The "Father of Love" Doctrine - A False Gospel?
Lou Ginnetti
God Doesn't Kill? A Biblical Critique
My Experience With the Father of Love Doctrine
During the last 20 years the Lord has introduced me to, among other truths, the Sabbath truth, the state of the dead and now the One True God understanding. As a former Sunday keeping trinitarian this made me question what else did I have wrong? If someone sincerely presents to me an idea that I wasn’t aware of and if it wasn’t obviously unscriptural then I’ve adopted an attitude that I need to study this out well enough to teach the topic. Until then I have no right to dismiss the topic as error.
Almost two years ago I was introduced to the idea that God doesn’t kill (The Father of Love doctrine) by a brother who I greatly respected. Something about the idea was attractive to me but my mind immediately went to The Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah, how can these events be reconciled? My brother sent me video after video of this teaching; I’ve watched about 20 hours or more of the Father of Love doctrine. I found 3 areas of great concern that I’ll share with you.
1.) Here is my first concern. I asked what about The Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah (S&G)? I was told that the Bible writers wrote with their preconceived ideas about how they understood the character of God and projected their preconceived ideas into their writings. It is true that they were God’s penman and not God’s pen but to say that the inspired writers were wrong in that the Author of life hasn’t the right to recall the life He gave then can we trust anything that was written? How do they explain the Flood and S&G? When Genesis 6:13 stated that God said, “I will destroy them with the earth”, it was the earth that destroyed them and not God. God just removed His protection and sin’s affect on the earth caused the destruction. How could sin cause this? They say that sin emits frequencies that causes the earth to convulse to produce earthquakes, floods and volcano eruptions… they say that a volcano is what destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. I stated that the frequency idea sounds a lot like New Age theology.
Furthermore, they declared that the translators had to take liberties when translating. When you read a concordance, there are many words added to the original Hebrew to allow their preconceived ideas to fit. I was told that the Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) was the best so I did a brief comparison with that translation and the King James Version (KJV) of the verses regarding the Flood.
The Flood
Genesis 6
7 - KJV - And the Lord said, I WILL DESTROY man whom I have created from the face of the earth…
7 - Young’s Literal Translation - And Jehovah saith, ‘I WIPE AWAY man whom I have prepared from off the face of the ground…
17 -KJV - And, behold, I, even I, DO BRING A FLOOD of waters upon the earth, TO DESTROY all flesh,
17 - YLT - And I, lo, I AM BRINGING in the deluge of waters on the earth TO DESTROY all flesh,
Genesis 9
11 - KJV - And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood TO DESTROY THE EARTH.
11 - YLT - And I have established My covenant with you, and all flesh is not any more cut off by waters of a deluge, and there is not any more a deluge to destroy the EARTH.'
My response was: Based upon “all flesh / the earth” I believe Genesis 6:13 which reads - “I will destroy them with the earth” should be understood that it was God who destroyed / brought the flood. He will destroy man and the earth TOGETHER and NOT that He will destroy man BY the earth. It was God who willfully brought the flood upon the earth to destroy not only man but every living substance which means that He also destroyed the earth itself, the life on the ground - the atmosphere etc… I also addressed Sodom and Gomorrah but for the sake of space I’ll just write about the Flood. They have an answer for every Biblical account of judgment. No matter what the judgment of God was (the rebellion of Korah, the plagues etc..), the same principle holds true; God didn’t do it but that the earth did it.
CONCLUSION: It appears that we cannot take the Bible as it reads for this doctrine to be considered. This is a fatal and tragic foundation to build upon. Consider that if the Bible writers wrote based upon their preconceived ideas then how can we trust the Bible for anything that it says? This issue alone should cause one to reject this teaching, however, I kept watching more videos for the sake of my brother.
2.) It is my understanding that the Flood was sent to ensure that the promised Seed, Jesus Christ, who was in danger of coming to earth due to amalgamation and violence; humanity itself was being compromised and/ or exterminated. And to save humanity, God sent a flood to “reset” humanity and to allow Him to send His only begotten Son… NOW THAT’S LOVE!! But if you adhere to this understanding you are calling God an “EXTORTIONIST.”
Extortionist was their exact word to describe the God who has has the right to claim back the life that He granted. This was not an isolated incident, I heard them call God an extortionist numerous times. That word was not my exaggerated response to their understanding.
