top of page

Beware of Spencer Smith

Updated: Dec 24, 2023

Although Spencer does put out some good warnings on error and false teachers, etc, my conscience in light of God’s Word says I must warn of him for a number of important reasons. He has some good warning videos and he is addressing things that most people wouldn’t, and I also like his affection for the confederacy and General Robert E. Lee, but the concerns obviously can’t be overlooked since they run contrary to Gods Word and are dangerous. We don’t eat the fish and spit out the bones. From what I see, I think I would like Spencer at a personal level. I’ve spent much time with folks from southern USA and have friends from there, saved and unsaved. I find Southern Americans very easy to like and get a long with and humorous. Interestingly, me and him share the same spiritual day of birth, only 4 years apart.

Yet, again, there are serious concerns that can’t be overlooked. The Bible teaches that we are to test all teachings (1 Jn 4:1, 6; Ac 17:11; 1 Th 5:21), expose those teachings that are false (Eph 5:11), to confront and rebuke the false teachers (Ti 1:9,13), and then separate from those who persist in false teaching (Rom. 16:17; Ti. 3:10; 1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 Jn. 1:9-11), lest in the end, we are disqualified for service (2 Tim. 2:20-21), or worse yet, we are identified with the false teachings and the false teachers themselves (2 Jn. 1:10-11), or even worse than that, God chastises us with sickness and/or death (Heb 12:5-11; 1 Cor. 11:28-32). Spencer Smith on the other hand, has identified himself with a wide range of false teachings and false teachers and therefore must be warned of.

Not warning of him would be a great disservice to you, unloving to you, not friendly at all and not trying to help you avoid the kool aid (and others who watch and recommend him). So I will because it is loving and most importantly because Gods Word commands it (Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 15:33; Eph. 5:11; Ac. 17:11; 1 Th. 5:21) which is loving Him (Jn. 14:15-24; 1 Jn. 2:3-5). Thankfully truly regenerated born again believers trust in God and not in man (Jer. 17:5-8), so it’s absolutely crucial that they are Bible-centred and not man-centred (Ps. 119:127-128; 2 Cor. 10:21; Ju. 1:1-4; Gal. 1:10), and thus be offended in nothing. “Great peace have they which love [God’s] law: and nothing shall offend them.” (Ps. 119:165). Our allegiance must always be first and foremost to God and His Word, “for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” (Gal 1:10).


Here are the ones I know of. This is actually a summarized version of these individuals, having left out most references to save volume (but have readily available).

1. Clarence Sexton, Temple Baptist Church and Crown College. Spencer and his wife graduated from Sexton’s Crown College and were members of Temple Baptist Church for 5 yrs (which is pastored by Sexton). Thats definitely not good. No one should associate with Clarence Sexton, a man-centred and hero-worshipping pragmatic ear-tickling preacher of a corrupted watered-down gospel and purveyor of much doctrinal error; one that wrests Gods Word and proof texts as required for his own personal agenda, revealing his irreverence to God and His Word; a pragmatic church growth compromised guru; one who rejects the Biblical command to practice church discipline; an embracer of the “essentials and non-essentials” heresy; ecumenicalist; huge promoter of and associate with ungodly and wicked men (such as Jack Hyles and Jack Schaap and others, preaching at heretical conferences); affiliated with other heretics such as Tony Hutson and Jack Trieber and all the rest of the fragmented and unrepentant remains of the Hyles coalition, and had a blatant heretic (Ed Reese — also a Hyles wash-up) work for the school for years; he’s a two-faced habitual liar who willingly and actively covers up and lies for other men and their sins, instead of reproving and separating (e.g. Hyles and Schaap); refuses to receive reproof, criticism is not welcome and refuses to give any warnings about other IB’s, no matter how egregious their errors and ungodly their sins; false worshipper of CCM music; purveyor of a corrupted gospel (noted in the sermon "How to Lead Someone to Christ”, about the 39 min mark he leads someone in a prayer for salvation, and that prayer is "to ask for forgiveness of sins, for Jesus to come into his life and be his Savior." This is what salvation is to him but its not in line with Scripture, and this mirrors majority of fundamentalists including Spencer); etc. None of these are some minor little problems.

All these things make it clear that Sexton is a hypocrite and heretic, one warned of by Jesus (Matt 7:15) and by Paul who declared, “grievous wolves [shall] enter in among you, not sparing the flock.” (Ac. 20:29). Consider the following video: (scroll down to the bottom, the last 8 or so videos are all on Sexton). In these videos you will note the unrepentant embracement and friendship between Sexton and these two wolves in sheep’s clothing, even preaching in their church (First Baptist of Hammond). Sexton continued to embrace and praise these ungodly heretics like Hyles after everything had come to light (calling him “a man of God who fell”) and then Schaap in 2011 after his blasphemous teaching on communion was brought to the public spotlight (see here Clarence Sexton Praises Jack Schaap and Clarence Sexton Lies Again For Jack Hyles and Clarence Sexton Continues Praising Jack Hyles, Schaap, and John Stancil) and up until Schaap’s statutory rape of a child was made public there was much promotion of Schaap by Sexton in print and video on the websites used by the Baptist Friends group that was founded and led by Sexton; but then they all disappeared without a trace or explanation. Yes sir, IB fundamentalist pragmatism at its finest. Its really ungodly thats what it is, and reveals the wolf character of Sexton.

This was Spencer’s pastor and teacher for years. If there is any doubt as to Spencer’s continuing support of Sexton and Crown College, he has a video on “Evangelist Scott Pauley” who hails out of there and a member of the college faculty for many years.

2. Curtis Hutson. Spencer posted a video promoting the heretic Curtis Hutson ( and another one in their June 2020 prayer letter) who embraced a perverted and false gospel (Gal 1:6-9) and was a very close friend of the wolf in sheep’s clothing Jack Hyles. Hutson hated the biblical doctrine of repentance so much (like Hyles), he wrote books against it and removed the doctrine from well known hymns while editor at Sword of the Lord. He was as responsible as any fundamentalist leader for changing the definition of repentance to an unbiblical one. In his 1986 booklet, "Repentance: What Does the Bible Teach?" Hutson denied that repentance means to turn from sin (p. 4), rejected that it is sorrow for sin (p. 8), and denied that it means “a change of mind that leads to a change of action” (p. 16), so he concluded that repentance is merely “to change one’s mind.” That is a perverted gospel (Gal 1:6-7) which means he was accursed (Gal 1:8-9).

No one should have anything to do with this heretic (e.g. Rom. 16:17), yet Spencer endorses and promotes him. That’s dangerous and egregious.

3. Tony Hutson. Spencer has a few promotional videos on Hutson preaching. Tony Hutson is a cheap entertainment-orientated showman, can speak many stories but not a lot of actual Bible preaching. He is also a huge Hyles guy, and teaches the same perverted gospel as Hyles and his father (Curtis). In spite of the gross heresies, sins and wickedness of Jack Hyles, all of which was public knowledge, Hutson continued to defend Hyles and promote his influence. Wow, nothing like defending and promoting a wolf in sheep's clothing. Hutson is a false teacher along the same lines as Hyles (Am. 3:3).

