"The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit." Psalm 34:18

The epistles of Paul are a staple of New Testament doctrine, and have been so for about 2,000 years. The Lord Jesus Christ laid the foundation of His Gospel for us, He then appointed certain of His servants to build the framework of Christian philosophy (i.e. a way of thinking which we ought to live by) through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and much of that was done by Paul, who (by the grace of God) set a good example of humility and charity for the church.

However, there is a rising religious cult that I have chosen to call the "Paul versus Christ" (PvC) cult, or some people have referred to them as the "Jesus' Words Only" (JWO) cult, who claim that most of the New Testament is fraudulent and full of error, and only Jesus Christ alone (i.e. in the four Gospels) should be studied. This religious cult is targeting Paul specifically in most instances, which is why I am calling it the "Paul vs Christ" cult, and in this book, we will not only expose their gross error and (in some cases) blatant misunderstanding of the doctrines of both Paul and Christ, but also show you how they are deceiving people into following their corrupt ideas.

It is important to note that the PvC cult seems to be born out of what I call the "Hebrew-Roots" cult, or in other words, the PvC cult is a branch of the Hebrew-Roots cult. As I have discussed in many other teachings, the Hebrew-Roots cultists are quite dangerous because not only are a vast majority of them not born again in Christ (meaning that they do not have the Holy Spirit for understanding, 1Co 2:14), but they try their best to lead others away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ (under the guise of being so-called "disciples of Christ") to bring believers under the yoke of bondage, convincing them they can work their way into heaven, and we will see many examples in this book of that corrupt doctrine as we analyze the PvC heresies.
(Read "Keeping the Sabbath is Not a Christian Requirement," "Tithe is Not a Christian Requirement," "Should Christians Observe Jewish Passover?" and "The Biblical Understanding of Circumsicion" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
-Galatians 5:1

About a decade before I wrote this book, a man named Titus Hartford contacted me through my website, and after some email exchanges and researching a bit of what he teaches, I discovered that he has dedicated much of his time to the corrupt, nonsensical doctrines of the PvC/JWO cult. Instead of focusing his efforts on preaching to the lost, he focuses most of his attention on converting churchgoers to his ideology. Although I will cover some other authors in the PvC and/or JWO cults, I will focus much of my attention on Hartford because not only was he the first person to introduce me to the PvC cult (i.e. I had never heard of it before he contacted me), but he has spent many years dedicated to this subject, and even occasionally preaches his message publicly, so it made him a good case study from which to draw information about the cult's general teachings.
(See Titus Hartford, How to Teach Disciples to Observe All Things Whatsoever Jesus Commanded the Twelve Apostles, BookPatch LLC, 2020, ISBN: 9781648587184)

In 2021, Hartford was interviewed on a Blog Talk Radio show, and he said:
"[@6:38] Paul was a deceiver, and he was a ravening wolf, and we should beware of the doctrine."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 19, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

To say that the writings of Paul in Scripture has deceived Christians for the past 2,000 years (as well as the other apostles of Christ, as we will find out later), that few preachers (if any) have figured out this greatly-kept secret for many centuries, and that the Holy Spirit has kept this information away from the church for so long, are extraordinary claims. Of course, extraordinary claims are sometimes correct, but they require much sound reasoning and solid evidence; therefore, the expectations we have for Hartford's arguments are already quite high.

In the Blog Talk Radio interview, Hartford commented on what is commonly referred to as "The Great Commission," given by the instruction of Jesus Christ in Matthew 28:18-20, and this is an example of the kinds of deceptive statements he makes that lure in unsuspecting Christians to make them think he is a faithful preacher:
"So basically, it's going, teaching all nations, baptizing them, and teaching them to observe all things whatsoever Jesus commanded the twelve apostles."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved July 28, 2021, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

It was interesting that Hartford specified that they should observe "whatsoever Jesus commanded the twelve apostles," instead of just saying "us," which is the normal way we would say it because, depending on the context, many of Christ's commandments were for the church as a whole. However, it should also be noted that Hartford uses this curious selection of wording because he wants people to only observe what Jesus taught the apostles, but NOT what the twelve apostles taught.

Jesus laid the foundation for the church by His death and resurrection, and then commanded His disciples to go out and build upon that foundation. This begs a very serious question: If the apostles were NOT teaching correctly what Christ instructed them to teach (which would indicate that they were NOT guided by the Holy Ghost), then what was the point of telling them to go out and teach these things?

If the twelve apostles (or, at least, a portion of them) were not to be trusted, then how do we know that those apostles accurately recorded the doctrine of Jesus, and did not change a few things, therefore making us all deceived about the Four Gospels? After Jesus ascended to heaven, there were only eleven apostles because Judas was no longer among them. Matthias and other apostles (like Paul and Barnabas) were not added until later in the book of Acts, but PvC cultists do not believe those passages to be Holy Scripture, which begs another question: On what basis do they believe that the Holy Spirit (i.e. the Comforter) was sent (as Jesus said He would do) when there is no record of that event outside of the book of Acts?

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
-John 14:26

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
-John 15:26

Notice that Jesus used future tense wording, meaning that the Holy Ghost would be sent to the church later. If PvC cultists want to argue that Jesus did it while He was still on the earth, that contradicts what He told them in the next chapter:

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
-John 16:7

So if the book of Acts is not true, then where was the Holy Spirit sent to the apostles and the church? The PvC cultists will respond with excuses, but they do not have an answer for this because they eliminate the inspired book of Acts written down by Luke.

As we will learn later in this book, PvC cultists reject Peter also, even though Peter was one of the twelve apostles Hartford mentioned earlier. As we just read, Jesus told Peter and the other apostles that the Comfortor (i.e. the Holy Ghost) would be sent to them, and that the Holy Ghost was "the Spirit of truth" who would "teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever have said unto you," so to claim the Peter's epistles were not written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is not an attack against Peter near as much as it is an attack against Jesus Christ Himself.

To clarify, PvC cultists believe the writings of John are legitimate. However they hypocritically deny what Jesus said in the specific passages I quoted from John 14-16, and this is just the beginning of their many contradictions.

The general structure of the church is established by the doctrine of the apostles through the guidance of the Holy Ghost, a framework which we still rely on 2,000 years later. This begs another question: Why should we ignore the establishers of the church in the early days after Christ, specifically from those who saw Jesus and performed miracles by the power of the Holy Ghost, and instead trust only in the feelings and opinions of modern-day PvC cultists?

That being said, PvC cultists do their best to make themselves sound like they are faithful, often by using similar words and phrases that we Christians use, but meaning different things by them, fooling a few people into believing their deception doctrines. This is one of the reasons I wanted to focus on Titus Hartford because he provides us with a detailed example of this deception.

In the Blog Talk Radio interview, Hartford talks about his book called, "How to Teach Disciples to Observe All Things Whatsoever Jesus Commanded the Twelve Apostles," which is essentially his commentary on the book of Matthew. However, he openly admits he wrote it with an ulterior motive, which he deceptively hides from his reading audience:
"HARTFORD: It [his book] doesn't mention Paul specifically, but throughout the book, there are commandments [he means commandments from Jesus Christ] that go directly against the teachings of Paul, and I tried to make a very, very — a good explanation about what the commandments was giving the twelve was, so that you could see the counterfeit if you were paying attention.
HOST: That's fantastic!
HARTFORD: Yeah, and that also allows people not to be put off by any statements that would be made against Paul if they had sincere convictions about that."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved July 28, 2021, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

We will go over some passages from his book later, but in summary, Hartford openly admits his intention is to turn his readers away from most of the books of the New Testament. He goes on to add that he attempted to avoid offending anyone by purposely not mentioning Paul, and I believe he did not realize the full impact of what would come out of his mouth next, which was an accusation that if you believe the Lord Jesus Christ, and Paul (Christ's apostle) at the same time, then you do not have "sincere convictions," or in other words, if you believe the entirety of the New Testament books, Hartford declared that you are an insincere liar and void of any genuine faith in Christ.

I have exposed a lot of corrupt pastors and other so-called "Christian" teachers during my time in ministry, and it is quite common for them to have disdain for anyone who does not agree with their doctrine. Though Hartford deceives people with his book, at the very least, I do appreciate him coming forward and making it more clear what his true intention was, and with it, he revealed his belief that all who do not agree with his stance against Paul are wicked.

And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
-1 Corinthians 2:1-5

After calling Paul a "ravening wolf," I was curious to hear what Hartford thought Paul gained from all his sufferings for the church. It leaves us to wonder if he understands what the word "ravening" means, since he traveled without extra provisions just like the other apostles, and many among both Jews and Gentiles were trying to kill him for simply preaching Christ.

ravening (n): eagerness for plunder
(See 'ravening', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Jan 2, 2024, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

The sufferings of Paul were documented in his epistles, but also by other apostles, such as Luke when he wrote the book of Acts, however, Hartford rejects the book of Acts. The following was Paul's earthly reward for preaching Christ crucified, and this is not the sort of reward a "ravening wolf" seeks:

Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.
-2 Corinthians 11:24-27

The first time Hartford wrote a letter to me was in June of 2014, and to make a long story short, I learned some things about him based on the few "conversations" we had. I put the word 'conversations' in quotations because I was expected to answer his questions and respond to his comments, but he would not answer my questions and respond to my comments; mostly, his strategy was to keep changing the subject instead of addressing the main doctrinal point I was trying to get him to understand.

Hartford used to be a frequent reader of my teachings, but stopped abruptly when I took a firm stance against his false doctrines. Like most leavened pastors today, Hartford trusts in lexicons and concordances for his interpretation of Scripture, instead of going to the context of the verses in question, and this is a common error from PvC/JWO cultists.
(Read "The 'Original Greek' Scam," "The Dangers of Using Lexicons and Concordances," and "There is No Saving Grace Without Repentance" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Before we begin to address Hartford's arguments against the writings of the Holy Ghost through Paul, I want to explain to Christian readers how we ought to approach the study of the Bible, so we can later see how much it differs from what Hartford does. In the Bible, God was kind enough to teach us how to study His Word:

Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
-Isaiah 28:9-10

It is no secret that the Word of God was not delivered to us with color codes and bullet points. It is purposefully designed in a way that the fullness of a doctrine can only be understood if all the pieces are aligned, and most often, those doctrines are located throughout various books in the Bible. We are to read God's Word "precept upon precept," meaning that we take each commandment in correlation with other commandments, "line upon line" meaning that we need to read it in its context to know how words and phrases should be defined, and "here a little and there a little," meaning that we need to compare Scripture with Scripture and correlate them together to make sure we have the doctrine correct.

The important part of these verses is that God also explained WHY He did it this way:

But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
-Isaiah 28:13

The reason God set it up this way was so that men, specifically false converts, would read and attempt to understand God's Word, but would never be able to fully understand it. They might repeat things they have been told from those who do have understanding, by which they can feign to have understanding, but their minds are locked to full understanding. Therefore, they will be led down false paths, teach false doctrines, and making it easier for us to spot the counterfeit teachers because they would "fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken," which is why the Bible says such men are "ever learning," but never able to gain understanding of God's Word because they have not been born again to receive the Spirit of God.

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power [i.e. authority] thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
-2 Timothy 3:5-7

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
-1 Corinthians 2:14

This is important to remember because we are going to see these rules of Scriptural study completely abandoned by Hartford and the PvC cult. For example, in the emails Hartford sent to me, he quoted from First Corinthians 14:40, which says, "Let all things be done decently and in order," and then he said:
"Essentially, it is the 'order' in 'let everything be done decently and in order'. The reason it is ordered that way (apostles, prophets, teachers, miracles, healing, helps, governments, tongues) is because God gives more honor to those parts which lack... The greek word 'order' means 'fixed succession of rank or character'"

In summary, he took the word 'order' from 1st Corinthians 14:40 (which, by the way, was authored by Paul) and applied his Greek grammar dictionary definition to it, instead of looking at the context (i.e. "line upon line") to understand its meaning. In 1st Corinthians 14, Paul is rebuking the chaotic assemblies of the church, and pointed out that their studies and discussions should be done "in order," meaning that one person at a time should be speaking, but Hartford went far away from the simple, contextual meaning of the Scripture to claim that it was a commandment to set a hierarchy of gifts/offices listed out in another epistle of Paul, specifically Ephesians 4:11.

In the email exchange, I pointed out his error on this, and replied by asking, "What mistake did I make again? Please focus on one solid rebuke so that I can learn," but Hartford wrote to me only to convince me of his false doctrine, not to learn anything. Nonetheless, I answered him by showing him examples in Scripture. I listed out various verses that use the word 'order' in different ways, demonstrating to Hartford that his Greek grammar dictionary was not how the context of Scripture was determined, and that he had created a false interpretation based on his refusal to understand the context.
(Read "The 'Original Greek' Scam" and "The Dangers of Using Lexicons & Concordances" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

The following are a few examples I provided for Hartford, starting with the book of Judges:

And Manoah said, Now let thy words come to pass.
How shall we order the child, and how shall we do unto him?
-Judges 13:12

In this instance, the word 'order' is not used to mean "fixed succession of rank or character," as Hartford had previously stated, because you cannot give a "fixed succssion of rank" to a single child. This verse uses the word 'order' to mean "to command or manage."

And when Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass, and arose, and gat him home to his house, to his city, and put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died, and was buried in the sepulchre of his father.
-2 Samuel 17:23

The context of this verse in 2nd Samuel uses the word 'order' to mean "to regulate or discipline."

For because ye did it not at the first, the LORD our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought him not after the due order.
-1 Chronicles 15:13

The context of this verse in 1st Chronicles uses the word 'order' to mean "precepts, mandates, or regulations."

The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent,
Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
-Psalm 110:4

The context of this verse in Psalm uses the word 'order' to mean "institution or lineage," and so as we can clearly see, the words of Scripture mean different things depending on the context in which they are used. This is how all language works, and this is how we read everything on a daily basis, but for some weird (and illogical) reason, people tend to throw off basic principles of reading when it comes to the Bible.

I provided these examples to Hartford in my email, and the following was his ENTIRE response to that explanation. I have provided a screen shot of his response because it is so ridiculous, some readers might not believe me unless they see it for themselves:
"The Lord hath redeemed his people Israel!"
Of course, this is nothing new for me because I have received countless nonsensical letters since I started working in ministry back in 2009, but it seems as though contextual coherence is abhorrant to him. There were some other emails that were exchanged between us before this point, but it is useless for me to publish them all because I asked Hartford some questions he completely ignored, and then he ended the discussion with this nonsensical line, showing his willful resistance to engage in normal conversation (lest he be found in error), and as we are going to see, he refuses to read the Bible in its context.

At this point, Hartford stopped communicating with me directly, and he put me on a mailing list with a bunch of other ministers, in which he began spamming a lot of heretical nonsense to all of us at once through forwarded letters. I replied by requesting that he take me off of his mailing list (as did about ten others he was harassing), but he refused, and he kept spamming his heresies, which forced me to block him (something I do not like to do because I have a desire to keep communication channels open in case someone comes to repentance later and wants to talk things out), so this begins to reveal Hartford's heart on these matters, namely, that when he does not have an answer for the problems with his doctrine, he resorts to childish tantrums.

And to quote Paul from First Corinthians 14, the very chapter Hartford did not understand:

Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
-1 Corinthians 14:20

Before we get into the core of Hartford's PvC doctrines, I want readers to get a better idea of his philosophical absurdity. In the Blog Talk Radio interview, Hartford claimed that the teachings of Paul made him a hateful person:
"You don't need to be a hypocrite, so to speak, and that's something I strived for, and it's difficult sometimes, but it's a whole lot easier now than when I was following the teachings of Paul and Jesus at the same time. That seemed to make me a very hateful person, and a real judgmental person because I could hardly even eat lunch with anybody at work because they all claimed to be Christians, but they were all idolaters, and so—or railers, or drunkards. Paul, he gave a list of things that you're not supposed to do and said if any is brother and do any of these things, don't eat with them, and if you follow that, you could hardly eat with anyone, but contrary to that, Jesus said to go two miles with him that asks you to go one mile. So there's situations where you might sort of be torn between the two because if somebody's asking you to go a mile with them, but they're also a brother that be an idolater, or any of those other things, then... [his sentence trailed off]"
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved July 28, 2021, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

This is the verse Hartford is paraphrasing:

And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
-Matthew 5:41

compel (v): to drive or urge with force, or irresistibly; to constrain; to oblige; to necessitate, either by physical or moral force
(See 'compel', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Dec 5, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Some people might be confused about this because it begs the question: Who would FORCE someone to travel a mile with him? If we only look at this verse without considering context or any other correlating information (which is what Hartford does), then it may not make sense, but if we read the context, it fits perfectly.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
-Matthew 5:38-42

The "eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" phrase comes from Exodus 21:24 (i.e. the Jews refer to it as "The Law of Retaliation") which Jesus was not preaching against, meaning that He was not arguing against the law of God in this instance, but rather, He was preaching against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes that used this law as a means of personal revenge (instead of a means of justice) against those who they believed offended them in any way. (i.e. It is no different than a corrupt governor using his power to oppress his political opponents.) Thus, Jesus said that if a man smacked a Pharisee across the face, it would be lawful to bring charges of physical assault against the offender, but it would not be Biblical for the Pharisee to seek his own revenge by smacking the man across the face in return and claiming that he was justified in Exodus 21:24 for returning the blow to the offender.

Now that we understand the context, it is easier to understand that when someone sues us in contest of court for something we did wrong, and we are found guilty of that wrong in light of the evidence, we should agree with the truth and be willing to give more than was asked in restitution, to be charitable to our neighbor, and not seek selfish revenge. (This does not apply in instances where there was a false accusation; it only applies if we did that which was unlawful to someone else to injure their person or property.) And if someone compels us, which would mean by force under the law, to go a mile, if we are able to do so, we should help him more than he expected, to give rather than take.

This can be better understood by knowing Roman law in that day:
"Augustus initially founded the vehiculatio as a series of men established in short relay positions along the military routes, but, by the end of his reign, he altered the system so that a single messenger travelled with each communication. The latter method allowed the messenger to answer content questions about the composition of messages, but required that the traveler exploit a relay of requisitioned transport carts and beasts. Using his officially-stamped travel documents, the messenger could commandeer local vehicles under imperial authority."
-Russell Gentry, "The Vehiculatio in Roman Imperial Regulation: Particular Solutions to a Systematic Problem," Academia, p. 4, retrieved July 28, 2021, [https://bit.ly/3BSE15m]

Communication is the most vital weapon of any military, and obviously, in that day, they did not have radio communication, which required them to use "runners," which would either run on foot, or use horses when available. A single horse would not be able to cover the long distances the runners needed to travel with their messages, and so they would use a series of horses in short sprints, and the law required that one could stop a traveler on horseback and demand to take his horse.

Although this seems to us unfair, and our consciences would want to see the traveler get restitution for his loss, Jesus taught the Pharisees that instead of demanding restitution for commandeered vehicles, they should be willing to go the short distance with the messengers, and even cheerfully double the amount of effort the messenger might have expected, as well as to keep the peace with the Roman government. Now that we understand this better, what exactly does this have to do with sitting down to eat with those who claim to be brethren in Christ?

