Mosaïek: A Christian Church or a Buddhist Retreat? – Part 1

A Biblical appraisal of the Mosaïek Conversations held at the Mosaïek Church in Fairlands, Johannesburg in Sept. 2010

What is the most water tight proof that the Bible is the inspired Word of God? PROPHECY! If we take into account that every single prophecy concerning the first advent of Jesus Christ, His birth, death on the cross, resurrection and ascension were fulfilled one hundred per cent, we may know with absolute certainty that all the prophecies relating to His Second Advent will also be fulfilled one hundred per cent.

The most alarming and saddening fact about His Second Advent is that it will be preceded by a great falling away (2 Thessalonians 2:3). This was foretold by Paul more than two thousand years ago. One would have expected the very opposite to be more feasible and that His followers would grow in grace and greater wisdom, especially when seen in the light of the great joy that awaits those who believe in Him and are expectantly waiting for His return at the Rapture. Sadly, this is not the case. The Emergent Church rejects the Rapture and are instead on a contemplative journey to establish the Kingdom of God on earth here and now Wow! No wonder Paul wrote:

Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves]. (Romans 1:22; Amplified Bible)

Ironically, the paraphrase of Romans 1:22 in “The Message” by Eugene Peterson (one of Stephan Joubert’s and the Mosaïek pastors’ heroes) describes exactly what they are doing on their emergent journey.

What happened was this: People knew God perfectly well but when they didn’t treat him like God, refusing to worship him, they trivialized themselves in stillness and confusion so that there was neither sense nor direction left in their lives.

Isn’t that uncanny? Although it was not Eugene’s Peterson’s intention, him being an emergent himself, to categorize the Emergent Church’s journey with his paraphrase of Romans 1:22, he did so unwittingly. Allow me to paraphrase Peterson’s paraphrase of Romans 1:22.

What happened is this: The Emergent Church knows perfectly well who God is but they don’t treat Him like God, refusing to worship Him the way He commanded them to worship Him in his Word (John 4:24; Hebrews 10:19-23). Instead they have trivialized themselves with practices like silence and stillness in their so-called contemplative prayers, believing that it (the stillness/silence) is the first language of God and that it brings them into the presence of God. This led to confusion known as the cloud of unknowing where nothing is certain any longer. Not even the propositional truths in God’s Word are relevant in our societies. (Stephan Joubert attests to this in his now famous declaration: “We need to stand up for the truth.” People like saying that. However, “standing up” is equal to religious protest for some. It is to unmercifully [and tactlessly] tackle sin and injustice. Does that help? No! I would be able to quote a couple of studies that show how those “standing up for the truth” efforts of religious people have no real healing effect on society. It only serves to highlight the boundaries between “us” and “them.” It makes religious folks come across more judgmental than ever. But it does not embody Jesus’ words that we need to let our light shine before people in order for them to see our GOOD WORKS and glorify our heavenly Father [Matthew 5:16]). Their confusion has navigated them onto a journey that neither has sense nor direction. It leads to a futuristic kingdom of great imaginations and wishful thinking.

When speaking of the RAPTURE we are immediately touching on a topic that seems to be one of the most potent reasons for the falling away. More and more Christians who see themselves as biblically sound evangelicals are shunning the doctrine of the Rapture as mere escapism and opting instead for the notion that the Christian Church should take hands with other religions to make the world a better place or, as the EC fraternity refer to it, to bring in and to expand the Kingdom of God on earth. Rick Warren, as you know, was one of the most important personalities who spearheaded the GLOBAL PEACE PLAN which gave the quest for common ground between religions a huge lift-off on its palatability launching pad. Palatability is the key word to the successful inauguration of the Kingdom of God on earth, so they say. However, the great tragedy in the quest for common ground amongst all the religions is that the Christians are making all the major compromises while all the other religions refuse point-blank to betray their own doctrines. Nonetheless, the question we need to ask ourselves is whether those who are falling into the fathomless chasm of apostasy are Christians in the biblical sense of the word or are they unbelievers who are masquerading as disciples of Jesus Christ? (2 Corinthians 11:13, 14). I tend to believe that they are not genuine Christians and I say this on account of Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 7:10:

For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death. (Emphasis added).

A person who is truly born from above will never regret his or her salvation. They will never be dissatisfied with God’s propositional truths in his Word and venture to rethink and adapt it to suit the whims of men and their corrupt cultures. They refuse to walk in the old paths (Jeremiah 6:16) and have instead opted for new paths that are leading them to destruction.

