Imagine, if you will, a preacher, asserting to proclaim the Gospel of Christ, saying, "I don't believe that the Bible is the Word of God." How exactly would you respond to that man?


For 2,000 years, the epistles of Paul have been a staple of New Testament doctrine. The Lord Jesus Christ laid the foundation of His Gospel for us, He then appointed certain of His servants to build the framework of Christian philosophy (i.e. a way of thinking which we ought to live by) through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and much of that was done by Paul, as confirmed by other apostles, who (by the grace of God) set a good example of humility and charity for the church.

However, there is a rising religious cult that I have chosen to call the "Paul versus Christ" (PvC) cult, or some have referred to them as the "Jesus' Words Only" (JWO) cult. They claim that most of the New Testament is fraudulent and full of error, and that only Jesus Christ alone (i.e. in the four Gospels) should be studied. This religious cult targets Paul specifically in most instances, which is why I call it the "Paul vs Christ" cult.

In this book, we will not only expose their gross error and (in some cases) blatant misunderstanding of the doctrines of both Paul and Christ, but also show how they deceive people into following their corrupt ideas. We will look at how they corrupt the Gospel of Salvation, and compare it to the Biblical Gospel of Salvation, so you can clearly see the difference between the two.

It is important to note that the PvC cult arises from what I call the "Hebrew-Roots" cult; in other words, the PvC cult is a branch of the Hebrew-Roots cult. As I have shown in many other teachings, the Hebrew-Roots cultists are quite dangerous because a vast majority of them are not born again in Christ (meaning they do not have the Holy Spirit for understanding, 1Co 2:14). They strive to lead others away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ (under the guise of being so-called "disciples of Christ") to bring believers under the yoke of bondage, convincing them they can work their way into heaven, and we will see many examples of that corrupt doctrine in this book as we analyze the PvC heresies.
(Read "Keeping the Sabbath is Not a Christian Requirement," "Tithe is Not a Christian Requirement," "Should Christians Observe Jewish Passover?" and "The Biblical Understanding of Circumsicion" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
-Galatians 5:1

About a decade before I wrote this book, a man named Titus Hartford visited my website and contacted me, and after some email exchanges and researching his teachings, I discovered that he has dedicated much of his time to the corrupt, nonsensical doctrines of the PvC/JWO cult. (Hereafter, I will only refer to it as the PvC cult for simplicity.) Instead of preaching to lost sinners, he focuses most of his attention on converting churchgoers to his ideology. Although I will address some other authors in the PvC cult, I will focus much of my attention on Hartford. He was the first to introduce me to the PvC cult because I had never heard of it before he contacted me, and he has spent many years dedicated to this subject, even occasionally preaching his message on public sidewalks, which makes him a convenient case study from which to draw information about the cult's general teachings.
(See Titus Hartford, How to Teach Disciples to Observe All Things Whatsoever Jesus Commanded the Twelve Apostles, BookPatch LLC, 2020, ISBN: 9781648587184)

To get an idea of his beliefs, Hartford said the following on a Blog Talk Radio interview:
"[@6:38] Paul was a deceiver, and he was a ravening wolf, and we should beware of the doctrine."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 19, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

Note: The link in the reference no longer exists because Blog Talk Radio ceased operations and closed its doors in January of 2025, however, there is an Internet Archive Wayback Machine capture of it, so you can see that it did exist at one time. I pulled these quotations from the interview before Blog Talk Radio was shut down.

(See Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 19, 2023, [https://web.archive.org/web/20250126204404/https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio])

To claim that Paul's writings in Scripture have deceived Christians for the past 2,000 years—including the other apostles of Christ—that few preachers (if any) have uncovered this greatly-kept secret for thousands of years, and that the Holy Spirit has withheld this information from the church for so long, are extraordinary claims. It is not wrong to make an extraordinary claim, so long as you have extraordinary evidence and sound reasoning, but this also means the bar is set quite high, and we will need to examine Hartford's arguments with extreme scrutiny.

In the Blog Talk Radio interview, Hartford commented on what is commonly called "The Great Commission," given by the instruction of Jesus Christ in Matthew 28:18-20. The following quote is an example of the deceptive statements he makes to lure unsuspecting Christians into thinking he is a faithful preacher:
"So basically, it's going, teaching all nations, baptizing them, and teaching them to observe all things whatsoever Jesus commanded the twelve apostles."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved July 28, 2021, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
-Matthew 28:19-20

Notice that Hartford specified they should observe "whatsoever Jesus commanded the twelve apostles," instead of simply saying "us," which is the normal way we would express it. It is complete nonsense to say that only the twelve apostles were to teach the observance of Christ's commandments, and no one else in the church ever had that responsibility over the past 2,000 years. Depending on the context, many of Christ's commandments were for the church as a whole, but Hartford uses this curious wording because he wants people to observe only what Jesus taught the apostles, and NOT what the twelve apostles taught.

Jesus laid the foundation for the church by His death and resurrection, then commanded His disciples to go out and build upon that foundation. This raises a very serious question: If the apostles were NOT teaching correctly what Christ instructed them to teach (which would mean they were NOT guided by the Holy Ghost), then what was the point of telling them to go out and teach these things?

If we believe that the apostles of Christ were led by the Holy Ghost to teach the truth of His Gospel, then it stands to reason that we would believe what the apostles taught. This logically follows because if the apostles taught things that were wrong in Scripture, then it automatically implies blasphemy that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are also wrong, or in other words, if we cannot trust one, then we cannot trust the other.

If the twelve apostles (or at least a portion of them) were not to be trusted, then how do we know that those apostles accurately recorded the doctrine of Jesus in the first place? How do we know Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not change some things and fool us all? After Jesus ascended to heaven, there were only eleven apostles because Judas was no longer among them. Matthias and other apostles (like Paul and Barnabas) were not added until later in the book of Acts, but PvC cultists do not believe those passages to be Holy Scriptures, which his begs another question: On what basis do they believe that the Holy Spirit (i.e. the Comforter) was sent (as Jesus said He would do) when there is no record of that event outside of the book of Acts?

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
-John 14:26

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
-John 15:26

Notice that Jesus used future tense wording, meaning that the Holy Ghost would be sent to the church later. If PvC cultists want to argue that Jesus did it while He was still on the earth, that contradicts what He told them in the next chapter:

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
-John 16:7

So if the book of Acts is not true, then where was the Holy Spirit sent to the apostles and the church? They can simply say that it was, but they have no record of it because many PvC cultists elminate the book of Acts, which was written by Luke.

As we will learn later in this book, PvC cultists reject Peter also, even though Peter was one of the twelve apostles Hartford mentioned earlier. As we just read, Jesus told Peter and the other apostles that the Comforter (i.e. the Holy Ghost) would be sent to them, and that the Holy Ghost was "the Spirit of truth" who would "teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." Therefore, to claim that Peter's epistles were not written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is not an attack against Peter nearly as much as it is an attack against Jesus Christ Himself.

As far as I am aware, nearly all PvC cultists believe the writings of John are legitimate. However they hypocritically deny what Jesus said in the specific passages I quoted from John in chapters 14 through 16, and this is just the beginning of their many contradictions.

The general structure of the church is established by the doctrine of the apostles through the guidance of the Holy Ghost—a framework we still rely on 2,000 years later. This begs another question: Why should we ignore the establishers of the church in the early days after Christ, those who learned directly from Jesus and performed miracles by the power of the Holy Ghost, and instead trust only the feelings and opinions of modern-day PvC cultists?

PvC cultists do their best to sound faithful, often using words and phrases similar to those we Christians use, but secretly carrying different meanings than ours, and this fools some into believing their deceptive doctrines. In his Blog Talk Radio interview, Hartford discussed his book, How to Teach Disciples to Observe All Things Whatsoever Jesus Commanded the Twelve Apostles, which is essentially his commentary on the book of Matthew, yet he openly admits he wrote it with an ulterior motive, which he deceptively hides from his reading audience:
"HARTFORD: It [i.e. Hartford's book] doesn't mention Paul specifically, but throughout the book, there are commandments [i.e. he means commandments from Jesus Christ] that go directly against the teachings of Paul, and I tried to make a very, very—a good explanation about what the commandments was given to the twelve was, so that you could see the counterfeit if you were paying attention.
HOST: That's fantastic!
HARTFORD: Yeah, and that also allows people not to be put off by any statements that would be made against Paul if they had sincere convictions about that."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved July 28, 2021, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

We will examine some passages from his book later, but in summary, Hartford openly admits his intention is to turn readers away from most of the books of the New Testament. He adds that he attempted to avoid offending anyone by purposely not mentioning Paul. I believe he did not realize the full impact of what he said next, which was an accusation that if you believe the Lord Jesus Christ and Paul (Christ's apostle) at the same time, then you do not have "sincere convictions," or in other words, if you believe the entirety of the New Testament books, Hartford declared that you are an insincere liar and void of any genuine faith in Christ.

I have exposed many corrupt pastors and so-called "Christian" teachers during my time in ministry, and it is quite common for them to hold disdain for anyone who does not agree with their doctrine. Though Hartford deceives people with his book, at the very least, I appreciate him coming forward and making his true intention clearer, because with it, he revealed his belief that all who do not agree with his stance against Paul are wicked.

And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
-1 Corinthians 2:1-5

After calling Paul a "ravening wolf," I was curious to hear what Hartford thought Paul gained from all his sufferings for the church. It leaves us to wonder if he understands what the word "ravening" means, since Paul traveled without extra provisions just like the other apostles, and many among both Jews and Gentiles were trying to kill him for simply preaching Christ.

ravening (n): eagerness for plunder
(See 'ravening', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Jan 2, 2024, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

The sufferings of Paul were documented in his epistles and also by other apostles, such as Luke when he wrote the book of Acts. However, Hartford rejects the book of Acts. The following was Paul's earthly reward for preaching Christ crucified, and this is not the sort of reward a "ravening wolf" seeks:

Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.
-2 Corinthians 11:24-27

The first time Hartford wrote to me was in June of 2014, and to make a long story short, I learned some things about him from the few "conversations" we had. I put the word 'conversations' in quotations because I was expected to answer his questions and respond to his comments, but he would not answer my questions or respond to my comments. Mostly, his strategy was to keep changing the subject instead of addressing the main doctrinal point I was trying to get him to understand.

Hartford used to be a frequent reader of my teachings, but he stopped abruptly when I took a firm stance against his false doctrines. Like most leavened pastors today, Hartford trusts in lexicons and concordances for his interpretation of Scripture instead of going to the context of the verses in question, and this is a common error among PvC cultists.
(Read "The 'Original Greek' Scam," "The Dangers of Using Lexicons and Concordances," and There is No Saving Grace Without Repentance here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Before we address Hartford's arguments against the writings of the Holy Ghost through Paul, I want to explain to Christian readers how we ought to approach the study of the Bible. This will help us see how greatly God's instruction differs from what Hartford does.

In the Bible, God was kind enough to teach us how to study His Word:

Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
-Isaiah 28:9-10

It is no secret that the Word of God was not delivered to us with color codes and bullet points. It is purposefully designed so the fullness of a doctrine can only be understood if all the pieces are aligned, and most often, those doctrines are scattered throughout various books in the Bible. We are to read God's Word "precept upon precept," meaning that we take each commandment in correlation with other commandments; "line upon line," meaning that we must read it in its context to know how words and phrases should be defined; and "here a little and there a little," meaning that we need to compare Scripture with Scripture and correlate them together to ensure we have the doctrine correct.

God also explained WHY He arranged His Word in this way:

But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
-Isaiah 28:13

The reason God did this was so that men, specifically false converts (like Titus Hartford), would attempt to understand God's Word but never be able to fully comprehend it. They might repeat things they have heard from those who do have understanding, by which they can feign understanding, but their minds remain locked to the fullness of the doctrine, and therefore, they will be led down false paths and teach false doctrines.

This makes it easier for us to spot counterfeit teachers because they will "fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken." This is why the Bible says such men are "ever learning" but never able to gain understanding of God's Word because they have not been born again to receive the Spirit of God.

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power [i.e. authority] thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
-2 Timothy 3:5-7

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.
-1 Corinthians 2:14

This is important to remember because we are going to see these rules of Scriptural study completely abandoned by Hartford and the PvC cult. For example, in the emails Hartford sent to me, he quoted from 1st Corinthians 14:40, which says, "Let all things be done decently and in order," and then he said:
"Essentially, it is the 'order' in 'let everything be done decently and in order'. The reason it is ordered that way (apostles, prophets, teachers, miracles, healing, helps, governments, tongues) is because God gives more honor to those parts which lack... The greek word 'order' means 'fixed succession of rank or character'"

In summary, he took the word 'order' from 1st Corinthians 14:40, which was authored by Paul (leaving me confused as to why he referred to this, since he believes Paul's writings are not true), and then applied his Greek grammar dictionary definition to it instead of looking at the context (i.e. "line upon line") to understand its meaning. In 1st Corinthians 14, Paul is rebuking the chaotic assemblies of the church, especially when speaking in languages generally unknown to the audience, and pointed out that their studies and discussions should be done "in order," meaning one person at a time should speak, but Hartford departed far from the simple, contextual meaning of the Scripture to claim that it was a commandment to set a hierarchy of gifts or offices listed in another epistle of Paul, specifically Ephesians 4:11, even though he does not believe in the writings of Paul.

In the email exchange, I pointed out his error in more detail than I did in the previous paragraph, and asked him, "What mistake did I make? Please focus on one solid rebuke so that I can learn." This was in effort to get him to stop Gish-galloping (i.e. posing rapid-fire questions and arguments without answering any of my questions). Of course, I did not believe Hartford had anything legitimate to teach me, but in case I had something wrong, I offered him the opportunity to prove me wrong if he could.

Sadly, Hartford's only goal was to convince me of his false doctrine, not to have discussion or learn anything, but I gave it my best shot. I listed out various verses that use the word 'order' in different ways, demonstrating to Hartford that his Greek grammar dictionary was not how the context of Scripture was determined, and that he had created a false interpretation based on his refusal to understand the context.
(Read "The 'Original Greek' Scam" and "The Dangers of Using Lexicons & Concordances" at creationliberty.com for more details.)

The following are a few examples I provided for Hartford, starting with the book of Judges:

And Manoah said, Now let thy words come to pass.
How shall we order the child, and how shall we do unto him?
-Judges 13:12

In this instance, the word 'order' is not used to mean a "fixed succession of rank or character," as Hartford had previously stated, because you cannot give a "fixed succssion of rank" to a single child. This verse uses the word 'order' to mean "to command or manage."

I provided Hartford another example:

And when Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass, and arose, and gat him home to his house, to his city, and put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died, and was buried in the sepulchre of his father.
-2 Samuel 17:23

The context of this verse in 2nd Samuel uses the word 'order' to mean "to regulate or discipline." And I presented Hartford with a third example:

For because ye did it not at the first, the LORD our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought him not after the due order.
-1 Chronicles 15:13

The context of this verse in 1st Chronicles uses the word 'order' to mean "precepts, mandates, or regulations." This should have been more than enough, but I went one step further and gave Hartford a fourth example:

The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent,
Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
-Psalm 110:4

The context of this verse in Psalm uses the word 'order' to mean "institution or lineage," and so, as we can clearly see, the words of Scripture mean different things depending on the context in which they are used. It is not wrong to go to a dictionary to gain a general understanding of how a word is used, but the reason words in the dictionary are followed by a list of definitions is because they can be used in different ways. This is how all language works, it is how we read everything on a daily basis, but for some strange and illogical reason, people tend to abandon basic principles of reading when it comes to the Bible.

I provided these examples to Hartford in my email, and the following was his ENTIRE response to that explanation. I have provided a screen shot of his response because it is so ridiculous, some readers might not believe me unless they see it for themselves:
"The Lord hath redeemed his people Israel!"
This is nothing new to me because I have received countless nonsensical emails and letters since I began ministry in 2009, but some readers might find such a response surprising. When a man has no interest in contextual coherence, then the truth will be abhorrent to him, and there was no point in continuing conversation with someone who resorted to babbling a mantra.

There were a few emails exchanged before this point, but it is useless to publish them all because I asked Hartford ignored my questions, refusing to answer anything. Then he ended the discussion with this nonsensical line, showing his willful resistance to normal conversation, lest it exposes his error and stupidity. As we will see, he refuses to read the Bible in its context, and sadly, this is quite common among churchgoers in general, not just the PvC cult.

Hartford stopped communicating with me directly. He put me on a mailing list with many other ministers and began spamming heretical nonsense to all of us at once through forwarded letters. I replied by requesting that he remove me from his mailing list (as did many others), but he refused and kept spamming his heresies. This forced me to block him—something I do not like to do because I desire to keep communication channels open in case someone comes to repentance later and wants to talk things out. This began to reveal Hartford's heart on these matters: when he has no answer for the problems with his doctrine, he resorts to childish tantrums.

And to quote Paul from First Corinthians 14, the very chapter Hartford did not understand:

Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
-1 Corinthians 14:20

When Paul said this, he noted that children can fight with someone but quickly let it go and forget about it without holding a grudge. Therefore, in terms of malice, it is wise for us to be as children are, but it is not wise for us to lack understanding as children do—a lesson Hartford thinks is heresy coming from a "ravening wolf."

Before we get into the core of Hartford's PvC doctrines, I want readers to get a better idea of his philosophical absurdity. In the Blog Talk Radio interview, Hartford claimed that the teachings of Paul made him a hateful person:
"You don't need to be a hypocrite, so to speak, and that's something I strived for, and it's difficult sometimes, but it's a whole lot easier now than when I was following the teachings of Paul and Jesus at the same time. That seemed to make me a very hateful person, and a real judgmental person because I could hardly even eat lunch with anybody at work because they all claimed to be Christians, but they were all idolaters, and so—or railers, or drunkards. Paul, he gave a list of things that you're not supposed to do and said if any is brother and do any of these things, don't eat with them, and if you follow that, you could hardly eat with anyone, but contrary to that, Jesus said to go two miles with him that asks you to go one mile. So there's situations where you might sort of be torn between the two because if somebody's asking you to go a mile with them, but they're also a brother that be an idolater, or any of those other things, then..." [his sentence trailed off during the interview]
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved July 28, 2021, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

Before I analyze this quote, we must keep in mind that much of what he testified about his personal life may not be true. If Hartford cherry-picks Scripture out of context to create wild theories, then it is no stretch of the imagination that he would do the same with the words of anyone else in his personal life, and that leaves us no choice but to take his words with heavy skepticism.

This is the verse Hartford is paraphrasing:

And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
-Matthew 5:41

compel (v): to drive or urge with force, or irresistibly; to constrain; to oblige; to necessitate, either by physical or moral force
(See 'compel', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Dec 5, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Some people might be confused about this because it begs the question: Who would FORCE someone to travel a mile with him? If we only look at this verse without considering context or any other correlating information (which is what Hartford does), then it may not make sense, but if we read the context, it fits perfectly:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
-Matthew 5:38-42

The "eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" is what the Jews called "The Law of Retaliation," and the phrase comes from Exodus 21:24. Jesus was not preaching against this law, meaning He was not arguing against the law of God in this instance; rather, He was preaching against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes who used this law as a means of personal revenge—as opposed to justice—against those they believed offended them. It is no different than a corrupt governor using his power to oppress his political or religious opponents. Thus, Jesus said that if a man smacked a Pharisee across the face, it would be lawful to bring charges of physical assault against the offender, but it would not be Biblical for the Pharisee to seek his own revenge by smacking the man across the face in return and claiming justification from Exodus 21:24 for returning the blow.

Now that we understand the context, it is easier to see that when someone sues us in court for something we did wrong, and we are found guilty in light of the evidence, we should agree with the truth and be willing to give more than was asked in restitution. We do this to be charitable to our neighbor and not seek selfish revenge. This does not apply in instances of false accusation, for it unlawful to issue punishment to those who are innocent. This only applies if we did that which was unlawful to injure another's person or property, and if by force of law, someone compels (or demands) us to go a mile, if we are able, we should help him more than he expected, to give of our time and effort in charity, rather than think only of ourselves.

This can be better understood by knowing Roman law in that day:
"Augustus initially founded the vehiculatio as a series of men established in short relay positions along the military routes, but, by the end of his reign, he altered the system so that a single messenger travelled with each communication. The latter method allowed the messenger to answer content questions about the composition of messages, but required that the traveler exploit a relay of requisitioned transport carts and beasts. Using his officially-stamped travel documents, the messenger could commandeer local vehicles under imperial authority."
-Russell Gentry, "The Vehiculatio in Roman Imperial Regulation: Particular Solutions to a Systematic Problem," Academia, p. 4, retrieved July 28, 2021, [https://bit.ly/3BSE15m]

Communication is the most vital weapon of any military, and in that day, they had no radio communication. This required militaries to use "runners" who would run on foot or use horses when available. A single horse could not cover the long distances the runners needed to travel with their messages, so they used a series of horses in short sprints, and the law decreed that a messenger could stop a traveler on horseback and demand to temporarily use his horse.