Nothing whatsoever.
This is why I firmly stated that Hartford has little to no understanding of Christ's doctrine, and neither does anyone who follows the PvC cult. Now that we can see Hartford's lack of understanding of Scripture, this leads us to Paul's doctrine on eating with brethren:

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
-1 Corinthians 5:9-13

The church in Corinth had allowed some unrepentant fornicators (i.e. men and women who lived in fornication) to remain in the church, fellowshipping with them, but they should have addressed the sin and called them to repentance (i.e. godly sorrow) of it. If they were unrepentant, and continued to live a lifestyle of their sins, they needed to be removed from the church, and the church should not be sitting down to meals with them in fellowship together because that would set a very bad example to the world, and the world needs to understand that fornication is not tolerated by Christ.

This is EXCLUSIVELY for those who claim to be brethren in Christ, and that discipline was to be set among the church congregation. This does NOT include the lost unbelievers of the world, and although we do not keep close friendships with the world (i.e. because that is what fellowship means), we can and do occasionally talk and eat with them that we might have an opportunity to preach the Gospel of Christ to them.

If Hartford was that concerned about who he was eating with, why was he not looking to eat with the unbelieving co-workers? If he is as concerned with the Gospel of Christ as much as he claims, why would he not follow Christ's example and prioritize eating with unbelievers?

A person who claims to be a Christian (i.e. Christ like, or a student of Christ) while living a lifestyle of idolatry, railing, and drunkenness (which is what Hartford claimed his co-workers were doing) is a hypocrite. I am not saying that a Christian will not sin, but they will not continue in hypocrisy, to live a life of sin without repentance (i.e. godly sorrow) of it, nor will they abstain from some effort to correct it when rebuked because the Holy Spirit will guide their conscience to do the right thing.

Therefore to him that knoweth to do good,
and doeth it not, to him it is sin.
-James 4:17

I have no idea what the personal preferences of Hartford are, but Jesus Christ did not sit down to have a meal with hypocrites, and if we read Matthew 23 carefully, we will see that Jesus firmly rebuked hypocrites instead of fellowshipping with them:

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence [show] make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land [travel around the world] to make one proselyte, [religious convert] and when he is made, ye make him twofold [double] more the child of hell than yourselves.
-Matthew 23:13-15

Did we not just read Jesus Christ being "judgmental," just as Hartford accused Paul? The word 'judgmental' simply involves the exercise of judging.

judge (v): to compare facts or ideas, and perceive their agreement or disagreement, and thus to distinguish truth from falsehood; to discern; to distinguish
discern (v): to separate by the eye, or by the understanding; to distinguish; to see the difference between two or more things
(See 'judge' & 'discern', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved July 28, 2021, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

What is wrong with discernment? What is wrong with distinguishing truth from falsehood? If those things are good, then why is judging considered to be "bad?" Earlier, we read a quote from Hartford in which he said that we Christians are not "sincere" because we believe the fullness of the New Testament Scriptures, and therefore, is he not judgmental against us? The only people who hate it when someone uses discernment to distinguish truth from falsehood is when they hate the truth, or in other words, those who sneer at judgment hate the righteous judgment that shines a light on their hypocritical hearts.
(Read "Unbiblical Cop-Outs: 'Don't Judge Me!'" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

For example, people judge when a waiter serves them the wrong order at a restaurant, they judge environmentalists who block highways to keep them from getting to work on time, and they judge dirty cops who oppress their rights as citizens. Churchgoers judge circumstances and people around them all day, everyday, and they LOVE to hear judgment that make them feels good (i.e. they love to hear positive assessments of their character and appearance), but when it comes to judging THEMSELVES with righteous judgment, most of them hypocritically turn their nose up against it.

Therefore, I see many problems with Hartford's scoffing against being "judgmental." It is a problem when someone makes quick judgments without gathering facts first, but Christians need to acknowledge that judging righteous judgment (i.e. determining the truth through study with understanding) is the job of every Christian, and it is required to have even the most basic level of discernment.

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
-John 7:24

God declared that He loves righteous judgment:

For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.
-Isaiah 61:8

And, of course, Paul taught this in harmony with Christ:

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things,
yet he himself is judged of no man.
-1 Corinthians 2:15

Why is it that Hartford hates that which God loves? If one hates righteous judgment, it is always for selfish reasons.

Presuming that Hartford's testimony about his co-workers was true (because we have no way to verify if it was actually Hartford who was the hypocritical problem), it is curious why he has a deep, spiritual longing to associate and fellowship with hypocrites. I was forgiven and saved by Christ in 2002, and over the past two decades, I have learned many things from the Lord Jesus Christ to the point that, today, I have no desire to fellowship with hypocrites, I hate it when I see hypocrisy in myself as much as (if not more than) others, and hypocrites typically keep their distance from me because they know I will end up pointing out their hypocrisies.

The reason for not fellowshipping with hypocrites and removing them from the church (as Paul said in 1Co 5:13) is not so we can lord ourselves over people out of hatred and spite. The purpose is to send them back into the sinful world that the Lord God would judge them, meaning that He would discipline them to bring them low, that they might come to repentance (be broken-hearted over their sin) and rejoin the church.

I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
-Luke 15:7

Part of the reason for this is because if it so happens that the person in question, who claims to be of Christ, is not actually of Christ, then he needs to understand that he is not in like-mindedness to the church so he can be saved. It is very unlikely that a man will listen to the Gospel of Salvation when he already thinks he is saved because he is a member of the church. Another reason is that, while that man is still in the church, the Lord God does not want to punish him because He knows it will affect the rest of the church (i.e. in grief, time, and resources), and He does not want His obedient children to suffer the consequences of that wicked man's actions, so the church ought to "put away from among yourselves that wicked person."

Due to his lack of understanding, Hartford fails to properly correlate Paul's epistle to the doctrine of Christ:

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
-Matthew 18:15-17

This passage is the Lord Jesus Christ telling us that if there is an unrepentant man in the church, he is to be given multiple opportunities to come to repentance of his sin, but if he will not hear, then he is to be (as Hartford put it, "judgmentally") removed from the church, to be handled in the same way we would handle heathen who are given over to their sin. (i.e. Once he is removed, we can utilize courts of law for restitution, and/or preach to them the Gospel of Salvation as we would with the lost world.) Because of his willful ignorance, Hartford has now condemned Jesus Christ in the same way he has condemned Paul (without even understanding that he did it), but I contend that it is neither Christ nor Paul that made Hartford "a very hateful person," but rather, the fault was his own sin, and because of that, he adopted a nonsensical philosophy that having acquaintances he can casually chat with, no matter how hypocritical they might be, is more important than making a sacrifice for the sake of Christ.

And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
-Matthew 19:29

Having to sacrifice sharing a table at lunch with casual acquaintance co-workers is a trivial matter compared to giving up family, homes, and lands, and yet, Christ said if you love those things (especially parents, children, and spouses which are the closest relationships you can have) more than Him, you are not worthy of Him:

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
-Matthew 10:37-38

Therefore, if Hartford cannot be faithful with minor matters, he will not be faithful with grave matters.

He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
-Luke 16:10

I know this from personal experience: If Hartford had taken time to kindly rebuke his (allegedly) pseudo-Christian co-workers for what they were doing, he would not have been welcomed to their table in the first place.

Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
-Luke 6:22

However, Hartford is unable to rebuke himself (which I can confirm after various email exchanges with him), let alone anyone else, and he whines about little peer pressures and minor inconveniences. So that he does not have to blame himself, he instead attempts to justify his imagined woes by shifting blame to an external villan; in this case Paul, a Christian preacher who (as we read earlier) suffered beatings, imprisonment, and death for Christ's sake, unlike Hartford, who only suffers to give himself a "holy" appearance.

For it is better, if the will of God be so, that
ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.
-1 Peter 3:17

And if that were not bad enough, the leavened, Hebrew-Roots cult hostess of the Blog Talk Radio program, in her willful blindness, agreed with Hartford. (Of course she did, otherwise, it is very unlikely she would have invited him to her show.) She went on to call her co-workers idolaters because they celebrated pagan holidays, and she prided herself to be better than them because she observed the feast days of the Old Testament, but being willingly blind, she does not understand that she is just as bad as they are because she bases her righteousness on her participation in religious rituals instead of basing it on Jesus Christ alone.
-Winter Rachel, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," @9:55, Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 19, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

Now that we have somewhat of an idea about his philosophy (i.e. way of thinking), let's take a closer look at some tract cards Hartford developed for his PvC doctrine, and he sent these to me in an email shortly before I had to block him for spamming:
To help demonstrate the deceptive tactics of Hartford, the first card, which he labels #0 "Introduction," is not designed to teach anything: "Was Matthew sent to the Gentiles? Was Peter? John? What were they supposed to teach them? How should we feel if someone comes to us and teaches the opposite of those things?"

He quotes from Matthew 28:12-20, which is the commandment of Christ to His apostles (and likewise, the church as a whole) to go preach the doctrines that He taught them. He then quotes from Deuteronomy 13:1-5, which is God's warning to the Jews (and likewise, to all believers) that there will be prophets who will not only give false prophecies, but will also give prophecies that come to pass while they preach false doctrines, and that the Jews were not to follow either of them.

Hartford did not write any explanation to teach for the edification of the reader so they can understand these verses, but rather, he asks questions designed to cast doubt in the mind of the reader. Despite the fact that none of these verses mentioned anything about our personal feelings, Hartford raised questions to get the reader to consider their feelings instead of the facts, which reveals to us the foundation of his argument, namely, that he is directing people to look at the emotions of their hearts rather than the truth.

The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately wicked: who can know it?

But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
-Matthew 15:18

A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.
-Luke 6:45

The feelings we have can align with the will of the Holy Spirit, but that does not mean they always do. We need spiritual discernment from the Word of God on these matters because our feelings can often lead us into sin if we are not careful.

He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool:
but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.
-Proverbs 28:26

One of the ways we can know that Hartford is casting doubt instead of conveying information is because he does NOT believe that Peter was a true apostle of Christ either. After all, Peter acknowledged Paul's writing as part of Scripture, so Hartford must hate Peter as much as he hates Paul, and we will learn more about that later in this book.

After this, Hartford begins his quest to lead his readers away from the understanding of the New Testament. In a card that he labels "Regarding the variation of assurances of salvation," Hartford quotes from Matthew 7:20-27, and puts it side-by-side with Romans 10:8-14: "Is it possible for someone to believe in the resurrection and confess that Jesus is Lord, but reject the commandments in the Sermon on the Mount and not do them? If so, will such a one be saved? If not, isn't it deceptive to say 'that with the heart man believeth unto righteousness'?"

Again, we can see that Hartford poses questions to cast doubt, instead of interpretation to gain understanding. Is it possible for someone to confess the Lord Jesus Christ and not be saved? I would say: No, it is not possible, but it is possible to PROFESS Christ and not be saved.

profess (v): to make open declaration of; to avow or acknowledge
confess (v): to own, acknowledge or avow, as a crime, a fault, a charge, a debt, or something that is against one's interest, or reputation
(See 'profess' & 'confess', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Dec 6, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

The reason Hartford does not understand the problem with his statement is because he does not understand the Gospel of Salvation, and this is a common problem with modern churchgoers, in which they believe they know that which they do not know. In order to understand his error, we need to briefly go over the doctrine of repentance for the remission of sins.

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
-Luke 24:44-47

The word 'repentance' as it is used in Scripture (and as it is still used today) generally means "grief," or a more expanded definition for the context of salvation in Christ, it means "godly sorrow" which exhibits a broken-heartedness of one's own sin. This is why the Bible tells us that God draws close to, and saves, those who have a "contrite spirit."

The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart;
and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.
-Psalm 34:18

contrite (adj): broken-hearted for sin; deeply affected with grief and sorrow for having offended God; humble; penitent
penitent (adj): suffering pain or sorrow of heart on account of sins, crimes or offenses; contrite
repentance (n): sorrow for any thing done or said; the pain or grief which a person experiences in consequence of the injury or inconvenience produced by his own conduct
(See 'contrite', 'penitent', and 'repentance', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Dec 21, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
-Romans 2:5

God defined this in Genesis, when pointing out His own grief, which is not the grief of sin (because the Lord cannot sin), but rather, it was the grief of His heart, in which it pained Him greatly to see what mankind had done:

And it repented the LORD that he had made man on
the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
-Genesis 6:6

Leavened pastors across the world vehemently reject this very simple doctrine because they want to believe that 'repent' means "to turn," or more expanded, they believe it means "to turn from sin and turn to God." This is because they never came to godly sorrow of their sins, but they believe that they "turned from sin," thinking they can bypass the method of salvation in Scripture by adding in their own deeds. By altering the meaning of repentance from "grief" to "turn from sin," they transform the Gospel of Salvation in Christ (by grace through humility in faith) into a works-based heresy in which one must "turn from sin" to be saved.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
-Ephesians 2:8-9

For example, when Jesus first went out and preached, He preached that people should repent and believe His gospel:

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
-Mark 1:14-15

If a man believes the Biblical definition of repentance, which is the grief over his own sin, then there is no work involved in the process of saving his soul; it is all done by the Lord Jesus Christ through the Holy Ghost. However, if a man believes the corrupted definition of leavened pastors, which is that he must turn from all his sins, then he must do many works before his soul can be saved, and we who are faithful believers on the Scriptures know that this is impossible because we either have grace or works as our foundation of salvation, but we cannot have both, and only one can save a man.

And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
-Romans 11:6

At this point, it should come as no surprise that Titus Hartford believes that 'repent' means "to turn from sin." Most readers may have noticed that I make effort to clearly define the terms I am using so you can easily understand the doctrine I am teaching, but Hartford does not do this near as much, and although he does not provide us a direct definition, we can deduce what he believes by how he writes about repentance in his book:
"It is in everyone's best interest that we lead on this, because the cycle of extortion can be stopped, just as the cycle of violence can be stopped by giving place to wrath—by the kindness of humble men who render to their enemies over and above what they ask for in an effort to encourage them to repent from their wickedness and be marvelously changed from agents of evil to agents of good."
-Titus Hartford, How to Teach Disciples to Observe All Things Whatsoever Jesus Commanded the Twelve Apostles, BookPatch LLC, 2020, p. 28, ISBN: 9781648587184

It is a difficult task to get pastors to define what they mean by the key terms they use, which leaves us having to rely on analysis of the context and specific wording to figure it out. In this instance, Hartford's use of the preposition "FROM" is one of the easy ways to determine that a man believes in the false doctrine that 'repent' means "to turn."

When we use the word 'turn' in a sentence, we use the preposition 'from' after it. For example, we would say, "Sally turned FROM the house," which indicates direction and location, and the Bible uses the word 'turn' in the same way, namely, "turn from," but it does NOT use the phrase "repent from."

Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.
-Exodus 32:12

If you study the King James Bible, the word 'repent' is NEVER attached to the preposition 'from'. In the Bible, the word 'repent' is always attached to the preposition 'OF', which is an indication of a relationship between two things (e.g. grief and the heart), but today, most pastors and churchgoers incorrectly use the phrase "repent FROM," implying their erroneous belief that the word 'repent' means "to turn," despite the fact that it is not how the Bible uses it.

Therefore, when Hartford says they "repent FROM their wickedness," he is preaching the doctrine of repentance in error. I attempted to explain this to him in email conversation, and he ignored it. Therefore, the evidence shows that Hartford will maintain willful blindness on this point, as do many corrupt preachers, because he believes that his works are the foundation for his righteousness, and later in this book, I will provide more quotes from him to prove that point.

This is why Hartford does not understand the difference between PROFESSION of Christ (i.e. someone simply says they "believe on Jesus") and CONFESSION of Christ (i.e. grief/repentance of sin). If any readers are interested, I have two other free-to-read books that address this topic in much greater detail, a short one called Why Millions of Believers on Jesus Are Going to Hell, and a longer one called, There is No Saving Grace Without Repentance. Again, Hartford rejects this understanding because his faith is in himself; that is, he is his own little god who foolishly relies on the impossibility of his own efforts to work his way into heaven.

The next card, called "Regarding where to pray," Hartford says: "Does everywhere become a closet for those who seek to obey the Messiah's instructions on how to pray? And if so, how does one shut the door everywhere?"

Hartford also brought this up on his Blog Talk Radio interview:
"[@1:15:10] Jesus' whole thing about how to pray, 'when you pray, enter into your closet, and when you have shut the door, pray to your father which is in secret, and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly', as it says in the King James, but that's against Paul's teachings in 1st Timothy 2:8, which was, 'I would that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands'. So, Jesus said pray in your closet. Paul said pray everywhere. Well, everywhere is not a closet."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 26, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

To put it lightly, this is childish, and Hartford should be ashamed of himself, but he glories in himself for that which he should be ashamed.

Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.
-Philippians 3:19

In Matthew 6, Jesus addressed the hypocrisy of religious leaders who stood on ceremony for pretense:

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
-Matthew 6:5-6

Notice that the first thing Jesus tells us is that we should "not be as the hypocrites are," meaning that the hypocrites act in a manner that is different from those who are not hypocrites. He never said not to pray in public, but not to pray in public for the express purpose of being seen by others to pray; for example, if a man went onto a street corner, got on his knees, and began praying loudly in a sanctimonious tone for all to hear him, it is very likely he is simply putting on a show to make himself appear holy in front of men.

In his ignorance, Hartford claims this is a commandment to never pray in public, but let's go back to the beginning of Matthew 6 and apply Hartford's interpretation to see if it fits the context:

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
-Matthew 6:1-2

If we took Hartford's interpretation of verses five and six, and applied it to verses one and two, it would mean that you could never go out to the poor and needy in public and give them anything, but that is obviously NOT what Jesus was talking about in this passage. Should we then condemn Peter and John for giving to the poor and needy, and healing them in view of the public?

Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength. And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God. And all the people saw him walking and praising God:
-Acts 3:6-8

This was work done through Peter and John by the guidance of the Holy Ghost, and so if we were to adhere to the principles that Hartford believes and teaches, then we would have to condemn the actions of the Holy Ghost in that instance. Furthermore, if Hartford's interpretation were true, we would have to condemn Christ Himself for praying in public to be seen of men:

Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.
-Luke 23:34

In Matthew 6, Jesus rebuked the hypocrisy of those who put on a show of religious works to make themselves appear "holy" in the public eye. Therefore, those who do alms or pray in public should not do it for the express purpose to be seen among men, but rather, they should do it in service of Christ, with complete focus on what is charitable, not what serves oneself.

Therefore, when Christians "pray every where," there is no contradiction with what Christ taught:

I will therefore that men pray every where,
lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
-1 Timothy 2:8

Paul was not referring to men praying in their closets, but rather, the context shows us that this is referring to generalized prayer of those in the church, meaning that those who are born again in Christ should pray no matter which part of the world in which they lived. We need to remember that these were the days of the early church, when it was newly formed, and not everyone had heard of Christ, nor were they used to the children of God now being spread out around the world, as opposed to them previously having to become Jews in order to please the Lord.

