Part II — Beware of Pastor Michael Sullivant and Pembina Valley Baptist Church (PVBC)

Part 1a and Part 1b

Part 2 of 3 of The Sullivant Report has arrived, and here we will cover the following subject, the only one:

• "Sullivant’s Confusing, Unscriptural, and Heretical Keswick/ Deeper Life/ Revivalist-Type Sanctification, which Dovetails with the Corrupted Gospel."

It took a lot longer than planned to publish this second report on Pastor Michael Sullivant and Pembina Valley Baptist Church (PVBC) and its college campus, Canadian Bible Baptist College (CBBC). It was nearly finished back when the first part was posted, but we weren't satisfied with the overall content. Only recently was there time to fully complete it. Our intention is to follow with the third part in short order.

We haven’t forgotten that they really, really despise it when someone exposes their errors, doctrinal heresies, damnable heresies and man-centred sinful ways. When someone analyzes, criticizes and exposes an institution that wilfully teaches false doctrine, including serious error concerning salvation and sanctification, and then questions that pastors alleged profession of faith because he is wilfully teaching dangerous error and aligning more with a false teacher than a true one (i.e. Rom. 16:17-18; 2 Jn. 1:9-11), nor does his profession line up with Gods Word (Is. 8:20) and he embraces a blatantly false gospel (Gal 1:6-9) and he accepts lost people as true Christians, they may go into full blown name destroying mode and even call such an individual an “emissary of Satan,” an ungodly slander. Such is the carnal weaponry of a carnal warrior “battling” carnal warfare, and buttresses our point that PVBC is excessively man-centred. Hence our desire to,

“Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die.” (Rev 3:2)

It's really not okay for someone to stand at the pulpit and intentionally misuse and abuse Gods Word, thereby creating or purveying new or strange doctrine that doesn’t exist anywhere in God's Word but in the writings, philosophies and imaginations of men. That is what pastor Mike Sullivant has done, and continues to do, evident by the first two points, and now further with this point. I do not believe Sullivant is the initiator of many of these errors, but he is certainly guilty of purveying the errors and heresies, some of which are detrimental to spiritual life. If its not intentional, what is it then? Is he that deceived that he cannot discern the clear and plain truth of Scripture? When someone is truly born again, he plainly understands or easily perceives the plain truth of the words of God in the Word of God. God says that:

"All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge." (Pr 8:8-9)

3. Sullivant and PVBC's Confusing, Unscriptural, and Heretical Keswick/ Deeper Life/ Revivalist-Type Sanctification, which Dovetails with the Corrupted Gospel.

In the first two parts we covered Sullivant's false doctrine of salvation and fellowship with a wolf in sheep's clothing (Hyles), while in this report we cover his corruption of the doctrine of sanctification, while in the yet to be published concluding report more false doctrine/practice and corruption of scripture will be exposed, along with Sullivant's man-centredness and lording over the sheep.

Sullivant's beliefs and teachings on salvation and sanctification are off the mark, and contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture. They are contrary to apostolic doctrine. Jesus would’ve gotten booed out of their soul winning, or how to do evangelism courses and conferences. They are false and egregious and his gospel of easy believism absent of repentance and Christ's Lordship, is plainly perverted (Gal. 1:6-7; 2 Cor. 11:4), and Scripture warns the man that perverts God's gospel as condemned and accursed according to Gal. 1:8-9. That goes for everyone that perverts God's gospel. Paul included even himself when he warned of anyone perverting the gospel of Christ contrary to the apostles doctrine:

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Gal. 1:8).

When Paul said in 1 Tim. 1:3 to "teach no other doctrine,” he wasn't being selective and ranking doctrines or giving allowance to the misinterpretation of Scripture and producing false doctrine. He was tolerating "no other doctrine." No false doctrine should be allowed in a church but Sullivant doesn’t only allow false doctrine in the church — he is also the purveyor of it and lots of it, and then further, teaching scores of men to advance the false doctrine. Where is the Holy Spirit in this when His Word is being corrupted?

Hand-in-hand with Sullivant’s false gospel is his skewed understanding, presentation and application of sanctification, stemming from Keswick/Revivalism “theology" (aka., Higher Life, Deeper Life, Victorious Life, Crucified Life, etc). As the title suggests, the two dovetail. A corrupted sanctification almost always sprouts from a perverted gospel. That's the most foundational, unless I included a fundamental distortion of the identity of Jesus Christ as a part of the false gospel. However, a false gospel is in part what comes out of it and then a necessity for the distorted sanctification and methods. The gospel, sanctification, and then methods always interrelate. It's a form of Keswick sanctification that is part of the overall strategy to build the big institution, big ministry, and the legendary status. This is another educational point from Jack Hyles, but no one is forcing Sullivant's hand in teaching these heresies and having the bigness/power hungry syndrome, or in following the footsteps of his master and mentor Hyles. But its necessary if you want to be a big man in the camp. In Sullivant's land you are not judged according to your doctrine and allegiance to God's Word as to whether you are a good Christian but by extra-scriptural expectations. The water boys for the pope are the most exalted  (the church pastored by the Diotrephes impersonator has its share of water boys, and these are the ones that find favour in his eyes and get to "preach" -- no surprise this institution also now associates with Sullivant and PVBC and the rest of the big camp of the IFB). These are the "yes" men, which is nauseating. Again, all of this was exemplified and perfected by the dictator Hyles and taught at his college Hyles-Anderson, where Sullivant was a student and teacher. He has eaten his cornflakes well.

What Sullivant is purveying is merely what he was taught at Hyles-Anderson College, by the great "fundamentalist" Jack Hyles. His preaching resembles Hyles. The worst effect of Hyles on fundamentalism, I believe, was in his second blessing theology, his creation of first and second class conditions depending on after salvation experiences not taught in the Bible. Hyles claimed that his success came from the power of God, yet in spite of having this power, he also needed a complex system of promotion, marketing, and gimmicks. ability in a post-salvation period on his father's grave.

Sullivant himself uses promotions, marketing and gimmicks, as Hyles infamously did. For instance, the following advertisement for Friend Day at PVBC in 2019 (a trend for other years), with the whole works to attract the masses to fill the pews and feed the coffers: free dinner, cotton candy and bouncy castles for the kids:

Attracting those outside of this church with free dinner, cotton candy, soda pop, and entertainment for the kids, or whatever else, is a man-centred technique. It's using gimmicks to lure lost attenders in order to have more people. This is not a crowd coming mainly because it wants the gospel or hear the truth, but because of a gimmick. The end does not justify the means. Scripture has something to say about the means and God does not approve of good intentions or even if it “worked.” Though it may not be something as bad as what Hyles would do, and others do, it is a carnal method nonetheless. People are being motivated to attend and listen by the item they are being given. The attenders come for the attraction and when they get there, a message is preached, called a gospel. The people are almost forced to listen or pretend to listen, since after all they got this free stuff. A service and a message is geared to that kind of person. This is attempting to take away the offensiveness of what the preacher is to be doing. It's not regulated by Scripture, but by human reasoning and heretical pragmatism. Over time, people make professions and don’t stay, what is sometimes called a turn-over. A low percentage stay. These professions however, whether they stay or not, are still explained as salvations. The message may have been believe, pray this prayer, ask for the free gift of God, or even repent, with repent being solely a “change of mind” or a “mere willingness to change,” or a "turning from unbelief." He completely rejects true Biblical repentance, turning it into a mere change of mind about false religion or false beliefs (i.e. turning from unbelief to belief), in the same fashion as all the other preachers that go through PVBC including their evangelists. One of the ways he supports this heresy is twisting other Scripture, such as the last half of Matt. 7:23, claiming that the "iniquity" mentioned by Jesus there is false religion, those trying to substitute their good works for the Son of God (sermon Are you a True Disciple?). Yikes. When the attendees stop coming to church, they are still considered to be saved people, but they’re “backslidden,” because they never were “dedicated.” The professors that continue attending or return after not attending, are now "dedicated," or offer some kind of confession about "getting right." This dedication or rededication is the view of sanctification. The idea is people who are saved need some kind of experience after salvation that will cause the salvation to flourish and be fruitful. Some have it and others don’t, but even those who don’t have it — they’re still saved.

This is what Sullivant is preaching and doing. A lot more could be said, and will be, but this is the essence of what we are exposing here.

The Revivalist/Keswick institution invitation enthusiastically shouts:"Everyone Welcome!" Oh, I bet they are. More pews and coffers to fill in the growing institution. Get them into church so we can conform them into obedient and fearful sheep...not sheep fearful of God, but sheep of Sullivant and fearful to him. Submission to the system is the requirement. False professing "believers" and false teachers are welcome (until they become too much to deal with), while the true Biblical church which is the pillar and ground of truth, is for saved people only (e.g. Eph 4:11-13ff.). But they wouldn't let a bit of sound doctrine get in their way. The most flimsy and anemic "testimony" is accepted to be true, repeatedly, over and over. Revivalist type Churches such as PVBC want big churches (since small churches are a sin according to John R Rice 3:16), they want pseudo-revivals, plenty of emotion, and they will manufacture events and crisis's to produce these experiences that replace the actual true gospel that requires death to self (Matt 10:39; 16:25; Mk 8:35; Lk 9:24; 17:33; Jn 12:25) and striving (or struggle) to enter into the narrow way of life (Lk 13:23-24), followed by the every day struggle that true sanctification really is (Rom 7). The Biblical and historic view says that sanctification is a day by day struggle against the flesh. The Keswick view says that you reach a higher plane of spiritual existence after you have this experience. They’re different as they relate to God. One is content. The other has a kind of frustration. You don’t become more effective by being a better Christian. You obey the Spirit and that is being effective. Not obeying Him is not effective. True faith, which the just live by (Rom 1:17), is obedience to the Word of God. Many of the people in this environment are obviously unregenerate, since a false gospel does not save souls, so how can we expect unsaved people to actually be sanctified? When someone is not positionally sanctified, they can't be practically sanctified. So in reality what is actually occurring with this false sanctification and revivalism is an attempt to produce the experience of the new birth, which most of them don't know or have. This is in essence what many are striving after, unwittingly, but never arrive obviously. Ongoing sin, error, "falling away," apathy towards the things of God, unsound doctrine, even hatred for certain doctrines, and the like, are tolerated and explained away as being non-disciple or non-surrendered Christian issues. This philosophy and mindset has saturated independent baptists for a number of decades and has resulted in large beautiful churches full of dead mans bones.

When people are given the true gospel, they are given something of great value, and something like cotton candy should not be used to elevate its importance in the lost persons mind. It can't elevate it, only diminish it. At what point do they stop? If the cotton candy and bouncy castle and free dinner "works," then why not go further and get the jumper and then the clown and then the water slide and then the carnival. While we're at it, let's build a gymnasium so the masses can be chronically entertained. In many ways, this is seeker sensitivity "Christianity" and Church-Growth Movement. The Scriptures and the true gospel however is good enough. They should just preach it, but they don't even do that. What they are preaching is a distorted version of the truth, which keeps the whole system breathing. The false gospel is the corrupt and unscriptural response to the message they proclaim. The message must be wrong too, because you can’t have an actual saving Christ in the heart of the one with something less than a right response to Him. So, yes, Jesus is distorted too. Its hard to tell whether the method was the cause of it, or just a deluded understanding of the truth (in light of the Hyles education and the corrupt repentant-less gospel, this is likely the cause). The method likely was led by the desire for success, which is church growth and it will authenticate the church as being powerful or having revival or simply being of God. But it's a man-centred method. What keeps the people in church or returning to church is the experience of Keswick/ second blessing/ revivalism. I also believe many have convinced themselves that this is a true version of Christianity, like other false views have.

The root theological errors are the basis for the bad behaviour. This is the message you will see all over the NT from all the authors, especially from the Apostle Paul. If you have wrong doctrine, you'll have wrong practice. Men like Hyles and Sullivant start with a presupposition. They want to get glory, to be great, to be successful, and be big, and then they developed a theology and practice that would fit into that. The false gospel followed by the false sanctification forms that strategy. Hyles tore up biblical Christianity, and men like Sullivant keep the pogrom going. You still have this happening today all over evangelicalism and fundamentalism, not just independent baptists, and it demands separation.

Sullivant's theology is definitely of the revivalist/Keswick flavour, like his mentor Hyles and majority IFB churches today (at least 75% in our estimation), but revivalism is tied to a wrong doctrine of salvation and sanctification and the methodology that accompanies those. Sullivant’s teachings are the typical echo chamber of revivalist IFB churches. He consistently echos unscriptural Keswick-type errors on sanctification such as the “carnal Christianity” heresy and it’s Keswick currency counterparts of “backsliding” and “lukewarm” and "unbelief," which are actually describing lost people in the Bible but used by men like Sullivant to describe allegedly saved people. This is the consequence of a false gospel and then the false message that follows, but it's also seen as necessary to keep the pews filled. Salvation passages are wrested and manipulated into sanctification and a repentant-less easy believism “gospel.” This heresy is flooded throughout Sullivant's teachings and in many of those whom he invites into the pulpit at PVBC or CBBC (especially men like Rick Flanders and the Van Gelderens). Matter of fact, these errors are extremely common today in revivalists flavoured IFB churches, which is most, but that doesn’t make it anymore true. It’s not true. Its fiction. Pure fabrication made out of sheer cloth. Only it's very dangerous. The mothballing of true Biblical sanctification by Sullivant unto a different form of sanctification that keeps unsaved people as exactly that, doesn't proceed from the teachings of Jesus. The nauseating and continual cliche heard is how most so-called Christians are living a defeated Christian life, but not to give up, and how to achieve the victorious crucified Christian life, which requires "revivals" or some emotionalism-induced crises of rededication to surrender, to get crucified with Christ in order to enter the deeper and victorious life. The continual banality of people (especially the young ones) longing to turn back to the world (Egypt). Offering false assurance to those that confess Christ but do not have a genuine testimony of conversion, do not live a fruitful life, meet not the evidence of salvation plainly revealed in Scripture. Dividing salvation from discipleship. You can be a Christian but not a disciple. No repentance, or false repentance (both in Sullivant's case). Jesus is only Saviour. Just the mere mention of Lordship results in cross-eyed neurosis and pejorative charges of a false gospel. Salvation allegedly from the penalty of sin but not the power of sin. Etcetera. It’s a system of these apostate last days that enables credence to false professors, sanctions acceptance to the Judas’s and Simon the sorcerers and false believers and disciples (such as Jn. 2:23-25; 6:60-66) in the church, to give acceptance to the majority lost Hebrews in the wilderness (and throughout their entire history); etc. It has deceived, deluded and delivered many, many simple-minded false “believers” into the unquenchable torments of hell fire. Rom 6, 7, and 8 plainly refutes everything this “theology” stands for, and exposes the false professors for what they are. Ironically it is this very system of preaching that actually runs in opposition to the true victorious and crucified life. But false believers do not have the victorious life, so they manufacture it and there is no better system than the Keswick theological one to meet the needs of these people.

The problems in Keswick theology are both severe and dangerous. Because of its corrupt roots and faulty foundation, Keswick errs severely in its theological shallowness or even incomprehensibility, neglect of obedience to the Word of God in sanctification, shallow views of sin and perfectionism, support of some tenants of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, improper and unBiblical divorce of justification and sanctification, confusion and heresy about the nature of saving repentance, denial that God’s sanctifying grace always frees Christians from bondage to sin and changes them permanently, failure to warn strongly about the possibility of those who are professedly Christians being unregenerate, support for an unbiblical pneumatology, belief in the continuation of the sign gifts, maintenance of significant exegetical errors, distortion of the positions and critiques of opponents of the errors of Keswick, misrepresentation and heresy on the nature of faith in sanctification, support for a kind of Quietism, and denial that God actually renews the nature of the believer to make him more personally holy, and ecumenical tendencies. Keswick theology differs greatly in important ways from the Biblical doctrine of sanctification. It should be rejected wholesale.

No one should have anything to do with this, especially not true born again believers. As a whole, this is not Biblical Christianity but a bastardized version of it. I think you have some true Christians in such churches and organizations as Pembina Valley Baptist Church, and it appears Biblical, but overall it isn’t Christian. It certainly isn't permissible; there is no justification for any of it. It bears importance to mention that not all of these errors have to necessarily be held to for one to be under the influence of Keswick theology.

There are many examples that could be provided of the erroneous and dangerous sanctification, most of which ties into Keswick-deeper life-higher life-victorious life-crucified life "theology." Here are some of those. A side note, there will be some repetition of sermons and information due to the overlapping of the point subjects.

(a) Error in claiming unsaved people to be saved.

Though this directly ties to salvation (and exemplified in the previous point), the error is frequently exposed when dealing at the practical sanctification level. There is way too much toleration and allowance for unregenerate people who do not reflect Biblical conversion to continue their alleged profession of "salvation" in spite of Scripture clearly speaking against it. There are many examples that could be given of false professors given false assurance of their alleged "salvation." It happens on a continual basis at places like PVBC. Evidence of salvation doesn’t appear to mean much to Sullivant — even though entire epistles are written on the subject (e.g. James and 1 John) and even though their are thousands of Scripture passages that speak to it, practically everywhere salvation is mentioned. But we only hear crickets on the subject and hence the inability to discern lost people from the saved (e.g. Matt. 7:15-20). Salvation is not s draw from a cereal box. It comes with substance, evidence and fruit.

👉🏻 In the sermon Are You a True Disciple one would be lead to believe he is going to describe true disciples and false disciples, considering the title and all, but that is unfortunately not the case. In the world of revivalists/Keswick-purveying heretics and their false gospel, there is only a true disciple or a backslidden disciple. The Biblical concept of a false disciple is an unknown sound to these men. Sullivant will go on to claim the following described people as saved, only backslidden:

“You don’t desire Gods Word and preaching from Gods Word and you want to ditch your Christian friends, your ditch your church, ditch your Bible, ditch your devotions; something’s wrong my friends, somethings wrong. You are one of those disciples that is turning back.”  (time 37:00)

This is crazy heresy. He is giving credence, once again, to a completely lost person. Sullivant is not describing a false "Christian" but one he believes to be true, only "backslidden." Yes indeed something is wrong, we can agree on that, but it’s called a FALSE DISCIPLE, and Sullivant is the very cause of it. His corrupted gospel and then false sanctification results in many of these type of "believers." This is a good example of keeping the system breathing, growing the empire, filling the pews and the coffers. You wouldn't want to offend people by telling them the truth. The Bible warns of this self-inflicted, self-deceived disease everywhere. People that don’t love God’s Word and God’s preaching and God’s people, are LOST. Yes, LOST. At best, they are the thorny soil who love the world and the things of the world and never bear any fruit because they are unregenerate (Mk. 4:7, 19). They are turned back indeed, which is “according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.” (2 Pet. 2:22).

Assuming unsaved people to be saved is actually a wicked teaching. He is giving assurance to a completely lost person, approving of their deception, inoculating them to the real truth of their nature, and thereby making them a two-fold child of hell more than Sullivant himself. A bit later, more of the same is heard:

“Sometimes we turn back because of persecutions, trouble and hardships.”

Again, the context is you are a Christian, just not a true disciple, a backslidden one. These are lost people as well, this time the stony soil (Mk 4:5-6, 17), which have no root, hence why these people turn back. Unbelievably he would twist both the stony and thorny grounds into “Christians” in the sermon, whereas Christ is very clearly describing lost people that profess but do not possess. One is rootless thus fruitless, the other fruitless thus rootless. Root and fruit go together, and only the good ground's got the good stuff. He is perverting very clear truth here and twisting it into his presupposed doctrine. We cover this parable in detail here: All People Fit into One of the Four Soils of the Parable of the Sower and Seed — Which One Are You?

Continuing on, this time directly referring to the parable of the sower:

“Choke the word, that means the word was alive and vibrant in their life but the world . . . it says unfruitful that means he at one time was fruitful. They were being used but no longer no more, they have became unfruitful. Folks you don’t want to become unfruitful. Thats where John 15 comes in.”

