What Is Jonathan Leonardo's Love Reality tour teaching

 Jonathan Leonardo’s Love Reality tour is a series of sermons that he gives in various places. His detractors such as GC President Ted Wilson say it is based on some type of “once saved always saved idea”or as the writer on the website Fulcrum7 said it is “hyper grace”. Neither is helpful as they assume that the reader has a thorough understanding of what each term means.  Ted Wilson’s once saved always saved is actually eternal security which is played against the Arminianism theology that one can lose their salvation.

 Gerry Wagoner writes at Fulcrum7

as follows: “Hyper-grace is an exaggerated new wave of teaching that emphasizes the grace of God to the exclusion of other vital teachings such as repentance and confession of sin. Hyper-grace teachers maintain that all sin, past, present, and future, has already been forgiven, so there is no need for a believer to ever confess it.

Hyper-grace teaching says that, when God looks at us, He sees only a holy and righteous people —or children, to use the language of Love Reality. (This is true for a surrendered, repentant believer walking in an intimate relationship with the Lord. It is not true of an individual walking in presumption, using grace as a license for sin). The conclusion of hyper-grace teaching is that we are not bound by Jesus’ teaching, even as we are not under the Law; that believers are not responsible for their sin; and that anyone who disagrees is a pharisaical legalist. “

This is how Wikipedia defines hyper grace

: “Hyper-Grace is characterized by holding to eternal security with a high emphasis on divine grace. Hyper-Grace advocates hold that the believer is not under the Mosaic law in any sense, that one's sinful actions cannot hurt fellowship with God, denies the necessity of regular confession of sin in the life of a believer and holds to the belief that every Christian will have an equal possession in heaven.^{[3][10][11][12][13]} However, Hyper-Grace advocates reject viewing grace as a "license" to live in disobedience, viewing it as the only way to stay away from sin and emphasizing the natural consequences sin may have.^[9][14] Thus, advocates of the view have argued that grace is the most powerful motivator of obedience.^[15][16] Hyper-Grace rejects the idea of "Lordship Salvation", arguing that it leads to self examination and doubt. Advocates of Hyper-Grace deny that salvific repentance should be viewed as contrition and hatred for sin, instead being a change of mind, thus a synonym for belief in Christ.”

Gerry Wagoner is more correct in using the term hyper grace but completely wrong when he says what it means.

A good example of how hyper grace works is discussed by Paul Ellis

: “ Since  hyper-grace opponents don’t like to be called legalists, I’ll swap the word law for the word works to acknowledge their view that there are things you must do to be saved or sanctified. From this we can identify three gospels:

1.     Graceless gospel: You are saved by works and sanctified by works

2.     Mixed-grace gospel: You are saved by grace but sanctified by works

3.     Hyper-grace gospel: You are saved by grace and sanctified by grace

So now let’s determine if Leonardo is as Ted Wilson claims basing his teachings on once saved always saved. First I need to point out that Jonathan Leonardo has a large video presence on YouTube but practically no written material for me to quote. At one point he did have a book which he put out through Renown publishing  in 2022 which appears to simply be a self publishing book firm and while it is listed on Amazon and several other places it is not available anywhere and not available even as an e-book. So I have taken the transcripts from the Love Reality PVC series in 2019 I will publish these transcripts on this blog as well so that people can find them all together. This is suboptimal as really anyone serious about their theology should take the time to have written down their ideas, research and reasoning.