4. Evan Roberts. Spencer made a video that exalts this demon possessed wicked apostate that single handedly destroyed the real Welsh Revival of 1859 ( The truth is quite the opposite to what is being said in the video. Contrary to everything Spencer says, Evan Roberts did not influence the Welsh Revival for good but for evil and destruction. Spencer claims: “God touched Evan Roberts heart and God raised him up and it went throughout, and it started from there.” No, God certainly did not. Someone did touch Roberts, but not God. In fact, the unclean spirit did much more than just touch Roberts; he possessed him, and that according to Roberts own testimony. Spencer even mentions some of Roberts heresies when he preached, but strangely doesn’t clue in that they are heretical:

“He was a short preacher [in time]. Not only that, he was a positive preacher. He never wanted to attack, he wanted to be positive and promote the love of Jesus. Thats what he tried to emphasize. . . . I think that was a good thing.”

That is not a good thing! Roberts did that indeed and much much more, but’s it’s completely unbiblical and “another Jesus,” while Spencer says “I think that was a good thing.” False doctrine, sin, worldliness are constantly attacked in the Bible, and so will the preacher behind the pulpit. According to 2 Tim. 4:1-2, two thirds of preaching and teaching should be negative. The Holy Spirit inspired scripture, which is much more negative than positive. Negativity is a trait of the Holy Spirit. When the Holy Spirit manifests Himself in and through a believer, the believer will be negative too. Very often, people who are often negative are assumed to be unspiritual, but that’s not what we see in Scripture at all. Most of what Jesus said about the seven churches in Revelation is negative. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb (Lk 1:15) and how positive was he? Not very. He was very often as negative as someone could be. That manifested the Holy Spirit in Him. I'm not saying that you should go out of your way to be negative because now you see the Holy Spirit to be negative. It will just occur in your life if you are regenerated by the Spirit and then filled with the Spirit. You will see sin or scorning or foolishness or error and you will say something negative about it. It's what the Holy Spirit does. In his video on The Laodicean Church, Spencer says a mark of the last days church will be an “attempt to lift up Jesus Christ without putting down sin. And that never does work either.” (time 04:05). Well that is exactly what Evan Roberts did, even worse, but Spencer is either willfully or intentionally ignorant to it.

Yes the Roberts “revival” was all about the singing and the so-called “praying” and the “love of Jesus” but it was actually heretical and even demonic, preaching “another Jesus” and “another gospel” while being led by “another spirit” (2 Cor. 11:4). Roberts was a very influential false teacher and exponent of heretical Keswick, continuationistic, and demonological errors. After the Welsh Revival (where he did various “signs and wonders”) in 1912, which was seven years after he vanished from the forefront of activities, from the spotlight which he so cherished, he co-authored (with Jessie Penn-Lewis) the book “War on the Saints,” where they confess they were both demon possessed and wrote the book out of their experiences with demons. Roberts entire life and ministry was unscriptural and heretical, just like his alleged testimony of salvation, and that understandably so. No demon possessed false teacher will be in line with Scripture. He believed and taught many ideas denied in or absent from the Bible, relying on visions, voices and hysteria. Some of his book-length list of heresies and damnable heresies include seeking after and promoting a second baptism of the Holy Spirit and the second blessing of sanctification; communing with the dead; claiming there is no need for the Bible just follow the spirit leading (which on its own tells us what spirit was leading Roberts); seeking after and claiming experiences with the audible voice of God; preaching a seriously perverted gospel; rejecting God's Word; higher life mysticism in communing with evil spirits and Throne life prayer; believed and taught he had authority to bind Satan and co-work with God in the last defeat of Satan and all his hosts, and indeed “affirmed he had bound Satan” and had “entered into the sufferings of the Saviour/High Priest” and thus obtained a “position” from “which he could intercede continually for Christ’s servants and witnesses who were exposed to deception” (can you say blasphemy!!); taught that believers could escape physical death and become immune to disease by faith; was the true founder of the wicked Pentecostal/Charismatic movement; etc; etc. These things reveal that Roberts gave “heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;” (1 Tim. 4:1) and that he was clearly of “another spirit” (2 Col 11:4). Yes indeed he was, Roberts himself admitted that he was demon possessed. Evan Roberts not only put a stop to the real Welsh Revival, but was an enemy to it and destroyed it, and along with that, destroyed Welsh Baptist churches and Welsh Christianity as a whole. He was a demon possessed tool of Satan that came as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:12-15) and the eternal damage he has done to people over the last century throughout the world is unfathomable.

Everything that Spencer describes in the video that changed the culture, that changed people from being drunkards and thieves and villains and filthy, happened PRIOR to Evan Roberts coming on the scene (which was 1904) and it happened because of the real Welsh Revival. It started back in 1859 already, but was snuffed out when Roberts came on the scene. Roberts destroyed all of that, and the churches to boot. The pro-Keswick revisionists of history have distorted and lied about what actually happened there. All you have to do is look at what people wrote and said in that day, in newspapers, reports, books, etc, and then the fruit of what actually happened and who these guys were, not just Roberts but also Evan Hopkins and Jesse Penn-Lewis, and read their own ungodly and heretical writings, and in very short order the truth comes out.

Roberts was a demon-possessed scoffer walking after his own lusts (2 Pet. 3) and Spencer should not be defending his evils and heresies, like he does at time 14:00 in the video. That is definitely not good and more along the lines of a wolf in sheep’s clothing than a watchman. The Welsh Revival was indeed “sharply criticized” because it was NOT of God but of another spirit (1 Jn. 4:1). The sharp criticism didn’t “destroy Evan Roberts,” as if God that indwells true believers is not greater than he that is in the world; but rather, Evan Roberts true roots and fruits came out as to whom he really was (Matt. 7:15-20; 12:33-37; 13:20-21), which was already evident to anyone with spiritual eyes and indwelling of the Spirit of God DURING the so-called revival (1 Cor. 2:9-16). All his works should be avoided and his influence in the preaching, writing, and theologizing of others should be detected, warned about, and rejected. They are a major backbone of the Keswick theology, and the Pentecostalism that arose out of it, which provides all the more evidence that they are corruptions of Biblical Christianity. Roberts plainly stated that he had endured demon possession, and claimed that being possessed was key to the content of his writings on demonology. Why would someone want to follow and learn from those possessed by demons, whose doctrine and preaching was out way to lunch?

5. Amy Carmichael. In the same Welsh Revival video Spencer exalts another Keswick theologian in that of Amy Carmichael, the first Keswick missionary in fact (to India), who had “a lot of good things to say, a lot of good quotes.” She might’ve had some good quotes but her doctrine was far from good; she was steeped in that heretical Keswick/ revivalism “theology. She was a heretic in a lot of ways, not just because of the terribly unscriptural and perversive keswick “theology” but also her embracing of mysticism, which happens to be rampant in Keswick “theology” as well. She had a list of favourite mystical authors which were essentially lost heretics, such as Brother Lawrence, Samuel Rutherford, Thomas a Kempis and “English Mystics” such as the medieval Raymond Lully, Lady Julian or Norwich, and Richard Rolle. That she would learn from these people speaks to her true spiritual nature (1 Cor 2:14-16). She is a dangerous author and false teacher, and no one that understands and loves Gods Word should give her any attention.

