Archive for November, 2013

By Dr. Elisha Weismann and Dr. James Ach

Westboro Baptist Church, known for its picketing of military funerals and open air “preaching” against sodomites, recently posted the following “Manifesto” on their God Hates Fags website,


Manifesto of Westboro Baptist Church

We are a TULIP Baptist Church!
We believe — and vigorously preach — the 5 Points of Calvinism!
Anyone preaching otherwise is a Hell-bound false prophet, a messenger of Satan, to whom we say, Anathema Maranatha! and, Let him be accursed of God!


To every lover of Arminian lies — believing and preaching that God loves every individual of mankind — we say, You are going to Hell! Period! End of discussion! God’s decree sending you to Hell is irreversible! Hypocrites! How can ye escape the damnation of Hell?!


Now what is ironic about this is that last phrase in which Westboro states, “God’s decree sending you to Hell is irreversible!” If God’s decree were irreversible, then what is the point of preaching that “God hates fags”? If they can not be “saved to the uttermost” (Hebrews 7:25), then isn’t it rather pointless to appeal to any sense of morality? This presentation actually appears more Arminian in approach where there are large groups of open-air preachers of the Arminian persuasion appealing for sinners to-as one preacher put it-“stop being a whore” before getting saved. Or in other words, stop sinning so God can save you.

Now don’t get us wrong, God does not approve of homosexuality and repentance is required for salvation (Acts 20:21 Acts 17:30), but repentance does not involve changing your lifestyle to get saved. The reason that homosexuals do not get saved is because repentance involves wholly admitting to God the utter hideousness of your sin (Luke 5:8, Luke 18:13, Isaiah 6:5), and a person that does not admit that homosexuality is a sin is a person that believes there is something yet righteous about themselves. The purpose of showing the sinner what the law says about sin is to BRING them to Christ (Galatians 3:24) not to make them change before God saves them. However, to stand before a Holy God and believe in your heart that what the Bible calls sin does not apply to you is a failure to admit to your sin nature before God, and calls God a liar, and it is on THAT basis of self-righteousness that a person has not truly repented unto salvation, not because they do not change in order to get saved. They CAN’T change without the power of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 26:41, Philippians 4:13, Romans 4:5, Titus 3:5, Ephesians 2:9). Therefore saving faith is a person that fully acknowledges his depravity, and believes that the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the only thing that can save him, and thus turning to God from self-righteousness and trusting in Jesus Christ alone for salvation in which works are not a part of. 1 Thessalonians 1:9, Isaiah 64:6, Romans 11:6, Acts 26:20 (notice in Acts 26:20 that “works meet for repentance” comes AFTER repenting from self-righteousness and turning to God).

Nevertheless, on the Calvinist side of this view, the belief is that God hates all who are “non elect”, and since the sodomite obviously fits this category, God hates the sodomite. Ironically, Jesus says exactly the opposite in Matthew 21:31, and in Mark 10:21, Jesus said He loved someone that refused to follow Him. According to Calvinism’s view of “compatibilism” (or “soft determinism”), all sinners who are not elect will always act according to the predetermined nature that they have been given, and neither their destiny nor their actions can ever be altered. But, because that sinner can make choices albeit only within the predetermined set of beliefs that he has been given, the compatibilist Calvinist still calls this “free will”, even though the sinner can’t really act otherwise than according to the nature he has been given.

Thus accordingly, the sinner is actually doing exactly what God wants him to do! The problem that this presents to any Bible believing student is that God judges based upon actions that demonstrate a clear violation of an established premise, axiom, law or rule. Even in most criminal justice systems, a criminal act is punished by a person who knowingly and intentionally violates a statute. But if the sinner is doing just what God wanted him to do-since after all, that IS the nature that He gave the sinner-then a sinner can not rightly be said to have done anything wrong intentionally, and is being punished for his obedience to God rather than his malfeasance. This ironically, makes the sinner more faithful to God than the Calvinist because a Calvinist can backslide and often act in opposition to God’s will. The reprobate sinner is always acting according to God’s will, and never truly does anything God doesn’t want him to do if one takes Calvinism seriously.

