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)
