ON
DOCTRINE INFORMATION
The GOOD NEWS
Messages Sent To On Doctrine
2006
All Messages Reproduced As Received Without Correction Or Alteration
Names and e-mail addresses removed in accord with the On Doctrine Privacy Policy
Messages are unverified as to content or accuracy
All responses labeled ON DOCTRINE NOTE are by Gary A. Hand unless stated differently
#1
I posted this question earlier but have since not been able to navigate the sight to find your
reply. As a point of clarification, what is the fate of souls who through no fault of their own or
of others never become sufficiently aware of Christ and his message, or are never capable of
making a free will decision on the matter? This would include the unborn that fail to come to term
due to various narural causes, children who also die from various natural causes, those who are
severely mentally disabled, people who lived before Christ, those who have lived since but in
locations that had not herd about Christianity (including the Americas for a long period, central
Africa until recently), and so forth. Do they go to hell, limbo (was the position of the Catholic
church until recently), heaven (currebt position of Catholic church and many Protestand
sects)?
Thanks for your reply.
[10]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
I think it is necessary to understand that there are two issues involved: (1) the condition of humanity and
(2) the offer of salvation. There is a tendency to jump over the first issue and go directly to the second
in order to satisfy our desire to escape without dealing with consequences of the first. It is not the
failure to hear the gospel message that condemns, but our sins that are the basis of judgment. The reality
is, that God did not have any obligation to provide salvation for a fallen humanity, but He had every
right to pronounce and carry out judgment. It is strictly through His mercy that there is the reality of
salvation and a reprieve from the certain judgment already pronounced.
The Scripture states that humanity is guilty, because of knowledge of God which is corrupted and
twisted into the creation of a god of the human imagination, Romans 1:18-32. The God of the Scripture
is not only just, He is also merciful, so in relation to babies, infants and the mentally disabled who die,
the standard becomes knowledge of God and of sin on the part of those individuals, which they may not
or do not have.
I have heard it said that humanity is judged for the sin of Adam and Eve, but that is not strictly so.
Humanity became defective as a result of being the progeny of Adam and Eve, and as a result became
incapable of conduct and thought that was not characteristic of a fallen nature, and, as a result requires
the direct intervention of God in order that an individual can appreciate and seek after the true God.
Two articles on the On Doctrine website that deal with the salvation of infants and the mentally
disabled can be found at the following:
"The Salvation of Babies Who Die"
John F. MacArthur
PART 1 - www.ondoctrine.com/2mac0142.htm
PART 2 - www.ondoctrine.com/2mac0143.htm
"Infant Salvation"
Charles Spurgeon
www.ondoctrine.com/2spu0108.htm
#2
Hello, Gary. I have a short testimony about my experiences with Morris Cerullo that I
wonder if you would be interested in including on your page about him. The testimony
is as follows:
I am an ex-supporter of Morris Cerullo. I donated over $1,000 to his ministry, and it
was the biggest mistake of my life. His letters were manipulative and dishonest. I never
received one thing he promised would happen to me if I donated money to him. Not only
that, both my health and my finances got worse. I have read the Bible from cover to cover,
and I am convinced that Morris Cerullo is one of those the Bible says "with feigned words will
make merchandise of you." If you ever consider donating money to Morris Cerullo, take my
advice: don't.
Arkansas, United States
[26]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
SEE: On Doctrine ariticle - MORRIS CERULLO
#3
I just submitted a comment on Morris Cerullo. Could you also tell me how many hits your website
averages per day, and if it's possible I'd like to know how many hits your page on Morris Cerullo has
gotten to date. If you decide to put my short testimony expressing my regret for donating to him, it
would be nice to know.
Arkansas, United States
[27]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
I appreciate your note(s). I have placed a link on the bottom of the Morris Cerullo page to your
tetimony which will b located in the Mail Call section.
In reference to the statistics that you requested, here are the numbers:
Year 2005
Total hits: 2,190,269
I don't consider the hits to be a significantly important measure. I think the following are more indicative
of actual usage of the website.
Total Pageviews: 766,964
Defined as a complete page downloaded by the user.
Total Sessions: 319,399
Defined as any specific visitor viewing the website within any two-hour period. In other words, if a
person visits the website 5 times within a two hour period, that is considered to be just one
session.
Morris Cerullo had 4,406 pageviews during the year, averaging 367 a month.
There are many resources on the On Doctrine website, so please come back again for a visit.
#4
You asked, "Why do I continue to criticize God's "anointed"?" I think that you do in
order to let people see the false Christs that have arisen in the modern world.
California, United States
[68]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
There are a few religious figures in the world who claim to be Jesus Christ, but the main problem is the
reality that there are many false prophets in the world who many people choose to follow instead of
subjecting ttheirconduct, teaching and false prophecies to scrutiny by the Scripture. To those prophets
and false teachers, who claim themselves to be "anointed," On Doctrine directs its
attention.
#5
Thanks for a clear, concise report on Oral Roberts. Often times people lose control and objectivity
when exposing false teaching. I just wanted to thank you for keeping things factual and to the point.
Over the years I have noticed many inconsistancies in his teachings and it was good to see your list -
many of the things I wasn't aware of.
Indiana, United States
[70]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
See: The article - ORAL ROBERTS
#6
I am writing because I am very confused about where the church that I am attending is heading. I am a
member of a non-denominational church in [name removed per On Doctrine Privacy Policy].
I recently attended the Affecting Destiny 2006 conference in Atlanta, GA that
Destiny World Outreach (Bishop Tony Miller) planned. I am a christian and was raised Independent
Baptist. However, over the years I have been "drawn" to the charismatic movement churches.
Honestly, I do not understand a lot of what is going on. I believe in the Holy Bible. The terminology that
my recent church uses troubles me. I do not understand how someone is appointed as an apostle in
"nowadays" time. Nor do I understand how someone holds the title Prophet. Is it all part of the Word
of Faith movement?
I am asking these questions because I truly believe that we are commanded by the Lord to read and
study His teachings. I believe that I have a place on this earth to evangelize to the "unsaved". I want to
win souls for our Lord! However, this "apostle and "prophet" title concern me. Are there really
appointed apostles and prophets in the current time? Is Bishop Tony Miller with Destiny World
Outreach truly appointed a man of God? Is all of this charismatic movement ideologies strictly nonsense
and money making schemes?
What do you think I should do? I read my bible and study God's word, but I am not getting anywhere
with these questions. Should I stay away from the Apostolic Movement? Should I turn and run away?
I truly like my church, however something deep inside is telling me to question things about it. My
current pastor was once part of the [name removed per On Doctrine Privacy Policy]
, but left to start his church under Destiny World International, Bishop Tony
Miller. This conference, Affecting Destiny 2006 of www.destinywo.com was odd for me. I kept seeing
people falling down after being touched by an "apostle" or "prophet", and "prophets" giving so-called
divine revelations for 2006. Are these things truly sound biblical? What do you suggest I do? I
understand that I must make my own assessment, but I need an outsiders point of view from someone
who has been-there - done that.
Thank you for your time and understanding of my situation. I desperately seek your advice. God bless
you!
South Carolina, United States
[102]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
You are asking the right questions regarding the direction your church is taking and the claims of
leadership. What you need to do now is take those claims and compare them with what is actually
found in the Scripture rather than what leaders say is found in the Scripture. Those two things are not
necessarily the same and in the case of leaders who claim to be prophets and apostles, some very
serious differences will become apparent as you study their theological beliefs.
Prophets and apostles are part of a number of religious groups not connected with Word of Faith, but
Bishop Tony Miller is part of the Word of Faith movement, so I would assume that your church is
deeply involved in the same.
The subjects of prophets and apostles are key to the issue of authority that many Word of Faith
leadership use in order to establish their position. If they can persuade people that they are actually
prophets or apostles, then who can question their actions? They become the supreme spiritual
authorities on earth when people accept them as such, and they claim the position just by making a
statement. Whether they are true prophets or apostles is determined by the prophecies that they make
and by the doctrines that they teach, so it is imperative that it is determined exactly what they believe
and teach, and every prophecy that they make must be subjected to biblical criteria, Deuteronomy
18:20-22. If their prophecies fail, even one, then they are a false prophet.
I find it interesting that there are seminars and schools where a person can go to learn to be a prophet.
That is how far from the true calling and office of a prophet that religious circles have fallen.
There are a number or resources on the On Doctrine website that you might consider that would be
helpful. I am sure you will not agree with everything presented in the articles, but they deal with some
very basic issues that are foundational to Word of Faith theology and are issues that must be resolved
if a person is to remain within that particular belief system
"Charismatic Chaos Series" - 13 sermons - John F. MacArthur
Located on the Charismatic Belief page
www.ondoctrine.com/10tbn.htm
"Giving and Receiving" - does the Bible support Paul Crouch's claim?
www.ondoctrine.com/10giving.htm
"Kenneth Copeland: What Did He Say?" - An e-mail exchange
www.ondoctrine.com/conversa/3word001.htm
"Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Mark 11:12-23 and False Prophecies" - an e-mail exchange
www.ondoctrine.com/conversa/3word004.htm
"Jesse Duplantis"
www.ondoctrine.com/10duplan.htm
"The Apostles and the Gift of Tongues: To Whom Did They Speak?" - an e-mail exchange
www.ondoctrine.com/conversa/3char001.htm
"The Prayer of Agreement: The False Claims Regarding Matthew 18:19"
www.ondoctrine.com/10prayof.htm
It is true that you must make your own decision, but that decision must come from a study of the
Scripture in relation to the claims that are being made in Word of Faith circles and also a look at reality
in relation to those claims as they relate to prophecies, words of wisdom, revelations, visions and the
claims of massive healings throughout the world.
My personal view, is that if you have been in the church for some time and you realize that something is
wrong, even if you have not sorted out all of the details, then it is time to leave
quickly.
#7
Thank you for your words of wisdom and undertanding. I wanted to let you know that I have left my
church and the charismatic movement. I did not know what I had been involved in until I went to the
conference "Affecting Destiny 2006" in Atlanta in January. I have taken your reply along with other's
and made the conclusion that I was not where I needed to be. Thanks again for your insight.
