Thursday, January 12, 2023

Roy Masters (Reuben Obermeister) versus the Lord Jesus Christ

Roy Masters (Reuben Obermeister) vs. Jesus Christ

The below is text from threads posted on Free Republic some years about about Roy Masters teaching and subtle deception and word-craft, (my exposure of which even resulted in the advocate I debated asserting that I fabricated quotes documented from Google books and Master's own writings). Some of the now dead links are updated [in brackets] to point to current editions or archived copies, before they also are expunged. I could not find copies of some links, but all were working at the time of the original posting. Some spelling mistakes or typos are also corrected, and formatting improved. Any other additions are in brackets. Main site page is

10/1/2012: The way it works is that you begin with rapping Roy, following his mesmerizing meditation, and gain esoteric understanding, and while you may see things in the Bible that you “awaken” you to that hidden knowledge, and see things as confirming it, this is not by normal exegesis in which you pay attention to context, grammar, genre, etc, but is a revelation knowledge, in which you are the supreme authority on truth, and after you have really arrived you can throw the Bible away.

Masters denies that remembering and treasuring the words of the Bible in the heart means they have the word of God in their heart, as while Masters says that the Bible can awaken you to esoteric understanding under his meditation, yet it is the revelation knowledge that he gets, “the understanding that is awakened in my mind, and the bond with that spirit of awakening is what is holy with me,” [12:28] not the physical Bible, and “the Scriptures are just words on a page,” and “I can take that Bible to the toilet with me and use it in the same way as anything else.” (ibid, Walter Martin takes on Roy Masters min. 12:30-34 []

In this Masters makes a critical [blasphemous] error, as he reasons that since the pages which conveys truth is material, and and language is not then it is not holy, sanctified, set apart, and to be treated with reverence, but only the truth is contains and awakens one to is holy. However, as i pointed out before, even the presence of one believer in a marriage sanctifies a family. ()

And consistent with Masters understanding, one can say that since the human body is simply made protoplasm, it need not be treated with special respect, but only the things it contains.

Giving him more rope, Masters states that “you cannot analyze language and find understanding in it,” which, along with consideration of genre and context, is part of understanding what people say in everyday life as well as what the Bible is doctrinally saying. And while by so doing we get a deeper understanding of God and the fulness of meaning, yet under Masters this is denigrated for the actual words are only a sound, or noise, and instead the Bible only “awakens” you to an understanding through his mind-numbing meditation, heretofore described by him.

Scan the Scriptures for understanding. BUT NEVER STUDY OR BE ABSORBED IN MERE WORDS..” (The Satan Principle, p. 100).

What comes from thinking builds pride, but what comes out of neutral realizing awareness [the state of innocence or holiness] is holy.” ( How to Control Your Emotions, p. 84)

His words, in response to the charge that he is his own standard, is that, “the standard is not the Bible, the standard is what the Bible awakens to me in my own heart.” (, min. 36:53-57 [39:25 [ where you can choose to show the transcript. Pt. 1 audio is also at]) in which he detaches his conscious mind from his “imagination,” including daily thinking and living.

“Not the words on a page, not the sounds of a language,” but when you understand what the words are saying, when you understand what the knowledge is saying, you leave the knowledge behind, you leave the printed word behind and you have life.” as this understanding is a “wordless word” and when that happens, “there is the beginning of salvation.” “The Bible you read says ‘the letter kills,’ the words on a page, they kill you; if you involve yourself in words you move away from understanding.” ibid. min. 12:40-13:35 [12:49])

Here Masters makes a false dichotomy between consideration of the actual words of Scripture in prayerful consideration of their meaning, and understanding of them.

Certainly there are secondary meanings to Scripture, and God can apply any text to any situation, but the doctrinal meaning is critical and is not realized apart from exegetical consideration, including of the very words themselves, such as seen by the Lords question in Mtt. 22:

“While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions. “ ()

And which focus upon the meaning of words SR also pointed out in other texts.

And which is seen in this description of an ongoing dialog between a Christian and a so-called Jehovah’s Witness: []

However, Masters, as them, denies the Deity of Christ [], and as they, suppose that “One’ must refer to an absolute unity of one person, versus Being, and rejects analysis of words which play a part of this doctrine.

Masters often has justified his rejection of textual analysis of language in determining the meaning of words - versus the revelation understanding which Scripture can “awaken” one to as attained thru his meditation - by reasoning that you do not know for sure such things as whether the events in the Bible took place, etc, and thus you are the supreme judge of truth. Provided of course that you esoterically realize it thru his meditation.

However, in reality, while every man must judge for himself what truth is, this is not through Masters occultist meditation with its looking thru your forehead as it were, and finding you hand rising, and cold shivers and becoming one with the universe, etc., but primarily by prayerful study of Scripture (once one finds trust in it warranted due to evidence), which entails consideration of context, genre, etc. to understand its doctrinal meaning, and while how it applies to your situation does not determine doctrine, or what is truth.

Nor is the reader of Scripture the supreme authority on truth, as though he were infallible, even though he must at some point judge for himself what is right, but the words God are, (; ) with the Scriptures being the assured word of God () by which truth claims are both tested and established. (; ; 18:28; 28:23)

This does mean different interpretations can and do result, yet this is limited, and amidst the core salvific gospel essentials, which are critical to conversion and realizing the unity of the Spirit, (; ; ; 15:1-4), the denial of which divides Christianity from most cults.

And God has also given the church administration, that of pastors to oversee the flock, (; Rm. 12:8; ; ; , ) and teachers with the gift of teaching, (Rm. 12:7) which works to foster unity, and limit the degree in which believers can disagree beyond core truths.

But which Masters denigrates:

“If you need the church you’re not well.” ((tape “The Mystery of Golgotha”)

The Church is supposed to teach you to go within yourself and to be a whole person and not need the Church. (Tape No. 20, “The Sayings of Jesus—Right Tradition”)

Through true belief you acquire a new nature from within that does not require any external reinforcement by church attendance, study or ritual—ever. (How to Conquer Suffering Without Doctors, p. 191)

But in reality he has effectively set himself up as a type of pope. For many men and churches have sought to deal with the problem of disunity and different interpretations by asserting they are assuredly infallible, or uniquely enlightened to teach with authority equal or above Scripture, but who are not reliant upon or manifest Scriptural warrant.

And while Masters effectively but erroneously teaches that souls are the supreme authorities on truth under his meditation, in reality he is the supreme authority on how to realize this truth, and on more, and if one disagrees with him, at least in principal matters and even as a result of meditation, it must be disallowed.

