[George]

Originally Posted by Samuel

I was waiting to see how this went before posting. I did listen to the complete series, and found several points I could not agree on.

But this was not my biggest problem, his complete arrogance, and overwhelming attitude, that you are too dumb to know anything I know it all, was a BIG turnoff for this man to me.

I recorded it for the purpose of displaying to others, that this is not the way we should teach the Bible.

Aloha brother Samuel,

And to all that you have said brother. This is a "brand" of Christianity, and the purveyors of it, that I personally avoid like the plague.

I didn't say anything - until brother BornAgainBibleBeliever514 asked: "Any comments on him?"

I have known Gregg Estepp since 1969 0r 70, when he was selling brother Ruckman's books out of his garage in Xenia, Ohio, and when he was the only reliable source for obtaining brother Ruckman's materials.

You can imagine my surprise, when 10 years later (1979 or 1980) he's a "full-on" DOCTOR, and a "Mover & Shaker" in certain Baptist circles.

Our "critique" of His heretical teaching on the so-called "Doctrine of Submission" should be enough to convince any genuine Bible believer that this man is "out of order"; and not only that, I have personally seen (on the Island of Kauai - 1984-1990) where his teaching on "The (FALSE) Doctrine of Submission" has split churches, divided Christian brethren (for over 25 years!), and even separated members of the same family (to this day!).

That's one of the problems with looking unto men to teach us spiritual knowledge, discernment, and understanding; and one of the "drawbacks" to the web: sometimes someone may "sound good" - but you never know until you have a chance to really get to know them!

There are far too many "jack boot", dictatorial, and authoritarian pastors out there in the world today, who "think" that God the Father has called them to REPLACE God the Son; and God the Holy Spirit; and God's Holy word; in God's own church - which He, God purchased with His Own Blood!

These men have offended more brethren (and lost people) than you and I will ever know (at least here on earth). And wherever they have taught their blasphemy, they have caused countless brethren to stumble and fall; they have split churches and divided brethren; and they have destroyed friendships, marriages, and families - all "in the name of the Lord" or course!

I have a hard time with men who are full of guile and deceit; and I have a difficult time with frauds and hypocrites; but the men that I cannot endure for even one minute, are "religious zealots" (Jackboot Dictators) who "think" they know more than anyone else, and who actually "believe" that God has "appointed" them to RULE OVER Christian brethren - as if God had "ANOINTED" them KINGS in Christ's stead!

The Holy Bible is real clear, as to what we are to do with such men:

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

[George]

Aloha brother BornAgainBibleBeliever51,

My wife just caught the fact that when you asked for "comments": you were actually asking for comments on Dr. David Peacock - my mistake for carelessly reading! It's not the first time that I have done this - ask Brother Tim! I want to apologize (ahead of time) if my comments offended you in any way. My Post #11 was NOT directed at you, per se, as much as it should be a warning to all, that we have to be especially careful (in this age of apostasy) as to who we quote or recommend.

From your Posts and comments, I, in no way, thought (or was intimating) that you were a "disciple" of Greg Estep, or a "follower" of his. It's just that I have seen the "fruit" of this man (and his doctrine) up close and personal - and it's not Scriptural, and it "ain't pretty"!

I am pleased that you are reading the article on the so-called "Doctrine of Submission". Brother Ed Burch and I spent weeks (actually months) transcribing Estep's false teaching from a 4 Cassette Tape Series (which I still have in my possession). The fact that you are willing to "check things out" tells me that you are nothing like Estep or any of his disciples.

Again, if there is anything that I have said in my Posts on this matter that has offended you brother, I am truly sorry - that was not my intent. I may be a crusty old curmudgeon, but I don't want to be guilty of the same things that I so strongly condemn in others.

[Samuel]

Posted By - BornAgainBibleBeliever51.

Please continue to let me know what else was you all think about that "hypothesis", and Samuel, since apparently your the only one who listened to it so far, what else did you notice that you couldn't agree with?

At this point I don't quite remember, I would have to run the disk again. I think? it was in the third presentation though. I'll try to check it out, and let you know sometime today or tomorrow.

[BornAgainBibleBeliever514]

Hehe, Dear crusty old curmudgeon,

I've not taken any offence whatsoever. I did ask for comments on Peacock, but that was just a side-note.

I realize that I may be coming across as looking to men for revelation, and in a certain way I am, but only in that they show me whats in the Book that I havn't found before. My final authority is still and always will be God's pure and preserved Word. It is scriptural that we should take advantage of learned teachers, they are there for our benefit, but that we should be like the Bereans and search out their techings to see if they be true.
I continue to to read my Bible daily, and try to learn it as best I can, but expository teachers are valuable too.
I know, I know, I shoud just study more, the Holy Spirit can and will guide me, but then why do we go to church to listen to a preacher? To learn more on top of what God reveals to us personally.

