Man claims to know the exact day that Christ will return

When will these nut cases quit making false claims? I know, I know, they will not quit making false claims until Christ actually returns; for Peter declared: “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies……2 Peter 2:1”

Here is another man who claims to have worked out a secret formula that will give him the revelation knowledge of when Christ will return. This man, not only claims to know the exact year, but the very day in which Christ will return. This is contrary to what Christ told his apostles; for Christ told them “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.”

Nevertheless, in this age of technological breakthrough it seems that hosts of people have come out claiming all kinds of false beliefs about the scriptures. We have had Y2K, the Bible Codes, Harold Camping, and we could go on and on. Yet none of these nut cases have been right on their predictions.

So if anyone is interested in ordering a Dvd that will cause amusement and laughter, then here it is. Remember, a merry heart doeth good like a medicine………………and a false prophet always speaketh lies.

 

 “Would you like to know the specific day of the Lord’s return?

Product Description

Pastor Mark Biltz of El Shaddai Ministries believes he knows – the exact day, if not the specific year.

It is laid out in a series of two DVD teachings produced by WND Videos called “The Feasts of the Lord.”

The spring feasts – or appointed times – were fulfilled by the first coming of Yeshua, the Hebrew name of Jesus, which means “Salvation.” The fall feasts will be fulfilled by His Second Coming – in the very near future, explains Biltz in an engaging, informative and entertaining series of teachings you will want to watch again and again and share with your friends, relatives and fellow believers.

Biltz emphasizes that these feasts, described in Leviticus, were not intended for the Jewish people alone. They are repeatedly referred to in the Bible as “the Lord’s feasts” – meaning they are for all people. They are meant to be observed as well as to serve as signs of the times in which we live – reminders of the greatest events of the past and foreshadowings of the future.

A feast is defined as “an appointment, i.e., a fixed time or season; also a signal (as appointed beforehand).” Filled with specific scriptural references, word studies and a historical explanation of the real significance of the feasts of the Old Testament.

Biltz says much of the church is asleep – unaware of the significance of the feasts on God’s holy time clock. The feasts were not intended to be abandoned by believers after the coming of Jesus. His followers observed them in the first century. It’s time to discover them again as the hour of His return approaches.”

 

 

See the claims here on this order page for a Dvd on the teaching of the Jewish feast.

False Teachers

Colin Smith at The Gospel Coalition has made a list identifying ’7 Traits of False Teachers:’

 

“There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you.” (2 Peter 2:1)

There are no “ifs, ands, or buts” in Peter’s words. It’s a clear and definite statement. There were false prophets among the people (of Israel in the Old Testament). That’s a matter of history.

False prophets were a constant problem in the Old Testament, and those who falsely claimed to be prophets of God were to be stoned. The people rarely had the will to deal with them, so they multiplied, causing disaster to the spiritual life of God’s people.

In the same way Peter says, “There will be false teachers among you.” Notice the words “among you.” Peter is writing to the church and says, “There will be false prophets among you.” So he is not talking about New Age people on television. He is talking about people in the local church, members of a local congregation.”

 

Read the entire list right here.

Charismatic: False Prophecies

I used to attend churches that are known as Charismatic. In other words these churches identify themselves as having ongoing apostolic gifts. They claim to heal, to work miracles, and to have a fresh word from the Lord.

The last church I ever attended is Pastored by a man named Otis Graves here inTalladega,Alabama. This individual actually asked me to leave his church because I preached the Reformed faith for four years straight and he had become hardened to the gospel message of the scriptures. He actually told me that his church was a charismatic church and not a Reformed church.

In the video that I am going to show you, you will see a regular charismatic meeting. Charismatics are big on speaking words from the Lord over individuals. They think that what they are receiving is directly from God. My last Charismatic church would agree with the woman speaking these words over this individual and would also agree that if you deny what has been said, then you have a demon. (Charismatics are also big on women ministers. They deny the scriptures which state plainly that the man is to lead the congregation’ not the woman).

