tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-74973539020549242812024-02-19T11:20:24.328-06:00The Apostolic Baptist"And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine..." Acts 2:42The Apostolic Baptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12652447518749801911noreply@blogger.comBlogger276125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7497353902054924281.post-23318849791692040522012-08-21T13:57:00.001-05:002012-08-21T14:02:43.420-05:00What Is Doctrine?We often hear preachers and teachers talk about doctrine - that they teach it; that it divides; that is harmful to building a "good, soul-winning church", and sundry other cliches. But, just what is doctrine, exactly? I don't mean what did your favorite guru tell you it was; I mean what saith the scripture concerning this matter of doctrine? Let us look:<br />
<br />
<b>Deuteronomy 32:2 <u><i>My doctrine</i></u></b> shall drop as the rain, <u><i><b>my speech</b></i></u> shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:<br />
<br />
Heeding the law of first mention, we see that doctrine is first and foremost God's speech; or words.<br />
<br />
<b>Job 11:1-4 </b>Then answered Zophar the Naamathite, and said, Should not the multitude of <i><u><b>words</b></u></i> be answered? and should a man full of <u><i><b>talk</b></i></u> be justified? Should thy<u><i><b> lies </b></i></u>make men hold their peace? and when thou mockest, shall no man make thee ashamed? For thou hast said, My <u><i><b>doctrine</b></i></u> <i>is</i> pure, and I am clean in thine eyes. <br />
<br />
Again, we see in this passage that the doctrine is again equated with words and speech. One more for witness' sake:<br />
<br />
<b>Proverbs 4:1-2 <u><i>Hear</i></u></b>, ye children, the instruction of a father, and attend to know understanding. For I give you good <u><i><b>doctrine</b></i></u>, forsake ye not my <u><i><b>law</b></i></u>.<br />
<br />
Goes without saying here as well: doctrine is heard and it is law. Laws are written in words.<br />
<br />
In general we can say then that any person accurately teaching the words (that's individual words, not a general message) of holy scripture is teaching and or preaching doctrine. However...<br />
<br />
<b>Isaiah 28:9 </b>Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? <i>them that are</i> weaned from the milk, <i>and</i> drawn from the breasts.<br />
<br />
This verse says God will teach doctrine to those that are weaned from the milk. Strange... Now let's add these verses to the mix:<br />
<br />
<b>1 Peter 2:2 </b>As newborn <u><i><b>babes, desire the sincere milk of the word</b></i></u>, that ye may grow thereby:<br />
<b>1 Corinthians 3:1-2 </b>And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, <i>even</i> as unto <u><i><b>babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk</b></i></u>, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able <i>to bear it</i>, neither yet now are ye able.<br />
<br />
There then must be a division in scripture between milk and meat. And therefore, there are some things God will not reveal to the Christian who has not been weaned from the milk of the word. So just what is the milk of the word? What are these "easy" doctrines that God expects you to know before he will give you the "deep things?"<br />
<br />
<b>Hebrews 5:12-14 </b>For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which <i>be</i> the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk <i>is</i> unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, <u><i><b>even those who by reason of use</b></i></u> have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.<br />
<br />
Using this passage in Hebrews we see that meat is prepared for those that have used and had made themselves ready by reason of use in the scripture. Moving on in Hebrews we read:<br />
<br />
<b>Hebrews 6:1-3 </b>Therefore leaving the <u><i><b>principles</b></i></u> of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again <u><i><b>the foundation</b></i></u> of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit.<br />
<br />
We see here that the Paul calls this list of topics principles and foundational; and they need to move on past these things. Make no mistake, there is a doctrinal application to Hebrews (hence the name of the book) concerning these specific doctrines as applied to OT Judaism. However, there is also a NT application for all of these doctrines in this dispensation. Therefore we can make application and say the milk you need to be weaned from could be said to be: 1. Repentance 2. Faith 3. Baptisms (there is more than 1) 4. Laying on of hands or gifts 5. Resurrections (there is more than 1) 6. Judgment (there is more than 1).<br />
<br />
Are you aware of the different baptisms, judgments, and resurrections (quick, grab your Scofield and read the notes!)? How many deacons in independent baptist churches can biblically define "repentance?"<br />
<br />
Knowing Paul fed the Corinthians milk, and so taking a cursory overview of those topics written therein we see: judgment seat of Christ, leaven in the body, not fornicating, lawsuits, marriage & divorce, idolatrous knowledge, providing for ministers, spiritual gifts, charity, the gospel of the grace of God, resurrections, and collections to name a few. With a few additions, this list has lots of parallel from Hebrews.<br />
<br />
We can safely conclude that if you are not settled in these basic, milky doctrines, God will not reveal the deep things or the meat to you. You will be stuck in the land of the Corinthian's and the Galatian's: carnality (what Bible college did you go to?), heresy (only the local baptist church is the bride of Christ), man worship (Dr. So and So's campus is so big), the covering of sin (You're hurting the cause of Christ my publicizing this small misstep at an otherwise such a fine church), and legalism (we have standards, you know!).<br />
<br />
The problem with the average independent baptist church, is most of their people will never learn most of these foundational doctrines and will never progress past these, and so, will forever be stuck in a church that is a mile wide and an inch deep. Or as Dr. Sam Gipp put it in his book <u>For His Pleasure</u>, "babies birthing babies."<br />
<br />
Don't you want your children to grow up? Why don't you think God wants you to do the same?The Apostolic Baptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12652447518749801911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7497353902054924281.post-74206129793624242572012-08-20T19:07:00.000-05:002012-08-20T20:05:32.626-05:00A Dispensational NuggetWhile most of professing Christianity is steeped in heresy due to their inability to rightly divide the word of truth (having a large impact on this is the fact that most of professing Christianity doesn't use the Authorized Version, therefore the command to rightly divide is omitted - 2 Tim. 2:15). This is even true of professing dispensationalists. And while 2 Tim 2:15 is the most common verse when teaching the authority of right division, there is another less popular and sometimes overlooked verse to consider.<br />
<br />
<b>2 Peter 1:12 </b>Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know <i>them</i>, and be established in the <u><b>present truth</b></u>.<br />
<br />
"Pope" (tongue-in-cheek) Peter mentions something called "present truth." Well, if you can read (and if you were educated in America in the last 40 years, you may not be able to), and if there is such a thing called present truth, there at the very least must be something we can call "past truth." And there is likely something that we will refer to as "future truth." This trinity falls in line with the way God uses '3' throughout the scripture: Father, Word, Holy Ghost; Three Days & Three Nights; Jew, Gentile, Church; Past Earth, present Earth, new heavens and earth; etc.<br />
<br />
The application of past, present and future truth is vitally important to proper understanding of the Bible. Here are a few examples:<br />
<br />
<u><b>Do you believe in Eternal Security?</b></u><br />
<br />
<b>Romans 8:38-39 </b>For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. <br />