In Leonardo’s first sermon at the PVC church he says the following:

49:09 “…we hear those words all right cuz let me ask you a quick question how many times y'all in this room expect to get saved once, once right pastor Greg how many times you expect to get saved once, once you get saved how long you expect to be saved oh oh man see you like once saved always saved you see how that works yeah so we say things but we don't really mean that thing when we say once saved always saved we're really meanings like Oh Jonathan can you just abuse grace and live however you want and call it like oh well God forgives me why would I get why would I get free from death and then willingly go back to it now that I've tasted freedom I got holiness and holiness is an awesome gift why would I now be out there acting a fool with lust and addiction and talking 50:00 all crazy because I think that's Liberty that's not Liberty I got delivered from that why would I turn back to that but that deliverance is not what qualifies me you know what qualifies me the fact that he created me and calls me son and he calls every last one of y'all sons and daughters…”

In tour number 11 Leonardo says: In

51:43"...don't you let  it be said that this Grace We're preaching that empowers you to live according to the darkness you've been delivered from Grace without transformation is a perversion we live in beauty of Holiness we stored these bodies well we don't objectify others we never live at the expense of one another we don't lie we don't steal we don't cheat we're not sexually immoral we're not given the orgies or drunkenness because we are children of the light we Reign and if ever you find yourself in any of those activities you bring the truth of God to bear in that darkness and you call Sin for what it is but then you name yourself according to what he's spoken about you and don't you ever let thatactivity identify you as anything less than what the blood speaks…"

 

Now I don’t say that I agree with Jonathan Leonardo, I doubt he would want to associate my beliefs with his. But we have to understand what he is saying and people should not denigrate it without even really knowing what he believes and says. Granted to a large extent he brings it on himself by not stating clearly in writing what he believes and his reasons. The problem with sermons is that the speaker leads you through a process to try and reach his or her desired conclusion. If any part of the foundation that is laid is wrong then more than likely the conclusion will be wrong. In a sermon, you are, if the speaker is good, emotionally charged to accept their leading. In written material, it is far harder to do that. Leonardo is a good speaker, entertaining, and with some very good thoughts. It may be that this is the new way to reach the younger generation. He has some good short videos that are certainly of high quality and then he has some more problematic videos such as this one Why did Christ need to die for us to be saved? - Jonathan Leonardo

 I will note it is an edited video and it was not posted by Leonardo but what is there shows how mixing his metaphors leads to a confusing mishmash of statements.

 He begins:

God does not forgive your sin God doesn't forgive your sin God condemns sin but since he gave us Jesus… “

Of course, God forgives our sins, God can condemn sin and forgive our sins. The Bible a number of places says that. The idea that I often sense in Leonardo is a misunderstanding of sin. There is no sin apart from the thoughts and or actions of some intelligent being.  1 John 1:8-10: If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

 

Leonard then continues the confusion: 

0:14 “but since he gave us Jesus to go through the waters of death first we can come behind Jesus and die in his death so that we can live in his life so that whenever judgment is when it goes we can't be the ones who are judged because how do you judge those who have already died to sin does that make sense”

That is true, but it does not make sense because dying with Christ is a metaphor it does not mean we literally died and rose again with Christ. First, because that was nearly 2000 years before any of us were even born. So it is either a metaphor for something which should be explained or it is a mystical experience similar to the Recapitulation theory of the Atonement which holds that we were mystically seminally somehow present with Christ during His life, death and resurrection.

There is an article entitled Concerns about Love Reality It tries to compare Jonathan Leonardo’s statements to what someone thinks Ellen White believes on the same subjects. Sadly it is not a well done article for example here are the statements from one line of the chart the article supplies.

Problem: I’m not free from sin yet, but I still follow Christ.

Solution by Love Reality: We must believe we are free from sin in order to escape the punishment for sin.xx 

Is LR Solution T or F Based on Bible/SOP?: We must believe God’s promises: when we ask for forgiveness, we are indeed forgiven and cleansed from all unrighteousness.  But God’s people never claim to be free from sin.  See #8.

In simple terms, the answers against Love Reality presentation ignore the nuances of what is actually said and really the nuances of what the Bible and SOP say. It is an article to reinforce those who already oppose what Leonardo is saying. I will note that in the footnote for the Love Reality reference, it is just to the video, in the footnote it says the video is number 9 and gives the link. However, looking at the transcripts I don’t find that statement made in video 9. I do find a similar idea in this video, however.