One of Gautama Buddha’s famous sayings on his path or journey was: “It is better to travel than to arrive.” A well-known offshoot of this is the maxim: “Life is a journey, not a destination” or “It’s the journey, not the destination.” It reminds me of the hit song, Caravans, some time ago with the nostalgic chorus lyrics: “I don’t know where I’m going but I’m going.” It conjures up a picture of a group of desert nomads on a bunch of thirsty camels (a caravan, as it is known) on their way to nowhere. Can you imagine Moses singing the words “We don’t know where we’re going but we’re going” to the Israelites in the wilderness? You rarely find Emergent Church pastors preaching on heaven and hell as final destinations. Their main objective is to remind their audiences of the life they need to live here and now, this side of the grave. One may safely say that their sermons always lean heavily toward a Kingdom Now Theology than a Final Destination Theology. A good example is a sermon Stephan Joubert delivered at the Mosaïek Church in Fairlands, Johannesburg on Sunday, 10 July this year. His sermon formed part of a series called “Our questions about . . .” in which several other preachers, amongst them Ron Martoia, Trevor Hudson, Manie Botha and Johan Geyser tackled topics such as “Our questions about  the Bible;”  “. . . about sin;”  “. . . about heaven and hell;”  “. . . about church” etc. In Stephan Joubert’s sermon on questions about heaven and hell it is evident from the very outset that he had no intention to present his audience with a biblical exegesis of heaven and hell. Instead, he used his sermon to defend Rob Bell’s highly controversial book “Love Wins” and guess what? . . . he begins his sermon by saying that Bell’s book “has more to do with life on this side than with life on the other side.”

The conversation about heaven and hell gained momentum a couple of months ago, especially in the USA, when the well-known preacher, writer and video maker,  . . ., Rob Bell, wrote a book entitled “Love Wins.” The book wasn’t even published yet when the fat was already in the fire and sparked a conversation about whether he was a universalist, meaning that he believes in the salvation of all mankind after death. Now, interestingly enough, I think when I read the book, it has more to do with life on this side than with life on the other side. But it is evident that in America and perhaps also in South Africa peoples’ correct way of thinking is measured by what they believe about the other side and not so much about how they live and how they follow God on this side. [May I remind Stephan Joubert that Jesus, whom he claims to follow, placed an exceptionally high priority on the other side, i.e. His personal abode in heaven. Not only did He die on a cursed tree to make it possible for all mankind to escape the jaws of hell and to be with Him in heaven for all eternity; He also expressed a profound desire for all his true followers to be with Him in heaven when He said: "Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. (John 14:1-3). It is His heart’s desire that His true disciples be with Him where He is. Indeed, His entire mission in heaven at the right hand of God is to prepare a place for His true followers in heaven].

It is not my intention to evaluate Stephan Joubert’s sermon in the light of Scripture in this commentary. My main objective is to to deliver an in depth critique on the Mosaïek Church’s Conversations held on their premises last year in September. The reason I used a snippet from Stephan Joubert’s sermon is to show you to what extent Gautama Buddha’s maxim “It is better to travel than to arrive” has influenced the Emergent Church’s Kingdom Now philosophy. Furthermore, I used the snippet to prove to you that Stephan Joubert’s assumption that Rob Bell’s book “Love Wins” revolves mainly around this life and the way you live it, is totally wrong. In fact Rob Bell’s own introduction in the preface to his book, proves that Stephan Joubert has misread and misunderstood his book. Listen to this.

Bell’s book leaves its readers with the impression that Jesus came to this world to just love everyone, regardless of what they have done and what they are doing. Notice that Bell only quotes the first part of John 3:16 “For God so loved the world . . .” and conveniently omits the rest of the passage “so that everyone who believes on Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Jesus said that He came to this world to seek and to save the lost (Luke 19:10). If everyone eventually makes it to heaven because God just simply loves everyone, then His cross saves every person automatically without them having to believe in Him. Bell’s rendition of John 3:16 would then have to read as follows: “For God so loved the world that everyone may go to heaven.” Calvinists see the the cross of Christ in a similar way, i.e. that His cross saves the elect automatically without them having to believe prior to their regeneration. If the cross of Christ did not save all the elect automatically his death would have been a failure, so they say.

