[google28b52e0868d1e307.html]

Search This Blog

Sunday, 9 September 2018

DAVID NATHAN THROWN UNDER THE BUS BY JACOB PRASCH MORIEL MINISTRIES!

David Nathan (Bread of Life Ministries) has recently been ousted from his position of South African Administrator of Moriel Ministries in the most callous and unchristian manner! The reasons given by Jacob Prasch and his associate Marco Quintana (Moriel USA) are based on what can only be described as various pretexts.

Prasch: "* David's teaching on this video that 'no one will be Born Again after the rapture' is directly contradictory to Revelation 14:6. The Gospel being preached via angelic agency from midheaven at that time of God's wrath being released concurrent with the rapture is defined in that text as a Gospel that is 'Eternal' (eugalion aonion eugalesai). The Gospel of repentance, faith, and salvation will be preached and it is an 'eternal' message of salvation. Eternity is an all-encompassing term in both Greek and English and includes the Millennium. David Nathan's forceful assertions in this regard and the teaching of the plain meaning of text are mutually exclusive. " The full text can be read on the following link: https://www.facebook.com/MorielTV/

As always with Prasch, the devil is quite literally in the detail! God's wrath is not "concurrent" with the rapture! Revelation 7:9-13 refers to the rapture: ..a great multitude from every nation coming out of the great tribulation. This event is followed by opening of the seventh seal: When the Lamb opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour. (Revelation 8:1). There is therefore a definite pause between the rapture of the church and the outpouring of God's wrath. In other words, the events are consecutive but asynchronous. The "eternal gospel" given by the angel is preached immediately prior to the rapture of the church, not during the Day of the Lord (the period of God's wrath). The first angel of Revelation 14:7 said: "The hour of his judgement has come.." (has come = ἦλθεν prophetic aorist) i.e. judgement is at hand/impending/imminent. Those who take the mark of the beast will not be saved. (Revelation 14:10-11 cf. Daniel 7:9-10, Daniel 7:14, Daniel 7:26-27; Revelation 11:15). The eternal gospel proclaimed by the angel in Revelation 14:6 is the final appeal to unbelievers before the wrath of God is executed on the beast and on those who worship him. As such there will be NO TESTIMONY/GOSPEL available to people during the Day of the Lord. As Prasch points out, the gospel is "eternal". However, it appears that this particular group of people have utterly rejected the eternal unalterable truth of the gospel, and that their opportunity to receive eternal salvation has come to an end. This is further confirmed in Revelation 16, the passage that refers specifically to the bowls of wrath:

The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and it was allowed to scorch people with fire. They were scorched by the fierce heat, and they cursed the name of God who had power over these plagues. They did not repent and give him glory. (Revelation 16:8-9).

The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom was plunged into darkness. People gnawed their tongues in anguish and cursed the God of heaven for their pain and sores. They did not repent of their deeds. (Revelation 16:10-11).

The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk, nor did they repent of their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts. (Revelation 9:20-21).

"The rest of mankind" seems to be an inclusive statement that does not allow for exceptions.

Revelation 14:6-20:

6Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and language and people. 7And he said with a loud voice, “Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come, and worship him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water.”
8Another angel, a second, followed, saying, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality.”
9And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”
12Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.
13And I heard a voice from heaven saying, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” “Blessed indeed,” says the Spirit, “that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!”
14Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and seated on the cloud one like a son of man, with a golden crown on his head, and a sharp sickle in his hand. 15And another angel came out of the temple, calling with a loud voice to him who sat on the cloud, “Put in your sickle, and reap, for the hour to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is fully ripe.” 16So he who sat on the cloud swung his sickle across the earth, and the earth was reaped.
17Then another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle. 18And another angel came out from the altar, the angel who has authority over the fire, and he called with a loud voice to the one who had the sharp sickle, “Put in your sickle and gather the clusters from the vine of the earth, for its grapes are ripe.” 19So the angel swung his sickle across the earth and gathered the grape harvest of the earth and threw it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. 20And the winepress was trodden outside the city, and blood flowed from the winepress, as high as a horse’s bridle, for 1,600 stadia.


