Session 3: Egalitarianism and Marxist Theory in Christianity 

No amount of rhetoric can subvert the Law of God. The woke ones will reap what they sow. Our pleading for them to wake up from woke is founded in actual love and a knowing that they are aiming for bondage. My fear is they may live their entire lives unaware of the bondage they put themselves in. Constantly looking outward and never coming to grips with their own depravity. Confronting my sin is how I find peace. Lord, may they as well.

We live overseas in the beautiful country of Malaysia. Malaysia is a multi-ethnic nation Malaysian, tribal Malaysian, Chinese, and Indian as well as foreign workers from everywhere. Malaysia is also an Islamic state that requires all Malaysian citizens to be Muslims. All other ethnic groups have religious freedom but are forbidden by law to proselytize to Muslims. So here's my question: If CRT is a necessary part of the Gospel, then like the Biblical gospel, it should be universally applied to every culture. If I were to bring this theory to Malaysia, I would get blank stares and most likely would get kicked out of the country. This social justice thing is an American phenomenon that cannot be carried over into the church in other countries as easily as the pure Gospel. It's a cultural social phenomenon confined to America because its roots are political not spiritual. The Gospel is for the Kingdom of God and not the earthly kingdom; CRT is directed toward one specific earthly kingdom. So it is not a gospel issue and should not have any place in the church. The Gospel is for all nations; CRT is directed to one nation and even then it is a bad faulty theory that cannot match up to the way things actually are in a fallen world. The cure for the Christian who is caught up in this nonsense is to read Ecclesiastes to get a reality check and then to read 1 John and soak themselves in the love of God to find their true identity in Christ.

God bless you Jon!!

I love this format. I love to hear your lectures.HISTORY

You can't be racist against white people, or at least that is what I have been told. So not all racism gets you cancelled because hating whites is usually praised. Thank you for all of these talks. It's very helpful to have these and to have someone call out truth in a society full of lies.

37:30 is when the John Perkins talk happens. Thanks Mr Harris!

Thank you for these excellent explanations, Jon ! This is much needed information for believers.

Most excellent

Have you discussed the book "One Blood" by John Perkins on your channel yet?

Jon, I was trying to see if it is possible to get a signed copy through the website you have provided, and it seems I cannot get it shipped to Canada. Is that correct? After putting in my Canadian address, it says "shipping options not available". I suppose I don't really need to get a signed copy, but it would be kind of nice. Either way, I learn a lot from your tireless posts on RU-vid. Thanks very much! -Randy in Edmonton, Canada

There is no communion table unity.

Jon, who is JR, "THE BRAIN".

Excellent presentation with a common blindspot. Reformed hermeneutics leads to the social Gospel by importing a human modification of the Mosaic code into the Gospel. Jon quoted Galatians 2 but then continues to use the Mosaic code "principles" to bind the Christian. Like other Reformed, he then cuts up God's Laws into man created categories (moral, civil and ceremonial). All the Reformed make this error, they ignore Galatians 2 and put patches of new skin on the old, dead and buried, Mosaic code. All Reformed add to the Gospel as the Pharisees added to the Mosaic code human reasoning. Thus they open the door to using the old testament to promote social justice for others. Familiarize yourself with New Covenant theology, similar in some ways to Mcarthur's "leaky dispensationalism". ALL the previous covenants are fulfilled at the cross. NONE of them are law to Christian's today. We ARE under law, that of Christ as explained in the Newest Testament. Yes, some older laws have been renewed, even made stronger. However others have been explicitly repealed such as holding ANY day more sacred than any other. In fact, if you read Genesis you will find that incest was required and promoted even through the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Yes, incest was required before Moses. Then under Moses, incest was forbidden but polygamy including marriage to your brother's wife was REQUIRED. Now it is not, rather forbidden. God CHANGES Laws as He sees fit. It is NOT our place to break up His laws into man made categories of civil, moral and ceremonial and then extract "principles" to import. This is the same error of the Pharisees who substituted the tradition of men for the word of God. Stop idolizing Calvin who is a great man, but had errors as we all do. Semper Reformanda means the willingness to reject the Reformers where they erred based on Scripture. Pinky, please get out of YOUR echo chamber and learn to think for 3. Thus writes The Brain to my dear sidekick Jon "Pinky" Harris.

