Born Again Christian; Biblical Fundamentalist, King James Only, Dispensational and libertarian
Thursday, April 23, 2026
Gaydar is part of normalizing sexual degeneration.
I am going to touch on something that has occurred to me over the years of being saved out of the sodomy by God. That the idea that Gaydar is a thing is part of the normalizing of homosexual activity in society.
As I have proven using both the Bible and the best Metanalysis of same sex attraction and behavior no one is born homosexual anymore than they are ever truly Born in the Wrong body. No male has a female typical brain and no female has a male typical brain.We are created and designed by God Almighty as the male or female we are born as. In the same vein He did not create anyone to have sex outside of a marriage to a member of the opposite sex for life; outside of abuse or adultery.
The idea that just because someone has a certain kind of job or whatnot means they "are gay" is not true as the homosexual identity and orientation is a creation of psychology and not a creation of God. To jump on the gaydar train is to say someone Is Gay and not just someon experiencing same sex attraction based temptations and sin.
God created us all with our anatomy to act a certain way towards the opposite sex and anything else is not the way God created you. It is largely due to trauma in most cases and when you deal with that trauma your same sex attractions go away and heterosexuality naturally emerges.
This does not mean we should harm or bully those that suffer such temptations and sins. However, it does mean we need to tell the truth in love. That they are not Gay they have same sex attractions for some reasons and like all other sexual sins it needs to be faught.
Let us say the truth in love and tell them they need to repent and believe on Christ and what He did for them. Like we do with everyone else. However, we need to be truthful that it belongs in the abominations to God Category and not shy away from the truth in the name of love.
At the end of the day people suffering from these issues are made in the Image and Likeness of God just like the rest of us. God wishes for the homosexual identifying person to be saved from hell just as much as any other besetting temptations.
Gaydar and buying into it is part of the Lucifarian trap do not fall for it people.
Wednesday, April 22, 2026
The war in Iran? It's about trade, not nukes! (Patrick Wood)
The war in Iran? It's about trade, not nukes! The Strait of Hormuz is drop-dead essential to the success of Trump's India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), and he is willing to risk all-out nuclear war with Iran to get control of it.
Meanwhile, as a private citizen, Trump set his sights on Gaza to establish the first from-scratch prototype for Technocracy. This is unprecedented in the history of our nation!
- He created the Board of Peace with globalist leaders, declaring himself as Chairman-for-life with the right of succession.
- Then, the Board of Peace selected Gaza as its first project.
- Then. he brought in his family-owned business, World Liberty Financial, to provide the financial system for Gaza. It will tokenize all assets and provide digital wallets for citizens.
- Then, Project Sunrise was unveiled by his son-in-law Jared Kushner, to create a series of smart cities in Gaza, relying on total surveillance and digital IDs.
This puts to rest the question: Has Trump been just an opportunist or a technocrat all along? Indeed, Technocrat-in-Chief? Further, you will clearly see the plan unfolding for "You will own nothing!"
Reports of Abuse Pour Out of Federal Immigration Detention Centers
https://reason.com/2026/04/22/reports-of-abuse-pour-out-of-federal-immigration-detention-centers/
Even if you support ICE's mission that does not make inhumane treatment and abuse suddenly become any less wrong.
What is Christian Neolibertarianism?
The non-aggression principle (or NAP; also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion principle, zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance asserting that aggression is inherently wrong.
In this context, "aggression" is defined as initiating or threatening any forcible interference with an individual or individual's property. In contrast to pacifism, it does not forbid forceful defense.The NAP is considered by some to be a defining principle of natural-rights libertarianism. It is also a prominent idea in anarcho-capitalism, (classical) liberalism, libertarianism and minarchism.
Neo-libertarians support the core libertarian principle called the Non-aggression principle, which states that anything that infringes on another persons rights (rights as those God-given unalienable rights to life, liberty and property), is considered to be morally wrong. Libertarians also staunchly support the ideas of liberty and privacy, with many neo-libertarians, including those in the Libertarian Party, calling for an end to the War on Drugs.