Revelation 14:14-16 Pictures the Rapture


Alan Kurschner: "When Christ comes again, there are several events that will happen in conjunction with His second coming. One of them is the resurrection of the righteous dead, along with the translation of all living saints. Many people refer to this as the rapture of the church. These believers will not have to experience death because they will receive their incorruptible bodies in a moment in the twinkling of an eye, see I Corinthians 15:51-55. Many people believe that I Thessalonians 4:13-18 is the only passage that speaks of the rapture of the church. This is not true. There are several and Revelation 14:14-16 is one of them. The word 'rapture' does not appear there, but neither does it appear in I Thessalonians 4:13-18.. {1}


Alan Kurschner believes that both Gentiles and Jews will populate the millennial kingdom. He argues that the sheep/goats judgement suggests a remnant of Gentiles. (Matthew 25:31-46). {2} It is difficult to know who these Gentiles are, given that it appears none will repent during the period of God's wrath (?) The argument that the people who give glory to God after the great earthquake in Revelation 11 will also populate the millennium is tenuous. As previously stated, the two witnesses are raised from the dead before the wrath of God is poured out and the great earthquake occurs at the very same hour. It follows that if these people are saved at that point in time, they will be included in the rapture (?) (Revelation 11:11-13).

I have had no previous affinity with David Nathan due to his association with Prasch/Moriel, and I now consider his teaching, as far as possible, from an unbiased perspective. I find that I can agree with David Nathan up to the point where the scriptures indicate that people will not be saved after the rapture of the church during the period of God's wrath. His theory that there will be no salvation during the millennial reign is difficult however and it does undermine the gospel. To be fair, David Nathan was at pains to repeat more than once in his video concerning the millennium that that this is his theory. {3} 

How does David Nathan's millennium theory compare with the wild speculations of Jacob Prasch, who teaches his dangerous speculations about the rapture, "intra-seal", as fact? Intra-seal is entirely unreliable and full of errors!

Jacob Prasch seems to have backtracked somewhat - he is very good at changing the goalposts and taking down his previous videos! Apparently the period of the tribulation is not seven years as he previously insisted, he now says it is 3.5 years! {4}.

Prasch teaches that there will be no conviction of sin and no more grace during the entire seventieth week of Daniel! He also states that the Holy Spirit will be taken from the world, but not from believers, and that the gospel will not be preached during this entire seven year period. {5} How can this possibly be the case when the scriptures teach that the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin (John 16:8), and that sinners are actually saved through grace? (Ephesians 2:8). Incidentally, this version of intra-seal contradicts what Prasch wrote in his book Shadows of the Beast page 450 in which he states that grace will come to an end during the "Day of the Lord". {6}

Below is one of Prasch's verbatim rants explaining what happens during the first 3.5 years of his fictional seven year tribulation:

The First 3 1/2 Years Of Tribulation-James Jacob Prasch-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_qwUKA5oUs

"During this three and a half year period, the two witnesses, one of them obviously, if not both, of them, in the spirit of Elijah will be operating. It is going to be very different however from what it is now. Grace has come to an end.. It will not be a period of grace, and the church as such will not exist, believers will, but not the church. It will also be a time of increasing pressure on the church with persecution.. It is not the wrath of God but the tribulation of Satan. This time of three and a half years is the thlipsis, the tribulation..  The first three and a half years will be ?? when the Antichrist will be manifested and the elect will know who he is. The faithful church will know who he is and know what to do about him. The two witnesses will become active at this time... that is what is going to be taking place during this period..  He (the Holy Spirit) will cease restraining the power of Satan.. The gospel as we know it will not be preached at that time. What will be preached is the gospel of the kingdom.. {7}

There are multiple problems with the above eisegesis!

*The Book of Revelation gives us precise information regarding the death of the two witnesses and the time period they will minister. (Revelation 11:1-14). The two witnesses die and are resurrected during the second woe i.e. after the sixth trumpet is blown (Revelation 11:14). This confirms that they will prophesy for 1,260 days during the second half of the 70th week. Their death occurs just before the seventh trumpet is blown i.e. just prior to the Day of the Lord when the bowls of God's wrath will be released. (Revelation 9:12-13; 11:7). Prasch teaches the two witnesses arrival during the first half of the 70th week with "the gospel of the kingdom". This directly contradicts the timing of the two witnesses arrival as recorded in the scriptures. The gospel of the kingdom is the gospel of Jesus Christ.. there are not two gospels! Prasch's alternative gospel, supposedly given by the two witnesses at the wrong time is completely defective! (2 Corinthians 11:4).
*The Antichrist will be a political figure, but he will be incognito until the mid point of the week when he is "revealed". (2 Thessalonians 2:3).
*The tribulation begins after the Antichrist is revealed i.e. the beginning of the second half of the week.
*The "restrainer" of 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7 is not identified in the scriptures. The idea that the "restrainer" is the Holy Spirit originated with John Nelson Darby. However there are good reasons to believe that the "restrainer" is in fact the Archangel Michael.

*Various scriptures talk about "the word of their testimony" i.e. the testimony of believers. What precisely is "the word of their testimony" IF IT IS NOT THE GOSPEL?

And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death. (Revelation 12:11).

And when the Lamb opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony they had upheld. (Revelation  6:9; cf. Revelation 7:9-14).

Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. (Revelation 20:4).

