Get Back To The Bible


Pretty much ending my series for now on revival and getting back to a Biblical Christianity, lets… get back to a Biblical Christianity.
It’s not hard.There’s nothing controversial about it.

We as Christians simply need to repent. If it’s a doctrine that can’t be found in a Bible, it needs to be tossed. Centering prayer, contemplative prayer, Joel Osteen visualizing, reincarnation, karma, universalism, evangelicalism, cooperating with the unsaved, accepting all religions as teaching the same truths, mantra chanting, reiki healing, chakras, auras, healing touch, blab it and grab it, salvation by baptism, salvation by predestination, these are all UNBIBLICAL and PAGAN.

We need to separate from these teachings. If you have books that advocate them, throw them away, donate them, or burn them (unless you are collecting them for apologetics purposes for research – it’s a little known fact David Cloud has a huge library of false Christian teachings which he uses to look up sources).

All that old, boring stuff that the older generations call Christianity – yup, that was Christianity, and we need to get back to it.

When I got saved, I turned to looking for, “what part of Christianity is known for sticking to the Bible?” I found it was the Baptists. So I searched for a Bible believing Baptist church. I’ve told that story before, but here’s my point – we need to toss anything out of the churches that is not Biblical.
Bottom line – let’s get back to God.

Advertisements

The King James Bible issue explained (for people who don’t know)


King James BibleIn light of Phil Stringer’s speech to the King James organizations last year (which I finally just listened to!) I thought I’d explain the whole King James issue.

One person who reads my blog wrote on their own blog, “I don’t mind the King James issue, but I hate the people who defend it.” And to a certain extent, I can’t blame them for thinking this way. Presumably that means me as well, but hey… a lot of us do deserve the comments. I’ll explain.

For starters, no one person speaks for the King James only movement. There’s a lot of people who speak for the issue. And there’s several that most of us frankly wish, would shut up.

I don’t own any writings, ebooks or audio recordings by Gail Riplinger. She’s written some things that I’ve seen quoted that I agree with… and she’s written many things that I do not agree with.

She’s said many mean-spirited things… and honestly, some wild-eyed things that make us KJV defenders all look like idiots. I own – and use – a Strong’s concordance. From what I’ve seen quoted in it, the “Toxic” book sounds like, well, lunacy. She’s done a poor job of research, and makes the same mistake a lot of evangelical Christians do as well.

Briefly, if I get a book published by Tyndale, I’d probably be bouncing like an idiot. “I got published! Yes!!!” I’d send my manuscript off, check my proofs carefully, and very possibly, if the editor was feeling generous, I might even get to okay the book cover.

It does not mean I’m having any secret meetings with any of the other Tyndale publishers. Let’s just hypothesize that James White also landed a publishing deal with Tyndale. It doesn’t mean we’re getting together and having coffee. It also doesn’t mean he and I are plotting to edit (HORRORS!) or destroy the King James Bible.

Gail Riplinger does make those kinds of leaps of logic. But so do a lot of evangelical Christians I’ve seen books by. Many of the people who investigate the Illuminati, new world order, etc make those very same leaps of logic. I guess it’s okay for Texe Marrs to do it, but not a King James only person?

Let me briefly distance myself from another King James defender I wish would shut up. Or at least tone it down. Peter Ruckman. The man’s a cult leader. He makes some very strange statements, is very bigoted, and no doubt would dismiss me as a “jackass” and a “kike”. Yes, he does talk like that. My seminary president visited his church once, and testified that yes, Ruckman says the “N” word from the pulpit. Racism really is not helping the cause of the King James Bible any.

Those kind of people really do the King James world a disservice. NO, I don’t stand on street corners with a megaphone shouting, “You’re going to hell! You’re going to Hell!” Peter S. Ruckman’s church does that, from what Marc Monte says.

Okay, there you go. I know I’m rough. I know I speak very strongly. But then again, I’ve read the Bible a lot, and Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Joel, and many others did so as well. I get so absolutely fed up with people – heretics, really – question the bible, deny the Bible, make up their own doctrine, and steer my Christian brethren on a sleepwalking road back to Rome. So, I tend to speak very harshly about such people.

