The Evil of Scripture-Based Deception – Part 2
The evil of scripture-based deception – “The Bible says so” is one of the most often used, useful, and quickest tactical maneuvers to get an audience’s attention. In fact, it discourages audiences to search the Scriptures and to make sure whether the Bible really says so, as the Bereans had done so nobly in Acts 17:10-11. False teachers who have perfected the “art of deception” through the cunning sleight of their words, repeatedly use the words “well, the Bible says so,” to dupe their audiences into a stupor of spiritual lethargy and childish complacency. Here’s a very good example:
This, dear friends, is Eddie Bakker speaking at a Sunday service held at Jannes Labuschagne’s The Base Church, Muldersdrif Krugersdorp, on 11th August 2019. He’s a team member of NCMI (New Covenant Ministries International). They provide the following info on one of their sites.
NCMI had its beginnings in South Africa during the early 1980’s. Dudley Daniel, who was leading a church in Johannesburg, South Africa, began to meet regularly with other pastors and leaders in the city for relaxed discussion around God’s Word. As ‘iron sharpened iron’ and friendships grew, so did a common concern for the church in the nation. Along with a growing common vision came recognition and respect for the reality of each other’s gifting in God. Labels or titles were never claimed or used (as it is to this day) but during that time an authentic acceptance of each person’s gifting in God was formed.
NCMI is not a grouping of churches, a denomination, a movement or an organization. It is simply a name given to a team with recognized Ephesians 4:11 gifts (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers) who partner in their commitment to the same vision of working, on a grass-roots level, with local churches to accomplish God’s mandate of making disciples of all nations.https://www.ncmi.net/about
The Bible says Christ had a sinful flesh like ours
Eddie taught The Base Church that –
Jesus was God becoming a man; He’s hundred percent God but He became hundred percent human. The Bible says He had a flesh, a sinful flesh like ours. That’s what the Bible says.
Eddie, Eddie, Eddie; where does the Bible say Jesus had a sinful flesh? If Jesus had a sinful flesh, He must have been born with one. Put differently, if Jesus had a sinful flesh like ours He would have been one hundred percent capable of sinning but never sinned because He always withstood the temptation to sin, as you said. We learn from Scripture that “Hence, when He [Christ] entered into the world, He said, Sacrifices and offerings You have not desired, but instead You have made ready (prepared) a body for Me [to offer]” (Hebrews 10:5). Did God the Father prepare a sinful body like ours for his Son when He formed Him in Mary’s womb?
What about 2 Corinthians 5:21? “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” The verse simply means that God made him (prepared Him; ordained Him; appointed Him) to be a sin offering for us, who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. God His Father made Him to be sin when He hung on the cross and the sins of every single human being throughout the ages were laid on Him. God treated Him like a sinner; He did not prepare Him a body of flesh like ours, steeped in sin, in his mother’s womb. If that were true, He would never have been able to pay the penalty or ransom for our sins on the cross.
What the Bible actually does say is:
- He was “without sin” (Hebrews 4:15).
- “In Him [his body/flesh] is no sin” (1 John 3:5).
- He took on Himself the sin of the world (John 1:29; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 2:2).
He was made to be sin (sin-bearer) the moment He took upon Himself the sins of the world (Isaiah 53:4-6, 10). Every single human being alive now, has the opportunity to no longer bear their own sins in this life, or later in hell by, simply putting their trust in Jesus Christ and what He had done for them on the cross. That is why his invitation in Matthew 11:28 still reverberates loud and clear throughout the world.
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. (Matthew 11:28-29)
He says “Come to me” [and not to your pastor, priest or whatever, to have you say a short prayer after them and then declare you righteous in the sight of God]. NO! He says “Come to ME.” There is, however something He wants you to do when you come to Him. He wants an exchange of yokes – your yoke of sins, unrighteousness, lostness and despair in exchange for his yoke of eternal life, expressed in godly lowliness and meekness (James 4:6).
The consequences of the notion that Christ had a sinful flesh (body) like ours
What does it mean to be fully human?
Eddie Bakker is probably unaware that his statement “Jesus had a sinful flesh like ours” is closer to blasphemy than what Satan, the Antichrist, and the False Prophet are to the Lake of Fire. Whereas the Roman Catholic Church elevates Mary to an exalted position of worship by claiming that she was immaculately conceived and, therefore, also has the power to redeem sinners, Eddie Bakker of the NCMI relegates Jesus Christ to a position of inferiority, far below that of Mary.
“God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is his will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”
“O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, obtains salvation except through thee, none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee.” (Emphasis added).(Pius IX: Encyclical, Ubi primum, February 2, 1849.) — [p. 12, number 12].
