Let me preface that I post this with fear and trembling. I realize that many people will not like what they read here. I am not above correction, but please bring logical coherent ideas to the discussion. This post is an attempt to show how I can answer the question “How has Michael Brown denied our only Lord and master Jesus Christ according to Jude 1:4?”
This is not considered a comprehensive investigation into Michael Brown’s doctrines or associations. Instead I have analyzed a single post from his website which I think is of such an important nature that it at least leaves open the possibility that he is in denial of Christ as Lord.
This statement unequivocally makes man lord and not Jesus Christ. Man is sovereign and king. Jesus is just a weepy-eyed boyfriend hoping you never leave him. (I bet he hopes he doesn’t do something to make you mad!)
It also contradicts the following statements from the incarnate Lord’s mouth.
John 6:40, 44, 56-58; 3:16,36; 10:28-29
That’s just a handful of words from our Lord’s mouth in only one of the gospels that MB contradicts. So who is lord? Jesus or Michael Brown? When MB clearly follows his own teaching and not Christ’s it is clear who is boss.
Next MB quotes the passages in the Bible that speak of the glorious truth of eternal security:
Jesus says in John 10 “28 no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.”
MB believes that he is “no one.” Because MB believes he can snatch himself out of the father’s hand. Also, MB does not agree that the Father is “greater than all” since in context MB believes he is greater than the father, because in the context you can see that only one greater than the Father is able to “snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” Since Jesus says in the next verse, I and the Father are One, it would appear MB is greater than Jesus. No one is greater than their Lord. So Jesus cannot be the Lord of MB.
Below MB makes two insidious claims. First, notice the red boxes. He states there is not a verse in the Bible that says we do not have a free will in Jesus. But what he omits is there is not a verse in the Bible saying we do, either. It’d be like if I said there is no verse in the Bible that says “Don’t do heroin.” It doesn’t necessarily imply the opposite is true.
Secondly, MB equivocates the idea of choices we make with free will. The fact that I make any choice does not mean I have a truly free will. Our will (as is God’s) is constrained by our nature. At this point let me pause to say Praise God that He is by nature perfect, holy, good and righteous. God does not have free will to sin or lie, for example. He is constrained by His own perfections, thanks be to God.
I include this just because it is funny. This entire post is MB’s ‘logic’ all based on the presupposition that we can forfeit our salvation. Which is all based on the unbiblical presupposition that our salvation is our free will decision in the first place. MB takes it to the degree where you start to see the effect of this false doctrine. There is nothing more hateful than lying to people about God. MB has no moral compunction about this practice, it appears.
Let me take a break from MB’s post to make a point. MB is not some new Christian in the jungle with only portions of the New Testament in his language. He is not some pew sitting farmer who works hard all week and never had access to sermon audio. Michael Brown, as he will tell you, is a super educated well-traveled, biblically literate modern man. He has access to men who’ve taught these good doctrines as well as access to historic books and documents.
Not only does he teach against sound doctrine, but he is well educated in it. By his own logic, he has used his free will choice to promote a doctrine of insecurity to God’s children. He cannot stand and be considered innocent of this. He has willfully promoted wicked prosperity preachers and claimed ignorance. If I wrote a story about a wicked person like that you would say the character isn’t believable.
And let me remind you, Matthew 7:22 says: On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
In his defense of MB here (https://www.facebook.com/prosapologian/posts/17764049290510180), James White says much the same thing: “I realize none of you know MB personally, have never met him, etc. Most of you have never cracked the binding of one of his books, listened to him debating homosexuals or rabbis, etc. and etc”
It is a list of the good works he has done in Jesus’ name. Eerily similar to the Matthew 7:22 passage.
The fact is that many people will deny Jesus Christ as Lord in other ways than flatly saying, “Jesus Christ is not my Lord.” I have demonstrated several ways already that MB has done that in this one post from his website.
Here MB uses biblical language we can all agree with “nor is our salvation dependent on our ability to stay saved.” Then he contradicts that when he writes “Be He will not keep you against your own will.”
For if you can change your will, then it is your ability to maintain that will that keeps you saved. Thus, your salvation is dependent on your ability to stay saved, in MB’s gospel. That is not good news! As John MacArthur has said, “If you could lose your salvation, you would.”
So MB employs a standard practice of deceivers. Use biblical language and say biblical things, then contradict those things in other words. So when someone says, MB promotes false teaching, he can point to the orthodox sentence embedded in the quagmire of false doctrines.
Do not be deceived by this man nor his devices! He is very cunning!
He then quotes four passages to support his doctrines. For thoroughness I will evaluate them all briefly.
