Thursday, March 22, 2012

I'm A Bible Believer - Part 2

2.  A Bible believer will change his belief to match the words of the Bible, while a fundamentalist will correct the Bible to match his belief.

The second reason is pretty self-explanatory and happens in various ways.  However, I will address just one of the bigger issues with this point: that is salvation.  While almost no fundamentalist has a question regarding how men are saved during this dispensation, there is huge controversy over how men were saved and are going to be saved in past & future ages respectively.  The typical fundamentalists teaches all men were always saved the same way.

The main reason for this is bible college systematic theology.  Systematic theology teaches you a point of view, then shows you how to fit it into the scripture.  But if we let the scripture speak for itself, which it is more than capable of doing, we come up with a different answers than the systems of men.  So let's ask a few simple questions to illustrate.  Remember: men have always been saved the same way; by grace through faith, looking forward to the cross, blah blah blah.

  • Were the apostles saved before Christ's passion (less Judas, of course)?
Most fundamentalists will answer yes to this question: and yes meaning saved and saved the same way by believing the same gospel (there is more than 1 gospel, which they also don't get) I believed (1 Cor. 15:3-4).  Let's test this with the words of holy writ:

Luke 18:31-33 Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again

Isn't that the gospel?  That's about as plain as you can get.  But what was their response to this?  Was it "Amen" and "Hallelujah" all around?  Hardly.

Luke 18:34 And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.

Isn't that strange: they didn't understand.  How could they not understand.  Wasn't every person from Adam & Eve (post-fall) waiting on this exact event for their salvation?  But not only did they not understand, they COULD NOT understand as it was hid from them.  Additionally, in Mark 9:32 after Jesus tells them the gospel in verse 31, it says they were afraid to ask him what he was talking about!

Again, they believed the death, burial and resurrection for salvation, did they?  What about Mark 16:14 when Jesus, "upbraided them for their unbelief"?  So make up your mind Mr. Fundamentalist: were they saved the same way or were they not saved until after the resurrection?  According to Luke, they didn't understand until "opened he [Jesus] their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures."  That's post-resurrection.

Even in Matthew 16 when Peter makes his infamous confession, he doesn't say he believes that Jesus will die, be buried, and rise again.  In fact, Peter rebukes Jesus for saying he's going to Jerusalem to be killed.  Peter's confession is that Jesus is, "the Christ, the Son of the living God."  Not the same is it?

But surely after the rapture until eternity people will be saved by Paul's gospel, right?  Not if you've read the Bible and believe it.  Matthew 25:34-40 tells of the "sheep" that enter into the Millennial Kingdom at the 2nd Advent.  Notice: the reason these "sheep" get in is found in verses 35-36.  Do you see anything in their about faith or the death, burial, and resurrection?  I don't either.  They get in because they did something for his brethren (v.40): i.e. WORKS!  Notice also verse 37: the Lord calls these people righteous.  You thought righteousness only came by believing the gospel and having it imputed; isn't that what Paul says in Romans?  You better learn to rightly divide!

And what about the Millennial Kingdom: are people going to be saved?  Surely in 1000 years at least 1 person will be saved.  So will they be saved by responding favorably to the preaching of the cross: after all, Paul does say "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God?  Sorry to burst your bubble again.  Nobody will be responding to the preaching of the cross or any other preaching for that matter.

Jeremiah 31:33-34 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

What?  No teaching in the Millennium?  In fact, if you are caught teaching or preaching the penalty is capital punishment according to Zechariah 13:3.  It doesn't take a genius to understand that FAITH and SIGHT are mutually exclusive (Heb. 11:1).  If faith comes by preaching, and there is no preaching, people will not be saved by faith.  They must be saved by WORKS.  You can find how people will be saved in the Millennium in Matthew chapters 5-7 aka the constitution of the Kingdom.

Are you willing to change your belief to match the words of scripture?  If not, you might be a fundamentalist.


Wednesday, March 21, 2012

I'm A Bible-Believer - Part 1

We have posted here before about one of the specific differences between Bible Believers and Fundamentalists here.  However, when explaining this topic to a friend of mine about why I do not label myself as a fundamentalist (besides the obvious answers such as it was started by baby sprinkling protestants and not Bible Believing Baptists) I thought it meet to generalize these things in print for the over zealous brethren that think fundamentalism was started by John the Baptist and to not identify yourself as such is borderline heresy.

While I understand that not all those who identify themselves as fundamentalists fit this mold, those that have been part of both "camps" will agree that the generalizations are true.  There are 5 basic reasons as to why I am a Bible Believer and not a fundamentalist.

  1. Bible believer's glorify the words of God (Ps. 138:2; 2 Thess. 3:1) while fundamentalists magnify their historical positions (Mat. 15:2,9; Col. 2:8).
While most modern day IFBers will scream about being KJVO Bible believers (even though their heritage is otherwise), they really are not.  They are Bible users.  They use the Bible in a method called "take a verse, take a fit."  That is to say, they have a preconceived idea about a thing, then they go to the Bible to "prove" the Biblical basis for what they want to preach by pulling a verse out of context and then wresting it (2 Pet. 3:16) to fit their alma maters philosophy.

This is done largely because of the shallow knowledge of the Bible most Bible college graduates have.  The fact of the matter is, most pastoral majors at IFB colleges will take less than 40% of their classes learning Bible doctrine.  Instead they are inundated with "philosophy of ministry," "practical theology" (is there some "unpractical" theology?), "baptist distinctives," and administrative courses.  So what they learn are the proof texts to back up the philosophy (Col. 2:8) and historical positions they learned at their college.  They will run to Malachi to prove tithing, Mat.19 to prove divorce and remarriage is adultery, and they will say most of the time the word "church" is used it's talking about a Local Church so there's no such thing as a spiritual body.  Want to see this in action?  Here are 2 recent examples:

  • An evangelist, in an effort to prove that having an altar call is a biblical mandate, used Gen 3:9 as his proof text.  If this isn't stupidity I don't know what is.  Does he not known when the first mention of the word 'altar' is?  Does he not know that Adam and Eve are the only two people alive and they haven't sacrificed (that is the purpose of an altar) anything to anybody?  Does he not know NOTHING has even been killed yet (this is what happens at an altar)?  Don't get me wrong: I'm not dogmatically against having an altar call.  But let's be serious: there are exactly ZERO verses of scripture where any Christian or lost person is told to go to an altar and pray about anything, let alone any mandate to do so.  Have an altar call if you want; but let's not pretend following the pattern of the Wesley revivals makes it Biblical or makes one a heretick if they choose not to have one.
  • Yesterday on Twitter: in an effort to prove that you should never tell a wicked sinner that they are...well...a wicked sinner, but only tell them that God loves them (which isn't true until you get in Christ - Jn. 3:36), a HAC alum pastor used Eph. 4:29.  Now, if context were not important this would just be fine.  But since context is important, it isn't fine.  If you read the verse carefully (which he obviously did not, or cannot), you will see a contrast.  The contrast is instead of speaking corrupt things, speak things that edify & minister grace.  The two key words in that verse are edify and minister.  The word edify (in all of it tenses) appears only in the NT 16 times.  EVERY time it appears, it is in reference to believer's...NOT LOST PEOPLE WHOSE DOOR YOU KNOCKED ON!  Lost people cannot be edified since they cannot understand the things necessary for edification (1 Cor. 2:14) and they are not part of the Body.  If you look at the word minister you will find that the only people in scripture that get ministered to are God and his saints: NO LOST PEOPLE.  So Paul is clearly talking about speaking to believers, not lost people in door-2-door soul winning.  Let me emphasize, nobody is advocating being unnecessarily rude to anybody just because they are lost, but truth is truth.  And there is a tactful way to be honest and let them know there current condition and state.  
However the problem with this man is he went to a Bible college that was more concerned with building the church through soul winning than teaching the Bible (see Jack Hyles' Science of Calling a Pastor rule #3): he learned a philosophy of ministry and now he has to force his philosophy onto any verse that he can make fit what he was taught.  Of course this same fool tweeted: "There is zero Biblical evidence of a witness insulting the very ones they are trying to lead to salvation."  You can't be serious, right?  Has he read any of Peter's sermons in Acts?  He called those Jews wicked and murderers.  Was it true?  Yes.  Was it insulting? I would be insulted if you called me a murderer.  Did anyone get saved after Peter called them wicked and murderers?  You bet your bottom dollar!  (oh, wait...Baptists don't bet) But of course his argument centers around what you define as an insult.  Is it an insult to tell someone they are going to burn in a lake of fire forever if their name is not written in the Lamb's Book of Life, even if you say it with a soft tone and a smile?  But I digress: because he went to a Bible college that doesn't know anything about the Bible he is an example of proof to a statement made by Dr. William P. Grady in his most recent book Given By Inspiration on page 47: "'Pseudo King James Onlyites' are some of the shallowest Bible students in the Body of Christ.  They are always lacking in two areas - right division [which is why the evangelist runs to Genesis to prove doctrine for the church] and cross-referencing."  If this imbecile had simply downloaded E-Sword for free and run the references on those two words, he could have avoided this folly and not ended up in the same error as the Papists, Mormons and JW's: creating a private interpretation (2 Pet. 1:20).  Of course, he could have just read the entire chapter of Ephesians 4 and it would have been obvious too.  But who reads the Bible these days?

Most of the historical positions held by fundamental baptists are not really that historical.  Don't believe me?  Hop on Twitter and see who gets quoted: John Rice, Curtis Hutson, Jack Hyles, Tom Malone.  Occasionally you'll get some from "way back" in the past like Spurgeon, Sunday, Moody, or Wesley.  And these are the "old paths?"  Christianity is 2000 years old and the blessed old paths only go back a few hundred years at most?  Not so old or historic if you ask me.

I'm not a huge fan of David Cloud, but the thing I like about him is his honesty in expressing his positions (even when wrong).  But he had a recent quote that I love that fits in nicely with "historic fundamentalism" and it's modern day cronies:

"Some men seem to think that if John Rice or J. Frank Norris or Bob Jones did or believed something, that I must be some sort of nut for not following them. I don’t understand that mindset. I don’t unquestioningly follow fundamentalist leaders past or present in any matter. I appreciate all of the good things they stood for, but they were only men." 
At the end of the day, fundamentalists have to answer what they really believe: what the Book ACTUALLY says or what their alma mater told them it said.  Lot's of these self-professing fundamentalists don't have enough backbone to go against their protestant movements precepts.  They want to be accepted at the next big leadership conference or pastors school.  I think John 12:43 has something to say about that.


Monday, March 5, 2012

Sound Doctrine - Right Division

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

For the past two Saturdays in a row I have had a pair of nice, well-meaning JW's show up at my house.  And on both occasions one of them was a former Baptist.  In particular, the most recent Saturday this former-Baptist used to be a member of the church I currently attend (albeit it was under a different pastor).  This church at that time was KJVO and considered itself independent and fundamental.  So what happened?  Why did this person leave?  What made this person leave a KJVO IFBBB, to become a person that believes they are one of the 144,000 Jewish male virgins preaching in the tribulation?

The direct answer to this problem is a lack of knowledge concerning right division.  If this married, white (non-Jewish) male, with three kids would have been taught how to rightly divide the Bible; he would never have fallen for a lie that he could become 1 of 144,000 Jewish male virgins preaching during the tribulation.  But in order to learn right division at a church, you need to go to a church where the elders think it is important to learn, yea even essential.

However, most mainstream Baptist churches do not teach right division.  In fact most mainstream Baptist churches teach the heresy that all people were always saved the same way in every age.  In turn, they pretend that other hereticks that preach some other gospel other than 1 Cor 15:1-4 is teaching something that's not even in the Bible.  Their bible college systematic theology class teaches them how to view the scripture based upon their systems presupposition: men were always saved by faith alone and have eternal security.  Therefore when a JW, SDA, Pentecostal, Campbellite, or even a Lutheran or Papist baby sprinkler shows up and shows them Rev. 14:1,12; Acts 2:4,38; Mat. 24:13; Lk. 1:5-6; or Ezek. 3:20-21 they don't know what to do because their pastor has said those things aren't "really" in the Bible and they don't mean what they say.  Saved by grace through faith always, were they?  Eternal security, eh?

We haven't begun to deal w/ Mat. 25 where people get into the Millennial Kingdom, NOT BY FAITH IN CHRIST, but by helping the Jews during the tribulation.  Saved by looking forward to the cross were they?  Well according to Luke's gospel Christ told the disciples of his passion at least twice and BOTH times not only does it say they didn't understand what he was saying, but that it was hid from them so that they perceived it not.  Even one time it says they were scared to ask him about it.  They were looking forward to it, but didn't understand it until the closing verses of Luke's gospel when he opened their understanding.  Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God does it?  If it takes faith to be saved in every age, then nobody will be saved during the Millennial Kingdom since preaching is outlawed (Zech. 13:3).

These topics are some of the meat and strong meat of the word that is never touched in most churches.  Why?  It doesn't promote soulwinning.  It doesn't build the church.  It won't help increase attendance 20% year over year so you can brag about what a "man of God" you are at the next preachers fellowship.  This type of attitude is why a so-called evangelist recently tweeted that [paraphrase]: [you] don't need to study the antichrist, you just need to get right with God.  Certainly, if you're not in good fellowship w/ God you should get there.  However, it is unbiblical to say a Christian doesn't need to study the antichrist considering 2 Tim. 3:16 says that all scripture is profitable.  Well, if all scripture is profitable, and the antichrist is in scripture, then there must be some profit for the Christian to study the topic.

Nevertheless, when Christian's don't learn the answers to these questions (and there are answers) from their KJV, and someone from a cult shows up and shows them these "contradictions" and can answer them (albeit falsely), then they're gone: and knocking on my door two weeks in a row with a New World Translation in their hand.  Even worse they get duped into thinking the KJV has errors because they haven't been taught how to understand why in one place in Acts it says they did hear the voice and in the other they didn't and they become an apostate bible corrector like James White.


  © Blogger templates ProBlogger Template by 2008

Back to TOP