(Leo XIII: Encyclical, Adiutricem populi, September 5, 1895.) — [p. 12, no. 13].
Bakker’s notion of Jesus Christ being fully human stems from his wrong perception that humanness equals sinfulness. Hence the usual saying when someone does something contrary to God’s will, “Oh! we are all just human.” That in itself suggests that when God created Adam and Eve they were not yet fully human but only became fully human the moment they sinned. Consequently, Jesus had to be given a sinful flesh (body) like that of Adam and Eve subsequent to their fall, and, of course, like ours in order to become fully human.
God’s will for humankind, from the very beginning, was to be holy, sinless, without spot or wrinkle, and wholeheartedly obedient to Him in body, soul, and spirit. But first, they had to learn what it means to love and obey Him from a heart fully entrenched in free-will. God who is the essence of love (1 John 4:8) cannot and will never force anyone to love Him. Had He done so, He would have counteracted and destroyed one of his most astonishing gifts to mankind, a free-will, and could then never have said of Himself, “God is love.”
The only way He could teach them to love Him wholeheartedly was to give them a very simple command “not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” His probationary lesson to teach them what loving God truly is, was to prioritize obedience to Him (John 14:15; 15:10), and only then, after they had learned obedience to Him, He would have taught them the difference between good and evil. He did not intend for them to first know what the difference between good and evil was whilst they were still in a state of complete innocence (sinlessness without the knowledge of how to love God according to his will).
Instead of obeying God and taking his words to heart “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Genesis 2:17), they listened to and promptly obeyed Satan’s twisted version of good and evil. He deceived them into believing that good is evil and evil is good, i.e. that God’s command was evil and that the eating of the fruit of the forbidden tree was good (Genesis 3:6; Isaiah 5:20). That’s how Satan works. He takes something good, like the incarnation of God (Jesus Christ) and turns it into something evil by making you believe that God’s (Jesus Christ’s) fully humanness was established by taking on a sinful body (flesh) like ours.
When God said of Jesus (and not “to” Jesus, as Eddie asserted, to strengthen and encourage His Son for his public ministry which had not yet begun), “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased,” it was to strengthen and encourage the Jews who had been present at his baptism to believe in Him for their salvation. God the Father presented to John the Baptist and the Jews (and all believers throughout the ages) his Second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45-48) to prove that his will, from the very beginning, was that his grandest creation, mankind, was to be holy, sinless, without spot and wrinkle, and obediently love Him with and in body, soul and spirit. (Deuteronomy 6:4-7; Matthew 22:37-40).
Even the grammatical structure of God’s acclamation proves that He could not have said it “to” Jesus. Surely, if He said it “to” Jesus to strengthen and encourage Him, He would have used the second personal pronoun “you” and not he singular proximal demonstrative pronoun “this” – “You are my beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased.” To say the least, it would have been rather ill-mannered to have spoken to his Son and say “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased” if He said it “to” his Son while using the proximal demonstrative pronoun “this.” I am quite sure Eddie Bakker would never speak directly to his son and say, “This is my son in whom I am well-pleased.” Grammatically it just does not fit. Ironically, the strength and encouragement God the Father allowed His Son to experience were immediately after He had been baptized, when the Holy Spirit led Him into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil (Matthew 4:1).
Why do false teachers like Eddie Bakker, willfully inject the poison of false teachings into their audiences by their twisting of Scripture? (2 Peter 3:16). I too can say “the Bible says:”
For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20:29-30)
I know that after I am gone, [false teachers like] ferocious wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; even from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse and distorted things, to draw away the disciples after themselves [as their followers]. (Amp).
Listen to Eddie Bakker’s sleight of words to draw away disciples after them and their false teaching “The Manifest Sons of God” who are supposedly called by God to reinstate or restore the five-fold ministry of Ephesians 4:11 and ultimately God’s Kingdom on earth. Please bear in mind that his sermon was part of a series presented in The Base Church to teach their congregants that they are “anointed deliverers” who have an apostolic mandate to plant churches after the five-fold ministry model.
One word describes Eddie’s exegesis of the Fall in Genesis 2 – LUDICROUS! He said God wants us to hear that we too are beloved sons and daughters of God whom He sends out into the world in the same way He sent his Son. Our problem, saith Eddie, is that our heart is desperately sick which we inherited from Adam and Eve at the Fall. “Adam and Eve,” saith Eddie, “made the choices for themselves to live for the things of this world, to live and to satisfy their flesh instead of living for God, instead of living for eternal things, instead of living to have their hearts and spirits satisfied. . . .”
