Wednesday, March 09, 2011

Rebuttal of Christopher Visagie

CV: You constantly go back to me stating that Abraham was convicted ...stating that it's unbiblical.

RK: It is unbiblical as long as the Bible does not say that Abram gave by conviction. And you constantly go back to me stating “preferred guess” about one item.

CV: Are you saying that Abraham was led by another spirit outside the Spirit of God?

RK: Again, like a used car salesman, you force the answer you desire by only giving one possible answer.

CV: If you are saying that it wasn’t by conviction that God led Abraham ...then how do you suggest that God led men He chose to use? Maybe you can explain how you are led by God if not by conviction. The last time I read was the Holy Ghost who leads us into all truth.

RK: What if the “truth” is that Abram tithed spoiled of war to his local king-priest because of the law of the land? You do not allow for any other answer than your own guess.

CV: Explain how the Holy Ghost leads you ...if not by conviction. I don't believe that there is any truth outside the truth of God ...unless you believe so.

RK: Wow! So if it is not in the Bible, it is not truth! That means there are not laws of science and nature. Neat logic.

CV: Refusing to believe that Abraham was led by the conviction of God sets Abraham outside the plan of God. If that is what you choose to believe ...I rest my case.

RK: If King Melchizedek had set up a roadblock and told Abram to give him tithes of spoils per the law of the land, you disregard that possibility.

CV: It becomes questionable when you prefer your preferred guess above the conviction of God. The devil is lying to you.

RK: You prefer your own preferred guess by demanding that Abram gave “not by ordinance but by conviction.” Perhaps the devil is lying to you.

CV: 3. You have called me a hypocrite ...trying to tag me with the same tag you wear. You refuse to accept defeat by pulling me into the same hole you have fallen into.

RK: YOU tagged me a hypocrite and YOU put that tag on me first. Now you whimper and cry when I remove it and place it on you. You began the name-calling.

CV: 4. I don't shoot down any scholars. The truth is, most scholars who have written the articles you've studied are not Born Again.

RK: Personal attack. Read what you just wrote. Your second statement contradicts scholars. It “shoote them down” by accusing them of being lost.

“The truth is”?? And who made you God to judge others?

CV: That makes me wonder if you are Born Again based on you rejecting the truth in relation to conviction.

RK: Personal attacks. If you cannot win the argument, attack the person’s character.

CV: 5. In Hebrews ch.7 Paul was describing an order (ordained practical order of worship) that Jesus demonstrated before he died.

RK: And where in the Bible do you find this definition of “order”?

CV: I believe that it related to a time during His ministry among the Jews. Unless you have another preferred guess …having a preferred belief that it related to a time after His death.

RK: Your “belief” does not constitute absolute truth or fact. It is a preferred guess.

CV: Heb 7:1-3. Verse one specifically states that he was a priest of the Most High God. This priesthood was instituted be God ...not some religious law or Canaanite law.

RK: Please explain the fact that every known religion of Abram’s time worshipped the Most High God through priests.

CV: Please explain to me how Melchizedek could be a Canaanite if he had no mother, no father, no genealogy, neither beginning of days or end of life.

RK: You totally confuse the difference between the HISTORICAL Melchizedek and the TYPICAL Melchizedek. One could draw the same conclusions about Abimelech, the Philistine king of Gerar (Gen 20) and many others in the Bible.

Cv: Heb 7:2 Calling Jesus King of Salem by interpretation doesn’t make Him king of the City called Salem, but describes who he is (King of Righteousness).

RK: The text calls the HISTORICAL Melchizedek the king of righteousness and peace “by interpretation of his name.” You ignore that and make the historical Melchizedek into the literal Jesus. Jesus is NOT such “by interpretation of his name.”

CV: How many Kings of Righteousness and Kings of peace are there outside of Jesus?

RK: Only “by interpretation of his name.” Since they probably named themselves, there were probably scores of rulers who used those terms like Abi-melech (my king is Moloch) and Adonizedek.

CV: And yes …you are aligning him to a Canaanite king.

RK: Not me but God said in His Word that he was a king in Canaan. The literal historical Melchizedek was not literally “king of righteousness” or “king of peace” – he was only such “by interpretation of his name.”

CV: 6. I never attempted to enforce an incorrect answer.

RK: You certainly do. You keep on attempting to enforce only your answer with is not what God’s Word literally says.

CV: …unless you don’t believe that conviction leads you into fulfilling the will of God

RK: “Conviction” can be wrong; Muslim terrors have conviction that they will be saved and given 72 virgins. That is real conviction. You use your answer (Conviction) as if it were the “truth” are argue from that position.

CV: …unless you choose to believe that Abraham was walking outside the will of God …following an order outside of God …following an order after the laws of ancient Canaan. You did say that that’s what you chose to believe …unless I got the wrong impression.

RK: This kind of circular reasoning would never be accepted in a court. You keep coming from the viewpoint that your point have been established as truth and fact when they are merely speculation and opinion.

CV: I believe you are right about a car salesman …but do you believe that you are right about me …or are you deceived into thinking that your judgment of who I am is accurate.

RK: I question your tactics and circular reasoning.

CV: 7. You have accused me of having my own opinion and not using biblical text. Please explain where the idea of conviction came from …if not from scripture.

RK: How on earth can I accuse you for having your own opinion? Everybody has their own opinion. I accuse you of stating your own opinion as if it were undisputed absolute truth and fact. I asked you to prove from God’s Word that Abram acted on conviction as opposed to the possible well-known law of the land. Why should I defend your opinion?

CV: You are falsely accusing me to reflect attention based on the fact that you are in error. Who is the hypocrite?

RK: What? Nonsense.

CV: 8. Correction ...the order of Melchizedek in Heb. ch.7 compares an order that was introduced through Christ in the teachings he taught the disciples.

RK: 2nd Lt, 1st Lt, Captain, Major, Lt Col, Col, Brig Gen. CAPTAIN is the THIRD in order of this list. “Order” means “rank.” That is what “order” means in Genesis 14. Nothing more. Nothing less.

CV: I’ll rather be tangled up with words than being deceived to the point of defending a lie.

RK: Personal attack. It is a good thing that you are not name-calling.

CV: I have been blessed with enough wisdom from God to discern and expose lies and deceit.

RK: Good. Then expose the lie of tithing. Discernment does not trump what God’s literal Word says!

CV: 9. I don’t see any evidence in scripture that says that He was King of a Canaanite city

RK: Inspiration (Genesis 14) places it between Sodom and Damascus. That would be the middle of Canaan.

CV: I apologize if I’m using a different bible that might be causing the confusion …Maybe you should read the same bible I’m reading to get the right interpretation.

RK: My KJV says “Holy Bible.” Is that close enough? I will also give some credibility to the NKJ and NAS but never the NIV.

CV: 10. You say that order describes a rank because your idea of Salem being a city and not a description of who Melchizedek the King was and is (based on the fact that he remains a king continually or eternally -Heb 7:3) King of Salem.

RK: Now you sound like the guy who teaches that M floated down from heaven, received Abram’s tithes from Sodom and ascended back into heaven. Again you turn types into reality. Since the Bible gives no genealogy for the HISTORICAL M, he is a type of Christ who is eternal. I am not going to enter a dialog about M being Christ. That is a cultic theology for a cultic branch of Christianity. I have already rebutted it in great detail in my rebuttal of Kevin Conner at You simply do not understand biblical typology.

CV: 11. You say that Melchizedek was nothing more than other king priest that lived in His era. You said that my claim is unbiblical and false. You show me one king priest who was described as He is in Hebrew 7:3

RK: Have you ever thought of the typology of the UNKNOWN SOLIDER?
No record of his birth, death, parents, relatives, race, religion, height or weight. One could say that Messiah was “after the order of the unknown soldier” – eternal; a savior who died for all races and all sizes of people.

CV: 12. You say that order means rank …but order meaning both rank and instruction according to ordinance works against what you’ve chosen to believe.

RK: So what? What makes what I’ve “chosen to believe:” wrong and what you’ve “chosen to believe” correct? God’s Word is truth; not what we have chosen to believe.

You have fast-forwarded to a definition of “order” that is more fit for the Knights Templar and the Benedictine, Franciscan and Dominican monks with all their ritual.

CV: Jesus was crucified by people who reasoned the way you do. I don’t care how many archeologists, Historians or documentaries disagree with the truth …the truth will still remain.

RK: Personal attack. Now you are accusing me of crucifying Christ. Have you ever sinned? Do you need to be saved? Did your sins crucify Chrsit?

Watch that finger. There are three pointing back to yourself. While attacking me you betray yourself as a self-righteous Pharisee who alone decides what “truth” is per Matthew 23:2-3.

CV: People who write these articles are mere men. They are full of error and deceit.

RK: Personal attack. And “you” are not a mere man? How dare anybody disagree with you! Just listen to yourself once in a while.

CV: 14. Is it biblical to say that Abraham was the father of faith? Abraham being called the father of faith must count for something. Maybe it was because he was led by conviction …not by law or sight.

RK: Not in everything he did. God’s Word does not say that he tithed spoils of war “by faith.”

CV: Accusing me of saying something unscriptural, yet it’s found in scripture is a false accusation.

RK: Until you prove what you say from the clear context of Scripture, I have every right to accuse you of teaching something that is unscriptural. You are doing the same thing towards me. Where is your statement “not ordinance, but conviction” found in scripture? It is your “preferred wild guess” until you produce a text.

CV: A lot of things that you have shared is unscriptural …unless your bible differs from mine.

RK: Generalization. When my source is extra-biblical I admit it up front. I do not invent statements like “not ordinance but conviction” and say they are scripture.

CV: 15. I have written a book on tithing …maybe I should sell you a copy of my book …but it would be unfair on you if I gave every minister I met a free copy. You heard correct …I give books for free. You should have asked instead of judging, having no insight of who I am. I call you a hypocrite because you trip over your own words.

RK: Personal attack. And where did I say that “you” personally do not give away material?

CV: 16. The law’s definition of tithing was doing the one part and leaving the other part undone.

RK: Horrendous explanation.

CV: Read Matt. 23:23.

RK: You read it literally and interpret it literally. It is Old Covenant Law.

CV: I don’t believe that Jesus was using the laws definition of tithing

RK: Horrendous explanation. Your “wild preferred guess” and opinion.

CV: …he was correcting the laws definition of tithing.

RK: So God made a mistake in His definition of tithing in the Law??? Jesus was correcting the Pharisees hypocritical misuse of the Law.

CV: Judgment, mercy and faith are fruit of your response to conviction (or should I say …evidence of being led by the Spirit of God) …but if you have a preferred guess, I’m listening.

RK: I agree.

CV: Judgment (discernment is the precise meaning …and this is not my preferred guess), mercy and faith are not what the law teaches.

RK: Once again you are dead WRONG. The Law does teach “judgment, mercy and faith” – Jesus called them the “weightier matters of the law.”

CV: The law teaches ritual that ends in condemnation without mercy.

RK: Fundamental error. The Law also teaches love. One who truly loves God will also love his fellow man and exhibit judgment, mercy and faith towards him. That is what Jesus was teaching in Matthew 23:23.

CV: Malachi teaches law …but I teach tithing according to the order of Melchizedek …being Born Again into that order through Christ …unless you have a preferred guess.

RK: You have just stated your “preferred guess” when you stated that Christians are “born again into the order of Melchizedek” in order to justify you receiving tithes. Why? Because you have grossly twisted the word “order” to fit your preferred guess. You make it sound like we have been initiated into an extremely complex society like the Order of the Knights Templar.

CV: If you had the wisdom you claim to have …you would identify an ordinance that you claim to walk in …based on the notion that you’ve accepted Christ as your personal savior.

RK: God’s Word calls it the New Covenant.

CV: The state of the tithe was raw material. Some of it could have past for food …but others needed the absence of blood and the presence of fire to be converted to food. My point is (it’s a point not a guess), the tithe was not presented as food, but as a state of wealth.

RK: Aabraa cadabra. You are now going to magically change “food” into money. Although money was essential for OT sanctuary worship, money is never a tithed item.

CV: They tithed out of the increase of their wealth. Not out of the idea that it was food.

RK: This is your preferred guess. I notice a conspicuous lack of Bible texts here.

CV: God’s description of natural wealth was increase in natural substance. If you want scripture …I will copy and paste as much as there exists in scripture. That’s the least that I can do for you if you don’t know scripture and you need the evidence.

RK: That was another personal attack. There are 16 verses which describe the CONTENTS of the tithe as FOOD from inside Israel which God had miraculously increased. Yes, I do want scripture showing me that the tithe was other than food.

CV: Again I caution you …not placing biblical text doesn’t mean it’s not there …being a student of the biblical text you should be knowledgeable enough to know that it is.

RK: Another personal attack. Are you having fun trying to be cute? If the texts are there, produce them.

CV: We constantly demand chapter and verse …I wonder what they used in the old days when there were no bibles. I don’t recall any of them …including Jesus quoting chapter and verse. What he quoted was the law and the prophets. The scribes and the Pharisees knew scripture well enough to know whether or not Jesus was speaking truth.

RK: You are playing word games here.

CV: It’s a joke for someone as learned as you to request that I back it up with scripture.

RK: It is a joke for you to pretend something exists when it only exists as your preferred wild guess.

CV: I prefer it when you state my error …that way I can learn something or teach something. Until now …you have taught me nothing …accept that you are deceived though knowledge …not having understanding.

RK: And you have taught me how arrogant you are full of yourself.

CV: 17. You relate to Israel being God Holy Land according to Zec. 2:12 and a few other verses that could relate to the land of Israel being Holy.

RK: My reference is to Leviticus 27:29-34. God declared the land of Canaan to be holy where His holy people would grow food and raise animals to tithe to His workers. Stop playing games.

CV: Taking into consideration that Adam defiled the Earth in that the earth or land became cursed through him and many other places in scripture where the Israelites defiled the temple of God …let alone the land …do you believe that Israel is still considered holy in the state that she is found?

RK: Of course not. And this is biblical grounds for stating that NOBODY can bring a holy tithe today. It was the holy land which miraculously produced a holy tithe.

CV: Remember that every time she was defiled there were rituals in the law under the instruction of God through the priest that restored her sanctity or state of holiness. Now that the Father has instituted grace by no other than Christ …do you believe that her sacrificial offerings are accepted based on the fact that she had the first opportunity of sanctity through the salvation of Jesus Christ? If you believe so please explain how. I’m not looking for your preferred guess.

RK: No. The nation Israel current does not offer any sacrificial offerings.

CV: 18. I have never charged for most of my produce …so I would guess that your definition of pride and greed is not related to me.

RK: Correct. But you have already assumed I was speaking about you and you have already called me a hypocrite over this issue.

CV: 19. If your idea of accepting people’s views are based on 10-12 years of their study in the field …I wonder why Jesus rejected the views of the scribes and Pharisees.

RK: You miss the point entirely. You have made a blanket condemnation of scholars who disagree with you and say they have not been born again. That is despicable and nasty.

CV: I also wonder why Paul counted the knowledge he accomplished through studying dung …regarding it as a waste. Is it because their realization was that you needed much more that 10-12 years of study? Maybe they realized that you need to be led by the Holy Ghost through conviction that separates a lie from the truth. I wonder how educated the disciples were.

RK: You are rambling.

CV: Maybe if is studied for 10-12 years (according to your idea of qualification in God) my qualification would supercede theirs. Maybe that’s the only time you would be willing to hear me. Don’t you think that it will also make it easier for me to deceive you? Much knowledge puffs up.

RK: Rambling sarcasm. You are building paper tigers to destroy by placing words into my mouth which did not say.

CV: 20. Can you be specific as to what the Jews told Jesus? I don’t believe that I’m disagreeing with you based on you being wrong and me being right. I disagree with you based on your inconsistencies of scripture. You use scripture having knowledge …but lacking in understanding. Just for the record …I’m not looking to impress anyone. I do suspect that you are …based on the fact that you want the public view on things.

RK: Personal attack. Your statement is arrogant and condescending.

CV: I don’t believe in that there is your side and my side or your idea and my idea …I do believe in siding with the truth. I don’t present my own view …I present truth according to scripture. If you siding against the truth …you are siding against God …not me. If it’s truth …I agree. If it’s a lie …I oppose. If you claim to have truth …show it to me that I may believe.

RK: Pure self-conceited arrogance. The new pope has spoken. May what he says is “truth” not be questioned.

CV: 21. What does gobble-dee-gook mean?

RK: It means that you get all wrapped up in yourself and just dribble out nonsense.

CV: The only reason why I won’t put it on my site is …I will never bring embarrassment to the kingdom of my Father. We already have so much division because of people like you who want to prove a point in a public setting …finding technical justification instead of seeking truth. You are welcome to do as you please …but it’s truth that will lay judgment on the last day.

RK: Another personal attack. John 17:17

CV: 22. There is more than one siren being sounded in the way you respond that you are full of pride. Pride blinds you from receiving truth.

RK: Listen to yourself. You remind me of King Herod just before God consumed him with worms.

CV: 23. The Majority of believers should share the same truth. We become the minority in relation to the world view of religious beliefs. On the issue of tithing after the order of Melchizedek, we are the minority. I guess you are siding with the majority on this one.

A man who seeks public opinion to strengthen his belief is weak. If we started this dialog in a public setting …the public has a right to participate. This is between you, your representative and me. Please don’t misinterpret what I’m saying as you did previously. I give you allowance to use this to score points for yourself …but I disagree with it.

RK: What is wrong with you? If a public availability of this dialog convinces others that I am wrong and you are correct, then you are the one “scoring points.” Did Jesus not remind his detractors that he stood daily in the Temple publicly debating with them? Will you dare throw this same dribble at Jesus?

CV: 24. You set on finding technical errors to discredit truth.

RK: I literally interpret the Word of God. When I conclude that God’s Word does not tell us why Abram tithed, you call that a “technical error” and I call your “not ordinance but conviction” your preferred wild guess.

CV: When I said that I never accepted truth based on public opinion I meant that even if the public is truthful in what they state …I still make truth my personal choice. I take on the responsibility for the decisions I make.

RK: I agree.

CV: Your desperate enough to draw the public’s attention towards my errors to gain the advantage for your influence.

RK: Be a Berean Christian. Let both views be heard publicly as Jesus did. After all, the great majority of churches do teach tithing and I should lose the public debate if God is not with me.
Matt 5:15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.KJV

CV: You are so desperate that you have invented something that was never there. I never said that truth changes …I wonder what gave you that idea.

RK: Sorry. You said that facts change which is equally wrong. Only the interpretation of facts changes. “Facts never constitute truth because they change when the evidence changes. You can never conclude truth based on facts.”

CV: 25. RK: I listen very carefully as God speaks to me through His inspired Word. Like a Berean, I also listen very carefully to what other Christians say and verify with God’s Word. Do you want me to discard the written Word and only rely on extra-biblical revelation? It that your final authority? Does the Bible not have the entire gospel?”

Again I call you a Hypocrite without any reservation. You’ve done the opposite to what you claim to believe. You have relied on extra-biblical revelation to justify your claim.

RK: Where do you find this in what I said? You are the one relying on your wild guess to justify your claim.

CV: If you claim that you’ve heard God …I don’t know how God can lead you to believe a lie.

RK: What lie? What have I said that you have proven to be a lie?

CV: You’ve heard the voice of the people, combined with your own reasoning …made a conclusion and now you claim that God told you. You are kicking against pricks.

RK: You are nuts. I clearly said that I verify what other people might tell me with God’s Word. Is that not what you do also or do you think that nobody is as smart as yourself?

CV: 26. RK: First, devils cannot inhabit the body of a Spirit-indwelt child of God. Second, no devil has dared to manifest itself in churches I attend. If they did, God would quickly dispose of them. Third, why would devils want to be surrounded by Spirit-indwelt believers? Fourth, devils only dare to enter where they feel welcome.

Have you read Mar 16:17: And these signs shall follow them that believe: in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

RK: Is not the Holy Spirit which indwells every believer more powerful than any demon or devil? Why would a demon want to enter a building full of Spirit-indwelt believers? It would be outmanned and outgunned and lose every time! You have stopped defending tithing and are spending all you energy attacking me. So I guess you are spent.

CV: I suppose that nobody repents and are delivered in the churches you attend. I suppose that nobody gets sick either. Or maybe nobody believes. Do you believe Sir? If you did you should be experiencing the same. Truth manifests the presence of God. I know truth through manifestation, not just knowledge.

RK: You have utterly failed to prove that tithing is a truth for New Covenant believers.

CV: All your dung (as Paul call accumulative knowledge based on studying without experience) will never cast one devil out of a man.

RK: You are the usurped Pope-priest whom Malachi says God will spread dung on your face for stealing that which does not belong to you (the tithe).

CV: Invite me over to your church … them we will decide whether or not everyone in your congregation are possessed or not.

RK: You would not allow me in your church to speak but you have the audacity to think that God would allow Satan to indwell his holy temples of believers!

Again, you are a biblical MORON if you think that the Holy Spirit would allow a demon to inhabit His redeemed property – the body of the believer. 1 Cor 6:19 “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own ?”

CV: The devil never fears knowledge …he fears the power of God demonstrate though truth.

RK: You just hanged yourself again with this last statement. Since the devil “fears the power of God,” he would not dare enter into the building where my assembly of the Body of Christ gathers. On the other hand he feels welcome in your church building since you have to keep casting him out again and again.

No comments: