Category Archives: J.D. Faust

J.D. (Joey) Faust is pastor at Kingdom Baptist Church in Venus, Texas. He is a noted exclusionist who believes that carnal Christians will be physically punished with fire in the millennial kingdom. He has written one book of note, The Rod, Will God Spare It?, purporting to be an exhaustive history of the teaching of exclusion. Other writings can be found at http://kingdombaptist.org.

The carnal pursuits of kingdom believers

Variously termed “word of the kingdom” or “kingdom exclusion,” this branch of dispensationalism is a curious mutation of Christian evangelicalism. Predicated upon the formula of “faith only,” exclusion ultimately adds “…plus works,” which is the cornerstone of the teaching.

Arlen L. Chitwood, a leading proponent of this doctrine, writes:

“The salvation of the soul, unlike the salvation of the spirit, is conditional. The salvation of the soul is dependent on the life one lives after his spirit has been saved. It is dependent on the individual allowing the Spirit of God to impart spiritual truth into and control his life through his own spirit.” — Salvation of the Soul, p. 13

Chitwood later modifies his teaching, omitting the word conditional (see here), but he does not explain why he has done this. One senses he is aware of a contradiction in his thought, but he continues to insist that soul salvation is “dependent on the actions of the individual.” Cornerstone Christian Fellowship in Jacksonville, Florida — a church that promotes Chitwood’s writings — avows that “the salvation of the soul will be realized at the Judgment Seat of Christ and is determined by works” (source).

At its core, exclusion promotes salvation by works, emphasizing works and the carnal nature of humans so dominantly that faith becomes a mere prerequisite, not an end unto itself. Beginning with grace, exclusion ends with works — a direct contradiction of Paul’s teachings in Galatians (chapters 1 and 3 particularly).

The problem of exclusion

Chitwood and Cornerstone Christian Fellowship are not alone in advocating faith-plus-works. Joey Faust, a Texan pastor who popularized the term “kingdom exclusion,” argues that God will punish, not forgive, carnal Christians, teaching that God will literally beat unfaithful Christians with a rod of fire in the millennial kingdom. The rod, incidentally, proceeds from Christ’s mouth! (This notion is so bizarrely literal that it is incredible that even a few people take it seriously.) Ultimately, according to Faust, punishment, not the blood of Christ, redeems man from sin.

Contemporary exponents of this teaching are preceded by the likes of Robert Govett (1813-1901) and Watchman Nee (1902-1972), men who argued that sins committed after a person’s conversion are not covered by the blood of Christ exclusively. At the culmination of the ages, works are necessary for salvation to be complete. For justification of this doctrine, Govett and Nee employ passages relating to “kingdom rewards,” but insisting that rewards are a product of God’s grace, not man’s effort. At the critical moment, however, exclusionists argue that salvation is ultimately accomplished by works.

The contradictory nature of this teaching arises from vacillation. At one moment, exclusion expounds works; at another, faith. At no point are exclusionists able to reconcile faith and works, grace and human effort, ignoring almost entirely the doctrine of sanctification. Instead, they proffer soul salvation.

Nearly everyone who advocates exclusion champions eternal salvation by Christ’s death at Calvary. What they are reluctant to say, however, is that a person is not ultimately saved by Christ’s death at Calvary. Seeing man as a tripartite being (i.e. having three parts — body, soul, spirit), exclusionists argue that only the spirit of a person is saved by grace through faith. The soul and body are redeemed by works. How one can possibly argue that salvation is by grace alone and by works, I do not know. Such is a contradiction of the plain and explicit meaning of scripture.

Deeper, more concerning issues

It’s not merely that exclusion contradicts scripture; worse still, it hobbles Christians spiritually. All that can result from it is futility and despair. Frequently, church schisms occur after exclusion is introduced into an evangelical community. Even marriages are disrupted, as evidenced from the many e-mails I receive monthly on this topic. As the spiritual well being of Christians is the chief concern of God, so should it be ours.

The tragedy of this teaching is that it attempts to address a legitimate question: What are we to make of sins committed after ones conversion? Is believing in Jesus a “get out of jail” free card? Is grace a license for sin? Certainly not, for Jesus and the apostles make it clear that saints are not to live in sin. But what does God do about sins committed after a person is saved? Does he just ignore the failings of his saints? Exclusionists handle the question in his manner: they argue that “carnal” Christians will lose the salvation of their souls, receiving physical punishment in the millennial kingdom (typically exclusion from the glories of God); afterwards, carnal Christians will obtain eternal salvation.

