January 7, 2007

Hey Bro. John,

I was reading the newest release of THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST tract, and I read this sentence on the back page.. "So much attention has been focused upon the cross that the importance of His ascention is often overlooked." This is the thought that followed....

The cross has been chosen by mankind as the SIGN of Christ. You can purchase this sign in any Christian store to symbolize your faith.......... While the REAL SIGN of Christ, the "sign for unbelievers" (1Cor. 14), the "record that God gave of His Son", the irrefutable sign that God sent for us from Heaven.... has been rejected by men. I thank God that I have been chosen to love the sign of Christ.

Thank you,
Jerry

Pastor John:

I have always invisioned houses or structures to live in when I heard of the mansions that Jesus is preparing for us. However, I was reading something last night that made me think that the mansions actually referred to the gloried bodies we were to receive. Any thoughts?

Bob

Hi Bob:

There will certainly be no need for houses as shelters on the new earth. There will never be any hot days or cold days, or bad weather of any sort; and there will be no darkness, no night. The Bible never gives any indication that Adam and Eve lived in a house. So, in a perfect world such as the new earth will be, it seems unlikely that there will be actual "mansions" as we know them here on earth, inhabited by wealthy people and excluding the poor. The Bible never describes such a thing, anyway. It seems to me that it is much more likely that the mansions Jesus promised his followers are those new, immortal bodies that we will live in if we are faithful to God.

Pastor John

Hi Pastor John,

I’ve got a question. Well, it’s more of a confirmation… today I was reading “All Things” and parts of it made me think: “How can Jesus have made the world but not have 'something extra'” (such as I’d emailed you about recently), and I thought then that when He was born as a man, He took off His divinity. Now that is something that was taught in Christianity. So is that right?

Also as I was reading, I had some good feelings and started to think of what it would be like to be in eternity forever. Oh! The prospect of that was wonderful. I feel like you would feel so good in your soul (like in the Spirit I spose!) – not like an over-done sort of thing, but fulfilled and satisfied… just right. Oh, but the thought of living forever in that state, being right with God and having fellowship with Him right there, wow! It just made me want to give EVERYTHING up and I thought NOTHING here is worth it at all.

It something I must strive for. I want to be there.

Jenny

Btw, I really like your style of writing in All Things - the way you word things.

Thank you, Jenny.

Yes, the Son of God "emptied himself", so to speak, of his glory when he came and took up residence in the temple God had prepared for him - the fleshly body of Jesus. What Christian teachers teach is that this event took place when Jesus was born in Bethlehem. (Hence, the wacky Christian myths about Jesus performing childish miracles as a boy in Nazareth.) But the epochal event of the Word becoming flesh took place at the Jordan River, when John baptized Jesus, and the Son of God "suddenly came to his temple".

It is interesting that you said that the Son of God was "born as a man" because that is the truth of the matter. He was "born", so to speak, as a man, not as a baby. Paul says this in Phip 2:5-8: "Let this mind be in you which also was in Christ Jesus, who, existing in God’s form, did not consider equality with God as a prize to be seized upon; instead, he divested himself, assuming the form of a slave, made in the likeness of men; and finding himself as a man in appearance, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death – the death of a cross."

Finally, you are right in saying that in comparison to eternal life with God, earth's pleasures are inconsiderable, and its sufferings are inconsequential. May God help us to strive, and to succeed in our striving, to attain to that salvation.

Pastor John

Hello again,

Wow, I had to read that book too ("Night") in English class in high school. I watch the History Channel when I'm at home, and there was some stuff on the Holocaust and religion in cinema a few days ago. I always wondered why people are so obsessed with hating Jewish people, and I guess I am still having trouble understanding that. On on hand, it seems to me that people make up reasons to hate the Jews, and on the other it seems that people go to great lengths to call things anti-Semite, like in accusations against Mel Gibson's movie.

I think I'm still trying to understand it. So God's curse brings about all these things, regardless? Anyway, thanks for the response to her e-mail!

Brittanie

Hi Brittany:

Jesus said that not one sparrow falls to the ground without our heavenly Father's knowledge and permission, and that we are of much more value than sparrows. The notion that God was not in charge of the holocaust is self-serving nonsense. As long as we blame the devil, we do not have to search our own hearts and repent. As long as we blame the devil, we can play the part of a suffering victim instead of being honest with ourselves and taking responsibility for our actions.

I believe that God not only makes the sun shine and the rain fall, but that He makes out the passenger lists of every airplane that goes down. I don't trust in luck; chance is not my God. As the Spirit of Christ said through the psalmist, "All my times are in your hand." Sad times, happy times, healthy times, sick times. I take evrything as from the hand of a loving Father, designing every circumstance for my good. That is the faith that we see in the Bible among the righteous, and that kind of faith overcomes the world and saves us from bitterness and envy.

Pastor John

Pastor John Hey, it's Brittany. I had a few questions to ask you. We are learning a little bit about the Holocaust in my English class, and one specific person were focusing on is Elie Wiesel. We read his book NIGHT and read a speech that he presented a few years back when Clinton was in office. I went ahead and found the speech online and i just wanted to get your insight on it. What do you think. Oh yeah, I bolded the statements I had questions about, and the question is also in bold under the statement. Hopefully you can help me understand this better. Thanks.
Brittany

"Mr. President, Mrs. Clinton, members of Congress, Ambassador Holbrooke, Excellencies, friends: Fifty-four years ago to the day, a young Jewish boy from a small town in the Carpathian Mountains woke up, not far from Goethe's beloved Weimar, in a place of eternal infamy called Buchenwald. He was finally free, but there was no joy in his heart. He thought there never would be again.

Liberated a day earlier by American soldiers, he remembers their rage at what they saw. And even if he lives to be a very old man, he will always be grateful to them for that rage, and also for their compassion. Though he did not understand their language, their eyes told him what he needed to know -- that they, too, would remember, and bear witness.

And now, I stand before you, Mr. President -- Commander-in-Chief of the army that freed me, and tens of thousands of others -- and I am filled with a profound and abiding gratitude to the American people.

Gratitude is a word that I cherish. Gratitude is what defines the humanity of the human being. And I am grateful to you, Hillary -- or Mrs. Clinton -- for what you said, and for what you are doing for children in the world, for the homeless, for the victims of injustice, the victims of destiny and society. And I thank all of you for being here.

We are on the threshold of a new century, a new millennium. What will the legacy of this vanishing century be? How will it be remembered in the new millennium? Surely it will be judged, and judged severely, in both moral and metaphysical terms. These failures have cast a dark shadow over humanity: two World Wars, countless civil wars, the senseless chain of assassinations -- Gandhi, the Kennedys, Martin Luther King, Sadat, Rabin -- bloodbaths in Cambodia and Nigeria, India and Pakistan, Ireland and Rwanda, Eritrea and Ethiopia, Sarajevo and Kosovo; the inhumanity in the gulag and the tragedy of Hiroshima. And, on a different level, of course, Auschwitz and Treblinka. So much violence, so much indifference.

What is indifference? Etymologically, the word means "no difference." A strange and unnatural state in which the lines blur between light and darkness, dusk and dawn, crime and punishment, cruelty and compassion, good and evil.

What are its courses and inescapable consequences? Is it a philosophy? Is there a philosophy of indifference conceivable? Can one possibly view indifference as a virtue? Is it necessary at times to practice it simply to keep one's sanity, live normally, enjoy a fine meal and a glass of wine, as the world around us experiences harrowing upheavals?

Of course, indifference can be tempting -- more than that, seductive. It is so much easier to look away from victims. I t is so much easier to avoid such rude interruptions to our work, our dreams, our hopes. It is, after all, awkward, troublesome, to be involved in another person's pain and despair. Yet, for the person who is indifferent, his or her neighbor[s] are of no consequence. And, therefore, their lives are meaningless. Their hidden or even visible anguish is of no interest. Indifference reduces the other to an abstraction.

Over there, behind the black gates of Auschwitz, the most tragic of all prisoners were the "Muselmanner," as they were called. Wrapped in their torn blankets, they would sit or lie on the ground, staring vacantly into space, unaware of who or where they were, strangers to their surroundings. They no longer felt pain, hunger, thirst. They feared nothing. They felt nothing. They were dead and did not know it.

Rooted in our tradition, some of us felt that to be abandoned by humanity then was not the ultimate. We felt that to be abandoned by God was worse than to be punished by Him. Better an unjust God than an indifferent one. For us to be ignored by God was a harsher punishment than to be a victim of His anger. Man can live far from God -- not outside God. God is wherever we are. Even in suffering? Even in suffering.

In a way, to be indifferent to that suffering is what makes the human being inhuman. Indifference, after all, is more dangerous than anger and hatred. Anger can at times be creative. One writes a great poem, a great symphony, one does something special for the sake of humanity because one is angry at the injustice that one witnesses. But indifference is never creative. Even hatred at times may elicit a response. You fight it. You denounce it. You disarm it. Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is not a response."

What is he saying exactly? Is he saying that God was indiffrent to the Jewish nation during the holocaust or that it was God's wrath against them? He said at one point in his book that he started to question God in general as he wittnessed a truckload of children being dumped into a firepit wondering, 'What kind of God would let that happen?', so that kind of confused me along with this part of the speech.

Brittany, what you are reading are the words of a blind man, a man so full of stubborn rage against God that he condemns God rather than confess the sins of his nation and the righteousness of God. A wise man would seek God for the reason for such cruel wrath against himself and his people. And the answer is as plain as day. The Jews to this day refuse to confess that they played a major role in the unjust execution of the entirely innocent and good Son of God. They have to admit that they killed the prophets God sent to them; their own sacred Scriptures tell them that. But the other holy Scriptures, the NT writings that they do not acknowldge, tell us that they added to their sins the demand for Jesus' death at the hands of the Roamn soldiers. They were so insistant on his death that they cried out to Pontius Pilate, who told them Jesus was innocent, "His blood be on us and on our children!" What a frightening thing to ask for!

I have read the book Night, and was stunned at the willing ignorance and shameless arrogance against God that is in it. That foolish man insists that the Jews could never have possiblty done anything that would justify such suffering as they have endured. But I remember that Paul asked some foolish people in his day, "Who are you, that you should reply against God?"

The persecution of the Jews in every corner of the globe, including the holocaust, is no more than what God promised them would happen if they were unfaithful to His covenant (Dt. 28:15-68). Even according to the history recorded by the Jews themselves, they were much more than merely unfaithful. The truth is, Brittany, the horrendous sufferings of the Jews are a sure proof of the faithfulness of God to His promises. If they had not suffered throughout history as no other people have suffered, then God would not have proved to be true to what He plainly said He would do to them if they transgressed His Law.

"Indifference is not a beginning, it is an end. And, therefore, indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor -- never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees -- not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their humanity we betray our own. Indifference, then, is not only a sin, it is a punishment."

I dont understand this sentence. Is this true or an assumption?

It could be true. But it depends on who is being indifferent and for what reason. God is sometimes indifferent to the cries of suffering people, and justifiably so. Read Proverbs 1:24-33.

On the other hand, a callous heart toward those who are hurting is sinful, and the person who has no compassion is also suffering a punishment of a hard heart, which sin brings about in a person. Through Israel's prophets, God condemned hard-hearted people constantly.

"And this is one of the most important lessons of this outgoing century's wide-ranging experiments in good and evil.

In the place that I come from, society was composed of three simple categories: the killers, the victims, and the bystanders. During the darkest of times, inside the ghettoes and death camps -- and I'm glad that Mrs. Clinton mentioned that we are now commemorating that event, that period, that we are now in the Days of Remembrance -- but then, we felt abandoned, forgotten. All of us did. And our only miserable consolation was that we believed that Auschwitz and Treblinka were closely guarded secrets; that the leaders of the free world did not know what was going on behind those black gates and barbed wire; that they had no knowledge of the war against the Jews that Hitler's armies and their accomplices waged as part of the war against the Allies.

