John, 

    My name is Alan. I am a lay-preacher and youth pastor in Leander, Texas, and I read your questions on  Brother Jed's home page. They are good questions, and I wanted to do my best to shed some light on them. I have mild disagreements with Bro Cope's explanation on a couple of them, but my conclusions are similar - that without moral perfection, no man will see the Lord. Some of these explanations you will find just as fascinating as I did when I discovered them. Enjoy! And let me know if it helps you.... 

    In the passage 1 Cor 5:12-13, Paul indicates that we are not to judge those who are outside the church.  Usually "to judge" simply means "to evaluate someone's character or actions," but not in this case. What  business does Paul have settling personal disputes among the heathen? The context seems to indicate that the judgment that is forbidden involves "judging between," or "executing judgment on" the heathen. The topic at hand is church government, not evaluating the moral character of the unchurched. God is the governor of all, but the church governs over its members only. Verses 9-11 clearly teach that we are to treat the fornicating "believer" different than the fornicating UNbeliever. How are we to treat them?  EXPEL the former (judge him) and preach to the latter.  Likewise, in chapter 6 "judgments" refer to the settling of disputes among believers - not only evaluate the matter, but go one step further: make recommendations, execute discipline, pass sentence, act as an arbitrator, etc. This use of the word is different than simply making a character assessment, as in Matthew 7, etc.  

    That Paul doesn't use the word "judge" in the more general sense of simply "making an assessment" is   obvious, because in order to call someone a fornicator in the first place, you must make a personal judgment  about that person.   

   Incidently, it's worth noting that if we back up one chapter to 1Cor 4:1-5, Paul warns against another type of judgment - judging without  the facts. Paul believes himself innocent, but this in itself is not enough to justify him before God. There are hidden motives in the hearts of men that will only be revealed at the final judgment.  What should we learn from this? At least two things: 

    1. Do not think more highly of your abilities, knowledge, willpower, etc, than you ought. Thinking that a reliance on natural ability alone will allow us to skate into Heaven has damned many souls! Rely on the abundant provision of Christ, who is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption (1Cor 1:30)!  His grace is sufficient! Even Paul carefully subdued his flesh, lest he become a backslider (1Cor 9:27)! 

    2. Until that day, Christians are to be gracious, not critical. We ought to be big enough to give the benefit of the doubt as to someone's motives, and not be eager to find fault. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. We are not on a witch-hunt; but contrariwise when someone is clearly in overt, known sin - hit 'em with both barrels! That's the loving, scriptural thing to do.  

    Philippians 3:12 is a verse often quoted by ignorant Christians and hypocrites alike to argue against moral perfection. They rarely take the time to read down to verse 15, in which Paul speaks to the "perfect" Christians in Philippi.  Actually, neither of these verses can be used as a proof text for OR against moral perfection. Let's look at them....  

    v.12 "Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect;" - attained what?!? Verse 11 gives the obvious answer - unto the resurrection of the dead! Paul is speaking about the consummation of all things when we are resurrected and receive our glorified, PERFECT bodies! Paul is talking about physical (not moral) perfection! See also verse 21, where Paul says, "[Jesus] shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body..." Paul says in 1Cor 15:26 that "the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." 

    v.15 Here, Paul is now speaking to the believers, who are perfect - complete and mature, men (not babes) in Christ, thoroughly instructed and deeply experienced in divine things. This is the meaning of perfect, both here, and in 1Cor 2:6, Eph 4:13, Col 1:28, Col 4:12, James 1:4, 3:2, Heb 5:14 (of full age - KJV). This perfection is certainly attainable in this life, but perfection in this sense refers to entire sanctification of heart and mind, even habit and pattern, to the will of God; moral perfection is NOT intended. It would be perfectly STUPID to expect a new convert to start out perfect in this sense; yet that same new convert CAN be morally perfect, right from the start!  

    What is moral perfection??? Easy....conformity to moral law. Simply put, moral perfection is purity of intention.  It is freedom from willful sin. It's all about a RELATIONSHIP...if you love Jesus, then he lives in you, continually administering His grace; and as long as you are in that state you CANNOT sin! You must first stop loving Jesus, before you can break His commandments. The Jews had no problem with the perfection teaching ‹ they were a COVENANT people, and they didn't make some kind of artificial separation between love for God and obedience toward God. The Jews would have never understood this kind of foolishness, that Jesus came to rescue them from hell, but leave them sinful, diseased, and demonized until the sweet by and by. Jesus said eternal life was to KNOW God. To know means to be intimately acquainted with.  Trust is the basis for any relationship. Trusting God is what faith is all about!  And faith is the only way in which we can have a relationship with an INVISIBLE God! I think the moral perfection message would be more effective in penetrating the hearts of sinners if this concept of relationship, or covenant,  were emphasized. It really brings out the absurdity of this concept of "sinning Christians." 

