James Jacob Prasch

[Robban]

Why a "Brood of vipers"?

Sounds insulting, not really, not if one takes a closer look.
We need did to stop judging Everything by our so called modern thinking.

Consider this,
Psalms,58:4-6,
4, The wicked become estranged (even) from the womb;
those who speak lies go astray from birth.

5, They have venom like the venom of a serpent, like a Deaf

Cobra that Closes it,s ear.

6, Which will not hear the voice of charmers, the most cunning caster of spells.

From commentry by Rashi-
v 4,From their mothers womb they become strange to the Holy One blessed be He, in the way Esau did (Gen 25:22) and the Children moved violently against each other in the womb.

v 5, When the snake ages it becomes deaf in one ear and Closes the other with dust so that it should not hear the incantation of the charmer, adjuring it not to cause injury.

Caster of spells=who knows how to charm snakes.

So "brood of vipers" need not be a silly insult, but maybe a fact.

Just something Worth considering.

 

[Danny777]

Jesus or John the Baptist?

Both Jesus AND John the Baptist used this term...

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.

It makes sense to listen to his teaching (which is excellent) but filter out the times he uses unfairly derogatory remarks about others over false doctrine - surely this is the right balance. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater!

 

[Danny777]

Why a "Brood of vipers"?

Sounds insulting, not really, not if one takes a closer look.
We need did to stop judging Everything by our so called modern thinking.

Consider this,
Psalms,58:4-6,
4, The wicked become estranged (even) from the womb;
those who speak lies go astray from birth.

5, They have venom like the venom of a serpent, like a Deaf

Cobra that Closes it,s ear.

6, Which will not hear the voice of charmers, the most cunning caster of spells.

From commentry by Rashi-
v 4,From their mothers womb they become strange to the Holy One blessed be He, in the way Esau did (Gen 25:22) and the Children moved violently against each other in the womb.

v 5, When the snake ages it becomes deaf in one ear and Closes the other with dust so that it should not hear the incantation of the charmer, adjuring it not to cause injury.

Caster of spells=who knows how to charm snakes.

So "brood of vipers" need not be a silly insult, but maybe a fact.

Just something Worth considering.

This is an interesting thought and it's definitely worthwhile pulling away from our Western perspective on passages. Judging by the reaction of those who received this description, I still think it was probably taken as an insult...

 

[Danny777]

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.

I agree with you and I'm uncomfortable when he uses phrases like that. I try to "filter out" comments like that but still benefit immensely from his teaching.

I has to be said that there are many who preach a false gospel which, by definition, is a gospel that cannot save. Gal 1:8-9 encourages us to vary of this. Jacob Prasch is one of the few who is not afraid to directly confront this, using Scripture his only authority. Whilst his STYLE difficult to listen to - I still believe his TEACHING is vitally needed in the church landscape.

 

[Robban]

This is an interesting thought and it's definitely worthwhile pulling away from our Western perspective on passages. Judging by the reaction of those who received this description, I still think it was probably taken as an insult...

Yep, no doubt, no doubt,

 

[MikeBigg]

Both Jesus AND John the Baptist used this term...



It makes sense to listen to his teaching (which is excellent) but filter out the times he uses unfairly derogatory remarks about others over false doctrine - surely this is the right balance. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater!

Hmm. I'm not convinced.

His strong "I am right" stance is not for me. If all Biblical difficulties had been settled then maybe, but then would we need a teacher like this in that situation?

There are too many Bible difficulties for me to accept a dogmatic "this is it". One such case is the place of women in the church - we have Wayne Grudem (one of the ESV translators) saying one thing and Gordon Fee (one of the NIV translators) saying the other. Both can't be right. Both are Godly men. Both highly respected in their field.

There are many difficult passages and traditional theologies that can be questioned with good Bible based cases. Yet dogmatic "I am right" or even "the traditional view is right" are not going to sort out the difficult passages nor find answers to the questions.

I think we need theologians and teachers who can talk with grace and humility so that answers may be found.

Those are the people I will listen to.

The journey I have been on is probably contributing to my position on this. I have become dissatisfied with some traditional understandings of Bible concepts and passages. Some have been discussed here. At the root of it is me holding the traditional understandings of God to a plumb line of goodness. Often traditional views fall short. When I then look into the issue more closely I find that others have been doing the same thing and have found good answers.

One of them I have already mentioned in the thread is about whether God would make a man blind from birth - John 9: 3. To my mind a good, loving, father wouldn't, so God as a good loving father wouldn't either.

Then recently I was shown the work of a Scottish woman on the Greek word "hina". Margaret Sim spent 4 years producing a 400 page PhD level paper on why that word is often mis-translated. A fabulous piece of work, in my opinion. Yet dismissed by an elder in my stream of churches because his theology allows God to make someone blind from birth and still consider Him to be a good, loving Daddy.

I don't know Margaret Sim, but what I can make out she is a middle-aged missionary to Africa doing her PhD in her spare time. I would like to pop round to her place and have a cup of tea to find out what other things she knows about God.