If they knew, we thought, surely those leaders would have moved heaven and earth to intervene. They would have spoken out with great outrage and conviction. They would have bombed the railways leading to Birkenau, just the railways, just once.

And now we knew, we learned, we discovered that the Pentagon knew, the State Department knew. And the illustrious occupant of the White House then, who was a great leader -- and I say it with some anguish and pain, because, today is exactly 54 years marking his death -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt died on April the 12th, 1945, so he is very much present to me and to us.

No doubt, he was a great leader. He mobilized the American people and the world, going into battle, bringing hundreds and thousands of valiant and brave soldiers in America to fight fascism, to fight dictatorship, to fight Hitler. And so many of the young people fell in battle. And, nevertheless, his image in Jewish history -- I must say it -- his image in Jewish history is flawed.

The depressing tale of the St. Louis is a case in point. Sixty years ago, its human cargo -- maybe 1,000 Jews -- was turned back to Nazi Germany. And that happened after the Kristallnacht, after the first state sponsored pogrom, with hundreds of Jewish shops destroyed, synagogues burned, thousands of people put in concentration camps. And that ship, which was already on the shores of the United States, was sent back.

I don't understand. Roosevelt was a good man, with a heart. He understood those who needed help. Why didn't he allow these refugees to disembark? A thousand people -- in America, a great country, the greatest democracy, the most generous of all new nations in modern history. What happened? I don't understand. Why the indifference, on the highest level, to the suffering of the victims?

But then, there were human beings who were sensitive to our tragedy. Those non-Jews, those Christians, that we called the "Righteous Gentiles," whose selfless acts of heroism saved the honor of their faith. Why were they so few? Why was there a greater effort to save SS murderers after the war than to save their victims during the war?"

Do you know what he is talking about? With the non-jews and Christians?

He is referring to non-Jews and Christians who aided the Jews during their time of persecution under Nazi Germany. In this man's eyes, that helpfulness made those non-Jews "righteous", regardless of their regard for God's murdered Son. This is a monstrously self-serving attitude, full of stubbornness. Why not confess the nation's sin against its own Messiah and obtain mercy, ratrher than proclaim other sinners like themselves to be righteous for helping them in their trouble?

No person is righteous unless he is right with God, and Jesus pleadingly warned the Jews who eventually help kill him, "No man comes to the Father but by me", and "Unless you believe that I am he, you will die in your sins!" This man's decree that certain sinners are righteous because they benefited the Jews in some way is as worthless as are the Pope's decrees that this or that man or woman is a saint.

Why did some of America's largest corporations continue to do business with Hitler's Germany until 1942? It has been suggested, and it was documented, that the Wehrmacht could not have conducted its invasion of France without oil obtained from American sources. How is one to explain their indifference?

And yet, my friends, good things have also happened in this traumatic century: the defeat of Nazism, the collapse of communism, the rebirth of Israel on its ancestral soil, the demise of apartheid, Israel's peace treaty with Egypt, the peace accord in Ireland. And let us remember the meeting, filled with drama and emotion, between Rabin and Arafat that you, Mr. President, convened in this very place. I was here and I will never forget it.

And then, of course, the joint decision of the United States and NATO to intervene in Kosovo and save those victims, those refugees, those who were uprooted by a man whom I believe that because of his crimes, should be charged with crimes against humanity. But this time, the world was not silent. This time, we do respond. This time, we intervene.

Does it mean that we have learned from the past? Does it mean that society has changed? Has the human being become less indifferent and more human? Have we really learned from our experiences? Are we less insensitive to the plight of victims of ethnic cleansing and other forms of injustices in places near and far? Is today's justified intervention in Kosovo, led by you, Mr. President, a lasting warning that never again will the deportation, the terrorization of children and their parents be allowed anywhere in the world? Will it discourage other dictators in other lands to do the same?

What about the children? Oh, we see them on television, we read about them in the papers, and we do so with a broken heart. Their fate is always the most tragic, inevitably. When adults wage war, children perish. We see their faces, their eyes. Do we hear their pleas? Do we feel their pain, their agony? Every minute one of them dies of disease, violence, famine. Some of them -- so many of them -- could be saved.

And so, once again, I think of the young Jewish boy from the Carpathian Mountains. He has accompanied the old man I have become throughout these years of quest and struggle. And together we walk towards the new millennium, carried by profound fear and extraordinary hope.

Elie Wiesel - April 12, 1999

And my last question is that why do you think the holocaust happened?

As before mentioned, and Dt. 28 15-68 is just one example, God promised such things would befall Israel if the nation transgressed the holy Law they promised to keep. Of course, He also prmised great blessings if they were faithful and true, and there were times of blessing in Israel's history when they were led by good men and kept their part of the agreement. In the beginning, they were given the choice as to whether or not receive God's Law (Ex. 19), and they insisted on receiving it. their entire future, blessings or curses, was shaped by their faithfulness or unfaithfulness to the promises they made to God. It broke Jesus' heart when he could not by any means, by miracles or by teaching, persuade israel to do good in God's sight. In one scene, he sat on the Mount of Olives overlooking Jerusalem and wept and wept. He knew what would come upon the Jews following his executrion.

It is not in vogue now to even mention the statement of those Jews who demanded Jesus' death ("His blood be on us and on our children!"). Mel Gibson was pressured (and even threatened) to delete that cry from his movie, "The Passion of the Christ". But he did evil when he at last caved in to the pressure before he released that film. That cry should have been kept in the film because it reveals the extent of God's children's hatred of Him and His Son at that time, as well as the extent to which they were willing to go to get rid of the one who loved them more than he did his own life. It also shows how a stubborn and rebellious people can be overcome by a spirit of insanity, so that they are willing to throw away their own hope of eternal life, just to get what they want.

Elie Weisel is wrong, Brittany. His view of life and of God is wrong. His influence on the hearts of the young people who have been made to read his book in school is evil. But it is the spirit of our times; "We are good, and God is not."

I hope this helps, Brittany. Let me know if there is anything else I can do for you.

Pastor John

January 1, 2007

Hi! Happy New Year!

I've just got a question about when Jesus was born again. Well, I was just reading in your article "Did Jesus recieve the baptism of the holy Ghost". The answer given is "Yes" and that it happened when He was baptised at the Jordan. That made me remember what you wrote in your article about trinitarian doctrine - where you pose ideas as to why Satan did it (concept of trinity). In that, you put forward that the concept of the trinity makes a sinless life seem unattainable b/c if Jesus is a third part of a divine 'blob', then he has an inside track to holiness. Then you point out that Jesus was sinless b/c He was obedient.

But He recieved the holy Ghost when He was some 30 - 33 years of age. But He was sinless before this time, right? In which instance - He didn't have the holy Ghost then. So in my mind that brings us back to square one - as though Jesus did have something more than us to be sinless. How can this be?

I really do believe what you wrote in the trinity article that Jesus is "in real terms, our example", but i just don't quite get how to resolve the above things which seem to conflict each other.

I liked what you said to Brad about asking stuff so i am gonna do that too! I just want you to know my heart - that I am not trying to "catch you out" or be conflictive or anything like that!

Jenny

Hi Jenny.

Regarding your comment, "But He received the holy Ghost when He was some 30 - 33 years of age. But He was sinless before this time, right?":

On what basis can do you assume that? That his physical birth was started by a miracle of God? But miracle of not, it was a physical birth. Jesus really was one of us; it is not just an crafty theological claim. Jesus' sin/sinlessness before his new birth at the Jordan River is as irrelevant as is our past, before we were born again. In Christ, all things are made new for us, including our past. And the same is true of him. Jesus was, according to the Bible, a good young person. But I have seen some very good young people. All humans need the holy Ghost to be holy.

When Jesus was filled with the holy Ghost as he came up from the waters of Jordan, he became a "second man Adam" of a new race of men (1Cor. 15). In other words, he became the first of what may rightly be called "new creatures", the "sons of God" living on this physical earth. In his holy Ghost baptism, Jesus became the "firstborn of many brothers".

I think if you will free yourself from a false, and patently Christian, assumption; to wit, Jesus had to be sinless before his new birth, the rest of your questions will be answered.

Pastor John

October 19, 2006

Good day Pastor John,

i read the book of Songs of Solomon, the whole of it and i could not understand any verse at all, please, do you have any teaching on it or any how you can make me understand it better. and i am even wondering, i hardly see or hear anybody teaching the Songs of Solomon. Why so, is it not important?

regards

thanks for your help

frank

Nigeria

Hi Frank:

The Song of Solomon is a parable of the consuming devotion of the bride of Christ for the Lord, and of the consuming devotion of the Lord Jesus for his bride (the faithful saints). The best lesson I have received from the Song of Solomon is how very good it is for us to give our whole hearts to whatever we do. When there is a time to love, Solomon would tell us, love with all your heart. When it is time to give, give with all your heart. When it is time to dance, dance with all your heart. A person who lives that way can be greatly used by God. God calls us to love Him with all our hearts, but from what I have seen, most people do not know how to do anything with all their hearts, and so, they cannot love God that way.

In the Song of Solomon, it is the time for love, and loving her beloved is all that then young woman has on her mind; thoughts of loving the young man over-ride every other consideration, even her own personal safety (3:1-4; 5:7). It is wisdom to give your whole heart to anything that it is truly time for you to do, and the young couple in the Song of Solomon are both wise. To them, at this time in their lives, "love is strong as death" (8:6). And this was true for them because, at this time in their lives, love was the one purpose of their lives.

That is the lesson I received from the Song of Solomon when I prayerfully read it before the Lord some years ago. I feel sure there is much more wisdom hidden in those pages, but I am passing along to you all that In have received from the Lord thus far.

Your servant in Christ Jesus the Lord,

jdc

October 19, 2006

Goodmorning Pastor John,

After a certain dream, I was told "it is the spirit of 'homosexuality' that makes women not obey their husbands, and men not obey Jesus." Is this correct?

Kay

Hi Kay:

When talking of relationships among the saints, the answer very often is "yes". The masculine Roman Empire put on a dress (spiritually speaking) and called himself the bride of Christ, and that spiritual perversion has been the fundamental cause of most of the rebellion of believing men against Christ over the centuries.

But there may be any number of other reasons for disobedience among believers, both men and women, and we cannot limit ourselves to one explanation.

Pastor John

October 18, 2006

Pastor John,

I have just recently begun listening to your teachings, however, for the last several years I have been diligently seeking God. Your teachings are very helpful to my studies of God’s Word. I have a question regarding speaking in tongues. In you online teaching tape 1, you say that the only way to discern between someone who has truly been baptized into the Holy Spirit and those who have not, is the speaking in tongues. My interpretation in 1 Corinthians chapter 12 is that speaking in tongues is but one of the spiritual gifts. 1 Corinthians 12:4-11 illustrates the different gifts of the Spirit, but 12:10-11 specifically states one of the gifts is speaking of different kinds of tongues. “To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues. But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.”

I am somewhat bewildered between what the above verses say and what 12:3 states, “Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.”

It seems as though 12:3 is stating that everyone who is truly baptized by the Holy Spirit will speak in tongues, but on the other hand it seems as though 12:10-11 is stating that a person may or may not have this gift.

Personally, I have begun to speak in tongues a little bit at a time because I feel the Holy Spirit in me wanting to communicate with God. I have been attending the Methodist Church for most of my 48 years of life, however, recently I have begun to seek God through other means such as listening to Andrew Wommack and yourself in addition to much reading. This has caused my interpretation of the Bible be radically changed from what I have been taught over the years. I do extensive reading and research in the Bible and have come to the conclusion that everything I have heard you and Mr. Wommack preach about is true. Your input pertaining to the above scripture is appreciated.

