What's New
Escaping the Cult
Current Trends
Bible Doctrines
Bible Explanations
Emergent church
Latter Rain
Word Faith
Popular Teachers
Pentecostal Issues
Trinity / Deity
World  Religions
New Age Movement
Book Reviews
Web Directory
Tracts for witnessing
Web Search
The Persecuted Church


For printing  our articles please copy the web page by highlighting  the text first - then click copy in the browser-  paste the article into a word  program on your computer. When the text is transferred into word, click to save or print.      






Foot Washing Foot washing is required also for salvation “The Lord Jesus himself instituted the sacrament of the washing of feet and commanded His disciples to follow His example. A Christian needs to have his feet washed after water baptism” (John 13:10)(17). “The performance of foot washing sacrament enables the believer to have a part with Jesus”(I have participated a few washings of feet and believe everyone should experience washing someone's feet, however I have never seen the Bible give it such importance as this church does. Certainly Jesus did wash the disciples feet  showing the example of servanthood. However, nowhere do we see it practiced in the book of Acts or taught to the church in the epistles. “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me” (John 13:8). The True Jesus Church states these words of Jesus to Peter are certainly worth serious attention by anyone who wishes to have a part in God's kingdom.” It becomes “An agreement to allow Christ to be Lord of your life and a commitment to walk in his footsteps. Accept his invitation so that you may have a part in his kingdom”(17).  “ It is a sacrament “establishing a spiritual relationship between a believer and Jesus” (Glossary in Our Basic Beliefs). The problem with this is that they miss the point. It was Jesus himself who did the washing to Peter and nowhere do we find this repeated with the apostles or taught in the Church as a required practice. Especially for a requirement for salvation or a spiritual relationship. Even if one wants to believe he commanded us to continually wash others feet He defines it. “For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you”        (John 13:15). Jesus was making the point of being servants and foot washing was a courtesy and a humbling act for those who came into other peoples houses. Jesus wanted them to be servants so he showed by example that He came to serve not be served and they were to follow his example not just by washing others feet, but by the capacity of their serving. If it was as important as they teach the epistles would have it mentioned, but they do not. Again this is being legalistic. Making a practice of servanthood (works) into a requirement for salvation, which is NOT applied in the Scripture. I have participated in a number of foot washing ceremonies as a choice not an obligation. To make it as another requirement is not what the word of God teaches. 

  Jesus said to him, “He who is bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.” For He knew who would betray Him; therefore He said, “You are not all clean.” (John 13:10-11).  Jesus was making a point about servanthood not really cleansing someone, and he further made this clear when he said  “You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you” (John 15:3). They were clean before the footwashing, from the words of Jesus they believed in. It’s not about foot washing but using it as an example of servanthood as he taught them throughout His whole ministry.

A more significant washing would be by the word of God itself that cleanses and can rid one of wrong interpretations and give right understanding. 

Baptism of the Holy Spirit

 In responding to Q4 Has the Holy Spirit remained with the church since Pentecost ? Revelation 11”6 (sic) predicted that after the apostolic times, for more then two hundred years the church deviated from the Truth and took part in the worldly filth of the Roman religion.  From that time on, the Holy Spirit stopped its descend (sic)” (West Malaysia website).

This is just one of those revealing statements of what they really think. It becomes obvious that they do not present everything to the public that they believe. Think about what they are saying? From their own teaching perspective there were no Christians to be found in this period of time. So when did Holy Spirit begin to descend again? They do not specify a date in their materials but one can surmise from their teaching of the latter rain that it is when they began their church. 

“The baptism of the Holy Spirit is a prerequisite for entering heaven. speaking in tongues is the evidence of having received the Holy Spirit.”(7).

