• Reuben

A Critical Analysis of Reg Kelly’s Sermon “Crucified with Christ.”

Updated: Jan 25


In times past I met Reg Kelly and attended a revival conference preached by him. I have respect for Kelly and it’s worth noting there are many things praise worthy in his ministry and preaching. In particular, I appreciate his stand against the evils of our day without fear of man, his rejection of the man-centredness that runs rank everywhere and his exposure of modern Bible perversions. We certainly need more of that. Nevertheless, placing his ministry in the public realm and available to the whole world requires even a greater accountability to the sound doctrine of God’s Word. Though the sermon in question included some good teachings, upon being judged righteously by the Scriptures and without respect of persons, we account sadly some glaring errors that can’t be ignored or offset by the good.


I have heard people “Amen!” these types of sermon, but to “Amen!” something not true to Scripture and representing dangerous error, isn’t wise. It’s a betrayal of love and allegiance to Gods Word. When we “Amen!” something, we are in effect using an expression of absolute trust, confidence, surety, truthfulness to what is being said. That’s the meaning of “Amen,” a remarkable word, identically related to the Hebrew word (“aman”) for "believe, “faithful” and “trust.”

A careful analysis will indicate that we cannot apply such Biblical confidence and trust as “Amen!” to this sermon. This denouncement is based upon corruption of truth in three areas: 1. The Gospel. 2. Salvation Evidence. 3. Wresting of Scripture. Let’s look at each in more detail.


1. False Gospel/Salvation. This sermon, which is essentially based around salvation, is entirely void of repentance and the Lordship of Christ, both of which are components of the gospel. There wasn’t even one mention of it. Nothing. And that is essentially the norm in Kelly’s gospel preaching. Faith becomes less than saving faith and there’s an insufficient understanding of Jesus Christ. These are omissions from the true gospel found throughout Scripture, something Kelly would undoubtedly oppose as misrepresenting the simplicity of Christ (2 Cor 11:3), which passage then subsequently becomes a victim of the crime. A sermon of this nature should most certainly have repentance in it. What we see in scripture is continual preaching and focus on repentance but nothing here.

Nevertheless, I found this unsurprising since his gospel preaching is largely void of these crucial doctrines (repentance and Christ’s Lordship)—which without no man can be saved. In fact, when given a prime opportunity to preach the true gospel in a sermon he described as “What it takes to be saved and to know it!!!” (The Simplicity in Christ, Oct 20, 2002), a sermon boasting 2.5k listens on sermonaudio, not a single word was mentioned about it. One hour of preaching, and not one word, even with an additional 5 min gospel presentation attached to the end due to some oversight, and still not even one word — not the term itself or anything remotely describing repentance or Christ’s Lordship. That results in an anemic gospel which is a “another gospel” (2 Cor 11:4).


Repentance is in fact so rare in his preaching (Christ’s Lordship is completely absent), it might as well be filed under the banner “AWOL.” It’s mentioned nowhere in any church website writings on salvation (e.g. How to be Saved, Bible Lessons), and not even one sermon is preached on the doctrine in the roughly 1,000 sermons on sermonaudio. The only place it’s found anywhere is in the generic Westminster SOF, which isn’t even written by him. In practice, he clearly departs from a Biblical orthodox position. What is stated in the SOF as to what he believes, and what he actually teaches, is miles apart. It is plainly obvious that Kelly doesn’t believe repentance or receiving Jesus as Lord is necessary for salvation.

Since repentance is most definitely an element of the gospel (Ezk 18; Mk 1:1-5; Lk 24:44-48; cf. Ac 20:21 & 24) and Scripture is very clear that it’s impossible to be saved without it (Matt 3:3-10; 21:28-32; Lk 5:31-32; 13:1-5; Ac 2:42; 3:19; 17:30; 20:21; 2 Pet 3:9), and Christ’s gospel preaching was based entirely around repentance (Matt 4:17; Mk 1:14-15), as was John the Baptist (Mk 1:1-5; Lk 3:3-16) and the apostles according to Christ’s command (Mk 6:9) including all true believers today (Lk 24:44-48) — avoiding or neglecting to preach repentance would therefore be proclaiming “another gospel” (2 Cor 11:4: Gal 1:6), “Which is not another, but [a] …pervert[ed] …gospel of Christ” (Gal 1:7).


