| THE MIKE VINSON I NO LONGER KNOW
["And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie"] For nearly two months, a half-dozen, mean-spirited vilifiers have been sending me nasty and slanderous emails. So what’s new about that, you ask? Well these are not coming from the carnal-minded Christians who have sent me tens of thousands of such emails in the past, but rather from the followers of my once dear friend and partner in the Gospel, Mike Vinson. Later on I will go through some of the contents of these emails with you wherein they accuse me of killing Mike and steeling his wife [metaphorically], among other things. Each email I receive is nastier and more cutting than the previous. They now resemble a bunch of sharks in a feeding frenzy. They have taken on a mob mentality. The Spirit of God is nowhere to be found in these emails. This is bizarre melodrama at its best. We are, nonetheless, encouraged seeing that:
It is being smugly circulated about that I used to teach (as recently as the 2005 Nashville Bible Conference) that God’s Elect will go through God’s wrath--especially as outlined in the seven last plagues of God’s wrath in Revelation. But they now say that I have changed my teaching, and rather now teach that God’s Elect will not go through God’s wrath at all, which is the opposite of what Mike now teaches. Oh really? Have I really changed my position on this subject? I have never taught or even thought that God will pour out His wrath upon His chosen Elect children, so why would I have changed at Nashville. I changed nothing. And nothing of the sort is on any video as they contend. I will show you just what is and what is not on video. I would have little interest in Mike’s new and bizarre teachings since the writing of his commentary of hundreds of pages on the book of Revelation, where it not for the fact that he and his followers are engaged in slandering me to many who have come into a knowledge of God’s truths through bible-truths.com. This is reprehensible. I would have never dreamed that Mike would endorse such a carnal display of the flesh, as I was closer to him than a brother. To date I have not said one official word on our site or forum regarding his bizarre and heretical teachings. It is however, time to try and salvage any who have already swallowed any of these teachings and to have a statement ready for any in the future who might inquire about this matter. It is absolutely amazing how many times the word "liar" has been hurled at me without one ounce of tangible proof. Nor has anyone out of the many emails being hurled around, presented even a statement, let alone proof of anything that I did wrong in letting Mike go. I, however, will state the truth and back it up with proof. Spoken words without witnesses are difficult to prove sometimes, but even then, there can be much evidence to support the truth. Just as one cannot find positive proof to support a false premise (as with the dozens and dozens of bizarre new teachings of Mike and Rob), neither can there be positive evidence to support a lie. I will Scripturally expose many heresies, false premises, and falsehoods in this letter. I have no need to defend myself, since most of you should know by now that you don’t put me on the defensive in the first place--I don’t know the meaning of the word. My weapon of choice is the very, very sharp Sword of God’s Word, right out front in an offensive position. We will be cutting some marrow today. I will show that every accusation leveled at me is false, and I will go through some of Mike’s new teachings that should stand your hair on end if you have a flicker of God’s Spirit in you. FOOLISHLY GRASPING FOR STRAWS The very first paper I researched for bible-truths.com after we opened it with "Exposing Those Who Contradict," was "Exposing The Secret Rapture Theory." Did I have anything to say about the wrath of God on His Elect in that very first paper? As a matter of fact, I had a lot to say. Over ten percent of that hundred-page paper deals with the different meanings and different uses of "WRATH & INDIGNATION" versus "TRIBULATION & AFFLICTION." These detractors now ignorantly believe, and Mike ignorantly teaches, that "tribulation, affliction, chastening, and spiritual scourging" are merely different words and names for God’s "wrath." So therefore, if God "chastens" us, to them it is the same thing as pouring out His "wrath" on us. So let’s start with one false statement by Mike regarding wrath and tribulation Mike: "Yet we have been taught that ‘tribulation’ is a word applied only to God’s first fruit elect, and wrath is a word which applies only to the many innumerable, called but not chosen." I will bet dollars to donuts that Mike is referring to me as doing this teaching. Actually I have not taught any such thing, and I know of no religion or teacher in the world that teaches such nonsense either. I personally read to Mike over the telephone, Revelation 2:22 which dogmatically states:
It was I who insisted to Mike that this particular "great tribulation" is to fall on Babylon ONLY, and not on God’s Elect. Therefore, as late as a few weeks ago I "taught" Mike that "great tribulation" does indeed apply to those who ARE NOT GOD’S ELECT. Rev. 3:10 says virtually the same thing. I have always agreed with this.
And this is exactly what I taught in Nashville, but I only covered the tribulation on God’s Elect, and said nothing about the wrath of God on Babylon. It’s all on DVD for anyone to verify. Mike’s dissidents are desperately trying to get their message onto our Forum. They fraudulently change their names and try to post again and again in ways that are against our Forum policies. And I personally am the target of their nasty hate mails. They think they have me cornered, and have me on the defensive. Oh really? Look again: Look to your left and look to your right, dissidents. Now look behind you—it is YOU who are in a corner. I have YOU cornered I will show you exactly where I stand on this issue of who does and who does not go through the wrath of God. And I will show you exactly where you dissidents stand as well. Oh yes, I know exactly where you stand. "Let no MAN DECEIVE YOU…….." ALL of you dissidents have been deceived—ALL OF YOU. Here is just one marvelous Scriptural proof of your deception that is air-tight and book-ended. There is zero wiggle room for you in this marvelous Scripture that God has so graciously provided for just such a situation that you find yourself in today::
Now I believe that most of you believe this verse of Scripture. You all believe that God’s wrath comes upon "the children of disobedience," don’t you? Sure you do. And you believe that YOU are one of those "children of disobedience," don’t you? Sure you do. Therefore you believe that "the wrath of God" will come on you too, even though you think you are one of the Elect, correct? Yes, of course you do, and that’s because that is what Mike taught you. So there, you’re safe, you’re not deceived, you see your right place in this verse, right? Wrong pale face. If you believe Mike's teaching, that YOU as one of God’s Elect will receive this wrath in Eph. 5:6, then that is proof positive that YOU ARE INDEED DECEIVED BY A MAN. There is no debating it. If you agree that you are one of the "children of disobedience" upon which the "wrath of God" will come, then you truly ARE DECEIVED. But how can I say that? Because verse 7 says:
The "them" being the "children of disobedience" upon whom "the WRATH of God" comes in verse 7. There is NO WAY OUT. You have painted yourself into a corner. You are in a "Catch-22" situation. You are between a rock and a hard place. It’s "CHECKMATE"! The only way out... THE ONLY WAY OUT is to repent. However, I don’t think there will be too many taking that route. And that’s because you are following a man and that man is "deceiving you with vain words." Don’t try to deny it, as you will only make yourself look even more foolish than you already are. Listen carefully, in case there are any who are a little too spiritually slow to comprehend the magnitude of what I have just presented to you in this marvelous verse of Scripture. In verse 7 we are told that there WILL BE WRATH upon the "children of disobedience." So, as Mike has now put all of you and himself into that category of "children of disobedience" who absolutely WILL encounter the wrath of God, is it not possible to also be in the category of verse 7 which states "Be NOT YE therefore PARTAKERS WITH THEM." But since all you dissidents now put yourself under the "wrath of God" in verse 7, you therefore refuse to obey the admonition to "Be NOT… partakers" of verse 7. And so now you refuse to be obedient to the command of God Almighty through our Apostle Paul. Mike is teaching you that you are to live by EVERY word of God. Verse 7 IS THE WORD OF GOD, and you all REFUSE TO LIVE BY IT. You are all hell-bent on going through the wrath of God as disobedient children, rather than obeying God’s admonition for His ELECT in verse 7 by "NOT" being partakers with them—the children of disobedience in verse 7. You cannot be both the recipient of God’s wrath in verse 7 and also be "NOT ye partakers with them [IN GOD’S WRATH]" in verse 7 Am I still going to fast for anyone? Maybe you had better call your man on the phone and see if he can get you out of this one—I’m sure he will give it a try, as he told me that he now believes in many contradictions in the Scriptures. I’ve told my detractors and enemies for a long time not to treat me, or talk to me like I am some kind of a fool. It will come back to sting. CHASTENING VERSUS WRATH Defending Mike’s new teaching that chastening and wrath are virtually one and the same, Joe sent me this Scripture as proof that wrath and chasten are, as he stated, "in the same family." Here is what he sent me:
I felt a little embarrassed for Joe, but felt it necessary to explain his error in grammatical judgment. The Hebrew words translated "rebuke & chasten" are virtually identical in this verse, and the Hebrew words translated "wrath & hot displeasure" are virtually identical. Rotherham even translates "hot displeasure" as "wrath"—"Nor in thy wrath [hot displeasure] chastise me." Had Joe bothered to read my paper on the Rapture, he could have saved himself this embarrassment, as I explained these very words in great detail in that paper. From Strong’s we find the following:
But"
Now then, "rebuke & chasten" are in the "same family" and "wrath & hot displeasure" are in the "same family," but "wrath" and "chasten" are decidedly NOT in the same family. Maybe this analogy will help a few of you to understand: When a teacher "corrects, reproves, and chastens" our children, we pay him a nice salary. But when a teacher displays "rage, indignation, and WRATH" toward our children; we FIRE HIM. Am I going too fast for anyone? There was a time when Mike fully understood this simple truth and agreed with it. My Rapture paper of five years ago went into great detail explaining the differences between wrath and tribulation. At that time Mike understood, believed it, and taught it. This I will now prove. Psalm 38 undeniably shows that God was going to rebuke and/or chasten King David, and for this David was okay. What David did not desire, however, is for God to rebuke and chasten him IN HIS HOT DISPLEASURE AND WRATH. If anyone still doesn’t see the simple truth of these words, then maybe check it out with a 5th grade grammar teacher. Wrath means "ANGER." In Rev. 6:16 "…the wrath [Gk: orge] of the Lamb" mean "ANGER, indignation, vengeance, wrath" (Strong’s Greek Dictionary). But not just the "Now don’t be angry with me, sweetheart" variety of anger but, "violent passion or abhorrence" (again from Strong’s Dictionary). There is a giant difference between affliction and tribulation which we "ARE appointed thereunto" (I Thes. 3:2-3, and wrath which we are "delivered from" (I Thes. 1:10) and "are NOT appointed unto" (I Thes. 5:9). You can listen to the Nashville DVD's till the cows come home, and you will not hear one word from me regarding this kind of ANGER on God’s very chosen Elect. But Mike now teaches that God displayed this kind of "violent passion, abhorrence and ANGER" against His Own perfect and flawless Son, Jesus Christ: Now then, here is what I taught six years ago in my Rapture Paper on the subject of God’s Elect and wrath, and it is the very same thing I teach today and have always taught through the years, regardless of how dearly some would like to think that I said otherwise at the Nashville Bible Study. Notice: At the time I wrote this Rapture Paper I was mostly using the Concordant Literal New Testament (hence the word "indignation" as opposed to the King James word "wrath"—they are virtually synonymous as my Rapture paper proves. The Greek word orge is translated "wrath" in Rev. 6:16, and "indignation" in Rev. 14:10. The Hebrew word kehtsef is translated "wrath" in Num. 1:53, and "indignation" in Deut. 29:28. FROM MY RAPTURE PAPER At this point in our discussion, it will be helpful to define some words that are often interchanged as if they are virtually one and the same. It is important that we understand the meanings of important words that are wrongly applied by those who teach the rapture:
Although there is somewhat of an overlap in defining these words, we can still get a clear picture as to how these words are used in the Scriptures. Notice that "affliction" and "tribulation" are nearly synonymous. Notice also, that "wrath" and "indignation" are nearly synonymous. "Affliction" can be defined as "tribulation," and "tribulation" can be defined as "affliction." Likewise, "wrath" can be defined as "indignation," and "indignation" can be defined as "wrath." But, the first two words, "affliction and tribulation" are not synonymous with the second two words, "wrath and indignation." There is a giant difference in their usage, and especially when used in a prophetic setting. I hope I haven’t lost anyone. Reread this a few times and you’ll get it. It is when we fail to keep these prophetic events where they belong that we end up with ideas such that Christ is coming back a second time twice. The Scripture says,
It nowhere says that God has not appointed us to trials, troubles, pain, suffering, heartache, disappointment, disease, death, or hurricanes! In fact, Paul himself, tells us that we enter the Kingdom of God by going through a whole lot of these things (Acts 14:22). I personally, presently, am going through trials, troubles, pain, suffering, heartache, disappointment, disease, and two very near death experiences in the past few years, not to mention hurricane Andrew. But, nonetheless, it is a great comfort to me to know that God has not appointed me to His indignation. Believers are chastised by a wise Father out of LOVE, the nations will be punished by an angry God out of VENGEANCE. Can we not see the difference? (Actually God’s "anger and vengeance" is also out of love, but the nations will certainly not initially perceive it as such). When we look at all the ways that "indignation" is used in the Greek Scriptures, it becomes overwhelmingly clear that "indignation" is used of God to punish the wicked and stubborn. Indignation is not a direct form of chastisement. No matter how many, how much, how often, how severe your sufferings and tribulations may be, if you love God you can be absolutely guaranteed that not one iota of it is coming upon you in the form of God’s indignation. Here then is how, on whom, and when God pours out His indignation:
There are the Greek Scriptures on indignation. Notice that it always comes from God. It is poured out in vengeance upon the unrepentant, the stubborn, the unjust and irreverent, those who worship the beast, etc. Never is God’s indignation poured out on His SAINTS! Not the Gentile saints and not the Jewish saints. The saints of Israel have not "been appointed to indignation", they are not "of the night," they will not "be overtaken as a thief," they are a part of "all the saints," I Thes. 2:14 and 3:13. It is stated that those called in Paul’s message of grace will not go through the Great Tribulation period, because:
and
But look at our definitions of words again. God is promising to rescue us out of coming "indignation," not "tribulation." God did not appoint us to "indignation," but He did appoint us to "tribulation." These terms are not synonymous. Clearly I did NOT believe or teach that the Elect go through God’s wrath, DID I? No, I did not. Am I not vehemently opposed to God’s Elect going through His wrath? There was a time when Mike totally agreed with the truths of my Rapture paper. MIKE’S REVISED VERSION OF I THES. 5:9 From Mike’s paper:
It seems that every time Mike mentions I Thes. 5:9 he puts a new and different spin on it. First he taught this verse meant that we are not appointed to wrath because we have already gone through some phantom FIRST wrath, and this wrath of I Thes. 5:9 has reference to the SECOND wrath on Babylon and not us. Now he teaches that when Paul said, "For God has not appointed US..." he says Paul meant the whole world rather than the Elect. And so Mike says it is now all mankind represented in the "us" of this verse that has not been appointed to wrath. And what is his proof of this? Because Paul said, "whether we are awake or sleep." He assumes that those awake are the elect and those who sleep, are the world. Nonsense. Both "awake" and "asleep" has reference to the Elect only, which I proved in my Rapture years ago, which Mike also fully agreed and believed. Here’s proof once more from my Rapture paper: DROWSERS ARE NOT LOCKED OUT OF THE KINGDOM ANSWER: First the drowsy part then we will cover the personal character traits in the next answer. Does Paul indeed tell us that if we drowse at Christ’s coming it "is no factor," while Matthew tells us that those who drowse will be "locked out of the kingdom"? When Paul says in I Thes. 5:10,
He is not speaking of literally watching or literally taking a spiritual nap as the expositor words it, but rather if we are "living or reposing [sleeping]." The Scriptures speak of death as "sleep" dozens of times. Paul is merely mirroring the words of his Lord. The woman in Matt. 9:18 had died (ver. 18) yet Jesus said she was "drowsing" (ver. 24). Paul said:
Those who do drowse, Paul says drowse at night. Since we are not of the night or darkness, we should not drowse. Those who are not watchful concerning the things of the Lord are like drunks who drink and sleep off their drunkenness at night. That’s the spiritual application. However, even though we do not follow after those who get drunk and drowse in the night, many of us will "drowse" in the earth (be dead) when our Lord comes, but not to worry--whether we are alive and being about our Lord’s business, or reposing (drowsing/sleeping) in our graves, we will still be together with Him when He comes. "Watching or drowsing" is in answer to those either "living or reposing [sleeping, dead]" in chapter 4 verse 15. Either way, whether alive or dead, they will be snatched away to meet the Lord. To try and use these clear verses to prove that Israel must spiritually stay awake or they will be locked out of the Kingdom of God, but with us it is perfectly okay to be spiritually asleep and still be in God’s kingdom is totally out of context. Besides, Paul just stated in Chapter 5, verse 6, that,
Again in Acts 20:31, Paul admonishes his disciples to "watch." In I Cor. 16:13, Paul commands "Watch"! Colossians 4:2, "In prayer be persevering, watching..." Mike read this Rapture paper. Mike agreed with it. Mike believed as I did when I wrote it that "awake or sleeping" both had to do with the Elect, not the Elect AND the world of non-believers. Again: Who has changed their teaching? MIKE USED TO BELIEVE THERE WOULD BE NO WRATH ON THE ELECT Once more from my Rapture Paper:
Notice next what Mike had to say about my Rapture Paper and wrath. Here are his very words from five years ago in an email from his site: (I think the date on this post is wrong. We didn’t open bible-truths.com until Sept. 2000. So July 27, was possibly 2001 or 2002) YOU ASKED E-mails From Our Readers Doesn’t Col. 1:23 Cast Doubt On The Doctrine Of The Salvation Of All? July 27, 2000 Hi V____, …… To quote Mr. Ray Smith’s article on the rapture,* "we may not be appointed to wrath (I Thess. 5:9), but we are appointed to tribulation (Acts 14:22)." ……Yours in his chastening grace, Mike *Go to bible-truths.com for an excellent article about the rapture. ____________________ I clearly taught from the beginning of my site that the Elect of God DO NOT GO THROUGH THE WRATH OF GOD. You read it with your own eyes. Mike totally and whole-heartedly agreed. You read it with your own eyes. I still fervently maintain that the Elect of God do not go through the Wrath of God (just ask me or read my recent writings). Do you think that for two minutes and a few seconds I changed my whole thinking on this subject in Nashville? Some are now "adding to" my lecture, things that I never said. But Mike now fervently insists that the Elect do go through the wrath of God (just ask him or read his recent writings). Who has changed their teaching? Yes, someone has changed his teaching on whether the Elect receive God’s wrath, didn’t he? I will discuss the 2005 Nashville Bible Conference in a few minutes. MORE PROOF FROM MIKE’S OWN LAW PAPER Also a number of years ago I put together a two column chart showing the differences on many subjects as they relate to the Old Covenant and to the New Covenant. Here is point #30 from my chart as it even now appears in Mike’s paper: "The Law of Moses versus The Spiritual Law of God":
Mike totally agreed with my chart and reproduced the whole thing in his Law Paper. Clearly under the New Covenant Church of Jesus Christ, God’s people do not go through wrath: Rom. 5:9; I Thes. 5:9; I Thes. 1:10; Eph. 5:6-7; Rev. 18:4; Rom. 2:7-8, etc. But those who are not God’s elect and oppose God, do receive of God’s wrath: Matt. 3:7, Luke 3:7, John 3:36, Rom. 1:18, Rom. 2:5, Rom. 9:22, Eph. 5:6, Col. 3:6, Rev. 6:16, Rev. 16:19, etc. Now then is there any Scripture that contradicts these plain declarations in the above Scriptures? Is there even one Scripture which states that the non-elect will not receive of God’s wrath, or one Scripture which states that God’s elect do receive of God’s wrath? Show me? No, don’t argue with me, SHOW ME THE SCRIPTURE. Have Mike show you the scripture. Trials, afflictions, chastening, and judgments are NOT WRATH when administered as a loving Father for our spiritual growth, but ARE wrath when poured out in God’s fury and righteous indignation as punishment and destruction. WHAT WAS REALLY SAID AT THE 2005 NASHVILLE BIBLE CONFERENCE In Nashville I taught how several things can be different and yet in some over-all purpose still be ONE. Great tribulation on Babylon and great tribulation on the Elect are for one ultimate destiny—the salvation of all. But, in the process of reaching the one destiny, there are two groups in view: The called and the Elect. On the Elect God’s great tribulations are administered as a Loving Father (Heb. 12:5-11) for the purpose of bringing about repentance, obedience, and for producing good fruit. On the called (Babylon) and the nations, God’s great tribulations are administered as an angry God full of ire, fury, fierce indignation, punishment, vengeance and WRATH, for the immediate purpose of making them angry and bitter so that they refuse to repent and only curse and damn the name of God until God destroys them. Does anyone have a problem understanding these two groups and how tribulation is administered in totally different ways for totally different purposes? At Nashville I spoke only of the tribulations on the Elect, not of the tribulations on Babylon. My topic was not God’s wrath on Babylon. A few have carelessly and now slanderously tried to suggest that I was speaking of the wrath aspect of Babylon’s tribulations actually being on the Elect. Unbelievable. I never once associated "repented NOT," and "BLASPHEMED the God of heaven because of their pains," or "the WRATH of the Lamb," with the Elect of whom I was speaking, did I? Did I? Well, DID I? Listen to your ‘sound bites’ a couple of dozens times and try to find it. Mike has erected a slanderous straw man argument against me that absolutely CANNOT be substantiated by anything I said at the Nashville Conference. It is all spiritual smoke and mirrors. "MANY MEMBERS IN ONE BODY" People find it almost impossible to believe that pluralities or scores can be one. Jesus said:
And
Many can be ONE even though not all are the SAME. It was I who coined the phrase: "The whole Bible is ONE giant parable." But that is not to say that there are not divisions and multiple members within the one parable. The revealed foreseeable purpose for humanity is to be "MADE INTO THE IMAGE OF GOD." That’s ONE purpose concerning BILLIONS of creatures. God started with a man AND a woman (but are they not both people?). Later He had one nation AND the other nations—Jews and Gentiles (but are they not both nations?). Then He divided Israel into the House of Judah AND the House of Israel (but are they not both Israelites?). Then God formulated an OLD covenant (Law of Moses written in stone under the tabernacle/temple services) AND later a NEW covenant, under Christ’s Church with laws of the spirit written on the heart (but are they not both covenants?). Within the New Covenant, God divided the members into the called AND the chosen elect (but do they not both profess Christ?). Are the Old and the New covenants the same? Few Gentile converts ever lived under the Old Covenant, but was it not "written for THEIR admonition?" Did the Gentiles who never literally lived under the Old, nonetheless, go through the SAME TYPES OF TRIALS AND TRIBULATIONS? Were they literally the SAME trials and tribulations for the SAME purpose in God’s plan? Hardly, as not one of those under the Old were spiritually converted by their trials as those under the New were spiritually converted by their trials. Giant difference. So why does even one person have problem with what I taught in Nashville? Symbolically,
These three are really composed of only two when it comes to prophecy and judgment. The Babylonian Whore and the Beast she rides on are one rebellious entity even though they eventually turn on each other. And the Elect chosen of God are the other entity of prophecy. There are TWO great judgments (I clearly explained all this years ago in my Installment "Two Judgments By Fire." How quickly we forget what we once understood and believed. Judgment is upon the House of God NOW (I Peter 4:17), and Judgment upon the rest of the world will be LATER (Acts 17:31). And so there are two major Judgments on two segments of God’s creatures, but it is all for ONE PURPOSE—To be formed into the very Image of God’s Son (Rom. 8:29), so that God may be ALL in All (I Cor. 15:28). But before the trials and tribulations on Babylon will produce one ounce of spiritual conversion, they must first LEARN NOT TO BLASPHEME. It is God’s wrath that will punish and destroy Babylon and the world (which will also be composed of many Babylonian believers), so that they can be "made anew," later, in Judgment. At the Nashville Conference I stated that we too keep the sayings of this book and we too partake of the tribulations found in the seals, trumpets and plagues. But this is in TYPE. I assuredly did not say, state, read, or suggest in any way shape or form that we go through these tribulations WITH THE VERY SAME ATTITUDE AS BABYLON THE GREAT goes through them, now did I? No, I did not. I listened to that lecture again today, and in it, I quickly went over the purging aspects of these seals, trumpets and plagues (I spent 2 minutes and some odd seconds on all three categories). It was not an in depth study on that one item. Although there are likenesses in the judgment of the Elect to that of Babylon, there are likewise many differences. Just as there are similarities in the two covenants, but likewise, there are many differences. In Nashville I spoke of the similarities, not the differences. I never said one word that we will REFUSE TO REPENT as Babylon does during her plagues, or that we continue to CURSE AND DAMN AND BLASPHEME the name of God, did I? Shame on all of you who are now deceitfully trying to insinuate any such nonsense. One might suggest at the failure of another that he "met his Waterloo." But he only met his Waterloo in type, not literally. Likewise we go through the seals, trumpets, and plagues in type, but not as Babylon goes through these symbolic judgments to her total destruction with no salvation in sight. Not that a single detractor noticed or bothered to listen to that lecture in Nashville so that he would have heard my parting statement regarding the subject of that talk: "IT’S ALL ABOUT CHRIST COMING AND LIVING HIS LIFE IN YOU." Now then, as Christ lives HIS life in US, do we continue to "repent not," and "BLASPHEME" the Name of God through Christ Who now lives His life in us? Go back and see if that was not my closing statement on this subject. Does anyone in their right mind believe that I meant that Christ will not cause us to repent, but rather cause us to "blaspheme" His own Father’s name, "IN US?" DO THE ELECT GO THROUGH THE LAKE OF FIRE? Mike and I said for years that we are "going through OUR lake of fire now," but in so saying, we also agreed that our trials are not even called a "lake of fire," and therefore we would not call our judgment "THE lake of fire" when we teach on this subject. We both understood perfectly that we go through our "lake of fire" only IN TYPE. Albeit, both judgments consist of ONE overall all theme: Every MAN’S…. Every man’s WORKS…. Every man’s works TRIED OR JUDGED…. Every man’s works tried or judged IN FIRE. These four aspects of God’s judgments are true for Babylon (Rev. 20), and for the Elect (I Cor. 3). In this they are very similar. And we are limited to only two Scriptures to describe both. Yet our judgment in fire is clearly different from that of Babylon. We volunteer to be "crucified with Christ" and to be purged by God’s "Consuming fire" (Heb. 12:29). We "count it all joy" to be purged for God’s Kingdom (James 1:2). When we are crucified with Christ we are no longer in Babylon. Our names are then written in the Book of Life. We repent of our sins, and we praise God’s name, and we become regenerated and spiritually converted. But what about those for whom the seven seals, trumpets, and plagues of Revelation were specifically addressed? Notice the differences: They must be "cast" into the Lake of Fire, and their names are "NOT written in the Book of Life" (Rev. 20:15). Is this not a major difference? Those going through God’s wrath are not granted repentance, they do not overcome, they are not converted, they do not repent of their sins "…and they repented NOT…" (Rev.16:9, 9:21, etc.). And worst of all, they BLASPHEME the Name of God (Rev. 16:9, 11, 21). Are these not major differences. Can we not see that both groups (God’s Elect and Babylon) can go through similar trials, tribulations, and judgments (as with the two Covenants), yet the attitude and outcome is totally different? God is not angry or wroth with His Elect. God corrects His Sons through LOVE, like a loving Father (Heb. 12:6). God punishes Babylon through His anger, ire, fury, vengeance, indignation and WRATH (Rev. 6:16-17). Why is what I taught in Nashville so difficult for some of you to see? How is it that one man can so pervert your minds on this subject? Yes, there is one humanity, one blood "And has made of ONE blood ALL nations of men…" (Acts 17:26), but their spiritual journey and God’s judgment upon them differs like night and day. ONE CHURCH—TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT MEMBERS Look at the Seven Churches of Revelation. Are they not all ONE CHURCH? But are there not TWO different groups contained within this one church? Yes, of course there are. One group is told to repent and is called out to be the Chosen Elect, and the others stay back and receive the curses but not the blessings. Mike apparently can no longer see the truth of this Scriptural fact. Mike asked: "What part of Revelation is NOT for us?" And he shouted it a second time, as if no one would dare suggest that there are any parts of Revelation which we must not all "experience." Had I been at the Michigan Conference, I guarantee you I would have stood up and I would have told everyone what part of Revelation is NOT for God’s Elect to "experience" (as Mike has now totally changed the meaning of the word "keep" by substituting instead the word "experience"). I asked Mike if we all follow the doctrine of Jezebel and whether we all sink to the depth of Satan? He answered: "yes." Since he wanted to know what part of Revelation is not for us, I showed him what parts are NOT for us:
Mike disagreed with this Scripture. I said, "MIKE, you contradict." He instantly informed me that there are many contradictions in the Bible and said, "that bread from heaven was not that bread from heaven," and the beast that "was and is not and yet is." I explained that these are only seemingly contradictions, and that they can be explained so that they do not contradict. He did not agree with me. Clearly there is ONE church, but it is composed of two different groups, and the way God deals with those two different groups is DIFFERENT. How can Mike or anyone deny it? Upon those who have not the doctrine of Jezebel and who have not known the depth of Satan, God puts on them NO GREATER BURDENS. Notice Rev. 2:22:
And these tribulations on Babylon will be poured out with wrath. Don’t we, however, also go through "great tribulation?" Yes we do, but NOT THIS GREAT TRIBULATION which is for Babylon and contains the consummation of His WRATH. There are Judgments on us and there are Judgments on them—let’s not confuse them or lump them into the same judgment. What else is NOT for us in this book?
