Reproach of Men

By the very nature of what must be done, the following will be somewhat tedious. However, it is utterly necessary to establish certain facts concerning the Calvinist idea of “election” and whether that idea and concept is Scripturally correct.

Here now, we are called to the word “election” and its usage in verse 11 of Romans, chapter 9. The word “election” is a frequently misused and misunderstood word that is a favorite of those holding Calvinist/Reformed doctrine. This word is used as supposed “proof” that the LORD God predetermined who would be saved, and who would be passed by and thus consigned to an eternity in Hell. However, for it to be proof, it must be proved by Scripture. In sum, this means that we must find other Scriptures that solidly support the contention that “election,” as it is used in verse 11 does indeed mean, or lends support to meaning, that a predetermination was made as to who would be saved, and who would not. Hence, a criterion, a standard for the LORD God choosing who would, and would not be saved.

The word “election” does not get much usage in Scripture. There are only about six instances of the word, and the underlying Greek word is found seven times as it is translated as “chosen” once. Thus, to be certain of the meaning of “election” as used in Romans, chapter 9, verse 11, we will have to examine the usage of the word “chosen.”

The word “election” appears in the following verses:

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) (Romans 9:11)

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. (Romans 11:5)

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (Romans 11:7)

As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. (Romans 11:28)

Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. (I Thessalonians 1:4)

Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: (II Peter 1:10)

And, where the underlying Greek word is translated “chosen” is in Acts:

But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: (Acts 9:15)

Since Romans 9:11, I Thessalonians 1:4, and II Peter 1:10 plainly do not provide any sort of criteria or explanation of “election” and why certain persons were “elected” to salvation, we must concentrate on Romans, chapter 11 as verse five plainly states that the election is “of grace” and then proceeds to explain in verse six that grace and works are mutually exclusive, and cannot be mixed in any way, shape, form or fashion. We then arrive at verse seven with the question:

“What then?”

This plainly indicates that a conclusion is drawn concerning Israel and who in Israel was saved, and who was not. To get an actual understanding of the conclusion drawn, it is essential to quote verse eight as well:

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. (Romans 11:7-8)

Now we must ascertain why certain ones were given to be blinded, and others not, and how this fits with the election of grace. To go forward we must resolve how it is that some found grace in the eyes of the LORD, and others did not. For that we must go to Isaiah, chapter 29 to the passage that states:

For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. (Isaiah 29:10)

and again in Isaiah, chapter 6:

And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. (Isaiah 6:9-10)

However, in neither of these cases does the specific quoted verses tell us anything about why this was done. We must look at the passage in Isaiah, chapter 29 to see a reason as the rest of Isaiah, chapter 6 only tells us the extent of the LORD’s judgement on Israel.

Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink. For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us? Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? (Isaiah 29:9-16)

In the above passage many things are declared, but among the things stated, the following is given as the reason all these things have come upon Israel:

Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: (Isaiah 29:13)

And again in the same passage:

Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us? (Isaiah 29:15)

By the above two verses, we now have a reason for the LORD God withholding grace from the Israelites. Clearly they chose to be dishonest with the LORD and attempted to hide their wickedness from Him. This is something that the LORD God does not tolerate at all, and has made it plain in His word from the very beginning.

The fact that grace was withheld from certain Israelites due to their deceitfulness gives us the express criteria for the “election of grace” described in Romans, chapter 11, verse five. This is a far cry from the Calvinist contention that God chose some in eternity past without any express standard or criteria, and without regard to what any particular individual does. Plainly and clearly, if one is deceitful and dishonest with the LORD, grace cannot be expected to be bestowed. One must be honest about who and what they are, both to themselves and to the LORD God. This does lead to the question of whether man is capable of being honest with himself and with the LORD, but that will be dealt with later. For now, we must return to Romans, chapter 11 and examine the last verse that uses the word “election” and see what it states:

As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. (Romans 11:28)

Again, we can see that this passage states nothing about why some are elected and others are not. Thus, we pass it by and examine the word “chosen” as used in Acts, chapter 9:

Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. (Acts 9:13-18)

Now, before some go and proclaim that receiving the Holy Ghost constituted the salvation of Saul, it is necessary to examine what happens immediately upon Ananias’ statement to Saul. It is expressly stated that he “received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.” which is consistent with the empowerment of the Holy Ghost to perform a work for the LORD. Hence, Saul’s receiving the Holy Ghost has everything to do with his baptism, and little to nothing to do with his salvation. One can be saved, and yet not be “filled with the Holy Ghost” (ref. Acts 2:1-4, Acts 4:5-10, Acts 4:31, Acts 13:6-12).