A repentant-less gospel isn’t any less false than a works gospel. Neither saves. False gospels are also called “damnable heresies” (2 Pe 2:1) in scripture and twice in Gal 1 Paul warns what’ll happen to them perverting the gospel, even including himself: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” Another importance thing of note missing in Reg’s preaching is the fear of God. Fear of the Lord and saving repentance are two sides of the same coin; they’re inseparable. True repentance arises out of “fear of the LORD” (Ps 66:16; Pr 1:23-31; 16:6; Ac 13:26) which “is a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death.” (Pr 14:27).


There’s also the crucial issue of “another Jesus” (2 Cor 11:4), one that doesn’t have to be surrendered to and received as Lord, only as Saviour. This is noted throughout his preaching and “How to be Saved” online: “ask Jesus to be your Saviour,” while no place in Bible says this is how we’re saved. Yes, Jesus becomes our Saviour but we must acquiesce to His Lordship to be saved and receive eternal life. There’s a huge difference between what Kelly is saying and the Bible says. Jesus wants to reign over us (those who don’t, will be slain: Lk 19:12-27) and demands submission and surrender to Him (Lk 14:15-35; 19:12-27; Mk 8:34-38; 10:18-31; Phil 2:10-11), a matter of the will in addition to the intellect and emotions.


Christ’s Lordship dovetails with repentance and faith which is granted by God to all sinners He convicts and draws, which is all (Rom 2:4; Ac 5:31; 11:18). This isn’t complicated. To believe in Jesus means to believe in Him as Lord. If He isn’t your Lord, you haven’t truly believed on Him. This is the simplicity in Christ (2 Cor 11:3-4), because that’s what the Bible teaches, and Christ cannot deny Himself. The simple gospel, the true one, is one where it’s clear cut who is saved. You can know it. It doesn't muddle it up with convoluted explanations of the nature of Jesus or corrupts faith by denying repentance. Salvation comes through believing in Jesus Christ and He's either the Jesus of the Bible or He's not.


If someone diminishes the identity of Jesus to widen the threshold or broaden His appeal, you get another Jesus. That's actually what 2 Cor 11:3-4 is warning about more than anything as related to the distortion of the gospel, that is, another Jesus Who will not save, albeit a more palatable Jesus for one who wishes to remain in charge of his own life but still have his ticket to “heaven.” Kelly skips necessary parts of the gospel to something less than salvation. It doesn’t do much good if one holds to the KJV but then preaches a message that causes people to go to hell because they have been fed an anemic gospel. Those aware of the importance of repentance and Christ’s Lordship mention it.


No repentance and no Lordship is actually a diabolical attack on the gospel and uncovers the heresy of easy believism that doesn’t save. It’s a lie and should be rejected wholesale. This heresy, sadly, is very influential in a variety of IFB circles, but it's not the old paths (Jer 6:16), nor the historical faith of Baptists/Anabaptists as noted to instance in the Schleitheim Confession (1527), and The Orthodox Creed, Baptist (1679), and London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), and Philadelphia Confession of Faith, Baptist (1742). If people can’t see the seriousness of this, they either don’t understand the gospel (because they’re unconverted) or they’re very ignorant (like hillbilly ignorant) or they simply just don’t care.


2. False Evidence of Salvation. Kelly’s teaching on the evidence of salvation is unscriptural and actually makes a mockery of Gods Word. In essence he denies the results of salvation by denying the immediate fruits of godly works, holiness, righteousness—the fruit of repentance which is turning from all our sins, self and stuff for salvation (Ezk 36:25-27; Pr 11:30; 12:12b; Matt 3:1-12; 7:15-27; 13:23; 21:28-32, 41-44; Mk 4:20-29; Ac 2:38-42; 26:18,20; Ti 2:11-14; Eph 2:1-10; Col 1:4-6; Jam 1:18; 2:14-26; 3:17; 1 Jn 2:29-3:24; etc).