And while leaders claiming assured veracity does work unity, it is inferior in quality to that which depends upon the Spirit doing so as a result of personal seeking of God and faith in the gospel, resulting in a unity founded upon a shared, Scripture based conversion and relationship with the risen Lord Jesus.

Moreover, in reality, looking to one teacher or church office as assuredly faithful interpreters does not solve the problem of different interpretations, as it moves the problem of interpretation to that of interpreting the interpreter, and even as to when they have given an infallible type interpretation. And as seen in churches which hold to the sola ecclesia (the church is the supreme authority on truth) model, this does not prevent divisions both formal or informal.

But as said, while the interpretive office has its Scriptural place, and while each individual at some point must judge for himself what truth is and what warrants trust (including if it be his church), Scripture is the only transcendent material source that we as evangelicals Christians see as being Divinely established as being of God, due to their manifest enduring Heavenly qualities and power, and by faith in it the church as the born again body of Christ has endured (being founded upon the O.T. Scriptures: ; Rm. 1:2; 16:25,26).

And the fruits of which is not that of cultic bondage to defend a Masters-type teacher to the point where even valid documented material is dismissed as fabrications.

And like true men of God, these writings are wholly inspired of God even if men do not recognize it as such, though like as with true men of God, they are supposed to be affirmed to be so by men based upon their continuing qualities.

And thus the Scriptures which Masters sometimes invokes have continued to be established from generation to generation because their enduring qualities, but which are realized by faith in and obedience to its words and what they doctrinally and personally teach. But which does not sanction the means of Masters, with the occultic, looking, as it were, thru your forehead type of meditation which the monologue of Masters mesmerizes men and women with.

The below teaching is all in a pdf file ( []):

►The evidence of a Higher Presence in meditation is a change in breathing. 233 (p. 31)

►Cold shivers, occasional perspiration, and labored or heavy breathing reveal contact-response to a higher consciousness. It means something has been added that is causing changes to occur. (p. 40)

►The meditation causes chemical changes within the body as poisons are expelled. You may experience a cold that lingers as poisonous substances are ejected. You may notice a change in bowel habits and other bodily functions.

►You will receive a mild feeling of stimulation, almost like that provided by a shot of brandy.

►At times you may feel as though you were wearing a tight skullcap on your head. You may feel your face tightening up as the lax muscles contract...

► Occasionally you will feel suspended in space, as if your body had melted into the universe and become "one" with all nature. . . . You will find yourself expressing wisdom and knowledge that you never outwardly learned or heard before. (pp. 40-41)

►Sometimes you will hear, quite distinctly, words "spoken" to you in short phrases. Do not be alarmed. (p. 42)

►Each new stratum of consciousness is entered only when we have successfully traveled through the strata preceding it.

►While the monologue is explaining the idea here during the meditation, keep your mind concentrated on your hand regardless of whether you remember the presentation or not.

►Do not worry if your hand fails to rise during exercise, for the hand-raising is only a preliminary indication to measure the success of the concentration. Just a mild, tingling, prickly sensation in your hand is all that is needed.

►The meditation exercise leads you back to your inner self.

►Failure to do the exercise constitutes choosing the old ways again. (pp. 42-45.

►Simply have the awareness of the middle of your forehead, of your mind's eye. Just observe as though you were looking through the middle of your forehead, the place where thoughts arise, and then see if you can locate where your hand is rising up toward the middle of your forehead. See if you can draw your am up to at the middle of your forehead, energizing your am through being very aware of it.

►... It may begin to feel warm or detached, but just keep being aware of your hand and remain aware of it through the middle of your forehead. (II The meditation exercise)

►Bear in mind that the hand-raising feature of the meditation exercises is only a means to an end. The process of imagery is designed to inaugurate a chain reaction of responses touched off by conscious awareness. When your hand begins to rise, it is evidence of an energy value originating within you. But once you discover that by concentration through the middle of your forehead you can affect bodily responses, then imagery is no longer necessary. (The object of meditation)

► Just being aware of the patterns of light and color that you see in your mind, and projecting them into the tingling of your hands, is all that is necessary....The patterns of light are etheric “computer” data that replace the lying imagination and its excuse-making proclivities. They effect every cell and nerve fiber in your being. They are the reverse of light waves of environmental pressure that affect your body adversely. As they reverse the negative effects of pressure, they impart an intelligent pattern of enfoldment. (How Your Mind Can Keep You Well, The object of meditation)

More posts exposing his doctrines of demons, by the grace of God.

Text below is content from most of these:

He may be a conservative, and understand some valid principles and say some good things, but he is not simply a conservative, but a spiritual leader with as gospel, and thus i cannot join the adulation of this hypnotist- turned-psychologist, with his often rude manner.

Masters basically approaches Christianity from a mystical viewpoint, and provides little doctrinal material in the classic Christian sense. Masters sees being “ born again” as a process of growth, resulting in ceasing to sin. (

Christian salvation is seen being a process of God’s work reclaiming the corrupted hearts, minds, and consciences of individuals who repent of their weakness. His teaching and emphasizes individual conscience and adherence to life principles, mainly from a psychological or philosophical perspective, and for which he promotes his meditation techniques, which apparently involves looking through the middle of the forehead, as though one was sitting inside their head and looking out. (

Masters affirms that Jesus of Nazareth is the only begotten Son of God and Messiah, yet he denies the historical Christian Trinity. (, and instead stated that “one of the biggest curses in religion Christendom is the false idea that Jesus is God; it is imperative that you not believe that Jesus is God.”

Masters states he takes the Bible literally as the word from God, versus the word of God, nor the Bible itself as holy, as consistent with his mystical viewpoint he distinguishes between the words and understanding, so that the standard for truth is not the Bible, but what the Bible awakes one in his own heart. Masters explains that he meditates in a special way so as to detach his conscious spirit from his imagination and thereby attains reality. This is criticized as being overly subjective, as is Masters’ claim that he does not break any of the laws of God, and that being born again being a result of growth from Divine sperm (metaphorically) being implanted. ( [1:01:06] Walter Martin Takes on Roy Masters], audio debate, 1980, 9-10, 34-43, 47-50 minute periods)

Moreover, the type of adulation “above that which is written” (1Cor. 4:) exhibited by some of his followers is disconcerting, and Masters also once boasted, “I could get people to die for me any day. I’ve got more power over people than Adolph Hitler and Jim Jones combined, because I’m smarter. I know how to push people’s buttons” (Los Angeles Times, 12/3/78; []).

Roy Masters, founder and director, was born Reuben Obermeister to a Jewish family in London, England. At age 15 he worked at his uncle’s diamond-cutting factory in Brighton after his father died.

As a young boy he became interested in hypnotism. He added to his hypnotism techniques after studying African witchdoctor rites during his apprenticeship at South African diamond mines when he was 18.