It is impossible to go through something and be kept from it all at the same time. How in the world could we both go through the "great tribulation" of 2:22, and go through the "temptation" that tries the whole world, and yet be given "none" of this burden and be "kept from" this temptation that tries the world, at the same time? When Mike comes to the "IS & WAS" application of the seals, trumpets and plagues upon Babylon, he has none. All these 7 seals, trumpets and plagues, he assures us, "are, was and will be" upon the Elect, but when applied to Babylon (and these Judgments are SPECIFICALLY applied to Babylon), he has no "is & was," only "will be"—future, end time, lake of fire. This is because he does not understand the setting of the Book of Revelation which is: "THE LORD’S DAY" (Rev. 1:10). I pointed this out to Mike. I showed him how his commentary contains dozens and dozens of pages on things of much lesser consequence, but on the God-inspired setting of the Book ("THE LORD’S DAY") he has not one word of commentary! Unbelievable. I am sure he will try to change some of these things that are now an embarrassment. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ‘IS AND THE WAS’? Mike does not understand his own teaching. He is dogmatic about everything in Revelation being "IS, WAS, AND WILL BE." Yet, when it comes to these very plagues of God’s wrath on Babylon, he has NO "is and was," only "will be." Here is proof from their commentary on chapter 6: "For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand? (Rev 6:17) Is not "the great day of His wrath" also "IS, WAS, AND WILL BE?" According to Mike, EVERYTHING concerning these plagues in Revelation qualifies for "IS, WAS, AND WILL BE." Well then Mike would agree that the great day of God’s wrath of seven last plagues also "IS, WAS, AND WILL BE," is correct? WRONG again, pale face... Mike’s commentary: "The great day of wrath here is none other than the Great White Throne Judgment." What? WHAT? All through these plagues the commentary tells us that they are on God’s Elect. But now in verse 17, presto-chango this all has to do with "The Great White Throne Judgment," which is of course, FUTURE. Where is the "IS AND WAS" of these plagues of wrath on Babylon? They don’t know, and so they just skip over it by putting it into the future "will be" category ONLY. I know what the "IS AND WAS" aspect of this prophecy represents. Yet Mike’s detractors are saying outright that I no longer believe in "is, was, and will be," yet it is Mike’s own paper that contradicts what he supposedly believes. WE MUST DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE CALLED & ELECT My point here is that Mike no longer makes these distinctions. He now talks about the called, and the wicked, and the unbelievers, as if THEY ARE THE ELECT. Wicked unbelievers living in darkness are NOT THE ELECT. But Mike no longer has the ability to spiritually decipher these things. He continually calls "elect" those who clearly are not elect. He asks the question: "Who are the tares" in the parable of the sower. He teaches that the ELECT are the tares, which then makes them "the children of the wicked One." And he refers to those who clearly were not elect in the past, as though they were elect. Here’s just one simple example. Mike states the following in one of his recent writings: "Eph. 2:2 Wherein in time past ye [God’s elect]…." Did you catch it? No? Notice, that he put "God’s elect" in brackets to explain who the "ye" represents. So what is wrong with that, you are probably asking? Everything is wrong with it. When Paul speaks of the Ephesians "in time past," they most assuredly WERE NOT "ELECT." This truth is so basic and so fundamental, that to not understand it will blind you to the rest of the Scriptures. Who were these Ephesians ‘in time past?’ Let’s see:
Notice that in the PAST they walked according to the sins of this world, just as Paul says is now working in the "children of disobedience." The Ephesians that Paul is writing to are no longer living this way, but the children of disobedience are now still living this way, and the Ephesians "in time past" also walked this way, but not NOW. NOW they are the Elect, but when they "walked according to the course of this world" they were NOT God’s Elect and it is totally wrong and unscriptural to refer to them as such. When Paul himself was "in the flesh" (Rom. 7:5), his sin "deceived me" (Ver. 11). But Jesus plainly taught that it is not possible to "deceive the very Elect" (Matt. 24:24). Paul was NOT yet a member of the Elect when he lived "in the flesh," "in time past," and "deceived." Is it not an amazing thing that I should even have to explain things that are this elementary? It is only because some of you have lost your understanding of the most elementary truths of God, and this includes your leaders. Mike calls those who are NOT the elect, "the elect." Surely someone will now quote to me:
Doesn’t this verse prove that God calls people "elect" even BEFORE they are elect? No it doesn’t. Some people think that this verse really says: "God… calls those things which BE as though they WERE." That is not what this verse says, neither is it what God does. No, God calls things which "be NOT." What are they? They are "NOT." That is their real and true condition—they are "not." But, God being God, calls them "as though" they are, because God knows for a certain at a certain time, THEY WILL BE. I might say, "I am sorry you cannot come to our meeting, but we will carry on just AS THOUGH you were hear with us." Is the person referenced AT the meeting? No. But we can carry on AS THOUGH he were at the meeting. And therefore it would be wrong for that person to say that he was at the meeting, when in reality he WAS NOT. It is wrong the way Mike speaks of people actually BEING the elect, when they are yet carnal and deceived, yet he does it all through his commentary: Verse 3: "Among whom also WE ALL had our conversation [bad conduct] in times PAST in the LUSTS OF OUR FLESH and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Mike now says that "children of wrath" means "children of GOD’S wrath." If that were true, then the word "nature" would be totally superfluous. Are we also "by NATURE children of God’s judgments?" Of course not. It merely means that we are "naturally" wrathful. "WE" "in time past" were by our very "nature" wrathful children. Concordant translates: "…and were, IN OUR NATURE, children of indignation…" But again, even if one were to believe that this verse meant that "we are children of God’s wrath," it has nothing to do with pouring out wrath on God’s Chosen Elect, as Paul puts these children of wrath "in times PAST," when we were NOT God’s Elect, but WERE deceived—deception is not possible once we’re God’s "Elect" (Matt. 24:24). I would not have a problem with Mike applying "wrath" to any ungodly, unconverted, deceived unbeliever, and that includes those of us who were such in time past. But Mike does not teach this wrath as something in our unconverted past, but rather in our PRESENT WALK WITH GOD IN FAITH, AS GOD’S ELECT, and that my friends is unscriptural. That is sheer heresy. Here is another of his statements precisely stating that it is God’s ELECT who go through God’s wrath:
Amazingly, Mike then quotes the verse 11, which clearly puts our "being in the flesh" IN THE PAST. Mike QUOTES that verse after he says, "…God’s elect are NOW ENDURING their fiery experience and judgment" which Mike says IS THE WRATH OF GOD in our present walk with God. Mike says at one place that we do not go through the "seven LAST plagues of God’s Wrath" because we go through His wrath NOW, not "last." But there are no "seven FIRST plagues" on God’s Elect anymore than there are "seven LAST plagues" on God’s Elect, and there is not one verse of Scripture to substantiate any of this rank heresy. When you truly become one of God’s "Elect," you will never ever go through God’s ire, anger, fury, indignation, vengeance or WRATH!
The Scriptures are clear: If you teach or believe that God is pouring His Wrath upon you as one of God’s Elect, then you are walking "after the flesh" (Verse 1) and you are "NONE OF HIS" (Verse 9), because there IS NO SUCH condemnation or wrath or punishment on "them which are IN CHRIST." This is Scripture—who you gonna believe? But Mike is now truly of the mentality that he believes there are Scriptures which contradict other Scriptures. He told me so himself. Condemnation is "an adverse or unfavorable sentence against" someone, and Rom. 8:1 plainly tells us that for those IN CHRIST [the Elect], there "…is therefore now NO condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus…" There are NO unfavorable sentences against God’s Elect. The wrath of God is condemnation upon Babylon, not on us, not on God’s Elect. I told Mike that all of the beautiful and profound Scriptures that we have taught, he now argues over. He has literally thrown out some of the most marvelous Scriptures in the Bible. Here’s one we have used dozens and dozens of times:
But there are no such condemnations upon "them which are in Christ." It behooves you to determine whether you are in CHRIST or in Mike. Mike says in his Revelation commentary (written by Rob Jones but fully approved of by Mike) that THE ELECT POUR THE WRATH OF GOD UPON THEIR OWN HEADS by means of the 7 last plagues. I lie not when I say that their paper on the Revelation commentary is the very worst paper on the book of Revelation that I have ever read in my life.
Are God’s elect STILL in the flesh after they come out of Babylon?
Am I going to fast for anyone? Jesus Christ gave Peter the "Keys to the Kingdom." Don’t you think that Peter ought to know about these things?
When a people are NOT God’s people, they are NOT God’s Elect even if they are LATER called to be His Elect. These Scriptures and many more, make this abundantly clear. We are NOT God’s Elect until we come OUT of Babylon, and to call people who are spiritually still deceived in Babylon "God’s Elect" is totally unscriptural and unwarranted. This really is a damnable heresy that Mike is teaching, that we were the elect before we were the elect, and now that we supposedly are the elect he continues to refer to the elect in the terms of Satan’s Children rather than the Sons of God. His whole message is as negative as negative can possibly be. Mike asks "Who are the tares?" in the parable of the Wheat an Tares in Matt. 13:24-30 & 37-43. Mike says that the tares ARE THE ELECT. Mike says that WE are the tares. Oh really? Who pray tell then are the "wheat" which the enemy sowed "tares AMONG the wheat?" God says that the wheat and tares must "both grow TOGETHER" (Matt. 13:24-30). The "wheat" are "the children [Gk: sons] of the kingdom," not the "tares." Remember I said that we cannot occupy the position of the wicked and the position of the righteous at the same time. Did not Jesus say, "let both grow TOGETHER?" And then at harvest they would be separated—one gathered into barns and the other burned. But which one are we? Mike says we are the tares that are to be burned. People open up your eyes and see this spiritual charade of darkness for what it is. As the wheat and the tares grow up together, the Elect cannot be both the wheat and the tares at the same time. The wheat are the children of the kingdom and the tares are the children of Satan, not the other way around. This too is a new and damnable teaching of Mikes. The elect cannot be both the sons of God and the children of Satan at the same time. What do the Scriptures say regarding such wickedness?
MIKE’S ALLUSIVE SCRIPTURAL PROOF FOR WRATH ON THE ELECT Let’s take a closer look at a few more "scriptural proofs" that Mike says proves God poured out His wrath on His Elect and upon His Own Son. Mike gives several other Scriptures besides the ones I list below, but the problem is, that they do not even contain the word wrath or indignation. Mike has a problem of inserting words where they do not belong. Example: "…let this cup [of God’s wrath] pass from me" (Matt. 26:39). That is unwarranted, unscriptural nonsense. Nowhere is this "cup" or any form of trial upon Jesus called "God’s wrath." Here are a few verses that do contain the word "wrath":
Should "children of disobedience" in verse 2 mean or read, "children OF GOD’S disobedience?" Should Col. 3:6 read, "For which things’ sake the wrath of God comes on the children of [GOD’S] disobedience?" Should Eph. 5:6 read, "Let no man deceive you [concerning the truth of this Scripture] with vain words: for because of these things comes the wrath of God upon the children of [GOD’S?] disobedience." And what does the next verse say: "Be not YE [God’s Elect reading this verse of Scripture by Paul] therefore partakers with THEM" (Verse 7). Who are the "Ye" but God’s Elect! And who are the "them" but the those who DO receive God’s wrath. One group DOES receive God’s wrath and the other does NOT receive God’s wrath. We just read it. Give me a break: A year ago Mike would have never argued such unscriptural nonsense as he is doing the last 90 days.
Mike teaches that this is a proof verse that God’s wrath is poured out on ALL MANKIND including God’s Elect. Mike thinks this verse says, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of MANKIND, including God’s Elect" (Period.) No, that is NOT what it says. God’s elect are NOT IN THAT VERSE. The wrath of God is poured out on all men who are guilty of HAVING the truths of God, but who are "holding back the truth in unrighteousness." Big difference. Mike no longer can "distinguish things that differ" (Phil. 1:10, ABUV), as the Scriptures admonish us. Furthermore, the following dozen verses show that God gave these same people over to homosexuality and lesbianism. Are all ungodly men and women homosexuals and lesbians? Was Paul guilty of "holding back the truth in unrighteousness," therefore deserving of the wrath of God? Paul committed some pretty bad sins you know: "Who was before [the Apostle Paul] a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious...." Yes, all of those would count for and be equated with "ungodliness and unrighteousness of men?" Yes, we could certainly say that, but did Paul ever "HOLD BACK the truth in unrighteousness," so as to incur the wrath of God? No, lets read the rest of the verse:
But doesn’t Mike teach that ALL MANKIND who are guilty of "ungodliness and unrighteousness" WILL RECEIVE THE WRATH OF GOD? Yes, but Mike now says many many many things that are totally untrue and unscriptural. Mike says: "Speaking specifically of Christ we are told: Isa. 54:7-8—"For a small moment have I forsaken thee. In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting [eonian] kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord Thy Redeemer" Oh really? I don’t know who "told" Mike that this is speaking specifically of Christ, but they were mistaken. Does Mike now also believe that "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto Me" (Matt. 25:40), proves that every statement about every abomination and sin of man in the Old Testament "Speaks specifically of Christ? Does Jer. 30:14 also apply "specifically" to Christ:
Oops. OOPS! Maybe this verse doesn’t "specifically" apply to Christ after all. What do you think? Did Christ have a "multitude of iniquities and sins?" Does Isa. 54:7-8 apply to Christ anymore than this verse in Jer. 30:14 applies "specifically" to Christ? I think not, unless you want to blaspheme. We dare NOT apply every verse of Scripture regarding the gross sins and conduct of carnal men directly to Christ. It is blasphemy! Now let’s look at Mike’s only proof text with the word "wrath" that he thinks is proof that Jesus received the wrath of His God and Father. These verses are speaking specifically about Israel ("For thy Maker is thine Husband… and thine Redeemer…" Verse 5). Jesus Christ does not need a "Redeemer" as He IS the Redeemer.
Where and how was Jesus Christ ever "a woman forsaken, grieved in spirit, and refused." Or let’s just stick with the woman—when was Jesus ever "A WOMAN?" I will cover Mike’s damnable paper on "Tamar and Judah" a little later.
We do not "gather" just one person. Who is going to be "gathered" among these Israelites? Next page (56:8)
Who is this "him" in this verse? It is "the son of the stranger [foreigner], that has joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, The Lord has utterly separated me from His people…" (Verse 3). No God will not separate him, but will rather gather others MORE unto him.