Allegedly it doesn’t matter if a person is still living in sin “six years after he is saved. . . . If he got saved he got saved, it doesn’t matter if he ate soup for breakfast! Amen?!” Reg hollers. No, definitely not “Amen!” (He actually manipulates the people here to give him an affirming amen, even though they were silent —time 10:50). He continues: “Its not about stuff that people think you should or should not do, it’s by the blood of Christ.” What confusion and horrible straw man. He indicates here that if someone believes salvation produces evidence, fruit and not living in sin anymore, thereby Biblically condemning someone as lost who continues living in sin, then he apparently doesn’t believe that salvation is by Christ’s blood and faith but in a form of works salvation. What?! This would be the very definition of the perverted gospel of easy believism (2 Cor 11:3-4), the corrupt fruit of denying repentance and Christ’s Lordship (which again is a different gospel than found in Gods Word, even, not surprisingly, producing different fruit).


Later he appears to contradict what he said earlier, displaying the confusion when Scripture is twisted and denied: “If you say you’re saved but the issue of your heart is not righteousness, I’m telling you the honest truth, I’d check my salvation.” But apparently not the guy that lives in sin for 6 years after his professed “salvation.” Hundreds of passages plainly declare all the regenerate will have evidence, some of which are listed above, even entire books in the Bible written for this purpose (e.g. 1 and 2 John, James).


3. False Interpretation of Scripture. Most of Kelly’s “exposition” of scripture isn’t exegesis (pulling out the meaning; careful expounding what scripture actually says based on grammar, context, syntax, rightly dividing) but rather eisegesis (putting in the meaning, reading into scripture what he wants it to say). He does this a number of times in this sermon.


(a) He egregiously distorts what Paul is saying about the people not “walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel” in Gal 2:11-14, due to Peter’s temporary disobedience. It had absolutely nothing to do with a works gospel of circumcision, of adding to salvation “through faith alone plus or minus nothing,” or adding to the cross or the blood as Reg proposed. Peter was simply not obeying God’s Word as revealed to him in Acts 10:9-17; 11:2-10—Gentiles were not unclean anymore— thus causing dissimilation in the process (vv 13-14). He separated but God said no separation between Jew and Gentile (cf. Eph 2:11-22). Disobeying God’s Word is not walking uprightly according the gospel because the true gospel produces substance, evidence. It is rebellion, and people who do it characteristically are lost (1 Jn 2:3-5; Jn 14:23-24; Ti 2:11-14; in none of the 55 uses in the NT, saved people ever said to be devoid of obedience). This is why Paul said what he did. Peter wasn’t obeying God’s Word, which was causing people to not “walk uprightly according to the truth of the gospel,” which needed public reproof.


(b) He corrupts the meaning of Gal 5:19-21. He claims “the works of the flesh” mentioned here refers to a Christian, one working for God but devoid of “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal 5:22-23). This “exegesis” is unBiblical, arbitrary and gratuitous. There is nothing in the text or context to suggest this. It can’t even be read into Paul’s words, for he is saying the very opposite. Gal 5:19-26 is not teaching two natures in one person but contrasting two very different people: one that is yet lost and lives in the flesh (vv 19-21) of whom Paul says, “shall not inherit the kingdom of God,” (meaning, he won’t go to heaven) and the saved, who “live in the Spirit” and have “fruit of the Spirit” (vv 22-26).


What Paul is warning of here, as he does in the same manner in 1 Cor 6:9-11; Eph 5:5-8 and Col 3:1-10, cannot be misunderstood. He is contrasting true believers in the church at Galatia (“ye” v 18) with the unsaved in that church (“they” v 21)—a very common contrast in Scripture. There were false believers at Galatia and when Paul warned and affirmed those living “after the works of the flesh” (“they which do such things” vv 19-21) that they’re lost and “shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (v 21; Rom 3:19; Gal 3:1-3; 5:18), he was not merely warning of a loss of reward for those who actually end up in heaven anyway. These are not “led of the Spirit” but still “under the law,” (v 18; cf. Rom 8:14).


That there is a contrast being made between the lost (vv 19-21) and saved (vv 18,20-25) is undeniable, but Reg teaches something entirely different. By claiming vv 19-21 as Christians, he essentially says that a person who professes to “believe,” will go to heaven even if they live in “Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like.” That is corruption of Gods Word, heresy and turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God & Christ (Ju 1:4; see Ti 2:11-14). This also reflects his unscriptural teachings on the gospel and salvation evidence.