Paul was speaking in relation to the fulfillment of the prophecy in Malachi:

For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.
-Malachi 1:11

This is why Paul added "without wrath and doubting" because the Jews were doing their best to convince the Gentiles that they had no part with God. Because the Gentiles were not allowed to participate in many of the religious activities with the Jews (unless they became Jews), Paul encouraged them to continue "lifting up holy hands" because such things were typically forbidden for Gentiles to do among the Jews. Paul was urging them to remain faithful that they were adopted into the spiritual seed of Abraham, despite what the Jews might tell them, and that they were part of the family of Christ, so they should continue to pray as children of God, no matter where they were or what nation they came from around the world.

Now that we have more understanding of these verses, we can see that Hartford has no clue what he is talking about concerning the Scriptures. This is just one example of many, but this is why it is so difficult to take the PvC cult seriously; it is the essence of corrupt doctrines of lazy men who do not have understanding from the Holy Spirit, and will condemn all those who dare to question them in their willful blindness.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
-1 Corinthians 2:14

Hartford's next card is called "Regarding expressions of superiority amongst disciples," and it says: "Does the Messiah's prohibition of being called master extend to married men? If so, what is the difference between being called master and being called the head?"

There is no kinder way to put this: Hartford is creating philosophical knots with extreme stupidity. I need to state that boldly so people are warned against this garbage. The only question I have is whether or not he is doing this knowingly.

The first set of Scriptures Hartford provides is from Matthew 23, which is a sharp rebuke of hypocrites among religious leadership, and he highlights verses 8-10:

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
-Matthew 23:8-10

We can know that Jesus is targeting those in position of perceived religious leadership because in verse two, He addresses "the scribes and the Pharisees [that] sit in Moses' seat," which means they are the teachers and keepers of the law. In verse three, He points out that they preach observance of God's Word, but they are hypocrites that make rules for others, and refuse to judge and change themselves.

Why do they act like this?

And love the uppermost rooms at feasts,
and the chief seats in the synagogues,
-Matthew 23:6

Jesus pointed out that they dressed themselves to be perceived as "holy," and spoke in sanctimonious (i.e. with perceived to be "saintly") tones, for the express purpose of receiving honor and gifts, while placing heavy burdens on others who they put beneath them. Jesus then said that we should not be called "Rabbi" in the same manner that the hypocrites love to have grandiose titles given to their person, and the context is obviously concerning the religious or spiritual sense of these things.

For example, when Jesus says in verse 9 to "call no man your father upon the earth," He is not speaking of your earthly father, who is a father by biological definition, who should rightly be identified in that manner, and which was done by many throughout Scripture, including the Lord God, who labeled parents as "father and mother." (Gen 2:24) However, when it concerns spiritual and religious matters, we should call no man "father," as the Jews sometimes did, and as the corrupt Catholic Church commonly does when they call their priests "father" in the religious sense.
(Read Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

However, for some strange reason that makes no sense, Hartford superimposes the interpretation to husbands instead of paying attention to the context. Before we continue, I think it is important that I briefly cover the definition of a "conflation fallacy" so readers understand what Hartford is doing:

conflation (n): the process or result of fusing items into one entity; fusion; amalgamation
(See 'conflation', Random House Dictionary, 2023, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

A conflation fallacy is sometimes called "comparing apples to oranges" and calling them the same thing. The argument looks like this:

A has quality X, and B has quality X.
Therefore, A and B are the same.
That might be confusing for some readers, so let's look at an example:

Watermelons are green, and lettuce is green.
Therefore, all watermelons are lettuce.
We cannot classify lettuce to be the same as watermelon just because they both have the same outer color. Appearance is not automatically a contextual equivalent to what is being argued, and therefore, an argument of conflation is not sound reasoning because the person using it jumps to quick, irrational conclusions without looking at specific contextual details.

Hartford's out-of-context argument is summarized as follows:

Husbands are men, and masters are men.
Therefore, all husbands are masters.
In this instance, Hartford takes the context of Christ rebuking hypocritical religious leaders and uses a conflation fallacy to automatically apply it to a COMPLETELY different context of authority that God instituted in marriage. In 1st Corinthians 11 (i.e. the second set of verses Hartford published on his card #3), Paul is addressing the indecent manner of dress and inappropriate appearance of Christians when the church assembles together for the study of God's Word, most specifically for women (for many reasons I do not cover in this book), and in doing so, he opens his argument by reminding them the order of authority He instituted is God > Christ > Man > Woman:

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
-1 Corinthians 11:3

The two contexts have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with one another, and are not even closely related in the nouns they are using. A 'rabbi' and a 'master' are the same thing because they both mean "teacher," which is not the same context as "married men," and thus, Hartford is so far out of context he probably does not realize that the words 'husband', 'wife', 'marry', nor 'marriage' are even once used in 1st Corinthians 11 because that is not what Paul was referring to in that chapter, nor was it what Jesus was referring to either.

In short, Hartford made this up on his own, and it is becoming more apparant that his only goal is to cast doubt on the teachings of Paul so he can turn Christians away from vital doctrines of the New Testament. The only other place I have seen Scripture taken out of its context to this extreme degree is from the flat-earth cultists, and I wrote a book about them as well, which is free-to-read at creationliberty.com, called The Heresies of the Flat-Earth Cult.

On card #4, Hartford compares Matthew 7 with 2nd Timothy 2, and says: "Does the promise that everyone that asketh recieveth [sic] apply to the askers of foolish and unlearned questions? And if so, who would be the best person to ask such a question?"

At this point, I am embarrassed for Titus Hartford. He should be embarrassed, but because he is willingly blind (and has refused to listen to the rebuke and correction of anyone else), he does not see the degree to which his questions are foolish and unlearned.

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
-Matthew 7:6-8

Matthew 7 is the latter part of the "Sermon on the Mount," and Jesus is addressing hypocrites who judge others before judging themselves first. He then refers to dogs and swine, which were commonly used metaphors to describe corrupt religious leaders and teachers, who use men for their money and self-honor.

Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.
-Isaiah 56:11

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. [i.e. dogs]
-Matthew 7:15

But it is happened unto them 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 Peter 2:22

Jesus is telling us to beware giving rebuke and correction to such men (who are dogs and swine, the corrupt religious leadership who have lifted themselves high above others in their pride) because it will only cause us grief. Such things should only be done under circumstances in which the public will benefit from it, or in other words, when it serves the purpose of protecting others from the corruption of their false doctrines and leavened ideologies.

Jesus then turns His attention to addressing those who need the wisdom of God, and that if they will turn to Him in humility, to ask of Him for what they need, He will give it to them because God is no respecter of persons. Corrupt religious leaders will turn many away, but those who knock at Christ's door of mercy will not be turned away.

Hartford then conflates this with 2nd Timothy 2:

But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
-2 Timothy 2:23-24

First of all, it should be noted that there were many instances of Jesus not answering the questions of the people. For example, Jesus was asked what should be done with a woman caught in the act of adultery:

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
-John 8:3-6

The reason Jesus did not answer their question was because their question was not intended to learn the answer to seek knowledge. They are questions designed very similarly to the questions that Hartford poses, in which he is not asking questions intended to be answered, but rather, to cast doubt on the hearer so they will lose faith in the New Testament Scriptures.

Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest thou also be like unto him.
-Proverbs 26:4

Of course, Jesus knew the answer because He is the author of the Old Testament, but He knew that they did not understand the fullness of the law and prophets, and were only asking that question for political reasons to try and make Him look bad in the public eye. Thus, answering their questions in that circumstance would have been meaningless, and so he only responded when it was appropriate to answer the fools according to their folly:

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
-John 8:7

Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise in his own conceit.
-Proverbs 26:5

So we can see that Jesus avoided "foolish and unlearned questions" just as Paul taught. Which leads me to my second point, which is that Paul was saying that the foolish and unlearned questions of false teachers, even those of Titus Hartford and the Paul vs Christ cult, should be avoided.

Of course, readers might accuse me of doing that which Paul advised against, but I am addressing contextual subject matter of the Scriptures while exposing the PvC cult. This gives me opportunity to teach Christians the details of some Scriptures in proper context, to help them see the difference between truth and heresy, thereby spreading the truth of Christ's Gospel, and demonstrating that the New Testament is consistent with all the books therein, and the Old Testament books as well.

This is why Paul started the second chapter of 2nd Timothy by saying:

Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
-2 Timothy 2:1-2

We should look to those teachers who are faithful to the Scriptures, both in word and deed, and have been given the gift to teach, which means they can explain more complicated matters in a simplistic manner, so that all can understand. Paul went on to speak of false teachers, some of which he named specifically (who were likely ringleaders among the false teachers), who were teaching that there was no future resurrection of the dead when Christ returns, which is clear heresy, but they managed to turn some away from the truth with their false doctrine:

Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting [corrupting] of the hearers. [i.e. False teachers were corrupting the minds of those who listened to them.] Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
-2 Timothy 2:14-18

So what vain babblings were being spoken of in this passage? The false doctrine being preached by men of corrupt minds that the return of Jesus Christ to rapture His saints was already passed.

Such false doctrines are ridiculous to those who have the Holy Spirit and spend time studying the Scriptures, and there are many such false doctrines from corrupt teachers that should be shunned, or in other words, they should be avoided. For example, when someone claims that Paul's doctrine and Christ's doctrine are at odds with each other, those are vain babblings that should be shunned, and therefore, it is no wonder that Hartford condemns the doctrine of Paul because the doctrine of Paul condemns Hartford.

On card #5, Hartford compares Matthew 13 with Ephesians 4, and says: "If every scribe instructed unto the kingdom of heaven brings forth things new and old, wouldn't it be deceptive to esteem them as ministers of one unified faith?"

I read the passages of Scripture Hartford suggested, and after making sure I understood their context, I read Hartford's doubt-casting question many times in an attempt to understand what he is talking about, and I cannot come up with anything. This is essentially just garbled nonsense. I sat at my desk for the longest time with my hand on the keyboard, trying to come up with something to write here, and I have no idea what to say to this because what Hartford said makes no sense whatsoever, meaning that he has some personal interpretation he is harboring, which he expects all his readers to understand without explanation.

Instead of teaching, which involves the process of conveying information, Hartford is attempt to IMPLY certain things that he assumes the reader will understand. However, in his willful blindness, he does not realize that he is the only one who will understand those implications, and that which he thinks is "wisdom" actually creates more confusion.

Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.
-Matthew 13:52

In this passage, Jesus is telling us that there are scribes (authors, translators and, at that time, copyists) who are "instructed unto the kingdom of heaven," or in other words, they preach the Gospel of Christ faithfully. For example, I am an evangelist, which means I broadcast the Gospel of Christ to the world, but I also write books, articles, and commentaries on the Scriptures, which means I am a scribe, and there are both faithful and deceitful scribes, just as their are faithful and deceitful pastors. When Jesus said a faithful scribe "bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old," it is not meant so much concerning the Old and New Testaments (because, although it is important to teach from both, that is the default duty of all preachers), but rather, this is said in a generalized manner that "a man that is an householder" collects resources and knowledge over the course of many years, and distributes them to his children, things newly acquired, and some things acquired long ago, to depart to the children of God the wisdom and understanding they need to build upon.

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
-Ephesians 4:4-6

Paul's purpose in saying these things was based on the context of the chapter, in which he taught the church in Corinth that, although they had different roles (v11-12), all the work of the church was done for the greater glory of Christ (v13), according to the same faith, under the same Father, and that we should beware of those who would lead us astray with false doctrines.

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
-Ephesians 4:14

Again, Hartford tried to correlate these two passages together (which have very little, if any, contextual relevance to each other), and asked a seemingly rhetorical question, "If every scribe instructed unto the kingdom of heaven brings forth things new and old, wouldn't it be deceptive to esteem them as ministers of one unified faith?" Sadly, I am unable to comment further on this because his question was so nonsensical, I have no anchor point of reasoning to draw from in order to assess his argument.

At this point, I thought to stop covering these ridiculous cards because it is abundantly obvious that Hartford has little to no understanding of the meaning of these passages. I briefly read over all 25 cards he sent out in his spam mail, and each one was just as ridiculous as the previous, but I wanted to cover one more of his cards which I thought was somewhat comical, just to help prove the point: "Is it possible to be childlike in the manner that the Messiah likens the kingdom of heaven to, as an adult? What does it mean to purchase a good degree? How many degrees can one have? Does each one make them more childlike?"

I laughed to myself when I was reading Hartford's deceptive questions because they are based on a lot of incorrect assumptions about the context and words used in these passages. What baffles me more than anything is how he prides himself so highly that he has understanding of these verses, when it is obvious (to any Christians with experience) he does not understand the basics of them.

Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
-Matthew 19:13-14

We are not told the reason that the disciples rebuked the guardians of the children brought to Jesus, and there could have been many reasons (most of which were likely cultural), but Jesus allowed the children to come so He could teach His disciples that they should accept the weakest and lowest who seek Christ. This is not to say that only little children (in the physical sense) would make up the kingdom of heaven (i.e. the church), but rather, the humility of the children was an example to us, that those who would be born again in Christ will come to him with the same humility as a little child, who comes to the Father with tears of repentance (i.e. godly sorrow) of their sins. (Psa 34:18, Jms 4:6)

Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
-1 Timothy 3:12-13

The 'deacon' is an office in the church that was instituted when the time it took for the daily ministering of the needs of the poor conflicted with the duties of the apostles' preaching. (Acts 6:1) The deacons would focus on more mundane tasks that needed to be done, which most often concerns distribution of goods and services to the church, as well as the poor and needy, which means they were responsible for overseeing resources, and that meant they needed to be trustworthy men.

The word 'purchase' in this passage should not be taken in the sense of an exchange of money because that is not the only definition to the word 'purchase', and it would not make sense contextually, since offices in the church are not granted based on an exchange of currency. Rather, the word 'purchase' is used in the sense of obtaining something through labor, to show oneself worthy of something; in this case, to work well of a "good degree," which Paul defined as a "great boldness in the faith" of Christ, which would be the preaching of Christ's doctrine, as well as rebuke and reproof of themselves, of others in the church, and of false teachers if they find wrongdoing.

This brings us to Hartford's strange questions:

"Is it possible to be childlike in the manner that the Messiah likens then kingdom of heaven to, as an adult?"

This is poorly worded, but essentially, he is posing the question, "Is it possible to be childlike as an adult?" That depends on what you mean by it, but sadly, because Hartford is ripping Paul's epistles out of Scripture, he will not pay attention to a more expanded explanation:

Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
-1 Corinthians 14:20

"What does it mean to purchase a good degree?"

That was explained in the verses that Hartford quoted, but he did not read it carefully.

"How many degrees can one have?"

Again, that depends on what you mean by it, but this is where I started laughing to myself because Paul was not referring to a laundry list of stations, of which there are only two listed in the New Testament for the church; elders/bishops and deacons. The context was about deacons, which means the word 'degree' was NOT referring one's station, but rather, it was a more general sense, as a step of progression, meaning that the work was a good work, and so one should act and speak in a manner that is suitable to one of that station.

The same could be said for many people in just about any station they hold in life. For example, if a deputy is elected to be the sheriff, his responsibility increases and he is expected to go above and beyond his duties than he did as deputy, and even moreso if he moves up from sheriff to governor.

"Does each one [degree] make them more childlike?"

I cannot make sense of Hartford's last question because it has gone so far off the context. If you would like me to explain why Hartford believed that these two passages contradict each other, I am sorry, but I cannot provide that explanation because I do not have the slightest clue why he thinks that.

Again, this is just one more reason why I believe it is a waste of time to analyze anymore of his alleged "contradiction" cards. I think the point has been proven well enough, namely, that Hartford has no understanding of the Scriptures he is quoting, and he does not bother to look at the context and correlate proper Scripture together as God instructed us in Isa 28:10-13, which is why he is asking nonsensically rhetorical questions.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this book, Hartford wrote a book called How to Teach Disciples to Observe All Things Whatsoever Jesus Commanded the Twelve Apostles, and this reveals quite a bit more about Hartford and his corrupt ideology. Even the very first paragraph of his preface exhibits some of his deeper arrogance:
"When studying the teachings of Jesus with such curiosity as a child might have in the wilderness, being filled with wonder and having no responsibilities to distract me, I came to know what the teachings of Jesus might amount to if taken seriously. I had already been acquainted with what they amounted to when twisted into a tool for selfishness by busy men with large families trying to rig things in their favor."
-Titus Hartford, How to Teach Disciples to Observe All Things Whatsoever Jesus Commanded the Twelve Apostles, BookPatch LLC, 2020, ISBN: 9781648587184

Hartford is already attacking anyone who preaches the Word of God while having a family to care for, which is not condemned ANYWHERE in Scripture. In fact, the Bible tells us that a man who does not provide for his family is worse than an infidel. (1Ti 5:8 - Though, it should be noted that was written by Paul, so he will not pay any attention to it.) Furthermore, I am unsure how "large families try to rig things in their favor," nor what that is supposed to mean, and normally, it would not be a problem to make such a statement if one had previously provided an argument backed up with evidence, but this was said in the very first paragraph of his book (i.e. it is a statement we ought to find at the end of the book, not the beginning), which leaves the reader baffled at his conceitedness and lack of basis for his claim.

It did not take me reading very long into the first chapter of his book to once again see clear examples of rhetoric. Just so readers understand my meaning, let's define that term:

rhetoric (n): the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast
bombast (n): speech too pompous for an occasion; pretentious words
(See 'rhetoric' & 'bombast', Random House Dictionary, 2023, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

For example, if someone were writing a book of poetry, or telling a story with a lot of poetic description, the use of a variety of flowery language would be appropriate, if not expected. On the other hand, if someone is writing a "how-to" book, which is instructional material, the use of flowery language should be limited to make sure that the reader understands the knowledge that the author is trying to convey, and therefore, when one writes a book called "How to Teach Disciples," it is expected to be instructional instead of poetic.

However, we find the opposite in Hartford's book, and if you read this carefully, I am confident you will understand what I mean:
"You don't need work boots to do this job; in fact, you're specifically commanded not to wear work boots. You don't need money to do this job. In fact, you're commanded not to bring money. You don't need to bring a lunch box or make any special preparations to begin... Even as fishermen labor to bring in the bounty of the deep by casting their nets deep into the waters, those that do this job must cast a spiritual net deep into the waters of society to bring in the bounty of heaven, once very committed to the kingdom of men, and secure it in the kingdom of God to be engaged in an activity completely foreign to that of their natural birth, even a new existence."
-Titus Hartford, How to Teach Disciples to Observe All Things Whatsoever Jesus Commanded the Twelve Apostles, BookPatch LLC, 2020, p. 9, ISBN: 9781648587184

What exactly did we just learn from this section of the book? Once you break it down, he says a lot of nothing.

