Statement of Doctrine

 

 
Site Search:   
(Press Control-F to search within the page you are on)

Our website is best viewed using any internet browser besides Mozilla Firefox versions 6.0 and later (some users don't have problems). We recommend Google Chrome, Internet Explorer, and earlier versions of Firefox (go to "Help - About Firefox" to know your version).

Diabolical Doctrines

Diabolical Doctrines: Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3

 

14) Salvation is possible in this life only

15) Those who do not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ will be fearfully and forever tormented, without end

16) There are many ways to God

17) Christmas is a holy, God-ordained celebration

18) Easter is Christian and Biblical

19) God is trying to save the whole world now

20) Man has been given a free will

21) Now we are in the dispensation of grace, not Law

22) Denominations are legitimate in the sight of God

23) There is no literal, personal voice of God speaking today as in Biblical times

24) All believers have equal authority and status

25) Women are ordained or called as ministers of God, in spiritual authority over men

26) All flesh is clean for eating


14) Salvation is possible in this life only

A convenient lie once, and still used to pressure, by fearmongering, someone into your church organization. Is God unjust that He would damn forever someone who has never heard of the Lord Jesus Christ and therefore was never given opportunity to believe? Oh sure, give me all your intellectual and philosophical reasonings ad nauseum which have no Scriptural foundation and which are not by any means as new as you may be to them. Nowhere but nowhere does the Scripture support this doctrine because it is a diabolical doctrine, nothing more, nothing less.

Did not Jesus preach to the spirits in prison who perished in Noah's day during the flood? Did He not stop Saul of Tarsus dead in his tracks to convert him? If it is so important to convert everyone now, why doesn't Jesus stop many more? "He saw Saul's heart" you say. Doesn't that attribute righteousness to man then and not entirely to God? Why would Cain receive a mark of protection if only for this life only to perish later on? Does God toy with lives much as cats do with mice? Why was Ishmael given 12 princes and blessings if only for this life, only to end it by being told "Okay, Ishmael, now for the fire?" How is it Esau too was blessed? What for? Stop and think, people, consider and pray...not to yourselves or to your imaginary gods, even those you call Jesus, but to the Spirit of Truth Himself, the Lord Jesus Christ.

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many..." is a passage of Scripture used to support this evil doctrine. There is nothing there saying that judgment is eternal or temporary damnation. In fact, the word "judgment"only means a decision, for or against. In that men die only once in this world, can one suppose that therefore there are not other worlds in which men may have occasion to believe as in the case of the souls who perished in the flood? The fact that men die once from this world does not mean they no longer have opportunity to be saved.

It has always been a marvel to me how that people who profess to believe this doctrine and furthermore profess to love their neighbor, and fellow mankind in general, do not do all that they possibly can do to save them. Instead, they are out in all sorts of business ventures, pursuing pleasures, watching television, going to socials, spending time on a myriad of things worth far less than that one soul that is worth more than the whole world and for which nothing can be given in exchange. If they believe this doctrine and also believe that it is up to Christians to win other souls to Christ, having only this life in which to believe, then they are guilty of the worst possible crimes imaginable. Hitler is a shining light compared to them. Either they don't really believe this doctrine but use and vocalize it for their own purposes, as hypocrites do, or, they do not love their neighbor, contrary to their show and profession. It is that simple.

If I believed this doctrine, I would not have a television set, a newspaper, a moment to spare on any kind of activity or object that is not of as much or more importance than that of rescuing a perishing soul. I would not marry and have children. I would not have a home, a lawn or any earthly time-consuming thing that was not of paramount necessity. I would not trouble myself in clothing, shaving, grooming, preparing food, even brushing my teeth or many other things we all do. My activities and attentions apart from winning souls would be cut to the bone. But I don't believe this doctrine.

Consider that if it is true, then almost all those who believe it are damned. Almost, I say, because there may be someone out there who believes it and is trying all to do something about it, poor wretch! One too few souls saved is more than a pure conscience could bear. "If only I had..." would be his constant torment. Therefore he would be damned in another way. Now if you call me diabolical because I teach against this doctrine, not believing it, yet you do not act according to your profession of believing this doctrine, then in God's sight I am more justified than are you who condemn me. Interesting?

CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE TO BELIEVING THIS DOCTRINE: YOU WILL NO LONGER BE GUILTY OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE OF THE HIGHEST ORDER NOR WILL YOU BE IMPOSSIBLY BURDENED.

(Top)

15) Those who do not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ will be fearfully and forever tormented, without end

A mother who professes to believe above almost all others in Christ and who believes this doctrine once stood with her children watching a cat play with a mouse before it devoured it. They could not stand to watch and so went into the house. Now what is this mouse to them? It is a disease-bearing rodent, a pest that invades food stores, crops and drinking water at the best of times if having opportunity, which apparently it did with them. Yet in their carnality, they had sympathy for that mouse. "That cat was cruel" she said. Really? Consider that the cat had the mouse in shock so that it probably felt no pain, that it devoured that mouse eventually to sustain itself. Consider that the mouse could not reason as can we, or feel guilt or regret. Also consider that it was not made in the image of God and had so little value compared to that of a human being, nor did it have loved ones it would miss who would love it but who would have had the cat's favor, ecstatically enjoying fellowship with the cat while watching their loved one being tormented and finally eaten. Finally, the cat was not the all-loving being that God is taught to be and of which the Scriptures bear witness.

How is it that we can be so foolish and ignorant as to believe that an "all-loving God" would take those who did not believe in this life, equip them with a body that can suffer immense pain forever, yet never be destroyed (and of course it would have to be a physical as well as supernatural body because the fire is going to be literal so the doctrine goes), for the sole purpose and final cause of letting them suffer forever? A trillion years from now, they will continue to scream and writhe in terrible agony with no respite, the torment only beginning. In the meantime, the One Who put them there is finally at rest with His beloved, enjoying fellowship with them and they with Him. Their friends and relatives who didn't believe are on the other side of a chasm which cannot be crossed, in horrible agony, but that doesn't seem to bother either the One Who gave Himself to put away suffering, to wipe away all tears or the ones whose tears have been wiped away. You can just hear them singing "Joy unspeakable and full of glory," drowning out the shrieks of the wretched mothers, fathers, little brothers and sisters, sons and daughters who didn't believe. These will forever suffer and for what? So that the saved can sit there licking their cones, saying, "We told you so; see, we weren't as stupid as you thought?" And God will say to them, vindictively (what other reason can there be?), "You didn't believe Me? Enjoy yourselves."

What possible reason could be served by people forever suffering excruciating pain? Would that not make agony and not God the Omega? Is it not in God's power to mercifully put a suffering creature out of its misery? Can He enjoy Himself with others and they with Him while others suffer so? Jesus once said "If you, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good gifts to them that ask?" If this woman, being evil, can't handle a mouse's temporary torment in the present order of things, how will the Father in heaven, being good, be willing to preside with His children over the "eternal" torment of persons once created in His image? And He doesn't even get to eat them after they're toasted! How utterly diabolical a doctrine this is! This doctrine was concocted by Satan to frighten people into his gates. It is not by fear through terrorism but by grace through faith that we are saved. It is not by the driving of men but by the drawing of the Father that we enter into the kingdom of God. We have some sheep. Drive them and they are frightened; lead them and they follow. When they are frightened, they do not go where they need to go. Scary, bloodthirsty doctrines ought to tell one there is something amiss.

Yes, it says that there is torment in the lake of fire forever and ever. If you take a look at the Greek words, you'll find that "forever" does not mean "forever" the way we use it. Furthermore, if you search the Scriptures elsewhere for the word, you will find that "forever" plainly did not mean "forever" as we conceive it in our minds. Example: Ex. 27:21 (ended 2000 years ago). Many such examples are there in the Old Testament. And when do you decide whether "fire" is literal or figurative? Here (the lake of fire) it is figurative, as also when it speaks of our being baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Not that one is any less than the other.

"Yes, God is love but He is also a just God and we must pay the penalty for our sins if we don't repent." Does it not say that it is God Who causes us to will and to do of His good pleasure? How can we claim any credit? Is it not by grace through faith that we are saved, and that not of ourselves but a gift of God? Vindictive, petty, vicious, vengeful, unspeakably cruel and merciless creatures we can be and are, making God into our own image and transferring our wishes to Him as though He would, on our behalf, fulfill them.

CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE TO BELIEVING THIS: WHO KNOWS? YOU MAY EVEN GET TO LOVE GOD IF YOU REPENTED AND SAW HIM AS HE IS!

(Top)

16) There are many ways to God

This doctrine is not so often found preached in "Christian" churches but I am amazed to find so many people attending these churches who believe this lie. But why should I be amazed to find such in the church systems, the gates of hell? Is it not written, "Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird?"

It takes God to bring us to Him. God is Jesus Christ. Buddha is not; Krishna is not; Mohammed is not; neither is any other. Only God can lay His life down and take it up again. Only His tomb is empty by His own power. There is no salvation outside of the Lord Jesus Christ. He said "No man can come unto the Father but by Me." He also said, "He that believes not on the Son is condemned," and there is but one only begotten Son of God, the Lord Jesus. He also said to His disciples, "He that rejects you rejects Me and he who rejects Me rejects Him Who sent Me." That doesn't leave a whole lot of room for competitors now, does it? According to Jesus, if someone said to one of His disciples, "No thanks, I found and prefer another way", that man would be condemned. And did Jesus not say that anyone who comes up another way is a thief and a robber?

These same people who believe this diabolical doctrine also usually consent that Jesus was a wise and good man, wiser and better than themselves. They will even acknowledge Him to be a prophet. It should follow then that they ought to believe what He has to say and not be so foolish as to treat Him as a fool or liar. And why do they consent that He was (notice the past tense) a wise and good man? Because they do not believe. If they believed, they would know that He was no mere wise and good man but that He IS God.

CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE TO THIS DOCTRINE: BELIEVE THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND YOU'LL SEE GOD.

(Top)

17) Christmas is a holy, God-ordained celebration

Wrong. It is a celebration but it is anything but holy and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Lord Jesus, never did and never will. Christmas is a concoction stirred up by heathen revellers. It is in honor of pagan gods, not the God of gods. It is said that Christmas would be good if not for the fact that it was so commercialized. "SO commercialized?" Can a truly holy celebration of God tolerate ANY commercialism? I tell you, the very origin, purpose and spirit of Christmas is commercialism in the wide sense of the word. At and of Christmas we speak of giving and truly there is a fair amount of it then, to the poor, to relatives and friends, etc. Yet Christmas is not at all about giving but getting. It is a time of revelry, enjoyment, eating, drinking, getting together.

"Johnny, if you're good, Santa will bring you a present."

"We sent them a better card than they sent us and they can afford it!"

"Isn't it time everyone got together at their place this time instead of ours?"

The emphasis there is on getting, not giving.

Who is Santa? He is whatever you make him out to be...an elf, a fairy, someone with magical powers who is obese, who smokes, or, he is some Catholic saint, St. Nicholas, as though the Catholic Church knows what a saint is and has the right to honor one while by its very nature it persecutes and opposes true saints for all it is worth.

"Haven't you ever felt the spirit of Christmas? What's wrong with it? Doesn't it make you feel good?" No doubt, it makes one feel good. One can get very high on it and then comes the drop when the event is over. It is a wonderful rape in the form of a seduction. Admit it. Part of the proof of the falsehood of Christmas is that it is only a short-lived event which does not change anybody. Some may get generous for a day or two and the rest of the year is back to business, labor, sobriety (?). It is not the Spirit of Christ at all that is felt but that of a seducing, counterfeiting spirit. If Christ comes, He establishes Himself and remains through faith and obedience. How is it you can feel the spirit of Christmas only at Christmas? It is simply because it is from the side of darkness in wonderful seduction and has nothing to do with God. I too loved Christmas, and shaking that celebration was one of the hardest things I've had to do. It's hard being odd man out in anything, especially in joyous festivity, especially when you've been brought up with it from the cradle and enjoyed it with loved ones for many years and especially when everyone but you celebrates.

It is said that we need to get Christ back into Christmas. The fact of the matter is, He was never in it. Trying to put Him in a pagan feast is abomination to God. There were feasts ordained and established of the Lord in the Bible by law such as Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. These were all solemn feasts. God never did institute a feast to celebrate the birth of Christ. Consider how few knew of and were present at His birth. Shouldn't THAT tell you God was not interested in having men celebrate it? How different the event and the commemoration! Passover represented His sacrifice, Pentecost the outpouring of His Spirit, and Tabernacles the entering into rest and His manifestation to mankind through His people. Where in the Bible does anybody see a feast instituted by God to celebrate His birth? Passover was the first one and it represented His death which occurred 33 years after His birth. Why would not God have instituted a feast for His birth which came before His death? The world has devised all sorts of superstitions and practices like the tree, the mistletoe, the yule-log, gift-giving, card-sending, various foods and significations for them and pleasure seekers calling themselves Christians jumped right in. They use the excuse that they are being all things to all men in order to reach them. But Paul never spoke of joining the world to win it. You join the world and you lose yourself, if you had anything to lose in the first place. God commands us to come out of the world and to not even TOUCH the unclean thing. Use your excuses to keep your pleasures, Christian, and be sure God will call you into account for every bit of it...already does.

"God alone knows the heart" you object. Yes, He does, and you don't, and so He sends me to tell you, if perchance you will listen and be saved.

The event itself is evil enough, of the world, the flesh and the devil, but putting the Name of Christ to it is heaping sin upon sin. The word "Christmas" is from the Catholic abomination of the mass..."Christ mass" wherein the priest offers up the body and blood of Christ as a sacrifice to God, then serves it up to the congregants. In effect, symbolically, they continue to crucify Him, blatantly, publicly, hypocritically, universally, proudly. Speak of the abomination of desolation! And all the "Protestants" who think they are their own, follow, copy, believe basically no differently than do Catholics even if they don't have mass.

Whether it is a case of putting new wine in old wineskins or old wine in old wineskins, the Reformation was not new wine in new wineskins and if not, then it has produced nothing better...and it hasn't. To be sure, the tyrannical power of the Catholic Church was significantly crippled and therefore we can be thankful for that. Yet tyranny and confusion remain. All organized religious works of men exercise tyranny over simple souls. The ignorant and idolatrous are bound by lies which affect their total lives whether they realize it or not and usually they don't. When they do see their lives as totally affected, they are deceived, thinking it is for good when it is quite otherwise.

The confusion lies in the fact that all the churches (many thousands today) stand there saying, "We are the true church or the closest to it," yet are really no different from one another in basic doctrine, practice and spirit. But it is my belief that God's work goes on unseen, unofficially by unrecognized saints and not by men's organizations called Christian. The prophets were outside the camp, Jesus was and is outside the camp and so are all those who follow Him, heeding His voice and not the voice of strangers.

CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE TO THIS DOCTRINE: WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT COMMAND YOU TO CELEBRATE THE BIRTH OF THE LORD JESUS AND THAT, ON A DATE COMMEMORATING A HEATHEN GOD? WILL YOU NOT SEVER YOURSELF FROM SOMETHING ABOMINABLE TO GOD AND REAP REWARD? FLEE REVELRY AND IDOLATRY!

(Top)

18) Easter is Christian and Biblical

While almost all "Christian" churches celebrate this event, why don't they stop for a moment to consider that the pagan goddess of fertility and love, Ishtar, or Ashtoreth, has the preeminence here even in the name of the occasion? As with Christmas, carnal religious leaders decided to accommodate the heathen by "Christianizing" their idolatrous worshipping and practices and cleverly paralleling them to Biblical events and practices. Celebrating fertility, "Christians" "bless" eggs, paint them up, introduce rabbits (prolific animals) who lay eggs and deliver them in "Ishtar baskets" and practice many other abominations.

The original Biblical event obscured in all of this is that of Passover where the lamb was slain by God's command at the time the children of Israel were in Egypt. They were told to take the blood and put it on their doors so that when the death angel of God passed through the land to slay every firstborn, the blood would exempt that household from the judgment, the angel "passing over." The Israelites were spared, the Egyptians were not, and there was great sorrow in the land as you can well imagine. The Passover lamb was to be sacrificed every year thereafter, at the same time of year, until Christ came about 1500 years later in fulfilment of this solemn feast and would be slain on schedule, the day before the Passover feast day, as was the lamb all those years. He was the Passover lamb the event was all about.