So, there may have been a time when I would've listened to Prasch. There may even be a time again (but its doubtful). But at the moment, I'm loving getting to know God as a good God through quietly spoken Godly people who seem to exhibit more of the fruits of the Spirit than most.

It is a lovely journey.

Kind regards,

Mike

ps If you are interested Margaret Sim's paper can be found here:

https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/1395

 

[theFijian]

It makes sense to listen to his teaching (which is excellent) but filter out the times he uses unfairly derogatory remarks about others over false doctrine - surely this is the right balance. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater!

The problem with this is that we can then begin to excuse all manner of un-Christlike behaviour. What if he has an affair with someone else's wife? What if he steals money his ministry organisation? Are you suggesting we just 'filter out' this sinful behaviour?

 

[Danny777]

The problem with this is that we can then begin to excuse all manner of un-Christlike behaviour. What if he has an affair with someone else's wife? What if he steals money his ministry organisation? Are you suggesting we just 'filter out' this sinful behaviour?

No, we can all agree that adultery and theft are CLEARLY examples of un-Christlike behaviour.

It is not so clear-cut whether a preachers abrasive preaching style is also un-Christian like behaviour. I guess this often comes down to personal preference. As I said before, if he was using swear words etc, this would be different. Jesus and other NT writers can also be accused of (at times) using an abrasive style of teaching.

I agree that in some instances, he could be accused of appearing "unloving" - he is not perfect. I listen to many different preachers with different styles and none of them are perfect. However, I cannot fault him from a theological/doctrinal etc point of view. His conduct towards other Bible teachers is sometimes questionable - I don't think we could conclusively demonstrate it was unBiblical if you compare his comments with many "abrasive" comments made in NT. If he has committing adultery or stealing, we could.

I would rather listen to the teaching of an abrasive character like Jacob Prasch with whom "what you see is what you get" as opposed to a silky, smooth-tongued teacher who proved to be not quite as innocent as he appeared.

Jacob Prasch makes mistakes at times and maybe even he might admit he should re-phrase some comments, but I think being abrasive is not necessarily being un-Christlike....

 

[MikeBigg]

No, we can all agree that adultery and theft are CLEARLY examples of un-Christlike behaviour.

It is not so clear-cut whether a preachers abrasive preaching style is also un-Christian like behaviour.

LOL - so, I conclude that calling another person a senile old skunk, in your opinion, is maybe ok. Maybe not.

Sigh.

I wonder what his teaching is like on the fruit of the spirit and "by this shall all men know ...."

It is an interesting thing with churches that when a leader of a church is involved with some kind of specific sin, like embezzling or adultery that most times that same sin is found elsewhere in the church. It is thought it is probably due to the leader not speaking against such sins and not counselling properly. Conversely, it can be found that churches who have a bias on their teaching often see a bias in the members of the church. One example of this I heard of is a church preached almost continuously that to wear glasses was wrong and that God would heal your eye sight. Just about eveyone in the church had perfect vision. No one wore specs. (But pastorally they were a mess).

This is why it is important to have mature teachers and leaders of good character - so they can bring a balanced approach to Bible truths.

Jesus said that what comes out is based on what goes in.

To quote Phil Esterhaus: "Let's be careful out there".

Kind regards,

Mike

 

[theFijian]

No, we can all agree that adultery and theft are CLEARLY examples of un-Christlike behaviour.

It is not so clear-cut whether a preachers abrasive preaching style is also un-Christian like behaviour. I guess this often comes down to personal preference. As I said before, if he was using swear words etc, this would be different. Jesus and other NT writers can also be accused of (at times) using an abrasive style of teaching.

'And anyone who says, “You fool!” will be in danger of the fire of hell'

'Be ready at all times to answer anyone....but do so with gentleness and respect'

Yes, it is that clear-cut. Being merely abrasive is one thing, being abusive is another entirely. Listen, you don't have to be an apologist for his sinful behaviour. This is what happens when people develop a near cultist adoration for a church leader, people start making excuses for the sin instead of addressing it. I'm sure he knows that he, is not perfect, just like the rest of us, but for a church leader to display such behaviour, and indeed almost revel in it, is dishonouring to Christ and as a leader he will indeed be judged more harshly.

 

[deleted2825]

Hi, I'm new here.

Tell me, can anyone (eg the OP ianb321red) tell me where Jacob Prasch called John Stott a "senile old skunk" ? I think we should be able to confirm it for ourselves...

 

[Robban]

Hi, I'm new here.

Tell me, can anyone (eg the OP ianb321red) tell me where Jacob Prasch called John Stott a "senile old skunk" ? I think we should be able to confirm it for ourselves...

Peanuts, Lord Shaftbury labeled William Booth as the "Anti Christ"

This is something that just goes on and on and on.

 

[Danny777]

Mike Bigg and The Fijian,

I have repeated stated that some of his comments (eg calling someone a senile old goat) are "over the top" and uncalled for - why do you keep accusing me of defending this? I am defending his Bible exposition - NOT some of the comments he makes about others.

The suggestion that I have a "cultish adoration" Jacob Prasch is totally wrong and very unfair. Fijian, you have labelled yourself as a "Calvinist" - do you have a "cultish adoration" for John Calvin?...I would imagine not but you've given yourself the title of a "Calvinist"!