The fact is that this woman minister, in this video, is speaking blessings over this individual. She states that he is from God and a man that loves the Lord. Yet when he rebukes her and tells her that the gospel is about Jesus Christ, she then takes offense and calls him an unbeliever and one who possesses a demon.

Watch the video for yourself:

 

Bringing to Remembrance a Book with Poor Theology

Here is a critique of Dave Hunt’s book “What Love is This?” This book is a misrepresentation of Calvinism and the gospel. Dave Hunt constantly builds straw man views of Calvinism and it is these arguments or views which he sets forth his vicious attacks. It is one thing to critique a position and miss the mark, yet a whole different thing to misrepresent some ones position on a matter and still miss the mark.

What Theology is This?

 Dave Hunt’s Misrepresentation of God and Calvinism

As I read Dave Hunt’s latest book, What Love is This? subtitled, “Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God,” I felt both profound sadness and righteous anger. I was sad because many unsuspecting and uneducated Christians will believe that Hunt is accurate and thereby miss out on one of the richest spiritual gold mines available, namely, the life and writings of John Calvin and his heirs in the faith. I was angry because Hunt deliberately misrepresents and slanders both Calvin and Calvinism, and in the process grossly misrepresents God Himself. I know that his misrepresentation is deliberate because many Calvinists, including myself, wrote repeatedly to Hunt as the book was being written, pointing out his errors and asking him to stop misrepresenting what we believe. But sadly, he stubbornly ignored our corrections and went full steam ahead.

 

The resulting book is a first magnitude theological and spiritual disaster. If you rely on the supermarket tabloids as your reliable source of news, you’ll probably find Hunt satisfying for your theology. It will give you the same sort of sensational slander as the tabloids, only it is presented as if it were biblically and historically based. But if you want to grow in your knowledge of the living God, I advise you to leave this tabloid theology on the shelf.

 

I have had to deal with the book because a former elder is giving it to some of my elders and others, telling them that it is a balanced critique of Reformed theology. On the back cover of the book are glowing endorsements from Chuck Smith, Elmer Towns, Tim LaHaye, and others. LaHaye even states, “Calvinism … comes perilously close to blasphemy” (ellipsis in the quote). Several families have left my church over this issue, because I teach what Scripture plainly affirms, that God sovereignly chooses to save some, but not all. Our salvation rests on the foundation of God’s sovereign choice of us. His choice of us is the causative reason that we choose to believe. Thus no one can boast in his salvation, but only in the Lord (1 Cor. 1:26-31; Gal. 1:15; Eph. 1:3-12).

 

Finish reading this critique here.

 

It is sad that Dave Hunt considers him self a theologian, yet cannot even recognize the position of which he is writing against.

 

No Such Thing as Purgatory

God has placed two ways before us in His Word: salvation by faith, damnation by unbelief (Mark16:16). He does not mention purgatory at all. Nor is purgatory to be admitted, for it obscures the benefits and grace of Christ.

Martin Luther Table Talk

Does an Independent Minister have a right to preach what he so desires? Pt 3

In my first installment of this article I discussed leadership within the church. I then went into some of the doctrinal differences I had between myself and the Charismatic congregation headed up by Otis Graves. These doctrinal differences were not something that was a struggle between Otis and myself per se, but were doctrinal differences that represented the struggle between true Biblical Christianity and pseudo-Christianity.

My second article covered the topic of using a proper methodology when it comes to interpreting scripture. I discussed some basic principles of how we are to approach scripture. These principles are essential tools to proper understanding of the scripture. Without these basic principles we will all misinterpret scripture all the time.

In this portion of my post I want to examine the concept of whether the early churches were independent churches and if so were they free to preach whatsoever they desired or were they commanded to preach the word of God as the apostles established, nurtured, or guided them?