As for Estep, He may have other wrong doctrines or not, but I am more curious about this teaching on the 70th week being paused, and about the rapture occuring on the Jewish feast of trumpets (no year or minute predicting, just times and seasons). Its this theory I'm interested in, not Estep. He looks a little creepy anyways But this particular theory might be right.
I've learned to chew the meat and spit out the bones as it were.

I will continue reading the article about submission etc. As I'm spot-reading it at work, I agree there could be some bent toward excessive pastoral authority, but some of the other comments seem like they might have been taken out of context, I dunno. I'll comment more on that once I've read it completely and thoroughly.

[George]

Dear crusty old curmudgeon,

”I've not taken any offence whatsoever. I did ask for comments on Peacock, but that was just a side-note.

I realize that I may be coming across as looking to men for revelation, and in a certain way I am, but only in that they show me whats in the Book that I havn't found before. My final authority is still and always will be God's pure and preserved Word. It is scriptural that we should take advantage of learned teachers, they are there for our benefit, but that we should be like the Bereans and search out their techings to see if they be true.
I continue to to read my Bible daily, and try to learn it as best I can, but expository teachers are valuable too.
I know, I know, I shoud just study more, the Holy Spirit can and will guide me, but then why do we go to church to listen to a preacher? To learn more on top of what God reveals to us personally.

As for Estep, He may have other wrong doctrines or not, but I am more curious about this teaching on the 70th week being paused, and about the rapture occuring on the Jewish feast of trumpets (no year or minute predicting, just times and seasons). Its this theory I'm interested in, not Estep.

Estep. He looks a little creepy anyways But this particular theory might be right.
I've learned to chew the meat and spit out the bones as it were.


I will continue reading the article about submission etc. As I'm spot-reading it at work, I agree there could be some bent toward excessive pastoral authority, but some of the other comments seem like they might have been taken out of context, I dunno. I'll comment more on that once I've read it completely and thoroughly.”

Aloha brother BornAgainBibleBeliever514,

I appreciate your gracious reply and I am pleased that you weren’t offended. However I have some concern with some of the things that you said in your reply. And so at the risk of going from being a “crusty old curmudgeon”, (which I admit to being ), to becoming a “crotchety” old curmudgeon (which I hope that I am not) I will expound.

Your quote:

“It is scriptural that we should take advantage of learned teachers,”

Your statement is only partially true. God surely has called men to be teachers of His Holy word; and Christians can learn from teachers (however every Christian has an obligation to “study” on his own – 2Timothy 2:15). You said: “we should take advantage of learned teachers”, to which I shall add a “scriptural requirement”: - ONLY IF those teachers are FAITHFUL!

[2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to FAITHFUL MEN, who shall be able to teach others also.]

Webster's 1828 Dictionary:

FA'ITHFUL, a.

1. Firm in adherence to the truth and to the duties of religion.

[Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. Rev. 2.]

2. Firmly adhering to duty; of true fidelity; loyal; true to allegiance; as a faithful subject.

3. constant in the performance of duties or services; exact in attending to commands; as a faithful servant.

4. Observant of compact, treaties, contracts, vows or other engagements; true to one's word. A government should be faithful to its treaties; individuals, to their word.

5. True; exact; in conformity to the letter and spirit; as a faithful execution of a will.

6. True to the marriage covenant; as a faithful wife or husband.

7. Conformable to truth; as a faithful narrative or representation.

8. Constant; not fickle; as a faithful lover or friend.

9. True; worthy of belief. [2Tim. 2.]

With this Scriptural admonition (command) [2Timothy 2:2] in mind then – the very FIRST thing that a Christian should do when seeking out the truth is to make sure that the person doing the teaching is FAITHFUL. And if they are NOT – it shouldn’t be: “I've learned to chew the meat and spit out the bones as it were”; according to the Scriptures it should be: "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." [Galatians 5:9]

I can think of no Scriptural precept or principle which teaches that there is an EXCUSE for teaching FALSE DOCTRINE or HERESY! And I can not think of a single Scripture where we are encouraged “to chew the meat and spit out the bones as it were”. WHY is this premise accepted today? WHAT is so “hard” about teaching the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

This is the “danger” in listening to men (who you don’t know) and trying to glean the truth from what they say; why bother, IF the truth is mixed in with error, false doctrine or heresy? (The Roman Catholics and ALL Cults have SOME truth, would you listen to them? Then WHY would you listen to a man (who you don’t know) simply because he claims to be a Baptist or a Fundamentalist, or an “Evangelical”? You would be far better off getting a set of CD’s of the Holy Bible (read by Alexander Scourby) and listen to the pure Scriptures, than having to constantly SIFT through the leaven that is being taught in so many so-called “Fundamentalist” circles today.

