Step Up Your Game with 2018

Happy New Year 2018 to all the readers of Help Me Understand blog. Today marks the beginning of my first blog-post for the year 2018. I am feeling in a story-telling mood and that is exactly what I am going to do.  

'Why do you like reading books' my cousin Tony asked me exasperated once. He had tried unsuccessfully to bring me out of the bedroom where it seemed to him I had spent most of my holiday times in. The year was 1998, I had just started my fourth year of high-school. Though i wasn't able to answer him intelligently at the time on why my eyes clung to this particular book the whole holiday, I think I can do so now. I was reading my first troubling book, 'The Normal Christian Life' by Watchman Nee. He wrote differently from every other authors I had read at that time. His writing style was new to me. He could vividly describe a complex situation simply by appealing to casual words, no sophisticated words in his writing. He had a fine use of common words.   

Stacking books after books after it, my reading became intoxicating as I grew up, thanks to my parents' encouragement. Given that I had come to split my time between dialogues and debates with spiritual opponents, Brahnamists and Jehovah Witnesses, I had come to read a lot of their respective documentations. One of them which I came to like despite our opposite views on religion and Christian doctrines, was the Jehovah Witness book that dealt with youth, 'Les Jeunes s'interrogent.' It was the best resource out there I could find dealing with behavior and teenage lifestyle. The book was so accessible and less dogmatic which I think played in its favor unlike their Watch Tower editions. In one of its chapters, the authors encouraged teenagers to be careful about their reading habits and they made a remarkable comment that has stuck with me up to this day and I paraphrase it, 'Reading a book is like having a conversation with the author. And some authors are not worth having a conversation with.' This piece of advise has encouraged me to be selective in my readings and it has given me a different outlook on literature. Reading is an opportunity to be in conversation, so to speak, with an author. And boy, i have been in conversation with some minds that have totally changed me.

The year was 2007 and I was reading 'Dream and you will win the World' by Cesar Castellanos. I came to a chapter where the story of his wife is recounted. She was watching a particular TV program and on the program a lady practicing new age spirituality was the main guest. The new ager lady had many repulsive views to her taste. Adding insult-to-injury, she also revealed that she would be running as a presidential candidate in Columbia. By the end of the TV program, Castellanos wife found herself mumbling and lamenting to herself, 'How can this country change if we have people like this running our country?' and almost suddenly as she mentally uttered these words, she heard what she identified as the voice of the Holy Spirit challenging her with these mental counter-thoughts, 'Then why don't you run for presidency?'

She took it as a lesson realizing that you shouldn't just complain in life, sometime you have to act. She ran for presidency and lost the election in Columbia when there were only two remaining national candidates. Though she didn't reach the supreme position, she became influential and was able in many ways to influence public opinion with her perceived ethical views based on her Christian worldview.

This story really hit me like a load of bricks. As I was reading the book, incidentally at my campus was running a recruitment of student representatives. The position was widely advertised on campuses running for weeks. I didn't even think about it as I daily passed it on my way to or from school. Upon the book read, I was reminded that I had always complained that students at the University were doing drugs and other things that affected their academic performance. Sometime I did pray for it but that was all. Now things were different. I had been in "dialogue" with an author who would awaken my resolve into going the extra mile. I felt compelled to apply for this academic position. I became restless. My thoughts were agitated during day and night. Many objections came to my mind on why I should not go for it, chief of them: I was a foreign student, a foreigner! "Who will vote for me anyway?", I asked myself repeatedly. I wasn't even sure what would I do even if I became one of the elite student representative at the University in charge of five campus with close to 60,000 students. In brief, I was afraid and sweating fear.

Being unsuccessful to dissuade myself out it, I chose the path of least resistance - I embraced the challenge. Going one more time through the requirement listed, I decided to apply by faith. I was tired of complaining and running away each time I saw an opportunity to make a commitment to affect changes in my immediate surrounding. I had to make a decision that night in my room as I closed the book one last time. My choses were clear: Either I stop complaining at what happens in the Campus or I get involved and bring the little light I have as God's allows me. After some time in prayers, I finally decided to respond to the inner call. I went through the opening positions, and their requirements. I got confirmation that I was indeed eligible as Head Mentor_Student Representative candidate. I had only one problem, I wasn't known. A big issue since candidate would be voted. Mentor students from all campuses of our University (in Pretoria) would be present for the election. I proceeded anyway with my application. I chose a position that reflected best my immediate interest, Head Mentor_Student Representative in charge of Academic Portfolio. I gave God one condition though before I submit my candidacy, 'please, you know I know no body, I would appreciate as a sign that you are in this affair that you allow that I be elected at 100%'. If you dream big, why stop with the election success? I was in for the kill. I wanted a Soviet score. 

