Monday, February 25, 2013

My Discouraging Calvinist Yet Inspiring Arminian Sunday

I had gotten up at about 11:30 last night and this morning wanted to go to church. I walked down the brick streets of Tyler to the First Baptist Church, one of Tyler's oldest congregations. The service began with the singing of three hymns, including Majesty and one other I forget and one which I was not familiar with. Then the pastor took the stage and pointed out that the organist was not present this morning. Unfortunately, his mother passed away last week. But despite this man's loss, he said "It is well with my soul." The story behind the song, written by Horatio Spafford, is incredibly moving (and I will make a post on this in time). Then the church sang the beloved hymn and it brought tears of joy to my eyes.

The subject of the sermon this morning was on sin. I was not prepared for the Calvinistic self-wallowing yet hopeful (in a most delusional sense) message. I was afraid at the introduction that it would be a presentation spoken in the common tongue, rather than the theological. I was mistaken because at the outset the pastor felt it necessary to make an observation on the Logos teaching of John chapter 1. His view was decidedly the Trinitarianist view of the matter, which was discouraging in that he had not advocated for my view. Indeed, I was the first theologian in a period of 1950 years to present this view of the Logos which you can find in one of my earlier entries on Trinitarianism. Because of that, I had no hopes of hearing him or anyone else share my view as I was the only one who taught it since the very earliest time. For that matter, I didn't expect to hear anyone's view of the Logos when I set out for church this morning and for that matter, I have no idea why he had to bring it up as it apparently had nothing to do with anything.

My hope that there would be a nod to theological matters turned to despair when I discovered I was sitting in a Baptist denomination, Trinitarian at that, and we know the Baptists never took pride in education, or evangelism for that matter. Instead, they let the good old Calvin rod and reel be cast out into the deep, drawing in sinners then roasting them on good old hellfire.

The reading began with Romans 3, which is immediately a red flag to me, as I have found that many churches skip over the words of Christ and are quick to get into Paul, you know, the fun stuff. Paul took it upon himself to advocate for many errors in this one chapter which I simply could not be any less familiar with until today because his writing to me is as a noxious fume and I'd prefer not to read it at all.

(This is the passage that the Baptists sing from, "There's not a friend like the lowly Jesus. No not one, no not one!")

Paul's historical blundering of the Psalms where he says, "As it is written, There is none righteous, no not one," was a purely self-serving reading of the text. Paul is here saying that we are all warped and without any redeeming feature whatsoever. What the text in fact says is not even close to what Paul claims and read within context (it opens with the phrase, The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God) and that among those fools not one of them is righteous, very different from what Paul is saying. Paul resorts to deceit to further his own theological views and slanders the words of David.

(Yet the Bible says that Noah, Job, and Daniel were righteous men [Ezekiel 14:14]. How can this be when the so-called greatest apostle says that is impossible, he said so himself?)

Paul continues making his bed, which history will affirm he lies in to this day, by furthering other absurd beliefs that resulted in the Baptist pastor going forward with these following points:

The Law isn't meant to be obeyed (classic Paulinist thought), it's just there to show how crooked we are and how separated from God we are.

We can't obey the ten commandments. In fact, we don't break them, they break us. (Laughable, if it weren't sad. They don't claim to obey even the most basic commandments. Calvinistically speaking, they offer no explanation, only predestination and unconditional election.)

The rest of it that I suggested I would tell you are not even so relevant as to have taken my time and God's time this morning to even hear.

My humble observation on these matters is that this daemon Calvinist god is so evil that he has given us a whole variety of commandments just to see us fail, knowing that we have no chance of obeying even the most simple commands because we're the greatest most warped sinners, and he lives to rub it in our face, kills his son because he was out of ideas, and by the way, that was after he had his son rub it in our face and say Be ye perfect as my father is perfect, yet the whole time he is laughing at us because he's given us rules that no one could possibly follow and he knows that we can't even obey simple commands, much less be perfect.

Source: John Calvin, and the Baptist pastor speaking this morning.

Does it make any sense to us here today? No and if this were the religion, it would be no religion at all but an exercise in self-aggrandizement and wallowing in your own wickedness.

This was my first Sunday, the Sunday of discouraging Calvinism. But my second Sunday was an Inspiring Arminian one.


I left that church not more than thirty minutes after arriving, before, in my estimation, we had arrived half-way through the sermon. I felt that in my excursion with the sect of Calvin, that I was in strong need of an Arminian take of things for a good refreshing. Fortunately for me in the early 1900s the Methodists had built a church right next to the Baptist church. I know not which was there first but since I was born in the 1980s it would seem to be most irrelevant, although it would tell me whether the Methodist church was built next to the Baptist church, or the Baptist next to the Methodist.

Upon walking into this most historic of buildings into another beautiful sanctuary, I heard the name of Jesus. It was all Jesus I heard. The pastor was animated and passionately speaking in the name of Christ. This pastor has made quite the name for himself as a charismatic speaker, his name coming to me several times, and I was not disappointed in hearing how passionately he spoke of Christ. I had only been to a Methodist service on one other occasion and I felt in both cases that I was but a Lilliputian standing amongst giants. The Methodists are very tall and distinguished people who I suspect are impressed with a necessity to marry only the tallest women, as they are all so tall! In fact, the shortest woman there had the appearance of an old shrew, walking alone with no husband beside her or any indication she even knew anyone there. She must have been 4'8" only on her best day and among people who had been blessed with such strong frames I suspect many without looking down wouldn't know she was there.

I caught about the last fifteen minutes of the service, which I suppose is all I can stomach from even the more decent congregations any more. As I heard the man speak of the power of Christ I thought to myself, this, indeed, is the spirit of prophecy, the testimony of Jesus Christ. It now strikes me as an odd contrast that the
Calvinists would be speaking so passionately about how dead we are in our sins while this Methodist pastor spoke of how Christ is alive and He lives in us! The difference could not be so stark. I have always been more attuned to Wesley's view of Christian perfection than Calvin's total depravity. In every sense of the word, the Baptist sermon was nothing but depraved and the heralding of Christ by the Arminian speaker was perfect!

Towards the end a couple young girls, perhaps about eight years old, in robes, walked from the front of the sanctuary to the back carrying these odd poles with lit candles at the end. (I was standing at the back). When they got to the back of the sanctuary they blew the candles out. The first girl I noticed was of exceptional beauty, she had blond hair, the joy of youth shone upon her, and I stared at her, fascinated with her angelic appearance, having all the splendor of the cherubim. But then as I looked around, I saw that not only was I surrounded by people who were tall by anyone's standard, but I was surrounded by beautiful people! They were astonishing and seemed to come from a different stock.

At the end of the service the old ladies who, dressed in ostentatious clothing, not expensive clothing but distinguished, appeared to me as being a group of very privileged class who I could claim to be nothing but inadequate presenting myself to even in my best clothes.

The stained glass windows, though I didn't take time to view what images they contained, had a special radiating warmth as the eastern sun shone through, beaming a warmth which was comforting on a cool morning such as we had today.

It was here I learned today that the powerful evangelism of John Wesley is what is necessary to free the saints of their Calvinistic stupor. Calvinism is a terrible disease in the church that brings me now even that much more admiration for the ministry of Wesley, not that he combatted it per se, but that despite being surrounded by Anglicans and Presbyterians chose to preach the word of God and go against the Calvinistic heresy.