(I should note that many teachers of this doctrine assert that the penalty of carnality persists throughout eternity.)

The problem is that millennial punishment is never mentioned in the Bible. No matter how closely one reads Revelation 20, a section of scripture that explicitly mentions the millennial reign of Christ, no mention of temporary punishment is found. It’s simply not there. Further, the question of sins committed after conversion is addressed in scripture. Consider the apostle Paul’s response to the question –

What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. –Romans 6:15-18, ESV

Notice that Paul does not say carnal Christians will lose the salvation of the soul; instead, he directs the reader’s attention to the sanctifying work of God that leads to fruitful living. Paul shifts the focus from works of the flesh — “you… were once slaves of sin” — to works of the Spirit — “[you] have become slaves of righteousness.” This is how Paul — and also the apostles and Jesus — addresses the question of sins committed after conversion. Anytime a person returns to his or her own deeds, or his or her own righteousness, that person exchanges the goodness of God for a lie.

Who has bewitched you?

The most challenging doctrine of Christianity is the belief that no effort of a person can save that person. This truth is so absolute as to allow no modification, amendment or improvement. A Christian must rely entirely upon the grace of God from the day of conversion to his or her final breath. To rely on ones own effort — even for a moment — is to fall utterly short of the goal.

Yet, works are necessary, even required. “Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?” (James 2:19). C.S. Lewis wonderfully describes this apparent contradiction in a lecture found in God in the Dock:

The controversy about faith and works is one that has gone on for a very long time, and it is a highly technical matter. I personally rely on the paradoxical text: ‘Work our your own salvation… for it is God that worketh in you.’ It looks as if in one sense we do nothing, and in another case we do a damned lot. ‘Word out your own salvation with fear and trembling,’ but you must have it in you before you can work it out. But I have no wish to go further into it, as it would interest no one but the Christians present, would it?

How can it be that works do not save, yet are required? How can it be that human effort is futile, yet is necessary? The key is found in how one starts and finishes the race of faith.

In scripture, whenever works are championed, the apostles recall grace: “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Gal. 3:1-3, ESV).

What begins in faith must end in faith.

Ultimate faith

Some time ago, I was conversing with a Christian brother about the “word of the kingdom.” He very succinctly stated the principal issue is that “it’s all about carnality.” Kingdom believers, he explained, are so concerned about the works that they ignore the Spirit. The result is spiritual decline.

Scripture teaches us that if we want to be perfect as God is perfect, we must rely entirely upon God — in faith and also works. Yes, works are necessary, but, like grace, good deeds come from God. The idea that my effort can increase or improve upon God’s effort is preposterous and spiritually deceitful, “for to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace” (Rom. 8:6, ESV).

This is the ultimate step of faith: to trust that God will finish what he has begun.

A last word

I have been studying the “word of the kingdom,” on and off, since 2005, and for two reasons: first, the teaching had been introduced into my community, causing division, and I wanted to know what it was that I might rightly discern it; and, second, because so little has been written critically about exclusion, a teaching by no means limited to the people mentioned in this article. In my studies, I have made several shocking discoveries, but none so great as the following.

Arlen Chitwood claims he teaches the “full counsel of scripture,” that he teaches what the Bible says and nothing more, nothing less. Yet a search of his writings, all available in digital form, reveals he never addresses the doctrine of sanctification once. How can this be? Even in passages key to his argument, that specifically mention sanctification, he is silent. The fact is, Chitwood offers soul salvation as a substitute for sanctification.

In the final analysis, and I offer this article as a sort of final word on the topic (at least for the time being), this is the reason nothing good can come from the “word of the kingdom,” because it entirely undermines the message of the gospel. It is such a ridiculous falsehood as to give fresh significance to Paul’s admonition to the Galatians: “O foolish Galatians! … Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”

His words still resound.

FUQ: “Frequently Unanswered Question”

Update (March 31, 2011): Still no reply from anyone in the “kingdom believing” camp. One individual did email that soul salvation was indeed conditional, but that it was entirely by grace. Unfortunately, that statement is contradictory.

—————————–

I’m often criticized for “attacking” Chitwood or Wilson or Faust, etc., but few who offer this criticism are willing to answer this one, very simple question:

Regarding “soul salvation,” is the soul EVER unconditionally saved by grace through faith?