This is serious corruption, not only of the parable of the sower and John 15, but also in describing unsaved people as saved albeit unfruitful. Mk. 4:7 and Lk. 8:14 (both the earthily and spiritual application) tell us this ground is unfruitful: “it yielded no fruit” (Mk. 4:7) and it “bring[s] no fruit to perfection.” (Lk. 8:14). In other words, no good lasting ongoing fruit, which means they are unsaved, period (Matt 12:33-35; 13:23). He clearly does not understand how to rightly divide the Word of truth, so he forces Scripture to fit his narrative, teaching lies in support of his heresies and damnable heresies. One very interesting thing about the parable of the sower is that it’s a litmus test to true salvation. He fails. Mk. 4:13 says Sullivant is unsaved, because he doesn’t understand this parable. Jn. 15 is also terribly twisted. The unfruitful branches in Jn. 15 are lost people. They are cast into hell (v. 6). We cover John 15 and Christ's teaching on the vine here: Does John 15 Teach that Saved People May Not Abide in the Vine, in the Lord Jesus Christ? It’s all bad, very bad what Sullivant is saying. These false teachings are all means of support for his heresy on sanctification which is rooted in his false gospel/salvation.

Sullivant is drawing at straws, evident in his lack of examples. He sounds desperate. The only example he can ever give in his sermons is Peter going fishing, and thats exactly where he goe,s once again, off to Jn 21. But it’s a serious perversion of Scripture and defamation of Peter and the apostles because the stony and thorny soil both represent false converts and not born again believers, like Peter. And so he lies and defames the apostles, actually condemning them as lost people according to God’s Word:

“But sometimes people turn back because of persecutions, troubles and hardships. But not only that, they turn back because of sin, discouragement and backsliding, remember Peter denied the Lord, turn to John 21.”

Again people that turn back because of persecutions snd troubles and offences, etc, are unsaved false professors reflecting the stony soil. Unsurprising, in this same context, Sullivant goes to the parable of the sower and the seed (Matt 13; Mk 4; Lk 8) and completely distorts and perverts the meaning of this critical parable, first concerning the stony soil claiming this to be a true Christian (but a backslidden and fallen away one), and then the same with the thorny soil, perverting the clear truth of this crucial parable that lays the foundation for all parables, and twisting it into what he wants it to say: “Choke the Word, that means the Word was alive and vibrant in their life but the world . . . it says unfruitful that means he at one time was fruitful. They were being used but no longer no more, they have became unfruitful.” If he knew how to rightly divide the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15) he would've compared all three parables and noted that the thorny soil never had any good fruit at all (Lk 8:14, "bring no fruit to perfection" and Mk 4:7,"it yielded no fruit"). Both the stony and thorny soil represent false converts and not truly regenerate born again believers. Because he does not understand this critical parable, the Lord Jesus in Mk. 4:13 says Sullivant is actually unsaved; it's a litmus test of faith.

Concerning Peter, he was without the Spirit of God indwelling him. That came after, on the day of Pentecost (Ac 2), just like Jesus had told them earlier: "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you [presently], and shall be in you [after Christ's ascension]" (Jn 14:17). Yes, that is all the difference in the world when it comes to boldness and courage, as also noted in the life of Peter unfolding post-Pentecost in the book of Acts, a man on fire, full of the Holy Ghost, fervently bold in the face of any persecution and threats. The use of Peter's failures pre-Pentecost is a straw man, just like using OT saints who, like Peter, had the Spirit of God dwelling with them, but not in them. So the propensity to err or sin is much greater, obviously. To no surprise, Sullivant uses king David as an example, again a popular avenue, stating, “Oh you might be a David,” after stating, “Anyone can backslide.” No, David was without the indwelling Spirit of God, while NT true believers are not, yet never is referred to as backslidden. That is why no murderer had eternal life abiding in him (1 Jn. 3) and will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21), same as adulterers. True believers do not, can not and will not ever be like David. It's literally impossible. I wonder or surmise whether the difficulty in understanding this is due to these men not having or understanding what the indwelling Spirit of God is.

He reads Jn 21:2 and then says,

“Notice the rest of this scripture, notice what’s going to happen when you become one of those that turn back, one of those that go away, one of those that backslide, one of those that don’t keep going forward in your Christian life. . . . You know misery loves company, let's take someone with us. . . . Jesus stood on the shore but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus. Isn’t that sad, when you backslide you actually get to the point where you don’t even recognize the things of God anymore. They got to that state because of their backslidden condition where they didn’t even recognize Jesus anymore.”

This is plain heresy. And conjecture. They did recognize Jesus, the context says that actually, and only because of a likely far distance from the shore did they not initially recognize Him. Does Sullivant not read the entire context, or simply cherry pick what he needs for his rhetoric? He is adding to God’s Word. He is also corrupting God's Word concerning "backsliding," a term that means to apostatize. Backsliders are apostates, and apostates are unsaved people (1 Jn 2:19; 2 Pet 2:18-22).

The so-called “backsliding” classification is derived not through rightly dividing the word of truth and diligent Bible study but by a need to impose a doctrine or practice in defiance of the context, right division of Gods Word, Biblical sense and the doctrine of salvation. I understand some do it ignorantly truly believing that this is true, though that is no excuse, but Sullivant is not one of them. In Scripture, none of the sixteen occasions the word or its derivates show up does it ever refer to saved people but always to lost people and almost entirely to Israel as a lost nation. The term itself is found only in the OT. The 16 passages are: Pr 14:14; Jer 2:19; 3:6, 8, 11-12, 14, 22; 5:6; 8:5; 14:7; 31:22; 49:4; Hos 4:16; 11:7; 14:1-4. The NT itself is completely silent on the term or the principles behind it. For such a “prominent” subject of the average preacher today, one that occupies a fair share of their time, you’d think the NT would have something to say about it. But nada. Not even one mention, including by the Lord Jesus. And of course there is a very important reason for that: it’s only applicable to the lost Jew and nation of Israel, during a time when Christ was dealing with them and leading them, while today, since their cold and utter rejection of their Messiah, they are providentially and divinely blinded till the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled (end of 70th week of Daniel), which means they aren't and cannot even be in a backslidden state, hence why it is never mentioned even once in the NT. They are presently, and have been from the time of Christ's ascension, far removed from the truth, and only interested in keeping their religious system of works breathing. The blindness of their minds however has been ongoing from the time of the Exodus (2 Cor 3:13-14), "But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away." (2 Cor 3:15-16). But it only got worst when they rejected Christ nearly two millennia ago. Thankfully all of Israel (the 1/3 that survives the wrath of the Antichrist) will be saved at the conclusion of the Great Tribulation, the 70th week of Daniel, when they finally call upon their Messiah whom they rejected and murdered (in cahoots with the Gentiles). To be an apostate, you have to have been at one point close to the truth, like the false teachers of 2 Pet 2:17-22 or the false believers of 1 Jn 2:19 and Jn 2:23-25 and Jn 8:30-36, or the false disciples of Jn 6:60-66, or like Judas, or Balaam, or Demas, and others. These are all apostates, and thus backsliders, for they at one point in time were very nigh to the truth and light of God's Word, "The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;" (Rom 10:8; De 30:12-14; 81:10-11), but they wouldn't repentantly believe (Rom 10:1-4, and we know the history of Israel). The very definition of backsliding, translated from the Hebrew “shobab,” means to apostatize, to turn back to an idolatrous life; the behaviour of the apostate; one who falls from the faith and practice of religion (Webster’s 1828), and the Bible is clear that know no apostate is ever saved (2 Pet 2:17-22; Heb 3:7-4:11; 10:38-39; 1 Jn 2:19; Jn 6:66). The backslider is as the dog and pig who returns to the ways of his former life before his confession/profession (Is 56:10-11; Matt 7:6; 2 Pet 2:17-22; Pr 26:11), though many are not that dramatically exposed in this life (e.g. Matt 7:21-23; 1 Tim 5:24).

Concerning the professing disciples of Jn 6:60-66, Sullivant says,

“I believe some of them were born again, but some of them turned back, they walked no more with Him. Why? Because they turned back, they backslid.”

I'm not sure why Sullivant divides the people of Jn 6 here in two, since both are considered to be saved by him. Unless of course he is dividing the Christian disciple ("born again") from the Christian non-disciple ("some of them turned back, they walked no more with Him"), but its still nonsensical taking into account that he is directly speaking to the new birth. So according to Sullivant's own words here and throughout the entirety of this sermon, all these false disciples of Jn 6:66 were actually saved, since you had those that he believes were "born again" and those who had merely turned back, backslid, which he always defines as saved people as well. The Lord Jesus however says the very, very opposite, stating they were ALL UNSAVED, all turned away from Him, except for the 12, of which one was a devil. Christ actually contrasts the false disciples of Jn 6:60-66 with true disciples in Jn 6:67-72, while making explicit mention of Judas being also a false disciple and really part of the ones in Jn 6:66 "of his disciples" who "went back, and walked no more with him." People that stop following Christ expose themselves to be false, deceived "believers." Period. No apostate is saved, and of course has never been saved. Everything Sullivant says here, and most of the sermon is nothing but lies, lies and more lies. It's pure fiction, orchestrated by a fake preacher, a false teacher.

He goes on to give brief accounts of various independent baptist ministries and evangelists, etc, in Murfreesboro, Tennessee during his adolescent years that came and went, not sticking it out in many cases, which are all meant to be illustrations of alleged true disciples turning back, which is a blatant lie and the product of a false gospel and corrupted sanctification, concluding with the story of a man that he worked alongside with who went back completely away from Christianity, but yet still proclaimed him saved! Unbelievable!

“I worked side by side with an evangelist [on the church building, while he was in high school] and because of his attitude and laziness and lack of character, he started for a while, he preached for a while, he would travel this way and that way but he didn’t stick with it, he turned back and he’s not even in church today. So can a disciple turn back? Yes he can.” (time 22:00).

Precisely our point. Turning sinners into saints without the new birth. No wonder there are SO many professing "Christians" in the Bible belt of America, or America in general, that have never been genuinely born again and converted to Christ, though they claim to be. Men like Hyles, Bob Gray, Curtis Hutson, John R. Rice, Michael Sullivant and many others are a major cause of it, and how fearfully awful is that! Sullivant is a very confused man and a deceiver and wrester of God’s Word (2 Pet 3:16-17). NO, true disciples can’t and don't turn back. False ones do (Jn. 6:60-66; 1 Jn 2:19). This subject is so basic Christianity 101, true Christianity, that one is left with no other thought than that the author behind it is likely unregenerate himself.

In the sermon he also argues Demas to be saved, but turned back (time 19:00), which again was to fit his false philosophy that “A Christian can back slide. A Christian can turn back.” This is very, very common preaching. But it's not true. No, a Christian can’t turn back. He is lying. Pure fiction. He is twisting God’s Word to support his corrupted and perverted theology and gospel, which is always the work of a false teacher. Yes Demas did turn back, and all who turn back are unsaved, apostates (e.g. Is. 1:4; 28:13; Jer. 7:23-24; Heb. 10:28-29; 1 Jn. 2:19; Jn. 8:31-36; 2 Pet. 2:17-22; etc). The Bible is very clear that its false believers and false teachers that turn back (e.g. 1 Jn 2:19; 2 Pet 2:18-22). This is what Paul is warning of concerning Demas. Paul said Demas “forsook him, having loved this present world” (2 Tim. 4:10) and John warned "If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him" (1 Jn. 2:15). Jesus also said those who have not the love of the Father in them, are lost (Jn. 5:42), as did Paul (Rom. 8:28-39). And forsaking Paul the apostle, like the other apostles, is equivalent to forsaking God, for the apostles were God's messengers, giving the inspired revelation of God to the world (2 Tim. 3:16), apostolic doctrine (1 Jn. 2:19; Rom. 16:17; Phil. 3:17-19; cf. 1 Cor. 4:16; see also 1 Cor. 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 1 Th. 1:6; Heb. 6:12) and thus forsaking Paul is forsaking the Lord Jesus Christ — hence why Paul could write, "ye became followers of us, and of the Lord" (1 Th. 1:6) in the same breath, which again further confirms Demas to be an apostate. Demas was never saved to begin with. No apostate is.

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." (1 Jn 2:19)

The position and practice (which are inseparable) of the true believer is always that of increasing holiness, godliness, and righteousness (Ti 2:11-14; 3:3-9)—unlike the heretic who wilfully chooses false doctrine and error, “Knowing that he that is such is subverted [twisted, corrupted], and sinneth, being condemned of himself” (Ti 3:10-11)— and obedience to God’s Word (Jn 14:23-24; 1 Jn 2:3-5) since God dwells in His saints, putting in them love for Him (De 30:6; Rom 5:5) and fear of Him, since He has made “an everlasting covenant with them,” wherein God promises “that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.” (Jer 32:40). They will not depart. They will not fall alway. They will not backslide. God never stops working in His children nor does He leave any of them to themselves (1 Cor 1:6-9; Phil 1:6; 2:12-13; 1 Th 2:13; 5:23-24; 2 Th 2:12-17; 3:2-3; 2 Tim 1:12; 4:18; Heb 13:20-21; Jer 32:37-41). God consistently “worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” (Phil 2:13). When the saint sins he is chastened by God, further revealing Gods continual dealing with His children (Heb 12:5-11; 1 Cor 11:28-32). If the saint doesn’t respond to God’s chastening, he may suffer and even die (1 Cor 11:26-32; cf. 2 Sam 12:13), but that doesn’t imply going backward/backsliding. That’s just God dealing with a child whom He loves (Pr 3:11-12; Heb 12:5-11).

There is something wrong with Sullivant's ability to interpret and discern truth in Scripture. Theology will influence someone's take on salvation passages. He grew up hearing salvation passages preached as “discipleship," and Hyles and Hutson reinforced that, and explaining them now that way for years. All his associates do the same. The whole NT now must be seen in that light. The Bible isn't the authority for the position. The Bible conforms to the position. This is a mark of a false teacher.

He has an unscriptural view on what salvation is and this keeps people in bondage to the church, his church. That is one of the objectives, and it's not unlike what false religious groups do. He thinks that a person that stops serving the Lord is still a Christian. He thinks a person that stops living for Jesus Christ, obeying His Word or goes off into his old lifestyle is still a Christian. Their problem, according to Sullivant, is that they went to secular university and weren’t active in a church (versus just being attendees), so they didn’t turn out right. In this horrible philosophy is the heretical and ungodly man-centred beliefs and view that a person’s fall or rise is according to man, according to the church, when the truth is very much different in that the supernatural and incredible event of salvation changes an individual so much that nothing in this life can ever stop him from serving the Lord, since every born again Christian is a servant of the Lord (Matt 25:14-23), a minister of God’s Word and reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18-19) and an ambassador for Christ (2 Cor. 5:20) and God NEVER stops working in him from salvation till death, to do of His will of and good pleasure (Phil. 1:6; 2:12-13). Every born again believer is predestinated to this and it will happen (Rom. 8:28-29; Eph. 1:11, 13). The true believer, versus the placebo invented by Sullivant here (to keep the cheque’s coming and the pews occupied), don’t stop serving the Lord!

Men like Sullivant will never cast doubt upon someones profession of faith by challenging it with the truth, never contrast true salvation with false salvation, the saved with the unsaved, never speak of the absolute evidence of salvation, etc, even though the Bible is absolutely loaded with these paramount subjects (and God tests every person's faith that professes to belong to Him), and rather does the very opposite, silence in the face of these doctrines, proclaiming unsaved people to be saved, which are people who do not align with the all inclusive evidence of salvation in God’s Word and/or having an unscriptural testimony — he appears to not understand salvation, or how to rightly divide the word of truth, all of which can lead to only one conclusion. Sullivant twists the scriptures to fit his theology, which is also the work of a false teacher. God's Word is not the measuring stick for Sullivant's theology but a system that keeps the people coming and in bondage to the church.

The following example, is the example of examples concerning this.

👉🏻 In the sermon Backsliding (Oct 29, 2017)—besides the massive misuse and perversion of the word "backsliding" — he gives three examples of professing believers who got saved “at a young age” but then “got away from the Lord” and got into all sorts of error, sin, and wickedness. But they were always saved according to Sullivant because they prayed a prayer and went to an IFB church — they are only guilty of backsliding. What a convenient excuse for rebellion and unregeneracy. In the last example you will see it’s all about who they are, their influence on him and their education that merits their salvation, which further reflects Sullivant’s corrupted gospel, even potentially, very closely, reflecting a works-salvation. This sermon on its own, never mind the repeated perversion of the true gospel with his repentant-less, Lord-less, easy-believism, quick-prayerism version of the truth or all the other perversions of sanctification, reveals he is one very confused and heretical man who has no business being behind a pulpit.

(a) The first example is that of a backslidden man whom he knew from Winnipeg who apparently got away from the Lord and then lost everything including his family, due to drugs and alcohol, spending years on’”skid row,” which is on the streets known for drug addicts, prostitution and homelessness. And then, unbelievably, he claims the man to have always been saved throughout these years of wickedness, since he was “saved at a young age,” with his years of utter wickedness excused as merely “backslidden.” Wow, this is plain evil, not only for the false assurance given to this man but also because of all the vulnerable and impressionable ears that hear this utter heresy and excuse their own false professions. Sullivant’s greatest concern wasn’t that the man rejected God and never glorified God or that he was living like the devil and in wickedness, or the clear fact that he was a false believer having never been converted but that “he blew his opportunity as a husband as a father as well as a business owner.” Yikes, that is what you would call man-centredness 101. This really does reflect a lot about how man-centred and corrupt and unBiblical Sullivant really is. He plays on peoples emotions, especially being that Mennonites (who make up most of his congregation) are so family and work orientated, and doesn't care one iota over the glory or obedience of God. His mind is far from the truth of Scripture, he is doing his own thing.

(b) The second example of “backsliding” Sullivant gives is one from his own church, PVBC. This man is also a genuine Christian according to Sullivant (only “backslidden” of course) who left PVBC for the city with his family to pursue his love of money and “pride of life” and “the lusts of the flesh” (1 Jn 2:16), just like the lost thorny soil describes (Lk. 8:14). The man didn’t even care about going to a true Bible believing church when he moved to the city and at the end lost his family to the world and his wife divorced him, all clear illustrations of a hypocritical and accursed home, which is a unconverted home that had a pretence of Christianity (like those in Matt 23 and 7:21-23 and Ps 1:4-6). The “unbelieving wife” was not “sanctified by the husband” and their children were not “holy” but “unclean” (1 Cor 7:14), because the husband/father was unconverted false pretender, but not according to Sullivant who claims anyone and everyone to be saved if they prayed a prayer, especially if followed by baptism at PVBC. It reflects his heretical and perverted “gospel” and also that he is simple-minded charlatan, believing every word and without discernment. Nowhere in Scripture are the simple saved people by the way (e.g. Ps. 19:7; 119:130; Pr. 1:20; 14:15, 18). They have no spiritual discernment since they have not the Spirit of discernment (1 Cor. 2:9-16).

(c) The third example is of two brothers in Tennessee, who he knew from his home church. These two brothers set out one night with a few friends to rob a farm while drunk as skunks, and ended up murdering the man and his wife, and spending the next 33 years in jail. But these were saved believers according to Sullivant, even though they were wicked thieving drunkard murderers!! U.n.b.e.l.i.e.v.a.b.l.e.! Just. Wow! This is sick. Sullivant goes to bat for them, claiming "They backslid. They grew up in a Christian home. They even went to a Christian church. They even went to a Bible believing, Bible preaching, independent fundamental Baptist church. They went to a Christian school. Graduated from a Christian school." As if that is how we are saved. Like I said, a works gospel is being promoted here, seeing that Sullivant is basing his analysis of their spiritual condition upon their previous actions and life. Sullivant then goes on to unbeliebably juxtaposition these men with Lot, defaming the Word of God even further. If that isn’t just blatantly unscriptural and contrary to true salvation/gospel, and a wicked, heretical teaching, turning the grace of God into lasciviousness (Ju. 1:4), I’m not sure what would be. It certainly is scorching the earth kinda stuff. No wonder the world makes a mockery of Christianity, the very thing he ironically warns of! Turns out, he is the very problem!