6. William Graham Scroggie (books are recommended in his amazon store account). In 1950 Scroggie was called “indisputably the foremost living Keswick teacher.” Keswick theology is very unscriptural and terrible heresy. Its very bad and it floods majority of “evangelical” and Baptist churches today. Scroggie also embraced the possibility of contemporary speaking in tongues and embraced the heresy of the universal church instead of practicing separation, which he despised. Scroggie believed in the seriously unbiblical continuationism or anti-cessationism and openly embraced ecumenicalism.

7. John R. Rice (numerous books are recommended in his amazon store account). Rice the great revivalist icon of IB fundamentalism, was a big leader in the Old Boys Club and heretic for a lot of reasons. Let’s consider a few: (a) Rice laid the foundation for the advent of the IB mega-churches of the '70s, while mocking “bland, self-assured 'Bible teachers' preaching to little groups of saints,” and lumping “doctrinally sound sermons” with “entertaining sermons” that were “devoid of the anointing power of the Holy Spirit.” Rice considered small churches to be sinful. Rice was a new evangelical at heart and church growth guru, hence why all his children became lost neo-evangelical gurus themselves. (b) Rice double-spoke when it came to repentance and the gospel. He would make statements that appeared Biblically right, but then contradict himself completely. He never went any deeper than skin on the subject, if he mentioned it at all. The truth is, he actually didn’t believe in Biblical repentance at all, for he believed faith and repentance were the same thing, and it didn’t require sorrow: “One who believes in Christ has repented. Repentance and faith are the same thing put in different words, and neither requires a long period of time, nor a process of mourning and sorrow.” (“What Must I Do To Be Saved?”). On purpose, Sword of the Lord (organization that Rice started) would leave out biblical repentance as a necessary prerequisite for justification or salvation. So it is of no surprise that Curtis Hutson, a brash rejector and hater of Biblical repentance, was given the leadership of the Sword of the Lord publication by Rice (a vehicle to spread revivalism of revivalistic fundamentalism which doesn’t represent a true gospel). Along with the false repentance, Rice promoted and taught the decisionism techniques of the apostate Charles G. Finney (who rejected justification by faith alone). (c) Rice clearly did not hold to a Textus Receptus (TR) position and opposed KJV Onlyism. He was okay with modern versions that hack, mutilate and butcher God’s Word, such as the NIV. (d) Rice embraced and taught the heresy of “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty.” (e) Rice believed and taught the infamous Keswick (and hence Pentecostal) heretical hermeneutics in placing experience over grammatical exegesis, especially seen through his perverted views and beliefs on the Holy Spirit. (f) In spite of the ravening wolf Jack Hyles horrible perversion of the gospel and endless false teachings, Rice was close friends with him and even hosted “soul winning conferences” together with him. Yep, ‘Soul winning by Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing,’ and he didn’t have the discernment to know the difference. (g) Rice pretended to be a Biblical separatist but it was all sinful pretence. He claimed we should work with those who disagree with us on baptism, tongues, prophecy, election, and we should associate with the SBC. Rice would even preach at Pentecostal meetings. (h) Rice embraced and taught blatant heresy on sanctification, which was Keswick/higher life/victorious life/revivalism (etc) heresy. He was a revivalist and a soft continuationist, noted in his book The Fulness of the Spirit, which would totally mess a person up on biblical sanctification, looking for a second blessing and in many ways making Acts normative for today. (i) Rice embraced and taught error in his books on the Holy Spirit, language that is frequently heard today among preachers. In one article he wrote, “'Anointing' is a sign of the gift of the Holy Ghost or special anointing with Holy Spirit power” which “anointing” was “an obvious picture of an enduement of power. . . . that would be a good thing for a Christian to claim and pray for” and ends the article with, “Will you pray for a fresh anointing for yourself and for me? Will you pray for a fresh anointing for yourself and for the rest of us?” (“Anointed with Fresh Oil,” Nov 3, 2017). This is plain heresy. The unction and anointing of the Holy Spirit are not higher planes of spiritual existence. They are not special kinds of dedication and unique empowerment or enabling by God for “pastors” or “preachers.” Rice even believed in tongues speaking, which fits his pentecostal heresy on the Holy Spirit. (i) Rice rejected the salvation that changes a person and is supernatural and dramatic. He embraced a “salvation” that was a bastardized version of true Christianity. People could live like the world and the devil, but be saved. To get to this heretical position, he had to pervert and wrest a lot of scripture such as Rom. 7 and 1 Cor. 3.

I focus on Rice here maybe more than probably needed, but it’s to prove an important point: Rice is often touted as this great fundamentalist, like Spencer does, and many people read him especially among IB’s, but he was not who he set himself up to be. He was a heretic for a lot of reasons, and there’s lots of proof to support all this and more, further detailed in this report. In the video "Fundamentalism/ Modernism/ Neo-Evangelicalism Explained," concerning the Fundamentalists where he has John R. Rice listed, Spencer says “Man these guys would not compromise doctrine and would not fellowship with anyone else that would compromise doctrine. They were legit fundamentalists and stayed separated from error.” (time 15:30). Thats a bunch of hog wash, as I’ve demonstrated here. A serious lie. Rice compromised A LOT of doctrine and he openly fellowshipped (and encouraged the same for others) with blatant heretics such as Charismatics, Pentecostals, the heretical Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), etc. The other men in the Spencer list included Bob Jones Sr., J Grechem Machen, Billy Sunday, Spurgeon, Lester Roloff and Ian Paisley. Every last one of these men was deeply compromised at the very least, mostly heretical, and all fellowshipped with heretics and apostates. What he is saying about these men is untrue, false and deflective. But it’s very fundamentalist.

Read here for more on John R. Rice.

8. Charles Ryrie (book recommended in his amazon store account). Ryrie was a heretic. He completely rejected Biblical repentance and Christ’s Lordship, which is a perverted gospel (Gal. 1:6-9) and “another Jesus” (2 Cor. 11:4). He taught false doctrine about repentance, grace and works, faith and fruits, regeneration versus carnal Christians, and the deity of Christ — doing great damage to the nature of the Gospel itself. He, like many evangelicals and IB’s today, pushed an intellectual, non-volitional type of repentance. He saw something volitional as works. Turning from and forsaking all of ones sins and losing ones life isn't a work—it is part of believing in Christ and being converted. Ryrie claimed that one can be converted yet may be entirely unchanged for some unknown period of time, and then at some point he will make a surrender decision to become a disciple and then Christian growth will start. That unscriptural heresy is derived from Keswick/higher life/revivalism “theology,” false sanctification, which Ryrie’s teachings were flooded with. The faith of Ryrie was faith in facts (i.e. promises), which is similar to the heretical word-faith teachings. In one part of Ryrie’s book “So Great Salvation” he declares that faith is not merely "assent to facts" (p. 118), but then spends three pages proving that faith is indeed merely assent to, or belief in, certain facts, using different wording and various evasions (see Mk. 3:11; Jam. 2:19). Ryrie’s heresy goes beyond the false gospel and into many other realms. He also taught that a person does not need to believe in the return of Christ in order to be saved (“So Great Salvation”), a doctrine that happens to be directly connected with repentance (Ac. 17:30-31; II Pet. 3:1-10) and a major mark of salvation (e.g. I Th. 1:9-10; Ti. 2:11-13 Matt. 24:42-51; 25:1-13; 2 Tim. 4:8; Heb. 9:28).