Chitwood plainly states that the soul is NEVER unconditionally saved by grace through faith, and he goes great lengths to make this point (article link). Some will argue that “soul salvation” does not apply to eternal salvation, but to gaining or losing rewards in the millennial kingdom. That sounds fine, but, if the soul is NOT PRESENTLY saved by grace, will it EVER be saved by grace — unconditionally? I believe this is a fair question, though I doubt any will offer a reply. The consequences would be too unpleasant.

If my critics say, yes, the soul is ULTIMATELY saved UNCONDITIONALLY by grace, then “soul salvation” (as taught by exclusionists) is total nonsense. If my critics say, no, well, now they admit that salvation is not by grace at all, but by works. Typically, my critics want to occupy a sort of middle ground. Such ground does not exist. Either the soul is saved UNCONDITIONALLY or CONDITIONALLY — it can’t possibly be both!

I ask my critics that, before they post a comment or send another contentious e-mail, answer the question: Is the soul EVER unconditionally saved by grace through faith?

I patiently await your replies.

J.D. Faust’s book is just total nonsense

J.D. “Joey” Faust’s sole claim to recognition is his supposed chronicle of the history of the accountability movement; however, The Rod, Will God Spare It? is anything but scholarly. In fact, it’s impossibly bad.

Briefly…

1. Faust assumes anyone from antiquity who writes about the millennial kingdom is also writing about exclusion, i.e., the punishment of carnal Christians in the millennium. His source for these ancient documents is a CD-ROM, which he apparently word-searched to find relevant information. Unfortunately, the mere mention of the millennial kingdom in these documents qualifies the author as a kingdom exclusionist. That Faust has made of an actual study of these documents is dubious.

2. Faust’s interpretation of allegorical texts is utterly pedestrian. He actually envisions a rod of fire protruding from Christ’s mouth in the day of judgment! (Incidentally, the image on the book cover is equally ridiculous.)

3. Faust’s criticism of the Catholic doctrine of purgatory is painfully hypocritical. He assails the church for representing purgatory as a “place,” but then spends chapters discussing where his form of exclusion will occur literally. He makes no effort to describe what Catholic purgatory actually is, and judging from his sources, it is doubtful that he knows anything of the doctrine. (I’m not endorsing the doctrine of purgatory, but I do expect its critics to at least represent the doctrine accurately.)

4. He is a King-James-onlyist.

5. He, and the few people he numbers in his church, are about the only people who believe his version of exclusion. His interpretation of scripture is so utterly unique, he contradicts nearly everyone else whom he lists in the text as allies of exclusion.

The book, which is really simply a bad outline of a book, fails completely to make the case for exclusion, rendering it the work of neurotic or else a heretic.

Baptist preacher attacks Joey Faust’s “bizarre” doctrine

Don’t know much about the pastor in this video — he appears to be a devout, fundamentalist Baptist preacher — but I found his comments on Joey Faust, pastor of Kingdom Baptist, interesting. That Christians could end up in hell, which is what Faust teaches, is indeed an extraordinary heresy. The pastor in this video connects Faust’s teachings to those of Jehovah Witness’s.

Note, this pastor preaches the strange doctrine of “King James onlyism” –

Frankly, his teaching regarding the NIV is as heretical as Faust’s teaching on soul death.

What we have here is a faction of Baptist preachers forming a “house divided.”

Comments on Dr. Greg Dixon’s apology for Kingdom Exclusion

“Now if I am to be considered a heretic because of what I believe God has led me to understand from His word, then so be it.” — Dr. Greg Dixon

Comments on: Dr. Greg Dixon on Kingdom Exclusion

It should be understood that a radical form of dispensationalism undergirds Kingdom Exclusion. Writes Dr. Greg Dixon, defending his belief in it, “My journey in this area really started with a search for material on the parables that would be consistent with my eschatological position of pre-mil, a literal 1,000 year reign, etc.” Despite seeking a doctrinal point of view consistent with his beliefs in a “literal 1,000 year reign,” Dixon imposes allegorical interpretations onto Revelation, particularly chapter 20.

Kingdom exclusion is entirely absent in Revelation 20, the one part of scripture that explicitly describes the millennial kingdom. No mention is made of so-called carnal Christians being excluded, nor of temporary punishment. By importing texts from other places in the Bible, namely the parables, Dixon claims to “see” exclusion in Revelation. His chief influence is J.D. Faust’s The Rod:Will God Spare It?, which Dixon argues displays impressive “scholarship and meticulous research.”