Though the Calvinist Sunday was a disheartening and discouraging day, Wesley has brought me back to inspiration and here I continue my fight against the blasphemy Calvin preached.

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Calvinism, beginning with Perseverance

This is how Calvinism falls. I read a book from the Primitive Baptist church, I think it's also known as Particular Baptist. The book makes a case for Calvinism;s TULIP arrangement and it explains that the subsequent doctrines are predicated on the truth of the prior doctrine. That is, if T, then U. If U, then L. If L, then I, and if I then P. If you don't know what I'm talking about go read up on Calvinist soteriology because I'm not here to hold your hand and walk you through it.

Then, working backwards, if P falls, then Calvinism falls, and this is by Calvinists' own admission.


Romans 10:13 "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Eternal Security T U L I P

To borrow this formula of Romans 10: If a man confesses his sin (a1) and makes (footnote 1) Christ Lord in his life (a2) by confessing with his mouth,

And he falls away from the faith (footnote 2,3),

Arminianism says he was saved and then turned back to the darkness, And Calvinism states he was never truly saved,

Then Calvinism holds the pleading of the blood (a1) and declaring Christ's Lordship in one's life (a2) insufficient, and therefore His blood.


1 1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

2 2 Peter 2:20-22 "For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they had known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and, The sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."

3 Hebrews 6:4-6 "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."


What it boils down to is this: If it is possible that a man could confess is sins, call upon the name of the Lord and make Christ the center of his life, and for him to still not be saved, because God from some time ago predestinated that man to not be saved, then the Christian religion is totally without merit and it would all be a horrible lie, in my opinion. We would be ruled over by some tyrannical Calvinistic God who has zero compassion or mercy on anyone but lives solely for His own personal gratifications and lust.

I definitely see where the unbelievers are coming from because I would not like that story much either. And many Christians stick by this story which is as much of a turnoff to the faith as anything else.


If perseverance falls, then irresistible grace falls as well. Irresistible grace is the idea that those who He predestined to be saved have no power to reject His free gift, and therefore, they will persevere in that faith.

But if perseverance in wrong, the irresistible grace is wrong too.

If this irresistible grace is wrong, then limited atonement is wrong. Jesus died for those who His father did predestinate and that in order to assure they are saved provides an irresistible grace and that they will persevere. But if perseverance is wrong and irresistible grace is wrong, then limited atonement is wrong.

Unconditional election must fall as well. If the election is assured through no action at all on man's part but only bought at the price of Jesus' shed blood, then there must be an atonement, and it is not a general or universal atonement but limited to those God foresaw it being fit to predestinate. God's election was assured on the basis of the atonement, the atonement was materialized through an irresistible grace and this grace provided the strength to persevere. But because the latter three are false, the former is of no necessity at all.

Total depravity then falls as well (Thanks Jason). Because man is totally depraved, Calvinists say, then there was a need for God to elect some unto Himself, to provide the atonement which because of their depravity they could never attain of themselves, strike them with an irresistible grace so that they couldn't refuse it and give them the strength to persevere.

Man thus became an automaton serving no function of himself but solely at the bidding of predestinating forces which compel him to act in the way preordained. The Fall in the garden was not an emanation of man's free will but God caused Adam tom act and to bring sin into the world. He created the Devil predestinating him to rebel, to fall and to mislead the world including launching the persecutions that resulted in hundreds of millions of death.

All the world's a stage and we are all little marionettes with God pulling our strings.

Better yet, God is very much like I was at about seven when I put my little toys into fights and blew them across the room with my sheer imaginative power and imagined they were all my pawns for my central pleasure.

That is the Calvinist God and if that were true, He would literally have to force you with something as stupid as irresistible grace to follow Him.

Thomas Jefferson had a quote about this. I disagree with him on most of his religious views, but he has some of the most fascinating theological beliefs out of any historical figure. To me his beliefs are the most fascinating. This is what Jefferson said to John Adams on Calvin,

"I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his five points is not the God whom you and I adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world, but a daemon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin."

Many of Jefferson's words must be read in light of the Enlightenment age in which he lived. His antisupernaturalism was common in that day and it lead him to compose his own Bible, the Jefferson Bible. He was a man of deep conviction who believed in an undying devotion to proclaiming the truth, though some of what he preached had come down to him in a polluted form. But he was a man of character and integrity who believed in a God of omni-benevolent character, though never quite determining who that God was.

I feel he was right about Calvin. As for the tendency for his soteriology to disintegrate, even if there were some degree of biblical support for his theories they might stand, but lacking that, and no consistent theory on which it may stand, it all falls. I feel it has done Christianity a disservice and I go along with Jefferson in declaring it a blasphemy, though I would prefer the term heresy and agree that the god of Calvin was more akin to one of Satan's kingdom, rather than the Father of Christ. This is the disputation against Calvinism.

Atheists are right about Hell

I am a Christian but I do not believe in Hell. Many of my "brothers" if that is indeed what they are find this idea to be repulsive. There's nothing repulsive to me about Hell as much as it is unbiblical. The Bible does speak of the Lake of Fire but this must be understood in the vernacular of when it was said. A very grammatical-historical approach I think. Dispensationalists have trademarked this form of interpretation but prefer not to use it when it flies in the face of orthodoxy the same way Christians pick and choose what parts of the Bible they agree with.

Grammatical-historically, the lake of fire referred to was Gehenna, a landfill. When it is said in the Bible that the soul goes to Gehenna, or, the Lake of Fire, that is to say the person goes into the ground to rot and become compost. I can use an allusion to demonstrate this: When you throw away your baby diapers and empty Cheeto bags, which Americans are so well-known for since they have a healthy appetite with one head and no responsibility with the other, to borrow and alter a line from Reagan, they go to Hell. They go where the other heaps of trash go and that is it for them. No recycling reincarnation, no heavenly paradise awaits it, simply just a dump. That is what will happen to the souls of the wicked when the end comes.

Jesus said, "...that whosoever should believe in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Biblically, when read within context, you see that there is no lingering into eternity facing eternal conscious torment. Some have used the phrase conditional immortality which is what it is. If you are of the redeemed, you go on to eternal life. If not, then your life is cut off.

I lean mostly towards anihilationism. John Stott felt that those who hold to the infallible view of Scriptures could sincerely hold to this belief. Anglican theologians have come out in support of anihilationism and it is something that I think we need a frank discussion on, but we won't, because pastors hold to the mistaken belief that it will scare people into going to church. In fact, atheists have a lot to say about this issue.

Atheists argue that at the end of one's life, they go into the ground, they're done, poof, out of here. I've got news for you atheists: You are absolutely correct! You will be out of here, 'from dust thou art and to dust thou will return' [Genesis 3:19]. You will end your last days on this earth and then afterward there will be no more of you. Good riddance I say because some of you are the most awkward people I have ever dealt with, arrogant and way overestimate your own intelligence. You post these stupid little bumper stickers on your car, one of which says, "Come the Rapture We Will Have the World to Ourselves". (I don't believe in a pre-tribulation Rapture either and Christians are waking up to that lie too in my generation). Many of your own thinkers have shed light on why holding to a belief in an afterlife is for people who are too scared to face the reality of death. The atheists are not afraid, they say. Very good for you, good boy, we're happy for you that you're not afraid. Because that is where you're going. Yes, you are going to wind up much like Jimmy Hoffa, probably in a ditch that when Christ returns He will pave over with streets of gold, just like Hoffa allegedly wound up under the George Washington bridge. Many years from now, the beautiful flowers which arise from the compost of your decay will be enjoyed by young girls and boys as they run through the fields, make shapes out of clouds, and play with the animals of the earth, who will all live at peace with one another. Is that something you suggest we should be terrified of? There's nothing terrifying about this vision of the future at all. On the contrary I see yours as being rather bleak.

