Conclusions and commentary based on a brief examination of some teachings of pastor Jim Brown of Grace and Truth Ministries, in Hendersonville, TN.

Conclusions and commentary based on a brief examination of some teachings of pastor Jim Brown of Grace and Truth Ministries, in Hendersonville, TN.

 First off, let me state that Pastor Jim Brown  makes himself difficult to examine and document his teaching, and thus expose his errors, since he presents almost all his teachings via audio and video, and some poor images of tracts. Even his "Statement Of Faith" is a video and I do not even see anything to read from him on the nature of God (Father, Son and Spirit) and eternal punishment.

However based upon what I have read and somewhat heard from what can be readily apprehended, I would partly describe him as a self-appointed guru on Greek who has found his niche in attacking sound beliefs of established evangelical faith (besides some unsound ones), thereby negating any need for affirmation by such, while drawing away  disciples after himself,"   (Acts 20:30) as a crafty  rebel with a purported cause. Which discipling he  does by often engaging in manipulation of language) which can deceive the simple.. 

Those who have a spirit of rebellion against authority in general are typically attracted to men such as Brown since he is seen as an ally against leadership and thus accountability to the same.

Like many cult teachers who operate under the same spirit and premise, while he does not actually appeal to another source of Divine revelation, yet he essentially much does the like thru crafting the meaning of texts based upon restrictively selecting a meaning of Greek words as absolutely definitive (including relying on the root word fallacy), and selectively so, while often spiritualizing away literal aspects  and meanings of teachings (rejecting, baptism, the Lord's supper for two), while also employing false dichotomies and engaging in logical fallacies, etc. 

By which tactics he can force texts to teach some often tortured interpretations (see below on some), while overall majoring on predestination,

Baptism:

Based upon just a   search of his tract images,   I find that he dismisses baptízō as meaning to "dip, plunge, immerse" though that is just what it describes. Such as "And Jesus, when he was baptized, [baptízō] went up straightway out of the water,"(Mat 3:16)  "were all baptized [baptízō] of him in the river of Jordan," (Mark 1:5; cf. John 3:23) "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?, And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized [baptízō] him." (Act 8:36, 38) "Can any man forbid water, that these should  not be baptized, [baptízō] which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" (Act 10:47)

Brown's recourse here is to invoke "bapto" as being the original word, and a noun (which become a very in action), but which actually means baptizo is derived from it, and based on that, presuming  a word inherently carries one meaning in all of its uses, or can  only precisely mean what the word it was derived  means, is called the "root  word fallacy." 

As this commentary attests:

 This word [baptízō ]  should not be confused with baptô (911). The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (baptô) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizô) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution.

The Lord's supper:

Next, consistent with Browns' hyper  anti-literalism, is his  utter rejection the ordinance of the Lord's supper, by  wholly spiritualizing it.  (https://www.graceandtruth.net/images/stories/eatflesh.jpg) 

Yet it is manifestly clear that the NT church, fully under grace, literally obeyed the words which Paul states in 1 Co. 11,  "And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. "After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." (1 Corinthians 11:24-25)

And  Paul has much to say in both 1 Corinthians  10 and 11 on the Lord's supper, which "feast of charity" Jude 1:12 alludes to, all as literal observances, effectually remembering the Lord's death via a communal meal which declares/proclaims   it, (1 Corinthians 11:26)  by manifesting the effects of His death, that of union with Christ and each other as members together,  being bought with His sinless shed blood. Which Catholics pervert (as shown here, by the grace of God) while Brown negates it.  

Love:

Another example of Brown's follies include reasoning that since  "phileo" means "affection" ("For the Father himself loveth [phileo] you, because ye have loved [phileo] me"" - John 16:27) but  "love" (agapeo) for neighbor   and our enemy does not mean showing  affection, therefore to love them  means to  "give our neighbor and our enemy all that God is  - His instruction," and "feed them them the only food that is legal (prescribed) for sheep to consume (the Law - instruction in God's word)."  (https://www.graceandtruth.net/images/stories/What%20is%20Love.jpg) 

Thus,  "Thou shalt love [agapaō] thy neighbour as thyself" would mean just to give  instruction to them, as if that is the only way humans love themselves,  which is absurd.  (See more here on these words."( 

 "Accept Christ is false doctrine"?:

Another example of his logical fallacies (either-or position, false dilemma) in his polemics is reasoning that since "the natural man receiveth [déxomai] not the things of the Spirit of God, nor can know them since they are spiritually discerned," (1 Co. 2:14)   then to "Accept Christ is false doctrine" as he labels it. (https://www.graceandtruth.net/images/stories/Accept%20Christ.jpg)

