King James Bible believing (Ps. 12:6-7) Gospel of the Grace of God (Acts 20:24, 1 Cor. 15:1-4) Faith Alone (Eph. 1:7, 1:13, 2:8-9) Pre-Millennial (Rev. 19-20) Pre-Tribulation Rapture (1 Thes. 1:10) Mid-Acts Dispensational Right Division (2 Tim. 2:15, Eph. 3:1-9) anti-Darwinism (Exod 20:11, 31:17) one baptism (Eph. 4:5, 1 Cor. 1:17, 12:13) no signs for today anti-Charismatic (1 Cor. 13:8-13) against the sinner's prayer (John 9:31, Isa. 59:1-2) against the Flat Earth Hoax (Isa. 40:22, Job 26:7)
Pages
▼
Monday, October 30, 2017
Thursday, September 21, 2017
Monday, September 18, 2017
Saturday, September 9, 2017
Saturday, July 29, 2017
NASA scientists find chemical "capable" of forming cell membranes on Saturns moon
1https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2017/07/28/NASA-scientists-find-chemical-capable-of-forming-cell-membranes-on-Saturns-moon/3301501274157/?utm_source=sec&utm_campaign=sl&utm_medium=1
"The detection of this elusive, astrobiologically relevant chemical is exciting for scientists who are eager to determine if life could develop on icy worlds such as Titan," said NASA scientist Martin Cordiner.
What is really interesting is that the so called "science" of astrobiology still has nothing to study. 'Astro' means pertaining to outerspace (greek: astron = star) and 'bio' means life...but there is no life in outer space. "Astrobiology" is a joke. It's like having paleontology in a world without fossils. Non existent. An "astrobiologist" is NOT a scientist, they're a conspiracy theorist aluminum-hat-wearing atheist looking for aliens. Notice the word "could" in the above quote, it's complete speculation, not facts. The fact is that Titan has a chemical on it that "could" form a structure "similar" to the lipid bilayer that makes up a cell membrane.
From the article : "On Titan, scientists believe the compound could form a flexible but stable structure similar to the lipid bilayers the makeup cell membranes on Earth."
These "scientists" believe that Titan is around 1,000,000,000
years old, so why hasn't a cell membrane been found yet? If
a cell was going to evolve, a billion years should be plenty of time to do it. The problem is Acrylonitrile is just one piece in the puzzle that makes up a cell. No one has ever even came CLOSE to finding all that is needed to form a cell. Not only that, even if you did have all that was needed to form a cell, the chemicals aren't just going to magically come together and become a cell. Scientists cannot and never will develop a reasonable model of how a cell could form naturally, and especially not in outer space. Astrobiology is a myth straight out of science fiction.
"The detection of this elusive, astrobiologically relevant chemical is exciting for scientists who are eager to determine if life could develop on icy worlds such as Titan," said NASA scientist Martin Cordiner.
What is really interesting is that the so called "science" of astrobiology still has nothing to study. 'Astro' means pertaining to outerspace (greek: astron = star) and 'bio' means life...but there is no life in outer space. "Astrobiology" is a joke. It's like having paleontology in a world without fossils. Non existent. An "astrobiologist" is NOT a scientist, they're a conspiracy theorist aluminum-hat-wearing atheist looking for aliens. Notice the word "could" in the above quote, it's complete speculation, not facts. The fact is that Titan has a chemical on it that "could" form a structure "similar" to the lipid bilayer that makes up a cell membrane.
From the article : "On Titan, scientists believe the compound could form a flexible but stable structure similar to the lipid bilayers the makeup cell membranes on Earth."
These "scientists" believe that Titan is around 1,000,000,000
years old, so why hasn't a cell membrane been found yet? If
a cell was going to evolve, a billion years should be plenty of time to do it. The problem is Acrylonitrile is just one piece in the puzzle that makes up a cell. No one has ever even came CLOSE to finding all that is needed to form a cell. Not only that, even if you did have all that was needed to form a cell, the chemicals aren't just going to magically come together and become a cell. Scientists cannot and never will develop a reasonable model of how a cell could form naturally, and especially not in outer space. Astrobiology is a myth straight out of science fiction.