    How on earth, one might ask, can we be perfect "even as our heavenly Father is perfect (Matt 5:48)?!?"  Good question. God only requires us to live up to the light that we have! God lives up to all the knowledge that He has, and we are to live up to all the knowledge that we have! No more (or less) could be asked of a moral being! God is Infinitely Holy, and we are finitely holy, if that helps, because of our limited knowledge, aptitude, etc. Now where's my Bible proof of this concept, that God judges us strictly according to our knowledge and ability? Let's take a look... 

    Truth: God does not hold us guilty for "sins" committed in ignorance... 
    Proof: Gen 20:3-6 "But God came to Abimelech...and said to him... the woman which thou hast taken...is a man¹s wife.  But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, LORD, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?....in the integrity of my heart and innocency....of my hands have I done this. And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; " (God justified Abimelech because he did this thing without knowledge!) 

    Truth: Little children's sins are not held against them, because they don't have enough knowledge to be   accountable. They literally "don't know any better," and God accepts this as true innocency... 
    Proof: Deut 1:39 "Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it."  (Keep in mind the symbolism of crossing the Jordan, and entering the Promised Land - it means salvation. Tell your Calvinist friends that when babies die, they go to Heaven, as per this text and many others.) 

    Truth: Before the "age of accountability" little children do not know right from wrong... 
    Proof: Gen 8:21 "...for the imagination of man¹s heart is evil from his youth"; and  
Isaiah 7:14-16 "...Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.  Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings." (There was a time, even in Jesus' life, when he didn't know right from wrong! Also, see Lk 2:52.) 

    Truth: God will judge us according to our knowledge of our duty.  
    Proof: Luke 12:47-8 "And that servant, which knew his lord¹s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." 

    Truth: If a person were blind in regard to the requirements of the law, then that would be sufficient excuse to justify them in wrongdoing. Genuine ignorance of duty justifies the derelict, but knowledge of duty condemns him. 
    Proof: John 9:39-41 "And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth." 

    Truth: God doesn't ascribe sin (or guilt) to the man who is TRULY ignorant of the law! 
    Proof: Rom 5:13"For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." and  Rom 7:7-9 "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.  But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." (Let me ask, WHEN was Paul "alive without the law," if not when he was a little innocent child?) 

    Truth: No sin without knowledge of the law.  
    Proof: James 4:17 "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." 

    Truth: There is also a WILLFUL ignorance, or an ignorance for which we ARE responsible. Any  transgressions which flow directly from this ignorance are still held to our account, because this ignorance is the direct result of our unbelief or our love of lies more than the truth. To embrace a lie when one knows the truth is utterly damnable. 
    Proof: 2Pet 3:3-5 "...there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying,   Where is the promise of his coming? ....For this they willingly are ignorant of...." 
    Rom 1:19 "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto  them.... so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God,  neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools ....Who changed the truth of God into a lie ....And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge....God gave them over to a reprobate mind...."  
    1Tim 1:13 "Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief." (Paul's ignorance of certain truths resulted from his sinful unbelief, and therefore his ignorance was neither innocent nor genuine, hence, he was still deemed guilty (though to a lesser extent) until he eventually found God's mercy.) 

    These are a handful, just a sampling, of the many verses which prove that our moral status before God is   according to our knowledge. There are many, many, more such scriptures! Another reason the moral perfection message is so offensive is their definition of sin is perverted. The Calvinists will tell you that it means "to miss the mark," like an archer who misses the bullseye. How benign they make sin sound! Oftentimes "sin" and "mistake" are used interchangeably, as if lusting after a woman was just no big deal, no different from accidentally leaving the milk out on the counter (which I did on Monday - oops.)

Brother Jed, who professes not to have sinned in many years, has made many mistakes during that time, as I'm sure he will readily admit.  Christians all do things we end up regretting, put our foot in our mouths, get angry too quickly, have wandering thoughts, eat a mediocre diet, etc. However these things are not premeditated! They are not sins, because the intention was pure! Now if someone realizes that they are, say, angry "over nothing," or that their thoughts have strayed, etc., then at that point they have a moral obligation to get things back under control by the grace of God.  God is patient with us in matters such as these, and will impute sin to us when we are unwittingly violating the letter of the law.  