<b>Jude 1:21 </b>Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.<br />
<br />
Do you need to keep yourself in God's love; or, is God's love inseparable? What about this one:<br />
<br />
<b>Ephesians 4:30 </b>And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.<br />
<b>Psalms 51:11 </b>Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.<br />
<br />
Didn't David know he couldn't lose the Spirit? Why would a man after God's own heart not know such a simple and fundamental doctrine as eternal security (or as my Calvinist friends may say 'Perseverance of the Saints')?<br />
<br />
<u><b>Salvation</b></u><br />
<br />
<b>Matthew 19:16-17 </b>And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? <i>there is</i> none good but one, <i>that is</i>, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.<br />
<b>Acts 16:30-31 </b>And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.<br />
<br />
So, does eternal life come by keeping the commandments or by believing on the Lord?<br />
<br />
<u><b>Gospel</b></u><br />
<br />
<b>1 Corinthians 15:1-4 </b>Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel...how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:<br />
<b>Revelation 14:6-7 </b>And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.<br />
<br />
Why doesn't that angel mention the cross of Christ? Didn't Paul say even if an angel from heaven preach another gospel that he is accursed?<br />
<br />
<br />
These are just a the tip of the iceberg of the potential list of "contradictions" in the scripture that have no legitimate answer unless you can rightly divide the word of truth (notice I didn't say "understand dispensations." Simply understanding where the law ends and the Church begins will not answer these questions). The sad part is there are plenty of professing dispensational baptists that can't answer these questions. Oh; but you thought your preacher was teaching you doctrine, did you?<br />
<br />The Apostolic Baptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12652447518749801911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7497353902054924281.post-60834256962902716422012-06-25T18:53:00.000-05:002012-06-25T18:53:05.380-05:00Bread, Coffee, & the Pope<h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}" style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}">Folgers coffee company manages to arrange a meeting with the Pope at the Vatican.<br />
After receiving the Papal blessing, the Folgers official whispers 'Your
Eminence, we have an offer for you. Folgers is prepared to donate $100
million to the church if you<br /> change the Lord's Prayer from 'give us this day our daily bread' to 'give us this day our daily coffee.'<br /> <br /> The Pope responds, 'That is impossible. <span class="text_exposed_show">The prayer is the word of the Lord. It must not be changed.'<br /> <br /> 'Well,' said the Folgers man, 'we anticipated your reluctance. For this reason we will increase our offer to $300 million.'<br /> <br /> 'My son, it is impossible. For the prayer is the word of the Lord and it must not be changed.'<br /> <br />
The Folgers guy says, 'Your Holiness, we at Folgers respect your
adherence to the faith, but we do have one final offer…. We will<br />
donate $500 million - that's half a billion dollars - to the great
Catholic Church if you would only change the Lord's Prayer from 'give us
this day our daily bread' to 'give us this day our daily coffee.'
Please consider it.' <br /> <br /> And he leaves.<br /> <br /> The next day the Pope convenes the College of Cardinals.<br /> 'There is some good news,' he announces, 'and some bad news. The good news is that the Church will come into $500 million.'<br /> <br /> 'And the bad news your Holiness?' asks a Cardinal.<br /> <br /> 'We're losing the Wonder Bread account.'<br /> </span></span></span></h6>
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}" style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="text_exposed_show">-copied</span></span></span></h6>The Apostolic Baptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12652447518749801911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7497353902054924281.post-73925478204002377472012-06-14T14:19:00.001-05:002012-06-14T14:19:29.373-05:00Heartland Baptist "Bible" CollegeNext in our installment of Bible colleges is Heartland Baptist Bible College (formerly known as Pacific Coast Baptist Bible College) in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma where Sam Davison is in the president.<br />
<br />
As we said before, we based the results on the 4-year prescribed plan for those thinking they are called to be pastors.<br />
<br />
As with Crown, you can get a feel for the direction of the school by certain introductory statements that are made on their website such as thew following:<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">"<span style="color: black;">We realize there are good, fundamental Bible colleges across America that emphasize Baptist distinctives, separation, soul-winning, and world missions."</span></span><br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;">Since no Christian in the Bible ever called themselves a baptist, emphasizing "Baptist" distinctives is called philosophy, not Bible. The emphasis should be Bible doctrine. I know everyone that loves the Baptist distinctives more than the Bible itself would say that all the distinctives are biblical, but we know better. </span></span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;">"</span><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;">These three majors</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"> are designed to
promote the development of character, spiritual maturity, and commitment to the
local New Testament Baptist church."</span></span><br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"> You can develop your character, become more spiritually mature, and learn commitment to a temporal church organization without spending thousands at a Bible college: so why go? </span></span></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;">So for Heartland, here is your Bible education:</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;">FRESHMAN: <b>3 Bible Courses - </b>Gospels, Genesis, Acts/Life of Paul</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;">SOPHOMORE: <b>4 Bible Courses - </b>Bibliology, Pneumatology/Angelology, 2 Bible electives</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;">JUNIOR: <b>5 Bible Courses - </b>Ecclesiology, Christology/Soteriology, Eschatology, Anthropology/Hamartiology, 1 Bible elective</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;">SENIOR: <b>5 Bible Courses - </b>Major Prophets, Minor Prophets, Dispensationalism, 2 Bible electives</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;">This yields a result of <b>17 Bible courses in a 4-year program of study. </b>However, in addition to the aforementioned Bible electives, the student will also have the opportunity to take up to <b>6 </b>more Bible electives. We did not include these in the count since they student can choose between taking a Bible course, course on youth work, a missions course, or Greek. We also felt it was unlikely that a student would use all 6 opportunities to take a Bible course. The total number of classes required is <b>56:</b> which leads to a result of <b>30%</b> using just the required classes. If we are gracious and assume some Bible loving student would use all 6 electives to take a Bible course, that percentage jumps up to <b>41%</b>. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;">Either way you slice it, less than 2 full years of education time is spent educating future pastors to perform their primary duty: "FEED MY SHEEP."</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;">While we do commend HBBC for having a course specifically on dispensationalism, they too spend too much time acting like a worldly university. They waste time with subjects such as grammer, composition, American Lit., and Speech & Debate to name a few. Again, not all of these classes is a complete waste of time; but as a substitution for teaching through Paul's epistles verse-by-verse? We think not.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;">Nevertheless, this is what happens when Christianity takes on worldly institutions and tries to "christianize" it: it didn't work for the papists, it work for the Baptist's either. </span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span>The Apostolic Baptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12652447518749801911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7497353902054924281.post-39345110232806710072012-06-07T17:58:00.001-05:002012-06-07T18:15:13.225-05:00The Crown College of the "Bible"First up in this study on Bible college is the infamous Crown College of the Bible located in Powell, Tenn. and run by "Dr." Clarence Sexton. Despite the serious <a href="http://youtu.be/saTvCMz_-lQ" target="_blank">Shibboleth</a> problem that was exposed down there, this is still one of the leading independent baptist colleges in America; as well as one of the most influential. Therefore we chose to deal with it out of the gate.<br />
