Bible Baptism

On page 59 of John Rice's book Bible Baptism, a heading reads: "STUDY THE PROOF CAREFULLY: THEN AWAY FROM TRADITION, BACK TO THE BIBLE!" Mr. Rice should really take his own advice.

On page 61, he writes:

"There is only one course left for you, dear Christian, if you seek to please Jesus Christ. You must follow the Saviour down into the watery grave in the likeness of His burial, and then, raised in the likeness of His Resurrection, come up out of the water, proclaiming to the world your faith in a risen Saviour and your intention of living a new life."

Where in the Bible does Mr. Rice get this from? Where in the Bible does it clearly teach that this is the mode of baptism?

Nowhere!

Mr. Rice gets his argument from an eisegetical reading of Romans 6:3-4, which incidentally is not even talking about baptism. There is no mention of water or mode. Baptism is used as an illustration here indicating identification. Read the context surrounding it.

The end of chapter 5:
The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The beginning of chapter 6:
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?

That is the context wherein those who believe in immersion try to find their proof text. Read the following links and discover how immersion cannot be substantiated from the details provided in Scripture.

Jesus' Baptism
The Ethiopian Eunuch's Baptism
Paul's Baptism
The Philippian Jailer's Baptism

Jesus' burial had nothing to do with anything. He could have remained on the cross for three days and everything would have been accomplished exactly as it is now. Baptism has nothing to do with Christ Jesus, but rather symbolizes the receipt of and the working of the Holy Spirit. When the Spirit was poured out on the Gentiles, Peter's thoughts were immediately directed toward the Holy Spirit. There was a connection.

People are not Christians because they were baptized, whether as an adult or as an infant. Baptism is merely a sign and seal of being in covenant with God. That covenant can be broken by covenant breakers. Baptism is merely a testimony or witness for or against you. No one should look to their baptism as evidence of being a Christian. This is something that people like Jacob Prasch do not seem to understand. Your Renaissance-influenced individualism is foreign to the Scriptures. The Bible knows nothing of individualistic Christian faith. Nowhere is the new covenant taught in Scripture to be one of individualism pertaining to the individual only. This is Western mindset trying to impose its culture upon first-century Christianity, and it is eisegesis at best.

Mr. Rice is correct though...

Away from tradition, and back to the Bible! Sola Scriptura!

Tithing: Is it Christian?

This is an addendum, and/or correction, to what I previously wrote on Tithing, which should cease to be called "tithing" and be called "giving" instead.

"Will a man rob God? Yet you are robbing Me! But you say, 'How have we robbed You?' In tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing Me, the whole nation of you! Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this," says the LORD of hosts, "if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows." Malachi 3:8-10

This verse is often used by pastors to guilt their congregants into giving. But what is the biblical truth concerning giving? In order to understand that, we need to turn to the Bible, which ought to be our only rule for faith and practice. Are you ready to learn the truth and be set free from the yoke of bondage that has been placed upon you?

First of all, let us examine the tithe of Israel once again. In my previous blog article, I wrote:

The nation of Israel was required to pay tithes in order to run the country. These were basically taxes. They were mandatory and commanded. There was the tithe for their festivals (of which there were 7), there was the tithe for the poor, and there was the Levitical tithe. These tithes equate to 30-33%.

Frank Viola, in Pagan Christianity?, writes:

The Lord instituted three kinds of tithes for Israel as part of their taxation system. They are:

• A tithe of the produce of the land to support the Levites who had no inheritance in Canaan (Leviticus 27:30-33; Numbers 18:21-31).
  
• A tithe of the produce of the land to sponsor religious festivals in Jerusalem. If the produce was too burdensome for a family to carry to Jerusalem, they could convert it into money (Deuteronomy 14:22-27).
  
• A tithe of the produce of the land collected every third year for the local Levites, orphans, strangers, and widows (Deuteronomy 14:28-29, 26:12-13.
  

This was the biblical tithe.

Do we have the above straight in our minds? Do we understand this? Okay, let us continue.

Most churches today have a weekly "goal" that they need met by the giving of their congregants. What does this money typically go to? The pastor's unscriptural salary, the bills for the building (electricity, heating, water, taxes—unless exempt, loans), maintenance and upkeep, etc.

Many pastors today will reference Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek, proof-texting the passage in order to make tithing compulsory rather than letting the Bible speak for itself. In the 175 years that Abraham lived on the earth, how many times did he tithe? Once! Was he tithing out of his own regular earnings? No, he was not! He tithed out of the spoil he acquired after a battle he fought. His act of tithing would be similar to you winning the lottery or receiving a work bonus, and then tithing it. And his tithing was completely voluntary! He was not obligated to tithe any of it.

So what is Malachi 3:8-10 speaking about? We just reminded ourselves that the tithe of Israel was essentially their taxation. What the Jews were doing was refusing to pay their taxes. It would be like you refusing to pay taxes in the USA or Canada, or whatever country you belong to. Yet, tithing was about food; never about money.

As Frank Viola rightly points out, "Tithing belonged exclusively to Israel under the Law. When it comes to financial stewardship, we see the first-century Christians giving cheerfully according to their ability—not dutifully out of a command. Giving in the early church was voluntary. And those who benefited from it were the poor, orphans, widows, sick, prisoners, and strangers." Never was the giving to line the pastor's pocket or to pay for the upkeep of a building that predominantly sits empty!

If the religious building you attend is not using your giving appropriately, the way the New Testament prescribes its use, then you are not obligated to give them anything! It is your responsibility to make sure your money is used how God intended, and thus you should be distributing it where it is most needed. Use your money to support an orphanage, a local shelter or soup kitchen, widows who have no family to look after them, or those in desperate situations who need help. Since the building was never part of God's prescribed plan to begin with, you are not obligated to support its existence! If you want to, that is up to you, but you are not required to do so. Your giving should go primarily where it was intended to go in the first place: the poor, orphans, widows, sick, prisoners, and strangers.

Do you see how knowing the truth on this issue sets you free? Do you see how there is no condemnation placed upon you? You are not obligated or under compulsion to give. Giving is supposed to be voluntary in relation to what you have determined (2 Cor. 9:7), what you are able (Acts 11:27-39), and how the Lord has prospered you (1 Cor. 16:1-2). The early Christians gave in order to help other believers, to support apostolic workers planting churches, and to look after the poor, the orphans, the widows, the sick, etc. Period! This is why people such as philosopher Galen were able to say, "Behold how they love one another."

Any pastor or "church" that tries to compel you to give by guilt, demand, or bullying, let him/them be damned! They are concerned with their own pocket and the budget to run a building that never should have been in the first place. You follow after God, not mens' compulsion.

Biblical Christian

“If you were on trial for being a Christian,

would there be enough evidence to convict you?”

My primary foundation and final appeal is Solus Christus, because in everything we should be pursuing Christ-likeness and striving to imitate Christ. The Bible is not an end in itself; it points us to Jesus. Strict biblicism and doctrinal purity mean nothing if you are not walking in the likeness and power of Jesus. We are supposed to worship God in spirit and in truth—not just in truth. Jesus even said that the Holy Spirit would point people to Himself. Jesus is the central figure of everything! (Not Israel! Jesus fulfilled all that the nation of Israel foreshadowed. He is the true vine, the true Israel. [In the O.T., Israel was always referred to as the vine.] The nation of Israel prefigured the spiritual community that would one day display God's eternal nature on the Earth—that is, the church, the Body of Christ. It was never about national Israel; and it never will be!) There should be no difference between the Scriptures and Jesus, yet focusing on the text at the expense of the Person the text was intended to reveal has done precisely that. When you have the mind of Christ, nothing else matters. You are willing to give up everything else for the sake of Jesus. The early Christians understood this. Most today do not. They are all about the text and not about the Person.

My secondary foundation is Sola Scriptura, because we ought to be continually reforming and conforming ourselves and our beliefs with that which is revealed in the Scriptures; not to be content with the traditions we have been taught and the things we have been told. Most "churches" today are more concerned with perpetuating their denominational subculture and/or keeping their attendees adequately entertained than making them think. In my experience, every "church" has a handful of people in it who are desperate for content, withering from content malnutrition. The rest of the people are not even aware that they are malnourished. I believe this is a critical need, and I am here to help. My concern for correct lifestyle and correct doctrine flows from my passion for God's glory and my love for God's people. Everything I do is done with the purposes in mind to:

1. glorify God and honour His Son (Romans 15:6; Colossians 1:18), and
2. educate the body of Christ regarding truth (2 Timothy 2:15; 3:16; Acts 17:11; 1 Corinthians 2:13).

As such, I strive to make the Word of God my only rule of faith and practice. I am not anti-creedal, but I am opposed to using creeds (and denominational preferences) to filter the Bible. Creeds are selective, historically-conditioned, and often agenda-driven. Insofar as historical creeds and confessions agree with Scripture, then I am in agreement with them; but on points where they oppose or contradict Scripture, I reject those points. (I do not reject the whole thing, because that would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.) I am more concerned with what the biblical text has to say and what can be sustained from interpretation than I am with creeds, confessions, and mission statements. I no longer align myself with any specific denomination. Why? Because each and every single one of them bases their practices on human tradition. They have left the Bible far behind. They are just as guilty as the Catholic church in this regard.

Instead, I refer to myself as a biblical Christian. Why? Regardless of how I was raised, what I was taught, or what I presently believe, I strive to conform myself and my beliefs entirely to the Word of God. Regardless of my opinions, my feelings, or my proclivities, I strive to subject myself and my beliefs entirely to the Word of God. If it contradicts me, then I am to submit myself to the Word of God—no matter the cost to myself. This is called death to self; taking up your cross daily. It is fundamental to being a Christian. The Word of God never submits to me, my culture, my ethnicity, or anything else. Every post-first century religious context is foreign to the Bible, and therefore is not the context of the Bible. The right context for interpreting the Bible is the context that produced it—the worldview and cognitive frame of reference of the biblical authors, who intentionally conveyed meaning through the manner in which they structured their books.

I am not a contentious man. Like Jude, I would prefer to speak about our common salvation than to battle error. Nevertheless, I will run without hesitation to the front-lines and defend biblical and historic Christianity when the need arises. My writing style is such that it is intended to challenge. Many readers are not accustomed to this style of writing and therefore will misrepresent my tone and accuse me of being “unChrist-like,” “unloving,” “graceless,” etc. Please, do yourself a favour and go read Matthew 23:13-33. Jesus pronounces woe eight times! He calls them hypocrites seven times! He calls them blind guides and blind men four times! He calls them sons of hell! He calls them fools! He says they are robbers and self-indulgent! He says they are dead men! He calls them serpents and brood of vipers! Later he says they are the sons of their father the devil! Not once was a single drop of love missing from Jesus' dealing with the religious hypocrites. Jesus was the personification of love. If you want to see what love looks like, pick any moment from the life of Jesus and know that what you are witnessing is the absolute perfect expression of true love. The idea that Christians must always be nice and speak in pleasant tones and be approving comes directly from the father of lies and straight out of the pit of hell! Shame on any professing Christian who advocates such godless, unbiblical nonsense! My writings are always motivated by love for Christ's church, my brothers and sisters in the faith, and the lost. It is because of my love for Christ's church and the lost that I challenge many of the ridiculous and asinine opinions and traditions held by certain individuals—religious or secular. We need to return to the biblical practices of the faith. Away with tradition, and back to the Bible!

“Ecclesia, semper reformanda secundum verbi Dei.”
(“The church, always reforming according to the Word of God.”)

While our theology today may be highly refined from what it was in the first couple centuries of the early Christians, nevertheless in practice we are a far cry from what they were. So much paganism and culture has crept into the church and influenced her practice that it is beyond disturbing. Yet, most Christians are unaware of this. Most Christians do not realize that you cannot “go to” something that “you are”; the church is the people—not a building. If you can handle your Christianity being scrutinized, and are teachable enough to learn from the past and correct the present, there are a couple books I would like to recommend in order to challenge your perception. When Jesus said, “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free,” he was not making an empty statement. Are you willing to “take the red pill” and see “how deep the rabbit hole goes”?

• The Untold Story of the New Testament Church
• Pagan Christianity?

“If God’s Word is not our only rule of faith and practice, if it is not the foundation beneath our feet, if we do not believe everything it says, then we have no right attempting to call ourselves ‘Christians’ or ‘Jesus followers.’ We are nothing more than liars, charlatans, and frauds, and we make Jesus to be a liar as well. Either God’s Word grips our heart, mind, body, and soul, or it has no hold on us whatsoever. Either that word—‘Christian’—informs everything about our lives, or it informs nothing. If we profess to be ‘Christians,’ then we are Christians before we are anything else, and being Christian informs everything else we will ever put our hands to. If it does not, then we are not Christians.” —Timothy Klaver

Something For the KJV-Onlyist To Wrestle With

I recently encountered a King James Only individual who said, "I even take the position that God’s hand was in the division of that text into its 1,189 chapters and 31,102 verses." He also said, "You have to have faith to call your Bible perfect. It has to come from a position of faith," citing Hebrews 11:6. He argued, "Where does God say that he permits competing, conflicting 'versions' in English that are all to be considered equally 'the Bible' and chosen based on personal preference?" Let's examine what is wrong with his arguments, shall we.

First of all, I hope this guy can see the corner he has painted himself into. Based on his question, where does he get the idea he can have the personal preference of the Authorized Version over any other translation while ignoring every version to come before it? Wycliffe's Bible (1382), Tyndale's New Testament (1523), Coverdale's Bible (1535), Matthew's Bible (1535), Taverner's Bible (1539), Great Bible (1539), Geneva Bible (1560), Bishop's Bible (1568). Where does he get the idea that the Authorized Version is the Word of God but none of these others are? Personal preference, that is where.

Second of all, if even the chapters and verses had God's hand upon them, that means that everything in the 1611 Authorized Version had God's hand upon them. This includes the marginal notes, what the translators had to say in "The Translators to the Reader," and the Apocrypha, which was included in the 1611 Authorized Version. If God's hand was upon the marginal notes included in the Authorized Version, this includes Luke 17:36, which reads: "This 36 verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." You know what is telling about this marginal note? The translators were not using a "Textus Receptus"! They were examining many Greek copies. And guess what? This 36th verse was not in most of them! How can we tell that this is true? Simple. Examine the 1560 Geneva Bible. Uh oh! The 36th verse is missing. Verse 37 is verse 36 in the 1560 Geneva Bible, which predates the Geneva by 51 years. All modern translations have the same marginal note as the Authorized Version, yet they are attacked as being "Satan's" Bibles.

The translators of the Authorized Version themselves condemn what the King James Only person erects as their foundation built upon wet sand. Consider the following, as stated in "The Translators to the Reader":

1. They believed the authority was in the originals.

"The originall thereof being from heauen, not from earth; the authour being God, not man; the enditer, the holy spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets" (p.3).

2. They believed in making new translations.

"Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and auow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God" (p.7).

"But the diference that appeareth betweene our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that wee are specially charged with" (p.8).

3. They believed they were not inspired, but translators.

"Truly (good Christian Reader) wee neuer thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, but to make of a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one" (p.9).

4. They believed in putting varying readings in the margin.

"It hath pleased God in his diuine prouidence, here and there to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinall points that concerne saluation, (for in such it hath beene vouched that the Scripture are plaine) but in matters of lesse moment" (p.10)

"That any varietie of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margine … They that are wise, had rather haue their iudgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captiuated to one, when it may be another" (p.10).

5. They said a variety of translations were necessary.

"That varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures" (p.10).

6. They believed Scripture should be in common language.

"But we desire that the Scripture may speake like it selfe, as in the language of Canaan, that it may bee vnderstood euen of the very vulgar" (p11).

If God had his hand in the addition of the chapters and verses, then He also had His hand in the placement of the marginal notes, the words of the translators in "The Translators to the Reader," and the Apocrypha! Sorry, King James Only person, but you do not get to pick and choose what you claim is or is not part of the hand of God. Either all of it is, or none of it is!

Third of all, if the Authorized Version is perfect because you have to come from a position of "faith" that it is perfect, then what do you say to the person who comes from a position of "faith" that the NIV is perfect? Uh oh! Now you have a problem. What if, God forbid, someone comes from a position of "faith" that The Message is perfect? Then what? Whether you have "faith" that your translation of the Bible is perfect or not does not make it perfect! That is known as a pipe dream. A fantasy. Faith can be blind, you know, especially when you outright deny and reject the facts, as most King James Only people do. Some King James Only people will even go so far as to claim that the Authorized Version is more perfect and inspired than the original autographs penned by their authors!!! That is not "faith," that is insanity!

Last of all, it is a well-established fact that where there is persecution, Christ's church thrives. So if that same principle is applied to Bible translation, John Wycliffe's translation endured persecution, William Tyndale's translation endured persecution, and the Geneva Bible endured double the persecution. But the Authorized Version experienced zero persecution. The Geneva Bible was book-ended by religious persecution. At the front end of it, it was persecuted by Queen "Bloody" Mary Tudor and the Catholic church. At the rear end of it, it was persecuted by King James, the Anglican church, and the Authorized Version, trying to force the people to use no other Bible than the KJV. And your intelligent ancestors would have none of it.

You see, the Authorized Version experienced zero persecution. It was not translated under any sort of persecution. In fact, it was a government sanctioned translation. Could you imagine a translation of the Bible commissioned by Nebuchadnezzar? How about one commissioned by United States of America President Barack Obama? How about one commissioned by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau? Think about it, King James Only people!!!

The Authorized Version is an excellent translation, but it is not perfect. It is not inspired, inerrant, or infallible. If you want to believe it is, go right ahead. But your "faith" that it is perfect does not nullify someone else's "faith" that the NIV is perfect. The Authorized Version is not the Bible that would indicate God having His hand upon it. If any Bible could claim that, it is the Geneva Bible, which was book-ended by religious persecution and endured in the face of it. Where there is persecution, Christ's church flourishes. Apply this principle to the translation of the Bible, and the Geneva Bible comes out on top. If any Bible were to be called "Satan's" Bible, the Authorized Version would earn that title hands down, being government sanctioned, and persecuting God's people, trying to force them to use it while they fled clutching their beloved Geneva Bible. But it is not "Satan's" Bible any more than the NIV would be.

Either it is all from God's hand (including the Apocrypha, which was included in the 1611 Authorized Version), or it is not! You cannot pick and choose, King James Only people. Make up your double-minded minds!

John Cooper of Skillet

John Cooper of the band Skillet seems to be concerned with the rampant apostasy taking place among young leaders. What he writes sounds good. It looks biblically sound on the surface. Sounds very Christian. However, true apostasy isn't just a defecting from the faith, it is a defecting from the truth. As Charles Spurgeon once said, "Discernment is not knowing the difference between right and wrong. It is knowing the difference between right and almost right."

Ok I’m saying it. Because it’s too important not to. What is happening in Christianity? More and more of our outspoken leaders or influencers who were once “faces” of the faith are falling away. And at the same time they are being very vocal and bold about it. Shockingly they still want to influence others (for what purpose?) as they announce that they are leaving the faith. I’ll state my conclusion, then I’ll state some rebuttals to statements I’ve read by some of them. Firstly, I never judge people outside of my faith. Even if they hate religion or Christianity. That is not my place and I have many friends who disagree with my religion and that is 100% fine with me. However, when it comes to people within my faith, there must be a measure of loyalty and friendship and accountability to each other and the Word of God.

My conclusion for the church (all of us Christians): We must STOP making worship leaders and thought leaders or influencers or cool people or “relevant” people the most influential people in Christendom. (And yes that includes people like me!) I’ve been saying for 20 years (and seemed probably quite judgmental to some of my peers) that we are in a dangerous place when the church is looking to 20 year old worship singers as our source of truth. We now have a church culture that learns who God is from singing modern praise songs rather than from the teachings of the Word. I’m not being rude to my worship leader friends (many who would agree with me) in saying that singers and musicians are good at communicating emotion and feeling. We create a moment and a vehicle for God to speak. However, singers are not always the best people to write solid bible truth and doctrine. Sometimes we are too young, too ignorant of scripture, too unaware, or too unconcerned about the purity of scripture and the holiness of the God we are singing to. Have you ever considered the disrespect of singing songs to God that are untrue of His character?

I have a few specific thoughts and rebuttals to statements made by recently disavowed church influencers…first of all, I am stunned that the seemingly most important thing for these leaders who have lost their faith is to make such a bold new stance. Basically saying, “I’ve been living and preaching boldly something for 20 years and led generations of people with my teachings and now I no longer believe it..therefore I’m going to boldly and loudly tell people it was all wrong while I boldly and loudly lead people in to my next truth.” I’m perplexed why they aren’t embarrassed? Humbled? Ashamed, fearful, confused? Why be so eager to continue leading people when you clearly don’t know where you are headed?

My second thought is, why do people act like “being real” covers a multitude of sins? As if someone is courageous simply for sharing virally every thought or dark place. That’s not courageous. It’s cavalier. Have they considered the ramifications? As if they are the harbingers of truth, saying “I used to think one way and practice it and preach it, but now I’ve learned all the new truth and will start practicing and preaching it.” So the influencers become the voice for truth in whatever stage of life and whatever evolution takes place in their thinking.

Thirdly, there is a common thread running through these leaders/influencers that basically says that “no one else is talking about the REAL stuff.” This is just flatly false. I just read today in a renown worship leader’s statement, “How could a God of love send people to hell? No one talks about it.” As if he is the first person to ask this? Brother, you are not that unique. The church has wrestled with this for 1500 years. Literally. Everybody talks about it. Children talk about it in Sunday school. There’s like a billion books written on the topic. Just because you don’t get the answer you want doesn’t mean that we are unwilling to wrestle with it. We wrestle with scripture until we are transformed by the renewing of our minds.