In Bell’s rendition of John 3:16 there is no mention of unbelievers perishing in hell because of their rejection of the cross (1 Corinthians 1:18), simply because they get a second chance after death. God loves the world; yes that is true, but his love has purpose in it and that purpose is to save the lost who are on their way to hell. Those who reject his love and refuse to return his love with obedient and love cannot benefit from his saving love, not because He wants them to perish but because they have themselves chosen to bear the brunt of his righteous judgements. It is not a case of not wanting all sinners to be saved but one of sinners being unable to go to heaven because they prefer to live and die in their sins. Jesus said:

“. . .  I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come. Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come. And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. (John 8:21-24)

Mosaïek Conversations: Session 1 “The movements of the Journey” – Johan Geyser

Let us now open the curtain on the first scene or session, written and choreographed by Johan Geyser. He calls it “The Movements of the Journey.” Guess what were the very first words that came from his mouth? Yep! you’ve guessed it! His first words were “Our life is a journey.” That’s it! Nothing more and nothing less. He may as well have said: “We don’t know where we’re going. That’s not so important. The thing that matters most is that we are on a journey.” Please note that Johan Geyser hardly or ever used the Bible as the only authoritative map for this journey but rather used Martin Buber’s drivel to describe their journey. Who was Martin Buber? In his book “Faith Undone” Roger oakland says of Buber:

Buber’s mysticism led him to believe that God is in all things and all things are God, that all paths lead to God because ultimately all is God.  . . . mysticism is not just attracting the emerging church-it is the emerging church.

In Buber’s book Ecstatic Confessions: The Heart of Mysticism, he states:

There is no God apart from the world, nor a world apart from God . . . In the highest mystical ecstasy the Ego experiences that it has become God . . . Why not?  . . . there ceases to be a difference between the world and myself. “That I become God.” Why not?

At the core of this journey, as Martin Buber coined it, is our on-going relational interaction with God, with others in our immediate community and with the world at large. According to Buber it can either be an “I-Thou” relationship or an “I-It” relationship. The “I-Thou” relationship is the ideal one because in it the “I” and the “Thou” are intrinsically interwoven and unified. Contrastingly the “I-It” relationship is an undesirable one because it is built on detachment and separation. If, as Johan Geyser said, relationships are the only things that last forever and the only things we can take with us, it is obvious that we should hanker for an “I-Thou” relationship rather than an “I-It” one. In fact, according to Buber, the “I-Thou” relationship, in which God is the eternal “Thou,” the relation between the individual (the “I”) and God (the eternal “Thou”) is a universal relation and foundational for all other relations. A genuine “I-Thou” relation with God fosters a real “I-Thou” or “I-You” relationship with the world, the result being a philosophy of personal and transpersonal dialogue or conversations as a means to define personal responsibilities and to lay the foundation for ethical inquiry (a quest for the truth). In layman’s terms this simply means that propositional truths like those we find in the Bible tend to create “I-It” relationships of detachment and separation whereas an “I-Thou” relationship enhances open dialogue and unity, as well as motivates the journeyers to find new compromised “truths.” That’s why the charlatan, Theo Geyser who is the brother of the other emergent charlatan, Johan Geyser, could say:

We’re actually in a desperate need, in the biblical narrative, to sort of get an inclusive thing. We need a virgin birth that gets everyone together and not divide us. (What does God think of us?- Broadcast on SABC2 on April 17, 2011)

I’ve heard about many fools who’ve tried to change the meaning of the many supernatural things (miracles) God has wrought throughout the ages, but never, never have I heard of a fool who would venture to change the virgin birth of Christ in such a way that it unites everyone into one big brotherhood of fools. Is it possible? Is it possible to change something that occurred more than two thousand years ago? Yes! the fraternal mystics in the Emergent Church would say. “We only need to sit quietly at the feet of our ‘Love Wins’ guru, Rob Bell, to learn how it is done.” And how does the “Love Wins” guru change the virgin birth of Christ into a paradigm shattering and unifying miracle? Listen to his Nooma video #15 and pay careful attention to his not so very subtle demotion of Christ’s virgin birth, death, resurrection and ascension. He says:

And so in the first century to claim that your god had risen from the dead and ascended into heaven just wasn’t that unique. The claims of these first Christians weren’t anything new.

If the first century Christians’ claims with regard to Christ’s virgin birth, death, resurrection and ascension weren’t that unique, what then did they regard as supremely unique in Christendom? Ah! the miracle to make this world a better place through service in stead of political or dictatorial coercion, as the Romans did — that is what makes Christ so unique. Theo Geyser’s plea that we should concoct a virgin birth that unites everything and everyone is already a fait accompli. How was it done? It was done by their big pal, Rob Bell, who unashamedly demoted Christ’s miraculous virgin birth to the infamous lie that all the other so-called gods (such as Mithra and Attis) allegedly also had a virgin birth. Now you can see why the emergents have placed such an high priority on relationships (an “I-Thou” relationship and not an “I-it” one) instead of on a biblical narrative of the virgin birth.