Did we need Hartford to tell us that we do not need "a lunch box?" Did he even bother to provide the Scriptural reference to the verse that says "thou shalt not wear thy work boots?" This is the very definition of rhetoric (and very similiar in style of the plagairized writings of false prophetess Ellen G. White), but put in other words, it is evidence of a man who is prideful of heart, who falsely believes he has wisdom and understanding from God, and instead of exhibiting that, he feigns it with flowerly language in a fair speech, hoping that simple-minded people will not catch on to his scam.
(Read Corruptions of Christianity: Seventh-day Adventism here at creationliberty.com for more details on the false prophecies of Ellen G. White.)

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

After reading this verse, it is no wonder Hartford does not like Paul because Paul rebukes the very things that he does. Based on what I have seen so far of his writings, I have to conclude that Hartford hates Paul for the same reason the Pharisees hated Jesus.

At the beginning of this book, I pointed out that the Paul vs Christ cult has a foundation in the Hebrew-Roots cult, which is a corrupt, works-based religion that feigns itself to be faithful to Christ and deceives young Christians into thinking that calling Jesus "Yeshua" somehow makes them "holy." After warning people about false scribes in his flowery "how-to" book, Hartford reveals his works-based ideology:
"In order to avoid the destruction of those that promote these kinds of conspiracies, disciples must dedicate themselves to a lifestyle of honesty and furnish others with a clear and concise statement of their true intent all along the way. And thus, they will perfect a kind of righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees and love the undesirables they might be inclined to offend. One may employ any set of rules to attain these ends, if they apply them consistently, but the best set of rules that a community might follow with their women and children with all the compromises that entails is the law of Moses and the prophets of Israel. They comprise such a beautiful set of principles that even the smallest accent mark there shall not be diminished until heaven and earth passes away. And as such, the Messiah establishes it too."
-Titus Hartford, How to Teach Disciples to Observe All Things Whatsoever Jesus Commanded the Twelve Apostles, BookPatch LLC, 2020, p. 13, ISBN: 9781648587184

Before we analyze the verses that Hartford erroneously interprets, I want to make sure readers understand that he stated that true disciples of Christ will perfect righteousness. That statement could be true, depending on how you define it, and when I look into the Scriptures, I find that it tells me that righteousness is not attained by our works, but rather, it is attained by grace through faith when Christ imputes it to us, or in other words Jesus attributes righteousness to us, setting it to our account as a gift which we cannot earn by works.

And being not weak in faith, he [Abraham] considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he [God] had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
-Romans 4:19-25

Of course, those in the PvC cult reject these verses, as does Hartford, which is why they lack understanding, but it does start to reveal to us WHY they hate Paul's doctrine so much, and that is because it is the detailed explanation of Christ's doctrine. It is not Paul's doctrine which they hate, but rather, they are willingly blind to the fact that they hate Christ, and so they attempt to destroy others' faith in the New Testament Scriptures in order to justify their works-based heresies.

In his book, Hartford made the absurd statement that righteousness could be attained by applying "any set of rules," which not only rejects Christ's gospel of grace, but opens up the floor to anyone's personal set of moral standards, which is subjective at best, and the Lord God rejects such arbitrary methods of men thinking they are right in their own eyes. (Pro 12:15, Deut 12:8) However, Hartford declares that there is "the best set of rules," and before I continued reading, I thought to myself, "The best set of rules is obviously the great commandment of Jesus Christ, to love the Lord and love your neighbor as yourself, in Matthew 22," but that is not what Hartford said; instead he says that to attain righteousness, one must follow "the law of Moses and the prophets of Israel."

This brings me right back to the point I just made, namely, that Hartford is part of the works-based Hebrew-Roots cult that is trying to lead people away from liberty and charity in Christ to go back under the bondage of the law. This is what Peter described as the dog returning to its vomit, and pointed out that such men (like Hartford) might speak great swelling words of vanity concerning Christ's liberty when it is convenient for them, but they are the servants of corruption.

For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them 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 Peter 2:18-22

No man can attain righteousness unless Christ GIVES righteousness to him, and according to the Bible, the only way Christ does that is if a man comes to repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow) of his sin and faith in the shed blood of Christ on the cross for the remission (i.e. forgiveness/pardon) of that sin. (Luke 24:44-47) Once a man is born again, he then becomes a disciple of Christ, and if he wants to keep the commandments, he keeps what Jesus instructed us Christians to observe:

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
-Matthew 22:37-40

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
-Matthew 7:12

To justify turning away from the doctrine of Christ, and instead leading people to the insane idea that they can work off their sins, Hartford uses the teachings of Christ under false pretense:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
-Matthew 5:18-20

Hartford is willingly blind to the fact that Christ already fulfilled these things. This is what many churchgoers in various works-based cults have no interest in understanding. Christ fulfilled the law of circumcision. Christ fulfilled the law of tithe. Christ fulfilled the law of Sabbath ordinances. However, because men put their faith and hope in their pride and works, they reject this very simple understanding.
(Read "The Biblical Understanding of Circumcision," "Tithe is Not a Christian Requirement," and "Keeping the Sabbath is Not a Christian Requirement" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
-Acts 13:31-32

That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us,
who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
-Romans 8:4

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another:
for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
-Romans 13:8

The Jews had to keep strict ordinances in exchange for certain benefits the Lord provided for them; that was their contractual agreement under the Old Covenant. However, the law also testifed of its own fulfillment:

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
-Leviticus 19:18

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this;
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
-Galatians 5:14

Jesus told the people that their righteousness had to exceed that of the Pharisees and scribes because both the Pharisees and scribes in that day were generally viewed like many pastors are today, in that they pushed strict adherance to an outward show of righteousness, but inwardly, they were hypocrites who did not adhere to their own principles; rather, they only did these things in public to give the people an appearance of holiness. However, despite the hypocrisies, there were some who fervently did their best to keep the law and ordinances, and yet, after all the work they put in, it was still not enough.

Hartford does not trust in Christ for his righteousness, as we can see from his interview:
"[@7:43] You need to have a righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. You don't need to be a hypocrite, so to speak. That's something I strive for, and it's difficult sometimes, but it's a whole lot easier now than when I was following the teachings of Paul and Jesus at the same time."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 19, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

Jesus told them they had to exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, not so they would go out and do a bunch of works to gain righteousness (as Hartford thinks he can do), but rather, to get them to consider that they could not possibly achieve that. Therefore, the hope is that they would look to Christ for a way to attain righteousness, and He taught that it must be done by His gift of grace, through the sacrifice of His works done on the cross.

For the law was given by Moses, but
grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
-John 1:17

That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
-Romans 5:21

I know that Hartford has been rebuked on this subject, and likely, he has been rebuked much more than I know about, but he refuses to hear the truth. He believes (as all Hebrew-Roots cultists do) that he can work for his own righteousness, and thus, he is a willingly blind heretic who rejects the grace of Christ, and based on my experiences with him, he will not hear anything that would correct him to the truth of Scripture because he rejects reading the Bible in context. (i.e. He operates according to his feelings about the verses instead of the facts.)

The crazy part of this is that, on the very same page that Hartford made his comment about works for righteousness, he admits that the Jesus fulfilled things written in the Old Testament, but if you read carefully, you will notice that he does NOT include the law in that fulfillment:
"Jesus came not to nullify the writings of the prophets or diminish ought from the ordinances they delivered Israel, but to fulfill them. And they are fulfilled through a messianic understanding of the Torah or through the teachings of Jesus to the twelve apostles alone, because the Torah is simplified, not suspended, in the commandments of Jesus to the twelve, our high Priest having done all the necessary work to ensure that while keeping his precepts, they are also keeping the Mosaic law and can claim all of its blessings and none of its curses."
-Titus Hartford, How to Teach Disciples to Observe All Things Whatsoever Jesus Commanded the Twelve Apostles, BookPatch LLC, 2020, p. 13, ISBN: 9781648587184

As we can now see, Hartford places himself under the Old Covenant made with the Jews because he believes that the "blessings" and "curses" of the law are applied to him. This means that Hartford rejects the New Covenant, and although he would fervently object to my saying that, the very fact that he wants to fuse the Old and New Covenants together demonstrates that he has no clear understanding of them.

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
-Jeremiah 31:31-32

The New Covenant (under the New Testament) is NOT the same covenant made with the Jews at Mt. Sinai. This is essentially a contract, and the contract made with the Jews is not the same as made with Christians, and furthermore, the two are not compatible, meaning that you cannot be under both at the same time, which is what Hartford is trying to do.

For the priesthood being changed, there is
made of necessity a change also of the law.
-Hebrews 7:12

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
-Hebrews 8:6

If someone offers you a better contract with better benefits, and offers you to get out of the old contract freely, why would you want to stay under an old contract that is not as beneficial? This makes no sense unless there is an ulterior motive, and that ulterior motive is that one has a great pride of heart, desiring to earn their way into heaven by their own works so they will not have to be humbled.

Hartford goes on to say that the Old Testament covenant is "still presently binding upon all flesh unto this day," and though that could be said to be true of the flesh (because the flesh is corrupt and must die), it is NOT binding upon every soul. It is only binding on the souls of those who have not been regenerated by the Holy Ghost to be born into the seed of Abraham.

For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption. Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man [Jesus Christ] is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets; Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.
-Acts 13:36-41

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
-Romans 4:13

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
-Galatians 2:16

However, the PvC cultists reject these Scriptures, and will not believe them. By rejecting this doctrine, they have rejected Christ because they do not want the New Covenant; they want the Old Covenant made only for the Jewish people, even though they are not Jewish in most cases.

As I continued through Hartford's book, it became difficult to read, not in the sense that it was complex, but that it was a continuation of his rhetoric—a vain show of fancy words—and in most cases, he offered nothing to back up what he was saying. For example, he wrote:
"Yet all over the world, hateful worshippers are gathered together on private property while hating their neighbors and offering the sacrifice of praise in exclusive social clubs in the name of the Lord. They put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter in the midst of the congregation. Nevertheless, the eyes of the Lord behold the children of men, his eyelids try their song, to see of what sort it is, and no sooner do their flatteries ascend toward heaven, but they are smacked down by the whirlwind of his jealousy."
-Titus Hartford, How to Teach Disciples to Observe All Things Whatsoever Jesus Commanded the Twelve Apostles, BookPatch LLC, 2020, p. 16, ISBN: 9781648587184

The phrases "eyelids try their song" and "smacked down by the whirlwind of his jealousy" are just meaningless additions that are only designed to try and impress upon the audience that the authority is really smart. The ironic thing is that Hartford was trying to say that the Lord hates vain words (i.e. "flatteries"), but did so with vain words, making it useless hypocrisy.

To me, this was rather hypocritical because Hartford does not accept the doctrines of the New Testament, taught by the apostles of Christ. He rejects the Gospel of Salvation in Christ, he perverts the meaning of the verses he is using, and then insists that people are under the deception of Satan if they adhere to the principles taught by Christ's apostles.

The reason I point this out is because I could get behind the statement that there are many "social clubs" that feign themselves to be of Christ, and I have provided many examples of those types of church buildings in various books, articles, and other teachings I have given over the years. However, in this book, Hartford has introduced this concept BEFORE providing any evidence of his case (not as a preface, but as a vague statement), and I struggle to take him with an ounce of seriousness when he has already shown himself willingly blind to the context of Scripture, most especially because he attempts to replace the liberty and charity of Christ with the bondage of the law, thereby putting "bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter," as he hypocritically warns others not to do.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
-Isaiah 5:20-21

As I continued my playthrough of Hartford's Rhetoric Simulator 2020, I came upon a quote which I believe will help readers fully understand the depths of his hypocrisy. However, to do that, I need to preface the quote with a news story about Titus Hartford being arrested, as well as his lawsuit against the city.

The Chattanooga Times Free Press in Tennessee ran an article on Hartford's arrest in 2021:
"As a federal civil rights complaint against the Chattanooga Police Department moved forward Thursday, the release of body camera footage of the 2021 arrest in question outside Calvary Chapel Chattanooga provided more information about what happened that morning on Broad Street.
The nearly 19-minute body cam video... shows Chattanooga Police Officer James Elliott on April 18, 2021, driving to the church, arresting Titus Hartford and talking with people at the church, before escorting Hartford to jail."
(See Wyatt Massey, "Body cam footage shows arrest of protester at Calvary Chapel Chattanooga," Chattanooga Times Free Press, Apr 17, 2022, retrieved Dec 15, 2023, [https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2022/apr/21/body-cam-footage-shows-arrest-protester-calva/])

This is the sign that Hartford was holding outside the church building: (Image from La Shawn Pagan, "Chattanooga police reach settlement with Calvary Chapel protester," Chattanooga Times Free Press, July 29, 2022, retrieved Dec 15, 2023, [https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2022/jul/29/chattanoogpolice-reach-settlement-calvary-cha/])

The testimonies of the pastor and churchgoers of Calvary Chapel were a bit different than Hartford's because they claimed he had walked onto the church building's parking lot, but the camera footage shows he was only standing on a public sidewalk. I will firmly defend Hartford's right to free speech, protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, on public property, no matter how much I might disagree with his message.

To make sure readers understand this point, in the United States, it is extremely difficult for any state to argue for the forced removal or silencing of any American citizen speaking or holding signs on property that is not privately owned. In 1983, the Supreme Court issued an opinion on a case in which the tax-funded school board of Perry Township, Indiana tried to block public speaking access rights to its mail system, restricting its use to only a select few, and in that opinion, citing various other cases, Supreme Court Justice Byron White commented:
"In these quintessential [essential parts of] public forums, the government may not prohibit all communicative activity. For the State to enforce a content-based exclusion, it must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end... The State may also enforce regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication."
-Justia U.S. Supreme Court, "Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983)," retrieved Dec 15, 2023, [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/460/37/#44]

This means that the state cannot censor speech, but it can regulate the time and place of that speech if there is a "content-neutral" reason to do so, or in other words, if there is an important state duty, which must have nothing to do with anyone's bias against the speech, that would be hindered or delayed by the presence of the citizen, or that their speech is causing interference of said duty, then they can forcably remove the citizen, but must offer "ample alternative channels of communication." For example, let's suppose that a man was speaking on a sidewalk with a sign, but a construction project on the sidewalk to repair vital utility lines was to begin at that time; the state would be within reason to request the man move to another location outside the construction site, for both the safety of the speaker and the construction workers.

However, in the instance of Hartford standing on a public sidewalk with a sign, he was neither trespassing, nor interfering with any duties of public officials, nor committing any crime. He was well within his Constitutionally-protected rights to be where he was, but the pastor of Calvary Chapel did not like that he was there, and I will add that he did not like Hartford being there for what I would consider to be a very good reason, and I will get to that in a moment.

I watched video of the incident, and as ridiculous as it was to see Hartford wearing a mask outdoors (let alone wearing one at all because it demonstrates a great faith in mainstream media rather than Jesus Christ), the viciousness of the pastor of Calvary Chapel could be clearly seen when he assaulted Hartford by getting close to him and pushed Hartford's camera away. The pastor, who had a police officer on the scene watching this take place (and who, as usual, did nothing to arrest the pastor who committed the violation), then claimed that Hartford was on private property, even though it was a public sidewalk.
(See Audit the Audit, "Pastor Gets Cop Sued After Having Innocent Man Arrested," May 2, 2022, retrieved Dec 15, 2023, [https://youtu.be/iJjLMPn1fUM?si=YS4jMVW5mLzAgTKa&t=350])

Another Officer named Elliot approached Hartford and told him to show him identification or he would be arrested, which is an unlawful order in Tennessee, especially since he was standing on a public sidewalk doing nothing criminal. The only time a Tennesee officer can demand identification is if he is issuing a citation for violation of the law. (See TN Code Title 7 § 7-3-505, and Title 39 § 39-16-602) Hartford refused to show identification, and was immediately and unlawfully arrested by Elliot, a member of Calvery Chapel, which clearly showed the officer's bias, and that the arrest was (as Supreme Court Justice White said) not "content-neutral."

Hartford filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Chattanooga Police Department for violation of his rights, an unlawful arrest, and for being forced to be absent from his job while in jail. More than a year after the incident, the CPD dropped all the charges against Hartford, expunged his record, and he was awarded a settlement of $29,000.
(See La Shawn Pagan, "Chattanooga police reach settlement with Calvary Chapel protester," Chattanooga Times Free Press, July 29, 2022, retrieved Dec 15, 2023, [https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2022/apr/17/harrest-outside-chattanoogchurch-went-viral-n/])

Why did I cover all these details about Hartford's arrest? The following is an excerpt from Hartford's book, and he published this one year before this incident: "We can take courage, however, in the fact that there are many lost sheep with which to sojourn, who will be grateful to meet us and will be interested in being liberated from the captivity of their prisons, though to find them will require some trial and error. So, fret not when asked to move along, but agree quickly, remembering that you have the ability to increase the severity of each misstep by trying to force people to listen to things they have no interest in and demanding fair treatment when asked to leave."
-Titus Hartford, How to Teach Disciples to Observe All Things Whatsoever Jesus Commanded the Twelve Apostles, BookPatch LLC, 2020, p. 18, ISBN: 9781648587184

Titus Hartford is a hypocrite, who preaches one thing to others about how they should act as a "teacher" to disciples, but does not follow his own set of standards. He tells others not to "fret" (i.e. to be emotionally strained) when asked to leave, and to just agree and quickly leave, but in practice, he does the opposite.

For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
-Matthew 23:4

He tells others not to try and "force people to listen" when "they have no interest in" the message, but in practice, he does the opposite. I watched the video online, and the pastor told him that he knew who Hartford was, that their church congregation had no interest in the PvC message, and asked him kindly if he would move along, but Hartford refused, violating the principles of his own teachings.

And if that were not bad enough, he tells others that they should not demand "fair treatment" when asked to leave, but in practice, he filed a lawsuit because he was not treated fairly. Please do not misunderstand because I am NOT arguing that Hartford was wrong to file a lawsuit; on the contrary, I believe he was right to file a lawsuit against the CPD, but my contention is that Hartford is a hypocrite because he does not practice what he preaches.

It is very likely that Calvary Chapel Chattanooga [501(c)(3), EIN: 62-1821314] is teaching false doctrine; perhaps not the same false doctrine as Hartford, but after looking over their website, I could not find one instance where you could get the Gospel of Salvation, and most of it was just a bunch of new-age garbage that you see from most leavened church buildings trying to turn a profit. That being said, one of the reasons that the pastor was upset with Hartford was because, in 2016, Hartford had caused a disturbance INSIDE the Calvary Chapel building, was asked to leave, he refused, and was lawfully arrested on charges of disorderly conduct, and an added charge of resisting arrest when he refused to comply with a police officer's orders, to which he later pleaded guilty.
(See Calvary Chapel Chattanooga, retrieved Dec 15, 2023, [https://www.calvarychatt.com/]; See also 501c3: The Devil's Church here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

"Hartford was previously arrested inside Calvary Chapel on Nov. 27, 2016. According to the arrest report, Hartford was in the church 'telling people that God doesn't exist and the Bible was a lie.' At the time, he was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. The disorderly conduct charge was dropped, and Hartford pleaded guilty to resisting arrest, for which he paid fines, and the judge told him to stay out of Calvary Chapel."
-Wyatt Massey, "Body cam footage shows arrest of protester at Calvary Chapel Chattanooga," Chattanooga Times Free Press, Apr 17, 2022, retrieved Dec 15, 2023, [https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2022/apr/21/body-cam-footage-shows-arrest-protester-calva/]

I do not believe the report that he was telling people that "God doesn't exist and the Bible was a lie," but rather, I think that was the perspective of the people who heard him speak. Perhaps it is true that he was saying that; I do not know because I was not there, but knowing that both Hartford and Calvery Chapel are a bunch of leavened hypocrites, I am cautious to believe one side or the other in this matter. It is more likely that he claimed they were following a "false god" and claimed that parts of the Bible (like the doctrine of Paul) was a lie, so they took his words out of context, but it would be hypocritical for Hartford to be upset about that since he takes the words of God out of context all the time.

