James Jacob Prasch

ianb321red said:

Prasch calls John Stott a "ridiculous old skunk"...

Click to expand...

Oh thank goodness for that ! Had he actually called him senile,..... well......

Nige55 said:

Oh thank goodness for that ! Had he actually called him senile,..... well......

Click to expand...

What goes around comes around.

"Don,t call your fellow an idiot",

Learn from Job,

Job 2:10,
And he said to her, "You talk as one of the disgraceful women talks........"
and Job did not sin with his lips.

He did not call her a discraceful woman, but so would a discraceful have talked.

Many are occupied with telling others to "Turn or burn"

The mission in this World should be to spread light,
many think it is to give an ultimatumn.

ianb321red said:

I think if you are going to attempt to name-and-shame then you have to have your own house in order.

I'm yet to come across anything that would suggest this is not the case with Prasch......

Click to expand...

So where have I named and shamed anyone?

Do you think that naming people and calling them insulting names, is a mark of strength and power?

Strength and power is being able to withold and contain it,

Wether ridiculous, old skunk or senile,

ianb321red said:

We're all adults here - I'm sure we've heard worse and have broad enough shoulders to cope with this....

Click to expand...

Absolutely,
for my part, I had not heard of James Jacob or John Stott before this thread started, not much wiser now either,
I did say earlier it was peanuts compared to what others have said in the past,

ianb321red said:

We're all adults here - I'm sure we've heard worse and have broad enough shoulders to cope with this....

Click to expand...

Danny777 said:

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

Click to expand...

Sorry if I misunderstood, I thought you were talking in vague terms about a topic we can't discuss here. I sent you a PM.

Nige55 said:

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).

Click to expand...

Do I? I tend to use "my opinion" in order that people don't think they have to agree with me. It gives room for friendly disagreement and discussion.

The point I am trying to make is that there is a large number of streams of Christianity - and I'm not talking just of denominations - they all will claim some Biblical basis for their beliefs/rituals/traditions.

Some of these are incompatible, yet have sincere Godly men and women who believe them and can show some Biblical basis for them. The thing John Stott was called out about does have a Biblical case. You would expect it to, because Stott was suggesting it. Stott being a significant Godly man in the evangelical arena. We can't discuss that topic here, but it can be googled and the Biblical basis found. There are man books on the subject.

I agree, church history has not had it right - that needs to be tested, too.

I struggle to know what it should be tested against, though, because all our views have a Biblical basis.

When I'm thinking on things (some may say testing things) - I always hold it up to the goodness and love of a God who wants to be like a daddy to us. (These are Bible concepts after all). And I try to imagine what Jesus would have done in a situation - after all He revealed the Father to us. As Bill Johnson says, Jesus is perfect theology.

In my view, the traditional understanding of the blind man in John 9 fails this test. When questioning people about it I get accused of "re-writing the Bible to fit my view of God", am told that "His ways are not our ways" and "how can mere humans understand the mighty mysteries of God" while they continue to claim that making someone blind from birth for no other reason than to make yourself look good later is compatible with the actions of a good, loving person.

Then I discover that the translation is likely to be bad, making the traditional view probably wrong and God is good all the time after all.

I really don't know where to go with this. There are other traditional beliefs that require some mental gymnastics in order to reconcile them with the goodness and love of God.

Are they, too, the subject of poor translation or understanding of the original text?

Well, in my studies, it does not seem to me that the translation of the Greek and Hebrew to the English word "eternal" is at all secure. I'm not saying it isn't correct, but I'm saying that there are questions to ask about it. And when you do study it, you find many other people, respected Godly people, have looked at it and have found it lacking.

I guess what I'm saying is that the whole "testing" idea is very difficult and not as easy as just checking against the Bible. That is why I think that it is imprudent to categorically throw away a theological idea just because it disagrees with tradition or your particular understanding of the Bible.

Who knows, I may be wrong. But then again, someone with a bigger audience than me may be wrong, too - for them it is much more serious. Wiser to give a little room for others. In my opinion.

Regards,

Mike

Hi Mike, don't worry, I was pulling your leg You're right in there being many many differing opinions, interpretations etc. Whilst it may be like one big maze, we are still taught to be discerning. It may be difficult and confusing, but we should persist.
This is one of the reasons I value teachers such as Prasch and others, as their Jewish / cultural / linguistic insight gives us greater understanding and context into our Bible. I can't even start to count how many times this kind of input has clarified, explained or been a revelation on sometimes many difficult or confusing Biblical texts.

Nige55 said:

Hi Mike, don't worry, I was pulling your leg

Click to expand...

Darn, I missed that, sorry

Most of the criticism I found online seemed to focus more on his style of communication rather than the teaching itself. He's clearly more confrontational in his teaching than most others, but the fact that it's offensive to people, particularly those he outright condemns, isn't really of any importance to me. It simply isn't good enough grounds on which to demean or condemn his teaching. However, those who spoke out against his teaching argued that the use of "Midrash" is a false method of interpreting Scripture. But, as Prasch points out in his sermons, there's a big difference between biblical midrash and the midrash associated with modern Judaism.

The way I see it if someone is going to justly critisize another, they'd better make a good and reasonable case against them. Elihu, for instance, one of Job's four friends, rebuked the other three for not being able to convince Job of his ignorance and foolish talk. I couldn't help but notice how God didn't rebuke Elihu for anything, but He did rebuke the other three for lying about Himself. So no, I don't believe Prasch is above criticism, but I'd say for the time being that he is above reproach and does indeed have a clearer view on Scripture than most.