<br />
We based the results of the survey on the 4-year prescribed plan of study as listed on the college's website. While we understand that this may not be the exact way every pastoral ministry major at Crown goes through the system, it is the recommendation of the school, and therefore, is the ideal. Keep in mind we also defined a Bible course as:<br />
<ul>
<li>An individual book of the Bible taught</li>
<li>Specific Bible doctrines such as: Soteriology, Angelology, etc.</li>
<li>Dispensational courses</li>
<li>A required "Bible" elective</li>
<li>Book groupings taught such as: Pastoral Epistles</li>
</ul>
You can start to get a feel that this college, like the others, is more interested in teaching their students THEIR PHILOSOPHY rather than the words of holy writ as they list the key courses of the pastoral major as Living the Christian Life, Homiletics, and Baptist History and Distinctives. One would think they would at least include the Pastoral Epistles as a key class for future pastors, but no.<br />
<br />
With this in mind, here is what future pastors and graduates of Crown must undertake to be deemed "prepared" for the ministry:<br />
<br />
FRESHMAN: <b>0 Bible Courses</b><br />
SOPHOMORE: <b>6 Bible Courses - </b>Bible Doctrine I & II, Pentateuch, Gospel Records, Historical Books, Christian Church Epistles<br />
JUNIOR: <b>3 Bible Courses</b> - Pastoral Epistles, Poetic Books, Hebrew Christian Church Epistles<br />
SENIOR: <b>4 Bible Courses</b> - Major Prophets, Minor Prophets, 2 Bible Electives<br />
<br />
This yields a result of <b>13 Bible Courses in a 4-year program of study.</b> The total number of courses required to obtain a Bachelor of Biblical Studies in Pastoral Ministry from Crown is <b>54.</b> Therefore, doing the math (13/54) we find that 24% of the classes taken by a pastoral major are actually Bible courses. While this is pathetic, Crown actually fares better than other "Bible" colleges; if you can believe that. They, at least, do cover the entirety of the canon of holy scripture; albeit in an elementary way. But this is more than you will see at some IB/IFB colleges in this survey.<br />
<br />
Is this what you expected? If we combined all the Bible courses, they
could be taken in one academic year. That means a Crown pastoral major
will spend 3 of 4 years learning everything except the Bible. WOW! <br />
<br />
So what other subjects are taken by pastoral majors? Greek (how come no Hebrew and Aramaic?), missions, Christian Home, Christian Music, Church Finance, Baptist History, and Counseling<b> </b>to name a few. And we would not condemn the taking of these courses as many of them are helpful, and maybe even needful. However, it is never wise to substitute teaching of holy scripture for an auxiliary course. Church finance, church history, the home, music, and most other side subjects are covered in scripture. Therefore you could teach the Bible in-depth; verse-by-verse, book-by-book, and cover all of these in some detail; kind of like expository preaching, which most fundamentalists think is a death sentence for a church per Jack Hyles' commendation (but that's another subject for another day).<br />
<br />
Well...one down and several more to go. Remember, we said Crown was one of the better ones. Up next: Pacific Coast...errr...Heartland Baptist Bible College.The Apostolic Baptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12652447518749801911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7497353902054924281.post-28440005826976094722012-06-05T12:13:00.000-05:002012-06-05T12:13:39.491-05:00"Bible" College?Dr. Peter S. Ruckman once said, "Higher Christian education is a circus without a tent." And the truth of this statement has never been more evident than here in Laodicea. The proof of this can be seen in churches all across the land pastored by men from some of the most well-known Baptist Bible colleges. Yet their congregations are ignorant of even the basic Bible doctrines. Why is that? Why can't these men transfer their vast knowledge of the scripture which their professors transferred to them in Bible college? Better yet: how much knowledge of the scripture did those professors transfer to their students? You might be surprised how little!<br />
<br />
Despite former 10-year HAC professor Dr. William P. Grady commenting that while he was there they taught "below zero doctrine," we thought it prudent to see exactly how little Bible is actually taught at these institutions designed to prepare men to "feed the flock of God." The percentage of Bible taught in a 4-year program designed for men (supposedly) called to be preachers will astound you. What you will notice is the overwhelming number of "ministry" courses taught; meaning, these carnal schools are putting out managers and not men that are "apt to teach" since the men that taught them aren't apt to teach either.<br />
<br />
For the purposes of this research and survey we defined a "Bible" class as:<br />
<ul>
<li>An individual book of the Bible taught</li>
<li>Specific Bible doctrines such as: Soteriology, Angelology, etc.</li>
<li>Dispensational courses</li>
<li>A required "Bible" elective</li>
<li>Book groupings taught such as: Pastoral Epistles</li>
</ul>
So how will your alma mater fare in this survey? Not well, that's for sure.<br />
<br />
First up...the Crown College of the Bible. Stay tuned.The Apostolic Baptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12652447518749801911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7497353902054924281.post-43180126308675740742012-03-22T12:31:00.000-05:002012-06-14T12:36:11.123-05:00I'm A Bible Believer - Part 22. <i><b>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.</b></i><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Were the apostles saved before Christ's passion (less Judas, of course)?</li>
</ul>
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:<br />
<br />
<b>Luke 18:31-33 </b>Then he took <i>unto him</i> 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 <i>him</i>, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<b>Luke 18:34 </b>And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.<br />
<br />
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!<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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!<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<b>Jeremiah 31:33-34 </b>But this <i>shall be</i> 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<b> teach no more</b> every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for<b> they shall all know me</b>, 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Are you willing to change your belief to match the words of scripture? If not, you might be a fundamentalist.The Apostolic Baptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12652447518749801911noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7497353902054924281.post-84163261085367960322012-03-21T08:53:00.001-05:002012-03-21T08:54:56.676-05:00I'm A Bible-Believer - Part 1We have posted here before about one of the specific differences between Bible Believers and Fundamentalists <a href="http://apostolicbaptist.blogspot.com/2011/02/pastor-william-p-grady-on-sermon.html" target="_blank">here</a>. 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<ol><li><i><b>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).</b></i></li>
