Calvary Chapel’s Brian Brodersen instructs pastors to “Tone it down” for youth

screen-shot-2016-11-02-at-8-01-16-pm

Brian Brodersen

The Calvary Chapel Association has promised all 1,600 of its churches around the world an international meeting next year to address concerns about its future direction. That’s in direct response to a growing chorus of concerns from pastors around the drastic departure from Scripture and from Calvary’s doctrinal distinctives spearheaded by Costa Mesa pastor Brian Brodersen since the death of his father-in-law, CC founder and pastor Chuck Smith. (Those changes are bullet-pointed in the article titled, Fed up with false teaching: Calvary Chapel church says “So Long” to the CC Association.)

“Beating the Drum”

Recently Brodersen raised even more alarms during Calvary’s Northwest Pastor’s Conference. In a panel discussion, Brodersen insulted Smith and cast a vision for a new paradigm shift in the way Brodersen wants to do things from here on out. Telling pastors to “tone down” their Old Testament rhetoric, and stop “beating the drum” on biblical prophecy and end times, Brodersen warned they were chasing all the young people away from church.

The Calvary Chapel Association promised pastors it will address concerns at a meeting in November of 2017.

Meanwhile the Emergent Watch blog published Brodersen’s comments, which has gone viral:

In this video, Brian can be heard instructing other pastors in how to teach the Bible. His ideas radically depart from the biblical foundation laid out by CC founder Pastor Chuck Smith. Featuring clips from the 2016 CC Northwest Pastor’s Conference. Brian Brodersen herein teaches CC pastors to avoid the Old Testament, Bible prophecy, end-times and the Pre-trib rapture. – Emergent Watch

Here are the audio clips, and below is a partial transcript of Brodersen’s comments:

On stopping Calvary’s practice of chapter-by-chapter, verse-by-verse Bible teaching:

“My goal is that people will know the important kind of key points of each book. Because I started thinking about– I really started think about the new person that comes in to church, whose never been through the Bible and I started thinking about, man, going like literally reading every word of every book of the Bible, that could be pretty brutal, especially for some.

And that’s in a sense where you could call it idolatry. Where you have to read every word. I mean I felt that way for a long, long time.”

On leaving the Old Testament out of Sunday preaching:

What I really think is, Sunday morning is obviously for most everybody, it’s the largest gathering so you have the most people there Sunday morning. So to me that’s our real opportunity to impart truth to the congregation on Sunday morning. So I feel really strongly that we should be teaching the New Testament on Sunday morning. We’re either teaching the Epistles which is how to live the Christian life or teaching through the gospels which is reminding everybody who Jesus is and what He did. So again, if God spoke to me and said teach Ezekiel on Sunday morning, obviously I would do that but I haven’t sensed that, you know. I really feel a strong conviction about teaching the New Testament on Sunday mornings. And doing it sermonically.

Here’s my point.   I think you can preach the whole counsel of God without teaching all 66 books of the Bible   I don’t think that’s what Paul meant. When he said he preached, I know Chuck meant that. Haha. That’s what Chuck did.

On undoing Chuck Smith’s Bible prophecy teaching model to attract youth:

You know the last 10 years of pastor Chuck’s life in ministry, um, probably almost every sermon on a Sunday was seriously a doom and a gloom message and it was basically the world’s going to hell but the Lord’s coming so just you know buckle your seat belt, hold on and we’re all gonna be out of here. And so once a month I would preach and I would literally get up and try to counter what was happening for the other 3 weeks because I could just look at the congregation and you know, month by month by month, the heads got whiter and whiter and whiter. We just were losing the younger generation to where when we came to the end, I mean it was hard to find a dark haired person in the congregation.

And what had happened is you know Chuck was so convinced about the rapture in his time and he was so frustrated with the direction of the world that he just couldn’t see any other solution. There’s we gotta be out of here but the younger generations sat there and they were like well what does that mean for us and I had a number of kids that would say to me thank you for your message today because it gave me hope that there’s actually something that could do for god. Cause what they were getting every week is you can’t do anything for god because the world’s going to hell and the rapture’s coming and we did it all for god already so don’t worry about it. Just hold on and we’re all gonna get out of ere and this drove the kids out of the church, seriously.

Courtesy Emergent Watch

Courtesy Emergent Watch

And look, I believe in the rapture, I believer in the Second Coming but I think all f us should have learned by now that none of us know when that’s gonna happen and if we get up every week of if we’re constantly banging that drum of you know Ezekiel 38 and all of this stuff, what you’re indirectly sending a message to the younger gen. That there’s nothing left for you to do it’s all been done so just hold on tight the rapture’s coming and you know, my experiences is that they don’t want to hear that. They want to hear that we can do something for god just like you guys did. Our generation can do something, there’s a world to reach. There are people to touch there are missions to be accomplished, there are churches to be planted, and so I’m really you know kind of challenging you guys if you’re beating the prophecy drum, just tone it down because you don’t know.

See Also:

Pattern of concern:


© Amy Spreeman for Berean Research, 2016

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Berean Research Articles, Calvary Chapel, Emergent Church and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

88 Responses to Calvary Chapel’s Brian Brodersen instructs pastors to “Tone it down” for youth

  1. Manny1962 says:

    “Brodersen warned they were chasing all the young people away from church.”

    How did Jesus treat the rich YOUNG ruler? Did He coddle him? He made the kid realize that his love was with the world, not Christ! People do not want to hear the truth anymore. Everyone needs a “safe space” or a place where “micro aggressions or trigger words” are not heard! Well, then don’t read the bible and don’t follow Christ, it’s a sure bet guarantee you will be reviled for standing up for Jesus! In today’s world your internal fortitude will be tested if you proclaim the truth as per The Gospels.

    People Go to “church” to be entertained, no to hear a sermon. No one wants to hear about the consequences of sin, rejecting The Lord and eternal damnation. This is one of the reasons congregations look and sound like rock concerts on any Sunday, instead of a place of reverent worship of God. Again, this goes back to the “don’t judge” syndrome, it’s easier to tell some one God loves you than to repent, judgement and hell. Living in the last days folks, having a form of godliness but denying its power.

    Like

    • Larry says:

      I usually disagree with Brian’s current Theology outlook but I think he brings up a very valid point. I’m 67 and love the Old Testament. Most of the Pastors that came out of the 70s Jesus movement are now in their 60s. What did Chuck do in the 60s when he started out?He loosened up and welcomed the Hippies. How many non and new believer’s want to hear a doom and gloom message? That’s like putting a KJV Bible in their hands and telling them to go and read and understand God’s word. Some may but many won’t. When I first got saved 31 years ago a brother in the Lord told me that you have to love people into the Kingdom. Great advice! What’s wrong with teaching people about Jesus from the New Testament? It’s still God’s Word. Some Pastor’s teach that you have to read the Old Testament before understanding the New. Maybe it’s the other way around?

      Like

      • Delvin says:

        I’m not so bothered by Brian’s position. As long as he’s not deviating from scripture, holds to the tenets of the faith I’m okay. There are as stated by Wareen Wiersbe: Methods are many,

        Principles are few.

        Methods always change,

        Principles never do.

        As long as he remains committed to the necessary tenets of the faith I want to give him the flexibility to do so; we’ve seen this as the church has grown, and early Calvary was one of those Gods used. Watch….

        Like

    • Davina Wonderling says:

      I agree with you 100%, Manny1962! I am blown away at how few real Christians who hold true to GOD’s True Word only! It’s just like JESUS was saying when HE wondered if HE will find faith upon HIS return. And yes, I think GOD is separating the sheep from the goats here! Be blessed.

      Like

    • Sharon says:

      Absolutely right on, Manny!!!
      Amen!!!

      Like

    • JPOP says:

      David Wilkerson, a call to anguish!, watch it on utube. INDEED WE NEED TO BE STRONG IN HIS WORD AN SPEAK THE TRUTH REGARDLESS OF WHO FEELINGS ARE HURT, HELL IS FOREVER. FEELING ArEaNT

      Like

    • Mary Seres says:

      WOW, all that stuff (Ezekiel 38) all that stuff is God’s word Mr. Brodersen. Jut remember in all that stuff those who preach another word will stand before the Lord and give account of what they are preaching. Our young need all “that stuff”, they are going to Pot literally, to heroin, to sex before marriage, pornography, etc. Shame on you

      Like

  2. Edwitness says:

    The fact that he would say something like that is like a husband or wife countering everything the other is doing for the Lord whenever they get the opportunity. This is dispicable behavior.
    And the fact that the Lord’s return is near does not mean that we have nothing to do but wait around for it. We occupy until He comes, right? The message of the gospel goes forward with or without the youth that he has personal experience with.
    And since when do we change the way we are to deliver the message of the gospel just because some people do not like it? Paul could not have taught the gospel that he did without the OT. And neither can anyone else.
    When he referenced OT passages, how are we to know what he meant without going to it’s source for context? When he said “there is none righteous no not one…”, we can not know the context of that statement without going to the original place where the statement was made. And most people don’t have a clue what the context of that statement was, because they do not go to it’s source for context.
    Brian Broderson is a backstabber who Chuck did not want to be his successor. Chuck’s brother did a message stating as much that Chuck wanted him to release after his death. This is just one of many examples that the apostasy is surely underway. Just as Paul said it would be right before the rapture. 2thes.2:1-3
    Brian’s attitude is a sign of just how near it is.
    Maranatha!!
    Blessings:-}

    Like

    • Steven Keeney says:

      1. Brian is not a back stabber. Do you have any substantiated evidence to back this up or is this your unsubstantiated allegation. What Brian did right or wrong is his right as pastor of CCCM. Furtehrmore it is not an essential. In essentials unity, in non essentials liberty but in all things charity. Which according to your post I see no charity
      .

      Like

      • Edwitness says:

        Since when is rebuking a brother when he is wrong not charity? Paul did as much to Peter. I know it is not an essential, but when you know that Chuck did not want what Brian is doing, and Brian says with his own mouth and put in writing that he tried to “counter” in one week what Chuck had been doing for the other three at CCCM, that most certainly is backstabbing.
        Didn’t you read the post?

        Like

  3. Q says:

    Brian use to seem so right on when he was in Vista CA, then he went to Europe. Chuck did not want him to go, he believed Brian should stay in Vista. When Brian came back to So Cal it was like something changed in his theology, I wondered if it was some kind of midlife crisis, or financial hardship…

    Brian is correct about Costa Mesa, their was mostly older people and it was not relevant to the young. Post Modern churches like RockHarbor were popping up and drawing the younger crowd.

    Watching what has been happening it seems Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa has struggled to find a way to be relevant again. They thought they could learn from the New Calvinists with the way they used social media and embraced Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller, et al., became more reformed theology friendly…

    Now it seems they are going with pragmatism i.e., what ever will draw a crowd. Allowing Ryan Ries to teach is a good example. It’s sad to see.

    Chuck did teach topical messages and on Sundays he did teach more themed messages. It was during the week (Wednesday) he did the deep verse by verse teaching that people are probably familiar with, you can listen to some of his entire (whole) bible series free online.