Although this seems unfair to us, and our consciences would lead us to believe the traveler should receive restitution for his loss, but Jesus taught the Pharisees that instead of demanding restitution for commandeered vehicles, they should be willing to go the short distance with the messengers and even cheerfully double the effort the messenger might have expected, which kept peace with the Roman government. Now that we understand the context, what exactly does this have to do with Hartford's speech about sitting down to eat with those who claim to be brethren in Christ?

Nothing whatsoever.
This is why I firmly stated that Hartford has little to no understanding of Christ's doctrine, and neither does anyone who follows the PvC cult. Now that we see Hartford's lack of understanding of Scripture, this leads us to Paul's doctrine on eating with brethren:

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
-1 Corinthians 5:9-13

The church in Corinth had allowed some unrepentant fornicators (i.e. men and women who regularly participated in sex outside of marriage) to remain in the church and fellowshipped with them, but they should have addressed the sin and called them to repentance (i.e. godly sorrow) of it. If they remained unrepentant and continued to live a lifestyle of their sin, they should have been removed from the church, nor should the church have joined them in the fellowship of a meal because the world needs to understand that fornication is not tolerated by Christ.

This is EXCLUSIVELY for those who claim to be brethren in Christ, and that discipline was to be set among the church. This does NOT include the lost unbelievers of the world, and although we do not keep fellowship (i.e. close friendship) with the world, we can and do occasionally talk and eat with them that we might have an opportunity to preach the Gospel of Christ to them.

If Hartford was so concerned about who he was eating with, why was he not looking to eat with the unbelieving co-workers? If he is as concerned with the Gospel of Christ as much as he claims, why would he not follow Christ's example and prioritize eating with unbelievers, that he might teach them?

A person who claims to be a disciple of Christ while living a lifestyle of idolatry, railing, and drunkenness is a hypocrite, and this is what Hartford claimed about ALL his co-workers. I have never been in a situation where every co-worker I had claimed to be a Christian, which seems a bit strange to me. I am unsure how he knew that about all of them, but in this instance, I have no choice except to take his word for it.

I am not arguing that a Christian will not sin, but they will not continue in hypocrisy, to live a life of sin without repentance (i.e. godly sorrow) of it. A Christian will eventually make some effort to correct it because the Holy Spirit will guide their conscience to do the right thing.

Therefore to him that knoweth to do good,
and doeth it not, to him it is sin.
-James 4:17

I have no idea what the personal preferences of Hartford are, but Jesus Christ did not sit down to have a meal with hypocrites. If we hate hypocrisy as much as our Lord, then why would we want to sit down and eat with hypocrites?

If we read Matthew 23 carefully, we will see that Jesus firmly rebuked hypocrites instead of fellowshipping with them:

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence [i.e. a show] make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land [i.e. they travel around the world] to make one proselyte, [i.e. a religious convert] and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
-Matthew 23:13-15

Hartford accused Paul of teaching a "judgmental" doctrine, but did we not just read Jesus being judgmental against hypocrites? The word 'judgmental' simply involves the exercise of judgment, and judgment is a good thing that every living person must use in their day-to-day activities.

judge (v): to compare facts or ideas, and perceive their agreement or disagreement, and thus to distinguish truth from falsehood; to discern; to distinguish
discern (v): to separate by the eye, or by the understanding; to distinguish; to see the difference between two or more things
(See 'judge' & 'discern', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved July 28, 2021, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

What is wrong with discernment? What is wrong with distinguishing truth from falsehood? If those things are good, then why is judging considered "wrong?" Earlier, we read Hartford's quote claiming we Christians are not "sincere" because we believe the fullness of the New Testament Scriptures. Therefore, is he not judgmental against us? Those who hate discernment (i.e. distinguish truth from falsehood) also hate the truth itself, or in other words, those who scoff at judgment hate righteous judgment that exposes their hypocritical hearts.

For example, people judge when a waiter serves them the wrong order at a restaurant, they judge environmentalists who block highways to keep them from getting to work on time, and they judge dirty cops who oppress their rights as citizens. Churchgoers judge circumstances and people around them all day, every day. They LOVE to hear judgment that makes them feel good—that presents a positive assessments of their character and appearance—and they love judgment that presents a negative assessment of politicans who they perceive to be doing evil, yet when it comes to judging THEMSELVES with righteous judgment, most hypocritically turn their noses up at it.
(Read "Unbiblical Cop-outs: 'Don't Judge Me!'" at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Therefore, I see many problems with Hartford's scoffing against being "judgmental." It is a problem when someone makes quick judgments without gathering facts first, yet Christians must acknowledge that judging righteous judgment (i.e. determining truth through study with understanding) is the duty of every Christian and is required for even the most basic level of discernment.

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
-John 7:24

God declared that He loves righteous judgment:

For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.
-Isaiah 61:8

Why is it that Hartford hates that which God loves? If one hates righteous judgment, it is always for selfish reasons.

Paul taught this in harmony with Christ:

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things,
yet he himself is judged of no man.
-1 Corinthians 2:15

Presuming Hartford's testimony about his co-workers was true (since we have no way to verify if Hartford himself was the hypocritical problem), it is curious why he has a deep, spiritual longing to associate and fellowship with hypocrites. I was forgiven and saved by Christ in 2002, and over the past two decades, I have learned much from the Lord Jesus Christ. Today, I have no desire to fellowship with hypocrites. Due to the salvation given to me by grace, I hate hypocrisy in myself as much as (if not more than) in others, and hypocrites typically keep their distance from me because they know I will point out their hypocrisies.

The reason for not fellowshipping with hypocrites and removing them from the church (as Paul said in 1Co 5:13) is not to lord ourselves over people out of hatred and spite. The purpose is to send them back into the sinful world that the Lord God might judge them—meaning He would discipline them to bring them low, that they might come to repentance, be broken-hearted over their sins, and hopefully rejoin the church.

I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
-Luke 15:7

Part of the reason is that if the person who claims to be of Christ is not actually of Christ (i.e. if he is a false convert), then he needs to understand he is not in like-mindedness with the church so he can come to repentance and be saved. It is very unlikely a man will listen to the Gospel of Salvation when he already thinks he is a saved member of the church.

Another reason is that while that man remains in the church, the Lord God does not want to punish him because it will negatively affect the rest of the church in grief, time, and resources. God is very kind, and does not want His obedient children to suffer the consequences of that wicked man's actions, and therefore, the church ought to "put away from among yourselves that wicked person."

Due to his lack of understanding, Hartford fails to properly correlate Paul's epistle to the doctrine of Christ:

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
-Matthew 18:15-17

This passage is the Lord Jesus Christ teaching us that if there is an unrepentant man in the church, he is to be given multiple opportunities to come to repentance of his sin, but if he will not hear, then he is to be (as Hartford put it) "judgmentally" removed from the church, to be handled in the same way we would handle heathen who are given over to their sin. Once he is removed, if there is a need to utilize courts of law for restitution we can do so, and it opens up opportunity to preach the Gospel of Salvation to them as we would with the lost world.

Because of his willful ignorance, Hartford has now condemned Jesus Christ in the same way he condemned Paul, but without realizing he did it. I would argue that neither Christ nor Paul made Hartford "a very hateful person," rather, the fault was his own sin, and because of that, Hartford adopted a nonsensical philosophy that having acquaintances he can casually chat with—no matter how hypocritical they might be—is more important than making a selfless sacrifice for the sake of Christ.

And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
-Matthew 19:29

Having to sacrifice sharing a table at lunch with casual acquaintances at work is a trivial matter compared to giving up family, homes, and lands, and yet, Christ said if you love those things—especially parents, children, and spouses which are the closest relationships you can have—more than Him, you are not worthy of Him:

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
-Matthew 10:37-38

Therefore, if Hartford cannot be faithful with minor matters, he will not be faithful with grave matters.

He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
-Luke 16:10

Based on my experiences, I know that if Hartford had taken time to kindly rebuke his allegedly pseudo-Christian co-workers for their sin, he would not have been welcomed to their table in the first place.

Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
-Luke 6:22

However, after various email exchanges with him, Hartford is unable to rebuke himself, let alone anyone else. He whines about little peer pressures and minor inconveniences. To avoid blaming himself for any wrongdoing, Hartford attempts to justify his imagined woes by shifting blame to an external villain; in this case Paul, a Christian preacher who (as we read earlier) suffered beatings, imprisonment, and death for Christ's sake, which is unlike Hartford, who only suffers from his foolishness to give himself a "holy" appearance.

For it is better, if the will of God be so, that
ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.
-1 Peter 3:17

If that were not bad enough, the Blog Talk Radio hostess is a Hebrew-Roots cultist, and in her willful blindness, she agreed with Hartford, which is probably why she had him on her show in the first place. She went on to call her own co-workers idolaters because they celebrated pagan holidays, while priding herself on being better than them because she observed the feast days of the Old Testament, yet in her willful blindness, she does not understand that she is just as bad as they are because she bases her righteousness on participation in religious rituals instead of on Jesus Christ alone.
(See Winter Rachel, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," @9:55, Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 19, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio])

Now that we have somewhat of an idea about his philosophy (i.e. way of thinking), let's take a closer look at some tract cards Hartford developed for his PvC doctrine, and he sent these to me in an email shortly before I blocked him for spamming:
To help demonstrate the deceptive tactics of Hartford we will look at the first card on his list, which he labels "#0 Introduction." As you can see, it is not designed to teach anything:


"Was Matthew sent to the Gentiles? Was Peter? John? What were they supposed to teach them? How should we feel if someone comes to us and teaches the opposite of those things?"

He quotes from Matthew 28:12-20, which is the commandment of Christ to His apostles—and likewise, the church as a whole—to preach the doctrines He taught them. Hartford then quotes from Deuteronomy 13:1-5, which is God's warning to the Jews—and likewise, to all believers—that there will be prophets who not only give false prophecies, but also give prophecies that come to pass while they preach false doctrines, and the Jews were commanded not to follow either of them.

This is a method of deceptive argumentation that I prefer to call "casting doubt." It is a manipulative method that Satan used against Eve in the Garden of Eden, asking her questions to cast doubt, which is opposed to teaching for edification:

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
-Genesis 3:1

Hartford did not provide explanation or interpretation to edify the reader and help them understand these verses; rather, he asks questions designed to cast doubt in the reader's mind. This is because Hartford is not a faithful man and needs to destroy the faith of others to gain a following. Despite none of these verses mentioning personal feelings, Hartford raises questions to get the reader to consider their emotions instead of the facts, and this reveals the foundation of his argument: he directs people to look at the feelings of their hearts rather than the truth.

The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately wicked: who can know it?

But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
-Matthew 15:18

A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.
-Luke 6:45

Our emotions can align with the will of the Holy Spirit, but that does not mean they always do. We need spiritual discernment from the Word of God on these matters because, if we are not careful, our feelings can often lead us into sin.

He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool:
but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.
-Proverbs 28:26

One of the ways we can know that Hartford is casting doubt instead of conveying information is because he does NOT believe that Peter was a true apostle of Christ. This may be confusing to some readers, but there is a connection between Peter and Paul in the Scriptures. Peter acknowledged Paul's writings to be part of the Holy Scriptures, so Hartford must hate Peter as much as he hates Paul, and we will learn more about that later.

After casting doubt, Hartford begins his quest to lead his readers away from the understanding of the New Testament. In a card that he labels "Regarding the variation of assurances of salvation," Hartford quotes from Matthew 7:20-27, and puts it side-by-side with Romans 10:8-14:


"Is it possible for someone to believe in the resurrection and confess that Jesus is Lord, but reject the commandments in the Sermon on the Mount and not do them? If so, will such a one be saved? If not, isn't it deceptive to say 'that with the heart man believeth unto righteousness'?"

Again, we see that Hartford poses questions to cast doubt, instead of interpretation to gain understanding. Is it possible for someone to confess the Lord Jesus Christ and not be saved? I would say: No, it is not possible, but it is possible to PROFESS Christ and not be saved.

profess (v): to make open declaration of; to avow or acknowledge
confess (v): to own, acknowledge or avow, as a crime, a fault, a charge, a debt, or something that is against one's interest, or reputation
(See 'profess' & 'confess', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Dec 6, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Hartford does not understand the problem with his statement because he does not understand the Gospel of Salvation. This is a common problem with modern churchgoers, who believe they know that which they do not know. To understand his error, we need to briefly go over the doctrine of repentance for the remission of sins.

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
-Luke 24:44-47

The word 'repentance' in Scripture generally means "grief," or a more expanded definition for the context of salvation in Christ, it means "godly sorrow," which exhibits a inward pain or broken-heartedness of one's past conduct. This is why the Bible tells us that God draws close to, and saves, those who have a "contrite spirit."
(Read There is No Saving Grace Without Repentance at creationliberty.com for more details.)

The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart;
and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.
-Psalm 34:18

contrite (adj): broken-hearted for sin; deeply affected with grief and sorrow for having offended God; humble; penitent
penitent (adj): suffering pain or sorrow of heart on account of sins, crimes or offenses; contrite
repentance (n): sorrow for any thing done or said; the pain or grief which a person experiences in consequence of the injury or inconvenience produced by his own conduct
(See 'contrite', 'penitent', and 'repentance', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Dec 21, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
-Romans 2:5

God defined this in Genesis when pointing out His own grief, which is not the grief of sin (because the Lord cannot sin), but rather, it was the grief of His heart, in which it pained Him greatly to see what mankind had done:

And it repented the LORD that he had made man on
the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
-Genesis 6:6

Leavened pastors around the world vehemently reject this simple doctrine because they want to believe that 'repent' means "to turn," or more fully, "to turn from sin and turn to God." This is because they never came to godly sorrow of their sins. They believe they "turned from sin," thinking they can bypass the method of salvation in Scripture by adding their own deeds. By altering the meaning of repentance from "grief" to "turn from sin," they transform the Gospel of Salvation in Christ (by grace through humility in faith) into a works-based heresy in which one must "turn from sin" to be saved.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
-Ephesians 2:8-9

This does not mean Christians have a license to sin, for after we are saved, we ought to turn from it, but we have no commandment to turn from sin, or change our minds by altering our philosophy by our own intellect, prior to being saved because that is a false doctrine of works. When Jesus first went out and preached, He preached that people should repent and believe His gospel:

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
-Mark 1:14-15

If a man believes the Biblical definition of repentance, which is grief over his own sin, then no work is involved in the process of saving his soul; it is all done by the Lord Jesus Christ, as a gift of grace through the Holy Ghost. (2Ti 2:25) However, if a man believes the corrupted definition of leavened pastors—that he must turn from all his sins—then he must do many works before his soul can be saved. We who are faithful believers in the Scriptures know this is impossible because we either have grace or works as our foundation of salvation, but we cannot have both; only one of these can save a man.

And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
-Romans 11:6

At this point, it should come as no surprise that Titus Hartford believes that 'repent' means "to turn from sin." By now, you may have noticed that I make effort to clearly define the terms I use so you can easily understand the doctrine I teach, but Hartford does not do this as frequently.

Although he does not provide us a direct definition, we can deduce what he believes by how he writes about repentance in his book:
"It is in everyone's best interest that we lead on this, because the cycle of extortion can be stopped, just as the cycle of violence can be stopped by giving place to wrath—by the kindness of humble men who render to their enemies over and above what they ask for in an effort to encourage them to repent from their wickedness and be marvelously changed from agents of evil to agents of good."
-Titus Hartford, How to Teach Disciples to Observe All Things Whatsoever Jesus Commanded the Twelve Apostles, BookPatch LLC, 2020, p. 28, ISBN: 9781648587184

It is a difficult task to get pastors to define the key terms they use, which leaves us relying on analysis of context and specific wording to deduce their meaning. In this instance, Hartford's use of the preposition "FROM" is one of the easy ways to determine that he believes in the false doctrine that 'repent' means "to turn."

When we use the word 'turn' in a sentence, we use the preposition 'from' after it. For example, we would say, "Sally turned FROM the house," which indicates direction and location, and the Bible uses the word 'turn' in the same way, namely, "turn from," but the Bible does NOT use the phrase "repent from."

Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.
-Exodus 32:12

If you study the King James Bible, the word 'repent' is NEVER attached to the preposition 'from'. In the Bible, the word 'repent' is always attached to the preposition 'OF', which indicates a relationship between two things (e.g. grief and the heart). Yet today, most pastors and churchgoers incorrectly use the phrase "repent FROM," implying their erroneous belief that 'repent' means "to turn," despite the fact that the Bible does not use it that way.

Therefore, when Hartford says they "repent FROM their wickedness," he preaches the doctrine of repentance in error. I attempted to explain this to him in email conversation, but he ignored my argument and refused to answer. Therefore, the evidence shows that Hartford maintains willful blindness on this point, as do many corrupt preachers. He believes his works are the foundation for his righteousness, and later in this book, I will provide more quotes to prove that point.

This is why Hartford does not understand the difference between PROFESSION of Christ (i.e. someone simply says they "believe on Jesus") and CONFESSION of Christ (i.e. grief/repentance of sin). If any readers are interested, I have two other free-to-read books that address this topic in much greater detail: a short one called Why Millions of Believers on Jesus Are Going to Hell, and a longer one called There is No Saving Grace Without Repentance. Again, Hartford rejects this understanding because his faith is in himself; he is his own little god who foolishly relies on the impossibility of his own efforts to work his way into heaven.

The next card, called "Regarding where to pray," Hartford says:


"Does everywhere become a closet for those who seek to obey the Messiah's instructions on how to pray? And if so, how does one shut the door everywhere?"

Hartford also brought this up on his Blog Talk Radio interview:
"[@1:15:10] Jesus' whole thing about how to pray, 'when you pray, enter into your closet, and when you have shut the door, pray to your father which is in secret, and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly', as it says in the King James, but that's against Paul's teachings in 1st Timothy 2:8, which was, 'I would that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands'. So, Jesus said pray in your closet. Paul said pray everywhere. Well, everywhere is not a closet."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 26, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

To put it lightly, this is childish, and Hartford should be ashamed of himself, but he glories in himself for that which he should be ashamed. (Phil 3:19) In Matthew 6, Jesus addressed the hypocrisy of religious leaders who stood on ceremony for pretense:

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
-Matthew 6:5-6

Notice that the first thing Jesus tells us is that we should "not be as the hypocrites are," indicating hypocrites act differently from those who are not hypocrites. He never said not to pray in public, but not to pray in public as a hypocrite.

hypocrite (n): one who feigns to be what he is not
(See 'hypocrite', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Nov 8, 2025, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Hypocrites will pray with the intent of being seen by others. For example, if a man went to a street corner, got on his knees, and began praying loudly in a sanctimonious tone for all to hear him, he is very likely putting on a show to appear holy before men.

In his ignorance, Hartford claims this is a commandment to never pray in public, but let's go back to the beginning of Matthew 6 and apply Hartford's interpretation to see if it fits the context:

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
-Matthew 6:1-2

If we took Hartford's interpretation of verses five and six and applied it to verses one and two, it would mean that you could never go out in public to give the poor and needy anything, but that is obviously NOT what Jesus meant in this passage. Should we then condemn Peter and John for giving to the poor and needy, and healing them in public view?

Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength. And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God. And all the people saw him walking and praising God:
-Acts 3:6-8

This was work done through Peter and John by the guidance of the Holy Ghost; therefore, if we adhered to the principles that Hartford believes and teaches, we would have to condemn the actions of the Holy Ghost in that instance. Furthermore, if Hartford's interpretation were true, we would have to condemn Christ Himself for praying in public:

Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.
-Luke 23:34

In Matthew 6, Jesus rebuked the hypocrisy of those who put on a show of religious works to appear "holy" in front of an audience. Therefore, those who do alms or pray in public should not do it for the purpose of being seen by men, but rather in service to Christ, with full focus on what is charitable, not what serves oneself.

Uncoincidentally, this is also what Paul taught:

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:
-Ephesians 6:5-7

Therefore, when Christian men "pray every where," there is no contradiction with what Christ taught:

I will therefore that men pray every where,
lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
-1 Timothy 2:8

This is aimed at men, which is not to say that women should not pray, because it is the duty and privilege of all Christians to pray, but in this context, Paul is speaking specifically to public prayer when the church is assembled together. Women were not given authority over the church to lead them in teaching and prayer—that is reserved for men, as Paul explains in 1st Timothy 2. The lifting up of hands was traditionally done by both Gentiles and Jews in their religious services, and was symbolic of the heart being lifted up towards the deity to which they prayed, but in this instance, it is to the Living God.
(Read "Women Were Not Given Teaching Authority Over the Church" at creationliberty.com for more details)

In Psalm 141:2, the lifting up of hands is compared to "the evening sacrifice." The sacrifices of the Jews were supposed to be done in repentance of sin with a pure heart (which they were not doing, and that is why God eventually told them their sacrifices were useless, Isa 1:13-16), and likewise, the lifting up of hands should be done in the humility of repentance when the heart yearns for connection with the Lord.