Do they call it Passover now? No, it's "Ishtar", in honor of the seductive lady with 6 breasts! Even the King James Bible calls the event "Easter!" Do they eat the Passover lamb representing the Lamb of God Who gives His life for mankind? No, they eat a pig! In God's order of things, sheep were clean and swine unclean. Now we have the unclean gracing the table of those for whom the Pig of God died. It is significant that when a lamb is butchered, it takes it very well; it is so submissive. Not so with swine. I have personally observed a few swine slaughterings. They fight it with everything they've got. The screams can be heard for great distances if the event isn't handled effectively. Was that the way Jesus laid His life down for us? What can ham possibly have to do with Passover? Easter, I won't ask, and I don't care, but Passover? Abominable! Does it matter? When you attach the Lord Jesus Christ to all this, you better believe it matters! Why do you think the wrath of God is upon your household with financial problems, illness, failure, fear, fightings, addictions, etc.?

Adding confusion to confusion and abomination to abomination, they criticize the Jews for celebrating Passover because "they don't realize what it's all about." And, they have "mass" in the mainline "Christian" denominations which supposedly represents what they call "the Lord's Supper". They have a special mass at Easter which is supposed to be Passover and so they have a Passover on top of a Passover to celebrate the Passover they are having in the name of Easter. Make sense? Is it any wonder the church systems of this world are called "Babylon," which means "Confusion?" Besides this, they have mass in the Catholic, Anglican, Episcopalian, Lutheran and other churches every week, even every day in some cases, not once a year only, while evangelicals have "the Lord's Supper" or "the breaking of bread" any time and any way they please.

Now let me ask: If Passover should be continued to be observed, then what about the other feasts? Wasn't Pentecost important? According to general consensus in the churches, Pentecost was the birth of the Church of God. No minor event. If we ought to celebrate the birth of the Bridegroom, then what about the Bride? Or what about the Feast of Unleavened Bread in conjunction with Passover? Little is mentioned of that...probably because it speaks of sincerity and truth, ridding ourselves of all hypocrisy. And what about the Feast of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement? Why are not any of these continued in observance? "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." And people think they serve the Lord and wonder why their prayers aren't heard, their kids are sick or dying, their creditors are at the doors. You don't think you incur the wrath of God upon yourself for these things? You really are ignorant of what the Bible has to say now, aren't you? Believe His wrath is on you for such! How could it not be?

CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE TO THIS DOCTRINE: CHRIST HAS FULFILLED THE PASSOVER FEAST AND ITS OBSERVATION ENDED AT HIS COMING. HONOR THE LORD AND NOT FALSE GODS.

(Top)

19) God is trying to save the whole world now

People have been saying this for centuries. Constantine gave the "good old college try" in his day and made the world "Christian." Doctrines have been devised, as already discussed, to "save" or "Christianize" the world through any strategy possible, mostly terror and bribery.

Notice that in the first Passover observance, the blood of the lamb on the door only saved THE FIRSTBORN? If the Hebrews had not placed the blood on the door, only the firstborn in the household would have died, nobody else. The Egyptians lost only their firstborn in that event, nobody else. The animals lost only their firstborn, nothing else. During all this time since the days of Jesus in His flesh, God has been seeking out and redeeming only the firstfruits, Jesus being the first of the firstfruits. Again, if God could stop someone from sin so easily and dramatically as He did Saul of Tarsus, why not others, why not ALL others? Because He didn't want to; it wasn't time. Did Jesus die to redeem the world? Yes, but not all immediately, although the foundation for all was laid in the cross and resurrection.

Consider that while some experience a drawing of God, a searching, with no consistent external apparent reason, others couldn't care less. "No man can come unto the Son except the Father draws him." Why doesn't the Father draw him? Because it is not his time, not being the will of God for some at that time. Did Jesus come to divide? He said so. Why? Because it was time for some and not for others. You say God knows the heart and draws those who seek after Him. Isn't that being rather self-righteous? Does not the Scripture plainly declare that no man seeks after God? Only when the Father determines to draw a man will such a man begin to seek and not until then. I wasn't seeking after God for years and then I was...no explanation. Adverse circumstances? No more than for many others and even far less than for some who still couldn't care less. No, it was a sovereign act of God, sheer mercy, sheer grace. There is no other explanation. When I was being called, my family wasn't, my friends weren't and I had to leave them all behind. They did not have the slightest desire for God. One may as well have talked to dogs in a kennel. Preach the gospel to every creature? That is what the disciples were told, and as they went, some believed, some did not, some were saved, some were damned, some were left for the future. In the whole process, the Lord chose His firstfruits, vessels of honor, and also vessels of dishonor.

When and where do you ever see Paul the apostle say, "Saints, we have to get out there at all costs and reach the lost! They are going straight to Hell, never to return, ever to burn! We have got to do something! Every minute, every penny counts! We cannot waste time or effort or money! This is so important, above all things! Think of it! If only one soul is saved from such a terrible fate, is it not worth it? Will not that soul be ever thankful? I can't stress this enough, saints!"?

If this doctrine is true, that is, that God has been trying these 2000 years to save the world, then God is an almost absolute miserable failure and Satan a clear winner. God saves one percent and ninety-nine percent goes to everlasting unimaginable torment, "everlasting" meaning "time never ending." These miserable results in spite of the fact that love wins the day and hatred never pays, God is good, Satan is evil; God wins, Satan gets defeated; God is Omnipotent, Satan is by far weaker; God is Creator, while Satan was a mere creature; God sacrifices His only begotten Son, Satan sacrifices nothing; God is Omniscient and All-wise, while Satan is the prince of darkness having no fear of God, which is the beginning of knowledge, as it says in Proverbs!

Come on, people! Isn't it time we began to give God rather than Satan the glory and praise by the things we believe and speak? Are these not indeed diabolical doctrines if only in that they give Satan all the credit? "God has given man a free will and must allow him to choose for himself," you say. After the conclusion of this doctrine, we'll take a look at "free will."

CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE TO BELIEVING THIS DOCTRINE: IF THIS DOCTRINE IS TRUE, YOU CARRY AN IMPOSSIBLE BURDEN SEEING AS HOW YOU CLAIM GOD WANTS YOU TO GO OUT AND SAVE AS MANY AS POSSIBLE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND AT ALL COSTS. EVEN THEN, THE "VICTORY" IS MISERABLE AND GOD AS GOD IS A LOSER. BUT, IF GOD WORKS ALL THINGS ACCORDING TO THE COUNSEL OF HIS WILL, WILL ACCOMPLISH ALL THAT HE DETERMINES TO DO, IS SOVEREIGN OVER ALL, THEN YOU CAN REST IN HIM AND BE DELIVERED OF TOTAL CONDEMNATION IN WASTING BUT A MINUTE REDEEMING SOULS BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THIS LIE.

(Top)

20) Man has been given a free will

I was born Canadian, Manitoban, of Ukrainian descent, male, the eldest in a family of five children with but one sister, poor, at this time of history, Catholic, to unbelieving parents. Because of their unbelief, we suffered many things; sin reaped its consequences. I was born with straight hair when I would have preferred curly. I would have preferred to be taller, stronger, smarter, more popular, you name it. Unthankful? No. That is the way it was, is, and with what God has now given me, I know that I have more than heart could wish and wouldn't trade shoes with anybody. My point is that I had no free will in any of these or so many other matters.

You say that free will pertains to only moral issues. How easy was it for me to have free will on moral issues compared to others when from the cradle, I was taught idolatry, pagan worship, lies, diabolical doctrines while children like Isaac, born of believing parents, had the opportunity to hear the truth from the beginning? What free will did Isaac have in moral issues? What freedom of will did Jacob and Esau have when while they were yet in the womb, it was determined from above that Jacob would be loved and Esau hated, that to Jacob would be delivered the birthright while Esau would sell it for nothing? What free will was there for Isaac when it was in his heart to give the blessing to Esau, his favored son, but was deceived by his wife and son, it being kept from him that they were doing so? What exercise of free will was there when Saul of Tarsus was stopped on the road to Damascus and why were the others with him let go? What free will was there when it was determined that he would suffer great things for the Lord, unlike that of others?