 If they meant one believing and receiving the spirit and being baptized into the body as it states in 1 Cor.12:13 it could be agreed upon, but this is not what they mean at all. They affirm that the sign and evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit is speaking in unintelligible tongues. Everyone who has received the Holy Spirit prays to God with a spiritual tongue without having to be taught how to do so. It is a prerequisite for entering heaven by this church. So if one does not speak in tongues they can’t go. What example do we have for this? None! In fact John the baptizer was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mothers womb before he could speak, and he never spoke in tongues in his ministry. So do they agree he was not saved? The 3000 saved at Pentecost never spoke in tongues, so they are excluded. If this was an integral part of the salvation experience it certainly would be mentioned, especially the first time the Holy Spirit saved a whole group of people like this. But it is not. If speaking in tongues is evidence of salvation then wouldn't it be evident that the Holy Spirit would have all manifest this gift each time when they are saved?    

If one wants to make a doctrine from a few scriptures than we can conclude from Acts 19:6 “And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.” So should we require prophesy instead of tongues. For Paul makes it clear I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues” (1 Cor. 14:5). So should we assume that one must prophesy to be really prove we are saved? The Holy Spirit is a gift to prove salvation and any other Biblical manifestations are just that, a proof, but not THE ONLY proof. 

MUST You Speak in Tongues to prove you have the Holy Spirit. They ask on their website “what evidence do you have that you have received the Holy Spirit? If you have not received the Holy Spirit, what proof do you have that God lives in you? 

 How about a changed life, one that obeys the word and worships God, that prays and lives a spiritual life. Not only is this showing spiritual  immaturity to take their position, it is divisive. Their position is “If you have never experienced speaking in tongues, this means that you have not yet received the Holy Spirit.”  

Neither Jesus nor Paul add this as a requirement for salvation. This is pure nonsense. Paul said “Do all speak in tongues, “do all prophecy?” The answer is of course no to both. If this were so, the Bible would have as much to say about this gift as it would about faith (belief) for salvation. If all speak in tongues then certainly all must prophesy and this diminishes the idea of every member having different gifts in the body. 

Can you prove that EVERY Christian spoke in tongues? How could you when Paul said they do not. How many REAL TRUE Christians are these people willing to exclude by the exclusive mandates of their gospel

If we take all of Paul's statement on this in context we find the truth “I wish you all had the gift of 'speaking in tongues' (1 Cor. 14:5). Here he is speaking to Christians, a strange thing to say if they tongues are a sign for ALL believers. “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you” (1 Cor.14:18) He would be boasting to the unsaved of a spiritual gift he has and they don’t.  Does this sound like a good a example of an apostle? You can’t accept the Bible as the word of God and then change a clear teaching like this to form your own Pentecostal predilection.

Of course their position is not an exclusive private interpretation of the Scripture,  many other Oneness Pentecostals held the same wrong view even before they did. Numerous Pentecostals today view speaking in tongues as an integral part of exhibiting they were baptized in the Holy Spirit.  Some Pentecostals (majority are Oneness) make it a requirement for salvation -- one is not saved unless they speak in tongues. This belief is not supported by Scripture ANYWHERE. While evangelicals may disagree on tongues being for today, this does not make them unsaved. What makes someone unsaved is not believing that the crucifixion with the shed blood of Christ is sufficient alone to save us, even if you do speak in tongues prophesy and have other signs. 

Speaking in tongues accompanying salvation is only described in the book of Acts. Its example is found in  three instances when new groups of believers were introduced into the Church. First the Jews who were already disciples in chapter 2, the Gentiles in chapter 10, and the disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19:6 who were led to believe by Paul. All spoke in different languages and that, without having asked for it! In fact in Acts 10 they did so before being water baptized (which according to this church is spiritual salvation).  

The fact that the 3,000 saved at Pentecost DID NOT speak in tongues destroys the teaching that everyone who is saved speaks in a tongue. We also find that it was whole groups of people together, not individuals who spoke in tongues. In Acts 4:2-4 Jesus and the resurrection is preached, they believed and 5,000 were saved. There were no tongues mentioned. Acts 8:37-38 After hearing Isa.53 which is about the death of Jesus the eunuch is baptized because he believed. He had no tongues. Acts 16:31 the Philippian jailer asks what must I do to be saved? Answer: believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household. He did not speak in tongues. 