    Every time Chuck went through the bible it was slower and more in depth which made sense to me. My thinking has been when you have newer believers you need to cover the “whole” bible much quicker to give a good general understanding and help people study on their own, after that you can slow down and go more in depth.

    Every Christian, when possible, needs to Know the whole bible and that includes prophecy, Chuck would not approve. The church was getting older but pragmatism and ecumenism isn’t the answer.

    Iv’e said on this blog before there were problems in CC from the beginning that have now grown up… Chuck didn’t always do what he taught e.g., appointing Greg Laurie at such a young age. I guess Greg could draw a crowd so it was okay, maybe pragmatism was one of those things that was there from the beginning that was not good.

    Jesus said he would build his church, Chuck did not believe in man made gimmicks to help.

    Like

    • Q says:

      “Chuck would not approve.” (of Brian’s newly announced position on teaching the bible)

      Like

      • Mayaka says:

        I totally agree, i remember one time when Chuck was being interviewed. He stated that his greatest fear was what the church would do after he was gone. He saw the church going where it is now. I doubt he thought his own son in law would be leading this downfall.
        Saying that the Old Testament should not be used in order to get the young people to the church is so strange. .2Timothy 3:16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
        The fastest growing christian church is the Seventh Day Adventist Church. This church teaches prophecy, moral and dietary laws!!!
        You cannot get more Old Testament than that.
        When cheap grace and feel good teachings enter the church, there is no hope for it for God is not in it.
        Young people do not need a duplication of the into world into the church, they need the truth pure and true. We were all young, no one changed the way of worship to accommodate us.
        These are just signs of times. The book of Revelation states that even the very elect will be deceived.
        This is not from God. It is a downward spiral to irrelevant mumbo jambo as evidenced every day on our tv screens. At least those who teach here are openly soliciting for funds but Calvary Chapel was not made from this cloth. Sad .

        Like

  4. Jerod Hatch says:

    The verse referenced in the email is misquoted, and out of context. The verse they meant to reference is 1 Corinthians 1:10 “Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.” But it only states the bit about agreement, leaving out judgement. Perhaps I’ll get to that.

    This is too little, too late and smacks that the intention behind this email is to let it lie. No pun intended, though well fitted. I think, and I am only writing as a feeble minded man, that they are trusting in the short memory of the laity. Look at our national election, the cyclical nature of a politicians nine scandalous lives, it is a microcosm of the spiritual truth in the church, that we tend to forget, then forgive, when there has been no repentance. Trump, whom I gave my vote to, is the perfect example.

    We are exhorted in scripture to “warn a divisive man”, but after repeated warnings, cease fellowship, and evangelize them. CCA, imho, needs to mark and cease fellowship with Brodersen et al who would see the truth of God’s Word entire relegated to a watered down “massage” as Sandy Adams so eptly put it, so that other bodies of believers can make an informed decision on whether to accept their teaching. Enough is enough, Brian.

    The email of which the article speaks says nothing of this sort, but lists other movements who had split or members who had left to join other movements who Chuck had seen fit to live and let live … that being Pentecostals (who later slipped into Charismaniacal airy woo-woo – to borrow the term from an atheist), Acts 29 (of Rob Bell and Mars Hill), Hillsong (where does one start?), and John Wimber’s Vineyard, directly out of CC and later directly responsible for the successful delusion of thousands under Mike Bickle, John Arnott, Paul Cain, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. Btw, a common practice here is hastily laying on of hands, and I am speaking of both CC and Vineyard, though Vineyard was/is just ridiculous. These folks were not marked as heretics by Chuck, to my knowledge, and there is one problem. Do we see a pattern? History is repeating itself.

    To Chuck and cyclical history, it is the sad example that there is nary a major movement that had to organize itself once or twice that failed to do so effectively and are adherents to false teaching and heresies and two come to mind… Lutherans and Calvinists. Both men reached back to Augustine, rather than to the inspired word of God in the original tongues. Look at the fruit of those movements even within in the lifetime of the founders. Pogroms, legalism, murder, all stemming from the perversion of God’s Word. As Mr. Jacob Prasch says, they began right, but… well, look at the fruit now.

    Well, here we go again. Only this time the CCA Board of Eliashib and Co. is content to keep Tobiah in his cushy digs in the temple, until such time is convenient when they can all meet in sunny St. Petersburg with their wives, and conference, and coffee, and eat, and conference, and eat, and hotel, and beach, and eat and coffee… Calvary is missing it’s Nehemiah, he is dead (even a few of the signatures on the email are from pastor’s pushing a false revival, getting in bed with the NAR, the ecumenical BIOLA, etc). Yet, that email this article refers to makes veiled references to Calvary heritage, as Chuck Smith’s Calvary per se, rather than the word of God. Sure foundation= Word of God, not in there. Chuck himself had to remind Coy, Brodersen, and Laurie at a different conference in 2012 or 13 who the actual Pope of Calvary is -that is, when the question was posed, who among the three of them would be the next “Pope” of CC, their ensuing comedy routine was cut short when Chuck reminded the room that Christ Jesus is the head of Calvary. Which begs the question, if Chuck knew Jesus is our heritage, our DNA, why does this email seem to only want to reach back to Chuck when it is clear that Calvary’s politics and ministry practices (such as its nepotism, celebrity pastors, music ministry ties and seeker friendly, if not heretical affiliations with the likes of Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, and Hillsong, along with the shell game it plays with its finances) need pruning to keep from bearing sour grapes, which it obviously has as has been played out in at least one public scandal of note , the Smith-Brodersen Feud (another being the Grenier Bros lawsuit).

    Now is the time for CCA to take a hard look into the mirror of God’s Word, fast, pray, and ditch the sunny digs in Florida a year from now for a warehouse in Nebraska in three months without the comfort of their wives. Judgement begins in the house of God, better we judge ourselves that we might not be judged.

    Dearest friends in Calvary, heed what Paul says near the end of 1 Corinthians : For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.1 Cor. 11:19

    Please CCA, go back to the Word, if you want to honor Chuck Smith’s legacy. Confront the pushers of false doctrines and ecumenism besides Brodersen. Your conferences are no good when each person is at least partially looking forward to the sensual comforts of the environment. Now is not the time to live and let live. Calvary is sinking. Get to work!

    There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven—

          A time to give birth and a time to die;
                A time to plant and a time to uproot what is planted.

          A time to kill and a time to heal;
                A time to tear down and a time to build up.

          A time to weep and a time to laugh;
                A time to mourn and a time to dance.

    Like

  5. E. M. says:

    Can I ask a silly question? Why are believers still connected to these churches? You need to come out from among them. You don’t have to be connected with CC to teach or preach. If you follow a man or ministry, this is exactly what happens. Yes it’s sad that CC has gone this route after chuck ,but it has and will continue down that path. Get away from them and keep doing what the Lord has called you to do. Why aren’t we just studying the word ourselves and assembling with like minded believers within the body of Christ? This Apostasy with the churches may just be the Lord separating the sheep and goats. In 1 Corinthians 11:19 We are told that the heresies must happen so the approved may be manifested. I think this should not surprise us at this point as we were told it would happen.

    Like

  6. E. M. says:

    Sorry , just saw someone else used the same verse in Corinthians. Well, now you heard it twice.

    Like

  7. Pablo says:

    Please review 2 Corin. 11:3-4 That is the problema in current church. Satan is offering other Jesus, other spirit and other gospel.

    Jesus coming soon. Maranatha.

    Pablo

    http://www.spgchile.org

    Like

  8. Manny1962 says:

    Good afternoon Pablo,

    The situation in all Christendom is becoming quite clear, God is separating His from those of the world. God is always separating, clearly seen in both testaments, we are beginning to see the seperation of the wheat and tares, the bride of Christ will be small. The false church will be large, a giant mega church if you will, denying the very Jesus that bought her with His precious blood! Yes a one world religion bowing to and worshipping the coming man of sin, the antichrist, which a Roman pope will declare to be the coming messiah, the avatar, the Mahdi, and the New Age christ! In reality the man of sin, who will come in peace then will show his true fierce countenance, the worst dictator humanity will ever see, fully possessed by Satan, with complete control of the world’s economy.

    Like

    • Stephen James Schneider says:

      Hi Manny1962 and everybody else:

      Guys, guys, guys! You’ve got it all wrong. The Antichrist is NOT a man. The Antichrist is the “Anti” or opposite of Christ. Jesus was and is FULLY MAN and FULLY GOD. The opposite of that is NOT A MAN and NOT GOD.

      Think it through ALL the way — NOT just part “Anti”, ALL the way “Anti”.

      Here’s what the Bible says about the Antichrist:

      “Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. [1John 2:18]

      “Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.” [1 John 2:22]

      “but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and EVEN NOW IS ALREADY in the world.” [1 John 4:3]

      “I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. [2 John 1:7]

      The Antichrist is a set of philosophies — often the same philosophies, new directions for the church, and teachings of church leaders who teach a different gospel, etc. that Berean Research warns about. The antichrist IS the false apostles, the super-apostles, and the wolves!

      Not only that, but the Antichrist has been around for (nearly) 2000 years and today also takes the form of Atheism, the belief that there is NO GOD and Relativism which teaches that the only truth is that there is no truth, that there is “your truth”, “my truth”, every religion and every holy book are equally valid, etc.

      There is ZERO reference to the Antichrist in the Book of Revelation. NOT EVEN ONE reference.

      Manny1962 and others, the Rapture, Great Tribulation, and the Return of Jesus Christ is EVEN CLOSER than you think! You’ve been waiting for a MAN to show up and “he” has been here, lurking under your nose, hidden from your sight all of your lives! Millenia, in fact.

      Like

  9. Hey every body. If you remember the the calling out of Peter when the boat was tossed and sinking they were all afraid when they saw a ghostly apperance full of doubt and fear of this scene unfolding about them. BUT PETER said and CHRIST said COME and he did. Now is this alike to today with all the doubts and fears falling on modern days churchianity / chrisidom etc etc. PETER walked in the WORD that was spoken to him when he doubted he immeaditaly began to sink. This is our TIME believers dont take your eyes off of him WHO IS ABEL TO KEEP YOU FROM FALLING AWAY. I dont know how far CHRIST placed himself between the boat and him . ??? 10 ft or 100yards the latter is my preference because PETER asked IS THAT YOU LORD if it is bid me to come to you.. He sank so close to the LORD that he reached out to him now that is close. We the believers now are no different to those who FIRST BELIEVED…The times that we have to endure are upon us unbelief all around us just like the others in the boat .? here why didnt they go with PETER to give him support. Christ was identifying their lack of FAITH He also did it many times with his 12 disciples. ??? Thomas saying he wouldnt believe un less he saw and touched HIM again CHRIST came to them and had to UPBRAID them for hardness of heart and unbelief after he sent 4 others 2 women 2 men to tell them he had risen personal WITTNESSES to speak to them. A great personal meeting in mrk 16 to sort them out. To get ready for his departure up to the FATHER. I jhon no HOLY SPIRIT BECAUSE HE HAD NOT ASCENDED for it to return on PENTECOST. I am so glad that at least about 120 listened then and obeyed HIM..Where were all the others he appeared to over the 40 days. A REMMANENT is what he wants a remmant is what will rise we have been WARNED .Broad and wide ?????? / strait and narrow IS THE WAY which leads to ETERNAL LIFE. CHRIST said I AM THE WAY++++++. A point to consider here The ones known AS THE WAY in the beggining didnt have what we call the BIBLE in its FULLNESS.??????? I make myself open to any comments or critism+++++. I am one trying to understand PAULS ch in 2 cor 6 is it for the last days coming out of HER to hasten HIS RETURN. SELAH.