Sincerely,

David

Thank you David, for your email.

You are right in seeing that Paul is referring to speaking in tongues (or "stammering lips") in 1Corinthians 12:3. Congratulations. Really. Very few people, it seems, are able to catch that.

The simple answer to your question (and simplest is always best) is that when Paul spoke of gifts of the Spirit in 1Corinthians 12 (another short list is in Romans 12), he did not say that "speaking in tongues is a gift." This is what he is often quoted as saying, but he did not say that. The gift Paul mentions is "diverse tongues", which is a gift for some of those people who already speak in tongues, just as the "gift of faith" is for those who already possess faith in Christ. Here is how I explain it to people to help them see how illogical it is to say that "speaking in tongues is a gift":

Fill in the following blanks with the phrase "speaking in tongues" or "speak in tongues":

(1) ____________________________ is a gift.

(2) ____________________________ is a only gift.

(3) Only those in the body of Christ who have that gift _____________________________.

(4) No one else in the body of Christ ___________________________________.

Now, when you fill in the blanks with "speaking in tongues" or "speaks in tongues", all seems to fit nicely with what most people are taught by Christian ministers. But what about the other gifts Paul mentions? If, for example, you fill in those same blanks with "faith" or "have faith", or "has faith", and you will see the error of thinking that speaking in tongues is a gift.

The gifts of the Spirit are for those who already have the Spirit. The gift of faith is for those who already have faith. And the gift of "diverse tongues" is for those who already communicate with the Father through the Spirit. The gifts are for ministry to the body of Christ and to sinners, but the language that the Spirit brings when it first comes into our hearts ("speaking in tongues" or "stammering lips", as both Paul and Isaiah said) is for one's own edification, and for communication with our heavenly Father (1Cor. 14).

I hope that clears things up, David. Pray much. You will have all the delusive power of Christianity and all the world working to keep you from understanding that the baptism of the holy Ghost, with the evidence of the Spirit's sound (John 3:8), is the new birth experience. I wish you well, and I commend you to God, who is able to keep your soul until the day of Judgment.

Your slave in Christ Jesus,

Pastor John

PS

A brother here saw your email and pointed the following out to me:

This man stated,"I do extensive reading and research in the Bible and have come to the conclusion that everything I have heard you and Mr. Wommack preach about is true."

I had a quick look at Mr. Wommack and the only thing I could find to read for free was a bible commentary. I looked up Acts 2:4 http://www.awmi.net/bible/act_02_04 A quick reading shows this man does not understand the new birth at all and follows the most common errors associated with Rom. 10:9 etc.

Your correspondent will quickly find that what you and Mr. Wommack preach differs considerably. Perhaps you can offer to him a link to http://www.pastorjohnshouse.com/tracts/tongues.htm

Damien

And another brother wanted me to add this for you:

Another question concerning tongues being for "just a few" that we must consider is the question, "Does every person who receives the baptism of the Spirit speak in tongues?" Almost every Pentecostal sect in the world teaches, or used to, that this is true, because it IS true. Spirit baptism is initially evidenced by a person speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance. And if this is TRUE, then what are we to do with 1Corinthians 12:13, where it tells us that Spirit baptism puts us into the body of Christ? And if THIS is the case, then how can speaking in tongues simply be a "gift" for a few in the family of God? The answer, of course, is that speaking in tongues is NOT for just a few - but it happens to every person who receives the new birth experience, the baptism of the holy Ghost, just as Jesus said in John 3:8.

Gary

October 11, 2006

Pastor John,

We were reading in Genesis 38 last night about Tamar, through whom Jesus descended. It seemed that Judah tried to set her up with his sons who descended from Judah’s Canaanite wife, but God wouldn’t allow her to have children by them. Was that because God didn’t want Jesus’ lineage to be defiled?

I don't see how his sons marrying her would have defiled Jesus' genealogy. Jesus had some pretty rotten characters all the way down the line of his ancestors, as you know. Besides, being a human lineage, it was already hopelessly corrupt. So, I don't know the "why" of that question, but that it would defile Jesus' genealogy doesn't seem to be the answer.

Also, where was Tamar from? I assume that Tamar was an Israelite, possibly from one of the other tribes.

I assume, as you do, that she was an Israelite, but I don't see any reason in particluar to think she was not from Judah. As far as the biblical information is concerned, Tamar might have been from any tribe.

Although Jesus’ descendents, Tamar and Judah, sinned by an incestuous relationship, and God allowed that in Jesus’ lineage, would that tell us that the sin of marrying outside of the family of God be a much more serious offense to God (than the sin of Judah and Tamar)?

The sin of marrying outside the faith was a horrible transgression. But what was "the sin of Judah and Tamar?" That is difficult to say. Judah was more guilty than Tamar of whatever wrong was done, but it is hard to argue a case against Tamar, all things considered.

It seems that for the people of their time period, what we would today call incestuous relationships were probably more the norm?

Mark

Yes, they were far more common in those days, but God, in the law of Moses, condemned those who married relatives any closer than 2nd cousins. It was forbidden in Israel. Of course, the episode involving Judah and Tamar took place long before Moses, and so there was no Law from God forbidding what we call now "incest" (Abraham married his half sister!). And I am not fully persduaded that what they did amounted to incest. Even so, I don't think Judah would have had a child by Tamar if she had not disguised herself so that he did not recognize her.

I question whether or not Judah and Tamar could be condemned for committing incest inasmuch as they were related only by marriage, and because her husband was, after all, dead. It was obviously more appropriate, as Judah himself admitted (and as Moses' Law itself would later demand), for one of Judah's sons to take their brother's widow as his wife, but where is the incest if Judah took her instead of one of them?

jdc

September 14, 2006

Hi Pastor John

Reading in Exodus 31:17 it read, "and on the 7th day he rested, and was refreshed.'' We have been taught earlier in the OT course that the word "rested" meant God was finished creating, but what does it mean when it says refreshed; how would God be refreshed?

Thank-you,

Billy M.

Hi Billy:

In Exodus 31:17, "refreshed" means something like "contented", or "pleased". Literally, its meaning is "to take a breath". In my mind, this suggests a relaxed feeling, describing someone who is sitting back and feeling pretty good.

Pastor John

August 23, 2006

John:

I was reading the email to you from Gary. Is it important to keep a connection with God's people, even when you think you're own connection with God is not what it should be? That can be really hard!

Thanks,

Jackie

Hi Jackie:

It is most important to keep in touch with God's people when you do not feel that things are right between you and Jesus. That is when we need one another the most. No child of God on the planet is going to be saved in the end without the influence and strength of other saints.

Over the years, I have learned that it is only condemnation in the heart that makes it difficult to be around God's faithful saints. Many times, from what I have seen, people do not want to be with God's people because they do not want the correction they know they need. They have set their course in their heart, know it is wrong, but are not willing to put it out there to be tested and examined by the saints. This has happened a lot, and in every case I have seen, it is just the prelude to people backsliding altogether. "In the multitude of counsellors there is safety." But when a believer secretly makes up his mind to go his own way, he doesn't care about safety; he is only interested in getting what he wants.

Condemnation can be gotten rid of, if you really want to get rid of it. There is no excuse for any of us to have condemnation in our hearts. All we need to do is open up, straighten up, and do God's will. Jesus will forgive us and cleanse us from every ounce of condemnation and make us happy to be with Him and His people if that is really what we want.

jdc

August 23, 2006

Hi, John:

It is funny, but I was reading that scripture last night, and the one in Romans (chapter 2?) about judging, and I thought about asking you about it.

Can you help me understand more about this, and the Scripture that says, "with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again . . .." (well, I understand that statement, but would like to understand more about the kind of judging we should avoid). Is it like "the clicks" message, i.e., finding fault with other? I was thinking, too, about Romans 2, where Paul talks about judging and then says "not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance . . ." Any info is appreciated. Thanks...:)

Lyn

Oh Lyn,

You already know everything you need to know about these matters. You know that you are forbidden to judge anyone or anything in the flesh (Mt. 7:1-2); "in the flesh" is reaching a judgment based upon the standards of the world or of the carnal mind. And you know that you are commanded to judge all things after the Spirit (Jn. 7:24); that is, believe the judgments that the holy Ghost makes within you.

Do you want to be judged by the world's standards, by the standards of a carnal mind? Of course not, because the carnal mind and the world condemn the just and justify the wicked. If you would not be judged by that standard, then do not use that standard to judge others, for you will most certainly reap what you have sown. But if you would be judged by the lovingkindness of God, then be merciful to others and forgive quickly those who sincerely turn from their wickedness. Listen to the Spirit and trust what you feel in your pure heart. A pure heart never misjudged anything or anyone.

You really do not need more "info" on this subject. You know all this and more. Still, it is good to think about such holy truths, and I am glad to see that you have been doing that. Keep it up.

Pastor John

John:

I will forever grateful to Uncle Joe on this subject. I learned this about myself by watching him: If you were hard toward other people, you would be hard on yourself or vice versa.

Uncle Joe was quick to forgive others (if they did their part), and therefore he could forgive himself quickly. In other words, if God was finished with a subject, Uncle Joe was, too. He was in total harmony with God because God was finished with the subject also. Uncle Joe would leave you behind and go on with Jesus even if you weren't there with him.

Thanks:

Wendell

August 23, 2006

Hey Pastor John,

We were reading the emails between you and some of the men from their websites today. We were just kinda curious about a comment that you made to them. "Please consider the possibility that the holy Ghost baptism (with the "initial evidence" of speaking in tongues) is the experience of conversion and that what Christians often call "getting saved" is just part of the wonderful process of godly repentance."

Can you possibly elaborate on the part about getting saved being a part of the wonderful process. "what Christians often call "getting saved" is just part of the wonderful process of godly repentance." We tried to understand what you were trying to say to them, but I think we missed the point or something. Were you just trying to get them to see the error of their ways? Sorry if we sound silly! Thanks!

Tony and Margo

Hey Tony and Margo!

No, I was not just "trying to get them to see the error of their ways", my friends. What I meant is this: What Christians call "getting saved" is in most cases just someone feeling conviction for their sins and wanting to get right with God. Paul was not converted on the road to Damascus; he was convicted. His sins were washed away when he was baptized with the holy Ghost (Acts 22:16), not when he fell on his knees before Jesus on that dusty road. But Paul's falling down on the Damascus Road was a wonderful experience; it was of God, and it was part of the process toward salvation in the end. But if a typical Christian minister had been there on the Damascus Road, he would have told Paul, "Now, you're saved! Don't let anybody make you doubt it, brother!" That would have gotten in Paul's way; it might even have stopped the process.

The conviction to repent and do right, the experience Christians call "getting saved", is a blessing from heaven. So, the experience that Christians call "getting saved" is, in itself, a good thing; it is a sinner trying to get right with God. So, the problem is not with the experience; the experience itself is good. The problem is with Christians' interpretation of that wonderful experience. To tell a sinner who is under conviction that he is now "saved" confuses him and hinders the work of God in his life.

Pastor John

August 23, 2006

Pastor John,

I have a question........I was thinking about something that a Bro Brad said in his testimony on Sunday. He said something about God putting him in that situation to see what he would do, and he knew that God was testing him. That kinda stuck with me, because I remembered when you were here in L'ville last weekend we talked about how God doesn't tempt you with evil but with good (Jas. 1:13-14). So that got me thinking on the way back to L'ville yesterday.