I was told that Jesus is the image of the invisible God and that Jesus never killed anyone. My response was that the New Testament isn’t over because Revelation 19:15 describes Jesus as striking the nations with a sword out of His mouth. This was dismissed as imagery since there is not a literal sword coming out of His actual mouth. But certainly this imagery is showing that Jesus carrying out a successful war or judgment against the kings of the earth.
CONCLUSION: We might both call our God by His name, Jehovah, and we might understand that He had an only begotten Son but the character of the Father and Son are so different that we are truly worshipping a different God.
3.) What disturbed me the most was when the teacher intimated that Jesus was NOT the Lamb of God. Someone from the congregation said that John the Baptist called Jesus the Lamb of God. The teacher responded by saying that John called Jesus the Lamb of God but that Jesus never called Himself the Lamb of God. This really blew me away. Why did it blow me away? Because the greatest prophet born to a woman (as per Jesus), John the Baptist, was supposedly only speaking based upon his preconceived opinions. To be clear, they declare, verbatim, that the cross of Christ was NOT necessary for the plan of salvation despite the fact that Paul preached Christ crucified (I Corinthians 1:23, 2:2).
What was equally unsettling was a declaration that Abraham exhibited “Old Covenant” behavior when he intended to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham acted on his preconceived idea about God but it was God who explicitly told him what to do in Genesis 22. It was then that I realized where this doctrine was actually leading. THIS DOCTRINE INTRODUCES A FALSE GOSPEL I couldn’t have imagined where this teaching was leading when this doctrine was first presented to me.
Summary:
At first glance this idea that God doesn’t kill was attractive, however, like a trojan horse, this doctrine brings in some very destructive understandings. I personally know and met some of the adherents to this teaching and I’ll admit that they are loving, gentle, highly skilled students of the Word and SOP. I’m astounded how they can embrace this teaching. This doctrine has nothing in common with the teachings of EGW and the early Pioneers which was described as the platform of truth. Like all other teachings that declare “new light” this is only old error repackaged while using scripture and EGW quotes to destroy the validity of the written Word (Did God really say?), the true character of God and the gospel itself.
During the last 20 years the Lord has introduced me to, among other truths, the Sabbath truth, the state of the dead and now the One True God understanding. As a former Sunday keeping trinitarian this made me question what else did I have wrong? If someone sincerely presents to me an idea that I wasn’t aware of and if it wasn’t obviously unscriptural then I’ve adopted an attitude that I need to study this out well enough to teach the topic. Until then I have no right to dismiss the topic as error.
Almost two years ago I was introduced to the idea that God doesn’t kill (The Father of Love doctrine) by a brother who I greatly respected. Something about the idea was attractive to me but my mind immediately went to The Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah, how can these events be reconciled? My brother sent me video after video of this teaching; I’ve watched about 20 hours or more of the Father of Love doctrine. I found 3 areas of great concern that I’ll share with you.
1.) Here is my first concern. I asked what about The Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah (S&G)? I was told that the Bible writers wrote with their preconceived ideas about how they understood the character of God and projected their preconceived ideas into their writings. It is true that they were God’s penman and not God’s pen but to say that the inspired writers were wrong in that the Author of life hasn’t the right to recall the life He gave then can we trust anything that was written? How do they explain the Flood and S&G? When Genesis 6:13 stated that God said, “I will destroy them with the earth”, it was the earth that destroyed them and not God. God just removed His protection and sin’s affect on the earth caused the destruction. How could sin cause this? They say that sin emits frequencies that causes the earth to convulse to produce earthquakes, floods and volcano eruptions… they say that a volcano is what destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. I stated that the frequency idea sounds a lot like New Age theology.
Furthermore, they declared that the translators had to take liberties when translating. When you read a concordance, there are many words added to the original Hebrew to allow their preconceived ideas to fit. I was told that the Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) was the best so I did a brief comparison with that translation and the King James Version (KJV) of the verses regarding the Flood.
