Home » Posts tagged 'conspiracy'
Tag Archives: conspiracy
The Real Dovetailing of Future Antichrist Agenda and World Power Now
Satan
Maybe people don’t know that Satan is the “prince of this world” (John 12:31, 14:36, 16:11). Jesus uses this title of him. He is a usurper as a monarch over this world, taking the place of man and specifically, the God-man, Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, Satan holds sway over the world.
As a result, “the world” in the Bible, most often does not speak of the earth, the planet within a solar system. No, it s “the world system.” “The world system” means the entire Satanic organization functioning in the world of men against the plan of God.
Subjection Unto Angels
In Genesis 1:28, upon the creation of man, God mandated him to subdue and have dominion over the earth. Hebrews 2:8 says, “Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet.” “His” refers to “man.” That’s the purpose of God. God will fulfill that purpose through His Son, Jesus Christ, when Jesus comes back and sets up a kingdom on the earth. Men will reign with Jesus Christ and complete that God-ordained task.
Later in the same verse in Hebrews, the author writes: “But now we see not yet all things put under him.” Okay, so if man is not in charge, then who is? An earlier verse in the chapter, Hebrews 2:5, gives a clue:
For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
So the angels won’t be in charge of the world to come. What’s the deal with that? The present world, the one in which we live, is under the subjection of angels. See above with Satan. Even though this is clear in the Bible, I would say a vast majority of people do not know this. They should consider with every imagination of the world and the world specifically around them, that Satan is in charge of it. That’s a big reason it is the way that it is. This significant truth is rarely mentioned, only sometimes in preaching, but seldom. This truth that angels rule over the present world fits with what Paul wrote in Ephesians 6:12:
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
You can read there “the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
“Conspiracy Theory”
What I’m writing about the world and Satan and his angels, demons, some might call a conspiracy theory. I’m saying the overall direction of this world, it’s in Satan’s plan. However, the way he accomplishes his rule is through men, who work for him. That is where the “conspiracy theory” really comes into play.
What I’m writing is not taught in schools. No one mentions Satan as a significant feature of worldly existence. No. The only acceptable worldly position is that we’re here alone, trying to troop through on our own, us men, or people. This itself is part of a Satanic conspiracy, that Satan will work unrecognized, like he is completely camouflaged in this world. Don’t look behind that door — nothing to see there.
“Conspiracy theory” as a terminology is mainly used today as communicating that someone is telling a crazed lie. It would be like saying that Jesus is God. That thought does not belong to polite society, except hovelled away in very private religious places.
The Antichrist
The human personification of Satan in the Bible is the character, the Antichrist. There have been antichrists, who are types of the future antichrist. They are antichrist, but they are not The Antichrist. When I talk about the Antichrist, I believe that it is easy to see the agenda of the Antichrist in this present world. Why wouldn’t we see a parallel agenda, since Satan will also hold sway the antichrist, even as he does his underlings today?
While Bible believing and practicing people like myself go our sweet way, doing evangelism and discipleship with results coming at a glacial pace, the path toward the fulfillment of Satan and the Antichrist’s agenda keeps moving along much more quickly. I’m all for the former. Even though I do believe it is the answer, that does not mean that the latter isn’t also occurring. It also does not mean that someone should not say something or do something to expose the present agenda of the Antichrist.
The Antichrist in the future will do his thing, as we can read in Revelation and related passages. It will occur and he will lose. What he and Satan want now is against what true believers do. Many powerful people today though are working with and toward the agenda of the Antichrist. It is a globalist agenda, a one-world-order. You hear this language today and it is easy to see how many policies pushed by the most powerful institutions glove fit with the Antichrist.
Tools of Control of the World
When the Antichrist finally takes charge, he will inculcate many of the same instrumentation or tools to control everyone and send them in a path roughshod against God. That path already exists. It is a globalist super high way pushing an agenda that accords with Satan.
If anything, one of the most important means of Satan and the Antichrist is shutting down voices that damage their agenda, that do the most to impede their goals. They want to give you the impression that you possess a suitable voice for your message, as long as you don’t stop the treads of their machinery from operating at their highest speed. Keep your little audience. Barely make a noise that will interrupt the march toward the final form of Satan’s rule over the world through the Antichrist.
Case of Alistair Begg
Counsel to a Grandmother
Consider the pressure that even professing preachers feel. A mini-explosive event occurred the last several days in evangelicalism. A fairly conservative evangelical, albeit already compromising preacher, Alistair Begg, got in trouble with prominent figures for publically encouraging a grandmother to go to her grandson’s transgender wedding. The idea here with Begg was compassion and not condemnation. In Begg’s assessment, compassion would be going to the wedding, condemnation was not going.
When Begg started getting kickback for his counsel, he did what many called, double downed. He did not retract. He would not repent of his counsel. Many podcasters went after him. Others defended him. Public leaders stood on either side of his decision.
The Pressure
What’s the pressure on a Begg to answer a public question with a weak, unscriptural answer? He lives under that pressure. The Antichrist will have pressure during the Tribulation Period to control men. He will wield many different means of coercion. Someone summed up the issue with this paragraph:
From the accounts I have seen, we are not exactly sure what we are dealing with, but it is bent however you look at it. Either the grandson was marrying a woman who pretends to be a man, in which case the marriage itself is an actual marriage, and the homosexual delusion (pretending you are marrying a man) is still a sick delusion, or he is marrying a man who thinks he is a woman, and so you have both actual sodomy and quite a different delusion, just as broken. But for our purposes here, it doesn’t really matter. The issue is the lawfulness of a Christian’s celebratory participation at an event that is truly dark.