38:00 CRU ( formerly Campus Crusade ..Bill Bright ) had a very weak emphasis in its early days THE FOUR SPIRITUAL LAWS An example of this is the Four Spiritual Laws written by Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ. These “four laws” are supposed to present the gospel. Law number one is “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.” While it is true that God loves the sinner and Christ died to make it possible for him to be saved, it is not true that God has a wonderful plan for every lost sinner. His plan for lost sinners who reject Jesus Christ is to put them into eternal Hell. That is not very wonderful! Why did the apostle Paul not start with a Campus Crusade-type approach when presenting the gospel in the book of Romans? Why did he not approach the people at Athens in such a manner (Acts 17)? Instead he first explained God’s holiness and judgment to come and commanded them to repent of their idolatry and sin. Bill Bright admitted that he wrestled with his conscience when he changed the approach to a positive one, and even one of his own daughters at that time told him she felt he was on the wrong track. When Bright first wrote his gospel pamphlet in 1958, it began with man’s sin and separation from God. But when the pamphlet was revised a few of years later, in the early 1960s, he changed this so it would be more positive. In his book Come Help Change the World, he relates this account: Originally our first law emphasized man’s sin, but the Lord impressed me to emphasize God’s love. This change was made just before we went to press. I had done my final editing and had left Vonette and the girls to finish the typing. As I had been traveling a great deal and it was quite late, I had gone upstairs to bed. In fact, I was in bed just at the point of going to sleep, when suddenly there came clear as a bell to my conscious mind the fact that there was something wrong about starting the Four Laws on the negative note of man’s sinfulness. ... I felt that few people would say ‘No’ to Christ if they truly understood how much He loves them and how great is His concern for them. So I got out of bed, went to the head of the stairs and called down to Vonette and the girls to revise the presentation so that the first law would be, ‘God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life,’ instead of ‘You are a sinner and separated from God.’ ... Thus the Four Spiritual Laws started with the positive note of God’s love and plan. Some time later, one of the girls said to me, ‘I was so distressed over your change in the presentation that I wept that night. I was afraid that you were beginning to dilute the gospel and that you were no longer faithful to the Lord, because you placed such a strong emphasis on the love of God rather than on man’s sin. Now in retrospect, I realize of course that this is one of the greatest things that has ever happened to the Campus Crusade ministry’ (Bill Bright, Come Help Change the World, Here’s Life Publishers, 1985, pp. 28,29). We believe Bill Bright’s staff worker was right when she wept and feared that he had diluted the gospel. He adapted the gospel to the philosophy of the world. He removed much of the reproach of the cross. He created an evangelistic tool that can be used successfully by the entire world of apostate ecumenism. His type of gospel presentation is used by modernistic World Council of Churches-affiliated denominations. It is so generic that it is used even by Roman Catholics. We are convinced that the voice that spoke “clear as a bell” to Bill Bright about changing the approach of the gospel was not the Lord’s. Three decades later this positive, psychological, man-centered approach has swept through most Christian circles. It is the approach used, for the most part, by the New Evangelicals, by the Charismatics, by the Ecumenists, even by most Fundamentalists. While biblical Fundamentalists eschew Campus Crusade’s worldly, New Evangelical approach to Christianity, all too often the soul winning plan used in Fundamentalist circles is very similar to the Four Spiritual Laws. We don’t mean to belittle the fact that God loves sinners and we don’t mean to say it is wrong to tell the unsaved of that love. God does love sinners, and that is what the gospel is all about. We praise Him for it. But when approaching the unsaved, the apostles emphasized God’s holiness and His just demands upon a sinful world. They emphasized man’s lost condition and the necessity of repentance. This is the right way to approach the unsaved. It is not very positive and does not fit in with the popular philosophy of the hour, and might not result in as many “decisions,” but it is Bible; it is the pattern that God has given us. The Bible does not start with God’s love. It starts with God’s holy character and with man’s fall. In fact, the entire first two thirds of the Bible deals with this before it gets to the New Testament presentation of Christ. Who would deny that the Old Testament is largely negative? And why is this? Are we to ignore the fact that God lays a foundation of law for the presentation of the gospel? Evangelists and revivalists of old certainly followed the Bible’s pattern in this. The apostles certainly did. Who are we to change this? Why the negative approach? Why not just focus on God’s love and on Heaven and let sin take care of itself? The reason is that unsaved man does not understand nor appreciate the love of God until he understands the holiness and justice of God. When Paul preached the gospel in the book of Romans, he did not even mention the love of God until chapter 5. He began with God’s claims on man, with the law, with man’s wretched condition. God uses the law to create in man the understanding he needs of God and sin in order to get saved. The law is the schoolmaster to bring sinners to Christ (Gal. 3:24). Many years ago, as a young missionary newly arrived in the country of Nepal, I was invited to preach at an underground evangelistic meeting (gospel preaching was illegal in Nepal at that time) arranged by the national branch of Campus Crusade for Christ. (Though we were independent missionaries and did not work with Campus Crusade, they invited me to speak at that particular meeting, and in my ignorance and naivete I accepted the invitation.) Standing before a group of idolatrous Hindus and Buddhists, I used Romans as my text and went point by point through the gospel just as Paul preached it. (1) God is holy and righteous and hates sin. (2) All men have sinned and are therefore and under God’s righteous judgment. (3) God has provided for man’s salvation through the atonement of His Son the Lord Jesus Christ. (4) This redemption is received as a free gift by faith in the finished work of Christ and by calling upon Him for salvation. The leader of Campus Crusade for Christ in Nepal took me aside after the meeting and told me that my preaching was “too negative.” He instructed me to be positive in my approach and not to make the hearers feel depressed. I rejected his counsel, because the Holy Spirit’s presentation of the gospel in the Bible is different from that of Campus Crusade. I reject every presentation of the gospel that is positive in its approach and that ignores or slights over God’s law and holiness and sin and repentance. from www.wayoflife.org/database/unscripturalpresentations.html

It's not hugely important but it's driving me crazy that this guy is saying "hi-archy" instead of hierarchy. "High-er-archy" is the way you need to say it. There are two 'r's and a vowel between them.