Vaccinations a Good Thing?

How can anyone think that the idea of injecting a disease into somebody's body is a good idea? Yet they do, and it is still practiced all over the world today. What's worse is even newborn children are injected with multiple innoculations as soon as they are born in hospitals. Is this really a good thing? What's wrong with letting a child's immune system deal with each disease NATURALLY one-by-one as that child develops and grows? Why give him as much disease as you can when he is born? Sounds a little fishy to me.

Oh, brother Breaker, you are just a "conspiracy theorist" and you don't know anything. Vaccines are good and necessary, and anything but harmful!

Are they? Are they really? You know it's been my experience that everything man does, he messes up, and everything God does, he does well. So it's best to do things GOD'S WAY instead of MAN'S WAY! It's best to use herbs (which God made) instead of chemical medicines (which man makes) which often have harmful side effects. Even the modern commercials on T.V. for VIOX, ONGLYZA, YAZ, and other popular modern drugs give a long list of side effects for those who use their product. Who wants those side effects? Not I!

Years ago, my Dad (Who owned his own Health Food Store and was well knowledged in the importance of vitamins, herbs, minerals, and eathing healthy) began studying vaccinations, and he came across a book entitled, "The Poisoned Needle." I strongly recommend you get a copy if you can, as it's been long out of print since the 1970's. The book does an excellent job of showing the harmful "side effects" of vaccinations, which most doctors will not tell you. (Did you know for example that autism only shows up in children who have been vaccinated?)

It must be the spirit of this age, because people today only want to dwell on the "good" and pretend the "evil" doesn't exist. They want to focus only on the benefits and omit the potential hazards caused by their man made drugs, injections, and pharmaecutical concoxions. (By the way, did you know most big Pharacuetical companies were started by ex-Nazi's who practiced horrible experiments on Jews under Hitler's anti-semetic ideals?)

So, are vaccinations good? Maybe we should ask the opposite, "Are vaccinations bad?"

You know the standard story they tell you. Injections are only to "help" you. And, in order to help you, they actually give you a "weakened form" of the disease The idea is that your immune system will begin working against that disease and you'll build up an immunity to it when you do ever come in contact with that disease. But is that "weakened strain" all that's really in a vaccine? And, what do they use to "weaken" it?

As you study, you find that there is much more in the "poisoned needle" than just a weakened virus. You also find Formaldehyde (also known as formalin), which is a major ingredient in EMBALMING FLUID (Yep, you read that right!). Used on a live Human Being formaldehyde is known to cause damage to the liver, immune system, nerve and reproductive system, and can become a respiratory poison. Some studies have even linked it to leukemia, brain, colon, and lymphatic cancer. And, it's also known as a carcinogen!

And, that's only one of the ingredients in most vaccines! Let's look at some of the better known ones:

AMMONIUM SULFATE (Salt), which is suspected to cause gastronintestinal, liver, nerve, and respiratory problems.

BETA-PROPIOLACTONE, which is known to cause cancer!

LATEX RUBBER, which can cause life-threating allergic reactions.

MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE, which is being studied for mutagenic, teratogenic, and reproductive effects. It also can cause headaches, and even death in high doses.

ALUMINUM, which is the main cause of Alzheimers. But which also can cause brain damage, dementia, seizures and comas.

POLYSORBATE 80, which is known to cause cancer in animals.

TRI-(N) BUTYLPHOSPHATE, which is a suspected kidney and nerve poison.

GLUTARALDEHYDE, which is poisonous if ingested, and has caused birth defects in experimental animals.

GELATIN, from guess where, CATTLE SKINS, BONES, and even PORK SKINS! What? Why?

GENTAMICIN SULFATE and POLYMYXIN B, which are supposed to be Antibiotics, but which can cause allergic reactions which can be either mild or fatal.

MERCURY, which is one of the most poisonous substances known to man, and which causes massive damage to the body when ingested. It goes right to the brain, gut, liver, bone marrow, and kidneys, and does much damage to the body, causing similar symptoms as those of autism.

NEOMYCIN SULFATE, which interferes with the body's absorption of B6, and can cause epilepsy and mental retardation.

PHENOL/PHENOXYETHANOL, which is used in of all places, ANTIFREEZE! It is very toxic to all cells and is capable of disabling the immune system's primary response mechanism.

HUMAN AND ANIMAL CELLS, many from aborted fetal tissue, as well as substances from pig blood, horse blood, sheep blood, rabbit brain, guinea pig, dog, kidney, cow heart, monkey kidney, chick embryo, and more.

TITANIUM DIOXIDE, which is an ingredient in Sun Tan Lotion and is something many people are allergic to (my daughter by the way is very allergic to this).

This is just some of the many ingredients in vaccines. No wonder most educated mothers today don't want their children to get vaccinations:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/02/03/moms-with-more-education-less-likely-to-vaccinate-their-kids.aspx

Dr. Harris L. Coulter, Ph.D. said it best when he said, "A major cause of the Roman Empire's decline, after six centuries of world dominance was its replacement of stone aqueducts by lead pipes for the transport and supply of drinking water. Roman engineers, the best in the world, turned their fellow citizens into neurological cripples. Today our own 'best and brightest' with the best of intentions, achieve the same end through childhood vaccination programs yielding the modern scourges of hyperactivity, learning disabilities, autism, appetite disorders, and impulsive violence."

But if the actual ingredients in vaccines aren't bad enough, and reason enough not to take them, we now have the government (and the W.H.O.) beggining to say they want you to take forced vaccinations, whether you want them or not! Isn't that an evasion of privacy? Isn't that taking away your right to choose, and abstain if you so desire, especially when many vaccines contain POISON and POISONOUS substances? Isn't this a conspiratorial poisoning of the human race?

I believe it is, and it's a CRIMINAL act, to force people against their will to be vaccinated. So what do we do about? What can we do? Is there really anything we can do at all?

Well, first we can fight the governmental mandates through proper political procedures, but with modern-day governments doing whatever they please, and "we the people" not being listened at all, it seems that way is a losing cause.

We then turn to another means, which is DETOXIFICATION. (A really good book to get about this is: "Detoxify or Die" by Sherry Rodgers.) There are many ways to get those harmful chemicals out of our bodies once we've been forcefully annoculated against our own will. One way is through fasting and eating right. Other ways are through sweating in saunas, and removing mercury based fillings in our teeth (These are those filling that look silver). But probably the easiest way is through using DETOXIFICANTS.

I've found a great one called "Sonne's No. 7 Detoxificant." It comes in a bottle and is available from SONNE'S ORGANIC FOODS, INC, P.O. BOX 34710, N. Kansas City, MO, 64116. This liquid detoxifying agent can absorb up to fifty times it's own weight, and is a great substance to use to try to purify your blood, and get rid of harmful chemical and deadly heavy metals in your system.

As for me. I'm going to continue to detoxify and stay as far away from vaccines as I can. If they force it on me, I guess I'll just fast and pray and do all I can to detoxify right afterwards, in order to get their poison out of my body. (I'll also take a ton of Vitamin C, which is necessary to help the body's immune system against any disease. Get a book entitled, "How to Get Well," by Paavo Airola, which give many natural ways to fight disease).

