Baptist Church To Celebrate Halloween By Burning Bibles
The Amazing Grace Baptist Church in Canton, N.C. will celebrate Halloween by burning Bibles that aren’t the King James Version, as well as music and books and anything else Pastor Marc Grizzard says is a satanic influence.
Among the authors whose books Grizzard plans to burn are well known ministers Rick Warren and Billy Graham because he says they have occasionally used Bibles other than the King James Version, which is the sole biblical source he considers infallible.
According to the church’s Web site, members will also burn “Satan's music such as country, rap, rock, pop, heavy metal, western, soft and easy, southern gospel, contemporary Christian, jazz, soul (and) oldies....
Michael Hranek wrote: John UK I like David Cloud. I don't agree with him on everything but I like him. Did you know David gives testimony that it was a old timey pentecostal man who led him to Christ? Interesting?
Not only interesting but fascinating, Michael. And I thank you also for sharing some of your own testimony.
It's a pity (NOT) that David was witnessed to by a pentecostal man who tried to get him (a hobo hitching from state to state) to grasp the gospel through a Bible with archaic language, namely the King James Bible.
It's pity too (NOT) that God used a verse on the side of an old Brethren Assembly, also witten in archaic language ("Prepare to meet thy God") to point me successfully towards himself.
And it's a pity (NOT) that when God reached me with the gospel, he made use of men who all preached from the King James Bible, men who included a charismatic itinerant evangelist from California, an ex-con converted in Dartmoor Prison, and an Ulsterman Baptist Minister who believed in unlimited atonement.
John UK wrote: Let's see now, you are not a Frenchie Flag Flyer, more of a fundamentalist, certainly Baptist.......hey, I've got it. David Cloud!! Yes check it out, if you have respect for the man, as he's preached on this subject for years and years.
John UK I like David Cloud. I don't agree with him on everything but I like him.
Did you know David gives testimony that it was a old timey pentecostal man who led him to Christ? Interesting?
As to my salvation...it is an interesting story to me. Precious few people that I knew ever did much in witnessing to me of Christ and some of those who did were so far from perfect...one man even got kicked out of a church for making homemade beer in his basement and there were those old timey Assembly of God people I had never met praying that God would make himself real to me and save me.
And they all strenuously damned any translation than the KJV - NOT
And after being saved I can clearly remember one man from the Sunday School Class tell me after I read from John 15:7-17 in the NASB how he heard Satan speaking through that damnedable corrupt translation - NOT
John, it has always been men who have had a problem with my using the NASB. God never has. Thank You.
Michael Hranek wrote: John UK .........Oh! How could I ever have possibly imagined the impossible that the precious few and later manuscripts the KJV used had words added to them rather than all the numerous earlier manuscripts had words taken out to them..........
Michael, apart from getting the number of mss the wrong way around you at least have noticed that either:
#1 The early Bibles had words added
#2 The later Bibles had words subtracted.
This simple fact makes the issue extremely serious, doesn't it? Oh yes, it IS serious. We are dealing here with the words of God himself. Now it is not up to me to teach you: I didn't bring you to Christ, did I? And so I have no right at all. But you may yet choose for yourself a scholar or teacher, who could help you make your own decision about these Bible issues.
Let's see now, you are not a Frenchie Flag Flyer, more of a fundamentalist, certainly Baptist.......hey, I've got it. David Cloud!! Yes check it out, if you have respect for the man, as he's preached on this subject for years and years.
Tisk, Tisk. Kind of the pot calling the kettle black here. One I am multitranslational, now if that is lamblasting the "infallible purity and perfection" of the KJV ....ouchie! ouchie!
It is the idiocy that I would "lamblast" haven't you great scholars ever heard testimonies of how people have come to salvation using translations different from the KJV? If the Lord Jesus Christ doesn't have a problem with that who would I think that I am to find fault with Him saving people who don't use your approved KJV???
maybe I really ought to get with Jesus and tell Him He shouldn't have saved them they weren't using the KJV. Ooops! I just lost my breakfast there. Oooops! the lunch I haven't eaten is coming up too! (figuratively)
Thoroughly impressive scholarship you all have there. So impressive .... why anyone not agreeing might get so burned!!!
2 Cor 11 3 But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. NASB
Come on, Come on ye intellectual giants and tell me what the goal of genuine Biblical doctrine is....to believe in and love Jesus? or to have an exalted religious cause (like burning other Bibles)?
Michael Hranek: Have you done any research on this subject at all? Have you checked to see where 'all the multiple manuscripts found in so many different places in the world' were actually found and who produced them? Do you know anything of the history of Alexandria, Egypt? Do you really not understand that the THOUSANDS of manuscripts and portions of manuscripts (precious few? do your homework, Michael) that were used to produce the AV are in agreement with the AV and that the few (precious few!) that are utilized to produce the modern versions (the "eclectic" text) don't agree with the majority of existing manuscripts and in most cases they DON'T EVEN AGREE WITH EACH OTHER?
You and Jim Lincoln can read whatever version you want to. Not my business. But if you guys are going to lambast God's Word, you ought to at least use sound, factual arguments or (in Jim's case) let the grown folks present your argument for you.
