In the first report we covered an "Introduction," "A Summary of the False Doctrines and Practices of EMC," and the first sub-point of "The False Doctrine, Preaching and Practices of EMC," which is: "1. EMC Preaches a Heretical and Perverted False Gospel (Gal 1:6-9) and False Jesus (2 Cor 11:4)."
In this 2nd part we will dive into the following sub-points of "The False Doctrine, Preaching and Practices of EMC":
"2. EMC’s Doctrine and Practices are Erroneous, False and Contrary to Scripture, including the Interpretation of Scripture;"
"3. EMC’s Teaching is Mostly Unsound, Ear-Tickling Fables, With (More) Examples."
Before beginning, 2 Tim 4:3-4 reminds us of the fables and false Christianity that is being positively and publicly promoted by neo-evangelical groups such as EMC:
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”
To expose heresy and false teachers, is most certainly not "divisive" or the "wrong way of dealing with disagreement" or "sowing discord," or anything of such nature. It is simply obeying the Bible in marking them and avoiding them, since their teachings and practices are erroneous, false, dangerous and soul-damning:
“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” (Rom 16:17-18).
Although worthy of mention here, the Bible does indicate that we can judge someone to be unsaved.
Now, without further delay, shall we begin.
2. EMC’s Doctrine and Practices are Erroneous, False and Contrary to Scripture, including the Interpretation of Scripture.
Besides the false gospel and false Jesus being embraced and promoted, there are many other false beliefs and practices, a number of which dovetail with a false gospel and false Jesus. Here are some of these, in no particular order.
(a) Much of the preaching at EMC church is anaemic, unscriptural or worse, continual misinterpretation and manipulation of the Word of God and doctrine, in some cases passages plainly butchered and abused.
Instead of preaching faithfully through the Bible via exegesis and Biblical hermeneutics, most of the preaching consists of taking their experience, or the teachings of false teachers and their books, and preconceived ideas, and then conforming scripture to it, which is the dishonouring and heretical interpretation practice of eisegesis. Sermons reek of effeminacy, feel-good, uplifting have your best life now overtones, with story telling and nauseating positivism. In the process, they misinterpret, manipulate, misuse and abuse God’s Word. Along with that, lots of spiritualizing Scripture, which is unscriptural and always the mark of a false teacher (cf. 2 Tim. 2:15; 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16-17; 1 Jn. 2:20-21, 27). Overall the preaching is extremely shallow, vague, watered down, anemic and unscriptural.
A lot of Scripture is interpreted falsely, to fit a certain narrative and agenda. I don’t think there is even one preacher at EMC who preaches exegetically, and I don't think any would even know what it was even if it hit them right on the nose. Instead, we find consistent misinterpretation, misuse, abuse and twisting of Scripture, some of which may well be deliberate, while some in ignorance. Undoubtably, many “handl[e] the word of God deceitfully;” (2 Cor 4:2) and "corrupt the word of God" (2 Cor 2:17). In either case, it flows from the hearts of religious reprobates, who “resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.” (2 Tim 3:8).
Pick literally any of their sermons and this shall be very easily verified. They are all the same shallow, anemic, corrupted, watered-down, feel-good, non-edifying, non-exegetical messages.
EMC, and much of evangelicalism, seems to have an affinity and love affair with some very specific passages. Its a short list of a few repeatedly repeated passages. One can't but help notice (in EMC preaching and in The Messenger and other examples) that many teachings amongst neo-evangelicals seem to surround the same particular passages of Scripture, typically taken out of context as well, such as Matt. 25, the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5), doubting Thomas (Jn. 20) and turning swords into plowshares (Isa 2:4). It seems perhaps they have a very thin Bible (I do know factually the modern perversions are thinner than the KJV, but this really emaciates the Bible), or maybe much more accurately, this portrays a wilful diluting and rejection of Scripture. I would gander on the latter.
I will park on Matt 25 for a bit and pick on this passage under their abuse. Matt 25:33-46 is not an uncommonly used passage among EMCer’s, as seen in sermons and The Messenger publication and other means to promote their false social “gospel.” It seems almost as if Matt. 25 is the EMC gospel according to its frequent mention, and the context its used in. Because of their rejection of the doctrine of separation, which the Bible is loaded with, they compel their people to associate with false believers and false teachers and literally anyone for the sake of "loving my neighbour as myself" and "hospitality"and "getting involved with individuals lives." It seems impossible for them to use appropriate Scripture to communicate a point and not twist and bend and wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16), an “error of the wicked” which is a false teacher (2 Pet. 3:17). Hospitality and loving my neighbour is good, but it’s horrendous if it’s subsidizing damning doctrine or rejecting Biblical truth for some false idea of "love." Truth prevails over love. Love without truth isn't actually love. Its a counterfeit and placebo, truly a “love” of the world and self. Hospitality without truth causes harm. Truth trumps friendships and hospitality and my neighbour and children and everything else. Truth is the boundary of acceptance. This was the pattern set by Jesus and then followed by the Apostles.
Love itself by definition is walking according to the Lord's commandments (Jn. 14:15-24; 15:10; 2 Jn. 1:6). Only such can truly love the brethren (1 Jn. 5:2-3). Since EMC reverses the two greatest commandments, their love is false. Note 1 Jn. 5:2-3:
“By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.”
You don’t actually love people unless you first love God, and you don’t love God, unless you first obey Him. Thats the Biblical pattern, according to truth. John rejoiced that the children of the lady addressed in 2 John were walking in the truth. True love “rejoiceth in the truth” and "not in iniquity" (1 Cor. 13:6). Hospitality and loving my neighbour is important, but never at the expense of truth. Again, truth is the boundary of acceptance. What they are interpreting as “love” is not actually “love” according to Scripture.
EMC and their cronies speak much about "love," but are they actually loving Christ when they wrest and corrupt His Word? There are very few things that are as unloving to Jesus as corrupting, perverting and denying His Word, which is greater than His own Name (I Ch. 17:24; Ps. 138:2). Jesus Christ is love. I would say what they demonstrate is sentimentalism, not Biblical agape love. No one can be more loving than Jesus and they don’t follow His example. It's unloving to Him not to.
The application of Matt 25:33-46 isn't there according to what these passages mean and once again we see the typical manoeuvre of the neo-evangelical in conforming a passage of Scripture to his presupposed philosophies, and then being very vague in explanation. It’s called eisegesis and it’s not of God. Matt. 25 from start to finish is contrasting true believers with false, weighing it upon fruit—obedience to God’s Word. We see that in the first parable (vv. 1-13) where the foolish and unprepared virgins represent the lost whom the Lord knows not while the wise virgins are the saved, whom the Lord knows and welcomes to heaven at the rapture (vv. 11-12; cf. Matt. 7:21-23). The second parable likewise (vv. 14-30), where two that produce fruit are saved while the one that was fruitless is lost, that “unprofitable servant” whose end result is “cast . . . into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (v. 30). This parable specifically exemplifies the Jews during the Tribulation period (also the context here, prior-Matt. 24 and then after), and this continues into the end-of-Tribulation return of Christ to set up His kingdom, which starts with Judgment (vv. 31-46). There are three groups of people here: "sheep," "goats," and "my brethren." The Gentile nations will be judged by how they treated "[Christ’s] brethren” (v. 40) according to His Jewish genealogy, in the Tribulation period, which are the Jews. His “brethren” is ONLY referring to saved Jews, the nation of Israel in the seventieth week of Daniel while under terrible persecution by the Antichrist and his acolytes. Gentiles are being judged according to their behaviour towards the Jews, the “brethren” of Christ (Mic. 5:3), and since all true born again Gentiles would help their Jewish brethren in Christ (Jam. 1:27), their love for God is demonstrated in helping their Jewish brethren (1 Jn. 5:2-3) whom are being severely persecuted by the Antichrist, which is really no different than true born again believers today, love for fellow born again brethren is a major evidence of salvation (e.g. 1 Jn. 2:9-11; 3:10-16; 4:7-12, 16-21; 5:2; 1 Pet. 1:22). These didn’t become sheep by their behaviour but proved they were sheep by their behaviour. That is what is being meant when Scripture reads:
“Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me . . . And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” (vv. 34-36, 40).
Nowhere do I (or you, whosoever you are, if you’re truly saved) fit into this picture since we are not presently in the Great seven-year Tribulation (aka. the 70th week of Daniel, the time of Jacob’s trouble, etc), although some application can be made indeed to salvation in this age, for salvation has never changed and all true regenerated men will demonstrate love for brethren. Application could also hypothetically be made to vv. 31-46 in so far as living a godly life according to our profession, one of fruit and light and obedience to God’s Word, where we will help the naked, sick, and prisoners for the purpose of gospel preaching, but that is neither here or there because this passage is applied to Gentiles living in the Tribulation and lest you are a false believer (which according to the evidence you very well might be) and we are in the Tribulation right now (which we aren’t), then this passage does not apply to you today.
I find it ironic that they would reference this passage so frequently —were it applicable in our day, it would actually condemn EMC as "goats" (false believers) (Matt 25:33, 41-46). Not only do they not show love to Jews (setting their affections on false brethren and enemies of God), they condemn them and donate money to seriously anti-Semitic Jew-hating organizations such as Mennonite Central Committee (MCC), who continue the funnel process of handing off money or material or services to the enemies of God: the Moslems, who are rabid haters and enemies of Israel. Were this the end of the Great Tribulation, which path would God the Son send EMCer's down? Bear in mind, Matt 25 is clear that love or hatred for the Jewish people is a proof of your true spiritual heart condition; it doesn’t make you something, it simply proves who you really are. People do what they do because of who they are—their position in or out of Christ—they do not become someone by what they do. “For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he” (Pr. 23:7a). See also Is. 8:20. What you do is what you believe, everything else is just cottage cheese.
(b) Brief Overview of some of EMC's False Doctrines and Heresies.
EMC has progressively apostatized over doctrine, science (falsely so called), philosophy, theological liberalism, worldliness, theological speculation, ecclesiastical discipline, the adoption of culture, and more.
EMC accepts membership of many and widely varied doctrinal and practical positions. Thus doctrine itself is corrupted by dividing into “essentials” and “non-essentials,” as if there is anything non-essential in the Bible (its a means to justify doctrinal and practical error, to keep coalitions, to ignore error and differences). Read more about this heresy here.
Doctrine of separation is terribly despised and repudiated, whether it be separation from the world, from error, from sin, or from people and churches. When someone misrepresents or perverts separation, he also gets God, Scripture, the truth, the church, and even the gospel wrong. Every doctrine relates to separation.
Sanctification is severely corrupted into something where you may or may not grow, two-tiered Keswick-type theology, which is wholly unscriptural. Very, very rarely do you find preaching against sin or error.
False or fake unity which is a rejection of true unity of regenerate people adhering to sound doctrine (Rom 15:6; 1 Cor 1:10; Ac 2:42; Eph 4:1-16; Phil 1:27; 3:15-19). They emphasize “unity” over purity and truth. A plethora of different beliefs are accommodated within even just one church (never mind between the churches in this denomination), with many different “Bibles” endorsed but if that isn’t confusion and disunity, I’m not sure what would be. Divisions within the churches occur rather frequently and would even be more frequent if they didn't accommodate every heresy and sin. Thats how they keep the "peace" and "unity." But its treason to God's Word and reflective of unsaved charlatans.
Doctrine of preservation of scripture is rejected and found nowhere in their teaching or beliefs. Why not outright reject God's doctrine of inspiration then, since the two are inseparable?
Textual Criticism is embraced, with its offspring, the smorgasbord of modern Bible perversions.
“Kingdom-now” and “Word-Faith” heresy embraced, taught, and promoted.
Psychology, humanism and mental health comes out regularly in the preachings at EMC, and many of their sermons read like an infomercial for Psychology and Mental Health. Psychology is also heavily endorsed through heretical books read, promoted, carried in their library or even sold, books by psychologists (such as James Dobson [along with his organization Focus on the Family], Emerson Eggerichs, Larry Crabb, etc); by courses offered (e.g. Love & Respect, Five Love Languages, Two-gether Sex Conferences, other marriage conferences, conventions, etc); by conferences (e.g. Break Forth, Joanne Goodwin 2019 Hearts Renewed Conference [a Pentecostal, mental health drug pusher, female “pastor,” mocker of God -- endorsed and sponsored by women from EMC]); and by heretical courses and "counselling" programs offered and supported (such as Cantata, HOPE, Focus on the Family, etc).
Amillennialism, which is absolute heresy and always reflective of an unsaved false professor.
Allegorical interpretation of Scripture, which is corruption of God's Word and also a marker of unregeneracy.
And more, as must be covered under this point.
(c) EMC’s Glorification of Uncertainty, Relativism and Ambiguity of Scripture, for Fake Unity and Middle-of-the-Road Biblicism.
Whether EMC likes it or not, or whether they agree or not, they have surrendered to the uncertainty and ambiguity of the meaning of Scripture. They concede the perspicuity of God’s Word. At the root of this is a fundamental awareness of permissible doubt. They cannot assume that all truth can be known. They are saying that God hasn’t been plain and that we cannot sort things out. As much as they may say they love the truth, truth is actually the casualty of indifference and glorifying uncertainty.
In the world of the EMCer’s, the Words, the teachings, and the applications of Scripture are uncertain. God didn't give us a guess, but that is what evangelicals and and even fundamentalists want us to have. It aids the numbers, the coalitions, the ridiculous, silly methods, and man-centred, carnal practice and worship. They fall head over heels as prey to the venom of Satan,
“Yea, hath God said?" (Gen 3).
Their argument might go along the lines that smart Christian men have disagreed over doctrine for thousands of years. Major Premise: If smart men disagree over doctrine, the meaning of scripture is uncertain. Minor Premise: Smart men have disagreed over doctrine. Conclusion: The meaning of scripture is uncertain. Their major premise is false. Jesus said men would disagree over doctrine, because of false prophets and false teachers, so that is not evidence that meaning is uncertain, but rather than many false teachers exist. The evangelical--EMC--position is a faithless, humanistic position, but they’ll get a lot of people agreeing with them, because they have to have a consensus, so they must be right. They’ll know the truth by putting their finger in the air to tell them which way the wind is blowing.
This is typical in evangelicalism, because false, unregenerate heretics are “carried about with divers and strange doctrines” (Heb 13:9a), and “carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;” (Eph 4:14). They are suckers for the snake oil salesmen.
Uncertainty comes from opposition to certainty. When someone looks at certainty and doesn't like it, because he likes the conveniences of uncertainty, certainty hasn't caused that. He wants it his way. That's all. Its his carnal flesh that rebels against the certain, absoluteness, of truth. To say that uncertainty comes from certainty is itself rebellion. The root of uncertainty isn't that someone can't know. He can know. It isn't even that he doesn't know. He does know. It is that he won't know. Churches, like EMC, today allow for doubt, and even teach doubt. And they act like it is superior. Well, that's a farce. It's treating Spam like it's a filet mignon, mainly because of an investment in Hormel Foods.
This is noted in various facets of EMC. Music. Bible versions. Dress standards and appearance. Doctrine. Gospel. Theology. Marriage. Entertainment. Worldliness. Etc. These are not superior ways to do church and Christianity, but perversions of God's Truth and destructive broad path counterfeits that lead to unquenchable hell fire and horror.
They use uncertainty as an excuse because they foresee deniability in uncertainty. Uncertainty allows them to take a loose position or stand that conforms to the world. They won't have to suffer as much, because they'll fit in more. They'll get bigger because of that, because people don't want to suffer. They want to have their best life now, certainly not suffer the reproaches of Christ. They're looking for a convenient brand of Christianity that will kowtow to the culture. Uncertainty is part of the recipe of a larger coalition that will write a bigger paycheque and bring greater popularity. A system of celebrity in evangelicalism uses uncertainty.
Evangelicals, like EMC, and many in fundamentalism, are of the won't. They, which is all unregenerate people, actually know the truth and suppress it (Rom 1:18-23). Evangelicals and fundamentalists embrace an uncertainty of the Words of God, which is a major stop on their journey to apostasy. They won't believe God preserved them without error, even though God said He would. They embrace the doubt engendered by the "science" of textual criticism. I put science in quotes, because it isn't actual knowledge. It's only a theory. God's Word is truth. God said it, but men won't believe it. And since they won't be certain about His Words, who will be certain about what the Words mean? And if they won't know what they mean, how will they know how they apply? The root of uncertainty comes from men, including many, many professing Christians, who are unwilling, not unable, to be certain.
Some of the conflicting beliefs within the churches of this conference are mutually exclusive from one another. Conflicting beliefs could not be at the same time pleasing to God. Two irreconcilable doctrines could not both be congenial to the nature of God. To say so or to act as such is to suggest that God has no particular favour for either truth or error. And that does what to the character of God? Maybe some of these men would say they aren’t indifferent to the contrasting doctrine and practice, just that they are willing to overlook it for the sake of alliance and “peace” and “unity.” The alliance itself becomes sovereign. Unlike many of their comrades within evangelicalism and the reformed camp, EMC doesn’t even pow-wow around the value of the gospel, which isn’t surprising since the gospel is horribly corrupted, but their value of friendship surpasses the value of the differences in belief enough to merit indifference toward those conflicting doctrines and practices. That goes not only for the churches in the EMC but all other churches that identify as Mennonite or Evangelical.
Unity and fellowship, in contrast with what scripture says, have become more about toleration at EMC. Toleration of different beliefs (which is why they associate with practically any and all evangelical and Mennonite groups), toleration of differing degrees of worldliness and toleration of sin. EMC evangelicals don’t wish to be reduced to an insignificant number to the world, which will happen if one elevates all of Scripture to a basis of fellowship. The key then is to reduce doctrine to a manageable level, that will allow the conflicting factions to get along, whether it be factions within a single church, within the denomination or within an associating organization, college, church, or denomination.
The new heretic to these groups is the dogmatic one, someone who thinks he’s certain and confident on too many teachings. He endangers the harmony and cohesiveness and ruins the togetherness. Or in other words, he violates the most sacred tenet to the whole, getting along. Oh boy, I wonder what they must think about the true Jesus of the Bible, who was constantly creating strife, and conflict, purposefully, wherever He went. In the very first synagogue He preached at upon starting His ministry, the synagogue of Nazareth where He had spent a large part of His life, He preached about the most offensive thing He could preach, and their response (Lk 4:16-30)? Kill Him. In all probability, His own family members were in that blood-lust crowd. Jesus would purposefully enter into a synagogue on the sabbath to heal handicaps. The end product was blind rage and thirst by the professing Pharisaical believers to kill Him.
