Exposé of Reg Kelly, The Dangerous Hillbilly Preacher from the Ozark's

The title isn’t meant to be clickbait, but I really do want people to read and be warned, not for “likes” and “views” and so forth, but simply to understand the dangers of men like Reg Kelly.

Kelly has been the pastor of Liberty Faith Church (LFC) in the Ozarks of Missouri for the last forty years. We have no doubt that he has a love for his congregation (or so it appears, as long as they don’t criticize or reprove him), but he does not appear to have the same love for the truth and sound doctrine of God's Word.

We aren't against many of his positions that oppose the wickedness of the land (e.g., wokeness, leftism [which is terrorism], baby murder, sodomy and transgenderism, anti-ammendments and anti-gun laws, etc), or that favour the King James Bible (for the most part, not all), or that he is a salt of the earth farmer and cowboy (we share kinship), but against the unsound doctrine that he preaches, the corruption of the gospel, the perversion and wresting of Scripture, the heretical sanctification, the pragmatism and manipulation, all of which is bad and dangerous.

An important note should be made here. We didn’t actually enter into listening to his sermons roughly a decade ago looking for something wrong. It was actually for edification, as we thought we were of likeminded faith. We thought we were in agreement but then certain statements are made and doctrines taught that aren’t true to scripture, scripture is perverted, unBiblical methods endorsed, preaching isn't exegetical and it just spirals downward from there. A preacher’s only authority is the Bible, and when he strays from that he has no authority whatsoever. And thats where we went from being listeners to reprovers and exposers.

In the past we have published two reports here at 20/20 that expose various errors of Reg Kelly:

• A Critical Analysis of Reg Kelly and His Sermon “Crucified with Christ” and,

• The Biblical Doctrine of Preservation in Contrast to a Dangerous Position by Reg Kelly and Tim Krahn

Brief Summary of Biblical Problems with Reg Kelly

A brief summary (for those who have difficultly reading more than a few paragraphs) of major concerns and errors in Reg Kelly’s preaching and teaching—why we do not recommend him and rather warn of him:

1. Soteriology/Gospel Problems. Serious ones. A watered down, corrupted gospel missing important elements and superficial in other areas. No repentance in very important areas and sermons (e.g. gospel tracts, bible literature, sermons on the gospel) resulting in a “another gospel” (2 Cor. 11:4). Mentioning repentance isn’t enough, which is done rarely as it is. Describing it is needed, and he doesn’t do that, at least not for repentance for salvation. In the most important areas where it should be preached and taught, it is glaringly absent. No Lordship of Christ preaching ever, which lends itself to “another Jesus” (2 Cor. 11:4). Another gospel of easy believism and quick prayerism. Also corrupts and twists salvation scripture out of their context and meaning into something post-salvation (e.g., Matt 10:32-39; 16:24-26; Mk 8:34-38; Lk 9:23-26, 57-62; 13:23-30; 14:15-15:32). These are the reasons why so many false professors darken the doors of Kelly’s church and never change, exiting exactly in the same fashion (according to his own words, at least 2/3’s).

2. Evidence of Saving Faith Problems. Major confusion between the saved and the lost in his sermons, but not in Scripture. Not clearly differentiating between the two very opposing natures, instead creating massive confusion as to who is saved and who is lost, which ties into his anemic and perverted gospel. This essentially denies scripture and supernatural power of salvation itself. Many scripture passages are corrupted in this regard. For instance, Gen 42 with the 11 sons of Jacob and their repentance before Joseph, Rom 4 claiming passages on David’s salvation and Abraham's salvation were post-salvation, Rom 8 is split into two types of Christians, etc, etc. This is almost always the mark of a false teacher, a self-professed "man of God" that cannot understand true Biblical docrtine and the new birth.

3. Sanctification Problems. False Keswick-type deeper life theological sanctification in his preaching and lots of it. Corrupting scripture to support the false sanctification or produce it (e.g. Matt 11:28-30; Heb 3:7-4:11). Treating unsaved people as saved.

4. Hermeneutics Problems. Wresting Scripture as noted in previous points, and there is a lot taking place, every single sermon. Practically every passage of Scripture is twisted from its truth in some fashion. He is also a master of spiritualizing / allegoricalizing Scripture, a seriously heretical form of interpretation. This false methodology of making scripture mean whatever you want it to mean is not interpreting literally in areas where there is no indication of an allegory, which thus declares its not of God for the Spirit of God does not teach in this manner except where allegory's are plainly in use, or the teaching of a type is obvious in the text or context or it is necessary to harmonize with other scripture and doctrine. Practically the entire OT is interpreted in this fashion. He typically takes a selective reading of passages mostly out of context and then extrapolates a tactic from it. He believes and teaches numerology (one example among many: “Now the Passover was on the 14th. 14 is the number for deliverance. 17 is the number for victory. I better not go there." To bad he didn't take his own advice. He has an entire sermon, "Numbers in Scripture," filled with this heresy). 2 Pet 3:16-17 sends out a strong warning to those who will wrest Scripture, that they are doing a work of the wicked, and that is what Kelly is doing in more ways than one.

5. Bibliology and Preservation Problems. Unscriptural Ruckmanite position on the KJV and on the original inspired Word of God, along with false position on preservation. Claims the KJV is God's inspired Word, not the Hebrew Masroetic Text and Greek Textus Receptus, and the KJV is greater and better than these actual texts that God gave. Claims the KJV is God's promise of presveration of Scripture. All these are unscriptural and hertical positions. He goes as far as to scorn, mock and even blaspheme Gods inspired Word, in that of the Hebrew Masoretic Text and Greek Textus Receptus.

6. Ecumenical and Separation Problems. Ecumenism and promoting deeply compromised men, even heretics from the pulpit and having some even preach in his church. Example: Bill Gothard (and the course Basic Life Principles), Larry Brown, David Gibbs, Jack Trieber. Also promotes his adult daughter in her political career as a senator, while twisting or mocking scripture to support his position (appearing to lean towards egalitarianism).

7. Apologetics Problems (i.e., Testing and Judging and Exposing). Advocates for censoring people exposing wolves in sheep’s clothing. This is not only wicked for moral reasons but it’s blatantly rebellious to scripture.

8. Etc, Etc.

There are a number of commendable teachings by Kelly, and we are thankful for his bold and unbending stand against the evils of our day, but these do not offset the bad. We do not chew the meat and spit out the bones. That is an unbiblical neo-evangelical ear tickling fable. The errors of Kelly are serious, very serious and dangerous, serious enough to expose him as a false teacher. This is what we find when we examine his theology careful.

Kelly might not like being judged by men, but the Scriptures command us to judge. The Lord Jesus Christ commanded, "Judge righteous judgment" (Jn. 7:24). He told a man, "Thou hast rightly judged" (Lk. 7:43). To others, our Lord asked, "Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?" (Lk. 12:57). The Apostle Paul asked his speech to be judged by saved people: "I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say" (1 Cor. 10:15), since “He that is spiritual [= saved] judgeth ALL things" (1 Cor. 2:15) and to those who did that with a ready mind, he called “noble” (Ac. 17:11). "To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice" (Pr. 21:3), which is caught right up in love: “And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in ALL judgment;” (Phil. 1:9). Not only is it our positive duty to judge, "It is joy to the just to do judgment" (Pr. 21:15a). “God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.” (Jam. 4:6). “Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish.” (Pr. 12:1). “Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the Lord pondereth the hearts.” (Pr. 21:2). We thought this ought to be mentioned right off the bat, because there is a lot of judging happening in this report, which means we are fully within the dictates of Scripture.

Is Reg Kelly above reproach? Though he may come across like that, the Bible makes it very clear that reproof and rebuke and correction and instruction and doctrine are the manner in how a man of God is perfected in good works (2 Tim 3:16-4:2). Scripture is also crystal clear that impartiality (respect of persons) is sin. We can’t have double standards. A pastor doesn’t have more leniency to what he can say. In fact, he is held to the highest standard of all, and thus requires even greater testing and judging. And that is what we also see in Scripture with the apostles. Paul commanded all believers to judge (1 Cor. 2:15; 5:1–6:5; 10:15; Phil. 3:2, 17-19; etc), which is to judge righteously by the Word of God, and he commended those as noble and wise that did, specifically judging him (e.g. Ac. 17:11; 1 Cor. 10:15).

Here are some major errors and issues with Reg Kelly’s doctrine and practice that demand an expose.

A Restless Spirit Preaching Uncontrollably, Always Appealing to Emotions

This is the section where some of his hillbilly comes out.

In many of his sermons he allows his thoughts to run wild which are expressed to the congregation and in every one of these cases, he should have taken his thoughts captive.

In the sermon "Beware of Leaven" (time 30:20), he reveals he is always getting angry when something goes wrong. He justifies it. It runs in the human blood. He says he had “one big hill billy fit this week” (time 41:20).

Preachers like Reg Kelly are many times favourable to people who appeal to emotions (not all, many are attracted to his preaching due to his bold stand against the present wickedness). Much of his preaching is driven by the fleshly trajectory of impulsive shouting, screaming and emotionalism, while frothing-at-the-mouth. And lots of it. To ad nauseam and headaches. He is not so much interested in careful exposition of scripture by exegesis, actually depending upon its authority, as he is about being fired up and appealing to emotions. Peculiarly, Kelly expresses boldness and confrontation of immoral wickedness in the nation, but not that same attitude towards doctrinal error, false teachings, corrupted gospel, etc. In the sermon “Simplicity in Christ” he screams practically the entire hour. Where does the bible even hint at this idea of uncontrolled preaching? Paul instructed the churches to “let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor 14:40), and we don’t think screaming is decent and in order. It could be the behaviour of someone that lacks control of his spirit, and "He that hath no rule over his own spirit is like a city that is broken down, and without walls." (Pr 25:28). Screaming does have its purpose however. It is meant to produce an emotion, draw a response and keep people on the edge of their seat, and coming back for more. But it’s almost entirely an emotional response. This fleshly endeavour doesn’t booster position or increase the power of the message. Matter of fact, it does just the opposite. He has the audacity to claim that the power of the message is “your Bible, not Reg Kelly,” while he is screaming, hollering and seeking "amens" — what then serves the purpose of these extraBiblical theatrics? He is deceived.

The power of a message is in a text exegetically exposited, meaning the text is carefully exegeted in precision detail according to its meaning by its context, by its precise meaning, what the Bible says it means, not in misusing or misinterpreting the verse and not in screaming a sermon or formulation of a sermon that doesn't communicate what a passage says. Men like Kelly and his loyal worshippers spout “meekness” when we contend for the faith, but that is laughable when we hear his sermons or see how he handled a lady that spoke out in one of his sermons at a revival conference in 2019.

Part of the theatrics of hollering and emotionalism comes the use of indecent and unbiblical language from the pulpit. For instance, screaming “man poppy cock,” “idiots,” “snowflakes,” (noted in sermons especially that major on attacking the Hebrew and Greek Texts), etc, and other rude gestures. But didn't the Lord Jesus and the apostles use strong language at times? Indeed they did. We know what Jesus called the Pharisees in Matt 23, and Paul spoke to the false believer in Ac 13:9-10 ("O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?" and then blinded him), and in other places calling teachers of error "liars, evil beasts, slow bellies" (Ti 1:12), and yet another place he declares, "I fought with beasts at Ephesus" (1 Cor 15:32) and these examples could be multiplied manifold (see our article Is Speaking the Truth “Hateful and Evil”?), but this is altogether different than what Kelly is doing. We know this severe plainness of language is given by God throughout Scripture further noted towards false teachers in passages such as 2 Pet 2 and Jude. But what we read in Scripture, though it be severe and considered "harsh" by soft and effeminate men, is different than the language used by Reg Kelly, which borders on rudeness and haughtiness. At a revival conference, personally witnessed by this author, disdain and plain rudeness was noted in his attitude toward a woman in the audience who made some kind of statement at the end of a sermon. In the sermon "How a Sinner Gets Saved" he pejoratively shouted, “are you listening!” while snapping his fingers (time stamp 14:48). Thats just plain rude, an expression of contempt, scorn, and disregard. Undoubtedly he learned this langauage and style of preaching from Peter Ruckman, since he is a full fledged Ruckmanite concerning the King James Bible (KJV). Neither

What Kelly also completely misses is the distinct difference between the way the Spirit of God deals with a likely saved but erring man and the way He deals with a false teacher, an unregenerate corrupter of the gospel. The way Christ dealt with His true apostles (the 12 and the few others that were truly saved following Him) and with false teachers such as the Pharisees is vastly different. What were the last words that Christ spoke to His betrayer after he planted his kiss of betrayal? “Friend, wherefore art thou come?” (Matt 26;50). He showed love toward the rich young ruler who rejected Christ's call to salvation (Mk 10:17-22). Furthermore, the contrast is also noted in the distinct difference in how Christ dealt with the "publicans and sinners" (who were keenly interested in the truth and genuinely desired to deal with their sin and unrighteousness) and with the "Pharisees and scribes" (who were not so much interested in these matters, for they thought themselves as "righteous" and without sin), seen in places such as Matt 23; Lk 15:1-32; etc, and the reason for that is given in Matt 21:28-32. The distinction is also noted for instance in the comparison of Paul reproving the Apostle Peter in Gal 2:11-14 for his sin, and then reproving the false believer Elymas the sorcerer in Ac 13:8-11. Yet Kelly makes no differentiation between the wicked woke leftist Demoncrat attempting to destroy the lives of children and Christians in America or an Antichrist such as the Pope, or a professing Christian who embraces the Hebrew Masoretic Text and Greek Textus Receptus as God's inspired and preserved words given to man (vs Kelly's Ruckmanite heresy of the KJV replacing God's inspired and preserved Word as advanced revelation). All these individuals are lumped together and treated in the same ridiculous manner. Where's the discernment.

The unbiblical nature of some of Kelly's preaching is noted in his meandering down the path of x-rated description (e.g., "Love Makes a Way Part 1," Feb 15, 2026, time 46:00, 104:00 and 112:00).

Kelly also forces and coaxes amens from the crowd. He is a speaker who insists on luring Amens, and fish for them. He is looking for affirmation from the audience, rather than agreement with God’s Word. Its a strategy. He needs the Amens to keep his batteries charged. Not amening will drain the batteries rapidly. He manipulates the congregation to amen him when they were actually silent over some compromise or clear doctrinal error or other error stated, multiple times pushing for an "amen" (e.g., "Crucified with Christ," time stamp 11:10). And of course, he sometimes will ask for people to "Amen" the silliest of things. Personally I have no issue with appropriate and decent "amening," even done heartily, if some truth of Scripture is being proclaimed boldly, if the Lord is magnified in a particular way, or after the Word of God has been read (Scriptural warrant: De 27:16-26; 1 Ki 1:36; 1 Ch 16:36; Neh 5:13; Ps 89:52; 41:13; Jer 28:6; Jn 21:25; Mk 16:20; Matt 28:20; Rom 1:25; Rev 1:18). The use of “Amen” in Scripture seems to be in a very solemn and submissive context. You also don’t see any examples of “fishing” for an “Amen.” Solemn does not necessarily equal somber– though sometimes it might be appropriate to be somber, certainly more often than we generally are (which of course would go entirely against the emotional atmosphere created by Kelly). “Amen” is not some kind of a spiritualized “woo-hoo,” and must be evaluated for appropriateness and consistency with Biblical usage, especially when we consider it's a term the Lord uses to name and describe Himself in Rev 3:14, "These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God..." But many times Kelly's kind of forced "Amening" is more about making a point than it is about agreeing with Scripture. And this isn't unusual at all in our present time. His need of emotional affirmation was evident in the following statement made in a sermon, after there haven’t been any amen’s for a long time. “I don’t think ya’ll are enjoyen this very much. Its ok, its alright.” ("How Can Sinners Get Saved" time 47:35). Amening becomes a test of spirituality, and if you aren’t Amening to excess, then 'yer blesser must be busted.'

We read of the proper and biblical attitude of a professing leader amongst professing believers:

"Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works WITH MEEKNESS OF WISDOM. But if ye have BITTER ENVYING AND STRIFE in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first PURE, then PEACEABLE, GENTLE, AND EASY TO BE INTREATED, FULL OF MERCY AND GOOD FRUITS, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.” (Jam 3:13-17)

False Teachings on the Gospel/Salvation

There are a lot of issues with Kelly's gospel. First of all, way to much emotional appeal placed into the response (and preaching) of the gospel, secondly, essentially always neglects to preach repentance and its principles, which is a massive component of the gospel, thirdly, certainly never would speak of Christ’s Lordship, fourthly, easy believism and quick prayerisn, personally witnessed him making two unsaved people two-fold children of hell through the preaching of an easy believism form of the gospel and then leading them in a sinners prayer (abd one of the people was mentally challenged), fithly, denies the sure fruit and evidence of genuine conversion, sixthly, corrupts hundreds of salvation passages in Scripture, twisting them into something post-salvation. The greatest issue is his gospel message lacking severely in genuine repentance, absent of Godly sorrow and turning from sin/self/stuff/people and surrender to Christ as Lord, which then consequently makes his gospel false, "another gospel" (2 Cor 11:4). Preaching some aspects of the true gospel while adding other things or omitting elements, results in a perverted gospel, and comes with a double condemnation of being (1) "accursed" (Gal 1:6-9) and (2), losing "his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Rev 22:19).

