You are here: Home / Archives for Apologetics

HOW THE SCRIPTURES CAME TO MEN

by

HOW MAN RECEIVED THE SCRIPTURE

By Ken Blue

  1. THE SCRIPTURES CONTRASTED AGAINST THE WRITINGS OF THE HEATHEN-
  2. THE VOICE OF GOD FROM THE HOLY MOUNTAIN-
  3. THE SCRIPTURES FROM HOLY MEN-
  4. THE SCRIPTURES CAME BY THE WILL OF GOD, FROM HEAVEN, NOT OF MEN-
  5. THE SCRIPTURES ALONE GIVE TRUE LIGHT-
  6. THE SCRIPTURES ARE NOT THE PRODUCT OF MEN-
  7. THE SCRIPTURES WERE OF MEN WHO WERE MOVED ALONG BY THE HOLY SPIRIT-
  8. THE SCRIPTURES ARE THE ONLY PROTECTION AGAINST DAMNABLE HERESIES-
  9. THE SCRIPTURES EXALT THE PERSON OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST-

“For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.  For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.  And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.  We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter 1:16-21. “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.  And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.” 2 Peter 2:1-2.

 

PROOF THE STATES WERE BUILT ON A BELIEF IN ALMIGHTY GOD

by

The Preambles Of All 50 States Of The United States

flag

  • Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution.
  • Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.
  • Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution…
  • Arkansas 1874, Preamble.  We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government…
  • California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom.
  • Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe.
  • Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.
  • Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences.
  • Florida 1885, Preamble.  We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution…
  • Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution…
  • Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance . Establish this Constitution.
  • Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings.
  • Illinois 1870, Preamble.  We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
  • Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.
  • Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings establish this Constitution.
  • Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.
  • Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties…
  • Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.
  • Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity . And imploring His aid and direction.
  • Maryland 1776, Preamble.   We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty…
  • Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We…the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe … In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction ..
  • Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom establish this Constitution.
  • Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings:
  • Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.
  • Missouri 1845, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness .. Establish this Constitution
  • Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution .
  • Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom .. Establish this Constitution.
  • Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom establish this Constitution …
  • New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.
  • New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath   so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
  • New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty
  • New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.
  • North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations,   for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those
  • North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain…
  • Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common
  • Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty . establish this ..
  • Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences..
  • Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance
  • Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing
  • South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
  • South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties .
  • Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III.  That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience…
  • Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.
  • Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to  Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.
  • Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to .enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ..
  • Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other .
  • Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution
  • West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia a reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God …
  • Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility
  • Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties .. establish this Constitution.

After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 State Constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that just maybe, the ACLU and the out-of-control federal courts are wrong…

“Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.” – William Penn

No mention of Allah!

THE WICKEDNESS OF HARBORING RESENTMENT

by

 

WOLF

By Ken Blue

This article is a response to self-appointed “evangelist” Jerry Kaifetz. Since he cut off my ability to respond to him in private on “messaging,” we will post my last response, which I am sure he never received. His disdain for independent fundamental churches has embittered his spirit, and he could not refrain from showing his contempt for them and me. My only reason for posting this response is because of his “hit and run” tactic after his vile attack.

Mr. Kaifetz, You demonstrated your unwillingness to face the truth when you said, “Exactly what I expected,” and then cut me off of your Facebook, so I could not respond to your vile accusations. You should have expected that response because you set the table.

Concerning you calling me a hypocrite, because I pastored, and had a son smoking pot is like the kettle calling the pot black. You never had the courtesy to ask if I was aware of it or not. I was not. You may say, “Well, you should have known.” Well, let’s see how that plays out, Mr. Kaifetz. Were the Wilsons Hypocrites for teaching Sunday school, and preaching in Junior Church while their son was smoking pot? Have you confronted them about that, or do you only target pastors?  Also, you were a member of First Baptist, and you must have known the pastor’s son was having sex with every girl he could corrupt. If you did know it, were you a hypocrite to be a part of that ministry? You boast about how heavily involved you were in the church. If you didn’t know about the immorality, why not?

Also, for you to blame me for the drinking problem of their son is a demonstration of your duplicity. You have an agenda in your attack on fallen pastors…its call ego, and money.  Perhaps if enough pastors fall, you may become famous.

Your comment “You are the one who is unquestionably incapable of receiving advice,” and “You will never understand what I have to say to you,” only reveals your pride and arrogance. What advice did you send? Your article was an attack from beginning to the end. Wisdom will not die with you, so don’t pride yourself beyond your limits.

Also, for someone to dig up an offense of over 35 years ago, demonstrates their inability to practice 1 Cor. 13.

  • “Love Does Not Keep Notes on Past Offenses

Paul tells us that love “does not take into account a wrong suffered.” I like what Morris writes on this point: “Paul’s next point is that love does not, so to speak, go around with a little black book making a note of every evil thing. ‘Love keeps no score of wrongs,’ says Paul (the NEB translation). We find it hard to forget it when people offend us, often storing up such grievances.” Some saints seem to have photographic memories when it comes to offenses against them. One little irritation brings to mind an entire file of previous offenses, carefully annotated and documented. This kind of mental bookkeeping only serves to fuel resentment and certainly does not facilitate true reconciliation.” That would be you, Mr. Kaifetz.

http://bible.org/seriespage/what-thing-called-love-1-cor-131-13

Ken Blue

THE LOVE/HATE PARADOX: HATE THE SIN AND THE SINNER

by

Does God hate the sinner?

(Note: The purpose of this article is not to argue with anyone, and I will not. However, if anyone has a better answer to this paradox, it is welcome.)

hate

Among the self-designated “Bible Believers,” there is a group of men who teach that God, not only hates sin, He also hates the sinner. In addition, they teach that the only place and time God ever “loved” the sinner was at the cross. They are very adamant that His love is always in the past tense. Thus, back at the cross only. Now, I am familiar with those verses that says God hates the sinner. That is why I call this subject a great paradox.

In Psalm 51 David confesses his sin of adultery and murder. In verse 5 he says, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Psalm 51:5. David is not speaking of his mother, but of original sin in himself at conception.  Now, my question for the “hate” crowd is this, did God hate David prior to his birth, or at any time afterwards?

Also, David committed many sins before, with, and afterwards, in relation to Bathsheba.

  1. He lusted after her.
  2. He coveted her.
  3. He committed adultery in his heart.
  4. He committed physical adultery with her.
  5. He used deception to hide his sin.
  6. He got her husband drunk.
  7. He had her husband murdered.

All of these are sin, and some required the death penalty. Yet, God did not have him executed as  the law demanded. I know God hated David’s sin. Did God hate David?

Since all are conceived with original sin, does God hate every baby? But, I can hear someone say, “God hates those who commit the acts of sin. David had original sin, but he had not sinned before his birth.”

Well, let’s see how that stands up. God hated Esau prior to his birth. “(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;)  It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.  As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Romans 9:11-13. It must also be noted that God loved Jacob before his birth. So, as we will show, the cross was not the only place God loved the sinner. When we trace the lives of the two brothers, we also find that Jacob was a great sinner. Did God hate Jacob?

Another nail in the coffin of “hate the sinner” theology is seen in the Gospels. In Mark 10 we read, “Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.” Mark 10:21. We will not catalogue the sins of this young man’s response, but many are evident. It will take some Scripture twisting to ignore that Jesus had love for him prior to the cross.

We also read “Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.” John 11:5. Note the word “loved” is past tense.  Was the cross the only time and place Jesus loved this family? They too were sinners, and sin had not been paid for. Also, if we have unsaved parents, should we hate them if God does? If our children are unsaved, should we hate them if God does? If we have an unsaved wife or husband, are we to hate them if God does?

One of the greatest miscarriages of Bible interpretation is how John 3:16 is twisted by the hate crowd. We read, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16. The twisted logic is that the only time God demonstrated His love to sinners was at the cross. Since He “loved” them is considered past tense, He did not love sinners prior to, or after His death on the cross.

Adam ate the forbidden fruit, did God hate him? Abraham lied, did God hate him? Isaac lied, did God hate him?  Jacob “loved” Rachel. Does that mean he stopped loving her? It says he hated Leah.  Rachel and her father had false gods, and no doubt worshipped them. Did God hate them? Noe got drunk, did God hate him? Moses disobeyed God, did God hate him?  Samson had many sins in his life, did God hate him. Solomon had many horses which was forbidden, he married strange wives, and brought idolatry into the land. Did God hate him? Hosea married a whore. Did God hate him and his wife? Time would fail to tell of all the others.

The doctrine that God “hates sinners as well as their sin” is a doctrine built on the abuse of the word “loved” and “hate.” Those who espouse this doctrine take the “literal interpretation” to the extreme. However, they will adjust the above examples to save face.

Perhaps the following quote will help clarify the paradox to those seeking an honest answer to the hate doctrine.

Jesus said His affection for the lost inhabitants of Jerusalem was like a mother hen’s affection for her chicks. Such a statement obviously denotes love for the sinners in Jerusalem.

In one of the most well-known “love” verses in the Bible, Jesus said: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). God’s love for the lost world was shown before the lost believed in Jesus. John further explained this when he wrote: “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10). From these verses it is clear that God loves lost sinners, and proved that love by sending Jesus.

How, then, can one reconcile the verses that seem to suggest that God hates sinners, but loves them at the same time? One of the most plausible solutions is that the Bible writers are using a figure of speech called metonymy when they write that God hates sinners. Metonymy is defined as: “A figure by which one name or noun is used instead of another, to which it stands in a certain relation” (Bullinger, 1898, p. 538). Bullinger further explains that metonymy can be “of cause,” when the person acting can be put in place of the thing that is done (p. 539). For instance, in Luke 16:29, the text says: “They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them.” In reality, they did not have “Moses” or the “prophets,” but they did have their writings. The name Moses is a metonymy that stood for his writings, since he was the cause of the writings. In modern times, that would be like saying, “I hate Shakespeare.” Would the person who said that mean that he hated Shakespeare’s personality? No. We understand he would be saying he does not like the writings of Shakespeare, with no comment on the playwright’s personality.

If we apply that same figure of speech to the passages about God “hating sinners,” we can see that the sinner is put in place of the sin. Thus, when God says He hates “a false witness who speaks lies” (Proverbs 6:19), if metonymy is being used, then God hates the lies, and the one who is doing the lying (the cause) is put in place of the lies (the effect). It is interesting to see how clear this feature can be in other contexts. For instance, Proverbs 6:17 says that God hates “a lying tongue.” Does that mean that God hates a physical tongue, made of muscle and body tissue? No. It means God hates the sin that a tongue can perform. In the same context, we learn that God hates “feet that are swift in running to evil” (6:18). Again, does that mean that God hates physical feet? No. It simply means that God hates the sin that those feet can perform. It is interesting that while few, if any, would suggest that God hates physical tongues or actual feet, they would insist that God hates actual sinners and not the sin done by them.

When studying the Bible, it is very important to keep in mind that the Bible writers often used figures of speech. When we look at the idea that God hates sin, but loves sinners, the figure of speech known as metonymy clears up the confusion. Just as God does not hate physical feet or tongues, He does not hate sinners. These nouns are put in the place of the things they cause—sin.”

REFERENCE

Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 1968

By Kyle Butt, M.A. APOLOGETICS PRESS  http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=2035

 

 

 

 

INTERPRETATION VS APPLICATION

by

INTERPRETATION VS APPLICATION
Application

“… nor handling the word of God deceitfully…” 2 Corinthians 4:2.

Interpretation is the explanation of exactly what the text meant when it was written. It must include the historical, doctrinal, dispensational and prophetical meaning of the text. One cannot be loose and opinionated when seeking the true interpretation of a passage. He must be guided by the rules of biblical hermeneutics, rightly dividing the Scriptures, knowing what is literal, and what is symbolic. Interpretation is one thing; application is something altogether different.

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Application is imperative, but it must conform to the doctrine of the dispensation we are in today.[/pullquote]

There is no way to measure the damage done to believers through faulty application. The above picture illustrates this. This slight-of-hand is done when the preacher chooses a text and then preaches a topic or subject that has absolutely nothing to do with the chosen text. This art is so cleverly done that the average Christian thinks the text actually teaches what is being taught. No doubt, in some cases, the preacher thinks so himself.

Examples of this are seen when a text is read and then the preacher preaches his own preferences, church tradition or denominational views. You can identify this when he veers off to subjects like, how Christians should dress, what music they can listen to, what music and musical instruments can be used in the church and the sin of using Power Point. They think the Bible is opposed to promotions and special events to reach the lost. There is no end to the “do not’s” from this crowd. They think the Scriptures actually support their teaching on these and other like subjects. It does not!

Application is imperative when preaching, but all application must conform to the doctrines of the dispensation we are in today, and to the Scriptures. To do otherwise, is to handle the Word of God deceitfully for one’s own ends.

My advice is that one listen intently and test all preaching by this dispensation of grace to ensure that he or she is not being controlled or misinformed by a pastor who uses the Bible for his own ends rather than teaching exactly what it says. Remember, the marks of a cult are to use the Bible to control his followers.