Gigolo Jesus?
| Posted On: 04/29/08 09:19:35 AM |
Age 44, KY |
I don't know this Bickle fellow, but I do know the author of the blog doesn't proof his work, as he quoted the wrong Revelation scripture, it is actually Rev. 21:9 not Rev 12:9 which is about Satan(The Great Dragon) and a third of the angels being cast out of heaven.
Also, the author doesn't seem to use the Full Counsel of the Bible, when using a scripture, for if he did, then he would understand that the Bride isn't "the City of New Jerusalem", but rather the Church, which was placed there by the Groom, Yeshua Hammachiach. The city while "Adorned as a bride", as put in Rev. 21:2, isn't 'THE Bride'. But he was right in that Yeshua Hammashiach isn't marrying individuals, but the Church as a whole (not the City as a whole), or corporate enity, and those of us who have truly profess Yeshua Hammashiach as our Mashiach and Savior, Repented and asked for Forgiveness of our sins in Yeshua Hammashiach's name, are but members or parts of the body of the Church.
As for Mr. Bickle's misuse of scripture, I can't say, for I haven't talked to him or seen or heard any of his teachings on the Word. I think it wise to reframe from passing judgment on someone until I gather more information, rather than depending on a single witness (it isn't biblical for anyone to pass judgment based on a single account of the situation in question... 2 or more witnesses must come forth). I am not defending Mr. Bickle, just saying I can't condemn him based on a single complaint.
Brother Jentoft, I suggest you proof your blogs a little more careful, especially when using scripture. And you really should use the Full Counsel method before asserting the meaning of a specific scripture.
May the Father YHWH bless you and guide you!
Mark
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Well observed
| Posted On: 04/29/08 01:07:41 PM | | Age 48, MN |
Mark, I confess that I should indeed have proofed the article better. I appreciate your bringing this to my attention. However, I did use the correct words concerning the point that I was making. If you wish to hold Mr. Bickle to this same standard, I think that the error is worse in that the words are not there concerning the passage that he cites. Here is what Bickle claims Luke 24:27 says, “Jesus is exalted in the Song. He spoke of Himself from all the Scriptures to the disciples on the Emmaus road. He went through all thirty-nine books of the Old Testament to speak of Himself. - He expounded … In all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself” His point is that this verse proves that Jesus Himself used Song of Solomon to teach the two on the road to Emaeus about the Bridegroom Paradigm. Here is what the NASB actually says, “Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.” I find that Mr. Bickle is being very selective to “prove” his flimsy claim. This is on the links to the Song of Solomon in the footnotes. You have every opportunity to look at what Mr. Bickle has written there. K Jentoft
Click here to reply to this post
The Jesus of IHOP is the Jesus of the Bible
| Posted On: 04/29/08 08:47:03 AM |
Age 49, AR |
I have been a Christian for over 40 years. I grew up in a GARBC Baptist church, and have followed a fundamentalist/evangelical path ever since. After highschool, I was trained at Moody Bible Institute. I have been ordained in the Plymouth Bretheran church, and a non-denominational church and as also an Elder in Evangelical Free Church of America.
Our family became involved at IHOP two and a half years ago. It has provoked the most exhilarating time of my entire Christian life. I have carefully checked IHOP's teaching against the Bible and found nothing contrary to God;s Word. Mike Bickle does NOT preach 'another Jesus'. He fully affirms, both in the doctrinal statement of IHOP and his own teaching the inerrancy of the Bible, and all cardinal doctrines of historic Christianity. The admonitions that we are not to think about "kissing Jesus on the mouth" are made out of a desire to make clear that Jesus was not a homosexual, or to in any way allow for the even smallest perversion of His Deity and holiness. Mike has spent many hundreds of hours studying the Song of Solomon, and is simply observing (not creating) an allegorical element to the book. Mike Bickle'spassion in life is to help others discover and kindle a passion for Jesus and fore the Word of God, in a very dark hour. To suggest thet Mike Bickle is promoting a 'gigolo Jesus' is not only incorect, but actually creates the very imagery that Mike has been wrongly accused of. The Lord Jesus Christ can be found in every book of the Bible, and Song of Solomon is nonexception. Jesus IS a passionate Bridegroom, and He will soon come for His church, a pure and spotless Bride, without blemish or wrinkle.