As we look at the New Testament we see that the apostles and certain evangelist went into many different areas and founded churches. After founding these churches the apostles particularly Paul, sent men back, such as Timothy and Titus, in order to ordain men to oversee these congregations. These congregations could have been called independent churches because there was no governing body over these congregations.

It is true that the early apostles held a council in order to examine more closely certain issues. Upon holding this council a letter was drawn up and sent to the Gentile churches. This letter gave basic rules of how to conduct oneself as a Christian. Paul later went back and wrote too many of these Gentile Christians and gave them a fuller explanation on what it meant to be a Christian and how to live as a Christian. Yet my main point here is to state that no where any command was given that would suggest that all the Gentile congregations were in some kind of denomination or had some kind of governing body over them, except for the local elders ordained within each congregation.

I have labored all of this to state that my opponent ‘The Teacher’ told me that an independent preacher could preach what he so desired. Drawing from this statement it is clear that he was stating that since Otis Graves was not in a denomination, then he does not have to teach what any particular denomination teaches, but is free to teach what he so desires. I admit that Otis does not have to teach what a denomination teaches; nevertheless he is not free from what is commanded in scripture.

It is clear in scripture that Paul gave Timothy the express command that he should preach the word while reproving, rebuking, and exhorting with all long suffering and doctrine because the time was coming when men will not endure sound doctrine but will heap to themselves teachers having itching ears and will turn their ears away from the truth. Paul told Titus that he is to ordain those into the elder-ship who hold fast the faithful word as they have been taught that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

My opponents, the ‘Teacher’ and Mr. Otis Graves will state that they do teach sound doctrines. They will proclaim that they are teaching the word. Yet I will state that they do not teach the word. When they pull a scripture out of context and make it say what they choose to, then they have distorted the word. When they preach moralistic sermons and call upon their congregations to quit sinning so that they will make it into heaven, then they are not preaching the word.

Matters of fact, when they preach any other thing than justification by faith alone, then they are preaching another gospel. There congregations are receiving another Jesus. Their Jesus is one who aides the individual in being justified by becoming sanctified. This is Roman Catholicism in a nut shell.

When someone knows not the difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, then it is time that they take a seat until they be taught the word of God. They may argue that God called them and placed them where they are at, but that is debatable. God does not call ignorant and unlearned men into pulpit ministries. God expects ministers to study to show themselves approved unto God, a workman that needs not be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth.

So again my challenge goes out for the ‘Teacher’ and Mr. Otis Graves to prove me wrong in what I have written. I call on them to refute these charges. I call on them to refute my doctrines. I hold to the 1677/89 London Baptist Confession of Faith as being an expression of what I believe that the scriptures teach. My side bar to my blog contains a link to a Pdf version of this confession.

As I close I want to say that the reason American Evangelicalism is in a dung heap is because we have men in our pulpits that know no theology, no church history, have no stable doctrines, and believe in a creed less Christianity. God’s word states that it is through the foolishness of preaching that saves those which believe. But in an age when everything is being preached under the sun, except for Christ and him crucified, then it is little wonder that we are seeing few saved. It is little wonder that society is degenerating into an immoral heap.

God help us.

Hershel Lee Harvell Jr.

Footnote: I did not plan for the quote by Thomas Watson on “Heresy Will Send one to Hell” to go out with this article, but I couldn’t have asked for a better quote for this article.

Read Pt 1 of this article here

Read Pt 2 of this article here

18 Dangers of the Charismatic Movement

I came across a great web site that totally refutes the Charismatic Theology of today. I wanted to share this in order that many be warned of the dangers within charismatic theology. Many do not realize that the spiritual manifestations among so-called Christians today is the judgment of God upon those who are religious and not seeking salvation through faith alone.

