Questions and Answers from Pastor John - Free pentecostal literature, baptism of the holy Ghost (with the evidence of speaking in other tongues), the new birth experience, ....

"Questions and Answers - Page 7 "
Today's Date is:

April 21, 2003

Pastor John

I was just watching a movie called "Solomon" and in one scene he asked some queen of another country to marry him. This brought confusion to me because he was already married (many times over i might add), what i am trying to say, i guess, does not the bible say something about only taking one wife. It would help me greatly if you could clear this up for me (if you know what i mean).

thank you

steven

Steven:

Solomon was lured by his own lusts into sin by many foreign and exotic women and married hundreds of them, probably for political reasons as much as anything. God through Moses had commanded all future kings of Israel not to do that (Deuteronomy 17:17).

Solomon's many heathen wives turned his heart away from God, and he did great evil as a result when he was old. He even built a huge altar for sacrificing babies to Moloch on the Mount of Olives, directly across from God's own temple in Jerusalem, and it stood for hundreds of years.

You can read about Solomon's error in 1Kings 11.

Paul did make a comment to Timothy in his old age that leaders in the congregation should be husbands of one wife, and that may be the scripture that you are thinking of.

Pastor John

April 21, 2003

Good day sir/ma,

I wrote sometimes ago requesting for tracts but you said the organization could not afford the expenses due to my place that is outside USA. You said I could order for a CD that contains the tracts. I just want to say that I want to distribute the tracts to many people cos I use tracts always in schl and outside schl. I am a student in an higher Institution in Nigeria, and I have been called by God to preach the Gospel in Music, preacing and several other means.

Distributing our gospel tracts is a fine thing to want to do Seun. One thing that will help you is to understand that God has NOT called you to preach the gospel "in music" or any other means... "Having a call to preach the gospel" is something that is a tradition of "Christianity", and something which puffs up people, instills a pride in their hearts, and cuts off the work of God in the lives of many. You would be well advised to dump that idea, because it did not come from Jesus.

God does not "call" people to preach - he anoints and then sends them to preach. When God anoints a man, he SENDS him with power. Also, we do not preach "in music" - that is also a false Christian notion - don't buy into that. You should read our gospel tract on being sent to preach at:

http://www.isaiah58.com/tracts/howshalltheypreach.html
(How Shall They Preach the Gospel, Except they be Sent?)

Your job right now should be to "study to be quiet" and learn of Jesus. You can best do that outside of Christian denominations and sects because what you are learning there right now is spiritually hurting you. It sounds as if you do have a desire to please Jesus - so I hope that we can help you do just that, by sharing the good knowledge Jesus has graciously given us.

If I could afford this money and I get thru to pay ( tho' it is a little bit tasky here cos we are not using card or visa for transactions locally) can I be printing the tracts for mass distribution fron the CD? Do you have other materials that one can order for?

Read some of our tracts online first (www.isaiah58.com http://www.isaiah58.com). Start with "The New Birth", "What is Salvation?", and "Christ or Christianity". If you understand them, and they are of help, let me know and I will get a CD to you, which you can use to print out any of our free materials for distribution.

I also want to ask that can you enlighten me on studying abroad especially Xtian Music and Theology.

There are many opportunities abroad in "Christian Music and Theology" for those who want to spiritully DIE. But if you want to "live" in the light of God, I suggest you forget about such desires.

I would like to know Very good Institutions, scholarship/sponsor programmes. This is because I have been praying and working towards serious trainings and exposures in the area of my calling for the endtime harvest that God has told me.

I'm not sure you are hearing from God, Seun. To have a desire to get the gospel concerning the baptism of the holy Ghost, with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues, to people is good (that is the New Birth experience). To have an "endtime harvest" in order to add people to Christianity's sects is NOT good. You have some serious thinking to do... I want you to have a fire for Jesus. I want you to have NO love for the religions of men. Jesus baptizes us into the body of Christ. Men join Christianity. And there is quite a difference. May God bless you to understand what I have said.

Best regards,

Gary Savelli

April 18, 2003

How can you presume to be the one spokesman for God and the possessor of all infinite wisdom that you obviously presume to be beyond that to which the true church has borne witness for 2000 years? I recognize that the denominations all have their problems, but to basically call their witness the "spirit of Antichrist" borders on blasphemy. Shame on you.

Be careful that you don't become a stumbling block to the least of these.

Praying for you and those that you would lead astray,

Mark Clayton

Norlina, NC

Hello Mark.

Thanks for your comments... I know what we are saying can confuse those who are part of a religious system that has been confused for 2000 years.

Basically, we are saying that the religion of "Christianity" is blasphemy - because for one thing, it is yoked together by religious "falsehood" (that is, claiming to be of God, when it is not). Body of Christ is NOT the church, Mark. The body of Christ is those people who have been baptized by the Spirit (read 1 Cor. 12:13 if you think I am making that up.) Christianity is something that men "join" of THEIR own will - whether they have received Spirit baptism from Jesus, or not. But the people in whom the Spirit dwells are the body of Christ(and when the Spirit comes in, it "testifies" in other tongues that is has come in.)

So my question to those defending Christianity and it's divisions would be, "how long do we have to believe a wrong thing for it to be right? Three thousand years? Four thousand years?" And along with that wrong idea, "does how many people believe a wrong thing make it right?" Mark, be reasonable - does it matter that there are a lot of Christians? Does that make that whorish religion of God?

No Mark - Jesus said MANY would come in MY NAME (that is "Christ-ian") and that they were NOT of Him. Likewise, Christianity is NOT of Jesus, and we are not blaspheming - we are merely echoing the words of Jesus: "go ye therefore not after them".

Forsake Christianity and live.

Best regards,

Gary Savelli

April 9, 2003

Good morning John.

This week I have been studying the tract "the Kingdom of God" for our bible study. In reading and looking up instances of "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven", I came across this verse, which I have never really understood. What does it mean?

Matt. 11:12: "And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force."

How was the kingdom of heaven "suffering violence" in the time Jesus spoke those words?

Thanks,

Gary

Gary:

I have never known anyone who understood what that verse means and could explain it. I can only tell you what feelings I have had over the years whenever I read it.

The only understanding I have been able to come up with for that puzzling verse is that the kingdom of God "suffered violence" when the people who, like Jesus, were doing the will of God at that time (that would lead them to God's kingdom) were being violently treated and persecuted. That's it. I can't take it any farther than that.

As for the part of that verse that says, "the violent take it by force", I assume that Jesus was referring to the "pressing into the kingdom" that all people have to do, denying themselves, resisting the devil, and overcoming the opposition of people around them who do not know God.

Spiritual life is a warfare, and only those with enough zeal to be tough in their commitment to righteousness are going to gain the victory. I tell people here that sometimes they there are times when we have to be "mean with goodness". Nobody should ever be malicious or cruel, so what I want them to understand from that statement of mine is that sometimes they will be confronted and challenged by arrogant relatives and acquaintances who do not believe in our God and are blunt about it. In those times, when someone attempts to pressure them to turn from Jesus and his love with arrogant unbelief, it does not pay to be cowardly; it is no time for meekness. In those times, they will have to be as strong and courageous for good as the other is strong and bold for evil. They will have to be willing to stand up for Jesus and look people in the eye and say, humbly but firmly, "I am right, and you are wrong!" And MEAN IT! That is the kind of "violence" that Jesus seems to be talking about. At any rate, that kind of determination is necessary, at times, along the way to salvation. In spiritual warfare, that is violence, and that is the extent to which God's children should partake of violence until Jesus comes back to earth for his bride.

Pastor John

Continued correspondence on April 9, 2003...

Pastor John,

These are some poor comments that I thought of after reading your good answer concerning the scripture that refers to the kingdom of God "suffering violence, and the violent take it by force." My, this is such a fearfully powerful chapter. I think that Jesus is illustrating for his apostles the acceptable, indeed required, "violence" invoked by all who fear the Lord; that is to fear the Lord is to hate evil. By the way I really appreciated the recent TFT 4-8. Thank you so much.

Bill Fleming

Matt 11:9: But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.

Matt 11:10: For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

Matt 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

At the time Jesus is speaking, the Kingdom of Heaven consisted of Jesus and his apostles. In other words, at that time the Kingdom of Heaven on the earth was only Jesus and his apostles. Jesus is saying that after the baptism of the holy Ghost, the least apostle has more authority and responsibility in the Kingdom of Heaven than the great John the Baptist who was under the Law of Moses, and who did not have the baptism of the holy Ghost.

Bill:

I have to disagree with you here. The disciples were not in the kingdom of God yet because they had not yet received the holy Ghost as Jesus had at the river of Jordan when he was baptized by John.

Also, I do not believe that Jesus is limiting "the least in the kingdom" to the apostles. I believe he was referring to anyone who would ever receive the holy Ghost baptism.

Matt11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

Men must press, or repent, their way into the Kingdom of Heaven. Yes, men are born into the kingdom, but we are not passively born as in a natural birth. We must actively seek, or press into this spiritual birth. Jesus said that we must knock before the door is opened to us.

This is an excellent point, Bill, one that I was trying to word this well in my earlier response.

John 14:17 is a perfect description of the Kingdom of Heaven that came with the holy Ghost baptism on the Day of Pentecost: “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you”. This was not revealed to the world, but is the exclusive vision of the body of Jesus Christ. Without the baptism of the holy Ghost, a man cannot be a part of Christ, and without being in Christ a man cannot be in the Kingdom of Heaven, and without being in the Kingdom of Heaven a man cannot “see” the Kingdom, or have the vision of the Body of Christ. "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, (that man ) is none of His" (Rom. 8:9).

You see here, Bill, that you say that no one can be in the kingdom without the baptism of the holy Ghost, yet you said earlier that the disciples were in the kingdom before the day of Pentecost. I hope I am not going to find out, after all this time, that you are a Mormon. Mormons teach, you might know, that all the ancient, righteous people of the Old Testament received the holy Ghost baptism, even Adam.

Matt 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

The Law stopped with John’s ministry. The requirements and ordinances and ceremonies of the natural law that God gave Moses ended with John. John shut the door on Moses’ law because the law prophesied of the Christ. Although, the Law was “phased out” by a merciful God over a relatively short period of time (The stoning of Stephen was the final seal on the Law of Moses). To those who were oppressed by the law Jesus said, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light”.

The Law stopped with John the Baptist? The stoning of Stephen was the final seal of the Law? Makes no sense, Bill. Decades afterwards, there were many thousands of righteous Jews in Judea still observing the whole Law (Acts 21:20). They were not foolish. They were doing the will of God. And when Paul returned to Jerusalem, he joined with them in worshiping after the commandments of the Law. He was right to do that, too.

Matt 11:14: And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

Interestingly, Jesus confirms here that John was Elijah who was prophesied, or the fulfilling of Elijah’s ministry. "Behold, I will send Elijah the Prophet to you before that great and awesome day."

John came "in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Lk. 1:17), but he was not (as the Rev. Moon's silly doctrine holds) Elijah himself. Elijah will still come, with Moses it appears, to preach to the Jews in Jerusalem for three and a half years, as Revelation 11 foretells.

Matt 11:15: He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Only those who were in the Kingdom of Heaven like Peter, could “see, taste, touch, hear” the Kingdom and say as he did in Matt 16:16: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”. To those who are capable of understanding, Jesus said, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him”. Again, he said, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes”. At that time the “babes” were the apostles of Jesus.

There were many things spoken through righteous men and women of God under the Law without themselves understanding what those words meant (1Pet. 1:10-12; 2Pet. 1:21). Peter in Matthew 16 is one example. Peter's confession there is not an indication that he was in the kingdom of God but simply that he was ordained to be a servant of God under the Old Testament. Such men routinely were moved by the holy Ghost things they themselves did not understand. Even servants of God like Caiaphas, who hated Jesus, spoke prophetically of him (Jn. 11:49-52).