Michael Hranek wrote: How could I ever have been so gullible to think God would ever speak to English speaking men except in old archic English! And that all the multiple manuscripts found in so many different places in the world are all anything less than the writtings of Satanic inspried apostates. Shame, Shame on me. Oh! How could I ever have possibly imagined the impossible that the precious few and later manuscripts the KJV used had words added to them rather than all the numerous earlier manuscripts had words taken out to them. I must be so dense. Can you recommend a good shrink (pyscho doctor) to make me a into a cookie cutter clone who make me truly enlighted like the KJV Only or TR Only people are?
It would be foolish for the real Christian to doubt that Satan causes heretics to write as well as speak the errors of doctrinal fallacy. By your words above you sanctify the JW Bible and your old brothers in the RCC too, Michael.
But then being an arminian free willer you don't accept auld nick's activities amongst the reprobates do you?
John UK Oh! Oh! I do so hope I see what you are saying. How could I ever have been so gullible to think God would ever speak to English speaking men except in old archic English! And that all the multiple manuscripts found in so many different places in the world are all anything less than the writtings of Satanic inspried apostates. Shame, Shame on me. Oh! How could I ever have possibly imagined the impossible that the precious few and later manuscripts the KJV used had words added to them rather than all the numerous earlier manuscripts had words taken out to them. I must be so dense. Can you recommend a good shrink (pyscho doctor) to make me a into a cookie cutter clone who make me truly enlighted like the KJV Only or TR Only people are? Then I can really celebrate Halloween in burning all them other yukey Bibles because we don't want anyone to ever read any of them do we???
Michael Hranek wrote: John UK You are correct I am most accurately a multitranslationalist BUT I disagree with the premise that is a confusing thing. If I remember correctly didn't the translators of the KJV itself recommend this approach to studying the Word of God?
Sure they did, and I agree with them, no problem. But that was in the days before Bibles started using Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and started casting doubt on the texts used by those translators in those days. Todays Bibles bear little resemblance to the excellent Bibles such as Geneva, Bishop's, Tyndale etc. And so there is bound to be confusion, especially when many words, and even whole verses, have disappeared.
"Beloved, let us turn to Mark, chapter blah, verse blah."
Manuscript wrote: Is he not simply saying that for Israel, the idea that a covenant had to be ratified with blood was not a big thing?
Manuscript Thanks for posting back.
Yes! Certainly Israel should have had no problem with the concept of a covenant ratified with blood.
YET!!! Jesus Christ the Son of God in obedience to the Father willingly shedding His blood for us is a very big thing! An Eternally Important Reality! One that ought to put us all on our faces before Jesus Christ in worship! We simply cannot treat the shed blood of the Savior as something common as if it was only another lamb that died....Why! even in the sacrifices of precious innocent lambs we see a glimpse of how heinous sin is and should be apalled that it requires the death of an innocent one in our place, even in the OT if it was only a little domestic animal. How much more than ought we be staggered in the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!
John MacArthur is far more of a scholar than I could ever dream of being AND SO I am apalled he put such a distinctive interpretation (spin), in his teaching into the words he used.
"And so when Jesus died and shed His blood, this is no big thing, this is nothing for Israel to get all bent out of shape about, this ought to be good proof that God was instituting a New Covenant which had to be ratified by blood. "
Is he not simply saying that for Israel, the idea that a covenant had to be ratified with blood was not a big thing? Thus if we were to paraphrase this he would be saying,
When Jesus died it was a new covenant ratification--a ratification by blood--but the idea of a covenant being ratified by blood was nothing new in Israel.
I agree that his language is a bit awkward. Ideally he would have been clearer in the way he structured the sentence. Yet it is in the context of tracing the idea of ratification by blood in Israel. Ratification seems to be the main idea in the sentence and the immediate context.
Manuscript wrote: Where is this link to what "J.Mac." said? Thanks
Manuscript I'm not nearly as computer literate as I should be. I emailed Grace To You regarding this issue and they emailed me back with this link: http://www.gty.org/Shop/Audio+Lessons/80-44
If you listen would you do me a favor and let me know your opinion or observation of what John MacArthur says. ESPECIALLY if later on in his 'message' he repents of what I've found so objectionable. In which case I would listen to the remainder.
Still I will stand my my conviction it is an enormously eternally important reality that Jesus Christ died willingly shedding His blood for sinners and it is very wrong to say anything like, "... so when Jesus died and shed His blood this is no big thing." Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
Again I like what Frank Dombrosky posted: "An upper-class, distinguished woman once asked a great man of God (I can't remember who) not to preach too much on the blood of Christ. He replied to her that he would not. "Because", he said, "it is impossible to preach too much on the blood of Christ." Amen!"