Briefly, a word on The Rod: Will God Spare It?: It’s not meticulously researched. In a chapter on Catholic purgatory, Faust never once cites a Catholic source on the subject. His representation of the doctrine is grotesquely inaccurate. (Ironically, as he goes on to describe kingdom exclusion, he creates a doctrine quite similar to Catholic purgatory!) None of his primary source citations from the earliest centuries of Christianity even mention exclusion (let alone a rod of fire), despite Faust’s assertions that they do. Dixon’s description of the text is uncritical and somewhat juvenile.

His concern that he may be deemed a heretic is extreme, but telling. If he is guilty of anything, it is simply bad theology. Writing on forgiveness, he explains, “If believers do not want to be judged for their sins at that Judgment, then God has made provision through His precious blood based on I John Chapter one and two for forgiveness and continual cleansing to maintain fellowship (sanctification). It is an ongoing, daily responsibility of the believer through the Word of God and the Spirit of God to maintain this continual cleansing.” John never mentions this form of “continual cleansing.” Apart from referencing 1 John (cf. 1 John 1:9), Dixon does not explain.

The scriptures rather speak of a one-time cleansing, a moment in time, a point, that has continuous effect in the life of a believer (cf. Romans 5:19 & 6:10). In 1 John, the apostle does not say that confession continuously cleanses sins committed intermittently in the life of a believer, but that confession (once) cleanses a person of “all unrighteousness.” Believers are exhorted throughout the scriptures to rely on the gospel message they received when they first believed, not on the institution of confession.

Dixon’s explanation of Kingdom Exclusion devolves into little more than an endorsement of Faust’s book, not an actual explanation of Bible truths. In the end, exclusion is simply imposed upon the texts of the Bible. If Dixon prefers a literal reading of Revelation, perhaps he can explain where and when the exclusion of so-called carnal Christians occurs.

Is it possible to read Revelation literally?

literal (adj.) — in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word (resource)

When Christians talk about reading Revelation literally, what do they mean? Is John the Revelator literally addressing seven contemporary churches (circa 90 A.D.), or is he addressing the church today? I have always considered that John was speaking to his contemporaries, but I also maintain that Revelation is for the church today. However, I believe it must be read figuratively in many places.

Nearly all kingdom exclusionists hold that Revelation should be interpreted literally, but what is meant by that varies.

Some insist upon a literal reading of all passages. For example, J.D. Faust maintains that a “sharp two-edged sword” actually comes out of the mouth of Jesus (cf. Rev. 1:16 and elsewhere). “After the judgment seat, the fiery sword of the Lord’s mouth will judge Christians that have lived unfaithfully and have not repented in this life.”[1. The Rod: Will God Spare It?, p. 148, emphasis Faust’s)] Should the reader really understand that a “sharp two-edged sword” actually proceeds from Christ’s mouth? Is not that reading forced?

Others indicate that Revelation should be understood literally and figuratively in some places, but figuratively in other places. For example, Arlen L. Chitwood maintains that the church of Laodicea was literally a church in a physical locality, but that we must also accept “the Laodicean Church of today” as a true, spiritual (i.e. figurative?) entity.[2. Judgment Seat of Christ, http://www.lampbroadcast.org/JSOC11.html.] In other places, no literal meaning is to be accepted. For example, Chitwood maintains that Christians will suffer the hurt of the second death, but not literally. In a reply to an e-mail inquiry, Chitwood explains, “Where Scripture uses metaphors, I’ve remained within that framework.” He adds, “Christians being cast into outer darkness, Gehenna, a furnace of fire, or the lake of fire, are simply four different ways Scripture uses to point to the same thing, using four literal things in metaphorical senses.”[3. Between May and June of 2008, I posed several questions to Chitwood by e-mail, and we maintained a brief correspondence on the subject.] Unfortunately, he does not explain what will literally happen to so-called carnal Christians at the judgment seat of Christ. Perhaps, nothing will happen.[4. In his published writings, posted at LampBroadcast.org, he makes no mention of the things he confessed in his e-mail. When I pointed out that most of the followers of his teaching believe Christians will be literally cast into the lake of fire, he discontinued our correspondence. His followers, such as John Herbert, a pastor at Cornerstone Christian Fellowship, teaches, “Those Christians denied a position with Christ in His kingdom, because of the choices they will have made during their Christian life, will find themselves outside of the heavenly city, separated from the Light, in the lake of fire for the duration of the Millennial Kingdom” (http://www.cornerstonejacksonville.com/files/messagenotes/2005-11-06_matthew13_12.pdf). A similar view is held by another Cornerstone fellowship in Los Gatos, California. Adapting notes from Herbert’s outlines, Jeanne Alley presents the following: “And if we choose not to heed this warning, the consequence are given in – Revelation 21:8 ‘But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.’” In this instance, she is not speaking of the unsaved, but “ourselves here in the local body” (http://www.cornerstonelosgatos.com/EphesiansPartEight.php — opens as a PDF).]