In returning to the examination of the usage of the word “chosen” in the passage, we find the context here to be one of chosen for a specific work. The statement is made:

Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake. (Acts 9:15b-16)

Again, we find that this has nothing to do with being chosen, or elected to salvation, rather it is about being elected for a specific work, with no criteria being given as pertaining to Saul’s salvation. In other words, we are not told that Saul was preselected, or predetermined for salvation. What we are told is that Saul was chosen for a specific work after salvation. Please note, it does not necessarily follow that someone who is chosen for a specific work after salvation, was predestined to be saved in the first place. There is a vast difference between foreknowledge, and predestination. The LORD God can and does predestinate certain individuals to perform a certain work after salvation, because He knew beforehand that they would repent and believe the gospel. This does not mean He predestined that individual, or any other individual for salvation.

To be continued . . .

One of the most striking aspects of Freemasonry are the religious features of all its rites, rituals and creeds. Thus is was somewhat surprising to see an article in the book, Messages for a Mission, by Henry C. Clausen, 33rd Degree, of the Supreme Council (Mother Council of the World), titled Freemasonry and Religion – Friends or Foes?¹ The article begins with the statement:

FROM time to time there have been published abrasive pamphlets arguing that Freemasonry is hostile to religion or that its teachings are anti-Christian. Initially it should be observed that the authors of such charges seemingly never are Masons and yet they purport to reveal its “secrets.” Since they could not know the definitive Masonic truths or teachings, their authenticity is destroyed at the very start. If they are renegades or have received material from renegade informers, then so much the worse.

There are a number of things to address here, but a couple of things stand out as requiring immediate attention before continuing with any other issues. The specific statements are:

Initially it should be observed that the authors of such charges seemingly never are Masons and yet they purport to reveal its “secrets.”

And:

Since they could not know the definitive Masonic truths or teachings, their authenticity is destroyed at the very start. If they are renegades or have received material from renegade informers, then so much the worse.

Now, since when has any member of an organization, who is in good standing with that organization, ever been harshly critical of the organization they are part of? Not to be flippant, but the fingers of one hand suffice to count them. In short, Masons who are in good standing are never going to point out the defects of Freemasonry, no matter what they are. Why? Because that is unmasonic conduct and it will get them removed. Hence, Mr. Clausen’s statement becomes automatically true. Moreover, one who is outside Freemasonry is never going to be allowed to see everything in Freemasonry to make any sort of objective judgement. Thus, Mr. Clausen’s statement is axiomatically true again.

What we have here is the setup for a straw man argument, which is completed with the following statement as quoted above:

Since they could not know the definitive Masonic truths or teachings, their authenticity is destroyed at the very start. If they are renegades or have received material from renegade informers, then so much the worse.

No Mr. Clausen, only the straw man is destroyed. The fact remains that either the rites and rituals reflect the teaching given in the various books of Freemasonry, or they are something else altogether different. The problem here is that they are not “altogether different” or even different at all. Why? Strictly due to other statements made by Mr. Clausen in the same article:

The so-called revival of Freemasonry in 1717 and Anderson̓s Constitution of 1723 reinforced these new freedoms. The document may be called a Masonic religious Magna Carta. Like-minded men, other than operative masons, were admitted as Speculative Masons. They brought speculative thought with them, and thus there evolved a severence from the dogma of any one church, sect, or creed. There was independence and yet dependence, for faith and trust in God was indispensable. Under that belief, reflected in a Holy Bible upon the altar, and in the Brotherhood of Man and in his capacity for improvement, Freemasonry unites all men. They still may retain their own particular theological dogmas and forms of worship.

There is nothing said in what Mr. Clausen argues that contradicts what Mr. Beasley told me, and what I have read in the Masonic books in my possession. Hence, the charge,

Since they could not know the definitive Masonic truths or teachings, their authenticity is destroyed at the very start. If they are renegades or have received material from renegade informers, then so much the worse.

is simply a straw man to cause one to question the things quoted from Masonic books as being factually true. The reason this is done, is the very same reason they are so secretive about the rites and rituals — the vast majority of individuals in society would find the rites and rituals evil, repulsive, and abhorrent. When the statements and teachings contained in Freemasonry’s books are brought to light and compared with the Scripture rightly divided, they are found to be actually anti-Christian and utterly condemning of the fraternity. In this, Freemasonry is no different from the Mormon religion and all its secret rites and rituals.

Last of all, questions must be raised concerning a statement made by Mr. Clausen, which is a standard Masonic teaching. To wit:

Under that belief, reflected in a Holy Bible upon the altar, and in the Brotherhood of Man and in his capacity for improvement, Freemasonry unites all men. They still may retain their own particular theological dogmas and forms of worship.

Upon that statement I must ask:

Where is it in Scripture that the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is Almighty God, allows for worship of Himself in whatever way men happen to think appropriate?

