In the past I had found Kent’s material on creation science evangelism very useful in defense of the gospel on evolutionary philosophy, as a ministry we do not promote people who have questionable teachings, but upon the claims we investigate them, it is with our conclusion with great regret that UK Apologetics Library cannot recommend Kent’s ministry and would request that our readers disregard and reject Kent Hovind and his ministry, materials etc, this ministry requires Kent to retract his support for false teachers and enemies of the cross.
This video is not an endorsement.
The bible teaches that false teaching is like a little yeast that spreads through the whole batch of dough!
Galatians 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
After sending a warning as we are told to, to Kent Hovind’s ministry concerning his promoting of the Pagan teacher William P. Young that Kent was trying to get his many followers to feed on his material as there is a lot of meat in the Shack it has caused me great concern for Kent’s lack on discernment and knowledge on essential doctrine and so the importance of the gospel is de-emphasized in place of human sentiment.
Kent Hovind endorses Steven Anderson who is a pro-Palestinian, jew hating, holocaust denier and an anti-Semite and his DVD in cooperation with TexMars, the DVD Marching to Zion.
The image to the right illustrates
the point of Hovind’s defenders.
“What Kent said supersedes your reply.
Kent just stated for you to focus on the
will of god instead of him (his ministry,
his family ect)”
I was not sure if Kent was naive and basically ignorant on the issue of false teaching, this has gone beyond ignorance but Kent, his ministry and followers are showing they are rather being willingly ignorant fattened credulous sheep following the voice of a wolf.
We are told in scripture to mark them that cause division Romans 16:17 so what is the Lords will when it comes to essential doctrine and the handling of Gods word?
When it comes to error we cannot chew the meat and spit out the bones because there is more bones than meat to clarify as the bible predicted that the end time apostasy would being a famine for sound doctrine, Amos 8:10-12 “Then I will turn your festivals into morning And all your songs into lamentation; And I will bring sackcloth on everyone’s loins And baldness on every head. And I will make it like a time of mourning for an only son, And the end of it will be like a bitter day. “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord GOD, “When I will send a famine on the land, Not a famine for bread or a thirst for water, But rather for hearing the words of the LORD. “People will stagger from sea to sea And from the north even to the east; They will go to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, But they will not find it.
The question is who is infighting who the ones who bring in heresy are the ones causing the division and so we have a biblical mandate to object to and oppose false teachers this includes those who would defend them in public ministry, I call Kent Hovind to account of his actions and repent of this promotion of heretical teachers.
This is according to the Lords will as we read in Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
2 Thessalonians 2:7 – 12 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
This is the point those who object to false teaching or teachers are normally judged by their defenders because they do not love the truth, Kent Hovind stated that he would recommend that we get the book called the Shack by William P. Young and read it, Kent is saying I recommend you drink the dirty and polluted water.
Just because Kent tells you to drink from that dirty glass of water would you do it? or would you drink from the glass that contains pure water?, Hebrews 10:22 talks about having “our bodies washed with pure water” why would I want to drink in knowledge from contaminated water? when Kent should rather be encouraging people to stick to the scriptures.
If Kent promotes William P. Young as a man who has a lot of meat in his writings then we should look at what William P. Young does believe in terms of his doctrine the following description is what Kent is promoting here.
Shack Author Rejects Biblical Substitutionary Atonement
March 19, 2009
by John Lanagan
“For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted–you may well put up with it!” (2 Corinthians 11:4)
This “different spirit” was welcomed during a recent church service in Gresham, Oregon. Paul Young, author of The Shack, spoke to the East Hill congregation during the opening night of a five weekend series called, appropriately enough, The Shack. Sometimes on the verge of tears, and possessing great rapport with the crowd, Young was given a standing ovation.
Before the author spoke, a father stood before the congregation with his young child. His prayer was his child would love what the Lord loves, and hate the things the Lord hates. On that same altar stood a constructed replica of “the shack,” a stage prop for the evening’s festivities. The question must be asked, does the Lord love what is happening through The Shack?
In an interview with Pastor Kendall Adams of KAYP Radio, Paul Young denied the substitutionary Atonement of Christ. (http://rock-life.com/files/shakcomp.mp3) In other words, the author of this bestselling book does not believe Christ was punished on the Cross by the Father for our sins. This is a central doctrine of our faith — that Jesus willingly took our place of punishment and that through His sacrifice we can have eternal life.
Orrel Steinkamp The Plumbline Volume 13, No.5. December 21108
“The Shack” is being described as a ‘Christian” novel and is currently ranked number one on the New York Times bestseller list for paperback fiction. Many believers are buying multiple copies and giving them to friends and family.” (Warren Smith). It is theological fiction in which
the author has cleverly embedded concepts that actually resemble eastern mysticism When New Ager Oprah Winfrey loves and promotes the book it ought to signal a caution to Christians. Nevertheless, this book is rather becoming some sort of spiritual grid for hundreds of believers. In my home church the pastor’s wife has chosen the book for a ladies discussion group The book presents a grab bag of ideas that appear to have allusions to biblical ideas. But into this mix are seeded ideas that are totally anti-biblical and can easily be demonstrated to have their antecedent in a wide range of imaginations which eventually can be traced to eastern and even pagan ideas. This blend of apparent biblical ideas with mystical and popular imaginations is apparently hard to detect by those who are already conversant with the mystical ideas now gaining a hearing in the Wider evangelical community. This book is an attempt to produce an apparent biblical husk with New Age and inter-spiritual kernels. Having said this, why would self-confessed evangelicals ever fall for this?
First, biblical understanding is fast eroding. Emergent Postmodern Christian writers and speakers are gaining nearly full acceptance by the larger evangelical community. This being true how can we expect “soccer mom” Christianity to draw the necessary distinctions? Secondly, the book is skillfully written to draw the reader emotionally into the book. This tends to disguise non-biblical truths embedded in the narrative.
Young’s description of God seems to be borrowed front the renting of Paul Tillich (1886-1965) in that Young uses a famous saying of Tillich that “God is the “ground of all being.” to explain his view of God.
“‘Young presents a Tillich like view of God where Elousia/Papa herself as “they ground of all being that dwells in around and through all things.” (p. 112). Tillich’s view has always been viewed as pantheism/panentheism. For the sake of explanation, pantheism states that God is all things, while panentheism teaches that God inhabits all living things. (Larry DeBruyn). Young creates a new name for God, which appears from the Hebrew “EL” and Ousia” which is Platonic Greek for “being.” Tillich taught that God was not a personal being but being itself. Millard Erickson gives a helpful analogy that in pantheism a tree is God, but in Panentheism its the sap in the tree that is the being of God.
Panentheism is a core belief in all contemplative experience and teaching. As the sap in a tree is suggested to be God, so God is buried in the depths of every human being. The goal of contemplative technique is to find the internal divine in all people. This teaching leads directly to inter-spirituality. Other faiths are also striving to contact this internal God.
STAY AWAY FROM “THE SHACK”
By Ken Silva pastor-teacher on Sep 15, 2008 in Current Issues
There has been much talk concerning, and questions about, a book written by William P. Young called The Shack. In an editorial review by contemplative and Emerging Church author Eugene Peterson at Amazon.com for The Shack by William P. Young we read:
When the imagination of a writer and the passion of a theologian cross-fertilize the result is a novel on the order of “The Shack.” This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s “Pilgrim’s Progress” did for his. It’s that good! –Eugene Peterson, Professor Emeritus of Spiritual Theology, Regent College, Vancouver, B.C.
Well now, at least Apprising Ministries agrees on the fertilizer part. So as a service to our readers we draw together into this one source some of what we consider to be the better reviews and discussions about this book. My advice: Stay away from The Shack.
Peterson’s mystic musings aside, here’s a far more accurate assessment concerning why you should stay away from The Shack by Tim Challies.
In his own review Challies points out:
I am certain that there is no other book I’ve been asked to review more times than William P. Young’s The Shack, a book that is currently well within the top-100 best-selling titles at Amazon. The book, it seems, is becoming a hit and especially so among students and among those who are part of the Emergent Church… Young did not write this book for the story. This book is all about the content and about the teaching it contains…
Eugene Peterson grasps this, saying in his glowing endorsement,… “This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s “Pilgrim’s Progress” did for his. It’s that good!” Could it really be that good? Is it good enough to warrant positive comparison to the English-language book that has been read more widely than any other save the Bible? Let’s turn to the book’s content and find out…
Throughout the book there is this kind of subversive strain teaching that new and fresh revelation is much more relevant and important than the kind of knowledge we gain in sermons or seminaries or Scripture. Young’s readers seem to be picking up on this. Read this brief Amazon review as an example: “Wish I could take back all the years in seminary! The years the locusts ate???? Systematic theology was never this good. Shack will be read again and again. With relish. Shared with friends, family, and strangers. I can fly! It’s a gift. ‘Discipleship’ will never be lessons again.”
Another reviewer warns that many Christians will find the book difficult to read because of their “modern” mindsets. “If one is coming from a strong, propositional and, perhaps, fundamentalist perspective to the Bible, this book certainly will be threatening.” Still another says “This book was so shocking to my ‘staid’ Christianity but it was eye opening to my own thoughts about who I think God is.” At several points I felt as if the author was encouraging the reader to doubt what they know of Christianity—to deconstruct what they know of Christian theology—and to embrace something new. But the faith Young reconstructs is simply not the faith of the Bible.
Because of the sheer volume of error and because of the importance of the doctrines reinvented by the author, I would encourage Christians, and especially young Christians, to decline this invitation to meet with God in The Shack. It is not worth reading for the story and certainly not worth reading for the theology. (Online source)
You can read Challies’ full in-depth deconstruction of The Shack here.
I don’t find myself in agreement very much any more with Chuck Colson due to his ecumenical views. However, at the same time he can hardly be called a radical so for our purposes here in exposing the danger and errors of The Shack we will share that in his article “Stay Out of ‘The Shack’”Colson has said:
When the prophet Isaiah and the apostle John caught glimpses of God, they were overcome with despair at their own unworthiness in the light of His glory. The same could be said of Daniel or Paul, or any number of figures from Scripture. But when the protagonist of a new book called The Shack is introduced to the Father of heaven, he is greeted by a “large, beaming, African-American woman” who goes by the name of Papa… Okay, it is only an allegory. But like Pilgrim’s Progress, allegories contain deep truths. That is my problem. It is the author’s low view of Scripture. (Online source)
Then recently over at Slice of Laodicea Ingrid Schlueter informed us:
Pastor Larry DeBruyn will be discussing the wildly successful novel by William Young called, The Shack on Crosstalk today. I received an email from a young reader a couple of days ago, and she sincerely wondered how the “Christ” in The Shack was a counterfeit Jesus. Many are being moved today by emotional stories, but are not looking closely, through the lens of Scripture, at who the Jesus is that writers are talking about. This program will alert Shack fans that the Jesus presented by William Young is not the Jesus of the Scriptures. (Online source)
You can download and/or listen to that program here.
My friend Berit Kjos also takes a look at The Shack in Deceived by a counterfeit “Jesus”: The twisted “truths” of The Shack & A Course in Miracles where she points out:
The two books share a common message. I saw a stark preview of it back in 1992. Skimming through a magazine called Well-Being Journal, I noticed this New Age “insight” from the author’s “inner guide:”
“Many people believe in evil, sin, and dark forces. It is your purpose to teach the opposite which is the Truth: there is no devil, no hell, no sin, no guilt except in the creative mind of humankind.”
I heard similar deceptions at Gorbachev’s 1997 State of the World Forum. At the time, keynote speaker Marianne Williamson was touting the Kabbalah, not A Course in Miracles (ACIM). While those New Age “insights” would fit both, they are best expressed through ACIM, which Williamson is now popularizing through Oprah Winfrey’s weekly radio program.
The Shack calls for a similar denial of reality. Yet countless pastors and church leaders are delighting in its message. By ignoring (or redefining) sin and guilt, they embrace an inclusive but counterfeit “Christianity” that draws crowds but distorts the Bible. Discounting Satan as well, they weaken God’s warnings about deception. No wonder His armor for today’s spiritual war became an early victim of this spreading assault on Truth. (Online source)
Matt Slick of CARM also discusses The Shack and interviews author William Young on his CARM Radio Show Podcast, which you can download here.
J.P. Holding of Tektonics, who was one of the very first people to ever pick up an article of mine, weighs in with his review of The Shack, which you can read right here.
Dr. Norman Geisler and Bill Roach also demolish The Shack in their short, but thorough, analysis here.
And the following is a book review of The Shack by Dr. Gary Gilley from his September 2008 edition of Think On These Things, which is a ministry of Southern View Chapel where Gilley is pastor and reprinted by permission:
by William P. Young
One of the most popular and controversial Christian books of recent years is the fictional work by first time author William Young. Evangelical recording artist Michael W. Smith states, “The Shack will leave you craving for the presence of God.” Author Eugene Peterson believes “this book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress did for his. It’s that good!” On the other hand, seminary president Al Mohler says the book “includes undiluted heresy” and many concur. Given its popularity (number one on the New York Times bestseller list for paperback fiction), influence and mixed reviews, we need to take a careful look.
Good Christian fiction has the ability to get across a message in an indirect, non-threatening yet powerful, way. Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress is the most successful in the genre and has been mightily used of the Lord to teach spiritual truth. What determines the value of fiction is how closely it adheres to Scripture. It is by these criteria that we must measure The Shack.
As a novel, while well written, its storyline is not one that would attract many people. The plot is developed around the abduction and murder of six year old Missy, beloved daughter of nominal Christian Mackenzie Philips (Mack). This great tragedy has, of course, shaped the lives of Mack and his family in horrific ways. Mack’s life is simply described as living under “The Great Sadness.” Then one day four years later God drops Mack a note in his mail box and invites him to the isolated shack where Missy was murdered. Obviously skeptical, Mack takes a chance that God might really show up and heads alone to the shack. There God, in the form of all three members of the Trinity, meets with him for the weekend. God gives Mack new insight about Himself, about life, pain and tragedy and Mack goes home a new man.
It should be mentioned that the Trinity takes human form in the novel: the Father (called Papa throughout) appears as a large African-American woman who loves to cook; the Holy Spirit is called Sarayu (Sanskrit for air or wind) and is a small Asian woman who is translucent; and Jesus is a middle-age man, presumably of Jewish descent, who is a carpenter. Much
interesting dialog takes place as members of the Trinity take turns explaining to Mack what they want him to know.
The Shack, like many books today, decries theology on the one hand while offering its own brand on the other. A story has the advantage of putting forth doctrine in a livelier manner than a systematic work can do—which is why we find most of Scripture in narrative form. The question is, does Young’s theology agree with God’s as revealed in Scripture? The short answer is “sometimes” but often Young totally misses the mark.
Scripture and the Church
Young’s message centers on the Trinity and salvation, but before we tackle Young’s main objective it is significant that he has a couple of axes to grind concerning the Bible and the church. Young passionately rejects the cessationist view of Scripture which his character Mack was taught in seminary: “In seminary he had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course. God’s voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects…Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book” (pp. 65-66). Young would prefer a God who communicates with us in our thoughts rather than on paper (i.e. the Bible) (p. 195). Realizing the subjectivity of such revelation he assures us that we will “begin to better recognize [the Holy Spirit’s] voice as we continue to grow our relationship” (p. 196). Scripture comes in second to inner voices in Young’s theology. The Bible puts God in a box; inner voices make God alive and fresh. This is what Young wants to convey.
Young also has little good to say about the church or other related institutions. While Mack had attended seminary, “none of his training was helping in the least” when it came to understanding God (p. 91). He consistently depicts the activity of the church in a negative light: Mack is pretty sure he hasn’t met the church Jesus loves (p. 177), which is all about relationships, “not a bunch of exhausting work and long list of demands, and not sitting in endless meetings staring at the backs of people’s heads, people he really didn’t even know” (p. 178). Sunday school (p. 98) and family devotions (p. 107) both take hits as well. Systematic theology itself takes a postmodern broadside as the Holy Spirit says, “I have a great fondness for uncertainty” (p. 203). While Scripture does not place such words in the mouth of the Holy Spirit, Young’s love for uncertainty becomes frustratingly clear as he outlines his concept of salvation.
When Mack asks how he can be part of the church, Jesus replies, “It’s simple Mack, it’s all about relationships and simply sharing life” (p. 178). On an earlier occasion Jesus tells Mack that he can get out of his mess “by re-turning. By turning back to me. By giving up your ways of power and manipulation and just come back to me” (p. 147). Yet nowhere in The Shack is the reader given a clear understanding of the gospel. When Mack asks God what Jesus accomplished by dying Mack is told, “Through his death and resurrection, I am now fully reconciled to the world.” When pressed to explain, God says that He is reconciled to “the whole world,” not just the believer (p. 192). Does this mean that all will be saved? Young never goes that far, however he certainly gives that impression when Mack’s father (who was an awful man and showed no signs of being saved) is found in heaven (pp. 214-215), when God says repeatedly He is particularly fond of all people, when God claims that He has forgiven all sins against Him (e.g. 118-119), that He does not “do humiliation, or guilt, or condemnation” (p. 223) and, contrary to large hunks of Scripture, God is not a God of judgment. “I don’t need to punish people for sin, sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my job to cure it” (p. 120). While Young’s comment has some validity it does not faithfully reflect the teaching of Scripture which portray God as actively involved in the punishment of sin.
Young further muddies the waters as he has Jesus reply to Mack’s question, “Is that what it means to be a Christian?” Jesus says, “Who said anything about being a Christian? I’m not a Christian…Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrat, Republicans and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions… I have no desire to make them Christians, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my beloved.” With Mack we are confused. “Does that mean,” asks Mack, “that all roads will lead to you?” Jesus denies this but then says, “What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you” (p. 182). Jesus apparently means that He will travel any road to “join them in their transformation.” The implication is that people are on many roads that lead to their self-transformation. Jesus will join people where they are on that road and apparently aid in that transformation. This is certainly not the teaching of Scripture, which tells us that we must come to the one road, the narrow way that leads to God through Jesus Christ.
The main thrust of the novel concerns itself with an understanding of God and how we are to be in relationship to Him. As already noted, the method by which mankind comes into the right relationship with God is cloudy at best in The Shack. Young’s Trinity is equally confusing. The author does not develop his understanding of God exclusively from Scripture and, in fact, often contradicts biblical teaching. The first issue is that of imagining and presenting human forms for the members of the Trinity. While some slack might be given for Young’s portrait of Jesus, who came in human form (although we don’t know what He looks like), the first two of the Ten Commandments would forbid us depicting the Father or the Holy Spirit in physical form. When we create an image of God in our imagination we then attempt to relate to that image—which is inevitably a false one. This is the essence of idolatry and is forbidden in the Word.
Further, the portrayal of God throughout the novel is one which humanizes Him rather than exalts Him. Young quotes Jacques Ellul, “No matter what God’s power may be, the first aspect of God is never that of absolute Master, the Almighty. It is that of the God who puts Himself on our human level and limits Himself” (p. 88). Really? This quote is in contradiction to the entirety of biblical revelation which first and often declares God to be absolute Master, yet in no way mitigates the incarnation, as Young and Ellul are trying to claim.
Young further humanizes God and contradicts Scripture by teaching that all the members of the Trinity took human form at the incarnation: “When we three spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human” (p. 99). Is Young advocating modalism (an ancient heresy which teaches that the Trinity is not composed of three distinct members but three distinct modes in which God appears throughout human history)? If not, it is abundantly clear that Young believes that the Father died on the cross with the Son and bears the marks of the cross to this day (pp. 95-95, 164). He also does not believe that the Father abandoned Jesus on the cross as Scripture declares (p. 96). And any concept of authority and submission in the Godhead is denied (pp. 122, 145), although 1 Cor. 11:1-3 is clear that such authority/submission exists. More than that, God submits to us as well (p. 145). By the end of the book God is reduced to being our servant as we are His (it’s all about relationships, not authority) (pp. 236-237).
The very essence of God is challenged when Young, quoting from Unitarian-Universalist, Buckminster Fuller, declares God to be a verb not a noun (pp. 194, 204). In a related statement, Young has Jesus say of the Holy Spirit, “She is Creativity; she is Action; she is Breathing of Life” (p. 110). Yet the Bible presents God as a person (noun) not an action (verb). When this truth is denied we are moving from the biblical understanding of a personal God to an Eastern understanding of God in everything.  Thus, we are not surprised when Mack asks the Holy Spirit if he will see her again he is told, “Of course, you might see me in a piece of art, or music, or silence, or through people, or in creation, or in your joy and sorrow” (p. 198). This is not biblical teaching. This idea seems repeated in a line from a song Missy creates, “Come kiss me wind and take my breath till you and I are one” (p. 233). At what point do we become one with creation? Again, this is an Eastern concept, not a biblical one. Young reinforces his Eastern leanings with a statement right out of New Age (New Spirituality) teachings: Papa tells Mack, “Just say it out loud. There is power in what my children declare” (p. 227). Rhonda Byrne would echo this idea in her book, The Secret, but you will not find it in the Bible.
Further, we are told Jesus “as a human being, had no power within himself to heal anyone” (p. 100). So how did he do so? By trusting in the Holy Spirit. Jesus, the Spirit says, “is just the first to do it to the uttermost—the first to absolutely trust my life within him…” (p. 100). There is enough truth here to be confusing but not accurate. Jesus, never ceasing to be fully God, had all Divine power dwelling within Him. That He chose to limit His use of that power and rely on the Holy Spirit while on earth in no way diminishes His essence. While Jesus is our example He is not a guru blazing a trail in which in this life we too can be like God. This idea smacks of New Age teaching, not Scripture. Jesus even tells Mack that “God, who is the ground of all being, dwells in, around, and through all things—ultimately emerging as the real” (p. 112). This is pure New Age spirituality.
The Shack, while occasionally getting things right is, in the end, a dangerous piece of fiction. It undermines Scripture and the church, presents at best a mutilated gospel, misrepresents the biblical teachings concerning the Godhead and offers a New Age understanding of God and the universe. This is not a great novel to explain tragedy and pain. It is a misleading work which will confuse many and lead others astray.
1 God “in” everything is known as panentheism—an Eastern belief akin to pantheism which teaches that God IS everything. In reality there is very little difference between the two.
Kent Hovind & Pastor Steven Anderson
Kent Hovind has been a long supporter and friend of Steven Anderson this also presents itself a problem, without getting into the whole debate of Pre/Mid/Post Tribulation issue Steven Anderson teaches that his view is essential doctrine and that the Pre-Tribbers are false teachers and heretics, for me eschatology (the study of end time events) should not be a matter of division, I also know that Alex Jones of Infowars is a supporter of Steven Anderson since he was attacked by US Police in his car, the problem is not only with his bad theology such as the idea misrepresenting the Rabbinical Law concerning the Old and New Covenant laws, that homosexual people should be executed and killed and that he hates gay people and why he hates Obama, but also his promotion and support of anti-Semitism, holocaust being a hoax and pro-palestinian views, in this Steven Anderson has been noted for acting deceitfully and acting without integrity.
Does Kent Hovind really believe that the us government should kill homosexuals?
We believe in the new testament the conduct of homosexuality is an abomination and abhorrent to God in the Bible, we also believe homosexuals can be forgiven, we know that Jesus never calls for the extermination of homosexuals under the new covenant law and so the new testament does not the Law of Moses on the issue of sin, this shows Pastor Steven Anderson is twisting the scriptures, he also teaches that we should be against Israel to the point he would have us support pro-Palestinian views that are fueled by Islamic terrorism hell-bent on seeking for the destruction and annihilation of all Jews, there is enough evidence to show the support for Christian Palestinians, I have seen common statements from BDS supporters wearing free Palestine t-shirts showing support for national socialistic views as a way to combat Zionists or the Jews who are from Israel.
Wild Guess Date Setting.
Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
It is very dangerous to speculate what year our lord returns and if it is only for the Father to know then we have not been given consent by God to enter into this type of discussion, Kent Hovind stated some one asked him when he thinks Jesus would return upon this question he said my wild guess would be by the year 2028 I would go on the side of caution as so many are setting future dates from Mark Biltz, John Hagee to Frank J. Tipler history has a list of people who have done the same it is wrong for Kent to speculate and not stick to scriptures.
As a Ministry we will be watching Kent Hovind and His Ministry.
Director UK Apologetics Library 2015