Thursday, December 30, 2010

Seven Places Ministers Twist the Scriptures on the Doctrine of Salvation

I believe the rapture is very soon.  And I really care about the lost and want to see them saved.  The last thing I want to do is deceive people or instruct them to do something foreign to the scriptures.  I just want them to hear the Gospel, believe it, be saved and know it. 
But it never ceases to amaze me just how few other ministers there are out there that don't find this important.  Instead of holding fast to the important Bible doctrine of salvation by faith in God's blood atonement provided us by Jesus Christ, they would rather follow the unitarian teaching of instructing a sinner to just "Ask God to save you."  (This perverted Gospel which oftentimes leaves a Sinner trusting in their PRAYER rather than in Christ's PAYMENT for their sins has been dealt with at length and in detail on my blog.  In case you haven't read it, please  read my blog on Asking versus Trusting.)

The truth is you can beg God for forgiveness a million times over, but until you trust Christ's shed blood alone, you are not saved.  This is sound Bible doctrine.
Why is it then that so many ministers today are teaching salvation is by "asking" rather than by the Scriptural way of "accepting" Jesus as your personal Saviour by FAITH in His Shed Blood? 
I believe the answer is because they have heard others preach the "Beggar's Gospel" for so long they don't even question its validity. 

And, little do they realize that they are twisting the scriptures to teach what they do not.  Let's look now at the Seven most popular verses Preachers use to support their teaching that all a sinner must do to be saved is simply and sincerely "ask" God to forgive them, rather than TRUST God's atonement.


In Luke 18:11-14 we read of the publican who utters the words, "God be merciful to me a Sinner."  Now I've heard it preached, and I'm sure you have too, that all a man must do to be saved is simply repeat those very same words and they will saved just as that publican.  But is that so?  Do those words save us?
Where's the Gospel in this teaching?  Where's the blood?  Where is salvation by grace through faith in Christ's finished work?  It's simply not there. 
As we take a closer look at the passage, we find that Jesus Christ has not yet died on the cross.  (Remember, salvation is by faith in the Gospel, and the Gospel is that Christ DIED, and was buried and rose again the third day according to the scriptures), so this verse is not dealing with New Testament salvation.  It is still under the time of the law.  To take this passage and preach it for New Testament Salvation today is to twist the scriptures! 
We also see the publican was right in front of Jesus Christ, as Jesus was watching what he did.  But the publican by passed Jesus Christ when he uttered his prayer, asking God to forgive him.  Is this the plan of salvation today?  Are we too saved by by-passing Jesus?  Of course not.
How could anyone think that our salvation today could be by doing or saying what this Publican did, rather than by simply TRUSTING in what Jesus did for us at Calvary when he suffered, bled, and died? 
My friend, to teach this passage for salvation, or to instruct a Sinner to simply repeat the words of this Publican for salvation is to twist the scriptures to teach what they do not, and is to make a person think they can be saved by uttering words rather than simply receiving Jesus Christ as their Saviour by faith.


In Matthew 14:28-31 we read of the apostle Peter and of his walking on water as he left the boat and walked to Jesus.  As he began to sink, he cries out those famous words, "Lord, save me!
Now I'm sure you've heard, as I have, those words preached by some Pastor, Missionary, or Evangelist, in which he stresses, "Now if you want to be saved, just call out to God the same way!"  But is that salvation?  Is a man saved by simply saying, "Lord, save me!"
If you'll look at the context, you'll see any man who tries to make this the plan of salvation is blatantly twisting the scriptures to teach what they do not.  For Peter was not asking for the spiritual salvation of his soul.  Instead, he was asking for physical salvation.  He just didn't want to drown! 
Again, the things described in the passage happened before the cross.  How could a man preach this for salvation when it has nothing to do with the Gospel of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection?
Finally, as we faithfully read the context, we find that Peter is strongly REBUKED for saying what he did as Jesus streched forth his hand and caught him saying, "O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?"
For a man to preach that salvation is by simply repeating Peter's words here is for a man to twist the scriptures.  This passage is not speaking of salvation and all.  But if it was, even the context shows us salvation is by FAITH, and not by begging for God to save you!


Romans 10:13 seems to be the most quoted verse today that many so-called "soul winners" use in dealing with the lost.  However, they often don't explain what it means to call upon the Lord Biblically.  Usually their whole presentation is just a few verses from the Roman's Road and then they encourage a Sinner to simply repeat a prayer after them.  Afterwards, they tell the Sinner they are saved (now watch this) BECAUSE THEY DID THAT.
But is this New Testament Salvation?  Is a man saved by what he does or says?  Does the actual prayer itself save a person?  And where is faith in the the blood in all of this?
If you'll look at the context of Romans 10:13 you'll see that it's clear.  Calling upon the Lord must be by FAITH from the heart and not just a vain religious prayer repeated from the lips. Calling is believing (Rom. 10:14).
Yet many a minister claims that to be saved, all a man has to do is just "repeat the Sinner's Prayer."  If this is so, why did Jesus die at all on the cross?  Why didn't he just stay in heaven and say, "Okay, now anyone who just repeats a prayer I'll save, so just do that and I'll give you eternal life."  But that's just silly.  No, Jesus had to come and die on the cross.  He had to shed his blood, for that was the only way to forgive men of their sins.  Now God asks sinners to come to him and receive him by faith in his precious blood.  They are to rest in his FINISHED WORK.  Sure they can pray, but they should never be deceived into thinking their prayer saves them! 
To teach Romans 10:13 as some kind of "Mystical Sinner's Prayer" that grants a man forgiveness and saves him outside of trusting in the blood atonement of Jesus Christ is twist the scriptures to teach what they do not.  Biblically, a sinner's calling on God must be by faith from the heart (2 Tim. 2:22) and it must be in truth (Ps. 145:18).


Probably the most blatant misapplication of scriptures taught today on the doctrine of salvation is the misapplying and twisting of Revelation 3:20.  Many soul winners use this verse on lost people and then instruct them to simply "Open their hearts door and let Jesus in."  (Others say, "Ask Jesus Into Your Heart).
But is this what the verse is speaking about?
If you'll study the context you'll see this verse is Jesus Christ talking to a CHURCH, not to a lost man.  And he knocks on the door of that church, not on anyone's heart.
To teach this verse for salvation as Jesus knocking on someone's "heart's door" wanting to get in is to blatantly twist the scriptures to teach what they do not.


Another place modernist preachers like to preach out of context is Matthew 7:7-8.  They take the words, "Ask, and it shall be given you," and they apply these words to salvation, stating things like, "So just ASK God to save you and he will."
But a second look at the passage and the context itself clearly shows this is a complete misapplication of the passage.  First, Jesus is not talking about salvation at all!  Second, Jesus is speaking to "sons" or those who are already saved in the context!  Third, we find in verse eleven that Jesus is speaking about "gifts" and "good things" that God the Father gives to those who ask (saved people in the context).
The passage has NOTHING TO DO WHATSOEVER with salvation.  And to try to make it apply to it is to twist the scriptures.  We must also remember this is before Jesus even died on the cross!  So how can this passage have anything to do with the Gospel and salvation?  I can't.  And, it doesn't.