Where is it in Scripture that the Lord Jesus Christ is defined in any other way than Almighty God, and God manifest in the flesh?

Where is it in Scripture that salvation is found in anything, or anyone other than the Lord Jesus Christ?

You see, believing in “God” however one chooses to define him, is not sufficient for fellowship, or for reconciliation with the LORD:

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. (James 2:19)

So it is that Freemasonry deliberately chooses not to define the truth, and as will be seen, actually works to obscure the simple truth of salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ and Him alone. However, the most interesting statement of all comes at the end of the article, and is an admission of what Freemasonry and Freemasons strenuously deny:

Its truths and teachings are not the exclusive property of any church. On the contrary, Masonry is additive to any religion or theology. We are sure that its immense popularity and strength will continue and grow with an ever-abiding belief in God and “that religion in which all men agree leaving their particular opinions to themselves.”

In case it was missed, Mr. Clausen admits that Freemasonry is:

“that religion in which all men agree leaving their particular opinions to themselves.”

To be continued . . .

1. Messages for a Mission, Henry C. Clausen, The Supreme Council, 1977, ISBN 77-78489. The use of excerpts from this article are in accordance with the “Fair use” provision of the Copyright Act.↩

This is the second in a series of apologetics lessons addressing the heresy of Universalism which teaches that there is no place of eternal torment and that everyone will ultimately be reconciled to the LORD God. This lesson continues to address the arguments put forth in the article “Honest Questions and Answers about Hell” by Mercy Aiken and Gary Amirault of Tentmaker Ministries in Missouri. In the article we find the following specious arguments:

If Hell is real, why didn’t God make that warning plain right at the beginning of the Bible? God said the penalty for eating of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was death- -not “eternal life” in fire and brimstone.

If Hell is real, why wasn’t Cain warned about it, or Sodom and Gomorrah , or any of those who committed the earliest recorded “sins?”

If Hell is real why didn’t Moses warn about this fate in the Ten Commandments or the Mosaic Covenant consisting of over 600 laws, ordinances, and warnings? The Mosaic Law simply stated blessings and cursings in this lifetime.

If Hell is real, why are its roots in paganism, rather than the Bible? Many nations surrounding Israel in the Old Testament believed in Hell-like punishment in the afterlife, for they served bloodthirsty and evil “gods,” while Israel simply taught the grave (sheol) and a hope of a resurrection. If Hell is real, why was the revelation of it first given to pagan nations, instead of God’s covenant people? Did God expect Israel to learn about the afterlife from the Pagan Gentiles? If so, why did He repeatedly warn Israel to not learn of their ways?

If Hell is real, why did God tell the Jews that burning their children alive in the fire to the false god Molech, (in the valley of Gehenna ) was so detestable to Him? God said that such a thing “never even entered His mind” (Jer. 32:35). How could God say such a thing to Israel , if He has plans to burn alive a good majority of His own creation in a spiritual and eternal Gehenna of His own making?

In the lesson each of these points is discussed and evidence given as to why they are false. I have included a photo of the board notes which show the points and the devices Satan uses to keep people from coming to Christ.

I pray it is profitable for you.

For those who cannot use the embedded player, wish to use a different player, or want to save the file, the following link is provided:

If Hell is Real…Part. 2

In Christ,

Paul W. Davis

This article has been combined with another article and moved to the following location:
Ephesians 1:3-6 (King James Version)

I trust you will understand the title of this article by the time you’re done reading it. If not, well, not to be flippant, but I can’t help you there. I am going to be as plain as I can be, without venturing into ridicule (I hope).

I’ve been working on reformatting the articles on the website to make them far more readable and compatible with every browser out there. In the process of that, this week I have worked on the Apologetics section and have reformatted several of the “Contradictions” articles. While reformatting the introductory articles that address the “non-tract” (which is really a tract for atheism), I reread the introduction of the “non-tract” and was struck by the statement:

“The problem is not with human limitations, as some claim. The problem is the bible itself.”

Which sets in the middle of their argument against the Scriptures, which states:

Why do trained theologians differ? Why do educated translators disagree over Greek and Hebrew meanings? Why all the confusion? Shouldn’t a “divinely inspired” document be as clear as possible?
The problem is not with human limitations, as some claim. The problem is the bible itself. People who are free of theological bias notice that the bible contains hundreds of discrepancies.

Notice the thing about the statement that caught my eye? The statement claims that problems with the Bible and interpreting it are not caused by human limitations.

Really?

How absolutely arrogant can we be here? So, the supposition here is that man, or some men, are perfect? Some of the approximately 6 billion people that walk this earth are actually unlimited in their perspective and ability? How is that now?