The disciples were indeed "babes" at that time, but they were unborn babes (Jn. 16:20-22), still in the womb.

Matt 11:16: But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, From here to the end of the chapter Jesus indicates that, unlike “babes”, the hard hearted generation to whom he is speaking have judged themselves unworthy of the Kingdom of Heaven. Furthermore, any generation with a hard heart of unbelief have judged themselves unworthy of salvation.

Bill:

You have been taught some good things by somebody along the way, but it still seems to me that your doctrine is inconsistent and your understanding yet unclear as to what the kingdom of God is and who is in it. The kingdom of God on earth is the body of Christ. If one is not in the body of Christ, then he is not in the kingdom of God. It is only when a person is baptized with the holy Ghost and begins to speak in tongues that he becomes a member of God's body. To say that a man has "become a member of the body of Christ" is simply another way of saying, as Paul did, that he has been "translated out of the power of darkness into the kingdom of God's dear Son."

Do you understand what I am saying here? If not, please let me know.

Pastor John

April 5, 2003

Hey Pastor John,

Since I am required by my professor to argue in the upcoming debate here at school that Paul and Jesus DID advocate fundamentally different religions, I am going to have to try and stick with what they did in practice. A dictionary I use describes a religion as a set of beliefs, customs, attitudes, and practices. I will have to focus on practices. The major difference there being the external one that you pointed out - the observance of the Law of Moses. Which, naturally speaking, as you said, is huge since the Law in and of itself is huge.

One place I'm running into some things I don't understand are in Romans 2:13 where Paul says that righteousness comes not to the hearers of the law, but to the doers. However, in Galatians 2:16, Paul says that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Christ. How would you reconcile these differences? I've read some stuff on the matter but the arguments I have heard are weak and fuzzy. I've got my own thoughts but I figured I'd see what you had to say. Drew

Drew:

In Romans 2:13, Paul's subject is different from his subject in Galatians 2:16. In Romans, his point is simply that those who listen to what God says are not made right with God just because they have heard it. The context of that verse shows that plainly. Knowledge of the Bible or the will of God saves no one unless he does what he knows is right to do. Salvation will be give only to those who do what God says do.

In Galatians, in the context in which it is written, Paul's entire focus is "works of the Law", which the Galatians had been persuaded to embrace.

Context, context, context. So often, that is the key to understanding that there is no conflict between verses that appear to contradict one another.

Also, note that Paul, being circumcised, kept the Law just as Jesus did. His preaching to the Gentiles, however, excluded the requirement that they observe the same ceremionies of the Law that both he and Jesus observed. Pastor John

April 3, 2003

Pastor John,

After reading some more tonight, focusing on what I may be faced with tomorrow in [a university classroom] from the other team (I have the duty of rebutting their argument), I came across something that I need for you to clarify. This one you don't really have to answer before tomorrow or anything, I just want to know how you would explain this argument I ran across. First of all, I was looking some stuff up on the net and ran across a guy saying that Paul was not preaching what Jesus taught and that he was scandalous and a blasphemer and all of that. Anyway, he made a good argument for two scriptures that I have seen and before reading this, I thought I had the difference reconciled. Speaking in reference to Romans 3:28 and James 2:24, the guy first points out that FAITH (pistis), WORKS (ergos), and JUSTIFICATION(dikaioo) have the same Greek words in both scriptures so they are both talking about the same thing. His argument is as follows:

"But on several occasions, attention has been called to one difference in the wording of Paul and James. While they use the same words, in the same context and the same order, when talking about the "works/deeds" Paul adds the phrase "of the law" while James does not. Some have argued that this means Paul is talking about something different. Not so.

Paul's use of that phrase is a restrictive modifying clause, limiting the scope of what he is talking about. By leaving it out, James is at the very least accepting everything in Paul's more restrictive context and broadening to include additional contexts. But more to the point is that earlier in the same chapter (James chapter two) James, just before the verse in question and his reference to Paul's example of Abraham and Isaac, in verses 8-13 James discusses behavior very specific in terms of the Law, and the deeds of the Law. Aside from the possibility of simply broadening the more narrow focus of Paul, what seems more likely IN CONTEXT is that James does not need to say "of the law" since he as already made it clear a few verses before that he is talking about 'deeds of the law.'"

What do you say to that? His argument seems to make sense to me. If this guy's argument works, "Who is right, Paul or James/Jesus?" I'm a little confused on this one.

Drew:

The man is grossly mistaken. Paul is speaking of "works of the law", as Paul says, and James is talking about good works. He even gives an example in verse 15 & 16. Paul would have said "amen" to James and vice versa. After all, look at what Paul says about good works in Romans 2:5-10. I think the way to see through this man's wrong doctrine is to study Paul's teaching concerning works in general, not just to focus on his "works of the Law." Concerning works other than works of the Law, Paul says exactly what James does.

As for the same Greek words being used, he is wrong. The same Greek words for faith, works, and justification may have been used, but that is irrelevant (please be careful not to be impressed when you have Greek words thrown at you; it means nothing). Paul used different Greek words when he said "of the Law"; what then does that mean? That is the point. What deep meaning could there be in Paul's use of the same Greek word for "faith", or "works" or justification"? That was the subject for both him and James. Any meaning of Paul's, then, that is other than James' must be deduced from any other words Paul's used. Those are the words that count.

That writer also mentions, in order to impress, the "context" of James' words. "In context", James is speaking of the moral laws of Moses, not the ceremonial laws. Paul's phrase "works of the law" is a phrase that refers only to the ceremonial works of the Law. The man whose doctrine you read just does not know what he is talking about.

In short, the guy is a religious wacko. How can speak such blasphemous things about the apostle God anointed for us Gentiles and say right things?

Educated fools know how to make things sound right, but they never can make their hearts right with God. And, as Jesus said, "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh."

Pastor John

March 27, 2003

Hi Gary,

Greeting in the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I have read you email and have since been seeking. Are you implying in your response to my original question that Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are not one being but seperate? I've been studying this and it can be confusing. What is your take?

Keith

Hello Keith.

The Father is God. The Son is Jesus. The Spirit is nobody, because it is the "life of God", not a person as some errantly teach. The Father did not give his son a person. He gave him His Spirit (when it came from heaven "like a dove" and remained on him at the Jordan River.) You are right - it can be confusing, so forget about all of that "three in one" stuff. Error is always confusing. The good news is that you can understand God, and his truths... they are so simple, "a fool need not err".

For more on this, go to:
http://www.isaiah58.com/tracts/fatherandtheson.html (The Father and the Son) and
http://www.isaiah58.com/tracts/isjesusgod.html (Is Jesus God?)

Best regards,

Gary Savelli

March 23, 2003

I have been visiting a Church of Christ recently and had a visit with the pastor on friday. Do you have any information on the Church of Christ folks. Thanks for you help if you have any.

Joe D.

Dear Joe.

Thanks for your question. Here is the information on the Church of Christ that I have: "touch not the unclean thing."

God endorses NONE of the groups of Christianity. He is calling those who have the Spirit (those who have received the baptism of the holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues), to "come out of her my people". The truth is not in Christianity's "divisions", because Christianity is not the body of Christ. Seek Jesus - He has answers!

For more information on this, you may read our article at: http://www.isaiah58.com/tracts/comingout.html

Best regards,

Gary Savelli

March 22, 2003

Hi,

there is a preacher in our Church who is trying to convince the congregation not to pay tithes that it is a sin to do so. The tithes are under the law he says and he uses Hebrews chapter 7 and 8 to prove his point. I totally disagree with him do you have any advice to pass along? Thanks for your time. Reply please.

I think your question can best be answered with this good gospel message in the tract below. In short - the man that is teaching you that tithes and offerings are something from the old testament only, is not telling the truth. However... if you are giving your tithes and offerings to a Christian minister who is not speaking the truth of Jesus (which is the case with any minister in the denominations or non-denominations of that religion), your tithes and offerings are financing the doctrines of Satan, and are unacceptable as well. The Spirit of God is saying "come out of her my people".

The article on tithes and offerings is: http://www.isaiah58.com/tracts/christorchristianity.html

Best regards,

Gary Savelli

March 21, 2003

Dear Pastor John,

I have been searching the scriptures studying baptism. In Matt 28:19 it says to baptize in the name of the father, son and holy ghost (spirit), yet I have not found any account that it was ever done. Am I missing something. If there is an account that you know of?

Thanks and God Bless

Keith

Dear Keith.

I am fielding internet questions for Pastor John at the current time....

You will not find an account of men baptizing other men using these particular "words" or this "formula" (i.e., saying the words "in the name of the father, and the son, and the holy Ghost") in the Bible. One reason, is because Jesus did not have a "ceremonial formula" in mind when he spoke these words to his disciples. We do not worship now in "ceremony" or in "type" Keith, and water baptism was a ceremony given to John the Baptist, which pointed to the one coming who would baptize them with "the holy Ghost and fire". That one (Jesus) has come!

The baptism Jesus had in mind in Mat. 28, was one that He and his Father would send because of what Jesus had done. Jesus died and rose from the dead to purchase this baptism, which of course, is the baptism of the holy Ghost (with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.) It is SPIRIT baptism that puts us into the body of Christ (please read 1 Cor.12:13), hence, there is no need for a ceremony in water, or certain words men say to other men when they perform it, which can profit our souls.

There are whole denominations today founded on baptizing with particular "words" (such as "in Jesus' name", etc.) - and they say that if a person does not perform a ceremony with those words, a person cannot be saved in the end! These things amount to lunacy Keith. What difference does it make what MEN say about anything?! Men's "words" cannot sanctify the soul - for that, we need the power of God - Spirit baptism.

Jesus said in John 14:23: "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." How do the Father and the Son come "unto people", and make their "abode" in them? Through the Spirit of course. Jesus and His Father are in heaven - but the Spirit is available to us, if we obey God and repent - and if we do, we will receive a baptism that comes from heaven. The heavenly words that come out of our mouths THEN, are words that really count - for they are saying "Abba, Father"!

I hope that answers your question.

Best regards,

Gary Savelli

March 21, 2003

Pastor John

Hi how are you?

I have one question, How does one seek the holyghost with all there heart and how does one know that there doing It with all there heart.

You don’t have to answer that last question because a voice in my head just said “when you receive the holy ghost” PRAISE GOD!!!!

I would like to know the answer for the first question though if you can answer it

Thank you

Steven

Steven:

What you heard in your head was exactly, word for word, what I was going to give you as my answer.

Pastor John

March 17, 2003

How does one know that they have been called by God to preach the gospel. If one is not sure, what scriptures and prayers do they need to get the answers if they are afraid that they are not qualified to preach God's word? I believe that my husband has been called to preach and he is searching the bible for help and guidance. Is there any thing that I can do? to help him find the answer he is seeking. there is something that is holding him back and I think he needs some help to find the answer he is seeking. Please tell me what I can do. Or what scriptures that he can read to help him find the answer to do what is right and what God wants him to do in his life. Please respond. Thank you and God bless you.

Kay

Dear Kay.

There is no such thing in the Bible as being "called to preach". That saying is a Christian catch-phrase and has never been something Jesus has done for those who are to preach his gospel. One thing we ARE called to do is to learn of Jesus. I believe your husband would benefit from being quiet right now and learning about God and His truth. The truth will not be found anywhere in Christianity, Kay. One must come out of men's divisions (the denominations, and non-denominations of the Christian religion) to where Jesus is. Jesus has never and is not now telling men, "I have called you to preach". Jesus is telling men, "Come out of her, my people".