Modern apostates justify their position of stressing Sinners to "ask God for salvation" by quoting John 6:37, specifically the words, "...And him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."
They say that anyone who comes to God in prayer, asking for salvation, will receive it based on this verse.  But do they check the context?  Of course not.  For if they did, they would find verse 35 defines exactly how a man must come to God.  There we read, "...he that BELIEVETH on me shall never thirst."
Coming to God must be by faith or believing and that faith must be in the sacrificial blood atonement of Jesus Christ!
To come to God begging for salvation apart from the blood is not salvation.  And for a man to twist the scriptures to teach that anyone who sincerely comes to God and asks him to save them will be saved is very naive.  God will only save you if you come to him by faith in his blood. 


Another passage modern apostate Preachers love to use is Luke 18:35-39.  They quote the words of the blind man in the passage and apply them to salvation, even encouraging sinners to repeat his same words, "Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me."
But little do they realize these words were not uttered from the lips of a man who was seeking spiritual salvation.  Rather, he said these words desiring to be healed of his blindness.
Many Preachers who are faced with this simple Biblical truth say, "Oh, I know that!  But I'm spiritually applying the passage to salvation."
That's interesting, for as you read farther down in the passage you find Jesus saying in verse 42, "...And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee."
Notice Jesus said the man was saved by FAITH not by ASKING.  It wasn't the Sinner's calling out to God from the lips and begging him to heal him that gave him his healing.  It was the FAITH that the man had.  Salvation is by faith
Another interesting point we glean from this passage is that the blind man cried out to God TWICE.  This is an important point, because many modern preachers tell sinners that if they have asked God to save them already, and they don't feel saved or they doubt it, then they are to just ask God to save them all over again.  This leads to many sinners praying the "Sinner's Prayer" over and over and they never really know if they are saved or not.  The question then arises if they really saved at all.  For if they were, why would they be begging God to save them over and over.  I mean, if you had salvation, why would you be asking for it all over again?


There are many people out there who are wresting the scriptures to their own destruction.  Instead of preaching salvation by grace through faith without works (Eph. 2:8-9), they are guilty of preaching another plan of salvation, a unitarian doctrine, which teaches a Sinner doesn't have to know anything about the Gospel or the Blood, rather he simply needs to ASK God to save him.  But to preach this, they must twist the scriptures to teach what they do not. 
The Bible is clear.  Salvation is by faith alone in God's sacrifice for man's sins.  For a Sinner to believe this, he must first hear it (for faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God according to Romans 10:14).  But how can he hear it if instead he's told to just BEG God to save him apart from trusting God to do so.  We then clearly see two very different gospels being preached in our world today.  One saves and the other damns.  One comes to God through the blood of Christ, the other tries to come to God by by-passing the blood of Jesus.  One is the BLOODSTAINED GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST, and the other is a BLOODLESS, BEGGAR'S GOSPEL.
How sad that modern ministers don't stop to think about what they are preaching.  Sadder still that in my own denomination (Independent Baptist) that I've seen men who are preaching the modern perverted gospel of Asking rather than Trusting.  Hopefully after reading this article you will not be guilty of the same.  For we need more ministers who will not twist or pervert the Gospel, but will simply and plainly teach and preach it to Sinners the way the Bible does, through faith in Christ's blood atonement. 

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Faith Promise Giving?

For years I’ve heard of this new modern teaching in FIB (Fundamentalist Independent Baptist) circles called "Faith Promise."  I never was for or against it, thinking it was helping Missions, so it must be okay.  But as I went to Mission Conferences, met and talked with various Pastors, and saw firsthand some of the fruits of Faith Promise, I began to wonder whether or not it was right.  It wasn’t until I talked to several other brothers in Christ that the question came up if Faith Promise was even Biblical, for as I studied it, many of the verses men used to preach Faith Promise were taken out of context.  (They would always use the same few verses in different passages without reading or preaching the entire context).
As a Pentecostal before I was saved, I also had some insight into the Faith Promise Giving Plan when I learned of the premise and saw how men preached it.  They would say, “You are to give not of what you have rather of what you do not have.  You are to believe God to give it to you so you can give it!
This sounded to me a lot like the “Faith” healers I used to follow in days of old (before I realized they were all a sham to milk people of their money).  And, I viewed first hand in FIB cirles that when a church's faith promise program didn’t reach its annual goal, the Pastors blamed their congregations, saying, “It’s all your fault, you just didn’t have enough faith!  This sounded sooooooooooo much to me like what I was taught in the Charismatic church.  When I wasn’t healed, or when I didn’t get what I prayed for, or I didn’t “prosper” it was always MY fault and it was always because I had a “lack of faith.”  My faithlessness kept me from getting or doing what I was supposed to, and that made me feel horrible! 
I would examine myself and my life and agonize over what I could do to find more faith.  But the more I pondered and prayed, the more I found I had a ton of faith, but things just didn’t go the way I wanted them to.  (I learned later that God is not a money tree and he doesn’t just give you “stuff” because you ask for it.  Sometimes, God wants you to be poor so you’ll rely on him more!)
Looking back at before I was saved, and comparing that with this modern “Faith Promise Giving Program” being taught in FIB circles today, I began to question it, because it looked to me that the Independent Baptists were starting to teach just like the Charismatics on the subject of money, saying things like:

“You’ve got to believe God will give you the money you pledge to give even before you have it!

The more you pledge to give to God, the more you will receive and the more you will be blessed!”

You have to give to God and have faith to believe God will bless you if you do.” 

It almost got to the point where I started looking around for the video cameras, thinking I was on the set of a “Twilight Zone” episode; for many things I heard preached in FIB churches about Faith Promise were the same things I heard in my old Assembly of God Pentecostal Church, or were the same things I saw preached by many “Tel-evangelists” on the television.  It all focused on “my faith to give to God” and I was always promised a blessing because of it.  In short, it lined up entirely with the modern Charismatic “Prosperity Gospel,” which so many FIB ministers claim they preach against.  (Could it be they apostasized and didn't even know it?)
As I studied the growth of the Faith Promise movement in FIB circles and the men who preached it, I learned just how intertwined it was with the subject of Missions.  Often Mission Conferences were nothing more than Faith Promise Conferences and the focus was changed from that of the Gospel and winning souls at home to raising money only to win souls abroad.  So closely Faith Promise became interconnected to soul-winning, that to ask questions about it would lead to Pastors dogmatically labelling you as a "Dissenter" and "someone who didn’t love souls."
So I admit.  I kept quiet about it.  Cause I didn’t want people to think I was against Missions and soul-winning!
I’m still not against missions and soul-winning, but as I studied the Faith Promise teaching, which many churches are now putting into their doctrinal statements and are claiming is now an official FIB doctrine in which all others must adhere to be part of their fellowship, I came to some interesting conclusions.  And knowing very well that I run the risk of being “ostracized” by others FIBer’s, I’ve now decided to speak out on the subject, because it appears Faith Promise is quickly becoming a Baptist Tradition rather than a Bible Teaching.  And I would challenge anyone to do what I have done.  Study it out!  Look at it’s foundations, it’s message, and it’s fruit and then you tell me if it’s Biblical.  If it is, PRACTICE IT!  If it’s not, then why not use a better method to raise funds for Missions!
I've studied it and below are some things I've found.  I'm still studying it, and I hope you will to.

1. Faith Promise's Foundations are not in the Bible.

As you study the fountain of the Faith Promise Giving Plan, you find it wasn't started by anyone in the Bible.  Instead, it's more of a modern teaching.  One site tells us, "...The Faith Promise Plan, as we know it, was developed in the late 1800s by Dr. A.B. Simpson, founder of the Christian and Missionary Alliance."
If this be true, how can many modern FIBers claim Faith Promise is a Biblical teaching taught by the Apostle Paul?  Wouldn't that be a FIB (Sorry.  But the pun was intended!)