Adam and Eve did not even know there was a vast new world outside of the Garden of Eden when God created them. How on earth could they have chosen to live for the things of the world? There sin that caused their Fall and that of the whole of humankind was not the result of a choice they made for themselves to live for the things of the world and the flesh. In fact, the Garden of Eden was a perfect place to live a pure life in pristine and perfect fellowship with God. Adam and Eve did not even know or understand the potential evils of the flesh.
This is why the Bible says, “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” (Genesis 2:25). They were perfectly at ease and comfortable with one another without any fear of exploitation or potential for evil. They were as innocent as a naked little baby, not knowing the existence or the consequences of evil of the flesh as we do now. Their literal nakedness was also a sign of their sinlessness. What then were the things of the world and the flesh to which Eddie Bakker refers in his sermon? There was no currency to provoke them to a desire for riches, no corrupt politicians, no filthy entertainment outlets, no drugs or dope or liquor, no plethora of false religions, no base churches to mislead them into scripture-based knavery. They fell into sin through their disobedience of a single and very easy command God gave them – “thou shalt not eat of it.”
The notion that Jesus Christ had a sinful flesh makes Him a liar
A sinful flesh (carnal flesh received at birth) is the medium which gives Satan the leeway to entice man to sin. Paul of Tarsus addresses the sinfulness of the flesh in Romans 7:14-20. The Amplified Bible says it thus:
We know that the Law is spiritual, but I am a creature of the flesh [worldly, self-reliant—carnal and unspiritual], sold into slavery to sin [and serving under its control]. For I do not understand my own actions [I am baffled and bewildered by them]. I do not practice what I want to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate [and yielding to my human nature, my worldliness—my sinful capacity]. Now if I habitually do what I do not want to do, [that means] I agree with the Law, confessing that it is good (morally excellent). So now [if that is the case, then] it is no longer I who do it [the disobedient thing which I despise], but the sin [nature] which lives in me. For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh [my human nature, my worldliness—my sinful capacity]. For the willingness [to do good] is present in me, but the doing of good is not. For the good that I want to do, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want to do, I am no longer the one doing it [that is, it is not me that acts], but the sin [nature] which lives in me.
If Jesus, in his becoming fully man whilst He remained fully God, had a sinful flesh, then Paul’s words “For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh,” must be applied to Him as well. According to Eddie, Jesus never gave in to the temptation of sin and never sinned, despite Him having allegedly been furnished with a sinful flesh. Of course, Jesus never sinned. Nonetheless, Paul also says that whenever he was willing to do good and tried to refrain from sinning, he was powerless to do the good he wanted to do. However, it was no longer he doing the things he abhorred but the sin nature (singular) which lived in him.
If Jesus had a sinful nature, then it must have been alive and active in Him as well, just as Paul described the sinful flesh in Romans 7, unless He too daily had to put to death his sinful nature as Paul exhorted believers to do in order to overcome the temptation of sins, in these words, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind, I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.“ (Romans 7:24-25). Note, that victory over our sinful flesh or nature can only be through Jesus Christ which means that if He had a sinful flesh or nature He too would have had to be redeemed from his sinful nature through Jesus Christ (Himself).
That’s preposterous, to say the least. Jesus Christ did not die for Himself and neither did He have a sinful flesh to which He had to die daily in order to overcome sin (Daniel 9:26). If he had a sinful flesh, He could never have said, “I will not talk with you much more, for the prince (evil genius, ruler) of the world is coming. And he has no claim on Me. [He has nothing in common with Me; there is nothing in Me that belongs to him, and he has no power over Me.]” (AMP). Even if Jesus had a sinful flesh without Him ever having given in to the temptation thereof, He would still have had in Him the makings of a sinful man that gives Satan the right to claim Him for his kingdom of darkness. The sinful flesh or nature of man, as Paul says, is always prone to sin.
The natural inclination of the sinful nature alone is as good as the act of sin itself, whatever that may be. As such, and according to Eddie Bakker’s and the NAR’s new apostles, Jesus must have been of the devil because it is written, “He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose, the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.” (1 John 3:8).
Wait a sec. Eddie said that Jesus never committed a sin because He never gave in to the temptation of his sinful flesh. Nonetheless, Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that the sinful nature is the real culprit that sins (“I am no longer the one doing it [that is, it is not me that acts], but the sin [nature] which lives in me”). So again, if Jesus had a sinful nature, He must have been a sinner because the mere inclination to sin which starts to rear its ugly head in the sinful flesh, is as good as doing the sin itself. That’s precisely why Paul lamented that he was “sold into slavery to sin” (Romans 7:14). Was Jesus sold into slavery to sin so that He may pay the ransom for the sins of the world? What blasphemy!