For your information, I presented my concerns to my former pastor and his reply was the following,
"[name], you need to be careful
where you are getting your information. The devil will try to decieve you by subtle means." I replied, "I
am aware of deception pastor, I have been decieved for over a year now. Please show me scripture to
back up your beliefs and the covering of Destiny World Outreach - Bishop Tony Miller." I also
questioned him about "positive confessions" and the validity of them. I explained that whatever God's
will is, than it will happen. However, we as christians have an obligation to be obedient to the Word of
God. We should pray and walk in obedience to God's word." He replied, "Joe, we have more power
than you realize. We have the power to command God to fulfill His promises to us that are in His
Word. We have the power to speak "life" into our situations. We can change our situations by speaking
life into them." I replied, "God has full authority and power over everything! We do not have the power
to change our situation by speaking life into them (positive confessions)! We are not God's or "little
God's"! There is only one God; God alone! You need to be careful pastor as to what you are preaching
to the naive christian. Be very careful pastor." He stated, "You have your opinion and I have mine." I
replied, "It's not an opinion pastor, it is sound doctrine of the Word of God."
I thought that you may have wanted to hear how the converstaion went. I find it hard to believe that
Word of Faith practicioners think they have so much authority and power.
May God continue to bless you and your ministry. I pray that you will continue to seek the truth through
the Word of God alone and that you may stand steadfast on His Word. You have been a blessing to
me and the questions that I had. Your words were the same of 16 different scholars that I sought advice
from. God bless you and great job!
Your friend in Christ
South Carolina, United States
[176]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
I appreciate your note, because it is rare that I receive information back from people regarding the
outcome of the issues about which they write. I know that you have made the right decision and one
that you will never regret.
I was fascinated by your pastor's remarks, because every one of them can be found in the
communications that are sent to On Doctrine. Especially popular is the idea that Word of Faith does
not teach that God is being commanded by human beings, but that He is simply fulfilling His promises
that He has made, which is a very subtle cover-up of what is actually being taught which is that God is
being commanded to fulfill the desires of the human heart disguised as the promises of God. Word of
Faith does not actually worship a sovereign God who acts according to His good pleasure and fulfills
His promises as He wishes, but worships a crippled and weak deity who can only act when human
beings speak and use their faith as the club to force Him to grant what is wished. The reality is, that only
the desire of human beings to be in charge of the outcome is being expressed.
Over and over again I have been told that those who are outside of Word of Faith and Charismatic
theology put God in a box and substitute human tradition in place of true belief, but in fact, it is just the
other way around, and the Word of Faith, Charismatic believers do not realize that they have not only
placed God in a box of subjection to human desires, but they have stripped God of His ability to
sovereignly act as God, because He is said to be subject to laws that are greater than He and restrain
His desires and plans, even to the point of preventing Him from obtaining ownership of the earth from
Satan, until human beings can implement His plan.
All of the strange things that are part of that theological system pale into insignificance when compared
with what is defined by the proponents as being their god, as opposed to Who is revealed in the
Scripture as the Holy, Sovereign God of creation. In spite of all the biblical terms and Christian ideas
expressed in their theology, they worship the wrong God, the wrong Savior and the wrong Holy Spirit,
which is the very core of the deception. When a god is worshipped who is not defined the same as the
God of the Bible, then in spite of all the Christian trappings that accompany the theology, salvation will
not be found. There are many Christians who have inadvertently become involved in those particular
systems, like yourself, who eventually realize that all is not well and leave. But, there are legions who
believe that they have found a true God, and a true Savior and command a real Holy Spirit, however,
they worship a name only and a god that is defined by the theology and the teachers, and not the true
persons of the godhead. That is a frightening thought, because for a person to believe that they have
what they do not is the ultimate deception.
Bless you as you move on in your Christian life. I hope you are able to find a local church. There is an
article on the website about what to look for in a church at:
www.ondoctrine.com/2gty1301.htm
#8
You sure have a interesting web site, which I found by accendent. What I have read so far is
interesting, and have put in my favorite file. It is a big site to say the leat and so far enjoy what
I have read. I am sixty in May and readying and learning all I cn so I can help teach others
about our Lord Jesus Christ. Thank You for your time . . .
New York, United States
[107]
#9
i like your site, i think we understand each other like i don't believed that Jesus Christ in His life
observed that "sabbath day" or maybe the work of healing and ministry named by priest as
transgression of the sabbath law is truly Christ a rebelious of God's law given by our adam and eve, our
first parents...
if do Christ never honor throughout his life the sabbath day, maybe we can say that He change the
sabbath law
the roman catholic is the true church because of following Christ and His apostle like giving emphasis of
apparitions, prayer repeatedly like 10 marias and 50 our father as Jesus Christ exampled for us, and
maybe Jesus Christ give order to His apostles that if they die,they will be named "saints" and make
other person they choose to be saint...
i hate that "seventh day baptist or adventist" because their teaching are so much erroneous, like all the
testimonies written by ellen white? are not true...like that smoking is bad of our health, then using
herbals as alternative are alternative remedies and many more...
thanks for this site, we understand that they are truly wrong and we are absolutely right as our
conscience tell us,right?
Philippines
[128]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
Thank you for your visit and message on the Contact page.
Sorry I am so late with my reply, but I have been away from the website for some time because of
family obligations.
Jesus did observe and honor the Sabbath and the Old Testament laws until His death, because one of
the reasons He came was to fulfill the Old Testament Law:
"'Do not think that I came to abolish the law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill,'"
Matthew 5:17.
The Law was given as an object lesson in order to show human beings, in their fallen condition, that
they could not meet the standards of God in order to be reconciled to Him:
"Therefore the law has become our tutor (teacher) to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by
faith," Galatians 3:24.
Jesus Christ kept the Old Testament Law perfectly, which no other human being could do, and it was
by that accomplishment that He fulfilled the requirements of the Law and completed or brought to a
conclusion the reason why the Law was originally given.
Because of His life, death and resurrection, it is Jesus Christ to which all human beings must go in order
to obtain salvation, because salvation cannot be granted by any other person; not by the apostles, saints
or the virgin Mary and no other person has the right or is qualified to forgive sins:
"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given
among men by which we must be saved," Acts 4:12.
No human being has been given the authority to declare any person to be exalted as a saint. The Bible
says that all Christians are saints, and the apostles called their Christian brothers and sisters "saints,"
"Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, to the church
of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all
who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours, grace to you and
peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ," 1 Corinthians 1:1-3.
Because all Christians are saints, the Holy Spirit intercedes for the saints, but the saints to no intercede
for Christians.
"In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should,
but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and he who searches the
hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of
God," Romans 8:26-27.
The day of the Sabbath has never been changed since it will always be the seventh day, Saturday, but
the reason for the existence of the Sabbath and its very nature has changed as a result of the life, death
and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Because the Sabbath was commanded in the Law, it was part of the
Law as an object lesson; a means to point to Jesus Christ for salvation and represents the salvation that
Jesus Christ provides. The Sabbath was a representation of the security found in Jesus Christ through
the forgiveness of sins and represents the position of all Christians who have accepted the gospel
message:
""So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. for the one who has entered His rest has
himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest,
so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience," Hebrews 4:9-11.
The Sabbath for the Christian is not a day, it is a place of security, a place of spiritual rest whereby
salvation is found only through faith, apart from works, apart from human accomplishments and apart
from legalistic obligations.
Worship can be done on any day of the week, because it is not specified in the Scripture that it must be
done only on Sunday. Seventh-day believers can worship on Saturday if they wish, but the problem
happens when they say that a person must worship on the Sabbath or the seventh day in order to obtain
salvation or to be a good Christian. By the same token, Christians cannot say that a person must
worship on Sunday or the first day in order to obtain salvation or be a good Christian. When people
establish as the will of God what is not stated in the Scripture, then they have gone too far and usurped
the position of God.
I worship on Sunday, not because it is commanded in the Scripture, but because it was the day on
which Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and it is a day set aside for worship in honor of Him.
"Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new
and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, and since we have a great
priest (Jesus Christ) over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of
faith, having our hearts washed clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us
consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling
together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day
drawing near," Hebrews 10:19-25.
#10
Thank you for taking the time to do such a timely and orderly account of some of the events
and speeches on TBN. I was duped and mesmerized for too many years, and yet, somehow
I knew that something was very wrong, just not spiritually strong enough to fully discern what
you were able to sort out in this more recent report. It comes as no surprise and I can more
fully see what you have stated to be more factual and that what I had counted as, "God uses
the foolish to confound the wise", was only fooling myself. I haven't been able to tithe to TBN
as I felt compelled to do, but I did tithe some over the years, and pledge at the strong
encouragement from them who said many times each telethon,something like, "Pledge way
beyond your wildest thoughts, BIG, and believe that God will provide it. Just believe for it, and
include ALL of your debts because they will be paid off many fold for your giving. Think of all
the many millions of people who are blessed and souls saved by our little angels" (what he calls
his satellites),"and all of it is PAID FOR, we OWE NOTHING, but it does cost to keep
everything going. Sow that seed, partners, this is YOUR REAPING, ALSO." I was NEVER
able to sow what I pledged based upon those words, and I felt terrible in pledging those amounts.
I had to repent of my ignorance and vulnerablity in those early years. Later on I became wiser
and then stopped watching several years ago, thank God.
I wondered why the Crouches knew so little of the Word after so many years with those they
professed who KNEW it. Reading the Amplified and Living Versions were overly dramatic
and left even more to be desired of the reading. I'll pray that the Lord will bring them to their knees
and cleanse them should they repent, renewing a right spirit within them, making their crooked
paths straight.
God bless you.
Texas, United States
[130]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
See the articles:
PAUL CROUCH and TBN
PAUL CROUCH and GIVING and RECEIVING
#11
I think you're right on. I don't agree with everything you say, however you make solid points. These
"Christian leaders" aren't leaders, they're frauds. If they have repented they wouldn't go
back.
