Present Course of Study (2)

Having read through Miller's "Guide to Textual Criticism", and seeing the little amount of Greek language in it, I am reminded that in this and also in the works of Dean Burgon (& Scrivener, Ruckman, and others), there is, at least, some Greek used. And it would be fruitful to be able to read, speak, and understand these references to the Greek language and the Greek New Testament. Although I have given thought to learning the Biblical Greek language a few times in the past, I have never acquired a determination for it as I have now. I feel led to the study. So, I obviously will be making use of J. G. Machen's New Testament Greek For Beginners along with an audio/written Greek Tutor software, 3 Greek New Testaments, and Edward Miller's Greek Primer (1925 Impression produced photographically from the sheets of the Second Edition of 1893 - [First Edition 1887]).

In addition to this, I am still studying the Biblical new testament local church, Dr. Ruckman's Commentary on the book of Acts, and I have added the study of Psalm 119 by way of Jeff Adams' commentary called Psalm 119 A Journey Into The Heart of God. Perhaps this is the Lord's leading me into a structure of several subjects of study simultaneously and I may even continue my previous study of science (Evolution, Creation, Catastrophes, etc.) devoting some time daily or weekly to each. Another thing I might do is pick up again the correspondence course work with Charity Baptist Bible Institute. I pray for the Lord's continual leading.

A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament

The Work of Edward Miller, M. A. [Associate of Dean John William Burgon]

I have finally finished reading Edward Miller's book "A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament". It is only 137 pages including the Appendix, but I have at the same time been studying other things as the Lord has put in my way and as described in other posts on this blog. I have often wondered since the first time I read Miller's Guide a few years ago why it is not more popular among Bible believers than what it is. For example, "Why isn't it sold at the Bible Baptist Bookstore in Pensacola, Florida along with the five works of Burgon?" Of course, I'm not condemning the bookstore; they have their own right to chose what books to handle and which not to.


Miller's Guide is a very excellent work which perhaps should be read after Dr. Ruckman's "Manuscript Evidence" and "Biblical Scholarship" and then before Dean Burgon's "Revision Revised", "Last Twelve Verses of Mark", "The Traditional Text", and "Causes of Corruption", the last two of which books of Dean Burgon, Edward Miller collected, edited, finalized, and published since the dean died before they could be finished.

Miller, in fact, recommends "those who may be disposed to enter more deeply into the important subject of it to prosecute further research in "The Plain Introduction" of Dr. Scrivener, the learned works of Dean Burgon, and in other well-known sources of information upon Textual Criticism". [Miller's Guide, 1886, Preface, page vii.]

In our case, today, "other well-known sources" would include Dr. Ruckman's material and some of the other works that I have listed in a previous post. Brother Edward goes on to say "that every Reader who would really understand, and form an opinion for himself upon the great questions at stake, must bestow on the problem which has suddenly emerged into prominence a considerable amount of individual, unprejudiced attention." This shows the reason for such widespread acceptance of corrupt modern Bible versions. The fact is that readers of Bible versions do not bestow the deserved attention on the problem of final authority; or else they would "see with which of the contending parties the Truth must lie". [pages vii, viii.]

"It is the duty of all Christians not to sit still when such concerns are in jeopardy. Yet at the present time there are comparatively few persons, clerical or lay, who have an intelligent acquaintance with the grounds on which this important question rests." [Chapter I, page 4.]

"It will be our duty to deduce the main principles that ought to revise and remodel the Sacred Text." [Chapter I, page 5.]

Modern Christianity has accepted corrupt Bible versions by sitting still instead of fulfilling our duty of ascertaining what the true scriptures are and by what right the modern translators have to change our Holy Bible that reigned as the common Bible from 1611 (or sometime shortly thereafter) until 1881.

There are many other things I could quote from Miller's Guide and show what a great work it is. And perhaps at some later time I will but for now, let this suffice.

The Biblical New Testament Local Church

(Part Three)

Tithing

This is yet another problem with modern churches. Most of them that I have ever attended have put an undue emphasis on giving. The problem that I mentioned in the first part of this series of posts concerning the failure of most Christians to rightly divide the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15) is of great importance. The example I gave before is concerning dispensational salvation. Now we are looking at a problem just as vital as that which concerns church pastors who lord over their flock unscripturally. Many pastors take the oversight of the flock of God by constraint for filthy lucre.

“The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.” (1 Peter 5:1-4)

Paul doesn’t mention tithing one time in all his epistles for the church. He does talk about giving but not tithing. The twelve apostles said in Acts 6:4 that they would give themselves “continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.” The thing that an elder should constrain his flock to give (if anything at all) is “themselves”. There really shouldn’t be constraint laid on Christians but the point is that the first and main thing that God wants from you is you, not your money. If fact, if God has you, you will give as the Lord lays on your heart to give without having a pastor taking old testament scriptures out of their contexts in order to rob you of your money.

Acts 7:38 says that Moses “received the lively oracles to give unto us:” Paul mentions “the oracles of God” in Romans 3:2 and Hebrews 5:12. And then Peter said, “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God;” (1 Peter 4:11). Here I think is the responsibility of local church elders and pastors to give the oracles of God to the people of the church.

When Paul was on his way to Jerusalem, he called the elders of the church (Acts 20:17). At this time he gave them the following warning:

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.” (Acts 20:28-35)

He said to “take heed” of a few things. 1) to feed the church of God, 2) grievous wolves shall enter in among you, 3) perverted men will “draw away disciples after them”, 4) watch and remember. Then, he said, “I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel.” And when he finally mentions giving, it is in reference to supporting the weak not supporting the church pastor.

“Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.” (Ephesians 4:28).

“For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;” (Titus 1:7)

As I said before, Paul never even mentioned ‘tithing’. And from what I see, when he talks about giving, it is in reference to “Distributing to the necessity of saints” (Romans 12:13) or in support of Paul himself, being an apostle, a traveling minister (Philippians 4:15).

And also Paul indicated in Romans 12:8 that giving is a gift that possibly not everybody would have.

“I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)” (1 Corinthians 16:15).

Paul discusses the ministry to the saints in 2 Corinthians 8 & 9 (two whole chapters) and the whole time it is about giving “to the necessity of saints” (Romans 12:13); “the want of the saints (2 Corinthians 9:12).

In conclusion, I see that Christian tithing is unbiblical and especially pastors beating their congregation over the head with verses that don’t apply to them and trying to constrain them to give their money for unbiblical purposes. I don’t believe that Christian giving should be used to build a beautiful building and buy a bunch of junk to put in it. It seems that most of the modern churches and pastors are much, much more concerned with building a pretty and comfortable building to attract lost people and baby Christians than they are concerned about “edifying of the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:12).

[If necessary, I might add more to this about tithing and giving in a later post.]

The Denominational System is Unscriptural

“Where in the Bible is such a religious structure found? If a denominational system is so good and needful, then why didn’t God think of it and establish it? Why didn’t Jesus say, “I will build my denomination . . .” in Matthew 16:18 instead of saying that He would build his church?

Denominationalism was introduced to Christianity, not by the Bible, but by men. Rather than follow the simple Bible pattern of respecting the autonomy and independence of separate local churches, men have traditionally given into the temptation to “become stronger and better” by linking churches together into associations, fellowships, hierarchies, and denominations. First, it was the Roman Catholics, then the Greek Orthodox Church, then all of the Reformation groups.

In the book of Acts, there are various local churches established, but there are no denominations or associations. In his epistles, Paul addresses local assemblies, but no denominations or associations are mentioned. In Revelation 1:4, we read these words: “John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne.” We do not read anything about denominations, conventions, or associations. Jesus then goes on to address letters to each of the seven churches independently in chapters two and three (Rev. 1:4, 11; 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14). The Bible simply does not support denominationalism. New Testament churches are independent, autonomous, assemblies of Christians, and nothing more.”

[From “The Sick Southern Baptist System – 13 Reasons To Get Out and Stay Out of the Southern Baptist Convention”, 35 page booklet, Copyright © 2006 James L. Melton - http://www.biblebaptistpublications.org/southernbaptists.html]

(An additional note: the biblical new testament churches didn't have names either.)

Entertainment in Church

(1) Handel was so spirit-filled when he wrote The Messiah that he said he didn’t know if he was in the body or out of the body; (2) every word to the Hallelujah Chorus was taken straight from a King James Bible; (3) Handel was quick to correct a British Lord who commented that The Messiah (Handel’s masterpiece) would make excellent “entertainment” for the people. The dear saint said that he wanted to HELP the people, not entertain them; (4) three thousand people attended the funeral of George Frideric Handel, and he is buried at Westminster Abbey near a statue of himself. The statue is holding a music score reading “I know my Redeemer liveth.”

What I Have Learned About The Biblical Local New Testament Church

(Part Two)

Problems With Modern Churches

I think I have well explained in my previous post (Getting Out Of The Baptist Camp) why I chose to quit referring to myself as a Baptist. I believe that I also thoroughly explained the problem of opening up the fellowship of Jesus Christ our Lord to unsaved people and therefore causing a mixt multitude.

Another problem is the Sunday School System. In most churches as far as I know when you go to Sunday School, you and your spouse go to one Sunday School class, your teenagers go to another Sunday School class, and your younger children go to even other Sunday School classes. So what I now see in the Sunday School System is the splitting up of the family. I think this is unbiblical and unnecessary.

So far I have listed three things in modern churches that are unbiblical, unnecessary, and I think also detrimental to the body of Christ. They are as follows.

1) A Mixt multitude of believers with unbelievers

2) ‘Joining’ the local church

3) The splitting of Christian families in the assembly

Another problem with modern churches is the way that they are ruled. I now believe that the Biblical New Testament local church should be ruled by a group of elders instead of by one or two pastors. In support of this, I will give some Bible verses and comments from C. I. Scofield and Peter S. Ruckman.

Elders and Bishops.

“And when they had ordained them elders in every church” (Acts 14:23). “The ordination is for an office exactly as it is found in 1 Peter 5:1,2 and 1 Timothy 5:17; and there is more than one elder per church (Acts 20:17).” [Peter S. Ruckman, Bible Believers Commentary on The Book of Acts (1974; 1984), page 415.]

“Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:” (Philippians 1:1)

“The “bishop” is a guardian or inspector. This is apparent from the passages where the word “elder” occurs. The bishop is plainly an ordained elder (Acts 20) in charge of “feeding the flock” and acting as “overseer” of the vineyard (1 Corinthians 9:7-10). All “bishops” and “elders” help oversee LOCAL CONGREGATIONS, and there are several of them in each locality (Acts 20). The bishop is the “pastor” of Ephesians 4; and the pastor is to be “apt to teach” and a “teacher” (Ephesians 4:11). [Peter S. Ruckman, Bible Believers Commentary on The Book of Philippians (1973; revised 1997), page 394.]