Here is what he says about these two murdering thieving drunkards, providing a commentary for their assurance of salvation:

“I remember in Tennessee two young men growing up in a family, a good, a good family. I know the man and his wife well, . . . those two young men, brothers, had been out with two other friends, they went out country drinking, they went to a farm house and thought they would rob the farmer, they would then have some money to finance some other good times. Well one thing led to another and they ended up killing that farmer and his wife. Both of them got sentenced for life sentences . . . a life sentence in Tennessee is 33 years. Here’s two young men in their early twenties, I don’t think for a minute they got up and said you know this day, we can’t wait till tonight, the wheels are going to be set in motion where we’re going to ruin the rest of our lives. One of the brothers got out early, and the other did his time. Both continue to struggle until this very day with their walk with God because of that, what we would say, chain of events. They backslid. They grew up in a Christian home. They even went to a Christian church. They even went to a Bible believing, Bible preaching, independent fundamental Baptist church. They went to a Christian school. Graduated from a Christian school. And yet at the same time they decided they didn’t want to go that way anymore. And the rest is a sad case of history. I think Lot is a premier example of a backslidden life and its destruction and its waste. Pr. 14:14 says, The backslider in heart shall be filled with his own ways: and a good man shall be satisfied from himself.”

This is the “gospel” and practical sanctification that Sullivant preaches, a perverted and corrupted gospel without repentance which means nothing and results in false conversions and false sanctification, because it is a false gospel since only half the truth is told. He leaves vital parts out that are going to result in many people coming short of genuine, true salvation, and that's why they don't have power over sin, because they were never converted to begin with. If one's life is not dramatically and permanently changed, then you are not a child of God. If there is not a complete and permanent reversal of hates and loves, there was no true conversion. Sullivant leaves out vital parts that are going to result in most people never being saved, and that's why they don't have power over sin — they were never converted. Faith needs to be defined by the Bible. The philosophy that proclaims that one can have saving faith in Jesus and not be living for Him is completely Anti-Christ in light of Matt 7, the Epistle of James, Epistle of 1 John, Jn 14-16, and so much more. All those who truly believe to the saving of the soul bear some fruit, 30, 60, or 100 fold. Its starts at conversion (Col 1:4-6; Ezk. 36:25-27; Jer. 23:3; Ps. 1:1-3; 92:12-15; Pr. 11:30; 12:12b; Matt. 3:1-12; 7:15-20; 13:8-23; 21:28-32, 41-44; Mk. 4:20-29; Lk. 8:15-16; Jn. 4:35-38; 15:1-16; Rom. 11:16; 2 Cor. 5:18-20; 9:10; Jam. 1:18; 2:14-26; 3:17). All with this true saving faith have some gold, silver, and precious stones (Phil. 1 and 2). The guarantee of God that saved people grow, mature, serve Him, etc, is crystal clear. The salvation that Sullivant preaches is no salvation at all, along with the corrupted practical sanctification that flows from that. The sinner is left wallowing and drowning in their own sin, un-rescued, unsaved, but pretending to be and then being fed that they are, never having "victory" because victory over sin, the devil and the world is won at salvation, the moment the saint becomes an overcomer (Rom 6; 1 Jn 2:13-14; 4:3-4; 5:3-5; Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; 21:7). Titus 2 and 3 tells us what the actual grace of God accomplishes. The biggest problem with Sullivant, which has a domino effect concerning the doctrine of sanctification, is his perversion of saving faith. Saving faith involves commitment or surrender to the Lordship of Christ, which directly ties into true, Biblical repentance. Denying this plain Biblical fact is a rejection of a core element of true saving faith and a serious corruption and perversion of the gospel of Christ (cf. Gal 1:6-9). People need to reject this heretical corruption espoused by Sullivant and PVBC and separate from them and all others who are unwilling to stand for the true gospel of justification by true repentant faith alone in Jesus Christ, that surrenders to Him as Lord and Saviour.

Concerning the term "backsliding," it is found only in the OT. None of the 16 occasions the word or its derivates show up does it refer to saved people but always to lost people and almost entirely to Israel as a lost nation: Pr 14:14; Jer 2:19; 3:6, 8, 11-12, 14, 20-22; 5:6; 8:5; 14:7; 31:22; 49:4; Hos 4:16; 11:7; 14:1-4. The NT is silent on it. Backsliding means to apostatize, “An apostate; one who falls from the faith and practice of religion" (Webster’s 1828), and we know absolutely no apostate is saved (e.g. 2 Pet 2:17-22; Heb 3:7-4:11; 10:38-39). Never is backsliding used to describe a true believer in Scripture. Jer 7:23-24; 15:6 & Heb 10:38-39 specifically tell us those who go backwards are unsaved.

👉🏻 In the sermon The Backsliding Disciple (Aug 15, 2004) Sullivant applies the seven abominations of God in Pr. 6 to “backsliding Christians,” whereas God is clearly describing unsaved people (even the context says that, vv. 12-14) who commit these abominable sins. Never at any place are saved people considered an abomination. Not ever. He claims Lot’s wife was saved when she very clearly wasn’t (thats what he usually teaches, but then in one sermon he says she was unsaved — confusion!). Misuses and abuses just Lot a lot, to qualify lost people as saved, again very common in Keswick/Revivalist-type churches. He claims many people personal to him and to the church to be saved when in fact they were very clearly unsaved. One of his favourite subjects to teach on is "backsliding," as noted by the title of the sermon, which is very strange considering the NT never even mentions the word or principle even once. As briefly mentioned above, and discussed further below, backsliding means to apostatize, a backslider is an apostate. This sermon once again demonstrated that Sullivant does not understand the difference between saved and unsaved, or pre- and post-indwelling of the Spirit of God, and that is the case with many hundreds of his sermons, if not more. His writings include the same grievous error, as noted in the Ministry Minute post of CanAmera Missions Doing More to Improve Our Discipleship (Jan 16, 2014), demonstrating a serious lack of understanding between true salvation and false salvation. Like most IFB Big Camp preachers, his determination of when someone's a false believer does not align with God’s Word one bit.

(b) Dividing discipleship from salvation, sanctification from justification, so that one can be a Christian but not a disciple, so that one can be indistinguishable from the world.

This is extremely common in Sullivant's world and those who are influenced by him, but it's surely heresy in the first degree. It completely changes salvation and what Jesus and the apostles were consistently teaching and preaching in Scripture. They create a false two-tiered form of Christianity, which is classic Keswick theology. Its heresy.

In the theological system of Sullivant and Hyles and the rest of the world of Revivalist IFB churches, which forces an interpretation on huge parts of the NT, true repentance is called "works." Belief which is something more than "accepting Jesus as your personal Saviour," is not belief, but is "works." If you have to give up anything, its works. Believing in Jesus as Lord means Jesus becomes Lord of everything in your life, which is works. You get saved when you accept Jesus as Saviour and sometime later or even never, you become a disciple. The requirements for being a disciple are much greater than being saved. A few people can be a disciple, but many, many can be saved without being a disciple. Those that cross the great plains of becoming a disciple, these will be welcomed into the big camp, the big boys club. These are not just traditional and methodological, but also theological.

Throughout scripture it is very clear that "disciple" and "believer" are synonymous categories from a study of the word "disciple. No clear texts contrast "believers" as a bigger category and "disciples" as an elite subcategory, while in many passages disciples are contrasted with lost people and in other passages Christ calls lost people to become disciples and thus receive salvation. For that matter, the Greek of Ac 11:26 equates as identical categories "disciple" and "Christian," so anti-Lordship people should exhort saved people to become Christians by a post-conversion act of surrender if they really were consistent with their denial that all true believers are disciples.

The false gospel and then false sanctification that Sullivant embraces and purveys is one that separates salvation from obedience, separates Jesus as Saviour from Jesus as Lord, separates justification from sanctification, separates salvation from from discipleship. It’s a disjointed emphasis and unbiblical distinction and it truly is a scandalous and deluded “gospel.” Let’s consider some examples.

False views on discipleship.

“I see many ministries that are great at winning a soul, yet somewhere along the line they fail to facilitate growth in the believer.” (Michael Sullivant, Medicine or Compromise).

These are the false believers that are borne out of the corrupt system of easy-believism, quick-prayerism, rejection of true repentance and the Lordship of Christ, the salesmanship "gospel" that Sullivant and his cronies teach in their church and school. A “believer” that doesn’t grow is not a true born again believer. Jn. 8:31-36 is one example among many, where Jesus said:

"If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. . . . Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed."

Professing Christians that don't grow are obviously not continuing in God's Word. There is a serious spiritual problem, in the same sense of a baby that stops growing. They don't need to become "disciples" from a "Christian" perspective, but rather true disciples through the new birth.

👉🏻 In his sermon Take up your Cross (using Lk. 9:23-26 as his text), he says to the congregation which he believes to be true Christians:

“I wonder how many disciples we have today.” (time 16:12).

Really?! According to what Gods Word teaches, that would be equivalent to saying, ‘I wonder how many Christians we have today.’ But of course that is not what he meant because he is under the seriously flawed and heretical philosophy that one can be a Christian but not a disciple. This entire sermon is foundationally corrupt. From start to finish. Lk. 9:23 is referring to salvation, not the Christian life as Sullivant teaches, as the context makes extremely clear (vv. 23-26). This verse is not an invitation to some kind of higher Christian living as a disciple as Sullivant puts it, but an invitation to salvation. Every time Jesus said this, He was not calling people to discipleship but calling people who were not saved to be converted. The gospel that Jesus proclaimed, yea His own gospel, was a call to follow Him as Lord, it was a call to follow Him in submissive obedience. It was far more than a plea for prayer or raise a hand or walk the sawdust trail or do some ceremonially thing to be off the hook of God’s eternal wrath and then some time latter apply passages such as these and then become an actual disciple. That is serious heresy and spiritual whoredom. True salvation don't work like that. While the gospel of Christ was and is the offer of the forgiveness of all sin and the promise of eternal life, it is at the same time a call to self denial, bearing the cross and following Christ. That is why this is consistently preached throughout the gospels by Jesus (e.g. Matt. 10:32-39; 16:24-26; Mk. 8:34-38; Lk. 9:57-62; 14:25-15:32; etc) to the lost multitudes and to His alleged “disciples” who many weren’t (cf. Jn. 6:60-66; 2:23-25). Sullivant even admits that Jesus “is addressing a crowd, and His disciples are there too” (time 16:13) but fails to put two and two together. Why would Jesus be teaching a crowd that is predominantly lost (which we know because it is stated everywhere; at the end Jesus only had a little flock, which counted 120 in Acts 1) on how to live the Christian life? Thats what you would call confusion but God is not the author of confusion. When the true gospel is presented, it inherently has a rebuke and is an enemy to superficiality, to shallowness and outwardly hypocritical response, something addressed by Lk. 9:23-26 and its parallel passages, Matt. 16:24-26, Mk. 8:34-38 and Jn 12:24-25. To those genuinely converted whose faith is not superficial, these evidences of self denial crossing bearing will continue to manifest themselves in them. But it doesn’t start at some point after conversion. It starts at conversion because the same truth is required for salvation. It is surrendering to Jesus as Lord, to be His disciple & follower.

Sullivant would go on to corrupt all four verses, Lk. 9:23-26, into something post-salvation, something that occurs at some later point in time when the Christian supposedly wants to become a disciple. Sullivant rebelliously rejects what Christ is teaching, specifically stating, concerning v. 24, “this is not talking of salvation here.” He is lying and bearing false witness to what Jesus is very clearly teaching. He continues after quoting v. 24:

“In other words quit trying to live your own life. Quit trying to do your own thing. Quit trying to build your own business. Quit trying to do what you want to do.”

This is how these passages are twisted and wrested and corrupted to make them say what he wants them to say. To bend them to his philosophy and to the lives of the unregenerate people in his church, who do not live for the Lord Jesus but for themselves, for their own things, for their businesses, doing what they want to do and not God’s will. Applying them post-salvation provides allowance for a church full of flesh-motivated "Christians." If he actually taught the true gospel that requires self-denial, dying to self, turning from all sin/self/stuff/people, then a statement as such would not even be necessary, since that person quit trying to live his own life, quit trying to his own thing and build his own business and do whatever it is that his flesh wants to do, when he truly and biblically repented and surrendered. When he was saved, in other words. The people being described by Sullivant are condemned by the Bible as lost. Very clearly and very plainly. The true born again Christian does NOT live for himself anymore (2 Cor. 5:15-6:1). He lives for and does God’s will, a HUGE evidence of true salvation (Matt. 7:21; 1 Jn. 2:3-5, 17; 3:22-24; Jn. 7:16-18; 8:31-32; etc; etc). Those who characteristically serve mammon and the lusts of their flesh and pride of life are very clearly unsaved (1 Jn. 2:15-16; Lk. 12:15-21).

Heresy appears to be a weak word in describing this perversion of Christ’s preaching and doctrine. I’m reminded of 2 Jn. 1:9-11 where we are told that such who do this are false teachers and have not God. He is not coming with the doctrine of Christ, but a subtly perverted version thereof. We are warned to not fellowship with them or wish them Godspeed.

Verse 26 he continues to wrest these verses into something post-salvation, claiming we can live a life of shame whereas Gods Word says shame of Him is removed at salvation, actually a prophetic fulfillment at conversion for each individual (Is 28:16; 45:16-17; 54:4). Not being ashamed of Christ anymore is fulfilled at salvation: Rom. 10:11; 9:33; 1:16. “For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall NOT be ashamed.” (Rom. 10:11). The Bibles declares that one is either ashamed or isn't. Not a combination of the two, but one or the other. Not sometimes non ashamed and sometimes ashamed. This is the way of false "believer," the pretender, the hypocrite, who wants to the straddle the fence and have it both ways. God's Word teaches two ways of man, two natures, two types, two peoples, NOT three, and unregenerate heretics don't get it. There are Only Two Classes or Categories of People in God’s Word, Not Three. As Rom. 10:11 reads, removal of shame is fulfilled at salvation and is a prophetic fulfilment of Is. 28:16 which is the passage quoted by Paul in Rom. 9 & 10. When one is truly converted, God is never again ashamed of them, “wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God” (Heb. 11:16). Those who, rather than being ashamed of their sins (Rom. 6:21; cf. Rom. 1:16; 2 Tim. 1:8, 12, 16) are ashamed to follow Christ and His Words in the evil and adulterous world (Lk. 9:26) will have Christ be ashamed of them at His return and be damned—for Christ is “not ashamed to call [true believers] brethren” (Heb. 2:11), and “God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city” (Heb. 11:16; Lk. 9:26). No text in Scripture indicates that God will be “ashamed” of His people—He is not ashamed of them (Heb. 11:16), and nor are His people through the new birth ever ashamed of Him.

Lk. 9:23-26 clearly teaches salvation and that one who refuses to become Christ’s disciple will face an eternity in hell. Wresting these passages as pastor Sullivant does is serious perversion of Gods Word, “which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (2 Pet. 3:16). It is an “error of the wicked” (2 Pet. 3:17) which is an unsaved person, a false teacher. Scorching the earth with denial and rejection doesn't change the truth of the matter.

In this sermon we note serious confusion as to the flesh and the Christian and dying to self, which fits with the previous statements of professing Christians living for themselves. Sullivant says:

“The flesh is repulsed in dying to self. We want to satisfy our flesh. We want to be respected in society.”

Without context, this could be true...., that is if he was describing unsaved people. But that is not the context, nor would it ever be in Sullivant's world. He is describing people that are allegedly already converted but are living for the flesh. It is a lie. The flesh, the old man, died to self at salvation where it is “crucified with Christ” (Rom. 6:6; Gal. 2:20; 5:24). The flesh/self must be denied to be converted, as Christ made clear:

"He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal." (Jn 12:25)

"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it." (Mk 8:35)

Self is denied by dying, an absolute requirement for true conversion:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." (Jn 12:24)

People that want to continue satisfying their flesh and be respected in society, like the one who won’t quit living for himself, are lost, very lost. It is thus unsurprising that he goes on about how great it would be to be recognized by the world, as he did in one sermon, almost salivating at the lips. Its all a form of flesh-driven religion, which is the most subtle of the false gospels and described by God as "turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." (Ju 1:4). How does he deny the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ? By denying and rejecting what He has said. By denying and rejecting His gospel. This is exactly what men like Sullivant are doing in advocating for a false Keswick-themed "gospel."

Men like Sullivant can scoff and mock and scorn all they want, but it doesn't change the fact that they are "false teachers" who teach "damnable heresies" (2 Pet 2:1), or change the broad path trajectory that they are on (Matt 7:13-14). They only expose themselves to be "scoffers, walking after their own lusts," (2 Pet 3:3).

Sullivant wants our Christianity to be palatable and desired by the world:

“Whatever we have to go through, we do it joyfully, we do it with Jesus Christ our focus and the world takes note and says ‘that is Christianity.’”

No they don’t. It’s not true. I'm not sure what planet Sullivant lives. He seems to be somewhere out in never-never land. The world will hate us, not respect us. Jesus makes that abundantly clear, which completely contradicts what Sullivant dangerously purveys, here is one example among a number:

"If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also." (Jn 15:19-20)

Sullivant's statement also completely contradicts everything he said earlier in the sermon about all the persecution the world brings. Actually such contradictions are fairly common in Sullivant’s sermons.

The saying of Lk. 9:24 ("For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it") is specifically tied to losing one’s life in hell in Matt. 10:28, 39, and to gaining eternal life in heaven in Jn. 12:25, so Lk. 9:24 necessarily refers to eternal bliss or woe. After "follow me," v. 24 is the most common or repeated thing that Jesus says in the Gospel of Luke. To save your life, you've got to lose your life. You can't hang on to your life and receive the life that Jesus wants to give you. Giving up your life is to repent. You are turning from your way to his way. From your sins, yourself to God, like the Thessalonians did. The word "life" is the word “psuche,” which is elsewhere translated, “soul." For the Lord to cleanse your soul, you must give up your soul. If you give up your soul, He will restore it and convert your soul that has been ruined by sin. You can't keep going your way, you've got to go His way, follow Him, giving up your life for His life. To encourage the lost to repent and give up their own way and surrender to Christ as Lord for salvation, Christ reminds them that it profits them nothing if they would gain the whole world, but lose their very souls as they are cast into hell (Lk. 9:25; cf. Lk. 3:9; Jn. 15:6). In Marks account, Jesus says, “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (8:36). Losing your soul is going to Hell. In Hell, there is no more opportunity for the soul to be restored or cleansed of sin. It's too late. There are various components here. Their sin, which condemns them, they must repent of that, which is their way. Those are one in the same. Sinners love self, and want to only follow the lusts of their flesh. There is an authority issue here too. They are rebellious, wanting to do what they want, and going their own way. They have to turn from that. Those are all interrelated.

Lk. 9:23-26 clearly teaches salvation and that one who refuses to become Christ’s disciple will face an eternity in hell. Wresting these passages as pastor Sullivant does is serious perversion of Gods Word. The apostle Peter writes of these things,

“In which are 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.” (2 Pet. 3:16).

👉🏻 In the sermon “Invitation to Follow Jesus,” preached by Jordan Doerksen at PVBC, this same kind of serious confusion and contradictions can be heard, the entire sermon. It is after all normal preaching in this type of environment and in all Revivalists-type IFB churches. The entire sermon was far removed from the truth, and rather blatant and dangerous error. The false foundation was that of saved people given an invitation to follow Jesus and that of Christ’s call to “any man” to be converted (misusing Matt 16:24-28) being some kind of call for believers to follow Him. This is how it comes about that unsaved people are considered to be saved, because salvation passages are manipulated into something post-salvation (such as Matt 10:32-39; 16:24-26; Mk 8:34-38; Lk 9:23-27, 57-62; Jn 12:24-26; etc). Over and over they do this, week after week, student after student, teaching the very opposite of what Jesus Christ Himself did, without batting an eye. They will however shrug their head and wag their tongue when someone actually teaches the truth of these passages, and pejoratively charge such with preaching a works gospel. In the sermon he "speaks of a choice that must be made after conversion to follow Christ. It almost sounds funny when you say it.” It is not “almost . . . funny,” but damnable heresy that leads to multitudes burning in the torments of hell.

