Bill Palmer’s Criticism of Phil Pringle

I found this article on the archive of my computer. The quote by Phil Pringle at the end of this article is priceless. Bill Palmer writes vehemently on Phil Pringle and examines his book, ‘Keys to Financial Poverty Success’:

Keys to Financial Excellence – a commentary on Phil Pringle’s book

A SCRIPTURAL COMMENTARY & REBUTTAL TO PHIL PRINGLE’S TITHE DOCTRINE

The purpose of this paper is to disprove and expose Dr Phil Pringle’s unscriptural doctrine of tithing as found and written in his book ‘Keys to Financial Excellence’.
Paul the apostle exhorts us in the book of Titus to ‘convict those who contradict’.
Paul also makes it very clear that those who do contradict the scripture do so for personal monetary gain –

“…Clinging to the faithful Word according to the teaching, that he may be able both to encourage by sound doctrine and to convict the ones contradicting. For there are indeed many insubordinate men, empty talkers and mind-deluders, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouth you must stop, who overturn whole houses, teaching things which they ought not for the sake of ill gain…” Titus 1.9-10, Literal translation of the Holy Bible

I should say from the outset that I am not attacking Dr Pringle’s character; I am however exposing his false teaching and unscriptural doctrine. I will be quoting parts of Dr Pringle’s book and then making comment. The tithe teaching begins on Page 55 and is labelled key number 9, ‘Tithing’. It concludes on Page 91 with key number 15 labelled ‘Deliverance through the tithe’. He also makes mention of ‘tithing principles’ throughout his book and I will be referencing these some of these quotes as well.

QUOTE, PAGE 55 –
Key Nine Tithing.
“Bring all the tithes into the storehouse” Malachi 3.10

COMMENT
From the outset Dr Pringle would have you believe that tithing is a commandment from God for you today.
What he fails to acknowledge though is that Malachi was written to the physical nation of Israel living under the Law of Moses. In the preceding verse, Malachi declares that the ‘whole nation’ was under a curse.

“…For you have robbed me, even this whole nation…” K.J.V

What nation? Is it Australia? USA? England? New Zealand? No, Israel was nation under the curse.

All of the Old Testament law was written specifically to the Nation of Israel.

We are living under a new dispensation, the ‘administration of the secret’ or ‘dispensation of the spirit’ and these things that were observed by physical Israel are now type and shadow for us, spiritual Israel. They are NOT literal actual works we need to physically implement.

“…But if the ministry of death having been engraved in letters in stone was with glory, so as that the sons of Israel could not gaze into “the face of Moses” because of the glory of his face, which was to cease, how much rather the ministry of the Spirit will be in glory! For if the ministry of condemnation was glory, much rather the ministry of righteousness abounds in glory…”
2 Corinthians 3.7-9, Literal Translation of the Holy Bible

“…And to enlighten all as to what is the administration of the secret, which has been concealed from the eons in God…that now may be made known…”
Ephesians 3.9-10, Concordant Literal Version

“…In that he says “A new covenant” he has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away…” Hebrews 8.13, K.J.V

“…For the Law had a shadow of the coming good things, not the image itself of those things…”
Hebrews 10.1, Literal Translation of the Holy Bible

Dr Pringle also neglects to inform the reader that the Law was a total package deal; it was never a compilation of commands that you chose from at will. The tithe was certainly included as part of the Law but guess what?
So was circumcision (Joshua 5.2), abstaining from unclean meats (Leviticus 11.4-8), wearing tassels on your cloak (Deuteronomy 22.12), not working on the Sabbath (Exodus 16.29) and a whole host of other stringent requirements.

Funny don’t you think how Dr Pringle is quick to point out the tithe law but neglects all the other equally important aspects of the Mosaic covenant? Yes, I think so too!

The simple fact of the matter is that if you insist on keeping one part of the law, you then become a debtor to do the entire law of Moses:

“…For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; you are fallen from grace…” Galatians 5:3 K.J.V

Paul uses the “circumcision” aspect of the law here because that was the issue that Pharisee converts of his day insisted upon. Indeed, the basic starting point of the physical law was circumcision but the message is clear – if you want to keep the law, you need to keep the entire law, not just the parts that have an appeal to your own demographic sensibilities. Furthermore, money was NEVER a tithe-able commodity.
Fisherman didn’t tithe fish, merchants were unable to tithe on their stock, candlestick makers couldn’t tithe candles, jewellers couldn’t tithe precious stones or gems and a seamstress or tailor didn’t tithe on their stores and stocks of clothing. The only time God asked the Israelites for gold and silver was in the construction of his dwelling place while they were in the wilderness. Did he demand it of them? No, absolutely not! Everyone who had a willing heart could freely give it if they chose –

“…And Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to the sons of Israel, and let them take an offering for Me. From every man whose heart impels him, let them take My offering. And this is the offering which you shall take from them: gold, and silver, and bronze; and blue, and purple, and crimson, and fine linen, and goats hair; and rams’ skin dyed red, and dugong skins, and acacia wood; oil for the light, spices for the oil of anointing, and for the incense of perfumes; onyx stones, and stones for setting, for the ephod, and for the breast pocket. And let them make a sanctuary for Me, that I may dwell in their midst…”
Exodus 25.1-8, Literal translation of the Holy Bible

QUOTE, PAGE 57 –
This point of revival cannot be ignored. When people come back to the Lord, repent at the altar, renew their commitment to follow Christ and start being part of the church again, one of the most important areas to revive is bringing tithes into the church.

COMMENT
Dr Pringle is making a blatant unscriptural statement here.
He implies that tithing is an essential ingredient to your walk with Christ.
How is it then that nowhere in the records of the early church do we find any of the apostles teaching or advocating tithing? If it were ‘one of the most important areas’ as Dr Pringle states, why is it that we find no evidence whatsoever that tithing was even taught?

In Hebrews 6.1 we are told clearly what the foundational principles for new believers are –

“…For this reason, having left the subject of the beginning [principles] of Christ, let us continue being moved to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead [fig., utterly useless] works and of faith toward God, of [the] teaching [or, doctrine] of baptisms [or, immersions] and of [the] laying on of hands and of [the] resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment…” Analytical Literal Translation

So in this scripture we learn what the basics of following Christ are. We have six fundamentals –

1. Repentance from dead works
2. Faith towards God
3. Teaching of baptisms
4. The laying on of hands
5. Resurrection of the dead
6. Eternal (Eonian) judgment

But hang on, where is tithing? Didn’t Dr Pringle say it was ‘one of the most important’? If it’s so important it must be here. Why isn’t it then? Because it was NEVER taught, advocated or endorsed by the New Testament church.
In all of his epistles Paul NEVER mentions tithing.
If, as Dr Pringle implies, the tithe were ‘one of the most important areas’ then surely Paul would have commended or criticised the churches he oversaw in regards to it?

QUOTE, PAGE 57 –
Some people argue against tithing and giving offerings to God. Some have religious reasons.

COMMENT
Dr Pringle is confusing the issue at hand with this statement.
He is putting tithing in the same category as giving offerings. We are all called to give when and where we are able to, without a doubt. I am in no objection to people giving monetary funds to a church or any other non-profit organisation for that matter. An offering is just that, something freely given without restriction. A tithe is ten percent – a specified and stated amount. Pringle then makes a statement designed to prejudice the reader saying ‘some have religious reasons’. In other words, if you question his line of thought you are being religious and dogmatic. No Dr Pringle – you are just a man! God’s word is the foundational aspect we should be leaning on and looking to for truth, not your say so and opinion.

QUOTE, PAGE 57-58 –
They say tithing is an Old Testament practice that Jesus released us from when he released us from living under the law. This is wrong. Jesus himself taught us to tithe.

Matthew 23.23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint, anise and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done without leaving the others undone”. He is clearly declaring that the scribes and Pharisees should have been looking after justice, mercy and faith as well as tithing.

COMMENT
Dr Pringle here is basing his justification for tithing on a single scripture in Matthew that has Christ talking to Pharisees of all people. This is just so terribly sad! What Dr Pringle fails to see is that Christ pronounces ‘Woe’ upon the Pharisees. No not abundance from heaven and blessings forevermore but ‘woe’. And let us not forget whom exactly Christ was speaking to –

Was Christ speaking to his disciples when he said ‘These you ought to have done?’ NO. Was Christ speaking to the multitudes who sat at his feet to be healed and set free when he said ‘These you ought to have done’? NO. And Pringle honestly thinks that this applies to believers in Christ – that is unbelievable!

Don’t forget that the Pharisees were the church of the day.
They were religious bigots and Jesus likened them to ‘vipers’ and ‘whitewashed walls’ of all things. Jesus was never impressed by the fact that they tithed!
In chapter 23 of Matthew (the same chapter) Jesus makes the following comments to these same Pharisees –

“…Now woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are locking the kingdom of the heavens in front of men. For you are not entering, neither are you letting those entering to enter. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are going about the sea and the dry land to make one proselyte, and whenever he may be becoming one, you are making him more than double a son of Gehenna than you are. Woe to you, blind guides! Who are saying, whoever should be swearing by the temple, it is nothing; yet whoever should be swearing by the gold of the temple is owing. Blind guides! Straining out a gnat, yet swallowing a camel! Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are cleansing the outside of the cup and the plate, yet inside they are brimming with rapacity and incontinence…”
Matthew 23.13-17, 24, Concordant Literal Version

Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I do not see Christ pronouncing blessings and abundance upon the tithe-paying Pharisees! Maybe I’m missing something?
The facts are that the Pharisees were under the laws and customs of Moses and as such were bound to obey all of the commandments and requirements contained in that law. They like Dr Pringle thought they could gain righteousness through works of self and the blessing of God through tithing. Did they get it? No, certainly not! In fact they were so blinded by their self-righteousness they even went so far as to crucify Christ.

Jesus being a carpenter would not have been obligated to tithe anyway; He was however obligated by the Law of Moses to pay an annual temple tax (Exodus 30.13-16, 38.26)

He would have paid that wouldn’t he? Jesus would have paid the temple tax surely? No – He did not! (Well he did eventually but read on…)

Christ didn’t keep the Sabbath because he was ‘Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12.8) and likewise and in the same manner he had no intention of paying the annual temple tax because he is ‘Lord of the temple’

“…When they arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the half shekel (the temple tax) went up to Peter and said, Does not your teacher pay the half shekel? He answered, Yes. And when he came home, Jesus spoke to him (about it) first, saying, What do you think Simon? From whom do earthly rulers collect duties or tribute – from their own sons or from others not of their own family? And when Peter said, From other people not of their own family, Jesus said to him, Then the sons are exempt. However in order not to give offence and cause them to stumble go down to the sea and throw in a hook. Take the first fish that comes up, and when you open it’s mouth you will find there a shekel. Take it and give it to them to pay the temple tax for me and for yourself…” Matthew 17.24-27, Amplified Version

What an amazing little piece of scripture!
Dr Pringle though tells us that ‘Jesus himself taught us to tithe’. How exactly Pringle figures that is beyond me!