LEAVEN is LEAVEN – no matter WHO is teaching it. And the Bible clearly teaches that leaven CORRUPTS, there are NO IFS, ANDS or BUTS about it.

[Proverbs 19:27 Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge.]

Your quote:

“It is scriptural that we should take advantage of learned teachers”

Can you give me the “Scripture” to support your statement? I scanned the entire Bible with Swordsearcher and could not find a single place in the entire Bible where the term “learned teachers” shows up. God is concerned with and requires FAITHFUL teachers, NOT just “learned” teachers. The modern day churches are FULL of “learned” teachers – the problem is that not many of them are FAITHFUL!

You said:

“I know, I know, I should just study more, the Holy Spirit can and will guide me, but then why do we go to church to listen to a preacher? To learn more on top of what God reveals to us personally.

Brother I am not trying to “strain at gnats” here, but Christians shouldn’t be going to church to “listen to a preacher”. We should be going to church to worship God first and second to “listen” to the word of God – NOT “listen to the preacher”. There’s far too much emphasis on “the preacher” (men) today and far too little emphasis on The Lord and His Holy words.

In your Post #10 you said:

“I am NOT advocating his submission doctrine, but I did note that saying a word isn't found in the Bible makes a doctrine false, is a weak argument. Trinity? Rapture?”

For the record, here is what we said at the beginning of our critique of Estep’s “Doctrine of Submission”:

Our Quote:

“At the beginning of Tape #1 Greg Estep states the doctrine of Submission is: “the most important doctrine in the Bible.” The word “submission” cannot be found in the Bible! How can this be the “most important doctrine” in the Bible when you can not find a single occurrence of the word in the entire Bible?”

“Mr. Estep then recommends two books that are the basis of his doctrine. 1: “The Tale of Three Kings” and 2: “Spiritual Authority”. Estep goes on to say that this is “The most important doctrine in the Christian life”. As (A.V.) King James Bible believing Christians we believe that a Christian’s Doctrine must be based on the Bible and on the Bible alone. Again and for the record: the word “submission” cannot be found in the entire Bible!”

For the record - You said: “saying a word isn't found in the Bible makes a doctrine false, is a weak argument.” If that is all we said, you would be correct. But we produced 50 (81/2” by 11”) type written pages proving our allegations! And the FACT remains – IF someone (a “Bible” teacher) is going to “claim” that the “doctrine” that they are teaching is “the most important doctrine in the Bible.” they should at least base that “doctrine” on words that can be found in the Holy Scriptures – or they might be guilty of ADDING to the Holy words of God. {I will deal with the words “Trinity” and “Rapture” in a little while}

You will note that I pointed out the same “problem” (ADDING to God’s word) in my Posts on Calvinism. In each of the “Five Points of Calvinism (T.U.L.I.P.) Calvinists USE WORDS that cannot be found in the Holy Bible to either “prove” their false doctrine or “prop” it up. WHY would the Lord Jesus Christ say: “. . . It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” [Matthew 4:4] IF it is appropriate for us to ADD to those words when we are teaching “doctrine” – especially IF it is “the most important doctrine in the Bible.”?

The following are my quotes from the beginning of each of the Posts that I made on Calvinism:

SECOND POST
The very first thing to note is: The words “DEPRAVE”, “DEPRAVED”, or “DEPRAVITY” cannot be found in the Holy Bible. This is always a “Red Flag” for me, since so much of False Doctrine (Psychiatry/Psychology for example) is associated with “words” not found in the Bible.

THIRD POST
{The word “election” is Scriptural - The Phrase “UnconditionalElection” cannot be found in the Bible! As a matter of fact – the words “conditional” and/or “unconditional” do not appear one time in Scripture!}

FOURTH POST
The fact that the word “LIMITED” only shows up once in the Scriptures, and the only use of the word in that one single verse being peculiarly anti-Calvinistic [Psalms 78:41 Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel.] should have given John Calvin (or some of his followers) at least pause in using it to describe the “Atonement”. {A VERSE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT IS A PRETEXT!}

FIFTH POST
Once again we are presented with another Calvinist doctrine which is established with the aid of another additional word that cannot be found in the Holy Bible, i.e. “Irresistible”. In the course of studying the five (5) major tenets (premises) of Calvinism, it has become perfectly clear that Calvinists enlist “catch words” that are foreign to the Holy Scriptures, (i.e. “Total”; “Depravity”; “Unconditional”; “Irresistible”; “External”; “Internal”) “catch words” that are cleverly used to influence an inquirer, in order to establish their doctrines. Shouldn’t the use of these extra- Biblical words (by Calvinists) be considered ADDING to the Holy words of God? If not – what should it be called?