Why would a godly leader not tell the grandmother not to go? The grandson will feel the sting of her rejection. He would not experience suitable affirmation. Begg knows this too. But it really isn’t that. It is that the present world, the one so against God, requires approval.
Approval of the Counsel or Activity
Who was for the counsel by Begg? The world and its groups that support transgender ideology. They would not throw him much of a biscuit, but they would look maybe somewhat admiringly. Who would be against? Godly people. People against the world system. There is very strong pressure to please the former at the risk of the latter. Just say you’re sorry to your people and they’ll understand. Some Christians will applaud, because they also want approval from the acceptable, appropriate people in the culture of the world.
The Antichrist will ask for full approval from everyone in the world. His forms of coercion will surpass whatever kind Begg presently feels to impel him to give the kind of counsel he did. It still follows that this is what Satan and the Antichrist want to become irrelevant, something that is an abomination to God. They gladly accept the capitulation in the present. The trajectory of such counsel is the future total domination of the Antichrist agenda.
More to Come
Why I Will Not Vote for Donald Trump in 2024 as a Republican
Let me preface this post by saying that I believe whether or not one agrees with what I am saying should not cause division in a church. Donald Trump divides the country, but he should not divide churches. If you are united to Christ by faith you are my brother in Him, and if you are a faithful member of a true church you are in Christ’s body, and I have Christian love for you, whether or not you agree with what I say about politics below.
I have Always Voted Republican as a Conservative
In 2016, I voted for Donald Trump. In 2020, I voted for Donald Trump. In every presidential election since I have been able to vote, and in every other election, I have consistently voted for Republican candidates. Before the 2020 election, I wrote a blog post about why Christians should vote for Donald Trump because of religious liberty, abortion, and free speech.
In 2016 Donald Trump won 46% of the vote to squeak by in the electoral college a few days after Hillary Clinton was hit with criminal charges. Although I found his personality and character abhorrent, I voted for him in 2016 because of the Supreme Court. In 2020, I also voted for him because of the Supreme Court. I also though that, despite the many self-inflicted wounds he gave himself, with good conservative advisors he did a better job governing than I thought he would do. I was very thankful that, with the help of Mitch McConnell and a Republican-controlled Senate, he appointed three justices to the Supreme Court–appointments that led to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. That was very, very, very good.
Many of the media attacks on Trump were baseless. He never colluded with Russia, for example. Many other attacks were based on taking seriously what he said when, very often, even Trump himself does not pay attention to what he says (not a good idea when you are the most powerful elected figure on earth and the commander in chief of the world’s most powerful military).
My political views are extremely conservative. Based on Scripture, they support a very limited government and are very socially conservative. I believe the US Constitution is a very good document for running a government in this fallen world and wish that it were followed much more closely than it is.
Donald Trump Will Not Peacefully Cede Power
So why am I not going to vote for Donald Trump again-certainly not in the Republican primary, and also not in the general election, if he wins the primary? It is not because of his horrible character. It is not because there are good reasons to wonder if what is good for Trump is more important to him than what is good for the United States. It is not because he constantly attacks everyone and alienates larger and larger and larger groups of people and even people as loyal as his own vice president. It is not because he has now been convicted of battery and sexual crimes. These are very big problems-definitely far more than enough to make me vote for someone else in the Republican primary, but in the general election I am willing to overlook them. It is not because of some secret sympathy for the socialistic, big-government policies of the Democrat party. I am very concerned about the judges Democrats put on the Supreme Court and other courts and I see “vote for Trump because of the judges” as the single strongest argument to vote for him, if he prevails in the Republican primary (which I fervently hope he does not). I am very concerned about the way the Democrat party is willing to persecute churches, Christian business owners, and Christians in general who stand for what Scripture teaches on morality.
So what was the final straw for me? I think there is a strong likelihood that Donald Trump will not cede power peacefully if he loses an election. I believe in the American republic, not in a dictatorship by a Republican.
I did not think that Donald Trump would do what he did after losing the 2020 election. Pursuing all legal avenues to try to get the most votes you can? Fine. But his refusal-for hours-to call off the rioters on January 6 was despicable, even when it was obvious that things had turned violent. It is also perfectly obvious that the Vice President never has had the power to unilaterally overturn election results. If the Vice President of the party in power can unilaterally reject election results, we do not have a republic, but a dictatorship. It does not even need to be stated that the idea that the VP can do this is absolutely indefensible constitutionally.
Let’s say that it is far more likely that the reason Donald Trump was unwilling to admit that he lost the election by over 7,000,000 votes is that Trump can never admit he was wrong than that the theories he was spouting off in public, but which even his own lawyers would not defend in court, were true. That would be a huge problem, but maybe if he had just made stuff up to support his ego and left it at that, perhaps I would still vote for him again.
However, it is now years later, and Trump is still making the same Constitutionally fatal claims. He still claims that Mike Pence could have unilaterally overturned the 2020 election results. That means the end of the republic and the start of a tyranny. What did Trump do in his very first campaign rally? He put up a video and a song made by criminals who were justly put in prison for their crimes on January 6. He showed them violently fighting the police. He tried to put them in a good light as they were breaking and smashing and beating police officers and trying to get in to violently place him in power. He did not put up a video of the (imaginary) people who (in an alternate universe) just happened to wander into the Capitol as tourists or something and then were arrested and imprisoned unjustly. No, his video showed the rioters fighting with the police, and was glorifying the rioters as if they were righteous. Note that the video from the January 6 committee here:
And Trump’s campaign video here, where the singers are imprisoned January 6 criminals:
have some of the same footage of rioters fighting police (see 1:14-1:30 in), although Trump puts the violent criminals up for a shorter period of time. Trump embraces people who wanted Mike Pence executed for treason although he does not (at this point, at least, but you never know what he will do next) himself call for the execution of his own former Vice President for treason.