It is unsurprising to hear from people we know that have attended LFC reporting that a large percentage of the church appears to be unregenerate. Even Kelly himself has stated that on multiple occasions, yet does not clue in as to why. This is always a predictable conclusion of preaching an anemic and false gospel. People being led down the "Roman's Road" to say a prayer at the first conviction of the Holy Ghost. They are convinced they are saved after the alter call and prayer, yet they continue in their sinful, worldly lifestyle with miminal regard for spiritual matters. People make a false profession, with no Godly sorrow or repentance present, no surrender/submission to the Lord Jesus Christ, and Kelly doesn't know the better. He treats them as "saved" people, bolstering the serious and dangerous false gospel being embraced, which literally comes from him. He is the man behind the false professions, the anemic alter calls, the superficial romans road with a fake finish line, the repentant-less, Lord-less false "gospel" of easy believism and quick prayerism.

False Gospel of Easy Believism Void of True Repentance.

We know that repentance is a critical element of the gospel (Mk 1:1-5; Ac 20:21, 24), so any twisting, wresting or corrupting of repentance is a perversion of the gospel (Gal 1:6-9). E.g., Repentance is a Major Element of the Gospel and Must Always Be Preached, Including Its Description. In Gal 1:8-9 Paul warned the Galatians twice, back to back, “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.” What the was gospel that Paul preached? He specifically tell us in multiple areas, such as 1 Cor 15:1-4 and Acts 20. In Ac 20:24 he says: “neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.” What was the gospel of the grace of God, which is the gospel of Christ, that he testified of? Three verses prior he had already told us: “Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” (v. 21).

True repentance, that is a willful, intellectual turning from sin (covered below) and self (Lk 14:26-33; 15:1-32; Matt 10:32-39; Jn 12:24-25) and stuff (Mk 10:21; 8:34-38; Lk 12:16-21; Ac 19:18-19) with godly sorrow (2 Cor 7:8-10; Matt 5:3), in surrender to Jesus Christ as Lord (Lk 14:15-33 and 15:1-32; 19:11-27; Phil 2:10-11; Jon 3:5-10) and is a major component of the gospel (Mk 1:1-4; Lk 24:44-48; Ac 20:21, 24). To pervert any element of the gospel is to pervert the gospel.

Repentant faith in Christ involves losing one’s life, that is, turning from our own way of living, exaltation of self and comfort, to surrender to Christ as unconditional Lord (Mk 8:35; Matt 10:32-39; Lk 9:23-24; 14:25-33). It’s an exchange of masters (Matt 6:24). Repentance involves turning from all known sins/idols: from general sin (Is. 55:6-7; 1 Th. 1:9; Ac. 26:20) and from specific sins (Ezk. 18:20-23, 28-32; Ac. 3:19, 26), which is the change of action wrought from a change of mind and will. The major issue with lost people unwilling to repent is because of wilful rebellion and love for sin and self. We see that in Pr 1:20-32, Jn 3:19-21 and Rom 1, where lost people “hold the truth in unrighteousness;” (Rom. 1:18-23). What is “unrighteousness”? Sin of course. In other words, the unsaved know but will not turn from their sin. The rest of the Bible agrees with that. Read for instance Pr 1:20-32 and Jn 3:19-21.

John the Baptist preached to the lost that they need to turn from their sin, to repent (Matt 3:2; Mk 1:1-4), which will result in bringing forth good fruit, and those who do not repent and as a result bring forth good fruit are hewn down at the root with the Lord's axe and cast into the unquenchable fires of hell (Matt 3:7-11). Jesus Christ preached the same message of repentance (Matt 4:17; Mk 1:15-20; 8:34-38; Lk 14:25-15:32) and commanded His apostles to preach the same message (Mk 6:12) and His saints to continue to preach the same message of the gospel (Lk 24:47).

There is no such things as “easy-repentism.” It's actually impossible for someone to repent without the goodness of God granting the ability unto life (Rom 2:4; Ac 5:31; 11:18). In other words, it's not easy to repent of all your sins and self and stuff (cf. Lk 13:23-24).

The gospel of Reg Kelly could be best summarized as an emotional false repentant-less gospel of easy believism. This is what he preaches week after week, including in his written material. We have never heard or read a solid, true gospel presentation by him. Case in point, his salvation presentation on the church website. In all his writings and gospel presentation online, repentance is virtually unheard of. A repentant-less and Lord-less gospel is “pervert[ing] the gospel of Christ.” (Gal. 1:6).

For too many years we were under the impression that churches that appear to be solid and biblical (e.g. many IFB churches, Liberty Faith Church [Reg Kelly], etc), were solid and biblical, but that just doesn’t really seem to be the case after all when you get to see what their fruit is, the softening of the gospel, the compromise, the false doctrine, the misuse and abuse of Scripture, etc. Way to many within these churches are unregenerate, products of easy believism or quick prayerism and in most cases both, and its because of the false gospel being entertained. True repentance with Godly sorrow and no surrender to Jesus as Lord are absent from these testimonies, and we know the absolute critical nature of these things within salvation. They are primary reasons why sinners remain unsaved. The Lords gospel preaching, the apostles gospel preaching, and the apostle Paul’s gospel preaching were all entirely based around true repentance and then fruit thereof. In Acts 26 for instance, Paul said everywhere he preached, he preached “that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.” (v. 26). When Jesus preached, he preached repentance: “From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matt 4:17). When He sent out the apostles to preach, they knew He wanted them to preach repentance: “And they went out, and preached that men should repent.” (Mk 6:12). When He gave the great commission to the apostles and to all ambassadors of Christ that should follow, it was “that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” (Lk 24:47). When the Lord dramatically saved me and converted me in 2005, it was repentance that was the catalyst to my surrender to the Lord Jesus Christ by faith in His gospel, and without genuine repentance I would’ve never even seen my true need and desperate condition before God.

➡ We have yet to find a gospel sermon that actually addresses what repentance is, defined and described, and that includes sermons such as “Simplicity in Christ” or “Being Born Again” (Oct 9, 2016), or “Will Ye Also Go Away” (July 26, 2015), or any of his “revival” sermons, or “How a sinner gets saved” (Feb 23, 2014), the latter of which was sent to us a few years ago by someone arguing that Kelly does preach repentance (this sermon was not a gospel message as the writer had proclaimed but a sermon on Gen 42-44, where Kelly claimed Josephs brethren as being both saved and lost at the same time — more on this further sermon below, seperate point). There is one that appears to be specifically on repentance, “The Struggle of the Pride of Repentance” (May 24, 2020), but nothing in the sermon actually on the subject, which just adds to the confusion. This sermon by the way, like many many others we have listened through, was loaded stock full with salvation/sanctification confusion and error, such as producing major confusion over the Lordship of Christ (claims some saved people need to surrender to Christ, twisting the requirement for salvation into something post-salvation, when the Bible teaches those that aren’t surrendered to Christ aren’t saved at all). His sermon “The Worst Sin I Have ever Committed,” (2008) should certainly contain repentance considering the title but not a word, but rather demonstrated confusion between saved and lost (very, very typical in his sermons, and always a major red flag exposing false teachers).

➡ A sermon on the prodigal of Luke 15 was preached by Kelly ("Don't Sell the Farm," Sept 25, 2011), which should be a message only on the gospel and a trumpet call to repentance for comversion (Lk 15:1-32), since this is all that is being taught in Lk 15 (going back in fact to Lk 14:15 which is where Christ’s gospel sermon actually begins, and further factually, right back to Lk 9 and forward to Lk 21, which is all about salvation, and really the entire books of Luke, Matthew, Mark and John—they are the four gospels, not four books on practical sanctification) but was horribly corrupted. He taught the prodigal applies to all, saved or lost, but that is a serious, major wresting of a passage where a lost sinner repents and is converted, which is an "error of the wicked" (2 Pet 3:16-17).

➡ A video was streamed online in early 2021 (Mar 21, 2021) that showed a steady flow of very young children (11 in our count, between roughly 4 years of age and 10), being run through the waters of baptism by the serial baptizer Reg Kelly (https://fb.watch/4uzgstu9aY/ -- the link might not work), which wasn't an unusal event (among many examples, on Oct 29, 2023 another ten children were baptized). How many of these young children were actually genuinely born again? Very likely none of them considering Kelly is a chronic purveyor of a corrupted false gospel that omits repentance and Christ's Lordship and adds easy believism and quick prayerism, and furthermore, historically majority of children that make a profession of faith at some young ghastly age are unconverted. Children "conversions" is the corrupt fruit of a false gospel of easy believism and quick prayerism. What is hugely bothersome concerning this issue is the manipulation and corruption of childrens minds that is occuring, likely producing innoculation to the truth and making many two-fold children of hell. This is why "up to 70% of the congregation leaves" or "70% of people in the church were divorced and remarried at one point" (living in adultery in other words and thus unregenerate)—both statements made in sermons. Personally we have been exposed to hundreds of such child "conversion" cases and know of only one in our opinion that was genuinely converted, a subject we cover in further detail here. Thankfully some of these recognized this self-deception later in life and then genuinely repented unto conversion in truth.

➡ In areas of critical necessity, where full expectation of repentance preaching would be expected by someone that actually truly believes in its necessity and importance for salvation, there is no mention of repentance at all. Not the word or the actual doctrine behind it. For instance, telling lost people “How to be Saved” in an online gospel tract, or in the online Bible lesson on the subject of salvation, or in sermons such as “The Simplicity in Christ” (Oct 20, 2002), a sermon boasting 2.5k listens on sermonaudio and one described by Kelly as “What it takes to be saved and to know it!!!” [emphasis his]. Surely this sermon would give the doctrine of repentance a fair showing you would think, but nada. Nothing. Total disappointment. This sermon was purely on the gospel, literally a sermon of sermons on how a lost sinner can be saved (according to his own words), where he had almost 60 mins, which is nearly 3,600 seconds, to mention repentance and what it means, but not a word. Now if that wasn’t enough time, he actually added another 5 min presentation to it at the end (for unknown reason; we surmise its likely because someone complained about the gospel being inadequate but obviously not that repentance or the identity of Christ was absent), but again not a word on repentance or Christ’s Lordship. He had an additional opportunity to bring repentance into the gospel, prime opportunity x 2. But Nada. Nil. Which further establishes its lack of importance with Kelly, and actual rejection. And don't forget! He really emphasized it online with “What it takes to be saved and to know it!!!" (punctuations original). So everything in that sermon should reflect the truth of the gospel “what it takes to be saved.” But it doesn’t. It’s all a lie. One big Satanic horrible lie because no one can be saved without true saving repentance or without submitting to God, bowing the knee in humble contrition and surrender to the King (Lk 14:25-33; Phil 2:10-11). The sermon does however lead to easy believism and quick prayerism and making two-fold children of hell.

➡ Reggies Basic Bible Doctrines lessons and sermon notes is wholly absent of anything related to repentance. Neither in word or principle is repentance found anywhere in the many documents of literature. If he actually truly believed in repentance, it would be present at least somewhere in the Basic Bible Doctrines (as he calls them). Not a word, including in any specific to the gospel and salvation, such as the one titled “Salvation - Lesson 8” or “Regeneration - Lesson 2” or “Why all the World Should Hear the Gospel” (which specifically speaks of the gospel and how its received). All three of these documents have zero reference to repentance. Neither is there even one mention in any of the seventeen "Redemption in Romans" notes, even though a number of them cover doctrines surrounding the gospel/salvation. Clearly, Reg Kelly denies and rejects a major component of the gospel, in fact the very foundation of salvation. The facts speak for themselves.

Some years ago towards the end of a revival conference I had the opportunity to ask him about these lessons, and he completely shirked any responsibility for them. He claimed someone else from their church had done them up, and he didn’t want to take responsibility for them. He even acted dumb as if he didn’t really know what was in them. His reaction and self-defence appeared skeptical. Much of the language in the lessons is clearly his, and they are called sermon notes after all (Reg does do most of the preaching at LFC, and in previous years almost entirely). We have tested and proven this by listening through sermons where the notes directly reflect what was taught (such as the notes on the doctrine of preservation). But thats neither nuts or bolts in the grand scheme of things; it makes no difference whether they were penned by him or not. He argued a red herring! They are on HIS website, HIS church website, a church HE claims to pastor, so they’re obviously what he believes and the church believes or they wouldn’t be on there to begin with. This is very bad to not take responsibility when caught with inadequate or insufficient gospel doctrine tied to your church. In this same revival conference, up to this point in me asking him about the bible lessons, he had never actually mentioned the word "repent" or "repentance" in any of his sermons, and that includes its principles (so much for a true revival conference!) but then interestingly ended up mentioning the word “repentance” after our conversation. So only did he actually mention the word after this author asked him why the doctrine was devoid on his website, yet he never actually described it, which then means next to nothing anyway.

Like the gospel tract, the sermon notes and Bible lessons tie directly to LFC and it’s pastor Reg Kelly. He is not divorced from them. He is accountable to anything that associates with his ministry. Although there is plenty of good sound truth in the lessons and notes, what is missing stands out glaringly and its not just repentance and Christ's Lordship.

➡ All the sermons he preached at the so-called “Revival” conference in 2019 were based around the gospel/salvation allegedly, but absolutely nothing about repentance. He mentioned the word once from the pulpit, thats it (the day after talking to him about it). We kept careful track, for we are well aware of the demonic attack on this doctrine today and the anemic and perverted gospels being preached from practically every pulpit. So we was on high alert exercising a testing mindset, not only concerning this element of the gospel but others as well, and doctrine in general, which is Berean behaviour (Ac 17:11). Not preaching on repentance or actually focusing on repentance in a so-called “revival” meeting is a travesty of justice if there ever was, considering the meaning of revival. How can you preach for men to be saved, without repentance?!? Its impossible. This is wrong. Reg’s message is different than what men preached in the Bible. It’s not the same. And then we witnessed him putting his anemic gospel into practice right there. Two people were led aside one evening after preaching, he prayed with them for their salvation and then got them to take the claim of eternal life, a man giving them assurance of something that likely wasn’t true in their life. Neither was genuinely converted. Another young man, who listened to the anemic emotional-appealing "gospel" screamed by Kelly and professed to be saved at home one night after the revival meeting, was never actually saved at all, but thankfully was genuinely converted to Christ some years later, only a year or so prior to his passing. The evidence of his gospel corruption keeps piling up, but that was not the only blatant error preached at the "Revival" conference.

➡ Kelly inquires what effect it would have on people and church when a man who been in a church for many years would one day stand up and say he is leaving and it’s all a fairy tale ("How to Kill an Evening Wolf," time stamp 37:45). Really? Is he really this man-centered? 1 Jn 2:19 would be the Biblical effect of the man. He would just simply prove that he was lost. That’s it. Nothing else changes. A true born again believer's relationship and fellowship with the Lord is not based upon what other people are doing or not doing. It has no bearing on anything whatsoever. Why is this even a question? My greatest concern, from the outside looking in, would be: WHY did no one know that he was a false believer? Salvation has substance, effect, fruit (Heb 11:1; Mat 13:23). Always. Evidence of salvation is huge and all of it’s present in all believers, but imitated in false believers and spiritually discernable. But this completely blows over the head of Kelly who doesn't appear to be able to exhibit genuine spiritual discernment.

➡ The sermon of a previous report we did on Kelly, “Crucified with Christ,” had not a single word on repentance in it, even though there was plenty of opportunity, if he genuinely believed and embraced the foundational doctrine. That sermon was loaded with error and heresy, as exposed at that link.

➡ The only place repentance is found at Liberty Faith Church is in the generic Westminster SOF, which isn’t even written by Kelly. In practice, he clearly departs from a Biblical orthodox position. What is stated in the SOF as to what he believes, and then 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.

➡ His gospel is shallow at best and he embraces and purveys salvation language that doesn’t save, does not teach repentance (very vague and scattered use of repentance in his preaching and severe undermining of it). No mention of it in his materials on salvation. The presentation on “How to be Saved” has zero mention of this doctrine and its principles, which is the very foundation of salvation and impossible to be saved without. He teaches that one has to pray to be saved, teaches salvation passages as sanctification (e.g., Matt 10:32-39; 16:24-26; Mk 8:34-38; Lk 9:23-26, 57-62; 14:15-15:32; Jn 12:24-26; etc), and uses salvation language to describe a post-salvatipn experience (e.g. surrendering to Christ, follow Christ, come unto me, ). People that teach “another gospel” (2 Cor. 11:4), a false and perverted gospel, are “false brethren” (Gal. 2:4-5) and “accursed” (Gal. 1:6-9).