I guess my question is, would that temptation really be Jesus testing you, or would it be the lust of your own flesh? I know Jesus is Lord over all things, but I was just trying to see how it all fits together, and if my thinking was right. I could see where He may put a choice in your path, like for example, going to NC for a good prayer meeting, or staying home and doing nothing all weekend. Would that be Jesus tempting you with good?

Well, I hope my question's makes sense, and thanks for answering them! I had a really good weekend with you guys!!!

Margo~

Hi Margo!

If Brother Brad, or anyone else, was being tempted to do evil, it was his own flesh at work. But if he was being tempted to do good, it was the work of God. It seems to me that any time God tempts someone to do good, the flesh is there to resist the will of God and to tempt him to do evil. So, a person may be tempted in both ways at the same time, by God to do good and by the flesh to do evil. Those who do the will of God will live forever, and those who do the will of the flesh will be damned forever.

Pastor John

August 17, 2006

North Carolina is where the Church of God started many years ago when two men began praying because they thought the church of their day was getting worldly. They later moved their headquarters to Cleveland TN.

North Carolina is also where my ancestors migrated until going into West Virginia.

I have some questions. If one would stop going to "church" wouldn't the church die out eventually and become mingled with the world until there was no faith in Jesus.

The "church" is already dead, and it always has been. And it IS the world, in religious dress. If God's people would just recognize that it is God's voice saying "Come out of her, my people", and then if they would obey Him, the deadness and worldliness of the church would become immediately obvious. It is only the life within God's children, their sincerity and good works, that makes the "church" seem to be a holy thing.

There is a house church movement of people that believe we should come out of the church which they say is Babylon. It seems to be growing. There was one that lived near me but she and her family recently moved.

They are right -- the church is Babylon. So then, one has to ask, why do they bring it into their houses? The house-church people apparently have never stopped to ask themselves, "How am I coming out of Babylon (church) by becoming a house-Babylon (-church) movement?

I have only read about the "house church movement", and it seems to me that by bringing the church into houses, people have merely changed the setting of that abomination which is not of God, and have not come out of it at all.

We here have been taught by Jesus to worship God together in a home without "church" at all, so, we cannot be said to be a part of the "house-church movement". We are not a church movement of any kind.

How did you get started gathering people at your home? I remember my dad taking me to cottage prayer meetings when I was only about 4. I've never forgotten the sounds of people praising the Lord and singing.

I have never known any other way to serve the Lord. In my earliest years, my parents read the Bible with us and lived a holy Ghost filled life all the time. That was the only religion I knew, and I think it is acceptable with God. Later, when I approached my teens, my parents began to meet with a small group of saints in my grandmother's farmhouse every other Sunday of the month, and they continued in that way of worship until they died.

And as far as singing and praising God is concerned, if you want it, I have some singing and praising God for you that might bring back some fond memories!

I think the fear of wildfire keeps people from worshipping like they use to.

I would rather have to deal with occasional "wildfires" than to have no fire at all. I have no fear of those fires. Around here, thanks be to God, we have rivers of living water flowing out of our "innermost bellies", and those rivers, to this point, have extinguished all the fiery darts of the devil. God has been good to us.

One thing that bothers me, though, is the thought that those who have never spoken in tongues are not really saved. I know a lot of good people who are Freewill Baptist who sure act like they are full of the Holy Ghost but have never spoken with tongues. One of them is a pastor who has such a love for people and for the lost that it would be hard to believe that he wasn't saved. His brother is also a pastor but he is pentecostal.

Well, Dorna, part of your confusion comes from the mis-use of the word "saved". In the early 20th century, it was altered by Christians to mean "converted" or "born again", but where in the Bible is used like that? How many places do you recall Paul talking about "the day I got saved"? Or Peter? Or John? They used the word to mean something else. Read my on-line tract on "What is Salvation?"

Dorna, Jesus said "Judge not" (Mt 7:1). This means for us not to judge at all. It does not merely mean that we are not to condemn people. It means also that we are not to judge people to be right with God. We must wait for God's judgment, and only God knows the heart. Of Cornelius and his household, Peter said, "God, who knows the heart, bore them witness, giving them the same holy Ghost that He gave to us at the breginning." If we judge someone to be either justified or condemned, we have transgressed Jesus' commandment for us not to judge. This commandment is explained further by Jesus in John 7:24, where Jesus warned us, "Do not judge by appearances, but make righteous judgment". The only way to judge like this is to judge people not by what we see or hear, but by what the holy Ghost determines and reveals to us. This is the way Jesus judges (Isa. 11:3-4).

Neither you nor I know the heart of anyone, Dorna, but God does. And when He sees genuine repentance, He baptizes with the holy Ghost. We must trust Him, Dorna, not your own judgment of people.

There are other people who go so far the other way though. There are many on the Internet who speak very badly of Pentecostals and say it is not of God because of the modern day Charismatic movement.

All of Christianity, pentecostal or non-pentecostal, is of man, and God is calling His children out of all of it.

You don't believe in the trinity? Are you apostolic? They believe Jesus and the Father are the same person?

I am neither a trinitarian nor an apostolic. You might want to read my on-line tracts, "Is Jesus God?" and "The Father and the Son." Those two tracts will explain what I teach on that subject.

A friend of mine had a husband who was apostolic. As far as I know though he never received the Holy Ghost. He always talked of someone named William Branham. He did think that people that believed in the trinity were wrong. Have you ever heard of him?

Yes, and my father was even in a meeting with Brother Branham once, many years ago. There is a group in southern Indiana that virtually worships Brother Branham. He had power with God, but if he taught apostolic doctrines, he was mistaken.

Sorry for the questions but I'm just not clear about a few things. If there is a Father, a Son and the Holy Ghost, would it matter if one thinks of them as a trinity or separate?

Apparently it is not that big a deal with God because He baptizes with the holy Ghost people who have been taught both the trinitarian and apostolic doctrines.

I do agree with one thing and that is the church changed to the worst after the council of Nicaea.

Well, maybe it did, but it was already of the devil before then. The "church" has always been an evil institution. The council of Nicea was merely one giant step the church made in its very successful effort to persuade mankind that it was the body of Christ. Eventually, with the use of its powerful military and political assets, the church even persuaded God's people to submit to that lie. But Jesus will be our hero again. Nobody is in the body of Christ except those whom he has baptized with the holy Ghost, and that truth is beginning to be spread as perhaps it has not been spread since the days of the apostles. I am excited about it! That will lead God's people to real liberty from the church.

Thank you so much, Dorna, for your questions. I can send you a CD of one of our meetings if you would like to hear one. Thanks again for writing; I am blessed to hear from you.

Your servant in Christ,

john clark, sr

PS Concerning the word, "church": This may seem impossible, but it is true. Any competent Greek scholar will confirm it, and history records it. The Greek word for "church" (kuriakon) is found nowhere in the NT. Kuriakon is an ancient Greek word that referred to (and, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, still refers to) any religious building of any religion. A Jewish temple is a church; a Muslim minaret is a church; a Bhuddist temple is a church. Ancient temples dedicated to Zeus were churches. The Parthenon was a church.

The word in the NT that King James commanded his translators to translate as "church" is ekklesia, and it means "assembly", or "congregation", or "called out people". The church murdered John Tyndall a few hundred years ago because he translated the Bible into English, and in his translation he dared to tranlate ekklesia as "congregation", never as "church". He knew "church" was an incorrect translation of that word. John Wycliff, who, long before Tyndall, was also murdered by the church -- and for the same reason -- translated ekklesia correctly, as "congregation", not as "church" -- at least in every case I have seen.

The church is an evil institution devised by Satan to enslave us, Dorna. None of God's people, including you, belong in it. I dare say that virtually all of God's people who are in Christianity, joined it because they felt it was God's will to do so, but it is not. Jesus baptizes no one into Christianity, and he calls none of his followers into it. On the contrary, he call us to where he is, and he is "outside the gate" of the religion of Christainity.

July 31, 2006

Pastor John:

What is it that Paul was trying to say in Colossians 2:9? I just want to learn the new way. (I have an old concept.)

Thanks.

Manuel

Hi Manuel:

Here is that verse, and the following one (Col. 2:9-10): "for in him dwells all the fullness of deity bodily, and you are made full in him who is the head of every ruler and authority."

Christ Jesus is the very image of his Father. He was sent by his Father to show us what the Father is like, and he did that perfectly because he is perfectly like Him. This is what Jesus meant when he told his disciples, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." Many have taught that by this statement , Jesus was claiming to be the Father Himself, but that is not the case. We ought to see the Father in one another every day, and by the power of the Spirit, we will live so that others do see Him. To an apostolic group that taught this, my father said one evening in a sermon deep in the hills of Tennessee long ago, "Has anybody seen God in you lately?"

Paul's phrase in Colossians 2:9, "The fullness of deity", refers to Jesus' spiritual life, not his physical body. But where did Jesus get that life? He said the Father gave it to him (Jn. 5:26), and God does not give that life "by measure" (Jn. 3:34). In other words, the Father "fills" us with it, just as Paul said in Colossians 2:10. Look at those two verses again: (Col. 2:9-10): "for in him dwells all the fullness of deity bodily, and you are made full in him who is the head of every ruler and authority."

God fills us all if we will submit to Him completely. Through the holy Ghost, we, like Jesus, become "partakers of the divine nature" (2Pet. 1:4). Through the holy Ghost, we, like Jesus, become "sons of God" (1Jn. 3:1), "and because you are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father!" (Gal. 4:6).

With your apostolic background, Manuel, I know what you must have been taught about such verses as Colossians 2:9. I hope, now Jesus has liberated you from that darkness, that you will help us spread the good news about the Father AND the Son.

Pastor John

July 31, 2006

Hey Pastor John,

I've just got a few questions for you. Would you mind answering them please?

In Genesis chapter 15 God makes a covenant with Abram promising to give to his descendents the land of Canaan, but that’s a 'unique' and messy covenant. I have been told that the smoking fire pot with the blazing torch represents God. Is that right? I’ve also heard that this ritual was a common oath of the times among people and that people would make oaths and covenants with each other by killing animals arranging them and walking through them barefoot with the blood all spilled in a trench surrounding where the animals are arranged. So, they were walking in the blood of the animals. Is that right? This seems to insinuate that God was making a covenant in the same way and was “walking” through the arrangement of offered animals to complete the covenant with Abraham. Is that right too?

Yes, those things are true, which would mean that it was not a "unique and messy covenant" . . . well, not unique. Abraham must have been stunned that God was passing through those animal pieces. That would have been, as I see it, the part played by the less dependable and less powerful party to the covenant.

Also where is the valley of Shaveh and the valley of Siddim in the atlas referred to in Gen 14?? I’ve got the same one as you. On what page will I find it?

The Valley of Shaveh is near (Jeru)salem. The Vale of Siddim is somewhere near the southern end of the salt Sea. Neither place is located with certainty, as I recall.

In Genesis 18, where the angels of the Lord visit Abraham and Sarah, well there are 3 “men” who visit. I assume they are angels of the Lord, but then the Bible uses a capital “L” when he is speaking to Abraham whereas earlier in the passage it is a little “l”. SO, is it the Lord or is it an angel that is speaking to Abraham?

Thanks,

Jenny

The answer is yes. It is the Lord and it is an angel. The Lord was speaking through that angel.

Pastor John

Thank you.

About the covenant... you mentioned that God played the part of the less dependable and less powerful person in the contract. Actually I remember being told that too. That's interesting... that God would reduce Himself to play that part. Wow, he is a good God! So why did God do that?

Can you tell me anything more about this?

Jenny

God's reasons are His own, but one effect on Abraham was that he never again questioned whether or not God was going to do what he promised Abraham He was going to do.

