The philosophical premise for this book is that knowing why God created anything yields more “understanding” about the meaning of God’s Words than the opinions of the best educated Bible scholars. In fact, Theological Opinions cannot be “trusted with all your heart” simply because Theological Opinions are always challenged by rival theologians.
Every church affiliation is guilty of “leaning unto the understanding” of Theologically Opinionated Bible scholars. Both sectarian and so-called independent churches affiliate with other churches to evangelize the conflicted opinions of Bible scholars even though those opinions were developed by “leaning unto a conflicted understanding.”
“Pastor teachers” are hired by churches for pulpit ministry simply because they “Trust” specific Bible scholars. Exceptions are conceivable but “Pastor teachers” are never hired because their pulpit messages teach church attendees how to “trust in the LORD with all thine heart.” That’s the reality taught by this book.
A correct premise is critical
Arguably the most popular conflicted opinion about the meaning of God’s Words is rooted in “the beginning when God created the heaven and the earth.” The popular opinion is that God reacted (i.e., changed His mind) to Satan’s temptation of Eve to “sin” rather than sovereignly “predestinating” Eve to “sin.” The premise of this book was developed after observing “Christian preaching that devalues Scripture” being rooted on a bad premise about the source of Eve’s “sin.”
The text of Ephesians 4 was inspired to reveal that God “gives pastor teachers” to churches in order to generate “the unity of the faith” (4:13). But every Bible school taught “pastor teacher” is observed rejecting God’s “gifting” by an intentional rejection of “the unity of the faith” between conflicted sectarian affiliations.
God’s philosophical purpose for creating the universe
Ephesians 1:5 philosophically teaches God has “predestinated those whose name is written in the Lamb’s book of life unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of His will.” The English word “predestinated” was translated from Strong’s G4309 “προορίζω,” “from <G4253> (pro) and <G3724> (horizo); to limit in advance, i.e. (figurative) predetermine :- determine before, ordain, predestinate.” Despite the legitimacy of translating Strong’s G4309 some Bible scholars reject the concept of “predestination” because it conflicts with their opinionated “understanding” of making-a-decision to “believeth in Him.” However, when Jesus “adopts children” it is always a decision made by deity and never a decision made by humans. Adoption is always “predestinated.”
It is linguistically absurd to teach “adoption” is the outcome of a volitional decision made by humans who are “dead in trespasses and sin” (Eph 2:1) because “dead” people are divinely precluded from choosing to become “adopted by Jesus Christ to himself.”
God’s “predestination” is philosophically emphasized in Ephesians 3:2-12 where the Apostle reveals “the mystery” that God created everything “to the intent that the principalities and powers” will be educated by “churches” demonstrating the distinction between the “Tares and Wheat” (Matt 13:24ff). That demonstration was “predestinated” by “the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God before the foundation of the world.”
Ephesians 3 philosophically reveals that “the good pleasure of God’s will” was hidden as a “mystery from the foundation of the world” until the AD60 “dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward” when God inspired the Apostle Paul to partially reveal “the mystery” to “the saints which are at Ephesus.” “The mystery” is scheduled for completion in 2Peter 3:10 when “the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up” simply because The Creator no longer needs any of the temporary and disposable tools He created for educating “the principalities and powers in the heavenlies.”
My speculation about why God hid “the mystery”
Scripture does not reveal the reason God delayed “the dispensation of the grace of God.” However, my observations of human nature suggest that God’s Purpose requires statistical protection from sabotage by well-intentioned humans who believe God wants you and me to resist “the evil of sin” before any of us can be saved. Bible scholars tend to ignore that an omnipotent God neither needs nor wants humans to help by resisting “the evil of sin.” It is a “deceitful lie” to teach Salvation is a shared effort between God and humans.
I speculate that “the manifold wisdom of God” was to statistically protect God’s Purpose-For-Creation from sabotage until after “the Church” was initiated in AD 60 such that humans who have the best of religious intentions to obey God are no longer capable of sabotaging God’s plan by attempting to resist “the evil of sin.”
