Saved by a Prayer?

I'm sure you've all heard the old addage, "Saved by a wing and a prayer?" But where did that saying come from? More importantly, "Can a person really be saved [i.e. born again] by a prayer?"

I'm of the persuasion, and I believe this because it's in the Bible, that a PRAYER can never save anyone! For the Bible teaches a person is not saved by PRAYER, rather by FAITH ALONE (Eph. 2:8,9), in the propitiatory finished work of Jesus Christ. More simply put, THROUGH FAITH IN HIS SHED BLOOD (Rom. 3:25).

After I trusted the blood atonement for salvation and was gloriously saved, I heard preachers all the time say things like "Trust the Blood" or "Trust the finished work of Jesus Christ on Calvary!"

But now many of those same preachers don't say this anymore. Instead, they say what a lot of other so-called Christians are pushing: they are stressing the "Sinner's Prayer" mentality that a person is saved by simply "repeating a prayer" as they follow someone else's words. (Many Independent Baptists even are adopting this teaching, and pressuring sinners to repeat after them, and then telling them they are saved because of it. This makes the sinner think he's saved BY his prayer.)

Where this comes from? I don't know, for it's not in the Bible. (See Mark 7:6,7 about how Jesus even said people can come to him with their LIPS, but their HEART can still be far from him).

Sadly, this "prayer saves mentality" is gaining much ground. And as I point out the sound scriptural truth that a prayer doesn't save anyone, I find I'm getting much opposition, especially from those of my own denominational affiliation (Independent Baptist). Many of them have gone the way of apostasy and have decided to leave off preaching the blood atonement and follow the easier doctrine of simply repeating the Sinner's Prayer!

Sadder still, many of these same preachers and soul winners get angry when you try to show them from the Bible that the Sinner's Prayer is a horrendous heresy that can damn people to hell, as it can leave them trusting in what they SAID instead of in the blood God SHED!

Whether they know it or not, I've found that most FUNDAMENTALISTS, who claim to be "Bible Believers" have actually become nothing more than followers of MEN. Within the various groups of Fundamentalism, we find many movements begun by men, and this leads to the followers of those groups using methods produced by men, instead of simply preaching the Gospel plainly from the scriptures. This is sad, but is everyday practice in modern Fundamentalism. And this is how the whole Sinner's Prayer doctrine has gained such ground in Christian circles today.

This wasn't always so, as many people used to preach against the "Quick, repeat this prayer after me method," calling it "Easy Believism," and a dangerous doctrine. (Note: Easy Believism means different things to different people. Some day I'll attempt to do an article on what Easy Believism really is, because the name is misleading. For to be saved it is by faith or by believing!")

But now, many preachers preach the very thing they used to preach against. That is to say, they preach salvation by a PRAYER, instead of salvation by faith alone in Christ's PAYMENT for our sins.

Knowing that many preachers won't listen to scripture, but instead will listen to men whom they brag about and follow as "Fundamentalists," I'd like to give some quotes below of men who have spoken out against the "Sinner's Prayer" mentality. Hopefully, many fundamentalists will see that Christians didn't always preach a "1,2,3, pray after me" shallow plan of salvation, but they taught a heartfelt REPENTANCE towards God and FAITH IN THE BLOODY SACRIFICE of Jesus Christ. Simply put, salvation is not by repeating, it is by repenting (i.e. turning from trusting in your own righteousness, but trusting in the righteousness of Jesus Christ alone).

WORDS OF JOHN R. RICE:

"Many people believe that a sinner cannot be saved without a period of prayer, without consciously calling upon God. However, the Bible does not say that a sinner must pray in order to be saved. In fact, immediately following the verse in Rom. 10:13 is an explanation which shows that calling on God is an evidence of faith in the heart and that it is really faith which settles the matter... No matter how long he prays, if he does not trust in Christ, he can never be saved. If he trusts in Christ without conscious prayer, then he is saved already. There is just one plan of salvation and just one step a sinner must take to secure it. That step is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ!"

WORDS OF CHARLES H. SPURGEON:

"Thou art to be saved by faith in Christ...and in Christ alone. Do not think thou must experience this, or that, before thou comest unto Jesus...Rely not on anything thou canst DO, or THINK, or SAY, or know; rest alone on Jesus only, and thou art saved. Give up all other trusts, and rely on Jesus alone, alone on Jesus, and thou shalt pass from death unto life."

WORDS OF DR. PETER S. RUCKMAN:

"I don't teach anybody they are saved until they realize their own righteousness will land them in hell. I believe a man is saved from something. And I believe he is saved from hell. And, I believe until he sees his own goodness can't save him, the prayers don't amount to a hill of beans!"

These are just a few well-known preachers that many fundamentalists follow. Notice how in these quotes they are against telling a sinner he's saved by his prayer. Yet, many of those who follow these men are the very ones preaching the heretical doctrine of "The Sinner's Prayer."

Are you one of them? Or do you make it a point to preach the Gospel plainly to lost sinners, and then instruct them to give up their own self-righteousness and come to Jesus Christ a repentant sinner, trusting his shed blood alone?

Please preach the Gospel and not the PRAY AFTER ME doctrine. For a guy can get saved with or without prayer. It's not the prayer that saves, it's whether or not he's trusting in the shed blood atonement of Christ when he prays. The prayer itself doesn't save, only faith saves!

For more about the whole Sinner's Prayer mentality, read my books:

The "Heresy" of the Sinner's Prayer:

http://www.rrb3.com/mypub/books/hrsy_sin_pryr.htm

What It Means to Call Upon the Lord:

http://www.rrb3.com/mypub/books/how_to_call_on_Lord.htm

Got any more quotes like those above by many well-known preachers who have said PRAYER does not save, only FAITH in Christ our PROPITIATION is what saves us. I'd like to hear them in the comment box below!

Why Are We Here?

One of my Dad's favorite things to ask people was the following question: "So, can you tell me the meaning of life in three words or less?"

It was always so funny to me to hear him ask this and see how it caught people completely off guard, especially, when they had no idea whatsoever how to answer such a simple and direct question--a question which history and science says is the greatest question of all time!

History proves not too many people know how to answer this question. Philosophers have been trying to answer this question for centuries, and there are libraries full of their words. But, the thing I loved about my Dad was how he could make things so simple, and he could use only a few words sum it up so nicely. That is say in just three words what the Philosophers couldn't say in a thousand pages (and most of them didn't even get it right!)

So, let me ask you, dear reader, the same question, "What's the meaning of life in three words or less???"

Don't know how to respond? Or maybe you can't whittle it down to only three words. So, let me show you what my Dad said, and what he always showed people. He took them to the King James Bible. More specifically, he turned directly to Rev 4:11, in which the four and twenty elders are praising God. I quote them as they say: "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."

Can you spot the three words that give us the meaning of life? My Dad always pointed to the words "for thy pleasure," and said, "According to this verse, the only reason we are created and exist in this world is to please God! We are here FOR HIS PLEASURE."

Doesn't that just make sense? It does of course unless you don't believe in God. Then of course, you are only here for one thing: FOR YOUR OWN PLEASURE. Or to put it simply into three words: "To please yourself."

SUMMARY:

You can go to the great libraries of the world and search for decades and even millenia for the meaning of life, or you can go to just one verse in the King James Bible, and answer the question in just three short little words. The choice is up to you. Follow men, or follow God. But what it all boils down to is this:

Most men are more interested in pleasing themselves instead of pleasing God.

Which one are you?

WE LIVE IN WEIRD TIMES!

We live in some very strange and confusing times! And I honestly can't look at the news without wondering what on earth is going on. Stories just don't make any sense anymore. It's almost as if 2+2 no longer equals four, instead it equals 3 or 5.

