JACK HIBBS’ GREAT ADMIRATION FOR DIETRICH BONHOEFFER
Jack Hibbs tends to be overly enthusiastic about individuals who invoke the name of Jesus, often overlooking the crucial distinction that some may not be worshipping the Jesus of the Bible, but a different one altogether (2 Corinthians 11:4).
13) For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles [followers] of Christ.
14) And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.
15) Therefore, it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works. (2 Corinnthians 11:13-15).
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (Ephesians 5:11)
Examples that reflect his ecumenical trend include his claim that the film “The Chosen,” directed by Dallas Jenkins, is an authentic Christian film and that several of America’s Founding Fathers, many of whom were influential Freemasons such as George Washington, were redeemed Christians. That said, Jack Hibbs and Co. may as well delete 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 and Ephesians 5:11 from the Bible.
JACK HIBBS AND HIS ENDORSEMENT OF THE CHOSEN
Dallas Jenkins, the producer of “The Chosen,” openly identifies as a Christian, both biblically and evangelically.
However, he has taken the initiative to engage in dialogue with individuals from a variety of religious backgrounds, notably including members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), who hold the blasphemous belief that Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers.
Jack Hibbs is either willfully blind or inadvertently ignorant of these facts,
Dallas Jenkins’ collaboration with Angel Studios to distribute The Chosen has brought him into close partnership with them. He has made it clear that while his LDS friends share a passion for the same Jesus he worships, he does not represent their theology and remains steadfast in his evangelical beliefs.
His outwardly innocuous testimony underscores that the serious admonition in 2 Corinthians 6:14 appears to bear minimal significance for ‘evangelicals’ such as himself and Jack Hibbs.
How can you genuinely express a shared devotion to the same Jesus you honour when your doctrines are clearly at odds? Paul articulates the infeasibility of such a concept in 2 Corinthians 11:3-4.
3) But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4) For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
One of Jack Hibbs’ weirder interests is his fascination with Dietrich Bonhoeffer. His interest arises from the film that delves into Bonhoeffer’s imprisonment, martyrdom, and ultimate execution in a Nazi prison camp, linked to his involvement in the conspiracy to assassinate Adolf Hitler, a narrative vividly portrayed on screen by Eric Mataxas.
Throughout history, hostility, harsh persecution, and prejudice aimed at Israel have contributed to a profound injustice perpetrated by individuals, nations, societies, and even religious organisations, all rooted in the concept of Replacement Theology.
Indeed, anti-Semitism can be likened to a stab with a sharp instrument in the apple of God’s eye. Zechariah 2:8 declares,
For thus says the LORD of hosts: 'After His glory sent me to the nations who plundered you, for he who touches you touches the apple of His eye.
It is astonishing that two of the most notable reformers, John Calvin and Martin Luther, metaphorically thrust sharp instruments into the apple of God’s eye.
John Calvin wrote,
Their [the Jews] rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end, and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone.
Luther was even more embittered with hatred and said of them:
Jews are a base and whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth . . .They are full of the devil’s faeces . . . which they wallow in like swine. . .
Their synagogues and schools [must] be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, the rabbis forbidden to preach, their home demolished, and their properties and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness afforded no legal protection and that these poisonous and envenomed worms should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.
We are at fault in not slaying them.
[No wonder Adolf Hitler was an avid student and disciple of Martin Luther. Was he oblivious of God’s promise to curse those who cursed his people and to bless those who blessed them?]
Nonetheless, there is an even more egregious atrocity than antisemitism, which involves glorifying, venerating, and praising those who advocate for the cause of Israel, while simultaneously spreading the most contemptible false teachings under the banner of ‘Christianity’.
This embodies a contradiction of loving the Jewish people while harbouring disdain for Jesus Christ, along with his teachings. (John 4:22).
One notable figure was Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who bravely opposed Nazi Germany in defence of the Jews who faced tremendous suffering during the Holocaust. Regrettably, the Jews’ anguish and his own martyrdom in a German concentration camp led him to stray into beliefs that were in stark contrast to sound biblical doctrine.
To showcase the unhealthy phenomenon of endorsing Israel while drifting into false teachings, I opted for this video from Jack Hibbs’ YouTube archive as an example.
HAS THE BATTLE AGAINST ANTISEMITISM BECOME A WAY TO PROMOTE ECUMENISM AND UNITY?
We must remain vigilant to ensure that our efforts are focused on genuine understanding and respect for God’s Word, rather than superficial alliances and unity. Jude wrote:
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (Jude 1:3).
In an email, Amir Tsarfati wrote to me some years ago in response to my critique of Jack Hibbs’ book “Living in the Daze of Deception”, in which he defends the Nephilim fable, he wrote to me as follows,
Amir Tsrafati
I’m sorry, but what I surmise here is someone trying to pit good bible teaching teachers against each other. One thing to keep in mind is that not all teachers will see everything exactly the same in the Scriptures; however, their doctrine is the same and is very biblically sound.
Man is not perfect, and we won’t get everything right perfectly. God does. So, just because they may not see the same regarding the Nephilim, does not make someone a false teacher. That is not a doctrinal issue.
All this does it try to cause discord within the body of Christ, and we are told in Proverbs 6 that God hates discord w/i the body of Christ. Yet, there are still those out there trying to stir things up and calling people false teachers because of their view of the Nephilim??? That is pathetic, really!
If, as Amir Tsarfati claims, the Nephilim theory is not a matter of doctrine, what prompted Jack Hibbs to invest significant effort in authoring a book on the Nephilim and citing numerous passages from the Bible?
Undoubtedly, sound doctrine merits greater promotion in literature than any other subject, especially not a fable (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
In the same way that the Pretribulation Rapture does not affect a person’s salvation, the Nephilim hypothesis similarly has no bearing on one’s redemption.
Nevertheless, the disparity between truth and deception is so profoundly serious in God’s sight that He would not have designated Satan as the father of all lies if the mixture of truth and error had not stirred His anger (John 8:44).
Jack Hibbs has no qualms about mixing truth and error by his endorsement of false teachers.
Tsarfati’s accusation that the author of this article was sowing discord within the body of Christ, as referenced in Proverbs 6:14, 19, underscores his misdirected attempt to endorse those who spread lies, including those of Jack Hibbs, as well as his poorly judged support of false Christians such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
Tsarfati omitted the first portion of Proverbs 6:19, which states, “a false witness who breathes out lies, . . .” His omission says that he is comfortable with the dissemination of lies by his peers and is even willing to distort the meaning of Scripture to justify their actions.
As a Jew, Tsarfati ought to know that Proverbs 6:16-19 outlines six things that God detests. In fact, there are seven: “These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: . . .”
In Hebrew poetry, this is called numerical parallelism. It begins by stating 6 abominations and ends with a 7th. This structure is intentional. It’s not a contradiction or a separate insertion—it’s a poetic way of building emphasis.
The idea is that the list intensifies as it goes, with the seventh item often being the most serious or the culmination of the others.
In summary, Numerical parallelism typically follows a pattern like “X things… Y things…”, where Y = X + 1. This structure serves to highlight the last item in a list and to heighten a feeling of progression or intensification.
Consequently, the seventh phrase “and he that soweth discord among brethren” cannot be detached from “A false witness that speaketh lies,” as Tsarfati has so skillfully and intentionally accomplished.
The individual who sows discord is the identical false witness who utters lies. It demonstrates that the real culprit who is spreading lies is also the same person causing division, who, in this case, is Jack Hibbs.
It exhibits the Y = X +1 to perfection. It educates us on the importance of not misrepresenting the text by neglecting to quote passages in their complete context. This poses significant risks.
It also proves that the passage does not refer to a saint who is defending the faith and highlighting falsehoods, but rather to a false witness within the body of Christ who unjustly accuses others of actions they did not commit.
The act of exposing lies is not intended to create division among brethren, but rather to alert them to the dangers of falling into error and leading others astray, which is a gross sin. Jesus exemplified this when He cautioned His disciples, “Take heed that no man deceive you” (Matthew 24:4).
Paul often had to endure the consequences of unfounded accusations that he was responsible for creating divisions and spreading discord among his fellow believers.
Paul often issued warnings regarding those who generate divisions and obstruct the spreading of sound teaching. Ironically, some have viewed Paul as a source of division for his efforts to expose false teachers and uphold doctrinal correctness.
THE CHUCK SMITH CONNECTION
This is not the first time the members of the Calvary Chapel fraternity have shown their ecumenical colours. In his 1993 book, Answers For Today, Chuck Smith, Founder of the Calvary Chapel Movement, wrote the following:
“Paul points out that some say, I’m of Paul,’ while others say, ‘I’m of Apollos.’ He asked, ‘Isn’t that carnal?’ But what’s the difference between saying that or saying, “I’m a Baptist,’ ‘I’m a Presbyterian,’ ‘I’m a Methodist,’ ‘I’m a Catholic’? I have found that the more spiritual a person becomes, the less denominational he is. [DTW comment: So, let’s put our petty doctrines aside [so that we may become more spiritual] – aka Angus Buchan).
We should realise that we’re all part of the Body of Christ and that there aren’t any real divisions in the Body. We’re all one. What a glorious day when we discover that God loves the Baptists! – And the Presbyterians, and the Methodists, and the Catholics.
We’re all His, and we all belong to Him. We see the whole Body of Christ, and we begin to strive together rather than striving against one another. But, as long as a person is filled with a haughty spirit, he will show the mark of carnality rather than real spiritual growth and maturity. (p. 214; PDF Edition). (Emphasis added).
