"What the Confederate Flag Means" by Robert Breaker

Very interesting video.

Why we use the King James Bible, History and Truth about the King James Bible, Why KJV Only!

"But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Tim. 3:14-17)

Matthew 24 Explained Rightly Divided Proving Pretribulation Rapture

The King James Bible Is The Final Authority - Dr. Peter Ruckman

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matt. 24:35)

Grace India Ministry and ODIA KJV BIBLE

Grace School of the Bible, India Ministry 
http://graceindiaministry.com/gs.php

ODIA KJV BIBLE
https://www.facebook.com/odiakjvbible/

Basics of Rightly Dividing

Should Christians vote?

Some people spend a lot of time worrying about if Christians should vote or not. I don't know why that question is such a big thing with some people, it is very easy to answer: If you want to vote, then do it. If not, don't do it. There's nothing else to it. But some people like to be difficult and over complicate things. They say that since there is not a verse that mentions voting for elected officials then we shouldn't do it. [Of course, these same people 'vote' on things at their Baptist business meetings without a verse for that either.]  

The Bible says that "the powers that be are ordained of God" and that "rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil" (Rom. 13). Therefore we NEED political powers, God has ordained human government. The way we get political powers in America is by....voting.

Paul exercised his political rights as a Roman citizen (Acts 22:25, 25:11) and the Bible never condemns doing that. 

Religious people love bondage, they love to invent their own rules to enforce on other people instead of walking in the liberty that we have (Gal. 5:1). 

 

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3

Someone asked me what my view on 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 is. Here was my response:

2 Thes. 2:2-4 has nothing to do with any rapture of anyone. There is no "pre-trib" or "post-trib" rapture mentioned in any of those verses. Verse 1 is the only verse that mentions a rapture and it says nothing about the timing of it. It just says that Paul beseeched the Thessalonians by it, that they shouldn't be troubled about the Day of Christ. So I think it is silly to argue (directly) from the passage that the rapture of the BOC is "pre-trib" or "post-trib". The passage does not mention either one.

Also, the post-tribber doctrine of the "day of Christ" being the same thing as the rapture is a joke. Nobody would be "troubled" about the rapture being at hand. Paul just got through COMFORTING them by teaching about the blessed hope in 1 Thes. 4:13-18. Not to mention that Paul clearly states that the rapture is at hand (Rom. 13:11-12, Phil.3:20-4:5).

Paul does imply that the events regarding the 70th Week concern the Jews. The "falling away" is about the Jews (Dan. 11:33-38) and the temple of God is about the Jews (2 Thes. 2:4). Besides that, under grace, a Jewish temple would not be "of God" nor would it be a "holy place" (Matt. 24:15). So it is obvious that 2 Thes. 2:3-4 has nothing to do with the gentiles under grace.

Paul concludes the chapter by saying that the Thessalonians would be saved from the deception of the Man of Sin (2:13). They were "called" to this salvation by Paul's gospel (2:14) "to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ" which does occur at our rapture (Phil. 2:20-21, Col. 3:4). Those in Daniel's 70th week aren't all going to obtain salvation from it because many of them will be deceived, take the mark, etc. The calling to salvation is by BELIEVING Paul's gospel (2:13-14), not by believing the gospel of the kingdom and enduring to the end (Matt. 24:13-14).

There is a lot of "pre-trib" and "post-trib" bias read into 2 Thes 2, but in reality the passage does not state when our rapture is. It also does not say directly who will be going through Daniel's 70th week, but Paul's mention of the falling away and the temple clearly imply that it will be the Jews. It really doesn't make sense for 2 Thes. 2 to be the big battle ground passage on the rapture.

Here's a post I did on 2 Thes. 2:3 and the "falling away"
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/what-is-falling-away-of-2-thes-23.html

Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

Greystone Chapel

"If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." John 8:36

Comparing Bible Versions - Bible Study Time

Hope Bible Church presents Bible Study Time with Pastor David O'Steen. Charter (local) 183 (Sat. and Sun. at 9:30 pm)

Comparing Bible Versions:

Why so many Bible Versions?