One example of the risk of sabotage is that God believing Jews would never vote to crucify Jesus if they had been given “eyes to see and ears to hear” that Jesus was literally their promised Messiah (1Cor 2:8). God believing Jews also attempted to protect God’s “Holiness” by eliminating “blasphemy; because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God” (John 10:33). Similarly modern Bible scholars would never establish doctrinally conflicted sectarian churches if they had “eyes to see and ears to hear” God’s Purpose for “the church.”
However, as of AD60 there was no longer a statistical risk of sabotage that prevents “the crucifixion of Jesus.” Accordingly, the “mystery” can now be partially revealed simply because “the unified church being built by Jesus” can now be compared with “the evil conflict between sectarian belief systems.” Some
nd “Dispensational” aspects of God’s plan are essentially complete with the 2 coming of “the LORD” but completion of the “Covenantal” aspects (e.g., “the 144000” of Rev 7:4) of God’s plan seem to follow the resurrection of “the church” while preceding the scheduled destruction of 2Peter 3:10. God’s Purpose-For-Creation will be finalized by the destruction described in 2Peter 3:10.
God is the authority who “predestines” which “lost” humans will be “redeemed to be included within the unified church Jesus is building.” That authority is the basis for the philosophical axiom quoted in John 3:6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”
Jesus logically builds on that philosophical axiom in John 3:7 where He instructs Nicodemus “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”
That same philosophical axiom is the basis for John 3:16 “that whosoever believeth in him” has already been “born again of the Spirit to inherit the DNA of everlasting life as well as inherited the Spiritual discernment to believe in Him.”
I assume my speculation is linguistically correct
All the above is merely my own philosophical speculation about why God withheld revealing “the mystery” until Scripture was almost completely inspired. However, if you find my speculation is disagreeable then what reason do you speculate for withholding revelation of “the mystery” until AD60 when the epistle was inspired to be written?
Nevertheless, the primary activity demonstrating “the manifold wisdom” of God’s Purpose-For-Creation was “predestined” to be Jesus “coming to seek and save the lost who would populate the church being built by Jesus.” The prehistoric preparation for that demonstration occurred when “the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world” (Rev 13:8, et al).
The axiom quoted in John 3:6 is the philosophical basis for the comparison between those who are “born of the flesh” versus those who are “born of the Spirit.” Everyone who is “born of the flesh is appointed once to die and after that the judgement.” On the other hand, everyone who is “born again of the Spirit” is “predestined” to inherit a new Spiritual life that is “everlasting and cannot perish” simply because a resurrected “life in the heavenlies” precludes the existence of both “sin and death.”
Since AD60 there is no longer a statistical risk of God’s Purpose-For-Creation (i.e., the “crucifixion, death, and resurrection”) being sabotaged by humans who insist on helping God by resisting “the evil of sin.”
God uses conflict between churches to demonstrate the distinction between “good and evil” as well as the distinction between “Holiness and Sinfulness.” As of AD60 the demonstration of that distinction is revealed in Ephesians 3 as being “to the intent that” God’s Purpose-For-Creation is being fulfilled. In other words, the conflict between sectarian churches was philosophically “predestined” by God.
Sectarian churches are populated with both “redeemed” Christians who have “everlasting life that cannot perish” and “unredeemed” Sinners who are “appointed to death and judgement for their sin.” The admixture of “Tares and Wheat” within every sectarian congregation will be resolved “in the time of harvest” according to Matthew 13:30 when Jesus instructs “the reapers to gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.” The text is clear that Jesus already knows which of us is “wheat” to be harvested and which of us is “tares” to be burned.
Sectarian conflict philosophically demonstrates that Bible scholars lack “eyes to see and ears to hear” as reported in Isaiah 6:10 and Matthew 13:10ff. Thus, Bible scholars cannot be “trusted” simply because each of them is evaluated as a “liar” in Romans 3:4.
