A Universal Brotherhood of Jesus-Followers
A Universal Brotherhood of Jesus-Followers: Leading the Masses to Their Second Death
Who could have imagined or contemplated that a Bible Book, consisting of only 25 verses, could be used to promote a universal brotherhood of loving, reconciled elitist masters and their slaves? Guess what? There is a brilliant pack of sheep in wolves clothing (Matthew 7:15) who are doing just that. Three of their leading protagonists and members of this global family of contemplative Jesus-followers, Johan Geyser, Theo Geyser and Melissa van Biljon, aka Mosaïek Kerk, have concocted an entirely new version of Paul’s epistle to Philemon, enticing their listeners to follow them into the contemplative kingdom of this glorious new family of masters and their slaves. Guess who is going to be the Ubermeister of this kingdom? Those of you who truly know God and his Word, know that Antichrist will eventually usher in his own universal kingdom of a false peace, love, and universal reconciliation with a single resolve and that is to destroy God’s creation.
And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. (Daniel 8:25)
Before continuing, it is necessary to remind ourselves once more that their modus operandi, in harmonious sync with their angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:13-14), is to use and quote God’s Word in a twisted fashion, with the motivational intent to transform themselves into universal beacons of light, and thus draw (apospaō) people after themselves (Acts 20:30). Their foremost aim is to rehash and re-interpret the Gospel of salvation in such a way that most people are unable to detect their mischievous deceptions. Here is an example. Johan Geyser is speaking. (Afrikaans speaking people may want to watch the YouTube video of his sermon on 8th July 2018 here).
Can you imagine how desperate Onesimus the slave must have been to put his life on the line when he fled [from his master, Philemon)? That’s precisely what he did. A third of the Roman Empire were slaves and to keep them in check there were some secret police and very severe punishment measures for any slave who did not stick to the rules, and the punishment for fleeing was execution. If you were lucky, you were not executed but you were branded with a letter F on your forehead, and so you would go through life as a slave who tried to flee but were apprehended.
Onesimus could not stomach it any longer. A Christian boss, a roof over his head, food and clothes were no longer enough for him, because one cannot live on bread alone. His soul was dying. He hankered and longed for something more. He wanted freedom; to use today’s terminology – the right to self-determination over his own life. He so much wanted to be appreciated and to be valued as someone to whom others could look up. The life he had made no sense to him and could find no meaning in it. And he saw no opportunity to find it in the circumstances he was, under the political regime, the economical policy, the people with whom he lived, the work he had to do; no chance.
Therefore, he decided that night to flee and he does it, and he reaches Ephesus, a large harbour city where he could vanish, and it was a big achievement. When he arrived there, he happened to meet Paul there, and was saved. Can you imagine how the gospel must have sounded to Onesimus? Onesimus, you are God’s idea. You have come into existence out of Him. He is your Creator and you were made in his likeness and image. Onesimus, you are a person of immeasurable value, and you do not find this treasure in what you do, and who you are, whether you are a slave or a free man, it does not matter. You ‘are’ because God made you, because you belong to Him, Onesimus. He loves you unendingly. He gave his life for you and wants to do life along with you. Onesimus, He has a plan for your life.
Only someone with an imagination as large as a Boeing 997 or someone who has been inspired by the universal doctrines of demons will say something so far fetched and out of sync with the Bible. Paul of Tarsus never once in his entire life said things like:
- “His soul was dying.” Onesimus’ soul and spirit were both as dead as a doornail when Paul met up with him in prison. His soul was not in a process of dying because he wanted to be a free man and neither did he hanker for acceptance by others. Jesus Himself says so in these words, ” . . . let the dead bury their dead.” (Matthew 8:22). Onesimus fled because he stole something from his master (verse 18). PERIOD!
- “You are God’s idea” and “Jesus died for you because you are a person of immeasurable value.” Jesus did not die and shed his blood on the cross because mankind is of immeasurable value in God’s sight. He died because God Himself is immeasurably holy, pure and righteous and cannot allow foul sinners to enter into his Kingdom unless they repent and receive forgiveness for their sins. Jesus Himself said, “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” (Matthew 18:11). Why is/was mankind lost? Mankind is lost because “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23, and by the way, these are Paul’s words, not mine), and because there is no other thing as deceitful as man’s heart which is desperately wicked. (Jeremiah 17:9). Johan Geyser’s word’s “Jesus died for you because you are a person of immeasurable value” offers ample proof of how deceitful and wicked man’s heart is. Please tell me: What is so immeasurably valuable of a heart that is desperately wicked and deceitful? You must be kidding, Mr. Johan Geyser. Paul, who presented the unadulterated Gospel to Onesimus, admitted that he was a wretched sinner who desperately needed to be delivered from the body of this death? (Romans 7:24). What is so immeasurably valuable of a wretched sinner who needs to be delivered from the body that continually seeks after its own desires and lusts? Abraham, the spiritual father of all true believers, said that he was but dust and ashes, and not someone who thought he was the cat’s whiskers, and immeasurably valuable in God’s sight (Genesis 18:27). In fact, when Abraham, the meekest man who ever lived, said this he was echoing what Paul would say centuries later in Romans 3:12: “They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable (worthless, useless); there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” (Romans 3:12) Johan Geyser and his fellow ‘Jesus-followers’ are deliberately removing the offense of the cross by their devilish sweet-talk of love and reconciliation, and their pampering of man’s egotistical itching ears who just loves to hear that they are immeasurably valuable in God’s sight.