The other conundrum for Calvinism is that God could prevent the sinner from committing such heinous acts of sin by simply “electing” him. But, if He didn’t, He obviously did not do so because He didn’t WANT to. Thus God wants the sinner to curse and blaspheme and rape and murder as opposed to electing him and causing him to glorify Him. God gets more glory from those whom He predetermines to hell than He does from those that He could have elected to do otherwise if He wanted to. The only Biblical and logical way to escape this evil as well as avoid universalism is that if man has a libertarian free will with the ability to choose between windup dollone option, and the ability to not choose that option where the sinner is responsible for the choices made,not God. Although some Calvinists will argue that mans reaction in his deadness are a secondary cause (or  God simply “passes over” the non elect) this is a futile argument. This argument basically holds that God winds up the walking toy, and points it toward the wall, but it’s the toys fault for walking into the wall, and the impact was secondary so it is not really God’s fault even though He was the first cause of the will of the toy and the first cause was the proximate cause of any and all subsequent actions.

Although we would conclude that the actions of Westboro Baptist Church are atypical of most Calvinist churches, we believe they are practicing honest Calvinism and embracing its theological implications without flinching. I’m sure Fred Phelps would have applauded John Calvin’s treatment of Michael Servetus. However, because of the public opinion held by Christians and Non Christians alike against such churches as Westboro, Calvinist churches simply refuse to be honest with people about what they really believe for fear of losing credibility. If all Calvinist churches were as honest as Westboro, and simply told their visitors that God doesn’t love them (at least as far as they know unless they are of the proven elect), and that when the preacher says “come drink of the water FREELY” that they don’t truly believe that any sinner can come to Christ freely in the sense that most people understand “freedom”, Calvinism would cease to acquire new converts, and likely lose members who can’t tuck their children in bed at night and honestly tell them Jesus loves them.

As despicable as we believe Westboro Baptist Church is, we at least applaud them for being honest about their theology. Any theology that can not be implemented and followed with complete honesty of what one believes is not a theology worth following. That doesn’t mean that their theology is correct (it certainly is NOT), but if you can’t be honest about what you believe, then why preach or follow it?

Truth Matters


Thank you to Laurence Brown for finding this link to the Westboro Baptist site.

*Calvinists are divided in different camps on the preterition of the non-elect-supralapsarian and infralapsarian. However, even Calvinist theologians such as Loraine Boettner recognized that ultimately there is no difference between the two. ALL Calvinist theology ultimately leads to hard-determinism. The compatibilistic view of freedom merely extends the determination of God to blaming secondary and indirect causes, but when this philosophy is examined to its most logical conclusion, it ALWAYS ends up being totally fatalistic and complete determinism.


Dr. Elisha Weismann

The Eastern Gate of Jerusalem, commonly referred to as the Golden Gate, presents some unique historical facts about prophecy concerning Israel, and also shows that the Muslims are very aware that Jesus is in fact, the Messiah and they have purposely attempted to prevent His coming. [They are of course, a little behind on history!]

Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut.

Then said the Lord unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.

It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the Lord; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.” Ezekiel 44:1-3

If our Jewish brothers had paid attention to this prophecy, they would note that Messiah has already passed through this gate. Matthew 21, Mark 11:8-11. Although Jews do not embrace the teachings of the B’rit Chadasha (New Covenant), Ezekiel 44:2 shows that the Lord, the God of Israel “HATH entered in by it”. Not only does this verse show that Christ came into Jerusalem via this gate during His “Triumphal Entry”, but Ezekiel 44:2 also shows that Christ is the God of Israel.

This gate will remain shut until the return of Christ.. It was sealed by Islamic Ottoman Turks under the leadership of “Suleiman the Magnificent” in 1517 due to his fear that the Jewish Messiah would enter in through this gate. In fact, Suleiman was so terrified of this prophecy that he created a Muslim cemetery in front of the gate that remains to this day. Suleiman believed that no Jew or Jewish rabbi would be able to come in contact with the dead remains because of the Old Testament mitzvah about ceremonial impurity (Although under the Tanakh, this would not prevent a Levite from entering in provided that the ceremonial cleansings were observed-Jesus has already fulfilled the order of priesthood-Hebrews 7:17-so this would not prevent Christ from entering the gate!).

