Podcast: Joel Osteen

In this episode, we examine a message from Joel Osteen entitled "Reprogram Your Mind." Does he teach the Gospel? Does he teach what the Bible teaches? We hold him up to the word of God and find out.



This link takes you to Justin Peters' three part presentation on the Word of Faith/Prosperity Gospel heresy.

This link takes you to a video showcasing a New Age teacher saying the exact same thing that Word of Faith preachers teach.

Podcast: Why I Became a Christian

In this (very short) podcast, I discuss why I am a Christian, and not an atheist as I once was.

The New Age Connection with Word of Faith

The following is the full video that I played clips from in my podcast examining Word of Faith teachers Len and Cathy Mink. It features Teal Swan speaking about how to "manifest money" and "create wealth." I'm sharing it to show the similarities between the Word of Faith camp and New Age theology regarding visualization and manifestation. As I said in my podcast, Miss Swan could very well become a Word of Faith preacher - all she would have to do is add the name "Jesus" in her presentation every now and then.

Justin Peters goes into greater detail in his Call for Discernment series, which I shared here. He shows that the Word of Faith camp and non-Christian ideas of manifestation and visualization have their same roots in the metaphysical movements from the 1800's.

Note: As I recall, there's a picture of the middle finger used as a graphic somewhere in the video. Just a warning if you're watching with kids nearby.

Podcast: The Oddity of Bob Jones

In this episode, we present a dramatized reading of the Mike Bickle/Bob Jones sessions from the late 1980's, taken from the Aberrant Practices document. It features much of the insane stuff Bob Jones talked about or claimed at that time...but remember, this is a man who many considered a great prophet even up until his recent death, and who many still consider to be a great prophet of God. This is the man who Mike Bickle, founder of the International House of Prayer, claims greatly influenced him, was his "buddy," and who he looked up to as a spiritual role model.

As much as some of this will make you laugh, it should also disturb you.

Are Christians commanded to pray for Jerusalem?

Before I begin this post, let me make it clear there is nothing wrong with praying for cities. Whether it's your hometown, New York City, London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Baghdad, Beijing, Tokyo, Seoul, etc., that's fine. Jerusalem is included in this list. It is perfectly fine to pray that God would protect a city, bring revival to a city, protect believers in a city, have mercy on a city, etc. Again, Jerusalem is included in this list.

The question is...are Christians told by scripture to pray specifically for Jerusalem?

I recently encountered a gentleman on Twitter (his identity is not vitally important) who said that "we are told in the Bible to pray for two cities 1) your own city 2) Jerusalem." The obvious inference was in regards to the current crisis in the Middle East regarding Hamas and Israel. What struck me about this was it seemed to suggest that Christians were commanded by scripture to pray for the city of Jerusalem.

The Biblical Problem

I asked the gentleman where New Testament believers were commanded to pray for Jerusalem; he responded that, as the early church "lived in the psalms," the early believers "would have felt the applicability of Psalm 122." This was a reference specifically to the wording of Psalm 122:6a, which reads: "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem" (ESV).

Logically speaking, note that the individual is starting with an assumption (Psalm 122 would have been applicable to early believers) and is backing it up with a vague historical fact (the early Christians used the psalms). This is begging the question, however, on the notion that early Christians would have interpreted Psalm 122 to mean a literal Jerusalem for which to pray (which we will get to in a moment). Already we see a dilemma in this kind of doctrine. While there is no doubt that the early Christians would have used the psalms, or worshiped with the psalms, we must remember that they would have to use them within context, depending on each individual psalm. There is no evidence, for example, that any Christian in the early history of the church interpreted Psalm 137:9 to mean that Christians should kill infants.

With this in mind, let's examine the full psalm (it's only nine verses):

I was glad when they said to me, “Let us go to the house of the Lord.” Our feet are standing within your gates, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that is built as a city that is compact together; to which the tribes go up, even the tribes of the Lord—an ordinance for Israel—to give thanks to the name of the Lord. For there thrones were set for judgment, The thrones of the house of David. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: “May they prosper who love you. May peace be within your walls, and prosperity within your palaces.” For the sake of my brothers and my friends, I will now say, “May peace be within you.” For the sake of the house of the Lord our God, I will seek your good. [Psalm 122:1-9; NASB]

Traditionally, this is believed to be a Davidic psalm, though some scholars have placed its dating not until after the exile; in either case, it can be safe to assume that this is about an Old Testament Jew going to the Temple. The first few verses are the language of a pilgrim, going to Jerusalem, as all Jews were commanded to do (cf. Exo 23:17; Deu 16:16).