We have a good tract on the very issue of being called to preach which can be found at:

http://www.isaiah58.com/tracts/howshalltheypreach.html
(How Shall They Preach Except They Be Sent?)

We also have a Broadcaster, #16, titled "On The Call" at http://www.pastorjohnshouse.com/broad/call.htm

I hope that your husband will print out copies of these things and read them. As for you, Kay, you need to step back and get out of the way. In your query above, I notice that you said that YOU believe your husband has been called by God for a work. How does your husband feel about that?

If Jesus has a work for your husband, you cannot prevent Jesus from telling him about it. Jesus does not need your help. On the other hand, if Jesus has no work for your husband, and yet you believe he does, you could provoke your husband to try to do something that he is not equipped by God to do. That would be tragic for both of you. There have been many men who suffered great loss attempting to minister the gospel of Christ because they were not ordained by God to do so; their wives pushed them into it. The fact that you are writing instead of your husband makes me fear that such may be the case with you. My advice to you is to be quiet and pray. You may be getting in God's way.

Your non-Christian servant for the Lord Jesus Christ:

Pastor John

March 17, 2003

So, after reading your web page...and agreeing quite well in what the Word of God truly teaches all men/women...Whom do you fellowship with? I do not ask this ignorantly, but with sincerity…wondering 1) How and where have you found believers of like faith . . .

Thank you for your questions...

I found believers by having faith in God, and "coming out" of the religion of Christianity FIRST - when the word of God came to me. For nearly 9 years my wife and I were the only believers we knew of in our area. We would visit people from time to time, and finally, God moved us near people who had the same faith we did. But I do want to emphasize, that we obeyed God FIRST - and left the results up to Him. When I asked a man of God, "where can I go?" - he told me: "if you have heard the voice of God and come out, you are there - you don't need to go anywhere." How true that was!

2) . . . and where do you go to hear the Word of God preached?

First, I hear the word of God by seeking Him with my whole heart, soul, and mind. Jesus speaks - oh praise the Lord that He does!

Then I am able to hear that word "preached" to me by a pastor (Pastor John Clark - www.pastorjohnshouse.com ) who has been seeking the same God, and who has an anointing to explain to me what I am hearing. And when he explains it to me I am able to offer up a resounding "AMEN" because we love the same God who can speak to his people around the world and say the same thing to all of them at one time! And He (God) does not even strain to do so! It is His good pleasure to speak to those who love Him.

I hope that answers your questions, and encourages you to follow the voice of Jesus you say you have heard. Jesus never fails...follow Him!

Best regards,

Gary Savelli

March 14, 2003

what is the differance in recieving the spirit at new birth and baptized in the holy spirit

Nothing. They are the same event. The only people who have received the Spirit at new birth, are those who have been baptized with it - because we are "born" in the "body of Christ" through Spirit baptism (read 1 Cor. 12:13).

We have a good gospel tract on this at: http://www.isaiah58.com/tracts/newbirth.html

Best regards,

Gary Savelli

March 14, 2003

Pastor John:

If speaking in tongues is solely for those as evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit, do you confine it only to those who are funamentalist Christians.

First, the religion of Christianity has nothing to do with Christ or with receiving his holy Ghost. It just claims to have a connection with Jesus.

Second, when a person repents of sin, and believes on Jesus, Jesus baptizes that person with the holy Ghost (with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues or "stammering lips" in EVERY case). That is the experience of Jesus putting a person into the body of Christ: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" (1 Corinthians 12:13). And again, "For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father" (Ephesians 2:18).

I note that in the history of glossolalia many cultures exhibit speaking in tongues. Indeed psychiatry considers it a form of ethnic schisphrenia useful for community unstressing - not as a sign of mental ill health.

This kind of thought Keith is the foolishness of this world concerning the things of God: "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (1 Corinthians 1:21). And again, "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) - John 7:38-39.

As speaking in tongues occurs in many cultures and beliefs, nothing to do with christians - what are they receiving?

I don't know, but it isn't the kind of speaking in tongues that I have received. The kind of speaking in tongues that God sends, Jesus only gives to those who believe on HIM.

It is unfair to say that they are receiving something to do with the devil because many of these people are very kind and loving and only do good.

Who said God was "fair"? "What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" (Romans 9:14-15). The thought that God must be "fair" according to human standards is just a carnal thought.

Also, Jesus warned us not to judge people (Mt. 7:1-2). So, we are unwise to judge people to be good and right with God before God gives His witness. That is what Christianity does, and it is evil. Christian ministers tell people that they are right with God all the time before God has borne them witness.

God alone knows the heart, Keith. And when He gives people the holy Ghost (His witness), then we can say "amen" to God's judgment of that person. Peter, in Acts 15:8, says as much. To tell someone that he is right with God before God testifies that he is right with Him is what Christians pay their ministers to do all the time, and it is rebellion against God.

By their fruits you shall know them. Besides Jesus says in the Bible - many sheep I have of other folds. I think the inability to unify all religions and beliefs under the one banner of God is a major cause of war and destruction in society because it divides, and God unifies.

Regards

Keith

The "other sheep" that Jesus said he had are people other than his Jewish followers of his time who would later hear the gospel and believe in him. They are not people of the earth who have rejected Jesus or do not obey his commandments as the Son of God and Savior of the world. Your interpretation of that verse is very strange. The way you are interpreting it, Jesus has no sheep at all.

There is only ONE way that people will be truly unified by God, Keith. And that is for the men to receive the holy Ghost and WALK in the truth. "For then will I turn to the people a pure language [i.e., speaking in tongues by the power of God], that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent" (Zephaniah 3:9). And again, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" (Romans 8:14).

I'm not sure what your point was with the questions you have asked. I will assume it was to say that all religions are equally true--or false--and that the baptism of the holy Ghost and speaking in tongues is not necessary - and to that I can only say, "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:4). "And we are his witnesses of these things; and [so is] also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him" (Acts 5:32).

Seek God, Keith, and you will understand more about God and His baptism of the holy Ghost and speaking in tongues. Obey Him, and you will receive it.

Your non-Christian Servant in Christ,

Pastor John

March 11, 2003

John & Gary,

Given the state of the world's governments and the pending conflict with Iraq. I am very interested in your opinions about the religion that seems to bind the Middle Eastern nations and groups together. I have looked through your messages and articles for any comments that you have made about Islam or Mohammadism, but I haven't seen anything. I may have overlooked it, though.

Although I didn't see it as our conflict and tried to ignore it, it seems that the sides are lining up as one religion against another. I am wondering if the earthly battles may be a reflection of heavenly conflicts that Jesus may want us to be aware of. Would you entertain the possibility of writing an explanation of what is really going on beyond the obvious in the world relative to these activities?

Thank You,

Bill Fleming

Bill:

Every time some event like the looming Iraq War happens, Christian prophecy teachers come out of the wood work like roaches in a dark kitchen floor. I heard one world famous TV evangelist during the last Gulf War read some obscure verses from Isaiah that purportedly showed that Saddam's destruction of the oil fields in Kuwait was prophesied. It was so sad, to think of the effect that silly interpretation of Isaiah had on sinners who had good sense. It would be more likely to drive them from Christ than draw them to him. And, of course, that is Satan's plan. It was sickening. Such men do nothing with their self-made interpretations but bring shame upon the name of Jesus and make themselves appear to be fools.

As for the religion of Islam itself, it is one of the two principal curses that God sent to earth in response to the rise of and development of the religion of Christianity. God used Muhammad's religion to stop the spread of the Christianity, and it succeeded in driving back the boundaries of Christendom with incredible success and speed.

The second heavenly response to the rise of Christendom was the bubonic plague, which was the judgment of God for the Crusaders' merciless slaughter and pillaging of Jews and Christians on their way to attack Muslims in the God-forsaken territory of Palestine, land Christians called the "holy land". Foolish men!. It was the holy land before God forsook it, not afterward. jdc

March 11, 2003

Dear Brother Gary,

Reading over Acts 11:26, I asked myself, is there a difference between who a disciple is and who a believer is? Are disciples born again or are they just anyone following Christ and showing sign of repentance? I remember asking Pastor John one time about who is a disciple and who is an apostle. He said a disciple is one trying to catch up with Jesus and an apostle is one who has caught up with him. I hope remember correctly what he said.

Do tell me if you know if a disciple is still the same as a believer?

Acts 11:26

And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the congregation, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Hello Joseph,

I think by adding the preceding verse to what you quoted above, it will make a little more sense:

Acts 11:25-26 "Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the congregation, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

The "they" in these verses refers to Barnabas and Paul - "they" assembled themselves with the congregation. I looked up every instance of "disciple" or "disciples" in the new testament (300+ references), and in every case it referred to either Jesus's followers (prior to Pentecost), or ONLY to people in the congregation of the Lord, i.e., those with the holy Ghost (after Pentecost).

I like the definition Pastor John gave you of an apostle and disciple. It is interesting to note the things that Paul said made him an apostle:

1) he was called and separated to the task by God:
Romans 1:1 "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,"

2) One "seal" of his authenticity to be an apostle was the fruit of a congregation given to him by God:
1 Corinthians 9:2 "If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord."

3) his apostleship was something different from his gift for preaching and teaching, for which he was appointed for by God:
1 Timothy 2:7 "Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, [and] lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity."
2 Timothy 1:11 "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles."

4) he had the "signs" of apostleship, some of which appear to be patience, signs and wonders, and miracles:
2 Corinthians 12:12 "Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds."

5) his apostleship came not of his own choosing, but from God the Father and Jesus:
Galatians 1:1 "Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) "

There are many other interesting things said about the apostles, and what they had from God, but these were a few of them that stood out to me. Thanks for your question!

Bro. Gary

March 10, 2003

Dear Pastor John:

My wife is an unbelieving spouse and has left the home in favor of separation, but has not requested a divorce, am I bound to her? I love her, but I do not know what my obligations are now to her. Would I be wrong (biblically) for filing for divorce or am I to wait for her to file? I have no knowledge or proof of infidelity. I know in Corinthians it say I am not bound if she leaves but does that only pertain to her request for divorce or for separation also.

Thank you and God Bless,

Keith

Dear Keith:

First of all, you said your wife is an "unbeliever", but I need to clarify what a "believer" actually is, so that the biblical instructions we are given will make sense to you. A "believer" is a person who has received the baptism of the holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues. We are told in 1 Cor.12:13 that we are put into the body of Christ through Spirit baptism. So a "believer" is a person who has received the experience of being baptized with the holy Ghost, because Spirit baptism is how we are "born again".

Now, if YOU are a believer (one who has received the baptism of the Spirit), and your wife is an "unbeliever" (one who has not had this experience), you have options. We are never in a "dead end" situation in Christ Jesus. I think the best thing you can do right now is gain "knowledge" so that God can speak to you when you seek Him. We have 2 very good publications that deal with being married to an unbeliever:

1) http://www.isaiah58.com/tracts/unequalmarriage.html (Unequally Yoked in Marriage)

2) http://www.isaiah58.com/MARRIAGE.HTM (Marriage and Divorce Study Guide)

These articles and booklets will tell you your "options". With that, you will need to seek God to find out what His will is for you. We have seen that patience can do wonders, and Jesus can actually make a "believer" out of an unbelieving spouse. And we have seen situations where trying to make a marriage work that never was of God, is not possible. These are things you will have to decide after reading these publications. And I might also point out that a "Christian minister" who does NOT teach that the baptism of the holy Ghost (with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues, is the New Birth) will only lead you into more confusion. So stay clear of taking "advice" from men who don't really know God's truths... it will only confuse you more.