2.  Faith Promise Goes Against the scripture in trying to get people to give what they don't have.

The modern Faith Promise Giving movement teaches that a man must by an act of faith determine within himself an amount of money that he will pledge to give to God.  This amount he is encouraged to give is an AMOUNT THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE!  He, then, is supposed to promise to give God more than what he has.  But, is this scriptural?  As I read the Bible, I find the exact opposite.  For there we find:

11 Now therefore perform the doing of it; that as there was a readiness to will, so there may be a performance also out of that which ye have.
12 For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.   (2 Cor. 8:11-12)

Here we find the Apostle Paul commanding man to give, now watch this, as all I do is quote Paul: "ACCORDING TO THAT A MAN HATH, and NOT ACCORDING TO THAT HE HATH NOT!"

Did you catch that?  For those of you who don't like the Old English, let me paraphrase, "You are supposed to give according to what you HAVE, not according to what you don't HAVE!"

To command the Saints of God, as Faith Promise teaches, to give what they don't have is contrary to the scriptures!  We are only to give of what we have, (and then only what we are willing and ready to give).  Wasn't it Jesus who spoke of the poor widow in Luke 21, who gave all that she HAD (Luke 21:4).  She didn't give what she didn't have.

The teaching of Faith Promise is to encourage Christians to give tomorrow something that they don't yet have.  Doesn't this violate the following scripture:

Boast not thyself of to morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth.  (Prov. 27:1)

How can we promise to give something if we don't even know if we will ever even get it?  And then to say, "Well, just have faith you'll get it!"  Doesn't that sound a bit Charistmatic to you rather than FIB? 

3.  Faith Promise twists the scriptures.

Modern teachers of the Faith Promise doctrine preach that it is for giving to Missions only.  And they have plenty of verses to prove this.  One such verse is 1 Cor. 16:2, which reads:

"Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come."

Promoters of Faith Promise use this verse often.  But if you check the context (vs 1) you find this is not an offering for Missions, rather for the poor saints in Jerusalem that were suffering.  Where is "Missions" in this.  Isn't this someone twisting the scriptures?

Again, Faith Promisers are quick to quote 2 Cor. 8:4-5, but these verses speak of a special "giving" to Paul to use for the "ministering unto the saints."  It had nothing to do with sending money to Paul to reach the lost.

Is this, then, also not twisting the scriptures to teach what they do not? 
Now, I'm not against Missions.  Let me dogmatically state that!  But isn't it wrong to twist scriptures to teach we should give to Missions?  Shouldn't we just teach the scriptures as they stand?  And shouldn't we give to Missions because we know it's the right thing to do?

4.  Faith Promise constrains people to give to Missions.

Probably the most quoted verse to teach Faith Promise is 2 Cor. 9:7:

"Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver."

But as I've seen this verse preached by advocates of Faith Promise, I've always seen at the end of the meeting ushers passing out "cards" in which people are commanded to fill out how much they are going to give.  I've even heard pastors saying things like: "Faith Promise giving is a commandment of God!" and "You must make a decision on how much you will give to Faith Promise."
As I watched this, I sat and scratched my head.  Is this not making Faith Promise giving of NECESSITY, something which this verse says should not be!
As I poured through the websites on the Internet and looked at church bulletins during Faith Promise conventions, I saw many of them dogmatically saying the same thing: "Faith Promise Giving is not a pledge!"
But then when those cards were passed around during the conference, most of them read: "This is your Faith Promise PLEDGE CARD."  I thought to myself, "Am I the only one who sees the double speak here?"
And why does the Pastor need to know how much a person "pledges" to give anyhow?  Shouldn't that be between the person and God?  It's almost as if the Pastor's lack of FAITH in his congregation's giving, is what makes him want to know how much they'll give.  So that's why he gets them to "by faith" promise to give more.

5.  Faith Promise Makes Christians into LIARS!

As a Missionary Evangelist, I've traveled to many different churches, and I've heard the same thing time and again from Pastors who tell me they NEVER (and I repeat NEVER) get the full amount of money that has been "pledged" oh, er, um, I mean "promised," to Faith Missions Giving at the end of the year.  This means someone LIED!  For they made an agreement with God to give a certain amount and they didn't do it!
What does the Bible say about such as this?  Well, you know there is an Old Testament verse that says:

When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee.  (Deut. 23:21)

Now, I know we are not in the Old Testament (thank God!)  But this verse does tell us it's SIN to vow to pay God something, and then not pay it!

Again we read in Eccl. 5:4-5:

When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.  Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.

Here God calls a man a FOOL who doesn't follow through with his vow or his promise to God. 
So what about those who vow to do Faith Promise and then don't follow through with it?  I'm sure we'd all agree, it's sin for them to do so.  But who's to blame?  Couldn't some of the blame be the Pastor's for "pressuring" his congregation to make a VOW to give a certain amount, especially when he's encouraging them to give what they don't even have?!  I'll let you answer that for yourself.

6.  Faith promise browbeats the church

Having established the sound Biblical fact that it is indeed SIN to promise God something and then keep from doing or paying it, we find those who by faith promise to give a certian amount and then don't have lied to God.  They have sinned
Now the Pastor, knowing this, must spend his time and energy in his messages to tell the church they've done wrong in not giving what they have "pledged."  (Sorry, I've used that word again, and Faith Promise disciples say "It's not a pledge!"  So let me rephrase to use their terminology "PROMISE").
Oftentimes, Pastors spend message after message rebuking his congregation for not giving what they have "promised" to give to God, and guilt tripping them into giving more.  (I've heard those messages time and again.  Haven't you?).
I've even heard of a Pastor who followed Faith Promise, and how he was told by the well-known FP "evangelist" who came to preach it every year in his church that he would not receive the full amount of the "pledge cards," (whoops, I mean "promise cards.")  He said, "You can pretty much figure if they promise 100,000, then they'll only give about 75,000."
Did you get that?  This famous Faith Promise Preacher KNEW that his plan would make Christians guilty of promising to pay more than they had and that there was NO WAY they could come up with the money.  Yet, he preached that system anyway which he KNEW would make the congregation LIARS.  Men like that scare me!  How about you?

7.  Faith Promise Makes the Congregation the Bad Guys

As we've already stated, Pastors who don't receive the total yearly amount of funds that their Faith Promise Conference assured them of, oftentimes take out their frustrations on their congregation as they "browbeat" them in message after message of the importance to give to Missions and follow through with their pledges, (er, I mean promises.)
And, by following the Faith Promise system, the Pastor's preaching makes the congregation at fault for their lack of FAITH.  (Shouldn't we then call it what it is: "Lack of Faith Promise Giving?") 
Faith then is the determining factor.  So, would it then be right to say that "Faith" Promise doesn't work in such cases?  Why then would a Pastor continue to use that plan after he's seen it doesn't work?
Let's give them the benefit of the doubt.  Let's say it's all the congregations fault, those dirty, faithless rascals!  So now what?  Do we get them to just start all over in another year of "Faith Promise" and hope this time their "faith" will work for them?  If it didn't before, why would we foolishly think it would now?  (And, wouldn't we be guilty of making them Liars when we know they won't pay what they said they would?   And, um, doesn't the Bible instruct us to, "...neither be partakers of other man's sins...?" (1 Tim. 5:22)