Neolibertarians reject the traditional or paleolibertarian understanding of the non-aggression principle with respect to national defense. They do so not because they favor aggression but because the principle, in its standard interpretation, is a non-action principle. It would not allow a preemptive attack on an antagonistic state that is armed, capable of striking us at any time, and known to be contemplating a strike. Neolibertarians, in other words, tend toward hawkishness when it comes to national defense.
Neolibertarians also tend toward a hawkish stance on legitimate crime. We also reject the idea that the press should be allowed to print whatever information it may obtain about America’s defense forces, plans, and operation. We understand that liberty and the prosperity it brings are unattainable in a lawless, defenseless society.
Neolibertarians are unsympathetic to “political correctness,” arguing that government must not do anything to quell impolite speech or to compensate blacks, women, etc., for the past behavior of those who discriminated against them, because to do so penalizes persons now living who are innocent of discrimination. But more than that, Neolibertarians would give individuals and businesses broad latitude in their affairs, penalizing only acts traditionally understood as harmful (e.g., murder, rape, and theft).
Neolibertarians view compulsory taxation—such as income, corporate, carbon, and capital gains taxes—as theft, taking justly earned money by force. We aim to eliminate these, replacing them with a voluntary head tax, direct payments for services, and crowdfunding. Keeping earnings in Canadians’ pockets will boost saving, investment, production, and consumption, energizing the economy. During the transition, a 5% GST will fund military, police, and courts, acting as a semi-voluntary tax tied to consumer choice.
Christian Neolibertarians see rights” like abortion, homosexual “marriage”, euthanasia, "Queer" rights and "gender" ideology as government-imposed social innovations with potentially harmful consequences for civil society. If social custom, as embodied in legislative acts, rejects such things it does so because those things undermine the fabric of society — the bonds of mutual respect, mutual trust, and mutual restraint that enable a people to live and work together in peace.
What is Christian Paleolibertarianism
Christian Paleolibertarianism is a school of thought within American libertarianism founded by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard, and closely associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute. It is based on a combination of radical libertarianism in politics and cultural conservatism in social thought. Austrian economics, anti-federalism, Misesian libertarianism, and anarcho-capitalism heavily influenced the movement’s attitudes toward ideas on trade, commerce and statecraft.
“Paleolibertarianism holds with Lord Acton that liberty is the highest political end of man, and that all forms of government intervention — economic, cultural, social, international — amount to an attack on prosperity, morals, and bourgeois civilization itself, and thus must be opposed at all levels and without compromise. It is ‘paleo’ because of its genesis in the work of Murray N. Rothbard and his predecessors, including Ludwig von Mises, Albert Jay Nock, Garet Garrett, and the entire interwar Old Right that opposed the New Deal and favored the Old Republic of property rights, freedom of association, and radical political decentralization. Just as important, paleolibertarianism predates the politicization of libertarianism that began in the 1980s, when large institutions moved to Washington and began to use the language of liberty as part of a grab bag of ‘policy options.’ Instead of principle, the neo-libertarians give us political alliances; instead of intellectually robust ideas, they give us marketable platitudes. What’s more, paleolibertarianism distinguishes itself from left-libertarianism because it has made its peace with religion as the bedrock of liberty, property, and the natural order.” – Lew Rockwell
Paleolibertarianism advocates for a more restrictive immigration policy compared to traditional libertarian views, emphasizing the rights of property owners to control who enters their land. This perspective argues that unrestricted immigration can undermine individual liberty and cultural integrity.
