By Alvin Mitchell
How the dickens are ya’? I just want to begin with a great big hearty thanks, on a number of different planes: thanks for your visit with us on
yesterday (and again today?); thanks for your consideration of several articles of our work and for taking the time to provide feedback; and
thanks, in your feedback response, for your criticism of what you felt was wrong, but thanks most of all for willingness to receive criticism, as
well as give it. I must say, however (and may I insist?), that if you are going to provide this type of critique, the object of your effort (and
affections, whether good or bad) would doubtless be much more benefited if you were to delve into “facts & specifics”, rather than vague
generalities, allegations and accusations without any apparent merit, or basis in reality (in terms of the issues raised in the articles in question).
Having read and considered your critique, I would suggest that at best, you demonstrate—if not profoundly so, certainly—an ignorance of
scripture (owning to the fact that evidently you have not studied or been lead by the Word of God as much as you have been lead by some
denominational affiliation, or other) and a definite, decided gift for “gab” and “ramble”. Thus, the real value of your assessment (i.e., your”
judgment”) of our work is in the end not much greater than pious platitude, or just plain religious “mumbo jumbo”, hardly worthy of the “deep
thought” you so naively recommend. I cannot help but wonder, did you even read with understanding the article on “Gays and God…”, in its
At any rate, Mr. Boone, be assured, I make no apologies, for my “handling” of the issues raised by the man from South Africa; either to him,
and certainly not to you. I am well aware of the pitiful plight of our churches and denominations, as few, if any, invests heavily in any
meaningful effort to study, teach, disseminate the whole Word of God. They all teach and have been taught to give greater deference to their
own “beliefs” and ideas or ideology, as if these pandered in ignorance, dictate the Mine, Word and Will of God. Your plight, my friend, is
One looks at folk like yourself and sees another having scriptural and spiritual analytical skills on a par with that of the fool who parks himself in
a garage, and writes himself off as an automobile; or, that idiot who, when parked near a hitching post, thinks he is a horse (or, a jackass; that
he could be)! You cannot simply turn up in a church, even Sunday after Sunday, or, find yourself involved in theological debate—in either, or
any similar event—thinking religious thoughts, and rationally, expect to be haled or pasted off in the Eyes of God as one knowledgeable of the
Word of God, one who knows what he is talking about (one must hasten to interject, that even in this enlightened and informed age, all too
often, this is precisely the case). Religiosity, or pious platitude does not equate or supplant, nor can it in any way minimize “thus saith the
You are right in your assertion such that “…no man should be trusted”. We are commanded by the Lord Jesus Himself to be alert, and on
guard for false prophets (Matt. 7; 24). God commended the Bereans for their willingness to go the extra mile by going home after lectures by
His chief apostle, and checking up on that apostle—unlike the Thessalonians who took everything at face value (Acts 17:10-11; I Jn. 4:1; Mt.
7:15-21). Did you even bother to read and follow up on the scripture verses I provided?
I will not invest a lot of time going into the problems with your analogy, as you have created such a ‘mess’ sufficient enough to show that, or to
make it quite clear that you are more in need of good solid instruction, much more than you are qualified to offer critical analysis of this sort. I
will however, take a look at some of your charges, to wit:
1) you have declared that the man in question was a bruised “babe” in Christ, merely, and innocently seeking advise and
Oh, according to whose estimation?! Even filtered through my presentation, it is obvious this man did not see himself as any ‘babe’. The fact
is, he saw himself as a mature, strong Christian, having walked with the Lord for many, many years (since the days of his youth), versed in the
scriptures—which he, not at all unlike you, is not. What folk like yourself fail to understand and appreciate is the simple fact that the Lord of all
Heaven and earth cannot stand and therefore has no use for “babes” who will not, or, who refuse to grow up (consider Heb.s 5:1). While per
Peter, it is fitting that every “new born” into the faith should desire and crave the sincere milk of the Word, it is inexcusable that anyone should
ever be guilty of spending extended periods trying to extract sustenance and spiritual nourishment from that which was clearly intended to be
short term. This goes against the grain of nature, and against the grain of God’s expectation for the health, strength, growth and well being of
His churches. Therefore, I will urge you, as indirectly, I urged Mr. Kallides, grow up!
2) You accuse me of being one guilty of “mishandling his brother”. You say I was ‘judgmental’ in my treatment of him (not entirely
‘odd’, so does he). The fact is neither one of you has a clue as to the biblical teaching regarding the subject of “judging”, as it is broached, and
underscored by the Lord himself, beginning in Matt. 7:1. Someday, as God permits, I will write and article dealing with the subject of “judging”
as well, from God’s point of view, as opposed to the churches’ or denominations’ convoluted (twisted) or perverted doctrine of the subject.
Most “Christians” do not know or care that Jesus’ teaching on the issue of ‘judging’ does not begin and end according to Matt. 7:1 (also
consider again Matt. 7: 1-6; 15-21; Acts 17:10-11 & I Jn. 4:1)
The man came to me and admitted that he had a problem. He opened up of his own free-will. Am I therefore guilty of ‘judging’ him (in the
sense that you ‘loosely’ use the term), or did he not per the scriptures, judge himself? It was he who discovered his problem; it was he who
made deducement such that it was wrong, based upon his own professed knowledge of scripture: before he sought council from me, or anyone
else. Am I then justly ‘criminal’ for “gutting a man to his core”, as you claim, for something he legally and acceptably did to himself? Am I or
is anyone ever guilty of ‘judging’ for knowing how to apply scripture to whatever ails a brother or sister in Christ, even when it ‘pricks’? I
think not! If so, then all the apostles were guilty of being “judgmental”, were they not (and, their practice was approved of from on High!)?
Consider that none of them wrote in vague, imprecise generality (you seem to suggest that one should, in your P.S. section), as they sought to
head off the problems quickly taking root in the churches under their watch, as rather they wrote taking aim and raising ‘cane’ over specific
issues and sins which did so plague the body of Christ. None of you seems to understand that none of the epistles of the apostles are primary
gospel tools, as rather they are secondary, and corrective in nature, meant to address and straighten out problems of ‘walk’ and theology
amongst, not just ‘theologians’ and preachers/teachers, but saints at all levels—including “babes”. Thus we discern, do we not that it is kind of
hard for you to help me “see” from any point of view, if you yourself are naught if not blind. If indeed I am blind, as you suggest, what can I
do then beyond fall into the proverbial ditch, following you (Matt. 15:14)? You need not therefore concern yourself so much with my welfare,
as rather you might try concentrating much more on your own.
The past two years of my life have been as if were, dedicated almost exclusively to the work of the Lord, and He has blessed me marvelously, in
the area of knowledge, understanding, and insights. As you so wonderfully demonstrate, this is something, and a level to which one could never
have hoped to attain, following the ritual of today’s local and denominational church assemblies. Given the freedoms, and within the parameters
and limits to which God has allowed him to operate, satan has done a near spectacular job twisting, distorting and so (re-) structuring theological
constructs, so that the churches remain alive, and yet in the end are not much better than dead men walking.
3) Regarding your criticism featuring the woman caught in adultery pitted against the sin of homosexuality, once more you do
greatly error, being altogether ignorant, or just plain careless in light of your manifest inability to “cut straight” the Word of the God who lives.
God nowhere in the Bible makes or equates the sin of adultery with that of the homosexual, in the sense that you have done. That is, whereas
the prescription of the death penalty is pronounced upon both, adultery is never referred to as an abomination (a thing abhorrent, loathsome and
detestable; objectionable to the uttermost), for obvious reasons, although it was/is expressly forbidden. Clearly on the other hand, the gay
lifestyle is; directly or indirectly, it is always relished with loathing, by the Almighty. Moreover, I did not label the practice of the gay person as
abhorrent, God Himself did (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). Who are you then that you can challenge a designation that He established, again for
obvious reasons, through this ‘slight of hand application of logic’ you do so blithefully employ, by which you effectively, significantly undercut
the authority of Almighty God, by your near wanton display (of at best) a near profound ignorance?