Unfortunately, for the Muslim and the Jew, they fail to recognize that Christ has already came once. But the significance of Ezekiel’s prophecy as yet a future event that will be fulfilled at Christ’s second coming (Ezekiel 46:1-2,12)  is fascinating when we see that the gate has never been breached. It also shows that Muslims are deliberately and willfully ignorant about the nature of who Christ is, and that they feared He was actually more than the mere prophet and good moral teacher they made Him out to be.

The Turkeys possessed this area until December 12, 1917, when as they were preparing to blow up the Eastern Gate, they were subdued by British soldiers under General Edmund Allenby. Then unfortunately, Britain divided up the land (Joel 3:2) and gave part of it to Jordan in 1922 giving Arabs control of the eastern part of Jerusalem. However, Israel regained this area during the 6 day was in 1967. On June 7, 1967, King Hussein had plotted to disprove Bible prophecy by attacking the Eastern Gate which failed miserably and of course, Israel won the war in just six days, outnumbered on all sides.

Since the Temple faces the Eastern Gate near the Mount of Olives, I personally believe that when Christ settles down on the Mount of Olives that when the mountain splits (Zechariah 14:4) it is going to split the temple doors open where He will once again proceed from the Mount of Olives through the Eastern Gate to the temple and take His seat as the King of kings and Lord of lords, only this time, on a giant HORSE (Revelation 19:11) instead of the foal of an ass (Zechariah 9:9).

See our other article on Prophecies Fulfilled in Modern Israel

 Lift up your heads, O ye gates; even lift them up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in.” Psalm 24:9

By Will Kinney

[Editor’s Note: The following is exactly why the ANTI KJVO “scholars” make LOUSY apologists.  The Muslims and atheists are well aware of the corruption in the modern versions and they capitalize on it to prove that the Bible in ANY version is fallible because you have folks like White who lump all of the texts and versions together trying to claim that they are ALL the word of God.
The video posted is posted on a MUSLIM APOLOGETICS site. Muslims and atheists don’t have to work very hard at attacking the Bible when they have Christian “scholars” that agree with them.]

James White on Luke 23:34 – “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”

James White (big surprise;-) is now denying that this saying of Jesus is inspired Scripture (big surprise;-) He says “there is a huge amount of doubt attached to it” and he equally denies that John 7:53 to John 8:11 (the woman taken in adultery) is inspired Scripture along with John 5:4 and Mark 16:9-20. He says he would not preach on these things but would skip them.

See his short 6 minute video here where he tells us these verses are not part of the inspired Bible.

Luke 23:34 – “THEN SAID JESUS, FATHER, FORGIVE THEM; FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.”

This is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts as well as Sinaiticus original and Sinaiticus 2nd correction, A, C, D correction, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, Q, S, U, V, X, Gamma, Delta, Lambda, Pi, Psi, the Old Latin copies air, b, c, e, f, ff2, l, r1, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Harclean, Palestinian, some Coptic Boharic and Sahidic copies and well as the ancient Armenian and Ethiopian versions. The whole sentence was originally in the Sinaitic mss. Then some scribe removed it, and then another scribe put the words back in the text.

However Vaticanus omits all the capital lettered words “Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” But it has the rest of the verse – “And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.”

Every Bible version I am aware of includes these words in Luke 23:44 but the NRSV 1989 puts them in [[double brackets]] and the Holman Standard [brackets the words] to indicate doubt as to their authenticity. The latest Nestle-Aland 28th edition and the UBS 4th edition critical texts both [[put the words in double brackets]] indicating serious doubt as to their authenticity. So they may very well disappear from the up and coming “late$t in $cholar$hip Advance$ in the future.

Meanwhile the RSV, ESV and NIV all cast doubt as to whether or not they are God’s inspired words by footnoting: “Some early manuscripts do not have this sentence.”

We see the same pattern among the Catholic versions. The earlier Douay-Rheims 1582 and the 1950 Douay and even the 1968 Jerusalem bible all include the words with NO footnotes. But then the 1970 St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 [bracket] the words (St. Joseph) and footnote (New Jerusalem) “This verse is retained despite its omission by some good and diverse ancient authorities.”