SIXTH POST
To begin with, the words “persevere” and “persevered” cannot be found in the Holy Bible. The word “perseverance” shows up only once in the Bible [Ephesians 6:18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;] and has absolutely nothing to do with the Calvinist doctrine of the so-called “Perseverance of the Saints”.

I never made the claim that Calvinism is “false” based solely on the fact that all or part of the doctrine uses words NOT found in the Holy Bible. I simply pointed out the fact of the ADDITIONAL words and said that the use of words that cannot be found in the Bible to “prove” a “Bible” doctrine raises “a Red Flag” for me, since the Roman Catholic Church and ALL Cults do exactly the same thing!

Psalms 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.

Since the preceding verses are true {and there are lots more that I could use} - when teaching Scripture, “Bible teachers” should be using “Bible words” as much as possible in teaching “Bible doctrine”.

As for the word “Trinity” - I personally do not use it when teaching the Scriptures or witnessing. The Bible word that I use (instead of the Roman Catholic word “Trinity”) is the “GODHEAD” [Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; Colossians 2:9]. I learned this when I used the word “Trinity” in witnessing to A COUPLE OF Jehovahs Witnesses back in 1973, and they pointed out to me (quite correctly) that the word “Trinity” was NOT in the Bible, and that it was a “Roman Catholic word”. You should have seen the expression on the faces of the next pair of “Witnesses” that came to my door when THEY USED the word “Trinity”, and I pointed out to THEM that the word “Trinity” was NOT in the Bible, and that it was a “Roman Catholic word” - they were speechless! (Since they are pre-programmed to ask certain questions and answer according to the Watchtower Babble, they couldn’t deal with the “tables being turned”.)

And as for the word “rapture”, that Christians use to describe the translating of the saints, I try to avoid its use in teaching and witnessing also (although I may have to explain to people why I don’t use the term). The only place in the Bible where we have a clear “picture” (type) which describes what is going to happen to those saints that are alive at Christ’s gathering His body to Himself, is the example of Enoch:

Genesis 5:21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:
22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was TRANSLATED that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had TRANSLATED him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

In teaching and witnessing about those Christians that are alive at the time The Lord comes for His saints, I always use the word “TRANSLATED” - Why not use “Bible words” to describe a “Bible doctrine”? Personally, I don’t understand why it is so difficult for Bible teachers to refrain from ADDING to; or SUBTRACTING from; or CHANGING God’s Holy words. If a person is a genuine Bible believer, then he ought to have a natural love for God’s word and a high enough regard for it, NOT to MESS with it!

Also in your Post #10 you said:

“I do agree he is a bit arrogant, but plenty of other, correct preachers are even more so (A certain favorite name probably pops into one's mind right about now.”

Without going into any of the dirty details, there is no comparison between Gregg Estep’s mean spirited “style” of preaching and teaching and “someone” who shall go unnamed. I read over 80 books by “someone” and listened to hundreds of hours of his preaching and teaching between 1968 through 1988, and I can tell you that, with the exception of Bible CORRECTORS, I have never heard the kind of malicious, hostile, hateful, and malevolent remarks that come out of Mr. Estep’s lips, ever spoken by “someone”. “Someone” saves his vitriol, sarcasms, and harsh remarks for Bible CORRECTORS – NOT ordinary Christians. Why some where’s in the four tape series Estep brags about KICKING OUT HIS OWN DAD OUT OF “HIS” (ESTEP’S) CHURCH!!!

We live in the age of apostasy; where there is so much FALSE TEACHING and so many FALSE TEACHERS in the churches that the only way for a Christian to have pure and “sound doctrine” is to keep their eyes and ears on God’s word and stop sifting through the chaff looking for diamonds.

Like I told brother Tonybones recently:

“At this point in my life (at 68 years old), other than preaching the Gospel (which ALL Christians should be doing – not just “pastors”) - I have four basic concerns: WORSHIPPING THE LORD (“in spirit and in truth”); SOUND DOCTRINE (I am a “moderate” Dispensationalist); CHRISTIAN LIVING {Concerning our conduct towards the brethren and the lost); and DEFENDING THE BIBLE (A BOOK that I can hold in my hands).”