He came to America in 1949, at age 21, to lecture on diamonds. He legally changed his name to Roy Masters in 1954 (yet never acquired American citizenship) and eventually became a professional hypnotist claiming he could “save people by teaching them self-sufficiency meditative hypnosis.” More: [no longer available or archived] []

John is providing a basic contrast btwn the with lost and believer, and as Martin stated in refuting Masters on the tape, John did not teach that born again Christian never sin, but as the Greek is in the continuous sense in ; 5:18, and are contrasted with the lost, and as John told believers that they have forgiveness when they if they confess them, while those who deny they have sin are liars, then this refers to continually knowingly impenitently breaking God's law, rather than practicing righteousness.

As the classic scholar Robertson stated long ago,

The present active infinitive hamartanein can only mean “and he cannot go on sinning,” as is true of hamartanei in 1Jo_3:8 and hamartanōn in 1Jo_3:6. For the aorist subjunctive to commit a sin see hamartēte and hamartēi in 1Jo_2:1.

A great deal of false theology has grown out of a misunderstanding of the tense of hamartanein here. Paul has precisely John’s idea in Rom_6:1 epimenōmen tēi hamartiāi (shall we continue in sin, present active linear subjunctive) in contrast with hamartēsōmen in Rom_6:15 (shall we commit a sin, first aorist active subjunctive).

Other texts also confirm true born again believers sin, even if out of weakness, () and may struggle with sin, such as of the heart. ()

J. C. Ryle does a good job of describing the attitude of the born again believer:

Scripture also refutes that being born again is a process of growth, but a regeneration of conversion that results in growth.

Finally, John also taught that "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God," () and that Christ is God, () even the Lord whom Isaiah saw in His glory and said, "who shall go for US, (b-46; ) and he is faithful to record Thomas declaring so, as "my Lord and my God." ()

"And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. " ()

Masters denies that Jesus is one in nature with the Father, sounding like an ignorant Muslim in objecting to it, and which denial is most consistent with cults who likewise mix a little key poison in with much truth.

Masters is also akin to such in his wholesale denigration of Christian teachers - these being his competition - and the those who are born of God but must disagree with him, and exalting himself. Sounds more like Joseph Smith than John who said, that "we should love one another."

As one interviewer said,

In fact, he opposes any and all who claim to teach the truth, heal the sick, counsel the troubled, or lead the way to God.

"Anyone who has a remedy, a pill or technique to gain health and sanity," he emphasized, "--all the problem solvers--will be out of business when my message reaches the general public." ( [])

And rather than us guys needing to see Jesus as God to have one big excuse for sinning, that actually serves to deter sin, while Masters )and cults) sins in reducing Christ and Christians who dare oppose him, and exalting himself.

What is going on is that while Masters defines himself as Christian, and a church, he denies (in the debate) that the Bible is God’s communication to man, it is not he says, but what he realizes from it (Masters stated he is “not a Bible man,” but a man of “understanding,” so that he would not feel guilty about taking the Bible to the toilet and using it like anything else).

He states that the Bible is not holy, but his understanding and bond with that spirit is what is holy, and once realized, you leave the printed word behind. He seeks to support this by supposing that discerning truth by means of focusing on language, involving oneself with words, is “moving away from truth,” and make one being guilty of judging by the letter versus the spirit., () However this is not what Paul was referring to, but as seen in context and his other writings, this refers to salvation by letter-legalism under the Law, such as the Pharisees with their external righteousness, versus that which is was to bring one to, being justified by faith in Christ, and to thus fulfil the intent of the law in its fulness. (Rm. 8:4)

And while the Spirit illuminates the obedient as to the full meaning, yet obedience to God requires studying, () and which, as in life here and now, requires understanding the Scriptures in the light of context, grammar and genre, etc. While God can speak to us personally out of any text, their is a doctrinal meaning that applies to all, which is supported by the weight of Scriptural evidence.

Thus such doctrines as the depravity of men, the righteousness of Christ, and salvation by faith in His blood, etc.are not established by esoteric revelation, but the weight of Scripture. Which, as in apostolic preaching, Acts 2, 10, 13, etc.) the Holy Spirit can use to convict souls of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment, () and their need for salvation thru repentance and faith.

And the Lord and His apostles established their claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. ( [])

However, the preaching and conversion under Masters is different that which is seen in Acts, and under Masters the Scriptures are not the objective standard which they are appealed to as in Scripture, and understood in the light of context, etc., but can mean whatsoever one esoterically perceives. Certain Supreme Court justices have seemed to operate out of the same basis in their interpretations of what the Founders meant.

And as Masters understanding is supreme then those who disagree cannot be right, whether they do so based upon what context, linguistics and the weight of collective testimony best reveals, or because they claim a personal or corporate assurance of veracity which is not dependent on the aforementioned exegesis establishing such.

While Masters will sometimes invoke Scripture to support such claims as that being born again is a long process and that he does not sin, when countered based on context and linguistics then that is rejected

And so it is with all who basically presume to assured infallibility, which is a mark of cults, and results in competing claims of supremacy among those who claim such, each resting upon their claim to have assuredly correct understanding.

These may claim superior unity, but that is cultic and defendant upon the unwarranted elitist claims of the particular sect claiming assured veracity, and is inferior in quality to that which is of the Spirit, based upon Scripture-based conversion and relationship, and basic commonly held core truths which are established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

While we still “see thru a glass darkly,” and comprehensive doctrinal unity has ever been a goal not realized, and there is much in which we can have a limited amount of reasonable disagreement, yet the Christian faith which has evidenced that it is of the church of the living God is that which has commonly held to basic fundamentals due to the weight of Scriptural substantiation, and thus they have historically exhibited a common front against those which oppose them (cults), and against those who taught as doctrines the mere traditions of “revelations” of men and women who which are not Scriptural and presumed more than what is written.

The verse is and says, “In your patience possess ye your souls,” with the context actually being the tribulation of persecution. While this does advocate patience, that is by faith as a fruit of the Holy Spirit, whom a believer receives when he is born again, and which is not a process, but an event that makes one part of the kingdom of God thru faith.

“In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, “ ()

And while it is true that something lies at the root of stress, fear and pain, that something is not necessarily anger, though it can be resentment and unforgiveness, but it is primarily a lack of faith in surrender to God.

And again, the issue is not that all that Masters teaches is wrong, for like every cult he has many valid things to say, but the devil himself can speak insightful truth, and Masters is a type of “another Christ” who draws away disciples after Himself and not the Christ of the Bible, and actually requiring that one deny His deity for salvation. He likely denies eternal torment as well, which is another mark of many cults.