    Like

  10. Gary Ford says:

    If they follow this route, then what is to stop them from not preaching about sin on Sunday and just become more seeker-friendly. It is a dangerously slippery slope. P

    Like

  11. Robert Trohon says:

    TRUTH…that is the issue here. As real Christians, we stand for truth. That is the ultimate goal.

    Then, when equipped with truth, we are able to love God and love one another according to the way of the Lord.
    Is Calvary Chapel headed towards a split? Only God knows, but I will stand on the side of truth.

    We need ALL 66 books of the Bible. (Romans 15:4 NKJV) For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.

    (1 Corinthians 10:11 NKJV) Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

    Does Jesus, or Calvary Chapel, approve of Brian “Head” Welch of Korn, or Ryan Ries of the Whosoevers? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUr28-mlzs4 Well, I know Jesus doesn’t.

    Brian “Head” Welch said he returned to Korn per inspiration of God to save those still trapped in his old-style life. If you search YouTube for 2016 Korn concerts, you will see Satan-inspired music, Satan-inspired showmanship, and NOTHING that glorifies God. Our God does not send us back into the world, to sin, for the purpose of bringing out others into the kingdom of God.

    Is Brian Brodersen, Raul Ries (Ryan’s father who approves of his son’s ministry), Guzik, and other leaders of the Calvary Chapel Association leading us down the wrong path? Are they pushing for ecumenism, sacrificing truth for unity, and a one-world church? Time will tell. I haven’t made a judgment yet. I am still in the investigative, wait-and-see mode.

    If I have to leave the Calvary Chapel Association, I hope and pray for God to provide a new leader for a new, fresh, faithful association, one that follows truth. I really don’t want to be a stand-alone church, but I will if necessary.

    I love Calvary Chapel, but I love God and truth more. God help us all.

    Pastor Robert Trohon
    La Via-The Way (Calvary Chapel)
    Managua, Nicaragua

    Like

    • Just a thought. CHRIST said where 2 or 3 are gathered in his name there he is IN THE MIDST of them. After the day of PENTECOST no great MEGA CHURCHES then They were in house to house fellow ship and APOSTELS DOCTRINE ????? how about today we may have it again. Here is my hope as i am one who already came out of corporate association and going it alone . There are more to come out. I dont know if you can help me here. I would like to share a dream i had when i seperated myself.spme years back. A submarine conning tower and a ABSALOM type captain looked at me i was not on the sub but suspended in the air outside . He smiled and said it will fall from heaven and 5000 will perish with this he chuchled to me and began to dive the sub leaving me still in the air. I expected missiles to be launched but not so. A vial type cylinder was very slowly falling down towards the ocean and when it hit the waters it started a acid type of reaction very large and at this time i saw many ships in the distance and the acid bubbling went over and sucked every thing down. The horror and the agonizing screams i heard was frightening torturess. When that stopped a captian of 1 of the ships wasin uniform trying to stand up but the rolling over and over prevented him from trying to put his captains cap on . The scene then went to the radio cabin and i wanted to send an S O S. but there was so many radios there i didnt know which 1 to use. A bit confused about the whole events that had happened. I then saw a right hand appear seeming to want to signal what had just happened it then went down to a desk where it tapped out a message in morse code just a hand no body attached. The message was 5000 have PERISHED…….. This has been with me for some time now i have wanted some one to interpret this dream and finding it very hard to find in a person that may be able to help me here .as a wittness .That i have a interpretation of it seeming to point to fellowships in jeprodary and peril Preachers and Evangelists. Thus a CAPTAIN / RADIO ROOM but the messanger by the right hand is my QUESTION here who sits at the RIGHT HAND OF GOD.????????SELAH.

      Like

    • Jerod Hatch says:

      God help you, Pastor Trahon. I will pray for your church. I can only say that stateside, I have seen enough of the ecumenical leanings, the promise of massive revival, the ties and gatherings with NAR leaders, the active ignorance of the needs of the sheep, chasing after the worship of the Holy Spirit, and going soft on Roman Catholicism – I am hoping my pastor at my CC will leave CCA. I keep bugging him. If he won’t, my family will.

      Blessings in Yeshua

      Jerod

      Like

      • Robert Trohon says:

        Thanks so much Jerod for your encouraging support. I pray for you and your church Pastor as well. Blessings Brother. Truth rules!

        Robert Trohon
        La via-The Way (Calvary Chapel)
        Managua, Nicaragua

        Like

      • Jerod Hatch says:

        You’re very welcome. God bless, brother.

        Like

    • Jerod Hatch says:

      Sorry, another thought, and I know your situation differs in Nicaragua, but after Words such as Brodersen’s, he needs to go at least, if not the c rest of those who after with him, we cannot doubt his salvation, but we can doubt his methods as being Spirit led. The longer we wait and see, again, the cooler the iron gets, and the less effective CCA leadership becomes.

      Like

  12. Edwitness says:

    What Jerod said about Broderson, Laurie, and Coy is what Jesus faced in His disciples as well. Luke22:24-27. They argued about who would lead Jesus’ church too. Jesus told them that the Gentiles have those who lord it over them calling themselves their “benefactors”. Then He said “BUT YE SHALL NOT BE SO.” As Chuck told them, Jesus is the head in every way. There is no need for the redundancy of pastors as “heads” or “benefactors”.

    But, what CC teaches are the same basic doctrines as many other Protestant churches. The most heretical teaching being that which teaches that “man has inherited a sin nature from Adam” and that “sin is imputed” because we are all under at least some form of law.
    If these were true then Paul would not have said these words, “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, EVEN OVER THEM THAT HAD NOT SINNED AFTER THE SIMILITUDE OF ADAM’S TRANSGRESSION, who is the figure of him that was to come.” Rom.5:14
    And
    “Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.” Rom.4:15 and “(For until the law sin was in the world: BUT SIN IS NOT IMPUTED WHEN THERE IS NO LAW.” Rom.5:13

    If you know the basic tenents of “inherent sin” and “imputed sin”, then you know it is imperative that all sinned the same sin with Adam(imputed sin). Because we were supposedly all in his loins sinning with him(inherent sin). Paul says this is not true.

    These are proof that Paul did not believe that sin is inherent. And is only imputed to those who are under the law. Which, before Moses was exactly noone. And since Jesus came is exactly noone.

    The answer to what man’s basic problem is is found in the message Jesus gave us in which He told the disciples the reason for the Holy Spirit’s coming to the world. In John16:8-11 He gives us the reason and the definition of each.
    “And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
    (Reason) Of sin, (Definition) because they believe not on me;
    (Reason) Of righteousness, (definition) because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
    (Reason) Of judgment, (Definition) because the prince of this world is judged.”

    What is happening at CC, NAR, Osteen and…., is the outgrowth of these kinds of foundational heresies.

    When heresy is the foundation for what we believe, as it is for many Protestant churches because they did not reject it from the RCC, the building will then be heretical as well. This is the very subtle lie that satan was able to convince the reformers to keep in their doctrine while getting rid of others.

    The only way for the debate about sin to make sense is for us to be able to understand it’s cause and effect APART FROM THE LAW. This is why Broderson wants to focus on the NT exclusively. He somehow hopes that this will make the teaching more “seeker friendly”. Because there is freedom in the NT (unconditional) that they did not have in the OT (conditional).
    But, until he and the other churches discard this heresy spawned by the RCC, all he is really accomplishing is to make them ignorant of the OT. Because he continues teaching this heresy.

    Which, instead of solving the perceived problem, only serves to exacerbate it.

    Blessings:-}

    Like

    • Q says:

      Edwitness,

      I believe both Inherit Sin and Imputed Sin are both biblically sound doctrines. Otherwise you would have Pelagianism?

      Inherent Sin is basically the idea that man is born with a corrupt nature or a sin nature handed down from the parents and to them from their parents all the way back to Adam and Eve. A way of seeing this is that you do not have to teach a child to lie he will do that by nature you have to teach them not to lie. In Genesis Adam was created in the image of God, after sinning Adam had a son in his own (fallen) image. Scriptural support would be “and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.” (Eph. 2:3) and David mentions this in Psalms 51:5 “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.” David doesn’t mean his mother sinned in or when conceiving him but that he had sin in him at conception.

      Imputed Sin is an important doctrine because it helps to understand Christ’s imputed righteousness to us. Romans 5:13-18 is arguing that sin came into the world through one man, evidenced by the fact that even though men did not sin in the same way Adam did, never the less they died. Romans 5:18 explains ” So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

      I do not believe that their is a valid argument against these doctrines except perhaps the imputation of guilt. Not inherent sin nature or imputation of condemnation (death) but some argue against the imputation of guilt i.e., eternally lost because of Adams sin.

      Like

      • Jerod says:

        It is Pelagianism. It denies Atonement for sin and Substitution, relegating the finished work of the cross to a blank slate, righteousness then being encumbent upon man, instead of our dependence upon Christ’s imputed righteousness, and from there it gets even more twisted, not at all simple as

        Romans 16:17Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. 19For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and *simple*concerning evil. 

        Like

      • Edwitness says:

        Jerod,
        The one who is twisted is he who holds to unbiblical doctrines. There is no scripture that says man inherited Adam’s “nature”.

        Like

      • Edwitness says:

        Jerod,
        I believe Jesus is God and was born of a virgin. And that Jesus died for our sins. That he raised on the third day as the scripture says. And that He is seated at the right hand of the Father making intercession for us by the cross. That He will come again for His bride at the rapture. And that we will rule and reign with Him for a thousand years and after that we will continue to live with Him forever.
        There is much more but, I think you get the picture. I believe as you do on these points. With the exception that I have chosen to believe the scriptures as they have been written. And not just what tradition tells me to believe.
        My challenge to you is that you would give the same due diligence to the reading of the scriptures as you obviously have given to your teacher’s instruction about them and their traditions.
        The only thing I want Christians to divide on is the truth from what is false. You can not pigeonhole me from your legalistic understanding of the scriptures. Palagianism has nothing to do with what I believe. The issue of legalism is something Paul spent most of Romans and all of Galatians exposing and rebuking. It would be nice to see Christians following in his teaching like they say they do for once.

        I know you mean well but you do not know what you are talking about. You sound much like the man Paul spoke of in 1Tim.1:7 who “Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.”

        Legalism is a trap that you have fallen into. But, you don’t have to stay there.

        Blessings:-}

        Like

      • Jerod says:

        How is depending upon Christ and His righteousness, above my own ability to be faithful thus righteous, legalistic? Pot to kettle, imo.