</ol>While most modern day IFBers will scream about being KJVO Bible believers (even though their heritage is <a href="http://apostolicbaptist.blogspot.com/2011/10/fundamental-baptist-heritage.html#comments" target="_blank">otherwise</a>), 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.<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
<ul><li>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.</li>
</ul><ul><li>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. </li>
</ul>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' <i>Science of Calling a Pastor</i> 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: <i>"There is zero Biblical evidence of a witness insulting the very ones they are trying to lead to salvation."</i> 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 <u>Given By Inspiration</u> on page 47: "<i>'Pseudo</i> King James Onlyites' are some of the shallowest Bible students in the Body of Christ. They are always lacking in two areas - right division <b>[which is why the evangelist runs to Genesis to prove doctrine for the church]</b> 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?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{"type":1}" style="font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}">"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." </span></span></i></h6><h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{"type":1}" style="font-weight: normal;"><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"> </span></span></i></h6><h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{"type":1}" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}">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.</span></span><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"> </span></span></i><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}">I think John 12:43 has something to say about that.</span></span></h6>The Apostolic Baptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12652447518749801911noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7497353902054924281.post-72121715894066150032012-03-05T20:57:00.000-06:002012-03-05T20:57:22.736-06:00Sound Doctrine - Right Division<b>2 Timothy 4:3 </b>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; <br />
<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.The Apostolic Baptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12652447518749801911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7497353902054924281.post-62064775714641661012011-12-19T10:21:00.002-06:002011-12-19T10:36:37.393-06:00KJV Onlyism is RidiculousI have come to the conclusion that being King James Only is a ridiculous position. I have been told this in past by several anti King James people and this position is asserted by those who don't have a stiff enough spine to actually say it. But after much thinking and careful consideration (which included searching the scriptures), I have no doubt in my mind that I (and you if you are KJVO) hold a position that at the very least can rightly be called ridiculous.<br />
<br />
I mean think about it: we believe that the King James is perfect, infallible, and THE final authority. Some of us even believe that the AV is more authoritative than the Greek & Hebrew; which is even more ridiculous. I have even heard it said by some KJV only people that the AV is the new Received Text; is that not ridiculous? But then I started thinking (which is a dangerous thing sometimes):<br />
<br />
<ul><li>I believe that a virgin gave birth to a baby</li>
<li>I believe that God spoke the heavens into existence</li>
<li>I believe that the Red Sea literally parted and a bunch of Jews walked through on dry ground</li>
<li>I believe that an ass spoke to a prophet</li>
<li>I believe that Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh</li>
<li>I believe that one day I'm going to walk on streets of gold</li>
<li>I believe that one day Jesus Christ is coming back to the earth and will reign from a throne in Jerusalem (according to the USA now, this belief may even make you a terrorist)</li>
<li>I believe that Jesus Christ died, was buried, and rose again bodily on the third day</li>
</ul>This is just a sampling of the ridiculous things I believe. So if being KJVO is ridiculous: I'm okay with that. Just add it to the list of ridiculous things I already believe.<br />
<br />
The funny thing is, most of the anti-kjvo people (if they are actually saved) believe all these same ridiculous things. Is it more ridiculous to believe in the virgin birth or that a Book could actually be perfect? I'd say believing a virgin had a baby and that baby was God in the flesh is much more ridiculous. And to believe that it isn't would be, well...ridiculousThe Apostolic Baptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12652447518749801911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7497353902054924281.post-84406855786124603552011-12-07T11:19:00.000-06:002011-12-07T11:19:17.100-06:00Epistle to the LaodiceansThere is always much conversation from non-christians and even some Christians about the development of the canon of Holy Writ. Which books, why, missing books, etc. One of these famous epistles is Paul's to the Laodiceans. There is even a fake epistle floating around the internet that even some Bible believers think may be the actual epistle Paul wrote. However, there is one problem with this: did Paul write an epistle to the Laodiceans?<br />
<br />
I say he didn't. But I bet you are thinking of a verse in the book of Colossians that says he did. Let's look at this verse and read it closely.<br />
<br />
<b>Colossians 4:16 </b>And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the <i>epistle</i> from Laodicea.<br />
<br />
Did you see that? Read it slowly...Paul says the epistle <b>FROM</b> Laodicea. Paul does not say he wrote an epistle <b>TO </b>the Laodiceans and that he wants the Colossians to read as it is normally interpreted. Paul tells those at Colosse to read an epistle that is from Laodicea. What epistle could Paul be talking about? Is there an epistle <b>FROM</b> Laodicea? Yes there is; and it's already in the canon of scripture.<br />
<br />
If you have a King James Bible that the publishers haven't taken the liberty to change words, you will notice the post script at the end of 1 Timothy:<br />
<br />
<span class="sssmallerfont"><i>The first to Timothy was <b>written from Laodicea</b>, which is the chiefest city of Phrygia Pacatiana.</i></span><br />
<br />
<span class="sssmallerfont">There you go: Paul's epistle from Laodicea is what we call 1 Timothy. Now; did Paul write an epistle to the Laodiceans? As I previously stated, I don't think so. But if he did, there is not one verse of scripture to suggest such a thing.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="sssmallerfont"><i>Amen. </i></span>The Apostolic Baptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12652447518749801911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7497353902054924281.post-74592822057360873492011-11-21T09:36:00.001-06:002011-11-21T09:38:38.513-06:00Acts of the Apostates<h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{"type":1}"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="text_exposed_show">The Acts of the Apostates 19:25 - 28</span></span> </span></h6><h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{"type":1}" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}">And Schaap said, brethren, ye know that by our Nicolaitan craft of correcting the King James Bible with pagan Greek definitions we have our wealth and power. All over ye see and hear that not only at HAC and BJU, but almost throughout the whole world this Riplinger and Ruckman and Grady and Gipp hath persuaded and turned many back to believing the King James Bible is the inspired and perfect word of God and that we be not the g<span class="text_exposed_show">ods of interpretation. And not only that, but now Greekspeak and Nicolaitanism is in danger to be set at nought, and the Greek Texts should be despised which all the Catholics, Evangelicals and most Fundamentalists worship. And the Schaapettes were filled with wrath and with one shrill voice cried out, "Great are our Greek and Hebrew study tools!" </span></span></span></h6><h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{"type":1}"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="text_exposed_show"><br />