I guess Jesus just did’t know about EMC’s doctrine of togetherness, eh.
But its a false, unBiblical unity. The “togetherness” is fake and absurd. Its going to crumble, and its only a matter of time, as it already has. We see their children fall into the wickedness of the world and agnosticism, even atheism. They are reaping what they have sown, and boy have they ever sown to the flesh and carnal mind of uncertainty. What does Gal 6 declare? They will reap corruption. What does Rom 8 say of the carnal mind? It is subject to “the law of sin and death” (v. 1), for it “is death” (v. 6) and at “enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (v. 7), for it “cannot please God” (v. 8), and has “not the Spirit of Christ” because they are “none of his.” (v. 9). In other words, they are lost. Unsaved, Unregenerate. Dead in sin.
That is the condition and nature of essentially every single evangelical today, including at EMC, barring very, very few exceptions.
Pr 14:5 says,
“A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.”
Pr 12:17,
“He that speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false witness deceit.”
EMC leaders and preachers and promoters are false witnesses uttering lies, and shewing forth deceit. They purposefully manipulate, misrepresent, misuse and seriously abuse God’s Word in a disgraceful fashion, by corrupting and dishonestly handling the Word of God (2 Cor 4:2).
God never works in a way that circumvents the Bible. If the meaning of Scripture is mangled, is the Holy Spirit in it? Its a rhetorical question.
Scripture has only one meaning. There may be more than one application, but never more than one interpretation. Scripture is plain and perspicuous (meaning clearly expressed and understood—Pr 8:8-9), and all its words are important since we’re to live by its every word (Matt 4:4). Believers don’t look for some spiritualized/allegorized hidden symbolic meaning but understand truth is found through the literal interpreted, rightly divided, and diligently studied Bible alone. The doctrine of perspicuity is about absolute truth, and it, like all scriptural doctrine, is under great attack.
The world of “Evangelicalism” today is loaded to the brim with scoffers and scorners who walk after their own lusts and then throw out invectives like “legalist” and “Pharisee” and “proud, divisive” when someone actually does understand the meaning and application of Scripture and then strictly obeys what the Bible teaches. We do not have a linguistic excuse with ordinary meaning of the language of scripture. The invectives are used as blunt instruments, weaponized to protect a belief or lifestyle through castigation. People that do this, want to eliminate the objects of their scorn.
Doctrines are teachings. And they are either true or false. A true doctrine cannot be divisive in a harmful way; that characteristic is reserved for false teachings.
For the truly regenerated believer God’s Word is perspicuous, that is plain (Pr 8:8-9; 22:20-21), and he knows the truth and is taught the truth by the indwelling Spirit of truth (Jn 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 1 Jn 2:20-21, 27). God is One. His Word is One. The meaning is perspicuous. It's plain. Just like God the Son said in Pr 8:8-9,
“All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.”
Middle-of-the-Road Biblicism
As crazy as it may sound, that is actually by their own confession, and not a deduction or implication of their beliefs and practises, even though one could easily come up with that conclusion. In an article by Rebecca Roman, “EMC FAQ: Who is the Conference?” (The Messenger, July 2010, p. 4), she writes:
“Canadian church planting coordinator Ward Parkinson describes the EMC as multi-church (61 churches currently), multicultural (Hispanic, Dutch-German, English, Asian, and more), and multi-region (from northern B.C. to southern Ontario). Yet, just as there are differences, there are similarities as well.”
What are these similarities? Roman goes on to explain this, as she quotes Conference moderator Richard Klassen:
“As the Evangelical Mennonite Conference, we value “warm fellowship, a discerning middle-of-the road Biblicism, and congregational involvement in a Spirit-filled practical outworking of our faith” (ibid).
Standing in the middle-of-the-road is a very dangerous place to be. You can get run over from either direction. And that is what appears to have occurred at the EMC. Their middle-of-the-road “Biblicism” has led to relativism and tolerating ambiguity of Scripture and uncertainty, till the whole was leavened.
Apostasy is the byproduct of uncertainty, relativism and ambiguity of Scripture and since one can't turn an actual truly saved person apostate, this attack on faith relates to people not getting a genuine faith. It produces stony, thorny, and then hard ground. However, it very easily gives people a replacement, impostor faith, which is why you have churches loaded with unsaved people. Many, many think they’re saved, think they are okay, but they’re not. And the trek, the map toward apostasy, lists three major stops in the following order, I believe: (1) Not Understanding What the Words of God Are, (2) Not Understanding What the Words of God Mean, and (3) Not Understanding How the Words of God Apply. You can read about the apostates journey in the following report: Three Main Stops on the Road to Apostasy.
In the next section, "3. EMC’s Teaching is Mostly Unsound, Ear-Tickling Fables, With (More) Examples," the first point covers a particular example of this at the EMC: "Glorifying unbelief and doubting — why so much unbelief and ungodliness in the EMC particularly, and evangelicalism in general."
(d) Textual Criticism and Modern Bible Perversionism is Embraced at EMC.
Modern Bible perversions galore. The NIV, ESV, NLT, MSG, NASB, etc, name it and claim it, nearly every perversion known to man in the smorgasbord of English perversions, but alas, no King James Version (KJV), the only actual true Bible found in the English language, which we know for many critically important reasons elaborated in this report: Why Modern Bible Versions are Corrupt, and the King James Version is Not. One can find a version that will teach just about anything they want to believe and a “church” that practices it. EMC blindly accepts anything and everything that comes down the pike except the KJV, except the only true version of God's Word in English. The KJV is the only translation translated from the true Greek Text that God inspired (TR, or the Received Text) utilizing the God-honouring translation methodology of word-for-word, not dynamic equivalency, unlike many of the modern English perversions, which are established upon the theories of men who were utter heretics and apostates who did not believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture, or that God has preserved His inerrant and infallible Word. In my estimation, this ungodly and heretical unbelief likely lives in some of the leadership and members of EMC.
Modern perversions of Scripture are the offspring of Textual Criticism. Textual Criticism's mother is the Critical Text. The Critical Text (aka., Westcott & Hort, or Nestle-Aland) is excessively corrupt and blasphemous, yet embraced, while the true Received Text which God inspired and preserved, rejected. Unreal. But very tell-tale. The true Bible is conspicuously absent at EMC, but that is not shocking.
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Rom 3:18).
Instead of accepting the Text which had been handed down from generation to generation by God’s people (thus called the “Received Text,” Greek Textus Receptus), the textual scholars are trying to “rediscover” the original text through a process of textual criticism which they adopted from the unbelieving and ungodly world.
Allegiance is not to the Word of God but to their flesh, feelings, emotions, and opinions. Every last one of these English perversions of God’s Word omits from God’s Word, adds to God’s Word and changes God’s Word, and is consequently filled with false doctrine, and none is based upon God’s inspired and preserved word of the NT, the Greek Textus Receptus and the OT, Hebrew Masoretic Text, including the NKJV and the ESV, and all other English modern perversions.
The vast majority of KJV-only advocates I have met have a reason for their position because they have personally studied the issue out and are unlike many modern version advocates who reject the KJV simply out of fear or peer pressure or wilful blindness or an unsaved nature.
It is no surprise that there is so much confusion, division, diverse doctrines, and heresies within the EMC denomination and neo-evangelicalism in general.
If EMC has any true wisdom about them, they would give very careful heed to Rev. 22:18-19,
“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”
(e) The Messenger (monthly EMC Publication) is loaded and flooded with so much error, heresy and false teachings, critiquing one monthly copy in depth on its own would be a lengthy process and thesis.
According to GAMEO,
"[The Messenger's] purpose has been to inform readers about what is going on in the conference, to instruct in godliness and victorious living, and inspire readers to contend earnestly for the faith."
I went from a state of shock to chuckling when I read this. Is it satire? I reckon not. I have gone through a lot of Messenger newsletter and not once have I ever come across instruction in "godliness," or "victorious living," or inspiration "to contend earnestly for the faith."
Quite the contrary, with massive amounts of promotion of apostates and wolves in sheep’s clothing (incl. Catholics). There is instruction in ungodliness and worldly living and nothing about actual, true, Biblical contending for the faith. It is bad and nauseating, of the face-in-palm kind. Needless to say, all this stems from the false gospel and salvation embraced and taught, which then produces counterfeit pretenders of the faith (of the Matt. 7:21-23; Jn. 2:23-25; I Jn. 2:19; Ac. 8:13-24; type), which then leads to churches full of heretics and wolves, and of course plenty of false doctrine and false practices accepted and embraced. But it starts with the gospel because salvation is the foundation of truth and its propagation in the local church.
The Messenger also advocates, teaches and promotes contemplative mysticism and its teachers (illustrated further below in a specific point on it).
(f) Adaptive to the Spirit of the Age, Having Women in Roles that are Designated for Men Only.
The unscriptural and worldly practice of female “leaders” and “pastors” and woman speaking in church occurs at EMC. That includes woman reading the Bible from the pulpit, attempting to expound what they read, and teaching Sunday school or Bible study sessions. Before the Rock Band performs its fleshly and charismatic praise and worship jam session, the woman leading the band gives a Bible lesson on some subject related to the unBiblical and doctrinally unsound song they are about to jam and ritualize. So woman are increasingly involved and even lead supportive "ministries" such as psychoheresy “counselling.”
And naturally, some of the EMC churches even have female "pastors." "Naturally" because all the other prerogatives of female authority are already present, with gradual involvement in various programs and ministries which only inevitably leads to filling the pastoral office as we see in so many apostate churches today. By my count a few years ago, at least three EMC congregations had females on their pastoral staff. This means every single church in the denomination is in agreement with it, whether they have female "pastors" or not.
The agreement amongst the EMC churches today flows from the head honcho and bishop of the denomination, his highness David Thiessen, the EMC conference pastor who is quoted in the following article by Paul Schrag, an extreme ecumenical and compromised heretic in his own right:
“In the Evangelical Mennonite Conference (EMC), a Canadian group with about 7,100 members in 52 churches, the constitution says only men can be ordained. That hasn’t stopped a few congregations from hiring female pastors. Others in the conference don’t seem to object to this, even if they wouldn’t hire a woman themselves, said David Thiessen, conference pastor at the EMC office in Steinbach, Man. “Officially we take a conservative stance, but in practice women have been well received as leaders in churches where they are called, and informally recognized in the conference,” he said. “Things are slowly changing, without causing ripples or division. We work hard at remaining united in spite of these differences.” Three or four EMC congregations have a woman on the pastoral staff. None currently has a female lead pastor. “Personally, I’m very open to women in leadership and hope that will continue to develop,” Thiessen said. “I don’t know what direction we will go, ultimately.” (Mennonite conferences differ on women in the pulpit, source).
Obviously very heretical but also very telling coming from the Conference pastor at the time, which was stated during a time of discussion over female leadership that took place at the EMC Convention 2017 (The Messenger, July 2017, p. 24). Women are NOT "called" to leadership! Everything he says is unBiblical. These discussion were unscriptural and pertinent to exactly what I am warning of here: many false pretenders at EMC and false teachers. If a church can’t obey such simple commands as no-females allowed in any position of leadership or authority over a man (1 Tim. 2; 1 Cor. 12), they expose themselves as rebels to Gods Word and His authority, with a very serious spiritual problem. This is NO minor issue. Obedience is a MAJOR evidence of salvation (e.g. Jn 14:15-24; 1 Jn. 2:3-5), which when absent and rebellious towards, reveals an unsaved and deceived spiritual nature.
Further in line with the spirit of the age, they include the woman in the job title of the pastor (I.e. “pastoral couple”). That’s both false and cowardice, appeasing rebellious woman by accommodating them into a position they have no Biblical part of. Man is the pastor. The wife is not. No place in Scripture teaches this pure rubbish, Neo-evangelical, unbiblical philosophy, or gives any allowance for it. Of course women have responsibility in the church, but this is not one of them, and that which happens to actually-truly-be her responsibility, in accordance to Scripture, they completely neglect to teach in the church and in all possibility reject (e.g. Ti. 2:4-5). But it all makes sense considering that women are in fact in leadership roles in multiple EMC churches and all of them allow women to read the Scriptures from the pulpit, which is teaching men (its no different — but it is a “soft” bridge to the greater role). In many of the homes, women run the show, which is sad and tell-tale to the cowardice spineless men we see everywhere today. It’s completely Biblically wrong, and it reflects the apostasy present in neo-evangelical denominations such as EMC.
1 Tim. 2:11-12 declares,
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
And, 1 Cor 14:33-35,
“For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”
It can't get much clearer than that. Silence! And not the "silence" of the contemplative mystical heretic either. That means she is to keep her mouth closed in church when it comes to anything to do with teaching and preaching and leading, and we know that these passages are referring to those specific parameters because of what the context teaches and other scripture (Ti 2: 1 Tim 3; etc). Paul says it is the commandment of the Lord:
“If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” (1 Cor 14:37).
This also means the EMC is wilfully and woefully disobeying God's Word and rebelliously sinning against God. Not ignorantly, as some are according to what Paul says right here: “But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.” (1 Cor 14:38). Ignorance is not a fallacy card that EMC can play, since their Mennonite heritage on its own teaches them male leadership in all arenas of life.
Historically, when did this heresy of woman playing active roles in church begin? Keswick-type heretics can be thanked for a lot it, especially the unregenerate and demon-possessed Evan Roberts and the apostate Charles Finney before him. Throughout the 19th century (and prior to that), women were banned from any public role in church life, but after Roberts hijacked the Welsh revival, woman “were set free to pray and praise openly,” because of Robert’s misinterpretation of Joel 2:29 (“An Instrument of Revival,” Brynmor Pierce Jones; pp. 37-38, cf. p. 43). At times he would have church services run by the women who helped him (Ibid., p. 80). His practice of having little children likewise direct in prayer, song, and testimony (Ibid., cf. p. 79,) has not been as widely adopted. The New Measures propagated by the apostate Charles Finney who came before Roberts, also included women leading mixed congregations in prayer.
A woman has NO business being in a position of pastor, or any position teaching men or usurping authority over a man. Anyone that knows anything about the Bible knows this. It unsexes both the woman who usurps this authority and the men who submit to it. So what’s the problem today in “evangelicalism”? Unregeneracy. They are rebels against authority: against God and men. If they were truly converted to Christ they would be walking in obedience to God’s Word and would assuredly know this truth and obey it (cf. 1 Jn 2:3-5; Jn 14:15-24; Jn 8:12, 31-32). Obedience in all things is the litmus test, and for women this right here is a huge area. Women, and men who submit to this disobedience, are in open rebellion against Christ the King, Whom they know not, and in high treason against His sovereignty, His nature and His grace. They should come to grips with this, which is a prerequisite to self-denial, repentance and true conversion, so that they might be saved.
Additionally, teaching that “woman are made in the image of God” (written frequently in The Messenger publication) is a falsehood. Men are made in the image of God. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he HIM…” (Gen. 1:27; cf. 2:7, 21-23). It’s “him” not “them” that God created in His own image, and that is not a woke pronoun. I think God would know what He was doing when this happened and also what He wrote. This egregious belief flows into other unscriptural non-complementarianism errors. God is not effeminate, as neo-evangelicals try today to make Him to be, women attempting to run the home and overtaking the roles and responsibilities of the man, and not submitting themselves to their husbands as unto the Lord (Eph 5; Col 3). God is not feminine, but masculine, hence also the gender distinctive clothing standards (De 22:4) which they also reject. That is an abomination, both the male leadership rejection and the woman wearing men's garments. A woman is not made so much in the image of God, but in the image of man (she was made out of the man) and as a “help meet” to man (Gen. 2:18, 21-23). So the Scripture says:
"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man." (1 Cor. 11:7).
We read in this same chapter that women’s hair is given to her for a covering (1 Cor. 11:15), if she keeps it long (the Greek “kamao” translated as “long” hair, means long tresses of hair at least half way down the back; this is the understanding of “kamao”). In this we again see the woman of EMC (and neo-evangelicals in general) wilfully and rebelliously sinning against God, many keeping their hair short like a man, showing themselves to be rebels against the authority God has placed in their lives (its a reflection of their rejection of submission to their headship, their husband, as 1 Cor 11 points out) and most importantly rebels against God, which indicates a lost and unregenerate nature, regardless of lip service to their so-called “love” which happens to run contrary to 1 Cor. 13. They don't love the truth and they definitely don't love God when they hate His commands and rebel against it (cf. Jn 14:23-24; 1 Jn 2:3-5; 5:3). Such a woman proves herself in rapid fashion to be a false pretender, since she can’t even obey such a simple and directed instruction from the God Whom she allegedly claims to be her Master and Lord. She is a liar. She has neither “godliness” or “good works” (1 Tim. 2:11) and sadly, and disgracefully, majority of their husbands are accomplices in this crime against God’s authority (1 Cor 11).
Is it any surprise or amazement that many of their children turn out as anti-God, haters of righteousness, woke, lefty liberals (even worse than what is happening currently in the EMC), and a number even turn to homosexuality?
No, it is no surprise because hypocrisy is the perfect breeding ground to producing such wickedness, and all unsaved false professors are hypocrites. This is EMC, almost entirely or completely. What makes it even worse is when you have rebellious wives in this environment, who loves to control their environment. The offspring will typically turn out evil. There is cause for God the Son's scathing rebuke of hypocrites/false pretenders in Matt 23, since there is simply nothing more evil in this world. Such hypocrites will have it worse in hell than the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt 11:20-24)
Obedience to God’s Word and commandments is an absolute major evidence of salvation (1 Tim. 2:11-15; Ti. 2:3-5; cf. Jn. 14:15-25; 1 Jn. 2:3-5; Rev. 22:14-15). Anyone can profess to be a “Christian” but only those who demonstrate the evidence of salvation are actually truly converted (1 John for example is full of such evidence). True conversion actually produces substance. Men are the head of the home, the rulers over the wives (“he shall rule over thee” — the wife, Gen. 3:16; cf. 1 Tim. 2:10-15; 1 Cor. 11:3-7) hence why woman are to “learn in silence with all subjection . . . nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (1 Tim. 2:11-12), and to be “obedient to their own husbands,” (Ti. 2:5), but today we see woman running the home of the average "evangelical" (and church as well, even if the men are supposedly in “control”), with the men scared of their own shadows and not man-enough to enforce Biblical standards (and brainwashed enough to deny the necessity), all of which runs in stark contrast to what God's Word commands:
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (1 Cor. 11:3; cf. 1 Tim. 2:11-12, quoted above).
