Using Technology to be a Devotional Leader

cell-phone-2

This article does not merit a long, drawn out introduction or explanation, so I will get right to the point. Men, are you being the devotional leader in your home? Women, this same line of questioning goes for you too if you have children. When I say devotional leader, by that I mean, are you carving out time from your day or week to feed your family with the Word of God? This can be done through established Bible study, or short lessons everyday about Scriptural truths. I’m going to reveal one way in which this can be done, but for the sake of brevity, are you making an effort to pass along Scripture verses that you have recently read or lessons that God has taught you from His word? The key here is that you are already setting aside personal devotional time with Christ, which automatically should overflow to your family. I’m not talking about forcing time to develop a sermonette so that you can share some elaborate dissertation with your wife or children. I’m talking about genuinely spending time to be with Christ through His word and simply sharing what was learned with your family. If nothing was “learned,” at the very least, find a Bible verse that you feel would be some encouragement or edification to them.

If you are anything like me, you probably have a job. And finding time can be frustrating if you are extremely busy. However, using technology is an excellent and simple way to share golden nuggets from Scripture that do not merit a long conversation. Let me reiterate that again. We often think that sharing God’s truths require long or elaborate explanations in order to have an effective transaction. This may be true when we learn something that requires a bit of background information, but there are acres of Scriptural truths that can be shared with a simple click. Case in point.

One day, as I was reading Proverbs, I came across Proverbs 14:26 which says, “In the fear of the LORD there is strong confidence, And His children will have a place of refuge.” Does this Scripture require a through explanation? Depending on why I am sending it and the situational/scriptural context, perhaps. However, since this Scripture was simple enough to understand, I took the initiative to send this verse as a text to my wife. She responded, “Amen!” After that, there was nothing more to be said. But I wanted to share with her something that I thought would encourage her.

Keep in mind that this is only one example. Also, remember that this is not a suitable substitute for actually discussing Scriptural truths at dedicated times throughout the week, but can be an effective way to share really quick, easy to understand truths that God has revealed to us. Furthermore, you may strike oil (figuratively speaking) and may open a fountain of conversation by sending these tiny devotionals. Moreover, think about how many texts, emails, and social media posts are created daily that are not specifically for the edification of our spouses or children? A little personal message may go a long way.

Whether using texts, emails, or social media, take advantage of these avenues to edify your family. Gold dust is seemingly worthless until you gather enough of it, melt it down to make golden bars. The same is true sending these tiny, seemingly insignificant texts or media messages that contain small, but golden, truths of Scripture. After a long while of gathering and sending, they will have become important bricks in priming and building up your family in the most holy faith.

alluvial-gold-dust-particles

“Not One Iote or One Title…”

“Not One Iote or One Title…”: A Plea for Original Spelling by John Bookman [Pseudo.]

[Attention–this is a SATIRE] KING-JAMES-ONLY-115396838242

by Doug Kutilek

www.kjv-only.com/doug/spelling.html

Just days ago, I realized that we have not gone far enough in insisting that the Bible be preserved unchanged “in the form God intended for us to have.” Of course, I speak of the infallible, inerrant, verbally-inspired and unalterably preserved English Bible, the Authorized Version (AV 1611), “the Bible God uses and Satan hates.” Sure, there are lots of zealous defenders who have shielded it from the corruptions of such heinous translations as the NIV, the NASB and that most sinister NKJB, and have kept us from returning to the now-completely-unnecessary Hebrew and Greek. But while they kept their watch on one front, the Enemy has come in unawares by another route and sown seeds of corruption that have, I fear, already yielded a corrupt harvest.

What am I getting at? Simply this: we have insisted on the verbal inspiration of the English, that is, that the very English words were divinely chosen and given to the Learned Men. But simply insisting on the perfection of the English words and preserving the words is not enough. A careful consideration of the true intent and meaning of the words of Matthew 5:18 is necessary: “Till heauen and earth passe, one iote or one title, shall in no wise passe from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (I have made no mistake in my spelling, as I shall shortly explain). Notice how Jesus insisted on the verbal inspiration, not just of the words, but also of the very letters of the words of Scripture. And since this verse is a specific promise of the preservation of Scripture in our infallible English Bible, we must insist on following, not just the original KJV words but also their very spelling. What other meaning can we draw out of the words “one iote or one title”? Every letter–the very spelling–is certainly inspired, and to alter the spelling of a single word, to alter even a single letter in a single word, is to deny and reject the inspiration of the AV 1611. If God had wanted us to spell the words in the AV 1611 different in our Bibles, He would have given them to us in that form originally. Modern spelling is as hideous and hateful a thing as modern translations. Its new age corruption, pure and simple. No one was ever authorized to corrupt, to “modernize” the infallible original spelling. There are eight spelling corruptions in John 3:16 alone!!!

