Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

547Commentary by George Potkonyak on Potter's House Structure

Expand Messages
  • Ken
    Jun 4, 2010


      By George Potkonyak, January 26, 2006

      zarathustra8_28 writes:

      [Does Mitchell know that he is running a cult, or, does he believe what he
      says about being a servant of Christ? From my own experience of PH, it
      seems to me that it has a genuine desire to be "Godly' even though it can
      and does at times, fail people quite badly.]

      We can't mix Mitchell and few others, who know EXACTLY what they are doing
      and why, with those who are sincere and it never crossed their minds that
      an evil of that kind could be entertained by anyone "professing Christ".

      Just look at a simple, worldly example: Every pastor in the fellowship will
      tell you that his church is : "autonomous" and is not under the control of
      Prescott. They can build and own the buildings that belongs to that
      autonomous: church – until it decides to leave the fellowship. You might
      not have seen what Mitchell, Vicary, Walsh, Perry… tried to do to Larry
      Gregory when he decided to pull the Fiji church out of the fellowship.
      They went after him like a pack of hyenas. They failed in their court bid
      to secure the building. Gregory went back to USA and returned only to
      preach in Fiji. As soon as he did Mitchell filed summons in the High Court
      of Fiji seeking to arrest Gregory unless he paid some $300,000.

      Is that the work of a "man of God"? Or, is it, by any chance, the work of
      an evil man? You be the judge.

      zarathustra8_28 writes:
      [Surely not every aspect of PH is evil?]

      Of course not. But… you will find that "all roads lead to Rome". No
      matter what they sanction or practice is aimed at one goal: to advance the
      interests of the clique who runs the show. Of course, there are some
      activities and aspects that are totally neutral. That's what they use to
      cloak the real motives with. Only a trained eye can recognise it and that
      trained eye is NOT from within.

      zarathustra8_28 writes:
      [They encourage prayer, and from my experience…]

      The only "prayer" that they encourage and' in fact' demand is the corporate
      "prayer"… on top of your voice. Of course, they pay a lip service to the
      "closet prayer" but you will find that it also turns to the yelling in
      tongues, if there is any at all. Few, if any, can find time for private
      prayer in between all those meetings, activities and "fellowships". Those
      few who find time for that, and do sincerely pray, God answers and – takes
      them out of the fellowship, whether they asked for it or not.

      zarathustra8_28 writes:
      [they also encourage bible reading - it seems unlikely that a church which
      was knowingly anti-God would do that…]

      Of course – as long as you read into it what you were taught to read into
      it – if you ever find time to read it yourself in peace. If you never
      tried to present to your pastor what you read in the bible that didn't line
      up with what HE wanted you to "know" or not know, you will never know what
      is their attitude to you reading your bible. I tied it – and got thrown
      out of the fellowship IMMEDIATELY. Why? Have I written the book of
      Deuteronomy? Is ALL the Scripture profitable for teaching or not? Or, is
      it "all scripture that IS profitable (to the fellowship) is good for
      teaching"? You will find that it is the latter.

      You will NEVER know what evil is until you encounter one. Neither will you
      ever know what or who God is until you encounter Him. NOBODY can do it for

      While I was in search of the truth, I attempted to clarify some
      controversial issue by looking the bible alone. Several years ago I
      "discovered" a method, which basically says: "If this what I have come to
      believe that is the `work or word of God' has never been included into what
      we know as the bible, what would be the consequence? Would God still do
      what He intended to do or He wouldn't do it since we didn't know that He

      I came with a conclusion that He would and, in fact, it would often be to
      our advantage that it was never written in the bible and that we never
      heard of it; there would be no confusion. In other words: if God's
      creative and saving power depended on my knowledge of that, He is a lame

      When you approach the bible, and your faith in God, from that perspective
      it opens up a new horizon to you.