Archive for the ‘IFB’ Category

Dr. James A., PhD.

I am a graduate of Calvary Christian College & Seminary (“CCCS”), a school started by Jack Van Impe and Michael Johnston (and also the alma mater of Dr. Kent Hovind). I have an EARNED PhD, preceded by a Master’s and Bachelor’s degree in theology. I also have an earned degree from law school which help start my career as a paralegal and professional investigator.  I have been an avid reader all of my life so much of what I have learned I would have learned in spite of my education in Bible college. Unfortunately, in a day where sophistry is more important than common sense, you almost have to have some kind of degree for people to take you seriously about anything. The same books you use as a college textbook are often available at a local library.

However, CCCS is not an “accredited” Christian college, and this seems to be a “problem” for many of whom I debate. “Problem” I say, because a school being either Christian or unaccredited is used by my skeptic foes as an ad hominem means to discredit my arguments. The tactic of attacking a person’s arguments based on their education goes all the way back to Jesus’ day when the enemies of Christ attempted to discredit His teaching because He didn’t graduate from a prestigious state-owned college (John 7:15). The same crowd also used this argument to discredit Christ’s disciples. (Acts 4:13). In fact, I have heard more objections to my PhD by atheists, skeptics, agnostics and liberals than objections to my actual arguments on any given topic. Ironically, most of the objectors are anonymous who themselves have no formal education. Moreover, if only the ‘educated’ can properly understand the content of a specialty, then nobody else would be able to comprehend someone like Dawkins unless they have an equal education, which begs the question as to why any atheist would attempt to use his arguments against a theist/creationist given that he must admit to his own lack of academic bereftment.

The objection always boils down to whether or not a person received their degree from an “accredited” school, or that my education is not valid because it was derived from a Christian college. Not only is this NOT a valid objection, it commits the genetic fallacy (attempting to discredit an argument solely on the grounds its source). If my degree was NOT valid, what would that have to do with the truth value of arguing that, for example, whatever begins to exist has a cause? Furthermore, the argument works both ways. The atheists I debate with engage in a special pleading fallacy by ignoring this fact. For example. The modern-day atheist champion, Richard Dawkins, does not have a degree in biology, yet his followers accept his views as a biologist as irrefutable proof that evolution is true. If atheists were consistent, they would admit that Dawkins’ opinions on biology as expert testimony would commit the fallacy of argumentum ad vericundiam (improper authority). Moreover, Dawkins also does not have a degree that majors in philosophy, and therefore would not be qualified to give an expert opinion as to why an evolutionary scientist should be honest about their findings-a philosophical matter, not a scientific one. (For more on demonstrating that evolution is far more a priori philosophical nonsense than it is science, see Phillip Johnson’s, Reason In the Balance)

Accreditation is only a recent development in our education system (1950s). Thus, if atheists were fair and consistent, they would ignore Marx, Nietzsche, Sartre, Hume, Russell, and a handful of other atheists, agnostics, and skeptics of whom all modern arguments for atheism have their nexus of whom never held “accredited” degrees. Furthermore, most of the colleges they graduated from were at the time Christian universities (Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Westminster, etc…). So if lack of accreditation and graduating from a Christian college discredits a person’s education, then all of atheism’s founding fathers should be discarded a priori before any debate relying on their premises can begin.

Accreditation is normally governed by statute. In other words, a board of people decide on what is appropriate to teach at a college, and how it should be taught, and the college receiving accreditation must comply with their regulations. Ironically, the atheist doesn’t seem to object at this point that the state dictating what any Christian college should teach in order to obtain accreditation would be a violation of the so-called ‘separation of church and state’ doctrine. The atheist is completely comfortable with maintaining this double standard, e.g., Christianity should not be supported or endorsed by government, but the government must put its stamp of approval on your Christian education or it’s not a valid degree. Of course, we know that the real motive behind the atheist arguments here is to actually get rid of theism altogether, so being exposed for a little hypocrisy is a small price to pay in achieving the greater good of the fight to completely privatize Christianity.