    However, in James 3:2, when the apostle "admits" to offending many, he doesn't mean he goes around  inadvertently upsetting people like the campus preachers are often accused of doing. Not at all, although I know this is Bro Cope's position. To offend, as James uses it, means to stumble (sin). According to Strong's Dictionary of the NT: (4417) ptai>w, ‹ ptah¹-yo; a form of (4098) (pi>ptw); to trip, i.e. (figurative) to err, sin, fail (of salvation): ‹ fall, offend, stumble.  Also, the context suggests that sin is intended. So it really does refer to a MORAL shortcoming, not an inadvertent blunder. The key here is that the apostle is NOT meaning to include himself in this discourse. When the apostle says "WE" offend, he is simply following the common mode of teachers, and speaking in the first person! His emphasis is on the power of the tongue to impart life and death, and on how difficult it is to control the tongue. The man who cannot control his tongue has every reason to doubt the genuineness of his religion. Verses 10-13 shows that James believes it is not only possible, but mandatory, to control one's tongue. Two further observations on this.... 

    1. Suppose I said to my wife, "My, we're a little grouch this morning, aren't we?" Would she think that I meant that I was grouchy, too? Of course not, even though I used the first person plural pronoun "we." Likewise, suppose your pastor stood up on Sunday a.m. and said, "We Americans are fat and lazy! We're so comfortable! We're so blind to the true gospel!" Would you begin to question the character of your pastor, thinking that by his own admission he was fat, lazy, comfortable, and spiritually blind? No way! Often times the OT prophets would repent for the sins of the nation as if they were their own. Same concept. 

    2. Context, context, context. Here's what that great Wesleyan scholar, Adam Clarke, has to say, in his  Commentaries: 

      "And were we to suppose that where he appears by the use of the plural pronoun to include himself,  he means to be thus understood, we must then grant that himself was one of those many teachers who were to receive a great condemnation, James 3:1; that he was a horse-breaker, because he says, ³we put bits in the horses¹ mouths, that they may obey us,² James 3:3; that his tongue was a world of iniquity, and set on fire of hell, for he says, ³so is the tongue among our members,² James 3:6; that he cursed men, ³wherewith curse we men, James 3:9. No man possessing common sense could imagine that James, or any man of even tolerable morals, could be guilty of those things. But  some of those were thus guilty to whom he wrote; and to soften his reproofs, and to cause them to enter the more deeply into their hearts, he appears to include himself in his own censure; and yet not one of his readers would understand him as being a brother delinquent."   
 

    John, I hope you found all this helpful and informative, it certainly helped me to put it all down in writing. If there are any other "problem" scriptures you've run across, I'd love to talk about them.  

God Bless,  
Alan Couchman

Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:04:30 -0800

This is a question for Brother Jed.  I am currently attending a Biblically based Great Books college and next week we are going to be studying Augustine.  Since I knew most of his doctrine is just plain silly, I had   always hoped someone in the church at that time opposed him.  To my delight I discovered a British monk by the name of Pelagius. 

I started searching the web and found some information on Pelagius.  As I began to learn more and more about him, Jed Smock almost seems like a modern day Pelagius.  I discovered that Augustine and Jerome (two big timers in the church), tried to excommunicate Pelagius and failed in their first attempt. 

My question is this: are you at all familiar with Pelagius and his doctrine? If so, do you agree with it?  And if you agree with it, do agree on all points or just some? 

I was also wondering if you could perhaps list a timeline of men from the apostles to present day who have preached the holiness doctrine as you understand it. My timeline is rather limited.  I know the apostle John  preached holiness and then his disciple Polycarp picked up the message.  Then I have a gap until the 3rd century when Pelagius preached the same message.  After the 3rd century I have another gap until George Whitefield in the 18th century and Charles Finney in the 19th.  Anyway, any information would be greatly appreciated.  

Godbless, 
Daniel 
 

I consider it an honor to be consided a modern day Pelagius.  It may be providential that you contacted me and our webmaster has decided to post a section on Pelagius.  Over the last month I have been reading Pelagius Life and Letters by B.R. Rees.  I am in agreement with the basic theology of this holy man and his emphasis on free-will.  He is more of an ascetic than myself and I have a higher view of the state of marriage than Pelagius, but for the last few years I have been calling myself a Pelagian.  It was Wesley, not Whitefield who preached holiness.  Whitefield was more in the Augustinian tradition.  Pelagius' friend Coelestius spoke more boldly than Pelagius evidently did on free-will and perfection.  Like Finney, Coelestius was a lawyer.  The following are a few good quotes from Pelagius:  "It is inquired whether a man ought to be sinless.  Without doubt he ought. If he ought he can; if he cannot he ought not.  And if a man ought not to be sinless then he ought to be sinful, and that will not be sin which it is admitted he ought to do."  "Above all, if anyone maintains the inevitable sinfulness of man, we must ask him what is a specific sin, something which can be avoided or something which cannot.  If the latter, it is not sin; if the former, man can live without sin, seeing that is can be avoided."  "We contradict the Lord to his face when we say: 'It is hard, it is difficult; we cannot, we are men; we are encompassed with fragile flesh. O blind madness! O unholy audacity! We charge the God of all knowledge with a two-fold ignorance, that He does not seem to know what He has made nor what He has commanded, as though, forgetting the human weakness of which He is Himself the author, He imposed laws upon man which he cannot endure."  I hope we can have more dialogue concerning Pelagius and his controversy with Augustine.  Daily we encounter Argument's arguments to excuse sin from the evangelical community on campus.  As a result I sense a kinship with Pelagius.  Jed Smock