His statement that he could use the Bible like toilet paper in saying that it is the understanding he gets from it that is holy is also wrong, for while the Temple was only stone, etc., yet was a sanctified holy place due to what it contained and was set apart for, and even unbelieving spouses are set apart in this life due to the presence of one believer, () as seen in the case of Lot. (Gn. 19)

Masters also goes to extremes in blaming woman as well as food man’s spiritual problems. While in Scripture it was the act of disobedience that caused man to fall, and the forbidden fruit was not ordinary food, and the Lord makes it clear that it is not food that is the problem but the heart, () in his book, “Eat no evil,” Masters states,

“Food and drink are portals through which a recreation spirit enters and evolves....” “Through food you are transformed, and you also forget what grew inside and changed you; you grow the sin self as though it were the true self. You forget that what you are is wrong; and you remind yourself of that error and the deviant, sickening you, is right. And through food, wrong is denied to the death. Food then, is a drug.” Through food we are all being guided by the dark spirit to a “heavenly” the hell on earth. Hence-all suffering and tragedy. (Forbidden fruits: life’s elixir; pp. 31,32)

“The Bible records that the first man’s (outer) eyes were opened through partaking of the forbidden drug of (mind-expanding) fruit.” (P. 44)

“While man happens to be omnivorous, he cannot eat without sin; which is to say, without enlightenment, the curse continues to flow through the food/woman experience to build the ego beast in him that sin gave birth to.” (P. 44)

The above and more reminds me of the Gnostic types Scripture warns of who focus on food beyond simply for heath reasons, and whose ordinances have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body, but were vainly puffed up by their fleshly mind, not rightly holding the Head. (cf. )

He is thus like others who imagined superior enlightenment that rejected basic historical Scriptural truths, being esp. like Mary Baker Eddy of so-called “CHRISTIAN SCIENCE,” as well as EUGENE SWEDENBORG:]

Masters’ meditation is presented the means by which Adam and Eve’s original holy spirits are restored, thru a born again journey and is the only way to know you’re spirit is saved

He is also charged with confessing that he has NO prayer life because his meditation will create the same holy intentions of a prayerful heart. And that that once you have begun his meditation you will never have to read another spiritual book, including the Bible. -

See more on Masters here, and how he fishes from the conservation Christan pier:

Yes, Bagwan Rajinishi was also in Oregon, but he was not the one. But from what i read Masters had a sizable amount of devotees to himself.

A quote from his ‘Hypnotic States of Americans’: ‘Inspired by the idea of harnessing this baffling force for good, he later pursued the art of hypnotism and established a successful hypnotherapy practice.’ He was unable to continue in that practice without a professional license, so he founded the Foundation of Human Understanding in 1961 upon the realization that ‘life itself is hypnosis’ and the solution is to be ‘DE-hypnotized’ from undue influences and pressures that cause us to over-react to stress.

He began teaching a meditation exercise and started a call-in radio talk show called ‘How Your Mind Can Keep You Well’....he later changed the name of the program to ‘Advice Line.’

In 1982 he moved the headquarters of the FHU from Los Angeles, CA, to Selma, Oregon, near Grants Pass, and invited his followers to follow him there and more out of the big cities before the ultimate collapse and downfall of society. Approximately 2000 of his followers moved to Grants Pass in 1982. After a legal battle he successfully obtained tax-exempt status claiming that his organization is a church.

Other excerpts from posters:

Masters states that his teachings are ‘Judeo-Christian’ in nature and claims to have a deeper understanding of the Bible than what most churches teach.

Masters has referred to himself as the only person besides Jesus Christ who has this special knowledge and understanding that was not passed on in the canonization of the Bible.

He offers books, audio and video recordings, a web site, church services, and meetings. The objective of his teachings and meditation practice is to bring people to their own inner understanding of truth and to overcome and transcend our evil sin nature that responds hypnotically to the pressures and stresses of life.

People who follow Masters’ teachings are instructed to withdraw all emotional involvement with absolutely everything in their lives: family, friends, work, eating, drinking, recreational activities ‹ because any involvement with anything whatsoever is a sin that can lead to death and hell.

Having any kind of self-image is discouraged. According to Masters, pleasure causes a hypnotic state; do not enjoy food, or entertainment, or music, or any other recreational activity. Do not engage in anything of a sensual nature or you are reinforcing the original sin of escaping from reality. Sleep is the enemy of consciousness therefore be careful not to sleep too deeply.

The objective of the meditation exercise is to reach a heightened state of consciousness in which there is no emotion, no feeling, no sensuality, no reaction or response to any outside stimuli, no thought, no decision-making.

Masters prefers to call it an ‘observation exercise’ rather than meditation as there is a ‘razor’s edge’ that separates hypnosis from true meditation.

The meditation he teaches contains very simple instructions and seems quite harmless from the outset. My experience in practicing it for 6 years, and the experiences shared with me by others including my own brother, have proven to be detrimental rather than beneficial. Many of us experienced loss of control of our critical thinking processes and a trance-like effect from the meditation.

Probably the most interesting revelation in this book regarding Masters’ meditation practice is found on Page 24 in which he states that

“….a razor’s edge separates hypnosis from true meditation” and that ‘Each can become the other.’ This came as a surprise to me because it is such a departure from his classic teachings. Masters used to declare that his meditation was the exact and complete opposite of hypnosis, that it is in fact diametrically opposed to inducing a hypnotic state. Here he reveals how very easy it is to just ‘toggle’ back and forth between hypnosis and ‘true meditation’ as he calls it. This brings up the question……what’s the difference then? How does one know if they are ‘meditating’ or just being hypnotized by a clever teacher who is well-versed in hypnotic technique? Masters goes on to say that ‘concentration’ on anything causes a hypnotic state and ‘observation’ causes a meditative state; apparently the difference between hypnosis and Masters’ meditation is whether you are ‘concentrating’ or ‘observing’ as you practice it. It comes down to Masters’ nimble use of language, a verbal smokescreen obscuring the fact that his meditation practice is a poorly disguised hypnotic programming tool which looks completely innocent to the unsuspecting public..