The election day came, we were at the main Campus of Tshwane University of Technology (TUT), a distant campus from Arcadia campus where I usually attended my classes. As expected, I saw probably 1 or 2 person that I knew among the participants coming for the votes. Not a good start, I needed more than 2 votes to be elected. Darkness started falling upon me. I kept hope rationalizing that this was just the beginning and were were still waiting for other voters to arrive fort the election.

By the time the election process begun, I looked again around me and noted with horror this time that all the rest of the voters were perfect strangers! The leader of the event, a psychologist/psychiatrist by academic training involved in student life, call the room in order and explained the electorate process. All candidates of different portfolios were invited to give a speech on who they were and to present their intellectual program, followed by votes from student mentors from different campus choosing who fit best the advertised position. Different positions, there were only 5 portfolios, were presented by the leader of the electorate commission. Candidates walked on the hot-spot to pitch their programs. And the votes were casted. Then came the turn of the portfolio on academics. I was shaking and almost cursing myself for being so vain and audacious as to think that I could even be a likely candidate. I had no faith at that time and in that room. I had lost my faith.  I forgot about the book I read, and if I remembered it, I would have cursed the author. I had a good life, a uneventful life but a peaceful life nevertheless until I read him. Why did I want to put myself in a position were failure was a possibility? Why did I do it? I regretted.

My name was called. I felt as pined on my chair. They called me twice and people started looking around. The one person who knew me looked at me as if to say, 'they are calling you!' Damn it, no where to hide. I stood up and walked to the stage swallowing my fear as much as I could. It seemed as a long walk. I ran mentally through my program speech that I had rehearsed the previous day and in the morning when my faith was still alive and incendiary. I gave my small presentation to the gazing audience, trying to find a friendly face I could focus on and administrate the totality of message. My presentation ended, people applauded respectfully. Then they called the other candidates for this same position on Academics. No one stood up. They insisted, no one was there. It looked like I was the 'Candidat unique'. I was voted at 100% with no abstention. The mentor group applauded their new student representative in charge of the academic portfolio. I smiled, barely realizing what was happening. I waived confidently, greeting them with a growing confidence. My faith at that time had completely returned! Did God really answered my prayers literally? I was mildly shaking my head as I was going to the new honorific chair prepared for the winner of this position.

The year 2007 to March 2009 was indisputably one of the best years of my student life and arguably my best intellectual years yet. I practiced faith as never before in my life. My wife sometimes asks me, 'what did they give you in South Africa? You always talk about it.' I always laugh. I can't stop thinking of my life then, for I have seen God walk with me in a new and unexpected way. Matter of fact, He has never stopped doing so even when I left South Africa to Rwanda, nevertheless what I had experienced there has left a mark in my mind. Probably because it was a formative year, a learning time, a time when I did many things for the first time. Maybe that is why it has marked me so much. I have lived other incredible moment of God's actions since then - sometime even more than what I lived in South Africa, but it is always difficult to compare the current moment when the marvelous is not new with when the marvelous is first experienced.

With this I end my story-telling, as I got on to vacate into my many pending project currently awaiting my attention. Be faithful and dare to believe and to try in this new year 2018. It won't cost you to try but it would cost you regrets if you do not try. To the immortal words of Pastor Rick Godwin from San Antonio, Texas: 

'Live full and die empty'

Have a blessed, prosperous and productive New Year 2018 in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.

Marriage: Are There Exceptions on Submission for Religious Purposes?

Today I am hosting a good friend of mine, Michel Mbonyinkebe, answering a question which was asked in a closed forum. His intervention was quite good that I took the liberty after consultation with him that his response should be turned into a short post for future references. I hope his reaction would clarify certain things you might have had as it did to people in that forum. I have translated his notes from French to English and made few adjustment and additional notes, but in essence and for the most part, I kept his commentary unchanged and true to the original interaction.
...
QUESTION:
"Yesterday I asked this question to my husband, 'how can a spouse deal with her husband if she find herself disagreeing with him doctrinally.' I meant, if the disagreement is about fake grace."


RESPONSE:
For me it is quite simple. Submission assumes that we recognize the existence of a hierarchy, a bit like in the army. We have to keep in mind that the same scriptures that exhort us to submit to God also requires of us to submit to each other, particularly in this case, a wife to her own husband.

