My critics often attempt to discredit my past, suggesting that I was never a real Christian or that I was a heretic, unbeliever, or any other of the derogatory labels they attach to me that allows them to dismiss my story out of hand. What follows is an article I wrote in 2000 for the Our Father’s House website. I thought some of you might find it interesting. In 1997, I started Grace Baptist Church in West Unity, Ohio. We later changed the name of the church to Our Father’s House to better reflect our blossoming inclusivism. As any unbiased reader can see, my theology was quite orthodox and Evangelical.
What we Believe
Often I am asked “what does your Church believe about__________?” This is not an easy question to answer, because our Church is a body made up of individuals, and even in a smaller Church like Our Father’s House, there are “differing” views on what the Bible says about some things. We do not set any particular creed or statement of faith as a requirement for membership in the Church. Rather, if a person has repented of their sins, and by faith trusted Christ for Salvation, AND has a desire to be taught the Word of God , we encourage them to become a part of our assembly. We accept the Apostle’s Creed as a summary statement of belief. Please see our Church constitution for further information.
So, when asked “what does your Church believe about__________?” it is better for me to say what “I” believe and to share the viewpoint that “I” teach from.
I am an expositional preacher. The primary Bible version I use is the KJV. (After this was written, I started using the ESV.) Some Church members use the NKJV. Usually, I preach on random passages of Scripture, and at times will preach through books of the Bible. I believe the Bible is the inerrant, infallible Word of God. It does not just contain the words of God, it IS the Words of God — every jot and every tittle.
I am an Evangelical. I willingly embrace all those who claim the name of Christ and walk in His truth. I believe the denominational fragmentation that is seen today dishonors the God of Heaven. The world will know we are Christians by the love we have for one another. One of my desires is to promote love and unity among God’s people. Lest someone think I am an ecumenist, I oppose the Evangelicals and Catholics Together statement. While I readily grant that there are many Roman Catholics who are Christians (and I embrace them as such), the official doctrine of the Roman Church is salvation (justification) by works. In the name of Christ, I embrace God’s people wherever they may be found, but I strongly oppose the false gospel of works taught in many Churches. A sinner is saved (justified) apart from the works of the law (or any other work such as baptism, joining the Church, being confirmed). Sinners are not saved by works, but UNTO good works. (Ephesians 2:8-10)
I am a Non-Cessationist. I believe that spiritual gifts are for today and that they are in operation today. While I would not call myself a Charismatic, I do find a common bond with noncessationists such as John Piper and Martyn Lloyd Jones, and ministries such as People of Destiny (now Sovereign Grace Churches). I do not believe that many of the so-called charismatic gifts exercised in many Charismatic/Pentecostal Churches are of God. Such Churches preach a gospel according to the Holy Spirit, not a gospel that finds as its foundation Jesus Christ. Any gospel that requires a person to speak in tongues, evidence the fullness of the spirit, etc. is a false gospel. I also stand opposed to the modern prosperity gospel preached by men such as Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Freddy Price, et al. The modern charismatic movement is an admixture of truth and error and is best described as a mixture of the Corinthian and Laodicean Church. I also stand opposed to most of their teaching regarding demons, territorial spirits, and demon/spirit possession. There is a real Devil who can and does possess his children (John 8:44) and our battle is with him, but much of the spiritual warfare teaching is according to the philosophies of men and not of God.
I believe in the validity of the law of God. God’s law is pure, holy, and true, and man is enjoined by God to obey. I emphasize that the believer is to progress in sanctification and holiness. Saved people LIVE like saved people. I find much in common with the good men and women of the Chalcedon Foundation. They are a small voice in a large wilderness declaring the validity of the law of God.
I am a Calvinist. I believe in the Sovereignty of God and that salvation is of the Lord. No man can save himself. I do not believe man has an innate ability to believe. Unless the Father, by the power of His Spirit, draws a man to salvation, that man will never be saved. I believe in the perseverance (preservation) of the saints. God keeps His own until the day of salvation. I consider the doctrine of eternal security preached in many Churches to be a perversion of the truth because it denies a connection between the saviorship and lordship of Christ in a man’s life. There is a direct connection between a man who is saved and how he lives. The same God who saves a man has also ordained that he live a life of good works. No holiness, no Heaven! While I consider myself a Calvinist, I stand against hyper-Calvinism and its denial of the free offer of the gospel. I also reject double predestination as a doctrine rooted in the philosophies of men and not the Word of God. As a minister of the gospel, my desire is not to convert Arminians to Calvinists, nor is it to promote a theological system. I preach Christ. Calvinism is the best description of how and why God saves a sinner. I, without hesitation, affirm the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith as an accurate statement of that which I most surely believe.
I am posttribulational and amillennial. I believe the Church will go through the tribulation, and that there yet awaits a day when Jesus Christ will come again and judge the world.
I believe in the Lordship of Christ. We do not make Him Lord, HE IS LORD. Because He is Lord, we are called on to live holy, separated lives. The standard for such living is the Word of God. I reject all man-made standards of living, for God has given us everything we need pertaining to life and godliness. Legalistic standards of touch not, taste not are rejected as the philosophies of men.