It is extremely suspicious that Moriel has thrown David Nathan under the bus for "serious doctrinal reasons", even more so since Prasch endorses ecumenical "prophet" David Noakes. Noakes will be a joint speaker with Prasch at Moriel's Scottish Conference! Jacob Prasch & David Noakes Moriel Conference 2018! Ecumenism by Stealth? {8}    

The fruit of Moriel Ministries

Below are some comments from the Moriel TV Facebook post. I understand that some of them have now been deleted!

*This is just as I feared, the fruit from Jacob Prasch/Moriel Ministries is confusion and discouragement! I believe that this exposure is a judgement upon Jacob Prasch and I am praying that the tide will finally turn and that believers will stop looking to men. All things work together for good...… God will bring good out of this awful situation.

*there are now many followers who now are having trouble discerning truth from either side...

*I already came out of churches who were into NAR and all the crazy stuff and thought I found a safe place from heresy and false teachings. This is all so troublesome and discouraging to me.

*This was all because we trusted Moriel. We have held them in too high of regard I suppose. This makes me want to not even listen to anyone, maybe just old teachings from David Wilkerson. I know we are supposed to be good Bereans and search for ourselves but the word says we are given teachers, apostles, pastors, and evangelist for the building up of the Saints. It’s scriptural. And yet in this season of spiritual famine and the sea of hirelings not even the pastors of the remnant church are above reproach

*A panel discussion would have been so helpful, and if they put it out on video I think this whole fiasco could have been avoided. As you said there is so much confusion, many don’t even know where to start wading through countless videos and statements. And why all of a sudden? It makes people not want to trust either ministry. Heartbreaking

*Moriel TV: I was introduced to David Nathan, so to speak, by you and have grown to love both of your ministries. I thought I was in a safe environment where I could learn from sound bible teachers and now this has all come up and brought me much confusion and disappointment. I am more disappointed in Moriel Ministries than anyone else because I would have thought you prayerfully sought the Lord and checked out David Nathan before inviting him to be part of your ministry. Now that I've grown to love David Nathan you tell me some of his teaching is heretical after I already recommended him to my family and friends. Just makes me want to stay away from all bible teachers completely and never recommend any ministry again as I don't know who is correct anymore. This all is very hurtful and damaging to the Body of Christ of which I am only one small member.
*Another concern that I have is the Admin of Moriel because many have said that they were blocked from Moriel TV after voicing their concern about this particular issue. Are we really sure that it was Jacob who wrote that post or instructed the brother doing the Admin to write the response and block some folks challenging their message?
{9}


David Nathan addresses Prasch as a "brother" in his response below. In contrast, I am in some doubt about Prasch's spiritual condition due to his revisions to the book of Revelation (Revelation 22:18-19), his various false teachings, his habit of verbally abusing anyone who questions him and various other questionable things that I am aware of. As such my posts about Prasch/Moriel are from a very different perspective to that of David Nathan. They are specifically aimed at exposing a very dangerous false teacher, all the more so because he has hoodwinked a significant part of the remnant church. (Ephesians 5:11). 