Christ never required "eonian mercy." And who is it that will "for a moment" have God’s wrath poured out on them? Let Isaiah answer again:
All these verses refer to: "…the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of Me, saith the Lord." (Last verse, Isa. 54:17). And so we have ZERO Scriptural references to "wrath on Christ." We yet lack two Scriptural witnesses to make this a truth, and I don’t believe that Mike will ever find one, as clearly this doctrine is unscriptural heresy. So we have zero Scriptures stating that Jesus goes through wrath, and zero Scriptures stating that the Elect go through wrath, but we do have MANY Scriptures stating that the Elect DO NOT go through wrath, therefore: What are you going to believe? STATEMENTS FROM A MIKE THAT I NO LONGER KNOW I can tolerate all kinds of weaknesses in a person just so long as he is honest with me. But when one no longer tells the truth, I will have little to do with him. And what is even worse than lying is bearing false witness against someone. The commandment is not even against lying, but rather against "bearing false witness AGAINST another." The following are quotations from Mike and/or his emails followed by my comments: Mike: "And for Ray in particular, as his last talk in Nashville demonstrates, this is a complete 180 degree about face for him." Comment: That’s not true. I teach exactly the same regarding the wrath of God today as I did in Nashville, and as I have since my site is up. Mike: "It is not I but Ray who has changed." Comment: I have already proved my past and present position in the material stated above. So who is it that has changed his teachings? Mike: "It is not I who precipitated this break." Comment: This has been totally and completely and solely Mike’s choice and decision. When Mike wrote his commentary on Revelation, he knew that I would not link to anything that I thought was heresy. He took the commentary off of his site soon after posting it. For nearly a week I spent hours and hours in mental spiritual turmoil trying with every ounce of spirit within me to show Mike the error of his thinking. And this was no small error. How could a spiritually humble servant of Jesus ever come to the conclusion that we can become totally sinless while yet struggling with our carnal human appetites. And yet this is what Mike declared time and again. Hour after hour; day after day. I showed him the Scriptures:
If was painfully clear to me that as I talked hour after hour with Mike, that "the truth was not in him." Does anyone believe that one day we have the truth of God, and then the next week we don’t have it, but the following week, we have it again? Oh but Mike repented of this sin, right? I’ll accept that, but what do the Scriptures say:
Did Mike and Rob say that they had no more sin?
What is one’s spiritual condition if he says he no longer sins? "His [God’s] word is NOT in us." So all those days before Mike repented, he argued and argued for the trustworthiness of his Revelation commentary. Were those arguments for the trustworthiness of his paper "God’s word," in as much in the same breath he was stating that he no longer sins? If his arguments FOR his heretical commentary were "NOT God’s word in him" at that time, how did the commentary become God’s word after he repented of claming sinlessness, inasmuch as Mike NEVER DID REPENT OF ALL OF THE REST OF THE HERESY IN HIS COMMENTARY? Read that again a few times and maybe you will get it. And many more such Scriptures I gave Mike, but he would not concede that he yet had sins. I know the Scriptures are true, and Mike does yet sin. I asked him during those long sessions on the telephone whether he really does no longer sin, and he sheepishly asserted that he does not sin. I said, MIKE! I heard you sin over the telephone. I heard you recently on several occasions on the telephone. You yelled at someone over some very slight thing (such as misplacing a paper or something). I was absolutely sure in his heart that he KNEW I was telling him the truth, and that he surely knew that it was true, he does indeed yet sin, but he would not admit to it. Ask yourselves: "How much of God’s Spirit must one have to see that no one is totally free from sin as Mike and Rob Jones have smugly and arrogantly attested in their Revelation commentary. Just try to imagine how spiritually bankrupt one would need to be to declare to the whole world over the Internet that, Mike Vinson and Rob Jones have now reached such a spiritual maturity and perfection that they no longer commit any sins whatsoever. And so they stated that they repented of that. But that sin was totally intertwined with the rest of their Revelation commentary of which THEY HAVE NOT REPENTED. There are far, far, far, worse things in their commentary than declaring themselves sinless. This sin, gross as it is, is relatively insignificant to their sin of teaching that the body of Jesus Christ WAS SIN and therefore deserved THE WRATH OF GOD upon Him. More on this later. Mike said that I gave him an ultimatum about what he wanted to teach in Michigan. That’s not true. I asked him not to teach on that one subject. Most of you have read our private email exchange that Mike made public. It was in that email that I asked Mike NOT to teach this heresy. That’s it. There is no "ultimatum" in that request. However, when Mike failed to concede his doctrine of sinlessness, I did give him an ultimatum. At one point I said, "Mike, I will give this one more day." And he knew exactly what I meant. He knew that I would not be associated with or link to someone who is now teaching the world that He is sinless, not to mention the dozens and dozens of contradictions and heresies in the rest of his commentary. The next morning he called me and said, "I was wrong." I INSTANTLY forgave him by saying, "It’s okay; it takes a real man to admit his error." Subsequent weeks proved to me, however, that he remained in the very same spirit that he was in when he insisted that he was sinless. I told him that "Satan has a hold of you mind." He chuckled and said: "I don’t think so." Continuing, Mike states: "I admitted my sin and then I was pounced on as an evil doer for remaining faithful to the fact that we are to keep the sayings of the prophecy of this book…" Comment: Poppy cock. I said he is teaching heresy not because of any faithfulness to Jesus, but for his innumerable contradictions, heresies and blasphemes. I will point out later some of the more blatant and foolish of these heresies. Mike: "If you love me KEEP my commandments" This ‘keep’ is the exact same Greek word. Are we to guard against doing Christ’s commandments? It would take a spiritually blind person to make such a claim. And that is exactly what has happened to both of these men [Lary Gupton and I] because this is how this word keep is always used." Comment: No, Lary Gupton and I are not "spiritually blind," as Mike suggests, neither do we make such an absurd claim as he suggests. Yes, the Greek word translated "keep" in Rev. 1:3 does mean to "guard [from loss or injury]." But mike does not like this definition of the word because it doesn’t fit his theory so well. And so he attempts to show that if we use the very first definition from Strong’s Lexicon, "guard," he tries to show how foolishly stupid it would be to use this word as "guard" rather than to "keep" by doing or experiencing. But what would possess someone to turn this into a negative as Mike as done, rather than a positive? Mike in recent Bible Study: "Ray says that to keep is the Greek word tereo and it means to guard against." Comment: That statement is not true. I teach no such thing. First of all, I have not taught on the subject of the meaning of this word, EVER. I know what the word is and what it means and how it is used, but I have never taught on it. And for sure I have never said, written, or even thought that this word means to "guard AGAINST." Mike just makes this stuff up as he goes. He is now making statement after statement after statement about me and what I say and teach, and not a word of it is true. The Greek word tereo´does not mean "to guard against." That is sheer fabrication on Mike’s part. "Are we to guard against doing Christ’s commandments," Mike foolishly asks? Why does he not rather ask whether we should "guard against NOT doing Christ’s commandments’—against not doing His will and against not walking as we should? Truth of the matter is, my American Heritage College Dictionary has 24 definitions for the word "guard" and not one of them includes the word "against." The word "against" has no validity whatsoever in the definition of the word "guard." These are merely unscriptural carnal attempts to justify changing words and their meanings in order to interject unscriptural heresy and try to make me and Lary look foolish. Listen carefully to what I am about to say: If "keep," as in "keep my commandments" is an accurate and satisfactory translation for Mike, then why oh why does he now teach that we must rather "EXPERIENCE" everything [good and bad] in Revelation and the entirety of the Bible. If the word "keep" was good enough for the Holy Spirit of God, why is it not sufficient for Mike that he now defines "keep" as "experience?" Rather than keep the things that God says we SHOULD keep, Mike now has a doctrine that we must also "experience" all things that God says we are NOT TO KEEP! Here are Mike’s own words: "God’s elect must experience this book fully." (Bold word experience is Mike’s). Since when is "keep" defined as "experience?" Think about it? There’s a lot of deception going on here that some of you have not considered for one second. Are we to "keep AND EXPERIENCE" the "depth of Satan" for example? Mike told me that God’s Elect experience the depth of Satan. Mike's commentary however, says we do not all experience the depth of Satan. Of course Rob wrote that commentary, but Mike doesn’t really know all that Rob wrote (in Mike's name). What do the Scriptures say?
Rob one: Mike zero. Are we to "keep" the tribulation that is to come upon Babylon and the whole word? Jesus says no:
Does the word "keep" mean the same thing as the words "keep you FROM?" But when I suggest that there are things in Revelation and in the rest of the Bible that we are NOT TO KEEP, Mike tries to make me into an heretic. I never said that we the Elect go through God’s last seven plagues of God’s wrath or Mike’s FIRST seven plagues of God’s wrath, or any other kind of wrath that Mike might conjure up, and you can listen to the sound bites from the Nashville Conference all day long if you wish—there is no such thing on those DVD's. God’s elect do not, do, experience, or "keep" the things that God keeps His Elect FROM. This is insane theology. When God "keeps us from" something, then it will NEVER happen, we will not do it, we will not keep it, we will not experience it. Let God be true and every man a liar:
Deny it if you must. Mike: "Here is my strategy for dealing with this situation. It is the strategy of God’s elect in all such times as this: Psa. 38:11—‘My lover and my friends [Ray and Lary {Mike’s bracket, not mine}] stand aloof from my sore [my mistake in that Revelation Commentary]; and my kinsmen stand afar off. They also that seek after my life lay snares for me: and they that seek my hurt speak mischievous things, and imagine deceits all the day long. But I as a deaf man, heard not; and I was a dumb man that opens not his mouth……." Etc., etc. Comment: What a crock of pity party, self deprecating foolishness. We lay snares for Mike? Mike has snared himself. Mike has dug a pit so deep that he can’t get out. I take no delight in Mike’s self-destruction. Mike says he has remained as a dumb man "not opening his mouth" through all this spiritual commotion and confusion coming from his little camp of dissidents. What? What? Mike has promoted and participated in more devious plots to steal away sheep and divide the flock, slander my name, and persuade people to pity his pathetic predicament than I could ever begin to chronicle. I have talked with some of these in the past week. I on the other hand have not said one official word regarding Mike’s sins and heresies on our site or forum; neither do I have a bashing email campaign as he does. Have you ever heard Mike call his "we no longer sin" doctrine, a "sin?" No, he prefers to call it a "mistake." A "mistake?" That is what he has always referred to it as, a "mistake." A "mistake," my friends, is the Biblical definition of a SIN! But I have not heard Mike call it what it is. I take no joy, no delight in showing you Mike’s dirty laundry. I will not, however, at this time post this openly for the public to read on our site. I am truly embarrassed over Mike, his handful of dissidents, and his heresies that are so gross that they are blasphemy and spiritual pornography. More on this later. Mike: "Ray and Lary have talked themselves into a corner. They wish that I would make some false accusations so they could capitalize on that. I will let them stew in their own spiteful pride." Comment: We are in Christ’s corner and we only wish that Mike could have remained with us in our corner. So Mike says we are wishing for him to make some false accusations. Wow. Listen: Mike has already made so many false accusations that I cannot keep up with them all. The last thing on this earth that I need is another false accusation. Give me a break. Just for the record, Mike’s accusation that we wish for him to make "false accusations," is itself, A FALSE ACCUSATION. Mike: I regret having to send these letters out. As you know, the announcement about the conference in Marshall, Michigan has been on my page for months. I also sent the announcement to Ray months ago, which he read, edited and posted on bible-truths.com. Comment: I realize that this is rather benign compared to the things yet to follow, however, it is totally false, nonetheless. Mike assumed that I read, edited and posted this announcement on our site. The truth is I did not. In fact I have never posted anything on our site. I don’t even have the pass word to get in. My Web Master, Dennis edits and posts all of our Conference announcements. Certainly I know what is going on for Conferences that I plan, but I did not plan the Michigan Conference, neither did I have plans to attend. Therefore, it was totally immaterial at what hotel it was to be held, or the times, or the topics. It was only after I realized shortly before the Conference that Mike planned to talk about things in Revelation, and I was totally against most of his commentary, that I went to his site to see what he would be talking about, as Dennis edited out that portion of the post on our site. Mike needs to be more careful about calling people a liar with no more evidence than that. Mike: "Ray called and spent over two hours on the phone with Deedle attempting to get Deedle to disassociate himself from me. Deedle could not believe his ears and was very upset…" Comment: Not true. On several occasions Mike states that "I" contacted Deedle, and "I" contacted Joe and tried to turn them against Mike. What is the truth? THEY CONTACTED ME. I still have their emails to me. I talked with them on the telephone at THEIR behest, not mine. I showed them the Scriptural truth regarding these matters. I did not try to "disassociate" them from Mike. In our hours-long conversations, they both agreed with me point by point. They did not disagree or state any opposition to what I was telling them, whatsoever. Joe’s parting words were that he would never again post material for someone without first being totally convinced that it was accurate and stated that Mike would have to get someone else to be his web master. I did not make any such "suggestion" to him. Mike’s email: "Ray then
asked me "Mike how can you say we are not appointed to wrath and at the same time say
that we endure God's wrath?" I answered Ray "I can say that in the same way
Christ can say that 'bread from heaven' is not bread from heaven. I can say that in the
same way Paul can say 'you should not be judged' and in the same breath state that ' we
are judged.' And I can say that in the same way that John can state that the Comment: On another occasion Mike tried to justify his now belief in Biblical contradictions by referencing the verses where they said their fathers received "bread from heaven," but Jesus said, "Moses gave you not that bread from heaven…" (John 6:31-32). Mike thinks this too is a true and real contradiction of the Scriptures. I assure you that it is NOT. Let’s go through these three Scriptures that Mike now firmly believes are TRUE CONTRADICTIONS of God’s word: [1] Mike: "I can say that in the same way Paul can say 'you should not be judged' and in the same breath state that ' we are judged." There was a time that Mike carefully read the earlier Installments of my Lake of Fire series, and he critiqued and proofed them, and totally AGREED with them. Notice this simple explanation of the two words "judge & judged" from I Cor. 11:31 fully explained in Installment 3 of my Lake of Fire series: The good news is that if we have a volunteering heart and accept the judgments of God on our lives now, we will be sure to avoid the harsher judgment on the whole world reserved for "that day."
Pay close attention to the three Greek words, diakrino, krino, and katakrino, used in this verse. There is so much contained in this verse. There is a judgment now on God’s saints. We are judged by being "chastened of the Lord." What does that mean? "Chastened" is from the Greek word paideuo and here is what it means: "to train up a child, i.e. educate, or (by impl.) discipline (by punishment): -- chasten (-ise), instruct, learn, teach" (Strong’s Greek Dictionary p. 54). Are you following this amazing use of words? You will now learn a marvelous truth of Scripture that is not being taught in any theological seminary that I am aware of anywhere in the whole world. We are "judged" by God, and the vehicle that God uses to do this judging is "chastening." In other words, we are "judged" by God by being "trained up" like a child, by being "educated," by "discipline" involving "punishment," "instructed," by which we "learn," and all these "teach" us WHAT WE SHOULD BE. There is no doubt that some of this chastening can be harsh, sorrowful, and painful. Much of it is not very pleasant and God admits as much to us. And it is not possible for one single son of God to avoid this chastisement! (End quote) No contradictions. Can anything be plainer or simpler? Years ago Mike read this Installment, and he understood it, and he approved of it. But since God is taking away his spiritual understanding, he now truly believes that this is a true contradiction in God’s word. [2] Mike: "And I can say that in the same way that John can state that the beast ' was, is not and yet is.'" (Rev. 17:8). Comment: There was a time when Mike did not buy into contradictions just because a verse may have appeared to contradict in the King James Bible. But in this case, not even the King James contradicts, but clearly explains how "the beast was, is not, and yet is" is easily understood. This is not rocket science.