The phrase “We are all children of God” is a deceptive mantra that is not only prevalent in pagan religions but has also become widespread in evangelical circles.
In the movie “Ice Road Vengeance 2025,” Liam Neeson portrays Mike, a skilled mountaineer with a rugged determination.
Before Mike’s younger brother Gurty, McCann departs to serve in the Iraqi War, he hands him a heartfelt letter. Tragically, Gurty loses his life, leaving Mike as the sole inheritor of his modest belongings.
Among these possessions, Mike discovers a letter which holds Gurty’s final testament, revealing a poignant connection between the brothers amidst the unfolding drama.
One of Gurtry’s final wishes was that his ashes be kept in a golden urn until Mike climbs Mount Everest to scatter them on the summit.
Mike books a flight to Kathmandu, where he is welcomed at his hotel by his guide, a young woman named Dahni Yangchen.
As she drives him to the bus that will take them to the base camp of Everest, he asks her, “Are you Hindu?” “No. I am a Buddhist. What about you?” she inquires. “I am a lapsed Catholic. Is there any hope for me?” he asks with a wry smile. “We are all God’s children, Mr. McCann,” she affirms.
This short clip from the film highlights the media’s leverage to convey the misleading notion that we are all one, irrespective of our beliefs, and that mega churches are no less responsible for heralding this lie than secular media outlets.
Chuck Smith and many other ecumenists could well have been the producers of this movie and other similar movies.
Astonishingly and rather shockingly, Chuck Smith lacked a clear understanding of the difference between Paul and Apollos’ problem, having to contend with uncalled-for favouritism, and the churches (denominations) that adhere to opposing doctrines and outright heresies.
He failed to recognise that denominationalism does not and cannot cultivate true spirituality and maturity among believers. It is crucial to understand that God intentionally uses factions within churches to separate erroneous teachings from the essential truths that drive real spiritual growth and maturity.
"For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." (1 Corinthians 11:19).
Heresies (factions) ought not to unite but to separate. Lies and truth can never be bedfellows.
Note the word “must” (δεῖ). It is the very same word used in Matthew 16:21 where Jesus told his disciples, “how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.”
In other words, there is no alternative except for the reality that factions (divisions) must exist, including the heretical notion that “we’re all part of the Body of Christ,” for the approved to be revealed. Chuck Smith preached another Gospel of another Jesus under the guidance of another spirit as an ecumenist.
Consider once more Chuck Smith’s irreverent remarks. What a glorious day when we discover that God loves the Baptists! – And the Presbyterians, and the Methodists, and the Catholics. We’re all His, and we all belong to Him. We see the whole Body of Christ, and we begin to strive together rather than striving against one another. But, as long as a person is filled with a haughty spirit, he will show the mark of carnality rather than real spiritual growth and maturity.
It is a slap in the face of Jesus Christ. It is not only deeply disrespectful to Jesus Christ but also a blatant act of disobedience.
“Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division.” (Luke 12:51)
13) "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
14) Because narrow is the gate and narrow is the way which leads to life, and there are but few who find it." (Matthew 7:13-14).
[DTW comment: Chuck Smith suggests that there is no strait gate and no narrow way because God loves everyone irrespective of some of their most damnable heresies and lovingly grants them entrance into his body because we allegedly all belong to Him.].
I am inclined to believe that we don’t need to discover that “God loves the Baptists! – And the Presbyterians, and the Methodists, and the Catholics,” given that God has already stated this in John 3:16, unless Chuck has misinterpreted the meaning of the most well-known verse in the Bible, thus allowing him to unite every Tom, Dick, and Harry as a singular family within the body of Christ.
When did the Gospel of God evolve into a salvation that is purely centred on love? The Holy Spirit will not tolerate such an appalling and horrific untruth. The reason why God loves the entire world is that he wants everyone to be saved through faith in His Son (Ezekiel 3:11), and not to automatically save everyone regardless of their doctrine.
Contemplate this: if God’s love for all people automatically resulted in a harmonious family of both authentic believers and pseudo-believers within the body of Christ, there would have been no need for Jesus to send the Holy Spirit to convict the world concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment.
This is not the Gospel of God. It is a different gospel, which is no gospel at all. It represents another Jesus, and another spirit (2 Corinthians 11:4).
Jesus made a profound promise to build His church, declaring that even the gates of hell would not overcome it (Matthew 16:18).
Yet, there are a multitude of pastors, entrusted with the spiritual guidance of their flock, who have strayed into error and promote misleading doctrines.
In such cases, Jesus does not intervene directly, especially when they stubbornly refuse to listen to reproof and correction (2 Timothy 3:16).
He allows them to continue in their apostasy so that the approved in their midst may be manifested in time (Matthew 13:24-43).
Chuck’s observation lacks solid biblical substance and is only relevant if he truly means that God’s love grants automatic salvation to lost sinners.
This seems to be the underlying message of his flawed assertion. If he sincerely believes that “we all belong to Him (Christ),” then he is making a profound and sweeping claim that deserves careful examination, rather than being dismissed as a simple slip of the tongue.
In addition, Chuck Smith’s equally inordinate statement, “But, as long as a person is filled with a haughty spirit, he will show the mark of carnality rather than real spiritual growth and maturity.”
From this, we can gather that he implied that anyone who teaches a different Gospel, including that of the Roman Catholic Church, is not cursed (Galatians 1:8-9).
In contrast, those who ardently defend the faith that was originally entrusted to us by the apostles are typically seen as the actual culprits. According to ecumenists, they display a superior attitude and show signs of worldly behaviour instead of illustrating spiritual growth and maturity, as Amir Tsarfati has noted before.
All this does is to cause discord within the body of Christ, and we are told in Proverbs 6 that God hates discord w/i the body of Christ. Yet, there are still those out there trying to stir things up and calling people false teachers because of their view of the Nephilim??? That is pathetic, really!
Carnality signifies a Christian who exhibits immaturity or childishness, lacking the ability to discern between truth and error, and is easily swayed by new teachings.
Christians who obey God’s command to test every spirit to see if it is from God (1 John 4:1) are often accused of being self-opinionated and divisive.
They commonly encourage their followers to shun those they classify as vicious misfits, effectively blacklisting them as representatives of carnality. Ironically, carnality is the exact opposite of a discerning spirit that does not accept everything but always tests things according to 1 John 4:1.
Satan is an expert at twisting Scripture to mislead the masses. When Paul cautioned against the carnal tendency of favouritism, he wasn’t addressing differences in religious doctrine, as Chuck articulated so glibly.
Paul and Apollos preached the same Gospel, whereas true born-again evangelicals and Roman Catholics do not—they stand in stark opposition to one another.
At the very least, this contrast should remain clear for those who aim to maintain unwavering loyalty to Christ and His Gospel, which is completely absent in Chuck Smith’s statement, “We’re all His, and we all belong to Him.”
His statement, “We should realise that we’re all part of the Body of Christ and that there aren’t any real divisions in the Body,” is deeply disturbing and spiritually harmful. Such a claim distorts the truth of Scripture and undermines the integrity of the Gospel of Christ.
All lies have their origin in Satan (John 8:44). Chuck’s statement is extremely harmful to Christ’s teachings and the distinctiveness of His Body. It is a grave misrepresentation that compromises the purity of the Gospel message. Jack Hibbs, Eric Metaxas, Amir Tsarfati, Mike Golay, and Barry Stagner would do well to take note of Psalm 101:7, which states,
He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight.
They must decide whether Chick Smith’s claim about Roman Catholicism is true or false, considering the context provided by Psalm 101:7.
One of the most insidious deceptions ever crafted by Satan is the notion that individuals, such as those who adhere to Roman Catholicism, can persist in their doctrinal errors and still gain entry to heaven.
THE BILLY GRAHAM CONNECTION
Since the publishing of this article on 11 August 2025, the author has come across an excellent article on Billy Graham’s apostasy from the very early years of his ministry. It serves as a stern warning to everyone mentioned in this article who are strange bedfellows with Roman Catholicism.
God often permits deceived leaders to continue in their false teachings, allowing their followers to be led astray, which ultimately leads to spiritual ruin and destruction, especially those who make such a fuss over their leaders.
The rise in their numbers does not guarantee success. In fact, it often becomes more of a curse than a blessing, as it indicates that the pastors’ sermons are gratifying their itching ears (2 Timothy 4:3).
The single most gratifying thing the world loves to hear is that we are all God’s children and part of Jesus Christ’s body. Billy Graham captured the essence of this satanic lie perfectly when he stated,
I don’t think that we are going to see a great sweeping revival that will turn the whole world to Christ at any moment.
I think James answered that, James the apostle, in the First in Jerusalem, when he said that God’ purpose for this age is to call out a people for His Name. And that’s what God is doing today.
He’s calling people out of the world for his Name. Whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world, or the non-believing world; they are members of the body of Christ because they’ve been called by God.
They may not even know the name of Jesus, but they know in their heart that they need something that they don’t have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved and that they’re going to be with us in heaven.
This is an outright denial of the power of the cross of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 1:18). It is perplexing how a so-called great preacher and evangelist could have thought that merely calling a people out of the world, without any knowledge of the Name of Jesus, saves them.
The Jerusalem Council, held around 48-50 AD in Antioch, Syria, was not convened for the purpose of discussing topics such as salvation or whether knowledge of the Name of Jesus was required for redemption. This was one of Billy Graham’s most fiendish agendas to spread the virus of ecumenism.
This council tackled significant matters regarding the connection between Jewish traditions and the growing number of Gentile (non-Jewish) Christian converts, which ultimately shaped the future of Christianity as a worldwide religion.