So, let me explain the King James issue. I know you’re not James White. I know you’re not Ron Rhodes. I know you’re not John Ankerberg. These people all speak against the King James issue, and in reality,most of the people who speak against the King James Issue have never studied it.

When you see us slam the opponents of the King James issue, pause and consider this – we’re defending our beliefs. And many of the people that oppose us often have agendas. And many of them hold to secret heresies they won’t admit to. That’s very often the people we’re mentally imagining when we write these articles.

The first thing you should be aware of is… who is on these Bible translating committees? Check these people out. Read about the names of these people. Oh, wow… hey, James White is on the translating committee of some modern translations – that means financially he’s got a stake in attacking the ing James Only movement!

What about Virginia Mollenkot? What are her beliefs about Bible inerrancy, God, the inspiration and preservation of Scripture?

What about Cardinal Carlo Martini? The Jesuit? What agenda does he have?

What about some of these other names? Kurt Aland. Matthew Black, Bruce Metzger, Allen Wikgren? what do these people believe? What are their statements of faith? Should these people be deciding how to translate the Greek texts into English? Some words such as Uranos can mean heaven or sky. Do you want someone who does not believe in heaven translating your Bible?

Let me ask a question – and again, I understand that many of you have simply never been educated in the Bible issue.

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 1 Timothy 4:1 (KJV)

Okay, we all understand, agree, and are aware the Bible says that in the last times heretics will arise.

1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. 2 Peter 2:1-3 (KJV)

Even the most trusting evangelical Christian begins to suspect this may not be a person in the congregation, but also pastors as well.

If Satan was going to weaken Christians and lead them astray, where’s the best places to get his tools? His wolves? In the pulpits.

And translating your Bibles

Are you aware that Kurt Aland, of the Nestle’-Aland Greek Texts, is a heretic? He does not even accept that the 66 books we have in our Bible belong there. And he’s open to other books being put in, and probably even some of ours being taken out. There’s quotes from Aland about that very subject. Read them.

And keep in mind, he’s the man responsible for the Greek texts used by the Bible societies.

Scared yet? You should be.

Because the truth is that all the modern texts come from codex sinaiticus – a Greek text that a known manuscript forger confessed to forging over 100 years ago… – and from a copy of Codex Vaticanus. Not the original, but a copy. Vaticanus is exhibited at the Vatican library, but if it looks like you’re reading it or translating it, it’s yanked away and placed back in the back rooms.

Neither of these books are complete. Sinaiticus has several apocryphal texts and pseudopigraphal texts in it. Does that mean we should be accepting these books as canon?

Sinaiticus is written in the wrong Greek, Attic Greek, not in Koine greek – this places it either in the wrong era (100 BC) or… as a clumsy forgery. And remember, Constantinus Simonides (a known Bible and manuscript forger) had already admitted to forging it early in his career. Even he admitted it was a clumsy forgery!

Here’s the issue. Vaticanus does not have some books. Sinaiticus does not have some books. They disagree with each other in tens of thousands of places.
If I were to translate the New Testament from these texts, I’d have years of heartache about it, trying to decide which of the texts are correct. Do I choose the verse that is missing half the words, or do I choose the one that has left out some words? One verse is missing in one text the name of God, the other is missing the name of Christ. Almost every reference to fasting is removed from one of the manuscripts.

And both of them disagree GREATLY with over 5200 other Greek Texts, that all the Christian churches had been using since the times of the Apostles.

Now, those 5200 agree. There’s some minor copying errors between them, and a few misspelled words – but aside from that, they all agree. You can go from one to the other of those 5,200 manuscripts and find that they all pretty much say exactly the same thing word for word.

So, which would you choose? The copy of Vaticanus and the possibly forged, incomplete Greek text that disagrees with Vaticanus in 10,000 places? Or the 5,200 other manuscripts?

