Two (main) Raptures: a Pre-Trib and a Post-Trib Rapture.

 

One of the biggest pushes in the Independent Baptist movement has been to get rid of the Pre-Trib Rapture.  Men like Kent Hovind and Steven L. Anderson make mincemeat of the idea that the Church avoids the Tribulation.  They are successful because most Independent Baptist pastors and teachers put all the verses in the Bible on the Rapture and say that there is only one.  Again, they are not “rightly dividing.”  This allows Hovind and Anderson to correct their errors and put the church through the Tribulation.  All this because the average Independent Baptist will not allow that there may be two Raptures, one before the Tribulation and another after the Tribulation.

First, let me say this: the church does not go through the Tribulation.  This is the time of Jacob’s sorrows and what remains of Daniel’s 70th Week.  According to the Scriptures, the church has nothing to do with those times.  These times are for Israel.  Therefore, the church must be removed prior to the start of those times.  Beyond that, we have the testimony of the Pauline Epistles that the church will be removed from the time when God puts his wrath on the world right before the second coming of Jesus Christ.  As God says, he has not appointed us to wrath.  The Tribulation is called wrath throughout the book of Revelation.  That time is a time for the nation connected to Jacob and Daniel, NOT Christians.  Since the average Independent Baptist fails to make the distinction, they fall into the trap of the Post-Trib Rapture theorists and force themselves to put the church into the Tribulation.  

One commonly repeated error, that affects most Independent Baptists, is to say that the Pre-Trib Rapture is a signless event.  I am not saying that I know the day that the Rapture will happen.  I do not.  But I am saying that things will start to happen before the Rapture and they MUST happen before there can be a Rapture.  Many will take the verse that says, “no man knoweth the day or the hour” and take that to mean that you CANNOT know when the Rapture will happen.  The only problem is that the verse does not say that.  “Knoweth” is a present tense verb.  The point that Christ is making is that, at the time he is talking, no one knows.  Will you not admit that, right now, Christ knows when the Rapture will happen?  If he does, then the verse was only talking about at that time right then.  Obviously, someone CAN know.  Then we must go to other verses that show that some events must happen before the Rapture.  First, let me say that God works off of a 7,000 year calendar.  There are 4,000 years before Christ and there are 1,000 years after the 2nd coming.  There are only 2,000 years left.  That is the length of time between the 1st and 2nd coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Questions remain.  Does this start at his birthday or his crucifixion?  Does it end at the Pre-Trib or the Post-Trib Rapture?  These are not clear, but they most likely can be found out.  Enoch knew he would be Raptured, and so did Elijah.  This seems to be the Biblical pattern (Amos 3:7).  We see that the 2,000 years must occur before the Rapture.  Also, 2 Thess 2:3 shows that 2 incidents must occur before the “day of Christ” The “day of Christ” is a reference to the Rapture and also to the Judgment Seat of Christ.  Before this “day” can occur, “there (must) come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.”  First, apostasy must come.  It has come.  The next requirement is that the man of sin be revealed.  This is the Antichrist, he has not been revealed.  It will happen before the Rapture.  But we are still talking about the Pre-Trib Rapture.  All this happens before the “Time of Jacob’s Sorrows.”  There is a second “revealing” in 2 Thess 2 and the second revealing is to the Jews and they will realize that their “Savior” is actually the Devil incarnate and will run to the wilderness.  The first “revealing” is to the church.  The type is how John knew who would betray Christ in John 13.  Later the other disciples found out.  All this evidence goes to show that the Pre-Trib Rapture of the church is not a signless event.  It seems from the Scriptures that God will tell the church the timing of the Rapture beforehand.

There are some verses in Matthew 24 that CANNOT be put on the Pre-Trib Rapture.  They must be put at the end of the Tribulation or else the church does go through the Tribulation.  Verse 13 is a verse that does not fit the church-age doctrine of eternal security.  Therefore, it must go in the Tribulation.  In verse 14, there is a different gospel than the “Gospel of the grace of God.”  Verse 15 has a rebuilt Temple.  Verse 16 addresses those that be in Judea.  If this was “Christians,” then the number would be very small and the main issue would be: why address only Christians in Judea and not the others?  Would they not be affected by the Antichrist?  Verse 20 deals with the Sabbath.  That has nothing to do with the church (Col 2:16).  Why bring that up if this is about Christians?  Verse 27 deals with the 2nd coming and not the Rapture.  Why did Christ skip the Rapture?  Obviously, he did not.  This evidence should suffice.  There is another Rapture at the end of the Tribulation.  