To me this book was very cumbersome to read because of the continual recitation over and over of the same theme, as if by sheer repetition Masters can induce a hypnotic state in the reader in which he finds himself agreeing with the author. Either that or Masters considers his readers to be rather stupid. In short, the theme of the book is that life exerts a hypnotic force through our reactions to it and forces upon us a realm in which we are merely one or the other: a psychopath or a psychotic. Ambitious and success-driven people are the psychopaths and basically everyone else are their psychotic victims. Any emotional reaction to anything creates and keeps us in a psychotic state.
( [no long available or archived])

I came across an rather lengthy analysis of Masters’ teaching which should be of interest to us: [no long available or archived]

A few excerpts and comments:

We may categorize Masters’ teachings as follows. We should first recognize that in his system the normal definition of words are often changed. For example, a state of imagination is the equivalent of normal daily thinking and living. Temptation is, in part, emotional stimulation. Objectivity is the subjective “awareness” produced through meditation. This restructuring is true of Biblical concepts as well; in Master’s “theology,” Biblical Christian terms assume an entirely new meaning, as we shall see. Undoubtedly, his extensive use of Christian vocabulary is one reason why some Christians believe he is Christian—he “sounds” right. We have enumerated eight sections in summary, documented form.

“Doctors and Dentists are interested in one thing—profit.” Likewise all pastors are only interested in personal glory.28

[Like Smith and Camping and other cultists, Masters has no use for the competition, as they effectively promote themselves as the replacement. He even says none of the people that belong to Billy Grahams organization are right, they just don’t know they are wrong.” Anb “Damn all the hellfire-and-damnation preachers.” 122 ]

“Study is not really learning.”70

Stored intellectual knowledge of Truth is nothing but vanity and serves nothing but evil. The Light in you is the ultimate witness to Truth—even to this statement of truth.74

It is the wordless Truth Who will save you from the evil you see.78

Denial of independent Bible study: while all men have the “potential” to “understand” the Scriptures the way Masters does, few are really going to trust their own study over Masters’. He is the Master. This is one consequence of expounding a mystical hermeneutic—its application is so subjective, vacuous, and uncertain that it is much easier simply to accept what the guru teaches. Also, Bible study is worse than useless; it is dangerous. In The Satan Principle, Masters asserts:

YOU ARE NOT MEANT TO LEARN VERSE AND CHAPTER. Study kills. It is a very dangerous “informing” indeed. . . .By all means read Scriptures, but do not study. . . . You are not going to fail or go to hell if you don’t study. You are more likely to fail and go to hell if you DO. .

And later in the same text he states: “Scan these words. Scan the Scriptures for understanding. BUT NEVER STUDY OR BE ABSORBED IN MERE WORDS.”85

Masters: [So] I threw a Bible in the garbage can. That Bible can go in the garbage can just as soon as anything can go in the garbage can. Slop can go in the garbage can, because the Bible isn’t God.136

The whole process of growing is not from words but from realizing and then you can throw your Bible in the garbage can and there’s no sin in that.137

The Scriptures can poison you, and destroy you. They are lethal, they are deadly. They are more deadly than any drug.138

Masters teaches that “many of the Scriptures have been deleted,” and that the “best parts” of the Bible are left out.132

[This is all contrary to Christ, who only affirmed Scripture and invoked specific words () and chastened souls for their ignorance of what Scripture said () and commanded men to “Search the scriptures,” for “they are they which testify of me,” and thus “beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself,” (; )

And His Spirit saith, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. “ ()

And Daniel “understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet.” )

Moreover, even unbelievers are sanctified due to the presence of one believer: )]

Masters goes on:

And now I know why I cannot remember my childhood or my youth or even yesterday; . . . And so, as I die to this world, my memories fade and as knowledge passes away, so does guilt and sin. In the Ever-Present, I am becoming absent minded, in that I cannot remember like other men do. I cannot learn as others learn. The willfulness and mindfulness of this present world are passing away as new knowledge—understanding—comes.89

[Thus guilt and sin are forgotten, not taken away by faith in the Lord Jesus to save one by His sinless shed blood. (cf. Rm. 3:25; )]

The writers comment, ..nowhere in the Scriptures are we ever told that man lives in a hypnotic state or that he is to turn inward for salvation. If anything, man lives in a freely chosen sinful state and needs to turn to a Savior outside himself.

the fact is that Masters’ philosophy has nothing whatsoever to do with true Christianity, and even he admits he is not an evangelical Christian. He asserts, “I am not a converted Christian. I’m a Jew. How do you like that?”104 Far from believing in Jesus Christ, he rejects the teachings of Jesus Christ. How then do we account for the Christian claims quoted earlier? Simply that one may claim Christianity even while rejecting it; indeed this is a common feature in modern America, not only in many cults, but the populace at large as well. Thus, in his Biblical sounding phraseology, the meaning of the words is the key. Within a Biblical framework they mean one thing. For Roy Masters, however, they take on different meaning: he uses Biblical words and concepts within an entirely foreign framework. The result is that such words are redefined in accordance with his personal presuppositions and world view.

Masters also teaches,

When Christ said to Peter, “Upon this rock I will build my church,” he meant that the body of God is to be made up of people who see for themselves and who are taught by no man.176

Jesus was a created being, although a special one, being immaculately conceived.147 Being a man, he himself had to earn eternal life :”Christ gave us the perfect example by suffering the physical stress without resenting torment—earning life eternal.”149

Some of these are “Jesus freaks,” others fundamentalists and some “charismatic Christians.” All are really hypnotized zombies.

We are human beings with our own original power source—endless and eternal.214

The evidence of a Higher Presence in meditation is [manifested by] a change in breathing.233

Cold shivers, occasional perspiration, and labored or heavy breathing reveal contact-response to a higher consciousness. It means something has been added that is causing changes to occur.234

Occasionally you will feel suspended in space, as if your body had melted into the universe and become “one” with all nature. . . . You will find yourself expressing wisdom and knowledge that you never outwardly learned or heard before.235

Comment: It is a fact that Eastern forms of meditation have long been acknowledged as paths to altered states of consciousness, and these allow intrusion of the spirit world and demonic influence on the meditator.

More from Masters:

If a dog had tempted Adam to fall, he “would have had sexual

feeling toward that dog.” (His view of the Fall is that it instituted sex and procreation.) “Sex is . . . the evidence of original sin.”285

God was obliged to give Solomon his wealth.286

“Hate and pleasure are weird forms of the same thing.”287

The little voice of conscience is the voice of error.304

[Additional posts, regarding doctrine:]

I will indeed take up your challenge, as in contrast to you, i actually document both what sources say. First, you are in contradiction with yourself, for rather than Christ not being seen as God at all for first three centuries after Christ, which ended about 333 AD, Tertullian, whom you erroneously provide as was being the first (not that you understand the theology of the Trinity), lived 160 – c. 225 AD. And a seen, men earlier than that affirmed the Deity of Christ, while what the so-callled “church fathers” believed is not determinative of doctrine, but what the weight of Scriptural evidence best warrants, which as shown, is that Jesus is God, being one in being, or nature with the Father.

