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.

Read more...

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.

Read more...

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.

Read more...

KJV Onlyism is Ridiculous

I 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.

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):

• I believe that a virgin gave birth to a baby
• I believe that God spoke the heavens into existence
• I believe that the Red Sea literally parted and a bunch of Jews walked through on dry ground
• I believe that an ass spoke to a prophet
• I believe that Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh
• I believe that one day I'm going to walk on streets of gold
• 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)
• I believe that Jesus Christ died, was buried, and rose again bodily on the third day

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.

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...ridiculous

Read more...

Acts of the Apostates

The Acts of the Apostates 19:25 - 28

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 gods 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!" 

Read more...

Fundamental Baptist Heritage

"Too bad some preachers haven't been as loyal to their fundamental Baptist heritage as they are to their favorite sports teams."

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 "Our God-Breathed Book" 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.

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:

"Early fundamentalists did not champion a particular version of the Bible as their official version 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. 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 [in other words they were lying to their congregations]. Pastors, evangelists, and Bible teachers had no hesitation in recommending it for clarity of reading and understanding. Even the Revised Standard Version New Testament, in use from 1946 to 1952, before the Old Testament came out, was used, recommended, and even advertised for sale by some fundamentalists."

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:

"In a day when translations abound, fundamentalists must exercise careful discernment in both selection and rejection of translations.  Some professing [are they suggesting that REAL fundamentalists are not KJVO?] 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.  Since no translation can genuinely claim what only may be said of the original, inspired writings, any attempt to make a particular English translation the only acceptable translation of fundamentalists must be rejected."


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.

But I guess, if you want to cling to a Bible-rejecting heritage you do have soul liberty.  Amen.

Read more...

Ambassador 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?).

We believe…

• …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. (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.)
• …that God has fulfilled His promise to preserve His Word for every generation of human history, through copies and translations of those original writings. (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.)
• …that inspiration applied only to the autographs, but that their words have been accurately retained through God’s preservation. (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?)
• …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. (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).
• …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. (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.)
• …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. (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 the third time, 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)?)

Read more...

Jesus is the Amen: An English Nugget

In 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 IS the Amen because he IS the truth (John 14:6), and he IS the faithful witness (Rev 1:5, 3:14).

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."

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.


KJV: The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen.
NIV: The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.
NIV 2011: The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you all.
ASV: The Lord be with thy spirit. Grace be with you.
ESV: The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.
HCSB: The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you!
NASV: The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.
RSV: The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.
NRSV: The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.
MSG: God be with you. Grace be with you.

Read more...

Inspiration & God-Breathed: Same Thing?

This is not going to be an in-depth study of the doctrine of inspiration; but just a quick analysis of basic and common sense information about how to use a dictionary.  First of all, let me be transparent: IF inspiration and God-breathed mean the same thing, it is my opinion that 'God-breathed' is a much easier term to grasp and understand mentally.  And IF inspiration and God-breathed mean the same thing, and IF 'God-breathed' is easier to understand, why didn't any other pre-modern version translation ever say 'God-breathed'?  Was Tyndale a fool? The answer is no.  Tyndale was not a fool; those who say the scripture is 'God-breathed' are the fools.

Let's be clear: people who say the scripture is 'God-breathed' mean that God breathed out the very words of scripture.  The key phrase here is 'breathed out' just as it says the Re-Revised RSV A.K.A ESV - "All scripture is breathed out by God..."  The problem with this definition and the translation is it is contradictory to what scripture teaches about the production of scripture AND it adds to just one more contradiction between the Authorized Bible and the non-authorized ones.  Keep in mind, you have been taught or heard that inspiration/God-breathed/breathed out by God all mean the same thing.  Here is the definition (as it relates to breathing) of inspiration: the drawing of air into the lungs; inhalation.

Do you know anyone that believes God inhaled the words of scripture?  If all scripture is breathed out by God the AV1611 should say, "All scripture is given by expiration of God..." because expiration is the act of breathing out or exhaling.

What is interesting, is almost every secular dictionary includes the theological definition of words amongst their list of definitions where applicable.  So what do secular dictionaries say inspiration means in a theological context? From dictionary.com: a divine influence directly and immediately exerted upon the mind or soul & the divine quality of the writings or words of a person so influenced.  Notice there is nothing about breathing, breath, wind, or anything relating to the respiratory system.  Are these modern secular dictionaries wrong?  99% of modern Bible 'scholars' can't be wrong, can they?  Yes they can be, and they are.  Compare the dictionary.com theological definition with 2 Peter 1:21 - "...but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Now maybe you're thinking this is just some modern redefining by dictionary.com.  Well here is how Noah Webster defined the word in his 1828 dictionary: the infusion of ideas into the mind by the Holy Spirit; the conveying into the minds of men, ideas, notices or monitions by extraordinary or supernatural influence; or the communication of the divine will to the understanding by suggestions or impressions on the mind, which leave no room to doubt the reality of their supernatural origin. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. 2 Tim.3.


Again, nothing about breathing for breath is present.  But what about earlier translations and how they rendered it?  The old Syriac and Ethiopic scriptures render "given by inspiration of God" as "by the Spirit of God" and "written by the Spirit" respectively.