At my age, I don’t have time to speculate about just exactly HOW God created the world (“Gap” or no “Gap”); and while prophecy is of interest to me, I don’t have time to try to figure out all of the details about the Great Tribulation, The Millennium, Eternity, etc.; and I don’t have time to work out all of the details about Hell or Heaven.

I just BELIEVE ALL of what I read, and accept it ALL as being TRUE; AND IF I DON’T UNDERSTAND IT ALL, OR IF God isn’t showing me something, I just let it be – there’s too much to do about those four concerns (the WEIGHTIER MATTERS) to spend time on things that God will surely straighten out for me when I meet Him face to face.

[CKG]

Originally Posted by BornAgainBibleBeliever514

As Estep points out, the Jews already made their covenant with the antichrist, or at least a type of him when they said:

"Jhn 19:15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar."

Daniel 9
26. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27. And he (the prince that shall come) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

[CKG]

Originally Posted by BornAgainBibleBeliever514

As Estep points out, the Jews already made their covenant with the antichrist, or at least a type of him when they said:

"Jhn 19:15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar."

Daniel 9
26. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27. And he (the prince that shall come) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Daniel 9:27 says 'the prince that shall come" shall confirm the covenant for one week but there's no record that this event has ever taken place so the full one week is still future.

[BornAgainBibleBeliever514]

Hi George and CKG!

My power supply blew up last week, and I've been totally busy this entire weekend, my church had a three-day revival, six sessions, which just wrapped up ( but not the revival itself, AMEN ! ). So I haven't been on the forum much this weekend.

First, Thanks for continuing on with my questions. George, apparently, your computer was working fine and either it or you is overclocked to put out such a long response
Frankly, I need some time to digest it before I can respond to it.
But gracefully, CKG's was shorter, and I can respond, not to imply George isn't graceful, but I'll have to muster up some crochety to talk to the old curmudgeon.


CKG, your point about the prince that shall come is indeed pointing to the future, but the chief priests accepting the Caesar as their king in John 19:15 happened hundreds of hears after the book of Daniel, so it doesn't really contradict, the time line is still intact.

John 19:15 could be the record of the covenant taking place.
Might I add, on the topic of time lines, When the 70 weeks started rolling, it transitioned from the 7 weeks for the rebuilding of the city into the threescore and two weeks until the Messiah should be cut off, without so much as a pause. Why shouldn't the 69th roll into the 70th without a pause?
After the resurrection and the ascension, the gospel being preached was the kingdom of heaven to the Jews.
The Body of Christ started with the resurrection, but only included Jews being added through apostolic signs and wonders, until the nation of Israel rejected God the Holy Spirit, and then the gospel changed to include the gentiles by grace through faith alone: the kingdom of God.
<<< Insert a big PRAISE GOD! here >>>

Seems logical to me that that's a big change, and the 70 weeks got paused there.
Remember that the Lord Jesus Christ is seated at the right hand of God's throne?

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

And we always think He's been that way ever since the ascension, however:

Isa 3:13 The LORD standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people.

Since the gospel was still to the nation of Israel alone in those first 220 days of Acts (as this theory we're discussing suggests), then this makes sense with Stephen's stoning, where he:

Act 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

Jesus stood up to plead and judge the nation of Israel at that moment, because their offer of the kingdom of heaven was still valid, God was still dealing with the Jews. This is evidenced by the working of apostolic signs and wonders, the early Acts doctrines of Baptismal regeneration, and the fact that right in Acts chapter 1, they needed to appoint a replacement, twelfth apostle, in order that the nation of Israel could legally be judged.

But right after Israel's "last chance" at Stephen's sermon to the Jews, (NOT in a replacement theology way, just their last chance to receive their Messiah by faith), then things really started changing. An Etheopian gets saved; Saul, of all people, gets converted (in a remarkable type of how the unbelieving Jew will be converted at the second coming); the apostolic signs and wonders begin to cease; and Peter receives the vision concerning unclean things.
The signs and wonders ceased in Jerusalem right then, and only happened a little bit since to convince unbelieving Jews that the gospel was now open to the gentiles.



Anyways, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, or debate, I just want to discuss the theory that Greg Estep put forward in those sermons I linked to.
George, I know you are concerned about Estep as well, and so am I.
But the purpose of this thread is to discuss the theory, not Estep.
I'll answer your other post soon, and in no way am I mad at anyone over this, even if they don't agree. In fact, I want a discussion, so that together we can test the theory. I'm not dead set on it, if I'm wrong, I can change.
My interest is in the Truth, and I thank the Lord that you guys are here on this forum to give me someone to talk to about it.
I've asked the Lord about this theory, or revelation, whichever it turns out to be, that He show me the truth of it. My eyes and heart are towards Jesus, with a sincere desire to know what He wants me to know.