 

A Conversation with Jonathan Leonardo

10:37 “ [reading from Romans] we know that our old self was crucified with him and order that our body of sin might be brought to nothing and was this so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin that that the body of sin comes to nothing at baptism when I participate in baptism with Christ Jesus he tells me that by faith the body of sin comes to nothing I look at this mind shifting altering complete like reality turning verse of chapter of verse 7 for one who has died has been set free from has been set free from sin yes that even me does that tell them is that it we participated in the death of Christ Jesus through baptism not that we're gonna be free from sin one day but that we are free from sin right and without going too far because we only have a little bit of time with that then ends up meaning is that we're free from sin and three very distinct ways

One  that we’re free from the power of sin why because the power of thing is via the law and the accusation that we've come under because we're condemned under the law right this is verse 15 the power thing is the law Romans six seven and eight clearly teaches us that since were 12:07 not under the law were not under condemnation so since I'm not under the law anymore I'm not under condemnation this is where people start getting worried that what are you saying is the lot done away with no no no no I'm not under the law because through the spirit the righteousness of the law is now inside of me right that's not one under the Spirit the righteousness of the law is now inside of me this is the New Covenant Hebrews 8 right so I'm no longer under the power of the law why be animated by the power of the Spirit right

 second I'm not under the penalty of sin because what is the penalty of sin the penalty of sin is death don't you sin because my Savior has liberated me from the penalty of sin by becoming a curse for me so that I might be his righteousness so I don't fear 13:06 death because I have victory that overcomes death and that's the faith that I have in Christ Jesus because of his faithfulness towards me so free from the power of sin free from the penalty of sin and the  third one really important I'm free from the prison of sin and the mentally is the mental prisoner the mental prison of thing is always conscious of its own sin because I'm conscious of my own sin I'm always coming under condemnation this is Romans… 

14:05

no longer in the flesh but we're in the spirit Romans 8:9 you don't have to live with a consciousness that's first and foremost concerned with sin I get to live with the consciousness that's first and foremost concerned with the gift of righteousness that is mine through Christ Jesus then I'll live with the double mindedness that's constantly looking at myself to see if I'm failing I get to look at him first to see him my victory so that then I see myself in light of how he sees me and I see myself in light 14:44 of how he sees me that puts integrity into me to walk according to the freedom that he says is mine it’s not about getting victory over sin moment-by-moment it's about me living from a freedom that's already mine and being the heart of his love for me15:02 so that in the longer way I slip and stumble into patterns of my former ignorance I have an advocate before the father Jesus Christ the righteous who is my very propitiation right knee isn't that where first John 2 tells us he says my little children I write this to you so that you may not sin but if you do you have an advocate before the father Jesus Christ the righteous why because I am not established first and foremost in my sinfulness anymore I'm established as a son because that's what was intended for me that's where the good news of my life began that was hidden in him that he could create in Christ Jesus to manifest His image…”

 

I appreciate many of the things Jonathan Leonardo has said. He is entertaining and far too verbose and not correct to my understanding on many areas of theology. That certainly does not mean we have nothing to learn from him. The most important part of his message being that we should stop this navel gazing about our own sinful condition. It disrupts our Christian lives it focuses on ourselves rather than the gift God has given us. We are either a new creation that has moved from death to life or not, it is not a merry-go-round from saved to unsaved dependent on how we feel about our relationship with God. As the verse says “Restore to me the joy of your salvation Psalms 51:12" Is he overstating some things? Yes I think so. But that is easily corrected with one Bible verse, my favorite verse: 1 John 3:1-3 NIV “See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure.”

 

 

Faith is Accepting the Grace of God

Most people when they think of faith think of a belief in something or someone. Something that is not fully happened yet so it can't be claimed to be a reality yet it is something that is expected to occur. We have faith that the building we are in will not simply collapse on us. Just as that faith in the building is either based upon our visual perceptions or our confidence in the builders and the inspectors and the host of people involved in creating a building, faith is never based upon just beliefs it should always be based upon evidence.

