We are back.
Back covering more of the Bible versus Preacher Rodney.
Today we're looking into the judgment seat of Christ.
Of all of Preacher Rodney's new teachings, the one that seems to have drawn the most
contention is his claim that you will not stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
In order to support his claim, Preacher Rodney employs a tactic that he calls rightly dividing Paul's epistles.
We'll talk more about the error of using that terminology later in the podcast.
He claims that certain members of the body of Christ are actually members of the little flock, and practitioners of the gospel of the kingdom.
A false dichotomy, of course, that insists that in order to understand Paul's epistles correctly, one must make divisions within his epistles, even sometimes separating phrases within complete sentences, to discern what parts are written to us today versus what was written to the little flock.
This gentleman even in the video, he uses his own body language as a visual aid during his scripture readings as if he were Paul speaking in front of an audience and pointing to one group of people while saying one phrase and then pointing to the other side, the other group of people and saying another phrase within the same sentence.
And people fall for this, in particular the ones who don't lean into their discernment, a little bit of common sense would tell you that there's no way that Paul could be speaking this way to an audience that he's not even standing in front of.
Since our last podcast, we've been contacted by numerous people, most of which already knew better than to go down the Preacher Rodney's multiplicity of rabbit trails.
Some had attempted to make some sense out of his claims, but were not able to.
They couldn't reconcile it with an honest examination of what the scriptures actually
say.
Others had followed his teaching from the beginning and believed it to be true, but
then saw the clear error of it all when the glaring obvious flaws were brought into the clear light of day.
And then, well, we have the ones who really just don't want you to hinder them with the truth, and even send private messages asking us to not continue speaking out against Preacher Rodney's teachings because he's a really nice and kind man, as if it were all about his personality.
Let me make something clear.
While the man's character does play a part in his ability to manipulate people into falling for his new revelations of truth, which isn't that new by the way, with the basic concept of it all lining up almost exactly with a book written by a very extreme Acts 28 author, a man's character is in no way a determining factor of whether or not false doctrine should be exposed and corrected.
Preacher Rodney could be the nicest person on the planet, but if his teachings are leading others astray, then it's our responsibility as ambassadors for Christ equipped with a ministry of reconciliation to warn others about unsound doctrine.
He may be sincere, but that doesn't change the fact that he is sincerely wrong, and his devoted followers are quite obviously demonstrating that they put their perception of his supposed kind character above the actual Word of God.
This topic today, the judgment seat of Christ, well they do not like the concept of its existence, as they've determined that since they were already judged in Christ, then there's no more judgment left.
But this theory is quite flawed, on several levels.
This initial thought that we've already been judged in Christ, I can't find any scriptural support for that without conflating our spiritual standing with our physical state, which are two totally different realities that coexist for each and every human being in the dispensation of grace.
Our apostle teaches us about this, and if you've listened to even just a few of our
podcasts at all, you already know what I'm talking about.
So let's get into this, there's a lot to unpack, however it will certainly not require six months or three or four and a half hours of teachings per week to cover it.
Let's first address the claim from Preacher Rodney that the judgment seat only pertains to Israel, along with his attempts to tie in the judgment seat of Christ with the little flock by the presumption that the language surrounding it is what he calls, Little flock lingo.
Included in that lingo is the word, Fire.
He claims that judgment seats and fire only pertain to the little flock or the nation
Israel.
Let's look at the references to the judgment seat in our King James Bible.
The term judgment seat appears in scripture ten times.
Only two, only two of those instances are not associated with the apostle Paul.
Think about that.
Those two are in the books of Matthew and John when Jesus stands before the judgment
seat of Pilate.
You'll find that in Matthew 27:19 and John 19:13.
Five times in the book of Acts, Luke accounts of Paul being brought before the judgment seat, the judgment seat of Gallio.
It's in Acts 18, verses 12, 16, and 17.
And then there's the judgment seat of Felix, Acts 25:6 and verse 17.
Three times Paul uses the term judgment seat himself, the judgment seat of Caesar.
You'll find that in Acts 25:10, Romans 14:10, and 2 Corinthians 5:10.
In every instance, with exception of the last two written by Paul, the judgment seat was an element of the Roman governmental institution.