For example, I'm reading the news and trying to figure out how the Department of Justice can let some racists Black Panthers who want to "kill white babies: go scott free, while at the same time going after the state of Arizona and their new illegal immigration enforcement law claiming it might allow racial profiling. If racism is wrong, then shouldn't those Panthers go to jail, and shouldn't the Arizona law, which over and over again speaks against racial profiling, be okay? It just does not make any sense! Does not compute! Especially since the Arizona law is nothing but a copy of the Federal Law!

Then you have people in Washington passing laws that they don't even know what they say! Nancy Pelosi said about one of the new bills, "We have to pass the law so we can find out what's in it!"

How does that make any sense at all? Who in their right mind would sign a contract without reading the fine print? I mean, honestly, would you sign your name to something you've never read???

Then you have the whole cities of refuge thing, which are entirely illegal, (and made so by Bill Clinton in the 1990's). But instead of enforcing the law, Washington D.C. goes after those who try to enforce it, telling them they aren't allowed to (like in Arizona). I just don't understand that! What's going on? How can they focus on not enforcing laws when their job is to enforce them???

I further read lately that almost all the states are bankrupt and Arnold Swarzanegger is actually telling his employees that they must take three days a month off without pay. How on earth does this help things? Shouldn't people who are willing and able to work do so?

Through the whole presidency of Barack Obama, my head has been swimming, and I've been trying to figure out what's going on, and I just can't do it. Nothing makes sense!

For example, how on earth did he get elected? His middle name is Hussein. (Which by the way, I read recently that political historians don't want his middle name recorded in historical documents. Why?) Wasn't Hussein the name of the man America went to war with? Wasn't the bad guy Sadam Hussein? That's like a guy named Adolf or Hitler running for president of the United States of America after World War II. There is no way he would have been elected!

But old Barry, um, I mean Barack became president, and since then we've been on a roller coaster of events that make no sense whatsoever. For example:

We are told we need HEALTH CARE, and the biggest champion of a national health care system was Ted Kennedy. But then suddenly he dies, leaving a seat open in congress. But even though he's dead, it gets passed, and everyone is happy. Everyone that is but the American people who are overwhelmingly against it! Why are they against it? Because England and Europe tried the exact same thing, and IT DIDN'T WORK! It was a catastrophe! And then a few days ago, I hear about England trying to reform their health care system and going back to one like ours was before the bill passed. WHAT'S GOING ON?!?!

We are continually told there are some companies in America that are "to big to fail" and politicians bail them out by giving them our tax payers dollars, not once but two or three times. But then a few weeks ago, we hear of a new financial bill being passed, who's sole purpose is to "Keep the government from ever having to bail out companies again!" So, I'm just thinking to myself here, um, WHY DID WE HAVE TO BAIL THEM OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE? Why should we give them our money? Don't we give them enough of our money when we buy their product???

This administration is full of environmentalists who assure us the earth is going to be destroyed and it's all our fault, and we need to sacrifice for "Mother Earth." Talk of Cap and Trade runs rampant, and we are told we must consume less energy. But then there is a natural disaster in which a company from BRITAIN has a massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. Instead of the president and others doing all they can to help with the clean up, they won't even talk to the CEO of the company! And, instead of opening drilling up in Alaska, which is much cleaner, all drilling in the Gulf is stopped! How on earth does this make sense??? It's the BRITS fault, but now we can't drill because of them.

Honestly, I don't understand. It makes no sense at all!

I guess the old saying holds true: "If it doesn't make sense, there is a buck in it!"

So what do we do? There is nothing we can do but try to make sense of it all, but then again, they won't even let us do that! Everything done so far makes no sense whatsoever!

The thing that keeps bothering me is something I heard in the news a few years ago about the Congressional cafeteria going bankrupt. One news commentator said at the time, "If our government can't even run a cafeteria, how on earth are to we to expect them to run our country!"

That's always stuck with me. For, from the last I've heard, our government now controls 70% of our economy. Lord help us!

It's almost as if this whole thing was planned from the beginning...

Um, whoops, sorry. I got off into a little "conspiracy theory" there. What I meant to say was, "Wow, isn't it weird how all this stuff is happening by complete and total accident?" (sarcasm).

When I lived in Honduras, the thing that bothered me the most was the beauracracy. People who worked for the government knew absolutely nothing, and they were happy with their good paying jobs, jobs which they knew they couldn't lose, so they did their best to do as little as possible. I can't tell you the number of times I had to go to a government office in Honduras, and I was told to come back later by someone who just didn't feel like working that day. Or how many times I tried to get something done, and a beauracrat filled the papers out wrong, or printed my document incorrectly, causing me to have to go back and redo everything all over again at great expense to me.

I can't resist telling this story, as it plainly illustrates just what kind of people most beauracrats are. Once, I had to get a license for something, and on the license I had to have a fingerprint. I asked the man behind the desk, "Which finger do I use?"

He replied, "Any one, they are all the same!"

To which a lady in back who overheard came out and responded, "What? Are you crazy? Each finger is a different pattern!"

An argument quickly ensued, and the man actually said, and I quote, "Not they aren't. Everyone has the same finger and toe prints on all ten fingers and toes!"

For twenty minutes they argued, and I didn't stick around to find out who won. I got my card and got out of there. But can you imagine a person not knowing that every finger and ever toe in the entire world is unique and different? There are your beauracrats.

Nothing seems to make sense anymore. To me, simple is better. Yet our government tries to make it so complex. This always leads to a complete and total mess, not to mention to confusion and bankruptcy.

I fear our country will soon become the same as a third world nation, especially sense politicians say things like, "The way to produce jobs is give more money to welfare." and "We must spend our way out of debt!" (Both acutal quotes from politicans. Doesn't make sense, does it?)

Even so, come Lord Jesus!

HOW MUCH MUST A MAN KNOW TO GET SAVED?

For ages Christian Theologians have argued this one question: "How much must a man know to get saved?"

Both sides have dogmatically defended their answers to this question with large treatises and heated debates. And many have tried with large letters and learned rhetoric to explain how much exactly a man must know to be saved.

This debate has even ensued into our own day between preachers. Some, have said ridiculous things like, "A person doesn't have to know anything to be saved, only that he's lost!"

But that won't work, for a person has to know more than the fact that he's lost. He has to hear the Gospel preached, for FAITH cometh by HEARING and hearing by the WORD OF GOD (Rom. 10:17).

But in an effort to not start another debate, and to answer the question quickly, thoroughly, and logically, I'll briefly illustrate what my Dad said one day when faced with this question.

My Dad told me that in the '80s many people were running around debating this question. Each one angry at the other who thought they either added too much or too little to how much a man must know to be saved. And as each one tryied to whittle it down to only a few things, the other would angrily attack him either in print, in person, or in personal correspondence.

My Dad, as he always had a knack to do, decided he's try to help put an end to this on-going debate. So he went into the office of a famous preacher, and asked him, "Bro. So and So, do you really want to know what a man has to know to be saved?"

The preacher immediately became irrate and upset with having to deal with this again, and said, "Oh no, not again. I'm tired, and I don't want to hear any more about it!"

My Dad responded, "That's okay, cause I have the answer, and it is only one word!" And he began to walk away.

Entrigued, the pastor stopped him and entreated him to tell the answer to such an age old question with just one simple word.

My Dad hesitated, for dramatical effect, and then looked the preacher in the eye and said boldly, "ENOUGH!"

Bewildered and angry that the preacher hadn't thought of that himself, he said, "Enough? Well, I guess that's about right! All a man really needs to know to get saved is ENOUGH!"

Dad said that was the end of the debate, at least in the circles he ran in, and it was years before he heard people bringing up the question ever again.

WHERE DO DEMONS COME FROM?