If we can be of any further help, just let me know.

Best regards,

Gary Savelli, for Pastor John

March 4, 2003

Hi Brother Gary,

I've talked to an elderly man with the holy Ghost about the truth that is still in Christianity. One of the subjects we've talked about is the trinity doctrine. I told him words in the original language have genders and that God and Jesus were masculine and the holy Spirit was neuter. He brought me a scripture from the King James Bible where Jesus calls the holy Spirit "he". I'm sure there is a simple explanation why the holy Spirit is refered to as he in this scripture, but I need your help to explain it. The scripture is:

Jn 16:12: I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Jn 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Jn 16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Thank you for your help.

Bro. Randell

Hi Randall....

Pastor John reminded me that this question is answered in his study that can be found at:

http://www.isaiah58.com/TRINITY.HTM on the website. Here is the answer in brief:

Special Verses

John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-14

These verses appear to contain references to pneuma (spirit) as "he", "him", and "whom". Actually, these personal pronouns refer not to pneuma, but to paraclatos (comforter). Paraclatos is a masculine noun, not neuter; therefore, masculine pronouns are used when referring to paraclatos. Again, theology was not John's motivation in his choice of pronouns; he was simply following rules of Greek grammar. Here is the correct translation of each of these verses:

John 14:16-17

And I shall ask the Father, and He will give to you another comforter, that he might be(1) with you for ever, the Spirit of truth which(2) the world is unable to receive, because it neither sees nor knows it(3). But you know it(3), because it abides(4) with you and it shall be(4) in you.

1 The verb form used here could be translated "it might be", but since the subject of this verb is the masculine word, paraclatos, not pneuma, the only grammatically correct translation is "he might be"

2 "Which", is correct because the antecedent is the neuter word pneuma not the masculine paraclatos.

3 We have no choice between "it" and "he" in these cases; John used "it".

4 This is a very interesting conclusion, for the translator must decide whether John was returning to paraclatos as his subject, or whether he was continuing his references to pneuma. If paraclatos, then these two verb forms are to be translated "he abides" and "he shall be". If the translator thinks that pneuma was still John's subject, then "it abides" and "it will be" is correct.

John 14:26

But the comforter, the holy Spirit which(5) the Father shall send in my name, that (masculine) one shall teach(6) you everything and (he shall) remind(6) you of everything that I have spoken to you(5).

(5) Pneuma is the antecedent; therefore, "which" is the correct pronoun. John correctly avoids using the personal pronoun "whom".

(6) Even though there is no difference in the neuter and masculine verb forms used here, paraclatos is the subject of these verbs. "He", then, is the only proper translation. To strengthen the point, John injects "that [masculine] one" into the sentence after the words, "in my name".

best regards,

Bro. Gary

February 27, 2003

Gary,

A question/thought keeps coming into my mind regarding the Xtn sacraments of communion and the doctrine of the trinity.

First, it seems to me that the doctrine of the trinity violates the most important commandment "Thou shall have no other gods before Me", because Jesus himself rebuked the one that called Him good and never placed Himself equal to God.

True, but the trinitarians do not teach three Gods, they teach one God in "three persons" (however that works!). Even though Jesus rebuked the one who called him good, he did not rebuke the one that called him God: (John 20:28-29) "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed."

Second, there are many scriptures that tell the disciples not to eat/drink blood. Assuming that this law is still in force (maybe a bad assumption), isn't the communion ceremony a clear and intentional violation since many (e.g., catholics and lutherans) say that it IS the blood?

The knowledge we have been priviledged to receive does not exist among Christians, Gary. In other words, you have been made able, by God, to have thoughts that most do not even entertain. There are so many things that Catholics do that are not scriptural (such as calling their priests "father" when Jesus forbade that, or forbidding to marry, or forbidding certain foods, etc. etc.) I suppose that if they HAD knowledge, and if the communion juice WAS blood, it would be a violation of the law (not to eat blood), but obedience to Jesus (who said we HAD to eat his blood). Without the knowledge of the truth, this whole world is mixed up, and I can't even begin to figure out how it would all work!!! I am just glad to be out of "confusion". Good thinking on these points... I'm glad your mind is stirred up to find these things out.

Please help me to understand.

Gary M.

You already do.

Gary Savelli

February 24, 2003

Hey Bro. Gary,

In reading your response to the person writing to you about Philip and the Samaritans, I became a little confused. I know in the Bible that Peter is given the "keys" to the Kingdom. You phrase it that he would open the door to all - so that all including the Gentiles and Samaritans would receive the holy Ghost). In my vague knowledge of the Bible (which is probably why I'm confused), it always seems to me like Paul is the one preaching to the Gentiles and it seems like he is the one sent with the gospel that we believe today. It seems like the between the two different gospels that both Peter and Paul preached, it is Paul's that we follow. If that is the case, why is it that we say Peter was given the keys to the kingdom if his gospel, during the transition from the earliest congregation, included John's baptism and Paul seemed like he was the first one to stop John's baptism? Or do the keys to the Kingdom have nothing to do with who came preaching the gospel we believe today? I hope you can see what I'm asking.

Drew Davis

Hello Drew.

You are correct, that Paul was sent to the Gentiles with a gospel that was "different" than Peter's was for the Jews. I'm glad you noticed that important point. But that is not really the subject at hand when talking about the "keys" Peter was given here.

The "keys" which Jesus gave to Peter was actually a special anointing to be the first to introduce this "kingdom of heaven" - the first to minister the holy Ghost baptism - to the three kinds of people on earth in his time. Peter was given the keys to open the door, and after that, Paul and others brought more people in. But the point is, that Peter was the first to do so.

The "kingdom of God" is not meat nor drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the holy Ghost" (Rom 14:17). This is what Peter was the FIRST to introduce to the three distinct people groups on the earth. The gospel messages which Peter and Paul had for those specific people groups (the Jews and Gentiles) is important for us to note, but it was not an issue yet at the time in which Peter did what he did - and that was to "open the door" of the kindom with the keys he was given.

I hope that explains your questions - if not, let me know.

Bro. Gary

For more on this topic, click here to see tract #27: The Keys of the Kingdom

February 24, 2003

hi I found your web site by doing a search….

I have a question…. In acts chapter 8, when Philip preached and the Samaritans believed, why didn’t Philip lay hands on them and give them the holy spirit? why did the apostles have to come and do it? did the apostles have higher authority or something? I am doing a paper for school that’s why I need to know.

Hello...

This is a very good question - and I am going to refer you to a tract we have on this very subject:

In short, the article explains how Jesus gave Peter the "keys" to the "kingdom" of God (in other words Peter would open the door to the holy Ghost being made available to all people - the Jews, the Samaritans, and the Gentiles - "for the kingdom of God is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the holy Ghost".) Although Philip preached the word to the Samaritans, and they believed (thus preparing the way for their new birth experience to follow) - the Samaritans were not brought into the kingdom of God until the holy Ghost was given to them, by God, through Peter. The Samaritans were baptized into the body of Christ through Spirit baptism (1 Cor.12;13), as all true believers still are.

Best regards,

Gary Savelli

January 31, 2003

Pastor John:

What does "sanctified" mean? I thought it meant "purified" or "made clean". My husband though it meant to dwell inside of you. Can you help us with that?

Carol

Hi Carol:

The actual word "sanctify" (whether Hebrew or Greek) means simply "to make holy". Sanctification is a transfer of God's holiness from Him to people or things that He touches. In this New Testament, the only way to be made holy is to be touched by God's holy Spirit. You can see this in verses such as Romans 15:16.

Pastor John

January 29, 2003

Pastor John,

I need you to clarify something for me. I know that in the new covenant everyone is required to be circumcised, both men and women. Under the old covenant every male that was circumcised was done so by someone else, except maybe Abraham. I was just reading Tract #28 and it says this: The circumcision of Israelite males symbolized the cutting away of worldly attachments in order to become a member of God's family. This sounds like its something we have to do ourselves. I had always thought that God circumcised the hearts. My questions are these: Does God circumcise the heart or is it what we have to do in the process of repenting? Or is it something that is a joint effort between us and God? Or is it something we start and God finishes? Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter.

Billy H.

I suppose, Billy, it is the same as in the case of salvation. Peter told the multitude on the day of Pentecost, "Save yourselves from this untoward generation". We all know we cannot save ourselves, but his meaning is clear enough; to wit, do the things God requires you to do to be saved by God. Circumcision is the same. We can't circumcise our own hearts, but we can climb up on the operating table and hold still.

Pastor John

January 29, 2003

Brother John,

I was blessed by your TFT speaking of the Lord Jesus returning to earth as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, to rule & reign with a rod of iron. I understand the first time He came as the suffering Lamb in meekness born with the purpose to die. I understand He'll return the second time as the Kingly Lion, ruling in righteousness.

What I don't understand is how all this will come about. The scriptures say "Without Holiness No Man Will See the Lord." So, how are those people on earth who are not Saints in the Light & Holiness able to see the ruling King as he returns & remains on earth for a 1000 years? How can the unholy see Him? or do they not necessarily see, but only see His representatives of Kings & Priests?

Please respond and explain this to me at your earliest convenience. I never understood how the earth is filled with unbelievers who will be under the Kings rulership.

Thank you so much,

Bless you all.

holly

Holly:

The nature of these mortal bodies that we now inhabit is that we are locked into them. The nature of the glorified bodies that we will receive is that they will be an extension of our free spirits. A person with a glorified body can appear in any form that he chooses. Jesus in his beautiful, glorified body outshines the brightest sunlight (Rev. 1:14-16). John, seeing him in a vision, passed out "as dead" from the shock to his senses of Jesus' great glory (Rev. 1:17). But you will remember that in one scene, Jesus appeared in the assembly in heaven as a lamb that had already been killed (Rev. 5:6).

Jesus is not imprisoned in his glorified body. (There is no bondage in the world to which we hope to come.) He can appear to whomever he pleases in whatever form he chooses. He can appear to men in a natural form, or in a bright form, as he did to Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-9).

So, when Jesus returns to earth, God has willed it that natural man will behold him (Rev. 1:7), but only in a form that they can endure. It would kill mortal men to see Jesus as he really is now, just as it would kill them to see God as He really is. When Moses asked God to allow him to see Him, God told Moses, "There shall no man see Me and live" (Ex. 33:18-20). Then he qualified that by saying, "My face shall not be seen" (Ex. 33:23). There were a number of prophets who saw visions of God, and Moses even was allowed to glimpse Him from behind (Ex. 33:21-23), but no man has ever seen God's face. His glory would kill him. The apostle John wrote, "No man has seen God at any time" (Jn. 1:18). Neither has any man ever seen Jesus in his glorified body; just a vision of it, as I said earlier, caused John the collapse as if he had dropped dead.

So, Holly, it will be no problem for Jesus to reign on this earth for a thousand years. He will restrain himself from his great glory while here. Otherwise, the mountains would melt, all men would die, and the earth would pass away in smoke.

jdc

January 25, 2003

John,

I've wondered what exactly is meant by "fire" as in being filled with the holy Ghost and fire. Is that the zeal for the things of God, the cleansing fire, both, or more?

To my knowledge, Bill, it is the zeal for the righteousness of God that comes with the Spirit. Some of God's children sure do seem to have more of it than others, don't they? At the same time, I hasten to add that I have nothing from the Lord about that.

I was taught that the baptism-of-fire, for instance was a separate baptism administered by Jesus after the baptism of the holy Ghost and that a soul must have the baptism of the holy Ghost in order for the fiery trials to produce an overcoming life.