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 11:42:23 EST

Bro. Jed, 

I am sure that in over 20 years of preaching you have been asked these questions before and will have an answer for me.  What do you suppose happens to the souls of humans who minds are unbalanced chemically and suffer from severe cases of schizophrenia, obsessive compulsive disorder, bipolarism and others? And I am not talking the many minor cases, but those who go literally mad and can not take care of themselves, and can no longer communicate effectively with others or are aware of their surroundings. 

Chemical imbalance could well be the result instead of the cause of disordered mental states.  Unless, there is actual brain damage as a result of birth, accident or disease the person is accountable.  Even in these cases the damage may not be enough to make the person unaccountable for his actions.  God would of course have to determine the line.  

There is a new deficiency in babies, caused by mothers who used hard drugs like crack during their pregnancy. Some of these babies are born without the ability to feel remorse, compassion or empathy, giving strong evidence that these mechanisms for kindness and love come about through physical, not spiritual traits. These people will grow being unable to feel guilt or regret when they do something hurtful to another person. What of their souls?

I am not convinced that this is true.  Once the baby is off the influence of the drugs the conscience will should develop normally and thus be accountable.  However, if you are right maybe this is why God ordered in the OT on occasion genocide because the even the babies were beyond redemption if indeed they had  no conscience.  

How much of a person's genuine soul, and individual personality is distinguishable from their body, including brain, chemicals and genetic code? And if it is indistinguishable how can individuals be judged by  God when we are all given different circumstances and physical beings?  You yourself often assume outspoken hecklers are from "broken homes".  If more sinners come from broken homes how can they be held accountable for their becoming a sinner? Perhaps if your soul, Jed, had been born instead into the life of a person whose father beats them and whose mother is a selfish alcoholic you would not be the "sin free" person you are today. And if this is so, then God chooses himself who he will "save" before they are even born by placing their soul in their situation. 

Tell me your thoughts on the matter... 
            Persil Alphaous  
            Occasional heckler / freelance writer 
            art student/OSU 
 
 

Environmental factors are an influence and not a causation concerning human behavior.  With an influence one may or may not have a certain effect.  With a causation one is bound to have a definite effect.  We all fall under bad and good influences, it is our choice which we follow.  Granted that some are born into circumstances where they will have better influences and thus have an advantage, which is one reason God loves righteousness.  Others by birth will have worse influences, which is why God hates sin so much. Jed Smock

Thu, 11 Mar 1999 11:29:02 EST

Brother Jed,  
     My wife and I have been married for a little over a year, so we could relatively be called newly-weds. After our wedding, we found that it was awkward changing our view of sex from a temptation that we had to overcome to a marital mandate from God. We have a question that  I thought I would throw by you because I have found that you seem to give candid answers about most things. 

You may post this on the FAQ board  if you desire and  feel it is appropriate.  We would like to know if there are any sexual restrictions within the marriage relationship; that is it possible to be sexually immoral even inside the marriage. Now I am not talking about anything as depraved  as inviting other partners or bestiality or anything else like that. I am just asking if there are any guidelines for what might be called normal  sex between a man and his wife within the marriage covenant. I think you can discern what I am driving at here without me being too blunt. 

JB

Sun, February 21, 1999 at 01:28:23:

I have two interesting observations and then some comments. 

Observation 1: from all the letters that I have read on your web page, and all the reviews of universities you have preached at, not one mention of any one being born again. 

Conclusion 1: If one were preaching Christ according to Christ, then there would be fruit (men coming to Christ). 

Philippians 1:15-16 Some indeed preach Christ from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill (not Jed). The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, NOT SINCERELY, supposing to add affliction to my chains. 

Observation 2: Jed likes to talk about himself (especially how he is so irresistible to women) I have numerously heard this with my own ears. 

Conclusion 2: 1 Timothy 6:4-5 ..he is PROUD, knowing nothing, but is OBSESSED with DISPUTES and ARGUMENTS over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings of men of  corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a MEANS OF GAIN. FROM SUCH WITHDRAW YOURSELF! 

Comments: A man named Kevin in a letter to Jed, made a comment about his followers and self-exaltation. The web master sharply stated "that this does not exist". Web master what web pages were you thinking of. The ones you supposively mastered claim "Jed is the number one preacher in America". (Blessed are the meek Mt 5:5.) The front page also talks about Jed-heads like those who FOLLOW the greatful dead. Read it, you wrote it! 