9. Larry Brown. Spencer posts one of Brown’s sermons “Submission brings Submission” (, where Brown claims that God submits to man. Brown is a huge Hyles hero and promoter (even mentions attending Jack Hyles Pastors School in this sermon) and purveyor of the same perverted and corrupted easy-believism/quick-prayerism 1-2-3 pray after me, no/false repentance, no evidence of salvation with no-fruit and no-change necessary, silly carnival atmosphere with major manipulation, turning evangelism into a type of salesmanship, all about the numbers (and I mean serious numbers) false and perverted gospel warned of in Gal. 1:6-9. Larry Brown is a heretic who embraces other heretics and wolves in sheep’s clothing including Jack Hyles & Schaap. He fellowshipped with Schaap while he was preaching perverted doctrine, continuing the man-worship and false Gospel of Hyles, etc. Brown would not take a stand against Schaap’s false doctrine and practice though he knew of it. Brown is excessively man-centred and demands unquestioning loyalty to the pastor. He is a typical fundamental IB preacher today. He is a great story teller but a terrible expositor of God’s Word and a man on an agenda. His go-to sermon is excessively heretical, “Blowing the Whistle on Wolves” which ironically contains exaltation of wolves such as Curtis Hutson and Clarence Sexton, etc, and lots and lots about the bigness of big churches and big men, including himself (even though he is a little man in stature), how many hundreds were saved here and there and how he was running thousands in his church and so was so and so, etc. He corrupts and distorts practically every single passage of Scripture he mentions (granted, its not many since guys like this do not expository preach out of the Bible but tell stories). This sermon is the epitome of man-centredness and man-worship and ear-bleeding. It’s about as terrible as it gets, to the point of nauseating. Really. One of the worse things about this sermon is the ongoing examples he gives and rebuke to those not giving unquestioning loyalty to the pastor, never to speak against him, never to critique him, and not even listen to critique of him! No pastor is ever to be reproved or rebuked regardless how wrong he is. Pointing to the pastor of the church he is preaching in, he belches, “if that man preaches a Bible we are going to stay with the man of God and keep our mouths off of him [this part is screamed]. 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…” That is ungodly and fear-mongering. Demonic bondage. Brown and his cronies are way above admonishment and correction, their pedestal is somewhere in the third heaven. He says if you do any of these things to the pastor, God will take care of you like He did Korah. “You better watch what you say about God’s man!!!” (time 36:20). (What Korah did was evil, but questioning a pastors teachings is NOT! Paul loved being tested: Ac. 17:11 and even demanded it: 1 Cor. 10:15). He gives examples after examples of people that suffered horrible things and deaths because of allegedly questioning “the man of God.” In one example he says 19 out of 21 men died in one year, who were part of the Sunday school class where the teacher critiqued the pastors sermons. Can you say, Just. Wow!! This is actually demonic and meant to monger fear and stop people from obeying God’s Word in testing, judging, correcting and reproving the “man of God” (i.e. pastor). It’s wicked and spawned in the pit of hell. I’ll leave it at that. I have written up a report on this sermon which is much longer than this brief summary, revealing how terribly unscriptural and heretical it really is.

No one should be promoting Larry Brown, who is a false teacher propagating a lot of errors and “damnable heresies” (2 Pet. 2:1), but Spencer Smith does, as does Reg Kelly (he preached in Kelly’s church back in May 2010 and Dec 2011 and then re-invited Aug 2021; Brown actually preached this same sermon at one of those times).

10. Scofield Reference Bible. He review’s this Bible ( “Its lacking” doctrinal content Spencer says, yet he exalts it and gives hundreds of them away to flood Africa with heresy. He says the Bible promotes Westcott and Hort multiple times, which then confuses both Scofield’s and Spencers KJV/Textus Receptus position. Spencer seriously undermines sound doctrine: “You know there is some doctrinal issues in this Bible but I don’t think it’s a deal breaker. I still think it’s a good Bible in spite of all that. There you go with that, it’s a great Bible.” So he recommends it. There is actually a lot of heresy in the Scofield. I mean a lot. He taught a false works gospel. He claimed OT saints were saved by works, which is connected to his rejection of repentance (its a work according to Scofield). He taught theistic evolution. Supported the gap theory. He taught a universal church. All these things are heresy. He popularized and essentially canonized Keswick teachings in this Reference Bible, which is false sanctification (e.g. he completely corrupted and wrested Rom. 7 and 8 into Keswick theology. In this passage Paul’s struggle is said to be “the record of past conflicts and defeats experienced as a renewed man under law.”) His teaching led to the idea that at the point of salvation someone received Jesus, and at some later point, Jesus became Lord (which happened when he was "dedicated” or received the “second blessing”). He would be a carnal and lukewarm Christian up until that point. This is all heresy and all a repentance issue (worth noting: this false sanctification and salvation is found everywhere in churches today, thanks in part to this reference Bible). Scofield also held position of pastor unbiblically, having been divorced and remarried at least 3 times. Etc.

Spencer Smith should not be using and definitely not promoting this seriously corrupted Reference Bible written by a heretic, crook (fraud) and serial adulterer (divorced and remarried three times).

“Woe be unto the shepherds that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! says the LORD.” (Jer. 23:1).
“Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Am. 3:3).


The fact he is the product of Clarence Sexton and Crown College is a huge red flag on its own. Sexton does not preach the true and pure gospel that must include true Biblical repentance and saving faith and Christ’s Lordship, and he is one that purveys a lot of other false doctrine and practises that booster his corrupted gospel.

Furthermore, who Spencer reads and listens to and recommends reveals a pattern. Most of the aforementioned men are major pushers and propagators of the false and heretical Keswick/Revivalist theology and rejectors of the true gospel and embrace a pseudo gospel that eliminates saving repentance and Christ’s Lordship. Noted is his positive endorsement and recommendations of Charles Ryrie, Curtis Hutson, Tony Hutson, Clarence Sexton, and Larry Brown. These men believe and teach the same deluded and perverted gospel that Hyles did, 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, turning evangelism into a type of salesmanship, corrupted gospel warned of in Gal. 1:6-9 and 2 Cor. 11:4.

It is not surprising then that one hears Spencer say, “we’ve seen thousands of people saved” in their ministry in Kenya. And “We’ve seen a lot of churches started.” Online describing “The results of our 2019 IBOM Kenya Conference are: 5 Church Dedications, 300 in the Providence Baptist College, 40 Graduates of the Providence Baptist College, and 2,114 saved. Thank you to all who gave!” ( In a recent prayer letter: “There have been thousands saved, hundreds graduated from our college, and dozens of churches started. We thank God for his hand upon this work.” This is the IB bigness that Spencer learned well at Crown College. No results, no good. After all, fundamentalists think it’s a sin to have a small church. And all that in Kenya in a day where apostasy flourishes like no other time and wealth and love of money runs rampant as does blinded deception, especially in Africa, who pursue after the white man for the white mans riches. I would venture to say that the vast majority of those “thousands saved” are actually not saved at all. Why is it that men that soundly and faithfully adhere to the Word of God and are exceedingly careful in preaching the true gospel and not any form of easy-believism/quick-prayerism, not see results like this in Africa even to a hundredth? I would say it’s probably because they are preaching the true gospel, not a placebo; they are not after numbers and pew warmers and “tithers”, but after true fruit that actually lasts and is truly converted. Notice also that he says, “We thank God for his hand upon this work.” Is it not Gods work? Is God helping us so we can have what we want or are we servants of Him? This manipulative sentence is a good reflection of the horrible man-centredness of the fundamental IB churches and their gospel of self-fulfilment.