        I don’t doubt your salvation, Ed, just your understanding of faith/faithfulness.

        I’m sorry if I hurt you. It was late and my filter was waxing thin.

        Blessings,
        Jerod

        Like

      • Edwitness says:

        Jerod,
        You did not hurt me but I thank you for the kind words just the same. Jesus develops in us some pretty thick skin when we serve Him for very long:-)
        But, the fact that you would refer to Christ’s righteousness as a immeasurably more than someone who also knows Him, says that you are misunderstanding just what Biblical righteousness is.

        What I am trying to say is that because of your legalistic understanding of the scriptures, everything you read in the scriptures relates to the law as far as who God is and our need for His free gift of salvation. When you hear that God is holy, what do you think? That He is sinless and pure? That is not what His holiness refers to. It means He is separate. This separateness relates to His being the Creator and everything else the creation. This is what makes God God.

        When you say “sin nature”, you are saying every man is made responsible to the law. But, Paul said this is not true. Rom.2:14. The sin you believe separates us from God only holds accountable those who are under the law. And only when the law was their covenant with God. Eph.2:15 took care of that.

        Jesus did not die to make bad people good. He died to make dead people alive. John5:24.

        The sin of the world that John wrote of in John16:9 has nothing at all to do with the law. It is referring to a relationship we need with Jesus and the Holy Spirit’s job of introducing Jesus to us.

        The law plays no part whatsoever in determining the Gentile’s need for salvation. Gal.3:21. Because the Gentile was never under the law. Rom.2:14. Therefore the sin that results from breaking the law also has nothing to do with why the Gentile is separated from God. He is separated because death is a wall between him and God. Gen.2:17 and Rom.5:12.

        There is no scripture that says that man inherited Adam’s “nature”. What man got from Adam was something Adam was from the time he was created by God. That is, we are natural, not spiritual. 1Cor.15:46.

        This does not refer to a “sin nature” inherited from Adam. It refers to being made from the earth. Earthy. The sin nature doctrine is what adds all the definitions of our inability to measure up to some imaginary standard of righteousness the law requires.

        These are not Biblical. God wants a relationship with us that is impossible in the context of the law no matter how blameless someone keeps it. Luke1:6, Job1:1, and Phil.3:6-ff. That is why He came to earth as a man to introduce Himself and take away all the barriers to that new spiritual relationship for the Jew first and then the Gentile. Eph.2:15, Heb.9:15, and John14:9- “Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?”

        This is why Jesus says the works of God are; “…that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” John6:29. Believing is our part of the relationship. God loving us is His.

        If you could can stop interpreting everything through the filter of the unbiblical sin nature doctrine, and begin to see that relationship is the standard, then you would see that our relationship with God is based on simply trusting Him and not on how well someone keeps or kept the law.

        When we think of our relationship with God according to the meeting of a standard the law requires being met, then our relationship is based on works. No matter who kept it.
        This is the end result of the sin nature doctrine. Salvation by works.

        Blessings:-}

        Like

      • Edwitness says:

        Q and Jerod,
        You know what is really interesting? I used the same scriptures to support the fact that inherent and imputed sin is heresy, that you used to support your belief that inherent and imputed sin is not heresy. How is that possible? Let me try to show you:-)

        In Romans 5:12 we find that through Adam’s sin death entered into the world. And when we read the end of that verse we are taught to believe it means that men die because they sin, right? Here it is, “…and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”
        But, there is a problem with this understanding of the passage.

        There is a phrase in the Greek here that is not translated into english. The words “for that” have been placed there to allow for this. That phrase is pronounced “efho” from Greek. This phrase means “of which” or “by which” or “because of which”, not “for that”.

        There is another thing to know about this phrase that will help you see the importance of it in the passage. That is that it is masculine. This being true it can only refer to a masculine noun. The word for sin in Greek is hamartia. It is a feminine noun, so “of which/for that” can not be referring to the word “sin” at the end of the verse. The closest noun that is also masculine to “of which/for that” is the word “death”, which is “thanatos” in Greek.

        This means that the phrase “for that” must refer to death, not sin. Because of this, the sentence must read, “…and so death passed upon all men, of which/for that (referring to death) all have sinned.” Do you see the difference? “For that” is referring to death, not sin. So when it says “for that all have sinned” it means “for that (death) all have sinned”.

        Now we can read the verse as it was written by Paul to say, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, of which/for that (death) all have sinned:”

        To be cont.

        Like

      • Edwitness says:

        Q and Jerod cont.

        An important aspect of this verse is also the fact that it was death, and not sin, that Paul says here “passed upon all men”. This also helps us to understand what he was saying in the next several verses as they relate to this issue.

        13 “(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Here we find that sin does not count without the a law against it. Like driving down a road with no speed limit. No speed limit law can be counted against you where there isn’t one.

        14 “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.”
        Here we find, in agreement with vs12 and 13, that death reigned over man even where sin was not imputed. This points to Adam’s sin and not our own personal sin.
        And inherent sin is not mentioned here. Or anywhere else in the scriptures for that matter. So, the input here of inherited sin is not contextually correct. Because Paul already said in vs12 that men sin because of death. And not the other way around.

        15 “But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.”
        From this we see that it was the offense of Adam, and not our own sin, that caused death to reign over the rest of mankind.
        Once again, inherent sin is not mentioned here. And imputed sin does not apply here because there was no law as vs13 says.

        Men sin because they are born spiritually dead. (This is not his nature. The idea of the nature of man is from Greek philosophy introduced by Augustine). That is, they are born separated from God. And because of this separation man generally chooses to worship what he can relate to. This is connected to his 5 natural senses. Therefore his gods generally are part of his natural surroundings. This is when man sins. Idolatry. Then other sins come out of that idolatry.

        As to your example of the child not needing to learn how to sin, Jerod. The fact is they absolutely do learn from you everything they know about how to sin. Here is my example for this.
        You are drinking something your very small toddler sees you enjoying. He thinks he would like to have some too. What he doesn’t know is that it is very hot and would burn his mouth if you let him have some.
        You love your child and would never think of letting him burn himself. So, as he reaches for it you pull it away and say “no”. He doesn’t speak yet so you just have to keep it from him for his own good.
        Without knowing it or meaning to you have just taught him he does not have to share. It is ok to be selfish. So when it is his turn not to share, because he learned from you it was ok, you say, “See, you don’t have to teach children to sin”. When all along, without knowing it, you were teaching him all he knows about how to do just that.

        Then there is the issue of the substitutionary death of Christ. Question; Are we born spiritually dead? Yes. Then how can Jesus have died “in our place” if we are already dead?
        He can’t.
        When the scripture says Jesus died “for” us, it is saying He died on our behalf, not in our place.
        Jesus entered into death “with” us. Not instead of us. And by joining with us in spiritual death, (separation from the Father on the cross when Jesus said “Father why have you forsaken me?”) now we are able to, by faith, join Him in eternal life by the resurrection.
        This is the atonement.

        I hope this helps and shows that I am not a Pelagian. I believe the scriptures as they were written. Not as they are interpreted for me by you ar any other man.
        Tell me please, when Adam and Eve knew they were naked and hid from God, what did they say when God asked them why they hid from Him? If your answer is that they were ashamed it is proof that you are allowing someone else to interpret the scriptures for you. And not reading and believing what it actually says.

        Gen.3:10- “And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was AFRAID, because I was naked; and I hid myself.”
        Not ashamed. In fact, the scripture never says they were ashamed when they knew they were naked.

        Blessings:-}

        Like

      • Jerod says:

        Verse 14 says plainly the opposite, that Adams children, who did not have anything to do with the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, possibly even in the same time and space as Adam, had Adams sin put upon then as well. Also notice it says “in the similitude”, they simply hadn’t sinned the same way, or as grievously as Adam, having walked with God personally and betraying him.Noah would probably be a good example.

        From that point in v.14 your logic fails. Don’t be fooled, it is your logic, not the Holy Spirit. I have a friend who believes the same things, but it denies the finished work of the cross.

        Like

      • Edwitness says:

        Jerod,
        Of course you are wrong about vs14. But, how does it “deny the finished work of the cross”?
        Blessings:-}

        Like

      • Q says:

        I am not getting how the doctrines of Original Sin (what we are calling Inherited Sin) and Imputed Sin have anything to do with legalism.

        Pelagianism is the teaching that man is not affected by Adam’s sin but is born with the same purity and moral abilities as Adam had before sinning. Adam only hurt himself in sinning.

        Pelagianism could lead to believing a person may be able to live well enough (legalism) to receive eternal life because they weren’t affected by the fall.

        Believing man is affected by Adam’s sin is what has been called Original Sin. Just because Original or Inherent isn’t used in the bible doesn’t mean the bible doesn’t teach it.

        The bible says sin was in the world between Adam’s sin and a law forbidding it yet their transgressions were not held against them, yet death reigned.

        If you believe men died during the period between Adam’s sin and and the law of Moses or some other command forbidding sin you are admitting something happened to man in Adam because their transgression were not held against them. Why did they die? It’s implied because they sinned in Adam. That has been called Original (Inherent) Sin.

        Concerning Imputed Sin, Adam was a type (symbol) of Him who was to come. Two federal headships. Just as Adam’s sin affects those who are “in him” so Christ’s righteous act benefits everyone “in Him”. That has been called Imputed Sin and Imputed righteousness.

        The law was added not because there was no sin or could save man but to show men they were in sin or sin was in them.

        These doctrines do not take anything away from salvation being completely of the Lord nor do they cause man to become legalistic if anything it shows the complete inability for man to save himself.

        These doctrines are not what is causing CC or the NAR et al., to do what they are doing. I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

        I’m not sure how far apart we are on this.

        I do consider you a brother in Christ.

        Like

      • Edwitness says:

        Q,

        Thank you for the vote of confidence. And I will try to make what I have said more clear.

        I had this long message all written out. Then I read what I said here again and decided it pretty much explains the reason these doctrines are legalistic. Without having to have all the rest of it here.

        I agree with you that the sin of Adam had a very profoundly negative affect upon all mankind. And that Adam committed the first sin. But, because you believe in the doctrine of original sin this is where our agreement ends. At least regarding this issue.

        This is how the doctrine of original sin and the sin nature is legalism.
        In this doctrine, for sin to be sin that counts against us, whether inherited from Adam or not, there must have been a law broken by someone, right? And if that was passed to us through inheritance it makes us law breakers as well. This then requires someone to keep the law sinlessly for us so we could be forgiven of breaking it.

        But, we know that salvation by faith in Jesus can have nothing to do with the keeping of a law. By Jesus or man. Because if it did then salvation would be by the works of the law. Which is what the doctrine of original sin and the sin nature teaches. And that is by definition, legalism.

        Blessings:-}

        Like

      • Edwitness says:

        Q,
        I wanted to address what you said about death reigning.
        You said; “The bible says sin was in the world between Adam’s sin and a law forbidding it yet their transgressions were not held against them, yet death reigned.