You and I would find this one a no-brainer. Go with 2 flawed manuscripts, or go with the 5,200 ones that agree? I think we’d all turn to the really big pile. The work would actually go faster. You don’t have to decide which version to go with! You just simply read them, and when you come to a repeated word or a space that looks like a word was misspelled or left out, you consult another. You could do it with three or four manuscripts.

Or, you could use one of the manuscripts that’s already been compiled by men who’ve done just that! The compilation often bears the same name as the same family of texts, the Textus-Receptus.

But what do Nestle and Aland choose? Or Wescott and Hort? What did they ALL choose for the modern translations? Why, the forged manuscript and the copy provided by the Vatican.

Huh. The… very choice you’d expect men who deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the inspiration, preservation and canon of the Bible to make.

It’s the only conclusion I can come to. The protests of James White and John Ankerberg cannot sweep away that fact. They’re choosing texts that are flawed, incomplete, and possibly forged.

By an amazing coincidence, these Greek texts neglect almost every reference to fasting. They omit many references to the Blood of Jesus Christ. There’s a few Charismatics who follow this blog. They’d be shocked to find that out!

And many of the verses deliberately change many of the verses that affirm the deity of Christ. Would you trust the manuscripts that affirm many times that Jesus Christ is God, that ye must be born again, that Christ rose from the dead? Or do you want the ones that omit these references?

this is the King james only issue. This is the issue at hand. And Christians who love the Bible, once they become aware of it and begin looking up the translations of various verses, all become convinced of the issue. And they get fighting mad!

I’m furious we have allowed men like Bruce Metzger who denies openly the deity of Jesus Christ and calls Genesis “a fable” to translate our Bibles. We allow Unitarians to suggest wordings they can live with. After all , the thought of Hell makes Unitarians uncomfortable! If they deny the existence of Hell, and give it names like “tartarus” “gehenna” and “hades”, they can sleep a little easier at night.

Because they deny that Jesus Christ is God. And if you believe that, you are not saved. And if you’re not saved, where will you go when you die?

If you’d like, I can list verse after verse after verse that will scare you and will make you put away your other Bibles. And even get you to the point that you will start calling the Modern Bible Versions… well, you’ll start adding the prefix “per” to “version.”

I’m betting that if you can stay a follower of my often-too blunt blog for more than a week, you must be a committed Christian with a love for Christ and His Bible. And if that’s the case, you need to look into this issue. Because a lot is at stake.

Neo-Barthianism


Neo Barthianism

Karl Barth

To Karl Barth, once a liberal himself, that was misplaced optimism in man’s essential nature. Man, he said, was a sinner, desperately in need of God’s help in bridging the gap between himself as a sinful creature and the transcendent Lord and Creator. This God did in Christ. To Barth, Jesus in the strict sense is the only valid revelation. Barth was so narrow in this that he defined other mighty acts for man’s salvation, like the virgin birth, even the resurrection of Christ, as signs of revelation, but not revelation in themselves. So also the Bible! It was merely a written record or witness to the revelation itself, and, therefore, must not be identified as revelation. For Barth the Bible was merely a record where we confront the human attempts to repeat and reproduce God’s mighty acts by recounting them in human words and thoughts, according to human situations. It was misdirected honor to call the Bible revelation. Emil Brunner agreed, stating that revelation cannot be either book or doctrine, but only God himself. Thus revelation is something that really goes on in man, illumination within the questing heart; it is the “Word of God,” specifically Christ, coming directly to the heart of man (so Barth); the “personal encounter” (so Brunner); the “I-thou relationship” (so Friedrich Gogarten 1887–1967); the “kerygma” which leads to self-realization and authentic existence (so Rudolf Bultmann 1884–1976); the “word event,” or faith of Jesus rather than in Jesus (so Gerhard Ebeling and Ernst Fuchs). In each case there is rejection of the Bible, or its propositional truths, or its doctrines as revelation, and a corresponding elevating of the personal encounter of the believer with God as the only genuine revelation or revelatory happening prompted by God. This also implied that there could be no revelation where it is not received or where man fails to encounter God.

Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, “Revelation,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 1846.

Of all those men quoted above, almost all of them were Christ deniers and theological liberals.