Is not the choosing of a wife a moral as well as another kind of matter? It says that we ought to marry believing, not unbelieving wives if we believe, and therefore it would be a moral matter. Or would it? Samson's parents were distraught when he decided to marry a Philistine, contrary to God's directions. Yet the record bears witness that it was God's leading that Samson marry a Philistine. What free will did Samson have and what free will did his parents have?

Twenty-three years ago, I had a family dear to me...mother, father, brothers, sister, cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. I lost it all. I now have a wife. I didn't want one. In my early days as a believer I had hoped to be "another apostle Paul" who was single and who said it was better not to marry if possible, thereby serving the Lord with all attention. My wife was pressed upon me, for which I am very thankful. I had no idea how much I needed my wife. I also have a son. I didn't ask for one and again am very thankful. We have a home we didn't want, finances, friends and other things we did not want. Free will? I don't think so.

When Moses gave excuse at the burning bush to bow out on God's plan for him, God got angry. Call it whatever kind of issue you please...obedience is a moral issue whether to God or any authority set over one and it is certainly a spiritual one when it is God Who requires it personally. There was no free will for Moses; he was foreordained to serve as he did.

The Scriptures clearly teach that man is born in sin and a slave to it. If he is a slave, then how is it he has free will? I want to boldly declare now that it is God and not man that determines all things. Man determines nothing...UNTIL HE IS REDEEMED FROM SIN, FULFILLED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD, SITTING ON THE THRONE AND REIGNING WITH HIM. COMPLETE IN CHRIST, HE THEN AND ONLY THEN HAS A FREE WILL, EVEN AS GOD.

Is it not written that God chooses vessels of honor and of dishonor, that He chooses to have mercy on whom He wills but hardens whom He wills? What choice did Pharaoh have with God hardening his heart against Moses? You say "God knew his heart and determined things accordingly." That is plain silly...more intellectual acrobatics on the part of those trying to defend the indefensible doctrine of free will, utterly contrary to Scripture and to God. Does not the Scripture say of Pharaoh, "Even for this same purpose have I raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My Name might be declared throughout all the earth?"

"A man's heart devises his way but the Lord directs his steps."

"The Lord turns a king's heart whichsoever way He wills."

"It is not in man that walks to direct his steps."

Who chooses whom? Did not Jesus say to the disciples, "You have not chosen Me but I have chosen you?" So then carnal reasoning comes in and says, "Yes, but they could have refused being chosen...they made a choice." But did not Jesus later say to the Father in John 17 that He had kept all those which the Father had given Him, that He had not lost one? If one of those had chosen to reject the choosing of God, would not Jesus have had to say something different?

So the carnal man comes in again and says, "God doesn't need anybody; if one refuses, He raises up another in his stead." Then why should Jesus make a statement about not losing any if they are so dispensable?

Also, when Jesus said He had not lost one, He went on to say, "except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled." So now where was the free will of Judas? There wasn't one, as with all others. Again, the carnal man steps in arguing that God knew his heart from the beginning, knowing he would do such a thing." Then where was the free will of all those he impacted? Why did God want a betrayer there in the first place? Because it was necessary? Then, for necessity's sake, there needed to be a betrayer. Is it not foolish to think that first there is free will, then necessary spots or roles to be filled by all those who can choose what they wish? Would not such an arrangement bring chaos? And is it only Judas and the disciples who had certain futures by the predeterminate counsel and foreknowledge of God? No. The Scriptures are abundantly clear for all those who are given to see that every creature has been chosen and ordained for specific purpose, whether Esau or Nebuchadnezzar or Judas or Peter or the men crept in unawares or Isaac or Moses or Joseph or Paul or the blind man from birth, etc.

Did Joseph have free will or what? "I don't want to be sold into slavery and go to Egypt, God. Cancel the dreams; send Benjamin instead!"

Frankly, I believe that this notion of free will is nothing more than a symptom of self-righteousness, as though we are the architects of our own destinies, as though we are God Himself. No wonder I call it a diabolical doctrine!

Another version of free will is the saying which goes: "We are the masters of our own fate."

If someone were to make the above statement in the ears of evangelical Christians, the listeners would be quick to condemn such a thought, and rightly so. However, these people will just as vociferously and zealously declare that we all have a free will. What, pray tell, is the difference? Truly, if one has a free will, one can choose anything one desires, and have it. Have we not often chosen so many things that did not materialize or work? Have we not also been so often subjected to circumstances not of our choosing, "having no choice?" And do not the effects of those unchosen, undesired circumstances influence and even determine the outcome of our lives in general? Of course they do! Who, in his right mind can deny it?

One will have no choice but to acknowledge that this is true, unless one wishes to be wrong! However, it is true that we will all one day choose to be right, and therefore we will have no choice to choose the wrong! Why will we choose the right? It will be because of Him Who causes us to will and to do of His good pleasure!

Now one may say, "We have a free will. Just because we do not get what we want, or just because all our choices do not work out does not mean we do not have a free will." Is this not more of the same contradiction? What is the point of being free to move my arms and legs in a tight cage if I cannot be free from that cage? What is the point of being able to view that which I am not allowed to have? What is the point of hearing the words of the wise if I am not able to comprehend them? What is the point of having freedom which limits me? What is the point of having a free will within the context of limitations?

But I will tell you who has a free will! It is the Lord of lords and King of kings, that's Who. He alone has a free will. He alone is Master of any and all destinies, otherwise He is Lord of none. Either one has a free will or one does not. Liberty must be total or it is not liberty at all. Rather, it is a frustrating torment. One day, those in Christ will be free in every respect! As the Lord Jesus promised, "When the Son of Man makes you free, you will be free indeed!" (John 8:36). Till that time of fulness comes, we are only fooling ourselves in thinking we have a free will.

To say that we have a free will is no different than to say that we are masters of our own fate, forgers of our own destiny. This is an arrogant premise founded in the Adamic fall, a delusion, denying the reality of all things. It is sour grapes. "I fell, I was warned this would happen, but I did the right thing. At least I am free to do as I please now!" To think so is to slavishly serve error. Only the Light of men has the key to deliverance from the chains of darkness that bind us. This the Lord Jesus Christ will one day complete, in spite of the choice Adam made, in spite of the choices we make, not because of any works which we have done, but out of sheer grace. Isn't that wonderful?

Obviously, many questions arise if you consider what I say to be true.

CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE TO BELIEVING THIS DOCTRINE: THE DOCTRINE OF FREE WILL IS THE FRUIT OF ARROGANCE, PRESUMPTION AND IGNORANCE. IT LEAVES YOU WITH GOD'S JOB AND NO WHEREWITH TO HANDLE IT. SHED THAT SELF-RIGHTEOUS NOTION THAT YOU ARE RIGHT WITH GOD BECAUSE YOU CHOSE TO BE SO, WHILE OTHERS WERE SO AWFUL AND NOT AS CLEVER OR BELIEVING AS YOU. ACKNOWLEDGE THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD AND SHED YOURSELF. THINGS MAKE MORE SENSE, THE SCRIPTURES MAKE MORE SENSE AND YOU CAN REST IN GOD.

(Top)

21) Now we are in the dispensation of grace, not Law

My, how wise and thoughtful these words sound! Satan does know how to impress, and so do men. But who is impressed? Certainly not God, and after all is said and done, isn't He the only One Who matters? This doctrine subtly or not so subtly encourages lawlessness. "We don't have to worry about keeping laws...that was for the Jews 2000 years ago. They were under the dispensation of Law but this is the age of grace."

Who did the Law apply to? Only the nation of Israel. The rest of the world had nothing to do with it. We are in our nations, the rest of the world, and have never been under the "dispensation of Law." Now what about Israel, as a nation in this world? Are they now under grace? Why then are they still in unbelief after 2000 years? It says that God would harden them to bring in the Gentiles which would then provoke the Jews to jealousy and then the Jews would be saved. Try to tell the Jews they have been under grace for the last two millenia if you wish to speak of grace in terms of unmerited favor and blessings and not in terms of persecutions, homelessness, pogroms, the holocaust and now with their own nation (which they didn't have for 1900 of those grace-age years) economic hardship and continued conflict with the rest of the world? So then just who do these so-called dispensations apply to and when?

