MY QUESTION TO STEVE KOZAR: BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

 (60) Responding to Sean Christie: Part One - YouTube

I can't go any further without responding to Steve Kozar's response to Sean Christie (Revealing Truth).

Sean Christie has posted a new video (below) which will hopefully silence these troublemakers, although I will not hold my breath. Kozar and Long have gained some credibility amongst Christians due to their refutations against NAR heretics. However, I now begin to wonder if their plan was to launch a spiritual hand grenade onto the body of Christ all along. (2 Peter 2:1). I have had reservations about Kozar in particular for some time, but I put this down to personality rather than anything I could pinpoint definitively. Kozar's various slanderous responses to Christie's original video now confirm that my previous uneasiness about him was based on something other than personality. (Proverbs 8:13). 

Kozar refers to "..amateur discernment bloggers who seem to have the viewpoint of 'it's me and my bible against the world, I'm just going to do this all by myself.'" 

My question to Steve Kozar: Who are you to say who can or cannot challenge various troubling developments and doctrines within the church?  

Kozar's comment reminds me of my experience at Holy Trinity CofE Church in Leicester some years ago when I questioned the antics of the then vicar John McGinley and his promotion of various deviant teachings. I went to John McGinley's house one evening to discuss my concerns, and at one point he said to me "Who are you to question us?"  My response was that what I was observing did not line up with the scriptures, and I asked him why I should not question him. John McGinley has now morphed into an NAR "apostle" and he is an associate of Emma Stark, Rebecca King and other false teachers. {1} If we do not test the spirits, and if we allow the "experts" to instruct us unchallenged, I think that we would be in real trouble! (1 John 4:1). Kozar appears to have taken a leaf out of the false NAR teachers' book by misapplying Matthew 7:1 "judge not"!

One accusation levelled against Christie was that he did not take the time to find out what Kozar and Long really believe. If you cannot put a good case for your so-called "doctrine" in a one-hour-plus video, then there is something wrong. According to Kozar, we need to spend several hours studying the subject of infant baptism and baptismal regeneration before we can question their view. I disagree. I heard enough in their original 1.23 hour video to set alarm bells ringing. {2} 

Another accusation against Christie is, apparently, he does not have a PhD and he is not qualified to challenge those who "know what they are talking about". Christie does not mention whether he has any theological qualifications or not on his YouTube channel, but as far as I am concerned, provided his teaching is sound, this is not an issue. Whatever qualifications we have, they are not banners to be waved around to impress or intimidate others. We only have to look at Paul's boasts in the flesh to understand that on their own qualifications mean absolutely nothing. (Philippians 3:4-6).

My understanding from Kozar, without spending hours and hours reading the PhD's he recommends, is that according to Lutheran doctrine, baptism is and is not salvific.  

A bewildering number of views exist amongst those who promote baptismal regeneration. 

Jordan Cooper and Gavin Ortlund sum up the Lutheran view of baptism as "the ordinary means of regeneration.. baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation, but it is ordinarily necessary for salvation..  there are exceptions to that."  Chris Rosebrough calls out Michael Brown as "the apostle of obfuscation", but really, you would have to go a long way to make up anything more obscure, unclear or unintelligible as the Lutheran doctrine of baptismal regeneration. What Christie noticed was that Lutherans pay a lot of attention to the Roman Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration and I agree with him that this is a concern.

 

1. Conversations - Episode 120 with Rebecca King, Emma Stark and John McGinley - YouTube
2. (60) Baptism Is Not A Work! A Discussion between Steve and Paulette Kozar and Dan Long - YouTube

STEVE KOZAR: INFANT BAPTISM AND BAPTISMAL REGENERATION

 (35) A Lutheran Response to Mike Winger on Infant Baptism (Repost from Pastor Matt Knuppel) - YouTube

Steve Kozar recently posted the above video which is Lutheran Pastor Matt Knuppel's (Grace Lutheran Church) response to Mike Winger's analysis of infant baptism. Kozar has come out of the wicked NAR/Charismania deception, but unfortunately he continues to have problems with basic theology. Very sadly he and Daniel Long are currently busy muddying the waters by foisting the aberrant teachings of Lutheranism onto the body of Christ. This topic is salvific i.e. it pertains to salvation and as such, it is a primary, not a secondary issue.