I listen to MANY teachers, Jacob Prasch is one of them. Before you suggest he has a cultish following maybe you could point out how his theological/doctrinal positions are in error and descriptive of a cult rather than simply accusing him of "sinful behaviour" based on some unkind comments.

I AGREE that, at times, he goes over the top with his comments of others. I've stated this so many times and you haven't taken any notice yet, so I see no reason why you will now...

Jesus Christ came to earth with a message for mankind. Much of his most severe criticism was reserved for the "church leaders" of the day. He offended MANY - so much so that in the end he was handed over by them for execution. A sincere and godly Bible teacher will at times offend - you should NEVER offend for the sake of offending but a Bible teacher should also stick to the plain teachings of the Bible and use Jesus Christ as a example. There is obviously a balance - in the current church landscape, the pendulum is too far in the other direction where no-one challenges anything anymore. Jacob Prasch is one teacher who redresses the balance, albeit in an imperfect way.

I imagine that if you trawl through the sermons of any Bible teacher you will find comments/teachings that are dubious. I hope you subject ever teacher you listen to the high scrutiny you subject Jacob Prasch to!

 

[MikeBigg]

Mike Bigg and The Fijian,

I have repeated stated that some of his comments (eg calling someone a senile old goat) are "over the top" and uncalled for - why do you keep accusing me of defending this? I am defending his Bible exposition - NOT some of the comments he makes about others.

Danny, what you had posted seemed at the time to fall short of condemning the name-calling. You said several times that he was brash, which is a style thing, yet had not, until now, mentioned the things said of Stott.

If I had realised your comments included the name calling, I may have stopped posting sooner.

Regards,

Mike

 

[Danny777]

Danny, what you had posted seemed at the time to fall short of condemning the name-calling. You said several times that he was brash, which is a style thing, yet had not, until now, mentioned the things said of Stott.

If I had realised your comments included the name calling, I may have stopped posting sooner.

Regards,

Mike

OK, fair enough...

 

[theFijian]

The problem is that you keep making excuses for and are continuing to downplay the seriousness of his sin as just being 'uncalled for', 'over the top' or worse analogous to Christ's ministry. Why not display some of the characteristics which you like about Prasch, honesty, and call it what it is - sin.

Why is adultery or fraud 'clearly sinful' and not just 'uncalled for' or 'over the top' or just an 'imperfection'? This is not merely a question of style, it's a question of un-christlike behaviour which you seem to be a pains to downplay as being just a matter of personal taste.

I am well aware that all the books I read were written by sinners, or the sermons I listen to are preached by sinners. Some of the things said and done in the name of Christianity through the centuries are indefensible. So let's be honest and call things what they really are.

 

[Nige55]

The problem is that you keep making excuses for and are continuing to downplay the seriousness of his sin as just being 'uncalled for', 'over the top' or worse analogous to Christ's ministry. Why not display some of the characteristics which you like about Prasch, honesty, and call it what it is - sin.

Why is adultery or fraud 'clearly sinful' and not just 'uncalled for' or 'over the top' or just an 'imperfection'? This is not merely a question of style, it's a question of un-christlike behaviour which you seem to be a pains to downplay as being just a matter of personal taste.

I am well aware that all the books I read were written by sinners, or the sermons I listen to are preached by sinners. Some of the things said and done in the name of Christianity through the centuries are indefensible. So let's be honest and call things what they really are.

Assuming then that Danny would state that it is indeed sinfull, (as you correctly pointed out that the material we read or hear will be from sinners), how do we move on from there ? If we get that matter clarified and agreed upon, will we all be discussing Jacob's teachings and doctrines henceforth in this thread ?

 

[ianb321red]

Hi, I'm new here.

Tell me, can anyone (eg the OP ianb321red) tell me where Jacob Prasch called John Stott a "senile old skunk" ? I think we should be able to confirm it for ourselves...

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

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

 

[theFijian]

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

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

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

 

[Danny777]

The problem is that you keep making excuses for and are continuing to downplay the seriousness of his sin as just being 'uncalled for', 'over the top' or worse analogous to Christ's ministry. Why not display some of the characteristics which you like about Prasch, honesty, and call it what it is - sin.

Why is adultery or fraud 'clearly sinful' and not just 'uncalled for' or 'over the top' or just an 'imperfection'? This is not merely a question of style, it's a question of un-christlike behaviour which you seem to be a pains to downplay as being just a matter of personal taste.

I am well aware that all the books I read were written by sinners, or the sermons I listen to are preached by sinners. Some of the things said and done in the name of Christianity through the centuries are indefensible. So let's be honest and call things what they really are.

I not trying to make excuses for anyone "sinful behaviour". I judge his TEACHING by how well it holds up against Scripture. He steps out of line sometimes - ALL teachers do. If I found his behaviour repeatedly completely contrary to what I would expect of a Bible teacher I would re-consider. At present, he steps over the line at times, but on balance I gain a tremendous spiritual food from his teaching.

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"!

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...