He separates salvation and discipleship, classic Keswick theology and classic Sullivant doctrine. The passage is dealing with sonship (he should have stuck with that), but also with discipleship when we understand discipleship in a Biblical manner, which is The Call to Discipleship is a Call to Salvation. Jesus is not calling saved people. They have been called already and are following Him. He is calling lost people (“if any man” which is all men — even among His disciples at least one of the twelve was unsaved, and among the greater group of disciples, almost all were lost, Jn 6:66). Those who are truly born again (Mattt 16:24-26) will present with a certain kind of life. Parallel passages are clearly also preached by Jesus to lost people (Lk 9:21-23; 14:25; Mk 8:34). There is not one call anywhere in the NT by Jesus or any of the apostles that refers to anything but salvation. Saved people always follow Christ. The call to follow Him is a call to salvation. Period. The Bible is very very clear on this. Those that don’t follow Christ are not known by Him. I’m not sure anything in Scripture could be clearer than this, yet it flies right over the head of people like Doerksen and the rest of the ministerial staff at PVBC. Or are they simply scorching their conscience in their pride? Jesus said “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine,” and “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:” (Jn 10:14, 27). Do you notice that “follow me”? True sheep of Christ always follow Him. When do they start following Him? Why did Jesus call a lost tax collector (Matthew) to "come and follow me")? Saved people always follow Christ, and it starts with the call to salvation. If you are not led by the Spirit and thus following Him, then you’re not a son of God. “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” (Rom 8:14). The truly saved always follow their Shepherd (Jn 10:1-5). The call to “come” is ALWAYS a call to salvation (e.g. Jn 14:6, “cometh unto the Father but by me,” Rev 22:17 the call to “Come” x 3), and those that don’t “come after [Jesus], cannot be [His] disciple” (Lk 14:27), i.e., they cannot be saved. The call to be a disciple of Jesus is a call to salvation (Mt 28:19).

Jordan claims,

“We are not saved by taking up a cross and following Jesus.”

Then what was the purpose behind Jesus saying this to unsaved people? The same call to salvation in Matt 16:24-26 is given to the lost rich young ruler (Matt 19:21; Mk 10:21; Lk 18:22 — to deny self, lose his life for Christ and the gospels sake, to forsake all and “come, take up the cross, and follow me”). How will they pervert these passages? This passage creates a serious conglomeration of confusion for them. They can't teach it according to its plain meaning, because then all the so-called "discipleship" passages they habitually corrupt must also be referring to salvation. So they deal with the rich young ruler by erecting straw man and red herring logical fallacies, and mostly ignore the main passage of the text (i.e. Mk Matt 19:21; Mk 10:21; Lk 18:22). Matt 16:24 is a call for those who want to be saved (“if any man will come after me”), and thus to repent and believe illustrated by denying self, taking up the cross and following Christ. Taking up the cross means to be crucified with Christ, and takes place at salvation (Rom 6:3-6; Gal 2:20; 5:24 — Gal 2:20 was even quoted ignorantly). Verse 25 is very clear, that losing your life for Christ means to save it but saving your life in this world means you will lose it. In other words, heaven and hell are the two destinies being compared here. “Life” (v. 25) and “soul” (v. 26) are translated from the same Greek word (“psuche”). Verses 26 and 27 are very very clearly referring to salvation as well, but he horribly perverts them. Losing your soul, again, refers to being cast into eternal hell fire. Being ashamed and embarrassed of Christ is what lost people do (Rom 1:16; 9:33; 10:11) not saved as he unbelievably claims. Not a single passage in Scripture says that a true believer is ever Ashamed of Christ. It is Permanently Eliminated in Conversion.

I’m unsure if anything could be more clear than this passage (Matt 16:24-26), but he turns the very clear into a convoluted and mutilated mess. Listen, you don’t get to take a verse and treat it in any way your deceitful and wicked flesh pleases, treating God’s Word worse than tomatoes falling off the back of a produce truck. God’s Word is perspicuous, that is plain, to the saved (Pr 8:8-9) and that is anything but the case in your preaching. Separating salvation and discipleship is classic Keswick/ Higher Life/ Deeper life/ Victorious life/ Revivalism heresy (which is found everywhere in PVBC sermons), which leads to heresy as heard in this sermon.

Rather than assuming the ministry of another man, the novice and very likely unregenerate Doerksen (along with others that do this, such as Sullivant and the rest of the teaching/preaching staff at PVBC and their school, CBBC) needs to earnestly repent with a broken and contrite heart of preaching heresy, of wresting the Scriptures, of falsely dividing the word of truth and abusing God’s Word for their own man-centred agenda and rhetoric. They need to earnestly examine themselves as to whether they are actually and truly in the faith (2 Cor 13:5), which I strongly doubt. Practically every passage of Scripture that was quoted by Doerksen in this sermon (e.g. Matt 16:24-26; 19:27-30; Gal 2:20; Lk 9:23) was perverted and corrupted, while Paul says saved people do not “corrupt the word of God” as many do (2 Cor 2:17). He “handle[s] the word of God deceitfully” (2 Cor 4:2) and 2 Pet 3:16-17 is clear that wresting Scripture is an “error of the wicked,” which is obviously an unsaved person, a spiritual reprobate (2 Tim 3:8-9).

God the Spirit isn’t in a sermon when His Word is mangled and mutilated. He doesn’t sit at the table of error and heresy. By teaching this damnable heresy unrepentantly, they are in fact demonstrating that they've never been born again, since this is the very requirement to be converted. That is the biggest problem with all this, and the point we hammer home when men willingly pervert the Scriptures to keep a man-centred system of self-righteousness afloat.

👉🏻 In the sermon Not I But Christ by pastor John Remple of PVBC, we go a bit further and deeper into Keswick theology, which isn't surprising considering how steeped he is in such writings (self-professed in the sermon). Most likely the vast majority in this institution have adopted Keswick theology as their own. The sermon is based on Gal. 2:20, which is always a big red flag in revivalist IFB churches, and unsurprising goes on to cover most of the major Keswick-favourite proof-texts. This guy is a showman as many are at PVBC, trying to plant an impression to impress. He is very man-centred as seen at time 39:15. He favourably quotes Keswick heretics such as A.B. Simpson (extremely heretical Keswick theologian and founder of the apostate Alliance churches) and Gregory Mantle (a. popular Keswick heretic and friend of A.B. Simpson and affiliate with the heretical Christian and Missionary Alliance) “whose book” he says he's “read numerous times and always brings conviction.” He makes some heretical Keswick statements in the sermon such as “putting on the new man which is Christ” which is certainly not true but it is heretical Keswick theology of Christ living out the Christians life, and not the Christian.

What I want to get at is his statement about our Christianity supposedly palatable and desired by the world, similar to what Sullivant says in the point above.

“And you know what’s going to impact our soul winning? You know what’s going to impact our family? You know what’s going to increase our testimony? It’s when we actually live the life of Christ. When it’s actually evident every moment of every day in our homes in our churches in our workplaces. Then all of a sudden people will sit up and take notice and they’ll say I don’t know what they have but that’s what I want. Because they don’t have it in their homes, they don’t have it in their workplaces and they don’t have it in their lives. . . . He must increase but I must decrease [this repeated 3x over a min]. So if you’re here this morning and the Holy Spirit of God has not convicted you on this matter ask yourself why.”

This is neo-evangelicalism's lifestyle evangelism so people will take notice. He speaks of living for Christ only but where is the power in the above statement? Do people get won to Christ by my character or by the Word of God? Of course a true believer has godly character but it's not for the reasons mentioned here. Not everyone is walking in the old man so no, not everyone is convicted of this heresy.

These type of teachings create another form of false religion that produces conformists and imitators but not true converts. How to build a bigger church 101. Get them to pray a prayer, get them wet and they become bondage to “the church.” They’ve been assured as “saved” so now the missing link to be established in the system is discipleship. Without man they can do nothing, so that’s where the gurus of PVBC come in. It also keeps them in bondage. They need the gurus; without the gurus they will fall, the devil will move in, and they will be destroyed. This is how the process goes in Sullivant's world, and that of PVBC, whom he has made obedient puppets of the master, and I'm not referring to the Master Jesus Christ. Where is the Holy Spirit in all this? Nowhere to be found. Its solely driven and initiated and depended upon by man.

👉🏻 The sermon Taste and See was preached by Gary Driedger, and it's yet another Keswick-laced heretical sermon. Though this heretical doctrine is found in virtually every sermon, entire sermons are preached at PVBC with this as its theme, and this is surely one. The sermon itself had nothing to do with "Taste and See” but to establish that since you are a “Christian” you should also want to be a “disciple.” He says he even wants to be one as well. What?? What a tragic thing to say, unless of course he knows he is lost. He is certainly condemning himself as lost. This fits with nothing in Scripture. The only means whereby they can find support for this sort of heresy is corrupting and manipulating and perverting salvation passages and turning them into sanctification, something post-salvation, at that enigmatic point you become a disciple. It's called two-tiered Christianity and it's not of God but the invention and propagation of wolves in sheep’s clothing. And thats exactly what Driedger does, basing this sermon on Lk. 14:25-35 which is distorted and wrested into something post-salvation, whereas this is very, VERY clear salvation language preached by Jesus to the lost multitudes (v. 25). This entire context is one of the most powerful salvation passages in scripture, and it actually starts at v. 15, the parable of the great banquet, which is a parable on salvation, entrance into the kingdom of God for the great supper. But there is even more to the context. It also happens to be the same sermon as 15:1-32 (read 14:35 and 15:1, there is no break, it keeps going, the context flows), when the sinners and publicans came forth to hear (15:1, "Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him") at Christ’ call (14:35, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear"), and chapter 15 is the parable of repentance unto salvation where the heavens rejoice over the salvation of one sinner that repents, Christ indicating the means of fulfilling Lk. 14:25-35, since the publicans and sinners came forth to hear, which the Pharisees and scribes didn’t like, they “murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.” (v. 2). Nothing could be as factually clear that this (Lk 14:15–15:32) is 100% directed towards soteriology.

Gary says:

“We have to ask ourselves what are the conditions of being a disciple. Let’s turn to Lk. 14 where Jesus gives us the conditions for discipleship. I don’t really try to mince words to much but I believe it is the will of God that everyone that knows Him as their Saviour to be a disciple. I think that’s an accurate assumption based upon what the gospel is [and] . . . it’s purpose, it wasn’t just to save us . . . but to use us. . . . So when we think about being a follower or disciple of Jesus Christ, I think it’s important that we understand what the conditions are, not what the Baptist church has laid down but what Jesus Himself said were the conditions for discipleship. Now it is my desire to be a disciple of Christ and I would hope and trust that if you’re born again and you know the Lord as you Saviour you also have a desire to be a disciple.” He then reads Lk. 14:25-29, and says, concerning v. 29, “You know the world looks at believers who are not disciples and it mocks Him, it doesn’t mock us, it mocks Him.”

Gary is teaching that one can be a Christian without being a disciple, while perverting and proof-texting a text of scripture to fit his "damnable heresy" (2 Pet 2:1). This is very serious confusion and perversion of this passage and then salvation, which feeds the false professions in the congregation, likely including Driedger himself, even by his own admission. It’s pure fiction. Of course the world mocks Christianity because a so-called believer who isn’t a disciple is just a hypocrite, just like many at PVBC in part because of heresies presented in this very sermon. The hypocrite, i.e. non-disciple, is unsaved. He’s pretending to be something he’s not, just like the lost nation of Israel has done throughout its entire history (Rom. 2:17-24), though the nation of 1/3 that survives the Antichrist will be converted in the 70th week of Daniel. Verse 29 has nothing to do with mocking Christ but mocking the professing believer. He changes the meaning here, to fit his narrative. He goes on to explain the conditions for discipleship after salvation, but it's all corrupted and wrested out of their plain meaning, for these passages have only one meaning and interpretation and application: salvation. He is wresting God’s Word (2 Pet 3:16-17). “The conditions of being a disciple” is salvation. Period. It is true that the conditions for discipleship are laid out in Lk. 14, but not what he is reporting here. The call to be a disciple is a call to salvation. Jesus is not teaching clearly lost people (v. 25; 15:1-2) how to be better Christians! So what he said would’ve been true had he been referring to the call to salvation, but we know that is not what he meant. Never would he mean that, for then he (they) would have to start believing in true Biblical repentance and the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and the true gospel of Jesus Christ. He completely corrupts and perverts these passages in Lk. 14 and the whole subject of discipleship. The Bible equates the categories of believer and disciple, so that all saved people, all believers, are disciples. In fact, before they were called Christians, they were disciples (Ac 11:26). Scripture is crystal clear that all believers are disciples. The notion that, after regeneration, Christians choose to become disciples is entirely absent from Scripture and is in fact a damnable heresy since it impacts salvation itself. Disciples are regularly contrasted with the unregenerate, but never with a underclass of truly saved people who have not yet become disciples. When disciples sin, they are never said to lose their status as disciples and return to a supposed larger unconsecrated Christian underclass. The usage of the noun and verb forms for “disciple” make the equation of believers and disciples exceedingly plain. Indeed, the terms “Christian” and “disciple” are explicitly equated (Ac. 11:26). Numerous passages of Scripture teach and affirm the truth that one becomes a disciple at the moment of saving faith, and that those who do not become disciples are unbelievers who will be damned. If only some Christians are disciples, then only some Christians get eternal life and escape hell, are adopted into the family of God, enter the kingdom of God, have faith in Christ, and have a new nature—in short, if only some Christians are disciples, only some Christians are Christians. So statements such as “Now it is my desire to be a disciple of Christ and I would hope and trust that if you’re born again and you know the Lord as you Saviour you also have a desire to be a disciple” are excessively confusing. The Bible is very clear—every true believer is a disciple, although not every disciple is a true believer (cf. Jn. 2:23-25; 6:60-66; 12:4; Ac. 8:13-24; etc). It happens AT salvation. The call to discipleship is 100% a call to salvation.

The context of Lk. 14:25-35 actually reverts back to 14:15 and forward to 15:32. So in Lk. 14:15-35, Christ teaches that “whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath” (vv. 33, 26) to “bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple” (vv. 27, 33); those who refuse to put Christ before property (vv. 18-19) and people (vv. 20, 26) will not “eat bread in the kingdom of God” (v. 15), but be “cast out” (v. 35) of the eschatological feast of the saints (v. 24) into hell, while God and Heaven rejoices over the repentance and salvation of those who become disciples in the way people rejoice over the recovery of a lost sheep, coin, or son (Lk. 15). Lk.15 is the same sermon as Lk. 14:15-35, and its all unsaved people that are giving attention to His sermon ("publicans and sinners," 15:1-2), which is all about repentance unto salvation, from 14:15 to 15:32. Parallel passages (such as Matt. 10:32-39; 16:24-26; Mk. 8:34-38; and the case of the lost rich young ruler —Matt. 19; Lk. 18; Mk. 10) confirm the plain teaching of this passage—disciples get eternal life, and those who do not become disciples are damned. (So according to his own words, pastor Driedger and the congregation of PVBC are damned). These facts requires the identification of believers and disciples as a single class, the people of God, something that doesn't fit the Revivalist system of the IFB. Concerning the verb “cast out” in v. 35, out of 125 instances in the N.T., it is never employed for a judgment where believers are cast out by God, but the lost are, over and over again, said to be cast into the fires of hell (e.g. Matt. 3:10; 5:13, 25, 29-30; 7:19; 13:42, 48; 18:8-9; Mk. 9:42, 45, 47; Lk. 3:9; 12:58; 14:35; Jn. 15:6; Rev. 2:22; 12:4, 9, 13; 14:19; 18:21; 19:20; 20:3, 10, 14-15). The only text, 1 Jn. 4:18, does not speak of anything eschatological, whether judgment or deliverance.

This is not the only salvation perversion in this sermon. He also says,

“Salvation is easy praise the Lord. Amen? Salvation is the easiest thing for you and I but was the most difficult thing for God.”

This is patently false, though it's a popularly parroted falsehood. Where does the Bible say this? He is lying between his teeth. If anything, it's exactly the opposite. The very opposite of what Sullivant says here is what Scripture teaches. It was easy for God, because well, He is God and nothing is too hard for Him. He could die for our sins without difficulty, because He is without sin. He went to the cross with joy. That doesn’t undermine the terrible seriousness of it and the pain and torment He had to suffer, the evil they did to Him, but nowhere does God’s Word say it was difficult for Him (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21). The most difficult for the Son was to be separated from the Father for those hours on the cross.

Neither does the Bible say anywhere it is easy for a willfully lost and proud and wicked and deceived sinner to be converted. Just the very opposite, again: Lk. 13:23-30, the text making the point precisely. Here Jesus in response to the question, “Lord, are there few that be saved?” (v. 23) 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.” (v. 24). Does that sound like “easy”?! Did Jesus make salvation easy for the rich young ruler (Mk. 10:17-23)? I trow not! Jesus made it about as difficult as possible (Mk. 10:21), and the end result was no salvation (Mk 10:22). He certainly didn't make a sales-pitch and dumbify salvation to make it easy for the rich young ruler, like Sullivant, or Driedger, or any one else in the Revivalist IFB camp would do. He did the most difficult thing for the ruler to hear, which was contingent upon his salvation (Mk 10:21). For a detailed explanation, see The Religious Rich Young Ruler (Mt 19; Mk 10; Lk 18): The Standard of Christ’s Gospel Preaching. Did Christ make it easy for the rich (Mk. 10:23-24)? Had salvation been easy for the 11 apostles who share their testimony in this very context (Mk. 10:24-31)? Was salvation easy for Ruth (Ru 1:1-16)? Was salvation easy for Paul? Think again: Ac. 9:5; Phil. 3:4-10. The “salvation” of Driedger and Sullivant and most IB’s today is “easy” indeed because it's disgustingly false, so they can fill the pews and the lake of fire. False teachers like Gary Driedger wrest passages like (2 Cor. 11:3) where it speaks of the devil corrupting “the simplicity that is in Christ” and they then connect anything that is not easy to “another gospel” in the next verse, because simple suddenly means easy. If it’s not easy, then it must not be true because this verse says it’s the devil that makes it hard. It says that?! Even this verse becomes a casualty with this heretical way of thinking of falsely dividing the word of truth. We address the perversion of this passage here: Does “Simplicity in Christ” (2 Cor 11:3) Refer to a Simple, As In Easy, Gospel? and here The Bible Does Not Describe Salvation as Easy.

Gary continues,

“But He extends the call to salvation to everyone but if you’re not saved you can know Christ as your Saviour, you can tonight. But How? By believing the gospel, the death, burial and reduction of Christ...”

He goes on to briefly explain how to "accept Jesus as your Saviour" but again, as per normal, NOTHING about repentance, nothing about who Jesus is, which is first and foremost His Lordship, nothing about the volition of man needing to turn from its natural rebellious state to the LORD God in submission and humble contrition. Non-lordship or anti-lordship people will shrink or depreciate the identity of Jesus. They make Him more palatable to a worldly audience. But in so doing, they make their hearers two-fold more the children of hell than they are. All of this lends itself to a false gospel and sanctification system, where Biblical repentance and Christ’s Lordship is rejected in favour of easy-believism and decisionism, that results in corrupting and twisting and mutilating the Scriptures into that belief system. God’s Word isn’t exegetically interpreted but eisegetically, where the beliefs and practices of Driedger, Sullivant and all others at PVBC, are forced into the Scriptures. Instead of pulling out, they are pushing in. This also is evil.

If "accept Jesus as your Saviour" were such important language, then why doesn't that occur even once in the Bible? If the concept of "Saviour" were so important in the reception of salvation, or even the word, then why didn't the apostles use it all the time in their preaching, or ever? Beyond the perversion of repentance, which is just one side of the equation, PVBC is also wrong on the other side of the equation too (and they are all guilty, bar none). They minimize Who Jesus is. They believe He is Saviour. They believe that He is God, the Second Person of the Trinity, to a certain extent, but they actually diminish the Deity of Christ with their exclusion of the Lordship of Christ. You can't stay in rebellion against Jesus and actually believe in Him. Thats not possible. So they don't actually believe in Him either, minus His reign. Jesus said, "Repent for the kingdom is at hand," and the kingdom was at hand, because the King, Jesus, was there. How did the above happen? Quite a few factors came together into the poisonous elixir. Some relate to the distortion of Keswick Theological heresy, Finney, Moody, Torrey, Scofield, Scofield's Reference Bible, early ecumenical evangelism, Dallas Theological Seminary, John R. Rice, the Sword of the Lord, and then Hyles.  These influences spread to the IFB through their colleges, conferences, missionaries, and pastors.  It was an undermining theological problem mixed with bad church growth methodology. They lowered the bar of salvation until it wasn't salvation any more, though they are self-deceived into continuing to believe in the placebo. More got "saved," but they were receiving the placebo. The distortion multiplied and continues to this day with numerous false teachers. Many people have been in hell for years now, who prayed prayers led by men like Sullivant and his staff and many others like them. We can't say bad enough things about all of it, and yet many put up with it for years and still do. I believe that the people who don't say anything about these people, who allow it by their associations and accommodation, help spread the destruction.