Why begin with the Lutheran Confessions?

Knuppel: "What do Lutherans believe about baptism in general?" He goes on to quote Article 9 of the Augsburg Confessions and the Small Catechism. Surely we should begin with the scriptures rather than Luther! The general consensus is that Luther and the other reformers did not go far enough with their reforms. Luther made some terrible blunders, not to mention his legendary antisemitism. Luther's first German translation of the scriptures omitted 25 books (i.e., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Esther, Job, Ecclesiastes, Jonah, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (i.e., Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. Luther referred to the Epistle of James as "straw not worthy to be burned in my oven as tinder".  He referred to other books as "Judaizing nonsense". {1} It is obvious to me that Luther was a very arrogant man and that we should not hang onto his every word! What we find below is Luther's view of baptism which goes beyond what is written and is unsupported by the scriptures. (1 Corinthians 4:6).

 

The Small Catechism: 

First
What is Baptism?

Baptism is not just plain water, but it is the water included in God’s command and combined with God’s word.
Which is that word of God?

Christ our Lord says in the last chapter of Matthew: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Matt. 28:19)

Second
What benefits does Baptism give?

It works forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.
Which are these words and promises of God?

Christ our Lord says in the last chapter of Mark: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16)

Third

How can water do such great things?

Certainly not just water, but the word of God in and with the water does these things, along with the faith which trusts this word of God in the water. For without God’s word the water is plain water and no Baptism. But with the word of God it is a Baptism, that is, a life-giving water, rich in grace, and a washing of the new birth in the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul says in Titus, chapter three: “He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying.” (Titus 3:5–8)

Knuppel: "Baptism is a means of grace that works forgiveness of sins.. Water, all by itself, without any word of God is just plain water. You can drink it, you can use it to wash your car; but with the word of God, with God's word of promise, it is no longer just plain water, but it becomes a holy baptism.." The claim that the actual water (H2O) changes mystically in baptism has no biblical support whatsoever. This idea is similar to the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence in the Lord's supper (consubstantiation), which is an unfortunate throwback to the Roman Catholic Church.

Household Baptisms

Knuppel refused to spend time responding to arguments against the inclusion of infants into household baptisms in the book of Acts, although he thinks this is "strongly possible". I am not surprised that Knuppel is unwilling to substantiate his views on this subject. There are definite weaknesses with the view that entire households, including infants, were baptized. For instance, it is not feasible that infants belonging to the "entire household" of the jailer mentioned in Acts 16 heard the gospel, believed and rejoiced. Infants by definition would not have understood the gospel. 

Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God. (Acts 16:30-34).

The scriptures show that faith precedes baptism. By necessity, baptism is a subsequent act that arises from faith and repentance. In other words, salvation occurs when believers receive the Holy Spirit prior to baptism. Otherwise, the thief on the cross would not be saved and there would be no deathbed conversions. (Luke 23:43).

Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days. (Acts 10:46-48).

The Lord opened Lydia's heart to respond to Paul's message and baptism followed:

Among those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, “If you consider me a believer in the Lord, come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us. (Acts 16:14-15).

So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41).

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16).

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38).

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:3 cf. John 3:16. 5:24; Acts 8:12, 11:16).

Or aren’t you aware that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:3-4).

Gill: "..because baptism is an ordinance of his; it is to submit to it with a view to his glory, to testify our affection for him, and subjection to him, without laying any stress or dependence on it for salvation; such who are thus baptized, are "baptized into his death"; they not only resemble Christ in his sufferings and death, by being immersed in water, but they declare their faith in the death of Christ, and also share in the benefits of his death; such as peace, pardon, righteousness, and atonement: now this proves, that such persons are dead to sin, who are so baptized; for by the death of Christ, into which they are baptized, they are justified from sin; by the death of Christ, their old man is crucified, and the body of sin destroyed; besides, believers in baptism profess themselves to be dead to sin and the world, and their baptism is an obligation upon them to live unto righteousness." {2} 

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16). The early church appears to have performed baptism at a very early stage in the lives of believers (arguably on the same day). (Acts 8:36; 10:47 etc.). The emphasis in this verse is on whoever believes/does not believe. Given all the other scriptures confirming that faith precedes baptism, it is a reasonable deduction that the inclusion of baptism in this instance is based on the assumption that baptism will occur within a very short period following conversion. 