If accreditation was required to make all degrees valid, then no Christian university would be safe so long as the board responsible for issuing accreditation can be manipulated by personal bias against creationism, theology, Christian ethics, and the Bible. In fact, my position is that accreditation is a tool to do just that (after having read the Communist Manifesto, Humanist Manifesto, and Rules For Radicals): keep ‘religion’ out of the public school system, and indoctrinate our next generations with Marxism, marriage ‘equality’, moral relativism, and a disdain for the theistic foundations on which our country was built*. Today’s college students are often encouraged to engage in riots and protests, and even given college credit for it. They are offended by the slightest hint of disagreement that doesn’t kowtow with their violent relativism. One college professor was recently seen at a rally for President Trump hitting a Trump supporter over the head with a bike lock.

Sorry, but I’ll take my ‘non-accredited’ degree over the safety-pin standards of accredited colleges any day. Calvary Christian College & Seminary has a GRUELING work schedule. It is no diploma mill. You won’t pay for your course, and get a degree in the mail. YOU HAVE TO EARN IT. In fact, I did more writing and read more books to earn my degree at CCCS then I ever did in public school, or even law school (except for the case-law readings). A Christian college should not be subjected to state ‘accreditation’, and no Christian president of a Christian college should ever subject his college to one. It is an utterly silly argument to subject a person’s desire to be educated according to his/her beliefs to a system that dismisses those beliefs outright, and then attack that person’s arguments or opinions based on such faulty presuppositions about education.


For more on CCCS position on accreditation, see President Mike Johnston’s statement, here.




*A recent video made by Millie Weaver at Infowars shows how Marxism is being taught in college campuses across America.



Dr. James A., PhD.

New Bridge Church of Lawrenceville, Georgia,  has been openly critical of the IFB churches (independent fundamental Baptists) with many of their followers constantly criticizing adherents of the Twitter #Oldpaths trend. New Bridge has a similar format and creed as that of IFB critic, Christian Farris of Next Level “ministries”. These groups of IFB critics are always quick to point out the sins of Jack Schaap and other IFB who have been charged with sex crimes, as a grounds for discrediting the entire IFB environment.

On December 28, 2016, the youth pastor of New Bridge Church, Nicholas Kelley, was arrested for child molestation.

Although their lead pastor, Jeff Lyle, denies being a Calvinist or Arminian, his defense of Calvinist doctrines is typical of the type of “neutral” pastors these days that disguise their closet-Calvinism in nuance.

So apparently, sexual abuse of children occurs among the IFB critics as well. Who knew!

Dr James A., PhD

I’ve heard a lot of criticism over the methods of Jack Hyles and First Baptist Church, but some are so ridiculous that they wouldn’t pass the law school laugh test. This one has been circling the Twittersphere this week, and it’s so stupid I decided to address it.


The contention is over Jack Hyles on a FEW occasions telling his church members to close their Bibles while he spoke to them. To the IFB critics on the #Oldpaths hashtag, “Close Your Bibles” = “Don’t Search the Scriptures”.

Ironically, these same critics fail to mention how many times Hyles told the crowd to OPEN their Bibles-something like…every service.

I’ve never seen so many that desperate to attack another view or person that they have to resort to such childish and amateur attacks.

The reason Hyles had people BRIEFLY close their Bibles-AFTER THEY READ THE SELECTED PORTION OF IT- (Furthermore…Um…hello? If you were asked to close your Bible, that means IT WAS OPEN), is because many people would flip through pages while he was talking, which means you’re not listening to the pastor, and are distracting the person next to you. Did these critics expect Hyles to just read and not say a word after that? Or just read nothing but the Bible for the entire hour? Why don’t we see that kind of criticism and expectation leveled against every other church in the world? As I’ve constantly pointed out, the IFB is the most criticized denomination in America for their so-called “legalistic standards” by a crowd that attempts to impose more standards on us than Obamacare and OSHA.

