All graphics and images are copyright of A True Church

Blog

See Also Archived Blog

Last updated 3-20-2017

Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 4:07 AM
Subject: Hello
 
Hello I came across your web page when listening to a Keith Green song and then looking at his life I saw  your post on Google.
 
Well you certainly call a spade a spade and have show how many preachers etc. you think are not preaching the truth according to the Scriptures you present ...or as you say " the broad way " .
 
Just wondering how you go with the Hebrew view / language / Names from Genesis onward, do you count the original Name / Names of the Creator and the Prophets to have any significance, along with His Commands and the rest of the Scripture up to Mathew as being of any relevance of truth for keeping or as just stories to be wheeled out to make a point ?  eg. is HIs Name ....Lord or YHWH Yahuah ... is our Sabbath Saturday or Sunday our saviour jesus or Yahusha or are you of the opinion that " what's in a Name " and what's in a day ?  As per the seasonal festivals of Yahuah opposed to Christmas / Easter / Halloween / Valentines day etc that is now common place and acceptable.
 
Not looking to do battle with you just wondered if you had looked at this perspective at all.
 
Have a good day.
 
Stuart
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: Hello
 
Thank you for the email.
 
For the Sabbath, please see atruechurch.info/sabbath.html. For Christmas please see atruechurch.info/christmas.html. Easter and Valentine’s Day are Catholic holidays. Halloween is obviously pagan (witches, etc.).
 
As for names, Scripture reveals a name or a term is significant as to what is meant by it. For example, Baal is a name for an idol (e.g. Judges 2:13). Yet, the true God is also called by this same term (e.g. 2 Samuel 5:20; Nahum 1:2; etc.). We also have Satan, who is a very evil character. But, God is also called Satan in Numbers 22:22, 32 (perhaps also in 1 Chronicles 21:1/2 Samuel 24:1). Satan means adversary.
 
Likewise, YHWH (or Yehvah according to modern Hebrew pronunciation) is indeed God’s OT Hebrew name. Yet, in the NT this name is translated as Kurios (Lord), for example, in Matthew 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42; Acts 2:34 (see Psalm 110:1). YHWH is also spelled differently throughout Scripture (e.g. Yehvah Genesis 2:4; Yehvih Isaiah 61:1; Yehovih Jeremiah 1:6; Yehovah Jeremiah 2:37).
 
I must admit, the English translations really mess up our Savior’s name. Jesus and Joshua are the same exact name in Scripture. This is apparent in the NT by the Greek name used for both, iesous (e.g. Matthew 1:1; Acts 7:45). The Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) likewise uses this name (iesous) for Joshua (or in Hebrew Yahoshua).
 
Orion (Job 9:9; 38:31; Amos 5:8) is simply the word for “fool” in the Hebrew (kesiyl). In the Hebrew, Moses’ name is Mosheh. Solomon’s is Shelomoh. Jacob’s is Ya`aqov. Isaac is Yitschaq. Etc. Names can change when they go from one language to another, as the NT bears witness. In the Greek NT, Mosheh is Moses. Shelomoh is Solomon. Ya`aqov is Iakob. Yitschaq is Isaak. Etc..
 
So, the important thing is what is meant by the name. Most people when they refer to “Jesus” or even “Yahoshua” or “Yeshua” (another Hebrew name for Jesus/Joshua, Nehemiah 8:17) do not truly mean the Savior of Scripture. That would be their claim, but when you take a look at who they think He is, He’s a different God than that of Scripture.
 

Typically, this false Jesus doesn't kill people (Revelation 2:23), doesn't hate people (Romans 9:13), doesn't destine people to hell (Romans 9:11-22), doesn't create people to destroy them (Proverbs 16:4), doesn't prevent people from being saved (Mark 4:10-12), doesn't cause people to sin (2 Samuel 12:11-12), doesn't cause bad things to happen (Isaiah 45:7 KJV), doesn't deceive people (Ezekiel 14:9 KJV), didn't die for everyone (Hebrews 2:9), etc., or some combination thereof. Yet, the real Jesus has done and does all these things (and more, Romans 11:36).