4) You think I am “pharisaical” in my approach to scripture, do you?
It occurs to me that this group of Jewish spiritual leadership was not denounced so much for any ‘mishandling’ of scripture, as they were for
propagation and peddling of Talmudic teaching (referred to in the gospel of Matthew as the “traditions of the elders”; oral doctrine, rules and
regulations propounded during the inter-testament period), which was given greater status and control in the daily lives of the Jew than the Law
(Matt. 15:1-20; 23:1-39). Jesus’ command to His disciples was that they should “do as they said, not as they did”. That is, He encouraged
them to obey, when the Law was taught, but to steer clear of all that the Pharisees taught (traditions and religious ideas of men) which
contradicted and nullified the Law. This, my friend, is your domain, or lot in life. Your “long-winded” gabfest is characteristic of all that
typifies modern day Christianity: religious, yet doctrinally errant and therefore, irrelevant and totally, when convenient, out of touch with the
Word and Will of the God, Whom you profess to know and serve. Unlike the Pharisees, however—beyond that which is popular fair—you have
no real knowledge of scripture, to speak of.
You think that I am an imposter, a liar and a servant/child of the devil, do you? Just remember, even the Lord of all Glory was Himself branded
as such by the hypocrites of His day (they were themselves the real hypocrites), leaving us with the assurance that we, being His servants,
would receive the same treatment as He, being our Master.
5) “All Christians will be indeed be saved.”
If this is true (where you and your church and denomination are concerned), then folks like yourself make God a liar. He says that many, if not
most all professing Christians are going to hell, alongside all the Godless and unbelievers. In fact, it might well be argued that probably the only
point in time where most or all Christians living at any one juncture in history will go to heaven is during the period we call the Tribulation.
During those days, things will be black or white; one either believes or he does not; one’s life will either confirm belief, or it will not; you are
either a follower of the Christ or, you are not. There will not be any time for gray areas. As soon as it becomes clear that one is Christian (or
soon thereafter), he will be killed and/or his life will be made very difficult. He will not have the time or luxury of growing tired or bored in his
faith and walk. Few, if any, born-again during that period of hell-on-earth will live to make it through those horrible years. Moreover, the Book
of the Revelation indicates that both Father and Son will be looking forward to a bountiful harvest of souls from this period.
If the Lord were to come for His church today, however, the vast majority of professing saints would be rejected, only to spend an eternity in
hell fire. The white American churches are more lead by a spirit of bigotry than by the Spirit of the Living God. The black churches are
inundated by a similar kind of a spirit of rejection. Both (and most others as well) are structured and lead so as to limit the effectiveness of the
Presence of the Lord among them, or, to squeeze Him out altogether. They only want blessings, not instruction from, or, the leading of the
Lord. Thus then, the Christians welcomed into the Kingdom from the Tribulation side of life will be those “born” from the ranks of total
unbelievers, not from the church that is ‘left behind’. You doubt the wisdom of this? Then, take off the blinders of your church or
denominational affiliation and, consider the following soberly, and, as you do, ponder the Lord’s query in Luke 6:46-49, “why do you call Me
Lord, and yet do not that which I command you?”:
· Matt. 7:21-23: The Lord Jesus here is not giving a description of the encroachment of the of unbelievers at the judgment, as rather His
stipulation is such that those coming have a perfect right to come and call Him Lord, as they are the residual of His unfaithful, wayward church;
busy for Him, but not according to His specification. They did things their way not His; they refused to be instructed, per His word. Hence,
they never got to know Him; for this cause, He does not know them.