Should we be surprised in the way Johan Geyser and his fellow-compatriot Jesus-followers present their adulterated universal gospel which is no gospel at all? I really don’t think so because the demoniac spirits of Rob Bell and Ron Martoia, who has been an honoured speaker at several of Mosiek Kerk’s conferences in the past, are still wandering through their unholy corridors of deceit, and whispering their ungodly doctrines into their ears and hearts while they sit in stillness and contemplate their so-called prayers. Rob Bell, for instance, also attributes to mankind an immeasurable value and worth by taking it a step further when he says:
Rob Bell
“God has an incredibly high view of people. God believes that people are capable of amazing things. I have been told that I need to believe in Jesus. Which is a good thing. But what I am learning is that Jesus believes in me. I have been told that I need to have faith in God. Which is a good thing. But what I am learning is that God has faith in me.” – Rob Bell (Velvet Elvis, p. 134) (Emphasis added).
To him, as it seems to be with Johan Geyser as well, faith is merely a good thing which needs to be enhanced by God’s faith in them, to make it an even better thing, and then they have the nerve to shut up the kingdom of God to their congregants. Ron Martoia is wretchedly more deceptive than both Rob Bell and Johan Geyser when he says:
Ron Martoia
CONOVER, N.C. (ABP) — Despite decades of tweaking evangelistic methods, there is little evidence that many Christians are experiencing true life change, Ron Martoia told church leaders Jan. 29. (Read he entire article here.)
Perhaps, the church consultant said, that failure is because Christians in the Western world have been prone to think of salvation as a “point-of-sale” transaction that focuses on getting to heaven instead of appreciating that Jesus came to fulfill the Old Testament promise of shalom, a concept that suggests wholeness, wellness, and peace.
Based on surveys he has done, Martoia said nine out of 10 pastors define the gospel as the good news that Jesus died for people’s sins so they can go to heaven. But Jesus rarely said anything about getting to heaven. He focused mainly on present human needs. Jesus’ self-stated mission, as found in Luke 4:16-19, is derived from Isaiah 61:1-2 and incorporated the Old Testament sense of bringing deliverance, healing and wholeness.
Preaching about forgiveness from sin becomes increasingly ineffective in a postmodern world where a sense of guilt and obligation is less often operative, Martoia said. In contemporary American culture, one can no longer assume that people identify themselves as sinners in need of grace.
“People may not think of themselves as sinners going to hell, but they seek wholeness and recognize they’re not there,” he said.
Thus, Martoia suggested that the Genesis 1 creation of humankind in God’s image (imago Dei) is a better starting point for evangelism than beginning with the “fall” story of Genesis 3: “What would it be like for us to begin the conversation with people as if we’re trying to live out the image of God in us and want them to live out the image of God in them?”
The inner imago Dei creates the yearning to believe that there is purpose to life, that life can be better, and that belonging is possible, Martoia said. It’s a trio of longings that correspond to faith, hope and love, he said.
Helping others identify and get in touch with the image of God in them is more of a process than a one-time transaction. And seeing the gospel through imago Dei calls for an apologetic that begins relationally, not just rationally, Martoia said. (Emphasis added)
This is precisely what the Mosaiek Trio, Johan and Theo Geyser, and Melissa van Biljon have been doing in their sermons on Philemon – that is, to conjure up an immeasurable value and worth in you by laying emphasis on the Imago Dei (Image of God) concept. Indeed, everyone was made in the image of God but that does not give anyone an open door to heaven. Sin, wickedness and rebellion against God have scarred his image in us to immeasurable depths of lostness and could only be reconciled by the immeasurable love of God as shown in the torn and bloodied body of his Son on the cross, as He bore our sins for God the Father to vent his anger and righteous judgements on Him instead of us (Isaiah 53:1-12). Mosaiek Kerk rarely or ever speaks about the sinfulness of mankind because one of their gurus, Ron Martoia says, “Preaching about forgiveness from sin becomes increasingly ineffective in a postmodern world where a sense of guilt and obligation is less often operative. In contemporary American culture, one can no longer assume that people identify themselves as sinners in need of grace.”
A Universal Love and so-called Wholeness That is Leading the Masses to Their Second Death
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. (Proverbs 14:12)
The origin of the well-known expression “love to death” is not known but everyone knows what it means. The meaning thereof is to –
- love someone very much.
- feel extremely strong affection for someone.
- love someone all your life, i.e. till you die.
The death referred to in the maxim is physical death and involves the undying love of one person for another until he or she passes away. It is a love that ceases to express itself as soon as a person dies. This kind of love endeavors to –
- never hurt the person loved.
- never speak evil of the person loved.
- care for the one loved.
To love someone to death is highly commendable and honorable. However, there is another love that is magnanimously more important than this. It is a love that reaches out to as many people as possible – not to love them to death – but to keep them safe from the second death. This love first and foremost –
- loves the truth and will never water it down for the sake of keeping one’s reputation, friends and even the respect of one’s own family members.