Col 1:21-23 – MB wants you to believe that because the word IF is used then that means you may not continue in the true faith. This passage is a warning to false converts and an assurance to the truly regenerate. If you are a false convert you do not qualify and will not persevere and enjoy the promise of verse 22. If you are not a false convert, you will persevere and enjoy the blessings.
2 Peter 2:20–22 is a warning against false converts that they would have been better off had they never heard the gospel than that they heard of Christ, employed worldly faith for temporary benefit and then went back to their old ways. It is a description of the misery of the person who knows God mentally but not in their heart. (Think King Saul) MB wants you to believe this is a warning passage to believers about how you can lose your salvation, but he doesn’t see that this contradicts his entire premise.
MB says that we cannot outsin God’s grace, that it is only our free will choice to leave Christ that would allow us to leave. But in this passage, it is the entanglement of the sin of the world that leads people away from Christ. So which is it? Can we sin and lose our salvation or is it only our free will? This verse is only problematic, even if you allow for MB’s poor use of it.
Hebrews 2:1–3 – I don’t even get what his point is here. Either believe what we’ve heard or don’t believe it. I don’t know how much eisegesis and scripture twisting is even required to turn this into an eternal insecurity passage. I’ll give him credit for creativity with this one.
Hebrews 3:12-15 – It would seem MB wants us to believe that this letter was written and expected to be received by ONLY brothers in the Lord, some of whom would fall away from the living God. This verse is a warning to churchgoers who are not regenerate that they must work out their salvation with fear and trembling lest they go out from us, because they were not of us. MB commits the same fallacy as he did earlier though because this passage would imply you could lose your salvation due to sin, rather than free will choice, which is the only way MB explicitly states you can lose your salvation.
Frankly, it seems more likely that MB actually believes you can lose your salvation due to sin, too, even if he won’t admit it.
He doesn’t interact with passages like Romans 8:35-29 where it is clear that no creature can separate us from Christ (hint, we’re creatures) except to say he doesn’t believe those passages with his arguments.
Ultimately the question we are trying to answer is does MB deny our only master and Lord Jesus Christ, qualifying as a false teacher according to Jude 4? So far, yes, he denies many of Jesus’ statements as well as the statements made through the Holy Spirit of God. He promotes continuationism which is effectively sensuality, and, if I am correct, he has obviously slipped in unnoticed (until now, and, by many).
4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
MB then goes on to evaluate some different teachings on security.
Here is the conclusion. Can you see the irony?
- Gorgeous strawman. No one promotes what he is saying here. But boy does he tear it down!
- Ironically, this sentence describes him with his insipid free will doctrine, and he condemns himself by his own words. If I was drawing a picture, I’d draw him choking on this sentence.
Then, in a seemingly inconceivable act of self-unawareness, he quotes Phil 1:6 “And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” offering a contradictory statement to everything he wrote above.
MB may be very educated. He has an air about him of scholarliness and likability. He’s charismatic and seems to know how to win friends and influence people. What he does not have is the same gospel that Paul proclaimed to the Galatians nor is revealed to us through Holy Scripture. He has every mark of a false teacher except public knowledge of hidden sin (which may or may not exist).
I have no ill will toward MB, personally. My problem is he is unqualified to teach because of the soul-damning doctrines he’ll promote (as shown above), the false teachers he is willing to partner with and the charismaticism he encourages others to employ. If there was ever a cage stage, he should be in it. If he is not a believer, then hell will be hotter for him if he is not granted repentance and faith.
Ultimately, denying Jesus Christ can take many forms. The pastor who preaches great sermons yet cheats on his wife is denying Jesus Christ as Lord. The Roman Catholic wearing a crucifix and praying in the name of Jesus and taking the eucharist is denying Jesus’ sufficiency as Lord, and MB denies Jesus’ lordship as pertains to salvation and eternal security, going so far as to, by implication, state that you can lose your salvation through your sin. He’s been marked. Avoid him. Pray for him and save others by snatching them out of the fire, hating even the garment stained by the flesh.
I am not adding to the gospel some gospel of “perfect doctrine.” I am pointing out quite simply that merely saying lots of right things about God and Jesus is not enough to affirm that someone is a brother, let alone a qualified teacher in the faith. If you met someone who affirmed the gospel yet lived a homosexual lifestyle you would not accept their profession of faith according to 1 Cor 6:9-11 and Revelation 21:8. Included in those lists are idolaters, swindlers and liars, classifications of people which Michael Brown joyfully promotes as orthodox. If I sent a pedophile into a little girls’ bathroom, yet proclaimed to not be pedophile myself, how guilty would you consider me of that crime? In the same way, Michael Brown promotes idolatry, swindling and lying by his promotion of false teachers. Coupled with his personal promotion of bad doctrine, you must be cautious applying the label of brother to a man of such wicked deeds.