The Word of a KING

What I Believe about the Spanish Bible

2010-09-30T23:05:00.000-04:00

“What is truth?” is a famous Bible quotation. The speaker, Pontious Pilate, is probably one of the biggest fools in history: The Truth was standing right in front of his face! Unfortunately, modern-day Laodicean “funnymentalism” asks the same question, when their answer is no further away than Pilateʼs was!

!In an age characterized by spiritual poverty, wretchedness, blindness and nakedness (Rev. 3:17), itʼs no surprise to find books like “The King James Only Controversy” attacking the foundation of our faith: Godʼs written word. To our immense shame, weʼve largely sat back and have allowed this travesty to occur. Since Westcottʼs and Hortʼs blasphemous Greek text was published in 1881, over 300 English versions of the Bible have been foisted on the American people and the rest of the English- speaking world. From a people whose first printed work, a history book, contained phrases like “the gross darknesse of popery” and “popish trash,” weʼve become a “Bible-of-the-Month Club” sheeple who will follow whatever spewage is printed in the “Butter knife of the Lord” (Sword of the Lord), not realizing that these are the very people who “have perverted the words of the living God,” and couldnʼt find Godʼs written words with a 1 million candlepower flashlight and a Tom-Tom GPS!

Moreover, however muddled the issue has become over the English Bible, the waters are even murkier over the Spanish Bible issue, with one main difference: the combatants on all sides of the issue claim to believe the King James Bible!! Now that close to half a dozen Spanish versions are on the table, and the rhetoric and attacks are heating up, it seems too late for a call to reason. While God hath given us the ministry of reconciliation, unless the parties are open to discussion, nothing will be reconciled, John Calvin notwithstanding. So, to save time and negate as much hostility as I can, I am simply going to state, for the record, what God has shown me in regard to His words in Spanish, and leave it at that. Godʼs opinion is the only one in which Iʼm interested, so I donʼt hesitate to “Tell it like it is” If straight talk chaps your hide, then either discontinue reading, or get some vaseline and read on at your own peril.

This age ends, like all others, in apostasy. I think that it is extremely apparent that we are living in the final stage of the last days, and the Bible we all claim to believe clearly defines our era as a “great falling away.” While we all want to cling to cliché phrases like “We can be Philadelphian Christians in Laodicea,” the evidence for that, especially these days, is virtually nonexistent. I personally know that I am worse than useless, and my flesh is a greater adversary than I sometimes seem able to handle, and I know from human nature and the Book that all men are the same way in one form or another, and to expect a Christian who is by default cold, calloused, and carnal to be able to produce a faithful, God-honored Bible stretches the limits of credibility, regardless of the destination language. God has already used men - native, Spanish- speaking men, to translate His word into Spanish. Now, why Gringoes think they can correct those words, I donʼt understand, but I can certainly understand how a Latino would be upset with some Nortemericano telling him that his Bible “would be better translated as such or so-forth.” (Sound familiar, Gringo??) God is fluent in Spanish, just like He is fluent in Chinese, English, German, Tamil, Esperanto and any other language that exists or ever has existed, so to think that God is not capable of putting His words in any language is stupid. Or ignorant, if you prefer Bible words. Now, this is not to say that God HAS put His words into any specific language other than English (donʼt give me that “originals” nonsense!), though I believe that He has: I am simply stating that God can and thereʼs not a cotton-pickinʼ thing that Baptists, scholars, atheists or apostates (or apostate, Baptist scholars) can do about it if He decides to use another language. At the same time, God owes no one anything, least of all the Spanish-speaking world. Spain is responsible for some of the worst torture and genocide of Christians since the Roman Empire (second only to the Roman Catholic Church), so to think that God has to give His word in Spanish is, again, ignorant.

!The Spanish Bible has a very old and rich history. Casiodoro de Reina completed the first Protestant Spanish Bible in 1569. De Reina, like Luther, was a Catholic clergyman who faced physical persecution at the hands of the Catholic church because he insisted on translating the Scriptures into the common or “vulgar” tongue. The Office of the Inquisition in Spain had expressly forbidden, in obedience to the Papal position on the matter, that any Bible be translated into Spanish. De Reina, a Spaniard and a Philadelphian-age European, sacrificed greatly for the cause of providing the Spanish people with the Scriptures. With the completion of his Bible, the Spanish-speaking people now possessed a Bible based on the Received Text (Stephanusʼ 1550 edition).

De Reinaʼs pupil, Cipriano de Valera, another persecuted Catholic, completed his revision of de Reinaʼs Bible in 1602. This revision corrected what Catholic taint had unwittingly seeped into the 1569 Bible, ensuring that the Bible, now dubbed the “Reina Valera” would, for 400 years, be the archenemy of the Catholic church in Spanish. In fact, during de Valeraʼs revision work, he, like Tyndale before him, had to flee his home country and take up residence (ironically) in England.

In the middle 1800s, yet another Spanish, Catholic clergyman, by the name of Ángel de Mora, completed another revision of the Reina Valera 1602 Bible, correcting 99% of the omissions that were a result of incomplete manuscript evidence at the time of the original editions. This edition compared the 1602 edition to the King James and brought it solidly in line with the Received Text and the KJB. This edition came close on the eve of the Philadelphian church age, as Westcottʼs and Hortʼs villainous, perverse text was soon to arise, drowning the world in pro-Vatican, humanistic rationalism and perverted Bibles; the hinges of Godʼs “open door” (Rev. 3:8) were squealing closed.

The next major revision of the Reina Valera Bible came along in 1909. With the RSV and ESV now vying for supremacy against “The monarch of the Books,” Westcottʼs and Hortʼs “scholarly” text was permeating every corner of Bible translation and textual criticism. It should come as no surprise, then, that the 1909 revision of the Reina Valera was “leavened” with sprinkles of Alexandrian scholarship and modernist corruption. Text and Translation: European Languages gives direct proof that the translation committee behind the 1909 revision relied on the Critical Text.

The committee behind the most popular Spanish edition, the RV1960, was presided over by a man named Eugene Nida, known as the “Father of dynamic equivalence.” The truth of Godʼs words was so important to this man, that while translating the Bible into a south seas tongue, whose culture had no knowledge of sheep, decided to call Jesus “the pig of God.” Any Born-again Christian should be

absolutely LIVID about that, but unfortunately, men like Calvin George have accepted this edition, based completely on the Alexandrian, anti-King James Critical Text. The fact of the matter is that the 1960 is inherently a corrupt, Vatican-sympathizing, Ecumenical snow-job that has completely removed the ability to teach doctrine to the Spanish speaking people.

The question faced by Bible Believers, then, is “Which Bible?,” the same question asked and answered (in English) not so long ago. Faced with “antiquated,” “archaic” Bibles in Spanish, or modern, Rome-tainted editions, we now come full-circle to the question presented in the introduction: did God provide His words in Spanish? If one assumes that the answer is no, then more questions ensue. However, I firmly believe that God not only is able to provide a Spanish Bible, but that He already did. I also believe that it is folly for a Laodicean Christian to try to improve upon anything that God has already done, as our church age is commended for absolutely NOTHING. In fact, the standard, run-of-the-mill lethargy and nonchalance seen in Bible Believing churches makes God want to PUKE US OUT!! Yes, YOU, Baptists!! Donʼt be so haughty to think that you or I can do anything lasting or permanent here: weʼre doomed to APOSTATIZE! Take Hyles-Anderson College, for example: after switching to the King James only position in the 1970s, Dr. Hyles was one of the most outspoken defenders of the King James Bible. After his passing, however, his successor, Jack Schapp, has trod underfoot the Book that his daddy-in-law stood for for around 30 years! APOSTASY!! Ghandi said it best: “I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” AMEN!! To think that a lost sinner like Ghandi understood a truth that Independent, Fundamental, Hellfire and Damnation preachinʼ Baptists canʼt grasp is almost depressing! Then, those “saved, sanctified, serving” Baptists think that they can somehow produce a faithful Bible, in a language that, in many cases, isnʼt even their native tongue?! The ludicrous nature of such a concept completely boggles the mind!!

To top it all off, what seems to be the main force behind every group that has decided to do their own thing in regard to a Spanish Bible appears to have the same reason among themselves: they donʼt want to accept the available Spanish Bible because they donʼt want to be linked to Ruckman. Why believing God and accepting a BOOK as His WORD would make someone a “Ruckmanite,” I cannot understand, but unfortunately, people have decided that itʼs easier to strike off on their own and make their own Bible instead of BELIEVING the one that God already provided, because of their fear of man.

If you have legitimate reasons to make your own version, then go right ahead: but if your reason is because you think that accepting the Valera 1865 as Godʼs word in Spanish is going to link you to Ruckman, then SHAME ON YOU! First of all, why are you so stinking scared? The fear of man bringeth a snare!! Second of all, the only thing really linking Dr. Ruckman to the Valera 1865 project is that a few PBI graduates have signed onto it. Dr. Ruckman has not endorsed ANY Spanish Bible or Spanish Bible project!! Grow up!!

Suffice it to say that I believe that God put His hand on the Reina-Valera 1865 edition for the Spanish-speaking world, and anything else is but a pale imitation of Godʼs words. While my ministry in Latin America is still before me, I can say that God has shown me, without a shadow of a doubt, that the 1865 is His word in Spanish. In my opinion, anyone that insists on making their own translation simply doesnʼt believe that God would provide His words in Spanish, as a faithful, TR-based Spanish Bible is already available! Either that, or they are flat-out ignorant. When someone states that he knows that the 1865 is perfect, yet turns around and creates his own “Reina Valera” edition, based on his own opinions, that man very obviously is discounting Godʼs power on His book in that language. When FEELINGS overcome FAITH, you have a weak, baseless project that will NEVER have Godʼs blessing.

Basic Introduction to Dispensationalism

2010-04-27T23:17:00.001-04:00

My last post was in response to a blog that was against Dispensationalism, but since there are a lot of readers/friends that might not be entirely or accurately familiar with what Moderate Dispensationalism teaches, or at least what I believe, I decided to put together a post to help explain what Dispensationalism.

Explaining Dispensational theology in one post is about as explanatory as describing an internal combustion engine by saying that it burns gas and turns a shaft to run a car. By that, I mean that Dispensationalism is such a vast and complex topic that a cursory explanation does little more than create a thousand questions in the minds of the readers, and in this case, almost every reader is going to have a thousand different questions than any other reader! However, I think it is important to make an attempt, if simply to help provide a well-rounded experience when it comes to Bible doctrine, as well as to open up dialogue with people who have never seen the Bible in this light.

Buckle up: here we go!

Forewarning: I believe the King James Bible unquestioningly. I will tolerate no second-guessing of God's word, for the King James is certainly that word. No Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic or Chaldean will I appeal to against the King James, for I believe that God is able to not only magnify His word above all His name (Ps. 138:2), but He is able to preserve (Ps. 12:6-7) every word (Matt. 4:4) forever (Ps. 119:89), and He did, in the King James Bible.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

This verse is unique in that it is the only place in the Bible where we are commanded to study. (warning: all modern versions have removed this word, which explains why there is a dearth of doctrinal study in Christianity today) I explain the verse this way: "Study" is what to do, "to shew thyself approved unto God" is why to do it, "a workman that needeth not to be ashamed" is the result of not studying, and "rightly dividing the word of truth" is the how. That being said, we must understand that the proper study of the Scriptures requires understanding that we must "rightly divide" it, or know the correct divisions that are found in Scripture.

That being said, the actual divisions found in Scripture will have to be addressed at a different time.

Some Preliminary Things to Understand

Time does not permit me to fully supply all the proof texts and arguments for the following, but if need be I will answer, in another post, the questions about each. But for the purpose of this post, the following will be accepted as factual:

There are three groups: the Jews, the Gentile, and the Church
There are three parts to every human: the Body, the Soul, and the Spirit
There are two Images: the image of God and the image of Adam

These are foundational truths that must be understood in order to proceed into the actual meat of Dispensational theology. While one might argue that God wouldn't make truth complicated (and He doesn't), theology is deep, because God Himself is incredibly deep, so studying Him is inevitably a very complex and long-lasting undertaking.

The Basic Theme of the Scriptures

Why are all these seemingly accessory things so important, you ask? Well, we must build line upon line, and precept upon precept, here a little and there a little, and therefore we do so now.

Anyone who is familiar at all with the Bible knows that it is not laid out chronologically. Job is probably the oldest book, and falls somewhere between Genesis 10 and 12, most likely. Also, the books of Isaiah through Malachi occur within the books of Kings and Chronicles, which are actually concurrent, though each focuses on a different angle of Israel's history. (Yes yes, I have a point with all this!)

If we look at the beginning of the Scriptures, both chronologically and as it is laid out, we see that both ways, the Bible begins with a king and a kingdom. For clarification, read the words of Genesis 1:

Gen. 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

The key word in this passage is "dominion." The only person that has a dominion is a king or a ruler: a king rules a domain, or his dominion. Therefore, God made Adam a king over the entire creation, from the oceans to the atmosphere and to everything in between. Chronologically, Lucifer (Isa. 14) had a throne already, and attempted to exalt it above God's throne, but was cast out. This is not the place for that discussion either; sorry.

Then, at the end of the Bible, we again find a King, yet this time He is the KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS, reigning and ruling from Jerusalem with a rod of iron (Rev. 19) Therefore we see that the Bible begins with a king, and ends with a King, and if you trace it down through the Bible, you'll see that this struggle - for dominion and control over a Kingdom - is the main theme of the Bible. While most Christians assume that the Church is the main theme of the Scriptures, an honest look will give evidence that the Church Age is but a parenthetical, almost accidental time, where God gives grace to the Gentiles to provoke the nation of Israel - God's divorced wife - to jealousy.

Understanding what Dispensationalism Means

Now, for the good stuff!

When God created Adam, He gave him two commands: dress and keep the garden, and don't eat of that tree (paraphrasing, obviously). His existence required no faith, no redemption, and no blood, because he had no sin! God's plan for his life was simply to live in bliss in the garden and replenish the earth (again, we're not going there!). In fact, there was nothing BAD about the tree at all: God obviously had a plan for them to partake of it eventually, but until then, the act was disobedience, though the tree was not evil in and of itself.

However, after Adam sinned, and lost that perfect innocence and blissful existence, God provided a way for him to regain the lost image of God (made in God's image, lost the image through sin, Seth born in Adam's image, Gen. 5:3). Contrary to what most people today believe, however, that provision did NOT include faith in any way, shape or form: God provided animal skins, which were a sacrifice and a covering for sin. Adam's acceptance of God's provision is what covered his sin: Romans 10:9-10 had absolutely nothing to do with it!

Later, Noah's favor in God's eyes was not because of his faith, but because Noah was "a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God." (Gen. 6:9) In fact, Noah's obedience is the very thing that saved him: if Noah had not obeyed God and built the ark, there is no way that he would have wound up in Heaven! Again, like in the previous section, we again see the "dominion" (kingship) issue pop up: in Genesis 9, God grants authority and power over the creation to Noah and his sons.

There are so many more to talk about, but the main person of interest, from both Dispensational and non-Dispensational points of view, is Abraham. Quickly: Paul uses Abraham as "proof" of salvation by Grace in Romans 4 and other places, while James uses Abraham as "proof" of the necessity of works for salvation. The issue here is that God dealt with Abraham differently than He does with us today, and He will deal with others differently in another time period. Specifically, Abraham was sanctified (was imputed God's righteousness) when he believed God about Isaac (Rom. 4:3), but he was justified when he offered up Isaac (James 2:21). So regardless of the arguments from both sides of the issue, the fact is that Abraham's justification and sanctification were received separately, at different times, and for different reasons, while we are justified and sanctified at the same instant when we receive the free gift of Salvation. Therefore, "Things that are different are not the same," and thus we see that God dealt with Abraham differently than He dealt with us.

In Conclusion, and a Teaser…

I'll put my keyboard to rest here, but I do want to make mention of the underlying and yet overarching topic that I left entirely untouched: the Two Kingdoms. The Bible clearly speaks of two Kingdoms: the kingdom of Heaven and the kingdom of God. One is literal, physical, and earthly, and the other is spiritual and heavenly. This is another vastly deep topic that bears much study and dividing, but perhaps my loyal readers will come up with some thoughts of their own before I actually approach that topic.

Thanks for reading, and I hope you receive a blessing from this.

A Response to Anti-Dispensationalism

2010-04-26T22:45:00.000-04:00

I know of few people that describe themselves as "anti-dispensationalists." Many I know would distance themselves from Dispensationalism, calling it "Ruckmanism," of all things, but until recently I had heard of very few people that would actually believe that Dispensational theology is unbiblical. For instance, the church I grew up in did not teach what I call Rightly Dividing, that God dealt with different people differently at different times in history: i.e. Adam was given different commands than Noah who was given different commands than Abraham, etc. Israel was unquestionably required to keep the WORKS of the Law: yes they were a picture of Christ, but they had absolutely no clue about that! Also, Jesus taught meekness and non-violence, but to Jews only, while Paul taught forbearance as much as possible and called people fools, directly contrary to Christ's command in Matthew 5:22.

Then, even more recently, I saw a link to a blog posted by someone: the title of the blog actually stated that they were against Dispensationalism. I eventually came to find that they were post-milleniallists, which started to make sense, and I was asked by a couple of people to respond to the blog post in question. This is that response: I hope you can at least learn something of my stance, even if I'm not able to change your doctrinal stance.

Forewarning: I believe the King James Bible unquestioningly. I will tolerate no second-guessing of God's word, for the King James is certainly that word. No Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic or Chaldean will I appeal to against the King James, for I believe that God is able to not only magnify His word above all His name (Ps. 138:2), but He is able to preserve (Ps. 12:6-7) every word (Matt. 4:4) forever (Ps. 119:89).

I shall delineate the points that were presented against Dispensationalism and address them to the best of my ability in the limited time and space that I have.

(1) Christ is presently ruling in his kingdom

The original poster stated that according to Ephesians 1:20-22, Christ "was already established as the king and enthroned in the first century" First, from a logical perspective, if that is true, than Jesus is the most pathetic king to ever sit on a throne! Have you seen what a mess this world is in?? Surely a king as powerful as Jesus, if He really were ruling right now, could do at least a marginally better job of it!!

From a Biblical perspective, however, one must understand that there are TWO kingdoms spoken of in the Bible: the Kingdom of God, and the Kingdom of Heaven. (Things that are different are not the same - Heaven is not God!) From the beginning of Christ's earthly ministry, which was only to the Jews, by the way (Matt. 10:5, 6, 15:24), Jesus was offering them the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 3:2, 4:17, all of Matthew 5, 7:21, ad nauseum), a literal, physical, earthly kingdom. This kingdom is described in its fulfillment in Revelation 19 and 20, with Jesus ruling with a rod of iron as an absolute dictator in a literal kingdom, ruling from the literal city of Jerusalem.

That being said, Jesus' kingdom is still future, since the nation of Israel rejected and crucified their King, and even after being given the promises of the last days, written by the prophet Joel, through the preaching of the Apostle Peter, they continually rejected the Holy Spirit and Christ's imminent return, which culminated in the salvation of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13, 15:16; Gal. 2:8; Eph. 3:8; Col. 1:27; 1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11), and the dissemination of the Gospel (of the Grace of God, mind you) to the Gentiles. Even as late as Acts 10, Peter and the rest of the early Christians didn't believe that Salvation (or in their minds, the Holy Spirit) was available to the Gentiles. The Ethiopian Eunuch was saved in Acts 8, but that appeared to be an isolated incident, but it took the direct revelation of God to Peter to convince him that the Gentiles were now invited to the party!

Simply put, to state that Christ is currently ruling a physical kingdom is completely unsupported by Scripture. He is ruling the Spiritual Kingdom of God, which is not meat and drink, but righteousness (Rom. 14:17), but no physical kingdom, since that is yet to come, and it takes an incredible imagination, and a whole lot of twisting, spiritualizing, and ignoring of Scripture, to stuff the events of the book of Revelation into the past.

(2) We are presently ruling with Christ

The author assumes that since we are spoken of as "sit[ting] together in heavenly places" with Christ in heaven (Eph. 2:6-7), that this is (see above) speaking of a literal, physical kingdom, when in fact the only ruling happening on earth on a physical sense is by the powers of darkness (Eph. 6:12). Jesus is described in three ways: His first appearance was as a Prophet, He is now fulfilling His role as the High Priest, and when He comes in glory as is described in Revelation 20, He will be the King of Kings, and reign for 1,000 years unchallenged.

Simply put, the failure to understand the differences between the kingdoms renders this objection moot. We are technically ruling with Christ, as we have been made fellowheirs with Him, and are now ambassadors of Christ on earth. However, to state that we are somehow in a position of literal rulership in this world is again ludicrous.

(3) The Jew and Gentile are forever merged into one body in the final phase of God’s redemptive plan.

This part is correct in one aspect, in that the Jew and Gentile both lose their cultural identity in the Body of Christ, but wrong in that this is far from the final phase of God's redemptive plan. As mentioned above, there is still a Millennial period to come, preceded by a seven-year Tribulation period, when once again God's complete focus returns to the Jews and the nation of Israel. The temple will be rebuilt, and sacrifices will be offered therein, and then the "Abomination of Desolation" (Mark 13:14) will be the beginning of "Jacob's Trouble" or "The Great Tribulation," which will be the time when only a remnant of a remnant of the Jewish people will survive - these are unquestionable the people who are spoken of throughout the book of Revelation as being beheaded, tortured, and massacred for the word of God and the testimony of His name, and for refusing to worship the Image of the Beast and take his mark.

God cast out Israel as a corporate entity, and grafted in the Church, of which the Jews can become a part of. That being said, the Bible is clear that when the Rapture of the Church takes place, the Jews once again become the main focus of God, as He prepares them to take their rightful place as the rulers of the earth.

