Andrew Farley's Book "God Without Religion" Might Lead You To A "Religion Without the Bible"

By Shane Kastler

Andrew Farley's book "God Without Religion: Can It Really Be This Simple" is an eclectic mix of bad theology and boring personal illustrations used ad nauseam to explain the aforementioned bad theology. Mix in some accurate statements here and there regarding the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law in Christ and you have a nutty little book that's sure to please the itching ears by bashing “religion” (though the book of James commends true religion) and confuse many well-meaning Christians who assume a glib young man with a Ph.D. must know it all. But upon further review, you'll find his Biblical exegesis is shoddy; many of his theological views to be unbiblical; and most of his conclusions to be very extreme. To be candid, I believe much of Farley's teaching to be heretical and would thus avoid it all together. But like most heretics, there is a certain amount of truth in what he says.

I'll begin with his writing style, which was "trendy and conversational" to the point of being distracting.  Perhaps the self-proclaimed expert is trying to “dumb it down” for the unwashed masses; but the over abundance of exclamation points and one word rhetorical questions makes for a painful literary journey, where you're expecting to see an “LOL” or a “TTYL” on the next page. In addition to the painful writing style, Farley bores you to tears with repeated, drawn out, personal illustrations to try and clarify his points. The result of this is that the reader frequently has the urge to roll their eyes and say to themselves “alright, alright, I get the point. Enough with the cutesy story about your grandma.....and the 3-D movie you went to as a kid.......and the time the dog followed you home......and how a Christian is like Wayne Gretsky.” While the occasional illustration can be helpful. Reading a book that is as chock full of them as this one leaves the impression that the writer has very little of substance to say; which I think would be true in this case.

There are a couple of things I would avoid in any spiritual teacher. First of all, if any teacher actually encourages you to disregard the very teachings of Jesus; rest assured you have a heretic on your hands. It's eerily reminiscent of what the serpent asked Eve in the garden, “Hath God said?” Farley's ludicrous notion that Jesus' “Sermon on the Mount” was only intended for Jews who were under the Law is not a novel teaching at all. Hard core Dispensational theologians held to it a hundred years ago. But there's not a shred of Biblical support for such a notion. Indeed, in order to accept Farley's teaching you would by necessity have to reject Jesus' teaching in the great commission. Which states that we are to “go into all the world and make disciples, teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you.” (Matt. 28:19-20) It goes without saying that a big part of “all that I have commanded you” would include the Sermon on the Mount.

You see a lot of similarities between Moses receiving the Law and Jesus giving His Sermon on the Mount. In both cases, they ascend a hill. In both cases they speak for God. In both cases, they address many of the same issues. Moses was receiving the “Old Covenant Law” and Jesus was dispensing the New Covenant Law. They are not one and the same and they do represent two different covenants. But Jesus' whole point is that under the New Covenant the standard of conduct is higher because in the New Covenant we have the miracle of a new birth (regeneration; John 3:3) and we have the indwelling Holy Spirit who actually gives us the desire and ability to obey. Old Covenant Jews did not have this.

Farley is correct to say that we are not under the Old Covenant Law with its 613 commands and that the Law has been fulfilled in Christ in it's entirety. But he takes the idea of “freedom from the Law” to a ridiculously unbiblical conclusion by also applying it to New Testament commands. When Paul speaks against the Law he speaks of the Mosaic Law. But the commands of Christ and the New Testament writers are very much applicable to the believer. Paul says that he was not under the Law of Moses; but that he was under the Law of Christ: “To those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.” (1 Cor. 9:21) Paul also uses the phrase “law of Christ” in Galatians 6:2.

Farley takes Paul's arguments against the Mosaic Law and broadens them way beyond what Paul actually said or taught. Farley cites Romans 7:7-8 (NASB): “I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.” Then he argues that this refers to ANY commandment (Old or New Testament). In other words he says any time you are commanded to do anything you inherently have a desire to disobey it. But Paul isn't saying that. Paul is specifically talking about an unregenerate person; and he is specifically talking about the Law of Moses. It's frightening to consider how Farley can talk so much about the importance of “context” and then so frequently rip passages such as this one out of context. For a person who is born again, the commandments of JESUS are not burdensome at all (1 John 5:3); but rather we have a desire (because of the indwelling Holy Spirit) to do them. Jesus said, “my sheep hear my voice and they follow Me.” (John 10:27) and “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” (John 14:15) What Jesus taught is not only different from what Farley teaches. It is the exact opposite.