(c) He taught a number of Keswick/Higher life/Revival type heresies through twisting Scripture. He completely messed up the meaning of abiding in Christ in John 15, teaching two-tiered “Christianity.” According to Reg, a Christian can abide in Christ, in the vine, or abide not in Him, like picking a new toy out of a cereal box. “Lets abide in Him” he implores. Someone not abiding is allegedly still a Christian. He explains, if your spiritual and stop working for God but let God work through you, you’re abiding. But if you’re working for God apart from the Spirit, you’re abiding not. This is right out of the Keswick textbook on heresy. Jn 15 is contrasting the saved and unsaved, not fruitful and unfruitful Christians (a contrast that don’t exist).


Abiding in Christ is not an instruction on how to be a better Christian as Reg falsely teaches. People who abide are saved people. Those who don’t, are not (1 Jn 2:24; Jn 5:38). Every saved person abides in Christ, in the vine, and He in them (Jn 15:1-16; 1 Jn 2:27; Phil 1:6; 2:12-13; 1 Th 5:23-24). They are never without the vine and persevere in characteristic love to Him by keeping His commandments and fellowship with Him through His Word (Jn 17:17; Eph 5:26; 1 Pet 2:2). "Abide" is an aorist constative imperative (the past tense of a verb without reference to duration or completion of the action). The saved do not leave Jesus Christ. He always dwells in them, as Christ had referred to in Jn 14, that very context, so they’re overcomers, they persevere. They remain attached to the Vine, which is abiding in Him. God is always keeping and working in them (1 Cor 1:6-9; Phil 1:6; 2:12-13; 2 Tim 1:12; Heb 13:21), and they cooperate with Him by continuing in Him (Jn 8:31-32). Faith in Christ is not a dead faith, but a living and persevering faith. A person born of God will keep on believing in Jesus as a practice, God indwelling him and enabling him to love Christ and keep His commandments, and consequently bring forth fruit. The fruit reveals the reality of their abiding in Christ and Christ in them, so those “Christians” without fruit in Regs sermon, are not true Christians, even though he says they are.


The one that abides not (defectors like Judas and Demas), is not saved and will be cast into hell: “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” (v 6). Jn 15:1-8 teaches the one who does not continue faithful to Christ is as a branch without genuine connection to the Lord, a false professing Christian who’ll be cast into hell, where he’ll be continually burned (present tense, v. 6) for all eternity. The image of v. 6 is not one of loss of reward for a believer who doesn’t bring forth fruit but an unregenerate, “withered” and fruitless branch (Ju 1:12; Job 8:11-13), of which Judas is the contextual example.


Believers are nowhere said to be cast forth but quite the contrary: “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out" (Jn 6:37), but the lost are repeatedly said to be cast into the fires of hell (e.g. Matt 3:10; 5:13,29-30; 7:19; 13:42, 48). Apparently bearing fruit or not bearing fruit doesn’t indicate any difference in eternal outcome. They’re counted saved because they made a profession of faith. Both go to heaven in the end but in complete contradiction to everything Jesus just said in Jn 13–14 and after in Jn 15–17. Abiding speaks of true conversion differentiated from a false profession that doesn’t abide, doesn’t bear fruit and in the end goes to Hell.


Reg also claimed, only if you abide in Christ are you on praying ground. This would be true if he was actually teaching the truth that lost people don’t abide in Him, so they’re not on praying ground. But that wasn’t the case. He was teaching Christians should let God do His work through them which is abiding in Him, so they could be on praying ground. This is false. The Bible says God’s children ALWAYS abide in Him, while the lost do not, and they’re ALWAYS on praying ground (Pr 15:29; Mat 7:7-8; Jn 15:16; 1 Pe 3:12; 1 Jn 5:14-15), while the lost are not (Jn 9:31; Is 59:1-2; Ps 34:15-17).


Keswick heresy gives false believers false security that inoculates them from the truth of being unsaved.


Also noted was the Keswick heresy of quietism and the “Christ-life,” through twisting Gal 2:20, and loosely applied previously. He claimed: “Don’t try to work for God; let God bear fruit through you . . . I want you to let my Spirit work through you and produce the fruit. I’m not looking for your dead works, I’m looking for my fruit . . . The whole secret of Christian living is to let the Holy Spirit live through you. And quit trying to live, quit trying to be a Christian. Christianity is a life flowing through you and it’s the life of Christ . . .” He then read verses in Rom 6, but these contradicted his Keswick “theology,” the “Christ-life” which is Christ allegedly living the Christian life, while the believer passively trusts or abides.