Jesus was telling us that hypocrites who pray to put on a show for men should go to their closet instead, and bring that much passion privately to God. That was specifically directed at hypocrites because there no place in Scripture where Jesus rebuked or condemned Christians praying in public assembly.

In perfect correlation, Paul also encouraged men to pray publicly with a sincere heart. They should not put on a show to please men, and should pray earnestly without malice towards God or men, and with full faith, having no doubts about the kindness, power, and protection of the Lord.

This is part of the fulfillment of the prophecy in Malachi:

For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.
-Malachi 1:11

Paul's note, "without wrath and doubting," was included because the Jews sought to convince the Gentiles that they had no part with God. The Gentiles were barred from many religious activities with the Jews, so Paul encouraged them to continue "lifting up holy hands" because such things were typically forbidden for Gentiles among the Jews. Paul urged them to remain faithful that they were adopted into the spiritual seed of Abraham, despite what the Jews might say, and that they were part of Christ's family, so they should continue to pray as children of God, no matter where they were or their country of origin.

Now that we have more understanding of these verses, we see that Hartford has no clue what he speaks of concerning the Scriptures. These are two passages addressing different contexts, and because of his hatred for the writings of the Holy Ghost through Paul, he refuses to understand it.

This is why it is so difficult to take the PvC cult seriously. It is the culmination of corrupt doctrines from lazy men who lack understanding from the Holy Ghost, and will condemn all those who dare question their willful blindness.

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.
-1 Corinthians 2:14

To give an example of why I had a hard time taking him seriously, Hartford's next card is called "Regarding expressions of superiority amongst disciples," and it says:


"Does the Messiah's prohibition of being called master extend to married men? If so, what is the difference between being called master and being called the head?"

To put it bluntly, Hartford is doing mental gymnastics inside a philosophical pretzel. This goes far beyond basic stupidity because he is not just mixing up contexts, but he is crafting questions based on no relevancy, implying an answer to his question without directly saying it, then trying to trick the reader into concluding a contradiction based on his irrelevant implication.

The first set of Scriptures Hartford provides is from Matthew 23, which is a sharp rebuke of hypocrites among religious leadership, and he highlights verses 8-10:

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
-Matthew 23:8-10

Jesus is addressing hypocrites (i.e. those who fake being something they are not), and He is targeting those in positions of perceived religious leadership because in verse two, He addresses "the scribes and the Pharisees [that] sit in Moses' seat," which means they are the teachers and keepers of the law. In verse three, He points out that they preach observance of God's Word, but they are hypocrites that make rules for others, and refuse to judge and change themselves.

Jesus then tells us WHY they act like this:

And love the uppermost rooms at feasts,
and the chief seats in the synagogues,
-Matthew 23:6

They dressed themselves in a manner the public would view as "holy," and spoke in sanctimonious tones which the public perceives to be "saintly," all for the purpose of being honored, gaining respect, and receiving esteem, while placing heavy burdens on others whom they put beneath them. Jesus then said that we should not be called "Rabbi" in the same manner that the hypocrites love to have grandiose titles given to their person, and the context is obviously concerning the religious or spiritual sense of these things.

For example, when Jesus says in verse 9 to "call no man your father upon the earth," He is not speaking of your earthly father, who is a father by biological definition and should rightly be identified in that manner. This was often done by many faithful people in the Bible, including the Lord God, who labeled parents as "father and mother." (Gen 2:24) However, when it concerns spiritual and religious matters, we should call no man "father," as the Jews often did, and as many corrupt cults do still today, commonly calling their idolatrous, heretical priests "father" in the religious sense.
(Read Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism & Corruptions of Christianity: Orthodoxy at creationliberty.com for more details.)

However, for some strange, nonsensical reason, Hartford superimposes the interpretation onto "husbands" instead of paying attention to the context. Before we continue, I think it is important that I briefly cover the definition of a "conflation fallacy" so readers understand what Hartford does:

conflation (n): the process or result of fusing items into one entity; fusion; amalgamation
(See 'conflation', Random House Dictionary, 2023, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

A conflation fallacy is also sometimes called "comparing apples to oranges" and calling them the same thing. The argument looks like this:

A has quality X, and B has quality X.
Therefore, A and B are the same.
That might be confusing for some readers, so let's look at an example:

Watermelons are green, and lettuce is green.
Therefore, all watermelons are lettuce.
We cannot classify lettuce to be the same as watermelon just because they both have the same outer color. Appearance is not automatically a contextual equivalent to what is being argued, and therefore, an argument of conflation is not sound reasoning because the person using it jumps to quick, irrational conclusions without looking at specific contextual details.

Hartford's out-of-context argument is summarized as follows:

Husbands are men, and masters are men.
Therefore, all husbands are masters.
In this instance, Hartford takes the context of Christ rebuking hypocritical religious leaders and uses a conflation fallacy to apply it to a COMPLETELY different context of authority that God instituted in marriage. In 1st Corinthians 11 (i.e. the second set of verses Hartford published on his card #3), Paul addresses the indecent manner of dress and inappropriate appearance of Christians when the church assembles together for the study of God's Word, most specifically for women (for many reasons I do not cover in this book), and in doing so, he opens his argument by reminding them the order of authority He instituted is God → Christ → Man → Woman:

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
-1 Corinthians 11:3

The two contexts have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with one another and are not even closely related in the nouns they use. A 'rabbi' and a 'master' are the same because they both mean "teacher," which is not the same context as "married men," and thus, Hartford is so far out of context he likely does not realize that the words 'husband', 'wife', 'marry', nor 'marriage' are used even once in 1st Corinthians 11 because that is not what Paul referred to in that chapter, nor what Jesus referred to either.

In short, Hartford invented this idea from his imagination, and it is becoming more apparent that his only goal is to cast doubt on Paul's teachings so he can turn Christians away from vital doctrines of the New Testament. The only other place I have seen Scripture taken out of context to this extreme degree is from the flat-earth cultists, and I wrote a book about them as well, which is free-to-read at creationliberty.com, called The Heresies of the Flat-Earth Cult.

On card #4, Hartford compares Matthew 7 with 2nd Timothy 2, and says: "Does the promise that everyone that asketh recieveth [sic] apply to the askers of foolish and unlearned questions? And if so, who would be the best person to ask such a question?"

Hartford does not seem to understand that he should be embarrassed having published this garbage, but he is willingly blind and refuses to hear rebuke and correction. He does not see the degree to which his own questions are foolish and unlearned.

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
-Matthew 7:6-8

Matthew 7 is the latter part of the "Sermon on the Mount," and Jesus addresses hypocrites who judge others before judging themselves first. He then refers to dogs and swine, which were common metaphors to describe corrupt religious leaders and teachers, who use men to gain money and prestige.

Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.
-Isaiah 56:11

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. [i.e. dogs]
-Matthew 7:15

But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
-2 Peter 2:22

Jesus tells us to beware giving rebuke and correction to such men (i.e. dogs and swine, the corrupt religious leaders who have lifted themselves high above others in their pride) because it will only bring us grief. They will turn on us, and convince others to do the same, resulting in harassment, which will vex of our minds and hearts. We should restrain ourselves to rebuke and correct when it will benefit the public, or in other words, when it serves to protect others from the corruption of their false doctrines and leavened ideologies.

Jesus then turns His attention to address those who need the wisdom of God, and that if they will turn to Him in humility to ask of Him for things they need, He will give it to them because God is no respecter of persons. Corrupt religious leaders will turn many away, but those who knock at Christ's door of mercy will not be turned away.

Hartford then conflates this with 2nd Timothy 2:

But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
-2 Timothy 2:23-24

First, it should be noted that there were many instances of Jesus not answering the questions of the people. For example, Jesus was asked what should be done with a woman caught in the act of adultery:

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
-John 8:3-6

The reason Jesus did not answer their question was because it was not asked with intent to seek knowledge. They are questions designed much like those Hartford poses, in which he asks not to receive answers, but rather to cast doubt on his audience, so they will lose faith in the New Testament Scriptures.

Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest thou also be like unto him.
-Proverbs 26:4

Of course, Jesus knew the answer because He is the author of the Old Testament, but He knew they did not understand the fullness of the law and prophets, and were only asking that question for political reasons to make Him look bad in the public eye. Thus, answering their questions in that circumstance would have been meaningless, and so He only responded when it was appropriate to answer the fools according to their folly:

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
-John 8:7

Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise in his own conceit.
-Proverbs 26:5

The difference between answering a fool according to his folly and not answering a fool according to his folly lies in selecting the time and manner in which you answer them. Jesus avoided "foolish and unlearned questions" just as Paul taught, which leads to my second point: Paul said foolish and unlearned questions from false teachers should be avoided—including those of Titus Hartford and the Paul vs Christ cult.

Some readers might accuse me of ignoring Paul's advice by writing this book, but I address contextual subject matter of the Scriptures while exposing the PvC cult. This gives me the opportunity to teach Christians the details of some Scriptures in proper context, to help them see the difference between truth and heresy, between sound doctrine and deceit, thereby spreading the truth of Christ's Gospel, and demonstrating that the entire New Testament is consistent with all 66 books of the Bible.

This is why Paul started the second chapter of 2nd Timothy by saying:

Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
-2 Timothy 2:1-2

We should look to those teachers who are faithful to the Scriptures, both in word and deed, and have been given the gift to teach, which means they can explain more complicated matters in a simple way that all can understand. Later in 2nd Timothy, Paul talked about false teachers, some of whom were ringleaders he named specifically, erroneously preaching there was no future resurrection of the dead when Christ returns, which is blatant heresy, but they succeeded in turning some away from the truth with their false doctrine:

Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting [corrupting] of the hearers. [i.e. False teachers were corrupting the minds of those who listened to them.] Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
-2 Timothy 2:14-18

What were the vain babblings and profane words in this passage? Paul was referring to the false doctrine preached by men of corrupt minds, namely, that the return of Jesus Christ to rapture His saints had already passed.

Such false doctrines are ridiculous to those who have the Holy Ghost and spend time studying the Scriptures, and there are many such false doctrines from corrupt teachers that should be shunned and avoided. For example, when someone claims that Paul's doctrine and Christ's doctrine are at odds with each other, those are vain babblings that should be shunned; therefore, it is no wonder that Titus Hartford condemns the doctrine of Paul because the doctrine of the Holy Ghost through Paul condemns Titus Hartford.

On card #5, Hartford compares Matthew 13 with Ephesians 4, and says:


"If every scribe instructed unto the kingdom of heaven brings forth things new and old, wouldn't it be deceptive to esteem them as ministers of one unified faith?"

I will be frank and say that I did not understand his question, not because I am incapable of understanding a question, but because his question makes no sense. I went back to the Scriptures to read them again and read his doubt-casting question multiple times, just to make sure I did not miss something important, but I had to conclude this is nothing more than garbled nonsense.

When I started to write this paragraph, I sat at my desk for the longest time with my hand on the keyboard, attempting to think of something to write here, but I had no idea how I was supposed to respond to Hartford's babbling. I think something is seriously wrong with Hartford's mind because he harbors some sort of private interpretation, and expects his readers to discern what that is without any explanation.

Instead of teaching, which involves the process of conveying information, Hartford attempts to IMPLY certain things that he assumes the reader will understand. In his willful blindness, he does not realize that he is the only one who understands those implications, and he mistakes that to be "wisdom," when in reality, he creates more confusion.

Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.
-Matthew 13:52

In this passage, Jesus tells us there are scribes (authors, translators and, at that time, copyists) who are "instructed unto the kingdom of heaven," or in other words, authors who preach the Gospel of Christ faithfully. For example, I am an evangelist, which means I broadcast the Gospel of Christ to the world through my audio teachings. I also write books, articles, and commentaries on the Scriptures, which means I am a scribe in that regard. There are both faithful and deceitful scribes, just as there are faithful and deceitful pastors.

When Jesus said a faithful scribe "bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old," it is not meant so much concerning the Old and New Testaments, although it is important to teach from both, as that is the default duty of all preachers of Christ. Rather, this is said in a generalized manner that "a man that is an householder" collects resources and knowledge over the course of many years and distributes them to his children—things newly acquired, and some things acquired long ago—to depart to the children of God the foundation of wisdom and understanding they need to build upon.

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
-Ephesians 4:4-6

Paul's purpose in saying these things rested on the chapter's context, in which he taught the church in Corinth that, although they had different roles (v11-12), all the church's work served the greater glory of Christ (v13). The work of the Gospel proceeded according to the same faith, under the same Father, and we should beware those who would lead us astray with false doctrines.

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
-Ephesians 4:14

Once again, Hartford tried to correlate these two passages together (which have very little, if any, contextual relevance to each other) and asked a seemingly rhetorical question, "If every scribe instructed unto the kingdom of heaven brings forth things new and old, wouldn't it be deceptive to esteem them as ministers of one unified faith?" Sadly, I am unable to comment further on this because his question was so foolish and unlearned, I have no anchor point of reasoning from which to draw an assessment of his argument.

At this point, I thought to stop covering these ridiculous cards because it is abundantly obvious that Hartford has little to no understanding of the meaning of these passages. I briefly read over all 25 cards he sent out in his spam mail, and each one was just as ridiculous as the previous, but I wanted to cover one more of his cards which I thought was somewhat comical, just to help prove the point:


"Is it possible to be childlike in the manner that the Messiah likens the kingdom of heaven to, as an adult? What does it mean to purchase a good degree? How many degrees can one have? Does each one make them more childlike?"

These deceptive questions made me laugh because they rest on many incorrect assumptions about the context and words used in these passages. What baffles me more than anything is how he prides himself so highly on understanding these verses, but it is obvious to any Christian who studies the Scriptures that he does not understand the most basic principles in them.

Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
-Matthew 19:13-14

We are not told the reason that the disciples rebuked the guardians of the children brought to Jesus. There could have been many reasons, most of which were likely cultural, but Jesus allowed the children to come so He could teach His disciples that they should accept the weakest and lowest who seek Christ.

This is not to say that only little children (in the physical sense) would make up the kingdom of heaven (i.e. the church); rather, the humility of the children was an example to us. Those who would be born again in Christ will come to Him with the same humility as a little child, who comes to the Father with tears of repentance (i.e. godly sorrow) of their sins. (Psa 34:18, Jms 4:6)

Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
-1 Timothy 3:12-13

The 'deacon' is an office in the church that was instituted when the time required for the daily ministering of the needs of the poor conflicted with the duties of the apostles' preaching. (Acts 6:1) The deacons would focus on more mundane tasks, which most often concerned distribution of goods and services to the church, as well as the public poor and needy, which means they were responsible for overseeing resources, requiring men who were trustworthy.

The word 'purchase' in this passage should not be taken in the sense of an exchange of money because that is not the only definition of the word 'purchase', and it would not make sense contextually, since offices in the church are not granted based on an exchange of currency. Rather, the word 'purchase' is used in the sense of obtaining something through labor, to show oneself worthy of something; in this case, to work well toward a "good degree," which Paul defined as a "great boldness in the faith" of Christ, both in preaching of Christ's doctrine, as well as rebuke and reproof of themselves, of others in the church, and of false teachers if they find wrongdoing.

This brings us to Hartford's strange questions:

"Is it possible to be childlike in the manner that the Messiah likens then kingdom of heaven to, as an adult?"

This is poorly worded, but essentially, he poses the question, "Is it possible to be childlike as an adult?" Yes, it is, depending on how these words are defined in context, but Hartford rips Paul's epistles out of Scripture, so he pays no attention to a more expanded explanation:

Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
-1 Corinthians 14:20

We can be adults in our understand, but take a note from children in terms of malice. We ought to be kind, rejecting long-term grudges, and quick to forgive at the first sign of repentance.

Oblivious to these doctrines, Hartford keeps politing his stupidity-fueled bulldozer, tearing up the bedrock of Scripture:

"What does it mean to purchase a good degree?"

That was explained in the verses that Hartford quoted, but he did not read it carefully.

"How many degrees can one have?"

Again, that depends on what you mean by it, but this is where I started laughing to myself because Paul did not refer to a laundry list of stations, of which only two are listed in the New Testament for the church: elders/bishops and deacons. The context concerned deacons, which means the word 'degree' did NOT refer to one's station, but rather, it carried a more general sense as a step of progression, meaning that the work was a good work, so one should act and speak in a manner suitable to that station.

The same could be said for many people in just about any station they hold in life. For example, if a deputy is elected sheriff, his responsibility increases and he is expected to go above and beyond the duties he performed as deputy, and even more so if he advances from sheriff to governor.

Hartford then asks:
"Does each one [i.e. degree] make them more childlike?"

I cannot make sense of Hartford's last question because it has strayed so far from the context. If you would like me to explain why Hartford believed that these two passages contradict each other, I apologize because I cannot provide that explanation; I do not have the slightest clue why he thinks that.

This is just one more reason why I believe it is a waste of time to analyze any more of his alleged "contradiction" cards. The point stands proven well enough, namely, that Hartford lacks understanding of the Scriptures he quotes, and he does not bother to examine the context or correlate Scripture properly, as God instructed us in Isaiah 28:10-13, which is why he asks these incoherent rhetorical questions.

Therefore, let's move away from these ridiculous cards and turn to Hartford's book, How to Teach Disciples to Observe All Things Whatsoever Jesus Commanded the Twelve Apostles. His book reveals far more of his corrupt ideology, and even the first paragraph of his preface exhibits some of his deeper arrogance:
"When studying the teachings of Jesus with such curiosity as a child might have in the wilderness, being filled with wonder and having no responsibilities to distract me, I came to know what the teachings of Jesus might amount to if taken seriously. I had already been acquainted with what they amounted to when twisted into a tool for selfishness by busy men with large families trying to rig things in their favor."
-Titus Hartford, How to Teach Disciples to Observe All Things Whatsoever Jesus Commanded the Twelve Apostles, BookPatch LLC, 2020, ISBN: 9781648587184

Hartford immediately attacks anyone who preaches the Word of God while having a family to care for, which is NEVER condemned in Scripture. The Bible declares that a man who fails to provide for his family is worse than an infidel (1Ti 5:8, but that was authored by Paul, so Hartford will not study it.

Furthermore, I cannot understand how "large families try to rig things in their favor," nor what that is supposed to mean. Normally, such a statement would pose no problem if one had offered a prior argument backed by evidence, but this appears in the very first paragraph of his book, which leaves the reader baffled at his conceitedness, as well as the emptiness of his claim.

While reading the first chapter of his book, it did not take me long to notice blatant examples of rhetoric, rather than clear language backed up by evidence. Let's look at the definition so we can understand what I am talking about:

rhetoric (n): the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast
bombast (n): speech too pompous for an occasion; pretentious words
(See 'rhetoric' & 'bombast', Random House Dictionary, 2023, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

For example, if someone writes a book of poetry or tells a story with poetic description, the use of flowery language is appropriate, if not expected. On the other hand, if someone writes a "how-to" book, which is instructional material, the use of flowery language should be limited to ensure that the reader understands the knowledge that the author seeks to convey, and therefore, when one writes a book called "How to Teach Disciples," it is expected to be instructional—not poetic.

However, we find the opposite in Hartford's book, and if you read this carefully, I am confident you will understand what I mean:
"You don't need work boots to do this job; in fact, you're specifically commanded not to wear work boots. You don't need money to do this job. In fact, you're commanded not to bring money. You don't need to bring a lunch box or make any special preparations to begin... Even as fishermen labor to bring in the bounty of the deep by casting their nets deep into the waters, those that do this job must cast a spiritual net deep into the waters of society to bring in the bounty of heaven, once very committed to the kingdom of men, and secure it in the kingdom of God to be engaged in an activity completely foreign to that of their natural birth, even a new existence."
-Titus Hartford, How to Teach Disciples to Observe All Things Whatsoever Jesus Commanded the Twelve Apostles, BookPatch LLC, 2020, p. 9, ISBN: 9781648587184

Ask yourself: What did I learn from reading that quote? What new instructional information did you take in from Hartford's writing? If you break it down, he says a lot of nothing.

Did we need Hartford to tell us that we do not need "a lunch box to preach?" Did he even bother to provide the Scriptural reference to the verse that says "thou shalt not wear thy work boots?" I know the verses he is trying to reference, but he does it in error, without understanding, and not only is this the very definition of rhetoric, it is also quite similar to the plagairized writing of false prophetess Ellen G. White of the Seventh-day Adventist cult.
(Read Corruptions of Christianity: Seventh-day Adventism at creationliberty.com for more details.)

This style of writing, used in what is supposed to be an instructional book, is evidence of an author who is prideful at heart. I can already tell that Hartford is the type of man who believes he has achieved godly wisdom and understanding, and instead of exhibiting that with proper doctrine, he feigns it with flowery language in a fair speech, hoping that simple-minded people will not spot his scam.