Simon was forced to lie because he knew Christ had no intention of paying the temple tax. Jesus told Simon clearly that Kings and Sons of the King are exempt from these things. And yet, Dr Pringle says ‘Jesus himself taught us to tithe’. Once again Dr Pringle’s foolish unscriptural arguments amount to nothing in the light of God’s word.

QUOTE, PAGE 58 –
Anyway, tithing did not originate with the Old Testament.
It is not something that came into being under the Law of Moses. Abraham tithed (Gen 14.20).
He lived at least 400 years before the law was introduced.
Jacob tithed (Genesis 28.22). He also lived hundreds of years before the instigation of the law.

COMMENT
Dr Pringle misses it once again with this statement.
He obviously cannot see past his idol of finance to the truths of scripture. Abraham DID NOT tithe – he gave a ‘one off’ offering of ten percent. He then gave the other ninety percent back to the King of Sodom.

You will note that Dr Pringle has failed to include the scriptural quote: why is that?
Because he knows that his argument for Abraham establishing a tithe principle is flawed.
Let’s examine the Genesis 14 account of Abraham ‘tithing’ –

“…And blessed, praised and glorified be God most high, who has given your foes into your hand! And (Abram) gave him a tenth (of all he had taken). And the king of Sodom said to Abram, Give me the persons but keep the goods for yourself. But Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lifted up my hand and sworn to the Lord, God most high, the possessor and maker of Heaven and Earth, that I would not take a thread or shoelace of anything that is yours, lest you should say, I have made Abram rich…”
Genesis 14.20 Amplified Version

The scripture is in relation to Abraham defeating Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him. As a consequence of the victory, Abraham takes possession of the bounty and also his nephew Lot who had been captured.
It is here that Abraham is mentioned as giving a tenth or tithe of the spoils of war to Melchizedek the high priest of Salem. He then gives the other 90 percent of the booty to the King of Sodom. So what does Abraham decide to keep? Well… Nothing!

He was already an extremely wealthy man. With over 300 servants alone (Genesis 14.14) you can imagine how much else he must have had in proportion to his servants.

Looking at the scripture closely, all that really transpired was that Abraham gave Melchizedek an offering from the SPOILS OF WAR.
Is your paycheck each week from the ‘spoils of war’? Perhaps if you decided to fund your own guerrilla war in a 3rd world country somewhere you could then give 10% of the funds you receive to the church? That would be an equivalent scenario!

Abraham gave a ‘one-off’ offering and NOT anything from his personal possessions and certainly not in accordance with the Mosaic tithe Law at all. To argue that he somehow set a precedent in relation to tithing is foolish.
If you take that line of thought then you’d better be prepared to give away the other 90% of your income too!

There is never any instance before or after this where Abraham gave a tenth of anything again.
If he had in fact ‘set a precedent’ and God was adamant that Abraham give us an example of how to live out our faith, do you really think God could not have arranged another scenario to drop a hint or 2 our way? If as Dr Pringle teaches, that he had ‘set a precedent’ then surely Abraham would have continued to ‘tithe’ after this occasion?

So now onto Jacob. Dr Pringle says clearly that ‘Jacob tithed’.
Well, did he? No he did not – Dr Pringle is again twisting scripture to suit his agenda.
Pringle again fails to quote the actual scripture in relation to Jacob; probably in the hope readers will gloss over the reference but won’t bother to check it for themselves. Let us examine the scripture in question –

“…Then Jacob made a vow, saying, If God will be with me and will keep me in this way that I go and will give me food to eat and clothing to wear, so that I may come again to my father’s house in peace, then the Lord shall be my God; and this stone which I have set up as a pillar (monument) shall be God’s house (a sacred place to me), and of all (the increase of possessions) that You give me I will give the tenth to You…”
Genesis 28.20-22, Amplified Version

Jacob had been sent by his father Isaac to Padan-aram to find a wife for himself from his Uncle’s family.
On the journey, he stops to rest for the night and has an amazing encounter with God. God promises to watch over him and to bless his offspring. Jacob wakes from the dream declaring that the place was none other than the house of God and the gateway to heaven! (Genesis 28.17)
It is then that Jacob makes this vow to God; well, in actual fact it’s really just a bargain.
He declares that IF God will look after him and bless him he’ll give a tenth of his increase back to God (Genesis 28.20) It was a conditional arrangement and it was dependant on a few things happening –

God had to be with him.
God had to keep him in the way that he went.
God had to give him bread to eat and clothes to put on.
He had to come again to his father’s house IN PEACE; don’t forget that he’d left on VERY bad terms with Esau!

Jacob vowed that only AFTER all these things had happened that ‘then shall the Lord be my God’.
Once that happened, he would then institute a tithe or tenth on his goods.

We know he worked for Laban (his Uncle) for at least 14 years! By then he had still NOT returned to his father in peace. In a nutshell all Jacob really said was ‘You bless me first God and I’ll bless you back later’.
Oh and by the way, there is NEVER any indication that Jacob actually stuck to his deal with God, we are not told either way if he actually followed through with it.
If you want to follow in Jacob’s footsteps, make a list of everything you can think of and then tell God that after he gets all the goodies your way you’ll start tithing because that’s all that Jacob did. And yet Dr Pringle says ‘Jacob tithed’.
This is an outright lie designed to support and endorse his false teaching and is in no way maintained by scripture!

QUOTE, PAGE 58 –
Recently I heard someone attempting to argue that even though tithing was introduced before Abraham, so was circumcision, and that therefore, because circumcision finished with the beginning of the New Testament, so too did tithing. This is not sound thinking or clear logic at all.
First, the bible never states that tithing is done away with under the New Testament, but clearly states that circumcision is. If tithing were to be done away with as with circumcision there would be no question. It would be just as clearly stated.

COMMENT
With this statement Dr Pringle shows just how off the mark he is when it comes to understanding scripture and the truths of Gods word. He also contradicts scripture on a number of points.
Firstly circumcision is NOT done away with but instead of being a physical act by eliminating the foreskin of the penis, circumcision is now ‘of the heart’. It is not done away with at all –

“…So circumcise the foreskin of your (minds and) hearts; be no longer stubborn and hardened…” Deuteronomy 10.16, Amplified Version

“…For he is not a real Jew who is only one outwardly and publicly, nor is (true) circumcision something external and physical. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and (true) circumcision is of the heart, a spiritual and not a literal (matter). His praise is not from men but from God…”
Romans 2.28-29, Amplified Version

Again, the idea is that the spiritual replaces the physical. The physical was only ever a mere shadow type of the spiritual anyway. This is what physical Israel and Dr Pringle misunderstand.

Dr Pringle then goes on to say that because tithing is not specifically mentioned as being done away with then we obviously have an obligation to continue it. What a thick-headed dull-minded thing to say!
In Proverbs we are admonished to answer a fool according to his folly (Proverbs 26.5) and that is what I shall now do with Dr Pringle. Ok Phil, so tithing is never SPECIFICALLY stated as being done way with.

But hang on just a second, why don’t I see you getting about with fringes and tassels on the corner of your clothing?

“…And the Lord said to Moses, Speak to the Israelites and bid them make fringes or tassels on the corners in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and put upon the fringe of the borders or upon the tassel of each corner a cord of blue…That you may remember and do all my commandments and be holy to your God…”
Numbers 15.37-38, 40, Amplified Version

We are not told SPECIFICALLY that this particular law is done away with are we? Since you’re so keen to take this line of thought then I suggest you crack out that sewing kit and tassel yourself up Dr Pringle – oh and don’t forget the blue thread! Oh and another thing Dr Pringle, where’s your beard? Yeah and what’s with that close haircut of yours?

“…You shall not round the corners of the hair of your heads nor trim the corners of your beard…” Leviticus 19.27, Amplified Version

But since there’s no New Testament scripture SPECIFICALLY stating this has been done away with then shouldn’t you be adhering to it? I mean that is your reasoning for tithing is it not?
Hopefully you can see how profoundly dumb Dr Pringle’s reasoning and his arguments are for tithing.
Just because something is not specifically stated as being done away with does not mean we need to still adhere to it.

This was a hard fact for even the apostles of Christ to come to terms with. In Acts we read of Peter’s struggle to differentiate between his adherence to Mosaic Law and his newfound freedom in Christ –

“…Now, on the morrow, as they are journeying and drawing near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray about the sixth hour of the day. Now he became ravenous and wanted to taste food. Now, while they are preparing it, an ecstasy came on him, and he is beholding heaven open and a certain utensil descending, as a large sheet, with four edges, being let down on the earth, in which belonged all the quadrupeds and reptiles of the earth and the flying creatures of heaven. And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter! Sacrifice and eat!” Yet Peter said, “Far be it from me, Lord, for I never ate anything contaminating and unclean!” And again, a second time, a voice came to him, “What God cleanses, do not you count contaminating! Now this occurred thrice, and straightway the utensil was taken up into heaven…”
Acts 10.9-16, Concordant Literal Version

Peter was in fact struggling to accept the fact that Gentile converts were actually being redeemed and were now a part of the Kingdom of God. It would be fair to say that He had a hard time even associating with them! Being Jewish Peter would have been raised to be highly un-accepting of non-Jewish peoples or Gentiles; they were actually referred to as ‘Dogs’ as a reference to how beneath them they viewed them to be. God had to get Peter to see the truth of this fact.
To do so God showed Peter a vision with all sorts of unclean animals (unclean as defined by the Mosaic Law) and commanded him to eat them! What it comes down to is that either Christ abolished some of the Law or he abolished all of it. Which one was it?

“…By abolishing in his (own crucified) flesh the enmity (caused by) the law with its decrees and ordinances…” Ephesians 2.15, Amplified Version

“…Christ purchased our freedom (redeeming us) from the curse (doom) of the Law (and it’s condemnation) by (himself) becoming a curse for us…” Galatians 3.13, Amplified Version

People like Dr Pringle just cannot see that the Law pointed to Christ himself. Christ was the fulfilment of the Law; he himself was never obligated to live out the exacting specifications of it and neither are we. If Christ was obligated to live out all of the Law then why did he constantly flout the Sabbath and dismiss the temple tax? Because Christ is Lord of the Law! The Pharisees and Dr Pringle seem to prefer the shadow itself rather than the body that casts the shadow –

“…Let no one, then, be judging you in food or in drink or in the particulars of a festival, or of a new moon, or of Sabbath’s, which are a shadow of those things which are impending – yet the body is the Christ’s…” Colossians 2.16-17, Concordant Literal Version

Paul could have gone on and stated every single facet of the Mosaic Law in the above scripture but the meaning is clear to those with ‘eyes to see and ears to hear’. The Law was simply a shadow; the body casting that shadow is Christ! Dr Pringle – give this idol of your heart up. You cannot support any of your arguments scripturally; 2 pages into your tithe article and already I’ve blown your reasoning and petty doctrine sky high.