George, I appreciate your concerns, and I will answer you, but trust that my final authority isn't Estep or any other man, but rather its God's Holy Word.

Preliminary comment, George: Show me one human teacher/preacher that actually has 100% truth that I can learn from without having to chew the meat and spit out the bones...
If something is a heresy, I will spit it out and won't condone it. For example, I don't believe in the gap theory, but am I then to throw out everything God gave brother Ruckman because he also teaches the gap? That would be a waste!

Once more, this thread really really isn't about Estep, but about the theory he advanced in that particular sermon. I only reference him, because I haven't heard anyone else say it before. If he has other doctrines, or teachings done before or after this that are incorrect (that I never heard yet), then I will reject them. But if the 70 weeks time line theory is correct, I'm not going to throw it out.
Billy Graham used to preach some sound stuff (wayyyy back), but then he became a Romanist. Does that invalidate something truthful he said that a long time ago?

Thanks once again, brethren, for taking the time to talk with me about this theory (Daniel's 70 week time line). I'm not terribly interested in discussing Estep, but by proxy I guess we must, but I'd rather focus on the Bible and what it says about this prophecy.
I appreciate any and all concern anyone has for me, and I thank you for your efforts to talk about it. I'm sure that as long as we all seek Christ on every page, the body will be strengthened and edified.

[BornAgainBibleBeliever514]

Aloha brother George!

Originally Posted by George

Your statement is only partially true. God surely has called men to be teachers of His Holy word; and Christians can learn from teachers (however every Christian has an obligation to “study” on his own – 2Timothy 2:15). You said: “we should take advantage of learned teachers”, to which I shall add a “scriptural requirement”: - ONLY IF those teachers are FAITHFUL!

[2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to FAITHFUL MEN, who shall be able to teach others also.]

I fully agree with you, as well as with the additional scriptural requirement that the teacher be faithful. To that I will add that the faithfulness I demand is in what is being taught. Find me a single pastor who is 100% correct, and lives it 100% correctly, so that I can trust their teaching implicitly. Might be hard to find. Rather, like the Bereans, I will receive the word with all readiness of mind, and then search the scriptures daily to see if those things are so. Those Bereans were checking out what Paul taught them then. Had they gone back and dug up what he had been teaching as Saul, they would have been foolish to reject what he was teaching as Paul.

I know you posted some stuff about another tape Estep had done much earlier, and I'll be honest with you, I didn't get all the way through it yet. That day at work got really busy, and then that night by PC blew up, so I haven't been able to check it out thoroughly, but how do you know that God didn't deal with Estep over that submission thing before he did the 70 weeks sermon?
Some people think that Kent Hovind shouldn't be listened to because of the tax scandal, but does that change anything he taught about evolution, creation, salvation or the Truth of the Book?

With this Scriptural admonition (command) [2Timothy 2:2] in mind then – the very FIRST thing that a Christian should do when seeking out the truth is to make sure that the person doing the teaching is FAITHFUL. And if they are NOT – it shouldn’t be: “I've learned to chew the meat and spit out the bones as it were”; according to the Scriptures it should be: "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." [Galatians 5:9]

Touche, Galatians 5:9 is a very good point, and I've oft noted the leaven effect with the blatantly heretical folks out there.
However, I honestly don't detect any heresy in the 70 week time line theory (yet?)
Your point is well taken, and I am watching for it whenever I listen to that sermon again. It still doesn't disprove the theory though. Even used car salesmen can clean up their act and tell the truth once in a while.

I can think of no Scriptural precept or principle which teaches that there is an EXCUSE for teaching FALSE DOCTRINE or HERESY! And I can not think of a single Scripture where we are encouraged “to chew the meat and spit out the bones as it were”. WHY is this premise accepted today? WHAT is so “hard” about teaching the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I agree fully, there is no excuse for teaching heresy, but there is scriptural precedent of God taking an heretick and converting him to the truth, then being used by God to preach that truth. Find me a modern-times KJO person who didn't have to arrive at that conviction of truth by the hand of God, who didn't at first believe otherwise. On that note, it IS hard to teach the whole truth, 100%. We are fortunate to have men of God who come real close, but we will never have one at 100% on everything. There isn't a preacher living in the world that God is done dealing with on some area or another.
Fortunately, we have the ability and requirement to test a teaching against the Word of God.