 On their web they state What is the evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit? a. Speaking of unintelligible tongues: “ Peter even declared with full assurance that the way they received the Holy Spirit was the same as it was on the day of Pentecost (Acts 10:44-47). From this we know that speaking in tongues is the absolute evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit.” 

This becomes a contradiction on their part because they state one must be baptized first to be cleansed and have salvation. So did they receive the Spirit before they were saved?  In Acts 10:43  the gentiles received the Spirit before baptism, from hearing the word and believing. These Gentiles spoke in tongues. Acts 11:16-18 Peter recounts what the Lord said about the difference between water baptism and spirit baptism. Vs. 17 “If therefore God gave them the same gift as he did unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ.” Peter says it was received the same way for both the Jews and the Gentiles. In fact, Peter, who everyone uses for teaching baptismal salvation makes it clear, recalling the event in Acts 10 in Acts 15:8-11. V.8 “And God, which knoweth the hearts, BARE THEM WITNESS, GIVING THEM THE HOLY GHOST, EVEN AS HE DID UNTO US, “and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.” “...But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.” They were all saved the same way, by faith. That is not my opinion that's the Bible's teaching. Saved means you possess the Holy Spirit.   What we find in the book of Acts is no set formula for the giving of the Spirit, but the same pattern is salvation by grace through faith.  All this proves is that they have a narrow view of Biblical history using selective Bible passages. 

In Acts 8:17 When Philip preached to the Samaritans he sent for Peter and John who were apostles to come to the Samaritans who had already received the word of God and were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. But they still did not have the Spirit because it was not preached to them by the apostles (Peter needed to be there; as he was present for all three groups salvation -- the Jews, the Samaritans, the Gentiles to approve their entering the body of Christ). When they approved of these believers some type of outward sign occurred, it doesn’t tell us what exactly  it was. It could have been tongues or prophecy or both, since both are noticeable. 

Holy Communion

They teach that communion is to be taken in a worthy manner and we should examine ourselves so there is agreement on this. “ It is to be done with respect and examination.” No problem here. However they also say to partake of the Holy Communion, we need to have been baptized in the True Church and must not have committed any serious sin. They believe Jesus said that those who eat His flesh and drink His blood will have eternal life. This means to partake of His spiritual life, rather than His physical body.  They believe it becomes the spiritual flesh and blood of Jesus by the presence of the Holy Spirit. “With the presence of the Holy Spirit, the bread and juice used during the Communion become the spiritual flesh and blood of Jesus” (Website). “After the thanksgiving prayer, the bread and grape juice become the body and blood of the Lord in the Spirit.” 

 The bread and wine are instruments through which symbolize Jesus' body and blood were given. How do these physical elements become spiritual, especially of Jesus' body that was flesh and blood?  they claim by the presence of the Holy Spirit. While they may not go as far as the Catholic church does, they are in the same camp, as they say “the sacrament keeps us from becoming weary or thirsty on the heavenly journey” (11). A sacrament is a Roman Catholic invented doctrine. The Bible attributes our strength to the Spirits work and at no time points to the communion for this. How can the bread become the body of the Lord in the Spirit if he is flesh and He is in heaven? How can the wine become anything similar to the physical sinless blood that was shed 2,000 years ago. It can’t. There are no substitutes or transferences. Jesus' statements of to eat my flesh and drink my blood can only be understood as symbols of another meaning. It meant to be consumed by His life, not to eat sacraments made by ordinary men later on. In the same way he said my words are spirit and they are life; or that he is living water and if you drink you will never thirst again. 

