[pbiwolski]

"..confirm the covenant..."

What exactly is "the covenant?"

If you don't mind, I'm interested in comments from everyone here to see what the general understanding might be.

[Biblestudent]

Originally Posted by George

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!

Great idea, Brother George! In dealing with the cults, this will work.

While theologically-coined words may be necessary to describe Bible doctrines, periods, or events, there are times that some doctrinal issue
can easily be settled by using "Bible words". People who believe the same thing may think they differ when actually the issue is not with "Bible doctrine" but with terminology.

I remember some of my school mates in Bible school being confused when one Bible teacher said "Rapture" is the first stage of the "Second Coming", while the other Bible teacher said "Rapture" is not the same as "Second Coming".
View #1: Rapture is the first stage of the second coming. Rapture is Christ's second coming for the church. (The second stage of the second coming is "Revelation".)
View #2: Rapture is NOT second coming. The Rapture is Christ's coming in the air, while the Second Coming is on earth. The first coming of Christ was on earth; therefore, the second coming has to be on earth.

My reply was: well, what is called "Rapture" or "First Stage of the Second Coming" refers to Christ's COMING in the air when he catches the earth up, and what is called "Revelation", "Second Coming", or "Second Stage of the Second Coming" refers to Christ's COMING on earth to set up His kingdom. Both "rapture" and "second coming" are words not found in the Bible, but used to describe two different events. "Coming" is the Bible word.

Both View #1 and View #2 believe the same thing but call them a different way! I see their dispute as an issue of terminology rather than doctrine.

It looks like somebody arguing whether or not a certain four-legged animal is a pig or a swine.

[BornAgainBibleBeliever514]

It seems plausible to me that the covenant could be:

The unity between the Roman Empire (out of which the Antichrist shall arise) and the Jewish leaders to reject, silence, kill that 'rabble-rouser' who claims to be the King of the Jews, thereby allowing the Jewish religion to cohabitate in 'peace' with the world governing body.
The Jews are responsible for rejecting and having their Messiah killed, but they needed Rome's authority, power and custom to do so.

To this very day ALL the world's false religions exist and grow under authority and sanction (openly or secretively) of that mother of all harlots, Rome, including Judaism.

The conventional view of the covenant is some kind of world-publicized political agreement, something utterly new, whereby the nation of Israel gets exclusive rights to rebuilt and resume their temple practices on the temple mount. We picture a CNN exclusive where Mr. Antichrist and Mr. Top Rabbi shake hands over the cornerstone ceremony. I imagine there will be a fanfare, but I think the legal grounds for it might already have been laid.
I propose that if the alliance happened back in John 19, they may just get their temple rolling right after the translation of the church, or even slightly before. Its a bit of a mystery what exactly will take place immediately following or preceding the translation, in regards to the building of the temple.
Many sources say that they have all the furniture, implements, instruments etc ready to go already. It could go up very quickly, especially if the richest people in the world are behind its construction.

CKG: Thanks for your ideas.
About a covenant needing two parties to make it, they were very much indeed present in Jerusalem during Christ's 'trial'. Rome always wanted their version of peace and control over the Jews. The Roman ruler obviously consented to the desire of the Jewish chief priests to have but one king, Caesar, or else the crucifixion would not have happened by Roman soldier's hands. Granted, Pontius Pilate attempted to sway them and resist it, but was ultimately subject to the rule of his Caesar too.
The spirit of Antichrist was surely present back then, as it is to this day, in fact there are many: 1Jn 2:18, 1Jn 4:3.
As to Titus breaking a covenant in 70 AD, note that 70 AD is after the age of grace had started. (ie: the stopwatch had already paused on the 70th week) What's to say it doesn't get renewed after the translation of the church? No other group has been persecuted more by Rome's influence than the Jews during the last 1900 years, can't argue that, but that's all during the time when the 70th week is paused. Satan has plenty of reasons to persecute the Jew, but I won't get off onto that...

The passage in Daniel is clear when the city would be rebuilt, the messiah cut off, and the covenant being struck. The passage is entirely focused on God dealing with the Jews. There are no pauses in there, I agree, and that is why there was no pause between the end of week 69 and the beginning of week 70. That's what the Bible says.

Now, its generally known that the Old Testament prophets did not really forsee the age of grace. I think Larkin's drawing titled "the Perspective of Prophecy" illustrates that quite well. So, as Daniel was given a prophecy of the 70 weeks as concerning the Jews, and God stopped dealing with the Jews when he converted Paul and sent the gospel to the gentiles, then its entirely plausible that the 70 weeks would have a pause in them that an OT prophet couldn't see.
The only difference of ideas here is did the pause come smack on the line between 69 and 70, or 220 days into the 70th week?
There is a lot of corroborating evidence in the early chapters of Acts to support that the age of grace to the gentile had not yet come about, and that means God was still dealing with the Jews, hence the 70 weeks was still ticking away.
Things like, the message of the gospel being preached (it wasn't by grace through faith alone as it is today). The fact they were only preaching to Jews. The fact that the apostolic signs and wonders were in effect to convince that unbelieving Jew. Paul's rebuking of Peter and the signs to prove to the Jewish apostles that the Holy Spirit had gone to the gentile as well. The dramatic changes that occurred when God stopped dealing with the Jew and went to the gentile.