        If you believe men died during the period between Adam’s sin and and the law of Moses or some other command forbidding sin you are admitting something happened to man in Adam because their transgression were not held against them. Why did they die? It’s implied because they sinned in Adam. That has been called Original (Inherent) Sin.”

        The fact remains that there was no law from Adam to Moses. So even if what you are saying about inherent sin was true, it still would not count against them according to Paul. Because sin is not imputed when there is no law. So even if Adam’s sin gave man a sin nature, it would not have caused them to die.

        The first mistake is where you said “it is implied”. The only reason to think that it is implied here is because of a preconceived idea coming from the sin nature doctrine. The passage says nothing that would lead to this conclusion. You think that because Adam’s sin brought death to him, that our own sin must also bring death to us. But, this is not so.

        It is death that passed to all men as Paul said in Rom.5:12. Not sin. And it is death that separates man from God since Adam sinned. The affect of Adam’s sin was that it caused him to die. This death is what passed to all men. We are separated from God by it. And now death is the power that causes sin. Not the other way around. 1Cor.15:56. As the bee controls it’s stinger, so death controls sin.

        When the scripture says that the wages of sin is death, it presupposes the fact that the person has never come to faith in Jesus. And because from conception death separates us from God, that separation makes it so that we can only relate to what is natural. Because we are natural, not spiritual. 1Cor.15:46.

        Death uses this to get us to worship one or more of those natural things. This is idolatry. This sin then makes us slaves to what is made. When we die in this sin physically, we enter into eternal death. Which is what is meant by “the wages of sin is death”.

        This phrase is the end of a thought. Not the complete thought. Just as the phrase “the gift of God is eternal life” is the end of a thought. Not the complete thought. They both need what comes before in the thought to explain what they mean. To know how to receive this gift of eternal life we need to know the information that preceded this statement. It is the same with “the wages of sin is death”.

        You then said;
        “Concerning Imputed Sin, Adam was a type (symbol) of Him who was to come. Two federal headships. Just as Adam’s sin affects those who are “in him” so Christ’s righteous act benefits everyone “in Him”. That has been called Imputed Sin and Imputed righteousness.”

        I definitely agree with you that Adam represented the whole human race just as Jesus did.
        When Jesus did all that He did to save us, does that mean we also did what He did? No. We only receive the benefits from it. Which is life.

        In the same way, when Adam sinned we did not sin with him or “in him”. However we did receive the consequence of his sin. Which is death.

        We are “in Christ” because we placed our faith in Him. When the scripture says we are in Adam it says that means we die. 1Cor.15:22- “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”
        As his descendants we receive the consequence of his choice. Which is death. Because as Paul says “death passed upon all men”. Not sin.
        We become sinners. We are not born that way.

        “The law was added not because there was no sin or could save man but to show men they were in sin or sin was in them.”
        That is true. But, one very important thing. The law was only given to Israel. Never to the Gentiles. Rom.2:14. “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law…”
        So the Gentiles have never been accountable to the law. This means their sin is not the imputed sin that comes from breaking God’s law. Their’s is the sin of “no faith in me”. John16:9

        Blessings:-}

        Like

      • Q says:

        Edwitness,

        I hope to reply to you tomorrow, so I hope you will check back on this thread.

        I think we have basic agreement on imputed sin and imputed righteousness?

        Like

      • Q says:

        Hi Edwitness,

        Sorry for the delay getting back to you, I hope you come back to check this thread…

        You said –

        “This then requires someone to keep the law sinlessly for us so we could be forgiven of breaking it.”

        No, only the penalty has to be paid. If it had to also include law keeping (by your logic) the Jews couldn’t be saved because they were/are under law.

        You said –

        “You think that because Adam’s sin brought death to him, that our own sin must also bring death to us.”

        No, this is not what I believe. Both death and sin passed to man through Adam’s sin.

        I believe, we are sinners by birth (Psalm 51:5). We are sinners by nature (Ephesians 2:1-3).

        We are not sinners because we sin; we sin because we are sinners. This would be Original Sin.

        You are saying death passed to all men but not sin and we sin because we are spiritually dead.

        Sin brings death not the other way around. “The sting of death is sin” means death has something that stings, remove the thing that stings or causes death, then death would not be able any longer to harm. That’s why Jesus died (took the sting) for our sins (inherent and personal sins), so we may live. Death does not separate us from God, sin does.

        Again, I am saying sin caused death and death passed to us because we all sinned in Adam. Conceived in sin (Psalms 51:5), sinners by nature Ephesians 2:3. Also I believe in (Romans 5:12) “for all have sinned” does not refer to individual sin but that all sinned in Adam.

        And that sin “nature” is handed down through the parents. Their transgression, when there was no law, was not held against them it was Adam’s sin that was held against them (Adam being the Federal of the race). An infant could die having committed no personal sin because Adam’s sin was imputed to the entire race.

        I think we are in some kind agreement on Imputed Sin and Imputed Righteousness?

        Adams sin to the race Romans (5:12-21)

        Mans sins imputed to Christ (2 Corinthians 5:19; 1 Peter 2:24)

        Christ’s righteousness to the believer (2 Corinthians 5:21)

        Peace,
        Q

        Like

      • Edwitness says:

        Q,
        No problem about the time.
        1 Are you saying that there were no Jews that kept the law?

        2 How can the “penalty” be paid by a blemished sacrifice?

        3 In Psalms 51:5 David says “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” When you break this statement down into it’s parts, where does it say he was a sinner from birth? All I see is someone who is expressing deep sorrow for his sin with Bathsheba. If you really think about what he is saying and evaluate it literally, you can only conclude that David is saying his parents were sinning when they conceived him. And that is not the case here.

        4 “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
        Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
        Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” Eph.2:1-3

        Can you show me in this passage where it says we have a sin nature? All I see is a person CHOOSING to live by his NATURAL desires. Because he is natural, just like Adam was made to be by God, not spiritual. 1Cor. 15:46

        5 We ARE sinners because we sin. And what I said above is proof.

        6 Death separates man from God. This alone will result in our going into the lake of fire. No sin is necassary to accomplish this. But, since sin is “…because they believe not on me;” John16:9, It is death, by it’s very act of separation, that is the cause of the sin of unbelief.

        7 Rom.5:12 does not say ‘for all have sinned’. It says “FOR THAT all have sinned”. When you read this you should ask “For that, what”? The answer is “For that death, all have sinned”. Which means that it is because of death that all have sinned.
        This has to do with the grammar in this portion of the passage. Sin is a feminine word. For that (efho in the Greek) is a masculine phrase. A masculine phrase can not refer to a feminine noun. Therefore, for that must be referring to death, because it is a the nearest masculine noun in the sentence.

        8 Rom.5:12-21 says exactly the opposite of what you say mostly because of the information I gave you in #7.

        As for imputed sin, it only has application for those who are under the law. Rom.5:13
        Which for the Gentile is never.

        Blessings:-}

        Like

      • Q says:

        Hey Edwitness,

        I think, in your last comment – you are making my argument for me but coming to a different conclusion. Most bible scholars and bible commentaries take the view I believe. You said you didn’t agree with them so I didn’t point to them but it has been mostly understood this way. I’ll grant I have not heard the argument you are making before.

        We will just have to disagree.

        Like

      • Edwitness says:

        Q,
        That’s fine, but I thought you might be interested in this. There is a person I was replying to about this and he expressed some agreement with what the catechism explains as the reason Jesus came. Here is that part of the catechism.

        “460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78 “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.”79 “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”80 “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

        The rcc has had many centuries to refine this position that comes from the doctrines we spoke of; those of original sin and sin nature. Those the church teaches as the foundation for why Jesus came. As you can see these doctrines led them to the conclusions I told you they would.

        And in accordance with these doctrines the “word of faith” teachers have concluded exactly the same thing. here they are in their own words.

        “Kenneth Hagin, who has taken many of his teachings from E. W. Kenyon, is considered by most to be the father of the Word of Faith movement, even to the point that he is often referred to as “Dad Hagin.” For instance, Hagin holds to teaching very similar to Price and Copeland when it comes to the atonement:

        He [Jesus] tasted spiritual death for every man. And His spirit and inner man went to hell IN MY PLACE. Can’t you see that? Physical death wouldn’t remove your sins. He’s tasted death for every man. He’s talking about tasting spiritual death.(1)
        [s]piritual death means something more than separation from God. Spiritual death also means having SATAN’S NATURE…. Jesus tasted death – spiritual death – for every man.(2)
        Hagin also believes that Jesus was not unique in His designation as God incarnate:
        “Every man who has been born again is an incarnation and Christianity is a miracle. The believer is as much an incarnation as was Jesus of Nazareth.”(3)

        He believes that we were originally created to be equal with God:
        “Man(Adam)…was created on terms of equality with God, and he could stand in God’s presence without any consciousness of inferiority…. God has made us as much like Himself as possible…. He made us the same class of being that He is Himself…. Man lived in the realm of God. He lived on terms equal with God…. [T]he believer is called Christ….That’s who we are; we’re Christ!”(4)

        Then there is Kenneth Copeland. In an alleged conversation with God, Copeland discovers that Jesus became a demonic being on the cross:
        “The righteousness of God was made to be sin. He accepted the SIN NATURE of Satan in His own spirit. And at the moment that He did so, He cried, “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me?” You don’t know what happened at the cross. Why do you think Moses, upon the instruction of God, raised a serpent up on that pole instead of a lamb? That used to bug me. I said, “why in the world would you want to put a snake up there – the sign of Satan? Why didn’t you put a lamb up on that pole?” And the Lord said, “Because it was the sign of Satan that was hanging on the cross.” He said, “I accepted in my own spirit, spiritual death, and the light was turned off.” 4
        The Spirit of God spoke to me and He said, “Son, realize this. Now follow me in this and don’t let your tradition trip you up.” He said, “Think this way: a twice-born man whipped Satan in his own domain.” And I threw my Bible down, like that, and I said, “What?” He said, “A born-again man defeated Satan, the firstborn of many brethren defeated him.” He said, “You are the very image and the very copy of that one.” I said, “Goodness, gracious sakes alive!” And I began to see what had gone on in there. And I said, “Well now you don’t mean, you couldn’t dare mean that I could have done that same thing?” He said, “Oh yeah. If you’d had the same knowledge of the Word of God that He did, you could’ve done the same thing, ’cause you’re a reborn man too.” 5

        The reason Hagin and Copeland believed that we become a “copy” of Jesus is because we receive the same “nature” that Jesus did when He was born the second time. But, the problem with this thinking is that Jesus was never born a second time. He never received a NEW NATURE. And neither do we.

        In these examples we see that the doctrine of “original sin” which informs the “sin nature” doctrine leads to the logical conclusion that we become every bit as much Gods as Jesus is. This happens because these doctrines are a wrong premise.

        Blessings:-}

        Like

      • Stephen James Schneider says:

        Hi Edwitness, Q, and Jerod:

        I’m the person Edwitness is referring to regarding Paragraph 460 of the Catholic Catechism when he stated:

        “There is a person I was replying to about this and he expressed some agreement with what the catechism explains as the reason Jesus came.”