Also, Kevin asked you a yes or no question. The question said something to the extent that is it Christ like to insult, call names, accuse and so, forth. O.k. where in the word of God, did Jesus ever FALSELY call someone of being a homosexual. Every time Jed preaches he falsely accuses people of being homosexuals especially believers. It seems as though you all have a pre-occupation with homosexuals. Hmmm! Where in the word did the Lord dwell on the issues of homosexuals. Of course this is an abomination, but to practically make a ministry that calls everyone and their mother a homosexual is this God's will. Webmaster you answered yes to his question. Webmaster please read your bible. 

You yell at people that they don't even know the fundamentals of Christianity. Kind of ironic isn't it. 

We have a ministry at a campus and many have found Christ as their Lord and Savior. And no we don't preach feel good christianity. Neither do we preach be saved and keep sinning. We do preach Christ, not "ourselves". This is why many do not get saved in your ministry. You spend more time in your reviews talking about how many people ridicule you and how many "one-liners" you can say back to them, than you do talking about those that have found Jesus. The fact of the matter is not many find Jesus through you. 

And one more note, you honestly (Jed, webmaster, Bro Cope, and who ever in this ministry) think you are all perfect? You mean to say, that from the day you were saved (if there was a day) you have never faulted.Most definetly we should live perfect lives but to say that one other than Christ is completely perfect is heresy. I have seen Jed loose his temper. The Lord had righteous anger, He didn't foolishly lose His temper as I have seen Jed. Jed has lost his patience. Jed has used phrases like , " I bet she is nothing more to you than a piece of ...". I promise Christ would never speak in this way. 

Wrap up: You lead men astray, not into the kingdom. Not because you preach against sin, I preach it, the Lord preached it, all believers should preach it. But because you ridicule and antagonize compared to convicting men of their sins. The Holy Spirit will convict men of their sins when Christ is preached. The Holy Spirti will not convict when Jed Smock falsely accuses and ridicules men. However, the devil will take advantage of your "miss the mark" style of preaching. 

What do leading Christians in the world feel about your ministry?  Billy Graham, James Dobson, etc. Or are they all losers like the rest of us who do not subscribe to Jedianity. 

For the record, no where have I defended unbelievers or sin, as you so readily accuse. 

JWS 
 

Dear JWS,  You requested an answer from me, so I am putting you on our Comments Page.  Please click here for your answer.   By the way, click here to inspect the "fruit".    webmaster

 

 Brother Jed's position on traditional female roles

Tuesday, 9 Feb 1999 01:01:09 EST

I have many memories of seeing Brother Jed in action at the University of Kentucky campus in the early 80s. Since I grew up in a small fundamentalist church in the Eastern Kentucky mountains, Brother Jed's style of delivering his message was in no way foreign or strange to me. Today, I am a successful career woman, never married, and definitely not a slut or harlot. I have an income exceeding $50,000 and I am working on my MBA. Today I read a feature in a campus magazine about Brother Jed. I was alarmed that his primary goals for his five daughters was "to find ambitious Christian husbands." No mention was made of any educational goals for the daughters.  

I agree with Brother Jed that the college setting may be unsuitable for many people, especially those with deep-rooted religious beliefs. However, I would like to remind Brother Jed that Christian knights-in -- shining-armor are few and far between. In my workplace, I am currently witnessing a horror story as I watch the results of fundamentalist shortsightedness. A young lady, with a sheltered upbringing and home-school background, has been forced to enter thework force after her upstanding Christian husband was killed in an auto accident. Although her church has been supportive, they could not meet all her financial needs. This young lady, not allowed to watch TV or interact with non-Christians, is having difficulties adjusting to work outside the home. She also has skill-deficits that will guarantee that she stays on the lower end of the pay scale, at least for the immediate future.  

Although Brother Jed probably has no use for independent career women, I feel compelled to offer the following advice: Either start substantial trust funds for all five daughters now, or develop a contingency plan (Christian College,  vocational training) that will allow the girls to be self-sufficient in the event of an emergency. Not all endings are fairy-tale endings, even for Christians.

Mon, 14 Dec 1998 22:19:18 -0500

Brother Cope, 

I hope you will excuse my curiosity; I took it upon myself to read your last response to Kevin because he brings up a doctrine that I have been curious about ever since I first heard Jed preach, the claim to moral perfection. I think in Fairness to Jed, it should be mentioned ( because I have seen comments that accuse him of making stuff up) that I have seen where he has referenced many modern scholars who shared his views. As a matter of fact, I believe John Wesley held the same doctrine of moral perfection but don't "quote me" on that one because I can't document that. 

