You CALVINIST!

I have been called many things in my life!  Sometimes those names have been honest errors in saying my real name.  But more often than not, the names I have been called have been meant to be derogatory in nature.  One name with such meaning I have been called is "fundamentalist" - and while some might consider that an insult, I take it in a rather positive way - because that would imply that the one calling me that term sees me as someone who sticks to his Bible and is unmoving.  I think that is a good place to be!

But I have been called another term that is also (when coming from some) meant as a very negative term.  This word will mean little to most people, but it carries a train-full of connotation for many others, particularly in my own associational work.  That term is 

"CALVINIST"

I have no plans of launching into a full-blown theology lesson on the meaning of the term.  I do want to touch on a few aspects though, that the reader of this blog might at least be able to understand the reason this term could be taken as an insult.

"Calvinism" is based on the teachings of the forefather of what we know today as Presbyterianism.  John Calvin was a preacher and minister of the Reformation in the 16th Century.  He was a somewhat controversial figure of his time, and likely even more so today!  When you hear the term "Reformed" or "Reformed Theology" today, it is an implication that someone or a church holds to a greater or lesser extent to the theology espoused by John Calvin.  One might even hear the theology explained by means of the acronym "TULIP".  What many who casually throw these terms around actually have a view that is far more extreme than Calvin himself espoused, this is still the easiest means to grasping what his theological system consists of:

Total Depravity of Man - the view that mankind is sinful by nature.  Another term used would be "Total Inability", meaning a man cannot redeem himself - because of the corruption of sin.

Unconditional Election - the view that god does not base his election on anything He sees in an individual, without any consideration of merit.

Limited Atonement - Jesus died for the elect.  Though Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient for all, it was not "efficacious" for all.

Irresistible Grace - When God calls his elect to salvation, they cannot resist. 

Perseverance of the Saints - You cannot lose your salvation.  Because the Father has elected, the Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those who are truly saved are eternally secure.

I remember a series of articles in the Independent Baptist publication Sword of the Lord that decried all things pertaining to "Calvinism" and "TULIP" as evil and a abomination, yet as the writer took each of the "petals" of TULIP, he ended up defending several of the points!  Indeed, most conservative Baptists believe in at least two of these "points of Calvinism", and many (whether they admit it or not) actually believe 3 or even 4 points!  

I believe that the debate regarding Calvinism (or Reformed Theology), particularly among Baptists today, is more of a distraction than a genuine issue worthy of the volumes written, conferences held, arguments and debates engaged, and damage done.  And I believe that the pain and trouble is more the result of perception and misunderstandings (because of the limits of the human mind, or simply out of preconceived ideas and taught hate), than genuine differences of opinion.

I will say this - I have found myself very interested in this subject for quite some time.  The more I have read, study God's Word, pray about it, and discuss it, the more interested I have become.  Systematic Theology was one of my favorite seminary classes, in no small part, due to the subject of at atonement/salvation and how it comes about.  I have found myself vacillating in my heart, trying to reconcile the concept of God's total and perfect sovereignty, with the picture of mankind's free will as pictured in the Bible.  Then, some time ago, the Lord gave me an incredible peace.  In fact, I have referred to this "place" in my life, this calm and comfort on this subject as "my peaceful place".

I believe the first, and likely biggest, obstacle to that "peaceful place" for most is that we try to view everything from a human point of view.  Lest we forget, the Bible was given by God, through men.  God gave us all we need to understand what we need to understand (need to know basis).  The Bible is sufficient (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  So within God's Word, we can find all the answers we need to any theological question we might have a need an answer to.

God is Sovereign.  I have found very few professing Christians who would argue that.  God is in control  NOTHING happens, good or bad, outside of God's divine and sovereign will.  Nothing.  Even the fall in the Garden of Eden happened as a part of God's Will.  That in no way makes God the author of Sin or evil.  It simply means that, within the perfect plan of God, this had to happen that ultimately God would be glorified.  The garden event proved that God is not just a great puppetmaster.  But how does this play into the "Calvinist" moniker?

It all goes back to God's point of view.  God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and so much more.  He is not restrained by place or time - and thus yesterday, today, tomorrow, the 6 days of Creation, and the end of this earth - and indeed all of eternity, is "present tense" for God.  We cannot really grasp the infinite with our finite minds.  But this is a necessary starting point.