False Gospel in Kelly's Gospel Tract.

There is the tract online done up by Reg, on his website, that tells sinners “How to be Saved” (https://www.libertyfaith.net/how-to-be-saved). After quoting Jn 14:6; Rom 3:10, 23; 6:23; 5:8; 10:9,13, in that order, the following desciption is given on how "You can have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ" (screenshot aken from this webpage on how to allegedly be saved):

Here are some of the major issues with Kelly's gospel on "HOW TO BE SAVED"—

1. If someone wanted to understand what it takes to be saved, this is the page on Kelly's church website he would go, to the tab that says “HOW TO BE SAVED” (its all CAPS like that as well). There ought to be a bold statement on how to be saved but as one discovers its quite the opposite. There is not one word on repentance or what it means (it must include what it actually means at least at some basic level). As bad as that is, there’s more. There is also the corrupted “gospel” of easy believism/quick prayerism in the tract, with the last point reading, “Finally, pray and ask Jesus Christ to be your Saviour, and claim His promise of eternal life.” No place in Scripture says that is how we’re saved. It is the very definition of a repentant-less, Lord-less, easy believism and quick prayerism “gospel.” It is a false faith. Not saving faith. It’s not grounded upon a furrowed, repentant heart.

2. No repentance. Its an anemic gospel with not one word on repentance. Regardless to any vehement protest, no one can say that Kelly actually believes in repentance. His preaching and teaching denies it. What he is presenting is an anemic perverted gospel (Gal 1:6-9), which is “another gospel” (2 Cor 11:4). Repentance is in fact so rare in his preaching, it might as well be filed under the banner “AWOL.”

3. There is also nothing about Jesus Christ being Lord, you only need to ask Him to be your Saviour, which further adds to the false faith and presents “another Jesus” (2 Cor 11:4). This is salvation language that will more often than not, not save anyone. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that if we ask Jesus to our Saviour He will become Saviour. Quite the contrary; everything we see is about Him being surrendered to as Lord and called upon as Lord and received as Lord. Jesus BECOMES our Saviour at salvation, but He is RECEIVED as Lord. The true Bible Jesus is a different one than the one being presented here by Reg. If someone wants Jesus as his Saviour, He's not going to get that by merely "asking Jesus to be your Saviour.” If He doesn't want Jesus as Lord, Jesus won't be His Saviour. If He won't fear God, repent of His sin, deny Himself, and turn to Jesus Christ for Who Jesus really is, He won't be saved. Is that so hard to add to the equation in the explanation? But won't people find "ask Jesus to be your Saviour," or “accept Him as your Saviour,” much easier to accept? Sure it is. But is that what Jesus our Saviour gave us as an example to do or is that how He describes we come to Him for salvation? Rom 6:23 says that "the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Is the gift received by asking? Peter said, "Repent … and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Ac 2:38). He said, "Repent and you get the gift," not “ask for the gift and you get the gift." Eternal life is through "Jesus Christ our” what? “Our Lord.” You get to the gift through Jesus Christ our Lord. That’s the Lordship of Christ. There is a big problem with singling out that one attribute of Christ, "as Saviour," while leaving out the other attributes necessary to believe about Jesus — Lord and God, and what that means in salvation. I especially say "Lord" because that is highlighted in the NT, and there is a reason Lord can be left out.

As well, "accept," as I see it, falls short of "believe" and “receive.” If “ask Jesus Christ to be your Saviour," were such important language, as it seems to be portrayed today, then why doesn't that occur once in the Bible? If the concept of "Saviour" were so important, or even the word, then why didn't the apostles use it in their preaching? There is not one example of salvation anywhere in God’s Word of anyone asking Jesus to be their Saviour and not one where anyone receives Him not as Lord. Now, believe me, I am not against using the title "Saviour," but definitely not in exclusion of "Lord" in the presentation of Jesus, and not even as the main point, since it isn't the main point. Will He save? Yes. But He won’t save you if you won’t truly repent and receive Him as your Lord, which means to surrender to Him as your Boss. What we find in this tract is language not used to call someone to salvation anywhere in Scripture. Furthermore, all the salvation testimonies in scripture and the teachings on salvation throughout Scripture are loaded with and founded upon repentance and surrendering to Jesus Christ as Lord. That is how God’s Word reads, but its entirely different than what Kelly is presenting as the gospel.

4. And if that wasn’t bad enough, it contains a false faith of having faith in facts or faith: “...and claim His promise of eternal life.” Faith doesn’t come through assent to, or belief in, certain facts, like the promises of eternal life. Even the devils believe everything about the Triune God (Jam 2:19), noted in passages such as Mk. 3:11 and Jam. 2:19. Faith comes through the word of God (Rom 10:17; 1 Pet. 1:23-25), what Scipture says we must acquiesce to in order to be saved, and is believed by true repentance and relinquishing ones will to Jesus as Lord, resulting in the new birth. No truly saved person in the world has had to ever “claim His promise of eternal life.” This is the lingual of a false gospel. Every truly regenerate believer knows immediately he has eternal life at the reception of eternal life, which is salvation. Eternal life is inseparable from salvation. If you need to claim eternal life, it’s apparent you don't have it, which does align with the false faith and superficial and false finish line presented in the tract, but you won't recieve it by simply claiming it.

5. Praying is apparently required for salvation according to Kelly: “pray and ask” and concerning Rom. 10:13 he says, “That is a promise directly from God that if you pray to Him...” (all quotes from https://www.libertyfaith.net/how-to-be-saved). The Bible doesn't actually teach that you have to pray to be saved. You can call on the name of the Lord by simply repenting of your sin/self/stuff/people and turn to Christ and receive Him as Lord, like the thief on the cross did, and be saved, like the thief on the cross. He never displayed any form of prayer, which is also the case in most other salvation testimonies in Scripture.

Although the critical doctrine of repentance and Christ’s Lordship is completely missing, which without no man can or ever will be saved, he has plenty on praying and asking Jesus to be your Saviour, which is not salvation language but an addition to the gospel.

The finish line to his corrupted gospel is false and superficial. It reeks of both quick prayerism and easy believism. Nowhere in scripture does it say that praying is required for salvation. No place in scripture describes salvation as "pray and ask Jesus to be your Saviour." This in the context of no repentance and no submission to Christ as Lord, is the very definition of easy believism. If someone wants Jesus as his Saviour, He's not going to get that by merely "asking Jesus to be your Saviour." If the sinner won't fear God, repent of his sin, deny himself, and turn to Jesus Christ for Who Jesus really is, He won't be saved. Many of these easy believist and quick prayerist do not want a boss. They want no authority ruling over them, like the wicked rebels in Lk 19:14. Yet, they are on the roll call of churchs like Liberty Faith. He quotes Rom 10:13 but nothing about his presentation reflects calling on the name of the Lord Jesus from a truly convicted, repentant and surrendered heart.

6. Since the clear truth of the gospel of Christ is that sinners become the children of God by repentant faith alone, the teaching of Scripture makes it very clear that you do not get saved by having to to pray and ask Jesus to be your Saviour. This false teaching is not the Biblical way to be saved and denies the absolute necessity of repentance and surrender to Jesus as Lord (although he mentioned repentance in the beginning of the webpage, one sentence, nothing more was said of it, including in the call to salvation where it should’ve been mentioned instead of the easy believism and quick prayerism), its an insult to the OT sacrificial system and Christ's bloody sactifice, it confuses the means of salvation with the result of salvation (even this is only mentioned in part, for Jesus doesn’t just dwell in our hearts), it denies the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit in true salvation, is without example in Scripture, and leads to eternal hell because of the false assurance it parades with.

Technically I could’ve just stopped here. A gospel tract does tell us really everything we need to know about what someone believes. This is a golden standard to show someone how to be saved, using a minimal of words, putting it on paper (or digital) and then divvying it out in evangelism. We would’ve never needed to look any further, not at sermons, not at lessons, not at other literature, not at anything. The tract is precisely his communication to the lost, stemming from what is in his heart and putting it on paper (or screen), in what be believes that the lost person needs to hear and do to have eternal life. If any man believes in true repentance and the true gospel, it will be in his gospel tract. I think that’s a no brainer. The tract doesn’t contradict what Reg believes. He wrote it! He put it there!

False gospel of false repentance, easy believism, along confusion, false professions, perversions of Scripture, in the sermon “How A Sinner Gets Saved” (02/23/2014)

What about Kelly's “How A Sinner Gets Saved” sermon (also titled "Prepare ye the way of the Lord" on Sermon Audio), we've been asked. As we always do want to keep an open mind about what a man believes and teaches, in spite of all the evidence thus far very clearly pointing in one direction, we were directed towards this sermon by a Kellyite, and listened from start to finish, paying careful attention, even relistening to some parts. Unfortunately, the sermon doesn’t really change anything, and if anything, it boosters exactly what we have been saying about Kelly all along. This Kellyite, and not just him either but many more man-centred man-worshipping loyal followers of Kelly (or the many, many other men that strive for the spotlight) are more concerned over vindicating his name and making us look bad with false accusations of slander and false reporting, than over the souls that Kelly is misleading into destruction and damnation. They should care more about that, but they don't and that also speaks volumes.

Reasons we know that the repentance mentioned in this sermon is largely unBiblical and supports what we are saying here about his false gospel, among other terrible errors:

1. The sermon title itself is a misnomer and red herring. It’s entitled “How a Sinner Gets Saved” but it should’ve been titled, “How a "Backsliding" Christian Gets Right,” for the vast majority of the sermon consisted of demonstrating how a “saved” person gets “right with God.”

2. Secondly, everything stated in this sermon is contrasted to his many sermons on the gospel, revival conferences, gospel tracts, etc. Its not a standalone sermon, but one piece of the overall picture. Vast majority of his sermons and written material is entirely void of Biblical repentance and the identity of Jesus Christ (He is Lord and that actually means something). His gospel tract itself is extremely hard to refute concerning this point, and trumps everything else, for that is how people are told to be saved that come to his website but its not only devoid of repentance and Christ’s Lordship, it also promotes easy believism and quick prayerism. Conferences on "revival" are always a good thermometer for detecting gospel issues, and there he again fails miserably.

3. Thirdly, we are convinced the only reason repentance is mentioned so much in this one standalone sermon is because someone complained about his lack of reference to this critical doctrine insepatable from the gospel. We believe this is obvious because it is never mentioned in any sermons that speak of the gospel and soteriology, and furthermore, because of what occured when this author confronted him about the absence of repentance in his sermons at a revival conference—whereafter the word was used in the sermon that followed. The mentioning of "repent" or "repentance" in this sermom, or its principles, is more then all the sermons combined that we have heard, dozens, many of which are gospel messages.

And the other reason, the greater of the two, of its usage freely (versus the gospel messages he preaches or his gospel tracts or his salvation literature that are allegedly directed to unsaved people), is because the sermon was mostly directed toward people that profess Christianity, classifying the patriarchs as saved people when they came to Joseph in Egypt. The sermon depicted Josephs brethren as believers just not “right with God” and “backslidden,” hence the frequent appeal with this concept to the congregation.

Though he was depicting the brethren at this point as saved (and mostly as this nature in this sermon), he was frequently bouncing back and forth between them being saved and them being lost (now how horribly confusing is that!), thus it was difficult to understand exactly what he was exactly referring to in most references to repentance, if not all.

4. Fourthly, a good example of his perversion of both repentance and Christ’s Lordship in this sermon is noted by his serious twisting of truth concerning Luke 15, the prodigal son and his father, one of the greatest testimonies of salvation in Scripture in one of the most important chapters in the Bible. He claims:

“Namaan thought he could buy it [referring to earning salvation]. The prodigal son. You know everybody talks about the prodigal son, the father did the same thing to the prodigal son. What did the prodigal son say when he came to the father, ‘make me as one of thy hired servants.’ He wasn’t ready for grace. Until he was broken and realized he couldn’t be hired. I’m not hired. I’m not earning. If I’m hired, I’m earning. And the Bible is very clear that the lost person thinks he can earn his way to heaven, somehow or another.” (time stamp 16:55).

Just! Wow! This is very very bad. Like really really awful. This is the sons salvation but hillbilly Kelly completely perverts it and flips its on its head, claiming the son was attempting to buy his salvation and thus earn his salvation and the father was an accomplice to it!!!! W😳W! One couldn't make this trash up if we tried. This blasphemous and heretical wresting tells us further that he rejects repentance, since this is what the entire chapter is actually about, repentance that leads to salvation and brings glorious celebration in heaven. In other sermons specifically on the prodigal, he likewise perverts the son and father, and actually the entire chapter, further buttressing the fact that he rejects repentance and purposefully propagates a false gospel. Or he just simply doesn't know what he is doing, because he is an unregenerate, unsaved charlatan. We think both are the cause. This statement is blasphemous as well (which isn’t the first time we have heard blasphemy in Kelly's sermon), for the earthly father is an illustration of the Heavenly Father (though not to its fullness— this is a parable; a comparison, or a likeness, of Christ teaching a spiritual lesson based upon an earthy illustration) embracing, forgiving, and celebrating a lost sinner coming to Him. That celebration is further elaborated in the first 10 verses of that chapter. But he completely corrupts this great and wonderful parable of a lost sinner coming to repentance and surrendering to Christ.

Luke 15 is one story on heavens reaction when the lost are found and saved. There are three stories which are actually one (v. 3, “this parable” which is singular, one parable depicted in three ways): the lost sheep (vv. 4-7), the lost coin (vv. 8-10) and the lost son (vv. 11-32). All three follow the same pattern, which is: (1) lost, (2) sought, (3) found, (4) regenerated, and (5) celebrated. That's the outline for all three stories. There's ONLY one meaning here: repentance unto salvation. So in this single parable (v. 3) of Lk 15, Christ illustrates the conversion of publicans and sinners (v. 1) by the restoration or regeneration of a lost sheep, coin, and son, while the unconverted and self-righteous Pharisees who thought they did not need to repent (v. 2; cf. Lk. 5:31-32; 19:7-10) are illustrated by the elder son (vv. 25-32; cf. Ex. 4:22; Hos. 11:1; Rom. 9:4) who was not willing to enter his father’s house but greatly dishonoured his father because of his perceived superiority to the regenerated and restored lost son (vv. 25-32). When Christ spoke of repentance, he spoke of the attitude expressed by the words of the younger son who was lost and then found being broken over his sin and turning from it and fosaking it, and then fleeing to God for salvation: “I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants” (vv. 18-19). This also reflects the Lordship of Christ, where the son is giving his life to the Lord, forsaking all and denying self and dying to self, and desiring to be a servant of the Lord and for Him to rule over him. It is this testimony of the son to the Father, who was very much ready for grace, that Reg ridicules, distorts and corrupts, and then blasphemes God the Father by claiming Him as an accomplice to the crime of his son trying to buy salvation. Wickedness is the only word that can sufficiently describe this. This is the humble repentance of an unconverted sinner who comes to the Father by faith, for the forgiveness of his sins and wickedness. The angels sang for joy when our Lord was born (Lk 2:9-15), and they sing for joy when a sinner is born again (Lk. 15:7-10), “For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.” (Lk. 15:24). I would hate to be in the shoes of the man who perverts scripture like this and then blasphemes God the Father, Who is being pictured here.

5. Fifthly, Kelly also presents easy believism in the sermon. After preaching most of the sermon that the brothers of Joseph were saved when they came to him, at the end he says they were lost when they they showed up at Joseph's door, but subsequently saved when they simply admitted to being sinners:

“At this point now we’ve got sinners saved. Okay. What happened? You know how fast it happened? The second they said we are sinners. We’re guilty. Getting saved is not hard. What’s hard is getting to admit you’re a sinner. And repenting [while chuckling]. Thats the hard part. Getting saved is easy.” (Time 62:55)

So he claims this is where salvation took place of these brothers of Joseph, even though he was presenting them as saved periodically in the sermon. Even at the very onset he said this is “a saved person that is in a backslidden condition, . . . Its a picture of broken fellowship between a saved person and their Lord.” Saved then lost, saved then lost, saved then lost, saved then lost, saved then lost, over and over and over, and now finally they get saved! In another area (time stamp 8:45) he gives the benefit of both ways, they are saved and they were lost:

“So we have this picture of Joseph being Christ, Joseph’s brethren being lost persons or being in a backslidden condition of a Christian and how God fixes that.”

This is the back and forth speak of a double minded man, who twists and corrupts scripture to make it fit his agenda and his great mental ability to "decipher" the deep spiritualized truths that no one else would know about were it not for this guru. What horrible and convoluted heresy! This is so so bad! He treats God’s Word worse than tomatoes falling off the back of a produce truck. None of it comes as a shock considering his perverted gospel, which then continues perverting doctrine, leaven leavening the whole lump.