Well, thanks again CKG for your input, I really appreciate any discussions we can have, and please know, all of you out there, I'm not in this for a debate, but to toss it around enough so that I can know if its true or not. If I counter something someone says, its to try to weigh the evidence, not to argue with the person gracious enough to discuss it with me.

I agree that the matter of the covenant is crucial to this theory, so I'm open to more conversation on that.

In Christ,
~Brian

[CKG]

Originally Posted by BornAgainBibleBeliever514

It seems plausible to me that the covenant could be:

The unity between the Roman Empire (out of which the Antichrist shall arise) and the Jewish leaders to reject, silence, kill that 'rabble-rouser' who claims to be the King of the Jews, thereby allowing the Jewish religion to cohabitate in 'peace' with the world governing body.
The Jews are responsible for rejecting and having their Messiah killed, but they needed Rome's authority, power and custom to do so.

To this very day ALL the world's false religions exist and grow under authority and sanction (openly or secretively) of that mother of all harlots, Rome, including Judaism.

The conventional view of the covenant is some kind of world-publicized political agreement, something utterly new, whereby the nation of Israel gets exclusive rights to rebuilt and resume their temple practices on the temple mount. We picture a CNN exclusive where Mr. Antichrist and Mr. Top Rabbi shake hands over the cornerstone ceremony. I imagine there will be a fanfare, but I think the legal grounds for it might already have been laid.
I propose that if the alliance happened back in John 19, they may just get their temple rolling right after the translation of the church, or even slightly before. Its a bit of a mystery what exactly will take place immediately following or preceding the translation, in regards to the building of the temple.
Many sources say that they have all the furniture, implements, instruments etc ready to go already. It could go up very quickly, especially if the richest people in the world are behind its construction.

CKG: Thanks for your ideas.
About a covenant needing two parties to make it, they were very much indeed present in Jerusalem during Christ's 'trial'. Rome always wanted their version of peace and control over the Jews. The Roman ruler obviously consented to the desire of the Jewish chief priests to have but one king, Caesar, or else the crucifixion would not have happened by Roman soldier's hands. Granted, Pontius Pilate attempted to sway them and resist it, but was ultimately subject to the rule of his Caesar too.
The spirit of Antichrist was surely present back then, as it is to this day, in fact there are many: 1Jn 2:18, 1Jn 4:3.
As to Titus breaking a covenant in 70 AD, note that 70 AD is after the age of grace had started. (ie: the stopwatch had already paused on the 70th week) What's to say it doesn't get renewed after the translation of the church? No other group has been persecuted more by Rome's influence than the Jews during the last 1900 years, can't argue that, but that's all during the time when the 70th week is paused. Satan has plenty of reasons to persecute the Jew, but I won't get off onto that...

The passage in Daniel is clear when the city would be rebuilt, the messiah cut off, and the covenant being struck. The passage is entirely focused on God dealing with the Jews. There are no pauses in there, I agree, and that is why there was no pause between the end of week 69 and the beginning of week 70. That's what the Bible says.

Now, its generally known that the Old Testament prophets did not really forsee the age of grace. I think Larkin's drawing titled "the Perspective of Prophecy" illustrates that quite well. So, as Daniel was given a prophecy of the 70 weeks as concerning the Jews, and God stopped dealing with the Jews when he converted Paul and sent the gospel to the gentiles, then its entirely plausible that the 70 weeks would have a pause in them that an OT prophet couldn't see.
The only difference of ideas here is did the pause come smack on the line between 69 and 70, or 220 days into the 70th week?
There is a lot of corroborating evidence in the early chapters of Acts to support that the age of grace to the gentile had not yet come about, and that means God was still dealing with the Jews, hence the 70 weeks was still ticking away.
Things like, the message of the gospel being preached (it wasn't by grace through faith alone as it is today). The fact they were only preaching to Jews. The fact that the apostolic signs and wonders were in effect to convince that unbelieving Jew. Paul's rebuking of Peter and the signs to prove to the Jewish apostles that the Holy Spirit had gone to the gentile as well. The dramatic changes that occurred when God stopped dealing with the Jew and went to the gentile.


Well, thanks again CKG for your input, I really appreciate any discussions we can have, and please know, all of you out there, I'm not in this for a debate, but to toss it around enough so that I can know if its true or not. If I counter something someone says, its to try to weigh the evidence, not to argue with the person gracious enough to discuss it with me.

I agree that the matter of the covenant is crucial to this theory, so I'm open to more conversation on that.

In Christ,
~Brian

What the Bible says is:

- from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem shall be seven weeks: : the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
- from the building of Jerusalem to Messiah the Prince shall be threescore and two weeks. After threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off
- 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

This is not speculation. This is not my interpretation. This what the Bible says. Messiah is cut off after week 69 (seven weeks + threescore and two weeks). Based on what the Bible says week 70 does not begin until he (the prince that shall come) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week. Any attempts to fit the confirming of the covenant into John 19 is speculation and pretty wild speculation at that!