And lastly, and most shocking imo, as these influencers disavow their faith, they always end their statements with their “new insight/new truth” that is basically a regurgitation of Jesus’s words?! It’s truly bizarre and ironic. They’ll say “I’m disavowing my faith but remember, love people, be generous, forgive others”. Ummm, why? That is actually not human nature. No child is ever born and says “I just want to love others before loving myself. I want to turn the other cheek. I want to give my money away to others in need”. Those are bible principles taught by a prophet/Priest/king of kings who wants us to live by a higher standard which is not an earthly standard, but rather the ‘Kingdom of God’ standard. Therefore if Jesus is not the truth and if the Word of God is not absolute, then by preaching Jesus’s teachings you are endorsing the words of a madman. A lunatic who said “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me.” He also said that he was alive before Abraham, and to see him was to see God because he was one with God. So why then would a disavowed christian leader promote that “generosity is good”? How would you know “what is good” without Jesus’s teachings? And will your ideas of what is “good” be different from year to year based on your experience, culture trends, poplular opinion etc and furthermore will you continue year by year to lead others into your idea of goodness even though it is not absolute? I’m amazed that so many Christians want the benefits of the kingdom of God, but with the caveat that they themselves will be the King.

It is time for the church to rediscover the preeminence of the Word. And to value the teaching of the Word. We need to value truth over feeling. Truth over emotion. And what we are seeing now is the result of the church raising up influencers who did not supremely value truth who have led a generation who also do not believe in the supremacy of truth. And now those disavowed leaders are proudly still leading and influencing boldly AWAY from the truth.

Is it any wonder that some of our disavowed Christian leaders are letting go of the absolute truth of the Bible and subsequently their lives are falling apart? Further and further they are sinking in the sea all the while shouting “now I’ve found the truth! Follow me!!” Brothers and sisters in the faith all around the world, pastors, teachers, worship leaders, influencers…I implore you, please please in your search for relevancy for the gospel, let us NOT find creative ways to shape Gods word into the image of our culture by stifling inconvenient truths. But rather let us hold on even tighter to the anchor of the living Word of God. For He changes NOT. “The grass withers and the flowers fade away, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8)

While what John writes looks and sounds commendable on the surface, an examination of his life and words elsewhere contradict everything he wrote. He writes saying that truth matters more than feelings, which is true. He writes about being bold and standing up for truth, which is also true. Yet, as a band, they say that they don't want to be perceived as a "Christian" band. They want everyone to feel good about what they write. What they write appeals to everyone. If it was Christian in the least, or informed by Christianity, it would not appeal to the world. This concept is made clear in Scripture. Scripture makes it abundantly clear there should be zero compromise. Yet Skillet does precisely that.

Skillet promotes William P. Young and his heretical book, The Shack. Young believes in and teaches Universalism, that everyone will be saved. Any person calling themselves a Christian who thinks this book was decent in any way, that it has anything to offer the body of Christ, is self-deceived and has every right to question their so-called "Christianity." This book is teaching a world view, and a false one at that. It promotes heretical false teachings. To think it is harmless exposes one's complete and utter ignorance of the truth. The book calls God the Father a liar, Christ Jesus a liar, and the Holy Spirit a liar, denying what they have clearly said in Scripture.

John Cooper's letter looks and sounds amazing, but John and his band Skillet are extreme compromisers. They regularly tour with bands that promote Satanism, witch craft, committing suicide, etc., etc. Skillet talks about having hotlines set up for suicidal people, yet a band they tour with called Lamb of God has a song that encourages the listener to kill themselves, saying the listener is a loser and everything they do is worthless.

Sure, it sounds like a good thing, to be with a bunch of worldly bands and be able to have their followers listen to you (despite your music lacking any clarity and being bold in the truth), but any followers of yours that go to such a concert, you as a so-called "Christian" band, who dislikes the term "Christian," are introducing your fans to perverse and demonic hell of the worldly bands you tour with.
That's like claiming to be a Christian parent and then bringing your children to spend time with Wicans, child molesters, and other harmful people and groups.

Too many self-professing Christians obviously don't pay much attention to what the Bible has to say. Let's look at a couple verses, shall we?

"Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them." Eph. 5:11

"Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" Amos 3:3

"Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?" 2 Cor. 6:14

Many self-professing Christians are compromising more and more every single day, and then trying to justify their baby steps into complete apostasy. They reject clear precepts in Scripture in order to justify their behaviours and subjective feelings over their favourite teachers, their favourite music, their favourite books, their favourite movies and TV shows, etc., etc. They don't want to admit being worldly themselves and loving the things of this world, and so they try to rationalize and justify their behaviours, all the while rejecting the clear teachings in Scripture. Especially the words of Christ! And then, predictably, they rip Matthew 7:1 out of context and spew their favourite perverted verse, "Judge not lest ye be judged!" As if that ends the discussion and justifies their irrational ungodly behaviour. Try reading the verse in context, please. Try actually learning your Bible, thank you. We are commanded to judge, and to do so righteously, especially with those within the church, those calling themselves "Christian."

If you don't align yourself completely with Scripture, and start conforming your beliefs and practices to Scripture, you have every right to fear the coming of Christ. And a false profession of faith isn't going to save you. Matthew 7:21-23.

Expansion Theology

[[Re-post of a previous article, with a better title so as not to confuse people.]]

What is Supersessionism? Supersessionism is nothing more than a fancy word for Replacement theology. Has the Church replaced Israel in the promises of God? Yes and no. You see, what the Bible teaches is not "Replacement" theology but Expansion theology.

All through the Old Testament God prophesied of the Gentile Inclusion (Is. 11:10; 42:1, 6; 49:6; 56:6-7; 66:19; Amos 9:11-12; et al). When you get to the New Testament, you see the Gentile Inclusion clearly. In Galatians 3, it is made clear that "it is those who are of the faith who are sons of Abraham" (v. 7), contrasted against Romans 9, which states that "they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants" (vv. 6-7). Galatians continues by saying that "the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as referring to many, but rather to one, ' And to your seed,' that is, Christ" (v. 16). The Gentile Inclusion is clinched when it says that "if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise" (v. 29). In Ephesians 2, it is made clear that, although Gentiles were formerly "separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world" (v. 12), that now they "have been brought near by the blood of Christ" (v.13), having "broke down the barrier of the dividing wall" (v. 14) that "He might make the two [believing Israel and believing Gentiles] into one new man" (v. 15) and "reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross" (v. 16). Ephesians continues by saying that Gentiles "are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints [believing Jews from the Old Testament], and are of God's household" (v. 19).

The Gentile Inclusion is made especially clear from Romans 11, where Paul divides national Israel into two separate groups: Believing Israel and Unbelieving Israel. According to Romans 2:28-29, what does this say about Unbelieving Israel? That "he is not a Jew who is one outwardly...But he is a Jew who is one inwardly..." According to Romans 9:6-8, what does this say about Unbelieving Israel? That "they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants..." Even though Unbelieving Israel are physical Israel, they are not Israel. How can this be? Let us see how. According to Romans 2:28-29 and 9:6-8, what does this say about Believing Israel? That they are true Jews and that they are true Israel. Even though Believing Israel are physical Israel, they are also true Israel. What does this mean? That true Israel is a spiritual Israel. Remember, Paul just divided national Israel into two separate groups and said that national, physical, unbelieving Israel are not true Jews even though they are descended from Israel. As you read Romans 11 further, the Gentile Inclusion is clenched. Where are Believing Gentiles grafted? In with Believing Israel. Believing Gentiles "became partaker with them [Believing Israel]" (v. 17). According to Romans 2:28-29 and 9:6-8 (as well as Galatians 3), what does that make Believing Gentiles? True Jews; true Israel.