The vast majority of "publically educated people" don't believe in God or the Bible. This means they further don't believe in the Devil or in his legions of workers known as "devils" or "demons."

Whether they believe it or not, the Bible tells us about demons or evil spirits. Almost all Christians know they exist, but very few Christians ask the question, "Where do they come from?" Those few who do ask the question don't seem to have an answer. The origin of demonic spirits is a great mystery to scholars and theologians alike.

From my studies, I've found there are three main possible theories of where demons come from:

1. They are only fallen angels.

2. They are fallen angels which have left their first estate.

3. They are the spirits of the Giants of which scripture speaks were the offspring of angels mating with women.

Let us look at these three in order and see if we can figure out who demons are exactly.

#1 FALLEN ANGELS
The Bible clearly speaks of the Devil, "and his angels," in Matthew 25:41. So we know that Satan has angelic followers. But where did they come from? In Rev. 12:9 we read: "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."
This is where we get the term "fallen angels" as they were literally cast out of the heavens and fell to the earth with Lucifier, or Satan. And the theory goes these "fallen angels" are nothing more than the devils and demons of which the Bible speaks.
However, there is a problem with this theory. Many people believe this verse to be speaking of something still off in the future, as the book of Revelation, for the most part, still applies to something which has yet to happen. This brings us to the second theory.

#2 THE FALLEN ANGELS WHO LEFT THEIR FIRST ESTATE
In Jude 1:6, we read, "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."
Here we find some angels who have not only left their "first estate," but the Bible says they further left their "own habitation." Here, the Bible is very descriptive that these angels are no longer wandering around the world today, but they are chained up somewhere waiting for judgment.
We read of these same angels or "spirits" in 1 Peter 3:18-19, "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison."
These verses speak of Jesus Christ visiting these spirits in prison and preaching to them while he was in the heart of the earth before his bodily resurrection. If this be so, how can these be the demons? For they are locked up, and not free to roam about.
The next verse (1 Peter 3:20), after those quoted above shed some light on the who these spirits were and when they lived: "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."
Here we are told they were "disobedient" spirits who lived around the time of Noah, and the great flood that destroyed mankind.
I personally believe, and I can prove it with scripture, that these rebellious spirits or "fallen angels" were locked up in the heart of the earth during or right before Noah's flood. That means they are still there, and can no longer harm anyone. If this be the case, this leads us to our last and final possibility of who demons are, and the theory that makes the most sense.

#3 THE SPIRITS OF THE GIANTS
Many Christians don't believe in Giants, even though the Bible has much to say about them, and there is still much controversy over the following passage in Genesis chapter 6:
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
These verses plainly state that the sons of God (which the Bible calls angels in Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7) mated with the daughters of men.
Liberal scholars, who don't wish to believe in any real giants, try to make the "sons of God" only the literal lineage of Seth, and the "daughters of men" the actual descendents of Cain. By doing this, they not only twist the scriptures, but they further attempt to set up a sort of early "interracial" marriage in which the offspring were men of renown in name only, and not in dimensional stature.
But the Bible clearly proves that there existed literal GIANTS in those days that were the offspring of fallen angels having sexual intercourse with human women.
The word giants shows up 13 times in 11 verses in the King James Bible, and the references show they were gigantic in stature, and not in name only.
Just a few passages will suffice:

Num 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
Deu 2:11 Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims.
Deu 2:20 (That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; Deu 2:21 A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; but the LORD destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead.
Notice these Giants were named in the Bible, and were a people MANY and TALL! (The Bible always defines itself! They were GIGANTIC in stature.)
So, who were these giants, and how were they formed. And how is it possible for an angel to mate with a human female? These are good questions. I cannot explain it scientifically, but the Bible says it's true and it happened, so I believe it. It even tells us about a man named GOLIATH, who was very tall, and who had six fingers and six toes. And to understand the origin of demons, we must believe that actual angels did mate with women and did produce descendents. For to believe otherwise is to read the Bible figuratively instead of literally.
Let us now briefly look at what angels are and what humans are. Angeles in the Bible are called "ministering spirits" (Heb. 1:13-14). Thus, an angel is a "spirit being." He is also able to take on the form of a human body. For in Genesis 19 we read of two angels appearing unto Lot which were in the form of "men." So angels are spirits who are able to take on the form of human bodies.
Now let's look at a human being. In 1 Thessalonians 5:23 we read man has three parts: "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Man is made up of three parts: a BODY, a SOUL, and a SPIRIT. So men have one part more than an angel, the human soul.
Now what if a man and a angel were to mate, as the Bible implies happened in Genesis chapter six? Angels are much more powerful than humans and higher up on God's system of creation. Would we not then have a creature produced that was gigantic in stature that had a body and a spirit, but had no soul?
If this is the case, then we have an interesting theory for where demons or devils come from. For in the Bible, they always seem to be going to and fro looking for bodies to inhabit or "possess." Would it then be far fetched to think that these demonic spirits are nothing more than the spirits of the giants whose bodies were destroyed in the great flood, but whose spirits survived and wander upon the earth? I trow not! This by necessity would be exactly who and what they are!
This is not at all far-fetched if one reads his Bible. For those fallen angels who would have mated with the daughters of men and produced the giants would have been the very same ones who God locked up in the prison for leaving their first estate, as we read in 1 Peter and Jude.
If this theory is true (that the spirits of the giants are indeed the demons and devils), this would do well to explain the history of mankind. For in Genesis 6, we read that angels fell and produced giants before the flood, but then also "after that." That is to say, after the flood, more angels fell and produced more giants (like Goliath). These fallen angels and giants would then have been the "gods" of ancient mythology! (Which means it wasn't mythology at all, but it really did happen, just as the Bible said it did!) This helps us understand why there are so many stories about giants, gods, and spirits throughout the entire history of mankind!
Further, it's interesting to study modern Spiritism. For many people who claim to channel "spirit mediums" give the names of their spirit guides, and often times those spirit guides have names that were the names of biblical giants (i.e. Anak, Goliath, etc.).
Finally, apart from the Bible account, ancient history, and legends, we also have the record of the book of Enoch. Now, I must be very careful to note that I don't believe in any extra-cannonical books of the Bible, and I don't take them as my basis of doctrine! But I do believe we can read them, and even glean some interesting things from them. With that said, let's look at the The book of Enoch, which claims to be the very words of Enoch who was a contemparary of Noah, and who was raptured up to heaven in Genesis 5:24.
Whether the book is actually the words of Enoch or not, I'll let you decide. I have my doubts. However, it is interesting the books speaks of the very same ANAK, of which the Bible speaks, and calls the father of the giants. It further states that the giants are indeed the origin of the devils and after the flood destroyed their bodies, there spirits were left to wander the earth. It further states 4 angels fell at the beginning, and were locked up. Intersestingly enough in Revelation 9:14-15, we read of 4 angels bound in the great river Euphrates, who are to be loosed, which were prepared for a certain day, hour, month, and year, to slay the third part of men! Could those be the four angels who fell and who are locked up in the center of the earth of which 1 Peter speaks?

SUMMARY
It all sounds too far-fetched, doesn't it? Angels having sex with women and them giving birth to giants, which die and yet live again as they wander the earth as seducing spirits. Almost sounds like a Hollywood movie, doesn't it? (By the way, Hollywood made a move about this very same thing entitled, "City of Angels." Weird, isn't it?)
But even though it sounds too hard to swallow, the fact is there really are entitites known as demons or devils. They really do exist. You then, have to ask yourself, how did they get here? Are they just fallen angels? Or are they angels that fell and left their first estate and habitation? Or could they really be the spirits of the giants of days gone by?
I'll let you figure it out for yourself. And I'll let you know I don't necessarily buy into any of the three theories I listed. I only gave them to you to make you think. I lean more towards the last on, that's true, but I don't teach any of this to anyone as sound doctrine. It's just a thought, and something to think about. I hope you'll discern and think about this topic. And I'll leave you with the following picture. This is especially for all you who don't believe in giants...