Dr Pringle then goes to further confuse his readers by saying that physical baptism is necessary to be saved (I have not included the quote as it is not directly related to the tithe doctrine)
I won’t go into this whole topic now but again his Pharasitical mindset cannot comprehend that physical actions are shadows of spiritual realities. What about the thief on the cross with Christ? Was he baptised? No. Will he be saved? Yes. Read the scripture yourself in Luke 23.43

QUOTE, PAGE 59 –
The real problem is not theological, although we can certainly gloss up a miserly attitude with some scripture and high-sounding theology.
People who have a problem with tithing generally have a problem with giving.
Often they go looking for a scripture they can bend into a shape that sanctifies their position.

COMMENT
Here again Dr Pringle uses sub-text and sly remarks to prejudice his reader into thinking that tithing and giving are one and the same. They are absolutely not the same.
Giving is just that – giving. It is free from restraint and bounds. Tithing is a regulated specific amount that dictates what one must do and give. Pringle also insinuates that those who are ‘anti-tithing’ have a miserly attitude!
Again we see that the man has no sound scriptural reasoning and must resort to cheap tricks to emotionally manipulate his readers. He also states that the problem is ‘not theological’ What the? I think I’ve disproved that easily enough! Dr Pringle’s problem is that he CANNOT back up his false doctrine with any pertinent scripture or sound reasoning. Again he uses off handed comments to suggest that people who disagree with his false teaching are then forced to ‘sneak about’ within the bible to justify their reasoning. No quite the opposite in fact; Dr Pringle is the one who is botching and bending scripture into shape to suit his own ends.

QUOTE, PAGE 59 –
It is hard to understand that people who claim they love God resist the call to bring the tithe, which is His, into His house to give to Him.

COMMENT
Dr Pringle is way off base here if he thinks God is dwelling in some man made building of bricks and mortar. Again he shows just how immature his spiritual understanding really is.
Where is the House or Temple of God situated? Does God actually dwell in a debt free multi-million dollar suite of church buildings at Oxford Falls?

“…Are you not aware that you are a temple of God and the spirit of God is making its home in you? If anyone is corrupting the temple of God, God will be corrupting him, for the temple of God is holy, which you are…”
1 Corinthians 3.16-17, Concordant Literal Version

“…Or are you not aware that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit in you, which you have from God, and you are not your own?”1 Corinthians 6.19, Concordant Literal Version

So tell me Dr Pringle just how do we ‘bring the tithe, which is His, into his house’ if as we just read the house of God is within us? Can you answer me that one? No – you can’t! Dr Pringle just cannot get past his idol of finance to the great and wonderful spiritual truths of God’s word. He’d have you believe that his multi million dollar complex at Oxford Falls is in fact the ‘House of God’. Nothing could be further from the truth.

QUOTE, PAGE 59-60 –
People who fight tithing must imagine that they are being robbed by giving it to God.
Yet God says it is actually him who is being robbed. God does not cheat us by asking us to give to him. We do not lose through giving to God. Rather we cheat ourselves out of blessing when we do not give to the Lord. God is a good God. He is not going to ask you to do something that short-changes your life. You will be enriched through your obedience to God, not impoverished.

COMMENT –
And again Dr Pringle confuses the reader by tagging giving in with tithing. They are not the same! It would appear that even he is confused on this issue. I agree with his statement that we do not lose when we give to God. This is correct and scriptural. However the context of Dr Pringle’s statement carries an implication that God requires your monetary funds. Is this true? Can this be supported with scripture? Can we actually purchase the blessing of God with finance? Let us examine a scripture in Acts of someone who attempted to do just that –

“…And the apostles in Jerusalem hearing that Samaria had received the Word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who going down prayed concerning them so that they may receive the Holy Spirit. For He had not yet fallen on any one of them, but they were only being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. But Simon having seen that the Holy Spirit is given through the laying on of the hands of the apostles, he offered them money, saying, Give to me also this authority that to whomever I may lay on the hands he may receive the Holy Spirit. But Peter said to him, May your silver be with you into perdition, because you thought to get the gift of God through money. There is neither part nor lot to you in this matter, for your heart is not upright before the face of God. Repent, then, from this wickedness of yours, and petition God if perhaps you will be forgiven the thought of your heart…”
Acts 8.14-22, Literal Translation of the Holy Bible

So what happened here?
Simon thought he could gain the Holy Spirit and the blessings thereof through giving money to the apostles.
Like Dr Pringle he was convinced that God’s abundance and blessings would fall upon him because he was prepared to part with his financial resources.
What was Peter’s response? He rebukes this man and declares that his heart is not upright before the face of God.
We can NEVER buy anything from God – his blessings are not some cheap luxury you or I or anybody can purchase with a tithe. This is a ridiculous mindset but one that false teachers and deceivers will have you believing to be true.
If this were in fact the case, if you could actually buy God’s unparalleled blessing then why are there so many meagre Christians who tithe? I mean c’mon, think about it – If you could just tithe and have all your wildest financial dreams come to pass then EVERYONE would be doing it wouldn’t they? Of course they would! Phil Pringle’s candy-coated tithe message is very deceptive and you can very easily fall for it, I certainly did for many years.

Paul tells the Corinthian Church that many such false teachers are corrupting the word of God. How can we corrupt the word of God? Let us examine the scripture –

“…For we are not as many which corrupt the word of God…”
2 Corinthians 2.17, K.J.V

The word translated ‘Corrupt’ here is a Greek word Kapeleuo and means to retail, merchandise and make money by selling. So that’s right – we can corrupt the word of God by selling the things of God and the revelations he gives us. We are told throughout scripture that we are not to engage in this! The things of God should NEVER be for sale; freely we have received and freely we should be giving. Is your book for sale Dr Pringle? Oh, yes it is!

Another scripture along this line is found in Paul’s letter to Timothy. Here Paul is speaking of men who DO NOT teach the sound and wholesome gospel of Christ –

“…Who are corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth, who imagine that godliness or righteousness is a source of profit (a money making business, a means of livelihood). From such withdraw…” 1 Timothy 6.5, Amplified Version

Dr Phil Pringle would have you thinking that Godliness and righteousness is a source of amazing prosperity and profit – just bring that tithe in and look out for the blessing! That is not the message of scripture though; in fact we are admonished to withdraw from such people. It is easy to be caught up in this message being preached by Dr Pringle and many other esteemed ‘ministers’ but we must always look to God and his word for our guidance and not man.
QUOTE, PAGE 61 –
The curse of not tithing

COMMENT
Oh dear… Dr Pringle has now stooped so low as to suggest that people who do not tithe are in fact under a curse!
What is sad is that he really believes this to be true, that God is some kind of glorified penny-pinching accountant keeping track of every dollar you earn and if you fail to tithe? You better look out cause there’s a curse coming your way hard and fast! Pringle is now playing on people’s fears and is convinced that failing to tithe will earn you a firm whack up the side of the head from God: this is classic cult-like fear-mongering technique!

No, as we’ve already discussed, God never asked the Israelites to tithe money; it was never a tithe-able resource! Giving? Yes! Tithing? No! Do not be deceived by cunning arguments like the tithe doctrine. The apostle Peter had a revelation of the end time church and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit penned some pertinent scripture relating to our topic at hand.

In 2 Peter 2.1-3 we read –

“…But also false prophets came to be among the people, as also false teachers will be among you, who will secretly bring in destructive, heretical sects, and denying the Master having redeemed them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. And many will follow their flagrant sexually immoral ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in covetous desire [or greed], with fabricated words, they will exploit you, for whom their judgment of old is not idle, and their destruction will not sleep…” Analytical Literal Translation

“…Motivated by greed, they will exploit you with their counterfeit arguments…” Berkely Version

“…In their lust they will exploit you with cunning arguments…” Moffatt Translation

“…In their greed for MONEY they will trade on your credulity with sheer fabrications…” The New English Bible

QUOTE, PAGE 64 –
(Speaking of the city of Jericho) –
God had given strict instructions, however that everything in this city was to be destroyed. Nothing was to be taken by any Israelite. The entire city was ‘under the ban’. It was devoted to destruction. It was the first fruits of their land.
It was the tithe of the prosperity that was coming upon them.

COMMENT
Dr Pringle is entirely off the track here yet again. Yes, the city of Jericho was to be utterly destroyed and nothing was to be taken by any Israelite – that part is true. Yes it was a kind of first fruit offering but a tithe? A tithe by definition is a tenth. Did the Israelites only take ten cities of which Jericho was the first? Well, no they didn’t. They took far more than ten cities. We know for a fact that Israel under Joshua defeated thirty-one kings. A king naturally would rule over a city or large region of some sort wouldn’t he? If Jericho was in fact a tithe wouldn’t they have had to repeat this scenario for every lot of ten cities they took?
But Dr Pringle tells us that the city of Jericho was ‘a tithe of the prosperity that was coming upon them’. Again he is making blatant unscriptural assertions with this statement.

QUOTE, PAGE 65 –
The tithe has never belonged to us. The first tenth of our income is always God’s.
As mature people, it is unthinkable to expect blessing from God in one hand when we have stolen from him with the other.

COMMENT
I am constantly amazed at how little many of Christianity’s supposed ‘ministers’ actually know of God’s word. Even though Phil Pringle has a doctorate in theology (supposedly anyways) he still comes out with unscriptural nonsense and hoo-ha like this.

Dr Pringle tells us that the ‘first tenth of our income is always God’s’. Oh really?

“…And all the tithe of the herd or of the flock, whatever passes under the herdsman’s staff (by means of which each tenth animal as it passes through a small door is selected and marked), the tenth shall be holy to the Lord. The man shall not examine whether the animal is good or bad nor shall he exchange it…” Leviticus 27.32-33, Amplified Version

Can you see that scripture? I can – and what does it say? Did God want the first out of every ten animals? (note that the tithe according the scriptures was always livestock or produce, never money) No he did not! The tithe was on the tenth animal – NOT THE FIRST.
And God wasn’t overly concerned about whether the animal in question was a prime specimen or completely and utterly bogus. So even though Dr Pringle is advocating an unscriptural tithe doctrine he can’t even see fit to get the logistics or actuality of it correct – unbelievable!

You will note that again Dr Pringle makes use of sub-text to suggest that ‘mature’ people do not expect blessing from God when they have simultaneously robbed him. How is it then in Psalms we learn that God sustains ALL of the living?

“…The eyes of all hope to You and You give them their food in due time. You open Your hand and satisfy the desire of every living thing…” Psalms 145.15-16, Literal Translation of the Holy Bible

We are told clearly here that God satisfies the desire of EVERY living thing; this includes the unrighteous and the wicked. No – not every ‘tithing’ thing; every living thing. Christ tells us in Matthew that his Father shows no impartiality towards people, he freely sends his blessings upon us all:

“…That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust… Matthew 5.45 K.J.V

I suggest that perhaps Dr Pringle stops writing books he knows nothing about and starts to read his bible.

CLOSING THOUGHTS
Although I had planned to make comment on all thirty-something pages of Dr Pringle’s tithing message it became abundantly clear that he really is just flogging the same old Malachi scriptures and using petty unscriptural reasoning and emotional jaunts to justify his stance on this issue. If I did make comment I would simply be repeating myself over.