The gospel/salvation (same thing) that Spencer consistently speaks of in his videos is without repentance or its principles, and without surrendering to Christ’s Lordship, both of which are required for conversion. Within these doctrines is self-denial and self-death and self-abandonment, a lost sinner forsaking all to follow Jesus (Matt. 10:32-39; 16:24-26; Mk. 8:34-38; Lk. 9:23-26, 57-62; 13:1-9; 17:33; 18:9-32; 19:1-10; Jn. 12:24-26; etc), but that true gospel does not escape his lips. More than likely he would see that as a works- gospel, further buttressing the placebo he is propagating. But this is the preaching of Jesus and the apostles of the gospel, but not what is heard even remotely close in Spencer’s preaching.

Case in point. There is a video on him preaching “The Gospel,” by that title. Its man-centred and it reflects what I’m saying here, about an anemic, even corrupted gospel. Bear in mind, this is one of two videos he has online to show his gospel (I’ve only watched one), what he believes and what he would want someone to watch that was interested in salvation. Consider a few points:

1. He says to the people in the congregation that he is preaching to, they cannot reach Kenya without him, and he can’t reach Kenya without them (time 12:30). Really? It’s a sellout to impress the need he has for money (which was spoken of prior, in the context). Without it, he can’t go to Kenya. And if they don’t give, they can’t reach Kenya. I guess God’s arm is shortened after all, that it cannot save (cf. Is. 59:1) unless of course, man gives their money. No wonder he could say this without supporting it with scripture. But how did Paul do it? How about Jeremiah? Or Jonah? Or Amos? Or any other preacher in the Bible? I guess God must’ve forgotten to put that in His Word. Very man-centred and unscriptural.

2. Although he gives some good points about the importance of furthering the gospel, and about hypocrites (although he doesn’t use that word), and brief warnings about false gospels (e.g. social gospel), he doesn’t speak the truth about the true gospel, nor about some of the false gospels. He speaks about Paul’s warning of another gospel, but his elimination of the critical element of repentance and Christ’s Lordship, which is Who Jesus is, is also “another gospel” (2 Cor 11:4). He says his gospel is Rom. 10:13: “Let me give you what the gospel is: For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Thats the gospel.” Thats very anemic and shallow, and not interpreting in context or rightly dividing the word of truth. The “call upon the name of Lord” is predicated on true repentance and saving faith (Lk. 13:1-5; Jn. 3:15-16; Mk. 1:15; Ac. 20:21, which is the gospel: Ac. 20:24, 21; Mk. 1:1-4; Lk. 24:44-48). Even the very context Rom. 10:1-21 tells us that there is more to the gospel than just v. 13; there is knowledge required (v. 2), and rejection of ones own righteousness for God’s righteousness which has the idea of turning from self (vv. 3-8), and surrendering to Jesus as Lord (v. 9), and believing in His resurrection (v. 9), and believing and confessing (vv. 10, 14). This is what is required (and more) to “obey the gospel” (v. 16), but the context tell us that Israel as a nation has never received God’s stretched out hands, for they are a “disobedient and gainsaying people.” (v. 21). They have not obeyed the gospel (vv. 16, 21). So there is much more to the gospel than v. 13, and rightfully v. 13 is actually assuming all these things when calling upon the name of the Lord for salvation. So there are more things to the gospel than just this. What about repentance (Ac. 21:24, 21; Lk. 24:44-48)? What about who Jesus is (Phil 2:10-11)? What about surrender (Lk. 14:15-15:32)? What about the substitutionary death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the shedding of His blood for our sins (1 Cor 15:1-4)? What about worshipping God in Spirit and in truth, what Jesus preached to a lost woman (Jn. 4:23-24)? Spencer’s gospel is anemic.

3. In this sermon he gives a brief synopsis of his own salvation, “I fell on my knees and prayed and asked Jesus Christ to come into my heart and I was born again” and then goes on to explain what happened, God changed him from the inside out (time 18:00). I don’t want to doubt what happened to him, his experience, but this is not salvation language anywhere in God’s Word. Not even close. We don’t ask Jesus to come into our heart; we repent and we believe. But nothing, again, about repentance. In fact, the entire sermon which is about “The Gospel” is completely void of repentance. But one can be saved without repentance. Not Jesus (Matt. 4:17) or the apostles (Mk. 6:12; 2 Pet. 3:9) or Paul the Apostle (Ac. 21:21, 24) EVER ceased to preach repentance. It was the foundation of salvation preaching. Spencer is not doing or obeying what the Bible says. Jesus said we are to be “witnesses of these things.” (Lk. 24:48). What things? Christ’s suffering, death and resurrection on the third day (Lk. 24:46), “And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” (Lk. 24:47). So is that showing love to God when he is not being a “witness of these things”? If someone says that they love God and they know Him but don’t actually obey Him, they are liars and the truth is not in them (1 Jn. 2:3-5; Jn. 14:23-24).

4. He continues on, “There ain’t no reason to make it harder than that.” But it’s not Biblical. And where does the Bible say that anyway? Jesus said something very different, “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. 13:24). And Jesus made it difficult for the rich young ruler to be saved (Mk. 10:21), and he would not. Spencer says, “I’ve seen five year olds get saved.” I bet he has. They are false professions but he doesn’t seem to have enough discernment to know the difference. I have never met a five year old who was truly saved (that includes adults who were saved at five), and I have met many. “You know why” he asks, about not making it harder. “Because it is believe and receive, Jn. 1:12.” That is easy-believism. Of course, no repentance or its principles. Nothing about it. Many false professors in the bible believed (Jn. 2:23-25; 6:60-66; Ac. 19:1-3; Jn 8:31-36). The devils also believe (Jam. 2:19).

5. He doesn’t see that people who do not live the Christian life but profess to be saved, are actually not saved. The Bible belt of America is full of people like this. He says they live just like the world, but no word of warning that they are unsaved (time 25:30). He also undermines the importance of Bible study, not understanding balance. No sermon of this character would be complete without a salvation invitation of course, the typical elevator music playing in the background, ‘heads bowed, eyes closed, raise your hand…’ and more people walking the saw-dust trail to embrace (maybe for the umpteenth time) the easy, not to hard, just believe and receive gospel.

On a side note, many of his videos have feel-good elevator music playing in the background, which is both concerning and dangerous. It creates an emotional response that isn’t real and isn’t based upon truth.

These things should not be taken lightly. This is the gospel we’re speaking of. Whether it’s being preached in truth or not is the difference between life and death, Heaven and Hell. Regardless how close it comes to the truth, if it’s not perfectly in line with scripture, it is still false. And what we are seeing with Spencer is not in line with Scripture.


In the video “The Falling Away - Missionary Spencer Smith” ( he is embracing “fundamentalism” which is an error filed movement, and then there are his categories and lines, that aren’t really that clear cut in reality. Not really even close and the credence he is giving people really isn’t reality either. So called fundamentalists today are practically the same as evangelicals which are practically the same as modernists. My biggest issue here is putting true born again Bible believing Christians (Baptists and some others) into “fundamentalism,” which was a very compromised man-centred movement from its inception. It certainly wasn’t based upon the Bible. Being a fundamentalist has to do with the fundamentals and it is a historical position. Fundamentalism is a movement that responded to theological liberalism in the early twentieth century. Fundamentalists separated from others, those deemed liberals, for not believing and teaching what they called the fundamentals. They separated only over the fundamentals, so they unified or fellowshipped merely if someone believed and taught the fundamentals. They reduced unity and fellowship to the fundamentals, what they deemed as fundamentals. They necessarily divided doctrine into categories of importance, so as to keep unity on just the "fundamentals." If there are fundamentals, the Bible doesn't say what they are. Scripture doesn't support dividing doctrine, which was the core issue with the fundamentalist movement. There is no such thing as ranking doctrine into fundamentals and non-fundamentals. One can't be a fundamentalist and obey the Bible, and obeying the Bible is more important than being a non-scriptural title or even idea.

Spencer’s chart says fundamentalists are “saved and obedient to Scripture.” He claims all of fundamentalism “is saved, believes right, is following the Scriptures” and will “be raptured out” but that is certainly not true. He obviously doesn’t understand fundamentalism very well. Most of fundamentalism is disobedient to Scripture and vast majority lost, so no rapture happening for them. You just have to simply look at men like Jack Hyles, the face of fundamentalism with his millions of followers, and you can see this truth, never mind hundreds of other examples. So that is very far from the truth. Most are actually not saved at all, thus disobedient. They are mostly hypocrites and hypocrites are always lost. They are merely religious, with the subtlety and deception of being very close to the truth, which is a major hallmark of the devil (2 Cor. 11:12-15) and the false teacher (2 Pet. 2:1-3, 17-22). Although their music and dress might appear right, and they might embrace the KJV, I would say—conservatively—between 75% and 100% of people on average in these churches are actually lost. We’ve attended some of the best ones, and the percentage there was anywhere between 50 and 75%. Spencer says fundamentalists separate. Spencer said that “The fundamentalist, he believes in the wall of separation from all kinds of heresy and error, he will not not fellowship with these people [evangelicals and modernist’s], he wants to be obedient to the truths of the Word of God.” This is not true. Maybe Spencer does that, but it’s not true for most of fundamentalism. In fact, I don’t think Spencer even does that, as seen in this very video. Spencer says, the reason why “the fundamentalist won’t use Casting Crowns” is “because Casting Crowns is holding hands with Hillsong and Elevation worship and they are modernists, so we won’t even touch you.” That is certainly not a scriptural reason why not to use Casting Crown. There are many very solid Biblical reasons why not to listen to Casting Crown music, without even considering their associations.

The practice of separation among “fundamentalists” has always been grossly inconsistent and hypocritical. I would contend that you can't remain in fundamentalism and practice biblical separation. It is inter-denominational. It says separate only over “the fundamentals of the faith,” which is completely contrary to Scripture. Today it doesn't even separate over a different gospel. It harbours no-repentance and 1-2-3 pray-with-me perverted “gospel” without separation. It doesn’t separate from heretics such as Jack Hyles, Jack Schaap, Larry Brown, Paul Chappell, Clarence Sexton, Rick Flanders, John R Rice, Curtis Hutson, Mike Sullivant, Bob Gray Sr., Sword of the Lord men, etc. Majority of people in these fundamentalists churches (which would be mostly independent fundamental baptist churches) are the fruit of a false 1-2-3 pray after me, easy-believism, quick-prayerism, no repentance, no Lordship, corrupted, perverted and bastardized gospel that doesn’t change anyone, nor is it expected to. Fundamentalism itself is a sinking ship that I encourage all churches and Christians to depart.

Fundamentalism is not a scriptural movement. It has some biblical aspects to it, but as a whole it does not conform to a biblical paradigm or template. To follow the Bible within fundamentalism is like trying to store the new wine in old wineskins. There is no way that the Bible can can fit into the wineskin that is fundamentalism. Fundamentalism will always suffer, but ultimately the Bible itself will become the casualty. As a result, so much of the Bible is not obeyed in fundamentalism. No one should be a fundamentalist, for fundamentalism has never been faithful to the Bible and has never contended for the truth. Fundamentalism is known for its compromise in areas of dividing doctrine into levels of importance, denominational differences, heresy, false gospel, cheap and carnal “soul winning” tactics, baptism, false teachers, etc. It’s preaching and politics is largely unscriptural. Its extremely man-centred, with the expectation of unquestioning loyalty to the man of God behind the pulpit. Fundamentalism has spread false doctrine more quickly than if it never existed by its false unity, toleration, and compromise. Fundamentalism has tied Christians into false teachings and instead of marking and avoiding, they ignored and united with disobedience. It unifies light with darkness. Through its para-church organizations (mission boards, colleges, fellowships, and camps), it ignores doctrines, including the gospel, to cobble together a coalition. As a fundamentalist, one cannot obey the biblical doctrine of separation, not the unscriptural fundamentalist version of it. It is impossible to stay in fundamentalism and still be faithful to the Bible. Fundamentalism isn't in the Bible. Scripture is sufficient. Fundamentalism is just another ox-cart, and ox-carts are poor replacements for what God actually said to do.

Practically everything he says about what a fundamentalist is, as also noted in his video on “Marks of a Fundamentalist” is a mixture of truth and error, mostly error. Fundamentalists are champions of pragmatism, and do not reject pragmatism or unorthodox forms of methodology and they certainly do “use carnal means to accomplish spiritual goals.” They will do that. So just the opposite is true. In much of fundamentalism, pragmatism is the norm, with the end justifying the means. It's practical, if it works, within certain fairly broad parameters. It is often doing what it takes to maintain size, keep growing in numbers, and to meet payrolls. We see that with Jack Hyles and thousands of Hyles-type of churches including Pembina Valley Baptist Church of Winkler, MB.

In this video he also gives way to much credibility to those in “evangelicalism,” claiming some of them to be saved just compromised or ignorant to the truth. The bible labels these people mostly as lost. Instead of saying about Ravi Zacharias preaching in the Mormon tabernacle, “it is very tragic that he handled it that way,” Spencer should have renounced him for the heretic and wolf in sheep’s clothing that he is, and for a lot more reasons than just his ungodly association with a cult. This is also a good case in point on fundamentalism. Actually undermining what scripture says about men like Zacharias, which is that he is a clear heretic (Ti. 3:10-11) since he doesn’t separate as the Bible says all true believers will (2 Cor 6:14-18), being in non-stop rebellion against the doctrine of separation, which then means, Zacharias, like all other evangelicals, is living in continuous disobedience to scripture, not keeping His commandments, and, therefore, a liar about knowing and loving God (1 Jn 2:3-5; Jn 14:15-24).