Trump said that he would accept the 2016 results–if he won. He lost in 2020 and did not accept the results. If he loses in 2024, there could be a lot of bloodshed. If he wins in 2024-something that is very, very unlikely-there is no reason to think that he would voluntarily cede power at the end of his term. He could come up with some reason-any reason-to retain power. The Vice President being able to unilaterally overturn results; the election allegedly having fraud that is worse than any third-world country; Dominion voting machines changing millions of votes; you name it. If Donald Trump can claim (even before results are in!) that the long shot conservative Republican Larry Elder lost in California to the sitting Democrat governer, Gavin Newsom, by fraud, then he can claim any election he wants was lost by fraud.
I have little confidence Trump would voluntarily cede power if he lost an election. Furthermore, anyone that was part of his cabinet in a second Trump term would have to be an almost cultic “yes” man. He would have to be a bobble head agreeing with any Trump claims. Trump claimed (in his January 6 speech) that in 2020 he “won in a landslide” but is not now in office because of “the most corrupt election in … history, maybe of the world,” far worse than “third-world countries,” and “everybody knows it.” The 2020 US election was not worse than elections such as the 1927 Liberian election where the winner gained 243,000 votes from the 15,000 registered voters, the 1964 election in Haiti where the president won 99.9% of the vote, there were no opponents, and all the ballots were pre-marked “yes,” or the elections in Equitorial Guinea between 1990-2020 where the president got 98% of the vote at a minimum, with some areas giving him over 103%. Everyone knows that the 2020 election was worse than such corrupt elections, according to Trump. Instead of having advisors like his courageous and moral Vice President, Mike Pence, Trump would have a cabinet of Kool-Aid drinkers who would actually help him to retain power after an election loss and would parrot whatever nutty claims he made.
I am not going to vote for Trump again because I do not have confidence he would cede power. Do you have confidence he would cede power if he lost?
Why It Does Not Matter That I Will Not Vote For Donald Trump
Despite the great danger that Trump would not cede power peacefully if he were reelected, it does not matter very much that I will not vote for him. Why is that?
1.) I am in California, so my vote does not matter in a presidential election. California is almost certain to give its electoral votes to the Democrat candidate, and if a Republican won the electoral votes of California, he would not need them, for he would already have won other closer states in a landslide. Were I in a swing state, I would have to think harder about not voting for Trump.
2.) However, although it would be a harder call, even if I were in a swing state I would not vote for Trump because of the threat he is to the Constitution. Even in this case, though, my vote would not matter. Why? Because Trump is unelectable. He lost a winnable election in 2020 through self-inflicted wounds, and after January 6 he was no longer a viable candidate for president. He is never going to get the 46% of the vote that he got in 2016 again-much less the higher percentage he would need to win against someone less repulsive than Hillary Clinton a few days after she was indited. Joe Biden, the Democrat Party, and the mainstream media will work very hard to make Trump the Republican candidate in 2024 because they know he is not electable. Donald Trump turned what should have been a red wave in 2022 into a red trickle, even though he was not on the ballot. People do not want someone who supports violent riots, injuries to hundreds of Capitol police officers, and the end of the republic for a dictatorship where the Vice President can unilaterally overturn results. Running on a pro-January 6 riot platform is bonkers. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would wonder if the Democrats were secretly paying off Trump to run on something like that. The electorate does not want a candidate who justifies violent attempts at revolution and whom a jury has found guilty of sexual assault. If Republicans nominate someone creepy enough, they can even lose Senate races in Alabama. (Note that Roy Moore was only credibly accused of sexual crimes–Trump has not only been accused, but been found guilty by a jury of them. Roy Moore lost deep, deep, deep Red Alabama. How badly will Trump lose?) Trump has alienated a large portion of the Republican electorate but he unites the Democrats. He alienates moderates and far, far more than half the voting population. A vote for Donald Trump in the Republican primary is a vote for a united Democrat government that controls the House and Senate–probably with large majorities–and the presidency in 2024. It is a vote for a Democrat president who will do everything he can to get Roe v. Wade back. The question is not whether Trump can get the 46% he got in 2016. The question is whether he would be able to get 40%, or 35%, or a number even lower than that. The question is whether the Democrats would win in a huge landslide that can introduce constitutional amendments or just a big landslide that can abolish the filibuster and appoint radical leftist tyrants to the Supreme Court.
So the fact that I would not vote for Donald Trump in the 2024 general election will not matter–if he is at the top of the Republican ticket, the election will not even be close.
However, in the Republican primary my vote definitely WILL matter. I will be voting to keep Trump away from the Republican nomination, so that limited, Constitutional government, religious liberty, and other incredible blessings here in the United States may continue, by God’s grace. While I think Mike Pence would be even better than Ron DeSantis, I will plan to vote for whoever appears to have the best chance at keeping Donald Trump away from winning the nomination, at least if it is still in play when I have a chance to vote in the primary, Lord willing.
As a postscript, let me say again that I believe whether or not one agrees with what I am saying should not cause division in a church. Donald Trump divides the country, but he should not divide churches. If you are united to Christ by faith you are my brother in Him, and if you are a faithful member of a true church you are in Christ’s body, and I have Christian love for you, whether or not you agree with what I say about politics in this post.
–TDR
Peter Ruckman, KJV Only Blasphemer
Peter Ruckman, the notorious King James Only advocate, is a blasphemer.