Paleolibertarianism combines conservative cultural values with libertarian opposition to government intervention, aiming to unite libertarians and paleoconservatives. It emphasizes free markets, traditionalism, and anti-interventionism, while opposing protectionism and modernist cultural trends.
https://www.mapmypolitics.org/ideology/paleolibertarian.html
https://polcompball.wiki/Paleolibertarianism
https://rothbardrockwellreport.substack.com/p/why-paleo
https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Paleolibertarianism
https://everything.explained.today/Paleolibertarianism/
https://www.paleolibertarian.com/sample-page/
https://rothbardrockwellreport.substack.com/p/the-case-for-paleolibertarianism
https://8values.cc/blog/paleolibertarianism
https://spreadgreatideas.substack.com/p/paleolibertarian-understand-the-basics
Tuesday, April 21, 2026
Fundamentalism VS Legalism
I am a Christian Fundamentalist as I am totally opposed to Modernism and False Gospels of liberal theology. I refuse to compromise on the fundamentals of true Christianity. Fundamentalism as I am using the term is a 20th-century anti-modern/liberal orthodox Christian movement. This definition is drawn from the history of the movement, from its inception in the early part of the 20th-century until the present.
To understand fundamentalism one must first understand its opponent: theological liberalism or modernism. The core of liberalism is its reliance on experience over doctrine. Thus the liberal will maintain that the Bible is not necessarily true doctrine but merely information about people’s experience with God. A liberal will appeal to the individual experience of a Christian as the basis of authority. The power of liberalism comes from its use of Christian language with a new definition. Since they reject the objective truth and rely on experience, then words such as ‘salvation,’ ‘Christ,’ and ‘resurrection’ are not taken from the Bible but redefined in a subjective or modern sense. This new definition is formed using modern principles of criticism, science, and philosophy. Thus liberalism is an experience-based theology, that rejects the inerrancy of Scripture in favor of subject personal relationships and modern scientific methods. Though some would define it differently, to do so would reject the writings and arguments of the vast majority of fundamentalists over the past century.
To understand fundamentalism is to place it in its proper context, namely 20th-century America. Fundamentalism’s anti-modernist nature necessitates that there exist modernism for it to oppose. Thus before the late 1800s and early 1900s fundamentalism could not exist because liberalism did not exist, at least not as a movement or theology. To attempt to find fundamentalism in the centuries prior is impossible, though you may find individual aspects of it, such as doctrinal purity or separatism. Only when Christianity was mixed with modern methods of science, history, and theology would there be a need for a group to oppose it. This is the movement we call fundamentalism.
The most basic aspect of fundamentalism is its adherence to the inerrancy of Scripture. This can be defined as a belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures by God that completely rules out any possible error in the transmission, so that what the writers penned on paper was completely true: doctrinally, historically, and scientifically. This view is not a strictly fundamentalist view, as other conservative denomination and groups have also ascribed to it, but it is an essential part of its doctrine. Along with the inspiration of Scripture, fundamentalists hold to six other doctrines.
1) Inerrancy of Scriptures
2) Virgin Birth
3) Christ’s Substitutionary Atonement
4) Christ’s Bodily Resurrection
5) The Second Coming of Christ
6) Dispensational Theology based on a Literal Grammatical Historical view of Scriptures.
(A dispensationalist view was rejected by J. Gresham Machen, leader of Presbyterian Fundamentalism, and Williams Jennings Bryan, who fought evolution in the Scopes Monkey Trial. However, if the Scripture is taken in its plane sense one will come to dispensational theology.)
7) Biblical Creationism (Literal Six Days of Creation in Genesis some 6000 yrs. ago, today called Young Earth Creationism.)
The guiding principle in fundamentalist thought is that the inerrant Bible is foundational to knowledge, and that modernism, with its accompanying ideas of subjectivism, Darwinism and higher criticism, is to be rejected.
The final mark of fundamentalism is its willingness to separate from liberalism. This was evidenced in various leaders of the movement: Machen left Princeton and founded Westminster Theological Seminary, J. Frank Norris left (or was kicked out) of the Southern Baptist Convention, John R. Rice separated from the Southern Baptist Convention and then later from Billy Graham when he associated with liberals. While these men did not categorize these groups as liberal, they believed that they were tolerant of such, and thus separated to defend doctrinal purity.