“This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;” (1 Timothy 3:1-2)

“The passage deals with the qualifications of a “bishop”, called an overseer in Acts 20:28, and called a pastor by modern Baptists. All three titles apply to an undershepherd of a flock. A pastor or bishop is an ordained “elder” (Philippians 1:1; Acts 14:23; 1 Timothy 14:23) whose rulership is spiritual (1 Timothy 5:17; Hebrews 13:17). [Peter S. Ruckman, Bible Believers Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (1989), page 55.]

“Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:” (Philippians 1:1)

“A local church is an assembly of professed believers on the Lord Jesus Christ, living for the most part in one locality, who assemble themselves together in his name for the breaking of bread, worship, praise, prayer, testimony, the ministry of the word, discipline, and the furtherance of the gospel. Such a church exists where two or three are thus gathered. Every such local church has Jesus Christ in the midst, is a temple of God, and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. When perfected in organization a local church consists of “saints, with the bishops [elders] and deacons.” [Scofield Reference Bible (1909; 1917), footnote for Philippians 1:1.]

“For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:” (Titus 1:5)

“Elder and bishop designate the same office, the former referring to the man, the latter to a function of the office. The eldership in the apostolic local churches was always plural. There is no instance of one elder in a local church. The functions of elders are: to rule, to guard the body of revealed truth from perversion and error, to “oversee” the church as a shepherd his flock. Elders are made or “set” in the churches by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28), but great stress is laid upon their due appointment (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). At first they were ordained by an apostle, but in Titus and 1 Timothy the qualifications of an elder become part of the Scriptures for the guidance of the churches in such appointment (1 Timothy 3:1-7).” [Scofield Reference Bible (1909; 1917), footnote for Titus 1:5.]

“I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.” (3 John 1:9)

“The aged Apostle had written to a church which allowed one Diotrephes to exercise an authority common enough in later ages, but wholly new in the primitive churches. Diotrephes had rejected the apostolic letters and authority. It appears also that he had refused the ministry of visiting brethren (v. 10), and cast out those who received them. Historically, this letter marks the beginning of that clerical and priestly assumption over the churches in which the primitive church order disappeared. This Epistle reveals, as well, the believer’s resource in such a day.” [Scofield Reference Bible (1909, 1917), from the Introduction to Third John.]

To Be Continued ....

Present Course of Study

Upon my learning a few things about the Biblical practices of the new testament local church, I decided to pursue a course of study on this topic. [I will elaborate more on what I have learned later in Part Two of "Getting Out Of The Baptist Camp" and then in further posts after that. Part One was a good explanation of why I quit using the Baptist name and included at least one or two examples of problems in the modern local church.] So, at first, I thought the best book to read would be Dr. Ruckman's "History of the New Testament Church". In his Preface and Introduction, he referred several times to verses in the book of Acts and his comments on those passages. This had me decide to read first his commentary on the book of Acts and then his Church History.

Now that I have been asked to teach a two to three day seminar on the King James Bible in April, I really need to prepare for that. I must review all of the material that I have already produced on the subject and study other materials (including the Bible itself, of course) to get together enough information in such a format as appropriate for teaching in a seminar. This will include my studying the book of Acts and Church History so I will still be reading the two earlier mentioned books by Dr. Ruckman. With this change of direction in my course of study, I took almost all of my science books back upstairs to the library. Then I cleared off the table on my right hand beside my computer desk and one other table in this room so I could bring other books down from my library upstairs that could be helpful in studying the Holy Bible, its history, its purity and preservation, its internal and manuscript evidence, its soldiers and attackers, etc. I will here give the titles of the books on these two tables in two lists; books that I have not read (or not read completely), and then books that I have read.

List one:

Archaic Words and the Authorized Version (1996, 1999) - Laurence M. Vance
Introduction To The Criticism of the New Testament (1883) - Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener
Noyes' Essays (1860) - [Compiled by] George R. Noyes
God Wrote Only One Bible (1955, 1983) - Jasper James Ray
New Age Bible Versions (1993) - G. A. Riplinger
Dictionary of Early English (1968) - Joseph T. Shipley
"O Biblios" - Alan O'Reilly
Problem Texts (1980) - Peter S. Ruckman
Ruckman's Battlefield Notes (2003) - Peter S. Ruckman
A Book About The English Bible (1919) - Josiah H. Penniman
Counterfeit Or Genuine Mark 16? John 8? (1975, 1990) - David Otis Fuller
True Or False? The Westcott-Hort Textual Theory Examined (1973, 1990) - David Otis Fuller
The Highest Critics -vs.- The Higher Critics (1896) - L. W. Munhall
The King James Version Defended (1956, 1984) - Edward F. Hills
A Greek Testament Primer (1887, 1925) - Edward Miller
The Identity of the New Testament Text (1977, 1980) -Wilbur N. Pickering
Bible Study Charts & Outlines (1997) - Peter S. Ruckman
The Bible Translations Test (1983) - James H. Son
Blind Guides - G. A. Riplinger
The Holy Scriptures vs. The Holy Koran (2001) - Peter S. Ruckman
Curiosities of the Bible (1886) - A New York Sunday School Superintendent
The Ministry of God's Word (1971) - Watchman Nee
God's Truth (1973, 1983) - Alan Hayward
Guide To Spiritual Warfare (1984) - E. M. Bounds
Unholy Hands On The Bible, Volume II (1992) - Jay P. Green
Final Authority (1993) - William P. Grady
Bible Version Manual (1975) - Donald T. Clarke
Defending The King James Bible (1992, 1998) - D. A. Waite
The Authorized King James Bible Defended (1983) - Chester A. Murray
Sitting in Judgment Of the Word of God (2000) - John Adair
Things That Are Different Are Not The Same (1993) - Micky P. Carter
If The Foundations Be Destroyed (1994) - Chick Salliby
The Inspiration Of Scripture (1980) - Paul J. Achtemeier
Which Bible Can We Trust? (1982) - Les Garrett
Let's Weigh The Evidence (1983) - Barry Burton
The Book of Books (1918) - John Schaller
Exposition of Psalm CXIX (1843) - C. Bridges
Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? (1977) - Cowdrey, Davis, Scales
The Bible In America (1936) - Marion P. Simms
The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture (1969) - Rene Pache
James I (1967) - David Matthew
The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (1964) - Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield
Our God-Breathed Book - The Bible (1969) - John R. Rice
The Encyclopedia Of Biblical Errancy (1995) - C. Dennis McKinsey
The Bible And The Common Reader (1944) - Mary Ellen Chase
The Paraphrased Perversion of the Bible (1974) - Gene Nowlin
Laughable Laws and Courtroom Capers (1993) - Robert Wayne Pelton
The NIV Reconsidered (1990) - Earl Radmacher & Zane C. Hodges
Interlinear Greek-English New Testament [Stephens, 1550] (1897) - George Ricker Berry
Correct English Simplified Grammar And Drill Book (1915, 1924) Josephine Turck Baker
The Master Book Of Humorous Illustrations (1938) - Leewin B. Williams
The Ministry Of The Word (1970) - G. Campbell Morgan
An All Round Ministry (1900) - C H Spurgeon
How We Got Our Bible (1899) - J. Paterson Smyth
The Public Speaker's Treasure Chest (1942) - Herbert V. Prochnow
The Evolution Of The English Language (1928, 1956) - George H. McKnight
So Many Versions? (1975) - Sakae Kubo & Walter Specht
God's Incomparable Word (1977) - Harold Lindsell
Alice's Adventures In Wonderland (1946) - Lewis Carroll
Through The Looking Glass (1946) - Lewis Carroll
Intended Treason (1970) - Paul Durst
Dear Dr. John Where is my Bible? (1973, 1996) - Hebert Evans
A Treasury of Evangelical Writings (1971) - David Otis Fuller
The Bible: God's Word (1972) - Tenis Van Kooten
The New Athenians (1992) - James H. Son
Seventy-five Problems (2001) - Lloyd L. Streeter
Bible Versions Which is the REAL Word of God? (1998) - Stewarton Bible School Publications
Kept Pure In All Ages (2001) - Jeffrey Khoo
The Divine Inspiration Of The Bible (1917) -Arthur W. Pink
The English New Testament (1949) - Luther A. Weigle
The Battle For The Bible (1976) - Harold Lindsell
InterLinear Greek - English New Testament [Nestle] (1958) - Alfred Marshall
The New Testament In The Original Greek (1906) - Brooke Foss Wescott and Fenton John Anthony Hort


List Two:

The Holy Bible (1611) - God
In Awe of Thy Word Understanding The King James Bible (2003) - G. A. Riplinger
A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (1886, 2003) - Edward Miller
The Unknown Bible (1984) - Peter S. Ruckman
The Scholarship Only Controversy (1996) - Peter S. Ruckman
The Book of Acts (1974) - Peter S. Ruckman
The Language of the King James Bible (1998) - G. A. Riplinger
General Biblical Introduction (1937) - H. S. Miller
Ruckmanism Exposed (1998) - R. L. Hymers, Jr.
Inspiration and Interpretation (1861, 1999) - Dean John William Burgon
The Revision Revised (1883, 2000) - Dean John William Burgon
The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (1871, ?) - Dean John William Burgon
The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (1896, 1998) - Dean John William Burgon
The Causes of Corruption of the Traditional Text (1896, 1998) - Dean John William Burgon
Manuscript Evidence (1970) - Peter S. Ruckman
Biblical Scholarship (1988) - Peter S. Ruckman
Why I Believe The King James Bible Is The Word of God (1983) - Peter S. Ruckman
About the New King James Version (1983) - Peter S. Ruckman
About The New Scofield Reference Bible (1979) - Peter S. Ruckman
The NIV (1990) - Peter S. Ruckman
Survey Of The Authorized Version (1978) - Peter S. Ruckman
How To Teach The "Original" Greek (1992) - Peter S. Ruckman
The Myth of Early Revisions (1986) - David F. Reagan
The Christian Liar's Library (1997) - Peter S. Ruckman
1 in 23,000,000 (2001) - Peter S. Ruckman
The Mythological Septuagint (1996) - Peter S. Ruckman
The Last Grenade (1990) - Peter S. Ruckman
The Monarch Of The Books (1973) - Peter S. Ruckman
Satan's Masterpiece! The New ASV (1972) - Peter S. Ruckman
Thy Word Is Truth (1957) - Edward J. Young
Biblical Criticism (1957) - Wick Broomall
A Brief History of English Bible Translations (1993) - Laurence M. Vance
Believing Bible Study (1967, 1977) - Edward F. Hills
Purified Seven Times (1998) - Bill Bradley
The King James Version Debate (1979) - D. A. Carson
The Book (1975) - Dick Cimino
NKJV Nonsense (1992) - Daryl R. Coats
Crowned With Glory (2000) - Thomas Holland
All About The Bible - Sidney Collett
In The Beginning (2001) - Alister McGrath
The Translators Revived (1858, ?) - Alexander McClure
The Answer Book (1989) - Samuel C. Gipp
The Bible Believer's Book of Truth (1998) - James L. Melton
Which Translation Should You Trust? (1993) - Timothy S. Morton
The History Of The New Testament Church (1982) - Peter S. Ruckman
Evidences Of The Authenticity, Inspiration, and Canonical Authority of the Holy Scriptures (1836) - Archibald Alexander
One Book Stands Alone (2001) - Douglas D. Stauffer
Gipp's Understandable History of the Bible (1987, 2000) - Samuel C. Gipp
The Burial of Barry's 64 Questions - Herb Evans
Sixty-six Reasons For Keeping Our Protestant Bible (1987) - William A. DeJonge
In The Beginning Was The Word - Danny C. Doege
A Tale of Three Cities: Where The Bible Versions Began (1997) - David F. Reagan
God Has Only One Bible - Perry F. Rockwood
Which Bible Should I Read? (2000) - Paul Wilde
Does God Have A Controversy With The King James Bible? (1997) - H. Wayne Williams
The King James Only Controversy (1995) - James R. White
Which Bible Is God's Word? (1994) - Gail Riplinger
The New King James Bible Do We Need It? - Chris Sherburne
Translators To The Readers (1611, ?) - Miles Smith
Profiting From The Word (1970) - Arthur W. Pink

What I Have Learned About the Biblical New Testament Local Church

(Part One)

I have been Baptist 'all of my life'. My mother was Methodist and my father was Baptist. Dad told me one time that when we lived in Byram, Mississippi (from Summer 1966 to Summer 1967), sometimes they took us to a Baptist church and other times took us to a Methodist church. Dad also said another time that he didn't continue attending church because he felt hypocritical by going to church while not being able to get along with Mom at home. [Mom (1933-1994) and Dad (1931-2007) both were born again Christians and in his later years, Dad became devout in prayer and an avid Bible reader.] I don't remember going to church until 1973. On February 15, 1973, we moved from Pearl, Mississippi to 3518 Lee Drive in Jackson. We lived there only one and a half months. One evening we were visited by some people from Candlestick Baptist Church. Four of us (6) brothers started going to church. I don’t remember much about the other three but I entered the church scene full force and attended as much as possible. I went on Sundays and Wednesdays. I went on visitation nights going door to door telling people how to get saved by the gospel of Jesus Christ. I attended all other functions in between whenever I could. To the best of my memory, I went to church there for about a year. After that many years passed before I would again have much thought about God or the Bible.

After I became a son of God (May 1981), I returned to Texas and went to church with my brother and his family. We went to a Baptist church. Other than visiting a church with a ‘friend’ occasionally, whenever I attended church from 1981 to 1988, I went to a Baptist church. I don’t remember when I first began to learn important Bible doctrines. I knew when I received Jesus Christ as my Saviour that I was saved by faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and not saved by works in any way at all. And even in times of broken fellowship with the Lord, I never doubted my salvation, thus indicating my knowledge of the Biblical doctrine of eternal security. And I had always believed that the Bible is God’s inerrant word and the final authority for a Christian. Perhaps I learned some of these doctrines in my forgotten youth. I don’t know. In the fall of 1988, when I repented and rededicated my life to Jesus Christ, I went to several churches, looking for a good one. I went to Baptist Churches. Until somewhere around 1988 or 1990, I’m not sure I even knew why I picked Baptist churches to attend instead of some other denomination. But in the fall/winter of 1988-1989, I began to learn more and more about the Bible and its doctrines. I recall hearing or reading some preacher saying that a Baptist church is the closest to the Biblical New Testament local church that there is.

What is a Baptist?

James Melton’s List of Baptist Distinctives (from his tape “Why I Am A Baptist”):

1. Water Baptism for Believers Only by Immersion only
2. Salvation by Grace through Faith Only in the Finished Work of Jesus Christ
3. Eternal Security of the Believer
4. Autonomy of the Local Church
5. Spiritual Priesthood of all Believers
6. Regenerate Church Membership
7. Absolute and Final Authority of the Bible
8. Separation of Church and State

[James Melton is pastor of Bible Baptist Church, Martin, Tennessee.]

Other Baptists or Baptist Groups may give differing lists of so-called Baptist Distinctives. For example, Donald K. Anderson’s list in “The Biblical Distinctives Of Baptists” [© 1984 by Regular Baptist Press, Schaumburg, Illinois] is the following:

Biblical Authority (Matching Melton’s no. 7)

Autonomy of the Local Church

Priesthood of All Believers

Two Ordinances – Baptism and Communion

Individual Soul Liberty

Saved, Baptized Church Membership (Matching Melton’s no. 6)

Two Offices – Pastor and Deacon

Separation of Church and State

James Melton said (Bible Baptist Bulletin, Winter 2008, page 1), “I trust you know what a Baptist church is: a church that believes in salvation by grace by faith, baptism by immersion for regenerated believers only,” etc.

My question is “Can you really know what a Baptist church is?”

The following is a list of Baptist sub-denominations, a list of subdivisions of Baptists, with their various Baptist associations, conferences, conventions, fellowships, groups, and unions in the United States. [From the online Wikipedia encyclopedia -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Baptist_sub-denominations.]