Advertisements

Pastoral Authority vs. the Authority of the Bible

 

The job of the pastor is to preach and pray.  There are other minor jobs that God gives the pastor, but nowhere in the Bible does God tell the pastor to dictate every little thing in a man’s life.  Christians should grow up enough to find out what the will of God is for themselves.  All Christians are priests right?  Today, many Independent Baptist preachers act like only they know what the will of God is and their members do not.  They treat their members like they are babies.  Unsurprisingly, that produces members who are babies.  A Bible Believer should believe that the Bible is the Final Authority.  Many Independent Baptists act (or even believe) that their pastor is the Final Authority.  1 Peter 5:1-3 and Mark 10:42-43 clearly show that a pastor is not to say things like, “Because I said so.” They should do things because God wants them to and because they are the right things to do.

Independent Baptist pastors are famous (and here the perception is true) for making people do things and strong arming them into submission.  Examples abound and they are not limited to the issue of skirts, haircuts, who to marry, what job to get, and what car or house to buy.  The pastor has no business telling his members what God wants them to do on issues not clearly delineated in the Bible.  Oftentimes, he has less than 10% of the information that the member has and has spent way less time praying about the subject.  I have seen a pastor send a man to the mission field and I have heard the statement, “When I tell you to go talk to someone, just do it and don’t think about it.”  

Obviously, the great issue that arises is this: what happens to a congregation when the pastor falls from the faith?  If the congregation has been taught to blindly follow the pastor, then of course the congregation will blindly follow the pastor into his apostasy.  This is not a just a hypothetical situation.  This has happened and it will continue to happen, sadly.  But the problem is started by preaching that points men to the pastor and not to the Bible and the God of the Bible.  But this, by definition, cannot be fixed because a listener is supposed to “despise not prophesyings.”  Men are taught that everything said from the pulpit is from God.  That is not Biblical.  “Despise not prophesyings” is balanced out by “prove all things, hold fast to that which is good.”  If the preaching does not match the Bible then dump it.  No matter who is preaching.  A good pastor should tell his congregation to do this.  But often they do not. Because they are scared they will say the wrong thing and get called out.  Everyone is scared of being called out.  Most just say, “Despise not prophesyings” in order to not have to deal with the issues.  No one is infallible.  Only Popes are stupid enough to claim it.  Sadly, many Independent Baptist pastors claim something similar.  They will never admit it, but they act like they are as infallible as the Pope himself.

Pastors will admit that they have made mistakes in the past, but then does it not follow that they will make mistakes in the future?  Without any doubt they will.  So why would a Christian be expected to turn their brains off and blindly do everything he is told?  Biblically he is not.  Sure, God has given certain men a plan for the ministry.  But that does not mean that he will not make mistakes, even when issues of the ministry come up.  No man knows all the ins and outs of a situation, even their own.  Anyone should be open to criticism.  They are not speaking for God if the reason is, “Because I say so.”  Always go by the Bible.  That is good advice for Independent Baptist pastors and anyone who has ever lived or will live.

I am Against Trying to Save ‘Merica

 

The average Independent Baptist in ‘Merica spends a lot of time on politics, preacher or not.  It is commendable that they are 99% of the time right wing and conservative.  But this is not an issue that the NT commands us to spend a lot of time on.  Paul is our example (as he follows Christ).  Paul and Christ never involved themselves in the political arena.  Neither did anyone else of note in the NT.  We are in a battle, but that battle is never described as a political battle in the NT. These are the FACTS, no matter what any ‘Merican, tea-party, moral majority moron in an Independent Baptist pulpit tells us.  Our rights according to the NT are to die and be judged (Heb 9:27).  Period.  Fight for those rights if you insist.  The other rights that we have as ‘Mericans are nice, but the NT never shows any Christian fighting for their “Constitutional” rights.  There is nothing wrong with USING those rights, as Paul does, and being thankful for them, but it is a waste of time to FIGHT for those rights.  Clearly, we are to obey Romans 13, but this will be true even after our so-called rights are taken away.  Here is a newsflash: They have been taken away.  My pastor has a good question that sums up the issue: Does God want you to save ‘Merica or save souls?

First, let me say that you need to realize that America is a drop in the bucket according to God.  God stresses that the nations are not important to him.  God loves Israel and he loves his Son.  The only reason you or I have any importance is because we are connected to his beloved Son Jesus Christ.  If you take the whole 350 million or so people that live in ‘Merica and the whole governmental system, they only make up a drop of water.  They are also called less than nothing.  When a man comes to Christ he is important but the country he comes from is worthless to God.  Why spend time on something that God says is less than nothing?  A Bible Believer should care about what God cares about and not care about what God does not care about.  That should be simple.  But the majority of Independent Baptists care a lot about politics in ‘Merica.  They prove it by the amount of time they spend following primaries and demonstrating with Catholics and agnostics in the “tea party.”  No godly man in the NT spent any time with any “tea party” demonstrating.  They spent their time PREACHING THE BIBLE.