Reg completely butchered Gal 2:20 here. The “I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me” doesn’t mean Paul didn’t actually live the Christian life and Jesus lived it for him. Such a conclusion would contradict a lot of scripture and neglect the fact Paul specifically says “I live,” so that “I might live unto God” (vv 19). He didn’t say, “Christ liveth instead of me,” but “Christ liveth in me.” Its for this very reason we can “live by the faith of the Son of God.” The “yet not I” simply affirms the grace and power that God gives, enabling us to live for Him (see Phil 2:12-13). Paul “strived” to serve the Lord, but nonetheless his service was what “Christ hath . . . wrought by [him]” (Rom 15:20, 18).


Christ quickens whom He will and he whom He quickens, lives (Eph 2:1,5). Parallel Pauline texts shed light on “not I, but Christ”: e.g. 1 Cor 7:10; 15:10. This error of Christ living my life, has further issues. E.g., the Lord Jesus, as He is in heaven, doesn’t live by faith, as He has personal sight of all the glory of God, so the Christian on earth wouldn’t need to live by faith and thus contradict Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17; Gal 3:11; Heb 10:38. This heretical idea of the “Christ-life” which derives in part from Quaker doctrine and new age teaching of Inner Light/Divine Seed/Christ within, is either abominable heresy or mystical gobbledygook. It certainly doesn’t help the believer live a holy life.


Its a ridiculous and confusing concept that one can bear fruit without labouring for Christ (cf. Eph 2:10). And saved people do not have “dead works”! He is subverting the labour of believers. His claims of ceasing our labours for God, which allegedly are “dead works,” actually contradicts much scripture including 1 Cor 15:58: “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.” The phrase “dead works,” found in Heb 6:1 and 9:14, is utterly misemployed by Reg. Both passages refer to our sinful behaviour before conversion and both convey the truth of repentance from our sins wherein we were spiritually dead.


Disobedience doesn't come from decreased spirituality as Reg claims. Someone without the workings of the Spirit in his life isn't spiritual at all. He is lost. The moment he doesn’t obey the Holy Spirit, he could be said to be not spiritual. It’s all or nothing with the Spirit, which is also why "fruit" of the Spirit is singular in Gal 5:22, meaning it’s all or none. All the saved “live in the Spirit” (Gal 5:25) and are “led of the Spirit” (Rom 8:14); if they’re not, then they’re not “the sons of God.” All born again believers are “partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet 1:4), possess “all spiritual blessings" (Eph 1:3), are equally spiritual and have “like precious faith." (2 Pet 1:1).


(d) He mangles 2 Cor 3:6, “Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” This is a favourite among those who claim we don’t need rules and standards or be too strict with doctrine and Christian living, as Kelly alludes to in this sermon (claiming that it kills and its O.T.), criticizing parenting rules and standards in our homes, even claiming a straw man that honouring our parents was O.T. only (Thats not true at all; it’s both O.T. and N.T: Matt 15:6; Eph 6:1; Col 2:20. Obeying your parents and honouring your parents refer to the exact same thing. You can’t honour your parents without obeying them!)


This is not what Paul is teaching in 2 Cor 3:6-18. Reg alleges that strict obedience will “kill [a child’s] desire to serve God.” Firstly, obedience doesn’t kill anything. Its the fruit of salvation and is present in every true servant of Christ. Every saved person obeys Gods. Secondly, if strictness or rules kills someones desire to serve God, then they’ve never been saved to begin with. They also have a corrupted view of God. Thirdly, every saved person serves God. If you don’t serve or desire to serve God, you’ve never been saved. You’ll be cast into hell as a lifeless branch (Jn 15:6) and unprofitable servant (Matt 25:24-30). Reg completely misses the meaning of 2 Cor 3:6-18.


