The Northampton Chronicle has today reported the news that Jesus Army cult leaders in Northamptonshire have stepped down after complaints over handling over abuse claims:
"The leaders of a Northampton-based Christian organisation, once branded a ‘cult’, have stepped down while complaints into how historical abuse claims were handled are investigated. The Jesus Army (JA) has confirmed five ‘apostolic’ leaders of the sect, founded in Bugbrooke in 1969, will now be subject to an independent investigation. Mick Haines, the senior pastor and de facto leader of the Jesus Army is among the men to have stepped down from ‘pastoral duties’, a spokesman told the Chron. The other four to face investigation are Mike Farrant, John Campbell, Ian Callard and Huw Lewis, the spokesman confirmed. In 2013, the JA called on ex-members to come forward and reveal instances of past abuse, either sexual, physical, financial or spiritual. Following investigations by ex-members of the fellowship and the Chronicle & Echo, it is now known about 150 claims were made. But the sect, which still has a strong base in Northampton and underwent a safeguarding review in 2015, has confirmed there have been complaints over the way the five men handled the abuse claims.Spokesman Laurence Cooper, said in a statement: “Questions have been raised about the handling of information by the senior leadership of the church, relating to past cases of abuse. “All five people have been involved in the handling of previous cases of abuse in the church. Allegations have been made about the way they handled historic cases. These are unproven allegations, but they do need to be treated seriously and investigated fully. “The five people you mention have agreed to step down immediately from pastoral duties and any leadership authority in the church while an independent investigation of the allegations is undertaken.”“They remain members of the church but they are not in a leadership position at this present time.”Mr Farrant was instrumental in setting up the Jesus Army’s common purse in the 1970s, which still exists in the communes of the organisation today. Mr Campbell, the Jesus Army’s former press officer, was described by Mr Cooper in May as having largely retired from the organisation. In 2013 the Chronicle & Echo reported that he was the leader tasked with collating responses to historical abuse allegations.A member from within the organisation, who did not wish to be named, felt the leadership team was not expecting so many people to come forward with abuse claims in 2013. “They were very taken aback by it. They were quite unprepared,” he said. In 2015, after being handed details of the abuse claims by the JA, Northamptonshire Police launched Operation Lifeboat. The probe, looking into historical sexual abuse at the JA, has led to two prosecutions to date, though a spokesman said more prosecutions were likely.The National Leadership Team (NLT) sits below the apostolic group consisting of the five individuals. Mr Cooper added that there would be no senior pastor in place while the investigation was ongoing.“Once the NLT receives the findings from this independent investigation, they will consult with (Christian safeguarding charity) CCPAS and other outside agencies to decide what steps need to be taken.”Victims groups have, in the past, raised concerns about a Christian-based group’s ability to be independent."
http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/jesus-army-leaders-in-northamptonshire-step-down-after-complaints-over-handling-over-abuse-claims-1-8042088
Thursday 6 July 2017
Tuesday 4 July 2017
CHUCK MISSLER - COPYIST ! BY DAVE MACPHERSON
Many these days are abandoning the pretribulation rapture view, and the June, 1995 article by Chuck Missler (”Byzantine Text Discovery: Ephraem the Syrian”) reveals why there is such a mutiny!
First of all, the authoritative scholar that Missler cited, Dr. Paul Alexander, referred only to “Pseudo-Ephraem” and not to Ephraem the Syrian. (If an unsigned ancient manuscript resembles the real Ephraem but there is a question of authorship, they assign it to “Pseudo-Ephraem” - the word “pseudo” meaning “possibly.”
For some groundless reason, Grant Jeffrey, the one who reportedly found the “discovery,” changed Dr. Alexander’s terminology and wrongfully referred only to "Ephraem the Syrian"! For more info on Jeffrey, Google “Wily Jeffrey.”)
And Missler’s scholarship is also questionable. According to the Los Angeles Times (July 30, 1992), about one-fourth of Missler’s 1992 book “The Magog Factor” (which he co-authored with Hal Lindsey) was a daring plagiarism of Dr. Edwin Yamauchi’s 1982 book “Foes from the Northern Frontier”!
Four months later Yamauchi’s publisher revealed that both Lindsey and Missler had promised to stop all publishing of their book. But in 1995 they were found publishing “The Magog Invasion” (which was either a revision or a replacement of “The Magog Factor”) - which had a substantial amount of the same plagiarism! (My 1998 book “The Three R’s” has complete documentation on this and other pretrib scandals.)
After listing “1820″ as the reported date of the birth of pretrib (he should have said “1830″), Missler sees a pretrib rapture in that Medieval writer’s phrase “taken to the Lord” and, since he evidently favors rewriting others instead of researching, is unaware that Dr. Alexander explained that this phrase really means “participate at least in some measure in beatitude” - which has reference only to doing acts of virtue on earth and not being raptured away from earth!
Alexander included two summaries of Pseudo-Ephraem's end-time events in chronological order - both showing only one final second coming taught by him (and not any prior coming) which would follow the time of Antichrist! (Readers can Google my article “Deceiving and Being Deceived” to see how groundless the Pseudo-Ephraem claim is and to learn how desperate pretribs are to find any pre-1830 evidence for their escapist view. Dr. Robert Gundry of Westmont College has also demolished the Pseudo-Ephraem claim in his 1997 book “First the Antichrist.”)
Since Missler also leans on Thomas Ice, readers can evaluate Ice’s qualifications by Googling "Walvoord Melts Ice," "Pretrib Rapture Pride," “Thomas Ice (Bloopers),” “Be Careful in Polemics - Peripatetic Learning," and (since Ice says he's working on a UOW doctorate) "Bogus degree scandal prompts calls to wind up University of Wales." For further light on the 187-year-old pretribulation theory, Google or Yahoo “Pretrib Rapture Stealth” and "Evangelicals Use Occult Deception."
Since some pretrib rapture money-changers (including those who are Misslerized) are now drooling and even foaming over the "huge possibility" of a pretrib rapture blast-off this coming September, readers entrapped by such dispensational drivel can easily become hugely enlightened by reading "Ready for Rapture Astrology?" which can be found on the pace-setting blog "Wolves in Sheep's Clothing" hosted by Biblical authority Treena Gisborn.