And i do not have a problem with using Wikipedia which you invoke, providing the references are acceptable, yet from the WP article on the Trinity of the Church Fathers we read,

Early second century: Ignatius of Antioch

Ignatius, second bishop of Antioch, who was martyred in Rome around 110 AD,[1] wrote a series of letters to churches in Asia Minor on his way to be executed in Rome. The conjunction of Father, Son and Holy Spirit appears in his letter to the Magnesian church.

“Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit;.. Be ye Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit...” (Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter 13 [SR]).[2]

First half of second century or late first century: Didache

This source uses the gospel of Matthew only and no other known gospel, and thus it must have been written before the four-gospel canon had become widespread in the churches, i.e. before the second half of the 2nd century when Tatian produced the Diatessaron. Given its literary dependence on the Gospel of Matthew, it is not surprising that the Didache follows the Gospel of Matthew in designating the Trinitarian formula as a baptismal formula:

After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water…. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

(Didache 7:1).[3][4]

ca.151: Justin Martyr

Even though he does not use the word "Trinity" explicitly, Justin Martyr's First Apology, written around AD 150, reveals a primitive theology of the Trinity, in which God is in first place, Christ in second, and the Spirit in third,

We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein.

(First Apology 13:5–6).[5]

And to which is to be added, "in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit." (First Apology, 61 LXI)

169-181: Theophilus of Antioch

Theophilus of Antioch's Ad Autolycum is the oldest extant work that uses the actual word "Trinity" to refer to God, his Word and his Wisdom. The context is a discussion of the first three days of creation in Genesis 1-3.

It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place.... The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity, God, his Word, and his Wisdom.

(To Autolycus 2:15).[6]

All these are before 300AD. And as regards the actual use of the word ”Trinity,” the WP article on that states that,

the first of the early church fathers recorded as actually using the word Trinity was Theophilus of Antioch [died approx 184AD] writing in the late second century. He defines the Trinity as God, His Word (Logos) and His Wisdom (Sophia)[71]

To which can be added (from, Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch.

"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).

Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.

"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation... [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity.

"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority... There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).

"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)

"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).

If, as the anti-Trinitarians maintain, the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine and was never taught until the council of Nicea in 325, then why do these quotes exist? The answer is simple: the Trinity is a biblical doctrine and it was taught before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

Part of the reason that the Trinity doctrine was not "officially" taught until the time of the Council of Nicea is because Christianity was illegal until shortly before the council. It wasn't really possible for official Christian groups to meet and discuss doctrine. For the most part, they were fearful of making public pronouncements concerning their faith.

Additionally, if a group had attacked the person of Adam, the early church would have responded with an official doctrine of who Adam was. As it was, the person of Christ was attacked. When the Church defended the deity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity was further defined.

The early church believed in the Trinity, as is evidenced by the quotes above, and it wasn't necessary to really make them official. It wasn't until errors started to creep in that councils began to meet to discuss the Trinity, as well as other doctrines that came under fire

The idea that Christians cannot sin, which state the often arrogant Masters claims for himself, has been refuted before, but the assertion that they do not is simply repeated.

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. " ()

The “we” here includes Christians, and does not refer to being simply sinners by nature, or our past life.

"For in many things we offend all." (a)

"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation [duplicity, hypocrisy]" ()

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

The Greek scholar Robertson states,

The present active participle (poiōn) means the habit of doing sin.

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

Sinneth not (ouch hamartanei). Linear present (linear menōn, keeps on abiding) active indicative of hamartanō, “does not keep on sinning.” For menō (abide) see 1Jo_2:6; Joh_15:4-10.

Whosoever sinneth (ho hamartanōn). Present (linear) active articular participle like menōn above, “the one who keeps on sinning” (lives a life of sin, not mere occasional acts of sin as hamartēsas, aorist active participle, would mean).

Hath not seen him (ouch heōraken auton). Perfect active indicative of horaō. The habit of sin is proof that one has not the vision or the knowledge (egnōken, perfect active also) of Christ. He means, of course, spiritual vision and spiritual knowledge, not the literal sense of horaō in Joh_1:18; Joh_20:29.(WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT by Archibald Thomas Robertson)

"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning." (, )

We see here that John is not speaking in an absolute sense, but as regards overall characteristics, as the lost can do things that are objectively righteous, such as feeding his brethren who are needy, while as seen in , Christians do sin.

To be perfect, as loving your enemies, blessing them that curse you, doing good to them that hate you, is commanded () and perfection in abiding in Christ by longsuffering faith throughout all trials and temptations, (; 5:9; , ) and not offending in word, (Ja. 3:2) keeping His word and and only serving out of love-motivation, (; 4:17,18) is a goal of grace, fulfilling the righteousness of the law. (Rm. 8:4)

But this state is not that of being being born again as Masters teaches, but which occurs in conversion, (; 15:8,9; ) nor is achieving this a prerequisite for being a Christian and saved, as “God justifies the UnGodly by faith,” (Rm. 4:5) but who evidence that faith as salvific by growing in grace with its fruits, especially in effectual love for the brethren. (, )

For "The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit," () and it cannot be said that the criminal on the cross, who went to be with the Lord the same day that he died, () had attained perfection of character, nor were all the Thessalonians and Corinthians practically perfect, yet they were told that they would forever be with the Lord had He returned in their day, (), except such as had "not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed." ()

Thus they were to examine themselves, whether they were in the faith, () their lives being characterized by walking in obedience to Christ by the Spirit, doing righteousness as John describes them, and which includes repentance when convicted of not doing do. (, ; ) As true faith is repentant, and this is necessary, so God works to chastens believers back to faith as necessary, so that they will not be condemned with the rest of the world, and also motivates this by warning of making Christ of none effect by falling away. (; cf. ; ) While true faith versus false faith may not always be clearly manifest, 1Jn. describe the overall characteristics of those who have eternal life, which refers to, including confessing sin.

Further testimony that complete perfection of character is not a requirement for salvation is seen by the fact that some believers will suffer loss of rewards at the judgment seat of Christ (at His return), because some of the material which they built the church with, insomuch as they did, did not endure the fire which tests faith. And which is a reflection of their character. See my understanding here on (and which also does not refer to purgatory).

It is not surprising that Masters disciples regard Scriptural reproof as hogwash, but my many quotes were not certainly not “extracirricular” and instead they clearly substantiated that being born again is the beginning of Christian growth, resulting from hearing the gospel not Masters meditation, and that such as are born again sin after that, and which you cannot refute, but provide some texts which testify that you indeed ignore context and linguistics, etc, as you are not even supposed to be engaging in chapter and verse basis for truth.