This becoming of one in unity between modernists and evangelicals has been taking place now for at least 70 years. The ecumenicalism between modernists and evangelicals didn’t start with music as he claims, it started actually with doctrine and “friendships” and repudiation of separation back in 1950’s when neo-evangelicalism was started by heretics.

Besides these things, there was some truth taught. The ecumenicalism and false unity happening and leading to the one world church is right on the money.

Here is a good video of the stupidity and Unbiblical sayings of the famous fundamentalists:


1. Southern Gospel and CCM. He embraces Southern Gospel, which is just another form of CCM, and then also CCM itself, with the fleshly self-promoting squeaky syncopated nauseating singing, as seen in this music video he has on his channel ( Here is another one: This is a very classic CCM ballad melody. Also promotes the southern gospel CCM group Johnson Trio. There is a few CCM songs they sing on his account, including How Deep the Father’s Love for Us, written by the heretic Stuart Townend (charismatic in theology and practice, supporting such heresies as spirit slaying, holy laughter, and gibberish “tongues,” and participating in the radically ecumenical heretical Alpha program with strong ties to Catholicism). This may well explain why he doesn’t separate from Casting Crowns because of their music, but only because of their associations (Bethel/Hillsong).

2. Error on the Enigmatic and Ambiguous Call to Preach. In a few videos he declares that “God called him to preach.” Then there is a video on that very subject, “How Do I Know If I'm Called To Preach?” Where does the Bible say that God calls us to preach? Where? Chapter and verse? Nowhere is right (and you cannot use the apostles call as apostles; they were the 12 apostles and then there was Paul the apostle to the Gentiles). First of all, every born again Christian is “called to preach." I mean all, which is something that Spencer and the rest of the Old Boys Club would never admit, because it doesn’t fit the man-centred man-worship and man-exaltation of the extremely man-centred pragmatic “Old Fundamental Boys Club,” but God’s Word however is VERY clear on it! (see for example: 2 Cor. 5:12-6:1; 1 Cor. 3:5-9). Secondly, although every person is called to preach, not every person can be a pastor. Notice I didn’t say, “called to be a pastor.” There is no such “calling” in the Bible, contrary to what a lot of people lie about. Its wishful thinking. The only calling we read of in scripture is the one unto salvation (see Matt. 22:14; 1 Cor. 1:24-31; 2 Th. 1:11; 2 Tim. 1:9 for example) which automatically extends to preaching the gospel to every creature (Lk. 24:44-48; Mk. 16:15; Matt. 28:18-19). And truly saved people WILL want to do that. So who then can fill the office of pastor? The position of pastor (I.e. elder, bishop, overseer) or deacon for that matter (“Likewise must the deacons...” 1 Tim. 3:8), requires four specific stipulations, and all four must be met in its entirety: (1) Must be a male (1 Tim. 3:1-7 — “a man,” “husband,” “his,” “he”) that is married (“husband of one wife . . . having his children”). (2) Must have the desire for the office (1 Tim. 3:1). Although I’m sure influenced by the Lord, that desire, as you read in these passages, comes from the man himself. (3) Must meet all the qualifications as presented in 1 Tim. 3:2-7; Tit. 1:6-9, 13-14, which he will anyway if he is truly born again (they are evidences of salvation as well). (4) Must be ordained by elders (1 Tim. 5:21-22; Tit. 1:5), who are responsible to confirm prayerfully and practically all the qualifications are met (Tit. 1:5-9). So any man who is truly born again and has a desire for the office and meets all the qualifications, all of which is confirmed by the elders of the church, can be a pastor (or deacon).

It is unscriptural what he says about this enigmatic “calling” to be a pastor or missionary. He says: “This is what I tell folks, if you can live your life doing anything else but preaching, then you’re not called to preach.” (How Do I Know If I'm Called To Preach?) Wow. He says the same about “missions work.” As mentioned, EVERYONE is called to preach. The great commission is for EVERYONE. The will of God is commanded for EVERY child of God to be preaching (2 Cor. 5:18-20), and they WILL do that (Phil. 2:12-13), which starts at salvation: 2 Cor. 5:17; 6:1-2. This is what I would tell Spencer: ‘If you can live your life doing anything but preaching or missions work ... you’re not saved. You haven’t been born again. You are a fraud.’ Is Matt 28:18-19 applicable only to “preachers” (as he is defining preachers, which he is making essentially synonymous with pastor)? How about Mk. 16:15? Or Ac. 1:8? Or 2 Cor. 5:18-20? No.

3. Revivalism / Keswick Heresy. He’s got a lot of influence in his life from this heresy, in his doctrine, teachings, Bible interpretation, favourite authors, and the Bible school he graduated from. Concerning the Welsh Revival video, he said a 16 yr old girl stood up in a prayer meeting and said “I love Jesus with all of my heart; they said the outpouring of the Spirit of God was so strong when she did that, and basically that started it [the welch revival]…” ( This is completely and entirely unscriptural and he should know that. He is referring to the unscriptural and heretical Keswick theology/revivalism, which actually gave birth to Pentecostalism. There is no such thing as an outpouring of the Spirit of God. The day of pentecost is over (Acts 2)! That entire video promotes false revivalism and the false theology of Keswick/higher life. There is yet another video that he recommends on his channel that propagates the same Welsh Revival error.

I find it ironic that Spencer has videos that expose pentecostalism heresy, knowing Pentecostalism is the baby of Keswick theology. Had Keswick theology never existed, Pentecostalism might’ve never existed either.

4. Lukewarm Christianity; The Laodicean Church was Allegedly True Christians. This is what Spencer claims in his video on “The Laodicean Church — Third Adam 2 Trainer.” ( He says “The Laodicean church was very very weak. They weren’t even close to being right with God or spiritual or being used by God. The problem is that they were in such bad spiritual condition that they didn’t even know it.” He is describing a church that is true in his eyes, but weak, not right or spiritual and not used by God and they didn’t even know it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing in the N.T. concerning salvation is so clear as the Laodicean church not having it. That they are lost. It gives so many descriptors of their lost condition in Rev. 3:14-18, it is almost redundant. And using the language of "spiritual" is confusing, since he is implying that a believer may be spiritual or non-spiritual (like the Laodiceans), but when the Bible uses the language of "spiritual" its referring only to saved people, while non-spiritual people are unsaved people (see 1 Cor 2:14-15 for instance). Towards the end of the video he speaks of v. 20, about Jesus knocking on the door of the church and desiring to come in, and the people Jesus is knocking at don’t know His voice. He is not in the church, like Matt. 18:20 says He is in true churches, and they don’t know His voice, like true sheep do (Jn. 10:1-5, 26-29), yet this is not a salvation passage according to Spencer and the church is still saved. Unbelievable. He says they are blind, naked, wretched, poor, miserable, but strangely cannot discern that they are unsaved. All those words describe only lost people in Scripture, and there is a lot of scripture that reflect that. They are clear markers of unregenerate people. All one has to do is rightly divide the word of truth and compare Scripture with Scripture. The Bible doesn't explain these people as saved, but they are labeled so by this new theology (the “theology” of Keswick/higher life). Lukewarm is not referring to a saved person, but someone who is most likely never to be saved. God spews them out of His mouth. Since when does God vomit His children out of His mouth? Is that chastening language? Is that how God loves His children, who are inseparable from His love (Rom. 5:5; 8:31-39)? How someone interprets this church of Rev. 3 speaks volumes as to what they believe and teach on sanctification and, to a lesser degree, salvation. It’s very concerning, because to get this wrong is to possibly have a wrong view of salvation and what salvation does and who the Bible describes as lost. Its also of course intentional false interpretation of Scripture, which is wresting the Word of God, which is “an error of the wicked” (2 Pet. 3:16-17).