The language suggests that the pilgrims have just arrived (v. 2) and beholding the city as a "city that is joined to her together" (as it says in the original Hebrew of v. 3). Traditionally, this is translated to suggest that the buildings were built closely together (hence the NASB's rendering of "compact together"). The NET translator notes suggest that this may refer to the duality of Jerusalem's function in the old state of Israel, as it was the center both of the religious and civil authorities (the reference to the seats of judgment and the thrones of David in v. 5 would give some support for this). On the other hand, the Targum (an early Aramaic paraphrase/commentary of the Bible) suggests that this was in reference to the heavenly Jerusalem; the Jews of Christ's time did indeed believe in the "Jerusalem below," or the literal Jerusalem, and a "Jerusalem above," referring to God's realm (hence the apostle Paul's reference to the Jerusalem above in Galatians 4:26).

This connection was broken (or perhaps, more properly, mended) by the connection between man and God brought about by the first advent of Christ, the rejection of Christ by the Jewish state, and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Christ came and "tabernacled" among us (the literal translation of "dwelt among us" in John 1:14), and by His atoning sacrifice and resurrection he became a high priest and made the Levitical priesthood null and void, and gave the final atonement for the sins of His sheep, making null and void the Temple sacrifices as well.

In the last few verses, the psalmist begins to speak of how he will "pray for the peace of Jerusalem." The reason for this prayer is seen in the following verses: so that those who love Jerusalem may prosper (not meaning financially or physically, but simply that they would have tranquility or security); that peace may be within Jerusalem's walls, and prosperity within the palaces (meaning that the civil institutions would be stable); for the sake of the psalmist's "brothers" and "friends" (meaning fellow believers). For these three main reasons, the psalmist states that he will now say "may peace be within" Jerusalem. Finally, the psalmist says that "for the sake of the house of the LORD our God," he will see "good for you" (in the literal Hebrew), meaning that he will seek the good that is within Jerusalem through prayer.

Let us now highlight the purposes of this "Jerusalem," according to the psalmist:

• It is where believers go to worship God and "give thanks to the name of the Lord" (v. 4)
• Those who love this Jerusalem will find tranquility and peace (v. 6)
• Praying for peace within this Jerusalem is done for the sake of fellow believers (v. 8)
• This Jerusalem contains the good of the Lord, of which believers may seek (v. 9)

At the time of the psalmist, this context fit very well. Today, these traits could not fit within the context of modern Jerusalem, which is ruled by modern day secular Israel, inhabited largely by Jews who deny Christ and the Trinitarian God.

The fact is, this could only refer to the spiritual Jerusalem (Paul's "Jerusalem from above"), found within the modern day church and with faith in Christ. Modern day believers do not need to pray for Jerusalem to obtain the good of the Lord, for we have it in Christ, the "tabernacle" of the New Testament. We cannot consider the Jewish and Muslim inhabitants of Jerusalem to be our "brothers," as they are not brothers and sisters in Christ. We do not need to go to Jerusalem to worship God and give Him thanks, for our bodies are a temple for the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19) and Christ is our eternal high priest (Heb 7:26-27).

There are therefore two possibilities regarding this passage:

Firstly, this is a passage written in the context of believers under the old covenant, and the importance of Jerusalem to the individual believer.

Secondly, this is a passage with eternal implications, but within the context of each individual testament. In the old, it was for a literal Jerusalem; in the new, it is for the spiritual Jerusalem.

The Historical Problem

Related to this is the issue is that, historically speaking, most of the early Church Fathers, and most theologians afterward, saw the extension of many passages regarding Jerusalem and Judea into the new covenant within a spiritual context - that is, Jerusalem, Judea, Israel, and many other names refer to the church or body of believers within the new covenant. Just as the sons of Israel were God's chosen people in the old covenant, so are Christians, the spiritual sons of Israel according to the promise (cf. Rom 9:8), God's chosen people in the new covenant.