If a church building congregation told you that they were not interested in your message, and that they did not want to have any further discussion with you, why would you go back? If Hartford was really that convicted to go out with his sign to a public location, why not go out on the sidewalk during a University of Tennessee football game at Chattanooga's Max Finley Stadium to preach to the lost?

I can reasonably deduce why: Hartford had a vendetta against that church building, and he wanted to cause a scene. They foolishly gave him what he wanted, and that gave him national attention when the video of the incident spread.

If a pastor of a church building wanted to handle the matter, the best thing to do is to have a documented discussion with him (so the video could be published online), or if Hartford proved unwilling to hear (which is what I have experienced in conversation with him), then simply ignore him because he was only there for attention. (i.e. If you give attention to an attention whore, they win.) Instead of harassing Hartford, just have a special series of teachings exposing Hartford and the PvC cult for the congregation, so they could be better prepared to discuss the subject matter.

In short, both sides have done wrong in many instances throughout these encounters, but one thing is certain: Titus Hartford is a hypocrite. As much as he tries to portray himself to be a reasonable preacher, in actual discussion, where he is forced to look at the context of Scripture, he breaks down into babbling nonsense, as I demonstrated via his emails at the beginning of this book.

What Hartford wrote when instructing others to "agree quickly" and "move along" was obviously not in his heart when he wrote it (otherwise, he would have acted according to it), and that means it was all for show. That begs the question about why he wrote that in the first place if it had no place in his own heart?

I believe I have that answer, and it is the main subject matter of this book: Hartford hates Paul. He hates Paul because he hates Paul's doctrine, and he hates Paul's doctrine because he hates the fullness of Christ's doctrine. Paul was beaten and arrested many times for preaching the truth among people who did not want him to preach, and thus, Hartford did not write this as a principle by which he would live his life, but rather, he wrote as a doctrinal attack against Paul, to claim Paul was wrong in the work he did, so Hartford could feel justified in his prideful, works-based beliefs that war against Christ.

I understand that Hartford claims to follow Christ. However, the reality is that he has created a false "christ" in his mind and follows that figment of his foolish heart instead.

If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
-John 15:18

I was only 18 pages into Hartford's book, and I could not hardly stand to keep reading because it is a mess of hypocrisy doused in rhetoric in which he says, essentially, nothing. Let's look at another example to help further prove the point:
"Yea, those that presume to use the supremacy of God to assure others of their legitimacy have erred from the truth; for the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork: A magnificent glory exceeding the glory of every man! For this reason, he will not lend that to you no matter how strong your cause may be. Yea, no matter how important the occasion is or how closely you stand, no magnificent resolution of mortal will shall ever rival the purpose of the stars in their courses, the habitation of the angels, the fabric of time or the great white throne judgment and those who use these as a source of confidence in their own truthfulness are diminishing the credibility of God and tarnishing his memory in the minds of men."
-Titus Hartford, How to Teach Disciples to Observe All Things Whatsoever Jesus Commanded the Twelve Apostles, BookPatch LLC, 2020, p. 23, ISBN: 9781648587184

What did we learn from this? In summary, Hartford took two paragraphs of flowery language to simply say that God's glory is greater than man. Is there some special understanding that we are supposed to get from this superfluous wording? Is there something here that the Bible does not explain to us in sufficient detail? Remember, this book is called "How to Teach Disciples," but he is writing this as if it is an Introduction to Christianity 101 course, intended to teach pre-school lessons at a college-grade reading level, which is nothing short of a pathetic attempt to impress men with feigned understanding.

Worse still, Hartford, in his conceit, believes that he is teaching wisdom, when the truth is that he has little (if anything) to share. The only benefit one could possibly receive from his book is when he quotes the Lord Jesus Christ (because Hartford quotes from the King James Bible), but my contention is that a Christian's time could be much better spent just studying the Scriptures without Hartford's embellishment.

I quoted this at the beginning of the book, but let's read it again from the Blog Talk Radio interview, Hartford said:
"[@6:38] Paul was a deceiver, and he was a ravening wolf, and we should beware of the doctrine."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 19, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

I want readers to understand that the same person who said this, also said the following concerning the "inerrancy" of Scripture, or in other words, he was asked if he though the Bible had error:
"[@17:20] HOSTESS: What is your position on the inerrancy of Scripture?
HARTFORD: Well, obviously, I don't believe that the Bible is the Word of God. I pick and choose, as my critics would say, but I see a harmony in the Scriptures, and some of the Scriptures I do see a harmony. So I think that we need to, as people who are searching for the truth, we need to use what's good and throw the bad away. And so I hold to Matthew, Mark, and John, and by extension, the law and the prophets of Israel, and I think the prophets are perfect, talking about the prophets in the Old Testament... after John, I just sort of throw it all away execpt for Jude and James."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 19, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]


After documenting this quote from the podcast, I sat at my keyboard for a bit, not knowing exactly what to write here because I was not sure where to start disecting the mental gymnastics of Titus Hartford. I am not saying that as some sort of ad hominem (i.e. personal insult) against him, but there are so many points of fallacy, contradiction, and inconsistency in this one statement, I am struggling to find an anchor point to begin.

For example, He mentions Matthew, Mark, and John, but what about Luke? Later, he mentions that he believes "the Gospels," but why exclude Luke? Based on what I have learned about Hartford's absurd philosophy, I think the reason he excludes Luke is because if he included Luke, then he would have to believe the writings of Luke were inspired by the Holy Ghost, and if that were the case, he would have to believe the book of Acts, which was written by Luke, and much of the book of Acts documents the ministry of Paul, which Hartford rejects.

He also claims that Luke contradicts Matthew, when that is not anywhere close to the truth. On the contrary, Luke compliments Matthew, and even expounds on Matthew to give us clearer understanding of it, but Hartford says:
"[@29:35] Pastors LOVE the Book of Luke because it waters-down the Gospel, and cults use it extensively to get people to give everything to them, and live with them without money. So Luke is just a tool of the Devil."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 19, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

I started writing this book with the intention of addressing Hartford's points in seriousness, but the more I document, the harder time I have not laughing at just about every comment he makes. He did not provide any examples of what he was talking about in this interview. Not only does he not give sufficient examples for many of his blanket statements, but for the few times he does provide examples, it is void of contextual understanding and reason.

Furthermore, his book shows us something very interesting that very few people would catch. (Likely, because very few people have ever read his book.) Hartford first quotes from Matthew 18, and as we read from him earlier, he would hypocritically label this as "judgmental:"

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
-Matthew 18:15

After this, Hartford goes on to say:
"When addressing a fault for the first time, therefore, let not him that is caught in a transgression be put on a public display, but deal with him privately and save him from unnecessary reproach, lest thy brother seem vile unto thee. This is the first step to resolving a conflict. And if he hears you and repents, you gain your brother back."
-Titus Hartford, How to Teach Disciples to Observe All Things Whatsoever Jesus Commanded the Twelve Apostles, BookPatch LLC, 2020, p. 113, ISBN: 9781648587184

Please take a moment and open your Bible to Matthew 18, read through it for yourself, and take notice that 'repentance' is not mentioned anywhere in the chapter, let alone in the three verses Jesus addresses this subject. It only says "if he shall hear thee," so where did Hartford draw the conclusion that it is only if the brother hears you "and repents?"

In his Blog Talk Radio interview, Hartford expresses his disgust with Luke because he claims that it contradicts Matthew; however, I have long taught the complete opposite, that Luke perfectly correlates with Matthew, and even gives other details that Matthew does not. For example, many churchgoers quote such verses from Matthew and draw the conclusion that one must forgive his brother no matter what, even preemptive forgiveness, but in Luke, it gives more detail that he must hear AND repent.

Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
-Luke 17:3

I find it rather interesting that Hartford's explanation of Matthew agrees with Luke, while he rails against Luke for disagreeing with Matthew. It is more fascinating that Hartford uses Luke's interpretation of this verse, which Matthew did not specifically say, and then condemns Luke at the same time. Perhaps Hartford, like Paul, needs Jesus Christ to come to him on the road and tell him: "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." (Acts 9:5)

This all begs another interesting question: Why does he believe the Gospel of John, but then reject 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John? Again, based on Hartford's works-based heresies, I think I can answer that:

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
-1 John 1:8-10

Earlier, I quoted Hartford saying that he "strived" to obtain "a righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees," meaning that he does not rely on the Lord Jesus Christ to give him righteousness, but rather, he tries to earn his own through his works. If he were to admit that he is a sinner, and that he has sin in his life, he would then have to admit that he has not kept the law, and therefore, he would not have earned his righteousness.

In other words, Hartford rejects John for the same reason he rejects Christ. It does not matter how much Hartford CLAIMS to be a disciple of Christ because the reality is that he has rejected Christ's Gospel, and has taken it upon himself to reinterpret Christ's Gospel in his own image, so he can believe he is justified to call himself "righteous" by his own effort, and false preachers like Hartford are nothing new; there have been many before him do this over the past 2,000 years.

Hartford separates Jude and James out of the New Testament as trustworthy books, but how does he know those are legitimate Scripture, while everything else in the New Testament is not legitimate? This is because he does exactly what he said his "critics would say," namely, that he will "pick and choose" what he does or does not like by his own standard, rather than by the standard of the Bible, which is God's Word, whether he likes it or not.

Although these points raise many more questions, the most absurd of all, in my opinion, is the fact that if we follow the line of logic, Hartford MUST believe that the vast majority of the twelve apostles (and any other apostles who came after them) were deceivers who cannot be trusted. It is fascinating to me that Hartford is forced into a position where he must say that Jesus purposefully entrusted His Gospel to those who could not be trusted with it, or worse still, Hartford is forced to say that the Comfortor (i.e. the Holy Ghost) did NOT come down to bless the apostles of Christ and give them guidance as Jesus promised in the Book of John, which is one of the few books of the New Testament that Hartford said he trusts.

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 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, and shall be in you.
-John 14:16-17

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
-John 14;26

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
-John 15:26

This is what Jesus told to the apostles who Hartford rejects. For example, Peter was one of the recipients of this message, an apostle of Christ who was instructed to teach the church, and I believe Hartford would have accepted 1st and 2nd Peter, but there is one major problem with Peter's doctrine that Hartford cannot overlook:

Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
-2 Peter 3:14

Hartford has no problem with the commandment to be "without spot, and blameless" because he interprets that outside of the context, applying it to his own perceived righteousness by his works. However, Peter clears that up in the next verse, and affirms the truth of Christ's Gospel to another teacher who Hartford hates:

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
-2 Peter 3:15

That is, we are found "in peace, without spot, and blameless" because of "our Lord" (i.e. Jesus Christ) who gave us the grace of righteousness unto salvation. Therefore, our diligence is the result of salvation, not a cause for it. This, Peter affirms, is also according to the doctrine which Paul taught, showing that the Holy Spirit, working through Peter, affirmed that Paul was also of the Holy Spirit, teaching the truth in Christ.

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.
-2 Peter 3:16

Peter then says that the epistles Paul wrote are the "scriptures," and in certain instances, they are difficult to understand, which I can testify is true because I have spent many years in study to understand the doctrines of Paul, and there are still some things I struggle to fully understand. However, Peter adds that those who are unlearned in the scriptures and unstable in their philosophy "wrest," meaning that they twist and distort the Scriptures, just like Hartford does, not only with the doctrines of Paul, but also the other Scriptures, both in the Old and New Testaments, and they do this to their own destruction.

Peter then offered a warning, and I would urge Christians to pay close attention to it:

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. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
-2 Peter 3:17-18

Peter, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, gave a general warning to the church, and this is quite fitting as a warning against the error of wicked men like Titus Hartford, and other PvC/JWO cultists. It would be completely nonsensical for Christ, who is God, to establish His church WITHOUT the guidance of the Holy Ghost over His apostles because, if that were the case, we cannot trust ANY of the Scriptures, not even Matthew, Mark, and John.

The hostess of the podcast brings up this passage we just read from 2nd Peter 3, and she decieves her listeners about what it says:
"[@50:49] HOSTESS: Where Peter says that those who follow brother Paul end up confused, that his way of teaching is confusing, and-
HARTFORD: Which those that are unlearned and unstable wrest to their own destruction.
HOSTESS: Yes. I didn't know if you had anything that you had experienced with that. I did go back to their original language on that and it's absolutely very eye-opening, where the word that they translate to 'unlearned' it comes from word—and they very gently sugar-coated it to make it sound like it was the fault of the person reading that could not digest Paul when you actually go to the original language—the word is 'disnoatos', and the 'dis' is like, bad, unlucky, without logic, not making good sense, leading astray, all those type of things, and then the noatos was the message part of it. So putting them together, his message confuses people, but it's not like because it's so intellectual people can't understand it. It's because it's like craftily coming from somebody who is, just like James said, double-minded."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 19, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

The first point we need to acknowledge is that the hostess just revealed to us that she follows different "gods" apart from the Christian God of the Bible. She does not look to the Bible for its contextual meaning, and instead turns to two gods, the first being a Greek grammar dictionary, and the second god being herself, interpreting whatever she finds in her Greek grammar dictionary according to her own feelings.
(Read "The 'Original Greek' Scam" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

The second and most important point is that if what she just said were true, then she is saying that Peter condemned ALL Scripture because, if you recall, Peter said, "they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures." The "other scriptures" would refer to all other scripture which Paul did not write (i.e. New and Old Testaments), and therefore, if her interpretation of these verses were true, Peter would have to be referring to all other books of the Bible as "unlearned and unstable," which makes no contextual sense at all.

I will quote Paul in response to this nonsense because, through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, he hit the nail on the head concerning these two heretics:

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
-1 Corinthians 2:14

The one thing I have never heard Hartford explain is HOW he is deciding what is Holy Scripture and what is not. However, despite his lack of explanation, I can already tell how he decides, and it is always based on his works-salvation heresies, which is why he hates so much of the New Testament doctrine, and why he yokes together with the Hebrew-Roots cultists who put their faith in the hopelessness of their observance of days and ceremonies.

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
-Colossians 2:16-17

In the podcast, Hartford was also asked about the Book of Revelation, and he said that he believes it is not "relevant for today." (Whatever that is supposed to mean because Revelation is obviously prophecy for the future, so of course it is not necessarily "relevant for today.") He added that he did not believe much of it was divinely inspired, and one of his evidences was that he did not like that God was calling down plagues on people because that, to him, did not seem like something God would do, despite the fact that Hartford believes the Torah (which contains the law), which also documents the plagues God brought down on Egypt because of their defiance, and this just adds to the ever growing list of contradictions, fallacies, and absurdities Hartford spews out of his mouth.

Later, Hartford brings up another point of contention he has with Paul's doctrine:
"[@1:13:14] The Messiah said 'let your yea be yea and your nay, nay, for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil', and this is a very easy way to disprove Paul. Paul sweared to God in Galatians 1:20, and that, by Jesus' own lips there, it has come of evil."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 22, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

This is the first point where I could understand Hartford's misunderstanding because, even in my own teachings early on, I taught this partially incorrectly because I did not fully understand what Jesus was contextually focused on in that passage:

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
-Matthew 5:33-37

Jesus started out referring to Leviticus (i.e. "said by them of old time"), which says:

And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
-Leviticus 19:12

And that is what the word 'forswear' means:

forswear (v): to reject or renounce upon oath; to deny upon oath; to forswear one's self is to swear falsely; to perjure one's self
(See 'forswear', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Dec 22, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

This is not to say that the Jews took their vows to the Lord lightly because they cared more for their appearance than they did for judging their own hearts, and so they took vows to the Lord with seriousness because they did not want to appear to be liars. However, they would find loopholes to allow them to take little concern for their oaths without "technically" swearing unto the Lord.

If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.
-Numbers 30:2

The scribes deceptively interpreted Numbers 30 to say that it only applied to them IF they said something like, "As God as my witness, blah blah blah," but if they did not specifically direct it towards God, they would not suffer any consequences for not keeping their word. So what they might do instead is say, "By the heavens, I shall blah blah blah," which they thought would keep them out of trouble for not swearing it upon God Himself, and at the same time, they would still maintain an appearance of "righteousness" because of their sanctimonious words, without any obligation to abide by what they said.

Every way of a man is right in his own eyes:
but the LORD pondereth the hearts.
-Proverbs 21:2

Many years ago, I used to teach that we should not swear any oaths whatsoever and that doing so was "evil," but that is not the case because that is not the sense in which Jesus meant this. If it was evil to swear an oath unto God, then God would have said that very clearly in the law, but He did allow that, so long as the speaker was honest by his words.

Jesus was addressing the hypocrites who said one thing and did another, and being liars, they got to the point where they would swear oaths by things in heaven, things in earth, or by their own heads, in casual conversation (i.e. concerning trivial matters) to make themselves sound like holy men. They did not consider what they swore to be a binding oath in their hearts, and therefore, would not keep their word, so Jesus told them not to swear such things at all.

This does not mean, for example, that someone who takes an oath to a public service position does evil. (e.g. sheriff, fireman, physician, city councilman, etc) For the United States, at the very least, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution offers protection of our God-given right of speech, and even protects speech that is not true, or in other words, lies are protected under the Constitution, and therefore, we need public service men to take an oath of their office for the purpose of holding them under penalty of perjury in the event that they might break that oath.

In like manner, it is not evil to swear to "tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God" in a court of law. Again, in the United States, lies are protected under the First Amendment, and so to be heard in a court of law, one must temporarily (in the courtroom, for the purpose of trial) give up his right to have his lies protected, so that his evidence might be heard with some trustworthiness in court, and will (or should) face harsh penalties for breaking that oath.

This brings us to Galatians 1:

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
-Galatians 1:18-20

Paul is referring to all the things which he previously wrote about concerning his former life, his educational upbringing, the things he did before he was converted to Christ, the doctrine he preached, and that when he traveled to Jerusalem, he only saw Peter and James. This was necessary because of how many people lied about him to manipulate others, so the Christians would know that not only did he take his word with the utmost seriousness, he was bold to put it in writing, and I too have had to do the same on rare occasion, when I knew other corrupt preachers lied about what I had said and done, affirming that I spoke "the truth in Christ," that they would know that I stood boldly on what I saw and heard in my testimony of the events.

Therefore, this is no doctrinal contradiction because Paul took his word seriously. It was the vast majority of Sadducees, Pharisees, scribes, and priests that did not take their word seriously, which is what Jesus was rebuking.

