As some of you already know apologist James White of Alpha and Omega attended Fuller Seminary long after just about anyone in any Evangelical church knew Fuller had begun teaching that the Bible can't be trusted. If you're like me, you may have wondered if White did so knowingly and if he has since repented of that sin. And one may ask, if he's unrepentant, does he openly teach that such sin is okay? Those two things make a lot of difference. On the one hand, he may be a totally innocent victim of dishonest people or he may have done so at a time when he wasn't yet saved or when he wasn't yet grounded in biblical doctrine. On the other hand, he may have knowingly helped pay the salary of false teachers, prayed with false teachers, had fellowship with false teachers, all very sinful acts.
For that reason, I've kept my mouth shut until now concerning my doubts about White. In the comment thread of the post I'm going to give you below, he gives no biblical defense. He refuses to admit such behavior is sinful and he excuses it with a touching story and an excuse about not wanting to attend a school out of town, like the rest of us had to do.
Phil Naessens defends White because, supposedly, no one has proven White did these things. Phil does so even though White's educational background is public knowledge and inspite of the fact White admits and defends it in the very comment thread in which Naessens makes his defense of White.
Is Phil Naessens lying or does he not comprehend things so simple as this?
Is James White honest, or is he defending sin?
See what you think by reading here:
http://phillyflash.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/why-hasnt-god-moved-in-the-dr-ergun-caner-situation/
and here:
http://phillyflash.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/new-comment-policy-at-theology-today/
TWO ANSWERS PHIL NAESSENS DOESN'T WANT YOU TO READ--EVIDENTLY
Some of you have warned me about Phil Naessens. You were right. I was wrong. I counted Naessens as a friend and excused his nonsense as simply a result of a somewhat non-logical mind. He has stomped around the net verbally abusing folks who object to false teaching, pretty much as long as the false teachers weren't Word of Faith. He called folks defending the faith harsh, mean, hateful...you know the routine. Until now, whenever he did this and I knew about it, he seemed to take correction from me on the issue. That impressed me and I chalked it up to Phil not being a clear thinker and have defended him to some of you as such. Now, I'm not so sure. Either way, he needs to be called to account.
He actually started making accusations against me and just murdered Deuteronomy 13 in order to do so. Therefore, it seems certain that thought and purposeful intention is involved. And he doesn't want to publish my answers to his accusations.
Here are two of my answers he has so far refused to publish:
1.
Phil N.,
You said this:
“… you failed to provide us with is any evidence to support your assertions, insinuations and opinions on this thread.”
You’re wrong for two reasons:
1. He (White) admitted attending Fuller with full knowledge. Is he lying? What do you think–does that satisfy Deut. 13 rules of evidence? He confessed it and defended it. Do we need it in writing? Well, he even did that for us.
When you mention the Old Covenant standard of evidence, read just four more chapters. Deuteronomy 17. The standard for proof in a capital case was two or three witnesses. Public knowledge meets that quite nicely. The public has at least two people, right? That’s the biblical standard for proof. But more on that next.
2. James’ education and cruises are public knowledge. All you have to do is check the public record. It’s not done in secret. His education is public knowledge. He publicly advertised the cruise, didn’t he? The idea of the probing in Deut. is to find the truth. If it’s public knowledge, we know it’s true. If you had a question, you could have asked or googled it yourself.
On the “insinuations”, what insinuations? I’ve not been sneaky. I said everything outright. That’s why I’m hated.
Why should White touch on the issue of the cruises? You know the answer to that, Phil, better than most people. He takes the role of a teacher and the attendant authority. As such, he’s accountable to the body of Christ. He’s answerable, just like the rest of us. Galations 1:3, again. (As well as about 40 other passages.) And if we’re to test every spirit, who is he to stonewall and stop us from doing what God has commanded? That alone is sinful.
Is the Scripture on this to be obeyed? Is White an exception?
And that actually wasn’t my point. My point is there’s no good defense of such stuff. As such, it makes sense to divert, instead of answer. It’s good debate strategy. It’s also not very honest. Challenge me on anything and you get an answer because I’m not sneaking.
I missed Katie’s apology about the hypocrisy. Sorry about that, but I’m still not clear on what she meant in that last comment. I was, however, one bringing up these things. It’s pretty natural to understand it as she said it. If these things are hypocrisy, I’m a hypocrite for the simple reason that I did them. She doesn’t need to name me personally. Your objection here seems contrived in order to make a point. Do you really think she didn’t mean me along with others who had some of the same questions?
Now how many times have I repeated that I had never heard White present the gospel, Phil? The first time I brought it up, I framed it that way. Accusing me of lying or stating as fact something I didn’t actually know is wrong. And he does not follow the NT example of either teacher or evangelist in form or character.
As to Paul, he obviously is a supporter, if not a personal friend. That’s what I meant. And the point still stands, whether or not Paul is on White’s side. White knowingly fellowshiped with and helped pay the salary of false teachers who deny God’s Word. He rushes to defend his own reputation, but it’s okay to pay those who spoil the reputation of God’s Word?
Phil N., I asked if he knew about the false teachers, didn’t I? And I defended him if he was innocently ignorant, didn’t I?
You’ve not dealt at all with any of the Scripture I’ve brought up. Is it okay for James, or Boyd, or you, or I to support false teachers? Is false teaching a sin? If so, is sin allowed to continue untouched in the body? If not, is false teaching a special sin that isn’t subject to excommunication like all others are?
And you haven’t dealt at all with the historical position of the church. I’ve brought it up at least once on this thread alone. The Reformers wouldn’t allow White in their assembly unless repentance was demonstrated. Calvin didn’t allow it. Spurgeon didn’t allow it. Read about the Downgrade Controversy. Christians in Evangelical churches before the early 1900′s didn’t allow it. I can give you two histories on my shelves if you wish documentation about the early 1900′s. Jesus didn’t allow it in the churches. Rev. 2 and 3.