Texas, United States
[188]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
I think you have understood well the message of On Doctrine, because failure to repent is indicated by
a failure to follow the biblical mandate, even when those particular leaders make a public display of
what they claim is repentance. There is also the aspect, that the doctrines that many of those leaders
teach have been created by them, so as false leaders, they are also false teachers of false doctrine as
well.
I do not expect that everyone would agree with every theological position that I might embrace, but
only that belief be based on a biblical foundation.
#12
Dear brother Gary:
Thank you for FAQ answer #13. Thanks to all who make OnDoctrine. I foun it by Googling on
Thomas Manton from his being referenced by Spurgeon in "The Treasury of David."
My wonderment is: did you, or someone from OnDoctrine, follow Matthew 18:15-19 with those
mentioned in the "Hall of Shame" before making public comments?
Keep The Victory & Enjoy The Feast!!!!!!!
Pennsylvania, United States
[194]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
I appreciate your comments and am happy to hear that you have found the information on the website
to be helpful.
In answer to your question, no, I have never adopted the teaching regarding Matthew 18:19 as taught
by Word of Faith proponents or others who adopt the same belief. It is not possible to rightly divide the
Word of God as applied to Matthew 18:19 if it is taught that the verse refers to personal prayer
requests made to God in relation to issues or desires that individual Christians may have about their
lives, which include requests for health, wealth, happiness or other personal aspects of a person's
personal life. In order to claim that the verse states that view, it must be removed from the context in
which it is found, and then ideas attached to it from outside the verse itself and from outside the context
in which it was originally found. In other words, the verse must be redacted or added to in order to
make it say what it does not say in the original context. This is an eisegetical application of meaning,
which is the importation of outside ideas, meanings and definitions into the verse.
The entire 6-verse passage has a specific subject and purpose for being taught by Jesus Christ, and the
concept of personal prayer requests made to God is nowhere to be found. There is no prayer
mentioned at any time, no personal requests to God are made and God does not validate or affirm
the fulfillment of any personal request.
There is an article on the website apart from FAQ #13 that deals with the issue of Matthew 18:15-19,
which is much more detailed in a treatment of the passage. If you have not already read it, it can be
found at:
"Prayer of Agreement"
www.ondoctrine.com/10prayof.htm
I hope this answers your question. If not, do not hesitate to write.
There are many resources on the On Doctrine website, so please come back again for a visit
#13
What does John 4:22 mean? Only Jews know how to worship and salvation is from the
Jews.
California, United States
243
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
The statement was made by Jesus To the Samaritan woman while He was speaking to her at the well.
Samaritan's were a people who were the progeny of an intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles. They
had a religious heritage that they traced back through Abraham and recognized the Pentateuch
(Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) and considered the proper place to worship as
Mt. Gerizim instead of Jerusalem. The Jews, who accepted the entire Old Testament, considered
Jerusalem to be the proper place of worship. The statements by Jesus in the passage indicate that the
Samaritans were wrong about the place of worship, but also did not know the God they claimed to
worship were not worshippers of the true God. The Jews had been given direct revelation by God and
had the ability to know the God that they worshipped as the true God. The Jews were the official
source of salvation, because it was through them that God made a personal revelation of Himself to
humanity and to whom the "oracles of God" were given and to whom they were charged as a people to
be the expression of true knowledge of the true God to the world.
The statements by Jesus to the woman noting that He was the living water pointed to Himself as the
means of salvation as the Messiah, not only for the Jews but for the world as well, John 4:10-14. Jesus
was not only the Messiah of the Jews but the Savior promised to the world, John 3:16, and His lineage
was Jewish. God's revelatory message came through the Jews and the Messiah/Savior also came
through the line of the Jews, so salvation was revealed to the world through the Jewish nation, which is
why the gospel message was to be presented to the Jews first, Romans 1:16.
Jesus Christ was the culmination and point of God's revelation as found in the Old Testament, as a
Messiah not only to the Jews, but as the only Savior that can be accepted by the world. Even though
God had given direct revelation of Himself to the Jews, by the time of the ministry of Jesus Christ, they
had perverted that revelation and knowledge into a religion of works and qualification for heaven based
on a lineage traced to Abraham. Like the Samaritans who worshipped a God they did not know, the
Jews also did not know the God they worshipped. Even their religious leaders were ignorant of the true
God and taught doctrines that condemned their people to hell instead of revealing the salvation of God,
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make
one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves,"
Matthew 23:15.
The point of John 4:22 is not to indicate that a person must become a Jew or adopt Judaism or even
that Jews have some type of special religious authority, but that God had performed His promise to
provide a Redeemer and had accomplished the task through the means of His chosen people, "So will
My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing
what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it," Isaiah 55:11.
#14
Thank you for your reply, I copied the following from your letter::
"Jesus Christ was the culmination and point of God's revelation as found in the Old Testament, as a
Messiah not only to the Jews, but as the only Savior that can be accepted by the world."
Looking at Mat:23-3 Yeshua taught Jews to remain true to the Laws of Moses and what the Rabbi
taught, "Observe and Do" You say Yeshua is the only way and at the same time Moses,Elijah and
many others went to G_D before Yeshua was born. Is this a conflict?
I considered the circumstances of John 4:22 before I asked the questions. Yeshua did not say salvation
is through ME,
Peter,Paul and all disciples agreed that gentile converts must follow some of the Jewish Law. If a
convert was saved by grace and not the Law, How can one be saved from Laws they are not under,
this clearly points out that converts were grafted spiritual Jews saved by grace from MOST Jewish
Laws.
You said (The point of John 4:22 is not to indicate that a person must become a Jew
or adopt Judaism or even that Jews have some type of special religious
authority)
Around year 400 the Romans tried to force the Jews/gentile spiritual Jew converts to worship
many Roman gods, anyone who would accept the Roman gods could leave before the
Romans fought those who would not worship Roman gods. The gentile converts left the Jews to fight
and die alone and started a new religion separate from the Jews , they called them selves
Christians.Around 60 years ago Christians stopped killing Jews in the name of G_D.
G_D made covenants with Jews, When G_D speak I listen when a Disciple speaks I find out if G_D
said it first.
I believe if gentile converts would follow G_D ,the Prophets then Yeshua (ignore the disciples until their
word is confirmed by G_D's covenant with the Jews; ) the 27000 different Christian churches with
different messages from the same Holy Spirit could become one.
Yeshua did not come to start a new religion to make G_D's covenants to the Jews,Void! Rev.11:1-2 is
strictly to Jews and has nothing to do with Christians, Why would the Holy Spirit talk to Jew if Rev. is
written to Christians?
California, United States
256
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
In relation to Matthew 23:3, I don't find that to be a conflict at all. Of course Jesus said that the Jews
should keep the commands of God as stated in the Law, Matthew 5:17-20, because prior to His death
and resurrection they were still bound by that Mosaic covenant (Exodus 19:8), but the very reality of
the necessity to keep the Law perfectly in order to obtain salvation revealed the impossibility of that
requirement and the reason that Jesus Christ came as the Messiah, ""Do not think
that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill," Matthew
5:17. The entire point of the Law was to show that only perfection would justify a person before God,
which was an impossible performance by human beings and required the perfect performance of a
Messiah in order to reconcile man to God. Moses, Elijah and the others in the Old Testament went to
God by faith, trusting the provision for their salvation that would come in the future through the coming
of the Messiah, which is the point of the incident regarding the offering of Isaac as a sacrifice by
Abraham:
"Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, 'My father!' And he said, 'Here I am, my son.' And he
said, 'Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?' Abraham said, 'God
will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.' So the two of them walked on
together.
Then they came to the place of which God had told him; and Abraham built the altar there and arranged
the wood, and bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Abraham stretched
out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and
said, 'Abraham, Abraham!' And he said, 'Here I am.' He said, 'Do not stretch out your hand against the
lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son,
your only son, from Me.' Then Abraham raised his eyes and looked, and behold behind him a ram
caught in the thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram and offered him up for a burnt
offering in the place of his son. Abraham called the name of that place The Lord Will Provide, as it is
said to this day, 'In the mount of the Lord it will be provided,'"
Genesis 22:6-14
Jesus taught a very straight message about the Law in the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax
Collector; the Pharisee being self-righteous about his performance of the Law and being lost and
condemned in the process, while the tax collector confessed his sin and begged for mercy and was
justified outside of the performance of the Law.
Jesus was not only a Messiah who took the sins of the world on Himself at His death, but He also
performed the commands of the Law perfectly, fulfilling the requirement of perfection demanded by
God so that man could be reconciled to God. The entire point of the New Covenant was that it
abolished the external performance of human beings in relation to the Law, which was impossible to
achieve perfectly, and placed the law of God internally by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit,
"Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of
life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the law could not do,
weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an
offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in
us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit," Romans 8:1-4.
The problem with legalism is that the adherent presumes to attain a level of performance which they
believe is sufficient for proper standing with God, which they have not, and ignore the reality of what
that Law represented. The apostle Paul stated the case when he said:
"Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! for if a law had been given which
was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law, but the Scripture has
shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who
believe. But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which
was later to be revealed. Therefor the law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be
justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of
God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves
with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, their is neither slave or free man, there is neither male nor
female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's
descendants, heirs according to promise," Galatians 3:21-29.
If salvation is not through Jesus Christ, then He was not the promised Messiah and another who is a
real Messiah should be anticipated at some time in the future. However, that is not what Jesus Christ
claimed about Himself and not what others said in relation to His life, death and resurrection:
"But when he had considered this, behold an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream saying,
'Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been
conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will
save His people from their sins.' Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord though
the prophet: 'Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall hear a Son, and they shall call His name
Immanuel,' which translated means, 'God with us,'" Matthew 1:20-23.
"But the angel said to them, 'Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will
be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ
the Lord. This will be a sing for you: you will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger,'"
Luke 2:10-12.
"And he came in the Spirit into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to carry out
for Him the custom of the Law, then he took Him into his arms, and blessed God; and said, 'Now
Lord, You are releasing Your bond-servant to depart in peace, according to Your word; for my eyes
have seen Your salvation, which You have prepared in the presence of all people, A light of revelation
to the Gentiles and the glory of Your people Israel," Luke 2:27-32.