        As I discussed with Edwitness, I have no idea what to think about this paragragh of the Roman Catholic Catechism, so I’ve adopted a “wait and see” approach to what the biblical verses this article is based upon actually refer to. We’ll find out “what’s what” when we get to Heaven.

        Edwitness feels that no part of creation could ever be God as our Creator. I believe that God became BOTH Creator and Created (man) as Jesus, and that if He wants to, if it is what He has always planned, He could make Christians (part of creation) into a part of Himself (ie. the reverse). After all, there is VERY LITTLE that God CANNOT do. He doesn’t have many limits.

        The discussion can be found at:

        http://bereanresearch.org/michael-brown-continues-deny-nar-defends-montanism/#comment-30990

        Check it out if you want, but fair warning. There is a LOT of information. A LOT! But, imho, very, very interesting! Of course, I did write 80% of the posts, so I’m probably biased. What do you think, Edwitness? Interesting or no?

        Ms. Spreeman, one of the two ladies who run the Berean Research website, has asked me not to “push Catholic apologetics” or she will pull any comment that does so from the forums and (so far) I’m aware of 10-20 posts that have been pulled, so I’ll leave it at that regarding Catholic Catechism Paragraph 460, and just stick to my personal beliefs instead. Hopefully, that will be sufficient to ensure this post doesn’t vanish from this forum thread, never to return!

        Like you Q, I believe that the “Original Sin” doctrine is biblically sound, but as I’ve told Edwitness, the most interesting thing about Original Sin is that it’s NOT actually sin. It instead refers to:

        “. . . the disastrous, fallen state of mankind into which the individual is born, even before he sins by a free decision.” [Youcat Paragraph 68]

        By this definition, Original Sin refers to the Death (which I liken to a virulant, spiritual disease), or the toxin (poison) in the “fruit” of the “Tree” of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, that we inherit (is passed down) from our parents, along with a combination of parts (chromosomes) of their physical DNA.

        An infant’s soul, although mortal is still very much alive, and free of either personal sin or an inherent sin nature. It is only as we grow older and can begin to make choices of our own free will that we inevitably succumb to the influence of the spiritual Death that adheres to our mortal (human) souls and begin to sin. And every time we sin, we damage our souls (ie. cuts, bruises, wounds, depending on the severity of the sins in question) enabling the spiritual Death that once stained (but could not yet hurt, but only influence) our young souls from really “digging its claws” into us. The “wounds” become infected, pussing and further poisoning us. The more we sin, the more inherently sinful we become, causing us to sin even more, etc., increasingly damaging our souls. Our entire lives, our mortal souls are dying, becoming weaker and weaker, until finally dying when brain death (being natural in nature) occurs.

        Like

      • Stephen James Schneider says:

        So, BOTH sides are correct. It’s just that Edwitness calls Original Sin Death without agreeing (or maybe realizing) that he is talking about the same thing, just by another name. I should also note that Edwitness is correct when he says that without the Mosaic Covenant, there is no sin debited against us. For Gentiles and Christians, the correct terms would be trespasses (as per the “Our Father”) or transgressions, making all those who do not accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour doomed to spiritual death (“children of wrath”).

        Of course, most of us just call it sin, which is when you “boil it down” a synonym for trespass and transgression. They all mean the same thing: disobediance to God’s ways (ie. His “paths of righteousness”). In point of fact, making too much of a “stink” about what we call disobediance to God is where one dives into legalism and its accompanying technicalities.

        “A rose by any other name still smells as sweet, and its thorns prick as deep”

        Edwitness, when you stated:

        “Then there is the issue of the substitutionary death of Christ. Question; Are we born spiritually dead? Yes. Then how can Jesus have died “in our place” if we are already dead?”

        Of course, we’re NOT born spiritually dead! God is a God of the living, NOT the dead. He doesn’t CREATE DEAD THINGS! When we are born, we are already doomed to die BOTH physically and spiritually. We are as good as dead, even if we were to NEVER sin, trespass, transgress, etc. Jesus did NOT ever refer TO A CHILD as “dead”, ONLY ADULTS. In point of fact, He said that we have to be like little children to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. How can that be the case if little children are DEAD SPIRITUALLY?!?

        Death aka “Original Sin” causes us to sin which causes Death to increase in its hold over us and so forth UNTIL we succumb to our inevitable end.

        Oh, and death was ALWAYS a part of natural AND physical life, right from the very beginning. It’s basic biology. Cells cannot divide without the original cell dying. Plants cannot grow, blossom, etc. unless the seed first dies. Paul points that out in 1 Corinthians. Physical death did NOT enter the world when Adam and Eve disobeyed God; it was there from the very beginning! It is a necessary, critical part of life. Life can’t exist without it! It was spiritual Death that entered the world through their disobediance.

        Again, biology 101. That’s also one of the reasons that, before their fall from grace, Adam and Eve could NOT have had physical bodies. It’s the ONLY way that they could have had no death in them prior to disobeying God. The other is that they were MADE IN GOD’S IMAGE. Ask yourself, does God have a physical body?

        Edwitness, Jerod, and Q: God bless and keep you and your families!

        Like

      • Edwitness says:

        Stephen J S,
        I am not substituting the word death for sin. They are not at all the same thing. Death uses sin to hold people captive to death. Much like Paul said in 1Cor,15:56.
        “The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.”

        Original sin is Adam’s sin. His sin was not the breaking of God’s law. There was no law. He trusted the false god. The serpent. And not the true God. That sin is the sin of the world that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to reprove the world of. This sin is also not the breaking of the law. because the world was not nor ever has been under the law. John16:9.
        “Of sin, because they believe not on me;”

        This is why KNOWING HIM saves us. John17:3
        “And THIS IS LIFE ETERNAL, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

        Trusting/believing Him makes us righteous. Gen.15:6 and Rom.4:3
        “For what saith the scripture? Abraham BELIEVED God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.”

        Sin is a tool used by death to hold people captive to death.

        Like

      • Stephen James Schneider says:

        One other thought:

        Doesn’t the word “commanded” in Genesis 3:11 STRONGLY INDICATE a legal Covenant, just as the word “commanded” was used when the Mosaic Covenant was established?

        “Commanded” is NOT a word indicative of a covenant of faith like the covenant made between God and Abraham and (I believe) God and Noah. With these covenants, God asked, not commanded, which is why their faith in obeying God was imputed as righteousness. Words I would associate with these non-legal covenants would be “instructed”, “recommended”, “told”, etc.

        While the Bible does NOT say that there WAS a First Law, it also does NOT say that there WASN’T. Considering the STAKES INVOLVED in whether Adam and Eve chose to trust God or not (the entire fate of humanity; what we were to be, energy or matter; and what would happen to the world) AND coming back to the fact that the word “commanded” was used, there being a First Law makes a lot of sense, at least to me.

        Besides, how could there have been SIN in the world prior to the Mosaic Covenant (or “The Law” TO THE Ancient Israelites, but NEVER “The Law” to Gentiles) despite it NOT YET BEING imputed to people UNLESS there was an earlier law covenant to define sin (although NOT to the same detailed specifications of the Mosaic Covenant)? Ergo, a First Law that Adam and Eve broke, with devastating consequences that continue to this day!

        Yes? No? Maybe so?

        What do you think, Q? Jerod? Manny1962? Anyone else who cares to comment?

        (And that’s my 4th post of a maximum 7 for today)

        Like

      • Steven Schneider, It is simple. Genesis 3:11 is a “Rule” a “Law” a “Command”, and Adam and Eve were held accountable for breaking it. Peace.

        Like

  13. john estes says:

    I NEED TO HAVE PRIVATE COFFEE WITH MY PASTOR… DOUG TO BETTER UNDERSTAND BRIAN BRODERSEN HART VS. HIS FATHER IN LAW PASTOR CHUCK SMITH. 11/06/2016 2:45 PM.

    JOHN ESTES

    Like

  14. john estes says:

    I AM VERY CONCERNED

    Like

  15. Jeff Cambeis says:

    Brian is teaching what Chuck taught.
    Chuck did not teach verse by verse all the time. In fact Chuck rarely taught verse by verse, he would skip verses he did not like.
    Chuck taught reach people where they are at. Teaching and reaching people where they are at is important for reaching people as Christ.

    Like

  16. Manny1962 says:

    As a bystander I see a pattern here. The problem is with man, not scripture. Mr. Smith is no longer in this world, he seems to be held in high esteem by most of his followers, while some have suggested Mr. Smith was going off the rails toward he end of his life. So his son in law now questions Smith’s teachings and direction for Calvary Chapel and is trying to usurp the leadership to turn CC toward a more liberal, open, ecumenical, organization.

    The pattern I see here, and please please correct me if I’m wrong. It’s almost cult like, if this CC was really built upon the proper foundation (Jesus Christ) the winds and the waves will not affect it! See my point? Yet, the whole organization is being shaken by one man with enough clout to rip it apart? My friends, there’s something wrong here, if CC was built on Mr. Smith’s foundation, it will flounder and fall, if it’s built on The Rock, it will survive, given the times we are living in, I would ask myself if this is a ship I would like to be in during a storm. Nothing built on man, no matter how wonderful it may look and sound, will not pass the test. That being Mr. Smith or Mr. Brodersen. I think it’s time for those loyal to Christ and His words to seperate, and start anew on a different foundation, one built upon The Rock, pastors come and go, our Lord is forever, have any of you CC members thought that maybe God is trying to seperate you?

    As I said, I’m just a distant observer looking from the outside in. No pastor, no matter how beloved, how kind or how popular is above The Word of God. If a pastor cannot tend the sheep, feed the sheep the correct food and protect the sheep, he is a hireling.

    Like

    • Jerod says:

      Yes, brother, we have, I am. I grieve for my children and my friends, because apart from our little CC here, there doesn’t seem to be a decent, non ecumenical, not word faith airy woo-woo, not emergent leaning church around here. I found a great little church though, just a little over an hour away :-/

      Like

      • Manny1962 says:

        Jerod, I understand your plight all too well, I really believe The Lord is shaking the tree! If you find like minded, theologically correct, bible believing brothers and sisters cling to them, a time is coming my friend, and for some it’s all ready here, when the bride will be tiny, home churches, small groups, even online ministries will prevail as the rotting corpse of Churchianity decomposes! God bless you and yours, don’t despair you know the antidote incessant prayer to a marvelous, wonderful God! Maranatha brother! The hour is very late!

        Like

      • Jerod says:

        Thx, Manny

        Again you are so correct

        Incessant prayer

        Like

    • Edwitness says:

      Amen to that Manny1962!
      Blessings:-}

      Like

      • Manny1962 says:

        The bibles does ask, will The Lord find faith when He returns? Blessed be His promise to the bride, He shall never forsake us! Given the darkness falling upon this nation and the world, that promise assures me! As it should all Christians! We are not alone, we are not divided! We are His children!

        Like

    • Manny1962……..easy does it brother.