If this is the case, then why don’t we have an answer to some of the problems that have given man grief ever since man has been on this earth? Just where are these supposed “enlightened, perfected ones” that are so perfect they are “free from theological bias?”

You know, I grew up on a farm, and I know it when I see it and smell it. No one, but no one is “free from theological bias.” Everyone has some opinion, idea or knowledge of God. Everyone — PERIOD. There are no exceptions. Thus, logically, everyone has a “theological bias” of some sort. Even the atheist has an opinion about God — he doesn’t believe God exists. This, in itself, is a “theological bias,” an opinion that holds that God is not there.

Perhaps then, this explains somewhat the outlandish statement “The problem is not with human limitations, as some claim.” After all, only someone with an overinflated sense of self worth would even contemplate making such a statement. This statement really does defy all evidence. All we have to do is look at the stock market and the economy and we will have sure and certain evidence that man has plenty of limitations. Moreover, the statement contradicts the evidence given in the preceding paragraph of the “non-tract.” Thus, it is a real hoot to state:

“Why do trained theologians differ? Why do educated translators disagree over Greek and Hebrew meanings? Why all the confusion? Shouldn’t a “divinely inspired” document be as clear as possible?”

And then turn right around and state:

“The problem is not with human limitations, as some claim.”

If man were so stinking “unlimited,” wouldn’t we have found out the conclusive, irrefutable, inarguable truth by now? After all, according the atheists, man have been around for far longer than 6000 years. No, according to the theory of evolution subscribed to by atheists, man has been around plenty long enough to have come to conclusive and irrefutable truth by now. After all, “some” of us are “unlimited” and “free from theological bias” and thus able to see infinitely, and determine the truth of all things.

Now I know that the atheists and freethinkers try to warp and twist the meaning of “inspiration” as it is used in Scripture, so that it somehow means that man wasn’t involved in the LORD’s working on earth. After all, the vast majority of the Scripture is about man, and the failings of man, and why man needs (indeed, must have) a redeemer. I also know that the atheists and freethinkers totally discount the spiritual, even though the Scripture deals with the spiritual, and shifts from the physical to the spiritual from one verse to the next.

Ahh, but the atheists and freethinkers are not limited and are “free from theological bias” so that they can discount and intentionally ignore all rules of logic and common sense when it comes to the Scripture. Gee, I wonder if they do this with the owner’s manual for their vehicles? Or is it that they assume they already know, and thus aren’t required to read?

Logically, it is demanded that one must take into account the spiritual when reading the Scripture. This is no different than any other book. If I am reading a book about electrical theory and practice, I am not free to argue with it because it doesn’t address things from a mechanical or hydraulics point of view. It’s kind of like looking at the owner’s manual for a Dodge truck and thinking it’s wrong because you own a Ford, and your vehicle isn’t like that; meanwhile, ignoring all evidence and firmly convincing yourself that the manual must be wrong.

Actually, it is really sad that such hubris exists in man, to move him to claim that the problems people experience with understanding Scripture are not due to man. The really sad part is the lack of understanding of just how limited man really is. We are very nearly deaf, dumb, blind, and stupid, and we really don’t perceive that at all. This goes back to the old adage that “the more you know, the more you realize you don’t know.” By that old adage, the folks that wrote, approved of and utilize this tract, really don’t know anything — they just think they do.

Of course, this is in reality, nothing new. There have always been those who cavil the word of God, and the LORD God has always known that. That is why we find the following passage in the Old Testament:

Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob. Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together. Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination is he that chooseth you. (Isaiah 41:21-24)

You know, none of us have a clue what tomorrow will bring. In fact, none of us really know what will happen an hour from now. So much for not having limitations. However, the LORD God does know, and He has caused much of things to come to be recorded in His word.

However, if the atheist is so smart and not limited in his perception, let the atheist tell us what will be on the morrow, and of things to come. However, no man has been able to do that yet, despite the “unlimited” powers of some.

If it weren’t so serious, it would be laughable. However, I don’t think it’s going to be all that funny when the atheist stands at the white throne of judgement and is face to face with the LORD — and is proven dead wrong. Somebody is going to eat the words of the “non-tract,” and regret the day they ever thought them up.

Really, You think so?

No. Unlike the authors of the “non-tract,” I know so.

One of the things I learned early on as a technician was the axiom that anyone can mess anything up, and usually in very short order. But it takes a knowledgeable, skilled individual considerable time to make it right again.

It is no different with doctrinal errors. Anyone can come up with a doctrine that is in error. However, explaining why the doctrine they came up with and promote is erroneous, takes time and considerable effort. This is the essence of apologetics, and what makes apologetics such a difficult endeavor. However, there is a wonderful thing about apologetics, in that it provides an excellent springboard for teaching and instructing in the Scripture, particularly concerning the doctrine in question and the why of it.