In other words, holy Ghost baptism is the life and power of God that is absolutely necessary for pure love and strength to withstand a lifetime of trials, persecution, etc. that is promised us in service of the Lord. They said that those trials are the baptism of fire, which is the purification process for the child of God.

But wouldn't that make it two baptisms for the Gentiles instead of one? The baptismS of the holy Ghost and fire might have been a better way to say that, if that were the case. (?) Unless, of course, we should see the "fire baptism" as just an extension of the holy Ghost baptism. I dunno. Paul never spoke of that, and it almost sounds too philosophical to me-- and philosophy is something that I cannot stomach.

I understand that even the ungodly go through trials, which may tear him down; but when a holy Ghost baptized soul goes through those same trials, they are for the purpose of building him up in the most holy faith, especially persecution for the cause of Christ.

Sounds at first like a simple case of confusing the "baptism of fire" that Jesus mentioned in reference to hard trials with the afore mentioned phrase, "holy Ghost and fire". But I am impressed with somebody's homework. That particular kind of combining distantly related Biblical phrases cannot be done by those with no faith. That is a very interesting explanation of that phrase. I will have to think on that for a while.

I also understand the meaning of "fire" relative to being zealous for the things of God (or sinful things, for that matter). I know people who are more zealous for the St. Louis Cardinals than the things of God. I also know that it was said of Jesus that "the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up" (Ps. 69:9). Could you please answer at your convenience?

Bill Fleming

That's the best I can do for now.

jdc

January 24, 2003

John,

Would you please give me instructions on fasting?

Thank you.

Gary

Gary:

Uncle Joe said that true fasting is "When you get so hungry that you don't eat." Of course, the hunger to which he referred was to do the will of God (e. g. Jn 4:32-34). When doing God's will consumes a man, he may or may not eat, but doing without food is not his object. Nor is it important.

True fasting has nothing to do with refusing to eat food. Jesus ate and drank regularly; he was even called a drunkard by the Pharisees because he did not set aside long periods of foodlessness as they did. We might say that "planned foodlessness is plain foolishness".

But even though Jesus ate and drank natural food, he once told his disciples that he was able to cast out a demon because he fasted and prayed (Mt. 17:18-21). His disciples were praying, and they were "fasting" in an Old Testament sense. But Jesus was keeping the true fast, and without the holy Ghost, they could not.

The fast that God recognizes as a fast is described in detail in Isaiah 58.

Follow those instructions.

jdc

January 23, 2003

John,

Here are more questions I came up with while you were gone:

1 Corinthians 12:7-11 and especially 10. It doesn't say everyone will receive the same gifts. Is that right? What does that mean?

There is not a congregation on earth today who exercises all these gifts of the Spirit. We know that spiritual power is present wherever those who believe meet (Mark 16:17-18), but the body of Christ today is in such a confused mess that only He can fix us, and I hope He will. God help us, is our constant prayer.

Most Christian churches don't even believe in God's gifts. It seems odd sometimes when I think about it, how so many times Christians who don't even believe in such things, and certainly do not practice the gifts of God's Spirit in their meetings, seem to think they know how spiritual gifts ought to be managed by those who do possess some such gifts. But, that is life on this planet. Let's move on.

Tracey, I speak in tongues almost every day, but I do not have the gift of diverse tongues that Paul mentions in 1Corinthians 12. Very, very few people do. Speaking in tongues, or stammering lips, as Isaiah 28 says, is not the gift of diverse tongues. All born again people have spoken in tongues "as the Spirit gives them utterance", but I have never seen anyone personally exercise the gift of "diverse tongues".

The way most people look at the issue of tongues in 1Corinthians 12 is altogether illogical. First of all, they assume that the gift of diverse tongues is the same thing as speaking in tongues when you receive the holy Ghost. That is not the case. I will show you. These are the steps they take in concluding that speaking in tongues is not something that happens when everyone who is born again and receives the Spirit of God. This is what they say. You have probably heard these statements, in very nearly these same words:

(1) speaking in tongues is a gift.
(2) speaking in tongues is only a gift.
(3) only those in the congregation with that gift speak in tongues.
(4) no one else in the congregation speaks in tongues.

Now, before I continue, I want you to make certain that I have not twisted what people say. Take it slow and look carefully at those four logical statements. If I have at all misrepresented the views that you have heard expressed by Christians, then let me know. But I know that I am not misrepresenting the views of many Christians because I have written out these four steps for Christians in the past, and they told me that the words above represented their thoughts very well.

But those statements make no sense. I want to re-emphasize, first, the fact that Paul never says that "speaking in tongues" is a gift ("diverse tongues" is the gift). But that is not the issue here.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the four steps written above are true. Then, if those four statements are true for one of the gifts of the Spirit, they should be true for all. (I hope you are following me now. This is nothing but pure logic.) If the four statements above are true concerning the gift of tongues, then they should also hold true for the other gifts that Paul mentions in that chapter. So, let's try it out. Let's replace the words "speaking in tongues" in those four statements with another gift that Paul mentions. Let's use "the gift of faith".

(1) faith is a gift.
(2) faith is only a gift.
(3) only those in the congregation with that gift have faith.
(4) no one else in the congregation has faith.

Does anyone really believe that no one in the congregation has faith except a few to whom God has given the gift of faith? Of course not. Everyone in the congregation has at least some faith; faith in Christ is how they got into the body of Christ to start with. Well, that is just how wrong it is to think that no one in the congregation speaks in tongues except a few to whom God has given the gift of diverse tongues. The gift of faith is an added measure of faith given only to some of those who already have faith. And the gift of diverse tongues is an added measure of speaking in tongues given only for some of those who already speak in tongues.

That is enough for you to think on for now, I am sure. I am tired of so much writing for this day. Whew! I had over a hundred emails to deal with when I returned from Louisville, and many more since then. But yours were among my favorites! I will try to make the next email with my answers much shorter.

Pastor John

January 23, 2003

John,

Keith came home for lunch today and I showed him the reply you sent me and he asked me a question I couldn't answer. He asked: Where in the bible does it say that we were to stop baptizing with water?

I know I've got so many questions, let me know if you get tired of them :) :)

Thank you!

Tracey

Hi:

This is an easy one.

From Peter's sermon in Acts 2, it is obvious that the congregation started with two baptisms, John's baptism with water and Jesus' baptism with the holy Ghost (Acts 2:38). How then did it get to the point where Paul says there is only one baptism (Eph. 4) and that Jesus did not send him to baptize (in water - 1Cor. 1:17)?

The answer is the people to whom Peter and Paul were sent. Peter was sent to the Jews (the "circumcised" nation), who were required by God to observe all the ceremonies that God gave them under the Law, including John's baptism (Gal. 5:3). But Paul was sent to the Gentiles, who were never required by God to observe any of the ceremonies of the Law. When Jewish believers thought that gentiles ought to be required to keep the Law as God required them to keep it, Peter argued against it, telling his fellow Jews who believed in Christ not to try to saddle the Gentiles with the yoke that the Jews bore (Acts 15:7-10). Chapter 15:1-31 in Acts shows how big a deal was this issue of whether or not God required the Gentiles to be circumcised like the Jews and keep the ceremonies of the Law the way He made the Jews keep them.

For one Scripture that shows that Peter and Paul were sent to two different groups of people with a gospel for each group, you can read Galatians 2:7-9.

The only difference between Peter and Paul's gospel concerned ceremonies, such as baptism. For the Gentiles, Paul said there was but one (Jesus' holy Ghost baptism), and that is why Jesus did not send Paul to baptize (in water). It was not for us Gentiles. Many times, when Christians read the few verses in Paul's writing that mention baptism, they assume that he is speaking of water baptism (e.g. Rom 6:3, Gal. 3:27, and Col. 2:12). But that is merely because of Christian tradition; it is not the baptism Paul preached. No water baptism could ever "bury someone in Christ".

Thanks for the question. I hope that clears things up.

jdc

January 17, 2003

John,

Keith and I read our Bibles last night and I have another question to ask: John 3:36 - He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

My question is what does it mean? It doesn't say anything about speaking in tongues. Keith believes the Baptist way and they believe if you believe in Jesus and know He died for your sins and ask God for forgiveness that you are saved. And throughout reading I see all through the Bible where it says "if you believe you have everlasting life", not in future tense. It can be so confusing for me. And I know it's not supposed to be.

Sorry to have all of these questions for you time you get back from Kentucky. Mama gave me Gary's email address and I didn't know if you would have time to read my email or not. She said you were probably busy. I am just trying to understand more and more.

Thanks

Tracey

Tracey:

Thanks for the question. I hope you have already received my earlier email.

Believing in Jesus is all that anyone has to do in order to be safe from the terrible things God will bring upon the wicked. "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ" covers all that God requires of everybody. Having said that, let me use John the Baptist again to make a point that I think you will appreciate.

We see an amazing thing in the Bible concerning John the Baptist, Tracey. We see that John was anointed by God to know who had truly believed in him, and who had fully repented and who had not. It often goes unnoticed that John the Baptist did not baptize everyone who came to him. In fact, he was downright brutal with some hypocritical elders of Israel when they came to his baptism just to make a show. John baptized only those whom God told him to baptize; in other words, he baptized only those who had truly repented. And, or course, they are the only ones who had truly believed.

Suppose you went down to the Jordan River to hear John the Baptist preach, and you met a woman coming up from the large, excited multitude along the banks. You asked her who John was, and she answers, "He is a prophet sent from God. He is telling everyone to go make things right in our lives and then he will baptize us in the river, and after that," she continues, "John says we will be ready for another, greater man who will come soon, our Messiah."

Then you ask the woman, "Do you believe in that man, John the Baptist?"

"Absolutely!" she insists.

"Oh, good!" you say next. "I do, too. And so, you went and did what he said? You repented and made things right in your life?"

"Oh, yes. I certainly did. Everything."

But then, you are a little puzzled because you notice that she is not wet, even though she just came up from the river. So, you ask, "When did John baptize you?"

"Well, he hasn't yet", she replies sheepishly. "Every time I come close to him, he turns away and takes somebody else into the water. But that is not the important point anyway, is it? The point is that I believe."

Now, since John would not baptize that woman, wouldn't you have some questions as to whether or not that woman had really believed in John the Baptist, or at least, whether or not she understood what he was really saying? I certainly would.

Anyway, let's continue with our parable. That first woman tells you she must go now because she does not want to be late for her Bible study, and she walks away. Then, when you look back down toward the Jordan River, you see another woman walking up toward you. This lady is soaking wet.

Knowing what you now know about John the Baptist and his work, knowing that he is in such close contact with God that no one can fool him and that he baptizes in the Jordan River everyone who truly believes and repents, but only them, would you even have to ask this dripping wet woman if she believed in John and his message? Wouldn't the dripping wet hair and soaked dress be all the witness of her faith that you needed? The fact that she is wet speaks more loudly of her heart than anything she could say. She doesn't need to claim to believe. God's prophet bore her witness by giving her his baptism.

My guess is that you would feel the way I would feel, a little silly, even to ask her, "What do you think about John the Baptist?"

Now let's replace John's name in the above little story with the name of Jesus. Suppose you heard someone moved by the Spirit to preach about Jesus in a prayer meeting. A crowd of people are praising God, and Jesus is baptizing some of them in God's river of life. Then, you see a woman walking away from the meeting and coming toward you. You asked her who Jesus is, and she says, "He is God's own Son, the Savior of the world. He is telling everyone to repent, then he will baptize us with the holy Ghost. Then, he says, we will be ready to live forever with God."

Then you say, "Do you believe in that man?"

"Absolutely!"

"Oh, good!" you say next. "I do, too. And so, you went and did what he said? You repented and made things right in your life?"

"Oh, yes. I certainly did."