I have no issue in 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. He becomes the Saviour of those who genuinely repent and surrender to Him. But He won't save while your mind is still made up that you're going to do what you want to do. The language of “know Christ as your Saviour” is a superficial and false finish line for salvation; it's actually not language found anywhere in Scripture to call someone to salvation. Not even remotely. We address this error in this report: Is “Accept Jesus as Your Saviour” Biblical Salvation Language”? If the language is used in combination with true repentance and describing who Jesus is and how that relates to salvation, then that would be fine. But that is hardly the case, and never the case at PVBC. Romans is the great salvation book. Do you agree? 45x in 39 verses, "Lord."  Zero times "Saviour." As Paul explains the great doctrine of salvation so much in this book, he doesn't mention "Saviour" at all. Does this mean anything? It does. You won't find "accept Jesus as Saviour" in the book of Romans. So why does it appear as the clinching point in so many plans of salvation for churches like PVBC -- in their tracts and on their websites and in their preaching? If someone wants Jesus as his Saviour, He's not going to get that by merely "asking Jesus to be his Saviour." If he doesn't actually want Jesus as Lord, he doesn't want a boss to rule his life, 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 and Jesus won't be his Saviour. Is that so hard to add to the equation in the explanation? But won't people find "accept Jesus as your Saviour," much easier to accept? Sure they will. But is that what Jesus our Saviour gave us as an example to do? Is that what'll genuinely save them?

He also says:

“After the call to salvation there is a call to separation. Separation is a severing, to something from something else.”

Separation starts actually at salvation (2 Cor. 6:14-18; Pr. 9:6; 18:1) and then continues on in the Christian life (2 Cor 7:1), detailed here: The Biblical Doctrine of Separation and Unscriptural Forms of Separation. This is egregious, but it feeds from the same corrupted salvation/sanctification vine. The heresy continues:

“There is a call to surrender. That means to yield to the power of another. To give up. What are we giving up? Well we are giving up our perceived rights and our will.”

This is what happens when people are very likely unsaved and preaching the gospel. What he is describing here is exactly necessary for salvation, that is our point, it must happen for SALVATION. All of it. Without surrendering to Jesus Christ as Lord, without giving up ones life for a new life, without giving up ones rights and will for God’s right and will, no one is saved. You can't be. You are operating in opposition to the Chief Boss of the world, your Maker, the One who created you for His glory. The Lord Jesus Christ makes this exceedingly clear, throughout the NT. For example: Matt. 10:32-39; 16:24-26; Mk. 8:34-38; Lk. 9:23-26, 57-62; 13:23-30; 17:26-33; 18:9-32; 19:1-10, 12-27; Jn. 12:24-25; etc, all of which are teaching the doctrine of salvation. Take any of these passages and you shall find this plainly evident. A good example is found in Lk 19:11-2, the Parable of the Lordship of Jesus (as it ought to be called). The rebellious citizenry of the nation (Israel is the contextual example) refused to surrender to their Master, to their King:"But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us." (v. 14). The "wicked servant" who gained no fruit for his King (vv. 20-26), is the singular example of every Israelite (and Gentile), with the larger illustration being Israel as a nation, who rebelliously refuses and scorns to bow before the King in submission and humble adoration, with the following end result: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (v. 27). That is the end of everyone that will not receive Jesus for who He is, Lord. Consider also Matt 10:32-39, where Jesus sends out His twelve apostles to preach the gospel which is to "preach that men should repent" (Mk 6:12) and instructs them in what to preach and how to respond to their hearers reactions, including what we read in vv. 32-39. This sermon explains so much why PVBC and most IFB churches (practically moist of them, especially the Revivalists ones, preach the same errors and false doctrine as this) have so many pew warmers heading to a very warm furnace of fire. In Mark 8:34-38, Jesus is Teaching How to be Saved, Not How to be A Better Christian.

There was other Keswick related heresy in this sermon, such as his claim that Jesus taught the “Beatitudes on a mountain because it’s a higher truth.” Wow. First of all, nowhere does Scripture even remotely indicate that the Beatitudes are a higher truth. Dividing truth into categories is the heresy of "essentials and non-essentials" which comes with this type of deluded philosophy (which isn't surprising seeing that they hold firstBible International to high esteem, where this type of heresy is commonly taught by their people). Secondly, this is worse than eisegesis, which is reading into Scripture what you want it to desperately say, and entering the field of allegoricalism (spiritualizing of Scripture). Later, Gary categorically misused the beatitudes, turning them also into something post-salvation (time 34:00), which also is very normal in settings such as this where salvation and sanctification is perverted, corrupted and so many salvation passages wrested. 2 Pet 3:16-17 gives insight to its cause.

So this entire sermon is based upon a false foundation. None of this is taught in Scripture. Its pure fabrication made out of sheer cloth. It’s unscriptural garbage that belongs in the trash receptor. And this is no minor error either. It’s "damnable heresies" (2 Pet. 2:1) since Jesus is very, very clearly teaching salvation here to a lost multitude (Lk. 14:25) including lost publicans/sinners and Pharisees/Scribes (Lk 15:1-2) and the conditions of salvation, to be His disciple and follower, which is repentance and faith (Lk. 14:15-15:32). This “easy salvation” of self-fulfilment for the non-committed is the very cause of many of the false professions and lost people in churches today. Gary and the rest of PVBC should take heed to Gary's words at time 26:25 where he says: “I need to change. Why? Because I want to be a disciple of Christ.” Yes indeed. As it appears to be a plea for salvation, though his mind is deceived about it, I would encourage the same. If he ever comes to be a disciple of Christ, God will change him permanently and gloriously save him, and make him a permanent disciple of Christ.

👉🏻 Jeff Friesen, a disciple of Sullivant and missionary of PVBC in Alberta, preached a sermon titled “The Process of Discipleship (3) Transformation.” In this sermon he taught that one becomes a true disciple of Christ after salvation. He defended this error by exclaiming,

"I absolutely . . . believe that one can be born again and not be a disciple, since a disciple is a learner, and one that becomes like the master. This is a result of surrender."

This is patently false and plain heresy, and he speaks as a well trained parrot. Unbelievable. Matter of fact, the entire sermon series was corrupted and contrary to Scripture. Do these guys ever test anything they hear from Sullivant with the Scriptures?? This subject is so easy, one has to be spiritually blind not to see it in Scripture. There is no such thing as a non-disciple true born again Christian, though one may be a professing disciple and be unsaved (e.g. Jn 6:60-66; Judas; Simon in Acts 8; etc). The reality of professing believers who are still lost is presented throughout the Bible (cf. 1 Cor 15:34; 2 Cor 13:5; Ti. 1:15-16; Heb 12:15-17; 2 Pet. 2:1-22). No saved person becomes a true disciple of Christ after salvation as he falsely taught in this sermon and consistently in all his teachings, just like his master over in Winkler, MB. Surrender to Christ is a requirement of salvation, not for discipleship after salvation! So yes becoming a disciple does result from surrender, but not the false type of surrender after salvation that Friesen advocates for here. This is classic Keswick theology that he is purveying.

The true disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. Scripture repeatedly records that Christ's "disciples follow him" (Mk. 6:1; Matt. 8:23; Lk. 22:39; Jn. 8:31-32; 18:15; 21:20). While, as is expected, not all of the 269 references to disciples specifically define the word, very strong exegetical evidence from many passages establish that one becomes a true disciple of Christ at the same moment that one becomes a true believer, so that discipleship begins at regeneration (or even before, as one is discipled into becoming a disciple of Christ, i.e. a true born again believer) and all the children of God, not some elite minority, or a "surrendered" minority, are identified as disciples in Scripture. The call to be a disciple of Christ is clearly a call to salvation in the Bible. Never is there a time freeze between salvation and doing the will of God (which is an essential component of discipleship). The demonic of the Gadarenes was saved, delivered from his thousands of demons, and the same hour he was following Christ and obeying the Gospel. This is in fact always the testimony of Scripture (Ac. 2:38-42; 9:3-20; 8:30-39; 16:14-15, 29-34; etc). Since man cannot see the heart, man is justified before man by his godly works (Jam. 2:14-26), which start immediately at salvation (2 Cor 5:17-6:2; Eph 2:8-10; 1 Jn 2:3-5; Jn 14:23-24).

The Great Commission reveals that discipleship begins immediately at salvation:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (Matt. 28:19-20).

The act of making disciples is expressed with the Greek verb "matheteuo." In Matt 28 the word "teach" in v. 19, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations," which is the clarion call and commission to preach the gospel to the unsaved, is translated from the same word as "disciple" ("matheteuo"), used in the sense here to go and preach the gospel (Rom. 10:14-17) and make disciples by having people come to true repentance (Lk 24:47) and faith (Mk 16:15-16) which is the new birth (Ac. 14:21), and thus receive the remission of sins (Lk 24:47; Mk 16:16; Jn 20:23), after which the believers/disciples should be baptized (v. 19; Mk 16:16). The new believer is immediately discipled “unto the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 13:52) by the Spirit of God (Jn. 14:26; 1 Jn. 2:27) and by the “foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor 1:21). In the threefold command of the Great Commission we see believing and true discipleship as simultaneous. A true believer is immediately a true disciple. As we read, the believers went and preached the Gospel: (1) The lost were taught about salvation and the words of God, discipled unto the gospel and saved through repentance and faith (v. 19; Lk. 24:46-47; Mk. 14:15-16). (2) They were immediately baptized (v. 19). (3) They were immediately further discipled or trained, "teaching them to observe all whatsoever I have commanded you" (v. 20). Its also noteworthy that the word "teaching" in v. 20 (i.e. "teaching them to observe all things," which takes place after conversion and baptism), is a different Greek word than "teach" or disciple unto salvation (v. 19), and that is the word "didasko," which means to teach or hold discourse with people to instruct them like a teacher. "Matheteuo" carries the meaning of actually making the disciple while "didasko" is teaching the made disciple. The obvious truth that is being purveyed here is that the new birth makes disciples (v. 19a), we are actually discipled into the new birth, and that all true born again believers are disciples, ALWAYS disciples, that continue in God's Word (vv. 19b, 20).

Examples of this being fulfilled are found throughout the book of Acts. For instance Acts 2. The apostles went and preached the Gospel (vv. 14-36): (1) Those that responded to the conviction of the Holy Spirit (v. 37) repented of their sin and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation (vv. 38, 41a). (2) They were baptized (v. 41). (3) They were discipled: "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." (Ac. 2:42). This is all happened over a period of mere hours. All true disciples are those who are truly saved and “obedient to the faith” (Ac. 6:7). When Paul preached the gospel message that “by [Christ] all that believe are justified from all things, from which [they] could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Ac. 13:39), those who “believed” received “eternal life” (Ac. 13:48) and were “disciples” (Ac 13:52; cf. 14:1, 21-23). John records that ones who wished to become Christ’s disciple came to believe on Him (Jn. 9:25-30, 35-38).

In similar fashion spurred on by the same egregious and false Keswick/higher life/second blessing theological heresy, Friesen teaches that Jn 15:1-10 is a contrast between two types of Christians, creating a false two-tiered Christianity, which is classic Keswick theology. Jn 15:1-10 is not a contrast between two types of Christians but between the saved and the lost, Judas being the contextual example. Two different types of Christians in Jn 15:1-10 fits a theological presupposition seen in Keswick theology. It is a Keswick interpretation. Abiding in Christ is a higher life to be attained for a Christian in Keswick false sanctification thinking. A Christian can be a spiritual one, who abides in Christ, or a carnal one, who does not abide in Christ. Abiding in Christ describes to a Keswick believer a victorious Christian life, but someone not abiding is still a Christian. Whether someone bears fruit or does not bear fruit do not indicate any difference in eternal outcome. Both get to go to heaven in the end and in complete contradiction to everything Jesus says in John 13-14 and even in the very context and after.

Taking passages like Jn 15:1-8 in such Keswick fashion allows for numerous professions of faith, not accompanied by perseverance or abiding, to be counted by the workers or ministers as fruit for them. These non-fruit bearing individuals are counted as their fruit, which is exactly what Sullivant and cronies do, because they made a profession of faith. That's all that matters. It does't matter whether there is any fruit or actual evidence of salvation, even though that is everything in Scripture, entire books written for that purpose alone (e.g., 1 John, James). Abiding in Christ is not mystical. It speaks of true Christian conversion differentiated from a false profession that does not abide, does not bear fruit, and will in the end go to Hell. We cover this subject in the following link, answering the question as to whether John 15 Teaches that Saved People May Not Abide in the Vine, in the Lord Jesus Christ? The entire Bible has this as a major theme: contrasting true salvation (those that are genuinely saved) with false "salvation" (those that may profess but are in fact unsaved). Sometimes this contrast is found in comparing man before and after salvation. This two themed contrast is found literally in hundreds of Biblical concepts tied into salvation and as many passages, briefly discussed here. What this false sanctification of Keswick theology does is give false "conversions" false "security" that will ultimately inoculate that person from the truth that they are not saved. This is a tragedy that exists in churches all over the world including PVBC and that is an indescribable tragedy of monumental proportion. This is bad enough to mark as something akin to a false gospel, worthy of separation.

People who are saved will not leave the Lord Jesus Christ or live unfruitful lives. Defectors like Judas and Demas are not saved. They will be cast into the fire, the branches that are pruned from the arena of professing Christianity. John 15 is not talking about how to be a better Christian. People who abide are saved people. Jesus spent much of John 14 speaking to them about God indwelling believers. He was with them but then He would be in them (which started at Pentecost, Acts 2). The ones He indwells are those who overcome, who persevere. For everything that God does to keep believers, so that no man can pluck them out of His hand, believers will cooperate in continuing in Him. Jesus is the Vine. They will remain attached to the Vine, which is abiding in Him. “Abiding in Christ" is not an instruction for how to be a better Christian. Those who abide in Him do in fact keep loving Him and keeping His commandments. Faith in Christ is not a dead faith, but a living faith, a persevering faith. All the just live by faith (Hab 2:4; Rom 1:18). A person born of God will keep on believing in Jesus as a practice. God indwells him and enables him to love Christ and keep His commandments (De 30:6; Rom 5:5). Every person who abides in Christ brings forth fruit. Though the fruit amount varies, all bring forth fruit (Matt 13:23; Col 1:4-6), which is good fruit The fruit reveals the reality of their abiding in Christ and Christ in them. They also have the capacity through God the Father's pruning process to bear even more fruit. The unsaved also bear fruit, but its corrupt (Mat 7:15-20).

Teaching these passages and truths (and many more like it such as Pr 2:1-5; Matt. 6:22-24; 10:32-39; 11:28-30; 16:24-26; 19:16-30; Mk 8:34-38; Lk. 9:23-26, 57-62; 12:8-9; 13:23-30; 14:25-35; Jn 12:24-26; 15:1-17; Rom 4:16-21; 8:9-23; Jam 4:1-10) with a wrong foundation and interpretation is essentially teaching a false gospel, and we know what Gal 1:6-9 says about that.

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Gal 1:8-9)

The Bible clearly teaches that the call to discipleship is in fact a call to salvation, but Friesen's response to this is:

"I guess you are referring to Lordship salvation."

If that is what he wants to call it, giver. I'm fine with the terminology and happen to call it after that manner as well, but he is implying that its a false gospel, because that is how people are absolutely brainwashed in the IFB movement, especially, or specifically, the Revivalist/Keswick-type of IFB churches, which is most (>90%). As a pejorative, these inventors (or purveyors) of a new doctrine of salvation have titled what is the historical and biblical plan of salvation, "Lordship salvation." The terminology doesn't sound bad to me, so I own it. However, all sorts of garbage has been dumped on it to where it must be defined. One risk is cherry-picked quotes taken out of context. Lordship salvation isn't hard to defend, just avoiding tortured sound bites. The pejorative nature of "Lordship salvation" is that "Lordship" is added to salvation. I still like the label because it distinguishes from a deficient doctrine of salvation most common today in professing evangelicalism and fundamentalism. As to whether Lordship salvation comes from Calvinism, we cover that here: Is it True that Lordship Salvation Proceeds from Calvinism?

Concluding this subsection "b," these type of teachings turn Jesus into a deeper or higher life guru, someone that is saying to someone allegedly saved, you need to come up here and be my disciple, that is its time to get serious, start obeying, by finally surrendering and denying self and maybe becoming a follower of Jesus. It’s at this point they become Jesus’s disciple and He becomes their Lord; not at salvation God forbid. And of course, none of this is typically possible without the “revivalism” conferences with the false “evangelists” (such as Rich Flanders) pounding this as he puppeteers from the podium and pushing a crisis and emotional experience in the pursuit of “fruit,” all in the name of their “easy” and scandalous “gospel.” It’s seriously heretical and revealing of the mostly false professions in their numbers.

It is very clear that "disciple" and "believer" are synonymous categories from a study of the word “disciple” in Scripture. No clear text teaches that some believers are disciples while other believers are not. Neither are there two categories: “believers” or "Christians" and “disciples.” In many passages disciples are contrasted with lost people (disciples are distinguished from publicans and sinners—e.g. Matt. 9:9-13; Mk. 2:13-17; from perishing multitudes—e.g. Matt. 9:35-38; Lk. 19:36-38; and from the persecuting ungodly—e.g. Matt. 10:22-27) and in other passages Christ calls lost people to become disciples and thus receive salvation. For that matter, the Greek of Ac. 11:26 equates as identical categories "disciple" and "Christian," so anti-Lordship anti-repentance people should exhort saved people to become Christians by a post-conversion act of surrender if they really were consistent with their denial that all true believers are disciples or that discipleship and salvation are synonymous. Nevertheless the Bible equates the categories of believer and disciple, so that all saved people, all true believers, are also disciples (although not all “disciples” are necessarily saved people—e.g. Jn. 6:60-66; Judas). Disciples are those who have been given spiritual truth and enter the kingdom of heaven, in contrast with the lost, who do not do so (Matt. 13:10-12; Mk. 4:33-34; Lk. 8:9-11). Disciples inherit the kingdom of God (Lk. 6:20), their names are written in heaven (Lk. 10:20-24), and will feast with Christ in the consummation (Mk. 2:18-19). Disciples are Christ’s spiritual brethren (Matt. 12:49-50; 28:7-10) and those who recognize Jesus as the Christ through the new birth (Matt. 16:14-16, 20). Scripture repeatedly records that Christ's "disciples follow him" (Mk. 6:1; Matt. 8:23; Lk. 22:39; Jn. 18:15; 21:20). Disciples are Christ’s little children (Matt. 10:42; Jn. 13:33), who believe in Him (Jn. 14:1) and cannot come into condemnation (Jn. 13:33), and are still disciples (Jn. 13:35) even though they might sin (I Jn. 2:1,12; 5:21) but are still "of God" (I Jn. 4:4), who will have heavenly mansions (Jn. 14:2-3) with the Lord Jesus one day. All these things referenced here occur at salvation; when we inherit the kingdom of God, names are written in heaven, placed into the feast in the consummation, become spiritual brethren with Christ, recognise who Jesus Christ really is, follow Christ, become His little children, believe in Him, never to come into condemnation again, and have a heavenly mansion. These are all things stated to Christ’s disciples, but they all occur at salvation. True believers (Jn. 16:27) are disciples (Jn. 16:7) and are therefore those who are promised the indwelling Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:7-17; 14:16-18; cf. 20:19-22), Who is received at salvation, not at some point in the Christian life, when one decides to become a disciple. When people heard the gospel, they either became “disciples” or they rejected the Lord and Saviour and “believed not” (Ac. 19:9). Disciples (Ac. 9:1) are those who are of the Christian “way” (Ac. 9:2). Saul received a commission to persecute Christ’s disciples (Ac. 9:1-2), and he consequently persecuted all believers, all who “call on [Christ’s] name” (Ac. 9:14; cf. 9:19, 21, 25-27). Scripture clearly and regularly equates the categories of believer and true disciple, and promises those who are in these categories the same eternal felicity, and warns of eternal damnation for all who do not become true disciples or true believers. Even in the OT, the call to salvation was the call to discipleship (to serve God — e.g. Jos. 22:15; 24:14-15, 18-21; I Sam. 12:20-25; 2 Ch. 30:8; etc).