Paul never ceased teaching strictness, rules and standards, nor did the other apostles and Jesus Himself—obedience to all of God’s Word being a gargantuan proof of conversion (e.g. 1 Sam 15:22-23; Matt 7:21-27; Jn 8:31-32; 10:1-5, 27; 14:15-24; 15:10-16; 1 Jn 2:3-5; 3:22-24; 5:1-4; Eph 2:10; 5:6-11; 1 Tim 1:3; 6:13-14; Ti 2:11-14). But Reg claims that keeping rules and standards is against the Spirit. It’s of the letter, so it kills. What Reg is preaching is against the Spirit. It also denies true salvation. He’s corrupting this passage which is actually teaching us the work of the law of Moses—which brings guilt, wrath, ministration of death and condemnation (Rom 3:19-28; 4:14; 6:23a; 1 Tim 1:8-10) because sinners cannot live up to its holy demands or pay its debt —is finished when it brings the sinner to Christ (Gal 3:23-24). In 2 Cor 3:6-18 the law of Moses (which is holy and good-Rom 7:12-14) is thrice said to be “done away” and “abolished” as far as having authority over the believer. Once faith has come into our life, we have a new relationship with the Law, for we’re no longer under its curse or condemnation (Gal 3:13; 1 Tim 1:8-10). We’re not “under the law” (Rom 6:14-15; Gal 3:23; 5:18), that is, not attempting to earn salvation by keeping the law, or under the OT ceremonial system or under its bondage. “If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” (Jn 8:36).


But we have a new law, even a higher law, the law of the Spirit and Christ (vv 17-18; Rom 2:29; 7:6; 8:2) and the righteousness of the law of liberty is fulfilled in us (Rom 8:4; Jam 1:22-25). We don’t make void the law (referring to the commands, statutes, ordinances, and judgments of God in the Bible), we don’t; we establish it through faith by fulfilling it through obedience to every word of God (Matt 4:4; 5:17-19; Rom 3:31; 8:4) compelled by love for God (Jn 14:23-24; 1 Jn 2:3-5). Yet Reg falsely claims a believer can become so busy in strictly keeping God’s rules and standards that one will fluctuate between the power of the Spirit and the letter of the law. What?! This is terrible confusion.


He also claimed: “If you try to live your own life or the lives under your authority under the letter of the law, it’ll kill.” Scripture is very very clear, a saved person is never “under the letter of the law” again once converted (Rom 2:28-29; 7:4-6), nor does he “try to live” under its deathly demands and debt! Though the saint fulfills the law after conversion (Rom 3:31), as noted already, salvation makes us “dead to the law” (Rom 7:4-6; Gal 2:19-21) and married to a new Master (Rom 7:1-4). Reg is denying God’s Word, God’s Spirit, and God’s salvation. God’s Word is truth and what Reg is saying here is not. He not only contradicts vast amount of scripture and doctrine, but also the very passage he’s presently in (2 Cor 3:6-18) and had just been in (Gal 2:16-21).

Conclusion. In conclusion now and without apology, Reg’s “Crucified with Christ” has been weighed in the balances and found wanting. It’s certainly not worthy of an “Amen!” As stated at the start, there are things to be praised in his ministry, but nowhere does the Bible give us freedom to set aside the errors because of the commendable, or to judge with partiality (which is sin) or unrighteously (also sin). And these aren’t any nit picky errors either! These are very serious errors m. How far does someone need to be “off” on the gospel for it not to be the gospel anymore? How far does someone need to be “off” about Jesus for Him not to be Jesus anymore? A false gospel and false Jesus sends people to hell.


This is no smear campaign but a serious concern over the corruption to God’s gospel and the dishonour shown His Word. Thats what you should be concerned over instead of defending your “hero.” Stop putting a mere man on an untouchable pedestal. People can’t get genuinely saved without the true gospel. There is no salvation without repentance or Christ’s Lordship. We can’t get the gospel wrong, for that leads to hell. We also cannot wrest His Word. The Holy Spirit isn’t in that. And 2 Pet 3:16-17 makes it clear that wresting scripture is an error of the wicked. No one should sit and listen to and accept teaching that advances a false Jesus, a false gospel or false sanctification. For less, Paul exposed men as heretics and false teachers, obeying his own writings (Ti 3:10-11; Rom 16:17). And what’s noted in this analysis does not appear to be the exception but the rule. Other sermons are as bad or worst.