If there is nothing good in the sinful flesh of man and Jesus was incarnated with a sinful flesh, then there must have been nothing good in Him as well (Romans 7:18). If so, why did he ask “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” (Mark 10:18). The man unwittingly calling Jesus “good” confirmed his true identity as God, one with the Father. Jesus could never have been a hundred percent God and hundred percent man if his humanity was tainted with something evil like a sinful flesh. Eddie Bakker’s picture of Jesus being 100% God and 100% man (plus a sinful flesh) reminds one the abominable WOF doctrine that Jesus paid for our sins in hell where He was tortured by demons for three days and then became the first born-again man. Blasphemy? You bet!
The notion that Jesus had a sinful flesh relegates Him to a position lower than the sacrifices in Leviticus
The five offerings in Leviticus were all types of Christ’s redemptive work on the cross.
First in order comes the burnt offering, which is divided into burnt offering from the beeves (Leviticus 1:3-9), and burnt offering from the flock (Leviticus 1:10-13). The ox takes precedence because it is the more costly and more important sacrifice. It had to be without disease or blemish of any kind. To offer a defective sacrifice was an insult and a deception. Hence the exclamation of the prophet, “cursed be the deceiver which hath in his flock a male and voweth and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing” (i.e., an animal with a blemish), Malachi 1:14.(Ellicott’s Commentary).
The requirement for an offering to be acceptable and a sweet savour unto the Lord was that the animal (ox, ram or lamb) had to be without blemish, spot or wrinkle in its body. Jesus was the only Person who could meet this requirement in body, soul, and spirit. A sinful flesh would have rendered Him unfit to offer Himself as an offering for sin, and worse, it would have relegated Him to a position inferior to that of the sacrificial animals in Leviticus that had to be without blemish. Consequently, God could never have said of his Son.
Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Hebrews 10:8-10)
None of us could ever have been redeemed and sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ if He had a sinful body (flesh). Eddie, you and Jannes Labuschagne need to repent of your blasphemous remarks about Jesus and admit in your church that you misrepresented Jesus Christ. Should you persist in your misrepresentation of Jesus Christ, it would be the sign that you are preaching another Jesus.
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11:3-4)
Part 1 of this article can be found here: The Evil of Scripture-Based Deception – Part 1
Another article on Jannes Labuschagne to be found here: The Seed Within You: The Base Church
You and Deborah also advocate a false gospel. Christ died for 100% of out sins. From birth till the day we die. I know I can NEVER go to hell irrespective of what I do or don’t do, what laws of God that I keep or don’t keep because Christ’s blood alone is what will get me in. Good works is not proof that I’m saved. Believing that Christ paid the price for all my sins of the cross is.
Your comment from start to finish contains unfounded accusations. We never said Christ did not die 100% for our sins, and we never suggested that He did not pay the full price for all your sins. You seem to be so utterly bent on proving that we advocate a false Gospel that you have failed to see that that is precisely what The Base Church in Muldersdrift is doing. Did you read the complete article or only a part of it. Let me remind you what Eddie Bakker said, Here’s what he said in The Base Church on 11th August 2019.
If Jesus had a sinful flesh He could never have paid for our sins on the cross. Why? Because a sinful flesh would have tainted his blood, making it completely ineffective and useless to pay for our sins. Eddie Bakker is the one who denies that Christ died for our sins 100% and not us. You owe us an apology.
By the way are you a member of Jannes Labuschagne’s Base Church in Muldersdrift? If you are, I would like to urge you to run from them as fast and as soon as you can. They aim to invite a demon who claims to be Jesus into their church in November. You don’t believe me? Well listen to Labuschagne’s sermon on 6th September, “PREPARE FOR VISITATION.” You can find it here.
I don’t know who elder Baker is and I’m not referring to the article above. But I know that you teach that a “changed life” is proof that a person is saved. You advocate that a believer wouldn’t continue in certain sins as the Holy Spirit does a work in every believer. You advocate that a person who is truly saved will not continue in sin. But before you deny it, I need to ask you a question. Will a practising homosexual go to heaven if he believes the gospel?
Would you mind quoting some examples from the articles we’ve written of what you say we advocate?
Koko, we have NEVER said anything like the things you say we are believing. Quote us please! 🙂
Yes you have in times past during a DIFFERENT conversation…not on this platform. But I ask you again, because you may think differently now. Will PRACTISING homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators, even murderers (to use an extreme example) who believe that Christ paid for 100% of their sins on the cross, was buried and rose again go to heaven or not?
Would you mind QUOTING some examples from the articles we’ve written of what you say we advocate? Just saying “Yes you have in times past during a DIFFERENT conversation…not on this platform” means nothing.
Koko, quote us please! You are so adamant we said and believe the things you are accusing us of, then quote us.
This has been in our Statement of Faith for years:
A Christian’s Walk
1. By reason of Christ’s victory over sin and of His indwelling Spirit, all of the saved may and should experience deliverance from the power of sin by obedience to Romans 6:11.