Saturday, July 15, 2017
Monday, June 12, 2017
Tuesday, June 6, 2017
Friday, June 2, 2017
Monday, May 22, 2017
Monday, May 15, 2017
Monday, May 8, 2017
Monday, May 1, 2017
DAVID CLOUD's "A WARNING ABOUT PETER RUCKMAN"
Many people like to attack Dr. Ruckman, what you never see these people mention is how many thousands of people he gave the gospel to after being a pastor for decades! My comments on David Cloud's article in blue
DAVID
CLOUD: A WARNING ABOUT PETER RUCKMAN -
(Friday Church News Notes, April 28, 2017, www.wayoflife.org, fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143)
HOSS:
(Dr. Ruckman's death has been a year ago now,
I'm not sure what the purpose is in writing a "warning"
about a deceased person. That is, unless that person's teaching was
contrary to fundamental doctrines (salvation by faith, trinity,
eternal security, etc.) and was widely popular. Dr. Ruckman's
teaching was not
against fundamental doctrine nor is it widely popular. In fact, I
would say that his popularity was at its peak in the 90's. Dr.
Ruckman's personality and style of teaching is not something that
appeals to contemporary Christianity and I seriously doubt that his
popularity will grow any time soon. Especially since he has gone to
be with the Lord. The writing of such an article this long after his
death probably has more to do with a personal grudge against Dr.
Ruckman and not doctrinal controversy.)
DAVID
CLOUD: There are independent Baptist churches that are a great
blessing to this dark world (very few),
but some are cultic (most of them). And
one of those is Bible Baptist Church of Pensacola, Florida, founded
by the late Peter Ruckman.
HOSS:
(How is it "cultic"? People sling the word "cult"
around very loosely these days. The word "cult" itself
merely refers to "a group or sect bound together by veneration
of the same thing, person, ideal, etc." Any denomination or
group falls into that category. The word "cult" does not
even refer to a group that is in error, that is just the popular
usage. What most people mean by "cult" is a creepy group of
hermits that zealously follow a doctrine that they disagree with. For
example, to Trinitarians the Unitarians are a cult and vice versa.
The two groups disagree on a core doctrine, therefore they believe
the other group is a "cult". Bible Baptist Church does not
disagree with any fundamental doctrines so I do not consider them a
"cult" in the modern use of the word. It is true that I
have met some people that were really devoted to the Bible teaching
of Dr. Ruckman, of which some have carnally tried to adopt his
personality. But not because they thought he was a god or a prophet,
merely because they thought Dr. Ruckman was a cool guy and admired
his speaking style. That is not cultic, it is CARNAL. "For ye
are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife,
and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one
saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye
believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?" 1 Cor.
3:3-5)
DAVID
CLOUD: This twice-divorced, thrice-married pastor exalted the King
James Bible as "advanced revelation" superior to the Greek
and Hebrew from which it was translated.
HOSS: You should always be suspicious when someone uses one sentence to hurl multiple attacks on someone and the attacks have nothing to do with each other. "twice divorced" is a personal/behavioral issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with a doctrinal issue such as the KJB inspiration/preservation.
HOSS: You should always be suspicious when someone uses one sentence to hurl multiple attacks on someone and the attacks have nothing to do with each other. "twice divorced" is a personal/behavioral issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with a doctrinal issue such as the KJB inspiration/preservation.
#1:
Divorce and remarriage: "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to
be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if
thou marry, thou
hast not sinned"
(1 Cor. 7:27-28). It is not a sin to remarry after divorce. It is
true that Jesus said in Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:9 not to put away your
wife, but Dr. Ruckman did not "put away" his wife, the left
him
and divorced him.
I'm not sure why anyone cares about this issue anyway.
#2
KJB "superior to the Greek and Hebrew": People love to
isolate this statement made by Dr. Ruckman without ever giving the
reasons he gave for making the statement. Taking a statement out of
context to distort what someone believes is LYING. Dr. Ruckman made
the statement that the KJB was superior to the original autographs in
a video series on the KJB. In the video he outlined four reasons why it
was better. The outline shown in the tape is this
- Four reasons why the Authorized Holy Bible is superior to the unknown, non-existent "originals"
- You can read, teach, and memorize it
- It has separations between letters and words as well as sentences
- It has been responsible for more than ten times as many sinners getting saved as all the original autographs combined
- It is in the universal language of the end time, whereas Greek has been a dead language for more than 1,700 years.
