Scriptural Proof that Lordship Salvation is a Lie

By David J. Stewart
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” — 1st Corinthians 5:5
        LORDSHIP SALVATION is the false doctrine that a sinner MUST forsake their actually sins to be saved.  In sharp contrast, the Bible, God’s Word, teaches that a sinner’s faith in Christ alone is sufficient for salvation.
1st Corinthians 5:5 is incontrovertible PROOF that LORDSHIP SALVATION is a false doctrine of the Devil.  The Apostle Paul, in his first letter to the Church of Corinth, reprimands them for allowing the sin of fornication in the church.  Paul states that fornication is “commonly” reported among them.  A literal translation of the TEXTUS RECEPTUS Greek in 1st Corinthians 5:1 reads, “Everywhere it is heard that fornication is among you…” (SOURCE: THE INTERLINEAR BIBLE, Jay P. Green, Sr.; Sovereign Grace Publishers, ISBN: 1-878442-81-3).  This carnal church was KNOWN as a house of sin.  Yet in 1st Corinthians 3:1 the Apostle Paul called them… BABES IN CHRIST!  This is Scriptural proof that Lordship Salvation is a crock of lies.
The Apostle Paul mentions one man in particular in the church, who has taken fornication to the next level, by having immoral relations with his stepmother.  Concerning this backslidden man, Paul states in 1st Corinthians 5:5,To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”  This Scripture also provides incontrovertible PROOF that Lordship Salvation is utter folly.  This man who was so sinful that the Apostle Paul asked the church to boot him out… “But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person” (1st Corinthians 5:13).  This man was a fornicator, shamelessly living in open sin in the house of God; YET, Paul said that this man’s spirit would BE SAVED IN THE DAY OF THE LORD JESUS (i.e., when Jesus returns for the saints).  In other words Paul was saying… “Look, this man is living in open sin in the church, and you need to do something about it.  If he doesn’t repent, boot him out and let the devil have him, because he is corrupting the church.  Although satan will destroy his flesh, God will save his spirit because he is a true believer.
Argue as Lordship Salvationists may, the Word of God states in no uncertain terms… “To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” (1st Corinthians 5:5).  This is clear proof that a believer can live like the heathen world, and still go to Heaven.  That is not to say that it’s acceptable to live in worldly sin, it’s certainly not (1st John 3:8; 1st John 2:15-17); BUT, as 1st Corinthians 5:5 states, a horribly backslidden believer can be given over unto satan for the destruction of the FLESH.  Such a person will shed many tears in Heaven, but they will be in Heaven.  You can’t argue with the Scriptures, that some believers do live a life of sin
(1st Corinthians 3:15).  Elvis Presley professed to be a born-again Christian; but he lived a life of sin, even to the point of dying a drug-abuse related death.  Only God truly knows who is saved or not (1st Samuel 16:7).
In Romans 12:1, the Apostle Paul states… “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.”  Paul is asking these BELIEVERS to make a commitment to God.  They are ALREADY saved, but they have NOT yielded themselves to God yet. According to the Lordship Salvation crowd these people were never saved, because they didn’t “surrender” their lives to God at the time of salvation.  How ridiculous!  When a baby is born into this world physically, everything is new to him/her.  The same is true about being born-again, everything becomes new, a whole new world of understanding is opened (2nd Corinthians 5:17).
Now the growing process has begun, and God’s Holy Spirit will nurture that believer, through the Word of God and preaching (1st Peter 2:2; Titus 1:3).  The fact that the Apostle Paul beseeched (i.e., begged) the believers at Rome to surrender to Christ is Scriptural PROOF that Lordship Salvation is quackery.
Lordship Salvation attempts to force people to live a righteous life by ADDING repentance from sin as a prerequisite to being saved.  In sharp contrast, Romans 4:5 simply states… “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” — John 3:16


‘Easy-To-Read Version’ (ERV) Changes Plan Of Salvation

2nd Corinthians 2:17, “For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God:
but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

Unless you believe that there are TWO different plans of salvation, you can only conclude that those foolish pastors and religious teachers are unsaved who require forsaking BAD WORKS to be saved. Whether requiring a person to do GOOD WORKS (like Roman Catholics do), or requiring a person to stop doing BAD WORKS (like John MacArthur, Paul Washer, Ray Comfort and Billy Graham do), to be saved, BOTH require DEAD WORKS.
The Holy Bible has a built-in dictionary, which if you use will keep you from going astray. I speak concerning the trustworthy “Textus Receptus” Greek and the “King James Bible” which is translated from it. In sharp contrast, ALL modern Bible versions (which are translated from the Alexandrian manuscripts – an entirely different Greek text) are corrupt and THE BUILT-IN DICTIONARY IS GONE!!! I will prove it to you right now.
I plead with you to hear me out, please! I wish I could grab every pastor and shake some sense into him, because satan is destroying the churches by changing the Holy Bible. A big building and a large congregation mean absolutely nothing if the Word of God has been corrupted!!! If I had my way, I’d fire every pastor and assistant pastor who are so woefully ignorant, indifferent and/or cowardly that they support the modern corrupt versions. THERE ARE NO GOOD MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS that come from the Alexandrian manuscripts prepared by Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort in 1881!

Let’s consider the following Scripture, which is one of the most debated Scripture passages in the Word of God. Acts 20:21, “Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
God only knows how many sincere Bible students have misinterpreted this Scripture to mean “turning from sinful living” to be saved. However, if we cross-reference the King James Bible and look at Hebrews 6:1, we find the correct interpretation of Acts 20:21
KING JAMES BIBLE (KJB)Hebrews 6:1, “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God.
Repentance is from DEAD WORKS, that is, trying to keep the law to earn Heaven. If you look at the Textus Receptus Greek for the phrase “DEAD WORKS”, you will discover that “dead” is the Greek word nekros, which means exactly what it says; “dead.” The word “works” here in Hebrews 6:1 is the Greek word ergon, which means “to work, toil”. Clearly, there is no mention of forsaking a sinful lifestyle to be saved, which would constitute human effort necessary for salvation. This is not to say that we have God’s permission to sin as Christians, God forbid (Romans 3:31; Hebrews 12:6-8; 2nd Corinthians 5:9-11).
Thus, Hebrews 6:1 in the King James Bible defines “repentance” for salvation as changing our mind from trying to do dead works to get to Heaven, to trusting upon Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross for our sins and His resurrection three days later. Literally, the Bible is teaching us to change our mind from trusting in our own human effort, to trusting in God’s righteousness through faith in Christ.

Ungodly ERV Changes Plan of Salvation By Corrupting Hebrews 6:1
Now my friends, you are about to read the ungodly, wicked, blasphemous, PERversion, rendered in the “Easy-To-Read Version” (ERV) of the Bible . . .

EASY-TO-READ VERSION (ERV) — “So we should be finished with the beginning lessons about Christ. We should not have to keep going back to where we started. We began our new life by turning away from the evil we did in the past and by believing in God.
[emphasis added]

Here again is Hebrews 6:1 in the beloved, correct, King James Bible . . .

KING JAMES BIBLE (KJB) — Hebrews 6:1, “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God.
[emphasis added]

Do you see how the new corrupt Bible versions are horribly changing theology in the churches? The King James Bible teaches that we must repent from our DEAD WORKS to be saved; but the ERV teaches that we must stop living a life of deliberate sin (evil) to be saved. The Alexandrian Greek is of the devil, teaching a works-based plan of salvation. Salvation is NOT by works (Romans 3:20; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5; Romans 4:5-6).