Why do I say this? I have never read a book by Peter Ruckman from cover to cover. I tried reading one years ago but it was too vitriolic for me; I felt defiled reading it, so I stopped. Now recently I had the privilege of debating evangelical apologist James White on the topic of whether the King James Version and the Textus Receptus are superior to the Legacy Standard Bible and the Textus Rejectus. In James White’s King James Only Controversy he painted the moderate mainstream of KJV-Onlyism with such astonishing inaccuracy. James White makes arguments such as (speaking about the translation Lucifer for Satan in Isaiah 14:12): “The term Lucifer, which came into the biblical tradition through the translation of Jerome’s Vulgate, has become … entrenched … [y]et a person who stops for a moment of calm reflection might ask, ‘Why should I believe Jerome was inspired to insert this term at this point? Do I have a good reason for believing this?’”[1] Dr. White argues: “Anyone who believes the TR to be infallible must believe that Erasmus, and the other men who later edited the same text in their own editions (Stephanus and Beza), were somehow ‘inspired.’”[2] Of course, White provides no sources at all for any King James Only advocate who has ever claimed that Jerome, Stephanus, Beza, or Erasmus were inspired, since no such sources exist. As I pointed out in the debate, Dr. White makes bonkers claims like that KJV-only people think Abraham and Moses actually spoke English (again, of course, totally without any documentation of such people even existing).
Thus, James White’s astonishing inaccuracies made me wonder if he is even representing Peter Ruckman accurately. I have no sympathy for Peter Ruckman’s peculiar doctrines—as the godly, non-nutty, serious thinker and KJV Only advocate David Cloud has explained in his good book What About Ruckman?, Peter Ruckman is a heretic. I am 100% opposed to Ruckman’s heretical, gospel-corrupting teaching that salvation was by works in the Old Testament and will be by works in the Millennium. It makes me wonder if Ruckman was truly converted, or if he was an example of what was often warned about in the First Great Awakening by George Whitfield and others, namely, “The Dangers of an Unconverted Ministry.” I am 100% opposed to Ruckman’s disgraceful lifestyle that led him to be disqualified to pastor. I am 100% opposed to his ungodly language, to his wicked racism, to his wacky conspiracy theories, and to his unbiblical extremism on the English of the KJV. At the same time, however opposed I am to him, as a Christian I am still duty-bound to attempt to represent his position accurately. The way Dr. White badly misrepresented the large moderate majority of KJV-Onlyism made me wonder if James also misrepresented Dr. Ruckman.
As a result, I acquired a copy of Ruckman’s response to James White’s King James Only Controversy, a book called The Scholarship Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Professional Liars? (Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 2000). The title page claims: “This book exposes the most cockeyed piece of amateur scholarship that ever came out of Howash University.” Based on the title, it was already evident that I would be in for a quite painful and dreary time going through the book, but God is a God of truth, and nobody, not even Peter Ruckman, should be misrepresented by a Christian. Christians must be truthful like their God, who cannot lie (Titus 1:2).
While Christians should not misrepresent anyone, I found it hard to cut through the slander and hyperbole and bloviations in Ruckman’s book as I attempted to get to something substantial. Ruckman can say things such as: “Irenaeus quotes the AV one time and the NASV one time. … Eusebius (later) quotes the King James Bible four times and the NASV once” (pg. 117). Peter Ruckman has an earned Ph. D. from Bob Jones University. He knows that the NASV and the KJV/AV did not exist when Irenaeus and Eusebius lived. He knows that the English language did not yet exist. (I wonder if James White’s completely undocumented affirmation in his King James Only Controversy—which he also declined to prove any support for at all in our debate—that some KJV-only advocates believe that Abraham and Moses spoke English derives from a misunderstanding some Nestle-Aland advocate had with a Ruckmanite who followed his leader in making outlandish verbal statements, and those outlandish verbal statements became, in James White’s mind, a real group of people who actually thought that the Old Testament prophets spoke English, although he has no evidence such a group ever existed, somewhat comparable to Ruckman saying that Irenaeus and Eusebius quoted the Authorized Version and the New American Standard Version.) Of course, at this point I am speculating on something that I should not have to speculate upon, since James White has had decades to provide real documentation of these KJV-only groups who allegedly think English was the language spoken in ancient Israel, but he has not done so.
I did discover something that made me wonder if the statement White quotes about Ruckman and advanced revelation in English were similar exaggerations. Note the following from Ruckman’s book, on the first two pages:
“Scholarship Onlyism” is much easier to define than the mysterious “King James Onlyism.” For example, while “using” (a standard Alexandrian cliche) the Authorized Version (1611), I recommend Tyndale’s version (1534), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Bible (1560), Valera’s Spanish version (1596), Martin Luther’s German version (1534), and a number of others. Here at Pensacola Bible Institute, our students “use” (the old Alexandrian cliche) from twenty-eight to thirty- two English versions, including the RV, RSV, NRSV, ASV, NASV, Today’s English Version [TEV], New English Bible [NEB], New World Translation, [NWT], NIV, and NKJV. Our brand of “King James Onlyism” is not the kind that it is reported to be. We believe that the Authorized Version of the English Protestant Reformation is the “Scriptures” in English, and as such, it is inerrant until the alleged “errors” in it have been proved “beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt” to be errors. Until such a time, we assume that it is a perfect translation. No sane person, who was not criminally minded, would take any other position. In a court of law, the “accused” is “innocent until proven guilty” (i.e., O. J. Simpson) … Since not one apostate Fundamentalist (or Conservative) in one hundred and fifty years has yet been able to prove one error in the Book we hold in our hands (which happens to be written in the universal language of the end time), we assume it is the last Bible God intends to give mankind before the Second Advent. God has graciously preserved its authority and infallibility in spite of “godly, qualified, recognized scholars” in the Laodicean period of apostasy (1900-1990), so we consider it to be the final authority in “all matters of faith and practice.” We go a little beyond this, and believe it to be the final authority in all matters of Scholarship. That is what “bugs the tar” (Koine, American) and “beats the fire” (Koine, American) out of the Scholarship Only advocates who are in love with their own intellects.[3]
Notice that Ruckman himself “recommends” Bibles other than the KJV, such as the Tyndale, Geneva, and Textus Receptus based foreign language Bibles. At least in this quotation, he does not say God re-inspired the Bible in 1611, but he says that the translation should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, as is proper in a court of law. That is a much more moderate position than James White attributes to him.