"The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, 'Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin
of the world!'" John 1:29
"'And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so
that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life," John 3:14-15.
"For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God; for He gives the Spirit without measure. The
Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand. He who believes in the Son has eternal life;
but he who does not believe the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him," John
3:34-36
"The woman said to Him, 'I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One
comes, He will declare all things to us.' Jesus said to her, 'I who speak to you am (He),'" John
4:25-26.
". . .and they were saying to the woman, 'It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for
we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world,'" John
4:42
"'Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in
your sins,'" John 8:24.
"So Jesus said to them again, 'Truly I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who come before Me
are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door; if anyone enters through me,
he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture,'" John 10:7-9, cf. 10:1-18.
"He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the chief corner stone. And
there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among
men by which we must be saved," Acts 4:11-12.
"He is the One whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to
Israel and forgiveness of sins," Acts 5:31.
"Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,
and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed
through the Law of Moses," Acts 13:38-39.
"Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives
forgiveness of sins," Acts 10:43.
"For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus . . ,";
1 Timothy 2:5.
I think your reference to Gentile converts being required to follow some Jewish Law is in relation to
Acts 15:20; 21:25. However, in relation to salvation, the Jerusalem council had already dismissed the
claims that keeping the Law was a requirement to obtain salvation or was a requisite to be attached
after salvation been obtained. The Gentiles were already believers and judged to be so by Barnabas
and Saul, Acts 11:19-26.
Peter stated the case:
"Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our
fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we
shall be saved in the same manner as they," Acts 15:10-11.
If Gentiles were saved in the same manner as Peter and the other apostles who were no longer
observing the Mosaic Law, then how are Gentiles required to observe some Law in order to obtain
salvation? That would be a very serious conflict of application and would reveal that God makes a
distinction between people in the granting of salvation. If salvation is by grace, it cannot also be by
performance, because those are mutually exclusive actions, Ephesians 2:4-22.
br>
"Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,
and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things from which you could not be freed
through the law of Moses," Acts 13:38-39.
If Gentiles must first be spiritual Jews before they could obtain salvation, that particular belief must first
be found in the Scripture for it to be legitimate and there is no teaching to that effect. The possibility of
that actually being the case presents very great difficulties in relation to those who lived prior the
establishment of a Jewish people and prior to the Law being given to Moses. Since prior to Mt. Sinai
the Law of Moses did not exist, were they required to observe that Law in order to obtain salvation?
Or are we to presume that human beings had no guilt or sin or that God was unjust in condemning the
pre-flood world without the Law of Moses? Were the Patriarchs required to become spiritual Jews
when there were no Jews? There were, in fact, no Gentiles or Jews as contrasting agents regarding the
revelation of God and no concept of Jewishness as a means of conveying salvation. Where does that
place the salvation of Abraham, who was not a Jew?
Those were the issues which prevented the salvation of those who presumed that their heritage or their
participation as covenant recipients guaranteed their salvation, and were issues specifically noted by
John the Baptist:
". . .and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father'; for I say to
you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham," Matthew 3:9.
Jesus Christ also addressed the issue:
"So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, 'If you continue in My word, then you are
truly disciples of mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make your free.' They answered
Him, 'We are Abraham's descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You
say, 'You will become free'? Jesus answered them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits
sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. So if
the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. I know that you are Abraham's descendants; yet you
seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. i speak the things which I have seen with My
Father; therefore you also do the things which you heard from your father.' They answered and said to
Him, 'Abraham is our father.' Jesus said to them, 'If you are Abraham's children, do the deeds of
Abraham. But as it is, you are seeking to kill me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from
God; this Abraham did not do. You are doing the deeds of your father.' They said to Him, 'We were
not born of fornication; we have one Father: God.' Jesus said to them, 'If God were your Father, you
would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for i have not even come on My own
initiative, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear
My word. You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a
murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever
he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I
speak the truth, you do not believe Me? He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you
do not hear them, because you are not of God,'" John 8:31-47.
"For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For
what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as
righteousness.' Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is
due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is
credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to who God credits
righteousness apart from works: 'Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, and
whose sins have been covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.' Is this
blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, 'Faith was credited to
Abraham as righteousness.' How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised?
Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the
righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who
believe without being circumcised, that righteousnes might be credited to them, and the father of
circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith
of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. For the promise to Abraham or to his
descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the law, but through the righteousness
of faith. For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; for the
law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. for this reason it is by faith,
in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the
descendants, no only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham,
who is the father of us all . . ," Romans 4:2-16.
Who are true Israelites and true children of Abraham?
"For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my
kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory
and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the
fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever.
Amen. But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended
from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: 'Through Isaac your
descendants will be named.' That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the
children of the promise are regarded as descendants," Romans 9:3-8.
"For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. but he
is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the
letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God," Romans 2:28-29.
You seem to be confusing your history and I do not know where you have obtained your information.
Believers were first called Christians at Antioch, Acts 11:26, who were converts to the gospel message
originating from Jerusalem, as a result of the Jewish persecution of believers that was initiated with the
stoning of Stephen, Acts 11:19. The was over 350 years before your scenario about the Romans. What
the Romans did or did not do is irrelevant in relation to the gospel message found in the Scripture.
Christianity has its foundation in the Scripture, not in Romanism and not in the resultant teachings or
actions of the Roman Catholic Church.
You do well to listen to God, Jesus Christ and the prophets and the apostles, but if you claim to do that,
then you must listen to what was commanded by God in relation to Jesus Christ and also what Jesus
Christ claimed for Himself and what the Scripture states about His position:
"While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud
said, 'This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!'" Matthew 17:5, Mark 9:7,
Luke 9:35.
"'All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the son except the Father;
nor does anyone know the Father except the son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him,'"
Matthew 11:27.
"But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. When they
saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying,
'All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth,'" Matthew 28:16-18, cf. Ephesians
1:19-23, Philippians 2:5-11, Colossians 2:9-10.
It is a matter of convenience to assume that the Christian gospel message is a new religion, because that
view allows the retention of a legalistic view in which performance is assumed to gain standing with
God. However, Christianity is not a new religion and the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was
not the establishment of a new belief system, but the fulfillment of the Old Covenant and the
inauguration of the New Covenant promised by God, Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is the same teaching
found in Hebrews, chps. 8 -12. Salvation has always been by faith, not by observances or works of
self-righteous attainment.
Had Israel accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the kingdom would have been established and the
Millennium would have been ushered in as promised, as stated by John the Baptist, Matthew 3:1-3,
Mark 1:1-4, Luke 3:3-6, John 1:1-36., and Jesus Christ Himself, Matthew 4:17, Mark 1:14-15 and
Luke 4:16-30. The passage in which He proclaimed His fulfillment of Isaiah 61:1-2 indicated that God
granted His grace to two Gentiles while bypassing all of those in Israel, both claims revealing the
unbelief possessed by his audience and their willingness and attempt to kill him in spite of the miraculous
evidence that was presented to them.
If God had exacted the elements of the Law then all humanity would despair because of failure and if
He had expected that the perfect performance of human beings would have been a possibility, He
would not have brought about the death of His Son as the substitute for His wrath against sin, and He
would not have provided the grace of forgiveness guaranteed by a Priest who provided the efficacious
and eternal sacrifice of Himself, Hebrews 10:1-22.
In spite of the fact that some groups who claim to be Christian, say that Israel has forfeited all the
promises of God made to them and that those promises now apply to the Christian church, the
Scripture states otherwise and the apostle Paul is very clear that those promises will eventually be
fulfilled and the apostle John reveals the reality in the book of Revelation. If God made a promise, He
cannot rescind that promise and make Himself into a liar, Numbers 23:19.
There will be a future temple built at Jerusalem and it is to that edifice and the time of Great Tribulation,
Daniel 9:27; 12:11, that Revelation 11 refers. There will be a future Millennium in which Jesus Christ
will rule from Jerusalem and both Old Covenant and New Covenant believers will rule.
#15
Thank you for the hall of shame. Can you addother christian musicians such as Amy Grant, Michael
English and others?
North Carolina, United States
[245]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
The Hall of Shame is not a comprehensive listing of individuals, but is only a representative sample of
conduct and doctrines about which Christians should be discerning in relation to the Scripture. I have
not tried to list the many individuals who would be qualified to appear, so the majority are unnamed,
but the elements of their violations appear in the lives of those that are listed.
The Hall of Shame does change from time to time, as new persons are added and others deleted, but I
don't anticipate that it will grow any larger, at least to any significant degree. Thank you for your
suggestions, and possibly those individuals will appear at sometime in the future.
There are many resources on the On Doctrine website, so please come back again for a
visit.
#16
Thank you SO much for a very well-conceived and written site! I can't begin to tell you how much info
I have gained from my visit. This is quite a labour of love, and I'd love to know if you've ever been
contacted by the camps of the likes of Crouch, Duplantis, etc...
God bless, and thanks for all you have done.
Oregon, United States
[250]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
I appreciate your kind comments of support. No, I have not been contacted by any of the individuals
you have mentioned. However, on his TV program 10-31-2005, Richard Roberts mentioned my name
and the article about him posted on the website. He used the article as an outline for the program and
fabricated a number of claims that he stated were my beliefs which he knew were not true and that he
had not obtained from reading the article. I heard that he mentioned my name on another program, but I
did not confirm that and have no idea what he might have said at that time.
Most ministries do not respond to criticism when errors are found in their theology or conduct, because
they are not interested and it makes no difference to them since the errors are deliberately stated. In
addition, they know that only a few of their followers will realize the errors, so they find it is better to
ignore criticism rather than push the issues into the public forum where they know that they will only
create bad publicity for themselves. It is only at the point of a serious blunder that they attempt to
respond, but they try to do it on their own terms: see the article on Paul Crouch and the section on the
Judy Alsop revelation where he attempted to defend his proclamation of death to anyone who opposed
the TBN network, at:
www.ondoctrine.com/10tbn.htm#alsoprevelation
There re many resources on the website, so come back again for a visit.