In John 10, Jesus even said "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one Shepherd" (v. 16). That is the Gentile Inclusion right there. Jesus does not have two flocks; He does not have two bodies; He does not have two brides. Jesus has one flock, one body, one bride—one Church. The Church consists of believing Jews and believing Gentiles; Old Testament believers and New Testament believers. To separate the body of Christ into two groups is not only unbiblical, it is also ludicrous and insane. National Israel is nothing and means nothing. True Israel is Christ Jesus Himself, to whom belong Believing Israel and Believing Gentiles, all being grafted into Him together. Ephesians makes it clear: "having been built on the foundation of the Apostles [New Testament believers] and Prophets [Old Testament believers], Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone" (v. 20). What is this holy temple that Believing Israel and Believing Gentiles are being fitted together and built into? The Church! If Believing Israel and Believing Gentiles are Christians, and they are, what does that tell us? That the true Israel becomes the Church of Christ and the Church of Christ emerges as the true Israel. In other words, true Israel is the true Church, and the true Church is true Israel. The promises of God still apply to Israel—true Israel, spiritual Israel—but they also now apply to the Church, made up of Believing Israel and Believing Gentiles. Paul refers to this as a "mystery" and says that Israel is hardened "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" (v. 25). Into what? Into true, spiritual Israel. In Ephesians 3, Paul makes this mystery known as plainly and clearly as possible: “the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (v. 6).

There are not two paths to God. God does not have two plans of salvation; one by race and the other by grace. All mankind, Jewish or Gentile, must come to and through Christ Jesus as their Lord and Saviour or else there is no salvation for them! When Romans 11:26 says "in this way all Israel will be saved," it is speaking of the "mystery" of the Gentile Inclusion. Expansion theology. Has the Church replaced Israel in the promises of God? Yes and no. No, because it is not speaking of national Israel but of spiritual Israel. Yes, because it is speaking of spiritual Israel and not of national Israel.

Do Not Be Called "Pastor"

"Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. But do not be called Rabbi (Ῥαββί, Rhabbi); for One is your Teacher (διδάσκαλος, didaskalos), and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders (καθηγηταί, kathēgētai); for One is your Leader (καθηγητὴς, kathēgētēs), that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted." Matthew 23:1-12

"Remember those who led you (ἡγουμένων, hēgoumenōn), who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith." Hebrews 13:7

"For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd (Ποιμένα, Poimena) and Bishop (Ἐπίσκοπον, Episkopon) of your souls." 1 Peter 2:25

"And when the Chief Shepherd (Ἀρχιποίμενος, Archipoimenos) appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory." 1 Peter 5:4

What is the purpose of these passages of Scripture? Well, according to the first passage, Jesus makes it abundantly clear that His followers are not to call themselves by titles that make them superior to their peers. Verse twelve ought to be a humble rebuke against anyone that uses a title to designate themselves.

Oh, I know, because you are suddenly offended by what the Bible has to say, you will immediately turn to Ephesians 4:11 for your proof text verse. But what does this verse say? It is not talking about titles; it is talking about functions. All other occurrences of the word translated "pastors" here, are translated as "shepherd." A shepherd is someone who naturally provides nurture and care for God's sheep. Period. Nothing more. The New Testament knows nothing of the modern concept of a "Pastor."

The apostles of Jesus never referred to themselves as Apostle So-and-so (big 'A'). They referred to themselves as an apostle of Christ Jesus (small 'a'), their function. Yes, I have been guilty in the past of referring to the apostles with a capital 'A' when I should have been doing so with a small 'a.' Not once is it a designation of a title, and Christians using it as such bestow a superiority upon them that they would reprimand you for.

The second passage refers to their function—not a title. They function in this role.

The last two passages make the point as crystal clear as daylight. The word translated 'Shepherd' is the same word translated as 'Pastor' in Ephesians 4:11. The word translated as 'Bishop' is the same word used in 1 Timothy 3 (bishop, overseer, elder). According to Jesus' words, what is He telling His followers?

"Do not be called Pastor; for One is your Pastor."

"Do not be called Bishop/Overseer/Elder; for One is your Bishop/Overseer/Elder."

"Do not be called Reverend; for One is your Reverend." (Plus, you are not to revere a reverend.)

A function (prophet, apostle, preacher, teacher, etc.) does not serve as a title. When you turn it into a title, you elevate yourself and make yourself superior to your peers. Your peers, likewise, should never call you Pastor So-and-so. They should call you by your first name. If this offends you, and you think you deserve some sort of honour or recognition or respect for your position, then you are precisely who the passage in Matthew 23 is speaking of, and you had better step down now because you are undeserving of the position! You have a proud heart.

Any time a Christian takes a title unto himself, or designates himself by a title, he is making himself superior to all his peers; and no doubt he thinks of himself in such a manner, too. If your church cares about biblical truth and accuracy in the least, if they claim to do everything by the book, then may they correct this gross error that has crept into the church and plagued her for centuries. May the members and the leadership repent of this. Sadly, most will not because they are blinded by tradition and Scripture is not the foundation they claim it to be.

P.S. — You cannot go to Bible college or Seminary to study to be something that is a gift of the Holy Spirit. That is the same nonsense as trying to teach someone how to speak in tongues. I hope you can see that.

God's Ordination Requires Not Approval of Men

What is the value of education? Where does authority come from? How much weight do credentials hold? "By what authority do you do these things?"

"Thus says the LORD: 'Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches,but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the LORD.'" Jeremiah 9:23-24

Men love to boast of their wisdom, their credentials, their certificates, their theological training. As if that means anything. What stock does God put in any of those things? They think the "church" needs to approve or appoint you. Perhaps they would be wise to read their Bible and learn how God's gifting actually works. Whether or not the "church" approves or appoints you means absolutely squat!

The "church" is not God!

Oh, I know, they love to pretend to play the part of God frequently, and try to usurp His authority all the time. They strangle the headship of Christ. They want ruling authority over you. Not the kind of authority the Bible speaks about, but ruling authority. To have you under their thumb. That is not biblical!

GOD calls, or does not call, men; each to his own place. Not the "church"! A man's ambition does not alter the calling of God. You can be highly ambitious for the Lord, and yet God is saying, "Nope. Sit on the bench. You're not a team player. Your head's too large as it is." Or you can be unambitious and God says, "Get in the game. I'm using you for My good."

Christians seem to forget that it is a "holy calling." It is not something you desire and so pursue by attending this Bible Institute and that Seminary. Even though it is used in an entirely different context, nevertheless, "the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" (Rom. 11:29). It is not up to you and I what God calls us to. It is not up to the "church" to appoint, approve, or disapprove of how God calls an individual. The "church" is to use that person for the edification of the whole body. But when that "church" has most of it wrong to begin with, except for most of their theology, it is no wonder they lack the wisdom to get it right in regard to this. When your "church" government is essentially a cousin to the Catholic Church, much like Anglicanism, it is no wonder why.