So is it possible that the extreme statements James White quotes on pg. 27 of The King James Only Controversy are hyperbole on Ruckman’s part? (Ruckman has plenty of hyperbole—even in the quotation above, I cut out a weird statement he made about David Koresh.) I cannot prove that James White was deliberately misrepresenting Ruckman—Ruckman’s style is too bizarre for one to easily determine what he actually means (another of many, many reasons why I cannot and do not recommend that you read any of his books). However, from this statement we can see that if one wishes to prove that Ruckman actually believes something it is important to be very careful, as he not only makes large numbers of uncharitable and nutty attacks on others, but many hyperbolic statements.
Unfortunately, as years ago I was not able to finish a Ruckman book because it was bursting with carnality, so this time I was not able to finish Ruckman’s critique of James White’s King James Only Controversy because it was not just carnal, but blasphemous. On page 81 Ruckman takes God’s name in vain, reprinting the common curse phrase “Oh my G—” in his book. A search of its electronic text uncovers that Ruckman blasphemes again on page 269, 308, 312, 452 & 460. He could do so elsewhere as well, but those statements are enough, and I am not excited about searching for and discovering blasphemy. The Bible says: “I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me. A froward heart shall depart from me: I will not know a wicked person.” (Psalm 101:3-4). If we were living in the Old Testament theocracy, Peter Ruckman would be stoned to death for blasphemy. We are not in the Old Testament theocracy, but His blasphemous language is still disgusting, abominable, and wicked in the sight of the holy God. That someone who claimed to be a Christian preacher would write such wickedness is even more disgusting. Ruckman was a “Baptist” the way Judas or Diotrephes or Jezebel was a Baptist. He would be subject to church discipline if he snuck in unawares and became a member of our church.
So did James White misrepresent Peter Ruckman? White’s representation of the non-wacko large majority of KJV-onlyism was far from accurate, so I wondered if he even got Ruckman right. From what I read of Ruckman’s book before Ruckman started to blaspheme, I thought it was possible that James White did not even get Ruckman right, although with Ruckman’s pages bursting with carnality and total weirdness I could see why getting Ruckman wrong would be easy to do. I am unable to determine definitively one way or the other whether James White was accurate on Peter Ruckman’s position (or if Ruckman himself was even consistent in explaining himself) since I am not going to read a book by someone who breaks the Third Commandment while claiming to be a Baptist preacher. That is disgusting to me, and ineffably more disgusting to the holy, holy, holy God. Ruckman’s critique of James White’s book deserves to go in the trash, where its filthy language belongs.
I do not recommend James White’s King James Only Controversy because it does not base itself on God’s revealed promises of preservation and because of its many inaccuracies. I do not recommend Peter Ruckman’s critique of James White’s King James Only Controvesy because it is not only weird and carnal, but repeatedly blasphemous. Certainly for a new Christian, and possibly for a mature one, the recycle bin could well be the best place for both volumes.
–TDR
[1] James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), 180–181.
[2] James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), 96.
[3] Peter Ruckman, The Scholarship Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Professional Liars? (Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 2000), 1-2.
Gail Riplinger & Acrostic Algebra-an Update for the LSB / KJV James White Debate
As many blog readers may know, I should have the privilege, Lord willing, this upcoming February of debating Dr. James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries on the topic “The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations.” Dr. White has debated or discussed the King James Only position with people like Gail Riplinger, author of New Age Bible Versions and leading New Age conspiracy theorist, and Steven Anderson, the acclaimed Holocaust denier and promoter of “1-2-3, pray after me, 4-5-6, hope it sticks” evangelism.
I have found a great argument to use against the Legacy Standard Bible which will be defended by James White. Rather than using arguments from my resources on Bibliology or from Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture (also here; Amazon affiliate link), I have an update to Dr. Gail Riplinger’s argument from Acrostic Algebra.
Dr. Riplinger, as you may know, wrote the book New Age Bible Versions. David Cloud has a review of her book. She has also written a large volume about why Christians should not study Greek and Hebrew. Ms. Riplinger herself is highly qualified in the Biblical languages-as a little girl she took Latin in school, and she taught English to immigrants from Greece. She received an honorary doctorate from Hyles-Anderson College, indicative of the scholarship of New Age Bible Versions, with which Hyles-Anderson wishes to identify. (I am reminded of the honorary doctorates that my first year Greek class received-all the students formed their own school one day, and we gave everyone an honorary PhD, ThD, DD, or comparable honorary doctoral degree-except for one student, to whom we gave an honorary GED.) While many Hyles graduates are not known in the scholarly world, they do excel at gathering crowds of children with candy, leading them to repeat the sinner’s prayer, and then baptizing millions of them on the backs of church buses, often baptizing the same children many times, thus creating more sinner’s-prayer-repeaters by far than the number of converts gathered on the day of Pentecost, when Peter, not having read Hyles’s church manual, told the lost to repent instead of telling them to ask Jesus into their hearts (although the converts at Pentecost seemed to stick around a lot longer, even without gifts of soda pop and candy, Acts 2:41-47). Dr. Riplinger also has earned degrees in home economics, which help her to be qualified not only to be a keeper at home, but also to write scholarly works on textual criticism and Bible versions. Among many other fine arguments by Mrs. Riplinger, her Acrostic Alegbra stands out, proving the New American Standard Version and New International Version are inferior to the Authorized Version:
- Step 1: (NASV – NIV) – AV = X
- Step 2: (NASV –
NIV) – AV = X - Step 3: (ASI + NV) – AV = X
- Step 4:
ASI + NV– AV = X - Step 5: SIN = X
Clearly, the fact that one can get to the letters “SIN” from the NASV and NIV in this fashion proves the inferiority of these Bible versions.