If you read that and didn’t skip over it, you’ll see that Barth denied the Bible, but affirmed Jesus.

I’m sorry, that’s just not going to fly. Jesus Christ affirmed the Bible. If you deny the Bible and affirm Jesus, you’re affirming… a different Jesus.
Why did Barth decide that the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ were not acts of salvation? Why then did he disregard them?
Because – he didn’t believe in them.

Karl Barth (1886–1968), though one of the most influential theologians in recent history, held a defective and dangerous view of inspiration, a view many continue to propagate. Barthians generally align themselves with the liberal school of biblical criticism. Yet they often preach like evangelicals. This makes Barthianism more dangerous than blatant liberalism.

Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 85.

I do not wish to leave you with the impression that it is my view that if we only understood Barth better, we would find that he was an evangelical. He was not—not in the American sense of that term, at least.

Vincent Bacote, Laura C. Miguélez, and Dennis L. Okholm, Evangelicals & Scripture: Tradition, Authority, and Hermeneutics (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 73.

The bottom line about Barth is this – he rejected the Bible and embraced a Jesus separated from the Bible. In his circle of “The word of God” he included men. The Resurrection of the Dead he attributed to “man’s involvement with Christ.”

In other words, he thought that men resurrected themselves by being plugged into Jesus somehow, like an electric outlet providing power to a lamp.

Why is this an issue? Why am I even bothering with this? Karl Barth died many years ago. If he was unsaved – and I’m making a good case for it – then why bother? He’s gone on to his judgment!

Because – most people who think they are Christians are Barthians. They believe the same things.

If he wasn’t saved… what about them?

What do you believe?

If you cannot understand your Bible, you’re getting left behind at the Rapture


I’m paying close attention to modern Christianity, and I’m getting a hugely uncomfortable feeling.

I no longer recognize Evangelical Christianity.

What I am hasn’t changed. Oh, sure, I’ve tried updating a few ways I do things with Narrow is the Way… More compact blog posts, headlines to lead Evangelicals to click on the headlines and… well, learn something about Biblical Christianity.

But what passes for Christianity today has me completely baffled. I’ve gone from the conclusion that most of Christianity does not read their Bible – to one of most Christians are incapable of understanding the Bible.

Hint – if you cannot understand your Bible – and you need to copy this and paste it into whatever social media you use!…

If you cannot understand your Bible, you’re getting left behind at the Rapture. (Philip Dean)

If you cannot understand your Bible – you’re not going to heaven. (Philip Dean)

There! Paste away!

Why do I say that? Because if you read your Bible – and can’t make heads or tails of it – then you’re not saved. I’ve been saying this for five years.
“You’re a heretic! The Bible doesn’t say that!!! You Pharisee, adding things to the Bible!!!!”

Bible doesn’t say that? Read… and get scared.

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14, KJV)

The Natural Man – one who is not saved… receiveth not… neither can he know them.

In other words, if you’re not saved, you don’t understand the Bible – and really don’t care to!

Let’s say you’re in a Fundamentalist church, and you hear someone at the potluck or church picnic loudly proclaim, “Bible or no Bible, I’m not going to….” “Shhhhh!!”

The attitude reflects a tare. Not wheat. Doesn’t matter if you’re attending a Fundamentalist church or not! We’ve got tares too.

I am reading things from Christianity I do not recognize. I still read the articles Logos puts out. Recently I read a famous Christian musician’s quote where he said that….

During their years in Indiana, the Mullins family’s pastor challenged them to read Scripture for themselves as he preached. He insisted they not take his word for it, but look for context in verses before and after sermon texts. Years later, Mullins said the Bible “does not give us answers fitted to our small-minded questions, but truth that goes beyond what we even know to ask.”

Um… that’s not something a Christian would say. “The Bible has the answers.” “The Bible for Today!” “The Word of God is unchanging…”

That’s a Universalist “Everyone goes to Heaven” answer. “My God is too big to be put in a Box.” Someone told me once. “You keep your God in a Box.”

What in the world does that mean, really???

It means, “Bible or no Bible, I’m not going to…”

Don’t agree with me? Then what does that mean???