You
can purchase the booklet of outlines used in the video here for $1 :
http://store.kjv1611.org/basic-false-premise/
DAVID CLOUD: He claimed that God shut the door of revelation in 1611 (The Monarch of Books, p. 9). In the books The Salient Verses and The Unknown Bible, Ruckman claimed to have discovered hundreds of advanced revelations in the Bible that no other man has found. He stated on page 347 of The Unknown Bible, "Do you realize that in these last two chapters, you have learned a dozen things that were unknown to the greatest Bible teachers in the world?" These new teachings include the idea that angels are 33-year-old males, that all believing women will receive 33-year-old male bodies at the Rapture, that when the believer is born again his soul is literally cut loose from the inside of his fleshly body, that demons are winged creatures ranging in size from that of flies to eagles, and that the soul is an invisible bodily shape.
HOSS: He was referring to the "greatest Bible teachers in the world" sarcasticly. The so called greatest Bible teachers don't even believe the Bible.
As for those particular teachings that Dr. Ruckman believed...
1.)
Angels are always mentioned as being males in the Bible. Though no
verse says that they are 33 year old males.
2.)
Cloud isolates "believing women" at the rapture to make it
sound strange. What Dr. Ruckman taught was that ALL believers would
receive a body like Christ's at the rapture. He based this off Phil.
3:20-21. I personally do not agree with that. But who cares? It isn't
a big deal.
3.)
The soul being cut loose from the body was based on Col. 2:11,
spiritual circumcision.
4.)
Demons are referred to as birds in the Bible, so they may be winged
(Rev. 18:2, etc). However, David Cloud gave no quote from Dr. Ruckman
on this (why?).
DAVID
CLOUD: In his tract Millions Disappear: Fact or Fiction?
Ruckman claimed that men are saved in different ways in different
ages, by faith plus works in the Old Testament and in the Tribulation
and by works alone in the Millennium.
HOSS: That is true, and that isn't a strange doctrine. Most dispensationalists believe that.
DAVID CLOUD: In his book Black Is Beautiful, Ruckman described his belief in space aliens. He suggested that some of the medieval plagues were caused by UFOs, that a B-52 bomber was downed by a UFO and that aliens disemboweled the crew members, that a crew member of a US Navy ship was transported into the future, that the CIA operates underground alien breeding facilities (p. 256), that there are web footed aliens, blue aliens with blue blood (pp. 85, 86), black aliens with green blood (p. 244), grey aliens with clear blood (pp. 310-11), and that Adam originally had water in his veins instead of blood (p. 185).
HOSS: That is true, and that isn't a strange doctrine. Most dispensationalists believe that.
DAVID CLOUD: In his book Black Is Beautiful, Ruckman described his belief in space aliens. He suggested that some of the medieval plagues were caused by UFOs, that a B-52 bomber was downed by a UFO and that aliens disemboweled the crew members, that a crew member of a US Navy ship was transported into the future, that the CIA operates underground alien breeding facilities (p. 256), that there are web footed aliens, blue aliens with blue blood (pp. 85, 86), black aliens with green blood (p. 244), grey aliens with clear blood (pp. 310-11), and that Adam originally had water in his veins instead of blood (p. 185).
HOSS:
Dr. Ruckman gave documentation for all of those alleged conspiracies
(which is what Black is Beautiful is, a book on the different
conspiracy theories). Those ideas were not things he made up. It is
clear that David Cloud isn't trying to discuss the documentation on
UFO sightings or the alleged conspiracy theories, he is just trying
to sling these statements out to make Dr. Ruckman look bad.
Monday, April 24, 2017
Saturday, April 22, 2017
TfT FAKE News Issue 79 page 30
"Why don’t Hyper-Diapers write or pass out Gospel tracts?
Because they don’t know what to do when a sinner says “I want to get saved!”
