So looking into Mark Fairley's doctrine, I decided to go to some key points. The first being his doctrine on repentance. Now, the problem with Fairley is the same problem that I see with a lot of other leavened preachers is that he does not define what he means by what he says, and therefore, we have to infer what he means by the way he uses the words he writes.
For example, in a teaching he has called "DAVID HYPOCRISY VS. SAUL HYPOCRISY," Fairley makes many statements about Christians needed to "repent," but never defines what that means. However, we can infer that he believes that 'repent' means "to turn from sin" by the way he uses the word in the context of his sentences.
https://thefuelproject.org/blog/2018/5/14/david-hypocrisy-vs-saul-hypocrisyAnd yet here's the important thing: when David was confronted about them, he confessed and repented immediately saying, "I have sinned against the Lord." (2 Samuel 12:13) David then promptly recommitted to principles he believed in and he lived those principles out.So you can see how he is defining repentance as "turning from sin" because he talks about how David was "recommitting" and "living principles out." This is not to say that we ought not to turn from sin, but again, Fairley is using the wrong definition of repentance than what Scripture uses.
We can see it again here:
David repented quickly of his sin; Saul didn't. That David was a better repenter than Saul is the only reason we think favourably about David and not of Saul.The phrase "better repenter" implies a work of action. Do we say that a man is a "better laugher" than another? Do we say that a man is a "better crier" than another? No. We say that man is a "better worker" than another, and therefore, we can see Fairley hidden works-based philosophy; it's just that the average reader won't catch that without discernment from God's Word.
Is Repentance Part of Salvation?He says other phrases like:
"they are no longer "Davids" who confess and quickly repent of their attitude"The problem is that repentance is a complete change of attitude itself, and so his phrase is redundant, unless he's defining repentance as "turning from sin."
I also find it amazing how he ends the article by saying that repentance is the key to the whole thing, but then when I search his site, he has almost nothing on repentance. He has 11 short paragraphs in which he doesn't define what he's talking about, and that's it. Something smells fishy here.
I tried looking up his position on a lot of different subjects, like tithe, Greek lexicons and concordances, speaking in tongues, and other various things. I cannot find any information on his site about any of this stuff, so it's very difficult to tell what this guy believes about a lot of things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDDGl79x4Pc&list=PLCED9C361662866BD&index=1So now, because I cannot figure out what he believes about a bunch of doctrines, I have no choice but to go the playlist suggested, so I'm going to part 1, and all I can say in the first minute is that if Fairley is trying to "preach the gospel" in "creative and inspiring ways," he needs to learn volume control on his videos so I don't have to crank up the volume to hear him speak, and then get my ear drums blasted out when he starts playing rock music a few moments later.
Okay, after watching "part 1," it was a complete waste of time. It was a really terrible song put in front of a bunch of images and topical words. *sigh* Next... on to part 2...
The next thing I'm noticing is what I see in a lot of preachers who adhere to new-age corrupt bible versions, and those who deceive their listeners by telling them what the Bible says, rather than quoting the Bible. That's exactly what he does in his blog as well. I'm not saying he never quotes Scripture, but it seems to be a rare occurrence. Most of the time, he gives references to the Scripture, but does not quote it.
He's also using a lot of imagery to influence people, and I also get red flags in my mind when people do that as well.
Okay, so now he's going into the physical appearance of Lucifer, attempting to describe it to lay a foundation for his argument. The problem with what he's arguing is that Lucifer
USED to be beautiful, meaning, past tense. Fairley is speaking present tense.
I think Fairley may not have studied enough on this topic before making his video. God made Satan a serpent in Genesis:
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
-Gen 3:14-15Of course, Satan can make himself to appear as other things, even an angel of light, unto the eyes of men...
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
-2Co 11:14...but God took away Lucifer's natural beauty during the fall. If Lucifer was naturally an angel of light, then why would he have to transform himself into an angel of light? Read the past tense:
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
-Isa 14:12-13Then Fairley brings us to what he says is "Ezekiel 28:12-13," but I think he referenced the wrong verses because he quotes verse 15 from his corrupt new-age version:
Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
-Eze 28:15Again, past tense. So Fairly is taking what once was, and then applying it today as if Lucifer is still the same as he once was, which is incorrect. But worse still, he titles this series "Know Your Enemy." That's... I don't even know what to say to that. It's not wrong to misunderstand something or make a mistake. Certainly, I have done that many times, but when we have someone join the forum and immediately jump in to say, "Hey everyone, enjoy this" as if he has discernment on the matter, I have to point out the problems with such videos to try and protect the rest of the church from being deceived.
I'm sorry, I know I'm only 90 seconds into part 2, but I have no interest in going any further. To me, I see someone who studies new-age bible versions, and I suspect he relies on Greek grammar dictionaries (although I don't have the evidence of that yet), gives incorrect references at the beginning of his teaching, and then gives incorrect information when interpreting it. On top of that, I cannot find basic doctrines on many things, and the guy says he's been doing this for almost a decade.
I think "The Fuel Project" is leavened, and I think people are going to get a false gospel from it. I think Fairley's true motivation (based on his own words) is to try and artistically style the Bible because imagery, music, and video editing is his true passion, and he wants to be a part of the "conspiracy ministry" crowd. He thinks being a "conspiracy ministry" and making "cool vids" is what will make the gospel of Jesus more attractive (i.e. it gets him views, likes, and donations), and that is based on a lack of understanding about the Gospel and the workings of the Holy Spirit.
I hope that helps.
