James Jacob Prasch

[ianb321red]

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

That is obviously incorrect though isn't it?

Did Aleister Crowley repent?

 

[IanSmith]

It was on a DVD called "The Grain offering".

I'll see if I can find it online....

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

Danny777, can you confirm what the DVD is called? I'd like to hear this statement for myself in context. I have located "The Grain Offering" on Prasch's website but don't want to buy the wrong DVD.

 

[MikeBigg]

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

There are plenty there already. I think 4 currently active threads.

 

[Robban]

That is obviously incorrect though isn't it?

Did Aleister Crowley repent?

Ian, I do not know.

Like Mike said, we are probably getting out of bounds.

 

[ianb321red]

Danny777, can you confirm what the DVD is called? I'd like to hear this statement for myself in context. I have located "The Grain Offering" on Prasch's website but don't want to buy the wrong DVD.

If you are really that curious, I will film it on my mobile phone and post a link on here to some sort of share point.

I'll film just the relevant section in it's context....

Don't do anything just yet, because obviously I need to double check that this is definitely the correct DVD...

 

[ianb321red]

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

Regards,

Mike

I was actually quoting a well known theologian who referring to both using the phrase "wishful thinking"....

 

[theFijian]

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?).

I know not a single paedo-baptist who holds to baptismal regeneration and your strawman version of paedobaptism is laughable.

Whether those who teach this are raised up by Satan or just making serious mistakes, I cannot say.

But you are quite happy for Jacob Prasch to say it? Or is it unbiblical of him to do so?

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.

My issue has not been with his doctrine (much of which I happen to disagree with anyway), it has been with his character and behaviour as demonstrated by outrageous sinful accusations against other Christian leaders.

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

If he is so sound then why does he not submit himself to the biblical teaching of respecting your Christian brethren? Why does he claim that Satan is responsible for raising up other Christian teachers who happen to hold to different doctrinal positions when he could never know that?

Edit: an apposite quote from Spurgeon when speaking on the subject baptismal regeneration (ironically)

"Let us oppose their teaching by all Scriptural and intelligent means, but let us respect their courage in plainly giving us their views. I hate their doctrine, but I love their honesty;"

 

[Robban]

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

Yes, that is digestable,

What James Jacob says about the annihilation of the memory, thnk there is plenty of backing for.

 

[Robban]

Yes, that is digestable,

What James Jacob says about the annihilation of the memory, thnk there is plenty of backing for.

Edit.
Physical fire is one sixtieth of the fire in Gehinnom, just as a shadows movement of a hands breadth is equivalent to thousands of miles.

The movement of a shadow on Earth of a hands breadth which equals the sun,s movement in the heaven of thousands of miles.

The sun,s movement of thousands of miles causes a corresponding movement of but a few inches of shadow.

To break away from dark sinister thoughts,
the same priciple is applied to acts of goodness and kindness, however small, we should be promoting acts of goodness and kindness, not so much because it feels good but, because it is the right thing to do.

 

[ianb321red]

I know not a single paedo-baptist who holds to baptismal regeneration and your strawman version of paedobaptism is laughable.

The point here is that baptism irrespective of it being infant or adult does NOT provide salvation (or regeneration as you call it).

Unfortunately the REAL issue is the false teaching in some Christian denominations (i.e. Lutheran) or sects (i.e. Catholic) that falsely hold that baptism is salvifically necessary.

 

[Danny777]

Danny777, can you confirm what the DVD is called? I'd like to hear this statement for myself in context. I have located "The Grain Offering" on Prasch's website but don't want to buy the wrong DVD.

To be honest, I can't remember which DVD this comment was made in. I will re-watch "The Grain Offering" over the next few days and let you know if it was that one.

I imagine you would be able to find this talk on youtube - many of his talks are downloaded there...

 

[Danny777]

I know not a single paedo-baptist who holds to baptismal regeneration and your strawman version of paedobaptism is laughable.

A few weeks ago I was at an Anglican church (HTB to be precise) when an infant baptism took place. The baby was a few months old. Every member of his family verbally repented for their sins and then the BABY was baptised! In other words, the only person who didn't (or couldn't) repent for their sins WAS baptised and all the people who did repent for their sins were NOT baptised! I cannot precisely remember what the vicar said at the end but I was left with the impression that the babies sins were repented for.

You will have to explain the purpose of infant baptism (with clear examples from Scripture) to correct my woeful understanding of this practice.

But you are quite happy for Jacob Prasch to say it? Or is it unbiblical of him to do so?

You will have to listen to Jacob Prasch justify why he makes these claims of some Bible teachers. He usually explains why. Like anyone else, I listen to what he says and make my own mind up or whether its fair or not. I think he usually makes a strong case - but not always...

If he is so sound then why does he not submit himself to the biblical teaching of respecting your Christian brethren? Why does he claim that Satan is responsible for raising up other Christian teachers who happen to hold to different doctrinal positions when he could never know that?

Lets try and move on from the fact that calling someone a "senile old skunk" is wrong. You think its wrong and so do I. Should I now refuse to listen to any of his teachings because of a flippant and regrettable remark?

I'm sure that EVERY believer on the planet is guilty of falling foul of this command at times. I'm NOT saying that makes it alright - have you ever been guilty of not displaying a Christ-like respect for a fellow Christian? If the answer is no, should you therefore be disqualified from teachers others?

Do you believe Satan raises up teachers WITHIN the church? If so, what would you do about it - keep quiet and let them run riot?!