Then we bring in the "TULIP" and begin to dissect them, from the viewpoint of God who is beyond time and place, and who is sovereign:

Total Depravity - which does not mean people are incapable of good acts/deeds.  It simply means we are incapable of pleasing God.  Humanity, even the most vile, still was made in the image of God - and because of that, we can "do good".  But we are, from birth, incapable of redeeming ourselves before the eyes of a perfect and sinless God.  God said "Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect" (Matthew 5:48).  God is perfect, therefore He has every right to demand perfection.  The amazing thing is - while we are incapable of being perfect, He provided the means to be counted as righteous, through His Son Jesus Christ!  This point is the least disagreeable to most Baptists and biblical Christians/evangelicals in general.  There is no salvation without Jesus Christ!

Unconditional Election - another point that, when viewed from God's perspective, is hard to argue with.  Romans 9:11 points out God's election in the line of Abraham to continue His plan - electing them for the purpose before their birth.  Romans 9:15 is the most direct statement of all regarding God's election of people. 

On the flip-side of this point is a concept called "double-predestination".  This was not something contrived by John Calvin, but by some who followed his theology to an extreme (most often referred to as "Hyper-Calvinists" or "Super-Calvinists" who take God's election to the extreme to say that God specifically creates people both to be saved, and to be condemned.  Unfortunately, this is a stretch (at best) of scripture, and at worst - is putting words in God's mouth.  Yes, God "elects"/predestines - not based on any merit He sees, but according to His will.  But scripture also says that "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." (2 Peter 3:9).

The question then begs - how can one reconcile God doing all the choosing, with what the Bible also depicts as mankind being held accountable for his decisions?  How can the Bible, which clearly shows freedom of will (God ALLOWED Adam to fall - Adam CHOSE sin and rebellion, God didn't force him, or even tempt him - though God did use the fall)?  This is likely one of the factors that I have had to search for "peace" on the most.  But again, I also fully trust that the Bible is 100% reliable -the very Word of God.  If the Bible describes both human responsibility and free will, as well as God's total sovereignty (ponder and pray about John 6:44 - that clearly says no-one can come to Jesus unless the Father calls them), then I just have to believe that God works His perfect will, using man's freedom to choose, just as He used Adam's sin and fall to His will.  Another way of looking at it - I have yet to find anyone from any educational level who can explain how Jesus Christ could be fully God and Fully man, yet that is what the New Testament describes.  This is a fact (known as the hypostatic union).  We just have to have faith that it is so.

God chooses us.  Why?  We cannot guess.  Yes, He knew us before the foundation of the world.  And He orders the paths of our lives to bring us to the point of His will, knowing how we will "decide" in each case.

Limited Atonement - which is likely the most controversial of all the "5 points of Calvinism", again is not so complicated in my mind (though I have some strong differences of opinions with Calvinists).  Staunch Calvinists would say "Jesus died for the elect only", and would mean that at face value.  They dismiss the biblical terms such as "for the sins of the world" or "taking on the sins of the world".  While they would be accurate in using context and language to defend that these really meant "from all nations", I believe this is too narrow (even if in the final product, it might very well be the result).  Jesus death is sufficient to redeem each and every soul that comes to saving faith.  Period.  His love is sufficient.  Were every human being from all time come to saving faith, Jesus' blood would have been sufficient.  Likewise, if only one soul every came to salvation, His blood would still have been exactly right.  Because of God's foreknowledge and election, Jesus' shed blood covers all who would believe.  Scripture just as clearly says that many will never believe and will be sentenced to everlasting destruction and torment in Hell and the Lake of Fire.  Jesus Blood did not redeem them (though it most certainly would have been sufficient had they trusted).

Indeed - many say that this point, Limited Atonement", is an obstacle to an evangelism - like selling property you don't have right to sell.  I counter that with - we do not know who will and who will not be born-again.  We just have the command to GO!  And if we have the heart of Christ, we too will seek to warn all, sharing what Christ did to make salvation available.  It is up to the Holy Spirit to convict and change their heart.  I do not have the right to withhold the Gospel form anyone!