Superiority of the King James Bible

 

Roman Catholicism vs the Bible

''The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics [Protestants] and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her" 
- (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441)."

"[God] Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." 
(1 Timothy 2:4-6)

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Romans 1:16-17 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Definition of "Flat"

1. horizontally level:

2. level, even, or without unevenness of surface, as land or tabletops.

 

3. having a surface that is without marked projections or depressions: a broad, flat face.

 

4.  lying horizontally and at full length, as a person; prostrate: 

 

So how could the earth possible be flat, since it has mountains and valleys? 

 

Also, the earth has great DEPTH. So if the Flat Earth retards are right, and the surface of the earth is shaped like a round disc, then the shape of the Earth as a whole would be a cylinder.

Refutation of Flat Earth stupidity

Here are some random thoughts I wrote down after watching a video that supposedly proved that the earth is flat.

The "flat earth" theory is more popular now than it has been in a few hundred years. From what I can tell, it is a YouTube trend for armchair 'scientists' and 'theologians'. Nobody in the real world has come to the conclusion that the earth is flat, the only people who think it is flat are people who watch YouTube all day. If you ask a flat earther "how did you get started on the flat earth theory", they will have to admit that they saw some dude teaching it on the internet....and of course, if it is on the internet then it must be true, right?

When you see people promoting the flat earth you can tell that they really LOVE the idea of it. It is part of their personality, they love the attention. They just love weird things, and the flat earth is the perfect conspiracy theory. It requires you to reject the popular view, conspiracy theorists love to be different. The FE theory also requires you to believe that NASA, pilots, all astronomers (even the Christian ones), and all world governments have been lying to everyone for hundreds of years. The common people have been being tricked into believing in a globe earth. Why? Why would anyone lie about the shape of the earth? Well, the flat earthers haven't figured that out yet themselves, but as soon as they think of something, I'm sure we'll see it on YouTube.

Flat Earthers like to pretend that the "globe earth" is a new idea, a lie, popularized by NASA (for some unknown reason). However, Greek astronomers believed in the globe earth in the third century BC.....so the globe is far from being a new NASA conspiracy. 

Conspiracy theorists have three areas of interest:

1. They like attention, which is their driving force for accepting conspiracies. They generally have no interest in popular/majority opinions and studies. (Ex. They had rather spend time studying supposed Sasquatches than real animals.)
2. They like things that are odd, extraordinary, and downright weird. They like things that will make their friends say, "Wow! Are you sure? I've never heard that before."
3. They have an affinity with deception. They view everyone that is not 'in on' their conspiracies as liars who are trying to brainwash the world. Conspiracy theorists think they are the only ones that know the truth about important matters.
   

Some professing Christians are conspiracy theorists, so naturally some of them have jumped on this Flat Earth bandwagon. Not only have they adopted the FE view, they have also tried to make it a Christian doctrine.

One FE kook has claimed that you cannot understand the Bible unless you believe in a flat shaped earth. "75 bible verses in congruance with a flat earth" 

And guess what? This same guy claims to have had contact with demons and aliens. His Youtube channel says, "I was attacked by demons, fought them off by not giving into my fear and then the next night I found a website that said alien abductions are actually demonic attacks and they stop in the name of Jesus. A couple of hours after that I got attacked by what I thought were aliens again and the first thing in my mind that I said was “Jesus help me” and it stopped." WEIRD!!! 
 
That video has 2,870 views, 77 likes, and only 17 dislikes. That is a lot of "likes" for such a stupid video. Further proof that the FE theorists are just YouTube watchers that have nothing better to do. 
 
These supposed Christians also like to pretend like regular people (globe believers) are not good Christians because we have believed the "evolutionist" lie of the globe earth. FE theorists try to link normal Christians with evolutionists because we believe in a globe earth. Which is dumb and not very nice. 
 
