DAN FROM NORTH CAROLINA:
I have a PDF 'book' I would like to send you concerning my own take on marriage/sexual identity.
I'll preface this to warn you: My response may be more direct than you may have initially anticipated, so I hope the forewarning might help soften the blow a bit. I realize that you probably believe you're being contrite, but Jesus explained to us that a man's heart can been seen by his words:
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
-Mat 15:18Humility and fear of God can't be forced; meaning that it is not something that you can practice in your speech to eliminate evidence of the contrary. Or in more simple terms, you can't squeeze tears out of a heart of stone. You might get away with it with the populous, who have no discernment, but when you meet someone who has the Spirit of God for understanding, you won't be able to hide, no matter how vague you try to word this letter to mask your true beliefs.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
-1Co 2:14I can already see a lot of problems from your first sentence; things you probably don't even realize, and you may not know that I likely wouldn't even have to read as far in your 'book' as you're expecting before picking up on your false doctrines.
If you want to send me something, you can do so, but frankly, I've got multiple projects I'm working on, including multiple books I have planned, so I would rather spend time working on those. I've already completed my work on the marriage subject, and your letter doesn't even give any explanation as to why I would want to read your 'book', nor does your letter give the purpose of why you want me to read it, so in short, it is highly unlikely that I'll read it whether you send it or not, unless you give me some pertinent reason why it's relevant to what I'm doing.
Based off what I have read in some of your articles I have a feeling you would probably rip it to shreds, but what the heck, if you're interested you can check it out (you can 'buy' it online but I thought I'd just send it to you free as I, like yourself, don't charge anyone and any money I make I usually give away.) I do not consider myself an apologist, but I was a biology/pre-med major and was fortunate enough that God used that to help my faith, instead of questioning it (I was never an evolutionist, and never will be, mainly because it just makes no freaking sense scientifically).
Okay, just so we're on the same page, I don't care about all your labels. (i.e. "I'm not an evolutionist, but I'm not an apologist" etc) Your vague explanations are enough to show me you're hiding the doctrines you believe. I don't get along well with people who do that because they deceive others.
You see, people who have been born again don't have to hide their beliefs with one another because we all have one mind, but you have to hide yours, and that's likely because you adhere more to new-age doctrine, which I can glean from you the more I read your letter. The major red flag that went up for me was the fact that you said that God used your biology/pre-med major to help your faith, and that's a primary example of what I'm talking about; you believe your faith has come from something other than what the Bible says faith comes from.
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
-Rom 10:17The way God has said He helps someone with their faith is through His Word, not through your science degrees, otherwise, understanding in faith would only come to the intellectual elite.
The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
-Psalm 119:130
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.
-1Co 1:26-29Thus, the impression I've gotten with your first letter is that with your mouth you claim to honor the Christian God of the Bible, but in your heart, you're far from Him.
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
-Mat 15:8
I do not agree with everything on your site, mainly because I think you also pretext verses at time to justify your own opinion, but I agree with the sobriety and the call to excellence.
Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims, and a variety of other false pagan religions can all "agree with sobriety and the call to excellence," but that doesn't make them born again in Christ; your "agreement on sobriety and excellence" doesn't mean anything when it comes to doctrine.
I also don't think you know what the word 'pretext' means because it's a noun, and you're using it as a verb, but in case you don't know the meaning, it means that you are accusing me of presenting a false doctrine (i.e. a lie) and then using Scripture to back up that lie, while trying to phrase your baseless accusation in a "nice" way in this email. That's what the Bible calls "flattering lips:"
They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
-Psalm 12:2Dan, you're not fooling anyone here, and frankly, I would rather you just come out and make an accusation against me directly than beat around the bush like a coward, holding on to your pretense that you're being "humble," when you're not.
Here's the bottom line: If you don't like what I teach, then go somewhere else. If you have a correction, then try making some real effort, like the effort you've read on my website, by quoting me, then quoting Scripture, and then logically pointing out the error of context in a thorough manner. If you don't want to do that; again, I'll say, you have the liberty to go elsewhere; our ministry is not a popularity contest.
Fellow vagabond, stranger, and alien on the earth that waits for Yeshua HaMashiach,
Based on your vague letter, I am unwilling as of yet to agree that you are a "fellow." You haven't given me any evidence yet that you're a brother in Christ, so I don't trust you. In addition, you add in the "Yeshua Hamashiach" line that I hear from pretty much every Hebrew-roots cultist and Adventist cultist that typically throws that out at the end of their emails in the false belief that they think they know the secret and true name of God. Just so you're aware, we are sanctified from those cults and their false doctrine too, and if you're a part of them, you are not our brethren.
Now, I'll give you another chance if you want to try to write a more comprehensive letter. I'm open to the fact that some people are just not very good writers (I'm not that good either), and perhaps you made some errors, that's okay, I can understand that, but based on the 10 years experience I have in dealing with these kind of letters, and the fact that you claim to be author, I don't think that's the case here. I think who I'm talking to is man who does not understand repentance unto salvation, but thinks he does because he's an "intellectual."
Is Repentance Part of Salvation?That teaching will show you the way to Christ. Whether you look into it or not is up to you. Have a great day, I gotta' get back to work.
