Home » Posts tagged 'Calvary Chapel'

Tag Archives: Calvary Chapel

Revivalism or Fake Revival, Jesus Revolution, and Asbury, pt. 2

Part One

When someone speaks of revival, built into the terminology is a return to something right, that was wrong.  A change takes place.  True revival is not the invention of something new, not seen before in the history of true, biblical Christianity.

Hippie Movement from Haight Ashbury, San Francisco

In the 1960s, especially centered in Woodstock, New York and the Haight Ashbury District, San Francisco, a hippie movement began.  Called the flower children, they distributed flowers or floral decorations to symbolize their peace, love, universal belonging and protest the Vietnam War.  They formed their own counter culture.

Men of the culture at large still wore short hair, which conforms to biblical teaching (cf. 1 Cor 11:14).  God willed men to keep this gender distinction. Male hippies rebelled against God’s design by growing long hair — not just long, but not combed or neat either.  Today some might call what hippies wore, “casual dress.”  They spurred this informal appearance, a kind of egalitarianism communicating that no one was above anyone else.  More than that, they appeared slovenly, unkept, disordered, and ragged, some now might call “authenticity.”

Being hippy also meant sex, drugs, and rock n roll for adherents of the hippie lifestyle.  Christians at no point in history would permit those as “Christian liberty,” a manifestation of God’s grace.  Hippies practiced free sex, ignoring the conventional and biblical requirement of marriage.  They took drugs like LSD and marijuana apparently to enhance their experience.  While others sat on chairs, they went so far even to forego those for the floor or ground.  Many wouldn’t wear shoes, embracing their noble savage, uncorrupted by civilization.

Jesus Freaks

Northern California Move to Southern

With the growth of hippiedom, some went into the Haight Ashbury district of San Francisco to bring the Bible to the hippies.  I’ve met some from that time period and they believed that their drugs took them out of their bodies into a greater God consciousness, an ecstatic experience that transcended themselves.  Then they tried to take this novel Christianity into some Northern California churches.  When no churches accepted, this branch of religious hippies, known as Jesus Freaks, moved to Southern California.

Lonnie Frisbee

The Jesus Freak hippies, who migrated South, were under the influence of a leader named Lonnie Frisbee.  Randall Roberts, reporter for the Los Angeles Times, wrote about Frisbee in an article titled, “Jesus, drugs and rock ’n’ roll: How an O.C. hippie church birthed contemporary Christian music”:

The birth of contemporary Christian rock and pop music in America can in part be traced to a vision received by a 17-year-old runaway from Costa Mesa named Lonnie Frisbee.

After stripping naked and taking LSD in 1967 near Tahquitz Falls outside of Palm Springs, the young man called to God.

As water from the falls crashed, Frisbee, who wore his hair and beard like the archetypal Jesus Christ, saw himself standing beside the Pacific Ocean, Bible in hand, staring out at the horizon. But instead of water, the sea was filled with lost souls crying out for salvation.

“God, if you’re really real, reveal yourself to me,” Frisbee, who died of AIDS in 1993, later recalled pleading. “And one afternoon, the whole atmosphere of this canyon I was in started to tingle and get light and it started to change — and I’m just going, ‘Uh oh!’”

Frisbee dressed like the popular, secular notion or stereotype of Jesus with flowing robe and long hair, using soft-spoken tones also ala the flower children.  It played well with the rebellion of the hippy subculture.  At first the hippies met on the beach and baptized in the ocean.  They used 1-2-3 pray-with-me evangelism, where someone prayed the prayer and was dunked under the waves shortly thereafter.  Their view of grace brought forgiveness and eternal life, while still being and living like a hippie.

Rejecting the Historical Church, Its Doctrine, Practice, and Worship

Chuck Smith

The Jesus Freaks found a welcoming host in a buttoned down traditional four-square Pentecostal church with Chuck Smith as its pastor.  He had 25 in his congregation in 1965.  His church sang hymns.  He wore a dark suit and tie.  That changed.

Smith’s encounter with Lonnie Frisbee offered the opportunity to take these hippies into his customary church.  Smith did not come from a historical line of Christian churches.  His trajectory came from the early 20th century heritage of the modern Charismatic or Pentecostal movement, founded on the continuation of sign gifts for today.  Smith could embrace further deviation from orthodox, historic doctrine, practice, and worship.  In 2018, John MacArthur described Smith’s predicament:

What’s he going to do? What’s the church going to do? So they had a meeting and they decided that, “We’ll lose them [speaking of his whole congregation] and they’ll [the hippies or Jesus Freaks] leave if we don’t accommodate them.” They didn’t like the music; they didn’t like the dress code; they didn’t like anything. For the first time in church history that I can find, an aberrant, small, deviant, subculture redefined the character of a church.