While it was likely adapted from Greek Hellenistic culture as an elevated platform in which judges would sit and observe games and declare winners, we see no mention of there ever being a Hebrew decision-making authority referenced to as a judgment seat.
No.
Jesus stood before Pilate's judgment seat.
Pilate was the Roman governor at the time.
But, before Jesus was brought to Pilate by the Jews, he was brought before a high priest.
Yet we d,o not see a reference to a, quote, judgment seat for high priest and elders.
Why is that?
Because the Jewish seat of judgment already had a name, Matthew 23:1.
You need to check this out.
Then spake Jesus to the multitude and to his disciples, saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do.
But do not ye after their works, for they say and do not.
And drop in at verse 23, Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
For ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith.
These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
So let's just go to the source, Jesus himself.
What did he call it?
This isn't about Preacher Rodney, Truth Time Radio, or anybody else.
What did he call it?
He called it, Moses' seat.
Just as we saw in verse 23, Jesus is calling out the hypocrites who sat in Moses' seat, and he's calling them out for omitting the weightier matters of the law.
Read this for yourself.
This is how you find your answers.
With nose in book, searching the scriptures like the Bereans, searching the scriptures daily for yourself.
Ah, what a concept.
Those who sat in Moses' seat have the authority to judge.
Why is this called Moses' seat, and not the judgment seat?
Because it pertained to the Jews, not the Romans.
Get it?
How about the judgment seats mentioned in Acts?
We've already talked about Gallio in Acts 18.
He was a Roman deputy who had authority over a region there in southern Greece.
The unbelieving Jews brought Paul before the Roman judgment seat, and not before their own high priest.
Their high priest was in Jerusalem, not Greece, and in Moses' seat, not the Roman judgment seat.
In Acts 25, Paul is brought before Felix there at Herod's judgment hall.
But before he is taken to Felix, the Romans caused Paul to stand up before the counsel of the Jews.
They had accused him and Ananias, who was the high priest at that time.
Notice that there is no mention of a judgment seat here.
It is not until Paul is sent away from Jerusalem to go before the Roman governor, Festus, that a judgment seat is even mentioned.
Paul has most certainly stood in the judgment of the Jews multiple times, and even in the judgment hall in the palace, the palace of the idolatrous and blasphemous Jewish king Herod, and yet none of these times is the place of judgment from the high priest, the chief priest, or elders ever referred to as a judgment seat.
When you look close, you see a pattern here.
Felix, because he was married to a Jewiss, Drusilla, a daughter of Herod, and knew of
the Jews' religion, kept Paul in custody for two years, allowing people to visit with him, and it was an attempt to extort money from Paul in return for his freedom.
However, when Porcius Festus succeeds Felix as governor, Paul was left bound because Felix wanted favor among the unbelieving Jews who had accused Paul.
In Acts 25, Paul is brought before the Roman judgment seat of Festus, but when the Roman appointed Jewish king Agrippa shows up and hears Paul's case, Paul is not said to be standing before a judgment seat of Agrippa.
By then, Paul had already appealed to the Roman judgment seat of Caesar, because he
knew the Jews at Jerusalem had intended to kill him and would settle for no less.
Since Paul was a Roman citizen, he had the right to appeal to the Roman emperor, Caesar.
Who was Agrippa?
Agrippa was a Jewish king, a descendant of Herod.
He didn't have a judgment seat.
But he still wanted to hear Paul's case out of interest for the Jewish people that he
had rule over.
Pump the brakes and keep in mind here that preacher Rodney has referred to Agrippa as
a Roman king.
Folks, Rome didn't have kings.
Write that down.
We do have scriptural evidence to support exactly what takes place before the judgment seat.
The Bible answers this with a very clear and concise description of events.
Here is the account of Festus to Agrippa of what took place at his judgment seat concerning Paul.
You'll find it in Acts chapter 25, starting at verse 13.
And for your assignment, go ahead and read that all the way through to verse 21.
When you conclude, you should be clear on the subject.
There'll be no stones unturned.
And if you'll pay attention, you'll notice that Romans do not pass judgment before hearing a matter.
You'll also notice that the accusers are given opportunity to prove their case before the judgment seat.