[George]

Aloha BornAgainBibleBeliever514,

I appreciate your answer to my Post, and there is no need to apologize for its length. {My Posts tend to get long – I don’t know why!}

I know that this Post is not on the subject of Daniel's “70th week” (and I don't mean to "hijack" the Thread), but my comments are in regards to speculations put forth by Greg Estep. Mr. Estep is full of speculations and “new” doctrines, and it is to these matters I am making my comments.

You stated:

“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.”

IF God requires that teachers of His word be faithful in teaching it, then there is NO EXCUSE if they teach error, false doctrine, or heresy. Your “100% RULE” Is not only unscriptural, it is also unobtainable! In other words you have set up a “Straw Man” that no one can measure up to, in order to continue to accept some leaven and men who are clearly FALSE TEACHERS or HERETICKS.

“Christians” today may EXCUSE these things, but I will guarantee you that God WILL NOT! [2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.] Any “Christian” teaching error, false doctrine, or heresy will - “be ashamed” and will have to “answer” to God for any false teaching that they have taught.

I have a test for you: I have 640 Posts on this Forum (about 1.60 Posts per day). I figure that, due to the fact that my Posts tend to be looong, there must be somewhere between 1,200 – 2,000 type written pages (8 ½” X 11”) of comments by yours truly. I challenge you to find one false doctrine or heresy in amongst all of those Posts. I am not talking about some thing that I have written that you might personally disagree with – I’m talking about something that I wrote that you can PROVE (by the Holy Scriptures) that it is “FALSE”. You can start with this link: http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3227&postcount=5, - where I list “25 basic Bible precepts” or doctrines, and you can go from there.

The point is simply this – If a man loves God, and if he cherishes God’s word, and if he fears God, and doesn’t want to be “ashamed” at the Judgment Seat Of Christ, he will be “circumspect” about what he teaches, and will strive to teach “pure”, unadulterated Bible “DOCTRINE” {i.e. THE TRUTH}. He will be extremely careful to separate and distinguish between what he “thinks” (theorizes, surmises, speculates, conjectures, or hypothesizes) may “possibly” be true, and what he KNOWS and can PROVE by Scripture to be true!

I learned this “principle” about teaching Scripture back in 1969, and have tried to adhere to it ever since. It’s not that hard to teach pure, unadulterated Bible truth – IF you are concerned with God’s “approval”.

On the other hand, if a man is looking for “a following”; or if he’s trying to dazzle and impress people with some far out religious “speculation” or “conjecture” such as: a “New” Doctrine; an “Exclusive” Revelation; a “Mystery” Religion; or a “Mystical” Approach; then he will not hesitate to “TWIST” and “WREST” the Scriptures and make them say things that they do NOT say (The “modus operandi” of a CULT).

Or if a “preacher” is like most modern day “learned” “bible-schooled” teachers or preachers: who have no fear of God; who manifest a “Superior Attitude” over the “laity”; who exhibit an “Intellectual Approach” in teaching the Bible; who possess a “Pharisaical Character” and/or a “Jealous” and “Envious” Spirit – he will not hesitate to ADD to, SUBTRACT from, and CHANGE the Holy words of God to suit his preconceived notions as to what God’s word REALLY MEANS!

There is no comparison between a genuine “False Teacher” (a “Heretick”), and a “faithful” man, who is called of God, who might be mistaken in his judgment (like Peter or Apollos). And to make a False Teacher “equivalent” or “identical” to a “faithful” man of God is tantamount to saying that there is no difference between “evil” men and “good” men; and placing those men, who are called of God, and who are “faithful” men (“faithful”, as David was in God’s eyes: Acts 13:22; 1 Kings 9:4, 14:7, 15:1-5– NOT without “faults”, as in men’s eyes! ) in the SAME CATEGORY as FALSE TEACHERS and HERETICKS is not only incomprehensible, but demonstrates that there is a lack of “Biblical Discernment” on the part of the person who judges these things to be so.

Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

“FAITHFUL”, according to the Scriptures does NOT mean: without sin or without faults, i.e. 100% “perfect”, as some Christians “judge” today. (Moses [Numbers 12:7; Hebrews 3:5] and Abraham [Nehemiah 9:8, Galatians 3:9] are said to be “faithful” according to God’s Holy word. Did either one of them “measure up” to the private interpretation of the word “faithful”, held by some Christians today?

Christians are commanded to: “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” [John 7:24]. Is it “righteous” to place “faithful” men in the SAME CATEGORY as “False Teachers” and “Hereticks”? I trow not!

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.

1 Corinthians 4:2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Instead of commenting on each and every one of your points in your post (as is my habit), I will just make a few observations:

#1. I am amazed at the lengths that you will go to either EXCUSE heresy or hereticks, and JUSTIFY their “False Teaching”.

Your statement:

“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.”

So then, according to your “reasoning”, since you cannot find a “pastor” who is “100% correct”, you will continue to go to men who are clearly false teachers and hereticks for “biblical instruction”; since NO MAN IS 100% CORRECT, and a false teacher or heretick “might have” SOME TRUTH? “A little leaven” DOESN’T REALLY “leaven the whole lump” - is that how it really goes?