David Nathan 3 September at 12:37 

"Dear Jacob, David and Marco It is my prayerful desire to respond to your letter of dismissal and numerous posts on social media both by yourselves, Moriel personnel and supporters in a way that both honours our Lord and holds true to the conduct required of believers whilst adequately addressing your numerous accusations regarding my doctrine. With the exception of my understanding regarding salvation during messthe Millennium, not once have any of you or for that matter any Moriel administrator, ever expressed concern regarding my doctrine. On the contrary, you have repeatedly asked me to minister either at your conferences Jacob or in the case of Marco, at Community Church of Devore, not to mention the very positive feedback I received from both Margaret Godwin and Pierre Mosley regarding my ministry. Just a week prior to your letter dismissing me from Moriel, Jacob was inviting me to speak with him at the Moriel Northern Conference in March next year. If there were any concerns with my doctrine, they would have had to have surfaced that week as at no time in my entire association with Moriel had any concern ever been expressed with the exception of the issue regarding the Millennium and that only very recently. Owing to the fact that Moriel holds itself to the highest integrity of obedience to the Word and conducting itself in accordance with it, I am intrigued as to why none of you approached me with your concerns and afforded me the opportunity to address them before making a public judgement which has not only shown me up in an extremely negative light but more importantly has brought much confusion to the brethren. Since you have brought this out into the public domain and have not followed the biblical pattern of first going to your brother or in the case of a heretic, as some are now calling me, admonish me twice before rejecting me (Titus 3:10), you have left me no choice but to respond in public. For sake of brevity I respectively ask you to allow me to address the three of you as a collective. No disrespect is intended at all. Salvation During The Millennium Reign In your letter you write that I had agreed to amend my teaching on this subject, then posted that I agreed to retract it completely. Neither of these statements are accurate or correct. When I met with Jacob and David Lister in Los Angeles together with my wife Jacqui, I agreed to clarify my position on the Millennium. I was and am most willing and open to correction if I am shown where I am wrong scripturally. This was what I agreed to and still very much still agree to. I then asked you, Jacob, to explain to me how you understand this subject as I am very open and willing to be corrected. Your response was less than two minutes long. You made two points. Firstly, you likened the salvation of the Bride to a Midrash of the three stages of the ancient Jewish marriage. You saw the time between the Marriage Feast of the Lamb (Revelation 19:7-9) and the New Jerusalem descending from Heaven (Revelation 21:9-10) as corresponding to the time between the betrothed couple celebrating their marriage at a wedding feast/banquet and the actual consummation of their marriage. Thus you reasoned that the Millennium Reign corresponds to this time period in which men can be saved as we currently are and become part of the Bride together with us. Secondly you said that on the night Jesus made the New Covenant that He said that this is the eternal covenant made in His blood, therefore the covenant cannot end even into the Millennium. I diligently searched the scriptures and could not find any place where He said this or anything similar to what you had said. Perhaps you never realised what you had just said, but both Jacqui and I heard it clearly but even so I will gladly give you the benefit of the doubt, as I too have on occasion not quoted scripture 100% accurately without consciously realising it. Yet the only mention of the covenant being everlasting in the New Covenant is in Hebrews 13:20 and applies specifically in its context to us in this age. With your response to my question, I began to ponder very prayerfully my position and even brought the topic up a few weeks later with Marco when we were together in Canada. Both Chris and Jane from Canada recall very vividly while we all sat at their dining room table that I asked them all, including Marco and Rebecca for their understanding on the subject as I was wanting to get clarity before I responded. Neither Marco nor anyone else disagreed with how I saw things even though I was asking for their critique of my view and any input that would help me see things from Jacob’s point of view. Nothing was forthcoming, so I continued to study the subject which is why I had not yet responded. Added to this, I have been ministering extensively since the initial meeting in May and had not gotten round to what I thought was an expounding of my understanding of a rather secondary issue in light of the fact that it has no outworking on any believers salvation or relationship with the Lord in this age. I am still very willing to change my views if you are graciously able to help me understand the following dilemmas I have with this subject, apart from the ones that you are now very familiar with. No disrespect or contrariness is intended but a sincere desire to learn if I am indeed wrong in my understanding. In Ezekiel 44:5-9 it is written, “5And the Lord said to me, "Son of man, mark well, see with your eyes and hear with your ears, all that I say to you concerning all the ordinances of the house of the Lord and all its laws. Mark well who may enter the house and all who go out from the sanctuary. 6"Now say to the rebellious, to the house of Israel, 'Thus says the Lord God: "O house of Israel, let Us have no more of all your abominations. 7When you brought in foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary to defile it—My house—and when you offered My food, the fat and the blood, then they broke My covenant because of all your abominations. 8And you have not kept charge of My holy things, but you have set others to keep charge of My sanctuary for you." 9Thus says the Lord God: "No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter My sanctuary, including any foreigner who is among the children of Israel.” It is clear in the above text that those who are not circumcised in their flesh may not enter the Temple during the Millennium, yet we know from the New Testament that circumcision is not necessary for the Gentiles (1 Corinthians 7:19; Galatians 5:6; Galatians 6:15; Colossians 3:11 etc. etc.). - Why then, if folk are born again according to the New Covenant in the Millennium, do they need to be circumcised according to the Old at this time? In Ezekiel 44:10-13 it is written, “And the Levites who went far from Me, when Israel went astray, who strayed away from Me after their idols, they shall bear their iniquity. 11 Yet they shall be ministers in My sanctuary, as gatekeepers of the house and ministers of the house; they shall slay the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall stand before them to minister to them. 12 Because they ministered to them before their idols and caused the house of Israel to fall into iniquity, therefore I have raised My hand in an oath against them," says the Lord GOD, "that they shall bear their iniquity. 13 And they shall not come near Me to minister to Me as priest, nor come near any of My holy things, nor into the Most Holy Place; but they shall bear their shame and their abominations which they have committed.” The above passage indicates that the Levites who went astray would never be restored back to the Lord and are forbidden to minister before Him as priests in the Millennium whilst continuing to bear their shame. Yet under the New Covenant our sins are blotted out (Acts 3:19) and remembered no more (Hebrews 8:12 and Hebrews 10:17). - Why are the memory of these sins then still retained by the Lord? - If they are priests under the New Covenant at this time, why are they forbidden to minister before the Lord as it seems to contradict 1 Peter 2:4-5 and 9-10? It is further written in Ezekiel 44:23, “And they shall teach My people the difference between the holy and the unholy, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.” - Why, if folk are born again, do they need to be taught to differentiate between the clean and the unclean, if they are not under Law but under the covenant of grace? Further, it is written in Ezekiel 45:15-17, “15And one lamb shall be given from a flock of two hundred, from the rich pastures of Israel. These shall be for grain offerings, burnt offerings, and peace offerings, to make atonement for them," says the Lord God. 16"All the people of the land shall give this offering for the prince in Israel. 17Then it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the New Moons, the Sabbaths, and at all the appointed seasons of the house of Israel. He shall prepare the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering, and the peace offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel…." - Why does the Lord command that atonement be made for the house of Israel if they are saved by grace and these sacrifices are only memorials and are not meant to atone? -Why are they not forgiven as we are, through the blood of Jesus and just atoned for? -Why does the Lord say that the sacrifices are for atonement and nowhere in all scripture as far as I am aware is there any reference to them being merely memorials in the Millennium? My last question comes from Ezekiel 46:1-3, Thus says the Lord God: "The gateway of the inner court that faces toward the east shall be shut the six working days; but on the Sabbath it shall be opened, and on the day of the New Moon it shall be opened. 