Part of the error of this doctrine is that it applies to the world when the world has nothing to do with the laws and things of God. You say we (Canada) are a Christian nation. You say that Europe has Christian nations and that the United States too is Christian. Wrong! There never has been a Christian nation other than Israel if you speak of "Christian" simply as under God in the form of theocracy. While individuals within nations have been under God, nations have not, except that everything is under God in His sovereignty, including Satan, death and hell. You say that Israel was never a "Christian" nation. If I use the word "Christian" as "of the Messiah (the anointed One-Christ)", then Israel was once Christian, a theocracy in other words. Jesus Christ was always there, being God. Because He didn't make His appearance in history until later does not presuppose He wasn't there if He is God. Who called Abraham? Who formed the nation of Israel? Who gave the Law? Who did it all? Jesus Christ, Lord of lords, King of kings, the One by Whom all things were made, that's who.

Now will I tell you where Law and grace apply. Firstly, Law has never been done away. Jesus said so. Therefore, there can be no age without the Law of God. Secondly, grace has always been there, right from day one. Therefore, there can be no age without grace. It was by grace that Noah and his household were saved, by grace that Enoch was translated, by grace that Abraham was called, by grace that Isaac was born and Jacob chosen. Grace was always present. It isn't a matter of epochal dispensation. Among gentile nations, by grace was Nebuchadnezzar given dominion, being that head of gold and not by his own will or power, as Daniel declares. By grace, Cyrus of Persia decreed that Israel be sent back from captivity to its own land to rebuild. By grace all the empires gained ascendancy and reigned and so it is to this present day with western democracies reigning over the world.

Law and grace also apply in our personal spiritual lives as believers, "dispensationally" if you will. First comes the Law, as Paul says. We are made aware of God's laws and their requirements upon us at conversion (if it is a genuine conversion and not the false kind I've pointed out) whereupon it is incumbent that we try to keep those laws. Falling short, learning we cannot keep the holy and spiritual law of God, we cry out to God and receive grace to fulfill the Law of God through the Spirit of God. The false conversion goes over to lawlessness, not lawfulness, presuming itself to be under grace. So are formed sons of iniquity who then go about making disciples who become twofold children of hell, all the while calling themselves "born again" Christians who "have accepted Jesus as Saviour."

Let it be known to all: those who are the Lord's love the Law and seek to keep it with all their hearts. "Oh how I love Your Law! It is my meditation all the day" is the resounding declaration, the public cry of every true child of God who loves the Author of that Law. "Where there is no vision, the people perish...(many recite those words but ask them to recite the rest of that verse and they are lost)...but he that KEEPS YOUR LAW, happy is he!" Isaiah declares in chapter 42, "Behold My servant, whom I uphold; My elect, in whom My soul delights; I have put My Spirit upon Him: He shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles...the isles SHALL WAIT FOR HIS LAW...Who is blind, but My servant? or deaf, as My messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the Lord's servant?..The Lord is well pleased for His righteousness' sake; He will MAGNIFY THE LAW, AND MAKE IT HONORABLE."

From Genesis to Revelation, there is Law. Psalm 119 is as relevant now as it was when written as it was in the day of Adam. The whole theme is the LAW OF GOD and begins with "Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk AFTER THE LAW OF THE LORD." What about Psalm One? "Blessed is the man that walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful. But his delight IS IN THE LAW OF THE LORD; AND IN HIS LAW DOES HE MEDITATE DAY AND NIGHT." Was not this psalm written by the Spirit of grace?

CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE TO THIS DOCTRINE: LOVE THE LAW OF GOD, PURSUE IT WITH ALL THAT IS IN YOU. IT IS FOR YOUR LIFE. AND HE WILL GIVE YOU THE GRACE TO KEEP IT. THAT IS TRUE SALVATION.

(Top)

22) Denominations are legitimate in the sight of God

Putrid nonsense. Satan must promote legitimacy and credibility of his gates to divide and conquer. Men must justify their lawlessnesses and independence of God, worshipping what they please, when, where, how and why they please. As it is written, "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

Jesus prayed or told others to pray, "Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven." There is almost unanimous agreement to the belief that "when we get to heaven, there will be no sections dividing believers by denomination. We will all be one." Let me ask this: If the Lord told us to pray as quoted, what right do you have to be partisan now, here on earth? What right do you have to divide or contribute to division? Because I am not part of any denomination or official church group, I am told, repeatedly, that I forsake assembling with believers. I say to those who participate in separate church organizations and denominations that they are the ones who forsake assembling with the obedient or faithful people of God and not I. It is they who walk in darkness and not light because He (Jesus Christ) is Light and He is not found where He tells us not to be. If these churches are each so faithfully pointing to the God of heaven and earth, why are they so divided and in disagreement on so many doctrines and issues? The fact is, they are not pointing to any truth, certainly not to God, and that is why they are what they are, contrary to the Lord and His commandments.

And are non-Catholic churches so foolish as to think for one moment that the Catholic Church deems them as equals? The "Mother Church" seeks every opportunity to bring "its wayward children" back into the fold so that there may be one fold and one shepherd, the "Most Holy Father", the "sole vicar of Christ" on earth, the Pope at Rome.

"God is working unity among the churches today" I have heard people say for decades...different and new people every few years while the old who used to say it fade away. There is unity in that they are all alike...false, empty of God, under His wrath. If they ever unite, just as did some to form the United Church, they will unite to believe anything, stand for nothing good and everything evil. With "unity" and compromise, they will fade away as does the United Church. There will be no unity in the Spirit of God whatsoever because they have nothing to do with God. But those who desire to be joined in unity with God and His people will come out of organized religion, out of lawlessness and proud independence and will submit themselves to men whom God has appointed and not whom men have appointed. They will truly submit to authority, not in vain, seek to obey, be willing to be corrected and taught in the ways of God...no games, no religious entertainments, no lawlessness, no hypocrisy, no uncleanness, no divisions.

"Now this I say, that every one of you says, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" wrote Paul to partisans. I find it amazing how people can sit in denominations and criticize the Corinthians about their divisions, but they do. I did, until the Lord opened my eyes. How easy it is to see the faults of others, how hard to see our own! But people poked away until it got through to me and now I do the same to get through to others.

As for the truths that each of these denominations are supposed to be representing, I see little evidence. The Catholics have what truth that others don't? They think many or all. The Church of England has what truth that others don't? Their origin was a bid for royal divorce. The Methodists have what truth others don't? Their origin was that the Wesleys preached faith and wanted a loosening of formality and authority imposed by the Church of England. Many preach faith and less authority of men. The Salvation Army believes in a "second blessing" but try to find one member who has experienced or sincerely believes it exists anymore. So what is their truth? Uniforms and tubas? They give to the poor but so would many others claim to do the same though not often to the same degree. The United Way gives too and they don't pretend to be a church. The Baptists "pump" water baptism but have no use whatsoever for being baptized in the Spirit of Christ whom they profess to serve. In rebuking the Corinthians, Paul emphasized the latter and played down the former. The Baptists claim to preach Paul's gospel, disagreeing and contradicting him on fundamental matters of faith. They don't believe but try telling them. The Pentecostals preach the Pentecostal blessing, the baptism with the Holy Spirit (that which the Salvation Army calls "the second blessing"), but I haven't run into any Pentecostals with the Spirit of God. I have seen some with other spirits, tongues and all. Reformers are ever reforming until there are almost as many reform churches as there are reformers.

"I am of Luther, I am of Menno Simons, I am of Joseph Smith, I am of Jacob Huter, I am of William Branham, I am of Christ..." and nobody worships the Lord Jesus Christ in spirit and in truth.

CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE TO BELIEVING THIS DOCTRINE: IF YOU DISENGAGE YOURSELF FROM DENOMINATIONS AND OFFICIAL RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE IN THE NAME OF HOLINESS, YOU WILL SEE GOD AND COME INTO ALL TRUTH AND NOT JUST PORTIONS METED OUT BY MEN.