- cuts to the heart like a two-edged sword.
- speaks the truth in love.
- never compromises the truth for the sake of family and friends.
The wrong and often overemphasis on “love” and “relationships” are noticeably the most seductive and deceptive tools Satan has designed to forge you into a relational instrument of “love” for your fellowmen, family members and offspring without having to bombard them with biblical doctrines. There are numerous examples to illustrate how his universal “loving deception” has infiltrated just about every church on the planet, and the saddest thing is that most Christians have been conned into believing his “lovey-dovey relational” lies. Paul may have had this in mind when he wrote:
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
“Itching ears” seem to have been replaced with “applauding hands” in some churches, of which Mosaïek Kerk in Fairland, Randburg, is a splendid example. Nowadays, the thousand plus congregants who regularly attend church on Sundays, heartily clap their hands whenever they approve the universal “wisdom” oozing from the lips of their Buddhist-stylized gurus. Hand-clapping reverbed once again in the Mosaïek Teatro on Sunday 1st July 2018 when Johan Geyser’s twin brother, Theo, balked at the command to “earnestly contend for the faith” (Jude 1:3) and instead focused on the new universal relational aspect between a father, a mother and their children. He based his sermon on the book of Philemon, the third shortest book in the Bible with only twenty-five verses.
When Theo Geyser began to speak, I thought his message was going to develop into a solid evangelical and biblical pearl of price with which one could easily fall in love with at first sight. My eyebrows started to twinge up and down with twinkling-eye speed and shock when he began to fulminate biblical doctrine. The word to describe the dichotomy that crept into his message with universal Sophia-like stealth is “UNIVERSAL COMPROMISE.” The dichotomy between his rendition of what the differences are between wisdom (Sophia) and knowledge, shone through plainly in his closing words.
I want to end off by asking you how you are aging; what drives you? . . . I and you must be a dad and a mom. We must raise children . . . not just biologically but also spiritually. I hope there is just a little spark set ablaze in you that the problems we have in our country [and] in other countries can be addressed; there is something that can fasten its jaws on the evils of racism, nationalism, all the “isms,” economical exploitation, and can paralyse and drain it, and heal it. [We need] fathers who are not afraid to say it and who know how it feels to find themselves in the terrible uncomfortable position to stand in the middle [with outstretched arms] and to hold it all together (hold it fast).
It makes one wonder how the Gospel would have sounded like on the Day of Pentecost, and how it would have been dispersed throughout the world if Peter had encouraged people to cultivate sharp tooth jaws, and to clench them deeply into the evil Roman Empire’s racist, nationalist, economic and exploitative regime, instead of saying “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” As you may have noticed, Theo Geyser is not one to present the unadulterated Gospel of God but prefers to tickle the ears of his hearers with a universal social Gospel, allegedly based on wisdom and love, the reason being, as he himself said, to avoid coming across as someone who loves bullying people with biblical dogmas (doctrines).
His strong aversion to biblical doctrine becomes even more strained when later in his sermon he says that “truth is not a golf club to hit someone with.” This was one of the rare moments in his sermon where he managed to speak the truth in love. Indeed, God never says that we should hit someone with a golf club whenever we want to drive biblical doctrine with a hole in one into peoples’ minds. Not all Christians are privileged to own an expensive golf bag packed with equally expensive golf clubs or to host a golf club day like Mosaïek Kerk. However, what true Christians do possess, which, by the way, is completely “mahala” (for free), is a two-edged sword that is even more potent than a golf club because it cuts to the bone and divides asunder and reveals the hidden things of the heart (mind).
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12).
In genuine Sophia-like and loving contrast to God’s two-edged sword, Theo Geyser denies that insight is acquired through one’s mind. What he means, of course, is that you need to go into a trance by means of contemplative prayer (literally go beyond your rational mind) before you can grasp the deeper and wider things of God. Mosaïek Kerk’s hierarchy are incessantly calling upon their congregants to go “deeper and nearer” but never seem to come to the knowledge of the truth (2 Timothy 3:7). It is merely one of their mind-control methods to keep their congregants in Onesimus-like slavery (pun intended) to their heresies.
Johan Geyser’s and Mosaïek’s social Gospel is summed up perfectly by one of Jacques Bornman’s mentor’s, Anne Lamott who said:
“Lighthouses don’t go running all over an island looking for boats to save; they just stand there shining.”
Lamott’s cryptic remark may seem to be a pearl of wisdom from the lips of the goddess Sophia herself — but what does she really mean by it? A Google search led me to make an astonishing discovery. Oddly enough, people who were puzzled by her cryptic remark presented the best answers. On the Reddit quote website, the conversation on the meaning of her remark, transpired as follows:
Ok, I’m admittedly I’m a bit slow today. What does this even mean?
She is a Christian, so I think the meaning is that you shouldn’t go around trying to “save” people (convert them), but rather to live your own life as a shining example that will inspire others.