The word translated and yet "is," in verse 8 can mean to "come." See Strong’s Greek Dictionary. Now notice how other translations render this phrase:
This is only a contradiction in Mike’s spiritual inability to see the truth anymore. [3] That Israel received "bread from heaven" there is no question, as the Scriptures clearly state it. But does that statement truly contradict Christ’s statement that, "Moses gave you NOT that bread from heaven?" (Jon 6:32) Surely not. Jesus explained the differences between the two breads. They received manna in the wilderness that did not sustain their life but for a few years. But Jesus is speaking of a bread from heaven which is "bread of LIFE" (Verse 48).
This is not a contradiction, but Mike in his present spiritual condition thinks that it is. Let’s also notice, that even without the explanation of this bread from verses 47 to 59, there is still no contradiction. As I have been saying nearly daily now for the past few months: "We must pay strict attention to ALL THE WORDS." Here is another proof that "He gave them bread from heaven to eat" is not a contradiction of "Moses gave you NOT that bread from heaven." It is carelessly assumed by Mike that Jesus’ words: "THAT bread from heaven" has reference to the bread that "HE gave them… from heaven." It does not. If we read carefully we will see that Jesus already introduced them to "…THAT meat [food, bread, ‘loaves’—verse 26] which endures unto everlasting [eonian] life, which the SON OF MAN [not Moses] shall give unto you…" (Verse 27). There it is. Jesus said that He had bread that would give "everlasting life" (Verse 27). They said: "Our fathers did eat manna in the desert… bread from heaven…" (Verse 31). Jesus said, "Moses gave you not THAT BREAD [not the bread that Jesus just told them about that would give them "everlasting life." Moses surely didn’t give their fathers "THAT bread]." Simple huh? As God as your Judge, do any of you reading this see contradictions in Mike’s three examples, except for Mike? Mike told me that the Bible is filled with contradictions when he gave me the bread and beast examples. Plainly these are not contradictions The contradictions are in Mike’s head, not in God’s Word. Would you like to see another contradiction that is in Mike’s head, but not in the Scriptures? There are plenty of real contradictions in Mike’s word. Here are a couple of cute ones: Mike from his "Who is Tamar" paper: "Are we going to argue with the very words of Christ who IS THE SAME YESTERDAY, today and forever, and say this has no application to Tamar: Tamar represents Christ and His elect…" Now from Mike’s commentary: "God is spirit and His Son Jesus Christ whom we must know is NOT THE SAME JESUS that walked the earth." Oops. Isn’t that precious? Maybe this is just a case of not letting your left hand know what your right hand is doing. So Jesus IS THE SAME as He was yesterday, and He is NOT THE SAME as He was yesterday. Mike’s commentary and writings of the last 90 days are filled with such contradictions. No, I didn’t say there are a dozen or so, I said they ARE FILLED with such contradictions, and many of them blasphemous. Mike: "Where have I ever said that the Elect go through the seven last plagues?" Comment: Here’s a few places you said it: [1] "Anyone trying to circumvent, skate around, short cut, or come out of ‘prison’ or ‘Tarsus’ before experiencing the fullness of the wrath of God or, in other words, all of the seven vials of the seven last plagues, is in direct contradiction to the doctrine of Jesus Christ and will not be found blessed and holy no matter how many truths they see." [2] "We, the elect, patiently remain ‘sealed up’ in our ‘prison’ or ‘Tarsus’ experience until we are completed only after having experienced all of the SEVEN LAST VIALS." [3] "All men, like Christ, received the full measure of God's seven plagues of His wrath." Mike: "God's elect are in the first
judgment with the first fire and the FIRST WRATH of God and the FIRST PLAGUES. That
is why God's elect are not hurt of the second death. That is why God's elect are not in
the lake of Comment: So, Mike says we go through the "FIRST WRATH of God and the FIRST PLAGUES," and "That is why we are not ‘appointed to wrath.’" He teaches that because we go through the FIRST WRATH OF GOD’S PLAGUES, we will therefore not go through the WRATH OF GOD’S SEVEN LAST PLAGUES. Okay, now read again the quotation from Mike’s commentary: Mike again: "We, the elect, patiently remain ‘sealed up’ in our ‘prison’ or ‘Tarsus’ experience until we are completed only after having experienced all of the SEVEN LAST VIALS." (Emphasis mine). Comment: FIRST, Mike teaches: "Where have I ever said that the Elect go through the seven last plagues?" SECOND, Mike teaches: "We, the elect, patiently remain ‘sealed up’ in our ‘prison’ or ‘Tarsus’ experience until we are completed only after having experienced all of the SEVEN LAST VIALS [PLAGUES]." THIRD, Mike teaches: "God's elect are in the first judgment with the first fire and the first WRATH of God and the FIRST PLAGUES. That is why God's elect are not hurt of the second death. That is why God's elect are not in the lake of fire. That is why we are not ‘appointed to wrath.’" At least Mike covers all of his bases—he teaches BOTH contradicting positions at the same time. Unbelievable. Nine lines after we are told that God’s elect experience "…ALL of the seven last vials," they quote Rev. 18:4 which states, "…be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive NOT OF HER PLAGUES." Years ago Mike believed as I do on this subject of wrath. Now he says he has believed for years now that God’s wrath is poured out in something [Scripture?] called "the FIRST wrath of God and FIRST plagues." In his commentary he now states that God’s Elect "experience ALL of the SEVEN LAST VIALS [plagues] as well—you just read it with your own eyes. That’s THREE DIFFERENT positions on this subject. What would Mike’s detractors do to me if they could find ME having three different positions on the same topic as I have just shown above? You know what they would do to me. They might consider putting on a billboard along Interstate 85. But do his dissidents have a problem now that Mike takes three different contradicting positions on the same topic? Of course not. That is because they are following a man, and not the Word of God. Does anyone have a DVD, or "sound bite," or article, or email, or Bible study, or Bible Conference, where I ever said: "God pours out his WRATH upon His Elect?" Or ANY such words in which "wrath" is applied to "God’s Elect?" Well? Don’t stand there with your spiritual hands in your pockets--Bring it on! And again, who changed their teaching? If what Mike has stated above would be true, then the Elect would receive DOUBLE fury, vengeance, indignation and wrath from God. Is that what the Scriptures teach, that the Elect receive "double" more judgment that Babylon?
Most of the nasty and bitter emails that I have received from Mike’s followers say that they have not "chosen sides" in this matter. Of course they have chosen sides—you should read the REST of their emails. And they say that they will "not follow a man" but God in this matter of Mike’s departure. Now that’s funny. These dissidents are the very personification of those who follow a man. They are the perfect stereo-type of those who follow a man. They are the very dictionary definition of those who follow a man. That’s why I could write a hundred pages on Mike’s contradictions and heresies, and it will not affect them one iota; and that’s because the truths of God no longer take precedence in their lives over following a man. Mike: "How then can Ray and Lary claim, as they both have to me: "I have never blasphemed God... I will never experience His wrath." Comment: That is sheer fabrication. I called Lary Gupton and asked him if he ever said such a foolish thing to Mike? He emphatically said, "NO." And neither have I. I have never ever said or even thought that I have no time in my past ever blasphemed the name of God. I assure you that I have never said such a thing to Mike. Nor did I ever speak the words "I will never experience His wrath," even though I know that it is Scripturally true, unless… UNLESS, I turn from God and am a charlatan and a fake and have not the Spirit of God. When someone becomes God’s true Elect, the Scriptures prove that that person will never have the wrath of God poured out on him:
Now here are all the Scriptures that show that God WILL pour out His wrath upon His Elect: _________________________________?
There ARE NO SCRIPTURES that show God will pour our out His wrath upon His Elect! You all need to re-read my paper on the Rapture. Mike used to believe that paper, quoted from it, and praised it. What happened? Who changed? Mike: "Ray has indeed taught many wonderful truths. but unless he repents of what he is presently teaching, the light which he has had in the past has now become darkness." Comment: All I have to say to that is, "Thou hast said, Mike….thou has said." "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant" (Luke 19:22). Mike: To preach and teach that we are to "guard against keeping the sayings of the prophecy of this book," is heresy of the highest degree. Christ Himself declares that it is He Himself who is "the first and the last." To deny that it is incumbent upon His elect to experience "every word which proceedeth out of the mouth of God," is to make God a liar. It is the diametric opposite of the instructions in the book which tells us how we are to come to know the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Comment: Oh really, and do we have a sound bite on that also? To insinuate that Lary and I teach that we are to "guard against keeping the sayings of the prophecy of this book," is sheer deceit and slander. Neither he nor I believe any such nonsense--and Mike knows it. WHY is Mike saying these outrageous falsehoods? The answer is because he is insecure in the Truth. The truth does not sustain him. His arguments are hollow without fabricated slander. Mike is scared, frustrated, angry and bitter. And so he is lashing out with such nasty falsehoods—of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. He nor his dissidents can help but lash out as they are doing in bitter frustration. They are in turmoil. They have no peace of God, or they would be about their own business.
Commenting on the above verse, Mike’s commentary says: "We hate it. We despise all of the fiery trials and tribulations in our life until very late in our maturity." Comment: Notice that it is not very late in our "infancy" that we are still cursing and damning and blaspheming God’s name, but rather "…very late in our MATURITY." Where do the Scriptures teach such damnable heresy? Where? Here is what the Scriptures teach:
At what part in the walk of the Thessalonica Church did they refuse to repent while cursing and damning God’s name? Was the church at Thessalonica in their "LATE spiritual maturity," when Paul gave them the gospel, or were they in their spiritual infancy? They were in their infancy.
When they "received the word" were they in their "VERY LATE maturity" and still HATING God and REFUSING TO REPENT and CURSING AND DAMNING THE NAME OF GOD, as Mike damnable paper contends? No, when they "received" the word of God they were in their absolute spiritual infancy (when they were babies in much affliction), and yet… .AND YET, what was their attitude? "...JOY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT." THE STORY THAT NONE OF YOU KNOW When I became acquainted with Mike about six years ago, we spent many hours conversing on the telephone. We worked very closely together with the material we were presenting on our sites. Almost immediately, we shared the information we were writing about. When we finished a paper we would send it to the other for critiquing. I worked closely with Mike on his Law paper, and he read all of my early installments on the lake of fire. Mike never corrected any major teaching of mine, but it was, nonetheless, using the principle of God that there is safety in the multitude of counselors (Prov. 11:14; Prov. 24:6). Notice Prov. 15:22:
Notice how Concordant translates this verse:
Was not that commentary "disappointed/quashed?" But rather than repent of all the damnable heresies in that commentary, Mike now wants to resurrect it again and bring it back again with a few changes here and there. We read each other’s papers until about a year ago, at which time Mike would no longer read my new papers and critique them. I would send them to him, but he would not critique them. Neither would he anymore send me any of his papers. I have always sent Mike copies of all the emails I answered and posted--thousands and thousands of them. Mike did not, however, ever send me the emails that he mostly received through bible-truths.com. Last year I asked him why he didn’t send them to me, even though he sent them to many other people on a consistent basis. So he did start sending me some of his emails and his answers. But he did not send me his articles, nor did he read and critique mine. I recently asked him why? I know he did say that he worked a lot and had little time (although there were months when he had very little work). The only paper that I remember Mike asking me advice on last year, was his paper on heaven. I gave him the "fish in the ocean" analogy and a few suggestions, but that was about all for the last year. Some time last summer (and I admit that I do not have every conversation and communication in perfect chronological order) I was told that Mike was working on a commentary on Revelation with Rob Jones, whom I do not know, although I was told that I once met him. Mike did not ask assistance in this project. Before it was finished I asked if I could read something on this commentary. I was sent chapter one. I read it, but was not happy about its content. Its flaws were obvious to even a novice. The opening sentence was that the church teaches this is a book about "end time prophecy," but Mike stated that "nothing could be further from the truth." I said, "Mike! This whole book is PROPHECY, and it has to do with the END of everything—the end of our carnal lives, the end of Babylon the Great, the end of world government, the end of the millennium, the end of the human race, the end of Judgment, the end of death." He said: "But you know what I mean." I said, "Mike, you are writing this for the Worldwide Web, not for me." He disagreed on my criticism. He (or rather Rob, I guess, since he wrote the commentary although Mike said he spent days, weeks, and months on the phone approving what Rob wrote) said: "This is not a book to be read." I said, Mike, read verse three, "Blessed is he THAT READS … the things which are written therein." Again he said, "But you know what I mean." Although Mike stated in his introduction that this project might take years to complete, and that Jesus Christ might well return before it would be finished, a few months later it was finished! The most God inspired and definitive work on the Book of Revelation in the history of the world was completed by a relatively new-comer to bible-truths.com, in a matter of a few months! I was shocked that such a massive undertaking could be completed by a novice in a few months! The commentary was finished and Mike and Rob declared themselves SINLESS. Yes, I know, they said they were wrong, but I cannot discuss the rest of chapter 22 except in the light of this new doctrine. The readers are talked down to in chapter 22 as a direct result of Mike and Rob believing their selves now sinless. Even before Mike’s departure, I caught myself recently repeating something that Mike told me. I didn’t bother to check the Scriptures on whether Paul spent 13 years at Tarsus. Why? Because Mike said Paul spent 13 years at Tarsus. I thought he researched it. Surely this was nothing to question, but question it I did, as I didn’t remember any such thing. I checked my Bible, Dictionaries, etc., but I could not find where Paul stayed 13 years in Tarsus, yet it is a major part of Mike’s new doctrine. Notice this absurd statement from his commentary:
Oh really? It takes 13 years after repentance to have the righteousness of Christ? Does not the Holy Spirit of God impart His righteousness to us? Of course it does. Did Paul wait 13 years for that? Notice that after 3 days (not 13 YEARS)
I have repented of accepting that bit of heresy from Mike without Scriptural proof. A few more quotes from these last two pages of his commentary:
Comment: Of course you all know who wants to be "your John," don’t you? Rob and Mike, of course. And that, my friends, is the real reason that Mike is no longer with us. Mike desires "preeminence" among the Elect.