If modern “blind and deaf” Bible scholars “trusted in the Lord with all their heart” they would never “lean unto their own understanding” about the meaning of God’s Words. Even the best Bible scholars build affiliations of conflicted churches rather than “trust” Peter’s declaration in Matthew 16:16-18 “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” to which Jesus responds, “I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Without exception “the church” being built by Jesus is distinct from every sectarian church built by Bible scholars who exhibit a “predestined” lack of “eyes to see and ears to hear the oracles of God.” That same declaration by Peter is also the philosophical basis for the Matthew 24:4-6 warning by Jesus “Take heed that no man deceive you. For many <Bible scholars> shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.”
Religious conflict (i.e., “wars and rumors of wars”) is the philosophically guaranteed outcome of “coming in my name and deceiving many.” Sectarian conflict is one of many examples of “the gates of hell that shall not prevail against the church being built by Jesus.”
Bible scholars are guilty of “deception” when they teach Matthew 24 as if it is eschatological discourse. Merriam-webster.com defines “Eschatology” as “a branch of theology concerned with the final events in the history of the world or of humankind.” “Eschatology” studies “the end of everything.”
The rationale for assuming that Jesus is teaching eschatology is the disciple’s question “when shall these things be?” But Jesus already knew that “wars and rumors of wars” have characterized God’s creation since “Cane killed Abel.” The reality is that “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” to initiate “the End Times.” Every human including Adam and Eve and you and me has always lived in “the End Times.”
Obviously there are eschatological events scheduled to occur when “time literally ends” but the scholarly opinion that “wars and rumors of wars” characterize the “End Times” negates the teaching of Jesus that conflicted Bible scholars “shall come in my name” with the best of religious intentions – Bible scholars really believe they serve God.
Bible scholars have been philosophically “deceived” to believe “the lie” that “wars and rumors of wars” eschatologically indicate “the End Times.” Some Bible scholars even “deceptively” teach that a sovereign God who created everything does not always get His own way. Search the web for “Does God always get his way” to see examples of theological opinions being taught by Bible scholars who sincerely believe they are serving God by “leaning unto their own understandings.”
Every eschatological opinion about “the End Times” is at risk of being incorrect simply because “the End” has not yet happened. That kind of philosophical “deception” is another example of “the gates of hell that shall not prevail against the church being built by Jesus.”
The philosophical reality is that every event in time-and-space brings us closer to “the End.” Reality suggests “the Beginning and the End” is merely a series of events that were scheduled (i.e., “predestined”) “by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God before the foundation of the world.”
If God’s Word is correct then the “cause-and-effect of time-and-space” (i.e., “predestination”) is the means chosen by God for sequentially educating “the principalities and powers in the heavenlies.” Creation of a sequential “cause-and-effect” environment was necessary because “Evil” cannot exist where God resides. Cause- and-effect is a created reality simply because absolutely nothing exists “in the heavenlies” that can demonstrate the distinction between “Good and Evil.” As of AD60 that sequential distinction had already been observed by “the principalities and powers in the heavenlies” because they can literally see “the end of time.”
When God’s education of “the principalities and powers” is finished in time-and- space “the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up” (2Peter 3:10). There will no longer be any need for “the sequential cause-and-effect of time-and-space” simply because God’s Purpose-For-Creation will be complete.
God’s philosophical purpose is not ambiguous
“Deceived” Bible scholars teach the opinion that Scripture contains ambiguity that must be interpreted before it can be believed and obeyed. Those scholars “lean unto their own understanding” to manufacture conflicted hermeneutical rules for philosophically interpreting that which God really meant to say. And sectarian Bible schools teach those hermeneutics “to the intent that” conflicted “understandings” of God’s meaning are being preached from the pulpit in your own church.
The philosophical reality is that the “deception” of religious leadership is intended by God as evidenced in Isaiah 6:9-10 as well as repeated by Jesus in Matthew 13:13-15. God intends the outcome of that kind of “deception” to be diverse forms of philosophical “wars and rumors of wars” as well as “Christian preaching that devalues Scripture.”
Without exception every instance of philosophical and religious “wars and rumors of wars” is the outcome of God’s Purpose-For-Creation.