Sadly, this is the brand of universal Christianity unbelievers are exposed to when it is compromised for the sake of unity, oneness, and love, albeit a hellish love. It doesn’t require much of the grey matter between your ears (rational and intellectual mind) to realize why her, and particularly the contemplative mystical gospel, sounds so sumptuously alluring and pleasant in the ears of unbelievers, and so-called Christians, who have experienced a conversion to Christianity and not to Christ Jesus. Not so surprising, is the fact that Lamott’s social lighthouse gospel of not having to go around to save boats from the raging waves of the seas, has filtered through to the Mosaïek Kerk’s corporate mind, which, admittedly, is unable to comprehend the truth that his bigger than their own understanding of it (a.k.a. Jacques Bornman).
To illustrate how Theo Geyser cleverly morphed Paul’s epistle to Philemon into a social gospel, which is no gospel at all, we need to magnify a few things he said in his sermon.
Follow Jesus (Jesus Who?)
Theo Geyser
(Afrikaans speaking readers can watch the Youtube video here)
Ever since the Edenic serpent sunk his poisonous fangs (jaws) into the Emergent Church, many biblical terms and expressions have deliberately been changed to fit into their widespread apostasy. Words such as repentance, salvation, redemption, sin, and following Christ have taken on an entirely new meaning in their contemplative vocabulary. In the introduction to his sermon on the book of Philemon, Johan Geyser, confirms the semantic paradigm shift that has been taking place over the years in the Emergent Church. He said,
There are a bunch of theologians who reckon that if we had nothing of the New Testament and we only had these twenty-five verses, we would have had enough on how to follow Jesus; we would have had enough to address this world’s biggest economic, social and spiritual problems.
Apart from the very slim referral to salvation in Paul’s words, “I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds” (Philemon 1:10), there is not the slightest tittle in the epistle to Philemon to teach us how to follow Christ. In fact, the only places in Scripture where Christ Himself explains how his disciples ought to follow Him, are in Matthew 16:24, Mark 8:34 and Luke 9:23. Mystics in the Emergent Church regard “following Christ” in terms of service to the community, especially the poor. To follow Christ, according to their thinking, is to copy or follow the example of Jesus Christ. Although these things should be part of a Christian’s make-up, they are not necessary to follow Christ Jesus. You can serve the poor to your dying day and still not be a follower of Christ. Hence Geyser’s deliberate misrepresentation of the use of “diakonia” in Paul’s epistle to Philemon. Denying oneself (your carnal proclivities that are at enmity with the Holy Spirit) and taking up one’s cross have absolutely nothing to do with service (diakonia). Following Christ in the way He defined it in Matthew 16:24 may well lead to a life of loving service, but the compassionate service itself is not the following. Had that been true, any Tom, Dick, and Harry, including the Dalai Lama who is believed to be the world’s number one icon of universal compassion and love, would have been a super-star Christ-follower.
Diakonia
Theo Geyser continues to explain that Paul was a doer and not just a loudmouth preacher, and that’s why he says, he felt so strongly about his Christian duty to submit himself in love to serve others. Diakonia, says Geyser, is an act of love in the serving of food because this, in particular, happens to be what a slave is supposed to do. That is why says Geyser, Paul used the word diakonia no less than 37 times. Any Berean who loves to search the Scriptures to test those who preach in churches will see that Paul never used the word “diakonia” 37 times. He used it 21 times while the rest appear in Luke, Acts, Hebrews, and Revelations. Admittedly, this is not a sin deserving of the second death. Nonetheless, it shows how easily the Mosaiek fraternity manages to hoodwink their listeners into all kinds of lies.
Diakonia, of which there are at least five different meanings, contingent on the context in which it is used, may have a very slim chance to address the world’s economic and social problems, but it cannot possibly deal with the world’s spiritual problems. If the diakonia of those, who say they are Christ-followers to meet the needs of others by collecting and distributing charities, had been able to address the world’s spiritual problems, Jesus Christ and his cross would have been superfluous. Who needs Jesus when your charity can change the spiritual maladies of the world? Stephan Joubert, one of Theo Geyser’s and Mosaïek Kerk’s mystical buddies, seems to think so. He said
“Remember, every person that you serve turns into an immediate friend of Jesus. Go one step further: see him or her as Jesus in disguise” – (Emphasis added) (Stephan Joubert, Echurch).
Theo Geyser has already gone one step further when he slammed his “diakoniac” jaws into the evils of society and sanctified the devilry of sangomas and witch doctors with his mystical sweet smelling holy water by saying: “Maybe a sangoma can be an opportunity to meet Jesus.” These are two examples of how Emergent leaders have latched on to Rick Warren’s infamous statement quoted below, and are running with it like a pack of wolves in sheep’s clothing.
On January 27, 2008, Rick Warren stated,
“I think we need a second Reformation in the church about how we behave. The first Reformation was about creeds. I think the second Reformation needs to be about deeds…” That very same day he told Dean Samuel Lloyd of the Washington’s National Cathedral that “the future of the world is not secularism, it’s religious pluralism.”
As you may already know, South Africa has its own champion religious pluralist, Uncle Angus (Mighty Men) Buchan who once said on a YouTube video, “We need to come together. We have to put our petty differences aside. I’m talking about doctrinal issues.” Where Angus Buchan got his “petty doctrines” from, is a universal mystery; the word “petty” is as absent between the pages of the Bible as teeth are in a chicken’s beak. In fact, every iota and title of God’s doctrines are extremely important, so much so that whoever put them aside, is a false Christian.