In a way, that scene from Genesis 15 is analagous to Jesus washing the disciples' feet. Jesus the Son acted the part of the lesser in that scene from John 13, and here in Genesis 15, God the Father acted the part of the lesser. Jesus said that whatever he saw the Father do, he did. May God grant us that kind of wisdom and humility.

Pastor John

July 22, 2006

Hi Pastor John,

I was reading 1 Cor. 3:4-8 at lunch yesterday and was just curious as to what a few verses were saying. I know you probably have mentioned them before and explained them, and I may have forgot.

"For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?"

I was wondering, who is Paul talking about when he mentions Apollos. Is that another name for Paul?

No, it was not Paul. Read the end of Acts 18, and you will see who Apollos was.

"I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase."

This kind of sounded like Paul was saying that we are nothing without God and can't do anything, but it is Him who does all things.

You got that right!

"Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour."

When Paul is talking about every man receiving his own reward according to his labor, is this maybe referring to reaping what you have sown? That is what it was kinda sounding like.

You see? Jesus said that the Spirit would guide you into all truth. And John said these things in 1John:

"But you have an anointing from the holy One, and you understand all things."

"But the anointing that you received from him remains in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you, but his anointing is teaching you concerning all things, and it is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, continue in it."

You are experiencing this now.

I also was thinking about verse 17: "If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."

I was always under the impression growing up that defiling the temple of God would be like tattooing yourself, or doing anything to harm your physical body. But I was thinking yesterday, wouldn't he be talking about sinning in general in that verse, doing anything that is outside of doing the will of God, and not of the Spirit. Just a thought.

See? Just keep listening to the Spirit. It will guide you into all truth.

OK, I think that is all the verses I didn't understand. I really liked chapter 3 when I read it. I love the way Paul writes!!!

Cya!

Thanks,

Margo

I feel the same way. Keep up the good work. It is sweet to watch the process.

Pastor John

July 18, 2006

Pastor John,

While I was talking with Darren this morning, I was reminded of a dream I had about a month ago. In the dream you said, "I like what Preacher Clark used to say, if you want to get close to God, you've got to break down some walls." I was just curious, did he ever say that?

Julie

No. But he did it.

Pastor John

July 13, 2006

Pastor John,

What does Jesus' parable mean in Matthew 12:43-45?

"When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation."

Amanda

Hi Amanda:

Peter also mentions this truth in 1Peter 4:20-22. Put simply, it will be better in the Final Judgment for a person never to have been washed by the blood of Christ than, if after being cleansed, he returns to his former ways. It is worse to be a sinner twice than to be a sinner the first time. The second time around, the heart is harder, and more open to wickedness -- according to Jesus' parable, seven times more open. But Jesus' parable also contains this warning. When God chases a foul spirit away from you and makes you His, that spirit may return to you at some point to see if you missed him. We are told that even when Jesus overcame the devil in the temptation in the wilderness, the devil departed from Jesus only "for a season". The deliverance of God is real, but we have to value it or we may be overtaken again by the same ungodly spirits as before, and worse.

When Jesus healed people who had become sick because of their sins, he commanded them as he sent them away to "go and sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you."

I think being a sinner the first time was bad enough. May God establish all of us in righteousness so that we will never return to live in sin again and embrace our former darkness (and his seven friends).

Pastor John

July 10, 2006

Pastor John,

In hearing people disuss many things about what you are teaching that are still very far from comprehension, but have already made many changes in my personal philosophies about life and God. A friend of mine led me to your website, and through a little exploring, I have become greatly confused. I have three main questions: do you believe the Holy Ghost is the one and only path to salvation; why should any creature who sincerely lives their life dedicated to making this world a better place ever fear God; and do the "Called Out" believe in eternal damnation?

Depending on your reply, I may have at least one other question.

Desperate and thankful,

Eric

Hi Eric:

Thank you for writing, Eric. I hope that you are well.

Paul said that if anyone did not have the Spirit, then that person does not belong to God (Romans 8:9). This is that Spirit of life that Jesus came and suffered for us to have (John 10:10). Jesus said that no one comes to the Father except by him (John 14:6), and Peter echoed that truth when he preached in Acts that "there is no other name [except Jesus] given to men under heaven by which men can be saved" (Acts 4:12).

The gospel is about God making the way for us to receive eternal life. Men down here trying to make a better life for others means nothing. No matter how much better a life you make for someone, he still needs to repent and be forgiven of his sins if he is to escape the damnation of God, for "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." And "God demands that all men everywhere repent." That is why all people should fear God. Even Jesus feared God. All wise men do.

Whether or not God's called-out people believe in eternal damnation is irrelevant to you; what you want to know is whether or not eternal damnation will be a reality for those who do not fear God and repent and, so, do not receive God's Spirit. If by "eternal damnation", you mean "forever damned and never rescued from that damnation", then the answer is obviously "yes". Eternal damnation is a terrible reality awaiting those among us who do not humble ourselves to obey God's commandments.

Eric, it isn't really that you became confused when you read the articles that you read at PastorJohnsHouse.com. I know it seems that way, but the reality is that, rather than becoming confused by the web site, the confusion that was already in your heart concerning holy things was brought to the surface by the light of God. I hope that in time, the truth will take away that confusion and give you peace.

Your non-Christian servant,

Pastor John

July 4, 2006

John,

I've often been curious as to the spirit that compelled "Mother" Theresa to live the life she lived. What do you think? Ever seen a documentary on her or thought about the "good deeds" she demonstrated throughout her life? Hmmm. . . .spirit of Satan (Xty) or spirit of Christ?

Brad

Hi Brad:

It is good to think on these things. The answer as to which spirit inspired her good deeds must lie in the answer to this question: When her life was over, who receive the greater glory for her life's work, Christianity or Christ?

jdc

One viewer's comments concerning the emails above are as follows:

Another thing to think about is - could mother Theresa have done what she did and/or taught what she taught without the holy Ghost baptism? If so, Jesus death and resurrection could have been skipped, and her work could have still been accomplished without Jesus ever being here.

Gary

Amen, Gary. Couldn't a Muslim have done the same things she did?

jdc

July 2, 2006

Hello Pastor John,

In Acts 22:16, which baptism is it that Paul is referring to when he was speaking of what Ananias had said to him: "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Looking back in chapter 9:17-18, we see that Ananias originally said that the Lord had sent him (Ananias) to Paul so that he might see again and "be filled with the holy Ghost." Then Paul's sight returned and "was baptized"...with the holy Ghost? Or with water? Or both? Is there any way of knowing?

Thanks,

Sarah

Hi Sarah:

Good question. Paul was referring to John's baptism with water when he referred to Ananias baptizing him. The gospel for the Gemtiles did not yet exist, except in the mind of God. But even if God had already revealed that gospel to someone, Paul was a Jew and, therefore, would have been required to be baptized with John's baptism. After that, Paul received the holy Ghost.

Pastor John

June 28, 2006

Hey Uncle John,

I was reading the bible with my family the other night in luke 9, and i have a question. In verse 27, it says, "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." Does that imply that some of the disciples never got the Holy Ghost?

Thanks.

~abby

Hi Abby!

Yes, in an awkward way.

That verse states, first of all, that some of Jesus' disciples who were standing there with him that day would certainly live to see the kingdom of God come (in spirit) on the day of Pentecost, when the holy Ghost was poured out. Peter and John were among those who did live that long. But since Jesus only said that "some" of them would live until then, I assume that some others among Jesus' disciples would not live that long. Maybe they were old men at that time; maybe they were murdered by angry Jews or Romans. We don't know why some did not live long enough to see the kingdom of God come (in Spirit) in Acts 2. We only know what Jesus said.

Good question.

Uncle John

June 15, 2006

Hey John

I have a question. When did Moses know that God would sent him to deliver Israel from Egypt?

The reason I ask this we read in ACT 7-25: "For he (Moses) supposed his brethren would understood how that God by his (Moses') hand would deliver them (Israel) but they understood not."

It sounds as if Moses knew that God would sent him to deliver Israel from Egypt when he killed the Egyptian. Was it then that Moses knew, or was it when GOD talks to Moses on MT Sinai?

Thank you

Doris White

Hi Doris:

Yes, we learn from Acts, not the Old Testament, from Stephen's anointed message to the elders of Israel, that Moses, as a young man, felt a sense of the calling he had from God. He felt a deep love for the Israelite slaves, and he never forget that he, too, was an Israelite, though not a slave. So, the answer is that early in his life, Moses felt that God was going to use him to deliver the Israelites.

By the way, Jesus, at the age of twelve, exhibited a similar awareness of his special destiny (Lk. 2:41-49)

jdc

June 13, 2006

Hey Pastor John.

We were reading in Isaiah this morning with the kids and got to this scripture 59:21. "As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord. My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever."

Cliff read this several times trying to understand if this is a promise that our children and our children's children are promised the holy Ghost?? And that it will never depart out of their mouths. I know this is contingent on the fact that we all hold up our end with God.

Cliff said listen to this and re-read it several times. Our children and our grandchildren are all promised this way of life. This really stood out to us that our family has this promise. I guess this is truly the case in situation with my Grandmother and mother. They both have had their children and grandchildren in this truth.

But wow, we are promised this, our children are promised this, and our grandchildren are promised this. What a wonderful thought and promise from God!!

JULIE A.

Hi Julie:

God does promise such things as a blessing for the children of the righteous for several generations, as well as a curse for the generations of those who hate Him. One such example is from one of the Ten Commandments: "I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and showing mercy on thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments" (Ex. 20:5-6).

Note also the famous passage in Acts 16, where Paul tells the Philippian jailor, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, and your house."

On the other hand, there are also Scriptures from God that promise such things as this: "When the son has done that which is lawful and right, and has kept all my statutes, and has done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sins, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of his father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" (Ezek. 18:19-20).

How God balances these two seemingly contradictory promises is up to Him. I just know they are there. I suspect that the offspring of the wicked have to deal with evil influences from the ungodly parent that children of upright people may not have to contend with. That is certainly a kind of "curse" on the children that is passed down from parent to child. I know that my life and the life of my family (naturally and in the Lord) is still being impacted by the time (before I was even born) when my father, in his own words, "missed God a thousand miles". But thank God, I and my family (naturally and in the Lord) am also being impacted by my father's many years of faith and righteousness.

Beyond that, Julie, we must simply trust in God to treat us justly and with compassion, no matter what our parents did. We do know this, that when we stand before Jesus, we will reap what we have sown, not what others have sown before us.

Pastor John

June 12, 2006

Hello Pastor John,

It has been sometime I wrote last though I have been reading the emails.

Recently I have been listening over and over some of your songs and those of others on my mobile phone. In the song I will follow Him, you said that men do not praise God on the earth. Can you explan more on that?

Hi Joe:

I don't know which song it is to which you are referring, but as to your question, there are two possible ways to answer that question. The first, and most obvious, is that sinners on earth just do not have their minds on God and do not know that it is He who is providing them their food and shelter and everything else. Therefore, they do not praise Him for those blessings.

The second way to look at that issue is to understand that unless we are serving and worshiping God as He tells us to, then we are not serving and worshiping the true God at all. Joshua tried to explain this to the Israelites when they said to Joshua that they would serve God, and he told them they could not serve God so long as they used idols in their worship (Josh. 24). Moses and Paul, and others, taught that the Gentiles were worshiping demons when they thought they were worshiping God. Paul even suggested several times that if we Gentiles who believe in Christ add ceremony to our worship of God in spirit, then we have started worshiping Satan rather than God. So, understanding this, we see that men on earth do not praise God even when they think they are praising Him if they are worshiping God contrary to the way He demands to be worshiped.

This means that there are only a few souls on earth whose worship is actually accepted by God. And it means that everyone else on earth is not praising the real God, whether they be people who have no thought of God at all or people who think they are worshiping Him when they are actually offering their worship to a god of their imagination.

