NOTE: I have it in mind to answer the entire 30+ minute video of Ms Dennington, but it is proving time consuming. I'm going to go ahead and release this article for publication as a "work in progress". I will be adding to it until I reach the end of her "sermon". So you may want to check back from time to time (if you are interested), to see more.
What a coincidence that just days after posting a message bringing the true gospel, in a fashion as prescribed by God, and true to God's own character, that now I'd be posting the exact opposite. In the message by Walter A. Meyer, entitled It Is Finished!, Mr. Meyer lays out the complete, and unadultered gospel in exactly the format taught by both Jesus and Paul, and others of the apostles.
Now comes Monica Dennington and her, well... it's hard to describe.
First off, let me address one thing: I agree with her to an extent. There really are people out there for whom the love of the debate means more to them than the love of Christ. I know some of these people, and she is correct that they do tend to go round the circle of Calvinist websites and blogs. I'd add only that these people are hardly limited to Calvinism. The people for whom salvation is an intellectual pursuit is wide and varied, and you will find as many Arminians (such as Ms. Dennington, herself), and as many Mormons, and as many "Full Gospel Evangelicals" as you will Calvinists. However, Calvinists tend to be thinking people. And while God is right in there with thinking and reasoning, there does come a point where you have to stop thinking about faith and actually seize it.
Secondly, I kind of admire this woman's zeal and enthusiasm. She and I are of a (I almost hate to admit it) similar "spirit" at least insofar as it comes to enthusiastically preaching what we believe to be the truth of the scripture that God has delivered. I admire that she is jealous of defending God, and defending what she believes he has said.
But lets be honest: God doesn't need defending, and neither does His word. And if he did, none of us would be up to the task. Far from it. Not me, and not her either. And in my opinion, certainly not her.
So, while there's a similarity in enthusiasm and zeal, that similarity ends..., well..., right there.
I'm going to expound on the entire message, chronologically, but before that I am going to vent for a while. I'm going to jump to the conclusion and offer my thoughts on this matter before getting into the details of it. The reason is that the vast majority of people in her mindset that visit my site simply cannot endure long enough to actually read anything for more than about 15 seconds before they give up.
It's sad, but true, that a great deal of young people these days (and, strangely, older folk too for that matter) cannot actually read very well, or for any length of time. Unless they are spoon-fed a message in a video that they can sit and watch, while their eyes glaze over and their mind wanders, they simply will not learn anything.
And I'm not making that up. UniusLibri.com is my own programming work, and it is hosted on my webserver right here at my house. So I have my web server log files, at a click, as evidence of my claim.
And the truth is, very few people who link here from her site, sites like hers, or from google searches on phrases that identify their mindset, very few of these people can stand to read anything for more than a few seconds before giving up and leaving. I suppose they can argue that "I got all I needed to know about you in 15 seconds" to which I can either think: 1) Wow! I'm an awesome communicator, or 2) these people have limited attention spans and limited endurance. Guess which I'm going for!
So I will get to the conclusion first in the hopes that they can read at least that much.
Never Mind What I Just Said Three Minutes Ago
I have rarely found anyone who seems to be so utterly unaware of what she herself is actually saying. She's on par with that uber-heretic, Charles Finney in the self-contradiction department. I'll give examples in the details, but it's just stunning. She excels in two things:
- Contradicting herself (seemingly without even a clue that she's done so), and
- Quoting scriptures while being completely unaware that the scripture she is quoting addresses her own actions as much as her target audience's actions, and usually in an unfavourable way to her cause.
Listening to her is like playing that card game called "concentration" where you place all the cards face down, then turn over two at a time looking for matches. You have to remember where you just saw that 2-of-Clubs a moment ago. Likewise, you often hear her say one thing, and immediately you think, wazzat? Didn't she just say exactly the opposite back a while ago?
It's frustrating just trying to follow her because she employs no clear thinking or speaking in her dialogue. She darts wistfully from one emotional plea to another.
I wrote a long time ago about a video that I had seen on the internet wherein some guy was preaching a sermon, and not one of the scriptures he was using had anything at all to do with the message HE was trying to teach. In that article, I suggested that Satan has "got smart" and figured out a way to actually handle the word of God without getting burned, and is now gettin' jiggy wid it.
He's devised some spiritual oven mits and is baking his cake as fast as he can!