Michael Hranek wrote: SBG I thoroughly disagree with your premise. First I am not judging John MacArthur. I am however pracitising dicernment and in that finding he has given public teaching I serously disagree with Biblically (quoting John MacArthur's own words: "And so when Jesus died and shed His blood this is no big thing.") I have no desire to listen further to more of his teaching on this subject. No, Again I disagree with you for to go on and on regarding the blood of Christ and than to say anywhere (again quoting John MacArthur's own words: "And so when Jesus died and shed His blood this is no big thing.") is a betrayal (seeking the right choice of word) of the very Biblical truth he has already taught on or might teach on in the future...unless he of course repented renouncing what he said of what he said and you haven't told me he has have you? Frank Dombrosky Good post about the upper-class distinguished woman, the great man of God and the preaching about the blood of Christ.
savedbygrace wrote: Michael, Greetings! To not listen to what J.Mac. has said in all of his sermons concerning this topic would not be judging righteously.
SBG I thoroughly disagree with your premise. First I am not judging John MacArthur. I am however pracitising dicernment and in that finding he has given public teaching I serously disagree with Biblically (quoting John MacArthur's own words: "And so when Jesus died and shed His blood this is no big thing.") I have no desire to listen further to more of his teaching on this subject. No, Again I disagree with you for to go on and on regarding the blood of Christ and than to say anywhere (again quoting John MacArthur's own words: "And so when Jesus died and shed His blood this is no big thing.") is a betrayal (seeking the right choice of word) of the very Biblical truth he has already taught on or might teach on in the future...unless he of course repented renouncing what he said of what he said and you haven't told me he has have you?
Frank Dombrosky Good post about the upper-class distinguished woman, the great man of God and the preaching about the blood of Christ.
Ephesians 1:7 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace, 1 Peter 1 19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. Revelation 1 5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us, and released us from our sins by His blood,---[URL=http://www.lockman.org/nasb/nasbcmp.php]]]NASB[/URL]
The importance of Christ's cleansing blood is clear in the Bible.
Greetings! To not listen to what J.Mac. has said in all of his sermons concerning this topic would not be judging righteously. You even put down a section, starting it where you desired of course and though seemingly using context, went and took it out of the context (which I had shown you before).
I seek an honest factual dialogue not one based solely on emotions as one always wins in ones own eyes when they deal with emotionalism in regards to what someone has said.
You will have to agree that probably every pastor(including ours)has had to deal with this at one time or another and had to clarify this later on because someone was offended because of misrepresenting the pastors statement by taking it out of the context.
I know you are a busy man, from previous private discussions, so have a "grace day" and rest in Christ.
savedbygrace wrote: Michael, I didn't think so. By not listening to his entire recording and then taking one section out of the wider context is actually doing an injustice to another believer in Christ. At least Bob Jones II talked to J. Mac. personally and said that the comment made about him was wrong. Too many times we are too quick to judge instead of thoroughly investigating a matter to judge righteously. Have a "grace day"!
SBG Again let me ask you...."So did John MacArthur repent from what I posted to you, you know how he said, "And so when Jesus died and shed His blood this is no big thing." ?
If you can honestly tell me that in the remainder of his message he does I will be quite happy to listen to it...if you cannot tell me this I really don't want to take the time. Thanks
I didn't think so. By not listening to his entire recording and then taking one section out of the wider context is actually doing an injustice to another believer in Christ. At least Bob Jones II talked to J. Mac. personally and said that the comment made about him was wrong. Too many times we are too quick to judge instead of thoroughly investigating a matter to judge righteously. Have a "grace day"!
Frank Dombrosky wrote: An upper-class, distinguished woman once asked a great man of God (I can't remember who) not to preach too much on the blood of Christ. He replied to her that he would not. "Because", he said, "it is impossible to preach too much on the blood of Christ." Amen!
Amen bro!
Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them. Hebrews 11:28 KJV
And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. Hebrews 12:24 KJV
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. 1 Peter 1:2 KJV
Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 1 Peter 1:18-19 KJV
savedbygrace wrote: Michael, Did you listen to all of the excerpts the first time?
SBG Oh? Did he repent for what I quoted him on?
It is something so inestimably important and deserving of the highest honor and praise we might give Him, that Jesus Christ died and willingly shed His blood for us wretched undeserving enemies of Holy God.
To say: "And so when Jesus died and shed His blood this is no big thing." borders on if it isn't outright blasphemy.
So why should I bother listening to the rest of the "message" unless futher on he repented big time for such a comment???? So did he? Or did he just go on .... I don't have the word.
Manuscript wrote: Many of the psalms are calling the nations to listen. I have only listed three, Psalm 47, 49 and 99. In each the plural Hebrew word, tranlisterated, "ammim" is used. The singular is used later in Psalm 47--when it refers to the Hebrew people. Surely some recognition of this must be made in the psalm when we translate this today. To miss the fact that many of these psalms call to the nations means that we do not see the anticipated inclusion of the Gentiles in the salvation brought through the Jewish Messiah.
Or the "people" referred to in Psalm 47:1 are the "people of God" whatever their nationality. Thus "people" without the "S" is correct!! "One people" of whatever age!
Dr. Steven J. Lawson | 3/12/2018
COMMENTS 
locked 
System Notice
If the Lord Jesus Christ doesn't have a problem with that who would I think that I am to find fault with Him saving people who don't use your approved KJV??? 