They are already trying to poison my mind with their anti-biblical propoganda, and now they want to poison my body with their harmful chemicals. I can only hope the Lord returns before they have their way. But the best thing to do is educate yourself and be ready and know what it is they are doing to you!

Your body is important, as it's the only one you've got. You wouldn't sign a piece of paper without reading it, would you? How then, would you allow someone to inject something into your body without first reading the list of ingredients? Think about it!

The Sin of Covering up the Sins of Others

John 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
John 8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
John 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
John 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
John 8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
John 8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

As I read this passage of scripture, I always think to myself, "But what happened to the man who was committing adultery with this woman?"

The Pharisees conveniently leave out that detail. They are quick to want to kill the woman for her sin, but they don't mention anything about the man who sinned with her (it takes two to tango). Why is this? Some believe it's because they were the guilty ones, and they all together are "the man" who committed adultery with this women. Others think the man got away, and only the women was left, so that's why they brought her alone. Whatever the case may be, we see a "cover up" here by the Pharisees, who purposely fail to mention the male adulterer. Why would they hide the sins of others?

In modern Fundamentalism, or maybe I should call it "Funny-mental-ism," these same kind of coverups are seen among modern day Pharisees, who continually stand behind men who stand behind them, and help cover their sins.

It's almost like it's become a "country club" as pastors enjoy all the privileges with their fellow peers, while making sure to watch out for one another. Their "brotherhood" has almost become "Masonic" albiet not in doctrine, but in practice, as "men of the cloth" work together within groups helping each other, and forwarding each others personal agendas.

As they gain power within their individual churches, they strive for a name within their own denominational groups, and actively strive to swap pulpits with other men of renown in order to gain prestige among the pack. This leads to them eventually writing a book, or making a DVD, or preaching some tapes on various doctrines which are then passed around within various circles, and a man's success is augmented by how much fame and recognition he receives. And lest we forget, the highest honor, which is to receive an "honorary doctorate" (make sure you look up and read my blog on that!), in which he uses his title to write for a widely circulated Christian newspaper or magazine on a regular basis, and gets his picture in print for all his peers to see.

Little does he know that what he's doing is rising in the ranks of man worship, and Phariseeism, instead of getting closer to the Lord.

Once a man is "in" with the group, and famous, it's almost as if he can't fail. He is "one of them" and is now "initiated" into their crowd. This means he is not only given all ranks and priviledges, but he is also looked after and taken care of. That is to say, if he falls, or slips into a grevious sin, or is found out for doing something he shouldn't, others within his group will stand up for him, and vouch for him, even if he's guilty as hell!

I've seen this time and again. Men of God (so-called) will go to bat and stand up for other men of God (so-called) and defend them against accusations, even if and when those accusations are true. Because of their fame, rank, and position, people listen to the men of God (so-called) instead of the accusers, and the accused is let off scott-free, while the accusers are crucified!

This COVERING UP THE SINS OF OTHERS is now common practice in modern Fundamentalism, and is even getting worse.

But whatever happened to verses like:

1 Tim 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Rom 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

Titus 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.

Why is it the sins of the pastorate are not worthy of mention, but the sins of the congregation are, and are now almost unforgiveable? What makes the Pastor any different than his own flock when he sins. Shouldn't he repent just as much as they should?

The Bible has much to say about the "respect of persons" and the covering up of the sins of others. For example in Deut. 1:17, we read: "Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it."

Here God tells the Jews not to have "respect of persons" in judgment. Again in Prov. 24:23, we read: "These things also belong to the wise. It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment."

These of course are Old Testament References, but we also read the following Romans 2:11, "For there is no respect of persons with God." And in Col 3:25, "But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons."

Why then is there such "respect of persons" within today's modern Christian Fundamentalist movement, where Pastors have been elevated almost to Popehood (make sure you read my blog about Baptist Popes!), in which they are declared "infallible" and uncapable of committing evil, wrong doing, or sin?

Somebody should read James chapter two again, for there we also read of the "respect of persons:"

James 2:1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

James 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

These verses tell us it is SIN to respect someone over someone else! We should never allow some people to get away with sin, while at the same time ridiculing, exposing and putting down others who do the same thing. If a Pastor commits the same sin as his congregation, they both should be preached against, and should both get right with God!

Or as Proverbs 28:13 says, "He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy."

So why do we so often hear of men who are Pastors doing ungodly and unfathomable sins, and yet they are still in the pulpits preaching, but they've never confessed their sin, repented, or dealt with it? The answer is because other Pastors stood up for them, and covered up their sin, and refused to deal with it, because they didn't want their own group or their own affiliation to look bad. They didn't want to be "guilty by association," so they choose to believe it didn't really happen, and they tell others that the accusations are all a lie, even when they aren't.

Let me just give some examples. I'm not going to use any names. I'm only going to give some examples of things I've seen, read, or heard, which really bother me. And it bothers me even more that these men are still in the pulpit. Some of them might have repented and gotten right with God, and if so, praise the Lord! Others might not. I simply don't know. But I have seen in each case a great conspiracy by many pastors to quickly cover up the incident, so that it doesn't reflect on them, and make their "group" or "click" look bad.

THE BAR HOPPER

I once knew a man who was an assistant pastor of a very well-known church. One time a man in the church decided to follow him around when his wife was out of town. What he found was the man in a bar dancing with someone who wasn't his wife. He took pictures as proof and then brought the matter to the church. Instead of the bar-hopping assistant pastor being dealt with and expelled for misconduct, the pastor made the picture taker out to be the bad guy, and he was called a lot of names for following the assistant pastor around and taking pictures of him in the first place.

What's worse is the assistant pastor was asked if he went to the bar, and he at first denied it. He then said the second time he was asked, that he did go, but he was "witnessing" while he was there.

Supposedly the assistant pastor has repented and gotten right. But those photos can still be seen on the internet of his indiscretion. And even to this day, preachers in this man's click are quick to point out the accusations against this man are false, and he's not guilty of any wrongdoing.

THE FILTHY ADULTERER

There was once a Pastor who was the son of a famous Pastor (who shall remain unnamed) who Pastored a church. It was eventually discovered that he had been engaged in adulterous sexual relations with over 20 women in his congregation.

When I hear things like that, I can't help but wonder, "How on earth does that happen? How can a man do that??? And how can he get up and preach on Sundays when he was sleeping with a different women every Saturday night?"

What happened to this man, who was just as guilty as hell? I really don't know. But I do know he was defended by his well-known father, and his sins were quickly shuffled under the rug by his peers from his old school alma mater.

THE ADULTEROUS TEXAS RANGER PREACHER

There was once a Pastor in Colorado who cheated on his wife and was caught by some men in the church in a bar with two women on his shoulders. When they questioned him, he ran into a bathroom stall and hid. As they stood outside to speak with him, the floozey women couldn't believe he was a Pastor, as they kept saying, "That man can't be a preacher, cause he told us he was a Texas Ranger!"