FE Christians have Athenian syndrome.
"For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing." (Acts 17:21)

What is ironic is that the FE theory is an agnostic/evolutionist theory. The head of the Flat Earth Society is an evolutionist, Daniel Shenton. The most popular FE theorist is Eric Dubay, a self proclaimed "vegan anarchist" yoga instructor in Thailand.
But, when these conspiracy-theory-loving Christians ran to their Bibles as soon as they heard about the FE on Youtube in order to find verses that they could read the FE theory into. The watched Eric Dubay on YouTube and said "Wow, this is awesome. I'm gonna try and find that in the Bible."

So here I have responded to the proof texts used by FE theorists. 

1.) "Four Corners": Flat earthers often use verses like Revelation 7:1 to say that the Earth cannot be a globe. They say that a globe cannot have four corners because it does not have points where two converging lines meet. However, most flat earthers believe that the earth is a 'flat' circular disc, so by that reasoning their earth model does not have four corners either! That is hypocritical in my opinion. It is clear that the "four corners" is just a reference to the whole earth. The "four corners" just refers to the whole earth, every direction, north/south/east/west. Such as Isaiah 11:12 "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." It is clear that the verse is just referring to the Jews being gathered from the whole earth. It is not saying that the earth has four edges that the Jews all went to. Webster's 1828 dictionary lists this as one of the definitions of "corner". "5. Indefinitely any part; a part. They searched every corner of the forest. They explored all corners of the country. 6. The end, extremity or limit; as the corners of the head or beard. Leviticus 21:5 and 19."

Ezekiel 7:2 says, "Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land." Obviously this is saying that all Israel is going to have an end come upon it, but flat earther logic would make this passage refer to judgment coming on the four edges of Israel (which would make no sense). 

Further, most flat earthers believe that their flat/circular earth has a ring of ice around it where nobody lives. They say that people cannot even get to the edge of it. So how did the Jews get to the edge of it in Isaiah 11:12?    
 

Not only that, but the Bible says that our head has corners. "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads," (Lev. 19:27)

2.) "Not Moved": Flat earthers use 1 Chronicles 16:30, Ps. 93:1, and 96:10 to teach that the Earth does not move (geocentricity has been called the 'gateway drug to the flat earth). However, the passages are millennial passages referring to the 'WORLD to come', the system that Christ will set up in His earthly reign (Matt. 19:28, Heb. 2:5). They are not referring to the "world" in a physical geographical sense, but a political world system. The world that will be established and not moved is the millennial age when Christ will be here to "judge the people righteously" and all the world rejoices, in contrast to our "present evil world" (Gal. 1:4). Flat earthers take the passage out of context and pretend like it is referring to the present physical earth, even though the passage clearly says "the world also shall be established". 1 Chronicles 16:33 clearly says that it is a Second Advent context.    
  
1 Chronicles 16:
[30] Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
[31] Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice: and let men say among the nations, The LORD reigneth.
[32] Let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof: let the fields rejoice, and all that is therein.
[33] Then shall the trees of the wood sing out at the presence of the LORD, because he cometh to judge the earth.
[34] O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever.
[35] And say ye, Save us, O God of our salvation, and gather us together, and deliver us from the heathen, that we may give thanks to thy holy name, and glory in thy praise.

Psalms 96:10 Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

3.) Sun's Circuit: Flat earthers say that the sun revolves above their flat stationary earth. They use Psalms 19:1-6 as a proof text.

Psalms 19:
[1] The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
[2] Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
[3] There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
[4] Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
[5] Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
[6] His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

The passage cannot be used as God's scientific declaration on geocentricity. Psalms 19 is a figurative passage as seen by the statements "Day unto day uttereth speech", "their words", "Which is AS a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth AS a strong man to run a race". The passage is written from man's perspective about what looking at the firmament "SHEWETH". From man's perspective the sun does rise and set. Because we are on the earth looking up at the heavens, to us it looks like the sun is moving. Psalms 19:5-6 is personifying the Sun ("his") AS a bridegroom coming out of his chamber and AS a strong man running a race.  