When I pointed out that Jesus closed the book after reading 2 verses (boy THAT would have sent the Expository Police into a tailspin. Today’s IFB critic would have crucified Him for THAT alone) out of Isaiah in Luke 4:18-20, the issue was no longer that closing the book was wrong, but that telling someone else to close it was. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?  Scripture and verse? If the issue was closing the book at all, then it would have been wrong for Jesus to do so. So to avoid the foot-in-mouth position, these critics have to make their own Pharisaic criteria to justify their accusations. and then change the original onus of their argument.

If you wanted to read and study the Bible instead of listening to what the preacher was saying, why bother going to church at all? Do us all a favor, if that’s your attitude, by all means PLEASE STAY HOME so the rest of us can listen to the preacher without having to stand up to see over your nose.

Dr. James Ach

For several years now, the Online Baptist forum seemed to be a place where independent fundamental Baptists could meet and discuss issues germane to other IFB churches.  There were a few clashes here and there, but for the most part, everyone held fundamentals in common that are shared by all other IFB churches.

However, within the last year, the forum moderators (one of them a mid tribulation proponent and one a defender of the Do Right Hyles Anderson Facebook Group) have permitted blatant false doctrine including but not limited to: Hyper Calvinism, Calvinism, Anti King James Only adherents, 7th Day Adventism, Preterism, Covenant/Replacement Theology, down to the moderators themselves being unable to identify what a fundamental Baptist is. The forum has no longer become a place for IFB believers to congregate and enjoy conversations about the Bible, fellowship, and learning from each other, but having to constantly police the threads putting out fires of false doctrine, and then putting up with the moderators when members complained to them to do something about it.

Those of us on Twitter have seen the vast amount of fake IFB parody accounts that have flooded IFB preacher’s feeds. I have personally blocked 76 such accounts from following me on Twitter. Most of these are members of the Stuff Fundies Like forums and followers of James White and JD Hall (and we know of at least one account ran by Fred Butler). They have an agenda of infiltrating forums and groups of known KJVO independent fundamental Baptists for the sole purpose of causing chaos, confusion, disruption.  The infiltrators used tactics that I am all too familiar with after seeing them used by terrorists in Israel for so long where “Palestinians” would lob fire bombs over our borders, and then blame the IDF for being cruel when they defending our land and people in retaliation. The infiltrators deliberately targeted me, and a host of other knowledgeable Bible defenders, and then complained to the moderators about how hateful we were in “attacking them” when we sternly corrected their false doctrine as Paul told us to in Titus 1. The moderators ate it up like politicians eating LGBT persecution cookies, banned me, and caused those who USED to care about the forum to leave.

Today, I’d personally had enough. After warning the moderators repeatedly about the recent influx of heretics, a warning that was echoed by countless other members (many who have already made the exodus from the forum) I told the moderators they could shove the forum between a Catholic “Bible” like an Apocrypha. Enough is enough. The Online Baptist forum is neither fundamental nor Baptist, and will continue down its path of a diminished influential forum until someone steps up and cleans house.

It is truly sad that in this day we are seeing more fundamental Baptist churches compromise with their CCM music, and their entertainment programs and their watered down standards, and their tails tucked between their legs whenever a hint of controversy arises where they might actually have to make a stand and defend what they profess to believe in. It’s sad to see something as simple as the maintaining of a forum and letting it fall so hard to heretics, but I’m afraid it’s just one more small sign of bigger things to come among the ranks of professing fundamental Baptists.

isthisajokeI thought, this MUST be some kind of internet prank. Not at all. Jack Allen Schaap is really appealing his 12 year sentence for his sexual abuse of a minor. (We have articles on the plea agreement here and here.)*

Schaap is challenging his sentence on the grounds that the victim was an alcohol and marijuana user and abuser and that she aggressively pursued him sexually.