It gets worse. The second they said they were sinners, they were saved. Thats what Kelly says. He is not only adding to scripture (they never said they were sinners and only Judah ever spoke and demonstrated repentance so we don’t even know for absolute certainly whether they were all saved there, as Reg claims, but Judah certainly was and at this point he recieved the blessings of the firstborn, and Christ's lineage would come through him, not Reuben), but also corrupts the truth of salvation. No one is saved by simply admitting they are sinners. This is a damnable heresy (2 Pet 2:1).

Kelly says getting saved is not hard. The Bible says it is. He says salvation is easy. "Getting saved is easy.” The Bible doesn’t actually say that, but in fact the very opposite. This is easy believism, especially in the light of false or no repentance, and no Lordship. He's says the second they admit they are sinners, that they’re guilty, they are saved. Thats also easy believism. Believing is more than intellectual assent to a group of facts and then admitting something from the intellect or even from the emotions. I have preached the gospel to many people, thousands, and vast majority after explaining the gospel carefully to them have no issues with believing that Jesus died for them and admitting they are sinners, or even that they’re guilty, but where the issue comes in is with repentance and Jesus as Lord, because that involves the will and a certain amount of hatred for sin and self and stuff, which they then must turn from and submit to Jesus Christ as Lord, thus having a boss that will rule over them. Thats the point where the light really hits the darkness (Jn 3:19-21). This is where repentance and the Lordship of Christ dovetail. Those who know what it means to turn to Jesus Christ, don't find that easy to do. They'd rather hang on to their life for themselves. But Jesus said, "whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.” (Lk. 9:24). At salvation, God restores our soul, converts our soul. He does that because He has our soul. We offer by faith our soul, our life to God. He converts it, restores it, regenerates it. He won't do that if we keep our soul for ourselves and won’t submit to His Divine authority. That is the rebellion that runs contrary to repentance and the Lordship of Christ, what we read of in Rom 1:18-32. This is the eternal trade that occurs the moment of justification. God takes our life and we receive His (2 Cor. 5:21). We exchange masters, from the master of this world to the Master of our souls (Matt 6:24). We become partakers of the Divine nature. In the Reggie gospel, we offer God our mere lip-service that we are sinners, even guilty sinners, with mental transition, and acknowledge certain salvation facts and for that we receive eternal salvation, which is no different than his perverted gospel tract. We get the pearl of great price and God gets an IOU? This perverts the true gospel like nothing does. Nowhere is salvation ever explained or exemplified in this manner in scripture. No one can remain in rebellion against Jesus Christ and be saved. There is no proof as far as we are aware that these men didn’t remain in rebellion, besides Joesph (who was saved as a young man on his fathers farm) and Judah. Even years later after their father Jacob dies, most of them fear that Joseph will enact vengeance upon them for their wickendness towards him, now that their father had passed away. Maybe the 11 all got saved there, but they definitely weren’t saved before (at the very least 10 of them, Benjamin not being in their company).

Salvation is not easy. This is the false easy “gospel” that Kelly preaches, although on occasion gives opposing lip service to it, and have personally witnessed being fulfilled in its practical aspect, leading sinners into easy believism quick prayerism false profession. Nowhere does the Bible say getting saved is easy. Just the opposite. Jesus, in response to the question “Lord, are there few that be saved?,” declared, “Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” (Lk. 13:23-24). Does that sound “easy”? The word “strive” means to fervently fight, to struggle, translated from the Greek “agonizomai” where the English word “agonize” comes from. Heb. 4:11 does not make salvation easy, when it says: “Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.” Did Jesus make salvation easy for the rich young ruler (Mk. 10:17-23)? Jesus made it about as difficult as possible (Mk. 10:21), and the end result was no salvation (Mk. 10:22). Is salvation easy for the rich (Mk. 10:23-24)? Had salvation been easy for the 11 apostles who speak of their testimony in this very context (Mk. 10:24-31; cf. Mk. 1:15-20; Lk. 5:1-11)? Was salvation easy for Ruth (Ru. 1:1-16)? Was salvation easy for Paul (Ac. 9:5; Phil 3:4-10)? Salvation was very difficult for all these individuals and there is many more examples. Personally, my own salvation was not easy, being in a land of Moslem pagans, and having to overcome my own will and pride of life and lusts of the eyes/flesh. It was a struggle that went on for about 3 months and concluded with an instantaneous moment of very dramatic and supernatural conversion through repentant faith and God's grace. If salvation was easy and merely admitting one is a sinner, why wasn’t Judas saved? Even better, why wasn’t Simon the sorcerer saved? He “believed also,” was he even “baptized” and even further, “continued with Philip,” in the ministry (Ac 8:13), but was lost as a goat (Ac 8:14-24). He is a good example of “easy believism” (Ac 8:13, 24), one who never repented and surrendered to Jesus’s Lordship (Ac 8:14-23). This language of “Getting saved is not hard . . . Getting saved is easy,” is contrary to true salvation and its the very reason for the 66% or 70% failure rate of Kelly's “conversions” (his own statistics) but suspect that number to be much higher realistically.

6. Sixthly, the repentance he actually presents really only once in the sermon (and appears to be true) is still not true to scripture. Yes repentance involves, in a major way, turning from sin, but that is not all there is to it, and its certainly not relevant to saved people only. Repentance involves more than turning from sin and has three aspects to it: the volition (man's will, which brings about the turning), the intellect (the mind), and the emotions (godly sorrow). All three are presented like that in the Bible concerning repentance and salvation, in the few hundred Scripture references to it, and all three represent repentance. You take one away, you have no repentance. Repentance involves all three faculties of man for it to be true: intellectual (Pr 1:29; 2:1-5; Jer 8:6; Rom 3:11), emotional (Ez 9:6; Ps 34:18; Ezk 6:9; 9:4 Jon 3:8; 2 Cor 7:10) and volitional—the will (Is 55:6-7; Ezk 18:30; 1 Th 1:9; Ac 14:15; Matt 13:44-46). All three are equally important but its the last one that is the critical element of repentance, for it’s the will of man that rejects and hates the truth and light (Jn 3:19-21). That is what we see in Rom 1, lost sinners holding the truth in unrighteousness, and its the most difficult for a sinner to overcome, due to pride and love of sin and hatred for authority.

7. Seventhly, Christ’s Lordship is completely absent, as always. The lost cannot receive a divided “Christ,” one Who is only a Saviour but not Lord. Lordship and repentance dovetail. We turn from our way to His way. We give up our life for His life (Jn. 12:25). We get off the throne; He gets on it. We are humbled poor in spirit, repenting in sackcloth and ashes. Just like the lost prodigal. Just like the Nineveh king and his subjects (even the cows!). No one can remain in rebellion against Jesus Christ and be saved. You haven't received the Jesus of the Bible if you haven't received Him as Lord. What we are describing is Lordship salvation. We turn from idols to serve the living and true God (1 Th. 1:9). We, as wicked sinners, forsake our sins and wicked ways and turn to God for mercy and pardon (Is. 55:6-7; Lk. 14:15-15:32). We confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus Christ and believe in our heart that God has raised Him from the dead (Rom. 10:9). With compunction and remorse, a broken, contrite and poor spirit, we turn from our sins and self to Jesus as Lord. This is however not what you hear in Kelly's preaching. In fact, he has a really difficult time even referring to Jesus Christ as Lord at all.

Jesus is Only Saviour and Only Accepted as Saviour, Not Lord.

Kelly never speaks of receiving Jesus as Lord, only as Saviour. This is "another Jesus" (2 Cor 11:4) than the Jesus of the Bible. Jesus Christ is Lord. He must be received as Lord which means to receive Him as King. He must be surrendered to and submitted to, He MUST be received as Lord. There is no Bible example of anyone not receiving Jesus as Lord. There is also no Bible example of anyone receiving receiving Jesus only as Saviour. Can you remain in rebellion against Jesus Christ and be saved? Do you just keep going your own way? John says, "Believe in Jesus Christ," but He is the Jesus of the Bible, not just a Saviour absent of Lord. Believing in Him means believing in who He is, not what we choose Him to be or what we want Him to be. It was "evangelical" men like LS Chafer (and Dallas Theological Seminary) who changed the message of the gospel, and unsurprisingly, Kelly likes Chafer and quotes him in sermons.

Men like Kelly hang onto one element of Christ and that is Saviour, ignoring His other attributes, some of which are more prevalent. Jesus is Lord. Yes Jesus is Saviour but there is not one place in Scripture that tells a sinner to “accept Him as your Saviour.” He becomes our Saviour but we receive Him and believe in Him for who He is, which is Lord, King and God. There's no doubt that someone must believe Jesus died for them, believe that He is the Saviour and that He saves sinners through His sacrifice. The cross was a stumbling block for the Jews, and they needed to understand that the Messiah was more than Lord, but a suffering Messiah. As far as "Lord" is concerned, what is Rom 10:9-13 saying? What about Saul's conversion in Ac 9:3-7? Consider the Book of Acts for example. 90x in Acts Jesus is Lord and twice He is Saviour. You don't get Saviour until chapter 5. What was the message the apostles preached? In all of those initial messages of Peter it was Lord—Ac 2:20-21, 25, 34, 36, 39; 3:19, 22; 4:24, 26, 29, 33. Look for Saviour in Acts 2-4. I'm not saying that we shouldn't recognize Him as Saviour, but for Him to be Saviour, you must receive Him for who He actually is, and He is Lord. At the following link we cover whether “Accept Jesus as Your Saviour” is Biblical Salvation Language or Not?

The difference is massive, the difference between the true Jesus and another Jesus. Jesus wants to reign over us (the rebels who won’t have Him reign over them will be chopped up — read Lk. 19:12-27) and demands submission to Him (Lk. 19:12-27; Mk. 10:21-31; Phil. 2:10-11) and humbling of ourselves before Him (Lk. 18:17; Matt. 10:15; Lk 14:25-15:) and losing our lives for Him (Matt. 16:15; Mk. 8:35) and denying ourselves (Lk. 14:26; 18:22), and forsaking all for Him and the gospel (Lk. 14:25-33) and falling on Him to be broken (Lk. 20:18). All this is caught up in saving repentance which is a gift of God to every convicted sinner (Rom. 2:4; Ac. 5:31; 11:18) as is faith (Eph. 2:8-9; Ac. 3:16).

Much gospel preaching today is focused on Jesus as Saviour, including by Reg Kelly. Faced with the alternative, people very often want to go to heaven — they want to be saved from hell. Jesus will save them and it's free, so they don't have to work for it and really can't work for it. They just take the gift by “accepting Jesus as personal Saviour.” The alter call is made, elevator music put on, guilt poured on those not walking the sawdust trail, eyes are closed hands are raised (those desiring the gift), sinners prayer offered (by self and preacher) to “receive Christ as Saviour.” Conspicuously absent in all his preaching is repentance and Lordship. They are receiving a divided Jesus with a false faith. Non-repentant faith is ALWAYS a false faith. Manipulation, and then fabrication of artificial finish lines for the new birth. The language "accept him as Saviour" is found not in one place of scripture. We're not saying that we shouldn't recognize Him as Saviour, but for Him to become your Saviour, you must receive Him for Who He is, and He is Lord. That means surrender and submission. And thats where Biblical repentance dovetails. When Jesus preached the gospel, He preached, "Repent for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand." They needed to receive Jesus as the Messiah, the fulfilment of the OT prophecies, while turning with godly compunction from their sins, self, stuff, people to Jesus as Lord. Jesus talked about this at the end of His ministry, when He told the story of the Master who sent His Son to the wicked tenant farmers (Lk. 20:9-18). Their lack of acknowledgement of His authority and power was what had them in trouble. “I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him.” (v. 13). How does Jesus end this parable? “Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.” (v. 18). This is speaking of salvation and the Authority of Christ: of repentance and of submitting in humility and brokenness and contrite heart to Jesus Christ as Lord, to His Authority. But if you won’t, He will clobber you into powder, like braying a fool in a mortar among wheat with a pestle (Pr 27:22). You’ll be ground pepper by the time He is done. That was the last public message to the lost recorded that He preached before His death. There is so much of this, all over. Especially in the Gospel of Luke. Denial of the Lordship of Christ is a false gospel directly related to Roman Catholicism's false gospel and doctrine.

There aren’t two types of salvation in the Bible. “Lordship salvation” is the only saving message, it’s the old paths (Jer 6:16) of the apostles and our forefathers (Baptists/Anabaptists) over the last two millennia. You can easily see that in their doctrinal statements (those that survived Rome’s satanic wrath): e.g. Schleitheim Confession (1527), The Baptist Orthodox Creed (1679), London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), Baptist Philadelphia Confession of Faith (1742).

Undoubedtly Kelly would attempt to defamate the true gospel with the label “Lordship salvation,” which was actually given as a pejorative by inventors of a new salvation to replace the Biblical plan of salvation historically taught. Lordship Salvation is Salvation (a thorough Biblical exposition on the subject) but many fundamentalists, possibly including Kelly, argue that Lordship Salvation Proceeds from Calvinism, but is that actually true? We deal with it in that linked report. The new salvation denies or undermines repentance and Christ’s Lordship. And that is what Kelly is peddling, but he should take careful heed to what Paul says in 2 Cor 2:17,

"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."

Other examples of Gospel perversion.

➡ There is the true gospel that includes true repentance and Christ’s Lordship and then there is another gospel which denies one or the other (usually both), and typically promotes easy believism/quick prayerism of some form. And that is what we see with Reggie. His preaching speaks to it, his gospel tract reads it and his practice shows it. And the end result of that is a whole lot of false professions, and people made two-fold children of hell and essentially inoculated to the truth and to their false deceived estate. And tragically that is exactly what has occurred, coming out of the horses mouth himself, in the sermon “How a Sinner Gets Saved,” where he speaks of 2/3 of their professions over 30 years have been likely false professions. His false gospel is the cause of it, or at the very least, keeping them like that.

➡ Repentance is the very foundation of salvation. True repentance works the volition, intellect and emotions of man, to create godly sorrow and surrender and turning from oneself and sin to Christ. Any preacher that neglects or undermines this subject is not preaching the true and pure gospel of Christ. There is little to no repentance in his preaching. Confessing sin and seeking forgiveness or even admitting one is guilty is not repentance on its own, but elements of repentance. He is ripping his listners off of the truth and making false professors. Then to top it all off, giving alter calls with the anemic gospel is a receipe for disaster. It is attempting to pick green, unripened fruit, which is no fruit all all, from “trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;” (Ju 1:12). 

➡ Kelly's "gospel" is a mirror of Jack Hyles false gospel (who hated the doctrine of repentance and Christ's Lordship) which is substantiated when we see he yokes with David Gibbs (IFB Lawyer and close friend and confidante of corrupt IFB wolves such as Jack Hyles, Jack Schaap, etc) and Larry Brown, both of which embrace the same deluded, ungodly and perverted gospel of Hyles the easy-believism/quick-prayerism 1-2-3 pray after me, no/false repentance, false teaching on evidence of salvation with no-fruit and no-change necessary, silly carnival atmosphere, turning evangelism into a type of salesmanship, false and perverted gospel warned of in Gal. 1:6-9.

➡ What Kelly preaches is entirely contrary to historical Biblical beliefs. His is easy believism, which is why very few get truly saved under such preaching, and mostly false professions. Kelly skips necessary parts of the gospel to something less than salvation. Some do this out of ignorance and others on purpose. I believe he does it on purpose, likely believing that repentance and Christ’s Lordship is corrupting the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor 11:3), and thereby corrupting also that passage and teaching as well. Purposeful denial of repentance and Christ’s Lordship is seen as the gospel, because it’s rejecting what, in their minds, is contrary to simplicity. So it turns into self-delusion and then he’s convinced himself that this is 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 a false gospel. 

➡ Kelly's preaching is a false gospel, another Jesus, one that saves and seals but does not change as in 2 Tim 3:5, "having a form of Godliness but denying the power thereof."

➡ A sermon that reflects his perverted gospel very clearly and tells us he doesn't understand the true gospel at all is "Don't Sell the Farm" (Sept 25, 2011). It is heretical almost entirely, and reflects the false gospel that he aligns with. It is about Luke 15 and the prodigal, where he falsely teaches that Lk 15:11-22, the so-called prodigal, is equally applicable to all people, whether saved or lost. Hog-wash!

➡ Fear of God is conspicuously abent from his preaching, which is intimately connected to repentance. And that would explain it.

➡ In the sermon "The Struggle of the Pride of Repentance" (May 24, 2020), Kelly defines and describes pride as perfectly normal Christian behaviour, which is heresy. Its not normal and its certainly not the character of a truly saved person. The Bible in fact declares the proud to be unsaved while the saved are a humble people, since that is how they were saved. Humility and submission is a necessity for salvation and then will continue to be demonstrated because of the new nature and God dwelling in the saved. But since Kelly rejects the true gospel that requires poor of spirit humble contrition and surrender with true repentance, he would necessarily pervert the teachings of pride and humility.