This frustrates many traditional type Christians. I was led to the following quote of Ravi Zacharias from a comment on Spectrum, (an open letter to Educate Truth). The commenter said of tand article by someone who used the Ravi Zacharias quote; “He mocks the "blind faith" of Christians, relying on the writings of Ravi Zacharias, a critic of the Bible.” Here is some of what Zacharias wrote:

If a pastor says, “All we need is the Bible,” what does he say to a man who says, “All I need is the Quran”? It is a solipsistic method of arguing.

The pastor is saying, “All I need is my own point of reference and nothing more than that.” Even the gospel was verified by external references. The Bible is a book of history, a book of geography, not just a book of spiritual assertions.

The fact is the resurrection from the dead was the ultimate proof that in history — and in empirically verifiable means — the Word of God was made certain. Otherwise, the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration would have been good enough. But the apostle Peter says in 2 Peter 1:19: “We have the Word of the prophets made more certain … as to a light shining in a dark place.” He testified to the authority and person of Christ, and the resurrected person of Christ.

To believe, “All we need is the Bible and nothing more,” is what the monks believed in medieval times, and they resorted to monasteries. We all know the end of that story. This argument may be good enough for those who are convinced the Bible is authority. The Bible, however, is not authoritative in culture or in a world of counter-perspectives. To say that it is authoritative in these situations is to deny both how the Bible defends itself and how our young people need to defend the Bible’s sufficiency.

There is little point in giving quotes from the blind faith side of things because they have nothing to stand upon aside from their tradition. Tradition may be good, bad or indifferent but if it is not inquired about it has tremendous potential for harm. A few examples of harmful traditions would include these:

...”[F]female circumcision/genital mutilation, facial scarring, the force-feeding of women, early or forced marriage, nutritional taboos, traditional practices associated with childbirth, dowry-related crimes, honor crimes, and the consequences of son preference...”

Faith is not based upon tradition, it is not a product of blind choice and it is not merely the assumptions that what you hope for will happen or what you can't see is there. When the Bible says: Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. Hebrews 11:1it is an expression of the results of faith not the reason for the faith. As the Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary says:

“Instead, he treats faith with reference to the future. It is that trust in God that enables believers to press on steadfastly whatever the future holds for them. They know that they can rely on God. So the writer's method is to select some of the great people in the history of God's people and to show briefly how faith motivated all of them and led them forward, no matter how difficult the circumstances.”

Faith was based upon their understanding of God, their experience with God, tradition may have been involved but it is only one part of the overall experience and knowledge, information and reality that creates the understanding of God as someone who can be trusted, someone who is a friend and not an enemy.

Few of us would be so foolish as to say we believe in anything by blind faith. Religion seems to be the one clear exception...well perhaps certain conspiracy theories as well. But generally it is not seen as a reasonable position to base anything on blind faith. What happens in traditional Christianity however is that traditional understanding and practices of Biblical interpretation become the excuse to accept blind faith. If someone uses different techniques to interpret the Bible so that it does not conflict with scientific reality, the traditionalist scoffs at the more reasoned explanation.

But the traditionalist does not want to admit that his faith is in a particular form of Bible interpretation technique, so instead they will say that they are simply following the Bible, or the plain reading of the Bible. Thus if you disagree or have a different interpretation you are going against the Bible in their view. If reason, history, science or any other form of reality disagrees with their interpretation they assert their fidelity to the Bible by which they mean their traditional interpretation of the Biblical texts.

Faith is not found in methods of Bible interpretation, it is not found in tradition, it is based upon the reality of the historical person of Jesus Christ as the incarnation of God. A revelation of the love and acceptance of even His enemies and His power over death and His promises of reconciliation. Faith is built on evidence and it is only faith in God, not interpretations, because we can and historically have been wrong in interpretations. But faith is about who God is, Faith is the acceptance of the gracious character of our God. Other things may fail us but if our God is love, the love revealed by Christ then we have good reasons for belief in better things to come.