If anything, Revelation should be read comprehensibly, should it not?

.

Mechanics: How does it all work?

About a year or so ago, I spoke with J.D. Faust about kingdom exclusion as part of my research. Faust is the author of The Rod, Will God Spare It?, a text which purports to recount the history of exclusion theology (it’s decidedly not that, but rather a presentation of his own theology). Within five minutes of the conversation, we were debating the topic. I did not make secret my reservations about KE, and posed several challenging questions. Faust, liking a good argument, posed several challenging questions of his own. Essentially the argument rested on the question of what we are to make of sin committed after ones conversion. Sins committed before conversion are obviously forgiven — a person can do nothing to absolve ones sins except rely on the grace of God. But what are we to make of sins committed after conversion?

Continue reading

Baptist purgatory

J.D. Faust writes in The Rod, Will God Spare It? that Kingdom Exclusion is not a type of “Baptist” purgatory, but he does little to explain the distinction. He does not say what purgatory is, nor does he explain how KE is not simply a reworking of the Catholic idea of purification and purgation.

Certainly, KE and purgatory are not the same, but they are not very different either. Both propose that carnal Christians will be purified/punished before attaining full salvation. Faust believes this will be realized in the millennial kingdom; the Catholic Church in purgatory. The nature of that experience and its duration varies, but beyond that, the ideas are the same.

The modern Protestant form of purgatory appears to originate with Watchman Nee (I can find no earlier proponent of the teaching). He held that carnal Christians will be purified in the lake of fire (cf. Rev. 20 — though that text does not mention carnal Christians, but unbelievers). Arlen Chitwood holds a similar view, except he sees exclusion as a form of punishment, not purification. Faust holds that exclusion is punitive, but that carnal Christians will be beaten with a celestial rod, not cast into the lake of fire.

(For an analysis of Nee’s view, visit http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/lc.html#purgatory.)

Strangely, exclusionists like Faust, Chitwood and Nee would have a stronger position if they adopted the Catholic stance, for, as it stands, they possess the idea, but no real evidence for it. KE/Purgatory is not represented in the canonical texts, but it is attested in some of the writings of the church fathers. Without those witnesses, KE rings hollow.

J.D. Faust gets it, er, doesn’t get it

Among kingdom exclusionists, Pastor Joey (J.D.) Faust is something of an authority, having published a book on the topic — more an outline — entitled, The Rod, Will God Spare It? On his church website, he expresses frustration that KE writings are often banned by religious organizations like GES.

In an on-line challenge, Faust writes:

Robert (Bob) Wilkin of Grace Evangelical Society has banned Govett, Pember, Panton, and “The Rod: Will God Spare It” from all book-tables at GES Conferences. Yet, Wilkin teaches that some true believers will end up in “outer darkness.” Wilkin believes that these various warnings (i.e. in Hebrews, Matthew 25, etc.) are only figurative in nature, and do not imply that some unfaithful believers will be excluded from the Millennium and/or suffer any physical punishments (i.e. stripes, etc.). It appears that Wilkin actually believes that outer darkness is ETERNAL for some believers!

As a casual observer, I note the following: If Wilkin believes the warnings in Hebrews and Matthew 25 are figurative, he cannot believe — as Faust implies — that the punishment is “ETERNAL.” What is understood figuratively cannot be understood, well, how should I say it? — what is understood figuratively cannot be understood literally. If the warnings are to be understood figuratively, the punishments must equally be figurative.

We’ll have to leave it to Wilkin to explain the nuances of his argument, but based on Faust’s presentation, Wilkin’s views are not outrageous.

On a final note, Faust complains that Wilkin has ingorned requests to debate the matter, and he implies that Wilkin’s silence suggests deficiency of argument. I note that I have challenged Faust (see Kingdom Exclusion: A theological challenge — and I notified him by e-mail), and he has not replied. Should I ask, “Why the silence?” No, I should not. Faust is welcome to reply or not, as is Wilkin.