18 Dangers of the Charismatic Movement by Ken Matto

I am still waiting for someone in the Charismatic Movement to explain to me how it is that their pastor gets a six figure salary and drives around in a Mercedes and the ones in the pews can hardly make it financially and drive a 10 year old car. How does this great inequity of finances equate to the teaching that God wants everybody wealthy and healthy? The only ones getting wealthy are the pastors and TV evangelists while the pew warmers sit there and give their last amount of money for the pastor’s next Mercedes or summer home? Can’t you see you are being duped? Can’t you see the only one making money is the pastor? How come you are still in poverty after being in a Charismatic church for 20 years? Sounds to me like the only one getting financially blessed is the pastor and you have been his chump for 20 years. He has a million dollar home and you have a small apartment. He has a Mercedes and you have a 10 year old car. So where is your blessings? They keep harping week after week that God wants to bless you yet you are no better off today than you were 20 years ago. It sounds like the theology of prosperity is a total lie except for the pastor. Think about it!

Read the full article here.

A Testimony from one delivered from Charismatic Doctrines

I came across a letter on the internet of a woman who was delivered from the false doctrines of the Charismatic movement. I wanted to pass this letter along in order to help some soul who is still bound by this movement. I hope and pray that you are blessed by this letter.

 

Hello SisterTracy,

I want to thank you for your wonderful site. When I first came across it, about a year and a half ago, I was a Charismatic who adhered to the NIV (although I rarely read the Bible!). When I first read some of your articles (particularly against Charismatics and the NIV “translation”), I was so furious! I started to study some things, in an effort to prove you wrong, but all I ended up doing was proving that you were right. A few months ago, I tossed out all of my new age Bibles and bought an AKJV. It’s truly amazing, before when I had the supposedly “easy to read” Bibles handy, I couldn’t get motivated to read them. I just couldn’t bring myself to read them. Now, with my AKJV, I read it with no problem at all. I love the Word of God, love studying it, love reading it. A few weeks ago, I also left the Charismatic church I had been attending on and off for nearly eight years of my life. After visiting your site, I started noticing things that you mentioned, like the tongues and the “holy laughter” and being “slain the spirit” and all. As I read my KJV more and more, I started repenting for ever participating in these things. You see, at one point in time I spoke in tongues, and participated in “holy laughter,” and was even supposedly “slain in the spirit.” I have ceased from all of this and repented before my Lord Jesus of ever being involved. I now attend a Baptist church, I plan on becoming a member soon and being rebaptized (I was baptized in the Charismatic church, but I want to disassociate myself from all things and events in that church). I can’t explain things that went on in that church, but now that I look back I can say that they weren’t of God.

Read full article here.

Does an Independent Minister have a right to preach what he so desires? Pt 2

Last week I began a post discussing two Charismatic Pastors, of which I know personally. The first Charismatic I called ‘The Teacher’ and the second Pastor’s name is Otis Graves. Before I begin my post concerning these two individuals I want to lay down a few things concerning examining other ministers.

I realize that what I proclaim from this blog is not popular in today’s church world. Many think that it is condescending or critical to examine a Charismatic’s doctrines. They think that you are being unloving because you examine what Charismatics have preached from the pulpit. The reason that I know that these things are unpopular is because I can get almost a hundred views on these post and not one person will comment. If I were spreading the doctrines that the Charismatics do, then my comment section would fill up.

I want to say from the beginning that it is not unloving to examine what another minister states from the pulpit, over the radio, or through the television screen. I happen to believe that it is unloving to stay silent if you hear something that is unscriptural and do not speak out against it. Paul told the elders atEphesusin Acts 20:28-30 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed thechurchofGod, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after themselves.

The reason men like Harold Camping can gather disciples around him are because people have remained silent. They fear persecution and do not want to live a life of being shunned or spoken evil against. I am not going to be unloving when I examine other ministers’ doctrines, but I also will not be ashamed of the gospel of Christ. I will not shun being persecuted by remaining silent concerning the truth of God’s word. Therefore I will not be silent concerning the doctrines of the ‘Teacher’ nor Otis Graves.