Dan Wallace’s NET version also includes the words but he has these mind numbing, typical Bible agnostic mumblings that cast doubt on whether or not these words are inspired Scripture or not. He says: “Many important mss (Ì75 א1 B D* W Θ 070 579 1241 pc sys sa) lack v. 34a. It is included in א*,2(A) C D2 L Ψ 0250 Ë1,(13) 33 Ï lat syc,p,h. It also fits a major Lukan theme of forgiving the enemies (6:27-36), and it has a parallel in Stephen’s response in Acts 7:60. The lack of parallels in the other Gospels argues also for inclusion here. On the other hand, the fact of the parallel in Acts 7:60 may well have prompted early scribes to insert the saying in Luke’s Gospel alone. Further, there is the great difficulty of explaining why early and diverse witnesses lack the saying. A decision is difficult, but even those who regard the verse as inauthentic literarily often consider it to be authentic historically. For this reason it has been placed in single brackets in the translation.”

In other words, maybe it is, maybe it isn’t; “a decision is difficult”, it might be “literally inauthentic” but it is “historically authentic” – Say what? As long as they can cast doubt with their “Yea, hath God said…?” footnotes, the Jesuits have accomplished their goal of overthrowing the final authority of God’s words.

Numerous early church writers made allusion to this verse –

Archelaus Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes: and here, our Lord Jesus prayed that the Pharisees might be pardoned, when He said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”[531]

Clementine Homily XI: prayed to the Father that the sin of those who slew Him might be forgiven, saying, `Father, forgive them their sins, for they know not what they do.’[8]

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book II: For our Saviour Himself entreated His Father for those who had sinned, as it is written in the Gospel: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”[88]

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book V: And a little afterward, when He had cried with a loud voice, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,”[114]

Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians: but prayed for His enemies, “Father, forgive them; they know not what they do.”[82]

Gospel of Nicodemus I The Acts of Pilate: Then Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying: Father, let not this sin stand against them; for they know not what they do.[106]

Irenaeus Against Heresies Book III: And from this fact, that He exclaimed upon the cross, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,”[348]

Of the Journeyings of Philip the Apostle: was made to drink gall and vinegar, and said, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.[14]

Recognitions of Clement VI: Wherefore, in short, the Master Himself, when He was being led to the cross by those who knew Him not, prayed the Father for His murderers, and said, `Father, forgive their sin, for they know not what they do!'[7]

All these words are found in the Latin Vulgate 405 A.D., the Anglo-Saxon Gospels Corpus Christi mss. Aelfric circa 1000 A.D. – ” Ða cwæð se hælend. fæder. forgyf him forþam hig nyton hwæt hig doð; Soðlice hig dældon hys reaf & wurpun hlótu.” Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bibld 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Douay Rheims 1610, and in the more modern versions like the RV, ASV, NASB (ft.), RSV, NRSV, ESV (ft.), NIV (ft.), Holman (ft.), NKJV, the Modern Greek Bible with NO brackets – ” Ο δε Ιησους ελεγε· Πατερ, συγχωρησον αυτους· διοτι δεν εξευρουσι τι πραττουσι. Διαμεριζομενοι δε τα ιματια αυτου, εβαλον κληρον.- “, the Orthodox Jewish Bible and the Modern Hebrew Bible (again, with NO brackets) – “ויאמר ישוע אבי סלח להם כי לא ידעו מה הם עשים ויחלקו בגדיו להם ויפילו גורל׃”

James White is getting loopier and loopier. And he is a flat out liar. He SAYS he believes The Bible IS the infallible words of God, but ask him where to get a copy of this infallible Bible he PROFESSES to believe in and he will NEVER tell you.

Now he is “correcting” even the versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, Holman, NKJV etc. In fact, EVERY BIBLE out there that has ever been printed. All of these bible versions contain Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 in them, yet James White they are not Scripture and he would just “skip over them”.

James White has clearly made HIMSELF his own final authority, and in his way of thinking you have to go to HIM to find out what God REALLY said or didn’t say.

May God deliver us from men like James White.