2 The prince shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gateway from the outside, and stand by the gatepost. The priests shall prepare his burnt offering and his peace offerings. He shall worship at the threshold of the gate. Then he shall go out, but the gate shall not be shut until evening. 3 Likewise the people of the land shall worship at the entrance to this gateway before the LORD on the Sabbaths and the New Moons. I understand that the eastern gate of the temple is holy to the Lord for it is through this gate that He enters the Temple. Under the Old Covenant access to the inner courts of the Temple were restricted to the Levites. Yet under the New Covenant we are encouraged to come boldly into the Holy of Holies through the blood of Jesus (Hebrews 10:19-22) because the veil has been torn. (Matthew 27:51; Hebrew 9:8-9) -Why in Millennium are believers restricted from entering into the Lord’s presence except on the Sabbath and Holy Days? -It appears that those in the Millennium are subject to restrictions that we are not under. Why the difference if we are both under the same New Covenant and as you affirm are part of the same Bride? Why do they seemingly not enjoy the same benefits we do if we are both under the same covenant? Your insights and answers will be most welcome as this is all I have sought. Standing on a Rhema The next few allegations that have been made all come from a course outline that accompany a series titled Foundation Principles Course or the newer series titled Elementary Principles. It saddened me when I realized that none of you bothered to take the time to even listen to any of these teachings before making your damning accusations and drawing your tainted conclusions before making them public without first ever expressing any concerns to me directly. Had you followed the biblical instruction and come to me first you might never have made some of these allegations. The word “rhema” according to Thayers Greek dictionary is defined as, “that which is or has been uttered by the living voice, thing spoken, word”. Vines defines rhema, “denotes "that which is spoken, what is uttered in speech or writing" Hence the context it was used in was that which is spoken to you by God or shown you as you seek Him for wisdom and guidance. Nowhere in the teaching do I ever suggest nor have I ever suggested or intimated that a word give you by God is equal to scripture. This is an assumption that you have made by reading a bullet point summary of a teaching without listening to the content. You then go on to make a false assumption that I propagate the error of seeking a new word to supersede the written word. I have never suggested or taught anything like this, on the contrary I have stood against this very thing. Yet you made this assumption and made it public without any attempt to verify my position or even listen to the teaching. I challenge you to listen to the teaching for yourselves and you will see for yourselves that you have falsely accused me of teaching something that I never did or have ever done. Below is the link and you can start listening from the 29th minute. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egFkJawXhCk For the sake of that which is noble and right in the sight of our Lord I hope that you will do what is honourable and listen then judge whether or not you have brought a false accusation against a brother. Laying on of Hands Again it is clear that you have not listened to this teaching as you make this accusation and I quote directly, “This very similar to the transferring of anointing found in erroneous charsamania teachings. Exodus 30 teaches us that the anointing cannot be transferred.” And, “Neither can we, (on the basis of Exodus chapter 30 and the absence of exegetical warrant in the New Testament) sanction David's understanding of "laying on of hands",…” Three times in just one of many places in the teaching, one after the other I repeat the very thing that you have written, “you cannot transfer the anointing”. Yet you accuse me of teaching what I have not taught and indeed teach against and then make a false accusation publically. Again I invite you to listen to the actual teaching and then you judge whether I have taught what you accuse me of or not and you then decide if you have acted with integrity or not. Here is the link to the teaching, https://www.youtube.com/watch… The Baptism of the Holy Spirit On this I do not offer a defence but an acknowledgement that I have the same understanding on this subject as Dr Martin Lloyd-Jones, David Pawson and practically every Pentecostal theologian and minister has had with very, very few exceptions. I have listened to Jacobs teaching that he did in November 2017 at Ainsdale on the subject and feel that it is inconsistent with his own testimony. In the teaching he says that at salvation you receive the Holy Spirit objectively but at some point it then becomes a subjective experience. I have no problem in theory with this. He cites his own experience in being saved through a cult and then struggling with backsliding for two years before being filled with the Spirit. What made the objective become subjective if not that the Holy Spirit came upon him to empower him to stand. How does this differ from what I teach? You then take issue with the fact that I wrote that the most obvious signs in the scriptures that someone was filled with the Spirit was that they prophesied and spoke with tongues. I never said it was the only sign but the obvious signs. If you had listened to the actual teaching you would have heard me emphasise over and over again that tongues are not the only sign and that folk can be filled with the Spirit and not speak in tongues. But again you preferred to issue a judgement without seeking to confirm that your accusations were correct. Here is the link to the teaching if you are wanting to know what I actually teach and believe, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhJwHV-Y2ik Being Slain in the Spirit Your entire objection is that and I quote you, “And in these quotes, there is no distinction between “falling” as a physical act, and the actual Greek terms used to denote instances of worship…” Again you make accusations and assumptions from a very brief bullet point summary on a lengthy teaching without listening to the actual teaching itself and then arrive at a presupposition of what I actually believe and teach. Charles Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Francis Asbury, Charles Finney, George Fox and Dr Martin Lloyd-Jones and a multitude of conservative non-charismatic ministers have since the 1700’s from time to time witnessed something akin to being slain in the Spirit. In my teaching I expose the demonic, the hypnotic counterfeit and the genuine as witnessed by those in scripture. This subject is covered in the last quarter of the teaching on the Laying on of Hands, https://www.youtube.com/watch… Dominion Theology – God Has to Ask Permission to Intervene in This World I take the blame for this as I had in the past not explained my position clearly enough in course notes that I had written many years ago. I did a teaching expounding my understanding on this as I am 100% against dominion theology. I welcome your comments on my actual and not perceived views so that if my understanding is incorrect I may receive correction. Here is the teaching that explains my understanding, I will amend the notes to more clearly reflect this and I thank you for bringing it to my attention, https://www.youtube.com/watch… In Summary As a brother and a fellow minister I would have appreciated the opportunity to be corrected if I was indeed in error privately before taking this into the public domain. Unfortunately you have chosen to handle this both unwisely and unbiblically and as a result many have been hurt and confused by all this. I seek not to defend my reputation for I have none nor care for one but I seek the wellbeing of the flock who are easily unsettled in these turbulent times. In an instant whether willingly or unwillingly you have undermined everything I have ever taught by your many allegations. To say that somethings I teach are good and the rest bad only leaves people with the question, what is truth and what is error? That you have caused relationships to be severed by your accusations and my family both saved and unsaved to be severely affected by your accusations is something that I hope you will reflect on and hopefully learn from. Despite my immense disappointment with the many unfounded accusations you have made and the way you have acted I assure you of my continual love for you all and wish you nothing but God’s grace and goodness upon you, your families and your respective ministries. Till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; David Nathan Bread of Life Ministries."