"For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, 'Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.'" 1 Corinthians 1:26-31

For every Paul and Apollos, who were well-schooled, you have a Peter, James, John, Andrew, Phillip, Bartholomew, etc. For ignorant individuals to accuse someone of being "self-made" or "self-appointed," they lack biblical wisdom and understanding to have the slightest idea of how this all works. There is a difference between somebody who is a representative of God, and somebody who is a representative of an institution or a denomination. A man may have the credentials and backing of an institution, but that says nothing of the support of God. The weight of your institution, or denomination, will crumble on the day of judgment. If God has not called you to something, you would do well to stay yourself! You do not get to call yourself. Your ambition means nothing.

In contrast to Paul's schooling, Paul was not a gifted orator. Though his letters were weighty, his tongue was clumsy. Paul says he was not gifted in speech, but very much so in knowledge. I myself am not a great speaker. I stumble over my words. But with pen I can think about my words and organize my thoughts and then present them with clarity.

Who ordained Jeremiah? Was it an institution? Was it a denomination? Was he "self-appointed"? No! The Lord ordains or does not. Period! You are not ordained because you think that God called you to it. You are not ordained because you are ambitious. You are not ordained because an institution or denomination said so. If the Lord did not ordain you, then you are nothing more than a hireling. No man can ordain you, and no man can revoke your ordination. The best that men can do is recognize who God has ordained with their specific gifts and calling. An institution or denomination might be able to "ordain" you, but that does not mean that God has ordained you.

If anyone is self-appointed, it is jerks who sit in a position of authority and assume they have the right to judge and condemn others, the way God has called them, and the work they are doing for Him. Whether perfectly or imperfectly. As I have said before, I never wanted to do what I do. It was impressed upon me, and when I finally gave in to it, there was release. If and when God wants me to stop what I do, I will be all too eager to do so.

Do not be so ignorant as to read into that last statement your various assumptions. I do not like confrontation; unless I absolutely have to. When I am writing in a confrontational setting, such as waiting to see what response they give and how they will attack me, my adrenaline starts to peak. My heart begins beating miles a minute, my head begins to feel lightheaded, and despite being weighed down in a chair, it feels like I am floating in mid air. Almost like a seated vertigo. I would sooner try to get along with everybody and try to be their friend, despite differences, yet that is not what God called me to. I grew up as a loner. Sure I like being around other people, but I preferred being by myself. It gave me time to think about things.

At least two thirds of Jesus' disciples were nothing more than fishermen. That was all they knew. They were not credentialed, as Acts 4 informs us. Yet, it was recognized that they had been with Jesus. Men want to argue "that was a different time." Does God change? Scripture says that He does not. Times might change, but God does not. Denominations might erect schools of education, and those institutes might "ordain" people, but that does not mean they are ordained. Where in Scripture does God say He will use such a thing? Even John the Baptist's qualifications were nothing more than the calling of the Lord, despite coming from a well-schooled family. In spite of whatever your denomination does, God still works this way today. Make no mistake about it!

When somebody says, "Ah! You don't have any theological training," they betray a gross ignorance of Scripture. They effectively discount the ministries of Elijah, Elisha, Amos, Jeremiah, David, John the Baptist, Peter, John, etc. Institutions are not the be-all end-all of the Christian life and education. The people who had the most knowledge of Scripture, the most training and education, were the Scribes. Yet Jesus condemned them. Do not put stock in institutional school. By doing so, you betray a gross ignorance of not just the Bible, but also of history. Reformed circles especially suffer from this mentality.

Charles Spurgeon never attended Seminary. Yet he is often revered to an idolatrous position by many. This emphasizes the difference between schooling and education. Spurgeon was well-educated, reading a plethora of books, but he was never formally trained. D. L. Moody never attended Seminary. His formal education ended with the fifth grade. John Bunyan never attended Seminary. Yet he was well-versed in the Scriptures. John Owen, whom Reformers revere, a well-educated man, when asked why he, a man of education, would go to listen to the preaching of someone like John Bunyan, with no education, said, "If I could possess this tinker's ability to grip men's hearts, I would gladly give in exchange all my learning." What a stark contrast to the ridiculous nonsense most Reformers espouse today. Bunyan did not even have a "license" to preach. Today, men's credentials are the idol that men bow down to. G. Campbell Morgan and A. W. Tozer never attended Seminary. Martyn Lloyd Jones never attended Seminary. Martyn Lloyd-Jones once made these remarks to a Bible Institution when invited to speak there:

"How may the college know if it is attaining this object and rightly dividing the word of truth?  Those who are trained by such institutions should ask themselves these questions upon graduation. Are the men more certain of the truth at the end of their studies than at the beginning? Are they more steadfast? Do they know God better and desire to serve God better than when they came in? Have they a greater zeal for God? Do they have a greater love for the lost and the perishing? What is the purpose of doctrine and knowledge if it is not to know God?"

Do you need formal education in order to know God? Certainly not. Can you get to know God without any formal education? You better believe it! Here is more from Lloyd-Jones:

"A man doesn't understand the Bible because he knows Greek and Hebrew; he understands the Bible because he's got the Spirit of God in him. The key to understanding the Bible is not a knowledge of the original languages; you can have that and still be ignorant of the message as so many are and have been, unfortunately. It's the man who has a spiritual understanding who understands the Word of God. To say that a man cannot read his Bible, and that a man cannot preach if he lacks knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, seems to me to militate against an understanding of the Bible and the true character of preaching."

Let that be your rebuke. Here is another well-known name to add to the list: F. F. Bruce never attended Seminary. He was never formally trained in theology and biblical studies. He never pursued a doctoral degree. Yet, he is quite often referred to as a scholar. He was merely classically trained in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Would anyone like to try and dispute the calling by God for the above mentioned men? Or attempt some lame excuse how "it was different" for them? Oh, how ignorance betrays us. He betrays a gross ignorance of Scripture, history, and his own hypocritical standards, because by the standards he espouses as requirements for ministry and/or the calling of God, he effectively disqualifies these men and many others that Reformed circles hold in high regard. Since he does not know me from Adam, and has never given a moment to try and get to know me, I can only presume that his problem with me stems from jealousy over how God has gifted and called me to the work I do.

Who are some well-credentialed individuals? Heidi Baker has a Bachelor's Degree, a Master's Degree, and a PhD in Systematic Theology. Stephen Furtick has a Master of Divination Degree. Many other false teachers and heretics possess titles and credentials. Do their degrees validate their false theology? No! Their degrees mean nothing. When the Corinthians put stock in the credentials of false teachers, Paul said, "You've forced me to speak like a fool. Whatever credentials they have, I have the same, and more. Yet it means nothing to me." Do not revel in ignorance, and do not glory in wisdom. Why do people refer to it as Cemetery in place of Seminary? Because more often than not, it leaves you dead for the use of Christ in His work.

"By what authority do you do these things?" By the authority of God, whether you like it or not. GOD calls, or does not call, men; each to his own place. Period!

What Is Homiletics?

Approximately 500 B.C. Sophists are credited with inventing rhetoric (the art of persuasive speaking). They were expert debaters.  They were masters at using emotional appeals, physical appearance, and clever language to "sell" their arguments. To make their points, they would quote Homer's verses. Some orators studied Homer so well that they could repeat him by heart. They would sit in their official chair and expound the text of Homer. "Homiletics" is what they were doing; expounding Homer. "Homilies" is what they were producing. "Homiletics" and "homilies" had to do with Homer. You might call it "Homology" (the study of Homer), but I don't think they used that term.