This is the “danger” in listening to men (who you don’t know) and trying to glean the truth from what they say; why bother, IF the truth is mixed in with error, false doctrine or heresy? (The Roman Catholics and ALL Cults have SOME truth, would you listen to them? Then WHY would you listen to a man (who you don’t know) simply because he claims to be a Baptist or a Fundamentalist, or an “Evangelical”? You would be far better off getting a set of CD’s of the Holy Bible (read by Alexander Scourby) and listen to the pure Scriptures, than having to constantly SIFT through the leaven that is being taught in so many so-called “Fundamentalist” circles today.

This is very good advice, thank you. I agree, I went out on a limb with Estep, whom I don't know. It came recommended by a good Christian KJO friend, so I gave it a listen.
As a rule, I don't go around listening to everything and anything, trying to glean. I read the label, then try it out. Just like a grocery store, if the label agrees with what you are generally looking for, you give it a shot, but once you open it up and test it, if its not good, you don't buy it again.
I also don't personally know much about Ruckman, Gipp, Grady, Hovind, Cloud, Spurgeon, or any other. But I tried them based on the label, and upon having tested what I heard from them, decided to benefit from what they expounded. None of us would be able to pick a local church, or listen to any preacher at all if we weren't able and willing to do a bit of sifting along the way.

And NO, I wouldn't listen to a cultist, because their heresy is proven. But if a JW shows up at my door and says it a beautiful day outside, I can agree. Or if he says that God created the universe, I can agree until he says God first created Jesus in order to create the world, THEN my sift-o-meter starts beeping and I disagree.

But I appreciate the admonition to 'Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees'.
What I want to know is: Is the Daniel's 70 week time line theory leaven or not?

God is concerned with and requires FAITHFUL teachers, NOT just “learned” teachers. The modern day churches are FULL of “learned” teachers – the problem is that not many of them are FAITHFUL![/FONT]

I agree fully. My choice of words for learned teachers wasn't accurate, even misleading. Makes you think of a dusty old scholarly Bible-corrector, doesn't it?
I guess I meant capable, faithful preachers.

Brother I am not trying to “strain at gnats” here, but Christians shouldn’t be going to church to “listen to a preacher”. We should be going to church to worship God first and second to “listen” to the word of God – NOT “listen to the preacher”. There’s far too much emphasis on “the preacher” (men) today and far too little emphasis on The Lord and His Holy words.

I agree fully: Worship and the Word of God are the exact reasons I go to church.
A good preacher will always point the hearer TO Worship and the Word of God. That's kind of why I'm more interested in what the Word of God says about the 70 weeks, rather than who or when I heard about it from. Just like countless other subjects I hadn't yet clued into until a preacher talked about it, then my spurred curiosity sends me to the Word to search out the matter.


George, I LOVE your answers on Bible words versus words not found in the Bible. I especially loved the anecdote about the JWs and 'Trinity'. I will SO use that the next chance I get. Your points are well taken on this matter, but for goodness' sake, let's not get off onto calvinism in this thread too, hehe. Please, nobody hijack this thread onto the calvinism debate :P
I think your practice of using actual Bible words is terrific, and I will try to employ that myself.


As for the comparisons between a certain 'someone' and Estep:
I love that certain 'someone' and in no way am I against him. When he calls 'em like he sees 'em, one can't really argue, if he's right about the topic. I haven't had the privilege of covering as much of his material as you have, but I have covered some, and my impression is that the vitriol is aimed at anyone who is against the Word of God as he understands it. That includes Bible-correctors, unsaved sinners needing to repent, saved Christians who are still sinning, and anyone who doesn't agree with his stances. That last one isn't necessarily a consistent rule of thumb, but I did hear Kent Hovind's account of meeting him and how he started attacking Hovind over the gap theory, without proving it. I wasn't there, I don't know what really happened, but I know at least one good Christian who Ruckman was mean to over a non-doctrinal, non-Bible-correcting topic. Anyways, in the particular sermon I linked to for this thread, I didn't detect anything at all like the stuff you objected to in the submission doctrine tapes.