Irresistible Grace - I will admit, my view on this point is based as much or more on my own personal experience than on any other source (including the Bible). Some verses that help to paint a picture of this point would include Philippians 2:12-13, Romans 9:16, John 6:28-29, Acts 13:48, John 1:12-13.  But while these passages are somewhat convincing, long before I ever read them in context of salvation, I grasped this concept.  In my own testimony - that very moment on that February afternoon, when all at once, I was absolutely filled with the knowledge that I was lost.  I knew without a doubt that I was guilty - regardless of how much I had hoped the divine scales of righteousness would tip in my favor - I knew that, were I to die - I would spend eternity in Hell separated from God. But the conviction didn't end there.  While I can look back through the lens of my salvation at previous times I had experienced conviction, this one time - I didn't have a "yes or no" question before my.  I could only see one option - and that was to completely trust Jesus, begging Him to forgive me, and to help me turn from sin in my life (repentance).  I honestly (and it is still so incredibly vivid today) could see no other option than "YES LORD!"   I had no choice.  Yes, some would argue that I still could have said no.  But I really could not even fathom in that moment anything but crying to to Jesus!

But ultimately, the fact remains - regardless of one's position on any of these points - God knows who will and who will not be saved.  Regardless of your view on how God elects or on what he "predestinates", without a doubt, all who will be saved, will be saved!  How God brings that about is His business, but I know that He has chosen the "folly (or foolishness) of preaching" (1 Corinthians 1:21).

And finally - we come to the last "point" of Calvinism - Perseverance of the Saints.  This is another of those seemingly clear realities of scripture. John 10:27-28 is among my favorite passages in the Bible, where Jesus clearly said not only that His sheep hear His voice, but that no one will snatch them out of His hand!  No-one!  Philippians 1:6 says that  it is God who has begun and WILL complete that "good work" in us.  Fundamentally - you cannot lose something you never had in the first place.  Unfortunately, over the last century+, we have seen a massive flow of "decisions" that were little more than emotional response to emotional questions.  There were no outward signs, no genuine repentance, and no live change.  Scripture says that all of these are evidences of salvation.  But even then, we can manually bring temporary change in our lives that can be false signs.  But the genuine, born-again believer has the Holy Spirit as a permanent resident in our hearts.  We may grieve Him at times, and there is "sin unto death" that can result in God removing us before we do further harm.  But clearly, the Bible says we cannot lose salvation.

So - am I a "Calvinist"?  No.  I am a Christian.  I am not like the Corinthians who Paul admonished for identifying with the preacher instead of with Christ.  But lets be honest.  I believe that God is sovereign, and in His will and plan, He elects, he directs our paths, He does the saving (I am completely unable to save myself), He does the keeping (in the palm of Christ's hand), He convicted me by His Spirit in a way that gave me no other alternative than to trust Him.  And I firmly believe that Christ's payment on the Cross of Calvary was sufficient for any and all who have, do, and will believe on Him for eternal life.  We are all held accountable for what we do with Jesus.  And somehow, in God's perfect and sovereign will, He saved me, and I believe He will save you too if you will listen to His voice (remember what Jesus said!).

Anything beyond that - particularly the "HOW" - I am not God and I cannot begin to fully grasp.

I may be accused of trying to "ride the fence".  I don't see it that way.  I firmly believe the illustration that one of my seminary professors used in discussing theology - He described theology is a pendulum.  It swings form extreme to the opposite extreme.  The truth is somewhere in the middle, and just maybe God is the only one who fully grasps the big picture.  I just know in whom I have trusted.  And the desire of my heart is to tell others of Jesus' saving work on the cross.  Jesus said "repent and believe the Gospel".  That is the message we are to proclaim to all.  And let God save who He will save.

What's In A Name?

This post is going to take a bit of a shotgun approach to something that has been on my mind for quite some time, but was recently shifted to the proverbial front-burner by someone who has become a semi-regular visitor to the church here.

What's in a name?  It's a simple enough question, or is it?  More specifically - what is with denominations and church names?  You can drive down the primary streets in most towns here in Arkansas and see a plethora of "churches".  Indeed, some towns might be jokingly labeled as little "Christopias" with all the various building with church names attached.  What do they all mean?  What's with the "Heinz 57 flavors" of "churches"?  Why?