· Matt. 25:1-13: another fine example of the Lord’s estimation of His earthly ‘body’, the church. Among those who take up their crosses
daily—doing His will from a pure heart, waiting patiently, expectantly for His return—there will be those who know equally and believe in the
Lord, they know and even expect that He is coming (every bit as much so as the wise, and prepared saints), but, they will not prepare
themselves in advance, according to ‘specification’. The implication here quite clearly is such that the Lord is not describing and contrasting
apples and oranges, or night and day (believers and unbelievers), as rather He has in view two different types of mentalities which make up His
churches (that is, up to the point of His return, both these groups were recognizable, and acceptable as His saints and His servants). The
watchful, awaiting wise who prepare themselves in accord with God’s plan will be accepted. The unwise, foolish saint who believed and yet
spurned the word and will of God in his church activities, as well as in his daily life, will be rejected. The Lord’s heart and eyes are toward
those who “do”, not just “know” His will (Matt. 7:24-27; 12:50; 25:14-46).
· I Tim 4:1; II Tim. 4:3: Paul in these passages is reiterating, and re-enforcing the Lord’s own predictions above, as he describes for
young Timothy the conditions of the hearts of church members during the closing moments preceding the Lords return (this has nothing to do
with ‘unbelievers’). As they insist upon recognition as the churches of the Living God, they will not submit to a healthy diet of solid Bible
teaching, nor will they listen to sound doctrine, as rather they tailor their church programs and activities (teaching and preaching) so as to water
down or weed out the undesirable elements of “thus saith the Lord”. They select and hire their preachers and teachers accordingly.
· II Thes. 2:3, 9-12: What will God’s reaction be to those (of “you”) who won’t bow to his written word and will? Paul writes to the
Thessalonians concerned about the Day of Christs return, to the affect that, that day would not occur until or before the coming of the man of
sin (the son of perdition) and, “…a falling away first…” Those affecting the ‘falling away’ are believers or Christians turning their backs on the
things of God and sound doctrine, not unbelievers. Paul goes on to say that God will aid their demand for lies as opposed to truth by rejecting
them, locking them out of Heaven, even as He creates and launches the basis upon which they will fall into a belief of even more lies. These are
the “Christians” who will enter the Apocalypse period, but will once more be “left behind”, and out of the loop, as God harvests souls for His
coming kingdom from among those who never believed before. They will not be given the option of “repenting”.
Are you still not convinced, Mr. Boone, that God will reject and throw Christians into hell? Then you must be totally ignorant of Jesus’ message
to the seven churches of Asia Minor, as set forth in the Book of the Revelation. As you reflect again on Jesus’ words to His followers (not His
“detractors”, mine you!) in Luke 6:46-49, “why are you calling Me Lord, while yet you won’t obey Me?!”, consider:
· The church at Ephesus: once known and recognized for its fidelity, Paul warned of its downfall, upon one of his last visits with them;
the Lord witnessed and exposed that downfall. Though they still existed for a time as a church, full of activity, all in His name, “…they had left
their first love…” (were doing their own thing; no longer walking according to His revealed word and will) Jesus warned, and so, consequently
were on the verge and in grave danger of being rejected all together, except as the ‘repented’. These folks, sir, were about to loose, not just
‘rewards’, but their very salvation.
· The church at Smyrna: this was a faithful church
· The church at Pergamos: this is a church recognized for its faithfulness and hard work of the one hand, but, denounced and threatened
with rejection due to its commitment at the same time to compromise, in the form of unwholesome alliances. They needed to repent to be
· The church at Thyatira: again, this too was/is typical of those churches which make great effort to do everything right, even getting
better and stronger with time. Nonetheless, the Lord says, this type of church is divided in its loyalties (heedless of His gospel warning which
says one cannot serve two masters), in that one part is addicted to unwholesome compromise, which is utterly unacceptable. Effectively, these
churches (and those like the one at Pergamos), not unlike so many here in America, have made their pacts and a peace with the devil, while at
the same time they seek to reap the benefits of being servants of the Lord. That part will be rejected, because no saint can hold to the things of
God and to the things of the devil, at the same time. This type of a church, furthermore, is headed for hell in a hand basket not just because of
its divided loyalty, but because of the confusion it creates for new converts, and ‘babes’ in the faith who come in thinking that ‘what is
obviously wrong in God’s Eyes’ is right. Thus they cannot develop into the strong saints God needs and desires for the winning of more souls
by whom to adorn His Kingdom (come out from among them, oh you My people and you be separate; do not touch the unclean thing). The
good part, however, will be accepted.