So it is with yet another error promoted by WorldNetDaily and El Shaddai Ministries. According to Mark Biltz of El Shaddai Ministries, we should observe the feasts that were given to Israel as part of the covenant called the Old Testament:

“The spring and fall feasts, Biltz says, were not intended only for the children of Israel. They are, the Bible says, “the feasts of the Lord” – and they have special meaning with respect to the life, death, resurrection and return of Jesus.

There’s still time to learn these important lessons before the fall feasts are past.”¹

The problems with the whole thesis promoted by Mark Biltz are contained in a statement on page two of his notes that go along with the DVD:

The Jews were the first Pentecostals! They had been Pentecost for 1500 years before Pentecost. They called it the feast of Weeks! They still keep it today!²

What the above statement demonstrates is the strong tendency to view Scripture through the lens of Pentecostal doctrine, and make doctrinal determinations accordingly. This is not the correct way to view Scripture — at all. While I am a fundamental Baptist, the doctrine of Baptists do not rule when it comes to determining what Scripture states. In fact, that would be, and is, a sure road to error.

Am I then denying Baptist doctrine? Not at all. What I am doing is proving out what the Scripture states in accordance with Scripture:

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (I Thessalonians 5:21)

The problem that exists, and is part and parcel to this man’s error, is that he accepted Pentecostal doctrine without examining it and testing it by Scripture. To be sure, he is not alone, and has considerable company. However, that does not make it right. Rather, what it does do is make for a whole lot of folks with bad doctrine and a flawed way of looking at Scripture. What I found by proving all things is that Baptist doctrine is correct, and is dead on when it comes to the essential portions pertaining to the LORD God, salvation, the church, and the life to come. Certainly, there are a number of folks who call themselves Baptist, who hold variant doctrines, but each and every one must be properly tried by the Scripture — and proven out.

Certainly, this warrants a much more in-depth discussion, but it would digress from the intention and purpose of this article. Suffice to state that my doctrine is plainly published here for all to examine and test by the Scripture. I am a fundamental, unaffiliated Baptist by conviction, and not any other reason. Doctrine is supposed to submit to Scripture, and not the other way around.

Thus, when Mark Biltz makes the statement:

The Jews were the first Pentecostals! They had been Pentecost for 1500 years before Pentecost.”³

This reveals an egregious bias toward Pentecostal doctrine and tradition and indicates plainly that he views Scripture through the template of that Pentecostal experience. There is also further evidence that Mark Biltz viewed the Scripture in the wrong way as he also purports to show:

The video series pinpoints the specific day on the Hebrew calendar for the return of Jesus. The only unknown, according to Biltz, is which year that return will occur – though he makes the case it is very near.⁴

Now, I have to ask how this can be as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself plainly stated, not once but twice that no one knows the day, the time, the season, or the year, and that He Himself did not know:

Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near: So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is. (Mark 13:28-33)

When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. (Acts 1:6-7)

In executing the office of the Son, the Word refuses to know at what time the Father will command His return to take the Kingdom. This directly contradicts the claim of Mark Biltz and the marketeers at WorldNetDaily. This affirms that we ought not pay heed to anything else presented. In fact, the deception of this work is evident on page 9 of the Notes when Acts, chapter 1, verses 3 and 4 are referenced, and in the following paragraph, verses 9 is referenced, but verses 6 and 7 which I quoted above are skipped over and ignored because they specifically contradict the claim that only the year of Christ’s return is not known. The terms “times” and “seasons” mentioned in verse 7 refer to years and months, and do not refer to days and hours. In short, the Lord Jesus Christ is telling us that it is none of our business, and we can’t know it anyway, when He is to return. We are supposed to be busy about the work he has given us to do.

However, since the supposition of Mark Biltz is that Christians of this time ought to partake of the feasts, and many are snared by that idea, it is profitable to examine that issue to the extent of proving or disproving the assertion.

It is undisputed that all the feasts and laws were given to Israel to observe so long as they were in covenant with the LORD. What is disputed is whether those observances apply to any of us today. I noted in the 57 pages of notes provided as a teaser for the DVD, that certain passages of Scripture were never brought up. I do not find this unusual in that most everyone who promotes bad doctrine omits the passages of Scripture that expressly contradict their position (some do try to twist the Scripture to fit their doctrine). There were two specific passages omitted from the 57 pages of notes that expressly and directly apply to the old covenant the LORD had with Israel.

The first passage is from Matthew, chapter 23:

Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. (Matthew 23:34-39)

This is a chilling condemnation of Israel by the very one who was in covenant with them. We should note His words:

Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

Plainly, they are declared to be by the mouth of the LORD, enemies of the one with whom they had a covenant. Moreover, that the shed blood of all the prophets would be laid upon them as a people. But it is the ending statement that contain the declaration ending the Old Testament covenant:

Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Every time before this during the ministry of the Lord Jesus, we find Him referring to the temple as “my house” or “my Father’s house.” Now, immediately after condemning the leadership of Israel, and immediately before the last Passover he was to hold with His chosen disciples, He breaks the covenant by stating:

Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

It is now their house, and they can do with it what they will. This hearkens us back to the prophet Zechariah and the words given him by the Holy Ghost:

And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD. And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD. (Zechariah 11:10-13)

So it is that the Old Testament covenant is ended. But what about the feasts, ceremonies, offerings and such like? What became of them?

In Hebrews we are given to understand much concerning the ‘whys and wherefores’ of salvation and the necessity of it being accomplished in the manner it was. In so doing, the matter of the Old Testament covenant is addressed as well. Beginning in chapter 9, the explanation of the Old Testament rituals and ordinances begins:

Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly. (Hebrews 9:1-5)

This sets the context for all that follows, in which we are expressly told that these ordinances were nothing more than figures, shadows of things to come.

Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Hebrews 9:6–10)

We are also instructed that these ordinances, sacrifices and rituals did not please the LORD, and that Christ has come and done away with those ordinances, sacrifices and ceremonies and established a different ministry and witness:

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Hebrews 10:1-10)

It is very plain at this point that all that was done in the old covenant with Israel was to show a picture of the work of Christ to come. That is was not effectual for salvation, but was only done to maintain a picture and object lesson concerning the Redeemer that would, in the fulness of time, be born of a virgin and fulfill the work set for Him.

Thus, when the Lord Jesus Christ’s work was accomplished, we find a signal event occurs:

Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; . . . (Matthew 27:50-51)

If we then examine this account in light of that which is explained in Hebrews, chapters 9 and 10, we should understand that all of the types, shadows, pictures and illustrations of the Old Testament covenant are taken away and replaced with a new covenant that pictures the finished work of Christ. Where before, the work was not yet accomplished on this earth, it was necessary to explain the work to be done; now that it is accomplished, we must show the end of that work and all it signifies. Hence, we have but two simple ordinances, water baptism by immersion, and the Lord’s Supper. The first signifies the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and can only be done by someone who is born again in Christ. The second commemorates Christ’s death, and can only be partaken of by those who are members of a local, New Testament church. The sweeping away of all other ordinances then pictures the translation that takes place in moving the individual from under the power and sway of the law, to being placed under grace and the believer establishing the law.

So what would it mean if one kept any one of, or all the feasts?

Since it was quite plain that all the ordinances of the Old Testament were to show the Messiah to come, picking them back up again and performing them would illustrate the same. Hence, it would be a not so subtle denial that the Messiah has come in the flesh, and His work is accomplished.

There is a term for this:

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (I John 4:2-3)

It does give rise to question the discernment and understanding of those who claim that we should keep any of the Old Testament ordinances, even just to experience them once.

See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. (Ephesians 5:15-16)

1. Christians: Find out why Yom Kippur is your holiday, too↩
2. Feast of Weeks notes↩
3. ibid↩
4. Christians: Find out why Yom Kippur is your holiday, too↩

I suppose it was the occasion of Easter that prompted Joe Kovacs of WorldNetDaily to author an article on the issue of Sabbath vs. Sunday. After all, I don’t really know, but it is odd that this particular subject came up in the week before Easter (posted Mar. 16^th). Nevertheless, as a subject and an issue of controversy, what I really find odd is that everyone who holds to Sabbath-keeping, also holds Arminian doctrine. Arminism is the denial of the doctrine of eternal security of the believer; which is to say that salvation, once obtained, can be lost.

Aside from the relation to Arminism, what I found striking about the article (I skimmed it, noting the names mentioned and looking for Scripture references and how they were used) was the total lack of a conclusion. Mr. Kovacs did not come down on one side or the other of the issue. I suppose he was trying to not lose readers, or bridge a gap (ecumenism) or something of that nature. However, I also noted that he also did not allow any particular view to go into any great depth to conclusively prove one way or the other. Lovely.

What I find disturbing about the article is the ammunition it gives atheists to point to the Bible and say: ‘See, it really is contradictory. Even the Christians can’t decide among themselves what the Bible says!’ as if they don’t already have enough ammunition on this point alone.

Nevertheless, the issue is answerable from the Scriptures, if we stick with what the totality of the Scriptures state. I know this as I have researched – well, you know – the Bible. No, I did not go into the history of the Sunday tradition, or the writings of the “Church Fathers” (whoever they are), or the Pope. Instead, I just used the Bible and then wrote an article on it titled “Shall we keep the sabbath?”.

Evaluate it, see what you think. But first a couple of brief rules: Use the Bible, and only the Bible when you evaluate it. Keep your Scripture in context and follow the logic that the LORD God lays down about following the law and how man is justified before God.

I thank God that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.

Today, (or yesterday, actually) The Guardian in England ran a story about an interview with Stephen Hawking,  the 69 year-old British physicist who makes it quite plain that he does not believe in any sort of afterlife:

A belief that heaven or an afterlife awaits us is a “fairy story” for people afraid of death, Stephen Hawking has said.

In a dismissal that underlines his firm rejection of religious comforts, Britain’s most eminent scientist said there was nothing beyond the moment when the brain flickers for the final time.

Hawking, who was diagnosed with motor neurone disease at the age of 21, shares his thoughts on death, human purpose and our chance existence in an exclusive interview with the Guardian today.

The incurable illness was expected to kill Hawking within a few years of its symptoms arising, an outlook that turned the young scientist to Wagner, but ultimately led him to enjoy life more, he has said, despite the cloud hanging over his future.

“I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I’m not afraid of death, but I’m in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first,” he said.

“I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark,” he added.¹

Now, that may be all well and good, except that Mr. Hawking has absolutely no proof that there isn’t an afterlife. Mr. Hawking hasn’t been out of this life at all – not even for a second. Hence, he isn’t qualified to categorically state anything about the existence or non-existence of life after death.

Actually, there is only one Person who is truly qualified to speak authoritatively on the existence of an afterlife and what it consists of: Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Stephen Hawking cannot tell us where he came from, or where he is going. Yet, the Lord Jesus stated plainly:

Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go. (John 8:14)

And again:

Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come. Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come. And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. (John 8:21-25)

Even if Mr. Hawking doesn’t want to believe the Bible, how does he propose to explain away the near death experiences of a multitude of individuals? Though their near death experiences are not authoritative concerning what the “afterlife” truly consists of, their experiences are sufficient to establish that some sort of life exists after this one. Instead, Mr. Hawking has become so smart, he is willingly blind to any evidence contrary his narrow point of view. In short, Mr. Hawking is blinded by pride and arrogance.

However, attitudes like Mr. Hawking’s are nothing new. Which is why the Scripture states:

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. (I Corinthians 1:18-21)

Nonetheless, I am certain Mr. Hawking would reject any suggestion that he might be wrong. One would think that having spent 69 years on this earth, Stephen Hawking would have learned to not discount any possibility when he has no conclusive evidence one way or the other.

Which is why Mr. Hawking is headed for Hell…

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (Psalm 14:1-3)

1. Stephen Hawking: ‘There is no heaven; it’s a fairy story’, The Guardian, 5/15/2011↩

If you at all viewed the BBC documentary “Trouble in Amish Paradise” then you know that the “simple, pastoral lifestyle” of the Amish masks an egregious doctrine and the active suppression of the truth of the Scripture to maintain the doctrine the Amish hold. The BBC also produced a follow-up documentary that traces the journey of the families who were cast out of the Amish community and church for daring to read the Bible in English and witness to those around them of the grace that is in Christ.

The follow-up documentary also highlights the dangers of learning that you are involved in a system that teaches and promotes a lie, and upon leaving that system, having no one to actually teach you the whole counsel of God and explain the Scripture to you. It is frequently the case that individuals who leave such systems, end up being snared by other belief systems that are also wrong, just in a different way. Though there is a church in that community which ministers to those leaving the Amish doctrine, it also has errors which lead astray those involved in it.

If the Devil can’t get you one way, he will surely have another way to prevent you from having the truth.

There is something of note here: Believing in Jesus Christ as your personal Savior is not, as the commentator states that born-again Christian’s teach, a way to avoid going to Hell nor should any true child of God teach that.¹ Rather, if that is the reason why you have believed in Christ for your “salvation,” then I will submit to you that you have believed out of an improper motivation. Salvation IS NOT “fire insurance.” Neither should it be viewed as such.

If you have not come to know the Lord Jesus Christ personally to the point that you have learned of Him enough to TOTALLY trust Him with your life, then you have not reached salvation. Contrary to popular belief, salvation is not “letting Christ into your heart.” Rather, it is placing your life, your destiny into Christ’s hands without reservation. One does not do this out of a base desire to avoid suffering in Hell, but does so because they have come to know the LORD and have found that He is “altogether lovely” as the Scripture states. Hence, belief and trust in Christ for salvation comes from a overwhelming desire to spend the rest of your existence with Him. To reach this point, repentance (and it must be the repentance the LORD God grants) is utterly necessary.

There is simply no way to address every error presented here. However, things like tearing a house down because the Old Testament law states that is what must be done for a “fretting leprosy” indicates a lack of understanding about the reason for the Old Testament law given to ancient Israel. This problem is not limited to Charity Church or any particular denomination, but is found throughout every group that claims to be “Bible-believing.” I have had Independent Baptist brethren try to tell me the Ten Commandments are still in effect as commandments we, as Christians, must abide by today, when the reality is that the Ten Commandments were the covenant the LORD God made with ancient Israel.²

1. It is unfortunate that most all “evangelical” Christians believe and teach this as it is egregious error.↩
2. The following are the passages from the Old Testament that state plainly that the Ten Commandments are the Covenant the Lord had with Israel. This does not change the fact that the Ten Commandments are a reflection of the nature and character of God, and thus are always in effect. Nonetheless, they are not part of anyone’s covenant today, but are fully encompassed by the first two commandments of the law.

   And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink
   water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. (Exodus 34:27-28)

   And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice. And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten  commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. (Deuteronomy 4:13)

   Also in Horeb ye provoked the LORD to wrath, so that the LORD was angry with you to have destroyed you. When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water: And the LORD delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the LORD spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly. And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the LORD gave me the two tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant. And the LORD said unto me, Arise, get thee down quickly from hence; for thy people which thou hast brought forth out of Egypt have corrupted themselves; they are quickly turned aside out of the way which I commanded them; they have made them a molten image. Furthermore the LORD spake unto me, saying, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: Let me alone, that I may destroy them, and blot out their name from under heaven: and I will make of thee a nation mightier and greater than they. So I turned and came down from the mount, and the mount burned with fire: and the two tables of the covenant were in my two hands. (Deuteronomy 9:8-15) ↩

While working on responses to the claims of  the Calvinist/Reformed that the Scripture supports their doctrine that (for unknown reasons) God picked and choose, in eternity past, who would be saved and who would be condemned without regard to any criteria, I happened to again examine the heading to one section of their “evidence” from Scripture and it struck me as to what was wrong with it.

Now, it is very plain that the Calvinist/Reformed adherents engage in a lot of presumption and frame statements and challenges in such a way as to lead one to an inevitable conclusion. In short, they bias any answering by the very way the statement or challenge is framed. However, the framing of statements in this way is not without it’s problems, as the following statement demonstrates. Below a brief statement is made that I am certain is meant to say that when “God” determines that someone will believe, they will believe. However, it does not turn out quite that way when seriously examined.

God is sovereign over unbelief.
John 12:37-41; 10:26
Romans 9:18-19; 11:7-8, 25, 32
Matthew 13:11-17; 24:22
Mark 4:10-13
1 Peter 2:8
Proverbs 16:4
Jude 4

Before starting to examine the above statement, there are a couple of brief definitions which are required to be understood:

sovereign¹
sov·er·eign
[sov-rin, sov-er-in, suhv-] –noun
1. a monarch; a king, queen, or other supreme ruler.
2. a person who has sovereign power or authority.
3. a group or body of persons or a state having sovereign authority.

–adjective
5. belonging to or characteristic of a sovereign or sovereignty;  royal.
6. having supreme rank, power, or authority.
7. supreme; preeminent; indisputable: a sovereign right.

unbelief²
un·be·lief
[uhn-bi-leef] –noun
the state or quality of not believing; incredulity or skepticism, especially in matters of doctrine or religious faith.

Knowing then the above definitions, we should also perceive that by Biblical standards, the definition for “unbelief” falls a bit short in that it does not address the issue of the truth at all as the following verse demonstrates:

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

Hence, “unbelief” in the Biblical sense is to not believe the truth, or to believe a lie. After all, if you are not believing the truth, you are believing a lie — there is no middle ground.

Thus, in the Calvinist/Reformed view:

“God” rules over the non-acceptance of that which is valid and true (the holding to a lie).

“God” rules over (is sovereign over) the lie.

Since Calvinist/Reformed adherents also believe that “God” is the first cause of everything, it follows that the Calvinist “God” is the first cause of the lie.

Hence, the Calvinist/Reformed god is the father of lies.

To which the Scripture answers:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (John 8:44)

Which means that the Calvinist/Reformed god could not be the LORD God of the Bible, as the LORD God wants EVERYONE to abide in the truth. But, the Calvinist/Reformed god only wants certain people to abide in the truth, and everyone else he holds in unbelief, not allowing them to come to the truth.

I John 8:44 above, the Lord Jesus Christ plainly identifies who that god is: the Devil or Satan – the father of lies.

The sad fact is, even the “truth” the Devil wants those individuals to come to, isn’t the truth at all, but a cleverly crafted deceit, designed to keep them from ever coming to the actual truth.

1. Definition taken from Dictionary.com↩
2. ibid↩