When I say that my God will never contradict His Bible, and you tell me, “YOU PUT GOD IN A BOX!!!”…
What are you saying?

So, let’s get onto today’s subject, now that I’ve led into this, and let’s talk about how Evangelical Christianity no longer resembles the faith of the Bible.

In ANY sense of the word!

Quick question: Are members of a religion that believes that they are gods Christian?
I’ll give you the correct answer first: NO.

We wouldn’t call Hindu’s Christians. So if we wouldn’t call Hindu’s Christians, we shouldn’t call Mormons Christians.
Would we call members of a religion that insist on praying to idols and salvation by works Christianity? No? Then why are we calling Roman Catholics Christians???

I’m serious about this last part. It really seems like 99% of Christianity is completely convinced that Roman Catholics are Christians. Since Logos 7 came out, the only way to avoid buying a LOT of Roman Catholic materials and propaganda is to buy… the Baptist package.
And when you buy the Baptist package, 75% of the materials you get is Calvinist, which is not Baptist.

Here’s some blunt, powerful, well thought out Fundamentalist statements. This is Christianity. Ready?
Jesus Christ died to save you from your sins.. He alone paid the price.
His mother was a human woman, in need of a saviour herself, in need of redemption. Without Jesus Christ, Mary, Joseph, Paul, Peter, John, Jude, David Cloud, and you and me…
…would all burn in Hell forever.
There is ONLY ONE WAY to be saved. And that’s by being born again.
Ye must be born again.” John 3.3.

Being Born Again is not being sprinkled. Being Sprinkled as a baby or an adult is not being baptized. I notice in all the Jesus movies Hollywood put out, John the Baptist never Baptized anyone. He just washed their hair.

Ready to know what Christianity is? Repent.

“I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:3, KJV)
“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3, KJV)
“Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;” (John 8:31, KJV)
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6, KJV)

If you’re a Christian, you believe Salvation is of grace alone by faith alone without works, that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation, that if you are not born again you will suffer eternal torment in Hell for all eternity. It means you believe the Bible literally, and strive to conform your beliefs to that of the Bible.

It means you are not born again by being sprinkled. It means being born again is a spiritual event, because you are undergoing spiritual rebirth. You desire to be forgiven, and you turn to Jesus Christ.

It’s not by raising your hand. It’s not by walking to the front of the church. It’s not by repeating a prayer word for word. It’s by a recognition that you are a sinner in need of salvation, doomed to eternity in Hell fire.
Being a Christian has nothing to do with wealth. It has nothing to do with health. It has nothing to do with finances. It has nothing to do with being happy, levitating, shaking, barking like a dog, laughing endlessly, being drunk, astral projection, tuning your thoughts into the right frequency as you sit with pen in hand to write down whatever some demon that calls itself Jesus tells you to write.
The Secret is not Christianity. Oprah is not Christianity. Jesus Calling is not Christianity. What you see on TBN is not Christianity, it is a circus. Benny Hinn is not Christianity. Kenneth Copeland is not Christianity. Joel Osteen is not Christianity.
Christianity is Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Want to hear God speak? Read your Bible. Want to hear God speak audibly? Read your Bible out loud.

“I’m a new Christian. What Christian TV show should I watch?”
You should put a CD of Alexander Scourby reading the Bible into your DVD player. If you’d like, you can stare at a blank screen while you hear that.

“What teacher should I listen to?”
Jesus Christ.

Mormons are not Christian. Roman Catholics are not Christian. Church of Christ are not Christian. Seventh Day Adventists are not Christian. Any church that advocates child baptism is not Christian.

Understand that I just about rejected every Protestant church with that statement.

And if you think going to a Baptist church is enough to save you, then you’re not a Christian either.
Jesus Christ alone saves you. Once we get that settled, we can turn to getting you into a Fundamentalist Church.

Evangelical Christianity has gone from scaring me terribly, to me writing it off altogether.

The tracts for the rapture need to be re-written. It’s not “millions missing.”

I’m afraid the answer may be indeed… “thousands missing.”