The doctrine of the imputed righteousness of God (*more about this in a later blog) silences all the critics.
A baby believer won’t see the major theological differences between the ERV verses the KJB, but I tell you that there are THOUSANDS!!! They’ve butchered the Words of God!!! Hebrews 6:1 in the ERV sinfully changes the entire plan of salvation, which now requires partial faith in Christ + human effort! No wonder our churches are so messed-up nowadays.
The really tragic thing is that many churches use the ERV piece of crap, using the lame excuse that BI-LINGUAL church members need an easier-to-read Bible. In reality, all the church has done is hand some easy-to-read satanic heresy to the victim. The doctrinal soundness of the Holy Scriptures is GONE, GONE, GONE in the ERV! The built-in dictionary is gone! God’s Word is special, it is unique, it cannot be watered-down and simplified without ruining its power. The doctrine of the imputed righteousness of God silences all the critics.
A baby believer won’t see the major theological differences between the ERV verses the KJB, but I tell you that there are THOUSANDS!!! They’ve butchered the Words of God!!! Hebrews 6:1 in the ERV sinfully changes the entire plan of salvation, which now requires partial faith in Christ + human effort! No wonder our churches are so messed-up nowadays.
The really tragic thing is that many churches use the ERV piece of crap, using the lame excuse that BI-LINGUAL church members need an easier-to-read Bible. In reality, all the church has done is hand some easy-to-read satanic heresy to the victim. The doctrinal soundness of the Holy Scriptures is GONE, GONE, GONE in the ERV! The built-in dictionary is gone! God’s Word is special, it is unique, it cannot be watered-down and simplified without ruining its power. I’m telling the truth, the Luciferian-worshipping occult want to bring spirituality into the churches and eliminate theology. It should be obvious to you that this is exactly what the modern corrupted Bible versions are doing. I’m telling the truth, the Luciferian-worshipping occult want to bring spirituality into the churches and eliminate theology. It should be obvious to you that this is exactly what the modern corrupted Bible versions are doing.
The reason why they need to do this is to infiltrate, corrupt and take control over the churches, so that they’ll all receive the Antichrist when he comes. If you think that could never happen, you are deceived already. The mystery religion which began in ancient Egypt (which is at the core of New Age) teaches to love God and your fellow mankind, which means rejecting Christianity and the King James Bible, because they are [they say] bigoted, hateful and prejudiced. Of course, Luciferians promote a phony type of ecumenical love, which sinfully embraces unrepentant homosexuals, unbelievers and all apostate religious faiths.
I believe that when the Lord appears at the Rapture to catch away the saints, 97% of the churches will be unaffected (because they are not saved). Lordship Salvation is a false plan of salvation, just as Seventh-Day Adventists, Greek Orthodox, Episcopalians, Church of Christ and Lutherans teach a false plan of salvation. Whether you add water baptism or forsaking sinful living to be saved, it is a false plan of works salvation. Biblical salvation is based solely upon what Christ did for us, and not what we can do for Him. Salvation is not doing your best, it is having Jesus Christ’s best put to your account through receiving Him by faith. God will not save anyone who is trying to be saved, He will only save those who are trusting to be saved.

What About Ephesians 2:1?
We read in Ephesians 2:1, “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.” Doesn’t this mean that we have to forsake sinful living to be saved? That’s not what the Holy Bible means. Remember, repentance in the original Greek is defined as a change of mind, not a change of lifestyle. Whereas John 3:20 teaches that unrepentant sinners refuse to come to Christ to be saved, “lest their deeds should be refuted”; Romans 3:19 says that God’s law was given so that, “all the world may become guilty before God.” Hence, when you change your mind about sin and unbelief, acknowledging that you are an unsaved guilty sinner in the eyes of a holy God, and believe the Gospel, you are saved. Faith and repentance happen together, at the same time (simultaneously). It is false doctrine to say that a person must repent first and then believe. Being born-again is not a manmade process, it is a miraculous new birth from God above.
Please understand that repentance is more than merely admitting one’s guilt of sin, it is seeing yourself as a guilty sinner for breaking a holy God’s commandments. Pastor Hyles eloquently states…

Repentance is not some little silly, ‘I’m sorry.’ Repentance is not simply a fear of God. Repentance is not a monk fasting and afflicting his body in a monastery. Repentance is not remorse because of sin’s consequences. Repentance is not penance performed before the pope as you kiss his toe… Repentance is not being sorry for what I’ve done wrong. It is not confessing one’s sins to a priest. It is not just conviction of sin. It is not the signing of a pledge of abstinence. Repentance is that thing when you come before God and see yourself as you are, and see Him as He is, and say with Isaiah ‘Woe is me, for I am unclean!’ —Pastor Jack Hyles (1926-2001), a quote from the timeless MP3 sermon, THE GOODNESS OF GOD LEADETH TO REPENTANCE (scroll down and you’ll find it)!
That is a tremendous quote! Amen! So when we read about repenting from “DEAD WORKS” in Hebrews 6:1, it absolutely does NOT mean that ceasing from sinful bad habits is required for salvation (because that would be self-righteous works); but rather, it means we have changed our mind concerning DEAD WORKS (GOOD and BAD works alike) that were hindering us from coming to Christ to be saved. We don’t get saved by changing our life, which is what the new corrupt Bible versions require. This is discipleship, not salvation. We get saved by BELIEVING the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, receiving Christ’s sacrifice on the cross as full-payment for our sins and believing that He arose from the dead the third day (1st Corinthians 15:1-4). The only role that dealing with sin has in salvation is to renounce it, so that it is no longer a hindrance to keep you from coming to Christ to be saved (John 3:20).

ERV Changes Plan of Salvation By Corrupting Mark 1:15
The Greek word for “repent” in Mark 1:15 in the King James Bible is metanoeo, which means, “to think differently”. It is a change of mind. It DOESN’T mean to “change your hearts and lives” which is what the corrupt ERV says!!! . . .
KING JAMES BIBLE (KJB) — Mark 1:15, “And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. [emphasis added]

EASY-TO-READ VERSION (ERV) — Mark 1:15, “He said,The right time is now here. God’s kingdom is very near. Change your hearts and lives, and believe the Good News! [emphasis added]
That is wrong, wrong, wrong! You don’t have to change your own life as a requirement to be saved. Rather, it is the indwelling Holy Spirit that comes into a person at the time of salvation that changes one’s heart and life, over time as they grow in grace by nurturing on the milk of the Word (1st Peter 2:2). Initially, getting saved does not change a person one bit, except that now you have the Spirit of Christ living inside your body (Romans 8:9; 1st Corinthians 3:16-17; 1st John 4:4). It is the Lord’s Holy Spirit working in us that changes our life, but this is not a requirement to be saved. You see, the ERV is teaching doctrines of devils, requiring people to change their own life (which is human effort) as a requirement to be saved. This is reformation, which does not bring regeneration (the new birth).
Again we plainly witness, that the Luciferian groups which have provided the Greek manuscripts for today’s versions, are pushing an agenda of including human effort for salvation. You must understand that there is a progression at work in the Bible-corrupting movement. This is why the NIV 2011 changed its content 38.8% as compared to the NIV 1984. The “bible” corrupting gang won’t ever be finished changing the Bible (KJV) until the Antichrist appears. If the Lord tarries His return, we are going to see further assassination of the Word of God.
We’ll see more key passages concerning salvation changed, until the simplicity that is in Christ will be totally lost in the confusion. This was satan’s plan from the start.
A church whose congregation brings dozens of different Bibles with them to church each Sunday is effectively indicting their shameful pastor as a wicked man who doesn’t place much value upon the accuracy, purity and integrity of God’s Holy Word. It is obvious to me, and it should be very obvious to you, from exposing these doctrinally corrupted passages of Scripture concerning the meaning of repentance, why the heresy of Lordship Salvation is so prevalent in most of our churches today. It is wickedness and apostasy in the churches!!!

ERV Corrupts 1st John 3:9, Perverts Plan of Salvation
ERV Completely Removes Acts 8:37, Eliminating Jesus’ Deity
They just ripped the verse out, it’s totally GONE! Here is what the precious King James Bible says in Acts 8:37 . . .
KING JAMES BIBLE (KJB) — Acts 8:37, “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
The modern Bible are all corrupt. The so-called “scholars” who support the modern versions are also corrupt. Dr. James Strong and fellow American Standard Version (ASV) committee members, and Strong’s Unitarian friend, Henry Thayer, all denied the deity of Christ in hundreds of places in their works. These were all evil men, who loved the praise of men more than the praise of God (John 12:42-43). Don’t believe the lie on Wikipedia concerning “bible translations” that there is no one Bible. God only wrote ONE BOOK!