(Eli says… “You have to mental ascend to Christ!” Sounds a bit New Age & mystical to me doesn’t it you?)"
http://www.timefortruth.co.uk/errors-of-hyperdispensationalism/page-3.phpI'm still waiting on Mr. Davis to show where I made that statement. Last time I checked you were suppose to show the SOURCE you are quoting from if you are going to use quote marks. --Eli "Hoss" Caldwell
John Davis' FAKE Newsletter Issue 80
As always, John Davis' newsletter is filled with FAKE news.
From John Davis' "Time For Truth!" Newsletter Isssue 80
There are many problems with John Davis' FAKE newsletter article.
1.) I have always said that everyone prays when they get saved per Gal. 4:6 and Romans 8:15-16 which plainly says that "because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." When we believe the gospel and receive the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13) we can then cry out to God "Abba Father". That is WHEN we get saved, but crying out to God is not HOW we got saved. The issue I have always raised is that nobody gets saved BY praying a so called "sinner's prayer". Until we get saved God will not hear our prayers (John 9:31, 1 Pet. 3:12, Prov. 1:28-30, 15:29, 28:9, Micah 3:4, Isa. 1:15, 59:1-4, Ps. 34:15-17, Matt. 7:21-23, 15:8). Prayer is a LABOR, a work (Col. 4:12). We get saved by believing the gospel without works (Rom. 4:5). John Davis pretended in his FAKE newsletter that I use to not believe that people prayed when they got saved.
2.) John Davis pretends like I recently started believing that people pray when they get saved, but the blog post that he selectively quoted from is almost a year old! (June 2016 http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/calling-upon-name-of-lord-romans-109-13.html)
3.) John Davis claims that he is the one that taught me that people could pray when they got saved, but the blog that he quoted from was a blog post ATTACKING his false doctrine on prayer and salvation that was posted to my page against John Davis' FAKE news letters:
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_26.html My post was attacking what he believes, that people get saved by praying and confessing their sins. Secondly, my reasons for believing that people pray when they get saved were stated in the post. I do not believe it because of John Davis' FAKE newsletter, it is because Galatians. 4:6 and Romans 8:15-16 say so. (not to mention that it is obvious that people start praying when they get saved, I don't know anyone that hasn't).
4.) John Davis misquoted the following from my post "I fully understand that all people pray when they get saved, Everybody prays (whether in their heart, mind, or mouth) WHEN they get saved." But that is not what I said, Davis invented a FAKE quote for his FAKE newsletter. Davis invented the quote to make it look like I was agreeing with the "sinner's prayer" doctrine. But this is what I actually said,
Truth Lies'.
What is disgusting is that I omitted where I said "for the Bible says" and then claimed that "The Lord used Time for Truth! to reveal this mystery to him".
5.) Davis says "Perhaps he will now believe that Peter Ruckman is saved & in Heaven" as if I believed that Dr. Ruckman wasn't saved. I would like for him to supply I quote where I have ever said that. To the contrary, I got saved after hearing Dr. Ruckman preach the gospel and I have posted his preaching videos to my blog (Davis knows this, he just likes to make up crap). For example, on July 28, 2016 I posted this video of Dr. Ruckman
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2016/07/dr-ruckman-preaching-gospel.html I also have a lot of his books and DVDs. I got his UFO studies for Christmas last year. My family made several out of state trips to hear him preach before. I purchased his funeral DVD and I use his study Bible. But John Davis falsely accuses me of believing that the Doc wasn't saved...BS!
6.) John Davis says that I was "a clever little boy for disowning his idiot cult teachers like Stammering-Stammite-Stam". First of all, I am 6'3'' and over 300 pounds. Hardly "little". Secondly, C.R. Stam used Romans 10:12 in his tracts that he wrote....but Davis has never read Stam's material so he doesn't know that. Davis pretends to know what people believe without actually reading their material or listening to them to find out. Davis makes up crap as he goes along. He needs to do his homework.
7.) Davis repeatedly refers to "Ed-Phenny" as a hyper dispensationalist, but John Davis is actually more dispensational than bro. Ed. Ed Phenninger does not believe in salvation being by works+faith in the OT, but John Davis does.
