Saturday 12 March 2016

Response to Theodore Shoebat: Comments on The Bible Answer Man

A few days ago, I had listened to a dialogue that took place between Michael Brown and Theodore Shoebat and after listening to said discussion between them, I cannot express how angry and disgusted I was with Shoebat's justification for his position. Here is the discussion they had:

I read read an article by Theodore Shoebat before the dialogue and was not happy with what was written. But listening to the dialogue only made this article much worse. The article itself can be found here:

I would need to look at the supposed "contradicting himself video" before I can make comments on that, but we'll see what the Lord Wills.

With that out of the way, let's take a look at the article.


Ever wonder why American society is so infected with sodomites? Reality says it is not the disease (the sodomites), but the disease coming from modern theologians.

Listen to this debate (more like an Inquisition of Theodore) where Theodore schools one theologian claiming to be a ‘Bible Answer man’ by running his mouth on a radio show called Ask Dr. Brown who throughout the show kept asking “where in the Bible does it say ….?”  and “why doesn’t Jesus do it Himself (punish sodomites)” which is the typical question these belabor mouths ask, when in reality the question should be “where in mymodern interpretation of the Bible does it say …?”"

Brown was holding you to account Mr Shoebat via the scriptures. He asked you in the New Testament where to find these things and you ran to the Old Testament and the Church Fathers. He is asking you where the New Testament were your points justified.

Furthermore, you made audacious claims on your YouTube channel. A person who is watching could take what you are saying the wrong way.

Jesus is YHWH and is the God of the Old Testament, he is the Second Person of the Trinity, a distinct person from the Father, he has the right to exercise mercy or judgement on wicked people. We agree that Jesus is the same, yesterday, today and forever, but just because Jesus destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, that doesn't mean that Jesus would do the same thing to those who sinned in Jerusalem. For sure he would have driven them out of the temple.

Even if Jesus killed the homosexual in the temple, it is not a precedent for NEW COVENANT standards today. Jesus calls us to do the following in Matthew 28:19:

"19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”"

This would entail exhorting the people of the world to repent of their evil ways, homosexuals included.

Also, adultery was rife in Israel and yet Jesus did not call for their deaths, he told the woman in adultery to sin no more, he did not condone adultery obviously. I am aware there was more to that context that the people were hypocrites when they tried to get Jesus to stone the adulteress and they did not bring the other partner.

"Dr. Michael Brown (they call them doctors these days when they are really the disease) thinks his Christian milk-chockolate flavor has a monopoly wherein the entire Christian world should heed to his modern interpretation of Scripture. Listen to how a “lazy servant” ignores centuries of well tried and attested sets of laws and ethics that has worked succeeding in fighting this evil as we see in nations with apostolic-succession churches in Russia and Poland. Had his brand of modern Americanized Christianity been in effect when the Maccabees killed heretical Jews for burning incense to Jupiter, Brown would have blasted the Maccabees and defended the rights of the evil Antichrist, Antiochus. To Brown, centuries of the best theologians, Church fathers, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon’s Wisdom, Elijah And Jehu  is ‘out the window’ and Jesus all of the sudden instead of defending the rights of the sheep, would simply love pedophiles, zoophiles, human traffickers, drug traffickers … you name it … without first considering the rights of the victims. Notice how this lazy servant never once mentions the victims. It is the signs of the times. I thought during the dialogue, if this guy could only shut his trap for a moment. If this man’s speech was made of rust, his silence would be made of gold. All Brown asks throughout is that “why doesn’t Jesus Himself punish the sodomites?” as if God did not command in both Old and New Testament we have the authorities carry out justice. It is the sign of the “lazy servant” we see plaguing the church in the ends of days. "

Firstly, Brown does NOT throw the Old Testament prophets out the window, or even Jesus himself. I don't know the extent of his view on the church fathers, but I can assume he has found both enlightening and horrific things in their writings. Ultimately what Brown is concerned about is what the scripture says. And why do you bring up the fact that Brown doesn't mention victims? How does that justify your position? I am sure Brown has his concern about the victims of those attacks, but how does his silence on them indicate that he is in the wrong and you are in the right?

Brown's point is, you don't kill the homosexual or any of the sinners under the New Covenant, you reach out to then in love (not love that accepts sin) but what do I mean by love. I mean love that wants the person to be set free from that sin or rather I should say, love and compassion on the person doing these evil things to the extent that you want to bring them to repentance and the feet of Jesus so they may be washed, cleansed and made holy in the sight of God. Brown has never said that sin should be tolerated, homosexuality included, You Mr Shoebat completely misrepresented Brown at the end of the discussion.

It was acceptable for the Old Testament saints and prophets to put sinners and rebels to death, but where are Christians called to put them to death? Also, there is NO such thing as a Christian nation.

How a government rules a nation will be judged by God to be sure and I also want to comment on where Paul speaks on the government in Romans 13, let's look:

"13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

In the context, Paul is giving an exhortation to obey the government, for it is right so do to. The only allowance for disobedience to the government is if they give a command that causes you to disobey God, that's it.

God has instituted governments for nations to have, but that does not mean that a government is going to follow God's standard 100% or remove their evil. God will hold a nation accountable for how their government rules their people. Christians can have influence on the government like Daniel did in the days of Babylon, but by in large, there is no such thing as a Christian nation. In one such example, Justin Martyr in his First Apology, holds a government accountable for the treatment of Christians, thus showing that the early church did not have a nation to govern. They had a nation to influence and change, but not to rule:

That's not to say they couldn't be a ruler, it would however be very difficult. Plus, Shoebat doesn't take into consideration that fallen man HATES the true God, so of course a government is not going to be up to his standard. It's not an excuse, but that doesn't justify your beliefs Shoebat either.

If one spits in the face of God, They will get a government they deserve (And other points). See James White's comments on the Dividing Line here. Watch from 2:15-12:25 for the comments but hear at the points about the government specifically:

"Protect your children. It is not difficult for an apostolic succession Christian well grounded from wonderful church history to spot the leaven which is simple: this modern theology presumes that someone changed the interpretation of Scripture. They always love to blame two: Constantine and Augustine. It seems that someone with the last sounding name “teen” is their devil."

Say what you will about Augustine, I don't believe Constantine should be held accountable for any theology. Roman Catholicism would be false for biblical reasons, not because of Constantine. Constantine was no theologian in a biblical sense at all and it would be unfair to use him as an argument against the Roman Catholic Church. The burden on you Theodore is to show the Roman Catholic Church dates back to the time of the apostles.

Answering Judaism.


  1. Dr. Brown appreciates you taking the time to post this article and asks that you join him (and many others) inp praying for Theodore. Blessings!

    Dylan (AskDrBrown Ministries)

    1. Theodore is definitely going to need prayer, his teaching is cancerous.