Friday, June 22, 2007


Written by "Christ Vestal":
I pray that you will read the Word of God and discover what it says for yourself. It is obvious that your only knowledge of the Bible is the few snippets you hear misquoted in your “three to thrive” attendance at a Baptist church. If you take a look-see, you will read that Jesus tells us to “Judge all things…,”“Test the spirits,” and that we will “judge angels.”(Since the “Dr.” Mutchler says that wherever the Bible says angel it means pastor I am merely taking this to its logical conclusion) The passage to which you mistakenly refer says that IF you judge, be prepared to be held to the same standard, and I am more than ready for that. The Bible says to be blameless. (...)
Is Jack Schaap blameless when in his book “Marriage: Divine Intimacy”(Published 2006 by Hyles publications), in chapter 3 claims that the Christian is the female in the salvation relationship and that when a Baptist partakes of Holy Communion he is having “Spiritual Intercourse (read sex) with God?” Or when – in the same chapter – he posits that when a wife lays back and accepts her husbands seed during sex, she is by that action telling Jesus Christ (the Second Person of the Trinity, Almighty God) that she wants to receive Him in like manner? Maybe, abc, you are in agreement with the venerable “Dr.” Schaap when – later in chapter 3 – he claims that in Psalm 119 when David uses the word “laid” it means that David physically lusts after God’s law, and that the word “stuck” means that David (under inspiration of the Holy Ghost) was so in love with the Words of God that he wanted to penetrate them?
I think that YOU need to stop relying on what a “man of God” says, and start reading the Word of God for yourself. God will speak to you clearly without being filtered through a self-styled preacher, a “man of God.” I pray that someday you will wake up and realize that the Bible says what it means, and it is no light thing to send people astray as a majority of the Baptist dogma does. DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE GOD’S GRACE, and do not try to fit the Bible into your doctrine, fit your doctrine to the Bible. Remember, Scripture – not Jack Hyles, Mike Mutchler, First Baptist, or Grand View Baptist is the final authority.
I pray that God will bless you and your family and keep you safe there.

Friday, June 15, 2007

Bible College Indoctrination

If a person is spiritually weak then they don't need to be at bible college. When we depend upon bible colleges to mass disciple our young people the bible colleges respond by shifting to a more indoctrinating and consequently shallow course of education.
The majority of Christian parents expect to "auto-disciple" their kids by ensuring their involvement in a church and Christian school. So then when that PREDICTABLY fails, they assume their child needs MORE of the same and pack them off for what most fundamentalist parents today insist on, the obligatory YEAR of Bible college.
When that fails, the parents finally admit their OWN FAILURE as they watch their young person fade to carnality.
Meanwhile, the kids whose parents ENSURED their discipleship don't get the advanced learning they deserve, and the spiritually weak who DO SUCCEED in the indoctrinating environment in many of today's fundy Bible colleges become prideful narrow-minded ideologues.

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Ephesian Fundamentalists

From this site:

today would definitely be fundamentalist type Christians. Commended for their "works" and "labor" for His name's sake, and that they "canst bear them which are evil" (the 'godless'), and "have tested those which say they are apostles and are not, but have found them liars" (the 'cultists'/'heretics')etc. They have rightly been concerned about compromise (Nicolaitans—see Pergamos) and an emphasis on pleasure in the modern church. But they have "lost their first love"—Jesus Himself! In criticizing the modern church and secular world, the fundamentalists have totally distorted the Gospel into moral perfectionism and hatred of people, rather than the world SYSTEM the scriptures they base their hatred on refer to. (e.g. they condemn society's materialism and hedonism, but think the capitalism that promotes it is God's system) They exalt the past (when their brand of Christianity had wide power in society) as being pure (ignoring all the problems), an act as if the Fall occurred in 1960's America. All of this comes through in the debates over contemporary Christian music, Bible translations, psychology, politics, etc., with the traditional ways being the God ordained pattern for all of man, whether biblical or not. Thus they deny the doctrine of sin as much as the contemporary Church they have been so critical of. You never see them admit to any sin in their lives, it's just how everyone else fails to measure up. They are critical of any movement that exposes the dark sides of their glossed over past ("historical revisionists", secular media, therapy's methods of dealing with past pains, etc.) So for all of their good works, they wind up getting one of the worst warnings of all the churches— to have their candlestick removed! This equals the shiftless Laodiceans, and far surpasses the 'compromisers' they love to criticize. This shows us a lesson many have not seemed to learn; that all our righteousness is "as filthy rags" to God. (Isaiah 55). It is only by grace that God accepts us.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007


In my previous post I quoted Gal 1:8. What is the Gospel? It is found in the Scriptures. This was my point, not that we should tolerate those who teach another gospel. My intended scope was things beyond salvation that Christians often disagree on.

Sunday, June 03, 2007

Random Use of Scripture

Those who teach and preach topically, and those that love the topical style, are often prone to use scripture out of context. Here is presented is one example of a random use of Scripture.

Rom 16:17
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

The application is that if someone comes around with beliefs different that those which are taught by your church, you shouldn't have anything to do with them.

First of all, the person making this application would find it unacceptable in its consequence if they thought it through. A Catholic, for example, could cite this verse. He would say he learned Catholicism and so you are teaching differently therefore he won't listen to you or have anything to do with you.

That observation sets the stage for understanding the verse in context. Ask yourself WHO it was that the Romans Paul was writing to learned their doctrine from. The answer to this question would be one of the Apostles, or one of the Apostles representatives. The teaching the Romans received was that of direct revelation through one or more of the Apostles. Paul was entirely justified in telling them to shun anyone who taught differently because the Romans had their doctrine "first-hand."

How does that apply today? Ask yourself WHERE you might find the teachings of Christ and the Apostles today. You will find it in the New Testament. Understood in its context, Rom 16:17 would be understood today as referring to the Scriptures. So then if anyone brings any doctrine contrary to the Scripture, let him be shunned.

This same understanding also applies to parallel verses such as Gal 1:8:

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.

"We" is referring to the Apostles and this true gospel is found today in the Scriptures.

Now here is the difficulty. Everyone interprets the Scripture differently: Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, you name it. However if you talk to them they will all give Scripture to back up their positions so none of these groups have the right to take a verse like Rom 16:17 and shun members of other groups over it UNLESS they are intentionally causing offense and division.