Dr Pringle is like pretty much every Pentecostal minister I have met or researched, he has simply missed some very basic and fundamental truths of scripture. Like the Pharisees in the day of Christ, Dr Pringle has totally missed the truth of God’s word and has settled for physical laws and rituals believing that by observing them he is calling down the blessing of Heaven upon himself. These things were only ever shadows of the reality – Jesus Christ is the reality and in him there is freedom and fullness of life.

We read in Acts chapter 15 that there were Pharisees who had converted to Christ but who still wanted to maintain observance of physical rituals and customs from the Mosaic Law. These Pharisees had caused division in the early church –

“…But some who believed (who acknowledged Jesus as their Saviour and devoted themselves to him) belonged to the sect of the Pharisees, and they rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise the Gentile converts and to charge them to obey the laws of Moses…” Acts 15.5, Amplified Version

These same Pharisees argued that Gentile converts needed to be circumcised and obey the Laws of Moses. Well, tithing is certainly a part of the Law of Moses and don’t forget that if you’re not a Jewish person then you are by default a Gentile. The argument of the Pharisees is really no different to what Dr Pringle is preaching about tithing – different topic but exactly the same mindset. The Pharisees were convinced that circumcision was absolutely necessary and in fact they had good reason; Abraham was circumcised and he predated the Law and even Jesus himself was circumcised! (Luke 2.21)

But again it comes down to the issue of whether or not Christ’s death removed some of the Law or the entirety of it. What was the response of the apostles? Peter put it very simply.

“…Now then why do you try to test God by putting a yoke on the necks of the disciples, such as neither our forefathers nor We ourselves were able to endure…” Acts 15.10, Amplified Version

Do you see what Peter is saying? The Law is a yoke about your neck – It will restrain and constrict you.
Do you see also that Peter said ‘were able to endure’? This tells us clearly that Peter no longer adhered to the strict customs of the Mosaic Law. He understood the work of Christ and the freedom that came with it.

What is both unbelievable and rather mind-boggling is that modern day ministers think they can freely pick and choose which bits of the Mosaic Law should be re-instated. The Law was a complete package deal, always was and always will be – you can’t grab this that and the other without taking the whole thing.
The Pharisees in the early church at least understood this aspect, which is more than I can say for Dr Pringle and ministers like him. The Pharisees, like Dr Pringle, were focused on physical actions and as such were and are unable to comprehend spiritual realities. What is amazing is that Dr Pringle believes he truly has the insight into this matter.
I recently downloaded a recorded service from his church’s website.
The following quote is from the 6pm service of the 12th February 06 –

“…He (speaking of the apostle John in the book of 3 John) could pray a prayer over their lives of blessing and prosperity because he knew the truth was in their soul. And when you’ve got truth inside you, you understand the truth is tithing, the truth is giving to God, the truth being acted in our lives is actually coming to God with something more than just words – it’s substance, it’s an offering. That’s what truth is in our spirit and when we want to believe a lie it’ll take us away from that, we won’t enter into that prospering hand being upon our life that God has promised all the way through scripture…”

You can see clearly here with this statement that Dr Pringle has NO understanding whatsoever in regard to tithing – he has not a clue what he is talking about; ironically, it is he believing a lie.

Despite his doctorate in theology, he has clearly NOT studied to show himself approved and as a consequence he is unskilled in the word of righteousness (2 Timothy 2.15, Hebrews 5.3)

I pray that you, the reader, have gained some insight into the truth about tithing and that you can clearly see how manipulative and deceptive this doctrine is. If after reading everything I’ve presented in this paper you still think you can justify tithing (I didn’t say giving, I said tithing) then you obviously have an idol of finance within yourself that God will need to deal with! People like Dr Pringle who endorse this teaching are robbing God’s church of truth and denigrating the word of God for profit. I strongly suggest Dr Phil Pringle take note of the criticism outlined in this paper if only for the following reason:

Jeremiah 48:10 “…Cursed be he that does the work of the LORD deceitfully…”
Commentary written by Bill Palmer 2006. This paper may be copied and dispersed freely.


96 thoughts on “Bill Palmer’s Criticism of Phil Pringle

  1. Skimmed it S&P. Will try and look at it later

    This is back in 2006.

    Assuming PP’s views are still the same I would say h genuinely believes what he is saying.

    It is works again, and I wonder if it is an inability on PP’s part to believe that the gift of Jesus is free, and doesn’t require us to do anything for it.

    Also could be a confusion with James’ faith without works where the works is handing over your money.

    The point I took from Palmer is that the law is a complete package…….in which I case I would be asking if people who hold such views have been circumcised and offering to provide a surgeon….cue to picture of dull knife and big needle.

  2. This is good stuff. It’s just a shame that Bill resorts to condescending language towards PP, otherwise I would have suggested it be recommended reading for every believer. Bill, if you’re reading this I humbly ask that you re-write this excellent exegesis so that those reading who really need to know the truth are not turned off by the anti-PP rhetoric.

  3. Hi there. I got an email from a “friend of a friend” who pointed me to this page/blog.

    Firstly, I have no objections to the article being posted here. I still stand by what I wrote 4-5 years ago however, I should clarify a few things.

    To start with, the blog-page that the article links to (a blogger page titled “Matthew 6:23”) is now defunct. I had quite a range of material on there but as I developed my page and the articles (mostly my own), it really became something I felt that was doing little else except glorify the “argument” I was getting across and it became I felt, an exercise in futility.

    Secondly, I do feel like I’ve “moved on” from analyzing and dissecting doctrinal stances from well-known ministers. Again, while I stand by my article above, to me, there seems little point in even “going there” anymore. I’m far more interested in trying to be a good dad and husband rather than pointing out the obvious flaws in a prosperity donkey’s theology.

    And lastly, I guess at the end of the day I’ve resigned myself to the fact that if Christ’s words are really true then people like Phil Pringle, Houston, Creflo Dollar, Matt Ford and others are a part of God’s work and his plan for mankind. You can’t have a “called out” people if there is nothing to be called out of. You don’t get refugees leaving “Babylon” if there is no “fallen Jerusalem” to start with.

    So in closing, I’m all for dialogue, critique and deep discussions but I’ve just got better things to do these days and I don’t have the emotional energy to expend on such things. Maybe when I’m a bit older and the kids have moved of home?

    Cheers guys!

    Bill

  4. You seemed to express my views on Pringle well here, which I don’t have a problem with.

    But this article has huge potential to be a fruitful hand-out to those questioning the teachings of Pringle and his C3 movement. I would like to encourage you as well Phil, to tidy this up and examine the doctrine only and not criticise the person as much too.

    This has great potential to help people! I’m not sure if this is appropriate, but if you’re not going to edit your work further, would you give permission for others to take this work and make it less condescending towards Pringle?

  5. Sure thing – you guys go for it 🙂

    Edit that document all you like and hand it out as well but probably best in that case to either remove my name from the bottom of it or make a note saying that it’s been edited from the original.

    Personally, I don’t it’s forceful enough and nor do I think it’s “personal” – I see it as calling a spade a spade.
    And hey, let’s not forget Christ called the religious leaders of his time out on their dodgy doctrine and used phrases/figures of speech that a lot of people would consider to be extremely harsh.]

    Cheers –

    Bill

  6. This article stands in its own place already because it talks about PP’s book in particular. There are a continual stream of new articles regarding the problems with tithing doctrine though. They address different audiences. I’m not sure there would be much to gain from the work of rewriting this one!

    My favourite book about tithing is ‘Beyond Tithing’ by Stuart Murray, because it is very thorough, looks at every tithing argument, and does not attack any person or ministry. Shame its too long for the internet. It challenges the reader re NT giving as well.

  7. I’ve said this before, but tithing is not just a C3 thing. Every AOG, pentecostal/charismatic, Baptist, Brethren church I know teaches it. That’s a good section of Christians in the world who meet weekly.

    But this article of Palmer’s is a good basic rebuttal of the teaching in my opinion.

  8. The Catholics introduced the tithe. I can’t imagine either Luther or Calvin keeping it in the reformation process.

    Does anyone know when it was introduced to protestantism? I have a feeling this heresy was introduced in the pentecostal movement.

    There was am incident in a C3 connect group meeting where some anti-tithing resources were being studied by youth from different denominations. All these youth from the different denominations tithed. They were angry that their own denominations didn’t speak out against the teaching. IF Pentecostalism revived the heresy of the tithe, can you consider how convenient this doctrine is among Baptist, Methodist or even Anglican churches?

    Why would they speak against their members tithing if it’s benefiting these movements?

    I know tithing is not just a C3 thing, but they emphasize so heavily and disgustingly, that it is disturbing to listen too. The scripture twisting and the lack of gospel focus is disturbing.

  9. Tithing for land holders was legislated in England, and has only recently died out of the law completely. I’ve lent my book to someone, otherwise I could look up all the detail.

  10. “After the Reformation the tithe was increasingly taken over from the church by the state. In countries such as Germany and Switzerland, this remained the case until the 19th century, when the tithe was abolished. In England, church tithes remained until the 19th century and in some cases to this day voluntary tithes are paid by the devout. In some cases the abolishment of the tithe was accompanied by a one-time tax upon the farmers. This led many farmers into debt.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe

    A consequence of church and state being entwined.

  11. “The rent charges paid to landowners were converted by the Tithe Commutation Act to annuities paid to the state through the Tithe Redemption Commission. The payments were transferred in 1960 to the Board of Inland Revenue, and finally terminated by the Finance Act 1977.”

    1977 – not exactly ancient history. This stuff is indicious once it takes hold. There are amendments (repeals) to the tithe act dated as late as 2004.

  12. Not saying that RP is incorrect, but think more digging and checking on that is warranted.

    I’ve heard about tithing all my life and I am not a pente, and never have been

  13. Pew rents were the funding method of choice for many churches in the 1800s. A yearly rental payment would entitle the family to sit in a certain pew with their name on it. Some churches allowed you to buy pews, and their was even the bizarre practice of having lockable pews – walls around the pew so that no one else could get in, and a small window through which to look out. Check out the picture in this article :

    Some say with the demise of pew-rents in the late 19th century, the doctrine of the tithe was reintroduced.

  14. “So the tithe doctrine was rejected around the time of the Reformation?”

    I don’t think so. Rather, I think it was appropriated by the State. At least the laws that imposed the tithe were secular laws. The doctrine wasn’t necessarily the same as we know it now though, because it didn’t apply to everyone. At different times, different people have paid it. Not usually labourers or wage earners. Mostly people who’ve owned land, animals or crops. The monasteries and churches depended upon it. The forms seem to have been many and varied. It seems to have been an integral part of some feudal systems.

    I can’t check the details of the English history easily right now – as I said, I’ve lent my book out! I need it back!

  15. “Rather, I think it was appropriated by the State. ” – but still paid to official church authorities I guess. The church and state were not so easily separated back then.