ERV Changes Plan of Salvation By Corrupting Acts 2:38
Again, the Greek word for “repent” in Acts 2:38 in the King James Bible is metanoeo, which means, “to think differently”. It is a change of mind. It DOESN’T mean to “change your hearts and lives”, which is what the corrupt ERV says!!! According to the demonic ERV, God will not save anyone who doesn’t change their life . . .
KING JAMES BIBLE (KJB) — Acts 2:38,  “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. [emphasis added]

EASY-TO-READ VERSION (ERV) — Acts 2:38, “Peter said to them, “Change your hearts and lives and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ. Then God will forgive your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [emphasis added]

The average person these days is helpless, because they are not theologians and so they trust their pastor.
The trustworthy King James Bible teaches in Acts 2:38 to “think differently and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.” It does not say to “change your hearts and lives” to be saved. The notion that repentance means to change your own life as a requirement to be saved is satanic teaching. No wonder our churches think heretics like Paul Washer and John MacArthur are men of God. The new corrupt Bible versions are indoctrinating people with a false plan of salvation.
Also, notice carefully that Acts 2:38 doesn’t say to be “baptized into water”. This is not speaking about water baptism. The Bible commands us to be baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” I’ll give you further Scriptural evidence from Luke 3:16, “John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” John the Baptist told that people that he was merely baptizing them with water, but it was the coming blessed Lamb of God (Jesus Christ), Who would baptize them with the indwelling Holy Spirit. Amen!!!
John the Baptist was sent by God the Father to PREPARE the people to receive the Lamb of God. John 1:29, “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.Matthew 11:10, “For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” John didn’t come preaching a different plan of salvation than Christ; but rather, told the people that salvation could only be found in Jesus Christ. So in Acts 2:38, Peter was preaching at Pentecost and told the people to change their minds (not lives) and be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins.
It is very important for every Bible student to understand that you never lift any particular Scripture out of context by itself for establish a doctrine; but rather, you always compare Scripture with Scripture, examining the whole of Scripture, and when the whole agrees with any suggested doctrine for a particular Bible passage, then you know you’ve found THE TRUTH.
For example: Jesus proclaimed in Mark 16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Taken by itself, we might conclude that water baptism is required for salvation. However, let’s look at 1st Corinthians 1:16-19, “And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” The Apostle Paul said that other than the house of Stephanas, he was not aware of anyone whom he had water baptized.
Paul then boldly states that Christ did NOT send him to water baptize, BUT TO PREACH THE GOSPEL. And then in the next verse we learn that it is THE PREACHING OF THE CROSS (the Gospel – Romans 1:16; 1st Corinthians 15:1-4) is the power of God unto salvation. Clearly, water baptism is not necessary for salvation, otherwise Paul would have baptized everyone. So we see here the importance of cross-examination, by comparing Scripture with Scripture, to find the correct interpretation of the Holy Bible.

ERV Changes Plan of Salvation By Corrupting Romans 10:9-10
Let’s examine another passage of Scripture in the pathetic ERV that changes the plan of salvation . . .
KING JAMES BIBLE (KJB) — Romans 10:9-10, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. [emphasis added]
EASY-TO-READ VERSION (ERV) — Romans 10:9-10, “If you openly say, ‘Jesus is Lord’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from death, you will be saved. Yes, we believe in Jesus deep in our hearts, and so we are made right with God. And we openly say that we believe in him, and so we are saved. [emphasis added]
There is a drastic difference between confessing “the Lord Jesus” verses openly saying, “Jesus is Lord”! Nowhere in the Holy Bible are we taught to recognize Jesus as our “Lord” to be saved (*even satan and demons know Jesus is Lord). You simply trust Jesus as your Savior and then He automatically becomes your Lord. Whether you obey Him or not as a disciple is an entirely separate matter. This is why the disobedient saved man in 1st Corinthians 3:15 was “saved; yet so, as by fire.” He barely made it, singed with the flames of Hell. This Christian man lived a wasted life, and so he received no rewards from the Lord at the Judgment Seat Of Christ. Clearly, he didn’t confess Jesus to anyone. Nor did he honor Christ as his Lord during his earthly life. 1st Timothy 4:10 says that Jesus is the “Saviour” of all men, not their Lord.
Many foolish Bible students attempt to use Saul’s conversion (Paul) as a benchmark for all conversions, which is very wrong. Saul had been running from God, wasting the Church, hunting down Christians to murder them. So when the Lord appeared to him on the road to Damascus in Acts 9:1-5, Saul was under much Holy Spirit conviction and finally broke. It was Saul’s unique Pharisaical upbringing and religious background that prompted him to have the spectacular conversion experience that he did, but this is far from the normal way that people get saved. Most people just quietly receive Christ as their Savior, with no spectacular experience.
Furthermore, the KJB simply teaches that we confess with our mouth because we are saved. It would be wrong to add confession with the mouth as a requirement for salvation, when literally hundreds of other passages of Scripture tell us how to be saved, and not one of them mentions confessing with the mouth to be saved. Clearly, Romans 10:9-10 do NOT teach that a person must confess “Jesus is Lord” to be saved. This is a horrible PERversion of the Word of God. The ERV is satanic!
Again, the chief rulers in John 12:42 believed on the Lord to be saved, but they DID NOT CONFESS HIM for fear of being kicked out of the synagogue by the wicked Pharisees. The Bible says that these chief rulers, who were saved, loved the praise of men more than the praise of God (John 12:43). The Scriptures are filled with worldly believers who dropped the ball for God. In Romans 12:1, the Apostle Paul is pleading with the Christians at Rome to present their bodies a living sacrifice to serve God.
Romans 12:1, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” Obviously they hadn’t surrender their will to the Lord at the time of salvation. They hadn’t made a commitment to live for Christ.

The Rich Young Ruler Wanted To Work His Way Into Heaven
This was the problem of the rich young ruler in Luke 18:18-23. The young man asked Jesus, “Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus perceived that he was self-righteous, and so He told him to keep the Ten Commandments. The young man boasted of his own goodness, saying that he had kept all of God’s commandments. Jesus pointed out that he was covetous and hadn’t perfectly kept God’s law. The Lord told him to go sell his possessions and give the money to the poor. The young man went away very sad, because he was wealthy.
You need to understand that Jesus was not giving that young man a plan of salvation; but rather, He was using the law the way that it was intended to be used, which is as a measuring stick to show men that no matter how hard they try, no one can live a perfect life to merit their way into Heaven. Romans 3:19, “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Hence, when a person realizes that they cannot get to Heaven their own way (DEAD WORKS), because they now understand that they are a guilty sinner in God’s holy eyes, and they BELIEVE the Gospel (good news) of Christ’s death on the cross, burial and bodily resurrection three days later, they are immediately and forever saved.
Reprobate, unsaved, false prophet, Billy Graham totally misinterprets Luke 18:18-23, errantly teaching that the rich young ruler didn’t get saved because he “counted the cost” and wasn’t willing to “PAY THE PRICE” of turning from sinful ways to be saved. That’s the religious garbage that Mr. Graham teaches. The following quote is from Graham’s website . . .
Many people come to Christ without first counting the cost. The cost includes repentance, the forsaking of sin, and a continual, daily, open acknowledgment of Christ in your life.
READ MORE: Reprobate Billy Graham
That is a bunch of lies!
The Bible says many of the chief rulers “BELIEVED ON HIM” in John 12:42, but they “DID NOT CONFESS HIM” because of the Pharisees (John 12:43). This Bible passage exposes Billy Graham as a liar! You don’t have to count the cost to be saved, nor do you have to forsake sins, nor do you have to daily confess Christ. Graham’s satanic plan of salvation is based upon DEAD WORKS, which appeals greatly to unsaved Roman Catholics. Nothing of what Graham says is a part of God’s plan of salvation.
Dr. Ray Stanford Refutes The Heresy Of LORDSHIP SALVATION
Please note that Evangelist Ray Comfort and Pastor John MacArthur make the same theological blunder of assuming that the rich young ruler didn’t get saved, because he wasn’t willing to forsake his sins. Nothing could be further from the truth of God’s Word.

ERV Changes John 20:17 To Speak Utter Nonsense
I’m so sick of hearing stubborn pastors and assistant pastors defend the modern corrupted “bible” versions, claiming that most people cannot understand the King James Bible and need something easier to read. Consider the following comparison between the KJB and the ERV, and you will see how stupid their claims really are . . .
KING JAMES BIBLE (KJB) — John 20:17, “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. [emphasis added]
EASY-TO-READ VERSION (ERV) — John 20:17, “Jesus said to her,You don’t need to hold on to me! I have not yet gone back up to the Father. But go to my followers and tell them this: ‘I am going back to my Father and your Father. I am going back to my God and your God.’” [emphasis added]
What in the world does the ERV mean? It is completely retarded? Why would Jesus tell Mary Magdalene that she doesn’t need to hold on to Him, because He hasn’t yet gone back to the Father? SHAME ON THOSE WICKED PASTORS WHO PROMOTE THIS CRAP AS EASIER-TO-READ!!! The ERV, as are all modern PERversions, is so retarded that it doesn’t matter how easy it is to read, because the comprehension rate is down close to 50%. So much for a pastor who is a “professor.” Ha, let me tell some more jokes!
Now the King James Bible says Jesus told Mary not to touch Him, because He hadn’t ascended to the Father yet. Hebrews 9:12 and 24 teach us that Jesus “BY HIS OWN BLOOD” entered into the heavenly Holy Place on our behalf, to sprinkle His precious blood upon the Mercy Seat (Hebrews 12:24) in the presence of the Father. If Mary had touched Jesus, she would have corrupted the blood sacrifice. Now that makes perfect theological sense, because that’s the truth.
If you are using the ERV (or any modern corrupt version), you must now make a decision to either get right with God and stop using it, or continue in your apostate condition, because you just don’t care about the purity of the Word of God. The only Bible for me is the precious KING JAMES BIBLE!!! Thank you dear Lord God for your awesome holy, inspired, inerrant, infallible, preserved, Words!!!