#17
I wish to thank you for your diligent efforts providing sound information on this site. I enjoy your
forthright Scriptural approach regarding false teachers and Biblical doctrine. It is sad to say that I
believe that most Christians have come in contact with a variety of heresies from supposed teachers of
the truth. Many of us have immediate family members entrenched in false teaching making common
sense and reasoning difficult when discussing these issues. I applaud you in your level-headed
presentation.
Sites like On Doctorine provide Scriptural information with a voice of reason and logic that aid in
further research and discernment. Knowing God's Word is paramount in understanding truth from
error. My prayers are with you on this battle front. I too have a compelling desire to stand for the truth
and expose falsehood. Having a mother who was heavily into Edgar Cayce, spirit guides,
reincarnation, regeneration and the like, I continue to praise God that he was so gracious to remove me
from heritical teachings and granting me understanding. God even "supposedly" spoke to my
grandmother 3 times in her life...with a shining light in the corner of her bedroom....audibly...go figure.
My heart breaks as I see loved ones thrown about like waves on the sea, jetting from one sensational
concept to another, shipwrecking their faith. They become disallusioned, empty of Christ's joy and
most importantly, God's rest.
I commend and wish to encourge you in continuing your endevour here. Your labor is making a
difference. May God enlighten those who reach this site, opening their hearts to reality and truth.
God bless you.
Minnesota, United States
[253]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
It is true that Christians come into contact with a number of heresies on a continual basis. The sad
aspect of that reality is that the Christian church is increasingly unable to recognize those heresies and
simply accepts them as part of true biblical teaching.
Your comments about Edgar Cayce are interesting because there is a resurgence of his popularity due
to his predictions regarding the location of Atlantis being found in the Caribbean. The attraction to
Cayce is very much the same as that found in much of the Christian world, the quest for an experience
which leads to a false experience being provided through means of occultic contact with the demonic
world. Cayce's complete absorption into the occult made him a perfect channel of deception. I am
reminded of the Scripture, 2 Corinthians 11:14.
Many people never escape the occultic possession, because it mimics the Christian gospel message
which is to be possessed by Jesus Christ. Many people in the church are truly deceived because ther
are placing their faith in an experience, assuming they are in the faith when they are not,
"Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about
yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you - unless indeed you fail the test?"
2 Corinthians 13:5.
Many people never apply the test of Scripture to the reality of salvation which may result in disaster in
the end.
There are many resources on the On Doctrine website, so please come back again for a
visit.
#18
I am so glad for your ministry. It's about time we put down the Charismatic movement. How dare God
try to say anything to us today, when all he ever had to say was almost 2,000 years ago. The
Charismatic movement, in all its facets, must be put down, even if it takes strawman arguments and
misrepresentations to do it. People like Kevin Conner, who believe in modern day prophecy, but that
the Bible is the final authority to judge all prophecy must be silenced. People like Rick Godwin, who
believe in encouraging young men to be all they can for God... just the fact he's Charismatic, he must be
silenced. People like John Wimber who have been leaders for many other fine Christian leaders... Since
you disagree with his Charismatic followings, he must be silenced. Nevermind, that none of these
leaders don't put modern day prophecy on the par with Biblical revelation and use the Biblical
documents as final authority. Since all Calvinist teachers always get all Biblical teaching correct, then
any self-pro [sentence lost during transmission]
I believe like you, that if God wanted to tell us anything, he had up until the time of the Apostles to say
it, and if he didn't get it said by then, that is his problem not ours.
I thank God that he has provided people like you, not only to judge doctrine, but to judge people (for
God has certainly called you to judge others) especially other Christian leaders that don't agree with
you on every facet of theology. It's a pity that God didn't make all of us Calvinists, so we could have
Calvin as our ultimate source of authority instead of the Bible. That would bring so much more unity to
the Body of Christ.
Either way, God has provided to all of us Calvinist judges to judge all anti-Calvinist heresy. You are
mighty blessed to have such a high position to be able to judge others. How I wish we could all attain to
your level of spirituality and depth of Biblical insight.
Well, God bless you as you continue the good fight of anti-Calvinist good fight of faith.
Texas, United States
[266]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
There are many in Charismatic circles who are true Christians and I do not attempt to judge a person in
regards to their salvation. Where Charismaticism goes wrong is in its extremisim to the point of
substituting the Charismatic experience in the place of the gospel message and mistaking the
Charismatic experiences as the validation of true belief.
I try to be as accurate as possible in relation to my statements and in relation to what the Scripture says,
because to deliberately present false statements would call my credibility and motives into question, and
would defeat the purpose of the website which is to deal with false doctrine.
Outside of the fact that many of the main media Charismatic leaders are outright frauds, the issue is
usually one of authority; the leaders wishing to assume authority that they do not have and avoid the
authority of the Scripture over their lives. To that end is the purpose of the many claims of special
anointings and revelatory experiences which are designed to exhibit the characteristics of a superior
spiritual leader to which everyone else should defer.
Followers are culpable because they are undiscerning of even the most basic errors, because they
choose to believer their leaders as the doctrines suit the nature of what they wish to believe about God
and themselves, 2 Timothy 4:3. False leaders and false doctrines are inevitable, and I have no illusions
that the On Doctrine website will change that reality, but perhaps someone will see their leaders and
beliefs in a true light and be affected by some article found there.
#19
I was reading your website entries and found it interesting. Do you have a blog? If not, you may want to
start one.
While I don't agree that we can rightly "judge" people (I'd hate to think of what could be exposed about
me and my imperfect life IN THE PAST if the Lord should call me into the ministry); at the same time, I
wholeheartedly believe that lies about the gospel of Jesus Christ should be exposed and the people
allowed to judge for themselves what is the truth and what is a lie.
Some don't seem to understand the difference that even Paul taught himself when it came down to
judging people (using old testament 'law' as a rule of thumb) and when it came to exposing current
heretical and doctrinally erroneous teaching, which he did fervently.
Overall, I give your endeavors my gracious thumbs up. Keep up the good work of telling the truth and
exposing the lies.
Georgia, United States
[275]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
On the website, I leave the issue of individual salvation to the judgment of Jesus Christ, John 5:22..
Judgments and observations about doctrine and conduct are in relation to what is taught in the Scripture
and I attempt to provide the biblical foundation for what is stated. Scripture is always the judge and not
my personal opinion or preference, See: FAQ #13 --
www.ondoctrine.com/0faqs013.htm
Time does not allow for a Blog, and I don't think that many would be interested in my daily ramblings,
so I will leave that arena to others.
Thank you for your concern and your support. There are many resources on the website, so please
come back again for a visit.
#20
To What extent can we trust Eusebius and Jerome?
West Virginia, United States
314
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
[The question was asked in relation to my statement in an article on the website that Eusebius and
Jerome noted that Mark 16:9-20 did not appear in the earliest Greek manuscripts. Eusebius lived
264-340 A.D., and Jerome lived 340-420 A.D. The article in question can be found in the FAQS
section: Mark 16:9-20]
I think the heart of your question about Eusebius and Jerome is, Did they lie about what they claimed in
regards to Mark 16? Is it possible that they had early Greek manuscripts or knew about manuscripts
that actually contained the verses in question, but simply denied their existence? Of course, we have the
right to question any historical statement, and those of Eusebius and Jerome are no exceptions. I think
that a consideration of that aspect of their claims would have to include some reason for them to deny
the validity of those verses apart from the possibility that the verses were later additions to the original
writing. I don't see any particular reason for them to have stated a denial based on their theology. It
would have been a great benefit to have believed and have had demonstrated in the lives of Christians
the reality of what is stated in verses 9-20, so I don't really see any reason for them to have denied their
validity unless there had been a serious issue regarding authenticity.
Between the two men, there is a period from 264-420 A.D. which is 156 years in which two major
church fathers claimed that part of what was considered to be Scripture, was not in fact part of the
original manuscripts: Eusebius 264-340 A.D., Jerome 340-420. If their claims were not true, then it
would not have been difficult to produce the manuscripts that they claimed did not contain the verses
and show that they were wrong in their claims. But that does not seem to have ever been done and their
claims went unrefuted. So just how early were the manuscripts they had in their possession or of which
they had knowledge is actually unknown.
Secondly, do we have today any manuscripts older than the two men in which the verses appear?
The reality is, in relation to Mark, the oldest manuscripts of Mark are the "Codex Sinaiticus" and
"Codex Vaticanus" which date from the 4th century, probably after the death of Jerome. Neither
manuscript have verses 9-20, however "Codex Sinaiticus" has a blank area after verse 8 and "Codex
Vaticanus" has chapter 16 written on a replacement page of the original.
Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:19 in his writing, "Against Heresies," Book III, Chapter 10, Section 5, in 185
A.D., so verses 9-20, or at least parts, were probably in existence at that early date, which would
mean that the manuscripts mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome were from an earlier date.
There are alternative endings to what is currently found in verses 9-20:
The "Shorter Ending"
(Some manuscripts place this between verses 8 and 9)
"And all that had been commanded them they told briefly to those around Peter. And afterward Jesus
himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal
salvation."
---- New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
The "Freer Logion" and "Expanded Endings" found in the Washington Manuscript - 4th century.
(This is basically an interpolation between verses 14 and 15 in the current "Longer Ending" and
represents the ending known by Jerome.
"The eleven made an excuse: 'This age of lawlessness and unbelief is controlled by Satan, who, by
means of unclean spirits, doesn't allow the truth to be known.' So, they said to Christ, 'reveal your
righteousness now!' Christ replied to them, 'The measure of Satan's years of power is filled up,
although other fearful things draw nigh to those for whom I, because of their sin, was delivered to death,
that they might turn back and not sin anymore so that they might inherit the imperishable, spiritual glory
of righteousness in heaven.'"
I don't think that Eusebius and Jerome are really part of the origin of the issue, but only represent the
reality that the ending of the gospel of Mark was involved in controversy from a very early date prior to
Eusebius and Jerome. There are many, especially in Charismatic circles, that would claim that the issue
is of a recent manufacture designed to refute their particular viewpoint, but that is not the case at all.