Buber believed that an “I-Thou” relationship with God can be experienced through silence and that anyone can have an “I-Thou” relationship with God through “I-Thou” moments with people, nature, art and the world. Frankly, this is a flagrant negation and rejection of God’s mediatorial work on the cross in order to remove the sin-barrier that caused the break in the original relationship between God and man. Johan Geyser does not deny this but says that it was primarily the disturbance of the relationship between God and man that introduced death into the earth and not the breaking of a command based on “Don’t do that . . . don’t do this.” Death entered. Yes, that is true, but Johan Geyser failed dismally to explain to his audience that life, God’s life in a person, can be restored through repentance and faith toward Him and His Gospel. Instead, as we shall see as we go along, his main concern was not to present the Gospel but a mystical path or journey to enhance a relationship that supposedly already exists between all men and God through a divine spark that allegedly resides in all men. All that needs to be done is to change relationships from an “I-It” relation to an “I-Thou” relation through dialogue and a true sense of interconnectedness and unity. Johan Geyser admits to the break in this relationship between God and man but brazenly denies that it was a breach of God’s command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This is what he said:

It is clear from the very outset that Johan Geyser tried his level best to convince his audience that his point of departure was that of a Christian and to do so he said: “We think of our life as a journey with God. It’s with God!” The question is: Which God or God who? In fact, as already indicated, he does not open the conversation with God and the propositional truths in His Word, but with Martin Buber. Now, why would he do a thing like that? The answer is simple. It is to draw the alleged parallel lines between the Christian faith and Buddhism.

In his article, “Martin Buber and Asia” by Maurice Friedman (Philosophy East and West, 1976, Volume: 26, Pages: 411, SSN: 00318221) the author shows Buber’s “I-Thou” dialogue with Taoism, Hinduism and Buddhism and how these on-journey encounters influenced the progression of his philosophy of “I-Thou” and I-It” relationships. Although Hinduism and Buddhism played an important part in the early development of his philosophical thinking, it was Taoism, Jewish Hasidism and Zen that continued to influence his later thought. Of these it was Taoism in particular, especially Wu Wei, (action of the whole being) that remained central to the “I-Thou” relationship. Wikipedia defines Wu Wei as follows:

The literal meaning of Wu Wei is “without action”, “without effort”, or “without control”, and is often included in the paradox wei wu wei: “action without action” or “effortless doing”. The practice of wu wei and the efficacy of wei wu wei are fundamental tenets in Chinese thought and have been mostly emphasized by the Taoist school. The aim of wu wei is to achieve a state of perfect equilibrium, or alignment with the Tao, and, as a result, obtain an irresistible form of “soft and invisible” power.

There is another less commonly referenced sense of wu wei; “action that does not involve struggle or excessive effort”. In this instance, Wu means “without” and Wei means “effort”. The concept of “effortless action” is a part of Taoist Internal martial arts such as T’ai chi ch’uan, Baguazhang and Xing Yi. It follows that Wu wei complies with the main feature and distinguishing characteristic of Taoism, that of being natural. To apply wu wei to any situation is to take natural action.

Here’s a question for you: How do you get Jesus to do the Taoist Wu-Wei whole being movements toward His Father, His circle of disciples and the world at large? Well, first of all you need to foster an “I-It” relationship with the Holy Bible, meaning of course that you must learn how to detach and separate yourself from the real meaning of the content and context of biblical passages the Holy Spirit intended to convey to its readers. Or at least, you must know how to rethink, rehash and repaint (aka Rob Bell) the eternal truths in the Bible. This is very important if you wish to develop a balanced and integrated Wu-Wei whole being movement toward God (not to find out what His will is but to be in His presence in a mystical “cloud-of-unknowing” sort of being of solitude and silence), toward your own inner circle (a communal whole movement being) and toward the world at large (a ministerial whole movement being, not to present lost sinners with God’s Gospel of salvation and sanctification but to dole out glasses of cold water because every single person already has a divine spark in his/her innermost being. Your ministry, therefore, is to teach the adherents to a vast diversity of religions [Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Witch Doctors etc.] that Jesus of Nazareth is already present in their innermost beings and that they only need to realize and become aware of it through mystical practices. Ask Johan Geyser’s twin brother, Theo, and Dries Cronje of e-church fame. They know it for a fact [Read here and here]).