  16. A quick internet search showed me these facts that need checking:

    St Augustine introduced tithing to England in 604AD. It was paid by people who owned land, crops or animals for support of the church. Later, with the decline of monasteries, some tithe entitlements were owned by lay people. Vicars were entitled to some kind of vicarage tithe. Laws re tithing changed as economic circumstances became complicated – depressions and so forth. There were people who became ‘tithe owners’. At some stage, a tithe owner might also have been legally obliged to pay tithes to himself. In those cases, tithe obligations were extinguished. There were tithe maps covering England, showing who owed who how much. With land being split and handed down, things became more and more complicated. In around 1836, money became an acceptable substitute for other kinds of tithe due. The last payments relating to tithes in England were paid in 1996.

    It is all very complicated, and went on for over 1000 years before it was completely done away with in law.

    Every single thing I’ve said should be checked!

  17. When it comes to research on church history, I often refer to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Great online resource. Of course, it has a Catholic perspective, but that’s also good, because Protestants often misrepresent Catholic teaching.

    It also states that there was no system of tithing in the early church.

    (I personally place more weight on the Apostolic Fathers than the later Church Fathers, and am more interested in what went on in the New Testament era church and the immediately proceeding generations.)

  18. Yes, its interesting that the practice became prevalent when the church became governmental and institutional, whereas previously, there seems to be little or no record of it.

  19. You know, if you focused the amount of energy you have spent criticizing, mocking and attacking PP, and put this energy into your own life, you would see an awesome change…time after time, I have noticed that people who talk this way over money and bring up all these things, are always the ones who are being controlled by it. You know who is the real deal, by the fruit that comes out of the ministry and Phil Pringle has an incredible one. He is an awesome leader and has blessed so many. He makes mistakes because he is human, but you have stepped over the line by accusing him of false motives. I’m not arguing over the tithing thing, saying who is wrong or right, because all this article has done, has made me shake my head to see you pulling him down like that. I noticed that you did not mention anything about your own ministry or the state of your own finances etc. If you have the answer with abundance of fruit, then share that instead. If it is right, God will bless it. Quite frankly, everything Phil Pringle has taught has brought incredible blessing into my life and so many others I know, and tithing or not, whatever! I give over and above 10 percent to the house because I want to see people get pulled out of darkness, just like I once was in. And that’s what’s important. God owns everything anyway…All I read here is small-mindedness and despising comments really, nothing encouraging or constructive about it. So come on, we have minds that we can use ourselves and if we really have a relationship with God, He will change us, not you, not Phil Pringle, not anybody…peace out

  20. @ Bekah,

    Phil Pringle is an ‘awesome leader’ because he has done a great job in deceiving himself and misleading thousands into believing he is the real deal.

    You should browse the archives to see how far Pringle has gone astray from the gospel of Christ.

    Your ignoramus jargon reminds me that you are simply a lemming product of C3. You speak like a C3ite, think like a C3ite, defend like a C3ite and behave like a C3ite.

    Come back when you start to think for yourself. I might actually listen to what you have to say. If Phil Pringle can turn stones to bread and offer you all the kingdoms of the world, you’d still defend him. You judge a false prophet by what they teach, not how they tickle you and make you feel good.

    If you have a mind yourself, then think for yourself and don’t immerse yourself with the brain-watering teachings of Pringle. I can see you’ve allowed Pringle in to your heart (since that is what he targets every service and NOT your head). If you are judging our relationship with God by the way we speak, then that is such shallow Pringle Christianity. You’ve have proven to me very easily your brains belong to C3. Renew your mind and step out of the world and into scriptures. You will find a very different Christianity to that of what C3 presents.

    You defend blindly a heretic and a blasphemer of God. I am deeply concerned the ground you are standing on Bekah. Do you truly call no man your Father, Teacher or Leader and rely on Christ to bear those titles in your life? Do you live by that faith? Or do you take comfort in the shadow of Pringle’s wings? Is that how you discern he is right and others are wrong?

    If so you are living by sight and not by faith. The standard of our faith is the gospel in which we live, love and rightly judge. Restart with the simplicity of the gospel and reexamine what you know from there.

    Pringle needs to repent and return to the simple truths of the gospel. You should be telling Pringle to redirect his energy to the cross and the gospel, then we’d get on fine.

  21. @Bekah – do you know anyone who gets paid to do a job that they dont do? (obtaining a benefit by means of deceit i.e.”fraud” comes to mind)

    He may be “an awesome leader and has blessed so many” – that is not a Pastor’s job….

    one example – when did he last exercise church discipline or correct doctrinal error, how does he love the flock when he doesn’t know most of them from Adam?

    What is the “fruit” you speak of? numerical and financial growth? – if that’s the biblical standard of a “fruitful ministry” then why arent you a follower of Islam or Mormonism – which have, over recent times, eclipsed the growth of Christianity worldwide?

    No one can accuse him of being a slouch of a businessman – any business run well will do well (then again I hear C3 are fiancially in trouble – but you get the point) – but is that what pastoral ministry is about – some of the greatest pastors and teachers died with just the shirt on their back….

  22. Ouch, folks.

    Whatever you think of PP, and clearly it isn’t much, that was a terribly spiteful, cowardly and uncalled-for attack on Bekah.

    I would at least commend her for standing up for her obviously much-loved Pastor in this way, and for saying some really important things, like ‘peace out’.

    It looks to me as if your rather constant attack on Phil Pringle is hurting C3 people rather than convincing them, and this is a response to that. There is a rather intense degree of angst towards C3 people displayed on this site, which is not necessary.

    In one comment, as a response to Bekah, who you don’t actually know, Phil Pringle is called a deceiver, a misleading leader, gone astray, a brain-washer, a heretic, a blasphemer, shallow, etc.. Do you think for one second that’s really helpful for her? There is not a shred of evidence that she loves her Pastor more than Jesus, yet this is implied.

    This, in particular was incredibly unkind:

    ‘Your ignoramus jargon reminds me that you are simply a lemming product of C3. You speak like a C3ite, think like a C3ite, defend like a C3ite and behave like a C3ite. Come back when you start to think for yourself. I might actually listen to what you have to say.’

    Nice way to witness, I must say!

  23. I agree – the manner of the attack on Bekah is horrible.

    Disagreeing is one thing. Being cruel, insulting and nasty is another. It is completely unnecessary.

    21″(Z)You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘(AA)YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be [b]liable to (AB)the court.’

    22″But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before (AC)the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘[c]You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before [d](AD)the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the [e](AE)fiery hell.

    Matthew 5:21-22 NASB

  24. ‘Your ignoramus jargon reminds me that you are simply a lemming product of C3. You speak like a C3ite, think like a C3ite, defend like a C3ite and behave like a C3ite. Come back when you start to think for yourself. I might actually listen to what you have to say.’

    Gosh, thinking about it, that is subliminally aimed at the entire C3 movement!

    Peace out, indeed!

  25. I know her. I’ll say that much.
    I know Bekah can think for herself.
    She is a smart girl.

    Those that woke me up from my C3 trance provoked and shocked me. They were angry, I was offended. But I didn’t forget those moments. They helped me see.

  26. So you stand by your words to Bekah, without remorse or regret! And you were probably such a pleasant boy before your eyes were opened, too! Anger is not an evangelism tool. It’s something we have to deal with.

    ““Be angry, and do not sin”: do not let the sun go down on your wrath, nor give place to the devil…

    …let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers.

    And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

    Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ forgave you. Therefore be imitators of God as dear children. And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.”

    Edification – building people up, not tearing them down.

    Grace – giving favour to people regardless of their background or understanding.

    Kind, tenderhearted, forgiving…

    Love is a sweet-smeling aroma!

  27. I don’t know what to think about my reaction to Bekah. I consulted RP and Teddy. I’ve been praying today about it. Now I’m listening to Pringle again.

    Remorse or regret? Not sure.
    Trying to figure this out.

  28. @5PS…I thought you had earlier encouraged Christians to exercise church discipline and correct error. Is that from a basis of attaining to perfection first, or are we all too sinful to assess others’ error?

    I guess we all have our moments, though, don’t we? Perfection? I was of the understanding that we only come close because we put on Christ. So who is qualified to judge and criticise others, then?

    How about you? Have you had a angst-filled rant about anyone lately?

    I’m constantly reminded that we’re admonished to provoke one another to love and good works.

    If you can’t see that the instant drubbing Bekah received was unkind, not tenderhearted, unforgiving, and lacking love, I wonder if, for all your knowledge of Biblical principles, Greek, Hebrew and theological ideas, you actually grasp the point of the gospel.

    Strong words have their place, even in love, but slapping people down because you’re angry about something they’re involved with isn’t akin to a license to abuse them.

  29. Well said Newsong. You won’t convince them though. In the words of Johnny Lydon from Public Image LTD, “Anger is an energy”, and these guys have “energy” by the bucket load!

  30. @Newsong – Im glad you can give yourself the pat on the back, I must be extremely difficult to assume the moral high ground and defend someone you are in lock-step with all the while offending the same standards that you demand of others…. simply amazing

    I really do think you pair (TVD) think you are “pulling it off” – the “tenderheartedness”, the “grace”, the “love”

    My point is – are you doing the above (i.e. the LAW) yourself to perfection or does God grade on a curve for you – think about this when you make demands of others thats all!!

    “I am not what I ought to be, I am not what I want to be, I am not what I hope to be in ANOTHER WORLD; but still I am not what I once used to be, and by the grace of God I am what I am”
    — John Newton (Amazing Grace)

    Now thats good theology…..

    In that regard, you can keep your delusion of Christian Perfectionism – good luck with it – My testimony, first and foremost, is what Christ has done “outside” of me – and for that testimony, you actually need a “Gospel” that is not only powerful enough save the “sinner” but also the Christian – this is why you pair dont care for Gospel preaching (we already did that, we walked aisle, we raised our hand – thats all just “milk” for babies – lets move on)

  31. @5PS… There was a time when I’d have considered an arm-wrestle with you, which you seem to like, but I have found it unhelpful, unedifying, and tends to callous and deaden an otherwise clear conscience, and poison the heart.

    You can defend abuse if you like, and make excuses for abusers, but there can be no excuse for it.

    There are many kinds of abuse, and the public pillorying of individuals is one of them. I merely pointed out scripture, not law, which gives instruction to saints in regard to their conduct towards others.

    If you can range John Newton’s theology above the scripture I gave you, then you really are missing what the gospel is about – like reforming the regenerate, restoring the spiritually dead, redeeming the lost, reviving the hopeless, amongst other things.

    You can, as we all do, look forward to ANOTHER WORLD, the New Jerusalem, where the tendency to sin is removed form us, but we live, still, in this fallen world, albeit, as saints in general assembly of the Church of the firstborn, with the admonition to be an example to those within and without.

    If it were not possible to resist sin and live a love-inspired life, Christ would never have had to demonstrate it to us, and Paul would never have taught it. There is still a law at work in us – the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, which makes us free from the law of sin and death.

    Making a tendency to sin a reason for continued anger is a cop-out from the responsibilities of sainthood and godliness, which were won for us by Christ at the cross, and which we received when we accepted his Lordship over us. If you are unable to adhere to his Lordship in regard to commands to love, instructions to serve, and admonitions to live a godly life, then you haven’t really seen what the New Testament is saying to the Church.