You Need To Be Born-Again if You Have Been Deceived By Lordship Salvation
I am fully convinced that all Lordship Salvation pastors and assistant pastors are not saved. My friend, if you believe that ceasing from a sinful lifestyle was required for you to be saved, then YOU ARE NOT SAVED!!! There’s a very fine line between salvation and damnation, between faith and foolishness, between truth and religion. Do you think it is a mere coincidence that all of the corrupt Alexandrian Bible versions have changed the plan of salvation from one of completely resting in Christ alone, to one of turning away from an evil lifestyle to be saved? Not a chance in a trillion! Literally, all of the modern corrupted Bible versions, including the satanic ERV, line up with the satanic plan of salvation of Roman Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists and other demonic religious cults.
When a pastor is indifferent toward these two very different Gospels, I cannot help but conclude that they are merely religious and have never truly been born-again. Perhaps this is why such churches never hear any preaching from their pastors about the need for the power of the Holy Spirit, and to pray for the power of the Holy Spirit. Since those pastors are merely religious and do not have the Spirit of God indwelling them, they cannot teach what they do not possess.
If you consider the important Scripture passages relating to salvation which we’ve examined in this article, that have been totally changed and horribly corrupted, we now have A VERY DIFFERENT PLAN OF SALVATION than the simplicity that is found in Christ in the King James Bible (2nd Corinthians 11:3-4). According to the ERV you must change your heart and your life in order to be saved. You must openly say, ‘Jesus is Lord‘, like some type of superstitious ritual. You must turn away from any evil things that you are doing in your life, or else you cannot be saved. This is the satanic plan of damnation in the ERV.
In sharp contrast, you don’t have to stop doing evil things to be saved. Biblically, according to John 3:20, a person WON’T come to Jesus to be saved if they are doing evil things. That is what the Bible teaches. So the problem takes care of itself. Do you know why? It is because Biblical repentance is a change of mind.
When a person who has been doing evil things comes to the realization (under the convicting power of the Holy Spirit) that they are a guilty sinner in God’s holy eyes, and that person places their trust in the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross for their sins, His burial and bodily resurrection three days later, that sinner is immediately and forever saved securely. Whether they stop committing those evils in their life is an entirely different matter, which has nothing to do with salvation. This is simply because eternal life is a free gift (Ephesians 2:8-9). You simply TAKE a gift. Nothing is required to receive a gift. It is free. Salvation is received, it is not achieved.
The fact that this person came to Christ for salvation evidences that they now have a new attitude toward their sins, seeing them self as guilty in God’s eyes. This does NOT mean that the person is ready nor willing to forsake those sins. God will chastise and scourge each believer who chooses to continue in sin. This is how it works my friend. But we must never change the plan of salvation in an attempt to force people to forsake their sins. This is a false plan of salvation. This is the basis of the Lordship Salvation heresy.
The truth is that you first get saved by simply trusting the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Then, as a new believer, God will impress upon your heart to be crucified with Him, and raise up to walk in newness of life (as evidenced in Romans 12:1). Everybody is different. Some believers never grow to the point of dying to self, others do. Albeit, the right thing to do if someone professes faith (apart from works) in the Gospel of Jesus Christ is to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are saved. There are so many factors involved. For a wonderful MP3 sermon on the subject, please listen to Dr. Jack Hyles’ classic sermon, “STEPS IN SANCTIFICATION (OR; THE ROOT OF ALL HERESY).” [scroll down until you reach the sermons]
I could easily show you hundreds more passages from the ERV where they’ve changed the plan of salvation into a lie. Our pastors are mostly to blame, because they are the shepherds over their flocks. If a nation’s pastors and assistant pastors are woefully blinded and/or indifferent to these great evils, then our churches are doomed. If you believe the lie of Lordship Salvation, you have never been saved at all. There is only one plan of salvation taught in the Bible, and that is to simply believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Do You Love the Truth?
2nd Thessalonians 2:10 tells us the reason why the masses of this world will be deceived and follow after the Antichrist when he comes… “BECAUSE THEY RECEIVED NOT THE LOVE OF THE TRUTH, THAT THEY MIGHT BE SAVED”!!! If they would love the truth, they will believe the Gospel, and so they also will meet Jesus on the clouds. Instead, they will be left behind, and follow the Antichrist! Many of those masses of people left behind will be THE CHURCHES. All of the Lordship Salvation churches will be left behind, because “THEY RECEIVED NOT THE LOVE OF THE TRUTH, THAT THEY MIGHT BE SAVED”!!! Go ahead, don’t listen to me—trust in your changed life, forsaking evil ways and confessing Christ. All my best with that! The satanic new “bible” versions are fueling the heresy of Lordship Salvation. I am telling you the truth my friends, will you heed the warning?
It is so simply and easy to be saved that most people walk right past the narrow gate. “…few there be that find it” (Matthew 7:13-14). They’re looking for a big fancy door into a big fancy religion. They’re looking for a religious door that makes them feel spiritual. They’re looking for a door with an entrance policy, who won’t let you in unless you’re clean-shaven, sober, moral and intend to live a clean life if they let you in. They’re looking for a door with flashing neon lights, something spectacular. None of these doors lead to life. The only door into Heaven is Jesus, a little pathway, which is obscured by the all the other attractive gates, religious entrances, big doors and bright paths with their owners clamoring for their attention, shouting “Enter here!”, “No, over here, come in here!” Little do most people realize that satan owns all those buildings! All except one, that little humble path, Jesus!
I often feel lonely standing for the truth, when hardly anyone stands. Most pastors, churches and “bible” colleges, Christians today don’t have any interest in debating which Bible is God’s Word. So they just support all of the “bibles”, not exposing or criticizing any of them.
The reason why they lack that passion is because they lack faith. If we truly believe Psalms 138:2, that God magnifies His Word above all His name, then we would care. I CARE! The Bible is very important. Even the slightest subtle changes alter the meaning of a passage of Scripture considerably. Woe unto today’s pastors who don’t care, just going along to get along!
I picture nearly all of today’s churches as being aboard a big ship. On the side of the ship it reads, “Mainstream Evangelicalism”! There are hundreds of “bible” versions aboard the ship. There are dozens of different plans of salvation taught by evangelicals like John MacArthur, Rick Warren, Chip Ingram, Ray Comfort, William Lane Craig, Paul Washer, Billy Graham and others onboard. Everybody aboard the ship is going along to get along. Nobody exposes or criticizes each other. Everybody is comfortable, enjoying all the splendors of the luxury ship. They all draw near to God with their mouths, and honor God with their lips, but their heart is far from Him, teaching manmade doctrines. This ship’s captain is Lucifer! Anything goes on Lucifer’s ship. It doesn’t matter which Bible version you use. It doesn’t matter which plan of salvation that you choose to believe. Everybody is taken care of and prospering.
Have you been deceived? What satanic imposter are you holding in your hand at church on Sunday? Boy, of ever there was a lie, it’s the following translation from the ERV. Notice how they deceitfully changed the Word of God to exonerate themselves. They are corrupting God’s Word, which is what 2nd Corinthians 2:17 warns against in the KJB. So the ERV changed it to “selling God’s Word for profit” instead! The ERV company, World Bible Translation Center (WBTC) is in trouble with God for corrupting His Word.

It’s not a sin to sell God’s Word, it’s a sin to corrupt it, whether you sell it or not . . .
KING JAMES BIBLE (KJB) — 2nd Corinthians 2:17, “For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

EASY-TO-READ VERSION (ERV) — 2nd Corinthians 2:17, “Certainly not those who are out there selling God’s message for a profit! But we don’t do that. With Christ’s help we speak God’s truth honestly, knowing that we must answer to him. [emphasis added]
Just as there is a Biblical curse upon every false Gospel, so also is there a curse upon anyone who changes the Word of God, and the foolish pastors who uses such corrupted Bible versions are cursing their congregation, and bringing God’s curse upon them as well.
Acts 15:1, “And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, 
Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

Westcott And Hort Exposed!