• Alliance of Baptists [8]
• American Baptist Association
• American Baptist Churches [9]
• Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America
• Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists [10]
• Baptist Bible Fellowship International
• Baptist Bible Translators [11]
• Baptist Churches Planting Ministry [12]
• Baptist Foundation of Arizona
• Baptist Fundamental Ministries for Jewish Evangelism [13]
• Baptist General Conference
• Baptist Missionary Association of America [14]
• Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America
• Black Primitive Baptists
• Central Baptist Association
• Christian Unity Baptist Association
• Conservative Baptist Association of America
• Continental Baptist Churches
• Cooperative Baptist Fellowship [15]
• Evangelical Free Baptist Church
• Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship
• Fundamental Baptist Fellowship Association
• Fundamental Baptist Fellowship of America
• General Association of Baptists
• General Association of General Baptists
• General Association of Regular Baptist Churches [16]
• General Conference of the Evangelical Baptist Church, Inc.
• General Six-Principle Baptists
• Independent Baptist Church of America
• Independent Baptist Fellowship International
• Independent Baptist Fellowship of North America
• Institutional Missionary Baptist Conference of America
• Interstate & Foreign Landmark Missionary Baptist Association
• Landmark Baptists
• Liberty Baptist Fellowship
• Macedonia Baptist World Missions [17]
• Mainstream Baptist Network [18]
• National Association of Free Will Baptists
• National Baptist Convention of America, Inc.
• National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc. [19]
• National Baptist Evangelical Life and Soul Saving Assembly of the U.S.A.
• National Missionary Baptist Convention of America
• National Primitive Baptist Convention of the U.S.A.
• New Testament Association of Independent Baptist Churches
• North American Baptist Conference
• Old Regular Baptist
• Old Time Missionary Baptist
• Original Free Will Baptist Convention
• Primitive Baptist
• Progressive National Baptist Convention
• Reformed Baptist
• Regular Baptist
• Roger Williams Fellowship [20]
• Separate Baptist
• Separate Baptists in Christ
• Seventh Day Baptist General Conference [21]
• Southern Baptist Convention [22]
• Southwide Baptist Fellowship
• Sovereign Grace Baptists
• Transforming MinistriesCalifornia American Baptist Split
• Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists
• United American Free Will Baptist Church
• United American Free Will Baptist Conference
• United Baptists
• Unregistered Baptist Fellowship
• Westboro Baptist Church
• World Baptist Fellowship
• Worldwide Baptist New Testament Missions [23]

The foregoing list gives over sixty groups or ‘sub-denominations’. I really doubt that all of these Baptist sub-denominations are in agreement on either of the previous lists of Baptist ‘distinctives’. I have heard that there are about 139 different Baptist groups. Even if there are only 25 to 30 groups that would be enough to suspect that they don’t all believe the same things concerning major Bible doctrines. Another question comes up. If all Baptist groups do agree on the earlier listed Baptist distinctives, would that be enough to distinguish what a Baptist church is?

I quote again from the online Wikipedia encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist).

“Because of the importance of the priesthood of every believer, the centrality of the freedom of conscience and thought in Baptist theology, and due to the congregational style of church governance, doctrine varies greatly between one Baptist church and another (and among individual Baptists) especially on the following issues:

• Calvinism/Arminianism
• Doctrine of separation
• Eschatology
• Hermeneutical method
• Homosexuality
• Ordination of women as pastor or deacon
• The translation of Scripture (See King-James-Only Movement)
• The extent to which missionary boards should be used to support missionaries
• The extent to which non-members may participate in communion services
• The nature of Law and Gospel”

Many people believe that the Calvinisn/Arminianism issue is as simply as whether or not one believes in the eternal security of the believer. Supposedly Calvinists believe in eternal security and Arminianists believe that after a person is saved, he could at some later point be not saved; in other words, you can lose your salvation. However, it isn’t that simple. Calvinists do not really believe in the true Biblical doctrine of eternal security. They believe in the perseverance of the saints not the preservation of the saints. [For a good understanding of Calvinism and its heretical nature, read The Other Side of Calvinism by Laurence Vance.]

This is the subject of one of Melton’s distinctives: Eternal Security. However, if some Baptists believe the Biblical doctrine of eternal security (which some do) and at the same time, other Baptists don’t believe in eternal security (which some don’t), then the doctrine of eternal security is no longer a Baptist distinctive.

Secondly, the above various issues that divide Baptists are certainly important issues that should draw dividing lines between separate and distinct groups. It has become difficult to agree with James Melton on his claim that you can know what a Baptist church is.

Furthermore, I will take you through his list and show you problems with calling most of them distinctives.

The first in his list is: Water Baptism for Believers Only by Immersion only.

Brother Melton’s belief here is that water baptism is not a requirement for salvation, but instead is a ritual to be attended to after a person has already been saved; hence he is called a believer. In addition, the mode of water baptism should identify with the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ; hence it must be by immersion. Now, any real Bible believer believes exactly this way and agrees with brother Melton on this doctrine.

The problem is that while most Baptists don’t believe that water baptism is a requirement for salvation, they still put so great an emphasis on it that you have to wonder if they really think it is necessary for salvation or not. One Baptist church that I used to attend in Texas believed that no Christian could grow in the Lord without getting water baptism. Honestly, that is too ridiculous to even comment on. I eventually got the impression from pulpit comments I heard at that same church that anyone who had not been water baptized was not worthy to take up space on their pew. There are also Baptists, who believe that if your water baptism wasn’t administered by a ‘qualified’ Baptist preacher,

then, it doesn’t count for anything and you need to be rebaptised by a ‘qualified’ baptizer. I may have news for some of you. Your water baptism doesn’t count for much anyway. I knew of one pastor in Texas who would only fill his baptistery a few times per year (maybe about 4). Anyway, the point is that with so much undue emphasis on water baptism, why should it be considered to be one of the denominational distinctives?

Next in his list: Salvation by Grace through Faith Only in the Finished Work of Jesus Christ.