Just because a man is NOT 100% “”correct” (WHO IS?), or just because he “doesn’t live it 100%” (WHO DOES?) - That’s NO EXCUSE for HERESY or HERETICKS! Only ONE MAN was ever 100% PERFECT, and the world CRUCIFIED HIM! Your “100% requirement” is both unrealistic and unscriptural. And I might add – sophistical i.e. fallacious!

Your quote:

“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.”

If you are receiving “the word” from false teachers and hereticks – you aren’t receiving God’s Holy words! The Bereans weren’t dealing with a heretick; they were dealing with an Apostle of God; called of God to preach and teach God’s word – NOT the false teachings of hereticks. Paul wasn’t recommending that Christians get their instruction from just any old false teacher, and then “sift” through the garbage and leaven looking for a “nugget” of truth! Your point about the Bereans going back before Paul was converted and digging up what he believed before hand is both “speculative” and “fallacious”, because Paul PUBLICALLY REPUDIATED EVERYTHING he was, and EVERYTHING that he believed before he was saved [Philippians 3:7-8; ] – has Greg Estep done the SAME for his false doctrines and heresies? I trow not!

1 Timothy 1:12And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Philippians 3:7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

The situation between the Apostle Paul and Greg Estep is so obviously different that it is hardly worth pointing out. However, since you chose to make the comparison between the two men, (as if a false teacher like Estep is worthy to be compared to the FAITHFUL Apostle!) – Let’s compare them, shall we?

The Apostle Paul admitted to being “a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious” BEFORE he was converted (i.e. saved) - Greg Estep (by his own mouth i.e. testimony) is “a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious” AFTER he has confessed to being saved! The Apostle Paul did those terrible things “in ignorance” Greg Estep has CHOSEN to do many of those same things, despite the fact that he has the Holy Bible for his guide and the Apostle Paul as his example to follow. The Apostle Paul counted everything that he valued before he was saved as “DUNG” – Greg Estep has gone back to the “DUNG” HILL (and has become a Pharisee – the very thing that Paul considered “DUNG”!) {Do I need to repeat the word in the modern vernacular?}

The Apostle Paul did not seek to RULE over the brethren (he was a “helper” to their faith) – Greg Estep has not only CHOSEN to RULE OVER Christians, but his RULE IS DESPOTIC and INJURIOUS to all who have had the misfortune to have attended HIS CHURCH, and also to all those unfortunate Christians who have been UNDER THE RULE of those “pastors” who have chosen to follow him and his pernicious doctrines! There is no comparison between these two men at all. If you had to make a Scriptural comparison between Greg Estep and some famous (or more properly – “infamous”) men in the Bible – he would be much closer to the False Prophet Balaam or King Saul, than he would be to the Apostle Paul - or King David!

Your quote:

“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?”

Your comparison of Estep to brother Kent Hovind fails, once again, to make the distinction between a man, like brother Hovind, who, I believe, is mistaken in his judgment about how a Christian should obey the laws of mankind; and Greg Estep, who believes that He has REPLACED the Lord Jesus Christ as HEAD of the church of God – there is NO COMPARISON! There’s a whole lot of difference between a brother in Christ who has made a mistake in judgment (We all have been guilty of that, at one time or another.), and a man who is clearly a “false teacher”, i.e. a heretick! {We all are NOT GUILTY of that!} This is called: having "spiritual discernment".

Your quote:

“how do you know that God didn't deal with Estep over that submission thing before he did the 70 weeks sermon?”

Because, UNLIKE Paul, Greg Estep has never publicly repudiated his false doctrines (and neither have the “pastors” who have chosen to follow him). It’s much easier to “convert” a zealot who sins in “ignorance’, than it is to convert a false teacher or heretick who sins “willfully”!

Because - “That submission thing” is much more than just Christians being in submission to a “pastor” (a mere man), “that submission thing” is claiming that Jesus Christ is NOT THE HEAD of His Own church here on earth – BUT that a man is “THE HEAD” in Christ’s stead! I quote Greg Estep:

Estep states:

“GOD’S NOT THE PASTOR OF THAT CHURCH! He’s put YOU down there so YOU could take care of it.”

Do you agree with Estep’s preceding statement? Is this a true or false doctrinal position?

Estep states:

“Jesus Christ is the Head of the Body of Jesus Christ. Right! Whether you call it a church, I don’t care what you call it. The Bible calls it a church in Ephesians 1:22.You can call it the church in prospect, you can call it the church in promise, prophecy, I don’t care! It doesn’t matter! Just get in it! OK? That’s all that really counts. But He is the Head of the Body; HE IS NOT THE HEAD OF THE LOCAL CHURCH.”

Does the Lord Jesus Christ have TWO CHURCHES - ONE in Heaven, of which HE IS THE HEAD; and ONE on earth, of which a “PASTOR” IS THE HEAD? Is this a true or false doctrine?

Estep states:

“I contend even though that Bible doesn’t use the exact terminology - that the pastor is the head of the local body.”