“Open Fire” by Paige Patterson


http://www.sermonaudio.com/new_details.asp?ID=46571

A Southern Baptist seminary president said Nov. 29 that Baptists who adopt Calvinistic theology and practice ought to consider joining another denomination.“I know there are a fair number of you who think you are a Calvinist, but understand there is a denomination which represents that view,” Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, said at the close of Tuesday’s chapel service. “It’s called Presbyterian.”

As a former Southern Baptist, I can say this is “open fire” almost at the very last second before losing the convention forever. There are too many Presbyterians in the SBC holding teaching positions. As I said before, if you’re Calvinist… go get your own convention. There is no such thing as a “Calvinist Baptist”. There is only a Baptist with confused soteriology, or there is Presbyterians.

Other posts on the same topic…

What’s Wrong With Baptists?

Southern Baptists Need Their Sovereign Grace Heritage

Your sermon to listen to courtesy of Marc Monte!

http://www.sermonaudio.com/playpopup.asp?SID=41706211051

Those Fundamentalist Pharisees by David Cloud


Updated September 24 2014 (first published August 2, 1996)(David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org)

Christians who have strong biblical convictions are often labeled “Pharisees.”

The following are a few examples of the probably hundreds of times people have written to called me a Pharisee.

“I wonder what makes Mr. Cloud so sure he’s right and everybody else is wrong? Look at the Pharisees, Mr. Cloud, and then look in the mirror!”

“You’re the best example I think I’ve ever seen of the Pharisee who sits at the front of the synagogue giving thanks for not being a sinner like everyone else.”

“I figured you were a Baptist organization. You are nothing more than modern day Pharisees! Judgmental ignorant people. Get a grip.”

To label a Bible-believing Christian who is passionate to honor Christ and to obey God’s Word a Pharisee is a slander, because the error of Phariseeism was not their zeal to obey the Scripture. They had no such zeal. They were zealous, rather, to create their own religious system and to exalt their own self-righteousness.

A biblical definition of Phariseeism is as follows:

1. Phariseeism is supplanting the Word of God with man-made tradition and thereby making the Word of God of none effect. “Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mat. 15:7-9).

2. Phariseeism is rejecting Jesus Christ. “Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils” (Mat. 12:22-24).

3. Phariseeism is perverting the Gospel of the free grace of Christ into a work’s salvation. “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves” (Mat. 23:15).

4. Phariseeism is self-righteousness. “And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess” (Lk. 18:9-12).

5. Phariseeism is the practice of religious hypocrisy. “In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy” (Lk. 12:1).

The Pharisees were at the forefront of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and of the persecution of the early Christians.

It is a great error to label a Christ-loving, Bible-honoring, grace-preaching, self-debasing, peace-loving Christian a Pharisee.

Jesus did not reject the Pharisees because they loved God’s Word and took it too seriously.

Jesus did not reject the Pharisees because they were careful to honor the details of God’s Word. Never did Jesus reprove them for such a thing.

Jesus did not reject the Pharisees because they judged by God’s Word. They didn’t judge by God’s Word; they judged by their own vain tradition. Jesus warned against hypocritical judgment, but He encouraged judgment based on truth.

Jesus did not reject the Pharisees because they marked and avoided false teachers. Jesus Himself warned about false teachers and instructed His people to beware of them (Matthew 7:15-23). Jesus commended the church at Ephesus because they had “tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars” and for hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans (Revelation 2:2, 6). Imagine that! Jesus commended the church for hating the deeds of false teachers. Obviously, that type of thing is not Phariseeism.

Zeal for God’s Word is right and godly. The following testimony expresses the very essence of true spirituality and godliness:

“Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way” (Psalms 119:128).

Was the Psalmist speaking here as a Pharisee? Of course not. It is spiritual to esteem all of God’s precepts concerning all things to be right and to hate everything that is contrary to God’s precepts. Note the emphasis on ALL precepts and ALL things and EVERY false way. This is the very strictest sort of Biblicist mindset, and it is encouraged in the pages of God’s Word as the correct mindset and attitude of the man who loves God passionately.