4.) Dome: The word "dome" isn't in the Bible. The word "firmament" means expanse, it is referring to the heavens. The birds fly "in the open firmament of heaven" (Gen. 1:20). The firmament is not a hard/glassy dome. There is a sea of glass in the third heaven at the throne of God (Rev. 4:6), but nowhere does the Bible say that there is one covering the earth. The Flat Earth dome-theory is not original to them, it is just a refried "canopy theory" idea. 
 
5.) "Pillars of the earth": Flat earth theorists use 1 Samuel 2:8 and Job 9:6 to teach that the earth is on stationary pillars. But Bible believer's know that the earth hangs on NOTHING..."He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." (Job 26:7)

The "pillars" of the earth are tectonic plates holding up the dry land. The earth has literal layers (and "bars" Jonah 2:6) that hold up the dry land. According to Job 9:6, these pillars "tremble" (like earth quakes). 

"He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them." (1 Samuel 2:8)

"Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble." (Job 9:6)  
 

Besides that, since when is Hannah's prayer a scientific declaration on the shape of the earth? 

--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell 

Did Paul Rebaptize? (Acts 19:1-7)

 

Published on Sep 30, 2016

Pastor David O'Steen, Hope Bible Church, 9/28/16

"The Pre-Tribulation Rapture"

 

Published on Sep 19, 2016

Pastor David O'Steen

Hope Bible Church

Locust Grove, GA

Hope Bible Church grace conference with Pastor Steve Atwood

Great conference at Hope Bible Church in Locust Grove, GA. Guest speaker Steve Atwood, pastor of Grace Bible Church in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Enjoy!

--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

Lord please talk to me!

Being the Atheists "enemy"

Another message from the Atheist:

"I argue these things because the safety of human intellect is in danger from terrorists insisting they 'know' the reality of life, the implied laws and guidelines that just one of thousands of imagined gods require, or else. You are my enemy, and as such we will beat back the ignorance, stupidity and willful endangerment of our youth and our future until it stops twitching. This is a fact."

All Atheists are Nazis at heart and they want to control the way you think. 

Psalms 53:
[1] The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
[2] God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God.
[3] Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

Religous Atheism

A former JW turned atheist sent me this...

"Yes, moral guidelines that, again, originate from the pen of a HUMAN, and evolution demonstrates where all of this comes from: empathy for survival of a population through recognized social acceptance."

"One day soon, like many species on this very planet, science will reveal the methods for eternal life. This is simply inevitable. It's a reality, its demonstrable, and above all, its realistic."

Evolution gives this atheist his morals and his 'eternal life'. This man is more religious than the Pope. 

The more you listen to atheists, the more you realize they are completely out of their skull.   

John 3:
[15] That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
[17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
[18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

Dr. Ruckman preaching the gospel

Dr. Ruckman giving the gospel...

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

Dr. Ruckman on Hyper Dispensationalism and the sinner's prayer

Someone wrote me recently and said that it is "Hyper Dispensationalists" that are against the sinner's prayer. However, one's dispensational position has no bearing on what they believe about the sinner's prayer.

Dr. Ruckman said that it was "Bible believing Christians" and "Bible Believing Baptists" that are against the sinner's prayer. In fact, when it comes to "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord" in Acts 2:21, Dr. Ruckman said that it is the Hypers that have the best of the argument. 

"Realizing this, a new group of heretics (in this case, Bible Believing Baptists) have come up saying that if a man prays to get saved (or more specifically prays the sinner's prayer), then he is lost." 
(Page 405 of The Book of Romans, The Bible Believer's Commentary Series, by Dr. Peter Ruckman)

"There is a movement among Bible believing Christians today that says if you pray to receive Christ, that is a work, and you aren't saved by works (Eph. 2:8-9; Tit. 3:5). The logical conclusion to such an argument is that if you prayed to get saved, that you are lost and need to be saved (again!). It is the Baptist version of the Brownsville Revival retreaders." 
(Page 566 of The Book of Luke, The Bible Believer's Commentary Series, by Dr. Peter Ruckman)