8.  Faith Promise puts the emphasis on the "far away" souls instead of those "here and now."

In many of the churches I've been in personallly in which Faith Promise is preached, I notice that many of the members are not well to do.  And, many of them are struggling.  They are trying to make ends meet week to week, sometimes even day to day.  Some have a mortage they just can't keep up with.  Others have lost their jobs, and even others are struggling with sickness and massive doctor's bills.
Instead of the Pastor focusing on helping those in the church and working with them to reach the lost in their own community in order to see the church grow, often the Pastor wants to focus on the poor and lost in other lands.  The "10-40" window is a good example.  But why not look out their own window first?
I'll not debate about whether money given to Faith Promise that goes to foreign missions is money well spent or not.  It quite possibly might be!  But why do all Mission Conferences and Faith Promise Conventions have to focus on FOREIGN Missions?  What's wrong with DOMESTIC Missions?  What about those in your own state, city, town, and neighborhood? 
Whether you know it or not, America is no longer a Christian nation.  It's gone to Hell in a hand basket.  And instead of trying to reach the lost in your own back yard, Faith Promise Giving only focuses on those in a foreign field.  So much so, that many who preach, practice, and believe in Faith Promise often scoff at Missionaries or Missions within the United States of America.  They only desire to support those in foreign fields.  But where in the Bible does it say a Missionary is only to go to a far away place?  Isn't he supposed to be a Missionary everywhere he goes?  And, hey, aren't all Christians "Missionaries?"

9.  Faith Promise often misdirects funds.

Now I'm going to tell on some of the Pastors I've met.  I'm sure they won't like it, but who cares, right?!  Aren't we supposed to tell the truth no matter what?  (Like one Preacher said, "If you're not afraid to DO it, I should not be afraid to PREACH AGAINST IT!)
I've personally seen in several churches that the Faith Promise Funds do not always go to "Faith Promise Missions."  I've seen some churches dwindle in their membership, and the church offerings that were supposed to go to Missions have instead been used for church salaries, repairs, utilities, etc.  Now, I'm not going to stand in judgment.  I'm not God.  I'm not condemning anyone.  But I do have a question.  Shouldn't money that's labeled "Faith Promise" go straight to Faith Promise?  I mean, isn't that what it's for?  And I mean, come on, shouldn't a Pastor have enough "Faith" in God to believe He'll keep the doors of the church open instead of having to steal FP money for that? 
How could a Pastor preach Faith Promise, but then use Faith Promise money for something different? Wouldn't he be sinning?  And would he be destroying the "FAITH" of those who gave it.  Because, I mean, they made a "pledge" (there I go again) to give it to MISSIONS, but then it went to something else!
On a side note, (and now I've just gone to rambling), what about those who the "Faith Promise" is supposed to go to?  It goes to "Missionaries" right?  Well, who picks those missionaries?  Usually, the Pastor does.  Why doesn't the congregation get to vote on who they should support?  Some churches (and sadly there are very few) vote on which Missionaries they want to support.  But in most FIB churches I've been in and most Mission Conferences I've attended, the Pastor is who decides who gets financial support.  Often, it's only those Missionaries who attended the same Bible School as he did.  (Yep, that's right Pastor.  I'm telling on you!  Where's you faith, buddy?).

10.  Faith Promise often divides the brethren.

So strong is the Faith Promise teaching in FIB churches that if you don't go along with it, you are labelled an outcast and someone who is not practicing "Sound Biblical Principles" (although we've seen Faith Promise isn't Bible teaching, rather Baptist Tradition rooted in the Christian Missionary Alliance, and shares much in common with Charismatic doctrine).
I can't tell you how many church splits I've seen or how many brethren I've met that have left FIB churches over this practice.  Many have told me the same thing, "I want to give!  But I don't want to be pressured to give that way!"
 A lot of these people have begun giving to Missionaries individually on a monthly basis.  And can you believe that FIB Pastors are actually preaching against this now?   They are saying things like, "To give directly to Missionaries is not right if you give to them outside the Local Church and outside the Faith Promise Program!"
I've even heard some preach, "God cannot bless you at all if you give to Missions without giving it through the Local Church!"
What could possibly be their motive for saying things like this?  I mean, we could almost say exactly what they like to say to those who are against Faith Promise Missions Giving: "What?  Don't you love souls, and don't you want to see people giving to Missions?"
Could there be some "ulterior motive" for this?  Hmmm.  I'll let you decide.

11.  Faith Promise has become a Business!

Have you ever noticed that the majority of those who preach Faith Promise Mission Conferences are actually Missionaries themselves?  They receive regular support from other churches who practice Faith Promise, and they usually receive really nice offerings for preaching "Faith Promise Mission Conferences."
In other words, they seem to be making a living on Faith Promise."
I guess we could then ask, "Are these men really living by faith, when theya re getting a boat-load of CA$H for what they are preaching?"
You see, in Faith Promise it seems like those who are asked to practice Faith are those who are earning and giving while those who are receiving and going are not expected to practice faith in God.  For they usually are given huge amounts of support for their service of further propogating Faith Promise. 
Did you know the average income of a FIB Missionary today (who has a Mission Board) is $6000 a month?  What?  You didn't know that?  And did you know that usually Mission Boards take at least 10 to 15 percent of that money from the Missionary.  What?  You didn't know that either.  Really? 
And, did you know that those pushing the Faith Promise Plan the most are those who have, are connected with, and/or are sent by Mission Boards.  (P.S.  Mission Boards are not in the Bible.  And as you study the Bible, it's the CHURCH that sends Missionaries, not a "Board."  See Acts chapter 13 for more.)
It almost seems like this whole FAITH PROMISE MISSION PROGRAM is nothing but a great big money generating business
Oh no you didn't, Bro. Breaker!  You said it!  Yep, I sure did.  (Sorry, it's just what I was thinking, and what I know you would have eventually thought yourself as you study this whole thing out and see the big picture!)
The truth is, Faith Promise constrains struggling poor church members to trust God to provide for them so they can give by FAITH what they don't have, while those who recieve the money usually go to the field with their wallets full and build big homes for themselves to live in while they "evangelize" in their fancy new 4x4 trucks.  But where is the Missionary's FAITH in God to provide?  If the truck breaks down, or the house burns, or something bad happens, he KNOWS his needs will be met as more support and even "special offerings" will come to him.  HOW IS THIS LIVING BY FAITH??? 

I hope the things written here will cause you to THINK.  I'm not against Missions, Missionaries, Pastors, Churches, Church Members, etc.  I'm not even against Missions Conferences, monthly Missionary support or taking up special offerings for Missionaries.  I'm in favor of MISSIONS.
I'm very much in favor of Missions.  But what I am against is modern-day Pharisees who use made-made programs to compel others to give while they themselves prosper knowing they are deceiving congregations into making a pact with God to give what oftentimes they cannot obtain. 
I am well aware that God can use money obtained by "Faith Promise" to go to Missionaries who will use it to win souls.  I know and understand that.  But I've been in the system myself, and I've watched a lot of abuse in the man-made FP program.  I've also seen how the fruit of it can take away a Missionary's FAITH IN GOD to supply his needs, and make him totally dependent upon MAN.  I further have seen men who would rather preach this man-made system, knowing they are twisting the scriptures to do so, in order for them to prosper, and make a name for themselves, rather than just preach all men should place their faith in God and give to Missions out of love and a desire to see folks saved.  And I see the great lack of love this FP plan produces as it pits a Pastor against his congregation, as he's forced to brow-beats his people for not giving what he thinks they should to Missions.  (What more can they do?  He's already gotten them to promise to give more than they have?)
To me, Faith Promise is not Biblical.  It's just man trying to secure funds for God their way by pressuring their flocks, instead of just preaching on Biblical giving (giving willingly and cheerfully) and allowing God to touch the hearts of the congregation to give.
FP further can (notice I didn't say it does) do more harm than good.  And I've personally seen a lot of harm and abuse associated with that man-made business system.  Let me just give one illustration.  I'll not give the name of the Pastor, or even the location of his church.  I'll just tell you the story and let you come to your own conclusion.