(Top)

23) There is no literal, personal voice of God speaking today as in Biblical times

Those who are not the Lord's have not heard the voice of the Lord for, He says, "My sheep HEAR (NOT READ) MY VOICE." Throughout the Scriptures in both Old and New Testaments, believers heard the voice of God directly and personally though rarely audibly. But unbelievers today who think themselves to be born again Christians say, "Now that Christ is in us, He doesn't any longer have to speak to us as God did in the past." Tell me if it makes any sense to say that while they had the Book but not Him within them, He spoke to them directly, personally but now that we have Him within, He speaks to us only by the Book!? I have heard these same people also contradict themselves in that while they say "we no longer hear His voice", they on occasion claim that "He speaks to their heart." He doesn't speak to them but He will speak to their blood-pumping organ. It's interesting to note that at one time the liver or the kidneys were known as the central, vital organs. "He spoke to my kidneys about starting a work" you can just hear them say.

Are there other voices? Believe it! Many are hearing the voices of demons telling them all sorts of things, from telling them to preach to telling them to kill. There are evil spirits that prophesy, pray and even praise the Lord. They can be very deceptive. The spirits must be tried and not taken at face value. But again, the counterfeit does not disprove the real but rather testifies of it for copies are only made of real things.

No, people, the Lord died for us, came to indwell us, not so that we would have personal fellowship with a book, even if it is the Bible, but personal, intimate, direct communication and fellowship with Him. How, tell me, by the Bible would He give me some personal command such as "Go to Lethbridge" which He did in 1982, among many other commands and communications over the decades? "Well, he just lays it on your blood-pumping organ" you say. Let me tell you this: When you repent and turn to the Lord with all your heart and continue in Him, He will manifest Himself to you and you will indeed hear His voice.

CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE TO BELIEVING THIS DOCTRINE: IF ONE CAN HEAR HIS VOICE BECAUSE ONE IS HIS, AND YOU AREN'T HEARING HIS VOICE, THEN IT FOLLOWS THAT YOU AREN'T HIS. REPENT, BELIEVE AND YOU WILL BE HIS.

(Top)

24) All believers have equal authority and status

This doctrine is also diabolical. It breeds independence of authority, disrespect for those God has set in His church as leaders, making their responsibility so much more difficult, robbing those who believe this lie of the things they could have of God and even damning them in their thinking which is essentially rebellious. This doctrine arose as an over-compensation against the abuse of authority by mainline churches, Catholic, Church of England and others which taught that only the clergy could have access to God on behalf of the laity. The baby was thrown out with the bath water and soon nobody needed anybody. We now have both extremes...too much mediation and too little so that there are people believing they can receive nothing from God but by human mediators, so they get nothing, and people who think they must or can do it all themselves, thus going away with much unanswered prayer. Both situations undermine faith if it ever existed and discourage the practice and privilege of prayer.

I see an evangelical world particularly, praying for the sake of praying but not believing they will really hear from God...and they don't. "We'll pray about that," or "Pray for me," or "We'll be praying for you," are glib expressions spoken out of religious courtesy and duty, not conviction and assurance that their prayers will be heard.

While it is true that each true believer has access to God, yet not all have equal access. Yes, it is written, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" and from this verse it is assumed that all Christians need nobody to go to God on their behalf, that "Christ did it all." I too believed this for years until God spoke to me and said that I could come to Him not only for myself and my family but on behalf of any who had a problem or question. Since then, on several occasions, believers and unbelievers ( yes, even unbelievers) have come to me, requesting that I petition God on their behalf, and prayers have been directly, specifically answered, some with miracles.

I began to wonder how it was that believers particularly should have to come to me asking me to pray for them if they had that same privilege themselves according to this doctrine we now discuss. The Scriptures are full of evidence that there are varying limits to what privileges believers are granted of God. If it were not so, why then would Peter and John have had to pray for the Samaritans to receive the Holy Spirit? Why couldn't the Samaritans who were believers ask for themselves? Why couldn't Philip pray for them on this matter? After all, he was full of the Holy Spirit and faith and had preached to these people whereby they believed. He had even cast devils out of them.

Why did Jesus say to the apostles, "Whose soever sins you remit, they are remitted to them; and whose soever sins you retain, they are retained?" Does not "soever" mean just that? Why are elders called for to anoint the sick and pray for their healing? Why don't sick believers exercise their own priesthood privileges? Why did the Ephesian disciples need Paul to pray for them? Did they not believe? The Scriptures say they did. Could it be because they did not have the Spirit? The sick were not said to not have the Spirit, although I grant that to be an important factor.

Not only are there differing levels of authority and privilege with God, but intercession comes on common levels as well, such as when they are told to pray for one another that they may be healed. And what about when those ministered to are asked by ministers (Paul) to pray for them that their ministry would be effective?

I have not brought up the Old Testament in which there are many examples of mediation on the part of a man of God (not priests necessarily) because it could be argued that Christ had not yet come to grant priesthood of all and individual believers. But did not the Lord say to all of Israel and not just the Levites, "And you shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation?"

There is partial truth in this false doctrinal statement in that all believers can come to God as we have shown by the Scriptures. By my own experience, those who came requesting prayer mediation on my part for them also have often heard the voice of God and have prayed for various matters and received answers. Where the line is drawn, I have not discerned. We have gone only as the Lord has led us. I do know that healings, receiving the Holy Spirit, deliverance from devils and solving problems are areas in which they have had to ask me to mediate. The Lord DID say that I could come to Him on ANY matter or question for myself or others but I have seen some of those needs in every day business met by themselves. It simply is not true that all believers have identical prayer privileges at all times. God has set forth authorities and He expects them to be honored. What of the words that there is only one mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus? The answer is simple: Jesus is the Head, the Man is His whole body. His body is composed of those having His Spirit. Mature in Him, they reign with Him on His throne, having overcome, even as He overcame and sat down to reign with His Father on His throne. Reigning, they mediate with Him as one because they too are "the Man Christ Jesus." Blasphemy? Not at all. Wonderful, wonderful, holy truth. I do reign with Him and I tell you truth. The Lord Jesus has taught me to deliver you from the lies that bind and destroy you.

CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE TO BELIEVING THIS DOCTRINE: FALLING IN LINE WITH GOD'S ESTABLISHED ORDER OF THINGS AND EXPERIENCING TRULY ANSWERED PRAYER RATHER THAN THE WRATH OF GOD THAT BEFALLS THE CHILDREN OF DISOBEDIENCE.

(Top)

25) Women are ordained or called as ministers of God, in spiritual authority over men

First of all, I obviously don't acknowledge any person, male or female, ordained by men as a minister of God. God's ministers do not come from Bible schools or seminaries. They do not come from sectarian or denominational organizations, which are the works of man. No, as Moses was prepared in the wilderness, as John the Baptist was prepared in the wilderness, as Paul was taken out of his denomination (Pharisees), into a "wilderness," and prepared as an apostle, so all men of God come from outside the structures of man.

As with Paul who said, not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:1), so with all men called of God to minister. Even the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, THE Pattern, "had not letters," and was not known as a product of men's systems of ordination. The chief priests and the elders of the people confronted Him as He was teaching, and said, "By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?" (Mt. 21:23) They did not know!

Concerning women, in the Scriptures, there is no such thing as a female apostle, pastor, evangelist or teacher who would exercise authority over men in terms of spiritual position or power. Women will teach children and younger women (Titus 2:4-5), whether they be younger in physical or spiritual age. And even there, when younger women are spiritually more mature than women who are physically older, there ought to be a certain humility and respect due older people on the part of those teaching.

Now we do have an apparent exception to the rule in the Scriptures. As often is the case, the Lord has His exceptions, for two reasons that I can think of:

1) so we don't get TOO comfortable with laying down blanket laws, worshiping them instead of God, and

2) as a test for us as to whether we will seek His order as reflected in the Law or use exceptions as excuses for iniquity.

There was a prophetess called Deborah in Judges Chapters Four and Five, who judged Israel at one time, and that is the only example I know of in Scripture where a woman was given such prominence and singular authority, and concerning a whole nation at that. Yet it was a different authority than most assume.

Is she really that much of an exception? Deborah spoke the Word of the Lord to the people concerning them and their circumstances from time to time, as she did with Barak (4:5). And note what she said to Barak who was skeptical of the source or validity of her prophecy: "I will surely go with you; nevertheless there will be no glory for you in the journey you are taking, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the HAND OF A WOMAN" (Judges 4:9).

It was common even in her day and situation that women did not take the lead or prominence. She did not "rule over" them in the way many might suppose or imagine. Consider that Samson was also a judge of Israel, as were others, yet the record bears out the fact that he did not "rule over" them.