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. (2 John 1:9-11).
Yet, Theo Geyser says that whosoever earnestly contends for the faith is a bully who likes to peg-hit people with a golf club and that could, as he believes, hurt a disguised Jesus, even a sangoma who may look like Jesus. What do these disguised Christs of Stephan Joubert and Theo Geyser look like? Who are they? Brian McLaren summed it up as follows in his book “A Generous Orthodoxy,” p. 60
“I must add, though, that I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts.”
His chameleon orthodox generosity shines brilliantly bright in the subtitle of his book which looks like the Antichrist’s confession of faith.
Why I am a missional, evangelical, post/protestant, liberal/conservative, mystical/poetic, biblical, charismatic/contemplative, fundamentalist/Calvinist, Anabaptist/Anglican, Methodist, catholic, green, incarnational, depressed- yet hopeful, emergent, unfinished Christian. A confession and manifesto from a senior leader in the emerging church movement.
You can only be one or more, or even all these things in a society when the teeth of the diakoniac jaws of wisdom and love have firmly fastened itself on the evils of racism, nationalism, all the “isms,” and economic exploitation, and have paralyzed and healed it. Theo Geyser said in effect that man’s moral and spiritual problems do not lie in his heart but in the system he’s inherited and belongs to. Change the system, and you are half-way through changing society, its beliefs, and the relational mindset. A cursory observation and reading between the lines of Theo Geyser’s sermon on Philemon make this very clear.
Instead of focusing on the essential message of the epistle, which revolves around Paul’s deeply felt urge and responsibility as an apostle of God to reconcile a master, Philemon, who had been saved through Paul’s preaching, and a slave, Onesimus, who had illegally procured something from his master and fled (verse 18), but also received Christ as his Saviour in prison under Paul’s preaching, Geyser depicts Paul as a radical activist who dug his diakoniac jaws into the Roman system. Listen to what Geyser said:
He (Philemon) had slaves and one of his slaves fled, Onesimus. And he met up with Paul in prison; he also began to follow Jesus, and Paul wanted to send him back to Philemon. Now, this was an incredibly radical thing to do. Number one, to send him back would have been unthinkable because a master had the right to kill his slave whenever he abandoned him. And then, you live in a system that forces you not to go against it; you cannot do anything else.
It is nearly something like motor vehicles today. We know it is bad for the environment; we know it is bad for the earth. If every person who lives on this earth should drive a car, we will not be able to, we know it is so. But is so convenient and it is so difficult to change it. That’s the problem. You tamper with a system that’s incredibly powerful; you meddle in the affairs of money, the economy and so many other things.
No one dared to say anything about this system, slavery. And Paul tries to say something to Philemon that when he returns, and he will return, not to kill him. He knew it was his prerogative, but to receive him in a different way, not as a slave but as a family member, as a brother. And how Paul goes about doing it, is to be a father. He does it and writes as a father.
One thing is certain, Theo Geyser’s critical explanation and interpretation of Paul’s epistle to Philemon are miles away from being biblically correct. Had it been Geyser who had written the letter to Philemon, he would probably have said something as follows,
I fully realize that you, as a new follower of Christ, are in bondage to the Roman legal system and that you have no other option than to kill Onesimus for his felony of having abandoned you. That’s what the incredibly powerful Roman system demands of you and you dare not do anything else. I am no prophet, but I can only guess what it would have been like if we drove motor vehicles in the same way the future earthlings are going to do in the 21st Century.
[Geyser begins to cough uncontrollably]. I’m so sorry, but the . . . cough, cough, cough . . . fumes are killing me, in the same way it is killing the environment. We know it is bad for us, but it is so convenient. I sincerely hope you understand my allegory of cars and their bad fumes having such a bad influence on our environment.
It illustrates how convenient it is for you follow the system’s laws and to let them kill (crucify) Onesimus without any further ado. But please, I beseech you as a father, of yourself and of Onesimus, to stand firm and refuse to succumb to the evil Roman system’s laws on slavery. Please, please, don’t kill Onesimus but receive him as a brother. Indeed, receive him as if it were myself who had returned to you.
Paul, who had been indirectly guilty of the murder of the first martyr, Stephen, would never for one single moment, have believed that Philemon would kill his slave, if and when he returned to him, despite the authority the Roman system’s legal authority had given him to do so. In fact, it was the stoning of Stephen and his subsequent persecution of the church that led him to believe that he was the chief of sinners (1 Timothy 1:15).
Why would the chief of sinners, who realized how intensely sinful it was to kill anyone, including slaves, bid a fellow partner in Christ not to kill Onesimus when he knew that he loved the Lord? (1 John 3:15). It should be as plain as daylight, even to a mystic like Theo Geyser, that Philemon, who had been saved sometime before Onesimus, must have been familiar with the Lord’s words in Matthew 5:22, 44.
What’s more, there was no need for Paul to exhort Philemon to love Onesimus, instead of hating him to the extent of having him killed for his criminal offense. Why? Well, Paul knew Philemon was a man who loved his brethren and fellowmen and would do nothing to harm anyone, notwithstanding Theo Geyser’s assertion that you couldn’t do anything else contrary to the system’s demand to kill run-away slaves. I doubt whether Paul would have thanked and praised God for Philemon’s love and faith, which he had toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all saints (Philemon 1:4-5), if he had the slimmest of suspicions that Philemon would kill Onesimus.