Anyway, getting back to Kevin's last correspondence, I thought you responded well to the judgment issue but I think one clarification might help. There are several New Testament scriptures that speak to the subject of Judgment that encourage believers not to excerise judgment over one another. Kevin is right on this point; however, I don't know of any such scriptures that refer to issues of morality. i.e. When Paul instructs us in Romans 14:13 to no longer judge one another, he was referring to the issues such as whether or not to celebrate certain Holy days or whether or not to eat meat sacrificed to idols.  Concerning moral issues, we are commanded to judge those who are part of the church . As an example I offer Pauls admonition to the Church at Corinth ( I Cor. 5th chapter). Apparently, one who had professed to know Christ was openly involved in a sexually immoral relationship. Paul commanded the believers to disfellowship this person ( Verse 13). During his discourse he points out that we are to judge those who claim to be part of the church, but those outside the church, God will judge. (Verse 9-13). What are your thoughts on this?

Also, concerning moral perfection, I was raised as a strict Southern Baptist with  the doctrine of the depravity of man  pounded into me all of my life. If examined with an open mind, your doctrine appeals to logic. It seems most logical that God would hate sin, and any amount would be intolerable. Having said that, there are some scriptural questions I have. Now this will seem very abbreviated but I don't want to waste your time Brother Cope. I believe you have probably heard similar questions and can respond without much clarification.  I think the best reason to not claim moral perfection is humility. Please examine James 3:2 For we all stumble... and I Cor 4: 1-4. Here Paul seems to indicate that even though he knows of no sin he has committed, that he does not consider himself innocent. I look forward to your response. 

In Christ, 

John 

By the way if anyone is interested in e-mailing me:  stubarne@acs.eku.edu 
 

Dear John,  Your answer is also rather long, so I am putting it on it's own page.  Please click here .  webmaster

Sun, 13 Dec 1998 23:45:25 -0500

Webmaster or "Brother" Jed: 

    Sir, you did not answer my question that I mentioned frequently in my last letter. Are the actions of brother Jed (insulting and judging people, accusing people of homosexuality because they do not agree with your beliefs, praising yourself on your homepage, saying that you don't sin and that you are perfect, and overall displaying a non-loving,  judgmental, and hateful attitue toward all people) the will of God. I wish for no verse or scripture. I wish only for a yes or no answer. If you are unable to give me such an answer, I can only suspect that Brother Jed does not display the actions of a Christian, therefore has no right preaching the word of God. Any fool can stand in the middle of a crowd and preach. In fact, people rather watch a fool than watch someone preaching the truth. Also, I would like to say that I do believe in God. And although I am not a perfect Christian, I do know that Jesus had compassion and loved everyone. Why then does Brother Jed and Cindy show only hatred and disgust for every student in every University. 

The devil will disguise himself as a Christian and even preach the word of God. Only those that truly know the word of God will not fall to the Devil's preaching. 

From what I saw that day when Jed was preaching, every true Christian attending, accused Jed of speaking the wrong word. What will it take for you and other Jed heads to see the truth. Read the Bible more openly and attend other institutions of Christ. You'll never see the truth until you realize that you are supposed to be following Jesus and brother Jed.  Open your eyes and your heart. Get a different perspective on Christian like attending another Church. Brother Jed is not Jesus nor is he the only follower of God on this world. Sir, I beg that you attempt to get  the real truth of God's word and not Brother Jed's version. 

One last request: please answer my questions from my last letter. Please answer each question directly. 

Sincerely, 
Kevin Bumatay 

Sun, 13 Dec 1998 23:04:13 -0500

Brother Cope and Brother Jed, 

    I think three times qualifies me as a regular poster on your comment board, but until now I have sent mostly just questions. This time I actually have a comment! I have noticed that for every encouraging note that some one sends you, you get five more that are nasty-grams so I thought I would send you something along the lines of encouragement.  This comment is for those who are out to get you. 

    Brother Jed has sharp edges, and the first time I heard him preach I was offended. But at that time of my life, I was really seeking after spiritual matters; questioning my traditional values. After hearing him preach several times, considering his message, and studying the Bible, I walked away with a much greater fear of displeasing God.  Before discounting him, I would read "Who will Rise Up?" You may request a copy over the internet. Although he would probably give you one, you might consider giving a donation as I am sure the books are costly to print. 

    To those who oppose Jed because he refuses to accept the philosophies of other religions, you must understand that Christians oppose false teachings because inaccurate information leads one to make unwise choices. To stand idle is to say that all who are lost in false religions are not worth the time to help. Some comments and news articles inaccurately state that he wants to force his religion on others. I think that rather he would love for every college student in the world to excersize their right to reject false teachings and serve Christ. 

    To those who oppose Jed because you are a homosexual, I have a special message. I have ministered to homosexuals often since my conversion to Christ. Every homosexual I have met, I have asked one question before explaining freedom in Christ. "If you could change your sexuality, would you?"  I receive the same answer every time in one way or another. " I would if I could... but I cant so it doesn't matter" . Well I have good news, you can and it does matter. The scripture teaches that you can be transformed and that your mind can be renewed.  It will be very difficult. You may have been told by other Christians that repentance is easy, but I would not expect that to be true. You can be free.