It is utterly irrational for anyone to believe that the Jerusalem Council was assembled to confirm that individuals from all possible religious backgrounds, who possess some form of enlightenment, whether or not they are aware of the Name of Jesus, are saved and destined for heaven. Such a notion is fundamentally insane and deeply rooted in malevolence.
Billy Graham uses the expressions “call” and “calling” to illustrate the view of God’s irresistible (Calvinistic) grace, which exempts those whom God has chosen from the obligation to believe the Gospel (Mark 1:15).
This can be likened to an irresistible magnetic field that draws those who, in the little light they do have at their disposal and understand their need for something they lack towards God, ensuring their heavenly destiny.
This stands in sharp contrast to what Peter stated at the Jerusalem Council, where he referred to Gentiles who had already been redeemed and whose hearts were purified by faith, indicating that there was “no distinction between us (the Jews) and them (the Gentiles).”
Both were saved by faith in Jesus Christ in the same manner, through faith in the accomplished work of Christ on the cross, and not, as Graham states, through a complete lack of awareness of the Name of Christ and the limited insight they may have of their spiritual needs.
The term “call” does indeed have a substantial role in the act of salvation, but it refers to an unredeemed person’s appeal to God for salvation, rather than the opposite, where God calls lost souls who are totally unconscious of his Name and the significance of his Name.
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Acts 2:21).
Note that the verse explicitly says, “on the name of the Lord” and not just “on the Lord.”
How do we know what the meaning of his Name is?
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. (Matthew 1:21).
His Name means “Saviour” and only sinners who realise and acknowledge that they are lost sinners and destined for hell will call on the Name of the Lord because they know, through the conviction of the Holy Spirit, who Jesus is and what He has done on the cross for lost sinners.
It echoes Jesus’ words in Luke 5:31,
It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick.
Billy’s words that they need something that they don’t have, and they turn to the only light that they have,” is completely out of sync with the Word of God.
God says, not Billy, that the unredeemed have no light whatsoever.
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20)
Was Billy speaking according to God’s Word? Billy Graham’s “the-only-light-that they-have” salvation is a false Gospel and cannot save. (Galatians 1:18-19).
Robert Schuller’s statement, one of the most notorious heretics who ever sullied the world with his presence, “This is fantastic. I’m so thrilled to hear you say that. There is a wideness in God’s grace,” serves as evidence that Billy Graham’s interpretation of the Gospel is nothing more than pure satanic drivel.
Schuller never knew that the wide way leads to hell, but why should he have been concerned while he personally followed the wide and not the narrow way (Matthew 7:13-14).
Imagine asking a little kid, “Do you love mommy and daddy, and do you know who they are, what their names are?” and he responds with “Oh yeah, I dearly love mommy and daddy with all my heart, and I know them, but I’m not conscious of them, and their love or my love for them. I am completely oblivious to what their names are or what they have done and are doing for me every single day.”
I can guarantee that the child will promptly receive a diagnosis of a mental disorder. Moreover, this is an appalling and sacrilegious affront to the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus sent to bring conviction to the world regarding sin, righteousness, and judgment.
The very first thing to be conscious of is to know and to acknowledge that you have sinned against an awesomely holy God who loves you so much that He sent His Son to die and to pay God’s required ransom for you on a cross. John 17:3 says it so vividly clear,
And this is life eternal, that they mightknow thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. (John 17:3).
Yet, the great Billy Graham says, “You don’t have to be aware of your sin and rebellion against God. There’s no need for you to recognise the Name of Jesus.
What truly matters is that you acknowledge in your heart your need for something beyond your reach, and that you turn toward the only light available to you to ensure your place in heaven alongside me and brother Robert Schuller.”
Billy Graham was heavily deluded to think that his next-door neighbour in heaven will be someone who followed the only light that he had and does not even know the name of Jesus, the true Light of God. (John 8:12).
Such a malevolent form of neighbourliness could only exist in hell. Unbelievers are completely devoid of any light (2 Corinthians 6:14).
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. 19) For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. (1 Corinthians 1:18-19).
Who are the prudent and the wise of this world? Well, you don’t have to look too far. You only need to identify those who know how to scramble eggs and declare, “We are all members of the body of Christ.”
With a single wave of their magic wands, they have just about obliterated the core doctrines of biblical salvation. What happened to Romans 8:9 that says, “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”
To suggest that all are members of the body of Christ, regardless of who they are and what they believe, is not just false teaching but blasphemy in the extreme.
It entertains the lie that the Holy Spirit indwells everyone, no matter how heretical their doctrines may be. It deserves Paul’s anathemas in Galatians 1:18-19. And by the way, Jack Hibbs is a great admirer of Billy Graham.
JACK HIBBS’ ADMIRATION FOR BILLY GRAHAM
Pastor Jack Hibbs has often voiced his profound respect for Billy Graham, often highlighting him as an impressive model of Christian devotion and evangelistic spirit.
In a Facebook post from the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, Hibbs mentioned that he felt “really encouraged” by watching Graham’s timeless sermons online and encouraged others to do the same.
This indicates that Hibbs regards Graham not just as a spiritual giant but also as a comforting presence and a beacon of biblical truth during tough times.
He has also highlighted the parallels between Graham’s worldwide evangelistic impact and the everyday chances Christians have to make a difference in their communities. In one of his posts, Hibbs mentioned:
“You may not get the opportunity to preach to a million people like Billy Graham… but God has called each of His true children to take advantage of every opportunity”.
Hibbs offers a powerful tribute to Graham’s legacy, portraying it as both uplifting and visionary. He sees Graham as a standard for courageous, faithful living—an example that inspires believers to actively use their voice and influence in pursuit of God’s purposes.
There is no evidence or record of Jack Hibbs having refuted or rebuked Billy Graham for his infamous and sacrilegious interview with Robert Schuller. None whatsoever.
THE ONE “BIG TENT” CONNECTION
In our “world that has matured” (“a world come of age”), to quote Dietrich Bonhoeffer, many Christians have honed an extraordinary talent for crafting words and phrases designed to convey unity in the face of division. An appropriate illustration would be to use the expression “Big Tent” (Tabernacle), which translates into “in One Big Tent” is the same as “in Christ.”
No, the writer of this article is not alluding to a circus tent, even though the subsequent description might indeed resonate with a large circus. Therefore, I urge you to prepare for some startling revelations, as they demonstrate the lengths to which certain prominent evangelical pastors have gone to promote ecumenism to the fullest extent in the name of mutual respect, love, and brotherly relations.
The “Big Tent” movement is characterised by the absence of a single founder or a specific moment of origin; it is more accurately described as a political philosophy that has developed over time. The term itself is derived from the imagery of a circus tent that is large enough to accommodate a variety of acts, symbolising inclusivity and a range of thoughts.
One of the earliest political references to this phrase was made by Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg during World War II. He urged his party to adopt a more internationalist and inclusive approach, welcoming individuals who did not necessarily conform to traditional conservative values. (Understanding “big tent” Idiom: Meaning, Origins & Usage – CrossIdiomas.com)
This marked a significant shift towards what we now refer to as “Big Tent” politics: forming coalitions across ideological lines to broaden appeal. Since that time, both major U.S. political parties have embraced this concept: Democrats have utilised it to attract moderates while maintaining their progressive foundations.
Republicans have applied it to expand their reach beyond traditional conservative bases. Globally, numerous parties and movements have adopted Big Tent strategies—such as the Liberal Party in Australia and the Justicialist Party in Argentina—often aiming to unify diverse factions under a shared banner. (Big tent – Wikipedia).
That said, it explains why so many American pastors are Christian activists. The theological and ecumenical “Big Tent” concept serves as a compelling metaphor for unity that embraces diversity—a vision of the Church as an expansive and inclusive space where various voices and traditions can coexist in communion, mission, and mutual respect. The Big Tent approach within ecumenical dialogue encourages inter-denominational collaboration while respecting theological distinctions.
It opposes the “us vs. them” perspective by affirming that orthodox Christians across various traditions share fundamental beliefs, even if they differ on less critical doctrines.
This model holds particular importance in movements such as the World Council of Churches, Lausanne, or Evangelicals and Catholics Together, which aim to cultivate unity in mission and testimony. The most pertinent question we need to ask is, ‘Whose doctrines are presented to the lost in mission and testimony?’ Surely two different viewpoints will confuse audiences and, as everyone should know, God is not a God of confusion.
Seminaries like Northwind Theological Seminary have adopted Big Tent models in their curriculum, allowing students to study with faculty across theological spectrums—from Evangelical to Post-Evangelical—without requiring rigid doctrinal conformity.
This reflects a shift from modernist “either/or” frameworks to postmodern “both/and” communities, where dialogue replaces dogma as the primary mode of formation. (Emphasis added). (The Case for ‘Big Tent’ Christianity)
The term “Big Tent”, as used by the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), denotes the imagined capability to accommodate a broad spectrum of theological beliefs while upholding unity regarding core doctrines. Historically, the Southern Baptist Convention has taken a “Big Tent” stance, allowing for theological variation on certain topics as long as essential doctrines are preserved.
The most important matter at hand is which essential doctrines should be safeguarded – those belonging to the Calvinist or the non-Calvinist viewpoint? The fact that there are two or more distinct entities within the Big Tent” illustrates the existence of two contrasting views.
The one is pro-TULIP and anti-free will (Calvinism proper), and the other is pro-free will (the non-Calvinist view). The only way to preserve the glitchy unity is to remain silent on the most essential doctrine, which is, of course, salvation.