· The church at Sardis: another church typical of those which begin well, only to fall away over time. These needed to ‘repent’ so as to
be restored to fellowship with the Lord (which means of course that forgiveness is never automatic, even for a ‘wayward’ saint), and to regain
the promise of the privilege of walking with the few among them, who would indeed walk with Him in His imputed righteous. Therefore, this
church—while being a church indeed and having a reputation as such in the opinion of men (and perhaps other churches)—was in fact stone
dead and cold, lifeless and for that reason worthless in the Lord’s Eyes.
· The church at Philadelphia: this to represents that church which in the Lord’s eyes is faithful.
· The church at Laodicea: as bad as some of the others are, this type of church represents the most reprehensible of churches in the Lord’
s eyes. It is educated, wealthy, self-satisfied, arrogant, by no means fully committed to the things of God, although on the other hand, it has not
completely turned away, either. They are at best ‘lukewarm’, a state of mind and being that the Lord Jesus simply cannot stomach. They very
much represent the churches of our day: they make Him want to ‘puke’. As is, they are totally unacceptable, and unless they ‘repent’, they will
be rejected and thrown into hell fire and sulfur.
Thus, what is that you said to me, Kermit—in tones that ring out like those of a dragon, who is that old serpent, the devil—“so come home
Sir!”, is that what you said? As I stated earlier, one finds no cause for apology in his handling of the man from South Africa, as people asking
for guidance are not always necessarily looking to be lead. I do believe that between me and thee—having actually had the privilege of
interacting with him, and, if I may so state, being a much better student of scripture—I am better qualified to make the call as to how such
matters should be handled than you; thank you very much though! Moreover, I hope by now you fully understand your evident lack of
understanding in the area of God’s attitude toward His churches and the prospect of Christians going to hell. God has a certain acceptable level
of expectation for each saint, and it is clear that His anticipation is that—for various reasons (usually due to self-will, as opposed to God’s will)—
many will not measure up. They will be rejected, and sent straight to hell (in much the same way as Adam was ejected and barred from
Paradise in Eden; the first generation of humanity was destroyed in the flood, though they had never been given any system of “do’s & don’t”,
based upon or by which to abide, or fall (no standards had been set); and the “chosen people”, the Jews, were booted out of the land of
promise, not once, but, twice!). God has set plenty of Old and New Testament precedent by which to illustrate that He most assuredly will do
just exactly as He said He will do: Christians, while being perceived, recognized, and registered in Heaven as such, will nonetheless be rejected
and consigned to an eternal hell, along with every unbeliever—not just for making mistakes or screwing up along the road to Heaven, but—for
refusing to submit themselves in a preparation based squarely upon His Holy Word, i.e., for serving God “their way”. Attitudes that specify ‘do
your own thing’ or ‘I did it my way’, in terms of establishing a right relationship with the Heavenly Father, through the Son, will simply not ‘fly’
in the Father’s House. Remember the Lord’s word’s, “not everyone calling me Lord, is coming up to Heaven” and “why are you (wasting time,
yours or Mine) calling Me Lord, when you won’t obey”? Never forget also, that “there is a way that looks right to a man, although in reality it
leads only to destruction”, and if the Lord is at all amazed, He is certainly not amused by those who dare to “…sit before Him as His people do,
though at the same time their hearts might be anywhere, except with Him”. Hence, oh yes! Christians can and will be thrown into hell, sir!
And I might add, that if you (or I, for that matter) or, any other saint are not careful in our walks, we too could wind up in that unlucky
Thanks for visiting with us, Kermit, and for taking the time to respond. Come again anytime—and, if you wish, give voice to any misgivings
you might have.
Serving Him who calls all of His churches to a Higher Standard,