Q & A Bill Randles and David Nathan discuss the Millennium

Just recently released Bill Randles is caught on tape agreeing with David Nathan that the Blood of Christ atones for sin and is sufficient while discussing the Millennium Sacrifices in April of 2015.

This raises many question as Bill did say he had never heard David Nathan’s Millennial view before and did ask for further inquiry on the subject.  David, as he has always maintained, stated that this view was not doctrine but simply his opinion.  David has theorized that once Christ returns the age of grace is over and animal sacrifices are re-instituted in the Millennium.  In this video they read passages from Zechariah chapter two and Ezekiel chapter forty where the one deals with the assembling of the Nations to Jerusalem and the other dealing with the sacrifices, namely, the sin offering and the trespass offering.

In my opinion, David Nathan never had a need for repentance as many times he stated his Millennial view was simply his opinion, he was simply theorizing.  In fact, many theologians will tell you that we just don’t know the full impact of the meaning behind the Millennial sacrifices.  Yet three years after this taping, Bill Randles aligned himself with Jacob Prasch in excommunicating David Nathan and labeling him a heretic and maintains his position to this day.

When David Nathan reached out for correction, stating he was willing to be corrected and repent of any wrong doctrine has been met with total silence by Moriel and Randles alike.  His repentance has been rejected as Prasch and Randles it seems feel they are worthy to sit upon the judgment seat reading David’s heart.

You will notice in this video that Bill Randles never took issue with is view and even confirmed David’s belief in the sufficiency of Christ’s Blood.  Clear the error has been and still is lays at the feel of David Nathan’s accusers.  The video is below!


23 thoughts on “Q & A Bill Randles and David Nathan discuss the Millennium

  1. I agree with you, Mandy. What John Haller presented in his “prophesy update” about James McDonald was indeed a bit odd and very late in the game. To use this very old news in his weekly prophesy update is of course an attempt to be relevant, with not only his weekly news updates but also to conveniently tie it into the conference somehow. It’s sad that many who faithfully watch these “weekly updates” see them as prophesy and as John Haller preaching the word, when all he and others are doing is simply feeding old news. I do not know how they can speak of abuse and bullying and not be completely humiliated and convicted by what has and continues to take place within their own inner circle, at the cost of so many. What has happened now is that their fruit is coming full and it’s much easier to see that it is bad fruit. They speak of the very error they refuse to admit, address or correct within their own rank. There are some that are awakening to this and are leaving the Moriel rank and file, just this week I’ve heard of a few, for that I am grateful and continue to pray.

  2. On Utube, John Hallers Prophecy Update was posted from Canada. In it he said that people are leaving the churches because ‘the pastors have become bullies. ‘ He was referring to James McDonald ( old news) . I found it odd that he appeared to notice bullying with McDonald, but doesn’t appear to notice this with McJimmy. He was extremely loud while making his point. ( sounding a bit bullish). Like Tim mentioned, shouting you down. The thing with McDonald is very old news. Why start a meeting with this? Why introduce this subject in the first place? I think the video was probably posted by his church. I normally do not watch them, the news presented has been posted by top sites weeks/ months before. (And for more obvious reasons.) Just an odd opening statement considering he is with McBully himself.

  3. Salvador,
    First I want to let you know that I did not approve your other two comments with your email address and names of people you know in David Nathan’s church then and now, simply because they aren’t relevant to this post. The point which continues to be missed is repentance and forgiveness and those believers in Christ who refuse to accept and continue to call one a heretic that has indeed repented before God and pretty much the entire world publicly.

    You say, “The only thing he retracted is for teaching about, that you can pray the anointing into cloth and apologies for appearing dogmatic. He did not retract his understanding of millennial salvation”

    David Nathan: “The statement which I should not have made but rather should have sought to express myself very differently and that folk have objected to is, “The Blood of Jesus will not profit anyone, anything in the Millennium.” In using this phrase, which I regret, I was not stating that the Blood of Jesus does not cleanse in all ages as this would be a clear violation of scripture. His blood alone can take away sin and every sacrifice from Genesis 3:21, when the Lord clothed Adam and Eve in tunics of skin to the sacrifices of the Millennium all point to Jesus. In the teaching I kept using the word atone to describe the purpose of the millennial sacrifices in the sense that they do not remove sin but cover sin. I reiterate again that I do not teach nor believe that the sin of an animal or animals can ever remove sin. Not under the Old Testament, not now nor in the age to come. Only the Blood of Jesus can remove sin both now and forever, including the millennium. This is and has always been what I have believed though I did not express it succinctly in the series on Eschatology.”

    David Nathan: “The bible is absolutely clear that God is the creator. The Father ordained creation. Jesus was the creator in perfect unity with the Father.. not that God the Father was not involved in creation..”

    David Nathan email to Bill Randles”

    “Why you have publicly stated that on three or four occasions you privately spoke to me warning me about my doctrine when I can emphatically state that we have never once had any such conversations? You only ever made a comment once and that was when I did a Q&A with Jacob at your church. You said that there cannot be salvation outside of the blood of Jesus. I agreed with your statement as that is what I believe and teach if you listen to my teaching and not edited clips from Moriel.”
    I chose to remove myself from this debacle when I finally realized that Moriel and others had no desire to meet and resolve this whole affair but rather sought my destruction. I never would have thought that you would have conducted yourself the way you have in all this.

    Are you telling me that this isn’t sufficient for you? That David’s statements aren’t even close to being repentant? Most who have watched this horror film since it started, know full well that once Prasch leveled the original heresy bomb at David; that more attacks would follow. True to form the Moriel crew went searching for anything to lob at Nathan. I don’t mean any disrespect but if I were David and you had contacted me to “address” these issues I wouldn’t have responded to you either, since you were certainly a part of Moriel. I’m sure you can certainly understand this. Many like Bill Randles and yourself always come out disputing what David had taught and your refusal to accept his repentance is the only way you can continue to call him heretic.
    The video is clear, Salvador, Bill did not protest or make a fuss, David clearly states that it’s his opinion and does so even in Bill’s own church in a Q&A. Bill had ample opportunity to address this if indeed he thought it to be heresy and he did not, added to this, is that David was in agreement with Bill on the videos and in these quotes. You are much like Bill Randles in that you both say he hasn’t recanted or repented, enough, or he didn’t “retract much” so therefore you nor Bill or anyone affiliated with Moriel accept his repentance. Is David still teaching these things, today, as doctrine as you claim? If he is not, then wouldn’t that also show some fruit of repentance?
    Any post on David Nathan is always meant with comments like yours that leave everyone with the impression that David is still teaching these things and is a full-blown heretic with coat and handkerchiefs flying while he claims God didn’t create anything and the blood is not sufficient. When in fact he has recanted/repented, as the few quotes above clarified and yet it is meant with absolute rejection by those like Bill Randles, Moriel and yourself.

    YOU SAY “Regardless of what criticism you make of Bill calling David a heretic, to frame this as Bill agreeing with David Nathan is plain false.”

    What you fail to see or hear is that David Nathan agrees with Bill on the sufficiency of the blood of Christ to save through all ages.
    You say: “Mike. I seek no defense of Jacob. It is not as if I am on “Jacob’s side”. However, now I have not seen anything untoward in either Bill Randles or in Anton Bosch in their assessments of David Nathan and his doctrines as heretical.”

    What is untoward is that Bill continues to reject David’s repentance and dwells on the fact that David is indeed still a heretic. It’s hypocrisy, it goes against the scripture.

    You say: “Although Jacob does not deny the atonement of the blood for those in the millennium, which I am glad for, I believe that enough surrounding comments were preserved to indicate that Jacob did teach that people in the millennium will be saved but not as we understand it. Not salvation by grace. This I reject vehemently as you will see from my video. It is half as bad as David Nathan’s view but still heretical because it touches the nature of salvation and the gospel. No one can be saved except by grace. The same way we understand it. Rest assured I have not turned a blind eye and I have been outspoken about this, as you will see if you check out my comments on Mark Rogers’ video. My name is Salvador. I would not break fellowship with Jacob over other issues of the millennium but the issue of salvation in the millennium is one where I would. I hope that Jacob addresses this and puts it right as I do with David Nathan concerning this doctrine.”

    So here’s the thing why is David Nathan a heretic and Jacob is not? When both Jacob and David seem to be in agreement in Frank Rogers video. You say, yourself that it is heretical, because is touches the nature of salvation and the gospel. Not to mention Jacob hasn’t retracted, apologized or repented of anything he has said …..while David Nathan certainly has and yet it not enough for you, really? I’ve never heard or read anywhere where anyone, Bill Randles included, tried to speak with Jacob about his teaching on salvation in the millennium let alone call him out as a heretic for it. And then you actually say “ I hope that Jacob addresses this and puts it right”!!! This is beyond hypocrisy and you are certainly playing favorites when it’s clear that both Nathan and Prasch are saying and agreeing that a salvation in the millennium will be not only different, but God reverts back to dealing with man under the law/old testament. You call it heresy!! So why then aren’t you out there protesting Jacob Prasch’s teaching/doctrine of this? He certainly has a larger audience to deceive.
    Our issue all along has been that David Nathan has indeed recanted and repented. Bill Randles along with others, such as yourself, refuse to acknowledge or accept that and continue to mark him heretic while giving Jacob a pass and you just hope he addresses it?

    I hope and pray that others will see, hear and read for themselves what has been and continues to be done to David Nathan. If you can show me proof where David Nathan continues to teach these things today, then I will certainly retract. But to watch a man publicly humble himself before God and repent/recant and apologize to the body of Christ, is in itself a very rare thing to witness these days. The spiritual error now lays at the feet of those who continue to cry heretic.

  4. I think it is extremely important that we understand people’s backgrounds and born again experience. If you know that David was saved by seeing his friends mom healed at a word of faith healing meeting, and witnessed that she never went back to drinking again. For all we know her healing was authentic as she trusted in God and David saw the fruit of it. David then became a hot teacher on the word of faith preaching circuit until he himself challenged the teachings. If he had a dramatic experience with a jacket many years ago, and he had seen others healed such as his friend’s mom, that is something that was tangible and real to him. The fact that this type of healing is actually founded on a factual scripture makes it more significant. David had tried to learn and study the word of God in and out, stand on faith, and if God wanted to do miracles David believed he was doing what was biblical.

    Meanwhile he did retract much Salvador. He denounced the healing jacket as part of his ongoing teaching, he apologized for his controversial statements on the millennium but he stated from his studying of scripture it was what he had found. He acknowledged that it was not helpful to posit such teaching and you see him with Bill saying what is really important is to just focus on getting to heaven based on salvation through Jesus. I am literally angered by this continual attempt to claim that David did not retract/repent/ make right whatever needed to. He wrote entire letters requesting private fixing the situation, in humility and kindness. He had never been challenged by Bill Randles or Jacob though discussing his theory on at least 3 to 5 occasions. Then he was smeared and destroyed. Any claim that he did not do enough is simply ignorant or just hard headed.

    Fruit cannot be hidden forever. David has maintained humility, seeking peace, and waited on God to restore his ministry in due time. Jacob has gone on a bloody rampage so I have no question left in my mind who needs reprimanding from the Lord. Feel free to share your emails Salvador because I have seen most of the emails that have gone from Marco, Jacob, Bill and every time David seems to be humble and communicative in a Godly manner.

    As for the millennium, whatever your view is, it is not hard to see the difficult integration of Old Testament millennium prophecy with New Testament promise. We are promised to never again need the blood of rams or goats, yet it is required by God in the millennium. We are told we no longer need circumcision yet in the millennium it is required. In fact Paul tells them they will forfeit their salvation if they start requiring circumcision again. We are told that Christ is the Kaphar- the covering for us for ever. Yet in the Millennium we are told the jews will use sacrifices to cover their sin. I can go on and on but if you think David was just twisting scripture your wrong. There may be other explanations for these verses, and taking the leap that they will not be saved traditionally should have been considered more carefully but whatever slip of doctrine David has had it has been purely on ignorance which is not considered sin I believe according to God’s declaration of Job’s innocence. Job was ignorant of God’s ways, he questioned God and was wrong, yet God held him as righteous and not sinful for his ignorance.

  5. I communicated with David Nathan by email in May and I asked him to retract his teaching on the millennium. This was because I had done some further study and had come across BW Newton’s book which gave me some further insight.

    DN: Perhaps we should all retract our public views of the Millennium and focus our efforts on preparing the Bride to meet her Lord? ”

    After DN’s reply I did write a further post “Alarmingly their views on the millennium are not dissimilar to the Israel-Church dichotomy invented by Darby. ”

    You will find a lengthy quote from BW Newton here:
    God bless.

  6. In answer to that question I have gone to him several times through email and tried to reason with him. Firstly at the beginning of 2018 concerning the word of faith teaching and several times after the whole Moriel thing both by email and by Facebook. But to no avail. I live in New Zealand. He was going to stay with us and I was going to readdress the word of faith subject with him there. But everything went public and I therefore had to resort to email as his New Zealand trip was cancelled. And please feel free to go to David about this.

  7. Since you don’t accept David’s repentance and his repentance has not satisfied you what have you done the the last year to reach out to him and guide him in a proper view of the millennial, salvation, etc? How have you tried to reconcile him back into fellowship? because I have video and again he clearly states it is opinion, not doctrine. That is evidence, you have not presented any evidence, just your opinion. So what have you done to rectify the problem. Have you meet with David in the last year to correct him? Have you encouraged him to repent? Have you tried to reconcile him to Jacob and Bill? Have you addressed your concerns with him? I will ask David myself to see if you have done anything to help him, if you were obedient to the Word to go to your brother.

  8. I have also listened to everything he put out and he did not retract much. The only thing he retracted is for teaching about that you can pray the anointing into cloth and apologized for appearing dogmatic. How is this repentance? He did not retract his understanding of millennial salvation, nor of his teaching on slain in the spirit (rather defending it by trying to argue that Jacob taught likewise) nor of the word of faith aspects of his teaching. This is even more sobering. Therefore it is not a matter of ‘withholding forgiveness’ from a repentant brother. Again, I was in the 2015 meeting with Bill and David Nathan. Bill was not in agreement. Bill remediated the idea that people would not be atoned for by Christ’s blood stating that only Christ’s shed blood can save people now or in the millennium. The same I saw in the video with Jacob and David Nathan in Bill Randles church. Bill repudiated the idea from the audience. Regardless of what criticism you make of Bill calling David a heretic, to frame this as Bill agreeing with David Nathan is plain false.

  9. Watching Bill’s behavior over these past several months, he will probably take it down. He seems to be notorious for wavering and fence riding. He has no concept of how unstable he looks when he puts articles/videos or comments up then takes them down. One certainly doesn’t get a good sense of where he stands spiritually or otherwise.

  10. Salvador,
    I agree that we indeed “must stand on the word when it comes to issues of this nature”. Much has been said repeatedly about David Nathan and his doctrine/teaching/ opinion, with a lot of he said, she said, they said…., David himself says he regrets saying it and yet here you are still calling him down as a heretic. What have we received from David Nathan in all of this? Pleadings to meet and attempt to reconcile, stating clearly his error and being open to correction and his repentance. Yet no one including yourself seems to be willing to accept it and embrace him as a brother. This lack of reconciliation can’t be laid at Jacob Prasch’s feet alone, there are a host of leadership in and around Moriel that have stood silent and or continue to contribute to marring this man. Bill Randles is one of them and makes it clear that he continues to have issues with David Nathan on these issues that David has clearly repented of. Which is why these videos are so relevant, since they show Bill in agreement with David Nathan on it being his opinion and more and yet Bill continues to protest and resurrect David Nathan’s error. We all need to weigh these matters, and which is the greater; marking someone as a heretic for what they have taught and have now repented of? Which means God has forgiven him, because he is faithful and just. How do we regain a brother in reconciliation if we do not accept his repentance? Where does that leave us? Certainly, a sobering thought, that if we repent it would make no difference to those in the body of Christ, we are still considered anathema, this is not to be so in the body of Christ and yet here it is.

  11. Mike. Doctrine simply means teaching. People I know in Bread of life were led to believe this by sitting under David Nathan’s teaching on this. And they were as dogmatic about it (at the time) as David Nathan was in the way he presented it. Jacob is not right when he says that “people will be saved, but not as we understand it, not salvation by grace.” If you go to Frank Rogers video you will see my comments there for all to see. But at the end of the day David Nathan did not present it as opinion he both taught it dogmatically and led people to believe this. This is one of the three main issues that are very troublesome including David Nathan’s “vision” for how he sees the future of the church going as was shared in the UK. I cannot agree with your assessment here, though I think you are right to say that there should not be double standards.

    I don’t understand why you would think that animal sacrifices and the existence of mosaic observances would mean that people would not be saved by the Blood and by grace. Was Paul and the four men under the vow not saved by Jesus’ blood and under grace when he paid their fees so they could shave their heads and the peace offering sacrifices? They would have already done the sin offerings and the burnt offerings. And Paul did this to prove to believing Jews (who had accepted Jesus already) that Paul was not teaching them to forsake Moses or the customs but that he also walked according to the law of Moses. It was not for salvation or right standing. Paul does not get upset that believing Jews are still keeping mosaic laws. Paul gets upset when people from the circumcision tried to compel Gentiles to get circumcised and keep the customs. Neither does this mean that Jewish believers were told that they have to do so. The apostles tell Paul that many thousands among the Jews believed and they were all zealous for the law. This does not diminish the work of the cross because it is not for salvation. If one was arguing it was necessary for salvation or sanctification then one would argue that we are diminishing the work of the cross. I would recommend Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s book “The Footsteps of the Messiah” and its section on millennial sacrifices. He has four reasons why they will need to be there and none ever mean that there is no room for grace or make it impossible that the New Covenant could be fulfilled in a nationalistic sense just prior and during the millennium. It is therefore not saying the same thing by teaching the existence of sin offering for atonement in the millennium. This is not for salvation. It is not for heaven but for worship in a Jewish temple, one which you can only enter in the millennium if you are circumcised both in heart and in flesh, not in flesh only.

  12. And isn’t it peculiar how Bill Randles dredges up the lynching of David Nathan from the deep, alluding to him not once, not twice, not three times (wait for it)…but FOUR times as a “heretic” in his blog article on August 29th. Is it because he was freshly lynched in a public hanging himself, so he felt the need to drag “the heretic” down with him? Image is everything…isn’t it.

  13. Mike. I seek no defense of Jacob. It is not as if I am on “Jacob’s side”. However, now I have not seen anything untoward in either Bill Randles or in Anton Bosch in their assessments of David Nathan and his doctrines as heretical. As for going to David Nathan with correction seeking reconciliation between the parties, I know for certain that people tried. I was one of them. Before the whole thing blew up with Jacob I know that people had approached David Nathan about the word of faith aspects of his teaching. And this was done in love. People also tried to bring Jacob and David Nathan together to work over the doctrines together to bring resolution over this but they did not succeed. In any case what Bill Randles or Jacob Prasch say means nothing. I believe that we must stand on the word when it comes to issues of this nature. And I do not see that the idea that someone can teach that people in the Millennium will be able to go to the New Jerusalem and experience a right relationship with God through their faithfulness and obedience, not by grace, not by faith and not by the blood of Jesus, how the Bible can be handled in a way that would see it of no consequence.

    I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” (Galatians 2:21, NASB)

  14. How can one be a heretic for something they propose as an opinion? Where are we, Geneva?

  15. KwaZulu I would like to say something, I’ve watched this all play out for well over a year, I’ve talked with people directly involved, and all I have seen is a big grudge war, over inflated egos on the part of Jacob Prasch, Bill Randles and affiliates. Hebrews 13:7 states: “Remember those who rule (lead) over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.” You have to things to consider here, what they speak and what they do. If I follow what Jacob Prasch and Bill Randles does, that is, if I follow there actions as an example, I wouldn’t have to accept the repentance of a brother in the Lord, I wouldn’t have to forgive them, I wouldn’t have to go to them with correction seeking reconciliation. All I would have to do is label them a heretic and move on making a public example of them without grace, mercy, or concern for them. This is the example of Bill Randles and Jacob Prasch. So what they say means nothing!

  16. Salvador,
    As usual you present David Nathan as teaching this as doctrine, when it is clear that he says, repeatedly in more than just this one video, that he is not teaching it as such and it is only his opinion. The refusal to accept David Nathan’s apology, repentance, not to mention the fact that Jacob, nor anyone else from Moriel would even meet with him, is simply not Biblical. Bill Randles refuses to accept that David recanted and repented, and it is apparent that you refuse to also. Both David and Bill in this video agreed.
    1. It was David’s opinion not doctrine
    2. They both believe in the sufficiency of the blood of Christ
    3. That concerning the millennium, there is much we don’t know.
    4. Here’s a clip with Jacob and David in agreement on this topic. Jacob, Bill, and David alike all have said in the millennium salvation reverts back to old testament law, something I disagree with but I’m not going to label any of them heretics for saying so.

    It’s clear that it’s David Nathan’s opinions that he presents on the millennium and like Jacob and Bill he is welcome to his opinion. I will support and accept his recanting, apology and repentance to the body of Christ. Our hope is that some will weigh the facts and see the error. You indicate that our statements on Bill Randels are in some way untrue, when the video is what confirms those statements. You say “I was there, I saw how disturbed Bill was”. Then you go on, to wrongly say, “to speak of Bill as having no problem with this DOCTRINE is not true.” Again, your refusal to acknowledge its David Nathan’s opinion and not doctrine speaks volumes and is untrue as well, you continue to mark David Nathan as teaching unsound doctrine when he clearly states otherwise. How can you continue to call it doctrine when it’s not? Why do you continue to call it doctrine? We say watch the video for yourself.

    Personally I agree that there is no other way of salvation except by grace and by the blood of Jesus Christ, both now and in the millennium. His atoning work on the Cross and his shedding of his blood is finished now and forever. I’m just saying that David presented it as opinion, not doctrine. Since it is such a hot topic I do believe it is a subject that should not be publicly taught, even as opinion. But I’ve watched all the videos, and Jacob was always in agreement with David, bobbing his head up and down when David presented his opinion. Now if it is as Jacob, Bill and David say, that it reverts back to the law during the millennium how can you then eliminate the sacrificial offerings since the whole law revolved around the priesthood and the sin offerings. By omittance Jacob is saying the exact same thing! By teaching everything reverts back to the law itself diminishes the work of the Cross as the law served as a foreshadow of Christ and his work on the cross which was fulfilled in Christ’s sacrifice.

  17. Dear Mike and Pat.

    I know that for whatever reason you are trying tooth and nail to defend David Nathan’s ministry and therefore you need to discredit both Jacob and now Bill I believe that you overlook significant portions of scripture that show that Israel in the millennium will experience new birth, circumcision of the heart, a new heart and God’s indwelling Spirit as well as the Spirit outpoured, most of these scriptures during a time of Israel’s national restoration and keeping of the mosaic injunctions of Deuteronomy. Deut 30:1-6, Ezek 36:22-32, Jeremiah 31:31-37, Zechariah 12:10-14 cf with Matt 23:37-39, Acts 3:17-21, and especially Romans 11:25-27. Israel need salvation in the millennium because scripture says they do. The Spirit, the blood and grace are essential to their restoration and the fulfillment of their national calling because they cannot obey the Lord except He make them spiritually alive by His Spirit and circumcise their hearts. This is not a mere difference of interpretation of the millennium but the whole nature of how one is made righteous and able to enter the New Jerusalem (I.e. salvation). There can be no other way except by grace, the Blood of Jesus and being made alive by the Spirt. The cross and resurrection permanently stand and no future dispensation can provide an alternative pathway of admittance into the New Jerusalem except by the blood of the lamb. When Israel experience the national fulfillment of the New Covenant (which is clear from the context of Jeremiah 31:31ff) it is the New Covenant which blood is that of Messiah’s to ratify it.

    As for your statements on Bill Randles. I was there at the very meeting and I saw how disturbed Bill was. He made a strong point about it and David Nathan stepped away from the stage afterwards looking perplexed. I tried to talk with David Nathan. I also reminded him of this event and my attempt to explain how there is no contradiction is believing that there are sin offerings in the millennium while positing that the milllennial mortals are saved by Jesus’ blood. I shared this with him in email last year. To speak of Bill as having no problem with this doctrine is not true. It is false. I was there for the whole meeting.

    Although Jacob does not deny the atonement of the blood for those in the millennium, which I am glad for, I believe that enough surrounding comments were preserved to indicate that Jacob did teach that people in the millennium will be saved but not as we understand it. Not salvation by grace. This I reject vehemently as you will are from my video. It is half as bad as David Nathan’s view but still heretical because it touches the nature of salvation and the gospel. No one can be saved except by grace. The same way we understand it. Rest assured I have not turned a blind eye and I have been outspoken about this, as you will see if you check out my comments on Mark Rogers’ video. My name is Salvador. I would not break fellowship with Jacob over other issues of the millennium but the issue of salvation in the millennium is one where I would. I hope that Jacob addresses this and puts it right as I do with David Nathan concerning this doctrine, the slain in the Spirit teaching he has and also his understanding of Satan’s dominion which is thought for thought that of Word of Faith architect Kenneth Hagin as I have come to learn from reading Kenneth Hagin’s booklet, The Authority of the Believer. This doctrine of earthly authority being like a lease is one which is distinctively Word of Faith theology.

  18. how bout a growing list of Jacob’s theories here.

    1. Kabbalah’s demonic Metatron = Jesus.
    2. Jesus is the Azazel based upon some unknown talmudic verses
    3. Christians should sing songs to “the blood of the goat” and not just the lamb
    4. Jesus born outside of wedlock as a bastard child of sorts
    5. The counting of the Omar guides our eschatology timeline
    6. Jesus was required to be both of Levi and of the tribe of Judah (which is false as Hebrews tells us)
    see how Jacob’s dependence on Jewish literature is leading him down a polluted path?
    When we want to bring unique teachings to people too badly, we can pollute truth the way Augustine did.

  19. KwaZulu I’ve watched all the videos where David Nathan teaches his Millennial theory and in every video he clearly states that it is simply his opinion, that it is not something he would teach as doctrine. In this video Bill never seemed distraught or upset and they both agreed that no one can be saved except by faith in the atoning blood of Jesus. It seems everyone wants to split hairs over an issue that is not relevant and all will tell you no one really has a clear understanding of the Millennium. It is a different dispensation all together as Christ Himself will be here. My question is, show me anywhere in Scripture where there is a need for salvation during the Millennium? At that time the church is glorified, Israel is restored and exalted above all nations. The only question is the rest of the nations which exist during this period.

    It’s funny that Jacob Prasch and Bill Randles fellowship with other men of differing Millennial views, differing pre-millennial views and they say they would never break fellowship with them. David has clearly stated that salvation is in Christ alone. I say something else is going on. Jacob seems to through any and all to the curb who doesn’t coo at his every word, who raises any questions or concerns. I know people who have been involved with Moriel and they all say many walk in fear of Jacob. This is not godly conduct. Jacob’s behavior and many of his own teachings “in my opinion” classify him as a heretic yet everyone turns a blind eye!

  20. I was there and Bill Randles did take issue with David Nathan saying that it is impossible that anyone could be saved except by the Blood of Jesus. Bill Randles was quite aggressive about it and David Nathan backed down and then walked off the platform in a shocked state. I went up to David Nathan after to explain another reason why there would be sin offerings while people would be saved by Jesus’ blood alone and by grace. As in my visits David Nathan never preached on this again you would have hoped that it was scrapped and dropped. It was disturbing to see videos put out where David Nathan tries to push the same thing where Bill once again intervened from the audience to repudiate the the idea that people can be saved without the blood of Jesus. The claim of this article is not true. David Nathan then never repented of this teaching and kept promoting it publicly. One can only hope he has repented of it now.

  21. It is interesting how both David and Jacob are in complete agreement in Franks short clip and yet I don’t here either one saying it’s just their opinion and are not teaching this as doctrine. I realize that David Nathan does clarify this in the video in 2015 concerning the blood sacrifices. By Jacob and Bill, being in complete agreement with David it makes both Randels and Prasch look like fools and hypocrites.

  22. It should be noted that in October 2016 BOTH Jacob Prasch AND David Nathan taught that grace will come to an end after the rapture of the church. The assumption that the grace of God is somehow limited to a particular age and comes to an end during the millennium is, in my view, an attack on the very gospel itself.

    BW Newton’s view sheds a great deal of light on this subject:
    Israel’s Prospects in the Millennium.

    Click to access israel_s_prospects_in_the_millennium.pdf

    It was very remiss of Randles to condemn David Nathan when Prasch had mis-taught the very same thing. Their attack on David Nathan was obviously not based on his teaching!

  23. Randles ceased to have credibility when he rolled over and played dead late last year after briefly defending the innocent until the spiritual bully and Jack Daniels-filled water balloon Prasch put in his false teeth and growled at him.

    I do note the way David Nathan immediately repented of anything wrong he said (i.e. the jacket thing). Contrast that godly response with the responses of Bela Lugosi Prasch in his vampire costume* and Dan Conner Randles (under those various thumbs) when caught, with their immediate shirking from repentance and pointing their chubby fingers all coated in donut icing at anything to distract from their own abundant and heavily-documented failings.

    Now that he is clearly caught, let’s see if Bill repents of his behaviour and accusations against David Nathan.
    Form, however, says he won’t repent. Randles will probably be driving around Iowa trying to track down Al Pileggi to make him some more useless anti-DN videos in the back of his converted ambulance.

    *Prasch can be seen in the first 2 minutes of this September video dressed in his vampire costume making light of his New Zealand colleague dying. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UCVK_bcprNU

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.