THE BOB PEARLE CONNECTION
Before we proceed, let us recall what God states regarding fellowship with false Christians.
11) And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (Ephesians 5:11).
The pastor of the Birchman Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas, Bob B. Pearle’s a long-term engagement in SBTC leadership and his dedication to church growth and unity indicate that he likely appreciates the importance of working together towards shared gospel aims, even in the face of doctrinal differences, as long as these doctrinal issues are of secondary importance. Bob B. Pearle served as President of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention (SBTC) from 2007 to 2009.
As articulated by Jesus Christ in Luke 19:10, his mission on earth over 2000 years ago was to seek and save the lost. Would anyone in the Big Tent have the audacity to label his statement as a secondary doctrine? Nevertheless, this represents the primary point of contention between Calvinists and non-Calvinists.
So while theological tensions exist—especially around soteriology—the SBTC remains a big tent within conservative boundaries, allowing for meaningful collaboration across doctrinal lines.
The strange fire (relationship) within the ranks of the SBC and SBTC is based on the following guidelines:
Calvinist ministers within non-Calvinist congregations are urged to cultivate robust personal connections to avert doctrinal rifts.
Effective collaboration flourishes when leaders confront differences with humility and grace, as opposed to inflexible dogmatism.
[DTW Comment: It reminds me of Paul’s humility and grace when he wrote, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9).
Avoiding Labels: Certain leaders choose not to define themselves strictly as Calvinist or non-Calvinist, prioritising instead a gospel-centered approach to ministry.
While some pastors and congregations embrace Reformed theology (e.g., doctrines of grace, election, perseverance), others hold to a more Traditionalist or Arminian-leaning view that emphasises free will and universal atonement (meaning, anyone can be saved in contrast to the Calvinist view that only the so-called elect can be saved. The reprobate can never be saved.
SBTC, of which Bob Pearle serves on the Executive Board, fosters a cooperative ministry regardless of soteriological stance, as long as churches uphold core doctrinal commitments. He continues to be a respected voice in shaping the convention’s theological direction, particularly around issues of biblical authority and leadership. The convention has historically avoided sectarianism, encouraging unity around missions, evangelism, and church planting.
Influential figures like Bob Pearle represent the more non-Calvinist, Traditionalist wing, emphasising clarity and caution regarding doctrinal broadening. At the same time, SBTC partners with SBC seminaries and churches where Calvinist theology is more prominent, such as Southern Seminary.
HOW DO SBC AND SBTC ACHIEVE UNITY WITHIN DIVERSITY?
SBTC churches (the little brothers of SBC) must endorse the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, which allows for both Calvinist and non-Calvinist perspectives on salvation. It implies that there are two different gates (doors) and two diverse paths to heaven.
A significant number of the founders of the SBC, particularly those associated with Southern Seminary, adhered to Calvinist beliefs. Currently, the SBC comprises both Calvinist and non-Calvinist congregations. Although it is stated that the SBC is not officially Calvinist, the influence of Calvinism has been on the rise over the last three decades.
If an oxymoron were to be considered for an Oscar, this would undoubtedly be the one. We might speculate that the primary justification for its receiving an Oscar would be something akin to, “And the award goes to… SBC (cheers and applauds) for its extraordinary covert presence that has been expanding over the last 30 years.”
While Calvinism has substantial historical origins in the SBC, it is not regarded as a defining institutional identity today—instead, it functions as an important theological stream within a larger evangelical framework. And, may I add, the larger evangelical framework is simply called “ECUMENISM WITH STEROIDS.“
The divide between Calvinist and non-Calvinist views is one of the major theological challenges within the SBC, prompting conferences and discussions among leaders. Despite theological differences, the SBC emphasises cooperation in missions and evangelism, often downplaying divisive doctrinal debates.
Highlighting missions and evangelism can be a perilous pursuit, especially when biblical teachings are disregarded. The paramount doctrine that occupies God’s thoughts is soteriology (the process of salvation), as succinctly illustrated by Jesus’ mission on earth in Luke 19:10,
For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. (Luke 19:10).
SBTC advocates for a collaborative approach to ministry, regardless of differing soteriological perspectives, as long as churches uphold fundamental doctrinal commitments. The commitments, as we’ve seen earlier, are missions, evangelism, and church planting.
The core Calvinist beliefs that shape evangelism are:
Total Depravity: Humans are spiritually dead and incapable of choosing God on their own. Their total depravity deprives them of free will.
Unconditional Election: God chooses whom He will save, not based on human merit.
Limited Atonement: Salvation is limited to the elect alone because God loves and died for them only. John MacArthur’s God-dishonoring clarion later in this article is ample proof of this heresy.
Irresistible Grace: When God calls someone to salvation, they will respond. This response is a monergistic one when God first regenerates the elect sovereignly without them having to believe and then grants them faith as a gift, which enables the elect to respond to God’s calling.
Sovereignty of God: God orchestrates all things, including the means of salvation—evangelism being one of them.
John Calvin himself gave six reasons for evangelism:
God commands it – Evangelism is a divine mandate.
To glorify God – Sharing the Gospel magnifies His truth and mercy.
To please God – Evangelism is a sacrifice well-pleasing to Him.
Duty to God – Believers are called to proclaim His goodness to all nations. (Such as that God only loves the elect and chose not to love the reprobate because it glorifies Him).
Duty to others – Compassion for fellow sinners drives Gospel proclamation.
Gratitude to God – Evangelism is an expression of thankfulness for salvation.
How do SBC and SBTC overcome the rift between them to foster a good working relationship regarding TULIP? I posit that the believers’ baptism, which is embraced by both, acts as the golden catalyst.
In an interview with Peter Lumpkins on April 22, 2009, Bob Pearle said the following about the so-called believer’s baptism.
PETER: As a follow-up to the above questions pertaining to ordinances – -especially the ordinance of baptism – -is the mode of baptism considered a so-called second-tier doctrine? Why or why not? Furthermore, how should Southern Baptists relate to other Christian faith fellowships who do not practice believers’ baptism by immersion?
BOB: The mode of baptism was an issue that our Baptist forefathers thought extremely important. So much so, that many gave their lives because they would not accept any other mode of baptism but immersion. The New Testament teaches that baptism is to be by immersion only [DTW: Yep, Paul and all the other disciples were baptised by full immersion in water. Indeed, Paul was so obedient to God that he stopped baptizing anyone so that he may preach the Gospel as he said in 1 Corinthians 1:17] The founders and leaders of other denominations agree as well, although they do not practice immersion. We can embrace all who have repented of their sin and surrendered their lives to Christ as brothers and sisters in Christ even if they have not been baptized by immersion. However, should they desire to join a Baptist church they would need to be biblically baptized by immersion.
Bro Bob Pearle appears to lack understanding regarding the manner in which the Holy Spirit administers Christ’s baptism, which occurs immediately when individuals have repented of their sins and dedicated their lives to Christ. John the Baptist clearly expressed the distinction between his baptism (in water) and the baptism of Jesus Christ (with the Living Water).
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier (stronger; more powerful) than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: (Matthew 3:11).
Bro Bob Pearle acknowledges that those who have not been baptised by immersion are his brothers and sisters IN CHRIST. Nevertheless, they cannot join his church unless they undergo baptism by immersion in water within his church. If the true church (Bride of Christ), consisting of all true believers throughout the world, is already brothers and sisters by their unity in Christ, why is joining the Baptist Church the achievement of the highest level of spirituality through biblical baptism by immersion in their church?
It’s like saying: “The Holy Spirit did an incomplete job when He baptised believers into the body of Christ the moment they repented and received Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. However, do not fret. God has given the Baptist Chruch the mandate to become a member of his church after you have been baptised biblically by immersion in lots of H2O. Therefore, we must validate our sacred familial relationship with them by baptising them again through immersion IN OUR CHURCH.” This represents a subtle form of the Roman Catholic doctrine that views baptism as a sacrament of spiritual rebirth and purification, as well as a symbol of their integration into the Roman Catholic Church.
A dear born-again elderly lady told me that a Baptist preacher once said to her, “Tannie, there is only one thing you still need to do.” She asked, “And what may that be?” Without hesitating, he said, “You must be baptised by immersion in water.” My question to him was, “What happened to Jesus Christ’s TETELESTAI on the cross?”
Bro Bob Pearle would probably have said, To be in Christ is not adequate; it is merely half of the course. You are also obligated to be baptised through immersion in a Baptist Church like ours. That really puts the final tetelestai on Christ’s tetelestai.
Notable figures such as Bob Pearle allegedly represent the non-Calvinist, Traditionalist group, emphasising the necessity of clarity and caution regarding the broadening of doctrinal interpretations. Yet, at the same time, SBTC partners with SBC seminaries and churches that are more inclined towards Calvinist theology, including Southern Seminary.
GOD HATES MIXTURES
In the Old Testament, especially in Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9–11, God commands the Israelites not to mix seeds in a field, animals in a yoke, or fabrics in clothing. These laws are part of the Holiness Code, which emphasised purity, separation, and distinctiveness for God’s people. It has profound spiritual implications which may be summed up as follows,
PURITY OF WORSHIP: The blending of truth and error—whether in doctrine or spiritual matters—is very dangerous because it leads to confusion and division among the faithful. (UNLESS YOU ARE MEMBERS OF SBC AND SBTC WHO HAVE PERFECTED THE ART OF MIXING TWO OPPOSITES).
SPIRITUAL DISCERNMENT: Mixture leads to the venomous sin of compromise, where divine truth is diluted by human tradition or worldly influence.