The communion points to the real event, His death on the cross, as Jesus says- it is a memorial. “do this in remembrance of me.”  

their position: When Jesus said “this is my body” the bread was changed to his body. Though this is difficult to understand it is never the less true” (Jn.6:52,55,60-63)” (19). “After consecration, the bread and the cup become the body and the blood  of the Lord in the spirit though outwardly they remain the same (Mt.26:26-28) (20). This is what the Roman Catholic church says as well. “The  “The blood of Jesus be effective in water baptism and the bread and the cup becoming the body and blood are a mystery “ (Words of Life 6, Words of Life 15 p.15). 

The Bible never calls these a mystery, the Roman Catholic church does [Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, Intro., C 6, pp. 109,10]. 

And why should it be a mystery,  it looks back and reveals an event that already took place that every Christian would know about. There are approximately 8 mysteries found in Scripture, this is not one of them.  “Receiving the Holy Communion bears the spiritual effect of being united with the Lord, attaining salvation, and rising to life on the last day (John 6:53-56)” (Website). So, communion becomes a necessity in their gospel.

 Denial of the Trinity, God is 3 manifestations

Historic Orthodox Christianity and the Bible teaches there is a tri-unity in God. God is one in being 3 in persons (non-human of course). This is a crucial teaching that is denied. 

They teach-Everything we do must be done in Jesus name. (Col.3:17; Mark 16:17). Yet most churches do not use Jesus' name in the baptism. They, follow the Catholic teaching of baptizing “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy ghost” (Mat.28:19). The apostles never used this Trinitarian title in the baptism. They understood that Jesus is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. There is only one God and the name of our Lord and God is Jesus (John 20.28; l John 5:7; Rev.1:8,17-18; Isa.9:6).”  

This is the Oneness teaching that came out of the Asuza revival by 1915. So this is not a new revelation, theirs came afterwards. Anti-Trinitarians always appeal to the Roman Catholic church as their whipping post on this subject. This again is not true, unless you want to push back the Catholic institution to right after the apostles. Since they can’t get around Mt.28 and its clear instructions, they must change its meaning and intent. (go to Mt. 28- baptism in Jesus name)

They write “Why is the view of Trinitarianism so hard to understand?  Because it has taken the teaching of the One True God who manifested Himself in three ways and has sought to make three Persons out of Him.  Look at  “three Persons” any way you wish and you still have three distinct and separate Beings.  Three separate Beings can only mean three distinct Gods” (West Malaysia web). Three manifestations does not explain God at all, in fact it hides who God is, he loses His personhood and identity. The fact that three, Father, Son and comforter are all eternal existing simultaneously seems to refute the idea that they are only manifestations like fire or light that appeared to man throughout history. Then one needs to explain why God was manifesting like this before he even created mankind 

In Jn.17 Jesus states “Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.”  Before the world was, he preexisted as God- for only God existed at that time, therefore he was not a creature. He became a creature through the virgin birth by taking on human flesh to house his Spirit that was God. It is the Son that was sent to the earth from heaven by the Father. The Father did not become flesh. 

John 1:2-3: “He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him.” Is the world and all things made through a manifestation? That's two different subjects here, Father and Son (who is called a “He”). Fathers and Son are not manifestations. Clearly God is communicating a relationship between the two eternally existing persons that are simultaneously existent.

The Father speaking to the Son (who is a manifestation),” But to the Son he says “Your throne, O’ God is forever and ever”(Heb.1:8). In Heb.1:10 The Father speaking of the Son, “And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning has laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of your hands...”

What they have done is deny the deity of the Son. For if the Son is God then He is eternal, existing before the world was made. The Son is not God because the Father is in him but because he is God by nature as the Son. To oneness the Son is not the exact representation of the Father but only a vessel the Father lived in. But they also say he too is a manifestation. The Bible has enough Scriptures to prove that the Son is God as the Father is God but they are not the same in person but same in being, as God. The Bible says the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father, they are one in nature. Three persons existing simultaneously, which share the one essence equally. Heb.1 tells us the Son is the exact representation of another, the Father. The express image of his PERSON. When it says Jesus is the exact image of God should we not think of him as a person who has the nature of God or a manifestation. And in who's image is he exactly like? Another who is a person, his Father, not a manifestation. If the image is a person so is the one he is the image of. 