George Knight save us from the law

George Knight had a series of presentations at the Pleasant Valley SDA church in Oregon recently. Here are the links to the presentations. Clink on the link to stream or right click to save the mp3 file. I am giving the links here as after a time they will likely be moved on the PVC website. Currently they are on the home page but no doubt they will be moved as time goes by.

Root of A Prophetic Movement

Adventism And the Apocalyptic Vision

Adventism Gets Baptized

Question and Answers with George Knight.

Earlier I wrote a review of George Knight’s last book The Neutering of Adventism…

It was not a favorable review as the book is basically a continuation of the propaganda that Adventists have the truth, we are the Remnant and if we lose our unique Apocalyptic view we destroy Adventism because Adventism is not content to be Christian but has to be something superior to Christian.

I figured the first two presentations would go over the themes of his recent book. So I started with the Q and A which aside from his answer to the question posed by a “last generation theology” person which was good, in the main the Q and A was unremarkable.

The presentation on “Adventism Gets Baptized” is about Jones and Waggoner and 1888, or more precisely Ellen White and 1888, she being the force that allowed Jones and Waggoner to present their views to a church that thought it had the truth yet did not even understand the basic Protestant concept of Justification by Faith (never really picked up steam until the late 1970’s). It never ceases to amaze me how Adventists can think of their history as that of the remnant, the people with the truth and yet for so long they had no clue about Justification by Faith (Righteousness by Faith to Adventists because apparently we were too pure to use the terms of Protestant Christianity).

What most bothered me is the section in the presentation is where George Knight says that we have to be saved from the law:

“… Seventh-day Adventists needed help, I’ll just read one other statement this comes from her (Ellen White’s) diary, looking back at Minneapolis she talks about a fear that there was danger of carrying the subject into justification by faith altogether too far. And not dealing enough with the law. By the way we have still got some Adventists in that camp today. Talk too much about justification makes them all nervous. OK. But the two go hand in hand I’ll tell you that right now. These people that say you don’t need the law if you got grace, I have never been able to figure that out because you don’t need grace if you don’t have the law. You have got to be rescued from something the law says you’re a sinner grace says shhrrrick we can take care of that. If you don’t have the law you don’t need grace period. No, where all this foolishness comes from in dispensational theology I have not been able to figure it out. We’ve got some Adventist hung up in that camp too.” [he then continues with the Ellen White diary]. Quote begins at 16:02 to 17:05

The question should arise in most people’s minds are we saved from sin (our own rebellious self centered attitude) or are we saved from a law. That is a big difference. It comes down to the idea that God is condemning me for not meeting His law rather then my own selfishness leading to my own demise. It amounts to grace is given to save me from myself vs. Knight’s version of grace is given to save me from God (God’s law). After all it is God that gave the law and the law is of no authority without someone or some system behind the law giving the law authority and power. It is this misunderstanding of God which was pointed out in an earlier blog article which concluded by saying:

“If our fundamental assumption about God is based upon the idea that God’s law condemns us we have set up the presupposition that God is against us. A direct contradiction of the New Testaments declaration: “What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? “(Rom 8:31 NIV) This presupposition becomes the root of so much misunderstanding about God which culminates in the idea that God had to pour out His wrath on Christ so that God could forgive us. An idea which flies in the face of the characteristics of God : “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.”

Certainly the law points out that we are sinners, but was that the reason for its existence or is that the simple result of giving a law to people who are selfish. If the state tells you not to drive through a red light is it because it means to condemn you or because it is seeking to create an orderly environment. You need grace not because you have a law but because you have a defect of sin which will lead to your death unless someone outside of yourself intervenes. Grace exists before a law because grace says I want to help these people, the law is a tool to help people. First as a way to formulate and orderly society such as the law given in the Old Testament and second as a tool to show us that we left to our own devises are no where near the type of person that God is. So the “law was put in charge to lead us to Christ”, the person who offered grace in the first place.