This woman goes far beyond that and is actually calling out relevant scriptures to use. But since her appeal is almost entirely emotional, she handles the word of God not even recognizing that it either doesn't say anything at all about what she's talking about, or, more often, it says the very opposite of what SHE wants to teach. That pesky word of God is not gonna get in her way. Instead, she gets in her emotional boat and floats right over the top of the plain meaning of the words that are coming out of her mouth, not even realizing what she is saying. Landing safely on the other shore, she is completely unaware of the ocean she just sailed over.
Ultimately, this is what happens when religious people forsake LEARNING from the Lord, and substitute THINKING ABOUT Him. They put all their words in HIS mouth and proclaim it as "thus sayeth the lord". And this woman is an expert at it. She sounds like she's delivering a sermon straight from the Bible. But is she?
No. She is not. What she is doing is taking the bits of it that she likes and that seem to support her agenda, and is delivering it up as God's Word. And unfortunately, she's a real smooth talker. She sounds very convincing. And I forsee a LOT of silly religious people being led away by her false doctrine being paraded around town as the brand new revelation.
Roll Tape!
(I edited out the really annoying pop-culture music at the beginning and end of the video)
She starts out by making Phillipians 2:3 her keystone scripture. Can't figure out why, except maybe as the starting point in a long list of scriptures she wants to ignore the plain meaning of. For this scripture ends with it's main point "let each regard the other as better than themselves." Which point she, like I said, ignores.
But it does introduce her first main point, which runs the clock from 00:20, to 02:24 (and well beyond):
If you regard one teacher above another, or if you are divisive or argumentative, you are sinning and you must repent.
She then spends the next 30 minutes arguing her case. Again, seeming completely unaware that she's doing the very thing she just claimed the scripture says not to do. I guess, in her mind, so long as the conversation is one-sided; so long as you are the only one talking; then it's not argument. But the only reason it's not argument in her case, is because no one is there with her to say "Wait a minute, hol' up girl!" For as God is witness, if I (or countless others who actually know what Calvinism teaches) had been present, she'd have been arguing just like she says not to.
Not only that, but the scripture most certainly does NOT say what she thinks it says.
To begin with, there is a misunderstanding afoot in her thinking. She is right that God says there ought not to be division in the body. I agree with her that arguing within the body of Christ is often not a good thing. (See "Let Them Alone")
So while I am willing, and encouraged by scripture, to avoid needless arguing in the body, outside the body, I will argue the cause of Christ with all my strength. Why? Because that is the commandment of scriptures that she is conveniently omitting from her message!
Probable dialogue between Ms. Dennington, and Me:
Monica: "Ought the Body of Christ not be divided and argumentative?"
Kirby: "Absolutely!"
"Then why are you arguing in the Body of Christ?"
"What makes you think I consider you to be in the Body of Christ?"
The problem, for her, is that she assumes that I assume that she is in the body of Christ. I do not. (yeah, I know, it's a bit of a brain-twister... repeat it a couple of times and the meaning will float to the top like a Magic 8-Ball...)
This kind of erroneous teaching has damning and permanent consequences in the lives of people who are swayed by teaching like this. So all the while that she spends the next half hour denigrating the idea of "teachers" (and contradicting herself in the process), she, again, seems unaware that SHE is teaching. And finishing off your teaching by saying "I'm not a teacher" (which she does) will find no purchase with me.
Back to her first point. She goes on to also include 1 Cor 1:10-13, and 3:1-4.
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
and
And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
From this she takes the meaning that "being 'followers' of teachers is worldly and sinful'."
Let me ask her something: Is PAUL divided? Paul later told us to "Be followers of me, as I follow Christ." What can that possibly mean? It could have something to do with the bit she chopped off the end of the scripture that she quoted which explains what God means. Paul continues where Ms. Dennington stops:
Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase... For we are labourers together with God.
There is absolutely no support whatsoever for this silly notion (which, I must add, she has completely made up out of thin air), that God does not want us to regard men as teachers. And why should I say such a thing?
Because I have it on good authority (The Bible) that God is very much in the business of ordaining and placing teachers in the body of Christ.
For heaven's sake, teachers are a part of the "five fold ministry" these "full gospel" types like to idealise (idolise?)