A selection of 

statements revealing the

attitudes of these two

most noted textual critics.

WE should always be reluctant to engage in ad hominem arguments, i.e. those that concentrate on personalities rather than issues, but the character and professed beliefs of those involved in such vital matters as the text and translation of the Bible cannot be overlooked. It is necessary that those handling the inspired word of God themselves be spiritual men. This is the teaching of Scripture itself (1 Cor. 2:11-16).

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901)


was born at Birmingham and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892)


at Dublin. In 1851 Westcott was ordained an Anglican “priest” and Hort in 1856: their careers were spent mostly in academic positions rather than pastorates. As early as 1853 they began work on their Greek text of the New Testament: this project was to occupy most of their remaining lives. In 1870 the idea of a modest revision of the A.V. was sanctioned by the Southern Convocation of the Church of England, and this provided the opportunity for Westcott and Hort to introduce their radical changes. They defended the inclusion of a Unitarian scholar on the Revision Committee. “The New Testament in the Original Greek” was published in 1881, as was the Revised Version based upon it: this latter failed to gain lasting popularity, but the Westcott-Hort text and theory has dominated the scene since.
Textual criticism cannot be divorced entirely from theology. No matter how great a Greek scholar a man may be, or no matter how great an authority on the textual evidence, his conclusions must always be open to suspicion if he does not accept the Bible as the very Word of God (in FULLER, p.157).

The following quotes from the diaries and letters of Westcott and Hort demonstrate their serious departures from orthodoxy, revealing their opposition to evangelical Protestantism and sympathies with Rome and ritualism. Many more could be given. Their views on Scripture and the Text are highlighted.
1846 Oct. 25th – Westcott: “Is there not that in the principles of the “Evangelical” school which must lead to the exaltation of the individual minister, and does not that help to prove their unsoundness? If preaching is the chief means of grace, it must emanate not from the church, but from the preacher, and besides placing him in a false position, it places him in a fearfully dangerous one.” (Life, Vol.I, pp.44,45).
Oct., 22nd after Trinity Sunday – Westcott: “Do you not understand the meaning of Theological ‘Development’? It is briefly this, that in an early time some doctrine is proposed in a simple or obscure form, or even but darkly hinted at, which in succeeding ages,as the wants of men’s minds grow, grows with them – in fact, that Christianity is always progressive in its principles and doctrines.” (Life, Vol.I, p.78).
Dec. 23rd – Westcott: “My faith is still wavering. I cannot determine how much we must believe; how much, in fact, is necessarily required of a member of the Church.” (Life, Vol.I, p.46).
1847 Jan., 2nd Sunday after Epiphany – Westcott: “After leaving the monastery we shaped our course to a little oratory…It is very small, with one kneeling-place; and behind a screen was a ‘Pieta’ the size of life (i.e. a Virgin and dead Christ)…I could not help thinking on the grandeur of the Romish Church, on her zeal even in error, on her earnestness and self-devotion, which we might, with nobler views and a purer end, strive to imitate. Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours.” (Life, Vol.I, p.81).
1848 July 6th – Hort: “One of the things, I think, which shows the falsity of the Evangelical notion of this subject (baptism), is that it is so trim and precise…no deep spiritual truths of the Reason are thus logically harmonious and systematic…the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical…the fanaticism of the bibliolaters, among whom reading so many ‘chapters’ seems exactly to correspond to the Romish superstition of telling so many dozen beads on a rosary…still we dare not forsake the Sacraments, or God will forsake us…I am inclined to think that no such state as ‘Eden’ (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam’s fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants” (Life, Vol.I, pp.76-78).
Aug. 11th – Westcott: “I never read an account of a miracle (in Scripture?) but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it.” (Life, Vol.I, p.52).
Nov., Advent Sunday – Westcott: “All stigmatise him (a Dr. Hampden) as a ‘heretic,’…I thought myself that he was grievously in error, but yesterday I read over the selections from his writings which his adversaries make, and in them I found systematically expressed the very strains of thought which I have been endeavouring to trace out for the last two or three years. If he be condemned, what will become of me?” (Life, Vol.I, p.94).
1850 May 12th – Hort: “You ask me about the liberty to be allowed to clergymen in their views of Baptism. For my own part, I would gladly admit to the ministry such as hold Gorham’s view, much more such as hold the ordinary confused Evangelical notions” (Life, Vol.I, p.148).
July 31st – Hort: “I spoke of the gloomy prospect, should the Evangelicals carry on their present victory so as to alter the Services.” (Life, Vol.I, p.160).
1851 Feb. 7th – Hort: “Westcott is just coming out with his Norrisian on ‘The Elements of the Gospel Harmony.’ I have seen the first sheet on Inspiration, which is a wonderful step in advance of common orthodox heresy.” (Life, Vol.I, p.181).
1858 Oct. 21st – Further I agree with them in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology as, to say the least, containing much superstition and immorality of a very pernmicious kind…The positive doctrines even of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue…There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible” (Life, Vol.I, p.400).
1860 Apr. 3rd – Hort: “But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument in more detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable.” (Life, Vol.I, p.416).
Oct. 15th – Hort: “I entirely agree – correcting one word – with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that “the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself” is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit…Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ’s bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.” (Life, Vol.I, p.430).
1864 Sept. 23rd – Hort: “I believe Coleridge was quite right in saying that Christianity without a substantial Church is vanity and dissolution; and I remember shocking you and Lightfoot not so very long ago by expressing a belief that ‘Protestantism’ is only parenthetical and temporary. In short, the Irvingite creed (minus the belief in the superior claims of the Irvingite communion) seems to me unassailable in things ecclesiastical.” (Life, Vol.II, p.30,31).
1865 Sept. 27th – Westcott: “I have been trying to recall my impressions of La Salette (a marian shrine). I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness; and how we can practically set forth the teaching of the miracles“.
Nov. 17th – Westcott: “As far as I could judge, the ‘idea’ of La Salette was that of God revealing Himself now, and not in one form but in many.” (Life, Vol.I. pp.251,252).
Oct. 17th – Hort: “I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results.” (Life, Vol.II, p.50).
1867 Oct. 17th – Hort: “I wish we were more agreed on the doctrinal part; but you know I am a staunch sacerdotalist, and there is not much profit in arguing about first principles.” (Life, Vol.II, p.86).
1890 Mar. 4th – Westcott: “No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history – I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did – yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere.

Chronology of the Revision


1825 Jan. 12th – Brooke Foss Westcott born at Birmingham.
1828 Apr. 23rd – Fenton John Anthony Hort born at Dublin.
1851 Dec. 21st – Westcott ordained “priest” in Church of England.
1851 Dec. 29,30th – Hort: “I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus.. Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones” (Life, Vol.I, p.211).
1853 Jan.-Mar. – Westcott and Hort agree upon plan of a joint revision of the text of the Greek Testament.
Apr. 19th – Hort: “He (Westcott) and I are going to edit a Greek text of the New Testament some two or three years hence, if possible.” (Life, Vol.I, p.250).
June – Mr. Daniel Macmillan suggests to Hort that he should take part in an interesting and comprehensive ‘New Testament Scheme.’ Hort was to edit the text in conjunction with Mr. Westcott; the latter was to be responsible for a commentary, and Lightfoot was to contribute a N.T. Grammar and Lexicon. (Life, Vol.I, pp.240,241).
Sept. 29th – Westcott to Hort: “As to our proposed recension of the New Testament text, our object would be, I suppose, to prepare a text for common and general use…With such an end in view, would it not be best to introduce only certain emendations into the received text, and to note in the margin such as seem likely or noticeable – after Griesbach’s manner?…I feel most keenly the disgrace of circulating what I feel to be falsified copies of Holy Scripture (a reference to the A.V.?), and am most anxious to provide something to replace them. This cannot be any text resting solely on our own judgment, even if we were not too inexperienced to make one; but it must be supported by a clear and obvious preponderance of evidence. The margin wiil give ample scope for our own ingenuity or principles…my wish would be to leave the popular received text except where it is clearly wrong.” (Life, Vol.I, pp.228,229).
Nov. 4th – Hort: “I went down and spent a Sunday with Westcott…We came to a distinct and positive understanding about our Gk. Test. and the details thereof. We still do not wish it to be talked about, but are going to work at once, and hope we may perhaps have it out in little more than a year.” (Life, Vol.I, p.264).
Westcott and Hort start work on their Greek text.
1856 Feb. ? – Hort ordained “priest” in Church of England.

Mar. 20th – Hort: “I think I mentioned to you before Campbell’s book on the Atonement, which is invaluable as far as it goes; but unluckily he knows nothing except Protestant theology” (Life, Vol.I, p.322).
1857 Feb. 23rd – Hort to Westcott: “I hope to go on with the New Testament text more unremittingly” (Life, Vol.I, p.355).

First efforts to secure revision of the Authorised Version by five Church of England clergymen.
1858 Oct. 21st – Hort: “The principle literary work of these years was the revision of the Greek Text of the New Testament. All spare hours were devoted to it.” (Life, Vol.I, p.399).
1860 May 1st – Hort to Lightfoot: “If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for co-operation, I fear I could not join you, even if you were willing to forget your fears about the origin of the Gospels.” (Life, Vol. I, p.420).
May 4th – Hort to Lightfoot: “I am also glad that you take the same provisional ground as to infallibility that I do.” (Life, Vol.I, p.424).
May 5th – Westcott to Hort: “at present I find the presumption in favour of the absolute truth – I reject the word infallibility – of Holy Scripture overwhelming.” (Life, Vol.I, p.207).
May 18th – Hort to Lightfoot: “It sounds an arrogant thing to say, but there are very many cases in which I would not admit the competence of any one to judge a decision of mine on a textual matter, who was only an amateur, and had not some considerable experience in forming a text.” (Life, Vol.I, p.425).
1861 Apr. 12th – Hort to Westcott: “Also – but this may be cowardice – I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms.” (Life, Vol.I, p.445).
1862 Apr. 30th, May 1st – Hort: “It seems to be clearly and broadly directed to maintaining that the English clergy are not compelled to maintain the absolute infallibility of the Bible. And, whatever the truth may be, this seems just the liberty required at the present moment, if any living belief is to survive in the land.” (Life, Vol.I, p.454).

1870 Westcott and Hort print tentative edition of their Greek N.T. for private distribution only. (This they later circulated under pledge of secrecy within the company of N.T. revisers, of which they were members).
Feb. 10th – Southern Convocation of Church of England resolve on desirability of revision of A.V. Northern Convocation declines to cooperate.
May – Committee of 18 elected to produce a Revised Version.
The 7 members of the N.T. Committee invite 18 others, making 25.

May 29th – Westcott to Hort: “though I think that Convocation is not competent to initiate such a measure, yet I feel that as ‘we three’ are together it would be wrong not to ‘make the best of it’ as Lightfoot says. Indeed, there is a very fair prospect of good work, though neither with this body nor with any body likely to be formed now could a complete textual revision be possible. There is some hope that alternative readings might find a place in the margin.” (Life, Vol.I, p.390).
June 4th – Westcott to Lightfoot: “Ought we not to have a conference before the first meeting for Revision? There are many points on which it is important that we should agreed. The rules though liberal are vague, and the interpretation of them will depend upon decided action at first.” (Life, Vol.I, p.391).
July 1st – Westcott to Hort: “The Revision on the whole surprised me by prospects of hope. I suggested to Ellicott a plan of tabulating and circulating emendations before our meeting, which may prove valuable.” (Life, Vol.I, pp.392,393).
July 7th – Hort: “Dr. Westcott and myself have for above seventeen years been preparing a Greek text of the New Testament. It has been in the press for some years, and we hope to have it out early next year.” (Life, Vol.II, p.137).
Aug. ? – Hort to Lightfoot: “It is, I think, difficult to measure the weight of acceptance won beforehand for the Revision by the single fact of our welcoming an Unitarian, if only the Company perseveres in its present serious and faithful spirit.” (Life, Vol.II, p.140). (Dr. G. Vance Smith, a Unitarian scholar, was a member of the Revision Committee. At Westcott‘s suggestion, a celebration of Holy Communion was held on June 22nd before the first meeting of the N.T. Revision Company. Dr. Smith communicated but said afterwards that he did not join in reciting the Nicene Creed and did not compromise his principles as a Unitarian. The storm of public indignation which followed almost wrecked the Revision at the outset. At length however Dr. Smith remained on the Committee).
1881 Bishop Ellicott submits the Revised Version to the Southern Convocation.
May 12th – Westcott and Hort‘s “The New Testament in the Original Greek” Vol. I published (Text and short Introduction).
May 17th – the Revised Version is published in England, selling two million copies within four days. It fails however to gain lasting popular appeal.
Sept. 4th – Westcott and Hort‘s “The New Testament in the Original Greek” Vol.II published (Introduction and Appendix).
Oct. – first of Dean Burgon’s three articles in the Quarterly Review against the Revised Version appears.
1882 May – Ellicott publishes pamphlet in reply to Burgon, defending the Westcott and Hort Greek text.
1883 Burgon publishes The Revision Revised, including a reply to Ellicott.
1890 May 1st – Westcott consecrated Bishop of Durham.
1892 Nov. 30th – death of Hort.
1901 July 27th – death of Westcott.
1908 The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia discusses the WestcottHort theory:


Conscious agreement with it or conscious disagreement and qualification mark all work in this field since 1881.
This is still almost literally true.

Hort, A.F., Life and Letters of Fenton J.A. Hort, MacMillan and Co., London, 1896, vols. I,II.
Westcott, A., Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, MacMillan and Co., London, 1903, vols. I,II.


Bible Version Dilemma

I can understand why liberals, new evangelicals and other unbelievers prefer modern versions; but for the life of me I can not understand why professing fundamentalists want a Bible with many verses and thousands of words missing.

Furthermore, they all teach some false doctrine (though many loudly proclaim these phony Bibles alter no doctrine). For example, look at John 7:8 in the NASV (the folks at Bob Jones assure us that this represents the “best text”). Jesus’ brothers were urging Him to go up to the feast. The NASV says, “Go up to the feast yourselves. I do not go up to this feast…” In verse 10, it records that Jesus went up to the feast. If the NASV doesn’t make the Son of God to be a liar, language means nothing. It makes Him say He wasn’t going when in fact He clearly intended to go all along. The KJV says, “Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet” One little three letter word makes all the difference in the world. Which rendering do you think accords with the truth and the true nature of Jesus Christ? You don’t have to know any Greek to understand this! Do you think Jesus could ever lie? The NIV has the word “yet” in the text, but there is a footnote which says “some early mss omit ‘yet’.” Yes, and they are the same two manuscripts (not a lot like they would have you believe) from which all modern versions come. There is only one Bible, one pure text and it is in the King James Version.

A Rebuttal of James White’s book, The King James Only Controversy

James R. White

James R. White

By George R. Theiss

(with an extended evaluation and rebuttal)

Copyright © 2005 by George R. Theiss


Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all, and curtailing the gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone are authentic which they themselves have shortened” (i)

Irenaeus (2nd Century) on Marcion the Gnostic

The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written.” (ii)

Origen of Alexandria (3rd Century) Gnostic and Father of Arianism

I say ‘pure’ because all the ancient exemplars, which formerly were found among the Papists, were full of falsifications, which caused Beza to say in his book on Illustrious Men, in the chapter on the Vaudois of the Valleys that France today has the Bible in her own language.

This godly man, Olivetan, in the preface of his Bible, recognizes with thanks to God, that since the time of the apostles, or their immediate successors, the torch of the gospel has been lit among the Vaudois (or dwellers in the Valleys of the Alps, two terms which mean the same), and has never since been extinguished.” (iii)

Leger (17th Century) on Olivetan’s French Bible of 1537

So the present controversy between the King James Version in English and the modern versions is the same old contest fought out between the early church and rival sects; and later, between the Waldenses, and the Papists from the fourth to the thirteenth centuries; and later still, between the Reformers and the Jesuits in the sixteenth century.” (iv)

Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Ph.D (20th Century)

(i) Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Scribner’s, 1953) Vol. 1, pp. 434-435 quoted by David Otis Fuller, et al, Which Bible? (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids Publications, 5th edition, 1975) pp. 2 and 187.

(ii) “Origen,” McClintock and Strong, Encyclopedia quoted by Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) as it appears in David Otis Fuller, et al, Which Bible? (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids Publications, 5th edition, 1975) page 192.

(iii) Leger, General History of the Evangelical Churches of the Piedmontese Valleys (France: 1669) p. 165 quoted by Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) as it appears in David Otis Fuller, et al, Which Bible? (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids Publications, 5th edition, 1975) page 205.

(iv) Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) quoted by David Otis Fuller, et al, Which Bible? (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids Publications, 5th edition, 1975) page 188.


The King James Only Controversy by James R. White seeks to answer the question, Can you trust the modern translations. The author states in his Introduction, I oppose KJV Onlyism, not the King James Version itself.

White encourages Christians to purchase and use multiple translations of the Bible so that comparisons can be made between translations.[1]  He suggests Cross reference between such fine translations as the New King James Version, the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version . . . .[2]


The book begins with Part One, which includes a description of different types of King James Only advocates and their arguments. He then discusses how we got our Bible.
White goes on to look at translational and textual differences in some depth. He devotes an entire chapter to charges by KJV Only advocates that the new Bible versions water down the Deity of Christ. White then draws our attention to problems in the KJV.

Finally, the author concludes his book with some basic questions and answers and an exhortation for the reader to understand. In Part Two, White give us the textual data, a bibliography and indices.


The author, James White, has obviously read A General Introduction to the Bible by Geisler and Nix. He is better versed in the mechanics and terminology of Bible manuscript translation and transmission than many KJV Only proponents.

His explanation of honest copyist errors in the transmission of the Bible is altogether reasonable and probable in many cases. His explanation of how we got the KJV through Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza is thorough and interesting.

His allegations of misrepresentations on the part of some KJV Only advocates such as Riplinger and Ruckman deserve further investigation. Some appear to be true. If so, they should give our KJV Only camp some pause for thought.

We agree with White’s Sixth Chapter (Translational Differences). The exact same Hebrew or Greek word or phrase can often be translated accurately into English in more than one way.

Therefore, there are some cases where a different rendering (from the KJV) of the same Hebrew or Greek word or phrase may be legitimate in a modern Bible version. White gives some good examples of this in his Sixth Chapter.

We have no problem with comparing the KJV to modern translations to get a better idea of the meaning, if the word or phrase is translated from the identical Hebrew or Greek word or phrase in both the KJV and the modern translations.

We admit that some English words have changed meaning over the nearly 400 years since the KJV was first written. Some KJV words are now archaic.

White points out that, Many of the exact same arguments that are used today by KJV Only advocates were used against Erasmus nearly 500 years ago![3]  His point is well taken. In fact, many of his arguments against the King James Only position seem unanswerable, in our present state of knowledge. 


But it does not necessarily follow that all James White’s conclusions are valid. In our extended evaluation, we question several (not all) of White’s assumptions.

We believe we can prove White to be in error in these particular assumptions and conclusions. We will show that these are fatal errors in White’s arguments against the KJV Only position.


James White states, You should never have to wonder if you are going to be accepted by others if you use an NIV rather than a KJV (or vice versa!) Fellowship should never be base upon the English translation one carries and studies.[4]  Is White correct?

The startling news that NIV will become a unisex version was published in the March 29, 1997 edition of World Magazine. This change of the gender of God is not based on an accurate translation of the original Greek manuscripts.

Rather it is a theological change, a complete capitulation to feminism and the mother goddess worship of witchcraft and Mariolatry.  Should we not break fellowship with those who call this latest NIV perversion of God’s gender (from he to he-she) the Bible?


White claims that Psalm 12:6-7 may not even refer to preservation of the words of the LORD.[5]  He points to the NIV translation of Psalm 12:6-7 that appears to support his point. Is White correct? Are we to believe that God has NOT promised to preserve His words from generation to generation?

Christ taught preservation of God’s word, right down to the smallest Hebrew letter (jot) and smallest decorative spur (tittle) till Heaven and earth pass away in Matthew 5:17-18. In Matthew 24:35, our Lord Jesus states, Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

On the basis of Christ’s teachings, we may safely assume that Psalm 12:6-7 does teach preservation of God’s Word, as the KJV reading of that passage clearly indicates! We appeal to the providence of God and the logic of faith.

White says, Dr. Edward F. Hills represents the best of the KJV Only position. . . Hills does not ignore such things as the insertion of passages from the Vulgate into the text of Erasmus and hence into the KJV; instead he argues that since God preserved the rest of the TR, He must have preserved those readings, too.

White accuses Hills of circular reasoning.[6]  But White also begins with the conclusion of his argument that we can trust the modern translations[7] and then uses his conclusion in the course of his arguments.

White also charges Hills with a desire for absolute certainty.[8]  But our God promises absolute certainty in the preservation of God’s Word (Matthew 5:17-18 and 24:35; Psalm 12:6-7; compare also John 14:26 and 16:13).

Christ teaches us that His words will be preserved forever. Where will they be preserved? His words are, and will be, preserved in the Holy Bible. Thus it is important for us to determine which Bible version is the preserved Word of God.

Logic tells us that two opposite statements cannot both be true. For example, two contradicting Bible versions cannot both be the preserved Word of God. Therefore, if one version is true, the other is false.
Such is the case with the KJV male gender (he) for God versus the new NIV unisex gender (he-she) for God. They cannot both be true. If the KJV is true, then the NIV is false.

Logic tells us that two opposite statements cannot both be true. For example, two contradicting Bible versions cannot both be the preserved Word of God. Therefore, if one version is true, the other is false.
Such is the case with the KJV male gender (he) for God versus the new NIV unisex gender (he-she) for God. They cannot both be true. If the KJV is true, then the NIV is false.


In his Question and Answers chapter White writes, The idea that there is some ulterior motive, some conspiracy, involved in trying to twist and change the teaching of Scripture is a common element of KJV Only writing. [9]

White apparently assumes that there is no conspiracy to corrupt the Word of God.[10]  Is White correct? Are we to believe that satan has no plan to question, misquote and contradict the pure Word of God (Genesis 3:1-5)?

The Bible clearly warns us of satan’s method of CORRUPTING the Word of God. We read about it in the Third Chapter of Genesis: satan questioned God’s Word (Yea, hath God said?) misquoted God’s Word (ye shall not eat of EVERY tree of the garden?) then flatly contradicted God’s Word (ye shall NOT surely die).

Can satan control unsaved men who dabble with demonic spirit-guides? The Bible states that they . . . are taken captive by him at his will. (2 Timothy 2:26).

Westcott and Hort were two such men, upon whose work the Critical Text is largely based. Westcott and Hort form the basis for both the ever evolving Nestle-Aland text and the constantly changing United Bible Societies text.

White asks, Were they occultists? Westcott’s involvement in a club called the ‘Ghostlie Guild’ has led to all sorts of such charges, but the club was formed to investigate strange occurrences, not engage in devilish activity.[11]

Perhaps White should re-read Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist’s One World Religion exposé of the Men (pages 391-464) and her Appendix A (Summary: Westcott and Hort) a little more closely. What follows is my summary of what Riplinger says, with my own editorial comments:


Westcott and Hort were Anglican priests and closet Catholics who lived in England in the 19th century (1800s). It was the same time in which there was a movement within the Anglican clergy to reunite with the Pope, led notably by Cardinal Newman, an Anglican priest turned Roman Catholic prelate.

The beliefs and agenda of Westcott and Hort can be gleaned by reading their personal correspondence preserved in their biographies. While they were deciding what does and does not belong in their revision of the Greek New Testament, they were involved in:

Worship of the Virgin (Mariolatry).

Necromancy (spiritualism – calling up the dead in séances).

Speaking with ghosts (devils).

The Bible forbids all three activities. Worship of the Virgin violates both the First and Second of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). Necromancy, witchcraft, and consulting with familiar spirits are forbidden in Deuteronomy 18:10- 12.


In 1845, as a Cambridge undergraduate, Westcott organized the Hermes Club. Hermes is the Greek god of magic, the Lord of death, cunning and trickery. According to Greek mythology, Hermes was a gifted speaker and a scribe.

Westcott’s friend, Madame Blavatsky, a key founder of the New Age Movement, wrote, Satan and Hermes are all one, in her book, THE SECRET DOCTRINE. She didn’t even pretend to be a Christian, she was a Luciferian.

In the 1850s Westcott, Hort and Benson (a future Archbishop of Canterbury) founded the Ghost Club (also known as the Ghostly Guild). It promoted channeling by which spirits speak through a medium.

As Gail Riplinger so aptly points out in her book, NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS, The bitter fountain which springs forth from the new bible versions flows from the devils who seduced the scribes.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils (1 Timothy 4:1)

The modern translations (RSV, ASV, NASB, NIV, NEV and even the NKJV) have one thing in common. They tend to agree against the KJV in omitting hundreds of words, phrases and entire verses.