But you are a little puzzled because you notice that she doesn't seem the same as some other people in that meeting. So, you ask, "When did Jesus baptize you?"

"Well, he hasn't yet", she replies sheepishly. "Sometimes he baptizes others who haven't even been here as long as I have. But that is not the important point anyway, is it? The point is that I believe."

The point is, Tracey, that John baptized those who truly believed in him because God let him know who had done what he said to do. And John was only a figure of Jesus. John said, "I baptize you with water, but there is coming One after me who will baptize you with the holy Ghost and fire." Just like John, Jesus baptizes every person who truly believes in him and does what he says to do. God lets him know who they are.

Tracey, if you and I had been standing on the banks of the Jordan River, neither of us could have been able to tell who was truly believing John's message and who was not. We are not God. We cannot see the hearts of people. The only way either of us could have known who was really believing in God's messenger would be to wait and see who John baptized. John always knew. Then, because we trusted that John heard from God, we would know that the people he baptized were the only ones who truly believed. We would know that those whom he did not baptized had not fully believed or repented because God is "no respecter of persons", and He will not overlook anyone who obeys Him, confesses sin and repents of it. That is exactly how it is now, in this wonderful New Testament.

Neither one of us knows who believes in Jesus and who does not. Faith is an invisible thing. But we can know who Jesus baptizes and who he does not. We trust him to forget no one, to misunderstand no one, and to know who has repented fully and who has not.

Tracey, your mother is soaking wet. Look at her. You don't even have to ask.

Yes, believing in Jesus is all there is to it, Tracey. But believing is more than a word in a book, and it cannot be made real by people claiming to have done it. God knows those who are His, and if you believe, He will give you eternal life. John said it this way: "He who believes has the witness in himself" (1Jn. 5). The "witness", of course, is the holy Ghost. So, we see it taught again that God gives the holy Ghost to those who believe.

Finally, concerning having eternal life now, "eternal life" enters into our hearts when the Spirit enters us. Paul explained that "the Spirit is life" (Rom. 8). The Spirit is God's eternal life. Every person who has received the holy Ghost has received eternal life. It is inside of him. At the same time, Paul exhorted Timothy (1Tim. 6:11-12), and the apostles exhorted the congregation, to maintain a godly lifestyle so that eternal life might be obtained (e.g., 1Tim. 6:17-19; Rom. 2:5-7). It is much like "saved". Nobody will be saved from wrath in the end who is not being saved now from sin. And nobody will enter into eternal life with God in the end unless eternal life, the holy Ghost, has entered into them here and now.

This is a long email, Tracey. I hope it helps. Just believe what God says, and everything else that you need will follow.

John

January 17, 2003

Hey, John.

I have been doing a lot of reading in my bible lately and have found some confusing things that I thought I would ask you about.

Thanks for reading and letting me know your thoughts.

I know you all do not believe in salvation "here" and that you're only saved in the end.

Well, sort of. Actually, we have to be saved ("kept from") sin now so that we can be saved ("kept from") the wrath of God at the end. Only those being saved now from sin will be saved from damnation later.

I was reading in Acts about the eunuch who was baptized and I didn't understand why he was baptized in the water after Jesus had died.

Until Paul was taken up into heaven and was given his gospel for us Gentiles, everyone had to be baptized with water. John the Baptist's job was a big one, and he was killed before it was finished. Jesus' disciples helped John do his work, both before he died (Jn. 4:1-2) and, as you have seen, afterwards in the Book of Acts.

Philip answered the eunuch by saying if he believed with all his heart that he may be baptized and the eunuch said he believed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. My question is why didn't he speak in tongues? I get confused with things like this and I want to understand it so badly.

I don't know that the Ethiopian eunuch received the holy Ghost at that time. If God still considered him to be a Gentile, then I know that he did not receive it because the time for the Gentiles to receive the holy Ghost didn't come until Acts 10. If God considered the eunuch to be a Jew (after all, he had been in Jerusalem to worship God), then he could have received the Spirit. If he did receive it, then I believe he spoke in tongues just as the disciples did when they received it. But it is very important for all of us to acknowledge that the Bible doesn't say what happened, in this case as well as some others in Acts, one way or the other.

Every Pentecostal minister everywhere on earth who is faithful to his congregation teaches that everyone speaks in tongues when they receive the holy Ghost. So, we are not alone in saying that. Still, it is important for all who teach that truth, as well as for those who do not teach it, to admit that we cannot use the Book of Acts to prove or disprove what we teach. The experiences of baptism with the Spirit in the Book of Acts are inconclusive, for some stories mention that those who were baptized with the holy Ghost spoke in tongues, and some do not. So, the most that anyone can say, using only the Book of Acts alone, is that it may be the case that all who receive the holy Ghost speak in tongues (or, have "stammering lips" as Isaiah 28:11-12 foretold).

To respond to your question directly, "Why didn't the eunuch speak in tongues?", I can only say that we don't know whether he did nor not. The Bible doesn't say. I believe that if he received the holy Ghost, then he did. But the reasons for my saying that are not found in the Book of Acts.

And in places in the bible it says: John 5:13 - "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." (Doesn't that mean that we are supposed to believe in the Son of God and know "now" we have eternal life?)

Yes, that is exactly what it means.

And Ephesians 2:8 - "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." (That seems like I should think I am "saved" now.)

What do they mean??

If you asked me how a person gets to Raleigh from Henderson, and I told you, "By taking Highway 1, North, you'll be there", would you claim to be there just because to got on Highway 1 North? No. You would understand that you must travel all the way to Raleigh on Route 1, North, or you would never get there. This is why Paul mentioned that the saints who are wise do not get off the highway of faith, but continue to the end in the love of God. In Hebrews, we read, "We are not of those who draw back into destruction (start, but then get off the highway), but of them who believe to the saving if the soul." This is why Jesus said, "In patience ye possess your souls", and "he that endures to the end, the same shall be saved."

We are saved by grace through faith. But what that means for us who have been touched by God's grace is not that we may boast that we already "got saved" when God touched us, but that Jesus has mercifully put us on the right road to salvation. God's grace, and our faith in it, are the means to obtaining salvation. So, we thank God for His grace, and we keep on believing.

Grace is what God does; faith is what we do in response. No one is saved either by grace alone or by faith alone. We must live a life of faith in (co-operate with) God's grace if we hope someday to get to Raleigh. :)

Please take the time to read my tract titled "The Way of Grace". It is important to understand how grace works, so that you do not become a victim of Christian ministers who are paid to teach what they are teaching.

I know God wants me to get my life straight and I know all this that has gone on with me is my wake-up call and I don't want to miss out on anything. I just want to understand it.

Thanks for your help and prayers!

Tracey

You can trust Jesus to get your life straight for you and keep you from missing out on anything good. he will make you very happy. You will be the happiest wife and mother with the happiest family in North Carolina!

I am so glad that the doctor has taken that heavy load off your back with good news. Enjoy life now! And if you have any other questions or comments, let me know.

jdc

January 17, 2003

Pastor John:

What fruit did Adam actually eat, that was forbidden? Was it really an apple?

Brenda

Brenda:

Nobody knows what kind of fruit that was.

Pastor John

January 9, 2003

Bro. John:

I was reading in 1st Corinthians 12 today and came across these verses:

[7] But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
[8] For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

What is the difference between the "word of wisdom" and the "word of knowledge" that Paul speaks of here in Corinthians?

Thank you for your answer.

Sandy

Sandy:

I don't know what Paul was talking about, and I don't believe that the people know who say they know, either. At least, that's the case with every teacher whom I have ever heard teach about those things. The fundamental difference between "wisdom" and "knowledge" must be a part of the explanation, but other than that, I am ignorant. Those things are spiritually beyond where I am, and beyond where the body of Christ is at this time in history, too, as far as I can tell.

I hope that we (all of God's children everywhere) will grow in the grace of God to be taught what these and other wonderful things of the Spirit are. Until then, it is safest for us just to confess our ignorance and wait on God.

Pastor John

January 4, 2003

Uncle John,

After all God had done for Gideon, why did Gideon then make an ephod?

Travis N.

Travis:

You will see as we go through the Old Testament that sometimes those whom God blessed and used did not know Him, and in trying to honor Him, they would do things that we can see were wrong. This is what Gideon did. He thought that what he was doing was right, but he didn't know the truth about God.

The principle reason this was the case was because God's servants, the Levites, who were supposed to teach God's children, were not doing their job as they should have. And when God's children are not taught what is right, they do things the wrong way, even when they are trying to please God. We see this now with the children of God who are still in Christianity. Some of them really want to please God, but they have been told wrong things to do. God still loves them and blesses them, and it hurts Him when they try to love Him back but don't know how.

What this teaches us is to do whatever we do with all our hearts. Don't be like the Levites who did not teach Israel the Law very well. If Jesus ever gives you something to do for his people, do it the way he wants you to do it. That way, they will be happy, and you will be happy. And Jesus will be happy!

Pastor John

January 1, 2003

John,

You wrote, on Sept.18 something about the Koran teaching that is was "a disgraceful lie" to say that God had a Son.

A young friend of mine who's heart has been touched by God is being confused by all the information of the world, including other religious systems. Never have I known a more childlike and openhearted young person, wanting to get right with God. HOWEVER, I am concerend for his spiritual welfare because he's partially accepted the world's lie that all religions have some truth and Gandhi went to heaven just like all "good" people, etc..

He grasps the concept that religions of men are evil, such as Islam and Xty, but thinks that the Koran itself is truth, just different from the Bible. He thinks men have twisted the truths of the koran and the Bible and other "holy" works to make their religions, (in which he's partially correct.) BUT. . .he is on the verge of knowing and believing that Jesus is the ONLY way to the Father. He's just accepting so much gobbldygook from our culture.

My question is this:

Could you point to the source of your statement, in the Koran, so that I might counsel him on the error of his thinking.

I tried to explain to him that there cannot be several truths, if in fact they say different things. That's illogical. But more than that, the new spirit in me yearns for him to be taken care of, cleansed of his conflicting ideas, and taught the truth.

Please show me the proof of what you claim the koran states.

Brad

Brad:

Your friend will have to do his own research on this one. I don't have the time to dig it up. I have read the Koran twice, and this was one of the puzzling questions I was left with. Why would Muhammad have thought that God causing Mary to be pregnant and having a Son would defile God? Think about it. Did God become defiled when He created skunks, worms, and pigs?

I do not think the exact wording of the Koran was that it was "a disgraceful lie". I think the Koran said it was "blasphemy" to say that God had a Son.

Pastor John

January 1, 2003

Pastor John, Brothers Gary and Brad,

Ola to the three of you! I don't know if you remember me John, but I know Gary and Brad know who I am. I am very concerned and troubled about a website I came across on the internet today. I really hope all of you will take the time to look over some of the site (especially the latter chapters in the outline like 6 through 10) and give me some feedback because my heart hurt after I read most of it.

Basically the theme of the site is "Jesus and Judaism vs. Paul and Christianity." In the most basic of terms, it asks the question "Are the writings of Paul in the NT the infallible word of God?" It won't take you long before you see that the author of the website is BIG-time anti-Paul and pro-Peter. In fact, he even calls Paul the false apostle and "liar" that Jesus commended the Ephesian congregation for exposing as recorded in the book of Revelation. The author makes the argument that Paul is contradictory when he taught that the Gentiles didn't have to follow the Jewish Law. For example, the author would say something like the following: "The Law of the OT included things such as circumcision, water baptism, observing sabbaths, etc. but the Law also included the Ten Commandments themselves. Paul therefore, contradicts himself when he taught the Gentiles that they no longer need to be observant of the Law when obviously he never or would never teach that it okay to murder or steal or covet or commit adultery or any of the 10 commandments." This is very confusing to me. Does Paul ever make any clear distinction of what the OT Law encompasses?