"But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God." - 1 Corinthians 11:3 ESV

It is clear that St. Paul raises the question of hierarchy in the family unit with the expectation to offer harmony in the family, and submission has its role to play in maintaining the family system working. For what would happen if the household had two heads during a disagreement? A peaceful resolution would be hard to attain. Hence submission doesn't mean being in total agreement, but rather as the dictionary puts it, 'the action of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person.'

Piggy-bagging on the scripture shared above (1Co11.3), it is clear that in the family there is a higher authority above the couple, namely Christ. Wisdom dictates therefore that submission should be due to the perceived highest authority when a conflict appears between two authorities. This is common understanding which provide a bed-rock in distinguishing the level of submission. When it pertains to the nature of the Gospel of Christ, our submission should always bow to Christ himself when it is conflicted with what the husband claims. However, when it comes to matters of behavior that will not affect the worthiness of the Gospel, a wife is exhorted to submit to her husband. This latter one is also regarded as 'bearing fruits'. This implies that even in the depth of doctrinal disagreement within the couple, the partner (a.k.a the wife) should continue to express herself with meekness and all kindness. There is never a good reason to be unkind to your partner, even for doctrinal disagreements. I think this might have been what St. Peter had in mind when he said,

"Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct." -1 Pete 3:1-2 ESV

Wee see the same analogy being displayed on a different context by St. Paul when he spoke about political authorities,

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." - Romans 13:1-2   

This is more significant if we remember the political context in which St. Paul was writing. He was under an hostile political milieu that persecuted him for his Christian faith. The Roman Emperor had little patience for Christianity as it turned out, many believers were persecuted and many died including St. Paul himself. However, the hostility didn't prevent him to recognize the Roman Emperor authority, even in his disagreement with Emperor belief. Similar stories are reported in the book of Daniel under the authority of the Babylonian King. Although their faith ran counter those leaders perspectives on religion, they nevertheless remained noble in the way they conducted themselves in their disagreements. The first Christian community expressed that contrast this fashion:

"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than men.'" - Act 5:29 ESV 

The task of the Christian therefore is to learn to recognize authorities set by God without forgetting God own supreme authority in the process. The key as I see it:

1) Respect and submit to the hierarchy. And if there is a conflict about a higher principle (doctrine),

2) Keep the attitude noble and respectful while challenging the conflicted principle because you are equally submitted to God (who remains in the family unit the highest authority); but the final decision in the household will still be that of the husband even if your are not bound by conscience to embrace his views.

Last note: Some authorities are not chosen, but they are imposed on us. We do not chose to be under certain authorities but we find ourselves being under them such as a child being born in a certain family. There is nothing we could have done about it. 

But in marriage, modern courtship makes it so that each partners choose willingly to enter into a relationship that will bind both lovers into a hierarchical order of authority. Hence it is unfair to complain all the time to have a partner you have difficulty to submit to doctrinally at home when you've made the conscious choice in the first place to submit under his authority through marriage. I understand that people can change for the better or for the worse, but in any case this doesn't change that it was your choice to begin with, hence you will have to learn to love and submit through thick and thin.

Is Good Works Against Heaven and Eternal Life?

"Do we inherit Eternal life and heaven because of our works or because of having faith in Jesus."

This question was asked in one of the WhatsApp group I happen to be in. This question has the singular weakness to present a false choice to those who are asked to answer them. As I remarked in the WhatsApp group, the question although interesting to provoke a discussion, it is nevertheless based on a false dichotomy. Before I answer the question directly, some clarification is needed given the faulty assumption that oppose deeds and faith.

Clarifying the Concept

The attitude of the New Testament is not to make an unintelligible separation between our action and our faith, as if we were asked to choose and show our loyalty between our actions or our faith. Rather, the New Testament always strive to keep a balance by reminding us about contexts and the necessity of a collaboration between our faith and our actions. 

This is clearly seen in the writings of St. James who took pains to point out that faith and deeds are not in a perpetual war as some would like us to believe. There three verses found in the second chapter of the epistle of James says it all:

"But someone will say, 'You have faith; I have deeds.' Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds." James 2.18 NIV

"What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them?" James 2.14 NIV

 "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead."James 2.26 NIV

It is clear that from the perspective of St. James, there is no good that can come from making an arbitrary distinction between faith and action. Such as endeavor is theologically futile just as it is practically fruitless.