Finally - why on earth would Chuck Missler, who reportedly has the brains of a rocket scientist, want to be taken up with the concept of an any-moment pretrib rapture? The answer may well be that there’s more money in elevating a rapture than in launching a rocket!
First of all, the authoritative scholar that Missler cited, Dr. Paul Alexander, referred only to “Pseudo-Ephraem” and not to Ephraem the Syrian. (If an unsigned ancient manuscript resembles the real Ephraem but there is a question of authorship, they assign it to “Pseudo-Ephraem” - the word “pseudo” meaning “possibly.”
For some groundless reason, Grant Jeffrey, the one who reportedly found the “discovery,” changed Dr. Alexander’s terminology and wrongfully referred only to "Ephraem the Syrian"! For more info on Jeffrey, Google “Wily Jeffrey.”)
And Missler’s scholarship is also questionable. According to the Los Angeles Times (July 30, 1992), about one-fourth of Missler’s 1992 book “The Magog Factor” (which he co-authored with Hal Lindsey) was a daring plagiarism of Dr. Edwin Yamauchi’s 1982 book “Foes from the Northern Frontier”!
Four months later Yamauchi’s publisher revealed that both Lindsey and Missler had promised to stop all publishing of their book. But in 1995 they were found publishing “The Magog Invasion” (which was either a revision or a replacement of “The Magog Factor”) - which had a substantial amount of the same plagiarism! (My 1998 book “The Three R’s” has complete documentation on this and other pretrib scandals.)
After listing “1820″ as the reported date of the birth of pretrib (he should have said “1830″), Missler sees a pretrib rapture in that Medieval writer’s phrase “taken to the Lord” and, since he evidently favors rewriting others instead of researching, is unaware that Dr. Alexander explained that this phrase really means “participate at least in some measure in beatitude” - which has reference only to doing acts of virtue on earth and not being raptured away from earth!
Alexander included two summaries of Pseudo-Ephraem's end-time events in chronological order - both showing only one final second coming taught by him (and not any prior coming) which would follow the time of Antichrist! (Readers can Google my article “Deceiving and Being Deceived” to see how groundless the Pseudo-Ephraem claim is and to learn how desperate pretribs are to find any pre-1830 evidence for their escapist view. Dr. Robert Gundry of Westmont College has also demolished the Pseudo-Ephraem claim in his 1997 book “First the Antichrist.”)
Since Missler also leans on Thomas Ice, readers can evaluate Ice’s qualifications by Googling "Walvoord Melts Ice," "Pretrib Rapture Pride," “Thomas Ice (Bloopers),” “Be Careful in Polemics - Peripatetic Learning," and (since Ice says he's working on a UOW doctorate) "Bogus degree scandal prompts calls to wind up University of Wales." For further light on the 187-year-old pretribulation theory, Google or Yahoo “Pretrib Rapture Stealth” and "Evangelicals Use Occult Deception."
Since some pretrib rapture money-changers (including those who are Misslerized) are now drooling and even foaming over the "huge possibility" of a pretrib rapture blast-off this coming September, readers entrapped by such dispensational drivel can easily become hugely enlightened by reading "Ready for Rapture Astrology?" which can be found on the pace-setting blog "Wolves in Sheep's Clothing" hosted by Biblical authority Treena Gisborn.
Finally - why on earth would Chuck Missler, who reportedly has the brains of a rocket scientist, want to be taken up with the concept of an any-moment pretrib rapture? The answer may well be that there’s more money in elevating a rapture than in launching a rocket!
Saturday 1 July 2017
HUMBUG HUEBNER BY DAVE MACPHERSON
[Author's note: Here's another piece I was inspired to write shortly after the Twin Towers in New York City were destroyed by terrorists in Sep. of 2001. It reveals behind-the-scenes facts that pretrib traffickers had long wanted to cover up. -----D.M.]
QUESTION: Which not-so-well-known prophecy writer (who attended neither seminary, college, nor even Bible school and is now a retired electrical engineer) has had a huge influence (while peddling his deliberate distortions of pretrib rapture history) on Walvoord, Ryrie, LaHaye, and many other pretrib leaders?
ANSWER: New Jersey resident R. A. Huebner, described years ago by Moody Monthly as a "militant" member of the dwindling (Darbyist) Plymouth Brethren, a fanatical group dedicated to enshrining 19th century John Darby in the "Pretrib Hall of Fame" as pretribism's greatest teacher (if not its originator) even if they have to trample on several of the Ten Commandments in order to achieve their End!
It's now my pleasure----nay, my duty----to share the following excerpt from my book The Rapture Plot (available on the Internet from Armageddon Books), a 300-page book containing a lot more of Huebner's deviousness:
Since Huebner knew that the Irvingites had publicly taught pretrib as early as September 1830, all he could hope for in 1973 was an emphasis in his book on Darby's so-called underlying "truths" which supposedly evolved into pretrib, "truths" Darby reportedly had on his own as early as his first (1827) paper.
But during the 1970's and 1980's Huebner was aware that many scholars were accepting my evidence that Darby hadn't been the first to express pretrib and that the well-known "truths" hadn't been used by anyone to create pretrib; they were used only after pretrib's emergence as further support.
Since Darby himself didn't establish a link between these "truths" and his understanding of pretrib in 1830 (if his 1850 memory is believable), Huebner's only hope was to find Darby expressing pretrib even before 1830. This way he could continue to discredit all of Darby's competitors.
Eventually Huebner found what he claims is unanswerable proof that Darby was a pretrib rapturist in 1827. He presents it in his 1991 book, a book that knows how often and how close it can come to the pretrib "cobra" in The Morning Watch without getting bitten!
But if Huebner does in fact believe in his new 1827 claim for Darby, he has no reason to keep on detouring around Irvingism's 1830-and-later contributions. If Darby really did hold to pretrib in 1827, it would have been advantageous for Darby (and Huebner) to highlight (and not cover up) Irvingite development; they could have shown a Darby so innovative and influential he influenced even the Irvingite outsiders!
The fact that Huebner, parroting Kelly, consistently conceals the Irvingite achievement tells me that Huebner is unsure of his 1827 claim for Darby. Indeed, when we go through Huebner's 1991 book, we see that he not only has second thoughts about his 1827 evidence but even explodes it in a later footnote!
Huebner's fresh evidence is found in Darby's Memory No. 6 which we discussed briefly in our chapter on his reminiscences. Huebner says that this 1879 recollection expressed what Darby was thinking no later than January of 1827.