If anyone should say that, in the work of the Kingdom, neither men nor women rule over others, the Scriptures say otherwise. Hebrews 13:7 - "Remember those who rule over you." Hebrews 13:17 - "Obey those who rule over you."

There is a "ruling over" in righteousness ordained for men, and not for women. Bishops are overseers or superintendents who "rule over" (1 Timothy 3). Titus (not "Titia") was instructed to speak, exhort, and rebuke with all authority (Titus 2:15). Note that Paul instructed Timothy, not "Timothea," on leading the Church. Nowhere in the New Testament do we find women ruling over men.

People bring up other examples, and, as we go on, I shall point out the particular invalidity of those. But those who choose to do their own thing make the exception the rule, puffed up in their own minds to see themselves the exception...and rules to them become exceptions. Why? They have no use for rules, for the Law of God, because they do not love Him. This conduct and practice serves to oppose the order and authority of God, bringing chaos and confusion to the rebellious and ignorant, robbing them of the blessings of God available to those who "access the proper channels."

Listen now to the words of Paul:

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve..." (I Tim. 2:11-15), and

"If a MAN desire the office of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the HUSBAND of one WIFE..." (I Tim. 3:1-6), and

"Likewise must the deacons be grave...even so must their WIVES be grave...Let deacons be the husbands of one wife..." (I Tim. 3:8-12), and

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" (I Cor. 11:3), and

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says the Law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. What? Came the word of God out from you? Or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write to you are the commandments of the Lord" (I Cor. 14:34-38).

Notice the apostle declares these things to be the commandments of the Lord, not his own, not a matter of custom or reaction to necessity, but the ordained law and order of God. But if it WAS Paul's own commandment, then just as valid, being he was an ambassador of God. Specious arguments appealing "to the times" in those Biblical days with prostitutes and other pagan women creating disorder, and therefore causing a need for such laws then but not today, are entirely without Scriptural foundation or substantiation. Men (and women) can explain anything away and will always do so to get their own way. And how is it presumed by lawless women today that they are any better than those lawless ones in those days?

Where are the men? Where are the men of God who should discern between good and evil, between truth and error, between that which is of God and that which is not? Where are the men standing strong in the Lord, speaking the truth, standing up against the world and its ways, its perversities, its antiChrist, pagan customs and traditions? Instead, we have foolish men following women as do little lap poodles, believing them, quoting, serving and promoting them. Indeed, they worship Ashtoreth to this very day, only more subtly, and in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. How blind! What delusion! God have mercy! (I too, as a man, have been there, but now rejoice in God, My Savior, He having delivered me.)

Men are supporting their goddesses, be they wives or official spiritual leaders. Instead, they should be repenting of listening to Eve (who is listening to the serpent, "the subtle one"), repenting of eating from the Tree of Knowledge they call the Tree of Life. They should become responsible for themselves to hear from the Lord, and listening to God's Voice for themselves, as well as submitting to MALE spiritual leaders where required. Yes, women everywhere are usurping authority over men, but men are willingly abdicating their responsibility. Whose sin is greater? While the women are deceived (I Tim. 2:14) and consequently deceiving, are men not deliberately sinning as did Adam?

But we have another argument coming against the truth:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28).

This Scripture is interpreted to mean that there is no longer any difference between men and women in the spiritual context and conduct in this world, and therefore women can do as men and vice versa. This is such absurdity as to boggle any reasonable, thinking mind. I tell you, that when delusion comes, bystanders and observers can and do marvel. "How can this be?" they gasp.

Well then, let us follow that reasoning for a few moments. Husbands can now be wives, submitting to them; wives can now be husbands, being head of the house. Does it not occur to anyone interpreting this Scripture in such a way, that the same man (Paul) who wrote those words, also instructed wives to submit to their husbands, that as God was the Head of Christ, and Christ the Head of the man, so man was the head of the woman? He obviously did not have in his mind, nor was it in the mind of God Who inspired him to write the Scriptures, to render sexes spiritually generic. What is this but another manifestation of pagan unisexualism? Go ahead, men, have your babies! Just remember to breast-feed them when you're done.

"Well has Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. Howbeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men..." said Jesus to the religious of carnal piety (Mark 7:6,7).

Attendance is down so you have to try anything to get people to come in. You want the glory and therefore it does not matter how you get it. The world does it this way, you mingle with the world, learn its ways and adopt them in the Name of the Lord Jesus, pretending to worship Him, rationalizing that the end justifies the means. But will you know, foolish and perverse man, that the end IS the means and the means the end?

Arguments are given for woman leadership over men with examples from the Scriptures which are not at all valid:

1) Priscilla is mentioned as leading Apollos, but note that she was with her husband, Aquila, and not on her own. She did not have an official ministry of God (Acts 18).

2) Phebe is given as another example of ministering (Romans 16:1). (Note the obvious desperate "scraping of the barrel" in these pitiful examples, in the face of the preponderant testimony of the Scriptures!) I don't argue against ministering by women but against the perversion of it and the usurpation of authority over men in the name of ministry. In no way does the Scripture indicate that Phebe had some sort of authority over anybody, particularly men. She had a work to do, and Paul was asking for the cooperation of others to help her get it done.

3) Women ministered unto the Lord and His disciples of their substance, again with no indication that their ministering was any kind of authority over anybody.

4) Miriam was a prophetess and again, someone with no exercise of authority over anyone. In fact, she got a bit presumptuous at one point and was severely and publicly rebuked for it by God Himself, having spoken against the anointed of God, Moses, a man. Also notice that she murmured with Aaron, Moses older brother, yet Aaron, a MAN, was not punished as was she.

5) Reference is made to 2 John wherein John writes to a woman. It is suggested that she was a leader of a church. There is not so much as a hint of such a notion. Those who insist on their way will grasp at straws and pervert themselves, "wresting the Scriptures to their own destruction." Is it so hard to believe that this lady in question was simply an "elect" lady, that is, chosen of God, as are all believers (Mt.24:24,31; Lu.18:7; Ro. 8:33; Col. 3:12, etc.), and that she had some children who also believed, for which John expressed thankfulness? Could she not have a believing sister whose children passed on their greetings to her (verse 13)?

6) It is recorded that Philip had four daughters that prophesied (Acts 21:9). That is all it says about them. From this passage alone, it is assumed that these virgin daughters were preachers, teachers, pastors, evangelists or prophetesses by office. Allow me to clarify some things:

a) There is a false definition of "prophesying." It is NOT preaching. Preaching and prophesying are similar, yet different. One may preach while not prophesying and one may prophesy while not preaching. One may also preach and prophesy at the same time. Preaching is that which comes from the mind, being that which has been learned, howbeit through divine revelation (ideally speaking - there are undivine revelations too). Prophesying is speaking forth words under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of Christ, fresh from the Spirit, intended for that moment and circumstance. A preacher is not necessarily a prophet, and a prophet is not necessarily a preacher.

b) There is confusion between the gift of prophecy and the office of a prophet or prophetess. True, all believers are prophets and prophetesses by spiritual nature (Rev.19:10). In terms of the gift, we are all encouraged to prophesy (I Cor. 14:1). But not all are called to the OFFICE of a prophet or prophetess. Apostles, pastors, teachers and evangelists can and do prophesy but they are not prophets. Paul was an apostle, he prophesied, but he did not claim to be and was not a prophet. One by the name of Agabus came prophesying to him. That Agabus was a prophet...and he wasn't preaching. He was prophesying (Acts 21:10,11).

c) Prophesying is not necessarily nor even mainly telling the future. Rather it is "speaking the hidden." It is speaking the spiritual essence, the hidden reality of things. It is expressing that to which the carnal mind, the flesh, has no access.

There is no Biblical evidence whatsoever, directly nor indirectly, that Philip's daughters held any spiritual office. Neither can it be assumed that because Philip was an evangelist, that therefore his daughters followed in his calling. Today we have self and man-appointed evangelists who have taken their daughters to work the works of man with them, proselytizing in the Name of Jesus Christ, calling their daughters evangelists. It is false. Don't be deceived. Philip's daughters simply had the gift of prophecy operating through them in and by the Spirit of God...by no means to be lightly esteemed. As it is written, "Despise not prophesyings" (I Thess. 5:20).