I’m sure some “liberal” soul will say, “What difference does spelling make?” Argue it out with Jesus, brother! Didn’t He say that inspiration of the words included the very spelling, every iote, not just the words? Will you reject the teaching of Matthew 5:18 of letter/spelling inspiration of our preserved AV 1611? To stop at “word inspiration” and not insist on spelling inspiration is to be second cousin to mere “thought inspiration.” It is creeping apostasy, through and through. Next someone will deny the inspiration of the chapter and verse numberings in the AV 1611. Where will it stop?

And I think we must recognize that Jesus’ infallible English word was “title” and not the now-corrupted “tittle.” A tittle is part of the ornamentation of a Hebrew letter (at least that’s what I’ve heard at Fellowship meetings, so I have assurance that it’s right). But a title is something else. I have complete confidence that this promise of Jesus was a specific reference to the preservation of the chapter and page headings, the titles found in the original AV 1611. Sadly, those infallible titles, attached by the Learned Men under divine inspiration at the top of each page and at the beginning of each chapter have been removed from our modern editions. Without them, we cannot claim that we have a perfectly preserved Bible, and by allowing them to be removed, we have called God a liar, and denied that He is able to preserve the inspired English Bible He has given us.

It is no secret that none of the commonly used English Bibles published in our day have the original AV 1611 spelling, or punctuation (that, too, is part of our directly inspired, infallible English Bible) or titles of which Jesus spoke, so in reality, these Bibles, even though they say “King James Version” or “Authorized Version” are really not Bibles at all. Only the Nelson reprint of the original 1611 AV is a real Bible; all the others are sinister corruptions.

And there is growing upon me the deep conviction, as deep as anything I’ve written in this article, that no English-speaking person can be saved if he was not saved by an original, unaltered AV 1611, with original spelling, original punctuation, and original chapter and page titles. This simply means that anyone who thought he was saved by reading a revised “KJV” or by hearing a sermon from such a “Bible” or by reading a Gospel tract that quoted the words in a revised spelling form, even if it was labelled “KJV” is not really saved, has never been saved, and never will be saved until he gets a true, fully-preserved AV 1611. That will mean that virtually all those who thought they were saved–preachers, deacons and all–will have to go back and get truly saved through a real AV 1611, then get rebaptized. Verbal inspiration of the English requires inspiration of the very spelling as well. Anything less is rank modernism.

I will confess to one further worry: original type style. The real AV 1611 was printed in what printers call “black letter,” a very ornate type style much like Gothic script, which is still used many times for the banner at the top of the front page of newspapers. This original type style was replaced with “Roman” type sometime in the 18th century. Note that name: Roman. I fear that once again, the Jesuits have conspired to corrupt the pure word in English. They have taken away the original Gothic (and as everyone knows, the Gothic Bible used the textus receptus for its foundation which proves with certainty that the Gothic was the correct script for a real Bible), and have substituted the corrupt Roman script. In a real sense, even the KJV has become a Roman Bible, since its modern editions use Roman script and not the original black letter. As further proof that Roman type is a corruption, notice that all these apostate Bibles–the ERV, ASV, NASB, NIV, NKJB, and the rest, have always been printed in Roman type. That’s proof enough to me that any Bible in Roman type is no Bible at all, and that only a Bible with the original script, the black letter, given to us in the form we should have it by the Learned Men, is a true Bible. Perhaps even those saved by the true original spelling KJV are not saved at all, and must locate a black letter edition. The Roman script Nelson reprint may not be enough (it’s just like those Bible corrupters at Thomas Nelson to pass off a Roman script KJV as though it were a real Bible!). Fortunately for me, my brother has a facsimile reprint in the original black letter of the AV 1611, and I’m secure since I’ve studied out of it several times.

It is a desperate situation. The shortage of black letter, original spelling AV 1611 Bibles is severe. There is truly a famine of the preserved word of God in the land. And all our efforts at preaching, teaching, Bible study, and soul winning are completely futile until we return to the real, unaltered, perfectly preserved bonafide AV 1611. Perhaps the best thing to do for the present is to send off and buy one of those pages from an original KJV, and if you can get a page that has a salvation verse, or part of the “Romans road,” perhaps there will be enough of the Gospel in the true preserved English to rescue your soul.