In this memory, written 52 years after 1827, Darby wrote: "I saw there would be a David reign, and did not know whether the church might not be removed before forty years' time."
After including this quote, Huebner writes that by January 1827 Darby "had already understood those truths upon which the pretribulation rapture hinges."
But even more remarkable is Huebner's interpretation of what Darby wrote. He says that by this date Darby had "learned" that "Christ might come forty years before he would set up the Kingdom."
Once again we see Huebner shifting a word around so that he can derive a conclusion and continue to credit Darby. Previously we've seen him taking Darby's daily expectation of Christ's coming and subtly detaching "daily" from "expectation" and attaching it to "coming" in order to change a final advent into a pretrib rapture that can happen "daily," that is, any day!
This time Huebner takes the "before" which precedes Darby's 40 years and places it (in his interpretation) after the same years! But there's a huge difference. Darby in 1879 was merely recalling that in 1827, when he was still a historicist, he was expecting the final advent around the end of a remaining 40-year period. If, as Huebner asserts, Darby was saying that he expected the church's removal 40 years before "the Kingdom," Darby should have written "forty years before" instead of putting "before" where he did!
The same language is used today. If a youngster says at 11 in the morning that he'll mow a lawn and be finished before an hour's time, we assume he'll be finished by noon. We surely don't conclude (if he mentions an hour) that he'll be finished before the hour begins!
Also note that this 1879 Darby memory used the term "removed." Since his 1829 work spoke of an earthly "refuge" to "preserve" the church during a future earthly "scourge," his belief in 1827 of the church's removal at the start of a future millennium is hardly a concept of a pretrib (or even a small-gap, prior) rapture. Besides, we now know that in 1829 and 1830 he was expecting only the Revelation 19 coming.
Readers may wonder why this 1879 memory pinpointed 40 years and not 30 or 50 years. When I first saw this new Huebner evidence, I realized that Darby's "forty years" was a vital aspect of the historicism that was still prevalent in the 1820's. Advocates, employing Daniel's 1260, 1290, and 1335 days which had long been viewed as years, were agreed that the 1260 years had ended around 1792 (the curtailment of Papal power during the French Revolution), the 1290 around 1822, and that the 1335 would end around 1867 (the approximate time of the second advent, according to their view).
One of Le Roy Froom's volumes has a chart analyzing the leading historicists between the French Revolution and the mid-1800's (those who promoted the above time periods as early as 1794 and as late as 1842). Of the 26 who ended the 1335 years during the 1860's, three ended them in 1866, seven in 1868, and the majority (14) ended them in 1867. Those who pinpointed 1867 included Edward Irving (in an 1826 work of his); but he was only reflecting William Cuninghame (1813), James Frere (1813), Charles Maitland (1814), Archibald Mason (1820), and Edward Cooper (1825).
The slight differences (1866-1868) were over the beginning of the 1335 years----whether Justinian's edict (the start of the 1260-year tribulation) was in force in 533 AD or slightly earlier or later.
Huebner gives the impression that Darby in the 1820's was a thoroughgoing futurist holding to a future tribulation of 1260 literal days. But he was still defending the year-day theory in his December 1830 article. We've also seen Darby's 1832 paper criticizing futurism leader William Burgh; Darby was concerned "that Mr. Burgh's views divert the attention of Christians from the present anti-christian principles ...to some supposed or future actings of a personal Antichrist...."
If Darby in 1827 was a futurist, he wouldn't have written about a future period of 40 years. He would have expected a future period of 1260 days, followed by 30 more days, followed by 45 days. His recollection that around 1827 he saw 40 more years takes us to 1867----and most historicists in 1827 likewise saw only about 40 remaining years. Moreover, if Darby in 1827 was a pretrib, he wouldn't have been expecting even a future 40-day period, let alone one of 40 years; he would have expected a rapture before even the initial 1260 days!
Everyone agrees that Darby was a posttrib when he was ordained as an Anglican clergyman in 1825. And all agree that from the 1840's until his death in the 1880's he was clearly pretrib. Evidence demonstrates that in his 1829 and 1830 works he expected only the Revelation 19 (posttrib) coming.
Huebner's new 1991 claim that Darby was pretrib in 1827 fashions a Darby who was posttrib (1825), then pretrib (1827), then posttrib (1829-30), then finally pretrib! But who can seriously imagine such a wishy-washy Darby?
After presenting his new evidence for Darby, Huebner's 1991 book repeatedly states on following pages that he has proven that Darby was pretrib in 1827: "in 1827" Darby "held that the Lord might come 40 years before the reign of Christ," "already in 1827 he held a coming of the Lord before the Antichrist," "JND's mind was settled on the subject of the pretribulation rapture in the 1820's," etc.
After parading these we've-proven-it statements, Huebner explodes his 1827 claim for Darby in the middle of his 1991 defense on page 100. He writes, concerning the Darby "forty years" quote: "Perhaps this means that he had thought that there might be a time interval of 40 years between when the church would be removed and the reign of Christ would begin. Or, he may have thought that the 40 years would be a period during which the enemies would be put down before the commencement of the kingdom (David reigned 40 years)."
So, with belated second thoughts, Huebner admits that the 40 years in Darby's 1879 memory can just as easily refer to a final 40-year period of judgment! This sort of end-time judgment was typical of historicist outlook in the late 1820's which then saw the church past even the 1290 years and well into the final 45-year, judgments-packed "countdown."
So, after all of the advance publicity from Thomas Ice in even Bib Sac in 1990, and after Huebner presents his new evidence in 1991, Huebner admits halfway through the same defense that he hasn't proven that Darby's 40 years involved a pretrib (or even a prior) rapture!
But after this incredible admission, he continues to say that he's proven (!) that Darby was pretrib in 1827: Darby "understood the truth of the rapture in 1827," etc.
In late 1991 in another publication of his, Thomas Ice declared without reservation that Huebner's 1991 defense of Darby "documents" the fact that Darby held to pretrib as early as January 1827 (even though Darby at the time had only his "heavenly" theme which wasn't original). While still evidently unaware that Huebner had merely copied Kelly's selective-quotation and memory-injecting tactics in order to discredit the Irvingites and credit Darby, Ice also stated that Huebner has shown that the early Irvingites never held to pretrib.