2. We deny that man’s sinful nature is ever eradicated during this life.
3. As saints and members of the true Church we are to maintain a Christ-honoring testimony, separate from all forms of worldliness and apostasy, and to demonstrate obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ and love to all men.
Rom. 6:6-14; Gal. 5:16-25; Rom. 8:37; II Cor. 2:14; 10:2-5; Rom. 12:1,2,9; 2 Cor. 6:14-18; Eph. 5:11; I Tim. 6:20,21
Now we ask that you please quote us. We won’t push you to apologise, we will leave this up to the conviction of the Holy Spirit in your life, to apologise or not.
Die beskuldigings van Koko en die reaksie daarop stel ek op die oomblik nie in belang nie. Wat my wel interresseer is die antwoord wat op Koko se vraag gegee sal word. In die onlangse dae en die gebeure in die NG kerk het my in dieselfde rigting laat dink. Is ñ praktiserende homoseksueel wat dink dit is nie sonde nie, maar opreg glo in die Evangelie gered. Teenoor: Is ñ praktiserende homoseksueel wat besef dit is sonde en tog opreg glo in die Evangelie, is so ñ persoon gered. Duidelik en direkte antwoord sal waardeer word
My antwoord is ietwat lank, maar soos die Engelse sê “Please bear with me.”
Jesus het eenmaal gesê,
‘n Paar dinge staan in hierdie gedeelte uit.
• Godsdienstige mense wat dink en daarop aanspraak maak dat hulle die wil doen van God maar nie aanvaar dat geregtigheid alleenlik deur geloof in God verkry kan word nie, word nie in God se Koninkryk toegelaat nie. Met ander woorde hulle is praktiserende huigelaars.
• Hoere en tollenaars, daarenteen, twee groepe mense waarop die godsdienstige mense met argwaan en minagting neergesien het, en deur geloof in God tot nuwe skepsels herskep is (2 Korintiërs 5:17), sal die Koninkryk sien. Met ander woorde hulle WAS praktiserende hoere en tollenaars maar het opgehou om dit langer te wees nadat hulle tot geloof in Jesus gekom het.
Daarom het Jesus vir die vrou wat in ontug betrap is en die godsdienstige Fariseërs en Jode wou stenig, gesê, “Gaan heen en sondig nie meer nie” (Johannes 8:11). Hy kon tog sekerlik nie bedoel het dat sy geheel en al nie meer moes sondig nie, hoewel Hy haar vermaan het om op te hou met die sonde van ontug waarin sy betrap is, want hy wat sê of dink hy is sonder sonde is ‘n leuenaar en die waarheid is nie in hom nie (1 Johannes 1:8). Dit sê vir my ons is almal praktiserende sondaars, nie waar nie? As ons nie was nie sou Johannes nooit die volgende kon skrywe nie,
Sy gebod is om sy gebooie nie te oortree nie maar as ons dit wel oortree (gesondig het), kan ons die verhouding van wedersydse liefde met Hom weer in ere herstel deur Hom om vergifnis te smeek. Hy wat dink dat hy staan moet pasop dat hy nie val nie (1 Korintiërs 10:12). Paulus kon lg. Skryf want hy het geweet wat dit beteken om God se gebooie in eie krag te doen. Hy skryf:
Weerspreek Paulus vir Johannes? Hoegenaamd nie. Paulus skets vir ons die kern van wat dit beteken om God se gebooie te bewaar. Dit draai om twee woorde – “dood” en “lewe” of dan “lewe” en “dood.” Paulus sê inderwaarheid. As ek probeer om God se gebooie te onderhou, maak dit my dood omdat hierdie liggaam van die dood binne-in my, geheel en al so intens sleg is dat wanneer ek die goeie wil doen, is die slegte by my (d.w.s. geheel en al uitverkoop aan die sonde; daar is niks goeds in ons nie). Dit volg dat die liggaam van die dood (ons ou natuur) wat lewe probeer verwek deur die onderhouding van die gebooie, moet sterwe. Hoe gebeur dit? “Ek dank God deur Jesus Christus,” skryf Paulus. Daarom sê hy uiteindelik,
Waar pas die homoseks persone in hierdie bogenoemde scenario in? Soos enige ander sondaar wat deur geloof alleen in Christus Jesus se volbragte werk aan die kruis gered word, en dusdoende volmag kry om hemel toe te gaan wanneer hulle sterwe, so-ook kry bekeerde homoseksueles die volmag om hemel toe te gaan. Onthou egter een ding. Soos enige ander verlore sondaar kan homoseksueles alleenlik waarlik tot bekering kom as hulle erken en bely dat homoseksualiteit ‘n sonde teen God is (Jeremia 3:13). Alle sondes is teen God (Psalm 51:6) en enigiemand wat bely dat hulle in Jesus glo en terselfdertyd ontken dat homseksualiteit of enige ander vorm van seksuele promiskuïteit sondes teen God is, kan nie vergifnis daarvoor ontvang nie. Dis mos onmoontlik om vergifnis te kry vir dinge wat hulle nie as sondes beskou nie? Om sondes van watter aard ook al te misken en op allerhande maniere te probeer verdedig,terwyl hulle sê hulle glo in Jesus, is ‘n weg wat na die dood lei (Spreuke 14:12; 16:25; Jakobus 2:19).