God’s plan has always been to demonstrate the distinction between “good and evil” by creating “wars and rumors of wars” between philosophers. And some of those philosophers are also Bible scholars. Rival Bible schools teach rival doctrine “to the intent that” pulpit conflict is common between Bible school trained “pastor teachers.” This book analyzes the preaching of “pastor teachers” who studied at Bible schools established to compete with rival sectarian affiliated Bible schools. Religious leaders are taught that God’s Holy Words are difficult for mere humans to “understand.” Pulpit conflict indicates religious leaders think of themselves “more highly than they ought to think” (Rom 12:3). The evidence suggests that every instance of “Christian preaching that devalues Scripture” is motivated by the conflicted opinions taught by Godly and well-intentioned Bible scholars who have the best of religious intentions to teach “pastor teachers” to lead sectarian churches to believe sectarian approved conflicted doctrine.
The observation of pervasive pulpit conflict between the wisest and best educated “pastor teachers” is confirmation of that which God inspired to be reported in 1Corinthians 1:26-29
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh,
not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God hath chosen the foolish things
of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world
to confound the things which are mighty. And base things of the world, and things
which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to
nought things that are so that no flesh should glory in his presence.
In other words, only “few” Bible scholars have been “called and elected” to be saved despite all the decisions they think they have made.
This book is a philosophical analysis of my personal observation that Christianity is characterized by sectarian disagreement about the Romans 3:2 “oracles of God.” Disagreement about the approved method for “redemption” of sinners is a pervasively common example.
Some Bible scholars argue that “redemption” is attained by the free will decisions made by humans “who are already dead in trespasses and sin.” Rival Bible scholars argue that “redemption” is “predestined.”
The wisest and best educated Bible scholars argue about the Biblical means of “redemption” of sinners rather than “trust in the LORD with all thine heart.” The mere existence of ecclesiastical conflict makes it impossible to get consensus about what “the oracles of God” really mean. Every theological contradiction can be resolved by “rightly dividing the Word of Truth” but the publicly observable evidence is that preachers are being taught to hermeneutically interpret Biblical text rather than “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of Truth” (2Tim 2:15).
I have never attended an accredited Bible school so I have no academic credential for analyzing sectarian approved doctrine. But credentials are useless when rival Bible schools are publicly observed educating pulpit preachers to prepare messages according to a proprietary hermeneutic that results in a scholarly assumption about that which an immutable God really meant to say.
I admit my writing could be viewed as polemic. But the publicly observable evidence of sectarian approved pulpit conflict forces me to ask who or what is the real literary source for the messages being preached in churches that claim the philosophical absurdity that their conflicted doctrinal opinions are based on God’s Words?
Sectarian conflict between the wisest and best Bible school educated pulpit preachers indicates the text commonly used for preparation of pulpit messages is a proprietary Dataset of Literature authored by multiple sectarian approved Bible scholars who teach their conflicted hermeneutical interpretations that result in sectarian approved “deceitful lies” about the “oracles of God.”
Some in my own family believe God inspired ambiguity into Scripture. My own family has been “deceived” into assuming the absurdity that God intends local church “pastor teachers” to clarify God’s ambiguity for the benefit of church attendees who lack Bible school training. The “deceptive” means used by sectarians to clarify Scriptural ambiguity is summarized by the English term “hermeneutics.”
However, using hermeneutics is never “Trust in the LORD with all thine heart and He shall direct thy path.” Hermeneutics is always “leaning unto your own understanding.” Dependence on hermeneutics is an absurdity for those who “trust in the LORD with all their heart.” That kind of absurdity forces the philosophical question “Why would an omniscient and omnipotent God allow anyone to clarify any ambiguity which an omniscient God may have inspired?”
Isn’t God capable to provide “eyes to see and ears to hear” for those whom God intends to “understand” God’s Words? It is philosophically true that being taught to depend on Bible scholars to interpret the meaning of God’s Words de facto means you are not “trusting the LORD with all your heart” and God is not “directing your path.”
