James Jacob Prasch

[ianb321red]

I did become a bit sceptical when I googled "senile old skunk" and this thread was the only result!

It's either skunk or goat....Danny777 has the DVD in question!

 

[theFijian]

Take John Calvin: he was the leader of a church police state that was responsible for the murder of many "heretics". It is likely he directly participated in the torture and murder of some (if not many) who did not hold his theological position. Yet, many Christians call themselves "Calvinists"!

He simply 'stepped over the line' on occasion or went a bit 'over the top', just an imperfection. By your logic we can simply excuse all manner of sin.

If you follow your own logic, and if we all agree that murder is an example of "sinful behaviour", we should have nothing to do with the teachings of John Calvin and certainly shouldn't claim allegiance to his ideas of Christian doctrine? There are plenty of other Christian leaders in history with the same views as his, who were far more "Christlike" and peaceful...

No my logic was call a spade a spade, don't call it a trowel. Call sin what it is, sin, THEN you can analyse someone's teaching free of their own personality or character traits. If we follow your logic then we can't listen to anyone's teaching as all the preachers are sinners.

The issue is his claiming that men like JI Packer were raised by Satan is at best ignorant and at worst slanderous and sinful. I have no idea why you want to downplay the seriousness of this but your liking for his teaching can only lead one to certain conclusions. I'm not claiming you can not listen to a preacher because they are sinful human beings, you couldn't go to listen to any preacher then. I'm saying we should be honest about their failings, something you seem reluctant to do.

 

[Danny777]

I'm not claiming you can not listen to a preacher because they are sinful human beings, you couldn't go to listen to any preacher then. I'm saying we should be honest about their failings, something you seem reluctant to do.

We are going round in circles with this. I'm not sure how else to state the same thing: Jacob Prasch is NOT perfect, makes mistakes, saying things he shouldn't etc etc...I'm AM being honest about his failings!

The comment he made by calling someone a "senile old skunk" is wrong...end of story. I suspect he would rephrase that if he could and it wasn't recorded. He is RIGHT to correct someone else's TEACHING - he is NOT right (in my opinion) to call someone else a name like this...

I think it would make sense to listen to one of his COMPLETE sermons as opposed to listening to a 30sec segment.

If genuinely interested, there are many complete sermons on YouTube. I would recommend "Let us reason together" (approx 45 min long) - this is his testimony and would help a great deal in understanding where he is coming from and how he came to faith in Christ - why not listen to a complete teaching?

As you rightly point out all Bible teachers are sinners saved by grace - Jacob Prasch is no different...doesn't mean we cannot learn from him...

 

[theFijian]

And what about claiming that Satan has raised up other preachers who he, essentially, just disagrees with? Claiming that Satan is the power behind another person's Christian ministry isn't far off what the Pharisees accused Jesus of.

 

[Nige55]

And what about claiming that Satan has raised up other preachers who he, essentially, just disagrees with? Claiming that Satan is the power behind another person's Christian ministry isn't far off what the Pharisees accused Jesus of.

This I wholeheartedly disagree with. he's not targeting preachers he simply disagrees with, he's targeting preaching who he believes (right or wrong) that what they teach is dangerous and unscriptual, which certainly is not coming from the right source and can pull people away from truth.
This spiritual life is not a big round table debate, it's a battle where satan WILL try to use Christians wherever he can to veer from the path, I've seen some shocking examples within churches.
The thick end of this wedge of course are cults, cult leaders who initiate mass suicide are not just preachers that we would disagree with.
I'm not saying that I agree with those he singles out as fitting this category , but that's only because I haven't covered enough material yet.

 

[theFijian]

This I wholeheartedly disagree with. he's not targeting preachers he simply disagrees with, he's targeting preaching who he believes (right or wrong) that what they teach is dangerous and unscriptual, which certainly is not coming from the right source and can pull people away from truth.
This spiritual life is not a big round table debate, it's a battle where satan WILL try to use Christians wherever he can to veer from the path, I've seen some shocking examples within churches.

Fine, and the point I made earlier was that who's to say that Jacob Prasch isn't the one that Satan has raised up? I certainly think it is, and this ain't a round table debate.

 

[Nige55]

Fine, and the point I made earlier was that who's to say that Jacob Prasch isn't the one that Satan has raised up? I certainly think it is, and this ain't a round table debate.

Good ! Then let the testing begin !