Acquiescing to a Youth Culture

On another occasion and I agree with him, MacArthur said, characterizing this Jesus Revolution:

That was already being discussed a lot of places, because the hippie movement caught fire across America – the movement of rebellion against authority, responsibility, duty, expectation; rebellion against right, honor; it caught fire. So the church feared, “We’re going to lose these people if we don’t acquiesce.” So for the first time when the Jesus people came to church, first time I can find in church history, the church began to redefine its own identity and worship based upon the wishes of a rebellious subculture. That definition started then and spread; started in California, spread clear across the country.

Prior to the ‘60s, nobody expected a church service to be rock concert. Nobody expected a church service to be entertainment, . . . worship to be physical stimulation, emotional feelings without engaging your mind, . . . church to be a manipulation of people’s desires to fulfill their own self-styled identity. A church was a church, and it was a place where there was thoughtful, prayerful, biblical, sober-minded hearing from the Word of God, leading to conviction and edification and elevation. It was a heavenly encounter.

Modern Generation

MacArthur continued:

But to this modern generation of young people – serious, sober, thoughtful, scriptural preaching about God, and confrontation of sin, and a call to holiness, and a call to separate from the world and from iniquity is far too absolute and far too offensive. People who want to feel good about themselves the way they are don’t want that, so the . . . church caved in and gave them what they want. And now pastors continue to accommodate those same people – irresponsible, lazy, undisciplined rebels who want what they want – and the church, instead of confronting it, conforms to it. No preaching on sanctification, no preaching on holiness can be done in those environments; they’d empty the place.

Broken People?

Professing Christian leaders now justify the Jesus revolution as ‘God using broken people.”  He used Samson and David, is the explanation.  God used Peter, but Peter was a believer, filled with the Holy Spirit, obedient to Jesus Christ, when he preached on the Day of Pentecost.  He does not use unbelievers, these “broken people,” for a flurry of conversions.

God does not use believers, who are living in sin.  They are vessels unto dishonor, who are not meet for the Master’s use.  The Jesus revolution was not a blessing to Christianity, to the church, or to the world.  This revolution started something new and wrong.  It was a bad revolution, like many other revolutions in the history of the world.

David Wilkerson and Historic Confrontation of Jesus Freaks

David Wilkerson was a mainstream evangelical in the late 1950s and through the 1970s.  He is known for the popular Christian book, The Cross and the Switchblade.  Youtube above showed a historic confrontation he had in the 1960s with the Jesus Freaks that indicates how much they clashed then with even evangelicalism.  These men present a deviant view of biblical sanctification, however, a false view that has become much more mainstream today in evangelicalism.

The Jesus Freak argument with Wilkerson represents a neo-libertine view of sanctification.  It combines with a portion of early woke or social justice warrior.  For instance, in the video above these men contradict Wilkerson by judging him by the standard Jesus imposed on the rich young ruler.  Sell all that you have and give it to the poor.  They see righteousness in their disheveled look, which someone could pose just as easily as any external or formal appearance.  Conveniently, they evince faith parallel with the lifestyle preferred by hippies.

More to Come

Revivalism or Fake Revival, Jesus Revolution, and Asbury

Other Work By Me On This Topic (Here1, Here2, Here3, Here4, Here5, Here6, Here7, Here8, Here9, Here10, and Here11)

What do you think is worse?  Fake Revival or No Revival?  I would say, fake is worse.  I’ve got, I think, good reasons for fake being worse than no revival.  Fake revival does far more damage than nothing happening.  True revivals through history occurred.  Probably more fake ones though.

Jesus Revolution and Asbury University

In recent days, attention focuses in the United States among religious folk especially about an apparent revival in the 1960s, called the Jesus Revolution in Time Magazine.  Descendants of Calvary Chapel made a movie, which is in mainstream, secular theaters.  Another apparent revival presented itself in Asbury, Kentucky, at Asbury University, a historic Wesleyan/Holiness institution.  I see it as a great interest that these two so-called revivals dovetailed like they did.

Revival moved up as a conversation topic.  Conservative podcasts even among non-believers discuss the two, Jesus Revolution and Asbury.  I think Fox News mentioned the two in various instances.  Because Emmy award winner, Kelsey Grammer, starred as Chuck Smith in the Jesus Revolution movie, that brought greater coverage and consciousness.

Asbury reads as Woke or somewhat woke, which modified its revival in the traditional sense.  In the history of the United States, historians point to two revivals they call “the First Great Awakening” and “the Second Great Awakening.”  Before the second, the first was just the Great Awakening, like the first was just the Great War until a second World War occurred.

The two, the first and second Great Awakenings, were much different in nature and in effect.  A big chunk of professing Christendom rejects the second Great Awakening and says only the Great Awakening in colonial America actually happened.  I would be one of those.  I agree the Great Awakening was a revival.  The second was a fake one.

Controversy of Calling Something “Not a Revival”

Calling a professed revival, not a revival, is as controversial as denying the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election.  People who accept the revival, like those who say the Covid vaccinations were wonderful, want to hear only positive affirmation of their revival.

Questioning a revival is very close to questioning salvation, which is taught in scripture.  If you read either 1 John or James, those two epistles among other places in the Bible, you see challenging or questioning a salvation profession.  John does it.  James does it.  Paul does it.  And Jesus does it.  Some will stand at the very Great White Throne before Jesus, professing salvation, and He will say, “Depart from me, I never knew you.”

Revival, as I see it in scripture, is a larger than normal flurry of true conversions.  The idea of revival indicates something dead becoming alive, which speaks of regeneration.  People are getting really saved in large numbers and based upon true gospel preaching.

The Asbury leaders say that God brought a revival there starting on February 8.  They also say they can’t stop it, since God brought it, even though they did stop the regular meetings there just this last week in part because of a case of measles.  As you might comprehend already, I don’t think the Asbury “Outpouring” or the Jesus Revolution were revival.  I don’t need to wait to see on those two.  I’m saying right now.  They’re not.

My Experience

School Camp

As a senior in high school, I experienced my only gully-washer so-called revival experience.  My academy had school camp, which it also called “spiritual emphasis week.”  We got revivalistic style preaching morning and night.  In long and emotional invitations, weeping students knelt at the front.  Thirteen made professions.

The week ended with a session of emotional testimonies.  Then we headed home.  It did not translate into anything lasting.  Not long after, it was the same-old, same-old with rebellion, apathy, and lack of biblical interest.  The effects of school camp and spiritual emphasis week, despite the “revival,” didn’t continue.

Jack Hyles

When Jack Hyles was alive and in his heyday, in many instances I was in meetings where almost everyone in massive auditoriums came forward at his invitation.  They streamed forward with only a few people left in their seats.  I would think that Hyles could easily vie with any revivalist in his production of effect.  If immediate outward manifestations measured revival, Hyles did better than anyone I’ve ever seen and on a more consistent basis.

At one point, independent Baptist, revivalist churches in the Hyles movement were the largest churches in the world.  Huge crowds gathered to hear a line-up of revivalist preachers.  They were pragmatic and doctrinally errant, but people felt intense closeness to God. I’m telling you that I’ve seen it.

Jack Hyles compared his gatherings to the Day of Pentecost and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.  This recent “revival” at Asbury University its advocates also call an “outpouring.”  This reflects a particular viewpoint about the Holy Spirit, that since the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, more outpourings of Him might occur.

Mexico

I took a trip to Mexico after my Freshman year in high school, and we drove into remote mountain villages around Monterrey to hold revival meetings.  I didn’t know Spanish except for six or so verses I could quote then.  Dozens and dozens made professions of faith with the pragmatic, emotional manipulation that occurred by my group.  I would contend that much greater fake revival occurred in the 60s and 70s through revivalists than the Asbury one.  These revivals did not get popular media attention of Asbury or the Jesus Revolution, but they resulted in explosive numerical growth as significant as the Jesus Revolution and much greater than Asbury.

Revival?

In listening to a few evaluations of the Jesus Revolution, a significant effect of this revival, mentioned by supporters, was the rise and popularity of Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) and informal or casual dress in church attenders.  I could add others from reading and observation. I’ve read Calvary Chapel Distinctives and the Philosophy of Calvary Chapel.  I got especially interested, because of one of the largest evangelical churches in the state of Oregon is in Applegate, very close to where we started our church in Jackson County there.  Many people involved with the movement, it’s obvious have no true conversion and don’t even understand the gospel.