</span></span></h6>The Apostolic Baptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12652447518749801911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7497353902054924281.post-19838650072628239272011-10-29T19:56:00.000-05:002011-10-29T19:56:21.877-05:00Fundamental Baptist Heritage"Too bad some preachers haven't been as loyal to their fundamental Baptist heritage as they are to their favorite sports teams."<br />
<br />
I read this tweet today and I had to laugh. Quotes like these are so common from some of the outspoken KJVO, IFB, separated, blah blah blah pastors and preachers on Twitter. And while I can appreciate their zeal for what they stand for, they really ought to learn to stand for whatever it is they want to stand for because it's right and not worry about "heritage" and "old paths." They also ought to study history a little more. You see "fundamental Baptist heritage" was not KJVO by any stretch of the imagination: just read John R. Rice's book <i>"Our God-Breathed Book"</i> or look to see fundamentalist hero Curtis Hutson's name appear on the committee list of the New King James Bible. Although these are just two individuals, they echo the sentiment of the movement. That is why when Jack Schaap said his position on the KJV (which is that it is neither inspired or preserved, just the Hebrew, Aramaic & Greek) is the same has historic fundamentalism, he wasn't lying...for a change.<br />
<br />
Here is exactly what fundamental Baptist heritage believed as written in a work titled "Doctrinal Non Issues in Historic Fundamentalism" by Rolland D. McCune and published by Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary:<br />
<br />
<i>"<b>Early fundamentalists did not champion a particular version of the Bible as their official version</b> or elevate a particular codex, text type, or translation to the special status of being inspired or of being the very Word of God to the exclusion of all others. <b>While the King James Version was used overwhelmingly in public, the American Standard Version (1901), for example, was widely assigned and used as a study Bible in fundamentalist schools and was used by many teachers in the classroom</b></i><span style="font-size: small;"><b> <span style="color: red;">[in other words they were lying to their congregations]</span></b></span><i>. Pastors, evangelists, and Bible teachers had no hesitation in recommending it for clarity of reading and understanding. <b>Even the Revised Standard Version New Testament</b>, in use from 1946 to 1952, before the Old Testament came out, <b>was used, recommended, and even advertised for sale by some fundamentalists.</b>"</i><br />
<br />
Don't be fooled to think that it is any different today. KJVO fundamentalists (if they truly are) are the minority of that movement and they certainly don't speak for the "heritage" of the Baptist's that jumped onto this protestant movement. The heritage that was started is still where the movement stands today; again, Jack Schaap was right. And while I am glad that they stand for the right Book (publicly at least) here is what the Fundamentalist Baptist Fellowship (pillars of their movement) had to say at a recent annual meeting concerning the KJVO position:<br />
<i> </i><br />
<i>"In a day when translations abound, fundamentalists must exercise careful discernment in both selection and rejection of translations. <b>Some<u> professing</u> </b></i><span style="color: red;">[are they suggesting that REAL fundamentalists are not KJVO?]</span><i><b> fundamentalists have wrongfully declared one translation to be the only inspired copy of God's Word in the English language and have sought to make this a test of fundamentalism.</b> Since no translation can genuinely claim what only may be said of the original, inspired writings, <b>any attempt to make a particular English translation the only acceptable translation of fundamentalists must be rejected.</b>"</i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
Are you a fundamentalist? Is this your position? If not then you do not hold to the heritage of fundamental Baptist's nor do you hold to the current position of the fundamental movement. You are an individual; stand as such in the power of God and his might: which is in the Authorized Version, and not in a movement with a protestant brand name. The King James Bible is 400 years old. The fundamental movement is only about 1/4 of that age and Baptists have been part of it for less time than that.<br />
<br />
But I guess, if you want to cling to a Bible-rejecting heritage you do have soul liberty. Amen.The Apostolic Baptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12652447518749801911noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7497353902054924281.post-90882315336498634342011-10-28T12:03:00.000-05:002011-10-28T12:03:44.187-05:00A Word On MusicHere is some interesting commentary from a brother and friend of mine on Facebook concerning the music preference (and it is mostly preference) issue. He makes some good points. What say ye?<br />
<br />
<br />
<h6 class="uiStreamMessage" data-ft="{"type":1}" style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><span class="messageBody translationEligibleUserMessage" data-ft="{"type":3}">It has been said that all CCM is satanic, I disagree. A song, ANY SONG, is to be judged on it's own merits, not clumped up with a bunch of other songs. Let me just give you a short list of CCM songs:<br />
Easter Song<br />
He's Alive<br />
<span class="text_exposed_show"> Rise Again<br />
To God Be The Glory <br />
That is a very short list, so let me ask you, are those songs Satanic because they are CCM? Or should they be judged on their own merit. Should they be judged on what the belief of the writer is? You do know that almost all of the hymns in your hymnal were written by Calvinists or Arminians, don't you? Should we also get rid of those. There are songs in the hymnals I won't sing, due to doctrinal reasons, but I have judged the song individually, not thrown out the entire hymnal because I found an unscriptural song in it.<br />
I have also seen that MOST of the people who are against CCM, say nothing about Southern Gospel, Country Gospel, or Bluegrass gospel, why is that? Could it be that it's because you like that kind of music, but don't like CCM music? Now to the actual meodies, I have heard it said that if it makes you want to tap your foot, it's wrong. So there goes half of the hymnals again. They say it's because of the beat, listen folks, if it doesn't have a beat it's not music. Even Gregorian Chants have a beat. Did you ever notice the numbers at the front of a hymn, that's the beat. Whether it's 3/4 or 4/4 or 2/4 etc. time. THen they will say you cannot have drums, ignoring the KJB when it uses the tabrets and tambrels in Psalms.<br />
And I assume you know the same arguements were given for not using the Hymns in you hymnal when they came out, the Church of England and the Catholic church and the Presbyterian church all wanted only the Psalteries sung, they said the new hymns were of the devil to draw people away from true worship. Also you do know that many hymns music comes from old Shantys and folk songs, don't you? Cleanse Me is from a Maori Chant.<br />
Now, let me be clear, you can dislike CCM if you want, but don't claim it is Of the devil. I myself prefer singing the old Hymns in Church, but that is my PREFERENCE.<br />