19 comments:

Unknown said...

Shalom fellow believer,
I too have been surprised and disappointed in this latest conflict. I have been following the teachings of both Moriel and David Nathan's Bread of Life and being of a Jewish background too, have readily identified with Jacob's midrashic interpretations of scripture at the same time in full accord with David's background testimony and Walk of Faith. A South African as well, I have attended David's Church in Johannesburg. I currently reside in Cornwall UK and try to attend teachings, lectures and conferences where either is speaking!
This vitreolic encounter reminds me of the Talmudic Rabbis offering their individual opinions and interpretations thereby splitting Judaism into two schools of learning. (Apostle Paul was grounded in the School of Rabbi Hillel cf the School of Shammai!). Paul and Barnabas were separated at the behest of the Holy Spirit.
The critical responses and accusations ensuing are disturbing as these two brothers are dividing over intangible doctrinal views, hypothetical inferences. At the end of Revelation these things are sealed and John is told that ALL will be revealed and made known eventually!! MY earnest hope is that these differences of interpretation can be acceptably and amicably resolved, so that both can Shepherd and Pastor there followers in truth and at Peace through the guidance and leading of the Holy Spirit the sole Spirit of Truth!! regards Jeff Leigh (jforgolf@aol.com)

Treena Gisborn said...

Thank you for your comment Jeff. I have heard very little of David Nathan's teaching in the past due to his association with Jacob Prasch. As such I cannot comment on it in any detail.