The man is the leader of the home over everything (Eph. 5:22-24; Gen. 3:16; 1 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:9-15) for “he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” (1 Cor. 11:7). The wife doesn’t wear the pants, she wears the dress (De. 22:5; 1 Tim. 2:10). Period.
She is to be submissive and in subjection to her husband. But she wants to be transgender because she actually hates authority — the length of hair, the type of clothing and the power hunger are all clear proofs of that, dovetailing to absolute proof of her lost and rebellious stand before God.
Keeping-the-“peace” husbands will one day have much to answer for. And what these weak, spineless, cowardice and almost entirely unregenerate men utterly fail to understand is that in giving in to their wives demands, to acquiesce to their denial of subjection and obedience and embracement of worldly and fleshly lusts, they are only reflecting their own compromised, and unregenerate estate, and the sad truth that those women will never and can never be saved in such a cowardly, compromised and pathetic environment. Its no surprise that its women behind pushing for "Bible" studies and church courses on heretical and ungodly neo-evangelical books that are loaded with heresy and lies and corruption, all in effort to feminize and de-masculine their husbands and continue running the show, as if taken out of a literal/lefty play book. What destructive books am I referring to? Love & Respect, Five Love Languages, Love Wins by the ungodly Calvinist/Charismatic/heretic Francis Chan and more.
The men in this denomination come across as very concerned and caring about how women are treated, yet NO concern at all with what God thinks about the sinful, dishonouring and unBiblical practice of women speaking in church, teaching men, or leading men (1 Tim 2:11-14; 1 Cor 14:34-35), or with women wearing garments pertaining to the man, knowing full well that this is an abomination to God (De 22:5), or women wearing her hair short, like a man, knowing that this is a shame, i.e. disgrace, for a woman, so that she should be shorn and shamed (1 Cor 11:5-15). All of these things are against God, and are an abomination to God and bring the cursing of God. The behaviour also reflects rebellion, disobedience and unsaved hypocrites (Ps 119:127-128; Rom 12:9; Lk 6:43-39) that love the world and self, but not God (Jn 14:15-24; 1 Jn 2:3-5). They “love” their wives and daughters more than God (while true salvation produces the very opposite— Lk 14:25-26; Matt 10:32-39, while love of God is only exhibited by obedience to His Word— Jn 14:23-24; 1 Jn 2:3-5). Instead of defending the truth and standing for the Lord Jesus Christ, they cave like a house of cards, fold like a cheap suit, backtrack like cowardly politicians who can’t take a political punch. They have,
“changed the truth of God into a lie, and worship and serve the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” (Rom 1:25)
A passage that reflects so well these people is Lk 6:46,
"And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?"
Consequently, their lives are NOT built on the rock of Jesus Christ, but on sand:
"Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like: He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock. But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great." (Lk 6:47-49)
Every last one of them should give careful heed to what the Lord Jesus Christ says is required for salvation, and the godly behaviour true conversion produces:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." (Matt 10:34-39)
Biblical truths such as these, and other similar ones in Scripture, put the average neo-evangelical woman into a mad rage and hysterical fit reminiscent to Herodias the illegitimate “wife” of king Herod, and most of their men into a cowardice tail spin, desperately hunting for excuses to approve of their sinful behaviour and cowardly conduct and to appease their conscience. Disgraceful. But revealing...
What Biblical truth is that again? God’s truth over modest dress standards for females (De. 22:5), God’s truth over hair length for woman (1 Cor. 11:1-15). God’s truth over woman being silent in church and under the rule of her husband (1 Cor. 14:33-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-14). God’s truth over one marriage for life (Heb. 13:4; cf. Pr. 6:32; 1 Cor. 6:9–10, 15-20; Gen. 2:24; Mal. 2:13-17). God’s truth over the woman submitting to her husband and obeying him in everything (Eph. 5:22-24). These things are under attack like never before, with so-called female professing believers hating these truths, which only further cements in their unsaved estate and feigned faith, shedding light on their spite for God and rebellion against His authority (cf. Lk. 13:23-30; 10:25-28; De. 30:6; Rom. 5:5). A professing woman who refuses to obey such simple but profound truths as these, ones that are very specific to the female gender, and ones that are very reflective of true fruit in the female saint, is very clearly unregenerate (cf. 1 Tim. 2:9-15; 1 Pet. 3:1-6; cf. Jn. 8:11-12, 31-32; 10:3-4, 27; 14:15-24; 1 Jn. 2:3-6; Ti. 2:11-14; etc).
This point alone reflects the awful apostasy of EMC and the repeated fact that vast majority of people at EMC are truly unconverted.
(g) False ecclesiology at EMC.
The false universal, platonic church. EMC is a denomination and believes in a platonic, universal and mystical church. Neither are biblical. To use the term “church” for a movement or for a denomination is unscriptural. The church that is called the pillar and ground of the truth in 1 Tim 3 is, in context, the church that has only pastors and deacons and is autonomous, non-denominational. The NT is very precise in its use of the term “church.” When it is used for a group of churches in a region, such as Judea, Macedonia, Galatia, or Asia, the Bible uses the term in plural (e.g., Ac 9:31; 1 Cor 16:1, 19; 2 Cor 8:1; Gal 1:2, 22; Rev 1:4). The Bible speaks of the churches of Galatia but never the church of Galatia. When the Bible says that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, it means that the local NT church is the headquarters for gospel preaching and Christian discipleship; the divinely-instituted Bible training center; the ordaining and sending agency for world missions; and the God-ordained institution for the preservation of Scripture. Nowhere in scripture does one find even the idea of a denomination. It is a myth and purely a man-made idea.
The denominational church. The apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ planted autonomous congregations and never once built denominational structures yoking congregations together. The NT gives detailed instructions for the government and discipline of the assembly, but never provides instructions for the establishment of denominations, or intra- or extra-church institutions. Denominational structures are man-made entities that have no biblical authority. There is simply no Biblical authority for man to form such associations. The only example in Scripture is local, autonomous churches which runs contrary to denominations such as EMC. The only proper leaders for a NT church are the pastors, also referred to as “elders” (Ti. 1:5) and “bishops” (Ti. 1:7) in the NT. A church is not to be run by a deacon board, or trustees, or a denominational hierarchy. The true scriptural NT church, which is “the house of God . . . the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) must be unaffiliated with any denominational structure or parachurch groups. These are man-made entities that have no Biblical authority, and yet have a large impact on church-ordained ministries in a variety of ways, but not Biblically. One of these is missions, and evangelical churches are not training grounds for missionaries nor are church-planting minded. They use lingual such as “missional” but this has a vastly different meaning than the missions presented in Scripture. "Missional" trips for the evangelical is an adventurous vacation. Thats it. For the very most part, evangelical churches today come out of protestant reformation churches, of which they have never had a missionary vision or a missionary spirit, and for almost two hundred years after the reformation, felt no burden to implement the Great Commission. On the other hand, independent Baptist churches are very missionary-minded and missionary driven, which starts with daily soul-winning and actively spreading the gospel in your own area (through supporting and sending missionaries, church planting, Bible printing and distribution, soul-winning, street preaching, etc.). They send out missionaries and support missionaries directly, have a personal involvement with and knowledge of the ministries they support and pray specifically for individual missionaries, plus the church members regularly meet “real live” missionaries as they pass through on furlough or deputation. This is something largely absent from denominations, and the EMC denomination is no exception. Gospel preaching door-to-door, and true missionary-orientated practice according to Scripture are unheard of at the EMC. The EMC has a centralized denominational "missionary" program, which does not lend itself to any of these things. Based on articles and events, the focus is NOT on the Great Commission, but more on “social-justice” programs and “community” and “culture” and “kingdom-building,” all emerging church hog-wash of the spiritual reprobate.
The Messenger (July 2010) page 4, in an article on “Who is the Conference?,” Rebecca Romans unscripturally and unsuccessfully attempts to endorse denominations with the following statement:
“One Christian alone is not as strong as a church of Christians; one church alone is not as strong as a Conference of churches.”
Nowhere is such a statement or principle ever found in scripture, which makes her, and EMC, a liar. It is counting the numbers, which was dealt with in what fashion concerning king David? The concept of power in numbers has always been an element of false religion trusting in man, and not in God. I have the suspicious feeling EMC leadership would have been on the side of the 400 false priests of Baal rather than the 1 lonely Eliajh.
"Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD. For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited." (Jer 17:5-6)
Only true and faithful congregations, sending out their own missionaries (Ac 13) without the entanglement of non-biblical denominational structures, para-church mission boards, and all other trappings devoid of authority from the Head of the church can expect to see their labour not be in vain in the long term— such can rejoice in the hope that, by the grace of their Redeemer and His special presence with them and by His empowerment of them, a harvest of souls and new self-supporting, indigenous churches can be planted and continue to multiply until the Lord comes.
The unregeneracy, compromise and neo-evangelicalism present in the EMC denomination church structure is revealed through completed surveys and polls. According to a survey done by EMC of their conference, and published on Sept 17, 2010, 8% of churches within the EMC denomination allow for open membership, which means whoever attends a church is seen as a member. According to another survey published Jan 26, 2011, 21% said, "it should be self-initiated." On their website, the question was asked:
“Of common church service elements that allow for congregational participation, what is most meaningful to you?”
The results were:
“Singing 50%; Prayer 4%; Scripture reading 13%; Testimonies/sharing time 33%”
Wow. This speaks volumes. No surprise either! Of course God’s Word and prayer are least liked by a long shot and ungodly music is liked the most by far, for lost people do not have godly and righteous desires, but are led and fed by their flesh, hence the carnal attractions found in the church. They walk and live in the flesh, a proclamation of their lost condition. Saved people walk in the Spirit always and love the things of God and doing His Will and obeying His Word, but far be it from the false pretending professor.
Sadly no one at EMC seems to have enough discernment to understand what these numbers truly represent.
Unscriptural church structure. Denominational popery, i.e. overseeing bishop, what EMC has, is apostasy. None of these churches are autonomous. They must fit in and agree with the dogma of the hierarchical leadership and denomination, or find themselves treading the waters in a lifeboat. Dissension brings trouble. Deacon and elder boards are unscriptural, as is how pastors are chosen in some instances. EMC churches have boards that are equal in authority to and even above that of the pastor. It has the ability to fire a pastor. No where do we find that in Scripture. A true pastor, ordained by God, either needs to step down if God so leads or removed if he no longer is qualified for the position (i.e. sinful family problems, not “ruling their children and their own houses well”, adultery, divorce, false teachings, worldliness, etc). But outside of that there is no scriptural support for voting in or out of pastors.
Every local independent church (non-denominational) must be ruled by the pastor (1 & 2 Tim; Ti. 1-2; Ac. 20) and the pastor must be qualified according to the specific qualifications set forth in 1 Tim. 3 and Ti 1. What happens when the pastor loses his Biblical qualifications? Does he stay in the pulpit? How many pastors are disqualified from ministry, “ministering” in opposition to Scripture at EMC? A minister of God according to the NT is to be “blameless” and “not given to filthy lucre” (some corrupt business practices), “not given to wine” but “sober” (some drink alcoholic wine), “just” and “holy” (most are unsaved, in practice unjust, unholy), “Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught . . . by sound doctrine” [taught by Holy Spirit: Pr 22:21; 1 Jn 2:27] (yet EMC leaders teaching false doctrine), “faithful children” (many do not).
Church ordinances are corrupted. A true church recognizes and stands fast upon only two “ordinances” (1 Cor 11:2): the immersion (baptism) of believers upon profession of their repentant faith in Christ (Ac 8:36-38; Matt 3:8) and the Lord’s Supper by closed communion of unleavened juice and bread (1 Cor 11). Foot washing is not a church ordinance. EMC corrupts both church ordinances, and adds foot washing as a third.
Concerning Communion, most EMC churches practice communion openly which is unscriptural; some even blasphemously with alcohol! Though there may be some controversy over the correct practice of communion, whether Closed, Close or Open, the Bible isn’t confused over the matter at all. Open communion, fair game for anyone, is clearly unscriptural, though its the most popular, especially among evangelicals, including at EMC. I would say this though; this despicable open practice of communion played a small part in my conversion, though I did not partake, nor does it justify the error. Nor did it occur at an EMC church. I, as an unsaved false professing Christian, was revolted and disgusted by the offer. Closed communion is where the ordinance is restricted to the members of the particular assembly only, and this is the only Biblical correct practice.
The Scriptures clearly teach that the Lord’s Supper must be Closed, not Close or Open. The arguments for closed communion are very strong. 1 Cor 10-11 identifies the Supper as the “communion of the body of Christ” (1 Cor 10:16), and the body of Christ is the local, visible assembly (1 Cor 12:27) to which one is added by baptism (1 Cor 12:13). Since the church is a local, visible assembly (the only type of church found in Scripture—there is no such thing as a universal “church”), the ordinance is naturally understood as pertaining to each assembly and its members alone. The ordinance is certainly not embraced by all the church’s of the world put together in some universal monstrosity of invisible “church.” To keep reading about the Biblical practice of the Lord's Supper, please see here: The Local Church Ordinance of the Lord’s Table.
Baptisms are not conducted in a scriptural manner at EMC. “Baptism” by either “pouring” or “sprinkling” are faux “baptisms,” yet this is how its administered in many of these settings. It was only in 1973 that the EMC added a resolution to allow churches to practice baptism by immersion. Wow! They finally allowed the only Biblical form of baptism! The “older established churches” have apparently not changed this practice, no they “continue to baptize by pouring”; its only “a few of the newer churches are also baptizing by immersion” (GAMEO). Not only is false baptism accepted but so is division and difference in important doctrine. In Scripture there is only one mode, one meaning and one example; all other modes utterly corrupt the salvation picture it represents. A “baptism” personally attended at EMC turned out to not only be an exercise of disobedience and rebellion to Scripture, but also a disgraceful clown show.
There is only one mode of baptism taught and practiced in the Bible and that is immersion. We know this for the following reasons: (1) the word baptism derived from “baptizo” means “to dip; to submerge; to immerse” (Strong’s, Webster’s) and baptism is called “buried” in Rom. 6:4 and Col. 2:12; (2) all baptisms in the N.T. required “much water” (Jn. 3:23) and required the participant to go “into the water” and “come up out of the water” (Ac. 8:38-39; Matt. 3:6) (neither sprinkling or pouring requires “much water” nor requires going "into the water" or "out of the water"); (3) the Lord Jesus Christ was baptized by immersion (Mk. 1:9-11; Matt. 3:13-17) and so was the Eunuch (Ac. 8:35-36), and John the Baptist baptized with much water (Jn. 3:23); (4) immersion is the only mode that accurately portrays the picture or “figure” (I Pet. 3:21) of the gospel (death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ) and thus salvation (the death and burial of the old man and the resurrection of the new man to eternal life – Rom. 6:3-6; Col. 2:12). Both pouring and sprinkling modes corrupt the proper symbolism of the ordinance. The Bible has spoken and is clear; to be scripturally baptized, one has to be immersed. God commands baptism and Biblical baptism can only be by immersion (Matt. 28:19-20; Ac. 8:35-39)! There is no N.T. support for the practice of either sprinkling or pouring. In Acts 19:1-7 we find some men who were baptized incorrectly (without understanding) being re-baptized. They acted in obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ and His Word. The Spirit of God showed His approval by coming upon them. Click here to read 20/20's Treatise on Believer’s Water Baptism.
Altogether its a monstrous mess of false “baptisms” and “baptisms” post-pseudo professions, with many unsaved who fearfully partake of communion unworthily (1 Cor 11:26-29), which makes them “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (v 27) and certain “damnation” (v 29).
No ecclesiastical discipline. Church discipline is unheard of, non-existent, openly disregarding scripture (Matt 18:15-17). To this pampered, self-esteem mad generation of neo-evangelicals, church discipline might sound harsh and cruel to their itching ears, but true discipline is neither. True Biblically exercised Church discipline is a matter of love — love for God, love for holiness, love for the truth, love for Christ’s testimony in the church, love for the brethren, and love for the unsaved who are observing the church’s testimony and who might stumble and be offended and therefore not get saved if sin is not disciplined.
Female church leaders/pastors or teachers of men. Scripture is crystal clear that women are to hold NO authority over a man, keep silent in church, including not reading Scripture (1 Tim 2:11-14; 1 Cor 14:33-35). I cover this subject in further detail above under point "(e)". We also have a specific report here at 20/20 on whether Women Should Ever Hold Authority Over Men? worth reading.
(h) Embracing the “Fatherhood of God” Heresy.
God is a Father indeed, but not to the lost. Unsaved people cannot adopt the Fatherhood of God. He is a Father to only those redeemed through the death and blood of His Son (Rom. 8:14-15), truly redeemed that is, and we do not conform to the Father but to the Son (Rom. 8:28-29) and first to His death at salvation (Phil. 3:3-10; Rom. 6:1-6). Those that aren’t dead to sin, are dead in their sins (Rom. 6; Eph. 2). Yes, God absolutely loves children, the Bible makes that abundantly clear (e.g. Matt. 18:1-6; 19:13-15; Mk. 10:13-16), but children are not above truth. And children need to be converted just like anyone else. We are not children of God because we have been created by God, but only through the new birth. A child born into this world is not a child of God. He or she will become a child of God at salvation (cf. Jn. 1:12-13; Gal. 3:19-26). That doesn't change Gods love for little children, or His just decree were they to die before they reach an age of accountability (as I understand the teaching in Scripture), but it doesn't make them “saved” in the same sense as being born again and it doesn't mean God is their Father in the same sense either. Yes they would enter the kingdom of heaven, but its not through the new birth but through the just nature of God. There is also a vast difference between the children of parents where at least one is saved and those of non-saved parents (1 Cor. 7:14b).
God has a different perspective on children than EMC. God slew every single first born child of the Egyptians (Ex. 11:5-6; 12:29-30) while sparing the children of the Israelites (Ex. 11:7). No, God hasn't changed. Fast forward to the birth of God the Son, which brought about the wrath of king Herod and resulted in what? Yes, every child of the age of two and under being murdered in Bethlehem and surrounding area. God didn't stop it, and it came about because of the birth of His Son (Matt. 2:16-18), and God of course knew this would happen, even being prophesied by Jeremiah. Do tell, how did God deal with the children that mocked Elisha because of his bald head (2 Ki. 2:23-24)? First of all, Elisha “cursed them in the name of the LORD,” and then God sent two she bears who tore forty two of the children to shreds. It wasn’t pretty. God has never changed. We don’t serve a different God today, another wicked and ungodly narrative of neo-evangelicals, who twist and conform God to the pitiful carnal imagination of theirs. The Triune God of the NT is the identical same Triune God of the OT, and that just tightens the sphincters of the heretical "evangelicals" of our day, who consistently blaspheme God's name through their vain use of His name. God has never changed (Heb. 1:12), nor will He ever change. “The Word of the Lord” and the “God of Israel” (also known by many other names in the OT, such as “the Rock” and “Captain of hosts,” and “Son of God,” etc) seen everywhere in the OT is the Lord Jesus Christ, the OT is His inspired Word and our example and the foundation of our faith, and “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” (Heb. 13:8). He is God. Salvation and the gospel is also identical throughout all ages.