Jesus reproved the Pharisees for turning the law of Moses into a way of salvation, which it was never intended to be, and for their hypocrisy and for their lack of love and grace and compassion. Consider the following reproof:

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone” (Matthew 23:23).

Jesus didn’t say, “You Pharisees make far too much of tithing and other such things in God’s law. You are much too zealous for God’s Word. Don’t you know that God never intended you to take everything so strictly. Why don’t you lighten up?”

No, Jesus said they did well to take God’s Word strictly by honoring even the details of tithing. What He hated was that they had missed the heart and soul of the law of God, which was judgment, mercy, and faith. Observe that “judgment” is commended by Jesus!

The law was not given as a means to obtain righteousness; rather, it revealed God’s extreme holiness and man’s fallenness and pointed to Christ as the believing sinner’s justification (Rom. 3:19-24; Gal. 3:10-13, 24-25). The Pharisees missed the heart of the law which is to love God with all one’s heart and to love one’s neighbor as oneself. The fact that they were complicit in the death of the Son of God is clear evidence that they did not love God.

Candidly, there are a lot of fundamental Baptist preachers that I have little respect for, but I don’t know of any full-blown fundamentalist Pharisees. In my experience, every fundamental Baptist preacher believes too much in grace and delights too much in God’s free righteousness to be a Pharisee. There has been a lot of hypocrisy, though, and there is an element of true legalism within some aspects of the fundamental Baptist movement. I have warned about this often. (See, for example, my free eBook THE HYLES EFFECT, which is available at http://www.wayoflife.org.)

While I can’t speak for everyone, I can speak for myself. And I don’t preach works for salvation and I don’t preach works for sanctification. Everything is by God’s grace and His grace alone. Everything is Christ in me the hope of glory. The essence of the Christian life is not me doing something for God. It was described by Paul as follows: “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20).

This might not come across in every single sermon, but it is clear in my thinking and in my personal life and in the overall perspective of my ministry.

As for hypocrisy, I don’t always live up to what I preach. Far from it, but I confess my sins to God (and to man when the situation necessitates) and don’t pretend to any self-righteousness. I know at every moment that the only righteousness I have that is acceptable to God is in Christ and in Christ alone. That is not the thinking of a Pharisee.

We see in Matthew 23:23 that Christ did not rebuke the Pharisees for paying attention to the less weighty things in the law. He rebuked them for focusing on the lesser matters to the neglect of the weightier ones.

The Bible-believing “fundamentalists” that I know do not neglect the weightier matters of the New Testament faith. They aim, rather, to follow Paul’s example and to give heed to “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). They preach Christ’s virgin birth, blood atonement, resurrection, and ascension. They preach justification by grace alone and the Trinity and the personality of the Holy Spirit and the other “weightier” matters of the faith. They also preach church discipline (1 Cor. 5) and the divine restrictions upon the woman’s ministry (1 Tim. 2:12; 1 Cor. 14:34) and other things that are less weighty.

When a Christian today preaches against pop music and Hollywood’s moral filth and calls for modest dress, he is called a Pharisee, but the Bible demands a very strict separation from the world, and this is not Phariseeism; it is New Testament Christianity.

Following are just some of the commandments on this issue, and they are indeed commandments and not suggestions.

“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Romans 12:2).

“Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Corinthians 7:1).

“But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world” (Galatians 6:14).

“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Ephesians 5:11).

“For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world” (Titus 2:11-12).

“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27).

“Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (James 4:4).

“Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul” (1 Peter 2:11).

“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever” (1 John 2:15-17).

“And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness” (1 John 5:19).

Separation from the world by a born again, blood-washed, saved-by-grace-alone believer is not Phariseeism. It is obedience to God and conformity to His character and will.

The Pharisees were at the forefront of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and of the persecution of the early Christians.

It is a great slander to label a Christ-loving, Bible-honoring, grace-gospel-preaching, self-debasing, peace-loving Christian a Pharisee.