As a matter of interest, many commentators believe that it could have been Onesimus and Epaphras who told Paul about Philemon’s faith in Christ which was the source of his love for all the saints. His treatment of slaves, therefore, could not have been anything different from his love for the saints, especially when a slave himself commended him for his faith in Christ and love for the saints. The question is: Why did he flee from his master when he too was a benefactor of Philemon’s faith in Christ and love for the saints?
Some may argue that Onesimus was not a believer when he abandoned his master, causing Philemon not to love him. Philemon was a rich man with many slaves of whom no one else, except Onesimus, abandoned him. It proves that Onesimus did not plot or plan his flight in advance because he was sick and tired of Philemon’s faith in Christ and love for the saints. He must have done something that prompted him to flee in haste. He evidently robbed his master (verse 18).
The relational love between a believer and an unbeliever cannot possibly be the same as the relational love between two believers who love and serve the same Master, Jesus Christ. Yes, the believer may love the unbeliever in the very same way Christ loves the unbeliever for the sake of winning his soul, but an unbeliever does not and cannot have any relationship of such with a believer.
Onesimus must have sensed this when he told Paul that Philemon loved the saints, knowing full well that he was not one of the saints (a redeemed sinner), and could possibly have experienced it in this way when he ran away. Who knows? However, the fact remains, that Paul was not addressing the Roman’s system’s laws on capital punishment and the possibility that Philemon would kill Onesimus the moment he returned to him. Paul was more concerned about the restoration between a master and his slave for the sake of the Gospel, and the effective spreading thereof by making them fellow-workers in Christ.
Paul already alludes to this when, in the opening words of his letter to Philemon, he affectionately ties together the words “agapētos” (beloved) and “sunergos” (fellow-laborer). “Agapētos” is a derivative of “agapē” (divine or godly love) which shows that two persons can only work together as fellow laborers in Christ when God’s divine love had been poured out in both their hearts. This, we shall see as we go deeper into Paul’s heart in his efforts to reconcile Philemon and Onesimus, was precisely what he accomplished, that is, to make master and slave fellow workers in Christ, and not to simply save a slave from being slaughtered by a Christian who served Christ and love the saints, because he allegedly had no other choice but to obey the laws on capital punishment of the Roman system, as Theo Geyser asserts.
Modern Universal Semantics
According to Alfred Korzybski (1879-1950) the Polish-American independent scholar who developed a field called general semantics, which he viewed as both distinct from, and more encompassing than, the field of semantics, new universal views and perspective on any given subject can create or recreate a universal transformation in your thinking, and ultimately in your behaviour. This is precisely what the Emergent Church and its adherents have been doing since its inception, and of which Mosaïek Kerk has become a dominant promoter. No one said it better than the heretic Tony Jones.
“We do not think this [Emerging Church Movement] is about changing your worship service. We do not think this is about . . . how you structure your church staff. This is actually about changing theology. This is about our belief that theology changes. The message of the gospel changes. It’s not just the method that changes.” –Tony Jones (“A New Theology for a New World.” A workshop for the 2004 Emergent Convention in San Diego)
Brian Mclaren wrote:
“We should consider the possibility that many, and perhaps even all of Jesus’ hell-fire or end-of-the-universe statements refer not to postmortem [after death] judgment but to the very historic consequences of rejecting his kingdom message of reconciliation and peacemaking. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 67-70 seems to many people to fulfill much of what we have traditionally understood as hell.” – Brian McLaren
These charlatans would be charged with fraud, copyright infringement, and theft if they should dare to change a single note in an opera or great classic musical score. Nevertheless, they have the gall to manhandle, change, rip apart to pieces, and tread on God’s Word. (Revelation 22:19) with no compunction whatsoever. It’s little wonder that there are so many semantic conversions, especially in the realm of occult experiences (induced by contemplative prayer, meditation, and Lectio Divina), and occult programmes (courses) like Alcoholics Anonymous which was started by a drunk, Bill Wilson.
Melissa van Biljon
You may ask ‘What on earth does this have to do with semantics and Paul’s letter to Philemon?’ Well, quite a lot, if you consider how today’s false teachers juggle words and their meaning to suit their universal agendas. The only difference between Mosaïek Kerk’s, Brian McLaren’s and Tony Jones’ semantic shenanigans, is that Mosaïek’s semantic tomfooleries are far more dangerous.
For instance: Their preachers will never openly say in public “we need to change our theology for a New World”, or “Hell is merely the consequences people suffer when they reject Christ’s Kingdom message of reconciliation and peacemaking.” They have a far more deceptive and subtle way of telling you that reconciliation and peacemaking open the doors to God’s Kingdom.
There are several examples from Theo and Johan Geyser’s, and Melissa van Biljon’s sermons on Paul’s epistle to Philemon that need to be examined. (Melissa van Biljon’s sermon in Afrikaans can be seen here). Before we dig into that, we first need to understand what God says about reconciliation. To begin with, it is certainly not the consequences of the rejection of Jesus Christ’s Kingdom message, especially when this kingdom is a false one dreamed-up by the universal Emergent Church Kingdom-now fraternity, of which Mosaïek Kerk is still very much a part, although they might deny it.