The contention by the gentleman I was speaking to was that Justin Martyr and other Fathers believed Christ, upon his second coming, would reign in the literal city of Jerusalem. While it is true that many Historic Premillennial Church Fathers believed Jerusalem would carry some significance at the end times, this does not negate that, at the same time, they upheld passages about Jerusalem in a spiritual context. One quote from Justin Martyr (who lived in the second century):

“Now, sirs,” I said, “it is possible for us to show how the eighth day possessed a certain mysterious import, which the seventh day did not possess, and which was promulgated by God through these rites. But lest I appear now to diverge to other subjects, understand what I say: the blood of that circumcision is obsolete, and we trust in the blood of salvation; there is now another covenant, and another law has gone forth from Zion. Jesus Christ circumcises all who will—as was declared above—with knives of stone; that they may be a righteous nation, a people keeping faith, holding to the truth, and maintaining peace. Come then with me, all who fear God, who wish to see the good of Jerusalem. Come, let us go to the light of the Lord; for He has liberated His people, the house of Jacob. Come, all nations; let us gather ourselves together at Jerusalem, no longer plagued by war for the sins of her people. ‘For I was manifest to them that sought Me not; I was found of them that asked not for Me;’ He exclaims by Isaiah: ‘I said, Behold Me, unto nations which were not called by My name. I have spread out My hands all the day unto a disobedient and gainsaying people, which walked in a way that was not good, but after their own sins. It is a people that provoketh Me to my face.’” [Dialogue with Trypho; 25; source]

The rest of the conversation is likewise beneficial, as Justin and Trypho speak, and Justin clearly distinguishes between the literal Judea Jerusalem of the old covenant, and the spiritual Judea and Jerusalem of the new covenant. Justin Martyr cannot be telling Christian believers to literally go to the literal Jerusalem - he must clearly be speaking of a spiritual Jerusalem.

Other Church Fathers could be called into account for this. For example, Tertullian speaks of "the true catholic Jerusalem" (The Five Books Against Marcion, 3:22; source) and calls individual Christian believers "a citizen of Jerusalem" (De Corona, Ch. 13; source). Likewise Hippolytus, commentating on the psalms, states that we are citizens of "the Jerusalem which is above" (On Psalm 62:6; source). Also Alexander of Alexandria calls Christ "the Son of the true Jerusalem" (On the Soul and Body and the Passion of the Lord; source). The gentleman mentioned before had argued that, before the Council of Nicaea, a "spiritualized Jerusalem" was not a common belef...as these quotes hint at, that isn't true.

The fact is, there is no direct command in scripture to pray for the city of Jerusalem. While there is nothing wrong with Christians praying for Jerusalem of their own conviction, and while we shouldn't argue God will automatically ignore prayers meant for Jerusalem, we should not go to the extreme that we are somehow commanded, by God's holy word, to pray for a single literal word. There is simply no evidence of this in scripture, and it is foreign to Christian history.

What Matthew 18 Means

This post is inspired by Richard Liantonio's post The Myth of Matthew 18. Those who know me personally, or have kept track of this blog through Twitter, know I have had to tackle the meaning of Matthew 18:15-17 much more than I ever imagined I would. Mister Liantonio's post was a refreshing read, and inspired me to tackle the subject of Matthew 18:15-17, and what it does and doesn't mean.

First, let's look at the three verses in question (all citations from Matthew 18 will be in purple):

"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." [Matthew 18:15-17; NASB]

Now, let's examine these three verses bit by bit.

"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother." [v. 15]

Many not used to the NASB translation may notice that something appears missing from this verse; the traditional reading of the verse is "if your brother sins against you." These two words have been used by some people to try to argue that Matthew 18:15 is solely dealing with personal affronts, and hence people who hear a Christian has sinned against someone else should, in essence, "mind their own business." The reason for this difference between translations is that the words "against you" are actually a textual variant. The NET translation notes for this verse read:

The earliest and best witnesses lack “against you” after “if your brother sins.” It is quite possible that the shorter reading in these witnesses (א B, as well as 0281 f1 579 pc sa) occurred when scribes either intentionally changed the text (to make it more universal in application) or unintentionally changed the text (owing to the similar sound of the end of the verb ἁμαρτήσῃ [hamartēsē] and the prepositional phrase εἰς σέ [eis se]). However, if the mss were normally copied by sight rather than by sound, especially in the early centuries of Christianity, such an unintentional change is not as likely for these mss. And since scribes normally added material rather than deleted it for intentional changes, on balance, the shorter reading appears to be original. NA27 includes the words in brackets, indicating doubts as to their authenticity.

If "against you" is not to be considered part of the original manuscripts, then this signifies that this verse does not refer to a personal affront, and hence such a situation does not need to occur for us to confront a brother who sins. This also makes Matthew 18:15 perfectly in line with Galatians 6:1, where the apostle Paul writes "if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted."

If a brother is discovered or sin, or we somehow discover that a brother has sinned, we are told to "show him his fault in private." The Greek for "show him his fault" is literally in the Greek "go reprove him" (ὕπαγε ἔλεγξον αὐτὸν). The word for "reprove" is the same used by the apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 4:2; the general idea is that you should go and demonstrate the guilt of your brother. Obviously this should be done, as the apostle Paul said, "in a spirit of gentleness," hoping to bring the brother to repentance and not simply make them feel guilty for their transgressions (though, if they are truly repentant, guilt should be a definite part of it). The goal of this confrontation is that the brother "listens to you" - that is, he repents of his sins, confesses them, and seeks to show the fruits of this repentance.

Some have argued that there should be given "time to repent." However, this is nowhere in the passage, and tends to be argued simply to give the person an excuse to continue in sin.

We are told to do this "alone" (μόνου). Much has been attempted to be said and done about this single word, and so let's understand two things about it:

What this does mean is that we should do this reproving in private, to respect the dignity of our brother. We should not bring it out into the open, or before the entire church, simply at the drop of a hat, unless there is some immediate danger or concern for another person's life or well-being.

What this doesn't mean is that we are absolutely forbidden from seeking advice or help on this matter. The "alone" here (as Mister Liantonio rightfully points out) simply contrasts it with the reproof involving one or two more witnesses in verse 16 - it is about the confrontation itself, not the prayerful consideration leading up to the confrontation.

Let us say, for the sake of example, that someone sees one of their fellow church members at a restaurant with a woman not his wife. Maybe he doesn't feel comfortable confronting the individual, but he goes to a friend of the man and says, "Hey, could you talk to your friend? I've seen him in sin." In this case, the friend would be taking over the regulations of Matthew 18:15. He may also make it more anonymous, but ask some brothers, "Hey, I've seen someone at my church in sin - should I confront him?" It is perfectly possible to seek godly council and not enter into the realm of gossip.

Of course, gossip should be avoided. However, there is a difference between "I've seen so-and-so committing sin, what should I do?" and "Hey, have you heard about what so-and-so did?"

"But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed." [v. 16]

Verse 16 presumes that, after the private confrontation, the brother in Christ did not repent, and has stubbornly continued without repentance, or have even remained active in sin. At this point, the person doing the confronting takes one or two more people who are also aware of the brother's transgression.

The reference to the "mouth of two or three witnesses" is actually a citation from the Law (Deu 19:15). This is also, incidentally, the "two or three" Christ is referring to in v. 20, which is perhaps one of the most misused passages of scripture: Christ is not referring to church fellowship, but to church discipline.

"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." [v. 17]

Verse 17 assumes that the individual has not repented, even though he was confronted by two or three people on their sin. In this case, the person is brought forward to "the church." This suggests that the sin is to be handled in a local context, within the sinning individual's church, and by the church body.

The idea of being "as a Gentile and a tax collector" is that you should not associate with such a person on a high level (in the first century Jewish context, Gentiles were not allowed within the inner parts of the Temple, and tax collectors were considered among the very worst of sinners). Most would rightly assume that this means excommunication, or at the very least enacting some form of church discipline which removes from the individual the joy of fellowship.

The unfortunate situation nowadays is that many people are "lone wolf Christians," or do not attend a church for reasons outside their control, and hence have no primary authority to be disciplined by. Some things to consider:

First, if someone is a lone wolf Christian, then they are in violation of scripture's command to be a part of corporate worship (cf. Heb 10:25), and this suggests some deeper spiritual issues with the individual. I would put forward, if a person continues to willingly forsake fellowship even after it has been offered to them, and they are fully capable of engaging in fellowship, then this may be a sign that they are not truly converted, and in this case (but only in the most extreme scenario), the person may be already considered "as a Gentile and a tax collector."

Second, if the person has a legitimate reason they are not part of a fellowship of believers, then the solution will most likely be on a case-by-case basis, and at the discretion and conviction of those who are exhorting him to repent. Obviously, the ultimate goal would be that the person be brought to repent.

Podcast: The Gospel of Stuff

In this episode, we review an episode of the Len and Cathy Mink TV show, reviewing how Christ died so we could have "stuff." In doing so, we examine the Word of Faith heresy, and how scriptures are twisted to affirm the doctrines.



This link takes you to Justin Peters' presentation on the Word of Faith heresy.

This link takes you to my examination of Malachi 3:10

Does Malachi 3:10 Teach a Blessing for Us?

I recently dealt with a citation of Malachi 3:10, which was said you could not "out give" God, and in fact God commands that we "test Him" on this. It was being used by a local church to try to raise money, though I would not be surprised if it has been used by other churches to teach similarly.

The full context of the verse (with verse 10 highlighted in bold):

“For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed. From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from My statutes and have not kept them. Return to Me, and I will return to you,” says the Lord of hosts. “But you say, ‘How shall we return?’ Will a man rob God? Yet you are robbing Me! But you say, ‘How have we robbed You?’ In tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing Me, the whole nation of you! Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this,” says the Lord of hosts, “if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows. Then I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it will not destroy the fruits of the ground; nor will your vine in the field cast its grapes,” says the Lord of hosts. “All the nations will call you blessed, for you shall be a delightful land,” says the Lord of hosts. [Malachi 3:6-12]

The book of Malachi details a series of criticisms against the nation of Israel (cf. Mal 1:1). It commonly features God making an accusation against the people about their transgressing His Law, followed by a presupposed objection the people might have (cf. Mal 1:6; 2:14; etc.), followed then by God's response and more detailed rebuke, along with an offer of reconciliation and a return to the blessings promised by the Law.

In this instance, God opens up by saying He, the Lord, does no change - meaning, in this context, that He does not change his mind regarding the covenant He made with Israel (v. 6). It is common for mortal man to give up on an agreement when the other person does not follow up with it, but it is not so with God. It is because of God's faithfulness to the covenant that He has not yet consumed the "sons of Jacob" (a reference to the promises made in Genesis 28:13 and 35:12) with judgment. These people rightly deserved judgment, because "from the days" of their fathers they "have turned aside" (that is, ignored) God's Law, and have not kept it (v. 7). However, the Lord asks them to return to Him (ie., repent), and He will return to them (ie., restore His blessings).

God then presupposes the question, "How shall we return?" In other words, what are the people to repent of, and how are they to repent? God accuses the people of robbery, and presupposes either their dumb ignorance or fake innocence with the question, "How have we robbed you?" The people are accused of not honoring the "tithes and offerings" (v. 8), but what are these "tithes and offerings"? In fact, these are references to the crops that were owed not only to the Temple (Lev 27:30-33), but which were provided for the Levites and priests (Num 18:8, 11, 19, 21-24), who had no land to sustain themselves like the other Jewish tribes had. The nation's failure to fulfill this obligation of the Law has placed them under a serious curse (v. 9).

Now we come to verse 10, where God commands the people to "bring the whole tithe into the storehouse." What does this mean? What is the "storehouse"? No doubt some pastors will attempt to spiritualize this to mean our bank accounts, but if we honor God by remaining true to the text of His holy word, we understand that this is speaking of the storehouse of the Temple (cf. Neh 13:5), as seen clearly by the following words "so that there may be food in My house." Remember, also, these are specific offerings God has commanded the people to give. These were the crops and produce of their land, and these were meant to go to the Temple (which no longer exists), and to support the Levitical priesthood (which has been replaced by Christ's priesthood). We cannot rip this verse out of it's context - we must adhere to what the word of God is saying.

Some might read God's command to "test" Him, and ponder if this is a contradiction with Deuteronomy 6:16, which clearly states not to test the Lord (and which was quoted by Christ against the devil). The key here is that these two verses actually have two different Hebrew words: Malachi 3:10 uses a form of bachan, which means to examine, try, or prove, and is often used in verses dealing with God testing mankind for their faith; Deuteronomy 6:16 uses a form of nasah, which means to test or tempt, and which, while often used in reference to God testing mankind, is also used in passages in which mankind puts God to the test, or in essence "tempts" Him to do something. Hence the KJV translation might be more accurate with the use of "prove" rather than "test."

Let me try to use an analogy to show how this verse is getting mishandled. Suppose I was good friends with someone at a car dealership, and he sold me a car for a good deal, with an understanding that I would meet the monthly payments to finish the rest of the cost. Some months down the road, I begin to fail to make the payments, and I get close to having my car repossessed...but, since we're friends, the car dealer gives me a friendly warning, saying, "You need to give me the money, and then you can keep the car." Now imagine if someone took the dealer's words and went around telling people, "Aha! Just throw money at the dealer, and he'll give you a car!" Is that an honest handling of the situation, and what the dealer said? Absolutely not.

On this note, those who attempt to use this verse to teach some kind of blessing for a monetary offering are actually in violation of Deuteronomy 6:16. When God says "put Me to the test" in Malachi 3:10, He is merely saying, "Act according to the statutes, and I will prove to you that I am faithful on my end of the covenant." On the other hand, those who teach that we should give as much as we can, as a way to see if God will do something in return, are, in essence, tempting God to act. They give as a way to say, "Come on, God, show me what You can do!" It is almost as if we are placing God under an obligation to give us financial blessing, when no such obligation exists.

Furthermore, if you continue on with the verse and those after it, you see that this blessing is agricultural in nature, not financial. It speaks of opening up "the windows of heaven," which is scriptural language for bringing rain (cf. Deu 28:12; Psa 78:23). He promises to rebuke "the devourer" (literally "the eater"), a reference to locusts and other insects which are destructive to crops; likewise, God will make certain the vineyards do not "cast" their grapes - literally "miscarry," and basically meaning a promise that the vineyards will bear fruit (v. 11). The reward will be so great that "all the nations" (meaning the Gentile nations) will call them blessed, for they are a "delightful man" (v. 12) - not meaning anything overtly spiritual, but simply meaning that, if Israel fulfills her end of the covenant, than the Gentile nations around them will see how happy and fulfilled they are.

No doubt, I'm sure, some preachers will here want to spiritualize all these things. The crops are our finances, the devourers are those who would take those finances from us (or maybe the devil, who takes time out of his day to try to make us poor), and the "nations" are those who can look at those in the church and see how prosperous Christians are. However, once again, this is robbing the passage of its original context, and spiritualizing it to say what we want it to say. We would not do this with any other historical document, and we would not want anyone doing this to our own words - why, then, should we treat the word of God with any less respect?

In conclusion, does Malachi 3:10 teach that, if we try to "out give" with our finances, we can test God and see what sort of blessings He will give us in return? On the contrary, it teaches nothing of the sort. Anyone who uses this passage to teach that it does is mishandling the word of God.

Podcast: Ernest Angley

In this episode, we provide a brief review of televangelist Ernest Angley, along with his questionable doctrines, and some statements I heard him and his staff make while I visited his church in person.



Much of this episode's content I owe to a study on Ernest Angley over at the discernment website Let Us Reason.

Here's the link to the blog post referencing Ernest Angley's teachings on the Latter Day Rain doctrine.

UPDATE - OCTOBER 13, 2014: I was sent a link to this article, discussing the allegations of sexual abuse at Ernest Angley's church, as well as his approval of abortions and vasectomies. I had encountered such allegations during my research for this podcast, but it had come from blog comments and fly by posts by people on news media, not "official" sources. This is the first source I've come across that placed it in a legitimate place for discussion.

UPDATE - MARCH 30, 2017: I was sent this article, detailing the legal problems Ernest Angley's church has run into due to not paying the employees of his buffet. According to the article, Angley and the Cathedral Buffet "encouraged members of his church, Grace Cathedral, to work at the buffet without pay...the volunteers felt pressured to provide free labor." Now, a federal judge has demanded he pay over $388,000 in back wages and damage. This is on top of an incident in 2015, where the Labor Department found that Cathedral Buffet "violated the Fair Labor Standards Act through its use of volunteers and did not document the volunteers' work"; this had happened before in 1999, though Angley later told Buffet staff that "workers would need to give their paychecks back due to financial hardships at the buffet." Regarding the 2017 ruling, Angley's lawyer has said that Angley feels his workers "had an obligation to provide their labor to the Buffet, in service to God, and that a failure to offer their labor to the Buffet...would be the same as failing God." Well of course, because, according to Angley, God ordered him to make the buffet, and that's "God's buffet," and you should feel ashamed eating anywhere else on Sunday. (As we heard him say in the podcast.)