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
-Romans 16:17-18

See how Paul's writings so often rebuke Hartford's corruption and deception? Based on what I have read so far, I have to conclude: At the beginning of this book, I noted that the Paul-vs-Christ cult stems from the Hebrew-Roots cult, which is a corrupt, works-based religion that feigns faithfulness to Christ and deceives young Christians into thinking that calling Jesus "Yeshua" somehow makes them "holy." After warning people about false scribes in his flowery "how-to" book, Hartford reveals his works-based ideology:
"In order to avoid the destruction of those that promote these kinds of conspiracies, disciples must dedicate themselves to a lifestyle of honesty and furnish others with a clear and concise statement of their true intent all along the way. And thus, they will perfect a kind of righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees and love the undesirables they might be inclined to offend. One may employ any set of rules to attain these ends, if they apply them consistently, but the best set of rules that a community might follow with their women and children with all the compromises that entails is the law of Moses and the prophets of Israel. They comprise such a beautiful set of principles that even the smallest accent mark there shall not be diminished until heaven and earth passes away. And as such, the Messiah establishes it too."
-Titus Hartford, How to Teach Disciples to Observe All Things Whatsoever Jesus Commanded the Twelve Apostles, BookPatch LLC, 2020, p. 13, ISBN: 9781648587184

I searched for a way to describe someone who writes in a lofty tone while using a lot of pompous and overly ornate and flowery language, and I discovered a new word I never knew existed. The writing of Hartford is grandiloquence:

grandiloquence (n): speech that is lofty in tone, often to the point of being pompous or bombastic
(See 'grandiloquence', Random House Dictionary, 2025, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Before we analyze Hartford's grandiloquence, and the verses he erroneously interprets, I want readers to take note that he stated the true disciples of Christ will perfect righteousness. That statement could be true, depending on how you define it, and when I search the Scriptures, I find that righteousness is NEVER attained by our works; Jesus attributes righteousness to us, setting it to our account as a gift apart from works.

So when I say that our "perfecting righteousness" could be considered a true statement, it can only be true if we have looked to Jesus to perfect it for us:

And being not weak in faith, he [i.e. Abraham] considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he [i.e. God] had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
-Romans 4:19-25

However, Hartford believes that the perfection of righteousness comes from his works, and because he rejects the book of Romans, he does not understand his error. He hates the writings of Paul because they are the expanded details of the doctrine of Christ, meaning that Hartford actually hates Jesus Christ, and is blinded by his own pride, turning to works-based heresies for his justification (which can never save him), while destroying others' faith in the New Testament Scriptures.

In his book, Hartford made the absurd statement that righteousness could be attained by applying "any set of rules," which not only rejects Christ's gospel of grace, but opens the door to anyone's personal set of moral standards. This is subjective at best, and the Lord God rejects such arbitrary methods of men who think they are right in their own eyes. (Pro 12:15, Deut 12:8) However, Hartford declares that there is a "best set of rules," which begs the question "What is the best set of rules?"

Before I continued reading from his book, I thought to myself, "The best set of rules are obviously the great commandments of Jesus Christ, to love the Lord and love your neighbor as yourself, in Matthew 22.," and perhaps you were thinking the same thing I was, but that is not what Hartford said. Instead he says that to attain righteousness, one must follow "the law of Moses and the prophets of Israel."

This brings me right back to the point I just made: Hartford is part of the works-based Hebrew-Roots cult that tries to lead people away from liberty and charity in Christ, back under the bondage of the law. Peter described this as the dog returning to its vomit and noted that such men (like Hartford) might speak great swelling words of vanity concerning Christ's liberty when it suits them, but they remain the servants of corruption.

For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
-2 Peter 2:18-22

No man can attain righteousness unless Christ GIVES righteousness to him. According to the Bible, the only way to gain righteousness is for a man to come to repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow) of his sin and to believe in the shed blood of Christ on the cross for the remission (i.e. forgiveness/pardon) of that sin. (Luke 24:44-47) Once a man is born again, he becomes a disciple of Christ, and with his desire to keep the commandments, he ought to keep what Jesus instructed Christians to observe:

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
-Matthew 22:37-40

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
-Matthew 7:12

So when Hartford said we must follow "the law of Moses and the prophets of Israel" to attain righteousness, that not only rejects the Gospel of Christ—that Jesus is the only way to righteousness—but ignores the culmination of the law and prophets Jesus taught in Matthew 7:12. To justify turning from the doctrine of Christ and teaching people the insane ideology that they can work for righteousness, Hartford uses the teachings of Christ for pretense:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
-Matthew 5:18-20

If you recall, Hartford said, "even the smallest accent mark there shall not be diminished until heaven and earth passes away," but as you can see, that is not fullness of what Jesus said. Christ specifically noted at the end of the sentence "till all be fulfilled," which Hartford conveniently excluded from his paraphrase.

Hartford remains willingly blind to the fact that Christ already fulfilled these things. This is what many churchgoers in works-based cults have no interest in understanding. Christ fulfilled the law of circumcision. Christ fulfilled the law of tithe. Christ fulfilled the law of Sabbath ordinances. However, because men put their faith and hope in their own prideful works, they reject this simple understanding.
(Read "The Biblical Understanding of Circumcision," "Tithe is Not a Christian Requirement," and "Keeping the Sabbath is Not a Christian Requirement" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
-Acts 13:31-32

That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us,
who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
-Romans 8:4

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another:
for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
-Romans 13:8

Earlier, Hartford stated that Paul made him a hateful person, even though Paul taught that loving one another, as Jesus commanded, was the fulfillment of the law. The Jews had to keep strict ordinances in exchange for certain benefits the Lord provided them, but that was not rightouesness; rather, it was based on their contractual agreement under the Old Covenant.

The fulfillment of the law was also explained in the law:

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
-Leviticus 19:18

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this;
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
-Galatians 5:14

As Hartford indicated, Jesus taught that our righteousness must exxceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees:

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
-Matthew 5:20

In that day, the Pharisees and scribes were generally viewed like many pastors today, in that they demanded strict outward righteousness while inwardly remaining hypocrites who ignored the doctrines they forced on others. They performed pious acts primarily to gain the applause and honor of men, that their appearance of "holiness" might be esteemed. Despite their many hypocrisies, some fervently worked to keep the law and ordinances, but after all their labor, they failed to attain the righteousness God requires of His servants.

However, God made a way that we could have the righteousness of Christ, so we would not face the impossible task of working for it. Titus Hartford does not trust in Christ for his righteousness, and for anyone who might argue against me on that point, let's hear it from his own words:
"[@7:43] You need to have a righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. You don't need to be a hypocrite, so to speak. That's something I strive for, and it's difficult sometimes, but it's a whole lot easier now than when I was following the teachings of Paul and Jesus at the same time."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 19, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

In this context, Hartford meant that he vigorously exerts himself through works to be righteous. Jesus told the Jews that they must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees—not that they should perform greater works to gain righteousness (as Hartford believes he can)—but to show them they could never achieve it.

Why did Jesus have to die on the cross? To save us from our sins, right? If we have no sin, that would make us righteous, but none of us are righteous because we are all sinful.

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: -Romans 3:10

By Jesus dying for our sins, we are made righteous by His blood, which automatically concludes that you cannot work for righteousness. The only way you could work for righteousness would be to kill yourself and spend eternity in hell, and I would not recommend anyone take that route.

The Pharisees dedicated their entire lives to the appearance of holiness with rigorous duties. Therefore, the hope of Christ's doctrine is that the people would see the hopelessness of achieving such righteousness, and instead look to Jesus for the way, which is accomplished by His gift of righteousness by grace through faith in the sacrifice of His work on the cross.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
-John 14:6

For the law was given by Moses, but
grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
-John 1:17

That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
-Romans 5:21

We do good works to please our Heavenly Father as the children of God. We do good works to please our Lord and Savior as servants. But we do NOT do works for righteousness because that is impossible.

I have rebuked Hartford on this matter, and likely, he has been rebuked by others as well, but he refuses to hear the truth, and instead holds fast his vain faith (as all Hebrew-Roots cultists do) that he can work for his own righteousness. He follows his feelings, not the Holy Scriptures. Thus, Hartford is a willingly blind PvC heretic who rejects the grace of Christ, and based on my experiences with him, he will not hear anything that would correct him to the truth of Scripture because he rejects reading the Bible in context.

If that was not crazy enough, on the very same page that Hartford made his comment about works for righteousness, he admits that Jesus fulfilled things written in the Old Testament. However, if you read carefully, you will notice that he does NOT include the law in that fulfillment:
"Jesus came not to nullify the writings of the prophets or diminish ought from the ordinances they delivered Israel, but to fulfill them. And they are fulfilled through a messianic understanding of the Torah or through the teachings of Jesus to the twelve apostles alone, because the Torah is simplified, not suspended, in the commandments of Jesus to the twelve, our high Priest having done all the necessary work to ensure that while keeping his precepts, they are also keeping the Mosaic law and can claim all of its blessings and none of its curses."
-Titus Hartford, How to Teach Disciples to Observe All Things Whatsoever Jesus Commanded the Twelve Apostles, BookPatch LLC, 2020, p. 13, ISBN: 9781648587184

As we can now see, Hartford places himself under the Old Covenant made with the Jews because he believes that the "blessings" and "curses" of the law apply to him. This means that Hartford rejects the New Covenant, and although he would fervently object to my saying that, the very fact that he wants to fuse the Old and New Covenants together demonstrates that he has no clear understanding of them.

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
-Jeremiah 31:31-32

covenant (n): a mutual consent or agreement of two or more persons, to do or to forbear some act or thing; a contract
(See 'covenant', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Nov 22, 2025, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

The New Covenant in the New Testament is NOT the same covenant made with the Jews at Mt. Sinai. A covenant is a contract, and the contract made with the Jews is not the same contract made with Christians. The two convenants are incompatible, meaning that you cannot be under both at the same time, which is what Hartford, the Hebrew-roots cultists, and the PvC cultists are trying to do.

For the priesthood being changed, there is
made of necessity a change also of the law.
-Hebrews 7:12

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
-Hebrews 8:6

If someone offers a better contract with greater benefits and freely releases you from the old one, why would you want to keep the more burdensome contract? This makes no sense unless the man has an ulterior motive, one of extreme pride in himself, rejecting humility before God, and instead desiring to work his way into heaven by his own merit.

Hartford goes on to say that the Old Testament covenant is "still presently binding upon all flesh unto this day." Though that might be said of the flesh (because the flesh is corrupt and must die), it is NOT binding upon every soul; it binds only the souls of those who remain unregenerated by the Holy Ghost and are not born into the seed of Abraham.

For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption. Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man [i.e. Jesus Christ] is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets; Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.
-Acts 13:36-41

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
-Romans 4:13

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
-Galatians 2:16

However, the PvC cultists reject these Scriptures, and will not believe them. By rejecting this doctrine, they have rejected Christ because they do not want the New Contract in Christ. They desire the Old Contract, made only for Israel, which does not apply to non-Jewish people.

As I continued through Hartford's book, it became difficult to read, not in the sense that it was complex, but that it was a continuation of his rhetoric—a vain show of fancy words—and in most cases, he offered nothing to back up what he was saying. For example, he wrote:
"Yet all over the world, hateful worshippers are gathered together on private property while hating their neighbors and offering the sacrifice of praise in exclusive social clubs in the name of the Lord. They put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter in the midst of the congregation. Nevertheless, the eyes of the Lord behold the children of men, his eyelids try their song, to see of what sort it is, and no sooner do their flatteries ascend toward heaven, but they are smacked down by the whirlwind of his jealousy."
-Titus Hartford, How to Teach Disciples to Observe All Things Whatsoever Jesus Commanded the Twelve Apostles, BookPatch LLC, 2020, p. 16, ISBN: 9781648587184

It is comical that Hartford scoffs at those on "private property" (i.e. a sideways jab at church buildings) because the early church met in houses, which were also private property. (1Co 1:11) Even Jesus performed healing and teaching on private property. Although this jab might confuse most readers, I will show later that his attack stems from animosity after being removed from church buildings for causing disruptions—disruptions ironically contrary to the instructions of Christ.

The phrases "eyelids try their song" and "smacked down by the whirlwind of his jealousy" are meaningless additions designed only to impress the audience with feigned wisdom. The irony is that Hartford sought to declare the Lord's hatred of vain words (i.e. "flatteries"), yet did so with vain words, exposing his own hypocrisy.

I could agree that many "social clubs" falsely claim to be of Christ, and I have exposed numerous examples of such corrupt church-ianity organizations in my books, articles, and teachings over the years. However, Hartford introduces this claim BEFORE offering any evidence—not as a preface, but as a vague assertion—which implies that the reader should accept his assertions prior to critical analysis.

I have great difficulty taking Hartford seriously when he has already proved himself willingly blind to the context of Scripture, especially since he replaces the liberty and charity of Christ with the bondage of the law. Thus, by his rejection of the apostles of Christ, he uses vain words, putting "bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter" while hypocritically warning others against doing the same.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
-Isaiah 5:20-21

As I continued my playthrough of Hartford's Rhetoric Simulator 2020, I came upon a quote which I believe will help readers fully understand the depths of his hypocrisy. However, to do that, I need to preface the quote with a news story about Titus Hartford being arrested, as well as his lawsuit against the city.

The Chattanooga Times Free Press in Tennessee ran an article on Hartford's arrest in 2021:
"As a federal civil rights complaint against the Chattanooga Police Department moved forward Thursday, the release of body camera footage of the 2021 arrest in question outside Calvary Chapel Chattanooga provided more information about what happened that morning on Broad Street.
The nearly 19-minute body cam video... shows Chattanooga Police Officer James Elliott on April 18, 2021, driving to the church, arresting Titus Hartford and talking with people at the church, before escorting Hartford to jail."
(See Wyatt Massey, "Body cam footage shows arrest of protester at Calvary Chapel Chattanooga," Chattanooga Times Free Press, Apr 17, 2022, retrieved Dec 15, 2023, [https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2022/apr/21/body-cam-footage-shows-arrest-protester-calva/])

This is the sign that Hartford was holding outside the church building: (Image from La Shawn Pagan, "Chattanooga police reach settlement with Calvary Chapel protester," Chattanooga Times Free Press, July 29, 2022, retrieved Dec 15, 2023, [https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2022/jul/29/chattanoogpolice-reach-settlement-calvary-cha/])

The testimonies of the pastor and churchgoers at Calvary Chapel differed from Hartford's account. They claimed he had walked onto the church parking lot, yet camera footage shows he stood only on the public sidewalk. I will firmly defend Hartford's right to free speech on public property—protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution—no matter how sharply I disagree with his message.

To make sure readers understand, in the United States it is extremely difficult for any state to justify the forced removal or silencing of an American citizen who speaks or holds signs on public property. In 1983, the Supreme Court ruled on a case in which the tax-funded school board of Perry Township, Indiana, sought to deny public access to its mail system and restrict its use to a select few, and Justice Byron White cited numerous precedents in his written opinion on this case:
"In these quintessential [i.e. essential parts of] public forums, the government may not prohibit all communicative activity. For the State to enforce a content-based exclusion, it must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end... The State may also enforce regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication."
-Justia U.S. Supreme Court, "Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983)," retrieved Dec 15, 2023, [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/460/37/#44]

This means the state cannot censor speech, but it may regulate the time and place of that speech for a "content-neutral" reason. In other words, if an important state duty—unrelated to any disagreement with the written or spoken message—would be hindered by the citizen's presence or if the speech interferes with that duty, the state may remove him, provided it offers "ample alternative channels of communication." For example, suppose a man stands on a sidewalk holding a sign, but a construction crew must repair vital utility lines at that location; in that instance, the state may reasonably require him to move outside the work area for the safety of both the speaker and the workers.

However, in Hartford's circumstance, he stood on a normal public sidewalk holding a sign. He neither trespassed, nor interfered with any public duty, nor committed any crime. He stood well within his Constitutionally-protected rights, but despite Hartford's lawful actions, the pastor of Calvary Chapel wanted him gone.

That being said, I believe the pastor had what I consider very good reason to want him gone, and I will explain that shortly. For now, I just want readers to note that Hartford did nothing wrong against the laws of the land in this particular instance.

I watched the video of the incident, and as foolish as it was to see Hartford wearing a mask outdoors (which itself shows great faith in fake legacy media rather than in Christ), the viciousness of the Calvary Chapel pastor was obvious when he assaulted Hartford by getting in his face and shoving the camera away. The pastor—standing next to a police officer standing by who (as usual) did nothing to arrest the actual offender—falsely claimed Hartford stood on private property, though the location was clearly a public sidewalk.
(See Audit the Audit, "Pastor Gets Cop Sued After Having Innocent Man Arrested," May 2, 2022, retrieved Dec 15, 2023, [https://youtu.be/iJjLMPn1fUM?si=YS4jMVW5mLzAgTKa&t=350])

Another Officer named Elliot approached Hartford and told him to show his identification or he would be arrested, which is an unlawful order in Tennessee, especially since he was standing on a public sidewalk doing nothing criminal. The only time a Tennesee officer can lawfully demand identification is if he is issuing a citation for violation of the law. (See TN Code Title 7 § 7-3-505, and Title 39 § 39-16-602) Hartford refused to show identification, and was immediately and unlawfully arrested by Elliot, who also happened to be a member of Calvery Chapel, which clearly showed the officer's bias, and that his arrest was NOT (as Supreme Court Justice White said) "content-neutral."

Hartford filed a civil rights lawsuit against the Chattanooga Police Department for violation of his rights, an unlawful arrest, and for being forced to be absent from his job while in jail. More than a year after the incident, the CPD dropped all the charges against Hartford, expunged his record, and he was awarded a settlement of $29,000.
(See La Shawn Pagan, "Chattanooga police reach settlement with Calvary Chapel protester," Chattanooga Times Free Press, July 29, 2022, retrieved Dec 15, 2023, [https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2022/apr/17/harrest-outside-chattanoogchurch-went-viral-n/])

Why did I cover all these details about Hartford's arrest? The following is an excerpt from Hartford's book, and he published this one year BEFORE this incident:


"We can take courage, however, in the fact that there are many lost sheep with which to sojourn, who will be grateful to meet us and will be interested in being liberated from the captivity of their prisons, though to find them will require some trial and error. So, fret not when asked to move along, but agree quickly, remembering that you have the ability to increase the severity of each misstep by trying to force people to listen to things they have no interest in and demanding fair treatment when asked to leave."
-Titus Hartford, How to Teach Disciples to Observe All Things Whatsoever Jesus Commanded the Twelve Apostles, BookPatch LLC, 2020, p. 18, ISBN: 9781648587184

I completely agree with Hartford's lawsuit against the unjust actions of law enforcement, and I believe he should have gone one step further to press assault charges against the pastor, but Titus Hartford is a total hypocrite who teaches others to do one thing, while he does the opposite. He does not follow his own "set of rules." He tells others not to "fret" (i.e. to be emotionally strained) when asked to leave, and to agree quickly and depart, but he refuses to do as he instructed his disciples.

For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
-Matthew 23:4

Hartford tells others not to try and "force people to listen" when "they have no interest in" the message, but he does not follow his own doctrine, and for as much as he hates Paul, at least Paul was not a hypocrite. Unlike Titus Hardford, Paul lived according to his own teachings. I watched the video online, and the pastor told Hartford that he knew who he was, that their church congregation had no interest in the PvC cult message, and asked him kindly if he would move along, but Hartford refused, violating his own principles.

And if that were not enough, Hartford teaches others they should not demand "fair treatment" when asked to leave, yet he himself filed a lawsuit because he was not treated fairly. Again, I am NOT arguing that Hartford was wrong to file the lawsuit; on the contrary, I believe he was right to sue the CPD. My contention is that Hartford is a hypocrite because he does not practice what he preaches.

It is very likely that the 501c3 incorporated Calvary Chapel Chattanooga [EIN: 62-1821314] teaches many false doctrines. Perhaps not the same false doctrine as Hartford, but after reviewing their website, I found no instance of the Gospel of Salvation. Most of it was new-age garbage from leavened church buildings seeking profit, so I want it to be known that I am not defending this church building in any way because I believe they are likely filled to brim with false converts. That being said, one reason the pastor was upset with Hartford was that in 2016, Hartford caused a disturbance INSIDE the Calvary Chapel building, and when asked to leave, Hartford refused and was lawfully arrested for disorderly conduct, which included charges for resisting arrest when he defied a police officer's orders, to which he later pled guilty.
(See Calvary Chapel Chattanooga, retrieved Dec 15, 2023, [https://www.calvarychatt.com/]; See also 501c3: The Devil's Church here creationliberty.com for more details.)