Since Ice apparently has been as intent as Huebner on defending and crediting Darby, I wrote him and asked if he'd been aware that Huebner's 1991 book explodes its new 1827 evidence on page 100. Ice had given this new claim a rave review and said publicly that Huebner has "positive evidence" that Darby was pretrib in 1827. Ice wrote back and admitted that he "did not overlook" Huebner's page 100 admission!
Honest unawareness of historical data is one thing. But when we find Huebner, imitating Kelly, consistently coming within a sentence of clear pretrib teaching in Irvingism, it's impossible to believe that they didn't know what they were doing when they repeatedly played "leapfrog" over evidence that could have credited the Irvingites. If what they censored wasn't clearly pretrib, there would have been no reason for such a sustained pattern of deliberate omission.
And how can Ice give Huebner's new evidence his unqualified endorsement if he is aware, as he admitted, that Huebner himself had second thoughts and said later on in the same book that Darby's "forty years" phrase isn't proof that Darby in 1827 was pretrib? If Ice can perpetuate what Huebner himself has in effect canceled, my own readers may be able to supply an appropriate adjective for Ice's eyes-wide-open action.
R. A. Huebner lives in New Jersey between the World Trade Center rubble and a bus terminal were military-type explosives were recently found----or maybe I should say New Germsey since he's also between two areas where anthrax-tainted letters have lately been found. Was Orson Welles' New Jersey-based "War of the Worlds" Halloween scare more than 60 years ago a bizarre forerunner of the stark reality of what's happening now?
Even though I'm not a prophet, I predict that Huebner will stubbornly hang on to pretribism and Darbyism until entire cities are destroyed by nuclear weapons, germ warfare, or something else!
Wednesday 28 June 2017
PRETRIB HYPOCRISY ! BY DAVE MACPHERSON
Yes, hypocrisy! Hypocrisy tied to pretrib rapture leaders as well as to the pretrib rapture view. (You can't believe how many "pretribbers" have told me over the years that they either have doubts about pretrib or don't even believe it----but they promote it anyway!)
Pretrib icon C. I. Scofield could be hypocritically double-minded. In a 1921 letter to his daughter Abigail, who had a financial need while then living in San Luis Obispo, California, he advised her to pray to a Catholic saint: "...why don't you seek the special intercession of the San Luis in whose name-town you live?" (This entire letter is in Joseph Canfield's classic work The Incredible Scofield and His Book published by Ross House Books.)
But a dozen years earlier in his Scofield Bible (p. 1346) he had begun predicting a future reign of "apostate Christendom, headed up under the Papacy"!
Many evangelicals are still unaware that during the 1980's Hal Lindsey proudly announced that two of his daughters, Robin and Jenny, were then enrolled at Gonzaga University, a Jesuit Catholic school. (The Jesuits were originally Catholicism's arm to terroristically infiltrate and destroy the growing Protestant Reformation.)
But years earlier Lindsey's There's A New World Coming (pp. 58, 103) stated, and continues to state, that the "dominant church" of the "Middle Ages" which "bound the people to image-worship, superstition, and priestcraft" is the "prostituted form of Christianity" that will eventually become "the Antichrist of Rome"!
I still have a letter I received dated Nov. 14, 1971 and signed by a William T. Bruner. Here's the eye-catching part:
"I was brought up to be a strong Pre-Tribulationist. In fact I never even thought that the other view was worth inquiring into. When Dr. Bob Jones called me to teach in the Bob Jones College one of the first questions he asked me was, whether I held to this view, and of course I said Yes. But while I was professor of Greek New Testament at the Bob Jones University, 1949-1955, one of my colleagues, Robert Besancon, happened to ask me if I had ever read anything on the Post-Trib side. I had to confess that I never had. He recommended two little books by Horner. I read them and was truly astonished to find that the Post-Trib view is the simpler, more Scriptural, and more reasonable of the two. So I am now a Post-Tribulationist. Very interestingly, though, there was at that time on the BJU faculty a great scholar, Dr. Charles Brokenshire, who could teach 25 languages and every subject in the School of Religion. But he was a Post-Tribulationist. Dr. Jones considered him worth more than any other faculty member, perhaps worth more than all of us put together. During the school year 1954-55 Dr. Brokenshire died. After he died Dr. Jones went before his faculty meeting and announced that from that time on he would be true to his old-time promise to the Christians of America that he would strongly emphasize the Pre-Tribulation doctrine of the Second Coming of Christ and that he wanted all his teachers in the School of Religion to stand in favor of that doctrine!"
Well, it's apparent that the first Dr. Bob had been playing the role of hypocrite! (Dr. Roland Rasmussen, pastor of Faith Baptist Church in Canoga Park, California, can verify the late Dr. Bruner's letter. As a BJU prof then, Rasmussen was at the same faculty meeting.)
Several years ago my wife and I found ourselves chatting on the BJU campus with one of its best-known profs. We were astounded when he admitted that even though that school publicly promotes pretrib, professors can privately hold to differing rapture views as long as they retain at least a premill outlook!
The year 1973 found me handing out posttrib literature on a Kansas City sidewalk to delegates going into the annual conference of the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches. It was easy for them to react by saying bluntly "We're pretrib!" and just as easy for me to say just as bluntly "Not only is pretrib not in the Bible, but it isn't in even your GARBC statement of faith!" After I widely aired their hypocrisy, they added pretrib wording to their official statement during a following conference so that their doctrine could finally begin practicing what the GARBC "doctors" had long been preaching!
A Dec. 31, 1983 letter written on Southeastern College of the Assemblies of God stationery by one of their profs, J. Bashford Bishop, contained these shocks:
"Thanks for the book. [I had given him my 1983 book The Great Rapture Hoax.] I'll do what I can to circulate your book through our Assemblies of God [who], as you know, are opposed to Post-tribism. Make a point of getting acquainted with Joseph Flower, our General Secy. at headquarters in Springfield. He and I were schoolmates and both of us were Post-trib then and ever since. He would be glad to discuss with you the subject----a real man of God."
We'd been doing research there in Springfield, Missouri that winter and soon enjoyed two hour-long chats with Flower, the No. 2 AG leader. Secretaries outside his open office door could easily hear everything discussed. I asked how he could hold to a non-approved rapture view. He replied that AG ministers are required to uphold pretrib but privately can believe any other rapture view. When I remarked that such a rule encourages hypocrisy, Flower sheepishly agreed. Incidentally, those chats took place several years before any of the hypocrisy-filled scandals having to do with Bakker and Swaggart, two AG ministers!