What happened to the man? Was his sin ever dealt with? NOPE! On Sunday he went to his church, got up in the pulpit, and said, "I feel God is calling me elsewhere, so I'm going to resign today." He left, and nobody said anything against him within his own denominational group. How come his sin was never dealt with? And how come his "group" stuck up for him, and let his transgression slide?

THE SODOMITE PREACHER

A Pastor in a very well-known Baptist Church in Texas was caught by a young man fresh out of college who went to work for him. The young man said the preacher one day caught him while he was alone and said blatantly, "Pucker up and give me a big kiss on the lips!"

Instead of getting what he wanted, the Pastor got a bloody nose, as the young man socked him as hard as he could. It soon came out later that the Pastor had relations with at least seven young interns before this man came along. How long had this being going on? Well, the Pastor had pastored for at least 20 years, and this had been going on most of that time! The Pastor also travelled everywhere with his young interns, and they spent the night in the same hotel room time and again.

My question is, "How on earth can a man like that preach in a pulpit, while he's been engaged with homosexual activities the night before?"

THE PASTOR WHO PRAYED HIS WIFE WOULD DIE

Oh, now here's a good one. There was once a Pastor who didn't like his wife. But he did like a young lady in the congregation. So he prayed and fasted that God would kill his wife so he could marry the other woman he lusted after so much. What happened? Nothing. His wife lived, and he was stuck with her. But one must ask, "What on earth was he thinking?"

THE PASTOR WHO RAN OFF WITH THE CHURCH SECRETARY

This story is all too common. But there was once a very popular preacher who decided he loved his secretary more than his wife, so he took her instead of his wife on business trips. So much he loved her, that he said to the secretary's husband that she could have his own wife, if he would only give him his. News of this love affair came out, but because of "political" pressure from others preachers who followed this preacher, defending him adamantly, this sin was quickly covered up, and forgotten by many, but not by the secretary's husband.

THE PASTOR WHO BROWBEAT HIS CHURCH INTO GIVING (TO HIM)

Not long ago I personally witnessed a Pastor who held a "Faith Promise Missionary Conference," (which I'm not necessarily for or against), in which he tried to get his church to promise to give an outrageous amount to missions. The Pastor knew the amount was most likely unobtainable, but he continued to preach on their need to "sacrifice" to give to God and missions. When the meeting was over, and the church only pledged to give about a fourth of what the Pastor wanted (so much for giving cheerfully and without necessity), the Pastor became irrate and yelled at them for, and are you ready for this, their "lack of faith." Now, the rest of the story is that the Pastor later resigned the church, telling them God had be working on his heart for sometime to be a Missionary to a certain island nation. And can you guess what the Pastor's philosophy was on Missions? That's right, he believed the church should give 100% of their monthly support to a Missionary sent out of their church. So what you have is the Pastor wanting the church to send HIM a certain amount each month, and him becoming angry that they didn't give it, because eventually, he was thinking it was going to go to HIM. Hmmmm. Sound fishy to you? Sounds diabolical to me! Especially, when the Pastor invited a well-known preacher to preach the conference, who was under the impression that the Pastor was going to stay at the church for many years to come!

SUMMARY

I could go on and on with stories like this of pastors who abused their power, their position, and their political affiliations to commit grevious and horrible sins, and then lie about it and ask other men of God to help them cover it up. This is all too common in our day and age. Many preachers are "heirlings" who care only about money, or "Pharisees" who care only about fame, and this is why they are in the ministry. With their connections, they find they can get away with certain things, so they begin to find out what else they can get away with. Eventually, though, it will all come out. One day they will give account for their actions. As 1 Tim. 5:24-25 tells us: "Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after. Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid."

But how horrible that there are men out there who are big name Pastors, preachers, missionaries, fundamentalists, Deacons, etc., who are guilty of these same sins, and yea, even worse ones. But because of "politics" within certain "Christian" groups, these men are untouchable, and not only do those things which are not convienient, but have pleasure in them. But, what's worse is those men who claim to be Christians, and even men of God, who will vouch for, and even help cover up the sins of their fellow ministers. These things ought not to be! It's not right to help cover the sins of others, no matter who they are! Yet this happens time and again in modern Fundamentalists circles.

My prayer is: "God give us more SPIRIT-FILLED preachers, Pastors, Missionaries, and Deacons, who are not working for God in the flesh, while fulfilling their own fleshly desires, and getting help from others to do it, who stick up for them; but God, please give us more men who are sold out completely to you who have done their best to live beyond reproach and separate themselves from sin. And help them see the praise of man is not as important as pleasing God!"

2 Cor 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

As you read this post, I know what you are thinking, "No, that can't be true. There can't be that kind of stuff going on, at least not in my group, or click, or camp. You are just making that stuff up!"

I wish that was true. I wish I was making all this up. But you must be very gullible to think that men aren't sinners. And you must be even more niave to think that pastor's can't fall into sin, and that "political pressure" can't be used by other pastors, by Bible Schools, and or by Bible Fellowships to help cover it up.

But then again, maybe you aren't gullible. Maybe you just haven't seen it yet. Well, you will. And when you do, I don't want you to get discouraged. I want it to help you get even closer to the Lord Jesus Christ!

When I went to Bible School, I remember I was taught two very imporant lessons on the very first day. They were:

1. "The most important thing in this world is your relationship to Jesus Christ!"

2. "The people that will hurt you most in the ministry are other Christians!"

I readily accepted the first one, but couldn't bring myself to believe the second. I thought Christians were the greatest people on earth, and they could never harm a fly. Now I'm a lot farther along, and I've found that Christians are no different than the world, (except that they are just "forgiven.")

Some of the most vindictive, hateful, angry, bitter people I've ever met in this world were "Christians." And as I go along and grow even more in the Lord, I keep asking myself, "Were they even really Christians to begin with? Or could they have been RELIGIOUS but LOST?"

I still don't know, but I can't help but wonder. For how can a man practice openly practice Sodomy, Adultery, Debauchery, Robbery, and more, and still stand in the pulpit without any reprocussions for his sin? Didn't God say something about a man who's a Christian who sins being chastened by the Lord (Heb. 12:6), and if he doesn't, then he's a bastard?

It really makes me wonder how a man can live like the devil, and his peers cover up his sins and love him for it, while a man can do his best to live for God and he's attacked mercilessly by those same people who call themselves "Christians" who are on the side of the man who lives like the devil. Can someone explain that to me?

All I'm saying, and I'll I'm trying to get to is this: IT IS A SIN TO COVER UP THE SINS OF OTHERS. INSTEAD WE SHOULD PREACH AGAINST SIN WITH ALL OUR MIGHT, ALL OUR STRENGTH, AND ALL OUR FURY, no matter who is guilty of committing the sin. We should have NO RESPECT OF PERSONS. Sin is sin, and God hates all of it!

THE SIN OF PRIDE

It's time now to look at another huge sin that is rampant today which is not hardly even touched or preached against by most pastors. Why? I think it's because they are GUILTY of this sin, and that's why they don't speak out against it. The sin is the sin of PRIDE.

The word "pride" shows up 49 times in 46 verses in our King James Bible. And the word "proud" appears 48 times in 47 verses. So the Bible has much to say about the subject.