First of all, from a legal standpoint, it is highly unlikely that the courts will even give this kind of appeal a second thought. When a defendant accepts a plea agreement, they waive their rights to bring facts to a jury trial and that would include “newly discovered evidence”. The only exception to such rules are if the new evidence could not have been known even with a modicum of due diligence at the time Schaap was gathering evidence for his defense. The “new evidence” raised by Schaap is not evidence that was not known to Schaap during the initial proceedings, and could have been raised.  As such, these kind of arguments are not grounds for an appeal.

Secondly, since Schaap did in fact accept a plea agreement, typically one must resolve the issue of the plea before any additional arguments can be heard regarding the facts of the case as these are waived by the plea. Schaap would have to prove that he was either coerced into making the plea, was not competent when he entered the plea, or did not enter the plea knowingly and/or intentionally. The burden of proof will be on Schaap to prove that his plea falls under any of these criteria, and the plea must be set aside first before the court can even begin to entertain the “new facts” Schaap has raised. In our opinion, it would be highly unlikely that Schaap’s plea is set aside. Thus, regardless of whatever “new evidence” Schaap claims, true or not, it is doubtful that he would be able to get his plea set aside in order to even raise these issues.

Even if Schaap’s plea does somehow get set aside, that would not cause a sentence reduction, it would merely entitle him to a trial, and he would be back at square one in preparing for a defense in a jury trial which would likely land him even more years if he goes to trial and loses. If Schaap somehow thinks he is going to get his plea overturned and then negotiate a better plea agreement later with the government, I think he is in for a rude awakening.

Thirdly, Schaap’s defense of “she pursued me aggressively” is normally covered by Rape Shield laws. In other words, a victim’s sexually history can not be used against her. Just because a woman is promiscuous, even if she was a prostitute, that does not mean that she is lying when she alleges that she has been raped or molested. There are some exceptions to the Rape Shield laws (such as if the victim had several prior cases of falsely accusing someone of sexual misconduct) but  even if the girl in Schaap’s case was promiscuous and aggressively pursued him, it is doubtful that the court would allow that kind of defense to be raised. The same goes for the marijuana and alcohol usage. The federal rules of evidence prohibit evidence of prior bad acts and any exceptions to those rules do not apply in Schaap’s case.

From a Biblical view-point, did Potiphar’s wife not pursue Joseph aggressively?

Genesis 39:7 “And it came to pass after these things, that his master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me. She pursued Joseph, “DAY BY DAY”, and Joseph still refuse to lie with her:

8 But he refused, and said unto his master’s wife, Behold, my master wotteth not what is with me in the house, and he hath committed all that he hath to my hand;

There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?

10 And it came to pass, as she spake to Joseph day by day, that he hearkened not unto her, to lie by her, or to be with her.

11 And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business; and there was none of the men of the house there within.

12 And she caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me: and he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got him out.

13 And it came to pass, when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand, and was fled forth,

14 That she called unto the men of her house, and spake unto them, saying, See, he hath brought in an Hebrew unto us to mock us; he came in unto me to lie with me, and I cried with a loud voice:

15 And it came to pass, when he heard that I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled, and got him out.

16 And she laid up his garment by her, until his lord came home.

17 And she spake unto him according to these words, saying, The Hebrew servant, which thou hast brought unto us, came in unto me to mock me:

18 And it came to pass, as I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled out.

Does not Proverbs devote entire chapters of advice on dealing with sexually aggressive women?? “For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adulteress will hunt for the precious life.” Prov 6:26. EVEN IF THIS WAS TRUE OF HER, it is NOT an excuse for a professing Bible believing pastor, particularly one in a fundamentalist church that is notorious for preaching against such actions to such an extent that such Baptist standards are called “legalism” by Non IFB type churches, and often things Schaap HIMSELF PREACHED AGAINST.