..when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1 Peter 3:20-21). A good conscience is pledged at the point of baptism. The scriptures indicate that baptism was performed on those capable of personally believing in Jesus Christ, pledging a good conscience, and calling on His name. (Acts 22:16).

 

Baptism and Circumcision

Baptism differs from circumcision in a number of ways. A key difference is that inclusion into the New Covenant is not something that parents can do for their children by proxy. Biblical faith is a personal saving relationship and a commitment to Jesus Christ. A definite command in the Old Testament was that only male children were to be circumcised at eight days old. (Leviticus 12:3). Infants were automatically included in the community of Israel when they were circumcised. Although children of believers have the advantage of being part of a Christian family, they are not considered to be Christian in their own right until they are old enough to make a personal commitment to Jesus Christ through faith. The sign of the new covenant is the Holy Spirit: For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. (Romans 2:28-29).

Paul contrasts circumcision and baptism as follows:

In Him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of your sinful nature, with the circumcision performed by Christ and not by human hands. And having been buried with Him in baptism, you were raised with Him through your faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead.When you were dead in your trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our trespasses.. (Colossians 2:11-13).

Parallels between Genesis 17 and Acts 2

Genesis 17:9-14

And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

Acts 2:38-39
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

In the above passages, descendants or posterity are denoted not infants.

Cambridge Bible: "39. the promise is unto you, and to your children] Just as “to Abraham and his seed were the promises made” {3}

Expositors Greek Testament: "Acts 2:39. ὑμῖν γὰρ: the promise was made to the very men who had invoked upon themselves and upon their children, St. Matthew 27:25, the blood of the Crucified." {4}

 

The sign of the old covenant was circumcision (Genesis 17:10-14), whereas the sign of the new covenant is the Holy Spirit:

For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written coded and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. (Romans 2:25-28).

The Wartburg Castle has recently posted further revisions and updates, including a video by Hans Fiene: (48) "WhaddaBout the Thief on the Cross??" by Pastor Hans Fiene - YouTube This video is described as "satire" and it is supposed to be amusing. According to Fein, there are two ways to be saved: "Just because someone can be saved apart from baptism doesn't change the fact that baptism saves."  This presents us with the confusing concept that baptism can save someone, but that it is not required for salvation. Perhaps I don't have the Lutheran "superior knowledge", but this does not make one jot of sense to me. 

Kozar and his Lutheran associates should be very careful about mocking those who hold the biblical view of salvation by faith through grace. (Ephesians 6:8). In my view, their scripture twisting and mockery are likely to incur the wrath of God. (Galatians 6:7; Proverbs 18:7). 

1. Luther's canon - Wikipedia
2. Romans 6 Gill's Exposition (biblehub.com)
3. (Galatians 3:16),
4. Acts 2:39 Commentaries: "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." (biblehub.com)

Further Links:

(44) FALSE TEACHER CHRIS ROSEBROUGH-LUTHERANISM-FIGHTING FOR THE FAITH
(44) #340 Chris Rosebrough's Defence of Idolatrous Statues of Christ | MEGIDDO RADIO - YouTube
(48) A Biblical Analysis of Infant Baptism - YouTube
(48) Controversies and Biblical Clarity on Baptism - YouTube
(48) Debate: "Is Water Baptism Required for Salvation?” Dean Meadows and Mike Winger - YouTube
(58) Water Baptism DOES NOT Save - Explaining 1 Peter 3:20-21 - YouTube

DANIEL LONG AND STEVE KOZAR: LUTHERAN HERETICS

(8) “Long and Kozar Talking about their New YouTube Channel: The Wartburg Castle - YouTube

In this video Daniel Long and Steve Kozar explain why they have created their new YouTube channel The Wartburg Castle. Long and Kozar are "Confessional Lutherans" or "Conservative Lutherans"  which they differentiate from liberal Lutheranism as practiced by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA).    