At the very end of this sermon one of the men from the church can be heard speaking out about the pride of showcasing human talent, such as church performances with applause. Kelly speaks against what the man says, claiming that church applause for performance is not a pride issue. What else would it be?? It’s not honouring God. If it was, you wouldn’t honour the person by praising them above and beyond praise to God.

False Teachings on Sanctification, Including Serious Confusion Between Saved and Unsaved.

Erroneous preaching to and about Christians that are characteristic of only lost people and then falsely interpreting Scripture to fit the false doctrine. This is what is Kelly does

.

➡ Kelly's teachings on sanctification are of Keswick theological heretical foundation, even though he might not even know what that is. He certainly should as a man who claims to be a pastor and man of God, considering that Keswick theology floods the teachings of every single evangelical, protestant and baptist pulpit. The average preacher is loaded to the brim with Keswick heresy, and that includes Kelly. Consider this report on a better understanding of Keswick /higher life/ deeper life theology: A Warning on Keswick Theology and Why It‘s So Dangerous, in a Nutshell.

➡ In the sermon "The Struggle of the Pride of Repentance" (May 24, 2020), we noted serious confusion between saved and lost (time stamp 9:45). What is the moral character of a virgin founded upon? He leaves out a lot of very important info here in the example of the newly married virgin and newly married non-virgin, producing terrible confusion undoubtedly in the minds of his listeners.

➡ Kelly preaches that the Apostle Paul is the "chief of sinners," that Paul meant this in the present tense, and this somehow justifies his sins or anyone elses, using this horrendous error to soften the impact of sin, to justify a mediocre Christian life. The statement that “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief” (1 Tim 1:15) is entirely in the context of Pauls testimony of salvation reiteration, from vv. 13 to 17. What many preachers make of that statement is a serious twisting of truth, but it does fit the perverted gospel and keswick-type heretical sanctification that flood Kelly’s teachings. Kelly misses the whole point of the testimony of Paul (incl. perverting Phil 3 where Paul again reiterates his testimony) and all the evidence of the new man.

➡ Apparently saved people can have a spirit of disobedience. “Disobedience is a wolf that will keep you from seeing God work in your life.” ("How to Kill an Evening Wolf," time 31:40). God is ALWAYS working in a born again believers life, even when the believer sins (Heb. 12:5-11; Pr. 3:10-11). Children of disobedience are children of the devil. The Bible says that, and I have a suspicious feeling that God knows a lot better than Reg Kelly. Every born again believer lives in obedience to God’s Word. Unsaved people don't.

"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." (Eph 2:1-3)

➡ In the same sermon, he claimed the further you go in your Christian walk the more evening wolves there are, and with greater intensity ("How to Kill an Evening Wolf," time 38:10). What?? Where does Scripture teach this? From there he went on about the devil attacking unceasingly or directly continual attack, and that believers could be under complete darkness. That is NOT what the Bible teaches at all. It’s at salvation we overcome the devil (1 Jn. 2:13-14; 4:3-4). Overcoming is a major evidence of salvation, but Kelly doesn’t seem to be overcoming.

➡ Pr. 10:18 ("He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool") is used by Kelly towards professing Christians even though it’s 100% speaking of unsaved sinners ("How to Kill an Evening Wolf"). At NO place of Scripture is a fool ever a saved person. Fools are always the unregenerate, while saved are always the wise, because fear of the Lord which leads to repentance (and necessary for it) and thus salvation is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge and understanding and all saved people have. Salvation brings wisdom, "But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:" (1 Cor 1:30). When we recieve Jesus Christ we recieve wisdom, for "In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Col 2:3).

➡ Misuses Jam 4:7-8 towards saved persons ("How to Kill an Evening Wolf," time 27:00).  Sinners arent saved people. The passage is referring to unsaved people. Confusing saved and unsaved is not the work of God. He is not the author of this confusion.

➡ Reggie begs God to feed him. The Holy Spirit is always feeding His flock, those He indwells (1 Jn. 2:27). We are filled at salvation. Completely (Matt. 5:6). Someone that begs like this for God to feed him what to preach and is not filled, is very likely unsaved ("How to Kill an Evening Wolf," time 28:00)

➡ When a passage is teaching salvation, or the evidence of salvation, or contrasting true believers with false (lost) — which is both salvation and evidence there of, it means exactly that. It doesn’t have a two-fold interpretation, like how Kelly treats Rom. 8:1-14, which typically stems from ignorance or protection of aberrant theology (in this case, the “carnal Christian” theory). The meaning is within the words, and the words define themselves. God doesn’t work in a way that circumvents the Bible and I don’t think He is very happy when we do that.

➡ False teachings on the old nature and new nature, and the flesh. We have only one nature after salvation. Spiritual. The old man is crucified (Rom. 6:6; Gal. 2:20). The following passages he uses below are misused and misapplied concerning this: Rom. 8:7-8; Gal. 5:19-21. I Jn. 5:18; 2:15; 5:4. Rom. 8:7-8 are describing lost people, NOT another nature in the saint. Saved people do not love the world (1 Jn. 2:15) and all overcome the world at salvation (1 Jn. 5:4). There is a conflict after occurs after salvation, but nothing of the kind described by Kelly. Every human being is either spiritual (saved) or natural/carnal (unsaved). Those are the only two natures, and no human being on earth contains both natures. You have one or the other.

Thus loads of error on the flesh and the spirit of the saved. Noted in Bible lesson on Regeneration and many sermons. He places way too much emphasis on the flesh of the believer, when its dead and crucified (Rom 6), something he doesn’t teach. The believer is not in the flesh but in the Spirit (Rom. 7:5; 8:1-14). His flesh is crucified (Rom. 6). The carnally (fleshly) minded/walking person is lost (Rom. 8:1-14) but such teaching has never escaped from Kelly’s lips though the Bible is full of it.

In his Bible lesson on Regeneration ("1. The Conflict After Regeneration"), he claims the following passages on the flesh pertain to the saved person,while all of them are actually referring to the flesh of the lost person: Gal 5:18-19; Rom 3:12; 8:7-8; 1 Jn. 2:15; Jn 3:6.  It is heresy to pervert the meaning of Scripture and its a mark of a false teacher.

➡ False teachings on “unbelief.” He weaves in tons of Keswick theology (false sanctification and salvation) into his preaching. Examples: On the back of the misuse of Heb 11:6, he claims:

“Unbelief can be a characteristic of a saved person” (“How to Kill an Evening Wolf,” time stamp 22:45)

No it can’t be. Ever. This is a lie, a blatant, satanic life. Unbelief = unbeliever. "Unbelief" is Only a Characteristic of Unsaved People, Not the Saved.

➡ Believes Rom. 8:1-14 is describing two types of Christians, which is heretical to the extreme and really mind boggling, since it is so easy to discern the understanding of the text. Rom. 8:6 interpreted as being only referenced towards Christians in a sermon on Apr 18, 2018, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with practical sanctification and everything to do with salvation. No wonder he likes the heretic Louis Sperry Chafer. Rom 8:6 is a contrast between unsaved and saved, "For to be carnally minded is death [unsaved]; but to be spiritually minded [saved] is life and peace."

➡ Heresies on backsliding. “I live backslidden. I don’t want to, but I do.” (“Esther Series – Secrets to Soulwinning”). Apparently he backslides perpetually. Well that’s just crazy because backsliding refers ONLY to lost people in Scripture. The term means to apostatize. Backsliding is a Keswick currency, along with Lukewarm and Carnal. It’s use is unscriptural with true believers. The term refers to lost Israel who did not believe what the prophets preached, while close to the truth. Like those in the wilderness. Not even one place in Scripture is it ever used towards true believers. See Saved People Don't Backslide - They Are Not Apostates.

➡ This type of confusion, incongruity and incompatibility between what the saved person is and isn’t, was found throughout this sermon and flooded throughout most of his other sermons (e.g. between the old nature and the new nature; between light and darkness; using language towards believers attributed to lost people in Scripture, such as unbelief and backsliding; teaches the heretical two-tiered “Christianity” and two-types of Christians found nowhere in Scripture, by for example, wresting Rom 8:1-14; etc).

False Teachings on the Doctrine of Preservation and the KJV of the Bible

➡ In a post on Facebook (FB) in 2021, Kelly claimed the very words that God inspired, that of the Hebrew and Greek, are “garbage” (Aug 11, 2021). The words that God breathed out, the very words of life and grace and a source of eternal comfort for many, are "garbage." Apparently those that believe God inspired and preserved His Word in Hebrew and Greek are “false believers” according to Kelly. Anyone that thinks these original language texts are greater than the KJV (a translation), is a false believer and heretic according to Kelly. This practice of denigrating the original language Bible Texts (which Bibles continue to be with us today, since God has promised the preservation of His Word and His promises are without fail), and exalting a translation over the text it was translated from, is a very common practice for this man. Even though it’s unBiblical and blasphemous, it denominates his emotional frothing-at-the-mouth preaching, noted in many FB posts and sermons, two of which we will mostly refer to here: “Beware of Leaven” (Nov 15, 2020) and “Don’t Sell Your Vineyard,” both of which are extremely heretical and blasphemous sermons.

➡ In the sermon "The Devils Favourite Verse" (Feb 7, 2021), Kelly terribly slanders and blasphemes the Greek and Hebrew Texts, the very inspired, breathed words of God, which he refers to as "leaven," warning his listeners, “Now these are all leavens that Jesus says to beware of.” Wow. Not only a wicked lie, and blasphemous (since God's Word is eternal, life giving and greater than His own name—Ps 138:2), he makes Jesus into a liar as well, which is plain evil. He does this so often concerning this subject, it is like breathing fresh air for him. Has he no fear of God?! This is absolutely terrible and frightful since God inspired His Word in those two languages, and has persevered His Word till this day in those very same languages as promised (the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus) from which the KJV translators primarily translated in 1611.

➡ In another sermon entitled “Beware of Leaven,” we enter into some pretty awful heresy. It was really really bad. There he makes a mockery of the inspired Word of God and completely corrupted the doctrine of preservation, while claiming to believe in the preservation of Gods Word. He blasphemously mocked and scorned and hissed and spat at the inspired Word of God and at those who believe that God inspired and preserved His Word in Greek and Hebrew just like the Scripture says He would, claiming that this is “Sadduceeism” and “Phariseeism” and “intellectualism” and “rationalism" and “putting the mind above the Bible.” Obviously he doesn’t understand what those words mean, since words have meaning, nor does he understand the doctrine of preservation in the Bible. God didn’t double inspire His Word. He didn’t wait till 1611 to bring us His Word. God says His Word is eternal and will never fade way, in fact heaven and earth would disappear before even a jot or tittle would pass away (that’s the smallest vowel in the Hebrew alphabet ironically), so where was God’s Word on earth before 1611? All this from Kelly is ridiculous blasphemous garbage concocted by men like Peter Ruckman a ravening wolf in sheep’s clothing, and completely distorts and denies the inspiration and preservation of God’s Word. In this sermon he doesn’t only corrupt and pervert perfect preservation and inspiration of Scripture but also the leaven of the Pharisees. His position is actually completely untenable with Scripture and contradictory to both Scripture and the actual position of the KJV translators themselves. They would be rolling in their graves if they could hear this. God did NOT preserve His word in the English language of the KJV but in the language that He said He would, which is the language He inspired His Word in. Reg Kelly, you “art the man” who denies the preservation of God’s Word, and denies “that God Almighty can persevere His Word even though He said He will persevere His Word,” and “denies the supernatural” and does not actually believe in the sure and steadfast promises of God but makes a mockery of them. He mockingly and scornfully asks “Whose Greek you are going to follow? Whose Hebrew you’re going to follow?” The answer? The very same Greek and Hebrew that the KJV translators did, the same one they used to translate the KJV, the very same one that God said He would preserve forever. Those. The KJV translators for the most part were pious and brilliant men and every last one of them knew that God had inspired and persevered His Word in the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Received Text. They would laugh at Reg Kelly’s preaching and rebuke him sharply and proclaim him a heretic (Ti 3:10-11).

If Kelly is right, where was the infallible Word of God prior to 1611? What did the churches do from the time of the apostles until the 17th century? And what did they do before Peter Ruckman came upon the scene to create this doctrine, because it is certain that no one taught it at an earlier date? And if Kelly is right and the Lord slammed the door of revelation in 1611 and if the KJV was “infallible” and “inerrant” in 1611, why is the edition we use today revised? If the KJV was inerrant in 1611 that would seem to mean that even the italics and spelling and punctuation was perfect, yet it was modified in thousands of places. Between 1762-69 an extensive revision was carried out by Cambridge and Oxford Universities. The majority of the changes pertained to the correction of printing errors (e.g., “seek good” in Ps 69:32 was changed to “seek God") and updating spelling (such as dropping the Old English “e” after the verb --- feare, blinde, sinne) and expanding the use of italics.

➡ Kelly's sermon “Don’t Sell Your Vineyard” is a convoluted exercise of heresy and perversion of biblical truth at the highest level, yet highly exalted by heretical man-worshippers like Tim Krahn. It is loaded with error and heresy, bordering blasphemy. He makes a mockery of those who hold to Gods doctrine of inspiration and preservation. The first half of this sermon is excessively unscriptural and erroneous. Kelly severely undermines and denigrates God’s inspired and preserved Word in the Hebrew Masoretic Text and Greek Textus Receptus from which the KJV is translated from. He claims that the King James Bible and the Greek and Hebrew Bibles “are not an equal authority.” (time 22:10–25:00), and twists Matt. 6:24 (“no man can have two masters”) completely out of its actual meaning to support his position (apparently the two masters in Kelly's convoluted world of allegorical perversion is the Hebrew/Greek Text and the KJV Text-- you can't serve these two master according to Kelly, which would be laughable if it wasn't so serious: the passage has absolutely nothing to do with this). It appears Reg does not understand this subject or the doctrine of preservation or inspiration, nor that copies of originals have the same value as the actual originals. His preaching on the doctrine of preservation was one massive mockery and slander of this very doctrine and of the very languages that God inspired His Word in (Hebrew, Greek and some Aramaic). The entire sermon was based on eisegetically interpreting the text from 1 Kings 21 on Naboth’s vineyard, but that has nothing to do with Bible preservation or selling out the KJB which didn’t even exist in that day.

Excerpts from “The Doctrine of Preservation.” He defines preservation:

“The Bible truth that, irregardless of languages, “manuscripts”, or translations . . . God has promised to “preserve”, to maintain His Holy Word, pure and perfect, unto all generations, and has done it.”

This is some serious confusion. How would God preserve His Holy Word unto all generations, that very Word that is ONLY in written format, without preserving the copies of the original? If He didn’t, then those promises aren’t true. But Kelly is excessively confused about the doctrine of preservation. He doesn’t make sense to any degree and this statement is seriously convoluted.

False Interpretation of Scripture, Allegoricalizing Scripture, and Handling Gods Word Deceitfully.

He is a master of spiritualizing/allegorizing, and other forms of a subjective approach to scripture. There is a lot of scripture manipulation, misinterpretation, misuse and abuse taking place in his teaching and preaching. Words have meanings. Scripture means something. The gospel means something. For someone to come along and twist these things out of their true meaning and advance false doctrine is behaviour of the accursed (Gal 1:6-9) and a work of the wicked (2 Pet 3:16-17), and they must not be tolerated even for an hour (Gal 2:4-5),

He handles Gods Word deceitfully by proof texting Scripture, by misusing and falsely interpreting a mass of Scripture. The following Scripture is a small sample: Book of Ruth; Book of Esther; Ps. 32; Pr. 10:18; Jer 17:9; Matt 10:32-39; 16:24-16; Mk 8:34-38; Lk. 9:23-26, 57-62; 10:27-29; 14:15-15:32; Jn. 3:6; 6:60-66; 12:24-26; Rom. 3:12; 4:6-8; 8:6-7, 7-8; Heb. 11:6; Jam. 4:7-8; 1 Jn. 2:15; Is. 64:6; Gal 5:18-19, 19-21; 2 Cor 3:6-18;

Everyone of these passages is corrupted and wrested by Kelly but it’s only a very small sample of many many more. In fact, nearly every passage of Scripture is corrupted in some form or fashion by him.

Luke 15:11-22. Falsely teaches that Lk 15:11-22, the so-called prodigal son, is equally applicable to all people, whether saved or lost ("Don't Sell the Farm," Sept 25, 2011). This is heresy, a damnable heresy since Luke 15 is a declaration on how to be saved.

Book of Esther. Allegoricalizes the entire Book of Esther and the Ark with typology that doesn’t exist in Scripture and taking great liberty with God’s Word that the Holy Spirit doesn’t give. His preaching on the Book of Esther is a spiritualizing disaster. Allegoricalizing God’s Word itself is unscriptural.