Pastor John

June 8, 2006

Pastor John:

I remember you saying that "you are judged by how you treat others". Where is that in the Bible?

Gloria

Hi Gloria:

One place that tells us that is Matthew 7:2, "With what judgment you judge, you shall be judged, and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again", but there are many other similar Scriptures. The point is simply that we will reap what we sow, which is a biblical theme that runs consistently through the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.

Pastor John

June 8, 2006

Hi, John:

It is funny, but I was reading that scripture last night, and the one in Romans (chapter 2?) about judging, and I thought about asking you about it.

Can you help me understand more about this, and the Scripture that says, "with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again . . ." (well, I understand that statement, but would like to understand more about the kind of judging we should avoid). Is it like "the clicks" message, i.e., finding fault with other? I was thinking, too, about Romans 2, where Paul talks about judging and then says "not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance . . ."

Any info is appreciated. Thanks...:)

Lyn

Oh Lyn,

You already know everything you need to know about these matters. You know that you are forbidden to judge anyone or anything in the flesh (Mt. 7:1-2); "in the flesh" is reaching a judgment based upon the standards of the world or of the carnal mind. And you know that you are commanded to judge all things after the Spirit (Jn. 7:24); that is, believe the judgments that the holy Ghost makes within you.

Do you want to be judged by the world's standards, or by the standards of a carnal mind? Of course not, because the carnal mind and the world condemn the just and justify the wicked. If you would not be judged by that standard, then do not use that standard to judge others, for you will most certainly reap what you have sown. But if you would be judged by the lovingkindness of God, then be merciful to others and forgive quickly those who sincerely turn from their wickedness. Listen to the Spirit and trust what you feel in your pure heart. A pure heart never misjudged anything or anyone.

You really do not need more "info" on this subject. You know all this and more. Still, it is good to think about such holy truths, and I am glad to see that you have been doing that. Keep it up.

Pastor John

June 6, 2006

Hi Pastor John.

A question: is there an essential difference between iniquity and sin? My concordance seems to indicate that.

Here's why I ask:

I came across an old journal of mine, written in 1994. In it I had taken notes in a Christian service one Sunday, and this is what the visiting pastor had said in his sermon:

Iniquity is generational, passed down through fathers "to the third and fourth generation," etc. . . and before sin can be removed from our lives, we have to sever the "root" of iniquity in our hearts.

The "fruit" of iniquity is sin, and if the root is cut out of us the fruit will wither and die off. This is accomplished by the power of the holy spirit (and I am guessing that he was spirit-filled, although perhaps not truth-filled because it was in an Assemblies of God sect.)

How do you feel about that? Is iniquity the root of sin? Or are they essentially synonymous?

Bill

Hi Bill:

It is good to hear from you again. It has been a while.

Off the cuff, I can go along with what you heard the minister teach, in general terms anyway. After all, we know that we were born in sin, and that we sinned later. If we call the birth in sin "iniquity" and then call any particular evil we did "sins", that is fine with me. But then . . .

After some reflection, I concluded that this issue is one of those theological questions which, when we pause to consider it, doesn't matter one way or the other . . . . kind of like, "Did Adam have a navel?" If there is a vast difference between the words "iniquity" and "sin", then . . . . so what? By finding that out, what have we learned about our heavenly Father, and how have we been brought closer to Him? On the other hand, if there is no difference at all between those two words, then . . . . so what? In what way has that benefited us in Christ? It's OK with me either way.

It seems to me, as Uncle Joe would have said it, "It all amounts to about zero."

With so many souls in battle for life itself, and with so many tears being shed and questions asked, and with so many spirits being tried "so as by fire", I am finding that I care less and less for such theological niceties. I am becoming the kind of person who just does not care about such things as whether or not "iniquity" and "sin" are, or are not, the same thing, and with so many very important things needing to be done right now, I would rather spend my time thinking on other things.

I hope you understand this response, dear brother, well enough not to be displeased with my answer. I love you in the Lord and I remain

your servant in Christ,

Pastor John

June 6, 2006

I agree with your feelings completely John, on the email to Bill about the difference/similarity of "iniquity" and "sin". And you are able to say it to him with such grace and kindness, yet with soberness - wow.

When we talk to children of God, and we tell them "by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body" - they will write back and say - "I can't agree with that!" When you ask them why, they say "because you forgot the period on the end of the sentence!"

Well, WHAT ABOUT THE MEAT!!!???

There were men who were very concerned about every jot and every tittle in the law - but they were reproved by Jesus because they did not concern themselves with the "weightier" things, such as mercy, truth, judgment, and righteousness. What about that? In other words, let's help God's children, if God will allow us, to think about "when is a person born again?" or "when is a person saved?". Such questions are so much more important than other things that don't amount to much. It's not hard to end up there, straining at gnats, and I know I would be there were it not for the wonderful help I have had.

And I thank you for it!

Gary

May 25, 2006

Hey Pastor John,

We are starting all over in the Old Testament again, and I have a question for you. I noticed in Gen 3:16 that part of God's curse on Eve was that her husband would "rule over" her. Is this the beginning of the time when the husband is over the wife or was Adam over Eve even before God made this commandment? I don't think I ever heard anything said about this.

Genesis 3:16 - "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." I love this Old Testament study and I want to try to get what I missed the first time around. It's so exciting!

love

Tina

Hi Tina:

It is extremely difficult to convey to the carnal mind the beauty and goodness of having order (that is, government) because rebelliousness is such an integral part of the fallen nature of man. It is useless to tell the carnal mind that to be governed is good. At heart, each fallen man considers himself to be his own god and his own law, and considers every external commandment to be an intrusion into his own personal universe. This is the nature of fallen man.

God imposed on Eve the government of her husband for her good. Even though fallen, Adam was still Eve's head, and remember, she had also fallen into sin. Before that fall, and Eve's curse of being ruled over by a fallen man, the same order existed, but there was no sense in Eve of a government being imposed upon her. Rather, government and order was just the (good) way that life was in God's wonderful creation. This is what the carnal mind cannot comprehend.

Being governed absolutely without feeling oppressed is impossible for fallen man, but we need that kind of government because we are that blind and that helpless. This is why Jesus prayed that God's will would be done in earth "as it is in heaven". When the Lord prayed that, he was praying that God would give man the holy Ghost to govern him completely from within us. Oh, that the new earth were already here, where God will reign supremely everywhere -- inside and out -- to everyone's joy, and with no sense among the inhabitants of that wonderful world of being oppressed by a dictator.

The absolute dictatorship of God over our souls is the hope of the saints and the dread of every sinner. The tyranny of Christ is a "tyranny" of joy, and wicked men hate the thoughts of submitting to it. Oh, give me God's tyrant, Jesus!! His form of government is love in action, and his governors bring peace into every life that receives them.

So, Eve was already under Adam before the fall, but there was no sense within her of being an inferior, dominated by another. All those sorts of feelings came after the Slanderer infected her with his own envy of God's glory. That same rebelliousness has fueled the women's rights movement in our culture, as well as other "rights" movements. When in His curse of Eve, God told her that her husband would rule over her, He was saying that His original order for the home would remain in effect, though in a fallen state. But there is hope yet, because in Christ, men now can function as head of the house without damaging those over whom he rules.

Pastor John

May 10, 2006

Hi John,

Today I was reading Acts in preparation for our Bible study on Sunday. Acts 7:38 states, “This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina…” I realize Stephen is referring to Moses at Mt. Sinai. It seems odd to me that the translators would insert the word church in that particular verse, even by their standards. What do you think the translators of that verse [in the King James Version] were getting at ?

Thanks,

Tom

Hi Tom:

Being Christians, those translators were trying to promote their religion, as is to be expected. The word is ekklesia, or "congregation". Translating ekklesia as "church" is odd, whether in an Old or New Testament context, but as you felt when you read that verse in the KJV, it feels especially odd there, most clearly out of place.

Pastor John

April 27, 2006

Pastor John,

Today, I heard an argument that we are not to pay tithes anymore because we are no longer under the law. I asked how did one expect a minister of God to be fed, clothed, etc., and he said through offerings - that the New Testament condones giving but not tithing since it was under the law. I thought about it for a minute and simply discarded the thought since I know from the little I've studied about Paul saying we aren't justified by the works of the law that he meant ceremonial works (as far as I know - let me know if that is not the case).

Yes, the "works of the law" are the ceremonies, holy days, etc., that were a part of Moses' law. The "paper copy" of the law itself was also a "work of the law" that is fulfilled when the law is written by the Spirit on our hearts.

Anyway, I still wasn't at peace with the whole thing so I came home and looked up every scripture with law in it and every scripture with tithes in it. I also read the tract on T&O. Something I hadn't thought about was the fact that Abraham paid tithes before the law was even given concerning tithes. To me, this clearly shows that the righteous still pay tithes as you mentioned in the tract.

But Abraham also offered animal sacrifices! So that fact, alone, is insufficient as a defense for tithing in this New Covenant. There must be additional information given that would justify continuing to tithe.

One thing that was not clear to me, however, was Hebrews chapter 7. I don't understand what Paul is talking about at all in there. Something about the priesthood being changed (7:12)? I was not retaining any of this chapter really - maybe due to a long day at work.

Anyway, my question is this: what is the relationship of tithes to the law? Where can I read more about Paul and what he meant by not being justified by WORKS of the law and where (in the Bible) does it lay out what WORKS (ceremonial, etc.) he is talking about? And second, what is going on in Hebrews 7?

These questions are fairly thorough - I should probably just call. I'll send it anyway now that I've written it all.

Thanks,

Drew

Drew:

Get from Brother Earl a copy of my OT class that you missed concerning "works of the law". That will answer every one of your questions in much more detail that I can give here.

In short, to determine on a rational basis whether or not tithing is still the will of God for His people, one must first determine what kind of commandment tithing was. Was it a moral law, a ceremonial law, or a civil law? The Law of Moses contained all three of these kinds of law. The moral laws are MORE in effect than ever because we are judged based on our desires, not merely our deeds; the ceremonial laws were prophetic religious symbols, and they are all fulfilled in Christ - and so we who are in Christ need make no more animal sacrifices, be baptized in water, etc.; and the civil laws have been taken out of the hands of the saints and given to sinners, and so we are not to become embroiled in politics or military action.

That is a short summary of the OT class on video that you should see. I don't want to tell you the answers to your questions here so that you can get the most from the class itself. (At the end of the class we had a discussion/debate on the topic of tithes.) Please get the CD and look at it this weekend if you can.

Pastor John

April 22, 2006

Hi John,

I have a question. I was reading in the book of Jude and came to verse 18 and 19 where Jude said, “How that they told you there should be mockers in the last times, who should walk after their own ungodly lust. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the spirit.” I read in verse 4 where Jude said, “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation.” John do these men have the holy ghost and just have a different spirit? Or is Jude saying like he did in the end of 19 they have not the spirit? That they do not have the holy ghost?

Thanks

Stuart

Hi Stuart:

The people referred to in Jude 18-19 are the same men who are referred to in verse 4. In verses 18-19, Jude is using the phrase "having not the Spirit" the same way that Paul used it in 1Corinthians 7:40 when giving advice to young women: "But she is happier if she so abide [unmarried], after my judgment, and I think also that I have the Spirit of God." Now, Paul knew he had received the Spirit, but he meant that he thought he was being led in his judgment by the Spirit. The men to whom Jude refers also had received the Spirit, but they did not "have the Spirit" in the way they had chosen to live and worship God.