HOLINESS AND IDENTITY: These statutes emphasised the importance for Israel to stay separate from the surrounding pagan societies, reinforcing their identity as a holy people. Calvinism is not the Gospel of God. It is another gospel with another Jesus, and another spirit. (2 Corinthians 11:4).
So, although there are theological tensions between SBYC and SBC—particularly concerning soteriology—the SBTC continues to be a significant participant in the two-fold ecumenical Big Tent of the SBC, albeit within conservative limits, facilitating substantial collaboration across doctrinal divides. All I can say is “Get thee behind me, Satan.”
Bob Pearle was among the keynote speakers at the Alaska Cruise Prophecy Conference hosted by Amir Tsarfati, which was held from July 6 to July 13, 2025. I am surprised that Amir Tsarfati never used this occasion to admonish Jack Hibbs for endorsing the Mormon production “The Chosen” and for Bob Pearle’s alignment with the Calvinistic SBC institution. My scepticism arises from the fact that he honoured John MacArthur, who has recently passed away, calling him “A dear man of God.”
SBTC churches often resonated with John MacArthur’s expository preaching, Calvinist theology, and conservative social stances, making him a respected figure in their circles.
GOD’S LOVE/HATE RELATIONSHIP WITH MANKIND, PROVIDED THAT YOU ARE A CHOSEN OR A REPROBATE, IS QUALIFIED BY HIS GLORY? WOW! AND I HAVE ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT GOD’S LOVE IS QUALIFIED BY JESUS CHRIST (GOD’S GLORY) AND THAT HE SUFFERED AND DIED FOR THE ENTIRE WORLD.
IF THIS MAN IS IN HEAVEN WITH CHRIST, JOHN 3:16 IS A SICK JOKE.
THE CAVED-IN GRAND TENT
The circus analogy mentioned earlier achieves greater clarity when the themes of Calvinism and non-Calvinism are merged into a more advantageous relationship, as long as essential doctrines such as “how to be saved” are upheld, so they say. A first-grade kid will immediately tell you that the most important doctrine in Scripture is “how to be saved.” When asked, “How do you know, son?” he would say, ‘Cause Jesus said he came to seek and to save the lost and not to seek and to elect only certain people for salvation'”
Incredible! The child managed to bring down the main mast of the “Big Tent” with just one sentence, while two rival factions strive to snugly and pleasantly huddle together as one in Christ’s body. Just as oil and water cannot blend, truth and falsehood cannot coexist. One will always remain a lie, while the other will perpetually be the truth. (John 8:44).
Nevertheless, the Big Tent association has the following remarks concerning Jesus Christ’s alleged approval of ecumenism.
The only problem is that when it comes to the church, there is no us and them. There is only us. We ought not to count as enemies people with whom we will spend eternity. (This quote is widely attributed to Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky since 1993—the flagship seminary of the Southern Baptist Convention, which has often been described as a “big tent” denomination—meaning it encompasses a wide range of theological and cultural perspectives under one umbrella.)
This is the vision that Jesus cast for his followers from the very beginning—a vision for unity. A vision for a “big tent.”
On the night he was to be betrayed, this is what Jesus prayed over his disciples:
I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. (John 17:20-21)
Nowhere in his prayer did Jesus ask the Father to grant the church doctrinal purity or theological and political alignment. Instead, he asked for unity amid the diversity represented at the table. [DTW: It may help the fool to clean and put on his glasses to read 2 Timothy 4:2 more concisely. The requirement for unity is not to set doctrines aside but to believe in Him through the apostles word (doctrines) Paul warned everyone to preach the Gospel as he presented it, lest they be cursed (Galatians 1:8-9)].
This constitutes a purely illogical rationale that sets Jesus against Paul, who stated the exact opposite.
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9).
Imagine the Living Water being defiled by impurities; would He be able to redeem lost sinners? And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the crux of the whole matter. Calvinism cannot save because a little leaven leavens the whole lump (Galatians 5:9), which makes the “big Tent” a big fat farce.
One does not need to be a rocket scientist to understand that Paul was striving for doctrinal purity and denounced anyone who corrupts his gospel, which he received directly from Christ in a vision, as cursed. Would any of our “big tent” friends choose to drink a glass of water mixed with a 1% lethal poison? Absolutely not. Should they decide to do so, they would be completely insane.
The Southern Baptists of Texas Convention (SBTC) includes a mixture of Calvinist and non-Calvinist members, though it leans toward a conservative theological consensus that prioritises biblical authority and evangelistic urgency.
THE ERIC METAXAS CONNECTION
Even more bizarre than Chuck Smith’s reasoning regarding the alleged unity between Catholics and non-Catholics in the body of Christ is Eric Metaxas’ account of a Roman Catholic who, despite being unredeemed, was allowed into heaven.
He went into more detail in a sermon he preached at Bethel Church, telling them of a dream-vision his sister-in-law had. Her dream, she said, confirmed that a Catholic, who admitted she was not born again, met Jesus and went to heaven to be with Him. The following Sunday morning, his wife told him that her mother had just passed away, and that her sister (Metaxas’ sister-in-law) had told her of her dream-vision. What happened to “You must be born again?” (John 3:3, 7;1 Peter 1:23).
This is what my sister-in-law Joanne told my wife. Last night at 2:53 AM, just a few hours ago, she was in bed and she said, ‘I didn’t know if I was dreaming or awake, I don’t even know. But the Lord gave me a vision.‘ So Joanne says at 2:53 AM she wakes up and she has this vision and in this vision, she walks into her mother’s bedroom–my incredibly sweet mother-in-law was 96–and Joanne says she walked in the bedroom, she says ‘I took mom’s hand, and I said to her, mom, it’s Joanne.’ And she said, ‘I’m here with Jesus, do you see him?’ And mom said ‘yes.’
Now, Susanne’s mother was not a born-again believer, you know? She was a Catholic, she believed, but she didn’t talk about it. She’s not like us, Jesus freaks talking about it all the time and annoying people at every restaurant. [DTW: Sounds a lot like Bonhoeffer].She was a normal person. But she believed. Right? So Joanne says, ‘I’m here with Jesus, do you see him?’ ‘Yes.’ Joanne didn’t see him, but she said, ‘I’m here with Jesus, do you see him?’ ‘Yes.’ Then she says something like…’I’m giving you to him, he will guide you. Is that okay?’ … and she says, ‘yes. Bye.‘
I’m what C.S. Lewis would call a ʽMere Christianʼ, and all of my two books are very, very much meant to be from the point of view of what C.S. Lewis called ‘Mere Christianity’, meaning that I don’t touch upon anything at all where Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians differ, they express just the basics of the faith, from a basic, ecumenical Christian viewpoint. They only talk about the Christian faith that they have agreement on.
Eric Metaxas and the God Question (August 1, 2007)Eric Metaxas and the God Question http://www.greeknewsonline.com/eric-metaxas-and-the-god-question/ (August 1, 2007)
It is truly heartbreaking to witness how some pastors, teachers, and writers, who are advocates for Israel, are compromising the Gospel in the name of ecumenism. This situation is so distressing that it brings one to the verge of tears.
Paul of Tarsus said something diametrically different, as far as I can recall.
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. [Gal 1:6-9].
WHO IS CHRIST FOR US TODAY?
During his incarceration in a Nazi prison camp for his involvement in a plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler, Bonhoeffer grappled with the question ‘Who is Christ for us today?’
It might be worthwhile to take a moment to ponder what led him to ask such an unusual question. One might assume that a genuinely redeemed individual would grasp who Christ is and understand the significance of His sacrifice for a world of lost souls immediately upon their salvation. After all, Christ remains unchanged, and is the same today as He was over two thousand years ago.
One of Bonhoeffer’s most compelling concepts was his notion of a “religionless Christianity.” He provocatively challenged whether traditional religious expressions and institutions could still resonate in a world that had “come of age.” Instead of retreating into mere ritual, he advocated for a faith that was fully engaged with the realities of life, rooted in responsibility, action, and a genuine presence. This vision significantly shaped postwar theology, influencing movements such as secular theology and the “Death of God” theology in the 1960s.
The phrase “God is dead” was popularised by Friedrich Nietzsche. Still, in the 1960s, theological discussions began to evolve significantly, as many theologians posited that the traditional belief in a transcendent and personal God was becoming increasingly untenable in the context of a modern, secular world (a world that had “come of age”).
This perspective gained notable traction during the decade, particularly within the United States, where social and cultural upheaval prompted a reexamination of established religious beliefs. Rather than simply rejecting religion outright, many advocates of this notion viewed it as an opportunity to reinterpret and reimagine faith.
They sought to address the challenges posed by a society where the existence of God was no longer universally accepted or assumed. This led to a variety of innovative theological frameworks that aimed to find meaning and purpose beyond traditional doctrines.
The term “reimagine” became a focal point in this discourse, encapsulating the desire to seek out new expressions of spirituality that resonate with contemporary experiences and existential questions. In his influential work, *Letters and Papers from Prison*, Dietrich Bonhoeffer delves deeply into these themes, reflecting on the nature of faith and existence in a world where God’s presence is not a given. His writings invite readers to consider how belief can be transformed and adapted to meet the needs and realities of modern life.
In his Letters and Papers from Prison, Bonhoeffer proposed the idea of a “religionless Christianity”—a faith stripped of traditional religious trappings and metaphysical claims. In short, he vied for a religion devoid of solid biblical doctrine (2 Timothy 4:3). He questioned how Christians could speak of God in a “world come of age”, where traditional religious language no longer resonated. He famously wrote that we must learn to live “as if there were no God”—not as atheism, but as a call to find God in the secular, the mundane, and the suffering.