Hartford only believes this is a contradiction because of his (willful) misunderstanding of the context of Christ's rebuke of the Jews. Under normal circumstances, I have no problem with someone making an error and correcting it, and I still make mistakes sometimes and have to correct them, but as I have already pointed out, based on his interviews, book, and personal email correspondance, Hartford has shown no signs that he will be rebuked or corrected on any doctrine, and he makes his decisions about interpretation of the Scripture based on his feelings rather than context, which is why he is forced into using conflation fallacies, strawman arguments, and red herrings in conversation.

Hartford voices his next contention:
"[@1:14:48] Bless them that curse you, that was something that Jesus said, and in First Corinthians 16, Paul curses those who preach any other gospel. Cursing is not a blessing; that's the opposite of a blessing. That was a contradiction between the two."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 26, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

Let's take a look at what Jesus said:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
-Matthew 5:43-44

In this passage, notice that Jesus did NOT say "it hath been said OF OLD TIME" because only the first part of his statement (i.e. "Thou shalt love thy neighbor") is found in the law (Lev 19:18), but the second part of his statement (i.e. "hate thine enemy") is NOT found anywhere in the law or prophets. Therefore, Jesus was addressing sayings that were passed around among the Jews, but were incorrect according to the fulfillment of the law, which is charity. (Mat 7:12)

I will address Hartford's nonsensical argument in a moment, but the place where Paul addresses this doctrine is in Romans 12:

Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
-Romans 12:17-21

This is perfectly correlated together with Matthew 5 because this describes detail of doing good to men that do evil to us, or in other words, loving our neighbor as ourselves, even when they do us wrong. (Mark 12:30-31) Peter wrote something very similar:

Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
-1 Peter 3:8-9

These verses should all be interpreted in the context of not avenging ourselves against the evils done against us, which is what Jesus was referring to in Matthew 5, referencing to Leviticus 19:

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
-Leviticus 19:18

However, Hartford delusionally attempts to correlate Matthew 5 with 1st Corinthians 16, but I think he got his verses mixed up a bit because what he quoted about "any other gospel" was from Galatians 1:

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. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
-Galatians 1:8-9

I suspect he was confusing it with this verse:

If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ,
let him be Anathema Maranatha.
-1 Corinthians 16:22

So let's address both of these passages, starting with 1st Corinthians 16. Simply put, the phrase "Anathema Maranatha" is a mix of Greek and Aramaic words, which generally means to be "cut off from the coming of the Lord" in the day that Christ returns.

Those who have spent some time studying the King James Bible will know that those who do not love the Lord Jesus Christ will be cut off from him in the final days, and He said this Himself:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
-Matthew 7:21-23

So, for example, Titus Hartford puts his faith and hope in his own works because that is what he honors, favors, and values in his perceived self-righteousness. To put faith in one's own works is to severely devalue the cost of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, which is essentially a slap in the face to Jesus Christ. Anyone who rejects the kindness and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ obviously does not love Christ because they do not honor, favor, and value Him, and therefore, because he does not love Christ, and will not come to repentance (i.e. godly sorrow) of his sins, on the day of Christ's return, Hartford will be cut off.

Did I just curse Hartford? No. Jesus Christ cursed him because He has already declared it in His Word; I am just the messenger repeating it.

If Hartford really believed what he was saying, then why does he not condemn Jesus Christ for contradicting Himself?

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
-Matthew 23:13

wo (n): grief; sorrow; misery; a heavy calamity; a curse
(See 'wo', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Dec 26, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

We just read the words of Christ where He cursed those who hated Him. This is because great calamity on the Day of the Wrath of God is going to come upon those who hate the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is called 'truth'. It is a fact. It is unavoidable. Did Jesus say those things to the scribes and Pharisees out of revenge for something specific that they said and did against Him, or did He say this as a warning to them because He loved them enough to tell them the truth?

This is not Christ avenging himself in this moment, and neither was Paul avenging himself for others doing evil against him. Paul did exactly what Christ did, which was to warn them of the truth of what is coming, and because Paul preached perfectly in accord with Jesus Christ, he said that if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

Thus, if a man (like Titus Hartford, for example) would preach another gospel, like replacing the wonderful grace of Christ with works-based ideology, then I will preach the same, to let him be accursed, which means he would be bound to damnation and destruction because he placed his faith in himself rather than Christ. It is absurd to think that this is not loving our neighbor as ourselves; on the contrary, it is the most loving thing we could do because we face the backlash of their hatred, railing, and other evils for simply repeating to them this truth, meaning that we make a selfless sacrifice on their behalf to tell them the truth, which is what it means to love others as ourselves, to give them the same warning of the truth as we were given, even if they hate us for it.

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
-2 Thessalonians 2:10

In multiple instances, Hartford claimed that Paul is hateful and made him a hateful person, but I contend that Hartford made himself a hateful person because the truth sounds like hate to those who hate the truth. Because we Christians have a love of the truth, we do not concern ourselves if men are pleased with what we say, but rather, we love them enough to tell them the truth, even when they hate us for it, as Paul went on to say in Galatians 1:

For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
-Galatians 1:10

Hartford's next contention:
"[@1:16:30] Jesus said 'use not vain repetitions', but in First Corinthians 4:28, Paul said people who use vain repetitions, 'let him speak to himself and to God', talking about speaking in tongues. If nobody understands him, let him speak to himself and to God."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 26, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
-Matthew 6:7

The heathen (i.e. unbelievers, or those who profess belief while operating under pagan ideology) will memorize a "prayer" and speak it over and over again (e.g. Om or Gayatri in Hinduism, or Hail Mary or Our Father in Catholicism), thinking that they receive some sort of small blessing every time they say it. This is nonsense, and Jesus Christ emphasized that they will not be heard at all because they are not communicating with the Lord from the heart; rather, they speak only for a show of works by which they think they will be made holy in their recitation of a special recipe of words, which is no different than a witch trying to cast a spell via magical incantation.

There is no 1st Corinthians 4:28, so I think he was referring to 1st Corinthians 14:28, which says:

But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
-1 Corinthians 14:28

Hartford just lied to the audience because he claimed that Paul was addressing "people who use vain repetitions," which can be very easily proven false by just reading the chapter of 1st Corinthians 14 (i.e. no such thing is mentioned in that chapter), and if anyone wants a full understanding of it, I have an article covering the context of 1st Corinthians 14 in great detail, called "Speaking in Tongues vs Charismatic Gibberish." Again, the context of both passages are very different. There is nothing in that chapter that even remotely approaches "vain repetitions," and personally, I believe Hartford knows that, which is why I am openly accusing him of lying, meaning that he knows what he said was not true, but wants to convince others of the false narrative he created so he can justify what he believes.

Hartford's next contention:
"[@1:17:30] 'Judge not that ye be not judge, for with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged.' That's what Jesus said. First Corinthians 5:12 says the very opposite thing, telling him to judge those that be in the church. So you can judge, or you can not judge, but you can not judge and not judge at the same time."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 26, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

I double-checked what he said in the podcast, so what is written there is not a typo. If you are confused by that last sentence, I just want to assure readers that it is not a mistake in my documentation; that is exactly what Hartford said. I also realize that we covered this subject earlier in this book, but Hartford is now using his fallacious "judgmental" argument once again to condemn Paul, but in his astonishing stupidity, he is blinded to the fact that he is condemning Christ.

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
-Matthew 7:1-2

For what have I to do to judge them also that are without?
do not ye judge them that are within?
-1 Corinthians 5:12

I think Hartford's argument would have greater effect to deceive his audience if he used this verse from chapter two instead:

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things,
yet he himself is judged of no man.
-1 Corinthians 2:15

Hartford's argument is that Jesus told us not to judge anyone, but he conveniently leaves out Christ's commandment to judge righteous judgment, which we read about earlier in this book:

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
-John 7:24

So why does Hartford not accuse Christ of contradicting Himself? That is because Hartford is trying to convince people that he is a "Christian," and he knows he would look like a fool if he did that, despite the fact that he has already played the fool repeatedly in willful blindness.

By saying that "you can judge, or you can not judge," Hartford is saying that Jesus commanded us not to judge, which is not at all what Jesus was saying there. Jesus did not say "judge not that ye be not judged" in the sense that we should not judge to avoid judgment, but rather, He said that we should not judge without considering first that the same judgment by which we rightly judge others will be applied to us as well, which is a condemnation to hypocrites like Titus Hartford.

The reason I point out Hartford's hypocrisy on this point is because he has broken his own interpretation of Christ's commandment by judging Paul:
"[@6:38] Paul was a deceiver, and he was a ravening wolf, and we should beware of the doctrine."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 19, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

If being "judgmental" was wrong, as Hartford indicated earlier, then why is he being "judgmental" against Paul? Why was Hartford so "judgmental" against the police who arrested him? The reason this is so contradictory is because Hartford is not consistent in his doctrine, meaning that he says one thing and does another.

Hartford continues his lunacy crusade:
"[@1:17:57] He [Jesus] says don't take shoes, nor staves, for the workman is worthy of his meat. So he says, don't make any preparations, don't bring shoes, don't bring two staffs [sic], because the workman is worthy of his meat, and what they were supposed to do, they were supposed to go and preach saying the kingdom of heaven is at hand, heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, and cast out devils. But in Second Thessalonians 3:11, and this is used extensively in cults, Paul says, 'If any man does not work, neither should he eat', and he qualifies that as those who wrought with labor and travail like as he did. So basically, Paul forbides people to eat if they don't do work, but Jesus very clearly sent them out without shoes, with a higher mission than just to labor with travail, which is like manual labor... you shouldn't be given things if you don't work for them, and a lot of people agree with that, but that's not the message that Jesus came to give us."
-Titus Hartford, "One Minute Til Midnight - How to Teach Disciples on Freedomizer Radio," Freedomizer Radio, retrieved Dec 19, 2023, [https://www.blogtalkradio.com/freedomizerradio/2020/12/06/one-minute-til-midnight--how-to-teach-disciples-on-freedomizer-radio]

I will address this point, but I want to make it known that even though there is a lot more material from Hartford that I could go over, after hearing him say this, I thought to myself, "I have heard enough." This is beyond ridiculous, and if I exert any more effort on him past this point, I think I will enter the realm of wasting my time.

First of all, Jesus did not tell them to not take shoes, but rather, not to take two sets of shoes, two staves for walking, and two coats. They would obviously have one pair of shoes, one staff for walking, and one coat, but not to take extra provisions because the Lord would have someone provide for them. This was the exchange, namely, that with miraculous power of the Holy Ghost came a price, meaning that they were not to take extra personal money and stock up on resources in exchange for miracles; they were only to take the minimum basic need they had for clothing, food, and travel, and nothing more.

And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
-Matthew 10:7-10

Keep in mind, this was a very specific commandment for the apostles because, today, we have not been given the power to lay hands on lepers to heal them and raise the dead. Therefore, Paul rightly taught that those who work to preach the Gospel of Christ should have a living from it, to provide for their families, despite the fact that he did not take such a living, and that those in the church who might have thought to honor orphans and widows in charity should consider double that charity for those who labor honestly in the Word of God to teach it, and who oversee the church well in wisdom and understanding.

Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
-1 Timothy 5:17-18

The Lord permitted the apostles to have others (by their giving of charity) provide housing and food for them as a sort of wage for their work of preaching and healing, meaning that they would not be required to go out and do other labor apart from that to earn their keep. (Deut 25:4) However, Paul went above and beyond that commandment, and in humility (by liberty and charity, not by constraint), he worked jobs on top of preaching the Gospel to earn his basic living needs (food, shelter, and clothing) because he did not want to be a burden to take anything from the church; rather, he sought only to add to the church.

After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth; And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them. And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought [worked]: for by their occupation they were tentmakers. And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
-Acts 18:1-4

Even though he could have taken the charity of his food and housing as a recompense for his preaching and healing, he chose to do more work to help those whose house he lived in. This was a work of love done for the church, a selfless sacrifice made for them, and one that Titus Hartford, in an unbelievable state of arrogance, condemns as "evil."

Once again, I warn Hartford and others that follow his insane doctrines:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
-Isaiah 5:20-21

Hartford incorrectly correlates this to a completely different context in 2nd Thessalonians:

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
-2 Thessalonians 3:10

This begs an interesting question: Does Hartford believe that the apostles did not work? Does he believe that their traveling and preaching the Gospel, spending time both helping the poor and needy, orphans and widows, and healing the sick, was not work? Does he believe that evangelism is just one long vacation?

It is a basic immutable principle, from the foundation of the world, that those who work will earn their keep, and it was even commanded to Adam from the beginning that he needed to work:

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
-Genesis 3:17-19

If one is going to eat, that means someone has to work for that food, and it is a shame that, in this day and age, that I even need to say that. It is neither good nor fair that one man should be forced to work for everyone else's food (as we might see in a communist nation), when those people have perfectly good hands to work in their own field of expertise; producing something by the sweat of their brows. It is a basic principle of charity for Christians that, if they are able to work to provide for themselves, they should do so, and then, if the Lord allows them to have more than they need, they are at liberty to be charitable to others according to their own discernment based on what they were given.

For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
-2 Thessalonians 3:11-12

The context of the previous verses clearly show us that Paul was referring to "disorderly" people in the church who were doing nothing and taking advantage of those who were working hard. Even though they are capable, lazy people have uncharitable hearts that are willing to consume the fruit of someone else's hard labor without thought of what goes into acquiring it:

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
-2 Thessalonians 3:6-9

Paul set an example of a good work ethic, to be honest in work to earn one's meat. As I have already stated, he could have simply received his meat by his works of evangelism, but he went one step further and worked more for those basic things which he was permitted to have given to him by Christ as a reward for his work, demonstrating his love for the church.

The disorderly people he was referring to are those people which did not work according to the order which God set for mankind, even before the fall of Adam and Eve, because they were to upkeep the Garden. (Gen 2:15) They were "busybodies," meaning that they inserted themselves into the affairs of others, gossiping, tattling and talebearing, without having any work of their own to do, which is still a problem among some today, which do nothing, but act like they are busy.

If they do not want to be removed from the church for their unrepentant sins, they should examine themselves (2Co 13:5), come to repentance of their wrongdoing, and work to change those things for the better. It would be better for us Christians to read these instructions and judge ourselves (1Co 11:31), so that we can all come together in harmony and peace, working to the same charitable goals in Christ, and even work so we may earn enough to provide for the needs of others. (Eph 4:28)
(Read "The Christian Work Ethic" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

In all my life, Titus Hartford is the first man who I have ever heard raise objection to this doctrine because this is a very simple matter of reasoning that even the world can understand. Even unbelievers have a basic understanding that people should work to provide for their households, and the world generally looks unfavorably on lazy gossipers.

He then lies about what Paul said by saying, "Paul forbides people to eat if they don't do work," which is NOT what Paul said. Paul promoted the feeding of orphans and widows who cannot work to feed themselves, and that is part of charity (or as James wrote, "pure religion" Jms 1:27), but rather, Paul addressed "busybodies" specifically, which are people who can work, but choose not to, and live off what the church provides in laziness.

Hartford also said "Jesus very clearly sent them out without shoes," but they were not barefoot by any means. Just because they did not have shoes, does not mean they did not have sandals, which is a different classification, as we learn from Mark:

But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.
-Mark 6:9

Today, we typically consider sandals to be shoes, since in many stores they have signs that read "no shirt, no shoes, no service," but they do allow sandals, showing that we (in modern society) generally view sandals as shoes. However, in Jewish society, there was a different classification on the footware, and thus, Hartford is making a very big deal about them being "without shoes," when the reality is as I said earlier, that they were not to bring a secondary set of shoes with them on their journey because they were not to store up provisions.

Hartford said they had a "higher mission" and that Jesus was bringing a different message to the people, but what he fails to understand is that Jesus was limiting their provisions. That is all. Never once did Jesus say that they could not work for their basic food, clothing, and shelter needs, but rather, He said that they could not take extra provisions because the miraculous blessings of the Holy Ghost are NOT for sale.

Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
-Acts 8:19-22

There is no contradiction between what Jesus taught, what Peter taught, and what Paul taught, but there is a contradiction between all of them versus Titus Hartford. Therefore, I will answer Hartford with Holy Scripture, from the very man he hates so much, and just a couple of verses later in 2nd Thessalonians 3:

And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
-2 Thessalonians 3:14

I have no more interest in addressing Hartford's absurd, childish arguments. By now, I hope readers will see that I have thoroughly proven, through much evidence, that Hartford has no clue what he is talking about, and he is certainly NOT in any position to be writing a book attempting to teach others "How to Teach Disciples."

I found Hartford to be a bit of an anomly because, although Hartford uses the King James Bible (KJB) most of the PvC/JWO videos and websites I found do not use the KJB, and it would not make sense for them to use it because the KJB translators would have to be considered (by the PvC/JWO cultists) to be under deception, since they believed the fullness of the New Testament. If it were true that Paul was a false apostle, then it would not make sense for them to translate according to the contextual analysis of the text, and to obviously agree on its inerrency (as they did), because one could not have the understanding of the Holy Ghost in them and be in agreement with false apostles after that much study.
(Read Why Christians Should Study The King James Bible here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

As an apostle of Jesus Christ, Paul had enemies from the moment he began the work of preaching, throughout his life, and for thousands of years after his death. There has never been a time in history where his epistles were not hated by those who prided themselves in their own works, while hypocritically scoffing at a man who thought himself nothing in this world (2Co 12:11), having no value except the salvation given to him by Christ (1Co 2:2), followed as closely as he could in the footsteps of Jesus, given the gift of miracles by the Holy Ghost, and sacrificed much for the sake of Christ's church.

One of the more well-known examples of a PvC/JWO cultist is Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of the United States of America. Jefferson, as many of the founders, upheld a general Christian moral principle upon which the U.S. Constitution was developed, but he, like many others, was not a Christian; rather, he was a churchgoer much more than a disciple of Christ.

In 1820, Jefferson finished his own version of the Bible, known today as The Jefferson Bible, in which he took scissors to the Four Gospels in Jacob Johnson's 1804 printing of the King James Bible, selecting parts he liked and removing parts he did not like. The parts he did not like were mostly those that included miracles because he did not believe in the supernatural workings of the Son of God.

"Using his clippings, the aging third president created a New Testament of his own—one that most Christians would hardly recognize. This Bible was focused only on Jesus, but none of his mystical works. It didn't include major scenes like the resurrection or ascension to heaven or miracles like turning water into wine or walking on water. Instead, Jefferson's Bible focused on Jesus as a man of morals, a teacher whose truths were expressed without the help of miracles or the supernatural powers of God. Made for his private use and kept secret for decades, Jefferson's 84-page Bible was the work of a man who spent much of his life grappling with and doubting religion."
-Erin Blakemore, "Why Thomas Jefferson Rewrote the Bible Without Jesus' Miracles and Resurrection," Oct 4, 2023, retrieved Dec 29, 2023, [https://www.history.com/news/thomas-jefferson-bible-religious-beliefs]

In a letter Jefferson wrote to William Short in 1820, he said:
"I separate therefore the gold from the dross; restore to him [Jesus] the former, & leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations and falsifications of his doctrines led me to try to sift them apart."
-Thomas Jefferson, "Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 13 April 1820," retrieved Dec 29, 2023, [https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-15-02-0505]

Jefferson had a great disdain for Paul, and we need to keep in mind that it is not Paul which he truly hated, but rather, it is Jesus Christ who he truly hated. One cannot hope to be philosophically consistent by removing Jesus Christ from the miracles He performed because, by doing so, one also removes the divinity from the doctrine, and furthermore, Jesus Christ did not fully expound on all the things He taught, but rather, He sent His apostles to do that work, which means that those who hate His apostles also hate Jesus Christ, and therefore, hate God the Father as well.