Book of Ruth. This is his favourite book because he gets to make it mean whatever he wants to, spiritualizing nearly every verse in the short book. Or maybe its the part where Ruth lies at the feet of Boaz that he really likes, since he spends a fair amount of time on this section of the book, and then turns it into an x-rated story.

John 6:60-66. In Kelly's sermon “Will Ye also go away,” he misuses Jn 6:60-66 (time stamp 18:00) to illustrate the disciples that were actually false "believers" that had left Christ, who had apostatisized since they had never actually been born again, they were counterfeits and departed from Christ when they got offended over His preaching (reflecting the stony soil: Matt 13) that they were actual Christians, this is what Kelly claims, whereas this passage and the rest of John 6 and the Book of John and the other three Gospels for that matter, are all about salvation and the people in Jn 6:66 were unsaved, period. Word's couldn't be clearer: "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." (Jn 6:66). There is an important reason why Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are called “The Gospels.” They aren't called "The Sanctifications." This chapter and passage in particular is all about salvation, ONLY on salvation and on how to be saved. Later in the same sermon he again creates even more serious confusion about what Christ is preaching in this chapter of John 6 (time stamp 32:00). Nearly every single teaching on salvation in Scripture is perverted by Kelly.

When Peter warned about the "error of the wicked" wresting the Scriptures, not understanding "some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction," in 2 Pet 3:16-17, this is exactly what and who he was referring to.

Romans 4. In the sermon "The Vocabulary of Salvation" (Dec 16, 2007) he refers to Rom 4 as the language of sin for Christians. Yikes. The language of Rom 4 is actually salvation. Only. From verse 1 to 25. At time stamp 51:30, he explains why Abraham is first mentioned before David in Rom 4: Abraham’s account was for salvation while David’s after salvation. He separates Rom 4 into salvation and post salvation, which is heresy. Not one thing anywhere in the text indicates what he is saying here. Then he claims Psalm 32 was not his salvation but after sinning with Bathsheba. He wrote this after sinning with Bathsheba, Kelly claims. He is horribly corrupting Rom 4 and Ps 32. It’s incredible how he has to corrupt Rom 4 to support his preconceived agenda. Rom 4:6 says specifically how David’s account here (Ps 32) is the same as Abraham’s, so if Abraham is about salvation than so is David: “Even as David…” Kelly however rejects the truth for his own made up, preconceived lies.

Time stamp 54:20: Speaking about sin committed after salvation, “But we’re so dishonest as Christians we can’t even admit what sins we commit after we’re saved. And we’re not free.” Thats just plain heresy and a diabolical lie. Every true believer is free forever (Rom 6; Jn 8:31-36). Demonic teaching since salvation does exactly free us. “Rom 4 deals with this, and That’s why He gave us Abraham and David, both situations are dealt with, the root of sin and the fruit of sin.” Plain heresy.

Allegoricalism heresy:

“Abraham cut the animal in two, shed it’s blood and walk between the two pieces but Abraham went to asleep and didn’t get it done and who walked between the two pieces and it was a picture of Jesus Christ between the two thieves at Calvary. Abraham woke up and just believed but God did it all.”

Jeremiah 17:9. Quotes Jer 17:9 towards Christians. Corrupting scripture and denying salvation.

Genesis 42. Joseph and his brothers are allegoricalized (spiritualized). At time 14:35 of "How the Sinner Can Be Saved" sermon he allegoricalizes the brothers (in this case they were unsaved, in his bounce back and forth concerning their spiritual nature) going to Egypt to buy corn as a man attempting to buy salvation, when nothing of the sort is even remotely present in the text. It doesn’t even make sense. They had no food. Physical food. They were starving so they went to Egypt to buy corn. Thats it. He is simply adding to Scripture what he wants it to mean, falling under the condemnation of Pr 30:6, "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

At time 65:45 he does more spiritualizing of scripture, applying the words of Joseph “Cause every man to go out from me” (Geb 45:1) to all people, family, priests, pastors, to get out and let Christ deal with the sinner alone. What??

There is absolutely no correlation and he is stretching scripture where there is no liberty to do such. This isn’t interpreting and expositing scripture exegetically, the only God-honouring method of interpretation, but represents the heretical eisegesis of scripture, which is putting in what he forces it to mean, reading into the text what he wants it to say and then to make matters worse, spiritualizing the passage, creating a typology that doesn’t exist. The Holy Spirit does not teach like this, at all. It is not of God.

The Bible promises that God would lead His saints into all truth, and that the Word, all of His words, are truth (Jn. 16:13, 17:8, 17).

Born again believers “have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.” (2 Cor. 4:2). Professing believers that do not renounce the hidden things of dishonesty and craftiness and handle the word of God deceitfully, are not saved according to this passages and further buttressed by the two passages that follow (2 Cor. 4:3-4).

What he calls expositing Scripture is not expositing by any means, not the actual practice or allegiance to what the verses say. Which is why Kelly imposes his views and opinions on these scriptures (actually a fairly common practice of his) and they need to be freed from such wresting. The Bible should be read and taught according to what it truly says. That requires study, right division, and expositing scripture exegetically, not eisegetically. That helps us to know and then to better understand God's words. If Gods Word is butchered is God the Spirit in it? So the Holy Spirit teaches and propagates error and wresting of His Word? The Spirit of Truth does not circumvent His Truth and teach something contrary to His Truth. Is all this worthy an “Amen!”? Is that good, sure, true, trustworthy to the truth of Scripture?

Reg Kelly is an ear tickler. He doesn’t preach expository or exegetially. Screaming and hollering things from the pulpit that don’t line up with what Scripture says. When someone is done preaching, we should know what God said. That is God's Word — what God said. The meaning of the text is a basic, a fundamental, in that. Scripture is perspicuous and not muddled with multiple interpretations and meanings. God's Word is plain and perspicuous, and its every word is important since we are to live by every word (Matt. 4:4). If the meaning of Scripture is mangled, is the Holy Spirit in it? God doesn’t work in a way that circumvents the Bible.

This seriously heretical system of allegorical interpretation was invented by an ungodly apostate by the name of Origen and this heretical methodology has resulted in untold amount of false doctrines, false systems, false practices and even entire cults. Most of what Roman Catholicism has produced as their dogmas, resulted from allegoricalism. Every single cult, including among the lost works-based Mennonite groups like Old Colony and Sommerfelder and the Amish, allegroicalism runs as the supreme method of interpretation. But it is not the system by how God the Spirit teaches. He teaches truth equally to all He indwells, and does not change the meaning of scripture between people (1 Jn. 2:20-21, 27; Jn. 14:17; 15:26; 16:13). The allegoricalist, is not so much concerned about each word and passage, but mere thoughts and interpretations in isolation and forming his own interpretations based upon his own mind or teacher, completely changing the meaning of passages of Scripture. He becomes the authority now, not the Triune God. Under the method of spiritualization, there is no way for an interpreter to test the validity of his conclusions, except to compare his works with that of another person. Instead of “a more sure word of prophecy” (2 Pet. 1:19), interpreters end up with an ‘unsure’ word and chaos in the ranks, all in complete contrast to God, who is not the author of confusion, and in contrast to such passages as 1 Cor. 14:29, “Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.”

Interpreting the Bible allegorically destroys the absolute sense of God’s Word. God gave the Scripture to reveal truth to man, not to hide it or confuse it (De. 29:29). He therefore used the normal rules of human language in giving and teaching His Word. God the Son made it clear that Scripture is to be interpreted literally (Pr. 8:8-9; 22:20-21; Lk. 10:25-26) and He always interpreted literally by example and likewise expected man to interpret in a literal fashion. The Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles used many passages of OT Scripture in quotes and in prophetic fulfillment (around 700x) and they always interpreted literally and in context, rightfully dividing the Word of truth. There was absolutely no spiritualizing of scripture anywhere. The apostle Peter likewise made it clear that Scripture must be interpreted literally (2 Pet. 1:16-21). The literal method of Bible interpretation is the only godly and faithful method. It produces and is the product of faithfulness to diligent, studious, Bible learning and teaching (Pr. 9:9; 15:28; 16:21, 23; 2 Tim. 2:15) with the Holy Spirit as Teacher (1 Jn. 2:20-21, 27; Pr. 8:8-9; 22:20-21). The literal sense of Scripture must rule. Every word must be taken at its primary literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context clearly indicate otherwise. This is the basic rule for understanding any literature at all, but strangely for some reason when it comes to God’s Word, the allegorical often overrides common sense. Even among the secular, no sensible person would interpret correspondence the way many professing Christians do, in spiritualizing (allegoricalizing) Scripture. If the Bible does not mean exactly what it says, there is no way to discern exactly what it does mean. A literalist is very careful of every word and passage, because he believes that God preserved His inspired Word, and that each word matters. Careful attention must be given to the choice of words and grammar and syntax of the sentence and then context. God inspired every Word of Scripture, including the tittles and jots. The exact words are there on purpose because God chose them and spoke them. Hence the importance of also studying the underling inspired Scripture from which the KJV was translated, the Hebrew Masoretic Text and Greek Textus Receptus. The literalist makes God the centre; the allegoricalist makes man.

Compromise, Pragmatism and Manipulation of Scripture to Fit a Position

Concerning Women

➡ In a sermon that should have been titled after his daughter, maybe something like “Defending Hannah Going to Jefferson City” but was mistitled “Woman in Culture” (preached Feb 8, 2026 evening), he goes to bat for women in positions of authority over men, because his daughter has been a politician in the Missouri senate over the previous 8 years. The entire sermon was in defense of her position, even though he kept gaslighting the congregation with little quirks about Hannah being warned not to come to the sermon, as he just might be preaching something she might find hard to hear (she was in the audience). Reality was actually a lot different. He said nothing that she would have found offensive, but rather preached consistently in defense of her unBiblical position. He turned this sermon into some sort of comedy routine bashing the scripture making a mockery of God's authority. This is not the Spirit of the Holy Ghost.

He considers women in the workplace with authority over men to be a "doubtful disputation," and thus with all his corruption and twisting of the truth, he also becomes guilty of corrupting Rom 14:1, which reads: "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations." Its not difficult to see his perversion, corruption and twisting of this passage, which has zero application to this issue of woman exercising authority over men. The entire chapter of Rom 14 concerns food and holidays/holy days, which we are not to judge. Kelly is declaring that one should not be judging a womans position in the workplace. W🤯W! Behind him in this sermon he had written up a dry erase board concerning his preaching on "women in culture," including the words “doubtful disputation,” a further effort to persuade the congregation that this matter was a "doubtful disputation." In other words, it could be yea or nah, depending on what way the wind is blowing that day. Gods word means something one day and then something entirely different the next.

Hannah is a real estate broker that has authority in the workplace over one of the unelected (another serious issue with this church, no elected elders) elders in the church. She has been a Missouri congress women with a dismal voting record. Reg made it sound as if no man would step up to run for the Senate position but the truth is, she had four male opponents on the Republican ticket.

In his argument for her unBiblical position, Kelly claimed that since his daughter was single so she had better positional authority than a married woman to run for senate. This is pure pragmatism and disobedience to Scripture, and corruption of Scripture that does not differ in authority whether a woman is single or married. There is no difference. NO woman is to have any authority whatsoever over a man, whether in the church, in the home or in the work place. NONE. We cover this subject in greater detail in this report. In his pragmatic stretching of scripture, he attempted to claim that scripture supports a woman in prohibited positions because of life circumstance. In other words, life’s circumstances are bigger than God and His Word/will. A church that compromises with this heresy has been overcome by the culture of the world. And that would be unsurprising concerning Liberty Faith Church, since Kelly’s gospel is corrupted and his pews hold many unregenerate false pretenders, “that have a form of godliness” but their lives deny it (2 Tim 3:5).

In the same sermon, he wrested the scriptures to proclaim that a daughter that doesn't live in his home is still under his headship, another maneuver to justify his position that she was allright being in a governmental position that exercised authority over men.

➡ His blatant disobedience to Gods Word is not a new development. This has been going on since the beginning of his “ministry.” He acknowledged that he allows women to talk in the church when he shouldn't. He details in the same sermon, decades ago when he apparently couldn’t find a man for the position of principal at their church school, or rather no man would step up to do that job (his words), he “had to” hire a woman. If the school had been in God's will, God would have provided a man to run it. So the school wasn’t in Gods will, but in Reg Kelly’s will. Maybe his position in Liberty Faith Church as well?

➡ Kelly claims that the mission field is filled with women because there is not enough men to do the job, so that then makes it okay for women be working as missionaries in the field, in the position of a man. Once again if God was in the work, he would provide the workers in a biblically supported way. This reflects a double-minded complete lack of faith in a God powerful enough to provide the needs of the mission field. And if there just aren't men to do the job because men aren't being saved, then you don't send anyone.

Concerning God's Will

➡ Speaking about the will of God, another means whereby he proof texted scripture and twisted scripture to support his heresy His perverted attempt of dividing Gods will into His perfect will and His permissive will was to booster his argument of women being in the role of men. He tried to claim that the scriptures support this fable but he couldn’t quote any scripture to actually support it.

Promotes Compromisers and Heretics.

Ecumenical and unscriptural associations—embraces, associates and fellowships with deeply compromised men (at very best) and heretics (as long as they got da KJV), even having them preach in his “church,” and also produces heretics.

Bill Gothard.

Reg Kelly endorses and highly promotes Bill Gothard, a serial sexual molester and pedophile and doctrinal heretic to his own congregation and online audience. In 2014, he stepped down from IBLP after 34 women accused him of sexual harassment and molestation, with some incidents allegedly occurring when the victims were minors ("Conservative leader Bill Gothard resigns following abuse allegations").

Nothing like recommending a ravening wolf in sheep’s clothing from the pulpit. That’s what Reg Kelly does in his sermon “Keep the Fire Burning” (Sept 26, 2020) for most of the first 6 mins, strongly encouraging the people in the church and online to partake in a program by Bill Gothard loaded with error and scripture wresting (such as salvation and sanctification false doctrine, psychology, demon-deliverance, inner healing heresy, ‘chain of command’ evil, charismaticism, ecumenicalism with plenty of other heretics and wolves, reconstructionist / dominion heresies, etc, etc), which was created and taught and purveyed by a man who is clearly a wolf in sheep’s clothing (hundreds of reasons including the fact he is a pedophile, a serial sexual molester of young girls, and a serial fornicator with other woman).

This he did in the beginning of the sermon "Fire on the Brazen Alter" (Sept 26, 2020), going on for about 5 mins selling Gothards allegedly life changing great program of Life Principles to the congregation. That is a travesty of Biblical justice for a number of reasons.

Founder of the Institute in Basic Life Principles, a homeschooling ministry. Gothard is the author of the publication, “How to Overcome an Addiction to Rock Music.” Now 81, Gothard resigned from the IBLP ministry in 2014 after more than 30 women had alleged that he had molested and sexually harassed them while working with them, including some who were minors. Bill Gothard has never married. Major points of heresy: (1) Graduate and employee of the exceedingly heretical Wheaton College. (2) Focuses on family ministry while never being married and having a family for himself. A coach that has never played the game. (3) A serial sexual molester, grooming and molesting young girls. (4) Evil indoctrination into control and unBiblical submission. (5) Truck loads of twisting, wresting and misuse of Scripture, to fit his own purposes, which is always an error of the wicked (2 Pet 3:16-17). (5) Loaded with false teachings and doctrines of devils including psychology, demon-deliverance, charismaticism, ecumenicaliam (yoking with anyone regardless of their heresies and lost estate), reconstructionist/ dominion heresies, etc.

Larry Brown.

Brown pastored Marion Avenue Baptist Church for 30 years, which continues to be his sending church as an evangelist. This is a deeply compromised church. Brown, is a mentally disturbed actor yet preaches very frequently at LFC, at the very least annually at their annual spring camp meeting. His preaching is bad theatrics and does nothing to convert the heart of a lost man because it's not the Word of God that he teaches but cheap theatrics. I would drive by a thousand churches like this to find one that truly exposites the Word of God. Brown is adored by Reg Kelly and that speaks volumes.

➡ Brown is a 💯% Jack Hyles guy, walking or working alongside him while he was alive, claiming him as his hero, having spent many years at Hyles heretical pastors school, which point alone is enough to flee. Hyles is one of the most dangerous wolves you will ever come across. His gospel was horribly false (the benchmark of quick prayers & easy believism, hatred for repentance even writing books against it), he taught many damnable heresies and his sermons & books are literally loaded to the brim with false doctrine, heresy & blasphemy. Its very bad. I have plenty of proof of all this, none of which is hidden in a corner, and here also is a good read of some of that: https://www.wayoflife.org/free_ebooks/hyles_effect.php. Here is another page loaded with info including video clips (no endorsement of the site): https://christianjournal.net/church/beware-of-the-wolves-in-sheepskin-the-snakes-that-run-our-churches-exposed-the-truth-about-the-jack-hyles-pastor-army/. Browns relationship with Hyles makes them one and the same, for “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3).

