• Reuben

Beware of those Who Corrupt the Teaching of Woman Not Speaking in the Church, Such as Henry Redecop

Updated: Jun 18


The following is a dissection like a mortician of the video report “Should woman speak/teach in church?” Though I’m not a big fan of publishing the original articles or videos that I critique, as I do not want people to be influenced or effected by the heresy, and since it is not difficult after all to find something online in this case I have done so for the benefit of those reading if they desire to see for themselves how heretical that report really is and whether I'm critiquing him accurately.


According to a cursory overview of his videos, seems like he has one primary focus and that is the equality of woman. He is a “champion” of women “rights” in the church but in the process must completely corrupt and pervert and twist the Word of God. He is a brave guy, battling for his wife rights, but if he was first truly converted through the new birth, he would understand the truth about equality in the church. The video is about allegedly answering the question,

“Can woman speak, can woman preach, should they stay silent in the church?”

It’s Biblically simple but it’s never simple to Scripture rejecters and haters, who twist the scriptures to their own lustful desires. 2 Pet 3:3 speaks to that, “that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,” hence the nervous cackles after a number of his statements including this one in the beginning.

Much of what is stated in this video reflects the horrible heresy in neo-evangelicalism. The misuse and abuse and manipulation of scripture to force scripture to fit their beliefs. Instead of believing and obeying what scripture says, they twist and wrest the scripture to their own destruction. That is always the behaviour of a false believer/teacher, condemned in scripture as “private interpretation” (2 Pet 1:21) and an “error of the wicked.” (2 Pet 3:16-17).


Here we go to an investigative analysis of his heresy:


1. At the very start, he...

“starts with his Favourite quote of the day by Noah Reboy: 'Woman need the boundaries of the patriarchy and a mission in life which is usually a husband, children and home. Absence of such structure, they malfunction and destroy civilization.'”

Again he laughs, as he did while reading it. Redekop says he “didn’t know if he should laugh, puke or just get mad.” He slaps himself upside the head and says “It’s hilarious, I just couldn’t believe it.”


Though I don’t know the Reboy guy from a hole in the wall, so no approval for him, what he says here nevertheless is pretty much dead on. Why? Because its verified by Scripture, such as: Gen 3:15; 1 Tim 2:15; Ti 2:5; 1 Cor 14:35; etc. For instance,

“That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” (Ti 2:5)

That sounds just like what Reboy stated. So I would nervously laugh as well if I was mocking and manipulating truths out of Gods Word. What heretics like Henry are unwittingly (or maybe wittingly) doing is influencing women away from the truth of God's Word which results in the word of God being blasphemed. Very early on Henry establishes his heretical estate, so from here on he will be referred to Henry the Heretic.


2. He then says he will go into...

“some of the foundations of people they use to tell woman they need to be quiet or it’s Gods will for them to just stay home, stay in the kitchen, don’t cross that threshold from the kitchen to the Bible study room, just stay in the kitchen and teach your children…”

—which is essentially a straw-man logical fallacy, since those who believe what the Bible says about woman being quiet in the church have never proclaimed they just need to stay in the kitchen or in the home—and from there goes on to “start with Acts 4” but not with 1 Cor 14:33-35 or 1 Tim 2:10-15 which give clear and definitive instructions on the woman’s speech in the local church and overrules all his dishonouring eisegesis. He doesn’t go there but to Acts 4. Though he eventually does go to these passages, which he massively and horribly corrupts, undermining the truths taught therein, he builds his foundation entirely on things that don’t actually exist. He reads Acts 4:31 and says these were “both men and women,” though the Bible doesn’t actually say that, thus adding to the Word of God.


What we do know for sure is when the Bible says of those filled with the Spirit “spake the word of God with boldness” it doesn’t mean they spake in contradiction to Gods Word. It wasn’t an “unrestrained boldness” as he claims, again adding to Scripture and corrupting the words and teaching of God. He describes this “unrestrained boldness” as “free flowing, whatever came to their mind and heart.” This is plain heresy. Does the Spirit of God create unrestrained boldness, which means some kind of unrestrained—I.e. uncontrolled, uninhabited, unconfined, unhampered—boldness? Absolutely not! Everything the apostles did or spake when filled with the Spirit of God was restrained by the Word of God. This is a portion of the heresy that runs rank in evangelicalism, where boldness by the Spirit can even include things that aren’t done with a sober mind or in perfect alliance with scripture. It’s just plain heresy.

3. From Acts 4 he meanders to Acts 21, a fav for those who hate the fact women are constrained by the Word of God. He quotes vv. 8-9 but wilfully and purposefully leaves out the verse that follows, a verse that tells us that God did not use those four prophetess daughters of Philip to prophecy to Paul of what was going to happen to him in Jerusalem, even though they were right there in the very house Paul was staying (which would’ve been so much easier, wouldn’t it) but rather He sends “from Judæa a certain prophet, named Agabus.” (v. 10). The reason for that is obvious. Women do not teach and preach and prophecy to men. That opposes Gods explicit commandment, and He does not go against His own Word (1 Cor 14:33-35; 1 Tim 2:10-15). Ever. Woman obviously have a voice, they were prophetess, but it’s clearly constrained to a certain population. That is very obvious in scripture. God-fearing born again believers do not twist the scriptures to fit their perverted agenda, but conform their thinking and behaviour to the Word of God. Not Henry the Heretic though.


4. The lies and heresy continues:

“The husband is not supposed to be the one between God and his wife.”

1 Cor 11:3 however says:

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

There is Jesus who is between God and man, and man between God and his wife. That is obvious here and the Son of God has no issue with that, but heretics do. 1 Cor 14:33-35 also confounds his confusion:

“For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

Henry doesn’t like what this passage says, as we will see yet. He doesn’t like the fact they have to be silent. He doesn’t like the fact they are to ask their husbands at home if they want to learn anything. He doesn’t like the fact it’s a shame for them to speak in the church. Henry the Heretic’s problem is not people or women's alleged suffrage but God and His Word. And since he doesn’t like what Gods Word says, he has to manipulate and butcher it to his liking. That happens to always be the case with false teachers, their Modus Operandi.


5. His claims on prophecy are wrong. Where is it found in scripture that prophets in the NT “preach encouragement”? Preaching “hellfire and brimstone” is indeed a part of prophecy preaching in the NT—forth-telling prophecy—which is the only type of prophecy prophesied by true believers today. Fore-telling, which is new revelation, was completed with the completion of the canonization of scripture. There are no prophets in that sense today, but all saved people forth-tell prophecy that is coming, God’s judgment upon the world, the Great Tribulation, the Millennial Kingdom, man’s eternal judgement if they don’t repent, etc.

We do not have our pick of gifts that the Holy Spirit no longer imparts, as Henry the Heretic claims. Some gifts are not given anymore by the Spirit of God. They have ceased. Gifts such as “gifts of healing . . . working of miracles . . . prophecy [fore-telling] . . . divers kinds of tongues . . . the interpretation of tongues,” (1 Cor 12:9-10) and raising the dead. Continuationism is unBiblical and reflective of someone that doesn’t understand Scripture or how to rightly divide the word of truth.


6. He uses Phoebe in Rom 16 as an example of a female leader, corrupting her actual position in the church and thereby furthering his heresy. She was NOT “the leader of that house church.” The error is embraced in part due to the corrupted perversion of the Bible he is using, maybe chosen for this purpose intentionally. Rom 16:1 is properly translated in the KJV as “I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a SERVANT of the church which is at Cenchrea:” while whatever perversion he is using says “minister.” The NIV and NLT use the word “deacon” which is also serious perversion. Even the corrupted perversion ESV gets this one right, using the same word as the KJV. She was not a minister in the sense of a position in the church, or a deacon and the KJV translators knew that, even though the same Greek word (diakonos) is used here to translate deacon. Paul wasn’t contradicting himself when he in two different places said woman are to be silent in church, and to be in subjection and not teach or usurp authority over any man (1 Tim 2:11-15; 1 Cor 14:33-35), or that deacons are men ONLY, who have “wives” (1 Tim 3:8-12), “Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.” (v. 12). So we know that the word translated in Rom 16:1 couldn’t contradict what is so clearly stated in 1 Tim 2:11-15; 3:8-12 and 1 Cor 14:33-35, so the word “servant” was used, which is used six more times in the NT. In 1 Cor 14:33-35 Paul the apostle repeated this same truth over and over, to almost redundancy: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” Three times he speaks to the voice of woman in the churches: keep silence in the churches; it is not permitted unto them to speak; it is a shame for women to speak in the church. Any normal thinker and believer of the Bible would get it but not Henry the Heretic. It doesn’t fit his heresy which he feels necessary to sell to the unsuspecting simple. Henry the Heretic is a purveyor of confusion and heresy. But not God. The verse immediately preceding 1 Cor 14:34-35 says: “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” Since this horrible confusion is not of God, there is only one other place it could be coming from.

He uses a further example in Rom 16 in attempt to support his egregious position, claiming the husband and wife in v. 7 were “apostles” like we know the 12 apostles or Paul were, but that is not true and reflects a misunderstanding of the word apostle. The word “apostolos” in its basic definition means one who is sent, or a messenger, specifically an ambassador of the Gospel. Had he studied out the term “apostle” in the NT and actually rightly divided the word of truth in the King James Bible, he might’ve discovered three usages of the term “apostle” —

  • Apostle refers to the Lord Jesus Christ, “consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus” (Heb 3:1). Jesus was sent from God the Father into the world to provide redemption for mankind.

  • Apostle refers to the twelve men who were chosen by Christ to be His special ambassadors and be the foundation of the kingdom of God (Lk 6:13-16; Eph 2:20). After Judas betrayed the Lord and hung himself, the eleven remaining Apostles selected a man to replace him (Ac 1:15-26). Later we find that Paul was selected directly by Christ to be an apostle (1 Cor 15:7-9; 2 Cor 12:11-12; Gal 1:1).

  • Apostle refers to Christian workers in general, not to a specific office, as we note its usage in the following passages: 2 Cor 8:23 (translated as “messengers” referring to all the brethren); Ac 14:14 (Barnabas is referred to as an “apostle” even though he wasn’t a special apostle chosen by Christ like Paul); and Phil 2:25 (translated as “messenger” referring to “Epaphroditus” a “brother, and companion in labour, and fellowsoldier” of Paul). These were workers in the ministries and defined with the same word as “apostles.” These are the same usage of “apostles” in Rom 16:7, and this passage v. 7, and v. 1 with Phoebe, and none of these overrule the very clear doctrine and instructions in 1 Tim 2:11-15 and 1 Cor 14:33-35. The Greek word translated “apostle” (apostolos) is also translated “messenger” and “minister,” and is used to refer to Christian workers in general other than the twelve. Christian workers were sent by the Lord from the churches to particular ministries.


Using these examples from Rom 16 doesn’t verify his position but does prove certain other things. Only false believers/teachers wrest and manipulate the scriptures, an “error of the wicked” (2 Pet 3:16-17).


7. He finally makes it to 1 Cor 14:34-35, claiming this is the passage that people flock to and “has been quite the stir in peoples lives, the foundation you need to hang on to, ‘Paul said this and this is what we’ve got to do, right.’” Pauls words were given by the inspiration of God. They weren’t from the Talmud but from the law of God that continued to stand, and still stands. The mockery of Pauls words given by God is obvious and increases even more down the road. Of course people would “flock” to this passage because it is very basic and clear teaching on the woman’s role in the church. When Henry the Heretic read these passages, I was finally able to discover what horribly perverted version he is using: The Passion Translation. Yikes. Hadn’t heard of that one before; another one added to the 500+ perversions. And double ouch, is it ever an awfully blasphemous and heretical perversion of Scripture. This is the passages quoted:

“The women should be respectfully silent during the evaluation of prophecy in the meetings. They are not allowed to interrupt, but are to be in a support role, as in fact the law teaches. If they want to inquire about something, let them ask their husbands when they get home, for a woman embarrasses herself when she constantly interrupts the church meeting.” (The Passion Translation)

None of that by the way is in the Greek Received Text that God inspired. It’s totally fabricated, following the evil and blasphemous methodology of translation known as dynamic equivalence. He is nevertheless mystified even by what his perversion says, chuckling once again, proclaiming insincerely and with mockery, “wow! wow! the lord bless the reading of his word” and then more cackling. Plain mockery. A “scoffer walking after [his] own lusts” (2 Pet 3:3). I would nervously laugh as well if I was mocking and manipulating what I perceived to be the word of God. But what he is reading is far removed from God and that is no laughing matter. Nor is his mockery of what “Paul says.” Of course he doesn’t believe what the Bible says, an unbeliever, so he has to misuse and abuse these passages, to fit another meaning, one that aligns with the lusts of his carnal mind which is at enmity with God. Rom 8:6-7 says,

“to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.”

This is an unsaved person, the carnally minded, who are contrasted with the saved, the spiritually minded. The entire context, vv. 1-9 makes that abundantly clear, the carnally minded are those “in the flesh” who “cannot please God” (v. 8) with v. 9 clarifying the matter perspicuously: “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” Did you also notice what that last sentence of v. 7 says? “The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God.” If there is any person this is describing, it would be the one who rejects the law of God and makes mockery of it. He isn’t subject to the law because he is still under its condemnation. That would be Henry the Heretic. So in other words, people like Henry the Heretic Redecop are none of His.


Apparently “you have to keep this in context” in order to understand the meaning of these very plain words repeated multiple times for emphasis. In so doing, will this then clear away these very plain and simple words and truths in these passages?! Will we understand these plain and perspicuous words to actually mean something else? What about 1 Tim 2:11-15 where Paul again says the same thing. Of course context is important but so are grammar, syntax, and every individual word, and the words of these verses are very clear and very plain to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear and heart to understand, but they are twisted and perverted by wolves in sheep’s clothing, which is precisely who this Henry the Heretic Redecop is.


His agnostic perversion just keeps growing, saying—regarding the words found in the verses of 1 Cor 14—“But did he [Paul] actually say it?” casting doubt upon the inspiration of Scripture. He claims there is a contradiction between Paul saying women should speak if they have the gift of the Spirit and that woman are not to speak. There is no contradiction; it only exists in the mind of the heretic who rejects the words of God and doesn’t understand the Word of God, which is all unsaved people. He goes on to quote the verse following: “What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?” even referring to the King James Bible, implying that Paul hadn’t actually meant what he just said, because he was actually quoting “the law, a statement out of the law book that they had written” which he is says is the Talmud. He gets hung up on “the law” not being for the NT era. But that is patently untrue. He says the law has nothing to do with salvation, but that is false. “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” (Gal 3:24). Without the law we couldn’t be saved (read also Rom 7:7-14, quoted below). And then after conversion, saved people fulfill the law (Rom 3:31), and they certainly don’t denigrate or cast it aside. But the law he calls “stinkin thinkin.” Preposterous! Blasphemy!


Let’s consider what the Apostle Paul had to say about the law:

“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.” (Rom 7:7-14)

Thats a very different approach to the law then what the blasphemer Henry is doing. As one continues reading this chapter, we note that Paul would do good, that is, keep the law, but had difficulty because of the law of sin in his members (Rom 7:21, 23). When he succeeded at obeying the law of God, he did so because he “delight[ed] in the law of God after the inward man” (Rom 7:22). Paul had deliverance through Christ, who enabled him to “serve the law of God” with the spiritual mind (Rom 7:25) because all truly born again believers are spiritually minded (Rom 8:5-11) and fulfill the “righteousness of the law” (v. 4). Paul could obey God’s commandments through “the law of the Spirit of life” which set him “free from the law of sin and death.” (Rom 8:2). The law of sin and death is different than God’s law. God’s law is good. Sin, however, perverts the law, turning it into a law of sin and death. But salvation in Christ Jesus delivers us from this perversion. The “victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 15:57) allows us to obey God’s law in our salvation where we’re saved from both the penalty and power of sin at the moment of our conversion (Rom 6:1-22).


The law is certainly applicable to the true believer and Paul is not contradicting at all what is said in 1 Cor 15 about the law, for he brings up the law often and our allegiance to it as saved people. For instance, the law of marriage (Rom 7:1-3), “the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth.” In Rom 3:31, that great chapter on salvation, he rhetorically asks, because of people just like Henry: “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Plain and simple it is, but not to people who reject the truth and then pervert the scriptures.

No, the men were NOT using “the law to tell the women shut up and be quiet, because they had that old stinkin thinkin.”

The women were actually speaking in the church at Corinth and Paul was saying that it was wrong, sinful and a shame, reproving their behaviour, the very OPPOSITE of what Henry the Heretic is saying. The Corinth church was doing just the opposite of what this heretic is saying. And 1 Cor 14:36 actually is giving credence to the law, that this was the start of the Word of God, which indeed it was. But Henry rejects it, along with the commandments of the Lord, as the verse that follows clarifies, directly connecting female silence in the church (vv. 34-35) with it being a commandment of the Lord (v. 37 — “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.”) Since there are no more prophets in this sense, that leaves “spiritual” which applies to all saved people (1 Cor 2:14-15), but not Henry because Henry doesn’t only fail to acknowledge what Paul is saying, he is slandering Paul and the Word of God and blatantly lying about the clear commandments of the Lord. How fearful is that! But its tell-tale of the heretic, who are always unsaved people (Ti 3:10-11).


Read more here on What is the Born Again Believers Relationship is to the Law.

The lies just keep coming claiming that women were allowed to speak in tongues. No they weren’t. There is no such example anywhere in the Bible and this is precisely what Paul is reproving here in 1 Cor 14, because that is what the woman were doing. In verses 26-32 he speaks about the proper use of tongues (which was the speaking of actual real languages, a gift that ceased with the passing of the last apostle and completion of the canonization of Scripture: 1 Cor 13:8-10, which is why there is not a single person in the world that has spoken in tongues since that time, and gibberish hocus pocus “tongues” is not Biblical tongues!), and from that commentary on tongues Paul goes into the necessity for woman to keep silent in the church, stating it three times (vv. 34-35) on the back of v. 33, “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” Women speaking in church not only brings shame but also great confusion.

Henry does not understand the grace of God just like he doesn’t understand the Bible. He asks about the Corinthians,

“did they not get the grace of God that all are equal and allowed to speak?”

Part of the conflict in the church at Corinth related to the fulfillment of the role of the man and woman. Roman society of which Corinth was a part practiced the authority of the man. Some believers in the church at Corinth knew of their equality before God, just like Paul taught in Gal 3:28. Men are commanded to be leaders (Gen 3; 1 Cor 11) not because men and women aren’t equal. The Bible says men and women are equal. They are equal in value or in essence. That is the point of Gal 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”


Though man and woman are equal in essence, equal in essence does not however mean equal in role. The roles of men and women are vastly different in the home, in the church, and in the world in general. A good comparison is the relationship of the Son to the Father. They’re equal, and yet the Father is in authority over the Son. “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” (1 Cor 11:3). Just like the Corinth church saw roles operational in the culture of Rome, the man was the head of the woman. He reminds them of the proper order in 1 Cor 11:3 when he says that “the head of the woman is the man.” The Father is the head of the Son. The Son is the head of the man. The man is the head of the woman. One reason for this is because “man . . . is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” (1 Cor 11:7). Even though the Son submits to the Father as His superior in authority, He is equal in essence with the Father, even as Phil 2:6 says: “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” Men and women are of equal value or worth to God and we don’t get our value or worth from our role, but from the essence of who we are. Both males (directly) and females (indirectly) are created by God, but man is created in the image of God while woman in the image of man, even as Gen 1:27 says: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” And repeated in the NT: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” (1 Cor 11:7).


8. From here he goes into a rant on woman equality in the church and how awesome extraBiblical revelation is.

“I believe the church has been stuck in the place because it’s only let half the people speak. They’ve only let half the people share the revelation. There is so much potential that has been sitting in the pews and has been told to shut up and not say anything.”

He goes on to deny some of the obvious Biblical differences between men and women in their roles. The reason for the massive amounts of heresy in churches and utter apostasy is not because women aren’t freed from their alleged slavery to do whatever they want to do but because of heretics like this who twist and bend and manipulate scripture to force their ungodly and false beliefs, which is leaven, but most importantly due to the massive amounts of unsaved people, which is revealed through the heresies and false teachings accepted and promoted. There is nothing new under the sun.

Henry the Heretic goes on in bewilderment that apostasy isn’t accepted at face value:

“I just can’t wrap my head around, for someone to believe, if a woman would go up into the pulpit and share a revelation something they had not heard before, something a woman has learned from the Bible or from the Lord, and goes up to preach that message, share that message, and to think I will not receive this because it comes from a woman. It doesn’t matter how good or how awesome that revelation would be, but they are so stuck in their mind ‘I will not let them teach me,’ that literally Paul is saying, that if they recognize that mentality that the law is still in place, they should not be recognized.”

First of all, that is blasphemous. God the Son recognized the law was still in place: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt 5:17-19). It looks like we’re to continue keeping the least of His commandments. Why? Jesus didn’t come to destroy the law. Paul the Apostle says much of the same: “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” (Rom 3:31). Rom 8:4 elaborates Rom 3:31, “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” See also the above link on the Believers Relationship to the Law.


So do we now stop recognizing God Himself and the Apostles, since they recognized the law was still in place? That is what Henry the Heretic is advocating for. Essentially what men like Henry are doing is putting themselves as God, or even above God, and we know of one slimy and deceptive character mentioned in the Bible that did this as well because of his pride. That is who Henry the Heretic is impersonating in this particular heresy and really all his perversion.

Secondly, there is no new revelation, which is something only wolves in sheep’s clothing come with. Rev 22:18-19, amongst other Scripture, is extremely clear that the canonization of Scripture was complete with the book of Revelation. There is NO new revelation. Anyone that comes with new revelation outside of God’s Word or new as in new that they allegedly found in God’s Word, is a heretic and wolf.


Thirdly, it is an utter disgrace and shame for a woman to speak in a church, never mind preach a sermon! 1 Cor 14:33-35 and 1 Tim 2:11-15 make that very clear. There is nothing "awesome" about that but only a fearful looking for God’s judgment. The fact that a woman would even want to do this, reveals how heretical she really is and maybe even demonic, since it is so far removed from the truth of Scripture. She is certainly far, very far, from salvation and has a certain hatred for the authority that God has put above her. God hasn’t changed His mind about what Gen 3:16 says: “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” Maybe Henry the Heretic should stop being a snowflake pussy-footing pansy and start being a man. That would be a good start. Heretics that kowtow to their wives in such despicable manner make me wana barf. And God will indeed spew the out of His mouth (Rev 3:16) because they are hypocrites, unsaved, blind to their lost estate (Rev 3:17).

Henry the Heretic then says,

“He says, if somebody doesn’t recognize what I am saying, they are not recognized.”

Good point. That means Henry is not recognized, since he not only doesn’t recognize what Paul is saying, he is outright rejecting it and then manipulating Paul’s words and blatantly lying about it. In v. 38 of that chapter, just a few verses later, Paul says, “But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant,” but Henry is not ignorant. He is brashly rejecting the words Paul wrote, and then twisting them into something he can embrace, followed by propagating his evil works of darkness.

9. As to his statement,

“I don’t know how you can’t see that, there is something seriously wrong with that” in reference to woman being allowed to teach and preach to men —

the whole issue is his utter blindness and deafness and non-understanding heart, all of which is the toxic syndrome of the religious hypocrite. Some religious and ungodly hypocrites add works to grace, and some, like Henry the Heretic, add lasciviousness to grace (Ju 1:4). The end is the same: eternal and unquenchable hell fire. Henry the Heretic speaks about people who reject woman preachers and new revelations as not knowing who God is, but it is very plain that he has no idea who the God of the Bible is. His Jesus is very clearly “another Jesus” (2 Cor 11:4). Crystal clear. A figment of his carnal imagination.

10. Apparently the clear truth of God’s Word has caused so much hurt and stink and pain.

“Another verse that causes a big stink and has been used to cause so much trauma and so much hurt and so much pain in peoples lives . . . and some don’t even realize that they are so enslaved and they are actually not free.”

Oh you poor thing. These soft, effeminate, lying, woke, liars need to be broken and fall on the Rock lest the Rock falls on them and grinds them into fine powder (Lk 20:17-18). That requires repentance, but they won’t repent because they “love darkness rather than light, because their deeds [are] evil” and they “hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest [their] deeds should be reproved.” (Jn 3:19-21). Indeed it is “possible for people to not realize they are not free” and Henry the Heretic ranks on the top of that chart. He has no idea. He is a slave to his flesh and to heresy, a mass of confusion, but apparently he thinks he is “free”? Woe, how utterly deceived can a man get, a man openly rejecting and despising the words of God? He hates the law, because he can’t keep it. He can’t keep it because he has never been born again. Thats the glaring issue with Henry the Heretic. And so it is always the issue with those who can’t understand the Word of God, are unable to rightly divide it, and thus pervert the words and law of God. Like many today, he has taken God’s saving grace and turned it into lawlessness, also called antinomianism. Essentially making grace a garbage can for their sins and/or errors. Instead of cleaning up their lives through the enabling of the indwelling Spirit, what truly saved people actually do, God’s “grace” enables them to live without obedience to the Word of God and even sin without consequence. Perverting the Word of God and butchering it down into what he wants it to say, is sin beyond belief. It is wickedness (2 Pet 3:16-17). Have a careful read of Rev 22:18-19 Mr. Henry, which fits not only the horrible perversion of the Bible you are using, but also what you are doing with the supposed scripture in adding and omitting the words of God. And that is evil sin beyond comparison. God’s grace doesn’t allow us to live any way that we want. God’s saving grace did not free us to perform unlawful deeds but just the opposite (2 Pet 2:8; Ju 1:4; Ti 2:11-14). So someone who regularly lives a worldly, fleshly, or sinful life, or continually and effortlessly perverts the Scriptures, teaching false doctrine, proves that he was never under the grace of God to begin with, because God’s grace isn’t a trash receptacle, but a cleansing agent, transforming a life.

11. He finishes with 1 Tim 2, reading vv. 11-12, and then laughs again at what it says. 1 Tim 2:11-15 from the Word of God in English, the KJV, says,

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”

1 Tim 2:11-15 is just as instructive as 1 Cor 14:33-35. Paul says “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection” but Henry the Heretic says Paul “didn’t mean silence,” he didn’t mean “speechless.”Just. Wow. This guy is unbelievable. Silence actually does mean silence, contrary to what this ravening heretic says. Though I should not have to go into the underlying Greek word and prove that is what this means, since the wording is so plainly obvious, I will do so for his benefit, to shut the mouth (Ti 1:11) of this “liar, slow belly, evil beast” (Ti 1:12). “Silence” is translated from the feminine noun “hesuchia” found four times in Scripture, translated x 3 as “silence” and x 1 as “quietness.” So what does it mean? It means exactly what it says. It is defined as “stillness, i.e. desistance from bustle or language: quietness, silence.” It always refers to an absence of speech. Three times in the text Paul defines what he means: “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”

Submit he says apparently does not mean “submission to men.” He cackles with his nervous laugh again and says, “it doesn’t say that.” Evil men reject the plain truth of Scripture, while the saved accept it, believe and know it (Pr 8:8-9). The word is actually “subjection” and it has ONE meaning and that is “submission” and if it’s not towards men, then who is it towards? It’s not referring to God, since it’s application is to behaviour in the church. “Subjection” is translated from “hupotage” and means the act of subjecting, obedience, subjection, which is how it is translated all four times found in the NT. Multiple times God demands that the wife is to submit to the husband: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.” (Eph 5:22). “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.” (Col 3:18). I wonder how horribly bad it would be if Henry the Heretic would eisegete these passages, nor can I imagine what his terribly perverted “Bible” reads here. If God meant women should go out and be missionaries to preach the gospel to men, as he claims, why is there not one such example in all the NT? Most importantly in the book of Acts, our example of conducting church and sending missionaries? God is not the author of this terrible confusion.


12. In conclusion, practically everything he says in this video is a lie. The Bible must be literally interpreted and must perfectly harmonize and fit precisely, so that it is one interpretation. Saved people know the truth and don't believe a lie (1 Jn 2:20-21, 27). They also don't follow the voice of strangers like this (Jn 10:1-5). Henry the Heretics heresy does not fit “the context” or the “light of who Jesus is.” It’s all pure fabrication made out of sheer cloth. He treats the Word of God worse than tomatoes falling off the back of a pickup truck. The gifts of the Spirit that God gives are according to who you are, your role in the church and the home. God is NOT the author of confusion.


Calling Henry a Heretic is about as kind as one could get with his terrible false teachings. He is more than a heretic, he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing as well. He is bearing false witness to the Word of God, while using a most horrible perversion of Scripture. My how far this Mennonite has fallen. He is a living testimony about what apostasy does. It keeps leavening until the whole is leavened. Point after point, word after word, this man perverts and corrupts the words of Scripture. What a horribly bad predicament to be in!


Henry should heed his own words: “sometimes it helps to read the Bible.” First burn the poisonous book you are using, it’s not the Bible, it’s not Gods Word. Second, be truly converted so you can have the indwelling Spirit teach him the truth of scripture. Read here on How You can be Truly Saved and have Eternal Life.


Peter warns about Heretics like Henry in his second epistle, stating

“As also in all his [Paul’s] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.” (2 Pet 3:16-17)

The thing to do with heretics is what Paul says in Titus 3:10-11,

“A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.”

And what I am doing here:

“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” (Eph 5:11).

Heed the warning of God concerning wolves like Henry:

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” (Matt 7:15).

Henry the Heretic, know that even heretics can be saved. There are some important things that must first occur. First of all listen to what you've done wrong and then admit you're wrong and get it right. That involves rejecting the horrible heresies you have embraced. Don’t justify or rabidly defend your heresies, when its painfully obvious you are wrong. Two, on the other hand don’t go into full court justification of your behaviour. Not getting it right is bad enough. Don't make it worse by rabidly defending it when you're very clearly wrong. Three, stop promoting your evil false teachings that are available for all to listen to, which is very very bad, like worse than genocide on a mass scale bad. People will go to the eternal lake of fire that eat out of your garbage can. Four, repent and be ye saved, lest ye perish. Here again is the link on how to be saved: Gospel Tract.

27 views0 comments