I am a Christian Fundamentalist of the most pronounced type. So should you be one my fellow Born Again Christian.
“Fundamentalism (in so far as consistent Biblical Theology is meant by this term) is in principle nothing but Christianity itself.”
“‘Fundamentalism’ is the only consistently thought-out version of the faith, and the ‘Fundamentalist’ is the only Christian who uses his mind in a fully Christian way.” —J. I. Packer
“The deepest cleavages in Christendom are doctrinal; and the deepest doctrinal cleavages are those which result from disagreement about authority.”
“Sham unity is not worth working for, and real unity, that fellowship of love in the truth which Christ prayed that His disciples might enjoy, will come only as those sections of the wall which rest on unsound foundations are dismantled and rebuilt.” —J. I. Packer
People use the term “fundamentalist” in a disparaging sense because of a handful of bad apples who abuse the title At its core, fundamentalism is about nothing more than getting back to fundamental tenets and beliefs of Christianity, following what the Bible says.
“‘Fundamentalism’ is the only consistently thought-out version of the faith, and the ‘Fundamentalist’ is the only Christian who uses his mind in a fully Christian way.” —J. I. Packer
“The deepest cleavages in Christendom are doctrinal; and the deepest doctrinal cleavages are those which result from disagreement about authority.”
“Sham unity is not worth working for, and real unity, that fellowship of love in the truth which Christ prayed that His disciples might enjoy, will come only as those sections of the wall which rest on unsound foundations are dismantled and rebuilt.” —J. I. Packer
People use the term “fundamentalist” in a disparaging sense because of a handful of bad apples who abuse the title At its core, fundamentalism is about nothing more than getting back to fundamental tenets and beliefs of Christianity, following what the Bible says.
Legalism is the strict adherence to laws or rules, often in a religious context, where individuals believe that they can earn salvation or favor with God through their obedience to these laws. It is generally viewed negatively, as it emphasizes human effort over grace and faith.
Legalism exists when people attempt to secure righteousness in God’s sight by good works. Legalists believe that they can earn or merit God’s approval by performing the requirements of the law. A legalist believes that their good works and obedience to God affects their salvation. Legalism focuses on God’s laws more than relationship with God. It keeps external laws without a truly submitted heart.
Our salvation starts and ends with faith in the atoning sacrifice Christ made for us on the cross. Ephesians 2:8-9 says, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast.”
This is good news for everyone. Galatians 3:10-11 reminds us, “For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.’ Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because ‘the righteous will live by faith.’”
Fundamentalism and legalism should never be mistaken for each other or somehow combined to become a false gospel of some sort. A Fundamentalist believes in salvation through Grace alone, by faith alone, in Christ alone to the Glory of God alone. It is simple faith; changing your mind, belief on Christ and what He has done for us all on the Cross of Calvary that true Biblical Fundamentalists preach not legalism and good works. Realizing your sinful nature and believing On Christ is The Gospel not legalism.
Dr Gary Mann – The KJV Only Tag What it Does & Does Not Mean
I disagree with one part in this video in which he seems to call modern version users heretical for not using The King James Bible. I do not consider non KJV brethren or sisters to be heretics.
However, I do think they are not using the most accurate translation if they do not use a Textus Receptus based Bible.
I also think that we should be still using the KJV as English Speaking Christians or an updated version of it such as the Simplified or Easy Reader King James. However, I am fine compromising and going with the NKJV as it is least a TR/Majority Manuscripts based Bible.
I do not judge non KJV Christians as less than or anything. Nor do I agree as some KJV brethren do that I need to separate from non KJV brethren. However, I am KJV Only myself and will keep using the Good Old King James.
9/11 was not an Jew/Isreali Job it was an Illuminati/New World Order Job!
There is a horrible falsehood going around that 9/11 was a Jew Job or Isreali Job with Jews/Isrealis putting Nanothermite inside the Twin Towers. This is a horrible truly antisemitic lie. It is not something that anyone would have said back in the beginning of the push for 9/11 truth.