    We are attributed with having ‘the spirits of just men made perfect’, through Jesus, who is ‘the Mediator of the new covenant’.

    The idea is that we have been empowered by the Spirit with us, in us, and upon us, to live as witnesses to this fact, in which case we have no excuse when we hurl abuse.

    So defend malice if you must, and the works of anger, if you have to, but remember that we’ve been told we do not wrestle with flesh and blood, but against the powers of darkness. We love people, otherwise we do not demonstrate a love for God.

    If you have an aversion to certain minister’s doctrine, then by all means bring up your apologetic, and we’ll all have a good look, and maybe join in the discussion, but to publicly berate individuals, whether friend or foe, with angry personal remarks is not scriptural or right for the saint of God.

    As far as I can see, that is all Bekah was doing here, as have others, such as TVD. But you just go on playing the man and not the ball! Specks&planks is negotiating with team members on this, which is good, so we should leave it at that.

    Thank you. That’s all!

  32. “If you are unable to adhere to his Lordship in regard to commands to love, instructions to serve, and admonitions to live a godly life, then you haven’t really seen what the New Testament is saying to the Church.”

    Can you please show me anywhere in scripture where the above is required in any less measure than perfection – you cant – so back to my orginal question – how you doing with all that stuff? pulling it off – to perfection?

  33. @Mosco

    I’m guessing that you want to progress this along the lines that no one is perfect, therefore no one has the right to criticise another’s imperfections, which would be morally correct to a degree, and which point I already made, but then you would have to apply the same standards to your own pursuit of ministers of the gospel you disapprove of, and individuals who support them.

    I’m with Paul on this, where he says, ‘I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.”

    We may, none of us, be perfect in attaining to scripture, in regard to always being absolutely right, but we still, as we mature, should be moving towards the goal of perfection, which can only come in Christ. I do not see where the word ‘perfect’ comes into it, since not of us yet knows the perfect, but all see into the glass darkly until the perfect is come.

    I believe this perfect, in fact, is love, and that when we learn its fulness, its breadth and depth and length and height, we will better attain to it. We will only do so when we are more attuned to the Spirit, however. So if we walk in he Spirit, we walk in love, and love is the perfection which helps us resist sin.

    So Paul doesn’t claim perfection, and yet he penned the words of scripture, under inspiration, I quoted earlier, as a standard, not a law, as you put it, for Christian behaviour towards others. It is written down for us, so we have no excuse if we fall short. If I retain anger and unforgiveness I deny Christ.

    If I am led of the Spirit, I am not under law, so if the Spirit tells me I am wrong to ignore the passages which speak of kindness, tenderheartedness, love etc, then I am, if my conscience is attuned to the Spirit, convicted, and led to confess my sin, which the Father forgives, and, again, enter the perfection accorded by the blood of his forgiveness.

    But, now, if I see a brother in error, as above, abusing a sister verbally, then, you need to ask, do I have the right, or do I care enough to point it out, and do my best to assist the brother to overcome his clear anger and prejudice, or do I hold back from confrontation because there is some similar error in my life which I have to deal with? Dilemma!

    “Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.”

    “…others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.”

    “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.”

    So how does this work if none of us is doing the New Testament to absolute perfection? Sin silences us all!

    Is ignoring an instruction in New Testament scripture to walk in love with the brethren wandering from the truth? It is, for sure. So who, then, reminds the wanderer of his error? The person closest, and most understanding of the situation, because he will save that person’s soul. But what if that person, like all, is not perfect in all his ways? Well, it is not our perfection, of course, which puts us across, but he perfection that is in Christ.

    Otherwise you negate your own desire to confront what you perceive as errors in the ministries you produce apologetics against.

    This doesn’t in any way give license to sin, because, as Paul says, we press towards the high calling, we move into God’s perfection in the Spirit.

    But excusing sin or defending abuse because all sin is bad theology. By he ay you introduced the Law because you know it is the only way to defend your claim of the necessity of perfection. If we could live by the law, we would not have needed the cross of Christ. This still doesn’t excuse a bad witness.

    Apart from that, how could your ideal of pastors being empowered to rebuke and correct make any sense if they were not absolutely perfect according to your new law?

  34. I think most people with half a brain, including pastors understand that terms such as “heretic”, “deciever”, “blasphemer” albeit perjoritive, do not necessarily constitute “abuse” – and when they are applied to the likes of PP – they are in fact, dead on accurate.

    the worst you could say of the above was “Your ignoramus jargon” – I mean…give me a break!

    just suck it up mate!

  35. @Newsong

    You’re fighting a lost battle as far as Mosco (or whatever he’s calling himself today) is concerned. He’s convinced himself that he’s been set apart from all others with some weird God-given right to spew vile hatred. The vitriol and anger that emanates from his keyboard is enough to power the entire Eastern Seaboard during a summer heatwave. You can’t reason with someone like him Newsong. He’s not mentally capable of reasoned thought.

  36. @ TVD – not doing a bad job yourself!

    “He’s not mentally capable of reasoned thought.”

    Unkind, uncalled for.

  37. haha! the funny thing TVdongle is, your the one thats incapable theological enquiry – and that’s your job “pastor” – you a bit like fitlthy phil, you get paid for a job you dont do buddy…

    Come back when you have discovered why the trinity is an essential Christian doctrine, pin head!

  38. Just to clarify – that was “abuse” (and rather fun!) dont worry, Im sure your buddy Newsong will give you some tisses and tuddles

  39. I disagree with your assertion that Mosco is not mentally capable of reasoned thought, TVD. He is obviously a very knowledgeable person. It’s how you apply knowledge which defines you.

    In fact he has indirectly raised some interesting points here, which should be looked at. When is anyone qualified to make critical remarks about another, and how should that be done? In what spirit, or attitude should a person address controversial issues with another?

    I find the whole issue of what we are able to criticise and how we go about it fascinating. So far, I have given solid scriptural basis for the way in which correction, rebuke or apologetics should be approached. The only response has been a quote of non-biblical theological inadequacy, and a load of schoolboy insults.

    I don’t think anger is a correct motive, nor malice, for tackling people we think are in error, so we have to avoid applying these to our approach.

    I’m sure he has his reasons, but it looks to me as if Mosco, and bullies like him, resort to insulting people when they don’t have the answers, or they simply can’t be bothered to put them up in a civil way. Imitating their abusive responses isn’t helpful.

    Suggesting a person only has a half a brain when they have clearly and thoughtfully outlined a very scriptural case, which is then ignored, and not refuted at all, let alone reasonably, can only suggest weakness on the part of the person bandying about pejorative remarks.

    But Mosco isn’t thick at all, not in the skull anyway, which is all the more frustrating for anyone attempting to get the best out of him.

  40. @Newsong, I should bring you up to speed re me and Mosco. It’s a bit of a game we’ve got going. Mosco says something rude and I reciprocate. Just applying a little of his own medicine. It’s interesting to see the reactions I get! It’s a bit of the old “can dish it out but can’t take it” scenario. Funnily enough, Mosco hasn’t picked up on it!

  41. “Suggesting a person only has a half a brain when they have clearly and thoughtfully outlined a very scriptural case, which is then ignored, and not refuted at all, let alone reasonably, can only suggest weakness on the part of the person bandying about pejorative remarks.”

    So what was I supposed to be responding to???

    Oh and while you are flapping your gums about how I wont answer questions – do you remember this one I answered and you didnt respond:

    “When is ALL a few? And why wouldn’t grace be accorded to all?

    When is whosoever not whosoever? It is one of the keys to this discussion. Why would Jesus say whosoever believes, when he would have in his mind that there was, in fact, a preordained select group?”

  42. 24 June, 2008
    “Whosoever Conference” Open to All Who Choose to Attend

    WILMORE, KY – Asbury Theological Seminary announced last week the that the first annual “Whosoever Conference” will be held on its campus this coming November. This conference, inspired as many others have been by the upcoming John 3:16 Conference, will not focus on all of John 3:16, but instead will simply focus on one word: whosoever.

    Dr. Stanley Hicks told TBNN, “We are very excited to take a few days to study this word in depth. We all know that meaning comes from words, so we are happy to look at the meaning of this word. The KJV makes it clear that whosoever will, will in fact be saved.”

    Dr. Philip Warren indicated that at the conference seven different seminary professors will look, respectively, into the Hebrew meaning of whosoever, the Greek meaning of whosoever, the Latin meaning of whosoever, the King James meaning of whosoever, the historical meaning of whosoever, the contemporary meaning of whosoever, and, most importantly, what John Wesley taught about the meaning of whosoever.

    Dr. Elizabeth Hines, director of the Religion Department, said, “In addition to announcing the formation of this conference, we are also happy to tell everyone that it is open to all who choose to come. We would never turn anyone away. After all, we want everyone to come. We have left it entirely up to them, but we sure are hopeful that a lot of people will show up.”

    She went on to say, “Just as Jesus is knocking at the door of our hearts, we are knocking on the doors of those who might attend. If they come, we will be overjoyed!”

    http://tominthebox.blogspot.com/2008/06/whosoever-conference-open-to-all-who.html

    Funny! (Even though I am a heretical Armenian!)

  43. @TVD… point taken. I’ll leave the two of you to it then! Have fun!

    @RP…A Whosoever Conference! Hilarious!

    It’s interesting that they start with John 3:16, when the previous verses give the vital clue to the context.

    “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.”

    “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.”

    All who gazed on the serpent in the wilderness were healed.

    I suppose it will be said that ‘whoever’ and the ‘world’, cosmos, contextually meaning the entire world of people, including the Gentiles, are not connected. This is what comes of theologians focusing on the meaning of one word at the expense of context and sensible exegesis.

  44. @Newsong – what is “sensible exegesis” and show us how you are doing it with regard to John 3:16 (and the verse preceding) as opposed to those “theologians” who cant……

  45. @Mosco… when you can clearly show, in a none pugilistic manner, that Jesus wasn’t talking about the entire world of sin, and that ‘whosoever’ doesn’t mean ‘all’, I’ll take notice. Not interested in a discussion over obscure semantics with you.

    Just check what Jesus was saying about Moses serpent, and you’ll see it.

  46. I already did and it was – “a very scriptural case, which is then ignored, and not refuted at all, let alone reasonably, can only suggest weakness on the part of the person bandying about pejorative remarks.”

    Cant beat good exegesis…

  47. Talk is cheap Newsong – Lets see if you can meaningfully interact with my response to your question – time to put up or shut up:

    THIS WAS THE QUESTION
    “When is whosoever not whosoever?”
    “Why would Jesus say whosoever believes, when he would have in his mind that there was, in fact, a preordained select group?”

    THE “NON PUGILISTIC” ANSWER
    When is whosoever not whosoever? simple really – every text without a context is merely a pretext

    I assume you are referring loosely to how many times “whosoever” appears in english translations and and drawing conclusions based upon the appearance of the English word, not seeming to understand that the term would come from a number of different Hebrew and Greek words or phrases. It should be remembered that there is no specific word for “whoever” or “whosoever” in the Greek text: this comes from the joining of “all” with “the one believing,” i.e., “every one believing.”

