James Jacob Prasch

[Nige55]

Jacob Prasch does go a little over the top at times when talking of other teachers and while we could maybe fault his manner, it is very difficult to fault his teaching. He is one of the best Bible teachers I've heard.

He correctly exposes subtle false doctrine even though he does this in a way that borders on being too aggressive/insulting. However, he is also very honest about his own faults/failings as a person and will always be ready to give an answer to anyone who questions his teaching.

Given his incredible understanding of Scripture, he could have a glittering "career" as a Bible teacher if he compromised on his criticism of doctrinal falsehood. Instead, he remains unpopular by many and accepts a much smaller "following" than many Bible teachers because he refuses to compromise - I respect that.

He defends his "naming" of those to teach false doctrine by pointing out that NT testament writers also named the names of those who always taught false doctrine in their time.

His tone is very abrasive - if you ever attend one of his talks, there is no point sitting in first few rows (I made this mistake a few months ago!) as you will be deafened, but his teaching is up with the best. I'm happy to accept any shortcomings in delivery and tone to benefit from his exceptional teaching.

Thanks Danny, very well put, far better than I ever could !

 

[ianb321red]

Here's an example of Prasch's systematic 'naming-and-shaming' of various bible teachers:

GospelofChrist Bringing the Good News: What Are We Left With? By James Jacob Prasch

 

[Nige55]

Here's an example of Prasch's systematic 'naming-and-shaming' of various bible teachers:

GospelofChrist Bringing the Good News: What Are We Left With? By James Jacob Prasch

Thanks Ian, we are told to test, (and not only by temporary fruit).
I have also recently been switched on to Simon Ponsonby, with a similar (and perhaps more palpable) delivery - Play MP3
Jacob is still hard to touch though in terms of insight and (bold !) clarity.

 

[MikeBigg]

He defends his "naming" of those to teach false doctrine by pointing out that NT testament writers also named the names of those who always taught false doctrine in their time.

Thanks Danny, very well put, far better than I ever could !

Hmmm. But naming them need not include personal abuse - which is defenceless.

This sort of bullying behaviour will stop people raising questions about his doctrine. If a well respected Godly man who tentatively suggests the traditional view of the age to come may be wrong get verbally abused - what hope have any of us.

To be honest, I can't believe you guys are defending his shameful behaviour.

I'm saddened.

 

[MikeBigg]

Here's an example of Prasch's systematic 'naming-and-shaming' of various bible teachers:

GospelofChrist Bringing the Good News: What Are We Left With? By James Jacob Prasch

I had a look ... do you guys agree with who he called out and why?

I'm shocked by the language he uses:

First Satan raised up ecumenical deceiver Chuck Colson supported by false prophet Pat Robertson and J. I. Packer to betray the scriptural Gospel compromising with the sacramental one of Roman Catholicism.

Then Satan raised up anti-Israel preacher John Stott and Replacement Theology Restorationist Roger Forster to deny that Jesus died to save souls from a permanent conscious hell because they teach none exists.

Then Satan raised up Tony Campolo and his son Bart to deny that things Scripture calls sin are sin, stating that portions of God’s Word with which they disagree will either be spiritualized away or ignored.

...

​

I'm even more convinced to stay away now. I consider that the be shocking. It show zero respect for Godly men seeking the truth.

Who the hell is this guy that he thinks he can stand in judgement like that.

I am even more surprised that you guys would follow this man.

We may not see eye to eye here and we do have differences of opinion theologically, but I have always respected you and your views.

My respect for you here has fallen.

I am really saddened by this.

 

[Nige55]

I'm shocked by the language he uses:

First Satan raised up ecumenical deceiver Chuck Colson supported by false prophet Pat Robertson and J. I. Packer to betray the scriptural Gospel compromising with the sacramental one of Roman Catholicism.

Then Satan raised up anti-Israel preacher John Stott and Replacement Theology Restorationist Roger Forster to deny that Jesus died to save souls from a permanent conscious hell because they teach none exists.

Then Satan raised up Tony Campolo and his son Bart to deny that things Scripture calls sin are sin, stating that portions of God’s Word with which they disagree will either be spiritualized away or ignored.

...
​

You're shocked by this language Mike ? I'm sorry but this surprises me, the bible at times can be far more shocking and provocative. By the way, I'm not condoning it, but just as you are able to accept the teaching of Wigglesworth and leave the the rest aside, I can only but take the same approach here with Jacob.​

 

[MikeBigg]

Well - feel free.

What comes out will be out of what goes in. So be careful of what you feed yourself.

I'm out of this thread now.