Second, Independent Baptists need to realize that ‘Merica is to be taken over by the Antichrist.  Many would argue that the system is already in place for the Antichrist and that ‘Merica is at the forefront of the patsy governments that will quickly succumb to the Antichrist.  They would be correct. ‘Merica falling into the grasp of the Antichrist and attacking Jerusalem is something that God wants (Zeph. 3:9).  To fight against that is to fight against God himself.  This is a serious matter.  Yet the majority of Independent Baptists spend their time pushing moral majorities, tea parties, and Capitol Connections.  Something no one in the Book of Acts (how to ACT as a Christian) would be found dead doing.  The proof that ‘Merica is at the forefront of the Antichrist’s movement is seen in how ‘Merica pushes the homosexual agenda.  God destroys countries that live like ‘Merica.  See Sodom in Genesis 19.  2 Peter 2 says that story is an example for ‘Merica.  But not only does ‘Merica live like Sodom, it is the world’s leader in trying to encourage that “lifestyle” throughout the world.  Just ask Russia.  When Obama went to Kenya, there were riots in the streets because people know what he and his country’s agenda are.  Those men in Africa know what happens to societies like that.  They look like spiritual giants compared to ‘Mericans.  It is hard to understand how Independent Baptists can stand in their pulpits and say, “’Merica is worth fighting for.”  Fighting for the queer agenda?  Folks: this country is already given up according to Romans 1.

People who push to spend time fighting to “Save ‘Merica,” need to read up on their ‘Merican history.  They intend to go back to the time of the “Founding Fathers.”  They even say it; in spite of Matt 23.  But these uninformed dupes need to realize who the founders were.  They were Bible-rejecting deists and Masons who hated the NT, especially Romans 13.  If they had any respect for Romans 13 they would never have taken up arms against the British government.  This is uncomfortable, but it is true.  Yes, God has used America to send out missionaries and be a blessing to the Jews, but the men who made this country the way it is hated the Bible and did not give a rip what it said about government.  Yet, Independent Baptists want to go back to them?  I also wonder: Do these “Baptists” not know what the founders did to Baptists?  The black hats of New England whipped Baptists for 150 years and the gentlemen of Virginia threw Baptists in jail and exiled them.  But “Baptists” want to go back to those men?  This is foolishness to say the least.

People need to accept the FACT that the Constitution is no longer in effect.  I am not going to go into great depths in this argument or I would be going against my own belief.  I believe that a Biblical Christian should have nothing to do with “finding out the original intent of the authors of the Constitution.”  But it needs to be said that our government only obeys the Constitution only when it suits their purposes.  When the Constitution goes against their needs or desires, then it is not worth the paper it is written on.  Independent Baptists should ignore what the media says (especially Fox [like Herod] News) and come to grips with reality.  Voting is controlled by the government.  The elections are determined beforehand (at least at the national level).  Obama is not a US citizen. Constitutionally, he is required to be.  September 11th was perpetrated by the government of “Merica.  See “Loose Change.”  ‘Merica has no business in any war outside of its own borders.  Yet it has a military presence all over the world.  Why?  Because it is a tool of the Antichrist.  All their reasons for being in those countries have been shown to be made up out of thin air.  But that is beside the point.  Needless to say, the Constitution has long been nothing more than ink and paper and has been ignored by this government just as the Bible has been.

As an experiment, I would like to take a transcribed sermon of a “rah-rah” ‘Merica guy and scratch out ‘Merica and write in Iran.  My guess is that it would make no sense, even to the preacher.  An Independent Baptist should have the sense to realize that the Bible is not a ‘Merican book.  Good preaching in ‘Merica should be, with minor changes, good preaching in Iran and China.  But would a good Independent Baptist pastor REALLY preach, “We need to pray and fast for our government” in Iran?  They most certainly would not.  They would not spend an ounce of energy or a minute of time praying for the Mullahs in Tehran.  The counter argument would be that Iran is against Christ.  Then the fact that ‘Merica is against Christ is even more important.  These facts have been established in the preceding paragraphs.  But the average Independent Baptist does not look at facts.  They are perfectly content to let Fox (like Herod) News do their thinking for them.  Again, they think ‘Merica is a special country.  God says it is just a drop in the bucket, like Iran and China and everyone else except Israel.  

Paul had freedoms in the Roman Empire.  We have already pointed this out.  The Roman Empire, at this point in history, was huge help to the Gospel.  This becomes more clear when contrasted with the Parthian Empire which persecuted Christianity and, for whatever reason, the gospel never really took hold there.  For some reason the Gospel flourished under the conditions of the rule of the Caesars and not the Shahs.  But Paul never wanted to try and save Rome.  