Were all these believers before us wrong? Did Carl Henry come up with a special doctrine all these people didn’t see in the Bible? Tell us from the Bible why our spiritual fathers going back to Moses and Joshua were wrong. Tell us why Matthew Henry was wrong on this. Tell us why J. Gresham Machen was wrong.
And don’t say these things are still unknown. James said he attended Fuller. And I googled this for you, though it has long been public knowledge: http://sovereigncruises.org/AO2007/
You DO have to take a side, Phil. In the past you’ve defended John Piper, Rick Warren, and Richard Abanes even though they’ve actively brought false teaching into the body. Everytime I have to defend the Scripture on this issue I lose confidence in you as a brother. How many times (do I have to do this)? On the other hand, you’re so quick to jump on anyone who defends the faith for their tone, their words, or whatever is the diversion of the day. ODM seems a dirty word to you, even though you do the same thing often.
When you told me you were teaching at a Greek Orthodox school, I was highly disappointed and I thought you probably hadn’t understood what they believe or that you hadn’t yet understood the biblical commandment to separate. I’d been so adamant for so long, I just didn’t do my duty, I guess. I didn’t remind you one more time. So, it’s not like I jump all over you at the drop of a hat.
Take this thread for example. You go from one side to another depending on what? For the life of me I don’t know what makes you go back and forth so. Here’s the sad fact: Not everyone will like you. You can’t please everyone.
And now, you’ve said that there is no evidence of the very things White confessed to, those things which were public knowledge long before he admitted them here. Are you kidding me? And now that we all know what he did, you’re still on my case.
Why?
In addition, you make up some sort of standard of knowledge about White I must achieve before I expose the sins he has done publicly. Where do you find that standard? In Scripture? No. It’s not there. If a prophet lies, I don’t have to know all he preaches, only that he lies. Deuteronomy 13 and 18.
Do you find that standard in any legal system? No. I don’t even have to know a man’s name to testify about what I know. I did that in the case of a killing. I didn’t know the name of the defendant or the victim and I still don’t. But I saw what I saw and I testified to what I saw.
Guess what? I saw White’s ad selling a cruise and pretending it was a ministry. And I saw his attendance at Fuller reported. And now we all saw White admit he did these things knowingly.
Did you see that, Phil. Do we need to send you a report in Braille?
And you don’t follow that standard yourself. You don’t know all I’ve preached, do you? Do you know my position on the days of Creation? And you didn’t seem to know a lot of things I brought up here. Did you know about Ockenga? Dan Fuller? Nancey Murphy? How about the first president of Fuller and his obsession with the approval of heretics? Did you know? You would call me ignorant for much the same.
In fact, you did.
You don’t have to answer that. Here’s my point: the “ignorant” excuse doesn’t change anything about the facts of what White stands for (your word, I’ve treated you with more respect than that). It’s just a way of smacking me, Phil. That’s obvious.
I’ll put it the same way August Toplady did long ago, in paraphrase. If I concede for sake of argument that I have ten heads and seven tales, what has that to do with the matter at hand?
I know the pull of what our culture, secular and religious, wants us to do is hard. Nevertheless, obey the Scripture. You aren’t grounded, Phil. You’re pulled by the Scripture and by the culture and by whatever was said last by whomever. That’s why you vascillate.
You will be more comfortable with yourself when you pick a side. For Christ or against Christ. You can’t keep doing what you’re doing. If you wish to follow Christ, it will take a daily conscious decision to ignore the culture and follow only the Scripture (dying daily), come what may. You’ll have a lot fewer readers and listeners. If you wish to follow the world, secular and religious, do what feels good at the time.
That’s my advice.
Finally, on your last post, I see you’ve said, “Opinions about issues are one thing. Opinions about people are another.” Do you know how unbiblical that is? Do you know why? Jesus commanded us to make opinions about people (teachers, to be specific) in Matthew 7 and Paul did the same in Galatians 1:3 and I Corinthians 5. John commanded it in his epistles. Moses did it. Paul warned us to avoid or endorse folks as teachers based on an evaluation of their character. II Timothy 2: 24-26. Proverbs 31 asks us to evaluate whom we marry. Psalm 1 tells us to form an opinion about our potential friends. It’s all over the Scripture, but banned in the world. Paul commanded Timothy to form opinions about teachers. II Timothy 2:2, I Timothy 3:1ff.
And have you stopped to think just how illogical this statement is? If it’s wrong to form and express opinions about folks, what have you just done? (For instance, I’m ignorant so I have to shut up, right?) You’ve just told us how you will form an opinion of folks and how you will decide if they’re allowed on your blog based on those criteria.
And I see we can’t say a lot of words anymore. That disqualifies much of Scripture. John the Baptist called out the Jews at the beginning of his ministry and offered absolutely no documentation other than public knowledge. Or is that okay now? Jesus did the same thing often. So did Paul. And, Phil, honestly I’m not sure you’re logical enough to evaluate that sort of thing. “Paul”, who defends all the false teachers at Fuller, accused me of writing things I didn’t and, when I called him on the deceit, you wanted me to apologize.
HUH?????
Sorry to be so harsh, but you need to pick–God or the religious world we swim in.
Phil Perkins.
2.
Phil N.,
I over stated something. You have dealt with some of the Scripture I’ve mentioned. Sorry. You just quit to applying it to White because I’m ignorant and because I have no proof (other than public knowledge and his admissions right here on this thread). I don’t think those are the real reasons, because they don’t make any sense.
Phil Perkins.
I added three explanatory parentheses, corrected some spellings, and may not have broken the paragraphs at the points I did when I submitted these answers.
AN IMPORTANT CORRECTION
Finally, I need to take some responsibility for my own lack of diligence. I removed White from my blogroll about the time I saw he was promoting a "Christian" cruise. Naessens has been on my blogroll for a long time. I considered removing him for some time, too, because of some of the nutty things he's written. I didn't want to hurt a friend, and he has been a good friend. That is a wrong priority on my part. Friendship is no excuse.