" "...whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (vs. 21). The verse is often linked to Romans 10:13 to prove that Peter, here, is preaching "the plan of salvation"; however, this is not the case, and again the "Hypers" have the best of the argument."
(Page 81 of The Book of Acts, the Bible Believer's Commentary Series, by Dr. Peter Ruckman)

By the way, if you check page 130 of Dr. Ruckman's commentary on Matthew you will see that he did not believe "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find" was written about repeating the so called "sinner's prayer". Dr. Ruckman said it was "more Old Testament than New" and said that it was instruction for a "Jew praying to the Father". Dr. Ruckman then said that the passage has "spiritual truth" that can be applied to Christian prayer. He did not believe it was referring to lost Gentiles in the present dispensation of grace. 

It is impossible for Matthew 7:7 to be referring to lost people because "God heareth not sinners" (Isa. 59:1-2, Ps. 34:15-16, Matt. 7:21, John 9:31, 1 Pet. 3:12, Prov. 15:29, 28:9). The passage plainly says that the prayer is addressed to the "Father which is in heaven" (vs. 11), a lost person's father is the devil (John 8:44). 

Besides that, Matthew 7:7 would contradict Romans 10:20 if it were referring to lost Gentiles... 

Romans 10:20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.

Robert Breaker has an excellent video dealing with the sinner's prayer and Matthew 7:7. 

Also check out Mr. Breaker's ebook, The heresy of the sinner's prayer
http://www.rrb3.com/mypub/books/hrsy_sin_pryr.htm

And also "The Reasons Why We Left Our Old Home Church"
http://www.rrb3.com/Left/reasons_left_church.htm

As I have said many times, this is my position on the "sinner's prayer":

"Therefore, since salvation is received by faith alone without any mixture of works, prayer has absolutely no part whatsoever in salvation. To tell someone they will be saved by "repeating after you" is a false gospel that denies the truth that Christ is the only mediator between God and men (1 Tim. 2:5). To tell someone to pray in order to be saved is to be telling them to offer their works to God in order to be saved (Col. 4:12, Heb. 5:7). 

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

--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

"Dangerous Gospel Cliches" preached by Pastor David O'Steen

 

Published on Jul 26, 2016

Pastor David O'Steen, Hope Bible Church, 7/24/16

Excellent sermon preached by Pastor O'Steen on the dangerous gospel cliches that are out there.  (sinner's prayer, turn from sin, etc.) Many people claim to believe in justification by faith without works, but then when you point out that justification by faith excludes the sinner's prayer, they get very angry. Sad!

 

"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal. 1:6-12)

--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

"What is Hyperdispensationalism?" by Pastor David O'Steen

John Davis (Time For Truth! UK) should listen to this....

"Hyperdispensationalism" preached by Pastor David O'Steen of Hope Bible Church in Locust Grove, GA. (preached on August 8, 2010 while still Landmark Baptist Church)

--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

The falsely so called "Great Commission" heresy

["So called Great Commission" preached by Pastor David O'Steen, Hope Bible Church. Locust Grove, GA]

ALL commissions that God has ever given are great, there is no such animal as "THE great commission". 

Matthew 28:19-20, Mark 16:15-20, John 20:20-23, and Luke 21:45-53 are not being followed by anyone today, and anyone who says they are following that commission is purposefully lying. 

That commission was the commission of the 12 apostles of Israel and the other disciples to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom to all nations before the end came....

Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The church the Body of Christ will be raptured to Heaven BEFORE Daniel's 70th Week and the end of the world (Phil. 3:20-21, 1 Thes. 1:10, 5:9, Rom. 5:9, 13:11-12). 

Under the Dispensation of Grace we do not preach the Gospel of the Kingdom, we preached the Gospel of the Grace of God committed to Paul (Acts 20:24, Gal. 1:11-12, 2:1-9, Rom. 2:16, 11:13, 15:15-16, 16:25, 2 Tim. 2:8, 1 Cor. 4:15-16, Eph. 3:1-9, 6:19, etc.).   