I would describe Long and Kozar's agenda of discouraging criticism against Lutherism as Machiavellian. (Genesis 3:1). Kozar's dominant personality comes to the fore throughout this video and he frequently interrupts Long. He explains that they don't want to get into super detailed issues about doctrine or church history and the differences between denominations, but that they are setting doctrinal issues aside. Kozar and Long apparently want to "discuss Lutheranism" without discussing Lutheranism! Kozar suggests that those of us who differ should "respectfully disagree", and he asserts from the outset that severe censure against Lutheranism on their platform is unwanted and unacceptable. In effect their aim is to do what many false teachers do, they introduce heresy through the back door without clarifying their core doctrines. In order to "respectfully disagree", I would have to imply that there are only minor differences of opinion between bible believing Christians and Lutherans. In fact, Lutheranism undermines the very doctrine of salvation itself. (2 Corinthians 11:4). It is not possible to "respectfully disagree" when the bible gives such stark warnings against false teachers. (2 Corinthians 6:14). 

Long and Kozar follow the bad example of their mentor Chris Rosebrough. Kozar: "Everything we do has got a huge stamp of Chris Rosebrough's ideas on it". According to Kozar, Rosebrough's initial idea was to critique false NAR teachers without revealing his Lutheran beliefs because he knew it would be controversial. It doesn't seem to have occurred to either Long or Kozar that Rosebrough's tactic of obscuring his Lutheran beliefs is deceptive. Why would anyone with sound theology want to obscure their beliefs?  Rosebough has labelled false teacher Michael Brown "the apostle of obfuscation", but this label might just as easily be applied to himself. Rosebrough's deception was painfully encountered by Laura (End Time Apostasy) in 2017. Laura had listened to Rosebrough's teaching for nine years without realizing that he was a Lutheran! Her appeal to Rosebrough and his wife was subsequently ignored. Laura makes some very good points in the following video and is obviously very upset. *Proviso: I am not in agreement with Laura's view of OSAS (once saved always saved). 

Adiaphora

Adiaphora are matters not regarded as essential to faith, but nevertheless as permissible for Christians or allowed in the church. Kozar demonstrates his skewed mindset: "Don't park your car in the parking lot of the church because it doesn't say in the bible to have a parking lot at your church". Firstly, parking lots have nothing to do with the church service, and secondly, without an opportunity to park their cars, many people would not go to church. According to Kozar, vestments fall into the category of adiaphora because the bible doesn't say what a pastor should wear. In that case, any of us could turn up to church in vestments, but I don't think that would be seen as acceptable! Although Kozar claims that vestments are worn by the pastor in humility as a servant, the distinct impression given is that they elevate the pastor above the congregation. This impression is further compounded by the pastor speaking in the first person of God when he gives absolution. In fact, a biblical case can be made against vestments. Christians are instructed not to make distinctions amongst themselves or to make a show of outer appearance or adornment. (Matthew 23:5,8; 1 Peter 3:3-4; James 2:2). According to Protestant Reformer John Hooper, these requirements were vestiges of Judaism and Roman Catholicism, which had no biblical warrant for authentic Christians since they were not used in the early Christian church. {1}

Baptismal Regeneration?

Long's advice not to read our presuppositions into the text and to let the text speak for itself is sound advice, but sadly he does not apply it to himself. The scriptures confirm believers' baptism. A definite order of events is involved concerning salvation i.e. faith invariably precedes baptism.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Matthew 28:19).

And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16:31). 

..because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved . For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. (Romans 10:9-10).

Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. (Acts 8:35-38).

And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:41-42).

And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. (Hebrews 11:6).

The defects of Conservative Lutheranism

Absolution from a confessor as if from God himself; infant baptism; baptismal regeneration; the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist aka the sacramental union or consubstantiation (i.e. the Body and Blood of Christ are "truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms" of consecrated bread and wine (the elements); vestments; over-emphasized liturgy. statues, amillennial eschatology. {2} The very foundation of the Christian faith is misrepresented by Conservative Lutheranism. The fundamental principle of justification by faith alone is violated by baptismal regeneration and infant baptism. Lutheranism is a different gospel. (2 Corinthians 11:4).  Furthermore, vestments and granting absolution in the first person is unbiblical and puts a false distinction between the pastor and his congregation. I have heard the Lutheran spin on all these questions, but no matter how much they equivocate, it is impossible to justify these practices. For anyone to grant absolution in the first person is blasphemy. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, (1 Timothy 2:5). 

Rosebrough defends the indefensible and condones idolatrous statues of Christ on the altar as "liturgical art".