After this episode, I can no longer recommend anyone read or listen to him. If he's innocent and simply not a very logical guy, it's like the old saw about the anvil. Drop on anvil on my toe on purpose, my toe is broken. Drop it by accident, and my toe is still broken.
Deuteronomy 13:6-9 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
This is a sad thing.
Be holy, because God told us to--no excuses for any of us,
Phil Perkins.
Posts
Following The Good Shepherd Into Winter
3 months ago
34 comments:
Hello Phil Perkins,
I had decided not to ever involve myself with debates with Phil Naasen's ever again due to the horrendous confrontation and threat of a lawsuit against me by Phil Nassaen's if I did not remove a post I made on another private blog.
However due to your (Phil Perkins) exhoration to both Phil Naasens and myself to be brotherly, I was "moved" by the soft spokeness as well as the scripural conviction to repent to Phil Naasen's regardless how right I felt of my own convictions.
For the bottom line to me was this: Christ's Holy Name was being drug through this fight Phil N and I were having, for I was prepared for any legal threat Phil N was bringing against me for many reasons, the main one being that I was charged with defamation regarding the exact same thing I was receiving from Phil..so, in a nutshell it was simply in my mind boiled down to a power fight, which I was planning on entertaining to any length Phil N was going to go legally.
With that said Christ good name was taken in vain by both Phil N and myself for differing reasons..However, regardless of reason's the good name of Christ was the price of this war, which was the pivotal point of my true repentence to Phil Naasen's and continues to this day lest that repentence be in vain..For my repentence is first To Christ and secondly to PHil N which remains.
So, I walk on my comments here delicately for the reasons mentioned above.
I have read thoroughly the contention between both PHil Perkins and Phil Naaesens and without prejudice see from my own convictions and understanding of scripture including my walk with the Lord to this date that if I were to judge or discern between both arguments presented by PHil P and PHil N, that UNANIMOUSLY on all points that Phil Perkins has held true to both scriptural intepetation, application of that scripture and just as importantly has shown a true decency and fruit of the Spirit which in this case would be self control, temperance, and gentleness in light of some very confrontational as well as provoking statements made by PHil Naasen's.
Phil P did not provoke back, but answered PHil N with a very intellectual and thoughtful retort to the ACCUSATIONS out of no where from PHil Naasen's.
In closing I find Phil Naasen's to be very confusing for he "appears" to be playing both sides and in this case being the referee chastising both James White and Phil Perkins!!
That was the crux of my issues that began with PHil Naasen's as well..The provoking confrontational approach PHil Naasen's uses is in combat mode and it takes a well seasoned diplomat not to strike back of which I am not, and I unlike Phil Perkins smack talked back to PHil Naaesen's, which led to lawsuit threats..
In closing I just think that PHil Naasen's has a heart that means well and want to do well in the Lord. I feel unfortunately that he has taken a role he is not prepared or ready for, for many reasons, and one that he has confessed that he at one time was a heretic which takes alot of guts to admit to which I respect him for doing, unlike James White who appears to be more concerned about his name than Christ's.
This is the reason I give PHil Naasen's any credit and he appears to be a walking paradox.. I chalk it up to him still working through issues of being a big part of in his past life of something he is opposing now. However, there is more left in my opinion in PHil Naasen's that he needs to shed of his past life in the world of the heresy faith movement of which I believe he said he made money from and preached.
A preacher must be seasoned in character ... and character takes time.. NO crash course there.
Phil Perkins, you have done well, and are a fine example on every point made.. I find no fault in anything you have said in word and spirit..
Nice Job, and thanks for taking the time to make all your points clear,
Tim Smith
Hi, Tim.
Good to hear from you. I was at fault for not being more discerning. Lesson learned.
Phil Perkins.
Tim,
After giving the whole thing some thought, I don't think Naessens is just stupid. There's a lot of that, but he's really pretty sinful. The thing about threatening lawsuits is unbiblical and he knows all that.
And he plainly lied. Even after White admitted what he did, Naessens thinks he can just say there's no evidence for it? Does he want an affidavit from White? Who does he think will believe that?
A few will, but only those who already had their minds made up.
Anyway, I'll call you tomorrow again.
Phil Perkins.
HI Phil,
Yes, I agree whole heartedly. I never knew who White was until it was bogged on Phil Naessen's site. I read what White was doing and preaching.
Testing the spirit of a teacher is easy is you only know the basics of what is worthy of heretical versus what is non essential so to speak.
Clearly, in a matter of a few minutes I saw that White was suspicious at best. Then after more reading of the cruise deal for MONEY(MAMMON) That really settled alot, not to mention his dishonesty or walking around the issues regarding Fuller, and etc.
The guy has not come clean and needs to be corrected/rebuked for which he has not repented and finds more reason's to debate the rebuke and continue making mammon and supporting His CAREER, not CALLING, for a calling does not defend the messenger or the pocket books, but a career does.
Lastly, Phil Naessen's has said to be he has a CAREER TO protect!! I was shocked he could say that so cavalier not realizing how revealing that is to those who know the Lord just a little bit!!
To me personally that shows MOTIVE why one wants to defend heresy..because CAREERS PROTECT the messenger not the MESSAGE!!
That say's it all for me!! Careers are for the compromised and those who are not fit to endure to the end!!
For only those who ENDURE to the end will be saved..And the pressure of CAREER protecting will become even more crucial especially when the days get darker and those who stand for the Lord as a CALLING and not CAREER will be persecuted, and first from those who have CAREERS in the Lord as a priority.
Tim Smith(frere)
Career to protect? That tells us what he's about, huh? Quite opposite of what he pretends.
Phil.
Some career, too. He is studying under a rabbi, teaching at a Greek Orthodox school and claiming to be biblically orthodox. That's not a career; that's a mental menagerie. I don't think he's all that smart.
This explains why he goes from one side to another all the time.
Ya Phil,
I sensed alot of the same regarding his behaviour, reactions etc.