Also, this author argues that in Matt 28:18-20 Jesus says "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations,... teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you." To the author this means that all the nations (which would include Gentiles) are to become disciples who observe all things that Jesus had commanded his disciples to observe, which, according to Matthew 5:17-19 and 23:1-3 must include the Law of Moses!

I could go on for pages and pages on things that I read on this site that trouble and confuse me. I am not questioning my belief and faith in Paul's teachings or the New Testament itself for that matter. I have accepted the awesome and simple truths that I have come to know and love from both Gary and JDC's websites, cassettes, books, tracts, etc. and I can't wait for Jesus to seal me with his baptism. If I had the HG, I probably wouldn't have needed to type this email to any of you because I know the HG would lead me to the truth. I'm looking to you three because I need HG-filled people to shed some wisdom on this matter because I would just end up thinking in circles forever.

Thanks!!! God Bless Y'ALL from Cincy!!! Have a great NEW YEARS!!!!!!!!

Sincerely,

Randy

Randy:

Brother Gary sent me a copy of his response to you, and he is exactly right that it is unhealthy for people at the stage of spiritual life that you are in to become embroiled in doctrinal controversies. If you have the faith to hear him and be completely satisfied in your soul until later, that is best. At the same time, in case you are one of those who, having come across such issues and cannot sleep at night until it is resolved, then I will give you a short response, and if you feel you need more, I can point you to some materials at pastorjohnshouse.com

First, I have not yet gone to the web site you mentioned, but I am very impressed with your description of the site because to this point, I have always had a difficult time just to persuade people to believe that there was really a difference between Peter and Paul's gospel. I have had Christian ministers laugh in my face when I told them that was the case. So, for this web site to recognize that difference is a positive step, in my view. At least I have something to work with. At least whoever is responsible for the site has paid enough attention to the Bible to see that there was difference. I like that! He has just misjudged Paul.

Secondly, Paul's attitude toward the Law is misrepresented by that web site. Paul dearly loved the Law of Moses (Rom. 7:12), but he understood that Jesus was born under the Law, was circumcised, and observed all its ceremonies for us, just as he suffered on the cross for us. Jesus confessed that he came to fulfill the Law, and when the Law is written by the holy Ghost in our hearts, as was prophesied that God would do, then we have what God always intended for man to have: the Law within. If we are in Christ and walk in his Spirit, then God is satisfied. This is Paul's message. It is not that the Law was evil; Paul never said that. The Law was inadequate simply because it was on the outside of man instead of the inside.

As Paul said to the believers in Rome, the Law was holy. But it was on paper, a book written with ink. So, seek the holy Ghost with all your heart, and let God write His holy Law on your heart, making YOU holy instead paper! That is far better. And that is what makes the NT a far better covenant.

The night before he died, Jesus told his disciples that he had some things to tell them that they were not yet able to bear. Paul was the man whom God chose to add to their understanding those hidden things. It was his doctrine that helped Peter and others understand why God would give the holy Ghost to (physically) uncircumcised Gentiles (Acts 10). God's people needed another man to help them understand completely God's way of salvation. Paul was chosen.

Lastly, as to your comment about not needing to ask questions after you receive the holy Ghost, I doubt it will be that way at all. The holy Ghost is already leading you into the truths of God. Otherwise, you would not understand the things you now understand. You will need to be taught even after receiving the holy Ghost. That is why God has teachers in the congregation. A teacher from God teaches God's people how to tune in better to the voice of the Spirit. Pastor John

December 23, 2002

John,

I realize that these questions are directed to yourself and I so appreciate your answers. My teachers encouraged the "threshing floor", that is, the free exchange of knowledge and revelation. They said that if someone had something on a subject, he should not withhold it from the brethren. If it turns out that it is not relevant, or just plain wrong, then put it back on the shelf until more light is available, or dispose of it and move on.

Having said that, I am overjoyed to find in your forum a freedom and freshness that is unique in this world. For that, you are to be highly commended. It is rare that men will be led by the Spirit to that extent. I am happy to continue reading these thoughts and testimonies. If you will permit, I would like to add some thoughts about the 3rd question in a recent e-mail. Even when we have the holy Ghost, the Lord often has to "get our attention" in order to reveal something to us. After reading the question, I had decided not to write anything to you about Melchizedek. Then last night, my right wrist started to hurt and my right hand began to swell (The hand I use with my computer mouse). That has never happened before, so I knew that the Lord was not pleased with me at that point. So, I gladly write somewhat to you on that subject. I love the Lord so much.

As you say, "The Bible tells us nothing about Melchizedek except for the few verses that exist in Genesis 14, Psalm 110, and Hebrews 7." In Heb. 5:11, the writer even says that the things concerning this subject are, " hard to be uttered", or explained. However, he goes on to say about Melchisedec, "we have many things to say". So, he obviously had the key to understanding his subject even though he recognized the level of difficulty in explaining it to others who were, "dull of hearing". John, I think that you are in lock-step with the writer when you observed, "Without a revelation from God, everything else is mere speculation."

Now, since we have been given these few verses, let's examine them and see if there is enough information to answer the question [asked of you in that e-mail]. In the 14th chapter of Genesis we find Melchizedek, king of Salem (Peace), who was the priest of the most high God. We also find Abram of the most high God in v. 19. David gives us an important insight in Psalm 110 when he identifies the everlasting “Order”, or Priesthood of Melchizedek. Continuing with the same thought, the writer of the book of Hebrews assumes that Christ is an high priest forever after, or continuing, the order of Melchisedec, which was already in effect in the days of Abram. Now as you know, the word Melchizedek is a combination of two Hebrew words; Malki or Melek, which means, King; and Tsedeq or Tsedek, which means, Righteousness. The Hebrews writer verifies this entomology in 7:9 when he identifies that man as firstly, the King of righteousness, then the King of Salem, which is the King of peace. Now, here is something interesting; v.3 makes a very strong statement that this order and high priesthood has no beginning or ending, but “abideth continually”. As he says, it is like unto the Son of God.

Notice, he goes on to say that Abraham and even the Levitical priesthood would be subservient to this order, because commandments and laws are not eternal. There was a disannulling of the commandment (v. 18) and a change also of the law (v. 12). But, the eternal order, or priesthood is forever. Unlike the Law of Moses, where death was an integral part, the “better hope” is the assurance of no-death, a better testament (v. 22), continuing ever, an unchangeable priesthood (v. 24), which he goes on to identify as, “a more excellent ministry”- of the true tabernacle which the lord pitched, and not man.

I think it is very interesting that he mentions the “tabernacle” and not temple or churches. I believe that he was trying to convey the meaning that, like the tabernacle was continually moving, so the ministry of Jesus on this earth cannot be categorized or pigeon-holed by men, but it is a moving order of the sons-of-God that are led by the spirit of God.

So, who is Melchizedek? I believe that there is only one man who can fulfill the office of high priest of the highest God (the Father), King of Peace, King of Righteousness, who abideth continually, and that man is the Word of God. Jesus met with Abram in a temple of clay just as he did at other times (Genesis 18), seeing that Abraham was a friend of God. In fact, I was taught that Gen. 18-19 depicts a working example of the order of Melchizedek, or the order of God in the earth (Righteousness & Peace). Therefore, just as the Hebrews writer says in 8:1 that he summed up the previous seven chapters, So may I summarize the foregoing in saying that the order of Melchizedek is God’s authorized, created organism (as opposed to organization), which carries out God’s plan in the earth.

Again, Thank You for your ministry.

Bill F:

Bill:

I purposefully did not go into a detailed discussion of Melchizedek in the e-mail to which you refer because I did not think that the person who wrote that e-mail wanted that much information. The Scriptures I mentioned in that e-mail are the only Biblical references to Melchizedek, except that in Hebrews he is mentioned a couple of times prior to the important Chapter Seven.

To reply to your comments, I do not at all agree that Melchizedek was Jesus, the Son of God. When the writer of Hebrews wrote that Melchizedek was "without father or mother", he was merely speaking of Melchizedek's priestly genealogy. He was making a contrast between the type of priesthood Melchizedek received from God and the type of priesthood that Aaron received from God.

In the sixth chapter of the book of Nehemiah, certain descendants of Aaron also became "without father and without mother", so far as the priesthood was concerned, because they had lost their genealogy during their seventy years in Babylonian captivity. They were, therefore, put out of the priesthood as "polluted". Everyone around them knew they were descendants of Aaron, but they no longer possessed the required genealogical records. That was the kind of priesthood that the Levitical priesthood was.

Mechizedek's priesthood was not that kind. He was, so far as the priesthood was concerned, "without father and without mother, and without descent". Many have mistakenly assumed that Melchizedek was Jesus, based on that strange-sounding information about Melchizedek. But it needs to be noted that Jesus was not, as melchizedek was, "without father and without mother." We know that Jesus' Father was God, and we know that his mother was Mary. If being "without father or mother" is an essential criterion for being the Messiah like Melchizedek, then Jesus fails the test.

Melchizedek was an Old Testament figure of Jesus, who is THE King of Righteousness and THE King of Peace. And Melchizedek's priesthood pre-figured the eternal priesthood which was obtained from God by Jesus, in that it was bestowed upon him by the oath of God, rather than being biologically inherited.

The feeling that you and many others have, that there is only one person who Melchizedek could be, is not an evil feeling; it just needs to be directed toward the light. There is only one person to whom Melchizedek and his priesthood point us, and that is to Jesus. But Melchizedek himself was not Jesus, and he likely was nothing more than an especially anointed Canaanite who had an abiding love and faith in God. Abraham certainly acknowledged Melchizedek as being his superior, didn't he?

As for your statement that "the order of Melchizedek is God’s authorized, created organism (as opposed to organization), which carries out God’s plan in the earth" is a new phrase to me, but by it I assume you mean that the order of Melchizedek is the body of Christ. If so, all I will say now is that I do not understand how the body of Christ can be "the order of Melchizedek".

Thanks for your comments. Feel free to keep in touch.

Pastor John

December 16, 2002

John:

Good Morning. It's is a wonderful day. God please help me to just live a normal life with obedience to him.

Isn't the New Birth is a "new thing" on this earth? Solomon wrote a scripture about there being nothing new under the sun. I wonder about that every time I hear that scripture.

Thanks:

W S

WS:

There is also a Scripture in Isaiah 43 in which God promises, "Behold, I will do a new thing." Then He proceeds to speak of the creation of His congregation by saying, "This people have I formed for myself. They shall show forth my praise."

There is, as Solomon said, no new no new thing under the sun, and that is always true, unless God decides to make something new be here. Solomon was talking about the ordinary course of life on earth, which is a different subject from God's prerogative to accomplish His purposes. Solomon's Scripture does not hinder God from doing whatever He wants to do. Paul said, "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. Old things are passed away; behold all things are become new." You have noticed, I am certain, that God does not obey Scriptures; the Scriptures just try to keep up with what He has done.

God wanted a His Son to have a congregation, and the fact no Spirit baptized saints had existed prior to Acts 2:4 meant nothing to Him. He successfully works everything "according to the counsel of His own will." And He doesn't check the Scriptures before He does anything to see if it is OK for Him to do it!

Yes, it is a wonderful day. And isn't it really a day that has never before existed, and never will again? So, there are limitations to the application of Solomon's words.

And your hope for today is mine; to be blessed with the strength to obey God today is a precious gift that I pray He will bestow upon both us and all His children everywhere.

jdc

December 15, 2002

Wow, Pastor John. That was an interesting e-mail from M. H. Christianity makes little soldiers out of it's people, training them to pressure people into being what they are. That's sad. I have a friend like that at school, but she's nearly at the point where she no longer asks questions. God makes good soldiers out of us, ones that do what he says, not what Christian ministers say!

I'm glad God's saved us from that religion. I hope that many more are called out. They would be so relieved to know that God is going to have his children, there's no need to go out and recruit the world, you just have to do the part that God wants you to do (tracts, web site, ect.) and he'll send them your way! God is wonderful!

Ashley

Ashley:

I wouldn't make up my mind completely not to do what Xn ministers say to do. They say some good things every now and then, just as Muslim and Buddhist clerics do. Jesus told his disciples on one occasion, "Do as they [the Pharisees] say, but not as they do." So, even those who are far from God can say right things sometimes. Stay open to everyone, even sinners, to agree with them whenever they are right.

I, too, am glad Jesus rescued us from that religion. Many more will be called out, and I can hardly wait for them to obey God and come!

Pastor John

December 15, 2002

Dear Pastor,

Hi, my name is M. H. and I just happened to came to your website and I read the article in titled Who is lost? I enjoyed reading it. It gave me some new insight and I look forward to reading more, but I just have a question about the parable used in the fourth paragraph.

You explained how a sheep is a sheep from the beginning and a goat is always a goat, and this is where my question arrives. (I'm not the most educated "Christian". I'm aware I'm a freshmen in high school so forgive me if my question sounds dumb). What if a person was born a "goat"? Would there be any hope for that individual?

No.

Are people born goats or sheep . . . ,

Yes.

. . . and if a people are born "goats", then how can you tell them from the sheep who are lost?

We can't, without some miraculous intervention from God.

I remember when I first became a "Christian" (sorry if you don't agree with my certain belief-system but simply what I mean by is Christian is that I follow in the foot-steps of and am a devoted to my Lord and savior Jesus Christ), I wanted to save the world. I was very enthusiastic about my new found "faith", if you will, but then I learned that some people no matter how hard I try do not listen to what I'm trying to tell them. Later after I explain this to my dad he tells me there are some people that you can't save. although he meant well, like he always does, and put them into kinder words, it was discouraging.

To try to save the world is a useless goal. "The whole world lieth in wickedness." Jesus didn't even pray for the world (Jn 17:9).

The people that I mentioned earlier called them selves "atheist", but besides that, my next question is, are these the "goats" that you where talking about or are there worst?

I don't know. Some who are atheists at present may turn out to be sheep that are wandering in darkness trying to find their Shephered.

Well that's all I wanted. I hope that you can help me to better understand this. If you have any clarification that you can offer here is my email. I just want to thank you for making this site and may god bless your ministry to reach others.

P. S. I find myself still having problems on how to talk to "atheist" I would appreciate just about any advice you have for me (I really don't like to give up)

Your Brother in the Lord

M. H.

Concentrate on growing in the knowledge of God instead of "methods" of approaching lost souls. Concentrating on methods is such a worthless Christian thing to do. Not of God at all. Get filled with the holy Ghost, and you will say the right thing to every person you meet.

Secondly, M. H., if you have received the holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues, then you are indeed a brother. If not, then you are not yet born again. You are just a Christian.

Thirdly, I admire you for your stand for Jesus at such an early age. I hope that you will continue to follow the Lord and keep his commandments. If you do, he will fill you with his Spirit. And if you continue in his word after that, he will eventually lead you out of the religion of Christianity, where we have been led by the Lord.

God bless, and stay in touch.

Pastor John

December 12, 2002

Dear pastor John,

When I read about the ice storm report from brother Rob, I could not really grasp the extent of the damage, as I have never seen one before. Your TFT gave me much more details. I felt for you and others. As I read the TFT I thought of words that I could use to comfort you and others. But as I read down the TFT, I discovered that the man I was trying to say comforting words to had been comforted by the Lord. I am so happy that you looked at the situation in the eyes of God not in those of men. Thank you for being a true man of God.

I would also like to say “welcome into the Kingdom” to all those that got born again with brother Brad in your house during Thanksgiving.

The TFT on feeling is a wonderful one. Before I received the TFT, I had told someone that I following my feelings. When I said that, he started warning me against that. Thank God that I have been rightly taught better than he was.

Lastly, we read Rev. 18:1-8 in our family gathering some days ago. We talked about Christianity being the present Babylon (spiritual). When we talked about how God is going to destroy it, a little girl with us asked if when the physical Babylon was destroyed, was it ever rebuilt. I do not have the answer so I said let me ask you.

J O E

Lagos, Nigeria

JOE:

No, JOE, physical Babylon has never been rebuilt, just as God promised (Jer. 50:13, 35-40), and it never will be.

Pastor John

December 12, 2002

Thank you for your answers:

1. Is Repentance necessary for Salvation?

Yes.

2. What is the difference between Salvation and Conversion?

Salvation is the future hope of the saints. Conversion is the present opportunity for sinners.

3. Was Melchizedek Shem (Noah's Son)?

The Bible tells us nothing about Melchizedek except for the few verses that exist in Genesis 14, Psalm 110, and Hebrews 7. Without a revelation from God, everything else is mere speculation.

November 27, 2002

Hello Pastor John,

I was re-reading in between the lines the book of John chapter 17 yesterday. There I saw what I had not seen before there. In Matthew 5:48, Jesus said, be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Now, in John 17:23, he added, "I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one. So, for us to be made perfect as our Father which is in heaven, we have to be one as Jesus and our Father are one. How do you see it?

And again, in the same John 17:19, Jesus said "And for their sakes, I santify myself that they also might be sanctified through the truth. I do not understand what Jesus meant in this very verse. Please I will appreciate your answer on this question.

Thanks.

Bro. OK Frank

Brother Frank:

As you suggested, perfection for the saints will never be attained without the body of Christ having fellowship in the light. As long as the saints is divided (that is, as long as the saints are taught by Christian ministers and entangled in Xty), it cannot be perfected by the Spirit and prepared for the return of the Master. When Jesus prayed for us to be one as he and the Father are one, he was praying that we would be made perfect, and we know that Jesus prayed no vain prayers. Once we have been born again, the congregation should strive for fellowship more than anything else because without it there can be no godly government, no peace, and very little growth in spirit. Satan knows this, and trembles at the thought of the saints ever being free from his religion of Xty.

Now, for your second question:

No one can, in this New Covenant, sanctify himself. The only way to be sanctified in this covenant is to be baptized by the holy Ghost, with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. So, we know that in Jn. 17:19, Jesus was speaking from an Old Testament point of view. Jesus was born and died under the Law, and the Law provided for people to sanctify themselves by observing certain ceremonial rites. Jesus sanctified himself by keeping himself ritually clean so that he could observe the ceremonies, holy days, and Sabbaths of the Law, etc. If he had not done so, his sacrifice for sin would have been unacceptable to God.

It is well known that Jesus died for us, but what is often neglected is that he also lived for us. He was born under the Law of Moses for us; he was circumcised the eighth day for us; he was baptized in water by John for us; he observed the holy days and Sabbaths for us; he offered the proper sacrifices for us. And he did all those things so that we might be free from them, walk "in the newness of life", and be made one, as he and the Father are one.

I feel in my spirit that there is more to this answer than I presently know, but what I have told you is true and is, at least in part, an answer that will stand up when tested by God's holy Spirit of truth.

Pastor John

November 18, 2002

Hey!

I have a question. The other week, Nov. 11, I and a friend went out to lunch with an elder in the Church. We were eating, and this older woman started to tell us how she had voted in the state elections. Something in me sank; it didn't feel good. All my life I've been taught that the Church isn't supposed to have anything to do with politics, including voting. I didn't ask her why or tell her how I felt about it. Now, every time I see her that's what think about. Should I talk to her, or am I feeling wrong?

Evelyn

Evelyn:

If a person is going to be involved to any extent in poitics, I suppose that voting is one of the least harmful. How in the world a person goes about figuring out who to vote for, I could not begin to tell you. It is best for the saints of God to stay out of that whole earthly affair.

It is fine for you to talk with the lady who voted, if you can be sincere with your questions and have no accusatory tone, but I don't see a big problem with what she did.

jdc

November 14, 2002

Hey Pastor John,

I was reading in Luke sometime last week and ran across something that struck me as odd. In Luke 1:41, Elisabeth, I think she was the cousin of Mary, was filled with the holy Ghost. The way I read it, Elisabeth was in her old age and barren, but conceived a child anyway (through the power of God). "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost..."

Is being filled with holy Ghost differeng from receiving the holy Ghost? I ask this because since the sacrifice of Christ had not occurred, Elisabeth receiving the holy Ghost would have been impossible......right? So, my conclusion is that being filled and receiving the holy Ghost must be two different situations. Let me know if I'm wrong on this.

Drew

Drew:

Under the Law, God "filled" certain people with His Spirit many times, prophets and judges in particular. John the Baptist, we are told, was filled with the holy Ghost from his mother's womb (Lk. 1:15)! And look at Micah 3:8! But this "filling" was not the "infilling" of the holy Ghost that Jesus purchased with his sacrificial death. The baptism of the Spirit, when people receive the holy Ghost as part of their being, was only available after Jesus paid the price for it.

I think it is best to understand the Old Testament form of being "filled with the Spirit" as the Spirit coming upon a person for a certain amount of time for a certain purpose. That amount of time could vary, depending on God's purpose. But under no circumstance could anyone in the OT be said to have "received the holy Ghost", as in the NT.

Keep reading, and keep thinking while you do it.

Pastor John

November 14, 2002

Thank you, John.

I have another question about that: Why would God put a ceremonial law like that in the 10 commandments? Is there any special importance to it?

Thanks,

Jackie

Jackie:

Obviously, the Sabbath day commandment was important enough to God to speak it out loud to Israel from above Mt. Sinai, but there were many other important commandments, disobedience to which commandments would result in the most severe punishment: being "cut off" from God, or outright execution!

I do not know why God chose to include that commandment among the first ten, but who knows how many commandments He intended to speak to Israel, had the Israelites been able to hear His voice? After all, they are the ones who begged God not to stop speaking to them, and they pleaded with Moses to go up on the mountain to hear the rest of God's commandments so that they would no longer have to hear His mighty voice.

Pastor John

November 14, 2002

John,

I have a question about Job ch.40 & 41, I seem to see dinosaurs, & even dragons. What do you see?

Dwight

Dwight:

I see in such chapters mysteries that are best left alone until Jesus reveals what they are about.

For this time in history, Dwight, it is best to concentrate on the essentials. The body of Christ is so divided and weak that entering into debates over, or even discussions about such chapters is often counter-productive, as Paul said discussions about Jewish genealogies were in his day (1Tim. 1:4; Tit. 3:9).

Let's concentrate on these things for the children of God's sake:

(1) The New Birth: When is a person really born again?
(2) Salvation: When is a person really saved?
(3) The Sacrifice of Christ: Where was Jesus when he offered himself to God as a sacrifice for sin, and what was the result?
(4) Works: Do we have to live a holy life in order to be saved from damnation at the final Judgment?
(5) Receiving the holy Ghost: Does everyone who receives the holy Ghost speak in tongues when he receives it?

I am glad you have read Job; it is a difficult book to read, even though it is a wonderful book about God. But these issues listed above are some of the really essential issues that need to be addressed by the saints, Dwight, not whether or not God is talking about dragons in chapters 40 and 41 of the book of Job.

Pastor John

November 14, 2002

John,

In a Q&A message on 11-4-02, you stated that in English the single word "love" is used in reference to all types of love, and that it is a severe weakness in the English language. When I read it, the question came to mind, Could the same be true for the word "hate"? I thought about