    If you want Jed to stop preaching all you have to do is start a coast to coast, shore to shore, world wide revival of the love of mankind for God among college students. Until that time, pull up a chair. 

John 
 

Sat, 12 Dec 1998 23:16:25 -0800

"Brother" Jed: 

    You recently visited the University of Florida in Gainesville, FL, where I attended your sermon for an entire four hours. You harassed me frequently along with many of the others that opposed your outrageous ideas. I was the young man that walked with you to your car and tried having an intellectual conversation with you. Instead of speaking with me or preaching to the me the real word of God (not Jed's version) you insulted me by calling me a loser, and accusing me of harrassing you. In addition, you accused me of incest and being molested as a child in public simply because I did not agree with your teachings. I mentioned "your teachings" in the last sentence instead of God's teachings because that is exactly what it is. So I ask you and your followers, are these the actions of a Christian? Over the many items that I would like to discuss with you, I will refrain to only a few. 

    I recently visited your homepage where I noticed that you praised yourself and admitted to having followers. Aren't the people that you help supposed to be followers of God not "Jed heads". Your homepage is an outrageous display of non-christian actions. You have pictures of people that opposed you, in which you publicly humiliate and insult. In fact, I noticed that those that do oppose you are accused of homosexuality. Again, are these actions of a Christian? 

    I realize that nothing I say will change your mind nor the minds of your wife or brainwashed daughters, but I do hope to reach anyone that has any sense and any compassion. I myself am not a perfect person (unlike what you said you were) but at least I do not preach the false word of God, nor am I a social plague on humanity as you are. I also realize that, if you do post this letter on your web page, you will also publicly insult me. Indeed, I do highly dislike you and  YOUR beliefes, but you too also can be forgiven? So I will pray for you, and I will try to do it with all my heart. 

    In addition, I am attempting to expose you to the public and prevent you from any other damage that you will cause. I am going to create a petition among many if not all Universities to ban you from all campuses. I have already set up a homepage and am still working on it in which I hope will warn the public about you. I am currently receiving legal advice from law students, so that the legal system may one day stop your social injustices. I will contact those that you have publicly embarrassed such as Amy Grant. I will contact the media and anybody else necessary to peacfully and legally rid the world of your horrific beliefs. Sir, I am determined! 

Sincerely, 
Kevin Lee Bumatay 

Tue, 08 Dec 1998 23:57:09 -0500

Hi Brother Jed, 

    I already have a comment posted but I have a question concerning what most might consider to be your most controversial doctrine, God's hatred for sinners, and once again I thought it might be good comment board material. If you don't think it merits the space, then just reply to me personally as you have time. 

    In times past, I have watched you preach concerning the conditional love of God. When the subject first comes up, you are usually greeted by some  Aquillas and Priscillas as you refer to them in your mission update who teach you the way of the Lord more perfectly concerning the love of God; something about God hating sin but loving the sinner. At this the students are directed to Psalm 5:5,6 and similar scriptures that do speak of God hating sinners.  The Bible says it, you can't argue with it - point taken. 

    This position does leave some loose ends, so to speak, that need to be tied up though. For instance if we are actually to hate sinners, how can we be in compliance with Pauls teaching that speak of hate being a work of the flesh because of which no person shall enter the Kingdom of God? In I John Chapter 4 we are taught that if any one claims to love God, but hates his brother, he is a liar. These doctrines are as fundamental as the doctrines of repentance and holiness so how do we reconcile that? Is it possible that God's hatred (The hatred with which we hate our Father,mother, and even our own lives for the sake of Jesus) is something different than the work of the flesh we are told to repent of? According to the New Unger's Bible Dictionary, "God's hatred is toward all sinful thoughts and ways. It is a feeling of which all holy beings are conscious in view of sin, and is wholly unlike the hatred mentioned in the scriptures among  the works of the flesh." Do you disagree? If you do, could you explain?  If you do not, do you point out this clarification when you preach? 

I look forward to your response. May God bless you in your kingdom conquests. 

In Christ, 
John 
 

Tue, 17 Nov 1998 01:04:24 EST

Your web page,  http://www.brojed.org/Update.htm   says "WILL be posted within 24 hours" - I'll check back to see if that is true. 

Jed Smock and his underling, Ken Jones, came to our little church in Leander, Texas and wrecked havoc there!  They took over the leadership, convinced many people there that anyone in the church who questioned his teaching is a hypocrite, not really a Christian, and should be forced out of the church. 