One thing I will commend Otis Graves for is that he is not like the ‘Teacher’; he has refrained from putting his sermons on audio. This is because he contradicts himself so much that if someone went back and listened to his sermon from last week, then they would catch him saying something entirely different this week. Though he doesn’t record his sermons on to audio, nevertheless when I was under his ministry I wrote down some of the stuff he stated from the pulpit.

For instance, onAugust 31, 2008Otis Graves made the statement, “that whosoever Jesus sets free is free indeed, but not entirely. Once Jesus sets us free, then we must go on and set ourselves free from things that Jesus did not free us from.” Otis was actually saying that Jesus is not enough and we need something more. This teaching denies the Reformation principle of ‘soli Christo’ or Christ Alone. This teaching also is a distorted interpretation of John 8.  A more fitting interpretation would be: The Jews believed that they were not in bondage, but Jesus goes on to explain to them that if they commit sin (and we all do) then they are the servants of sin. In other words they are slaves to sin. Jesus tells them that if he makes them free, they shall be free. In other words if they become his disciples, then they will no longer be a slave to sin.

This leads me to my next point and that is that we have no right to twist or distort the scriptures to fit our doctrines. I am not going to defend the Roman Catholic Church, but to its credit I will say that they warned Luther against putting the scriptures into the hands of ignorant and unlearned men. They told Luther that if the scriptures were translated into the common language of the people that a flood gate of sin would come out of it. They told him that the church would begin to split and splinter into all kinds of different denominations. This is because that unlearned men will not take and interpret scripture according to the tradition of the Church. Luther responded by saying that he knew that if he put the scriptures in the hands of ignorant and unlearned men, that it would open a flood gate of iniquity, but nevertheless every person ought to have the scriptures to read for themselves.

So the Reformation opened the door for private interpretation. But just because we have the right to interpret scripture privately does not mean that we have the right to distort scripture. The Reformers taught what is known as the perspicuity of scripture or that the scriptures are so plain that even a child could understand it. This doctrine does not teach that scripture is plain in every place, but it teaches that the doctrines that are essential to salvation are so clear that even a child could find his was to Christ by reading them.

The main point I want to focus on today is the principles of a proper methodology. In other words, Mr. ‘Teacher’ and Mr. Otis Graves, it is unreasonable to expect that everyone will agree on the exact interpretation of every scripture, but we should agree on the fundamental approach to biblical interpretation. In other words we ought to be using the same methods on how to interpret scripture. There is a difference between an occasional misinterpretation and unacceptable methods of biblical interpretation. The former is common to us all and the latter no one should be guilty of holding to.

Had you two studied you would have realized that the church has developed a method of interpretation that makes everyone approach the scriptures the same way. The church developed a science of interpretation known as ‘hermeneutics.’ Hermeneutics is the science and art of interpretation. Holding to a proper hermeneutic will keep us from falling into much error when we interpret scripture. (I challenge both of you to go to my web site and click my Hermeneutics page link and study up on this principle.)

Many today claim to hold to a literal interpretation of scripture, but what they are talking about has nothing to do with proper interpretation. In other words they believe that if the Bible plainly says something, then we can take that something and use it anyway we want to. This is not literal interpretation. The word literal comes from the Latin word ‘literalis’ and means the literature in which it was written. In other words, to use the literal interpretation method means that we are to interpret scripture according to the literature in which it was written.

Scripture is written in many forms of literature, some of which are: poetry, proverbs, narrative, didactic, apocalyptic and so forth. We are never to take narrative scriptures and make doctrines out of them because they are giving us a story of what happened and not trying to teach us what we should or should not do. For instance Charismatics are big on using the book of Acts to build their doctrines on, but the book of Acts is recording events that happened within history and not trying to teach us doctrines. There may be doctrine within the book, but it is still a history record. We are to only use the didactic or the instructional material of scripture to build our doctrines on.