Brother Melton believes that salvation is by faith only without works on the part of the believer. Again, a Bible believer will agree. You become a son of God by receiving Jesus Christ. You receive Jesus Christ as your Saviour by believing on his name (John 1:12). For further information on salvation by faith without works, see my work on the following webpage address: http://www.ourchurch.com/view/?pageID=156396. While salvation by faith only and eternal security are both true Bible doctrines, neither of them qualifies as Baptist distinctives. As I already stated concerning eternal security, both of these doctrines are debatable between some Baptist groups. And since the separate Baptist groups don’t agree on them how do they qualify as a Baptist distinctive? They don’t. Another problem with these two doctrines being distinctive is again the undue emphasis put on them. You see, these two doctrines are clearly true for the church, the body of Christ. They are not clearly true for any other group or any other time. In the Old Testament, before the death of Jesus Christ, no saint had the permanent indwelling of the holy Spirit, the spiritual birth, “Christ in you, the hope of glory”, the spiritual baptism in the body of Christ, or eternal security. Most Baptists do what most any other group does; that is, they find one way of salvation in the Bible and try to make all the rest of the Bible line up with a truth that really only applies to one time period. Salvation in the church age is unlike salvation in any other period of time at all. And other groups find salvation by works in the Bible or find salvation without eternal security and they do likewise; they try to make all the rest of the Bible line up with what they found to be true somewhere, but they don’t even know the right place to apply what they learned. That is why we have people teaching that salvation by works and without eternal security applies today. Each group puts an undue amount of emphasis on a truth that they have learned from the Bible. And they “changed the truth of God into a lie” (Romans 1:25) in order to prove that their favorite doctrine of salvation applies throughout all time. This comes from a failure to “rightly divide the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). [Brother Melton is guilty of this himself. If I understand correctly, he doesn’t believe in dispensational salvation. He believes that salvation always was by faith only. Again, for a better understanding of dispensational salvation, see my work on the following webpage - http://www.ourchurch.com/view/?pageID=156185.]

The fourth doctrine in his list: Autonomy of the Local Church.

This is another true Bible doctrine that is not shared by all of the Baptists groups. Namely, the Southern Baptist Convention Churches are not independent or autonomous. There may be others.

The sixth doctrine in Brother Melton’s list is: Regenerate Church Membership.

By this, it is meant that no person should be accepted as a member of the local church who has not been born again and received Jesus Christ as his Saviour. This may be true and this may sound like a good Baptist distinctive. It, however, is also faulty. The normal procedure is that anyone is allowed to attend meetings in a local church. Then, if someone wants to join the church, they will be accepted as a member if they have already been saved and baptized or if they are willing to be saved and baptized. At the same time lost people are still allowed to attend the church services. There are several problems.

One is that with this type of acceptance, people become ‘members’ of the church and then many of them end up not doing the things that are duly expected of a member of a local church. But they are still considered to be a member since they were accepted into the fellowship. Actually, ‘joining’ a local church is unscriptural and unnecessary.

I mentioned “the fellowship”. This brings up the next problem. What is the fellowship according to the Bible?

“God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.” (1 Corinthians 1:9)

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14)

“Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord” (2 Corinthians 6:17)

The fellowship of the assembly of believers is supposed to be the fellowship of Jesus Christ our Lord. This is the fellowship that we are called unto. When a local church has a mixt multitude consisting of believers and unbelievers, there is an unequal yoke. For what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? We Christians are to come out from among them, and be separate. We should not accept unbelievers into our fellowship of believers, the fellowship of Jesus Christ our Lord. We are to come out from among them. Therefore, they are not to come in among us. So while unbelievers may not be called ‘members’ of the church, they are allowed to be members of the congregation and members of the fellowship of which they (Biblically) should not be a partaker of. Really for a church to claim to have a regenerate church membership and still allow unbelievers into their fellowship is hypocritical and dishonest. It is spiritually an unhealthy association. “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.” (1 Corinthians 15:33)

Number seven on Melton’s list is: Absolute and Final Authority of the Bible.

Besides the fact that saying your final authority is the Bible doesn’t make it so and even believing that the King James Bible is the pure, preserved word of God doesn’t mean that you actually believe what the Book says is true, there is also the fact that most Baptist churches don’t believe that the King James Bible is God’s word. All Baptist churches may claim that the Bible is their final authority, but many of them promote, use, teach, and preach from modern corrupt, perverted versions. So, another of these doctrines does not qualify as a Baptist distinctive.

The last in Melton’s list is: Separation of Church and State.

Brother Melton says about his church, “This congregation is organized as a church exclusively for charitable, religious, and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.” [Bible Baptist Church Constitution (1995), page 2.]

Here again is an example of hypocrisy. While he claims separation from the State, he still has to make sure that his organization qualifies under the Internal Revenue Code. That doesn’t look like separation to me. That looks like another unequal yoke.

Some of the problems of the common modern local churches should be apparent from what I have said thus far. There is much more to say. It is clear that if there ever were any Baptist distinctives, the Baptist name doesn’t mean what it used to.

“Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.” (1 Peter 4:16)

The Blind Watchmaker

When I finished reading "Scientific Creationism", I started reading "The Flood". I now have about 100 pages left of 350. About a week or two ago, a person came into my Paltalk room whose PT nickname is The Evolutionist. I decided to take a few minutes to talk to him privately. When I told him that I am getting the evolution material in the creationist books that I am reading, he said that he doubted that. He did say that he had read "Life: How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or By Creation?" (by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society) and had also looked through a book called "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe. [Having checked into these two books I found that they unfortunately are not sufficient to refute evolution by teaching creation. He has not done enough research to know the evidence for creation and against evolution.] And he suggested that I read some books by Richard Dawkins to be sure that I really understand evolution. I have ordered "The Selfish Gene" (awaiting its arrival) and I obtained "The Blind Watchmaker" at my local used bookstore. I am currently reading 2 books. I am on page 51 (out of 318) in chapter three.