I listened to at least one of the revivalists running the Asbury revival in one of its earlier video recorded services.  I would not characterize what I saw as revival.  I wouldn’t call it gospel preaching.  It was so shallow, superficial, sentimental, worldly, woke, and Charismatic that I would have nothing to do with it.  I hope someone gets saved through it, like Paul hoped in Philippians 1 with men who opposed him.  Of course, I would want the salvation of people in Kentucky in the Asbury vein and through the Jesus Movement out of California.  I believe both hurt the overall cause of Christ like any fake revival would.

Many years ago, Ian Murray wrote the classic Revival and Revivalism, distinguishing between true revival and only revivalism.  Almost everything today is revivalism, which is fake revival.  People want God to do something.  God is doing something.  Instead of being so overtly concerned that He does something, they should surrender to what He has done, is doing, and will do in the future.

More to Come

How Is Alcohol Related to Worship?

Maybe the question of the title got your attention.  It sounds like that’s what I was trying to do, but I wasn’t.  Instead I jumped into the car and turned it to the 24/7 radio station of the biggest Calvary Chapel in our area of Oregon.  The son, who is now the senior pastor, was preaching on worship, a subject that is near and dear to me, as you readers know.  In the midst of his talk, he had his crowd turn to Ephesians 5:18-19, which read:

18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; 19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

He didn’t break down verse 18 very far, but he related being “sloshed,” a word he used twice to refer to being drunk.  He said that alcohol itself was fine, just not being drunk.  To start, that belies the grammar of the verse.  Look at it.  Speaking of the “wine,” Paul said, “wherein is excess.”  In other words, in the wine is excess, which is riotousness.  The “wine” itself isn’t innocent.  This is also how the Bible reads about alcohol or “wine” that can get someone drunk.  It must be alcoholic, so in it is excess or riotousness, which are both sinful.

The Calvary Chapel senior pastor then said that there is a kind of singing when someone is sloshed.  He compared to drunken revelry, and he said that was a contrast here.  One can imagine the pub where a group of men are staggering home off pitch and slurring a popular song, what today is called a drinking song.  I know this happens, but is this what Ephesians 5:18 is talking about?  No.  It really misses the point.

Being drunk is contrasted with being filled with the Spirit.  There are at least two points that Paul is making with this contrast and it does relate to worship.  One, drunkenness puts alcohol in control of someone.  He’s controlled by the alcohol.  The Greek words for “filled with” mean “be controlled by.”  The believer is commanded to be controlled by the Holy Spirit and not alcohol.  The alcohol is related to worship, but someone is never to be controlled by anyone or anything but the Holy Spirit.  That means in every area of life, which the next twenty something verses reveal.

The control of alcohol brings excess and riotousness.  The control of the Holy Spirit results in something else, what follows in the proceeding verses.  Alcohol really does control.  Someone can understand that.  With that understanding, come to the Holy Spirit and imagine His controlling instead.  Alcohol almost totally takes over with limited human control.  Holy Spirit control is almost total control with a background of human control.  A person is still doing something, but he’s controlled by Someone else as a whole, the Holy Spirit.

The second point of Paul is to relate to the false worship of Ephesus at the temple of Diana that the audience of the church at Ephesus would know.  In the base of the pillars were ornately carved grapes.  Drunkenness was part of the worship.  It would bring a state of ecstasy, which was confused with a kind of divine control.  This out of body type of experience of drunkenness gives the impression that someone is out of control, which he is, but that he is under the control of divine power.   He isn’t. It’s the alcohol.  Paul contrasts the false worship of Ephesus with the true worship of the true God.  It isn’t ecstatic, which unfortunately and ironically is the worship of these Calvary Chapels.

The rock music of the the CCM that even originated with the first Jesus’ movement of the first Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, California gave the impression of something spiritual occurring.  It wasn’t.  It was entirely fleshly, ecstatic, like the drunkenness of the worship of Diana.  Fleshly music brings a kind of ecstasy like that produced by alcohol that gives a counterfeit, false experience of spirituality.  It might be “a spirit,” but it isn’t the Holy Spirit.  It isn’t Holy and it isn’t Spiritual.  Spiritual worship does not arise from the flesh, from alcohol, or from rhythm.  These churches manipulate their listeners, giving them the wrong understanding of true spirituality.  It is a form of idolatry.

There is actually no contrast in the worship of the Calvary Chapels with the world’s temples.  They incorporate the ecstatic experience of the world into their so-called “worship.”  In so doing, their people develop a false imagination of God.  Their worship gives them a false god that does not have the same nature as the One and True God.