The Kingdom of God

Now back to the question related with the inheritance of the kingdom or as some presume by calling it Heaven. To reflect on it from a sound biblical foundation, I'd like to share a text which is suggestive of how the early Christian community thought of it, which is still how the majority of the Christian today think of it. The text is found in epistle of St. Peter which give the direction for proper reasoning in light of what we read above in James 2:14,18,26.

"Therefore, my brothers and sisters, make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For IF you do these things, you will never stumble, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." - 2 Peter1:10-11 

In this passage of St. Peter, we are informed that the believers should do something in order to receive a rich welcome into the Eternal Kingdom of our Lord. Just like St. James, St. Peter doesn't see the necessity to separate a life of faith with a life of actions (deeds) as these the verses above demonstrates through sentences such as these: a) make every effort, b) if you do these things. These are statement of actions. St. Peter not only link but also condition the plain entrance into the Kingdom of the Lord to these series of actions as the word "IF" in the verses suggest.

We also see that St. John do not make an arbitrary separation between actions and the experience of receiving the kingdom in his book of Revelation in chapter 3 verse 21,

"To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne." NIV

St. John expressly says that the inheritance into the reign of Christ is meritorious, which means based on the believer's life of victory. This explicit reasoning from St. John is repeated over and over in the book of revelation. It is clear that St. John saw no problem that a life of faith should be expressed through actions and deeds of an overcomers - "The person who conquers will inherit these things. I will be his God, and he will be my son" - Rev 21:7 (also see Revelation 2:7; 2:26-27). 

Eternal Life

As for Eternal life, the New Testament use that word in different way with regard to the life of the believer. However, I will start by restricting its possible diverse meaning by singling it to one mean. I will restrict it to Jesus definition of the word, "Eternal life" as the knowing relationship with the Father in John 17:3,

"Eternal life is to know you, the only true God, and to know Jesus Christ, the one you sent." - John17:3  CEV

"And this is eternal life: to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent—Jesus the Messiah." - John17:3  ISV

The Lord Jesus therefore define Eternal Life as the knowledge of God (the Father and the Son). If we use this definition with relative consistency we discover some interesting biblical revelation. For one, we can find out that St. John reminded his audience that they already have that knowledge form of relationship with the Father and the Son called "Eternal life" in 1John5.13,

"I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life." - 1 John 5:13 ISV

Hence for St. John, the believers who were recipient of his letters had the 'Eternal life' or had 'that knowledge/relationship with the Father and the Son'. In order word, they were in a relationship with God, for knowing someone indicate having a relationship with that person.

Another New Testament writer, St. Jude told believers that the relationship with the Father "Eternal life" is something we can be led into just like any other relationships. 

"keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life." - Jude 1:21 ESV 

So as believers keep their eyes focused on Jesus' mercy (or grace), the believers are lead into Eternal Life. Here St. Jude seem to suggest that this relationship with the Father is something that we are continuously led into. Which makes sense, since all relationship are not static and continuous. We are always invited to know the person more and more or this relationship will be disrupted and we become estranged to each other (no more relationship).

All these were just to show in an indirect way how active participation is required for anyone who is in a relationship and want to keep this relationship alive and enduring. It is true for our human relationship, it is equally true with our divine relationship. Allow me now to respond to the question of Eternal Life and its relationship with deeds in a more direct way now. 

St. Paul told his audience that this relationship with the Father called "Eternal life" is unmistakably linked with a believers good actions in Roman 2:6-7,

"God 'will repay each person according to what they have done.' To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." Romans 2:6-7 NIV

St. Paul unmistakably said that God do avail the provision of the knowledge (relationship) of God aka 'Eternal Life' to those who search for Him by doing good. Here we see St. Paul who understand the primacy of faith over the works of the Mosaic Law with regard to divine justification, nevertheless recognizing that actions are not per se in opposition to faith but that action such as doing good are an inescapable in our experience of true faith that lead is to the reception of 'Eternal Life' just as St. Jude and St. James recognized.

Fake Grace: Jado's False Teaching

I recently heard an audio by a certain man calling himself pastor Jado (I don't know if it is his true name) from a movement called "zeal of the gospel" church. He made some disturbing comments in his audio and since couple of people were talking about it, I decided to respond to his pertinent points in a brief posts. 

1. Abandoning Sin?

Jado insists in his audio that people should take at heart that they cannot change their life of sin nor should they even try. He quotes partly the book of Jeremiah which states that a leopard cannot change its spots and he assumed therefore that people cannot change and abandon sin. But a correct reading of the book of Jeremiah doesn't imply that. See the full text and I will give a brief context of what Jeremiah was talking about.