P.S. A very good book about giants and how they've been with us all throughout history is the book "Genesis 6: GIANTS: The Builders of PreHistoric and Ancient Civilization" by Stephen Quayle. It's definitely worth a read!

DEMONOLOGY by KING JAMES I of ENGLAND

I recently read a small treatise by King James the I of England (yes, that King James, who gave us our King James Bible), written in 1597 on the subject of "Demonology." Or to be fair, the title as written in Old English is: "Daemonologie, in form of a Dialogue, Diuided into three Bookes."

It was a very interesting booklet with very interesting subject matter, of which I will attempt to comment upon shortly. However, I most declare that those who reprinted the orignial booklet (The Book Tree in San Diego, California) did not seem to be very much into God, the Bible, or truth. In fact, I think they might even be a New Age book publishing company. Their summary of the book on the back page shows their bias to the fact that biblically demons do exist, and that witchraft is a very real system:

Although he did not know it at the time, the author of this book, King James, was to become one of the most influential people in mankind's religious history. King James the I of England was responsible for the widely accepted King James Bible, based in part on the beliefs he puts forth in this book...It seems that the beliefs of King James had a profound effect on the translation used for the King James Bible. This book is an important historical and religious study, written by King James' own hand. It allows one to study King James and his concerns at the time this book was written. He hated "witches" and believed that they had tried to kill him on at least three occasions. We know today that the witchcraft craze was nothing more than a delusion--in fact, historians refer to it as "the witchraft delusion." This book is important because it shows how the superstitions of leaders can translated into mass hysteria like the Inquisition's witch hunts and the reign of Bloody Mary. It also shows how new religious creations like the King James Bible can come about."

The book's Foreword, written by a Mr. Paul Tice, further slanders King James, and King James Bible readers, when he states, "This belief was only the beginning of Jame's dysfunctional weirdness. He preferred the company of young boys as opposed to mature woman. In fact, his homosexuality has been documented in numerous books and public records--to such a degree that there can be no argument on the subject. This is something to consider for those devot and pious Christians who oppose this type of activity yet swear by this man's bible.

From just this paragraph alone, one can see Mr. Tice's hatred towards King James and those who believe in and read the King James Bible. As the preface contiunues, it's hard to understand why they would even reprint King James' treatise on Demonology, as the writer of the Foreword does all he can to paint King James as superstitious, wicked, dysfunctional and ignorant.

Further, his stating "there can be no ARGUMENT," on the subject of King James being a Homosexual, shows his liberal bias. The truth is King James' critics and enemies wrote that he was homosexual, but history and public writings prove most certainly that he was not! (Get a book entitled, "King James: Unjustly Accused" for PROOF that King James was not a sodomite!)

So as I read the treatise, I did not allow the Foreword to sway my reading. Rather, I listened to what James had to say and compared it to scripture, and what I found was very enlightening.

The entire text is a narration between two men--Philomathes and Epistemon--who discuss demonology in a question and answer setting. As I read the dialogue between the two talking about what devils are, and how they are active in witchcraft, I learned a lot.

From studying the Bible, I already knew that demons (which the King James Bible calls devils) were real. And I knew from my reading my bible, that somehow they are connected with idols and idol worship, while being intertwined with pagan blood sacrifices. (The subject of Where Demons come from and what they are, I hope to write soon in another blog.) I futher knew that the Bible speaks of those who practice witchcraft and sorcery, but I never really seemed to put it all together until I read the book, as it really tied everything together for me.

Blatantly put, Witchcraft is the art of summoning devils to do one's bidding! And this book gave detailed examples of witches and warlocks practicing this evil art for gain, pain, and pleasure.

It still made me wonder. Why would demons want to work for human beings and do their bidding? I guess they just have nothing better to do. Or, I guess, since they are pure evil, they enjoy letting humans give them evil ideas to put into practice.

At any rate, King James talks about how three times evil men used witchcraft and devils to try to assassinate him. Is there a reason for this?

Interestingly enough, as I read the book, a friend of my called, and we talked about his time before he was saved. He told me he used to talk to demons, and he said from his understanding, there are two things that all devils hate:

1. The Blood of Jesus Christ!

2. The King James Bible!

No wonder in the preface of this book, they attacked the KJV! And no wonder it tried to make King James look supersticious!

As I read through the booklet, I noticed a ton of scripture and quite a few biblical illustrations. King James was not superstitious. He was a Bible Believer, and he used scripture to back up his treatise!

As I read certain passages of actual examples of things King James himself witnessed, I couldn't help but think of the demon-possed maniac of Gadera in Mark chapter five. Below are the words of King James himself discribing a story of a witch who bewitched a man (conjured up demons to afflict the man). The story is in old english, written the exact way King James wrote it, but I believe you'll be able to understand it:

"...He [one Dr. Fian, alias John Cunningham] confessed that by his witchcrafte he did bewitch a Gentleman dwelling neere to the Saltpans, where the said Doctor kept Schoole, onely for being enamoured of a Gentlewoman whome he loued himselfe: by meanes of which his Sorcerye, witchcraft and deuilish practises, he caused the said Gentleman that once in xxiiij. howres he fell into a lunacie and madnes, and so contiued one whole hower together, and for the veritie of the same, he caused the Gentleman to be brought before the Kinges Maiestie, which was upon the xxiiij. day of December last, and being in his Maiesties Chamber, suddenly he gaue a great scritch and fell into a madnes, sometime bending himselfe, and sometime capring so directly vp, that his head did touch the seeling of the Chamber, to the great admiration of his Maiestie and others then present: so that all the Gentlemen in the Chamber were not able to holde him, vntill they called in more helpe, who together bound him hand and foot: and suffering the said gentlemen to lye still vntill his furye were past, he within an hower came againe to himself, when being demaunded of the Kings Maiestie what he saw or did all that while, answered that he had been in a sound sleepe..."

Scary, huh? Oh, but wait! You are just supposed to believe that none of that really happened. According to the Foreword, King James is just "superstitious," as he lived in a time of..., oh, what was that called again by historians, oh yeah... "the witchcraft delusion." So, I guess King James just made all of this up!

If that be the case, then Mark chapter five must be superstition as well, and completely made up. How interesting that two examples of the same thing that historians can say are "not real" can sound so close!

Nope, that won't work. I believe it really did happen. I believe the King James Bible is the word of God, and I believe old King James himself was a very smart man, who wrote an interesting book about real witchcraft and real demons which he witnessed in his time. I further believe throughout history there have existed people who have the power to conjur up spirits, and that these people are still around today.

Thankfully, the blood of Jesus Christ is more powerful than they are!

SELLING ONE'S SOUL TO THE DEVIL!

My Dad had a theory that all the high up people in this world of great fame, fortune, and influence acheived their status by compromising their beliefs and actually selling their souls to the devil to gain their power.

Although this might sound ludicrous to some people, it's really not too far-fetched if you believe the Bible. For it is there we read about Satan as the "god of this world " in 2 Corinthians 4:4: "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."

We are further warned in the Bible in Ephesians 6:11-12, that the Devil is the ruler of this world, when we read: "Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

And what about Satan talking to Jesus in Luke 4:6, when he says, "And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it."

These verses show that even though Jesus Christ is more powerful than the Devil, Jesus has allowed Satan to be the ruler of this world until he returns again at the battle of Armageddon.

If this be the case, then wouldn't it stand to reason that the easiest way to rise through the ranks and rise to a position of power in this world would be to SELL YOUR SOUL TO THE DEVIL?