There is probably no sin greater, and no sin preached less about then "pride." For pride was the very first sin ever committed. As you read your Bible, you find Satan becoming puffed up with pride as he looked at himself and his beauty. In Isaiah we read of God talking about Lucifer (the Devil), and we see God quoting Him:

Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Isa 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
Isa 14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

Five times Lucifer said, "I will." However, he soon found out his own will led to his downfall. His PRIDE led to his wanting to knock God off His throne, and becoming like the most High, yet God instead cast him into Hell. Yes, pride is a powerful sin with the most horrific consequences. Yet we seldom ever hear any preaching against it. Why it that?

According to the Bible, to be "prideful" or full of pride is a grevious sin, one that God hates. But don't take my word for it. Just look at some scriptures about it:

Psa 101:4 A froward heart shall depart from me: I will not know a wicked person.
Psa 101:5 Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off: him that hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer.

Prov 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
Prov 6:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
Prov 6:18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
Prov 6:19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Prov 16:5 Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.

Prov 21:4 An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin.

Truly, God is unhappy with those who are prideful. In fact, we read in Job 41:34, that Leviathan, (Lucifer or Satan) is the "king over all the children of pride." Do you realize what that is saying? When you are prideful and proud, you are allowing the Devil to reign over you! What a heinous sin!!!

Are there prideful people out there today with proud hearts? Yes there are. And sadly, many of them claim to be Christians. It's sad to see men who claim the name of Christ with puffed up attitudes and prideful spirits, but they are out there. Many of them are even pastors and deacons, who are proud of where they went to school, where they attend church, which group they partain to, etc. Their pride is in MAN instead of THE MAN Christ Jesus.

But who are these prideful men? I think the answer is obvious, and it's easy to tell who they are. For the Bible tells us in Proverbs 13:10, "Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom." Any man who is contentious is full of pride, period.

We clearly see this in Prov. 26:21, when it states: "As coals are to burning coals, and wood to fire; so is a contentious man to kindle strife."

I've been blest to have been around and to have met many pastors, missionaries, deacons, and preachers. And I'm sad to say that they are some of the most prideful people I've ever met. How do I know this? Because of the contention they brew among the brethren.

Modern Fundamentalism is a great big hot bed of angry men yelling at each other. If you don't believe me, look at some of the websites and talk forums and discussion groups around on the internet. I remember a few years ago looking at one, and the producer of the site wrote an email to all those who signed onto the discussion boards, asking them to not use bad language nor write bad things to each other, rather to discuss nicely. If I remember correctly, some people were even prohibited from returning to the site for their unchristian-like posts. What is that all about? Answer: PRIDE!

I don't like arguing or debating with people. I continually remember this verse when someone tries to pick a fight with me.

The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water: therefore leave off contention, before it be meddled with. (Prov 17:14)

As I've read through the Bible, and see the things God says about pride, I've decided I don't even want to use the word. I remember my Dad used to say things to me like, "Son, I'm PROUD of you!" I'd immediately correct him, "Dad, please don't say your PROUD of me. Instead say what God said about his son Jesus, I'm Well PLEASED with you! Don't be proudful!"

I've caught myself time and again saying to my wife or my daughter, "I'm so proud of you," but then correcting myself, "Er, I mean, I'm pleased with you!"

Why? Because pride and being proud are sin.

This is why it's so important to to be "humble." Jesus said in Matthew 23:12, "And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted."

In James 4:6 we read: "But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble."

And again in James 4:10, we are promised: "Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up."

It's important to be humble instead of prideful. Why? Because the Pharisees were those who were full of pride. They were proud of their position, their possessions, and their power, and they thought they could do whatever they wanted. Their pride deluded them into thinking they were the most important people in the world, and it led to their forgetting God. This then led to their downfall and demise.

Modern Day Pharisees also are guilty of the same pride of their spiritual ancestors of old. Fame, fortune, and fortitude make them think they are untouchable and can get away with anything. It also leads to them doing things their way instead of God's way. And what happens next? They say the same thing that Laodicea said in Revelation chapter three:

"...I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing."

Little do they realize they have great need of humility, and oftentimes of SALVATION.

That's right, I said it. Oftentimes a person who is full of pride is LOST! Certainly the Pharisees of old were not saved. They were holding on to their own self-righteousness, and would not submit themselves unto the righteousness of Christ Jesus.

Those same religious goons live and walk among us today, and oftentimes their pride blinds them to the truth. The sin of pride leads to deception and even damnation to those who refuse to give up trusting in themselves to trust Christ alone.

Am I saying that all preachers are lost today? Certainly not! But I am asking the question. If they are prideful, and that pride leads to them becoming contentious to the truth, doesn't that give us a great insight into their own spiritual condition? Could it be, and all I'm doing is asking the question, I'm not even going to attempt to answer it, I'll let you do that yourself, but could it be that they are not saved, and that's why they are so contentious to the truth???

PRIDE damned the Devil. It also damned the Pharisees. As we read the Bible, we find pride is the reason for all contention in the world. And we even find that pride leads to a mighty fall.

(Like one preacher said, "It's not those outward sins that are so wicked. It's those inward sins that do the most damage, those inward sins that no one else sees but God!")

Are you prideful? You ought to repent of it, and humble yourself before God!

"...For God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time." (1 Pet 5:5b-6)

Women Missionaries?

It's amazing to me how many Fundamentalists and Baptist ministers are quick to preach the Bible and quote verses about women not being able to pastor or preach, but yet they then allow women missionaries in their pulpits and even support them to go to the field. Am I the only one that thinks this is a blatant contradiction?

The verses they use to prove women are not allowed to be ordainded ministers are the following:

1 Cor 14:34 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 saith the law.
1 Cor 14:35 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.

1 Tim 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1 Tim 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

The first verses in Corinthians speak in context of women "prophecying" or "PREACHING" in the pulpit, and of course this is not permited in the Bible. (See also 1 Tim. 3:2 and Titus 1:6 which speak of pastors being MEN who are married to one wife, and not women).

The verses in Timothy speak of a woman usurping authority over a man, and "TEACHING" them. This is something that God forbids, for the context shows us that women are more easily deceived (they are led by their emotions), then men (who usually don't let their emotions sway them as they make decisions based on facts).

Very few modern Fundamentalists allow women positions of authority in the church, such as that of Pastor or Deacon, so that they might PREACH to the congregation, nor do they allow women to TEACH men. But in these last days of apostasy, I've seen a surge in the Fundamentalist movement of "Women Missionaries," who are allowed by these very same preachers the same priviledges of regular male missionaries. And I can't help but wonder, "How can this be?"

This leads us to the question, "What is a Missionary?" Well, I guess that's all how you define the word. Some say it only means, "One sent." That is to say, it's someone who is sent to a foreign field to preach the Gospel. That's a good definition, and I've even preached that myself a couple of times. But that's not really a Biblical definition of the word. According to the Bible, a Missionary is an office of the church, and is someone who is ordained by the laying on of hands, and who is sent out to start churches, just like the Apostle Paul. Simply put, a missionary, is to PREACH THE GOSPEL, and start churches, and then TEACH men to take over those churches so he can travel to other places with the Gospel.