The Gospel of the Kingdom is about Christ restoring the earthly kingdom to Israel with Himself as their King (Matt. 2:2, 5:35, Luke 1:31-33, 1:67-79). That is exactly what Peter (the apostle of the circumcision--Gal. 2:7-9) preached to Israel according to Acts 1:6, 2:30, and 3:19-26. 

For more scriptures on defining the "gospel of the kingdom", see this post...
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-gospel-of-kingdom.html

The red letters were not written to or about you....

"But he [Christ] answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 15:24)  

The Pauline epistles are what Christ has to say to us Gentiles under Grace....

"For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:" (Romans 11:13)

"Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." (1 Corinthians 11:1-2)

--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

"One Less God" by Pastor Justin Johnson

One Less God by Pastor Justin Johnson
http://graceambassadors.com/god/one-less-god

Who hasn’t heard this atheist cliché in response to Joe Christian:

“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do.”

It is a puzzle to me why anyone would repeat this since it is either a statement of something so obviously elementary, or a conclusion so erroneous that it halts productive conversation. 

Nevertheless, it still gets good traction even by well-known atheists. The Bible says fools can be expected to say foolish things (Psalm 14:1).

What is Obvious
It is obvious to everyone that the atheist (someone who does not believe in any god), believes in one less god than the mono-theist (someone who believes in one god). After all, we all learned in elementary that 1-1 = 0.

However, this is something hardly in contention. In fact, it is agreed upon by all who can count. If atheism were belief in fewer gods then everyone would be atheist, since everyone disbelieves at least one conception of God (even pantheists reject a personal god). This makes the term meaningless. 

However, all of this is a distraction and irrelevant to the real issue separating Bible believing Christians and the atheist – is there one God or none god.

One or None
The statement claims that going from one God to no god is merely a matter of degree, like going from 10 gods to one God. This is simply not so.

The reason that Christians reject other gods is not the same reason that the atheists do. Atheists reject all gods, because they reject the existence of any god, even the one who made them. Christians reject other gods, because the Bible reveals the one true God.

Discerning between whether something exists at all, is different than discerning whether something is right and true. Saying, “Jupiter is not God”, is not the same as saying, “there are no gods”. The former is a comparison to the one true God, while the latter makes no comparison.

Here’s an example. If everyone in my church claimed to be President Obama, they would all be wrong. They would all be false Obamas. There is only one President Obama. However, that we all can properly identify President Obama against the lookalikes and copycats, does not prevent us from believing that President Obama exists. Yet this is what the atheist declares when he says he believes in one less Obama than you.

In fact, knowing the one real Obama is how the false ones can be identified as false. Since the atheist claims not to know God, there is now way of knowing any god is true. Strangely, this gives the atheist more reason to blindly believe in Santa Claus, Zeus, Thor, or the flying spaghetti monster than any Christian. They do not know which is real, so they are all legitimate possibilities when considering any god at all. This is why the atheist thinks the Christian god is no different than the others. Not knowing the true God means Jehovah is no different Baal.

In this way, the atheist sounds like a single woman who has not met the right man, and as a result jumps to the hopeless error that men don’t exist. That is silly, and so are atheists. There is a true God, atheists just do not know him.

Christians Who Think Like Atheists
Atheists are not the only ones to make this mistake in thinking. Christians who have never been taught to rightly divide the scriptures get frustrated at trying to understand the Bible. With so many interpretations, who is right?

It is not uncommon for the Christian confused about the Bible to throw their hands in the air and claim that the Bible cannot be understood and that there is no truth at all.

When someone learns how to rightly divide the Bible, and begins to understand it, they realize how much wrong teaching there is in the world. Rejecting a million wrong teachings is not a rejection of truth, it is a greater understanding of it.

Understanding the Bible rightly divided will help you discern truth from error and right from wrong. Denying false gods and false teachings does not mean Christians deny truth, it means they can discern truth and become stronger Christians.

The lack of strong Bible believing rightly dividing Christians is what creates atheists who deny all claims to know truth. I contend that the Christian who does not rightly divide and the atheist are both in the same boat; neither knows how to discern right and wrong from scripture.