As I already mentioned, it is of the utmost importance to foster an “I-It” relationship with Bible truths, simply because the Wu-Wei-whole-being-movements are entirely incompatible with patronizing, condescending and outrageous statements such as the following: “Do you think that I have come to give peace (unity) on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division (disunity) (Luke 12:51). Jesus must have said this when He was totally out of sync with the Taoist Wu-Wei whole being movement philosophy. But then again, we should realize that He too often moved from an “I-Thou” relationship to an “I-It” relationship. He was never consistent in his relationship with people. Luke 12:51 was one of his major “I-It” Wu-Wei movements. You cannot possibly do the Wu-Wei whole being dance with God, your community and the world at large when you have an “I-Thou” relationship with truths such as this. Nevertheless, let’s again listen to Johan Geyser’s incomparable WWW (Wu-Wei Wisdom).

Johan Geyser delivers his piéce de resistence about 20 minutes into his presentation. The ultimate purpose of the whole  being movement toward God, your community and the world at large is to weave them into one unified integrated dimension of being. The ideal is to disallow any one of the dimensions to dominate the others. When this happens, that is when the fusion is complete, a fourth dimension suddenly emerges in your life. Suddenly your life is no longer limited to a three dimensional movement of being when you become aware that God is in everything, that He is everywhere and that He is at work everywhere.

Here we see that the movements of the journey are based on experience rather than pre-set dogmas or doctrines. The most disconcerting thing about Johan Geyser’s presentation is that he audaciously refers to Scripture to prove that Paul’s concern with the Church at Corinth was not so much about doctrine as it was with their consciousness (awareness) that their bodies were temples of God. Simply said, it was not God’s doctrine (propositional truth) that revealed to them that their bodies were temples of God but their own awareness, sparked by their whole being movements, which made them conscious of their bodies being temples of God. In other words, they had to experience the fourth dimension on this journey of movements toward God, the community and the world at large before they were able to know (become aware or conscious) that God is in everything and that everything is in God (panentheism par excellence). So the next time you want to persuade peoples’ of other religious persuasions that their bodies are already temples of God, don’t try to do that by quoting to them from the Bible (it only fosters an “I-It” relationship) but rather by making them aware of it through their whole being movements on their journey.

You will recall that Johan Geyser said at the beginning of his presentation that Adam and Eve’s fall and subsequent spiritual death was not the result of a command “don’t do this . . . don’t do that” but primarily through a break or malfunction in their relationship with God, themselves and the world. Simply put, they developed or created for themselves a dysfunctional reality, a reality governed by disunity, separation, division and disharmony. He then ultimately comes to the conclusion that it was not the Corinthians’ misunderstanding of a doctrine or dogma that kept them form knowing that their bodies were temples of God but a lack in their awareness or consciousness. The only means to rectify this was to awaken their consciousness (make them aware) to the fact that their bodies were the temples of God. How did Paul do it? He did not remind them of what God’s Law said in regard to fornication, according to Johan Geyser, but ventured to make them aware of the fact that their bodies were temples of God. The key to this, therefore, is not biblical doctrine but an awakening of consciousness through mystical practices.

This brings us to the ministering part of the whole movement being toward the world at large. It is evident that the EC’s ministry to the world has absolutely nothing to do with Christ’s command to make disciples of all the nations and to teach them to observe everything He has commanded us. A command equals a law and law demands observance and the act of teaching is all about telling people what to do and not to do. All these things wreak of control; it is too patronizing and condescending and divides mankind into us and them, holy and unholy, saved and unsaved. So let’s just get rid of the Law and teach people how to develop and exercise their awareness. What you must do, is make your fellowmen in the world aware of their own reality and to teach them how to live in that reality. I found the following on a Hindu site called Light Net Group, describing the purpose of cosmic awareness.

The awareness indicates it is all up to the observer as to what is important to him. The awareness indicates that the purpose of the awareness is to help entities become aware of those things that are happening in their realm of reality, in their world.

And in becoming aware, to become aware what is happening to them, the purpose of this awareness is also to help them to better understand their own place in the world of reality in which they reside, and what they themselves need to don in order to be ready for what is the reality they witness.

Eckhart Tolle’s interpretation of this “reality” is the “now” or “present moment” and how to live in it.

Now we can understand why the Emergent Church is more concerned about the journey and the movements of the journey than with the destination (which in essence is a Buddhist concept)? The destination is something that lies in the future and we have no control over the future. We may have no control over the future but God does and for us to live and be conscious only of the “now” without contemplating the future in the light of God’s word and his prophecies and not to be ready and prepared for it is not only foolish but downright dangerous. And speaking of prophecy: one of the most important prophecies in the Bible concerns the one about God’s future Kingdom on earth. This too, according to the Emergent Church, must be brought into the “now” and the way to do it is to panenthiastically universalize God’s presence (God is in all and all is in God). If God is in everything and everyone then His Kingdom is also already in everyone “here and now” and the way to experience it is NOT through the adherence and obedience to any kind or form of doctrine but through an “I-Thou” relationship with God and others. “Awareness” finds its strongest niche in experience and the latter in your own personal story or journey. So Eckhart Tolle’s advice is not to quote the Buddha, or to hope to achieve Buddha-like enlightenment at some point in the future, but to just be the Buddha, right here, right now. Similarly we are not supposed to quote and teach biblical doctrines but merely to be aware that Jesus Christ is already in everyone which makes any pointing to the future redundant. We don’t have to look to the future simply because we are already living and moving in God’s kingdom here and now. And that, my dear friends, is why the Mosaïek Church in Fairlands, Johannesburg cannot be called a Christian Church but is in fact a Buddhist retreat.

As we shall see later, especially in my critique on David Benner’s presentation “Contemplation and Transformation” the awareness of the “now” facilitates the awareness of the “I am” or “I amness” of the individual.

So, what’s to be done? Johan Geyser provides the answer when he says:

That’s precisely why his brother, Theo Geyser, could say with foolish boldness:

I was wondering. Is this the best way to engage a culture, to burn somebody’s religion and to send somebody to a burning stake, by condemning them and to get them on your side and sing a hallelujah chorus.  What if the approach need (sic) to be like Jesus, to be more interested in the person than in the method or the expression of their faith? What if this can be one of the biggest opportunities to broaden your horizon, to meet God and to be changed and be changed yourself in that circumstance? I’m wondering and I think maybe that is the way we need to go if we have a conviction that we can’t take Jesus to anybody but that he’s already present in somebody’s life. Maybe a sangoma can be an opportunity to meet Jesus. (What does God think of us?– Broadcast on SABC2 on April 24, 2011)

Have Calvinists hijacked YouTube?

When Stephen delivered his ear and heart piercing sermon in Acts 7 the Jews blocked their ears, gnashed their teeth, attacked him like a pack of wolves and stoned him to death. In our advanced technological age the religious hierarchies (such as the Emergent and Calvinist fraternity) no longer block their ears. They block you from their heavenly websites and blogs.. Above is a JPEG snippet of a video uploaded by a guy who calls himself KeithTruth. Now that’s a good pseudonym for a person who rejects biblical truth. How dare I suggest such an unloving thing? Well, decide for yourself when you read the rest of my comment.

Like any decent and respectable person whose freedom and free-will is honourably respected on YouTube I exercised my “internet constitutional” right and commented on a video that was uploaded by a guy who calls himself KeithTruth. He responded to my comment but when I wrote something in response to his response the following message in red appeared on my screen “You have been blocked by the owner of this video.” It reminded me of the days in Nazi Germany when freedom loving people were incarcerated and even killed when they criticized Hitler . . .  or was it in the time of Calvin? Anyway, whether Hitler or Calvin, both of them had their opponents murdered whenever they were criticized. It also reminded me of my humiliating experience I had with a “Christian” forum called Bible Database that often dumped me in their cooler because I did not agree with their Calvinist buddies. By the way, they took much pleasure in writing about the pleasures of drinking beer and even quoted the 33rd degree Freemason, Benjamin Franklin, who said: “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” Guess what? They were never sent to the cooler.

As you can see from my comment above I merely echoed what John MacArthur has said in the past so many times. He believes that Jesus loves everyone but did not die on the cross for everyone. KeithTruth makes no bones about the fact that he is in total agreement with John MacArthur when he says “And if Jesus died for everyone and substituted himself taking their sins then everyone would have their sins paid for and universalism would be true.” This is the kind of nonsense you get when you believe that Jesus’ death on the cross automatically saves the elect only without them having to put your faith in Him and his finished work on the cross prior to their regeneration and IN ORDER to be saved. In fact this kind of nonsense completely rules out and nullifies crucial biblical truths such as 1 Corinthians 1:18: “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.”

Unbelieving reprobates (as Calvinists refer to them) no longer need to pooh-pooh the cross as sheer foolishness in order to earn their eternal damnation. Why would they want to do that when the cross and Jesus’ atoning work were never intended for them in the first place? Is the cross to them foolishness because they are reprobates and consequently and ultimately perish or do they perish because the cross is to them foolishness? Some of you may ask: So what’s the difference? The difference is this: In the first instance God is the one who sovereignly reprobates the non-elect causing them to pooh-pooh Jesus Christ’s cross as foolishness. They regard the cross as foolishness because of what they are – irretrievably damned and lost reprobates. In the second instance foolhardy unbelievers reprobate themselves because they willingly and deliberately pooh-pooh the cross of God’s only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. They forfeit their salvation because of their refusal to believe in the redemptive power of the cross of Jesus Christ. Of course, Calvinists must of necessity opt for the first instance because they believe that God has predestined and reprobated the non-elect long before the foundation of the world. Jesus said the following about the mission of his Holy Spirit: “

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. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; (John 16:7-9).

The sin that damns men, women and children to hell is unbelief and not because they were not predestined unto salvation before the foundation of the world. The cross to them is sheer foolishness. But how can the reprobate believe on Him and his atoning work on the cross when He did not die for them? That’s impossible. How can the Holy Spirit convict the reprobate of their sin of unbelief when Christ did not die for them? Once again, that’s impossible. Imagine the Holy Spirit convicting the reprobate by saying to them: “You are hopelessly lost because of your sin of unbelief but don’t let that bother you because even if you were able to believe it would not have benefited you in anyway because Jesus Christ did not die for you on the cross.”

Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, according to the Levitical sacrificial system in the OT, was first and foremost a sin-offering. The question we should ask is whether the Levitical sin-offering in the OT was sacrificed for the sins of the entire nation of Israel or just for a few chosen ones? If the sin-offering was not intended for a select few only but for the entire nation of Israel it would be expedient to agree with KeithTruth that  a kind of national universalism would have to be true. Allow me to change his quoted statement above slightly and apply it to the sin-offering of the Old Testament: ““And if the sin-offering was for the entire nation of Israel and a substitution for everyone’s sins everyone would have their sins paid for and universalism (for Israel) would have been true.”  Was the sin-offering a sacrifice for the entire nation of Israel or only a select few? Bear in mind that the entire nation of Israel was God’s chosen people and as such the sin-offering was indeed for the entire nation. Was every single Israelite saved, regardless of the fact that he/she was an elect?

On the annual Day of atonement, the High Priest had to slaughter an animal and apply its blood to himself for the atonement of his own sins, and only then was he allowed to offer sacrifices for the entire nation and to enter the most holy of holies in the tabernacle where he applied it’s blood on the mercy seat for the entire nation of Israel . Was Jesus Christ’s offering of his own blood which was a more excellent sacrifice than the sin-offering in Leviticus, not efficacious to make atonement for the entire human race whilst the shadow thereof (the sin-offering in the OT) had sufficient efficacy to make atonement for the entire nation of Israel? If Jesus Christ’s sacrifice was the anti-type of the offerings in Leviticus which had the efficacy to make atonement for the entire nation of Israel, then Christ’s sacrifice most certainly had the efficacy to make atonement for the entire human race. But why are most people for whom Christ made atonement on the cross not saved? – for the same reason why most of the Israelites were not allowed to enter the Promised Land.

Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. (Hebrews 4:1-3).

God had already established a rest as far back as creation itself but most of the Israelites forfeited it because of their unbelief. Faith in God and his promises was therefore a prerequisite to enjoy God’s rest which He established from the foundation of the earth and NOT because most of them were predestined unto damnation before the foundation of the world.

John MacArthur also believes that it is your on-going performance (commonly known in Calvinism as “Perseverance of the Saints” which constitutes the “P” in the acronym TULIP) that determines the genuineness of your salvation.

If God loves only the elect to the extent that He had his only begotten Son crucified on a cross for them only, it is obvious that ONLY the elect cannot possibly lose their salvation and shall endure, continue and persevere in the faith to the very end of their lives here on earth. Neither can the reprobate for whom Christ did not die, according to John MacArthur, lose their damnation simply because God has predestined them unto eternal damnation even before the foundation of the earth and ARE therefore irretrievably lost. No salvation equals no life changing experience and leads to eternal damnation.