There are other groups, primarily KJV only, that would claim that the King James version is the perfect
translation from the original documents and there can be no error, which would include verses 9-20, but
that is a view that has some very serious problems itself.
However, the issue is not in relation to the beliefs of a particular group or the claims of Eusebius and
Jerome, but what verses 9-20 state as compared to what is found in the rest of Scripture. The Scripture
is self-validating, so if one part of Scripture says one thing and another part says the opposite, then
there is a question of validity in relation to at least one of the statements. That is the particular issue
found in verses 17-18, and is concerned with the signs or attesting miracles that are claimed to
"accompany those who have believed, " vs. 17 NAS.
The elements (signs) found in vss. 17-18 that are said to be found in the lives of all believers, are:
1. Ability to cast out demons.
2. Speak with new tongues.
3. Ability to pick up snakes (the presumption is without harm)
4. Ability to drink any poison without harm
5. Ability to heal any person who is sick (the presumption is any disease, and at any place and
time)
That is quite a formidable list of abilities that are said to be part of the arsenal of every
believer.
There is no distinction made in verses 17-18 regarding "those who have believed" so it is a reference to
all believers who have accepted the message of the Great Commission stated in vs. 15 and acted upon
that belief through baptism, vs. 16. That would apply to virtually every believer in the history of the
church and is the major claim of those today who accept verses 9-20 as being legitimate. However,
that is precisely the problem that the verses create, because what is claimed in the verses is not found in
the historical record of the church and is not confirmed in the reality of the lives of current Christian
believers. Either all Christians have all of the elements noted in the verses, and those elements are visible
in their lives, confirming the verses as Scripture, or Christians do not possess all of those elements
visible in their lives which proves the verses to be false.
There are no qualifications or stipulations stated in the verses by which a person qualifies for the
possession and expression of the elements noted. In other words, the person does not have to do
anything additional in order to possess and express the reality of those elements. Unlike those who
claim that healing is part of the atonement but can only be obtained by a later expression of faith, verses
9-20 do not allow for the application of any further requirements other than the original belief that
granted them status as believers. If all believers do not express all of the elements stated in the verses,
then the verses are false.
The difficulties found in the verses are numerous:
1. Ability to cast out demons.
Demons were subject to the 70, Luke 10:17, a circumstance that Jesus said was not to be something in
which a person should rejoice, Luke 10:20.
There are many leaders who claim that particular ability and have deliverance ministries whereby they
travel around the country and the world casting demons out of people who come to their meetings.
There are also lay persons who claim the same ability, a claim is not necessarily a reality, and in the
case of verses 17-18, if every believer cannot perform the exorcism, then the verse makes a false
statement.
2. Speak with new tongues.
No other Scripture speaks of the ability to speak in NEW tongues. The apostles and the early church
expressed the ability to speak in existing languages, but not the ability to speak in a language that was
new or created specifically for them. See: "The Apostles and the Gift of Tongues: To Whom Did They
Speak,"
www.ondoctrine.com/conversa/3char001.htm
3. Ability to pick up snakes (the presumption is without harm).
The 70 were given that ability (actually to step on a snake or scorpion inadvertently, not to deliberately
pick one up), Luke 10:19. A concurrent gift was to be exempt from harm by any enemy, specifically
other persons and presumably any force that could be brought against them by an enemy, Luke 10:19.
The apostle Paul was immune to poisonous snakes, Acts 28:3-6.
The issue is the same as the other verses; if all believers are not immune to poisonous snakes, then the
verses are false.
4. Ability to drink any poison without harm.
This is the only verse about drinking poison, so it is unique to itself and has no comparison with other
Scriptures. The issue is still the same: if all Christians are not immune to every deadly poison, then the
verse is false.
5. Ability to heal any person who is sick (the presumption is any disease, and at any place and time).
Many people, when faced with the criticism that their favorite healing ministry does not actually perform
to the standards of the Scripture, resort to verse 18 in order to defend their pastor or teacher, not
realizing the difficulty that they create for themselves in the process. Instead of supporting the current
claims of the numerous healing ministries, the verse actually reveals that the healing ministers and their
followers do not conform to the verse of Scripture that they claim to believe as their support. Most
healing ministers now claim that they do not have the ability to heal, but that God heals through them, so
they can escape the consequences when the healing fails to occur for real. They can then place the
blame on God, because He didn't perform the miracle or place the blame on the sick who do not have
enough faith to claim their healing. But verse 18 does not allow for any of those excuses, because it
states that all believers have the ability to heal and all who are touched will be healed. There is no
allowance for the claims of the popular TV healer who says that God is going to heal 16 headaches or
cure 15 arthritic joints during the broadcast. The verse states that all who believe can lay hands on any
sick person at any time and in any place (which includes any venue such as hospitals) and those sick
people will recover, regardless of whether they are believers or not. There is no stipulation that the sick
person must be a believer. If leaders in healing ministries and every other believer cannot heal according
to the specifics of verse 18, then the verse is false.
Deception makes an appearance in many different forms, and one of those forms is found in verses 17-
18, because they present what we would like to see as a reality and they come so close to what is
actually taught in the Scripture that the difference is overlooked. The apostle Paul sets the reality
straight:
"And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles,
then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. All are not apostles, are they? All
are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? All
do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do
they?"
1 Corinthians 12:28-30, cf. vs. 31, Ch. 13.
#21
Hello,
Have had a bad week after watching a few hours of TBN then found this website. I could not belive
that this was going on. I sat in disgrace as a Christian, that TBN was claiming all the things that
Christians are not. And what about all those teens? in the back ground. They act like they are on
drugs..enough to scare me. I am glad to see that it was not just my husband and myself getting these
feelings of unrest and the Spirit telling us to turn it off !
I feel so sorry for the people that they mislead.. but then again, does not the Bible teel us that in the end
times that there would be this and that Churches and preaching be so wrong that others would be
shaking their heads. This is just even more a sigh that we need to be looking up and praying, but that
we really do need to know the Bible in order to know the truth, so that we would know who speaks
the turth and know him upon hios return !!!!!
Thanks for letting me get this out.
West Virginia, United States
328
#22
Dear friend
This may sound silly but I still would appreciate your help. Women are not allowed by God to have
authority over men which includes teaching. At what age should boys or young men be taught by men
only?
I ask this question to get a biblical answer to give women at our Bible-study who used the teaching of
children in Sunday school to mock my belief that God forbid women-preachers and elders in the
church.
The Word of God is and will always be my final authority on all matters pertaining to life and godliness.
However, sometimes I am not sure how to answer people when they use these kinds of arguments. I
accept the teaching of the Bible on this matter without question and this is how I have taught my
children.I have to add, we are in the minority.
Thank you kindly for your assistance.
Always in Jesus Christ our Lord
[332]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
Thank you for your visit and message on the On Doctrine Contact page.
The issue begins with Paul's teaching on the role of women in the church, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1
Timothy 2:11-15. In 1 Timothy, Paul states that he does not "permit a woman to teach or to have
authority over a man ..." The assumption is that Paul did not prevent a woman from teaching at
all, but from teaching men within the organization and function of the church as an authoritative church
leader in the manner of a teacher, elder, deacon or pastor. I think that it is clear that women did teach
outside the organization of the church when necessary, evidenced by the teaching of Apollos by Aquila
and Priscilla, Acts 18:26, who "took him aside and explained to him the way of God more
accurately," and Titus 2:3-4 where women teach younger women.
I think the key words in the situation are "men", which I would consider to be adult men,
and "authority", which the place of a teacher requires. I think the situation was that there
were women in the church who were acting like pastors and elders and were asserting authority over
men who were old enough to have that authority themselves. So, what I see in Paul's statement is the
prohibition of women teaching adult men within the structure of the church assembly rather than male
children who did not yet possess adult authority.
I realize that there might be an issue of just when a male is considered to be a man, which could
be different in various societies, but I think that there is a difference between a child and a man
regardless of how it may be defined. There is no Scriptural definition of just what age should be the
consideration, but I believe that the minimal consensus should be the point at which a specific society
considers a person to have become a man or come of age in some respects. The apostle Paul talks
about the responsibilities of older men in relation to younger men, and older women in relation to
younger women in Titus 2:1-8, so there was a realization that there is a responsibility within those
divisions.
I would hope that churches do make the distinction, and it is better to make the distinction between
childhood and adulthood earlier rather than later. My personal opinion would be that the maximum age
at which a male should be taught by a woman is elementary age, but I would hope that the decision to
transition to male teachers would be earlier in the elementary years rather than later.
I hope this helps.
#23
God Bless you Richly! Thank you for this wonderful web-site. It seems that everyone I come in contact
with these days, is following the wrong message. I thought I was the only one in my town that did not
believe the trash that is being sold as the "TRUTH". So many people say that doctine isn't important
and that God's Word is second and Worship is what's important. I thank my God for you and pray
that all your needs will be met according to his will. Thank You!
Georgia, United States
[337]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
I appreciate your kind words of support. On Doctrine is a work-in-progress, so new articles and
sections are added as I have time to devote to the project. There is a great amount of error in the
church because people adopt teachers that tell them what they wish to hear and not what the Bible says
they need to hear, just like the Scripture says would happen, 2 Timothy 2:3. It is amazing how accurate
the verse is in relation to the current claims found in the Word of Faith world, where virtually all of the
claims are myths which people believe because of their desire for them to be true rather than being
actually true.
There are many resources on the On Doctrine website, so please come back again for a visit.
#24
. . . By the way, Gary, I rejoice in what you do, even if I must be careful not to lapse into spiteful
attitudes when I read your articles on these phony-baloney 'healers' and 'faith teachers'. I have to visit
sites like yours sparingly, because I have a tendency to get bitter after having been duped by these
hucksters for a number of years.
Anyway, long story short, I am a believer and I hold to the doctrines of sovereign grace. My blog is
available for people to hear my desire for real and genuine spiritual revival in the hearts of God's
people. I consider myself:
Pre-mil*
5-point
Double-predestinarian**
Cessationist***
A lover of hymns as opposed to 99% of what is presented as "Contemporary Christian" music, which
industry I see as wholly secular and unregenerate.
