Concerning The Fellowship Of Huntsville Elder and Deacon Purge Of 2023
Here’s John Rosenberger’s confession:
Do you believe dispensationalism? Yes or no? If not then you can’t teach here anymore. Don’t even question the silliness it spawns.
Jesus was resurrected without blood in His body. No I don’t believe that. Brigham Young and Joseph Smith used to believe that. That is how they tried to solve their own man-made dilemma. The Word of God says flesh and blood can’t inherit the kingdom. So, according to Smith and Young, Jesus got some supernatural fluid for His resurrected veins. He no longer had blood flowing through His veins. That’s how Jesus overcame 1 Corinthians 15:50. He left His blood in His old covenant land so He could inherit the kingdom in flesh and fluid (no longer called blood). I don’t believe it.
2/3 of the Jews in the land of Jerusalem are prophesied to be killed again. No I don’t believe it! The Jews we send to Jerusalem don’t believe it either. If they did why would they go there?
I do believe in a thousand year literal reign, just not the same way the dispensationalists believe. But I don’t believe in eternal torment in the flesh for everybody who doesn’t believe the good news, so even if I could have returned from my deacon sabbatical, I can’t now, because I don’t believe every word of our sloppy dispy-inspired church creed. I won’t sign on to that because I don’t believe it’s all biblical. The reformers don’t either. The reformers were covenant theologians. Dispensationalism didn’t even exist yet.
No I don’t believe in Hell. The word Hell doesn’t even come from the original scriptures. The Greek Bible speaks of Hades, Gehenna, the lake of fire and Tartarus. Why can’t I teach about those four biblical words rather than teach Dante’s Hell-bent ungodly rationale for the never ending torment of the majority? Wouldn’t teaching the Bible be more biblical, even if it’s not creedal? According to Jesus, perishing to the age could only be avoided by being born again. Gehenna was the place of destruction Jesus pointed to when speaking to the Jews in the land. The word Gehenna is only used biblically when speaking to the old covenant people of God. The chosen Jews all transitioned into their new covenant by their Holy Spirit reformation. In that way and that way only, all God’s chosen people avoided perishing to the age. Jesus clearly told the Jews who were in the old covenant land that they must be born again or “perish” to the age. We usually overlook that very simple word in one of the most recognized scriptures spoken to the Jews by The One True Jew. To many modern day theologians, perishing is just a figure of speech that really means never perishing.
Jesus explained how not to perish to the teacher of Israel. That teacher of the Jews could only imagine a flesh and blood rebirth that would still perish, so Jesus corrected him. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have life to the age.” (John 3:16) Jesus would be purged from our church for teaching perishing. The required definition of perishing is, eternal flesh burning even while it’s being restored. How else could a person in a resurrected earthy body of flesh and bone and special fluid burn forever, without ever being consumed? Evidently no flesh is ever allowed to perish once the special fluid is flowing through the resurrected veins. Every body gets indestructible flesh, fitted for either place: eternal life in Heaven or eternal suffering in Hell. I don’t believe it.
It’s rather absurd how we ‘rationalize’ away our exegetical credibility in order to keep our flesh. Perish must really mean the opposite of perish, which is ‘not perish’. Obviously, the real meaning of John 3:16 is, Whoever believes in Him should not not perish… And flesh and blood can have no inheritance in the kingdom must really mean super fluid is required for the resurrected flesh. This glorified fluid flowing through glorified veins is obviously not referred to as blood anymore, thereby the kingdom inheritance is still intact and so is Hell. Flesh and superfluid can inherit the kingdom. Flesh and blood can’t. And resurrected flesh is imperishable in both Heaven and in Hell. I don’t believe it.
Jesus also said this to the Jews in the land: “And fear not the ones killing the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear the One who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.” (Matthew 10:28) Yes, bodies and souls can die and perish. I’m not willing to compromise my own soul for man-made creeds that say nobody ever perishes. Even if they forcefully (unreasonably) censor me. No human should be made to fear being burned for eternity in agonizing flames, nor fear those who want me to teach it. The “punishing” for sin is not eternal; unbelievers are burned up and cease to exist. Their end is eternal and final. I believe it because the Bible teaches it.
“The soul that sins shall die.” (Ezekiel 18:20) “The wages of the sin is the death, but the gracious gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:23) If you don’t receive the gift of eternal life, you do receive the wages of your sin. However, the death (the first death or the second death) is not “eternal life burning.” Destruction means you perish forever, not you are forever perishing. According to dispensationalists, to not perish really means to not not perish. Those in the first death were put on hold in Hades, but those in the second death were thrown into the lake of fire. Those who tried to stay in the old covenant land faced typical destruction in Gehenna. Different words can actually mean different things. Hades, the lake of fire and Gehenna have different meanings. Gehenna is the flesh and blood place of burning that corresponds to the lake of fire in the spirit realm, like the real temple is in heaven, the real place of destruction is also in the spirit realm.
If the shepherds of God’s people today require a belief in eternal flesh and bone that burns forever without being consumed, then they are being hypocrites. Like Peter they need to be called out publicly. “life to the age” in flesh and blood required keeping all of the old covenant law. That is why flesh and blood did not inherit the kingdom. It couldn’t, not even with the special resurrection fluid. That is why Paul confronted Peter to his face publicly. He was falling for the old flesh and blood forever teaching.
The Gentiles were being saved by the same Holy Spirit birth that was required to save the Jews. Eternal life was not by way of flesh birth or flesh rebirth with a special fluid caveat. Circumcision wasn’t even in the flesh anymore, nor was the new covenant body of Christ. Peter gave in to Jewish peer pressure and folded. Peter was temporarily misleading God’s chosen people in Antioch by adding circumcision in the flesh to the requirement for salvation. Peter gave in to the flesh and blood teaching of the born again Pharisees from the church of Jerusalem. The church in Jerusalem was still under the old covenant law of the land until they left the land, prior to AD 70. One is required by law to keep the laws of the land you enter. But the church in Antioch was never under old covenant law. No body is born into a land under old covenant law today, let alone born again into it. Even circumcision pictured a type of a new creation, not in the flesh.
Some people today still believe that flesh and blood can and must rule in the kingdom. The Bible plainly teaches that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom (1 Corinthians 15:50). If you take that like a wooden head, then of course flesh with some heavenly fluid in the veins still can rule in the kingdom. We must stand up to the peer pressure from the modern day Pharisees who say that we must return to earth in glorified flesh and bone in order to reign here with Christ. These modern day Judaizers say that the reign of God’s kingdom must be visible after all, therefore they made up a caveat: it must be in flesh and bone rather than in flesh and blood. The Bible doesn’t glorify flesh and blood or flesh and bone. They are biblically the same thing. The Bible certainly doesn’t teach that it is essential to believe in glorified flesh and you must teach dispensationalism in His kingdom. Those who weren’t born again and continued to believe in flesh and blood were the ones who couldn’t see or enter the kingdom, let alone teach in it. Even James (aka Jewish Jacob who was a shepherd of God’s people, still under the law of the land in the church in Jerusalem) didn’t teach about the so called “glorified flesh” that will visibly rule in the kingdom someday.
James (aka Jesus’ half brother in flesh and blood, Jacob) is a believing Jew who finished out the age in the new covenant and the old covenant too. Will Jacob someday become a full brother to Jesus in the flesh and bone resurrection? There was a 40-year old covenant to new covenant overlap during the reformation. The unbelievers who tried to ignore the signs of the end stayed in Jerusalem till the old covenant completely ended in disinformation. They still wanted to rule in the millennium in the flesh. They refused to reform their way of thinking. They didn’t get their way. Gehenna was the end of their way at the end of the day. Only Jesus and His brother Jacob even used the word Gehenna. The Bible records Jesus applying it eleven times to the Jews. Jacob applies it once to the Hebrews. They got the picture. There was only One Way to be covenantally saved from perishing and it had nothing to do with a glorified flesh rebirth. Modern day Bible teachers who propagandize everlasting glorious flesh for everyone, don’t believe anyone ever perishes anyway. I believe Jesus. He taught Nicodemus to avoid perishing by being born from above, not by a flesh rebirth as he imagined. How can anyone avoid perishing if perishing doesn’t really exist? Why not take the word perishing ‘literally’ as it was applied to the teacher of Israel? Jesus knew what He was saying and who He was saying it to.
According to dispensationalists, what is addressed to Israel is ‘earthly’ in character and is to be interpreted ‘literally’. Not so with covenant theology. Covenant theology believes God has only one plan, not two plans for salvation. God has one people and one plan throughout redemptive history, called ‘Israel’ under the Old Testament, and called ‘the church’ under the New. This is the reformation view by definition of the word reformation. The new covenant came out of the old. This reformation view has been ‘officially’ silenced by the deacon and elder purge at Fellowship Of Huntsville Church. Reformed and always reforming is not an acceptable view for this local church. We must believe the replacement view or the two-body view.
Reformers like Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley, Owen, Bullinger, Berkhoff, Hodge, Warfield and Jesus would not qualify to teach at Fellowship Of Huntsville Church. They wanted to reform God’s people not abandon them or replace them. None of the reformers agree with the modern dispensational framing of Fellowship’s creed, because none of them were dispensationalists. Dispys believe the new covenant church is a temporary replacement of Israel, not a reformation of Israel. Is it possible this belief is wrong and so are the people who have so expediently and so unjustly wielded it as a hammer over a their ‘adversaries’ in eschatology?
Why silence a reasonable discussion by placing a sloppy creed over the Word of God? Why not let God’s Word speak? Jesus reasonably challenged the rules made up by men. He rationally stood up for His Father’s Word. The Jews could not cudgel Jesus into silence with their man made rules. If Bible verses are so difficult for someone to discuss publicly, then maybe they can’t teach the Bible, no matter where they are allowed to try. They need their personal church creed to teach the masses what to think. How to think is irrational to them. Jesus was rational in his thinking. We must be forced to be irrational in order to comply with man’s desires? Reason however does not require force. That is why it is so feared by the censors of ‘disinformation’. Reason is too influential to be allowed back into the conversation at this point. Our culture has peaked out on the irrational, hence no reasonable conversation is desirable. The churches should lead us back to the Bible. The Bible can make sense out of our nonsense.