“The very Scripture you study tells you that the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. What does that mean? It means simply that anything intellectual, including verse and chapter, regardless of how true it is, consists only of second-hand facts--facts which are supposed to awaken the soul, not to teach it. Get that through your thick skull--YOU ARE NOT MEANT TO LEARN VERSE AND CHAPTER. Study kills. It is a very dangerous "informing" indeed. . . .By all means read Scriptures, but do not study. . . . You are not going to fail or go to hell if you don't study. You are more likely to fail and go to hell if you DO.” . . . (Masters, The Satan Principle, pp. 38-39.)

And as shown, your use of these “proof texts” here is consistent with forcing texts and a lack of study, such as “they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. " () .

Which is an exhortation, but not a statement that born again Christian never sin at all, which is what you cannot provide. And which premise is contradicted by statements as "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. " () And by others individually and collectively as will be shown.

  • CHRIST also suffered for us, Leaving us an example, that YE SHOULD FOLLOW HIS STEPS.

Indeed we should, but again this exhortation does not teach that once one is born again they never sin, and is which premise is contradicted by the fact that such believers as the Corinthians were born again (; ; 5:5) but sinned. ()

And who was only one who never sinned, and to not sin is to be the goal of every believer, but which does not mean that once they are born again they will never sin, and which premise is contradicted by the fact that even born again Peter did. (ff)

  • He that hath suffered in the flesh HATH CEASED FROM SIN.

Indeed he has, as this refers to death, not by meditating, as death is what the text is contextually referring to, that of the death of Christ, which you left out: "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; " () "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: " ()

This does not teach that Christians are literally dead anymore than that they no longer sin, but that they are to put on “the same mind,” as in Rm. 6, "For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. " ()

  • NO LONGER should LIVE the rest of his time IN THE FLESH to the lusts of men, but to the will of GOD

Which is the next verse, and as shown, it is another exhortation as to what believers should do in the light of what Christ did, (cf. ) flowing from the above, but which does not say or teach that once born again they no longer sin. And which premise is contradicted by such examples as the Galatians, who were born again (; 4:6,29) but were in a state of sinful spiritual declension. (Gal. 5:-1-4,15) having been “bewitched,” which is what Masters engages in.

  • If GOD SPARED NOT THE ANGELS THAT SINNED, but cast them down to hell.

And which, true to form, is understood by you in isolation, as it refers to the willful rebellion of the angels, not Christians who sin out of weakness! And thus born again Christians (the only kind addressed) are exhorted to "lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. " () But according to you, born again believer cannot have any sins to lay aside.

  • AND SPARED NOT THE OLD WORLD, but saved Noah MAKING THEM AN ENSAMPLE unto those that after should live ungodly.

And which again is understood by you in isolation, as it is not referring to those who who practice righteousness but yet commit actual sins sometimes, though they wish they never would and righteously repent when convicted of so doing, (; ) and instead it refers to a world of men in which “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” () That exegetical“revelation” is what actual studying versus Masters mind-numbing meditation will provide.


Likewise here you are again “wresting' Scripture in ignorance of it, as this text actually refutes your salvation by sinless premise, as contextually the GODLY man which is referred to was Lot, who certainly was not an example of one who was no carnal at all and no longer sinned, () but who did practice righteousness (being grieved by sin, and risking his life for the brethren, and who actually had two virgin daughters in the midst of a city given to fornication.)


Which is in the continual sense as they confess sins, (,9; cf. ) which is part of walking in the light, and thus it is teaching contrary to believers no longer sinning after they are born again, but instead affirms the cleansing of past sins and those confessed when and after one is converted and born again. And which event is the beginning of Christian growth. ()


Once again you exclude the relevant context, this time the first part of the verse, which actually refutes your premise: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 18,:9) The “we” here includes born again Christians, and cleaning takes place continually upon confession (“if we confess”), as being cleansed does not mean one no longer can have sins that need to be confessed, but confessing known sin is a continuing practice, even as the Lord taught believers to pray, "And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." ()

Once again you selectively leave out the context which denies support for your premise, "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: " () As with other texts, the exhortation is to not sin, but not that believers never do, and thus provision for forgiveness is made when one does, as again, “we” includes born again believers.


This also is an exhortation (“ought”) , but does not teach that born again believers no longer sin, for “in many things we offend all, (Ja. 2:1) in word and in deed.

Thus so far you have zero texts that teach believers no longer sin after they are born again, or that is the results of spiritual growth via Masters type of meditation, versus clear support that being born again is the beginning of growth in grace, and such believers do sin afterward. Now we come to the texts which you must place your primary hope in, but which attempt is again a result of dealing with texts in isolation and without regard to linguistics, thus not rightly dividing the word of truth." ()

  • Whosoever abideth in him SINNETH NOT



  • Whosoever DOTH NOT righteousness IS NOT OF GOD


These all go together, and i have already shown that this does not say born again believers no longer commit any sins at all, which would require that they love God with all their heart, mind, soul and strength (Lk. 10.27 without fail 24/7, even in ignorance, (Lv. 4) but that linguistically the language refers to actually committing sin (breaking the law of God: ) as a continuing impenitent practice, versus righteousness (which includes repentance).

And this is in contrast to defining the lost as those who practice unrighteousness, however they can do good things, likewise those born of God practice righteousness but sometimes actually sin, and can be immature (as has been shown). For as the quoted verse 10 teaches, "In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother." Conversely, "If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him. " ()

Thus taken in the absolute sense the lost are only those who never do righteousness, while doing righteousness renders one to be born of God, yet the lost can do things that are objectively righteous before they are born again, () which would make them born of God according to the absolutist understanding of these verses, while committing even one sin would make one to be of the devil. (“He that committeth sin is of the devil:” ) However, once again it has been made clear that all those Paul addresses as believers were born again, and that such did sin after they are born again. Otherwise we would have a clear contradiction in Scripture.


: Sinneth not (ouch hamartanei). Linear present (linear menōn, keeps on abiding) active indicative of hamartanō, “does not keep on sinning.” For menō (abide) see 1Jo_2:6; Joh_15:4-10.

Whosoever sinneth (ho hamartanōn). Present (linear) active articular participle like menōn above, “the one who keeps on sinning” (lives a life of sin, not mere occasional acts of sin as hamartēsas, aorist active participle, would mean).

1Jogn 3:9: “Doeth no sin (hamartian ou poiei). Linear present active indicative as in 1Jo_3:4 like hamartanei in 1Jo_3:8. The child of God does not have the habit of sin.