The local Calvary Chapel pastor compared drunken singing to the singing of Ephesians 5:19.  First, he approved of alcohol as long as someone isn’t “sloshed.”  He was saying this in a mocking tone, like he was embarrassed to be preaching about something bad related to alcohol.  He was approving of alcohol as long as it didn’t result in drunkenness.  In many people’s minds, being “sloshed” is a further level of drunkenness than the mere term drunken or legal drunkenness.  This is missing the teaching of the verse and is dangerous to his audience.

The worship of Ephesians 5:19 proceeds from the control of the Holy Spirit. This is not carnal or emotional.  It might result in emotions, but it is not emotional. Colossians 3:16 is a parallel passage and it compares Spirit filling to being controlled by the Words of Christ.  If someone is controlled by the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, the first way that will manifest itself is in true worship.

The participles of Ephesians 5:19 relate to being controlled by the Holy Spirit.  You can or will know if someone is saved and then filled with the Spirit, based upon your worship.  Worship comes first in this list of manifestations.  False worship is controlled by something other than the Holy Spirit.  It doesn’t have to be alcohol.  It could also be fleshly music that brings a closely related ecstasy to that occurring in the false worship in Ephesus.

“Holy” Is Not Related to “Wholly”

Calvary Chapels multiplied here in the Rogue River Watershed beginning in the late 1970s, especially beginning with Applegate Christian Fellowship and Jon Courson, which is the largest congregation in all of Southern Oregon.   This was an outgrowth of the first Calvary Chapel started in Southern California in 1965 with Chuck Smith, proceeding from the Jesus Movement.  Very large other Calvary Chapels have divided off of Applegate here, one called Mountain Church in Medford.  They all have the “Jesus Movement” quality, which was an outlier in the history of Christianity, producing something syncretistic with the culture of the world at a much higher degree than had ever been seen.