All I ask is you be consistant, if CCM is wrong, then so is Southern Gospel, Country Gospel, and Bluegrass Gospel, then you need to get rid of all the songs written by Calvinists and Arminians. Be Consistant.</span></span></i></span></h6>The Apostolic Baptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12652447518749801911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7497353902054924281.post-6659839133588701402011-10-17T14:05:00.002-05:002011-10-27T12:15:30.661-05:00Ambassador Baptist College: KJVO?Here is typical look at what a Psuedo-King James Only Baptist College (or even fundamental churches since they just copy statement of faiths) says when they want to look King James Only, while still sounding intellectual so they can attract students and make money (didn't the Bible have something to say about the love of money?).<br />
<br />
<b>We believe…</b><br />
<ul id="doctrinal_statement"><li><b>…that the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments were “God-breathed,” or given by the inspiration of God, resulting in a product that was inerrant and infallible in the original autographs. </b><i>(This sounds great except it says nothing. So what if the originals were inerrant and infallible, you can't get them and neither can I since they no longer are in existence. Furthermore, we have no idea if they were actually inerrant: can you be sure Paul's scribe didn't spell one word wrong in the original epistle to the Romans? Sounds silly to say, but if you can't PROVE the opposite then you honestly have to admit the possibility. Not to mention the Neo term "God-breathed." I'm no Th.D and I don't have an honorary doctorate from Hyles-Anderson so this may automatically disqualify my opinion, but I think I read back there in the Old Testament that the original 10 Commandments were written on tables of stone by the finger of God. Now, unless you think God breathes through his finger, you have a serious problem. And if you do think God breathes through his finger, you have no business teaching in a "Bible" college.)</i></li>
<li><b>…that God has fulfilled His promise to preserve His Word for every generation of human history, through copies and translations of those original writings.</b> <i>(Again, another say nothing statement: preserve His Word? The Word (capital W) is Jesus Christ: of course, they would know that if they read just 5 verses their King James Bible.)</i></li>
<li><b>…that inspiration applied only to the autographs, but that their words have been accurately retained through God’s preservation.</b><i> (Typical statement made by silly fundamentalists and neos alike. Of course if they'd bothered to look at the context of the passage one time the word inspiration appears in the New Testament, they would have noticed that Timothy is said to have known the "holy scriptures." There's not a psuedo on the planet that believes Timothy had the originals in his possession at anytime so why would you ignore the clear context? Furthermore the Book of Jeremiah that actually ended up in the canon of scripture is actually the third version of what was written by him and his scribe and the Book of Proverbs was put together partially from copies of Solomon's writing's copied out by Hezekiah's men. Not to mention, if they were Bible believer's they would know what the law of first mention was; and knowing that they would know that the first mention of "inspiration" is in the Book of Job and has absolutely nothing to do with scripture, but rather how God imparts understanding to man. But you'd only know this if you actually read your Bible; and who does that these days?)</i></li>
<li><b>…that God has preserved His Word in the Masoretic Hebrew Text of the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus Greek Text of the New Testament.</b><i><b> </b>(Once again the capital W: seriously, can't they read 5 verses of scripture? That's great that there are some Hebrew and Greek manuscripts left in world: too bad nobody at this college or any of their students are part of the less than 1% of the population of the world that actually speak these languages. Not to mention, Koine Greek (of which nobody can actually prove was the original language of the NT) has been dead for over 1500 years).</i></li>
<li><b>…that the King James Version of the Bible is the best English translation available, not only because it is an excellent translation, but because it is a translation of the best Hebrew and Greek texts.</b><i> (Great statement with no conviction. Who says the AV is the best translation? You; ambassador college? And you are who? Fundamentalist founder C.I. Scofield didn't think so. The "Captain" John R. Rice didn't think so. Curtis Hutson didn't think so for a large part of his ministry. So why is your preference superior to their preference and opinion? Any scripture to back up your preference? I thought not.)</i></li>
<li><b>…that consistency in position demands that we use only the above-mentioned Hebrew and Greek texts and the KJV translation in our classrooms and chapel services.</b> <i>(What: did you just say your position is consistent? What happens when the Hebrew and Greek conflicts with the AV? And don't be fooled to think that they don't. The "TR" used in most Bible colleges is Scrivener's text put out by the Trinitarian Bible Society. This text was not in existence at the time the AV1611 was translated. It was created by Scrivener by taking the AV New Testament and back translating it into Greek. Yes you read that right: Ambassador's Greek authority over the KJV came from the KJV itself. However, Scrivener was also on the committee of Wescott & Hort, so naturally being the "man of Gaaaaawd" that he was, he "corrected" the back translated Greek from the "errors" of the KJV translators. So, as always was, there is no Greek text that has ever existed that reads exactly like the KJV. So just what is their final authority and what are they teaching the next generation of preachers is their final authority? Well, naturally it's whatever the baptist pope in their classroom says and therefore they should repeat in the pulpit. This is why 99% of preachers HAVE to mention something about the meanings of Agape and Phileo when they preach from John 21. But naturally, being the biblically illiterate amateur Greek scholars that they are, they forgot that God the Father has phileo love for Jesus Christ in John 5:20; they forgot that Jesus has only phileo love for the believer in John 16:27; and that Jesus only had phileo love for Lazarus in John 11:3. But who wants to be a dumb King James Bible believer these days and actually believe what the text says: "Peter was grieved because he said unto him <b>the third time</b>, Lovest thou me?" "The third time" could only be the right rendering if all three questions actually meant the same thing. But that's too simple and doesn't sound intellectual so it can't be right. Plus, if you actually believe the text of the AV "as is" you might get labeled a "Ruckmanite" and you don't want to be grouped in with a divorced pastor do you (hide your Scofield Bible at this time as not to seem like a hypocrite)?)</i></li>
</ul>The Apostolic Baptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12652447518749801911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7497353902054924281.post-20900629231256678222011-10-14T13:45:00.000-05:002011-10-14T13:45:38.249-05:00Dr. James Lince on Sermon Preparation"Textual, topical, or word studies are the common result whenever the deductive approach to sermon preparation is used.<br />
<br />
"Many, if not most [pastors], prefer to read the Bible and prepare their sermons with their own convictions already in mind. All they ever need to prepare a message is a scriptural text that appears to support their own personal convictions. Unfortunately, their convictions are usually nothing more than religious ideas flying around their minds looking for a place to land. So they are forced to find a verse to light on just to prove that they have a biblical basis for what they are preaching.<br />
<br />