...this English naturally means “and he cannot commit sin” as if it were kai ou dunatai hamartein or hamartēsai (second aorist or first aorist active infinitive). The present active infinitive hamartanein can only mean “and he cannot go on sinning,” as is true of hamartanei in 1Jo_3:8 and hamartanōn in 1Jo_3:6. For the aorist subjunctive to commit a sin see hamartēte and hamartēi in 1Jo_2:1. A great deal of false theology has grown out of a misunderstanding of the tense of hamartanein here. Paul has precisely John’s idea in Rom_6:1 epimenōmen tēi hamartiāi (shall we continue in sin, present active linear subjunctive) in contrast with hamartēsōmen in Rom_6:15 (shall we commit a sin, first aorist active subjunctive). — Robertsons. More here:

  • 2 John 9 Whosoever TRANSGRESSETH, AND ABIDETH NOT in the doctrine of Christ, HATH NOT GOD

This again is in the continuous sense, as that of impenitently practicing sin, versus righteousness which is part of walking in the light which reveals sin, () while taken in the abolitionist sense of no longer committing any sin at all, which Masters erroneously holds to, would again render all the born again believers that Scripture affirms were born again but who sinned, to be of the devil, while making pagans who did any righteous deeds to be born of God. See in summary below.


Here you are guilty of leaving off the beginning of a verse and then combining part of another verses into one, while your continual shouting does not overcome your continually specious exegesis. For what is said in regards to the other like verses also applies here, as begins with an exhortation “to follow not that which is evil, but that which is good,” and once again describes the those who are born of God as characteristically doing good (and “He that doeth” is not even in the Greek), versus those who characteristically are doing evil. But which taken in the absolutist sense would make pagans who did good to be born of God already, while making making Peter, and the born again Corinthians, Galatians, and all others who sinned after regeneration, to be of the devil. And which is not tenable regardless of the esoterical “undertstanding” resulting from Masters meditation.

  • So you see, you guys can be free of sin but WILL not in your willful ignorance and huge excuse making to the point of vilifying Roy Masters who provides a simple pathway to that salvation which is indeed Biblical.

Rather, unlike the false apostle and deceitful worker which Masters is, believers are cleansed of their sins by repentant faith in the sinless shed blood (Rm. 3:25; ; ) of the risen Divine Son of God, being born again through that faith, and are to live by every word of God, which requires studying it, while your ignorance of it is manifest in your attempt to engage in the chapter and verse exegesis which Masters deplores in favor his holy mind-numbing mediation, which even “be still” does not support.

In summary, exegetical examination reveals that Scripture does not support your premise, despite your often strained attempts, and in fact they collectively contradict it, and in review i will provide more texts including ones referenced before which must be ignored in order to cling to Masters soteriology:

  • To begin with, souls were born again upon hearing the gospel, usually in the same hour as they first heard it, not because of a period of growth through Masters type of meditation:

"Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." ()

"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word." ()

"And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." ()

  • And thus those Paul addressed in such places as Corinth and Galatia had been born again:

"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?" ()

"Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. " ()

"And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. " ()

  • However, carnal immaturity and sin was evident among the same:

"And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration." ()

"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?" ()

"Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? " ()

"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision." ()

  • Thus all these were of the devil according to the absolutist understanding of etc. In addition pagans could engage in doing good, even to the brethren, which according to the absolutist understanding of and would make them already born of God.

"And the soldiers' counsel was to kill the prisoners, lest any of them should swim out, and escape. But the centurion, willing to save Paul, kept them from their purpose; and commanded that they which could swim should cast themselves first into the sea, and get to land: " ()

"And the barbarous people shewed us no little kindness: for they kindled a fire, and received us every one, because of the present rain, and because of the cold." ()

  • Moreover, born again believers are told to repent of sins, and are assured of forgiveness upon confession of them, and are chastised to bring repentance, which testifies to the reality that they yet sinned, and which things would be superfluous if they no longer sinned.

"Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, " ()

"As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. " ()

"For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. " ()

  • And rather than no longer sinning at all characterizing those who are born of God, those who say they have no sins to confess are excluded as being of God:

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. " ()

But again, all this and systematic theology is superfluous to those who hold that their revelation achieved through cultic meditation is what is holy, not the Bible, and reject contextual and linguistically “chapter and verse” type study as bringing understanding. As Masters taught, “One day, after discovering many things, the Spirit will lead you to read Scripture. At that time you will find joy on accepting the Witness to the Scriptures, rather than verses and chapters. What a contrast this is to accepting the Bible as the word of God: You will see it as messages from God. But wicked men bait you to accept "God's Word" in the form of a book instead of that Witness in yourself.” (How to Conquer Suffering Without Doctors, pp. 198-199)

Thus, rather than deriving doctrine from the Bible as the supreme authority, as seen in Scripture, and subjecting all to that, Masters first gets his “understanding” by subjective means, and then carelessly invokes some texts which he sees as confirming it, irregardless of exegetical analysis which is disparaged. To which applies, "The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason. " () And "The simple [in the pejorative sense] believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. " ()

And as Masters superior understanding is independent of the Scripture, you can even throw the Scriptures away: The whole process of growing is not from words but from realizing and then you can throw your Bible in the garbage can and there's no sin in that.” ("The Mystery of Golgotha" tape) And as his own mind is supreme, following his own spirit () and worse, then it is not allowed than any may refute him and his false gospel. And which presumption is to his own damnation and those of those who are deceived by him. ()

May God grant you and them repentance unto the acknowledging of the truth. ()

419 posted on 9/27/2012, 1:57:05 PM by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)

The redeemed are those who come to God as sinners knowing their desperate need of salvation - not as souls saved by their works or religious heritage, but as destitute of any means or merit whereby they may find salvation - and with a humble and penitent heart (that at least implicitly wants a new life following Christ) believe on the crucified and risen Lord Jesus who alone can save them on His account, by His sinless shed blood and righteousness. ( - 5:1)

And who are thus baptized to follow the Lord Jesus with persevering faith. And who thus are baptized and follow Him (; ; ; 2:8-10) - and effectually repent when they find that they failed to do so. (, ; 51:3; ; )

For penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating effectual faith, (; 15:7-9) is that which is imputed for righteousness, () and is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (; , ) and by which faith the believer is completely forgiven and "accepted in the Beloved" and positionally seated with Him in Heaven. ; 2:6; cf. )

And wherever Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for those who die in that effectual faith then it is with the Lord, at death or His return (whatever comes first), by the grace of God. ( [cf. ; ]; ; [“we”]; ff'; ) Thanks be to God.

No comments:

Post a Comment

If I see notifications of comments then I will try to respond to comments within one or two days, however, I may not see notifications (I hardly ever get comments) and this has not been where I usually engage in dialogue.
Please try to be reasonable, willing to examine things prayerfully and objectively, and refrain from "rants" and profane language, especially regarding God and the Christian faith. The latter type are subject to removal on this Christian blog, but I do try to help people no matter who they are. May all know the grace of God in truth.