Reconciliation, in the biblical sense of the word, is not merely the restoration of a friendship or relationship between two rivalries, whose relationship of love and respect was intact sometime in the past and then grew sour when they became enemies for some reason or another. Except for Adam and Eve who lived in a complete state of innocence for a time (not knowing what obedience and love toward God meant), mankind in toto has never been in a position to say, “We have always walked and lived in a right(eous) relationship of love, obedience, and harmony toward God, until we rejected his Son’s Kingdom message of reconciliation and peace. So, now we have decided to return to God and have our former right(eous) relationship with Him restored through his Son, Jesus Christ.”
The reason why this is brought to the fore is to illustrate how the Mosaïek fraternity and their Emergent buddies have peaked to perfection the usage of their universal semantic magic wand, especially to remove from peoples’ minds the offense of the cross (Galatians 5:11; 1 Peter 2:7-8). Here are a few examples. In a sermon on Paul’s letter to Philemon, which Melissa van Biljon delivered at the Mosaïek Teatro on 1st July 2018, she said the following.
Jesus always made people feel welcome. The number one rule of the Kingdom – Everyone is welcome. Everyone! The only ones who are excluded are those who shut themselves out because they are proud and hard- hearted. Everyone is welcome.
There’s no gospel here, no gospel at all. She is not presenting the God of the Bible who reveals Himself as a God of holiness, of righteousness, justice, purity, and who is of holier eyes than to behold iniquity, and who has a just penalty for sin, and who can only be reached through Jesus Christ. You only need to feel welcomed by Him and not harden your heart and reject his Kingdom message.
Imagine Jesus having begun his mission with these words, “Hi everyone, I have come to bring peace and reconciliation on earth (a.k.a. Matthew 10:34-36). So please don’t reject my Kingdom message by stubbornly, hard-heartedly and proudly shutting yourself out.” No! He said, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.” (Mark 1:15). It is not an invitation; it is a command to morally feel compunction and deep regret for your rebellion against God, and your desperate need to be forgiven all your sins which you have committed against Him and Him alone (Psalm 51:4).
To emphasize her “everyone is welcome” theme, Melissa van Biljon continues to name a few instances where Jesus Christ made people feel welcome.
- “Jesus visits lepers. No one dares to touch them. He tells them: ‘You are welcome.'” There are only two incidents in the life of Jesus where he healed lepers which proves that He did not go around healing lepers left, right and center and saying to them “You are welcome.”. The one incident is recorded in Matthew 8:1-4 (Mark 1:40-45) and the other in Matthew 26:6-13 (Mark 14:3-9).
- “The demon-possessed. No one wants to come near them. He goes to them and says ‘You are welcome. Come, follow Me.'” Of all the demoniacs Jesus healed in Peter’s home in the early eve (at nightfall), after his healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (Matthew 8:14-17), there was not a single person to whom He said, “Follow Me.” Neither did He offer any such an invitation to the Gadarene demoniacs whom He healed (Matthew 8:28-34). In fact, in Mark’s account of the one Gadarene demoniac who had been healed, Jesus encouraged him not to follow Him when the man begged to go with Him.
As Jesus was getting into the boat, the man who had been demon-possessed begged to go with him. Jesus did not let him, but said, “Go home to your own people and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you.” So the man went away and began to tell in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him. And all the people were amazed. (Mark 5:18-20. NIV).
This begs the question: Why do the leaders of the Mosaïek Church and their Emergent Church compatriots make such a big fuss about following Jesus, when He Himself often discouraged and disallowed some, even those among his disciples, to follow Him?
Now when Jesus saw great multitudes about him, he gave commandment to depart unto the other side. And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest. And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead. (Matthew 8:18-22).
Whether the man, a disciple of Jesus, obeyed Him and willingly forfeited his material gains as the first-born of his family and began to follow Him, we do not know. What we do know is that the man, whose father was well and alive at that time, valued his inheritance more than being a follower of Jesus. He was a disciple but thought that he could pick up and lay down his discipleship at will. Following the Creator of all things was more important than going back to spiritually dead people who are waiting to bury their physically and spiritually dead flesh and blood.
Jesus didn’t seem to think very highly of conserving relationships between family members when those relationships interfered with his command “follow me.” (Matthew 10:37-38). At another occasion, a man who boasted that he had kept the Law from his youth and, incidentally, also treasured his belongings more than being a follower of Jesus, felt discouraged when Jesus told Him, “Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.” (Luke 18:20-30).
From these examples, it is very clear that improper motives disqualify one from being a disciple of Jesus. Motives articulated in words like “I must add, though, that I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts” (a.k.a. Brian McLaren) and “Maybe a sangoma (witch doctor) can be an opportunity to meet Jesus” (a.k.a. Theo Geyser). As you can see, Theo Geyser, voiced exactly the same sentiments about the Jesus they follow, as the one McLaren follows. It is not the Jesus of the Bible but another Jesus. Johan Geyser goes a step further in his following of McLaren’s definition of discipleship, that is, to follow Jesus in whatever religion you may be niched when he and others in his church sit like little Buddhas in their own little idolatrous niches.