"Many preachers choose to preach topical sermons because they do not require any real effort to dig down into the text for all the hidden insights - the golden nuggets of truth that are there for the picking. It is much easier to do a broad overview of some topic and come up with a basic outline that restates a generally known biblical truth...This is what I call quick and easy, in other words, lazy preaching...Consequently, many of tghe brethren have been living on stale bread for years now because their pastors have only used textual, topical, and word studies as a basis for their preaching..."The Apostolic Baptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12652447518749801911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7497353902054924281.post-48148979153339822402011-09-29T11:00:00.000-05:002011-09-29T11:00:54.252-05:00Pastor Peacock on Preaching & SpiritualityThe following is an excerpt taken from a sermon titled : Love The Bible.<br />
<br />
"The Southern Baptists out preach Independent Baptists when it comes to exposition of scripture. Independent Baptists are real bad about take verse...and all they do is preach: don't touch, don't taste, don't handle, get a haircut, wear the right clothes, make sure you don't wear this, make sure you do wear that, and all that other kinda junk. And then turn people into a bunch of cottonpickin' Pharisees...some of you set yourself up as the standard for how everybody ought to live and you come in here and you're looking for everybody who's not dressed like you are, and don't have their kids like your kids. That brings a rotten spirit with it. You think that's spirituality? That's not spirituality; not when you wear it as a badge of honor. It's not spirituality when you put those clothes on for a job interview. You're putting it on because you want the job. You're trying to show them you're not what you really are."The Apostolic Baptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12652447518749801911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7497353902054924281.post-81045178113418076192011-09-27T13:31:00.000-05:002011-09-27T13:31:44.766-05:00Arthur Pink Is Right!I'm no Calvinist; hyper or traditional. But I'm also not as self-righteous as most Independent Baptist pastors who act like the only people God ever used for the cause of Christ in the history of Christianity were people who believed just like them. That being said, Christians are to recognize, yea even SEEK the truth and think on those things as the scripture saith in Philippians 4:8 (notice Paul, by the Holy Ghost, does not preference it by saying "think on these things <i><b>if </b></i>they are said by someone from your alma mater, camp, or who agrees w/ all your convictions.)<br />
<br />
The following is a 110% true statement made by Pink commenting on John 8:28 <i>"as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things,"</i>:<br />
<br />
"This discourse He had delivered originated not in His own mind. His doctrine came from the One who sent Him. It was the same with the apostle Paul. Hear him as he says to the Galatians, "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (1:11,12). And these things, dear brethren are recorded for our learning. No one <i>has</i> to take a course in any Bible School in order to gain a knowledge and insight of the Scriptures. The man most used of God last century - Mr. C.H. Spurgeon - was a graduate of no Bible Institute! We do not say that God has not used the Bible schools to help many who have gone there; we do not say there may not be such which He is so using today. But what we <i>do</i> say is, that such schools are not an <i>imperative</i> necessity. You have the same Bible [KJV] in hand that they have; you have the same Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth. God may be pleased to use human instruments in instructing and enlightening you, or <b>He may give you the far greater honor and privilege of teaching you <i>directly.</i></b> That is for <i>you</i> to ascertain. Your first duty is to humbly and diligently look to HIM, <i>wait</i> on Him for guidance, <i>seek</i> His will, and the sure promise is, <i>"The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way"</i> (Psalm 25:9).<br />
<br />
To this I say: Amen , Amen, Amen!The Apostolic Baptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12652447518749801911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7497353902054924281.post-26999110268828342252011-09-21T13:31:00.000-05:002011-09-21T13:31:23.386-05:00What Are You Waiting For?<b>Acts 9:19-20 </b>And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.<br />
<br />
If you understand dispensational truth, you understand that Paul is the pattern that the New Testament believer is to follow (1 Cor. 4:16; 1 Cor. 11:1). Paul began preaching immediately after he was saved; which most of us know. But what is more important is what the Bible doesn't say about Paul's (or still Saul in this case) beginning ministry. Notice, Paul - the ex-murderer and blasphemer - begins preaching and he hasn't: been ordained, been to Bible college, been approved by an elder w/ an honorary doctorate, received a license to preach, or completed the new members class.<br />
<br />
Paul simply and immediately went and preached what he knew: "Christ...is the Son of God." Preach what you know. God isn't looking for professional Christians: he's looking for willing servants to follow Paul's example. <br />
<br />
So...what are you waiting for?The Apostolic Baptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12652447518749801911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7497353902054924281.post-6546068101021419102011-06-29T22:21:00.001-05:002011-06-29T22:22:59.102-05:00The Bible or The Home? Ruckman or Rice?A couple weeks ago, I posed a question asking if the Bible or the home was more important. As you can probably guess, 100% of the responses said the Bible was more important. Of the responses that qualified the answer, all of them centered around the fact that without the Bible, you can't have a proper home. To which I say Amen, Amen, Amen! With all this in mind, here is what should be a sobering take (for some) from Dr. Grady from <i>Given By Inspiration</i>.<br />
<br />
"When it comes to Dr. Peter Ruckman, the 'brethren' are at the top of their game with hypocrisy and inconsistency. There is no escaping this reality, as it [the name Ruckman] constitutes the 800-pound gorilla in the room that will <i>not </i>go away; for no one is talking about wearing '100% for Ruckman' buttons (as with the '100% for Hyles' buffoonery of the 1990s). What I <i>do </i>insist on discussing is basic Christian ethics as defined by Scriptures, such as: <i>"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are <b>true</b>, whatsoever things </i><i>are <b>honest</b>, whatsoever things </i><i>are <b>just</b>...</i><i><b>think on these things</b>" </i><b>(Philippians 4:8)</b>; <i><b>"</b>Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of <b>double honour</b>, especially they who <b>labour in the word and doctrine " </b></i><b>(</b><b>1 Timothy 5:17).</b><br />
<br />
At the end of the day, Dr. John R. Rice was <i>wrong </i>on the Bible, but <i>right</i> on the home; Dr. Peter S. Ruckman was <i>right</i> on the Bible, but <i>wrong</i> on the home...If fundamentalists can give Dr. Rice a pass for recommending the ASV while continuing to promote everything else he has in print, why can't Dr. Ruckman be given the same grace? Are we to conclude that being a <i>right</i> husband is <i>more</i> important than contending for the <i>right</i> Bible?"<b><br />
</b>The Apostolic Baptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12652447518749801911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7497353902054924281.post-10917306479472765152011-06-15T21:36:00.001-05:002011-06-16T09:37:14.198-05:00I Am A Liberal CompromiserThere. I finally admitted it; I'm letting my true colors shine forth for all to see. I decided to come clean and let you all know I am a liberal compromiser. Now you might be a bit confused having read some of my previous posts, but I will explain. According to Mr. Josh Owens (an Independent Fundamental Baptist preacher from Summerville, GA) I am a liberal compromiser because, "If you're not IFB, then you're a liberal compromiser!" Instead of acting like a Christian and following what Christ said in <b>John 7:24<i> </i></b><i>"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment ", </i>he chose rather to act like Diotrephes, "<i>who loveth to have the preeminence among them</i> (that is to say IFB have the preeminence among the Baptist brethren and of course over non-Baptists)...<i>prating against us</i> (non-IFB & IFB that doesn't meet his criteria) <i>with malicious words</i> (automatically labeling the aforementioned groups as liberals and compromisers, of course, without saying what was compromised)."<br />