    Dr James R White:
    The point is that all the “ones believing” have eternal life. There is no such thing as a believing person who will not receive the promised benefit, hence, “whosoever.” This is a common form in John’s writings. For example, in his first epistle he uses it often. Just a few examples:

    If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices (Greek: pas ho poiwn) righteousness is born of Him. (1 John 2:29)

    One could translate the above phrase as “whoever” or “whosoever practices righteousness.” Likewise,

    Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves (Greek: pas ho agapwn) is born of God and knows God. (1 John 4:7)

    Likewise one could use “whoever” here as in “”whoever loves is born of God,” etc. And a final relevant example,

    Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him. (1 John 5:1)

  48. Greg Koukl “God Is Narrow-minded?”

    “We were discussing at staff meeting yesterday the responses in an inter-faith dialog Greg took part in recently. The Jewish and Roman Catholic participants took issue with the sense of Greg’s argument from the Bible that God’s plan of salvation is narrow – through the Messiah’s sacrifice. It just didn’t make sense, they said, that God’s offer would be so narrow.

    That response surprises me from people who take the Bible seriously and believe in the Old Testament. They may not like the idea that God’s offer of salvation is narrow. They may think the text is mistaken. But it’s not a strange idea to Scripture. Just three quick examples of God’s narrow offer of help.

    The Passover: God’s angel of death only passed over those houses that were marked with the blood of the lamb. Protection was only under the specific instructions God had given.

    The Fiery Serpent: When the Israelites were bitten by snakes in the wilderness, the only way to survive the snakebite was to lift their eyes to the bronze serpent on the standard God had directed Moses to make. Those who didn’t raise their eyes, died from snakebite.

    The scapegoat: The priest was ordered to make provision for atonement for sin by presenting the scapegoat before the Lord, symbolically placing the sins of the nation on the goat, and then sending it into the wilderness. Only a goat, not a rabbit, or a dog, or some other convenient animal.

    It’s not a foreign idea in Scripture that God’s provision for help is narrow. He offers the help when it’s not deserved so it’s on the terms He sets, as it was many times in Scripture. And His terms were quite consistently specific and narrow.”

  49. Arminian Uno

    Newsong’s already played the “spoiling for a fight card”, and the “John 3:16 WILD Card”

    He hasnt played the “2 Peter 3:9” card yet – so he may have some ammo left,

    If things really turn pear shape He hasn’t played the “Finger Waging Pharisee” card yet (C3 favourite) which, like the “spoiling for a fight” card, effectively suspends the game for a short period of time until the subject of Reformed Theology comes up again…

  50. Round and round and round and round and round…

    This website is now doomed.

    This argument has gone on for the last few hundred years, and it will all get rehashed here for our reading pleasure.

    No one will be convinced by anyone else trying to impose their rightness upon them.

    Have fun, those who enjoy roundabouts.

  51. Thats a new card! it the –
    “this website was good until the Calvinists arrived and asked us to be consistent” card

  52. You’re starting to get it, Mosco. The actual conversation I was having here concerned the poor treatment of Bekah, and yet, somehow, you have revived the Calvinist ‘whosever’ argument! Incredible!

    I know what the Geek ands Hebrew terms for ‘whosoever’ are, and understand the translators’ need to reference it the way they have, but I still agree with their basic conclusions, and why wouldn’t I accept their scholarly analysis?

    You have put up a scenario which sounds reasonable from your perspective, because you begin with premise, and justify it with scripture, but it is, in fact, no better than the JW ‘limited-to-144,000’ argument. It’s just that the JW’s actually give a figure, and nominate the credentials, whilst your argument means we wouldn’t have a clue who qualifies and who doesn’t.

    I’m with Wesley on this. Limit the atonement and you limit the gospel. And introduce predetermined, purposed, eternal torment for the non-elect, pre-arranged by your God. Not my God! He died once and for all, yes, literally all who will believe, but also all who hear and believe, meaning all can believe, but all won’t.

    Having removed the thread from an apology to Bekah, I guess you’ll avoid any more reference to that sordid episode.

  53. Correction…Actually, the ‘geek’ term for ‘whosoever’ is ‘what’s this button for’!

    The most used Greek term is ‘pas’, which doesn’t have to mean ‘whosoever’, but can the English translation if the context implies it, which the passages mentioned clearly do – unless you read it with a Calvinist perspective, that is.

  54. I have to admit to wondering for some time what it would be like to get Mosco and ‘Newsong’ together on the same thread.

  55. I was tutored by eminent Greek theologian Cyril Prichard, but I’d never consider myself an expert, admittedly.

    Strongs: Pas:
    1) individually
    1a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things,
    everything
    2) collectively
    2a) some of all types

    In reference to ‘pas’ from a Calvinist perspective, Spurgeon says:

    ‘… “the whole world has gone after him” Did all the world go after
    Christ? “then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.”
    Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? “Ye are of God,
    little children”, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one”. Does
    the whole world there mean everybody? The words “world” and “all” are
    used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very
    rarely the “all” means all persons, taken individually. The words are
    generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts
    — some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not
    restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile …’

    Nice reasoning, but based on passages which contextually use the word in a different way. So how does Spurgeon and Calvinism answer the following, which also use the same Greek word ‘pas’:

    ‘In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: WHOEVER does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.’

    Is this ‘whoever’ an elect, select few, or does it mean ‘all’, or ‘any’? Are you saying that there are only some who do not practice unrighteousness who are of the devil? If so, who? Again:

    ‘WHOEVER denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.’

    Are you going to use a consistent translation of ‘whoever’ here, and say that only ‘some’ who deny the Son do not have the Father also? How do the others manage to have the Father without having the Son?

    And there are many other examples of this. Some which would work out to be stupefyingly heretical if you apply the same loose interpretation to every passage.

    If you are going to be consistent about the way in which you translate ‘pas’ in regard to who or how many people in the world Jesus died for at the cross, you will have make sure you translate it equally contextually and consistently at all junctures in scripture.

    Slam my Greek if you like, but please don’t let my inadequacies get in the way of good exegesis by holding on to your eisegesis.

  56. Ah, so it’s the seminary which determines the commentary! How conveniently dismissive.

    But that’s understandable, I’m a mere pleb, so how does the eminent Dr White interpret the meaning of ‘pas’ in the following:

    ‘WHOEVER has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.’

    “WHOEVER divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and WHOEVER marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

    “For WHOEVER exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

    Or any of the many verses which use the term, and predominantly to illustrate ALL or EVERY, which, after all, is the basic meaning of the word.

    The KJV translates ‘pas’ the following way, the following amount of times: AV – all 748, all things 170, every 117, all men 41, whosoever 31, everyone 28, whole 12, all manner of 11, every man 11. Maybe they knew something about this word we should ‘pas’ [all] take note of.

    But let’s take a Greek expert’s translation of John 3:16 – Young, who put together the concordance. He must have a clue about the true meaning:

    “God did so love the world, that His Son — the only begotten — He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.”

    So ‘everyone who’ is his translation for this particular verse. Is he expert enough?

    Or Wycliffe: ‘God did so love the world, that His Son — the only begotten — He gave, that EVERY ONE WHO is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.’

    Or any of the other translators of the various versions, who all appeal to the same translation of ‘pas’ as ‘whoever’, or ‘whosoever’, or ‘everyone who’ at this verse.

    Don’t have to trust my feeble Bible Greek at all, just the vast majority of those who are experts, who come to the same conclusion.

    Consider this: Jesus wan’t so much focused on surreptitiously declaring an elect, as Calvinists claim, but, if anything is hidden here, it is the soon to be revealed mystery that Jesus died for the Gentiles, the Goyim, the Nations, as much as for the Jews, and that the middle partition would be pulled down, and that those who once were not a nation, would become a nation, that is, the Gentiles, who would be called a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a title once expected only for israel, but now released to the nations of the world, so that ‘pas’, ‘whosoever,’ ‘all’ who believe and call upon the name of Jesus would be saved.

  57. Youre wrong Newsong

    you seem to want to take pas(adjective, nominative, singular, masculine) – every or ALL and say “look see it says “all”

    there is a problem though when Pas is modified – when we see the construction pas + articular present nominative singular participle (as we will se below such construction featuring regularly in John’s writings) there nothing indicating a universal ability to believe – despite your efforts to show otherwise – its not there!!!

    i.e. Pas: Ho: (pronoun, nominative, singular, masculine) – ONE, Pisteuon: (verb, present, active, participle, nom, sing, masculine) – BELIEVING

    so you scholars all come to the same conclusion as White (BTW – there is no friggin way on God’s green earth that Wycliffe, a proto-reformer is a synergist)
    that there is no specific word for “whoever” in the Greek text: this comes from the joining of “all” with “the one believing,” i.e., “every one believing.” Pas means “all” and ho pisteuwn is “the one(s) believing,” hence, “every one believing,” leading to “whoever believes”

    The point is though Newsong – ALL THE ONES BELIEVING have eternal life. There is no such thing anywhere in Scripture as a believing person who will not receive the promised benefit, hence, “whosoever.”

    Furthermore, in all those examples I gave you from John’s writings:

    1. If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices (Greek: pas ho poiwn) righteousness is born of Him. (1 John 2:29) – We could translate the above phrase as “whoever” or “whosoever practices righteousness.” Likewise,

    2. Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves (Greek: pas ho agapwn) is born of God and knows God. (1 John 4:7) – Likewise we could use “whoever” here as in “”whoever loves is born of God,” etc.

    3. Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him. (1 John 5:1) – Here, because the phrase begins the sentence, it is normally rendered by “whoever,” since “everyone” does not “flow” as well. So this passage could be rendered “Everyone who is believing.”

    – in each case we see the point being made: the construction pas + articular present nominative singular participle means “all the ones, in particular, doing the action of the participle, i.e., whoever is doing the action of the participle.”

    “What we can determine without question is that the phrase does not in any way introduce some kind of denial of particularlity to the action. That is, the action of the participle defines the group that is acting. The “whoever” does not expand the horizon of the action beyond the limitation of the classification introduced by the participle.” (White)

    This becomes especially important information in examining John 3:16 – we will get to that!!!!

    Good stuff!!

  58. Pas ho pisteuwn: ‘everyone believing’ not ‘all can believe’ – John 3:16’s Whosoever clearly explained from the Greek by Dr. James White

  59. Well done, Mosco! You actually used your substantive brain and ability, and completely avoided the temptation to be pugilistic or arrogant. Much appreciated. And a fine presentation of your case.

    I totally see what you say, and what has been said many times in this regard. The thing is though, that you have shown from John 3:16, as do most Calvinists, to alleviate a singular problem in their doctrine, is that ‘whosover’ in itself is not actually a word in Greek. Granted. But the implication of ‘whosoever’, translating into English, is still there, depending on how the passage is approached, and can be read either way. I will agree that it doesn’t prove one way or the other a universal atonement. Neither does it disprove it.

    I also see that it could be said that the phrase includes the act of believing, and that it is whoever believes, so referencing the person, singular, believing as an act of acceptance of the offer. Not a problem with this, but it doesn’t point to a limited atonement, just a limited salvation, that is, salvation has been won for all, is available to all, and is a free gift for all, but it will not be received by all, because Jesus qualifies the acceptance of eternal life as being for the one believing.

    We could say, ‘if any of you likes chocolate he or she can have one’ and be speaking to a large group and reference all as well as each individual. So having a singular pronoun isn’t a problem if the offer is general.

    What you have to contextualise here is the claim that Jesus died for a select number, and not for all.

  60. By the way, Mosco, my hope is that we can establish some common ground, here, which draws our perspective closer, and not allow division to maintain a fracture. Which is why I’m not interested in a slagging match or arm-wrestle with you or anyone.

  61. @Newsong – great, so we can agree that this original language construction in no way shape or form, evidences universal capacity or ability to believe – so therefore to examine the extent of the atonement we need to go to texts that actually address that issue – John 6, Romans 8 etc…

    As you said “What you have to contextualise here is the claim that Jesus died for a select number, and not for all” – well did He or didn’t He?

    “Did Christ actually make a substitutionary sacrifice for sins or didn’t He? If He did, then it was not for all the world, for then all the world would be saved. (Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, p. 47.)”

    You therefore have a decision.
    a “universal” atonement – if Christ died substitutionarily in the place of every single man and woman in all the world, then you are forced to either say that 1) everyone will be saved, or 2) the death of Christ is insufficient to save without additional works.

    Are you willing to believe that Christ’s death could not save outside of human actions or rather, that Christ’s death was made in behalf of God’s elect, and that it DOES accomplish its intention, it DOES save those for whom it is made.

    if you do not believe in the Reformed doctrine of “limited atonement,” you believe in a limited atonement anyway!

    How so? Unless you are a universalist (that is, unless you believe that everyone will be saved), then you believe that the atonement of Christ, if it is made for all men, is limited in its effect.

  62. This article goes ‘light’ on PP considering the tragedies of his teachings that have developed robotic type ministers who have forgotten even what the whole point of receiving Yeshua is about…………….for those who cannot SEE clearly that PP and all the OTHER ‘faith, prosperity and healing doctrinators” are leading people into a very dangerous path and potentially fatal………….I have been on the inside of this organization for years and I can tell you that for every one person that stands there and says they are succeeding – there are treble of those who have been trodden on, trashed, and suffered miserable consequences for not going along with their ‘doctrines’ regardless if they are about tithe, or any other matter.

    Their study ethic has been weighed and found wanting………………may our Master Yahweh find each one of those people who have suffered violence because of the falsehoods of the ministry…….and restore to them the beauty of His love and His Ways – sure, many were burned because they “WANTED” to be just as successful, some died, some divorced, some committed adultery, some were pedophiles, some were just plain wicked and some were so hurt and angered they became bitter……UMMM – the ‘fruit’ of this ministry seems wrotten to the core, and I am unashamed to say it………….May only our loving Aviad receive glory and honor for His mercy and His Truth, which is given FREELY……to all who truly are thirsty and desire to love and please Him alone – not man and their dogma’s but only the One True Living Elohim, Master Yahweh, Aviad, Yeshua HaMashiach……..shalom

  63. the church wants to see a city to go to christ
    the bitching and gossip and slander has to stop within the church…

    govenment needs to tax church’s that are earning millions

  64. To see an updated take on how Pringle and senior executive pastor Mark Kelsey see tithing in May/Jun 2011 go to:

    http://www2.myc3church.net/videos/ps-mark-kelsey-financial-excellence-tithing

    Kelsey – fast forward through the preamble to Minute 90. Here is an astonishing claim that his faith and confidence in his financial life comes from tithing, rather than Jesus. The tithe is his ‘cornerstone’ and that somehow this obligates God to bless him (even though he confesses to tough times happening to him). It’s unscriptural, confusing and contrary in its details.

    http://www2.myc3church.net/videos/ps-phil-pringle-financial-excellence-part-2

    Similar claim from Pringle at Minute 80 onward. Scripture from Joshua 7 is twisted – the ‘ban’ was just that – items to be totally destroyed before God, and yet it is jointly referred to as a ‘tithe’ by Pringle. At Minute 88, he quite rightly talks about the blessings from GIVING, and then turns it back on his belief in tithing.

    http://www2.myc3church.net/videos/ps-phil-pringle-financial-excellence-part-1

    From Minute 81 Pringle totally rips scripture apart and ignores the fact that OT tithing was not money and he converts an imaginary set of figures to say Moses was paid the equivalent of $4 million in tithes. This simply not in the Bible (or even close). Such intentional misuse of scripture by the leader of a large global church organization is astonishing.

    IMO C3 are safely in the heresy zone by preaching that tithing is the source of our blessing not Christ.

  65. Just curious as to how long ‘moderation’ takes. The above was posted 36 hours ago.
    Cheers
    Zeibart

  66. I came to this page because the founder and pastor of a prominant Church in Singapore with 23,000 members was charged with fraud.

  67. Forget to add that Phil Pringle is in the advisory committee of this church. @Bill, although you have diverted your focus, I thank you for this good work.

  68. Very interesting article. I agree with mostly what Bill is saying and understand why he has diverted his focus towards other things. As rev ch 22 v11 says ; he that is unjust let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy let him be filthy still and he that is righteous let him be righteous still and he that is holy let him be holy still.
    Christ also tells us to judge a man, pastor, minister or whatever by his fruits, if he preaches the Word of God but his works are contradictory to Gods word, I.e using the Gospel for his own greed, then you should not listen to that person or have anything to do with them. They are of the anti-christ. This is not a personal attack on Mr Pringle’s character but anyone that does not bare good fruit is not of God. It’s as simple as that.

    Regarding Bills point about Jesus being Lord of the Sabbath, which I agree with, but don’t believe that Jesus didn’t keep the Sabbath. Firstly Jesus was a Jew, His point to the Jews was that they were holding the Sabbath higher than their love for their neighbour, which is why He healed on the Sabbath.
    Although when we believe in Christ we are above the law but we still abide by the Ten Commandments. What Christ gave to us is that if we love our neighbour we love God and viva versa. This is the foundation of Gods Ten Commandments. So, therefore Jesus still observed the Sabbath but the Jews in Christs day held their laws and traditions above the love for man and ultimately above the love of God.

  69. Bill I honestly think you are the one that is straining the nats.
    PP does not demand a penny from anyone who goes to his church. It is a free will offering.Thithing is a blessing from God. To give is a blessing, it frees you up in your spirit and makes you more giving generally. It is good for the soul. To tithe is something I give first to God not out of compulsion but from a freedom that I have gained in Christ. It is a very material way of saying thank you.I would rather give to the church than to anything else. Some will be wasted as we are all human, but most will be used to further the gospel of Jesus. That is good don’t you think.

  70. ”That is good don’t you think.”

    Yep, in the same way I think circumcision is good.

    Oh, that’s right, preaching free will circumcision will not nail that $50000 mixer desk (which furthers the gospel).

  71. @Ruth, Are you serious?

    If you were in PR talking to people who don’t know anything about Phil Pringle and his teaching, and who heard your answer and then stopped there, you might get away with that.

    But, Phil Pringle himself wouldn’t agree with what you just said.

    You’ve never heard teaching about robbing God and curses in C3?

    Or how about this gem…

    “In America you can check everybody’s tithing records. And Paul would base his – when he was in Los Angeles – you could base your pastoring on that couldn’t you, really. Just check it all out and weekly go around and see them and say ‘things aren’t working out for you?’.
    ‘Yeah! How did you know?’
    ‘Oh! You know…’ (laughs)

    And uh… we can’t do that here. But what we can do is check is look on the ‘Rise and Build’ records and that tells us where, you know, the passionate spirituality (if you like) of our people and that’s an indicator. It’s not the amount, it’s just the sacrifice and the heart to be involved is actually there. And uh…

    You know I’m talking like this because we’re a mature crowd here aren’t we? We can cope with this. And if it’s a little challenging, that’s great. Amen. We gotta smile when a thing challenges us saying ‘Yeah! This is good for me! It’s going to move me on ‘n get me up on the feet’. And so … when we did, I just asked Wayne, (cos I don’t actually go through those records and check them), I just said to Wayne ‘Did that guy umm… was he involved?’. And he came back with a number that was just – you know – (Phil shows he’s upset) that just boggled my mind, how that over such a long time that was it.

    And it revealed a lot to me. It just told me everything as to why his situation was like it was.”

  72. btw, It’s not only America where people check tithing records. And yes, Pastors do look at them, and yes, they do make judgements about members spirituality based on the numbers.

    Not saying PP does.

    Ruth – yes PP teaches that the tithe is a blessing, that it releases God’s financial blessing. But, he doesn’t teach that it’s an option for a Christian, and he doesn’t teach that you could give your tithe to the red cross, or your sick grandmother.

    (Whether he’s right or wrong, is up for people to debate – but you are seriously misrepresenting his stance – though I know you are doing it for all the right reasons).

  73. “free will circumcision”

    That’s classic.

    Ironically enough, I think it’s a good doctrine!

  74. I was at a pentie church the other day. At the offering message, the pastor stood u, put his hand in the air and said „this is how much you love jesus“, then put his hand in the bag.

  75. People have got to stop preaching that how much you give to their church proves how much you love Jesus.

    Jesus: Peter, do you love me?

    Peter: You know I love you.

    Jesus: Okay, I’m going to take up one last offering. Here’s your chance to show me if you really love me. Actually, one of the last conversations I had with Judas was about how your giving had been dropping off. The denying thing was only three times so I can forgive that, but your weekly giving has been way below what I know you can do. By the way, the Father and I have been rethinking things. Instead of Pentecost, how about you guys just send Thomas to Rome. With his singing talents, he could one day sing in the colosseum and get lots of fans and then people would then listen to our message more. Of course, he’ll need to have the best chariot and clothes otherwise the Romans won’t respect him, and it takes money to get the industry on side so you really need to start giving until the tears come. (In the last days, I’ll send my servant Kong to expound even more deeply)

    Peter: What about I just feed your sheep?

    Jesus: Weeping. How long must I be with you!?!?!?! They don’t need to be fed – they’ll just get fat. Teach them about money instead. You’re gonna need lots of it. You’re just a fisherman and don’t know much about real estate in Jerusalem and Rome. We’ve got to build the House of God. (And the other Apostles will want to build their own “houses” too. But don’t worry, after I’m gone I won’t leave you comfortless. I’ll send you a financial advisor, and he will teach you all things so that you’ll be so good at leadership principles that even the Gentiles will be inviting you to hold seminars for them.

    Sorry, got carried away. But, if you were young and born into some of the mega churches today, this scenario is feasible.

  76. Pringle preaches a false gospel, as above. It’s all about the false doctrine of tithing and pulpit pimping.In Galations 1;8 God says through Paul “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”
    Even an angel from heaven can be accursed…,how much more a flesh and blood pulpit pimper?

Comments are closed.