In that light, I would like to encourage all the staff at PVBC to genuinely repent and submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ for the salvation of their souls, considering the fact that they have all expressed the desire to become disciples of Jesus Christ. For further reading on how you can be born again, please see here: Are You Saved?

But don't react like the rich young ruler. This young man refused to obey God the Son, for he was unwilling to forsake his riches, thus unwilling to repent of his sin of covetousness, so he did not inherit the kingdom of God (Mk 10:22-24). Those who do leave and forsake all to follow Christ (like the apostles minus one, Mk 10:28-29 — the apostles testimonies, which occurred in Mk 1:15-20; Lk 5:1-11, 27-28) become God’s “children” (Mk 10:24) and will “receive . . . in the world to come eternal life” (Mk 10:30), having submitted to Christ as Lord and Saviour with a contrite and broken spirit and the humble faith of a little child (Mk 10:13-16).

(c) False Teachings on “Carnal Christianity” and “Backsliding.”

👉🏻 The word “backsliding” is heard so frequently its nauseating. It’s probably one of the most over-utilized words in Sullivant’s vocabulary, besides "get right" and "if you would..." For instance:

“A Christian can back slide. A Christian can turn back . . . Anyone can backslide . . . A disciple can turn back” (Are You a True Disciple).

👉🏻 In Keeping from Backsliding (preached at Hyles-Anderson College, Mar 21, 2019) he says:

“You’ve heard the saying, the easiest place to backslide is in Bible College. You know it’s the same thing when you get into the ministry.” (time 15:10).

What?! Wow. I'm speechless. How awfully man-centred is this. Its about control and putting people on a pedestal. Backsliding is not a term ever used to describe a true born again believer in Scripture. It means to apostatize, it refers to an apostate; one who falls from the faith and practice of religion, and in Scripture always refers to the nation of Israel or individual Israelites. Because of their incredible advantage and closeness to God and the covenants and many things that came through them (e.g. Rom. 3:1-2; 9:3-5), they would apostatize from the truth as a nation and individually if they didn’t get truly converted. None of the sixteen occasions the word shows up in Scripture does it ever refer to saved people but rather always to the lost and especially to Israel as a lost nation: Pr. 14:14; Jer. 2:19; 3:6, 8, 11-12, 14, 22; 5:6; 8:5; 14:7; 31:22; 49:4; Hos. 4:16; 11:7; 14:1-4. For such an “important” subject of the average IB preacher today, a subject that occupies their pulpit a fair share of the time, you would think the NT would have something to say about it. But nada. Not even one mention, including by the Lord Jesus. And of course there is a very important reason for that: it’s a teaching only applicable to the lost nation of Israel.

The biggest issue with using the word “backsliding” is not even with the use of the term itself (although it is certainly an important issue in misusing a Bible word since it means something different in Scripture) but with the philosophy behind it. Its Keswick currency, like “lukewarm” (Rev. 3) and “carnal,” (Rom. 8) used to describe people that are actually unsaved and may likely never be saved.

Saints don’t backslide. They don’t go backward; they move forward. Yes, sadly, they can and will very likely lust after the flesh and sin (e.g. Rom. 13:12-14; Eph. 4:20-32), but they characteristically live in the Spirit and are spiritually minded, and their flesh, the old man, the carnal nature and mind, is crucified with Christ (Gal. 2:20; Rom. 6:6; 8:1-16). Sin has no power or dominion over the born again believer anymore (Rom. 6:1-23 makes that clear, repeatedly), nor is the desire for it there any longer (Rom. 6:1-2).

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? . . . For he that is dead is freed from sin. . . . Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. . . . For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. . . . Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. . . . But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life." (Rom 6:1-2, 7, 11, 14, 18, 22).

Thus saints are eternally freed from the power and penalty of sin starting immediately at salvation (Rom. 5:21–8:30). Our position and practice is that of increasing holiness, godliness, and righteousness (e.g. Ti. 2:11-14; 3:3-11). When the saint sins he is chastened by God (Heb. 12:5-11; Pr 3:11-12). If he doesn’t respond to the chastisement, he will suffer and may even die (1 Cor. 11). It is lost pretenders, apostates, hypocrites, bastards (Heb 12:8), that go backwards, that fall away from grace and truth, as we see in the NT (e.g. Heb. 10:38-39) and OT (e.g. Jer. 7:23-24), not truly saved people.

“But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.” (Jer. 7:23-24)

Concerning Pauls first letter to Corinth, after quoting 1 Cor. 15:57 Sullivant says,

“He’s writing to a carnal church. He’s trying to get them focused right back on Christ and living the Christian life.”

Corinth was not a "carnal church." Carnal people are lost people, and though there were definitely unsaved people in this church, the church overall was not. But thats not what he meant. When Sullivant uses the word "carnal," he is referring to allegedly saved people that are worldly and behave/live like the unsaved. It's a second category of "Christian," which ties into the heretical Keswick two-tiered Christianity. "Carnal" in the Bible refers to unregeneracy. That is the definition. Paul says he “could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but AS unto carnal, even AS unto babes in Christ.” (1 Cor. 3:1). The preposition “as” is very important here. He is not saying they are “carnal” or “babes” but behaving “as” such. There are only two categories: spiritual and natural, Paul makes very clear in the very same context (1 Cor. 2:9-16). The context doesn't end with the end of the chapter. 1 Cor 3:1-3 is the very same subject as 1 Cor 2:9-16. Spiritual is the saved person (1 Cor. 2:9-13, 15-16). Carnal is the natural person who is yet unregenerate and without discernment (1 Cor. 2:14). Paul asks the question: “are ye not carnal, and walk as men?” (1 Cor. 3:3). Walking as men, like carnal, is referring to lost people (see also Eph. 4:17). Paul is questioning their salvation, whether they are truly in Christ or actually out of Christ. Carnal people are unsaved, Rom. 8:1-16 makes that abundantly clear. To get to the “carnal Christian” one has to corrupt a lot of Scripture and deny doctrine. Naturally, one who comes up with this type of error on 1 Cor. 3:1-3 will also corrupt Rom. 8, and so we see in another sermon Victory over the Flesh, where he unscripturally claims Rom. 8:1-5 is a contrast of two conditions in a Christian, the old man and the new man. He claims the carnal mind of Rom. 8:6 is the mind of a believer, that needs to be renewed, then quotes Ps. 119:9 to support this. The whole context of Rom. 8:1-16 is a contrast between a saved person and a lost person. None of the words and language used in these verses about the carnally minded person reflects a true believer, which is extremely obvious by the qualifiers given in the text. That Paul is contrasting saved and unsaved is extremely evident in the language used, noted in passages such vv. 8-9,

"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

The one in the flesh, the carnally minded one (vv. 5-7), cannot please God because he cannot live by faith, and that is because he is unsaved, unregenerate, which we know because "the Spirit of God dwell" not in that person. He has "not the Spirit of Christ," and thus he is none of Christ's. He doesn't belong to the Lord Jesus Christ in other words.

Sullivant clearly embraces the heresy of "carnal Christianity." After reading Phil. 3:18-19 he speaks of "carnal Christians" which are another type of Christian he says. He says there are Christians walking in the Spirit and there are Christians walking in the flesh, two-tiered Christianity. He describes people that influenced his life to sin as "carnal Christians," even though they were actually truthfully unsaved (according to the descriptions he gives). He also claims in this sermon that the word "brethren" always refers to Christians. Concerning people coming to church but pay no attention and rather play on their phones and chat, etc, are Christians that get involved “in all this carnality, the world, the flesh” (28:20) (Be Wary of Carnal Christians). News flash: People that don't care about spiritual things are actually not true Christians. They evidence that Christ or the indwelling Spirit of God are not functioning in their lives. Sullivant however claims them to be saved people because they prayed a prayer once in their diapers.

He makes his case for a third category of person, two-tiered “Christianity," spiritual and "carnal":

“Hebrews 5:11-6:2. I want you to know there are really only three groups of people here: the unsaved, the saved but carnal, the saved spiritual. Any everyone fits into one of those categories this morning. I don’t know you and you really don’t know me, so I trust though we are saved people here today but we are falling into one of those two categories. We are either carnal meaning we allow our flesh our desires our senses we have to control us, rather than have the Holy Spirit of God control is which is the life of the spiritual.”

He didn’t actually preach the passage. He launched from the passage into the false practice, all of which he read into the text. This is unscriptural and reveals not only false sanctification but also a false gospel. What he is saying is not what Heb 5:11-6:2 is teaching. He is adding to Scripture, and interpreting these passages, like many other (concerning this matter: 1 Cor 2-3; Rom 8), eisegetically. There is no place in Scripture that declares a third category of man, or second category of Christian, that of the "carnal Christian." There is no such teaching in Scripture. Its make-belief. It's also a contradiction of terms. It is no more accurate than putting the terms "Christian" and "Rock" music together. The word "carnal" actually means unsaved, unregenerate, of the flesh, the natural man.

1 Cor 3:1-3 is also very popular as a proof-text for this false teaching, Sullivant likewise utilizing the text frequently as a proof text for his error. Like Heb 5:11-6:2 and the rest of Scripture, Paul divides everyone into two categories, not three: natural or carnal (1 Cor 2:12a, 14; 3:1-3) and then spiritual (1 Cor 3:9-13, 15-16). Ignoring chapter and verse divisions, the context is extremely clear that the natural or carnal person is the exact same person: one that is lost (2 Pet 2:12; Ju 1:10), and this is who Paul contrasts the sinning Corinthians to in 1 Cor 3:1-3 (“as unto carnal . . . are ye not carnal, and walk as men?”) Paul likens the Corinthians to carnal people, questioning whether they were actually lost (carnal), walking as lost Gentiles. He had just divided them into two peoples: spiritual (saved) and natural (lost) (1 Cor 2:9-16). They were professing spiritual but behaving as natural. And some of them were unsaved, alluded to throughout the two epistles. There was lost people in that church (e.g., 1 Cor 5; 2 Cor 12:20-21; 13:5) but some involved in sin repented (2 Cor 7:9-11) but some did not (2 Cor 12:20-21), the actions reflecting their true nature. Rom 8:1-9 further makes it further clear that carnal “Christians” are lost unsaved false professing people, NOT saved people, a clear contrast of saved and unsaved. In those passages we find that the lost walk/live after the flesh, are carnally minded, at enmity against God, under law of sin and death, cannot please God and without the indwelling Holy Spirit. The saved on the other hand walk after the Spirit, are spiritually minded and mind the things of the Spirit, are eternally freed from the law of sin and death by the law of the Spirit of life in Christ, fulfill the righteousness of the law, are in the way of life and peace, and have the indwelling Spirit. The carnal have not the Spirit of Christ and are none of His, while the spiritual (saved) do (Rom 8:5-9). Neither Rom 8:1-9 or 1 Cor 3 are contrasting two types of Christians, ONLY saved and unsaved.

A Christian may lust after the flesh and sin after the flesh but they don’t walk or live in the flesh ever again. It's not the born again Christians nature anymore. He has a new nature with the old nature passed away, gone forever (2 Cor 5:17, "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new"). The flesh is crucified with Christ, forever (Rom. 6; Gal. 2:20). Rom. 7:5 is very clear: “For when we WERE in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.” What Michael Sullivant is describing is false “Christians” according to Scripture, NOT "carnal Christians." The difference is obviously massive. It’s also a false teaching and creating serious confusion. It contradicts what God does in every born again believer at salvation. This horrible false teaching leads to many other heresies, especially concerning the gospel.

We cover this subject in greater detail here: The Class of Christian known as “Carnal Christian" and the Misinterpretation of 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 to Produce the Erroneous Teaching of "Carnal Christianity."

👉🏻 The sermon Are You a True Disciple, which we cover under the first point in this report in greater detail, is loaded with "backsliding" theology which is allegedly every "True Disciple" even though the Bible says it is only unsaved people that backslide, that apostatize, a term and teaching that is reserved for Israel of old, under the OT. The title of the sermon is a misnomer and deception. The entire sermon was actually not about whether you are a "True Disciple," but rather that every person that calls himself a Christian is a Christian and that a "True Disciple" "can backslide,” and will backslide, and when they do backslide, or fall away from the truth in other words, they are still a Christian. There is no limit to the backsliding either, as we have shown. You can be a drunkard most of your life, alcoholic, drug addict, drug trafficker, thief, anti-Christ Christ denier, murderer of innocent blood, blasphemer, etc, but that apparently doesn't mean you aren't a Christian, if you prayed a prayer once or made some kind of profession of faith. The life doesn't have to match the profession, it doesn't matter. Of course we know this is heretical, damnable heresy, and contradicts the Bible in every way (e.g., Gal 5:19-21; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Jn 2:3-5; Jn 14:23-24; Ti 2:11-14; etc). To achieve his narrative, Sullivant has to manipulate a lot of scripture and the doctrine of sanctification, and that is a very, very common practice throughout his sermons. He might claim to be an exegete of God's Word but that is also a lie — he is indeed an eisegete, reading into Scripture what he wants it to say. According to Sullivant a professing Christian can leave their church and then church altogether but still be saved, only backslidden of course, which is in complete opposition to 1 Jn. 2:19, where John says, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." So John says "They went out from us, but they were not of us;" while Michael Sullivant says 'They went out from us, and they were still of us;" I wonder who is right and aligned with God's Word and will, while the other walks according to his own will, after the lusts of his own flesh? There is no power of God in the Christianity that Sullivant pushes, hence why you “get to the point where you don’t recognize Jesus anymore” or “one of the easiest places to backslide is in bible college” which heresies climax with wild antics of foolish backsliding tales such as “soon as the Holy Spirit of God smack’s you upside the head and says get this right” (“Backsliding” Oct 29, 2017). Almost nothing he says, or his cronies and faithful Sullivanites, concerning the doctrine of sanctification, is true. It's almost completely pure fiction.

In Scripture, Keswick currency, like “backsliding” (Pr. 14:14), “lukewarm” (Rev. 3:16) and “carnal,” (1 Cor. 3:1-3; Rom. 8:5-7), most of which are heavily used by Sullivant, are utilized to describe people that are actually unsaved and may likely never get saved (cf. Pr. 1:20-31). Could that be Sullivant as well, seeing that he has condemned himself to be living an almost continual backslidden state? For allegedly such an important subject, “backsliding” is ironically not found even once in the entire NT, while there are hundreds of passages of warning to the false pretending believer and apostate, i.e., those that are backslidden. All have to be taken completely out of context and meaning and Scripture falsely divided to achieve the desired meaning and effect for . And that is precisely what pastor Sullivant does. In none of the sixteen occasions in Scripture the word “backsliding” or its derivates show up, does it ever refer to saved people but rather always to lost people and almost entirely to Israel as a lost nation: Pr. 14:14; Jer. 2:19; 3:6, 8, 11-12, 14, 20-22; 5:6; 8:5; 14:7; 31:22; 49:4; Hos. 4:16; 11:7; 14:1-4. The NT is entirely silent on it and its principles, and any reference to going backwards is contributed to the lost (e.g. Heb. 10:38-39). Even the definition of “backsliding” makes it very clear who are the people in mind. It means to apostatize: “An apostate; one who falls from the faith and practice of religion” (Webster’s 1828), and we know that no apostate is ever saved (e.g. 2 Pet. 2:17-22; Heb. 3:7-4:11; 10:38-39). The Biblical pattern is that of saints, true born again believers, not backsliding, not going backwards, but always moving forward (e.g. Ac. 7:39-53; Jn. 6:66-69) and upward (e.g. Col. 3:1-17). The Lord Jesus, the Great Shepherd, “leadeth [all His sheep] in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.” (Ps. 23:3). All born again believers walk characteristically in the light and not in darkness (Pr. 4:18; 13:9; Matt. 5:14-16; 6:22-24; Lk. 11:33-36; Jn. 8:12; 11:9-10; 12:35-36, 46; 1 Th. 5:2-8; 1 Jn. 2:8-11). It is lost people, apostates, false pretenders with feigned faith, hypocrites (actors, pretenders, fakes), professors but not possessors, not saved people, that are left to themselves as bastards (Heb. 12:6-8; cf. Jn. 2:23-25; 6:60-66; 1 Jn. 2:19) and go backwards as we see in the NT: “Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul” (Heb. 10:38-39) and in the OT: “But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.” (Jer. 7:23-24). Backsliding always refers to hypocrites; false pretending “believers” who turn out to be either the stony or the thorny soil (Matt. 13), false believers/teachers like the dog and pig who return to their vomit and mire (2 Pet. 2:17-22), all of which go back, fall away, proving they were never saved to begin with (1 Jn. 2:19).

So all of Sullivant's sermons on “backsliding” are based upon a false proposition, presupposition and premise. By perverting the Scriptures, he is showing himself to be nothing less than a false teacher.

(d) False Teachings on “Lukewarm Christianity” and the Laodicean Church.

The heresy of "lukewarm Christianity" also ties directly into the rest of his distorted sanctification, Keswick theology and corrupted gospel.

👉🏻 The entire sermon on the “Church of Laodicea” (Rev. 3) was twisted and heretical, I mean very bad, claiming this apostate church to be a true church and thus pillar and ground of the truth, propagating the heretical two-tiered Christianity (which isn’t Christianity at all but Keswick heresy) which produces an additional category and class of man. Let the confusion and heresy begin:

“Here Jesus says, church you make me sick! [while chuckling]. But theres hope for ya. There’s hope for ya. Hey what a message of hope for you. What a message of hope for me. What a message of hope for the church here amen. Hey it doesn’t matter how far you’ve gone, hey if you’re here and the Holy Spirit of God is pricking your heart saying hey he’s speaking to you, hey you need to pay attention, hey you need to get right, there hope for you, Amen. He’s not written you off, He’s not crossed you off, He’s not blotted you out. He wants to speak to you. He is speaking to you. Will you hear His voice? . . . Do we fit the bill here? Are we cold, are we hot or are we lukewarm? I don’t want to be cold, I don’t want to be lukewarm, I want to be hot. . . . He says these folks at Laodicea you are a mess. Quit trying to look good to everybody. Some of the problem in the church house is people think wow I’m pretty good. I’m better than they are. You don’t even realize the mess you’re in. Because you’re not cold nor hot lukewarm I’ll spew you out.” (time 11:10, 17:50, 35:00).

This is absolutely terrible, scorching of the earth kinda terrible. Sullivant has literally no idea what these passages even say and mean. If he was preaching this as a lost and apostate church, which it is, then it would fit. It would be contextually correct. The teaching would be right and Biblical and actual exegetical. But that is far from what he is doing, and likely would be appalled at such a thought. This is a true church to Sullivant (at time 12:45 he makes that crystal clear—as he alludes to throughout the sermon—where he says that God wishes that they weren’t even saved and belonging to Him, in similitude to what he claims at 40:15, “I know it’s a blistering message to this church of Laodicea and for Christians who find themselves in this state, but He only does it because He loves us”), whereas nothing in Rev. 3 even remotely hints at such rhetoric. Only false "Christians" find themselves in such a state. Lukewarm is very obviously lost. Verses 17 and 18 are full of adjectives describing the "lukewarm" professing "believer." God doesn’t vomit His children out of His mouth (Rev 3:16) but chastises them in love (Rev 3:19; Heb 12:7-11; Pr 3:11-12). The redeemed of God are not "wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:" (Rev 3:17). The whole pricking of the heart, this is language reserved in Scripture towards unsaved people (e.g. Ac. 9; Heb. 4:12; Jn. 16:7-11 -- in all these instances, the people are unconverted). When the Holy Spirit dwells in the true believer, something I suspect Sullivant might not be privy to, He doesn’t have to drive a sword into the heart and soul of the saint as He does with the sinner. The Sword of the Spirit, and the Wielder of the Sword, reside in the saint, forever (2 Jn 1:2; Eph 1:12; 4:30; 2 Cor 1:22). He leads, teaches, guides, directs, witnesses, etc, the saint at all times, with His Word. Concerning hope, saved people actually are in hope already, not without, which is sure and steadfast and as an anchor for the soul. Saved people are never written off, or crossed off, or blotted out, language (and actions) again reserved soley for the unregenerate. Is he speaking of some audible voice, that God wants to speak to them? ("He wants to speak to you. He is speaking to you. Will you hear His voice?") Everything described in Rev. 3:17-18 applies to lost people ONLY. The "cold" is a clear contextual reference to the lost (vv. 17-18), while "hot" people are obviously referring to those that are saved (v. 19). The context makes that very clear; the warning of v. 16 is elaborated in vv. 17-19. Lukewarm is the hypocrite, the contextual example being the apostate pastor of Rev. 3:14-18 and many of his followers. When you have someone professing to be "hot" while actually in reality they are "cold," what happens when you mix those two temperatures? You are left with "lukewarm," and that is exactly what Jesus is getting at in these verses. The pastor and most at Laodicea were professing to be "hot" while in reality they were "cold," which means they are appearing as "lukewarm" -- i.e., false professing "believers," hypocrites, pretending to be "spiritual" (saved) while actually "carnal" (unsaved), and there is nothing that is as bad as this, as Jesus makes clear throughout the gospels (e.g., Matt 11:20-24; 23:2-36). They were attempting to appear good because they were hypocrites, which is always unsaved religious people (cf. Matt 23), but also unsaved wicked people with no pretence of religion (Rom 2:1-5). What kind of true believer says “wow I’m pretty good” or “I’m better than they are”? Only a hypocrite, like Sullivant. Its pathetic. This man has no business being behind a pulpit. The "mess" they are in at PVBC is caused by Sullivant himself. The corruption and wresting of Scripture (cf. 2 Cor 2:17; 2 Pet 3:16) is the work of the wicked (2 Pet 3:17). Everything about this sermon points to the very plausible conclusion that Michael Sullivant has never been born again. No person with the indwelling Spirit of God, twists and corrupts scripture like this that is actually quite easy to interpret, putting in whatever he wants it to say (eisegesis).