The modern Pharisee would be more akin to the Roman Catholic priest with his sacramental gospel and his traditions exalted to the place of Scripture and his long history of persecuting the saints. The ecumenical crowd doesn’t call Catholic priests Pharisees, though. They don’t seem to be concerned about all of the souls who have been led astray by these contemporary Pharisees.

The only men they seem to be concerned about are those dreadful old “fundamentalists” with their strong Bible convictions and their refusal to smile at error.

Oh, those dreadful fundamentalist Pharisees!

copyright 2013, Way of Life Literature- Receive these reports by email
“About” David Cloud
www.wayoflife.org

Ways in which Fundamentalists are discriminated against


I’m often astounded when I hear Evangelicals call themselves Fundamentalist. They have no idea that in many ways, they are so NOT Fundamentalist, it’s crazy.

But what I see is the rabid anti-Fundamentalism sweeping Christianity – the same ideology the Lord decries in the letter to the Laodecian church in Revelation 3. “Be lukewarm, like us!” They cry. And many of them resort to calling Fundamentalists “Pharisees.” Good to know that not only are you Biblically ignorant and PROUD of it – but you’re also Anti-Semitic.

A Pharisee is an enemy of Jesus Christ. A Fundamentalist is not. Fundamentalists stand for the Christian faith, a literal belief in the Bible – and usually God’s Bible, not rejected and heretical texts which the unBelieving and unSaved “scholars” prefer.

So, let’s say you discover overnight, that the Bible is God’s word, inspired, inerrant, preserved. Now, there’s a lot of “Christians” who call the Bible “Inspired” the same way you’d call Mozart’s music “inspired”. When I say inspired, I mean, we believe God dictated the Bible to men who wrote it down.  Many “Christians” claim Fundamentalists don’t believe that anymore.

Huh.

No, that’s an article of faith that Fundamentalists will not let go of. When they say, “Luke wrote the book of Luke”, they’re saying “It might have errors because Luke wrote it, and Luke was a man.” I say instead, “God wrote it and gave Luke the words to write down. It has no errors – God wrote it.”

So, if you became a Fundamentalist, you’d find yourself having problems with a LOT of Christian materials. Commentaries that question God’s word. Bible dictionaries that try  to present the unSaved “Scholar’s” view of things – which usually is their wish or pet theory being passed off as truth to unsuspecting Christians. You’d have to reject a lot of Greek handbooks, because many of them ascribe to “Textual Criticism”, which is Atheism passing itself off as Christians. If you’re trying to tell me Mr. Aland or Mr. Metzger are saved, you’re going to have to cite some serious evidence, because based on their testimonies, I’m going to come out and say – no, they can’t be.

You’re going to have trouble with a lot of Sermon starter books, that have little “tidbits of the Greek” because they push – again – a heretical manuscript instead of God’s Bible. You’re going to end up rejecting most materials on Revelation because – let’s face it – most of them are written by persons who allegorize the Book of Revelation, or accept the heretical manuscripts instead of God’s Bible. I have a commentary on Revelation that seems really good, but I’m having to wade through a lot of “the scholars now say…”. I’m sorry Mr. Seiss, but had you any idea they were lying to you?

You’re going to have a lot of trouble with pre-printed Sunday School materials. I’ve found so many elementary doctrinal errors and “Scholars say” references, I don’t know what to do.

You’ll grit your teeth over the way people praise Billy Graham, ignoring his outright heresies. Yes, he used to be great. But once he started promoting Baptismal Regeneration, there’s a problem.

So… is this Hypocrisy? No. I don’t quote from heretical greek texts. I quote from God’s Bible. When I refer to the Greek, I refer to the Textus Receptus. When I look at “The hebrew”, I’m looking at the Hebrew Masoretic Txt, the Ben Chayim text. When I give my opinion on the Bible, it is “The Bible says…”

So, I’m not a “Pharisee.” I promote the Bible as the word of God, not the Talmud. I promote only one way to heaven through Jesus Christ, certainly not a trait associated with Pharisees.

So… what does that leave the people who question the word of God? Who promote other ways to be saved? Who refuse to disassociate with heretics and false teachers?

What does that imply about them?