Mike’s commentary:
Mike’s commentary ends the book of Revelation with this:
God on the other hand ends the book of Revelation with this:
How spiritual must one be to see the 180 degree differences between Mike’s summation of Revelation and God’s. I cannot resist giving you one more quotation from chapter 22 of the commentary: "During this commentary, we have not added to or taken away one word from this book." Yeah right. I have chapters 1, 2 and 22 printed out. I have used color high liters to mark errors and contradictions; additions and deletions. These three chapters now look like a child’s coloring book. There are as many as five additions on one page. If I were to read all twenty two chapters it would not surprise me to find HUNDREDS of additions, errors, and contradictions. A FEW DIGS FROM MIKE’S FOLLOWERS TO ME
OUR CONVERSATION OVER THE SINLESS DOCTRINE I poured my heart out for many hours trying to show Mike the error of this sin. After nearly a week, I told Mike that I would give it one more day—now that WAS an ultimatum. The next morning he called and said: "I was wrong." I immediately forgave him and said: "It’s okay: it takes a man to admit his error." As most of you know, Mike then took this commentary off of his site and posted a retraction of his "sinless" sin at our Forum. But Mike was ready to quickly take that part out, make a few changes, and put it back up. I told Mike that his commentary was ill-written, and filled with contradictions and heresies. I asked if he did not have this paper proof read? He said, "No." I asked him why? He didn’t know. Mike’s wife, Sandi, is an excellently proof reader and lives right in his own house. Why did you not even allow Sandi to proof it? This to me was absurd. Mike totally and very vocally disagreed with me that the commentary is filled with contradictions and errors. He said that all it needed was a "few word changes" here and there and all would be fine as written. For example, were he said that the book of Revelation is not about "end time prophecy," all that would be needed was to insert the word "solely"—"Revelation is not solely about end time prophecy." He now states that he will go over every word of it. But he has already conceded time and again to me, that the paper is basically and mostly Scripturally sound as it is. I told him there were many, many more errors than that. I told him that this commentary could not be salvaged. That the entire premise is wrong, and there are so many other unscriptural heresies in it that it simply cannot be salvaged. Mike totally disagreed and argued. The truth is (though not as important), it has dozens and dozens (maybe hundreds) of grammatical errors and sloppy formatting. It is almost impossible to read. There are virtually no breaks between the hundreds and hundreds of Scriptural references and the commentary. Mostly the Scriptural quotations are in italic and the commentary is in Roman. But then for whole pages the commentary switches to italic also. Sometimes the commentary is in black and other times in blue ink. Most of the time the margin is flush left, but then there are whole sections where every line of type is centered with rough margins. One paragraph is approximately three hundred lines long without a break. That paragraph may be the longest in journalism history since the invent of paragraphs. Mike wanted to know where there were so many errors. I started with the first few verses of chapter one. Here are a few: Verse 1: I asked Mike the difference between the "Revelation" of Jesus Christ, and the "Testimony of Jesus Christ?" He told me they were the same thing. Then he told me He didn’t know. Maybe that’s important to know. Verse 3: Mike’s commentary says: "The book of Revelation is intended, NOT TO BE READ, but to be EXPERIENCED." There are two gross errors in that statement. First it is indeed a book to be read, "Blessed is he that READS … the things which are written." And "experienced" is a word that has now lead Mike and Rob into a dark and damnable valley of unbelievable heresy. Verse 3 & 8: This assuredly IS a prophecy, "the words of this PROPHECY…" And obviously this IS a "prophecy" of end time things... Jesus Christ is just as much the "Omega" of all things as He is the Alpha. Ten times I showed you all in my Lake of Fire paper that Jesus is the beginning and the END, the Alpha and the OMEGA, the is, was and WILL BE. How quickly we forget the things we used to believe. Verse 4: "John TO THE SEVEN CHURCHES which are in Asia." That’s clear enough, but Mike’s commentary says, "First of all, notice that it is actually the angels of the churches who are being written to and not the actual churches themselves." Oh really, and just what did we read in verse 4? And verse 11, "write in a book, and send it unto THE SEVEN CHURCHES which are in Asia…" We also find this message is addressed to "The Churches" in the following verses: Rev. 1:20, 2:7, 11, 17, 23, 29, 3:6, 13, 22, and 22:16. Now then, what has Mike done here? He boldly states that the Prophecy of Revelation is not even sent to the Churches, but rather to the messenger of the churches. I just showed you twelve Scriptures that say Mike’s commentary is wrong. Mike says it is NOT written to the "churches" mentioned in those twelve verses. Mike has "taken AWAY" from this book of Revelation, twelve things that God inspired to be written in this book. What does this book say about such a person?
Mike asked the question: "What part of this Book is NOT FOR US?" Ironically it is Mike himself, who now tells us that at least twelve verses regarding this message to The Churches is not for the churches. "Blessed is he who READS…" (1:3) is not for us. "…the Lamb [Jesus Christ] IS the light thereof [of the city]" (21:23) is not for us. Being "…NOT partakers of her sin…" (Rev. 18:4) is not for us. That we "…receive NOT of her plagues" (18:4) is not for us. "As many as have NOT this doctrine [of Jezebel]…" (Rev. 2:24), is not for us. And those of us "…which are NOT known the depths of Satan…" (2:24) is not for us. And "Because you [God’s Elect] have kept the word of My patience, I also will keep you FROM the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world [Babylon, not the elect] to try them [And these tribulations ARE poured out IN WRATH—Rev. 6:16-17] that dwell upon the earth" is not for us. According to Mike these protections on God’s Elect from God are "not FOR US," after all." And so things that are NOT for us, Mike says ARE for us; and things which ARE for us Mike says ARE NOT for us. Etc., etc. When I pointed out this obvious contradiction to Mike, rather than acknowledge his error and say: "Yes, clearly our commentary is wrong." No, here is what he said: "Why they [the seven churches] don’t even understand it." I asked him what in the world their understanding or lack thereof has to do with the fact that it was written TO them? I pointed out to him where Paul said the Jews had an advantage because, "…unto them were committed the oracles of God" (Rom. 3:2). Did the Jews understand their Hebrew Scriptures? Not very many. I said, "Mike, where did we get our Bibles? Who learned these ancient languages? Who translated the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures? Who published and printed and distributed these Bibles of God’s Word to the whole world?" He said, "I got my Bible from God." I said, "Oh really, and does it have a cover on it?" I said, "Maybe God gave you some understanding of the Bible, but you got your Bible from me, and I bought it at a book store." It is the CHURCH that has been responsible for the preserving, translating, publishing and distributing of the Bible to the world. Mike is so vainly stubborn that he will not acknowledge the simplest of truths anymore. It is impossible for me to talk with him. He is no longer "…easy to be entreated…" (James 3:17). Mike is now all about MIKE. And Mike’s Revelation commentary is all about Mike. Mike certainly didn’t want my input in this project. And now I have learned that he didn’t want any of Lary Gupton’s input either. This commentary was a work of the flesh. It was done in hast. It was to be Mike’s shining star of theological prowess. It was a huge idol of the heart. It was written in pride, not humility. The proof of this is in the result: Was Mike lifted up ("HUMBLE yourself in the sight of the Lord, and HE SHALL LIFT YOU UP") or was he brought down ("PRIDE goes before destruction and an haughty spirit before a fall" (Prov. 16:18). I have not witnessed a more haughty spirit over the past few months, than I saw in Mike. Mike wants admiration as a deep and profound expounder of God’s Word. His commentary project was an "idol of the heart." I am not spiritually blind—I see through Mike’s motives like a window pane. Nor do I judge him for it. God has and is right now, judging Mike for this. I hate it. He truly was a brother, and now he is an enemy fighting me and slandering me, but he has become an enemy of the cross as well, "For many walk [all of Christendom] of whom I have told you often [in virtually every paper I have ever written for bible-truths.com] and now tell you even weeping, that they [who are now blaspheming the Name of Jesus Christ in major articles posted on the Internet] are the enemies of the Cross of Christ" (Phil. 3:18). More on this later. Verse 10: "I was in the spirit ON THE LORDS DAY…" Mike’s commentary waxes eloquently over matters that are of no earthly importance whatsoever (such as a phantom "curved" two-edged sword of the Lord, all the while being ignorant of the fact that no curved two-edged sword was known to exist before 800 AD, and that in Japan, not Judea or the Middle East), but when it comes to "the Day of the Lord," which is the setting of this book, the basis for its existence, the fulfillment of hundreds of prophecies regarding "The DAY OF THE LORD comes, cruel both with WRATH AND FIERCE ANGER…" (Isa. 13:9, and hundreds of other Scriptures). what does Mike’s commentary say regarding this paramount of important day? Here is what Mike has to say about this grand theme of Revelation, "The LORD’S DAY" (Rev. 1:10): "_________________________."
There it is. NOTHING! Mike has nothing to say about "The LORD’S DAY." THREE HUNDRED LINES of commentary for one verse, yet not ONE WORD on the setting and theme of this entire book! Maybe it’s just me. Maybe you think I am just nitpicking? Maybe you too think that non-existent curved swords deserve more commentary than "The GREAT AND TERRIBLE DAY OF THE LORD" which is the theme and setting of this entire book! Mike now associates virtually everything that is evil in the entire Bible with the Elect. Everything negative, wrong, evil, and failing, is to Mike, "the Elect." Or as Rob constantly says, "that's US." At one point I said disparagingly to Mike: "Next thing you’ll be telling us that Satan falling from heaven is also the Elect?" He hesitated for a moment, and then with a slight stutter said something like, "Well….ah…YES." Now I believe that their commentary says somewhere that it is Satan that falls from the heaven of the Elect, but Mike told me that Satan himself represents the Elect falling from heaven. But Mike thought just a word change here or there would make the paper just fine. I flat out told Mike that this paper is a work of the flesh, and assuredly is not inspired of God to represent truth for God’s Elect. I am sure that this offended Mike greatly, but he would not pay heed to anything I was telling him, even after showing him contradiction after contradiction after contradiction in his commentary. This commentary on Revelation which started out as an idol of Mike’s heart will end up being his biggest curse. WHY BOTHER WITH PROOF READING? This commentary is so badly written, that I said to Dennis my web master, "I don’t believe that Mike ever read this commentary." He said, "What-are-you-talking about?" I said, "I don’t believe that Mike ever read his own paper on Revelation. I think he approved over the telephone what Rob was doing, but that he never read it when it was finished." I said, "Mike is a much better writer than this. Mike would never have a 300 line paragraph, for instance." That evening I called Mike as asked him to tell me the truth about something. I said, "Did you even read this Revelation commentary before you posted it?" Are you ready for this? His answer: "NO." Mike never even read this commentary before he posted for the world to read. The most definitive work of the Book of Revelation in the 2000 year history of the church, and it was completed in a few months, by a novice, was never proof read, wasn’t given to me to read, and was not even read by Mike himself. Yet he couldn’t wait to show the Internet world his masterpiece of theological prowess and spiritual understanding. And what was the result of such a haughty, slip-shod sham of a project? Mike fell flat on his spiritual face. He shamed himself and he shamed bible-truths. That didn’t need to happen except for the will of God in the matter. Mike could have let me read it. Better yet, he could have had the input from a few of us who might have been able to help make it a profitable project. He stated that I said that he and I are the only two men in the world who know anything about the symbols of Revelation, and that he "immediately" reminded me of Elijah and the seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal. What I said was "where" would he find someone who understood these symbols besides us. Is Mike now suggesting that there ARE seven thousand of God’s Elect who know what all these symbols mean? There were seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal, not seven thousand OTHER PROPHETS JUST LIKE ELIJAH. And how many times have I quoted that verse to Mike? Give me a break. I said, "Mike, what do you think God was trying to show you when you fell flat on your face with your sinless doctrine?" And if I’m lying; I’m dying—here is what he said: "I think He was showing me that I spend too much time doing God’s work and not enough time with my Family." I said, "MIKE! You’re telling me God made you believe and teach one of the most stupid and embarrassing heresies I have ever heard of [or words to that effect] BECAUSE YOU SERVE GOD TOO MUCH? God did this to you because you SERVE GOD TOO MUCH?" I am as speechless now as I was then… I have no further comment. I said words to this effect: "Mike, don’t you think God had your fall with your sinless doctrine because it was the capstone and conclusion of your commentary, and that your whole commentary is likewise unscriptural?" He did, of course, disagree strongly. His sinless doctrine was but the scab of an entirely diseased paper. Although I had read only chapter 1 and chapter 22 of Mike’s commentary, I did a search on the whole commentary for three subjects that I wanted to know how they handled: 1. I wanted to see what he had to say about "the beast and the false prophet." Here it is:
And now you know. When I showed Mike what Rob wrote on this verse, Mike was surprised. 2. The phrase "for ever and ever" is used 13 times in Revelation. It is one of the most mysterious phrases in Revelation, and is one of the "strong" points upon which the Christian Church base their eternity in hell doctrine. It really is a most important phrase to understand. Here is their explanation of what "for ever and ever/eons of the eons" means:
Well there you have it. Verse 8 had over ten pages of commentary, but verse 9 regarding just what the "eons of the eons" means, we get this: "…a lifetime…our lifetime." Great, now everyone can explain all those 13 verses on "for ever and ever" like this one: "And the Devil…shall be tormented day and night for our lifetimes of our lifetimes" (Rev. 20:10). You all understand what it means now--don’t you? 3. I wanted to see how Mike explained "is, was, and will be." This is the vehicle by which he teaches everything in this book. This is in fact the title of his web site. Ten times some version of this phrase appears in Revelation. This must be pretty important, wouldn’t you say? I thought so, so I thought I would see just how they explained what this phrase that they use hundreds and hundreds of times in their writings really means. So I checked their commentary on this phrase as well. And what is their explanation of what this most important and strange sounding phrase means? No explanation. None. Not a word. From page 3 of chapter 22 we read Rev. 22:5 and Mike’s comment on it:
Mike’s commentary:
Comment: I told Mike that I thought that was blasphemy. I asked how one could ever say such a demeaning thing regarding our Creator, Lord and Saviour? He said: "Well what does it mean then that there shall be "no need of the sun?" I told him that this is the kind of trouble he gets himself into when he thinks he is comparing spiritual with spiritual, when in reality He is comparing physical with physical. First off, the sun (it is sun with a small lower case ‘s,’ not a capital) is NOT "representative of Christ." The word "representative" means "typical, of the same class." I assured Mike that Christ is not representative of a gaseous orb floating around in outer space. Nor is Jesus of that "same class." Christ has attributes that are analogous to the sun, such as brightness, but he is not of the "same class" (not all translations capitalize "sun" or use the personal pronoun "his" in Malachi 4:2. Besides, where is the "second witness" to this "Sun" with a capital "S"? This particular error and contradiction in their commentary just shows sloppy scholarship. I told Mike to back up nine verses to Rev. 21:23 and read it:
Just maybe they threw away Jesus Christ as "no longer needed," a little prematurely, seeing that Jesus is the spiritual light of the New Jerusalem, and will be a permanent blessing to the sons and daughters of God without end. You would think a sin this egregious would elicit a little remorse from the offender, wouldn’t you? No, not Mike. His response: "Well, I guess you got me on that one." I am sure that Mike will make changes to some of these more embarrassing things that I have pointed out in his commentary, but he still thinks that it is a scripturally sound paper. I could not disagree more—it is absolutely terrible, and that is based on three chapters that I have now read, plus a few places where I searched for one specific word and the like. I am sure he will make some correction to his teaching that we DO go through the seven last plagues of God’s wrath and WE DO NOT go through the seven last plagues of God’s wrath. Am I the only one who is having a problem with such blatant contradictions? But hold on, it gets worse, much worse. I asked Mike, "Just WHEN do God’s Elect go through all of these plagues of God’s wrath?" He answered: "They go through them when they go through them." And I asked, "When is that?" And he answered: "Whenever it is." That’s not the Mike I knew for six years. I asked if he went through the plagues of God’s wrath? He answered: "I am still going through them," and stated that he would continue going through them until he dies. Do we have a Scripture? Mike now states that he has been teaching this for years, and even says that I too taught this for years. What a crock. You saw with your own eyes what I believed about the wrath of God from the very beginning of bible-truths.com. I have 12 pages on the subject in my Rapture paper. If Mike has taught this for years, where was I? Show me one bible study, one email, one article, one Bible Conference going back several years where Mike taught that the Elect go through the wrath of God? Show me! And now he has evolved from "keeping" the things contained in the book of Revelation to "EXPERIENCING" everything in the book—the good and the bad; the things God says we are to do AND THE THINGS THAT GOD SAYS WE ARE NOT TO DO. This truly is heresy. And now he goes further (he has to keep up this façade and charade to his followers, pretending he is going deeper and deeper into these mysteries that only he understands), and states that we must "experience" everything in Genesis, everything in the Old Testament, and every word that comes out of the mouth of God. It is no longer we must keep or obey, WHAT God commands, but rather we must now "EXPERIENCE EVERYTHING." What Scriptural proof does Mike have that we are to do things in Revelation that God plainly says we are NOT to do or experience? He has no Scriptures.