[As a service to the reader, so he can be saved through a real AV 1611, I will quote John 3:16; unfortunately, I have no capacity to reproduce the original black letter script, so even believing the unrevised spelling may not be enough, but we can hope for the best:

For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

And just today, I came to understand that the only proper format for any Bible is in scroll form (or at least loose-leaf), since the Apostle assures us that “the word of God is not bound.” Therefore any book that is bound, regardless of its printed contents, cannot honestly be said to be the word of God. I’m sure the inspired 1611 translators never intended for their translation to come sown and within leather covers. Such would be a travesty, in light of the Apostle’s clear and plain teaching.

I’ve begun the systematic unstitching of all my sewn Bibles so that they can qualify, according to Paul’s definition, as the word of God. I urge you to do the same.

A Tale of Two Sabbaths

A Tale of Two Sabbaths

Stuart BrogdenSabbath

The Bible declares itself to be sufficient for life and godliness for those indwelt by the Holy Spirit. This is the concept behind the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. People who truly hold to this doctrine will not embrace dogma that cannot be clearly taught from God’s Word. While there are myriad issues that divide denominations and churches from one another, one’s view of the Sabbath appears to be one of major contention amongst those who embrace the idea of Sola Scriptura. Within this arena there is a coalition who herald the Puritan view of the Sabbath, which is recorded in the Westminster and Second London Baptist confessions. What follows is a comparison between the biblical description of the weekly Sabbath and the confessional views of Christian Sabbatarians, according to the Second London Baptist Confession in chapter 22. Let the reader decide if the Puritans and those confessions had it right or followed traditions of man.

Biblical Sabbath “Christian Sabbath”
Every 7th day (Ex 16:27-30, Ex 20:8-11, 31:15, 35:2; Lev 23:3; Deut 5:14) Para 7: Claims “law of nature … by Gods appointment” a “moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages” (no Scripture citation). One day in Seven (Ex20:8). Changed from the last day of the week to the first day of the week (citing 1 Cor 16:1-2; Acts 20:7); claiming “Christian Sabbath” as the Biblical Sabbath was abolished (no Scripture citation).
Rest from all work (Ex 16:23, 25; 20:8-10; 35:2; Lev 23:3; Num 15:32; Deut 5:12-15; Jer 17:21) Para 8: Rest from all things (Isaiah 58:13; Neh 13:15-22).
Remain in your dwelling (Ex 16:29; Lev 23:3) Private and public worship are commanded (para 8; no Scripture citation)
It is a sign to the Israelite (Ex 31:13, 16, 17; Lev 24:8; 2 Chr 2:4; Neh 9:14; Ezek 20:12, 20)
Death penalty for violating it, even minor activities such as picking up sticks (Ex 31:14-15; Num 15:32-36)
No fires for cooking, Sabbath day meals were prepared the day before (Ex 35:3)
Ceremonial bread, made in accordance with a strict formula, was presented (Lev 24:8; 1 Chr 9:32)
Offerings – consisting of lambs, grain, and drink (Num 28:9, 10)
Soldiers/priests guard the temple (2 Kings 11:5-12; 2 Chr 23:4-8)
Gentiles not bound (Deut 5:15; Neh 10:31) All men are bound (para 7; Ex 20:8)
Prohibited from business (buying or selling) with Gentiles (Neh 10:31, 13:15-19)
Gentiles invited to join with God’s people and keep the Sabbath (Isaiah 56:1-7)
Israel to keep the Sabbath (Isaiah 58:13)
Duties of necessity and mercy are permitted (para 8; Matt 12:1-13)
No bearing of burdens (Jer 17:21-27)

Notes:

  1. The Second London Baptist Confession (1689 LBC) cites Exodus 20:8 for setting the Sabbath one day in seven and for binding all men. That verse does not mention the frequency of the Sabbath; verses 10 & 11 both specify the 7th day, that day which ended the week for the Hebrew nation. Every 7th day, not one day in seven – that’s the consistent record in Scripture. Neither does that passage mention anyone other than national Israel as the subjects of this covenant and this specific command.
  2. The 1689 LBC then claims 1 Cor 16:1-2 and Acts 20:7 as a record of God having changed the day of observing the Sabbath. Read the texts – narratives showing the practice of the new church on “the day after the Sabbath.” No instruction or record of changing the Sabbath; no record of establishing the “Christian Sabbath” or abolishing the 7th day Sabbath, which continued on during the Lord’s time on earth and the apostolic era.
  3. Because of the death penalty for minor infractions of the Sabbath command to rest (as shown in Ex 31 & Num 15), it was common in Israel for the people to ask the religious leaders for clarification of what was permissible. This developed into the complex, legalistic list of rules that were infamous in the time of Christ.
  4. The “holy convocation” mentioned in Lev 23:3 is widely considered to have been a call to prayer, praise, and instruction from the Word of God. But the biblical record (Ex 12; Lev 23; Num 28 & 29) shows a consistent requirement to cease work, with cooking meals being the only exception. There is the occasional mention of humbling one’s self, making offerings to God, and the blowing of trumpets. Some of these convocations lasted several days or weeks. There is nothing in Scripture to indicate this was a weekly occurrence of prayer, praise, and preaching; although extra-biblical history does show the post-exile nation adopting the weekly synagogue practice that was well established by the time of Christ.
  5. There are many special Sabbaths, such as the Day of Atonement (Lev 23:32) and the Sabbath year (Lev 25). This comparison is restricted to the weekly Sabbath.
  6. Nehemiah 13:20-22 reveals the only passage in Scripture wherein Gentiles are told about the Sabbath, their merchants being warned to leave the Jews alone on the Sabbath so the Jews won’t be led astray. Gentiles are not commanded by Nehemiah to keep the Sabbath.
  7. There is not one Scripture cited by the 1689 showing the weekly Sabbath being addressed to, defined for, imposed on, or required of anyone other than those under the rule of Moses. Nor is there any biblical record of Christians keeping the Sabbath.

Science, The New Hate Speech.

It should be no surprise to any believer that the Christian worldview is going to be hated. Jesus promised that those that follow Him will be hated because they really hate Christ Himself. But we are entering into a new area of deceit. An era that will not even heed or reason according to its own authority. An era where it is okay to contradict your own worldview because there are no absolutes, and there is no way to tell whether or not what we know is right, right?

This kind of postmodern buffoonery has disparagingly rooted itself deeper by denying the most fundamental knowledge in the scientific community – what makes us male or female. Here is a great illustration of what is common knowledge concerning how gender assignment occurs in the most basic of biological text books.

 

 

ChromosomesIf you have read anything about genetics, this is how this chart works. Typically (I’m saying typically for a reason, which you will see below), the sperm will enter the egg during intercourse where the egg houses the X chromosomes. Gender is determined by the sperm, because it can have the X or Y Chromosomes. When we have XX, it is girl. When we mix XY, we have a boy. But wait, there’s more! There is a gene present in the Y chromosome called SRY protein. This gene is responsible for initiating male sex determination in humans, which then will typically cause testes to grow. Wherever this protein is absent, ovaries will grow instead. There are other factors that affect development of sexual organs, but overall, this is how sex determination works. For a great graphic visual of how this works, go here. (Warning: This video goes over anatomy. Although it doesn’t show actual human genitalia, it does reveal the process via computer graphics)

However, because of the fall of Adam in the garden, this process does not always work together harmoniously. Disorders of sexual development (DSD), or atypical genitalia, is a condition which can be diagnosed with various kinds of outcomes, including hermaphroditism. The percentage of people that can be classified as true hermaphrodites are very small. And even though there are other conditions that are likened to this, there are procedures in place that can assist parents and doctors to determine the sex of the child. For more reading about this, click here.

Now let us get to the meat of the matter. Since Bruce Jenner’s “sex change,” there has been a circus of people on TV and in the media outlets that are giving their various opinions on this critical issue. The biggest problem I see is that the majority of people who are applauding this behavior are lashing their tongues at those who view this kind of behavior has unnatural. I have read some pretty hateful comments on Vanity Fair’s Facebook page that truly should be deemed hateful. Anything from “sick” to “yuck” to “I just vomited.” But those remarks don’t get nearly as much attention as those that say, “Bruce Jenner is still a man” or something along those lines.

If we were to place the biblical worldview aside, what do you say about those that are calling Bruce by his new name Caitlyn? What about when they address him as she? What should we call those that bow the knee to such an idea that breast implants and facial reconstruction (which is all Bruce has done for now) makes a male female? One thought comes to mind, science haters. That’s right, science haters. Because it seems that science is the new hate speech. If that is too strong, then science deniers is also fitting. Either way a point in this direction needs to be made.