What you've just read is a tiny fraction of the gigantic amount of pretrib dishonesty uncovered by my decades-long research. To get your money's worth, get my 300-page book The Rapture Plot via armageddonbooks.com or by phoning 800.643.4645.
Friday 23 June 2017
DRINKING THE KOOL-AID OF THE PRE-TRIBULATION FALSE TEACHERS
Peace, peace, when there is no peace.. (Jeremiah 6:14; 8:11).
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).
The false pre-tribulation prophets compared with the false prophet Hananiah in Jeremiah 28.
Hananiah's credentials and background were impressive: Hananiah the son of Azzur, the prophet from Gibeon. In addition, he spoke with certainty in the first person of the Lord in direct contradiction to Jeremiah's previous prophecies of judgement. The reticence of the true prophet Jeremiah makes a startling contrast. (Jeremiah 1:6 cf. Exodus 4:10; Amos 7:14). The twice repeated false prophecy of Hananiah sealed his own death warrant! (Jeremiah 28:16-17 cf. Deuteronomy 13:5).
This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: ‘I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon. Within two years I will bring back to this place all the articles of the Lord’s house that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon removed from here and took to Babylon. I will also bring back to this place Jehoiachina son of Jehoiakim king of Judah and all the other exiles from Judah who went to Babylon,’ declares the Lord, ‘for I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon.’ ” (Jeremiah 28:2-4).
“This is what the Lord says: ‘In the same way I will break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon off the neck of all the nations within two years.’ ” (Jeremiah 28 10-11).
Basically Hananiah's contemporaries had a choice to either believe Jeremiah's previous genuine words from the Lord, or to drink the lethal Kool-Aid of Hananiah. They chose the latter. Jeremiah's counter statement is key to the problem:
The prophets who preceded you and me from ancient times prophesied war, famine, and pestilence against many countries and great kingdoms. As for the prophet who prophesies peace, when the word of that prophet comes to pass, then it will be known that the Lord has truly sent the prophet.” (Jeremiah 28:8-9).
Regarding the timing of the rapture, we need to look at the teaching from ancient times i.e. to Jesus Christ Himself and to his apostles, particularly the Apostle Paul and the Book of Revelation. There was no such teaching in the early church as pretribulationism, in fact quite the opposite:
Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4).
Then the dragon became furious with the woman (Israel) and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. (Revelation 12:17).
“Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.." (Matthew 24:9-14).
..you have made this people trust in a lie. (Jeremiah 28:15).
Deuteronomy 13 defines the sin of false prophecy as: "rebellion against the Lord". Even when a prophecy is accompanied by a sign, if it goes against the direct Word of God then it is false. (Deuteronomy 13:1). Going even further, the scriptures compare the sin of rebellion with the sin of divination:
For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has also rejected you from being king.” (1 Samuel 15:23).
Elliot: "Opposition to the will of God is as bad as divination by the help of evil spirits, which is tantamount to apostasy from God: obstinate resistance to Him is no better than worshipping idols (vanity or emptiness) and images (teraphim: see note on 1 Samuel 19:13). Disobedience is in fact idolatry, because it elevates self-will into a god." {1}
Gills Exposition: ".....the sentence of rejection was pronounced upon him, and the bestowal of the government on his posterity was cut off." {1}
In fact Saul did go on to commit the sin of divination with the medium of En-dor and afterwards he committed suicide. (1 Samuel 28:7-19; 31:4). It never ends well for those who persistently reject the Word of the Lord and teach from their own minds. (Ezekiel 13:17). The pre-trib teachers/prophets nullify the scriptures and lead the people astray. There is nothing new under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 1:9).
For they are a rebellious people,
lying children,
children unwilling to hear
the instruction of the Lord;
who say to the seers, “Do not see,”
and to the prophets, “Do not prophesy to us what is right;
speak to us smooth things,
prophesy illusions,
leave the way, turn aside from the path,
let us hear no more about the Holy One of Israel.”
Therefore thus says the Holy One of Israel,
“Because you despise this word
and trust in oppression and perverseness
and rely on them,
therefore this iniquity shall be to you
like a breach in a high wall, bulging out and about to collapse,
whose breaking comes suddenly, in an instant;
and its breaking is like that of a potter’s vessel
that is smashed so ruthlessly
that among its fragments not a shard is found
with which to take fire from the hearth,
or to dip up water out of the cistern.”
(Isaiah 30:9-14).
The persistent pre-tribulation rapture teachers fall into the same category as Hananiah and are in rebellion against God. God will hold these teachers accountable. (2 Peter 2:1). Various posts have been published on this site with sound theological exegesis against the pre-trib rapture, and not least exposing the blatant dishonesty of many of the leaders and teachers that promote it. There are some teachers who appear to genuinely believe the lie of pretribulationism, and there are those that avoid the subject altogether, considering it too controversial. The former have an obligation to seek the Lord for the sake of the elect and to "prove all things". The latter have an obligation to face up to their responsibilities and to teach the truth about this important doctrine.
The Assemblies of God (USA) offers a lame eisegesis and integrates the Day of the Lord with the Great Tribulation:
"The weight of Scripture supports a pre-Tribulation Rapture. Wherever teaching about the Second Coming occurs in the New Testament, imminence is underscored." {2}
The New Testament describes the day of the Lord as a day of wrath and judgement upon the wicked that does not include the reign of the Antichrist or the great tribulation as the AOG asserts. Old Testament scriptures: (Isaiah 2:12; 13:6, 9-11; Ezekiel 13:5, 30:3; Joel 1:15, 2:1,11,31; 3:14; Amos 5:18,20; Obadiah 15; Zephaniah 1:7,14-16; Zechariah 14:1; Malachi. 4:5) New Testament scriptures: (Acts 2:20; 1 Thessalonians 5:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:2; 2 Peter 3:10). It is also alluded to in other passages (Revelation 6: 12-17; 16:14). Hence, imminence has nothing at all to do with a pre-tribulation rapture!
Similarly, Thomas Ice (PTRC), who has devoted many years of his life to teaching lies, also insists upon imminence. We only have to look at the pre-trib camp, previously led by Tim LaHaye, and their association with cult leader Sun Myung Moon (Moonies) and the Council for National Policy (CNP), to make a right judgement about their integrity! These men have forfeited the right to call themselves bible teachers and prophets!