How do we know the Laodiceans being spewed out of God's mouth were unsaved? The riches of God are received at salvation. The call to come and buy God's salvation is a call to salvation. The naked body in sin and shame is clothed at salvation with the white raiment of purity and righteousness, God's purity and righteousness. Thus the nakedness of sinful man disappears. Blinded eyes see. NONE of these things occur after salvation or are progressive in the Christian life. They are the new birth.

Let's break it down:

• They were spiritually "blind" (v. 17) and the spiritually blind are always unregenerate (v. 18; cf. Matt 13:15; Eph 4:18; Ac 26:18; 2 Cor 4:3-4; 1 Th. 5:4-10). Salvation, brings "anoint[ing] [of] thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see." (v. 19), "To open their eyes," (Ac 26:18), to "Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law." (Ps 119:18).

• They were "naked" (v. 17) and the naked are always unregenerate (v 18; cf. Rev 3:4-5; 4:4; 6:11; 7:9, 13-14; 16:15; 19:14), having never been clothed with the "white raiment" of salvation, "that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear;" (v. 19). "He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life," (Rev 3:5). Overcoming occurs at the moment of salvation: 1 Jn 2:13-14; 4:1-4; 5:3-4, continuing thereafter characteristically.

• They were "poor" spiritually, though they thought they were rich, "I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing;" (v. 17) and those that think they are rich and in need of nothing are in fact lost (v. 18). Christ's counsel to them: "I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich;" (v. 18) is precisely that: the Lord exhorting this false church to buy the gold of salvation. Yes, it is gold and it is salvation. The precious pearl of great price. The hidden treasure that a man purchases after selling everything. These at Laodicea had not repented and forsaken all (Lk 14:15--15:32) and bought the pearl of great price or the field of hidden treasure (Matt 13), unlike the prodigal son. The instructions were to "buy the truth and sell it not" (Pr 23:23a) and you shall receive "wisdom, and instruction, and understanding." (Pr 23:23b). This is done not with money or price but with their very lives which is inherent in the gospel call (Is 55:1-7; Pr 23:23; Matt 10:39; 16:25; Mk 8:35; Lk 9:24; 17:33; Jn 12:25). Dying to self, losing their lives for Christ and the gospel' sake (Matt. 10:39; 16:25; Mk. 8:35-36; Lk. 9:24-25; 17:33; Jn. 12:25).And when you do, you receive the most valuable and priceless thing that can be found upon the earth. The gold of salvation purchased by Christ has been tried by the furnace of fire, repeatedly, and has never failed the test. The call to come and buy is very clear.

"Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding." (Pr 23:23)

“Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. . . . Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. . . . Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” (Is 55:1, 3, 6-7)

While Is 55:1-3 is the call to salvation—not only for the Jew but also extended to the Gentile (v. 5)—vv. 6-7 tells us how that salvation can be obtained. This is distinctly what Jn 6:35, 47-58 and other passages such as Jn 12:24-25; Mk 8:34-38; Matt 16:24-26; Lk 9:23-26, 57-62; and more, speak of. How can ye drink and eat, and buy without money or price? By seeking and calling upon the Lord while he is near and to be found (Is 55:6-7), and then exercising repentance (Is 55:7), that is, losing or denying your life, forsaking all and turning from your wicked ways and thoughts and God will be merciful and abundantly pardon (Is 55:7).

• They were "wretched" and miserable" (v. 17), two conditions found only in unsaved sinful man (Jer 17:9; Rom 3:16; Pr 31:7), while salvation brings the indwelling Spirit of God and consequential fruit of the Spirit, and "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." (Gal 5:22-23). The statement and question upon the lips of repentant sinners must be this: "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" (Rm 7:24). Praise the Lord for the answer: "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom 7:25a).

These weren’t “Christians” living in disobedience (all saved people live in characteristic obedience, loving the Lord by keeping His words: Jn 14:23-24; 1 Jn 2:3-5), but lost people who have never been saved, while feigning faith and Christianity. According to Sullivant's own indictment, this is him and the people of PVBC.

Sullivant continues:

“Here’s a church. His church. Remember the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Hey upon this rock I’ll build my church. This is Jesus He’s trying to get back into His own church. Jesus is at the door of this church saying let me in. Will some one let me in? He says when you let Him in, revival will break out [the last half said here in a strange hushed raspy tone of voice].” (time 40:20)

The revivalist perverting Scripture to fit his heretical narrative. It is a church, by name only. Kinda like the many Christians that grace churches like PVBC. Jesus is “trying to get back into his own church”?! If Jesus can come into this apostate church, actual true Biblical revival would break out, but that is not the revival that Sullivant embraces or referring to here, which is a bastardized and heretical “revival” for supposedly "saved” people, a very common theme in IFB churches, with their star "evangelist" coming around and creating the atmosphere for emotional responses. The word "revival" means “to be made alive,” so that when true revival is occurring, sinners are being converted. Men like Sullivant are not satisfied with only the preached Word as a basis for conversion. If they were, they would follow it and do as it says. He doesn't. Not even close. He wants more numbers and pew warmers, so they began enacting certain measures that they found worked at seeing more professions of faith, such as taking out repentance and Christ's Lordship and replacing genuine conversion with praying-a-prayer and easy believism, measures he would have undoubtedly learned through Hyles and at Hyles-Anderson College, and Hyles cronies. He would have also learned the Hyles means of ensuring that those hearing would make a decision, which purpose was to get a physical response, either by walking to the front, to a room, or joining in a scripted prayer, or made wet. When the easy believist becomes a padded pew warmer and reflect elements of their old life and a dead spirituality, especially if he ain't "tithing," other measures of distorted sanctification come into effect, namely Keswick theology and its currency, which is to blame for the unbiblical behaviour: "backsliding," "carnal Christian," and of course "lukewarm Christian," all of which are really referring to the same thing.

At time 41:28–42:05 of the sermon, Sullivant’s true colours come out as to why he preaches the heresy he does, which builds big churches and false religions. For Sullivant it's really all about the fame, the glory and the popularity, just as Scripture tells us is the motivation of false teachers (Rom 16:18; Phil 3:18). Hence the 700 person church, and he has no plans on stopping, because churches that aren't growing are sinful. He uses a hypothetical example of what he would do if the Prime Minister called and took him out to lunch in his sleazy limo; he would contact all the big newspapers and TV stations to tell them know how great he is, “boy I’m someone”, “hey look see what’s happening to me,” he would want his pictures taken because he's really someone now, “we’d be eaten it up” with popularity he says. He sayings nothing against this worldly and carnal mentality but glories in this hypothetical spotlight. Wow. Cringe. Embarrassing.

The entire sermon is patently perverted. He absolutely mutilates and butchers Rev. 3:14-21. Salvation is clearly taught in Rev. 3:17-18, but Sillivant however twisted and wrested it into something post-salvation, applicable to the congregation at PVBC. He keeps repeating the same thing over and over and over in this sermon. The teaching here is paper thin, and worse, heretical. No actual exposition of Rev. 3:14-21. In fact he never actually exposits scripture, even though he makes it appear like he does when preaching through books of the Bible. Serious twisting and wresting of Scripture. ‘Just get right’ is the mind numbing cliche of this false teacher. It's heard at least a few dozen times in this sermon alone. This is a good example of the terrible confusion and contradiction that reigns in these man-centred big camp IFB churches today. A right understanding of Scripture means little. Words have little value except where they are used to push a narrative. Right dividing is not required. Salvation is powerless and meaningless. The irony is how much Sullivant and other preachers mention the facade of this image of their church so people will want what they have. Everything he preaches goes right against that. Many people of PVBC look, live, speak and smell like the world, but they are "saved.” Hence the distorted sanctification, which provides an answer for the fruitless or evidence-less "salvations" occurring at PVBC. Sullivant also has next to no discernment. He has little ability to actually understand Scripture and rightly divide it. He is a great perverter of God’s Word and a deceiver and master manipulator, twisting scripture into what he wants it to say.

This is all tied to the heretical Keswick Revivalist “theology” that floods practically every baptist and “evangelical” church today. All the speech about the “carnal” and “backslidden” and “lukewarm" congregation is in preparation for the manufactured “revivalism” that will take place, whether at invitation time on Sunday morning with the elevator music coaching in the background while the “pastor” is giving the guilt run and fear mongering from the podium, or at their many “Revival Conferences.” Sullivant is a manipulator. The spirited, emotional songs are meant to prime the pump, so to speak; to prepare listeners for the sermon that follows. Already emotionally manipulated by the music, congregants are more open to what preachers such as Sullivant have to say. The goal is always the same: to bring people to the place where they are willing to walk the aisle and make a decision; whether to get “saved,” confess one’s sin, rededicate one’s life, or surrender to some sort of calling. Revivalism is tied to a wrong doctrine of salvation and sanctification and then the methodology that accompanies those. One of the reasons that the professions and decisions are called "revival" is because they are just professions and decisions. They aren't actual salvation and sanctification. They are experiences primed by manufactured, external stimuli, while wrenching the Word of God, and labeled some type of work of God. Actual, real results are not expected. This point is built into their plans of salvation and doctrinal statement. The results are to be enforced and conformed in the name of “discipleship” by all the “learned men” in the leadership. No real repentance must occur for the "revival" of revivalism. You can plan on something that you can make happen. Since it is you making it happen, know then that it isn't God making it happen. God will do things that are of Him, characterized by Him. The planned revivals of revivalism are made by men, using human techniques. They are not revival. True revival can occur, unsaved people, false believers, getting converted, but it won't have anything to do with our planning of it. If it does occur, those with whom it does occur will be fully cognizant, clear thinking people. They will hear plain, thorough biblical exposition. They will be good soil, with hearts ready to hear. If the soil on which the seed is cast isn't good, no other factor will change the result.

(e) Sullivant’s teaches and advocates for a form of Christianity that is indiscernible from the world.

That should be fairly evident already from what we see in his teachings on "disciple," “backsliding” and “lukewarm Christians” and “carnal Christianity,” and the multiple examples given in this report. But there’s more, and I am sure A LOT more if one was to listen through all his sermons and teachings.

👉🏻 We see this in the following statement made in the sermon Which Son are You (July 7, 2013) concerning the prodigal son, which sermon is really filled with these type of declarations:

“We see this with the younger son. He leaves the far country, he comes back home. He leaves the harlots, he leaves that crows, he leaves the pig, he leaves the world, he leaves the citizen of that far country. He is no longer yoked up with the world anymore. . . . we wanna keep the old crowd and we wanna keep the new crowd.”

Sullivant believes that the prodigal was a Christian who fell away, who backslid, became carnal and lukewarm, but then came back. He is back with the new crowd, but still wants to keep the old crowd, as already demonstrated in his life. He is describing a supposed Christian who looks and lives just like the wicked. No, nothing in Scripture even remotely hints at this type of “Christianity,” including in Luke 15. He continues in this context claiming this Christian was "not walking according to Biblical principle and they’re just flaunting their open sin...” But these are saved according to Sullivant, because they made some kind of profession at some point in their life. What kind of true believer flaunts sin openly? (Flaunt means to display [something] ostentatiously, especially in order to provoke envy or admiration or to show defiance). None, but a false believer might.

This perversion is normal for Sullivant, who preached an entire heretical sermon titled Which Son Are You, probably one of the worst sermons I have ever heard. We covered it under the first report, in his perversion of salvation. The prodigal gave up his life, his self, his sins, his possessions, his everything, to be received and saved by the Father. He died to himself, which is the necessary ingredient to true Biblical repentance and faith (Jn 12:24-25; Lk 14:15-32; 9:57-62; 13:23-30; Matt 10:32-39; 16:24-26; 21:28-32; Mk 8:34-38). What Sullivant is teaching in his pversion of the truth is a false gospel, a corrupted version of the gospel that falls way short of saving faith, that accompanies the wrong methodology and the distorted sanctification. Anyone who corrupts and twists the prodigal son into a "Christian" who fell away and backslid, et al, is immediately judged to be a false teacher. You need no further proof. It is enough. Why? Two important reasons, mainly. (1) This is one of the easiest parables to understand in Scripture. The context makes this incredibly easy to understand, with it being an entire chapter on repentance concerning things that were lost and then found, and then previous chapter, which is all the same context of Christ's sermon, is clearly salvation as well (Lk 14:15-33). In fact, it has never crossed my mind for a second that the subject was anything but salvation. One would have to explore the text with a presupposed narrative, an eisegetical exploration, to come up with Sullivant's corrupted analysis. (2) Sullivant does not understand the parable of the sower and the seed (which is the foundational parable of all parables), which he corrupts into once again a treatment of unsaved people, who God says are unsaved while falsely professing, as true Christians. In Mk 4:13 Jesus indicates that not knowing the parable of the sower and seed equates to not knowing any parable, which then means a yet unregenerate and blinded to the truth nature that does not understand God's truth because his blinded eyes have never been opened, nor has he ever been quickened by the Spirit of God, and obviously is without the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth. One cannot understand any parable if he doesn't understand this one rightly. Not knowing sower and seed parable means you are a false believer, which then means you will also not understand other parables, like the 3-in-1 parable of Luke 15.

👉🏻 Seen in his false views of holiness. In God's Desire - My Holiness, he claims holiness has nothing to do with do’s and don’ts but holiness unto the Lord (time 5:30). What? How on earth can you be holy without the practical aspect to holiness? How can you be holy with separating from sin and error, which is do’s and don’ts? Is this some form of Keswick quietism?

(f) Sullivant, and PVBC, corrupts a lot of scripture to support all his distortion of sanctification, and other examples of Keswick/higher life/Revivalist-type sanctification, to manipulate responses from the congregation.

For instance, the entire Book of Joshua; Pr. 23:23; Jer. 17:9; Matt. 7:23, 24-27; 10:32-39; 16:24-26; 19:18-31; 23:3-30; Mk 8:34-38; 10:17-30; Lk. 9:23-26, 57-62; 13:23-30; 14:25-35; 15:1-32; 17:32-33; 18:18-30; Jn. 6:60-66; 12:24-25; 21:1-4; Rom. 8:1-10; Ac. 19:13-19; Jam. 4:4ff.; Phil. 3:3-10; Heb. 3:7-19; 5:11-6:2; 1 Cor 1:9-3:5; 2 Cor 7:10-11; etc, etc, etc. These are only the ones I have personally heard, a fraction of the hundreds of sermons available. I think it would be safe to say that he corrupts pretty much most of the Bible, in every book, every chapter, and nearly every verse. Some sermons, not even one verse is handled according to the truth. Most of the OT is spiritualized (allegoricalized), which is horrible heresy, a subject we cover here concerning two men, one of whom associates with Sullivant.

Isn't teaching and preaching to be judged by its absolute faithfulness to the text? Is it okay for someone to teach and preach something different and aberrant than what a particular passage says or doctrine teaches? If the meaning of Scripture is mangled, is the Holy Spirit actually in it? God never works in a way that circumvents the Bible. What does 1 Jn. 2:20-21, 27 declare?

"But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. . . . 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."

This consequently means Sullivant is a liar and does not know the truth, which means he has not an "unction from the Holy One," which then means (doubly— a liar and doesn't know the truth) he is unsaved, what the text is also communicating, as other texts, like Jn 16:13, where Jesus reminded His true disciples, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:" Sullivant is not being guided into all truth, as he perverts his way across the pages of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. And we have tons of proof for that already, and this is only more. The teachings of Sullivant are incongruous with God’s Word. They reveal a void of true spiritual discernment and understanding, things that accompany salvation (1 Cor. 2:12-16), with the reception of the indwelling "Spirit of truth," who is the Teacher of truth to all He indwells (1 Jn. 2:20-21, 27; Pr. 22:17-21).

Scripture has only one meaning. There may be more than one application, but never more than one interpretation. Scripture is plain and perspicuous (meaning clearly expressed and understood—Pr 8:8-9), and all its words are important since we’re to live by its every word (Matt 4:4). Believers don’t force their own narratives and presupposed opinions into Scripture but understand truth is found through the literal interpreted, rightly divided, and diligently studied Bible alone. The doctrine of perspicuity is about absolute truth, and it, like all scriptural doctrine, is under great attack.

What does Scripture, God, say about those who do this characteristically, meaning often and not a slip up here or there, months or years apart?

“A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.” (Pr 14:5)

“He that speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false witness deceit.” (Pr 12:17)

“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are 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. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.” (2 Pet 3:16-17)

Pastor Michael Sullivant, and majority, if not all, of the staff and people that preach and teach at PVBC or CBCC, are bearing false witness to the truth by uttering lies and falsehoods, and shewing forth deceit. They purposefully manipulate, misrepresent, misuse and seriously abuse God’s Word in a disgraceful fashion, corrupting and dishonestly handling the Word of God deceitfully (2 Cor 2:17; 4:2).

The Bible demands separation from these false teachers (Rom 16:17) who serve their belly and not the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 16:18). Flee from the voice of these strangers (cf. Jn 10:1-5).

👉🏻 In the sermon Are You a True Disciple (time 23:05) speaking about the false disciples in Jn. 6:60-66 Sullivant says:

“I believe some of them were born again, but some of them turned back, they walked no more with Him. Why? Because they turned back, they backslid."

Pure eisegesis. Pure fiction. He is twisting Scripture to fit his Keswick/revivalist heresy that has zero Biblical support. We read, "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." (Jn 6:66). This actually means something. It means they were false disciples. They didn't walk with Him no more, indicating they actually didn't believe in Him in a salvic way. Nowhere, ever, are apostates considered to be saved in the Word of God. Not in one place, and just the opposite; always judged as unregenerate, as in our text. Sullivant however twists and wrests and mutilates the text into what he wants it to say, which fits his system and pogram.

👉🏻 False interpretation of OT scripture to support his Keswick/revivalist error of “backsliding” “carnal Christians.” In the sermon The Victorious Life (July 26, 2009), the unsurprising Keswick/revivalist heresy of corrupting the Israelites in the wilderness and the book of Joshua is heard as in all similar sermons by IFB revivalists, which is most. Joshua supposedly is a picture of the victorious life. No he isn’t. Thats called eisegesis, forcing Scripture to agree with Sullivant. This would be true if Sullivant actually believed in the true and biblical “victorious life” which is the one received at salvation (Rom. 6). But he doesn’t. Joshua would simply be a picture of the true born again believer if anything. He claims the wilderness wondering is a picture of the believer living in sin. What?!? That isn’t only eisegesis, allegoricalism and adding to Scripture, its plain heresy. Everything Sullivant says here is lies and plain fiction. He is wresting Gods Word. The typology doesn’t fit sound doctrine or actual Biblical facts. Israel was almost entirely lost in the wilderness, the Bible actually says that in hundreds of passages (e.g. Num. 14:1-45; 16:3-50; De. 4:23-40; 5:27-29; 9:4-8, 12-13, 16-24; 29:2-4, 10-28; 30:11-20; 31:16-20, 24-29; 32:15-43; Heb. 3:7-4:11; Ps. 78:17-22, 31-42, 56-64; 81:8-13; 106:4-33, 1 Sam. 8:7-8; 2 Ki. 21:10-15; 81:8-16; Ac. 7:39-43, 51-53; I Cor. 10:1-12; 2 Cor. 3:12-4:4; Heb. 3:6-4:11; Ju. 1:5, etc).