Where does this leave women? And where does this leave the modern teaching of "women missionaries?" Can a women PREACH in a church? NOPE! Then how can she be sent from a local church to a foreign field to start local churches???

And, biblically, are women allowed to usurp authority over men and teach them? NOPE! Then how can any Pastor who knows his Bible send a women as a missionary when she's not allowed to TEACH men, which is what a Missionary is supposed to do???

Well, the classic answer is, "Well, we are only sending her off to work with children!" Or, "We are only sending her to go help another missionary that's already there." Or, "We are sending her just to go work in an orphanage."

My question then becomes, "Why do you need to call her a Missionary then? Why can't you say she's going to HELP?"

And ever better asked is, "Why don't you pray for God to send along a husband for her so that she and he can go together???" Doesn't the Bible say that two are better than one?

I went to Honduras as a single missionary, and I sure needed a wife. While on deputation, I ran accross a single woman who called herself a "missionary" to the Ukraine. I asked here, "Why are you doing this?" She replied, "I believe God's called me to the Ukraine." I then responded, "Why don't you just pray and ask God to give you a husband who's going there as a Missionary? Why are you trying to go there by yourself when you can't do what a Missionary is supposed to do?"

She got mad and stormed off without answering. But I thought I had a good question. She can't PREACH in a pulpit, so she can't start a church there, and she can't TEACH men, so what is she going for, and why should churches steal support from a man who can fulfill the qualifications of a missionary to give it to a women. Sounds a little like Women's Lib to me!

Where did this whole movement of "Women Missionaries" get started? Why if you study a little, you'll see it's more of a Southern Baptist thing then an Independent Baptist thing. You have your Lottie Moon's, and your Mary Slessors, etc. But did they do right?

I remember being engaged to a young lady years ago whose mother was all for Women Missionaries. She even taught Sunday School, and told young ladies, "Maybe someday you can be a woman missionary and be just like Mary Slessor or Lottie Moon, and serve the Lord."

It turns out later this same women was a FEMINIST, and was also teaching feminism to the young ladies, telling them, It's your life and your body, so you can do what you want!

The Biblical role of a woman being under the authority of her husband, and being his HELP, meet for his needs was played down, while young girls heads were filled with ideas of doing what men are supposed to do. It didn't take long for me to figure out "AS IS THE MOTHER, SO IS THE DAUGHTER," and my fiancee and I had to break up, as she didn't want to be under the authority of a man.

I give this illustration, as I see the whole "Women Missionary" movement as not only hypocritical, but it's also anti-biblical, as it gives women the feminist idea that she doesn't need a man and she can go and do whatever she wants to by herself for God.

Any Pastor who helps pass on such an idea ought to be ashamed of himself! And I've met some even within the Independent Baptist movement. I've even been spoken against by several Pastors for my stand against "Women Missionaries," and I've lost support over the issue. But I just don't believe it's right to say women can't PREACH and TEACH to men in America, but they can do it in another country. There is something very wrong and hypocritical about that kind of teaching.

So what do you think? Care to comment? Careful, you just might be showing your FEMINIST attitude if you support such a thing.

For more about "women missionaries" why not read my article about it, found at:

http://www.rrb3.com/mypub/articles/women_missionaries.htm

Note: It's imparative that I add in closing that I'm not against women doing personal one on one evagelism with lost people. Women need to preach the Gospel to lost souls just as much as men do. But the Bible is against women preaching in Pulpits, and teaching Men.

RESPONSE TO GUY ABOUT THE GOMEZ

A while Back I did a blog entitled, "The Go-mess Bible." I received a response in the comment box by a man named Mr. Wilps. I promptly emailed him in return to his comments. But my response to him didn't appear on my blog. So I thought I'd post my response to him here, so people who read my blog and his comments could see the rest of the story...

"Mister Wilps, Thanks for reading my blog and writing back with your thoughts. I appreciate you doing so. Thanks also for inviting me down to Paraguay. If I had the money, I'd love to go. I'm sure it'd be a great time in the Lord. Now to your comments. And I want you to know that I'm not interested in fighting or debating either. I'm only interested in the truth.

1. I wrote on my blog that it was a lie what you wrote. And to me it is. It might not be to you, but it is to me. After looking back at it, I can see I should have worded it differently, as I didn't quote you exactly. You said, "La RVG2010 es la unica biblia en espanol que elimina la confusion!" But, this statement still cannot be true. For the 1602 P eliminated the confusion way before the Gomez, when it read "la estrella de la manana" years before the Gomez ever said that. So maybe you should consider revising that part of your tract.

2. The 1602 P did change "salud" to "salvacion" but not because the 1960 did so (They refused to even look at the 1960 in their revision work). It was because there were older protestant versions that had the word salvacion. The 1602 P also tried to be faithful to the old 1602 as much as possible. As I read the Gomez, I do not see that. It chose to use many words that are in the 1960 and even the NIV in Spanish, even when the original 1602 Castellan word is fine. Why change synonyms, especially when the old RV word is fine? I'm well aware that the 1865 crowd calls EVERY SPANISH BIBLE AFTER 1881 a MODERNISTIC VERSION. That's what they do. And I don't know anybody more wanting to argue and debate than those behind the 1865. I'm not like them, nor do I want to be. I'm not interested in arguing, attacking, or calling names. Let me be clear, I'm glad people are using a purer version than the 1960! If you want to use the Gomez or the 1865 or the 1862, go right ahead. I'm not trying to tell you at all what version to use. I'm just giving as many facts as I can to show people the truth, because I want them to decide for themselves. Nothing wrong with that! Huh? That's my ministry. And I try to give all the facts. Now, on my blog, I gave an opinion. An opinion based upon much study of the issue. If you don't agree, then we can agree to disagree! :) But shouldn't a guy be entitled to his own opinion?

3. I get quite a lot of people emailing me (who speak Spanish), who tell me what they think after they've studied both the Gomez and the 1602 P. They are from all over the world, and even in Europe and Central and South America. (Not a "small circle"). They are saying what I said they were saying in my blog. They are reading my books online, and studying the issue for themselves, and THEY ARE TAKING ME SERIOUSLY. (Or maybe I should say they are taking the 1602 Purified seriously). They only want a pure Spanish Bible, but they want a CASTELLAN Spanish Bible like the 1602 P, and not a revised 1960 version (Which is what a lot of them are saying the Gomez is, as it reads so closely to the 1960 because of many of the words Mr. Gomez chose are the same words in the 1960, and not the ones from the original 1602 and 1569. I believe we shoud have a true Reina-Valera Bible, revised with the right texts, and not a modern version revised with the right texts. We should go BACK to the original 1602 and bring it in line with the texts underlying the KJV and not FORWARD to a version like the 1960 or 1909 and then try to bring it back in line with the right texts. That's the difference between the 1602 P and the Gomez.) You are right in saying the RVG is being "widely accepted." But just because a lot of people accept something doesn't mean much. The majority isn't always right. With your logic, then we should all become Catholics and use the NIV, because that's the largest religon, and that's the most widely accepted version today! I've seen that most of the Spanish Bible Issue is about Politics; something I don't want any part of. I'm interested more in purity of the texts.