I would appreciate your visiting my blog, commenting as you feel the desire, and telling your
readership and church family about it [
www.prayforrevival.blogspot.com ].It is small
now, but growing, and I anticipate its place on the web as one of solid and bold defense of the faith
once delivered to the saints.
*As I understand the pre-mil position.
**My position is based on my reading of Scripture and not on a fixed determination on my part to be
or remain 'hyperCalvinist'.
***I reject both the ridiculous antics of the so-called charismatic movement, and I repudiate any
denomination's teaching that relies on subjective feelings and experiences that are only taking place
among rooms full of 'believers'. The sign gifts in the Scriptures were public, instant, unmistakable and
designed to testify to sinners as to the authority of apostolic preaching. I do believe that God has in the
past manifested His power in those Biblical ways, and I do absolutely believe that He could do so
again. I do not, however, believe for a moment that the Word of God is a road-map or how-to guide to
'tongues' or 'binding' or any of the other nonsense promoted these days.
I look forward to great growth and advancement in the things of God as His people humble
themselves in His sight. May God richly bless you with all the things a Good Father gives to His child
for his benefit, through the grace God in Christ by which He has saved a people for Himself.
New Jersey, United States
[389]
#25
Writers for the Doctrinal Error Article & Statement of Faith
I greatly appreciated finding your website this afternoon and thank you for the careful work you did in
researching and citing your sources as you uncovered the heretical teachings and false prophets of the
TBN "family." I am a woman leading a Bible study in my home of about 10 ladies and we are working
through Peter's epistles. We are going to be discussing 2 Peter 2, Peter's warnings regarding
false prophets. I was so hoping to find something concrete to "name, names!" for I
have one lady in attendance who is not a part of a Bible-preaching church here who commonly watches
Joyce Meyer, Joel Osteen, and the like! Thank you, thank you, thank you for your
hardwork.
Also, I enjoyed very much reading through your statement of faith. I was so hoping that I would see
good, clear doctrine there. I was not disappointed.
Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of our God and Savior Jesus
Christ!
Indiana, United States
406
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
Welcome to On Doctrine
Thank you for your visit an message on the Contact page.
I am happy to hear that you have found material on the On Doctrine website to be helpful.
I can recommend the following items the On Doctrine website;
Parts 5-6 of the study guide, "Beware the Pretenders," Jude3-25, which is very similar to 2
Peter.
The parts are linked from the page below:
www.ondoctrine.com/2mac0130.htm
And also the 4-part study guide, "Avoiding Spiritual Counterfeiters," 1-2 Timothy.
The parts are linked from the page below:
www.ondoctrine.com/2mac0135.htm
Hope this helps.
#26
Because of the confusion today between what is true or false, it occurred to me that many Pastors, and
speakers on the Radio and Internet when talking about the the Bible are referring to events that actually
happened as a "story". Usually when passing along info regarding a movie etc., I would
qualify it as a "TRUE" story otherwise in our minds, we tend to think of a story as
fiction.
It may sound "picky", but I think things that actually happened in the Bible be not referred
to as a "story".
This has been something I've been pondering for awhile and I thought I would just pass along as a
general comment.
Thank you for your clear teaching...
British Columbia, Canada
418
#27
I JUST WANTED TO THANKYOU SO MUCH FOR CLEARING UP THE CARLTON
PIERSON NEW DOCTRINE. WE USE TO LISTEN TO HIM PREACH ALL THE TIME AND
WERE DEVESTATED TO HEAR ABOUT HIS NEW VIEWS. YOU COMPLETELY
EXPLAINED EVERYTHING SO CLEARLY AND IN A WAY THAT WE NOW HAVE NO
QUESTIONS, OR WONDER IF MAYBE HE IS CORRECT. WE NOW KNOW HE HAS BEEN
FOOLED SOMEHOW, AND WE WILL HOLD ON TO THE VERSES OF THE BIBLE THAT
YOU GAVE US. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
Tennessee, United States
543
#28
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Gary for your precise and insightful analysis of Carlton Pearson. I
didn't know about his theology until today and was flabbergasted to see how far over the edge he had
gone. I saw a small portion of the interview he did with Keith Morrison on Dateline. He mentioned on
that program that he was grieved in the past (pre-universalism) that he would not see some of his
relatives in Heaven, because they were not saved. He also said something about being burdened by the
thought that he couldn't save everyone from Hell. I wonder if he conveniently found a way to opt out
on that grief by creating his own easy-to-swallow, no conflict, no two-edged sword, sin-tolerant,
mail-order theology. Sounds like the easy way out to me. Thanks again for your article.
North Carolina, United States
559
#29
Just a brief reading of the Carlton Pearson article...you have mis-spelled the word "Churches" in the list
of ministries that Carlton Pearson founded. Your article has "churhes" I think.
Good article. Hope to read it all when I get home from work. Universalism is everywhere.
Thanks & God bless.
North Carolina, United States
562
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
You get the gold star for this week. I appreciate the error notification. There are probably many more
errors, but maybe they will all be found eventually.
You're right, Universalism is everywhere. Everyone who thinks they are going to heaven because they
are a good person is actually a Universalist in disguise. I get a lot of mail from people who use the
contact link on the webpage, thinking that it is his [Carlton Pearson's] article. He does have a
ready-made audience. It is just a matter of whether he can establish himself as the major authority
within the movement and whether those people will send their money to him like they did in his Word of
Faith theology. I think he must find some gimmick to extract the money, because I don't think that
Giving and Receiving is a good match in his new theology. It will be interesting to see where Carlton
Pearson eventually ends up.
#30
I just wanted to thank you for making an excellent resource available. May God bless you in this
ministry. Thanks for standing on the truth
Georgia, United States
574
#31
Hello there again gary. It was been a long time since
my last question for you.
I just want to ask, how many ascensions Jesus did?
because He said here that before He will go to His
disciples, He will first ascend to the Father. Is
this ascension different from what it is written on
the book of ACTS? and from this moment that He told
Mary, it was I think a week before He appeared to His
disciples, what is the significance of the time gap?
I have checked a couple of commentaries but there is
no direct answers of 2 ascensions, and time gap of His
appearance to His disciples...
thank you again, God bless!
Philippines
596
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
It has been some time since your last question. I believe you first asked about music in the church and then family issues. It is nice to hear from you again.
The passage to which you are referring in John 20:17 is as follows,
"Jesus said to her, 'Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.'"
The explanation about who Jesus appeared to on the resurrection day is found two verses later in John 20:19,
"hen, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, 'Peace be with you.'"
Jesus appeared to a group of women at the tomb (Mary Magdalene separately), the men on the road to Emmaus (Cleopas and another) and ten disciples (Thomas was not there), all on the same day as the resurrection, which was the first day of the week, or our Sunday, which was the day after Passover.
After the resurrection day, he appeared:
(1) to the disciples in the upper room, Luke 24:13,
(2) to 10 of the eleven disciples when Thomas was not present, Luke 24:36-43,
(3) to the eleven disciples when Thomas was present, John 20:26-31,
(4) to seven disciples by the shore of Galilee, John 21:1-25,
(5) to more than 500 at once, possibly on the mountain in Galilee, Matthew 28:16, 1 Corinthians 15:6, (6) to James, 1 Corinthians 15:7,
(7) to the apostles at the ascension, Acts 1:3-11. There may also have been other appearances that were not recorded.
I don't think we can view John 17:20 as an indication that He was going to the Father at that particular point in time and then coming back immediately to make His other appearances during the next forty days. If that had been the case, then He would have to have gone to the Father and come back on the same day. That would be a teaching that is foreign to the Scripture because it makes no comment regarding an event of that nature. The statement of Jesus about going to the Father, was spoken by Him as a future event of present reality. It is similar to some of His previous statements:
"'I came forth from the Father and have come into the world. Again, I leave the world and go to the Father,'" John 16:28.
"'I have finished the work which You have given Me to do,'" John 17:4
"'Now I am no longer in the world.'" . . "'and I come to You,'" John 17:11.
"'While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name . . . and none of them is lost. . ,'" John 17:12
"'But now I come to You . . ,'" John 17:13
None of those events had yet taken place or been completely accomplished when Jesus spoke about them, yet He spoke of them as having already occurred, as a future perfect tense. The absolute unchangeable reality of those future events were guaranteed by the plan and sovereignty of God, so they could all be referred to by Jesus as being history, as having already happened, even though they were still in the future.
Jesus appeared to his disciples (the ten without Thomas) on the same day as the resurrection so there is no one week gap. There is the period of time from the resurrection to the ascension which was the 40 days after Passover. I am not sure that there is any specific significance in relation to the 40 day period. However, at the beginning of His ministry, Jesus was taken to the wilderness to fast for forty days and He was tempted by Satan there, Matthew 4:1-11, so perhaps there could be a connection as a contrast between the two events, possibly with the disciples and other followers of Jesus in which their faith and trust was also tested by Him during that 40 day period after the resurrection in order to determine whether their belief was true or false. Matthew says, Matthew 28:16,that when the 11 disciples went up to the mountain in Galilee after the resurrection, that some did not believe, however there could only have been one who did not believe and that was Thomas and he could not have been referred to as "some," but only as "one". I think that the "some" were part of the 500 mentioned by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:6. So there were former followers who defected or for some reason did not believe what they had heard or even what they had seen when Jesus Christ appeared to them.
During the ten day period after the ascension, the disciples elected Matthias to replace Judas Iscariot as one of the twelve. At the end of the ten day period was the day of Pentecost, which was 50 days after the Passover, and the day on which the Holy Spirit was given. So the time frame is,
1) the ascension was forty days after Passover,
2) Pentecost was 50 days after the Passover.
The Day of Pentecost was an important connection to the gospel message, because it represented the end of the growing period and the beginning of the harvest, in which the first-fruit offerings of the harvest were given. Those who received the Holy Spirit were the firstfruits of the harvest being the church, which had been planted by the sower, who was Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the true firstfruit by His resurrection, but all future believers participate in that reality through resurrection by Jesus Christ. Additionally all of the first believers in any specific place are also considered to be firstfruits, Romans 16:5
There was only one ascension.