When we reevaluate what exactly makes us male and female from the time of conception, it should cause a reasonable human being to stop for a second and ponder that sex reassignment requires a change of genetic make up! As of right now, that is genetically impossible! For now at least. What’s worse, though, is if you even challenge the idea that Bruce Jenner is still male because of the scientific reasons cited above, you are still labeled a bigot and hateful person. Hold the phone! Am I a bigot because I cite the most fundamental knowledge discovered by the scientific community? Are we to throw out and burn every page that demonstrates to us the most basic knowledge of how we are made male or female? This is pretty scary stuff. Not only are Christians labeled bigots and haters because we state that homosexuality is sinful, but now foundational scientific discoveries are being openly defied in the name of sexual freedom.

America lost its moral fabric a long time ago. Tracing the black thread that has unraveled us to this point would be too much to write and is outside the scope of what I am trying to convey here. But when a country is willing to spit in the face of the most basic of testable, observable, and repeatable proofs concerning our genetic make up, we have indeed jumped off the precipice of moral hypocrisy to pure insanity. People will quote scientific discoveries all day long and will try to pit it against the Bible as if true science contradicts Scripture. They will quote study after study, and journal after journal using a Darwinian worldview in an attempt to demolish and minimize Christianity as being dangerous, insane, and intellectually foolish. But it seems that observable science is only the intellectual high ground when it is convenient.

The fact that the scientific community is not in an uproar concerning the antics put out by the media and liberal activists is not at all surprising to me. Mankind desires to be autonomous and to be free to sin however they like. They will jump from one argument to the next, like a checker piece, to justify their actions and their immorality, even when they know it is inconsistent within their own worldview. The American public has demonstrated that they are willing to overthrow what has been scientifically observable in order that they might celebrate what they feel is a “heroism.” It doesn’t require any specific worldview or a rocket scientist to affirm that X and Y Chromosomes make a male. But we are not to fret. The gospel of Jesus Christ shines the brightest in times like this.

Decade after decade God has shown Himself mighty in nations that have lived in all manner of confusion and debauchery. And there are only a few ways God moves in times like this – judgment or revival (in some ways, a mixture of both). I’m praying to see God glorify Himself through the faithful few who are going to be bold as lions, and will make the effort to speak truth to their neighbor, their co-worker, friends, and family…Christians who will display the love of Christ by opening their mouths wide to proclaim the truth that Jesus saves sinners wherever people are found. We need a holy people to walk righteously before a perverse generation, and to make His gospel known. Let’s be about our master business and be a witness to those that are within our reach. These things that sinful men glory in are temporary, but there is an eternity that awaits us all.

 

Osteen Waffles on the Gospel!

Mark Anthony Escalera:

It is a beautiful day to remind all who proclaim the truth of God’s Word that we must have backbones to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Originally posted on Defending. Contending.:

It is a sad day when some within evangelicalism would classify Joel Osteen as an evangelical Christian. There is no room in Scripture for waffling on the gospel. A person who claims to be a minister of the gospel and yet claim that he doesn’t know whether Jews, Muslims, or Hindus would go to hell if they do not believe in Jesus Christ alone is not worthy to be a minister, and according to Scripture this man is not even a true believer himself. His teaching is nothing short of heresy. True believers, be warned of this wolf in sheep’s clothing. Dr. Steve Lawson does an excellent job addressing Osteen’s waffles.

View original

Evaluating the Strength of Arguments in the Sabbath/Lord’s Day Controversy, Part 1b: What are the Positions?

Manfred:

Here’s part 1 of what looks to be a thought-provoking examination of a controversial topic.

Originally posted on The Sabbath Complete:

With a wider view of the history of the controversy and the various expressions of belief, it is time to examine how each position develops its case. There are similarities among the three major positions and, of course, differences. Below, the three major positions will be briefly evaluated. While it is helpful to understand the basic positions as presented here, it becomes even more important to understand the terminology that allows discourse, the method each position uses to state their case, the relevance of cited materials, and finally, the rules of interpretation. These latter considerations will be discussed in following parts of this series.

A Concise Summary of Positions.[1]

The Lord’s Day (LD) position posits that the Sabbath is a ceremonial law that was fulfilled like other typological laws of the OT that pointed to Christ and His work of redemption. The Lord’s Day on Sunday memorializes the…

View original 2,620 more words