Anyone remember Paul also saying this:
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
But this fabricated doctrine of hers about not regarding men as teachers is going to be the central theme and core foundation of the entire rest of her message! In spite of the fact that God Himself says that HE places teachers in the body of Christ. Dennington seems more than willing to scoff at God's way, and wishes to substitute another of her own making.
She ends her quote from Philipians with the following comment
"That is God's final word on the subject..."
Well, Ms. Dennington... No. It isn't. There's 65 other books yet to be read and God has a whole heapin' helpin' more to say on this subject. As do I.
To begin with:
What's happening in the Church at Corinth has nothing to do with people listening to the teachings of men. Because immediately following "I follow Cephas, or I follow Apollos, or I follow Paul...", Paul himself explained what he meant by saying "all of us are godly men who led you to the lord!"
- There was nothing wrong with Cephas!
- There was nothing wrong with Apollos!
- There was nothing wrong with Paul!
And there was nothing wrong with hearing any of them, Ms. Dennington! And trying to twist this scripture into some kind of proof of a problem with the teachings of John Calvin is just plain dumb - ignorant, to be precise (at least I hope).
It's not an issue of who's following who, the issue is that all of them think that their teacher has a unique angle - some special revelation that only they had. And Paul is saying, "that's not the case. All of them have the SAME message, and so we ought not to feel divided from each other. Why? Because all of them have taught us the same, basic, simple Gospel, and thus we are all followers of the same Saviour..."
In other words, it's not a matter of "Cephas says ABC, but Apollos contradicts him by saying says XYZ, and I've chosen my side with Apollos and Cephas is wrong." Paul is showing them that all of them were men who were "labourers together with God, teaching the same message and bringing all of you to the salvation of God in Jesus Christ," and there is in fact no division!"
Paul has a completely different message when others come into the church teaching a different Gospel - "Let them be accursed!" These are people whom Paul himself contends with, argues with, is divisive against, shuns from fellowship, avoids them, expels from the church, and even "turns them over to Satan!" In fact, Dennington, herself, even reads this very scripture out loud! Again, completely unaware of what has transpired right under her nose.
Summary up to 3:50
So the summary of the message up to 2:44 is that if you are "following a teacher", or if you are "arguing", then "you are divisive and disobedient and must repent." And never mind that Jesus and Paul both were the most argumentative people in the Bible, and Jesus' own stated goal was that he was divisive by his very nature. And never mind that Jesus, in his very last words to his disciples, commanded them to be teachers. And never mind that Paul (and all the other Apostles, for that matter) commanded that ALL Christians were to contend (that means argue), defend, explain, teach, correct, rebuke, discern, expose, and renounce false doctrine. Nevermind all that, because this one scripture, (if you make a false assumption about what it means to say "I follow"), says do not be divided.
And by the way, I might add, Paul is NOT telling the church at Corinth to not be divisive. He is telling them not to be divided. And there's a world of difference there.
She claims that if you are a Calvinist, that you are "refusing to bow to God's Holy Word" - and she proves this with uncanny logic by quoting "Did Paul die for you? Did John Calvin die for you? Has God appointed John Calvin to be your teacher?" which clearly proves that you are refusing to honour God's Word. Surely, you see the connection there.
And again, I say, quite possibly God did appoint John Calvin to be our teacher.
After all, appointing teachers in the body of Christ is one of the things that God says HE does.
Will she object to the very plain fact that He appointed PAUL to be a teacher? Will she object to Paul himself when he says "God places teachers in the body of Christ?"
What she should be addressing is how Christians should go about determining whether a teacher is of God or not, because it is plainly obvious from scripture that at least some of them are His own appointees. But she'd rather dismiss the whole idea of "teachers" rather than deal with the WORK of being discerning.
Roll Tape!
She then commences to quote Jesus where he says that we are not to be called Rabbi, Father or Teacher. And that people who do think they are smarter than God. But she has to throw discretion to the wind, and ignore VOLUMES of other things that Jesus on this same subject.
If Jesus says "do not be called 'teacher'", then what does she think Jesus means when He command his disciples to "teach?" What does she think Paul, and Peter, and all the others mean when they command us to "TEACH!" What does she think Jesus Himself means when he command us to teach, and not just anyone, but teach the whole world!? How does she reconcile THAT contradiction?
If she were willing to STUDY the Bible, she would know better. Instead, what she has is a really half-baked idea about what she THINKS Calvinism is about, and she's voiciferously attacking THAT. I suppose it must be fun, or something.
At about 4:36, she puts words in people mouths by suggesting that Calvinists are people who say "It's the Gospel, but we just call it Calvinism." If she were working off a model of real Calvinism, she would see that it is just that - just exactly what she mocked it as: It is the Gospel.
The difficulty is that the Gospel is offensive, and she seems not to like some parts of it. Some of it is unabashedly inflamatory! What the Gospel writers described as "hard sayings... who can hear them?" But rather than deal with the "hard sayings", she dismisses them as the made up doctrines of man. That's a convenient exit door from a hard spot, I'd say.
"Yes, Ms. Dennington, but God has also said..."
"Oh that's just all doctrines of man. Oopsie, look at the time... gotta go..."
If she had ever undertaken a study of the underpinnings of Calvinism, she would find that it is the whole Gospel, including the "hard bits" that the MODERN gospel conveniently leaves out so as to make it smooth and easy and unoffensive for people such as herself.
She should have taken time to understand that probably no one in Christianity takes the supremacy of God's word more than Calvinists. They just take it for what it says, not what people want to hear.
And in some inane way (in her mind), when people like me say that - when we speak the truth about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, she claims that we've just taken the glory due to God and given it to some man. How she arrives at THAT notion is something I suppose only someone with a mind like hers can comprehend.
That God, and God alone should, can and is able to receive the glory for literally and absolutely EVERYTHING is the very central message of Calvinism!
This statement of her is just ludicrous and betrays a complete lack of understanding on her part. She literally must have no idea at all what Calvinism teaches, even while she rapes it.
Summary Up Through 5:50
Dennington: "If you take it upon your lips the words of somebody besides God, then that man is your teacher! And if this is your teacher, then this is what you will be quoting. Whatever you have stored up in your heart, that is your treasure, and out of your heart you speak. So listen to your own sermons, pastors...."
And what if that thing the "teacher" is teaching, or the pastor is preaching is the "full, unadultered, complete word of God in all it's glory and offense?........ What if that teacher dared to teach you that Jesus' own stated objective was to be an offense? A stumbling block? A Judge!? What if that "teacher" is teaching you that God says "No one may come to me unless I reveal myself to him and call him."???
She asks "how much of our time to we spend quoting the written word of God, and how much time do we spend quoting men that we (somehow) idolize...?"
But again, she apparently has never listened to these men teach anything. Has she ever read Calvin? Luther? John Owen? Ralph Venning on "The Sinfulness of Sin?" Thomas Boston? Ichabod Spencer? Octavius Winslow?
Take just a quick look at just one example of a "Calvinist" teacher, Horatius Bonar, and tell me if you think he is teaching the teachings of men:
Man, in his natural spirit of self-justifying legalism, has tried to get away from the cross of Jesus Christ and its perfection, or to erect another cross instead, or to set up a screen of ornaments between himself and it, or to alter its true meaning into something more congenial to his tastes, or to transfer the virtue of it to some act or performance or feeling of its own. Thus the simplicity of the cross is nullified, and its saving power is denied.
For the cross saves completely, or not at all. Our faith does not divide the work of salvation between itself and the cross. It is the acknowledgment that the cross of Jesus Christ alone saves, and that it saves alone.
Faith does not come to Calvary to do anything. It comes to see the glorious spectacle of all things done, and to accept this completion without a misgiving as to its efficacy. It listens to the ‘It is finished!’ of Jesus Christ, the Sin-bearer, and says, ‘Amen.’
Where faith begins, there labour ends, — labour, I mean, ‘for’ life and pardon.
Faith is rest, it is not work. Faith is the giving-up all our efforts to do or feel something good, in order to induce or make God to love us. Faith is the simple understanding of the truth that God is not waiting for any such inducements, but loves and pardons according to His own goodwill. He is showing that goodwill to any sinner who will come to Him on such a footing, casting away his own performances or goodnesses, and relying absolutely on nothing else but the free love of Him who so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son.
To which, Monica sez: "It is not the word of God. It's just all doctrines of man... " I read what Bonar has said, and add my Amen to it, and Monica Dennington accuses me (4:40):
"You just took the glory, God's glory that he should get for his holy perfect word, and His holy perfect Gospel, you took that glory and you attributed it to John Calvin! (Or Horatio Bonar, in this case) HOW DARE YOU!"
Nevermind that what Bonar just said ***IS*** God's perfect holy Gospel... this she takes and in an act of supreme ignorance and unparalleled presumption suggests that I have given God's Glory to Horatio Bonar! Something that both Mr. Bonar and myself would be take as a direct, personal attack upon the character of God and His word, and would defend with all diligence, lest this stupid woman infect others with her false and unbelievably mindless doctrine.
This has to be one of the reasons why God commands women (truly "silly women" as He calls them) to remain silent in the church! This kind of plain, simple stupidity is something that I just will NOT stand by and let ravage the Church of God. This is the kind of thing that Paul himself would put someone out of the church over. This is EXACTLY the kind of simpleton that Paul suggests ought to be barred from fellowship in the church because allowing this kind of mindless, unbiblical, anti-christ teachng to go on in the Body of Christ is dangerous. This is what reveals Ms. Dennington not just as "misguided", but an actual "wolf in sheeps clothing!"
What planet is she from anyway?
How about another example? This one from John Angell James:
One of the last lessons we effectually learn, is that true godliness is a constant conflict in a believer's heart--between sin and holiness.
Some sincere believers mistake a clearer view, and deeper sense of their depravity, for an actual increase of sin. The Christian seems sometimes to himself, to be growing worse, when actually it is only that he sees more clearly what in fact he really is!
In the early stages of our Christian life, we have usually but a slender acquaintance with the evil of our sinfulness, and the depravity of our heart.
The mind is so much taken up with pardon and eternal life, that it is but imperfectly acquainted with those depths of deceit and wickedness, which lie hidden in itself.
At first we seem to feel as if the serpent were killed. But we soon find that he was only asleep--for by the warmth of some fiery temptation, he is revived and hisses at us again!
Nothing astonishes an inexperienced believer more than the discoveries he is continually making of the evils of his heart. Corruptions which he never dreamt to be in him, are brought out by some new circumstances.
It is like turning up the soil, which brings out worms and insects, which did not appear upon the surface.
Or to vary the illustration, his increasing knowledge of God's holy nature, of the perfect law, and the example of Christ--is like opening the shutters, and letting light into a dark room, the filth of which, the inhabitant did not see until the sunbeams disclosed it to him.
Ms. Dennington, I offer you an open invitation to show me which part of that is "not the word of God!"
And, as if to make matters much worse, consider this "church sign" I saw this week outside a "full gospel evangelical church" (in other words, outside the kind of church Monica Dennington would gladly conduct a concert or worship service):
"Opportunity may knock once, but temptation bangs on the front door forever!"
It's basically the exact same message that dirty "Calvinist" J.A. James just gave us! But make it "cutesie", and everyone thinks it's funny and true. Make it clear and plain, and Dennington will decry it as "the doctrines of man!"
Again, she is speaking out of complete and utter ignorance of what is taught, and is instead visciously attacking her imaginary, made-up straw man with all her strength. What she is doing is attacking men of God for being teachers of the word of God without even knowing what it is that they teach! Because she is willing to (as God puts it) speak evil of that which she does not know! She is "speaking evil of dignities" and the warnings of Jude come to mind regarding those that do so.
How ignorant is THAT? And how dangerous?
What Ms. Dennington seems to complain about is that Calvinists are giving emphasis, or special consideration to men of old, like Calvin, Luther, and even more contemporary (yet still comparatively old) teachers, instead of more contemporary preachers like [insert name of her own role-models, and even she herself]. Has she considered why? Most of us continue to call attention to the OLD preachers simply because there are virtually ZERO such preachers extant (alive) today! We speak of Spurgeon, Calvin, Luther, Pink, Angell and Bonar because there's no one else left who still, today, preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it was delivered. There are precious few left. We bring to mind modern preachers like John Piper, and John MacArthur, and R.C. Sproul, not because we are enamoured of them, but because they are the last vestiges of the OLD gospel that those OLD preachers preached.
And when we find modern day preachers who still hold the truth of God and rightly divide the word of truth, we promote them too. Not because they are saying things we want to hear (because they do not), but because they speak the word of God truthfully and do not attempt to disguise it in modern day "feel good... can't we all just get along" terms.
Those OLD preachers, and the scant few NEW teachers that we embrace, we embrace because they tell the truth: that the Gospel is, before all else, OFFENSIVE TO MAN. And the Holy SPirit revealing the truth, and showing us our true nature before a Holy God, we recognize that truth and embrace IT - not the preacher!