And I contend that the Lord Jesus Christ is THE HEAD OF HIS CHURCH and the ONLY HEAD, because, CONTRARY to Estep’s “extra-biblical” pronouncements, the Holy Bible declares that the Lord Jesus Christ is THE HEAD OF HIS CHURCH despite Greg Estep’s feeble attempts to say otherwise. {Please check out the verses further down in the Post}

Estep states:

“If the local body is a type and picture of the, of the spiritual body of Jesus Christ, the spiritual church. This is the local church that manifests that to the earth; like water baptism manifests the spiritual baptism; like our communion supper manifests or pictures our future supper with Jesus Christ and His past death. IT’S A TYPE!”

So, according to Estep, there are not only two churches, but also the so-called “Local church” (of which the “pastor” is THE HEAD) is NOT REALLY a church at all – “IT’S A TYPE!”; It’s a picture of the, of the spiritual body of Jesus Christ, the spiritual church”! So what does that make a “pastor”- “A TYPE OF CHRIST”? You see the mess you get into when you MESS with God’s Holy words? Once you start down the road to apostasy – there’s no turning back. You have to continually ADD false teaching upon false teaching; heresy upon heresy – it's “leaven” without end.

Estep states:

“I mean what, what, what could the world see of the church other than this body that gets together? We are the church. But we’re not all the church. There is a spiritual body that encompasses every believer and over that church we have one Pastor, one Bishop. We have the bishop of the church, the apostle of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the Head of the church. but,for manifestations sake and for – since we deal with the physical realm and physical problems, and physical life; God makes a man the physical head and spiritual leader of the, and God makes a pastor the spirit – Look! He says that He’s the Chief Shepherd. That means, that tells me that a man who is an elder in 1 Peter Chapter 5 is an under-shepherd I’m not the Chief Shepherd. He’s the Chief Shepherd. BUT, I AM THE CHIEF SHEPHERD HERE!”

Have you ever, in your whole life (as a Christian), heard such “tripe”; such “garbage”; such perverse “trash”; such blasphemous “gobildy gook”; such “convoluted reasoning” in all of you life? (It’s kind of like Bill Clinton: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is”) This teaching is pure BLASPHEMY! Why would anyone go to this man for ANY Bible instruction?

Estep states:

“In a local church where God has given ME the AUTHORITY OVER THOSE PEOPLE, TO RULE THOSE PEOPLE, NOBODY ELSE! A man, a man is not a, no one else is to rule in your family but you. God has delegated that authority to you. Nobody else is to rule! How many heads are there in your family? How many heads are there on your body? How many heads should there be in this LOCAL body? How many heads are there in the spiritual body of Jesus Christ? There’s always one! Always one! You’ve got one Bible, one salvation, one plan of salvation, one Spirit, One Lord, One baptism, one faith, one hope, one calling. Why in God’s Name would you have two authorities then in a local church? It will not work! As, as soon as you have two authorities you have a split. It may not manifest itself for 4 or 5 years but it’s coming – unless one of the authorities backs down and usually that’s what happens to a pastor. He is pressured down and pressured down by committees or by congregational authority.Why would you allow anybody in your church to overthrow the authority of your pastor? You say: ‘well my pastor just isn’t leading right’. Then find you a pastor that you can follow! Get on your knees and say: ‘God is this where you want me?’ And if God says yes, you follow him wherever he goes!”

According to the Holy Scriptures The Lord Jesus Christ IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH (“Local” or otherwise):

Matthew 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Mark 12:10And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:

Luke 20:17 And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?

Acts 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Ephesians 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

Ephesians 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Colossians 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Colossians 2:19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.

1Peter 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

Estep isn’t promoting just one single heresy (although “one” would be enough for genuine Bible believers to reject him and his heresy). Greg Estep is promoting MULTIPLE HERESIES - And we have 50 type written pages proving it, and you make a general comment like: “I agree there could be some bent toward excessive pastoral authority,” {Are you kidding? Can you name just ONE HERESY that is more egregious or more perverse than claiming that The Lord Jesus Christ: “IS NOT THE HEAD OF THE LOCALCHURCH.”? Or that a “Christian” (a mere man) can say without conscience: “I AM THE CHIEF SHEPHERD HERE!”

IF you can think of ANY HERESY that EXCEEDS in offending the Lord Jesus Christ, or SUCCEEDS in ABROGATING His relationship with an individual believer, I’d like to here it! IF you can come up with ANY HERESY that is as successful in URSUPING the Lord Jesus Christ’s rightful place in HIS CHURCH (which He purchased with His blood), please let me know. {Remember what “Lucifer’s “original SIN was? He wanted to USURP God’s rightful place in God’s Kingdom!}

This is what happens when men look to other men (who they don’t know) for their spiritual teaching, knowledge, discernment, and understanding. If you hadn’t referred to Greg Estep (Excuse me: “DR.” Greg Estep – I wonder WHERE he got his “doctorate” from? Hmmm?), as if he were some kind of “learned” Bible teacher, I wouldn’t be exposing him (again) for the False Teacher and Heretick that he is. However, I cannot sit idly by while someone on this Forum recommends a man, whom I know to be teaching false doctrine, and whom I have had to deal with the “FRUIT’ of that pernicious doctrine for over 25 years,

Your comment:

“but some of the other comments seem like they might have been taken out of context, I dunno.”