The Flood
Genesis 6
7 - KJV - And the Lord said, I WILL DESTROY man whom I have created from the face of the earth…
7 - Young’s Literal Translation - And Jehovah saith, ‘I WIPE AWAY man whom I have prepared from off the face of the ground…
17 -KJV - And, behold, I, even I, DO BRING A FLOOD of waters upon the earth, TO DESTROY all flesh,
17 - YLT - And I, lo, I AM BRINGING in the deluge of waters on the earth TO DESTROY all flesh,
Genesis 9
11 - KJV - And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood TO DESTROY THE EARTH.
11 - YLT - And I have established My covenant with you, and all flesh is not any more cut off by waters of a deluge, and there is not any more a deluge to destroy the EARTH.'
My response was: Based upon “all flesh / the earth” I believe Genesis 6:13 which reads - “I will destroy them with the earth” should be understood that it was God who destroyed / brought the flood. He will destroy man and the earth TOGETHER and NOT that He will destroy man BY the earth. It was God who willfully brought the flood upon the earth to destroy not only man but every living substance which means that He also destroyed the earth itself, the life on the ground - the atmosphere etc… I also addressed Sodom and Gomorrah but for the sake of space I’ll just write about the Flood. They have an answer for every Biblical account of judgment. No matter what the judgment of God was (the rebellion of Korah, the plagues etc..), the same principle holds true; God didn’t do it but that the earth did it.
CONCLUSION: It appears that we cannot take the Bible as it reads for this doctrine to be considered. This is a fatal and tragic foundation to build upon. Consider that if the Bible writers wrote based upon their preconceived ideas then how can we trust the Bible for anything that it says? This issue alone should cause one to reject this teaching, however, I kept watching more videos for the sake of my brother.
2.) It is my understanding that the Flood was sent to ensure that the promised Seed, Jesus Christ, who was in danger of coming to earth due to amalgamation and violence; humanity itself was being compromised and/ or exterminated. And to save humanity, God sent a flood to “reset” humanity and to allow Him to send His only begotten Son… NOW THAT’S LOVE!! But if you adhere to this understanding you are calling God an “EXTORTIONIST.”
Extortionist was their exact word to describe the God who has has the right to claim back the life that He granted. This was not an isolated incident, I heard them call God an extortionist numerous times. That word was not my exaggerated response to their understanding.
I was told that Jesus is the image of the invisible God and that Jesus never killed anyone. My response was that the New Testament isn’t over because Revelation 19:15 describes Jesus as striking the nations with a sword out of His mouth. This was dismissed as imagery since there is not a literal sword coming out of His actual mouth. But certainly this imagery is showing that Jesus carrying out a successful war or judgment against the kings of the earth.
CONCLUSION: We might both call our God by His name, Jehovah, and we might understand that He had an only begotten Son but the character of the Father and Son are so different that we are truly worshipping a different God.
3.) What disturbed me the most was when the teacher intimated that Jesus was NOT the Lamb of God. Someone from the congregation said that John the Baptist called Jesus the Lamb of God. The teacher responded by saying that John called Jesus the Lamb of God but that Jesus never called Himself the Lamb of God. This really blew me away. Why did it blow me away? Because the greatest prophet born to a woman (as per Jesus), John the Baptist, was supposedly only speaking based upon his preconceived opinions. To be clear, they declare, verbatim, that the cross of Christ was NOT necessary for the plan of salvation despite the fact that Paul preached Christ crucified (I Corinthians 1:23, 2:2).
What was equally unsettling was a declaration that Abraham exhibited “Old Covenant” behavior when he intended to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham acted on his preconceived idea about God but it was God who explicitly told him what to do in Genesis 22. It was then that I realized where this doctrine was actually leading. THIS DOCTRINE INTRODUCES A FALSE GOSPEL I couldn’t have imagined where this teaching was leading when this doctrine was first presented to me.
Summary:
At first glance this idea that God doesn’t kill was attractive, however, like a trojan horse, this doctrine brings in some very destructive understandings. I personally know and met some of the adherents to this teaching and I’ll admit that they are loving, gentle, highly skilled students of the Word and SOP. I’m astounded how they can embrace this teaching. This doctrine has nothing in common with the teachings of EGW and the early Pioneers which was described as the platform of truth. Like all other teachings that declare “new light” this is only old error repackaged while using scripture and EGW quotes to destroy the validity of the written Word (Did God really say?), the true character of God and the gospel itself.
Copyright © 2025 | Nader Mansour | All Rights Reserved