Of course, this would only be true if you believe in the DEVIL, and some people, who claim to be educated and therefore smarter than everyone else claim there is no God or Devil. But if there is a God, then there must be a Devil! (That's just simple logic!)

With this in mind, why don't you study history and see if the highest, most powerful people in the world are believers in God and the Bible. Usually they are not. At least, they "claim" not to be. However, the majority of them do believe in God, but instead of calling him Jehovah, or Lord, or Adonai, they call their God LUCIFER, and they believe he is the one true God, and the creator of all things. In fact, they even call him The Great Architect of the Universe. (See Masononic teachings for more).

With this in mind, could it be that the most powerful people throughout the centuries have been worshippers of Lucifer? It's more than possible, it's a historical fact, which has been proven on many occasions. (Just look at the history of the world, and the great persecution against the true God's people, the Jews and the Christians).

Let's just look at the power hungry in our day for an example. Those in power now all seem to hold heavily to the teaching of "Social Justice" and "Socialism." Where do they get their ideas? The majority of them were taught them in Secular schools. And most of them in power today follow communistic prinicples. Their favorite book appears to be one by a man named Saul Alinsky, entitled, "Rules for Radicals."

One doesn't have to go very far into that book to see the Satanic influence, and the worship of Lucifer. In fact, you don't even have to go much further than the first page! For there we read Saul Alinksy's dedication to guess who? None other than the Devil! Read it for yourself below:

Sounds a lot like what the Bible says, doesn't it? For there, we find Satan rebelling against what's RIGHT, and becoming REPROBATE, and then founding his own kingdom. How does he build his kingdom? With RADICALS!

This is just one of a million examples. But one thing is certain. It is more than just coincidence that through the history of mankind, the cruel, powerful leaders have all had one thing in common, they've all paid homage to Satan, and followed in his footsteps. One must stop and think, "Did they have to sell their souls to the Devil to get into their positions of power?"

Take Hitler for example. He claims he heard voices, and that they helped him throughout his lifetime to raise to power. Could that have been demons--the tool of Satan to bring about his kingdom and put into power whomsoever he will?

It's a known fact that Hitler and his cronies all dabbled in the Occult, which is nothing short of "Witchcraft" or "consorting with the Devil."

As one studies other rulers throughout the centuries and millenia, it's not hard to find worship of idols (which the Bible connects with the worship of demons), witchcraft, conjurations, astrology, and more, which the Bible is very much against!

Luciferianism is no joke. It is powerful, and if one is willing to sell themselves to the worship of Lucifer, it is certain they can easily multiply unto themselves power, wealth, fame, and prestige. But at what cost? Sadly that cost is their own soul. And the Bible question still sums it up nicely:

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? (Mark 8:36)

The Four Main Regimes of the United States

I've never seen anyone write a book about or even touch on what I'm about to write here now. But it is a very important subject, and worthy of further study.

The idea for this subject just came to me a few years ago after I read a book entitled, "The Republic" by Plato. In his book, he describes four different distinct types of governments:

1. Timocracy

2. Oligarcy

3. Democracy

4. Tyranny

Plato states that each of these types of government supercedes the other in order and when Tyranny is complete it gives birth to Timocracy, which eventually turns into Oligarcy again, and then to Democracy, which will always fail and turn into Tyranny, and the circle eventually begins anew.

This was quite interesting, and as I thought about my country, the United States of America, I wondered to myself if we could see this cycle happening, as it did in ancient Greece, and in the Roman Empire.

What I found was four very different and distinct type of governments govering the United States of America, each of about 70 years length. And I'm afraid that Tyranny is not far away. (In fact, I often wonder if it's not already here!) Let's look at the four main regimes of the United States of America, and as we study them, we'll find each only lasted about 70 years each.

1. TIMOCRACY (definded by Plato as a government ruled by the PEOPLE who love honor and are selected according to the degree of honor they hold in society. Honor is often equated with wealth and possession so this kind of gilded government leads to the people valuing materialism above all things.)

When did America as a nation begin? If you said 1776, you are DEAD WRONG!!! 1776 was the declaration of Independence. We fought a long, hard war after that document was written, and there were quite a few years of unrest after the war was won, as the founding fathers tried to unite the colonies and set up a founding, governing document known as the Constitution. Many of the people refused it without a definition of man's rights. And this gave rise to the most beautiful of documents, the Bill of Rights! Eventually a new government was founded, a government of "We the people."

This American government as a republic actually started in the early 1790's, (George Washington began as president in 1789), as a unified governing body of INDEPENDENT STATES governing themselves with a representative body in Washington. But that form of government only lasted about 70 seventy years. For in 1861, the War Between the States broke out. When it did, the South tried to separate from what they saw as despotism, and the trampling of their "States rights." The War lasted four long years, and when it was over, a new form of government was born--a centralized governing body in Washington D.C. that called all the shots. As the old saying goes, "Before the war it was "The United States ARE, and after the war, it was the United States IS."

2. OLIGARCY (A system in which Plato says wealth is the criterion of merit and the wealthy are in control. This injustice usually divides the rich and the poor, thus creating an environment for criminals and beggars to emerge.)

After the Civil War, the United States entered a period called "Reconstruction" in which much injustice insued. "Carpet Baggers" were found far and wide using governmental policies for their own private and political gain. But the country united, as a whole, prospered in spite of the rampant corruption. That is for only about 70 years.

3. DEMOCRACY (Plato suggests under this rule, tensions between social classes arise, and from the conflicts democracy replaces the oligarchy preceding it. The poor overthrow the inexperienced oligarchs and soon grant liberties and freedoms to citizens. A visually appealing demagogue is soon lifted up to protect the interests of the lower class.)

In the 1930's president Roosevelt came on the scene and introduced many "Socialist" policies in America. (This is where we got the Social Security card from). Under the guise of the "New Deal," Roosevelt changed the face of the land and put people to work. He also took away their gold!

But during this time of "democratic rule" we see the increase of Civil Riots, er, I mean the Civil Rights movement, and the greatest increase of more wars than any other time period in our history!

4. TYRRANY (Plato spoke of this governmental system as a conflict between rich and poor in democracy, and the tyrant's rise as a popular champion, and his PRIVATE ARMY and the growth of oppression).

Seventy years or so after the "New Deal" we come to 2001, and the horrible disaster of 9-11. It was after this tragedy that we saw the introduction of the "Patriot Act," which is still in affect today. It gives almost dictatorial powers to the President of the United States.

SUMMARY:

So there you have it. America was founded a Republic, but only "if you can keep it," as Benjamin Franklin said. They could not keep it, so it fell into despotism, and a war took away much of the state's rights. As a centralized government, it eventually formed itself into Socialism, and now is close to becoming a tyranical, communistic system, to do away with rich and poor. All that's lacking is the right man to come and take it over.

So that's my outline. I hope to write a book about it some day, but if I don't, that's fine. I do think we should talk about these things though, and realize why America is in the shape she's in. It's because she is not the America that the founding fathers gave birth to. She's had four very distinct makeovers and is still changing. She might even be destroyed completely in the near future. God, I hope not! But I do see Plato's political system at work. It's almost as if those in charge read his work and are following his book play by play! No, that couldn't be, could it? That's CONSPIRACY, isn't it?

I often wonder if the Devil didn't use Plato and if his book wasn't to be the guide in which dictators were to use in order to come to power, for all throughout History, time and again, governments have followed Plato's order of governmental downfall play by play.

If only people would learn from history. But, as the saying goes, "The only thing men never learn from history, is that men never learn from history!"

CHRISTIAN RETREADS?

There is a new term out there used by Independent Baptists that is gaining much ground, but the way it's being used doesn't make much sense. And the word can be very confusing, and also very divisive and hurtful to the cause of Christ. The word is "retread," and no doubt you've probably heard it used by now. If not, you'll probably hear it in the near future.