However, while 1 Co. 2:14 is wholly true,  that by nature  man cannot receive  not the things of the Spirit of God, yet this does not mean that to "accept [déxomai = "warmly receptive, welcoming" and which  is usually translated as "receive" including Christ - Mt. 10:40)] Christ" is false doctrine, for  God draws souls, opens hearts, grants repentance and gives faith (Jn. 6:44; 12:32; 16:8; Acts 11:18; 16:14; Eph. 2:8, 9) and moves us to obey, (Phil.2:13) thus both motivating and enabling us to do what we otherwise could not and would not do. The only thing that man can and must take credit for is that of resisting and disobeying God, which we are warned against doing. 

Thus,  to "accept/receive Christ" is true doctrine, as meaning  by effectual penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating faith in the Divine Son of God and Lord of all,, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) which is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27, 28)

And by which faith the redeemed soul is "accepted in the Beloved" and positionally seated with Him in Heaven, on His account, glory to God. (Ephesians 1:6; 2:6; cf. Phil. 3:21) And those who die in that obedient faith will go to be forever with Him at death or His return (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17)
In contrast to those who were never born of the Spirit or who terminally fall away. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12; 10:25-39)

No demons, only self?:

 The last example of Brown's "wresting" of Scripture (2 Pt. 3:18) I will deal with Brown's denial of actual demon possession, teaching that all such descriptions  refers to one's own sinful nature (which can be described as demonic, and is to be mortified, but which is not the same as actual demons, unclean spirits).

And which example  is from  The Doctrine of the Devil audio message (https://www.graceandtruth.net/videos-pdf-mp3s/gematria-series/message/3030-doctrine-of-the-devil-demons-are-self-demons-are-genies-demons-are-fairies-demons-are-guardian-angels-demons-are-totems-self-is-man-s-only-problem, mainly btwn  the 4 and 25  minute section). 

In which  he selectively works with Matthew 8:28-33, Mark 1:23-27, and  Luke 4:31-36 yet not all the pertinent verses, and in which he reasons/argues/asserts  that, 

• since  "spirit'  as in "unclean spirit" means breath (and you never get all your CO2 out of your body);

• and since  the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is Truth (the "Spirit is Truth" in KJV -  1 John  5:6) - thus  inferring a denial of the Spirit as an Divine entity/person, while he also  denigrated Pentecostals;

• and since the man possessed with the unclean spirit said "we" and "us" and then "I"  (Saying, Let us  alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I [which is not in the Greek] know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God - Mark 1:24) ;

• and since  Brown falsely states  that Jesus rebuked him [not the demons], saying, "Hold thy peace, and come out of him" (Mark 1:24);

• and since the Greek word for "him" is "auto" which he uses "automobile" as an example for, as in self-propelled;

• and since Brown states that Jesus rebuked "him" (the man, not his demons - upon which false premise Brown much rests his argument on);

 then it means that the man    possessed with the unclean spirit  was lying when he referred to himself in the plural;

 and since Brown states  the word for "demon" (used in the parallel account in Lk. 4) is " daimonion" which means "seller of fortunes;"

 and since the single Greek word in Matthew 8:28 (among other places) for "possessed with devils" is "daimonizomai"  which [can] mean insane;

then thus  Brown states "unclean spirit" simply refers to self (!) as in "deny  himself" in all the accounts(!)

Rather, Brown's contrivance is what is "in-sane" exegetically speaking, being a work of  sophistry which conclusion is simply  untenable in the light of context as well as the Greek.

First   as regards inferring a denial of the Spirit as an Divine entity/person based upon  the Holy Spirit being Truth, if Brown is indeed denying this manifest Truth, it would be s another example of his proclivity to engage in false either/or reasoning. 

For  the Holy "Spirit is Truth" 1 John  5:6)  is not a denial of His personhood any more "God is love" in  1 John 4:16 is, nor  that  a person   "which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6) means that such is no longer a person. As with God is love, it means that this is what He consists of as His overall attribute, thanks be to God.

Secondly, the argument Brown majors on here is that since  the man possessed with the unclean spirit said "we" and "us" and then "I"  (Saying, Let us  alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I  know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God - Mark 1:24); 

and  since Jesus rebuked him (not the demons. Brown states), saying, "Hold thy peace, and come out of him" (Mark 1:24)  then Brown concludes this this means that the man was lying (as regards being many, "us," and "we") with  the Bible in recording these prevaricating words, and therefore Brown concludes that this refers to self, not demons. 