The following is a local news article covering that incident:
"Hartford was previously arrested inside Calvary Chapel on Nov. 27, 2016. According to the arrest report, Hartford was in the church 'telling people that God doesn't exist and the Bible was a lie.' At the time, he was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. The disorderly conduct charge was dropped, and Hartford pleaded guilty to resisting arrest, for which he paid fines, and the judge told him to stay out of Calvary Chapel."
-Wyatt Massey, "Body cam footage shows arrest of protester at Calvary Chapel Chattanooga," Chattanooga Times Free Press, Apr 17, 2022, retrieved Dec 15, 2023, [https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2022/apr/21/body-cam-footage-shows-arrest-protester-calva/]

I do not believe the report that he told people "God doesn't exist and the Bible was a lie," rather, I think that was the hearers' perception. Perhaps Hartford did say that verbatim. I don't know because I wasn't there. However, knowing that both Hartford and Calvary Chapel are all leavened hypocrites, I am cautious to trust either side. It is more likely he accused them of following a "false god" and declared parts of the Bible (such as Paul's doctrine) a lie, and they then took his words out of context, though Hartford would have little ground to complain, since he is ironically guilty of the same when it comes to God's Word.

If a church building congregation told you they were not interested in your message and wanted no further discussion, why would you return? If Hartford was truly convicted to preach repentance and faith in Christ with his sign on public property, why not reach FAR more people by standing on the sidewalk outside the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga's Max Finley Stadium after a football game?

At this point, we can deduce what is actually happening: The Calvary Chapel pastor was trying to protect his paycheck by keeping conflicting messages off the sidewalk near his church building, while Hartford had a vendetta against that church building, and he wanted to cause a scene to satisfy his pride after being humiliated. The churchgoers foolishly gave Hartford what he wanted, which then gave him some national attention when the video of the incident spread.

If a pastor wanted to handle the matter rightly, he should have arranged a documented discussion with Hartford and published the video online. Or, if Hartford proved unwilling to hear (as I have experienced with him), simply ignore him, for he sought only attention. If you give attention to an attention whore, the whore wins. Instead of harassing Hartford, the pastor could have delivered a special series of teachings exposing Hartford and the PvC cult, equipping the congregation to answer him, and encouraged them to debate him if they wished.

In summary, both sides have sinned in many ways throughout these encounters, but one thing is certain: Titus Hartford is a hypocrite. No matter how he strives to appear to be a reasonable preacher, when forced to face the context of Scripture in actual discussion, he collapses into babbling nonsense, as I demonstrated with his emails at the beginning of this book.

When Hartford instructed others to "agree quickly" and "move along," his doctrine was clearly was not in his heart when he wrote it, otherwise he would have done it himself. That proves his writing is all for show. That raises the question: why did he write it down in the first place if it held no place in his own heart?

I believe I have that answer, and it is the main subject matter of this book: Hartford hates Paul. I am not being rhetorical when I say that, and bear with me because I want readers to understand this point. He hates Paul because he hates Paul's doctrine, and he hates Paul's doctrine because he hates the fullness of Christ's doctrine.

Hartford fervently professes to love Christ's doctrine, so why do I say he hates it? Because he has no repentance of his hypocrisy, freely believing himself justified in acting contrary to Christ's instructions, in which Jesus told us to just leave corrupt teachers alone:

Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
-Matthew 15:12-14

Jesus preached the truth (which caused them to be offended), and then he left them alone. He did not go back to them to try and try again, but departed from them and got back to His work. This is in perfect correlation with Paul's doctrine, that we point out and expose those who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine we have learned from Christ and His apostles, and then avoid those deceptive men:

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
-Romans 16:17-18

This does not mean that you cannot go preach on a public sidewalk in front of a corrupt church building to teach the truth, but Hartford had been there prior to that incident, and the churchgoers thoroughly rejected everything he said. They told him in no uncertain terms to not come back. Thus, if he were following Christ, he would have "let them alone," and moved on, which he would have better understood if he had learned and followed the instructions of the Holy Ghost through Paul in Romans.

Paul was arrested many times for preaching the truth among those who rejected it, and due to that, one would expect Hartford to see some sort of kinship in that regard, but he still hates Paul. Therefore we must conclude that Hartford did not write the "just-agree-and-leave" doctrine out of obedience to Christ, nor as a principle he himself followed, but rather, he wrote it as a doctrinal attack against Paul.

Because Paul had been arrested so many times, Hartford used that as an excuse to attack him. Titus Hartford wrote "agree quickly" and "move along," never intending to follow his own doctrine, but as a childish way to accuse Paul of wrongdoing, so he could justify himself in his prideful, works-based heresy.

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
-Matthew 7:18-20

Many people claim to follow Christ, but in reality, they do not care what Christ teaches. They create a false "jesus" in their minds and follow that foolish figment of their imaginations, but in the depths of their hearts, they hate the real Jesus Christ.

If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
-John 15:18

I was only 18 pages into Hartford's book, and I could hardly bear to continue because it is a mess of hypocrisy drenched in embellished rhetoric. It was page after page of essentially nothing, but for the sake of being thorough, let's consider another example to prove the point further:
"Yea, those that presume to use the supremacy of God to assure others of their legitimacy have erred from the truth; for the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork: A magnificent glory exceeding the glory of every man! For this reason, he will not lend that to you no matter how strong your cause may be. Yea, no matter how important the occasion is or how closely you stand, no magnificent resolution of mortal will shall ever rival the purpose of the stars in their courses, the habitation of the angels, the fabric of time or the great white throne judgment and those who use these as a source of confidence in their own truthfulness are diminishing the credibility of God and tarnishing his memory in the minds of men."
-Titus Hartford, How to Teach Disciples to Observe All Things Whatsoever Jesus Commanded the Twelve Apostles, BookPatch LLC, 2020, p. 23, ISBN: 9781648587184

What did we learn from this? In summary, Hartford used two paragraphs of flowery language to say nothing more than "God's glory is greater than man's." Is some hidden wisdom supposed to emerge from this superfluous wording? Does the Bible somehow fail to declare this truth plainly enough? Remember, this book is titled "How to Teach Disciples," yet Hartford writes as though delivering an Introduction to Christianity 101 lesson to preschoolers, but at a college reading level—a pathetic attempt to impress men with pretended understanding.

Worse still, Hartford conceitedly believes he teaches wisdom, when the truth is that he has little—if anything—to impart. The only benefit his book might offer comes when he quotes the Lord Jesus Christ, espeically since he uses the King James Bible, but a Christian's time would be far better spent studying the Scriptures directly, without Hartford's embellishment.

I quoted this at the beginning of the book, but let's read it again from the Blog Talk Radio interview, Hartford said:
"[@6:38] Paul was a deceiver, and he was a ravening wolf, and we should beware of the doctrine."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 19, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

I want readers to understand that the same person who said this, also said the following concerning the "inerrancy of Scripture," or in other words, he was asked if he thought the Bible had error:
"[@17:20] HOSTESS: What is your position on the inerrancy of Scripture?
HARTFORD: Well, obviously, I don't believe that the Bible is the Word of God. I pick and choose, as my critics would say, but I see a harmony in the Scriptures, and some of the Scriptures I don't see a harmony. So I think that we need to—as people who are searching for the truth—we need to use what's good and throw the bad away. And so I hold to Matthew, Mark, and John, and by extension, the law and the prophets of Israel, and I think the prophets are perfect, talking about the prophets in the Old Testament... after John, I just sort of throw it all away execpt for Jude and James."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 19, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]


After documenting this quote from the podcast, I sat at my keyboard for a moment, unsure where to begin exposing the mental gymnastics of Titus Hartford. I say that not as an ad hominem insult, but because this single statement contains so many points of fallacy, contradiction, and inconsistency, I struggled to find an anchor point to begin.

For example, he names Matthew, Mark, and John, but what about Luke? Later he claims to believe "the Gospels," yet he omits Luke. Based on what I have seen of Hartford's corrupt philosophy, he excludes Luke because accepting Luke's Gospel as inspired by the Holy Ghost would force him to accept the book of Acts (also written by Luke), and much of Acts records the ministry of Paul, whom Hartford openly rejects.

He also claims that Luke contradicts Matthew, when that is not anywhere close to the truth. On the contrary, Luke compliments Matthew, and even expounds on Matthew to give us clearer understanding of it, but Hartford says:
"[@29:35] Pastors LOVE the Book of Luke because it waters-down the Gospel, and cults use it extensively to get people to give everything to them, and live with them without money. So Luke is just a tool of the Devil."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 19, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

Again, this is another empty assertion. He makes a claim in the interview, yet offers no example to support it. I would gladly address his argument in detail, but there is no argument to address. All I can say is that it is a good thing courts of law do not operate like Hartford, or he would never have received his $29,000 settlement.

I began writing this book with the intent to address Hartford's points with seriousness, but the deeper I go, the harder it becomes not to laugh at nearly every claim he makes. He provided no examples to support his assertions in this interview. Not only does he fail to give evidence for most of his blanket statements, but even when he offers examples, they are void of contextual understanding and reason.

His book revealed some things very few would notice, likely because very few (if any besides myself) have ever read it. Hartford first quotes Matthew 18, yet as we saw earlier, he would hypocritically brand the same words as "judgmental:"

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
-Matthew 18:15

After this, Hartford goes on to say:
"When addressing a fault for the first time, therefore, let not him that is caught in a transgression be put on a public display, but deal with him privately and save him from unnecessary reproach, lest thy brother seem vile unto thee. This is the first step to resolving a conflict. And if he hears you and repents, you gain your brother back."
-Titus Hartford, How to Teach Disciples to Observe All Things Whatsoever Jesus Commanded the Twelve Apostles, BookPatch LLC, 2020, p. 113, ISBN: 9781648587184

I highlighted the words "and repents" because this is vital, and I encourage readers to pause here, open the KJB to Matthew 18:15-17, and read it for yourself. Note that repentance is never mentioned in that passage, nor anywhere in the chapter. It states only "if he shall hear thee," so where does Hartford draw his conclusion that the brother must hear you "and repent?"

In his Blog Talk Radio interview, Hartford expressed his disgust with Luke because he claimed that his writings contradict Matthew. Remember that PvC cultists hate Luke because he documented the journey and teachings of Paul.

Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
-Matthew 18:21-22

I grew up in church buildings where leavened preachers taught that Christians must forgive everyone of everything, no matter the circumstance, and it was all based on these two verses. Many churchgoers have proudly proclaimed forgiveness without repentance from the offender, as if that act of preemptive pardon somehow makes them "holy." However, when we compare Matthew with Luke, an added detail appears that shows we are to forgive only under a specific condition:

Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
-Luke 17:3

If Hartford rejects Luke, then how did he know that repentance was part of what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 18? Matthew 18 never mentioned repentance. It is impossible that he would know that unless he first studied Luke, demonstrating his hypocrisy.

It takes a deranged mind to condemn Luke on one hand, then secretly borrow doctrine from Luke's writings to prop up his own claims. Perhaps Hartford needs an event like Paul experienced, where Christ met him on the road and declared: "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks."

And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
-Acts 9:5

I had another interesting question that confused me at first: Why does Hartford believe the Gospel of John, but then reject 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John? How do you accept John but then reject John in the same breath? I do not believe we would get an honest answer out of Hartford, so we need to consider the pattern we have seen from him, namely, that he tends to reject any Scripture that tells him that his works will not make him righteous, and John does exactly that:

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. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
-1 John 1:8-10

Earlier I quoted Hartford saying that he "strived" to obtain "a righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees," meaning he does not trust the Lord Jesus Christ to give him righteousness, but labors to earn his own "inner goodness" through works. If Hartford admitted he is a sinner and has sin in his life, he would have to confess he has not kept the law, and therefore he could never claim a righteousness exceeding that of the Pharisees.

Thus, Hartford rejects John's epistles for the same reason he rejects Christ. I know Hartford does not claim to reject Christ, but most of the people in this world who reject Christ do not do so with their mouths; rather, they reject Him in their hearts.

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
-Matthew 15:8

False preachers like Hartford are nothing new, and many have done the same thing over the past 2,000 years. It does not matter how loudly Hartford CLAIMS to be Christ's disciple because the truth is that he has rejected Christ's Gospel and reshaped it in his own image, that he might call himself "righteous" by his own works.

Hartford mentioned he separates Jude and James as trustworthy, but how does he know those books are legitimate Scripture while rejecting the rest of the New Testament? He does exactly precisely what his critics accuse him of doing: he "picks and chooses" whatever suits him by his own corrupt standard, rather than submitting to the whole Word of God, whether he likes it or not.

Although these points raise many more questions, in my view, the most absurd is this: Hartford's ideology forces him to declare that the vast majority of the first twelve apostles (and any who followed) were deceivers who cannot be trusted. It is a dilemma that Hartford must claim either that Jesus deliberately entrusted His Gospel to untrustworthy men, or worse, that the Comforter (i.e. the Holy Ghost) did NOT come to guide the apostles as Jesus promised in the Gospel of John—one of the few New Testament books Hartford claims to accept as legitimate.

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
-John 14:16-17

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
-John 14:26

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
-John 15:26

Jesus told us "the Comforter... the Spriit of truth... which is the Holy Ghost" would come to the apostles and bring all things that needed to be written down to their remembrance. PvC cultists are left with a serious contradiction because to rip out most of the New Testament, they are DENYING what Jesus said in these passages.

Peter was one of the recipients of that message, an apostle of Christ who was instructed to teach the church. If you reject Peter's doctrine then you also reject faith in Christ's promises.

Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
-2 Peter 3:14

Hartford has no problem with the commandment to be "without spot, and blameless" because he erroneously interprets that outside of the context, applying it to his perceived righteousness by his own works. Therefore, he ought to accept the writings of Peter to be from the Holy Ghost, but in the next verse, Peter comments about two things Hartford cannot ignore:

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
-2 Peter 3:15

First, we are found "in peace, without spot, and blameless" because of "our Lord" (i.e. Jesus Christ) who gave us the grace of righteousness unto salvation. Therefore, our diligence is the result of salvation, not a cause for it. Peter then commits a sin against Titus Hartford by affirming that Paul taught the same doctrine, acknowledging that the Holy Spirit was with Paul according to the wisdom of God, and that he preached the truth in Christ.

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
-2 Peter 3:16

Peter declared that the epistles Paul wrote are part of the Holy Scrpitures, and in certain instances, they are difficult to understand, which I can testify is true because I have spent many years in study to understand the doctrines of Paul, and there are still many things I must study diligently to learn. However, Peter adds that those who are unlearned in the scriptures and unstable in their philosophy "wrest," meaning that they twist and distort the Scriptures, just like Hartford does, not only with the doctrines of Paul, but also the other Scriptures, both in the Old and New Testaments, and they do this to their own destruction.

In summary, Matthew acknowledged Peter (Mat 16:18), and Peter acknowledged Paul. (2Pe 3:15) If Hartford lived true to his beliefs, he would reject Matthew in the same way he rejects Luke, but he cannot do this, or he would also have to reject every book in the New Testament, leaving him with nothing but the Old Testament, and that would make him look bad, so for pretense, he must persist in his inconsistency.

Peter then offered a warning, and I would urge Christians to pay close attention to it:

Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
-2 Peter 3:17-18

Peter, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, gave a general warning to the church, and this is quite fitting as a warning against the error of wicked men like Titus Hartford, and other PvC/JWO cultists. It would be completely nonsensical for Christ, who is God, to establish His church WITHOUT the guidance of the Holy Ghost over His apostles because, if that were the case, we could not trust ANY of the Scriptures, not even Matthew, Mark, and John, and that would leave us without a testimony of Christ Himself.

The hostess of the podcast brought up the passage we just read from 2nd Peter 3, and she decieves her listeners about what it says:
"[@50:49] HOSTESS: Where Peter says that those who follow brother Paul end up confused, that his way of teaching is confusing, and-
HARTFORD: Which those that are unlearned and unstable wrest to their own destruction.
HOSTESS: Yes. I didn't know if you had anything that you had experienced with that. I did go back to their original language on that and it's absolutely very eye-opening, where the word that they translate to 'unlearned' it comes from word—and they very gently sugar-coated it to make it sound like it was the fault of the person reading that could not digest Paul when you actually go to the original language—the word is 'disnoatos', and the 'dis' is like, bad, unlucky, without logic, not making good sense, leading astray, all those type of things, and then the noatos was the message part of it. So putting them together, his message confuses people, but it's not like because it's so intellectual people can't understand it. It's because it's like craftily coming from somebody who is, just like James said, double-minded."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 19, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

Christians should be warned that false preachers often appeal to the "original Greek." This is because Greek lexicons, not the Bible, are their final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Instead of defining words by the context in which they appear (as they would with any other book or conversation), they run to a Greek dictionary, select the definition that fits their presuppositions, and then pretend to be scholarly, though what they have done is deceptive and fraudulent.
(Read "The 'Original Greek' Scam" at creationliberty.com for more details.)

The second and most important point is that if her claim were true, she would be saying Peter condemned ALL Scripture, because Peter declared that the "unlearned and unstable wrest" Paul's epistles, "as they do also the other scriptures." The "other scriptures" include every book Paul did not write (i.e. the rest of the Old and New Testament books). Therefore, if her interpretation were correct, Peter would be calling all the remaining books of the Bible "unlearned and unstable," which makes no contextual sense whatsoever.

Allow me to quote Paul in response to this nonsense because, through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, he hit the nail on the head concerning these heretics:

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.
-1 Corinthians 2:14

One thing Hartford never explains is HOW he decides what is Holy Scripture and what is not. Yet despite his silence, the method is clear: he judges everything by his works-salvation heresy. That is why he hates so much New Testament doctrine and why he yokes himself with Hebrew-roots cultists who trust in the hopeless observance of days and ceremonies.

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
-Colossians 2:16-17

In the podcast, Hartford was also asked about the Book of Revelation, and he said that he believes it is not "relevant for today." I thought this to be a strange statement because Revelation is prophecy for the final days in the future, so obviously, a large portion of it will not necessarily be "relevant for today."

He added that he did not believe much of Revelation was divinely inspired, and one of his "evidences" was that he did not like God calling down plagues on men, claiming that it did not seem like something God would do. Has he never read Exodus? I recommend he starting reading in chapter six. The Torah (which Hartford believes is inspired) records the very plagues God poured out on Egypt for their defiance, and this only lengthens the ever-growing list of contradictions, fallacies, and absurdities that pour from Hartford's mouth.

Later in the interview, Hartford brings up another point of contention he has with Paul's doctrine:
"[@1:13:14] The Messiah said 'let your yea be yea and your nay, nay, for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil', and this is a very easy way to disprove Paul. Paul sweared [sic] to God in Galatians 1:20, and that, by Jesus' own lips there, it has come of evil."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 22, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

This was the first time I immediately understood Hartford's misunderstanding of the verses. Even in my early teachings, I partially erred on this point because I did not fully grasp what Jesus contextually emphasized in that passage. I will briefly explain, but for more detail, I recommend my commentary on the fifth chapter of the Book of Matthew.

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
-Matthew 5:33-37

Jesus started out referring to Leviticus (i.e. "said by them of old time"), which says:

And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
-Leviticus 19:12

And that is what the word 'forswear' means:

forswear (v): to reject or renounce upon oath; to deny upon oath; to forswear one's self is to swear falsely; to perjure one's self
(See 'forswear', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Dec 22, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

This is not to say the Jews treated vows to the Lord lightly, but they cared far more for outward appearance than for judging their own hearts. To impress men with a show of "holiness," they made vows to the Lord with utmost seriousness, however, they crafted loopholes to escape the binding force of those oaths without "technically" swearing by the name of the Lord.

If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.
-Numbers 30:2

The scribes deceptively twisted Numbers 30 to claim they were bound to a vow only if they said something like, "As God is my witness, I will do thus and so." If they avoided naming God directly, they believed no consequence followed for breaking their word. So they would swear, "By heaven I will do thus and so," thinking that since heaven is not God Himself, the oath carried no obligation, while their sanctimonious words still preserved an appearance of "righteousness."

Every way of a man is right in his own eyes:
but the LORD pondereth the hearts.
-Proverbs 21:2

Many years ago I taught that Christians should never swear any oath and that doing so was evil, but that is not the case, nor is it the sense in which Jesus taught this. If swearing an oath unto God were evil, God would have forbidden it plainly in the law, but He did not condemn it; He allowed it, so long as the speaker was genuine and kept his word.

Jesus was addressing hypocrites who said one thing and did another. Being liars, they swore oaths by heaven, by earth, or by their own heads—even in casual conversation over trivial matters—for the express purpose of sounding "holy." However, they never intended those oaths to bind them, and they broke their word liberally, so Jesus commanded them not to swear by such things at all.

This does not mean, for example, that a man commits evil by taking an oath for public office, such as a sheriff, fireman, physician, or city councilman, just to name a few. In the United States, the First Amendment protects speech—including lies—so to prevent public servants from lying in their office of authority, they must take a binding oath of office that will bypass the First Amendment protections, to be held accountable in a court of law under penalty of perjury if they break it.

In like manner, it is not evil to swear "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God" in a court of law. Again, in the United States, lies are protected under the First Amendment. Therefore, to give testimony in court, one must temporarily surrender that First Amendment protection so his testimony may carry weight, and he will (or ought to) face severe penalty if he breaks that oath.