What Jack Schaap has done, and what he is now doing are an embarrassment to the body of Christ and a black eye to the fundamentalist churches across the world. One has to wonder with such a frivolous appeal-is Schaap deliberately attempting to keep himself in the spot light as revenge against church members that no longer support him? Byin order to continuously reminding everyone that the pastor of a fundamentalist Baptist church took advantage of a teenager, he can surely guarantee that all the hostility toward IFB churches will come home to roost again, and perhaps that is part of Schaap’s plan. What else could he possibly be thinking in addition to the obvious fact that he simply doesn’t want to ‘man up’ ?  Schaap got off pretty easy, and now he wants to challenge that?


PS We do note that Eddie Lapina and staff at First Baptist Church are in support of the court’s initial action against Schaap in this matter. So to our lovely IFB critics, don’t even bother commenting with any additional non sense about FBC.

*Our search shows that Schaap filed a Motion to Vacate Sentence on March 19, 2014, US District Court, Norther Dist of Indiana, 2:2014cv00087. The cause of action is listed as 28:2255 (or 28 U.S.C. sec 2255) which is the federal version of the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Hence this is not really an “appeal”. Since this motion must be filed within a year of sentencing, this was likely Schaap’s last ditch effort and the best he could come up with.


By Dr. James Ach and Dr. Elisha Weismann


UPDATE: Court Rejects Schaaps Appeal August 26, 2014

We are going to post an article written by Ryan Hayden, an independent Baptist pastor out of Matoon, Illinois, USA, as I believe it is a well-written treatise on how to deal with disagreements and differences in a manner that yet glorifies God while still conveying disapproval of sin. Ryan Hayden is a very under-rated author that does not really get the attention he deserves, and he has often mentioned some things to me that caught me in the middle of some of my own heated moments.

Recently I have engaged in some debates and disagreements, and while I believe I have maintained my “cool”, there are moments when I get so disgusted in the manner in which another Christian “rebukes” another Christian and then acts pious and hypocritical in their approach, that I have often nearly crossed the line myself, and sometimes have crossed the line ever the desire to win an argument because I was angry and wanted to make the person ‘get’ my point of view.

I would like to think that I can treat people the way I would treat my wife or children. I have a few disagreements with my wife from time to time, but I would NEVER call her “stupid” or “a dummy” (especially since I’m usually the one that’s wrong!) or even raise my voice to her. My children also have never heard me raise my voice to them in anger-ever. Should we treat our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ any different?

Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.” 1 Timothy 5:1-2

As Dave Miller recently Tweeted, “We should rebuke sin without sinning”. Some folks just don’t seem to understand that Christ is just as concerned about HOW we confront others as what we are confronting them about and why. They seem to think that as long as you have the right to put the perpetrators in handcuffs, you have the right to beat a confession and repentance out of them. I am not going to point fingers in this article because I need to hear it as much as they do-and I hope they are listening.

Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” Galatians 6:1

Dr. James Ach



[Unfortunately, Ryan’s website is down temporarily. You can visit his site in a few days at, and Twitter,

One of the things that I’ve found as I’ve written in various places on the internet is that most people don’t know how to express opposition civilly and intelligently. The web is full of name calling, attacks on character, us-versus-them cheerleading, and “the world is coming to an end if” types of arguments. In other words, when faced with ideas or information that makes us uncomfortable, most of us don’t know how to oppose the ideas, so we oppose the people who present them.

This kind of defensive opposition really does no good. When we get defensive, our ideological opponents get defensive. When we bring out the cruise missile of an insult, they start looking for weapons of mass destruction of their own. All you end up with are bruised egos and a bigger divide.

I find it helpful on the internet to always strive to be idea driven. Here’s what I mean:

Attack ideas, not people.

The other day I put a letter to the editor in the newspaper about some homosexual rights legislation being pushed through our state assembly. I didn’t call anybody names. I didn’t write anything that hadn’t been verified. Yet, I couldn’t believe the comments on the newspaper website. Apparently, being opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons makes me a hater, a fear monger and a bigot. Also, plenty of people are glad that I am not their pastor, and glad to let me know.