Yet this   is easily refuted by the fact that  there is no "I" in the Greek here,   despite Greek being what this false teacher relies on so much, no, not in Mark 1:24 nor in Luke 4:34, while Mt. 8:29 leaves out this response.  

In addition,  the Greek word for "know"  here (eidō) is used only in certain past tenses and thus is translated as  "knowing," "seeing" "perceiving" which it is collectively translated as over 40 times in the KJV, and neither is there any question mark in the Greek. 

Thus (by going to the Greek which Brown does here) the text can read,  "saying,  Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth, art thou come to destroy us,  knowing thee, who thou art, the Holy One of God[?] (Mark 1:24)

 In any case, it remains that there is no "I" here, contrary to Brown's recourse, and the fear of the demons is due to their having known that Jesus is the Holy One of God.

And rather than the  "And Jesus rebuked him [auto], saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him" (Mark 1:25) referring to the man as just him-self as in self-propelled automobile  (as Brown argues in contending that the demons are just one's "selfish self"), and not the sources of the man speaking, Strong's definition of the Greek "auto"  is "the reflexive pronoun self [auto] used (alone or in the compound of G1438) of the third person and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other persons..." 

And thus the word "auto" at issue is  translated as them 1,081times and as  They  125 times, as it is in Mat 8:32  regarding this  command plurality,  "And he said unto them, Go" and in Luke 8:32 in dealing with the same, "And he suffered them." (KJV) 

And of course, the fact that the Lord cast out demons renders the premise that the latter just refers to putting the flesh to death, is simply absurd!

And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him. And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him. (Mark 1:25-27)

Would to God that self could be instantly wholly expelled with a word, rather than requiring daily mortification of the sinful nature by yielding to the Spirit, putting on the new man,  (Rm. 6-8; Col. 3) though deliverance is to be had from its domination by dying to self, though not eradicated, and thus the warnings against yielding to the flesh. 

Daimonion = seller of fortunes = self?:

And as  for  the word for "demon"  " daimonion" " (used in the parallel account in Lk. 4)  meaning "seller of fortunes," The root meaning of the Greek word daimon is "knowing" or "intelligence." and  and while "the Ancient Greeks had several meanings" for daemon, and consistent with this attribute of  "knowing" or "intelligence,   the main meaning is said to be, 

 “he who dispenses fate, a spirit that gives a person his or her personality traits. The word is derived from Proto-Indo-European daimon, which means “provider, divider (of fortunes or destinies),” from the root da- “to divide.” Xenocrates, a Greek philosopher of the Platonic Academy, believed that god is above all, and there are demonical powers intermediate between the divine and the mortal world which consist in conditions of the soul. (https://greekreporter.com/2023/10/20/ancient-greek-demon/#:~:text=Unlike%20today%2C%20the%20Ancient%20Greeks,his%20or%20her%20personality%20traits.%E2%80%9D)

But only by engaging in the aforementioned root word fallacy  can one assert that its root meaning MUST  be what it means in its later uses.   To the contrary, for instance, the English word "nice" comes from the Latin original  nescius, which literally means "unknowing, ignorant."  "Egregious" originally meant remarkably good,  from the Latin egregius, meaning "illustrious, select"—literally, "standing out from the flock. In Old English, “pretty” meant crafty and cunning.

And as regards the single Greek word in Matthew 8:28 (among other places) for "possessed with devils" being "daimonizomai"  which [can] mean insane, contrary to Brown, that  in no way is contrary to demons being real, since insanity can be an effect of such.

Cast out self?:

In addition, no amount of spinning can   spiritualize or explain away the numerous other cases of casting of demons  (which is what Brown can be expected to do)  as being literally just that.  Jesus did not send a legion of selves - whose insanity was the effect of such -   from one man into a heard of swine, though it belongs there.

Predestination and other issues:

As regards the issue of predestination which Brown major on, I did not take the time to listen to him one this, but as regards the  meaning the basis for it predestination and election, i will comment somewhat on this issue  which separates Calvinists and Arminians  (named after their respective founders, and both of which varies somewhat in details). Which is one of the 4 major divisions that I see  within the body of Christ, yet which are typically somewhat related.  

The  Arminians understanding of predestination that if know of  is  that of being "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ,"  (1 Peter 1:2) as meaning God elected souls based upon His of foreknowledge of what they would do with that grace. (https://holyjoys.org/wesleyan-arminians-predestination)

Let me say here that the omniscient (all knowing) omnipotent (all-powerful) Creator-God, who knows what all the effects will be of every action in every place (and all the thoughts motivation of man behind them), not only the effects in this present speck of time in out location but their full extent in time and eternity;

and can and will make them all work out for what is Good, which justice for the impenitent relative to their accountability, and for the good of those who choose Light over darkness by God/s grace, by effectual faith in the risen Lord Jesus;

will be shown to be justified in all his actions.    