The whole premise of using unsaved Israelites as a contextual example for NT believers is to pardon and exonerate NT Christians living in sin, disobedience, carnality, "backslidden," "lukewarm," "unbelief," etc, since, after all, "all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition," (1 Cor 10:11). 'Israel was living in grotesque sin, idolatry, unbelief, etc, so it must be okay if these errors are found in NT Christians,' the excuse goes. This is normal IFB preaching, but also in evangelicalism and Protestant denominations (e.g., Reformed Calvinism). We see that 1 Cor 10:11 becomes yet another casualty in their war against God's words. True born again believers don’t live in sin. I'm not saying they won't sin. They won't live in sin. When they sin, it's short lived, lest they die (Heb. 12:5-11; 1 Cor. 11:28-32; Pr. 3:11-12).

The perversion of the book of Joshua continues, claiming that crossing the Jordan is a type of dying to self. Yikes, No, it certainly isn’t. Again, spiritualizing Scripture. We die to self at salvation (Mk. 8:34-35; Lk. 14:25–15:32). In support of this, he quoted Paul ‘I die daily.’ Paul could say that, as all truly saved people can, because he died at salvation, NOT some point after salvation as Sullivant heretically teaches. The manipulation of God's Word is on bold display here, as it so often is. Sullivant goes to the one passage that speaks of daily death, while skipping over the dozens of passages that demand death of self for salvation (passages quoted previously). According to Sullivant theology, does this then mean the Israelites crossed the Jordan on a daily basis, since we are to die daily? Leaven always creates confusion and contradictions. The truth is, the Israelites never died at all to self; they were hopelessly lost because they rejected the salvation that God offered (Ps 78), and frequently lamented to return to Egypt. Let's consider a bit out of this one chapter (Ps 78), of the kind which there are more chapters in Scripture:

They were "a stubborn and rebellious generation; a generation that set not their heart aright, and whose spirit was not stedfast with God. . . . They kept not the covenant of God, and refused to walk in his law;" in spite of God's great goodness and lovingkindness towards them in the wilderness sojourn, "they sinned yet more against him by provoking the most High in the wilderness. And they tempted God in their heart by asking meat for their lust.  Yea, they spake against God; they said, Can God furnish a table in the wilderness? . . . Therefore the LORD heard this, and was wroth: so a fire was kindled against Jacob, and anger also came up against Israel; Because they believed not in God, and trusted not in his salvation: . . . The wrath of God came upon them, and slew the fattest of them, and smote down the chosen men of Israel. For all this they sinned still, and believed not for his wondrous works. . . . When he slew them, then they sought him: and they returned and enquired early after God. And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer. Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues. For their heart was not right with him, neither were they stedfast in his covenant. . . . Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel. . . . For they provoked him to anger with their high places, and moved him to jealousy with their graven images. When God heard this, he was wroth, and greatly abhorred Israel:"

Over and over we read that Israel was utterly lost, unregenerate, rebellious in their stubborn ungodliness and unbelief. They were content with worshiping false gods, and God’s fiery wrath was upon them continually. In fact, the description of Israel as illustrated in this chapter reflecting their time in the Exodus is the description of Israel throughout their entire history, as this same chapter also relates (i.e., "And might not be as their fathers" v. 8a), as do many other passages of Scripture, all the way to the present time and into the future, until such a time they will be converted in the Great Tribulation, the 70th week of Daniel:

"But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away." (2 Cor. 3:14-16)

These post-salvation analogies of the Jews in the wilderness are very popular among IFB’s but they are plainly unscriptural and heretical. But they are necessary for their false soteriological and sanctification system, to force the fitting of their false gospel, with all its false professions, and then collaborates the corrupted Keswick/Revivalists sanctification that keeps the pogrom running.

👉🏻 Pastor Gary Driedger in his sermon Ethics in the Workplace - Part 2 builds an entire sermon upon the misuse of Matt 7:24-27 (and Lk 6:46-49), perverting these passage to fit his narrative, which again is extremely common amongst Keswick purveyors with their endorsement of two-tiered Christianity. The sermon is taught in its entirety as two types of Christians, one who builds his life on sand and one who builds his life on rock. For instance, he says:

“Each believer in the Lord Jesus Christ must make the personal determination of what type of foundation they will build their life upon. Everyone in this room is going to choose what kind of foundation you’re going to build upon.”

This is a serious corruption of this text, and the hideous doctrine behind it. The actual words used by Christ in these passages, and the context, make it so incredibly clear that Christ is contrasting saved people (who have built their house upon a rock, which is Christ through true conversion) with unsaved people (that profess to be believers, but have built their houses upon ever shifting sand, which is a false profession and a rejection of the truth and the necessity to repent). This false teaching is also intricately connected to Keswick's two-tiered “Christianity” and all that it comes with. This great sermon of Christ is preached to lost people in their need of conversion. They are fools who do not obey Gods Word ("And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" Lk. 6:46, with greater detail in Matt, vv. 21-23) and have built their life upon sand which will come to destruction because its a false foundation. In the sermon he also twists Jer 17:9 applying it to saved people! Wow, how horribly confusing and corrupt can preaching get! Of course no sermon at PVBC would be complete without the anemic call to come forward for their version of “salvation” by “receiving Jesus as your personal Saviour” with the background elevator music playing to enhance the emotional appeal. The problem is, this isn't the Jesus of the Bible, nor is the "receiving" actual Biblical faith. It's the false faith of merely praying a prayer or accepting Jesus into your life or merely accepting Jesus as Saviour or asking Jesus into your heart. None of these are what it means to believe in Jesus Christ. They are, just maybe, a piece of it, a small one. But this is it from the Sullivant big camp, and then you are apparently "saved." That is how you build a life on the false foundation of sand. But in the Sullivant camp (like Hyles of course), you are still saved. Wow, scorching earth with the heresy.

👉🏻 The sermon on Living a Restful Life (Nov 2, 2011) with his corruption and distortion and severe abuse of Heb. 3, is very bad. I mean egregious of the worst kind. The entire speech is twisted and contrary to Scripture. It’s a treatise on Keswick theology. As per usual, he propagates a false repentant-less salvation (even claiming that surrender is after salvation, not for salvation, which is a lie) and a false sanctification. This heresy is the major cause (tied with the false gospel of course) why there are so many false believers in IFB churches. Heresy such as “It is possible for a person to be saved and destined to heaven but yet lead a miserable defeated life here below” (time 10:15) is commonly heard, and rejects the true gospel that permanently saves and heals a sinner, even as Peter told us: "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." (1 Pet 2:24). People that are "dead to sin" and "healed," which are true born again believers, do NOT live a "miserable defated life." The powerless, change-less, miserable "salvation" that Sullivant pounds from the pulpit is why "revivalism" and Keswick theology is so readily embraced.

Sullivant claims the stiff-necked Israelites in unbelief are saved people:

“Notice that He says I have promised that I would do this for you but you and your stiff neck period of unbelief. He says you just mess things up and we do that [while chuckling].”

"Unbelief" is another Keswick currency frequently heard in revivalist pulpits like PVBC. When the Bible speaks of “stiff-neck” it's always referring to lost people (e.g. De. 31:25-30). Unbelief is always a reference to unsaved people as well. Unbelief = unbeliever. Thats not rocket science. Unbelief comes from an evil heart (Heb. 3:12), which is not a saved heart. The just live by faith (Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38). Heb. 10:38-39 specifically speaks against unbelief in saved people; its lost people. Seven times in Heb. 3:7-4:11 we read that the children of Israel were in unbelief, they were unbelievers (i.e., lost), which is confirmed by tons of evidence throughout the Bible, such as Num. 14:1-45; 16:41-50; De. 4:23-40; 5:27-29; 9:4-8, 12-13, 16-24; 29:2-4, 10-28; 30:11-20; 31:24-29; 32:15-43; Jud. 2:10-23; 8:33-35; 1 Sam. 8:7-8; 2 Ki. 21:10-15; Ps. 78:8-72 [especially vv. 8, 10-11, 17-22, 30-38, 40-42, 56-62, 72]; 81:8-16; 106:6-33; 2 Cor. 3:12-4:4; Heb. 3:6-4:11; Ju. 1:5. The adjective "apeitheis,” the nouns "apeitheia" and “apistia,” and the verb "apeitheo,” all mean “unbelief” and all demonstrate that those who do not enter the rest of Heb. 3-4 are unbelievers and unregenerate. Because they were unbelievers they could not enter into God’s rest (Heb. 3:19), which is salvation (Heb. 4:9-11; Matt. 11:28-30). Of course, naturally, Sullivant’s teaching on “rest” is out to lunch as well in this sermon. Heb 3:18 states, “to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?” There is only one rest and that rest is entered at salvation (Heb. 4:1-11; Matt. 11:28-30).

👉🏻 Sermon The Crucified Life (Jan 25, 2015) on Rom. 5:1-5, was also a terribly abusive sermon, abusive on the truth of Scripture. In the beginning of the sermon he wishes he had mastered the crucified life in his lifetime. What he needs is salvation obviously, for that is the crucified life (Lk 14:25-35). The crucified life is mastered at salvation. He ought to read Rom 6 very, very carefully and he should see that and hopefully also that he is unsaved. In this sermon he speaks positively of two Keswick heretics and their heretical books which he loves and reads and embraces as very important: L.E. Maxwells (Born Crucified) and Roy Hession (Calvary Road). Especially Hessians book, which is sold in their bookstore. This book contains lots of false teachings on victorious Christian living, the Holy Spirit, the blood of Christ, perversion of Scripture (even the few scant scriptural references such as Ps 102:13 & Neh 2:13), revivalism heresy, false interpretation of "peace of Christ,” heretically teaches that a Christian could lose his salvation (which is a damnable works gospel, a point alone that condemns Hession as a wolf) and in order to be saved again must reapply the blood of Christ. His theology wasn’t original, for Pelagius, Arminius, John Wesley, the Keswick movement, the Salvation Army and Pentecostalism have all believed and taught the same false and damnable doctrine. Hession purveys a very heretical sanctification that is fed by a corrupted salvation and it is unsurprising that Sullivant loves this unbiblical and heretical book authored by a false teacher. He embraces and teaches many of the same heresies. Concerning these books, he said,

“A lot of these books talk about the crucified life. A lot of Christians wash out because they try to live the Christian life in their own strength.”

NO, no true Christian tries “to live the Christian life in their own strength”! Why would they; they have the indwelling Holy Spirit! Lost people, imitators and conformists like Sullivant try to live the Christian life in their own strength. That is why they read this junk, and have no discernment to know the better.

​Rather than examining (empty) professions of faith like God’s Word commands (e.g. Is. 8:20; 2 Cor. 13:5), a lack of sanctification is blamed for the unfruitful and unchanged "conversions” (a failure to enter rest, or the abundant life, or the "Christ-life" or not becoming serious and a disciple, etc). Hence the proliferation of Keswick theology among IFB today. This false assurance gives the "credence" required for the dog/fool to continue in his unconverted folly (Pr. 22:16; 2 Pet. 2)​;​ that is, until he enters the "abundant/higher life" or a "second rest" or becomes a "disciple" or starts "abiding in Christ" or receives "freedom from the power of sin" or has learned how to "access" the indwelling Christ who is actually living the Christian life for the believer, (or more likely, all of these things combined), etc. As a result of this seriously wrong doctrine—which is subtly mixed with the truth —​ compounded​ with the addition of false repentance, the new "believer" that prayed a prayer is not expected to necessarily demonstrate a changed life after salvation until they enter this "abundant/higher​/Christ-​life".

The effect of the Keswick doctrine on the teaching and preaching of Biblical repentance is pervasive. As there is no expectation of a change in life with respect to living in sin after salvation, until one attains the higher life, repentance for salvation may be safely relegated by Keswick adherents to a mere mental assertion that one is a sinner. Any attempt at including guilt, being remorseful for ones sins, or a change in the attitude and will towards sin that causes one to abhor and forsake sin by turning from sin to God, is viciously attacked as works and Lordship salvation. To add to that, the Keswick teaching that salvation is simply being saved from the penalty of sin (and not the power of sin), would explain why the focus of the plan of salvation by Keswick adherents is on the “consequence of sin” ​which is the​ penalty of sin (hell). ​And adding further to that, we also discern cause for the teaching of receiving Jesus as Saviour at salvation, and then later–as the higher life is pursued–receiving Him as Lord. Thus it is no surprise that there is no preaching of true Biblical repentance for salvation by Keswick adherents found in many IFB churches today, only a placebo. There is also another disturbing reason that Keswick adherents are weak on Biblical repentance. Keswick is tied up in revivalism. Revivalism has typically required a showing of large numbers of converts to justify itself, and Biblical repentance puts a damper on getting large numbers of people to “make a decision for Christ”​ and pray a prayer.​

Keswick’s grievous errors and heresies should have no place in any Christian’s life; yet we find it's teachings and beliefs as prominent in most IFB churches today (and evangelical as well), especially at PVBC. It creates mass confusion and worse, confines unregenerate people to their lost condition. It is this very teaching that brought about the false "carnal Christian" philosophy and is keeping the false pretending professors as exactly that, making them two-fold children of hell more than before.

Sullivant masterly orchestrates Scripture to fit his personal ideas, presuppositions, and agendas, twisting and gouging as he seems fit. It is however not okay for someone to stand at the pulpit and intentionally misuse and abuse Gods Word, thereby creating new doctrine that doesn’t exist anywhere in Gods Word but in the writings and philosophies of men. That is what pastor Sullivant has done. His teachings on salvation and sanctification are off the mark. They are contrary to apostolic doctrine. They are false and egregious and his gospel of easy believism and void of repentance is perverted (Gal. 1:6-7; 2 Cor. 11:4) and the man behind such is condemned as accursed according to Gal. 1:8-9. Paul included himself when he warned of anyone perverting the gospel of Christ contrary to the apostles: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Gal. 1:8). God's Word is plain and perspicuous, especially to the saved, and its every word is important since we are to live by every word (Matt. 4:4), so where is the Holy Spirit in all this when His Word is being corrupted? If the meaning of Scripture is mangled, is the Holy Spirit in it? God doesn’t work in a way that circumvents the Bible.

(g) The Corrupted Sanctification Connects at the Junction of the False Gospel.

In the first part we covered in detail pastor Mike Sullivant and his staff at PVBC's serious perversion of God's gospel, while making that connection here with the furthering perversion of the doctrine of sanctification. We know that the Gospel gets changed by men. This is established from 2 Cor 11. We have also contended that this change comes almost exclusively in two ways: change in Who Jesus is and change in what belief is. We must believe in Jesus Christ for salvation. The Lord will not justify the one who botches genuine belief or the one who falls short of a Biblical Jesus. We demonstrated how these changes happen by the perversion (or outright denial) of repentance, rejection of Christ's Lordship, corrupted methods (such as praying a prayer, easy believism, invitations, salesmanship, gimmicks, etc), twisted and wrested interpretation of Scripture (especially soteriological ones), arguments made from silence, etc, which results in Sullivant and other men at PVBC damning people to Hell by their changing of the Gospel. Could there be anything worse?

Rejecting the true gospel (which certainly includes repentance, the Lordship of Christ, surrendering to Christ, etc) and then holding to an unscriptural Keswick-type of sanctification necessitates a change in many other Bible doctrines. Salvation becomes a mere intellectual function of believing in certain facts and typically turning from unbelief to belief, exactly how Sullivant teaches and preaches repentance. Repentance is perverted, where it essentially becomes synonymous with faith. Salvation and discipleship are separated. Christ’s Offices of Saviour and Lord are separated. Supposedly not all believers change at salvation, so they live the “Christian” life in the flesh and are told to pursue the Victorious-Life, the Crucified-Life, the Higher-Life. Salvation is confused with sanctification, and lots of salvation passages are manipulated into sanctification, severely wresting the Word of God (2 Pet. 3:16-17). Freedom from the penalty of sin and power of sin is separated, as if both don't occur at salvation. Two types of “rests” are taught (misusing Matt. 11:28-30 & Heb. 3:7–4:11 typically). A person can either abide in Christ or not abide in Christ (perverting Jn. 15), so in other words, they can be fruitful or unfruitful; that is consistent. However, only the fruitful are saved in Gods Word (Matt. 13:3-23), and they are fruitful from the moment of their conversion (Col 1:4-6). The heresy of “carnal Christianity” (“lukewarm” and “Laodicean” and “backsliding”) is taught. And to support all of it, much Scripture must be misused, abused and butchered.

Salvation isn’t praying a prayer. We are not justified through prayer. We are justified by faith. The people who call on the name of the Lord are those who understand the nature of Jesus Christ and the dire predicament they are in. Salvation isn’t walking an aisle or raising a hand. It isn’t being able to answer certain leading questions. Men have taken a few passages that mention “confess” and “call” and have turned salvation into a syllogism that concludes with “prayer equals salvation.” That misses what God says about justification by faith alone.

The position of PVBC against bad music and immodest or gender indistinctive dress and not allowing or promoting worldly entertainment and standing against modern Bible perversions is good and commendable, but its to little avail if what they are missing is the true gospel of Jesus Christ and then a right, Biblical doctrine of sanctification that sprouts from the foundational gospel. Nothing else really matters if we can’t be provoked by the widespread existence of an altered gospel.

There is a lot of exegetical gymnastics happening in Sullivant's world, if you can even call it exegesis, based upon non-exegetical presuppositions. Sullivant appears to “err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.” (Matt. 22:29). I believe what the pastors and others at PVBC are presenting as a repentant-less and Lord-less position is a “proof text” position, influenced greatly by unsaved people and by pragmatism, but the Scriptural view of the gospel/salvation on the other hand of true repentance and the Lordship of Christ is a contextual, grammatical, and historical view. That is my evaluation as straightforward as possible, not holding back at all. To put it the most simple, their position "proof texts" and the Biblical position doesn’t. They seem to have a particular perspective of free, freedom, or grace, coming as it has out of a position of pragmatism that likely arose out of a wrong view of man's nature and of salvation, and then everything else has to fit into that. All the passages have to fit into that, even if they have to be forced to do so. True interpretation doesn't work like that. Everything in the Bible fits naturally. There is one God, who doesn't deny Himself, and so the harmony of scripture is not forced. Rather than finding the message of the whole NT, this other position of PVBC finds verses that might teach what it wants the Bible to teach, then adjusts the rest of the N.T. to fit it, proof texting the Bible. It is no different than the Mennonite group that I grew up in, who use a method similar of finding a few verses that purports the teaching of baptismal regeneration and losing salvation then make the rest of the NT conform to them. Yet they say they're just trying to teach what the Bible teaches. Its actually called wresting of Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16-17) and its always the mark of a false teacher (2 Pet. 2:1-22), an “error of the wicked” (2 Pet. 3:16-17). The worst forms of wickedness consist in perversions of the truth that are subtly close to the truth.

The evil junction of a perverted gospel and false sanctification has turned into a kind of religion, which is how false religion always starts and builds. Sullivant and his staff, students, and cronies involved think it is the truth. If they see something different, they think they are seeing an impostor, which they reject. In so doing, they think they’ve shown good judgment. No, what they've actually done is walked away from the light. It has resulted in a people who lack in discernment and the lack of discernment is frequently, almost always, the fruit of a counterfeit faith. The lack of discernment is also what is necessary to keep the manufactured show going.

Pastor Sullivant and PVBC undoubtedly call what they are doing, love. They see themselves as being loving, since they also see their goals as good. This “love” isn’t love, but sentimentalism. Love is according to the truth, and what they are presenting is not the truth. So Biblical love is twisted as well and becomes another casualty in their pathway to apostasy.

Sadly this is very common amongst Baptists including independent, but it's not found in the Bible. It is not obedient to the Lord. It is its own way.

Sure they can ignore all this as they sit on their pompous pedestal above any form of criticism, but they should earnestly consider Ps 73:22 and 1 Cor 14:38,

“So foolish was I, and ignorant: I was as a beast before thee.” (Ps 73:22)

“But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.” (1 Cor 14:38).

To be continued...