Mike teaches that when we "come out of her [Babylon]," then WE DO PARTAKE OF HER SINS AND WE DO PARTAKE OF HER PLAGUES. Mike says he still has a head "seven heads and ten horns," and I am inclined to believe him. My "Head" is now, Jesus Christ (I Cor. 11:3; Eph. 4:15; 6:23), not "seven heads and ten horns." MIKE’S PARTING WORDS TO ME I showed Mike numerous things that are wrong with his Revelation commentary—some of them outlined above. I suggested that there are many more such unscriptural contradictions in his paper (and at the time I had read only chapters 1 and 22). He disagreed with me. Mike knew that I would not continue to link to his site if he insisted on teaching things that I am fully persuaded are rank heresy. He would not acquiesce. His choice. I asked Mike if I have ever lead him wrong on anything,... ever? He said, "No." He knows there have been a number of situations over the years in which he had a different take on a situation than I did. In every case, when the facts came out, Mike admitted that I was right and he was wrong. I asked him if I was right about his "sinless doctrine?" Had I now showed him the truth of this matter from day one, even though it took a week for him to admit error. Why then, I asked, would you not give time and consideration to what I firmly and scripturally believe to be heresy in your teaching? He just got more and more angry with me for bringing up the fact that he was wrong once again, and he didn’t want to hear any more about it. Mike’s choice. He did not agree to establish the truth of these matters "in the multitude of counselors." He was cock sure of his teachings. I suggested that if given time and an opportunity to go thoroughly through this matter, he might see differently. Mike was content with his teachings which I consider rank heresy. His choice. Near the end of our conversation I sternly cautioned Mike about Rob Jones. At the close of our last conversation, Mike said something to this effect: "Maybe some day (or some time) way, way down the road I will give you a call." Mike’s choice. I said: "Okay, God bless you," and hung up. Mike almost immediately began a slander campaign against me. Mike’s choice. I will now show you a couple of reasons why I could never be linked to Mike’s site again. MIKE’S EVIL TEACHING ON "KEEP" AND "FOR OUR ADMONITION" Mike scornfully suggests that Lary and I teach that we are to "Guard AGAINST" keeping the saying of Revelation. Mike asked me how we know what we are not to keep. I told him before Michigan, that God tells us, but Mike will not heed God’s admonition. Mike says we must "experience everything" written in Revelation. That is clearly not what "keep" means. Are we to "experience" the great tribulation on Babylon, called THE WRATH OF GOD? Mike says, Yes. What does Jesus Christ say:
Mike says we MUST EXPERIENCE this because it’s in the book. Jesus Christ says that, "…I will KEEP YOU FROM…" Is "experiencing" and "keeping FROM experiencing, one and the same? To Mike they apparently are. There are obviously things that we are NOT to experience in Revelation, and they have to do with the specific trials and tribulations on Babylon that are poured out in GOD’S WRATH (Rev. 2:22-24, Rev. 3:10, Rev. 8:4, etc.). And now, his doctrine of "keep" has evolved into "do and experience" everything in the Bible; every word of God—good and bad. And what is his Scriptural authority for this bit of heresy? Why, I Cor. 10:11:
Well, there it is. Or is it? Remember how Mike didn’t bother to back up a few Scriptures in Rev. 22 to learn the truth regarding where Christ will be no longer needed, where we say that it is indeed Christ who IS the light of the city. Or in Eph. 5:6 where Mike would place the WRATH of God upon the Elect, but failed to see in verse 7 that, "Be NOT YE therefore partakers with them." Or in Matt. 6 where Mike failed to back up a few verses to see the proof regarding the bread that Moses gave their fathers was "THAT bread" of which Christ spoke a few verses prior. And now he foolishly tries to establish an evil doctrine based on I Cor. 10:11 which he deems proof that we must EXPERIENCE …. EVERYTHING in the entirety of the Bible, good or bad. Okay, let’s back up a few verses from I Cor. 10:11: Verses 5-10:
Can you not see that to "NOT" do as they did is an admonition for God’s Elect to keep themselves FROM these things, and NOT to experience them? I mean, what part of the word "NOT" do you not understand? Do we not teach our little children the difference between doing and NOT DOING what they are taught? Are you all such spiritual children than you cannot discern the most elementary truth? God told Joshua the following:
How could you allow any man to deceive you into believing that by "observe to do according to all that is written," means that they then (or God’s Elect now) should do everything that God says in these five books they should NOT DO? Are all we men to "commit adultery with OUR daughter-in-laws?" Are we all to have sex with animals, as some of them did? People, what is wrong with you? This is among the most rank and evil heresy I have ever encountered. No, no, a thousand times no, these examples were written for us so that we would NOT follow in their path in doing all of these evils. God says, "Come OUT of her My people…" while Mike teaches that you will NEVER get out of Babylon. He told me that he will go through the wrath of God’s plagues until the day he dies. You all need to "COME OUT OF BABYLON," and leave Mike where he has chosen to be until the day he dies. TAMAR THE WHORE The lead article on Mike’s site is not one of Mike’s writings, but rather one by Rob Jones. Being the very first "Article" on Mike’s site, I can only assume that he thinks this is a paper of considerable spiritual merit, and thus deserves the prominent position of the very first of his articles on his site. It is entitled: "The Spiritual Significance of Judah and Tamar." Mike has now asserted that Tamar was not a whore at all. Let’s see if there is any Scriptural truth to this allegation (You can read the whole story in Genesis 38). 1. Verse 14: "…and covered her[self] with a veil…" In some nations whores were not to cover their faces with a veil and others it was "the sign of a harlot." (See a good Bible Dictionary). Judah clearly recognized her as a harlot. 2. Verse 14: "…and wrapped herself…" This too, according to some authorities, involves the way harlots decorated themselves to advertise their trade. 3. Verse 14: "…and sat in an open space, [Heb: ‘in the entrance to Enaim’]…" which was an open advertisement to all passers by that she was open for business. 4. Verse 15: "When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an HARLOT; because she had covered her face." 5. Verse 16: "…let me come in unto you…" This was not Judah’s wife. Judah wanted sex with a whore. 6. Verse 16: "…what will you give me, that you may come in unto me [and have illegal sex]…" They are now haggling over the fee for sex. 7. Verse 18: "…he gave it her [Judah’s pledge to pay Tamar for her services with a goat. You all heard of "a two-bit whore," well, Tamar was "a one-goat whore."], and came in unto her [had sex]…" 8. Verse 21: "Where is the HARLOT…? 9. Verse 21: "…and they said, There was no HARLOT in this place" [they didn’t know that Judah had already had sex with this harlot]. 10. Verse 22: "…the men of the place said, that there was no HARLOT in this place" The subject of conversation is on a "harlot," not some virtuous woman. 11. Verse 24: "Tamar your daughter in law has played the HARLOT" 12. Verse 24: "…she is with child by WHOREDOM" If it looks like a whore, and dresses like a whore, and walks like a whore, and talks like a whore, and performs like a whore—IT’S A WHORE! Mike now extols the virtues of a whore while denigrating God’s Elect as being the tares and the children of Satan the Devil." Go figure. Now for Mike’s and Rob’s spiritual lesson in this episode of whore and whoremaster. From Tamar paper:
Comment: Are your eyes reading what I am reading? What rank and blasphemous heresy. Where in Scripture do we read of any such thing as Jesus being first called as is the Babylonian Church, and then out of the called [Babylonian Church] Christ had to be "chosen?"
Where is Jesus Christ ever lowered or demeaned to that of "the called?" Jesus was never ever spiritually a part of Babylon the Great MOTHER OF HARLOTS. Was Jesus ever deceived like the called? Did Jesus ever sin like the called? Then in what way was Jesus ever a member of "the called," but "not chosen?" Listen: Mike spins yarns by the hour. He tells stories from the Old Testament. He contrives doctrines that don’t exist. He adds words that don’t belong. He takes away words that do belong. He says things like, "One would have to be SPIRITUALLY BLIND…" to either believe or not believe what ever point he tries to make. But the one thing that Mike does not do in all of these subjects I am covering in this letter, is to give Scriptures that actually say what he is teaching. Read that statement again two or three times.
Every time you read or hear one of these bizarre new teachings of Mike, ask yourself if he presented two or more clear statements of Scripture that actually say what Mike says? Maybe you think I didn’t present enough examples of what I am saying in this letter? Maybe you need a few more examples? Okay, I will give you a few more, but it will not help those who are hardcore followers of Mike, one iota. And that is because they now FOLLOW A MAN instead of the necessary "TWO WITNESS LAW OF SCRIPTURE" to establish every truth. From Tamar:
Comment: This is how spiritually low one will sink into the depth of Satan, when they refuse to humble themselves in the presence of God. How rank can it get? Well, I’m sad to say, it does get even worse. This next point is one reason why I will not at this time put a link to this paper on our site. It is spiritual pornography! What else does this two-bit (I mean one-goat) whore, Tamar, represent? From Tamar paper:
Comment: This two-bit, one-goat, lying, deceiving whore is said to "represent CHRIST," our Creator, Lord, and Saviour! This is beyond inexcusable. I know of no Christian Church in the world that would ever suggest that this Tarmar the deceiving whore spiritually represents Jesus Christ. They try to extol as virtue, an act so gross, that under Christ’s own laws, the penalty was death:
Yet we are told that this very, Tamar, who played the harlot and fornicated with her own father-in-law "REPRESENTS CHRIST." Am I going too fast for anyone? And why is that? Why because Mike imagines "spiritual parallels" between the two. Well if this whore represents Christ, then by the same unscriptural reasoning as Mike uses, who else "represents Christ?"
If as many scholars believe, that "Shiloh" represents the coming Messiah through the tribe of Judah, then surely we could use Mike’s scriptural interpretation here and say that Judah represents Christ. Also the scepter is mentioned, which is the symbol of kingship, and clearly Jesus will be King of kings and sit on the throne of David (another descendant of Judah). But what problems does this present? Well, if Tamar "represents Christ," and Judah "represents Christ," then Christ is represented by both the whore and the whoremaster. And I will not carry that stupid representation any further..! This teaching is sick, sick, sick! Do you all still desire to pick up your stones and accuse me of teaching in Nashville that all of God’s Elect must go through all of the WRATH OF GOD? When I said no such thing, and yet… AND YET, right under your own noses the most despicable heresy (save eternal torment) that I have ever heard, is being broadcast over the Internet to the entire world, and you APPLAUD IT!! From Tamar paper:
Comment: This is the kind of unscriptural nonsense that results when one confuses the carnal mind with God’s Spirit. This is a total lack of scholarship. Yes, in Hebrew "daughter in law" can mean "bride and perfect," but what does that prove? Listen, every whore who has ever lived, and was ever married, was a "daughter-in-law" to somebody. Therefore we could also conclude that ALL THE WHORES OF THE WORLD represent "the bride of Christ." Unbelievable. Jezebel was the wife of Ahab, the son of Omri. Jezebel was therefore the "daughter-in-law / perfect bride" of Omri (I Kings 16:30-31). Does that then make even Jezebel the "prefect bride" of Christ also? I think Jesus has a different purpose for Jezebel than to be His bride (Rev. 2:20-23). Do "I" have a two Scripture witness for that statement that I just made that contradicts Mike’s statement? As a matter of fact: First witness that we cannot liken Christ to a whore:
God asks? Let Mike answer: "TAMAR [the whore] represents Christ [the Holy One], the Word." Second witness that we cannot liken Christ to a whore:
Again, Mike’s answer is "Tamar the whore." And remember that we don’t even have one word that Tamar ever repented of being a whore. Do Mike’s followers have a problem with having Tamar the whore represent Jesus Christ? No. Not at all. This gross blasphemy of Jesus Christ sounds perfectly spiritually sound and wholesome to them. Maybe that’s because they follow a man? From Tamar paper:
Comment: Oh really? And do we have chapter and verse on that? Well? We have no Scripture that Tamar even repented of being a whore. But they tell us that Tamar the whore has great spiritual significance. Are you not all ashamed to tears for following such rank and ungodly heresy? Are you all really so spiritually BLIND, that you do not want to vomit after reading such filth as being "representative of Our Perfect and Flawless Saviour, Jesus Christ. Shame on all of you: shame all who are participating in the perpetuation of this detestable teaching. Can their blasphemy get any worse than this? I’m afraid it can and it has. At the time of Mike’s assertion that he was sinless, I had read only chapters 1 and 22. Thereafter I read chapter 2. I didn’t discuss this chapter with Mike, as I did not want to give Mike too many answers to Revelation, seeing that he would not concede that it was a terrible paper, I decided to let him rewrite with just a word change here and there. Surely he will now make corrections to the sections I showed him, not because he sees his paper is a sham, but because some of these things are just so embarrassingly stupid that he will not want anyone to see them again. I was going to reserve comment on this next chapter until after he reposted his commentary, as I knew he would not change anything of consequence in this chapter (I suspect, however, that he will NOW). BLASPHEMING THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST [Quotations Degrading Jesus] It doesn’t get any worse than this! The following list of quotations concerning Jesus are from Mike’s Revelation Commentary, The Tamar Paper(s), and a few other recent papers. Note: I have nothing to do with all the complexities of [brackets] in this paper. I am just reproducing it as it was on Mike’s site.
Comment: Do we have Scripture on that? No? I didn’t think so. This is blasphemy. Jesus did NOT need to be "broken to shivers." Where do we read of such unscriptural nonsense?
Comment: He was "made flesh." Horrors of horrors—Jesus was made flesh. And that, I guess, is a very, very bad thing, is it? Do we have Scripture on that?
Comment: I don’t really see anything sinful about that description of Jesus in the flesh, do you? I see "GLORY of the Father." Do you see that too?
Comment: I don’t see anything sinful in that verse either, do you? Was it a SIN to be "made of the seed of David according to the flesh?" Do we have a Scripture showing that Christ made of the seed of David according to the flesh is a sin? I know of none.