The common thread in 96% of the negative comments was that the commenters were attacking me, and saying nothing about what I wrote.

One comment was different, it’s author stated disagreement and then pointed out what he saw as a flaw in my argument. I thanked him for his comment, did some research, and rethought what I’d said. He didn’t change my mind about the whole argument, but he changed my mind about one part of it.

Nothing good comes from attacking people for having an opinion. Attack the opinion itself, try to show what’s wrong with it, but don’t attack people.

Which brings me to another part of being idea driven:

Try to change peoples mind, not make people look bad.

One of the negative side effects of the internet is the polarization of our society. We all tend to develop an us verses them mentality and as a result “defeat them” becomes a goal. In the book of Acts, we see Paul going to synagogues and city squares, and in all of those places, he faced instant opposition. We never read where Paul went into attack mode and tried to make the Jews or Gentiles feel stupid or look bad for having bad ideas, rather, we see him working hard and long reasoning with people to persuade them about the truth of Jesus Christ. (Acts 17:2, 2 Cor. 5:11)

In any ideological battle we should remember that we aren’t after casualties, but converts. You can’t get converts if you can’t keep an audience in the first place. This is why being idea driven is so important.

Remember the wisdom from Proverbs:

“A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness.” Proverbs 15:1–2

“By long forbearing is a prince persuaded, and a soft tongue breaketh the bone.” Proverbs 25:15

It applies to the internet too.

Avoid the taboos of civil argument.

Some of you may have studied debate or logic in school, I did not. I went through high school, college and some graduate school before I learned on my own that their have been rules governing civil discourse for hundreds of years. If you take the time to do a quick study of the “logical fallacies” and you try to apply that knowledge, I guarantee your conversation will be elevated to a whole new level.

Here are some of the main ones (there are many more):

  • ad hominem attacks – attacking the person, not the idea. (i.e. “The only thing that you just proved is that you’re an idiot.”)
  • false-dichotomies – assuming that there are only two possibilities, when there could be more. (i.e. “Either you are a conservative or a liberal.”)
  • guilt by association – assuming because an idea is associated with a person or other idea, it is false. (i.e. “Adolf Hitler said that once, it must be evil.”)
  • straw men – attacking an argument that nobody holds to make yourself look good. (i.e. “Lordship salvation people believe that once you are saved you never sin and live in perfect submission to Christ.”)

I’ve found this list on the website to be very helpful. (I know little about their organization and just found this via a google search. So don’t view the link as an endorsement.) [EDITORS NOTE: Matt Slick of CARM is an above average apologist although we do not agree with nor endorse his views on Calvinism or the modern versions.]

If I cannot make an argument in a way that is levelheaded or logical, then I must…

Consider the possibility that I am wrong.

Obviously, as a Christian I am going to accept scripture as rock solid and not question it. But if the cause I am espousing is extra-biblical (economic politics for example) and I can’t discuss it logically in an idea centric way. I might need to admit to myself that either 1) I don’t know enough about this topic to be discussing it in a public forum or 2) I might be wrong.

I’ve found that when I approach a discussion trying to change people’s minds, sometimes my mind is changed, and that’s not a bad thing.

(You might also like this post: Liberals are Fundamentalists Too)* [see note below]

Do have your own ideas about civil discourse or being idea driven on the internet. Please, let me know in the comments.


*EDITOR’S NOTE: I have read this article and it is showing how liberals who criticize believers, particularly fundamentalists, have their own methods of fundamentalism that is fundamental to their liberalism.