Om op te som. Soos enige ander sondaar wat tot bekering gekom het en vergifnis ontvang het vir sy sondes, en daarna ‘n pad met Christus moet loop om oorwinning te kry oor daardie ou-natuur-sondes sodat hy nie weer daarin verval nie, so-ook moet die bekeerde homo oorwinning kry oor syne. Ek glo vas dat God soms toelaat dat geredde sondaars in omstandighede en situasies kom om hulle te leer om hulle eie lewens te haat. (Johannes 12:23-26). Paulus het eers besef wat dit beteken om homself te haat toe hy uitgeroep het, “Want ek weet dat in my, dit wil sê in my vlees, niks goeds woon nie; want om te wil, is by my aanwesig, maar om goed te doen, dit vind ek nie. Want die goeie wat ek wil, doen ek nie, maar die kwaad wat ek nie wil nie, dit doen ek. Maar as ek doen wat ek nie wil nie, dan doen ek dit nie meer nie, maar die sonde wat in my woon.” Let wel, hy praat van sonde (enkelvoud) en nie sondes (meervoud) nie. Dit kom dus daarop neer dat elke geredde persoon wat vergifnis ontvang het vir al sy sondes nog steeds sit met die dilemma van die “sonde” (ou natuur) wat ons aanhits tot sonde. Sommiges leer hierdie waarheid baie vinnig en ander sukkel veel langer om dit proefondervindelik te leer. Kan ons so iemand ‘n praktiserende homoseksualis noem? Paulus was elke keer diep bedroef gewees oor sy val in die sonde wanneer hy so hard probeer het om dit nie te doen nie. Hy het telkens berou gekry en dit sekerlik bely, maar eers oorwinning gekry toe hy geleer het om daagliks sy ou natuur (sonde) aan die kruis af te gee. Interessant genoeg, die woord “begeerlikhede” (“concupiscence” in die Engels; “epithumia”) verwys na allerhande begeerlikhede maar veral na sterk seksuele luste.
Ek weet nie of Koko Afrikaans verstaan nie maar sy kan gerus hier lees as sy wil.
Tom (Discerning the World) wrote:
would you say that Peter, Paul and the rest of Christ’s disciples experienced a changed life subsequent to their salvation? Surely you must know this passage in Scripture?
Surely “a new creation” must be a changed life. Indeed, the blood of Christ alone saves lost sinners. But isn’t there more to that?
The question is, how and with what are you building on the foundation who is Christ Jesus?
Tom baie dankie dat JULLE die waarheid vir ons op so ñ besondere en bekwame wyse ontsluit. Ons kan net dankie sê. Seën toegebid.
Laurens Groot plesier.
Awesome answer from scripture :clap:
Koko, I see you are in Africa, but not South Africa 🙂
If you want to, you can copy and paste Toms comment to Laurens le Roux into Google translate Afrikaans to English.
Dear Tom and Deborah,
Your Critique shows apart from being very judgemental also a lack of understanding what I said and meant.
There is a difference between the sinful nature (Heart of man, which Jesus did not have!) and the sinful flesh (own strength and wisdom, which if He could chose to rely on but never did!) Maybe the difference also can be also explained in being sinful=nature (Which Jesus was not born with!)
and having the possibility of relying on yourself ( flesh ) which Jesus never did.
Maybe its more righteous and fair to first talk to the persons themselves before one place yourself in the seat of the judge..
The description of what happened at the fall and what the tree of knowledge and evil represents corresponds exactly with 1Joh 2.15/17 describes as being in the world! Off course Adam and Eve did not know that in their experience in Paradise but yet the Bible explains this is the heart of what they chose for.
In any case I do not believe in the false teaching of the manifested sons of God as you also suggest
Hebrews 4:15 (KJV 1900): For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
I owe you Deborah and Tom responses on the other threads, but I just saw Eddie’s comment and thought that this verse might be helpful for either side of the discussion… Jesus was tempted in every way that we as humans are – hope it helps to edify our understanding. Grace and peace of the Lord!