4. I don't know what you mean by the main authority for the 1602 P being a woman, I assume you refer to Gail Riplinger. Well, she is not the main authority. You want to know who the authority is for the 1602P? That would be God, first and foremost. And then it would be both Reina and Valera, who desired a pure Bible, and asked for pious men of God to work together to get one. That's what those behind the 1602 P did. They followed Valera's preface and his desire. They should be honored for it, and not "ignored" which is the case with those who push the Gomez. (Speaking of women, what about the stories of women helping to do the translation work behind the Gomez? I've personally heard several times that men who were missionaries to Spanish-Speaking countries went to their hispanic wives and said things like, "What do YOU think this verse should say?" Is that true???)

5. I'm not "concerned" that you don't mention the 1602P. I just believe it's rather deceitful that you and others don't. It should be mentioned, especially since Mr. Gomez used it for several years before he put out his own version. (Some have told me that they think he just copied our 1602P and used synonyms to make it look like his own work. I don't know, but that's what his first edition looks like, except for where he makes really weird changes like telling a man it's okay to marry his own daughter, and having Jesus go to a party where people are drinking LIQUOR!) A friend who also wrote a book for Chick and had it published there, told me, and I paraphase of course, "I'm not going to mention your 1602P because I don't like you anymore, and I don't think people need to hear about your version." That's been the attitude I've been seeing by those who use the Gomez. They aren't willing to even acknowledge the 1602P, even though it came out BEFORE the GOMEZ, and it is a very scholarly work of almost three times as much study as the Gomez itself (It's was the work of almost 15 years). My attitude is: "Buy a Gomez Bible and buy a 1602P and read them both side by side with the Textus Receptus, the Hebrew Masoretic, and the KJV and THEN decide for yourself!" The least the Gomez crowd could do is say the same thing. If you've got nothing to worry about, then why not mention the 1602P more? Why the cover up? What are you afraid of? Also, to the contrary of what you've stated, the 1602P did not "take the words 'the brother of' out of 2 Sam. 21:19." If you'll check the original 1602 you'll see those words were never in the text in Spanish (only in the footnote on the side of the page). Those words are in the KJV and are in italics! So you can't say it's a mistake to "take out" something that wasn't there to begin with in the original 1602. Also, if it's in italics, shouldn't that be something you shouldn't try to start an arguement about??? I'm trusting the Lord to get the truth out. I'm not a follower of MAN, or MEN but a follower of GOD, and I follow him according to my conscience, and to his word. Thank you that your heart goes out to me. But I do not see any bitterness in my heart. Discouragement, perhaps, but bitterness, no. Persecution complex? Well, who knows. All I know is: 2 Tim 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.2 Tim 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. I'm truly sorry you think I think everyone is apostate but me. I really don't want to come across that way. I guess I'll just sit here under my juniper tree with my Elijah complex for now. But in the mean time, I'm doing the best I can to get people to hear the other side of the story and to see the 1602 Purified for what it is, THE ORIGINAL 1602, PURIFED! And not a new translation done by a man who changed a lot of old RV words (that have been around for over 400 years) with modern words that just happen to match the 1960 and even the spanish NIV. Could it be for other reasons than apostasy that the 1602 P is not being accepted? Maybe it's just because people haven't heard about it! Why not mention it. I mention the Gomez in my book about which Bible in Spanish. In fact, I mention all Spanish Bibles. I believe in telling people the WHOLE STORY and not just point them to one thing while covering up another. It's funny that you say I'm bitter and how I always write in my writings that "I preached myself out of the ministry," because I only wrote that blog a few days ago. And funnier still, that you should say I'm mad at the Gomez and try to attack it. Because almost everyone who contacts me via email that has read my website says almost the same thing, "I've been studying the Spanish Bible Issue for years and your site is the only one that presents the facts clearly and in order without attacking, lamblasting, and just arguing all the time. I appreciate that!" Funnier too, that you should say that I'm bitter, hurt, and defeated. I recently got an email from someone who said, "Bro. Breaker, I'm just curious why the Gomez crowd attacks you so vehementely. I've read your website and it's really good, and you are so very nice. Why do you think they attack you so?" Weird, isn't it? I'm not interested in attacking, arguing, debating, or anything else. I just want present the facts. Here's one: The word PALABRA is found in the original 1569, 1602, and even the Enzinas of 1543 and the Juan Perez de Pineda. Why then doesn't the Gomez use it? Why does it use VERBO, when EVERY CATHOLIC BIBLE uses it, as so does the 1865, the 1909, the 1960, the NVI, etc.? That's a good question, isn't it? And I'm serious, and I'm not attacking. Erasmus said he hated the word "VERBUM" in latin (where Verbo comes from in Spanish) and he called it CATHOLIC, and refused to use it in his latin translation, instead using SERMO. Shouldn't the Gomez use the old RV word there, the old PROTESTANT word there, instead of the pro-catholic, and MODERNISTIC word VERBO? I'd really like to know what you think about that one? And what about JEHOVA? Shouldn't it be SENOR, especially since that's what Juan Perez de Pineda used in his Psalms? ANd that's what both Reina and Valera used in their other writings beside the Bible. Have you read in their prefaces what they said about SENOR? It was because they were anti-semitic that they used JEHOVA. (They called the Jews "supersticiosos" for not trying to pronounce Jehova). Is it good to use anti-semitic words? The 1602 P uses SENOR (notice in all caps just like the KJV). Why doesn't the Gomezz? I hope I haven't come across as "bitter," "angry," or "attacking." I hope you will look at the words, and not at what you perceived the tone to be. I appreciate you praying for me and my ministry. I am and will continue to do the same for you. I only ask you to PREACH SALVATION BY FAITH ALONE IN THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST, for there are too many good men out there preaching another Gospel: A BLOODLESS GOSPEL. These things ought not so to be. Preach the BLOOD, the BOOK, and the BLESSED HOPE.

Sincerely in Christ Jesus our Lord, and only through his precious blood,

Robert R. Breaker III

1 Sam. 12:24!"

The Other Sins of Pastors

A lot of people like to talk about "double-married Preachers," and say all sorts of bad things about them. One thing a lot of Fundamentalists say is that a man can't be married more than once and stand in a pulpit as a Pastor and preach. But is this so, biblically? What about a guy whose wife has died, and he's remarried? Wouldn't he be able to Pastor? A lot of times, they don't think about that. They only want to preach against the sin of divorce. But what about all the other sins a Pastor can commit?

Funnymentalists oftentimes run to the following passage to tell us that it's anti-biblical for a man to be double-married and Pastor a church:

1 Tim 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1 Tim 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1 Tim 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1 Tim 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1 Tim 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1 Tim 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1 Tim 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Modern Fundamentalists are quick to point out that according to verse two, a bishop or a pastor should only be the husband of one wife. They say that one means one, and that to be double-married disqualifies a man from the ministry and the call of God to be a Pastor. Well, I'm not going to tell you what I believe about that verse.