Not long ago I visted a Faith Promise Mission Conference in which I sat and watched the Pastor hammer his congregation hard on giving.  Time and again he encouraged them to give above and beyond their measure.  The conference grew to a close and the Pastor passed out the "Pledge Cards" and afterwards, the congregation sat and waited as the tally was counted.  The Pastor then read the sum and tallied up how much the church had promised to give that year to Missions.  And when he saw the number he grew vehemently enraged.  His face instantly glowed red and he rigorously blasted his congregation for their "lack of faith."  The figure he told the congregation that "God" had given him was "$100,000" annually that they should give to Missions.  But the church promised a little over a tenth of that on their "pledge cards."
Care to guess what happened next, at everyone's surprise?  The Pastor a week or so later resigned the church, telling everyone that God had called him to be a Missionary to a certain Island Nation. 
And, you know what else?  (And here's the interesting part...) The Pastor taught the church to support only Missionaries sent out of that church, so he desired to be sent out of that church and have the church foot the bill for his going to the field. 
Do I really need to say more?  Can you put two and two together?  If not, maybe I should just state the obvious:  "Seems like his FAITH was in FAITH PROMISE and not in GOD to supply his need to go to the field!"

In closing, I'm sure you might say, "Okay, Breaker, you've pointed out the bad.  So what do we do now?"  Well, how about just preaching the cross of Calvary.  Wouldn't that make the church want to give more.  And don't you think they would even give more if they gave "willingly," than if they were forced to do so with some man-made system?  (Especially when they are ridiculed for not giving enough!)  It worked for the Apostle Paul.  He didn't ask Christians to give what they didn't have.  He instructed them to give what they did have, and to give "cheerfully."  And look at how the world was turned upside down in his day.  I wonder if we'll ever see revival like that again, especially when many FIBers have accepted Faith Promise over God's promises in the Bible to be faithful to his children.
Our faith should not be in our own promises, nor in those of others.  Our faith should be in the Promises of God.  And we should give because HE wants us to, not because some MAN constrains us to with his made up plan.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Modern Fundamentalism Apostasy

There is no doubt that we are in the last days.  And there is no doubt that in the last days perilous times shall come--times of apostasy, or a falling away from sound doctrinal truth, as many are deceived into giving heed to "fables" and "doctrines of devils."
As I look at modern Christianity, I see this apostasy has grown by leaps and bounds and its so sad to see how many modern preachers have rapidly embraced modern teachings rather than just sticking with the word of God.  This has led to the downfall of modern Christianity, as it leaves men not only ignorant and deceived, but oftentimes unregenerated and bound for a Devil's Hell.

I see apostasy in the following important Biblical teachings: 


Let's look at each one of these and how modernists are changing these doctrines from preaching them the BIBLICAL WAY to preaching them the MODERN WAY.


Without a doubt, salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8,9).  Many Fundamentalits are quick to point this out.  But when they preach on how a person should be saved, they often don't preach a plan of salvation by grace through faith alone.  Further they don't clarify in what a man's faith should be in alone.  Oftentimes they preach things like:

Pray this Prayer
Repeat this Prayer
Ask God to Save You
Beg God for Forgiveness
Give Your Heart to God
Make Your Commitment to Jesus
Ask Jesus Into Your Heart

But none of these are found in the Bible.  That is, there is no command in the Bible where we find a man must do any of these things to be saved.  Yet these are preached time and again in our world today by many preachers, pastors, and denominations.  We even find these commands on websites and in gospel tracts, pressuring a sinner to do these things in order to get saved.  But these things all have one thing in common, THEY LEAVE OUT THE BLOOD ATONEMENT OF JESUS CHRIST.
In the Bible, Salvation is by blood atonement.  In the Old Testament, it was by sacrificing lambs.  In the New Testament, we find Jesus Christ--the Lamb of God--came and died for the sins of mankind.  To be saved today, man doesn't have to DO anything.  He must simply believe or trust the blood atonement of Jesus Christ.  That's salvation!  To preach anything else is to get a man to do something other than simply rest on the finished work of Christ.  It then in short is a BLOODLESS GOSPEL which oftentimes leaves a person trusting in what they've done rather than what Jesus Christ did for them.  And, if they are not trusting in Jesus by faith alone then they are still LOST and on their way to Hell.


Sanctification is nothing short of living HOLY.  This is something God demands (1 Peter 1:15,16).  God not only wants man to be saved, but he also wants them to be sanctified.  That is he wants them to live for him, obey him, and serve him.  God also wants those who are born again to be separated from the world.  That is, to be different, and to not be partakers of the things of the world.  They are to be a peculiar people, zealous of good works, and not pleasured by the things of the world.  But do you hear preaching about this today? 
Nay, instead we hear about Preachers who are as worldly as they can be.  They don't preach on holiness, or being "filled with the Spirit" of God.  Nor do they preach hard against sin like they did in days of old.  Instead they are focused on a "purpose-driven" goal of building a big church.  Usually to do so they must compromise.  That is they have to back off preaching against certain things that they know are wrong. 
They then build big buildings full of many people, but those people are not godly, rather carnal.  This quickly leads to problems in churches, and often times quarrels and even church splits.
The world often sees this in-fighting within so-called "Christian circles" and it turns them off to the Lord.  This is why it's important to preach hard against sin, and to unite in the Lord in true Holiness.


The true word of God in English is the King James 1611 Authorized Version.  All other modern versions in English are translations done by evil men who use "critical texts" who give us versions that take out whole verses, attack the deity of Jesus, and more.
There used to be a time when many Fundamentalists were KJV only.  But now many are accepting modern versions which are full of errors and mistakes.  Why do they want these tainted modernistic versions?
It seems to me it's because they might claim to be "Bible Believers" but they aren't "Bible Readers."  For if they were, they would see how the new versions change verses to weaken sound Bible doctrine.  They would further see the great conspiracy by those behind the new versions to weaken and destroy the Textus Receptus, or the Majority Text manuscripts from which our King James Bible comes.  These texts can be traced clear back to Antioch of Syria, where we are told in the Bible is where Christ's disciples are first called "Christians."  Compare this with moden versions which are based on corrupt manuscripts like the Vaticanus and Siniaticus, which are riddled with errors, mistakes, omissions, and more. 
It then is very important for us to have God's pure words, ALL OF THEM to read, and not a watered-down perversion.


Modern Christianity has gone apostate as a whole.  It is full of lost people who are preaching another Gospel than the old BLOOD-STAINED GOSPEL found in the Bible.  They also don't care to live a "sanctified" life, oftentimes labelling those who do as "legalists."  And finally, many don't want the pure word of God, settling on modern versions which come from liberal scholars and erroneous manuscripts.

