Anonymous and I had an exchange last night. Here is a part of it:

Me: And of course, you always have the option of not reading the posts. So I’m not sure what the difficulty is of me putting the info out here. If I talk just to my friends and family, there is all the rest of you who don’t get to get the information.

Anonymous: whatever…that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I have my opinion and i am also entitled to it. But i do not think God has said anything about being stuck-up and acting all-knowing about everything, andd putting people down when they are sharing their own opinion…like i said..GET A LIFE!!

Anonymous, along with the pulpit pimps and their supporters seem to confuse certainty and conviction with being stuck up and being a know-it-all. But there is a huge difference between the two points of views.

To use an example on a smaller scale, am I being stuck up if I insist that 2 + 2 equals 4 even if some misguided soul insists it equals 7? Or am I acting all knowing if I refuse to give validity to the opinion of a person who insists the world is flat? Is a geography teacher or a math teacher being a know0it-all when he insists on a specific answer to a geography or math problem? Does the chemistry teacher violate some rule of humility when she insists the students be able to give specific and accurate answers to chemistry problems?

Why then, do you insist on using a different standard of knowledge for Christianity? If someone says “We are all God’s children” I am not being stuck up if I quote John 1:12 which says “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name.” The person who says we are all God’s children is wrong. Am I being stuck up or a know-it-all to say this?

If a person says: “I’m a good person. I’m sure when I die God will accept me,” am I being a know-it-all to look to Scripture which says: “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” and say that person is wrong? Or the part in Romans that says “There is none righteous, no not one…all fall short of the glory of God.” This would seem to allow me to say that any person who is counting on their own righteousness to get them in is wrong. Am I being stuck up to warn people about this?

The Bible says Jesus paid for our sins on the cross. Specifically it says:

Col 1:20 - and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

1 Cor 1:18 - For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God

Col 2:14 - having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

1 Pet 2:24 - and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

Eph 2:16 - and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.

Let’s see. I say Jesus paid for our sins on the cross. Copeland, Frederick K. C. Price, John Jenkins and Clarence Eldrige say He paid for our sins in hell.

Which part of the phrase “The Cross” are these people not understanding? How am I being a know-it-all to point out the fact that they are saying something different, something fundamentally and grievously different? And how is this simply my opinion any more than it is simply an opinion that 2+2 equals 4?

Many times, if you ask these pimps why they say Jesus suffered in hell for our sins, they point you to Ephesians 4:8 - 10, which says:

8 Therefore it says, “When He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, And He gave gifts to men.”
9 (Now this expression, “He ascended,” what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.)

Now, I know my glasses are thick, and some have said my skull is equally thick, but could any of you tell me where this says Jesus suffered? When I had this discussion with John Jenkins, his best defense of the heresy was: “We’re just interpreting it differently.” But what he, and the rest of them never explain, is how they come to that interpretation. Given the over abundance of scripture that CLEARLY says Jesus paid for our sins on the cross, how does he then read Jesus paying for our sins in hell into a verse that clearly isn’t even talking about suffering at all?

This is a different gospel. And all you kinder and gentler folks out there need to pay attention and call the pimps (or if you like the word better - the wolves) out and hold them accountable. Otherwise, you are not doing them, the congregation, or yourselves any good.

It’s like knowing a house is on fire and standing around, refusing to tell the occupants to get out. It’s like being the watchman and saying nothing as the sheep are slaughtered. Take a look at what God says about that.

Ezekiel 33:6
‘But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet and the people are not warned, and a sword comes and takes a person from them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require from the watchman’s hand.’

You people who know better and sit silently by like a bunch of limp noodles, not objecting and not even leaving, even if you don’t say SOMETHING when you leave, are running a serious risk of being that watchman. Will the blood of those who come into that church being preached a different gospel be on your hands? Remember, Galatians 1:8 says that those who preach a different gospel are accursed. That’s not my opinion. It’s a fact to those who read their Bible.

Posted by Melvin Jones on Saturday, April 16th, 2005 at 1:14 pm.