But I am going to ask this important question, "What about all the other things listed there???"

Why do Fundamentalists conviniently leave out those other things that are listed? If we look at them, and we follow their logic, then a man who is guilty of the following other things is DISQUALIFIED according to the scriptures:

1. A man who is not "blameless."

2. A man who is not vigilant.

3. A man who is not sober.

4. A man of bad behaviour.

5. A man who is not given to hospitality.

6. A man who is not apt to teach.

7. A man who is given to wine.

8. A man who hits or has hit someone else in anger.

9. A man who is greedy of ill-gotten gains.

10. A man who is impatient.

11. A man who is who is quick to beats up others.

12. A man who is covetous.

13. A man who doesn't rule his own house

14. A man who is a novice.

15. A man who is not prideful.

16. A man who is of good report.

Notice how many "qualifications" of a Pastor that there really are. Why don't Pastors just be consistent, for they want to go around and exclaim, "So and so can't be a Pastor because he's been divorced!" But they never go around and say, "So and so can't be a Pastor because he's INHOSPITABLE, or IMPATIENT or HE LET'S HIS WIFE WEAR THE PANTS IN THE FAMILY, or HE'S FULL OF PRIDE!"

Why don't we hear talk of those other "qualifications" listed in this passage as well? I think it's because there would be a whole lot less pastors in the world if we tried to hold them all to these standards!

I'm reminded of Jesus when he said, "Let him that hath no sin, cast the first stone!"

I'm not a "double-married" Preacher. I've only been married once. But I know and have known some men who are Pastors that have been married more than once. But instead of just throwing them out the door immediately, as some would do, I look again at the scripture.

Notice the scripture doesn't use the term "double-married." Instead it says, "Husband of one wife." And, as I've known some Pastors who have been married more than once, I've noticed something interesting. They only have one wife at home! There is not two or three women running around their house. They have only one wife. Some of them their wife died, and they remarried, and now they have only one wife. Others, their wife ran off and left them, and went to a wicked world system and divorced them. This left them divorced, WITHOUT A WIFE! That woman then remarried someone else, which left the Pastor scripturally able to remarry, which he did. If you went to their house today, you would find only ONE WIFE. Wouldn't that mean they were still qualified to Pastor???

Now, on to the other side of the coin, I've also met some Pastors that didn't qualify very well on those other points.

One thing I really hate is being invited to a meeting, and the Pastor putting my wife and I up in a hotel somewhere. What about the Pastor being HOSPITABLE? Shouldn't he put us up at his house, or maybe with someone in the church? Instead, he puts us up in a hotel somewhere, and we hardly ever get to fellowship. That just doesn't seem right. Can you imagine the Apostle Paul going to a church 2000 years ago, and the Pastor saying, "Okay, Paul, we appreciate your coming so far to us, but we don't want you in our home, so we're putting you up in the Imperial Roman Inn, and I hope you have a good time there. See you on Sunday!" Somehow I just don't see that happening!

We also see a Pastor should be "apt to teach." Where does that leave those Pastors who only preach on Sunday, but let someone else teach their Sunday School? Shouldn't the Pastor be the one teaching it? I mean, uh, you know, that's what the Bible says, right?

What about the "bad behaviour" qualification? I've met Pastors who don't behave nicely. They are mean to their wives, mean to their kids, and more. Further, their testimony with those that are without (lost people) leaves much to be desired, as they stiff waitresses at fancy restaurants, and snootily look down their noses at others with a "holier then thou" attitude. Does that sound like the way a "man of God" should act to you???

And then there are the "brawlers" and "those who are strikers." I can't tell you how many times I've heard a Pastor brag (and yes, even from the pulpit) about smacking around some guy in the congregation who he thinks should do better, or hitting someone he doesn't agree with, or slapping somebody in the face. How is that a good thing? And shouldn't that automatically disqualify them from the Pastorate?

Then there are those who are IMPATIENT! Boy, that pretty much hammers all of us, doesn't it? They say, "The one thing you should never pray for is Patience!"

Yep, there are quite a few Pastors who grow very impatient with how slowly their church is growing, and waiting on God to bring in the people and the money to build a bigger building, so they go to the SECULAR WORLD BANKS and get loans to build bigger facilities before they are even filled up. Oh, they are very pious about it, claiming, "We have faith to believe that God will fill the building after we construct it!" But they fail to realize they are disobeying the scriptures which say, "Owe a debt to no man!"

How many times has a Preacher taken a church and immediately started a building project, and then left the church suddenly, high and dry, with a massive debt to pay off? Too many times to count! Shouldn't that guy have been disqualified? Why weren't other preachers preaching against him? Sounds like he had a great "lack of faith," doesn't it?

And then we come to "covetous." Oh where do I begin with this one? I've met Pastors who covet quite frequently, wanting the best of everything. They want a car of the year, a nice house, the best suit, etc. Basically, they want it all, exclaiming, "I'm serving a great God, and I know he'd want me to have the best, because I represent Him!"

Shouldn't a guy like that be completely disqualified? Yet Fundamentalists buy into that mentality, and have to have the most expensive suits, cars, etc. Like one preacher said, "All a Pastor needs is a couple of three piece suits, several three point outlines, and about three old jokes and he's ready for the ministry!"

Obviously, there are much more "qualifications" of a Pastor than just being the Husband of one Wife. So why don't you hear about them? Hmmm. Could it be Pastors are guilty of some of them, and that's why they don't want them mentioned? Nooooooo! Oh, no, that couldn't be it, .... could it?

I was taught in Bible School that those points in 1 Tim. 3 are the "ideal qualifications" of the Pastor. For nobody is without sin. And that a Pastor should strive to be like those points listed. If you don't believe that, that's fine. But if you are going to go the other way, and dogmatically say, "Those are the qualifications of a Pastor, and a Pastor HAS TO MEET ALL THOSE POINTS or else he can't Pastor!" Then don't you have a big mess on your hands?

Don't just go after those "double-married" guys. You'd better go after those covetous, impatient, prideful, moneygrubbing, praise loving, inhospitable, Pastors out there interested only in beating people up instead of teaching others how to be meek and humble. I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? ...Right? ... Is this thing on? Hello, ... Hello?

Well, I've gone to meddling, so I'd better quit. But think about it, okay? All sin is the same in God's eyes!

BAPTIST POPES

In these last days of apostasy (boy, how many times have I had to say that?), we see a lot of sin entering into Bible-Believing churches. And we also see many anti-biblical practices gaining much ground. One of these is the modernistic teaching of PASTORAL AUTHORITY, as it has been twisted by many a Fundamentalist Pastor to grant himself almost tyrannical power, as he not only leads his flock, but abuses his position by treating them as his subjects, over which he pretends to be their king.

I've personally heard of one Pastor who tells his congregation that they need to come to him for everything, and they should check with him before they make any decisions whatsoever! Stories have surfaced of this dogmatical Pastor which tell of people coming to him for such ridiculous things as: "What color car should I buy?" and "How many kids should my wife and I have?" and "Where should I work secularly?"