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Love Waxing Cold
| Posted On: 04/29/08 04:54:25 PM | | Age 45, CA |
We are warned that a sign of the end will be the waxing cold of love, because iniquity will be on the rise. A legalist is the one more in keeping with obedience for God then you are. Could a person with more love for Yeshua (Jesus) than me, look to be too in love?
The Hebrew word in Song of Solomon translated mouth #6310 - peh, can in fact be translated as words. Just as our prayers are called "the calves of our lips" in Hosea 14:2, which represented the sacrifices that couldn't be offerred without a standing temple.
I will read Bickles work, if nothing else because it has been spoken evil of, and see if the claim is warranted, or whether it just steps on the toes of those who might love less, and be taking it out on Mr. Bickle.
Click here to reply to this post
Your are right - it is sad...
| Posted On: 04/29/08 06:39:17 AM |
Age 48, MN |
You claim that the bride imagery is "thoroughly infused" is scripture but this misrepresents the truth. There is not a single reference, not one, to an individual bridegroom Christ in either the Old or New Testament. The individual bride imagery is what Bickle claims is the message, even the most important message, of the Bible because the end times is dependent upon it. He is wrong. There is "no infusion" of the paradigm you claim to be so "thorough." Jeremiah 3:14 calls Israel, not Jeremiah, God’s bride. We have the comments on John the Baptist in the 4 gospels that identify Jesus as the bridegroom of Israel, not of John the Baptist. The other reference in the Epistles is Eph 5:32 and it links marriage to Christ and the church and it is called a mystery. Beyond that, we see 4 references to the Bride in Revelation - all corporate and never singular. To claim, “I am the bride of Christ,” is different than, “We are the bride of Christ.” The individual bride is not in the Bible only in Bickle’s imagination. Your comments underscore how sad it is that his error is considered "thoroughly infused" by his followers. Beyond that, Mr. Bickle was the one to jump to the "worst possible conclusions" of his own teaching when he felt obligated to warn his hearers about the appetites he was creating. I did send this article to Mr. Bickle and he did not respond, because he didn't want to and doesn’t have to respond to those who disagree with him. I have not called into question the motives of either him or his ministry - just their teachings because they are wrong. K Jentoft
Click here to reply to this post
|
Sound article - love God as He is, not as someone invents
| Posted On: 04/29/08 04:10:09 AM |
Age 40, PA |
Thank you for this article. Mr. Jentoft follows a consistent approach in his analysis that is faithful to Scripture and the public record of IHOP teachings: (1) James says "We who are teachers will be judged more strictly" - thus one who puts out teachings publicly on DVD/Internet/books etc. is subject to scrutiny and requires no 1 to 1 confrontation (see Paul and Bereans), (2) Mr. Jentoft does Scripture justice in advocating there is one major interpretation implied in a verse - otherwise, we become postmodernists who say "Who cares about the author's original intent?" (there are times where types could have a meaning current and future, but those are exceptions rather than the rule, and there must be clear precedent, usually N.T. backing up the view on O.T.), and (3) sincere intentions do not equate to Biblical truth. Just ask Aaron's sons who offered up "strange fire" to the Lord. He is a holy God who must be reckoned with on His terms in truth, not by mere human motives that twist it into what we want it to say. This is how cultic movements with "strange doctrines" get started. Thank you for posting this helpful information.
Click here to reply to this post
|
How sad
| Posted On: 04/28/08 10:07:33 PM |
Age 49, MT |
The bride and bridgegroom imagery is thoroughly infused throught Scripture as a type of Christ and the Church, yet for some reason Mr. Jentoft rejects this very same imagery in the Song of Solomon.
Mr. Jentoft goes on to mischaracterize Mr. Bickle's teaching, to jump to the worst possible conclusions about him, and then to publish this sad essay. Did it occur to Mr. Jentoft to pick up the phone and give Mr. Bickle a call? Did it seem to be too much work to do a little research into HOP and see what the purpose and objective of the ministry might be?
Regarding Sola Scriptura, Mr. Jentoft feels free to write hundreds of words here, only a small portion of which is Scripture. I suggest we dismiss Mr. Jentoft's extra-biblical ramblings using the same criteria as he uses against Mr. Bickle.
Click here to reply to this post
|
|
|
|