 

[Danny777]

Fine, and the point I made earlier was that who's to say that Jacob Prasch isn't the one that Satan has raised up? I certainly think it is, and this ain't a round table debate.

The Bible is full of warnings about false teachers. We are commanded to test any teaching against the Bible (Acts 17:11).

To make this strong accusation that Satan has raised up Jacob Prasch, you have to show how his doctrine is not sound?

I asked you this many posts ago - so far, you have accused him of a multitude of sins and pointed out every single flaw in his character, but not once done what Scripture exhorts us to do. "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Acts 17:11

Search the Scriptures, and point out how the doctrines he teaches are NOT in agreement with the Bible. If you can demonstrate his TEACHING is unBiblical, you will then convince me that Satan "raised him up"!

 

[MikeBigg]

Good ! Then let the testing begin !

But, as I pointed out in a previous post, the same verses can end up with different interpretations.

I cited Gordon Fee and Wayne Grudem disagreeing on the issues concerning women. Both Godly men. Both intelligent. They can't both be right.

So in your testing who or what has the final say?

In my view it boils down to who's teaching agree most with the other stuff you believe, pre- or post- millenial, Calvinism or Arminianism etc.

And furthermore - it could be that none of the teachings from the different teachers you look at are right.

So, before the testing begins, how do you do the tests?

 

[MikeBigg]

Search the Scriptures, and point out how the doctrines he teaches are NOT in agreement with the Bible. If you can demonstrate his TEACHING is unBiblical, you will then convince me that Satan "raised him up"!

But ... the very thing that Stott was called out for, annihilsm, does have a Biblical basis. It is not a traditional view, but is based in the Bible.

One of their verses is John 3:16 ... which suggests you either "perish" or have everlasting life.

There are many sincere, intelligent, Godly, people who hold to a position of annihilism.

So, based on compaing with the Bible, even the so called heretics are right.

 

[theFijian]

The Bible is full of warnings about false teachers. We are commanded to test any teaching against the Bible (Acts 17:11).

To make this strong accusation that Satan has raised up Jacob Prasch, you have to show how his doctrine is not sound?

I asked you this many posts ago - so far, you have accused him of a multitude of sins and pointed out every single flaw in his character, but not once done what Scripture exhorts us to do. "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Acts 17:11

Search the Scriptures, and point out how the doctrines he teaches are NOT in agreement with the Bible. If you can demonstrate his TEACHING is unBiblical, you will then convince me that Satan "raised him up"!

You keep missing the point, I don't think that Satan has raised him up, I wouldn't try to make such an outrageous claim. I simply think it's sinful to make that accusation of another Christian leader whose doctrinal position I might happen to disagree with. To do so is tantamount to what the Pharisees tried to accuse Christ of (I even showed this from scripture!)

To put it into perspective, either the entire Baptist movement has been raised up by Satan, or the paedo-baptists have, so which is it?

 

[Danny777]

You keep missing the point, I don't think that Satan has raised him up, I wouldn't try to make such an outrageous claim. I simply think it's sinful to make that accusation of another Christian leader whose doctrinal position I might happen to disagree with. To do so is tantamount to what the Pharisees tried to accuse Christ of (I even showed this from scripture!)

To put it into perspective, either the entire Baptist movement has been raised up by Satan, or the paedo-baptists have, so which is it?

Sorry - I misunderstood your last post.

I personally believe infant baptism is unbiblical (because it does not appear in the Bible!) but the important thing it to determine is whether someones teaches that a baby is SAVED through baptism without having the ability to choose for themselves.

At the end of the day, infant baptism just makes a baby a bit wet - there is no harm in that! If, however, the church is teaching that the baby's sins are being forgiven through infant baptism, this is clearly a false gospel as an individual can ONLY be saved through repentance of their own sins. A baby cannot choose to repent for his/her sins! If infant baptism is being used as a nice tradition and photo opportunity, it may be pointless but as least its less harmful - if someones teaches that infant baptism saves the baby, this is a false gospel and should be strongly opposed.

From what I've seen, Jacobs strongest criticism is reserved for those who are either demonstrable false prophets (he points out many who make predictions that do not happen) or those who preach a false gospel.

Surely, it is a good thing to have a teacher exposing these two forms of dangerous practice?

 

[MikeBigg]

From what I've seen, Jacobs strongest criticism is reserved for those who are either demonstrable false prophets (he points out many who make predictions that do not happen) or those who preach a false gospel.

Surely, it is a good thing to have a teacher exposing these two forms of dangerous practice?

Yes, but who decides what is true about a message and what is false?

In my opinion, the furthest he should be able to go is "I don't believe what teacher X says is right because Y".

Or should he only speak against those with an un-orthodox or non-traditional message? In which case, new understanding of the Bible teachings will stagnate.


I think there is some truth in:

No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.

George Bernard Shaw​

 

[theFijian]

Sorry - I misunderstood your last post.

I personally believe infant baptism is unbiblical (because it does not appear in the Bible!) but the important thing it to determine is whether someones teaches that a baby is SAVED through baptism without having the ability to choose for themselves.

At the end of the day, infant baptism just makes a baby a bit wet - there is no harm in that! If, however, the church is teaching that the baby's sins are being forgiven through infant baptism, this is clearly a false gospel as an individual can ONLY be saved through repentance of their own sins. A baby cannot choose to repent for his/her sins! If infant baptism is being used as a nice tradition and photo opportunity, it may be pointless but as least its less harmful - if someones teaches that infant baptism saves the baby, this is a false gospel and should be strongly opposed.

From what I've seen, Jacobs strongest criticism is reserved for those who are either demonstrable false prophets (he points out many who make predictions that do not happen) or those who preach a false gospel.

Either paedobaptism is biblical or it isn't, if it isn't then by your logic then those who teach it can be accused of having been raised up by Satan because it is unbiblical.

Surely, it is a good thing to have a teacher exposing these two forms of dangerous practice?

Never mind the fact that your understanding of paedobaptism is at best woefully ill-informed.

 

[Danny777]

Either paedobaptism is biblical or it isn't

True, but you didn't read my post properly. The act of putting water on a babies head is neither here nor there. If, in the process of putting water on the babies head, you claim the baby is saved - that IS a false gospel (is it not?). Whether those who teach this are raised up by Satan or just making serious mistakes, I cannot say. However, I can say that it is a false gospel and expose it for what it is.

The topic of this thread is Jacob Prasch - not infant baptism.

I have repeatedly asked you for examples of how Jacob Prasch teaches false doctrine - you haven't provided a SINGLE example. A character assassination is NOT sufficient (you have done a excellent job on this) - HOW does he teach false doctrine? This is the main way we should assess the faithfulness of any Bible teacher.

Some people will like him, others won't - at least we can all conclude Jacob Prasch IS a sound Bible teacher...

 

[ianb321red]

But ... the very thing that Stott was called out for, annihilsm, does have a Biblical basis. It is not a traditional view, but is based in the Bible.

One of their verses is John 3:16 ... which suggests you either "perish" or have everlasting life.

There are many sincere, intelligent, Godly, people who hold to a position of annihilism.

So, based on compaing with the Bible, even the so called heretics are right.

Perish can easily fit in to the traditional Christian view of Hell/ everlasting torment.....

2 Peter 3:7 says "But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

The word 'perdition' means "perish" or "come to ruin", and here it is used in the context of judgement, a term that implies consciousness.

Perdition/ perish does not equate to annihilation.
Jesus described hell as a dump where fire would not cease and a persons resurrected body would not be consumed.
If you take something to a scrap yard or rubbish dump it perishes in the sense of it becomes ruined, but the item in the rubbish dump still exists - just in a ruined state

 

[ianb321red]

I'd put annihilationism into the same category as universalism which is basically "wishful thinking"

 

[Robban]

I'd put annihilationism into the same category as universalism which is basically "wishful thinking"

And what about "Every knee shall bow..."
Would this not mean, all will ultamately repent?

This is not a view I have given much thought to though, it is just a thought.

I share another view, it is not accepted as "Clean" to put it that way.
The fifth ecumenical counsel of 553,
"Anyone asserting the belief in the prexistence of souls would anathema.

Anathema=cursed, damned, excommunicated.

Shame really it makes Christianity so shallow.

But there you go.

 

[MikeBigg]

Be careful, discussion of these things is not permitted on these forums except in the unorthodox theology section.

Though I would love to discuss your "wishful thinking", Ian.

Regards,

Mike

 

[ianb321red]

Be careful, discussion of these things is not permitted on these forums except in the unorthodox theology section.

Though I would love to discuss your "wishful thinking", Ian.

Regards,

Mike

I am more than happy to start up one thread for either topic in the unorthodox theology section!