I have no intentions of rehashing nearly 2000 years of church history in a single blog post.  But the visitor I mentioned above really caused me to go back in my mind and rehash my own thoughts on the issue.  I suppose I have a slightly different perspective than some on the concept of denominationalism than some of my own faith in that I have been connected to more than one denomination in my lifetime.  I was brought up in the Episcopal Church.  Today, I proudly stand as a Missionary Baptist (BMA).  But what's with denominations?

I want to begin by clearly stating - I do not believe God is glorified by there being literally thousands of "denominations" all claiming to be "right".  No - I am in no way calling for a new Ecumenical movement.  I believe there are solid grounds for NOT just associating with any institution or organization claiming to be a "church" - and indeed, I am convinced that God's Word clearly says to not associate with those who teach "another Gospel" - which brings up the foundational issue of denominationalism.

When Jesus instituted the "Church" (I use a capital letter as a proper noun because I believe Jesus instituted a single institution.  Jesus gave His life for THE Church (ἐκκλησία ekklesia).  As the Church grew and expanded, scripture then (particularly in the form of letters to them) local churches were treated as autonomous bodies, being the local, physical, and visible church,  as most Baptist view it today:  A "church" is the local, called-out, body of believers ( again, ekklesia).  One can tread on very thin ice when looking at this subject.  It becomes very easy to begin teaching a "universal church" that includes people with beliefs that do not reflect the Christianity and "church" depicted in the Bible!  The simplest (maybe over-simplified for some readers) understanding of the concept is that "The Church" that Christ called out, instituted, and empowers is made of of individuals, called together in local, New Testament churches.  God works through local churches (and by extension - through the voluntary association of those local churches), yet the power and authority Christ gave to the local church.  On that great and joyous day when Christ will marry His Bride (Revelation 19:7), there won't be a long bridal party made up of multiple brides - but the marriage will be to "one body".

So - this leads us to a possibly even more important question - What is a "New Testament Church"?  I have already addressed the "local" part - the autonomous local assembly of born-again believers, disciples in Jesus Christ.  But how does one know if an assembly is actually a "church"?  In a perfect world - there wouldn't be a need to differentiate (here's that denomination thing again).  Yet in an average town, with many local groups identifying themselves as a "church" - many with very wide ideas, doctrines, and theologies - they cannot all be genuine.  God is clearly not the author of confusion.  The most basic and fundamental answer to "What is a New Testament Church" must be - a church that adheres to the model, practices (as practical), and most importantly doctrines that were established by Christ Himself in His ministry.

Because of both my youthful days attending an Episcopal congregation, and my studies in seminary on the subject, I know what the core doctrines and practices are within the denomination known as "Episcopalian", including its roots to the Anglican Communion (centered with the Church of England).  So while driving down the road, if I see a sign that says "Episcopal", I have a pretty good idea what they teach and believe.  Likewise, most denominational identities can also give us a clue to the general beliefs held by that organization.  Unfortunately, names have become unreliable.

First - we have denominations who have seen massive and rapid changes in even their core beliefs and doctrines.  So much so that anyone not directly involved or connected with that group might not even be aware.  Second, even within some denominations that have not changed a lot, there an be an amazing divergence of though from one congregation to another.  Then, to further blur the lines - you have churches that refuse to use denominational identifiers, even when they hold beliefs and practices that are exact mirrors of established denominations.

Take "Baptist" for example.  There are dozens of different types of "Baptists" right here in North America, that cover a surprisingly wide swath of doctrines and theologies.  Even historic Baptists have had two distinct lines of doctrines that were separated by some rather large differences of doctrine (primarily centered on the security of salvation).  Yet today, when you see "Baptist" on a church sign, what assumptions can you make?  The church I pastor has a clear-cut statement of faith, shared by other churches in our association.  The simplified version:

I. We believe in One God, in three Persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - eternal in nature and equal in Divine Perfection.

II. The Bible is the Word of God - inerrant in its original manuscripts, the Old and New Testaments provide the sole measure of faith and practice.

III. God created all things for His pleasure and glory.

IV. Satan is real

V. Mankind, while created in the image of God and worthy, on that single fact, of respect. But, because of sin (all sin), the image of God in man was marred.  We are all sinners, worthy of death and eternal punishment because we are incapable of the perfection God desires.

VI. Salvation is by God's Grace, through faith in Jesus Christ alone.  Not by salvation, not by any works that we could perform with our hands.  That salvation is available to all who believe.