{Well I do "know"! Why don’t you point out some of the specific “comments” that “might have been taken out of context”? Generalizations are for Politicians – like our current President.}

If you are “suggesting” that “maybe” Estep has had a “change of mind” and has repudiated his heresies, then it would behoove you to “check it out” (like a good Berean), and not just “postulate a possibility” that “maybe” he changed his mind!

Out of the 640 Posts I have made on this Forum only 10 have been in regards to Greg Estep and/or his pernicious doctrines. Each time I have mentioned him has been in reply to someone on the Forum recommending him or his doctrine, that amounts to just a little over 1% of my total Posts. The following links are all of the Posts that I have made in regards to Estep:

11-03-2008 - In reply to Atlas:
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...3&postcount=35

11-04-2008 - In reply to aussiemama:
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...5&postcount=52

11-05-2008 - In reply to aussiemama:
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...0&postcount=55

11-07-2008 - In reply to brother Tim:
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...0&postcount=67

11-09-2008 - In reply to Atlas:
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...9&postcount=82

11-09-2008 - In reply to Atlas:
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...4&postcount=91

11-10-2008 - In reply to Atlas:
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...9&postcount=97

In reply to MC1171611 & Atlas:
11-10-2008,
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...&postcount=113

If you will notice, all of those Posts were made in about one week’s time; and I haven’t said anything for nearly four months until your comments about “Dr.” Greg Estep. The following two links are the Posts that I made in regards to those comments, etc.:

04-02-2009 - In reply to your recommending Estep’s 70 Week “Theory”:
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...0&postcount=12

04-03-2009 – In reply to your recommending Estep’s 70 Week “Theory”:
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...1&postcount=15

Please take note: Each time, I haven’t been the one, who has brought up Greg Estep’s name or his heresies (not once!). What I have done is when his name has come up (either in the context of someone recommending him, or one of his doctrines); I have warned people that they are recommending a man who is a proven false teacher and a heretick. I have a duty to warn the brethren about such men for God will hold me responsible if I don’t!

Acts 20:26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

This is HOW every church (from the Apostles time up to the present) has become corrupted and gone apostate, and become reprobate. It always starts in the “leadership”, and it’s always a willingness (on the part of Christians) to tolerate just a “little” leaven, There have been no exceptions! What would you have me to do – knowing what I do? Should I let the mention of a false teacher and heretick, and the recommendation of “some” of his doctrine go unchallenged? I trow not!

Where you took the time to answer many of my points, I find a very curious thing. I don’t know if I ever have had someone agree so much with me – and yet in the end - disagree! Personally, I don’t know how you do it?

Some of your quotes:

“I fully agree with you, To that I will add . . . . .”

“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, . . . .”


“Your point is well taken, . . . . . It still doesn't disprove”

“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.” {Chapter & Verse?}

“This is very good advice, thank you. I agree,” . . . . . . . . but”

“I agree fully. . . . . . . I guess I meant . . . . .”

“I agree fully:”

“George, I LOVE your answers on Bible words versus words not found in the Bible. . . . . . Your points are well taken on this matter, . . . .”
“I agree with your statements about not having the time to try to figure out all the details,”

“Thanks, George. I'll let you stand in front of me in the lineup for the tree of life,”

I’m sorry, but I won't "need" the tree of life - I ALREADY HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, I have already partaken of “THE BREAD OF LIFE”!

Brother BABB514, you seem to be a pleasant fellow, but by your own admission, you have been duped in the past (i.e. as a member of a “Christian Rock Band” only 12 years ago). I have been a Christian for over 50 years and all during that time I never have “bought into” the various cults (Mormonism; Seventh-Day Adventism; Jehovahs Witnesses; Church of Christ; etc. – by the way, have you noticed that most of the cults have their origin in America?) I never embraced Pentecostalism; Calvinism; Hyper-Dispensationalism; “Christian Patriotism; “Estepism”; or any other “ism”. I NEVER used any other “bible” other than the King James Bible for all of those 50 years - although I didn’t come to the realization that the King James Bible was God’s perfect, Holy, inspired word of God without error until 1968 – 1969.

I’m not saying I am perfect – I’m far from it! And I’m not saying that I have never been wrong or mistaken, because I have been at times. But there has never been a time in my life where I have embraced false doctrine or heresy, or ever wanted to be a member of a “Christian” Rock Band (not once). I guess you might say that although I am imperfect, I have at least been “prudent” when it comes to embracing false teaching and doctrine.

Many different "kinds" of "Christians" from many different backgrounds (yourself included) have joined this Forum, and many of these people have come out of all kinds of false cults and corrupt churches. They have a whole lot of “baggage” and sometimes even “garbage”, which they may not have “jettisoned” completely; and not only that, but our country has become a nation of Humanists and Sophists, and much of our “Humanistic culture” has crept into the churches and into “Christian” doctrine. Because of the pervasiveness of Humanism in our culture - today's Christians are far more "inclined" to compromise Biblical principles and precepts than at any time in the history of the church of God. Your “curiosity” and “interest” in Prophesy is an “intellectual exercise” of the mind to satisfy your inquisitiveness; but an inquiring mind, is not the same as a heartfelt search for the truth.