Simply put, the Church is but a parenthetical, almost accidental thing as far as Bible prophecy goes. We can see the Church in the Old Testament now, looking back, in pictures and types, but not one person believed that the Gentile would be a part of ANYTHING until the vision of the sheet from heaven came to Peter and Cornelius received the Holy Spirit. We are undoubtedly to be the Bride of Christ, but Israel is the currently-divorced wife of God the Father, and they will be dealt with differently: Christ's church purified and married purely, and God's divorced wife repentant and reunited with her Husband.

(4) Paul sees Gentiles as receiving Jewish promises.

The author mistakenly assumes that Paul speaks of the physical blessings promised to the Jews when he speaks of the "covenants of promise" (Eph. 2:12). What the author fails to realize is that the context is entirely about spiritual things, not physical blessings. Yes, we receive the blessing of God as far as communication with the Creator and so many other things, but to claim the physical promises given to Israel is illogical, and absolutely unsupported Biblically or practically.

Simply put, yes, we receive Jewish blessings, but only those that are spiritual, and were outright rejected by the Jews, as they were and are a physically-motivated/driven people. We do not get their land, their supernatural health, their protection from evildoers, or any of a thousand other promises given to them because of their bloodline, nor shall we ever have those promises. We have gifts and promises that Israel will never receive, as well, such as God's unmerited, free grace: we do not have to endeavor to keep the Law in order to receive His grace!

(5) The rebuilt temple is the Church of Jesus Christ.

Again, the author fails to understand the difference between the physical and spiritual Kingdoms: in the Church Age, or Age of Grace, we most certainly are the "Temple" of God: we can worship Him wherever, and we do not need to go through a priest to receive forgiveness of sins or to communicate with Him. However, in the next Age, when God is once again dealing with a people whose emphasis is ALWAYS on physical and visible things, there will be a new temple in Jerusalem.

Simply put, it goes back to part 1: two Kingdoms.

(6) The mystery of the Church was revealed in the Old Testament

Well, I sure wish you'd tell that to the Disciples, the Pharisees, the Sanhedrin, and all the rest of the educated Jews back then! We understand the Church by looking back at the Scriptures through the corrective lens of the New Testament, but to imagine that ANYONE before Paul understood what the Church was is abject heresy! Yes, Heresy, and I will prove it, from the same scriptures that were used in the original argument.

Ephesians 3:
1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

He specifically says in verse five that in other ages it was NOT made known unto the sons of men (why that phrase holds so much meaning for the blog's author, I cannot understand), but is now revealed. In fact, in the book of Galatians, Paul tells how this "Mystery" was revealed specifically to him in the desert of Sinai, by none other than Jesus Christ Himself. The Church is called a "mystery" so many times through the New Testament that to claim that anyone before Paul understood what it meant (in that Jews and Gentiles would be united in one spiritual Body) is not only unsupported by the Scriptures, but it's actually contrary to Scripture, since Paul said that no one before him knew anything about that "mystery."

In short, the "point" is unbiblical, unsubstantiated, and immediately refutable. The Bible stands.

Now, while responding, I came to understand how such a doctrinal lapse could occur. The first and foremost thing is that there is a strong aversion in today's Christianity to submit oneself to the authority of ONE "version" of Scripture. If you can pick and choose what you think the Bible should say, that's a lot easier than just buckling down and obeying one unappealable Bible, is it not?

Secondly, Christians fail to understand that they, the born-again, blood-bought, saved eternally Bride of Christ, are NOT the main theme of the Scriptures. In fact, like I stated above, the Church is little more than a parenthetical blip on God's eternal radar, simply a loving Father's indulgence for His beloved Son to gain a Bride. The main theme of the Scriptures is the KINGDOM: it starts with King Adam being given dominion (a kingdom), and ends with Jesus Christ on a THRONE reigning and ruling in a literal, physical kingdom, on a literal, physical throne, in glory and power for eternity to come.

Beyond that there are many issues that must be addressed, but those are the main ones. I hope my response was concise: I try to be as cordial as possible, but I must confess that civility places somewhere lower on my list of importance than does clarity. I'd rather make sure that someone knows the truth than miss that and come across as a nice guy.

God bless, and I hope this helps someone.

Paradise and Heaven

2010-02-03T23:31:00.001-05:00

One of the more obscure topics in the Bible is the actual location of Paradise, and, by extrapolation, Heaven itself. I was recently accosted by a man who insisted that Paradise is and always has been Heaven, based on a few Scripture references. I intend to show the origin of these locales based on what the Bible says.

Again, I make the King James Bible my sole authority: any Scripture used is King James only, and any other references will be ensured to line up with Scripture. No other Book has the power or authority of the Monarch of the Books, the Authorized Version of the Bible.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Again, I don't wish to get into the Gap issue here, but it must be noted that in the original creation, God only created one heaven. The atmosphere, also called the firmament, is also called "heaven" or "the firmament of heaven." So we can safely say that "heaven" doesn't immediately mean God's throne (Matt. 5:34), but has several meanings. Specifically, the Apostle Paul speaks of being caught up to the "third heaven" after being ~~rocked to sleep~~ stoned to death. He also uses the word "paradise" in that context, stating that the place where he went was called "paradise." Since the typical consensus is that paradise is not in the third heaven, allow me to explain what must be, according to the Scriptures.

The first instance of the word "paradise" is found in Luke 23:43.

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Very obviously, Jesus is saying to the thief on the cross that he (the thief) will be with Christ after their deaths, that same day. Therefore, wherever Jesus is to be found immediately after His death, the thief will also be present.

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Jesus was clearly stating here that He would go to Hell during the time when He was dead.

Ephesians 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Also reference this:

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

Christ's suffering was the means by which He preached to the spirits in prison (2 Pet. 2:4, Jude 6) in the same Hell where the rich man went (Luke 16:19-31) and saw Abraham's Bosom.

These places, Abraham's Bosom, and Hell, were separated by a "great gulf" which was impassable, meaning that while communication was indeed possible as this story proves, they were definitely separate places, one being a place of torment, and the other being described as comfortable. Therefore, since Jesus spent those three days in Hell, and He promised the thief that he would be with Christ in Paradise, the only logical conclusion that "Abraham's Bosom" is also called "paradise," the temporary resting place for righteous Old Testament souls whose sins had not yet been washed away under the Old Covenant of the Law. These people could no more enter heaven proper without proper atonement for their sins than could any lost person today: they had to have their sins forgiven first, which means that Christ had to die and pay their sin-debt! (Eph. 4:8)

So, we can see how that Christ very clearly said that paradise was in the center of the earth along with Hell. However, we also see that Paul stated that paradise was in the third Heaven. The simplest way to reconcile this "contradiction" is to simply accept that when Christ "led captivity captive," the place in Heaven where they went is also called "paradise" in the Bible.

There is much more to this study, including the Deep, the Pit, the Lake of Fire, and the whole origin and purpose of these places. However, I believe I covered the intended topic sufficiently, so we will let it rest until another time.

Comment if you have questions or have Biblical evidence of where I am wrong on this topic: I am always open to the correction of the Book!

The Sons/sons of God

2010-02-02T19:54:00.003-05:00

Recently, a topic came up that I thoroughly enjoy discussing, but about which there appears to be a lot of misconceptions. (This will in no way be exhaustive; many books have been written on these topics, and I hardly have the space to do a worthy study on them in a blog post!)

We begin our study in the usual place: at the beginning. (Note: all Scripture is from the King James Bible, and no authority other than It shall be appealed to, especially "The Greek" or "The Hebrew.")

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

The key word here is not what one would usually pick up on or make of any importance: the word to note is "image." Obviously, this verse supports the Triune nature of God ("our image"), and dually it speaks of man's triune nature as well: body, soul, and spirit. Adam was made in God's perfect image, a triune being, and certainly in the likeness of His physical appearance also.

As a result of that likeness and image, check out how Adam is referred to later:

Luke 3:38: Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Do note that in this instance, "son" is lower-case, denoting that Adam was not a deity: he was simply made in the image of God, and therefore was called the "son of God." Thus, the vast importance of the precise wording of John 3:16 is made apparent: Jesus is the only "begotten" son of God, or God the Son (capital "S"), so dropping the "begotten" (meaning God's direct progeny or "genetic" offspring) makes Jesus a liar, as there are many other beings that are called the "sons of God."

Now, we'll sally back to the first place in the Bible where the actual phrase "son(s) of God" is mentioned.

Genesis 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

The typical argument here is that these "sons of God" are simply righteous descendants of Seth, as opposed to the unrighteous descendants of Cain. This is certainly a lousy exegesis, since Seth himself was said to have been born in Adam's image, not God's (Genesis 5:3). The fact is that when Adam sinned, he lost that perfect image of God: his spirit died. From that point on, man was unregenerate, fallen, and existed as a dichotomy: body and soul, with a dead, worthless spirit inside. Man's communion with God had been cut off, and from then on, man was born in the image of Adam (1 Cor. 15:49).

We'll conclude then, based on the evidence given in the book of Genesis, that the phrase "sons of God" cannot refer to human beings, since not only is there a precise distinction between God and mankind in this verse, but that indeed the image of God had been lost (and still is in unregenerate man). Therefore, these "sons of God" are something entirely different, and we'll look and see what the Bible says about them.

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Now, without getting into the Genesis 1:1-2 issue, let us simply state here that since it is the sons of God that are presenting themselves before God, and Satan is among them, that he is indeed numbered among these sons of God, though in an obviously fallen state. Why else would he show up? These are supernatural, angelic beings (Job 38:7) who were present at the creation, though Satan, among them, obviously no longer retains his office as the LORD's light-bearer (Ezekiel 28:14). These sons of God, then, are not based on their standing with God: they are called sons of God based on their creation (Genesis 6 details sons of God that were involved in vile sexual practices!). So far, we have established two things:

1. These sons of God are not human

and

2. These sons of God are supernatural, angelic beings who were present at the creation.

Now, let us tie together the different uses of "son of God" between the Old and New Testaments.

A serious student of the Bible will recognize that before Christ's death, burial and resurrection, there was no "new birth," no "Body of Christ," and no forgiveness of sins. As Christ was the "last Adam," (1 Cor. 15:45), he redeemed fallen man and restored the perfect Image of God (Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 15:49; 2 Cor. 3:18, 4:4; Col. 3:10)

With Christ's propitiation for our sins, He conformed us to the image of God through His death. We now have the power to become the sons of God, or regain that fallen image! The reason that a person or being is called a "son of God" is because he is made in the image of God, just as genetic children retain the image or likeness of their parents. In our case, as David said, we have been made a little lower than the angels (Psalms 8:5), but we have been given the unspeakable free gift of Eternal Life, something that the angels obviously don't have (Gen. 6, 2 Pet. 2:4, Jude 6).

Questions? Leave a comment and I'll reply to the best of my ability.

Preaching about Preaching??

2010-02-01T21:14:00.002-05:00

In my years in Bible Believing, Baptist churches, I've heard many good sermons. I've tried to make a habit of taking notes, especially with visiting pastors, and I've even "borrowed" some of their material to make my own sermons.

On the other hand, I've heard a lot of bad sermons. And I mean BAD. For instance, a while back I saw a YouTube video of a young whippersnapper preaching an entire sermon against another preacher, a man FOUR TIMES HIS AGE. Not only was this young novice incredibly ignorant about the man (he called Dr. Ruckman a Brider!?!?), but he was railing against an Elder, one against whom he was not to receive an accusation (1 Tim. 5:19), and someone whom he is to entreat as a father (1 Tim. 5:1). For this young kid to behave so reprehensibly in just that one "sermon," so proudly displayed on YouTube, is an absolute disgrace, and proves that he is indeed a novice who is NOT grave, nor sober minded, nor fit for the ministry in the least.

A second message by this loud-mouth was on "watered down preaching," a topic that while I agree with and understand the importance of sound, biblical preaching, I hardly think is a topic that deserves its own sermon!! A cursory look at the common fare of this young person's sermons shows that he is extremely heavy on sin, standards, and separation, and preaching on doctrine, spiritual topics, and FOOD for the SHEEP is severely lacking.

This is the largest problem in "Independent, Fundamental, Skirt-wearin', Hellfire and damnation preachin', oh yeah and King James only Baptist" circles today: too many people are majoring on the minors and minoring on the majors!!! Yes, we need to preach righteousness. Yes, it is important to preach hard and straight. Yes, it is important to draw a line sometimes. BUT IT DOESN'T FEED THE SHEEP! If you have a church full of nothing but hard preaching and standards, you'll have a bunch of shallow people who will be blown away the first time a Jehovah's Witness shows them something that's "wrong" in their Bible or a "truth" that you don't teach or that contradicts what little doctrine your people get. Your people will know that speaking in tongues is wicked, but they won't know WHY. They will know that they are supposed to dress modestly, but they will dress the way YOU WANT THEM TO because THAT'S what you preach instead of what the BIBLE SAYS.

A good, balanced church is comprised of three different types of discourse: Doctrinal teaching, Spiritual preaching, and Practical application to help them in their day-to-day lives. A church with too much of one kind or too little of another will be imbalanced and will lead to dry or shallow Christians who don't have what it takes to be a shining light in our communities.

Pardon the rant, but doctrinally-decrepit loudmouths are getting on my nerves lately, and since this is my blog, I figured I'd take advantage and say something.

Revenge of the Fallen

2010-01-29T19:44:00.000-05:00

I love SciFi, and I'm usually hesitant to make a Biblical argument against a work of mainstream fiction ("The Golden Compass" and "Harry Potter" not included!). However, reading through Larkin's "The Spirit World" opened my eyes to something that I think is important for Christians to understand.

In Transformers: The Revenge of the Fallen, Megatron, the leader of the evil Decepticons, is raised from the depths of the ocean (the "Deep," anyone?) to wreak havoc once again on earth. Of course, in the end the good guys win, but the storyline is filled with hidden Masonic references (Vigilant Citizen - Transformers 2) and NWO undertones throughout.

From a Christian perspective, however, something completely more sinister emerges. Even if we ignore the complete over-the-top sensuality of the film, it still doesn't make muster as something that a Christian should digest! In Isaiah 14, we read the following:

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Bible Believers know that Lucifer is the name of the pre-fall Satan who was crowned the ruler (v. 13, "my throne") over Eden, the pre-Adamic earth that was populated completely with angelic beings. God here is talking about Satan, after the fall spoken of here and in Ezekiel 28, as well as hinted at in Genesis 1:2.

Other references to "fallen" beings include:

Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

Jude 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

It is generally accepted among Bible Believers that the account of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 is speaking of angels that chose to leave their "first estate" in Heaven and cohabitate with human women. For all the talk of the "godly line of Seth," there is no evidence for anything but angelic intermingling with humankind. As it was, the offspring of these unnatural unions (Jude 7, 2 Pet. 2:5) resulted in "giants...mighty men which were of old, men of renown" who were much unlike anything seen today.

Now while I don't generally refer to the ancient languages of the Bible, sometimes they create interesting insight; the word used in Genesis 6 for "giants" is "Nephilim," which also means "Fallen Ones."

Now one could argue that since the "Fallen One" lost, it's a good movie, but where does one draw the line? I've even questioned movies like Lord of the Rings and Chronicles of Narnia because of their "good magic" content: it might symbolize Good or something positive and "right," but it's still subjecting yourself to (even CGI) witchcraft! There is more to these things than meets the eye, and unfortunately we as Christians fail to see it!

In conclusion, I think it important to understand that (even if unintentional, which I seriously doubt) this movie pictures Satan's return in the Tribulation as he bruises the heel of the Seed of the woman. Remember to view things in light of the Scriptures: we cannot simply explain things away or brush them off: God is serious about this stuff!!

Glory, Glory, Hallelujah!

2009-12-31T00:12:00.003-05:00

One of the most unfortunate misconceptions to have ever struck this country, besides the idea that a Republican can fix this country, is that the "Battle Hymn" is a great patriotic song. Nothing could be farther from the truth: not only is the song rife with doctrinal heresy, its author was a God-rejecting Unitarian, and the whole concept behind the song was inaccurate! But sadly, as is our nation's typical modus operandi, we're stuck with this song in our hymnals, on the 4th of July, and other patriotic occurrences.

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.

Right from the first we see that the woman, Julia Ward Howe, who is accredited with writing this song, has absolutely no clue as to what "the coming of the Lord" actually entails: she's of the opinion that Jesus is going to come back to free all the slaves (she was a notorious abolitionist), even though Christ clearly commanded servants to subject themselves to their masters (Colossians 3:22: Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:)! Note: I am not condoning the practice of slavery as it existed then or at any other time: God allows what He wills, and there's nothing that I can do to change the past.

Obviously, Ms. Howe was so caught up in her unbiblical activities and was so self-serving that she thought that the Lord would empower the Union armies with "his terrible, swift sword." No matter that the South was simply repeating what Thomas Jefferson penned in the Declaration of Independence, attempting to secure liberty for their posterity (crushed mercilessly by the Constitution-defying Lincoln): she decided that the war being fought was simply to free slaves! Again, ignoring that after Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation (freeing slaves ONLY in the South!), desertion rates in BOTH ARMIES skyrocketed! One Confederate soldier was recorded as saying that he was disgusted at the idea of fighting for Negroes. The common soldiers on either side of the conflict cared little about the institution of slavery: there were at least two states in the Union that still allowed slaves!! The misconception about slavery's importance in the Civil War is one of the greatest coups of leftist propaganda in the history of the world!

I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on."

So, the gospel has to do with guns and bayonets, does it now? This sounds more like a Dark Ages dirge than an American hymn! And the salvation of the Union soldiers rested on how many Southerners they hacked, shot, stabbed and slashed on the battle field?? On top of that, the Union army is a picture of Jesus Christ crushing the Southern SERPENT?? ARE YOU EVEN PAYING ATTENTION TO THE SLOP THIS WOMAN IS SPEWING???

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat:
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on.

Well, she obviously wasn't paying much attention to the majority of the battles that took place in the first THREE YEARS of the war: the South was kicking butt!! I suppose that's what happens when your homeland is being invaded! Again, she assumes that God's most pressing duty is judging the Southern soldiers before His Judgment Seat, not knowing, of course, that it is only the saved that are at the Judgment Seat of Christ (who she did not believe was God).

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.

Look out, your ignorance is showing!!

Of course, anyone who knows ANYTHING about the Bible knows that Jesus was NOT born among beautiful lilies, and He did NOT die to make men holy: He died to save their wretched souls!!

So, not only was her history wrong, her doctrine and basic intelligence was way off course, too! I think there are far, far better songs that are truly patriotic that we can sing without stooping to using smut like this.

Yet more on evolution

2009-09-26T16:38:00.003-04:00

See, I just can't put the topic down. When I actually get around to posting, I have a tendency to hit the same topic over and over again until I finally get a new topic to ride for a while.

Here are some very problematic things that evolutionists have to completely ignore in order to continue believing their Mother Goose-style fairy tale religion:

Abiogenesis, or the rise of life from non-living material. Fransisco Redi and Louis Pasteur proved this nonsense to be exactly that: nonsense, between 100 and 200+ years ago. The question is then, how can someone who claims to be intelligent actually think that life came from non-life, when there is neither evidence nor credible theory to back it up? Even Richard Dawkins, famous atheist and evolutionist, has no intelligent answer to this question, though even just the title of his book "The God Delusion" certainly sums up his thoughts about an intelligent Creator.

Thermodynamics, the Laws by which life, matter and energy are ruled. First, evolution cannot explain the basic existence of the things that these Laws rule; naturally-occurring spontaneous generation of the matter in the universe is directly contrary to the Laws, so even our existence is "illegal" when one believes in evolution. Secondly, the arise of "higher" creatures from "lower" ones requires an addition of genetic material that has not only never been observed, but is in fact a direct violation of the Laws as well. While and energy cannot be destroyed, they can be reduced to an unusable state, so everything tends to disorder, chaos and entropy, while the "theory" of evolution requires the exact opposite, which, once again, has never been observed in nature.

Beneficial Mutations, or random genetic cellular mutations that produce positive, helpful results. This is the cornerstone of the "Natural Selection" tenant held so dearly by evolutionists: only by slow, beneficial mutations can a creature hope to evolve into a more adapted creature. This thought even underlies the basic racism of the evolution "theory," in that since Aboriginal and African peoples are older and less evolved than whites, they are inferior (Hitler and Mussolini loved THAT one). However, the evolutionist's faith is challenged by the fact that all genetic mutations, from warts and missing limbs to cancer, are not only NOT beneficial, but are in fact harmful! Indeed, the human immune system knows well enough to attack mutated cells to help keep the body normal and healthy, so why would anyone think that these problems could be beneficial?

In conclusion, Evolution requires life to arise from non-living matter, which has never been observed nor even supported by any scientific research, complete circumvention of the Laws of Thermodynamics, which is impossible since they are immutable, natural LAWS, and "beneficial" mutations, which have also never been observed nor supported by scientific findings. Therefore, we have, instead of a scientific theory, a religious belief unsupported by science or common sense.

More on the "theory" of Evolution

2009-08-01T22:51:00.003-04:00

While contemplating this ~~"Global Warming"~~ "Climate Change" issue, one has to come to the conclusion that it is unchangeably tied to the farce that is Evolution.

For instance, both nonsensical belief systems require long periods of time with gradual changes. "Climate Change" simply insists that this parasitic creature, homo sapiens, is causing change to occur much faster than normal to the detriment of the rest of the ecological system.

Unfortunately, given the lack of education in the "education system," kids are being plopped out of Public Sewers spouting the party line of Evolution, Climate Change, and Socialist Politics. Isn't it strange that modern education purports to teach individuality and free thinking, yet almost all of its denizens quote the same mantra?

Well, this really isn't very long, as my day was long enough and my mind is rather scattered. Take it easy, and I'll try to update more regularly. Again.

Part 2...Finally!

2009-07-13T21:20:00.000-04:00

Well well...