Now let's go to the writings of Paul in Galatians 1:

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
-Galatians 1:18-20

Paul refers to all he had just written concerning his former life, his upbringing, his deeds before conversion, the doctrine he preached, and the fact that in Jerusalem he saw only Peter and James. This was necessary because so many false teachers lied about him to deceive others. By these words, the hope is that Christians would know Paul held his word in utmost seriousness and boldly put it in writing, and I have also done the same on rare occasions when corrupt preachers lied about what I said and did, affirming that I spoke "the truth in Christ" so all would know I stood firmly on what I saw and heard.

Therefore, there is no doctrinal contradiction. Paul took his word with utmost seriousness, which is good in the sight of God. It was the vast majority of Sadducees, Pharisees, scribes, and priests who treated their oaths lightly, and that is precisely what Jesus rebuked.

Hartford sees a contradiction only because of his prideful misunderstanding of the context of Christ's rebuke of the Jews. Under normal circumstances I have no issue with a man making an error and correcting it—I myself still need correction at times—but as I have already shown from his interviews, book, and personal emails, Hartford shows no sign he will receive rebuke or correction on any doctrine. He interprets Scripture by his feelings rather than context, which forces him into conflation fallacies, straw-man arguments, and red herrings whenever he speaks.

Hartford voices his next contention:
"[@1:14:48] Bless them that curse you, that was something that Jesus said, and in First Corinthians 16, Paul curses those who preach any other gospel. Cursing is not a blessing; that's the opposite of a blessing. That was a contradiction between the two."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 26, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

First, let's take a look at what Jesus said:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
-Matthew 5:43-44

In this passage, notice that Jesus did NOT say "it hath been said OF OLD TIME," because only the first part of His statement (i.e. "Thou shalt love thy neighbor") appears in the law (Lev 19:18). The second part (i.e. "hate thine enemy") is NOT found anywhere in the law or prophets. Therefore Jesus addressed sayings passed around among the Jews that contradicted the fulfillment of the law of charity. (Mat 7:12)

I will address Hartford's foolish argument in a moment, but the place where Paul addresses this doctrine is in Romans 12:

Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
-Romans 12:17-21

This is perfectly correlated together with Matthew 5. Paul wrote that we ought not to wish or do evil to those who do evil to us, that we should do good to our enemies, and love our neighbors as ourselves even when they do us wrong. (Mark 12:30-31) Peter wrote something very similar:

Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
-1 Peter 3:8-9

These verses should all be understood in the context of not avenging ourselves for evils done against us. This is precisely what Jesus referenced in Matthew 5 when quoting Leviticus 19:

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
-Leviticus 19:18

Hartford delusionally attempted to correlate Matthew 5 with 1st Corinthians 16, but I think he got his verses mixed up a bit because what he quoted about "any other gospel" was from Galatians 1:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
-Galatians 1:8-9

I suspect he was confusing it with this verse:

If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ,
let him be Anathema Maranatha.
-1 Corinthians 16:22

So let's address both of these passages, starting with 1st Corinthians 16. Simply put, the phrase "Anathema Maranatha" is a mix of Greek and Aramaic words, which generally means to be "cut off from the coming of the Lord" in the day that Christ returns.

Those who have spent some time studying the Bible will know that those who do not love the Lord Jesus Christ will be cut off from him in the final days, as Jesus taught:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
-Matthew 7:21-23

So, for example, Titus Hartford trusts in his own works because that is what he honors, favors, and values in his imagined self-righteousness. To trust in one's own works is to trample the precious blood of Christ and slap the Savior in the face. Anyone who rejects the grace and kindness of the Lord Jesus Christ clearly does not love Him, for he neither honors, favors, nor values the works of Jesus. Therefore, because Hartford does not love Christ and refuses repentance (i.e. godly sorrow) for his sin, on the day Christ returns, he will be cut off.

Consider this: Did I just curse Hartford? No. I am not sending him to hell in the final day of judgment. Jesus Christ cursed him because Jesus already declared it in His Word—I am just the messenger repeating it.

If Hartford really believed what he was saying, then why does he not condemn Jesus Christ for contradicting Himself?

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
-Matthew 23:13

wo (n): grief; sorrow; misery; a heavy calamity; a curse
(See 'wo', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Dec 26, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

We just read the words of Christ in which He cursed those who hate Him. Great calamity awaits all who hate the Lord Jesus Christ on the day of God's wrath, but if we are to believe what Hartford teaches, we would have to believe that Jesus contradicted Himself!

This is called truth. It is fact. It is unavoidable. Did Jesus speak those words to the scribes and Pharisees out of revenge for what they had done to Him, or did He speak them as a warning because He loved them enough to tell them the truth?

This is not Christ avenging Himself in that moment, nor was Paul avenging himself when others did evil against him. Paul did exactly what Christ did: he warned them of the truth. He warned them of the punishments of the evil they said and did. And because Paul rightly preached in perfect accord with Jesus Christ, he declared that if any man "preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

Thus, if a man—such as Titus Hartford—preaches another gospel, replacing the grace of Christ with works-righteousness, then I will proclaim the same: let him be accursed. That is, step back and allow him the liberty to remain bound to damnation and destruction because he trusts in himself rather than Christ. It is absurd to claim this is unloving to our neighbor. On the contrary, it is one of the most charitable acts of love because we endure their hatred, railing, and evil in return for simply declaring the truth to them. We sacrifice ourselves to give them the same warning we received and believed, even when they despise us for saying it, and if we would want others to tell us the truth, then telling the truth is loving our neighbor as ourselves.

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
-2 Thessalonians 2:10

Throughout his book and interview, Hartford claimed Paul was hateful and made him hateful, but again, I contend Hartford made himself hateful. The truth always sounds like hate to those who hate the truth. Because we Christians love the truth, we do not concern ourselves with pleasing men; rather, we love them enough to tell them the truth, even when they hate us for it, as Paul continued to say in Galatians 1:

For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
-Galatians 1:10

Hartford's next contention:
"[@1:16:30] Jesus said 'use not vain repetitions', but in First Corinthians 4:28, Paul said people who use vain repetitions, 'let him speak to himself and to God', talking about speaking in tongues. If nobody understands him, let him speak to himself and to God."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 26, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
-Matthew 6:7

The heathen (i.e. unbelievers or those who profess belief while clinging to pagan ideology) memorize a "prayer" and repeat it endlessly (e.g. Om or Gayatri in Hinduism, or Hail Mary or Our Father in Catholicism), imagining they gain some small blessing each time they recite it. This is nonsense. Jesus Christ declared that they will not be heard, for they do not communicate with the Lord from the heart. They perform ritualistic prayers for show, trusting in works to make themselves holy through a special recipe of words—no different from a witch casting a spell by magical incantation.

There is no 1st Corinthians 4:28, so I think he was referring to 1st Corinthians 14:28, which says:

But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
-1 Corinthians 14:28

Hartford just lied to the audience by claiming Paul addressed "people who use vain repetitions," which is easily proven false by reading 1 Corinthians 14. For a full understanding, I have an article covering the context of 1 Corinthians 14 in detail, titled "Speaking in Tongues vs Charismatic Gibberish." The contexts of both passages differ greatly. Nothing in that chapter even remotely mentions "vain repetitions," and in my opinion, I believe Hartford knows this, which is why I openly accuse him of lying—he knows his claim is not true, yet pushes the false narrative to justify his beliefs.

Hartford's next contention:
"[@1:17:30] 'Judge not that ye be not judge, for with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged.' That's what Jesus said. First Corinthians 5:12 says the very opposite thing, telling him to judge those that be in the church. So you can judge, or you can not judge, but you can not judge and not judge at the same time."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 26, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

I double-checked Hartford's words in the podcast because I initially thought I had made an error documenting what he said. If that last sentence confuses readers, rest assured it is no typo on my part—those are Hartford's exact words. I also realize we covered this subject earlier in the book, but Hartford repeats his fallacious "judgmental" argument to condemn Paul, and in his astonishing stupidity, he remains blind to the fact that he is condemning Christ by this same argument.

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
-Matthew 7:1-2

For what have I to do to judge them also that are without?
do not ye judge them that are within?
-1 Corinthians 5:12

I think Hartford's argument would have greater effect to deceive his audience if he used this verse from chapter two instead:

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things,
yet he himself is judged of no man.
-1 Corinthians 2:15

To summarize, Hartford's argument is that Jesus told us not to judge anyone, but he conveniently leaves out Christ's commandment to judge righteous judgment, which we read about earlier in this book:

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
-John 7:24

So why does Hartford not accuse Christ of contradicting Himself? Remember at the beginning, I showed the quotations from Hartford where he declared that he does not believe the Bible is the Word of God. Hartford wants people to believe he is a "Christian," but he knows he would look foolish if he accused Christ, so he avoids discussion on this point, thinking that no one like myself would ever come along and expose his foolishness.

By declaring "you can judge, or you can not judge," Hartford claims we have a choice, but that Jesus commanded us never to judge. This is not at all what Jesus meant. Christ did not say "judge not, that ye be not judged" to forbid all judgment lest we face judgment ourselves; rather, He warned that the same measure we rightly use to judge others will be applied to us—a condemnation of hypocrites like Titus Hartford.

The reason I point out Hartford's hypocrisy on this point is because he has broken his own interpretation of Christ's commandment by judging Paul:
"[@6:38] Paul was a deceiver, and he was a ravening wolf, and we should beware of the doctrine."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 19, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

If being "judgmental" is wrong, as Hartford claimed earlier, then why does he judge Paul? Why was Hartford so "judgmental" toward the police who arrested him in the Calvary Chapel incident? This contradiction arises because Hartford lacks consistency in his doctrine—he says one thing yet does another.

Hartford continues his lunacy crusade:
"[@1:17:57] He [Jesus] says don't take shoes, nor staves, for the workman is worthy of his meat. So he says, don't make any preparations, don't bring shoes, don't bring two staffs [sic], because the workman is worthy of his meat, and what they were supposed to do, they were supposed to go and preach saying the kingdom of heaven is at hand, heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, and cast out devils. But in Second Thessalonians 3:11, and this is used extensively in cults, Paul says, 'If any man does not work, neither should he eat', and he qualifies that as those who wrought with labor and travail like as he did. So basically, Paul forbides people to eat if they don't do work, but Jesus very clearly sent them out without shoes, with a higher mission than just to labor with travail, which is like manual labor... you shouldn't be given things if you don't work for them, and a lot of people agree with that, but that's not the message that Jesus came to give us."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 19, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

Hartord claimed Paul taught that "you shouln't be given things if you don't work for them," and that is NOT what Paul taught.

Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:
-1 Timothy 1:5

Paul taught charity so many times, this book would be far longer if I listed them all. Rather, Paul was addressing a particular sin in 2nd Thessalonians chapter three, and I will explain that shortly.

Jesus did not tell them to take no shoes, but rather no extra pair—nor two staves, nor two coats. They would obviously carry one pair of shoes, one staff, and one coat, but they were not to take extra provisions because the Lord would provide those needs through others as they traveled. The miraculous power of the Holy Ghost came at a price: they were not to carry extra money or stock up on resources in exchange for miracles, rather, they were to take only the bare minimum for clothing, food, and travel—nothing more.

And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
-Matthew 10:7-10

This was a commandment specifically for the apostles in that day, because we have not received power to heal lepers by laying on hands or to raise the dead. Therefore, Paul rightly taught that those who labor preaching the Gospel of Christ should live from it and provide for their families—though he himself took no such living. In addition, those in the church should charitably give double honor (which contextually includes consideration of charity) to elders who rule well and labor diligently in the Word and doctrine.

Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
-1 Timothy 5:17-18

To clarify, if you consider the respect you have a for a physician in a doctor's office, double of that honor should be given to those who rule well and labor in the Scriptures in the church. If you consider the charity of giving you have to orphans and widows, double of that consideration should be given to those who rule well and labor in the Scriptures.
(Read "Tithe is Not a Christian Requirement" at creationliberty.com for more details.)

The Lord permitted others, through charity, to provide housing and food for the apostles as a wage for their preaching and healing. Thus, they needed no additional labor to earn their keep (Deut 25:4), but Paul (by his own choice of conviction) went beyond that commandment. In humility—by liberty and charity, not constraint—he worked extra jobs while preaching the Gospel to meet his basic needs (food, shelter, clothing), and he refused to burden the church by taking from it; rather, he sought only to add to the church.

After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth; And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them. And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought [worked]: for by their occupation they were tentmakers. And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
-Acts 18:1-4

Though he could have accepted charity for food and housing as recompense for his preaching and healing, Paul chose extra work to help those who hosted him. This was a labor of love for the church—a selfless sacrifice—which Titus Hartford, in unbelievable arrogance, condemns as "evil."

Once again, I warn Hartford and others that follow his insane doctrines:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
-Isaiah 5:20-21

Hartford incorrectly correlated this to a completely different context in 2nd Thessalonians:

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
-2 Thessalonians 3:10

Second Thessalonians chapter three is dealing with a particular issue in the church, of lazy and selfish men being uncharitable in their philosophy. There are people who were fully capable of working, but chose to live like leeches, sucking up the charity of hard-working members of the church, who gave for those in need, not for those who wanted to be lazy. If any readers are interested in a full understanding of the chapter, I recommend reading my commentary on 2nd Thessalonians 3 at creationliberty.com.

This raises an interesting question: Does Hartford believe the apostles did no work? Does he think their traveling, preaching the Gospel, aiding the poor and needy, helping orphans and widows, and healing the sick and lame counted for nothing? Does he view evangelism as one long vacation for which there should be no payment for services rendered?

It is a basic, immutable principle from the foundation of the world that those who work earn their keep. Hartford deceitfully argued majority opinion (i.e. "a lot of people agree with that"), as if it were the decision of men alone to establish such a rule, but God commanded Adam from the beginning to work:

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
-Genesis 3:17-19

Does Hartford not realize that Christ is God? Does not he not realized that Christ set these things in order at the beginning in Genesis? Jesus is not going to contradict Himself.

It is far worse than that because Hartord claimed this commandment that God and Christ gave to men is "used extensively in cults." That is insanity I have no words to describe. Should we believe the entire working world is a giant religious cult because they earn what they have by the sweat of their brow?

If there is food, someone labored to produce it, and therefore, anyone eating that food gains freely what others worked to provide. It is a shame that, in this day and age, I have need to say something so obvious. It is neither good nor fair for one man to labor for everyone's food—as in communist nations—while others, with perfectly capable hands, refuse to work in their own field of expertise by the sweat of their brow. Christians hold to the basic principle of charity that, if able to work and provide for themselves, they should do so, and then, if the Lord grants them abundance, they may freely give to others according to their own discernment of the need.

This is why Paul continued to say:

For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
-2 Thessalonians 3:11-12

The context of the previous verses clearly shows that Paul referred to "disorderly" people in the church—those doing nothing while taking advantage of hardworking brethren. Though they are perfectly capable, lazy people have uncharitable hearts, willingly consuming the fruit of others' hard labor without regard for the effort required to produce it.

This is why, the verses prior to this, Paul said:

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
-2 Thessalonians 3:6-9

Paul set a good example of work ethic by laboring honestly to earn his bread. As I have already stated, he could have received his food through evangelism alone, yet he went further—working extra for basic needs he was permitted to receive from Christ as reward for his labor—thus demonstrating his love for the church.

The disorderly people Paul referred to are those who refuse to work according to the order God established for mankind—even before the fall, when Adam was commanded to dress and keep the Garden. (Gen 2:15) They were "busybodies," meddling in others' affairs, gossiping, tattling, and talebearing, because they had no work of their own, and this remains a problem today among some who do nothing, while acting as if they are so busy.

If they do not want to suffer removal from the church for unrepentant sins, they should examine themselves (2Co 13:5), come to repentance for their wrongdoing, and labor to amend their ways. It would be better that we Christians pay attention to these instructions and judge ourselves (1Co 11:31), that we may work together in harmony and peace, laboring toward the same charitable ends in Christ—and even earning enough to supply the needs of others.

Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.
-Ephesians 4:28
(Read "The Christian Work Ethic" at creationliberty.com for more details.)

In all my life, Titus Hartford is the first man, claiming to be a Christian, that I have ever heard raise objection to this doctrine. This is a simple matter of reasoning that even the world understands. Unbelievers grasp the basic truth that people should work to provide for their own households, and the world generally looks unfavorably on lazy gossipers that mooch off of everyone else through socialist government programs.

Hartford then lies about Paul's words by claiming, "Paul forbids people to eat if they don't do work," which is not what Paul said. Paul promoted helping orphans and widows, and the poor elderly who cannot work to feed themselves—that is part of charity, or as James called it, "pure religion." (Jms 1:27) Rather, Paul targeted "busybodies" specifically: people who can work but choose not to, living off the church's provision in laziness.

Hartford also claimed "Jesus very clearly sent them out without shoes," but they were not barefoot by any means. Just because they lacked extra shoes does not mean they lacked sandals, which is a different matter, as we learn from Mark:

But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.
-Mark 6:9

Today, we typically consider sandals to be shoes, as many stores post signs reading "no shirt, no shoes, no service," yet allow sandals. This shows that modern society generally views sandals as shoes. However, Jewish society classified footwear differently. Thus, Hartford makes a big deal over them being "without shoes," when in reality—as I said earlier—they were simply not to bring a second pair on their journey because they were restricted from storing up provisions.

Hartford claimed the apostles had a "higher mission" and that Jesus brought a different message, but he failed to see that Jesus simply limited their provisions—nothing more. Jesus never said they could not work for basic food, clothing, and shelter if they chose to do so, but rather, He commanded no extra provisions because the miraculous blessings of the Holy Ghost are NOT for sale.

Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
-Acts 8:19-22

There is no contradiction between the teachings of Jesus, Paul, Peter, and James. The contradiction lies between them and Titus Hartford, and therefore, I will answer Hartford with Holy Scriptures—from the very man he hates so much—in 2 Thessalonians 3:

And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
-2 Thessalonians 3:14

I have no further interest in addressing Hartford's absurd, childish arguments, and by now, I hope readers see that I have thoroughly proven, through abundant evidence, that Hartford has no clue what he is talking about. I have no sympathy for him in this regard becaues it is a willful ignorance. Titus Hartford is certainly NOT in any position to write a book purporting to instruct others "How to Teach Disciples," let alone teach at all.

I found Hartford somewhat of an anomaly because of his use of the King James Bible (KJB), since most PvC/JWO videos and websites I encountered reject the KJB. I happen to agree with their use of corrupt versions: it would make little sense for them to use the KJB because, by PvC/JWO standards, the KJB translators would be under deception, since they upheld the fullness of the entire New Testament, including Paul's doctrine. If Paul were truly a false apostle, the translators could not consistently interpret the text according to its contextual analysis, nor affirm its inerrancy, nor could one honestly claim to have the Holy Ghost dwelling in them while following a false apostle after that many years of study, and thus, their rejection of the KJB makes sense from their religious worldview.
(Read Why Christians Should Study The King James Bible here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

As an apostle of Jesus Christ, Paul faced enemies from the moment he began preaching—throughout his life and for thousands of years after his death. His epistles have always drawn hatred from those who pride themselves in works, while they hypocritically scoff at a man who considered himself nothing in this world (2Co 12:11), having no value except the salvation Christ gave him (1Co 2:2). Paul followed as closely as possible in Christ's footsteps, received the gift of miracles from the Holy Ghost, and sacrificed much for the sake of Christ's church, but to this day, false teachers and hypocrites who selfishly reject his doctrine still consider him an enemy.

One of the better-known examples of a PvC cultist is Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of the United States, and the third elected U.S. President. Jefferson, like many founders, upheld general Christian moral principles on which the U.S. Constitution was built, but like many of them, he was no Christian—his supposed "Christianity" was only for pretense.

In 1820, Jefferson completed his own version of the Bible, known today as The Jefferson Bible. He took scissors to the Four Gospels in Jacob Johnson's 1804 printing of the King James Bible, keeping parts he liked and cutting out those he dislikedp; the parts he rejected were mostly the miracles because he denied the supernatural works of the Son of God.

"Using his clippings, the aging third president created a New Testament of his own—one that most Christians would hardly recognize. This Bible was focused only on Jesus, but none of his mystical works. It didn't include major scenes like the resurrection or ascension to heaven or miracles like turning water into wine or walking on water. Instead, Jefferson's Bible focused on Jesus as a man of morals, a teacher whose truths were expressed without the help of miracles or the supernatural powers of God. Made for his private use and kept secret for decades, Jefferson's 84-page Bible was the work of a man who spent much of his life grappling with and doubting religion."
-Erin Blakemore, "Why Thomas Jefferson Rewrote the Bible Without Jesus' Miracles and Resurrection," History.com, Oct 4, 2023, retrieved Dec 29, 2023, [https://www.history.com/news/thomas-jefferson-bible-religious-beliefs]

In a letter Jefferson wrote to William Short in 1820, he said:
"I separate therefore the gold from the dross; restore to him [i.e. Jesus] the former, & leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus [i.e. sarcastically put, a ringleader], and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations [i.e. obvious insertions] and falsifications of his doctrines led me to try to sift them apart."
-Thomas Jefferson, "Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 13 April 1820," retrieved Dec 29, 2023, [https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-15-02-0505]

Jefferson held great disdain for Paul, but we need to remember that it was not truly Paul he hated, but Jesus Christ. He only used Jesus as an excuse to reject the doctrine he hated. Jefferson cannot remain philosophically consistent by stripping miracles from Christ's works, because that removes Christ's divinity from the doctrine, and thereby leaves Jefferson without ground to accuse Paul, so with that in mind, on what basis can a man claim Paul is wrong unless He has Christ as a divine foundation upon which a spiritual argument could be made?