➡ Brown, like Hyles, purveys and preaches a false gospel of 1-2-3 pray after me quick prayerism and easy believism, rejecting the true gospel by rejecting true repentance and Christ’s Lordship. He not only denies these critical elements, he scorns and mocks them. His false gospel also includes no evidence of salvation, no-fruit & no-change necessary. Even further, the silly carnival atmosphere that he creates with major manipulation of the audience, turning evangelism into a type of salesmanship that is all about the numbers (and I mean serious numbers as this sermon also reflects, claiming “thousands” have been saved and over 400 one weekend with their live Christmas show), which further exposes his false gospel and salvation doctrine. I have also read many testimonies of the empty and feigned professions of majority of Browns so-called converts (and of those in that camp).

➡ Brown embraces heretics, never criticizing wolves in sheep’s clothing that are his friends (which actually contradicted this sermon) such as Jack Hyles and his successor at First Baptist Church of Hammond, IN, Jack Schaap (who is presently in prison for sexually molesting a young girl) who was even a worst wolf in sheep’s clothing than his father-in-law Hyles (you can read about Schaap in the above book by Cloud, starting p. 93). Brown fellowshipped with Schaap while he was preaching perverted and blasphemous doctrine and continuing the man-worship and false gospel of Hyles and would not take a stand against Schaap though he knew of all of it.

➡ Browns is a great story teller but a terrible expositor of God’s Word. His preaching is bad theatrics and does nothing to convert the heart of a lost man, for it's not the Word that is being preached exegetically but cheap theatrics and unscriptural story telling. The sermon on Blowing the Whistle on Wolves is a prime example. Here is another example where Brown tells a Scary Story, and another one on Toe Kissing.

➡ In his sermon “Submission brings Submission,” Brown claims that God submits to man.

➡ Brown is a maniluator and deceiver. in this sermon, Brown Demonstrates How To Manipulate People.

➡ Brown does not take a biblical view of sanctification. He preaches many aspects of the two-tiered second blessing Keswick/Higher Life theology.

➡ Brown is excessively man-centred and demands blind unquestioning and non-testing loyalty to the pastor, which is hugely unscriptural, tyrannical and a recipe for horrible disaster. The sermon Blowing the Whistle on Wolves is a great example of that (noted especially in this version of that sermon ).

➡ Consider some very serious concerns about this go-to sermon of his preached repeatedly, Blowing the Whistle on Wolves:

1. Brown exalts at least two wolves in sheep clothing, Curtis Hutson and Clarence Sexton (Hutson for sure, possibly also Sexton), in a sermon ironically on blowing the whistle on wolves.

2. Brown corrupts and misuses practically all scripture references in the sermon (which are in fact never more than a few in any of his sermons — men like Brown don’t preach expository but tell stories or scream them), including 2 Th. 3:6 and Rom. 16:17.

3. Brown exalts and worships bigness, lots and lots about the bigness of big churches and big men, including himself, even though he is short of stature. He brags on the hundreds that were saved here and there through him and how he is running thousands in his church, and other big boys. Examples. So and so has “around 1,100,” another “running around 2,500,” and yet another “running about 600 or 700,” “this past year … we had 4,600 visitors over the weekend and 6 sit-ins (speaking of his live Christmas show) . . . including old order Amish of which over 400 were saved.” One brother “helped several revivals in our church went to California and helped build a church running 1,500.” One church he helped was “running 3,000 people.” Man-centred pastors are all about bus routes as well, which he speaks highly of. He mentions one individual whom he wouldn't mention by name specifically stated so (which is always concerning and man-centred): “his picture was always in the Sword of the Lord, he was in some of the greatest churches in America.” This sermon is the epitome of man-centredness and man-worship and man-greatness. Nothing about any of this glorifies Christ but the belly, which is the very nature of the false teacher:

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” (Rom 16:17-18)

4. Brown appears to have no ability to discern the difference between the saved and the unsaved, clean and unclean, while the Spirit of God teaches His people “the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.” (Ezk 44:23). He gives an example of a pastors wife who attempted murder of self thrice by .22 but treated her as a true Christian person with no word of warning on her unsaved condition! Unbelievably, he even claims wolves are saved people! He says wolves live....

“dangerous lives … Now I am going to tell you something that your members may not like, I’m going to tell you something that you may not like, but I am going to tell you anyway … If you ever have a wolf attack, if a wolf ever tastes this preacher blood, you forgive him, if he won’t stay in the church and behave, love him. And let him do certain things, but don’t ever put him in charge of an adult class, don’t ever put him on a deacon board [deacon boards are unscriptural], don’t ever put one on staff, because he’s tasted preacher blood. I done told you something. ... Love him, forgive him, let him serve in different places, but don’t put him in a position where it hurts you if he turned on you again because he’s tasted preacher blood. Wolves live dangerous lives.” (time stamp 72:20).

What is this anyway?? Taste preachers blood?? Worse, he is actually claiming that wolves are saved people. Yet there are few things so clear in Scripture as wolves being lost! E.g. Matt 7:15-20; 10:16; Ac 20:28-30; 2 Cor 11:12-15; Gal 2:4-5; Phil 3:2, 18-19; etc.

5. Brown is a toxic preacher that mentally and emotionally manipulates and gaslights congregants. This entire sermon is the very epitome of manipulation. He even uses vulgar language in the sermon, describing one woman as “fat.”

6. Brown repeatedly pounds from the pulpit that unquestioning blind loyalty is to be given to pastors, especially those who hold to the KJB, giving example after example of rebuke and gaslighting threats to those that don’t. He screams to never speak against the pastor, never to critique him, and never even listen to critique of him! To speak against the pastor, is “crossing the line.” (time stamp 64:00). “I am going to tell you something friend, you better watch your attitude about what the man of God preaches, you are living a dangerous life, a real dangerous life.” (time stamp 52:25). No pastor is ever to be admonished, critiqued, or reproved regardless of his error or false doctrine or sin. Pointing to the pastor he screams, “if that man preaches a Bible [referring to whoever preaches out of the KJV] we are going to stay with the man of God and keep our mouths off of him. You will live happily and your children will live happy, I can tell you story after story after story, I can go on I’ve got a dozen stories, I can’t tell you all things I have come across...” at which time he expounds stories where God alledgedly took care of people as He did with Korah, people who dared to speak against error or sin of the pastot. (Side note—not everyone that preaches the KJV is a true preacher. Entire cults embrace the KJV such as the SDA). What Korah did was evil motivated by envy, but questioning a pastors or any other preachers teachings is NOT! Paul loved his teachings and doctrine being tested (Ac. 17:11; 1 Cor 10:15) and demanded it (1 Cor. 2:15; 10:15; 14:29; Phil 3:17), the evidence of a “wise man” (1 Cor 10:15). Paul included himself when he said if he taught a gospel contrary to the true gospel, he was accursed (Gal 1:8-9). Brown gives example after example of people suffering horrible things and even death because of allegedly questioning “the man of God.” (Every saved person by the way is a “man of God” — 2 Tim 3:16-17). In one example 19 out of 21 men died in one year, who were part of a Sunday school class where the teacher critiqued a sermon of the pastor. “You better watch what you say about God’s man!!!” (time 36:20). This is ungodly, unscriptural, fear-mongering and man-centred bad advice wholly contrary to Scripture (e.g. Lk 12:57; Ac 17:11; 1 Cor 2:17; 10:15; 14:29; 1 Th 5:21; etc) and likely one of the worst issues with this sermon. Its cultish. Even worst, it is demonic and meant to monger fear and stop people from obeying God’s Word concerning the very critical and serious matter of testing, judging, correcting and admonishing. Brown is putting himself and all other pastors on a pedestal that doesn’t exist. It is no shock there are so many false professing Christians in these type of churches today and wolve behind the pulpit. People are kept or turned into mere simple-minded puppets.

7. Ironically, a message about blowing the whistle on wolves is tested and tried by Scripture and shown to be one preached very likely by a wolf himself.

Missionaries Supported.

Liberty Faith Church has listed some missionaries that are deeply compromised and even heretical on their church website (https://www.libertyfaith.net/missionaries) Camp J-O-Y and Christian Law Association (David & Glorianne Gibbs), and who knows how many others.

He embraces heretics such as attorney David Gibbs whom their church also sponsors and has preach in their pulpit, and Larry Brown whom he also has preach in his pulpit and quotes heretics such as John Wesley and Louis Sperry Chafer in Bible study on salvation, which is ironic considering he actually taught a false repentant-less salvation just like Kelly. Neither one of these latter men according to Scripture were saved. They were definitely heretics. Both embraced a false gospel/salvation and false sanctification. Quotes AW Tozer who was loaded with false, damnable and mystical doctrine and lived a life of disobedience to Gods Word.

Let's consider Gibbs a but further.

David Gibbs Jr and ​the Christian Law Association.

Reg Kelly highly endorses and strongly promotes lawyer David Gibbs Jr. of Christian Law Association, the church also sponsoring the Christian Law Association, to such a degree that on April 1, 2020, a Wednesday evening service, instead of preaching a sermon himself he live streamed a sermon by Gibbs. In other words, he has him preach in his pulpit though he wasn't physically present. David Gibbs Jr. is also financially supported by LFC, a man who is a blatant man-centred ole-boys-club heretic and defender of ungodly sexual predators and wolves in sheep’s clothing. Both Gibbs and Brown were (are) defenders of the evil and ungodly and crooked wolf Jack Hyles and Jack Schaap. Both fellowshipped with Jack Schaap while he was preaching perverted doctrine, continuing the man-worship and false Gospel of Hyles, etc. Neither of these men would take a stand against his false doctrine and practice though they knew of it and were challenged to separate from it.

Gibbs is a Jack Hyles guy, right through. Lawyer Gibbs has a reputation for defending corrupt and immoral IFB men. In the video “The IFB Cover Up Machine” starting at time 08:40, you will see Gibbs defend the convicted child molester and pedophile A.V. Bellenger, a staff member of the church pastored by the wolf in sheep’s clothing Jack Hyles.

Caleb and Katie Garraway. Kelly and LFC sponsor Garraway. Wow, didn't see this one coming, but nevertheless unsurprised.

Behind Garraways video presentation on the "gospel," for what one can say is only for dramatic purposes, Garraway uses sappy, effeminate music, an easy listening type of elevator music but with dramatic crescendo and decrescendo pitches. Music however is no scriptural means for propagation of the gospel, including the music he uses. It contradicts biblical preaching. The gospel isn't an emotional appeal, arousing someone by means of music. Nowhere is that a method in scripture. God authorizes preaching alone — the sheer gospel (1 Cor 1:20; Rom 10:17; etc). The gospel really is good enough on its own. Adding to it says that you don't believe that. The additives don't help, and that would include the breathy-voiced, scrunched, overly sympathetic and sorrowful face, communication style too. They take away. They turn this into a human enabled endeavour. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Rom 1:16) but it doesn’t seem like that in this video.

All three points of his three-fold emphasis cannot be successful when the gospel is incomplete or corrupt; when revival is based on false teaching (revivalism for alleged saved people); or true and genuine restoration when the gospel is wrong and revival is wrong. Garraway does not mention repentance one time — not even once. Hmmm, like someone else we know. It is obvious that he doesn't believe that repentance is necessary to be saved. You just receive the gift, pray the prayer, just like Kelly. Lets consider some of the grievious errors of Garraways false gospel presentation that Kelly adores.

1. Presents salvation as taking or accepting the gift, found nowhere in Scripture. Ask for the gift he says, but Salvation is Never Received in Gods Word by Asking for the Gift.

2. No repentance. Garraway does not mention repentance one time — not even once. It is obvious that he doesn't believe that repentance is necessary to be saved. You just receive the gift, pray the prayer. God however has something totally different to say. There is no salvation without repentance, and repentance is much more than just saying the word. Repentance relates to believing. What we see today is the gospel dumbed and watered down to where Jesus only needs to be received as Saviour, not Lord. The two biggest ways that both "believe" and "Jesus Christ" are perverted today are related to one other. The gospel is corrupted when "believe" does not include true repentance and "Jesus Christ" does not include Him as Lord. If repentance is mentioned, its typically false where it becomes a mere change of mind or synonymous with faith. Jesus’ Lordship is thrown to the curb-side, and He becomes “another Jesus” (2 Cor 11:4). Jesus is the way to the Father (Jn 14:6). You can't get there going your way, and your way happens to be idolatrous and rebellious until then (Rom 1:18-32).

3. No Lordship. Garraway doesn't talk about who Jesus is. He actually doesn't even talk about "believing." He says, "Trust," which is one aspect of "belief," but no one would know that. He uses the word, Lord, but it's all about Jesus as Saviour and not anything about Him being Lord, even though Rom 10:13 does say, which he quotes a few times, “Call upon the name of the Lord." Not one mention of this most critical aspect of who Jesus Christ is, and thus salvation. Akin to this, is a perversion of surrender. Throughout his writings, such as his newsletters, he differentiates between those who trusted in Christ and those who surrendered their lives to the Lord, as two entirely different events. But this is a man-made doctrine, a man-made belief pulled pulled out of thin air. Such a contrast is found nowhere in Scripture and all scripture that relates to surrender is referring to salvation, not something post-salvation. This teaching is extremely convenient to keep the pews full of pew warmers feeding the coffer, but it doesn’t actually save their souls. In repentance we turn and believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, which involves receiving Jesus as Lord, which means to surrender to the King (Mk 10:21; Lk 14:25-35; 19:12-27; 23:40-43; Ac 9:3-6; 10:36; Rom 10:3, 9-13).

Why leave out important aspects of what believing means and who Jesus is? Much of what he says in the video is true, but leaving out two very important and essential components of the gospel, true faith and who Christ is, results in a corruption of the gospel and the gospel becomes less than what it actually is. It becomes a counterfeit and anemic gospel. Furthermore, practicing the abominable exercise of quick prayerism and easy believism corrupts the gospel to even a greater extent, making majority of people who follow the advice, two-fold further children of hell.

What Garraway does here should be hated (Ps 119:128). It's been turned into a game that is played. It has components of the real thing, but on many important, vital, necessary features, it is fiction. People need to know it and call it out. I hate this stuff, the whole method, the manipulation that it is and represents. I don't want anything to do with it. Garraway perverts the gospel of Christ. Does he preach another gospel than what Jesus and Paul preached? I believe he does. Neither do I want anything to do with those who would have anything to do with what Garraway is doing here. Do not promote him or men like him!!

Caleb is preaching after his own lusts, doing what Caleb Garraway wants to do and not after what Scripture says, which is the rebellion noted in those who have never received Jesus Christ as their Lord, and thus never been converted. That Garraway is preaching the same false gospel as Jack Hyles is unsurprising since after all he has stated many times that Jack Hyles is his idol and reason for being a pastor. Yikes. If that isn’t the most hideous man-centred thing one could hear, something that runs rank among IFB, I don’t know what would be. This also happens to paint an immediate bullseye on his back of wolf in sheep's clothing, just like his idol Hyles. That linked article exposes some of the truck loads of heresies and evil teachings that exited the mouth of master Hyles, who claimed that the future of America rested on his two shoulders. I guess Garraway is keeping the torch burning in Pulling for America. Unbelievably and so ironically, Garraway even uses Hyles as the narrator preacher in his short film “The Battle for Truth.” The glaring issue with that however is that Jack Hyles was a proven enemy of the truth, in every facet of the truth.

Please read the following expose on Caleb Garraway and The Gospel Film.

Jack Trieber.

This guy is about as man-centred and pragmatic as they get in the IFB. This guy is seriously bad news and is really as bad as the worst among the IFB. He is thoroughly corrupt and excessively heretical. Man-centred to the core. Filled with truck loads of heresy and man-centred cultish IFB behaviour. He was a close associate of the late Jack Hyles and preaches the same perverted gospel as Hyles. Trieber pastors North Valley Baptist Church in Santa Clara, California which has been riddled with scandals for decades, which they have been extremely skilled in concealing, until now (at least some). This video will highlight how “pastor”Jack Trieber attempted to cover up abuse against a minor by Cameron Giovanelli, the President of his church's college. None of this has stopped Kelly from exalting him and praising him before the congreation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBIOlmhNDA8

Kami Souder. 

This is a guy very likely from Liberty Faith church who posted a video online Sept 22, 2020, preaching at his worksite. Since he lives in that area and posts Kelly’s videos on his FB page, we will assume he attends the church Kelly pastors. In his 5 min gospel presentation he preaches the same shallow, watered-down, even false gospel kind pounded from the pulpit by Kelly, to which Kelly even commented: “God bless my friend! So appreciate your honesty and love for others!”