2009-06-22T12:06:00.002-04:00

So, I haven't yet taken the time to finish getting the video put up. Trust me, I have both the second and third videos ready to upload, but I've been extremely busy (not to mention out of town for a week) and haven't yet gotten around to putting them up.

On a side note, I noticed that I had over 100 hits on this blog on June 12th. At first I was astounded and a little excited; then I noticed that the referrals were from Fundies Say The Darndest Things, and my elation vanished. Talk about a cesspool of self-important, lame-brained jacknapes! Well, I still probably got a decent amount of ad traffic from that mess, so I could care less.

Update on Part 2 of the Signs video

2009-06-01T23:10:00.002-04:00

I figured I should throw this out here: I've been trying to upload the second segment of this video, but unfortunately my internet provider (TWC, thank you (not) very much) has been having serious issues in providing reliable internet service lately, and every time I try to upload it, the internet cuts out and I have to start over (which I've done now at least three times).

Rest assured that the second part and final wrap-up are indeed done and ready for upload; I simply have not been able to get them uploaded, thanks to Time stupid Warner.

Signs, part 1

2009-05-25T23:32:00.002-04:00

Theological Rubbish

2009-05-18T15:37:00.003-04:00

Traditionally (I hate 99% of traditions, to be honest), there are two viewpoints as far as "Theology" goes. You have "Reformed" doctrine on one side, with the other bearing the moniker of "Armenianism," though Reformed is just a fancy name for Calvinism. Most people view these two theologies as all that exist in Christianity, but to counteract a basic lack of knowledge on this issue, I'm going to give a basic overview of what these doctrines teach and what's wrong with them, as well as what the Bible truly says about this issue.

Calvinism

Hard-core Calvinism or Reformed Theology is summed up in the acronym "TULIP." Also known as "Five point Calvinism," TULIP theology teaches the "Total Depravity" of mankind, "Unconditional Election" of those destined or chosen to be saved, "Limited Atonement" or that Christ's sacrifice was only for the "Elect," "Irresistible Grace" or that the Elect cannot refuse the drawing power of the Spirit, and "Perseverance of the Saints," which means (in its purest form) that those that are saved will retain their salvation through holy living.

While these doctrines seem harmless on the surface, they are dangerous and unbiblical when studied closely. For instance, while "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him," Jesus said that He would draw all men unto Him if He were lifted up. Simply put, Total Depravity is unbiblical, in that God has placed many things in this world to draw the attention of the lost who have never even heard of God or Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:20).

Also, Perseverance of the Saints is not Biblical Eternal Security by any stretch of the imagination; contrariwise, this doctrine teaches that while salvation can be lost, the "Elect" will always regain their salvation and invariably go to Heaven when they die. This is incredibly unbiblical, and though some that hold to Reformed theology no longer believe this, instead adopting true Eternal Security, this is the doctrine that Calvin taught and is held by those that truly agree with fundamental Calvinism.

Armenianism

Armenianism is very similar to Calvinism except that where Calvinists believe certain people are chosen to go to Heaven, Armenianists believe that God's election is conditional upon faith, and while Reformed theology teaches an invariable return to salvation, Armenianism states that salvation is dependent upon continued holy living, and that those that are saved can actually go to hell.

Of course the biggest problem with this view according to the word of God is that the Bible clearly teaches that once someone in the age of Grace (i.e. Church Age) accepts Christ as his saviour, he is permanently and irreversibly saved. Our sanctification is not based upon our continued clean living, but on Jesus Christ's perfect life. We are perfected in the spirit through His blood, and neither obtaining nor retaining salvation has anything to do with our works.

Biblical Theology

The doctrines of the Bible on salvation are very clear, so it is somewhat perplexing as to how men such as Calvin came up with such ludicrous ideas. The Bible clearly teaches that God created man with a free will and the ability to choose, and that while man almost invariably makes the wrong choice, God always gives him a chance to make that choice. From Adam through Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and the prophets, each one had a choice to make, whether to obey God or serve their own will. The concept of a free will is unarguable from any standpoint, especially a Biblical one.

Secondly, the idea of Divine Predestination is out of line. Invariably, one will find that a Calvinist must take a verse out of context or apply it incorrectly to make his doctrinal house of cards stand. While Paul declared that we as a church are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, speaking to Christians, a Calvinist will say that means that certain individuals were chosen before creation to go to Heaven, when it simply means that when a man gets saved, he is placed on a path to be made perfect like Christ.

The third and final doctrine of Calvinism which I will contrast against the Biblical position is "Perseverance of the Saints." Paul states that we are "sealed unto the day of redemption" by the Holy Spirit, meaning that we have the seal of God on our souls, marking us as His purchased possession. Also, the entire book of Galatians deals with the theme "Kept by Grace," following up on Paul's in-depth salvation discourse to the Romans. He clearly states, "Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" He spends the rest of the book clearly showing how that once saved by God's grace, through no effort of our own, we are kept saved the same way: by God's grace without our interference in any way.

Simply put, the "traditional" way of looking at theology is deeply flawed. I personally think that there is too much emphasis put on "theology" and not nearly enough placed on actually believing the Bible. When one interprets the Bible through the cloudy, dingy glasses of his own theological viewpoint, he becomes a private interpreter of the Scriptures, which in reality places him in no better standing than an Atheist or the Catholic Whore as far as correct doctrine is concerned.

Love your Modern Bible Version? So does the Pope

2009-05-16T17:50:00.003-04:00

Ouch. Yeah, sorry, that's kinda' hitting below the belt, I know. However, it's 100% true and historically accurate. You doubt? It's easily ascertained.

Anyone who's very familiar at all with the Bible version debate knows that there are two main families of manuscripts (mss.), the Byzantine or Antioch, known as the "Majority Text," and the Alexandrian, known as the "Critical Text." For almost 1800 years, the only Scriptures available to the people were those of the Antioch line (where they were first called Christians, etc.). Antioch is located in Asia Minor, the location of the vast majority of Paul's missionary journeys.

These mss. are found in dozens of different languages the world over, and have resulted in every Reformation-Era Bible besides Wycliffe's, from the Gutenberg Bible down through the Bishops, Geneva, Great and Authorized Bibles (KJB). These, while differing and varying somewhat among the 10,000 or so different scraps and portions in so many different languages, still exhibit an incredible coherence as a whole, and to any objectie observer have resulted in every major revival and awakening movement on the globe since the time of Christ.

However, this family of mss. has been villanized by modern Christian scholarship as being newer and more modified from the "Original Autographs." They in turn offer the Critical line of mss. in their place, but even a cursory examination of these raises an immense number of red flags. For instance, the proponents of the Alexandrian family of manuscript were from Alexandria, Egypt, a place that no Apostle nor church father of character came from nor even visited. Alexandria was a hotbed of corruption and debauchery from the political sphere down through its culture and even into its band of Christians. This group included Origen, who castrated himself, and other men whose philosophy came directly from the humanistic philosophers of Greece. It's clear from their writings (Origen was a most prolific writer) that they held very few of the "orthodox" or fundamental doctrines, instead many times believing in multiple paths for salvation and other hereisies.

To return to the title, however: in the middle 1800s, Christian scholars who had studied in humanistic German schools of philosophy began uncovering new manuscripts and codices that had never been seen before. These included Alexandrianus (A), the least-known of the three main mss., Siniaiticus (א), found in a garbage heap in a monestary in the Siniai desert, and Vaticanus (B), a script that no Christian scholar, liberal or not, has ever actually studied in person. Dean Burgeon, a great defender of the Majority Text in the late 1800s, described the aforementioned codices as sloppy and lacking the care that important documents of any type merited, let alone the Scriptures themselves. It's believed that Origin and others actually modified at least two of these codices, though there are contradictions and ommissions located throughout.

The reason that Vaticanus (B) has never been actively studied is because it is kept securely locked away in the Vatican library. While photocopies have been made available, on which the overwhelming majority of modern translations are based, the codex itself is unattainable.

But all this doesn't necessarily answer the customary query or the reader: why would the Pope and the Catholic system look favorably upon the modern versions, while by implication frowning upon traditional translations? Simple this: thousands of people, from unknown thousands during the Dark Ages down through John Huss and William Tyndale, died for hiding, reading, posessing or memorizing the words of Scripture from the Majority Text, and their deaths were completely at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. While the "church" used political powers to carry out the public torture and executions, they were behind it and in control of it nonetheless.

After the Bible was out in the open and impossible for the Papists to control (thanks to men like Luther, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale and others), they decided on another tact: if you can't beat them, join them. So as a result, the Chamelion Catholic Church changed their stance on the Bible, and manipulated Christian "scholarship" to use their "older," extremely corrupt manuscripts and codices to produce new versions of the Bible. In essence, the NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, and ASV are all based on the same source from whence came the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, while the King James Bible, the Bishops, Tyndale, Great Bible, Luther's German Bible, and all other Reformation-Era Bibles, are based on the manuscripts that Bible-believing men ans women died for through the centuries.

Hard words, yes, but very true. Not only are "updates" to the Bible unnecessary, but the very foundation for those updates is the corruption that the Roman Catholic Whore has infiltrated Christianity with to undermine the Authority and Power of the Scriptures. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together wouldn't accept the doctrines of Purgatory, Infant Baptism or Transubstantiation, but those same individuals turn around and correct the words of God with the corruption that the Catholic Bible is based on. Hardly makes sense, does it?

The Real Big Bang

2009-05-13T14:55:00.004-04:00

The stupid little sect of "educated" idiots in this country that believes in evolution will doubtlessly think the title denotes an overbearing, fantastical account of an event that can't be proven and of which there is no evidence, but that's not the case at all. In fact, I'm just going to post some Scripture and run those little scums off right now: there's no sense in having an idiot involved in an intelligent, spiritual conversation. It would be like involving a centipede or a spinach plant in a physics discussion.

2Pet. 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Cool, huh? This is speaking about the last days, after the Tribulation and the Millennium. In this time, Jesus has just ruled and reigned for 1,000 glorious years, but the Devil is released for a short time and hell again breaks loose. The armies of the world rise up against the LORD and are crushed into tiny, tiny pieces. At that time, God really busts this place up. Let's get a little context on this occurrence.

2Pet. 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

The "same word" that this verse is talking about refers to verse 5, where it says that by the word of God the heavens were of old. So this verse says that the word of God holds in store the heavens and the earth. It also says they're reserved unto fire and judgment. What's this judgment all about?

2Pet. 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

(emphasis mine)

Wow. Obviously, if you believe that God wrote this Book and that it's infallible and perfect, then you have no choice but to believe that the whole universe ("heavens") is going to be destroyed at the atomic level! Don't agree? Then I'm sure there's a "The Bible is so nice" or "What Version do you like" blog out there for ya; enjoy. This is about believing the Bible, so you aren't going to fit in too well if you don't believe it.

2Pet. 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

"Dissolved" is a good word to describe it; isn't it awesome how flawless the Book is? Hallelujah, we serve an AWESOME GOD!!

2Pet. 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

There's that "dissolved" phrase again. Let me address the scientific significance of this real fast.

Many scientists agree that the particles of atoms, electrons, neutrons and protons, are in turn made up of particles called "quarks." Three quarks each, to be exact. These particles have a magnetic charge which holds them together; however, this poses a serious and almost insurmountable problem for science: having three particles that are charged magnetically means that there is an imbalance of force (one negative vs. two positive), so how does an atom stay together?

Well, I would like to propose that the Bible holds the answer to this question. In fact, I already provided the answer, though you might not have caught it. Let me provide it again.

2Pet. 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Now is that cool or what? Sure, think about the ramifications of that statement. I don't much dwell on the things that science can't measure, explain or reason away: if God says it, I believe it. It makes life so much simpler, and you wind up being right way more often.

Catholic roots of the King James Bible?

2009-05-05T21:45:00.004-04:00

First, I must apologize for the ads in the sidebar; I use Google adsense even though I've yet to receive a penny from it, and it turns out that they put up nonsensical Catholic ads on there. Oh well, I don't mind costing some popish reprobate some extra coin in advertisement costs.

I have been repeatedly heckled by people who claim that the King James Bible is Catholic and corrupt, and in turn offer newer "Bibles" based on codices Siniaticus and Vaticanus, of all things! Of course, their first angle of attack is against some men; I will try to address that as well as possible.

Erasmus

Erasmus was the original compiler of the Textus Receptus on which every faithful translation of the Bible in any language is based. He also happened to be a Catholic monk, as was any educated person in Europe during that time period (either a Catholic clergyman or a noble). Erasmus dedicated much of his life to preparing the TR from hundreds of manuscripts in dozen of languages: he was undoubtedly one of the most educated men of his time. He also never left the Catholic church, and this is the beef that "freedom readers" have with the King James Bible: it is based on a text compiled and edited by a Catholic. Never mind that their text was illegitimately birthed by a couple of unregenerate pope-butt kissers, Erasmus and his work must be derided to undermine the authority of that Book! So yeah, Erasmus was a Catholic, but it's obvious from the way the Catholic whore ignores him and treats him in their histories that he was far from a favored son. In fact, he was all but excommunicated for his works that challenged the papal authority of Rome. Basically this attack is a total farce.

Martin Luther

Luther is the de facto father of the Protestant Reformation (if one doesn't count John Wycliffe, that is...more on him later perhaps). Again, Luther was a Catholic monk who never left the "church." His works blasted the unbiblical doctrines of the Roman whore to the point where he was excommunicated and pursued for trial as a heretic, but he never actually left Rome. Of course, his TR-based German Bible was the translation that sparked the liberation of Europe from Papal Rome, but modern authority-rejectors must strive to eradicate that Bible and those like it if they are ever going to control the laity in their Nicolaitine methods of privately interpreting the Bible.

There are others, but must we go on? Casiodora de Reina, Valera, Mora, and the translators of the Italian, Portugese, Dutch and other Bibles were almost all unfailingly Catholic monks or priests that God used (even Tyndale was!) to translate His words into different languages. Even the most ignorant honest individual would see that every major revival or move of God in this world was begun and completed under the auspices and authority of a TR-based translation of the Bible, and 1881 and the ESV saw God's movement diminish to a near indecipherable level, but it seems that modern scholarship refuses to accept such things as God's approval, and must instead appeal to humanistic reasoning to find the Scriptures for the typical dumb parishoner.

Ain't it great to be a dumb sheep that must be led around by the nose?

The fallacy of "Double Inspiration"

2009-05-04T12:24:00.003-04:00

Yeah yeah, of course with a title like that you're expecting a rant against Ruckman or against the fringe King James onlyists, but you'll get none of that here. I simply want to put to rest this idea of "Double Inspiration" by defining what exactly inspiration really is. Of course I'll use nothing but a King James Bible to do it, so if you can't submit to that as your authority for the definition of the words found therein, then do yourself a favor and move your bohunkus out of the way of people who are actually trying to get something accomplished.

The word "inspiration" is used twice in the Bible, and if you're a Bible believer like I am, you'll submit the words within the Bible to Its own definition, meaning you'll put the two verses together in context and accept that meaning as factual. Can we give that a shot?

II Timothy 3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Please notice, this verse most emphatically does NOT say that all scripture is inspired: it says that all scripture is GIVEN BY INSPIRATION. If you say "the Bible is inspired," you're subjecting the words of God to your own private interpretation, contrary to 2 Peter 1:20.

Job 32:8: But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

So here we have the other verse, and as anyone with a brain in their head can see, "inspiration" is dealing with supernatural involvement in human comprehension; i.e. the "Almighty" giving understanding through inspiration.

Therefore, when you combine the two verses, as true Bible believers should do, you'll see that all scripture (including the Bible that you claim to believe, if you really believe it) is given by the supernatural understanding given by God to men. As a result, scripture is not inspired: the men who write it are! Therefore, there's no such thing as "double inspiration," since the Bible was never inspired even once in the first place! God preserved His perfect words through the centuries and compiled them in the King James Bible in 1604-1611, but He never inspired them. He inspires the men that He uses to preserve and translate that Word.

Got a better explanation? Biblical, of course; I don't give two farts about any other kind.

"godly men"??

2009-05-02T22:37:00.004-04:00

When dealing with the modern version issue, the names of Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort are almost synonymous with Textual Criticism, and for good reason: they basically single-handedly (with the Vatican's and Satan's help, of course) demolished the solid foundation of the King James Bible. Of course they didn't damage the Word or change anything as far as God's words go, but they're responsible for destroying the faith of millions in God's written words.

When the average "scholar" starts talking about the Textual issue, they always eventually say something about the "godly, dedicated men" behind the "Bible-of-the-Month-Club" perversions being churned out of the Bible mills continuously. This is, of course, to try to change the focus to their character from their work, when their work should invariably be the subject of scrutiny. The same goes for Westcott and Hort.

Both men were Anglican ministers. Well so were many of the King James translators, you might say. True. However, those men had untarnished and unassailable testimonies of salvation and stellar reputations of spirituality and humility. Even modern KJB-haters have to attack their education (still unparalleled) or available materials (they had all the modern readings available in the Latin Vulgate) instead of their character. However, good Drs. Westcott and Hort are quite another story.

In their own personal writings, they expressed their interest in gardening, ornithology, spiritism, and animal rights, among other things. While their contemporaries, such as John Wesley, George Whitefield, George Müller, William Booth and Billy Sunday, were spending nearly every waking hour preaching the Gospel and serving God, these modern Textual Critics spoke very little of Spiritual things, even relegating the Scriptures themselves as of no more importance than any other ancient manuscript! Neither one of them believed in Salvation by grace through Faith alone, nor a literal Devil or a literal hell, but they did agree on Mariolatry, Purgatory, Universal Reconciliation and the Nicolaitine Catholic priesthood. These men revered the Papacy very deeply, and on many occasions lamented their church's (Anglican) lack of strong, Papal leadership.

But these are the "good, godly, dedicated" men whose work is so celebrated by modern Bible-rejectors. These men (Westcott and Hort) demoted the Bible to a menial collection of ancient scribbles and completely demolished its authority in modern society with their wrangling of the Critical Text, from which virtually every modern Bible perversion has sprung. Their pro-Vatican, anti-Biblical, un-spiritual babble has infiltrated every facet of "Christianity" and perverted the church that had held true to God's words for over 1800 years. With but a few years work, these reprobates cast doubt and confusion onto the textual line that millions had died for over the centuries, including men like John Huss, William Tyndale and others of their persuasion. From the Waldenses, Petrobrusians and other such groups, to men like Wycliffe and Luther that suffered persecution, Westcott and Hort undid almost two millenia of blood, sweat, tears and prayer. Today, God's precious words are scoffed at by billions, because of the confusion brought about by their work.

Good job, guys...Satan's really proud of ya.

The Cancer of Catholicism

2009-04-27T15:42:00.002-04:00

I'm not going to get into the Great Whore issue or the relationship between Rome and the Antichrist in the end time, but I do want to rant a little and maybe inform some readers of some largely unknown church history.

Generally speaking, people understand the history of the church in the last 2,000 or so years to be something like this: Jesus died as per the story in the Gospels, the Gospel spread throughout most of the known world, 300 AD saw Constantine wed the then-corrupt Roman church with the state government, and then Luther threw a fit in the 1400s and sparked the Reformation, which led to the translation and printing of the Bible in European languages leading to the expansion of Biblical Christianity.

Now there is nothing really incorrect with this account; the problem is that it misses some key facts and issues that most Christians, even those that claim to believe the Bible, overlook. Among ecumenical groups today there is a push to find common ground between any and all groups of people that claim the name of Christ, but a look into the past of the numerically largest group of "Christians" reveals some truly chilling, disturbing things that most people have no clue about.

For instance, in 1534, Ignatius de Loyola founded the Society of Jesus, better known as the Jesuits. This group of fanatical papists has wreaked such havoc upon the world as to be almost inconceivable. From the infamous yet little-known St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in which more than 10,000 French Huguenots were brutally tortured and murdered by a Jesuit plot, to the sponsoring of the attempted invasion of England by Spain via the well-known "Spanish Armada" (packing along hundreds of Jesuit priests and instruments of the Inquisition), to even more recently the Jesuit connection to the assasination of President Lincoln, the "Society of Jesus" is a no-holds-barred, lawless group of individuals whose main premise is that the ends justify the means, and they believe the church of Rome so fanatically that they are said to believe that white is black if the Catholic church were to say as much.

However, the most poignant and effective attack by the Jesuits and the Great Whore herself has been against our Authorized English Bible. From the get-go, the Catholic church banned possession or memoriztion of the Bible, though even their "scholars" and priests were accused of scareely knowing even the names of the books of the Bible! Even in England, dozens or perhaps hundreds of people were burned at the stake for simply teaching their children to memorize the Lord's Prayer in English! If at any time there was an organization more diabolical or satanic than Rome, history does not record it.

With the truth of the English Holy Scriptures defying every decree made at the demonic Council of Trent, the Catholic heirarachy knew that they had to counteract the effects of the AV if they were to have a chance to once again subdue England under the pope ("Bloody" Mary's Catholic reign of terror ended unsuccessfully and abruptly with her execution at the hands of Protestand troops, to be Providencially replaced by His Highness, King James the First of England). So in order to fight the sway that the King James Bible held over the English-speaking people, the Jesuits commissioned the Duay Bible, still the Catholic standard. Interestingly enough, this "Bible" perversion is based on exactly the same manuscript heritage as every new translation being spewed out of Nelson, Tyndale, and any other publishing house. I've dealt with Siniaticus and Vaticanus before on this blog, so I shan't revisit that topic. Suffice it to say that any version besides a King James Bible is based on the same corruption that the Catholic Whore employed to keep the world under bondage for several hundred years.

Ok, I now forget where I was going with this, primarily because I'm exhausted and about to fall asleep. Comments are great...maybe they would help motivate me to post more often.

Unity or cowardice?

2009-03-08T21:16:00.003-04:00

How good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.

Of course it's good. It's awesome when believers can fellowship together in harmony and mutual understanding if not always mutual agreement on every little thing.

However, where does unity end and compromise begin?

I don't have the desire nor the time to go into detail, but I was recently berated for my "attitude" and my "anger" because I defended the words of God against a "Ph.D candidate" who made ridiculously idiotic statements about the "archaic" nature of the King James Bible and said that there were many terrible translations in it. This is a guy who apostatized a few years back and is now proudly a "renegade" who refuses to believe in any Authority that he can hold in his hands and OBEY. It always comes down to authority.

Basically, there was a thread to post what Bible version each person used, so I simply stated that I believed the King James Bible is the perfect, pure, preserved word of God, given by inspiration. I did not attack anyone, I did not list the errors and corruption in other "Bibles," and I did not even hint at my true belief about other translations.

"RenegadeBrad" comes along, though, and copy/pastes this huge list of ignorant "errors" that have been refuted more times than I care to mention, as well as a list of "archaic words" in the KJB, including such hard words as "onyx" and "osprey." (this from a self-described "Ph.D candidate" that admitted that he could understand fewer than 25% of these words) When I replied in the defense of the word of God, I was reviled for saying that I could understand 50-75% of the words without having attended college, and that anyone with a decent grasp of entymology and the English language should have no problem understanding even more of the "archaic" words than I even do.

But oh no, we can't have THAT: it turns out that the board administrator is personal friends with "Brad," and so now I'm "stuck up" because I was home schooled, and I'm a "clanging pot" and a "yapping dog" simply because I DEFENDED the WORDS OF GOD. I attacked nothing and no one: I simply defended against an attack by someone else: but I'm the one that gets castigated, not the individual who instigated the altercation with his attack.

Heck, I'm always up for an attack, and I'm more than willing to show where modern versions are corrupt and satanic in origin, but that's not what the thread was for. In fact, that's not even what the forum as a whole is for, and I had been very careful not to cross the wishes of the admin. But simply because the other guy was friends with the admin and he was more "gracious" in his attack on God's holy word than I was in its defense, I'm causing division and breaking the rules.

So, when does unity become compromise? When you throw truth out the window to preserve peace.

"You mess with that Book and I'll mess with you!" ~Dr. Peter S. Ruckman

"It is good for a man not to touch a woman..."

2009-02-14T01:56:00.003-05:00

1Cor. 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

If pre-marital physical contact is sin, then so is getting married at all.

Don't like it? Argue with God, I couldn't care less what you think.

Evolution? Are you nuts!?!

2009-02-12T11:31:00.002-05:00

Besides the obvious fact that institutions of "higher learning" are breeding grounds for Evolutionist infidels, an article from FOX regarding a recent Gallup poll shows that less than 40% of Americans believe in evolution, and less than 25% of high school-educated people believe in the ridiculous nonsense.

Well, with no evidence for the "theory," no "transitional fossils" (which were a problem for Darwin and still give Evolutionists epileptic fits) and belief only in places full of educated idiots, proponents of this nonsensical pipe dream need to crawl back into their scummy little holes and suck an egg.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,491345,00.html

Can We Have Some Balance Here, Please?

2009-02-08T11:43:00.001-05:00

Lately there has been a lot of talk in blog land about marriage, and “Titus 2” women. This can be extremely beneficial, or extremely detrimental. All I am reading on the blogs of both men and women is all about the women. A friend of mine once said that all cults are always concerned with women and what they need to do and be.

All women need to strive to be “Titus 2” women. But, wait a minute. Do you know that Titus 2 ALSO mentions the roles of MEN? That’s right, although it seems to me as if we’d hardly know that since we are so unbalanced that in conservative Christianity we tend to focus much more on the women. Even the men sit around writing to women telling us how to be “Titus 2” women. If they spent that much time worrying themselves about how to be “Titus 2” men, maybe there would be more balance.

I have seen feminism blamed for a lot of things. I have seen blogs from men who hate women with a passion. Both man hating and woman hating is WRONG. We CANNOT fix the problems feminism has caused by the men turning around deciding not to marry women because they think that there are no virtuous women.

Women are NOT helping other women by telling them that any problem in their marriage is due to them as women not being submissive enough. Last time I checked, marriage took two people and God has given different roles and responsibilities to BOTH those people and a lot of the problems I see are because BOTH man and woman are doing something wrong.

What's so hard to understand about Eternal Security??

2009-01-31T21:42:00.003-05:00

I just chatted with a young lady that I hadn't talked to in a couple years, and to my chagrin she has gotten involved with a "Community Church" thingamajig. You know the drill: gotta' learn Greek, no final authority but God, no eternal security, speaking in tongues, healing, the whole bit.

My question to her, which she was unable to answer (even though she's attending "Bible" school through her church), was simply "where does the Bible say that a person can rescind their salvation?" (Ok, I didn't use exactly those words, but it's the same idea.)

First thing, people that believe like she does have no clue what the New Birth of John 3 means. They don't understand that people are reborn into God's Image, the Image that Adam lost by his disobedience. Jesus, the LAST ADAM, retrieved that Image by His obedience, allowing us to again be "made in His image." Not since Adam's sin, until the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, had anyone been "reborn." Jesus hadn't paid the penalty and retrieved the crown of the Kingdom of God (spiritual) yet!

Secondly, they have no idea about Spiritual Circumcision. It's laid out so clearly in Scripture, but their belief in optional Security prove that they have no clue about predestination to the conformation of Christ or what the "operation of God" is in Colossians 2:12.

Note: every time Paul says "I would not have ye to be ignorant, brethren," the brethren are ALWAYS IGNORANT!

Clearing the Air

2009-01-31T11:15:00.003-05:00

I decided that it was time to put something else up, so the first thing visitors see is no longer a complete bashing spree on Abraham Lincoln. I certainly don't regret anything, take anything back, or apologize for anything that I said; why apologize for speaking the truth?

Anyhow, the Lord has been working in our lives and bringing us to the place (I believe) where he can use us and further us more visibly toward getting to the field.

On another note, my wife and I have already picked out some names for our kids; being a Grey-Blooded Southern boy, at least three of the boys' names will be Robert Edward, Nathan Bedford, and James Ewell Brown. Girls we've decided to name with Bible names and Biblical virtues as middle names. That way we can be historical and Biblical all at the same time, and our kids can be thankful of their heritage and know their names stand for truth and integrity.

"Honest" Abe

2009-01-24T12:05:00.002-05:00

In a list of America's great leaders, you'll invariably find George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and, of all people, Abraham Lincoln. Unfortunately, thanks to the liberal media and "political correctness," few really know the truth about Lincoln: who he really was, what he did and what he believed. Let's take a second and uncover some truth about the man that "freed the slaves."

I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man.

Lincoln in his speech to Charleston, Illinois, 1858

Ooohh...didn't see that one coming, did ya'? So Lincoln believed that the white man should be superior to the black man! How different from the "Fourscore and seven years ago" man the history books extol!

I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States — not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves.
The point the Republican party wanted to stress was to oppose making slave States out of the newly acquired territory, not abolishing slavery as it then existed.
Lincoln in speeches at Peoria, Illinois

I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Lincoln's Inaugural Address

Wow, what happened to that "the South seceded because Lincoln was gonna' free their slaves" garbage? Looks like someone has their facts WRONG!

Do the people of the South really entertain fear that a Republican administration would directly or indirectly interfere with their slaves, or with them about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy , that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.

Letter from Lincoln to A.H. Stephens
Public and Private Letters of Alexander Stephens, p. 150

So then, why did the South secede? Let's give you a little hint:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Where did that come from? Why, the Declaration of Independence, the original Founding Document of this nation! In it, Thomas Jefferson clearly states that it's not only their right, but their DUTY, to declare independence and create a new government that will satisfy the needs of their people. So how can one say that the South's secession was any different from the "rebellion" of the 13 Original Colonies?

Rev. John Killian preached a sermon titled "Would the Religion of Abraham Lincoln Save You?" and it can be found online HERE. Lincoln is quoted as saying:

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the sriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."

1862 letter to Judge J.S. Wakefield,
after the death of Willie Lincoln

Further, Abraham Lincoln invaded the Southern states without a Declaration of War or Congressional approval; it has recently been approved that the president can operate troops in foreign lands for a set period of time without Congressional approval, but this was not in place at that time: Mr. Lincoln overstepped his Constitutional boundaries by invading the South.

There is so much more that can be revealed: the moral differences between the sides, the actual reasons behind the secession and the actual state of slavery in the US, but the fact remains that a popular historical figure has been portrayed incorrectly by ignoring historical facts about him and glorifying him for "saving the Union" even though it was done by glaringly Unconstitutional means.

The danger of God's "permissive" will

2009-01-23T00:43:00.004-05:00

Everyone loves Peter: loudmouth though he was, there's a fighting spirit about him that just doesn't quit. One of the best-loved and oft-preached stories is that of Peter walking on the water. Let's recap:

Matt. 14:22 And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away.
23 And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone.
24 But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary.
25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
Matt. 14:28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.
29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
32 And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.

First point: Jesus told them to get in the boat. Jesus never left room for getting OUT of the boat: He said GET IN AND GO ACROSS.

Second point: Peter did NOT ask permission to go across: he said "Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water." In effect, he was QUESTIONING Christ's claim about Who He was, and giving Jesus an ultimatum about His identity! Peter was AGAIN shooting off his mouth without using his head.

Like one preacher said, Judas was a better example of FAITH and OBEDIENCE than was Peter: he (and all the others) stayed in the BOAT like Jesus told them to, and they didn't question Jesus when He declared Who He was!

This just goes to show us that God's permissive will requires faith as well, but should we really be there? Christ allowed Peter to come to Him, and all the while Peter was flat disobeying and showing off. Time and again Peter gets into trouble: before AND after Christ's resurrection! Even Paul stood him up for being out of line! How then are we going to view direct disobedience and LACK of faith as a great example for us in our Christian walk?

STAY IN THE BOAT!

"The Rest"

2009-01-22T08:41:00.002-05:00

I did everything that I could do to try to pay the debt I owed,
And I'd gone as far as I could go working 'neath that heavy load.
While searching for a resting place, something strange occurred,
When a Voice from out of nowhere spoke the sweetest words I've heard:

(Chorus)
Come unto Me all ye that labour, and I will give you rest.
You can lay all your burdens down and receive My Righteousness;
For the Father is pleased with the work I've done and there's nothing left to do.
Come to Calvary's Cross where the labour is finished,
And I'll leave the rest to you.

Even now sometimes I still try to do things on my own:
I gather my strength, give it all I have, work my fingers to the bone.
When it seems that I can't go on and all my strength is spent,
I find myself down on my knees, where I hear these words again:

(Chorus)
Come unto Me all ye that labour, and I will give you rest.
You can lay all your burdens down and receive My Righteousness;
For the Father is pleased with the work I've done and there's nothing left to do.
Come to Calvary's Cross where the labour is finished,
And I'll leave the rest to you.

A Homeschool Family

2009-01-21T10:38:00.001-05:00

How true!!

Evolution "theory," pt. 2

2009-01-20T14:44:00.003-05:00

Of course the Darwinists hit my previous "evolution" post like I expected them to; they don't like it when you question their faith.

I've tired of messing with them; lately I've instead focused on more Spiritual discussions. My current topic of focus is called "The uselessness of Religion." I named it that because I knew it would get peoples' attention; the reason I started it was because I know how stuck on "religion" people get, and how negatively it is viewed by outside viewers. Oh well, perhaps more on that later.

Evolution is a lie, ok? I know some new visitors won't agree, but that's fine, you'll get over it or leave. Darwin saw different species of finches and supposed that they "evolved" from a "common ancestor" instead of varying based on their habitats. Then he and some of his buddies forged a "missing link" that came to be known as "Piltdown Man." The thing was the skull of an ape, the jaw of a human, and some mis-matched teeth all filed down, treated with acid, and stuck on with BUBBLE GUM. Then they buried it in a gravel pit and someone "discovered" it a year or so later. Of course the "Scientific" community jumped all over it, claiming it was "proof" of their evolution garbage. But alas, someone who applied a bit of objectivity to the situation discovered that it was a hoax. However, you don't hear much about "Piltdown Man" anymore, do ya'?

The same with Nebraska Man: a man found a TOOTH and designed a whole RACE of "humanoids" based on the ONE TOOTH! It was later discovered that far from being a hominid tooth, it was actually from a species of extinct PIG. That's how "objective" evolutionists are.

The only real reason I bring it up is because I've met a lot of Christians that are confused about the evolution mess. They think that "science" contradicts the Bible, so in order to believe the Bible they have to reject "science." This is far from the case, ladies and gentlemen. The Bible is light years ahead of science: they're still catching up with the Bible.

Moreover, almost single field of modern science was pioneered by a Born Again Christian who believed the Genesis account of Creation. That's not even mentioning all the archaeologists that traveled all over the world to attempt to prove the Bible wrong but actually found the Bible to be 100% correct.

In the book "The Case for Christ," the author tells how he, an experienced journalist, lived his entire life as an atheist. At one point, he grew so tired of peoples' belief in Jesus Christ that he decided to approach His story from a legal standpoint: in effect he decided to come at Jesus and His existence like he would a questionable news story. Halfway through his study, he accepted Jesus Christ as his Saviour, as a result of his attack! He then proceeded to publish his findings in the book that I named above, showing that Jesus' existence is easily ascertained by eyewitness accounts.

Evolution, on the other hand, has no eyewitnesses, nor can it! (in the Scopes monkey trial, EVOLUTION LOST) Evolution is based on assumptions, guesses and lame hypotheses that cannot be proven nor ever will be.

If you're a Christian that has struggled with evolution and its attack on the Scriptures, rest assured that your Bible is 100% correct, and no person will ever prove otherwise. You can KNOW that Jesus Christ is real, His Word is Truth, and He IS the Creator of this Universe. Faith, at that point, changes from "believing" to KNOWING.

The sons of God

2009-01-18T20:21:00.003-05:00

I love deep, complex topics. I really enjoy digging deep within the passages of the Bible, finding deep meaning and uncovering personal truths. I even enjoy when a book expounds something to me that I'd never noticed about the Bible. It's true that there are more books written about the Bible than any single other topic, yet there's always something new to be found within its pages.

I firmly believe that there is a Gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2; I do NOT believe in evolution, "Theistic" evolution, the "Day-Age" theory or any of that other nonsense. I do not believe in pre-Adamic death or human races; to believe such things is to go against clear Scriptures about death, sin and God's creation. What I DO believe, however, is that God's first earth (and heaven-SINGULAR) was inhabited by a race of spiritual beings, known in the Bible as the "sons of God." Today we know them as angels and devils: angels are the perfect beings that have served God from the Creation, and devils are those that rebelled against God and were cast out with Satan. In the cataclysmic battle that followed (paralleled in Rev. 12), the entire creation of God was destroyed: i.e. "without form and void." I believe this whole occurence was likely less than 1,000 years long; perhaps it parallels in reverse the Tribulation period (1,000 years of peace, 7 year rebellion, destruction and recreation?).

Regardless, we know that these "sons of God" were present at the creation, even before Adam.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

(emphasis mine)

Obviously these creatures, whoever they were, were present at the creation and beheld God's wondrous power that fashioned the earth out of nothing. These same beings show up in the first part of Job:

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

and again:

Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

These creatures are obviously spiritual, for one cannot physically present himself before God and converse with Him vocally, nor was that possible in those days. They also show up in Genesis 6 (don't give me this "godly line of Seth" nonsense; that's completely retarded), so these guys are rather well-known. But the question anyone might ask is "why are they called 'sons of God'?" Well, I'm glad you asked.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Here, Adam is called the "son of God." Why?

Gen. 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Why is that relevant, you ask? Well let's see: Adam was made in God's image, a trichotomy. The other "sons of God" (Angels and fallen angels; sorry, spoiler) were also made in God's image, though they were completely spiritual (though able to take physical form). So we've established that the "sons of God" are those that have the image of God.

Today, mankind is made in the "image" of ADAM, NOT God. When Adam fell, the part of him that communed with God died, and his soul became inextricable with his body: i.e. for the rest of the Old Testament, until the writings of Paul, "soul" and "body" are completely, 100% synonomous. Therefore, anyone who is born today is a son of ADAM (C. S. Lewis had that right, messed up though he was!), NOT a son of God!

Why then are we called "sons of God"?

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Rom. 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Phil. 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

1John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

Why? Well, at Salvation, something unusual (and a little "odd-sounding") happened to you: you were circumcised. Yes, even you ladies. Verses? OK.

Col. 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

(emphasis mine)

This circumcision had nothing to do with the "privy member," as the Bible says: it had to do with your SOUL and your BODY. Your body, or flesh, is permanently wicked: "in me, that is in my FLESH, dwelleth NO GOOD THING." Your OLD NATURE is perverse, wicked and vile, and all it wants to do is SIN. However, when you get saved, God performs an OPERATION without hands on you. Verse again? OK. Next verse, actually, so still in the same context:

Col. 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Amazing, isn't it? When that spiritual circumcision takes place, you are then a NEW CREATURE, created in the IMAGE of GOD. Therefore, you are now a son of God, made in His likeness and not Adam's! God cuts away your justified soul from your grave-bound body; the body returns to the dust, but your SOUL will now go to be with God forever when you die.

Oh the riches of the fulness of His grace!! Amazing love, how can it be, that THOU my GOD should'st die for ME!

A Three-Dimensional Book!

2009-01-18T10:45:00.003-05:00

Sitting in Sunday School this morning, I had a thought; pastor was teaching on Eternal Security and its application throughout the Bible and to whom it applies and to whom it doesn't. All of a sudden I thought of something: The Bible has three dimensions!

Of course, the first is "What" or "Where." What part of the Bible, what books, what doctrines, etc.

Secondly is "Whom." To whom was it written, to whom is it applicable.

Lastly is "When." When is What applicable to Whom?

Most "Independent, Fundamental, Hellfire and Damnation" Baptists haven't a clue that different parts of the Bible are applicable to different people at different times. God told Adam not to eat of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; He didn't tell him to bring a lamb for sacrifice or accept Jesus Christ as his Saviour!! Noah was told to build a boat, not to be baptized for remission of sins or to refuse the Mark of the Beast. We, as Christians in the Church Age, are part of the Body of Christ: we haven't been commanded to keep the Law, build a boat, or follow the command of the Everlasting Gospel (Rev. 14:7).

Keep it in perspective and remember the Bible is a Three Dimensional Book.

Evolution "theory"

2009-01-16T10:46:00.002-05:00

Of course the Great Barrier Reef is 3 million years old. Well yeah it was an evolutionist that dated it, but that's irrelevant! Science is objective!

Uh huh. Nope. Not in the least. Go date your rocks by fossils and then your fossils by the rocks, buddy...the big boys have some work to do.

I should probably refrain from tangling with evolutionists (the really indoctrinated ones) for the rest of my life; I haven't spent enough time studying their drivel, and it's really a worthless pursuit anyway, so when I engage them in conversation, I get in the flesh and lose my temper.

Evolution is one of the most worthless, lie-riddled belief systems in history, superseded only by the Catholic Whore. From Java Man, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man (!), Neanderthal Man to Australopithecus Afarensis and the rest of that racist Evolutionary garbage, Evolution is one lie on top of another to keep "unlearned" people in the dark so the evolutionist can go on believing that there is no God. Basically, he's going to lie himself right into Hell, because he wants to.

I've dealt with dozens of evolutionists, from the stupid fatheads that don't know anything, to Theistic Evolutionists that believe God used evolution, to professors and people who really believe their nonsense (or seem to) and have an education to make other people think they know what they're talking about. It's just like Lucifer, in his pride, wanting to be like God, to ascend above God, to be LIKE GOD. Wow, God pegged evolutionists in GENESIS 3, and they think the Bible is just a fairy tale or book of myths?? Boy, our Public Sewer system sure is churning out some bright ones these days!

Of course, as "scientists," they feel that they have the intellectual upper hand, when in fact their arguments and "evidence" are so faulty and transparent that it's laughable, other than the fact that they'll go to HELL when it's all said and done. Good ol' Darwin sure pulled a ringer for ya', didn't he, Satan? Be sure to say hi to him next time you see him.

Sorry, this post is all negative; I usually try to bring my negative posts around to a happy ending, but not today. Evolution is the scum of humanity, the cream of the crop of the ignoramuses that flaunt their college degrees, the most vile thing that ever happened to mankind. The world is full of proof that evolution is retarded, but of course the evolutionists will completely ignore that proof and continue to run ahead full blast, straight into Hell.

Sorry guys, until you get rid of your pride, cry out to God and ask Him to save you, you're going straight to Hell.

The Chastening of the LORD

2008-12-25T23:44:00.004-05:00

My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction: (Pro. 3:11)

Objectivity is a complex thing: you can slide out of objectivity almost as easily as you can slip into pride. However, it is one of the most needful things in the Christian life, because without it, one becomes self-centered, without the ability to see God's hand molding and shaping his life.

I have seen, in my life and in the lives of others, the tendency to assume control of ones' own life: this invariably winds up being disastrous, sometimes irreparably so. Take Jonah, as an example: when he tried to make his own choices against the will of God, he almost wound up dead. The second time (and you thought he learned his lesson!), God "shelved" him, never to be heard from again. I'm not saying that if you disobey God twice that He's going to retire you, but there comes a point where you'd think a person would learn his lesson and just simply OBEY!

But of course, that rarely, if ever, happens, even in the lives of the most devout among us. Every man falls, falters, fails or fumbles, and it's only God's longsuffering that allows us to keep on messing up and learning from our mistakes. I once preached a message on longsuffering: most people say that the word simply means patience, but third-grade etymology says otherwise. Longsuffering is suffering for a long time. God is LONGSUFFERING; He puts up with a lot of suffering because of us! Have you ever thought that your disobedience causes your God and Saviour to SUFFER?? Think about that next time you're tempted to complain, murmur, disobey or rebel.