It has been argued that ‘Merica is an exception to the rules on nations and that it should be fought for because it is the “greatest country in the world.”  What standard is being used?  If the standard is the Bible, then it is most certainly not true.  Israel is the greatest country.  Many would say, “But Israel is backslidden.”  But God never makes the statement that Israel is only the greatest when it is not backslidden.  In fact quite the opposite (Deut 9:4-6).  Then a man would say that ‘Merica is the greatest country because it is the most free.  This is easily proven to be false.  Look it up on Google.  ‘Merica is anywhere from 6th to 20th based on what standard of “freedom” is used.  Also, I would ask was Israel free under Moses?  Or David?  Clearly it was not, Israel was a Middle Eastern dictatorship, so why would any Bible Believer say that the standard to judge “World’s Greatest Country” was “freedom?”  You have to throw out the Bible to think that “Saving ‘Merica” is something worth caring about.  

 

This topic is of crucial importance for 2 reasons.  First, trying to save ‘Merica goes against the direct will of God (Zeph 3:9).  Second, men that spend their time in this stupid “battle” are getting ENTANGLED and the Bible says that he should not do so or he will not please God (2 Tim 2:4).  The reason so many Independent Baptists want to “Save ‘Merica,” is because they are comfortable living their lives the way they are now.  It is understandable, but it is not biblical.  Christians: this world is NOT our home.  We are strangers and pilgrims here.  Or should I say, we are SUPPOSED to be strangers and pilgrims here.  Our flesh knows what awaits when ‘Merica is destroyed.  The remedy is not to fight to “Save ‘Merica,” it is to fight the good fight of faith.  It is the faith of our Baptist forebearers who went to Massachusetts when it was illegal to be a Baptist there.  They went to Virginia and Maryland and preached the whole counsel of God and they paid the price.  Folks: they have gotten their rewards.  Our time might be soon.  Prepare! Not by going to Capitol Connections, but by preaching when and where you can, now.  Soon our time will come to count the cost.  Lord willing, it will be worth it enough for you to PREACH.

I Believe the Gap Fact

This statement makes me seem like a great compromiser to the modern Independent Baptist who gets his information from Ken Ham and Kent Hovind.  We should not be so shallow.  We shall use our brains and check the Scriptures.  Let me unequivocally state the fact that I do not believe the theory of Evolution.  I read the standard creationist literature in order to observe the falsehood of the garbage put out by the God-hating evolutionists.  But when it comes to checking the scriptures, the average creationist (and the Independent Baptists who reads only their material) has no more insight into the scriptures than the average college educated atheist.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I used to believe that the so called “Gap Theory” was a compromise with evolution.  But I was stuck in my school room in Pensacola and I had to listen to the arguments of the “Gappers” instead of blindly ignoring their ideas.  I realized that the Gap Fact answered questions that I had never even thought about before.  Like: “When did Lucifer fall?” Or, “Where did the darkness come from?”  I had not even thought of these questions, much less found an answer to them.  I was too busy accusing the “Gappers” of being compromisers.  Now, I accuse the people who do not believe in the Gap of believing the “Skip Theory.”  I have observed that modern creationists SKIP the first verse of the Bible and start at verse 2.  Any theory involving “skipping” a verse and not applying it is a heretical theory.  Evidence that modern creationists SKIP the first verse will be provided shortly and so will many facts that Lucifer, the anointed Cherub that covereth, fell before Genesis 1:2.

I have already provided irrefutable evidence that the KJB is superior to any Hebrew or Greek manuscript.  Another example will be used to help demonstrate the Gap Fact.  Look at the first verse of Genesis 1.  See the word, “heaven”?  That word is plural, or at least dual, in number in the Hebrew.  The KJB translators translated the word in the singular.  This goes against the NKJV, NLT, NIV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NET, RSV, ASV, YLT, and a few hundred more English translations I am sure.  This ground has already been covered, but again I ask the question, “How can a man use both the Hebrew and the KJB when they contradict?”  The reason this is important is that God is showing that, originally, he only created ONE heaven.  Well, now we have 3 heavens (plural).  How did we end up with 3 heavens?  The Gap Fact explains this.  The Skip Theory pretends this is not an issue and runs to the “original Hebrew.”  God made the 1st and 2nd heaven after he drowned the universe out after Lucifer fell.  This happened during the Gap.  That is where the “water” came from and also where the “darkness” came from.  This confounds the modern creationists but is clearly explained by the Gap Fact.  Mainly, these issues are skipped by the modern creationists.

These lists come from a study of the Gap by a man named Greg Kedrovsky.  If you want a further explanation, listen to his multipart series on the Gap.  This is evidence that there was a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.  Let’s start with “Four Observations” on Genesis 1.