Voltaire, one of your great philosophers, wrote in Candide that Lady Cunegonde was traded between several men as a slave, finally falling into the hands of Don Issachar the Jew and the Grand Inquisitor. Candide kills Don Issachar and the Inquisitor and Voltaire writes that "His Eminence was buried in a beautiful church, and Issachar was thrown into the garbage dump." That is Hell. Your body will be cast to the ruinous heap and you will be done, just like Don Issachar.

In conclusion, I will end with a couple Bible verses.

Matthew 10:28 "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both body and soul in hell."

That is to say in Hell, you die, and you are done. The soul will be killed.

Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death..."

If you die and you are one of the wicked, then you are done and gone.

Revelation 20:14 "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."

You also see here, there is no talk of eternal torment. If you die as one of the wicked then you perish, you are dead.

Saturday, February 23, 2013


Tonight, I walked down to the gas station to get a couple packs of cigarettes and then went on to the William's Chicken to get dinner. I started out with $16 but after I paid for my cigarettes and food I was left with about a dollar in change. The point being that as I sat down outside to eat my chicken, a guy walked up and asked me if I smoked weed. I said not since I was a teenager. He then told me that he needed gas in his car to get home. I told him that after my purchases I had only a little change left. I gave him that.

I want to share a few observations on charity. A lot of pastors are nothing but beggars. Many are probably nearly disabled people who couldn't get a job if their wives depended on it. They found out that if they put on a nice suit and said all the right things they could get into a position of authority in a church and get on the payroll while spending most of their days talking on the phone and playing Solitaire. What do you think pastors do in their offices from day to day? I suspect many of them spend an inordinate amount of time playing Solitaire on a computer that they didn't pay for but that the church gave them. Then another good deal of their time while they are in the office is spent chatting on the phone, claiming to be doing "ministry" or "counseling", doing virtually nothing but saying nice things and scraping the bottom of offering buckets. They are beggars and they need the money no more that man tonight needed the money.

Second, so what if the guy went and bought beer or drugs with it when he got enough money? I am not his mother and I can't tell him how to spend his money. The fact is, he said he was trying to get home, I have no control over whether he really did spend it on gas or not.

Look at the pastors. Many of them prefer Rolex to Timex, they prefer business class to coach, they prefer Lexus to Toyota. That's what it comes down to in a lot of cases is one quality of life versus another quality. And when we give money to these men that very few of us actually know, that's what it becomes in a lot of cases. Trade the Timex in for the Rolex, and the pastor sure will look sharp on Sunday.

Then look at those professional beggars, the Salvation Army. They come out near Thanksgiving, stay right up until Christmas begging outside the stores. Then they don't even have a large number of workers, most people will come in and give their time for free. They are beggars, just like the pastors, pretending they're doing the world a service.

Then other beggars are getting hauled off to jail or being escorted out of parking lots. Society needs to confront its hypocrisy on beggary. If I dress up in a nice suit Sundays and I say nice things can I get free things too? Of course I wouldn't do that because it would be beneath my integrity to do such things.

I gave money to a beggar, and I was just following the command Jesus gave. If anyone asks for your cloak, give him your tunic as well. I think He would also like for us to give a little money to a guy who doesn't have any gas so he can get home for the night. And if he bought beer? So what, the Bible days everyone drank. Or cigarettes? Nicotine is a serious addiction, if he bought cigarettes I wouldn't care either. The fact is I must do what Yeshua commands, period.

In my town in November, we had a proposition on the ballot (Proposition 2) to approve alcohol sales in the city. I'd rather give me money to a guy who's going to go buy a beer with it than give it to a pastor who's going to go home and have a glass of wine and go to church and put up a sign that says to vote against Proposition 2.

Friday, February 15, 2013

Baptism and the UPC

I met with a couple tonight who are members of the United Pentecostal church. Tne subject was going to be the proper baptism formula where the UPC claims baptism in Jesus' name is biblical whereas other groups claim that baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in accordance with Matthew 28:19 is the correct way. I can't stress to you how skeptical I was simply because I have always been a part of churches which did it the tradition (i.e. non-UPC way). I felt that because Paul's teachings are of a dubious nature that it was no point for them to show that Paul had used this, which he did at Acts 19, where we see at verse 5 "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

What I needed to see was that this was the practice, not Paul's but the church's. They showed me that Peter also used this formula. Peter, speaking to Cornelius and his household commanded "...them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."

So it became apparent that what the disciples understood from the Great Commission was much different than what we understand. There were also several other verses quoted to support their notion.

What struck me here was it's Pre-Catholic implications.

The packet that was printed for me held a few quotations.

Encyclopedia Britannica, 11 ed., vol. 3, page 365-66, "The baptism formula was changed from the name Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the second century by the Catholic church."

Caney Encyclopedia of Religion, pg. 53, "The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the second century."

Catholic Encyclopedia vol. 2 page 263 line 7 acknowledges the Catholic church changed the baptism formula.

As I spoke of earlier, the role of a Unitarian understanding of the nature of God, in opposition to the Trinity doctrine, must be stressed in any discussion of Pre-Catholic faith.

It appears to me now, after this Bible study conducted by a couple from the United Pentecostal church, the current understanding of the Great Commission has been undermined by a propagation of the trinitarian doctrine, and has politely crept in as of 1800+ years ago as a manifestation of the Christian obsession with Triunity. However, if the disciples had an understanding of the command to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, contrary to our own, as a cursory examination shows they did, then this has implications for the doctrine of the Trinity, and the material also provides a motivation for the Catholics to alter the formula in order to posit an unquestionable support for their view, as a reading of Matthew 28 provides no reason to think it is being done incorrectly. It is therefore a Catholic relic in the Protestant churches that has no role in a pre-Catholic system.

I cannot say that I am now against the traditional formula due to my liberal view of unity and diplomacy between churches. However, I now accept the Oneness Pentecostal view as valid.

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Followers of the Way

"And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God."

There are a couple things I must share with you. The first pertains to the 144,000. God I believe started placing it in my heart as of last year that I am one of them. So the message I bring today is going to be unconventional, and perhaps to some, controversial. What I am here to tell you today is that we are no liars. We don't resort to deceit to accomplish our objectives. We are, in fact, followers of the Truth.

Here, some will take major objection, saying, "Isn't this an objectivist philosophy? Aren't you advocating for a rationalism, an empiricism, and the scientific method by saying that you are serving the Truth? Christians serve Christ alone!"

But before we go any further I must tell you that our Lord is "the Way, and the Truth, and the Life." We, as servants of truth are serving not any truth, not our version of it, but we serve the Truth, the Christ. We abhor those who lie to our faces, who use treachery and deceit, namely guile, to confuse or mislead us. We know no method of lying unless the Truth is a lie, and Paul says how vain that Truth is, if the resurrection did not occur. The greatest hoax on mankind if we are not right some have said. So, yes, the 144,000 are sworn to tell the Truth and nothing but the Truth.

