spellbound

"In the latter times [that would be NOW] some [lots] shall depart from the faith," because, they are spellbound (1 Timothy 4:1).

They are spellbound, in the truest sense of the word. Mesmerized. Hypnotized. Intoxicated with ~ what?  What "spell" is it that has made them prisoners in their own minds?  Here's the Scripture that reveals what's going on in the churches (principally,) as well as in the world, not 'behind the curtain' as it were, but right out in the open:

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils..."  (1Timothy 4:1)

Seducing spirits! Devils!  What? pole-dancers in the churches?  Say it isn't so!  I wish I could.

But the Bible isn't referring in that verse to "seducing spirits" as pole-dancers or prostitutes.  Rather, it means that devils are tempting people to embrace ~ as "doctrines" ~ ideas that are contrary to the truth of God.  Such "doctrines of devils" have a potent effect to hold the carnal mind firmly bound within the grasp of erroneous beliefs.  Importantly, the Bible tells us there is both "the spirit of truth" and "the spirit of error" (1 John 4:6).  The power of false doctrine to enslave the carnal mind, involves something deeper than merely being 'mistaken' in one's thoughts: There are, in fact, "spirits" of "devils" actively working to hold fast their captives, by blinding them to the truth.

I cannot in the space of this essay expose and overthrow every false doctrine that is subverting churchgoers.  But I do want to deal (again) with what I have lately come to call, "the twin towers of deception," namely: these two ideas: 1) unconditional love and 2) unconditional forgiveness.  They are, like the affable albeit stupid twins Tweedledee and Tweedledum in the zany story Alice in Wonderland, inseparable; you cannot have one without the other.  The notion of unconditional love absolutely requires the (equally untenable) notion of unconditional forgiveness; else, neither idea has any chance to stand alone.  Not that their presumptive ability to stand together, makes those ideas then true; they are not true.  They are damnable lies.

I have elsewhere (here, and here) written at some length concerning the heinous falsehood embodied in the suggestion of "unconditional love."  I will therefore limit the remaining discussion to expose the error of "unconditional forgiveness," as follows.

"UNconditional" means 'without any conditions, whatsoever.'  It is a term of absoluteness.  Thus, if it were at all possible (it is not) to "love unconditionally," that would REQUIRE that one must also then be willing to "forgive unconditionally;" for, the expression of "love" is incompatible with an attitude of "unforgiveness."  Moreover, "unconditional forgiveness," as that idea connotes absoluteness, must also then extend, as it presumably does, both universally (in scope of application) and eternally (in scope of time).  According to the doctrine of "unconditional forgiveness," one (i.e. the 'Christian' person) has the unqualified moral duty to forgive everyone, of everything, at all times and in all places ~ regardless of any sign of remorse or repentance on the part of the wrongdoer.  Period.  Without dispute, "unconditional" means…just that.

If it can be shown, however, that, in truth,  forgiveness is conditioned (predicated) upon genuine repentance...; in that case, it cannot be true that anyone ~ including God Himself ~ is morally obliged to extend "unconditional forgiveness."  Suffice it to say, that the Word of God clearly, abundantly teaches us that God does forgive…them that first, repent; apart from which, repentance, there is no forgiveness.

Two case studies…
Some may object that the martyr Stephen, for instance, "forgave" his murderers, even as he himself lay dying.  But how could Stephen have known whether any of them would ever repent of their murderous deed?  Surely, those objectors may say, Stephen's is a case in which forgiveness was NOT predicated upon the wrongdoers' repentance.

But that supposition would be wrong.  Stephen himself was not God, to forgive the sins of his murderers; though Stephen did, in his final prayer to God, express his willingness that those men may not be charged for their crimes, by God.  Stephen evidently was unwilling to allow bitterness and hatred in his own heart, toward his persecutors; that much is true.  But that is not the same thing as to suppose that Stephen forgave those murderers for their appalling sin.  He merely requested that they may not be charged with their crime.   It is not a matter of semantics.

Somewhat more difficult, perhaps, is the case of Jesus.  When he was dying on the cross, he uttered the famous words: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."  But whom was Jesus referring to when he said, "they know not..."?  Beyond doubt, he was NOT referring to the Jewish religious leaders standing nearby.  Those men well knew that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God: that is precisely the reason those men gave to justify their rejection and condemnation of Jesus.  Moreover, Jesus did not say, to anyone there present, "Thy sins be forgiven thee;" as he did on other occasions.  Rather, Jesus asked the Father to forgive those who, in fact, knew not that Jesus was the Son of God; and, yet, they were complicit in his crucifixion.  Who could those men have been?  I believe they were the Roman soldiers whose job it was to carry out the Orders of their political and/or military commanders.  Those soldiers, as far as they knew, were just doing their job, carrying out a lawfully determined sentence of execution.  Jesus asked ~ he asked ~ for their forgiveness by God.

Forgiveness apart from confession and repentance, is a non-sequitur: it is not a doctrine that can be established by a right understanding of Scripture.

Finally, let's consider the following passage of Scripture (one which I have never heard expounded in any church):

"Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and IF he repent, forgive him." (Luke 17:3)

I rest my case.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Those two ideas, 'unconditional love' and 'unconditional forgiveness,' throughout the past decade and more, have been raised up on high (like the former twin towers in New York), principally by a vast horde of church leaders and other so-called 'Christian' influencers (musicians and songwriters), to stand as shining beacons in the world.  Beacons, that is to say, …of error!

The churches are filled with so many zombies: spellbound souls following mindlessly along the flower-strewn path to their own destruction.  I sometimes think about what it would be like to stand up in the midst of such congregations and boldly declare: "There is no such thing as unconditional love!  And Christians are not obligated to willy-nilly forgive anybody!"

Actually, I've done that numerous times before, though not in so dramatic or so public a fashion.  And every time, I've been met with the same kind of response: vehement opposition.  Trying to rouse spellbound persons from their state of enchanted stupor, can be quite dangerous business.

Ask the apostle Paul.