Davis needs to start making a real newsletter with real news. He plagiarizes articles from Doc Ruckman (FAKE news), lies about what I believe (FAKE news), and invents quotes from me (FAKE news). What I believe about anything is not "news" anyway and shouldn't be in his newsletter. He should focus more on ministering to his lame, socialist country.
--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell
From John Davis' "Time For Truth!" Newsletter Isssue 80
"It
is with great pleasure for me to report that Colic-Caldwell is
finally listening to us... at last! I think the last batch of
articles I did exposing this little punk really must have got to him,
as he writes...I
fully understand that all people pray when they get saved,(FINALLY
he’s on the right track!) Everybody
prays (whether in their heart, mind, or mouth) WHEN they get saved. (Isn’t
he a little beauty... Come on, I said, isn’t he a little
beauty!) Three cheers for Eli, hip -hip...!At
last, the punk is closer to understanding salvation than ever before!
Did he get this revelation from his CULT? NO! The Lord used Time for
Truth! to reveal this mystery to him. Eli is a clever
little boy for disowning his idiot cult teachers like
Stammering-Stammite-Stam, Full-of-Bull
-Bullinger,
March-O’Hare, Blundering-Baker, Baby-Ed-Pfenny &
Jackass-O'Steen etc. We are thrilled that
he has finally got a grip on prayer & salvation. Perhaps he will
now believe that Peter Ruckman is saved & in Heaven...WHEN he
called upon the Lord to save him (Rom 10v13).Don’t get me wrong,
Colic-Caldwell has a long way to go in understanding the Scriptures &
all the other different doctrines that he’s made errors on, BUT
IT’S A START isn’t it!?"There are many problems with John Davis' FAKE newsletter article.
1.) I have always said that everyone prays when they get saved per Gal. 4:6 and Romans 8:15-16 which plainly says that "because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." When we believe the gospel and receive the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13) we can then cry out to God "Abba Father". That is WHEN we get saved, but crying out to God is not HOW we got saved. The issue I have always raised is that nobody gets saved BY praying a so called "sinner's prayer". Until we get saved God will not hear our prayers (John 9:31, 1 Pet. 3:12, Prov. 1:28-30, 15:29, 28:9, Micah 3:4, Isa. 1:15, 59:1-4, Ps. 34:15-17, Matt. 7:21-23, 15:8). Prayer is a LABOR, a work (Col. 4:12). We get saved by believing the gospel without works (Rom. 4:5). John Davis pretended in his FAKE newsletter that I use to not believe that people prayed when they got saved.
2.) John Davis pretends like I recently started believing that people pray when they get saved, but the blog post that he selectively quoted from is almost a year old! (June 2016 http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/calling-upon-name-of-lord-romans-109-13.html)
3.) John Davis claims that he is the one that taught me that people could pray when they got saved, but the blog that he quoted from was a blog post ATTACKING his false doctrine on prayer and salvation that was posted to my page against John Davis' FAKE news letters:
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_26.html My post was attacking what he believes, that people get saved by praying and confessing their sins. Secondly, my reasons for believing that people pray when they get saved were stated in the post. I do not believe it because of John Davis' FAKE newsletter, it is because Galatians. 4:6 and Romans 8:15-16 say so. (not to mention that it is obvious that people start praying when they get saved, I don't know anyone that hasn't).
4.) John Davis misquoted the following from my post "I fully understand that all people pray when they get saved, Everybody prays (whether in their heart, mind, or mouth) WHEN they get saved." But that is not what I said, Davis invented a FAKE quote for his FAKE newsletter. Davis invented the quote to make it look like I was agreeing with the "sinner's prayer" doctrine. But this is what I actually said,
- "I fully understand that all people pray when they get saved, for the Bible says that when we got saved that God "sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father" (Gal. 4:6). And "ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" (Rom. 8:15-16). And thus begins a lifelong communion with God by the Holy Ghost whereby we have access to the Father (Eph. 2:18).Everybody prays (whether in their heart, mind, or mouth) WHEN they get saved. However, nobody gets saved BY praying. No apostle, preacher, or evangelist in the Bible ever told anyone to repeat a prayer after them to be saved. It was simply "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 13:38-39, 16:31)."