Jeremiah 13:23,  "Can an Ethiopian change his skin, or a leopard his spots? Then you who are trained to do evil will also be able to do good[?]" 

The prophet Jeremiah is making a point about those people in Israel who rebelled against God and showed unwillingness and stubbornness to change from their evil ways. Chapter 13 comes after a series of texts where similar point is raised in different ways (Jeremiah2:30; 6:29-30), here is another example 

Jeremiah 5:3  "LORD, don't your eyes look for truth? You struck them, but they didn't flinch. You brought them to an end, but they refused to receive discipline. They made their faces harder than stone, and they refused to repent." 

Jeremiah even though a citizen of Israel was not like those who didn't want to repent. Nor was Daniel, nor was David or the many biblical example we have of people who repented of their sins. Jado is making a mistake to assume that what Jeremiah spoke about is how all people are behaving all the time. I hope Jado doesn't consider himself an unrepentant sinner who refused to repent. But that is the problem of reading the Old Testament verses out of context, people tend to make it says what it doesn't say.

The plain teaching of the New Testament is to encourage Believers to changes and to reject the evilness of sin and to practice good. Here are two examples from St. Paul,

Romans 12.9, "Your love must be real. Hate what is evil. Do only what is good"

Romans 12:21, "Don't let evil defeat you but defeat evil by doing good."

Here Paul clearly ask the Christian in Rome that after they have changed this mind (renewing their mind) in verse 2 of this chapter, they should now practice what is good and not what is evil. St. Paul does not believe the same thing as Jado believe, this is abundantly clear from these two verses above.

2. Practicing sin is normal?

Jado insisted in his audio that people should believe in doing sin and not in not doing sin. His rationale seemed to cling to his reading of Paul that speaks of the weakness of the carnal nature to do what is good in Roman 7 by partially quoting Paul who said that he did the things he didn't want to do. Jado sees in this a license to discourage any attempt in search for change. He believes that doing sins are normal and trying not to sin is what is the problem. It is astonishing that someone can come to such a conclusion particularly someone who calls himself a pastor. One can almost think the guy was joking until one realize that he is not, he really believe that there is no problem for someone who claim to believe in Jesus to continue in sin as long as sometime in his past he converted to the Christian faith.

But this is a foreign belief to what the New Testament teaches. Here is an example,

1Jn 2:1, "My little children, I write these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." 

The whole purpose of John writing his epistle and training the Christian community in the first century was to make them able to ultimately live a life away from sin as they mature in the image of Christ, and not to feel comfortable in their sins. Clearly St. John did not believe the same as Jado believes. This is the second example we see where Jado belief is totally contradictory to the belief of the first century disciples of Jesus, first St. Paul and now St. John.

3. Embracing a life of sin?

Jado insists that people should embrace their life of sins and any attempt to confess a sin makes the person confessing its sin some kind of a rebel against Jado's 'god' and he believes to confess sins is a display of doctrinal error.  One wonder if he has even taken the time to think and reflect about what he believes. Let say a sin such as a crime should not be confessed as being evil? or should one not look for forgiveness of that sin through repentance? Does Jado believe that those who sinned by committing let says, Genocide or rape should also not stop doing them nor confess those sins? This is a totally a foreign belief from the Bible and I hope this is not what Jado really believe. 

The error of Jado is that he believes that nothing can be done to remove your ability to sin so he literally ask people not to try to stop their sinful acts and worse to avoid to repent of their sins. No wonders he mocks the whole concept of forgiveness of sins. But he is mistaken. The bible shows that the same blood of Jesus that was shade once and for all 2000 years ago continues even today to cleanse those who walk with God. It has a continuous action. See the verse below and be careful on the verb tense used,

"But if we (believers) walk in the light, as He (God) is in the light, we (believers) have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanse (present tense) us from all sin." -  1John1:7

The verse does not say that the blood "cleansed" us in the past tense but that the blood "cleanse" us in the present tense. It is not talking about a past action of the blood but a present action of continuous cleansing by the blood of Jesus the son of God. The verse in the present tense is clear, except for Jado.

An additional rebuttal for all that he said is found in 1Jn2:1-2 where it is clear that believers have always access to the cleansing blood of Christ just like the unbelievers. See the pronoun "our" that St. John use to includes himself in the sentence when he speaks of the benefit of the blood that cleanse our sins.