Since I am supposed to debate James White on the LSB, or Legacy Standard Bible, which is an update to the NASV, it is appropriate that I also update Dr. Riplinger’s Acrostic Algebra. Note:
The LSB leaves things out, as do other modern versions. If one leaves out the middle line of the “B” in “LSB,” one is left with “LSD,” a dangerous drug which is a SIN. Thus, just like the NASV and NIV, through acrostic algebra, lead to SIN, so does the LSB.
-QED
My discovery of this argument reminded me of the quality argumentation of leading atheist Dan Barker, who, employed Dorothy Murdock’s great mythicist scholarship in my debate with him. Ms. Murdock argued that Moses is borrowed from pagan mythology because of a 16th century AD Michelangelo painting displaying horns on Moses’ head, which represent psychedelic mushrooms or LSD. Barker also employed the weighty arguments of Barbara Walker, an author of books about tarot cards and knitting, in our two debates over the Old Testament.
I think that this update to Dr. Riplinger’s Acrostic Algebra should prove very convincing. James White, get ready!
Note: Wishing to be fair, I tried to reach out to Ms. Riplinger by means of the website where she sells her books. I asked her about the acrostic algebra. I would have liked to reproduce the response I received, which both asked about whether those who questioned her use of it had taken a class in symbolic logic at Harvard (which I assume she believes would somehow support her use of acrostic algebra-indicating she never took a class in symbolic logic at Harvard) and also said that the acrostic algebra was simply rhetorical rather than a substantive argument. However, I was not given permission to reproduce the email. So I wanted to give Ms. Riplinger a chance to defend the Acrostic Algebra in her own words, out of fairness, but I was not allowed to do so.
–TDR
Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte by Richard Whately & Skepticism
Have you ever read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte by ? (view the book online for free here or here; a version you can cut and paste into a document so you can listen to it is here), or get a physical copy:
David Hume, the famous skeptic, employed a variety of skeptical arguments against the Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ, and against the possibility of miracles and the rationality of believing in them in Section 10, “Of Miracles,” of Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Whately, an Anglican who believed in the Bible, in miracles, and in Christ and His resurrection, turned Hume’s skeptical arguments against themselves. Whately’s “satiric Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Bonaparte (1819), … show[ed] that the same methods used to cast doubt on [Biblical] miracles would also leave the existence of Napoleon open to question.” Whately’s book is a short and humerous demonstration that Hume’s hyper-skepticism would not only “prove” that Christ did not do any miracles or rise from the dead, but that Napoleon, who was still alive at the time, did not exist or engage in the Napoleonic wars. Hume’s argument against miracles is still extremely influential–indeed, as the teaching sessions mentioned in my last Friday’s post indicated, the main argument today against the resurrection of Christ is not a specific alternative theory such as the stolen-body, hallucination, or swoon theory, but the argument that miracles are impossible, so, therefore, Christ did not rise–Hume’s argument lives on, although it does not deserve to do so, as the critiques of Hume’s argument on my website demonstrate. For these reasons, the quick and fun read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte is well worth a read. (As a side note, the spelling “Buonaparte” by the author, instead of Bonaparte, is deliberate–the British “used the foreign sounding ‘Buonaparte’ to undermine his legitimacy as a French ruler. … On St Helena, when the British refused to acknowledge the defeated Emperor’s imperial rights, they insisted everyone call him ‘General Buonaparte.'”
Contemporary Significance
Part of the contemporary significance of Richard Whately’s Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte relates to how we evaluate historical data. We should avoid both the undue skepticism of David Hume and also undue credulity. Whatever God revealed in His Word can, and must, be accepted without question. But outside of Scripture, when evaluating historical arguments, we should employ Biblical principles such as the following:
Have the best arguments both for and against the matter in question been carefully examined?
Is the argument logical?
Are there conflicts of interest in those promoting the argument?
Does the argument produce extraordinary evidence for its extraordinary claims?
Does the argument require me to think more highly of myself than I ought to think?
Is looking into the argument redeeming the time?
Are Biblical patterns of authority followed by those spreading the argument?
(principles are reproduced from my website here, and are also discussed here.)
A failure to properly employ consistent criteria to the evaluation of evidence undermines the case for Scripture. For example, Assyrian records provide as strong a confirmation as one could expect for Hezekiah’s miraculous deliverance from the hand of Assyria by Jehovah’s slaying 185,000 Assyrian soldiers (2 Kings 19). However, Assyrian annals are extremely biased ancient propaganda. Those today who claim that any source showing bias (say, against former President Trump, or against conservative Republicans–of which there are many) should be automatically rejected out of hand would have to deny, if they were consistent, that Assyrian records provide a glorious confirmation of the Biblical miracle. Likewise, Matthew records that the guards at Christ’s tomb claimed that the Lord’s body was stolen as they slept (Matthew 28). Matthew, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, intends the reader to be able to see through this biased and false argument to recognize the fact that non-Christians were making it actually provides confirmation for the resurrection of Christ. (If you do not see how it confirms the resurrection, think about it for a while.)
