize anything, memorize full passages so that you understand and apply the correct context. If you want something applicable to your life, then have "life passages" so that you are applying the full context to your life.

The only thing that is the final standard of appeal for the Congregation's beliefs is God's Word. If that "offends" you, then you have bigger problems. Too many people professing to be "Christians" blindly follow the man behind the pulpit rather than examining Scripture and holding the man accountable. This is why you have modern cults like Steven Furtick's Elevation Church. If you call their gathering a "service," they get angry with you and, like a chorus, say on cue, "It's not a service! It's a worship experience!" If anything you say is negative of Furtick or Elevation, they turn on you like a pack of rabid wolves. This re-iterates what John Cooper wrote about celebrity preachers. They become people's idols.

If you get angry when someone tries to filter your traditions, creeds, confessions, catechisms, constitutions, statements of faith, systems of theology, denominational teachings, experiences, etc., through the Bible, then the Word of God is not your only and final authority. If you get angry when someone tries to filter your preacher's teachings, practices, and lifestyle through the Bible, then most likely you are part of a cult!

Providing Michael Brown A Wake-up Call

In an interview on “Too Wretched for Radio,” Todd Friel and Phil Johnson rightly labeled Michael Brown as “dangerous,” calling him “sub-orthodox,” acknowledging that he is “willfully self-deceived,” and stating that he has done “enough damage.” In his response to Todd Friel and Phil Johnson, Michael wrote, "To me, this is a crown of honor, a sign of the Lord’s favor, and another indication that our message, by God’s grace and to His glory, is making an impact."

In case Michael is not aware of it, Jehovah's Witnesses and many other cults have this same outlook? They go around saying the same kind of nonsense: "People slamming the door in our face and cursing us out and this and that, this is a crown of honour, a sign of the Lord's favour, and another indication that our message is making an impact." I am sorry, Michael, but that is a fool's self-perceived "persecution" and crown. How about you look at it through the lens of reality and truth, that they are calling you out for being a false teacher and teaching unbiblical doctrines?

Mr. Brown also claimed that he "gets slandered, maligned, misrepresented, and attacked" for "confronting doctrinal errors in the Body; . . . being pro-Israel; being pro-Holy Spirit."

What about your own doctrinal errors in the Body, Michael? I am sorry to break it to you, but you are not free from doctrinal errors yourself. You have two major doctrinal errors.

First, you claim to be "pro-Holy Spirit." It is not "pro-Holy Spirit" to attribute to Him things that He is not responsible for. That is blasphemy. That is taking the Lord's name in vain. If I were to tell someone who is meeting me at the train station that he will recognize me because I will be wearing a blue hat, the blue hat is the sign. Once we have met and he recognizes me by the sign of the blue hat, the need for the sign has ceased. Isaiah prophesied that God would speak to the Jews by foreign languages and that they would reject it and subsequently be judged. The sign of this prophecy was fulfilled three times in the book of Acts (ch. 2, 10, 19), demonstrating that the way to salvation was open to people from all nations, tribes, peoples, and languages. The Jews rejected the sign and were severely judged in A.D. 70. The gift of "tongues" (properly 'languages,' as revealed in Acts 2 and Isaiah's prophecy) have ceased! What you claim to do is not "tongues," however you might imagine it. Your "experience" does not interpret Scripture, Michael! All this other nonsense taking place at Bethel and Hillsong, etc., is doctrines and practices of demons. The Holy Spirit does not shower gold dust on people. Grave soaking is demonic and does nothing. If these people actually possessed the gift of healing, they would be doing like Jesus and going to the people. These people would be healing people in hospitals and such. But they can't. They have to fake it, and everyone, including you, knows it.

Second, you are pro-Israel, and foolishly so. You ignore what the Bible says on this issue and foolishly subscribe to the untenable, indefensible, bankrupt theology of Dispensationalism. How about you take the time to read and pay attention to the book of Hebrews? This book dismantles and destroys your pro-Israel theology (and John MacArthur's) once and for all. Better yet, how about you read and pay attention to the book of Ephesians. It is almost as if God gave Paul a glimpse into the future to see the nonsense of Dispensationalism being taught, and then Paul answers their core tenets one by one. More so, read and pay attention to Romans 9 through 11. Pay very special attention to 11:17-26. What does Paul do here? He takes national, physical, literal Israel and divides them into two groups: believing Israel and unbelieving Israel. According to Romans 2:28-29, what does this say about unbelieving Israel? According to Romans 9:6-8, what does this say about unbelieving Israel? In other words, believing Israel is true Israel, spiritual Israel. The remnant God has always had. Paul then has believing Gentiles grafted in with the believing Israel. What does that make these Gentiles, Michael? It makes them true Israel, spiritual Israel. This was prophesied repeatedly through the Old Testament: the Gentile inclusion. What would they be included into? This is known as Expansion Theology.

Do you honestly believe a physical temple will be rebuilt, when Scripture makes it clear that we are the new temple and that God indwells us? Do you honestly believe we will return to sacrifices when Jesus was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices? You seriously need to read your Bible better, Michael, and pay closer attention to precisely what it says and teaches, which is not what you teach and believe! Israel is nothing and will be nothing. Scripture, from beginning to end, is all about Jesus! He is the center of it all; not Israel.

I think you would benefit from reading the books and letters of the Bible in their actual historical-chronological order, Michael. Read the prophets in chronological order alongside 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings. Read the epistles in chronological order alongside Acts. God has one Body, one Bride, one Congregation—Christians! The Congregation of the Lord is the fulfillment of Israel. Jew and Gentile together, Old Testament saints and New Testaments saints together, make up the one Body of Jesus. Your theology makes the Bible say things that it does not say, turning Jesus into your imagined "Anti-Christ." How about you look up the chiasm in Daniel 9:24-27 and pay close attention to it. Look up the Hebrew, too. There is nothing in this passage about the "making" and "breaking" of a covenant. The Hebrew word means "to strengthen" an already existing covenant: the covenant of grace. The Messiah does this. Nobody else. There is also nothing in the Bible about a "one-world government." Stop ripping random, individual, isolated verses out of their immediate context and forcing them together with other random, individual, isolated verses to create your doctrines. If the surrounding context of the one verse does not agree with the surrounding context of the other verse, they are not teaching the same thing! I'm getting fed up with people using random isolated verses to teach something that the context does not support.

E.g.: The use of 1 Timothy 5:8 has nothing to do with the man of the house getting a job and providing for his family. What is the context of chapter 5:1-16? It's speaking about widows. Keeping this verse in its context, what is it actually saying? Quite different from how the majority of people falsely use it. And this goes for every denomination. Charismatics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists, etc. Every since chapters and verses were added to the Bible, people have ripped individual verses out of their immediate contexts in order to argue something that the verse in context simply does not support!

You can refer to this letter as an "attack," Michael, or whatever else you need to tell yourself in order to make yourself feel better, but it is not an "attack" by any stretch of the imagination or by any sort of mental gymnastics you want to try and engage in. I love you as a brother, Michael, but you are teaching some very serious errors, and are associating with some extremely dangerous people. Feel free to label me in whatever manner makes you feel better about yourself. It will not offend me.