Furthermore, Jesus Christ did not fully expound on all His teachings Himself; rather, He sent His apostles to complete that work. Thus, those who hate Christ's apostles also hate Jesus Christ, which means they hate the Lord God as well, and therefore, cannot be Christians nor children of God.

This is established by Jesus at the end of John 15 when speaking to His disciples, who would go on to be His apostles:

If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause. But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
-John 15:18-27

Although Jefferson's Bible quotes from some passages in the Gospel of John, as far as I am aware, his corrupt, confetti version omitted John 15. I find that fascinating because, by trust in some of the Gospel of John, he acknowledges belief in the legitimacy of John's testimony about Christ's doctrines, but it begs the question of why John could be trusted at all if he lied about the miracles?

These kinds of philosophical contradictions are common in PvC/JWO cults. For example, I find it fascinating that all of PvC cultists I have read and heard reject Peter's epistles, and this one principle alone collapses their entire ideology.

Peter (like John) received the message we just read from Jesus Christ in John 15. To recap, Jesus declared that the Holy Ghost (i.e. "the Comforter") would testify of Him through Peter and the other apostles, but PvC cultists reject Peter because, as we learned earlier, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, Peter acknowledged Paul as an apostle who wrote Scripture by that same inspiration.

We went over this earlier, but let's refresh our memories:

Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
-2 Peter 3:14-18

Even though Jefferson quoted from Luke in his corrupt bible version, PvC cultists today also reject Luke, and as we learned earlier, they reject Luke because they reject Acts of the Apostles, which was authored by Luke. They reject Acts because it documents the journey of Paul, but by rejecting Acts, they lost the Day of Pentecost, which is one of the most important events in the Holy Scriptures, because without it, you cannot verify the prophecies of Jesus in the Four Gospels.

Here are just a few of the contradictions we have seen thus far: If you remove one, you must remove the other because they are interconnected. Following that logical process would—if they were honest—force them to reject the ENTIRE New Testament as fraudulent, eliminating any possibility for Christians to exist, and this demonstrates the insanity of PvC cultists, who are nothing more than idolaters and hypocrites trusting in their own works for self-righteousness.

Modern heretics continue to lie to themselves, and also lie to others in attempt to justify themselves. Russell Dibird is another PvC heretic, and with the power of all-caps, he made the following argument:
"Mat 23:9 Do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. However, Paul calls HIMSELF OUR FATHER!!! Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 1 Cor 4:15"
-Russell Dibird, "Jesus And Apostles' Multiple Warnings About Paul's False Teachings," July 1, 2021, retrieved Jan 10, 2024, [https://nonorthodoxy.com/2021/07/01/jesus-and-apostles-multiple-warnings-about-pauls-false-teachings/]

Dibird is using watered-down bible versions, and this one appears to be the NIV. Let's read the passage from the KJB:

And call no man your father upon the earth:
for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
-Matthew 23:9

For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
-1 Corinthians 4:15

As I have said before, Scriptural context is like leprosy to a PvC cultist because one only needs to understand the context of the verses to understand the meaning. Instead, they fell right into the trap God laid for them (Isa 28:13), and exposed themselves as false teachers.

Earlier in this book, I covered Matthew 23:9 briefly when responding to a nonsensical argument from Titus Hartford, but Dibird argues something different. PvC cultists offer many different alleged "contradictions" to the same verse. If you read 1 Corinthians 4 in context, Paul speaks of corrupt teachers who defame and defraud others with their lies, laying heavy burdens on them, despite making no effort to lift those burdens themselves.

This is the same thing Jesus taught earlier in Matthew 23:

For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
-Matthew 23:4

Paul did not mean this in the spiritual sense that Jesus said "call no man your father," in which men of corrupt minds require a spiritual title of preeminence to lift themselves above others; rather, he pointed out the difference in manner between the teaching of a schoolmaster and the teaching of a father. A schoolmaster is mostly impersonal, while a father is heavily invested. In this sense, Paul said they would have thousands of instructors in Christ—which is not to say that all those men were true servants of Christ (because many would be false teachers, as Jesus warned in Mat 7:13-15), but he meant that a father-like instructor is rare—one who is intimately invested in his child's understanding and prosperity.

This is why, in the previous verse, Paul said:

I write not these things to shame you,
but as my beloved sons I warn you.
-1 Corinthians 4:14

Paul never told them to call him "father," there is no evidence that they called him that, and anyone who understood the analogy would not have done so. Some who listen to my teachings consider me somewhat of a "father" to them in the sense that I have taught them the doctrine and philosophy of Christ for many years, and that I care for their well-being, but they would not address me in such a manner because it would make no sense. Paul simply pointed out that his relationship with them was more akin to a family, invested in their good in a manner similar to that of a father to a child—to see them learn, grow, and prosper—rather than a schoolmaster, who is strict and rigid.

Because Paul expressed his love for the church in this way, addressing them as family rather than distant students to be used, Dibird falsely accuses Paul, just like the false teachers of old. I can relate because many have falsely accused me in the same manner. If you look up his article, he goes on to claim that Paul "was being 'set-up' to be THE Anti-Christ," that he was "controlled opposition," that he was "son of Herod Babylon Mystery Religion Adept" (and included a picture of a pagan fantasy wizard with it), that he was "a roaring lion," that he was a "homosexual" who "queer[ed] the church," and many more accusations beyond these few, all because he said he loved the brethren as a father would love children.
(See Russell Dibird, "Jesus And Apostles' Multiple Warnings About Paul's False Teachings," July 1, 2021, retrieved Jan 10, 2024, [https://nonorthodoxy.com/2021/07/01/jesus-and-apostles-multiple-warnings-about-pauls-false-teachings/])

That last point piqued my interest because, knowing that PvC cultists are wildly irrational in their argumentation, I wanted to know how they concluded that Paul was some sort of secret sodomite. The following are the arguments made by Dibird, and though I looked forward to in-depth research, the lack of reasonable argumentation proved far more disappointing than I expected, but I decided to include this anyway to satisfy the curiosity of readers.

"Paul never married, which was unusual for a first-century Jew, but had a series of younger men as companions."

Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and Daniel were never married, so does that make them all queers? Daniel was also castrated, as were all those in service to the king of Babylon, so does that make him "transgender?" These ridiculous, nonsensical arguments rest on biased assumption rather than fact.

"He sometimes expressed negativity toward women and homosexual exploitation."

If you expected Scriptural references to accompany that statement, you will be disappointed to learn that none were provided, which is unsurprising at this point. In fact, Romans is one of the few places in Bible where sodomy is specifically addressed—becuase the Bible usually just addresses fornication, which encompasses gays and lesbians—and in those passages, Paul condemned it as sin worthy of death. (Rom 1:24-32)

"Tormented by self-reproach, he pleaded with God three times in vain to remove an unspecified 'thorn in my flesh' that troubled him. Some believe that 'thorn' was attraction to other men."

Dibird's expression of belief is not evidence, and the "thorn in my flesh" Paul mentioned in 2 Corinthians 12:7 is a figure of speech referring to loss of eyesight. (Jos 23:13) It is well known that Paul's eyesight worsened as he aged, which is why his companions—in the case of 2nd Corinthians, Titus and Lucas—had to write down his dictation.

"Homosexuality might even help explain Paul's cataclysmic conversion experience. He went from intensely persecuting Christians to becoming the most articulate leader of the very movement that he had tried to destroy. His vision of Christ left him stunned by the revelation that nothing could separate him from God's love."

After reading that quote, if you feel the need to massage the temples of your forehead, that is a normal reaction because the brain often suffers overload when trying to find nonexistent rational pathways in a tundra of absurdity. If Dibird wants to argue that a transformed life after coming to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ is evidence that a person is queer, then every Christian who has ever lived must automatically be labeled queer.

What is his evidence for this? Dibird refers to a 1991 Los Angeles Times interview with Anglican priest John Spong:
"Spong said in a telephone interview from his Newark, N.J., diocese that Paul's words about 'the war going on inside of him is a fairly classic description of what I have come to understand in repressed gay males.'"
-John Dart, "Bishop's Book Pictures Paul as a Homosexual," Los Angeles Times, Feb 2, 1991, retrieved Jan 11, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20201112013934/https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-02-02-ca-234-story.html]

So the grand evidence that Paul was queer is some Catholic's opinion? That's it? You can look up the news article for yourself—there is nothing else provided.

Knowing what I know about Catholicism, and its denominational offshoots like Anglicanism, it is unsurprising that one of their priests is trying to make Christ's apostles out to be queers. If they can say that an apostle was a sodomite, in their minds, that justifies themselves and their paritioners to be sodomites.
(Read Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism at creationliberty.com for more details.)

If you read Dibird's embarrassing article on the subject, you will see many places where he uses conjectural phrasing, such as "[Spong] believes Paul was gay," and "Spong also asserts that Paul was homosexual," and that Spong said "To me it is a beautiful idea." These are not statements of fact, but at the very least, he provides enough of the quote for us to read that Spong concluded his ludicrous argument by saying, "I don't know that Paul was gay. That's a supposition."
(See Russell Dibird, "Paul Was A Homosexual," July 1, 2021, retrieved Jan 11, 2024, [https://nonorthodoxy.com/paul-was-a-homosexual/])

supposition (n): something that is supposed; assumption; hypothesis
(See 'supposition', Random House Dictionary, 2025, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

It deceitful to call it a supposition because it is not based on any factual information, making it a flat-out lie. If it is your assumption based on no evidence whatsoever, then why say it at all? They say it anyway so that rumors are spread, so people will believe it is true without investigation, in hopes they will have a justification to be queer, which (sadly to say) is a common problem among Catholic/Anglican clergy.
(Read Corruptons of Christianity: Catholicism at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Dibird has what I prefer to call a "conspiracy ministry," which is not a Biblical ministry at all; rather, such men focus on conspiracies and think they are doing "Bible studies." He is a flat-earth cultist and numerologist, adhering to pagan superstitions and calling them "Christian," switching Bible versions whenever he wants to manipulate the Scriptures to say what he desires, and offers "studies" on various topics, such as "God Made Adam's Body A Hermaphrodite Like Himself," "Reincarnation - Multiple Bible Proofs," and "Nephilim Were Adam's Hermaphroditic Human Children," just to name a few. All these things combined demonstrate how deep into lunacy a man can fall when he takes scissors to Holy Scriptures.
(Read The Heresies of the Flat-Earth Cult & "Numerology is Occult Divination" at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Davis Danizier is another PvC lunatic who also swaps out corrupt bible versions whenever it suits his purpose, and I have often warned Christians to beware preachers who do that. Just like Titus Hartford, Danizier does not believe the Bible is God's Word:
"We should accept the Bible for what it is: often wise and inspirational, but many times filled with error and cruelty. It is an important historical relic, and the original seed from which much of ethical theory in the Western world has developed, but its words must be discussed, analyzed and evaluated on their merits — as the writing of men, not of God. It does not claim to be anything more."
-Davis D. Danizier, "The Blasphemy of Bibleolatry," retrieved Jan 10, 2024, [https://danizier.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/the-blasphemy-of-bibleolatry/]

As you can see, PvC cultists do not believe the Holy Scriptures as written. They are faithless teachers—men of corrupt minds. They believe the Bible is nothing more than the poetic thoughts of men, and by this ideology, they ultimately become the gods of their own universe, deciding for themselves what is good or bad for literary consumption based solely on personal preferences.

Part of the reason I say the ideology of PvC cultists is based only on personal preference is because I find striking contradictions among them, with little consistency when comparing one to another. Some PvC cultists reject Luke (e.g. Hartford), while others accept Luke. There are some who accept Jude, while others reject Jude. This demonstrates that their decisions rest primarily on personal discretion, as men who worship their imagined intellect.

To assert that the Bible does not claim to be the written Word of God is a wild contradiction. There are countless places throughout the entire Bible where the author claims, whether directly or indirectly, to be the instruction of God:

Say unto them, As truly as I live, saith the LORD, as ye have spoken in mine ears, so will I do to you:
-Numbers 14:28

If the Lord God did not say these things as written—if He did not guide men to write His communication as they were instructed—then the men who wrote them down are liars because it would not be something "the LORD saith." It is not "wise" to lie to people, nor is it "inspirational" to deceive others into believing a lie, nor can it be "an important historical relic" because you cannot trust liars to have accurately recorded the history in question, and therefore, if what it says is not true, then the Bible would be a corrupt book that no one should study.
(Read God Does Not Justify Lies at creationliberty.com for more details.)

The Scriptures foretold the coming of Jesus, fulfilling very specific prophecies in the Old Testament, and then Jesus sent His ministers to preach His Word, giving them the power and guidance of the Holy Ghost to do so. His apostles confirmed the Word of God for the church and also confirmed Paul as one of them, but whether you accept this depends simply on whether you believe it, and PvC cultists do not believe it.

Danizier offers many nonsensical arguments for supposed "contradictions" between Jesus and Paul. I have no interest in covering them all because, as I said earlier, after a certain point, it becomes a waste of time to argue with those who act as children in understanding, rather than being children in malice. (1Co 14:20) It is the same pattern as all the other PvC cultists: ignoring context in favor of selective quotes to corrupt the interpretation of the verses.

However, we will look at a few examples just to get a general idea of how he corrupts Scripture. The following has to do with 1st Corinthians 5, which we covered earlier:
"Jesus ministered to the sinners, with no reluctance to engage adulterers, prostitutes, publicans, tax collectors, lepers, or any other 'unclean' person (the whole need not a physician; a church is a hospital for sinners rather than a showcase for saints). This, of course, completely devastates the argument that god cannot be in the presence of sin by anyone who believes Jesus was god. Paul contradicts Jesus in 1Cor 5:11:"
-Davis D. Danizier, "Paul vs. Jesus (and James)," Apr 22, 2011, retrieved Jan 10, 2024, [https://danizier.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/paul-vs-jesus-and-james/]

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
-1 Corinthians 5:11

As we covered earlier, the doctrine of the Holy Ghost through Paul in 1 Corinthians 5 concerns specifically those who call themselves "Christians" while living a lifestyle of sin. For example, I once saw a podcast in which the host interviewed a woman who openly admitted she was a prostitute and claimed she was also the pastor of a church building—which, sadly, is not surprising in the corrupt moral ideology of early 21st century America.

This is a direct contradiction because one cannot live an unrepentant life of fornication and adultery while claiming to be of Christ at the same time. Christians err in temptations of sin at times, but they do not live according to those sins without repentance and if they do, then we remove them from the church until they come to repentance—both for the sake of Christ and brethren in the church.

The verses in 1 Corinthians 5 do not concern conversations with unbelievers, and Paul states that specifically in the previous verse, which Danizier conveniently excluded from his argument. Understanding context requires reading passages in order (i.e. "line upon line" Isa 28:9-10), with correlating verses in consideration, but as we have learned about the PvC heretics, context is equivalent to the plague.

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
-1 Corinthians 5:9-10

Danizier said something else quite odd: "god cannot be in the presence of sin by anyone who believes Jesus was god." First, this indicates that Danizier does not believe Jesus is God, which is not shocking because many churchgoers and corrupt preachers I have researched share this same false belief; they have no understanding that they share that mindset with the unbelieving Jews who crucified Christ.

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. [i.e. Jesus just identified himself as God, as God did with Moses.] Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
-John 8:58-59

Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
-John 14:8-9

Perhaps Danizier and other PvC cultists do not understand how the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost can be three and one at the same time. I confess that I do not fully understand it either because I am a mere man who cannot begin to dissect the eternal things of God. However, Jesus told Philip that if he did not understand it, to believe it anyway for the sake of the works; therefore, I will believe it, whether I understand it or not.

Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
-John 14:10-11

Danizier chose to NOT believe Jesus Christ, and I contend that if he does not believe Jesus Christ on any single point, he believes Jesus is a liar. Therefore, he cannot offer any reason why we ought to believe ANYTHING Jesus Christ said, nor would he offer any reason because he does not believe the Bible is God's Word.

Furthermore, it is a huge leap of logic to conclude that, just because the Lord God does not permit sin in His Kingdom in Heaven, He "cannot be in the presence of sin." I had been working in ministry for 15 years when I finished writing this book, and that is the first time I have ever heard anyone make that argument because it makes no sense.

Abraham was a sinner just like us, but God sat down to lunch with him:

And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree: And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said. And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth. And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it. And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.
-Genesis 18:1-8

Jacob was a sinner, but God talked and wrestled with him:

And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
-Genesis 32:24-30

If we want to get really technical, sinners will stand before God on the final Day of Judgment, and therefore, there is no logical or Scriptural consistency in Danizier's ridiculous arguments—of which a thorough response to all of them would likely fill many volumes of books. In my opinion, this one book is sufficient to correct his error and warn Christians of PvC cultists.

As I have said many times, the foundational problem with PvC cultists is that their faith rests in themselves and their own efforts, not in Jesus Christ. They can claim faith in Christ all they want, but those are vain words because their beliefs contradict the Gospel of Salvation in Jesus Christ, and Danizier provides yet another example of that:
"Even in John 3, the discourse to Nicodemus on salvation as a gift of grace, Jesus includes specific behavioral requirements (John 3:19-21). In any case, while some writings (other than Paul) may occasionally discuss faith as a separate topic (as with honesty, courage, etc.), no one (except Paul) ever states that salvation can occur with any of these virtues apart from works/deeds actions. This does not mean that, in teaching us the behavior of salvation that Jesus did not thus give us a free gift far beyond what we could ever earn, a gift of grace, but it does not mean that it was given entirely apart from specified behavioral conditions, as Paul says."
-Davis D. Danizier, "Paul vs. Jesus (and James)," Apr 22, 2011, retrieved Dec 29, 2023, [https://danizier.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/paul-vs-jesus-and-james/]

Danizier claimed that "no one ever states that salvation can occur with any of these virtues apart from works/deeds actions," even though the verses he cited was preceeded by, arguably, the most famous verse in the world:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
-John 3:16

Danizier said that no one except Paul ever taught that salvation was gained apart from works, but we just read Jesus Christ tell us that salvation is by faith (i.e. "believeth"), not by works. This means Danizier cited a section of Scripture out of context to justify a false, works-based ideology—which is what I have repeatedly pointed out that PvC cultists do.

To verify this, let's continue through John 3:

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
-John 3:17

The Jews, in their self-righteousness and without love for their neighbor, thought Jesus (i.e. God) would come to this world to condemn those around them; instead, Jesus said He came to save the world. The Word of God—through the law and prophets—already condemns the world, which leaves Christ no need to condemn sinners, and though Christ did condemn men at times (Mat 23:13-16), that was not the purpose of His coming to this world the first time.

condemn (v): to pronounce to be utterly wrong
(See 'condemn', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Dec 27, 2025, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Notice that in John 3:17, it specifically says that men would be saved "through HIM," not through their works. This is why Jesus follows up with verse 18—which is what Danizier did NOT include in his citation (i.e. he cited 19-21, but left out verse 18):

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
-John 3:18

Repentance (i.e. the humility of godly sorrow for sins) is a vital part of the Gospel of Salvation, as Jesus said in other verses (Mark 1:14-15, Luke 24:44-47), but the main point of this verse is that those who are condemned (i.e. judged guilty as evildoers) are those who do not believe on the Son of God. Jesus did NOT say that those who fail a list of prescribed works, deeds, rituals, or ceremonies are condemned—that is what PvC cultists choose to believe because they reject the narrow path of Christ in favor of their own efforts.
(Read There is No Saving Grace Without Repentance at creationliberty.com for more details.)

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
-John 3:19

Notice that Jesus did NOT say this is the path to salvation; rather, He said the condemnation (i.e. the guilt of men) is that they hide in darkness and do not come to the light to be judged with righteous judgment. If they did, they could be given the gift of repentance (2Ti 2:25) and a love of the truth that they might be saved. (2Th 2:10)

Christ is the light that has come into the world (John 8:12), not the law, which was only a shadow of things to come. (Heb 10:1) Now that Christ has come, all things point to faith in Him, but the Jews hid in the darkness of their sin while holding up ceremonies to make themselves appear "holy." (Mat 23:25)

Hypocrites who hide in darkness do not judge themselves (1Co 11:31), and they do not want the Word of God judging them either. Thus, they ignore God's Word, or try to find loopholes in the Bible as the Pharisees did, or cut out large portions of Scripture like the Sadducees and PvC cultists have done.