      You said..”The pattern I see here, and please please correct me if I’m wrong. It’s almost cult like, if this CC was really built upon the proper foundation (Jesus Christ) the winds and the waves will not affect it! ”

      So I believe you are somewhat misled Manny so I am going to try and correct you as you requested.

      Calvary Chapel was, and still is, built on the Great Cornerstone of Jesus Christ. It is not even close to being a “cult-like,” as you say. Now, are things changing? Yes. Will there be an off-shoot, cult-like result from all of this? Time will tell.

      Will there be a faithful remnant? I believe there will be because there are too many honest, humble, God-loving, truth-loving, people-loving, Calvary Chapel pastors and leaders out there for it to be CAPSIZED completely by the winds and waves.

      I am not a Calvary Chapel old-timer. only been with them for 23 years, but my heart and soul is dedicated to the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Next my heart is dedicated to my family and my brothers and sisters in Christ. Thirdly, my heart is dedicated to the lost. Fourthly, and ONLY in fourth place, is my heart dedicated to Calvary Chapel. Does that sound “Cult-like” brother Manny? Peace.

      Pastor Robert Trohon
      La Via-The Way (Calvary Chapel)
      Managua, Nicaragua

      Facebook: Robert Trohon

      Like

      • Edwitness says:

        Thanks for that Robert,
        And thank you for your love for Jesus and commitment to His gospel. While I attended CC I never got the impression that it was a monolith. And because of that it is plausible for there to be pastors that have not gone the way of the Laodicean.
        May God bless all that you do there in keeping with the teaching that is the gospel delivered to us by the apostles.
        Blessings:-} brother

        Like

      • Ed Witness…Hi brother,

        It is interesting how you used the following words, correctly so:

        “May God bless all that you do there in keeping with the teaching that is the gospel delivered to us by the apostles.”

        The original name for our little church in Nicaragua was “Alimentando el Evangelio”, which, for those who don’t speak Spanish, means: Feeding the Gospel. Peace.

        Robert Trohon
        La Via-The Way (Calvary Chapel)
        Managua, Nicaragua

        Like

      • Manny1962 says:

        Good afternoon Robert,

        Like I said please correct me if I’m wrong. Thanks for the clarification, what I meant by cult like is the reaction people are having toward this situation, people seem to forget pastors are men, what makes them different is when they adhere to scripture, once a pastor decided to inject his ideas into God’s clear teaching the you end up with these kinds of situations, Paul did say the dissensions will happen, if not how do we know who is right?

        Bless you and may the Good Lord be a lamp into your feet Robert, it seems to me it’s be one easier to spread the truth in your neck of the woods than in this country! Maranatha!

        Like

      • Manny..Thanks for the clarification of your meaning brother.

        Yes, It is easy to discuss the Gospel in Nicaragua. No one throws a tract back at you when evangelizing, and they are very polite and willing to listen in most cases. A very gentle, humble people.

        I am praying about returning to the USA, if God wills it. Prayers are invited.

        Pastor Robert Trohon
        La Via (Calvary Chapel)
        Managua, Nicaragua

        Like

  17. Manny1962 says:

    Btw, everyone please pardon my typos! I have an iPad that decides to spell as it pleases! Drives me nuts! And the fact we can’t go back and edit!……… Amy??? LOL!

    Like

  18. Hughuenot says:

    Brian is absolutely right.

    Like

  19. Abram says:

    You might want to update your article to correctly quote who is saying what. The transcript makes no distinction that Wayne Taylor is speaking and if you didn’t watch the video you would assume the whole thing is Brian speaking.

    Also noticed, nothing noted or highlighted that is positive. Listening to the whole uncut and unedited versions you find there is also some good points brought up and even a defense for the very things you are trying to defend. However, if the reader doesn’t do any other research on this it would seem that everyone there was on same page and thought the same…thus condemning all.

    Like

    • Amy Spreeman says:

      1. Anyone who wants to listen to the good things Brodersen says is welcome to do so.
      2. Every false teacher and false movement (ALPHA Course, for example), contains truth with the poison. That’s how people are deceived.

      Like

  20. Hughuenot says:

    Brian’s doing with Calvary Chapel what Chuck did with his Foursquare Church back in the ’60s.

    Like

  21. Jaywalk says:

    Im read the old testament in its entirety and so will my children. Im not gona water the Word down for anyone. Jesus was studied even at the age of 12, nuf said.

    Sorry not sorry, brian… us Christians eat meat over here.

    Like

  22. Robert says:

    All I can say from what I read of Brain’s statement is he’s not taking the whole counsel of God. You need to teach both. How can you just teach from the NT only. From what I know it so often points us back to the OT. God doesn’t change. God takes what He said in both the OT and NT seriously. James warns us not all to desire to be teachers for the same will be held to a stricter account for it. Look at the OT on how God took His word seriously. Some who didn’t take it seriously paid the price for not taking as seriously. Jesus called a spade a spade to the religious leaders of His day. This seems like I want to fill the seats. If true want to know the Lord personally God will bring them. Paul stated what people would be like not adhering to God’s word. I could go on but will finish with this. Pastors take heed on teaching Gods word. Take teaching Gods word as seriously as God does. You will give an account to God for those you teach.

    Like

  23. Tim Francis says:

    Interesting. I sat under Brian’s teachings in Vista for 7 years. Was part of the Drug and Alcohol recovery ministry, participated on the Worship team, and was a small group leader. I found Brian to be an uplifting and inspirational leader who struggled with his own calling sometime. Most of us saw this as humility. He also struggled with an illness that sometimes caused him to pass out. He believed all Pastors of all denominations should meet and pray together over their community. And his expository style of teaching was open, inviting and well thought out. It’s been years since i lived anywhere that Brian was a pastor so my only comments on this are that i never saw this when I knew him. People change. I don’t know why they do. But as Scripture explains, “Where do wars and fights come from among Ye? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that was in your members? You lust and you have not, you murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and you war. Yet you do not have because you ask not. You ask and you do not receive because you ask amiss that you may spend it on your pleasures.” I don’t know what Brian is going through. What i do know is he is my Brother in Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. I believe I know what Chuck’s vision was and I am a product of that vision. We should in fact be covered in ashes and crying out in the streets for God’s Mercy and His Wisdom in this crisis, not pointing fingers, accusations, murmuring or talking behind ones back. And it could be that God wants to move to the next place with Chuck’s vision, because after all, Chucks vision came for God, not the other way around. As James 4 continues “For what is our life but a vapor that appears for a moment and vanishes away”. We should take hold of the hours that are fleeing away from us, to watch and pray, and to do God’s Will, and lift up our brothers and sisters who may be stumbling, not crucifying them. Brian has an incredible responsibility. Before you stone him to death, take it to your secret place and cry out for the Lord, so that He would be the one that remedies the situation. I know this, I am one that was “stoned without cause” once, and it took time to heal. And I have observed other pastors who have been stoned without cause. Let us not keep killing our own and remember the place the Lord first came to us and pulled us from the mire. Prayer works, even Jesus said so, when He told Peter that Satan asked for his life so he could sift it as wheat. Jesus said “I prayed for you, Peter”. Pray, that God heals this, Pray that God directs what will happen. Pray that God will hear the prayers of His people, and do a mighty thing in our midst. I’ll close with this. Two men whom I admire greatly are Joey Buran and Carlos Ayub, both who were mentored by Brian years ago. If God can do a mighty work with them through Brian, He can once again do mighty works just like that. Pray.

    Like

    • Stephen James Schneider says:

      Hi everyone:

      There are certainly some strong opinions being expressed on this subject, but being new to all this, I’m somewhat confused. From what I read in the article, this Brian Broderson didn’t say anything about NOT teaching ALL of the Bible. What he said was that he felt that the New Testament was better suited to Sunday services (masses?), that he wanted to focus on Jesus Christ and what it means to be a Christian.

      I didn’t see anything about him saying that the CCA was going to teach ONLY the New Testament. I think people are jumping to conclusions too fast.

      What about the other days of the week? One can certainly teach the Old and New Testaments on those days, even verse by verse if you want. Set up times and a sign-up sheet so that anyone serious about their faith can sign up. This ensures a more committed study group.

      It’s like the RCIA (Rite of Catholic Initiation for adults) aka adult catechism classes that started back up on December 1, 2016 which I attend. It’s a group of about 15-20 Christians learning about the Bible and what it teaches, and are serious enough to fit the classes into our schedules. We had quite the spirited discussion about whether 2 Timothy 3:16-17 can be legitimately interpreted to mean that the Bible is inerrant and infallible. The verse does NOT say that! And then we learned about Lectio Davina, which is what I thought contemplative prayer was.

      Anywho, that’s my 50 cents and (I believe) my 4th post (of the maximum 7 that I’m allowed) for today.

      Like

  24. Never heard of Joey Buran and Carlos Ayub.

    Like

    • Q says:

      Carlos Ayub left Calvary in Vista to pastor a small church in Delta Colorado, he ran off the small group holding it together (“old wine wouldn’t work with new wine”) even though they were the ones who reached out to CC for help and had been paying the bills while they looked for a pastor.

      It was a one man show disaster, the assets (church building on Main Street) were eventually sold off and used to start a “ministry” coffee shop run by his family and “ministry” vehicle/s used by him and his family until the money was gone and he went back CA to CCCM…

      People were hurt… I guess the “mentored by Brian” wasn’t finished, but he did have a lot of bad advice to share. It shouldn’t have happened.

      Like

      • Q says:

        old wine *skins

        Like

      • thanks Tim for the explanation of Carlos. concerning Brian B.,….only time will tell if this is God -led or rebellion. I will stay with CCA and with CCGlobal network until further evidence presents itself.

        Peace brother.

        Robert Trohon
        La Via-The Way (Calvary Chapel)
        Managua, Nicaragua

        Like

      • Edwitness says:

        Robert T,
        How is your church doing in Nicaragua? Is there the freedom there to express the scriptures the way they are supposed to be? Or are you watched to make sure you adhere to gov’t requirements if there are any?
        God bless you brother:-)

        Like

      • Hi Ed,

        We are free to worship and teach however we desire.
        There really isn’t any governmental “watchdogs” hanging around on in the shadows (ha ha). Thank God.

        Ortega is a dictator…but he doesn’t really bother us or any other churches.
        He has recently been cracking down (limiting visas) to foreign missionaries from the USA. (I am not exactly sure what his reason is) I have residency in Nicaragua so I am not affected by that.

        We stay out of politics and just carry-on with the Gospel of Christ. Keeping a low profile and not being politically active against his regime is the best way to avoid any problems.

        Our church website is my Facebook page if you would like to peruse it, search: “Robert Trohon”

        In Christ,

        Robert Trohon
        La Via-The Way
        Managua, Nicaragua

        Like

      • Edwitness says:

        Thank you brother. I will be praying that God continues to use you mightily there.