Many claims made today, whether that the population of the USA would catastrophically decline as tens of millions would die from the COVID vaccine, that Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams had her election win in Georgia stolen by Republicans, that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump had his 2020 election win in Georgia stolen by Democrats, that 9/11 was perpetrated by US intelligence agencies, that Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election, that the miracle cure for cancer has been discovered but is being suppressed by Big Pharma, and many other such claims are rarely advanced by those who follow the Biblical principles listed above for evaluating information. Furthermore, the (dubious) method of argumentation for such claims, if applied to the very strong archaeological evidence for the Bible, would very frequently undermine it, or, indeed, frequently undermine the possibility of any historical investigation at all and destroy the field of historical research.
In conclusion, I would encourage you to read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte, and, as you read it, think about what Scripture teaches about how one evaluates historical information.
–TDR
-The Amazon link above is an affiliate link. Please visit here to learn about how one can donate to charity at no additional cost when purchasing products at Amazon and here to learn how to save on Internet purchases in general.
Millions of Muslims are NOT Becoming Christians Because of Dreams!
Many sources report that, in the words of Roman Catholic conservative Dinesh D’Souza, “Millions of Muslims are Converting to Christianity After Having Dreams and Visions of Jesus Christ.” Charismatic sources agree with the Catholics about millions of Muslims becoming Christians through dreams and visions. So do Southern Baptist mission agencies.
These visions and dreams clearly prove that:
1.) Continuationism is true and cessationism is false. God is continuing to give revelatory dreams and visions today. We have lots of testimonials, and testimonials can’t be wrong.
2.) Any passages of Scripture that seem to teach the cessation of revelation with the completion of the canon must be reinterpreted in light of the overwhelming proof from the dreams and visions.
3.) If this can happen in Muslim lands, it can happen here. Instead of the hard work of teaching people to skillfully preach the gospel, and working so that they grow spiritually to the point where they love to go house to house, we should encourage people to seek after signs, wonders, and dreams, because that is how there will be millions of new converts here in our country as well.
Right?
Wrong.
Why?
Scripture is the sole authority for the believer’s faith and practice (2 Timothy 3:15-17). Scripture is more sure than any experience–even hearing the audible voice of God Himself (2 Peter 1:16-21). Scripture, therefore, must never have its teaching ignored, altered, overlooked, or changed because of what someone claims he experienced. Indeed, even if everyone in the whole world said something was true, but Scripture said otherwise, the Bible would be right and everyone would be wrong: “Let God be true, but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4).
Scripture teaches cessationism, as the studies linked to here clearly demonstrate. There are no Apostles today or apostolic gifts (Ephesians 2:20), the canon of Scripture is complete (1 Corinthians 13:8-13), and God Word is His completed revelatory speech.
Furthermore, Scripture teaches that “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17); conversion comes through Scripture (John 15:3). Men are “born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever” (1 Peter 1:23). So nobody has been born again because of a dream. The Holy Spirit produces the new birth as sinners, enabled by grace, respond to the gospel recorded in the Word of God. This is “thus saith the Lord.” I don’t care what someone says happened in his dream. God’s Word is infinitely more reliable than someone’s dream, and Scripture teaches that people are born again through hearing the gospel, not having dreams and visions.
So how do I explain the dreams? I don’t need to explain people’s dreams. The Bible tells me to live by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4), but it never tells me that I need to explain what someone said he saw in a dream. I don’t need to explain dreams of people who say they left Islam and rejected Allah and the Quran for Christianity. Nor do I need to explain the dreams of people who say they left Christianity for Islam after having a dream. How am I supposed to know what is going on in someone else’s head when he is sleeping? The vast majority of the time I can’t even remember my own dreams. Yet I need to explain what someone tells me happened in his dream, or what someone tells someone else who tells someone else who tells someone else who prints an article with no documentation in a charismatic magazine about a dream?
I am suspicious that these “millions” of converts are allegedly taking place in lands far, far away where it is impossible to verify anything. For example, in the Dinesh D’Souza video above, there are no sources provided and no way to verify anything. This is typical–indeed, D’Souza is a scholarly man who tends to document his material far better than does the average charismatic magazine. With these millions of alleged converts to Christianity, true churches–independent Baptist churches–should be overflowing in Muslim countries, as Islam is allegedly collapsing and true Christians are allegedly becoming a huge percentage of the population. But are these people-if they even exist–becoming true Christians, or leaving Islam for other demonic religions, like Roman Catholicism or Oneness Pentecostalism? What would someone leaving one false religion for a different false religion prove? Scripture teaches that we see Christ by faith, enabled by the Spirit, in the Word (2 Corinthians 3:18), and all images of Jesus Christ are idolatrous violations of the Second Commandment (see the relevant resources here). So are they seeing the real Jesus in a dream? Also, where are all these people? Why is this only (allegedly) happening in places far, far away where we can’t actually verify it? I think of how Jack Hyles claimed that through “God’s power,” allegedly in conjunction with carnal promotion and marketing techniques that manipulated people and are found nowhere in Scripture, he had far more “saved” in one day than the Holy Ghost did on the Day of Pentecost, although not even one person was added to First Baptist of Hammond, Indiana on that day through these “saved” people, and people close enough to the situation to investigate claimed that the vast majority of these “saved” people were just as lost as before. I think of how Keswick continuationist John A. MacMillan, who is promoted among Independent Baptists at schools like Baptist College of Ministry. MacMillan claimed to have an amazing technique for casting out demons, which was copied by him and promoted at one of the yearly Victory Conferences at Baptist College of Ministry and Falls Baptist Church–but people who were close to the situation claimed, on the contrary, that the demons were in control of everything. I think of how Evan Roberts and Jessie Penn-Lewis, with their dreams and visions, destroyed the 1904-1905 Welsh revival. Scripture is sufficient, so even if I were confronted with signs and wonders of the quality that the Antichrist will perform in the Tribulation, I would still go by sola Scriptura–Scripture alone. But the alleged evidence for these dreams and visions seems to be woefully lacking. They aren’t like the real revelatory miracles in the Bible before the miraculous gifts ceased.