NEXT LETTER:
Mr. Johnson, Thanks for getting back in touch with me. I appreciate that you are busy. I appreciate you are selective in what you read. A simple, "Dan, thanks for contacting me, but I'm not interested at this time" probably would've sufficed on your part. But to answer you as humbly and forthrightly as I can, realizing that emotional tone cannot be translated via email: I must say, I'm not sure if anything I respond with will be taken with grace or courtesy or not re-attacked as being covert, hidden motive, weak doctrine, false prophet, or what not. Be that as it may:
1) There is no hidden motive on my part and I am not the things you have accused me: weak in my beliefs, a Hebrew cultist, hiding my doctrines, seeking to be an 'intellectual' etc... If those are your presuppositions about me you play the devil's advocate quite well in making false accusations against me. My initial contact was simply: I was just wondering if you would let me send you a book that I thought, obviously wrong, you might check out. To that I was adding mere details that you proceeded to just think you know everything about me from an initial contact. Thank you for playing God for the few minutes it took you to do that.
Desiring a "thank you" over this matter is extraordinarily strange. You wrote someone that finished his book on marriage, then offered him to read your book on marriage, and expected gratitude for it. That's like going to a neighbor who is a corn farmer, and after he finishes his harvest, you stop over at his place to offer him some corn; he would likely give you a very strange look, especially when he would watch you get upset that he didn't thank you for your offer. Most likely, he would ask why you would offer him corn when he's got tons of it, and then you would not give him any reason for it other than "I just thought you would like it"; that doesn't make any sense.
You're also not reading what I said. I'm not going to go through every example you gave to save some time, but I'll give you one example:
"Just so you're aware, we are sanctified from those cults and their false doctrine too, and if you're a part of them, you are not our brethren."I didn't say you were a Hebrew cultist, I pointed out the similarities between phrases you use and the Hebrew-roots cult, and then I said
IF you were part of that Hebrew-roots cult that we are not brethren. I didn't accuse you of it. I understand reading comprehension problems; I've had a lot of difficulties in my life in that regard, but if you're not going to read what I'm writing to you and respond to it, then this is a one-sided conversation, and I'm not going to waste my time with someone who won't hear--which, by the way, doesn't give me any reason to read a book from an author who operates in that manner.
You still didn't give me a purpose for reading your books, which is what I was requesting. And now, you're proving the point I made in my first letter, namely, that you speak with flattering lips and double heart (i.e. lies), and I'll demonstrate what I mean:
First you say, "
to answer you as humbly" which is your declaration to answer with a humble heart, but then you scoff, "
Thank you for playing God" In the Bible, that's what God called being "double minded," that's where you declare one thing and then speak opposite to that immediately after; in simple terms, it's called a lie.
A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
-Jms 1:8 God did not say that a double-minded man is unstable in a few of his ways, but rather, He said in
ALL their ways. Look, I'll make time for just about anybody, but I prefer not to make time for grown men acting like a child in their understanding.
Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
-1Co 14:20You proclaim yourself to be humble, but your words show malice, and this is just an instance where you hate the fact that I pointed it out because you hate correction and rebuke.
Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die.
-Proverbs 15:10Now, based on what you've written me so far, I'm actually not sure if you're familiar with the doctrines of Scripture very much at all, but the Bible is called God's Word for a reason. I didn't come up with these verses; the Living God did, and He gave it to us to protect us from men with deceptive tongues, which you can see if you go on to read Psalm 12 (which I quoted to you in the last letter).
For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him. The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
-Psa 12:5-7We Christians quote the Word of God because it is a two-edged sword that discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart; including yours.
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
-Heb 4:12In summary, you need to read what I'm saying a bit more carefully, but you still didn't provide a purpose for wanting me to read your book other than conjecture about my personal interests. You also lied when you claimed to be humble and then scoffed, which is proving that the discernment I had with you in the first letter was sound.
2) My comment about you 'ripping it to shreds' (my little book) was actually a compliment to youbecause I realized a person such as yourself might take the time to read it through and THINK, gleaning from it what you would and rejecting what you wouldn't. So that was a compliment, Mr. Johnson. You are free to make of that what you will. I was seeking no endorsement, approval, etc. I was just making an offer. If you didn't want it, then just say, "No" and let your "yes be yes and your nay be nay".
Read what you wrote in your first letter:
Based off what I have read in some of your articles I have a feeling you would probably rip it [your book] to shreds, but what the heck, if you're interested you can check it out The term "rip to shreds" is used in two ways; one is to tear something into pieces (i.e. to destroy something in an emotionally-heated rage), and the other is to heavily criticize. Which one was I to interpret? The standard for reading is that we interpret the definition of words based on the context. The only context I had to go on were softened curses like "
what the heck" and "
freaking" which are replacement words designed to deceive people about your filthy tongue.
Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
-Eph 4:29Then you followed that up with saying you don't agree with everything on my site, which is fine; there's nothing wrong with disagreement, but all these things show a
NEGATIVE context, not a positive one. Thus, if you had prefaced it differently, by giving me a different context, I would have taken it in a different way. If you want to someone to understand your words, then you need to speak clearly, which was the point I made in my last letter about being vague, but it is not a "
humble answer" to then turn around and falsely accuse me of not taking time with your letter and not thinking about what you said.
Then you lied by saying, "
You are free to make of that what you will." If I was free to make of it what I wanted, you wouldn't have objected to my last letter at all; you would have just ignored my letter and moved on. That's not what you did, you objected; so you believe I'm
NOT free to make of it what I will. Furthermore, if I took it anyway I wanted without the context, the Living God would hold me accountable for that, knowing that I should judge righteous judgment, and not make up whatever I want about what someone said. So in a nutshell, stop blaming other people if you do not write things clearly enough to be understood as you mean them. I'm responsible for my words, and you are responsible for yours. The fault is not mine if I went by the context you gave me, so take responsibility for what you say because you and I both will be held accountable for every word we speak.
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
-Mat 12:36
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST:
Show Posts