But then the reality the world is faced with is that of the Truth, we also confront, that we tell. Our words do not appease, and to the extent that we harm ourselves in recounting our actions, we do great harm to ourselves. If I am telling you of, for instance, what took place Thursday night, I am bound and sworn to report faithfully the facts, no matter the conclusions you may draw from that about me as a person, but I must tell faithfully. This of course opens one up to much criticism and in many cases, unwarranted criticism. But that is a thing we must face, as we know no recollection but the Truth, and we tell it, no matter the harm it causes us.

"Christian" is a lie.

Our hypothetical critic warns us that, "Christians serve Christ alone [not the 'truth']!"

I even dispute this, because simply, Christians for the most part are not Christians. "Christian" itself has the meaning "Christ-like" and because of our state of fallenness most who use the name Christian for ourselves are speaking falsely of our name. We are not Christ-like as we cannot attain the perfect state of Christ on this earth. For the sake of religion, and for weak-minded brethren, I identify myself as a Christian. But for the sake of philosophy and being technically precise, I choose to identify myself as a follower of the Way.

But then there are those who object to this distinction, perhaps on the suspicion that those who speak in these terms might be cultists or babblers like the pagans were in Yeshua's day.

But here I must tell you, I am not fit to be called Christ-like. But I can in my weakness, be a follower of the Way, the Truth, and the Life. So my calling as one of the 144,000 is to be a follower of the Truth, and as a Christian, to simply be a follower of the Way.

I follow the Way, not my way, your way, or one other variation of ways, but the only Way there is! I am a follower of the Way.

Also remember that the earliest Christians in Acts, prior to being called Christians were simply called followers of the Way, because that is what we are, followers of the Way, the Christ.


An aspect of prophets that is a variation of the 144,000. While the latter are followers of the Truth, and will speak that Truth even at the risk of people criticising them or at the risk of harm to themselves, prophets do this but do one other thing as well. If an event took place that would tend to make the prophet look bad, then that prophet as a follower of the Truth must tell the facts as they occurred, even at great risk to himself. But in it, the prophet is called to glorify God in the midst of humility. He not only brings himself down but he uplifts God in that.


Speaking as to the prophetic ministry of the 144,000, they will find a balance that the prophetic ministry offers, is that in the midst of humbling oneself, he glorifies God and God alone. The perfect debasement of the prophet is where the full honor of God shines forth.


And finally, we serve the Life because when we once learned that we die to ourselves, as Christ died for us, then we learned that Christ is given life in spirit, not here physically with us as He has ascended already, but dwells in us, convicting us to live the life He would have us live.

Therefore, we are dead to ourselves. We live no longer according to our day planners or our amibitions, but perfectly submitted to how God would have us live.

We are followers of the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Many people who call themselves Christians are just simply not. They do not speak truth and only the truth. They prefer to speak it when it is convenient, then shy away from it when it becomes uncomfortable. They mislead others by telling them of false ways that are not the Way, and they live lives not in devotion to the Life but out of their own lust and desire, their own day planners and ambitions.

They simply are not Christ-like. We must recognize therefore that we are on the straight and narrow path together, trying to reach that most perfect Way to the best of our ability, and we are not Christ-like yet, until we have taken on our glorified bodies and shed this wicked temporal flesh. Then we will truly be Christians, God's people, and we will know Him most deeply.

Perfect Liberty

In the Christian religion, most fall within one of two camps: the legalists and the libertarians. The libertarians teach that no salvation comes from the Law, while the legalists teach that salvation comes from the Law. I reject both as being absurd.

The apostles give us many commands which Christians are to abide by, which negates libertarianism.

Also, the Word teaches us that we are saved by faith in Christ, which negates legalism.

Yeshua said, If you love me then you will obey my commandments.

He also says, "...that whosoever should believe on him should not perish..."

What needs to be seen here is love = believe. If you believe Yeshua, that is, if you love Him, then you will obey Him. Likewise, if you obey Him it is because you love Him. But if you do not obey Him it is because you do not love Him.

Paul calls the Law chains. It is no chain but freedom! Perfect liberty can only be realized in a system of law. Political philosophers have always known this, and God before them knew it all along. The Law is for us and not against us.

Let's look at a few points.


We do not regret the fact we are not free to kill. We don't levy complaints against God because we are not free in this matter. But it is because society and religion, e.g. law, prevail that we are given our freedom from being killed. We are at liberty in our lives, frankly, because of law.

Sexual relationships

The atheists and skeptics are gravely disappointed that they cannot continue in sexual immorality under a Christian system. The big Party Pooper in the sky they say wants to crash their party and to keep them from having fun.

But we see in theory and in practice that relationships can only prosper at their highest level when we respect our bodies and the bodies' of our respective others. We have longer, happier marriages, greater levels of fulfillment, lower risks of unwanted pregnancies, STDs, poverty, and a lack of education by doing it the way God intended. It is because God loves us so much that He wants us to be fulfilled in our lives, not because He wants to punish us or keep us from having a good time.

Unclean Meats

The Christians in the church mock today and say they are entitled to eating these meats. But God said we were not entitled to yet we do it anyway.

My mother is one who has had allergic reactions to seafood. These foods can be harmful, the toxins and worms they may carry.

God does not punish us in telling us to abstain from pork and other meats! It is because He loves us and wants the best for us.

Imagine for a second that perhaps God, the greatest Geneticist of the universe, foresaw in the genetic code of the Hebrews who He have this command to that some who ate these things would get sick and die. Then they would go to God mourning and wailing saying, "Why did you let us eat this, when you knew of the great harm it would cause?" And think back and see why this is exactly what the Jewish people would have done.

But God loved His people so much that He does not say to us, "I hold the lightning in my palm, and whosoever eats of this meat shall die." But instead He says, "I love you with such a great and abiding love and see that you can only live your best life by eating healthy and so that is why I ask you to avoid these things which will only pollute and harm you!"

A friend of mine says we are at liberty. I suppose we are. But God has saw fit to declare to us how best to live our lives and I think He might be privy to some information we are not. Surely we are not damned from smoking cigarettes or eating a hot dog. But will we live the best life Christ wants us to live by doing those things? No.

In every act of God, we see His mercy

When the youths were killed in 2 Kings 2 for mocking the prophet, I do not see judgment. I see the loving mercy of God. God in His wisdom saw that if these kids continue on in their sin, they will lead the people of Israel astray and they will go to their own damnation. Because of the great wickedness they committed at the young age they did, God saw fit to bring their lives to an end and spare them future damnation, but to bring their souls pure life with Him. That is a hard lesson, but it pays well.

The mercifulness of the Father was tried when His people cried for quail. But from the generosity of His heart He offered them quail and at the same time saw fit to judge them for rejecting His good gift. In it was the heart of a father, reprimanding his son, not out of hatred for his son, but because of the great love he has and wanting his son to be the best man he can be in his life.

Time after time after time we see the goodness and graciousness of our God and the Christians impugn His motives saying, "He was too harsh on those Israelites," and "What do you have against pork, they look so tasty."

God does not hate us and seek to destroy us.  Deny us liberty and offer us only chains. It is because He knows as all the political philosophers will tell you, perfect liberty is only realized through Law and you can only live your best life possible with self-control and abstaining from unhealthy habits.

It is because He loves us that He has offered a plan for our health and for our prosperity.

Saturday, February 9, 2013

A Serious Attack

A couple nights ago, I was put into a terrible situation. I was at church and some things took place there of which I can not say I am satisfied at the result (of either my actions or the actions of others). It took the counseling of three members which I am close to from the church who offered me various biblical perspectives, mostly emphasizing that what has transpired tonight cannot be changed, but only how I pick up the pieces afterward.