God hasn't changed, but the divided “God” of evangelical denominations like EMC serve is a different “God” than the one found in Scripture. It’s a playdough god, one that you can bend and twist and conform as you please. Its the universal Father, which is a false pagan doctrine that happens to be popular among neo-evangelicals, emerging churchers and new agers, propagated by the likes of apostates such as Norman Vincent Peale, Rick Warren, and Billy Graham, all loved and revered by EMC. Did they learn this "fatherhood of God" heresy through these men or maybe through John Eldredge, whose writings are also popular at EMC? Eldredge, co-founder of Ransomed Heart ministries and author of The Sacred Romance and Wild at Heart, is a dangerous spiritual guide and utter heretic. He promotes psycho-babble, spending a lot of time talking about “father wounds” and the "Fatherhood of God." Some of his mentors include self-esteemism psychologist and heretic extradordinare Larry Crabb, and Focus on the Family, for whom he worked ten years. Eldredge contends that if attending church or reading the Bible becomes a burden, these practices can be dropped. “You might even need to give up going to church for a while or reading your Bible” (Eldredge, The Journey of Desire). He claims that the year he stopped attending church was “one of the most refreshing years of my life.” Unless you have no sound, true, local NT church to attend (which certainly wasn't the case with Eldredge, though it is the case for some in various communities), this is open disobedience to the clear teaching of Scripture (e.g. Ac. 2:42; Heb. 10:25; 1 Jn. 2–4) and exposes a heretic (Ti. 3:10-11). The facilitator’s guide for small-group leaders who use Eldredge’s Wild at Heart videos urges them not to allow any man to dominate the group and to beware of “the doctrine cop” who is zealous about doctrinal purity. Herein we see some evidence and terrible fruit of what occurs through the efforts of such false teachings as ecumenism and false unity in diversity, and refusing to separate from ungodly influence and ungodly men who teach false doctrine.
Children are above truth, according to EMC, so the sin of divorce and remarriage is accepted becaue of the "fatherhood of God" heresy they have embraced. A child is more important than obeying God, because he just might get the wrong impression of the "fatherhood of God." They egregiously and pejoratively claim that a man "twists the image of God as the Father" when he doesn't marry a divorced woman that he has fathered a child with. So divorce and remarriage is okay in that case. No, actually it isn't. Two wrongs don't make a right. They are blaspheming the true and living God of Scripture with their perversion of His character. I wonder what their reaction would have been to Abraham had they lived in that day when he cast his illegitimate son and son's mother out of his house and into the wilderness, with no place to live, because he obeyed God. I wonder if they would have railed on him? I wonder if they would have used the same humanistic psychoheresy based reasoning with him as they do today with such men described here? How about when Abraham went to sacrifice his own son? I have no doubt that majority in the neo-evangelical/emerging church camp like EMC would have raged and railed on him, screaming “murderer!" hater!” “you are twisting the image of God as the Father and that is a sin”! I can only imagine the humanistic reasoning: ‘Abraham, how does that demonstrate the fatherhood of God, killing your son?’ Abraham of course as we know was obeying God's Word, while these heretics are not. Abraham walked in the Spirit, while these charlatans walk after the lusts of their flesh.
So "What happens to the image of the Heavenly Father when a man abandons his child because he doesn't marry someone that has been married already?" Nothing actually happens. Absolutely nothing. God is still God and man is still man. Not indulging in sinful adultery is not abandoning a child as far as we are aware. But God is glorified because he obeyed God's Word over man's. We are not predestinated to be conformed to the image of my Heavenly Father but to the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:29; Col 3:10). No they are not the same. Nowhere does the Bible ever say that the earthly father is to emulate the Heavenly Father in his relationship with his children. Rather, God has given us specific duties and responsibilities to fulfil, not necessarily based upon Who He is, but rather because He has commanded it. God conforms all true born again believers into the image of His Son (Rom. 8:29), and note that its God that does the conforming and its the Son we are conformed to. The views of EMC on God the Father are heretical, humanistic and patently false. Though every man is indirectly created in the image of God, through Adam, that is not the same as presenting the image of the Heavenly Father, which we don't since all of mankind are the product of a fallen state. No man presents the image of the Heavenly Father but His only begotten Son. It is Jesus Christ that bears the image of God the Father alone. "[Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:" (Col. 1:15). "Christ, . . . is the image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4). EMC heretics in propagating this heresy are in fact teaching something akin to new agers "little gods" doctrine, such as “word-faith” heretics like Joyce Meyer. This is very serious as it appears to be that very lie the devil told Eve in the Garden (Gen. 3:1-6). These liars need to learn to fear God and tremble at His Word, and then they would think twice about changing and adding to His Word (Rev. 22:18).
(i) Tolerating and Approving of Divorce and Remarriage, thus Adultery.
When Mennonites divorce and remarry, which is adultery, they will naturally—like the dog and pig looking for its fill of mire and vomit—gravitate towards a church where their ongoing evil sin is tolerated and accepted. EMC is just such a place. EMC churches are known to accept people as members that are divorced and remarried, thus living in adultery. There is no bold stance taken against divorce and remarriage; no stance at all! Maybe its frowned upon in scant EMC circles, yet its tolerated and approved by taking these adulterous relationships on as members in their churches. As they twist and bend the Scriptures and find the necessary excuse, divorce and remarriage is tolerated and then becomes accepted, all along piously claiming that God hates divorce. This is hypocritically evil.
They will piously make such claims as, “God hates divorce. It is a covenant relationship that when broken is a sin,” but then go on to advocate for adultery through encouraging the marriage of a man and woman where one or both of them has been previously married but now divorced, done in a deceptive round about way through reductio ad absurdum and false dilemma logical fallacies. This once again exemplifies the horrendous confusion, contradiction and toleration of sin noted among neo-evangelicals. It further illustrates the false repentance at EMC, where "repentance" is mere confession without actually turning from and forsaking sin, which goes in contradiction to Scripture, such as Pr. 28:13 for example, and 2 Cor. 7:10-11. One of the ways they will justify a new adulterous marriage is if children are involved, I.e. fornication took place. They subvert God’s factual truth with the lie of Satan, "Yea, hath God said?" (Gen 3), and then change the truth of God's Word with the idea that children are more important than the actual truth of Scripture. But this is wrong, unscriptural and sinful. It is serious distraction to obedience and an irrelevant objection. It is also circular reasoning around obedience. It is absolutely absurd for someone to think that they are making things better by encouraging adultery (remarriage) for the sake of a child. Such egregious philosophy runs completely contrary to God’s Word, and is a worldly, carnal way of thinking. Never do we push human reasoning above God’s Word. What they are in essence promoting is actually sin.
Neo-evangelical eisegesis enablers corrupt and privately interpret De. 24, which they divorce (pun intended) from very clear and plain teachings on this subject (Gen. 2:24; 3:16; Mal. 2:13-17; Matt. 5:31-32; 19:2-9; Mk. 10:2-12; Rom. 7:1-4; 1 Cor. 7:10-11, 39), and “marriage is honourable in all” whether saved or lost (Gen. 2:24; Heb. 13:4; cf. Pr. 6:32; 1 Cor. 6:9–10 & 15-20). You can read more about false arguments and then Biblical opposition to Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as a Means of Justifying Divorce and Remarriage, No Return to Covenant Spouse. Matter of fact, they don't even need De. 24; they’ve got butchered passages in their modern perversions that give credence to this wicked sin through the process of elimination (e.g. Matt. 19:9). Divorce and remarriage is not just a “sin” that can be flimsily confessed, without forsaking the adulterous remarriage and departing the adulterous relationship. This should be common sense, but for some ungodly and compromising reason, it isn't.
Even the EMC statement of faith allows for it:
“Divorce should not be seen as a solution to marriage difficulties. If they do develop, the church as a community needs to play an active role in counseling, helping, and healing.” (Ernest Funk, 25-part series: EMC Statement of Faith and Church Practices, p. 18). [underlined bold emphasis ours]
The word “If” is bit of a flag. It gives allowance for the sinful and destructive practice, which is one of the major reasons for all the evil in our present world. Is the allowance of adultery, grace? They speak of “relying on grace and that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is sufficient” but the grace they espouse is not the grace of God (cf. Ti. 2:11-14; Rom 6:1-2), but a licentious licence to sin (adultery in this case ) and used as a humanistic tool for compromise, definitely not uncommon among neo-evangelicals of our day. The general consensus and philosophy of the average neo-evangelical is that somehow sin is tolerated by grace, since grace is greater than sin. Paul shut that unscriptural argument down real fast, and twice in the same chapter:
“What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” (Rom. 6:1-2, 15).
This false and ungodly philosophy condemns any person that believes as such, as lost, in this same chapter: Rom. 6:15-23.
Their answer to "counseling, helping, and healing” is not to rectify the marriage, or work toward the salvation of either party, but deal with the hurts in a superficial, emotional and fleshly way. It is unBiblical and absolutely ungodly and sinful to allow divorce, which is adultery (Gen. 2:24; Mal. 2:13-17; Mk. 10:2-12; Matt. 19:3-9; Rom. 7:1-4; 1 Cor. 7:10-11, 39). People that divorce and remarry are adulterers, and 1 Cor. 6:9-11 and Gal. 5:19-21 are categorically clear that such are lost in their sins. We are to prove and judge everything by God's Word (1 Cor. 2:15; Jn. 7:24; 1 Th. 5:21; Ac. 17:11), not by what appeals to human reasoning. Many things seem good to human judgment, but they turn out false to the Word of God and “the end thereof are the ways of death.” (Pr. 14:12). Divorce and remarriage is one of those ways (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21).
When someone marries a divorced person, this constitutes Biblically as adultery, irregardless of children involved or any other factors. But children changes things for the EMC, among other excuses for their sin. God however does not tolerate sin because of tears or children, nor is He the author of confusion. He is the author of Gen 2:24. Separated or divorced spouses have one of two options according to Scripture, and neither is remarriage (Rom. 7:1-4; 1 Cor. 7:10-11, 39): (a) remain unmarried; or (b) be reconciled to spouse.
“And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.” (1 Cor. 7:10-11).
“The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 7:39; cf. Rom. 7:1-3).
These passages are crystal clear. There is ZERO excuse to go against God’s Word. Children or “accidents” do not give liberty for disobedience and rebellion. Two wrongs don't make a right. What is right is what the Bible says. We do what the Bible says, irregardless of external circumstances.
Rather than interpreting—or conforming more like it—Scripture by their experiences, external circumstance and humanistic philosophies, while exercising faulty hermeneutics, EMC ought to earnestly study God’s Word (the KJV for English readers) since “The heart of the righteous [the saved—imputed positional righteousness] studieth to answer” (Pr. 15:28a) and will rightly divide the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15), unless they are not “righteous,” which is very likely the case.
These confused people claim that not continuing in adulterous sin for the sake of a child, will “cause a child to stumble in understanding and coming to the Father.” In truth, the very opposite will occur. Their utter ignorance and rejection of Biblical truth and very act of wilful and intentional rebellion to God’s Word is in fact a major reason why children of evangelicals almost entirely reject the God of the Bible. Their parents live as hypocrites, and nowhere in Scripture are hypocrites ever saved people (e.g. Mat 23). They are simply false pretenders. To continue in the sin of adultery would firstly be proving of an unbeliever and then second, be hypocritical in trying to raise a child in the way they should go, of which salvation is foundational. How could they be raised “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” as commanded (Eph. 6:4), while living hypocritically in sin? This is the sort of unBiblical incongrous confusion that rules supreme in unBiblical "evangelical" groups like EMC. They call evil good, and good evil. It's "by mercy and truth iniquity is purged" (Pr. 16:6a), not by humanistic feelings and philosophies, or adding to Gods Word, or continuing in sin because of some warm and fuzzy sentimental feelings produced over the alleged "love" for a child.
The following report covers what the Bible teaches on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage.
(j) Rejection of and Hostility Towards Discernment, Testing, Examining, Proving All Things, Criticizing, Contending for the faith, Reproof, Warning, Exposing and Judging.
Jude instructed every believer to “earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints” (Ju 1:3). As Jude didn’t delineate what part of the faith is to be defended, the obvious meaning is that whatever aspect of the faith is under attack, it should be defended. This appears to be largely absent in these denominations. Scripture is crystal clear that every born again believer is to be exercising discernment, testing, examining, proving all things, criticizing, contending for the faith, reproof, warning, exposing and judging (e.g., De 1:17; 16:19; Ps 82:2; 119:128; Pr 21:3, 15; 24:11-12; 27:6; 31:8-9; Ac 20:28-31; Rom 16:17-18; Gal 1:6-9; 2:4-5; 5:1-10; Phil 3:17-19; Col 2:8, 18-23; 1 Th 5:14; 1 Tim 1:5-7, 18-20; 6:3-5, 20-21; 2 Tim 1:15; 2:16-18; 3:13; 4:1-4; 14; Ti 1:9-16; 2 Pet 2:1-22; 1 Jn 2:18-23; 4:1-6; Ju 1:3-16; Rev 2-3. Furthermore, church leadership is to only teach “sound doctrine” (Ti 2:1) and “no other doctrine” (1 Tim 1:6). When they do not, they should be criticized, reproved, and contended against. Every born again believer is responsible for these things as an ambassador of Christ. Saved people believe and teach the truth, not heresy (Ti 3:10-11; 2 Tim 4:3-4), because they know the truth, since they are taught the truth by the “Spirit of truth” (Pr 8:8-9; 22:20-21; 1 Jn 2:20-21).
The rallying cry of the neo-evangelical and man-centred institutions is "judge-not," especially when it comes to these subject matters. This dovetails with their allegiance to heresies and heretics. By embracing this false teaching, they expose themselves to not actually love other people as much as they claim to (Pr 27:6; 28:23; 24:11-12; Ezk. 3:16-21; Rom 15:14; Phil 1:9-10) for its blatant disobedience to God’s Word and corrupting of Scripture, which likely means they don’t know God (1 Jn 2:3-5; Eph 2:10; Heb 10:36) or love God (1 Jn 3:22-24; 5:1-3; Jn 7:16-18; 14:23-24; 15:10-14) since “this is love, that we walk after his commandments” (2 Jn 1:6) and those that don't, are said to be unsaved—they don't know God (1 Jn 2:3-5). I think more often than not, people of this persuasion are unregenerate, knowing what scripture says about the subject. Read on here what the Bible says about it, lest ye be “of corrupt mind” and “reprobate concerning the faith” (2 Tim 3:8): The False Philosophy of Judge-Not and Don't Reprove Others.
EMC doesn’t seem to like these Biblical responsibilities and commands. They argue its “too negative” and to much “looking at what’s wrong in everybody else’s life,” and apparently “not enough looking to live Christ.” Yikes. We are dealing with very confused and simple people, as in naive (Pr 14:15). If this were the case, what about the teachings of the apostles and even the Lord Jesus Himself (e.g., Matt. 23)? The Lord Jesus constantly warned of the hypocritical false “believing” Pharisees and Sadducees. Was Paul the apostle too negative, looking too much at everyone else’s wrongs, and not living enough Christ when he warned the young preacher Timothy of ten different men by name in his two epistles to him (1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 1:15; 2:17; 3:8; 4:12, 14)? He warned of Hymenaeus and Alexander’s blasphemy (1 Tim. 1:19-20 — which EMC is continually guilty of) and of Phygellus and Hermogenes’ apostasy (2 Tim. 1:15 — which is EMC as well, clearly by this expose) and of Hymenaeus and Philetus’ false teachings of profane and vain babblings (2 Tim. 2:16-17) and of Demas’ love of the world and forsaking of Gods Word (2 Tim. 4:10, which means he was actually a false believer — which EMC is also guilty of) and of Alexander the coppersmith’s evil (2 Tim. 4:14) and of a cursed and perverted gospel (Gal. 1:6-8) and those propagating it (Gal. 2:4-5), and of the “dogs” and “evil workers” operating at Philippi (Phil. 3:1-2) and of the false teachers “whose God is their belly” (Phil. 3:17-19; Rom. 16:17-18) and of “liars, evil beasts, slow bellies” (Ti 1:12). Paul’s epistles were loaded with this kind of teaching. Over and over in Paul’s two letters to Timothy, and the one to Titus, we find Paul teaching and warning of error and teachers of error and how to spot them; which is no different than what is occurring here. The one they call the “apostle of love,” the apostle John, wrote almost two entire epistles with this theme in mind (2 & 3 John) while Jude wrote an entire epistle for it. I wonder if Jude was over abundantly “looking at what is wrong in everybody else’s life and not enough looking to live Christ” when he spent nearly 70% of his epistle warning of false teachers and ungodly men that would creep into churches and among true believers, the very purpose of his letter? Although we have little OT history of Enoch, we do find him twice mentioned in the NT and in one of these occasions he has the gall to over abundantly “look at what is wrong in everybody else’s life and not enough looking to live Christ” with his excessive preaching on the ungodly with "all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against [the Lord]." (Ju. 1:15). This was a prophecy by the way, of the Lords coming to execute judgment upon these ungodly individuals (Ju. 1:14), which contextually is false believers and false teachers (vv. 3-16). In the other mention of Enoch, we read that God translated Enoch out of this world without him ever seeing death, and "before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.” (Heb. 11:5). I guess God is pleased when we look "at what is wrong in everybody else's life”! If its good enough for God, its good enough for me!
So the EMCer (and other evangelicals) is actually saying that the apostles and the prophets and even the Lord Jesus Christ were wrong in this. Will they actually admit that, or cower into a corner somewhere seeing their deceptive lies have been weighed in the balance and found wanting? This subject absolutely everywhere in Scripture but they have a problem with that. Perhaps they’re problem isn't with this subject or with me but actually with God. I think that might be much more accurate.