In these last days, Christians should be concentrating on those things which are edifying to one another, and which are profitable to the hearer. You and I are never going to be able to work out all of the mysteries of God concerning the Translation of the church of God; the Great Tribulation; the Second Coming; the Millennial Reign of Christ; and the New Heavens & the New Earth. These things may be of some interest, and we may be “curious” about all of the details concerning these events, but what “profit” is to be derived from an inquiring mind?

I challenge you to go through all of the letters of Paul, and see how much time he spent on these matters of curiosity (i.e. creation, prophecy, etc.), and how much time he spent on the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ; and on His Holy word; and on Christian Conduct – what I call “the Weightier Matters”. If we are to “follow” Paul, and he said we should, [1 Corinthians 4:16, 11:1; Philippians 3:17; 2 Thessalonians 3;7-9] then don’t you think that we should be majoring in those things that he concentrated writing on and have the Lord Jesus Christ satisfy our inquisitiveness on these curious matters of interest when we see Him face to face?

This Post is not meant to castigate or demean you, but I get weary of dealing with Christians who make "excuses" for false teachers and have a high "tolerance" for false doctrine. I would advise you to stop looking to men for your understanding of Scripture, and instead get into The Book itself. And above all I would be real careful as to WHO you recommend from here on out.

2 Corinthians 10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

[peopleoftheway]

I have never heard of Greg Estep and I dont really follow any "celebrity" Christian, but reading the snippets of his quotes from what Brother George posted I would turn on my heels and flee from a Church where the pastor elevated himself above my Lord & Saviour, not stick around to see what else he twists. Some men need to learn to FEAR God.

Proverbs 8:13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.
Proverbs 15:33 The fear of the LORD is the instruction of wisdom; and before honour is humility.

I have the greatest teacher indwelling me and If I ask I receive if its HIS will for ME to learn.
Will the Lord be glorified by figuring out the things he has already purposed? or will he be glorified in the edification of his Body.
2 Timothy 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
2 Timothy 2:26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

[BornAgainBibleBeliever514]

Sigh! People of the way:

I don't follow any men either, and I've already stated a bunch that I'm not following Estep, but if you actually took the time to listen to the sermon, you would find it is nothing at all like the thing George posted.
Also, I'm not sure when the tapes George reviewed were done, but given they were on audio cassette, I can only assume they are pretty old. As far as I can tell this Daniel's 70 weeks was done in 2006.
Plus, I'm still a little dubious about George's assessment, it seems a bit over critical, and the context cannot be verified. One can vilify someone by taking snippets here and there. Not to say George is lying or misquoting, but the point is I never recommended him nor the submission tapes. I ONLY wanted to discuss the CONTENT of the 70 week time line theory.

And for goodness sake, I've made it quite clear I'm not here to talk about Estep, but rather the theory he put forward. If one of the favored pastors put it forward, you'd all gobble it up, or at least give it a listen and a fair analysis.
Instead its only been met which character assasination from ONE viewpoint (plus George's co-reviewer) of something that you don't know if Estep has changed since then.

How come nobody has even commented on the actual theory? *with the exception of CKG.
Someone posted on here a video of a black pastor talking about the Jews. I pointed out he was a charismatic, but that was shushed because he had a love for the Jews.
Since I believe that Ruckman is flat wrong about the gap theory, should I dismiss everything he's ever said as heretical?
Or if a teacher said something 20 years ago that was wrong, but 20 years later is saying something right, am I to cut off my nose to spite my face and miss out on something good?



George - WHOA!!! its going to take me a while to read, and then address everything you wrote there (like, an entire day!)
But honestly, I'm getting quite disheartened that everyone is focusing on Estep, when the ONLY reason his name is even here, is because he's the first place I heard of the Daniel's 70 week theory, and I used his sermon as a reference to discuss the content of the sermon. And even if he was in error about one thing years ago, that is quite unrelated to the 70 weeks time line now, does that automatically disqualify the theory?
Arg!!! I don't really care about Estep, I just want to know if the facts he presents are true, because they sure made a lot of sense to me, regardless of WHO said it.

I guess you are all missing that.

I've presented some very good points about the theory, which nobody really addressed, except CKG. instead everyone is labeling me a man-follower, or that I recommend hereticks, when I've done nothing of the sort, and frankly it hurts and is wasting time.
I just want to discuss the 70 weeks. I regret using his name in the thread title, perhaps had I not referenced an audio file I came across that clearly explains the 70 week position, and only posted a 10,000 word post to explain it out myself, we could have avoided this snafu.
Like, if I quoted a TIME magazine article saying something that was Biblically true, would the truth of it be disqualified because TIME is a media outlet for the NWO?

George, I just skimmed your post, and I'll have to respond to it tomorrow.
I'm forced to work tomorrow, and will be starting an hour earlier, but I should have the time to complete a response.
I'm going to have to start this thread over again if I want any answers on Daniel's 70 weeks.

As discouraged as I am about not being able to explain myself clear enough here in this forum, I am still appreciative of all your time in attempting to converse with me.

Please be patient, as I am trying to be as well.

In Christ,
~Brian.