Hi Eddie, thank you for your comment. To say and believe and proclaim in public that Jesus had a sinful flesh, just like ours, but that He chose not to sin, demeans and degrades the Father. Let’s say this loud and clear from the very outstart. Why do I say so? There are several reasons.
1) Jesus said, “I and the Father are One.” He said this when He was already a man in the flesh at his First Advent. This oneness or unity, as you know, was from all eternity to all eternities unbreakable. They are all spiritual attributes. They are one in essence, one in love, one in compassion, one in lovingkindness, one in mercy, one in righteous judgment, etc. Their oneness is so mindboggling knitted together, that Jesus could say, “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me, and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. (John 5:30-32). The question is: Would his Father have given His body the propensity to sin as a token of their oneness? This brings me to the second reason.
2) In Hebrews Jesus says, “Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me.” His body had to be spotless, without spot or wrinkle, sinless, and even completely free from any propensity to sin. The very least of proclivities to sin would have disqualified Him as the unique Son of God and as God’s unique offering on the cross for the sins of the world. It was not his alleged choice not to sin or to succumb to his alleged sin nature, such as ours, that paid the ransom for the world’s sins. It was Him having taken upon Himself in his perfect sinless body, prepared for Him by his Father, every single sin of every person who has ever lived and shall live, and died for them, the death of the cross.
3) In John 14, just before Judas betrayed Him and the mob arrested Him in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus said, “Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.” (John 14:30). What did He mean when He said, “and hath nothing in me.” The “nothing in Him” refers to the old Adam nature (inborn sinful nature) every single person on this earth has inherited since the Fall. Did Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, inherit the very same nature – a nature capable of sinning, and is overwhelmed by the proclivities to sin? Perish the thought. If so, He would never have been called the Second Adam, but would only have been a cloned extension of the old (first Adam). Lila seems to have been taken in by the notion that Jesus was capable of sinning but chose not to. She quoted Hebrews 4:15 “For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15). First of all, “temptations” are not sin. They are enticements that can and often do lead to sin unless we resist them in the Name of Jesus and deny the wants and lusts of our flesh (old Adam nature). As our High Priest, Jesus knows perfectly how to sympathize with our temptations. Although as God, He was unable to sin, He knew it perfectly well,and feel the devastating consequences of temptation. Like an immovable boulder in the sea, He could bear the brunt of raging seas, and in this sense, He is able to sympathize with our temptations as our High Priest.
4) What is the essence of sin? Here it is: “And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; (John 16:8-9). The very bedrock of sin is not believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and was sent to pay for the sins of the world. Was this, the bedrock of sin, which Jesus was capable of doing but chose not to do? Remember, it is not your sins that send you to hell but your dying in your sins. (John 8:24).
If you do not believe in that heresy why didn’t you warn Jannes Labuschagne and his church about its dangers. The are inundated with the teachings of the Manifest sons of God.
I find it rather odd that you should make a difference between the sinful nature (Heart of Man) and the sinful flesh. If the sinful nature is the heart of man (the core of his entire being) then we ought to translate Matthew 22:37 as follows:
Paul addresses the wretchedness of his sinful nature by admitting that there is nothing good in his flesh. His wretched sinful flesh constituted and gave rise to his sinful nature. As such they are inseparable. You cannot divide them into two different categories, the one “the Heart of man which Jesus did not have) and the sinful flesh (the possibility of relying on yourself (flesh) which Jesus never did. By saying Jesus had a sinful flesh, just as we have, but never succumbed to or chose to sin, you are in effect saying that He had a sinful nature, because Paul, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit said there is no difference between the two.
He admitted that his sinful nature was the factory, if you will, of his sinful flesh (his bodily members that are the instruments of sin.
Just as I thought. :like:
So glad you came to tell us exactly what you really meant.
It is just so amaaaaazing how Christians fail to see the difference between the seen (flesh) and unseen (spiritual) components of man. For instance, in NAR and WOF circles, the brain (a physical component, if they do not know yet) is an organ in the head with which we think on things, consider things, learn things, and so forth. As such, we are merely a robotic machine and nothing else. In the same way, it implies that we do things (good or bad, right or wrong, pleasing and displeasing) with our eyes, ears, hands and feet. Yet again, it boils down to that we are merely robotic machines and slaves of our flesh. Do we think with our brains? Are our actions merely the result of what we do with our eyes, ears, hands and feet? Nope, there is a ghost in the machine, unseen entities within the frame of the flesh which the Bible calls spirit and soul. These two things (call it”nature” if you like) controls and operates) the brain, eyes, ears, hands and feet.