To change the eternity of the Son they write “The “Word” is “Logos,” a conception or idea.  God had in the very beginning of time conceived the idea of man’s redemption through His becoming man.  The idea materialized when “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (Website). 

 If the word is an idea or a conception it has to come from a greater mind, then how could this word be God? How could Jesus be “all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9) if he is only an idea of God. Besides it says the word was WITH God and IS GOD. Not an idea in God's mind, God is a being not a thought.

The Sabbath

They teach that many professing Christians are taught wrong in not keeping the Sabbath, that it is not for Israel only. That the ten commandments are requirements for all human beings (including the Sabbath).  “The Bible makes it clear that Sabbath observance is a commandment to every God-worshiper. Although Christ has freed us from the strict Sabbatic regulations under the Mosaic laws, the Sabbath day still remains; and Christians still need to keep the Sabbath as a sacred day of rest.” 

“the Sabbath is a day to remember the salvation of God. It is a constant reminder that Jesus died on the cross to redeem us from the bondage of sin and to give true rest to our souls.”

“Sabbath observance is also a sign between God an his worshippers” “...the Bible makes it clear that Sabbath observance is a commandment to every God-worshiper.” “the Sabbath day is day to remember the salvation of God” (22)

Where does it ever say such a thing? The Sabbath was given before there was Jesus' death and is no way connected to a sacrifice for sin even in the Old Testament. They are giving it a spiritual significance the Bible does not. In fact it is Sunday the disciples remembered the sacrifice as they celebrated His resurrection.

“Although Christ has freed us from the strict Sabbatic regulations under the Mosaic laws, the Sabbath day still remains; and Christians still need to keep the Sabbath as a sacred day of rest.”

Nowhere is the Bible make a distinction like this. All through Jesus ministry they worshipped Him on different days. Even in the Old Testament God sanctioned Israel to worship on other days, even the first day of the week, He did not forbid it (Lev. 23:36, 39). The apostles worshipped Jesus on Sunday also (Mt.28:9), Jesus never corrected them but accepted their worship.  In the New Testament Mt. 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, Sunday they worshipped him vs.9, Acts 20:7 (see articles on Sunday/Sabbath worship the same refutes for 7th day Adventists apply here)

From the primitive church there was a transition time. The early writings and Scripture show the early Jewish Christians kept both without any conflict not as there is today among the legalists. But some Jews became legalistic and began to influence the church. In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for being influenced into thinking God expects them to observe Old Testament festivals, including the Sabbath. “you observe days and months, seasons, and years. I am afraid for you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain.” To observe days, the months, years; the holy days is a sign of weakness and immaturity. The DAYS are the Sabbath[s] and Holy days. Months are the new moon festival, seasons are the festivals of Lev.23; years are the sabbatical years and the year of jubilee. Paul did not want the believers to become entangled in bondage to the law. We don’t rest or worship on one day or another but rest spiritually in Jesus and His work, we have the substance not the shadows of the Old Testament.

So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ” (Col. 2:16-17).

Leviticus 23 lists several “Holy Convocations” starting with the seventh-day Sabbath, it lists other “seven holy convocations,” the Passover, the Feast of Unleavened bread, firstfruits, the Feast of Booths, etc. All are identified as “holy convocations,” they are all held with equal merit. So if one makes an issue of Sabbath keeping they should keep all the other feasts that become Sabbaths too.

The first years of the Church were made up of Jews so they did go to synagogue on Sabbath to worship with other Jews who did not believe in Jesus to reach them but they also met by themselves on Sunday. It's not that Sunday replaced the Sabbath but that it was a different day for worship, something the Sabbath was never intended for, because it was given as a day of rest. Certainly the church understood that the Sabbath commemorated a finished creation with God’s rest. The first day commemorates a finished redemption and a new work. Neither Jesus nor the apostles teach it is necessary for the believer to keep the Sabbath.