It matches the broader antisemitic push within the New Age conquered modern truth movement. The New Age and other anti Biblical worldviews like Gnosticism have long taken over the 9/11 truth groups. It is no longer a friend of Christians and a Biblical worldview. It is a counter Satanic movement to be played off against the very forces behind 9/11 that also belong to the Kingdom of Darkness.
9/11 was an inside job and it was also a false flag. This the Truth movement has right. The culprits, however are not The Jews. The culprits are select sections of the Military Industrial Complex and Satanic powers in high places. Any Jew if they were involved was involved as individuals whom were following The Evil One and part of the greater Lucifarian Agenda. Not because they were Jews pushing a Greater Jewish or Greater Israel Project.
However, I have locked long and far for any legitimate source of the whole idea of Isrealis or Jews painting on the controlled demolition material for the 9/11 job and there is none. So, I believe my original idea that this true antisemitic falsehoods being pushed as 9/11 truths still stands.
On 9/11 the Military industrial network made sure that those in airport towers were confused and distracted by Military games of fake hijacking. Taking place on the same day thst sections of said network made sure that planes hit the Twin Towers. Unlike some 9/11 inside job people I do not doubt that real planes hit the Towers.
I also do not deny that an actual airplane hit the Pentagon. Nor do I deny that Flight 93 in Shanksville was in fact crashed into the ground. Nor do I doubt the phone calls from the planes stating that someone had hijacked their planes. However, whom hijacked the planes could only be verified with the airplane black boxes that have never been released or even found according some official sources.
As I have no evidence against the hijacking being done by Saudis due to not having said black boxes I cannot jump onto the bandwagon of denying that is what happened that day. At the same time I cannot confirm it absolutely either. There really being Saudis whom really thought they were working against American Empire in fact working for the New World Order unknowingly is certainly not unreasonable. From here on we will assume that Saudis later confirmed were in fact involved.
It is clear as day that dark forces wanted 9/11 to happen to remove numerous God Given Rights and prepare North American for a Regional Police State known as The North American Union. Which would eventually be molded into a One World State/Government. Which following the Rapture of The Church be handed to the AntiChrist during the 7 year Tribulation period of history. This was clearly done by the Lucifarian Elite; which includes the elusive Illuminati Bloodlines and Secret Societies to which the elite of elite families belong.
The Twin Towers were brought down not by jet fuel and not by buckling. Nor by knocked off asbestos. Instead they were brought down using either a controlled demolition or by black box deep state technology of some other kind. Either way it was not a job that was completed by Saudis in planes alone. It is clear as crystal. That the Elite of the Elite that serve the evil one himself pulled this job off and it would not have been pulled off without inside assistance.
This does not mean that Islamic forces do not wish to destroy America or the world and bring them under a caliphate. It does mean any role Al Quida played in this scheme was merely as puppets in the broader agenda of world domination by Lucifarian elites. I understand the Jihadi nature of Islam and also that 9/11 was an inside job at one and the same time. I have no doubt that true Islamic terrorism exists and I am not even denying it was used as part of the broader scheme on 9/11.
However, the ones in charge of the scheme are the Lucifarian elite using low level stooges to help pull off their inside job and scheme in this instance. Just like Marxists and Communists are really Marxists and Communists, but are often used by these same elites. Just like Christian Nationalists are sincere in wanting to Christianize the world, but, are being used to setup AntiChrists Kingdom by disguising it as Biblical. At the top of the spear is not Jews and Israel. At the top are blood drinking, satanic rituals engaging Occultist, Lucifarian Satanists under the delusion the Evil One wins and not God.
I am a Biblical Christian Zionist and I am not against criticism of Israeli policy.
