Before the speaker began his message, he held up ‘the school’ as "the pinnacle of truth on the planet." Since he regards the school with such high esteem, don’t you think his message will adhere to that school’s doctrines?
The speaker made the statement, "I don’t need a verse to tell me not to marry unbelievers. You don’t need a verse to tell you cigarettes are not good for you. If you need verses, I’ve got them .... but you should not need a verse if you have the mind of Christ." He never gave any explanation of how a person would discern if the thoughts in his mind were coming from 1) the mind of Christ, or 2) his own fleshly mind (Col 2:18), or 3) the fiery darts of the wicked (Eph 6:16). I will tell you how to know the source of your thoughts .... YOU NEED A VERSE!
Since the speaker believes "you don’t need a verse" .... don’t you think his message will reflect that notion?
His text was 2 Cor 6:14-7:1. He said, "The context of the chapter is not about Christians marrying unbelievers. It is about the religious system." Even though his premise is that "you don’t need a verse" .... let’s go ahead and read them anyway, just for the sake of it being God’s word.
The context begins with a contrast between believers and unbelievers .... not with a difference between ‘grace believers’ and ‘the religious system’:
2 Cor 6:14-7:1 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers:
The same comparison made yet again, following the colon (which is a mark of punctuation used before an extended quotation, explanation, example, or series):
for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?
We are made righteous (Rom 5:19).
The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9).
and what communion hath light with darkness?
We were darkness, but now are children of light (Eph 5:8, 1 Thes 5:5, Acts 26:18, John 12:48).
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial?
Belial is another name for Satan.
or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
An infidel is one who is unfaithful and unbelieving.
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?
We are to guard ourselves from all manner of fellowship with heathen worship, including any image of any false god.
We should be separate from unbelievers, the unrighteous, darkness, Belial, an
infidel, and idols? Why? Because we are God’s building (1 Cor 3:9, Eph 2:22):
for ye are the temple of the living God; (also see Acts 7:48, 17:24)
Then Paul quoted the OLD testament and APPLIED it to saints in the dispensation of grace:
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. (MANY references)
This passage is not teaching us to be separated ‘from Adam into Christ’. The text says nothing about separating ourselves unto the grace of God:
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
2 Cor 7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
The speaker said we should be "learning ‘the grace message’ and not going back into the religious system. That’s what we’re saved from."
The speaker was intent upon forcing a separation between the saints who attend churches where they are not ‘mid-Acts, rightly-dividing, grace believers.’ He said, "Sometimes they may be justified, but it gets cloudy after that."
The speaker read
Gal 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
The speaker said, "Paul was separated from his mother’s womb." He also said Paul was separated from the commonwealth of Israel and from the law.
The speaker said, "When anyone goes to the Greek to try to explain a verse, 99.9" of the time they’re trying to get around what it says." Since the KJV was translated from the Greek, why would the speaker make such a rash judgment on a person who sought a fuller, composite understanding?
The speaker also said, "God thinks less of the religious person who goes to church. It’s more dangerous." He said, "God gave the only religion. What we’re into isn’t a religion. We’re not religious. God hates religion. It’s not okay to be in the religious system." Verses, please? Oh yeah, he doesn’t need them! Well, how about this one anyway?
James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
I think the speaker’s life experiences were amusing. It is just sad that he is so captivated and blinded by ‘mid-Acts’ doctrine .... and that he thinks he doesn’t need a verse.
FYI, several weeks ago I preached a message on Separation, which is posted both audio and text (available to download) on my website.
A couple of years ago, I talked with the speaker about being faithful to the KJV, and Pauline authority, about office of a ‘bishop’, and he agreed with the verse. Last year, he showed me his new business cards with the correct ‘office’ title printed on them:
1 Tim 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
Today, he repeatedly used the term ‘pastor’ instead, which is The Living Bible’s substitute word for ‘bishop’. Maybe he has been influenced by the ‘mid-Acts’ bishops who refuse to be called such, who don’t ‘follow Paul’, and who claim to be KJV but are not true to it on this issue.
This is David Dowell, saying, "Think about it!"