The word is usually used by others to describe a person who claims he's gotten "saved" but who then doubts his salvation, and then when a soul winner comes along and helps him with his assurance, and he claims he's gotten saved over again, he's immediately labelled a "retread" by other Christians.

Have you heard that term? What does that even mean??? And, is it possible for a person get saved more than once???

I'm an Independent Baptist (Better said, I'm an Independent Independent Baptist). And as such, I believe in ETERNAL SECURITY. That is to say, I believe that once a person is saved, he is SEALED with the Holy Spirit of God. He cannot LOSE his salvation. If that be the case, then he can't be SAVED more than once, period! He cannot, therefore, be a "retread."

Thus, logically, there is no such thing as a "retread." It's a made up word that means absolutely nothing! For a person to get saved over again, they would have to lose it, in order to get it again! Biblically, this can not happen!

It's very irritating to me to hear people use terms like "retread" or "retreading" when they haven't even stopped to think what they are saying! It's especially discouraging to see people make up a word that doesn't even show up once in the entire Bible. But depending on which camp you are in within the varying Independent Baptist groups this word is thrown around quite frequently, and often used in a derogatory way, especially against those who are ostracized by another group.

I know a little bit about this whole "retread" business, as both myself and my wife have been labelled "retreads" by a very well-known preacher who uses the term quite frequently in putting down others he doesn't agree with. (Note: Interstingly enough, this same pastor has given two different testimonies of salvation. In one, he's saved in one place, and in another, he's saved somewhere else. Is he then a "retread" to use his jargon?!?!).

But, neither myself or my wife have been saved more than once! We weren't retreaded. We weren't even treaded. We were just born again! And it only happened one time!

However, we were both deceived into thinking before we were saved that we were on our way to heaven by well-meaning soulwinners who gave us a formula to follow instead of just plainly giving us the Gospel. We followed that formula, but we didn't trust in the finished work of Christ. This led to both of us doubting we were saved continually, so every night we did what we had been programmed to do, instead of just resting in the finished propitiatory work of Jesus Christ by faith alone.

When we finally did get saved, all doubt fled away, and we knew beyond all shadow of a doubt we were on our way to heaven! When we told others about our really getting saved, and "knowing for sure" we were born again, many of them said outrageous things like, "Oh, you were already saved, you just didn't know it."

What? How can a guy be born again, and not know it??? In the Bible, salvation is like being born, and like being married. How can a guy doubt he's born, and how can a man doubt he's married to his spouse?

We believe, and the Bible teaches, that when a man or a woman is born and then born again HE'LL KNOW IT! That's sound Bible doctrine!

I can't tell you how much trouble this has gotten us into. We have been called, "retreads," and our ministry has been slandered, as we were told we are only trying to "retread" others. But we are simply trying to preach the Gospel plainly, and point sinners to the blood atonement of Jesus Christ for salvation! We want souls to GET saved, and we want them to KNOW they are saved!

So where does this whole "retreading" movement come from, and what's it all about? That's a good question. And I don't know who started it. All I know is it's gaining ground quickly. And it's causing much harm, especially when there are others out there like my wife and I were who are deceived and need to hear the truth!

There are lots of people who "claim to be Christians," and who tell others they continually doubt their salvation. These people are instructed to just "pray the sinner's prayer" over and over again until the doubts flee away. This they do, but it never really takes, so they do it over and over, often every night of their lives.

Is this the Gospel plan of salvation? If so, then why does a man do it, and then doubt it? And, what does the Bible say about doubting? Isn't doubt the opposite of faith, and isn't a man saved by faith alone?

According to the Bible, a man's faith must be in the right thing. My wife and I had our faith in our prayers instead of our faith in the payment of Jesus Christ for our sins. In other words, we trusted in what we did, and were doing it over and over again, hoping it would work. For this reason, we were not saved (even though we thought we were). It was only when we saw the light and repented of trusting in our own works and our righteousness, and trusted in the shed blood of Christ Jesus alone at Calvary as SUFFICIENT to give us the new birth that we were wonderously and gloriously saved! And we don't doubt it anymore! All doubts fled away, as the old hymn said, and we understood how joyous salvation really was!

This whole "retreading" thing then to us is a very false doctrine! And it can even be a DAMNABLE HERESY which can lead to a false assurance of salvation and even PUT SOULS IN HELL! For there might be others out there just like myself and my wife were, who are lost, thinking they are saved. And instead of being instructed to trust Christ alone, they are told to seek "assurance" through a work of their own, whether it be by praying, begging, beseeching, asking, etc. instead of resting solely by faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ on Calvary. This leads to them trusting more in their own self-righteousness, and through fear, they'll never truly get born again, worrying about being called a "retread" if they seek more truth.

Those who are quick to label others "retreads" not only cause possible damnation, but are also guilty of trying to play the Holy Spirit. No one knows if a person is saved or not. Only God knows that. Who are they then, to tell a person if they are or aren't saved, or if they did or didn't get saved? And who are they to say a person is a "retread" or that is to say, they got saved over again. What if they weren't ever saved to begin with?

The practice of labelling a person a "retread," or labelling a soul winner who's just preaching the Gospel plainly a "retreader," is not only anti-biblical, but is also highly divisive, as it leaves people confused. (And we know God is not the author of confusion!). It further divides the brethern who withdraw fellowship from other Christians because brother-so-and-so said he heard he was a "retread" or a "retreader." How does this help the cause of Christ?

Finally, the "retread doctrine" falsely assumes most people are already saved to begin with. These people preaching the "retread" doctrine must be very gullible! They want to think everyone is saved, and they don't want to believe for a second that many of those around them and even in their own churches who claim to be Christians might be lost.

For this very reason, I'll now quote to you from a sermon by Dr. Bob Jones, Sr. I do so as many of those who preach the "retread doctrine" are very fond of this man. In his sermon, "What is a Christian?" Dr. Jones states the following, "...I tell you frankly, after having preached the Gospel in most of the states of the Union, I do not believe 50 percent of the church members are really Christians. You can live in what you call a Christian country and not be a Christian. I will tell you something else. You can join the church, be baptized, and take communion, yet not be a Christian. It is possible to stand in the puplit and preach and not be a Christian. I think I know more preachers than any man my age in this country, as I have spent nearly my entire life in association with ministers. I believe the majority of our preachers are godly, unselfish, consecrated men of God, but nobody would tell you that every preacher in America is a saved man! You can go to church every Sunday and sing in the choir, you can read your Bible every day and say your prayers, yet still not be a Christian. You can have a Christian father and mother and still be unsaved...I hope while I am talking you will search your heart and ask yourself these questions solemnly: 'Have I ever really been convicted of my sin? Have I really and truly repented? Have I been converted? Have I been born again? I realize that is a serious thing for me to stand here and talk to you about this subject. I am dealing with your soul. This job is more serious than the job of any surgeon in an operation room with his patient under an anesthetic. The surgeon deals with the human body. I am dealing with the immortal souls. I can't afford to make a mistake. A preacher may be perfectly honest and yet give the wrong directions to a lost soul...I am going to make [it] simple so you can understand...The thing upon which you rely for salvation, that is your religion. Some men rely upon one thing, some upon another. Your religion is no stronger than your reliance. A Christian is a person who, knowing that he is insufficient in himself, that he is helpless and undone, and that he cannot save himself, relies upon Jesus Christ and His atoning blood alone for salvation. That's a Christian! He doesn't rely upon himself; he doesn't rely upon his morality; he doesn't rely upon his religion; he doesn't rely upon his church membership. He doesn't partly rely upon any of those things. He relies absolutely, unconditionally, and unreservedly upon Jesus Christ!...Nothing but the blood of Jesus will do for a dying man. "

After reading this, it's hard to wonder why those who preach the "retread doctrine" and love Dr. Bob Jones Sr., don't label him a "retreader!" For he outright says that he thinks 50% of all the people he's met are LOST! And he further thinks a lot of preachers he's met are on their way to hell!