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 Dr. James Ach

I often frequent websites and forums and in September of 2012, I signed up for the “Baptist Board” forum which claimed to be independent Baptist. However, I was attacked for my views on the very first post I made. Subsequently thereafter I engaged in numerous debates about the King James Only Controversy and Calvinism. I had received the worst treatment and name calling on any “Baptist” website I have ever been to when debating these 2 issues. I was labeled as a liar, unsaved, and called every name in the book that began with the letters “F”, “A”, “S” and “P”, and accused of starting an anti-Calvinist revolution.

I also experienced the most extreme forms of anti-Semitism on this “Baptist” forum. Because of my views on dispensationalism, the KJV and Calvinism, the Calvinist administrators allowed members of the forum to slander me as a Jew with impunity. One member even sent me a picture of a pig with the caption, “What’s for dinner?”. Another poster blamed Israel for all of the terrorist attacks and claimed that the Muslims learned their tactics from Jews. I would have expected to read this kind of rhetoric from the “Westboro” crowd, but from a website that claimed to be independent Baptist? I was shocked.

Dr Bob Catholic Suit

Dr. Bob Griffin (Wife [L], Liquor [R])

I had frequent conflicts with one “Dr Bob” also known as Dr. Bob Griffin, a head administrator of this forum. Dr. Bob often deleted any rigorous defenses I made of the King James Bible, and even created a separate forum that was buried and difficult to find for any thread started about Calvinism. Threads that I started were quickly moved to this forum, while Pro Calvinist threads remained in the general viewing area.

Dr. Bob accused me of “hating the sovereignty of God”, and declared that I was “evil”. Although Dr. Bob was very prolific in his accusations against me, he was never willing to debate on Calvinism when challenged and defend his accusations. Dr. Bob even referred to me as “Tel Aviv’s Village Idiot”. I was banned from the Baptist Board on 9/10/13 for calling Dr. Bob an idiot after he made a comment about me kissing my deceased mother.

After the first few conflicts, I decided to see just what Dr. Bob was about. I was sent statistics from his Facebook page where he lists the colleges he attended, but one curious reference that was listed that he gave no other details about, was a Ph.D acquired from “St Alcuin College”. St. Alcuin College is a university that trains Jesuits among other students. Of course, I asked Dr. Bob to explain this, and he never replied to the question.

Needless to say the “Baptist Board” is the worst atmosphere of professing Baptists I have ever seen.

The trend that I noticed on this Baptist Board and many other websites like it, is the anti King James Version and Calvinist movements using such websites as tools to attract members to what they think is a fundamental Baptist website, and then using administrative functions to slight those who favor the King James and are Non Calvinist. These websites deliberately avoid clarifying their true beliefs, and advertise themselves on “Top Sites” that are IFB related lists. These websites are being carefully used to sabotage the beliefs of Bible believing Baptists and promote their versions of Reformed Theology and anti King James Bible sentiments on unsuspecting members.

Bible believing Baptists need to beware of such websites like this and mark them as divisive Satanic schemes to attempt a coup among fundamental Baptist churches. We advise pastors of real fundamental Bible believing Baptist churches to warn their members about such websites as well.

The following forums are the only ones I would recommend for King James Non Calvinist believers:

*Online Baptist (website,

*Calvinism’s Other Side- (website,

Facebook Groups 

[I do not use Facebook which I despise with a passion, thus those who have groups that they would like listed may send us the URL]

*Boaz Baptist Church Chronicles (url, )

We have also developed a new “Top Baptist” listing for real Bible Believing Baptists at:

Bible Believing Baptist Topsites

Cynthia McClaskey is among the antifundamentalist ‘do-righter’ crowds that maintains a blog against Baptists, particularly IFB. Part of her stated mission is proving that Baptists deliberately subjugate women by altering the Bible to fit their misogynist agenda.

In support of this ludicrous accusation, among her many diatribes written on this subject is an article entitled “English Bible Translations: Are They Really The Inspired Words of God” and siting a TALMUDIST, Rabbi Joseph Talushkin’s view of Genesis 25:21 as evidence that the English Bibles have been purposely altered to subjugate women. McClaskey contends that Talushkin’s view that the Hebrew word “le-nokhach ishto” is mistranslated and should be “opposite his wife” and as such,Cynthia cites this as evidence of intentional subjugation of woman.