"And [Jesus] is the propitiation for OUR sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." - 1John2:2

"If WE confess OUR sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us OUR sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."  - 1Jn 1:9 

In this verse St. John inform the Christian audience that Jesus' blood has the capacity to clean not only the sins of the world which means the unbelievers but also OUR sins. "Our" means the sins of the believers. St. John is putting himself in it after making the distinction between the sins of unbelievers and the sins of believers. And St. John clarified that the cleansing of sins follows the confession of sins. Hence we see that confession must be done before the cleansing with the 2000 years old blood of Jesus may do its work on us. The text is crystal clear. Which makes one wonder why does he ignore the teaching of the bible?

4. Don't Rebuke the Sinner?

Jado is against any rebuke of sins or any experience of bad conscience when someone sin. So people according to Jado's theology should not for example have a bad conscience when they rape a baby or commit genocide? I really hope this is not what he means, 'coz this would be totally Unbelievable! Jado said that no one should feel any bad conscience when they do sins and anyone trying to rebuke an evildoer is against his 'god'. Which makes one wonder who is his "god"? Certainly not the one from the Bible. 

The logical rebuttal of his insane claims are found in all the epistles of the bible. Let me choose 3 examples for the sake of space: 

A) Paul rebuked evildoers in 1Corinthians 5:1-5. 

Exampe1: Paul rebukes a Corinthian believer, 

"For I [Paul] verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him [sinful believer] that has so done this [evil] deed," - 1Co5:3

B) Peter rebuked Simon who were then a baptized Christian in Acts 8:22. 

Example 2. Peter rebukes Simon who had just believed under the ministry of Phillip, 

 "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee."Acts 8: 22,

C) Jesus himself rebuked all the 7 churches in Revelation 2-3. 

The Lord Jesus rebuked believers in the Church of Laodiceans. 

"As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent." - Revelation 3:19

Clearly Jado must believe that all the apostles and Jesus himself were wrong rebuking believers for their sins. What is clear, Jado contradicts the Lord Jesus and his apostles. Who should we imitate between Jado and the Lord Jesus and His disciples? The answer should be evident. We should follow Jesus and his disciples and not Jado's heretic beliefs!


5. Jado's internal contradiction

Finally, Jado shifts his argument by using the sayings in the last super by repeating Jesus words that the wine represent the blood that was poured for us. And Jado said that when it was being poured all sins (I think he meant all sins past, present and future) were being forgiven immediately. That is his understanding he repeats in different ways. It is clear he does not make a distinction between the provision of forgiveness by the shading of blood and the experience of forgiveness through the shading of the same blood. He thinks both are the same. That is his obvious mistake. 

Secondly, he falls in his own trap. If pouring the blood meant instant experience of forgiveness to all humanity, then why does he believe that unbelievers need to ask for forgiveness of their sin of unbelief? Were they not also forgiven when the blood was poured out for the ransom of many 2000 years ago? Of-course Jado cannot answer this. And more importantly if the blood provides instantly the forgiveness to all humanity sins immediately and not the provision of forgiveness to all, why would anyone go to hell according to his theology? 

He should be a Universalist and be against the book of Revelation of John that shows clearly that they are people lost in the lack of fire due to the judgement of their sins. He is simply inconsistent in his reasoning and wrong in his application of biblical truth. Last, why would Peter asked specifically to Simon to repent in order to receive forgiveness in Acts 8:22 if the blood had already cleansed him instantaneously from all his sins in Golgotha? Remember that Simon was not in the sin of unbelief, he was already believing in Jesus and was baptized by Philip the evangelist. So John 16 admonishing of the Holy Spirit convicting the world of sin doesn't apply to him. Simon's sin was about buying the gracious gift of the Spirit through laying of hands and not unbelief. Why? Jado can't possibly respond to this with coherence either.

Here again we see Jado's incapacity to hold to a coherent view on biblical doctrines or read the bible with consistency through its many applications! People who are regularly listening to him should be aware of this.

How Fake Grace preys on Innocence

Early in life, we learn quickly how to align ourselves with those we admire most. I remember hearing parents trying to convince children on doing homework in a certain way that were different from what the children remembered their primary school teachers had taught them. The kids just rejected
any attempt by the parents to do the homework in any other way. Why? Because the teachers said so.

Look at the teenagers who changes their wardrobes to the dismay of their parents, why? 'cause they have found new admiration toward a celebrity clothing style.

Authority figures come in all shape and form: teachers, celebrities, an alpha friend in the pack, religious personalities and more. Authority figures usually work on impressionable mind, when individuals have yet to master factual information. This makes perfect sense. Since they can't arrive to a conclusion by following a string of factual information by themselves, they have no other choice but to rely on another form of authority beside facts for their belief. This is standard normal practices for humans. We have learned as much since early childhood. When we don't know much about any given topic or subject, we rely on people whom we believe know more or better. Example of subjects that requires learning mostly from authority until people masters the facts, Chemistry, Biology, Economics, Astrophysics, etc.

How do people end up embracing dangerous ideas or bad habits? Same short answer, the influence of authority figures. These later figures usually hold and/or encourage dangerous ideas or bad habits. For an untrained mind, these dangerous people becomes like drugs.

Just as it has been difficult to change a child's mind about a certain way of doing calculus because of the way the kid learned it from his teacher, so I have encounter difficulty helping young folks when it comes to understanding the scriptures because of their fanatical embrace of a certain religious leader or religious figure. You can easily tell if their embrace of a certain view is a result of personal thinking or a mindless adherence of what they heard.

A case in point.

Not long ago, I was in a dialogue with some youth discussing some biblical concepts. But it became clear that I was not discussing with them, but with the ghost of their teachers. I couldn't reason them, they mindlessly abode to their position. One of the best evidence of that came during the rather elongated dialogue, when one of them made an appeal to history, unfortunately for him it was fake history.

In our effort to establish the right context for the epistle of John which discusses the problem of sins in many of its chapters, the gentleman I was debating openly claimed that John the writer of the first epistle of John was writing against Gnosticism. I easily pointed out that this could not be possible since Gnosticism didn't even exist in the first century. It was a second century philosophy by all account. I pursued with the correction by pointing at him that John in his epistle was fighting Docetism which was a first century heresy that denied the humanity of the person of Jesus Christ. The young man refused to admit this simple kernel of historical truth despite internal evidences to the texts that I raised to his attention. Later on, I found out in my reading research about the counterfeit grace movement that this belief of gnosticism as being a first century phenomenon was not peculiar to my then interlocutor. It seems that this misinformation has been moving from one person to another without any of them actually stopping and thinking for themselves by asking if this statement could be true or not. Frankly, with the advent of internet and google search engine, this would have taken them less than 5 minutes to find out. But as I came to realize, it is not truth that they searched for but it was a form of theological comfort. A theology that didn't call them into repentance as part of the good news of the gospel. They collectively didn't care about truthful statement, or contradictions in their argumentation or incoherence in their thinking, I finally came to realize. All that interested them was to repeat what their authority figure had told them. If it feels good then it must be good they seemed to be thinking.

This is quite a difficult situation to be in for a parent and a family member and friends, when they see their children or brothers, or close friends taking the dishonest path of 'fake grace and/or hyper-grace'. I have been lucky enough that not many people close to me, either family or friends have ever gone the deep end and get totally lost in this fake grace dishonest teachings. But I also know that this is not always the case for some people that I meet who have lost their whole team and club of friends into this intellectually dishonest and spiritual predatory and bankrupt movement.

For this reason, I would like to start a series of posts that will deal with some of the most popular themes that are staple food to the fake grace movement of Rwanda. I hope that by providing these resources, some of you will be equipped to dialogue and exchange with those you have lost to the destructive lies of the 'fake grace' message. And who knows, maybe the Lord will be gracious to them and restore many of your loved ones to reason, truth, light and love of God and of God's Word.

The purpose of my series of posts is not to close or shut the conversation with those of the fake grace movement. The intention is to first equip the untrained Christians who meet these type of fake grace proponents at schools, workplace, choirs, charity club, youth clubs with a sound biblical background so that they may be immune of the the lies of the fake grace movement and so that if they ever get engaged by one, they may know how to respond to them with full conviction and clear responses. I will encourage all my readers in this series to adopt the Berean's attitude. I will quote and link as much as I can to all my sources for your information with the hope that you can go read them and verify. Let us not be like those of the fake grace movement who do not verify what they are taught or what they hear! The first antidote for what is fake is to display what is true, and secondly it is to teach people on how to distinguish between the two.

"The people in Berea were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica. They were so glad to hear the message Paul told them. They studied the Scriptures every day to make sure that what they heard was really true." - Act 17:11 - ERV

Blessings, Spiritual Walk and the Kingdom

A) Unnecessary Distinctions, They are both biblically acceptable!

I am not dogmatic when it comes to some Christian practices. I don't mind when someone tells me, "God bless you" or "Stay blessed" when they wish me well. I sometimes return the blessing in that same format. My problem arises when someone tries to make me choose one of those two statements namely "Stay Blessed" as being the only appropriate way to speak. 

Some seem to have just discovered a great truth about our spiritual position in Christ (Ephesians1:3) and think that this should be the only truth to be believed at the exclusion of all other biblical truths. The reason goes a bit like this, if we are already blessed then there is no more reason to ask for more blessing. Hence the only acceptable way to speak will have to put the blessing in the past tense hence 'Stay blessed'.

Ephesian 1:3  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ; 

St. Peter in 1 Peter 1:2 tells us that Grace and peace can be multiplied. This means that a person can have more of these two blessings (grace and peace) which also implies that a person can have less of them as well. And how can a person get more grace? multiplied grace? Peter says it is through the knowledge of God and Jesus that Grace upon ones life can be increased or multiplied. 

"Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord" - 1Peter1:2. 

Hence someone who wish you well by these formula, "Stay blessed" or "God bless you" are both biblically correct. The first one in the past tense, 'Stay blessed', emphasize the truth found in the epistle of Ephesians while the second one, "God bless you", reflect the continuous experience of receiving more blessings as found in the epistle of Peter. Don't let any one cage you or force you in choosing either way of formulating your blessings!

B) Effort and Diligence in our Spiritual Walk

2 Peter1:10, "Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:"

St. Peter an old disciple have seen all just like the apostle Paul. People who started in faith and fell away from grace (Galatians 5:4), other who had started their walk with the Lord by faith but never went far because they loved the world more (2 Timothy 4:10). Knowing all these, he pressed the Christian community to make sure and make all effort and be diligent to add godly attributes to their faith (2Pete1:5-7) in order to make their grace given election and calling certain and firm. The logical conclusion from what the apostle Peter is saying is that by lacking in those godly attributes, it will make their election less firm due to their unfruitfulness (2Peter1:9). However, He even promise the Christian community to whom he was writing that by so doing, meaning practicing and incorporating godly attributes to their faith life, they will never fall (2Peter1:10). 

This is a blessed assurance from one of Jesus original apostle himself. A good advise to shout out to all churches in contemporary time and particularly to those movement who could care less about adding to their faith virtues, knowledge and other godly attributes because they don't understand that the grace of God doesn't remove our responsibility to aspire to spiritual growth.

C) The Kingdom of God belong to the Overcomers

From a New Testament perspective, there is a different between the Kingdom of God and Eternal Life. There is a difference between the Kingdom of God and Salvation. It is important to point this out before I proceed discussing below about taking hold of the Kingdom of God before I hear the typical objections about receiving salvation by grace, freely. I agree about salvation being given to us freely (Ephesian 2:8) but this is no the topic I am discussing about below.

2 Peter1:11, "For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

St. Peter is encouraging and reminding believers that by so doing their entrance (which could very well means their call and election they had already received initially when they started believing) into the kingdom of God will be abundantly given to them. God will not deny them to experience what they had been promise if they keep their faith by adding to their faith virtues, knowledge and other godly attributes.

2Peter1:5 (ISV), 'For this very reason, you must make every effort to supplement your faith with moral character, your moral character with knowledge

St. John also heard Jesus warning believers in the Asian Churches with similar saying, reminding them that reigning with Christ (Kingdom of Christ) is not about dead faith which has no deeds/works, but it is about having an active faith. The Kingdom is for the overcomes and that is the themes of the Lord Jesus messages to the 7 Churches in Asia. Read for yourself below how He will give and reward loyalty of those who persevere with the Kingdom:

Rev3:11   " Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown."

Rev3: 21 " To him that overcomes will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."

Rev2:26-27  " And He that overcomes, and keep my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And He shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father."

This is biblical Christianity, not man-made Christianity! 

Biblical Christianity encourages believers to be faithful and active, to be "diligence, not slothful, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord" (Romans12:11) and to be overcomers (Romans12:21). 

However, man-made Christianity requires believers to do nothing because they do not understand what Jesus meant when He said on the cross 'It is finished". They entertain laziness and spiritual unproductivity because they don't understand the Grace of God they like to speak of out of biblical context. That is why many have been conquered by evil instead of overcoming evil (Roman12:11) and they rejoice in sin by refusing to confess their sins because they do not understand the doctrine of repentance of sins (Revelation 2:21) nor do they experience or value the biblical blessing on forgiveness of sins by the blood of Jesus (1John1:9; 1John2:1-2), that is why they are easily overcome by evil and continuously weakening their election (2Peter1:10).

                  Romans 12:21 says, "Do not let evil overcome you, but overcome evil by good".