- http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/calling-upon-name-of-lord-romans-109-13.html
What is disgusting is that I omitted where I said "for the Bible says" and then claimed that "The Lord used Time for Truth! to reveal this mystery to him".
5.) Davis says "Perhaps he will now believe that Peter Ruckman is saved & in Heaven" as if I believed that Dr. Ruckman wasn't saved. I would like for him to supply I quote where I have ever said that. To the contrary, I got saved after hearing Dr. Ruckman preach the gospel and I have posted his preaching videos to my blog (Davis knows this, he just likes to make up crap). For example, on July 28, 2016 I posted this video of Dr. Ruckman
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2016/07/dr-ruckman-preaching-gospel.html I also have a lot of his books and DVDs. I got his UFO studies for Christmas last year. My family made several out of state trips to hear him preach before. I purchased his funeral DVD and I use his study Bible. But John Davis falsely accuses me of believing that the Doc wasn't saved...BS!
6.) John Davis says that I was "a clever little boy for disowning his idiot cult teachers like Stammering-Stammite-Stam". First of all, I am 6'3'' and over 300 pounds. Hardly "little". Secondly, C.R. Stam used Romans 10:12 in his tracts that he wrote....but Davis has never read Stam's material so he doesn't know that. Davis pretends to know what people believe without actually reading their material or listening to them to find out. Davis makes up crap as he goes along. He needs to do his homework.
7.) Davis repeatedly refers to "Ed-Phenny" as a hyper dispensationalist, but John Davis is actually more dispensational than bro. Ed. Ed Phenninger does not believe in salvation being by works+faith in the OT, but John Davis does.
Davis needs to start making a real newsletter with real news. He plagiarizes articles from Doc Ruckman (FAKE news), lies about what I believe (FAKE news), and invents quotes from me (FAKE news). What I believe about anything is not "news" anyway and shouldn't be in his newsletter. He should focus more on ministering to his lame, socialist country.
--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell
Monday, April 17, 2017
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
"Repent of Your Sins" Hyprocrisy
I don't agree with Pastor Anderson on a lot of stuff, but I thought this was good
Monday, March 20, 2017
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Saturday, February 25, 2017
Monday, February 20, 2017
Flat Earth conspiracy theory refuted
https://www.distract101.com/2017/01/flat-earth-theory-debunked-complete-guide/
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/is-the-earth-flat/
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/flat-earth-prediction-falls-flat/
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/who-invented-the-flat-earth/
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/flat-earth-proof-just-a-mirage/
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/is-the-earth-flat/
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/flat-earth-prediction-falls-flat/
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/who-invented-the-flat-earth/
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/flat-earth-proof-just-a-mirage/
Monday, February 13, 2017
Saturday, February 11, 2017
Tuesday, February 7, 2017
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Monday, January 23, 2017
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
"Double honour" 1 Tim. 5:17
"Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." 1 Timothy 5:17
It is always funny to hear a money grubbing pa$tor quote 1 Timothy 5:17 to teach that he should get even more money than he is already receiving. What is even funnier is that the congregation will actually give him the money, even though the use of 1 Timothy 5:17 is completely out of context.
First of all, note that the verse says "elders".....plural. That is not only referring to a bishop/pa$tor, it also includes deacons. So for a pa$tor to be consistent, he would also have to advocate deacons receiving "double honour" as well. But I have never heard a pa$tor do that.
Secondly, something that should be blatantly obvious but is often overlooked, most pa$tor$ already receive way more than "DOUBLE" honour. Think about it: if the verse says that elders should be counted worthy of DOUBLE honour, then there must be someone who is receiving 'single' honour. Who are the elders suppose to receive double honour than? The widows. The context (vs. 1-16) is referring to honouring widows. The chapter explains who qualifies as a widow and under what circumstances the church should "relieve them" (vs. 16).
1 Timothy 5:
[1] Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
[2] The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
[3] Honour widows that are widows indeed.
[4] But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.
[5] Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.
[6] But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.
[7] And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.
[8] But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
[9] Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
[10] Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
[11] But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
[12] Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
[13] And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
[14] I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
[15] For some are already turned aside after Satan.
[16] If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.