Genesis 25:21 reads:

And Isaac intreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren: and the Lord was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.

First of all, I take issue with Taluskin’s translation as such of this verse. נכח or nokach does not mean AGAINST as McClaskey is implying that this translation would be rendered.  The nokach is used in a prepositional phrase that means “on behalf of”.  Although nakoch is translated as “against” in 10 places in the Bible, it is in relation to location, not SUPERIORITY between sexes. This kind of presumptuous interpretation is asinine for in the very next verse Genesis 25:22-23 read:

And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the Lord. And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

God heard Rebekah’s prayer just the same as He heard Isaac’s, and God answered Rebekah’s prayer TO REBEKAH.

Secondly, McClaskey’s accusation against the KJV is actually non existent. McClaskey opines that”

Every time I delve into one of Telushkin’s books, I discover true meanings of passages that Chrisitian leaders twist in order to subjugate and control women and point them into positions of servitude. The above passage is one such passage

Now you would think that if the KJV tranlsators had the subjugation of women in mind then the ENGLISH TEXT WOULD READ AS THE TRANSLATION BY TALUSHKIN RENDERS IT. It doesn’t. How on earth could anyone with a rational mind think that Baptists are applying the HEBREW reading as rendered by a Jewish Talmudist to subjugate women, when the accusation by McClaskey is that this is based on an ENGLISH PERVERSION of the text? It would only fit McClaskey’s argument if the English text actually read as Talushkin accuses, but instead, the KJV and even the 1917 and 1936 JEWISH TRANSLATIONS have this rendered correctly.

Furthermore, the KJV in 1 Peter 3:7 demands that husbands dwell with their wives according to knowledge, and as being heirs TOGETHER of the grace of God, and indicates that a hindrance to prayer is the neglect of BOTH parties failing to honor one another. Ephesians 5:25,28, 33 reads,

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it…. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself….Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Thus not only is McClaskey’s accusation unfounded, the Bible in numerous places commands men to treat their wives exactly the opposite of what she has accused men of. Now there are no doubt men who misapply the Bible, and abuse the texts, and in that summation, McClaskey would be right about men who purposely mis-translate the Bible to control a woman, but that is certainly an exceptional circumstance of a selfish man, it is most certainly not because there is evidence of the Bible itself being a faulty translation.

This is a perfect example of a fundamentalist critic building a straw man and then tearing down their own caricature as if it was a view held by Baptists. As a natural born Jew, I know of no Messianic Jews that hold to the view that McClaskey has espoused here, let alone any fundamental Baptists. Rabbi Talushkin well known in Israel as being openly hostile to Christianity, and yet he is considered a valid and trusted source by McClaskey, a professing Christian, on matters of Biblical interpretation.

My advice to McClaskey would be if you are attempting to attack the English Bible based on Hebrew, learn Hebrew first. And if you are a professing Christian, consider that your source for your bias article and straw man argument is a Christ rejecting Talmudist that relies on some of the most Kabbalistic readings of the Torah found in the Gemara.

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that critics go to in slandering Bible believers with inaccurate and blatantly false information about the Bible.

Project For Change In Fundamentalism

Posted: April 30, 2013 in IFB

By Ryan Hayden

A few weeks ago, I posted about some problems that we young Independent Baptists face. I named five of them, and I said that personally, I was going to obey the command to “mark and avoid” the people who are guilty of those things.

I’m not satisfied with a single blog post, I really want to see some changes within fundamentalism and I can do very little by myself. I’ve been thinking of some things that could be done and came to the conclusion that a huge amount of change could happen if Pastors would take a stand on three issues:

  • abuse of the Bible
  • preacher worship
  • proud factionalism

Read the rest of the article here, and for comments, please offer them to Ryan since this is his project and article