Note that the question is not if God is powerful enough to give people dreams. The question is not one of God’s power. It is one of what He has said He would do in His inspired revelation, the Bible–and in that revelation He has said that the giving of revelation through dreams has ceased. Nor is there a category of “non revelatory” dreams that are infallibly from God. If God gives infallible truth, then it is revelation. If it is not infallible truth, then God is not speaking in the dream, for God cannot lie, but only speaks and reveals infallible truth.
What if I come across someone who actually is serving the Lord faithfully in a true church, but who says that having a dream was part of how he became a Christian? Doesn’t that mean that I need to reinterpret Scripture? No. God is sovereign, and He can use all kinds of things to get people thinking about religion or about His Word. I know someone who is a faithful Christian who, before his conversion, liked to watch creationist videos while smoking pot. That doesn’t mean I commend the pot smoking. I know someone else who called on a ghost (likely a demon) to come to him, and then says that the ghost came at night and almost killed him. The demonic intervention led this person away from agnosticism to openness to the supernatural, and years later he became a Christian. That doesn’t mean I support agnostics calling on ghosts or demons. So if someone says he had a dream and that led him away from Islam to Christianity, I’m glad if he trusted in Christ, while everything contrary to Scripture that took place in his life–including the alleged revelatory dreams–are chalked up to God’s merciful and providential grace, and need no further explanation. (This is even apart from the fact that we cannot see people’s hearts, and even in true churches people without the new birth can enter and appear to be genuine believers for a time, so I cannot rule out the possibility that the person who claims to have been born again after seeing a dream is not a true child of God.)
So are millions of Muslims being born again because of dreams? No. Nobody is being born again because of a dream. Are Muslims having dreams that lead them to all kinds of religious experiences? Very possibly. Why? There could be all kinds of reasons. I do not need to speculate.
What I do need to know is what Scripture teaches. The Biblical truth of cessationism is being weakened in some independent Baptist churches because people are not thinking Biblically, but are allowing what people say is happening in their dreams to justify changes to Biblical beliefs on charismata. You are dreaming if you think it is right to change one’s doctrine and practice from what Scripture teaches because of what some other person says he saw when he was sleeping.
Never change or set aside God’s Word because of an experience or what someone says. That was part of Satan’s original technique that caused the Fall in Genesis 3. Go with Scripture–not the dreams. As Christ said, “thy word is truth” (John 17:17). Give Muslims gospel truth, such as in The Testimony of the Quran to the Bible pamphlet. Reject the dreams. Do not be deceived.
Conspiracy Theory: Biblical Methods of Evaluation, part 6 of 7
The text of this post started from the sentence: “Is looking into this conspiracy redeeming the time?”
and ended with: “We should follow God’s example in Genesis 18, not Satan’s pattern in Genesis 3.”
The complete 7 part series is now available at the link below. Please view the series there. Feel free to comment below on this sixth part, however. Thank you.
–TDR
Conspiracy Theory: Biblical Methods of Evaluation, part 5 of 7
Does the conspiracy require me to think more highly of myself than I ought to think?
The Bible’s “love chapter” indicates that “charity vaunteth not itself” and “is not puffed up.” Scripture warns a man must “not … think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly” (Romans 12:3), a principle applicable to all areas of life. If a conspiracy requires us to believe something that the overwhelming majority of scientists or experts in the relevant field say is impossible, we need to have very strong evidence before we adopt this conclusion. If we think that a conspiracy-backed mechanism for causing disease is correct, although mainstream science strongly affirms the opposite, we need to remember that, unless we are experts, we know far less about biology and medicine than those do with whom we disagree. If we are going to adopt assertions about biology when we would fail an introductory biology course unless we spent lots of time reviewing, we need to be humble enough to recognize that biologists, medical doctors, and others with vast expertise are much more likely than us to avoid mistakes and make correct evaluations in their fields of knowledge. It is not logically impossible for the vast majority of airplane engineers to be wrong about something while we are right about it, even though we know next to nothing about how to design airplanes, but it is highly unlikely, and it would be a much better idea to fly in a plane designed by the airplane engineers rather than one that we designed based on videos we watched on YouTube. It is not logically impossible for the vast majority of cell biologists, professors in medical schools, and infectious disease researchers to be wrong about something pertaining to medicine, while we are right about it as non-experts, but it is likewise highly unlikely, and it is probably very wise and health-promoting to humbly recognize that fact as we evaluate conspiratorial claims about disease or the body, and place what a medical association or a health department advises on a higher level than what a body builder or a rapper on YouTube says is good for us.
–TDR
Conspiracy Theory: Biblical Methods of Evaluation, part 4 of 7
Part four of this series is now at the link below. This post originally covered from the sentence: “Does the conspiracy theory produce extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims?” to the sentence: “We cannot disprove the possibility that tiny green elephants float and dance waltzes on Jupiter’s moons, while using advanced technology to avoid detection by humans, but the person who asserts that the green elephants are doing this needs to positively prove his assertion before we can rationally believe it.”
–TDR
Conspiracy Theory: Biblical Methods of Evaluation, part 3 of 7
Part three of this series is now at the link below. This post originally covered from the sentence: “If the conspiracy involves logical contradictions, it cannot be true” to the sentence: “If any and all real or even potential conflicts of interest are not openly and plainly disclosed by the person promoting the conspiracy, a significantly higher level of skepticism is required in evaluating what the proponent of the conspiracy is arguing for.”
–TDR
Recent Comments