I have sized up Phil Naesaen's this way in regard to phone calls he has made to me and the messages he left which I decided to save for myself after he told me his calls to me were taped!! (All the time I thought he was calling as a brother in Christ, but when taping a call behind the person's back is at best contemptuous and at the very least insincere, disingenous and extremely concerning.
Naessan's now wants me to reply on his blog however he censors his blog like a Forum god.
He asked why I would bring Prasch into the scene. I brought Prasch into the scene with a link to his video discussing why guy's like Haggard should not lead again especially the way he is doing now.
However, when you pointed out the facts of Midrash, I couldn't in good conscience recommend him eventhough the message of TED HAGGARD types was right on!!
Again the focus was on Haggard who we all know is false except for Naessen's who counsel's this guy of all things and gives him a break on his forum.
The simple issues with Naessen's for me and it is from perspective of how he conducts himself is simple:
1. He has a great need for the Last word and need to be RIGHT at all costs. If he apologizes which he does, however he backs that apology up with a (but) statement which allows him to mutiate the one he apologized to like he did to Prasch for calling him somekind of name.
2. I am suspicious that he is a simple coniver, or LIAR type for purposes of manipulation.
Example: He had me write to his board of directors guy called Dr. William.
After a couple of formal respectful letters I noticed this guy would simply send them to Phil to read and PHil would reply to the letters from Dr. William.
I immediately referred to Dr. William as WILLY from then on because it was apparent he was a set up man with a set email address for Naessan's to speak through hiding himself by some made up STRAWMAN or FAKE PERSON.''
I could be wrong however, Dr. WILLY would never send me his credentials of being a PHD, he also would not send me any proof he was anything I asked for.
Dr. Willy wrote to me and said Naessan's had a stammering problem for why he mocked me on a phone call...Naessan's has no stammering problem at all which was an outright lie. This came from Naessan's which started with a strong confrontation and I stammered a bit due to the surprise of his overwhelming taunts to me..He then MOCKED me like a second grader and started to stammer as I did..which then led to my rebuke of him which he recorded according to Dr. WILLY.
This is just a sample of why I see Naessen's as a Liar, manipulator, and ANTAGONIST, which is displayed in about every post on Naessan's site..
I will list the rest of the laundry list as needed..My remarks about Naessan's comes from personal phone calls he made to me which displayed a character not worth having or respecting.
Lastly, a public threat of a lawsuit any judge would throw out, muchless a lawyer taking on!! threatening me to take every unemployment money from me for posting my views on Naessen's on antithesis site, writing in like manner of Naessen's defames agaisnt me on his site saying what I am.
More to reveal after we see what the forum god will report on his site of fantasy Island..
The only FANTASY going on here folks is that Naessan's is a simple WANNABE IN most everything he is involved in is my perspective..and worse a wannabe man of god who leads..
It doesn't get anymore pathetic than that..
Tim
Tim,
WOOOWWW!!! Taping you secretly? If you can document that it needs to be made public. That's insane. Can you do that?
I understand your frustrations now.
Phil Perkins.
Yes,
I can document it from emails from a so called Dr. William that I believe Naessen's operates through.
Regardless if the guy William is a real person doesn't minimize the most unprofessionalism from any PHD especially one that is suppose to be in the Lord!!
The proof came from an email from doc willy. He said he has listened to the tapes that were excerpted through skype.
I guess dr. willy has a "CAREER"(wink) to protect too!!!
Career's destroy well intentioned ministry's...For career's protect the messenger not the MESSAGE!!
Ya need lawyers to protect careers, but if you are CALLED, your only advocate or lawyer is Christ and any shame taken from that is called a reward who take punishment unjustly.
Need I say more..??
Copy of those emails shall be sent to you Phil..
Oh, Phil Naessan's, It may need to be a mutual street to have accountablility, however, if one has placed himself under another person who they deem as scripturally sound and authoritive, I simply see that as obedience to God's word and recognition that there are no rogue ministers or christians..
Phil Perkins continues to speak in soft spokeness and his rebukes are well within the limits of emotional restraint unlike yours pastor Phil N...
Tim
And so yet another one of Naessens' former-friends sees Naessens for what he is; a litigious, lambasting, lording, little, inveigler of information that likes to try to play both sides of the fence.
Pretty sad stuff from Naessan's..He's still wimpering in public, takes alot of time fantasizing how his persecution of his so called own are undeserving etc.
Yes, if you suffer for Christ's sake,it is a reward, however if you suffer from your own self willed actions then it is considered deserving.
In any case, Naaesan's reactions building a fantasy story and now is publisizing for others to feel sorry for him gives a whole new meaning to WEAK and PATHETIC!!
Move on Naessan's and keep defending finding excuses for the wolves and and pampering and counseling the phonies like Haggard!
By the way Naessan's think about this: If you as a pastor were caught in adultery and going to the playboy mansion for a 20 year stint behind your congegation of 7,000 people muchless a few million in the evangelical world, the last thing you should be doing to start over is to invite all the Play boy girls to your new church to get saved!!
So, Haggard being a closet Homosexual and druggie, starts over after only a 4 year break invites Gay's to his new church!!! It doesn't take a Profit, I mean prophet to see he will have plenty of temptations with his new found gay parishioners doing what they do best behind his new found churches doors!!
The higher standard will follow the lower..He will be tempted beyond belief when he see's so many nice young men to fantasize about (fantasy Island) for sure Naessen's!!
Have fun counseling your pet wolf!! Unblievable the blindness of the minds!!
Tim
I don't have any illusions of being one of the boys here, however, I have to admit that it is good to see Naessens being what he is! After all why are you guys complaining? Phil Naessens is just fulfilling his calling of stoning you to death according to his interpretation of Deuteronomy! Has it really taken you this long to recognize a snark? Oh, watch out! I better be careful, Phil might sue me! I guess I didn't properly source that snark comment. Got to understand that Naessens is just a cheeky sort of fellow, his actions have nothing to do with his lack of the fruit of the Spirit, does it? The Bible says that we are to be harmless as doves and wise as serpents, Naessens, it doesn't say to be a snake, your interpretation of Deut. regarding stoning, should tell anyone everything they need to know about you!