Most of their sermons on how to follow Jesus are swamped with references to well-known mystics and even occultists to draw ‘universal’ disciples after themselves, instead of Jesus Christ. Luke writes:
I know that after I am gone, [false teachers like] ferocious wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; even from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse and distorted things, to draw away the disciples after themselves [as their followers]. (Acts 20:29-30).
In her sermon on Paul’s letter to Philemon, Melissa van Biljon endearingly mentioned the AA programme of Bill Wilson who, we know from his biography, actively participated in séances, and the Roman Catholic mystic, Theresa of Avila.
Melissa van Biljon said:
If we withhold someone from the Kingdom, then we are actually withholding ourselves. We close the door to ourselves.
I doubt whether she realized what she was saying. Jesus once said: “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). You can only shut up the Kingdom of heaven against people when you are not saved or claim to be saved and present people with a false Gospel.
Jesus never said that we should invite people to become his followers in the contemplative way Richard Foster advocates and Theresa of Avila practiced. In fact, anyone who sanctions or pronounces a blessing on the teachings and practices of Theresa of Avila and her modern-day neo-gnostic friends is shutting up the Kingdom of heaven and preventing others from entering (2 John 9-11). In her example of the Samaritan women whom He met at Jacob’s well (John 4:4-42), to illustrate how Jesus welcomed people to enter his Kingdom, she said something that is completely alien to the Gospel of God.
The Jews never mixed with the Samaritans. It was something unheard of. He arrives at a well where He meets a Samaritan woman. He sits with her. He speaks with her, and He opens the doors (plural) of his Kingdom for her.
She may have done so inadvertently. However, when you listen to her accolades to Bill Wilson of the AA addictive 12 step programme and Theresa of Avila, we may safely assume that she does indeed believe that there are more doors than one to God’s Kingdom (John 10:9).
Teresa of Avila (1515-1582)
Richard Foster, a Quaker theologian and founder of Renovare (started in 1988), who asserts that everyone, believers and unbelievers, have an “inner light” that lead them to truth while they wait and listen to its subjective leading (to go beyond your rational mind, according to Mosaïek Kerk’s fraternity), particularly with the assistance of contemplative practices such as “The Silence” and “Centering Prayer,” acclaims Teresa of Avila (aka Teresa of Jesus) as the foremost authority on Christian mysticism in his book “Celebration of Discipline.”
According to the Encyclopedia Americana Teresa of Avila founded the first of her laborious Carmelite monasteries in 1560 with the full approval of the Roman Catholic authorities. She became acquainted with St. John of the Cross in 1567 who believed that pain and suffering play a crucial role in salvation.
The biographer, Gerald Brenan wrote,
“With stones for pillows, their feet wrapped in hay, among . . . crosses and skulls, the friars remained praying from midnight to daybreak while the snow drifted through the tiles onto their clothes. . .. Their only other possessions were a few books, some scourges [for self-administered penance and sharing in Jesus’ suffering] and bells and five hour-glasses [for precisely regulating their schedule]” (Gerald Brenan, St. John of the Cross: His Life and Poetry [Cambridge University Press] p. 15).
According to Harper’s Encyclopedia of Mystical & Paranormal Experience Teresa of Avila herself “was plagued by ill-health much of her life.” She became very sick with malaria in 1538 and fell into “a death-like coma for three days” and was “unable to walk for three years” (p 610). The Encyclopedia continues to say:
During her illness and convalescence, she took to daily mental prayers, which in turn led to her experiences with mystical prayer. She attributed her recovery to St. Joseph. In 1555 she experienced visions and revelations. In 1557, after a two-year gap, she experienced her first ecstasy, when she felt carried out of herself. After that she had many extraordinary mystical experiences, including visions of Christ and a sense of his presence at her side…
She spent long periods in intense meditation, which she called the “prayer of quiet” and the “prayer of union.” During these prayers she often fell into a trance, and at times entered upon mystical flights in which she felt as though her soul were lifted out of her body. She likened ecstasy to a “delectable death,” saying that the soul becomes awake to God as never before when the faculties and senses are “dead” (ibid)
The Roman Catholic Universal Church’s affirmation that she was healed by a deceased human being, St Joseph, is not only blatant necromancy but blasphemy at its worst. Those who look to her for spiritual guidance are not presenting the Gospel of God but the ecumenical church’s Neo-Gnosticism and laying the foundation for Antichrist to set up a false king of peace, love, and reconciliation.
Teresa of Avila is believed to be one of the “Incorruptibles” despite her having been buried in wet mud. Her best friend, Father Gratian, cut off her left hand which he wore around his neck for many years. Since then her body has been exhumed and reburied several times to cut off some of her body parts for relics. This is the kind of gospel Mosaïek and the Emergent Church are presenting to their congregants. It is not of God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Spirit. It is another gospel of another spirit.
I doubt whether Melissa van Biljon will heed this warning. Most of their leaders and congregants never listen to sound doctrine and refuse to repent of their universal Anti-Christ teachings. However, it is my heartfelt wish and prayer that she does listen and hastily ventures to repent.