  1. Evolution is not an option. God “created” the heaven and the earth, it did not just happen and it did not just evolve.
  2. “In” the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Therefore, since Lucifer (Satan) fell “from” the beginning, we must place his rebellion sometime after the original creation of Genesis 1.1, not before (there was nothing before, only God alone).
  3. In the beginning, God “created”; He did not “make.” There is a distinct difference between those two words and we must take that into account.
  4. How does God create things? He makes them beautiful, ordered, perfect, full of light, and awe-inspiring even for angels who are in His presence daily.

 

And here are 10 reasons that there MUST be a Gap between the first two verses of the Bible. The subpoints are my points and the main points are from Greg Kedrovsky.  

  1. The Polysyndeton of Genesis 1: God repeats the word “and” to draw our attention to important words and phrases.
    1. If there wasn’t something important there, the grammar of the verse would be wrong.
  2. The Words of Genesis 1.1-2: Words like “created” in verse 1 don’t go well with words like “without form and void” in verse two. Something happened!
  3. The Darkness of Genesis 1.2: If God is light and there is no darkness in Him at all, then where did the darkness come from in Genesis 1.2?
  4. The Waters of Genesis 1.2: Why is the entire creation under water in Genesis 1.2? Where did the water come from and why?
  5. The Division of Genesis 1.2: There was no division in the original creation (Gen 1.1). Division always signifies sin–the wages of sin is death, and death in the Bible is a separation (from life). Why do we see division and separation in God’s creation in Genesis 1.2 if there was no sin? Clearly there was sin!
    1. This is the only place to put Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28.  Nowhere else makes sense.
  6. The Parallelism of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2: God shows us the world that then was (Gen 1.1) and its ruin (Gen 1.2), and then the world that now is (Gen 1.3-2.25) and its ruin (Gen 3.1-6).
  7. The New Testament and the Testimony of the Christian: In 2 Corinthians 4:6, Paul draws a parallel between Genesis 1 and our salvation testimony. If there was no original sin in the Gap, then there was no original sin in Adam. The Bible just doesn’t work without a Gap.
  8. Sin in the Universe: Adam’s sin affected his race and the earth. Whose sin affected the rest of creation? It has to be Lucifer’s sin of rebellion during the Gap.
  9. The Existence of the Devil: There is no other logical place for the ministry and fall of Lucifer other than the Gap between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2. His was the first sin and would have caused catastrophic destruction in the whole of creation, exactly like we see in Genesis 1.2.
  10. God told Adam to “replenish” the earth: He gave Noah the same commission because Noah was to re-populate the earth after the flood. Adam, too, then was to re-populate the earth. There were creatures here before us and they filled the earth. God told Adam to fill it up again with his descendants.
    1. “Replenish” can mean fill but God uses it to mean “fill again” in Genesis 9:1.  

All of the arguments by men like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind have been answered in the book, Gap Fact, by Perry Demopolous and in the studies by Greg Kedrovsky.  This short explanation should suffice.

I Believe That God Does NOT Love Everyone Apart From Calvary

 

John 3:16 is a great verse.  Only an idiot would say that it is a bad verse.  But only a man equally idiotic would say that the Devil has never tried to pervert it.  The main way that the Independent Baptists pervert this verse is to change the tense and put it, at this moment, on a lost person.  This is heresy of the first degree.  Let me say this in the clearest terms possible: God does not love a lost man.  According to the Bible, God showed (past tense) his love for lost sinners by sending Jesus Christ to die on the cross in their place.  Never in the NT does God say he loves (present tense) the sinner.  The obvious proof of this is that out of 7,957 verses in the King James NT, when a man tries to prove that God loves (present tense) the sinner, 9 times out of 10, he will quote John 3:16.  And the verse is written in the past tense.  If there was another verse that was better, they would use it.  They do not.

One question that arises is, “Is there a verse that shows God does not love the sinner?”  I am glad that you asked.  There is a verse that proves this in the same chapter: John 3.  Look at verse 36.  Notice that “abideth” is present tense as verbs that end in “-eth” are third person, singular, PRESENT tense, according to the dictionary.  According to John 3:36, the wrath of God abideth on a man without Christ.  This is a direct contrast to the heresy that “the love of God abideth on him.”  Other places in the Bible show that God does not love the sinner are Psalm 5:5, 11:5, and Proverbs 6:16-19 (some examples are sins and some are people that do those sins).  In the NT, Jesus Christ tells people that they are children of the Devil (John 8:47) and in the Pauline Epistles, lost men are children of wrath and disobedience who are without hope and without God.  There is no indication that he loves sinners (present tense) until that moment when they run to the cross of Calvary and get saved.  At that second, Romans 8 comes into effect and then God loves saved sinners so much that nothing can separate them from the love of God.  