Comment: Ah, there it must be. Now we have a Scripture that tells that Jesus "in the likeness of sinful flesh," MUST BE SIN, right? Still wrong, pale face. "Flesh" means "body," and Jesus came in a body made of flesh, so Jesus’ body MUST BE SIN, right? WRONG! This verse doesn’t say that Jesus came in "A sinful BODY," now does it. Don’t try to make this verse say what it doesn’t say. Jesus came in the "LIKENESS of sinful FLESH," not in the "likeness of A sinful BODY." The body of Jesus Christ was not sin, and your body is not sin. Physical bodies are not sin because matter CANNOT SIN. "Sin is the transgression of the law" (I John 3:4). What law does anything "material" break? What law does "matter" break? What law does any human "body" break? If Mike is going to teach you this damnable heresy that the body of Jesus Christ IS SIN, then he had better be able to tell you WHAT LAW OR LAWS THE BODY OF JESUS BROKE? Am I going to fast for any of you? Am I going to fast for ALL of you who follow a man? God did not "send His Own Son in a sinful body." Neither did God "send His Own Son in sinful flesh." We need to pay better attention to the words of the Scriptures, and men will not be deceiving us on such a grand scale. Jesus was sent by His Father "in the likeness of sinful flesh." What does that mean? This verse does not have reference to "sinful bodies," but rather to "sinful FLESH." And "flesh" virtually always used figuratively to mean the carnal mind. Carnal means "flesh" or "meat" as in "chili con carnie"—chili with MEAT. We are meatheads before conversion. That is, we are controlled by our carnal MINDS, (which is a spiritual entity, not physical matter). Jesus Christ looked like many other men. But He was not. There was NOTHING common or unclean or sinful about Jesus Christ or His physical body. And to say otherwise is blasphemy. Jesus came "in the likeness of sinful flesh," He did not come AS sinful flesh. The word "likeness" means, "form, resemblance, likeness, shape, similitude" (Strong’s Greek Dictionary). For the definition of these words from my American Heritage College Dictionary:
One more final proof from this verse that neither Jesus nor His body was sin. Let’s read Rom. 8:3:
There is not one Scripture in the Bible that says that man's physical body is sin.
Comment: It matters not whether "flesh" in this verse refers to our physical flesh body, or our fleshy carnal mind, because to suggest this statement includes Jesus Himself, is blasphemy. It is blasphemy to suggest that Jesus had a carnal mind, which profited NOTHING! And it is blasphemy to suggest that Jesus had a physical body, which profited NOTHING! So to quote this verse in reference to JESUS CHRIST, is blasphemy! And this I will Scripturally prove before closing this letter. Do not forget that Mike and Rob are including Jesus in every one of these verses they are quoting. This section of their commentary started with these words: "Yes, so EVEN CHRIST needed to be broken to shivers…" etc., etc., etc., and is therefore included in every verse quoted. And that is blasphemy.
Comment: Who are they saying is "in the flesh," but Jesus Himself. And therefore, "Jesus CANNOT please God." You think I throw that word "blasphemy" around indiscriminately, do you? I assure that I do not. So now we are told that JESUS DID NOT PLEASE GOD BECAUSE HE HAD A BODY OF FLESH. Unbelievable! That’s what they are saying: Jesus was in the flesh and they that are in the flesh CANNOT PLEASE GOD, so JESUS did not please God. What saith the Scriptures:
And what was His Father's reaction:
Jesus assuredly pleased His Father in His mind and in His body. The body of Jesus was not sin, neither would Jesus allow any sins to be committed in or through His body. Listen: The human body is NOT SIN. It is the most marvelous material thing that Jesus ever created! It is, in fact, "the temple of the Holy Spirit" and we are to "glorify God in our bodies" (I Cor. 6:18-19). Is God glorified in SIN? Does God’s Holy Spirit dwell in SIN? Of course not, therefore the physical body of man IS NOT SIN. When the Scriptures speak of "the body of sin," (Rom. 6:6) it means the "whole" of man’s carnality, and not the entirety of our physical flesh.
This is speaking metaphorically and figuratively. There is no such thing as a literal "deed of the physical body." The physical body is incapable of any deeds whatsoever. It is the MIND that directs the body. A dead person has no control over the movement of his own body. No dead person ever committed a sin or took a walk in the park. Neither has any physical body committed fornication by its own volition (I Cor. 6:13). Don’t be fooled into believing that a "vile body" is a body of sin (Phil. 3:21), as vile merely means humble, not sin.
Did Christ bare our sins IN HIS SIN? This teaching of theirs that Christ body was SIN is really disgusting. Just how many imperfections of SIN are we told the "body" of Jesus possessed? How else could it have been a suitable offering? If the physical body IS SIN and Jesus offered His body, then he offered SIN and not an offering without blemish and without spot. It is absolute blasphemy to suggest that the physical body of Jesus Christ was sin. What do the Scriptures say:
The blood and body sacrifice of Jesus Christ was: VALUABLE, COSTLY, ESTEEMED, HONORED, BELOVED, UNBLEMISHED, WITHOUT BLAME, FAULTLESS, UNBLEMISHED, WITHOUT SPOT PHYSICALLY OR MORALLY, and Mike and Rob believe that all these accolades of flawless perfection ARE THE DEFINITION OF SIN?! The blood and body of Jesus was SIN?! What an evil, EVIL unscriptural teaching.
Comment: I explained this verse to Mike a couple of years ago when he though it meant that we no longer know Jesus after HIS PHYSICAL FLESH. I showed him that it means we no longer no Jesus after OUR CARNAL FLESH. We now see Him through the eyes of the Spirit of God in us. Not that it also says we know "NO man after the flesh." If we know no man after his physical flesh, then how do we know a carnal person AT ALL?
Comment: I hardly know what to say when I read such blasphemous filth. Remember that we were told that all these Scriptures have to do directly with "The Elect" AND "Jesus Christ." And so now we have just been told that Jesus was "shapen in iniquity, and in sin did His Mother Mary conceive Him." Excuse me, but are any of you dissidents taking any of this stuff in? Are you really seeing what is being said by Mike and Rob? They are saying that Jesus Christ was shaped in INIQUITY and His Mother conceived Him IN SIN!! And rather than scream "BLASPHEMY," you follow these men? Jesus Christ was not shaped in iniquity, nor was He conceived in SIN. They might just as well be teaching you from the Rock Opera "HAIR," wherein Jesus is represented as "He’s a man—just a man." No, Jesus Christ was NOT JUST A MAN! Read the first Chapter of Hebrews. I don’t believe any of you understand just how serious a crime it is to teach that Jesus Christ was "conceived in SIN." Does Mike have Scripture on that? Does Mike have a single Scripture on ANYTHING that he teaches in the last 60 pages of this letter? How does God’s Word, not Mike’s heresy, say that Jesus was conceived:
It is not only blasphemy to teach that Jesus was conceived in SIN, but it is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, to suggest such evil heresy, as the truth of the matter Jesus was conceived not in SIN, by "BY THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD."
And the men that you now follow say that that Holy little flesh and blood Baby born to Mary WAS SIN!! How sick can one’s teachings get to call something "sin" that God calls "holy?" "WOE unto them that call good, evil…" (Isa. 5:20). What was conceived by the Holy Spirit of God was a flesh and blood baby Jesus: God called that conception "holy," while Mike and Rob call is "SIN"! Mankind is from "the dust of the ground" (Gen. 1:26). Is even the dust of the ground now an unholy thing to these men?
Comment: Wow! What can I say? Isn’t it just precious how two brothers can walk together and contradict each other time after time after time?
Since Mike now believes in contradictions, maybe he believes both statements are true.
Comment: And do we have Scripture on that? No? I wonder why? Because it’s blasphemy to denigrate Jesus Christ down to the class of the "called." Do the Scriptures call Jesus the "called" before He is the "chosen?" Do you want Mike or do you want the Scriptures?
Comment: And do we have a double witness on that? How about just one Scripture? That’s a pretty damnable thing to say without so much as one Scripture to back it up.
Comment: I deny it vehemently! It is blasphemy, and has absolutely no Scripture to back it up. Wrath is ANGER. Some translations translate "wrath" as "anger" consistently in their versions. Now then give me one example where God was "ANGRY" with His Son? Go ahead, I’ll wait……… Well I won’t wait all day. Give me one Scriptures? None of you have a Scripture, do you?
Comment: This verse says nothing of "corruptible flesh." Jesus said as Moses "lifted up" the serpent, in like manner He also would be "lifted up" only on a tree. The serpent temporarily was used to temporarily heal snake bites. Jesus Christ being lifted up will heal all humanity of all sin and disease. No, the serpent does NOT typify Christ’s "corruptible flesh and blood." A serpent typifies Satan, and once more I will warn that to suggest that Jesus is representative in any way of Satan is blasphemy. If the blood and body of Jesus Christ is just as common as any other man’s corruptible flesh and blood, then Jesus redeemed us by a corruptible Body. Is there Scripturally true? Is anything we covered in the last sixty some pages of Mike’s material Scripturally true? Well neither is this one:
Jesus Christ "offered HIMSELF." What was it that they took and beat? What what it that they nailed to the cross? What was it that they speared in the side and released His blood? It was His BODY. And it was perfect, and spotless, and flawless, but Mike says this Body of Christ which redeemed Mikes miserable body, was a BODY OF SIN. Mike and all you dissidents will repent bitterly one day for following such evil teachings.
Comment: And where do we have a Scripture that God was ANGRY [wroth—wrathful] with His Son, Jesus Christ? Where? Do you people every demand a Scripture or two before you swallow and follow all these damnable teachings? This teaching is the worst I have ever heard save the Christian hell doctrine. Where was Jesus’ Father ever ANGRY AND WRATHFUL with or toward Him? Where? Mike just makes up all these damnable teachings as he goes anymore. And his followers "love to have it so." Where are the Scriptures. THERE ARE NO SCRIPTURES FOR ALL OF THESE DAMNABLE TEACHING! WHAT, pray tell did Jesus ever do to Make His Father ANGRY with Him, for that is what "wrath" means, ANGER? Read this: "…I do ALWAYS those things that PLEASE HIM" (John 8:19). Maybe Jesus only thought that He pleased His Father. Maybe His Father was not pleased very well? No, that’s not true: "…This is My BELOVED Son in Whom I am WELL PLEASED" (Matt. 3:17, 12:18, etc., etc., etc.). And so we are told that Jesus, the Son of God was "marred in the hands of His Potter Father," and therefore needed to be SMASHED, because His Father was NOT WELL PLEASED with His Son, thus requiring His Father to pour our His wrath upon Jesus and crush Him to power and then make something that His Father could accept. Are you following all this? And you still have a problem with your misunderstanding of what I said in Nashville? Give me a break.
Comment: They consistently go back and forth with regards to the flesh meaning our physical bodies and the flesh meaning our carnal nature. Christ was not saying that our physical bodies must die in order for us to be "IN THE SPIRIT." Jesus never said that His Own Personal flesh body had to die before He Himself would be "IN THE SPIRIT." Where do they come up with this trash. The physical body of man IS NOT SIN. It is only his "flesh" which represents his CARNAL NATURE that is sin. The Body of Jesus was not sin, and Jesus HAD NO CARNAL NATURE that was not subject to the laws of God.
Comment: Talk, talk, talk. Where are the Scriptures? There are no Scriptures. Every one of these dozens and dozens and dozens of statements from Rob, and Mike, and the commentary and the Tamar papers, and Mike’s emails, are fabricated falsehoods. They have no Scriptures to support ANY of it. Mike and Rob shroud their teaching in Scriptural insinuation and euphemistic terminology, because even they find it hard to speak plainly to their readers. They insinuate by word and Scripture that Jesus Christ was in some way SIN. That Jesus needed to be smashed to pieces by His ANGRY AND WRATHFUL FATHER became something about His Son WAS SIN. No, they don’t say that Jesus committed sin or that He was a sinner, but rather they say (with a degree of stealth) that Jesus in his body of flesh WAS SIN! Here is a summation of a few of the things Mike attributes to our Lord & Saviour: They say Jesus was: conceived in sin, birthed in iniquity,had a physical body that was sin, did not please His Father, was marred in His Father’s hand, needed to be crushed and ground to powder, needed to have his body killed and destroyed, made His Father angry, had the wrath of God poured upon Him, displeased His Father, His blood and body was common to all sinners, He was ‘not enough’ His flesh was corruptible, He was not the same Jesus as He is today, Mike says that Christ’s body was just as common as ours and that it was SIN. In other words, if His body was SIN, then it was "common, profane, defiled, unclean, unholy." And this is why Mike says Jesus needed to suffer the seven plagues of His Father’s wrath. Now then, just how bad a sin is it to count the blood of Jesus Christ, "common, profane, defiled, unclean, and unholy?" There is a word in the Greek New Testament koinos, and it means: "common, profane, defiled, unclean, and unholy." It is used in various Scriptures, but has special significance with regard to the "blood" of Jesus Christ. Let’s look at the magnitude of this Scripture and what it might have to say about Mike’s sin:
The Scriptures tell us with absolute certainty that:
Yes, "who is he that condemns?" Who condemns God chosen Elect children to the wrath of an angry God? Mike does. "Who shall lay ANYTHING to the charge [Gk: indictment—as in sentencing someone to the WRATH OF GOD] of God’s Elect? Who? Have you not read a word of this letter with open eyes? Mike and Rob "charge—indict" God Elect. I am weary of writing this letter. I shall now give it a rest. God gave Mike the opportunity to be heard by hundreds of thousands of people through bible-truths.com. Bible-truths.com has risen as high as the top 48 thousand out of a total of EIGHT HUNDRED MILLION web sites. Now God has taken that blessing from Mike. But it was done by Mike’s choice, not mine. Do any doubt that this was all of God, or have you adapted a new and bizarre teaching on God’s sovereignty as well? Mike no longer would take any admonition from me. Mike is too proud to admit his gross sin in all this. Mike wanted a following. This is very important to Mike. As tiny as it is, he has his reward. This episode is now over at bible-truths.com. Don’t write me about some point in this lengthy paper. It’s over. I will not continue to go back and forth and back and forth over this point or that point or some other figment of someone’s imagination. I have been as fair and honest in this presentation as I know how to be. If Mike and his little band of dissidents feel that I am wrong, Dennis is wrong, and bible-truths.com is wrong, then why don’t they just get busy with whatever ministry they think they have left, and leave us alone? I have left Mike alone for months. By destroying the faith of a few of God’s Elect, Mike and his little band of dissidents have forced me into exposing their unscriptural charade. If they have nothing better to do than to harass and slander me all day, they all need to "get a life." I now have meaningful work to do. One particularly nasty person has sent me numerous emails stating that we no longer produce any "good fruit." Oh really? Bible-truths.com has not missed a beat. As always, there are thousands of new visitors coming to our site each and every day, and some are having their lives completely changed. We still receive innumerable emails attesting to this fact continually. Remember: For each and every one of you who believes and
teaches that God will pour out His ANGER, FURY AND WRATH upon YOU, rest assured that He
will. And if you think the trials you are going through now are God's wrath, you will have
a rude "awakening" one day when the real thing comes! Ray PS Remember that we will all be "ALL in All" one day, so do not harbor any ill feelings toward any man, brother, or enemy. Forgive (or your Father will not forgive you) and move on and do the Will of God.
|