My favorite theologians and authors are JC Ryle, Wayne Grudem, Donald Bloesch, Charles Spurgeon, Thomas Watson, Gardiner Spring, John MacArthur, and most anything written during the Puritan era. Truly, a minister is known by the books he reads. My favorite bookstore is the Cumberland Valley Bible and Book Service. They are an excellent source of sound doctrinal books and, of course, they carry a large supply of Puritan books
So there you have it. This is not all I believe, but I have given you enough so that you can decide what kind of preacher you think I am. After you decide, if you are still interested, please do stop and visit. We will be delighted to have you as our guest. If you have a question please e-mail me and I will promptly reply.
Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Connect with me on social media:
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.
re: “Some of the Church members use the NKJV. ”
LIBERAL HERETIC!!! 😉 i knew you weren’t a true christian!!
Not long after, I used the NASB for a bit and then moved to the ESV. In 2005 I candidated at a Southern Baptist church in Weston, WV. They wanted to hire me but I had to agree to only use the KJV. I refused. ?
This piece is so beautifully you in your time, Bruce, utterly thorough, utterly honest, utterly kind in its negotiation of the mine-filled doctrinal landscape that is Christianity. And you apply the same rigor and scope now as you did then, in your current critique of Christianity, and that’s why I have so enjoyed your blog lo these many years, and remain a loyal follower.You endlessly entertain us with your beautiful mind. Bravo.
Thanks, Rand. I appreciate your kind words.
Thanks for sharing Bruce.
I am impressed by your ability to be simultaneously eloquent and sincere. You DID believe in those things.
You were firm in your beliefs without being deliberately polemical, even while you were spelling your disagreements with certain teachings. You were an exclusivist, in the sense that you believed there is a correct way to view God, but inclusive in your admission that people might and do disagree on many things.
I wish my pastors could adopt the same posture as you did. But alas, as my views are changing, I’m afraid that they will turn every future discussion into an inquisition. At least partially spurred on by my parents’ panicking that I might turn into a heretic. How unfortunate.
As I mentioned in my response to OC, new knowledge and understanding bring change. While my core beliefs remained relatively static, my peripheral beliefs changed dramatically over the years. I would read, study, and talk to other preachers, and come to new conclusions. One of the problems with Evangelicalism (and religion in general) is that many church leaders have static (unchangeable) beliefs. I know preachers who believe the same things today they believed 25-40 years ago. How sad to not have grown and matured. Certainty, in my opinion, stunts intellectual growth.
It’s great writing. And very interesting from the point of view of expanding my knowledge as it introduced me to a couple of subjects that I didn’t previously know about (Hyper Calvanism and Double Predestination) and which I therefore had to go and look up on Wikipedia.
and now you know … 🙂
I hope Pastor Bruce of twenty years ago doesn’t mind if I don’t visit…
You would likely have found me kind, friendly, and winsome. And I was a pretty good public speaker (according to the people who heard me preach). That said, theologically I was a Calvinistic Evangelical.
Well.
Just how deep the rabbit hole goes, Gerencser knows, oh he knows… and has gone gone gone down the holes, down all the holes, all the holes he knows, inside and out he knows and he goes and goes…
“Pastor, we would like to offer you this pulpit but you have to use the King James Version only…” Oh, the holes he knows!
One church I candidated at in 2005, wanted to hire me, but one of their hiring conditions was that I only use the KJV. By then, I was primarily using the ESV. I turned their offer down.
Bruce, I have a question about your remarks on legalism. At that point in your pastoral career, you had strayed from your IFB roots, but you still seemed to be a hardcore evangelical. In 2000, what would you have considered legalistic?
I also have a question about what you considered God’s laws to be – surely you didn’t follow the 600+ Levitical laws? (And how would 600+ laws NOR be considered legalism? Those laws were supposedly given by God himself, so what’s the cutoff for legalism? Seriously, these are the types of questions that got me into trouble with the powers that be in evangelical churches lol).
I moved away from my IFB roots in the late 1980s, but I remained an orthodox Evangelical until around 2005 (hard to pin down when, exactly, I stopped being an Evangelical). While I abandoned many of my former IFB social beliefs, I was still quite conservative. Legalistic? Not in the strictest sense. I understood legalism to be works added to salvation. The Bible is a legalistic book, so following the laws of God was not “legalism.”
In 2000, I believed all the law of God was binding and in force. God’s laws were civil, moral, and judicial. Some Evangelicals believe only the moral law is in force today. As a follower of Rousas Rushdoony, I rejected this position. I devoured Rushdoony’s books, The Institutes of Biblical Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._J._Rushdoony
My goal as a Calvinistic pastor was to rightly interpret the law of God and apply it to modern life.
In many ways, 2000 was a seminal year in my life. I abandoned the Evangelical culture war, voting Democrat for the first time. This was mainly due to my pacifistic, anti-war beliefs. By 2005, I had left Rushdoony and Calvinism in the dust, embracing more of a Mennonite, works-based worldview. By then, my political and social views became the tail that wagged the proverbial dog. One thing is for certain: my theology and social views evolved over the course of the twenty-five years I spent in the ministry. New knowledge and understanding brought change.
I agree with Rand’s comment. That said, would such a cerebral treatise actually get butts in the pews?