Probably the saddest thing about all this is how a man can be deceived into thinking he's a Christian even though he preachs another Gospel, lives carnal rather than Spirit-filled, and uses another version of the scriptures. 
I'm not saying everyone who does is not a Christian.  They might very well be.  But if the Holy Spirit of God is really inside them, shouldn't it guide them into all truth, and eventually get them to study out the truth.  Wouldn't they then eventually become pro-KJV, pro preaching of the BLOOD alone for salvation, and pro-holiness?  I believe they would.
I encourage you, if you are reading this, to look at yourself and see what you believe.  Are you saved?  If so, are you preaching the Gospel the BIBLE WAY, or are you just repeating what many others are saying?  Are you fully surrendered to God and his will--walking in the Spirit?  And, are you KJV only and do you know why you are?

Wednesday, December 15, 2010


I graduated Bible School in 1998 from the Pensacola Bible Institute.  I really don't like telling people this for a variety of reasons, but mostly because when I do, they automatically assume they know who I am and what I believe.  You see, in the Independent Baptist Movement (the IBM) there are many groups or camps.  And many of these camps have been founded by men who started Bible Schools, each one teaching certian traditions a little different than the other.  So when a man goes to a school and graduates from a certain school, all he has to do is tell others what school he went to, and they can get a general idea of what he believes and who he is based upon what school he went to.
Now, this is not always the case.  I've met men from Hyles, from Tennessee Temple, from PCC, and other places who are not like the majority of the graduates from those schools.  They went there to learn, but they also studied their Bibles, and where the school taught one thing and the Bible taught another, they chose to stick with the word of God. 

I've learned, then, that just because someone says they went to a certain Bible college, you can't know for certain what that person belives.  You must talk with them, and get to know them, for they just might have gone there but not turned out like little robots like many of the other students of that school do, speaking, preaching, and believing the many traditions they've been taught.

The school I went to is one of those that many other Bible Colleges look down upon.  They not only don't like the founder of the school for some things that happened in his personal life, but they feel he's too dogmatic, and "rough" around the edges.  They also don't like his dogmatical stand on the King James Bible, and his exposing modern day apostates and apostaste teachings.  So when a young man like myself graduates from his school and goes out on deputation, it's not easy to get meetings, especially with Pastors who went to other Bible schools.

As I did deputation, I found there were three main issues almost all Pastors wanted to debate with me, and I found no matter where I went, they consistently asked me what I believe about these three topics.  They are as follows:

1.  Double married Preachers
2.  Alien Baptism
3.  Dispensational Salvation

I also found that their doctrinal beliefs on these topics were not their own.  As I traveled and spoke with them, I soon learned why.  It was because they were all taught to believe the same thing about these topics.  In short, they were taught baptist tradition, rather than bible doctrine in their Bible College.

I spoke to some graduates from my school about this, who were also missionaries, and they said things like, "Oh, well just don't talk about those things.  Just don't bring them up, and if they do, just say what they want to hear so you can get their support!"

I found this to be very deceitful.  Plus, I found I myself have a problem.  I'm not good at keeping my mouth shut, especially when I know and believe what the Bible says, and I believe God's called me to preach the truth. 
I also found, however, that I don't like to debate nor argue.  So this made things interesting.  In other words, I didn't go places looking for a fight, nor was I the one who brought these subjects up.  Instead, it was always the Pastors who brought up these same three things over and over as soon as they learned which Bible Institute I graduated from. 

I'd like to now look at those three things, giving their positions (as they were always the same), and then giving the scriptures that prove their positions false. 


Many a pastor adheres to the belief that a man cannot be married more than once and be a Pastor.  They are very dogmatic about this.  (But what if a Pastor's wife dies?  Shouldn't he be allowed to get remarried?  They seldom ever discuss that.).  Thier proof text is found in 1 Tim. 3:2 and Titus 1:6, in which the Bible says a Bishop or Pastor should be the husband of "one wife."  True, this is what it says.  But there also a list of many other things too, and those same preachers never mention those, (probably because they are guilty of several of them, and this would make them "disqualified" themselves!)
These Pastors, then, are guilty of judging others based upon their own situations (they've only been married once), something the scriptures calls "unwise"  (2 Cor. 10:12).  They think, "Well, I have only one wife and I'm a Pastor, so every other Pastor must only have one wife as well."
But they seldom look at the reason this was written.  It was common in those days for a man to have two or even three wives all living at home with him.  Thus, Paul said that was wrong.  They should only have "one."  It was one legal wife.
Further, these dogmatic Pastors refuse to look at other verses which speak about what to do when a man's wife divorces him (a sad and all too common practice in America today, especially by modern liberated women who follow the world rather than God).  There are scriptures which speak about this, and they tell us if an "unbeliever" departs, a man is not under bondage in such cases (1 Cor. 7:15).  This means the man is not married, and therefore he has no wife if his lost wife leaves him. 
These men further refuse to look at the verses where a man can biblically remarry after he's been loosed from a wife.  In fact, the Bible says, its not sin (1 Cor. 7:27-28).  
Thus, biblically, a man can have been married more than once and still Pastor.  That is on the following two stipulations:

1. His wife died.
2. His unbeliving wife left him.

Many Pastors don't believe this, however, instead proclaiming that a double-married man should not be allowed to Pastor for any reason whatsoever.  They are free to believe this all they want.  But they should reconsider, for there are many men out there who are qualified in all the other qualifications of a Pastor who have passed through some bad circumstances, and their wives left them, or else their wives died.  These men should have a chance to Pastor if God has called them to do so.  And who do others think they are to stand in judgment of God?  Did you know Moses was double-married?  David was too.  And many others.  God is a God of second chances, and we should be to.  However, we should seek to obey God's word as closely as possible.  For example, if a Pastor does divorce his own wife and then remarries, we should never allow that man to Pastor a church.  He has dishonored God.  Instead of something happening beyond his control, he is the divorcer, not the divorcee.  He therefore should NEVER Pastor a local church, for he is a poor example to others.  This is not only Bible, but common sense.
Pastors, then, should not be so quick to judge other Pastors.  Instead of lamblasting others for being what they call "double-married," they need to find out the details, for a man just might be married more than once, biblically. 