Now where did dictionary.com and Webster 1828 get this theological definition of inspiration?  Obviously, from the scripture itself; the same place you should get your theological definitions and not from the medical field.

Remember, 2 Peter 1:20 says: "...no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."  "God-breathed" is a private interpretation. 

Read more...

Spiritual Discernment & The King James Bible

In this 400th anniversary year of the Authorized Version of 1611, almost everyone (even anti-KJV apostates) is getting a good word in for the Book.  Most of these big publishers such as Thomas Nelson and Zondervan are really doing it to make some extra money, but nevertheless they are still attempting to 'honor' it.  But one has to find it interesting that even some atheists have said some surprisingly nice things about the Holy Bible.  I understand these people don't actually believe that it is the word of God, but just a masterpiece of English literature, it is still interesting.  And none more interesting than a recent article featuring Christopher Hitchens appearing in the The Christian Post.  I hope you will take time to read this article if you have not done so already.

What makes this article so interesting is his comparison between the modern perversions and the AV.  Hitchens had the opportunity to read Philippians 4:8 at his father's funeral.  And when compared to the CEV he said the contemporary version was "pancake-flat" and more suited for "a basement meeting of A.A."  Hitchens also said of the modern perversion, "[T]hese words could not hope to penetrate the torpid, resistant fog in the mind of a 16-year-old boy..."

In terms of updating the Holy Bible to make it more relevant Hitchens weighed in and opined, "To seek restlessly to update it or make it 'relevant' is to miss the point, like yearning for a hip-hop Shakespeare."  Quoting Job 5:7 he also states, "'Man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward,' says the Book of Job. Want to try to improve that for Twitter?"

Hitchens also weighs in on the stupidity of gender-neutral language in the TNIV and the re-packaged TNIV, the NIV2011.  But Hitchens' discernment of these things has to make you wonder about so-called Christians that cannot discern these same, seemingly obvious points.  I'm willing to give some grace to Christians that have not studied this issue and ignorantly use a perversion because they are just following what their pastor said or they just took the advice of the bookstore salesman.  But you have to wonder about people that have studied the issue and continually fight God's book for the English speaking world; men like James White, John Ankerberg, the professing Christians on these translation committees.  If Hitchens can discern these truths WITHOUT the Spirit,  why can't saved people that have the Spirit abiding in them?  Is the Spirit of God abiding in them?  Or are they part of a conSPIRacy, led by another spirit; blindly or willingly? (Psalm 2)

Read more...

On Textual Critcs & Criticism...Pastor Knox

This quote about the irony of textual criticism and the Nicolaitans that practice it is from Pastor James Knox.  I think you'll find it funny, ironic, and true.

"How odd that a man and his friends sit upon antique furniture in a study surrounded by a collection of old books, listen to classic music which is hundreds of years out of date, play "the sport of kings" on great-grandfather's chess board and criticize the Holy Bible (AV) because it contains a dozen old words which are no longer in common speech!!"

Read more...

Fundamentalist Vs. Bible Believer (Pastor William Grady)

"At it's inception, Fundamentalism was a conservative ecumenical movement pioneered by baby-sprinkling Protestants who never fulfilled the Great Commission a day in their lives (i.e., "...baptizing them in the name of the Father..."), timed around the arrival of the blasphemous American Standard Version of 1901.  Doesn't Bible-believing Baptist sound a whole lot better?"

Read more...

Pastor William P. Grady on Sermon Content

"There is a marked difference between pastors who were trained by 'TR men' and pastors who were trained by 'KJB men.' The sermon content of the former generally revolves around topical themes, devotional areas, the home, biographical sketches, patriotism, and 'revival,' while the sermon content of the latter encompasses verse-by-verse Bible teaching and preaching (affording both doctrinal and devotional application)..."

Read more...

Word of God vs word of God?

We know from the scriptures that Jesus Christ is the Word of God made flesh.  But we also know that God has given us his written word by inspiration: the holy scriptures.  In this 400^th anniversary year of the Authorized Version, we can still behold wonderful and mighty things from it that will increase our faith.  One way of doing this is allowing the incarnate Word of God to be a similitude for the written word of God.  The Gospel of John gives us the best description and definition about the Word.  With this in mind, realize that there are 66 books in the Bible.  Now read John 1:1-5 below, then count the number of words in them.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Read more...

Verse of the Day: Genesis 45:1-3

1 Then Joseph could not refrain himself before all them that stood by him; and he cried , Cause every man to go out from me. And there stood no man with him, while Joseph made himself known unto his brethren. 2 And he wept aloud : and the Egyptians and the house of Pharaoh heard. 3 And Joseph said unto his brethren, I am Joseph; doth my father yet live? And his brethren could not answer him; for they were troubled at his presence.

Read more...

Verse of the Day: Genesis 41:57

And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands.

Read more...

Verse of the Day: Genesis 28:12

And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.

Read more...

Verse of the Day: Genesis 26:5

Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Read more...

Verse of the Day: Genesis 22:8

And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

Read more...

Verse of the Day: Genesis 19:14

And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.

Read more...