And while we desire to please the Lord we often fall short and the Spirit convicts us of it. This is another reality that Farley denies saying that “believers are never convicted by the Holy Spirit.” But this contradicts Biblical teaching that “whom the Lord loves he disciplines.” And that if we are not disciplined in this way we are “illegitimate children.” (Hebrews 12) Sadly, Farley's notion of how we should never feel “convicted” only describe what the King James Bible calls “bastard” children. That's not what I want to be. How about you? In fact its only true believers who DO feel this conviction of the indwelling Holy Spirit. And when we do, we seek God's forgiveness. Not so we can be “re-saved” but so we can keep a closeness with God. But this is another doctrine that Farley rejects. He says we are “seated with Christ in the heavenly places.” But even a novice theologian knows this is an example of the “already/ not yet” tension of Christ's kingdom. While we are citizens of Heaven; we are not there yet. Yes our sins are paid for and our “ticket is punched” but we still reside in the fallen world and we still wrestle with sin. This is what Paul describes so vividly in Galatians 5; and unfortunately it's what Farley would deny.

Farley devotes three chapters in this book to the doctrine of predestination; and his interpretation of it is absolutely deplorable. First of all he makes the very deceptive claim that “predestination is only mentioned in the Bible a mere four times.” To begin with, even if it were only mentioned ONCE, it's still important. And second of all the doctrine is taught throughout the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation. While the word “predestination” might only occur in his English translation four times, the words “elect, election, choose, chosen, predestined, and called” are used numerous times. Certainly this is one of the deep things of God that, to a certain extent, is “past finding out” (Romans 11:33) yet Farley assures us it is “simple” and he has been sent to enlighten all of us theological neanderthals. So while the church has spent 2000 years deeply absorbed in such matters, Farley blows it off as a flippant non-issue that he figured out with ease. (Ah, the arrogance of the twenty-something with a Ph.D.!) He probably should have devoted a couple of decades of study to this topic before he took up his pen to write on it. Because his conclusion is horrendously naïve. He teaches that predestination simply means God chooses both Jews and Gentiles rather than Jews alone. And that the ultimate choice resides with man. This is nothing but classic freewill, Arminianism that has plagued the church for centuries. While Farley sees himself as a brilliant and innovative theological thinker; in actuality he is merely a 21^st century re-packaging of the heretics of old such as Pelagius, Arminius, and Charles Finney. Farley declares that God “would never elect individuals to salvation.” But this is precisely what the Bible teaches that God DID DO (Eph. 1:4; Rom. 8:29-30). Farley is either purposely deceptive, ignorant of Scripture, or a committed ear-tickler. None of which are good.

The one good thing that I think you would see in Farley's teaching is the fact that Christianity is not primarily a list of “do's and don'ts” as the Old Covenant Law, in some ways, was. That Christianity is lived out by the power of the Spirit. And that Christians should look to Christ as their justification. But for all of Farley's talk about the New Covenant, one of the things he fails to mention is the New Covenant promise that “I will write my law upon their hearts” (Jeremiah 31) Of course the law written upon our hearts is not Mosaic, but it is the Law of Christ.

I've come across several other things he has said that are dangerously problematic. He has made the statement that “our sin is no big deal to God.” I would counter that it obviously is a big deal if it cost him the life of his Son. Farley says that once we are saved we should never “repent” again since our sins are paid for. But this is a dangerous downplaying of the reality of indwelling sin in the believer's life. And Farley is confusing the nature of our eternal forgiveness based on Christ's work with the need to grow in godliness, seek the Lord daily, and be watchful for sin in our temporal life. He shockingly claims that 1 John 1:9 “if we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us” is only written to unbelievers. The truth is that 1 John, like all epistles, was written to the church. Not one iota of the New Testament was written to an unbeliever. And of course, 1 John 1:9 ties in directly with what Jesus taught us about praying “forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.” I think its beautiful how the Scriptures tie together. Of course Farley says this one doesn't apply to us either. Because to apply it would mess up the theological deception he's presenting. Don't forget what Jesus himself said to us that I stated above ('my sheep hear my voice and follow Me' – 'teaching them to observe all that I have commanded' – 'if you love me you will keep my commandments')

Farley goes on to say we should not speak of Jesus' death as an “atonement” but rather he “takes away our sins.” Both are true; but our sins cannot be “taken away” unless they are paid for (atoned). This is beautifully pictured in the Old Testament types and shadows, like the passover lamb. And completely fulfilled in the work of Christ. So to downplay “atonement” would not only be wrong and dangerous; but very near blasphemous because it attempts to weaken the work that the Son of God accomplished on our behalf. It is an attack on the “blood payment” of Christ; while it is this very blood payment that cleanses us. (1 Pet. 1:2) While Farley claims to believe in this once for all redemptive act of Christ; his degradation of the word “atonement” is alarming and misleading.