What is important for this message is that the clash involved me and a woman from the church. She rebuked me in the name of the Lord, and in that very moment her eyes betrayed something that few have seen. I saw her very spirit, and though I saw her eyes looking back at me, it was not her, but the Devil I saw in her eyes. In that moment, the Lord in me could not be rebuked. She could not use the Lord to cast out the Lord. This is the encounter, I regretfully must tell you I prayed for once upon a time.

One of the members of the church said that to this individual I must repent to and receive forgiveness from. I contemplated the role of my actions into late last night and the role I would take afterward. I took into consideration the words that these three individuals had given me. But it was last night the word of the Lord came. I do not need forgiveness from the Satan in her. Far be it from me for me to stoop to the spirit controlling her seeking its approval and its forgiveness. The word of the Lord is clear, Be ye perfect as my father as perfect. To be justified in His sight and not in the sight of mere men. I have no explanation for what took place other than to say it was a variety of bad circumstances that all came together into one disaster. As I need no forgiveness of her, she needs no forgiveness of me. I cannot be harmed that I should have an ought against her as the flesh has been crucified. It is not my place to hold an ought against this woman but remand her unto God for Him to lead her to her own perfection He calls her to. It is not for me to hold unforgiveness against her and it is not for them to hold unforgiveness against me, but to remand me to God and I them.

The aftermath of this event is that we are all who were involved remanded back to God to give an account and admit that ways earlier in our lives we handled these situations similarly cannot be changed, but that the gift of God is to handle it differently in the future. My testimony then is that my person in disinterested, that I was present in spirit, the attack on my flesh is irrelevant. The flesh was crucified but the spirit rose. Repentance and forgiveness are central duties in Christian life but that we do not repent to the evil spirits, nor cower to them, nor encourage or bless them. We remand that to God for His disposition, and finally we remand our souls for God's working.

An Altar

We are all required to build an altar. Our lives are altars themselves that we build and a fundamental law of nature is that we are required to build this altar. Many times in the Bible it was asked of a prophet by God to set up an altar. Noah as the world was restarting built his. Prophets in Old Testament times were told to build theirs and today we build ours as well. Who do you build your altar to? You have one of two selections: Either God or the Devil. On that second point, you can call it Krishna, Buddha, Allah, or whatever you prefer, but your altar is built to one of those two, God or the Devil.

I am here to tell you from my own experience, the way I tried to live and why you should not live this way. At first, I thought I would keep close enough to God that I wouldn't perish, but stay close enough to the Devil that I could get the good pleasures of his kingdom. That failed miserably.

Then I gave myself to God and for several years I gave God only 50%, the other 50% I kept to myself, not willing to put worth. What the Lord taught me is that "Even if you live 50% for me you are still living 100% for the Devil."

I had to be corrected. And so I have been going through a series of changes so that I could give my all. Last year, prophetically for me was God defining for me what 100% was. I struggled for so long, not even having been convinced as to what that was. But when it was defined, the current year began, and it was in this year that after having been shown, I am being brought to a place where I can devote 100%.

My point in all of this is to leave you with a couple points. That an altar will be built. It is to one of two persons, and of that you have no choice. But if you are to devote it to the God I serve, then don't by any means go about it the way I did and only offer half effort. Give it everything you have.

Friday, February 8, 2013

To Be Clear on Paul

The church today is confronted with an ideology, fairly novel, but which can be traced to the early Patristic period which is an ideology of skepticism against Paul. I sympathize a lot with this movement as the teachings of Paul have serious implications as pertains to the Gospel Yeshua preached, and these people fear it gives rise to contradictions, which is my fear as well. Paul puts himself in a place I would greatly fear going and I believe you would too, as there is one conspicuous teaching of his that stands out above all others that I think has deep ramifications as to whether Paul truly was an apostle or not. The biggest problem I have with Paul and one that scholarship has as of yet failed to offer sufficient defense for is his teaching on meats sacrificed to idols. If this can be proven then much of the suspicions will be alleviated.

Paul teaches explicitly in I Corinthians 8 that eating this meat is okay but the bigger concern is causing our brother to stumble. I agree that we have a higher obligation to our brother than we do in eating something because it makes us feel good about ourselves, or fit into a size 4 for the first time since graduating high school. But that Paul would stop in saying that this was the only implication in eating it and emphasizing that we can in good conscience, if our conscience does not forbid us.

The church skips over this completely because of the teaching on unclean meats. The church logic goes that according to Mark 7 and Acts 11 those prohibitions were overturned, and so therefore there is no reason for anyone to suspect that basically there might be something seriously wrong with what Paul wrote. To them, it is simply another edifice removed in scaling back the prohibitions of the law.

^^This is very important to understand why it is ignored and why most don't know there is even a question there.^^

For the sake of the discussion at hand, and not for the one we will have at a more appropriate time, let me cede to you the point that you are right in those things, that the unclean meats are now fit for acceptance. My argument stands not changed, because of the verdict at the Jerusalem council. In Acts 15, there is some disagreement as to the role of circumcision and secondly what the Gentiles were expected to do as basic requirements of the faith. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit that circumcision not be impressed upon them, but that the abstinence from blood, things strangled, fornication, and of great concern to us is the abstinence from things sacrificed to idols.

Does this give rise to some concern? How is it that Paul is being issued an order to not teach on eating this as a holy duty before God yet he would suggest that if your conscience is clear, eat it any way?

Why does Yeshua to the church at Thyatira in Revelation 2 said that they had suffered those who taught that this food was permissible to eat, calling it the sin of Balaam, who lead the Israelites astray teaching them to eat this food.

I am not open to being closed-minded. Notice that I am not closed to being open because I struggle in answering this question. I wish that some great prophet or my friend David could give me a deep insight into this question that shuts the book on this question once and for all and that God could use me to reach out to this anti-Paul crowd, a field ripe for harvest but laborers few. They are incredibly hard to reach because their questions were not gathered in a second or a fleeting thought, but that are deep biblical questions that few can answer. If this script of theirs be false, then there must be answers and we must reach them.

The Restoration of the Prophetic

Growing up, I was apart of the Church of God-Cleveland denomination. They were formed by a group of Methodists who saw the age of the restoration of the Spirit in the churches and moved to be on the forefront of that movement. Out of this movement came much of our modern-day Pentecostal churches, notably the Assemblies of God, Church of God in Prophecy, all the way to the UPC and the snake-handlers. I will speak on their behalf and say, no, we do not approve of some of these groups which arose out of our own ranks. I speak in our's and we's as if I am one, but I am not. But I speak with the conviction that I am telling you what they would tell you. The church is very sound doctrinally speaking but did take liberties with the pre-tribulation Rapture doctrine. The roots are Wesleyan Arminian and have a very mainstream view of things, are not holy-rollers, and aren't anything like the circuses that coincidentally use the name Pentecostal. So with this as a backdrop growing foreword, I am well acquainted with the movement, which did not start at Asuza Street as some would tell you.

Recently, I have had an ought to pick with the Pentecostal churches. The Pentecostals pay lip service to the idea that they operate in the spiritual gifts, that they have them and they're alive. But they resoundingly shun the prophetic. What lead me to this realization is that we have made time for speaking in tongues and consequently interpretations. We have made time for these pearls, these insights, for the testimony and for the word of knowledge, outlets for those gifted with this or that to minister here and there. But the prophetic was left behind, it was not taught, the foundation was not laid and the prophet could not speak. But what the prophet was, mind you, was ignored. And the more vocal he got, the more indignant the church became until he was lead out or in former times, killed. The prophecies arising from the mouths of church members are that of the scratching variety that Paul warned about. The prophets were lost in its midst and they fell by the wayside.