The mentality behind the disobedience is grossly unscriptural. Its complete fabrication made out of sheer cloth. How much is “too” negative, or where does the Bible oppose judging and reproving those around us who influence us in some fashion, what they are saying, teaching, practicing, etc? 2/3 of the Bible is negative. The Holy Spirit’s ministry is almost completely negative. In 2 Tim 4:2, two out of the three things to be preached by the Biblical preacher is “looking at what is wrong in everybody else’s life” (“reprove, rebuke and exhort”), and that happens to be a “charge . . . before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ” to all preachers of God’s Word (v. 1). But scorners and scoffers hate being reproved (Pr. 15:12), which is the entire issue. Both are unsaved hypocrites, pretending to belong to God. True born again believers are “full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish [reprimand firmly] one another.” (Rom. 15:14).
The worse thing that can happen with an “over abundance of this teaching” is saved people becoming more like their Lord and Saviour, and lost people being reproved for their heresy and hypocrisy and false teachings, and either repent or their mouths are shut (Ti. 1:9-11). The worst and most dangerous element of their way of unBiblical thinking is that they are making a new standard, a standard not found in God’s Word, thus usurping the authority of God and His Word and making themselves out to be like a little god, sorta like Joyce Meyer teaches. The new standard is the standard of EMC, and not God’s. The false “moderation” and not “over abundance” standard, and the hatred for warnings, reproof and negative preaching, even though its absolutely everywhere in the NT, even though its absolutely demanded and commanded not only of preachers but all true born again believers. We are commanded to judge preaching (1 Cor. 14:29), sin in ones church (1 Cor 5:3; Rom 15:14), issues in the church (1 Cor. 6:5), sin in our own lives (1 Cor. 11:31), false teachers (Matt. 7:15-17; Rom. 16:17); spirits (1 Jn 4:1), salvation and doctrine (Is. 8:20; Ezk. 44:23; Mal 3:18; Matt 7:15-20; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 14:29; Gal 1:6-9; 2:4-5; 1 Tim 6:3; 2 Jn 1:9-11; 2 Tim 4:3-4); etc. Its not God’s standard that they EVER draw ones attention to, but to their own. And that is wicked, a deceptive lie from the depths of hell, concocted by Satan himself (Jn. 8:44). Everywhere God commands His children to expose and oppose error, to “prove all things” (1 Th. 5:21), to “try the spirits” (1 Jn. 4:1), to “beware of false prophets” (Matt. 7:15), to “take heed that no man deceive you” (Matt. 24:4), “to “search the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Ac. 17:11), to “prove what is acceptable unto the Lord” (Eph. 5:10), to “approve things that are excellent” (Phil. 1:10), to “rightly divide the word of truth, . . . but shun profane and vain babblings” (2 Tim. 2:15-16), to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Ju. 1:3), to "mark them . . . and avoid them" that teach false doctrine (Rom. 16:17-18), and leaving no lie or error unexposed. The true, genuine born again believer does this because he loves God's truth and "hates every false way" (Ps. 119:104, 128). It is loving to God and then to fellow man, But “evangelicals” like EMC don’t like it and thats unloving to both God and man. Love happens to be another casualty of evangelicals such as EMC.
The Bible I read (the KJV) contains a whole lot of this “kind of spiritual food” and it doesn't hinder the true born again believers encouragement even for a moment, “in going forward in Christ and living Christ in a fallen world” — in fact, it greatly improves and grows it (2 Tim. 4:1-2, 5). It teaches me the true God of Scripture and His love for truth and hatred for error and sin, and not a false christ, a figment of the neo-evangelicals reprobate mind (2 Tim 3:8; 2 Cor 4:2).
I am convinced and quite confident that many things in Scripture seriously offend “evangelicals” including EMCers. Which is why they don't preach on these things, even though these subjects take up more of the NT than anything else, nor mention them anywhere in opportune time, but rather shun and attack those who obey the Word of God. If on the rare moment a passage like these would be mentioned, they are reasoned away by some logical fallacy and corruption of the passage or some gross error that everyone could agree with, religious and agnostic alike.
To keep reading of various accusations soundly rebutted surrounding this rejection of and hostility towards proving all things, criticism, contending for the faith, reproof, judging, see here: https://www.2020scripturalvision.com/post/attacking-spiritual-warfare-by-misusing-touch-not-the-lords-anointed
(k) Contemplative Spirituality.
Contemplative mysticism is new age eastern religion and contemplates entering a mystical experience and finding "God" within, which is an altered state of consciousness in order to find one’s true self, thus finding "God." "Listening to God’s voice" in a two-way conversation during prayer is the goal in contemplative prayer, and a gateway into Christian mysticism, subjective mystical experiences. Major contemplative practices include centering prayer, visualizing prayer, Jesus Prayer, Lectio Divina, and the Labyrinth. It is taught and promoted by many false teachers and wolves in sheep clothing such as Rick Warren, Richard Foster, Ken Blanchard, Thomas Merton, Henri Nouwen, Franciscan Priest Richard Rohr (a Catholic New Age Priest with his Cosmic "Christ" exposed by Lighthouse Trails here), Ruth Haley Barton, Brennan Manning, etc.
Contemplative mystic methods and principles come right out of Roman Catholic monasticism, with its roots deeply planted in pagan philosophy. Roman Catholic Monasticism began with the Desert Fathers and the Church Fathers, and has continued onwards permeating essentially every branch of Christendom, with evangelicalism even having many of its own gurus, such as Richard Foster.
Contemplative advocates propose something vital and important has been missing from churches for centuries. The insinuation is that Christians have been lacking something necessary for their spiritual vitality; but that would mean the Holy Spirit has not been fully effective and active for hundreds of years and only now the secret key has been found that unlocks the knowledge to know God and His full power. These proponents believe that Christianity has been seriously crippled without this extra ingredient. This kind of thinking leads one to believe that traditional, biblical Christianity is merely a philosophy without the contemplative prayer element. Contemplatives are suggesting that we cannot hear Him or really know Him simply by studying and obeying His Word or through normal prayer—we must be contemplative to experience Him. But the Bible makes it clear that the Word of God is living and active and has always been that way, and it is in filling our minds with it that we come to love Him, not through a mystical practice of stopping the flow of thought (the stillness) that is never once mentioned in the Bible, except in warnings against vain repetitions in the NT and divination in the OT.
Popular proponents and teachers of contemplative mysticism include the following Roman Catholic mystics, many of which are embraced and read eagerly by EMCer's: Ignatius of Loyola (co-founder of the Jesuits who were at the forefront of the violent papal counter-reformation), Francis of Assisi, Benedict of Nursia, Teresa of Avila, Catherine of Genoa, Julian of Norwich, Brother Lawrence, Dominic, Catherine of Siena, John of the Cross, the anonymous author of The Cloud of Unknowing, Madame Guyon, Thomas à Kempis, Catherine Doherty, Meister Eckhart, Thomas Aquinas, Hildegard of Bingen, Francis de Sales, Alphonsus de Liguori, Bernard of Clairvaux, John Henry Newman, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, G.K. Chesterton, Andrè Louf, Henri Nouwen, Dorothy Day, Karl Rahner, John Main, Mother Teresa, Thomas Merton, Brennan Manning, John Michael Talbot, and many others.
Evangelicalism's (including at EMC) recommendation of these Roman Catholic mystics is not half-hearted.
Regardless of any biblical-sounding statements that can be pulled from the writings of these people, the fact remains that they are laden down with terrible false teachings and utter heresies such as the false gospel of baptismal regeneration, false gospel of works, venerated Mary (Mariolatry), papal infallibility, worshipped Christ as a piece of consecrated bread (transubstantiation), priestcraft, purgatory, monasticism, asceticism, celibacy, veneration of relics, allegoricalism, to name a few. There is no warning by EMC evangelicals of the fact that these mystics trusted in a false works gospel and scores of other heresies.
Rebecca Roman, in the article Waiting for the Promise uncritically quotes Henri Nouwen (1932-1996), a Roman Catholic priest and a contemplative mystic, universalist, and pantheist who obviously rejected the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. Nouwen has had a vast influence within the emerging church and evangelicalism at large through his writings, and he has been an influential voice within the contemplative movement. A Christian Century magazine survey conducted in 2003 found that Nouwen’s writings were a first choice for Catholic and mainline Protestant clergy. Nouwen is promoted by Christian leaders as diverse as Robert Schuller and Rick Warren (who highly recommends Nouwen’s contemplative book In the Name of Jesus). Roman quotes Nouwen ““That is why they could hear the angel. They were alert, attentive to the voice that spoke to them and said, ‘Don’t be afraid. Something is happening to you. Pay attention’” (“Waiting for God,” Watch for the Light: Readings for Advent and Christmas, p. 32). He is saying, and Roman obviously agrees, that the reason they could hear the angels was because they ‘paid attention”. Please tell me where in the Bible you find this ideology? Furthermore Nouwen quotes the angels, which is entirely contrary to what the angels actually said “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible.” (Luke 1:34-37). The conversation Mary had with the Angel consisted more than the four verses quoted, however, besides saying “Fear not’ NEVER did the Angel say “Something is happening to you. Pay attention”. The Angel explained clearly that she was going to carry the Savior of mankind. Also, Elizabeth NEVER heard the angel, only Mary did (contrary to Nouwens writing “they could hear the angel”). The message delivered to Elizabeth was through her husband Zechariah (Luke 1:11-20). It is fairly obvious that Roman hold’s to Nouwens heretical teachings, since she finishes the articles with his words.
Nouwen was deeply involved in contemplative mysticism. He was strongly influenced by Thomas Merton and wrote a book about him in 1972 (Pray to Live: Thomas Merton--Contemplative Critic). Nouwen also mentioned Merton in his books Intimacy (1969) and Creative Ministry (1971). In his book In the Name of Jesus, Nouwen said that Christians must move “from the moral to the mystical.” Nouwen claimed that contemplative meditation is necessary for an intimacy with God: “I do not believe anyone can ever become a deep person without stillness and silence” (quoted by Chuck Swindoll, So You Want to Be Like Christ, p. 65). He taught that the use of a mantra could take the practitioner into God’s presence. He said that mysticism and contemplative prayer can create ecumenical unity because Christian leaders learn to hear “the voice of love”:“Through the discipline of contemplative prayer, Christian leaders have to learn to listen to the voice of love. ... For Christian leadership to be truly fruitful in the future, a movement from the moral to the mystical is required” (In the Name of Jesus, pp. 6, 31-32). In fact, if Christians are listening to the voice of the true and living God, they will learn that love is obedience to the Scriptures. “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous” (1 Jn 5:3).
So it comes as no surprise that Nouwen is frequently quoted in The Messenger, since Evangelicals are turning to contemplative mysticism and Catholic spirituality, including at EMC.
The EMC frequently invite heretics into the pulpit. Men like Ron Sider, David Shenk, Terry Smith, and this fellow by the name of Brent Bandy. We will examine a sermon he preached on “Silence and Solitude: A Rhythm of Jesus” not so long ago (Sept 24, 2023).
He enters the pulpit with a big stereo on his shoulders and announces,
“Good morning. You may have heard the news, we have been left unsupervised. The Pastors, ministerial board, they are all retreating somewhere. So we’ll try not to get into to much trouble today. And we’ll also tell Brian Doerksen not to bring his smoker fog machine for the concert, we have enough.”
He’s trying to be humorous and act the part of a rebel but it really does the opposite, revealing how worldly he and EMC is, notwithstanding his endeavour to be “creative” and “dynamic” as worldly culture pushes, all of which runs in direct contradiction to godliness, holiness and righteousness, which this church wouldn’t know if a cement truck dumped it right on to the entertainment stage. Its terribly embarrassing, of the face-in-the-palm kind, but status quo at EMC churches, where even much worse things have occurred (Its difficult to beat the clown show.) He says the above quote with what appears like a mockery, effeminate type of voice, while the comment about the smoker fog machine is a backstab at the congregation members of EMC LCCF who had an issue with this one element of Doerksen’s previous Rock Concert a few years back.
This sermon is only preached a few weeks before Doerksen’s scheduled appearance at this church, and some people had requested the smoker fogger machine be left out of the upcoming rock concert. Bring the drums; the guitars; the rock band; the fleshly and carnal beat; the light shows; the flaunting sensual style; the effeminate singing style with all its scooping, sliding and syncopation with the breathy voice, throatiness, scrunched-up wailing into a microphone ice-cream style, all artificial signals of fake authenticity reflecting the love they have for themselves, for their flesh and not for Jesus — man, just bring the whole world, but don’t you dare bring the smoke fogger machine. You can propose all these elements with the worldly, non-judgmental, anti-separatist, ecumenical and ungodly philosophy that is most definitely contrary to the sound apostolic doctrine and faith found in God’s Word (Rom 16:17), and the holiness and godliness and righteousness of the grace of God (Ti 2:11-14), but smoke fog is a little over the top. Unsaved gentiles blaspheme the name of God because of these hypocritical enemies of God (Rom 2:23-24; Jam 4:4).
Its really not all that difficult to understand why such people are the enemies of God (Jam 4:4), people who apparently have a monopoly on God’s “love” and “grace” but in reality actually have a monopoly on spiritual adultery with their love for the world and absence of the Father's love (1 Jn 2:15-17). Their love and affections are with the lusts of their flesh, their eyes and the pride of their life. Sadly, they do not know the true love of God, which is impossible outside of the new birth.
Anyway, that was bit of a digression and it was free. That subject will be touched on in a bit. Back to the sermon we go.
Overall the sermon was beyond excessively shallow and vague, with zero exposition on anything about silence and solitude Biblically, where there is very little emphasis on the subject. Its actually a very deceptive sermon, seeing he clearly believes in contemplative meditation and spirituality (which is obvious, not based on the title of the sermon alone, but moreso his very positive proclamation of John Mark Coomer, whom is quoted and exalted many times in this sermon, and Coomer is a zealous contemplative mystic), he makes a conscious effort to not actually explain how silence and solitude is exercised in practice. He leaves out that part, and that is no accident. The speaker does refer to “silence and solitude” as a “spiritual practice” and “spiritual discipline.” This is 100% contemplative mysticism, which is absolutely unbiblical, heretical, and a Satanic, dangerous practice. Yet it is promoted from the pulpit of an EMC church, which is certainly not an anomaly.
Bandy says when it “comes to learning of the spiritual disciplines of silence and solitude” he likes to "listen to writer, speaker and pastor John Mark Coomer.” Bandy says Coomer’s “knowledge and expertise on the subject was energizing.” Coomer is a new ager and contemplative mystic. He is an extreme heretic, far from the truth and light of God’s Word. Coomer has adopted heresy on “the presence of God” and believes in new age philosophies such as, “The end goal is to take on the inner life of Jesus himself so that the teachings of Jesus become second nature.” This is blasphemous and certainly new age heresy. “Prayer is not just when we talk but when we listen. To hear his voice.” This is contemplative centering prayer and meditative prayer practices but its evil and dangerous because it invites demonic manifestations. Thomas Keating described centering prayer as “a journey into the unknown” (Open Mind, Open Heart, p. 72). “There comes a point in our spiritual journey when prayer goes beyond words to simple loving presence, or what the ancient Christians called “union” with God. This type of prayer has come to be called “contemplation,” based on 2 Corinthians 3v18. To contemplate is to look, to gaze upon the beauty of God, receiving his love pouring out toward you in Christ and by the Spirit, and then giving your love back in return.” (Source). This is contemplative Catholic mysticism and centering prayer, and its demonic and exceedingly dangerous. Centering prayer involves emptying the mind of conscious thoughts about God with the objective of entering into a non-verbal experiential union with God in the center of one’s being. In his contemplative mysticism teachings, unsurprisingly Coomer quotes Catholic mystics like Henri Nouwen, Mother Teresa, St. Benedict, St. Teresa of Avila (who allegedly had visions of Mary), who embraced Buddhist and Hindu-type of mysticism, which speaks absolute volumes. Thomas Keating wrote the foreword to Philip St. Romain’s strange, heretical and very dangerous book Kundalini Energy and Christian Spirituality (1990). Keating says, “Kundalini is an enormous energy for good,” but also admits that it can be harmful. He recommends that kundalini “be directed by the Holy Spirit.” He postulates that the meditative prayer practices of Catholic mystics such as Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross might have been associated with kundalini energy. Keating concludes by saying: “This book will initiate Christians on the spiritual journey into this important but long neglected dimension of the transforming power of grace.” Kundalini is a Hindu concept that there is powerful form of psychic energy at the base of the spine that can be “awakened.” It is called the serpent and is purely occultic and has resulted in many demonic manifestations. Even its own practitioners warn repeatedly about its dangers. The Ayurveda Encyclopedia says, “Those who awaken their kundalini without a guru can lose their direction in life . . . they can become confused or mentally imbalanced . . . more harm than good can arise” (p. 336). The book Aghora II: Kundalini warns many times that “indiscriminate awakening of the Kundalini is very dangerous” (p. 61). It says: “Once aroused and unboxed Kundalini is not ‘derousable’; the genie will not fit back into the bottle. . . . Those who ride Kundalini without knowing their destination risk losing their way” (p. 20). In fact, the book says “some die of shock when Kundalini is awakened, and others become severely ill” (p. 61). It is likened to a toddler grasping a live wire (p. 58).
This is a description of pagan mysticism and demon possession and its far removed from Biblical Christianity, yet employed by so-called Christians.
The result of centering prayer is supposedly mystical knowledge, obtained through communion with God in one’s being, taught by Coomer in his material, and promoted by Ruth Barton:
“... we learn that our willingness to listen in silence opens up a quiet space in which we can hear His voice, a voice that longs to speak and offer us guidance for our next step” (Ruth Barton, “Beyond Words,” Discipleship Journal, Sept-Oct 1999).
Coomer exalts Barton and her book:
“Our companion book for the Solitude Practice is Invitation to Solitude and Silence by Ruth Haley Barton. It’s full of wisdom, insight, and scriptural truth, as well as practical advice.” (The Solitude Practice, p. 8).
In the aforementioned quoted book Coomer writes,
“This poses a major problem for those of us who apprentice under Jesus. As Mother Teresa once said, “We need to find God, and he cannot be found in noise and restlessness. God is the friend of silence.” She was re-voicing what all the saints and sages have said for millennia: The two primary places we discover God are in community — in deep, long- term, loving, open relationships with other apprentices of Jesus in the family of God — and in solitude, silence, and stillness.” (Ibid, p. 11).