And also, the accused is given the opportunity to answer the accusers face to face for any crime laid against him.
And you'll notice that the accused has the opportunity to appeal to a higher court for another decision.
What does this sound like?
Well, it sure sounds a lot like the workings of a court system today.
This is where our judicial system gets its pattern.
Isn't that interesting?
The Roman judgment seat is a judicial institution that renders judgments based on charges, defenses, and appeals.
You can literally walk into any courtroom today in America where a case is being tried and see an almost exact format of the very way the Roman judgment seat proceedings were carried out in the first century.
Now why Preacher Rodney leaves this out, well, I started to say is beyond me, but it's not.
I get, I get why.
But anyone with two eyes and two ears and a cursory knowledge of our American history, our judicial system, and government can clearly see the parallels between American government and early Roman government.
Ok, moving on to the other two mentions of a judgment seat.
Paul talks about the judgment seat of Christ.
We often hear people referring to this as a place where people are judged by God.
And while Christ is God, there must be a reason that it's called the judgment seat of Christ.
And not the judgment seat of God.
Here's a hint.
God's judgment seat on earth was called the mercy seat.
There is no longer a mercy seat here on earth, folks.
No mercy seat where God comes down to dwell in the Holy of Holies and judges man.
No.
However, God does still have a time and a place of judgment to come.
It's called the Great White Throne.
Revelation 20:11.
But as far as judgment seats, here's all that we have accounted for in Scripture.
Number one, now pay attention, number one, the judgment seat of Pilate, ok?
Number two, the judgment seat of Gallio.
Number three, the judgment seat of Festus.
Four, the judgment seat of Caesar.
And five, the judgment seat of Christ.
Now, that's it.
If the actual judges in the cases of 1-4 are the people who sit in the judgment seat, then obviously the judge at the judgment seat of Christ is Christ, correct?
And here's some more study for you.
Go to Romans chapter 14, start at verse 1, read through 10.
Romans 14:1-10.
Read those carefully.
And you'll see that Paul's simply telling the Romans not to judge one another based
on things that do not have any eternal consequence.
In 2 Corinthians, he elaborates further on the judgment seat of Christ.
2 Corinthians 5:10, For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ that everyone may receive the things done in his body according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
Now, Preacher Rodney's video from 12-6-2020, he talks about how every time he has preached that the judgment seat of Christ is for the body of Christ, he has had a, quote, check in his spirit, telling him that it wasn't right.
Rodney puts up Romans 11:19-22 to see if they, quote, Bear witness with your spirit.
Then he reads them and asks if they, quote, Give you a warm and fuzzy feeling.
Then he turns around and does the same thing with 1 Corinthians 3, verses 16 and 17.
So, at Preacher Rodney's camp, it seems as if they're basing their discernment about
what God says in his word on how it makes us feel warm and fuzzy.
It doesn't matter how you feel.
He says the word fire is in Genesis to Revelation 549 times.
And while he is correct about that exact word, that certainly isn't all of the times
that fire is referenced in Scripture.
He's missing some.
But when you rely on Bible word searches to try and prove a point, you might end up looking over some very important things, such as the fact that if you want to know how often fire is spoken of in the Bible, you better look at the context, take a little time, read and study.
You must take into consideration that there are other words for fire besides fire, such as flame, burn, ashes, kindling.
You get the idea.
At time stamp 41:10, he says the first mention of the word fire is Sodom and Gomorrah.
While that is the first mention of the word fire, again, it isn't the first mention of fire.
The sun was created in Genesis 1.
What's the sun made of?
In Genesis 3:24, God placed a flaming sword at the entrance of the Garden of Eden to block access to the Tree of Life.
Preacher Rodney often employs the rule of first mention to define terms and determine
context.
That's incorrect.
It's a horrible way to study and demonstrates a complete lack of discernment.
Hey, if we were to apply that unsound logic here, we'd have to conclude that presence
of fire, as in the sun, is always a good thing.
That God's creation of fire was meant for good and never for punishment, as Preacher
Rodney is going to try to prove with his hour-long demonstration of fear of fire.
So even his flawed logic doesn't pan out here.
Fire is not judgment, as Preacher Rodney implies.
Fire is a thing that does not have a personality.
Fire is only meant for what it is used for.
If you are going to go to such great lengths to prove that fire is judgment, you may as well say that rocks are stupid.
Rocks have no intentions, and are objects.
Rocks can be used for good or evil.
So can fire.
At an hour and three minutes in, he claims that Ezekiel 22:16 is talking about when Israel gets her inheritance in the sight of the heathen right before the millennial reign.
What?
No scripture.
That doesn't fit the order of events.
Where are the, quote, Heathen, during the millennial reign?
We'll get to that topic in a future broadcast.
At 1:09:45, Rodney claims that Paul agreed with Sosthenes that he wrote 1 Corinthians
to the Church of God, which is the church that Paul persecuted before he was, as Rodney says, arrested in his tracks on the road to Damascus.
Now, where does he get this idea that Paul persecuted the church at Corinth before he
was struck blind?
Or arrested, as he loves to say, on the road to Damascus?
And that Sosthenes, the former chief ruler of the synagogue, agreed, what?
Agreed with Paul about that?
Here are the opening words of 1 Corinthians.
Tell me, where do you hear any of what Rodney claims?
1 Corinthians 1:1, Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God and Sosthenes our brother.
Verse 2, unto the church of God, which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in
Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of
Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.
Verse 3, Grace be unto you, and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Huh.
Where does preacher Rodney get this stuff?
The synagogue in Corinth was not part of the little flock.
As we proved in the last podcast, there is no evidence that Peter and the other apostles
ever left the regions of Judea and Samaria on a mission journey to spread the gospel
of the kingdom.
No.
No evidence.
None.
And again, Paul isn't going to a place where Jesus is already named.
At this point, I'm not even certain that Rodney understands that Paul was writing to Apollos.
Who was at Corinth.
And that Sosthenes was with Paul at Ephesus when he wrote the letter.
Not one bit of this information has a single thing to do with the little flock who was all the way back at Jerusalem.
We already proved this with great detail in the last podcast.
Go check it out if you haven't already.
Another point about 1 Corinthians 1:2, preacher Rodney really goes overboard with the last four words of this verse.
Both theirs and ours, he says.
And he's convinced and has convinced others that the quote, Theirs, and quote, Ours, are two different groups of believers, who believe different doctrines.
One of them being the body of Christ, and the other being the little flock.
He uses these four words quite a bit to prop up his doctrine.
In reality, the "theirs" and the "ours" is right there in the context of the same verse.
Them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus called to be saints.
Just read the words on the page, folks.
And just keep reading, quote, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus our Lord.
So the "theirs" and the "ours" is about location, not doctrine.
Corinth, plus all that in every place, "theirs" and "ours," are possessive pronouns.
That means that, according to the laws of grammar, can we pay attention to that, please?
According to the laws of grammar, they have an object to possess.
What or rather who is that object of possession?
Jesus Christ, our Lord.
Here's what Paul's referring to in 1 Corinthians 1:2, 1 Corinthians 8:6, but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him, both theirs and ours.
See that?
This isn't two different groups of people, folks, with two different doctrines.
No, no.
These are various members of the body of Christ in different locations who all believe the same gospel and the same doctrine.
Okay, back to his video.
At the hour and eleven minute mark, he says that 1 Corinthians chapter 3, verses 13-17 are the only three mentions of fire in Paul's epistles, and that they line up perfectly, he says, with every verse in Israel's program.
Huh?
These verses do no such thing.
Just because you might be able to stick keywords from these verses in a Bible word search and come up with some in Israel's doctrine, does not mean that these verses are for Israel.
What a sloppy way to study.
It's sophomoric.
If that were the case, we'd be left with pretty much nothing that was written to us, the body of Christ, within Paul's epistles.
There is such a thing as universal truth across all dispensation, allegories, figures of speech, analogies, parables, similes, etc.
This is the exact same lazy argument that those who try and say Paul wrote Hebrews use.
Well, Peter mentions Paul in one of his letters.
Well, duh.
They knew each other and knew the same people.
They were Jewish brethren.
Or how about when people like to say that the body of Christ is also the bride of Christ just because Paul uses the words, chaste virgin, as a simile.
Lazy knee-jerk so-called study methods is really only proof-texting and cherry-picking.
Nothing more.
Eventually, we're going to do an in-depth study focused on exactly what 1 Corinthians
3 verses 13 through 17 is talking about.
But right now, we're simply proving what it does not say because somehow the latest new fad is to try to prove Paul wrote and instructed the little flock with some weird study method that only Preacher Rodney can decipher.
So, first things first, I find it quite shocking that there is even a need to do this.
I would expect the need to untwist the scriptures from denominational teachers and word-faithers and healers from the Charismania crowd, but this guy claims to know how to rightly divide the word of truth.
So we press on.
At the 1 hour and 14 minute mark, he says, quote, the but now period is the word of truth, and what are we supposed to do with the word of truth?
We rightly divide the word of truth.
What is this nonsense?
The but now period is not the word of truth.
The gospel of your salvation is the word of truth.
Rodney brings up 1 Corinthians chapter 7 verse 18 and 20 to try and to prove a point
that Paul is talking to the little flock.
He automatically assumes that when he sees the word circumcision in verse 18, that it
must be referring to the little flock.
What he is conveniently leaving out is the fact that all of Israel, all Jews, believing and unbelieving alike, were called the circumcision, just as all Gentiles of other nations were called the uncircumcision.
Do you see the fallacy here?
He's created a house of cards, a house of straw.
Remember in our last podcast how we talked about the Jews in Asia who were zealous of
the law, that when they saw Paul in Jerusalem, they made false claims against him about what he was teaching other Jews.
One of their claims was that he was teaching against the law and telling the Jews to stop circumcising their children.
They accused Paul falsely of this, and the proof is right in verses 18, 19, and 20.
Is any man called being circumcised? Let him not be uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
The term circumcision is not exclusive to the little flock, yet Preacher Rodney has
limited the definition of the term to only mean the little flock.
The entire nation of Israel is the circumcision, not just the little flock.
An uncircumcised person could never be a part of the nation Israel.
Now, Preacher Rodney is not likely to admit that he has made this claim, just like he
doesn't admit to most of the other incorrect things that he has been caught saying.
He usually finds a way to wiggle out of these things and claims that by either saying, that's not what I meant, or downright denying it, making himself out to be the victim that everyone is attacking or lying on, even when there is video proof of the words coming out of his mouth.
But, what else could he be implying here?
I mean, let's just use a little logic.
If the term circumcision is only a term used to denote the little flock and not all Jews, then his new teaching has merit.
But, if the term refers to ALL Jews, and it does, then his whole argument face-plants.
There was a time just a couple of weeks ago when a preacher called him out on his teaching that the gospel of Christ included works during the Acts period.
Rodney cried foul, saying that preacher was lying on him and that he never said that.
He then challenged the preacher to find the clip where he said it.
And the preacher did so, and presented that very clip to the public.
Since then, nothing but crickets.
Preacher Rodney is also having an issue with the word call, or called.
He has issues with a lot of words, and the ones that doesn't seem to appeal to him or
give him warm and fuzzies.
He ascribes those words to be for the little flock only.
But he reads into the word, "called," as if it always meant to be individually pre-selected by God for a purpose.
That just isn't the case.
The word, "called," is going to carry the weight of its context, otherwise we would just need to turn into Calvinists and start imagining that God is ordering our steps, waking us up in the morning, putting us on the right path, and even selecting those who will and will not be saved.
It's a slippery slope.
1 Corinthians chapter 7 verse 21.
Paul writes, Art thou called, being a servant? Care not for it, but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman. Likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.
Ye are bought with a price. Be not ye the servants of men. Brethren, let every man wherein he is called therein abide with God.
Now, look at verse 22, one that Rodney didn't read.
For he that is called in the Lord, you see, "called," doesn't always mean ordained or chosen of or by God into a ministry, but you might think that if you're a proof-texter.
As saved people in this dispensation, we are called the body of Christ, and collectively we are all called.
We all have a calling.
The body of Christ is called to do works, to do works meet for, or indicative of, repentance,
a change of mind, works that would demonstrate that you've changed your mind.
The body of Christ is called in the Lord for this purpose.
Second Timothy 1, verse 8, Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner. But be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God, who hath saved us and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.
Where was it given?
In Christ Jesus.
Verse 10, But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who
hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.
Verse 11, Whereinto I am appointed a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
Verse 12, For the which cause I also suffer these things, nevertheless I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
Christ is called unto a holy calling.
If you are a saved member of the body of Christ, you are called unto a holy calling.
Paul also says that he was appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles, not the little flock.
Now, back to Rodney's assertion that the verses in 1 Corinthians is a calling to be in circumcision or uncircumcision, and that these verses really mean Paul is telling the little flock that they can't be in the body of Christ, and that the body of Christ can't be in the little flock.
This is just absurd.
Verse 18 says, Is any man being called?
It doesn't say is any man called into circumcision, yet that is how Rodney interprets it.
This is talking about the holy calling of the body of Christ.
There were circumcised Jews in the body of Christ.
These Jews still maintained the traditions of the Jewish culture.
Paul is telling them not to become as heathen, uncircumcised Gentiles, just because they are no longer under the law.
The uncircumcised Gentiles that Paul preached to were not supposed to start circumcising their sons, and they themselves were not supposed to start circumcising each other, nor were they to start trying to obey the law of Moses.
There was even a letter written to them from the little flock, who were law keepers, telling them that it isn't necessary for them to do these things.
Acts chapter 15.
These people to whom Paul wrote were a mixture of Jews and Gentiles, who were both part of the body of Christ, because they were saved by Paul's gospel, not the gospel of the kingdom.
This isn't hard, but Preacher Rodney would like for it to be, and that way you have to depend on him to interpret it for you.
Now, to the proclamation that he spent much time building up to, all of these suppositions and assumptions have finally led up to the point that he's attempting to make.
At 1 hour and 23 minutes of this two hour long video, finally, he declares that the
judgment seat of Christ is only for the little flock.
Why?
Well, according to him, it's because their program was put on pause, and so Paul had
to educate them on what to do.
And he has to tell them that, just because their program isn't still going, it doesn't mean that they're off the hook.
Hmm.
I wonder why Peter, James, and John, and Jude, and the writer of Hebrews, didn't warn the little flock of the judgment seat of Christ, being that it's for them.
Huh.
You'd think that Peter would have at least said something about it in his second epistle.
Or how about John, who penned Revelation?
John writes the prophecies of the events of the tribulation in great detail, as well as the second coming of Christ, the millennial reign, and the beginning of the dispensation of the fullness of times.
But not a word about standing before the judgment seat of Christ.
Doesn't that seem rather odd?
Why do you suppose that Paul would need to be the only one who could reveal this information to the little flock?
I mean, they had Peter, and all the other apostles, whose ministry was specifically
for the little flock.
Did God, for some reason, just drop all of the rest of the apostles, like a hot potato, and leave them out there flailing in the middle of the Sea of Galilee, with no boat, no oar?
Paul gets saved, and all the rest of the apostles are somehow now clueless.
Rodney goes on to sarcastically state this about 1 Corinthians 3:13-17.
He says, quote, Yeah, great language to use if you're starting a new church, as he picks out all the words and phrases that have to do with works, rewards, and fire, and destruction.
Here's a big problem with that assumption.
Paul wasn't starting a new church here.
He had already established the Corinthian church in person, and spent much time there
BEFORE he even wrote 1 Corinthians.
Rodney gets to Revelation 20, verse 4, and attempts to claim that the twelve tribes sitting on the twelve thrones is the judgment seat of Christ.
He also tries to tie this all in to the parable in Luke 19 about the noblemen and the kingdom.
But wouldn't this be the judgment seat of the apostles?
Huh?
Remember, we just learned that where there was a judgment seat, that seat was actually titled using the judge's name.
So, it should be the judgment seat of the apostles, after what we just learned about who actually sits in the judgment seat.
He goes on in the video to ask for one verse that says the body of Christ will be inhabiting, occupying, places of authority, principalities, thrones, reigning, etc.
Then he said, I don't find anything about the body of Christ inhabiting the earth or
any position of power in the earthly realm.
Well, let's think.
This certainly doesn't prove the point he's attempting to make with this faulty premise.
All spiritual blessings in heavenly places could be inclusive of many things in heaven.
And if we're joint heirs with Christ, and obtain a heavenly inheritance, and if Christ reigns, then we reign with him, because we are members of his body.
What can separate us once we're joined with him?
According to Rodney, apparently some air between heaven and earth can separate us.
Why is it that anyone would assume that if Christ is in heaven now, and we're seated
together with him in heavenly places, now, then we also would not be still in his body when we are in heaven and he ascends to earth?
If we're not separate from him now, then we won't be separate from him then, either.
Nothing can separate us, not even some clouds.
Rodney uses Luke 19:20-26, and he says, quote, Somebody is suffering loss at the judgment seat of Christ.
Well, this is a parable that has nothing to do with the judgment seat of Christ.
It's a story about a nobleman who was leaving his country and telling his servants to carry on business as usual until he returns.
He gives them a pound each, says to use it wisely, and multiply it for him.
Those who did as they were told were rewarded with authority over cities in the kingdom.
Those who did not make a profitable use of what they were given, received nothing in return.
One servant in particular made slanderous allegations toward the nobleman as an excuse for why he did not do as he was told.
Therefore, the nobleman responded by treating this servant in the manner in which the servant described him.
In addition to that, all of the citizens who refused to allow the nobleman to reign over them were brought before the nobleman and slain right in front of him.
How is this the judgment seat of Christ?
He himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.
Remember that?
Well, compare that to Luke 19:27, the verse that Rodney didn't include.
Luke 19:27, but those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither and slay them before me.
Slay them before me, or he himself shall be saved.
That's not exactly the same thing.
But you have to keep reading past Luke 19:26 to catch that.
Here is the glaring problem with claiming that someone from the little flock will suffer loss, but shall be saved, so as by fire.
You just gave eternal security to the little flock.
That isn't scriptural.
Rodney says that Matthew 19:28 is the judgment seat of Christ, and that the judgment seat of Christ happens at the beginning of the 1,000 year reign of Christ for Israel.
Okay, let's review this.
And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me in the regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Where does this verse say anything at all about the judgment seat of Christ?
I could see where one might call this the judgment seat of the apostles, if you wanted to add Roman Gentile governmental institutions to the millennial reign.
No, this verse in Matthew lines right up with the great white throne at the end, Rodney.
Not the beginning of the millennial reign.
Let's compare.
Matthew 19, and Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me in the regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Verse 29, And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or fathers, or mother, or wife, or children, or land, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
Verse 30, But many that are first shall be last, and the last shall be first.
Now, Revelation 20 verse 11, And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away, and there was found no place for them.
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God.
And the books were opened, and another book was opened, which is the book of life.
And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books according to their works.
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them.
And they were judged every man according to their works.
Preacher Rodney goes on to say that if the judgment seat is for the body of Christ, then the body of Christ is in deep doo-doo, because if we were to follow you around for a week, you'd probably figure out that you do not have that much Pauline doctrine inside you.
So now, he's using the extreme counter-argument against sonship doctrine in order to prove his point.
Sonship doctrine declares that one must retain all of the knowledge of Pauline doctrine possible as an education in order to be counted worthy to reign with Christ when one stands before the judgment seat.
He goes on to say that these people, and then he points out the thousand year reign on a chart.
He says, these people, they're going to earn it by suffering and enduring to the end during the tribulation period.
So that would mean that those who are resurrected at the first resurrection at the beginning of the millennial reign will immediately be judged at what Rodney claims is the judgment seat of Christ, even though the apostles are sitting in the actual seats and doing the judging.
But here we have it, folks.
It's obvious that at this point, the motivation behind the teaching from Preacher Rodney is, you see, he has been ridiculed for flip-flopping on sonship doctrine for a few years now.
At first, he seemed to embrace it, but then he changed his mind.
The people who teach sonship doctrine were excited at first to find someone else who
taught what they taught, with the exception of some Mormons and Presbyterians who also teach this.
But, then Preacher Rodney backed away from sonship doctrine and decided to denounce it.
The sonship guys have been upset with him ever since, probably not so much because Rodney changed his mind, but rather because he acted like he never believed it in the first place
and proceeded to remove any teachings from YouTube where he talked about it.
So he decided to come up with a whole new doctrine, which is the extreme polar opposite of sonship doctrine.
He did this as a means to combat it.
Rather than combating false doctrine with sound doctrine, Preacher Rodney created a
whole new doctrine that isn't sound at all.
Those who seem to be most attracted to this teaching are mostly made up of the religious type with some spiritual immaturity, and there's some prophecy watchers in this group, and those who only dabble in dispensational study enough to try to sound like they know what they're talking about.
Rodney's followers are so confused that they can't even agree amongst themselves as to what he's teaching and what he does and does not say.
All one has to do is look in the comment sections of the chats that goes on under his videos to witness this.
It's quite amusing at times, even when someone comes along and simply posts scriptures that disagree with this new doctrine, that person is completely ignored.
We witnessed this in a chat section of the very video that we're exposing on this podcast.
A gentleman consistently posted scriptures about Paul being the apostle of the Gentiles, not building on another man's foundation, which is one verse by itself that discredits Rodney's whole theory, but he posted that about not building on another man's foundation, not preaching where Christ had already been named, and not one person was educated enough to respond to him.
Not one.
They just sweep that verse under the rug and keep going as if it doesn't exist.
And we also saw a couple of his followers discussing whether or not Preacher Rodney
was saying that the judgment seat of Christ was for Israel.
One of them said that Rodney said that the judgment seat is for the little flock.
The other responded with, No, that's not what he said, when it was clearly what he said.
This was near the end of the video, and the person who claimed that Rodney was not teaching that had been present in the chat section from the beginning.
How can you listen to nearly two hours of video which attempts to teach that the judgment seat of Christ is for the little flock, then turn around at the end of the video and nearly get in an argument with someone who just plainly states what was being taught?
It's incredible.
This is the type of Bible students Preacher Rodney creates, ever learning but never ever able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Those who will not test his claims with scripture in context.
Those who will not use scriptural discernment.
Those who will not research his historical claims.
You'll also hear him make the claim that most will say Paul got the entire revelation of the mystery on the road to Damascus.
I've listened to a lot of preachers.
For longer than Preacher Rodney has claimed to be preaching, and never once have I ever heard anyone make that claim.
No one that preaches the gospel of the grace of God, and certainly not a single denominational preacher, would ever say that.
These are tools of deception, and we want you to be aware of them so you can make the
proper decisions about whether or not a Bible teacher is credible.
Is this someone who you should consider a helper of your joy?
Is this someone you should waste time chasing down the rabbit hole?
You decide.
But in the meantime, test everything with scripture and common sense.
Part of the confusion that some of the Rodneyites face is, they don't know that there are other accounts of Paul's Damascus Road experience besides Acts 9.
They have no idea.
Maybe it's because they didn't get there by following Rodney's studies, because he bailed on finishing Acts, and they never found Waldo.
And Rodney likes to use the word, "arrested," when talking about Paul being struck blind on the road to Damascus.
Now, is Preacher Rodney crossing over into Calvinism now?
Is that where he's going?
Jesus wasn't the police, and Paul had the free will of whether or not to obey.
He was struck blind, then told what to do after he asked Jesus, what will thou have
me to do?
Paul was not bound on the Damascus Road and arrested and hauled off to prison.
He had a choice, and chose to obey Christ.
Preacher Rodney and his followers are not obeying 2 Timothy 2:15, although they claim
to.
I don't even know how they even believe it's written for them anymore anyway.
They claim Timothy was a member of the little flock.
So why do they keep using 2 Timothy 2:15?
According to your own doctrine, study to show thyself approved, a workman that needeth notto be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth, does not even apply to you.
Okay, next up, when Truth Time returns, we'll talk about what the judgment seat of Christ is all about.
We kind of covered what it isn't about today.
We'll look at what it is about, what and who will be judged, and why.
The building, temple, foundation, we'll get into all of that.
Who gets rewards and what are they?
What is the reward, and what is the purpose for it?
And we'll end the entire series with the timeline of events for the rapture, the catching away, the tribulation, Christ's return to earth, the thousand-year reign, and the New Jerusalem.
Because Preacher Rodney has turned a straight line of events in Scripture into a roller
coaster ride, and we would be remiss not to address it.
Until next time, remember, you only get two educations, the one you're given, and the one you give yourself.
Add comment
Comments