This error is further seen in his mentions of “backsliding” and “carnal Christian,” all of which are Keswick currency. These are all markers of second blessing and Keswick/ revivalism/ higher life/ victorious life, etc, “theology” used to describe people that are allegedly “saved” but indistinguishable from the world. Rigggght. No, its heresy.

5. Refusing to Denounce Error as Commanded in Scripture and Claiming Lost People to be Saved. Besides what is already provided previous points, he claims others as saved when they very likely aren't. His warnings are also very soft. They give credence to lost people knee deep in heresy and the world, when that is worst thing he could do. As noted with the example of Ravi Zacharias, a heretic and wolf in sheep’s clothing, whom he refused to denounce in the video “The Falling Away.” Since that time even more evidence has come to light about the immorality and heresies of Ravi Zacharias. He doesn’t speak against the carnal circus he calls “church” that he preached in during deputation, where the house was overflowing with people and whoever brought the most visitors won an actual car (“6 Great Lessons From The Welsh Revival,” time 03:00). This is the carnal and salesmanship showmanship of many IB churches, but he doesn’t speak against it. Go figure. He is very brave to be so compromised.

He doesn’t understand Kent Hovinds apostate state, or won’t be clean about it, which is heresy either way. Beats around the bush. Claims that pre jail he was good but after, well, some men don’t keep it together. Okay then. To the question asked, “Is Lutheranism heresy?” he says they have some truth but not 100% truth, which is terrible compromise and not speaking the truth even one bit and then he changes the subject to Luther keeping some of Rome’s heresies, a partial break from Rome. Why not just answer the question?! Lutheranism is heresy. He does not denounce error as commanded in Scripture which is excessively dangerous. He has no business warning about anything, if he can’t warn according to Scripture.

In the video “The Gospel” he says the pentecostals in Kenya speak only “half truths” and gives an example where they utilize only the first half of Mk. 16:16 to support their heresy that salvation requires both faith and baptism, but according to Spencer these people “they’re not telling lies, they’re just telling half truths.” What?!? Since when are half-truth’s NOT lies?? What in the world?? Those people are wresting the scriptures which is a work of the wicked (2 Pet. 3:16-17), preaching lies and a false gospel, “damnable heresies” (2 Pet. 2:1) and the best he can do is sugar coat their evil, claiming it as a “half-truth” and not speak the truth of God’s Word by condemning it and reproving it as Gods Word does and commands?! (e.g. Ac. 13:8-10; Rom. 16:17-18; Eph. 5:11; Ti. 1:9-16). Paul would have said of these that they are “liars, evil beasts, slow bellies” (Ti. 1:9-16) and “accursed” of God (Gal 1:6-9). For some very strange reason he doesn’t see that they are liars and false teachers and he definitely won’t call them out on it like Jesus did (Matt. 23). Just. Wow. He says the same immediately after about Joel Osteen, he is only speaking “half-truths.”

The labels he gives “Christians,” such as carnal, lukewarm, backsliders, illustrates his non-discernment in who is truly saved and who is not. In one of his videos he claims Elvis Presley was a Christian. No he wasn’t! Before I was converted I was in the home of Elvis and did lots of research on him. If he was saved, then the devil is saved. Just because he prayed a prayer, sang some hymns and attended a heretical Baptist church, doesn’t mean he was saved. Smith obviously has no issue with easy believism false gospel (cf. Gal. 1:6-9) and has no discernment as to who a true believer is and who a false one is. Does the Holy Spirit not indwell and lead him and teach him?

These things reveal that Spencer is a very compromised man and cannot actually speak the truth. He is only doing damage to cause of Christ. “A righteous man falling down before the wicked is as a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring.” (Pr. 25:26). Thats if he is actually righteous. People that corrupt the gospel and compromise and won’t speak the truth and embrace error and worldliness, have no leg to stand on when it comes to evidence of salvation.

6. Error on Unbelief. In the video “The Falling Away - Missionary Spencer Smith” he uses “unbelief” to categorize the lost and ungodly modernists. Lost Gentiles aren’t primarily in “unbelief,” they are in disobedience (2 Th. 1:8; 2:10-12; 3:2; 2 Pet. 3:2-5) which is rebellion and ungodliness. God’s wrath is not on the lost because of their “unbelief” but because of their ungodliness and unrighteousness: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;” (Rom. 1:18).

Nowhere is “unbelief” found in such passages such as 1 Cor 6:9-10 and Gal 5:19-21 and Rev. 9:20-21, passages that indicate those who do not enter the kingdom of heaven because they refuse to repent of their immoral, idolatrous and ungodly sins. The word unbelief is applicable in scripture only to lost Jews, since it is only ever mentioned in the context of Jews, because of their privilege and opportunity, with their divine covenants and being Gods people (Rom. 3:1-3; 9:4-5). It’s not for a lack of “believing” that prevents people from being converted (oh no, the world is full of “believers”); but sinners refusal to repent because of their wilful rebellion against God and His Authority (Jn 3:19-21; Lk. 19:12-27).


“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).
“These are the things that ye shall do; Speak ye every man the truth to his neighbour; execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates:” (Ze. 8:16).
“For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” (Gal 1:10).

2 comentarios

10 sept 2023

Very well done study. But, you missed the point with Fundamentalism. The bedrock issue in F. is that the Truth, the doctrine of God, is not divided into fundamentals and non-essentials. Every doctrine, even the doctrine of covering your waste when in the wilderness, is essential. Fundamentalism has a list of doctrines they will not compromise. This leaves the man in the pew with only a short list of doctrines, and he neglects all the rest. But, having been a Fundamentalist, I have to caution you to be more charitable to the many Fundamentalists who are godly and do not chase after Jack Hyles and the gurus of F. When you turn a group of true believers into the "they" you…

Me gusta
25 sept 2023
Contestando a


Thank you for your comment. My apologies for the late reply.

My short write up on fundamentalism in the said article was not meant to be exhaustive. But I did actually address, albeit briefly, the issue of their dividing so-called fundamentals and non-essentials, without using those words. Here is a excerpt from the article:

“Fundamentalists separated from others, those deemed liberals, for not believing and teaching what they called the fundamentals. They separated only over the fundamentals, so they unified or fellowshipped merely if someone believed and taught the fundamentals. They reduced unity and fellowship to the fundamentals. Scripture doesn't support unity on just fundamentals. If there are fundamentals, the Bible doesn't say what they are. One can't be…

Me gusta
bottom of page