800 years later and this practice was adopted by Christians and was "christianized." Homiletics is now explained as "a science, applying rules of rhetoric" to the Bible. Homilies are now known as "sermons." Ignorance as to origins is amusing, is it not? Much of what we practice on a weekly basis was foreign to early Christians prior to Emperor Constantine and the Catholic Church to follow in his footsteps. If you don't believe me, and you aren't so cowardly as to have your Christianity examined and turned upside down, I challenge you to purchase and read this book:

• Pagan Christianity?

May God bless you as you "seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness" and to be obedient to all the Holy Spirit reveals to you!

Your Doctrine and Your Life

IF everything you teach is true, but you are simultaneously affirming people who teach things completely contrary to what you're teaching, and in fact are teaching heresy, then you are a partaker of their wicked works. It therefore nullifies and makes your proclamations hollow. It doesn't make them untrue; it makes them hollow. It makes you a hypocrite.

Why is "guilt by association" such a difficult concept for most Christians to deal with? There is a law of "aiding and abetting." You do not need to commit the crime in order to be guilty of it. So if a well-known Christian, who knows better, or ought to know better, is shaking hands with and associating themselves with known false teachers, it speaks volumes against them. They ought to be calling that individual out while face to face.

"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds." 2 John 11

"Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them." Eph. 5:11

"Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?" 2 Cor. 6:14

"Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" Amos 3:3

"A little leaven leavens the whole lump." 1 Cor. 5:6

When dealing with truth, if what is said and presented is true, knock it off with accusations of bitterness and having a vendetta! People who do not have biblical or factual objections to what's being said, perhaps you should cease objecting. You might learn something. Otherwise it's nothing more than emotional babble.

"Believers in Christ who remain in such "churches" are dishonouring their Lord. Should they answer, "practically all the churches are the same, and were we to resign, what could we do? We must go somewhere on Sundays." Such language would show they are putting their own interest before the glory of Christ. Better to stay at home and read God's Word than fellowship with that which His Word condemns." A.W. Pink

"That argument I have heard hundreds of times when people have been urged to come out of false positions and do the right. But what have you and I to do with maintaining our influence and position at the expense of truth? It is never right to do a little wrong to obtain the greatest possible good . . . Your duty is to do the right; consequences are with God." Charles Spurgeon

"Ah, my dear brethren! There are many that are deceived by this method of reasoning. They remain where their conscience tells them they ought not to be, because, they say, they are more useful than they would be if they went 'without the camp.' This is doing evil that good may come, and can never be tolerated by an enlightened conscience. If an act of sin would increase my usefulness tenfold, I have no right to do it; and if an act of righteousness would appear likely to destroy all my apparent usefulness, I am yet to do it. It is yours and mine to do the right thought the heavens fall, and follow the command of Christ whatever the consequence may be. 'That is strong meat,' do you say? Be strong men, then, and feed thereon . . ." Charles Spurgeon

"As soon as I saw, or thought I saw, that error had become firmly established, I did not deliberate, but quitted the body at once. Since then my counsel has been 'Come out from among them.' I have felt that no protest could be equal to that of separation." Charles Spurgeon

"One thing is clear to us, we cannot be expected to meet in any union which comprehends those whose teachings on fundamental points is exactly the reverse of that which we hold dear. Cost what it may to separate ourselves from those who separate themselves from the truth of God is not alone our liberty but our duty." Charles Spurgeon

"Long ago I ceased to count heads. Truth is usually in the minority in this evil world. I have faith in the Lord Jesus for myself, a faith burned into me as with a hot iron. I thank God, what I believe I shall believe, even if I believe it alone." Charles Spurgeon

Think Your Church Is Doing It Right?

Does your "church" claim to do everything "by the book"?

Does your "church" claim the Bible is their "supreme guide in all matters of faith and practice"?

Does your "church" claim to follow "sola scriptura" ("by the Scripture alone")?

First of all, the church is every single believer. It is not a building. You cannot 'go' to something that you 'are.'

Second, any church that claims that they do everything "by the book," or that the Bible is their "supreme guide in all matters of faith and practice," or that they follow "sola scriptura," if they bothered to examine their liturgy, their order of worship, and compare it to the New Testament model and that of the early Christians, they would find that they have zero points of contact. In fact, if they claim any of the above, in light of the way they conduct their services, it makes them ignorant and deceived at best and liars at worse.

The modern "worship" service has zero to do with the New Testament. It is rooted and steeped in pagan ritual and practice, and varies very little from the Catholic Mass. The only thing that the Reformers did was to correct the poor theology of the Catholic "church." However, they did very little to correct the "worship" service. They changed a tiny fragment, while 95% of it remains the same. If you compare liturgies from various denominations, there is very little difference between them.

Lessons In Humility

There was a former Under Secretary of Defense who was invited to give a speech at a large conference of about 1,000 people. He was standing on the stage with his cup of coffee in a Styrofoam cup, giving his prepare remarks with his Power Point behind him. He took a sip of his coffee and he smiled, and he looked down at the coffee. Then he went off script. He said, "You know, last year I spoke at this exact same conference. Last year I was still the Under Secretary. When I spoke here last year, they flew me here business class. When I arrived at the airport, there was somebody waiting for me to take me to my hotel. They took me to my hotel and they had already checked me in and they just took me up to my room. The next morning, I came downstairs and there was somebody waiting in the lobby to greet me, and they drove me to this here same venue. They took me through the back entrance and took me into the green room and handed me a cup of coffee in a beautiful ceramic mug. I'm no longer the Under Secretary. I flew here coach. I took a taxi to my hotel and I checked myself in. When I came down to the lobby this morning, I took another taxi to this venue. I came in the front door and found my way back stage. When I asked someone, 'Do you have any coffee?,' he pointed to the machine in the corner and I poured myself a cup of coffee into this here Styrofoam cup. The lesson is, the ceramic mug was never meant for me; it was meant for the position I held. I deserved a Styrofoam cup."

As you gain fame, as you gain fortune, as you gain position and seniority, people will treat you better. They will hold doors open for you. They will get you a cup of tea or coffee without you even asking. They will call you sir and ma'am and they will give you stuff. NONE of that stuff is meant for you! That stuff is meant for the position you hold. It is meant for the level you have achieved, of leader or success or whatever you want to call it. You will ALWAYS deserve a Styrofoam cup.

David Jeremiah, teaching on Daniel, once said, "Envy always hates the excellency it cannot reach. Jealousy is the tribute that mediocrity pays to genius. Daniel was extremely careful not to make a mistake. He was not noted for any lack of judgment. There was no error recorded against him; no lapse of discernment or discretion. Nothing on his record was bad. Alexander Maclaren had this to say about Daniel: 'It's remarkable that a character of such beauty and consecration as Daniel's should be rooted and grow out of the court where Daniel was. For this court was half shambles and half pig stye. It was filled with luxury and sensuality and lust and self-seeking and idolatry and ruthless cruelty; and the like were the environment of this man. And in the middle of this there grew up that fair flower of character, pure and stainless by the acknowledging of his enemies.' Anyone who aspires to leadership, there is always going to be a price to pay for being a leader. There is always going to be a penalty to pay for excellency in anything you do. It's true in any field, even outside of Christianity. Take a musician who's determined to excel, and they pay a price for it. Take an athlete who determines to excel, and there's a price to be paid. The man who gives himself to success, to excellency, will sooner or later pay the penalty of primacy."