If the thing about Estep kicking his dad out of his church is true, and done without just cause, then that's pretty bad. But since I don't know the scenario, I will have to reserve judgment on it until I know more about the situation. Perhaps its in that other post you gave about the tapes you reviewed, I apologize that I didn't get through it all yet. From my current standpoint on that, not knowing WHY he got kicked out, I must give benefit of the doubt that there was a good reason, until proven otherwise. Like, maybe the dad was arguing for a heresy, or causing a disruption, or having an affair or something, I just don't know. But whatever the reason was, good or bad, I don't think its something to be bragged about, if indeed it was bragging.
Look, I'm not defending Estep, how can I? I'm just being neutral until given just cause to move either way.
I understand that Estep is a hot button for you, given your past experiences with him, but please remember, I'm really more interested in the 70 weeks, and I sincerely hope this thread can get back to discussing that.
For any other discussions about Estep, 'certain someone', or others mentioned in this thread so far, I'm open to having private emails on that, but I don't want this thread to be all about Estep, but rather the 70 weeks.

I agree with your statements about not having the time to try to figure out all the details, its logical. But I had been in prayer to learn how to counter the tongues and healing movement in order to help get some people close to me out of that nonsense, and a few months later, this 70 weeks theory comes along my path, so I'm looking into it, since they are very much related, and the people in my life I'm concerned about, didn't respond to the usual proofs against that movement...yet.

I owe you a thoughtful response on your voiced concerns, since I know you are doing it out of a sincere loving care for me, your brother, desiring that I not be deceived. Thanks, George. I'll let you stand in front of me in the lineup for the tree of life, and you can hang out in my mansion whenever you like - unless your mansion is even cooler, or unless we'd both rather spend all our 'time'? worshiping our Saviour, for it is Him we are worshiping in our efforts to seek truth here on earth.


Thanks once again, and sorry for the ridiculously long post.
Time for bed!

In Christ,
Brian

[CKG]

Originally Posted by BornAgainBibleBeliever514

CKG, your point about the prince that shall come is indeed pointing to the future, but the chief priests accepting the Caesar as their king in John 19:15 happened hundreds of hears after the book of Daniel, so it doesn't really contradict, the time line is still intact.

John 19:15 could be the record of the covenant taking place.
Might I add, on the topic of time lines, When the 70 weeks started rolling, it transitioned from the 7 weeks for the rebuilding of the city into the threescore and two weeks until the Messiah should be cut off, without so much as a pause. Why shouldn't the 69th roll into the 70th without a pause?
After the resurrection and the ascension, the gospel being preached was the kingdom of heaven to the Jews.
The Body of Christ started with the resurrection, but only included Jews being added through apostolic signs and wonders, until the nation of Israel rejected God the Holy Spirit, and then the gospel changed to include the gentiles by grace through faith alone: the kingdom of God.
<<< Insert a big PRAISE GOD! here >>>

Seems logical to me that that's a big change, and the 70 weeks got paused there.
Remember that the Lord Jesus Christ is seated at the right hand of God's throne?

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

And we always think He's been that way ever since the ascension, however:

Isa 3:13 The LORD standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people.

Since the gospel was still to the nation of Israel alone in those first 220 days of Acts (as this theory we're discussing suggests), then this makes sense with Stephen's stoning, where he:

Act 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

Jesus stood up to plead and judge the nation of Israel at that moment, because their offer of the kingdom of heaven was still valid, God was still dealing with the Jews. This is evidenced by the working of apostolic signs and wonders, the early Acts doctrines of Baptismal regeneration, and the fact that right in Acts chapter 1, they needed to appoint a replacement, twelfth apostle, in order that the nation of Israel could legally be judged.

But right after Israel's "last chance" at Stephen's sermon to the Jews, (NOT in a replacement theology way, just their last chance to receive their Messiah by faith), then things really started changing. An Etheopian gets saved; Saul, of all people, gets converted (in a remarkable type of how the unbelieving Jew will be converted at the second coming); the apostolic signs and wonders begin to cease; and Peter receives the vision concerning unclean things.
The signs and wonders ceased in Jerusalem right then, and only happened a little bit since to convince unbelieving Jews that the gospel was now open to the gentiles.

Daniel 9
26. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27. And he (the prince that shall come) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The Bible says HE (the prince that shall come) is the one confirming the covenant (Daniel 9:27) for one week. That has not happened yet. The one week doesn't start until HE (the prince that shall come) confirms the covenant. John 19:15 isn't a covenant. It takes two to make a covenant and John 19 says nothing about anyone confirming a covenant especially the Roman ruler. If the Jews were making a covenant in John 19, it was broken by Titus in 70 AD. Daniel 9 is very specific about how the 70 weeks are broken out. It says nothing about a starting of, stopping, and then restarting of the 70th week. It does tell us that "in the midst of the week he (the prince that shall come) shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate". Daniel 9:26 says the 69th week ends with Messiah being cut off and the last week doesn't start until he (the prince that shall come) confirms the covenant for one week. That's what the Bible says.