For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
-John 3:20

Those who hate Christ and His Gospel do so because He rebukes their evil deeds. They refuse to hear the truth of Christ preached to them because they do not want their willful error exposed. In the context of this book, PvC cultists do not want to hear the truth of the Gospel of Christ in its fullness because it brings them open shame, instructing them to depart from the prideful delusions of their corrupt ideology.

For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.
-Philippians 3:18-19

The Christian who acts according to the Gospel of Christ—having faith in Christ established in him by the Holy Ghost—shapes his words and actions according to the truth of Scripture. This means he willingly comes to the light of the Gospel to be judged, judging himself according to those standards and correcting himself as needed. This demonstrates that his works are a RESULT of his faith, NOT the source of it, because those deeds are "wrought in God"—that is, done because of the work of Christ in us, by grace through faith, not by debt through work.

However, Danizier does not understand these basic principles, and like other PvC cultists, he remains willingly blind to them—in fact, he is so blind that he goes on to state that Jesus gave us the free gift of salvation "far beyond what we could ever earn, a gift of grace." This, to me, is hilarious considering that, outside of John 1:16-17, grace is barely mentioned in the Four Gospels, let alone the "gift of grace," but it is mentioned many times by Paul and the other apostles whom Danizier (and the other PvC cultists) rip out of the Bible.

The more I read from the writings of these cultists, the more I see them paraphrasing things Paul wrote, then condemning Paul for saying them—which is hypocrisy at its peak. Even though we just read Jesus Christ (in the contextual verses Danizier cited) state that salvation is by faith, and even though Danizier himself called salvation a gift of grace, he contradicts all of that by claiming that "it does not mean that it was given entirely apart from specified behavioral conditions," or in other words, he believes salvation is a gift of grace that is only given if you perform certain deeds.

This shows us that PvC cultists do not understand the basic definition of the word 'grace', and obviously, have no clue of its doctrinal application:

grace (n): favor; good will; kindness; the free unmerited love and favor of God

unmerited (n): not merited; not deserved; obtained without service or equivalent
(See 'grace' & 'unmerited', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Dec 29, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

I believe Noah Webster hit the nail on the head with the word 'unmerited' because that describes the very essence of a gift:

gift (n): a present; any thing given or bestowed; any thing, the property of which is voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation
(See 'gift', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Dec 29, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

If I give a man money, I have given him a gift. However, if I give him money on the condition that he do some work, then it becomes a down payment on wages—meaning that I owe him that money for his work. However, the general position I have seen from PvC cultists is that they perform works first, then when God gives them salvation for those works, they call it "grace," which makes no sense because it is no longer a gift—it would be a wage owed.

wages (n): hire; reward; that which is paid or stipulated for services; but chiefly for services by manual labor; fruit; recompense
(See 'wages', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Dec 29, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

In the view of PvC cultists, salvation is the wages of their works, but they falsely label it "grace" or a "gift" to deceive others into thinking they believe the same as Christians. However, they have only proven that they are either willingly ignorant of what a gift is, or they are liars who deceive others into believing that wages can be called "grace"—even though that is impossible.

After reading various documents and listening to various videos on the subject, I am convinced that the core of their hatred for Paul is because he strips away their façade of works-based righteousness—which they can never achieve—and exposes the pride of their hearts:

And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
-Romans 11:6

That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
-Ephesians 2:7-10

Earlier in this book, we read from Matthew 7:21-23, but because Danizier made the statement that no one but Paul taught grace apart from works, let's read it again:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
-Matthew 7:21-23

In this context, these are people who, on the Day of Judgment, claim they served Christ with their works, but Jesus turns them away to everlasting fire. One might argue that He turned them away because they worked "iniquity," but that begs the question: Why did their good works not pay for their evil works? Why did the works they did for Christ not cancel out their iniquity?

Some may say "faith" as an answer. Again, they did works for Him their entire lives, so they obviously believed on Jesus, but are turned away from the Kingdom of Heaven.

Some inexperienced Christian readers might find it appauling that I would say believers on Jesus may not be saved. To answer that, I would encourage you to read John chapter eight carefully, as Jesus started out talking to a whole crowd of believers (John 8:31), and soon after, told them they were all of the devil. (John 8:44)

I will cover the missing ingredient momentarily, but for now, please consider: what is the foundation of the church? Did Jesus say that our works were the foundation of His church, or our faith?

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
-Matthew 16:13-18

Although Catholics (and other Catholic-based denominations) erroneously teach the laughably absurd notion that Peter was the foundation of the church, the context of the passage shows that the bedrock of the church is faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God. Salvation is not the works we do, but faith in Him, and then, the works we do come as a result of that faith authored in us.
(Read Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism at creationliberty.com for more details.)

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.
-Hebrew 12:2

However, for PvC cultists, God the Father did not reveal it to them. They lack spiritual understanding and still rely on flesh and blood. The truth remains hidden from them because they are prideful and have not humbled themselves to repentance—which is the key to understanding the latter part of the Sermon on the Mount. (i.e. Matthew 7)

I read the Sermon on the Mount shortly after being saved, but it was not until many years later that it occurred to me—or rather, the Spirit of God helped me to see—what all this really meant. On the Day of Judgment, the Lord Jesus Christ will separate what He called His sheep (i.e. the faithful saints) from the goats (i.e. those who professed to be "Christians" but are not), and from a distance, they may look like part of the flock, but on closer inspection, they are not sheep.

And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
-Matthew 25:32-33

Bear with me, because as I walk through the Scriptures on this, it will lead us into the doctrine of repentance—even though the word "repent" never appears in this passage. In Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus told us that the goats argued with Him that they were very dedicated to Him, and based on their testimony, it indicates that they attended church buildings every week to sing songs about the grace and mercy of Christ, gave lots of money, volunteered their time, and took on the roles of prophets, evangelists, and pastors, but Jesus said He never knew them.

Of course, as a believer on the Lord Jesus Christ, this made me tremble in fear (Isa 66:2) because I did not want to be counted among the goats. So I desperately wanted to know what separated the two groups. Since both sides claim to have believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, and done many wonderful works in His name, why are so many of them going to hell, while few go to heaven? Some readers may be surprised to learn that this simple question disturbs churchgoers to such a degree that they will condemn you for asking it. They will ban you, block you, tuck their tails between their legs, and run away. This question is so controversial that I can find almost no pastors, elders, or churchgoers even willing to engage in peaceful discussion on the matter.

Obviously, simply saying "belief on Jesus" is NOT the answer; otherwise, they would all be going to heaven. Churchgoers often respond by saying it is "TRUE faith," but that just begs the question: "What is the difference between TRUE faith and FAKE faith?"

Thankfully, the Lord Jesus Christ gave us a clue in Matthew 25, so we just need to keep reading:

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
-Matthew 25:34-40

Some readers, especially those in the PvC/JWO cult, might think this is a list of works one must do to enter the Kingdom of God, or that we have to do works for the right people to gain credit. That is not the answer. As we saw in Matthew 7:21-23, their works did not matter for salvation—Jesus still sent them to hell despite their good works.

This is NOT about works, and the mystery to this puzzle is solved by comparing the reactions of sheep with the goats:

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
-Matthew 25:41-46

So on one hand, we have the sheep, and when Jesus Christ tells them of their good deeds done unto Him, they are confused about when or how they had done these things for Him, but on the other hand, we have the goats, and when Jesus Christ tells them of their lack of good deeds unto Him, are confused about how they had NOT done these things for Him because they had all these works (mentioned in Matthew 7:21-23) to show for it. The key point to take away is that one group does not see their works as worthy of praise, while the other group demands to be praised for their works.

So what is the difference
between the sheep and the goats?

humility (n): freedom from pride and arrogance; lowliness of mind; a deep sense of one's own unworthiness in the sight of God, self-abasement, penitence for sin, and submission to the divine will
(See 'humility', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Jan 5, 2024, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith,
God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
-James 4:6

Pride goeth before destruction,
and an haughty spirit before a fall.
-Proverbs 16:18

The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart;
and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.
-Psalm 34:18

There is a substantial lack of humility among PvC cultists. It is very easy to find an abundance of arrogance, conceitedness, self-righteousness, and haughtiness among their preachers and followers. This is because they trust in their own works to save them—or in other words, they hold themselves as the equivalent of Jesus Christ for righteousness, which is why, if they will not humble themselves to repentance before the Day of Judgment, Christ will count them among the goats.

In his article, Danizier later says:
"I have been asked occasionally why I believe so many people are willing to follow Paul... It is the easy way. Jesus requires you to actually transform your character and put it into action. Paul says, 'Just have faith and believe' and you get a free gift, without ever having to actually DO anything — something for nothing; the easy way out; the lazy man's way to salvation; the free ride."
-Davis D. Danizier, "Paul vs. Jesus (and James)," Apr 22, 2011, retrieved Dec 29, 2023, [https://danizier.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/paul-vs-jesus-and-james/]

There is a degree to which I can understand the sentiment, as there are many lazy churchgoers who follow what many call "easy-believism," in which someone simply says he "believes on Jesus" and claims to be saved, yet there is no transformation in his life. He merely attends a church building and does nothing for the sake of Christ and His church. I have seen countless examples of this, but this occurs because of the lack of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (i.e. the motivation to change one's philosophy and do good works), not because he did not do enough works; rather, his heart and mind were not changed by the humility of repentance.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
-Ephesians 2:8-9

For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
-2 Corinthians 7:10

Danizier, as well as all the other PvC cultists, pride themselves in their works, boasting of them and thinking themselves better than others because they have done so many religious deeds—or rather, things they perceive to be "holy." They scoff at Paul because he was a former Pharisee, but they fail to see that they are Pharisees in spirit. The Pharisees kept the law much more than the PvC cultists ever could, leaving them unable to exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, but all them will end up in hell because they rejected the imputed righteousness of Christ.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
-Matthew 23:23

Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
-Matthew 23:24

Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
-Matthew 23:28

With that, I believe this examination of the false doctrine of these corrupt preachers is enough to prove the point. There is no need for us to continue endlessly sifting through their nonsense. There are some other false teachers out there pushing the PvC message, but thankfully, they are somewhat difficult to find.

Of course, that begs the question why I bothered to write a book on this subject if the opposition is small. My goal is to strengthen the faith of my Christian brethren in the Word of God (hopefully, in the King James Bible), so you can not only learn how to understand Scripture in context, but also move forward with full confidence that your faith rests on a solid foundation in Scripture.

When a man takes the Bible out of context, he produces a near-endless supply of absurd arguments that he thinks are legitimate simply because of how he feels about the Scriptures he tries to interpret. This is why it is better for us to teach the truth of Scripture than to try unpacking every erroneous argument ever made. (Eph 5:10)

However, it leaves us curious why they make such nonsensical arguments. The reason almost always comes down to an attempt to justify their works as the foundation for their salvation. While I was writing this book, I noticed that their out-of-context arguments from the Bible, cherry-picking, and works-based ideology, were strikingly similar to those of the flat-earth cultists, and I wrote a separate book on their false doctrines called, The Heresies of the Flat-Earth Cult.

In that book, I expound on the idea of cherry-picking—the process of artificially selecting a small portion of a passage and creating a narrative apart from its intended meaning. Both PvC and flat-earth cultists use this fallacious method to support their arguments, without addressing context or correlating doctrine.

cherry-pick (v): to choose or take the best or most profitable of (a number of things), esp for one's own benefit
(See 'cherry-pick', Random House Dictionary, 2023, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

For example, let's consider the following verse:

I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall
be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
-John 10:9

If you knew nothing else about the Bible and I only showed you this verse, I might be able to convince you that Jesus claimed He was a literal door, made of wood with hinges, and that men pass through that literal door to "find pasture," meaning we literally go out to a field to feed on grass. However, because we know there are more verses surrounding this passage, we understand this is an analogy:

Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
-John 10:7-10

With the context in mind, it is much easier to see the full meaning of the analogy. Jesus describes Himself as a passageway, keeping some in and some out to protect the sheep. The sheep are an analogy for born-again Christians who do not literally eat grass, but feed on that which is spiritual from the Word of God, which we also know from other correlating Scripture.

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
-Acts 20:28

The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
-1 Peter 5:1-4

However, if we rip these correlating verses out of the Bible, we are left unsure as to what Jesus is referring to. Furthermore, when you remove the context and cherry-pick one phrase from a passage (e.g. "I am the door"), you have no manuscript evidence to interpret it any other way than Jesus being a literal door. You can guess at it or assume things based on how you feel about it, but you no longer have the evidence needed to prove otherwise.

This is the sleight-of-hand strategy that PvC cultists use to justify their works as the foundation of their faith, rather than their faith as the foundation of their works. If that were not absurd enough, many PvC/JWO cultists claim they abide by the instructions of Isaiah 28 when studying Scripture.

We covered this at the start of this book, but let's take a look again to refresh our minds:

For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
-Isaiah 28:10-13

I listened to Titus Hartford's attempt to reinterpret this by claiming it refers to "speaking in tongues" because of the "stammering lips." What he clearly does not understand is that the "stammering lips" are the languages of the Gentiles, in which the Word of God would be given through the Holy Ghost in a language that was not Hebrew. From the Jews' perspective, it would sound like stammering because they did not understand it, but by this means, we Christians would receive the fullness of Scripture in context (i.e. "line upon line"), with correlating commandments (i.e. "precept upon precept"), and adding to it with correlating doctrines scattered throughout the Bible. (i.e. "here a little and there a little")

This is why God prefaced those verses in Isaiah 28 by saying:

Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
-Isaiah 28:9

In blatant hypocrisy, PvC cultists think themselves in accordance with Isaiah 28 on this issue, and they believe themselves superior in understanding, when in reality, they do not even grasp the very basics of the Gospel of Salvation. Yet they go on to teach in their conceitedness, as if they possess wisdom and understanding, and scoff at those who try to help them see that they do not know enough of even the milk of the Word to teach anything on it.

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
-Hebrews 5:12-14

They press forward to gain followers that will adhere to their pernicious works-based ideology, turning people back to their vomit like dogs. This is why, one more verse earlier in Isaiah 28, God said:

For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness,
so that there is no place clean..
-Isaiah 28:8

And Peter expands on this understanding:

For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
-2 Peter 2:18-22

Whether they escaped the bondage of the Gentiles and their sin, or the works-based bondage of Judaism, it is worse for them to have known the truth (i.e. repentance and godly sorrow for sin, and grace through faith in the blood of Christ, Mark 1:15) and turned from it, than never to have known it at all. If they had never known it, it would be easier to preach the truth to them, but having known it and turned away, they are like pigs returning to the mud from which they were washed—except now they think themselves clean while wallowing in the filth, believing they are righteous in their unrighteousness.

God set a trap (i.e. a snare, Isa 28:13) for these people in His Word, so that while they profess godliness in the delusion of their self-righteousness, they would be entrapped by their corrupt philosophy and teach false doctrine. A good example of this is when Jesus preached to the wealthy young man about how to gain entrance to heaven:

And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
-Mark 10:17-22

By the correlating verses in Luke, we know this man was a governing official (Luke 18:18) who was also very wealthy. Though many interpret this to mean a man must keep the Ten Commandments to "inherit eternal life," they err heavily without understanding. When I was a young Christian, these verses baffled me. I was taught that salvation came by the grace (or gift) of Christ through faith, but Christ answered the wealthy young ruler with the law, and it was not until I gained more knowledge through various doctrines that I could read this passage carefully and understand it fully.

Although some may find the wealthy young ruler's kneeling to be humble, it was misplaced because Jesus first addressed his unbelief before saying anything else. The young man's unbelief is evident in his calling Jesus "good," and though this also confused me when I was young, it is key to understanding the passage in its entirety.

Jesus is good, of course, because He is God. Not only is Jesus good, but He is the standard of all goodness; rather, He is the essence of goodness itself. So why did He rebuke the young man for calling Him "good"?

Jesus answered him this way because the young man did not believe that Jesus is God; rather, he believed Jesus was merely a very wise man. Kneeling before a man can be a symbol of humility in certain circumstances, but in this case, he knelt before Jesus for spiritual purposes, giving the honor that belongs to God alone to someone he thought was just an ordinary man. This caused Jesus to correct his erroneous philosophy and give him understanding that, in the spiritual sense, he should kneel to no one but the Lord God and should call no man "good" in the spiritual sense except the Lord.

Jesus pointed out his unbelief, then proceeded to answer the young man according to his unbelief. Jesus answered by the law—not because we are saved by the works of the law, but so that we might consider that we have not kept the law, and this answer was intended to bring the young man to repentance (i.e. broken-heartedness) for his sin against God.

This is why Paul taught the following in perfect correlation with Christ:

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
-Galatians 3:21-25

The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul:
the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
-Psalm 19:7

Therefore, Jesus showed us the right way to evangelize to the lost: We give them the law. This is why, for many years now, I have told people what a waste of time and energy it is to put up a bunch of "Jesus saves" signs because Jesus does not save the proud of heart—He only saves those who are humbled to repentance, and the schoolmaster that disciplines them to bring them to repentance is the law.

But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.
-James 4:6-10

In order to bring them to that state of repentance—in which they mourn and weep in their affliction, understanding their sin for what it is—they must hear the law and understand that they cannot keep it. Only then do they need to hear the "Jesus saves" message, and only then will it be effective to the hearer.

But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
-Matthew 13:23

The wealthy young ruler then lied to Jesus. The young man told him that he had kept the whole of the law, which he had not because all have sinned, and just one sin means you have broken all of the law:

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
-Romans 3:23

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
-Romans 5:12

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and
yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
-James 2:10

Jesus did not argue back with the young man on this point because it would have entered into a debate that was unnecessary. Jesus is God, and God has no need to bicker with someone who does not want to hear the truth.

Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest thou also be like unto him.
-Proverbs 26:4

Instead, Jesus answered him by challenging the young man according to the righteousness that he claimed for himself by saying, "go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me." This is because the fulfillment of the law and prophets is charity (Mat 7:12), meaning that a man has no need to keep the law once he has charity established in his heart by the Holy Spirit, and because the wealthy young man had no charity in his heart, he went away grieved over his true love—his wealth—even though Jesus still "loved him" enough to tell him the truth. (Mark 10:21)

The humility of repentance (i.e. godly sorrow for one's own sins) is the difference between the sheep and the goats. Repentance is the difference between the wheat and the tares. Repentance is the difference between the saints and false converts.
(Read "Jesus Said There Are Many False Converts" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

This is why John the Baptist—when he came to preach—taught the people the humility of repentance, that they ought to be broken-hearted for their sins, so God would grant them His grace. He would baptized them only according to that doctrine:

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the
baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
-Mark 1:4

John the Baptist pointed the people to Jesus Christ (Mat 3:11-15), and the first thing Jesus Christ taught when He started out in His ministry was repentance:

From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say,
Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
-Matthew 4:17

Jesus taught His disciples what they should teach, and the first thing they preached was repentance:

And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits... And they went out, and preached that men should repent.
-Mark 6:7-12

In Acts 2, after the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles of Christ, the first thing they went out and taught was repentance. The apostles then taught the new members of the church, and the first thing the church went out and taught was that men should come to godly sorrow of their wrongdoing:

When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
-Acts 11:18

But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
-Acts 26:20

And after all the research I have done into the Paul-vs-Christ heresies, I would tell them the same thing because I am thoroughly convinced that these men have never come to repentance of their sins. The very fact that they think they can work their way to heaven, while scoffing at others who preach the Gospel of Grace, is clear evidence that they have not come to godly sorrow for their offenses against God.

And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart [i.e. unrepentant; no sorrow for wrongdoing] treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
-Romans 2:3-5

And this is why the Holy Ghost (through Paul) advised us to sanctify ourselves away from men who claim to be of Christ, but will not hear the wholesome words of sound doctrine:

If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
-1 Timothy 6:3-5

If any reader is not familiar with the doctrine of repentance for the remission of sins, I would highly recommend reading some other books I wrote on this subject, and they are free-to-read at creationliberty.com: By exposing the PvC cult's unjustified rejection of Paul's doctrine, we have discovered it is not mere disagreement, but a deep-seated hatred of Christ's apostles, and thus, a hatred of Christ Himself. It should now make sense why they cling hopelessly to works-bondage instead of grace-liberty.

With this understanding, we have a duty to point out corrupt men who publicly preach a false gospel (Rom 16:17-18), and have no fellowship with them (Eph 5:11) unless they come to repentance of their wrongdoing. (Luke 17:3) By reading this book, I hope that you have increased in knowledge and understanding of God's Word, and gained wisdom to build solely on the Holy Ghost's contextual instruction through His apostles in the New Testament.

Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
-2 Peter 3:18

Thank you for taking your precious time to read this book. If you found this useful, please share it with someone else. I pray the Lord Jesus Christ would richly bless you and your family in all that you say and do for Him, and I pray He would be merciful to the PvC/JWO cultists, to give them the same gifts of repentance and faith that He was gracious enough to give me.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
-2 Peter 3:9

CLE Newsletter

Monthly updates & free teachings.

We respect your privacy. Monthly updates only. Unsubscribe anytime.

Subscribe

Thank you!

You are now subscribed.