<<< Back to Page 2

The Sneaky Wolf And His Sneaky Followers: They Hide Until the Time is Right.

Wolves are sneaky. They watch the prey and plan the attack. The sneaky wolf, false prophet is in the church watching and waiting. He is the one who calls secret meetings. He gains the trust of a few lousy followers and then rises up to attack, taking innocent victims with him. The Bible is clear about how God will deal with these sneaky wolves.

Matthew 7:21-23 Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.

Matthew 24:4-5 And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray.

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.

WARNING TO ALL TO FOLLOW SCRIPTURES OF THE HOLY BIBLE. NOT MAN'S WILL, BUT GOD’S WILL. LOVE ONE ANOTHER AND STAY STRONG. (AUS)

OUR COMMENT: OK, Janko is a scumbag, we've got the message. But the question is - why are you still sitting together with such disgusting people? It says in Psalm 1: "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful."

So go, find yourself a better church, there is no shortage of churches in Melbourne, is there? Or you think the only right way is Janko's way? Well, in that case you should stay where you are and stop complaining.

Umm, ACCN Australia, why are you attacking the reader? He's just making a point about false teachers, what's wrong with that? You don't have to tell him to find another church. Why don't you find another church then and stop complaining yourself? I'm not trying to attack you here by running this website, but you're doing the same thing as the other guy and you’re accusing him of not leaving... maybe I'm missing something here.

And also, one more thing. Why is everyone (or a few loud people on this site anyway) complaining that Marsden accepted an adulterer? It's not true. He was free to remarry for Biblical reasons. Read the Bible where it says who is allowed to remarry when they already have a wife and it will be clear to you what happened. It's not good to make up stories. Everyone in Marsden knows what really happened, so ask them! (USA)

OUR COMMENT: Thank you.

1. We prefer comments which contain real news, information and facts, not just the usual whingings about Janko or Paul. People who constantly do that make themselves look helpless and miserable. Are they really mature adults? Is somebody forcing them to waste their precious lives sitting there with JT or PP and eating themselves alive all these years? Why are you together, if you hate each other? You see, at a certain point it all becomes meaningless and just plain stupid. But those people never get to that point, and that is the problem.

2. There are very polarized opinions on Shandor Heveshi's second marriage and this website will remain open to any of them, without judging.

Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Mark 10; 11-12 And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

Which part is unclear to anyone? (AUS)

Ok comment 2, instead of quoting that verse again, why dont you read Matthew 19:9. Its very clear there when you can get remarried. After you read that, you will understand. The point here is not that Marsden accepted an adulterer with a new wife...the point is that it never did anything with SH's first wife since I have to spell it out like this for you. I was trying to avoid this to avoid shaming the family even more. (USA)

Marsden accepted an adulterer and an adulteress in the fellowship. Marsden didn’t accept them as members to be part of Marsden, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t accepted in the fellowship in Marsden. What part is unclear? (AUS)

Those scriptures are quite clear and are written for a marriage between Christians which God takes very seriously. Was this man married to a non-believer? (Perhaps there is more to the story involving an unbelieving wife?) Because there is a scripture that releases a Christian from a marriage with an unbeliever, in the book of 1 Corinthians 7:15, if the unbeliever chooses to leave the marriage. The Christian is free and no longer bound to that person according to this scripture. And that is very merciful of God. (AUS)
 
COMMENT 6:
 
1 Corinthians 7:
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
This can't change for SH or for Marsden Church.
This does NOT allow for remarriage... (AUS)

There is a lack of scriptural teaching in the AC churches on divorce and remarriage. I recommend you listen to these talks. (CAN)

MATEA LINCU IN HOSPITAL AFTER KICKING HIS GRANDSON?

---

We have received the information that Matea Lincu from Sydney, recognized as minister by Paul Pentsa, has recently physically abused his 12-year old grandson by kicking him in the back. The boy fell on his face and had to be taken to a hospital. The police questioned Matea, who was at the end also hospitalized. This all came from Matea's estranged wife Ljubica. She is not to be fully trusted, given her age and mental condition, so we are now trying to verify this story. Any help from the readers will be appreciated.
   
Your comment?
 
COMMENT 1:
 
This is false. I am the father of Matea's grandson and this did not happen. Currently, Ljubica is struggling with a relapse of her mental illness and needs treatment. This is happening whilst Matea sits in his own unit ignoring his wife's plight from afar. (AUS)

This is the first time I've heard of this story. I know she is ringing around people (including me) with delusional stories about everything and everyone but this is a symptom of her worsening mental condition. (AUS)

OUR COMMENT: Her previous statements have been confirmed by others. Beatings, etc. We always verify such claims, just like we made an effort to verify this one (which is obviously a figment of her imagination.)

So much corruption in Marsden church! Paul Pentsa at work causing yet another division in the church just like his accomplice Janko Tomek when he divided Altona church. It will never end whilst these two mad men are in power. Spiritual sickness in the church spreading like cancer. (AUS)

COMMENT 2:
 
I will punish those who create discord???
That means you should punish yourself!!
Well, you already have, you just haven't realised that yet, nor are ready to accept accountability for your actions.
You want to punish those that do not make peace??
Well, YOU created discord by NOT working with the CHURCH!!
ALL MEMBERS WORLDWIDE have ALL the right to stand against ALL Elders that work without the Church!!!
Submit = to give over or yield to the power or authority of another.
Does that mean UNCONTIONALY to an ELDER???
Why does it then state in: Ephesians 5:23...
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church.
Is Christ head of Marsden Church?
No, PP is.
1 Peter 5:5... Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility.
This does not give the ELDER the freedom to expect submittance UNCONDITIONALLY, because he is an ELDER!!
It continues, be ye subject one to another, NOT allowing for the Elder to be a Lord over God's heritage!
Heritage = something that comes or belongs to one by reason of birth.
Does the Church belong to PP or to Christ?
Did PP die for anyone's sins?
That is why elders are NOT to be submitted to, unconditionally!! (AUS)

It's time for people in Marsden to face the truth. PP is doing what he's doing cause he knows every single person in Marsden like his pocket and he knows how weak and dumb they are. Therefore he knows he can get away with anything. (AUS)

It's exactly what Marsden deserves, since all they do is stick up for him. If Marsden was right, they would say... PP, you are not our elder anymore and we accept no work from you. But they all support him otherwise he wouldn't be up there anymore. Therefore the people get the elder they deserve... one that's just like them. (USA)

re. St. Matthew 18:15-17
 15. Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
 16. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
 17. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglects to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.
 NOTE: This is reference to a sin towards an individual, not when a sin is done before the WHOLE church.
 This is not a personal thing that needs to be addressed in person to PP, this is OPEN and was committed before the WHOLE church..... therefore:
 re. 1 Timothy 5:19,20
 19. Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
 20. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
 This was NOT done or brought before 2 or 3 witnesses, PP has committed a sin before many MORE then 2 or 3 witnesses....therefore PP needs to be rebuked before ALL.
 re. Titus 3:10
 10. A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject;
 Heretic = a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.
 PP is a heretic because:
 - he is maintaining things contrary to that which is accepted by Marsden Church.
 AND
 - he is rejecting the doctrine that was prescribed by Marsden Church. (AUS)

My question is, why do all those who don't agree with their leaders whether it be in Marsden or the Romanian/Slovak Tomek group leave and start following Jesus? How much longer are they going to follow man? There is another church in Brisbane where Arnold is an Elder brother with a lot more fear of God and common sense. (AUS)

We have nothing against Paulie or Alex, but the way the work was done. Elder Paul put names of 3 brothers on one paper; if you vote for one, other 2 are elected instantly. Comment 7, I'm sure you know this is not the right way. It has never been done before, in Australia and other ACCN in other countries but only elder Paul will do that so his sons would creep in. The vote should be done individually to be fair and square. (AUS)

OUR COMMENT: Thank you. It would be very useful if someone who was present that day in Marsden and participated in voting sends a DETAILED report on how everything happened. Like a newspaper article - Who, What, When, Where, Why. If the report is good, it will be posted as a new topic. This is important for our brothers and sisters overseas. 

manipulation = The usage of psychological influence over a person or situation for self gain
cunning attitude = skillful in deception and tricking people
sweet talk = to talk to someone in a way you want to persuade that person to do, allow, or believe something
deceit = attempts to make someone believe something that is not true
covetousness = wanting to have something too much, especially something that belongs to someone else
feigned words = to imitate in making you believe something that is not true.
make merchandise of you = to plan a maneuver in secret, in a way that's hard to spot
wiles = tricks or clever ways of making people do what you want:

Kindly Read:

2 Peter 2:1-3
1.But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
3. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

People "STILL" cannot see what PP is doing!!!

People are "STILL" scared to act full speed AGAINST his wiles!! (AUS)

RE: Comment 8: Incorrect. This was also done at the ACC at Avon Road Kitchener many years ago. I was there. One ballot, 4 names...vote for one---you get all four, even if you didn't want the other three. Made no sense then, makes no sense now. (CAN)

Paul Pentsa succeeded in his manipulation to make his son Paul confirmed minister and put his son-in-law Alex on trial.

Last time when the church voted for Paulie, for confirm, he didn't get it, but this time is a different story.

Soon we'll read the next chapter in the book. (AUS)

OUR COMMENT: It's a "Pentsacostal" church, what did you expect? :) Family first!

That's great: Now Janko Tomek may learn from his master. (AUS)

Ezekiel 34:
1. And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
2. Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks?
4................., but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them.

Questions about this past Sunday:
1). Did P.P ask the Church or TELL the Church?
2). Did the Church know about the work, or did P.P implement his will through the Church?
3). Did P.P allow the Holy Spirit to guide through prayer the work, or was it "this is how we will do it"?
4). Who was bigger in this work? P.P or the Church?
5). Who changed the way the normal past procedure were handled? P.P or the Church?
6). Who does the Church belong to? P.P or to God?
7). Does God through the Holy Spirit perform work this way?
8). Should the Church accept the work of P.P when its performed WITHOUT the Church?
9). Was this the FIRST time P.P has done things without the Church?
10). How much MORE things will the Church allow P.P to get away with?
11). How much longer should the Church bear the sins of P.P?
12). Is there anyone that STILL doesn't see what P.P is doing?
13). Who is going to stand up for the right?
14). Who is going to contend for the Faith and for the right here?
15). Who is going to ACCEPT the fear of P.P's punishments?
16). Would anyone DARE go and remind, reprimand or admonish P.P for his actions this last Sunday?

Isaiah 59:
14. And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.
15. Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the Lord saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment.

1 John 5:17
17. All unrighteousness is sin.

If any Marsden member DARE allow the ministers to minister, when eveyone knows they were NOT ordained by the Church, must show this openly.
One way is NOT attending when they attend to minister, as a sign of disagreement.
The Church needs to stand firm on the right if it’s on the right path.
Which would also mean that the Church should stand for the right and contend for the Faith, by NOT allowing any man to be Lord over God's heritage.
By walking out when the non-Church ordained ministers attempt to minister, would indicate openly and clearly, that they are NOT accepted as work done by the will of the Spirit through the Church.
Firstly P.P. accepts adulterers in the fellowship (H.S and his 2nd wife), and then organizes the holy work, in attempting to cover up this. Having the holy work after that is what P.P. might want to use when required to say, I asked for forgiveness before performing and we shouldn’t bring up the past. "I pray to the Lord and you for forgiveness if I have offended anyone..." is NOT good enough. Error in word is corrected by your words. However error in your deeds is corrected by your deeds, not by your words.
Forcing his son Pauli to be a minister, when the Church DID NOT vote him on a number of attempts, and then with cunningness, fierce and cruelty implementing this right after the holy work, to even more blind the church to be quiet knowing they just completed the holy work.
Is there anyone that CANNOT see this? (AUS)

To many Pentsas in the first bench. Corruption by Paul Pentsa is the reason for this. Another church ruled by a family  like Tomeks Mt Cottrell. (AUS)

Janko Tomek was in Brisbane, Marsden church, for the holy supper, even though there is nothing holy about this man. His works are dirty and shameful to say the least. He left his dirt in Marsden where he, together with Elder Paul Pentsa has caused World War III amongst the brethren. Do us all a favour Janko by not visiting Marsden church anymore, rather stay in your million dollar church where you can dictate. (AUS)

OUR COMMENT: You and the Canadian reader [Comment 9 in the previous topic] must be connected in some way, otherwise how would you know that he or she "have been divorced and re married before conversion"?
There is no such statement in Comment 9.

Please stop defending MARSDEN church; Here we are talking about converted (members) not the outsiders.
In the past we had an older member in Marsden A.T. whose wife left him long ago and he was not allowed to re-marry till she is alive.
Hevesi is a member in Marsden. He put away his wife and went to Hungary and they gave him permission to re-marry.
Now it's up to Marsden elder P.P. to accept it (or go against Hungarian elders?)
I don't think that P.P. will go against the Hungarians and their decisions, in case of needing their assistance in the future.
But if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by law as transgressors. James 2;9  (AUS)
 
COMMENT 2:
 
You [Comment 1] seem to write with authority as if you know these as facts! But are you sure? Do you know about that case as who divorced who? I know for a fact that you are wrong at least in your statement about that brother's membership. No he is not a member of the Marsden Church, when he moved overseas, his membership ceased in Marsden. Otherwise surely the Marsden members would have had their say in this matter, but neither the members nor their elder had been asked, nor had a say in it. Why don't you first ask before making such statements? And if it bothers you, why didn't you approach that brother and tell him his sin? But you go and fall in sin yourself, among those who will be in the Lake of fire, are fornicators, and adulterers, and also those who love and make lies.

Do you not know that in the past, in old Yugoslavia, the elders allowed the innocent party of the divorce of members to remarry?? Do you know that if you would go to North America, in the Nazarean ACC you will greet members who are free members, but have divorced their sinful spouses (Yes, after they were baptized their spouses fell away) and re married in the church another free member? So when and if you visit, you may well greet them with the kiss, and have part of "their sin" if you consider them as living in adultery.

These are weighty matters, which must be looked in the spirit of prayer, and as in ACTS 15, the Apostles and elders considered the matters, and notified the churches of what the Holy Spirit Worked among them, and the churches accepted it. If those Pharisees who "troubled you with words" and "subverted" them didn't like what they heard, they could go out of the church. (AUS)
 
COMMENT 3:
 
The Marsden Church fellowship ACCEPTED the member and his 2nd wife to remain in the fellowship that remarried and his wife is still alive.
We are talking about this issue as being members, not before conversion.
This member has committed adultery, and his 2nd wife has committed adultery.
Marsden Church accepted both in the fellowship.
This is completely OFF track from the Faith.
Stating truth is not slandering.
Slander = a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation.
This is not a false statement.
Marsden Church accepted both of those members (him and his 2nd wife)
Both of them have committed a sin unto death, called adultery.
Both remained in the fellowship in Marsden.
They don't have to be expelled by an elder.
Their sin has expelled them. They have committed a sin unto death, called adultery.
Any elder can accept that if they choose to, and any church can accept them too if they choose to.
And, every church can choose to accept them or not, regardless of any elders' decision of the wrong. (AUS)
 
COMMENT 4:
 
Re: "There were never any members who were expelled for fornication, adultery or spiritual adultery, ever taken back into the fellowship in Marsden."
H.S. and his 2nd wife haven't been expelled, but both have committed adultery.
So, that means both need to be expelled then, NOT accepted in the fellowship, because adultery is a sin unto death.
Marsden accepted them into the fellowship, means that Marsden accepted those that have committed a sin unto death. (AUS)

It was just told me that Marsden Church accepted an adulterer and his adulteress wife.
A member whose wife is still alive has remarried.
He has committed adultery, and his second wife has committed adultery too.
And Paul Pentsa accepted both in the fellowship.
BUT the Hungarian elders accepted that, so it MUST be right!!!
Sorry mate, the Bible doesn't change even if ALL elders accept it.
Sad to see that Marsden Church has been defiled.
Sad to see another church accepting sins unto death into the fellowship.
And, yes, ministers don't even try and say, he wasn't excommunicated, so he is still free!!!
That's BALONEY...... what's yeah is only yeah, and what's no, is only no!!!
God has excommunicated him, and his sin has.
The elders can excommunicate someone that HASN'T committed a sin, and you are going to accept that as biblical???
Sad to see Marsden has drifted away from the foundation how it was formed and built.
Sad to see Marsden has fallen away from the original Faith.
What part of this is unclear to anyone?
Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
BOTH have committed adultery. (AUS)

That is very concerning. Can someone please verify this? (AUS)

Have the ones accused of adultery repented of this sin? (USA)

Mark 10; 11-12
And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

Romans 7;1-3
Or do you not know, brothers, or I am speaking to those who know the law that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. (AUS)
 
COMMENT 4:
 
What is new about this practice? In a letter dated November 30 1985 and signed by North American Elders, which was sent to most believers, it states the following under the heading "Marriage" on page 16 and 17. It States among other things that:

"Marital unfaithfulness breaks the marriage covenant and may be cited by the innocent party as reason for divorce which God recognizes and which the Church must also recognize. "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."(Matthew 19:9)

The position on remarriage is unequivocally clear: If a divorce has been granted because of sexual immorality, the innocent party may enter into a new marriage relationship because of having been freed from the bondage of the former. "Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day. But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth" (I Timothy 5:5-6 I Corinthians 7:15 clearly states that the deserted spouse is "not under bondage in such cases".

When the Pharisees came to Jesus in Matthew 19:3 to "Tempt" the Lord with the question of a man "putting away his wife for every cause" The Lord forbade man to put away his wife with one exception and that was the act of "fornication".

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away, except it be for fornication and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

The same came to Jesus when they found the woman in the act of adultery, tempting him, to see what the Lord would say different then what the law of Moses said, Jesus did not say she should not be stoned, but told the ones without sin to cast the stone first. Now had they stoned her to death, would her husband be free to remarry??

How many members are there in the church now who have been married in the "world" and divorced because of unfaithfulness by their spouses and remarried again, are they considered to be living in the sin of adultery? Because marriage is for life, and ordained of God, so whether one marries before or after conversion, it is still a marriage vow until death. But we do have them in our churches, yet we do not say anything about that. So let us not be as the Pharisees who only brought the woman caught in adultery, but the man they shielded. (AUS)
 
COMMENT 5:
 
Can anyone confirm that the first wife of him mentioned here above has committed adultery before he did put her away? (AUS)
 
COMMENT 6:
 
This is talking about BORN AGAIN members, not people before conversion.
So, the adultery is talking about members not unrepentant sinners.
The American elders cannot change and twist the word of God.
NOBODY can remarry and be sinless, if their spouse is STILL ALIVE!!!!
Being allowed to put the guilty spouse away is allowed, but it doesn’t allow for remarry!!!
Don't mix before conversion to Christ, and being a member of Christ.
The repented past doesn't bind a converted member.
It is when a MEMBER commits adultery is what we are talking about here.
What part of this is unclear?
2 Corinthians 5:17 - Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
- Matthew 5:32......: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
- Romans 7:3...So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
- 1 Corinthians 7:10,11.... And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. (AUS)
 
COMMENT 7:
 
To comment 6:

It is clear that the Lord when he spoke on the topic of "putting away" in Matthew 19, he was addressing "marriage" in general," what God had joined together let no man put asunder" as it was in the beginning. The comment that the past of the converted has no binding is not correct. John the Baptist lost his head because he told Herod that what he did was sinful by taking his brothers wife. Herod was to repent and undo what he did wrong.

"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge" Hebrews 13:4

If a person be converted or unconverted has entered into a marriage covenant, they are bound for life, with the only exception as stated by the Lord Jesus "And I say unto you....except it be for fornication..."It is clear that the conversation was about divorce and remarriage, in Matthew 19:9, not only separation as in Corinthians Paul states that they could live apart or be reconciled.

To think that one who has been married in their unconverted state need not live according to the Lord's will, is wrong. When he or she come to the light, they need to abide by God's word. They need to become that new creature, be at peace with God first and with man also, that means their spouse also, as much as is in their power. If the spouse has not broken their marriage vows, you can not divorce and get baptized and then marry again "In THE LORD", your are still one with your spouse, and that union no one has the right to break. "Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." I Corinthians 7:27

"Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet she is thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away...." Malachi 2:14-16 (AUS)
 
COMMENT 8:
 
Comment number 4 is incorrect, because the word of God says, Luke 16:18 *Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. !! This is very simple and crystal clear. The word of God is true and correct. Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.  This applies to both genders, meaning, Let not the husband depart from his wife: But and if he depart, let him remain unmarried, or be reconciled to his wife: Also: Mar 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (AUS)
 
COMMENT 9:
 
It's not uncommon in the AC to have a couple in their fellowship in which one of the two spouses have an existing previous marriage. Samuel. H. Froehlich never presented a strong position against remarriage hence if someone was divorced in their unconverted state, they could receive baptism and communion as well be free to (remarry) since the they were in an unconverted state. I heard a claim that the adultery (divorce + remarriage) was committed "in their past" and not a adulterous "lifestyle"... therefore that sin can be washed and forgiven. However some AC members do accept the biblical views that were presented in the above posts.

To dear comment 6, my heart goes out to you. But this is one tenant AC/Nazarenes never adhered to from the early church. (CAN)

COMMENT 10:
 
To comment 6, the American elders have nothing to do with this. It's the Hungarian elders who accept the adultery & his new wife as free members. (AUS)

COMMENT 11:
 
You have to remember if they were caught they were stoned therefore dead. If they did the same sin now days they are dead spiritually, therefore dead. Free to marry. Let's pray that this is not a common occurrence. (AUS)

Where to? (AUS)
 
COMMENT 2:
 
Pleasure island.

It is written, In the same way, deacons are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not PURSUING DISHONEST GAIN.

Why is he going on a holiday? Has he gone to do the Lord's work? Visit the sick or help the poor?

Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. (AUS)
 
COMMENT 3:
 
Janko used fly-buys which he collected when he bought materials for the new church building. Janko can do anything he wants... he is in control of this church. (AUS)

I'm writing from Southern California. Last month (early November), a woman invited me to ACC Nazarean of Vista, California, because since 2003 I have not found the type of fellowship I should be part of. Over the years, when anyone invites me to a fellowship, I always interrogate the Leaders. I have done the same with ACC Nazarean by examining various articles at their website and by e-mailing them some questions. Unlike other churches in which I tried to interrogate the Leaders who never responded to my questions, Mark Igic responded to my questions. Both ACC Nazarean and ACC America have not answered me on why both of them cannot be one again (when their teachings and practices are now the same today).

However, because I was satisfied with the fact that Mark Igic was open and responsive to me, I visited ACC Nazarean, Vista, CA. this Sunday (13 Dec 2015) I stayed for all the services. I visited because I had not found serious heresy in the booklets I read at their websites and in my communications with Mark Igic. However, during my visit, an old man gave me a book: Biblical Foundation of the New Testament Church - A Presentation of the Historic Apostolic Christian Faith. In that book, I discovered serious heresy: that physical baptism accomplishes Salvation and cleanse of the inner-person. Please I beg you to visit my website (GraceTruth7.org) and read my article "Baptism" and freely share it with your readers/listeners. Hearts are purified by faith, not by physical baptism.

Acts 11:15 "And as I began to speak [to Cornelius and the Gentiles], the Holy Spirit fell upon them [before immersion in water], ..."

Sincerely,
Taiwo Olokun
GraceTruth7.org  http://www.gracetruth7.org

Baptism is necessary for salvation. This is not something new, it has been one of the principle teachings in Christianity for nearly 2000 years. (AUS)

COMMENT 2:
 
On 15 December 2015 at 20:04, mark igic <mark.igic@gmail.com> wrote:

Good Evening Taiwo,

Thank you for your email. Thank you for also sharing the above thoughts on baptism. 

I should clarify something, the book you refer to is not an official publication of the church. It has many good teachings but we do not officially endorse the book. Most of the membership of our congregation would not have even read it. While there would be those in both the ACCN and the ACCA that would generally support much of its content, it is not the official doctrinal statement of the fellowship. On a related note, as you mentioned, it is not our practice to share the pulpit with those who are not a member of the ACCN. 

Are you remaining in the San Diego area? I know you said that you are currently living in your vehicle, so I understand that you are probably flexible. I am wondering if you have future plans to settle and find employment somewhere. Of course the Lord provides, but for your own good, I hope you are able to do so. 

One of the Least of His,
Mark (USA)

COMMENT 3:
 
Comment 1:
You are seriously mistaken. Baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is important to take that step as a Christian, but the act of being baptized is merely a symbol of what has taken place in the heart.

Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

Notice there is no mention of baptism as a necessity for salvation. (USA)

COMMENT 4:
 
Taiwo, no truer word has been spoken here. The grace of God is all sufficient, nothing adds to it and nothing detracts from its power to save. May the scales fall from the eyes of those who do not see and recognise the message of the cross and it's saving grace. God is good, the work is done and we now journey here toward home and testify of His great love for the unworthy. No false modesty, no passive aggression, no desire for anything but the truth to set the prisoner free. Grace and love be upon us and guide us all. (AUS)

COMMENT 5:
 
So, Mark, you did not answer the question. Is baptism necessary for salvation? I felt your comment/email did not address the issue. Comment 1, can you back your answer with scripture, in context rather than quoting random bible verses. Thanks. (AUS)

Go to Page 4 >>>

<<< Back to Page 2