<br />
But as Solomon said, <i>"there is no new thing under the sun "</i> this is not new either. Paul wrote about artificial divisions in 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 & in 2 Timothy 14 where he instructed Timothy, <i>"strive not about words to profit, but to the subverting of the hearers."</i> You see this foolishness subverts hearers and creates divisions based upon three letters of the alphabet which are apparently more important than actually asking a person what they believe. But that's okay, I'll proudly be a liberal compromiser and keep hanging out with liberal compromisers like the ones I was with at the King James 400 Anniversary conference at Hope Baptist Church in Toledo. You know liberal compromisers like Sam Gipp and Bill Grady and Mickey Carter; the people whose faces appear in the dictionary next to the definitions of liberal and compromise.<br />
<br />
So now that I feel liberated (pun intended) and have one less imbecile to respond to on Twitter, wouldn't you like to know what a liberal compromiser like me believes? Let me go outside and see which way the wind is blowing and I'll tell you. Be right back...The Apostolic Baptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12652447518749801911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7497353902054924281.post-55555784910555297342011-05-13T12:37:00.001-05:002011-05-13T12:38:05.020-05:00Quotes From Bible Belivers<div class="MsoNormal"><b>Quotes from Billy Sunday in <i>Heroes of the Faith</i> series on Billy Sunday</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“I want people to know what I mean, and that is why I try to get down to where they live. What do I care if some juff-eyed dainty little dibbly-dibbly goes tibbly-tibbly around because <b>I use plain Anglo-Saxon words</b>?” Billy thundered and whispered, roared and joked until more sedate clergy demanded that he “smooth down” his abrasive style.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“BLAH” to the liberal theologians and empty-headed intellectuals!</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“Let me tell these loud-mouthed, big vocabulary, <b>foreign-lingo slinging</b>, quack-theory preaching bolsheviki in the <b>pulpits and colleges</b> that I’ll put what I preach to the test any time against what they preach!”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"> </div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>From <i>Life and Sayings of Sam P. Jones</i></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“I’d rather have to learn my A, B, C’s in heaven than to know Greek in hell.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“He [Sam Jones] took the Bible as his authority. <b>He preached it just as he found it</b>. He had no patience with higher criticism. No evangelist has any business with such a Bible. Without the utmost faith in the <b>simple word of God</b>, he might preach earnestly and eloquently, but could not produce conviction. <b>He took the Book just as he found it.</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">A higher critic said to him once: ‘Mr. Jones, you don’t believe the Bible just as it is, do you?’ His reply was: ‘You fool you, of course I do; how could I believe it as it ain’t?’”</div>The Apostolic Baptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12652447518749801911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7497353902054924281.post-87420042616326004122011-04-29T20:27:00.000-05:002011-04-29T20:27:34.383-05:00Jesus is the Amen: An English NuggetIn Revelation 3:14 the Lord Jesus, speaking to the church of the Laodiceans says: "These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness..." The word Amen means true or faithful. Jesus <b><u><i>IS</i></u></b> the Amen because he <b><i><u>IS</u></i></b> the truth (John 14:6), and he <u><i><b>IS</b></i></u> the faithful witness (Rev 1:5, 3:14).<br />
<br />
Also notice this verse appears as the opening to the Lord's epistle to the church of the Laodiceans. This is the church that is "lukewarm." This is the church that takes the Lord Jesus out of his own church: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."<br />
<br />
It is no irony that it is in this final church age that we see the bible perversions mounting higher than Mount Everest. And in a touching note, following the heretics Wescott & Hort, the modern perversions produced in the last days of the church have removed the Amen, the Lord Jesus Christ, from the last verse of the book that prophesies of the times of their operation: 2 Timothy 4:22.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><u><b>KJV: </b></u></i>The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. <b><u>Amen</u></b>.<br />
<i><u><b>NIV: </b></u></i>The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.<br />
<i><u><b>NIV 2011: </b></u></i>The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you all.<br />
<i><u><b>ASV: </b></u></i>The Lord be with thy spirit. Grace be with you.<br />
<i><u><b>ESV: </b></u></i>The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.<br />
<i><u><b>HCSB: </b></u></i>The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you!<br />
<i><u><b>NASV: </b></u></i>The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.<br />
<i><u><b>RSV: </b></u></i>The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.<br />
<i><u><b>NRSV: </b></u></i>The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.<br />
<i><u><b>MSG: </b></u></i>God be with you. Grace be with you.The Apostolic Baptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12652447518749801911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7497353902054924281.post-86261677864507809442011-04-24T07:57:00.000-05:002011-04-24T07:57:08.434-05:00The Power of EasterAs I was up early this morning reading over the resurrection story in the four Gospels, and reflecting on what it has meant in my life personally, and my wife's life as an ex-'religious' Roman Catholic. And more than anything, I am thankful that God in is infinite wisdom saw fit to give us a Bible so that we could know the truth, simplicity, and manifold power of the Gospel through the holy scriptures (2 Tim 3:15). Given all that we have written this week concerning the true meaning of Easter, one verse really stood out to me this morning, Mark 16:2:<br />
<br />
<b>Mark 16:2 </b>And very early in the morning the first <i>day</i> of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the <b><u>rising of the sun. </u></b><br />
<b><u> </u></b><br />
I am glad the Son arose in my heart and my wife's heart and that the power of His resurrection is still available to the world today in Holy Bible.<br />
<br />
Happy Easter!The Apostolic Baptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12652447518749801911noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7497353902054924281.post-11452698775349970562011-04-23T16:32:00.000-05:002011-04-23T16:32:43.508-05:00Happy Easter!In this concluding post about Easter, let me be brief and say I hope you have learned something about the Biblical and historical truth concerning the English word Easter, its context and meaning. And whether you decide to "celebrate" Easter or not is entirely up to given the liberty that we have.<br />
<br />
But as for me and my house, tomorrow is Easter and not just resurrection Sunday. For if Jesus was risen and that's where the story ends, then what of our blessed hope? What of our return to Earth with Him to reign 1000 years? What of the promise of new heavens and new earth? Easter symbolizes all of these things and I am so unworthy to partake in any of it, but I'm glad he allowed me to through his mercy and grace.<br />
<br />
<br />
Happy Easter!The Apostolic Baptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12652447518749801911noreply@blogger.com0