To put it in a nutshell: The elect cannot possibly lose their salvation and so too the non-elect cannot possibly lose or forfeit their damnation. Having made this distinction between the elect and the non-elect perfectly clear once again, it also becomes perfectly clear that John MacArthur’s statement “Those who change are saved, those who don’t are damned” is one of the most insidious oxymorons imaginable. Of whom is he speaking – the elect or the non elect?

If MacArthur, in his his entire statement “Those who change are saved, those who don’t are damned,” refers to the elect it would mean that they are prone to either a life of change or no change which means they can either retain or lose their salvation. Can the elect lose their salvation? Absolutely not! If that were possible, the doctrine of predestination unto salvation before the foundation of the earth would have been good only for the garbage dump and God’s glory and honour would have been dealt a deathblow. IMPOSSIBLE! The only conclusion we can draw from this is that the entire statement “Those who change are saved, those who don’t are damned” cannot possibly be applied to the elect. Not even the staunchest Calvinist is able to say “The elect who change are saved” because such a statement implies an opposite which is “The elect who do not change are damned.” IMPOSSIBLE? IMPOSSIBLE!

If the elect are unreservedly and unconditionally saved, which is essential for God’s glory, then it is essentially true that the statement “The elect who change are saved” is completely superfluous. What is the sense in declaring that “the elect who change are saved” when every single elect person shall be changed because they have been predestined unto salvation before the foundation of the earth? If MacArthur’s statement ““Those who change are saved, those who don’t are damned” could be applied to the elect, the clause in Chapter 3 “Of God’s Eternal Decree” i.e. “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;” would have to be erased from the Westminster Confession of Faith for all eternity. If God unchangeably ordained the salvation of every elect person before the foundation of the world, it is fruitless to argue that they are prone or susceptible to no change in their lives. In other word: THEY MUST CHANGE AND THEY WILL CHANGE whether they like it or not. Ah, but if they don’t change it is the clearest sign and proof that the “elect” are not truly the elect. They are the reprobate when no change is evident in their lives. This brings us to the next part of John Mac Arthur’s Calvinistic oxymoron.

Can MacArthur’s entire statement “Those who change are saved, those who don’t are damned” be applied to the non-elect or the reprobate? The possibility of change in a reprobate’s life is zero, zilch, nada which of course leaves them prone or susceptible to one thing only and that is a life of unchangeable corruption, total depravity, debauchery,  extreme sinfulness and filth. Once again, it is necessary to use the word IMPOSSIBLE when we examine John MacArtrhur’s entire statement “Those who change are saved, those who don’t are damned” in the light of the reprobate. If it were possible to apply the first part of MacArthur’s statement “Those who change are saved” to the reprobate it would mean that they too can be saved. Is that possible? Of course not because they have been chosen of God before the foundation of the earth to be dammed eternally. They have no hope of ever being changed because if there had been the slightest possibility for them to change they would have instantly been changed into the elect because ONLY the elect are saved and changed. Can the second part of his statement be applied to the reprobate? Indeed, it is the only part of his statement that can be applied to the reprobate, just as much as the first part of his statement can only be applied to the elect.

If John MacArthur’s entire statement “Those who change are saved, those who don’t are damned” cannot be applied neither to the elect nor to the reprobate, what’s the point in making such a statement? It means nothing. At best he could say “The elect are changed because they are irretrievably and irrevocably saved” or “The elect are saved because they are irretrievably and irrevocably changeable” and “The reprobate are not changed because they are irretrievably and irrevocably lost” or “The reprobate are lost because they are irretrievably and irrevocably unchangeable.” Calvinism is a strange doctrine; very strange and weird indeed. Not even a great Calvinist like John MacArthur knows how to articulate “Those who change are saved, those who don’t are damned” in terms of the elect and the reprobate. Simply said: he can’t because it does not apply to either one.

If Jesus Christ did not die on the cross for all people then some of them (the reprobate) cannot possibly be saved and changed. Now you tell me with all honesty: Can we apply John MacArthur’s entire statement “Those who change are saved, those who don’t are damned,” to the reprobate? If Jesus Christ died only for the elect and they are all saved and changed because if they hadn’t been saved and changed Jesus would have been a failure, can we apply John MacArthur’s entire statement “Those who change are saved, those who don’t are damned” to the elect? Having proved to you that his statement cannot be applied to neither the one nor the other, we must of necessity ask ourselves: Of whom is John MacArthur speaking when he makes such a statement?