I want to make or let it be known I am a Christian Zionism proponent. I back Israel's right to its land God Promised Israel in the Bible and bless Isreal as The Bible teaches us to do. I support Israel over Hamas, Hazbola and other groups that are attacking Isreal wanting them wiped off the map. I know that Israel has an amazing bright future after the 7 year of Jacob's Trouble in The Great Tribulation period. I also acknowledge that The Jews and Isreal is still the apple of God's eye.
However, the current Nation of Israel per Biblical prophecy has been returned to their land in unbelief. They are currently a wicked and evil nation in unbelief and far away from God. This is the state The Bible says Isreal will be regathered in. They will not be saved until Christ returns after The Tribulation and the all Israel being saved will be a remnant of the Israel that currently exists.
The majority of Jews and Israel will be taken to hell in the Great Tribulation from the Wrath of God for not repeating and believing On Christ on the Messiah. A remnant that remains and makes it through the Great Tribulation will repent, and believe in Him who they pierced and crucified when He first came. This form of Israel is the one that will be in The New Jerusalem and the saved Israel that Jesus will rule over The World from during The Millenium Kingdom.
As the current Nation of Israel is ruled in majority by unbelieving wicked rulers I see no issue with walking and chewing gum at the same time. I support and bless Isrsealis and support their defense from those that wish to remove them off the map. As well as from those that push the idea that Zionists and Israel is behind all evil. I also criticize the wicked government when its wickedness becomes exceedingly wicked.
They are the Sodomite capital of the Middle East and have the Largest Pride parade in the world. This is wickedness that the government should not support. Mossad while providing lots of information to Israel and US intelligence is either immoral or at least amoral. As The Epstein Files have shown they care not how they get assets just that they have them. (However, all Nations Deep State was pretty much involved in such Satanism.)
Elements of their intelligence apparatus has indeed defended Pedophiles and stopped their prosecution as long as they have been useful for having information from them or having them as an asset. This is true, but, the problem is when these realities are used to broad brush the entire Nation of Israel and wishing for it to be wiped off the map. Or ignoring that The Intelligence apparatus and Satanic Elite in evey Nation did and does this. It is not explicitly an Israel problem it is a Worldwide Problem.
Their Deep State did indeed not step up to stop October 7th, but, that does not mean it deserved to be attacked. Nor does it mean Hamas was and is not a legitimate danger that needs dealt with. Along with other threats that exist next to the Nation of Israel. I am against American involvement in Iran, but, Israel has a legitimate threat from Iran and their proxies. The US was never in danger from Iran prior to intervening in Iran's affairs. Israel was in danger and is fighting an actual defensive War.
The Rothschilds and Rockefellers were indeed among the many groups that supported The Balfour Declaration that helped bring Jews back into their homeland. Both dynasties are evil wicked Satanic dynasties no doubt. However, they were only two groups among many that supported it for good and even Biblical reasons. I support the Balfour Declaration and I do so from a Biblical Zionism viewpoint.
I believe the part of Israel intelligence alright with things like Pedophile Rings and Epstein types are following the Satanic Rothschild strand. While those involved in the Nation of Israel that are not part of the Cabal are not guilty of such evil. However, the Nation has not bowed its head to Christ and is in wickedness far away from God. Which means that they need our prayers, so, they be saved and accept their Messiah. They do not need to be hated, bashed on, blood libeled, called the controllers of all wickedness in the world or especially broad brushed via truly antisemitic groups or individuals.
We need to love on the people of Israel even if we disagree with their governments choices and actions. That is the essence of Biblical Zionism! Bless Israel and let us pray for the peace of the people of Jerusalem.
Monday, April 20, 2026
Sunday, April 19, 2026
Saturday, April 18, 2026
Warvangelicals, Dispensationalism, and Israel By Laurence M. Vance November 23, 2023
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2023/11/laurence-m-vance/warvangelicals-dispensationalism-and-israel/
I am a Biblical Christian Zionist, but, that does not mean Israel gets a free pass from criticisms. I believe you can be against Foreign Aid across the board and still be a Zionist supporter whom defends Israel's right to exist and defend itself with its own money. However, if you single out Isreal only for not getting foreign aid while supporting it for any other Nation than to me that smacks of antisemitic garbage.