In addition, those who promote a mid-trib rapture are a concern since they would also have Christians escape the persecution of the Antichrist.
A final note about Jacob Prasch of Moriel Ministries. Prasch appears to have the timing of the rapture right, but his false Intra-Seal teaching is totally unscriptural. Prasch mishandles and mutilates the scriptures in a number of key areas! I believe that Intra-Seal is a deliberate attempt to cause a snare to Christians during the 70th week of Daniel.{3}
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15).
{1} http://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_samuel/15-23.htm
{2} https://ag.org/Beliefs/Topics-Index/The-Rapture-of-the-Church
{3} https://www.amazon.co.uk/INTRA-SEAL-RAPTURE-DECEPTION-EXPOSED-devised-ebook/dp/B06X6N2JJT/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1498213260&sr=8-1&keywords=treena+gisborn
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).
The false pre-tribulation prophets compared with the false prophet Hananiah in Jeremiah 28.
Hananiah's credentials and background were impressive: Hananiah the son of Azzur, the prophet from Gibeon. In addition, he spoke with certainty in the first person of the Lord in direct contradiction to Jeremiah's previous prophecies of judgement. The reticence of the true prophet Jeremiah makes a startling contrast. (Jeremiah 1:6 cf. Exodus 4:10; Amos 7:14). The twice repeated false prophecy of Hananiah sealed his own death warrant! (Jeremiah 28:16-17 cf. Deuteronomy 13:5).
This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: ‘I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon. Within two years I will bring back to this place all the articles of the Lord’s house that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon removed from here and took to Babylon. I will also bring back to this place Jehoiachina son of Jehoiakim king of Judah and all the other exiles from Judah who went to Babylon,’ declares the Lord, ‘for I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon.’ ” (Jeremiah 28:2-4).
“This is what the Lord says: ‘In the same way I will break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon off the neck of all the nations within two years.’ ” (Jeremiah 28 10-11).
Basically Hananiah's contemporaries had a choice to either believe Jeremiah's previous genuine words from the Lord, or to drink the lethal Kool-Aid of Hananiah. They chose the latter. Jeremiah's counter statement is key to the problem:
The prophets who preceded you and me from ancient times prophesied war, famine, and pestilence against many countries and great kingdoms. As for the prophet who prophesies peace, when the word of that prophet comes to pass, then it will be known that the Lord has truly sent the prophet.” (Jeremiah 28:8-9).
Regarding the timing of the rapture, we need to look at the teaching from ancient times i.e. to Jesus Christ Himself and to his apostles, particularly the Apostle Paul and the Book of Revelation. There was no such teaching in the early church as pretribulationism, in fact quite the opposite:
Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4).
Then the dragon became furious with the woman (Israel) and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. (Revelation 12:17).
“Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.." (Matthew 24:9-14).
When these false prophets are proved wrong it will be too late! The inevitable failure of this much-desired event at the wrongly predicted time will cause despondence and doubt, and it will happen simultaneously with the unprecedented persecution of the Antichrist. Hope deferred makes the heart sick.. (Proverbs 13:12).
We should be very wary of confident teachers who are essentially prophesying peace and safety in the name of the Lord. (Jeremiah 28:1 cf. Daniel 8:25; 1 Thessalonians 5:3). Like Hananiah the pre-trib teachers are teaching lies by the spirit of Antichrist.
Deuteronomy 13 defines the sin of false prophecy as: "rebellion against the Lord". Even when a prophecy is accompanied by a sign, if it goes against the direct Word of God then it is false. (Deuteronomy 13:1). Going even further, the scriptures compare the sin of rebellion with the sin of divination:
For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has also rejected you from being king.” (1 Samuel 15:23).
Elliot: "Opposition to the will of God is as bad as divination by the help of evil spirits, which is tantamount to apostasy from God: obstinate resistance to Him is no better than worshipping idols (vanity or emptiness) and images (teraphim: see note on 1 Samuel 19:13). Disobedience is in fact idolatry, because it elevates self-will into a god." {1}
Gills Exposition: ".....the sentence of rejection was pronounced upon him, and the bestowal of the government on his posterity was cut off." {1}
In fact Saul did go on to commit the sin of divination with the medium of En-dor and afterwards he committed suicide. (1 Samuel 28:7-19; 31:4). It never ends well for those who persistently reject the Word of the Lord and teach from their own minds. (Ezekiel 13:17). The pre-trib teachers/prophets nullify the scriptures and lead the people astray. There is nothing new under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 1:9).
For they are a rebellious people,
lying children,
children unwilling to hear
the instruction of the Lord;
who say to the seers, “Do not see,”
and to the prophets, “Do not prophesy to us what is right;
speak to us smooth things,
prophesy illusions,
leave the way, turn aside from the path,
let us hear no more about the Holy One of Israel.”
Therefore thus says the Holy One of Israel,
“Because you despise this word
and trust in oppression and perverseness
and rely on them,
therefore this iniquity shall be to you
like a breach in a high wall, bulging out and about to collapse,
whose breaking comes suddenly, in an instant;
and its breaking is like that of a potter’s vessel
that is smashed so ruthlessly
that among its fragments not a shard is found
with which to take fire from the hearth,
or to dip up water out of the cistern.”
(Isaiah 30:9-14).
The persistent pre-tribulation rapture teachers fall into the same category as Hananiah and are in rebellion against God. God will hold these teachers accountable. (2 Peter 2:1). Various posts have been published on this site with sound theological exegesis against the pre-trib rapture, and not least exposing the blatant dishonesty of many of the leaders and teachers that promote it. There are some teachers who appear to genuinely believe the lie of pretribulationism, and there are those that avoid the subject altogether, considering it too controversial. The former have an obligation to seek the Lord for the sake of the elect and to "prove all things". The latter have an obligation to face up to their responsibilities and to teach the truth about this important doctrine.
The Assemblies of God (USA) offers a lame eisegesis and integrates the Day of the Lord with the Great Tribulation:
"The weight of Scripture supports a pre-Tribulation Rapture. Wherever teaching about the Second Coming occurs in the New Testament, imminence is underscored." {2}
The New Testament describes the day of the Lord as a day of wrath and judgement upon the wicked that does not include the reign of the Antichrist or the great tribulation as the AOG asserts. Old Testament scriptures: (Isaiah 2:12; 13:6, 9-11; Ezekiel 13:5, 30:3; Joel 1:15, 2:1,11,31; 3:14; Amos 5:18,20; Obadiah 15; Zephaniah 1:7,14-16; Zechariah 14:1; Malachi. 4:5) New Testament scriptures: (Acts 2:20; 1 Thessalonians 5:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:2; 2 Peter 3:10). It is also alluded to in other passages (Revelation 6: 12-17; 16:14). Hence, imminence has nothing at all to do with a pre-tribulation rapture!
Similarly, Thomas Ice (PTRC), who has devoted many years of his life to teaching lies, also insists upon imminence. We only have to look at the pre-trib camp, previously led by Tim LaHaye, and their association with cult leader Sun Myung Moon (Moonies) and the Council for National Policy (CNP), to make a right judgement about their integrity! These men have forfeited the right to call themselves bible teachers and prophets!
In addition, those who promote a mid-trib rapture are a concern since they would also have Christians escape the persecution of the Antichrist.
A final note about Jacob Prasch of Moriel Ministries. Prasch appears to have the timing of the rapture right, but his false Intra-Seal teaching is totally unscriptural. Prasch mishandles and mutilates the scriptures in a number of key areas! I believe that Intra-Seal is a deliberate attempt to cause a snare to Christians during the 70th week of Daniel.{3}
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15).
{1} http://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_samuel/15-23.htm
{2} https://ag.org/Beliefs/Topics-Index/The-Rapture-of-the-Church
{3} https://www.amazon.co.uk/INTRA-SEAL-RAPTURE-DECEPTION-EXPOSED-devised-ebook/dp/B06X6N2JJT/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1498213260&sr=8-1&keywords=treena+gisborn
Sunday 18 June 2017
WALVOORD MELTS ICE (II THESS. 2:3) BY DAVE MACPHERSON
Thomas Ice - Protector of the shrinking Principality of Pretribulatia - believes that his "texas receptus" interpretation of II Thess. 2:3 is much better than that of his mentor, the late Dr. John Walvoord!
Ice impudently states (in his widely noticed web article "The Rapture in 2 Thessalonians 2:3") that "I believe that there is a strong possibility that 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is speaking of the rapture," adding that "The fact that APOSTASIA [caps mine] most likely has the meaning of physical departure is a clear support for pretribulationism."
In his book "The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation" (p. 125) Walvoord writes:
"E. Schuyler English and others have suggested that the word [apostasia] means literally 'departure' and refers to the rapture itself. Gundry argues at length against this interpretation, which would explicitly place the rapture before the day of the Lord, and his evidence is quite convincing. English is joined by the Greek scholar Kenneth S. Wuest but their view has not met with general acceptance by either pretribulationists or posttribulationists. A number of pretribulationists have interpreted the apostasy in this way as the departure of the church, but the evidence against this translation is impressive. In that case Gundry, seconded by Ladd, is probably right: the word refers to doctrinal defection of the special character that will be revealed in the day of the Lord [which "day" Walvoord views as "the great tribulation"]."
So even though Dr. Robert Gundry's evidence "is quite convincing" and Ice's "has not met with general acceptance" and evidence against Ice's assertion "is impressive" and Gundry and Ladd are "probably right," Thomas Ice keeps beating his desperate dispensational drum in the ears of the Walvoord who was the No. 1 pretrib authority for many decades!
Gundry's uber-great book "The Church and the Tribulation" (pp. 114-118) dismantles, piece by piece, the doctrinal defectors of II Thess. 2:3. For example, Gundry says that "it is from this least important source [classical Greek - in which "simple departure by no means predominates"] that English draws his argument."
After English (followed by Ice) seeks support from Reformation-era Bible translations, Gundry points out that "the appeal to early English translations unwittingly reveals weakness, because in the era of those versions lexical studies in NT Greek were almost nonexistent and continued to be so for many years. The papyri had not yet been discovered, and the study of the LXX had hardly begun."
Gundry adds: "In 2:1 Paul mentions 'our gathering' second in order to the Parousia. In light of the immediately preceding description of the posttribulational advent [II Thess. 1:7-10], it seems natural to regard the Parousia as a reference to that event rather than a sudden switch to a pretribulational Parousia unmentioned in the first chapter and unsupported in I Thessalonians. Several verses later (2:8) the Parousia again refers to the posttribulational advent of Christ."
If the "falling away" (2:3) is the same (pretrib) rapture Ice sees in "gathering" (2:1), why did Paul use totally different Greek words ("episunagoges" and "apostasia") if he was discussing the very same event?
A Google article ("Pretrib Rapture - Hidden Facts") reveals that pretrib rapturism historically has had more than two stages. Stage 1: In 1830 the "rapture" aspect of the second advent was stretched forward and became a separate coming. Stage 2: In the early 1900s various teachers stretched forward the "day of the Lord" (what Darby and Scofield never dared to do!). Stage 3: In recent times the "fact" involving "apostasia" has created "the-rapture-must-happen-before-the-rapture" fantasy which Ice etc. can hang on to with at least their eyelids!
For more info about Ice, Google "Pretrib Rapture Pride," "Thomas Ice (Bloopers)," and "Be Careful in Polemics - Peripatetic Learning." For 300 pages of uncovered and highly endorsed documentation on pretrib history, see my book "The Rapture Plot" which is available at Armageddon Books etc.
Remember: Ice-colored statements can be as dangerous as ice-covered pavements!
Ice impudently states (in his widely noticed web article "The Rapture in 2 Thessalonians 2:3") that "I believe that there is a strong possibility that 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is speaking of the rapture," adding that "The fact that APOSTASIA [caps mine] most likely has the meaning of physical departure is a clear support for pretribulationism."
In his book "The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation" (p. 125) Walvoord writes:
"E. Schuyler English and others have suggested that the word [apostasia] means literally 'departure' and refers to the rapture itself. Gundry argues at length against this interpretation, which would explicitly place the rapture before the day of the Lord, and his evidence is quite convincing. English is joined by the Greek scholar Kenneth S. Wuest but their view has not met with general acceptance by either pretribulationists or posttribulationists. A number of pretribulationists have interpreted the apostasy in this way as the departure of the church, but the evidence against this translation is impressive. In that case Gundry, seconded by Ladd, is probably right: the word refers to doctrinal defection of the special character that will be revealed in the day of the Lord [which "day" Walvoord views as "the great tribulation"]."