Their arguments are the same as all Sabbatarians and have been used so often the that it has now become a tradition among them. The Catholic church changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.  “Sunday originated from pagan practices of sun worship. In March of 321 A.D., the Roman Emperor Constantine, who was at first a sun-worshiper and later a Christian convert, issued the first decree declaring Sunday to be a legal day of rest. In 336 A.D., the Roman Catholic Church officially changed the observance of Sabbath to Sunday for political and economic expediency. Since then, the original Sabbath gradually gave way to Sunday observance and the practice remains to this day” (Our Basic beliefs). 

 This is so played out I'm surprised anyone would continue to use such nonsense in proving Sunday is not authorized or allowed as a worship day. Sunday was a day of worship for the early church proved by the Bible (along with the Sabbath for Jews visiting the synagogue). The quotes from the early church and historians that are even non Christian are overwhelming on this fact. If one studies history they find that Sunday was observed along with the continuing Jewish practice of the Sabbath. (for more info on the Sabbath)  Philip Schaff who did probably more research than anyone in modern times on the early church writes “Sunday… was adopted by the early Christians as a day of worship.. . Sunday was emphatically the weekly feast of the resurrection of Christ, as the Jewish Sabbath was the feast of creation. It was called the Lords day, and upon it the primitive church assembled to break bread” (the Schaff- Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge 1891 Ed., vol.4 Article on Sunday).

“Many churches will try to rationalize and say that they gather on Sunday to observe the resurrection of Jesus… there is no instruction to observe this day in place of the Sabbath.”  

Their mistake a large one, no one replaces the Sabbath, it is a different day. For example in Acts 2:1 “Now when the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.” This in relation to Psalm 133 the brethren dwells together in unity, as an assembly of worship and reading the scriptures. This was on a Sunday as they admit. God gave the greatest event to the Church on a new day and they think the Church didn’t WORSHIP! The Bible says they did.  

At Troas Paul preached to the assembled Christians on the first day of the week a strange thing to take place if they did not meet on this day.  The only example of the Lord's supper being practiced is on Sunday (Acts 20:6, 7 the churches of Galatia and Corinth). Offerings are a part of worship, Paul specifically instructed the Christians at Corinth to make contributions on the first day of the week (I Cor. 16:2) when they gathered together. So the Bible does prove they congregated on this day despite many legalistic protests.

They fully understand what the Sabbath rules are so they soften it with grace.  “although Christ has freed us from the strict Sabbatic regulations under the Mosaic laws, the Sabbath day still remains; and Christians still need to keep the Sabbath as a sacred day of rest.” (Web - topic- Only for the Jews). 

The problem is that there is nowhere Jesus or the apostles commanded it. The day of worship was opened to ones own freedom (Rom.14) of choice. The penalty for the Sabbath is not changed, neither are the necessities. Romans14 tells us we have the freedom to choose what day to specifically set aside. In the same way we are free to eat anything we want as well.  When one is tied to the Old Testament law and does not see the distinction of a new covenant installed they cannot discern what is to be practiced as New Testament doctrine of grace. The law of the Old Testament was completed in Christ. We are under a new covenant (Heb.8:13). What is carried over in the New covenant is the moral laws that preceded the 10 commandments, the Sabbath is not one of them.   

We first need to understand no one kept the Sabbath until Israel's deliverance from Egypt and Moses gave the law (the law was given through Moses Jn.1:17). Nehemiah 9:13-14 “You came down also on Mount Sinai, and spoke with them from heaven, and gave them just ordinances and true laws, good statutes and commandments. You made known to them Your holy Sabbath, and commanded them precepts, statutes and laws, by the hand of Moses Your servant.” The Shabbat is attributed to Moses just as the rest of the law is.  There was no Sabbath command given to man to observe because only God created and God alone rested from His work in creation, He rested only once. The Sabbath command  given to Israel was to rest every 7th day, once a week it was not a worship day.

Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so (unless they converted to Judaism). When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers. Acts 15:24-25 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, 'You must be circumcised and keep the law'-- to whom we gave no such commandment.” Legalism relies on the Old Testament laws, the New Testament covenant teaches the fulfillment of the Law in Jesus Christ. We are now under grace, not the Law.

The commandment never brought life but instead death. Rom.3:20 “for through the Law {comes} the knowledge of sin.” Rom.5:20 “Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more.”  The law did not stop sin but only pointed it out, and it increased it. 1 Cor.15:56 says the law is the strength of sin. Paul said sin is producing death in me (its strength is the law).

God mentions the law as temporary until Christ will come. Gal 3:23-25 “But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor (teacher for the immature).” The law was the tutor, we are no longer under a tutor. The Ten Commandments is described by Paul as “the ministry of death” (2 Cor.3) God gave the commandments to prove man is a sinner, it is not to be used to justify or sanctify us, The Holy Spirit is given by Christ to do this. Paul describes the Mosaic covenant in 2 Cor.3: 7. He  identifies the Ten Commandments with the covenant “done away” in Christ.” These commandments are called the “ministry of death” and the “ministry of condemnation,” “written and engraved in stone” (2 Corinthians 3:7,9), which ministry, the HOLY SPIRIT tells us, is “passing away” and is “abolished” (verses 11,13), in its place we have the “ministry of the Spirit” and “the ministry of righteousness” (verses 8,9). 

If someone is Spirit filled they will not be obeying Moses' law but Christ's. For those who gaze at the law instead of Christ alone they have a veil instead of a seal, only the gospel takes this away.

 “Keeping the Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments (Matthew 19:17-19; 1Corinthians 7:19). The New Testament has no record of abolishing the Sabbath observance.” (Website)  

It most certainly does, God gave a new covenant to replace the old. Heb. 8:13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete.” Paul says you are either under law (Moses) or grace (Christ). Rom 6:14 -15 “For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.” 

We find that the Bible explains that within the 10 commandments the Sabbath was a token of the covenant God made for Israel. The 10 are the covenant. Exodus 34:27-28 “And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.” Deuteronomy 4:13; 9:9; 1 Kings 8:9,21; 2 Chronicles 6:11.

Ex. 31:23 “The Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. And he wrote upon the tablets the words of the covenant, the TEN COMMANDMENTS.” Notice with Moses (as the lead representative) and Israel, (the nation) we have established the “10 commandments. “ The Mosaic law is the old covenant and that the New Testament teaches that it is “done away” with in Christ.

In the New Testament we have new commandments Acts 1:2-5 “until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the Apostles whom He had chosen.” Some commands were temporary only for a certain time. This also true for the Old Testament laws. they were made obsolete and the law of Christ replaces them. 

1Thes 4:2 “for you know what commandments we gave you through the Lord Jesus.” Notice it was not by the law of Moses (or the 10 commandments).

The old covenant was for the Jews only. For one to be under the Old covenant they needed to convert to Judaism. In the new covenant, it is for both Jews and gentiles. In Eph.2 when we believe in Christ we becomes part of the body of Christ, not Judaism to keep the law.

Heb. 10:9 “then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second.” The Father's will was to put aside the first covenant so that mankind could receive the 2nd and have power to live the life he intended for us. Rom.10:4-5 “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” Our new life begins and ends in Christ not including the Old Covenant of law with the New covenant, by mixing it you are committing the error of the Galatians. Making people confused which covenant to live under.
Paul makes it clear in Gal. 3:21 “For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.” In the dispensation of grace, “the law is not of faith.”