 

[ianb321red]

To be honest, I can't remember which DVD this comment was made in. I will re-watch "The Grain Offering" over the next few days and let you know if it was that one.

I imagine you would be able to find this talk on youtube - many of his talks are downloaded there...

I think it actually the Jehoiada the High Priest DVD mate?

 

[IanSmith]

To be honest, I can't remember which DVD this comment was made in. I will re-watch "The Grain Offering" over the next few days and let you know if it was that one.

I imagine you would be able to find this talk on youtube - many of his talks are downloaded there...

I think it actually the Jehoiada the High Priest DVD mate?

Thanks, please let me know so I can order the DVD or look on YouTube - I would like to hear the whole message so I can appreciate the context.

 

[MikeBigg]

Lets try and move on from the fact that calling someone a "senile old skunk" is wrong. You think its wrong and so do I. Should I now refuse to listen to any of his teachings because of a flippant and regrettable remark?

If it were a one off and not part of a pattern ....

Do you believe Satan raises up teachers WITHIN the church? If so, what would you do about it - keep quiet and let them run riot?!

The question remains who is to be the judge of deceptive teaching?

We all bring stuff when we formulate our theological positions. I would think that all of us who contributed in this thread have a good Biblical basis for what they believe. Who am I to say you are wrong? Who are you to say I am wrong? Without breaking into discussion of the topics, eternal torment, anhilism and Christian universalism is a good example, because their supporters all have a Biblical basis. All three have had supporters throughout church history. Most of us here will disagree with two of them.

So surely, the best you or I can do is to humbly say: "I don't agree with that because ...."

Surely, anything else is pride, regardless of the scale of one's ministry.

 

[Danny777]

The question remains who is to be the judge of deceptive teaching?

We can be the judges of deceptive teaching using the Bible as our authority - NOT our own authority.

I am talking here of "false gospels". If someone claims EVERYONE goes to heaven regardless of what they believe, this IS a false gospel! What would be the point of Jesus Christ coming to earth, enduring unimaginable suffering on our behalf and telling us we need to go through HIM for salvation if it didn't matter at all in the end what we believe?!

We all bring stuff when we formulate our theological positions. I would think that all of us who contributed in this thread have a good Biblical basis for what they believe. Who am I to say you are wrong? Who are you to say I am wrong? Without breaking into discussion of the topics, eternal torment, anhilism and Christian universalism is a good example, because their supporters all have a Biblical basis. All three have had supporters throughout church history. Most of us here will disagree with two of them.

So surely, the best you or I can do is to humbly say: "I don't agree with that because ...."

Surely, anything else is pride, regardless of the scale of one's ministry.

When something is NOT clear in Scripture, we are at liberty to have our own views. I really believe that this is often abused though. For example, is it very difficult to make a case for universalism from Bible texts without blatantly ignoring the huge majority of texts on this issue and taking other totally out of context. If someone inside the church claims everyone is going to heaven (if in fact it turns out they are not), can you imagine how serious the repercussions of that error are?! Surely, its not good enough as simply say its OK to have different views on this - they could be leading many people to hell! Is it really "loving" to describe this as a side issue when the consequences of getting it wrong are so high and Jesus statements on this issue are so clear?

 

[Nige55]

So surely, the best you or I can do is to humbly say: "I don't agree with that because ...."

Not very loving when someones' salvation is at stake. Don't get me wrong, flaming is not right either, but the disciples argued.

 

[MikeBigg]

We can be the judges of deceptive teaching using the Bible as our authority - NOT our own authority.

I am talking here of "false gospels". If someone claims EVERYONE goes to heaven regardless of what they believe, this IS a false gospel! What would be the point of Jesus Christ coming to earth, enduring unimaginable suffering on our behalf and telling us we need to go through HIM for salvation if it didn't matter at all in the end what we believe?!



When something is NOT clear in Scripture, we are at liberty to have our own views. I really believe that this is often abused though. For example, is it very difficult to make a case for universalism from Bible texts without blatantly ignoring the huge majority of texts on this issue and taking other totally out of context. If someone inside the church claims everyone is going to heaven (if in fact it turns out they are not), can you imagine how serious the repercussions of that error are?! Surely, its not good enough as simply say its OK to have different views on this - they could be leading many people to hell! Is it really "loving" to describe this as a side issue when the consequences of getting it wrong are so high and Jesus statements on this issue are so clear?

And there is another issue - you misunderstand one of the topics. Its not really your fault, tradition and mouthy preachers have it labelled as being heretical, but actually, it have a biblical basis. To the point that it should in my opinion, be accepted as a legitimate doctrine, in my opinion, and the opinion of many thoughout Church history.

I think Stott realised there was something inconsistent with the traditional evangelical view of eternal torment and started asking quesions. Whether he got to the right answer is debatable, but at least he was asking the questions.

 

[Danny777]

And there is another issue - you misunderstand one of the topics. Its not really your fault, tradition and mouthy preachers have it labelled as being heretical, but actually, it have a biblical basis. To the point that it should in my opinion, be accepted as a legitimate doctrine, in my opinion, and the opinion of many thoughout Church history.

Which topic have I misunderstood? What is its biblical basis?

 

[Nige55]

To the point that it should in my opinion, be accepted as a legitimate doctrine, in my opinion, and the opinion of many thoughout Church history.

Mike, you use the word opinion here rather over-zealously, I would love to understand more of the biblical basis for these opinions (and Church history must be tested also, it hasn't always had it right in the past).