VII. God is Sovereign, yet mankind is responsible.

VIII. Salvation is Secure - if one is truly Born-again, then Jesus Himself said we cannot be plucked from His Hand.

IX. We believe that the church is manifest visibly as the local church, autonomous in nature, and it is in the local church that authority has been given to administer the ordinances of the church (baptism and the Lord's Supper), and it is through the local Church that God works to evangelize, minister, and fulfill His commands.  It is through the church that Christ receives glory.

X. We believe that Christ is coming back, that there will be great judgments, that there is both a literal Heaven and literal Hell.  Heaven is reserved for those who have been redeemed by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ's atoning work on the Cross.  Hell is the eternal destination for the unregenerate.

(For our full Statement of Faith, click here: CMBC Statement of Faith)

All of our practices as a local church have these planks as the stage for our practice and mission.  There are many local churches and even denominations who would agree 100% with this statement,  while there are even those who identify themselves as "Baptists" who would disagree with some of this.  Further, there are local bodies and denominations that would disagree with the majority of that statement.  Where does one "draw the line"?  Is it on our stand regarding Baptism, its meaning, and the mode (immersion)?

Obviously, regardless of name, any body that denies that Jesus was God in the flesh, that He lived without sin, that He died for the sins of the world, that He actually rose from the dead cannot be considered a genuine representation of the "Church" Christ gave His life for!

Any "church" that denies that Grace, through faith is sufficient for salvation (in other words - that teaches you must earn, merit, or maintain your salvation by works) would fall short of the mandates of the Word of God.

Any body that holds to the teaching that Jesus is simply "A" means to salvation is denying the very words of Jesus! John 14:6,  Acts 4:12.

We could continue to pick apart the major divisions between denominations for a lifetime and not get to the bottom of the debate.  The important thing to consider - what does the Bible say?  And this brings us back to the theme of denominations/names.  There are conservative, New Testament churches that are "Baptist" in doctrine, who have chosen to not identify (at least in name) with "Baptist".  This had caused a great deal of hard feelings among sister churches, but it isn't hard to figure out some of their reasons (whether we agree with them or not).  First - as I hinted of earlier in this post - names have lost some meaning due to changes in beliefs and practices, causing confusion.  Second, some who have identified with particular denominations have done great harm to that name (think Westboro Baptist and their hate-mongering).  Do these provide a solid reason for rejecting a name?  I don't believe so, but I can sympathize.

A shocking reality is, regardless of the "name" a local congregation identifies with, many members of those congregations don't really even know what their church really believes, much less what others believe!  This is a product of recruiting instead of disciple making (what did Jesus command? - Matthew 28:19).  Lack of genuine discipleship have led to a total loss of understanding - and people then cling to denominations like a social club.  They totally miss the instructions to BE the church.

The church I pastor has chosen to continue to clearly identify at "Missionary Baptist Church" - and we believe that anyone who has an idea what Missionary Baptists typically believe and teach, will know immediately what they can expect, doctrinally, if they were to walk through the door.  On the flip side, wouldn't it be nice to be able to just go back almost 200 years and just identify as "Church at __________"?  But as long as there are very real, and important differences in doctrine and understanding, there will be the "need" for the denominational identities.  But the real need is for genuine spiritual growth and understanding within each genuinely born-again believer.  God is not the author of confusion, so there can only be one true understanding, one true faith.  That faith, ultimately, will not be known by a denominational name - but as Christ's Bride!  But until that time comes, I will continue to self-identify as a "Baptist", with the hopes that most will at least somewhat grasp what that means.  What do you identify yourself as?  Can you explain what that really means to someone who may not understand?  Do you know WHY you identify that way?  If not, maybe its time to dig a little deeper.

Who Do You Associate With? It Matters!

I never cease to be amazed by people.  But one area that really concerns me is how many professed Christians willingly tie themselves to people and figures that, if they would stop and think about it, they probably don't really want to be associated with.  This is a whole lot like the attitudes of many churches (and their leaders)!

Among more conservative denominations, there is a practice that is seriously frowned on called "pulpit affiliation".  It took me some time to finally grasp what was meant (since few would actually even explain it to me), but basically - it is the practice of some congregations to let anyone speak/teach/preach in their church.  The reason many conservative churches deny such "affiliation" should be pretty obvious - if they invite in someone of a different faith, who then uses that opportunity to speak/preach/teach something unscriptural or even a blatant heresy - who does it reflect upon, much less what damage could be done.  