The early church

When the church began in the first century Jesus' disciples met very simply in homes. And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. (Acts 2:42,46;16:40). 

When he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying. (Acts 12:12).

So they went out of the prison and visited Lydia. And when they had seen the brothers, they encouraged them and departed. (Acts 16:40).
To Philemon our beloved fellow worker and Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier, and the church in your house: (Philemon 1:1-2)

Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks but all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks as well. Greet also the church in their house. (Romans 16:3-5).

Church buildings began to spring up in the middle of the third century during the reign of Constantine after Christianity was legalized. Prior to this time, the emphasis was never on buildings, the ecclesia were the people of God and believers met wherever they could. (Matthew 18:20). Roman Catholicism introduced adornments and embellishments.

Kozar: "If you’re burdened by not being a “good enough” Christian, even after many years of trying, Lutheranism might be the relief you’ve been looking for!"  {3} 

Kozar focuses on how charismatic teachers like Todd White put believers on a guilt trip and make them feel that they are "not good enough". As a former charismatic I agree with this assessment. My own experience in charismania was extremely debilitating. However, I cannot agree with Kozar that Lutheranism "might" bring relief. Lutherans and Calvinists have become quite good at mopping up Christians who have become disillusioned with charismania. However, neither of these options represents the true gospel of Jesus Christ. Christ is the answer! (John 8:31-36).

I watch Long's YouTube channel Long for Truth videos regularly. His videos are well presented and are a useful resource insofar as they expose the false teaching and the dubious history of the Word-Faith/Pentecostal/NAR movement. Kozar's channel The Messed Up Church follows a similar agenda but his videos are chaotic and difficult to follow. As with Rosebrough, it is indefensible that both Long and Kozar obscure their core heretical Lutheran beliefs. As Laura points out, these men are heretics exposing other heretics. 

1. Vestments controversy - Wikipedia
2. Eucharist in Lutheranism - Wikipedia
3. Lutheran Stuff — The Messed Up Church

Further Links

The Small Catechism · BookOfConcord.org
(12) #340 Chris Rosebrough's Defence of Idolatrous Statues of Christ | MEGIDDO RADIO - YouTube
Lutheran Heresies! - What's wrong with the Lutheran religion? (jesus-is-savior.com)

CHRIS ROSEBROUGH (FIGHTING FOR THE FAITH) EXPOSES JACOB PRASCH

Prasch and Burn:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj0N7SIMIzg

The Praschians Strike Back
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONCUD_qmSK4

The Mountain of Evidence That Jacob Prasch and His Followers (Including Josh Chavez) are a Doomsday Cult Comprised of Spiritual Abusers and Thug Bullies 
http://www.piratechristian.com/fightingforthefaith/2020/6/the-mountain-of-evidence-that-jacob-prasch-and-his-followers-including-josh-chavez-are-a-cult-comprised-of-spiritual-abusers-and-thug-bullies

Proof Prasch LIED About Metatron Being in the Bible!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJOXtIxlJZI&feature=em-lsp

I am reluctant to give my approval to any and every person that criticizes Jacob Prasch. In some cases, a valid accusation against Prasch runs the risk of backfiring because his accusers' own house is not in order. I put Lutheran, Chris Rosebrough and his Calvinist friends firmly in this category. Prasch is not a soft target and he will not hesitate to capitalize on even the smallest chink in the amour of those who challenge him. Where Prasch cant find a chink, he slanders, as demonstrated in his frequent "Jezebel" accusation, and his various other ad hominem attacks against others. (Proverbs 10:8; 1 Corinthians 5:11). In Rosebrough's case, Prasch does not need to resort to slander. The gaping holes in Rosebrough's theology give both Prasch, and his sidekick Amos Farrell, plenty of ammunition. Prasch's aim is of course to take the focus off his own heretical teachings and misdeeds by transferring all the attention onto Rosebrough's heresy.

I believe that God is using this situation to expose various heretical teachings on both sides of this dogfight. The onus is on the Body of Christ to employ wisdom and impartially in order to discern truth from error from all angles of this dispute. (1 John 4:1; James 3:17).

Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being, and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart. (Psalm 51:6).