I agree that ALL will be revealed eventually. I do not think that our own theories are always helpful andI do not think it is the way to go personally. However David Nathan's theory about the millennium does not make him a "heretic" by any means!

The events that occur during the 70th week of Daniel ARE clearly recorded for our instruction in order to prepare us for the great tribulation. Prasch makes very bold authoritative statements - he does not teach in terms of "theory"! There are many errors in intra-seal that need to be challenged.

I do not think that things will be resolved between these two men.. Prasch's words and actions are pretty decisive as far as I can see. In fact Prasch has done David Nathan a great favour... anyone associated with Jacob Prasch is tainted in my view.

God bless

Unknown said...

Hi Treena
Thank you for your prompt reply to my comments on your posting.
You would appear to harbour a strong antagonism towards Jacob personally, aside from the substance of his teachings!
This whole argument stems from differing interpretations of the details of end time Prophecy, whether it relates to the rapture or tribulation or Day of Wrath.There is nothing new under the Sun! to quote wise old King Solomon!!
There is also the supposed difference in teaching/understanding of the Hebrews 6 outline of "the elementary principles of the foundations" of our faith ; particularly with regard to Baptism in the Spirit and Laying on of hands!! Again two Hermaneutic differences!!! Both of no real relevance or consequence to the believers Walk of Faith! So why the discord!!!

My regret comes from the totally uncalled for and unnecessary division and dissension in lieu of the contribution these two brothers have made to the fundamental basic principles and caveats of discipleship and Kingdom living teaching!

We must pray that tha Spirit of Truth will prevail and not allow our human emotions and reactions to predominate! Amen! Jeff

Treena Gisborn said...

I can assure you the I have nothing personal against Jacob Prasch Jeff. However I do regard him as a very dangerous false teacher who has managed to deceive the remnant with his mixture of truth and error. I would say exactly the same about Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland etc.
How are we to test whether a particular teaching is true or false if it is down to "hermeneutic differences" and "interpretation"? It all seems rather vague.. and yet in many instances the scriptures ARE clear.. I refer to the timing of the rapture and details surrounding the tribulation in particular.
I will listen to David Nathan on the Baptism in the Spirit/Laying on of Hands. I cannot comment at the moment as I have not heard him on this subject.
God bless.

Treena Gisborn said...

Hi again Jeff... I have tried to listen to some of David Nathan tonight but I have not got on very well at all, especially with his concept of two gospels. As far as I can see there is only one gospel.. i.e. the "everlasting gospel" Revelation 14:6 preached to all the nations of the earth. The NT focuses on different aspects of that one gospel and the disciples understanding of the gospel was progressive.. but I think to dissect it into two gospels is to go too far.
God bless.
http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp358.htm

Monopode said...

Jeff, our sister Treena has no personal issue with Prasch. He was the one who started with his usual ranting and railing because we questioned his confusing intra seal teaching. It has errors that he avoids explaining. No man or woman is above being questioned and no believer should countenance false teaching. I think this is taught clearly in the scriptures. My view is that Prasch should be avoided until he puts things right and humbles himself.

Blessings
Nick

Treena Gisborn said...

Thank you Nick
If only Christians would test the spirits. (1 John 4:1).
God bless.

Treena Gisborn said...

A comment left by David Nathan on FB shows more humility than I have seen in a bible teacher for a very long time:

"I admit that I presented my understanding as definitive and after much study and reading from others I admit I was wrong to do so. I am no nearer arriving at a conclusion just as among scholars who have written on this. As a result I will gladly and most willingly retract and edit previous teachings. I have learned so much in this process because of the grace and goodness of our God who looks to the heart and leads us into all truth.

Let these things take care of themselves in the next age.

Let us rather focus on this age leading to the return of our Lord and hopefully we are all found faithful and ready at His return."

Monopode said...

Very gracious and nice to read. However I don’t agree that we can let these things take care of themselves in the next age. If I understand the issue correctly Nathan is saying (in a round about way) that there will be a different way for millennium unsaved people to be saved. I think I have that right. This is a false teaching. We are saved by Christ through faith and there is no other way. This is clear in both testaments. The millennium will be no different. Correct me if I am wrong.

Treena Gisborn said...

Yes that is how I understand what David Nathan was teaching Monopode.. I think it is to go too far to say that animal sacrifices will constitute forgiveness of sins during the millennium. Only the blood of Jesus Christ takes away sin. I personally think that it was unwise of him to speculate in this way, although he has various scriptures to back up his argument. I think basically what David Nathan is saying in his comment above is that we should not be too concerned about the millennium during the present age. "Let these things take care of themselves in the next age", is not a full retraction, I agree. Nevertheless he admits that this was/is his own understanding and that he should not have taught it definitively. God bless.