In conclusion, I would say there is so much bad mixed in with the little bit of good; that I couldn't in good conscience recommend anyone read him. For a better understanding of our freedom in Christ as New Covenant believers I would recommend the writings of John Reisinger or Blake White; both of whom are readily found on Amazon.com. They don't have a massive following or a flashy website; but they know what they're talking about. And Farley clearly does not; in most areas. Even the title of this book “God Without Religion” is problematic. While he defines “religion” as man's attempts to appease God; the Bible actually uses the word “religion” in a positive way in James 1:26 where it says, “Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” That's creepily ironic since Farley bashes “religion” and he teaches that the idea of keeping oneself unstained from the world is legalistic. Of course bashing “religion” sells a lot of books and draws crowds to your church. Being Biblically faithful usually does not.

On a separate note, I also found where Farley, along with his wife, wrote a book about the “truth” of Global warming. So he's got some (what I would consider) liberal leanings on other issues as well. As for this book “God Without Religion” - don't waste your time. The 30 minutes it would take you to read the book could be much better spent in myriads of ways. Rather than ending up with a “God Without Religion” you might end up with a “Religion Without the Bible” which can only lead to trouble. Beware.

Comments

[Garrett Smith]

Had this book recommended to me by a friend, and had been looking for some in depth analysis. Thanks for this.

[Matthew]

I would hardly call something "in depth analysis" that resorts to name calling, belittling, ad-homimem, and straw-man attacks. Cheers.

[Donald Forbes]

Like matthew henry once said "he once wrote the law on stone , now he wrote it on their heart." This is the same law in both covenants just different promises with the verdict being in both God wants salvation for us. The first covenant was for a nation therefore when they would not walk in truth the whole nation would get punished. The new is in our hearts , and is an individual covenant with each and every one of us allowing us as individuals to go boldly to the throne of grace.
I usually don't like to hate on people but Andrew Farley , by taking away the law that is holy , just and good , the same law david calls perfect and converts the soul , does not understand love and how the law is love. If you get rid of law than you lose love which is the character of God. The first four commandments support love to God and the last six support love to your neighbor. By keeping the commandments is how we know that we know God and if we don't keep them we are liars.
Why would a kingdom thet rules with righteousness and has perfect leaders with a perfect heavenly sanctuary get rid of a perfect law? Jesus commandments are the ten commandments because it was Jesus that wrote them with his finger in the old testament. I coyld go on for hours on this subject but my reason for even writing is that I wish all that read this will go and study this for themselves and build their beliefs on a better foundation.
Andrew Farley is all grace and no law . With no law there is no love. With no love there is no Christ because love was what he had as his ministry. When you lose Christ while still preaching or using Christ to mix truths with lies there is no more truth , only lies. Be careful because satan himself is like a lion seeking souls and if it is possible will deceive the devoted christian too. He can be transformed into an angel of light and can use people like Andrew Farley making more little synagogues of satan. God bless and grace and mercy to all.

[Helgard]

Christ is the end of the law, man, haven't you read Rom 10:4?

'Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?' Act 15:10

We are not under the law, but under grace, according to no other than Paul! Rom6:14

Hey guys haven't you heard, there is a completely new covenant.

[Mark]

My impression of reading your rather destructive "analysis" is that you pride yourself on your intellect and are most probably hell-bent on making a name for yourself as a religious teacher.
I doubt you really understand the love and grace required to be a good shepherd, nor that you know the true condition of your flock - since they are most probably in a state of spiritual abuse.

[Sandra Miele]

I have recommended Andrew Farley's book to everyone I know! The Gospel message really is that simple--why do we all try to complicate it? It's clear from your "analysis" of his book that you do not understand love...all you do is "bash" a fellow brother in Christ. Shouldn't your "critique" be done in love? If you're someone who grew up in legalism like I did, you will find Andrew's book the most refreshing look on the Gospel message of our Lord and Saviour! Thank you Andrew, for continuing to write despite the harsh and unloving criticisms you receive by supposed "brothers" in Christ.

[Sandra Miele]

Did you even read the book Andrew and his wife wrote on global warming?? I suggest you do before you use it against them. It's actually a bang on book regarding all the misconceptions of global warming from a very Godly perspective!