“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Luke 8:8

All of grace, believing The Book,

Will Kinney

By Dr. James Ach , Dr. Elisha Weismann, James A

We are going to spend the next few articles examining some of the “proof texts” of Replacement Theology for claiming that the church is Israel. Although there are different versions of this heresy from Preterist Theology, Covenant Theology, Historicist Theology, and all post millennial and amillennial schools of thought (which includes most Calvinists), we will refer them under one simple heading of Replacement Theology (“RT”).

It is critical to understand the context of Romans chapters 9-11 as the failure to get God’s plan for the future restoration of Israel leads to several gross interpretations of Scripture including the misnomer that virtually all prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70, or that, as with the Calvinists, Romans 9-11 is a treatise on election of individuals and therefore Romans 9-11 contains a chain of texts that prove reprobation and Unconditional Election.

Undoubtedly, one of the most popular starting points for the RTs is found in Romans 9:6, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel“. However, the RT normally only cites the latter half of this verse. It is important that this verse not be separated from its following qualifier, verse 7. The verse in context reads,

 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel; Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

The logic of the RT in isolating the highlighted portion above of verse 6 to prove that the church is Israel goes something like this:

Paul explains that not everyone in Israel is of Israel. There were descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that were excluded from whatever Paul means by Israel. Paul used to be called “Saul”, so when Paul came to Christ, even though he was from the tribe of Benjamin, his name was changed to reflect his transfer from Israel to the church. The natural descendants of Israel do not count, and Paul is really describing a spiritual lineage of Israel. Israel rejected their covenant by rejecting Christ, and therefore are permanently cast off by God and all of their inheritance and blessings go to the church that now includes Jews and Gentiles that make up the “true Israel” as part of the “New Covenant”.

The first thing the RT does is invent the term “true Israelite” or “true Jew” (in part based on a gross misunderstanding of Romans 2:26-28, which we will address in another article). By default, if there is a true Jew, then there must be a false Jew and a false Israel against the true Israel, and that “true Israel” is the church. Thus the RT’s have given a new definition to “church” that is found nowhere in Scripture.

Now to understand the entire context of Romans 9, it is important to see how Paul begins his discourse in verse 3-5,

 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen”

Nobody in the church made of Gentiles are Paul’s “kinsmen according to the flesh“. Paul thus begins the chapter by defining that the audience he is referring to are his physical kinsmen, not spiritual. To further support this notion, Paul identifies these kinsmen according to the flesh as “Israelites” (“Who are Israelites”). Now that Paul has shown that these were not only kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, are these spiritual Israelites or physical Israelites? Paul states that to these Israelites pertained to the adoption, the giving of the law which was given to Moses, not the church, the covenants (plural) which was given to Israel, not the church, the service of God, the Levitical priesthood, which was exclusively Israel, not the church, and the promises. Thus Paul is clearly identifying national, corporate Israel made up of physical Jews.

So just what does Paul mean then by “they are not all Israel which are of Israel”? To answer this, you must leave verse 6 in its context without citing the last half as a proof text. “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect”. Why is that important? Because the question in everyone’s mind is that if all of these promises and covenants were given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Israel rejected the Messiah, then what now is to become of Israel? And what about those who were born to Abraham? If the promise was given to Abraham’s seed, and I was born from that seed, what about me?  Is God finished with them? Paul begins answering this by clearing up the misconception first that just because a person was born of Abraham does not mean they are included in the lineage of the blessings, because the promise was then confirmed in Isaac, the natural son of Abraham, and not the handmade, Hagar,

 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.” Galations 4:22-27

Therefore, those who were born to Hagar and her son Ishmael, were not considered part of the lineage.

Then from Isaac was born Jacob to whom the promises to Isaac and Abraham were then reaffirmed. Genesis 25:19-26; 26:1-6; 28:10-22. To Isaac, however, was born 2 sons, Jacob and Esau. Esau gave up his birthright (Gen 25:34) and eventually produced the Edomites which persecuted Jacob and his offspring all throughout the Old Testament. Because of Esau’s trading his birthright and his treatment of Israel (read Obadiah), God said that He hated Edom which was shown to demonstrate how Esau was not the recipient of the promises, but Jacob’s heritage was *[see note below]

Now this part is CRITICAL to understanding why God has not written off Israel. Jacob then had twelve sons, and the promise to Abraham was then given through Joseph, and to Joseph’s youngest son, Ephraim. Genesis 48:1-22. Pay attention on purpose now. The promise of the Messiah went through the line of Judah, Genesis 49:1-12, but the physical blessings promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob went through Ephraim!

Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but forasmuch as he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright. For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph’s:)” 1 Chronicles 5:1-2

To sum this up, you could have been born TO Abraham, but not be OF Abraham because you were not IN ISAAC. Then you could have been born TO Isaac, but not be born OF Isaac because you were not from Jacob.

We arrive now at how this affects the church and why Paul spent 3 chapters on addressing the question: What about Israel?

The church inherited the spiritual promises to Abraham that were given while he was yet in uncircumcision. Romans 4:9. These blessings were inherited THROUGH CHRIST FROM THE LINE OF JUDAH. From Judah “came the chief ruler” Jesus Christ. Rev 5:5. But the physical land promises go through the line of Ephraim which of whose “genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright”.

This is why no RT could possibly harmonize the numerous prophecies regarding Israel being brought back to a specific piece of LAND:

 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the Lord thy God.” Amos 9:15

Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.” Ezekiel 37:12

Thus saith the Lord; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord.” Jeremiah 31:37  (This verse also shows that the fulfillment of God’s promise to Israel will not be revoked simply because of Israel’s actions.)

Thus saith the Lord of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.” Zechariah 8:23

Notice that in Hebrews 8:8, Paul shows that God will fulfill His covenant to TWO distinct groups,

For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel AND with the house of Judah

It should be common sense that since the book is written to HEBREWS, Paul did not have the church in mind.** In the Old Testament, Israel became a divided nation, with the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi making up Southern Israel, and Reuben, Simeon, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Isaachar, Zebulun, Ephraim and Manasseh making up Northern Israel. During the tribulation, God will restore BOTH HALVES of Israel,

And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.” Ezekiel 37:22

During the “time of Jacob’s trouble” (Jer 30:7), the veil will be lifted from Israel, and the gospel will be preached to the Jew and welcomed. Although the promise to Ephraim is yet to be fulfilled, and the “gifts and calling of God are without repentance” (Romans 11:29), the Jew must still acknowledge Christ as their Messiah (Matthew 23:39). One hundred and forty four thousand Jews will be sealed out of the 12 tribes of Israel (Rev 7:4-8), led by 2 witnesses, Moses and Elijah (Rev 11:3-7) who reach the Jews for the first 3 1/2 years of the tribulation. They are then killed by the dragon (Rev 11:7-8) after he is ousted from the heavens (Rev 12:3-12) which begins the last 3 1/2 years (Rev 13:4-7) in fulfillment of the 3rd woe of Revelation 8:13.

The Jews as a whole will receive Christ as those who reject Christs admonition to flee to the mountains (Matt 24:16) who are helped by God and hidden (Revelation 12:6, 14, Isaiah 26:20), and who have not remained to carry the testimony of Jesus Christ (Rev 12:17) will be killed. So by the end of the tribulation, only a remnant of believing Jews are left (Rom 9:27) and thus literally, all Israel is saved (Romans 11:26).

Thus the program that God has for the nation of Israel is entirely different from the program that He has in mind for the church. The promises that God has given to Israel are directed toward the literal, physical Jew of the literal and physical land of Israel. So even though not all who were born to Abraham were of Abraham, and not all who were born to Isaac were of Isaac, and not all who were born to Jacob were of Jacob, neither are those who are of the church, “OF Israel” either. The church or “ekklesia” is a called out assembly that had a starting point (whether you believe began with Peter in Matthew 16, or with Pentecost in Acts 1-2)  that inherits spiritual blessings of faith that was fulfilled in Christ through the tribe of Judah, but no part of the church is included in the fulfillment of the promises yet to be consummated in Ephraim and the restoration of the divided land of Israel. The church includes Gentiles that were grafted in to those spiritual promises, and they will be grafted out when the times of the Gentiles are completed (Romans 11:25), and God again turns His attention back to the nation of Israel. The Gentiles were branches, they were not the ROOT. The Gentiles were grafted into an OLIVE TREE (Romans 11:15-24) through Judah (Jeremiah 11:16), Israel is a FIG TREE. Matthew 24:32, Joel 1:7, Hosea 9:10.