Free Grace and Ultra-Dispensationalism By Laurence M. Vance
https://faithalone.org/grace-in-focus-articles/free-grace-and-ultra-dispensationalism/
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15).
One characteristic of conservative Evangelicals and Baptists who are not adherents of Reformed theology is that they are Dispensationalists. This is especially true of Free Grace believers.
Dispensationalism
The essence of Dispensationalism, as stated by one of its greatest proponents, Charles Ryrie (1925–2016), “is the distinction between Israel and the church.”1 Based on the writings of Ryrie, Grant Hawley has posited five points of normative dispensationalism:
- Literal, historical, grammatical interpretation should be applied to all portions of Scripture.
- The church and Israel are distinct peoples in God’s program for the ages.
- The Lord Jesus Christ will return bodily to earth and reign on David’s throne in Jerusalem for one thousand years.
- The underlying purpose of God’s dealings with the world is His glory, not merely the salvation of man, thus the Scripture goes far beyond evangelism.
- The Christian is free from the Law in its entirety for both justification (Gal 2:16) and sanctification (Gal 5:18).2
Dispensationalists recognize distinctions between Israel and the Church, between the Rapture and the Second Coming of Christ, and between the Judgment Seat of Christ and the Great White Throne Judgment. The failure to observe basic dispensational distinctives leads even the most orthodox scholars astray. For example, Thomas Schreiner, professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, maintains that works are “necessary for justification” and “necessary for final salvation.”3 This is why Schreiner and others, such as Wayne Grudem and Ben Witherington, can talk about “initial justification and final justification,” as if there were two stages to justification.
Ultra-Dispensationalism
Ultra-Dispensationalism and Hyper-Dispensationalism are terms used to describe Dispensationalists who take Dispensationalism to extremes under the guise of proclaiming “God’s Word, rightly divided” (2 Tim 2:15). They, of course, never refer to themselves by these designations. They generally call themselves Grace Believers and their movement the Grace Movement. This should be offensive to all Free Grace believers because it implies that Grace Believers have a monopoly on the true teaching of salvation by grace through faith. It is like a Calvinist’s calling the Five Points of Calvinism the Doctrines of Grace.4
The founders of Ultra-Dispensationalism in the United States were J. C. O’Hair (1876–1958) and Cornelius Stam (1908–2003), who were both active in the Chicago area. Their teachings are alive and well through such organizations as the Grace Gospel Fellowship and the Berean Bible Society, which Stam founded in 1940. Their distinctive teachings are:
» Water baptism is not for this age.
» Baptism will be required for salvation during the Tribulation period.
» A period of time called the “Dispensation of the Grace of God” began with the apostle Paul.
» The Church did not begin until Acts 9 or Acts 13.
» Israel, not the Church, is the bride of Christ.
» The books of Hebrews through Jude are doctrinally for Tribulation saints.
» The apostles Peter and Paul preached different gospels.
» The Gospels are entirely Jewish and have no message for the Church.
» The Body of Christ began with the apostle Paul.
» The early church in Acts is the kingdom church, still under the Law, and is distinct from the Church, which is the Body of Christ.
These are the views of mainstream ultra-dispensationalists, such as those associated with the Berean Bible Society, now headquartered in Germantown, Wisconsin, which publishes a monthly journal called The Berean Searchlight. The Bereans, as they like to point out, “received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11).
The original Ultra-Dispensationalist was the Anglican clergyman and scholar Ethelbert W. Bullinger (1837–1913), editor of The Companion Bible and author of many other works. His teachings were originally called Bullingerism. He believed that only the apostle Paul’s Prison Epistles (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon) could be considered doctrine for the Church. He also taught that the soul sleeps between death and the resurrection and denied that baptism and the Lord’s Supper were for this age.