This is established by Jesus at the end of John 15 when speaking to His disciples, which would go on to be His apostles:

If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. 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. But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause. But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
-John 15:18-27

Although Jefferson quoted from the book of John in certain passages, as far as I am aware, his watered-down, confetti Bible version omitted John 15. I find that fascinating because, by quoting John, he is acknowledging his belief in the legitimacy of the second-hand testimony from John about the doctrines of Jesus, but he reserves his label of "legitimacy" only for those things which satisfies his spiteful intellect.

It furthermore fascinates me that, of all the PvC/JWO cultists I have read and heard, they all reject the epistles of Peter, even though Peter (like John) was one of the recipients of the message we just read from Jesus Christ in John 15. Jesus said the Holy Ghost (i.e. "the Comfortor") would testify of Him through Peter (as well as the other apostles), and yet, the PvC cultists reject Peter because Peter, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, acknowledged Paul as an apostle who wrote doctrine of Scripture by that same inspiration.

We read this earlier, but let's look at it one more time:

Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 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. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
-2 Peter 3:14-18

Even though Jefferson quoted from Luke in his corrupt bible version, PvC cultists today also reject Luke, as I pointed out earlier. Again, if they accept Luke, then they also have to accept the Book of Acts, which was authored by Luke, and because Luke acknowledges Paul as a apostle of Christ, they rip him out of the Bible as well.

Their beliefs are neither logically nor spiritually consistent. Why hold up the Book of John as true, but reject 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John? (I covered the reason for that earlier, but I am summarizing all these points.) Why reject Revelation when it is also written by John? Why reject Luke on the basis that you believe that it contradicts Matthew? How do you know that Matthew is not the one contradicting Luke? These positions are childish and nonsensical because the reason you reject one should ALSO be the reason you reject the other, but these cultists are idolaters and hypocrites who trust in their own works for self-righteousness, which is why they do not have a consistent position.

Those who hated Paul have been around for a long time, and nothing has changed over the centuries because there are still a variety of modern heretics who continue to lie to themselves, and also lie to others to try to justify themselves. Russell Dibird is another PvC heretic, and with the power of all-caps, he made the following argument:
"Mat 23:9 Do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. However, Paul calls HIMSELF OUR FATHER!!! Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 1 Cor 4:15"
-Russell Dibird, "Jesus And Apostles' Multiple Warnings About Paul's False Teachings," July 1, 2021, retrieved Jan 10, 2024, [https://nonorthodoxy.com/2021/07/01/jesus-and-apostles-multiple-warnings-about-pauls-false-teachings/]

Dibird is using watered-down bible versions, and it looks like the NIV. Let's read the passage from the KJB:

And call no man your father upon the earth:
for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
-Matthew 23:9

For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
-1 Corinthians 4:15

As I have said before, Scriptural context is like leprosy to a PvC cultist because one only needs to understand the context of the verses to understand the meaning. Instead, they fall right into the trap God laid (Isa 28:13), and expose themselves as false teachers.

Earlier in this book, I covered Matthew 23:9 briefly when responding to a nonsensical argument from Titus Hartford, however, Dibird is arguing something different. If you read 1st Corinthians 4 in its context, Paul is talking about corrupt teachers who defame and defraud others by lying about them, and that these men are teachers who lay heavy burdens on others, despite the fact that they will not make any effort to lift those burdens themselves.

For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
-Matthew 23:4

Paul did not mean this in the spiritual sense that Jesus had said "call no man your father," in which men of corrupt minds require a spiritual title of preeminence to lift themselves above others, but rather, he pointed out the difference of mannerism between the teaching of a schoolmaster versus the teaching of a father. A schoolmaster is mostly impersonal, while a father is heavily invested, and in this sense, Paul said they would see and hear tens of thousands of instructors in Christ, which is not to say that all those men were true servants of Christ (because many of them would be false teachers, Mat 7:13-15), but he is saying that a father is more rare, and is one who is intimately invested in his child's understanding and prosperity.

This is why, in the previous verse, he said:

I write not these things to shame you,
but as my beloved sons I warn you.
-1 Corinthians 4:14

Paul never told them to call him "father," there is no evidence that they did, and anyone who understood the analogy would not have done so. There are some of those who listen to my teachings that consider me to be somewhat of a "father" to them in the sense that I have taught them the doctrine and philosophy of Christ for so many years, but they would not address me in such a manner because it would not make any sense to do so. Paul simply pointed out that his relationship with them was more akin to a family, being invested in their good in a similar manner to that of a father to a child, to see them learn, grow, and prosper, rather than a schoolmaster, who is strict and rigid.

So because Paul expressed his love for the church in this way, Dibird falsely accuses him, just like the false teachers of old, and I can relate because I have had many people falsely accuse me in the same manner. If you look up his article, he goes on to say that Paul "was being 'set-up' to be THE Anti-Christ," that he was "controlled opposition," that he was "son of Herod Babylon Mystery Religion Adept" (and included a picture of a pagan fantasy wizard with it), that he was "a roaring lion," that he was a "homosexual" who "queer[ed] the church," and much more.
(See Russell Dibird, "Jesus And Apostles' Multiple Warnings About Paul's False Teachings," July 1, 2021, retrieved Jan 10, 2024, [https://nonorthodoxy.com/2021/07/01/jesus-and-apostles-multiple-warnings-about-pauls-false-teachings/])

That last point peaked my interest because, knowing that PvC cultists are wildly irrational in their argumentation, I wanted to know how they came to the conclusion that Paul was some sort of secret sodomite. The following are the arguments made by Dibird, and the lack of reasonable argumentation turned out to be much more disappointing than I was expecting, but I decided to include this anyway to satisfy the curiousity of readers.

"Paul never married, which was unusual for a first-century Jew, but had a series of younger men as companions."

Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and Daniel were never married, so does that make them all queers? Daniel was also castrated, as were all those who were in service of the King of Babylon, so does that make him "transgender?" These are nonsensical arguments that are based on biased assumption rather than fact.

"He sometimes expressed negativity toward women and homosexual exploitation."

If you were expecting Scriptural references to accompany that statement, there were none provided, which is not surprising at this point. In fact, Romans is one of the few places in Scripture where sodomy/homosexuality is specifically addressed (i.e. the Bible usually just addresses fornication, which encompasses gays and lesbians), and Paul condemned it. (Rom 1:24-27)

"Tormented by self-reproach, he pleaded with God three times in vain to remove an unspecified 'thorn in my flesh' that troubled him. Some believe that 'thorn' was attraction to other men."

Someone saying that they "believe that" is not evidence, and the "thorn in my flesh" Paul mentioned in 2nd Corinthians 12:7 is a figure of speech referring to a loss of eyesight. (Jos 23:13) It is well-known that Paul's eyesight got worse as he aged, which is why his companions (in the case of 2nd Corinthians, Titus and Lucas) had to write down his dictation.

"Homosexuality might even help explain Paul's cataclysmic conversion experience. He went from intensely persecuting Christians to becoming the most articulate leader of the very movement that he had tried to destroy. His vision of Christ left him stunned by the revelation that nothing could separate him from God's love."

After reading that quote, if you feel the need to massage the temples of your forehead, that is a normal reaction because the brain often suffers overload when trying to find non-existent rational pathways in a tundra of absurdity. If Dibird wants to argue that a transformed life after coming to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ is evidence that person is a queer, then every Christian who has ever lived must automatically be labeled a queer.

What is his evidence for this? Dibird refers to a 1991 Los Angeles Times interview with Anglican (i.e. branch of Catholicism) priest John Spong:
"Spong said in a telephone interview from his Newark, N.J., diocese that Paul's words about 'the war going on inside of him is a fairly classic description of what I have come to understand in repressed gay males.'"
-John Dart, "Bishop's Book Pictures Paul as a Homosexual," Los Angeles Times, Feb 2, 1991, retrieved Jan 11, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20201112013934/https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-02-02-ca-234-story.html]

So the grand evidence that Paul was a queer is some Catholic's opinion? If you read Dibird's embarrassing article on the subject, you will see many places where he uses subjective (i.e. opinionated), non-definite phrasing, such as "he believes Paul was gay," and "to me," and "asserts," which are not statements of fact, but at the very least, he provides enough of the quote for us to read that Spong concluded his ludicrous argument by saying, "I don't know that Paul was gay. That's a supposition."
(See Russell Dibird, "Paul Was A Homosexual," July 1, 2021, retrieved Jan 11, 2024, [https://nonorthodoxy.com/paul-was-a-homosexual/])

Dibird has what I prefer to call a "conspiracy ministry," which is not a Biblical ministry at all, but rather, such men focus on conspiracies and think they are doing "bible studies." He is a flat-earth cultist and numerologist (i.e. pagan superstition) who thinks he is a "Christian," switches out bible versions whenever he wants to manipulate the Scriptures to get it to say what he wants it to say, and offers "studies" on various topics, such as "God Made Adam's Body A Hermaphrodite Like Himself," "Reincarnation - Multiple Bible Proofs," and "Nephilim Were Adam's Hermaphroditic Human Children," just to name a few, and this demonstrates just how deep into lunacy a man can fall when he takes scissors to Scripture.
(Read The Heresies of the Flat Earth Cult & "Numerology is Occult Divination" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Davis Danizier is another PvC lunatic who also swaps out watered-down bible versions whenever it suits his purpose. Just like Titus Hartford, Danizier does not believe the Bible is God's Word:
"We should accept the Bible for what it is: often wise and inspirational, but many times filled with error and cruelty. It is an important historical relic, and the original seed from which much of ethical theory in the Western world has developed, but its words must be discussed, analyzed and evaluated on their merits — as the writing of men, not of God. It does not claim to be anything more."
-Davis D. Danizier, "The Blasphemy of Bibleolatry," retrieved Jan 10, 2024, [https://danizier.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/the-blasphemy-of-bibleolatry/]

Hopefully, readers can now see the pattern in PvC cultists: They do not believe in the Holy Scriptures. They are faithless. They believe the Bible is nothing more than the poetic thoughts of men, and ultimately, they become the gods of their own universe, deciding for themselves what is good for literary consumption and what is not, based solely on their personal preferences.

Part of the reason I say this is based only on their personal preference is because I find striking contradictions between them, and there is little consistency when comparing one to another. Some PvC cultists I have read (like Hartford) reject Luke, while others accept Luke, and there are some who accept Jude, while others reject Jude, and this shows us that their decisions are based primarily on their own discretion, as men who worship their own brains.

Furthermore, to say that the Bible does not claim to be the written Word of God is a wild contradiction. For example:

Say unto them, As truly as I live, saith the LORD, as ye have spoken in mine ears, so will I do to you:
-Numbers 14:28

If the Lord God did not say these things as they are written (or rather, if He did not guide them to be written by the hands of men as His own words), then the men who wrote these things down are liars because it would not be something "the LORD saith." It is not "wise" to lie to people, nor is it "inspirational" to deceive others into believing a lie, nor can it be "an important historical relic" because you cannot trust liars to have accurately recorded the history in question, and therefore, if what it says is not true, then the Bible would be a corrupt book that no one should be studying.
(Read God Does Not Justify Lies here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

The Scriptures foretold the coming of Jesus, and the fulfillment of prophecy, which happened, and then Jesus sent His ministers out to preach His Word, giving them the power and guidance of the Holy Ghost to do so. His apostles confirmed the Word of God for the church, and they also confirmed Paul to be one of them, but whether or not you accept this is based simply on whether or not you believe it, and the PvC cultists do not believe it.

Just like Hartford, Danizier offers many nonsensical arguments for supposed "contradictions" between Jesus and Paul, and I have no interest in covering them all because, as I said earlier, after a certain point, it becomes a waste of time to argue with those who act as children in their understanding, rather than being children in their malice. (1Co 14:20) It is the same pattern as all the other PvC cultists; ignoring context in favor of selective quotes to corrupt the interpretation of the verses.

However, we will look at a few examples just to get a general idea of how he corrupts Scripture. The following has to do with 1st Corinthians 5, which we covered earlier:
"Jesus ministered to the sinners, with no reluctance to engage adulterers, prostitutes, publicans, tax collectors, lepers, or any other 'unclean' person (the whole need not a physician; a church is a hospital for sinners rather than a showcase for saints). This, of course, completely devastates the argument that god cannot be in the presence of sin by anyone who believes Jesus was god. Paul contradicts Jesus in 1Cor 5:11: 'But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.'"
-Davis D. Danizier, "Paul vs. Jesus (and James)," Apr 22, 2011, retrieved Jan 10, 2024, [https://danizier.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/paul-vs-jesus-and-james/]

As we covered earlier, the doctrine of the Holy Ghost through Paul in 1st Corinthians 5 has to do specifically with those who call themselves "Christians," but live a life of sin. So, for example, I saw a podcast show in which the host interviewed a woman who openly admitted she was a prostitute, and she said she was also the pastor of a church building, which (sadly) is not as surprising as one might think.

This is a direct contradiction because one cannot live an unrepentant life of fornication and adultery while claiming to be of Christ as the same time. Christians err into temptations of sin at times, but they do not live according to those sins without repentance, and if they do, then we remove them from the church until such time that they come to repentance.

The verses in 1st Corinthians 5 were not talking about conversations with unbelievers, and Paul even says that specifically in the previous verse that Danizier did include in his argument. Understanding context requires reading passages in order and consistency with itself, and as we have learned about the PvC heretics, context is equivalent to the plague.

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
-1 Corinthians 5:9-10

Danizier said something else that was odd, namely, that "god cannot be in the presence of sin by anyone who believes Jesus was god." First, this indicates that Danizier does not believe that Jesus is God, which is not shocking because many churchgoers and corrupt preachers I have researched share this similar false belief, having no understanding that they share that mindset with the unbelieving Jews who crucified Christ.

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. [Jesus identified himself as God, just as God did with Moses.] Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
-John 8:58-59

Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
-John 14:8-9

Perhaps Danizier and other PvC cultists do not understand how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can be three and one at the same time, and I confess that I do not fully understand it either because I am a mere man who cannot begin to unravel the eternal things of God. However, Jesus told Philip that if he did not understand it, to believe it anyone for the sake of the work, so I am going to believe it, whether I understand it or not.

Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
-John 14:10-11

Danizier chose to NOT believe Jesus Christ on this point. I would contend that if he does not believe Jesus Christ on any single point, he believes that Jesus is a liar, and therefore, he cannot offer any reason why he would believe Jesus Christ on ANY point, which makes sense because he does not believe that the Bible is God's Word.

Furthermore, it is a great leap of logic to conclude that just because the Lord God does not permit sin in His Kingdom in Heaven, He "cannot be in the presence of sin." I have been working in ministry for 15 years at the time I wrote this book, and that is the first time I have ever heard anyone make that argument because it does not make any sense.

Abraham was a sinner just like us, but God sat down to lunch with him:

And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree: And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said. And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth. And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it. And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.
-Genesis 18:1-8

Jacob was a sinner, but God talked and wrestled with him:

And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
-Genesis 32:24-30

And if we want to get really technical, sinners will stand before God on the final Day of Judgment. Therefore, there is no logical or Scriptural consistency in Danizier's ridiculous arguments, which is why I have no interest in spending much time unraveling all of the many absurd things he says, not to mention that doing so would likely fill multiple volumes of books.

As I have said many times already, the foundational problem with PvC cultists is that their faith is in themselves and their own efforts, not in Jesus Christ. They can say they have faith in Christ all they want, but they are just vain words because their beliefs contradict the Gospel of Salvation in Jesus Christ, and Danizier provides us another example of that:
"Even in John 3, the discourse to Nicodemus on salvation as a gift of grace, Jesus includes specific behavioral requirements (John 3:19-21). In any case, while some writings (other than Paul) may occasionally discuss faith as a separate topic (as with honesty, courage, etc.), no one (except Paul) ever states that salvation can occur with any of these virtues apart from works/deeds actions. This does not mean that, in teaching us the behavior of salvation that Jesus did not thus give us a free gift far beyond what we could ever earn, a gift of grace, but it does not mean that it was given entirely apart from specified behavioral conditions, as Paul says."
-Davis D. Danizier, "Paul vs. Jesus (and James)," Apr 22, 2011, retrieved Dec 29, 2023, [https://danizier.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/paul-vs-jesus-and-james/]

Danizier stated that "no one ever states that salvation can occur with any of these virtues apart from works/deeds actions," even though the verses he cites are preceeded by a verse that is known by many people around the world:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
-John 3:16

We just read Danizier say, in no uncertain terms, that no one except Paul has ever taught that salvation was gained apart from works, but we just read Jesus Christ tell us that salvation is by FAITH (i.e. "believeth"), not by works. This means that Danizier cites a section of Scripture, out of its context, to justify a false, works-based ideology, which is what I have repeatedly pointed out that PvC cultists do.

To verify this, let's continue through John 3:

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
-John 3:17

The Jews, in their self-righteousness, without love for their neighbor, thought that Jesus (i.e. God) would come to the world to condemn the world around them, but instead, Jesus said He came to save the world. The Word of God, through the law and prophets, already condemns the world, which leaves Christ with no need to condemn sinners, and so even though Christ did condemn men at times (Mat 25:13-16), that was not the purpose of His coming to this world the first time.

Notice that in John 3:17, it specifically says that men would be saved "through HIM," not through their works. This is why He follows it up with verse 18, and this is what Danizier did NOT include in the verses he cited (i.e. he cited 19-21, but left out verse 18):

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
-John 3:18

Of course, repentance (i.e. the humility of godly sorrow for sins) is a vital part of the Gospel of Salvation, as Jesus said in other verses (Mark 1:14-15, Luke 24:44-47), but the main point of this verse is that those who are condemned (i.e. judged to be wrong/guilty) are those who do not believe on the Son of God. Jesus did NOT say that those who do not do a list of prescribed works, deeds, rituals, or ceremonies are condemned, but that is what the PvC cultists choose to believe because they reject the narrow path of Christ in place of their own efforts.

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
-John 3:19

Notice that Jesus did NOT say that this is the path to salvation, but rather, He said that the condemnation (i.e. the guilt of men) is that they hide in the darkness and do not come to the light to be judged with righteous judgment. If they did, they could be given the gift of repentance (2Ti 2:25), and a love of the truth that they might be saved. (2Th 2:10) The light that has come into the world is Christ, not the law, which was only a shadow of things to come (Heb 10:1), and now that Christ has come, all things point to faith in Him, but the Jews hid in the darkness of their sin while holding up ceremonies to make themselves appear "holy." (Mat 23:25) Such hypocrites do not judge themselves (1Co 11:31), and they do not want the Word of God judging them, so they either ignore God's Word, they try to find loop holes in God's Word (as the Pharisees did), or they just cut out large portions of Scripture (like the Sadducees did, and like PvC cultists still do).