But a word of encouragement and judgment I will speak now for my readers: The prophetic WILL be restored, and it will be sooner than later. The pastors through their deceit and guile have strangled the prophetic ministry and have supplanted it, offering a one size fits all approach to church government. Their estates for their treachery will be left desolate and the ministry will be handed over to those that are faithful, that God will vouch for and who needs no man to vouch for him.

As God did in former times, so will He do in latter times.

Yeshua speaking to the Pharisees spoke directly of how the prophets were killed and, therefore, "Behold your house is left unto you desolate."

They were lost sheep Yeshua was called to reach because in the house of Israel there were homeowners that did not fulfill the duties of keeping up that house, which is His house. That is the house He fashioned for Himself, "a building of God, a house not made with hands." But those into whose hands its care was trusted brought it to a condition that God felt fit to condemn. There was a large "Condemned Property" sign right on the entrance. Therefore, the Spirit spake, their house would be desolate, and Woe unto Jerusalem, thou that killeth the prophets, and so in AD 70, Jerusalem was laid bare.

Today we face a similar crisis in leadership. The voices of the prophets have been neglected, they were rent to pieces by supposed good stewards whose care the Lord's house was entrusted. As in former times, so in the latter times. God will repay what is due, every man his wages. And so therefore, the church is in shambles, it is a crisis of leadership, it is a crisis of authority that the churches wallow in in the present and the children see and they suffer for it. We had made time for tongues, and words, and testimonies, but the prophetic we ran off.

Therefore, in our day, there will be a restoration of the prophetic, the true prophetic anointing that we have not seen, nor our elders. I do not refer to anyone in Kansas City or Florida, or Toronto. These are false movements which have also taken the role of supplanting the authentic prophetic. They shall be brought down.

This prophetic anointing is the anointing of the day of Pentecost, and not since then. The prophetic will be restored and the pastors' house will be left desolate. Do I speak as if we are at war? What I speak is that the plot that was the pastors', that went to pot, will be restored under its rightful inheritors and the pastors will go back to the (frankly I should say, inferior) place under the anointing of prophetic ministry. The prophet was king in those days and in our days, prophets still hold that authority.

Do you want to know where to find the prophetic? I can tell you they prefer dark burrows not readily accessible to men. They come in unfamiliar, often ragged and haggard packages that you'd be afraid to touch with a ten foot pole. Their stories are wild, and captivating, but at the same time, deeply concerning as their presentation is unlike any you have ever received before. They will challenge you on the deepest levels of your heart if you let them in and they will stick by you and defend you until the very end of time itself. They have many trust issues and will cause your patience to be tried in some things, but it is only a deep longing for close friendship that drives them to do things which are not sensible. Frankly, and I feel emotion in writing this, they are one of the best friends you will ever have. They truly are holes in the wall that 99.9% pass by and never notice anything (and I literally mean a percentage this high, I might underestimate a bit).

Where are they you say? They are right here with us, but we never took the time to notice, and we are all the worse off for it.

Thursday, February 7, 2013

God's Creative Word: Creative and Destructive Word

When we first became Christians, we spoke up until that time the destructive word. This is opposed to the creative word of God.

When God spoke the word, "Let there be light," it was by the creative power of God, this all-power manifested in a single word, a creative word, that made it be.

When he spoke of the moons, stars, and other heavenly bodies, for them to be, they were.

All that is was brought about by His creative word, and will never cease to be, until He says for it to not.

When He severs the continued creativeness, then that thing fails into the darkness of non-existence.

Prior to now, we have seen this creative word of God as a unique thing, but I bear witness that the prophets share this creative word.

What we are told of our tongue in the Proverbs is that, "Death and life are in [reside in] the power of the tongue, and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof. When we operate at the full prophetic level when the full Spirit of God manifests in this world, which is not for now, but in a short while, we as prophets will speak to our own Ananias and Sapphira and they will fall out. Under this anointing, calamities shall follow and judgments the likes of which have never been seen before.

The destructive word on the other hand is what the Proverbs refers to. We are all as partakers of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil more than qualified to speak every destructive word known to man or yet foreseen by him. We might pronounce curses as if they were nothing, call anathemas upon our every neighbor. James says, "Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things..," he says of this destructive word. "...Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth."

Yeshua warned, "That which cometh out of a man, defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness, all these evil things come from within, and defile the man."

Some of our secular thinkers speculated that the origin of works was that we had first conspired to do it. That we then spoke of the coming of the doing it, telling our spirits of our plans for wicked works. And that finally we did it. Secular thinkers see that the destructive word the prophets and Yeshua warned us of is the first step into committing evil. The Psalms says, ".. their throat is an open sepulchre, they flatter with their their tongue."

The destructive word defiles. One of my favorite bands' singer wrote, "Point the finger, but its on your head." Another line has been used saying when you point the finger, three more point back at you.

When you pronounce a curse with your mouth, you curse your own self.


Creative word

As the creative word that God spoke, God has also entrusted some of us with the creative word. James says " have not because you ask not". Yeshua tells us in Luke, "Ask and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you."

That thing we ask must be on one condition I John says. "And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us."

Yeshua also prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, "...nevertheless, not my will, but your will be done."

So we pray that we may enlightened as to his plans, "I know the plans I have for you, saith the Lord..."

Praying that his will be done is the example in the Pater Noster the Lord gave, "...thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."

These are not creative words, but this is a framework for us to now discuss what the creative word is.


A prophet when speaking under inspiration and under full conviction may speak the creative word. Notice here that the result may be destructive but it is a word that creates what the word itself proclaims to be. It says for it to be, and it is.

Peter spoke the creative word to Ananias. Later when Sapphira came in, he said, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out."

Jeremiah in 2 Kings relates how Elisha, an older man with baldness was being cursed by many dozens of children (or youths is the appropriate term), saying, "Go up thou bald head, go up thou bald head." The youths had witnesses Elijah being carried by a chariot of fire into the heavens and mocking this providential act of God mocked Elisha telling him to go and do likewise. Elisha then spoke a curse of the Lord onto the children and there came forth  "two she-bears and they tare forty and two of them." That is, they slaughter forty-two youths.


Who may call God unto repentance?

In Amos, God gives Amos a vision of destruction, how He would judge godless Israel. But Amos intervenes saying, "O Lord God, forgive, I beeseech thee..." and the Lord repented. Showing Amos a second judgment, Amos intervenes again, crying, "O Lord God, cease, I beeseech thee..." and the Lord repented. The Lord offers a third alternative of judgment which seems satisfying to Amos, or he simply ran out of the get out of jail free cards or the grace to say any more. Also, the judgments seemed to be getting worse and Amos was getting in over his head and needed to get out.