This reminds me of the following quote from Charles Spurgeon:

Yet, pardon me my friends, if I just observe that this is a very natural question, too. If you read the doctrine of the apostle Paul you find him declaring that the law condemns all mankind.

Spurgeon gives no reference to where Paul says that…because Paul never said it (see footnote). Paul did say that all sin and fall short of the glory of God before telling us that it is grace that saves us. But what much of Christianity has decided is that what Paul actually said is less important than what they want Paul to have said. Possibly so that they can make grace and law work hand in hand when they never were intended to work hand in hand the way most people think, grace gave the law and grace saves without regard for if someone keeps the law.

All of this and I have not once told you what the law is. It can be many things to many people, is it the 613 Jewish commandments, the 10 commandments, the Exodus 10 commandments or the Deuteronomy 10 commandments? Is it the 2 commandments that Jesus referred to as upon which hang all the law and the prophets or is it all the instructions that Jesus gave or that the apostles gave in the New Testament? Why there are probably some Christians who think the law is that God says obey me or I will have to kill you because my justice demands it. That fits in with Knight and Spurgeon though we have to do some creative restructuring of the New Testament Bible to make it say that but just some simple interpretations of a few stories of the Old Testament however can give you that kind of God.

To sum up the law does not make you a sinner, it does not stop you from being a sinner, though just like the red light it may save you from causing more problems and hurting yourself or others if it is followed in certain instances. It does not change you, it is not an outside force that can change you even if you decide to follow it to the best of your ability, it does not cover all your selfishness whether acted out, thought about or omitted. The change comes from the grace of God who cares about you and seeks to reconcile you to Himself. If the focus is on the laws; whatever laws there may be do not focus you on grace of God that we see in Jesus Christ they are not serving their purpose for God. That is the way that law and grace go hand in hand and it is practically never the way Christians use the term.

Footnote:

There is one other place one can get the idea that the law condemns it reads as follows:

Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. (2 Corinthians 3:7-10)

First we have to realize that apart from what we may want the text to say it might be saying something different so we have to analyze it. Did the 10 commandments written on stone usher in death? No clearly from the other Bible stories death was common. Is the verse speaking of some kind of death in the afterlife, as in no eternal life after this life? Again the answer is no the concept of an after life is not present this early in the Biblical stories. So what is Paul talking about? What ministry of death was inaugurated with Moses the lawgiver? Paul is referring to the Jewish nation who followed the traditions of Moses and ended up ultimately rejected Jesus Christ. No matter how glorious the history of the lawgiver was it did not establish a way out of death. Worse then not providing a way out of death it put Israel in a covenant relationship where if they failed, God would be against them. As Leviticus chapter 26 states:

I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt so that you would no longer be slaves to the Egyptians; I broke the bars of your yoke and enabled you to walk with heads held high. "'But if you will not listen to me and carry out all these commands, and if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail to carry out all my commands and so violate my covenant, then I will do this to you: I will bring upon you sudden terror, wasting diseases and fever that will destroy your sight and drain away your life. You will plant seed in vain, because your enemies will eat it. I will set my face against you so that you will be defeated by your enemies; those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee even when no one is pursuing you. (Lev 26:13-17 NIV)

The verses go on for a good long list of horrors. Therefore it was to Paul a ministry of death as opposed to the ministry of life through faith in Jesus Christ and His promises. It is not however a covenant to which the Gentiles are a party, but an apt demonstration of the difference between the letter of a law where the nation entered into an agreement that they were unable to keep versus the Spirit’s ministry by the grace of God as revealed in Jesus Christ offer of healing and reconciliation.

As the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (InterVarsity Press) states on page 537:

"The most natural background for Paul's statements that the Law is aligned with sin, death and condemnation is the widespread conviction among first-century Jews that the Law had justly condemned Israel to Gentile domination for transgressing its commands."