Calvinists believe in predestination based upon unconditional deterministic election, which a face-value reading of Romans 9-11 can be seen to teach, which  is taken to mean that God damned/hated the non-elect before they themselves did any wrong, and not because they did  or would;

And thus, being born with an inherited  Adamic  nature they are not simply unable to   effectually believe on the Lord Jesus for salvation, but since (according to Calvinism)   "salvlfic grace" is never granted them, and thus they have not other recourse but to l live and die as damned sinners, though they can somewhat choose how sinful and damanable they will be.

But likewise that God  loved/elected those predestinated to salvation  before they were born, to which He grants "salvlfic grace" (which is a extra-scriptural  theological term used to describe a type of grace beyond "common grace," which all souls experience to varying degrees)  and which   grace   is held as being irresistible;

And  by which they are regenerated by the Spirit before they even  repent/believe (this being two sides of the same coin, for turning to the Lord means due to faith turning from unbelief and its life, according to the Light one has)  but which they therefore do in the same experiential moment of conversion.

However  this means that the non-elect, who  are not simply unable to repent/believe  due to being born spiritually dead,  but are  never granted "salvific grace,"   then they thus are never  enabled to obey the command to all men everywhere to repent and  believe for salvation, (Acts 17:30)  and thus they are damned.   

But which condition and its  basic result is effectively  due the sin of their father Adam, which left  them in a condition which they cannot obtain salvation from.

Which is contrary to the justice of God. reflective of His character,  which He Himself states and affirms numerous times, that He will not judicially punish children for what their father's did. "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." (Deuteronomy 24:16; cf. 2Kings 14:5, 6;  2Chron. 25:4;  Jer. 31:29, 30;  Ezek.  18:20) 

That does not mean that we do not experience effects due to the choices of others, esp. fathers, for good and or evil, (cf. John 4:37, 38)  but that we are not being punished as guilty or rewarded as meritorious due to what another did.

The only way I  see that  this contradiction with God's justice might be reconciled, though I do  not argue it is true,   is to allow  that  the non-elect are  granted unmerited salvific grace, if not unwarranted in the light them being born in a damnable condition over which the had no control, as God is merciful. 

And that such grace can be resisted (with the statement of polemical objection in Romans 9:19 "who hath resisted his will?" being understood as  ignoring levels of saving grace, one being   determinate grace, but also that of a resistible level of saving grace),  which resistance is consistent with  such texts as  Proverbs 1:20.  

But that the elect are given more unwarranted grace, like as souls experience varying degrees of common grace, and in this case salvific grace is given to such a degree as to make souls willing whereas otherwise they would not, thru God giving more grace.  

Under this system, the non-elect are not effectively dammed because of the sin of Adam leaving them in an inescapable condition, as instead God seeks their salvation,  being 

"not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, (2 Pt. 3:9) 

and having  "no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live,"   (Ezekiel 33:11)

 for God   "commandeth all men every where to repent"  (Acts 17:30) 

for God  "will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth,  (1 Timothy 2:4) 

for Christ  became    "the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world," (1 John 2:2) 

and finally weeping over their stubborn terminal impenitence,  Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes" (Luke 19:41-42) 

as they die in their sins, even in reprobation.

And thus men adding the word "elect" to the sacred text in  such verses as above cannot be justified, which Calvinism must do in order to disallow the all-too obvious contradictions of the Calvinistic understanding of Romans 9 thru 11 with so many other clear statements on the justice of God. 

Who can indeed do whatever He pleaseth (Psalms 115:3) but it would not please Him to act contrary to His own words, His own standard for justice, as in effectively condemning souls due to a terminal condition which they have no hope of deliverance from. 

In contrast, under the alternative conditions described, the non-elect are only judged for what they are accountable for, which is wholly Scriptural, (Romans 14:12; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Matthew 25:31-46; Rev. 10:11-15) not for what they did not do (which is also the case in rewarding faith in  1 Co. 3). 