Robert Begnaud
Robert,
You don't have to be "one of the boys", whatever that is. And you don't have to document his snarkiness; we're all witnesses to that.
Question: I know Naessens did a podcast about Deut. 13. I didn't listen to it. What did he say that you think is wrong?
Phil Perkins.
Folks,
or whoever is listening: This is a matter of voicing some facts and statements made by Phil Naessen's on another blog site "Antithesis"
Let me state, I don't know who Antithesis is and I do not know if he has the right doctrines. However, the purpose I am copy/pasting a couple of posts where Naessen's is threatening to sue, and also states to Antithesis that he has a career to protect shows two things;
Phil uses power threats of lawsuits to force his will on those who do the same things he does, which is simply create remarks on blogs about himself he does not like, just as he does with me calling me Tatoo and Phil Perkins Mr. Rourke from Fantasy Island.
He also lambasted me on his own site calling me weird among other things while banning me from his site to reply.
This kind of antics is what get's christians like me to confront christians like Naessen's. Christian or not, one cannot cry foul when they do the same "damned" things..and I say that in respect for they are damnable antics at best.
I have been told personally from Naessen's that he has a career to protect, and no man of God protects a career, for a called man of God is called a "CALLING" not a career..For a Man chooses a career regardless if God has called him or not, However, it is God who CHOOSES A man who will go forth and be a vessel that STEWARDS God's word and teaches his sheep.
A calling will not sue any brother to court..For it is God who will do the bidding for His servant. Also any christian who is persecuted for Christ's sake is a REWARD!! AND Christ's command is to take the persecution as Christ has taken persectution without striking back especially with Lawsuits which the WRITTEN WORD who true apologists will obey and teach, unlike Naessen's.
What was said here in this blog against Antithesis was also threatened against me in word on two recorded calls filled with rage and hate stating not only would I be sued for posting on Antithesis site a things Phil did not like, but he would empty my pockets and take every dollar I had from my unemployment checks, and would also do a background check on me and post every thing I had committed on the internet.
This folks is not only a vile attack and a gross sin of rage and hate, that should never be seen by any brother against another brother.
Due to Phil Perkins both PHil Naessen's and I asked for forgiveness of each other and received it.
So, why am I bringing this to light?? Because now he has attacked Phil Perkins who was the Peace maker between Phil Naessen's and I not for our sakes only, but for Christ's sake and Christ did speak through PHil Perkins word on Naessen's blog that day.
Unfortunately a couple of weeks later, Naessen's was sticking it to Phil Perkins and now I see a need to re-open some facts due to a fresh attack again against a brother that PHil Naessen's disagrees' with regarding this James White heretic thing as I was attacked because I continued to call Haggard a Wolf and Naessen's took it like a personal attack against himself which led to lawsuits and personal attacks against me on his blog.
With that said see this pattern of vileness that Phil Naessen's uses again against Antithesis.. I am appalled by such a need to be heard and obeyed lest receiving a damning word or threat to take to the courts of sinful man.
(Tim Smith)
Phil Naessen's antics will be copy pasted on the next post.
I don't listen to Phil N. regularly but I did listen to his recent pod cast http://phillyflash.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/the-battling-blog.mp3
Phil Naessens compares his ministry with Old Testament stoning, as in stoning false prophets and teachers. That explains to me everything I need to know about the personal attacks and the vitriolic nature of his "ministry". I believe using Deut. in this way demonstrates a classic misunderstanding of application of the law. I of course do not live under that law, but the law of freedom in Christ Jesus, where I have been set free from the law of sin and death. Phil Naessen's "ministry" is right when he points out clear error, as in Todd Bently. But he is way off when he approaches complete strangers, like myself and starts a trial of mockery against a stranger amongst his friends, which are in his corner and then proceeds to demonize that stranger publically, or as Phil N. might say, spiritually stone that stranger. How by the way did Phil Naessens get google to put a front pick story of a biased report on the internet against me? In this new report I was charged with nine misdemeanor accounts of breaking the noise ordinance 10 years ago. They claimed my rooster crowed to loud and my dogs barked to loud. The district attorney lost the case when it was thrown out! Naessens claims to be google savey I guess I cannot deny that, he must be. This sort of attack dog mentality is not just, merciful nor is it godly! You may not like nor agree with what I say and I do say some hard things! But I am not unjust and I do love mercy and I do walk humbly with my God! I left Phil N's brand of Christianity many years ago, I am not a part of his group, neither to I answer to Phil N., in other words, I am not a Matt. 18 candidate for Phil N. and neither is he for me, that is why I took down my original rebuke of Phil N. I don't have a problem reasoning truth with strangers, if I can meet on a fair playing field with that stranger. However, when it is clear to me that the fix is in, and there is no justice and mercy at the forefront, I am done! There is nothing that I have said or done regarding Mr. Naessens that I didn't mean, with a truthful honest heart, however, when someone insist that you play according to their rules, they began to tell everyone else what you said and what you meant by it, if they have the mic. there ain't a whole lot that you can do about it! Let Naessens go ahead, one of these days he is going to run into someone as disobedient to scripture as he is and he is going to get his butt sued off! Just a matter of time. Phil N. has no more right to "spiritual stoning" than anyone else, he is just wicked enough to do it! I don't debate, I reason Isaiah ch1.