For those who don't know, or have never heard of this term, Alien Baptism is used most often by "Baptist Briders" to describe the act of water baptism done to a professed believer by any preacher or denomination that is not Baptist or "Baptistic."  In other words, if it wasn't done by Baptists or those with Baptist doctrine, they count a person's water baptism as "alien" or "null and void."  To them it just doesn't count.
This is silly to me.  Why does a person have to be baptized by Baptists?  Does this mean if a guy goes to a Bible church and he's saved there and baptized, then that means it doesn't mean anything.  So what, he's still saved!  Right?
Those who preach against alien baptism also are quick to say that baptism is a ritual that must be done not only by Baptists, but also by those who are "authorized" to do so.  And they must be able to trace their roots of authority from church to church all the way back to the apostles.  In other words, they set up sort of an "Apostolic Sucession" in which they claim their right to baptize has been passed down to them all the way clear back to Jesus.
Those who preach this type of baptism find no iota of scripture to support this teaching.  The words "alien baptism" are not found in the Bible, nor do we find Jesus or the apostles discoursing on this subject. 
Instead, we find things like in Acts chapter 8, in which Philip baptizes the Ethiopian Eunuch.  Under what church does he do this?  NONE!
We further see in 1 Cor. 1:17 that Paul said he wasn't sent to baptize, rather to preach the Gospel.  He then proceeds to thank God he baptized no one, but two men and a certain household. 
Why then do modern Pastors put such emphasis on baptism, and why are they so adamant about trying to trace their "authority" to baptize clear back to Jesus?  (Sounds almost like what the Catholic Church does with infant baptism, doesn't it?)
I believe it's only because it's a Baptist "tradition" that's been taught to them and they seek to continue propogating it.  They are very big on being "baptists" and it shows.  And, as I look at many big name Fundamentalist Independent Baptists, I find they are very big on "bragging."  It appears the more they baptize in their church, the more numbers they can brag about in their Fundamentalists magazines, so this teaching does well in helping their numbers.  You see, I've seen and heard time and again of Pastors using this teaching to tell people who want to join their church, you can't join our church unless I baptize you!  It doesn't matter if that person has been baptized before.  The Pastor doesn't recognize it, calling it instead "alien."  So the canidate is told they must be "re-baptized" before they can be made a member of the church.  This not only adds to the "numbers" of baptized that month, but also gets the person used to submitting to the Pastor without the Pastor proving to them what they are doing is correct according to the scriptures.
With this stated, I'll tell you what I would always say to Pastors who asked me what I believed about Alien Baptism.  I'd state: "All I know is if E.T. showed up, I'm not going to baptize him!
This usually led to them dropping the subject.  Those who didn't I told them the truth, "I don't find it in the Bible.  But if a person willingly wants to do it as an act of testimony to show the church he's a true believer, they are more than welcome to do so."
This usually made them angry, and led to their cutting off fellowship with me.  But why?  What evil have I done?  I'm still preaching the Gospel!  So why can't we just agree to disagree?


This one is the one most Pastors become enraged about.  They like to say things like, "I've heard your Bible School teaches five different plans of salvation!
The truth is it only teaches the Bible, and is careful to point out how God dealt with different men in different dispensations.  God didn't preach the same thing to everyone throughout the whole Bible.  For example, I'll give some examples of what God said to certain individuals, and you see if you can figure out who God said it to:

Don't eat!
Leave your country!
Build and Ark!
Don't cut your hair!
Follow me!

Do any of these sound like new Testament Salvation to you?  But at one time God spoke each of these to certain men, and each one's salvation was dependent upon whether they obeyed or not.  Thank God, he had grace on each of them, as they all disobeyed eventually.  But do you see how God deals differently with different people in different dispensations?
You see, the Gospel we preach today is not what was preached in the Old Testament.  It couldn't have been, for Christ hadn't even died yet!  How can you preach the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ before he was even born? 
These men who "scoff" at dispensational salvation (i.e. God dealing differently with people in different time periods) are usually the same people who say ludicrious things like, "People are saved the same in the Old Testament as in the New."  Really?  How can this be?  In the Church Age today, we are saved by trusting the blood atonement of Jesus Christ.  How could anyone trust this in the Old Testament, when Jesus hadn't even died yet?  Nor did anyone know the name of Jesus in the Old Testament.  In fact, there are three times the angel of the Lord (Jesus in his pre-incarnate state) shows up, and someone asks him his name.  All three times, he doesn't give it to them.  How can anyone be saved the same today as back then?  How?
Not only that, those who were saved in the O.T. were not saved the same way.  You see, we are saved by grace through faith and we are SEALED with the Holy Spirit.  That means we can't lose it.  But David could in the O.T. That's why he prayed, "Lord, take not thy Holy Spirit from me!"
We who are saved today are "justified" and "imputed God's righteousness" at the same time by faith.
But Abraham wasn't.  He believed in God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.  But he was "justified" by "works."  Notice that's not the same as how we are saved today!
So as we look at "dispensationalism" in the Bible, we see that salvation is different in different ages.  Adam and Eve's salvation was based upon works:  i.e. DON'T eat the tree.  After they fell, they had to offer sacrifices to God, just like Abel.  Under the law, a man's faith was to be in the blood of his sacrifice, but it took effort to actually slay it (i.e. faith + works).  Today in the church age, it's by FAITH alone a man is saved.  However, in the tribulation, a person can profess to be a Christian, but he can lose it if he takes the mark of the beast.  In the millenium, Jesus Christ reigns on earth.  We are told in Hebrews that faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.  How then can men have FAITH then, if they can see Jesus literally governing on the earth.  It is then a time of salvation by WORKS, in which people will have to either cut off their hands or put out their eyes rather than be cast into hell fire.  Does this not look like a different plan of salvation then what we have today under the Gospel?
The only way you can say salvation is the same in the O.T. as in the N.T. is to say it's always been by "grace" for it is always by God's grace that a man lives long enough to get saved.
But to scoff at God's different ways of dealing with men through different dispensations, while saying ridiculous things like: "In the O.T. people were saved by looking forward to the cross and in the N.T. people are saved by looking back to the cross," is too much.  First of all, things were DIFFERENT in different times.  Secondly, How could people in the O.T. have looked forward to the cross, when crosses didn't show up until the Romans came on the scene?

So we see then that there are different ways in which God dealt with different people in the Bible.  Not everyone was saved the same way.  To say they are is to willingly mislead someone.  For the only way we can really say God saves everyone the same way is to say we are all saved by grace, because it's been God's grace in every dispensation. 

But we need to give details and look at how God dealt with different people in different times.  Why?  Because it makes us more appreciative of the Gospel and salvation today.  We don't have to eat, do, sacrifice, or build anything to be saved today.  We simply must rely upon the finished work of Jesus Christ by faith. What a great time in which to live!  When the penalty for our sins has been PAID by Jesus Christ!

Why then don't Pastors want to look at the differences between how people were forgiven by God in the Old Testament and how they are saved today in the new?  There are many differences.  For example, we see King Saul getting the Holy Spirit and prophecying several times, but then losing that Spirit.  Does that happen today?  No way!


So these are the main three issue most Pastors want to dwell upon.  If you are a Missionary trying to get support for your field, no doubt you'll face these same three things as well.  Do you know what you believe about them.  Do you know what the Bible says about them?  Have you studied them out, or are you just going by what your Bible College taught you? 
The saddest thing to me is that most Pastors do not look at whether a Missionary is truly saved (by asking for their testimony), nor do they find out if that Missionary is preaching and presenting the Gospel plainly.  No, most Pastors make their decision based upon whether they will support a Missionary based upon what he believes about these three things.  Can you believe that?  That means you can be LOST and preaching ANOTHER GOSPEL, but as long as you agree with the Pastor on these three things, you'll get his support and be sent to the Mission Field!  God help us!  It's time we got back to the Bible and stopped arguing over little things that don't matter, while overlooking those things that do.