Radical theologians such as Thomas J. J. Altizer and William Hamilton regarded Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s theological insights as a crucial starting point for their own reformulations of faith. These theologians proposed a provocative idea: that the traditional understanding of God has effectively “died” in contemporary thought and experience.
They interpreted Bonhoeffer’s vision as an urgent invitation to recognise and embrace the absence of God as a legitimate theological reality. This perspective is rooted in the notion of kenosis, which suggests that God willingly emptied Himself into the world.
Consequently, they argued that God no longer exists as a transcendent being, separate from human experience and suffering. Instead, Bonhoeffer’s emphasis on the suffering and abandonment of Christ serves as a poignant reminder of God’s presence within the depths of human anguish and despair.
The radical theologians resonated deeply with Bonhoeffer’s Christocentric focus, which posits that God is fully revealed in the experiences of Christ, especially in his suffering and ultimate sacrifice on the cross. This led them to a profound conclusion: the death of Christ not only signifies the end of traditional notions of divinity but also calls for a new beginning in theology—one that starts from the recognition of God’s absence and the implications of that absence for understanding faith and existence in a modern context.
The aspiration to inhabit and believe in a world where the presence of God is experienced as a deep and profound absence is a poignant theme that resonates with many today. Within the Emerging Church movement, the concept of “reimagine” takes on significant weight; it is not just a catchy phrase but a powerful call for transformation and renewal.
This ambition embodies a heartfelt yearning to reconsider the true meaning of being the Church in an age characterised by postmodern thought, pluralism, and widespread disillusionment. Rather than clinging to rigid doctrines, this movement seeks to rekindle the essence of Christian community through authentic lived experiences, engaging storytelling, and collective spiritual practices rooted in traditions like Christian Meditation or Christian Mysticism.
This approach breathes life into contemporary faith, echoing the ideas of theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who spoke to the need for a faith that transcends mere institutional boundaries. Bonhoeffer’s concept of ‘religionless Christianity’ challenges believers to cultivate a deeply relational faith—one that is vibrant, dynamic, and intertwined with the human experience, rather than strictly confined to established religious institutions. This perspective encourages a form of Christianity that is not only personal but also communal, fostering genuine connections among individuals in their spiritual journeys, devoid of sound biblical doctrine.
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. (2 Timothy 4:2)
THE CONCEPT OF RELIGIONLESS CHRISTIANITY
Bonhoeffer’s notion of ‘religionless Christianity’ sought to redefine Christianity in a way that could engage meaningfully with a broader world of faith and non-faith. This concept emphasised personal commitment to the good of others, transcending denominational boundaries.
Bonhoeffer criticised ‘cheap grace’ and advocated for ‘costly grace’ as a true expression of faith.
‘Religionless Christianity’ aimed to find common ground between Christianity and other faiths.
It emphasised an ‘arcane discipline’ of personal commitment to moral action.
There is no such thing as “cheap grace.” God is the dispenser of grace through his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, of whom God the Father said, “This is my Son in whom I am well-pleased.” Was the giving of the Son by the Father to die for the sins of the world cheap grace? God’s grace is not assessed on a continuum ranging from low-cost (cheap) to high-cost (costly) according to man’s performance in God’s acre. This is exemplified by the parable of the landowner who remunerated all his labourers with the same wage, regardless of the number of hours they worked.
INTERFAITH ENGAGEMENT AND SPIRITUALITY: THE GANDHI CONNECTION
Bonhoeffer’s interfaith engagements, particularly with Indian spiritualities and Judaism, significantly influenced his theological development. He recognised the value of other faiths and the importance of action aligned with one’s beliefs.
A well-known false teacher who has been significantly influenced by Bonhoeffer in South Africa is the ekerk pastor, Stephan Joubert. This influence is particularly evident in his perspective on the church’s role in society and the manifestation (embodiment) of faith, also referred to as incarnational spirituality. In essence, this concept suggests that when one provides the poor and marginalised with a piece of bread, they instantly become a friend of Jesus. This idea is often described as relational generosity, which is considered a spiritual act.
One of Joubert’s notable sayings is, “We are living heaven back to earth every day.” In addition to being one of his most unbiblical expressions ever crafted by mankind, it is not even an original adage. It is derived from a book authored by Tzvi Freeman, entitled “Bringing Heaven Down to Earth: 365 Meditations from the Teachings of the Rebbe,” which draws upon the teachings of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the Lubavitcher Rebbe. This anthology examines how divine wisdom and spiritual insight can be integrated into everyday existence, essentially “bringing heaven down to earth” through deeds, reflection (meditation), and empathy. In short, ekerk is bringing down heaven to earth through good works.
Their virtuous actions are simply a poor replica of Matthew 6:3, crafted to imply, “Look at us, our left hands are acutely aware of what our right hands are doing, as we, famous in ekerk, are consistently bringing heaven to earth.” The reason for the author’s mention of Stephan Joubert is to demonstrate the insidiously toxic influence of Bonhoeffer that has spread throughout the church. The manner in which Jack Hibbs can create such a ruckus about himself is a puzzle in itself.
Bonhoeffer’s incarnational bent in faith was heavily influenced by Mahatma Gandhi.
He admired Gandhi’s commitment to action and non-violence, seeing parallels with Christian teachings.
Bonhoeffer’s respect for Judaism grew, leading to a compassionate stance against anti-Semitism.
His prison experiences deepened his understanding of interfaith connections and the moral imperative of action.
Even though Bonhoeffer went through a conversion of some sort around 1931, he rarely mentioned it. He later showed a strong aversion to Christians who spoke or wrote about their conversions. He even claimed that the gospel was not mainly about personal salvation, asserting that the imitation of Christ was central to and essential for living an incarnational lifestyle rather than following a set of doctrines.
Andrew Murray, who was deeply influenced by Thomas à Kempis’ “Imitation of Christ,” posited that mysticism is a framework without doctrine, allowing it to be seen as a spiritual phenomenon across various faiths. Bonhoeffer advanced this concept further by employing it to advocate for ecumenism. Indeed, he is recognised as a foundational figure in the movement to achieve ecumenical unity.
The picture of Bonhoeffer tearing a Nazi flag at the introduction of this article illustrates Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s profound disdain for Hitler and Nazi Germany, particularly during the Confessing Church’s passive resistance to Hitler’s “Final Solution” and the Holocaust targeting the Jewish people.
The most disturbing aspect related to the swastika was its peculiar connection to Mahatma Gandhi’s principles of nonviolent resistance and Bonhoeffer’s admiration for Gandhi. Gandhi referred to his approach of nonviolent resistance as Satyagraha, a term he introduced in 1906 while in South Africa. This term merges the Sanskrit words satya (truth) and agraha (firmness or insistence), and it can be interpreted as ‘truth-force’ or ‘soul-force.’
Ironically, Gandhi, to whom Bonhoeffer turned for spiritual guidance, and even proposed to visit one of his Ashrams in 1934 while preparing for his passive resistance movement against Hitler, held the swastika in high regard within its original and sacred context of Hinduism. In Hinduism, the swastika is an ancient symbol representing good fortune, prosperity, and well-being, and is prominently featured in rituals, art, and architecture.
That said, very few people know that Gandhi wrote some endearing letters to Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini praising them for their bravery. To Hitler, he wrote,
Dear friend, We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland, nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents. But your own writings and pronouncements and those of your friends and admirers leave no room for doubt that many of your acts are monstrous and unbecoming of human dignity, especially in the estimation of men like me who believe in universal friendliness. But ours is a unique position.
We resist British Imperialism no less than Nazism. If there is a difference, it is in degree. One-fifth of the human race has been brought under the British heel by means that will not bear scrutiny. Our resistance to it does not mean harm to the British people. We seek to convert them, not to defeat them on the battlefield. Ours is an unarmed revolt against the British rule.
In his 2011 book, Subhash Chandra Bose in Nazi Germany, author Romain Hayes explains that, after he met Mussolini in 1931, Gandhi called Mussolini “one of the great statesmen of our time.” While his admiration was not without criticism, his overarching philosophy of finding common ground (which resembles ecumenicalism), even with those whose methods he fundamentally disagreed with, prevailed.
Bonhoeffer might have been greatly troubled if he’d been aware of Gandhi’s correspondence with the Führer of Nazi Germany and ‘Il Duce’ of Fascist Italy, trying to convince Hitler that passive resistance was the answer to achieving one’s goals and not violence, As a result, he likely would not have written a letter to Gandhi on October 17th, 1934, asking for permission to visit his ashram to delve deeper into what he termed ‘the meaning of Christian life, of genuine community life, of truth and love in reality.’ However, he never made the journey. The Confessing Church in Germany, which opposed the Nazi-aligned state church, called him back to lead an underground seminary.
GANDHI’S DOUBLE STANDARD ON ISRAEL
Gandhi’s understanding of the Jewish struggle was rooted in his commitment to non-violence, justice, and anti-imperialism, rather than any divine pronouncement about the land belonging exclusively to the Jews and not the Arabs. He demonstrated deep compassion for the Jewish people, particularly considering the horrific persecution they endured under Nazi Germany.
However, he also opposed the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. Gandhi believed it was “wrong and inhumane to impose the Jews on the Arabs,” which, of course, was another way to accuse the Jews of being illegal settlers. He insisted that Palestine, like England, rightfully belonged to its indigenous inhabitants. He argued that Jewish settlement in Palestine should only take place with the consent and goodwill of the Arab population, rejecting any reliance on British military backing or colonial imposition.