This is absolute heresy. To start with, quoting an unsaved and ungodly Catholic nun who placed her trust in a false works gospel of diverse flavours, who was a great worshiper of Mary, who believed the wafer of the mass is literally and actually Jesus Christ, and more heresy — is undiscerning and foolish beyond measure and simply reflective of an unregenerate charlatan. If you are simple, and believe in a false social justice "gospel," then she might appear favourable to you. Her quote is also unBiblical. God is found through salvation, without any mention of noise levels. There is only a primary place where we discover God and its neither of these two options. We find Him through God’s Word, the Holy Bible, which is unsurprisingly missing in all this contemplative heresy being pushed by Coomer and then Bandy. Quoting some passages where Jesus went for solitude is not dealing with the subject of solitude or silence. What it is, is corrupting, twisting, misusing and abusing Scripture for the speakers narrative and agenda, which is mystical contemplation, emptying the mind, and going beyond words to some sort of deeper knowledge through a mystical manner. Coomer, Bandy, et al, doesn’t know God (no one does that follows this seriously perverted gospel and false teaching), so he attempts to find him somewhere inside of himself.
As one continues in this book, we get to the practice of “Solitude” which is Roman Catholic monasticism, where Coomer describes the practice of contemplative prayer and mysticism, the practice of meditation through breathing exercises, repeating phrases with centring prayer, visualizing prayer, an altered state of silence of the mind while listening for “God’s” voice. You are taught to lose control of yourself. Ignatian spirituality is also promoted by Coomer, which is a form of contemplative spirituality connected closely to Catholic monasticism. In the aforementioned he quotes from the contemplative heretic and new ager Robert Cardinal Sarah’s book The Power of Silence:
“At the heart of man there is an innate silence, for God abides in the innermost part of every person. God is silence, and this divine silence dwells in man. In God we are inseparably bound up with silence ... God carries us, and we live with him at every moment by keeping silence. . . . If we do not cultivate this silence, how can we find God? Man likes to travel, create, make great discoveries. But he remains outside of himself, far from God, who is silently in his soul ... There is no place on earth where God is more present than in the human heart.”
Again, absolute heresy. None of it is true. Nothing of this is found even remotely in the Word of God. God is NOT silence and this does not dwell in man. God the Spirit comes to dwell the inner man of the repentant sinner turned saint at the very moment of Biblical conversion, the new birth. God dwells, not as some mystical force or divine silence, in the temple of the born again believer, ONLY. Not in unsaved people, and definitely not in heretics. All this being described by Coomer is contemplative spirituality to the core and its entirely unBiblical, ungodly and utterly demonic. Its all found and described in Coomer’s dangerous contemplative books, such as The Solitude Practice (e.g., pp. 12-15) for the purpose of mindless and altered state of mind meditation, and “experienc[ing] God’s presence and voice,” but what they are actually experiencing is entrance into the dark world of demons and Satans presence and voice, because God does not come to us in this fashion or speak to us, ever. HIS WORD, THE BIBLE, IS HOW WE FIND GOD AND RECEIVE COMMUNICATION FROM GOD.
As unscriptural and heretical this heretic and apostate is (i.e. Coomer and his diabolical teachings), he is nevertheless loved by Brent Bandy, and promoted from the pulpit, not only to the listeners at EMC LCCF that day, but to anyone that watches or listens to this sermon from around the world. Thus, he is promoting extreme evil to a world wide audience, and that is profoundly wicked and such folly must be exposed to all men (2 Tim 3:8-9).
Even the name of Coomer’s so-called “ministry,” Practicing the Way, rings of contemplative mysticism and new age lingual. There are many, many very serious errors, heresies, and dangers in Coomer’s beliefs and teachings, besides what has been mentioned. Coomer loves the blasphemous and diabolical wolf in sheep’s clothing Eugene Peterson and his massive perversion of God’s Word, The Message. He promotes polytheism. He is another wannabe celebrity “conservative” while functioning as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. His platitudes and fortune cookie remarks are unbiblical and heretical, as they so commonly are in the world of neo-evangelicalism, but yet loved by the naive and simple neo-evangelicals Its shameful since they do not speak Biblical truth, but its also reflective of the dead spiritual nature of evangelicals who google and gaggle over the platitudes and splash them on their social media.
I don’t know who this Bandy fellow is, but what I do know is that he is a dangerous man promoting contemplative heresy (which is his actual meaning of “silence and solitude”) and an absolute dangerous wolf in sheep’s clothing—John Mark Coomer. This Coomer fellow is one terribl heretical false teacher if I have ever come across one. New age, contemplative mysticism, both of which are spawned out of darkness, and a slew of other heresies is what makes his heretical teachings popular. The Lord Jesus Christ warned about people like him:
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Matt 7:15)
Bandy does not contain the spiritual discernment and discretion to conclude the extremely easy diagnosis of Coomer, which took all of about 1 min reading on his website, of this man’s false teacher and wolf-nature. And yet he stands in the pulpit preaching to this congregation, with no obvious issues from the so-called pastoral staff who one hopes would've listened to this sermon.
There are many other examples that could be provided where contemplative mysticism/meditation and centring prayer is being taught or promoted in EMC sermons and articles and in their bookstores.
(l) EMC are Promoters of Worldly Woke Initiatives such as the Ungodly Environmentalism Movement and Nation-Destroying Multiculturalism/Immigration.
According to a conference endorsed by EMC on the EMC website,
"[Humans have] left the environment in a degraded state, the result of a kind of “environmental sin.”” (source).
I wonder what “Bible” perversion they might use to defend that heresy?
Funny how sin is never mentioned in this camp, except when it comes to the environment, where even the world might call it "sin."
EMC advocates for open borders and evil multiculturalism while God is completely against it (see Ps. 74:17a; Ac. 17:26 for instance). He divided the nations at the tower of Babel, and that is precisely how they stayed for thousands of years until the globalists woke lefty evil liberals decided to desotry the west. EMC embraces Moslem refugees into Canada (true enemies of the state, if there ever was) and illegal immigrants attempting to enter from America.
(m) Psychology.
A common theme among sermons, articles, many of the courses and authors loved at EMC (and at their affiliated colleges) is that of psychology. EMC churches such as LCCF classifies itself as a counselling centre (HOPE) and has adapted humanistic and ungodly psychology into their counselling sessions. They have hosted Psychiatrists such as Carol Loney who is a Registered Professional Counsellor (RPC) with the Canadian Professional Counsellors Association (CPCA) and a Master Practitioner in Counselling Psychology (M.P.C.P), who trained specific EMC men and women as “counsellors.” Speak about mixing Christianity with the humanism of the world, which is spiritual adultery and indicative of friends of the world and enemies of God (Jam. 4:4). Loney is a graduate of Briercrest Seminary which is deeply rooted in every sort of neo-evangelical and emergent church ungodly heresy including demonic contemplative mysticism/spirituality. The moderator of an online blog site writes he became involved in the contemplative movement back in 2006, after taking a course in spiritual formation at Biercrest Seminary. “Christian” Psychology is as great a oxymoron as “Christian” Rock Music (i.e. CCM). In neither case do the words go together for one represents light (Christian) and the other represents complete darkness (Psychology and Rock). Even if psychology was “Christianized” and had nothing inherently evil in it, which is certainly not the case, it still would be of darkness because of its humanistic, self-esteemism and love of self system, and opposition to God’s Word. That alone makes it evil. The infiltration of psychology into the EMC and its churches, has also strengthened the trend toward ecumenism. Psychology plays a major ecumenical role by providing common faith, language and ritual for everyone from atheists, cultists and occultists to Roman Catholics and evangelicals.
Let me be very plain—“Christian” psychoheresy is simply the “doctrines of devils” (1 Tim 4:1) and “damnable heresies” (2 Pet 2:1), and its certainly not of God. If it was acceptable to integrate (mix) secular psychology with Christianity and call it “Christian Psychology,” why would it be wrong to integrate “breathing mantras” with Christian prayer and call it “Contemplative Praying?” Or why would it be wrong to mix “Centering” with Christian meditation calling it “Universal Spirituality?” For those that care, here is excellent information on the evils of Psychology including the “Christianised” versions of it: http://www.psychoheresy-aware.org/mainpage.html by two former psychiatrists. Gods Word warns, “learn not the way of the heathen.” (Jer. 10:2). Those that do, prove their unconverted and humanistic carnal state:
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” (2 Cor. 6:14-18).
(n) EMC's Disbelief in Biblical Bibliology.
In the EMC Statement of Faith and Church Practices — 25 Part Series, the first Article 1 is on the Bible and its authored by Cameron McKenzie, who writes:
"The Bible teaches us its truths in many different forms each with its own rules for interpretation. For example, while the Old Testament books record the true account of Israel’s experience of God in history, they, nevertheless, record actions and words of many characters that, however much a part of the story, are nonetheless misguided, misinformed, and anything but an example for us to model our lives on. Similarly, books like Job and the Psalms capture the truth about God in poetic metaphors and literary images that cannot and should not be subjected to the methods of scientific enquiry. The scriptures cannot be reduced to just a collection of god facts." (p. 3).
It is true that the "Scriptures cannot be reduced to just a collection of god facts," but what he writes here is a denial of the inerrancy of Scripture and the inspiration and absolute truth of God’s Word, regardless of the lip service he may give to these doctrine, clearly evident by statements such as, “many characters that . . . are nonetheless misguided, misinformed, and anything but an example for us to model our lives on.” I would be very interested in who these “many characters” are. It is also a serious attack on God’s Word to say that “Job and the Psalms . . . cannot and should not be subjected to the methods of scientific enquiry.” You cannot remove science fom the Bible. The Bible is science. Only a heretic that does not know and understand God’s truth and thus has never been converted by God’s Word would claim that the Bible and true science are in opposition and that the science in God's Word cannot be scientifically verified. God’s Word is truth and facts and everything in this earth falls under its jurisdiction.
Another one on science from the same document, "Faith Article 3: The Creation" authored by Gil and Renita Rempel. They write,
“Although the Scriptures do not give a scientific account of creation, there are outstanding truths with deep ramifications.”
Gen 1 is clearly a “a scientific account of creation” as is Pr 8 and Col 1 and other places in Scripture. Scripture is science. Science means "knowledge." The English word “science” occurs only once in the NT, referring to “science falsely so-called” (1 Tim 6:20). What is often called “science” in our world, really is “science falsely so-called.”
Colossians 2:3, which speaks of Jesus Christ, says, “In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Paul reveals that all the treasures of knowledge are in Jesus. Obviously Jesus knows everything, all mysteries and all knowledge (1 Cor 13:2). When we listen to Jesus, and He says nothing in scripture about something, it is less important than other knowledge. He still knows it all and gives whatever someone needs. Is observation or the testing of the scientific method the only way of knowing what we know? Someone might challenge the Genesis account of creation as science, as the author above, because it isn’t observable or testable. In that way, scripture isn’t scientific. However, if science is knowledge, can we say we know the origin of everything? I’m not saying, believe it, but know it. We do know it from reading Gen 1. Scripture is science. Scripture says a lot of “I know,” “we know,” and “ye know.” What scripture calls the “hearing of faith” (Gal 3:2, 5) is knowledge. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Scripture is the superior means of knowledge and the basis of faith. What God says in His Word is always true. What God says, we know, because it is true. He wants us to believe what we know from scripture, and belief comes after knowing. True science proceeds from faith. The historical record shows that modern science arose from faith in God. Science and faith harmonize. They don’t conflict.
What the article and then many other articles and sermons reflect is that EMC is also fine with multiple systems of interpretation. But the end result of the continuation of the acceptance of more than one system of interpretation of scripture will be confusion, division, and departure from the truth. You aren't free to take scripture how you want. That acceptance undermines and destroys the truth, including the gospel. This we are seeing happening in evangelicalism, including EMC, right before our eyes.
(o) EMC Believes that Christians can be Demon Possessed.
Another article from the same Statement of Faith document, this one on "Satan" written by Barry Plett:
“What should be of concern to Bible-believing Christians is that even though Jesus and the disciples frequently encountered demonic possession in various forms, our colleges and seminaries are graduating “trained counseling experts” who have never been introduced to demonic activity as one of the problems people need to be freed from in order to enjoy the abundant Christian life. We do not need counselors who cast demons out of everyone who is depressed or suffering from anxiety, but we do need pastors and counselors who understand the possibility of Satan’s work in people, at times manifesting itself through demonization."
No one is casting out demons today, since the apostolic signs died with the last apostle. Its through salvation that demons are removed, or they leave on their own through acts of reformation (Lk. 11:24-26). Satan cannot possess any true born again believer. In fact, he cannot even touch them, 1 Jn. 5:18,
“We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.”
Every true saint overcomes the devil at salvation, 1 Jn. 2:12-14; 4:1-4,
“Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them [“that spirit of antichrist”]: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world”).
Everyone, bar none. Those that haven't overcome yet profess to be Christian, are definitely not saved. This is vast majority today, including at EMC, hence the heretical beliefs on demons.
(p) EMC Embraces Pacifism, Non-resistance, Weak-kneed Snowflake Behaviour through the Corruption of Scripture.
Another article from the same Statement of Faith document, "Article 9: The Life of Peace by Glen Koop, where he writes:
“As nonresistant Christians, we cannot support war, whether as officers, soldiers, combatants or noncombatants, or direct financial contributors.”
Pacifism and non-resistance is not of God's character or Word. Lk. 11:21-22 teaches that a man will protect his property and belongings and people, with resistance:
“When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.”
Did Jesus not recommend the apostles take two swords to the garden of Gethsemane? He also did not condemn Peter when he used one in attempt to resist the authorities and protect Him (Lk. 22:35-38, 49-51). Notice that to the question “Lord, shall we smite with the sword?” (v. 49) Jesus never responds in the negative or even responds at all. Obviously He permitted it, since silence means approval. In the parallel account of Jn. 18:10-11, where further info is provided, Jesus did not reprove Peter for the act of attempting to kill one of the men, but rather specifically for defending Him (“Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” cf. Matt. 26:51-54). Jesus was definitely not against Peter defending an innocent person, even recommending taking up weapons, but He did not want to be defended for He had God’s will to fulfil. King David had many enemies. Some he killed and some he didn't. It depended on a number of things such as whether they were pursuing him unto his death or whether they just simply hated him or what position they held. He always attempted to make peace with his enemies thereby demonstrating love for them (2 Sam. 3:20-21). He forgave his enemies: Absalom and co-conspirators (2 Sam. 19:6, 12-13). King David was loved greatly by God, and is mentioned more in the Bible than any other human born of man.
In Ac. 7:23-30 we read of the account of Moses killing the Egyptian who was attempting to kill a Jewish brother but God did not reprove it nor condemn it, which He surely would have had it been wrong.
“And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended him, and avenged him that was oppressed, and smote the Egyptian: For he supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them: but they understood not.” (vv. 24-25).
Moses was a converted man here and what he did was valiant. But lost peoples minds are corrupted and carnal and they do not see it like that. That doesn't change God’s Word. Much more could be said here but in closing, “The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name” (Ex. 15:3). There is even a “book of the wars of the LORD” (Num. 21:12). The Bible condemns the pacifist Mennonite as a non-valiant and confused coward. But so is the case when one is unconverted but attempting to imitate and conform to Biblical Christianity. It results in hypocrisy, confusion, fear of man and serious cowardliness.
We cover this subject in some detail at this link: Does the Bible Approve of Self-Defence? Is God Anti-War and a Pacifist
(q) The Christian Life is a Gamble, says EMC.
Another article from the same Statement of Faith document, "Article 12: The Resurrection" by Layton Friesen.
“Let the church live in such a way that unless the resurrection happened (and will happen) all is lost. If the church loses its nerve in this awesome gamble, it becomes a mere convener of clubs and parties.”
Salvation is NOT a “gamble,” not even an “awesome” one! It is not a blind leap into the dark, as expressed by Friesen. Its truth based upon evidence, LOT's of it, and facts, and those that are truly born again, know it. The greatest miracle in the world is the new birth, and all such who have experienced it, know how absolutely real and true the resurrection is. They aren’t gambling on it. Yikes.
Towards the end of this article, he spoke of what happens when we die unsaved, but strangely nothing about slamming into hell, even though its found everywhere in Scripture, and Jesus spoke of it 14x more than on heaven. That is the terrible apostasy and comprise that exists in these apostate and heretical denominations. To purposefully neglect to teach a critical life changing fact of eternity is as appalling and evil as purposefully teaching something that is false.
(r) Egregious Beliefs on Eschatology.
Yet another article from the same Statement of Faith document, “Article 13: The Return and Final Triumph of Christ” written by Abe Bueckert. Nothing is written in this article about the rapture of the saints; or about the most important event on the horizon never mind the most important event in the history of the entire world: the seven year tribulation period, the 70th week of Daniel (which is the prelude to Christ’s second coming and millennial reign); and nothing about the one thousand year reign and kingdom of Christ on earth, which is not only completely avoided but also clearly rejected according to the language used. Which explains his false teaching on Satan:
“This will be the final triumph of Christ when Satan, God’s enemy and ours, will be totally destroyed.”
Satan is not destroyed when Christ returns but after the millennial kingdom (see Rev. 20). When the Lord Jesus Christ returns at the end of the Great Tribulation He bounds Satan for a thousand years, yes over the entire span of Christ’s millennial kingdom, in the bottomless pit (vv. 1-3), but he is released thereafter for a season, at which point he will be completely destroyed when he attempts one final annihilation of God’s saints and beloved city together with all of God’s other enemies (mankind that is lost and in partnership with the Devil) (vv. 7-10). It is at this point that he is cast into the lake of fire, where the beast and false prophet already are (v. 10).
Some, or many, in EMC also embrace the seriously false teaching of amillennialism.
The watered-down and heretical beliefs of EMC are meant to appeal to a wide variety of audience. But they don't appeal to God.
(s) Other Serious Errors in the Beliefs and Practices of EMC.
- In the EMC Statement of Faith and Church Practices — 25 Part Series, "Article 2: On Believing in God" written by Arden Thiessen, one would hope to read about how to believe in God, what it means, but alas, nothing, the article "On Believing in God" actually tells us nothing about what it means to believe in God, how one is saved, nothing about repentance which is the foundation of true faith. He gives some seriously false advice as well:
“The triune being of God is a mystery. How can one God be three? Perhaps the most helpful approach for our time would be to return to the wisdom of the fourth-century thinkers and visualize the Trinity as a relationship of love.”