One God, One Truth, One Bible Rightly Divided
When a scientist rejects false science, it does not make him a denier of all science, but a denier of wrong science. There is a big difference. If more evolutionists grasped this there would be less claims that creationists reject all science (Bill Nye), but many evolutionists are either atheists or Christians who fail to rightly divide… go figure.

If there is a right answer; there is only one. No more and no less. There are millions of wrong answers.

If there is a right God; there must be only one. No more and no less. There are millions of false gods.

Believing in one less God than the Christian is a denial of what is true and right. This is the big predicament for the atheist. How do they know what is right?

There is one God, there is one truth. There is one Lord Jesus Christ who is the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col 2:9). There is one Bible which is God’s words, and it must be rightly divided. 

A failure to discern what is right, will lead to a rejection of it. For the atheist, believing in one less god than the Christian monotheist makes all the difference in the world. 

Top of the Page
Article Index
Published: July 9, 2016
Last Modified: July 9, 2016

Evolution is....

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen." --Dr. Duane Gish

Can you be a scientist and a creationist?

Atheist's response to my anti-Darwinist post against Bill Nye the "science" guy:
"Read the article. The article was mostly rubbish. Nye got a few Bible facts wrong, but after that the article fell to bits with its own ignorant spew. hell, it had Morris and Gish as prominent scientists.The general effect was to leave Nye unscarred and to leave the author of the article looking like a goose."

Hoss's response:
"A "few Bible facts wrong"? The bird said that the Bible had been translated into English countless times in the past 5,000 years. There are kids that know English has not been around for 5,000 years. Where did it have Morris and Gish as "prominent scientist"? They were in the list, but so were a lot of other people. But, I suppose Dr. Gish could be considered a prominent scientist, since he had a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Berkeley."

Atheist's response:
"Having a Phd doesn't make you prominent. But you are right- it didn't say "prominent". Not that it matters. Neither Gish nor Morris were scientists once they gave up real science and began promoting debunked and disproven nonsense. As for the bit about English- that's just an obvious slip."

Hoss's response:
"Thanks for the reply. I think it depends on your definition of prominent. The word can mean 'well known' or it can mean 'important'. Gish and Morris were both well known, not because they were creationists, but because they were scientists with PhDs that believed and promoted creation. You say "Gish nor Morris were scientists once they gave up real science", but it is my understanding that they were always creationists. I don't think they ever "gave up" evolution. You seem to be indicating that only people who believe in macro-evolution are scientists (perhaps I am misunderstanding you). Wouldn't that mean that there were no scientists before 1859 when Darwin published his book? Most American medical doctors are not evolutionists. As seen in the blog post, world renown neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson is a staunch creationist that does not believe in macro-evolution. Nobody could question his medical science expertise and experience. I would also like to add the fact that Charles Darwin is often inaccurately credited with the discovery of natural selection, but several people already had wrote about it before him. One of which was a creationist named Edward Blyth (1810-1873) who was a zoologist. He is actually someone that helped Charles Darwin learn more about selection. Darwin wrote on pg. 18 of the Origin of Species, "Mr. Blyth, whose opinion, from his large and varied stores of knowledge, I should value more than that of almost any one, "

I haven't read much of Morris or Gish, but what is the "debunked and disproven nonsense" that they promoted? (were you just referring to creationism as a whole or were you referring to specific teachings of theirs?)"

Atheist's response:
"Any scientist that promotes a disproven model of science- whether ot is creationism or astrology or homeopathy has forsaken their status. The usual result is to be ostracised. The primary claims of creationism are indeed disproven. 1) Young Earth- disproven. 2) Special Creation- disproven 3) World Wide Flood- disproven."

Hoss's response:
"I don't see how someone's religious beliefs could negate their scientific education and experience unless it affected how they perform the needful tests/observations in their field. Did Morris and Gish's creation beliefs have a negative impact on their hydraulic engineering and biochemistry work? I don't think so. Did Dr. Carson's creationist beliefs have negative affects on his abilities to perform surgeries? I don't think so. Raymond Damadian's creationist beliefs did not stop him from inventing the MRI scanner either. I don't see how a person's belief about origins affects their scientific operating skills. (but I'm not a scientist)"

--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

Using Multiple Bible Versions in a Single Sermon!