[Betty]

Have you ever looked on a women and lusted in your heart? You need to pluck out your eye. I'll find you an eye patch. Get plucking.

[Shane Kastler]

Thanks for the comment Betty. I think you’re confused when you take a statement that is obviously of a hyperbolic genre and demand literal interpretation. Or rather demand that I apply a literal interpretation. To understand the Bible we have to take things in context and perceive what the Lord is saying based on that. It is certainly true that a person would be better off to enter Heaven missing an eye as opposed to going to Hell with two good eyes. Sin and judgment are eternally important matters, as Jesus clearly teaches. Another example of Jesus using a figurative idiom to teach a literal truth would be where he says we must “deny ourselves, take up our cross daily, and follow him.” (Luke 9:23) The principle he is teaching is self-denial and submission to him as Lord. He isn’t saying, however, that we must find a literal wooden cross and walk behind (follow) him. Context and common sense make clear what he is teaching. I have a desire to follow him, love him, and obey him. I assume you do as well. Therefore, we will both need to strive and understand the Scriptures; while relying completely on the grace that only the Lord provides.

Thanks again for the comment Betty. God bless you.

[Randy Black]

You seem to have brushed through Farleys writings in a quick 30 min read, most of what you shared about God without Religion shows you haven't truly investigated the book. Your take all Farley has written is in error, I have personally studied his notes on the New Covenate and the Law of Christ written on our hearts now for 6 yrs. and greatly thank God for the amazing Grace we are living in now, as Farley shares, because of the Blood Economy, the blood of Christ. He has certainly expounded on the work of Predestination so as to make it clear, the message you and many share is totally confusing, the simple message of Christ is so simple a child can share it.

[Roger Esch]

I know not of either you or Farley or the books either of you have written. I happened across Farley's name in a church bulletin I visited. However, my first inclination when seeking info on the internet about various Christians is to look for an anti-blog about that individual. Christians behaving badly should be someones new book title that I am waiting for. Your opinion has some merit but your tone is terrible. "Teenage girls , juvenile writing style " to name a few does no favor for you to making a more important point. Never attack authentic credentials.Its no different than attacking for lack of them from a place pride. Edit out all those jabs and pricks and your blog would also be less boring , more brief and to the point. Just say'n .

[Shane Kastler]

Thanks for the comments Roger. I will take them to heart and consider them.

[Steven B]

I have a relative who loves everything Farley says and writes…I for one agree with Shane on his analysis. Nice work and spot on especially on Farley's predestination and election view. To those who think Shane is too harsh in his criticism I would suggest to do what every Christian should do; apply scripture to Farley's writings and to Shane's analysis and decide for yourself but use the ENTIRE bible. Hint #1: believing some new testament scripture (i.e.) 1 John 1:9 doesn't apply or portions of the Gospels that Jesus references do not apply today is umm a bit of red flag. Hint #2: Presenting some "truth" isn't the sole test as Farley does. Hint #3: Farley's Roman Catholic "roots" should be at the minimum some amount of caution unless he was saved from it as I was.

[Steven B]

Pastor Shane,
The fact that most of these responses are filled with anger with you for exposing or even simply questioning the teachings by Farley is pretty good proof you're right on. As John MacArthur once said "truth divides" keep preaching it and maybe someone who is caught up in this "teaching" will see the error and repent…oops I forgot Farley doesn't believe in repenting if you're a Christian so much for that idea.

[Shane Kastler]

Steven -- Thanks for the encouraging words.

[David W Kugel]

I read Farley's books and was initially excited about his teachings. Here is a young man who has not been to seminary. He has a PhD in linguistics. Could this young man have found something that others have missed?
After about six months I lost interest in Farley's materials. I can't call him a heretic. I listened to John MacArthur's 12 tapes in the Sermon on the Mount which disagreed with much of what Farley says. We Christians do need to confess our sins. There are two types of forgiveness, judicial and parental. I believe now that MacArthur is much closer to what the Bible teaches than Andrew Farley.

[Carl Carrero]

Recently, a friend of mine recommended that I listen to a teaching of Chris Farley's on the will of God. Before doing so, I decided to do some research on him to get a handle on his beliefs. What I found were many critiques of his writings and theology, and many of those were similar to this. I haven't read The Naked Gospel or any of his books, but I did listen to that message. What I can take away from that message and the claims from his writings that I've read and compared to scripture is that we need to be careful who we follow. Take every teaching and compare it to the bible. Ask the Holy Spirit for revelation of the scripture. Don't get caught up in foolish arguments but seek the truth. There's no reason to respond to anyone, neither the author nor the blogger nor a commenter, with anything that doesn't come from a place of love. If we react without love to one another, our fellow brothers and sisters, we have to check ourselves even on that. Our responsibility is surely to alert the church to any false teachings we think are out there. Then we, the church, need to weigh it against scripture and decide on it. So maybe we should just do that. Our responses here to one another, and what we do with the information we've been given, really let us know where our faith is. And if we sincerely desire the truth, it will be revealed to us.