The closest David Jeremiah says he has come to this in his own life, was when he went to Fort Wayne to start a church. When he first went there, all the pastors in the city were his friends. They used to get together for Pastor fellowships. They'd drop over and encourage him, see how he was doing. As God began to bless the little church he had started and it began to grow, first gradually and then quickly and then explosively; as the church grew one way, the circle of his friends went the other way. He began to hear bad things about his church that weren't true. He discovered that at the highest level of Christian leadership, envy can get its foot in the door and it can be destructive and divisive and hurtful in the ministry of Christ Jesus.

As you succeed in life, when you become the top dog, numero uno, the head cheese, everyone beneath you is jealous of your accomplishments and wants to to tear you down and see you fall. They're fine with you being number two and striving to be number one, but they hate if you ever become number one. It's like this: if you tell people that you're a seeker of truth, they will cheer you on; but if you tell them you've discovered the truth, they will hate you. They're fine with you seeking it, but don't want you to ever find it. When you succeed, people will do things for you. They will bend over backwards for you, but they're jealous of you. They want to be where you are. As soon as someone else takes your spot, you're yesterday's news. Whether at the top, or at the bottom, all you deserve is a Styrofoam cup. If you happen to receive a ceramic mug, be humble, be grateful, be thankful, because it's more than you deserve. Anyone who is determined to excel and succeed will sooner or later pay the price for primacy, for being number one.

When you strive for excellency and live in excellency, those who are jealous of you will try to seek occasion against you. If they can find no dirt on you, they will attempt to make it up, and if that does not work, they will seek a way against you using your religion as they did with Daniel.

666: A Possible Solution?

What exactly is 666? Could a possible solution to this age-old problem be that 666 is a "magic" square? Ancient philosophers and mathematicians were intrigued and infatuated by the fact that numbers 1 through 36 could be arranged in squares where each row and diagonal would add up to the same sum (much like the modern Sodoku puzzle). One square has six lines (four rows and two diagonals) that each add up to 111, which equal 666. In ancient Jewish and Greek traditions, each square was also closely associated with a celestial body. The 666 square was associated with Zeus and the celestial body of the sun.

The mention of "hand" and "forehead" in Revelation is important for us to take note of. Revelation uses a lot of imagery and symbolism from the Old Testament. This same terminology is used four other times in the Old Testament (Ex. 13:9, 16; Deut. 6:8; 11:18-19). What it has to do with is what you believe and how you act in accordance with that belief. It is not a microchip! Not by any stretch of the imagination. It is not a physical mark of any kind!

The second name calculated in Greek by Irenaeus to be 666 is Lateinos (Λατεινος—perhaps ancient Greek for “Latin man”), the Latin or Roman Empire. This is the numerical value in Greek: Λ = 30 + α = 1 + τ = 300 + ε = 5 + ι = 10 + ν = 50 + ο = 70 + ς = 200 = total 666. Irenaeus writes, “Then also Lateinos (ΛΑΤΕΙΝΟΣ) has the number six hundred and sixty-six; and it is a very probable [solution], this being the name of the last kingdom [of the four seen by Daniel]. For the Latins are they who at present bear rule: I will not, however, make any boast over this [coincidence].” “J. E. Clark shows that η Λατινη Βασιλεια, ‘the Latin Empire,’ likewise gives the number 666.”

Is it not interesting, even if coincidental, how Lateinos (Latin man), the Latin Empire, and the 666 square all seem to address the same person?

Emperor Constantine.

Now, this has nothing to do with the false claims that Constantine changed worship from Saturday to Sunday. There are plenty of early Christian works that acknowledge the fact that Christians worshiped on the first day of the week, which is Sunday. Because Jewish time reckoned a day from 6:00pm to 6:00pm, from sundown to sundown, early Christians regularly met together after sunset on our Saturday evening, which was their Sunday.

Constantine never became a Christian! This fact is supported from his having murdered three of his own family members—his eldest son, his nephew, and his brother-in-law—after having supposedly converted to Christianity. Constantine was a sun worshiper long before and long after his supposed "conversion." Constantine introduced temples to Christianity in order to give a legitimacy to it. Every other religion had their temples, and now so would Christianity. He even named each of his temples after dead saints the way the pagans named theirs after their gods. Constantine also introduced the priestly caste, modeled after the Roman state (for clothing) and pagan religions (for rituals).

Constantine gathered pagan relics from all over the empire and decorated his "Christian" temples with them. Because Christians gathered on Sunday, and since most of the empire celebrated the Unconquerable Sun on Sunday, Constantine made a legal holiday to be a day of rest. St. Peter's in Rome reveals a mosaic of Christ as the Unconquerable Sun (Sol Invictus), demonstrating Constantine's affinity for sun worship. His title was Pontifex Maximus, which means Chief of the Pagan Priests. He functioned as the high priest of paganism to his dying day. He even used pagan magic formulas to protect crops and heal diseases.

Because of Constantine, the Christians now had sacred temples, sacred objects, and a sacred priestly caste. He also introduced the two classes of Christianity (clergy and layperson), whereas the Bible describes every Christian as a priest unto God, known as the priesthood of believers. Further, due to Constantine's imitation of pagan rituals, now only those trained in the art of rhetoric, in homiletics, were allowed to address the assembly. This taught Christians to value lesser things and to sit quietly like idle spectators being entertained. Biblical Christianity was never limited to the gifting, experience, and knowledge of a single individual monologuing to the rest of the assembly.

The Catholic church has carried on the work of Constantine, entrenched in pagan practices and rituals, but the Protestant churches are no better and retain much of the same. If you want to learn more about this, pick up a copy of Pagan Christianity? by Frank Viola and George Barna.

If you examine Emperor Constantine closely, everything he did was saturated by sun worship. He infiltrated and perverted Christ's church, turning it into something it is not and never should have been. Yet, because men love their traditions and are steeped in tradition, much of what Constantine introduced into the church is still present within every single denomination today. Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals, etc. Your denomination has zero points of contact in or with the New Testament. Zero!

Could the warnings in Scripture be pertaining to this? Could they have been pointing to Constantine? His influence is still prevalent today within every denomination. While God can certainly use these denominations and still save His people, nevertheless every denomination has more in common with the devil than they do with Christ. Their entire system—their government, their liturgy, their customs and rituals—all trace back to Emperor Constantine, the Roman senate, and the pagan religions. A close examination of the New Testament and the first 300 years of the early Christians demonstrates conclusively that what our denominations practice today is vastly removed from how the early church conducted themselves. In fact, if they were alive today, they would not recognize the church.

Coincidence or not with the various 666s, nevertheless Constantine left his mark on the church and it has never recovered. God is working within a remnant toward that end, however, as more and more people are looking for God, are fed up with the institutional "church," and are starting to be the church that Scripture calls them to be.

When God shows us something, it is our responsibility to then respond. If we merely ignore it and try to sweep it under the rug for the sake of our man-impressed traditions, we have just quenched the Holy Spirit and pronounced anathema upon our own heads. We have chosen to be disobedient and rebellious. Be like the noble Bereans, who searched the Scriptures to test whether what the Apostle Paul was telling them was true or not.