So true!

James White caught in a lie (Prov. 30:5-6)

Oops! James White accidentally called the King James Bible the word of God! Maybe there is hope for him yet...

"What I encourage you to do, look at what God's word says. Not what men say about it. Use the King James Version, as long as you can understand it..." 1:34-1:44

Actually, what is happening is James White is lying. Like all modern perversion proponents, James White will refer to any version as "the word of God" (excluding the New World Translation) when he does NOT believe it is actually the word of God. 

For a book to be the word of God it has to be  PURE, RIGHT, HOLY, and GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD.

"The words of the LORD are pure words..." (Ps. 12:6)

"For the word of the LORD is right..." (Ps. 33:4)

"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures...All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:15-16)

James White does not believe that ANY version in ANY language is the "word of God", unless he has a strange definition of "word of God". He does not believe that the King James Bible is "pure", "right", "holy", or "given by inspiration". 

Proponents of modern versions will lie and claim that they believe "THE Bible" is the word of God, but then when you ask them what they meant by that they will tell you that they were not referring to any book in their hand and that all the bibles we have today contain errors. They believe that only the so called "originals" were inspired and that God has not preserved His word in any coherent form.

For further refutation of White's rubbish, see these articles..

The James White Controversy by Dr. Gail Riplinger (from Blind Guides)   http://www.kingjamesbiblebelievers.com/depository/?cat=136 

The King James Only Controversy by James White Answered, by Hugo W.K. Schönhaar http://kjv.landmarkbiblebaptist.net/Schonhaar.html

A public spanking to James White, by Cecil Carter
http://www.maranath.ca/white.htm

Especially read Dr. Alan O'Reilly's excellent critique of James White's book, The King James Only Controversy. Very detailed, 818 pages. You can read it at John Davis's Time For Truth website
http://www.timefortruth.co.uk/content/pages/documents/1431867720.pdf  

Also get a copy of Dr. Peter Ruckman's The Scholarship Only Controversy.
http://store.kjv1611.org/the-scholarship-only-controversy/



Or Dr. Thomas Holland's review




http://www.kingjamesbiblebelievers.com/depository/?p=1940 

Then there is Dr. Kirk DiVietro's critique as well...

http://store.kjv1611.org/why-not-the-king-james-bible/ 



James White and the Big Deal KJV Video Series - Dr. Sam Gipp

         

What's the big deal with James White? by Pastor Steven Anderson

 

 Also see these articles by Dr. Gail Riplinger:

Big White Lies : James White Wants Authority Over God’s Word in The KJV 

https://2peter3.com/big-white-lies-james-white-wants-authority-over-gods-word-in-the-kjv/

More Big White Lies : James White Tries to Hide

https://2peter3.com/more-big-white-lies-james-white-tries-to-hide/

Or these other posts...

James White's Confusion on Riplinger's "acrostic algebra"
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/james-whites-confusion-on-riplingers.html 

James White's "The King James Only Controversy" 
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/06/james-whites-king-james-only-controversy.html 

Critique of the King James Only Controversy (part 1)  
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/critique-of-king-james-only-controversy.html

Critique of the King James Only Controversy (part 2) 
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/critique-of-king-james-only-controversy_1.html

Critique of the King James Only Controversy (part 3) 
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/critique-of-king-james-only-controversy_5243.html

Critique of the King James Only Controversy (part 4)
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/critique-of-king-james-only-controversy_3905.html

Critique of the King James Only Controversy (part 5) 
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/critique-of-king-james-only-controversy_2745.html 

James White's Attack on John 14:14
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/james-whites-attack-on-john-1414.html  

A critique of James R. White's "Alpha and Omega" ministries
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-critique-of-james-r-whites-alpha-and.html 


 --Eli "Hoss" Caldwell