[peopleoftheway]

Brother the is no need to "Sigh" I never said that YOU were a man follower, if you re-read my posts I was stating that I would never listen to anything (theories or otherwise) from a man who claimed he was the head of HIS Church over Christ. I wont reply regarding the 70 weeks, I believe what I have read in scriptures and confirmed by the Holy Ghost as truth. If something I read or hear dosent ring true to me I search the scriptures and study to show my self approved Onto GOD for the truth and do you know what Brother my Lord never fails me when I ask in all sincerity and truth.
I used to listen to sermons from a whole lot of different preachers and teachers and the more I listened to each individual and their pet doctrines the more confused and disheartened I became with the subjects. So prayerfully one day I sat on the end of my Bed with my Bible in my hands and asked the Lord from that point on to show me truth irrelevant of its consequence through his Holy Written word.

Psalms 119:11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

The GREATEST teacher we can and will EVER have just waits on us asking his direction and delights when we do.
John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

And if we are led by Gods spirit then we can produce the truth in our lives
Ephesians 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth; )

I urge you Brother DONT listen to sermons, dont read other authors (doctrines, theology) even if only for a couple of weeks and soley and prayerfully depend on and read God and I guarantee that you will be blessed with a refreshed pair of eyes toward his Holy Word and a renewed truth within you.

1 Corinthians 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
1 Corinthians 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

we could have avoided this snafu.

PS Brother using the acronym SNAFU in regards to the post isn't particularly fitting to a Christian Bible believing forum, considering its meaning.

[BornAgainBibleBeliever514]

OK, I shouldn't have used the word snafu, I didn't even really know what it stood for until I googled it just now. Its something I always heard my mom say, and I didn't know it was vulgar until 2 minutes ago. Considering I don't use vulgar language at all in my life, that's one more term I will delete from my vocabulary.
Thanks for calling my attention to that, I honestly had no clue what it literally meant, only the connotation my mom had used it in.


I too, have sincerely asked the Lord to reveal to me His truth from the Book. I too have its author inside me. I've learned much from His guidance in the Book, and the Book IS my final authority. I've also had various preachers highlight things I hadn't seen before, and they turned out to be 100% true. Even if I initially hear something from a man, I will only believe it if the Book supports it.


I came across a sermon a good church friend of mine (IFBBB) handed me on CD, and I listened to it, not knowing anything about Estep's past. What I heard on that sermon alone included absolutely nothing about headship usurpation. If I had heard a blatant heresy, I would have rejected it, but I didn't hear anything except a good study on the 70 weeks, which motivated me to study this topic more carefully.
The reason I sigh is because everyone is all over me for referencing this guy's sermon, and asking for a discussion on the CONTENT of THAT sermon, NOT the guy.
People are implying that I condone hereticks, advocate Estepism?, that I seek truth from men alone, and that I want to wrest scripture for some agenda.
The reason it hurts me is because nobody is willing to look at the evidence put forward about the 70 weeks, but rather get their hackles up over Estep and paint me out to be heretical for asking questions about his viewpoint on the 70 weeks.


Its interesting that you brought up Apollos:

1 Corinthians 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
1 Corinthians 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

Paul planted (inspired), Apollos watered (not inspired), but God gave the increase.
Its also very interesting to note that Apollos was an heretick before he got straightened out, and THEN God used him for great things.

If Estep was making heretical statements in the sermon I heard, then I would have already rejected it. But the 70 weeks have nothing at all to do with the submission thing, which was probably done many years before the 70 weeks. Why then can't we learn something about the 70 weeks by comparing scripture with scripture?

For the record, I resolutely beleive that headship usurpation over the church is blasphemous, and I would never allow a Nicolaitan to rule over me.
I don't condone leaven, I don't accept heresy, I don't promote any man as being above the Word of God.

I truely love God and the Book He gave us, and I just want to learn more about it. I do my daily devotions, my study time, my prayer time, continual prayer throughout the day, soul-winning, fellowship, church services throughout the week, Bible study group, and I do all these with a sincere desire to be led and used by God for His will. I'm sure I don't know everything, and that's why I seek to learn. I heard a good explanation of Daniel's 70 weeks, I wanted to learn more. I brought it to this congregation on the forum, hoping to share and receive about this topic from other brothers who love the Word as I do.
I know that prophecy isn't as important as salvation, seperation or edification, but if He put it in the Book, then its profitable. It doesn't overshadow my other areas of growth.

Anyways, it was busy today at work after all, George, I'll get to your post tonight, if I can find some extra time.

In Christ,
~Brian.

[pbiwolski]

Originally Posted by BornAgainBibleBeliever514

The reason it hurts me is because nobody is willing to look at the evidence put forward about the 70 weeks, but rather get their hackles up over Estep and paint me out to be heretical for asking questions about his viewpoint on the 70 weeks.
In Christ,
~Brian.

Don't sweat it, Brian, this isn't the first time this sort of thing happened around here. Keep pushing the prophecy and ignore the other jangling. Maybe you'll get somewhere with it.

I believe (with good reason) Estep is wrong in his teaching here, yet I've been laying low, monitering this one, waiting to see if anyone digs into this most allusive "final week." Try to keep in on subject.