DID GANDHI TEACH BONHOEFFER HOW TO FOLLOW CHRIST?
Mahatma Gandhi had a profound respect for Jesus Christ, despite being a committed Hindu for his entire life. He regarded Jesus as one of the most significant moral educators in history.
The Sermon on the Mount, especially, had a deep impact on him—he noted that it “went straight to my heart” and influenced his principles of nonviolence (passive resistance) and love.
That said, Gandhi didn’t accept the orthodox Christian belief in Jesus as the only Son of God. He saw Jesus as a great teacher among others, whose message belonged to all humanity, not just to one religion, which forged not only his own views on ecumenism but also those of Bonhoeffer. This instantly recalls the words of Jesus directed at the Pharisees,
39) [Ye] Search the scriptures; for in them ye believe ye possess eternal life: and they are the very ones that bear witness of me.
40) Yet, you refuse to come to me, so that you may have life. [John 5:39-40].
Surely, Bonhoeffer must have known of Gandhi’s denunciation of Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God. Yet, he was so enamoured with Gandhi that he even wrote to Gandhi in 1934, asking to visit his ashram in India, seeking guidance on nonviolent resistance and spiritual renewal.
Since when do Christians seek guidance from non-believers while Scripture warns “not [to be] unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?” 2 Corinthians 6:14-15.
In truth, many Christians who revere him as a leading example of how to follow Christ and to pursue costly grace instead of cheap grace, as Bonhoeffer coined it, are often unaware of his engagement with Eastern mystical meditation.
While Gandhi may not have formally “taught” Bonhoeffer how to be a Christ follower, his life exemplified a strong model that inspired Bonhoeffer to engage in deeper thought regarding the essence of truly following Christ.
Having acknowledged that the life of Christ is beyond written description (“Vita Jesu scribe non potest”) and recognising that many aspects of His life are shrouded in myth and legend, Bonhoeffer could not truly emulate Him or learn how to follow Christ.
Consequently, his next best figure for guidance in following Christ was Gandhi, a Hindu who rejected the notion of Christ as the only begotten Son.
The reasoning behind Jack Hibbs’ admiration for such an individual as a Christian hero, who sacrificed his life to save some Jews during the Holocaust, remains known only to him.
Perhaps my readers may now understand my initial question, “Has the struggle against anti-Semitism evolved into a means to enhance ecumenism?”
Ecumenism suggests that Jesus Christ is not the God who proclaimed Himself to be the same yesterday, today, and forever, thereby asserting His unchangeable nature.
The same Christ who was present during the persecution of Christians in Rome under the brutal reign of the Roman Emperors is the same Christ who witnessed the intense suffering of his people, the Jews, during the Holocaust at the hands of the Nazis.
Likewise, it was the same Christ who saw the martyrdom and execution of Bonhoeffer at the Flossenbürg concentration camp on April 9, 1945.
The primary difference is that martyrs such as Paul of Tarsus were martyred and killed for their faith and loyalty to Jesus Christ and His Gospel, and not for a plot to assassinate Emperor Nero.
In contrast, Bonhoeffer was hanged for his involvement in a plot to assassinate Hitler. Moreover, his suffering led him to pursue a “religionless Christianity,” as he coined it, which has nothing in common with the Gospel of God, and even less with the calling to follow Christ.
Indeed, he did not seek guidance from the Bible in his journey to follow Christ, but from Mahatma Gandhi, who not only encouraged him to actively practice passive resistance but also helped him to deepen his insight into the essence of following Christ in a world that has gone awry.
BONHOEFFER’S VIEWS ON THE BIBLE
Dietrich Bonhoeffer expressed a critical viewpoint of the New Testament, describing it as being influenced by what he termed “redemption myths.” During the academic year 1935-1936, he conducted a course on “The Imitation of Christ” written by Thomas à Kempis at the University of Berlin.
This context may shed some light on his choice to request a copy of Thomas á Kempis’ “Imitation of Christ” rather than the Bible on the evening before his execution on April 9, 1945.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a universalist with a neo-orthodox theology that was notably more progressive than that of Karl Barth.
He strongly criticised the Lutheran Church for not taking a more aggressive stance against the Nazi regime and encouraged a reevaluation of Martin Luther’s strict antisemitic ideologies. His critiques aimed to inspire a more compassionate and responsible engagement with contemporary moral issues.
As a result, he founded his own church, known as the Confessing Church, and developed a unique form of Christianity that he called “religionless Christianity.” This approach resembles Andrew Murray’s concept of doctrineless mysticism, as discussed in his foreword to “Wholly for God” by William Law.
Bonhoeffer aimed to promote ecumenical unity among all Christian denominations, as well as with non-believers like Gandhi, through what he referred to as “practical mysticism.”
For Bonhoeffer, mysticism was not simply about retreating into personal spiritual experiences, such as Lectio Divina and contemplative prayer; rather, it involved understanding God in a way that compels one to take action on behalf of the oppressed, the poor, and the marginalised
He chose not to seek guidance from the Bible on his journey to follow Christ; rather, he drew inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi’s influence compelled him to actively practice passive resistance and significantly deepened his understanding of what it truly means to follow Christ in a world that has gone mad.
In truth, many Christians, such as Jack Hibbs and Eric Metaxas, who revere him as a leading example of how to follow Christ and to pursue costly grace instead of cheap grace, as Bonhoeffer coined it, are often unaware of his engagement with Eastern mystical practices.
As a point of interest, he established an underground seminary that he called Finkenwalde, envisioning it as a kind of “Christian monastic community.” While it was not an ashram in the strictest sense, it was significantly inspired by Gandhi’s model of communal, disciplined living rooted in spiritual practices.
Finkenwalde served as a place for intentional living, daily prayer, shared meals, and rigorous theological training for pastors of the Confessing Church, a movement opposing Nazi interference in German Protestantism.
His friend and biographer, Eberhard Bethge, even described it as Bonhoeffer’s version of an ashram where the Sermon on the Mount had special preference in their pursuit of radical discipleship, as Bonhoeffer called it.
In his book “The Cost of Discipleship,” Dietrich Bonhoeffer advocates for a radical approach to discipleship. He challenges believers to reject what he terms “cheap grace” and to embrace a faith that is costly and lived out in practice.
This perspective resonates with the emerging church movement, which emphasises genuine spiritual transformation over mere institutional religion.
South African theologian Stephan Joubert is one of the leading voices championing the idea of costly grace. His book, “Jesus, ‘n Radikale Sprong,” won the Andrew Murray Prize in 2010.
THOMAS À KEMPIS AND HIS CATHOLIC VENERATION OF THE EUCHARIST
Thomas à Kempis held the Eucharist in very high esteem, recognising it as the spiritual core of Christian life. In the fourth book of “The Imitation of Christ”, he presents the Eucharist not merely as a ritual, but as a deeply personal and transformative encounter with Christ.
He underscores that through this sacrament, believers are invited into intimate communion with Jesus, experiencing His love, sacrifice, and grace tangibly.
À Kempis encouraged individuals to approach the Eucharist with humility, devotion, and a heart filled with faith. He viewed it as a vital source of spiritual nourishment and peace, capable of fortifying the soul and enhancing one’s relationship with God.
His reflections resonate with the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence, affirming that Christ is truly present in the consecrated elements of bread and wine.
While Lutherans do not maintain that the Eucharist constitutes the literal body and blood of Jesus in the manner of transubstantiation, as is held by Roman Catholics, they do affirm that Christ is truly present “in, with, and under” the elements of bread and wine during the sacrament of Holy Communion.
IS BIBLICAL HISTORICITY RELIABLE?
Both Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer maintained that Scripture is entirely true.
However, they introduced a rather unconventional perspective by suggesting that Scripture encompasses two distinct types of truth: one related to religious faith (moral duties in terms of the Sermon on the Mount) and the other to confirmed empirical reality.
This division, however, poses a significant challenge to the historical integrity of Scripture itself.
During his tenure as an assistant pastor in Barcelona in 1928, Bonhoeffer clearly informed his congregation that the Bible contains numerous elements that lack historical reliability.
He claimed that even the life of Jesus is “overgrown with legends” and myths, resulting in a limited understanding of the historical Jesus. Bonhoeffer ultimately stated that “Vita Jesu scribe non potest” (the life of Jesus cannot be written).
His assertion fosters disdain and uncertainty regarding whether Christ is genuinely the Way, the Truth, and the Life. (John 14:6).
His perspective aligns with Gandhi’s, who held a deep admiration for Jesus Christ, even though he was a devoted Hindu throughout his life.
He saw Jesus as one of the greatest moral teachers in history. The Sermon on the Mount resonated with him—he remarked that it “touched my heart” and shaped his beliefs in nonviolence (passive resistance) and love.
Where fire and ice converge, one must ultimately give way, and certainly, Jesus Christ would not be the one to concede. He spoke in a manner that was at odds with everything Bonhoeffer believed about the Bible.
During His conversation with the two disciples travelling to Emmaus, He “began at Moses and all the prophets, expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” [Luke 24:27].
Bonhoeffer, who expressed his preference to read the Old Testament instead of the New, hypocritically pitted the Old against the New, whilst the New was essentially the enlightened reality of the shadows in the Old Testament. Both are indispensable in gaining knowledge of Jesus Christ and his mission on earth.
Maybe Jack Hibbs could shed some light on why he made such a grand spectacle surrounding Dietrich Bonhoeffer, considering he must have been aware of how his hero disrespected and dishonoured Jesus Christ and His Word in such a horrible, contemptible way.