For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
-John 3:20

Those who hate Christ and His Gospel do so because it rebukes their evil deeds, and they refuse to hear the truth of Christ preached to them because they do not want to be discovered for their willful error. In the context of this book, the PvC cultists do not want to hear the truth of the Gospel of Christ, they do not want it in its fullness, because it brings them to open shame, to be instructed to depart from the prideful delusions of their corrupt ideology.

But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
-John 3:20

The Christian that acts according to the Gospel of Christ, having faith in Christ established in him by the Holy Spirit, does according to the truth, which means he willingly comes to the light of the Gospel to be judged, judging himself according to those standards, and correcting himself as needed. This demonstrates that his works are a RESULT of his faith, not the source of it, because those deeds are "wrought in God," or in other words, they are done because of the work of Christ in us (i.e. by grace through faith), not the other way around.

However, Danizier does not understand these basic principles, and he, like other PvC cultists, is willingly blind to them. In fact, he is so blind, he goes on to state that Jesus gave us the free gift of salvation "far beyond what we could ever earn, a gift of grace," and this, to me, is hilarious considering that outside of John 1:16-17, grace is barely mentioned in the Four Gospels, let alone the "gift of grace," but it is mentioned MANY times by Paul and the other apostles who Danizier (and the other PvC cultists) rip out of the Bible.

The more I read from the writings of these cultists, the more I see them paraphrasing things that Paul wrote, but then condemning Paul for saying them, which is hypocrisy at its peak. Even though we just read from Jesus Christ (in the contextual verses to that which Danizier cited) state that salvation was by faith, and even though Danizier said that salvation was a gift of grace, he then contradicts all of that to claim that "it does not mean that it was given entirely apart from specified behavioral conditions," or in others words, he said he beliefs that salvation is a gift of grace that is only given if you do certain deeds.

This shows us that the PvC cultists do not understand the basic definition of the word 'grace', and obviously, have no clue of its doctrinal understanding:

grace (n): favor; good will; kindness; the free unmerited love and favor of God
(See 'grace', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Dec 29, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

I believe Noah Webster hit the nail on the head with the word 'unmerited' because that describes the very essence of a gift:

gift (n): a present; any thing given or bestowed; any thing, the property of which is voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation
(See 'gift', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Dec 29, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

If I give a man some money, I have given him a gift, but if I give him money on the condition that he do some work, then it has become a down payment on wages, meaning that if he does that work, then I owe him that money. However, the general position I have seen from PvC cultists is that they have done works before the money, then when I give them the money for those works, they call it "grace," which makes no sense because it is no longer a gift, it is a wage.

wages (n): hire; reward; that which is paid or stipulated for services; but chiefly for services by manual labor; fruit; recompense
(See 'wages', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Dec 29, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

In the view of PvC cultists, salvation is the wages of their work, but they falsely label it "grace" or a "gift" to fool people into thinking that they believe the same thing as Christians. However, all they have proven is that they are either willingly ignorant of what a gift is, or they are liars that deceive others into believing that their wages is "grace," even though that is impossible.

After reading various documents and listening to various videos on the subject, I am convinced that the core of their hatred for Paul is because he strips away their façade of works-based righteousness, which they can never achieve, and exposes the pride of their hearts:

And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
-Romans 11:6

That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
-Ephesians 2:7-10

Earlier in this book, we read from Matthew 7:21-23, but because Danizier made the statement that no one but Paul taught grace apart from works, let's read it again:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
-Matthew 7:21-23

In this context, these are people who, on the Day of Judgment, claim that they served Christ with their works, however, Jesus turns them away to everlasting fire. One might argue that he turned them away because they worked "iniquity," but that begs the question: Why did their good works not pay for their evil works? Why did the works they did for Christ not cancel out their iniquity?

Furthermore, what is the foundation of the church? Did Jesus say that our works were the foundation of His church, or our faith?

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
-Matthew 16:13-18

Faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God is the bedrock upon which the church is built. It is not the works that we do, but rather, faith in Him, and then the works we do come as a result of that faith authored in us.

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
-Hebrew 12:2

However, for PvC cultists, God the Father did not reveal it to them. They do not have spiritual understanding. They still rely on flesh and blood. The truth is hidden from them because they are prideful, and have not been humbled to repentance, which is the key to understanding the latter part of the Sermon on the Mount. (i.e. Matthew 7)

I read the Sermon on the Mount shortly after being saved, but it was not until many years later that it occurred to me (or rather, the Spirit of God helped me to see) what all this really meant. On the Day of Judgment, the Lord Jesus Christ will separate what He called His sheep (i.e. the faithful saints) from the goats (i.e. those who professed to be "Christians," but are not), which, from a distance, may look like they are part of the flock, but on closer inspection, they are not sheep.

And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
-Matthew 25:32-33

Bear with me, because as I walk through the Scriptures on this, it is going to lead us into the doctrine of repentance, even though the word 'repent' is never used in this passage. In Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus told us that the goats argue with Him that they were very dedicated to Him, and based on their testimony, it indicates that they attended their church buildings every week to sing songs about the grace and mercy of Christ, gave lots of money, volunteered their time, took on the roles of prophets, evangelists, and pastors, but Jesus said He does not know them.

Of course, as a believer on the Lord Jesus Christ, this made me tremble in fear (Isa 66:2) because I did not want to be counted among the goats, so I desperately wanted to know what the difference was between the two groups. Since both sides claim to have believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, and we cannot be saved by our works, why are some going to hell and others going to heaven?

What are the goats on the left missing?

Obviously, simply saying "belief on Jesus" is NOT the answer, otherwise, they would all be going to heaven. Another answer some readers might give is "TRUE faith," but that begs the question: "What is the difference between TRUE faith and FAKE faith?"

Thankfully, the Lord Jesus Christ gave us a clue in Matthew 25, so we just need to keep reading:

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
-Matthew 25:34-40

Some readers, especially those part of the PvC/JWO cult, might be thinking that this is a list of works one must do to enter the Kingdom of God, or that we have to do works to the right people to gain credit, but that is not the answer because, as we saw in Matthew 7:21-23, their works did not matter for the salvation; Jesus still sent them to hell despite their works. This is NOT about works, and the mystery to this puzzle is solved by comparing the reactions of sheep with the goats:

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
-Matthew 25:41-46

So on one hand, there are the sheep who, when Jesus Christ tells them of their good deeds unto Him, are confused about how they had done these things for Him, but on the other hand, there are the goats who, when Jesus Christ tells them of their lack of good deeds unto Him, they are confused about how they had NOT done these things for Him. As we read in Matthew 7, the goats argued about how many good works they had done in the name of Jesus Christ. The key note to take away from this is that one group does not see their works as worthy of praise, while the other group demands to be praised for their works.

So what is the difference between the sheep and the goats?

HUMILITY.

humility (n): freedom from pride and arrogance; lowliness of mind; a deep sense of one's own unworthiness in the sight of God, self-abasement, penitence for sin, and submission to the divine will
(See 'humility', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Jan 5, 2024, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

There is a substantial lack of humility among PvC cultists, and it is very easy to find a great abundance of arrogance, conceitedness, self-righteousness, and haughtiness among their preachers and followers. This is because they trust in their own works to save them, or in other words, they hold themselves as the equivalent of Jesus Christ for righteousness, which is why (if they will not be humbled to repentance before the Day of Judgment) Christ will count them among the goats.

In his article, Danizier later says:
"I have been asked occasionally why I believe so many people are willing to follow Paul... It is the easy way. Jesus requires you to actually transform your character and put it into action. Paul says, 'Just have faith and believe' and you get a free gift, without ever having to actually DO anything — something for nothing; the easy way out; the lazy man's way to salvation; the free ride."
-Davis D. Danizier, "Paul vs. Jesus (and James)," Apr 22, 2011, retrieved Dec 29, 2023, [https://danizier.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/paul-vs-jesus-and-james/]

There is a degree to which I can understand the sentiment that there are many lazy churchgoers that are part of what many people refer to as "easy-believism," in which someone simply says they "believe on Jesus," and they are saved, but there is no transformation in their life; they simply attend a church building and do nothing for the sake of Christ and His church. I have seen countless examples of that; however, this is because of the lack of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, not because they did not do enough work.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
-Ephesians 2:8-9

For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
-2 Corinthians 7:10

Danizier, as well as all the other PvC cultists, pride themselves in their works, boasting of them, thinking themselves to be better than others because they have done so many religious deeds, or rather, they have done things which they perceive to be "holy." They scoff at Paul because he was a former Pharisee, but they fail to see that they are Pharisees in spirit because the Pharisees kept the law MUCH more than the PvC cultists, and thus, they cannot exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees because they reject the imputed righteousness of Christ.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
-Matthew 23:23

Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
-Matthew 23:24

Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
-Matthew 23:28

There are other false teachers out there pushing the PvC message, but thankfully, they are somewhat difficult to find. Of course, that begs the question as to why I bothered to write a book about this subject if the opposition is small, but my goal is to strengthen the faith of my Christian brethren in the Word of God (i.e. the King James Bible), so you can not only learn how to understand the Scripture in context, but also move forward with full confidence that your faith is on solid foundation in Scripture.

When someone starts taking the Bible out of context, they come up with a near-endless amount of absurd arguments that they think in their minds are legitimate based on how they feel about the Scriptures they are attempting to interpret. This is why it is better for us to teach the truth of Scripture than to try and unpack every erroneous argument ever made.

However, this does beg the question of WHY they are making such nonsensical arguments, and the reason for it almost always comes down to an attempt to justify their works as the foundation for their salvation. While I was writing this book, I noticed that the out-of-context arguments on the Bible, and the works-based ideology, was strikingly similar to that of the flat-earth cultists, who erroneously preach that the Bible teaches the earth is flat, and I wrote a separate book on their false doctrines called, The Heresies of the Flat-Earth Cult.

In that book, I expound on the idea of "cherry-picking," or in other words, someone who artificially selects a particular phrase from a passage, and uses it to support his/her argument, without addressing context or correlating doctrine:

cherry-pick (v): to choose or take the best or most profitable of (a number of things), esp for one's own benefit
(See 'cherry-pick', Random House Dictionary, 2023, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

For example, let's consider the following verse:

I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall
be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
-John 10:9

If you knew nothing else about the Bible, and I only showed you this verse, I might be able to convince you that Jesus claimed he was a literal door, made of wood, with hinges, and that men pass through that literal door to "find pasture," meaning that we literally go out to a field to feed on grass. However, because we know there are more verses surrounding this passage, we know this is an analogy:

Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
-John 10:7-10

With the context in mind, it is much easier to see the full meaning of the analogy, in which Jesus is describing Himself as a passageway, keeping some in and some out, to protect the sheep. The sheep are an analogy to the born-again Christians who do not literally eat grass, but that which they are feeding on is spiritual from the Word of God, and we can know this from other correlating Scripture.

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
-Acts 20:28

The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
-1 Peter 5:1-4

However, when you rip these correlating verses out of the Bible, you are left unsure as to what Jesus is referring to. Furthermore, when you remove the context and cherry-pick one phrase from a passage (e.g. "I am the door"), you now have no manuscript evidence to interpret it any other way than Jesus being a literal door; you can guess at it, you can assume things based on how you feel about it, but you no longer have the evidence you need to prove it.

This is the sleight-of-hand strategy that PvC cultists use to justify their works to be the foundation of their faith, rather than their faith being the foundation of their works. If that were not absurd enough, Titus Hartford, as well as many other PvC/JWO cultists, claim they abide by the instructions of Isaiah 28 (which we covered at the beginning of this book) when studying Scripture:

For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
-Isaiah 28:10-13

In his interview, I heard Titus Hartford attempt to reinterpret this by saying that this was about "speaking in tongues" because of the "stammering lips." What he obviously does not understand is that the "stammering lips" are the languages of the Gentiles, in which they would be given the Word of God through the Holy Ghost in a language that was not Hebrew (i.e. from the perspective of the Jews, it would be stammering because they did not understand the language), and by this, they would be given the fullness of the Scripture, in context ("line upon line"), with correlating commandments ("precept upon precept"), and adding to it with correlating doctrines scattered through the Bible. ("here a little and there a little")

This is why God prefaced those verses in Isaiah 28 by saying:

Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
-Isaiah 28:9

In their arrogance, Paul vs Christ cultists believe themselves to be superior in their understanding, when in reality, they do not even understand the very basics of the Gospel of Salvation. Yet, they go on to teach in their conceitedness, as if they have wisdom and understanding, and scoff at those who would try to help them understand that they do not know enough of the milk of the Word to teach anything on it.

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
-Hebrews 5:12-14

They press forward to gain followers that will adhere to their pernicious works-based ideology, turning people back to their vomit like dogs. This is why, one more verse earlier in Isaiah 28, God said:

For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness,
so that there is no place clean..
-Isaiah 28:8

For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them 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 Peter 2:18-22

Whether they escaped the bondage of the Gentiles and their sin, or whether they escaped the works-based bondage of Judaism, it is worse for them to have known the truth (i.e. repentance/godly sorrow for sin, and grace through faith in the blood of Christ, Mark 1:15) and turned from it, than for them to have never known it at all. If they knew it not at all, it would be easier to preach the truth to them, but having known it and turned from it, they are similar to pigs going back to the mud from which they were cleaned, except now they think they are clean while in the mud, or rather, they believe they are righteous in their unrighteousness.

God set a trap (i.e. "snare") for these people in His Word, so that while they profess to be godly in the delusion of their self-righteousness, they would be entrapped by their corrupt philosophy and teach false doctrine. A good example of this would be when Jesus preached to the wealthy young man about how to gain entrance to heaven:

And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
-Mark 10:17-22

By the correlating verses in Luke, we know this man was a governing official of some sort (Luke 18:18) who was also very wealthy, and though many have interpreted this to mean that a man must keep the Ten Commandments to "inherit eternal life," they have erred heavily without understanding. When I was a young Christian, I was baffled by these verses, not understanding how on the one hand I was taught that my salvation was by the grace (or gift) of Christ through faith, but on the other hand, Christ answered with the law, and it was not until I gained more understanding through various doctrines that I was able to read this more carefully and understand it fully.

Although some may find this wealthy young ruler's kneeling to be humble, it was misplaced because Jesus addressed him on his unbelief before He told him anything else. The young man's unbelief can be seen by calling Jesus "good," and though that also confused me when I was young, it is key to understand this in its entirety.

Is Jesus good? Of course His is because He is God. Not only is Jesus good, but He is the standard of all goodness, or rather, He is the essence of goodness itself. So why did He rebuke the young man for calling him "good?"

Jesus answered Him this way because the young man did not believe that Jesus is God; rather, He believed Jesus was just a very wise man. Kneeling before a man can be a symbol of humility in certain circumstances, but in this case, he knelt before Jesus for spiritual purposes, giving the honor that should go to God alone unto someone who he thought to be just an ordinary man, which caused Jesus to correct his erroneous philosophy, and give him the understanding that, in the spiritual sense, he should kneel to no one but the Lord God, and should call no man "good" in the spiritual sense except the Lord.

Jesus pointed out his unbelief, then proceeded to answer the young man according to his unbelief. Jesus answered by the law, not because we are saved by the works of the law, but that we are to consider that we have not kept the law, which should bring us to repentance (i.e. broken-heartedness) of our sin against God.

This is why Paul taught the following:

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
-Galatians 3:21-25

Therefore, Jesus showed us the right way to evangelize to the lost: We give them the law. This is why, for many years now, I have told people what a waste of time and energy it is to put up a bunch of "Jesus saves" signs because Jesus does not save the proud of heart; He only saves those who are humbled to repentance, and the schoolmaster that disciplines them to bring them to repentance is the law.

But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.
-James 4:6-10

In order to bring them to that state of repentance, in which they are mourning and weeping in their affliction, understanding their sin for what it is, they must hear the law, and understand that they cannot keep it. Only then do they need to hear the "Jesus saves" message, and only then will it be effective to the hearer.

But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
-Matthew 13:23

The wealthy young ruler then lied to Jesus, and told him that he had kept the whole of the law, which he had not because all have sinned, and just one sin means you have broken all of the law:

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
-Romans 3:23

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
-Romans 5:12

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and
yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
-James 2:10

Jesus did not argue back with the young man on this point because it would have entered into a debate that was unnecessary. Jesus is God, and God has no need to bicker with someone who does not want to hear the truth.

Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest thou also be like unto him.
-Proverbs 26:4

Instead, Jesus answered him by challenging the young man according to the righteousness that he claimed for himself by saying, "go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me." This is because the fulfillment of the law and prophets is charity (Mat 7:12), meaning that a man has no need to keep the law once he has charity established in his heart by the Holy Spirit, and because the wealthy young man had no charity in his heart, he went away grieved over his wealth (which was his true love), even though Jesus still "loved him" enough to tell him the truth.

The humility of repentance (i.e. godly sorrow for one's own sins) is the difference between the sheep and the goats. Repentance is the difference between the wheat and the tares. Repentance is the difference between the saints and false converts.
(Read "Jesus Said There Are Many False Converts" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

This is why John the Baptist, when he came to the people to preach, taught them the humility of repentance, that they ought to be broken-hearted for their sins, so God would grant them His grace:

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the
baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
-Mark 1:4

John the Baptist pointed the people to Jesus Christ (Mat 3:11-15), and the first thing that Jesus Christ taught when He started out in His ministry was repentance:

From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say,
Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
-Matthew 4:17

Jesus taught His disciples what they should teach, and the first thing they preached was repentance:

And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits... And they went out, and preached that men should repent.
-Mark 6:7-12

In Acts 2, after the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles of Christ, the first thing they went out and taught was repentance. The apostles then taught the new members of the church, and the first thing the church went out and taught was that men should come to godly sorrow of their wrongdoing:

But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
-Acts 26:20

And after all the research I have done into the PvC heresies, I would tell PvC cultists the same thing because I am thoroughly convinced that these men have never come to repentance of their sins. The very fact that they think they can work their way to heaven, while scoffing at others who bring to them the Gospel of Grace, is clear evidence that they have not come to godly sorrow for their offenses against God.

And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart [unrepentant; no sorrow for wrongdoing] treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
-Romans 2:3-5

If any reader is not familiar with the doctrine of repentance for the remission of sins, I would highly recommend reading some other books I wrote on this subject, and they are free-to-read at creationliberty.com:

Why Millions of Believers on Jesus Are Going to Hell


There is No Saving Grace Without Repentance

For those of you who read this book in its entirety, I am grateful that you would spend your valuable time to read my work. If you know someone who might benefit from this, share it with them, and I pray the Lord Jesus Christ would richly bless you and your family in all that you say and do for Him.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
-2 Peter 3:9

🔍