[Make Hoskin]

Have studied and taught for over 30 years and fully committed to Christ. I love Farley and disagree whole heartedly with your comments and in particular your tenor. I do agree with one commentator on McArthur, who I believe is the best out there. I've met him, attended his workshops and his church. That may make me examine Farley a little more critically Anyway, you sort of misrepresent what Farley teaches. Your example of sermon on the mount and great commission have timing problem as the sermon was prior to his death and great commission after. Personal attacks are not helpful. And it's "chock", not "chalk". Be fair, be nicer, and don't destroy unity because someone has a new take. I appreciate the wolf in sheep's clothing argument, but I'd listen and read more before going in early for the kill. Reminds me of similar tactics from Hanegraff. We should support fellow brothers and gently correct. But first be sure we've heard them completely. I'll keep listening, reading and watching Farley. Maybe you are right, but for now and from what I've seen, I don't think so.

[Shane Kastler]

"Make Hoskin" -- Thanks for the comments.

[Scott Leonard]

Shane, definitely could have used a different tone in that review! I have been studying and communicating with Andrew Farley now for a couple of years. His writing touches on a book I am writing on our Union with Christ. I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about what Paul says and does not say in regards to that.

I am a Reformed Baptist and have interacted with Andrew about his views on predestination.

One thing I do wonder about is the issue of a believer continually asking God for forgiveness. Of course, Jesus prescribed it in the Lord's Prayer, and unless you treat that with a somewhat dispensational approach--that he was raising the bar prior to the beginning of the New Testament--you have an issue to deal with, because he tells us right there to pray for forgiveness. (By the way, I believe the New Testament began at the resurrection of Christ, and that the New Testament Church was really not born until Pentecost.)

But a couple more comments, regarding asking for forgiveness as a believer.... I cannot find anywhere in the New Testament where the writers command us to ask for forgiveness. Paul certainly does not, and I don't believe the other writers do either. We are to confess our sins and we are to repent, all of that daily. But Paul says that all of our sins have been forgiven. Rightly, it was either you above or someone else who said that there is a legitimate argument for talking about being legally forgiven versus forgiveness within a relational framework. But I do think there is a legitimate argument that John's statements in the first chapter of his first epistle are in fact defining the entrance requirements of the Christian faith, rather than giving Christians instructions right there on daily living. And as he was speaking to Christians within the hearing of gnostics or something similar to gnosticism, it is, I believe, a legitimate understanding to see John's statement as saying that God forgives a person once he is willing to confess that he is a sinner (rather than saying he has no sin) and at that point he forgives us and cleanses from all unrighteousness and our standing with him begins. Here is a link to an article or sermon that MacArthur did on this and it is amazingly thorough. But it is interesting that he goes from saying that 1st John 1:9 doesn't command us to do anything, to a discussion of people who want to avoid the issue of sin all together and say that we don't need to repent or confess anymore. I just wonder what he would say to someone like myself who confesses sin all the time and repents all the time and thanks God constantly for forgiving him, but does not actually ask for forgiveness since it has already been accomplished??!!

Here's the link. No one covers things more thoroughly than John MacArthur!
https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/62-8/total-forgiveness-and-the-confession-of-sin

[NorthernMama]

I’m reading and enjoying this book right now. Amazing how steeped in religion our church is. We love it and the people there so dearly. We have grown and see some of this now. Religion does not lead people to the Lord it divides. Women must wear skirts, don’t be involved with the community. . Be in church three times a week or you will be cursed. Actually listen to his teachings and hear what he is really saying. It’s been ingrained in me by a thousand sermons that God is is going to punish me through my circumstances if I don’t follow these rules. Once we took our son to football on a Wednesday instead of Bible study. I was sweating and terrified the whole way that we would get in a car wreck. That’s when I realized how bad this has become. I’m done with religion. I’m ready to believe the scripture and nothing else that’s not in the Bible. I’m tired of living in fear. Don’t get me wrong we will do our research. But so far I like the book. No we aren’t taking grace as permission to sin. He doesn’t teach that. He teaches that God changes your heart! It’s going to take years to undo all this damage.