So I thought I would make a few comments concerning this book The Blind Watchmaker. Richard (the Deluded and Blind Hearted) Dawkins states on the first page of his preface that "The problem is complexity of design. The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. This amount of complex design cries out for an explanation." Then, on the next page, he says, "the Darwinian world-view is the only known theory that could, in principle, solve the mystery of our existence." Since Dawkins admits apparent design, you should be able to see right away what he is going to do. He is going to take away from you the obvious truth in order to teach you a lie.

I am only 50 pages into his book and have seen several times that he can't make his mind up whether we were designed or not. He is very confused. On page 5, he says, "the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics". Yet at the same time (in the same sentence even) he says that all appearances are to the contrary. Hence he has to lie and tell you that the obvious truth is a lie. He calls natural selection 'the blind watchmaker' and says that natural selection is the explanation for the existence of all life and that while natural selection has no purpose in mind, it deceives us by giving "apparently purposeful form of all life". Well, apparently, natural selection is a very deceptive process which can not be trusted as an explanation for life. [Actually, evolution would be the purpose of natural selection (as my wife said) if it were true.]

"We are entirely accustomed to the idea that complex elegance is an indicator of premeditated, crafted design. This is probably the most powerful reason for the belief, held by the vast majority of people that have ever lived, in some kind of deity." [Preface, page xii.]

It is so obvious to any person who will actually use that grey mass inside his head that life and the universe were created that you must stretch your imagination and deceive yourself in order to not believe in the Creator. You have to be educated out of your belief in Almighty God. In fact, Dawkins also says, "it took a very large leap of the imagination for Darwin and Wallace to see that there is another way". Absolutely. That really describes evolution. Evolution is a very large leap of the imagination. Evolution is so far out into never never land with Peter Pan and Tinker Bell that Dawkins says on page xi, "It is almost as if the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism, and find it hard to believe". Absolutely.

It is absolutely true that the human brain was designed to not understand Darwinism and to not believe it. The Bible says so. Romans 1:19-24 says "That which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts."

Evolutionists have ignored the revelation of God that "God hath shewed unto them". They are without excuse. They knew God. They glorified him not. They were not thankful to God. They are vain in their imaginations. They have a foolish darkened heart. They have made fools of themselves. They need a change of heart.

Post Note:

Any really honest person has to admit that there is design in the creation no matter how it came about. Creation is the proper word. If Evolution were true then Evolution by natural selection is the Creator. There is design in the creation; not just apparent design. The creation has design. That is an absolute truth. The problem for the evolutionist is to admit the design in creation and still not believe in the designer. The only answer is to lie about the design. "It is not really design; it is just apparent design." "The Watchmaker is blind." As Dawkins says (page 5, The Blind Watchmaker), "A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs and plans with a future purpose in mind". Natural Selection, however, according to Dawkins, is deceptive, giving the appearance of design which is not really there. Natural Selection and Evolution is a lie. The True Watchmaker is God the Creator of the Universe and the Author of life.

Scientific Creationism

Like I said before "Scientific Creationism" by Henry M. Morris puts creation and evolution side by side and looks at how and where each one does and does not fit in with well known and proven facts of science. Of course, it is creation that fits more perfectly. The book is a very good book. We would like to see the evolutionist answer to the evidence therein. There are only a couple of problems with this book. The biggest problem for the ordinary person would be that in the chapter on the age of the earth, he goes into more detail and technical information than necessary. It is really enough to say simply that dating methods can not be trusted because we can not assume that uniformitarianism is correct. And at the end of the "Old or Young" chapter, he gives a very unnecessary but yet complicated Algebra equation dealing with the proposed population of the earth if man has been here for a million years or more. Then, in his last chapter, "Creation According To Scripture", is perhaps the most important thing in the whole issue of scientific creationism; that is the Biblical references to the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy.

Psalms 102:25-26 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:

Isaiah 51:6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

Romans 7:21-25 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

I had said before that an evolutionist should read two books; After Its Kind and The Collapse of Evolution. I would say at this point that an evolutionist should at least read any one good book on the subject. Naturally, the evolutionist would suggest that we Christians read evolution material. And I am not opposed to the idea of reading something suggested by an evolutionist. The problem is that anything written and promoted by evolutionists will be one sided, while the material that I have been reading presents the principles of both sides. So while I am willing to read some evolution material, I am already getting the evolution material. On the other hand, the evolutionist who will not read creationist material doesn't get all the information needed to make an intelligent evaluation of the issue. This is because of several things. The first problem is that Evolutionists assume evolution to be a fact at the start. Then, they have a great lack of understanding of creation principles. And further, they interpret the facts of science and other 'evidences' with a bias to support evolution. Also, they sometimes leave out evidence that favors creation. And finally, they believe that just because they are ignorant of certain things, those things could not possibly be true. For example, since they don't know there is a God, Almighty creator of the universe, there couldn't possibly one. For example, since they have not been "born of the Spirit" of God (John 3:5), it is impossible that anyone else has been Spiritually born and become a new creature in Christ. Since they don't know God and have a personal relationship with him, they think it is impossible that I do. The whole evolution position is ridiculous and based on ignorance.