This is a great heresy because it destroys the whole reason that a sinner needs to get saved.  Imagine a lost man under conviction.  By definition, he is worried about the consequences for his sin.  He is starting to grasp that God is completely holy, very much unlike himself.  And then on his way home from work, he sees the stupid church sign at his local Independent Baptist church.  Having long ago abandoned putting up Scripture only, it says, “Smile, God Loves You.”  At that moment he is given, by the Devil himself, a reason to ignore his conscience and put away his conviction.  He has just been told that he was fine.  This is a trick of the Devil.  He is not fine and he is headed for hell.  His reason for running to Calvary has been removed because “God loves him.”  Or so he was told.

This heresy is rampant.  One major Independent Baptist ministry that prints tracts has 90% of its tracts starting with “Realize God loves you” and quotes John 3:16.  Biblically, this is the first thing that a lost man should realize is NOT true.  That is why he is going to hell and that is why he needs to get saved.  Also, if God loves everyone, then why would I preach the Gospel to them?  He already loves them, supposedly.  This lie also diminishes the love that the God of the Bible has towards his Son Jesus Christ and Christians.  The “law of opposites” comes into effect here which is to say that if God loves everyone he therefore does NOT love anyone.  You have to have “up” to have “down.”  The old saying goes, “you can’t love flowers without hating weeds.”  Besides to faulty logic, the effects of this heresy are cheap salvations (that is the same as saying “no or fake salvations”)and a lack of reasons to preach to lost men.  And more than that, it is a rejection of the clear teachings of the Bible.

I Believe That the Bible Teaches More Than One Plan of Salvation (But Only One Today)

 

From 33 AD to today (assuming you are reading this before the Rapture of the church) a man is saved from hell by receiving Jesus Christ as his personal Saviour after he admits he is a sinner and that Christ died on the cross in his place and rose again three days later.  I don’t mean to make this complicated.  We usually just say that a man is saved by grace through faith.  After this a man is born again, given eternal life, is eternally secure, and will go home to heaven to be with Jesus Christ at death or the Rapture.  If a man believes anything else, he will go to hell and burn for forever.

That is good Bible doctrine.  A good Independent Baptist will agree with everything except the first line.  The average Independent Baptist church teaches that all men from Adam to the last man saved in the Millennium is saved “by grace through faith.”  Here, the Independent Baptists are dead wrong.

The only way to study the Bible is to use the system known as Dispensationalism.  Dispensationalism can mean many things but it is the God ordained method to keep the Bible from contradicting itself and it fulfills II Timothy 2:15.  This verse commands Christians to “study” and to “divide.”  Dispensationalism does this without changing one word in the Bible.  One problem that the average Independent Baptist will have is that this doctrine is not an inherently Baptist doctrine.  In fact, it mainly comes from John Nelson Darby and his group called the Plymouth Brethren.  Other Christians got a hold of these doctrines and methods and continued to study.  C.I. Scofield (Congregational and Presbyterian) and his buddies (Methodist, Reformed Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and Baptist) published their study Bible which seemed to push for a different way of salvation in the Old Testament.  Clarence Larkin explored to implications of the doctrine even further.  But Larkin was a Baptist.  Men (including “bad” Independent Baptists) who read his books, like Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, finally began to admit that the Bible taught that, outside of the Church Age, men were saved by grace, but works were involved.  Nevertheless, truth is truth; regardless of who came up with the idea and even if it does not make you a good Independent Baptist.  

Without being dispensational, a man will have to dump the crucial doctrine of eternal security.  Samson lost the Holy Spirit and then got it back.  Saul lost his salvation and then went to hell.  David sinned mightily and prayed that God would not take his spirit from him.  Finally, in the Tribulation (Time of Jacob’s Sorrows), if a man trusts Christ and then gets the Mark of the Beast, he goes to hell no matter what.  So, eternal security is not true in the OT and the Tribulation.  Clearly, salvation outside of the Church Age is different and a study on eternal security will prove that.  

Let me ask this, if Noah had not built the ark, would he have gone to heaven when he died?  Of course he would not.  Without the ark, Noah would have died and gone to hell.  Is building an ark a work?  Of course.  Therefore, works were part of Noah’s salvation.  Remember: this is Genesis, not 2016.  This has nothing to do with how to get to heaven today.  You would have to wrest the text to make it seem like Noah was saved apart from works.  

Along the same lines, look at Abraham.  Most Independent Baptists are keen to bring him up as an example of salvation always being by grace through faith.  They quote Romans 4:3 which is a reference to Genesis 15:6.  Paul is saying (why I say it like this will be explained later) that Abraham’s salvation is like ours in how he obtained imputed righteousness.  He obtained this by faith.  But what, I ask, was his faith in?  Read Genesis 15 to find out.  It says that Abraham is going to have a son and his descendants will be like the stars of heaven.  NOTHING is said about Christ dying for him or rising from the grave.  His faith was not in the Gospel at all.  If a man in 2016 believes that God will give him a son and that his descendants will be like the stars of heaven, he will not get any righteousness.  They are completely different situations.

But there is more.  When you get to the book of James, you see that Abraham was not JUSTIFIED in Genesis 15.  And when he was, it was not by faith.  James 2:21 says that Abraham was justified by works in Genesis 22.  More than a dozen years after he had been imputed righteousness by faith (albeit in something besides the Gospel), Abraham is justified by works.  This is not like the salvation of a Christian at all.  When a sinner trusts Jesus Christ and believes the Gospel, he is imputed righteousness and justified (Romans 4:24,25) at that exact instant.  There is no time lapse in between.  There was with Abraham.  Many Independent Baptists will try and say that the justification of Abraham in James 2 is just “proving that you are what you say you are before men.”  In this case, it would mean Abraham proving that he was a “Friend of God.”  But then look at the example of Rahab in vs 25.  Would anyone be so foolish as to think that Rahab PROVED she was a harlot by protecting the Hebrew spies?  Any interpretation of the text must take both examples into account.  But the average Independent Baptist just pretends that Abraham, Rahab, and our salvation were all the same.  This does not work.  Abraham and Rahab had faith involved in their salvation, but it was not a faith in any way, shape, or form like our faith in Jesus Christ and the Gospel.

In the Tribulation or the Time of Jacob’s Sorrows, salvation will also be different that in the Church Age.  As already stated, if man in the Tribulation takes the Mark of the Beast, he goes to hell, regardless of his faith in Jesus Christ.  In the books of Hebrews through Revelation, God shows that men need faith and works to get to heaven.  This doctrine is clearly stated in James 2.  Most will run to Hebrews 11 to teach about faith as opposed to works, but this chapter teaches nothing of the sort.  Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc. had faith and they used it to do works.  This matches Tribulation salvation completely.  In the book of Revelation, faith and works are clearly shown in 12:17 and 14:12.  Differences about between salvation in the Church Age and salvation in the Tribulation, but that will not stop most Independent Baptists from believing that salvation has always been the same.  

A final example of the different ways of salvation is the disciples in the Gospels.  These men were called by the Lord Jesus Christ to minister.  They were hand selected preachers.  Yet according to the doctrine of most Independent Baptists, they were not even saved.  Look at Mark 16.  Jesus Christ had risen in verse 9.  The disciples had already been preaching for a number of years, but in verse 11 and again in verse 13, they do not believe that Jesus has risen from the dead.  Folks, that is the Gospel (I Cor 15:3,4).  According to Paul’s epistles, they are not saved and are on their way to hell.  The only way to handle this is to recognize the truth that they had been saved according to another way of salvation.  It is hard to tell exactly when the Gospel, as preached by Paul, came into full effect, but by Acts 8 the Ethiopian eunuch is believing it.  Having said that, all would agree that is in full effect now, but to put that on the men before Acts 8 is to end up with God-called apostles who are lost and going to hell.  That is the foolishness that you get into, when you try and read NT Church Age doctrine all through the Bible, as most Independent Baptists are wont to do.

We live in a day and age when the Independent Baptists are falling away to many perverse doctrines.  One of the main heresies is that the church is going into the Tribulation.  One way to prove this wrong is to show that there is a faith and works setup in the Tribulation.  This stands in direct contrast to our salvation in the Church which is by grace through faith.  But the average Independent Baptist will not allow this, though the Bible clearly shows it.  It is crazy how the rejection of one clear doctrine leads to the acceptance of more and more heretical doctrine.  This will become more and more prevalent in the Independent Baptist churches until the day that Jesus Christ calls all the saved home; before the Tribulation.

I believe the King James Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.  

 

This matter has been discussed so thoroughly by men like Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, Sam Gipp, William Grady, Gail Riplinger, and Kyle Stephens that it seems the argument would be finished.  Nevertheless, some items should be highlighted.  The average Independent Baptist church will give a cheap profession to believe the King James, but when pressed, they will retreat to the foolish profession of a belief in the Textus Receptus (TR) for their final authority.  Or as it was given to me by email, “both were preserved and (we) use both.”  There are many reasons that this is a faulty position.