Although we always appreciate a guys courage to come out and witness to his friends and family, reaching out to them to be saved, and his emphasis on the awfulness of hell, unfortunately what he preached didn't line up with God’s Word and is insufficient to save, but it did line up with Reg Kelly's preaching. Hmm, wonder where he learned that. What he presented is more akin to the easy believism that runs rank in America and at Kelly's church, and has resulted in almost a blanket of heresy and pandemic of false converts over the nation. A person may claim to have a burden for lost people, but if he doesn’t preach what the bible says is needed to be saved, the people hearing him won’t be saved. He repeatedly uses the language of “accepting Christ” to describe salvation, but neither these words or the philosophy are actually found in God’s Word. He says all the one thief did was “accepted Christ, thats all one did was accepted Jesus into his heart.” No he didn’t. He repented and called upon Jesus Christ as Lord. Thats actually what he did. Nothing in Lk 23:40-42 even hints at the idea this guy is bringing across. The text reads:

“But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.”

He feared God. There is no salvation without fear of the Lord. He acknowledged and believed his sinful and wicked condition, and his just reward for his deeds. Again, no salvation without this, which ties into repentant faith. He acknowledged and believed that Jesus was God, just and perfect and sinless. In all this, he turned from his sins and self, even rebuking the other thief for his sinful and false philosophy (v. 39), and called upon Jesus as Lord, by faith. He humbled himself before God, and then God lifted him up and exalted him to heaven. That is conversion, not what Souder is preaching.

Souder claimed:

“All you have to do is accept Christ. Its the simplest thing in the world and I don’t understand why people have trouble doing it.”

Oh many do what he says here, but those same many are still unregenerate. The bible never describes the gospel as simple, as he means here. Nowhere. Its made up by false teachers who hated the true gospel and wanted to dumbify it down to get people into the same pickle they are in. To the question, “Lord, are there few that be saved?” Jesus answered: “Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” (Lk 13:23-24). Does that sound like “the simplest thing in the world”? Many that want to enter in will not be able to. There is nothing simple about that. True Biblical conversion is NOT the “simplest thing in the world.” Was it for the rich young ruler, who came to Jesus seeking eternal life but then refused to repent and surrender to Him, when Jesus told him to “go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.” (Mk 10:21). Was salvation “simple” for Saul of Tarsus? At his conversion, when Saul asked “Who art thou, Lord?” the Lord said “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.” (Ac. 9:5). Jesus is saying as much that salvation for Saul was not simple but hard: “It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.” God was pricking Saul’s heart, reproving and convicting him, God was working on him to turn and forsake his wicked sins including in the area of his persecution of the Lord Jesus Christ, to turn to this Jesus and be born again, but Saul was kicking against it. But then Saul went from hating the name of Jesus to calling Him “Lord”, from recognizing and acknowledging to submitting to Jesus as Lord. But it was a very tough row to hoe for Saul — He had to turn his back on all his standing, his reputation within his religious community, his authority and popularity as a zealous protector of the Jewish faith (see Phil 3:3-8). He had to seriously humble himself and give all that up and “count them but dung” (Phil. 3:8) that he might win Christ. And win that Pearl of great price he did! There are many more examples that could be given that confound the error being promoted in this false gospel of simplicity that is found nowhere in scripture but in the imaginations of men and heretics.

Although what he is presenting is the norm in modern evangelistic methodology, nowhere do we see Jesus or the Apostles doing this at all. Nothing even remotely like it. It isn't a method derived from the Bible. Nothing even like it is in the Bible. It isn't of God. It’s “another gospel” and “another Jesus” (2 Cor 11:4), which is a “perverted gospel” (Gal 1:6-9) & anyone who loves God would fear & tremble to corrupt or twist His gospel or Who He is. What's also evil about this is that it’s not at all in the Bible and yet presented like it is, totally misrepresenting God. Maybe thats why he never quoted any scripture. It gives people a false presentation of salvation, yes those very people he is burdened over. It falls short of telling his friends and loved ones Who Jesus is and how to be truly saved. It gives them a false impression about the relationship with Jesus that they are being invited to. It offers salvation without revealing how to truly obtain that salvation. Its a false finish line, which only makes the lost two-fold children of hell. What he said in the short sermon is more than likely the result of the repentant-less and Lord-less gospel that he hears being screamed from the pulpit of Reg Kelly

One last thing, a few times towards the end he claims that all Jesus wants from us is to “love Him, thats all He asks, just love him.” He claims,

“Paid your debt, for free, no exceptions, nothing else, all you gotta do is love him, thats all He asks, just love him. Would you turn that down?” (time stamp 5:30)

Again, he is misrepresenting God, and salvation here. He is speaking to lost people. God commands us to repent (Lk 13:5; Ac 17:30). God commands us to believe. Salvation is for the purpose of obedience to Him, for His glory, and salvation itself is obedience to the gospel. God wants us to obey Him, to submit to Him, for that is the ONLY way we can love God (Jn 14:21, 23-24; 1 Jn 2:3-5; 2 Jn 2:6). If we summarized what God wants from us in a one stop verse, we would go to Eccl 12:13, “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.” That is also the only way we can love God. “And this is love, that we walk after his commandments.” (2 Jn 1:6a). His fruitless and evidentless gospel is also the corrupt fruit of Reg Kelly.

Other Serious Error, False Doctrine and Unbiblical Practices.

False teachings on the devil.

Typical of man-centred fundamentalists, he says multiple times he is having a hard time preaching the sermon on "How to Kill an Evening Wolf" (a fancy clickbait title) but he doesn’t see it or blame it on the fact the Holy Spirit isn’t teaching this sermon to anyone since He doesn’t teach error or minister Scripture pervertedly. God the Spirit sits at the table of Truth only. Rather, he blames it on the devil. Go figure, a nice cop out. “I just figure the devil don’t like this message.” Just the opposite. He loved this message because its loaded with error. He gave all the credit to the devil, whereas God’s Word says greater is He that is in you then he that is in the world. The devil is overcome at salvation. He can’t touch the born again believer (1 Jn. 5:22). His last words in the message: “Boy, just seems like something’s missing, I don’t know what it is.” The truth? Salvation? The Spirit of God? Fanciful titles of sermons or screaming platitudes from the pulpit don't replace the truth of God's Word.

Kelly is good with adultery, accepting adulterous marriages into the church membership.

He is given allowance for sin in the church, i.e., adulterers and adulteresses (remarried divorcees). He has divorced and remarried people as members of his church, even up to 70% of the church roll at one time! In his sermon “Woman in Culture” (Feb 8, 2026 evening) he says he is okay with people divorcing and remarrying and in fact 70% of people in his church were divorced and remarried at one point (time stamp 27:00). Wow, how utterly wicked is that! Remarriage = adultery! 100% of the time! There is NOT ONE biblical provision for divorce and remarriage in scripture. NOT ONE! It is a wicked and sinful nature that lives in adultery while proclaiming to be “saved.” The gates of hell are blown wide open in the anticipated reunion of these deceived adulterers (Heb 13:4). This would actually then mean that at least 70% of the people are very likely unconverted while members at LFC, but that is beyond his ability. There could be the odd exception to this, but majority of those living in adultery are unregenerate charlatans, and the pastor who allows for it is a false teacher.

The hypocrisy so often seen is this: remarried couples can be members but the men cannot hold church positions. So on the one hand God must have nullified the marriage so that the newly married couple is allegedly not living in adultery because apparently God broke the covenant He made in the first marriage where He made the two into one flesh (Gen 2:24), so now allegedly they can become members of God’s local church because He has forgiven their sin of ongoing adultery and approved of their marriage — however, that all changes if they want to hold office in the local church where suddenly the annulment isn’t recognized anymore. Now the fact he has had more than one wife suddenly matters. Wow. Opps. Maybe it matters after all. The man-centered heretics who change God's Word to fit their fleshly agendas are wicked wolves in sheep's clothing and need a millstone hung about their neck. It's nauseating and makes us wanna projectile vomit all over the computer.

Remarriage is 100% of the time adultery, the Lord Jesus makes this crystal clear:

"And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." (Mk 10:11-12)

"So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man." (Rom 7:3)

The separated or divorced party has two options, ONLY two: Remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." (1 Cor 7:10-11)

There is ZERO allowance for remarriage when both spouses live, and to do so always constitutes adultery, continual adultery until the adulterous relationship ceases.

Keep reading here for the clear Biblical teaching on this subject, which true Bible believing historical Baptist/Anabaptist churches have always believed (prior to the wicked and apostate 20th century rolled upon us): Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage.

Unscriptural explanation on the cause of persecution.

Apparently persecution only comes from proclaiming Christ as the only way to heaven. God’s Word however says that all who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution (2 Tim. 3:12), which happens to be a major evidence of salvation, but none of that is ever taught by Kelly. We are persecuted for many reasons, not just the one that Kelly claims.

Heresies on Annointing.

Unscriptural language such as asking God to “anoint me (or you)” and give you “fresh oil.” For example:

“Anoint my lips, my heart” ("How to Kill an Evening Wolf")

“I pray that you give me fresh oil to preach with. . . . I pray you anoint me, give me unction to preach with” (“Being Born Again,” time stamp 00:50)

What does this mean? Not only is this unscriptural language, it also reveals how he perceives himself to be different or set aside from other believers, since only preachers can be “anointed.” EVERY SINGLE TRUE BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN IS ANOINTED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT (1 Jn. 2:20-21, 27).

"But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. . . . But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (1 Jn 2:20, 27)

The Heresies of Generational Curses. In the "revival" meetings attended by this author a number of years ago, Kelly claimed that curses can exist in the true Christians life. The bible is clear that lost people are under the curse of sin, NOT born again believers. Ever. Period. Pr. 3:33 is all the proof one needs,

"The curse of the LORD is in the house of the wicked: but he blesseth the habitation of the just."

Pastoral Disqualifying Actions and Beliefs

1. Kelly is a Pastor Preaching Unsound and False Doctrine and False Gospel, and a Habitual Corrupter and Wrester of God's Word.

• False gospel that omits repentance and Christ's Lordship.

• Corruption and perversion of tons of Scripture, including hundreds of passages on salvation.

• False doctrine including corruption of sanctification.

2. Kelly is a Pastor Above Reproof and Admonishment, Rejecting this Critical Element of the Christian Life and Pastoral Qualifcation.

In spite of the large amount of Scripture that proclaims saved people, the wise, will hear reproof and admonishment, while the unsaved will not, Kelly rejects reproof, rebuke and admonishment of concerns in his teachings. This subject is critical and it reflects not only whether a man should be pastoring, but also whether he is even saved to begin with.

“The ear that heareth the reproof of life abideth among the wise.” (Pr 15:31)

“A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident.” (Pr 14:16)

“A wise son heareth his father's instruction: but a scorner heareth not rebuke.” (Pr 13:1)

A godly preacher does not want “unquestioning loyalty,” nor not recieve reproof or challenges on his teachings. While no man enjoys reproof, a godly man knows that reproof is necessary:

“Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish” (Pr 12:1)

Like the Apostle Paul, any godly preacher is pleased when the people judge him and his message and his ministry properly and graciously by God’s Word (Ac 17:11; 1 Cor 10:15). Ac 17:11, "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Not with a critical spirit or carnal gossip or criticism based on personal opinion or ignorance. We are talking about a godly critique issued with spiritual wisdom in a compassionate attitude and based solidly upon the Scripture rightly divided by people who love Christ and have His glory in view. The Bereans are not called “noble” in Scripture because they gave blind loyalty to Paul. They are called “noble” because they tested Paul’s preaching by God’s Word. Not only were they right in doing so; they were exercising an essential and fundamental element of true spiritual ministry.

The false believer/teacher is exposed in James 3, where James contrasts the true teachers behaviour with that of a false pretender, who lies against the truth:

"Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there isconfusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy." (Jam 3:13-17)

The spirit of Reg Kelly is not meekness of wisdom but rather envying and strife in his heart, not pure, not peacable, not gentle, and definitely not easy to be intreated. It is also partial and with hypocrisy. Many examples could be given, here are a few of those.

➡ A couple that decided to leave Liberty Faith Church was asked by Reg Kelly why they were leaving. The man explained to Kelly in a very humble manner their scriptural reasons for leaving (e.g., soft gospel message he is preaching where Jesus saves and seals but does not change the man), and their reasons were scriptural indeed. The man had a godly attitude about their depature, gently and pleading, but Kelly got overwhelmed with a bad spirit and combative in his tone and then resorted to pour personal insults on the man. We know this to be the logical fallacy of ad hominem, and its always a strategy of false teachers. In his disgruntled attitude, Kelly asked the man if he was accusing him of preaching a false gospel, to which the man replied, yes, he was accusing him of exactly that. The conversation brought Kelly's salvation testimony under further examination and disrepair.

➡ Kelly won't even respond to humble and Biblical questions that challenge his positions, as this writer found out a number of years ago, sent multiple times to his personal email address but without reply. Here are the questions and you can judge for yourself how offensive they are and whether disregard was the proper course of action by Kelly. My intro was as follows: "Hello pastor Kelly, I hope this email finds you well, physically and spiritually. I appreciate much of your ministry and your stand in these last wicked days we’re in. I have a few questions that I sincerely pray you will answer, in the hope of understanding your doctrinal position a bit better." Followed by these questions:

1. Do you believe there are false disciples in Scripture? In some sermons I have listened to, it does not appear like that.

2. Do you believe praying is necessary for salvation?

3. Do you believe repentance is necessary for salvation? If you believe that, how would you describe repentance?

4. Do you believe that Jesus needs only be received as Saviour and not as Lord to be saved?

5. Do you believe Romans 8:1-9 is describing two types of Christians?

6. Can unbelief be a characteristic of a believer?

7. What does backsliding mean according to Scripture, something you say you live?

8. Do you believe that curses can be passed on through the generations?

9. Do you believe that God gave His Word by inspiration more than once?

10. What Scripture was God promising to preserve when He gave His promise of preservation? Is it possible to preserve something that doesn’t exist?

11. When you claim that the KJV is greater and authority over the Hebrew and Greek Bibles, do you reject Gods Holy inspired Word that He gave in the Hebrew and Greek tongue?

12. What do you mean when you ask God to “anoint you” and give you “fresh oil”? Is not every true believer anointed with the Holy Spirit?

13. I heard a sermon recently where you divided Romans 4 into two doctrines: salvation and post-salvation. You claimed Abrahams repentance represented salvation while David’s post-salvation, after sinning with Bathsheba. You also claimed that Psalm 32 speaks to this. Can you explain where in the text of either Rom 4 or Ps 32 do you see repentance after salvation, and where does it change from a context of salvation to one after salvation?

14. I have heard you highly endorse Bill Gothard to your congregation, an individual accused of sexually molesting a number of girls (some quite young) and one who teaches a fair amount of error in his publications. Can you support this endorsement from Scripture and do you not believe in the doctrine of separation? Is this not exceedingly dangerous?

I finished with: "Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing back from you."

Of course he would never respond, though it was sent twice.

Is he above reproach? The Bible makes it very clear that impartiality (respect of persons) is sin. We can’t have double standards. A pastor doesn’t have more leniency to what he can say. In fact, he is held to the highest standard of all, and thus requires even greater testing and judging. And that is what we also see in Scripture with the apostles. Paul commanded all believers to judge (1 Cor. 2:15; 5:1–6:5; 10:15; Phil. 3:2, 17-19; etc), which is judge righteously by the Word of God, and he commended those as noble and wise that did (e.g. Ac. 17:11; 1 Cor. 10:15).

3. Kelly has Difficulty Controlling his Spirit.

This was noted in the first section on his restless spirit and uncontrolled hillbilly preaching.

His screaming of unbiblical language from the pulpit (e.g. “man poppy cock,” “idiots,” “snowflakes,” etc) is the opposite of meekness,

In the sermon "Beware of Leaven" (time 30:20), he reveals he is always getting angry when something goes wrong. He justifies it. It runs in the human blood. He had “one big hill billy fit this week” (41:20).

The Bible makes it very clear that impartiality (respect of persons) is sin. We can’t have double standards. A pastor doesn’t have more leniency to what he can say.

4. Kelly Personally Disqualifies Himself, Self-Admitingly.

When he is talking about the position of bishop, he says he himself is not qualified. In one sermon he makes the statement that his lack of patience is a pastoral office disqualifer. His own words. He is right.

5. Kelly never warns of compromisers, heretics, false teachers, cults, false religious groups in their area as the Bible commands.

At best he warns in vague generalities without giving their names and specifically stating so. Instead he actually quotes them, such as in a sermon on wolves he should be warning about wolves, such as Louis Sperry Chafer, a ravening wolf in sheep’s clothing. Instead he reads and quotes these individuals (in his doctrinal notes).

The NT is replete with commands and demands to test, reprove, criticize, admonish, warn, expose, and the like, but those who corrupt and wrest the truth will have a big problem with this.