This sermon was preached in 1946, back in a time when I'm sure there really were a lot more Christians. I wonder what the percentage of lost people in our churches would be today?

SUMMARY:

Is there really such a thing as a Christian "retread?" If so, who are they? How did they get "retreaded?" And what harm is there really in showing people how to be saved and know it?

Why has this term caused so much "division" in the body of Christ? People who use the term to label others say it's because "retreaders" only live to "talk Christians out of their salvation." Is that even possible? If you are a Christian, wouldn't you already KNOW IT, and therefore not be able to be talked out of it??? Like one old preacher said, "If I can talk you out of your salvation, I've got to wonder if you were even saved to begin with!"

In the Bible, there is no such thing as a "retread" or a "retreader." There are only saved and lost. Those who are saved love the old Gospel story. Those who are lost need to hear it.

So, which one are you? Oh...uh...um...eh... So sorry, I'd better not ask, or I'll be accused of trying to "RETREAD" you! :)

For more information about the important doctrine of salvation, and how to be born again by FAITH, and not by following a man-made METHOD which leads only to doubt, please read my books:

THE HERESY OF THE SINNER'S PRAYER:

http://www.rrb3.com/mypub/books/hrsy_sin_pryr.htm

WHAT IT MEANS TO CALL UPON THE LORD:

http://www.rrb3.com/mypub/books/how_to_call_on_Lord.htm

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE BLOOD OF JESUS:

http://www.rrb3.com/mypub/books/import_of_blood.htm

HEY, WHERE'S THE BLOOD?:

http://www.rrb3.com/mypub/books/where_is_blood.htm

MOST OMMITED WORDS IN PREACHER'S SERMONS

It's amazing to me how people can preach the Bible, and even quote a verse, but only quote the parts that they like, or quote it the way they like to hear it. That is to say, they quote the part of the verse they want you to hear, while ommitting the rest of it. This is standard operating procedure for most apostates. But I've even heard it happen among those of my own denomination and affiliation. I like to think they don't do it on purpose. So I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. I only hope they won't do it again after they read this.

Here are some of the most left out words by preachers:

ROMANS 8:28

I'm sure you can quote this by memory. In fact, I hope you will try before reading further. So stop right here, and close your eyes and quote the verse to yourself...

Okay? Did you do it? Okay, now read the verse as it is in the King James Bible here below:

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. (Rom. 8:28)

Did you get it exactly right? Most people don't. They usually quote it and leave out the simple little word "the" right before the word "called."

In other words, they say, "...all things work together for good to them that love God and to them who are called according to his purpose."

See what's missing there? You have those who are "called" and then those who are the "the called."

What's the difference? Well, many might be called, but unless you are one of the "the called" you're not even saved!

Now, I'm not a Calvinist, and I don't want to be! (I think Calvin was an idiot!) But I see a big difference there. Just because someone is "called" doesn't make him saved. Abraham was "called" of God, "called" a friend of God, and "called" by God, and he wasn't even saved! It wasn't until later he was imputed God's righteousness!

Did you know the Anti-Christ is called by God to do what he's going to do in the tribulation? Did you know God called some LOST people like Pharoah and Nebuchadnezzer to do some things? But things didn't work out good for them! It did work out good for his chosen people though, as he used those men to bring a blessing on his own people. God has and will use lost people to accomplish his plan. We need to realize that.

Oh how important then is the word "the" in reference to "the called." For if you are one of "the called" then you are one of those God has given the new birth to, and all things will work together for good for you, and you have God's promise on that!

2 CHRONICLES 7:14

Can you quote this verse in its entirety? It's a little long, but most preachers can, as they've preached it many times in context of revival. Go ahead then, why don't you close your eyes and quote this one silently to yourself...

Did you do it? Now read below and see if you left anything out:

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. (2 Chronicles 7:14)

Most preachers I ask to recite this, and most I've heard preach it all want to preach the first part of it, but they all conveniently leave out the most important words in the whole verse: "...and turn from their wicked ways..."

I don't know if it's a Freudian slip or what, but they all seem to forget those words! You'd think those would be the most important! For how do you expect REVIVAL without REPENTANCE!

Please don't ever forget those words!

MATTHEW 7:1

Can you quote this verse in its entirety? I don't know why, but a lot of people quote it WRONG!

Do you think you can get it right? Why not quote it to yourself if you know it. Now, read it below as it appears in our King James Bible:

Judge not, that ye be not judged. (Matt. 7:1)

Most people quote this as "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

Where do they get this from? I have no idea. But I can't tell you how many times I've heard it quoted just this way, and then someone will tell me that's how it's found in the King James Bible.

But it's not, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." (only six words). Rather it is "Judge not, that ye be not judged." (seven words total).

Why the mix up? I think some one a long time ago got the verse mixed up with James 5:9, "Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door." and they like the way it sounded when it said, "Lest ye be condemned."

And then they just merged the two verses, to get "lest ye be judged."

That's the only explaination I can come up with. But that's neither here, nor there. The question is, "Is it right to change the word of God?" The answer is no!

So next time someone says, "Judge not lest ye be judged." Why not ask them to show you that in the Bible? Maybe then you can give them a little Bible study and encourage them to memorize the verse AS IT IS WRITTEN IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE, and not quote something they heard from someone else!

Got any more examples of preachers or even other people ommitting a word when they quote a verse? I'd like to hear 'em!

IMMORALITY DESTROYS A FREE SOCIETY

It used to be that a person prided themself upon how moral he or she was. But those days are long gone!

People today don't use, much less think about the words "moral" and "morality." They are "outdated" principles, and therefore forgotten. But what are they, and what do they mean?

Webster's 1828 define them thusly,

MORALITY:

The doctrine or system of moral duties, or the duties of men in their social character; ethics...The quality of an action which renders it good; the conformity of an act to the divine law, or to the principles of rectitude. This conformity implies that the act must be performed by a free agent, and from a motivfe of obedience to the divine will. This is the strict theological and scriptural sense of morality.

MORALS

The practice of the duties of life; as a man of correct morals. Conduct, behavior; course of life, in regard to good and evil.

We see then, morals come from a healthy fear of God, which leads to a person wanting to do right and live right. A moral person looks at good and evil based upon God's divine law (the Bible), and not based upon their own opinion of what they think is right and wrong. And a person who is moral wishes to be free to practice his morality. While an immoral person wishes a more debased system which allows him to prosper by doing WRONG, instead of working hard and doing RIGHT in order to get ahead. This is just a simple basic truth. And if you'll think about it, you'll see immorality not only destroys the soul, but destroys society.

America as a nation was founded on God and the Bible. It therefore for the most part was very moral, and has even been called a "Christian Nation" for centuries because of this.

These Bible-based "morals" also led to the founding of its system of government, or to the belief in the FREEDOM of an individual to live and practice his good morals as he pleases. The founding documents speak of men's GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

But what about today? Are people really as moral as those of days gone by? I think you know the answer to that question. America is no longer a Christian nation, rather it has become a Pagan nation full of rampant IMMORALITY!

People today no longer desire to follow the morals of their parents who followed the morals of their parents who usually tried to live a good, MORAL LIFE, because their parents taught them the Bible.

Just a few examples of modern immorality will do:

My grandmother says that when she was a kid, the word "divorce" was a bad word, and you could get your mouth washed out with soap for saying it! Now, the national average is 8 out of 10 marriages end in divorce in America.

To have a child out of wedlock in America was a shame and a disgrace, and the child was branded a "bastard." Now it is common place, and no one says anything against it.