But, it's not the job of a Pastor to tell people what they can and can't do and what they should and shouldn't do! We are all individuals who are allowed "individual soul liberty" (a Baptist doctrine, by the way), in which we have the right to choose what we want to do. We all have a free will, (which is a Bible Doctrine!).

To hear of a Pastor teaching his people that they must come to him and let him in on all their decisions is nothing short of setting up a religious cult which gives honor to a man instead of God, and sets a man up as a "Pope" instead of a Pastor. Sadly, this teaching of exaltation of the Pastor to allow him to run your life is gaining much ground in Independent Baptist Churches, and more and more people are finding themselves enslaved physically to someone who is only supposed to be their spiritual leader.

What saith the scriptures about this practice of a preacher dominating his congregation and making them do obescience to Him instead of Jesus?

The Bible has a lot to say actually. Let us start with the command to Pastors in 1 Peter 5:2-3: "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock."

Here we are told that the number one thing a man of God (a Pastor) should do is to FEED his congregation. By this, he is supposed to give them the word of God. Notice, he is not supposed to do so for filthy lucre (i.e. Fame and Fortune), which is another sin we could talk about. (There are many "hirelings" out there that fill pulpits who are only interested in the financial aspect of the ministry instead of the spiritual aspect of it). Nor is he to preach because he is "constrained" to do so. He should willingly want to minister to the people of God, and he should be an EXAMPLE to them of how they should live for Jesus.

These men who "lord over God's heritage" are those who do so for money and who enjoy the power and prestige of their position, and they use that for their own filthy and carnal gain. This is something that greatly angers God. (See Revelation chapter 2 in what God says about the Nicolaitanes).

God does not want Christians to "rule" over other Christians. He is very much against this. He wants them to "minister" to the needs of others. (Read Rom. 12:5-13). And the job of a Pastor is to be a "minister." In 1 Peter 4:8-11 we read of the importance of charity, hospitality, and grace, which are all things a minister is supposed to practice:

And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins. Use hospitality one to another without grudging. As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Notice this is a far cry from a DICTATORSHIP, which is how many modern pastors try to govern their congregations.

Jesus said the following in Matthew 20:25-28: "But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."

This plainly teaches us that a Pastor should not try to "excercise dominion" over his people, but rather should love them enough to die for them, as Christ died for the church, and to minister to his people as a servant does his master.

Immediately some bald-headed, Baptist dictator who is used to twisting the scriptures to his own destruction would stand up and say, "But what about Hebrews 13:17?"

Let us turn and read it together:

"Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you."

He would then say, "See there! That means they should obey ME!"

I would only ask in return, "Do you really watch after the souls of your congregation. Are you really ready to give account to God for actions? Are you really JOYOUS in your role as Pastor?" For the verse also speaks of those things as well.

Again, that same Christian dictator would point us to 1 Tim 5:17 which reads: "Let the elders that RULE WELL be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. "

And that Baptist papist would say, "See there? A Pastor is supposed to RULE the church, and he's supposed to RULE it WELL!"

But he fails to read the entire verse (par for course), seeing only what he wants to, while he disregards the rest. For we read in that same verse he is to rule SPIRITUALLY by labouring in the "word" and "doctrine." In other words, he's to PREACH the word of God and reprove, rebuke and exhort his congregation while being longsuffering (2 Tim. 4:1-5).

Yes, there is a place for the role of the Pastor. Of course there is. But Paul never wanted people to worship him and follow him as though he was a Pope. He even said, "Be ye followers of me, EVEN AS I AM ALSO OF CHRIST!"

There is no problem following a man of God who is living right, preaching the word of God, and doing his best to follow the Lord. But when that Pastor tries to dominate you and tell you that you must obey his every whim and will, then we have a problem. He has shown himself to be a "lord" over God's heritage, and has proven he only cares about himself and his power and not about the congregation.

The Pastor of the Local Church is the SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY in a position that is not one of phycial governance, but that of ministering unto the saints. Most preachers don't understand this. They think they have to be in charge and they have to direct things. But why not just preach the word of God with boldness and with love and let God guide, lead, and direct?

God is not looking for little sheriffs to go around and straighten out all the messes and force people to do something against their will. God chose Pastors to preach and teach the word of God to help Christians grow in the Lord. In fact, we read of what God desires a Pastor to be in 1 Tim. 3:2-7:

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."

Notice it speaks of the pastor (what the Bible calls a bishop) "ruling his own house well," but also notice it doesn't say anything about "ruling the Church." The Holy Spirit chose instead the words "take care of the church." That's a Pastor's job, and that of a minister. He is to "take care" of what's been left in his care.

We are further warned of a Pastor not being lifted up with pride, lest he fall into condemnation, reproach, and the snare of the devil. Pastors who try to become Baptist Popes, are often times guilty of becoming "prideful" thinking they are right and everyone else is wrong, and only they know what the Bible says and what a person should do. So their attitude becomes: "It's my way or the highway!"

But what about actually caring so much for a person that you cry for them, you earnestly pray for them, and you nicely try to reach them time and again, reasoning with them from the scriptures? Wouldn't that be more like a "minister."

I've personally met Pastors who's attitude is: "I'm in charge here, and if you don't like it, GET OUT!"

And instead of showing people how to get close to God, they push them away by their dogmatical and dictatorial spirit. Just like the Popes of old, they persecute others who don't agree with them. And, instead of sitting down and talking with someone and going to the scriptures for guidance, they say things like, "That's the way we've always done it, and we are going to do things this way whether you like it or not! I've decided, and that's how it's going to be done."

Shouldn't there at least be a little room for discussion? Maybe, you know, some time spent in prayer, and, oh no, should I even say it, as most people don't like to hear this word, fasting?

Nope, Baptist Popes will have none of those, thinking they know what's best and people must do as they are told, or else.

Look how different this attitude of many modern day Baptist Dictators compares to that of the Apostle Paul. In Ephesians 3:7-8 we read:

"Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ."

Notice Paul calls himself a "minister" (not a dictator), and he doesn't exalt his office, or try to make himself appear to be a person of authority. He refers to himself as "the least of all saints."

And again, we see Paul's humble spirit when we read:

"Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities. For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me. And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure." (2 Cor 12:5-7)

Paul did not want to be exalted above measure. He would rather glory in Christ Jesus, and point others to Him.

So what do we do with Baptist Popes and Pastoral Dictators? We should do nothing, except pray for them, and if we can, talk to them and express our concerns, being careful to do so with the scriptures. If they listen, and see the error of their ways, then praise the Lord. If not, there is no law that says you have to be a member of their church. You still have the right to choose your membership to any church you want to belong!

It's important that you should make sure you are following a Pastor who looks at you as a Christian, a friend, and a partner in the cause of Christ, and not just a a "tither" a "seat warmer in the pew," and another "baptism he can brag about." For most Baptist Popes quite often use their congregations as a means to an ends, instead of caring about them, and being willing to serve them while ministering to their needs.

The Apostle Paul said it best in writing to Timothy, a young preacher:

These things command and teach. Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. (1 Tim 4:11-12 )