Applegate has its own radio station, which plays non-stop here. When I jump in my car, I often turn it on, and almost always someone is teaching from somewhere in the Bible.  The teachers on the station are almost exclusively Courson, either the dad, Jon, or one of this two sons, Ben and Peter-John, the latter who died in 2019, but his replays continue.
Until I moved up here to Oregon, I knew of Calvary Chapel, but I had not been around it.  I did not know really what distinguished it.  Southern Oregon though has been heavily impacted by Calvary Chapel and I think it is the greatest religious influence in the area where we are evangelizing and starting a church.  Jon Courson left Oregon for a short while around 2002 to help Chuck Smith in the founding Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, California, but came back around 2006 and has been here ever since.
With that introduction, coming home last night at about 5:30pm after evangelizing and passing out gospel tracts in town, I turned on KAPL, the Applegate station, and Jon Courson was teaching from Revelation 4.  When I listen, I’m not doing so with the idea that I want to find something wrong with teaching on that station.  Just the opposite, I know when I turn it on, someone is going to be teaching from the Bible.  I would rather listen to something from the Bible.  I would like it to be good.  Very often I agree.  However, I’m starting to get what the Calvary Chapel doctrine is.
Calvary Chapel doctrine is easy believism.  It is second blessing or keswick sanctification.  It is revivalistic.  It is mystical.  It is overtly positive to a fault, going out of the way so that people won’t feel guilty.  It is what I’ve heard termed (and used myself), cheap grace.  It is very often allegorical and especially in the Old Testament, seeing things in passages that are not there.  For all the time I’ve been listening, I don’t hear a true gospel.  They believe salvation comes through Jesus Christ, but it is mostly a less than saving faith preached.  I don’t hear repentance.  I’m sure they use the term when they get to those passages, but I still had not heard it after hours hearing it in the car.
I think people have been saved at Applegate, but it is so weak that it will give most people the false impression they’re saved, when they’re not.  It changes the nature of Christianity and a true imagination of God.  The doctrine produces worldly people, who call themselves Christians.  They use worldly music and mainly rock.  The sermons are not expository.  They are verse by verse, but they are not finding the point of the text and preaching the text then in its context, which is what expository preaching will do.
What I heard last night is just an example — understand that I’m writing here based on memory of what I was hearing.  Courson was commenting on “holy, holy, holy,” spoken by the angels to God.  He said that the word “holy” relates to “whole” or “wholeness,” related to sound, healthy, or complete.  That make sense to a hearer, because the word “holy” sounds like the word “wholly” (actually exactly like it).
Saying that’s what holy meant, “whole,” then he took off on some related passages, including worshiping God in the beauty of his holiness.  He said that holiness is lovely, that it is attractive to people, because there is a wholeness of completeness to it, as if someone has it all together.  Obviously, if someone gets the meaning of “holy” wrong, that will greatly influence the understanding of Revelation 4, God Himself, the gospel, and the entire Bible.
“Holy” does not mean “whole.”  At best, you get out a book of English etymology and you can find a related Old Scottish word, hale, which means “health, happiness, and wholeness.”  That’s not how you understand the meaning of a biblical word.  Both the Hebrew (qadosh) and Greek (hagios) words translated into the English, “holy,” in the King James Version mean “separate” or “sanctified.”  God’s holiness is beautiful, but that doesn’t mean that it is attractive to an ungodly or unsaved person; just the opposite according to Jesus.  He said men are turned away the light of God, that they hate it and love darkness instead.  Believers should worship God in the beauty of His holiness, because that is God’s standard of beauty.
Beauty to Applegate is what is “whole,” which is attractive to people.  Their “worship” is “attractive,” so it must be “beautiful.”  Actually, beauty is subjective to Applegate.  It isn’t based upon God’s holiness.  God’s holiness isn’t sensual, worldly, and fleshly, among other traits we know God doesn’t like and do not correspond to His nature.
Here’s how Courson explained what was happening then with the angels incessantly proclaiming, “holy, holy, holy,” in the presence of God.  I’m not making this up.  He said that the angels would be considering going back home for the night, but when they look at God, they are so overwhelmed with Him that it produces an ecstatic state, so that out of that impression, they bow down before Him.  They are just blown away by God and then they proceed to get up again to leave, see God again, and are affected again by seeing Him, so that they proclaim, “holy, holy, holy,” again.  They just keep doing this and then just never stop.  I’m not misrepresenting what he said.
Courson said these angels were not automatrons, like, he said, the characters on the Disney ride, Pirates of the Carribean, who just keep singing their refrain in a loop.  He tried to sing “holy, holy, holy” to the tune of the Disney ride.  He said, No, these angels are of greater intelligence then humans, so they are speaking out, “holy, holy, holy,” because of the effects of their seeing God.  Is that what you think?
Here’s a simpler explanation without reading into Revelation 4 this idea that the angels in heaven would go home for the night, but His wholeness is too inspiring to leave.  God created certain angels with the express purpose of praising Him like they do in the heavenly holy of holies.  I don’t doubt their intelligence, but I don’t think they are just blown away by the “wholeness” of God, that He’s just got it all together so much, that they can’t help but stay forever, continuing to say exactly the same thing.  They are fulfilling their duty out of fear of God, which is why they cover their face and feet with separate sets of wings.
“Wholeness” is an easy vessel in which to pour all sorts of ideas, especially for new age teaching.  It helps with cheap grace.  When God commands, “Be ye holy,” like in Leviticus and then 1 Peter, He then doesn’t mean, “be separate,” or distinct, in accordance with the character of God, but that someone has his life all together, whole, happy, and attractive.   People don’t like separation.  God’s holiness is a uniqueness of God, His majesty, the glories of the perfection of His attributes, but they are all maintained by His keeping separate from everything.  Nothing about God then is common or profane. The world will be blown away by this person, who is holy, because his life is so complete, thinking that it is beautiful.  To be holy, he could work on self-care and wellness, to present himself as an attractive person.  This is deceit about the holiness of God.  How could someone sincerely think this, I don’t know.
Another ride in the car two days before, I had KAPL on again, and someone not a Courson was teaching on Acts 10 and 11, and the entire time he was parking on Acts 10:15 (and 11:9):  “And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.”  His exclusive point was the someone who believes in Jesus is not common, whether he’s even not doing what God doesn’t want him to do, since all of us still sin.  I bring this in, because it is related.  When someone isn’t living a righteous life, he is common (or profane).  He isn’t holy.    Sure, if he’s truly saved, he’s positionally holy, but not to sin, and if he is sinning, he is common and profane.
The passage was unrelated to the point this teacher was making.  The truth is that people are not unclean or common just because they are Gentiles or just because they don’t follow the dietary restrictions.  However, it doesn’t mean that people who are actually sinning are not common.  They are.  God doesn’t want believers living in a common or profane manner.  This is just another issue of personal holiness that is twisted that results in a different, unbiblical version of Christianity being presented, and again related to the holiness of God.

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives