PREFACE

In 2 Peter 2, Peter was very strong on warning the flock about the dangers of certain people coming in bringing strange teachings. And in Acts 20:29, Paul warned that “savage wolves” would come in the midst of the believers at Ephesus, not sparing the flock. Today, the warning is just as relevant.

Events described below are of a time in which a man came into our midst bringing a strange teaching. This teaching was not biblical, and needed to be exposed. When the teaching was exposed, the man who was promoting it went on a tirade. A tirade can be defined as, “prolonged and intense outburst of anger, criticism or condemnation” (betterwordsonline.com/dictionary/tirade).

His response was unfortunate, but I think clearly demonstrates he is struggling. He launched a series of ad hominem attacks (described below) and was generally very angry at the exposure of this false doctrine which he was embracing. I would encourage you to read the letter so you would have a fuller understanding of what happened, and why I responded in the way that I did.

May the Lord bless you as you do.

Sincerely,

A.

THE LETTER

Dear B,

I wanted to have a chance to talk with you (although it appears that this conversation may not happen due to a lack of time) regarding the issue of the man whom I spoke with, who attended our meeting on Friday, August 22, 2025 (he also attended the week before, but you did not attend that one).

This letter will describe my thoughts and concerns regarding this interaction, so that you and others are clear about where I stand. I am making this letter public for this reason. I have no reason to expose the name of the man who visited us. My goal is to deal with the aberrant theology. As well, I want to deal with some behavioral issues. And by this, I am referring to some behavioral issues of our guest, who exhibited some very unchristian behavior. I will delineate this below.

I understand there may have been a misunderstanding, but I can really make no apologies for the fact that I told the man, in the hearing of our small group, to the effect, “Your blood be on your own head if you fail to heed the warning.” The issue relates to word usage and meaning which I will seek to explain. Though it may have been misunderstood, of course, it was not my intention. I said this towards the very end of the second meeting, but please allow me to explain the context.

First, this was not the very first thing I said to him. I had already engaged the man for at least 8 hours (and probably closer to 10 hours) by that point in time. We had had him over for dinner (twice by that time), and had been very cordial with him, to the point where he decided to come back the second week. We thought this was just fine.

He had been promoting an erroneous teaching which was very unorthodox (and by “unorthodox” I mean, “not in keeping with the Scriptures”). It was concerning to me, and he had begun sharing it the week prior. I had corresponded with him via text concerning this teaching. He was evidently quite fixated on it.

I could see that the issue of this erroneous doctrine was quite dear to him, but also damaging for others. So, as a watchman (see Ezekiel 3:17), I resolved to do a 5-minute video to respond to this teaching. I wrote him (by text), and said (within the context of our discussion, and the topic at hand), “I was thinking of introducing a 5 minute Q&A at the end of our meeting. Let’s see if I can put something together for this week.” To which he responded, “Sounds good.”

Why I chose this route is because he had been texting and mentioning some other doctrines, as well. And it would take too much of my time to start to go into these. Plus, I could see where his leaning was, in a direction that was unbiblical, and it was quite strong. So I held my peace and tried to focus on that which was of supreme importance. The false doctrine that he was promoting was of supreme importance to me. False doctrines can ruin lives.

5-Minute Video

Thus, he himself gave me the go-ahead. But at the end of the day, he was actually offended by what I shared. This is the entire 5-minute teaching I brought forward that evening. This teaching has not been edited. It is exactly as I presented it that evening, because it was recorded prior to the meeting and presented via video. This teaching exposes the errors of the “Baptism of Fire” teaching which was brought forth by our guest (a man whom I like by the way, although his teaching I disagree with).

By way of reminder, and for those who do not know (although the man himself certainly does know, for he says he has a theology degree), the term, “your blood be upon your own head,” is an expression that comes from Ezekiel 33:4 and Acts 18:6 (and others) and means, “Whatever happens to you will be your own fault.” The context is that the person is responsible for their actions, and will be held accountable, because they were made aware of the gravity of their error. But they refused to heed the warning.

The purpose of the video was to simply expose the error being promoted by the false theology which was being promoted by the man.

Follow-Up Video

The day after I presented that video, I also produced a follow-up video to this, exposing other errors which are just as grievous, if not more, which are endorsed by the man that this guest of ours was promoting (after editing, the video was eventually posted on August 28). This video, which is a little bit longer, comes in at just under 20 minutes. This video was sent to the man, and he is aware of it and I think he has watched it, based on some comments he sent to me in response to it.

Word Usage

The term, “your blood be upon your own head,” is worded as such, in Scripture, in large part, I think, to denote the seriousness, or gravity, of a particular sin, particularly if a person is stubborn and refuses to listen. Therefore, it’s not something I would say to everyone. I do not promote or endorse this expression as being something that should be regularly practiced. However, God used it (see Ezekiel 33:3-5), and righteous men like the spies who entered the land of Canaan used it (see Joshua 2:17-20), and Paul used it (see Acts 18:5-7).

In studying the Scriptures, I do see that in the case of David speaking against the man who killed Saul (see 2 Samuel 1:16), and against Shimei (see 1 Kings 2:37), and against Joab (see 1 Kings 2:32-32), physical death is mentioned or implied in the same passages in which the term appears, but the actual definition of the term does not necessitate it. It means, strictly, “you will bear the guilt” and not that “you will die.” Death is sometimes the result of being found guilty, but it is not necessitated by the term.

So it is not wrong to use it. The expression should, however, be used sparingly, and I would definitely agree with that. This is consistent with the way it is used in the Bible (sparingly). It is not used frequently, but it is used when the sin is grievous. In my opinion, the grievousness of the sin that was being promoted is consistent with the usage of this term. It’s not an expression I have used much, though, and I do not think I have used that term (in terms of speaking directly to another person like this) for at least, I would say, 20 years. Therefore, this would be the first time in 20 years that I have used this expression, in speaking with another person, to convey the sentiment of personal accountability. But I knew whom I was speaking with. The man had said he was theologically trained. He had told me this the week before.

Candice Owens & Accusations Against Israel

It should be noted that up until the presentation of the 5-minute video (which was originally presented on August 22), the man seemed to be doing OK. But even in the minutes prior to the presentation, he began to strongly promote Candice Owens and speak negatively of the nation of Israel, strongly accusing them of committing genocide. This preceded any type of comment by myself towards the man that could be said to be confrontational. Because the 5-minute video was started by an automated process (being activated by an automated electronic timer), it then came on and abruptly cut into his conversation, by which he was then forced to stop speaking about Candace Owens and Israel and watch the video. After the video was shown, there was some discussion and he was generally not pleased with the video that had been presented.

Some time after this (perhaps just a few minutes later), the man turned to one of our guests, a woman, who was very respectfully sharing her thoughts, which did not agree with his, and she was seeking to gently correct him, or question him in some of his assertions, and he looked towards her (on the screen, since she was attending by Zoom), and said, “I don’t need to listen to you because I have a theology degree!” In my view, it seems as if this man was carrying offense. He continued to act in ways that were irrational, formulating arguments that had no basis in the topic matter (see points 1 to 7 below).

After his comment about having a theological degree, I reminded the man that I, too, had a theological degree, but what did it matter? A theological degree did not amount to godliness. He could still listen to what other people had to say. The man then proceeded to shoot forth a series of rapid-fire ad hominem attacks against me.

Ad Hominem Attacks

Britannica defines “ad hominem” as a, “type of argument or attack that appeals to prejudice or feelings or irrelevantly impugns another person’s character instead of addressing the facts or claims made by the latter.” (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ad-hominem) Bear in mind, the 5-minute video had just been played. He had been actively promoting his friend’s ministry. But in the video, I had warned people against his friend’s ministry, which I still do today, because he embraces and promotes the false teachings of Yong-Doo Kim, which are elaborated upon in the approximate 20-minute video I created the day afterwards.

Well, here is what he said:

1. The whole evening was about me. That was the reason we had people over for a Bible study. He repeated this maybe ten times.
2. He also said that the meeting was insignificant because it was small. (In saying this, he was actually attacking his own judgment, because he himself was attending it, he knew it was small, and it was the second time he was attending it.)
3. He said his friend’s ministry was significant, because it was “worldwide.” (I reminded him that there are many worldwide cults as well, and that size does not govern theology.)
4. He diminished the importance of the meeting because he said we are meeting in a home. He said that if our meeting carried any type of significance, we would be meeting in a building. (In saying this, he was also attacking his own judgment, because again he was attending it, and it was the second time he was doing so.)
5. He said God gave him revelation on account of fasting (this is a sure sign of deception and a huge red flag).
6. He said that by my exposing the theological errors associated with his friend Len Lacroix, with whom he said he had been a roommate of his at one point, I was speaking against God’s apostle. He repeated this multiple times. (Maybe three times.)
7. He further went on to say that I was not called of God. He denounced my ministry. By doing this, he was also of necessity denouncing my wife’s call to minister with me, because my wife and I are partners in this ministry and are both equally committed to it.

And thus, we really had the “full exposure” that evening, of what was in this man’s heart. It was a revelation, to be sure. Irrespective of all of this, I still invited him back and said, “We would love to see you again.” And I actually meant it. (But we will not tolerate nonsense. So if he wants to come back, he will have to come back under a different spirit.)

Thus, this man provided us with quite the gamut.

So did the man need to be warned? Absolutely.

The (So-Called) Baptism of Fire

Apparently, this man has not been sufficiently warned, even after many years of confessing Christ as Lord and Savior, and even boasting of having a theology degree, to avoid such deceptions as those being promoted by Yong-Doo Kim, and his former roommate, a man by the name of Len Lacroix, whom I have nothing personal against, whom he told me, he was desiring to have pray over him, so he could receive the so-called “baptism of fire.”

On this note, Len Lacroix has posted numerous videos on his website, sent to me by the man in question, and they are nothing more than testimonials of individuals who were prayed over by Len Lacroix who said they felt a fire, or heat, go into them. They are elevating the testimony, but they are diminishing the word of God, as they do. They are intent on misusing Scripture, and of selectively choosing certain passages (such as Luke 3:16) and leaving out other passages (such as Luke 3:17) in order to make their point. It is a treacherous misuse of the word of God. And the Lord does not take things like this lightly. For he says,

“For my hand has made all these things,
    and so all these things came to be,” says Yahweh:
“but I will look to this man,
    even to he who is poor and of a contrite spirit,
    and who trembles at my word.” (Isaiah 66:2)

Mark and Avoid

This aberrant teaching is not defended by any type of correct, or contextual, use of Scripture. Therefore, it must be rejected. The need to reject this teaching is further amplified when you dig deeper into the teachings of Yong-Doo Kim, whom Len Lacroix endorses. The Bible is clear about aberrant theology, which causes division, and says, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” (Romans 16:17) “Avoid them” means we need to warn others, particularly if someone who is our midst is actively promoting them.

I am not saying a person cannot feel warmth when being prayed for. But the feeling of warmth is not orthodoxy. It is not Scripture. It is not doctrine. Neither is it promoted by any Scripture, when properly taught in context (Len Lacroix uses many Scriptures out of context). Len Lacroix does not defend his teaching with the Bible, but with testimonies, for it is impossible to defend this teaching using the Bible. Len Lacroix writes, “I would like to share some people other than brother Kim, who have had divine revelations regarding the holy fire that further corroborate this teaching, and confirm my own experiences.” (https://len-seekingthelord.blogspot.com/2012/05/holy-fire-baptism.html)

And thus we see an emphasis on divine revelation in order to promote aberrant theology. But this is not how we teach theology. The word of God has all of the theology we need. There are no “new words” required in order to teach theology, for it is all there for us in the Scriptures. Even as we read, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Doctrines of Demons

The Bible warns us of doctrines of demons, saying, “But the Spirit says expressly that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men who speak lies.” (See 1 Timothy 4:1) And this is exactly where Len Lacroix, Yong-Doo Kim, and their followers are at. They are in an extremely dangerous place. Furthermore, notice how 1 Timothy 4:1, just quoted, mentions “men who speak lies.” What lies did our guest speak? Well, for starters, he spoke at least seven of them, in rapid succession, when he launched his rapid-fire ad hominem attacks (see bullet points 1-7, under “Ad Hominem Attacks,” above).

Bad Theology

Regarding this erroneous theology, I am not referring to differences in opinion as to whether tongues is for today or not. The man that Len Lacroix promotes is Yong-Doo Kim, who sees nothing wrong with daily trips to heaven, and something called “holy fire baptism” that has no basis in Scripture. Len Lacroix writes, “I was first introduced to the holy fire baptism through a book by brother Yong-Doo Kim, called Baptize by Blazing Fire.” (https://len-seekingthelord.blogspot.com/2012/05/holy-fire-baptism.html) And so right away, he states his authority for this teaching as coming from this man, but it is not substantiated by any Scripture.

His strange teaching on “holy fire baptism” is not orthodoxy in any circles. It is completely outside of orthodoxy. Len Lacroix provides a glowing endorsement of Yong-Doo Kim, so as such, from the standpoint of avoiding his teaching, he should be treated in exactly the same manner as Yong-Doo Kim. If one would avoid Yong-Doo Kim because of his aberrant teaching, then one should avoid Len Lacroix, as well, for the latter endorses the former. Let’s take a look at Yong-Doo Kim’s teachings as described in one of his books, Baptize by Blazing Fire, Volume 2. Note, this is the book series being promoted by Len Lacroix in the above quote.

In my longer (almost 20-minute) video, you will see that Yong-Doo Kim promotes and endorses daily visits to heaven, visits to hell, and conversations with Michael the Archangel, Gabriel, Moses, and Jesus combined. Of course, as Christians, we do pray to Jesus. But we have no such command, or instruction, to be praying, or conversing, with these others. This is aberrant theology that is far removed from any orthodoxy. Neither are conversations or prayers to departed saints orthodoxy according to the Bible. And though some people do engage in these types of things, God commands us through his word to remain true to the Scriptures (see Joshua 1:8-9, Psalm 1:1-3, John 17:17, 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Perhaps no clearer warning is found than in Proverbs 30:5-6, which states,

“Every word of God is flawless.
    He is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
Do not add to his words,
    lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar.” (Proverbs 30:5-6)

Research

The week before you attended our meeting, the man in question had attended our home group, and was eager to promote the theology of Len Lacroix. I did not feel comfortable but held my peace. The man said he was looking forward to having Len Lacroix pray over him to receive the “baptism of fire,” and, of course, this is not orthodox teaching, but we were in the midst of the meeting, which was all laid out, in terms of our schedule. I graciously told the man I would do some research and get back to him. And this I did.

David Wilkerson

It was not long after the meeting ended, and in fact, the very next day (August 16), that I did a web search on “Baptism of fire” and was immediately presented with a video by David Wilkerson which is about 1 hour long and is entitled, “A Baptism of Fire.” This video was not promoting the aberrant teachings of Len Lacroix or Yong-Doo Kim, but rather simply used the term “baptism of fire” to denote fiery trials in the sense of 1 Peter 4:12: “Beloved, don’t be astonished at the fiery trial which has come upon you to test you, as though a strange thing happened to you.” At about the 19-minute mark, David Wilkerson says, “Jesus is baptized in water and immediately goes into the wilderness for his baptism of fire.” (https://youtu.be/iliO38D3BZo?t=1155) I am grateful for the ministry of David Wilkerson, and in his definition of, “A Baptism of Fire,” he maintains a biblical approach.

Purging, Cleansing, or Hell Itself

Certainly the fire which the Bible preaches is a purging, cleansing, fire, or it is hell fire itself (based on Luke 3:17, which immediately comes after Luke 3:16, in which John says that “He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire”). The fire which is described in Luke 3:17 is stated as being “unquenchable fire” in which Jesus will “burn up the chaff.” One could rightly say this describes hell fire. But by way of application, one might describe the fire as being like a refiner’s fire, in which God burns away the dross. But really, according to the parable of the wheat and the tares, it seems to closely align with Matthew 13:30, “Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.” Len Lacroix entirely leaves out the context of Luke 3:17 in his teaching of Luke 3:16, in which he teaches that one should actually seek for a baptism of fire. There are no directives to be baptized by fire in Scripture. It is not something man does. It is something that God does.

Trials, Refining, Testing

David Wilkerson says the baptism of fire represents a time of trials. If so, it is a time of refining and testing. Otherwise, Luke 3:17 would lead us to conclude that it is hell fire itself, reserved for the wicked. Either way, one does not seek it out. One should never seek out this baptism. One may certainly have to endure suffering, like Jesus did. But one should not seek it out. On this note, Jesus declared, “But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished!” (Luke 12:50) In this, Jesus was referring to his suffering. This baptism was not a glowing feeling. It was a time of great distress and suffering!

We read in Luke 3:16, “John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I am will come. I’m not good enough to untie the straps of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Luke 3:16) Thus, who is it who does the baptizing with the Holy Spirit and with fire? That would be Jesus. It’s pretty clear from the passage. Thus, the only baptism which we are commanded to actively perform is water baptism (see Matthew 28:18-20).

Ephesians 5:11

The week before you joined us, the man had already begun to promote this aberrant teaching of being baptized by fire through the laying on of hands within our meeting, and was already exchanging phone numbers, notably with one woman whom he was sitting near. The Bible warns against people coming in and promoting false teaching, and leading others astray (see 2 Peter 2:13-14). I am not imputing any bad motives on this man. On the other hand, one cannot ignore the fact that his teaching is not biblical (or “orthodox,” in this context), but is following a dangerous path that must be warned against. This warning really had to be issued for the sake of all people. We will not remain silent (nor will we ever) in the face of such aberrant teaching. It is dangerous not to speak up, and we would be doing others a great disservice by remaining silent. Furthermore, God explicitly tells us in his word, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but rather even reprove (expose) them.” (Ephesians 5:11)

One must consider the promotion of his doctrine. It’s not as though the man had a strange belief and did not share it. He was actively promoting it. So I hope this explains why I said what I said, and why I reacted strongly to the man, in telling him, “Your blood be on your own head if you fail to heed the warning.” I meant it, but if the expression itself was misunderstood by anyone, then I would turn you to passages such as Ezekiel 33:3-5, Joshua 2:17-20, and Acts 18:5-7, which provide a good contextual understanding of how the term is used in a biblical context. Although physical death can be associated with the term, the real connection is with regards to spiritual death, or separation from that which is good, holy, and the blessing of God. Of course, I do not want this for this man (or for anyone). Thus, I warned him.

I hope this explains it.

Thank you.

In Christ,

A.

See also: Why Some Letters are Public