Whether or not he should be outspoken: Well, here he also makes a good point: If the shepherd doesn't feed the sheep and chase away the predators then he's not a very good shepherd and likely a hireling himself. Personally I found it very comforting to be shown the errors of certain pastors and where those errors originated from.

I attended a bibleschool where all their teaching was based on the teaching and practice of Bill Johnson and when I tried to distance myself from it for the sake of "testing the spirit", they tried to put me under condemnation by saying that I was rebelling against authority if I didn't submit myself to their leadership. Finally two of the leaders sat down with me in a private room and quoted Rev 3:16 out of context, insinuating that I was a lukewarm Christian that Jesus would spit out of His mouth if I wouldn't conform, and said: "In that case it's probably better if you just choose a life in sin, for then atleast you'll enjoy your life here on earth before you die". At that point I was already emotionally compromised and so focused on doubting myself that I sat there thinking, "they might be right about me". Finding someone like Jacob Prasch who said it's demonic and antichrist-like, that false doctrine can actually kill people and that Bill Johnson is a false teacher who cleverly distorts God's Word, that was unbelievably reassuring. Especially since there was another student at that school who received similar advice and he came up to me two years ago and said he didn't have "a burden of conscience anymore" for sleeping around with girls and doing all sorts of sinful stuff, but he still thought of himself a Christian.

I have heard JP off and on over the years, and I struggle to come up with a single thing he has said theologically that I disagree with. I think I am very close to him in terms of belief.

My difficulty is with the abuse he hurls at other Christian leaders, which I believe to be beyond the pale. For that reason I steer clear of him. I'm not sure it really serves me if a verbal bully is standing up for what I believe in. You don't tend to win opponents to your point of view by name-calling either them or people they respect.

Some scriptures:

A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. Proverbs 15:1

Patience can persuade a prince, and soft speech can break bones. Proverbs 25:15

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. Matthew 5:22

It is the latter of those scriptures makes me shudder for Jacob. Some of the people he verbally abuses are fine Christian leaders who love the Lord and serve the body of Christ faithfully, albeit that they may have some things wrong. Here are some of the words I have heard him use of people:

Lunatic, fruitcake, ignoramus, charlatan, moron, crackpot, thug, old skunk.

I think by using these terms of brothers and sisters in Christ, JP is skating on thin ice, however correct he may be. He is showing something less than acceptance and love, in my lowly opinion. I keep away from people who are as abusive as this.

welshman said:

He can be very confrontational when it comes to calling out other ministries/preachers. Overall a lot of what he teaches is excellent. However, I would disagree with him that you can lose your salvation. This is what he teaches despite what the scriptures say about always being held in God's hand once you are born-again.

Click to expand...

Jacob is right about that, there is once saved always saved .. God does hold ppl in his hand but he doesn't take away ur free will. remember satan was once a worshipper of God but became corrupted & corrupted 1/3 of heavens angles, they cant not be brought back nor can Christians who after being saved chose to turn away from God. God never interferes with your free will.. Hebrews chapter 6 clearly states that if u have been saved & blessed with the holy spirit but turn away from God then it is impossible to bring that person back to repentance & they will die the second death

McMurdo said:

I have heard JP off and on over the years, and I struggle to come up with a single thing he has said theologically that I disagree with. I think I am very close to him in terms of belief.

My difficulty is with the abuse he hurls at other Christian leaders, which I believe to be beyond the pale. For that reason I steer clear of him. I'm not sure it really serves me if a verbal bully is standing up for what I believe in. You don't tend to win opponents to your point of view by name-calling either them or people they respect.

Some scriptures:

A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. Proverbs 15:1

Patience can persuade a prince, and soft speech can break bones. Proverbs 25:15

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. Matthew 5:22

It is the latter of those scriptures makes me shudder for Jacob. Some of the people he verbally abuses are fine Christian leaders who love the Lord and serve the body of Christ faithfully, albeit that they may have some things wrong. Here are some of the words I have heard him use of people:

Lunatic, fruitcake, ignoramus, charlatan, moron, crackpot, thug, old skunk.

I think by using these terms of brothers and sisters in Christ, JP is skating on thin ice, however correct he may be. He is showing something less than acceptance and love, in my lowly opinion. I keep away from people who are as abusive as this.

Click to expand...

I think his style is fine, I don't find him overly abusive & the ppl he calls names are false teachers making millions of dollars by deceiving ppl.. Jesus called the Pharisees, liars, fools, snakes, he didn't tolerate ppl pretending to follow his Father but actually using their positions to take advantage of the ppl

ianb321red said:

Anyone familiar with Jacob Prasch/ Moriel Ministries?

Moriel Home

I was introduced to him by Danny777 a few months ago.
I listened to his testimony DVD recently and from an apologetic perspective he was VERY convincing.

However, he does not mix his words about other Christian leaders and bible teachers if he feels that their teaching what he calls a "mixture"; namely a mixture of truth and error and a false gospel.

For example, he called John Stott a "senile old skunk" because Stott went on record a few years ago saying that he did not believe anymore in the traditional Christian view of Hell i.e. everlasting and literal torment. He is similarly outspoken about the likes of Mark Driscoll (support of Rick Warren) and David Pawson (lack of clarity on the Toronto Blessing charismatic movement)..

What do people make of Prasch? Should he be so outspoken and aggressive towards other Christian leaders/ teachers? Is Prasch himself beyond criticism?

Click to expand...

What does he think of Pawson? Yay or nay?