That would be just about the most unhelpful and unscriptural approach, to receive advice from apostates and heretics, the so-called church “fathers.” And where does the Bible teach us to “visualize the Trinity as a relationship of love”? Nowhere is about right. Its heresy and its revealing since the Bible teaches us all about the Trinity, and true believers actually believe the Bible. I understand that is a novel concept amongst neo-evangelicals, but that is actually what is expected of a born again believer. The truth is, its not hard at all to understand or explain, that is, for those who are truly Spirit-indwelled. But what else would one expect considering the author of this section gets his education, not from God the Spirit through God’s Word, but rather from apostate church “fathers.” Go figure.
- In the same aforementioned statement of faith document, the following article on "Church Practices Article 2: Christian Stewardship," Fred Buhler writes,
“The result is “to seek first the reign of God and to cease from consumerism, unchecked competition, overburdened productivity, greed and possessiveness,” as another Mennonite confession states.”
What in the world does “seek first the reign of God” mean? God won’t be reigning until His second coming at the end of the seven year Tribulation, at which time He will reign for a thousand years, but true born again believers aren’t looking for that, but for the rapture of the saints (I Th. 4:13–5:10). Most likely this language is used from some modern perverted “Bible” but Matt. 6:33 actually says: “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you” which is referring to salvation, which is substantially different than the above. Every sinner is to seek after God (e.g. Is. 55:1-7) and when he is converted, he is imputed with God’s very righteousness (e.g. 2 Cor. 5:21; Rom 4:1-8), something completely lost in the above line. It appears from this heretical statement that the Mennonite Church Canada (owners of the “another Mennonite confession”) hate capitalism (which is of God). Of course they do; they are social justice "gospel" proponents after all, which is a mere stepping stone to Marxism/Communism. That would go well with all the other trucks loads of liberal far left heresy and apostasy in that extremely ungodly and heretical group. Who quotes from apostates besides apostates?
- Again, same statement of faith document, “Church Practices Article 4: Interpersonal Relationships” is written by Stephanie Unger. The teachings here on forgiveness are extremely shallow and even unscriptural. People that are saved, forgive (Lk. 17:3-5; Matt. 6:14-15). If you don’t forgive, you are unsaved (Matt. 11:25-26; 18:21-35). That is what these passages are teaching and should’ve been taught here as it’s a major aspect of true mercy and forgiveness, but such teaching on examining self and comparing ones life and fruit and doctrine with Scripture and whether it aligns, which is found absolutely everywhere in Scripture, thousands of places (entire books are written with that subject in mind, such as 1, 2 and 3 John, James, 1 and 2 Peter; etc), is never found in the teachings at EMC, anywhere. Ever.
But the greater problem here is this statement of faith article is written by a woman, when the Bible clearly forbids women teaching men. She is also “a house church leader within Many Rooms Church Community in Winnipeg, Man.” which would explain her disobedience in writing this article, which isn't isolated here (other heretical women “leaders” writing in the statement of faith series include Kim Stoesz [who was unbelievably the “senior pastor” of Braeside EMC in Winnipeg at the time of this publication] and Evelyn Barkman and Flo Friesen). The Holy Spirit is not involved in disobedience and false doctrine and feminist rebels and haters of God. You really need to understand that.
- Another one from the same statement of faith document, “Church Practices Article 8: Societies and Associations” by George Toews (p. 23). This article reveals the wilful denial and rejection EMC has for the Biblical doctrine of separation. The words “intimate alliances” is the straw man of the day. Where does the Bible focus on that as the criteria for separation. They are adding to God’s Word. Being a light on a hill that cannot be hidden (Matt. 5:14) does NOT imply being allowed to be yoked together with darkness. Yikes. The Bible commands separation from darkness. The standards for separation of EMC is far removed from God’s Word (read 2 Th. 3:6-14; Rom. 16:17; I Tim. 6:3-5; Eph. 5:7-13; etc) and they clearly reject the passages referenced in their statement of faith (I.e. “Matthew 7:15; John 3:21; Acts 19:17–20; 2 Corinthians 6:14–18; Ephesians 5:8–13; 1 Timothy 4:17 [doesn’t exist]; James 5:12; 1 John 4:1–2; 2 John 7”) and there is certainly no desire either to align with Scripture and obey whatever it says, clearly evident by the following:
“The questions we need to ask are, “What level of covenant is required?” “Could this covenant conflict with my primary allegiance to Christ?””
Nowhere does Scripture teach this sort of subjectiveness of obedience. Questions like this reflect ZERO interest in what God’s Word actually says, for therein we find what separation is and when we separate and from who. Not muddled like this but clearly and plainly for anyone with Scriptural understanding. Whatever version is used for the 1 Cor. 5:9-10 quote, it is horribly heretical! That is NOT what Paul is teaching there at all, as if God wants us to be in fellowship with “fornicators” or “fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters;” When someone gets separation wrong or gets it unbiblical, he doesn't just get separation wrong. When someone misrepresents or perverts separation, he also gets God, scripture, the truth, the church, and even the gospel wrong. Every doctrine relates to separation. The wrong view of separation corrupts a Christian worldview. You may ask, "What do you mean?" God doesn't condone sin or error. God will not deny Himself. He becomes that when we teach separation erroneously. That's a different God. He isn't holy any longer and He can't be just either. Scripture isn't plain any more. The truth is either this or that. The church accepts error. The gospel doesn't quite change a person or isn't quite following Jesus or it's a different Jesus. The Christian worldview is one truth and this permits two. This article, along with the rest of the doctrinal document, really exposes this and the serious disobedience and unscriptural pragmatism of EMC.
For the sake of space, we will leave it at that for now.
3. EMC’s Teaching is Mostly Unsound, Ear-Tickling Fables, With (More) Examples.
The consistent pattern at EMC is a serious inability to actually interpret Scripture Biblically, so other people are quoted or referenced (which are always heretics and false teachers), and that rare moment when someone does attempt to interpret Scripture, which is never exegetically but eisegetically, the text is butchered and maligned so profoundly, it loses all recognition. They interpret Scripture to fit their preconceived personal ideas, presuppositions, and agendas, twisting and gouging as they deem fit. Its despicable and not of God. Its worse than pragmatism, and exposes an underlying lack of fear of God. Listen, you don't get to treat anything that God said like tomatoes falling off the back of a produce truck. All this disrespects God, His Word, the perspicuity of His Word, the authority of His Word. That is what they are doing. Pr. 13:13-14 warns to this:
“Whoso despiseth [disrespects, contemns] the word shall be destroyed: but he that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded. The law of the wise is a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death.”
They “interpret” practically every passage out of its context and out of harmony with the rest of Scripture. They charge others with,"taking scripture out of context or worst case scenario deliberate scripture twisting,” while they themselves are actually masters of this, all the time. They are fully guilty of "private interpretation" (2 Pet. 1:20) and falsely dividing the word of God (2 Tim. 2:15) and those who do such are false teachers (2 Tim. 2:16-21; 2 Pet. 2:1-22; 3:16-17). They also become the master of straw man and logical fallacies, which is actually a form of bearing false witness (ninth commandment — Ex. 20:16). One sermon I listened through "The Testimony of Jesus" on the book of Revelation, by missionary Peter Fehr, he pulls so many straw man arguments, to compile them all and expose them would require an encyclopaedic length thesis.
Much of the preaching at EMC, if not all, is shallow, unscriptural, with lots of misuse and misinterpretation of Scripture, and doctrinal errors and heresy. Its really a smorgasbord of ear tickling sermons. Mostly, they take their experience and preconceived ideas and philosophies and conform scripture to it (the bit of Scripture they use), which is that dishonouring and heretical interpretation practice of eisegesis (where ideas are pushed into scripture, rather than allowing the scripture to speak for itself). I don’t think there is even one preacher at EMC who preaches exegetically, and I don't think any would even know what it was even if it hit them right on the nose. Here are some more examples.
1. Glorifying unbelief and doubting — the cause of so much unbelief and ungodliness in the EMC particularly, and evangelicalism in general. Deconstruction.
Today most churches have gone "woke," especially in evangelicalism. Many accept critical race theory and same sex relations. Those might seem to be extremes, but they live at EMC to varying degrees. What leads to it? It comes short of that, but its nevertheless heretical, that is, justifying unbelief and disobedience to Scripture as a deconstruction.
A writer at EMC writes,
“The trendy word for this today is deconstruction. And there seems to be an increase lately of Christians who are deconstructing their faith and moving on from it. In fact, some reports say that 60 percent of people born in the church deconstruct and lose their faith after high school. Clearly, this is no laughing matter.” (Walking through Deconstruction, James Driedger, July 9, 2023)
I wonder how high that number is amongst EMC people. I would bet 60% isn't high enough, but of those that remain, the vast majority, if not all, are unsaved themselves, so they’re all going to the same place, including on the same broad path (Matt 7:13), only reaching there by diverse means and deceptions, all the while whistling in the dark. The young people attending their ungodly, heretical and worldly gatherings such as Abundant Springs and Festival, and Young Adult Retreat, are full of unbelief, ungodliness, love for the world, and spite for the God of the Bible. They demand a Christianity that conforms to their beliefs. A “Jesus” that fits their evil and carnal minds. That is why common arguments that arise out of these heretical environments is the “problem of evil or OT violence” which they blame on God, completely ignoring, denying and rejecting the fact that God has never changed, or that He is a just God that demands justice.
But the truth is rejected, and that rejection dovetails perfectly with their rejection of repentance, the fear of God, pointed preaching against sin, hell, etc. And the further premise of this, its cause by unsaved people playing Christianity and churcholatry. Thats the bottom line and its easy to discern this in the Scriptures.
With all their philosophy and analysis of why this is occurring, they don’t actually ever come close to the truth. They are clueless, it seems. I say “they” because they would essentially all agree with what is being exposed in this article.
Deconstruction is what unbelievers do. What the faithless do. What those who have a problem wth God, the Bible and Christianity in general, and historically, do. People that cannot discern between true Christianity and a counterfeit, have serious problems with true spiritual discernment, that actually comes part and parcel with true conversion. What would bring a people ever even to this point? The author claims its “often wounds from the church that push people into deconstruction” but that is a red herring for soft, weak-kneed, snowflakes that are loaded with psychoheresy teachings and that are so absorbed with the world, that when truth hits them right between the eyes, they fall over in a heap of mess and pot of porridge. What is the real reason and cause of this ungodliness, that has defined the nation of Israel for 3,500 years or so? Big reason is what's being glorified in the “church,” which is unbelief and doubt. It occurs through the vague, anemic, watered-down, unscriptural and eisegetical “preaching” that illustrates more of story telling and uplifting feel-good speeches. All this stems from unsaved, unregenerate people playing Churcholatry. The parents have never been actually truly saved, so the children are growing up in a home of hypocrites that "have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof" (2 Tim 3:5). They are very well trained conformist and hypocrites.
Read "Unbelief" is Only a Characteristic of Unsaved People, Not the Saved. Unbelief = unbeliever. Can I say “duh” 🙄 But you wouldn't know it based upon how these neo-evangelicals (and others) preach.
The trough of doubt, unbelief, ungodliness and heresy that these evangelicals feed at is further illustrated by the author positively mentioning “Timothy Keller” had “saved [him] from a lot of foolishness in [his] 20s…” Yikes. What is real foolishness is to be reading Timothy Keller, which buttresses the plain fact that these are false professing believers at EMC, like most of the rest of evangelicalism, who have no discernment and ability to “try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” (1 Tim 4:1). How bad is Keller? Real bad. Apostate bad. Blasphemous “liar, evil beast, slow belly” (Ti 1:12) and wolf in sheep’s clothing, bad. He is an evolutionist, ecumenist (with Rome, atheists, anyone) and purveyor of a false gospel and Biblical Critical Theory and many false doctrines, attacks God's Word and God as Creator, in more ways than evolution, etc, all of which you can read about here: Exposing Tim Keller Part 2, and Attacks on God’s Creation, in More Ways Than Evolution.
The EMC author also quotes Lesslie Newbigin, a serious ecumenical heretic, rejector of true Biblical Christianity, and one who helped form the extremely wicked and apostate World Council of Churches (WCC), the brainchild of the Antichrist, helping to establish his one-world end-times church.
There are hundreds of examples that could be given of the Bible-Christ-rejection that occurs amongst EMC families. Many apostatize and become homosexuals, atheists, agnostics, or just plain nominal, etc. One example comes to mind, of a Lynden Neudorf serving with MCC in El Salvador as a HIV and AIDS Instructor. On May 14, 2011 on his blog he positively quoted the false god and idol of billions of people, “Buddha,” whom in believing, has brought countless billions of people into the eternal fires of hell. But Neudorf isn’t concerned about that, or how a positive quote is damaging and dangerous. He is concerned about appeasing the lusts of his flesh, which in this case was “travels.” In this same blog he writes “At this point I had Joni Mitchel singing in my head about traveling on a lonely road and how negativity unravels joy.” Rock music loved by a “Christian”? Wow. Really? Nah, not surprised at all, seeing that they on a daily basis bring their gifts before their golden calf of CCM worship. The genre is all the same. And how about that judgmental "negativity"? Just about missed that. By all appearances, Neudorf has paid vigilant attention while attending EMC churches.
2. False teachings on the law, the gospel, and style of preaching.
In a sermon on “Gal. 4:21-31” (Nov 4, 2012) delivered by EMC missionary Peter Fehr, he promoted serious confusion and false teachings on the law as had been taught earlier by a Gordon (and now furthered by Fehr), which actually equates a false gospel. What didn’t help was the quoting from the extremely heretical perversions of Scripture, the NLT and The Message. Amongst the error, the following statement was made:
"Let me put it another way. . . . The law was our guardian until Christ came; it protected us until we could be made right with God through faith. And now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian."
What? “The law was our guardian . . . it protected us? ”? The law has NEVER been a guardian or protecter of anyone. Protected us from what?? The gospel of Jesus Christ has never changed. The purpose of the law has always been to be a schoolmaster (a reprover) to bring people to repentant faith in Christ, to expose sin, “for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” (Rom. 3:20b). For all people of all ages. The law makes sin, exceedingly sinful, which is its purpose. Concerning the law, Paul the apostle declares,
“Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.” (Rom 7:13)
That is the laws purpose, a schoolmaster:
"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." (Gal. 3:24).
This is all quite contrary to being a protector and guardian.
What Fehr is teaching about the law correlates to a change of the gospel of Christ. Salvation has always been through repentant faith in the Messiah, throughout all ages, described for us in this very chapter (Gal. 3:6-19). For the law to be a guardian and protecter, the law would have to be a provider of salvation, for its in this manner that wea are guarded and protected . It isn’t however. It leads a sinner to repentance. This means Fehr is teaching a false gospel here, which is a perveretd gospel (Gal 1:6-9) and a damnable heresy (2 Pet 2:1).
In the sermon he claimed:
“You see Paul has a lot of emotion in these passages. He does have a lot of emotion. [quoting Gal. 4:19-20]. So you see that Paul is really pouring out his heart. He is really emotionally involved.”
No he isn’t. He’s just simply preaching the truth. The power is in the message, not in the oracle or emotion. You are reading that into the passage and it doesn't exist, which is the God-dishonouring methodology of “interpretation” called eisegesis. Which is bad. And really, what does this have to do with anything? Why focus on such trivial matters when there is meat to be unpacked, which never happens at EMC. Does it verify the importance or impact of the message, when someone “really pour[s] out his heart [and] is really emotionally involved”? Is that the only point of time when we start listening? Its completely subjective, but to EMC preachers its everything.
In 1 Cor. 1:18 and 21, Paul said “it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” “Preaching” (kerugmatos) isn't a style of speech, oozing with feeling and stylistic dynamics that contemporary speakers in evangelical circles attempt to emulate, but the content of the proclamation, and this is how the word is used in the Bible. In 1 Cor. 2:1-5 Paul goes further to emphasize the effect wasn't in the excellence of the speaking that he did, excellence being the superiority of the person, but in the message, the testimony of God. The power of God rests in the Word of God and in the yielding to the Spirit of God, not in some means of a human intermediary channeling power of emotions. In another mention, Paul says the gospel is the power of God (Rom 1:16), again emphasizing the message, not the oracle. He spoke the words "which the Holy Ghost" had taught him as an apostle, in other words, he spoke scripture. When the said power stands in the message, the substance of the preaching, God gets the glory or that "no flesh should glory in God's presence" (1 Cor 1:29). EMC leaders and people are glorifying in the flesh of man, while God’s glory is in the Biblically sound preaching of the Word of God. The apostle Peter said that God is glorified when a man speaks "as the oracles of God" (1 Pet. 4:10-11), which is scripture. The oracular or ecstatic speech that accentuates the experiential, the euphoria of style, glorifies man. That is what we see in the emphasis of evangelical preachers such as EMC but it isn’t what God has chosen to confound the wisdom of this world. They glorify the speaking of the man Paul because of the apparent emotions that he is pouring out of his heart, but that isn't how God chooses to persuade men. It might make sense to men, but it isn't what God uses, and nowhere do we know that Paul is especially pouring his emotions into something. This missionary is reading into scripture something that doesn't exist. I’m not saying that a speaker attempts to be as dry and monotone in speech as possible. I'm saying the emphasis is not on human means to sway. Powerful preaching isn't related to emotion, technique, strategy, gesticulation, raving, or passion. It is apparent that EMC people are more interested in feelings and popular opinions than in the simple truth of Scripture. That also fits with so many other errors and problems exposed in this autopsy of EMC.
In Galatians Paul was preaching the truth to a people that were being misled by false teachers, who were in the midst of the churches at Galatia (e.g. Gal. 1:6-9; 2:4-5; 5:1-12; 6:13), and some, or many, of the Galatians were perhaps unsaved (e.g. Gal. 6:7-8, 16). This is why in the middle of this epistle he asked earnestly: "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" (Gal. 4:16). He knew some would be offended at what he was writing, just like I know that people ay EMC will be offended at what I am writing about them and to them. Its not because I am emotional. It's because I have the truth (2 Jn. 1:1-2), I know the truth (1 Jn 2:20-21), and I understand the truth, so I am bold in the truth and contend for the truth (Ju. 1:3). Just like Paul. We are to follow his example (Phil. 3:17–19; 1 Cor. 4:16-17).