Tell me, dear seeker, how many of the heads of the 12 tribes of Israel were women? How many of the prophets in the Old Testament writing the Scriptures were women? How many of the recorded prophets sent to confront Israel of its sins were women? By whom was the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) written, a man or woman? How many women became kings of Israel? And of all the women who ruled, who among them was righteous? Athaliah was a wicked usurper.

Of all the apostles Jesus Himself chose, how many were women? Of all the pastors and elders Paul established, appointed or directed Timothy and Titus to appoint, how many were women? Of all the books of the Bible written in the New Testament as well as the old, how many were by women? How many references are there in Scripture as to husbands submitting to their wives, and how many references otherwise?

And when angels appeared to mankind, were they referred to as male or female? Is God Himself referred to as male or female? Was Jesus Christ born a man or a woman? Case closed? If not, there is no reasoning, no sufficient amount of evidence nor proof that would suffice, and I am found speaking to sons and daughters of Belial.

Have you seen some of the abominable artwork in museums wherein Christ is depicted as a woman on the cross, naked and bare-breasted? I bring this up because I say to you that all those who indulge in the more subtle female usurpations of authority over men, as discussed in this paper, are in nature not a whole lot different. The lawless won't like to hear this but who expected them to do so? Yet "the humble will hear thereof...and be glad!"

Today's liberal thinking and feminist philosophies have made subtle and greater inroads into society's and our perspectives than we realize. Lawlessness and rebellion abound on every side. It is asserted by the independent and rebellious "progressive, modern thinkers" that we must grow with the times, that we mustn't be archaic, legalistic "sticks-in-the-mud." Let it be known that the Law of the Lord is eternal (Psalm 119:44), IS, as well as WAS holy (Ro. 7:12), has never been done away (Mt 5:18), (only in the wildest dreams of the children of iniquity) and continues as "a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path" (Psalm 119:105) to this very hour. It is time we grounded ourselves not in men's ways and thoughts but God's, doing not their will(s) but His and only His. Therein alone is the peace and victory.

CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE TO BELIEVING THIS DOCTRINE: PEACE AND ORDER GOD'S WAY AND HIS SUBSEQUENT BLESSING IN SUBMITTING TO HIS WILL, EMBRACING HIS WAY IN ALL THINGS. OTHERWISE, WE CUT OURSELVES OFF, THINKING WE KNOW BEST.

(Top)

26) All flesh is clean for eating

Why do you think people celebrate Easter and eat pork instead of lamb or even goat or beef? Because of holy motivation? Think again. We've already discussed this matter. It is taught and believed that we are now free from the Law and can eat anything we choose because "every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the Word of God and with prayer." If you are willing to stand by that, permit someone to come to your house (I won't do it in mine) and prepare a dish of skunk for you and allow me to watch you eat it...with potatoes and salad if you wish, or choose rat or mice (deer mice maybe, you know the kind that carry that lethal virus) or snakes or cockroaches or owl, hawk, vulture, anything like that. For vegetable, how about a poison ivy salad or fresh Diefenbachia leaves basted with some sort of poison weed sauce? (The word "creature", i.e. "created thing" includes not only animal but vegetable as well).

Now if things haven't sounded ridiculous enough, let me go farther, not that my thinking is ridiculous but to show you how ridiculous the notion of eating all things is. For a drink with your meal, take the product of a cow's body...no, not the milk...but the urine. There, you have a meal according to your doctrine. Eat your meal, or eat your words. Your choice.

What was Paul saying to Timothy in that verse I quoted which is often quoted by many as a defence for eating pork? By the way, according to God and the Scriptures, skunk, mice and rats for dining are no dirtier than pig, shrimp, mussels, scallops, clams, lobster, crab or octopus. Many experts on nutrition will even tell you that shellfish are scavengers which eat the remains and wastes of the various creatures of the waters and are not good for you. They will tell you that pork is one of the worst things you can eat (of things that people regularly eat), period. Note how they have to treat pork, ham and bacon against parasites, unlike beef, lamb, venison, buffalo or other meats pronounced clean by the Bible. Again, what was Paul saying? First of all, there were clear qualifications right in that verse as to what one could eat. He said "for it is sanctified by the Word of God." Remember that the Word of God in his day was the Old Testament. The Word of God was very clear on what was clean and unclean and never contradicted itself at any time. By prayer we bless the food before us but can we bless that which the Lord has forbidden or called unclean? Obviously not.

Which brings us to the other passage often used to excuse lawlessness so that men can do their own pleasures and consequently destroy themselves: Acts 10. There is recorded that Peter had a vision of a sheet lowered from heaven by four corners containing unclean animals and birds. Peter heard a voice saying "Rise, Peter; kill, and eat." Peter's response: "Not so, Lord: for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean." God's response: "What God has cleansed, that don't you call common (unclean)." People have taken this passage to justify a lawless diet but it should not be difficult to point out to any reasonable person seeking truth that this passage is not talking at all about diet. Taken in context, Peter was being instructed to go to the gentiles who at the time were deemed unclean by the Jews, an unholy people, which they were. The vision was a symbolic instruction to Peter to now take the gospel to the heathen. He was not at all instructed to join them in their thoughts and ways which made them unclean in the first place. Rather, he was sent to change them to his way of life by God. Read the entire tenth and eleventh chapters of Acts for yourself and you will see that they bear out what I say.

What of the instructions given to the gentiles by James and the elders to counter the influence of the "Judaizers" as recorded in Acts 15? Were they told that they should not eat pork or skunk? No. But consider that the passage clarifies their thinking: "For Moses of old time has in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." In other words, they were saying, "These are the more urgent matters; do these for now until you grow and are able to handle more and as you do, you will do well and the Law of Moses is available to you when you're ready for more."

I know that the Lord did not lay everything on me at once when I first began to walk with Him. I was so foreign to Him and His ways that if I were to try and change all my habits and customs all at once, I would have perished. It is impossible. It was very difficult changing diet habits, content; it was difficult forsaking my family, my church, my beliefs, my friends; it was difficult ceasing to celebrate Christmas. The list goes on. It took years to see, understand, grow, change. This change is impossible and unnatural for anybody all at once just like it is impossible for a newborn to be an adult now. But some things have precedence over others. It is a matter of priorities. Remember, these gentiles were total aliens to the things of God.

Animal nature and the nature of things did not change by the crucifixion of Christ. Ceremonies and ordinances did. God was finished with symbolisms. Jesus Christ fulfilled their messages for all time.

Is it an absolute law to not eat the unclean? It is law but absolute, no. Many things are not absolute though we make them so. I just mentioned that though men were always chosen to lead, Deborah was an exception. God often made exceptions. The children of Israel were commanded to take the land of Canaan and dwell there yet two and one half tribes were permitted to dwell on this side of the Jordan. They were commanded not to kill, yet God commanded them to slay man, woman and child of the Canaanites. Jews were not to marry women of the nations around them by commandment, yet Samson, in God, was to marry a Philistine. Why does God have His exceptions? To confound us at any time lest we worship the Law rather than the Lawgiver.

Why are so many people sick? Is it not partly because of the things they consume physically as well as mentally and spiritually? Why do people have worms, parasites, hardened and blocked arteries, cancer, sugar diabetes, cavities, gall stones, kidney stones, appendicitis, arthritis and a host of other maladies? One of the causes is what we eat.

"It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man but what comes out" one retorts. Go ahead, then, have a nice tall glass of whiskey and a cigarette, perhaps some heroine or cocaine. Obviously, Jesus was not meaning what one might like to think. But fools will do their thing and destroy themselves while the wise will fear and save themselves from the wrath to come.

CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE TO THIS DOCTRINE: WILL YOU SUFFER, EATING ONLY THE CLEAN? DOES NOT EVEN KNOWLEDGE IN THE WORLD AND SCIENCE AND NATURE TEACH THE FOLLY OF EATING THE UNCLEAN?

(Top)

Diabolical Doctrines: Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3

 

Webmistress and Editor: Sara Schmidt   

Our Testimonies | What's New? | Notice Board | Teachings | Falsehood Exposed | False Teachers Exposed
The Issues of Life | Blog Wars | Proverbs | Poems | Music | Home
Statement of Doctrine            Site Map
How We Use the Scriptures | Copying & Linking | How One Is Saved