Moreover, Hibbs should also know that Bonhoeffer was a mystic who practised contemplative exercises
Here, in his own words, are the thoughts Bonhoeffer had about God’s Word. The one thing to note with dismay was his double-mindedness, which fluctuated between conservative fundamentalism and extreme liberalism. He professed,
“I believe that the Bible alone is the answer to all our questions and that we need only to ask insistently and with some humility for us to receive the answer from it.”
And yet his views on the book of Genesis, which he deemed to be naïve, were not good enough to answer his questions on the origin of all things (1 John 1:3). A wrong understanding of Genesis leads to a wrong understanding of the rest of Scripture. In “Creation and Fall”, he writes,
“Here we have before us the ancient world picture in all its scientific naïveté… The heavens and the seas were not formed in the way [the author] says… The idea of verbal inspiration will not do.”
In other words, God did not speak things into existence; scientific evidence (evolution) disproves “verbal inspiration.
Although Stephan Joubert values the authority of Scripture, his approach, like that of Bonhoeffer, does not emphasise a literal-historical reading of the Genesis narrative.
Instead, he highlights how Scripture shapes community, reveals Christ, and addresses contemporary life. This aligns him more with theologians like Bonhoeffer and N.T. Wright, who views Genesis as theologically rich rather than scientifically exact.
A closer inspection proves that their view of the Bible is fundamentally but a piece of driftwood washed up on the shores of contemplative meditation.
With these often-quoted words in Bonhoeffer’s writings, especially “Life Together,” he encouraged Christians to meditate on Scripture in the Lectio Divina manner every day.
From the things Jack Hibbs has said and taught about the importance of silence in worship (Psalm 46:10), in some of his sermons and YouTube videos, he seems to have an increasing interest in contemplative meditation.
Alongside Bonhoeffer’s contemplative mysticism, it seems fitting to group both under the adage, “Birds of a feather flock together.”
APOSTASY IS WORSE THAN TERRORISM
28) And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)
False teachers kill the souls of men
SPIRITUAL HARLOTRY
IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR CHRISTIANS TO TAKE ON THE ROLE OF CHRISTIAN ACTIVISTS?
The YouTube video above illustrates that Jack Hibbs is a strong advocate for holy living, which must be maintained through a consistent disdain for evil.
He clearly states that Christians who do not voice their opposition to evil are not just cowards; they are complicit in the very evils they should detest and publicly denounce.
To reinforce his claims, he frequently states, “It is in the Bible.” Without a doubt, Christians ought to detest (hate) evil, as highlighted in his quote from Ephesians 4:25-26, which is more clearly elucidated in the Amplified Bible.
Firstly, Ephesians 4:17-32 is not a treatise on how to speak out against the evils in society, especially the unbelievers.
It is a sharp reminder for Christians to “henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.” (verses 17 to 19).
From this point onward, it is not a manual instructing believers on how to be Christian activists who parade around admonishing others against engaging in wrongdoing, while they themselves may still have a much larger beam in their own eyes.
Convincing lost sinners of their sins is the work of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8).
In all circumstances, Christians should testify and bear witness to how God has rescued them from their own sins and must refrain from arrogantly trying to redeem societies from their misdeeds as Christian activists, exhibiting a Pharisaical mindset of “Oh, I thank You that I am not like other men, extortionists, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.” (Luke 18:11). Jack and his congregation sould know this verse by heart.
17) For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? (1 Peter 4:17).
Jack Hibbs analyses the language of the Bible concerning wickedness—from the Greek word “porneros” (to labour in sin) to the admonitions in Proverbs regarding lust, temptation, and physical ruin.
He highlights pastors who shy away from the truth, Christians who accept lies (look who is yielding the axe while the beam in his own eye is growing beyond normal proportions), and the spiritual complacency that is undermining the body of Christ from within.
According to Jack, the singular most dangerous sin that is destroying the Church in the 21st Century is its silence on promiscuity. He points to Proverbs 7, where Solomon warns his son about the perils of an adulteress.
However, I must remind Jack that King Solomon, who was the wisest man on earth and the author of this warning, fell victim to this very sin by marrying 700 wives and having 300 concubines, the majority of whom were foreign women.
This, as noted in 1 Kings 11:1–2, was a blatant violation of Israelite law. This situation brings to mind the admonition in 1 Corinthians 10:12.
THE CENTRAL THEME OF EPHESIANS 4 VERSES 17 TO 32
The central theme of the passage is how to live the new life in Christ by putting off your old self [completely discard your former nature] … [and to] be continually renewed in the spirit of your mind … by putting on the new self [the regenerated and renewed nature], created in God’s image.” The Amplified Bible says it thus:
21) If in fact you have [really] heard Him and have been taught by Him, just as truth is in Jesus [revealed in His life and personified in Him],
22) that, regarding your previous way of life, you put off your old self [completely discard your former nature], which is being corrupted through deceitful desires,
23) and be continually renewed in the spirit of your mind [having a fresh, untarnished mental and spiritual attitude],
24) and put on the new self [the regenerated and renewed nature], created in God’s image, [godlike] in the righteousness and holiness of the truth [living in a way that expresses to God your gratitude for your salvation].
25) Therefore, rejecting all falsehood [whether lying, defrauding, telling half-truths, spreading rumors, any such as these], speak truth each one with his neighbor, for we are all parts of one another [and we are all parts of the body of Christ].
26) Be angry [at sin—at immorality, at injustice, at ungodly behavior], yet do not sin; do not let your anger [cause you shame, nor allow it to] last until the sun goes down.
In simple terms, this can be described as a change of attire, shifting from garments tainted by corruption and sin to a fresh outfit imbued with the fragrant essence of Christ’s life.
Unfortunately, Jack Hibbs never once mentions this in his sermon. The sins that are destroying the 21st-century Church, according to his liking, are complacency, compromise, cowardice, and inertness.
SPIRITUAL ADULTERY (HARLOTRY)
While these matters significantly harm the Church in the 21st Century, the foremost vices that Paul warns the church against are lying, defrauding, deceiving, conveying half-truths, and spreading rumours.
These behaviours undoubtedly belong to the domain of Spiritual adultery. Jack Hibbs might be among the most vocal warriors fighting against societal evils. Yet, he struggles to tackle the spiritual promiscuities occurring in his own church, which is inevitably part of the 21st-century Church.
The book of Revelation offers the most precise illustration of spiritual adultery, as John provides sincere Bible readers with a striking portrayal of the Roman Catholic Church.
3) And the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness; and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was entirely covered with blasphemous names, having seven heads and ten horns.
4) The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold, precious stones and pearls, [and she was] holding in her hand a gold cup full of the abominations and the filth of her [sexual] immorality.
5) And on her forehead a name was written, a mystery: “BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES (false religions, heresies) AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” (Revelation 17:3-5)
The golden cup used in the Eucharist, held aloft by the Bishop of Rome and his associates at every Mass, is seen as the genuine presence of Christ in the bread and wine. It follows that Christ is sacrificed on the altars of Rome throughout the world every time Mass is served. The Bible refutes this paganistic (ancient Babylonian custom).
8) Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9) Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10) By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11) And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12) But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; (Heb 10:8-12).
Yet, Jack Hibbs is cowardly silent about the evils of Chuck Smith, the founder of Calvary Chapel Ministries in Costa Mesa, California, who said, “What a glorious day when we discover that God loves the Baptists! – And the Presbyterians, and the Methodists, and the Catholics. We’re all His, and we all belong to Him. We see the whole Body of Christ, and we begin to strive together rather than striving against one another.”
Why didn’t Churck Smith expose the evils in the Roman Catholic Church, which strives against God? Why don’t Jack Hibbs, Amir Tsarfati, Barry Stagner, and Mike Golay hate the evils, and aren’t they filled with disgust at the wickedness in the Roman Catholic and Mormon Churches, and openly bring their heinous apostasy to light?
As Jack said, when you do not oppose them, you are in agreement with them, and when you do not rebuke them, you are a coward.
Is Jack Hibbs disgusted with the spiritual harlotry and evils in the Mormon Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s teachings? Perhaps we should remind him to practice what he preaches.
The Scriptures indicate that the whole world is enveloped in wickedness (1 John 5:19). It is extensively filled with malevolence and immorality. Which of these countless evils and wrongdoings is Jack Hibbs and his church confronting, and what is their aim – to improve the world?
Which command among these two was provided by Jesus Christ?
Go ye therefore, unto all nations and boldly speak out against their evil and wickedness. Be courageous, be brave and shun cowardice and complacency, for I am with you always, even unto the end of the world (Hibbs, Chapter 28 and verses 19 to 20).
OR
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:19-20).
Jack Hibbs readily admits that Satan is the father of all lies (John 8:44). Still, like his buddies, Amir Tsarfati, Barry Stagner, and Mike Golay, he will never admit that their heroes in faith, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, James Dobson, John MacArthur, and Chuck Smith’s views on Roman Catholicism are incompatible with the teachings of Christ. In other words, they spread lies.
He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight. (Psalm 101:7).
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OPENED BONHOEFFER’S EYES TO “THE UNIVERSALITY OF FAITH”
For those who are interested in the Roman Catholic Church’s influence on Dietrich Bonhoeffer, this article will provide you with the answers you need to hear.
Tom Lessing is the author of the above article.
Discerning the World is an internet Christian Ministry based in Johannesburg South Africa. Tom Lessing and Deborah Ellish both own Discerning the World. For more information see the About this Website page below the comments section.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