But because modern Ultra-Dispensationalists are generally sound on not only the fundamentals of the faith and basic dispensational distinctives, but also on salvation by grace through faith, the gospel of the grace of God, premillennialism, and rewards at the Judgment Seat of Christ, they can ensnare Free Grace believers and other Dispensationalists.
The Apostles Peter and John
The apostles John and Peter, and not the apostle Paul, are the only ones who mentioned being “born again” (John 3:3; 1 Pet 1:23). Are we to believe that the new birth is only for “kingdom saints” and “Tribulation saints”?
The Gospel of John was written that people might “believe” and “have life through his name” (John 20:31). In the Gospel of John, “everlasting life” and no “condemnation” are promised to believers (John 3:16, 18, 36; 5:24), just as in the Pauline Epistles (Rom 5:18; 1 Tim 1:16).
If Peter preached a different gospel at the same time that Paul preached his gospel, then he was “accursed” (Gal 1:8). It was Peter, not Paul, who said “that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe” (Acts 15:7), referring to the incident with Cornelius in which God “had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles” (Acts 14:27). God told Cornelius to “hear words” (Acts 10:22) from Peter about being saved (Acts 11:14). After God showed Peter the full implications of the gospel concerning Jews and Gentiles, Peter concluded, “that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they” (Acts 15:11).
The Apostle Paul
The apostle Paul was baptized (Acts 9:18) and baptized some of his converts (1 Cor 1:14-16). The Corinthian believers who were “baptized into one body” (1 Cor 12:13) were also baptized in water after they believed (Acts 18:8), including Crispus, whom Paul himself baptized (1 Cor 1:14).
Paul persecuted the “church of God” (Gal 1:13; 1 Cor 15:9) that was in existence before his conversion. Are we to believe that this is a different group from the “church of God” that he wrote to (1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:10) and mentioned to Timothy (1 Tim 3:5)? Paul divided all mankind into three groups: the Jews, the Gentiles, and the church of God (1 Cor 10:32). How can we say that there was, at this same time, also a kingdom church under the Law of Moses?
Believers in Christ
The apostle Paul often speaks about believers being “in Christ” (Rom 8:1; 1 Cor 16:24; 2 Cor 5:17; 1 Thess 4:16; Phile 6). At the end of Romans, Paul named some individuals “who also were in Christ before me” (Rom 16:7). He told the Thessalonians that they “became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus” (1 Thess 2:14). He told the Galatians that he “was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ” (Gal 1:22). The apostle Peter likewise said that his readers were “in Christ Jesus” (1 Pet 5:14). Are we to believe that there was a time when the churches of Judaea were not “in Christ”? Are we to believe that the Christians in the Judean churches and the Christians to whom Peter wrote were in a different body of Christ than that which Paul referenced? Jesus promised His disciples that they would be in Him (John 14:20) and would be indwelt by the Holy Spirit (John 14:17).
One Body
The distinction between Jews and Gentiles in Christ was abolished at the Cross. Both groups were reconciled “unto God in one body by the cross” (Eph 2:16). The mystery “that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel” (Eph 3:6), was revealed to God’s “holy apostles and prophets” (Eph 3:5), not just to the apostle Paul, and was revealed “by the Spirit” (Eph 3:5), not just by Paul.
New believers added to the number of believers (Acts 1:15; 2:41) and to the first church at Jerusalem (Acts 2:47) were said to be added to the Lord both before (Acts 5:14) and after (Acts 11:24) the conversion of the apostle Paul.
Paul almost persuaded Agrippa to be a Christian (Acts 26:28). Peter said that “if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf” (1 Pet 4:16). Are we to believe that there were Pauline Christians and Petrine Christians, each in their own assemblies and with their own beliefs?
Conclusion
Beware of Ultra-Dispensationalism. It will take from you the OT, the four Gospels, the books of Acts and Hebrews, and the General Epistles. Ultra-Dispensationalism is not Dispensationalism taken to its logical conclusion. It is an aberration of Dispensationalism that wrongly divides the word of truth.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)