Amaziah, greatly distressed and the people of Israel being greatly disheartened of the judgments foretold by Amos was sent at the behest of evil king Jeroboam to tell him to shut up. The judgment came because the word was not received as had been the case in times past and times since and here the story does not vary. Then Amos spoke the creative word, that word first I John tells us to speak in the Lord's will, but we do not speak creatively out of His will. Amos says, "I was no prophet, and neither was I a prophet's son; but I was a herdman and a gatherer of sycamore fruit:and the Lord took me as I followed the flock, and the Lord said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel. Now therefore hear now the word of the Lord: Thou sayest, Prophesy not against Israel, and drop not thy word against the house of Jacob. Therefore thus saith the Lord, Thy wife shall be a harlot in the city, and thy sons and thy daughters shall fall by the sword, and thy landshall be divided by line; and thou shalt die in a polluted land: and Israel shall surely go into captivity forth of his land."

Moses experiences a similar transformation. God seeing the wickedness, with Moses at Sinai, that the people had crafted for themselves a golden calf. "...thy people," the Lord told Moses, "have corrupted themselves." The Lord speaks of the golden calf which has been fashioned and says to Moses, "I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people: now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation."

But Moses besought the Lord, saying, "Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? Wherefore should the Egyptians speak and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people..."

"And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."

But then several verses later, upon discovering what they had actually done, "...Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount. And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire..." And Moses continues his terror another few verses. Then Moses calls for every man to put his sword by his side, to go through the camp and kill every man, his brother, and his neighbor and companion.

To conserve space, and thanking those reading this that they have gone so far, I will now enter the conclusion by saying that the Word furnishes other examples of this, where the prophet besought the Lord to turn away from His plans of judgment.

But what we learn is that thought God is longsuffering, His prophets often aren't. The judgments He pronounces are right, but the prophets who intervene on His peoples' behalf, will share their doubts. But when confronted it is they who do the repenting, and let God do what God does best, be God.

The creative power is also found in Amos, "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

The prophetic role in the creative power is simply this: The word of the Lord is given unto the prophets and the judgment is sealed until one of thwo things. That is, the prophet who is called as a type of Jonah warns the people to repent, so that the judgment is averted and the people return to God. But not all prophets have the Jonah message. Some speak words as Nahum. It was Nineveh which did repent but then later in the days of Nahum turned away again. Nahum lamented of this and spoke of the disaster to come which would result in Nineveh being utterly laid waste. When we exceed the time in which nations may repent, our Nahum will come, and this prophet speaks of the judgment that cannot be averted but which will occur. These prophets have the mission to deliver the word, and the palliative, that is, what you may do in your current situation to be right with God, though you cannot change national policy. That is the creative word the prophet speaks. Is God reveals His will to the prophets, and the prophets speak the word.

The creative word being spoken is not the same type as the "Let there be light word," but what this word is is to say that the sustained creative word is no longer sustained and that thing falls into the darkness of non-existence.

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

To Trinitarians: Unitarian Thought

"I and my father are one" they like to say.

I can cancel that out real fast by quoting where Yeshua says "The Father is greater than I".

I. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." [Matthew 22:37]

Are they of one mind? No.

II. "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." [Matthew 24:36]

If they are one, then they are of one will, correct? No.

III. "Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." [Luke 22:42]

If they are one, that means Yeshua is not subordinate to the Father? No.

IV. "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." [John 5:30]

What about John 1 where the Logos is called God?

Doesn't the Scripture say that God is love?

Using the reflexive rule, if God = Love then Love is God. But that is not what the epistle teaches. Rather it teaches that God is a set of which love is a subset. God { love, y, z

Love is constituent part of God's nature.

Here in John 1 where the Logos is described is God, applying this same rule, we see that the Logos is not God Himself, as love is not a god, but a constituent part of God, then we see the Logos as being a constituent part.

The Logos is the mind of God. This Logos indwells the Son so that the Son, Logos indwelling is apart of God, as, "...I am in the Father, and the Father in me..." (John 14:11). A circumscribed square cannot be bounded by that same square so in light of foregoing principles we see that the Logos indwelling is that Word and that Mind that Yeshua speaks of in John 14:10 "...the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works..."

Therefore the Holy Spirit indwelling us asks us in the spirit of the epistles to be "conformed to the image of [the] Son" in the same way He has conformed to the image of His father by the indwelling of the Logos.

To recap, the Logos is the mind of God, the creative Word itself that is the circumscribed square bounded by that square and refers back to said oneness.

That oneness that Trinitarians speak of is a unity of spirit, not of personality as point I-IV show. Distinct personalities Yeshua subordinate to an all-powerful God.


Interpretolatry, for lack of a better term, is the worship of interpretation. Interpret-, for to interpret, and -olatry, for worship; that is, to worship interpretation. A practitioner of interpretolatry is therefore an interpretolater.

I consider interpretolaters to be very dangerous people. They are synonymous with denominationalists. So here I will discuss what this means in a little depth.

What is an interpretolater and what are the signs of one?

An interpretolater is briefly someone who exalts above the Word, his interpretation of the Word. He believes that the Word is infallible, and by reasoning he believes solely in the Word therefore his interpretation is infallible as well. These people often accuse others over simple disagreements in interpretation of possibly being under the influence of demonic spirits and take it upon themselves to deny that person salvation, belying a God-complex the individual suffers from. They often tell the other that he is doomed to Hell.

Often, the person will make the claim that God /the Holy Spirit has instructed them personally through special revelation in interpreting the Word of God. The claim is often made by so many of them that this "god" they refer to seems to give different people different interpretations at different times. But this is paradoxical nonsense. God is not and cannot be divided, nor is He the author of confusion. This "god" likes to confuse people, or otherwise it is the deluded confusing themselves. But it is not the biblical God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who is responsible for this.

Interpretolaters go to extremes to single out those who resist their wayward doctrines and when in power within communities, even seek to make a personal mockery of that person. Historically, they would commission synods and church councils to publicly ridicule that person and seek ways in which they might be shut up, or even killed. Through the power of church councils, many men such as Arminius were marginalized even to this day, several hundreds of years later.

I consider interpretolaters to be some of the most dangerous enemies of the Church, as they see only validity in their own conceited view of themselves and their own deluded personal opinions. They are of God, they reason, and therefore anyone who opposes them is of the enemy and must be resisted even violently.

The Biblical case against interpretolatry is very simple actually. Man is utterly depraved, he is deluded with the thought of his own divinity and infallibility and outside of a personal relationship with the Savior Christ is on a path to complete destruction. Man's job is to constantly seek after the Lord and His will as well as seeking after deeper insight into the Scriptures. But as feeble-minded and finite men, our interpretations are not always correct and there is always needless to say room for more improvement and instruction. No one has all the answers and should always be willing to learn even more no matter how advanced one may be.

Therefore, interpretolatry is a great evil and should be resisted.

Testing a prophetic word

Testing a prophetic word is a difficult thing. First, some people don't believe in modern-day prophets or prophesying today so naturally for these people it would be difficult.

However, even for the people who do accept them as being biblical today there is still the difficulty in gauging what is a true word and which is not.

2 Tim 2:15

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."


1 John 4:1

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

How do you know what word is true and which is not? First you must know what a prophet is, his attributes, his manifestations, inner workings, and mannerisms, which I have discussed in a prior message.

What is a basis for determing the word's validity?

Is it a word that lines up with what you believe? A word you like? A word that is in line with the Bible?

Here are major misconceptions about spotting true or false words...

I. A true word lines up with what you believe.

This is very demonstrably false. The Methodist hierarchy has been pushing for ordination of gays for several years. If this was a basis for them to determine the validity of a prophetic word, then they would have to throw out most of the Bible, including the Gospels, Epistles, and the Law. This is NOT a basis for determining a word's validity. That is to say, any Methodist-centric prophetic word would be easily accepted by a Methodist but it is not accredited as being true because a Methodist would agree with it.