 

[Nige55]

Well Mike, blessings to you.
Hope you have a great weekend

 

[Danny777]

I had a look ... do you guys agree with who he called out and why?

I'm shocked by the language he uses:

First Satan raised up ecumenical deceiver Chuck Colson supported by false prophet Pat Robertson and J. I. Packer to betray the scriptural Gospel compromising with the sacramental one of Roman Catholicism.

Then Satan raised up anti-Israel preacher John Stott and Replacement Theology Restorationist Roger Forster to deny that Jesus died to save souls from a permanent conscious hell because they teach none exists.

Then Satan raised up Tony Campolo and his son Bart to deny that things Scripture calls sin are sin, stating that portions of God’s Word with which they disagree will either be spiritualized away or ignored.

...

​

I'm even more convinced to stay away now. I consider that the be shocking. It show zero respect for Godly men seeking the truth.

Who the hell is this guy that he thinks he can stand in judgement like that.

I am even more surprised that you guys would follow this man.

We may not see eye to eye here and we do have differences of opinion theologically, but I have always respected you and your views.

My respect for you here has fallen.

I am really saddened by this.

Mike, I agree his tone is aggressive and at times over the top (as I said before) but on what doctrinal issue has Jacob got it wrong?

If there are people teaching things that are unbiblical is it not reasonable for someone else to expose this? The NT warns repeatedly that there will be deceivers in the church that we should look out for. Are we not warned that Satan would raise up deceivers WITHIN the church?

When Jacob Prasch exposes them he ALWAYS states why they are in error based on Scripture - we need people like Jacob for our own spiritual health!

I can only repeat that I don't condone his (at times) overly aggressive tone but the church in the UK needs his teaching...if only the church would listen without simply dismissing him because of the rough edges of his preaching style...

 

[cyberlizard]

Danny777 I like your posts.


Steve

 

[ianb321red]

Well - feel free.

What comes out will be out of what goes in. So be careful of what you feed yourself.

I'm out of this thread now.

Well I think it is a shame that we can't continue this conversation further because it poses some issues that could and should be discussed not walked away from.

I don't mean this in a aggressive or confrontational way either - I mean it in an open-minded and respectful way towards you.

None of us on hear are necessarily advocating or endorsing Prasch's style, but I genuinely don't have a problem with him calling out people like Rick Warren, Benny Hinde, Stephen Sizer and Steve Chalke.

Furthermore, Prasch calls out Norman Giesler - I TOTALLY disagree with Prasch on his assessment of Giesler.

What is at the heart of the matter here are doctrinal differences - so this is what we should be discussing.

So, to reiterate - doctrinally speaking where exactly is Prasch at fault?

I think it is superficial to judge a book by it's cover, and thus a bible teacher by their demeanour. The apostle Paul had a far more abrasive tone that Prasch - do you take issue with him?

 

[ianb321red]

Mike, I agree his tone is aggressive and at times over the top (as I said before) but on what doctrinal issue has Jacob got it wrong?

If there are people teaching things that are unbiblical is it not reasonable for someone else to expose this? The NT warns repeatedly that there will be deceivers in the church that we should look out for. Are we not warned that Satan would raise up deceivers WITHIN the church?

When Jacob Prasch exposes them he ALWAYS states why they are in error based on Scripture - we need people like Jacob for our own spiritual health!

I can only repeat that I don't condone his (at times) overly aggressive tone but the church in the UK needs his teaching...if only the church would listen without simply dismissing him because of the rough edges of his preaching style...

Absolutely spot on

 

[Nige55]

Danny777 I like your posts.


Steve

Me too

 

[theFijian]

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?

I didn't watch any videos as I was on the train but tried to read the pdf of the The Gospel in the Last Days and found it quite rambling, basically taking aim at anybody he disagrees with, and then following on with a healthy sprinkling of end-times rapture nonsense. I read some of his '5 Questions for Jews' and if he wanted to poison the minds of Jewish readers against Catholics, Lutherans and most other protestants then he did a good job.

In fact, you might say that Satan has raised up the chap to spread this unscriptural end-times and anti-gentile nonsense he propounds. Of course the reality is that just because you disagree with someone's theology, doesn't mean that Satan has had anything to do with 'raising him up'. If he wants to give a scriptural basis for disagreeing with someone he shouldn't need to invoke Satan, doing so just makes it look like he knows his arguments are weak and needs some shock factor to make his point.

 

[Nige55]

I didn't watch any videos as I was on the train but tried to read the pdf of the The Gospel in the Last Days and found it quite rambling, basically taking aim at anybody he disagrees with, and then following on with a healthy sprinkling of end-times rapture nonsense. I read some of his '5 Questions for Jews' and if he wanted to poison the minds of Jewish readers against Catholics, Lutherans and most other protestants then he did a good job.

In fact, you might say that Satan has raised up the chap to spread this unscriptural end-times and anti-gentile nonsense he propounds. Of course the reality is that just because you disagree with someone's theology, doesn't mean that Satan has had anything to do with 'raising him up'. If he wants to give a scriptural basis for disagreeing with someone he shouldn't need to invoke Satan, doing so just makes it look like he knows his arguments are weak and needs some shock factor to make his point.

Just out of interest, do you find end times rapture generally nonsense, or just specifically that from Jacob ?

 

[Danny777]

I didn't watch any videos as I was on the train but tried to read the pdf of the The Gospel in the Last Days and found it quite rambling, basically taking aim at anybody he disagrees with, and then following on with a healthy sprinkling of end-times rapture nonsense. I read some of his '5 Questions for Jews' and if he wanted to poison the minds of Jewish readers against Catholics, Lutherans and most other protestants then he did a good job.

In fact, you might say that Satan has raised up the chap to spread this unscriptural end-times and anti-gentile nonsense he propounds. Of course the reality is that just because you disagree with someone's theology, doesn't mean that Satan has had anything to do with 'raising him up'. If he wants to give a scriptural basis for disagreeing with someone he shouldn't need to invoke Satan, doing so just makes it look like he knows his arguments are weak and needs some shock factor to make his point.

Of course, you can say that Satan has raised up this Jacob to spread "his unscriptural end-times and anti-gentile nonsense", but if would help if you demonstrated HOW what he said was unscriptural, rather than just saying it is.

Anyone can throw mud at anyone else and accuse them of holding a theological position that is a doctrine of Satan or unbiblical. This is not very constructive unless you at least quote the person concerned and then use Scripture to highlight the error. On the most part, Jacob Prasch does this very effectively...so far, you haven't...

 

[MikeBigg]

Well I think it is a shame that we can't continue this conversation further because it poses some issues that could and should be discussed not walked away from.

I don't mean this in a aggressive or confrontational way either - I mean it in an open-minded and respectful way towards you.

OK - but I don't know that I have much more to say. I had started repeating myself and wanting to use larger letters lol.

Here are my issues with this man:

1) He is disrespecting men of God, not simply calling out what he considers to be false teaching.

2) He assumes that his understanding of the Bible is correct.

Danny asked whether I had seen anything wrong with his doctrine. Well, as I haven't listened, I can't say, but this is my view on doctrine and theology ... we don't have it right yet.

Here are some examples ...

There are sincere men and women of God, properly saved who believe in cessationism. On the other hand there are sincere men and women of God who speak in tongues. Both can't be right.

Pentecostalism came out of a reading of the Bible that went against the current understanding of the time.

The charismatic renewal in the 70s was the same.

The Wesleys were'nt allowed to preach in Church because their message didn't conform to what was then understood.

Respect to fellow Christians is due, whether you agree with them or not. In fact I would say that it should go further than respect - we should love them.

Our understanding of the Bible is changing. Here are some examples:

Based on recent understanding of ancient languages and how it was used and understood when Genesis 1 was written, the original text does not include the concept of creation ex-nihilo. (This isn't to say He didn't, just that it isn't in the original text in Gen 1).

I have personally struggled with the traditional understanding of John 9:3 which reads: “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him." I have heard many a preacher say that God made the man be born blind and indeed, you can see it can read like that in the text. I was shown a recent PhD dissertation in which it shows that the Greek is not well translated a better translation would be "nevertheless the works of God might be displayed ..." which changes much and allows me to continue to see God as good.

I think they are both radical positions, and many would disagree with them. Who is right? Who is wrong?

Let's have a debate in which both sides do not resort to disrespectful name calling. Maybe then, we can get to the truth of what the Bible was meant to say.

As for John Stott's writing on anhilialation - I don't consider it correct, but actually there is a Biblical basis for it. It is not just based on wishful thinking, but the thoughts and research of Godly people searching for answers to difficult questions.

I am no longer convinced by the traditional understanding of hell and eternal torment. It doesn't fit in with what I consider to be good behaviour. As the Bible says God is good, it doesn't fit in with God. There is something to resolve there. Questions to be answered. I suspect Stott was having similar questions. There are good Biblical cases for other scenarios other than the traditional.

Are we going to have a debate on these, or are we going to dismiss them with name calling and disrespectful behaviour and miss out on understanding God in the way He intended us to in the same way that has gone on in history?

Prasch's abusive name-calling does not help.

You may say that he only abuses those who are clearly against established doctrine or against Bible teaching, but what would he have been saying about Seymour in Azuza Street or the Wesleys, or Moody. Remarkable, controversial at the time things of God that changed the landscape of Christianity.

For all I know, Prasch may have the right doctrine, but if it doesn't include love for his brothers and sisters in Christ (and everyone who isn't in Christ) I don't want to know that doctrine nor the God from whom it comes.

Kind regards,

Mike

 

[Danny777]

Here are my issues with this man:

1) He is disrespecting men of God, not simply calling out what he considers to be false teaching.

2) He assumes that his understanding of the Bible is correct.

Both these statements are true, but the same could also be said be said of Jesus Christ, the apostle Paul and other NT writers. The Pharisees were considered "men of God" at the time, however Jesus called them a "brood of vipers" among many other insults. Jesus also basically called a Canaanite woman (who wanted his help) a dog! (Matt 15:21-28). It was the "church" of the day that ultimately handed him over for crucifixion - he obviously offended them!

It is not just the offensiveness of a message that determines how truthful it is - the content is everything. Jesus Christ tried to point out to the "church" of his day that they had misunderstood their "Bible". He was flatly rejected and they were offended at him. Measure any Bible teaching against Scripture - this can be the only litmus test.

For all I know, Prasch may have the right doctrine, but if it doesn't include love for his brothers and sisters in Christ (and everyone who isn't in Christ) I don't want to know that doctrine nor the God from whom it comes.

The is nothing "unloving" by appealing to the other Bible teachers to return to Biblical doctrine - in fact, this IS loving!

From what I've seen, Jacob Prasch DOES go over the top when he describes other church leaders but only when they promote teaching that is unbiblical and damaging to the church. I do not condone some of the terms he uses but I value the teaching because it challenges me and I need an honest teacher to keep me from straying. I think it's worth pointing out that although Jacob Prasch does use insulting terms about people (which I think is unnecessary), he NEVER uses swear words or vulgar language which would obviously be unacceptable. It is also worth pointing out that many people just listen to a 2 min snippet of him (at his worst!) and ignore the content of an hour sermon which mostly contains exceptional Bible teaching.

I do understand why you would initially refuse to listen to Jacob because of his brash style. However, most "men of God" in history (including many you list in your post) offended those they taught because they were challenging bad practice and doctrine. To say you don't want to "know that doctrine nor the God from whom it comes" is very unwise in my opinion - especially if you haven't listened to him. It may turn out that although Jacob Prasch is not perfect (as no-one else Jesus Christ is perfect), he may be one of the best teachers we have...

I often feel uncomfortable listening to Jacob Prasch - but this is usually because I am forced to admit that I may have made a mistake in my reading of a particular passage. I am hungry to learn (as I'm sure you are) - if I felt I needed protection from ever being offended, I believe it would greatly damage my spiritual progress. Listening to Jacob Prasch has vastly edified my walk with Christ - I believe you would discover the same if you gave him a chance...

In Christ...

 

[theFijian]

Of course, you can say that Satan has raised up this Jacob to spread "his unscriptural end-times and anti-gentile nonsense", but if would help if you demonstrated HOW what he said was unscriptural, rather than just saying it is.

Anyone can throw mud at anyone else and accuse them of holding a theological position that is a doctrine of Satan or unbiblical. This is not very constructive unless you at least quote the person concerned and then use Scripture to highlight the error. On the most part, Jacob Prasch does this very effectively...so far, you haven't...

You've kind of missed my point, this fellow ought not to be claiming that Satan has raised anyone up as doing so would require the level of knowledge an spiritual insight which only Christ could claim. Not only that but the only place we see people ascribing certain works to Satan is in fact completely repudiated by Christ himself in extremely strong terms. So in reality Jacob Prasch ought to be very wary about making such accusations at all.

 

[MikeBigg]

Jesus called them a "brood of vipers"

Jesus or John the Baptist?

The is nothing "unloving" by appealing to the other Bible teachers to return to Biblical doctrine - in fact, this IS loving!

From the first post in this thread: "he called John Stott a "senile old skunk" ".

That is not loving in my book. Is it in yours?

That is what I took exception to in the first place.

And that after Stott "tentatively" as it says on the Stott's wikipedia page looked at doctrine that wasn't orthodox.

Do you think that is the behaviour of a mature Christian? Would you let someone who spoke so rudely of another person in your church speak from the pulpit again?

That shows no love nor respect.

I closes the door to any debate on current theological thinking.

But most of all, in my view, it reveals bad character.

Feel free to listen to all he has to say. But do so knowing that you are listening to a man who called your brother a senile old skunk.

I'm starting to repeat myself again.

Blessings,

Mike