In verse 18, Jude said that these men "separate themselves". This refers to the mentality of Christians, who voluntarily divide themselves from each other by joining and supporting different sects, with their conflicting doctrines and traditions. If we are divided from any of God's children because of anything other than what God has done to us, we are sinners and the greatest hypocrites of all because we know better. But if obeying the truth separates us from the saints, then so be it and praise God for it. Jesus and Paul warned us that there must come divisions in the body of Christ. But God forbid that we should of our own will separate ourselves from the children of God.

Pastor John

April 12, 2006

Hey John,

I was reading Hebrews last weekend and came across 6:4. I spoke to Sammy about it and later on Saturday night to Lou. She added verse 26 in chapter 10. We were all of the consensus of asking you about these verses. Are the verses related and who might fit into this category? Thanks.

Bro Jim K.

Hi Jim:

Many of God's children, early in their walk with God, want to know to whom those dreadful verses from Hebrews 6:4-6 apply. Often, they (needlessly) fear that they might apply to them.

Hebrews 6:4-6 speaks of sin that is unforgivable, but only for certain people. This sin could be any sin that is committed after one has "tasted of the heavenly gift" and "partaken of the holy ghost" and "tasted of the good word of God", but also after that he has been "enlightened" (which many who are born again certainly are not). Further, this sin must be committed after a child of God has "tasted of the powers of the world to come". Just a few children of God ever meet those qualifications.

Hebrews 10:26-27 also deals with this kind of transgression, adding, importantly, the attitude that actually makes the sin unpardonable. This fatal attitude is committing sin, as the OT would say, "with a high hand", or as we would say, arrogantly. There was no atoning sacrifice provided for in the Old Testament for a sinner who knew he was sinning and willfully sinned anyway. This verse in Hebrews 10 reveals to us that the same holds true in the NT, that God still will not forgive sin that is willfully committed by someone who is close to God. That is sobering to consider.

In other words, to commit an "unforgivable sin", one must first meet some very high conditions.

Consider Judas. Very few of God's children qualify to be a Judas. Judas knew Christ intimately. If he had not, he could not have led the mob to Jesus' secret place of prayer. Judas had certainly been anointed with "the power of the world to come". Though Judas was not born again (at that time nobody was), he belonged to God, being a Jew living under the Law. He belonged to God and had been chosen and anointed by God with power. Judas knew not to do what he did, and so, his sin would not be forgiven because he was too close to God to get by with it. ("To whom much is given, much shall be required.")

Annas and Caiaphas, for another example, were not granted repentance either; their sin in willfully murdering Jesus, in spite of their knowing the Law's condemnation of their unjust actions, provoked God too much. Their knowledge of the Law of God damned them.

Moses did not lose his soul, of course, but God did not forgive him for hitting the rock God told him to speak to. For punishment, God refused to allow Moses to enter the Promised Land, and when Moses pleaded with God to change His mind, God sternly commanded Moses to stop praying about it. On the other hand, if the only thing that the rest of the Israelites had ever done wrong in the wilderness was to hit a rock, God would have been very well pleased with them. He even forgave Aaron for building the golden calf! (Aaron had not been up on Mt Sinai in God's very presence, as Moses had been.)

There are other examples given us from the OT, in which sinners so provoked God that He swore He would never forgive them (e. g. 1Sam. 3:11-14; Isa. 22:12-14).

Even blaspheming the holy Ghost, which Jesus said will never be forgiven, is forgivable if it is committed by sinners who are ignorant of the truth. No one can commit the sin that is always unforgivable unless he belongs to God. But that is not all; he must also know what he is doing is wrong. Paul was a Jew who lived under the Law; he belonged to God. And yet, even though he had been a blasphemer, as he confessed to Timothy, he obtained mercy "because I did it ignorantly in unbelief."

God is just. That is why He will forgive any of us who wander from the "strait and narrow way", if we repent. God has many children today who blaspheme the holy Ghost by testifying that "getting saved" is greater than receiving the holy Ghost baptism, but for the most part, those who commit that transgression have not been "enlightened" by "coming to the knowledge of the truth" and "tasting of the powers of the world to come". And they are being shown mercy because they are committing that sacrilege, as Paul once did, "ignorantly."

Please let me know if there remain any questions, Jim. And thanks for this one. It is one question that almost all God's children ask, at some point in their journey.

Pastor John

One viewer's comments concerning the email above are as follows:

Wow John.

I sit here thinking - what if God got us so close to him, that to us, every sin was "unpardonable".

That's the way it is in heaven.

On the other hand, if a person thought they were closer to God than they were, or were over-religious, they would needlessly torment themselves thinking they had committed unpardonable sin(s), when they were just "weak." I would venture to say that most people have sinned knowing something was sin before sinning, but were just too weak to overcome it at the time. And they would be forgiven.

These are very interesting things to think about.

Yes, you are right on both counts. Over-religious people are too hard on themselves as well as others, and the result of that can be brutal for unfortunate souls who are under their power.

Secondly, in spite of how they make it appear that they are very holy, they have more secret fear of damnation than most of God's children.

I do see this one thing though: if anyone is sinning when he knows not to, it is proof that he is not close to God yet. It will be a blessed place to be for anyone to get close enough to God that sin cannot be tolerated just because of someone hating what it is, and for a person to refuse, by the power of the Spirit, to transgress at all.

Don't know if I worded that exactly right, but God help us get to the place that we have enough experiences with the power of God so that every sin, to us, will be "unforgivable" and thus we will walk in perfection, in the likeness of Jesus.

Gary

April 4, 2006

Dear Pastor John,

I've never really thought about this just because I've heard the phrase my whole life but what do we mean when we say, "I'm in the truth"? Drew brought it to my attention a few weeks ago, and every time I read it in an e-mail now I think about what we are saying.

I know you should worship God in spirit and in truth. I can see that God has let us understand a lot about Him and has given us the holy Ghost, and if we walk in that and keep it stirred up we can have better understanding of His ways. So is all of that what we are saying when we say "I'm in the truth?"

Sorry if this seems deep. It doesn't seem like it in my head. I hear it a lot from Christian students - "the truth" and I just didn't know if saying that was part of Christianity.

You can get to this whenever - it's not a pressing question.

Love,

Maleah

Hi Maleah:

There is nobody walking "in the truth" unless they are living a pure and clean life before God, even when nobody is watching them. Being taught true doctrine is not walking "in the truth", but that is probably how you heard that phrase used when you were growing up, especially from some people closest to you in the Louisville meetings who claimed to be "in the truth" and thought they were getting by.

Walking in the truth is walking in the Spirit. That is all. Whether a person understands the true doctrine or not, he can walk in the truth if he stays in the Spirit, and I believe God has many children all over the world who do that, even though they are taught wrong things by their teachers. They are the kind of people I hope Jesus allows me to spend eternity with. I have met many saints through the years who were ignorant of the true doctrine but whose spirit was clean, and I can remember wishing that everyone who was in our meetings had the kind of spirit those dear people had.

The truth is more than doctrine; it is the will of God, and it is always with holy love. To walk in the love of God toward people is to walk in the truth.

Hope that helps clear things up.

Pastor John

One viewer's comments concerning the email above are as follows:

That [your response] is precisely what it means to walk "In The Truth". Doctrine has nothing to do with it. Jesus said, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." I can have love 'for' you, but if I don't get it 'to' you how can you receive it? He requires us to "Have love one to another" (not one for another). What a difference one word makes in a sentence. Also, not many know that the word Disciple has to do with Discipline. This is truly a way of discipline Pastor John. If ye abide in my word, ye are my disciples indeed. "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32. I would rather be "made" free than "set" free. This is another oft mis-quoted scripture. I believe to be made free is the new birth. Thank you for getting me stirred up this morning. God Bless You.

Love,

Dan

Hi Dan.

Thank you for writing. Hopefully, we can meet sometime in the future and enjoy the fellowship of the Spirit together.

I wish that I could agree that to be born again means to be made free, but I know too many children of God who, although born again, have not continued in the word and, so, have not been made free by the truth. Principally, it is participation in the religion of Christianity that has has brought about our present situation in which most of God's children are enslaved to wrong spirits. I feel that you would agree that nobody within Christianity is what the Lord Jesus would call "free", even if they have been born of the Spirit.

And it is at this point, Brother Dan, where doctrine does become important, Dan. Most of God's children are enslaved within Christianity because they do not understand the Lord's doctrine concerning the new birth. If we could just persuade the people of God of the single truth concerning when a person is born again, they would have no reason to stay in Christianity and every reason to obey our heavenly Father's call to come out of it, as we have done. I have noticed that when Paul was an old man writing to Timothy, he was very adamant about the need for sound doctrine. I think Paul felt this way because he knew that the truth about Jesus keeps God's children from being seduced by wrong spirits.

But we can talk about all this some other time, maybe on my next visit to Louisville. God bless you and Naomi until then. Please stay in touch, brother.

jdc

April 4, 2006

Hey, Pastor John! That song just came into my head when I clicked to read this article: "Did Jesus walk on water? or ice?" How weird is that? I don't understand why it's the habit of (seemingly most) scientists to use their findings to disprove God instead of seeing that the science proves Him! My oceanography professor often does that, telling us that he doesn't understand how some people don't believe in evilution, because yaddayadda "this clearly shows it". (Even in general I've always found that theory to be a joke, not scientifically plausible even to me, someone not great with science and math!)

Hey, question: Is there anything about the theory of evolution that makes it wrong/anti-God, besides the fact that it places the Fall before creation (haha!) and assumes that we organisms essentially willed ourselves into existence? Cuz other than that it just seems weird to me, but I can't understand why many Christians are automatically against it, like some of my friends when we were taught it in biology in high school.

Thanks! TTYL,

Brittanie

Hi Brittanie!

Good to hear from you again.

Other than the fact that eviluton is not a science but a religion in the guise of science, and the fact that evilutionists deny their Creator who loves them, and the fact that evilutionists make up information to fill in the enormous gaps in their theory, and the fact that they also ignore undeniable facts in the fossil record and otherwise, I suppose there isn't all that much that is wrong with the doctrine of evilution. Wouldn't you agree?

Pastor John

March 20, 2006

Dear John,

Beside all the wonderful emails I read this evening (isn't God good?), I was also reading Matthew 5 again about the Beatitudes. My question is, what is meant by "poor in spirit", 5:3? It must mean something other that what one would think. Thanks. See you Wednesday.

Bro. Jim K

Hi Jim:

It seems to me that "poor in spirit" in Matthew 5:3 simply means "humble". That's as far as I have ever gone with that. Is there a reason that you feel it might not be that way?

jdc

March 18, 2006

Hello Pastor John,

Last week in our Bible study we read from the gospel of John. In John 8:33 the Pharisees told Jesus, “ We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?”

We know that the children of Israel were in bondage in Egypt 430 years and also held captive 70 years in Babylon. What were the Pharisees saying in this verse?

Thank you,

Tom

Hi Tom.

Those elders would probably have beaten you with thirty-nine lashes. You're not supposed to know the Bible that well.

Pastor John

March 18, 2006

Pastor John

Me again, Can I have some more info on the word church? Thanks.

Manuel

Hi Manuel.

The word "church" comes from the Greek word, "kuriakon", which means, "house of a lord". It was used by ancient Greeks to refers to any building that was dedicated to any god they worshiped, whether it be Zeus, Hera, Apollo, or any other. Any heathen temple was correctly referred to as a "church". In modern usage, it is the same. A Jewish temple is a church; a Muslim minaret is a church; a Buddhist temple is a church; a Christian house of worship is a church; etc.

No writer of the New Testament used that word (kuriakon). It is not found anywhere in the New Testament Greek. The word that Christian scholars have translated as "church" (ekklesia) is actually the word for "assembly" or "congregation" or "called-out ones".