Failure to GET THIS will lead to an erroneous view of salvation, election, predestination, the rapture, tribulation, and the coming millennial kingdom. Now although there are some pre-millennialists among Calvinists that agree with this position about Israel, they make the mistake of imposing a dual allegorical interpretation to Romans 9 where one meaning agrees with its corporate/national application to the Israel, but then also equally demonstrates the “doctrines of grace” and “sovereignty of God” in the predestination and election of individuals which is a fatal error in rightly dividing the word of truth. Romans 9 has ONE premise in mind, to answer the question about the Jew (“Hath God cast away his people which he foreknew?” Romans 11:2) and our relevance to the future in light of Israel’s rejection of Messiah to which Paul affirms that “NO” He has not cast away the Jew, because God intends to save a remnant of JEWS within a NATION OF JEWS. This is the significance of the illustration Paul uses of the story of God reserving 7,000 Jews OUT OF A POOL OF OTHER JEWS in Romans 11:1-5 (with 1 Kings 19:18, Romans 9:27).

Although we have expounded a little beyond our intent to cover Romans 9:6, the above facts demonstrate that “Not all Israel are of Israel” is taken entirely out of context by the RTs, and given an interpretation that completely defiles the integrity of Scripture, and the intent Paul intended to convey about Israel from Romans chapters 9-11. In our next articles, we will cover Romans 2:28-29, Galatians 3:28-29, Galatians 6:16, 1 Peter 2:9, Matthew 21:43, and Romans 4:11-13.


* The Calvinists use this term, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” to show that God does not love everybody, and hates sinners. However, the term “hate” here is used to show position, that God chose Jacob OVER Esau. For example, Jesus said in Luke 14:26 ” If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” Now was Jesus commanding His disciples to disobey the first commandment with promise? (Eph 6:2). Of course not. To hate did not mean to literally despise and dishonor ones parents, but to show the importance of the authority and relationship of Christ above that of a parent. Luke 2:48-50.

Again, the contrast shown in context with national Israel is to show that God had the right to select the nation that He wanted to bring forth Christ, not that God personally hates individuals, but how God chose one nation over another to herald the blessings and promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Also, the fact that Paul is quoting Malachi 1 which says of Esau that God will “lay his MOUNTAINS and HIS HERITAGE waste” clearly shows that Paul is referring to Esau as a NATION, not Esau the individual. Unless of course you choose to believe that Esau was a hunchback and Malachi was describing Mt. Sinai and Mt. Ararat on his back (see photo).

That Hump is Not the Mountains Of Esau!

That Hump is Not the Mountains Of Esau!

** Note also that in verse 11 of Hebrews 8, Paul writes of this future restoration, “And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.” If the church were the fulfillment of these covenants and promises, then the command to evangelize and “be my witnesses to the uttermost parts of the earth” (Acts 1:8) would be obsolete. Yet in THIS dispensation, we are told to preach the gospel to every creature.

SICK of Baptist Perverts

Posted: November 2, 2013 in IFB, NEWS, Uncategorized

Once again, another fundamental Baptist pastor makes the headlines for sexual abuse of a minor. On October 27, 2013, the Administrator of the Kings Way Christian School wrote a letter to all of the parents of its students stating that the ministry had accepted Pastor Bill Wininger’s resignation.

Bill Wininger was the pastor of Kings Way Baptist Church in Douglasville, Georgia, where he had been the pastor for 15 years until his recent resignation was given over allegations of sexual abuse by Bethany Leonard, who wrote an 11 page letter detailing her charges.

According to other news sources, similar allegations had surfaced in a previous church where Wininger was associated, and he wrote a book called, “A Church Falsely Accused”.

Here’s my idea for a book, “If Thine Anatomy Offends One of These Little Ones CUT IT OFF” I am so sick of reading about preachers in trusted positions manipulating and abusing young children while naming the name of Christ. God did not give you eyeballs to look upon a woman and child with lust. God did not give you hands to grope and feel up a little kid, and God did not give you a mouth to talk sexually to vulnerable children.