#32
Those who claim to sell the power of God, as modern-day indulgence peddlers, seem to have ignored
a relevant passage of scripture (Simon the sorcerer) in Acts 8:9-24. Where are our hearts?
Florida, United States
612
#33
More detail provided on this inquiry
(I just sent one in prior to this one that did not list exact information so I am sending this right after for clarification but its still same arena)
Question for you on website content listed under the following:
Hall of Shame
Why do I continue to critize Gods Annointed?
Scripture prohibits pastors who rebuke angels or satan
My understanding of the word rebuke is that it means to disagree with.
With that understanding at hand - I do not understand the statement made about Scripture prohibits pastors who disagree with angels or satan.
Please explain or reword as may be needed?
Washington, United States
705
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
The Scripture references that I noted, 2 Peter 2:10-11 and Jude 8-10, use the word "revile" (New American Standard Bible) instead of "rebuke" which is the word that I chose. I used the word "rebuke" because the word "revile" is seldom used today and is somewhat archaic, while the word "rebuke" is still fairly common. Both words have similar meanings, but also have some differences.
You have adopted a wrong definition of the word "rebuke" because it does not mean to disagree with, although a rebuke may come about because of a disagreement. Webster's New World Dictionary defines "rebuke" as follows:
1. to address in sharp and severe disapproval; reprimand.
2. [obsolete meaning], to force back; check.
Used as a noun (to rebuke), means a sharp reprimand.
I used meaning #1 in relation "rebuke" in the article in which individuals address angelic beings in severe terms as a reprimand.
The word "revile" is used in the NASB verses that I noted and Webster's New World Dictionary defines it as:
to regard or treat as vile; to use abusive or contemptuous language in speaking to or about; call bad names - to use abusive language: to scold.
The King James version Bible has a slightly different phraseology in the verses that I mentioned:
2 Peter 2:10-11
". . . they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities."
"Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord."
Jude 8-10
". . . and speak evil of dignities."
"Yet Michael the archangel . . . durst (dared) not bring against him (the devil) a railing accusation, but said, 'the Lord rebuke thee.'"
"But these speak evil of those things which they know not . . ."
Notice that in Jude, Michael did not bring a railing accusation (revile) against Satan, "but said, the Lord rebuke thee.'"
The basic problem is that false teachers assume authority and power that they do not have, and presume to speak against angelic beings, of whom Satan and his angelic followers are a part. The false teachers elevate themselves to positions of authority even over the highest angelic beings (Satan was once the highest angelic being and Michael is the highest angelic being in heaven), and then call them all sorts of vile and abusive names, even though they are created lower than angelic beings. They then claim to "bind the devil" and other such actions, even though they have no power to make their pronouncements come true. Satan and his angels may be the fallen, but they are part of the realm of the spiritual and come under the authority of God, who will bring the ultimate charges against them and pronounce judgment against them. Christians will not have authority or rule over angelic beings in any capacity until after that authority is established sometime after the resurrection, 1 Corinthians 6:3. In any case, Christians will never exert authority over Satan or his angels.
In order to prevent confusion in the article, I will place the word "revile" in front of the word "rebuke" and provide definitions of the words.
#34
Good Morning,
I am confused. Why is the sabbath of creation and of the 10 commandments not applicable today? What verses support Sunday worship?
I am a Methodist member, have understanding of Baptist teachings, and have been studying the Adventist doctrine.
Again, it is a mess in my mind, thank you,
Iowa, United States
[674]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
The Sabbath issue is confusing and divisive. Basically there are three views:
1. The Sabbath was established in Genesis as a perpetual obligation for all humanity, and failure to observe it on the proper day (seventh day, Saturday) means the person is not a good Christian at the best, or not even saved at the worst (Seventh-day Adventist view, Seventh-day Baptist view and others).
2. The Sabbath was established in Genesis as a perpetual obligation for all humanity, but it was changed from the seventh day to the first day by one of the following: authority of the apostles, authority of God, authority of Jesus Christ sometime during the period of time from his resurrection to His ascension: (Christian Sabbath designation - most Puritans, Presbyterians and many others).
3. The Sabbath was not established in Genesis, but was part of the commandments given to Israel, and abolished along with the other commandments of performance at the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I adopt view number 3, because the book of Genesis (Genesis 2:2-3) says that God rested on the seventh day, but it makes no statement that the seventh day was commanded as a day of rest to Adam and Eve or to any other human being prior to its establishment as a command to Israel, and the commandments were abolished at the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Hebrews 7:12.
To those individuals who claim that I do not observe the 10 Commandments, because I claim that the Commandments were abolished at the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, I reply that I do observe the Commandments to the extent that they are all repeated in the New Testament with the exception of the command to observe the Sabbath. There is no command or teaching in the new Testament to observe the seventh day Sabbath as the only legitimate day of worship.
I find it interesting that those who claim that the seventh day is the only legitimate day of worship, are the same people who do not observe all of the commands of animal sacrifice, also commanded in the Old Testament by God. The reasoning given is that those commands were only given to Israel and so they do not apply today. But using the same reasoning that they apply to Genesis 2:2-3 in relation to the Sabbath, it is noted in the incident with Cain and Able, that Able brought an animal sacrifice and was accepted by God while Cain brought a sacrifice from his crops and was rejected, so there was a command to sacrifice animals prior to the command given to Israel. Given that reality, a person can not claim perpetual obligation to observe the Sabbath and not also claim that animal sacrifice is still in effect.
The keys to the issue is the nature of the actions of God in Genesis 2:2-3 and the fact that the New Testament has no teaching about the Sabbath, and also the fact that the early church worshipped on Sunday and not on the Sabbath. Sabbatarians claim that the early church did worship on the Sabbath and point to the fact that the apostle Paul went to the Synagogue on the Sabbath, but the comparison is absurd, because the apostle Paul was a missionary who went first to the Jews in every city that he entered, and he would only find them in the Synagogue on the Sabbath, not on the first day of the week.
The Sabbath, as given in the Law, was a representation of the relationship of human beings to the Law and to salvation which the Law could not provide, Hebrews 7:18-19. The Sabbath was an unmerited gift from God and represented a rest from human works in relation to salvation, in which a person rested solely in the provision that came from God. There is a Sabbath for the Christian, but it is not a day, it is a position in relation to God, a state of being at rest in the salvation provided by God through Jesus Christ, "not as a result of works, so that no one may boast," Ephesians 2:9. That is the Sabbath to which I hold and which I observe.
I worship on Sunday because that is the pattern found in the early church and gives honor to the day on which Jesus Christ rose from the dead. However, a person may worship on any day they might so choose or would be required to choose, such as people in oppressive societies who may not be able to worship on the first day or the Sabbath. The Sabbatarian has difficulty under those circumstances and has no answer when confronted with the reality that a person may not be able to worship on the Sabbath due to political oppression, yet they are considered to be substandard Christians or not Christians at all if they do not observe the proper day. I am unaware of any teaching in the Scripture which states that Sabbath worship is necessary in order to obtain salvation.
There is a conversation on the website regarding legalism and the Sabbath at:
"Keeping the Law and the 10 Commandments" - www.ondoctrine.com/conversa/3lega001.htm
There is also a group of articles about the
"Sabbath is Abolished" view and also the "Christian Sabbath" view at:
www.ondoctrine.com/20sabbat.htm
I hope this helps.
#35
Will you kindly senme where Kenneth Copeland says, "God is the biggest failure in the Bible. The reason you've never thought that is because He never said He was one".
Has it been wrtten by him on hard copy? This is shocking, If video can i get attachment?
I'ts unbelievable
South Africa
[760]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
There is a recording of Kenneth Copeland's statement on the Let Us Reason website.
I am using Real Player on my computer and it works fine. It is possible that other audio programs will work also.
The location of the file is as follows:
www.letusreason.org/Wf22.htm
Scroll about 1/3 of the way down the page and you will see a speaker icon. Click on the highlighted "biggest failure" and the file will download. I think it is about 1 minute.
The quote is from a Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) Praise-A-Thon in April, 1988.
There is precious little Orthodox theology that Kenneth Copeland has not changed to suit his own purpose. What I find so amazing, is that even when presented with the Biblical refutation of his beliefs, his followers continue to consider him to be the authority and reject the Bible.
#36
thank you for you article on the prayer of agreement in relation to matthew 18:15-20.
I notice you comment on each verse individually. What comment (if any) do you have on verses 20?
God Bless
England
[768]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
Verse 20 is the final authoritative statement in relation to verses 15-19, and validates the sanctions imposed against the unrepentant brother in relation to the discipline determined by those in authority. The connection with verse 16 is quite striking. Verse 16 is a judicial ruling in relation to proper evidence being presented, "that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established," and verse 20 notes that Jesus Christ is present as a witness to what had just occurred in the confrontation with the unrepentant brother, and, as a witness, "in the midst of them," He is also the guarantor of the request being accomplished, "by My Father in heaven," vs. 19.
Verse 16 mandates that true evidence be presented in a proper manner, and verse 20, by the presence of Jesus Christ, validates that a proper verdict has been rendered and that judgment has been appropriately applied.
There are many who apply verse 20 in relation to any two or more individuals who gather in the name of Jesus Christ at any time and for any reason, and claim that the verse is saying that He is present in relation to those gatherings. It may be true that Jesus Christ is present under those circumstances, Matthew 28:20, but verse 20 is indicating a special presence when the issue is the purification of the church being accomplished by men who are committed to following the biblical mandates and are operating outside the petty personal desires that they might have. If church discipline is so important that Jesus Christ is present at its administration of ordinary believers, how much more important is it that the church consider and administer the serious issues in relation to the discipline of its leaders? Failure of the church to discipline its leaders according to biblical directives is a failure to guard the sanctity of the church, a failure to apply the biblical mandates and is a failure in the presence of Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
COPYRIGHT © 2001, 2002 by ON
DOCTRINE & ONDOCTRINE.COM, All Rights Reserved