If it were true that Jesus had the possibility to rely on the flesh (yourself; physical components), as Eddie Bakker says, without Him having to use man’s most inward nature (the Heart, which Jesus never had, that is soul and spirit), as Eddie Bakker suggests, then Jesus never became like us in all things, but without sin. In short, He then missed the boat. The only difference between the seen (physical – flesh) and the unseen (spiritual – soul and spirit) is that without the spirit and soul which operates and controls the bodily members, the flesh dies and is ready for burial, because when the soul and spirit leaves the body, the latter is dead (can no longer be controlled and operated by the soul and spirit) and is ready-made for burial. Edie, you should know that?
Tom, that was an excellent explanation and begs further study on my part. Thank you for addressing the verse I brought up. I wasn’t sure where Eddie’s distinction in his comment came from and thought that perhaps that verse would help. It does as does your exegesis; let’s hope Eddie is willing to engage in constructive dialogue here.
I’m really here to learn and clarify my own understanding of scripture and I’m so glad to have this forum with you and Deborah.
Pray that the Spirit of truth be with all of us who are sincerely seeking Him with all our heart.
I was studying the book of Romans this morning and found this verse. I believe this provides scriptural support for Eddie’s position on sinful flesh depending on your interpretation of “likeness” but not sure re distinction from the sinful nature part. I need to study some more. What would you make of it Tom?
Romans 8:3–4 (KJV 1900): For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Hi Lila. Let’s assume you have a twin sister called Dina who looks exactly just like you. Are you Dina and is Dina, you, or are you in the likeness of you sister Dina, and she in yours? Likeness does not mean exactly the same. For you to fully understand the complete sinlessness of Jesus in his nature and his flesh (even the possibility of sinning, as Bakker suggested) you will need to study the Levitical sacrifices in the Old Testament, and especially Jesus’ entry on an a donkey’s foal into Jesrusalem just prior to his crucifixion. When doing so, bear in mind that He is called the LAMB OF GOD.
Hi Lila. I don’t think Eddie Bakker will ever again come back to dialogue, as you say. Most so-called modern-day apostles, prophets en what nots are deeply embedded with NAR and WOF lies and deceit because none of them have a teachable spirit. They would rather stick to their lies than admit and repent of their evils. They simply are hooked.
I was really willing and wanting to discuss this further but your Answer to Lila below shows me again the judgmental attitude you have, you should be ashamed of the way you exalt yourself in judging the hearts of others, let rather God do that! HE alone is the righteous and faithful Judge to whom we all will give an account!
So I will excuse myself from here with the invite to anyone who would like to ask me questions to contact me personally. (email address removed)
And Lila yes Rom.8:3 is Scriptural support for what I said despite Tom’s effort to explain it away.
No you are not willing and wanting to discuss further, because if you were willing and wanting, nothing would stop you. And we are certainly not stopping you, we invite you to carry on 🙂
Tom specifically said “Most so-called modern-day apostles, prophets en what nots what nots are deeply embedded with NAR and WOF lies and deceit because none of them have a teachable spirit. They would rather stick to their lies than admit and repent of their evils. They simply are hooked.
And you have been a perfect example of just that, by using Tom’s comment as an excuse to not want to dialogue with him further. Tom could have easily have applied the same approach after your first comment where you attack him personally being with judgmental this and judgmental that, but no, he said “Thank you for our comment” and went on to explain why you are wrong in your understanding of scripture rather nicely.
If you were so convinced of your ‘gospel’ you would preach it Eddie like there was no tomorrow – come tell Tom why he is wrong. Try very hard why don’t you.
And then you go and use Lila (who is extremely impressionably at this moment and unfortunately is tossed to and fro by false teaching and easily taken in by false teachers) Ephesians 4:14 “That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;”
And then you come along….the crafty one trying to drag her away and anyone else, by placing your email address (which I have removed) to contact you personally where no one can see what you say.
You don’t want to debate in the open, that’s your agenda.
Hi Eddie, Nice to hear of you again. It’s just a pity that you are trying verry hard to defend yourself instead of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Romans 8:3 does not support your heretical view that Jesus had a sinful flesh like us. The word for “likeness” is “homoiōma” and means to be like something or someone else – not exactly like something or someone else. The word “similitude”, which the Strongs concordance uses to translate “homoiōma”, means “a person or thing resembling someone or something else.” God the Father did not literary make Him sin. He regarded Him as a sinner; He held Him to be like a sinner; He considered Him a sinner; He deemed Him a sinner; He viewed Him as a sinner, though He was completely sinless in spirit, soul and body.
If I were you, I would go back to Jannes Laqbuschagne’s Base Church and boldly tell them that you misled them when you told them Jesus had a sinful flesh like us all. Be a man and do so promptly. Jannes Laqbuschagne may give you a red card for doing so, but at least you would be obedient to Jesus Christ.