Rom. 14:5-6 “explains if you want to set a certain day aside to worship you have the liberty and right to do so. If you want it to be the Sabbath that's fine too. It can be any day of the week, however, if one makes it a requirement for others to have to do the same, then he has become legalistic and is no longer operating in grace. He has become a judge of his brother without any Biblical substantiation. It becomes even more extreme when one makes it a point for salvation. The commandments are not the 10 only, but what Jesus spoke, “the word,” as John states 1 Jn. 2:3-5.  Jesus spoke many commandments that are not found in the Old Testament. Yet he summed up all the Old Testament commands by obeying only two. Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. (see the old and new covenant commandments

Rom.6:14 “For you are not under law, but under grace.” If one is to keep the law then they must meet its requirement of perfect obedience. James 2:10 states to break one point of the law means we are guilty of all.  Imperfect law keeping is not law keeping at all. Especially when it is accredited for ones salvation. One must keep the whole of the law and they become a debtor to it. Or they can live under the grace of the New Covenant that was ratified by blood of the cross. Clearly they do not understand what grace actually is to add all these other requirements after faith.

 This means you must trust in Christ alone for your salvation to be in the new covenant. You cannot add any old or new testament law to his work on the cross or you annul the object of your faith which Christ's death on the cross ALONE. You can't bring the law over and incorporate it into their relationship as requirement for salvation. 2 Cor. 4:3-4 “But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.” If you add laws then you have negated the New Covenant.


What I have found in my research on this church is that they have borrowed from many other legalistic groups that use Bible extremes. They use the Sabbath issue from Sabbatarians, the denial of the Trinity from Oneness and various other extremes from other churches that hold these beliefs. They have conglomerated them to make this new system they call the complete gospel. Which really is not complete at all, but another. Though they may be sincere, this Church although wanting to do right and follow Christ has gathered commands and made the way to enter harder than Jesus did by their added legalistic requirements.  


1.General Assembly of the True Jesus Church tract- facts about the true Jesus Church pg.1

2. Our Basic Beliefs pg.1

3.General Assembly of the True Jesus Church tract- facts about the true Jesus Church pg.3

4.General Assembly of the True Jesus Church tract- facts about the true Jesus Church pg.3

5.Our Basic Beliefs-Baptism of Water

7.Our Basic Beliefs-Articles of Faith

8.(General Assembly of the True Jesus Church tract- facts about the true Jesus Church)

11.Our Basic Beliefs - Holy Communion 

12.Words of Life 6 p.14

13.Words of Life 6 p.15

14.Words of Life 22 p.4

15.Our Basic Beliefs - (Way of Salvation first published May 1994)

16. Words of life 6  ( Literature Evangelical Department International Assembly of the True Jesus Church)

17.Our Basic Beliefs -The Washing of Feet

18. Our Basic Beliefs-the Holy Communion

19. Words of Life 15 p.15

20.Words of Life 15 p.19

21.General Assembly of the True Jesus Church tract p.3

22. Our Basic Beliefs- the Sabbath Day


Documents information used -Our Basic Beliefs from the General Assembly, Words of Life, booklets, web and personal conversations.


 *I do want to point out that there were a few quotes I had previously posted that were from the True Jesus Mission that is no longer affiliated with the True Jesus Church. I had talked with them to clarify this.  I was told that they were once affiliated with them and are not any longer because  they
do not agree. I apologize for the mistake. These quotes will be posted in another article along with a comparison chart that will show that they mainly do believe the same things.  They hold to the same doctrines of salvation and the nature of God and although the quotes were not theirs,  the meanings were essentially the same in salvation and keeping the commandments.



© 2009 No portion of this site is to be copied or used unless kept in its original format- the way it appears. Articles can be reproduced in portions for ones personal use. Any other use is to have the permission of  Let Us Reason Ministries first. Thank You.

We always appreciate hearing  from those of you that have benefited by the articles on our website. We love hearing the testimonies and praise reports. We are here to help those who have questions on Bible doctrine, new teachings and movements.  Unfortunately we cannot answer every email. Our time is valuable just as yours is, please keep in mind, we only have time to answer sincere inquiries from those who need help. For those who have another point of view, we will answer emails that want to engage in authentic dialogue, not in arguments. We will use discretion in answering any letters. 

  Let Us Reason Ministries

We thank you for your support in our ministry