Chris Rosebrough

Chris Rosebrough is the Pastor of Kongsvinger Lutheran Church in Oslo Mn. which is a member congregation of The American Association of Lutheran Churches. Rosebrough also hosts Pirate Christian Radio and the YouTube channel Fighting for the Faith. 

Roseborough rejects premillennialism in favour of amillennialism. This is the reason that he calls Moriel Ministries "A doomsday cult of personality, rallying around the teachings of Jacob Prasch."
Rosebrough: Jacob Prasch has determined that we are right on the cusp of the end times.."  

Amillennialism (Greek: a- "no" + millennialism), in Christian eschatology, involves the rejection of the belief that Jesus will have a literal, thousand-year-long, physical reign on the earth. This rejection contrasts with premillennial and some postmillennial interpretations of chapter 20 of the Book of Revelation. {1}

I agree with Rosebrough that Moriel Ministries are "..a cult of personality, rallying around the teachings of Jacob Prasch." However, the ramifications arising from Rosebrough's amillennialism are weighty.

Rosebrough: "Everything in the book of Revelation is symbolic." 

Rosebrough and other amillennialists (including the Roman Catholic Church), are inconsistent in that they ignore sound hermeneutical principles in order to suit their own subjective theology. The amillennial position allows for prophetic passages of scripture to be abused and bent to one's own theological preference. The allegorical interpretation of the book of Revelation is unsafe and is a doctrine of confusion. (See Further Links).

The Lutheran doctrine of baptismal regeneration and also the doctrine of consubstantiation as stated on the doctrinal statement of Kongsvinger Lutheran Church should be firmly rejected as "another gospel". (2 Corinthians 11:14). No sacrament can produce regeneration! Salvation is based on faith alone! (James 2:24; Luke 23:42):

"What We Believe, Teach and Confess:

The Means of Grace (Word and Sacraments)

The Holy Spirit, through the Word, reveals our sinful nature and God’s perfect, eternal nature. Through Baptism, the Word works through water to bury our sinful nature and raise us to a new, eternal life in Christ. In the Lord's Supper, the believer receives the forgiveness of sins through the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in bread and wine."  {2}

The (mainly Lutheran) doctrine of constubstantiation (as against transubstantiation), is the belief that the substance of the bread and wine temporarily coexists with the body and blood of Christ so that the two substances co-exist side by side. Transubstantiation is the belief that the bread and the wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, constubstantiation is the heretical doctrine is an attempt to hold the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist without admitting Transubstantiation. (3) In fact both these doctrines are heretical and have no basis in scripture. The context of the Passover meal builds upon Jesus' previous teaching that His words are spirit and life. (John 6:52-58, 63).

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is real food, and My blood is real drink. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood remains in Me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent Me and I live because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your fathers, who ate the manna and died, the one who eats this bread will live forever.” (John 6:52-58).

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (John 6:63).

Rosebrough defends the indefensible and condones idolatrous statues of Christ on the altar as "liturgical art". 

The second commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Exodus 20:4-6).   

And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. (Matthew 22:39).

God looks down from heaven

on the children of man
to see if there are any who understand,
who seek after God.
They have all fallen away;
together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good,
not even one.  (Psalm 53:2-3).

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amillennialism#:~:text=Amillennialism%20%28Greek%3A%20a-%20%22no%22%20%2B%20millennialism%29%2C%20in%20Christian,of%20chapter%2020%20of%20the%20Book%20of%20Revelation.
2. http://www.kongsvingerchurch.org/what-we-beleive
3. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04322a.htm 

Further Links: 

False Teacher Chris Rosebrough-Lutheranism-Fighting For The Faith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zRFz_neFlQ

Chris Rosebrough's Defence of Idolatrous Statues of Christ | MEGIDDO RADIO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4zZNHS5TAk&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR3FRVHt60t7Wd9oObLwuuQNpB52I37zbO9PB45uSHaTbwCqSEf5jIS27g8

Amillennial Theology is in error - (no literal thousand year reign)
https://www.thepropheticyears.com/comments/amillennial.HTM#:~:text=Amillennial%20theology%20is%20in%20error%20and%20is%20a,differently%20than%20would%20some%20of%20the%20reformed%20churches.

At the end of the day, Amillennialism uses allegorical interpretation
https://www.alankurschner.com/2020/01/21/at-the-end-of-the-day-amillennialism-uses-allegorical-interpretation/