The reason why I am parking for longer than usual on this statement about so-called emotions of Paul is because it sheds much light on how EMC preachers and denomination overall moves. On emotionalism. On the style of preaching. By the flesh. Tears mean something and a smile means something. It is a replacement for truth. If its emotional it must be true, no matter how untrue it is. Of course “sincerity” is also connected to the emotions. Evangelicalism (today) and emotionalism flow from the same faucet. On the other hand, a sharp rebuke and judgment on error and heresy brings scorn, anger and resentment, the wrong kind of emotion, in spite of the rebuke and contending against error or sin be according to the truth. EMC leaders and their cronies couldn't handle Paul the apostle for a second. He would classify them as an emotional, sensual, and worldly group of people walking after the flesh and not the Spirit, in desperate need of true Biblical conversion. What is “an emotional speaker,” which Fehr also labels himself as, versus a “studious speaker”? Who gets to choose? And what are they exactly choosing? Does this phraseology come from some novel called ‘The Five Preacher Languages’ by chance? Glorifying the flesh of man is non-glorifying to God. Its actually idolatry. And what's with "speaker"?! A “speaker” in a church is emerging church soft language used so as to not offend the poor ear tickling charlatans that warm the pews. We are to be preachers, NOT speakers!
Fehr also quoted from the extremely heretical NLT and even positively quoted from Eugene Peterson's extremely wicked and heavily blasphemous “The Message" version of the Bible. These two perversions of God’s Word are not just heretical; they are utterly wicked and blasphemous.
3. Corruption of Scripture, promoting invalid doctrine, false social gospel, no spiritual discernment.
In the sermon “Where's Your Heart?” (Nov 20, 2016), preached by missionary Peter Fehr, he demonstrates that he doesn’t have the foggiest clue as to what Matt. 6:22-23 is teaching, a passage apparently out of place. The preacher also wrests and rips Jn. 3:19-21 out of context, destroying this important text of scripture, a passage teaching on repentance in salvation and why sinners won't come to the light of God’s Word.
Fehr also emphasized the erroneous teaching of tithing, something practiced under the Mosaic law for the Levites (Heb. 7:5) with zero mention of true Biblical giving (the question Are New Testament Believers Obligated to Pay the Tithe? Is answered at that link). He claimed would it be difficult and convicting for a preacher to preach on money. What?? Something very wrong here. What about 1 Tim. 6:6–12 and Pr. 23:4-5, amongst others. No difficulty at all there for someone truly converted. Only false pretending “believers” that are (obviously) deeply compromised preachers would find money a difficult and convicting subject. The just live by faith; no subject is too hard or difficult. But they first need to come to faith (Heb. 11:6).
More of EMC’s false gospel preached in this sermon, this time the false social “gospel” (time 14:15–15:10), which is a mainstay in EMC sermons. Their "gospel" is the "gospel" of "volunteering" and "community work." Do they not know that "works" without faith is dead also?
The preacher makes a number of positive quotes about the "Preaching Today” magazine, which he claims to be “a very reputable magazine.” Yikes. This magazine is a neo-evangelical, ecumenical publication and it is extremely heretical, worldly, loaded with tons of unscriptural garbage, extreme scripture perversion and wresting, ungodly music promotion, female "pastors," glorifies in false teachers, heretics and wolves in sheep’s clothing, and the list goes on and on. EMC is attempting to find wholesome food in a garbage can. Fehr says because they are “very reputable” and “been around for along time," he is “going to take their word for it.” Wow, ZERO spiritual discernment, ZERO ability or even desire to discern between "the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error" (1 Jn 4:6), while true born again converts always have and exercise spiritual discernment (1 Jn. 4:1-3; Ac. 17:11; 1 Th. 5:21; Is. 8:20; 1 Cor. 2:15-16; Jn. 7:24; Gal. 2:4-5; Ti 1:9-16; Ju 1:3; Rom. 16:17; Phil. 3:2, 17-19). Always, for its a "joy to the just to do judgment" (Pr 23:15). So much for 1 Jn 4:1, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." In evangelicalism spiritual discernment is gone out the window and the spirit of compromise and apostasy is at an all-time high. They are void of discernment, but discernment comes from the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:14-16; 1 Th 5:21), which then means, according to Scripture, that they are unsaved because everyone that is born of God has spiritual discernment since they all have the indwelling Holy Spirit, while the natural man, the unsaved man, does not (1 Cor 2:14). They are simple and believe every word (Pr 14:15), and follow after whatsoever tickles their ears (Pr. 14:15, 18; 1:22-32; 7:7; 9:16, 13, 4; 8:5; 27:12; Rom 16:18; Ps 19:7; 119:130). This explains why so many of these people follow after false teachers today, after the "voice of strangers" rather than the voice of the Shepherd (Jn 10:1-5). The sermon overall did no Biblical justice to the subject of "Where's Your Heart?"
4. Mockery of God's Word, compromise, confusion, false doctrine, and heresy,
The sermon “The Testimony of Jesus” (July 03, 2016), also preached by missionary Peter Fehr, was an introduction to the book of Revelation, and it was unbelievably bad. So very bad. Terribly compromised, confusing, contrary to Scripture and serious undermining of God's Word, even to the point of mockery. Practically everything he taught concerning the seven churches of Revelation was false and unscriptural. Without providing any admonishment or correction, he unbelievably stated that "a lot of preachers don't preach out of Revelation; perhaps because it can cause a lot of division on what it means.” Oookay. Just. Wow. Speak of terrible compromise, but those who do such things are very clearly false teachers, fearing man and not God which is a major proof of such, and for Fehr to be silent over much needed reproof of this ungodly attitude and compromise, is simply treacherous. But it goes well with their lack of warning on anything. Even this wasn't a warning. And, although he is “preaching” out of Revelation, he is treading very carefully as to not all of a sudden cause some kind of “division.” He, and they, don't take a clear stand for anything that might be deemed “controversial.” There is no conivctions and tsance upon truth. Jesus said He came to cause division—division between truth and error (Lk. 12:51; Jn. 10:19). The subjective and experiential Christianity of EMC is guaranteed to leave one walking in step with the apostates on the broad road to destruction (Am. 3:3). And so we see.
Apparently Revelation can "perhaps be read in a number of different ways." That also is plain heresy and goes against everything the Bible teaches concerning the absoluteness of God’s truth, that all saved people are taught the same truth (Pr 8:8-9; 22:20-21) and the very clear fact that there is only one interpretation in all of Scripture. Every passage and text and book of Scripture has one meaning, though there may be various applications. We aren’t speaking about applications though, so people that read something in a different ways are reflecting an unconverted, unregenerate and Spirit-less nature. People that don't like what something means or don't understand what it means, are equally lost because they are without understanding and without the indwelling Spirit! The Holy Spirit doesn’t teach those He indwells in different manners (I Jn. 2:20-21, 27).
He went on to blame bad teachings by end-time ministries as to why people want to stay away from Revelation and not have anything to do with it. Although I do not agree with imbalanced “ministries” that focus only on end-times, this straw man is a pile of hogwash. Where in God's Word do we ever find such humanistic and faulty reasoning? Apparently Fehr appreciates those end time teachers that are willing to be doctrinal compromisers, because supposedly "it is very important to approach this humble.” Okay. interpretation: being doctrinally compromised and confused is humble. Being confident in the meaning of Scripture is not humble. So its proud. Fehr is fulfilling 2 Tim. 4:3-4 to precision:
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”
Fehr is preaching fictitious fables from the pulpit, which is scratching the ears of his listeners.
In the first ten minutes or so of the sermon, he presents himself as a master of straw man fallacies. Unbelievably, he even compares the details of Revelation with that of Sherlock Holmes, terribly undermining and mocking the Word of God concerning both the Book of Revelation and Prophecy. During this period of the sermon we find a good example of how doctrinally compromised these men really are, implying that truth is not an absolute. He says we can't know the perfect truth. Really. Wow. That is a falsehood definitely NOT of God, and entirely contrary to God's Word. Hence why they have no issue with those that teach heretical and evil error. If you can’t know the truth, then obviously they are implying they aren’t true believers. To know the truth, they need to have the Spirit of truth, and every true born again believer does know the truth because he has the Spirit of truth (I Jn. 2:20-21, 27) for he has the truth dwelling in him forever (2 Jn. 1:2). Jesus is “the truth” (Jn. 14:6), and when you are in Christ through the true gospel and new birth, you are indwelled by the truth and being taught the truth, and know the truth. That happens at salvation:
“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (Jn. 8:32).
“But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.” (1 Jn 2:20-21)
Knowing the truth is inseparable from salvation.
He goes on to make a number of heretical, unBiblical statements such as:
"We should certainly study [end times] but take it loosely”
and,
“Amillenialism has good points.”
Take it loosely?! The Bible is filled with end-times prophecies, and nowhere are we told to “take it loosely”! Thats something the wolf in sheep’s clothing Rick Warren would say, and has said.
The latter comment is apostate as well, for there are no good points of amillennialism (the three pillars of amillennialism are Spiritualizing Scripture; Replacement Theology; and a General Resurrection, and all three are completely heretical) and all who hold to this false belief are definitely unsaved, since its the byproduct of the wicked and Spirit-less allegorical interpretation and spawned in the depths of hell, brought to fruition by “the great whore” and “the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth” (Rev. 17–18, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church), and its the very opposite truth of the clear millennial teaching of Scripture. Fehr is very confused. He seriously and continually undermines the importance of prophecy and what true prophecy actually is. It is evident that they hold to the same belief of all the leading “evangelicals,” which as a main goal is to eliminate doctrinal distinctives and to emphasize (fake) unity among those claiming to be believers. EMC, it does matter how you interpret Bible prophecy and it determines whether you are actually saved to begin with. Millennialism is the product of literal interpretation as taught by the indwelling Spirit of God. The doctrine of a premileenial return of Christ (2 Cor. 5:1-8; 15:50-58; I Th. 4:13–5:11; 2 Th. 2:3; etc) is extremely important and unseparated from salvation (e.g. Ac. 17:30-31; 2 Pet. 3:1-10), since waiting for the imminent return of Christ is a major evidence of true conversion (Lk. 12:36; Matt. 24:36-44; 25:1-13; I Th. 1:9-10; I Cor. 1:6-7; Jam. 5:7-8). A rejection of the imminency of Christ’s return is a major reason why emerging churchers like EMC can have long-range social-justice goals to save the earth, solve the AIDS problem in Africa, do away with poverty, and perform other “kingdom works” to renew society, like we see EMC investing much of their time with, even hinted at in their new emerging contemporary type of motto: “A Movement Of People Advancing Christ’s Kingdom Culture As We Live, Reach, Gather, And Teach.” The rejection of a premillennial return of Christ and tolerating unscriptural end-times prophecy (such as Amillenialism) is a characteristic of the emerging church heresies in all of its aspects, including the more “conservative” side, which side EMC might fit themselves into.
At multiple times in the sermon, he proclaims the false and heretical Keswick/higher life/deeper life/victorious life type of theology on dividing freedom from the penalty of sin and freedom from the power of sin, while the Bible makes it plainly clear that at salvation we are saved immediately from both the penalty and power of sin (e.g. Rom. 6:1-23).
He claims that all the seven churches in Revelation, or the people in these churches, “have been saved.” That is untrue, undiscerning and plainly false. At least two of these churches were apostate (Laodicea, Sardis), but especially the Laodicean, where the church is completely apostate (“lukewarm” and lost, 3:14-18, including the pastor himself). It is wrong and dangerous to say "this would be a great encouragement to a church that is really struggling" when many in the churches are in fact unsaved, which is actually the message of Christ to these churches, and only those who overcome (Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21) are actually true converts (every born again believer is an overcomer, starting at salvation: Rev. 21:7; 1 Jn. 4:3-6; 5:1-5; cf. Rom. 8:28-30; 1 Cor. 1:6-9; 15:57-58; Lk. 6:46-48; Gal. 2:20) and those who don’t, prove they were never saved to begin with (e.g. 1 Jn. 2:19; 3:6; Jn. 6:60-66). This preacher would go on to give the same false assurance that is heaped upon “evangelicals" today, many of whom are entirely void of true conversion.
"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. . . . Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." (Matt. 7:15-20).
You can read further of these in Matt 7:20-21, they don't do the will of God but serve their own flesh (cf. Rom. 8:1-14; Gal. 5:19-21; I Jn. 2:15-17; Jam. 4:4; Rom. 16:18; Phil. 3:19), and Jesus has never known them (v. 23). They have never come to Him on His terms (Mk. 1:15; 8:34-38; 10:21) and their disobedience to God's Word proves they have never known Him (e.g. Matt 7:24-27; 1 Jn 2:3-5; Jn 14:23-24).
He goes on to claim that "Laodicea was a church lukewarm in their faith." Laodicea was a false church. An apostate church. Those at Laodicea were unsaved, Rev. 3:17-18, 20-21 makes that abundantly clear. They had no “faith” except in themselves and their wealth, JUST like EMC. Lukewarm is not referring to a saved person, but someone who is unsaved and most likely never to be saved. God spews them out of His mouth. Since when does God spew His children out of His mouth? Is that chastening language? Is that how God loves His children, who are inseparable from His love (Rom. 5:5; 8:31-39)? (The very passage even tell us that “as many as I love, I chasten”, referring to those actually converted among them He is chastening for He only chastens His children, which is whom He loves — cf. Heb. 12:5-11; Pr. 3:11-12). Language like “lukewarm” and “backslidden” and these types of terms have become the currency of Keswick and second blessing. They explain "Christians" who are almost guaranteed to be not born again Christian. The Bible mostly doesn't explain these people as saved, but they are labeled so by this new theology. You can read more here on Labels Misused Towards Professing Believers that Only Apply to False Professing “Believers."
Speaking of the Book of Revelation, herein we find Christ telling us what a church should be like, most of which is not to be found to any degree in EMC churches. For example:
Not tolerating lost and wicked persons or false believers (2:2, 9, 20-22; 3:9, 15-20).
Testing the life, doctrine, and claims of Christian leaders (2:2).
Persevering in works, labour, faith, love, witness, service, patience, and suffering for Christ — by keeping His Word, and watching for His return (2:3, 10, 13, 19, 26; 3:2-3, 10-11).
Not tolerating doctrinal error and hating what God hates (2:6, 15; cf. Ps. 119:104, 128; Heb. 1:9; the standard for permitting false doctrine in a church is zero-tolerance — I Tim. 1:3; Gal. 5:9). The pastor has responsibility to protect the flock from error (Ti. 3:9-11; Ac. 20:28-30), as does the church as a whole, confronting those who bring in false teaching (2:2,6; cf. Ac. 15:1-2, 30-31; Rom. 16:17; Gal. 2:4-5; Phil. 3:17-19; II Jn. 1:9-11).
Overcoming sin, Satan, and the evil world which is through preaching the true gospel/salvation and expecting nothing less than true conversions, for these things are overcome at salvation (2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; cf. I Jn. 4:4; 5:4-5; Rev. 21:7).
Separation — refusing to conform to the immorality of the world and worldliness in the church (2:24; 3:4, 8) thus hating the world (cf. Jn. 15:18-20; 17:14-16; I Jn. 2:15-17; Jm. 4:4), and separating from false teachers (Rom. 16:17; Gal. 2:4-5; I Tim. 6:3-5; II Jn. 1:6-9) and false pretending “believers” including false pastors (3:15-19; cf. Rom. 16:17; I Tim. 6:3-5; II Th. 3:6; Ti. 3:10-11).
Keeping God's Word (3:8, 10) which starts with true exegetical interpretation and preaching and having the Word of God.
Again, not one of these points exist in the EMC denomination, which then means they are not a pillar and ground of the truth. Well, we know that for many reasons already.
~o————————————————————o~
This is only a small sample of sermons and articles of course, but the same general theme of misinterpreting, manipulating, misusing and abusing the Word of God is found in every case, only some sermons are worse than others. Practically every passage of Scripture is interpreted completely out of its context and out of harmony with the rest of Scripture. What they are doing is called "private interpretation" (2 Pet. 1:20) and falsely dividing the Word of God (2 Tim. 2:15) and those who commit such crimes are false teachers (2 Tim. 2:16-21; 2 Pet. 2:1-22; 3:16-17). Their hermeneutics is false and faulty, and its to be blamed on the false professions of these men, their counterfeit “Christianity,” adoption of a false “gospel” and false “Jesus,” living after the lusts of their flesh while attempting to integrate Biblical spirituality into that mess (which is called spiritual whoredom or adultery), loving false versions of Scripture, and the list goes on, but these are primary. The foundational road to their apostasy is always furnished with three main stops: Not Understanding What the Words of God Are, Not Understanding What the Words of God Mean, and Not Understanding How the Words of God Apply.
God's Word is plain and perspicuous, and its every word is important since we are to live by every word (Matt. 4:4). If passages of scripture are twisted and wrested to fit a narrative and the meaning of Scripture is mangled, is the Holy Spirit in it? God doesn’t work in a way that circumvents the Bible. So is the Holy Spirit behind all the articles and sermons and beliefs found at EMC, teaching the people, which are contrary to Scripture? The teachings are incongruous with God’s Word. They reveal a void of true spiritual discernment and understanding, which actually comes with salvation (1 Cor. 2:12-16), with the reception of the indwelling "Spirit of Truth," who is the Teacher of truth to all He indwells (1 Jn. 2:20-21, 27; Pr. 22:17-21), thus another proof of unregeneracy. A Scriptural position on inspiration and inerrancy results in consistent or non-contradictory beliefs. God is not going to contradict Himself, so we won’t get a right understanding of Scripture that results in any contradictions. Contradictions in EMC teachings to Scripture is evident absolutely everywhere. Every sermon, every article, we find confusion and contradiction to God's Word. And its all publicly accessible, which is what makes it so dangerous. The examples above, among many many more that could be given, reveal that EMC preachers “are unlearned" and that they "wrest [twist, distort], as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction” (2 Pet. 3:16), which is an “error of the wicked” (2 Pet. 3:17) — i.e. evidently a false teacher. They are bearing false witness and teaching false doctrine and heresy. They are indeed as “many, which corrupt the word of God” (2 Cor. 2:17) and “handle the word of God deceitfully” (2 Cor. 4:2). This means the entire EMC denomination with its individual churches would likely fall under the banner of heretic, who after two admonishments should be rejected, "Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." (Ti. 3:10-11).
The mood of these churches could be well summarized by 2 Tim 4:3-4,
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” (2 Tim. 4:3-4).
The prophecy in 2 Tim 4:3-4 is fulfilled today with this new type of adulterous Christianity, essentially harlots of the great whore (Rev 17) who are helping to establish the one-world apostate church of the Antichrist. The prophecy says there will be heaps of teachers who give unsound teaching to itchy ears for this new type of strange Christianity, and that’s exactly what we see. Almost none of it contains the straightforward preaching and teaching of Scripture that reproves, rebukes, and exhorts (2 Tim 4:2).
Comments