Anyhow, back to my original topic. There are times when God needs to chasten or discipline us for something: in our predicament we can rarely see exactly what God is planning for us or preparing us for, but through it all, He knows what He is doing. That's where objectivity comes in: in the midst of my parents' most difficult times, they probably weren't thinking about the effect their faithfulness would have on their son who would eventually be called to the field: they were worried about the bills, groceries and tithe. Little did they know just how much God was using their struggles and even chastening to help prepare someone else for the task that He would give them.

If God has you in a tough spot; if you're up against the ropes getting the pudding pounded outta' you by a 240 lb. heavyweight; if you're wondering how you're going to make ends meet: just remember, God put you there, or at worst allowed you to get in that situation, and He is more than capable of taking care of you: He PROMISED to provide for you. Cheering up may be a bit beyond you right now, but take heart in the fact that God is working in you, to bring forth a vessel for the finer. (Pro. 25:4)

"In My Father's Eyes"

2008-12-22T10:59:00.002-05:00

From a distance He'd be watching me,
And I guess somehow He knew,
That in my heart I longed to be like Him.
In time the closer we became,
The more it seemed I grew;
I'd fall, He'd pick me up, and I'd try again.

He loves me even when I do
The things I shouldn't do
And when I fail to do the things I should.
I've heard it said that love is blind,
And I guess I know it's true:
He forgets the bad, and remembers all the good.

In my Father's eyes, there's no wrong I've done,
In my Father's eyes, I am the perfect son.
He must see Someone I can't see,
And it makes me want to try
To be like the Son that's in my Father's eyes.

And when this life is over,
My last trial I've gone through,
T'will be worth it all just to hear Him say "Well done."
And maybe then I'll understand
Just what He saw in me,
But I'm sure I'll find that He was blinded by the Son.

In my Father's eyes, there's no wrong I've done,
In my Father's eyes, I am the perfect son.
He must see Someone I can't see,
And it makes me want to try
To be like the Son that's in my Father's eyes.

"The Mirror"

2008-12-17T16:28:00.002-05:00

I put down the Mirror and said do myself
"Was that really me that I saw?"
I thought there might be something wrong with the Mirror,
For it magnified every flaw.
The more grooming I tried
Made me realize that what I saw in the image was true.
The truth I can't hide,
"Lord change me!" I cried,
"Make me a reflection of You."

And I love this old Mirror, God's Holy Word,
And I've found that it always rings true.
Lord, if not for the Mirror, I know I'd be lost,
For it was there I found You.
When things come between this old mirror and me,
Your image won't be shining through.
But in view of the Mirror,
My purpose is clearer,
To be a reflection of You.

I pick up the Mirror and now I'm amazed,
That that's really me that I see.
And I know that there's nothing wrong with this Mirror;
I'm just not what I used to be.
The more that I grow,
It's so good to know,
That this transformation is true.
May it not be me Lord, but You that they see,
A living reflection of You.

And I love this old Mirror, God's Holy Word,
And I've found that it always rings true.
Lord, if not for the Mirror, I know I'd be lost,
For it was there I found You.
When things come between this old mirror and me,
Your image won't be shining through.
But in view of the Mirror,
My purpose is clearer,
To be a reflection of You.

Perspective

2008-12-11T08:01:00.003-05:00

Bro.Forrest asked me to put up some ideas on how to stay out of a rut as a Christian; while my post was specifically about our testimony as it relates to our jobs, it's apparent that the outline God gave me is relevant to every part of our Christian life.

1. God's Pardon

While Jesus said not to look back after setting your hand to the plow, sometimes it's good to remember what God saved us from and where we could be today without Him. It's almost rote, this concept, but it shouldn't be. The problem in Christianity is that we KNOW things, but we don't MEDITATE on them like we're commanded to. We know that God saved us and gave us a new life in Him, but we fail to really ponder what that means to us and how we owe Him such a great debt. We are insignificant nothings in His sight, yet He took the time and sacrificed for US. God, giving us worms the time of day - marvelous!!

2. God's Provision

Where would we be without His daily provision in our lives? How could we take a single breath, walk a single step, utter a single word, without His direct allowance and care? Again, we take this for granted every day without really contemplating His incredible work in our lives. From the dwelling that He's given us, the food that He provides us the money for, the strength and skill to work and the very breath that keeps us alive, God is more gracious and caring than we could ever deserve. Remember that, next time you take a bite of something, take a step somewhere, or wake up alive and healthy, God didn't HAVE to allow you to do that: He is just providing another blessing that you and I don't even come close to deserving.

3. God's Promise

After all that, the Salvation of God and the blessings of God, He deigns to even bless us more: He promises to give us a home in Heaven for eternity. Not only does He view our scummy frame of dust and love us, He will reward us just for serving HIM! It reminds me of a song by Gary Duty:

"I stand in true amazement,
At Your vast and perfect Plan:
How you could save a wretch like me,
I'll never understand.
And to allow me, though unfaithful,
To serve you 'till the end,
And then to be rewarded,
I just cannot comprehend!"

To "go through the motions" or "get stuck in a rut" is an affront to the amazing, all-powerful God that made us, saved us, cares for us and has promised to reward us. If you find yourself in a day-to-day, hum-drum existence, just ponder and meditate on the things that God has done for us. Thinking about and knowing them is not enough: just as knowing that Christ died for our sins is not enough to save us, just knowing about God's miracles in our life isn't going to get us far. It's really a difference between a head knowledge and a heart understanding.

I hope this was a help to someone. God bless!

runs out of ideas

2008-12-01T08:30:00.002-05:00

I just got home from work. Not too bad, overall; I'm very thankful to have a job right now, to say the least. It's just amazing, though, how keeping the Lord in mind and praying throughout the night (I'm on third shift) can make things go so smoothly. I work with a varied and somewhat odd group of people, each with their likes, oddities, preferred individuals and those they dislike. It gets a little complicated sometimes, but I just have to keep in mind that I'm there to serve God, and in turn my boss and the company, not the other people that I work with.

Sometimes it's easy to get into a rut (remember, a rut is simply a shallow grave with both ends kicked out ;) ) in work and get complacent with our abilities and our standard of work; it's those times that we need to remember that we should be doing our labor as unto the Lord that DIED for us and shed His precious BLOOD for us. We can do so little to repay Him, but our daily lives and walk with Him is the one thing that we have to repay Him with. We need to remember that not only is the Lord watching us when we work and go about our daily lives, but there are people out there that know that we are Christians, and are watching everything that we do. As the saying goes, we might be the only Bible those people ever read; will they see Jesus in us, or just us?

2008-11-11T21:55:00.006-05:00

A while back I put up a poll on this site; here it is with the results.

What is the word of God?

The Textus Receptus	5 (16%)
The Critical Text	0 (0%)
Any valid translation	5 (16%)
Whatever I feel is most accurate	0 (0%)
The King James Bible	19 (63%)
Nothing, God didn't preserve His word	1 (3%)
Mother Goose	0 (0%)

Being that my regular audience is largely made up of King James Bible users or Believers (big difference, by the way), the response makes sense. However, the second-most picked choices are also no surprise to me. Shall we see why?

1) "The Textus Receptus

If you don't want to believe it, then go find a Greek text that disagrees with it, right? The problem with today's crop of "Fundamental," "Separated," "God-fearing," "inspired original autograph" knuckleheads is that they don't like SUBMITTING to something. Therefore, if they can "believe" a dusty old manuscript in an ancient and disused language (no one in the world knows how to SPEAK Koine Greek, people! It's a dead language!!) and use that to beat the King James Bible into submission, then they'll go for it. After all, why submit to a FINAL AUTHORITY when they can weasel their way out of things with some "The Greek" or "The Hebrew"??

2) Any Valid Translation

Obviously these people are less worried about appearances: they don't even CLAIM to believe any certain Text to be perfect. These people don't BELIEVE God in the first place, so why should they believe a BOOK? God PROMISED to preserve His perfect WORD forever, and they don't believe that, so they have no problem placing the WORDS of GOD in subjection to their own OPINIONS. Jesus used SCRIPTURE against Satan: you should probably get a good dose of these peoples' opinions, since they're so much more powerful than Scripture!!

There's my rant for today. I'm about to go to work and talk to a guy who doesn't even believe in God; he doesn't say there isn't a God, he simply doesn't believe in any deity at all. At least those people are honest: these rotten scoundrels that claim to be so "sold-out" for God sicken me. I'd rather talk to a dope-smoking lost man than an apostate like that.

2008-11-05T00:07:00.001-05:00

When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.
(Proverbs 29:2)

The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.
(Psalms 12:8)

The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.
(Psalms 9:17)

That about sums it up. America is about to see the fruit of her wickedness. Even so, come Lord Jesus!

2008-10-31T15:11:00.003-04:00

Like I said before, I do not support McCain, but this young man has my utmost respect for his service, sacrifice, and support of freedom. Going to Iraq in the first place might not have been the thing to do, as I don't believe we should be involved in foreign affairs, but once we set out on a course, turning back displays cowardice and weakness. Please watch the video; it should make any true patriot either tear up or shout for joy. At the very least, you'll understand true sacrifice.

God Bless America, and America, Bless God for all His abundant blessings!

Just a few things...

2008-10-28T14:02:00.002-04:00

I've been working on another detailed post which I will post before long; it's on the subject of Biblical repentance, and I hope it will be a help to people who read it.

Retraction: I'm changing my position on John McCain for president. While I shudder to think of the damage that Obama would cause and the havoc he would wreak upon this nation, God raises up kings and puts them down, and ultimately He is in charge of everything. As a Bible-Believing Christian, I must vote according to the Bible and by principle, and John McCain is neither Biblical nor does he fit my principles. Our government is to be a servant, subject to the Constitution of THESE United States, and neither of the mainstream candidates is truly a Constitutional supporter.

Word of a King officially supports Pastor Chuck Baldwin for president. While no 3rd-party candidate has been elected president in over 140 years, I believe a vote for principal is never lost or wasted. As Albert Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We've been stuck in an unconstitutional two-party system since the 1860s, and things have degraded consistently ever since (thank you, Abraham Lincoln). However, to show our dissatisfaction with the unethical and unconstitutional government in Washington, D.C., I support a man who will lead according to the Constitution and godly, Founding principals.

Second: In a previous blog, I was rather harsh toward a certain individual. While every single thing that I said was true and can be backed up with mountains of evidence, the first paragraph of the post was overly hurtful, and while I cannot say that I've changed my mind in any way, shape or form, I don't believe that it was wise to publicize it as I did. I apologize for foolishly using that phraseology toward a sister in Christ; it was out of line and excessively hurtful, and I should not have done so. (I have edited the blog to remove the offensive part) What I mainly did with that post was to hurt a friend of my wife, and that was wrong of me. I want to publicly apologize for the effect I had on that individual.

I had an idea for another blog, or an annex to this one, but being that I've had about six hours of sleep in the last 60, it has understandably vacated my mind, leaving me somewhat confused and quizzical. Oh well, I can finish the Repentance post sometime and see what happens after that.

2008-10-28T00:48:00.000-04:00

This is just awesome. Blessed be the God of Shem!!

Breath of Life

2008-10-25T22:21:00.007-04:00

I must say that "Independent Fundamental Baptists" are some of the most asinine individuals in the world. I'll just post what I said about this individual a while back to give you an idea of what she's about.

I joined this board close to or over two years ago because she was making a libelous statement against a man of God, and while I've matured and mellowed out a lot in the time since then, she's been just as preachy and mouthy as the day I first came here. She apparently has no idea of how a woman's supposed to act, and in my opinion has absolutely no place moderating anything except a cookie sheet. I've watched her mouth off constantly and I've refrained myself as well as possible, but sometimes she gets to the point where it's ignorant not to call her on it. She has a problem with her mouth that her husband needs to get under control, but if he's unaware or incapable then someone else needs to point it out.

That's how it's always been, yet for some reason that board still allows her to be a moderator, in authority over men.

That aside, let's tackle the subject that sparked the post and the title thereof. The OP (opening/original post/poster) provided a partial quote of one of Dr. Ruckman's Genesis Bible classes. One of the best ways to smear someone is to take their words out of context and not provide the explanation they themselves provide, usually directly after the quoted part. While the actions of the OP are rather inflammatory, I will say this for them: they attempted to provide a Biblical rebuttal, and while it was far from satisfactory or conclusive, it was better than anyone else did in that topic.

While the actual quote is worthy of address, I'd prefer to point out some other things first. I don't know who all reads or learns of my posts on this blog, and I don't particularly care. Nor do I worry whether it offends someone or not. I pose my statements to be as unoffensive as I personally can, but I'm not going to bend over backwards in the attempt to appease people; if someone gets offended by what I say, then they should take a good long look at Psalm 119:165 and get back with me.

The Board of which I spoke (and posted an excerpt from above) is extremely biased, from an outsider's (and former insider's) view. Time and again, the female moderator slandered a great old man of God groundlessly, yet when I would speak up in his defense I would be labeled as a "heretic" or a "Ruckmanite" or "immature and impulsive." Biblical evidence remaining strongly on my side was never enough: they refused, as a whole (the leadership), to acknowledge when anything wrong was done. I was wrongly banned at least twice, and never once was I apologized to, and the final ban was done against the very rules of the board. Moreover, almost the entire population of the board is rabidly anti-Ruckman, and jumps on every single opportunity to slash and claw at those that support him or any of his teachings. This is backwards and unintelligent to the extreme; I suppose it also doesn't help that the majority of the members are women, who sometimes seem to experience their lady issues at the same time of the month and thereby rain hellfire and damnation on the rest of the people there.

Ok, about the quote from Dr. Ruckman.

He said that man becomes a living soul when he breathes; God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. That is Bible, that is fact, and if you don't like it, then go suck your thumb. Now, the issue arises that we as Christians believe that life begins at conception. Yes, it does, very clearly, and even Doc believes that from the next part of the quote that the OP failed to include. According to Leviticus 17:11, the life of the flesh is in the blood. Scientifically, blood is transferred at conception from the male's sperm to the woman's egg (the mother and child have completely separate circulatory systems; their blood never mixes), so the life of that child begins at conception. Nothing Doc said disagrees with this. The problem arises when people lack the ability to understand the clear-cut 6th grade English of the King James Bible. Behold, a demonstration.

Genesis 2: living soul.

Leviticus 17: life of the flesh.

Soul != flesh

For those of you who are familiar with bash (UNIX terminal language), the third expression should clear it up. (!= means "is not equal to") Man is a trichotomy; Spirit, Soul and Body (in that order). God fashioned the Body out of dust, breathed into him His Spirit, and with that breath, man became a living Soul. All three are present right there: Spirit, Soul and Body. Following?

In Leviticus, the topic is not the soul, but the living flesh. In fact, the only use of the word "soul" in that chapter is used to mean an individual, not the part of a human trichotomy. God is speaking of completely mundane or fleshy things in that chapter; in fact the whole book is dedicated to the Law that the Jews were required to keep.

To sum it up, I don't necessarily agree with Dr. Ruckman that babies aren't souls before birth and do not go to Heaven if they die. I do not, however, have any way to disprove his statements. As such, I'm not brash and arrogant enough to prate like I know so much better than a man that's studied and defended the King James Bible for most of his adult life. I do not agree, but I cannot disprove it. Therefore I will remain quiet on the subject until the Holy Spirit of God gives me a reason to do otherwise.

At conception, a life begins. I am not God, and I didn't create life, so I simply have to go by what the Bible says. Fleshly life begins with blood, and according to Genesis, that Soul was created with the breath of life. Whether or not that extends to where people without the breath of life do not have souls, I do not know, but neither does anyone else, since it is not quickly apparent from Scripture.

What I do know, however, is that people have a tendency to run their mouths (or their keyboards) without engaging their hippocampi, and the result is usually that they appear ignorant and tick me off with unfounded and Biblically invalid statements. As a future father and 100% pro-life individual, I believe that all human life is sacred. I don't agree that rape is grounds for abortion, or even high-risk pregnancies. However, I cannot throw out the Bible to cling to my other beliefs, and anyone that would do so is neither a Bible Believer nor a true Christian (Christian meaning "Christ-like).

I will apologize if I've offended anyone; that truly is not my intention: I simply want to put the Biblical truth out in the open and help keep the reputation of a great man of God from being sullied by out-of-context quotes.

Blaspheming the Holy Spirit?

2008-10-13T23:41:00.004-04:00

Ever since I was banned from a certain message board (against their own rules, might I add), I've been somewhat perplexed at the unending stream of questions and issues that go unanswered. So in order to salve my own conscience, I've decided to answer the most incorrectly-answered questions here on my blog. The most recent one is "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit," and most of the answers by the leaders of the board are sadly off by a long shot. The only person that's even close to correct (dead-on, actually) is a lady. Sad, no? You'd think a board like that would choose males that at least knew their Bibles.

Anyhow, the question, posed by a new Christian with a Charismatic mother, is more or less "What is Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost?" Pentecostals will tell you that questioning "Speaking in Tongues" is blasphemy, and therefore an unpardonable sin, but how does this line up when compared with Scripture?

"But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:" (Mark 3:29)

The scribes had just accused Jesus of casting out devils by the power of Satan, or saying that the Holy Ghost was the Devil. Basically calling the Holy Spirit Satan is the blasphemy that Jesus was talking about.

Under the circumstances, it was because Jesus was on earth, and was the physical manifestation of God. Therefore, saying something like this against Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) was blasphemy. However, that's the only time you see that showing up; nowhere else is Blaspheming the Holy Spirit even mentioned, so you can rest assured that this time is already past. Until the LORD comes back again, and sets up an entirely new government (Rev. 14:6-7), there won't be the ability to actually blaspheme the Holy Spirit as the scribes did.

Christians for McCain?

2008-10-07T22:33:00.002-04:00

I've often said about this election that we have a choice between a Liberal and a Socialist. It's not good odds, but there's something to be said for taking what you can get. Personally, I'd love to see Chuck Baldwin in the White House; there's just something gratifying about hearing a Presidential candidate say that Abraham Lincoln was one of this nation's worst presidents. However, In our largely Bi-partisan political climate, a vote for Baldwin is nothing less than a vote for Obama.

Sens. McCain and Obama are some of the last people I'd ever pick for my presidents, but that's what we're stuck with unfortunately. Obviously choosing the lesser of two evils still means you wind up with evil, but as Christians we have to live and operate within our system. I don't believe that Christians aren't allowed to be involved in politics or the government; far from it, in fact. If you have a chance to affect the system for good, then go for it! However, some of us are called to something else, and getting involved in politics would be nothing but a distraction from our God-given jobs.

I've seen many people say that they could not vote for McCain in good conscience; my question to those people is how can you vote for anyone else in good consciense, knowing your vote will give the Socialist Obama that much more of an opportunity? Every conservative vote for anyone other than McCain is nothing but a vote for Obama. That's how it's been for years; voting for Ross Perot simply put Bill Clinton in office that much easier. It's not the way the Founders intended, but as Christians we must live with what we have, and therefore the only candidates that we can honestly consider as options are those in the two main parties. Would to God that someone with character and honesty like Chuck Baldwin would be elected, but in our warped, godless society, that's not going to happen.

So no, McCain is not a good choice. He's not even a very well conscienced choice for many. But should a Christian vote for him? Yes, because a vote against him is one more vote for Obama.

Saying that God wouldn't bless voting for McCain is like saying He would have cursed Israel for not choosing Asa because he didn't campaign to remove the high places, and instead winding up with a Reheboam. God isn't going to bless inactivity when you have a chance to make a difference.

Open Source Government?

2008-09-28T20:32:00.002-04:00

This is radically different from the majority of my posts here on WoaK, but I thought it was a good idea and I don't have anywhere else to put it up.

I was thinking tonight, whilst eating my "Pollo Vallarta" (Mexican grilled chicken breast with cheese and shrimp) that government should be run by civilians who put aside their vocations or careers for a year or two, go to D.C., do what needs to be done, and then go home. This way we wouldn't have career politicians making power grabs and getting corrupted by corporate and special interest groups' lobbyists. Interestingly enough, this is how our government started in the first place. Most of the Founding Fathers weren't politicians: they were men with jobs that loved their country enough to put those jobs aside and do what needed to be done for their country.

Strangely enough, this system reminded me of the Open Source community. For those that aren't familiar with Open Source, it's a group effort of largely unpaid volunteers that develops free software on a donation basis. The source code for this software is "open" or freely available to anyone that wants to download it. This creates a system where different groups and individuals balance each other out and create a system if accountability and stability. When an application is released under an Open Source license, it's dependable and honest.

What does that have to do with goernment? Simply this: if out governmental system was based more on volunteers and simple taxes (preferably the Fair Tax), then that would reduce corruption to a minimum and keep people from power grabs and feel-good policies. We as the people of this nation would have more direct control over the government, and it would work for US, not the other way around. What most people don't realize is that the taxes that the government takes are OURS, not theirs. The government is supposed to be OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people; that's something that 95% of politicians in government, nation-wide, have forgotten.

Well that's my idea: a system of government where moderately-paid, locally-selected individuals work for a couple years in a small government to make laws based on the desires of their constituents. That's how it was originally designed; why did it change anyway?

By His hand I'm safely led

2008-09-21T11:12:00.002-04:00

I was just thinking about how amazing the Lord is. In all my years of life, I've seen Him do so many awesome things that I'm astounded at His mercy and grace to me. My life's story is a patchwork, from being born to a lost mother and backslidden father, to moving over 10 times, to attending seven different churches during my life. However, looking back on everything that's happened, I can see the incredible power of God preparing me for His service over the years.

I've come to a point where my experiences have caused me to have almost complete faith in the Lord. I think that's the biggest thing that God wants for us: absolute faith and trust in Him. Being called to the mission field, I have had to learn that He is in control, whether it be church problems, money issues or family conflagrations. I thank God for His preparation in my life in order to serve Him more effectively.

I'd also like to use this opportunity to encourage those that might be going through a hard time. God's awesome, all-powerful hand is in control of everything but your free will to trust Him. I've seen Christian people that seem to lose sight of the fact that God is in control. These people wind up moving all over the place and sometimes declaring bankruptcy over money issues instead of leaving it in the Lord's hands. If there's only one thing that people can learn from me, I hope that it would be true faith. Faith isn't hoping or closing your eyes and trusting blindly, though sometimes that's all we can accomplish in certain circumstances. Faith is knowing, without evidence or proof other than a relationship with Christ and His Word.

Many times we are derided as Christians for believing in God, the Bible, or Creation, by people who accuse us of blind faith. What they don't know is that in Christ, we don't have to have proof in front of our eyes: Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. We can KNOW, for a 100% certainty, that God is, and that He is in control of everything. So if you come to a point in your life where you can't see what to do, don't understand the circumstances, or can't seem to see God working in the situation, you can KNOW that He is simply working in your life to make you more fit to serve Him or making you a better person in general.

2 Corinthians 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)

The Word is Alive

2008-09-16T09:40:00.003-04:00

Check out the new blog "The Word is Alive". The blog is mostly scripture, sometimes on a particular topic, and sometimes just a single verse will be posted.

"The Word is Alive" stands on the authority of the King James Bible as the pure, perfect, inspired and preserved word of God.

* * *

"The Word is Alive"
~ Casting Crowns

Looking out from His throne
The Father of light and of men
Chose to make Himself known
And show us the way back to him

Speaking wisdom and truth
Into the hearts of peasants and Kings
He began to unveil
The Word that would change the course of all things

With eyes wide open all would see

The Word is alive
And it cuts like a sword through the darkness
With a message of life to the hopeless and afraid
Breathing life into all who believe

The Word is alive
And the world and its glories will fade
But His truth it will not pass away
It remains yesterday and forever the same
The Word is alive

Simple strokes on a page
Eternity's secrets revealed
Carried on from age to age
It speaks truth to us even still

As the rain falls from heaven
Feeds the earth before it returns
Lord, let your Word fall on us
And bring forth the fruit you deserve

With eyes wide open let us see

The Word is alive
And it cuts like a sword through the darkness
With a message of life to the hopeless and afraid
Breathing life into all who believe

The Word is alive
And the world and its glories will fade
But His truth it will not pass away
It remains yesterday and forever the same
The Word is alive

The bible was inscribed over a period of 2000 years
In times of war and in days of peace
By kings, physicians, tax collectors, farmers, fishermen, singers and shepherds
The marvel is that a library so perfectly cohesive
Could have been produced by such a diverse crowd
Over a period of time which staggers the imagination
Jesus is it's grand subject our good is designed and the Glory of God is its end

The Word is alive
And it cuts like a sword through the darkness
With a message of life to the hopeless and afraid
Breathing life into all who believe

The Word is alive
And the world and its glories will fade
But His truth it will not pass away
It remains yesterday and forever the same
The Word is alive (The world and its glories will fade)
The Word is alive (His truth it will not pass away)
His Word is alive (His Word is alive, His Word is alive)

Romans Road vs. Straight and Narrow

2008-09-10T11:05:00.003-04:00

Occasionally someone shows up on the forum from whence I was last banned and starts arguing Salvation from Matthew or Hebrews or even the OT. It's hilarious, to be honest. They fall all over themselves, arguing Scriptures and trying to explain things away, while the heretic runs roughshod over them and makes them look like fools. Don't get me wrong, there are several nice, Godly people there, and I like several of them, but 98% of the people there can't answer a man like that.

The current fiasco is a "WWJD" type of guy, the kind that doesn't pay attention to mail addresses (see my earlier posts on that). He likes Jesus' message. Who doesn't? Blessed are the poor in spirit, blessed are the peacemakers, etc. His message, while hard, is nice for the most part. And it's Jesus, so we should obey Him, right?

I Corinthians 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

I Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

Philippians 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me,

THREE times, Paul tells the CHURCH to follow him. Yes, the final object is Christ, because Paul followed Christ, but he commanded the Church to follow HIM three times. That's an indisputable fact, unless you like to argue with the Bible (not a smart thing to do).

So let's back up a little. Why Paul and not Jesus? Well, who was Jesus speaking to? Who did Jesus preach to? Most importantly, who did Jesus NOT preach to? Remember the Cyro-phonecian woman? Jesus called her a DOG! He said that it's not right to give the childrens' bread unto DOGS!! How's that for racial equality? Jesus didn't go to the Gentiles: He didn't preach to them, He didn't waste time on their ailments, He didn't try to convert them. He said that He was sent not but to the lost sheep of the house of ISRAEL!

Who was Paul sent to? Who did he preach and write to? God said that Paul was to be a witness to the Gentiles. He was the Apostle to the Gentiles, and also the messenger to the Church (9 books addressed to churches?).

So, are you going to take a Jewish gospel, from a Jewish preacher, to a Jewish nation, and believe that, when God Himself said that Paul was the preacher to the Gentiles, and in turn the church? So, Romans or the Sermon on the Mount? Chop off your hand or live peaceably as much as lieth in you? Endure to the end or He'll keep us from falling?

Your choice. God, however, is right and true, and His word never faileth.

New Blog for people in the Ministry

2008-09-07T00:12:00.004-04:00

I've started a new blog to help people in the ministry understand and get advice on technology. Many pastors and missionaries aren't familiar with the tech field, but would be greatly helped by some of the things that modern technology has to offer. Lord willing, I'm going to cover things from computers, applications and external hardware to mobile phones, GPS devices and PDAs. There are many options to choose from in all of these areas, and I want to help people figure out what's best for them so they don't have to waste precious time doing the legwork.

Please check it out if this sort of thing interests you, and send this link along to anyone you know that might like some help when it comes to technology today. Whether they're a greenhorn or a seasoned pro, we'll have something in our blog for them.

Edit: if you want the link (helpful, perhaps), it's ministry-tech.blogspot.com.

Looked for a City

2008-09-05T00:38:00.003-04:00

For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

I just love the Bible. It pops out and gets you sometimes! The other night, I was laying in bed with my wife just chatting about stuff (we couldn't get to sleep) and I was thinking about a discussion I've had in the past with certain people about Abraham and his Sanctification and Justification. I've dealt with that quite a few times, though those who fight with me about it never seem to get it, but that's fine: I can go over it again sometime.

Anyhow, I was thinking about Hebrews 11 and its relationship to Romans 4, and I couldn't remember whether Hebrews 11 said "foundation" or "foundations." Now, to the average Christian, that wouldn't make a bit of difference. However, to the avid Bible Believer, that changes everything! That single "s" means that Abraham wasn't looking for any old city: he was looking for the New Jerusalem!! I got really excited when I saw that: here's Abraham, in 1200+ BC, looking for the New Jerusalem that STILL hasn't shown up!

You might be thinking, "doesn't that create a big problem for you Dispensationalists that don't think Abraham was saved by grace through faith plus nothing else?" Well...nope. See, WE know that that is what Abraham was looking for. After the fact, when Hebrews was written, God revealed it to the author of that book and in turn to us. But, where does it say that Abraham knew what he was looking for? Hmm, good question! If you look through the Old Testament, almost every passage deals with physical blessing and curses; only Psalms and the Prophets really get deep into spiritual stuff. Why? Because the jews look for a sign! The Jews have ALWAYS been a sight-oriented people. They want to SEE something before they believe it. (sounds like Missouri!)

Basically, Abraham was just following God around, going where He said to go, doing what He said to do. He never found anything, and according to Hebrews 11, what he was looking for (whether he knew it or not) wasn't even around to be found!! God gave the promises to Abraham then, which he took as physical blessing, but in fact God was looking toward the day when the Jews will be given an enormous inheritance among the people of the earth! In fact, it's not Abraham's physical descendants that will inherit the New Jerusalem: it's the Church, the SPIRITUAL children of Abraham that will live in the New Jerusalem!

It never ceases to amaze me how deep and complex the Bible is! I can't wait to get to Heaven and know the mind of God....that thought is almost enough to fry your brain!!

...There is power.

2008-09-03T15:27:00.001-04:00

This is an article I received from a friend of mine in the ministry. I do not know for certain who wrote it, though I think his name is Alan, but it's an excellent piece about the authority of the AV over the modern translations.

"Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" Ecclesiastes 8:4

As Dr Ruckman has said, the AV1611 has power with God because it was approved by a king, in accordance with the stipulation of Ecclesiastes 8:4, see O Biblios, p 25 for a summary.

This is also true of many pre-1611 bibles, where King Edward VI, for example, and Queen Elizabeth I urged for the distribution of the scriptures throughout their realm. We also have from Sister Gail Riplinger's work, In Awe of Thy Word, the testimonies of Alfred the Great and the pre-700 AD Anglo-Saxon kings who likewise urged for the propagation of the scriptures.

The same is NOT true of the modern versions. As Benjamin Wilkinson writes in Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, Which Bible? p 285-6, about the efforts to revise the AV1611 on the part of Romanizers in the Church of England. See also http://kjv.benabraham.com/html/chapter-10.html

"The triumvirate which constantly worked to bring things to a head, and who later sat on the Revision Committee, were Ellicott, Lightfoot, and Moulton. They found it difficult to get the project on foot. Twice they had appealed to the Government in hopes that, as in the case of the King James in 1611, [Queen Victoria] would appoint a royal commission. They were refused."

(Finding this statement was an answer to prayer. I knew I'd seen it somewhere and it has been buzzing round in my head for the best part of 4 months. However, there it is.)

As we know, the RV was finally produced by Westcott and Hort, thanks to Ellicott's successful lobbying of Samuel Wilberforce, then Bishop of Oxford (today's incumbent is also a nefarious character, who wants to appease Muslims, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7288570.stm), whose skilled oratory persuaded the Church to undertake revision, Romans 16:18.

(If the name is familiar, i.e. Wilberforce, he was the son of the great reformer, William Wilberforce. Sadly, not only did son Samuel forsake "the scripture of truth" Daniel 10:21 but William's other two sons became Catholics. A warning to all Christian parents to remember and apply Ephesians 6:4, especially dads.)

However, the RV never was approved "by the word of a king." No modern version ever has been approved "by the word of a king."

They therefore have no power with God and however sincerely the Lord's people seek God's blessing on our nations and many do, it will never happen without a return to the AV1611, Proverbs 28:9, nationwide.

Without such a return, the UK and the USA will continue to 'go to hell in a handcart' and they are nearly there. This is indisputable proof, if ever more of such was needed.

2 Chronicles 14:11

YouTube videos

2008-09-03T00:30:00.001-04:00

I'm putting up a few videos on YouTube under this email account; I'm titling them "Word of a King," just like this blog. Check them out if you want to; hopefully I'll have time to put up a couple a week.

Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy14NtWc4JM

Modern Pharisees - Part 1

2008-08-28T08:50:00.002-04:00

I want to take some time, as I said in an earlier post, to write about Pharisees. I think it is an important topic, and I will explain why.

I got saved earlier this year, and the first thing God lead me to study in the Bible was the subject of Pharisees. Seems like rather an odd subject to the the first study for a new Christian, but believe me, it made sense. It made sense because I had spent many years before I was saved being a Pharisee. When we get saved, God wants us to give up the sins we committed before salvation. God wanted me to leave my filthy rags at the cross, pick up some new, clean garments, and walk forward. But we are all as an unclean thing, and our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. Isaiah 64:6.

There are two brands of Pharisee that I see today. There are the Pharisees that think they are saved when they really are not. They have learned all the “rules” and follow them rigidly, and try to sway others to follow them also. They subconsciously or consciously think that doing these things can earn them salvation and favour with God. Then there is the Pharisee that is saved but still wants to bind people that are free in Christ to a works-based system based on the traditions of men.

The main sin of the Pharisees in Christ’s days on earth is the same as the modern day variety. The Pharisees main sin, no matter when they live, is hypocrisy. (Luke 12:1). Outwardly they pretended to be righteous and to have it all together. But all they had was self-righteousness which meant nothing. What they needed was to be saved and to have God’s righteousness. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. Romans 10:3. The Pharisees appeared to be living right, but Jesus saw what was on the inside and what was on the inside was wicked.

The Bible shows us that the heart of a Pharisee is far from God. He answered and said unto them, well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, this people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Mark 7:6. They elevate their own commands and preferences and standards over the commands of God, and teach their own ideas as the commands of God when in reality they are not. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. Mark 7:7-9. They exalt their own commandments above God’s commandments because they are obeying what is right in their OWN eyes and not in the eyes of God. It is Pharisaical people that make the word of God of NO effect, as Mark 7:13 tells us. Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

This is a very basic introduction to what a Pharisee is. In some later posts I will take Scripture verses to show what the characteristics of these people are. It is important that we know how to spot a Pharisee so that we are not deceived by them.

Eternal Security: what's not to get??

2008-08-27T17:32:00.002-04:00

Again and again, doctrine troubles always come back to Rightly Dividing troubles. When a Campbellite, JW, Mormon or Pentecostal starts spouting their false doctrine, either they don't believe the Bible (true 90% of the time), or they don't know how to Rightly Divide the Book. Such is true when it comes to the subject of Eternal Security: there are dozens of verses in the Bible that directly "contradict" Eternal Security, but when taken in context and divided correctly, we find that they're not applicable to our Age.

How about verses like:

Matt. 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Water Dogs and the like have an absolute heyday with that! Well, when dealing with someone who doesn't know how to Rightly Divide, that is. Me, I just tell him that Jesus was talking to a different group of people in a different age under different rules, and tell the guy to get lost (or saved, rather!). Others would just stammer and stutter and turn to a bunch of different verses to try to explain that away, when the fact is that they can't! If you believe that the entire Bible applies to you, right now, then you're going to have a real hard time explaining things like this.

Ok, I have to go to a meeting at church, so I can't continue. I'll work on this subject a little more after church. God bless.

Basic Grammar...continued

2008-08-24T23:26:00.004-04:00

Ok, so let's see how far I can get with this.

Samer is a guy I've known for quite a while. I don't mean to smear him, though I probably could rather easily, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to be a little blunt about him. He doesn't like me. He finds every possible excuse that he can to disagree with me. And now he's deleted a thread with my previous article on it. AFTER he found out that the owner of the site had ok'd the post. If that's not abusing one's power, then I don't know what is!!

So every time I bring up Biblical Dispensationalism, he immediately quotes the whole of Romans 4 and expects all the Dispensationalists to drop dead on the spot. Strangely enough they don't, which I'm sure is a bit of a quandary to him. I'm going to try to clear up any questions that he may have about the issue here and now.

"is" denotes being, in the present. "The pizza IS cold" meaning the pizza currently is cold.

"was" denotes past tense, as in a past point in time. "The pizza was hot" meaning the pizza at one point was hot, and by implication is no longer hot.

Rom. 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Ok, good verse. Now let's see what it says. "...is the reward not reckoned of grace...." Notice the tense? That's an important word: "Tense."

tense 2 |tɛns| |tɛns|
noun Grammar
a set of forms taken by a verb to indicate the time (and sometimes also the continuance or completeness) of the action in relation to the time of the utterance : the past tense

Ok, so a tense denotes in which time or times a certain occurrence...occurs. Simple enough, right? Ok so I'm going to throw a few things out here and see what happens.

Rom. 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Rom. 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

Always watch those slippery tenses. Is, are, etc. are rather complicated unless you pay close attention. Notice that Paul in Romans 4 is making a comparison, using Old Testament occurrences and making them fit the doctrine that he is teaching right now. Let's see something else that gets changed to fit what the author needs it to say!

Rom. 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Gal. 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Heb. 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

Good verses! These verses, or at least the first two, show that we are to live by the faith of Christ, which faith is really the gift of Ephesians 2:8-9, if you pay attention. The third verse is applicable to the HEBREWS in the Tribulation (does His soul really have no pleasure in you if you draw back??) and therefore is not DOCTRINALLY applicable to us.

The funny thing about these passages is that they're quoting an Old Testament verse. Wanna' see what it is?

Hab. 2:4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

Cool! See what a little Bible study...um, wait a second...reread that verse. Another time. Once more for good measure. Look at the word ALL THREE of the NT verses leave out!! The OT passage that's being quoted says that a just man lives by HIS faith, speaking of his own, while the NT verses say that a just man shall live by CHRIST'S faith!! Rather interesting predicament, eh? PAUL JUST MISQUOTED THE BIBLE!!!

So? Ok, so Paul misquoted the Bible to make a point. Your problem? See, the Bible doesn't have to make sense to you. The authors, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, didn't have to wait for your opinion to write what they did. They just did it and God blessed it. No, that missing word isn't a scribal error. It's missing on purpose.

So, what have we learned from this? That God, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit on men, can write what He wants to, to make what points He wants to, and it doesn't matter a bit what you or anyone else thinks about it. Ok, hopefully that's clear enough.

Next point: debunking the myth that Romans 4 proves that everyone got saved by repenting of their sins and trusting Christ. Sorry, but that in and of itself is laughable! If the DISCIPLES didn't know that Jesus was going to rise again, then how on God's green earth could DAVID have known? Or anyone before the actual resurrection?? Come on now, use that brain God benevolently placed within your skull!

Rom. 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Rom. 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Quick question: does this passage say that Abraham was not justified by works? Yes or no answer; it's really quite simple. In fact, if you pay attention, Paul's making a rather misleading question here. He asks if Abraham was justified by his works, and then instead of answering the question, he turns it around and talks about glorifying before God, when that wasn't even part of the original question! In fact, Paul just avoided answering his own question, because it would have totally messed up his point! Don't believe me? Well read the next verse.

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
James 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
James 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Everyone likes to try to do away with this little problem to their theology by making this "justification before man," but they don't realize that it's their theology at fault. Abraham WAS justified by his works. He was NOT sanctified by his works, but he WAS justified. That verse says so. So basically, Paul's premise in Romans 4:1 is correct, just misleading. He WAS justified by his works, but he does NOT have whereof to glory before God. See? Again, simple English grammar. An understanding of the difference between Sanctification and Justification helps too.

See, the simple explanation is that Paul is writing to one group of people, namely the Church, of which you and I are a part, and James is writing to someone else, or a group of someone elses. Which theory makes sense, since Paul addresses all of the letters with "To the church which is at (insert city here)" and James starts his epistle with "To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad." See, when viewed from a literal, grammatical, logical perspective, the Bible makes complete and perfect sense.

It just doesn't agree with you.

Basic Grammar

2008-08-24T09:37:00.001-04:00

I'll get into this more later, but some of the biggest problems that people have with understanding the Bible is not Spiritual understanding, or lack thereof, but a simply inability to comprehend simple English grammar. For instance, if I say "is no more work," that does NOT mean "never was work." See that? People get so screwed up because they don't take time to READ the Book.

Ok, I'll try to disambiguate myself later. Chau.

Repent and be baptized

2008-08-22T23:21:00.008-04:00

The Bible is incredible; a cursory look through its pages reveals thousands of years of history, from the creation of the universe to the very end of the world. A more in-depth look reveals even more, a Righteous God who for some reason gives men a chance every time he disobeys His creator. However, it's when a person gets down and studies, as per the instructions of 2 Timothy 2:15, that we find how incredible the Bible truly is.

When we study the Bible, we see that God has always made a way for man to come to Him, but that way changes through Scripture. Before you write me off as a heretic, which most people will at just that, bear with me a bit and let's see what the Bible says.

Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

God provided a covering for their sins, because that sin damned their souls to Hell. God is the only one that can cover or forgive the sins of human-kind. However, let's look at the next important person in the Bible: Noah.

Genesis 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
9 ¶These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

It should be obvious that Noah found grace in God's eyes because of how he lived: just and perfect in his generations. All that means is that he lived in that manner to please God, and God gave him grace as a result of him trying to please the Lord. So, that's the reason that God chose Noah, a righteous man as the Bible calls him, to escape the judgment that God was going to bring on the earth. So what did Noah do to escape that judgment?

Genesis 6:22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

He obeyed God and built the boat. He could have had all the faith in the world that God was going to save him and his family, but if he hadn't built the boat, then he would have died like everyone else. Yes he built the ark by faith, but without those works, he would have been deader 'n a bag of hammers. It was his obedience that saved him, simply his obedience to do what God had commanded him.

This can be followed all through the Bible: God dealing with people differently, but always providing Grace, because we humans are frail and imperfect, and without God's Grace we'd be hopeless. Whether it was the Law that the Israelites were required to keep, or Abraham's work of offering Isaac, God always provided a way through His Grace for man to be saved from his sin.

Now let's check out the New Testament. Jesus shows up, the promised Messiah, and starts preaching. But what does He preach? Let's see!

Matthew 4:23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.

Matthew 9:35 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.

Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Matthew 3:1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

When you compare what John the Baptist and Jesus preached with what Paul and the Apostles preached consistently after Acts 15, you'll see a big difference. Jesus is preaching humility, piety and good works in the Sermon on the Mount, and John the Baptist is preaching repentance and baptism! Again, we see that God is dealing with someone, the Jews in this case, differently than He has dealt with other people before. Jesus said that He was sent not but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and went so far as to call a gentile woman a DOG! That doesn't sound much like Romans 5:8 to me. Jesus went so far as to tell them not to enter into the way of the Gentiles! So obviously something is different right now from Acts 10:10-16 and the following chapter.

The next part gets tricky; not because the Bible is hard to understand, but because people like to twist It out of context to prove their own doctrines. "Acts" is simply a history book, recording the time after Christ's resurrection and subsequent ascension. At the beginning of the book of Acts, Jesus sends the disciples out to spread the Gospel. What Gospel had they been given? The Gospel of the Kingdom! Up until that point, Jesus had been preaching what has been corrupted into a social Gospel: "Do good" and "the meek shall inherit the earth," which while it isn't wrong, it's simply not what we find later on in Scripture. Let's look then at what Peter preached, under the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:14 ¶But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judæa, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

The funny thing here is that Peter is preaching a passage from the book of Joel about the Tribulation! Peter, speaking under the direct leading of the Holy Spirit, is preaching about the last days! Don't believe me? Read Joel chapter 2.

Ok, so we have a quandary here. We know that the Tribulation hasn't started yet, and won't for a while yet, but here's Peter preaching about the Tribulation in Acts chapter 2! So, is someone wrong here, or did something change? We'll skip a little bit; you can read it if you want to, but to save space I'm going to skip past it a little.

Acts 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
37 ¶Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

So the Jews to whom Peter was preaching got convicted! He just got finished talking about the crucifixion of their Messiah-remember they were sent to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom and preform miracles!-and now they're sorrowful for their actions as a nation! Now what does Peter say in response?

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

Now we seem to have a problem. Ephesians 2:8-9 says that salvation is a gift from God, and says nothing of being baptized. Titus 2:5 says that salvation isn't by works: it's by grace alone. All through Paul's epistles we see salvation taught as being by faith alone outside of any work, which would include baptism. So why is Peter preaching baptism with repentance??

First, find Salvation in that chapter. Hint: you won't. Second, to whom is Peter talking? He's talking to Jews, who just recently crucified their Messiah. What time frame does Peter think he's in? The Tribulation.

Basically, Peter is preaching something that you will NEVER see preached again in that sense, as baptism being included with salvation doesn't show up after Acts 15. As far as they're aware of, they're about to head into the Tribulation after the imminent return of Jesus Christ. And there is NO MENTION of salvation in that chapter at all. Peter is preaching a national repentance because of the rejection of Christ. That's why he says to be baptized in the name of Jesus: it was a sign that they were following Jesus Christ, whom their nation had just rejected. These people were getting ready for the Antichrist, not Salvation!

There's always more issues that Campbellites bring up in response, but this covers the main one. Enjoy; I'll prepare for a second installment after I receive all the feedback from this.

God bless.

The Best of Phariseeism

2008-08-20T11:14:00.004-04:00

This post might cross some lines with some people, but I don't feel that I can do anything about that. Phariseeism is starting to be a huge cancer that I can see in the church. I think that I notice it more than others because I was a Pharisee myself.

David Cloud (please don't read other things that he wrote, he's an idiot) sent out an email to certain people on his mailing list that reads like this:

NEED SOME URGENT HELP FROM YOU PASTORS ABOUT GIRL AND PANTS

August 13, 2008 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service,
P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143,
fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and
unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at
the end of the article) -

I have a problem that you can help me with. All I ask is that you write and let me know what you would say to the following situation. It might even sound humorous to you, but I can assure you that it is a serious matter.

There is a teenage girl in a church. The church teaches that pants are not the most appropriate and modest attire for women. The girl is from a very poor family (six people living in one room), but she was the first member of her family to come to Christ about three years ago.

She has been growing in the Lord and is faithful to church and prayer meetings. Recently she got a scholarship to a school that requires the female students to wear lose pants. Though someone from the church approached the school leaders and asked them to make an exception for her, they refused. Since the girl has decided to attend the school anyway, the church won’t allow her to teach Sunday School anymore because she will no longer meet the standards for workers.

But there is a prominent person in the church who is not content with this. He thinks she should be disciplined after the fashion of 1 Corinthians 5 and she should not be allowed to take the Lord’s Supper.

What do you think?

The more pastors I can hear from on this, the better.

Thank you!

In Christ,
Brother Cloud

This question should never have been considered, or even asked. This is Phariseeism at its best (or should I say worst). This email is a prime example. First of all, Cloud nor anybody else has managed to come up with SCRIPTURE to prove that women wearing pants is wrong, and second of all, it is a PERSONAL PREFERENCE anyway.

I have been considering doing a series of posts here about modern day Pharisees, and I am thinking that this might be the perfect kick-off as it is this type of thing that I will be addressing in my posts.

David Cloud takes his personal preference and tries to force it on all Christian women, and he tries to manipulate women into wearing skirts only through his writings. He often insinuates that women don't have their hearts right with the Lord if they don't go along with his preference.

A good friend who is a great "Titus 2" older woman told my husband and I that this kind of thing is cultish and she told us to consider that a lot of cults have many rules for the women...it's all about the women can't do this, or that, or the other. Cults are concerned with what women can and can't do and focus on it in a big way often times. I believe that our friend has lots of wisdom in her words.

The issue of whether women should wear pants or not is really starting to get on my nerves. The whole thing is ridiculous because this is something that the Holy Spirit works on individuals about, and, last time I checked, NONE of us were the Holy Spirit.

I have heard the argument presented that "women wearing pants is wrong because it is worldly and we are to stay as far away from the world as possible". Well, how do we prove what is worldly in Scripture? It surely isn't determined by whether a woman wears pants or not.

Doing something like wearing skirts instead of pants as a woman does NOT make you any less like the world than the other. It is a problem that Christians tend to think women in pants = wanting to be like the world, women in skirts = women wanting to be as far away from the world as possible. Where do people come up with this stuff? First you would have to prove that the standard in question is "like the world" before people can be accused of "wanting to get as close to the world as possible".

Worldly people go out to eat on Sundays...does that mean that if we want to be "as far away from the world as possible" we ought never to go out as a church group after church and eat? Why do we only apply it to things we want to apply it to instead of applying it to everything?

The thing is that there are several different types of convictions in our Christian lives...

First of all there are doctrinal convictions. These come straight from the Bible, and the issues are black and white. Stuff like the virgin birth, the blood atonement, etc. These are the "non-negotiables" so to speak.

Then there are spiritual convictions, which the Holy Spirit convicts an INDIVIDUAL of. Things like dress, hair length, music, whether to watch TV or movies, etc. The Holy Spirit works in different individuals in different things and it is not up to us to try to be the Holy Spirit to anybody.

The last kind are natural convictions, which means that even if they are in the Bible, even without the Bible they should be obvious because of what is natural. Stuff like women having long hair etc, although nature doesn't determine how long is long.

If religious Pharisees would quit trying to do the work of the Holy Spirit, we would all be much better off.

Thy Word Have I Hid in Mine Heart, So That Nobody Will Know I am a Christian...

2008-08-18T12:23:00.001-04:00

Although the US government had come into the homes of Christians and confiscated (stolen) all of their Bibles, they still allowed church meetings. They figured that the Christians were unable to do anything worthwhile without their Bibles, and unfortunately they were right. The Christians that still met for church on Sundays looked pretty stupid…after all, they could remember the scores from the latest football game, but they had never spent any time committing God’s word to memory. Having church with no Bibles was pretty boring, because nobody could remember enough Scripture to even come up with a sermon. Children could quote half of the supposedly Christian C.S Lewis movies, because they had watched them over and over, but they were unable to quote a single Bible verse because they had not had the Scripture read to them over and over, and parents had made no effort to teach them to memorize their Bible.

The Christians had lost their effectiveness because they couldn’t for the life of them remember what the Bible said about certain things that threatened society. They had no victory over personal sin because they had not hidden God’s Word in their hearts. They had spent so much time in the world that they had assimilated into the world. The government was well on their way to getting Christianity in America to die, and the only thing they’d done is steal all the Bibles…

How would we as Christians cope in the world without our Bibles? Could we do it, or would we be defeated instead of victorious? Lately God has been bringing to my mind the need to learn Scripture and memorize Scripture. We are better equipped for anything that comes our way if we know our Bibles.

Many of us claim to have no time to learn and memorize Scripture, but we have time to watch the latest sports game and we have all the best parts committed to memory. When we go to church we can have an hour long discussion on who is cheating in the Olympics, but when someone asks “what is the verse that talks about…” we have no clue that there is even a verse in the Bible that talks about that specific topic.

We have no victory over sin because we haven’t hidden God’s Word in our hearts. We aren’t able to share our faith effectively because we just don’t know the verses. We aren’t able to help out another Christian in need because we have no clue what the Bible says about any subject. When we go to church on Sunday we grab the Bible off the back seat of the car, which is where we left it after the Wednesday evening service. Our kids have watched hours of movies in the past week but we haven’t sat and had any Bible time with them.

I believe that the current sad state of Christianity and the plethora of worldly Christians has everything to do with the fact that we don’t know our Bibles like we should. We need to get reading, learning, studying and memorizing.

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalm 119:11.

Sissified or Christlike?

2008-08-15T18:14:00.002-04:00

There seems to be a trend among Baptists to vilify soft-spoken and quiet men as being effeminate, pansies or sissified. These people will point to certain occurrences in the Bible and decry the wimpiness that they feel has corrupted the Body of Christ.

Now I'll be the first to puke when a truly effeminate "man" shows up, but is all the hullabaloo really valid?

I was recently called "sissified" by a man, because I felt that his methods of approaching someone were too harsh, and I say they were completely unbiblical. In defense of his statement, this man pulled up what Jesus did in the Temple, and Paul's tirade against Elymas. Obviously I can't argue with the stories, but once you look a little closer, it's clear that they were taken out of context to prove his point.

Jesus dealt with sinners in a kind and loving way; the occasion in the Temple was against religious Pharisees taking advantage of the people. When Jesus was getting hot and heavy, it was ALWAYS against the religious crowd, never against sinners. The same with Paul: Elymas was a religious charlatan and trickster. The people that abuse these occurrences forget that in all the other times, these examples of ours, Jesus and Paul, dealt with sinners kindly and gently.

Now I understand that there are occasions where more direct action or a more offensive tack needs to be taken. I have done the same on many occasions: it simply requires some common sense and some wisdom to differentiate when.

It seems like people like these have forgotten the importance of meekness. Or the fact that the Bible says:

Matthew 12:18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
19 He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.

So much for Jesus "standing out in the street and yelling at people." Just because someone is soft-spoken, gentle and kind doesn't make them effeminate, it simply means that they are following the Master's example. When following the leading of the Spirit, one might be led to speak out or preach with vehemence, as many times is the case in church or on the street.

I'm afraid that people have become too self-spiritual and self-important that they see others below them and their self-made spirituality.

Those Evil Women in Pants

2008-08-12T23:41:00.002-04:00

I was insulted that the people referred to in the last post on this site thought that my friend was a controlling wife and her husband unsaved simply because they saw her wearing pants outside her apartment, hence the reason why I am posting this. I wrote it a while ago but since I wrote it not long after I got saved I decided to wait on posting it for a while, but I believe that now is the time.

I do NOT believe that it can be Biblically proven that it is wrong for a woman to wear pants. Here is why:

I tend to believe that everything in Scripture is a black and white issue, not gray. The question on whether it is right for a woman to wear pants is a black and white issue. It is not Biblically wrong. It is just a case that for some women it may not be expedient to wear them and it does not edify. "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not." 1 Corinthians 10:23.

There are several commands and principles in the Bible on the area of modesty. I had always had Deuteronomy 22:5 quoted at me as to why it was wrong for a woman to wear pants. Lets look at that verse for a minute. "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." One important thing I have learned in a Bible Believing Baptist Church as opposed to a Fundamental Baptist church is that the whole Bible is profitable for us and was written for our learning, but not all of it was written TO us. Basically, when I'm reading Deuteronomy 22:5, I'm reading something that can be beneficial to me, but it doesn't apply to me because the letter was not written to me...it's not my mail. It's Israel's mail.

By the way, what kind of clothes pertain, or belong to, men? I know in our culture today we have our ideas on what that is, but what about Biblically? Did you know that there are several mentions of the word "skirt" in the Bible, and that ALL of those references refer to a skirt as a man's garment? However, a man wearing that kind of clothing today for the most part grosses us out. Nowhere in the Bible does it tell us that pants are mens clothing. I know it mentions breeches. First off, breeches were for the priests only. Besides that, breeches were underwear.

In the church age, our only command in regards to clothing is that it be modest (1 Timothy 2:9). Some women do not believe that pants are modest. If they believe that, then they themselves ought not to wear them, but they have no right to try to enforce that belief on others. If it goes against their conscience in regards to modesty, it would be wrong for them to do. If a woman truly believes she is modest wearing pants, then she has the freedom to wear them and should not be judged in any way.

It's amazing what we can learn when we rightly divide (2 Timothy 2:15) the Scriptures (which we are commanded to do) and realize that not all things apply directly to us. Women have the liberty to wear only skirts, dresses, and culottes, and other women have the liberty to wear pants as well. It doesn't make any one of us more spiritual than the other. Scripture is not of any private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20), which means that this issue is NOT a matter of Biblical interpretation, it's a matter of Biblical TRUTH. Not one place in the Bible tells us that women cannot and must not wear pants. The only interpretation of Scripture we should be worried about is God's interpretation.

I don't know HOW many times I have heard the old argument (one that ought to be retired) that Christian women shouldn't wear pants because it causes Christian men to lust. There is some kind of lie propagated in Christian circles that men are turned on by sight but women aren't. I know MANY women who are also turned on by sight, but if they tell people that, they are labeled as a pervert. Where in the Bible does it say that a man is turned on by sight and a woman isn't?

Newsflash: Men can choose whether to lust or not. They can choose to keep looking or to avert their gaze. The sight oriented women have to do this when a man is dressed in a way that "turns them on". The men can return the favour. I am not advocating or excusing immodesty. I see many young girls wearing beautiful clothes that they and their authorities believe is modest, just to be told by some perverted guy that her clothing "turns him on" and that therefore she ought not wear it.

I also want to know why it is always the woman that bears the blame..."oh she caused him to lust because of her clothes"...No, he chose to sin. Be a man and take responsibility for your own sin. As women if we are immodest we will answer for it, but don't deem our modest clothing as immodest just because you like what you see...some women really are just beautiful...and God made them that way.

If a woman truly believes that what she is wearing is modest and her authority (father or husband) has allowed it, then she is not sinning in any way unless she is wearing it with wrong motives. Just because a man lusts over a woman doesn't mean that that woman's heart was wrong when she put on that garment.

By the way, you want to know what else I think? I really think that Christian (and particularly Baptist) men would not have so much trouble in the area of lust if they stopped viewing porn... (and it certainly isn't our fault that they are viewing porn...)

The "men’s clothing" issue...

So some people are telling me that pants are men’s clothing and that I ought not be wearing them, and then those same women will tell me they buy their t-shirts and polos etc in the MENS department because they are "more modest". Umm excuse me but with that glaring inconsistency you just lost my respect, especially when you excuse it by saying "well Deuteronomy 22:5 is only talking about pants, not other things". I personally know several lesbian women who buy their shirts in the men’s department...but the Baptists never take any notice of this.

T-shirts were first men’s clothing before they were women’s clothing...same goes for blouses, and tights, and pantyhose...that doesn't make them "men’s clothing" does it? So why do we pick on "pants" exclusively as if they are some kind of evil object that can be used to determine a woman's spirituality?

Men can (and should be able to) wear pink or purple shirts. Women wear them to. That does NOT make them a unisex item. Men’s shirts are cut for men and women’s shirts are cut for women.

I don't believe in "unisex" and I believe that that is the point God was trying to make in Deuteronomy 22:5.

We need to be careful of teachings that are built upon ONE verse of Scripture anyway...they aren't always wrong but we must be watchful that someone isn't just using it to push their own agenda.

Discord among the brethren

2008-08-08T17:59:00.002-04:00

Like I do a lot of times, I'm going to start this with a DISCLAIMER: the following events are totally true, unadulterated (besides not including names) and rather shocking to a degree. I don't mean to cause problems, but I do want to bring attention to a trend that is very dangerous and sly.

A street preacher and his family that our church supported stayed at our church for some time. They were in between meetings, and my pastors allowed them to set their travel trailer up in the church parking lot. I helped the brother set up his materials for the service that Wednesday evening (that's when they had arrived) and assisted him however I could in setting up his trailer.

The next day, Thursday, my wife showed me some videos on YouTube that were rather out of line. Two videos can be found here. In one of the videos, the street preacher that was staying at our church was railing on a lost woman because she didn't like the sign that the preacher was holding. The sign read "HILLARY SHOULD BE HOME DOING THE DISHES." Now, while I don't take offense at the message of the sign at all-in fact I heartily agree-what business does a preacher of Jesus Christ have using something like that, which is geared only to cause a reaction and make people mad?

After watching the video, I left a comment on the video in question, stating that I felt the actions displayed were unbiblical, which was quickly responded to with antagonizing statements and self-righteous judgements. Eventually the preacher discovered who I was and called my pastor to set up a meeting. Pastor called me and asked me what had been going on, and I explained to him about the video and the attitude that had been displayed toward me after I had expressed my disagreement with the video. He assured me that they had been having issues with this man over the same kinds of things, and not to worry about it, but that we would be having a meeting with this preacher within the next couple days.

That Saturday, my pastors, the street preacher and myself sat down in my pastor's office to discuss this issue. At that point the street preacher was very calm and cordial to me, which was glaringly different from how he had acted on the YouTube comments. He had called me a sissified Christian, a liberal, a wimp, accused me of letting my wife run the house and he had questioned my salvation. In the meeting, however, he was calm and explained how he had preached on the street for so many years and had all this experience and yada yada. I apologized for a couple things: I had called him a jerk and told him to get his head out of his tail, and I had also not gone to him and addressed the issue to his face. However, he didn't apologize for a single thing, saying later that he hadn't done anything wrong, and continued to attack me and my wife.

What I didn't know at this point, was that a couple of the men in the church were heavily involved with this preacher, and his self-righteous attitude was beginning to infect them as well. Sadly, the next day, these two men accompanied the street preacher to a church in another town where this man was going to preach, but didn't notify my church at all. These men both held positions in the church, and had responsibilities that required their presence at the church. That afternoon, my pastors called these men in and addressed the problem, but they refused to apologize for what they had done. In addition, the street preacher got involved and accused my pastors of lording over the flock because they expected church members to fulful their duties.

Well, to sum it up, the two men left the church, and the street preacher was told to leave the premises. Unfortunately nothing has changed about the attitudes of the individuals involved, though I pray that they get right and come back to the church where they belong.

What has happened since then is more subtle and even more dangerous, I fear; the younger of the two men that left the church has been talking to a young lady on the internet, and the same spirit of self-righteousness and legalism that was his downfall has now threatened to infect others that aren't aware of the situation.

The street preacher and his family are very legalistic, claiming that they're more spiritual than others because of how they dress, what they watch, what they do, and so on. The man tried to guage my spirituality on whether or not my wife wears pants, what music I listen to, and whether I watch Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. Last time I checked, spirituality was guagued by a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, not because of how you stack up to a self-righteous preacher.

Beware the leaven of the Pharissees.

King James Bible Only or Textus Receptus Only? There Is a Difference

2008-08-06T12:59:00.001-04:00

King James Bible Only or Textus Receptus Only? There Is a Difference

In the Old Testament book of Judges, we have the Ephraimites escaping from the Gileadites in chapter 12. When the Ephraimites passed by the Gileadites, the Gileadites had a password, and that password was the word Shibboleth. They used this word because the Ephraimites could not pronounce it properly, and when asked for the password, they would prounounce it Sibboleth.

And the Gileadites took the passages of Jordan before the Ephraimites: and it was so, that when those Ephraimites which were escaped said, let me go over; that the men of Gilead said unto him, Art thou an Ephraimite? If he said, Nay; Then said they unto him, Say now Shibbolet: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand. Judges 12:5-6.

Under the “King James Only” label, we have the true King James Only people (the Gileadites) and the Textus Receptus fakers (the Ephraimites). Before they are put under close scrutiny, they may appear to believe the same thing. Remember that the Ephraimites appeared to be Gileadites until they could not pronounce the word Shibboleth. We have many claiming to stand on the King James Bible that cannot pronounce Shibboleth, and when asked to, we see their real position.

The King James Bible was translated from the Greek Textus Receptus. There are those that believe the King James Bible is perfect because it came from the Textus Receptus, not because it is the King James Bible, yet they claim to be “King James Only”. What they really mean but won’t tell you is that they are “Textus Receptus Only”. There is a difference, and it’s a big difference. In the time of the Judges, there was a difference between Shibboleth and Sibboleth, and it was an important difference.

When asked what the difference is between a King James Bible only man and a Textus Receptus only man, Dr Samuel C. Gipp answers:
A "TR Man" gets his manuscripts from Antioch and his philosophy from Egypt. (“The Answer’s Book” Samuel C. Gipp, Daystar Publishing).
Dr Gipp continues by explaining the two different origins of the texts, the Alexandrian and the Antiochan texts. Along with those texts come certain philosophies also.

We are going to explore both the Textus Receptus only and the King James only people to see what the difference is.

One of these groups is indeed King James only, and we believe that the King James Bible is the perfect, pure, preserved and inspired Word of God. The true Bible believers have their manuscripts and their ideology right. We believe that the King James Bible is perfect because it is the King James Bible, not just because of the texts it was translated from. We believe there was inspiration in the translation of the KJB. We believe that every word of the KJB is perfect, and that to go back to the Greek or Hebrew to try to get "deeper meaning" is in fact wrong as it is implying that our Bible is not perfect and we must get deeper meaning from somewhere else.

Then the other group are really Textus Receptus only, and are really Bible correctors under a King James only guise. These are the ones that Dr Gipp describes as having their manuscripts from Antioch but their philosophy from Alexandria. They are right about one thing…the right text. They have compromised with the Alexandrian ideology though that teaches that we do not have a perfect Bible. These are the ones that will say “Sibboleth” because they cannot pronounce “Shibboleth”. They believe that the KJB is perfect, or almost perfect, but only because it was translated from the Greek Textus Receptus, which they like to call "the originals" even though they are NOT the originals. They are copies of originals, and furthermore, there are many different varieties of the Textus Receptus, and those copies disagree with each other, so knowing which one is the right one would be difficult. The Textus Receptus-only people believe that we need to go to the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts to get "extra meaning" or "deeper meaning" from "the original text" when the Textus Receptus is NOT the original.

It’s also interesting to note that the version of the Textus Receptus that people use to study now was translated by Scrivener in 1894. If we know anything at all about math, we know that 1894 is well over 200 years after 1611, which is when the King James Bible was translated. That means that the King James Bible was around over 200 years before the Scrivener’s Textus Receptus. Remember, Srivener’s is the copy of the Textus Receptus that is used today for study. It is also interesting to note that the Scrivener’s Textus Receptus was backtranslated from the King James Bible. Yet there are people that think that the King James Bible is preserved because of a manuscript that came out after it. That doesn’t make any sense.

Will Kinney says: They then defend what they call the “traditional text” and what they mean by this is the particular variety of Textus Receptus that CAME FROM the King James Bible. Their 1894 Scrivener edition of the TR was a back-translation from the KJB into a Greek N.T. text. The Greek texts of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza are about 99.9 % the same, but there definitely are some textual differences. Usually the KJB translators went with Beza, but sometimes with either Erasmus or Stephanus. What Mr. Scrivener did was to find the particular Greek readings from these various Greek texts that the King James Bible followed, and he then made up his copy of what is now the Trinitarian Bible Society Greek Textus Receptus. Their TR did not give rise to the KJB but it was the KJB that gave rise to their printed copies of their Textus Receptus! (Will Kinney “Tyndale, the Textus Receptus or the King James Bible?”).

I hope this has helped define the two main groups that fall under the "King James Only" category, because sometimes a person will tell you that they are King James only, only to find out later that they are really Textus Receptus only. This is a deceptive cloak for a Bible corrector to use so that people don’t know he is a Bible corrector. Most fundamental Baptist churches, Bible colleges and ministries will claim King James only when they are really Textus Receptus only. It’s important to find out before you get involved. Chances are, if they “go back to the original languages” that they are Textus Receptus only. Listen carefully…are they saying Shibboleth or Sibboleth?

Advanced Revelation, Double Inspiration, and People who lie about the Bible

2008-07-20T22:28:00.007-04:00

Like always, the last forum that banned me (*cough*OB*cough) is embroiled in the TR vs. KJB debate again. The site claims to be "King James Version Only," and while the Administrator doesn't post enough for me to know for sure how he stands, the vast majority of the members there are "fair-weather KJB-onlyists," or they only believe the King James Bible because nothing better has come along to replace it.

Of course, this would only happen (the KJB being replaced) if it was a "faithful translation," though of course that very statement is insanely subjective, as anyone who uses his brain could figure. Someone who believes this is no better than Westcott and Hort, Nestle, Aland, Bob Jones II and III, or Arlin Horton. The only difference is the text that they use to prop up their own ego and opinion. The first batch uses the Textus Receptus, while the other uses anything and everything except the TR. But in the end it's all the same thing: self-important, self-righteous men deciding for themselves what is right and wrong. "Every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

Now I know as well as anyone that the King James arose mostly from the manuscripts that were compiled into the TR. That's a fact, and an indisputable one. However, what those TR-lovers neglect to mention is that there are many passages in the KJB that don't come from any Majority text manuscript or text. For instance the Johannine Comma: the only text at the time that had that passage in it was the corrupt Latin Vulgate! However, those "godly men" put that phrase in there, and were later vindicated by the rise of many Antioch manuscripts that included the passage.

Another fun topic that they love to rant against on that forum is what has been called "double inspiration," or "advanced revelation." Now double inspiration is their description of the Biblical teaching of Scriptural peservation and inspiration: that al Scripture is given by inspiration of God, so anything that claims to be Scripture must be given by inspiration of God. Simple, no? Then we have advanced revelation, which they tout as adding to God's word, when in fact it is simply things that showed up in the English LANGUAGE as a result of the translation from Greek and Hebrew. It wasn't something added in by the translators, it was something that was evidenced through the translation of Scripture that had been in the passage all along: it just wasn't evident in Greek or Hebrew!

Ok I'm tired of typing now, so I'll get into more down the road if I feel like it. Comments=more rant, so if you want more, comment! :D

Ye do err...

2008-07-09T11:42:00.003-04:00

Recently I have been hit by an onslaught of attacks (this blog not being included in that). I think the Lord is allowing Satan to touch my wife and I to a small degree; most likely in preparation for the ministry to which He has called us. I'd appreciate the prayers of anyone that calls themselves a born-again Christian; I'm simply doing (to the best of HIS ability: I can do nothing without Him) what He's called me to do.

On a slightly more enjoyable note, I'd like to address some of the more recent comments directed toward me through this blog.

I knew Daryn ("Big D") back when our families attended the same church in Missouri; in fact his father was the assistant pastor of the church. A huge falling out occurred in 2001 or so; several families left initially, and Daryn's family left a couple months after. Please bear in mind that in 2001 I was 12-13 years old.

We've attended several churches since then, my family and I, and the Lord has done some amazing things in my life. Since leaving that church, I learned the most vital part of Bible study: Rightly Dividing. This topic was anathema at the church that Daryn's and my family attended at the time, so understandably few if any people there would understand the Bible in the way that God intended.

Now back to the present, 2008. All of a sudden, Daryn, from whom I haven't heard a thing in years, shows up on my blog and claims to know me inside and out or some such nonsense; he said that he knows me better than a good friend of mine who I see occasionally and talk to online quite often. Basically, because of his attitude when he approached me, he got on my bad side really quick.

He began by questioning my attitude, of which he knows nothing, and saying that I was a fool for believing the King James Bible to be the perfect word of God. Now I don't know about anyone else that might perchance read my blog, but I believe that next to the doctrines of the Trinity, Salvation and Eternal Security, the King James Bible is the most important, mainly because nothing else has any degree of credence without the perfection of God's holy word. How do you show someone how to be saved if you don't have a perfect Bible to show them from??

Anyway, in the end, Daryn wound up attacking both me AND Jason (the friend he claimed didn't know me as well as Daryn) for showing him from the Scriptures and with plain logic that his position is wrong. Showing his arrogance, pride and haughtiness, Daryn continued, up until his last point, to make hypocritical and Pharisaical remarks about Jason and myself, though he knows absolutely nothing about Jason, and little more about me.

I gave him this simple challenge, which I will extend to any reader that disagrees with my simple premise (the King James Bible is the perfect word of God, and is given by inspiration of God): take a King James Bible, and study the topics:

Inspiration
Preservation
Translation

Write it down, and tell me what you come up with. It's always best to realize at the entry of any study that YOU are wrong (me too), GOD is right, and you need the HOLY SPIRIT and the WORD OF GOD to teach you (and me) the TRUTH from that Book. Pride will ruin any chance of a decent Bible study if you don't crucify it at the outset. Do that, and the Lord will be able to show you something.

To Canonize or not to Canonize

2008-05-18T22:33:00.004-04:00

We received a comment recently, asking about the early Church, and where they went wrong, especially in regards to the Canonization of the Scriptures. Bear with me; this could get a little lengthy.

There is a belief among many denominations that the Apostles' positions were handed down to others: the view is commonly known as Apostolic Succession. This is a fundamental and essential part of the Roman Catholic Church's position, as their Nicolaitanistic clergy would have no justification without it. Likewise, many of the Protestant groups that came out of Rome (Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.) or split off (Episcopal, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican) teach a similar form of Apostolic Succession, though not as fiercely as the RCC.

To fully understand the quandary that modern "Christianity" is in requires a little digging into the history of the Body of Christ, or the Church. While the universal Body of Christ actually began at Pentecost, when the Disciples were empowered with the Holy Ghost, some groups teach that Christ founded His church on Peter, using Matthew 16:18;

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

The only problem with that is that Jesus had just gotten done asking Peter who he thought Jesus was, to which question he responded, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Now, Peter's name means little stone, but Jesus is the Rock of Ages and the Cornerstone, so Jesus building His church on Himself (a rock) makes much more sense than Him building it on Peter (a stone).

Anyhow, that's how the Church started: Peter was the first spokesman, and later Paul was the main instrument to spread the Gospel of Christ. The Gospel began to spread when the Jews started persecuting the Christians, and they moved away, taking their relatively new-found faith with them. Eventually the Gospel reached Rome, where Paul wound up getting executed by Nero. When the number of Christians became a large problem for the Roman government, they were persecuted with all the fury of the Roman legions, yet they continued to grow even more.

By 300 A.D., Emperor Constantine realized that they would never be able to root the Christians out, and as the saying goes, "If you can't beat them, join them"; he did exactly that. He "Baptized" his troops by marching them through the river, after which he had his armies wear crosses on their armor. He cited a vision in the sky, where a cross stood bearing the inscription: "In Vince Hoc," or "With this conquor." Many church elders warmly welcomed the respite from persecution, though some feared the new union between the government and the body of Christ. Constantine's new religion began incorporating many of the trappings of the former pagan worship, including polytheism, ornate worship services, temple prostitution and other godless, profane things, under the guise of "Christianity."

There were many people, however, that fled this new abomination, and eventually were persecuted as the unholy union of church and state began to overshadow Europe and the entire Roman Empire. In an effort to stifle the resistance to their religion, the Roman church forbad the common people to own or possess any portion of the Scriptures, or writings of the apostles or the Hebrew Old Testament. In this they thought to control the people, and keep them in ignorance to the abominations they were perpetrating in the name of Christ.

Between 393 and 419 A.D., different councils and synods had declared the "Canon" of the Bible, or which books were and were not Scriptural. The Roman church, using the idea of Apostolic Succession, declared that since Jesus gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom of God, that they still held those keys and also had the right to declare what was God's word.

By contrast, however, the Bible states that God's word is settled forever in Heaven, negating the necessity of a canon. Just because a group of men gets together and declares something to be so does not establish it, just as their refusal to accept something does not negate its existence. Therefore, to claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the authority on the written word of God, when God had already settled it in Heaven in eternity past, is preposterous to the highest degree. The Catholic church simply wanted to keep the people in darkness to the word of God (hence the "Dark Ages") so their "Indulgences" and "Penances" and "Priests," "Monks," "Nuns," "Friars," "Cardinals" and "Bishops" wouldn't be uncovered as fraudulent, unblibical, paganistic trash.

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
(Isaiah 40:8)

Who's causing division?

2008-02-16T03:14:00.002-05:00

We've all heard it. "Those Ruckmanites, they just cause division among the brethren!!" It's a common accusation in churches across America, but is it true??

Maybe it happens in some cases, but not in what I've seen in a situation over the past few months to someone I know (and believe me, this is a very common thing to happen in churches when people become aware that a "Ruckmanite" is in the congregation).

So here you are... in a nice, friendly Fundamentalist church. When you come in as a new visitor, the people are all so friendly, the music is beautiful, and the preaching seems pretty dead-on (he's even preaching from a KJV! wow!). As you get to know people there, you get involved in fellowship activities and soulwinning and everything. Of course, since you happen to love Dr. Ruckman's preaching... you mention Dr. Ruckman's name to a few people (just to see how they react). Strangely, their faces turn grim and they start to avoid you. People who said that they just LOVED to talk to you are now shunning you. Pretty soon, the whole church is like one big clique and you're not a part of it. This "friendly" church is now cutting you out of the congregation just because you like the preaching of someone they don't like!

Now who's causing the division here? Is it the "Ruckmanite" or the members of the Fundamentalist church? I think the answer is quite clear.

Evolution: man without God

2008-01-19T22:59:00.000-05:00

Man has been trying to get along without God ever since Adam and Eve rejected His command in Genesis 3. The greatest push to ditch God since the Tower of Babel, though, is probably
the "theory" of evolution. Though scientists or other proponents of the "ToE," as it's called, will say that the "Big Bang" is separate from evolution, the whole kettle of (rotten) fish is inextricably tied together.

For one, the universe has to be here for evolution to take place, even though the only place anything has ever evolved is in the minds of willingly ignorant scientists. Therefore, first of all, we must understand the fantastical origins these people propose. In essence, billions of years ago (they don't know for sure when) something (they don't know what) exploded (they don't know how). Then, somehow, this unexplainable explosion created the galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets, moons, asteroids, Martians and Earth.

The next big pile of dog doo-doo is better known as "abiogenesis," or the rise of living things from non-living things. Make sense? Didn't think so. Basically, they teach (whilst sucking on a bong, apparently) that after the Big Bang (see above), the earth was a blob of hot, molten rock that gradually cooled down and developed a hard rocky crust. Somehow the earth developed an atmosphere of primitive oxygen and hydrogen and it began to rain on the rocky crust. The rain created a sludge after a few million years, and a "simple," single-celled organism arose from the muck. Somehow this little critter found something to eat (he's the only organic material in the universe!) and someone to marry (huh??) and began the great process of Natural Selection.

Now Evolutionists take something like dogs, for instance, and say that since all these dogs came from a common ancestor (feasible, no problem there), then we all somehow came from that little sludge in the last section. Now, how they come to this conclusion I'll never understand; it's way easier when you just let God do it.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Why use something stupid like evolution when you're God?

Bible Students vs. Willingly Ignorant Baptists

2008-01-12T23:20:00.000-05:00

...and they never will agree till the end of the world. Literally.

It's so plain and simple. Some people haven't grown up past the baby Christian view of the Bible. They think the whole thing is written directly to them, so they get confused and misapply Scripture.

Only an open-minded student of the Bible will learn that God has written some Scripture TO us, and other Scripture FOR us. The majority of Scripture is written FOR us. We can learn doctrine (and who it's for), history, and spiritual applications from all Scripture. When you study doctrine, you must learn which doctrine applies to us and what applies to someone else. (it's pretty easy to figure out that we're not required to sacrifice goats and bulls in the Church Age). When you study history in the Bible, you get to know God. (history = His Story) When you study the spiritual applications in Scripture, you learn how to live a life that is pleasing to the Saviour.

Most Baptists are still at the baby Christian stage of seeing the Bible. Most of them don't know better. That's fine, someday the Lord may allow someone to come into their lives and teach them how to study the Bible, or a few might be intelligent enough to figure it out on their own.

Then you get the willingly ignorant Baptists. These are the Baptists that have been viewing the Bible the same simple way for SO many years that they can't change. Either that, or they became firmly hardened in their view quickly (like cement... they were soft in the beginning but dried too fast). These rock-hard Christians are completely unwilling to accept that the Bible is deeper than they perceive it to be. They'll tell you that they know they can't understand everything in the Bible, and that it's a deep Book, but their attitude betrays them. These Christians will probably never change and never have the joy of the Lord showing them the deep and amazing things hidden in His Book. Why would He bother with someone who thinks he/she already knows it all, anyway?

As far as I know, there isn't a true Bible student who ever goes back to that baby Christian view of the Bible and "rightly dividing". Once you've matured in your understanding of the Bible, why would you ever go back? That would be as stupid as a high school student in Algebra asking to be put back in 1st grade math.

Return to cyberspace

2008-01-12T22:54:00.001-05:00

I guess it's not too bad out here; I used to be a very prolific poster and blogger (not as much the latter as the former) but I got really busy and didn't have as much time or interest in continuing the amount of online interaction. I just got back into it here within the last few days: a few interesting topics on a forum I'm a part of piqued my interest again and I tarted posting more. Then I got the bright idea to start a blog so I could post things I thought important. Of course the "bright" part is my own opinion, and to my knowledge there have been like two people that have viewed it so far. Not that I care of course; I wouldn't mind a little feedback though.

Anyhow, I'm back, temporarily anyhow; with wedding planning and the like I might run out of free time again; otherwise I'll be around, making people mad and stepping on toes like normal.

The sum is 9

2008-01-11T17:38:00.000-05:00

I've always been fascinated with Biblical numerology; the meanings of numbers, times things show up in the Bible, and the correlation of Biblical history with more modern occurrences. Let's take a little walk through some of the more interesting things I've seen.

In the Bible, the number 9 signifies fruitfulness. Galatians 5 lists 9 fruits of the Spirit. Genesis 9:27 (2+7=9) is where the prophecy of the United States is found in scripture.

Gen. 9:27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

This isn't about Canaan or Ham and the rest: this is about Japheth being enlarged (Europe) and dwelling in the tents of Shem (Asiatic, i.e. American Indian). This literally happened with the settlers of one colony; the natives had left or been driven out, and their wigwams made good shelter for the colonists one winter.

Ok, back to the numbers thingie. Let's start with Jamestown (9 letters), which was founded in 1607. Shortly thereafter, some guys in England popped out this book...named the King James (9 letters) Bible, in 1611 (1+6+1+1=9). Then in 1620 (yep, 1+6+2=9) the first free colony in the New Word was established: Plymouth Plantation. The Mayflower (9 letters) landed with 99 passengers and crew aboard, one vociferous scoffer having died during the voyage.

Lots of 9s in there, no? Too many to be a coincidence, I think.

What is Truth?

2008-01-11T09:35:00.000-05:00

I think I titled something this a long time ago, but I like it so here we go again. The phrase "What is truth?" is from Pilate, right before he condemned Christ to death. Here's the passage:

John 18:38
"Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all."

He had Truth standing in front of him, but he was too blind to recognize it! Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life." John 17:17 says "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." 1 Kings 17:24 "And the woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in thy mouth is truth."

So many people today have the truth right in front of their noses, but they haven't the foggiest idea what it is. Of course I'm speaking of the Bible issue; that's one of my hobby horses I like to pull out from time to time. God said He'd preserve His word. God said His word is given by inspiration. God said His word is perfect, pure, holy and righteous. Everyone should be able to agree on that; anyone who believes in the true God, that is.

But here's where everyone, IFBs included, starts stumbling and stuttering. The problem is that though everyone will agree that God's word is perfect, pure, "inspired," inerrant, etc., very few know where to FIND that word of God. Hence the deal about the "Alexandrian Cult," which Dr. Ruckman likes to harp on, and then there's the TR crowd that think the Bible derives Its authority from some moth-eaten manuscripts that only scholars can read.

A man named James White wrote a book titled "The King James-Only Controversy." Or favorite Bible Believing satirist fired back with a book titled "The Scholarship-Only Controversy," basically showing how White not only lied at least 16 times in his book, but also puts the authority of the Scriptures not on the Scriptures, but on the "learned men" that can study "The Greek and Hebrew."

However, even IFBs have fallen into the same trap, if not as far, by things such as the aforementioned statements by Ross. "The Bible this" and "the Bible that," followed slyly by "The King James translation" yada yada. See the difference? Bet you would have missed that if someone didn't show you!! That's how these shiesters like to work: in retail it's called Bait and Switch. You make the person think you're talking about a certain subject, then carefully change the object of the discussion without the person noticing, so he thinks the original object is still being discussed. Basically, Ross doesn't believe any existing Bible anymore than he believes in the Tooth Fairy. And that is EXACTLY how it works worldwide: people believe all this high-sounding, great stuff about the "Bible," then turn around and demean the "King James Version" or "translation of the Bible" etc.

There IS no other Bible, and contrary to Dr. Cloud's belief, the King James Bible or Authorized Version is NOT an edition of the Textus Receptus. The KJB was translated after being compared to over 300 manuscripts in 20-40 languages. While the vast majority of these were from the Antioch family of manuscripts, some of the readings follow the corrupt Latin Vulgate instead. Why is that? God wrote It, not those translators. He put what He wanted in there, so HE Authorized It, not King James. The king just paid for it.

No, Ross won't fess up; he's too embedded in his lies and deceit to realize it himself. SOP for the Alexandrian Cult, and now, as evidenced, it's seeped its way into "IFB" circles as well.

Blogs are great for ranting

2008-01-10T15:48:00.001-05:00

I love popping up and flaring my nostrils online; no repercussions, I can delete comments, and there's a spell check feature. Quite handy, that.

Basically, I've been toying around with this guy named Randy Ross on here: you can probably find him if you search; I'm not linking to his midden heap. Yes, he has some decent articles about simple things like Santa Claus and the like, but some of his other stuff is total poison. Take his advice about computers, for example. Now, every logical individual knows that a good computer system shouldn't need anti-virus, anti-spyware and anti-spam software on it; it shouldn't have all those security issues in the first place. But he goes off talking about firewalls and virus checkers and internet blockers like he doesn't know the first thing about computers. (Not entirely true; he hacked his MySql database and got my password from a phony userID I had on his site; he subsequently shut down my associated Yahoo e-mail address. Not a total idiot, computer-wise anyhow.)

Actually, humor aside, the real problem with his stuff is the apparent innocence and authenticity of it. Take this, for example:

"

The Bible is inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16-17, 2 Pet 1:21, )
The Bible is without error (Psa 12:6, Psa 19:7-8)
The Bible is complete (Rev 22:18-19, 1 Cor 13:8)
The Bible is preserved (Mat 24:35, Psa 119:89, 1 Pet 1:23, 25)
The Bible is our final authority for faith and practice (2 Tim 3:16-17, Rev 22:18-19)"

Sounds good, does it not? Of course it does, it's completely Biblical. But THAT'S wherein the problem lieth; look at what follows.

"
6. While the King James translation is not directly inspired (the Apostle Paul, for example, did not speak Victorian era English), the KJV is the faithfully, divinely preserved, text of God's Word for English speaking man."

BLAM! Lookie there. Mr. Ross just bombed big time! Of course, Paul didn't speak English! What kind of an idiot thinks that has to be stated?? The big problem here is that Ross is casting doubt (however slyly) on the SCRIPTURAL definition of inspiration. We'll get into that later, but this is something that I disagree on just about EVERYONE with, even Dr. Ruckman, who Ross, for some reason, believes that I follow. I follow no man but Christ, and Paul, because of his command to do so.

Basically, a God that could inspire men to WRITE His Book, and then NOT inspire those who translated It
is impotent and weak. Interesting "God" you have there, Ross. Why does the modern "IFB" (Independent Fundamental Baptist) mind have so much trouble wrapping itself around that? If He did it once, HE for dang sure can do it again! You limit the Holy One of Israel through your unbelief, ladies.

Ok, I'll shut up for now, but I'll probably be back...I like dropping little comments on him, and since he's a little more accountable now, he shouldn't be refusing them. Of course macho guy has to reply (that rhymes!) to make sure he looks smart and spiritual, so that'll give me something else to rant about.