And those of you who work around these preachers that know exactly what is going on, WHERE ARE YOUR GONADS?? You gutless cowards make me sick and I would enjoy just 2 minutes alone with one of you perverts and your defenders to see how much of a man you really are. That child was fearfully and wonderfully made, and was not put on this earth to be the object of your sick affection. And the next time I am in the United States, and I visit one of your churches, I DARE one of you sissies to make a snide comment about this article. Grow up and act like men. “Oh but we’ll hurt the cause of Christ if we report it, who will run the church?” You moron, it’s GOD’S CHURCH, not the preachers, and it’s hurting the cause of Christ MORE by these actions, and you thin-skinned yellow bellies that keep it quiet.

There are thousands of Baptists who love the Lord, and strive to live lives pleasing to God, and study vigorously to win others to Christ, and you IDIOTS make it that much harder every time some new report comes out about another Baptist preacher that can’t keep his zipper intact.

Baptist preachers, deacons, church members, you have GOT to start standing up to the perverts in your church or the church is going to lose all credibility in its witness to the world, and lives are going to be devastated trying to overcome the abuse that your trusted ministers have put them through. If you are a church member that simply doesn’t care, well then stay home and shut up. But if you actually care, then start holding members and church leaders accountable. Now I’m not talking about unsubstantiated gossip, but if you KNOW something is going on, then be a Nathan and claim “Thou art the man”. This nonsense needs to stop in our churches. It’s pathetic.

Dr. James Ach

By Elisha Weismann

servetusDespite the overwhelming evidence of John Calvin’s complicity in the murder of Michael Servetus, even by John Calvin’s hand written account BEFORE (“If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight”, written by John Calvin in a letter to Farel Feb. 13, 1546), DURING (“We have now new business in hand with Servetus. He intended perhaps passing through this city; for it is not yet known with what design he came. But after he had been recognized, I thought that he should be detained. My friend Nicolas summoned him on a capital charge. … I hope that sentence of death will at least be passed upon him”-Calvin’s letter to Farel, Aug 20th 1553) and AFTER (“Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard.” John Calvin to Marquis Paet, high chamberlain to the King of Navarre, 1561), the Calvinist revisionist excuse John Calvin by claiming…..GASP!……John Calvin was not an integral part of the actual court proceedings.

But is this a valid objection?

In the Old Testament, 2 witnesses were required against the accused for a capital murder offense. Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6. This shows clearly that a witness is an integral part of the prosecution in putting a person to death under the law. History shows that Servetus’ execution was the result of 7 years of planning from John Calvin to have Servetus executed.

In the book of Daniel chapter 6, the popular story of the Lion’s Den, King Darius had Daniel’s accusers executed for conspiring to kill Daniel.

In the book of Judges, God judged Abimelech for “ordering the hit” of 70 of his brethren. Judges 9:56.

In the book of Esther, Haman was hanged for conspiring to have the Jews killed by proxy through manipulating the laws (similar to Daniel’s story).

Let’s not forgot one of the most popular Old Testament tragedies, the murder of Uriah the Hittite by King David. David didn’t actually kill Uriah, he had someone else do it. But Nathan still told David, “Thou art the man”. 2 Samuel 12.

There are several more examples that could be offered, the above will suffice. Yet despite the overwhelming evidence in the Bible that shows that a person is not excused merely because he or she did not actually either participate in the proceedings or merely conspired to cause the proceedings to take place, the Calvinists invest this fantastic defense of Calvin that defies all common sense and logic.

As an attorney, if I were ever required to represent and defend the godfather of a mafia family for ordering the deaths of informants, never in a million years would I have thought to use the defense, “Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the godfather is innocent because he was never actually present during the crime and did not pull the trigger.” If I were to use that kind of defense, not only would I be laughed out of court, but the godfather would probably have ME killed.

I marvel that Reformers expect this kind of defense of the Calvinist Godfather to be taken seriously.

And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.” Acts 8:1


See also, James White Historical Hooey, Part 1, and Part 2