Monopode said...

It is good he has publicly explained himself but in my view salvation is an elementary teaching. The first thing we have to understand. When I began attending an AOG church as a teen I wasn’t given a clear explanation of Christ. One example: I wasn’t aware that Christ was the eternal Son of God. I thought he sprang into being at his birth. I was astounded to hear the truth for the first time. So my ‘faith’ in Christ was based on an untruth and this wasn’t the only issue I had with many gaps in my understanding in a teaching that Paul calls ‘milk.’A seasoned teacher should understand all aspects of salvation. For this reason I wouldn’t listen to Nathan on any subject. He has zero credibility in my mind. If his ministry falls apart then so be it but I doubt it will. People get awfully attached to teachers. As we know error leads to error so I would look very carefully into Nathan’s teaching if I was a follower of his ministry. I’m glad this has been exposed for the cause of Christ and for the sake of the saints.

Treena Gisborn said...

I have to say that after some thought I agree with you Monopode. I do not seek to bring David Nathan down, but I wonder what was the purpose of his teaching about the millennium? It hasn't built anyone up in their faith has it? In effect it does undermine the gospel. God bless.

Treena Gisborn said...

Hebrews 10: 1-4 makes it clear that animal sacrifices did not take away sins in the OT. Since it is IMPOSSIBLE for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins, there is a major problem with David Nathan's theory. Some teach that the animal sacrifices during the millennium are an object lesson or a memorial. In any event it is unhelpful to go beyond what is written. 1 Corinthians 4:6.

"1For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."

Monopode said...

Totally agree. The word of God corrects all errors because it is written by the Spirit of truth. You’ve found a great verse to refute Nathan. I have heard the object lesson theory and have no issue with it either way. It’s a reasonable theory. Unsaved and saved people could see the sheer horror of an innocent animal’s death and gain some understanding of the horror of sinning against a holy, just God. I could see value in that. Sometimes I think about Adam and Eve’s reaction seeing an animal taken by God and sacrificed in front of them. This would have been a spectacle completely outside of their experience and was surely their first lesson on the consequences of sin.

I’ve also heard it said that millennium people will need cleansing because of ceremonial uncleaness. I don’t know about that. It is strange, come to think about it, that anyone would spend valuable teaching time on such an issue. As you said, no one has had their faith built up.

Treena Gisborn said...

Teachers have an awesome responsibility and yet they are often flippant with their eisegesis!

"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness." James 3:1

Marco Quintana (Community Church of Devore + Moriel USA): "We hold that Biblical truth is doctrinal, not relational." I suspect this statement originated with Jacob Prasch as he has repeated it in relation to this incident. I agree. Paul openly confronted Peter (Galatians 2:11). We should primarily be God pleasers and not be man pleasers!

The problem is that Prasch's own teaching is seriously off in many respects and his associates know it! God is not pleased with this kind of hypocrisy! Prasch is a powerful personality and intelligent.. Are they intimidated by him? They should not be!
"The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is safe." Proverbs 29:25

I think that Marco Quintana, and also others who I will not name, need to repent of their association with Prasch, otherwise God's judgement may fall upon them also!

God bless.

Treena Gisborn said...

A very interesting discussion on Bill Randle's blog:
https://billrandles.wordpress.com/2018/09/18/iron-sharpening-iron-david-n-and-jacob-p/

Treena Gisborn said...


UPDATE

Bill Randles Open Letter to David Nathan:
https://billrandles.wordpress.com/2018/10/12/one-helpful-suggestion-maybe-an-open-letter-to-david-nathan/

David Nathan's Right of Reply:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD2y77fF7sk&feature=youtu.be

Moriel's Dispute With David Nathan -
A Chronological Sequence of Events:
https://www.bolm.co.za/#xl_xr_page_moriel%20dispute
12 October 2018 at 19:49

John Cambridge said...

Hi Treena. Sorry to bother you, but references to the Open Letter I sent David Nathan earlier this week were made in the Commnents section of at least two of your posts, but unless I'm going mad they've all been expunged. (On a related note, the same seems to have happened on Mike Rogers' site closingstages.net, even though Mike had written a critique of it and I'd replied.) Can you possibly shed any light on what has happened? Many thanks in advance, john

Treena Gisborn said...

I have been warned that your motives for writing such a piece under a nom-de-plume are questionable. Openness is always the best policy. I believe that you should have put your real name to the letter regardless of the consequences. If you give your true identity then I will look at it again.

"77 'John Cambridge' is a nom-de-plume. I’m using it because some people might otherwise choose to reject the points I make in this letter (even though truth is independent of the person bringing it) because of my past failings discussed in an earlier endnote."