Roll Tape!
By 6:20, she's made several self-contradictions (ie, she is saying one thing in one place, then saying something else in another - kind of like what Jesus said "hypocrits" do). Now comes another:
"Idolatry is something that goes aaaaaaaall the way back to the fall and something that we all have to fight..."
Now, just a few minutes ago, she was saying that if you were actually DOING that, you were being divisive and argumentative, and needed to repent. But it's somehow OK for her and her ilk to argue and "fight".
OK. If you say so.
Continueing...
Dennington: "[idolatry] takes many forms, but one of the most common is that we lift up human beings..."
Again, I direct Ms. Dennington's attention back to Horatius Bonar. What MAN is he lifting up? back to Mr. James: What error do you see there? Do you suppose that your heart is pure? That you have no need of repentance? That you have no need of Jesus Christ to cover the sins that you have unquestionably committed... TODAY! ?
The bible says 'cursed is the one who puts their trust in man. And what do we do over and over again? We put our tust in in a man and a teacher we can trust, and that is not God's will. He wants to know you personally. He wants to call you by his name...
And now... now, we get to the real heart of the problem. And this is hardly limited to Monica Dennington. This problem is RAMPANT in the "church" today.
What Ms. Dennington has just said, is basically this: "Nevermind the man who wants to teach you what God's word says about you. Nevermind the man who insists on teaching you what the Gospel says, completely and accurately and truthfully! Forget all that. Go for the emotional appeal. Go for what makes you feel good. Hey, if you cried, you must be a sincere devout Christian!
Question for Ms. Dennington: Where in the Bible does it say that God wants to know you personally? Can you answer that without going off into the "doctrines of man", or writings like the above from Bonar or James? Bonar and James can both tell you this, but you would take them both as "teachers" preaching the words of men because you cannot show anywhere in the Bible where it says "God wants to know you personally." But you can comprehend it by proper exegesis of the scripture. But that would require a teacher! Nasty mess that, eh? Ms. Dennington?
It's right here, at this point, that she's really played her trump card. I don't really care what the Bible teaches. I just want to feel good about myself. I don't want to hear about that offensive stuff. I just want the good bits.
The bible has a word for that mindset - the mindset that says "I don't want the hard stuff. The sacrifice. The obedience. I don't want to hear about "very many who profess my name, I will send away into everlasting fire." I don't want to hear about "narrow is the way that leads to life and very, very few will find it. Most will be lost to an eternity in hell." I don't want to hear that!
I just want the good stuff. The "relationship". The feel-good worship service. The crying and feeling so much 'love' in me that I just know I love Jesus" I want to hear the "Jesus wants to be my buddy" bits.
It's called "false conversion." It's called "having a FORM of Godliness, but denying the power thereof." Because the "power thereof" is nothing less and nothing more than the blood of Jesus Christ, shed for sinful man. THAT, and THAT alone is "The Gospel." If what you heard didn't include the fact that Jesus' blood was shed so that YOURS would not be, then what you heard was NOT the Gospel. That which you heard... THAT was the "Doctrines of man."
The cross is offensive first before conversion, or there is no conversion. If you were not offended at yourself, your condition, the true nature of God, the holiness of God, your own sin... If these things were not brought before your eyes for consideration, then what you heard and what you bought from Ms. Dennington, and others, was not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It was the made-up religion of modern psychology parading itself around as "Christianity." For all her reproach and railing against "the doctrines of men", she just spoon fed you the biggest one of them all. And, like I said, she is completely unaware that she has done so.
By the 7:00 minute mark, she's saying:
"You've refused to take that thing that has exaulted itself in your mind and your theology that says [put on smarmy, self-righteous voice], eh, you know what? I really don't have to obey first Corinthians...
More comming.... This is a work in progress.....
[cut to the end...]
What I personally think that she spent the entire duration of her sermon saying is basically this: We are perfectly fine having you as a buddy and a friend, but We would not that thou should rule over us.
Dennington seems, in my opinion to have a problem with authority. Man's authority over women. Jesus' authority over men, and God's authority over all. It all rubs her in the wrong way because it failes to produce those warm fuzzies that she and her ilk are longing for.
Sorry to disappoint you Ms. Dennington, but that thing ain't the Gospel, and it ain't gonna fly here!