So even though Dr. Robert Gundry's evidence "is quite convincing" and Ice's "has not met with general acceptance" and evidence against Ice's assertion "is impressive" and Gundry and Ladd are "probably right," Thomas Ice keeps beating his desperate dispensational drum in the ears of the Walvoord who was the No. 1 pretrib authority for many decades!
Gundry's uber-great book "The Church and the Tribulation" (pp. 114-118) dismantles, piece by piece, the doctrinal defectors of II Thess. 2:3. For example, Gundry says that "it is from this least important source [classical Greek - in which "simple departure by no means predominates"] that English draws his argument."
After English (followed by Ice) seeks support from Reformation-era Bible translations, Gundry points out that "the appeal to early English translations unwittingly reveals weakness, because in the era of those versions lexical studies in NT Greek were almost nonexistent and continued to be so for many years. The papyri had not yet been discovered, and the study of the LXX had hardly begun."
Gundry adds: "In 2:1 Paul mentions 'our gathering' second in order to the Parousia. In light of the immediately preceding description of the posttribulational advent [II Thess. 1:7-10], it seems natural to regard the Parousia as a reference to that event rather than a sudden switch to a pretribulational Parousia unmentioned in the first chapter and unsupported in I Thessalonians. Several verses later (2:8) the Parousia again refers to the posttribulational advent of Christ."
If the "falling away" (2:3) is the same (pretrib) rapture Ice sees in "gathering" (2:1), why did Paul use totally different Greek words ("episunagoges" and "apostasia") if he was discussing the very same event?
A Google article ("Pretrib Rapture - Hidden Facts") reveals that pretrib rapturism historically has had more than two stages. Stage 1: In 1830 the "rapture" aspect of the second advent was stretched forward and became a separate coming. Stage 2: In the early 1900s various teachers stretched forward the "day of the Lord" (what Darby and Scofield never dared to do!). Stage 3: In recent times the "fact" involving "apostasia" has created "the-rapture-must-happen-before-the-rapture" fantasy which Ice etc. can hang on to with at least their eyelids!
For more info about Ice, Google "Pretrib Rapture Pride," "Thomas Ice (Bloopers)," and "Be Careful in Polemics - Peripatetic Learning." For 300 pages of uncovered and highly endorsed documentation on pretrib history, see my book "The Rapture Plot" which is available at Armageddon Books etc.
Remember: Ice-colored statements can be as dangerous as ice-covered pavements!
Friday 9 June 2017
A SIGN OF THE TIMES: THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND'S COMING VOTE ON TRANSGENDER BAPTISM
"The Church of England is to vote on creating an official ‘baptism-style’ service to celebrate when transgender Christians change sex.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4549058/Church-England-vote-baptism-transgender-people.html#ixzz4j31NCXRD
I would agree with Jayne Ozanne that we are each fearfully and wonderfully made... (Psalm 139:14). However, God does not contradict Himself. If He makes a person male or female, then who are we to argue with the unmistakable physical evidence before us? The scriptures warn us that there are severe consequences for those who distort the gospel of Christ. (Galatians 1:7). The liberal scripture twisters are playing a dangerous game that will not ultimately succeed. For I the LORD do not change.. (Malachi 3:6).
The scriptures are clear that God created humans to engage in sex exclusively within marriage between a male and a female. (Genesis 1:
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:9-12).
It is a mistake to view anyone who is non-heterosexual as having a mental disorder that needs to be "cured". The bible teaches that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The "cure" so called, is a new creation in Jesus Christ, the new man. In other words, once someone has been born again and truly accepted Jesus Christ into his life, they become a different person.. the old has passed away the new has come. In fact without repentance and the new birth no one can stand (Ezra 9:15).
Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ (John 3:3-7).
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. (2 Corinthians 5:17).
If the Son shall make you free you shall be free indeed (John 8:36).
{1} http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/05/31/church-of-england-to-vote-on-baptism-style-services-to-honor-sex-changes/
The controversial motion has dismayed traditionalists, who say the Bible teaches that gender is God-given.
But liberals said vicars have been forced to devise unofficial services to welcome sex-change worshippers and the Church should demonstrate its unambiguous acceptance of transsexuals....."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4549058/Church-England-vote-baptism-transgender-people.html#ixzz4j31NCXRD
Such a move, if successful, would go directly against the scriptures. Conservative Synod member Andrea Williams, director of pressure group Christian Concern, said: "It is unclear why we are even debating this issue."
Liberal Synod member Jayne Ozanne: “The Bible teaches that we are each fearfully and wonderfully made, and we should therefore look to celebrate God’s gift of diversity in creation, not treat those of us who are non-heterosexual as having mental disorders that need to be ‘cured,' {1}
Liberal Synod member Jayne Ozanne: “The Bible teaches that we are each fearfully and wonderfully made, and we should therefore look to celebrate God’s gift of diversity in creation, not treat those of us who are non-heterosexual as having mental disorders that need to be ‘cured,' {1}
I would agree with Jayne Ozanne that we are each fearfully and wonderfully made... (Psalm 139:14). However, God does not contradict Himself. If He makes a person male or female, then who are we to argue with the unmistakable physical evidence before us? The scriptures warn us that there are severe consequences for those who distort the gospel of Christ. (Galatians 1:7). The liberal scripture twisters are playing a dangerous game that will not ultimately succeed. For I the LORD do not change.. (Malachi 3:6).
The scriptures are clear that God created humans to engage in sex exclusively within marriage between a male and a female. (Genesis 1:
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:9-12).
It is a mistake to view anyone who is non-heterosexual as having a mental disorder that needs to be "cured". The bible teaches that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The "cure" so called, is a new creation in Jesus Christ, the new man. In other words, once someone has been born again and truly accepted Jesus Christ into his life, they become a different person.. the old has passed away the new has come. In fact without repentance and the new birth no one can stand (Ezra 9:15).
Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ (John 3:3-7).
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. (2 Corinthians 5:17).
If the Son shall make you free you shall be free indeed (John 8:36).
{1} http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/05/31/church-of-england-to-vote-on-baptism-style-services-to-honor-sex-changes/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)