King James commanded his translators to use the word "church" because the powerful churchmen of his day wanted him to do that. And he wanted their political support. But some godly men, such as Tyndall, refused to use "church" in their translations because of its association with Catholicism and the Church of England. He was arrested, condemned, and executed for daring to do such a thing.

Were not the word "church" so closely associated with the church religion of Christianity, it might not be all that bad as a choice when describing the household of faith. After all, we are "the temple of God", and that makes our bodies a kind of "building dedicated to a lord". But after all these centuries of being polluted by Christian ties, the word "church" carries too much ungodly baggage to be appropriate as a reference to the saints of God.

I hope that helps you understand why we have rejected the word "church" as useful for communicating the pure and holy faith of Christ Jesus. God is calling His people to come out of church religion and to serve Him in spirit and in truth, and abandoning our former attachment to "church" is a part of coming out.

May God help us do that, Manuel, with all our hearts, so that we may find mercy in His eyes in the Day of Judgment.

Pastor John

March 18, 2006

Hi:

Thanks for all the e-mails; it's being a big blessing. I want to remain on the mailing list.

I have a question. How is the fasting that God accepts? Can you please explain for me? Thank you.

Manuel from Las Vegas

Hi Brother Manuel!

Thank you for writing.

God tells us in considerable detail the kind of fasting that he accepts in Isaiah 58. If you read that, you will notice that fasting is spiritual. Doing without physical food is not fasting; doing that is often just a case of one showing off his will power. Starving the body means no more to God than does water baptism, physical circumcision, holy days, special clothing for worship, or the physical of eating of bread and wine in Christian "communion suppers". Whatever is in the flesh in not in the spirit.

Jesus was condemned by many in Israel for being a glutton and a drunkard in Matthew 11:19. They condemned him for not fasting because they were judging by what they saw with their physical eyes (Jn. 8:15). The kind of fast Jesus observed was invisible (Isa. 58). His food, he told his disciples on one occasion, was "to do the will of Him who sent me" (Jn. 4:32). One time, his disciples tried and failed to a particularly powerful demon out of a young boy, but afterward, Jesus did cast that spirit out of him. Later, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Why couldn't we cast that spirit out?" Jesus explained to them that only by "prayer and fasting" could one cast out the kind of demon that possessed that little boy (Mt. 17:14-21).

So, Jesus fasted in the sight of God, in spite of his eating and drinking natural food. But because his kind of fast was in spirit and truth instead of the flesh, he was condemned by those who judged and lived in the flesh. They made a big show of their ability to fast from physical food, but they were eaten up with secret sin.

Everything in this New Covenant is in spirit, Manuel, whether it is fasting, baptism, circumcision (Rom. 2:28-29), the Sabbath (Matt. 11:28), "communion", our clothes for worship (e. g. Isa. 61:3), or anything else. If it is in the flesh, it "profits nothing" (Jn. 6:63); if it is in the Spirit, it is eternal life.

Thanks for the question. Stay in touch.

Pastor John

March 17, 2006

Pastor John,

I was reading the tract No Room #68. In it, you stated that the possessions that Jesus had were few, and you said one of them was a borrowed piece of money from the mouth of a fish. Where in the Bible can I find this story? I would like to read about it because I have never heard that before. Sounds like it would be interesting.

Thanks,

Sheila D.

Hi Sheila:

You will find the story of that piece of money in Matthew 17:24-27.

Just for your information, the "No Room" tract was written by my father, not I.

Pastor John

March 17, 2006

John,

Didn't Jesus own his own house?

Jackie B

Yes, Jackie, until people tore it up trying to get to Jesus to be healed, as in Mark 2:1-5.

jdc

March 15, 2006

Hi, Pastor John

I have (at least) two questions. The first is on the death penalty. At school, you know, they have flyers advertising discussions on various subjects, on anything from abortion (yuck) to the war in Iraq to, of course, the death penalty. All the time I hear people getting all "intellectual-sounding" and essentially saying (as I find this is how "intellectual people" generally like to think), "It's a woman's right to abortion! War is bad - and the Iraqis have their right to be Muslims! The death penalty should be abolished!" I've thought that since God ordained the death penalty for sin that it is justified even today (though I am curious as to how many people are wrongly accused and sentenced to death - but I guess that is in the hands of God, no?). Actually, I think it's a mercy that it is not imposed more widely than it currently is!

I was surprised to find only the following article on my web site on the death penalty:

http://www.pastorjohnshouse.com/broad/b122.htm

God has ordained earthly governments and empowered them to execute evil doers. When any nation becomes so "sophisticated" that it refuses to carry out that obligation, it cannot long survive. It will decay from within.

I believe that in the latter part of Solomon's Wisdom, I speak of the goodness of quickly punishing sin. This includes imposing the death penalty. In the Bible, all that God was interested in was exposing who was guilty in a capital crime. When that was ascertained, the offender was executed within the hour. That kind of swift punishment will deter criminals by putting real fear in them. The way capital punishment is carried out in this country, sometimes decades after the crime is committed, is counter-productive. It encourages sin because those with a criminal mind are not going to fear dying twenty-five years after the crime is committed.

Men are imperfect judges. But if they would do right, God would help them make right judgments. Good discernmment is one of the benefits of living a sincere, morally upright life.

Another thing I've wondered about is the false religious leaders of the world (who are of course hailed by many people I know). I know a lot of people who assume that every Xn teacher is a holy man, for example, and many who were excited to buy tickets when the Dalai Lama was scheduled to speak at our school. I've found myself angered lately whenever I see a picture of that man: palms together as if in prayer, as if to be constantly saying, "I am humble, I am holy". I was wondering if this was that righteous anger from God you had told me about, because I actually feel like he (the Dalai Lama) knows he is misleading people, and revels in the exaltation. I think the same thing about the Pope. Do you think they really know that they are imposters, and that they haven't heard from God (or whatever higher power the Dalai Lama may credit)?

I do not believe that they know they are imposters, but my experience with such men is that they believe no one else has really heard from God either; therefore, they are just as right as anyone.

This attitude of assuming "no one else has heard from God either" will lead to accepting anything as being right, possibly. And we see that liberal attitude growing everywhere by leaps and bounds. Only those who have truly experienced something from Jesus will be able to stand against the growing tide of accepting anything as possibly OK. Every time President Bush refers to Islam as "a great religion", he adds pressure on the nation to accept every religion as being of God, and he exposes himself as a deluded Christian.

Well, I hope all is well. Thanks for everything!

Enjoy your break.

Pastor John

March 11, 2006

Why do you think that in the genealogy of Noah Ham's name is always in the middle of Shem and Japheth ( Gen.10:1,1 chron.1:4). We know that Japheth is the elder (Gen.10:21)?

Gino

Hi Brother Gino:

I have wondered about that, but since the Bible never addresses it, I have just left it alone.

By the way, other verses related to this issue are Gen. 9:18, and the entire chapter 10, which gives the genealogies of Noah's three sons in an order opposite from the one you mentioned (as does 1Chron. 1). And lastly, 9:24, where Noah refers to Ham as his "younger son".

Pastor John

March 7, 2006

John,

We were listening to the Naomi Questions CD last night, and I have at least two questions.

I think that for the first time, I understand what was meant by the Son of God going, suddenly, to his temple. We’ll probably never completely understand it, as it is a mystery. But, what happened to the man born of Mary? Did his soul just leave the body of Jesus? Did his soul go to where Abraham and all the other righteous were being held?

I wouldn't think so, Mark. Rather, I would say that he was "consumed" with God and blended with the Spirit that came from heaven in the form of a dove.

You know well from your own history that the Catholic Church is big on "mystery". But what they call sacred mystery often turns out to be either doctrines of their own invention or simple misunderstanding of the truth (incarnation, transubstantiation, Assumption of Mary etc.)

The Catholics sure are big on mysteries. The real mystery is, how can so many people just blindly accept those “mysteries”? It makes me especially thankful that God had mercy on me and let me see beyond those Catholic mysteries.

The blending of the Son of God and the Son of man in the body of Jesus is the real mystery of the gospel. There are times in the Gospels that the Son of man seems to be talking, ("Of myself I can do nothing"), while at other times, the Son of God is clearly talking ("Before Abraham was, I am").

That makes sense. It really doesn’t make any difference, anyway. But, wouldn’t the Son of God say also, “Of myself I can do nothing”?

Yes. And I thought about that when I wrote that response.

Jesus the man must have known who he was (the Christ). He could remember teaching in the temple at an early age, and I would think that he knew who his cousin, John the Baptist, was. What I liked most was that the Son of God left the Father’s side to be here on earth. Most Christians think that Jesus is God the Father, and that can’t be or else there would have been no one in Heaven for Jesus to pray to. Why would Jesus pray to the Father, or himself? Those Christian doctrines just can’t stand up if you put a little thought into what the scriptures are saying (especially when you have your testimonies of God in your own life to consider).

Amen.

I liked how you explained that before Mary’s son was born, the Son of God was. That is important to think about.

Yes, it is.

So, when the Son of God suddenly went to his temple, Jesus’ body, then he left the Father’s side in Heaven. The dove descending must have been the physical manifestation of the Son, who had God’s Spirit, entering into the body of Jesus?

That is what it looks like to me, Mark.

We probably couldn’t have seen the Son’s spiritual body.

No, we could not.

If people back then had seen it, I’m sure the scene would have scared them to death! A dove wouldn’t be so scary. Did it happen at the time Jesus was baptized by John so that the man Jesus could be right with God, having been baptized and fulfilling the Law, and his soul go to that place of holding?

Yes. Jesus was "born again" when he was baptized by John and received the Spirit of God. And that is part of the true "mystery".

I wonder if the man Jesus knew what was in store for him.

I doubt it.

The second question(s) have to do with the 1st and 2nd resurrections. Will all the people who have died, and all the people who are currently alive, and right with God, be resurrected during the first resurrection?

Yes.

If all the righteous are caught up by Jesus when he appears, then are presented to the Father, then return to earth to reign 1,000 years, what is the point of ruling over people with no hope?

The Father is determined to honor His Son. Jesus is going to reign on this earth before it is destroyed, and his saints are going to reign with him. It is all about Jesus.

Or, will people still receive the holy Ghost during the 1,000 year reign?

I don't know, Mark. It is clear that the Jews, at least the ones who survive the attack of the Beast with the kings of the earth, will receive the holy Ghost whe Jesus returns with us to save them (Rev. 19 with Zech.13:1)

Will someone who didn’t make the first resurrection have a chance to repent before they die and receive the holy Ghost while the Saints are ruling? Will the holy Ghost be given only to the Jews at that time?

I don't know. I hope so, for their sakes, but we really are not told about that, unless I have missed something in the Scriptures.

Also, when you were answering Naomi’s questions, I thought I heard you say something about 10,000 returning with Jesus. Did I misunderstand you? 10,000 isn’t a very large number of Saints.

Mark H.

But it must have been a big number to Enoch, who prophesied it. Actually, though, what he said was not "ten thousand", as it may have sounded that I said in the Q&A session with Naomi, but "ten thousands of his saints" (Jude 14). I should have emphasized the "s".

Thanks for the questions. They are of the sort that gets us somewhere.

jdc

PS Wasn't Naomi wonderful?

March 7, 2006

Hello there,

I also remember Naomi asking that question, about what happened to Jesus the man when Jesus the Son af God arrived. She also had asked "What is the difference between ourselves and Jesus?" and you asked her "what is your name?" I was thinking that looking at our own selves gives the best explanation. When I was a sinner, I thought like that old man, and no other way. This creation that I am now did not exist. But when I was born again, and let Him live. I died, (or die daily) yet I live. I am still here, but, the man I remember myself to be is gone. Jesus the man went to the same place that Jerry the man went to, when HE arrived.

Thanks,

Jerr