[17] Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
It does not make since to isolate verse 17 and proclaim "I'm a pa$tor, I should be counted worthy of double honour". Double than who? Pa$tor$ never answer that question. Why? Because most churches aren't giving widows anything (for various reasons) which would mean that "double honour" in that situation would be ZERO. Two times zero is zero. Double of zero is zero.
The passage is teaching that the elders that rule well should receive double the amount of what the church gives a widow. In most cases, that would be zero.
Elders would also include deacons, not just pa$tor$.
1 Peter 5:
[1] The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
[2] Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
[3] Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
Titus 1:
[5] For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
[6] If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
[7] For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
1 Timothy 3:
[1] This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
[2] A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
[3] Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
--Hoss
It is always funny to hear a money grubbing pa$tor quote 1 Timothy 5:17 to teach that he should get even more money than he is already receiving. What is even funnier is that the congregation will actually give him the money, even though the use of 1 Timothy 5:17 is completely out of context.
First of all, note that the verse says "elders".....plural. That is not only referring to a bishop/pa$tor, it also includes deacons. So for a pa$tor to be consistent, he would also have to advocate deacons receiving "double honour" as well. But I have never heard a pa$tor do that.
Secondly, something that should be blatantly obvious but is often overlooked, most pa$tor$ already receive way more than "DOUBLE" honour. Think about it: if the verse says that elders should be counted worthy of DOUBLE honour, then there must be someone who is receiving 'single' honour. Who are the elders suppose to receive double honour than? The widows. The context (vs. 1-16) is referring to honouring widows. The chapter explains who qualifies as a widow and under what circumstances the church should "relieve them" (vs. 16).
1 Timothy 5:
[1] Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
[2] The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
[3] Honour widows that are widows indeed.
[4] But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.
[5] Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.
[6] But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.
[7] And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.
[8] But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
[9] Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
[10] Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
[11] But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
[12] Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
[13] And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
[14] I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
[15] For some are already turned aside after Satan.
[16] If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.
[17] Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
It does not make since to isolate verse 17 and proclaim "I'm a pa$tor, I should be counted worthy of double honour". Double than who? Pa$tor$ never answer that question. Why? Because most churches aren't giving widows anything (for various reasons) which would mean that "double honour" in that situation would be ZERO. Two times zero is zero. Double of zero is zero.
The passage is teaching that the elders that rule well should receive double the amount of what the church gives a widow. In most cases, that would be zero.
Elders would also include deacons, not just pa$tor$.
1 Peter 5:
[1] The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
[2] Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
[3] Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
Titus 1:
[5] For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
[6] If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
[7] For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
1 Timothy 3:
[1] This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
[2] A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
[3] Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
--Hoss
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
"The Sinner's Prayer" (independent, fundamental Baptist preaching)
Pastor Anderson argues from Luke 11:11-13 and John 4:10 that you can "ask" for a "gift". On that basis, he says that praying the so called 'sinner's prayer' is not a work.
Luke 11:
[11] If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
[12] Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
[13] If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
John 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
Of course it is true that you can ask for a gift, but that has nothing to do with the question at hand, is prayer a work. The answer to that is YES. Pastor Anderson set up a straw man argument. He proved that you can ask for a gift, not that the sinner's prayer is not a work. The Bible plainly says that prayer is a work that man offers God.
Colossians 4:12 Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you, always labouring fervently for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God.
Hebrews 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
By Pastor Anderson's reasoning, water baptism is not a work ("Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:38).
Just a quick note, the word "gift" just means to give or confer from one person to another (Webster's 1828). Offering sacrifices in the OT law was a "gift" (Matt. 5:23-24, 8:4, 23:18-19, etc.). There are different kinds of gifts even (like "free gifts").
I have suspected that Pastor Anderson has trouble with gifts ever since his "Get FREE Christmas CD!" stunt. (where you had to spend $20) --Hoss
Get FREE Christmas CD!
Get a FREE Faithful Word Baptist Church Christmas CD while supplies last with any order from FRAMINGTHEWORLD.COM over $20!
This will last all the way till Christmas or when they run out of CD's!
Friday, January 13, 2017
Israel's New Covenant
Jeremiah 31:
[31] Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
[32] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
[33] 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.
[34] 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.
[35] Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
[36] If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.