Many wonderful Christian people finally gave up and left because of Smock and Jones.  Many teenagers have been deeply hurt - and are to this day - by these two men who err greatly in their understanding and teachings of God's Holy Word.  It seems to many of us that Jed Smock's and Ken Jone's primary purpose in life is to destroy the people around them that they come in contact with, under the guise of teaching the Scriptures. 

Rather than bringing God's love to a lost and dying world, they bring their own hatred, claiming it to be God's.  They blaspheme as they attribute to God that which is not of God.  How sad that so many young people in our colleges today are being turned away from God by the hatred of Smock and his followers. 

Waldmeyer2@aol.com  
 

Sun, 15 Nov 1998 12:53:52 EST

Dear Brother Jed. 

I have just finished reading through your Web Site and am praising the Lord for such a location on the Internet.  I'll never forget a few years ago when you called me on the phone and told me that you were coming to Michigan State and wanted me to go out on the campus with you and preach.  I almost paniced at the thought!  But I went out with you (I had never seen you do this) but stood about 30 feet away, behind a tree, praying for you. 

Gradually I worked my way within about 20 feet of you when you turned suddenly and introduced me to the crowd and ask me to come and preach.  Horror city!  My legs walked me to the center of the crowd and then the Holy Spirit took over!  All fear was gone and the Word of God began to roll out of my mouth and as the Holy Spirit gave the utterances.  By the time I had spoken for about an hour and turned it back to you I realized the position and power that God has given to you all of these years! 

This was a ministry that I was completely ignorant of and now I saw exactly what it was the God was doing with you and others like you.  I met Holy Hubert back in the 60's when he came on the campus at So. Cal where I was the Head Basketball Coach.  He spoke at the chapel but I did not see him in his "enviroment" in front of unsaved students. So now I knew what it was to have this calling from the Lord that he had given you.  Later you took me with you to the University of Michigan (Hell's best kept secret) and finally to work with you at Ohio State. 

Your allowing me to work with you on these three campus' changed my life once again!  What a ministry the Lord has given you! You are working right down in the middle of America's youth and the community of leaders of tomorrow!  Your message is uncompromising, nothing but the Word of God and heavly anointed by the Holy Spirit Himself!  Thank you, thank you, for giving me this tremendous insight to one of the most demanding ministries in the Kingdom of God. 

In Christ, Bob Reid, 
President of Faith Tech Ministries/International Bible Schools.(faithtech@juno.com ) 

Oct 26, 1998

Hi Jed! 

How's it going?  Unlike the person before me on your comment page I write to re-affirm my jeers and taunts of you, SINdy and the rest of your silly bunch in your mid-80s visits to the University of Georgia.  I sat on the wall (you remember) and gave you my best. 

Your casual dismissal of Jewish people, you intolerance for those you see as sinful and ESPECIALLY your views of females as objects to be subjugated before men are (were) OUTRAGEOUS. 

I hope the guys that came after me (beer and all) continued to drive your silly performances into the ground.  The best example you set is that of the kind of person someone should aspire not to be. 

You angered me then.  You disgust me now. 

I hope you are low on support.  God knows my best wishes are against you. 

I know this will never be published on your website, but I stand by my statements and will check back. 

Dave 
 

September 18, 1998

Dear Brother Jed, 
 
My name will not be familiar to you, but if I were to stand in front of  you, you would probably recognize my face from your 1983 and 1984 trips to Michigan State University. I remember you and Bro Cope from 1983 and your traveling companion from 1984. 
 
The reason I write is to apologize for the behavior I displayed during both of these trips. During 1983 I denounced Bro Cope in a self-righteous fit of indignation. You would remember my antics from the next year--I tried to provoke you and your friend by pretending to be a homosexual making a pass at each of you. I must compliment you on how well you handled the provocation. 
 
While I had (and still have) deep philosophical differences with you, what I did in the 1980's was wrong and un-Christian  because I was trying to force you to sin. Instead of trying to lift up Jesus Christ, I was more intent on humiliating you and  your companions. I was wrong and I am truly sorry, and as a brother in Christ, I ask for your forgiveness. I also ask that  you please convey this apology to Bro Cope and your partner from 1984. 
 
Yours in Christ, 

Anthony M.

I am encouraged, Brother Jed, by your faithful preaching over the years.  I first saw you at Penn State sometime around 1977 or 1978.  Your were preaching with a man named Max.  The crowd was stirred up and so was I.  You didn't know that I was also a preacher.  After the day was over, I introduced myself to you.  I was sure that you thought, "Oh no, not another mealy mouthed apologizer for sin."  But over the years, I continued to preach; sometimes we even preached together. 

I had to retire (involuntarily) a few years back, but took comfort knowing that there was someone steadfastly holding up the Lord before a God-hating generation.  I hope you have much fruit from your labor.  God Bless. 

Bro Cope, 10-17-98