If Scriptural ambiguity can be shown to literally exist it absolutely must be assumed as fulfilling God’s Purpose-For-Creation. But why would an omniscient God inspire ambiguity? Doesn’t God want us to “know the Truth so the Truth can set us free” (John 8:32)? God’s answer to those questions is likely contrary to the “deceitful” teachings of the Bible scholars whom you “Trust with all your heart.”
Without exception, accusations of doctrinal error are polemic. That’s the reason I avoid accusations of doctrinal error by relying on my own observation that every instance of Biblically based pulpit conflict is the outcome of a sectarian hermeneutical system of interpretation. Biblically based pulpit conflict is always the outcome of Eisegesis rather than Exegesis. The Christian religion is ostensibly based on the Words originally written in the literary compendium we identify using the English word “Scripture.” But that compendium has remained unchanged for thousands of years. Every sectarian conflict should have been resolved in that length of time yet Bible scholars are conflicted.
This book suggests that all pulpit conflict is a cause-and-effect that was intended “In the beginning when God created the heaven and the earth.”
It is interesting to note that those who rely on sectarian approved hermeneutics typically use the honorific “LORD” to address the Author who inspired the compendium. Modern conflict exists simply because those who address the Author of the compendium as “LORD” also rely on a sectarian created Theophany of God to manufacture the hermeneutics that an omniscient “LORD” seems to have forgotten.
Exegesis of “the LORD’s” compendium reveals God’s Truth. Eisegesis of “the LORD’s” compendium reveals conflicted sectarian opinions. I suggest the pervasiveness of conflicted sectarian opinions explains why “the gates of hell prevail against” every “church” except “the church being built by Jesus Christ.”
Christianity is a religion composed of philosophically conflicted sectarian affiliations which rely on sincere but conflicted Bible scholars to hermeneutically eisegete the meaning they assume God intended. An incorrect assumption of ambiguity has been “deceptively” inflicted upon Truth by the wisest and best educated Bible scholars.
It is obvious that Biblical exposition is sometimes heard from sectarian pulpits. Nevertheless, every Bible school teaches “pastors and teachers to trust” the opinions of a sectarian created Theophany of God rather than “Trust in the LORD with all thine heart.” If that analysis is correct then Bible school taught sectarian preachers ought to admit they “lean unto the understanding of a Theophany of God” rather than “Trust in the LORD with all thine heart.”
The mere existence of sectarian pulpit conflict irrefutably indicates Bible schools have failed to teach the academic skill of reading God’s Literary-Compendium “to the intent of rightly dividing” every statement about every identifiable subject but especially every statement about the literary subject of God’s-Purpose-For-Creation.
God’s Purpose-For-Creation is fulfilled by a bad premise
If God’s Purpose-For-Creation is to demonstrate the distinction between “good and evil” then conflicted hermeneutics literally fulfills God’s Purpose that the “evil” of scholarly “deception” will be observed by “the principalities and powers in the heavenlies.” The inexplicable “mystery” is that Pulpit conflict literally fulfils God’s Purpose- For-Creation. Without exception, every Biblical hermeneutical system is manufactured to analyze what God is doing to react to “sin” rather than to ask why an omniscient God chose to create “the evil of sin.” The pervasiveness of religious conflict suggests God’s Purpose-For-Creation is divinely “misunderstood.” That’s why Eve sinned immediately after God provided everything that sustains life. That’s why “God’s Chosen People” sinned immediately after Moses received “The Law.” “Called and elect Christians” sin immediately after being “redeemed.” “Pastor teachers” sin immediately after being “gifted by God for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” “Sinning.” Everything is done according to God’s plan.
“From the foundation of the world” God’s Purpose-For-Creation has been to demonstrate the distinction between “good and evil.” Thus, the statistical risk has always been that religious God believers would resist “the evil of sin.” However, God believers resisting “the evil of sin” would hinder God’s Purpose-For-Creation so an omniscient God has eliminated any probability of that kind of statistical risk by hiding His Purpose as a “mystery.”
Modern Bible school education is typically based on the “deceptively” incorrect premise that everything was created because “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” However, the English term “whosoever” in John 3:16 is never a universal inclusive as “deceptively” assumed by some Bible school hermeneutics. For example, the statement “whosoever believeth Ford makes the best cars” is never a universal inclusive of everyone who drives a car.