I don't listen to Phil N. regularly but I did listen to his recent pod cast http://phillyflash.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/the-battling-blog.mp3
Phil N. compares his ministry with OT stoning, as in stoning false prophets and teachers. That explains to me everything I need to know about the personal attacks and the vitriolic nature of his "ministry". I believe using Deut. in this way demonstrates a classic misunderstanding of application of the law. I of course do not live under that law, but the law of freedom in Christ Jesus, where I have been set free from the law of sin and death. Folks like Todd Bentley should be opposed, but he is way off when he approaches complete strangers, like myself and starts a trial of mockery against a stranger amongst his friends, which are in his corner and then proceeds to demonize that stranger publically, or as Phil N. might say, spiritually stone that stranger. How, by the way did Phil N get google to put a front pick story of a biased report on the internet against me? In this news report I was charged with nine misdemeanor accounts of breaking the noise ordinance 10 years ago. They claimed my rooster crowed to loud and my dogs barked to loud. The district attorney lost the case when it was thrown out! Phil N claims to be google savey, I guess I cannot deny that, he must be. This sort of attack dog mentality is not just, merciful, nor is it godly! You may not like, nor agree with what I say, and I do say some hard things! But I am not unjust and I do love mercy and I do walk humbly with my God!
Thanks for that story Robert. Wow!!! I guess Phil Naessen's does have rabid teeth to his bark.
I believe every word you have said Robert, for I have been threatened in like and have proof on two taped calls. He called the third time simultaneously I might add and didn't make a recording for I figured his rage had a moment of sanity and he may have realized he is doing himself in by giving me COURT ROOM EVIDENCE of his behaviour not mine, which is one of the reasons I did not answer the phone. The second reason is that his threat to have PI hunt me down in my home town had me thinking scared including physical harm..If you ever heard Mel Gibson on his rage messages to his ex girlfriend, then you would have heard the similar tone from Naessen's to me, except it was filled with a vile sinister voice including calling me little man, says I am in big trouble and my unemployment check is not big enough, Second message states, that he say's I am shaking in my boots, and he is going to publish my name and calls me sweet heart and coward among other things.
This crosses many lines and could easily pass as a serious threat of greater magnitudes.
The guy had me thinking hard of filing a police report in the event something did happen to me..This kind of rebuke is not only wicked but is mentally sick indeed..The tapes are on hard file for future reference if I need them.
Seeing him act this way to you and others shows a pattern of grave concern. I am amazed how you were forced to be compelled to his Will, just to keep from dealing with a maniac that has proven consequences that are not worth fighting.
All I can say, is that God is exposing this man, and a comilation of the same complaints can easily result in a class action should it be necessary just to constrain him from these vile scary threats.
Greece may need to be contacted at this rate.
Regarding the Law, He sounds like he lives like a 7th day adventist, a law keeper but say's he is still saved by grace...Scary position especially when you take the roll of God's mouth piece.
I couldn't think of a scarier place to be in the Lord!! PHil is being exposed and I have no concern to announce it publically on this site or others as he has done to so many others.
I will post how Antithesis was treated as well with the same threats..
And yes, Robert, you said it well from Malachi!! And what does the Lord require of you??
But to do Justice, and to love kindness and to walk humbly with your God!!
No more is needed to complete His perfect will!! What a simple loving instruction and command!!
Tim
Phil is STILL over on his site calling hyperpreterists "Christians". For those who do not know, Hyperpreterists are people who believe Jesus came back once and for all in about AD70, that the resurrection of the believers is past, the judgment is past and there will be no end of sin or culmination of God's plan -- yet Phil calls these people "Christians"???? (see here)
Roderick,
Weeellll, there you go. He remains unwilling to stand. Unless you're orthodox. Then he'll stand. In fact, he just might sue you or try to extort you.
I really wouldn't give him another thought. Dust off your feet and fellowship with real Christians.
One note, though. I don't remember if it was you or someone else on this thread (and I don't have the time to reread), but someone mentioned his abuse of Deuteronomy 13, saying he's verbally stoning folks who deserve it.
First, stonings weren't the function of any individual, but of the assembly. A matter was to be examined, the elders were informed and consulted, and the entire assembly stoned the guilty.
Second, someone said that Deuteronomy was the Old Covenant and so, we could ignore Phil N.'s nonsense. Here's my concern on this:
I don't know exactly what was meant, and so please take this in the spirit it's given. If I'm assuming something that wasn't intended, correct me, but one thing we can't do is to simply dismiss any part of the Old Covenant because all Scripture is profitable. While we don't stone false teachers, we don't ignore Deuteronomy, either. The fact that God wanted them killed indicates just how serious false teaching is.
I use this passage a lot for the simple reason it shows that those who think we ought to be tolerant of serious false doctrine aren't obedient to God's word.
God bless,
Phil Perkins.
Thanks Phil, I've long ago dusted off my feet from Naessens but only post occasionally about what he is saying or doing so others might avoid the dupe of Naessens.
As for Deu 13, it wasn't me who posted anything against using it. All scripture is profitable. I use Deu 13 a lot as well to show that the community of saints isn't supposed to tolerate in its midst, things like hyperpreterism. Although we may not actually stone people today, we should as the collective community of Christ be ready and willing to treat false teachers as if they are dead to us.
Roderick,
Thanks for straightening me out on that.
Phil.
Ugh, it gets worse. Now Naessens did a pally-pal podcast with a leading hyperpreterist and calls the guy a "Christian". Could you imagine doing a podcast with a Mormon and calling them a fellow Christian?
Naessens even notes, that it is "interesting that he and the hyperpreterist host has the same enemies". Why would this surprise Naessens when he is known for his compromise with heretics and errorists?
It is strange how Naessens praises the Greek Orthodox for not allowing cultists to run amuck yet he chides us when we oppose him buddying up with cultists.
Check it out: http://thepodcast.org/michael-j-loomis/the-antithesis-hour-08-25-2010/
Roderick,
Greek Orthodox? He's defending that junk now? He must like those flat top hats. GO's believe we enter the church through baptism, and sins committed after baptism are forgiven through ritual confession to a "confessor".
They're heretics. They may have jaunty hats, but they're still heretics.
Thanks, but no thanks on the podcast. Or anything else that nut is into.
Phil Perkins.
I said that using Deut. on the issue of stoning is wrong and demonstrates a carnal misuse of Old Testament scripture. Explains to me why Phil N. tries to destroy and attack individuals. However, I didn't say that Old Testament scripture is not useful to reprove. To complicated and long to make my case here. I stand by my statement. However, it should be noted that it was Jesus who stopped the stoning of a guilty woman and it should also be noted that the religious leaders would have stoned Jesus on many occasions if they could have. People who believe themselves so wise in our day and so learned and are therefore quick to pick up stones, are the Scribes and the Pharisees of our day. They are simply mob controllers who use the weak and ignorant to rid themselves of those who they deem a threat. No love of God in them at all!
Robert,
Thanks for clearing that up.
Here's a teaser question--food for thought:
Under the Old Covenant, when the assembly killed false prophets, did they do so out of love? (See Leviticus 19:16-18 and I John 5:2-3for the answer.)
And here's another one:
If Jesus stopped a stoning, did He ever (key word is "ever") command one?
Think it through. Heavy implications here.
Phil Perkins.
Of course they were commanded to do everything out God's love. I don't recall Jesus commanding anyone to be stoned, unless you mean the time he said "let him who is without sin cast the first stone", however, if Jesus had done so, it would have been loving, perfect and godly. Before the law God said to Abram "walk before me and be ye perfect". That was the command that was given to Abram and to us. However, no one was made perfect by keeping the law, it was just a school master until the day of the inheritance where God's spirit came to live in his chosen elect. As I previously said "I do not live by the law of sin and death, but the law of life in Christ Jesus". Jesus said that all the law and the prophets are tied up in these two, which are really one in the same command, "thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart and thy neighbor as thy self". Today I hear of those who are against the death penalty because they believe that innocent people will be killed. I do see a correlation perhaps in my concern. If we loved judgment and loved mercy and walked humbly with our God, then I might think that men may by the power of God, in him, do justice while loving mercy and walking humbly with their God, I just don't see that to be the case today, I think we are far from judgment and the evidence is found in the lives of our own children, examples being : rebellious children, immoral children, children who know not God in truth - and so on. If it is not I that live but Christ that lives in me, then my works are righteous in him. No one shall arrive to true judgment by what seems right in their own eyes, even when they go to Old Testament law to justify their ways. "Doing what Jesus would do" requires his life and his power operating in us.
Robert,
Here is my two-fold point in the questions.
1. "Love" today and "love" in Scripture are NOT the same. Scriptural love isn't a sentimental feeling or a hesitance to punish sin. Love in Scripture is obedience to God and His commandments. I John 5:2-3, II John 6. "And this is love that we walk according to His commandments."
One of His commandments was to kill false teachers. Today that commandment has been changed to simply excommunicate them and wait for God to bring eternal judgment to them.
In either case, love requires sin be punished here and in eternity.
What that means is that the one who condemns isn't unloving. Only the one who condemns unjustly is unloving. We've been trained to hate the reprover. Did you read Leviticus 19? Loving your neighbor as yourself actually requires reproof. (The NASB is a lousy translation here.)
You say you don't see love. What does the Scripture say love looks like? It doesn't always look like an approving smile. It often looks like a scornful, demanding rebuke, a hard-boiled commandment to straighten up right now.
This sets Modern Evangelicalism on its head.
2. Jesus was much more condemning than any modern preacher I've ever known. Jesus absolutely commanded stonings. Have you ever read the Old Covenant? What God wrote that?
Answer: Yahweh--Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. God never changes. Jesus is God.
That's important because we've been lied to. Jesus didn't walk around like He just had His nails done. (Larry Norman) His preaching wouldn't be allowed in many American churches. He spoke almost never of the love of God for sinners. He constantly spoke of eternal fire, gnashing of teeth, weeping and the coming Kingdom.
You said, "'Doing what Jesus would do' requires his life and his power operating in us." Unfortunately, that sort of thinking is all over the "church" today. And it would be okay, but for the fact that most don't have a clue what Jesus was like. He was staunch, rigid, absolute, and demanding. If you didn't believe what He said, you'd live for eternity in unquenchable fire.
No mental haze. No gray. No maybes. And your opinion didn't matter.
We don't stone today, but the reason isn't that mercy has supplanted judgment or that it's more Christlike. If we want to be Christlike, we need to hate sin and love mercy. IN THAT ORDER.
Loving is Christlike, but no more than hating sin is. Either by itself is a lie.
Because we don't know Christ as He is actually portrayed in the Bible.
We don't stone today because the terms of the New Covenant are different than the Old Covenant. Under both covenants all who engage in false teaching or unrepentant sin are cut off into hell. The only difference is the time and cause of physical death.
The end state is the same and in the here and now they are to be cut off from the assembly of God's people.
The three Persons of the Trinity still hate sin as much as They did at the time of Moses. And at the time of Moses, forgiveness was as readily accessible as at the time of Paul. It was always by faith alone. Moses said of God and Abraham, "Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness."
Sit down this weekend or next and read the gospels. You can do that in a day. Read what Jesus preached. He spoke much of love, but it was almost always of the love of God for His chosen or the love God requires of His chosen for God and for others. In John 3:16, Jesus speaks of the love of God for sinners. And Jesus' personal love for the rich young ruler is mentioned in the gospels.
That's about it. The rest of the time He railed about sin and warned of coming judgment.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Wow,
I really enjoyed Phil's and Robert's dialogue regarding so many issues wrapped in one..
I will try to make my points short without explanation.
1. I alway's felt the only way to live the christian life is that the power of Christ lives it through us as Robert stated...and for Naessan's concerns of me..In the event he read this..I don't use the word "feel" to mean I don't have scriptural reasons or rationale for my feelings, for that is exactly where my feelings come from,,Not from some gnostic or emotional tingle down my spine as Naessen's subliminally or outrightly accuses me of.
2. I do believe, as Phil has stated that Jesus was much more rugged than what is portrayed in our contemporary churches.
3. Cast the first stone without sin? My answer was alway's and it may not be exegitical, but Christ's point or theme in his physical life was to show He was God and is LIFE itself..
Therefore the only one without sin that qualified for casting the first stone, was SIMPLY Christ Himself..
Again, He was about revealing Himself as the central theme and using the situations of life to show a dual message, and the central subliminal or outright message was Himself!!
JUDEMENT?? I believe or feel he was showing the WRONG use of judgement with mary magdelene. For it was hypocritical judgement he condemned..For that is never out of love, but the thirst for unrighteous anger to be mandated to another without any INTENTION of restoring the lost sinner, or allowing repentence for restoration..
4. Love? Yes, Agape love which is unemotional but chooses for the highest Good..short definition.
We are commanded to Love God First..and our neighbor second. I think the apostasy comes from getting this reversed andloving the neighbor and then loving God second which is simple mockery!
For then we serve the "feelings" of the world rather than show the hatred of the sin first...why? Because Man does not do God a favor by receiving a free gift of salvation..It's like looking the gift horse in the mouth.
Hence,,another reason why the world hates the real gospel..Because it shows the Hatred of the sin FIRST and mercy is CONDITIONAL upon accepting that fact...
Anyway, only my interjection...but in the end I "feel" this again points out the central issue...Which is Jesus said to Peter, WHO do you say that I AM??
That is the question of Life or Death for there is only one right answer..
Tim
Well Jesus defined love in John 14:15 when He said, if you love me, keep my commandments. A person who has little interest in keeping the commands of Christ isn't really "loving". People who want us to simply ignore error because we too were at one time in error, are even worse. Of course we all are sinners but this doesn't mean we don't call out sin.
This comes to mind after listening to yet ANOTHER erudite, condescending podcast from Phil Naessens. The guy specifically calls you out Mr. Perkins and acts like you and he never really had much of an association, as if it was a one-way street as if you were approaching him and not he you. This is his way of making it look like good-riddance to you Mr. Perkins, Naessens doesn't need you. Further Naessens talks as if we aren't accountable to anyone yet he supposedly is???? Naessens is the guy who claims to have been ordained by the heretical denomination of coC and then he is supposedly under the authority of the Greek Orthodox Church in Greece, yet he claims he told the Patriarch to "kiss his butt". Who then is the REAL REBEL? Naessens fake, "Oh, everyone is gunning for me and I don't deserve it because I'm such a nice guy" line isn't cutting it. His "blathering blog" is just that.
Fortunately Nassens audience is really limited to the hyperpreterists that love it when he validates them and calls them "Christians" and appears with them and quotes them. Fortunately Naessens' sphere of influence is limited to people who want to hear a self-absorbed, narcissistic, theological-relativist with a condescending voice.
Jesus said, love is doing what He commands. Do people like Naessens do what Jesus commands or do they do what they do because it feeds their ego and gains them friends, friends among heretics like the hyperpreterists?
Proverbs 18:24
A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.
I seek friends of quality, not friends of quantity.
Roderick,
It's Phil, not Mr. Perkins.
He's calling me out? To do what? I don't even read or listen to him. If he wants to debate me he can email me any time he wants.
Anyway, call me Phil.
Phil.
Being a Christian is as simple as the meaning of the word "like Christ". That I might know him in the power of his resurrection. When I say "do what Jesus would do", don't think that I mean the same thing that an emergent would mean, they preach a different Christ than I. There are those like Phil N. that use clever crafted words to convince others, yet have no power to transform the lives of the hearers. The image of what comes forth is not the true and living Christ, it is not about words, but about power (1Co 4:20) I am going to attempt to post a short article written by my sixteen year old daughter a couple days ago. She sent it to me and believed God told her to write it. Don't listen to me as I attempt to describe what I teach, listen to her; as the scriptures say "wisdom is justified of her children". She is my second to the youngest and is lying on the ground in front of our family here: http://www.thestraightwaychurch.org/html/upcoming_radio_show.html I will post her short article next exactly as she sent it to me unedited.
Article from Alyssa,
As we all have known, Man came from God and Men sinned against God and forever became sinners. And not only do we sin, but we are also foolish in our ways and only by the mercy of God can we be saved. Although when Men do sin, they are foolish and they result to excuses to justify their action. For instance, when one rebukes another for one’s sin, one might refer to the scripture verse “He who is perfect let him cast the first stone,” which is found in John 8;7 which is an excuse to say you cannot rebuke me for my sin because you are a sinner too. But the bible says “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him.” (Le 19:17 av) and it also says “Reprove a scorner, and he shall hate thee; rebuke a wise man and he shall love thee.” Pr 9;8. In the bible, it is actually saying that you are loving your brother for rebuking him, and us as Christians should love correction. But in the bible, it also warns us about rebuking someone wrongly and here is a scripture “Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.” Pr 31;9 When you rebuke someone, you are making a judgement that that person is sinning. That is why in the bible it says for us to be slow to speak, and slow to anger. “Wherefore my beloved brethren, let everyone be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:” Jas 1;19.
Some people might excuse themself and say, “I was born a sinner, and I’m just expected to sin, and everybody’s imperfect so it’s not that bad if I sin.” But this is just a big excuse to make them feel better when they sin. For it says in the bible, “Be ye there perfect even as your father in heaven which is perfect.” Mt 5;48. “And be not conformed into this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is good, acceptable, and the perfect will of God.” Ro 12;2. “But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.”Jas 1;4. All of these scriptures that I pulled up say the opposite of what the person’s excuse is. It says that you must be perfect. But we cannot be perfect unless God is the one through us making us perfect. We in ourselves are flesh, we are incapable of wisdom, true understanding, Righteous judgement, Truth, Perfectness. It is God who is perfect, Truth, Wisdom, Righteous judgement, and Understanding. And without God, we don’t have any of that.
Robert,
Give Alyssa a kiss right smack dab in the middle of her forehead for me, please.
Phil.
Done!
Kind of interesting the she had no idea of the subject on this blog or our exchange.
Blessings
Post a Comment