You might also be interested to know that in the English NT Judas, Judah, and Jude (e.g. Jude 1:1) are all the same name. In the Greek NT they are all ioudas. In the Hebrew OT it is Yehudah (Judah).
From: Daniel .
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2017 5:44 PM
Subject: Just an observation
 
Shalom,

I was visiting your website and first read the page dealing with your literal and grammatical (but not historical/extra biblical) hermeneutical approach to the Bible. At one point, you mention that looking to extra biblical historical sources is not a legitimate way of interpreting the Bible, which I actually don´t dispute and found somewhat refreshing. Specifically, you take issue with Charles Strong from bibleone.net for adding some extra-biblical information concerning the Gnostics in his effort to interpret/understand various biblical texts according to the grammatical historical method of interpretation. Your argument was that any extra biblical (historical) source would not only constitute an addition to the Word of God, but necessarily be written by men who could, and often do, lie, a proposition with which I wholeheartedly agree. But then when I ventured on to your page dealing with the King James Controversy and I noticed you twice quote the Jewish historian Josephus (a man who can lie) to substantiate a point you yourselves make about the proper translation of the Greek word Πασχα (pasca). (The full quote is below my salutation at the end of this email).

From my own perspective, I found the use of this extra biblical (historical) source material incongruous with your own stated hermeneutical approach to the Bible. Perhaps, you should omit these quotes from the Jewish historian Josephus to agree with your stated interpretive method. Grace and peace unto you all from God our Father and the Lord Jesus.

An unprofitable servant,

Daniel

The Works of Josephus (the Jewish historian) likewise testifies to this fact.

As this happened at the time when the feast of unleavened bread was celebrated, which we call the Passover, (The Works of Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, book 14, chapter 2, section 1)

Now, upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had appointed for the Jews at this time, which feast is called the Passover, (The Works of Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, book 17, chapter 9, section 3).

From: Darwin Fish
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2017 7:16 PM
To: Daniel .
Subject: Re: Just an observation
 
Thank you.

It is not wrong to mention history or a quote from a historian (like Josephus) in a proper context. But, if you are relying on history to interpret Scripture and then declare it as truth, that is the problem. The historical quote (Josephus) simply illustrates what Scripture already teaches. I edited the kjv article a little to bring that across better. Thanks.

With man’s history, by itself, it is often unknown the accuracy thereof. Whereas, for example, a false prophet is known to speak lies. Yet, Paul is found quoting a false prophet in Titus (1:10-13) to further his point. Likewise, in Acts 17:28 Paul quotes an idolatrous poet to make his point.
 
The point is: the source is not necessarily the problem. It’s whether it is true or not is what matters. As Paul wrote in Titus about the quote from the false prophet,
This testimony is true. (Titus 1:13)
With most of history, the testimony (what is said) is unknown as to its accuracy (truth). In the quote I give from Josephus, the accuracy of the statement is known because of the Scripture given.
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 7:16 PM
Subject: I was curious about two things
 
Darwin,

Two questions I have. 1. On your archived blog (https://atruechurch.info/archivedblog6.html), someone had written an email to you asking

"Is Micah Armstrong was accurate in his assessment that individuals who do any of the following are damned to hell?"

One of the things listed was "Associating with Hollywood". Your response was "Yes, if it's tight (Psalm 15:4); no if it's not (1 Corinthians 5:9-10)."

What exactly do you mean by that? Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but you seem to imply that under certain circumstances, it is ok for a Christian to associate with Hollywood. Why exactly would a true Christian associate with Hollywood whatsoever? Isn't it a very wicked environment? I mean, when you lived in California, you were in pretty close proximity to it (Grace Community Church is only 20 minutes from Walt Disney Studios and Warner Brothers if I recall correctly, and I believe there is someone who is a Vice-President at Disney who is a Masters College graduate), so shouldn't you have firsthand knowledge of the wickedness? (While I'm at it, did you ever work with any celebrities when you worked for the Los Angeles County Probation Department?)

2. I've read all the stuff regarding you on the web (your backstory, what happened with you at Grace Community Church, etc). I don't really care what went on there, since it happened over two decades ago and it is irrelevant to the issues at hand (God and his Word and the false teachings of the Christian world). However, I am curious to know the full story behind why Rick Miesel strayed from you guys back in 1996. I read somewhere you had a tape regarding it, but since you no longer offer tapes, could you explain as much as you remember?
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: I was curious about two things
 
The verse given (1 Corinthians 5:9-10) says,
I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.
It’s evident from this verse that there’s a certain amount of keeping company with the wicked that is appropriate. Circumstance, reason, and purpose would determine its appropriateness or not. We are not called to have nothing to do with evil people.
a wise man's heart discerns both time and judgment, because for every matter there is a time and judgment (Ecc 8:5-6; see also chapter 3).
It’s been a long time since I was a Probation Officer. No celebrities that I remember. But, we did have an amazingly smart teenage thief at one time. He would hack into people’s bank accounts, take only a dollar or two (so it wouldn’t be noticed), and steal their money electronically. He acquired about $90,000 before he got caught. I understand he was offered a really good job to prevent others from doing what he did, but he turned it down and went back into crime (of some sort).
 

Miesel didn’t agree with my assessment of the Bobgans (atruechurch.info/bobgan.html).

Finally, if you haven't already, please take a serious look (in the Spirit of Proverbs 2:1-6 & Acts 17:11) at our Statement of Faith (atruechurch.info/statement.html), particularly the intro and first three points. Point “II. God” covers the real Biblical God, which is nothing like what is taught in the churches, and definitely not what men think (Isaiah 55:8-9). Point “III. Miscellaneous Controversial Issues” covers doctrines typically not taught in churches today.
From: Brian Sherman
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 6:54 PM
To: Darwin Fish
Subject: Re: I was curious about two things
 
Just to clarify, I did read your Statement of Faith, hence, why I asked the question about Hollywood. Already as it is, they viciously hate false Christianity (take Kirk Cameron for example). They'd hate true Christianity even more. I guess it does depend on what you do, but I still don't see how a true Christian could be an actor/actress in Hollywood, since most of what they put out runs afoul of the scripture.

You said, "We are not called to have nothing to do with evil people." How to you reconcile Ephesians 5:11 with that? Does the "works of darkness" only apply to false teachers? I thought it applied to any evil circumstance
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: I was curious about two things
 
Good question. There is a great deal of evil (works of darkness) on the earth.
Truly the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil; madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead. (Ecclesiastes 9:3)
 
. . . the whole world lies in the wicked one (1 John 5:19 my translation)
 
. . . filled with all unrighteousness . . . (Romans 1:29)
Even the “days are evil” (Ephesians 5:16). The “prince of the power of the air” “works in the sons of disobedience,” so much so that they seek ONLY rebellion (Proverbs 17:11), every last one of them, at all times (as in Genesis 6:5; Romans 3:9-18). Even their “good” is evil (Proverbs 21:4; Romans 14:23 “whatever is not from faith is sin”; Isaiah 64:6). So, where do we start?
 
I have seen an improper fixation on “works of darkness,” even exposing them, to be detrimental. I watched a man turn away from the Truth in the process of supposedly proclaiming truth against evil (in this case, evil in government). Scripture says this about evil in government:
If you see the oppression of the poor, and the violent perversion of justice and righteousness in a province, do not marvel at the matter; for high official watches over high official, and higher officials are over them. (Ecclesiastes 5:8)
Paul wrote,
 I want you to be wise in what is good, and simple concerning evil. (Romans 16:19)
That’s not propagating simple minded ignorance (Ephesians 4:18), but rather not knowing “the depths of Satan, as they say” (Rev 2:24).
 
Proverbs says,
He who says to the wicked, "You are righteous," Him the people will curse; Nations will abhor him. But those who rebuke the wicked will have delight, and a good blessing will come upon them. (Pro 24:24-25)
This rebuke is primarily to be public (Ephesians 5:11). As another Proverbs says,
He who corrects a scoffer gets shame for himself, and he who rebukes a wicked man only harms himself. Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you. (Pro 9:7-8)
And Jesus said,
Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces. (Mat 7:6)
Yet, some public rebuke is not wise, as Amos illustrates.
Therefore the prudent keep silent at that time, for it is an evil time. (Amos 5:13)
Ephesians says,
See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil. (Eph 5:15-16)
There is evil all around us. One has to weigh the profitability and “need” to expose. It should be obvious that blatant open evil has little to no need for exposure. It’s exposed. But, as in the case of false teachers, for example, they “secretly bring in destructive heresies” (2 Pet 2:1) to the eternal destruction of men. The “need” for exposure should be obvious.
 
Notice the context of Ephesians 5:11 as well.
Let no one deceive you with empty words, . . . (Ephesians 5:6).
This addresses deception within the church.
 
So,
a wise man's heart discerns both time and judgment, because for every matter there is a time and judgment (Ecc 8:5-6).
It’s not that false teachers are the only ones that might “need” exposure. Scripture doesn’t teach that. But, the need for that is great, and the “need” for otherwise simply needs to be discerned and wisdom to be sought (Proverbs 2:1-12; 3:13-15; 4:5-7; James 1:5-8).
From: GREG RUMP
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 9:47 AM
Subject: Question
 
 
Darwin
Are you still swilling whiskey , smoking smelly cigars, and masturbating with your friends? Like you were 10 years ago .
GREG
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: Question
 
No masturbating with friends. Never have. Yes, I still drink whiskey on occasion (not often or very much), especially when I have a sore throat. And yes, I smoke Backwoods cigars with my mom. About 1-3 a week.
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 7:19 PM
Subject: The Duggar Family and Courtship
 
Dear Darwin,


I was wondering if you or anyone with your church has ever had any encounters with the Duggar family, the stars of the now-cancelled TLC show "19 Kids and Counting". It appears your location in Moody's/Pegg's Oklahoma is only an hour or so west of their home in northwest Arkansas.

The reason I ask this is because I wanted to know how familiar (if at all) you were with their theology and some of their rules, such as their standards for dating (or courtship as they call it), and how it matches up with the Bible. For example, they believe in chaperoned courtship, where a prospective couple must have a third person at all times in order to not stray into sin (such as kissing or fornication). Basically, they follow the courtship rules found here (http://iblp.org/questions/how-courtship-different-dating). Is their version of courtship biblical? How do you conduct dating rules within your home/church?

Also, would it be safe to assume that the IBLP group in the link above is a false ministry, and that Bill Gothard (the man who runs it) is a false teacher? 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: The Duggar Family and Courtship
 
Thank you for the email. One of my sons did talk briefly to one from the Duggar family at a concert not too long ago.
 
Yes, that ministry is a false Christian ministry and Gothard is a false teacher. They are on the broad way we describe at atruechurch.info/savednot.html
 
There is no such thing as courtship (as they describe it) in the Bible. There is betrothal (being engaged to be married, e.g. Matthew 1:18), but no courtship. The problem I see with their courtship idea is this: They write,
courtship is undertaken only when both parties are prepared to make a commitment to marriage (http://iblp.org/questions/how-courtship-different-dating, 9th paragraph)
So, there is a serious anticipation for marriage. Now, note what else they point out.
Although the termination of a courtship most likely will be painful, damage and hurt—which can lead to bitterness—can be avoided. Both parties, as well as their families and all the people who love them, should continue to trust in the Lord and accept the grace He gives to deal with any disappointment or unfulfilled hopes. (See Romans 5:1–5.) [ibid., underlining added]
Romans 13:10 says,
Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Romans 13:10)
They admit their courtship sets people up to possibly harm their neighbor.
 
Furthermore, there is no Biblical standard on whether it is lawful or not for two single people to kiss. One might question whether they are heeding 1 Corinthians 6:18, “Flee sexual immorality,” and the nature of the kiss is also pertinent to the debate. But, there is no specifics on this matter. In Scripture there is the romantic kiss within marriage (as Song of Solomon 1:2). There is the “holy kiss” (Romans 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26) which is a “kiss of love” (1 Peter 5:14). This is to be practiced by all.
 
Obviously, fornication is sin (e.g. Genesis 34; Galatians 5:19). Plus, sin starts in the mind (e.g. Matthew 5:28; Job 31:1). Scripture commands to “Flee sexual immorality,” but just exactly how that might be lived out is not spelled out in much detail for the context in which we are speaking, two single people. And, we should be careful not to make manmade standards (Colossians 2:8 “tradition of men”). Proverbs warns quite specifically and extensively about the adulterous (Proverbs 2:16; 5:3f; 7:5f; 22:14). But, that’s dealing specifically with a seductive married woman.
 
In 1 Corinthians 7:1 Paul gives some very good advice for single people.
Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. (1 Corinthians 7:1)
This statement applies to everyone. For more on that, see my article “Let Them Marry” footnote 4 & 5 (atruechurch.info/letthemmarry.html#sdfootnote4sym).
 
Nevertheless, this is not a standard of right or wrong, but a simple truth that is “good” to follow for single people. You will not find touching condemned in Scripture. That is, if two single people were to hold hands or kiss, there’s no Scripture that specifically condemns that. But again, one could argue how that would be consistent with fleeing sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6:18). Nonetheless, this is the advice we give our single folks here. “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
 
Moreover, Scripture is silent about dating as well. If Scripture does not condemn something, then the following verses apply.
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. (1 Corinthians 6:12)
All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. (1 Corinthians 10:23)
 
To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled. (Titus 1:15)
As a parent (of 11) I personally have not been in favor of dating, but that’s no Biblical standard. Young people are quite capable of getting to know each other as they interact in the church and in their lives with friends and family. Dating is unnecessary. But nonetheless, Scripture does not forbid it. I have four adult children (2 males, 2 females) who are married, and they never did any courtship or dating. They found their mates within the body of believers (2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1; 1 Corinthians 7:39). Not that they were even seeking a mate (see 1 Corinthians 7:27 “Do not seek a wife”). But, God is quite good at bringing the opposite sex together. He has obviously built in a strong attraction.
 
Also I might add, there is quite a deception regarding marriage (and divorce). Most think a judge, or preacher, or priest, etc., must marry a couple and a license must be obtained for a couple to be married. The Bible mandates no such thing. Genesis 2:24 says quite simply,
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)
It is that simple. Isaac simply,
brought her into his mother Sarah's tent; and he took Rebekah and she became his wife (Genesis 24:67).
There’s not even an engagement period here in either passage. Engagement is mentioned in Scripture as something people practiced, but it is not mandated. The Bible does not teach a couple must first be engaged before they can be married.
 
Marriage is simply a life commitment, “covenant,” agreement, between two people to be and stay one flesh (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:6; “covenant of her God” Proverbs 2:17; “wife by covenant” Malachi 2:14). Religions and governments have put manmade requirements upon marriage that God has not. But, “Against such there is no law” (Galatians 5:23; 1 Corinthians 7:9). Sadly, most young people don’t realize that all it takes to be married (before God) is to commit yourselves to one another for life. I can only wonder the amount of fornication that takes place, because young people don’t realize how simple God has made it to be married.

a true church, P. O. Box 130, Moodys, OK 74444

1-800-HOW-TRUE; www.atruechurch.info