While the Bible is filled with many types of literature it also uses many forms of speech within that literature. The Bible uses hyperbole, simile, symbolic, irony, sarcasm, metaphor, parallelism, synonymous parallelism, metonymy, personification, anthropomorphisms, anthropopathisms, and many more. The Bible also uses types and shadows to convey its message. So without a properly working hermeneutic we all would misinterpret scripture all the time.

I want to say one more thing before I close this post. I want to tell the ‘Teacher’ and Mr. Otis Graves that there is only one interpretation to every scripture in the Bible. In other words the writer was writing to a specific audience of his day and meant a specific thing when he wrote what he did. Therefore we should try to understand the Bible in its grammatical-historical-redemptive setting. In other words we are to interpret a scripture according to the grammar it was written in, according to the historical setting of which it was written, and according to the redemptive plan of God in history.

No one reads a newspaper, magazine, book, or any other piece of literature any different than what I have described. If we ripped a sentence out of a newspaper article, then we could make it say whatever we wanted it to. We must understand it within the author’s original intent and within the context of what has been said around it. We are then to take it and apply it to today. Though there is only one true interpretation of every scripture, nevertheless there may be many applications to that scripture. In other words we may be able to apply that scripture to many of today’s problems and so forth, but we should only do that after we have understood that scripture within the author’s original meaning.

So I am calling on both of you to study the science of hermeneutics. We may misinterpret a scripture from time to time, but your methods of approaching scripture are unacceptable and lead to distortion.

I will close for now and come back later and finish some more on this article.

 

Hershel Lee Harvell Jr.

Do Charismatics have a Specific Bible Commentator they Use?

It is really hard to define what Charismatics believe because they have no set beliefs that have been embedded in a creed, confession, or statement of faith. I am not saying that there are not several Charismatic denominations which have not put out some kind of small statement of what they believe the scriptures to teach; nevertheless, for the more part, Charismatic beliefs vary from Church to Church.

One of the main sources where Charismatics get their false views is from a Bible called ‘The Dake’s Annotated Bible.” Finis Jennings Dake was the compiler of all the notes and commentary that is prevalent in this annotated Bible.

Finis Jennings Dake was born in 1902 and died in 1987. He claimed that upon receiving conversion that he was able to quote thousands of scriptures, even though he had never once read the Bible. I want to say that there has never been any person in the history of the world who has ever received such a gift. God does not bypass our intellect when he works through us.

What most Charismatics do not know is that Finis Dake is not far removed from the Charismatics of today when it comes to gross and immoral sins. Finis Dake served six months in jail in 1937 because he had plead guilty to having sex with a sixteen year old girl, of whom he registered at a motel with, feigning to be husband and wife.

The doctrines taught in the Dake’s Bible are being used by Kenneth Hagen, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Paul Crouch, and a host of others through the TBN network. These doctrines have more to do with occultic beliefs such as those put forth by Mormons.

I will retire from speaking for now and leave you to the article:

The Dake’s Bible and Confused Charismatic Theology by Joseph Chambers

This quote from Dake’s Bible is the very first New Testament note in the edition that I have owned since the early seventies. The edition I am quoting from is the sixth printing, December 1971.“Gr. Christos, ‘Anointed.’ – Used in N.T. 577 times. Like the name “Jesus” it has no reference to deity, but to the humanity of the Son of God, who became the Christ or the “Anointed One” 30 years after He was born of Mary. God “made” Him both Lord and Christ. The Heb. Is ‘Messiah’.” (Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible, Finis Jennings Dake, published by Dake Bible Sales, Inc, Lawrenceville, Georgia, New Testament, p. 1.)No Biblically solid minister or Bible student would accept the quote above. It is rank heresy and must be totally rejected or our view of Jesus Christ as the eternal Son of God is compromised. To suggest that Jesus became the Christ or the “Anointed One” thirty years after His birth is to commit heresy. This is an ancient heresy that is called “adoptionism.” Kenneth Scott Latourette stated in his book, History of Christianity, Volume I, the following:

 Read more of this article here.