First, there is more than one version of the Textus Receptus.  That would lead to the position that there are multiple final authorities which is a contradiction of terms.  “Multiple final authorities” is the same as saying NO final authority.  This elementary logic clearly demonstrates the error of saying we “use both” the KJB and the TR.  Having said that, the typical Independent Baptist is either lying or uneducated because there are multiple versions of the TR.  Each of these men, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elzivir, Colinaeus, and Scrivener, wrote multiple versions of the TR themselves, pushing the total number of TR versions to around 20.  Which version do you mean when you say, “I believe the TR.”?  The version is never named.  Always remember that the differences between the editions of the TR are greater than any supposed differences between the so-called editions of the King James Bible.  

Second, the TR-only crowd never addressed the Old Testament (OT).  By definition the TR is only the New Testament, so the question would be, “Point to the inspired OT.”  Again, this issue is never addressed.  When I am asked the question, I point to the English King James OT that is on the table in front of me.  The average Independent Baptist cannot.  I believe that the issue is an issue of ignorance.  Some will point to the Hebrew OT printed with the TR by the Trinitarian Bible Society.  But this will not do.  As good as that text is, there are errors in it.  

Let me give an example.  Clearly, most people have not dealt with the Jews out of their OT because if they would have taken them to one of the greatest messianic prophecies in the OT, Psalm 22:16, they would have seen the discrepancy between the truth (KJB) and the corrupted manuscripts of the Hebrew OT.  The KJB states, “they pierced my hands and my feet.”  The Hebrew reads, “like a lion, my hands and feet.”  What nonsense!  It is an independent clause without the necessary verb.  This demonstrates that as careful as the Jews have been when they took care of the OT (as compared to the treatment of the devil’s scribes with the Alexandrian NT), they were not above changing the text to remove prophecies of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion.  This example should suffice.  But these issues are never discussed by the average Independent Baptist who just wants to leave “well enough” alone and just tell people that they believe the TR.

Third, there are  differences between the KJB and the TR in the New Testament (NT) as well.  These issues have been thoroughly dissected by many authors over the years so a few examples should suffice.  In Acts 12:4, the TR says “Passover” but the KJB says “Easter.”  Easter is correct.  In Acts 19:37, the TR says “robbers of temples” but the KJV says “robbers of churches.”  The KJB is correct.  Add in the differences in the book of Revelation and you have a whole heap of times that the King James and the TR differ.  Most “Baaaptists” have two final authorities, the King James Bible and the TR.  This issue is one where a Bible Believer and an independent Baptist should just part ways.

Fourth, the issue of translation is never discussed.  None would dispute the fact that there are NO speakers of Koine Greek alive today.  This is the language in which the NT was written.  So how do we know what the words mean?  The average Christian (Independent Baptist included) will go to a source like a Strong’s or Young’s concordance of the Bible.  But where did they get their definitions?  These got their definitions from sources outside of Koine Greek often from the Attic Greek of the Greek Philosophers.  These are the men that Paul called “too superstitious” in Acts 17, but apparently they can be a trusted source for finding out what our Bible REALLY means.  And even if those definitions are correct, in a sense, how could they know how it fit in the translation grammatically?  Definitions of words change depending on how they are used in a sentence.  For example:  I LIKE to be tall vs I felt LIKE I was tall.  These differences can make translating very complex.  In these situations, dictionaries can be very little help.  The translators of the King James had a huge advantage over any translator today.  These men were a generation or two removed from the fall of Constantinople in 1453.  From this last bastion of what is called Medieval or Byzantine Greek, came scholars fluent in a language much closer to Koine Greek than Attic.  These scholars fled throughout western and northern Europe and taught their considerable familiarity with the language of the Greek NT to the men who would teach the men who translated the KJB.  This expertise cannot be matched today and was definitely not matched by men like Strong or Young.  To go back to their definitions is to go back to the definitions of queers like Socrates and Fascists like Plato.

Hopefully, these reasons will open the reader up to, at least, considering that the King James Bible is God’s final authority for the years 1611 to today and that it is the fulfillment of the Biblical verses Psalm 12:6,7, Isaiah 34:16, Matthew 24:35, and II Timothy 3:16, etc.  It is a sad fact that the average Independent Baptist church in your town believes that man can sit in judgement on the word of God and believes there are errors in it.  A final example will suffice.  In my town there are really 2 Independent Baptist churches of any significance.  When you walk out of the auditorium of one, you will see a sign behind the secretary’s desk that says something to this effect, “Love suffers long and is kind…”  This is a perversion of I Cor 13:4 and anyone familiar with the chapter (I know this EXCLUDES 97% of all Christians) knows God is talking about “charity” and not the mongrelized “love” of perverted Americans.  They are supposedly “Bible Believers” and “King James Only,”  but somewhere along the line, they have compromised.  God help them (Rev 22:18,19).