        Blessings:-}

        Like

      • Tim Francis says:

        I had no idea. I am stunned. Seriously. I hadn’t talked to Carlos in years. So many came out of Vista were doing remarkable things. I moved to San Luis Obispo County over 17 years ago, and I’ll admit I haven’t talked to them since then. How is Thomas Powell doing in Virginia Beach? I am still stunned by this revelation of Carlos, honestly. Maybe things are not as they seem anymore. You can write me at home.wired.solutions at gmail

        Like

  25. Ben says:

    This is troubling to hear. I’m so glad the Sunday school for the kids at Calvary are not following suit. They still teach from the Old Testament as well as the New.
    I would very much like to see this entire video (unedited and unabridged).

    Like

  26. uncle buck says:

    I do agree young Christians need to hear about Jesus mostly & not the history of the O.T.

    Like

  27. Mary says:

    Calvary Chapel guilty of covering up child molestation

    In 2010 Alex and Paul Grenier, two sons of a Calvary pastor in Visalia, Calif., alleged that their stepfather, Bob Grenier, had horrifically beaten and abused them as children. They claimed they were not allowed to see the police report they filed because their father, who works as a police chaplain, had clout with local law enforcement. When the report was finally disclosed by court order, Alex and Paul told the Fresno Bee that their accounts of the abuse to police had been “watered down” to make them appear less incriminating. Bob Grenier sued Alex in 2012, accusing him of mounting “cyber-bully hate campaign” and libeling him on the Internet. In the filing, Grenier denies allegations that he sexually molested Paul and that he stole money from his church. According to Smith, he has also denied physically abusing his stepsons.

    Alex Grenier has published an account of a meeting with Smith and a Calvary lawyer, in which Smith and other Calvary officials denied any affiliation with or responsibility for Bob Grenier’s behavior. In the blog post, Alex wrote that despite their supposed “independence,” other Calvary pastors have had their official affiliation with Calvary revoked over theological differences. Responding to a suit against several local churches in Arizona, Calvary lawyers argued (PDF) that the Arizona court lacked jurisdiction in the case because of Calvary’s “ecclesiastical structure”–namely, that Calvary churches were accountable to the central organization and that the ones accused in the suit were already involved in a “disciplinary process” within the Calvary structure.

    In July 2012 Smith dissolved Calvary’s central organization and divided up Calvary’s churches under regional leadership (though Calvary retains a central “leadership council”). Smith commented publicly on the Grenier case in a radio confrontation in which he accused Alex of “doing his best to bring down the work of God through the Calvary chapels because he’s got a bee in his bonnet.” Smith said that he had examined the materials Alex provided but could not find proof of his stepfather’s abuse.

    On the same program, Smith said, “I don’t have any authority over [Bob Grenier] anyhow.”
    Meanwhile, Smith’s Calvary Chapel Outreach Mission, which at the time acted as the denomination’s central organization, was denying its responsibility in an even more sordid legal battle. In 2011 four young men sued both a Calvary church in Idaho and Smith’s “mothership” in Costa Mesa, Calif., alleging that Calvary leadership had protected a pedophile youth minister who molested them as boys.

    The suit reportedly claimed that the accused pedophile, Anthony Iglesias, had been previously removed from a Calvary ministry in California and sent home from a Thailand mission trip for sexual misconduct with boys, and that the churches allowed him continued access to children despite knowing his history. One of the accusers alleged that when his parents approached Robert Davis, the senior pastor of the Idaho church, about Iglesias’s inappropriate contact with their son, Davis said,

    “Yeah, we knew. That’s why we pulled him out of Thailand.”
    Iglesias was convicted of molesting two of the plaintiffs, but their case against Calvary was dismissed. (The young men’s lawyer, Tim Kosnoff, told The Daily Beast that he would never take a sex-abuse case in Idaho again because the state’s court system is “very hostile to sexual-abuse victims and very friendly to perpetrators and institutions that enable them.”) Other Calvary pastors have been removed when they were convicted of similar crimes. In 2011 Dino Cardelli, senior pastor of Calvary Chapel Arcata, Calif., was convicted of sexually abusing his two stepdaughters; later in the year, after pastor
    Christopher Raymond Olage was arrested for allegedly molesting an 8-year-old girl and keeping child pornography on his computer, the Calvary name was dropped from the website of his church in Buena Park, Calif. Olage pleaded not guilty, and the case is currently pending.

    In the Iglesias case, the central Calvary organization again reportedly played the “no authority” card, arguing that there was no connection between Calvary Chapel Outreach Fellowship, the central organization, and the Idaho affiliate. Alex Grenier and other church critics have argued that this fits a pattern: Calvary leaders intervene in disputes, especially involving its financial assets, and then claim no affiliation when their underlings are accused of covering up misdeeds.
    Clearly, Smith and other Calvary leaders are able, at the very least, to put pressure on affiliate churches to investigate wrongdoing, or get rid of abusive leaders. But Smith only seems to have the response he gave Alex Grenier in their radio confrontation: “We did everything we could.”

    Back in 1994, according to reports in Christianity Today and the Los Angeles Times, Smith intervened when a Calvary church in Idaho wanted its pastor, Mike Kestler, to take a leave of absence amid multiple accusations of sexual harassment from female members. Kestler was, at the time, a star player in Calvary’s growing radio network. Smith finally said he believed the charges when the pastor was sued a decade later by Lori Pollit, a Dallas Cowboys cheerleader who claimed Kestler had fired her from a job at the radio network when she refused his sexual advances.

    Smith funded the cheerleader’s lawsuit, leading to an epic legal battle between Smith and Kestler over the radio network. Smith eventually offered to settle, and Kestler still runs the network.
    The accusations kept getting tawdrier, but, still, Calvary has seemed willing to stand behind its men.

    Calvary Chapel’s Tangled Web
    A pastor whose family was murdered in New Mexico belonged to a large association of evangelical churches that, critics allege, stands behind misbehaving pastors and looks away when they are accused of sexual abuse and other misdeeds.

    01.26.13 9:00 PM ET
    Greg Griego, who was slaughtered along with his wife and children, allegedly by his 15-year-old son, Nehemiah, last week near Albuquerque, was a beloved minister. A born-again gang member, he seemed to serve anywhere he would be had: as a minister in Albuquerque’s fire department, at a detention center, and in the prison ministry at Calvary Albuquerque, a megachurch affiliated with the Calvary Chapel network of more than a thousand similar churches. After allegedly committing the horrific crimes, Nehemiah reportedly spent hours hanging around Calvary Albuquerque, telling church members his family died in a car accident.

    The Albuquerque massacre wasn’t the first time lately that a Calvary Chapel–affiliated church found itself part of a grim news cycle. Calvary is one of several large evangelical denominations beginning to draw national attention as lawsuits pile up over abuses allegedly covered up by pastors and church leaders. Over the past decades, Calvary has been plagued with accusations ranging from unaccountable leadership to covered-up sexual abuse, raising questions similar to those faced by Roman Catholic hierarchy about what kind of role the church’s top leaders were playing behind the scenes.

    Unlike the centralized, bureaucratic Catholic Church, some upstart evangelical denominations have less explicit authority structures that remain opaque even to members. Because networks of churches like Calvary Chapel and Sovereign Grace often have an ostensibly informal relationship with the flagship church, denominational leaders can find themselves in the difficult position of having to take responsibility for the abuses of an affiliate church–or, more often, refusing to do so.
    This tension is especially acute in Calvary Chapel, where pastors are given a great deal of individual authority, but it seems have sometimes found senior Calvary leaders asserting their prerogative in doctrinal, financial, or administrative matters. Turned off by the micromanaging he saw in other evangelical denominations, Chuck Smith, Calvary’s founder, developed a church model based on near-absolute sovereignty of the senior pastor. “I feel my primary responsibility is to the Lord,” he explained to Christianity Today in 2007. “And one day I’m going to answer to him, not to a board of elders.” Though Smith described church budgeting as a collective process to Christianity Today, Calvary Chapel pastors have little requirement to disclose church finances to members or even other leaders, according to other Calvary members who say they were given the cold shoulder when they asked for more information.
    Though Smith’s Calvary “distinctives” (PDF) exalt the authority of individual pastors, Calvary churches are never completely exempt from meddling by Smith or other powerful figures in the movement. One of those figures is Skip Heitzig, the founding pastor of Calvary Albuquerque, and perhaps the most prominent public face of the evangelical community’s mourning of Greg Griego, who also served as a pastor there.

    The story of Heitzig’s exit from and return to Albuquerque is a perfect example of how “independent” Calvary churches can be quite entangled with the larger movement, both structurally and financially. When Heitzig departed to pastor another Calvary church in California, he chose Pete Nelson as his successor. Heitzig remained on the board of Calvary Albuquerque, and, with the help of other board members who did not live in New Mexico but were also powerful Calvary leaders, tried to force financial decisions on the Albuquerque church, according to the Christianity Today report.

    Heitzig attempted to create a “mega-board” that would place the Albuquerque church and its two radio stations under his own management, according to Christianity Today. Nelson eventually resigned, citing Heitzig’s attempts to concentrate power in his own hands and push out dissenters. A group of five church members, including a professor at the University of New Mexico, created a group to call for increased accountability from the church’s leadership. Greg Zanetti, a former church elder and general in the New Mexico National Guard, also went public with accusations that Heitzig had moved expensive stage equipment from Albuquerque to his new church in California and had forced Calvary Albuquerque to subsidize Heitzig’s money-losing radio program.

    Nelson’s departure led to an uproar in the Albuquerque church, with nearly 2,000 members signing a petition supporting Nelson, and others publicly questioning Heitzig’s lack of financial accountability. Heitzig resigned from the Albuquerque board–with his supporters reportedly handing him a severance of more than $300,000–only to return as senior pastor a year later. Heitzig denied (PDF) the accusations of abusing his authority.

    Chuck Smith has injected himself into conflicts in other Calvary churches, almost always on the side of authorities accused of abuses. According to the Christianity Today investigation, Smith protected several Calvary pastors who were accused of having affairs and sexually harassing women on the grounds that they were “great Bible teachers” who would be “totally destroyed” if they weren’t helped by the church.

    Smith rehired at least two leaders who had been fired by other Calvary churches for sexual misconduct. According to Christianity Today, another employee of one of Smith’s churches in California, who was arrested for having sex with a 15-year-old girl, had already been fired from a different ministry at Smith’s church for having sex with a woman on church property. Smith denies that the employee’s initial firing was sex-related, but several leaders and pastors confirmed it to Christianity Today.

    Like

  28. terry says:

    Is there any Christians here who think killing babies is okay?

    if God asked you to kill babies And commit genocide like he did in the Old Testament would you obey him and kill babies or disobey him and not kill babies?

    Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.
    -Hosea 9:16

    Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
    -Hosea 13:16

    Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
    -Numbers 31:15-17

    They completely destroyed everything in it – babies, men, women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys – everything.
    -Joshua 6:20-21

    This is what you shall do: every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall devote to destruction.”
    -Judges 21:10-24

    Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.
    -Isaiah 13:15-18

    Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.
    -Psalms 137:9

    Like

    • Manny1962 says:

      Circular logic with a Strawman component. You’re trying to set up Christians to call them child killers or disobedient, your being disingenuous by not stating context. You’re not seeking knowledge, you’re seeking an argument to state your view that Christians are hypocrites.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s