I have heard some argue that the refusal to allow ministers from other faiths to speak in your church is nothing but denominational or religious pride.  I won't deny that this hasn't happened (particularly when the denial is not based on beliefs, doctrines, or scripturally-soundness of a speaker, but because they come from a "competing" denomination (I could imagine this happening between the association I am a pastor within (BMA) and a preacher from an ABA church (from which the BMA split in 1950).

Do I, as a church pastor, subject the congregation (flock) that the Lord has entrusted to my care and leadership to possible heresies?  Yes, some of my congregation have the spiritual maturity to recognize false teachings and to "tune them out", but others (as is the case in most congregations) lack that maturity.

But in ways possibly more damaging, what does it say about this church if I/we were to invite in known heretics?  Are we not defiling the church not only by allowing them in, but to proclaim to the world "this guy (or woman) is great and trustworthy"?  I believe this is one of the ideas behind Paul's writing in Ephesians 5:11

"Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness,
but instead expose them."

This is the debate going on right now regarding several "Christian Leaders" who have been long-considered "conservative, solid teachers and preachers", who - for whatever reason, begin to associate with known false teachers who practice some pretty major heresies in their own ministries.  This brings about what I believe are legitimate questions.  One such example is the associations between Francis Chan (author of Crazy Love, Forgotten God, both of which I have read and thoroughly enjoyed and learned a great deal from) and Mike Bickle of IHOP (International House of Prayer.... not the restaurant chain).  Yet Bickle invited Chan to speak at one of his Onething Conferences.  Some have berated Chan for accepting and speaking - thus tying himself and reputation to that group that many believe (I believe rightly so) is dangerous and even heretical.  Others defend Chan as taking an opportunity to speak truth to those who might be otherwise not fed the truth.  I fell into this latter category, until Chan "endorsed" Bickle.  (I was hesitant to insert that last link, as the organization represented - Apprising Ministries isn't without questions.)

Yes, we can learn from those who may "miss the mark" from time-to-time - after all, as sinners - we all "miss the mark".  BUT - some tend to miss the mark more often than they hit it, which brings us back to who we associate ourselves with.  We have looked at church association, using pulpit affiliation as the example.  But what about individual Christians?  

With the growth of social media, we now have access to massive volumes of quotes, statements, blogs, and other resources.  It gets quite easy to "post" links and quotes that sound good.  But unfortunately, on a personal level, we do the same thing as a church inviting in a wolf to preach to the flock...  Oh - how many reposts of quotes from very well-known "Prosperity Gospel" (name-it, claim it, "Jesus died to make you rich if you just have enough faith...and give to my cause) leaders.  These well-meaning Christians post and repost quotes from the Joel Osteen (one of the biggest of the popular heretics), Joyce Meyer (mixed bag of Prosperity Gospel and charismatic teachings being just the beginning), and many more.  Would these otherwise good "Christians" ever even think about going to a church to sit under the "teaching" of such people - I would hope and pray not - but they will gladly pass on for all to see a quote that sounds good (even a stopped clock is right twice a day!).  Ladies and Gentlemen - this is exactly how cults lure in followers!  They feed you just enough "truth" to make it sound good... It is much like the Genesis account of the original sin - When Satan tempted Eve - he ALMOST quoted God exactly... just adding one "little" word... you will not surely die (Genesis3:4 - compare that to Genesis 2:17).

Now - do not get me wrong - there are some good, solid Bible teachers and preachers out there that hold certain relatively "minor" differences of views (you can find that within the walls of many local churches) when it comes to the less clear areas of biblical thought.  I am not referring to that (on any given day, you will find these kinds of differences within similarly educated men who pastor churches in the same denomination).  I am referring those who hold major doctrinal differences (such as mode of salvation, purpose and meaning of baptism and the Lord's Supper, reliability of scripture, the identity of Jesus Christ, or even the message of the Gospel itself!).  Indeed - we get into trouble any time our spiritual heart focuses more on a person than on the Person and Power of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 1:12-13).

But do we really want (should we) associate ourselves with heretics and the blatant false-teachers?  I invite you to again refer to Ephesians 5:11.  Let us not put stumbling blocks before those who are less mature, and most certainly not before unbelievers.