Fornication was preached against in our land, but now it is common practice and very few cry against it.

In the Bible, and even hundreds of years ago in this continent, adultery was punishable by death. Now it is so common, we hear talk of "key parties" in which men exchange keys to each others home so that each may willingly commit adultery with the others wife.

Why do these anti-biblical, IMMORAL practices flourish so much today with hardly a word spoken against them? The answer is that as a nation, our once great and moral country has departed from the BIBLE.

Thus, we see this pattern: Following the Bible leads to MORAL PRACTICES, departing from the Bible leads to IMMORAL acts.

With this in mind, let's put two and two together and discern why our country is headed the way it is, and so many of our liberties are being assaulted. For when IMMORALITY reigns, people are enslaved to sin and ultimately deceived, but when MORALITY rules people are freed from the chains of darkness to follow the way of truth. Better said, "Live right, expect righteousness and blessings; live wickedly, expect judgment and oppression!"

As I read through the Declaration of Independence again, I saw this principle in motion. The founding fathers, who strained to live a truly upright life, were the ones who gave us FREEDOM, and they did so because they honored GOD.

They even told us GOD himself is who gave them our freedom:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights..."

What I'm trying to say is: "Their morality dictated their policy!" Or as one old preacher put it, "A man's lifestyle affects his doctrine."

The Declaration of Indepence continues by denouncing the King of England as a TYRANT for his corruption and abuse of power (i.e. his immoral political practices).

This is why the first paragraph of the document says, "When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinon of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation."

The founding fathers were so moral, they wanted to SEPARATE THEMSELVES from IMMORAL MEN who practiced IMMORALITY! They were so adamant in their hatred towards evil trespasses and injustice, that they were willing to die if need be, and even go to war, by stating in the very same document: "We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War..."

They close the Declaration by appealing to God, whom they call, "The Supreme Judge of the World," and sware "their Lives...Fortunes...and Sacred Honor," to Him with, "a firm Reliance on the Protection of [his] divine Providence."

They not only believed in God, but they wanted to live for him, and live a good moral life. And if they couldn't, they'd rather die!

They did not want to be brought under the power of a tyrannical system that was immoral and would seek to make them immoral as well. So they fought the immoral "despot" and won their freedom to serve God as they pleased. And, what an awesome story it is. They gave us a system of government of "We the people." And it was a great government and it lasted a while, because the majority of the people were good, upstanding, moral citizens.

Now back to our day, over 200 years later. What we find now are very little MORALS left in society. Individuals are not only IMMORAL, but so are most politicians. Because of this, public schools and universities no longer teach the constitutution, and many times attack it. Why? Because they have become so immoral they no longer want to retain God in their memories. They no longer want to be in a system that was founded by good moral men who wanted to route out immorality. They earnestly want immorality, and injustice. They want to get something for nothing. They want to live wickedly. They want to do whatever they want without any biblical restraints! And their immorality has destroyed our once free society and system of a government.

Very plainly and simply stated, "Immorality destroys a free society."

SUMMARY

The founding fathers have been branded "rebels" by modernistics re-writers of history. In a sense they were. They rebeled against immorality. But modern revolutionaries are rebelling against God and Bible-based morals. Their revolution is not against evil but is against good.

And their immorality has led them to hate the very God and the very principles that founded our once great nation.

Some Christians believe America will have revival and be great again. But this will never happen until people turn from their wicked ways. For how can a government "Of the people and by the people" be any good if all the people are bad?

All we can do is say, "Even so come, Lord Jesus!"

THE DEFINITION OF A TYRANT

I don’t know what made me think about this the other day, but I was wondering to myself what the definition of a tyrant is. So I looked up the word in the Websters 1828 Dictionary. Right there, after the word “Tyranny,” and before the word “Tyro,” which means a “beginner,” I found that a “tyrant” is someone who is:

1. A monarch or other ruler or master, who uses his power to oppress his subjects, a person who exercises unlawful authority, or lawful authority in an unlawful manner; one who by taxation, injustice or cruel punishment, or the demand of unreasonable services, imposes burdens and hardships on those under his control, which law and humanity do not authorize, or which the purposes of government do not require.

2. A despotic ruler; a cruel master; an oppressor.

As I looked at that definition, I began to think if I'd ever known a tyrant personally, or if I'd ever remembered of reading of one in history. This lead me eventually to the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE of the United States of America, and I read exactly what our founding fathers thought about tyrants and tyranny. For in the Declaration of Independence, they call the king of England a tyrant for the following reasons:

He has refused to Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good...

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers...

He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance...

He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation...

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent...

Those were all well and good, and almost sound like what's happening today in our country today! But I was floored when I read this one:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering "FUNDAMENTALLY" the Forms of our Governments.

Hmm, seems like I've heard that word used lately in the context of "Fundamentally changing" something. Don't seem to remember where though. Where was it?

Anyway, the Declaration ends by saying, "A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free people."

So this is how the founding fathers defined a TYRANT. Wow!

Have I ever known a tyrant or seen one personally? Nope! But I do see them in history. And now I know what to look out for according to the definition.

I only hope I'll never see one in my lifetime, and not have to be affected by one!

Those Certain Words

In a country where we are supposed to have the "freedom of speech" there are certain words which we are conditioned to not say, especially to a person of another race or culture. For example, if a white man were to call his other white friend a "cracker" or a "honky" then he'd probably just laugh. But if a black man, called him a cracker, he'd get angry and probably want to fight! Why? What is it about those words?

It also works the other way around. If a black man calls another black man the "n" word, then he'll probably chuckle. But if a white man were to call him that, it's a fighting word, and violence insues. Why is this?

If it's wrong to call someone a name, I can understand that! (Personally, I think it's childish to call people names, and I don't think we should do it! It's a CARNAL practice.)

But what is it about these words that make people so angry? To answer that we need to figure out where these words come from and look at their etymology.

As I investigated the word "Cracker," I found it is a term created many years ago to apply to people who have lived at least for five generations in Florida or Georgia. That doesn't sound too offensive to me. Unfortunately, I am only a first generation Floridian, and am not a cracker. So I wouldn't get mad if someone either white or black called me that. I'm just not one!

I had problems tracing the roots of the word "Honky," so I just thought about where it might have come from. I'm only guessing, but I think it was invented to refer to white people who frequent "Honky Tonk" Country bars. Well, I'm a Christian and I don't go to bars (although I know some so-called Christians who do!). So I'm not a "Honky." It doesn't bother me if a white or a black were to call me that, as I'm not one!

What about the "N" word. (For those of you who don't know, the word is: "Nigger.") Where does this word originally come from? As you study, you find it's a term which began to describe a person who's origin was from Nigeria in Africa.

So, if a person calls another person the "N" word, he's insinuating that he's from Africa. Why would a black person get offended at this? Especially if they love and embrace their African heritage?

The only thing I can figure is that people no longer define terms. They only use certain words in a hateful way without defining them in order to cut down and hurt others. This is not only sad, but is a degrading practice. We should not call people names, period!

Certain words then have become racist terms used out of hatred instead of descriptive terms used to accurately describe a person. This ought not so to be.

I'm very proud of who I am and where I come from. But it doesn't make me any better than anyone else. I have friends both black and white. And I'm glad we can talk about anything, and even jokingly call either names sometimes without becoming offended with each other. If a guy calls me something I'm not, I don't worry about it, cause I know he's wrong! I don't let his stupidity try to provoke me to wrath.

But in the crazy mixed up world in which we live, certain words have become divisive, and are not defined as they were originally intended, but are words used to make others angry on purpose.

Don't fall into the hatred game, and don't let certain words offend you. Just let it go off your back like water off a duck's back and just laugh when someone calls you something you are not. Let them be the bad guy and don't let them provoke you to anger and doing something you'll regret!