Baptist Briders

There are some Bible topics many missionaries don't wish to discuss with others.  It's because they are afraid Pastors who support them will not agree with them.  So they are mute on certain Biblical doctrines in various circles. 
One of those topics is that of "Baptist Briderism," or the teaching that each individual Baptist church, according to the tradition of many Baptists, is a local body of Christ.  In other words, to them, the Body of Christ is only the local Baptist Church.
Not only is this illogical, for there are many local churches, and therefore that would make MANY bodies of Christ when the Bible says there is only one, but it is also completely anti-biblical.  For the Bible tells us the body of Christ is also the Bride of Christ.  Is Jesus a poligamist?  Does he have many different Brides, or only one?
Those who believe the body of Christ is only the local church, therefore, have been labeled "Baptist Briders." for their teaching, if true, makes Jesus the husband of many different brides, instead of just one - the Church.
The Baptist Brider teaching is very common in Baptist circles, and even in our world today, but those who know their Bibles don't adhere to or accept it's ridiculous premise, for it is very foreign to the scriptures.  I even have a sermon of my third-great Grandfather, J.M.C. Breaker, in which even he went against this teaching in his day (the 1800s), and used the Bible to prove that the bride of Christ, the Church, is made up of all born again Christians, not just "Baptists."  I guess it falls on me as well in my day to expose this heresy as well.
Let me state that I believe what I believe not because my grandfather or even my father believed it.  I believe the Bible.  And in the Bible, it's clear who the body of Christ is, and who is Christ's bride.  And it's further evident that "Baptist Briderism" is not a biblical doctrine, rather a heretical baptist tradition.    
Let us now look at the verses of Scripture which speak about the body, the bride, and the Church.  And as we study the scriptures, I want you to ask yourself, "Should I believe what the Baptist Briders teach, even though it's Baptist tradition, or should I believe what the scriptures teach instead?"
You must decide for yourself.
First, let's look at Romans chapter twelve:

4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

Here God is speaking to Christians and he says they are one body in Christ, and members one of another.  Baptist Briders are quick to point out, "See, the local church is the body of Christ and those members of that local church are members one of another!"

But is this really what Paul is speaking about here?  Or, could it be Paul is talking to all Christians here?

Let's look at a cross reference in 1 Corinthians chapter twelve:

12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.
15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

Here Paul says pretty much the same thing.  But he adds that membership in the body is by baptism.  But this is not water baptism (As many Baptist Briders so wrongly assume).  This is Spirit baptism, or being born again.  And when one is saved, they are immediately sealed with the Holy Spirit of God (Eph. 1:13). 
Baptist Briders pervert this baptism and say it's water baptism and this act of baptism is what makes a man a member of the local church, which to them is the body.  That's fine if they want to believe that, but that's not what this passage of scripture is saying at all.  Again, it's speaking of a Spiritual baptism (i.e. being born again).
They further say that in this passage Paul is only speaking to the local church of the Corinthians, and this strengthens their teaching that each local church is a body of Christ.  But let's just look at the very beginning of the book of 1st Corinthians and see exactly who Paul is writing to:

1 Cor 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

Here the apostle Paul is saying he not only is writing to the local church in Corinth, but he dogmatically states the book is also written to "...ALL THAT IN EVERY PLACE CALL UPON THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, BOTH THEIRS AND OURS!"

Clearly, the book of Corinthians is written to every born again child of God!  That means, those who have been baptized Spiritually (i.e. born again) are those who are members of the Body of Christ.  This means everyone who is born again is a member of the body of Christ, for the body of Christ is made up of all saved people in every place that call upon the name of Jesus.  To say otherwise is to make "many bodies" of Christ, and this is to go against the scriptures and the many places in which it says there is only one body.  Below are just a few:

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.  (Eph. 4:4-6)

And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.  (Col. 3:15)

4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:  (Eph: 3:4-6)

In Ephesians chapter four we read about those in the body:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Notice two things.  First, no Baptists are mentioned here.  (Baptist Briders are so proud of their Baptist heritage, that many of them try to make the church start with John the BAPTIST).  Instead, we read of apostles, prophets, eveangelists, teachers, etc.  So where does this leave the "BAPTIST Briders" who claim only their denomination or their local church is the body of Christ? 
Second, we read about the importance of the edifying of the body of Christ.  Does this mean they were only to edify those members of the local church in Ephesus, but no where else?  No!  It means they were to edify all born again Christians everywhere!

Now let's ask the question, "Who is the body of Christ according to the scriptures?"
Baptist Briders say it's their denominational local church only and none else.  But they twist the scriptures to their own destruction to arrive at this interpretation.  Let's look at the scriptures and find out more.

In Colossians chapter one we read of Jesus:

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven,
and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Here we are dogmatically told that Jesus Christ is the head of the body of Christ, and that the body of Christ is the Church.  So, who is the church?  Why, biblically, the church consists of all born again Christians, and not just any one local church.  We see this clearly in the type of Christ and the church in Ephesians chapter 5:

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

As we read this, we find the relationship between Jesus Christ and his church is just like the relationship between a husband and wife.  And in verse 25, we read that Jesus loved his church (i.e. his bride) enough to die for it.  If we take the Baptist Brider viewpoint that the church is only the local church, then Jesus must have only died for Baptists, and only for those Baptists in certain individual local churches, and not for the sins of everyone.  This is a tremendously evil doctrine!  For we know Jesus died for the sins of the whole world.  (1 John 2:2).
Thus, the "church" or the "bride of Christ" must be everyone who has received Jesus Christ as Saviour.  It cannot be just Baptists, or just Baptists in a local church, for we know there are many Baptists in Baptist churches today who aren't even saved!

The Bride, then is all saved people.  And the apostle Paul makes this clear in 1 Cor. 11:2, "For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."

Is Paul only speaking to those Christians in Corinth here?  If so, then only they are the bride of Christ and no one else.  Or maybe they are a bride of Christ.  If so, then Jesus must have many other brides, for there were churches in Ephesus, Colosse, Thessalonica, etc.  See the mess you get into when you don't believe the Bible?  Either there is ONE BODY and ONE BRIDE and it's made up of all born again Christians, or there are many Bodies and many Brides, and they are made up of many various local churches.  It has to be one way or the other.  I choose the ONE BODY, and the ONE BRIDE, for this is the only interpretation that the scriptures support.

As we look at Ephesians chapter two, we find exactly who the body is made up of:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Notice this passage defines who the body is.  It is those who have been reconciled unto God.  In other words, it's SAVED people (i.e. born again).  Whether they are Gentile or Jews, those who have received the free gift of eternal life are made members of the body of Christ.

Further we are told they are a part of the "household" of God, and are a "building" fitly framed together.  This is interesting, because as we read the book of Revelation, we read of the bride not only as a building, but as an entire city:

Rev. 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Rev. 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
Rev. 21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God.


To preach the doctrine of the Baptist Briders is to teach heresy for the scriptures plainly define there is only ONE BODY and ONE BRIDE of Christ.
Sure you can call a local church a body of Christ if you like.  But you'd better be careful not to confuse it with the body of Christ, which is the Church--Christ's bride.  To confuse the two is to make God guilty of poligamy, a grevious sin if there ever was one.
Brider doctrine is also guilty of confusing water baptism with the spiritual baptism of being sealed with the Holy Spirit of God at the moment of salvation.  If true, then a saved person is not a member of the bride or body of Christ until he is baptized in water.  How is this biblical?  There is a difference between being a member of the body of Christ and being a member of a local church.  But being a member of the body of Christ (all saved people) is not dependent upon water baptism, otherwise that would be essential for salvation!
Finally, many Baptist Briders teach that only the Baptist church is the true church and only they will be the Bride of Christ.  Where does this leave others who are truly saved but belong to different denominations?  Many Briders say, "Well, if they are saved, they are only 'friends of the bridegroom' and not really a part of the body of Christ."  So where does this leave men like Martin Luther, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, Sam Jones, Billy Sunday, etc. and etc.  Are they not a part of the body of Christ?  Are they not a part of the Bride of Christ?

I'll let you decide for yourself.  As for me, I believe the scriptures are plain and clear.  The body of Christ and the bride of Christ are the same, and they are made up of all born again believers.  I believe this not because my third-great grandfather did, but because that's what the scriptures teach!