In which it will be manifest that all the verses such as the above applied to them also, but that  the lost resisted   grace by which they could have been saved, calling "Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you. Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof."  (Proverbs 1:23-25)

Eternal security:

Related to Calvinism is that of eternal security - though many Arminians  also hold to it - is that of "once saved, always saved" (OSAS) which Calvinism affirms, but only as preserving faith (the "P" in the T.U.L.I.P doctrine), but which is contrary to the many Scriptures which  warn believers, as believers, against developing an "evil heart of unbelief in departing from living God," from the faith they once held, falling from grace, making Christ of no effect, to no profit, drawing back to perdition," and yielding to pressure to deny the faith after conversion, so that Paul's labor would be in vain, (Gal. 5:1-5; Heb. 3:12-14; Heb. 10:25-31, Heb. 10: 38-39; 1 Thessalonians 3:5)

Cessationism vs. continuationism:

Also typically related to the two major views on election  are those of the perpetuity of supernatural "Pentecostal" gifts, which Calvinists almost all reject (cessationism vs. continuationism), and often cite the rampant grievous aberrations within it in arguing against it. However, despite such there is no argument from Scripture that justifies the premise that all such have ceased  and the coming of that which is perfect, (1 Corinthians 13:10) meaning perfect revelation, and thus its knowing,  is what 1 John 3:2 refers to.

Futurism; supersessionism:

 Also typical within Calvinism is that of the rejection of the futuristic eschatological view of Scripture, which holds that much of Matthew 24 and most all of  the book of Revelation  has a yet future fulfillment, and that prophetic promises to the Jews as a people group and nation no longer  apply to them, but only to the the church (supersessionism, also called replacement theology). Which rejection is problematic (though they say the same about futuristic eschatology) and as regard the Jews,  it is  contrary to  Romans 11.

Rapture"

Along with this is the rejection of two second comings of Christ, meaning the "Rapture" which almost always is held as preceding the Great Tribulation, which itself is Scriptural, though I do not believe the pretrib rapture is, as instead I see this as occurring at the end of the Tribulation, but without going into detail here.

Conclusion: 

However, despite my proffered explanation here on Calvinism, besides rejecting the   Calvinistic understanding of Romans 9-11 as regards the non-elect being effectively damned  due to the sin of Adam, and my rejection Calvinism's exclusion  of saving grace  being offered to the non-elect, I do not feel any need to  reconcile the contradictions, as I can leave them is a state of suspension (see Psalms 131) while awaiting more illumination of the word, while treating souls that way the Bible teaches. Which is as souls called to repent/believe, and as able and responsible to do so.

This being said, all sides on these issue can preach the same basic gospel which in essence is that of  effectual  penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating (though Calvinists would change the order in that moment of conversion)  faith in the Divine Son of God (http://peacebyjesus.net/deityofchrist.html) and Lord of all, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) who saves sinners by His sinless shed blood. 

And which faith is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27, 28) whom  they shall go to be with or His return (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Glory and thanks be to God.

Which is in contrast to those who were never born of the Spirit or who terminally fall away. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12; 10:25-39)   which is the only basic aspect here that normally  sees  in evangelical faith

This is all I am going to write  here, having taken many hours to do  as one who is 71 years ago and often with mental fatigue, but who was  spiritually born of the Spirit  (Jn. 3:2-7)  thru the aforementioned faith, thanks be to God. 

And being in a Catholic dominated area, I then  knew of no evangelical church I felt could trust, not knowing much, but was daily fed by evangelical preaching and teaching over evangelical radio. In which I daily  heard (being a truck driver with a radio) a consistent basic gospel message and relevant teaching from such men of God as Chuck Smith, John MacArthur, M.R. Dehan, and various others. 

And as one very hungry for Bible Truth and seeking to obey it, then I recall having no real problems with certain teachings that were debatable, but I focused on what was clear. 

Later I was part of a Fundamental Baptist church due to their commitment to basic Truths and evangelism, and even later was part of a  Pentecostal mission (which met in a factory building), as well as a Calvinistic S. Baptist church, but  , by the grace of God, I continued to evangelize with the basic gospel all shared. 

All these had/have  their own strengths and weaknesses and errors (though both preached the same basic gospel, versus that of Rome and cults). But holding to the strengths of both, and rejecting errors, means avoiding a false balance (while    rejecting  the aberrant distinctive teachings of each)  within the intent to be faithful to the Lord.

In our home, we have a FM transmitter randomly broadcasting approx. 14,000 sermons from  varied preachers and teachers, and which overall  preach the same basic gospel, and minister to those who believe it, and by which we are edified, though not concurring on certain errors such  as I referred to above. 

Which is in contrast to sitting at the feet of some self-appointed  guru on Greek who has found his niche in attacking sound beliefs of established  evangelical faith (besides some unsound ones of others), thereby negating any need for affirmation by such, as he engages in manipulation  of  language in order to deceive the simple.

 May  God   grant all “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.”  (2 Timothy 2:25)