Failing Forward is not the Gospel

When is it alright to speak things in God’s name that He hasnt said? When is it alright to misuse the name of God and speak of a different Gospel than that of Christ Crucified? Answer: Its never alright to break the second commandment. Yet, so many do it, either in a pulpit, a stage, or on the internet. The goal of this post is to help you to see that just because someone says something about God doesn’t always mean it’s true. Go to the biblical text and read it in context. Always keeping your eyes on Christ because He is what the Bible is about (John 5:39)

If you want to read more posts like this check out and subscribe to

If you have a comment, question, or a sermon you want reviewed to be featured in an upcoming post send them to me via the contact page.

Armour of Christ

Today I will be discussing an article in the Christian Post, the article can be found here. The article is titled:

The Bible heroes who fell forward

ByGreg Laurie, CP Contributor

I’m going to show my hand a bit early on this post. As I read this article it seemed very much like most American Evangelical sermons. There was little scripture, there was mention of something that we aren’t doing and motivation to do that something better, and no mention of repenting of sins, Christ Crucified for those sins, and a life lived in daily repentant faith.

The New Testament book of Hebrews includes a collection of great heroes of the faith, men and women whom God used and blessed. I find that interesting, because those people messed up. They weren’t perfect examples.But the funny thing is that chapter 11 of Hebrews mentions only their victories…

View original post 1,580 more words

7 thoughts on “Failing Forward is not the Gospel

  1. Jock McSporran

    Again – yes.

    Perhaps for a discussion on the `On The Pilgrim Road’ blog, it might be better if the full post appeared on `OTPR’ instead of directing to the other site.

    I haven’t attended any American Evangelical churches, but I can strongly imagine the sort of preaching where `sins’ are happily described as `mistakes’.

    Did Paul make a `mistake’ when he approved of the stoning of Stephen? Was it because of a happy `mistake’ that Moses was not permitted to enter the Promised Land, but died before crossing the Jordan?

    So – another nice post, which hits the nail on the head.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’m not sure if reblogging or copying would help boost comments. It is easier to reblog than copy, paste,. reformat, and such. Perhaps someone else will mention if it makes it easier. Thank you for reading my article. I’m glad you enjoyed it.


  2. Jock McSporran

    Ummm …. I just clicked on your link for the `Christian Post’ article that you are commenting on.

    I have a question for you: why do you read such a journal? I had never heard of it before – and I don’t imagine I’ll ever look at it again. It has `phoney’ written all over it.


    1. I don’t read something like this article for edification. I find articles that are going around on social media or are trending etc, for the purpose of creating an edifying article that helps others to see what is being said in God’s name and to see how it square with what God has actually said.


      1. Jock McSporran

        …. and it is probably good to be informed about what is going on.

        This could well be mainstream in some circles, redefining `sin’ as `mistake’ and trying to put a positive shine on it.

        When I was in Sweden, I found that the Swedish Church had an altogether different heresy – along the same lines – where they seemed to be overlooking `sin’ completely.

        The general message seemed to be `oh we are all the victims of life’s rampant vicissitudes, but if you come to Jesus you will find peace’. There didn’t seem to be mention of sin and repentance; we seemed to be the *innocent* victims of life’s rampant vicissitudes.

        They seemed to put an awful lot of effort into making their churches the sort of environment where one could feel good and holy vibes and get a sense of inner peace through some sort of meditation.

        It all struck me as precisely the sort of thing that Emil Brunner was warning against in his book `The Mediator’, trying to achieve communion with God in a way that bypasses Christ as Mediator.

        This heresy that I saw which seemed typical of the Svenskakyrkan is (of course) different from, but is strongly related to the heresy that you are writing about in your post.


  3. Jock McSporran

    Douglas – well, yes – you are the pastor and therefore it is an important part of your job to root out heresy and call it for what it is. And yes – the `Christian Post’, even though it is a deeply junky journal, has a readership who have to be reached out to.

    I did find Emil Brunner’s `The Mediator’ extremely useful. I read it because the minister at the church I was attending quoted from it during one of his sermons, saying that he disagreed with much of what the man said, but nevertheless it had done much to shape his thinking and he warmly commended it to the divinity students attending his church (I was not a divinity student, but I read it anyway).

    There is one section in that book that has always been useful to me connected with heresy, where Brunner points out that all heresy is, in some sense, attempting to achieve communion with God in a way that bypasses Christ as Mediator (i.e. without true repentance, which can only come through Christ).

    Brunner considers the speculative philosophy of Immanuel Kant in this light and Brunner points out that Immanuel Kant introduced the doctrine of radical evil in his later works, which he quickly recanted, because it began to look too much like Christianity. Brunner also describes mysticism the `sinking in on divine ground’ (and what he writes looks suspiciously like a description of the Holy Rollers of his day – he was writing in the 1920’s) as another attempt at communion with God, which bypasses Christ as Mediator.

    I have seen much weird and wonderful heresy in my time. It all boils down to the same thing: refusing to die the death unto sin, a refusal to repent, a refusal to accept Christ as Mediator.

    In that book, Brunner writes of Special Revelation and General Revelation; Special Revelation is the once for all event, where God appears in history in human form, the lowest point in history, `crucified under Pontius Pilate’; all the other miraculous events in Scripture point towards this once for all special revelation. He uses the term `General Revelation’ in the sense of the sort of divine revelation that other religions have – which are all connected with some sort of speculative mysticism and ultimately attempt to achieve communion with God in a way that bypasses Christ as Mediator.

    I found the book incredibly useful – and (as I said) all the heresies that I have ever seen, no matter how weird or wonderful, have fallen into the framework of what Brunner described in `The Mediator’.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s