“Whosoever believeth in him” is always the outcome of “predestination unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will” (Eph 1:5ff). It is an “outcome” rather than a “requirement.”
It is philosophically conclusive that both Testaments of the Bible are being mis- interpreted by conflicted sectarian hermeneutics deliberately designed to support the invalid premise that anyone can be saved. That premise is “deceptive” simply because it is a linguistic absurdity. And yet that seems to be exactly as God intended.
Every “deceptive” interpretation fulfills God’s Purpose-For-Creation. A literal “Trust in the LORD with all your heart” is manifest by continuously asking “why” would an omniscient God do it that way? God created a philosophical Case Study
The reality is that God created everything as a Case Study to teach “the manifold wisdom of God to the principalities and powers in the heavenlies.” God initiated His Case Study by planting “the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil” in the midst of the Garden. God may have also had additional reasons for creation but God’s inspired epistle to the Ephesians reports only this single reason.
The subject studied in secular Case Studies is always hidden to protect statistical validity – the statistical term “double blind” is used to describe Case Study security. Search the web for “double blind case study” if you are not familiar with the term.
I believe the necessity for “double blind” security is the philosophical reason God’s Purpose-For-Creation had to be hidden as a “mystery” until the epistle to the Ephesians was inspired in AD60.
Modern Bible school teachers and students ought to be aware the “mystery” was revealed several thousand years ago in AD60 with the Apostle Paul’s conditional KJV statement “If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward” (Eph 3:2).
That conditional introduces Paul’s explanation that “the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” has always been to educate “the principalities and powers in the Heavenlies” by creating a double-blind time-and-space Case Study to be used as a cause-and-effect teaching tool.
Double-blind Case Study participants (i.e., disposable humans) are continuously being replaced by new disposable “born of the flesh” humans to populate God’s time- and-space laboratory until God’s Purpose for His time-and-space Case Study has been completed.
The apostolic initialization of “The Church which is being built by Jesus” was completed sometime prior to AD60 so there is no longer any need for “double blind” Case Study security. All that remains is for “the principalities and powers” to observe the foolishness of Bible scholars as they create every cause-and-effect of “evil” sectarian conflict.
Before creation it was impossible for “Seraphim” to intellectually “cry unto another, and say, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory” simply because “the whole earth” did not yet exist.
The need for a “double blind” Case Study also explains why conflicted hermeneutics are taught in Bible schools. Bible scholars and the Bible schools they established were “predestined from before the foundation of the world” to teach conflicted hermeneutics. The invalid premise of Free-Will is assumed by “many” sectarians. But there is literally no such thing as Free Will in all of God’s creation just as there is no such thing as a Random Event. God’s creation operates according to the cause-and-effect of Newton’s 2nd Law of Motion. For example, the location of every celestial body is known in perpetuity. The sectarian premise of a Free-Will effectively rejects God’s Sovereign Will.
Readers who are Biblically proficient are also requested to appraise my quotes from Scripture to affirm I have accurately applied “Thus saith the Lord” rather than manufacture the kind of polemic that would have been discovered and rejected by the Bereans in Acts 17:11.
I humbly confess I am a member of the set of those whom God evaluates as “liars” in Romans 3. Thus, my prideful words ought never be conflated with statements of Truth. Nevertheless, I humbly request that you pause reading my book to meditate on the philosophical implications to World History if Adam and Eve had obeyed God and the implications to World History if every Biblical scholar would “trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not unto thine own understanding.”
The most significant question asked in this book
As you meditate on those philosophical implications please also meditate on this particularly revealing question:
Can you conceive any justification for the existence of so many doctrinally similar Sectarian Churches and Affiliations who compete with each other despite believing similar Biblically based doctrines?
That single question may be the most critically revealing question asked in this entire book. Sectarian “pastor teachers” deliberately and purposefully reject “the unity of the faith” as gifted by God (Eph 4:11ff).