II. It sounds good and conversely a false word is false on the basis of you disliking it. You have a predisposition to believing what sounds good and subconsciously reject what you view as bad as being false.

This is also false as the words of the prophets were very often not friendly, polite or uplifting.

Jeremiah 28

The Jews accepted the word of Hananiah and rejected Jeremiah because they did not like what he had to say about the Babylonians.

Hananiah prophesied, "I have broken the yoke of the king of Babylon. Within two full years will I bring again into this place all the vessels of the LORD's house, that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon took away from this place, and carried them to Babylon: And I will bring again to this place Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, with all the captives of Judah, that went into Babylon, saith the LORD: for I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon.

Jeremiah responds: " Amen: the LORD do so: the LORD perform thy words which thou hast prophesied, to bring again the vessels of the LORD's house, and all that is carried away captive, from Babylon into this place. Nevertheless hear thou now this word that I speak in thine ears, and in the ears of all the people; The prophets that have been before me and before thee of old prophesied both against many countries, and against great kingdoms, of war, and of evil, and of pestilence. The prophet which prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the LORD hath truly sent him."

Then Hananiah takes the yoke from Jeremiah's neck "and brake it" in v 10.

"Thus saith the LORD," Hananiah says,  "Even so will I break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon from the neck of all nations within the space of two full years."

Jeremiah responds in the prophetic fashion, as all the prophets did and would, "Thou hast broken the yokes of wood; but thou shalt make for them yokes of iron. For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; I have put a yoke of iron upon the neck of all these nations, that they may serve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; and they shall serve him: and I have given him the beasts of the field also. Then said the prophet Jeremiah unto Hananiah the prophet, Hear now, Hananiah; The LORD hath not sent thee; but thou makest this people to trust in a lie. Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, I will cast thee from off the face of the earth: this year thou shalt die, because thou hast taught rebellion against the LORD. So Hananiah the prophet died the same year in the seventh month.


So then often the opposite is true. As Jeremiah makes clear in the first bolded line, and as all Scriptures testify, the prophet rarely had anything good to say to anyone. He made no apologies, he never held back, he gave the whole unadulterated truth largely to his own detriment (Jeremiah for instance being cast into a cistern and into prison for lengthy periods). The false word always uplifted, comforted, and filled the ears of the people with peace and fables. Their ears were itching and the liars always had much to gain by scratching the ears of the people.

This is not a basis for truth.

III. Your spirit bears witness with the word.

This again is not a basis for truth. The most glaring inconsistency here is this: What if my spirit bears witness but yours does not? Then one of us is wrong. Anything open to such an obvious objection can never be a solid basis for judging anything.


Then what is a basis for judging the truth of a word?

If, and only if, the Word bears witness with it. The Word is our basis for all objective truth and if the word of the prophet does not line up with the Word it is definitely false.


An example

Mark Kay Baxter reports that she was taken into Hell. As you read the story you may be influenced by mixed emotions, questions of doubt, etc. But we can't reject it because we dislike it, doesn't fit our own theologies, or on some other entirely subjective and contradictory basis. It is judged entirely on what the Word makes clear.

This is the problem: In one of Mrs. Baxter's conversations with Jesus, He refers to the coming of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture. There is not necessarily a problem here unless you don't believe in the pre-trib Rapture (i.e. you dislike it or disagree with it). We can't throw out the word on this basis alone.

The problem becomes even more difficult as you compare her testimony with the word of Dimitru Dudeman where Christ explicitly states that there is no pretrib Rapture, it is post-trib.

The natural problem is Christ couldn't have told both Mary and Dumitru to opposing points. One of them must therefore be a liar or deluded.

The natural basis for rejecting Mary Kay Baxter's word is this: It doesn't line up with anything Jesus or Paul taught, and in fact, just the opposite while on the other hand Dumitru's words do line up with the Word.

So then the natural rush-to-judgment is this: "Then if a word is judged solely on the basis of the Word, then all words not lining up with my Infallible view of the Word must therefore be rejected".
This touches on the subject of hermeneutics and veneration of interpretation we will discuss later. Be clear, we are not rejecting any prophetic word on the basis of our own surmisals of Scripture's meanings but on the basis of the plain-text reading of the Book.

There is a very big difference between our personally held beliefs and what the Bible truly says. That much should be obvious.

What is not a basis for objection is the most explicit of all teachings, i.e. ones that one has no basis for disputing such as the Resurrection or Virgin Birth.

Where there is a basis for rejection/difference of opinion, these are not doctrines we should be entirely adamant about. These can never be used as a gauge for truth and never should.

The Bible teaches much explicitly and some of its teachings are only discovered through investigation. What I am saying is that that word that contradicts the plain meaning of the words is a false word, but what violates what we have discovered through investigation which may itself be wrong can not be a basis to reject a word from a prophet.


One "prophet" said Yeshua appeared at one of his conferences. Yeshua said if anyone comes to you saying "Look, here is the Christ," or "There!" do not believe him. For as the lightning strikes in the east and shineth even into the west, so shall the coming of the Son of man be.

There is no room for speculation here. Does the man mean well? Maybe. Does he believe this garbage? Maybe. Does it contradict the plain words of Scripture? Absolutely. In this same way you will know if a prophet is false.

Friday, February 1, 2013

Characteristics and Qualities of a Prophet

Since we are living in a day and age where prophets are going to rise up and make themselves known, it is helpful for Christians to know what sort of things prophets would hold in common, or characteristics that they would hold. Here I will enumerate what the Bible shares with us about prophets.

#1 If the thing follows not, then that prophet is speaking presumptuously.

Deuteronomy 18:22 " When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."

If the prophet gives a timeline for the fulfillment of his prophecy, and it does not come to pass, then he is either a young, immature prophet who does not understand fully yet the nature of his gift or he is a false prophet.

#2 A prophet many times has skeptical family members who reject his office or ministry and may have trouble finding fulfilling life in his home.

Matthew 13:57 " And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house."

 #3 Most people will certainly not speak well of this man. They will tarnish his name and some they will even kill.

Luke 6:26 "Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets."

Luke 21:16 "And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death."

#4 Prophets almost never give words of great tidings, peace and prosperity, as is the custom in American churches. But Jeremiah says only if that word does come to pass should that prophet be believed.

Jeremiah 28:8,9 "The prophets that have been before me and before thee of old prophesied both against many countries, and against great kingdoms, of war, and of evil, and of pestilence. The prophet which prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the Lord hath truly sent him."

 #5 Popular in many "prophetic" circles is the philosophy that politicians share with these speakers: Telling the listeners what they want to hear, so long as it serves the speaker and his lusts. Conversely, the true prophet will care little if you are interested in hearing his words, he will speak them without fear and let the chips fall where they may. Many would be astonished, as they were when Jesus spoke, after the prophet speaks and some might turn violently against the man.

2 Timothy 4:3,4 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

#6 A prophet will have some sort of unusual direct communication with God that most other Christians do not have.

Exodus 3:2 (burning bush)
Jonah 1:1, Haggai 1:1, Zechariah 1:1, Jeremiah 1:2, Ezekiel 1:3, etc... (the direct word of the Lord, speaking directly to God)
Ezekiel 1:1, Acts 7:55, Acts 11:5 (visions)
Genesis 37:5, Genesis 37:9, Daniel 7:1 (dreams from the Lord)