These omitted words are not always archaic (old) words no longer used in Modern English. The omitted words are words like God (omitted 66 times in the New King James Version alone, and even more in other modern versions).

God is not an archaic word. Neither is Christ, blood, virgin or other frequently omitted words. As Gail Riplinger points out in her book, New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist’s One World Religion, these changes are theological in nature.

Many of the basic doctrines of our faith are being attacked in the new versions. The deity of Christ, the virgin birth, our blood bought redemption, salvation by grace through faith are all omitted (or badly watered down) in the modern versions.

When you read a modern Bible version, you may be reading (in some places) exactly what the devils would like you to read, straight from their willing mediums, Westcott and Hort. Let’s look at some statements made by Westcott and Hort.


In 1842, Westcott wrote, In the evening I go with Tom to the wizard…. (Westcott, Vol. 1, p. 9)

On a trip to view a New Testament manuscript, Westcott made a pilgrimage to a shrine of the Virgin. He commented about this, God appears in many forms.

In 1855 he wrote, How certainly I should have been proclaimed a heretic. (Westcott, Vol. 1, p. 233)

In 1871 Westcott stated, I shall aim at what is transcendental in many peoples eyes…I suppose I am a communist by nature. (Westcott, Vol. 1, p. 309)

In 1881 he admitted, Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise. (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament: A General Survey, p. vii)


Hort referred to evangelical Christians at various times as dangerous, perverted, unsound and confused. He called America a standing menace to the whole civilization.

In 1848 Hort wrote, The pure Romish view seems to me nearer and more likely to lead to truth than the evangelical. (Hort, Vol. 1, pp. 76-77.) Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary. (Hort, Vol. II, p. 31).
In 1856 he stated, Campbell’s book on the Atonement . . . unluckily he knows nothing except Protestant theology. (Hort, Vol. 1, p. 322.)


Westcott and Hort had a friend named Philip Schaff. He was the President of the Old and New Testament committees that formed the American Standard Version of 1901. He was a rank heretic and he advocated one world religion.

The University of Berlin calls him The theological mediator between East and West. Schaff mocked Christians, saying, They vainly imagine that they possess the monopoly on truth.

He further stated, The church must adjust…her doctrinal statements…to natural science. Churchman brought Schaff before the Pennsylvania Synod for heresy. The Living Bible and NASB used Schaff’s 30,000 alterations to the Bible.

Schaff’s Parliament of World Religions, called itself Babel. It first met in Chicago in 1893. Schaff called it the sum of my life and theological activity. It set the New Age movement in motion.

From Schaff, we can get a clearer view of the agenda of Westcott and Hort. Schaff used their corrupt text to give us the ASV of 1901. He followed their interpretation of theology and their view of one world religion.


The Westcott and Hort text unbelievably came into acceptance through the efforts of two Bible believing Calvinist Presbyterians who had studied in Germany. Both men rejected the higher criticism of the German liberals.

But both men came to accept “textual criticism” as scholarly and good. Both men later taught at Princeton Theological Seminary. Their names were B.B. Warfield and J. Gresham Machen. Their knowledge of Greek was impeccable.

Another professor, teaching at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky also accepted the idea of textual criticism. His name was A.T. Robertson. He, too, was a master scholar of Greek.

Did these men have any sinister intent? Only God knows. They most probably had no idea of the personal beliefs and agenda of Westcott and Hort.

Warfield, Machen and Robertson seemed to sincerely believe that the New Testament needed to be updated in the light of modern historical research. Their ideas soon gained acceptance in a number of evangelical seminaries.

Many pastors are seminary trained. This eventually resulted in new versions of the Bible being accepted and used widely in evangelical and fundamental churches and Bible colleges.

Though Warfield, Machen and Robertson may have been sincere, we believe they were sincerely wrong. We need a return to the King James Bible.


Norman Geisler’s endorsement of The King James Only Controversy is found on the front cover of White’s book. Geisler writes, This is the best book in print on a topic often riddled with emotion and ignorance.

Norman Geisler co-authored the classic General Introduction to the Bible with William Nix. It is used as a standard work on the subject in many evangelical seminaries and Bible colleges.

Geisler, writing about the Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), states, This fourth century Greek manuscript is generally considered to be the most important witness to the text because of its antiquity, accuracy and lack of omissions.[12] (Emphasis mine)

In writing about the Codex Vaticanus (B), Geisler says, The Codex Vaticanus is perhaps the oldest uncial on parchment or vellum (c. 325-350) and one of the most important witnesses to the text of the New Testament[13]

These two texts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) form much of the backbone for the Critical Text of Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort, in turn, form the basis for both the ever evolving Nestle-Aland text and the constantly changing United Bible Societies text.

Based on a reading of Let’s Weigh the Evidence by Barry Burton (Chino, CA: Chick Publications, 1983) pages 57-69, I offer my summary of Burton’s arguments against the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, with my own editorial comments.


The Vaticanus was discovered in the Vatican library in the year 1481. It was in excellent condition. Yet it omits Genesis 1:1 to 46:28, Psalms 106 to 138, Matthew 16:2-3, all the Pauline Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy through Titus) Hebrews 9:14-13:25 and all of the book of Revelation!!!

In other words, it omits much that was used by ancient believers to condemn Roman Catholic doctrines and traditions. For example, Paul’s Pastoral Epistles twice declare that a bishop should be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6).

Paul also warns of devil doctrines like forbidding to marry (1 Timothy 4:3). This contradicts Catholic demands that its bishops and priests be unmarried (celibate). It is therefore omitted in the Vaticanus.

Hebrews 10:10-14 condemns (by implication) the re-sacrificing of Christ done at the Sacrifice of the Mass as taught in the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. This passage is omitted in the Vaticanus.

The book of Revelation, chapter 17 clearly describes a religious whore headquartered in Rome (the city of seven hills that rules over the kings of the earth). Revelation 13 warns of the Mark, Name and Number of the Beast.

Both chapters are missing in the Vaticanus. Besides the above listed omissions, the Vaticanus, in the Gospels alone (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences.


The Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus disagree with each other over 3,000 times in the Gospels alone!!! The Sinaiticus was found on a trash pile in St. Catherine’s Monastery, near Mt. Sinai, in 1844.

It contains nearly all of the New Testament, but it adds the Shepherd of Hermes and the Epistle of Barnabas (contrary to Revelation 22:18). On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by ten different people.

Even worse, the Shepherd of Hermes and the Epistle of Barnabas include commands to do things God has forbidden in His Word[14], including:

Take the name of the beast.

Give up to the beast.

Form a One-World Government.

Kill those not receiving his name.

Worship female virgins.

Receive another spirit.

Seek power.

Avoid marriage and permit fornication.

Abstain from fasting.

Here we see satan going beyond questioning and misquoting God’s Word. Here he is advancing to his third tactic. He is flatly contradicting God’s Word.

No wonder U.S. News and World Report magazine, in its 11-8-93 issue reveals plans by Canon Seminar scholars for a radical revision of the New Testament that will replace the Book of Revelation with other writings …[previously] dismissed by church leaders as unauthentic or heretical.


Dave Hunt wrote the book A Woman Rides the Beast: The Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days (based almost entirely on Catholic sources such as the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Council of Trent, Vatican II, the Catholic Catechism, etc.) In this excellent exposé of the many anti-Christian doctrines (such as salvation by works) and bloody history of the Roman Catholic Church, Hunt writes:

One of the most highly regarded evangelical apologists, Norman L. Geisler, stated recently that Catholics believe in justification by grace and that differences between Catholics and evangelical are not as great as generally perceived and they are not crucial . . . [nor do they] involve heresy . . . the whole the theological core of historic Christianity is held in common.[15]

What a coincidence, that Geisler, who wrote the standard textbook (used in many theological seminaries and Bible colleges) on how we got our Bible, and who sees no problem with new translations of the Bible, also sees no problem with:

Salvation by works[16] (contrary to Ephesians 2:8-9 and Titus 3:5).

Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass (contrary to Hebrews 10:10-14).

Worship of Mary as Queen of Heaven (contrary to Jeremiah, chapter 44).

Banning and burning of Bibles and those who translated or read them (the Albigenses & Waldenses, Wycliffe, Tyndale, and numerous others).

The Vicar of Christ (Anti-Christ in Greek) being called the Holy Father (contrary to Matthew 23:1-9).

Sale of indulgences (bogus tickets to heaven and paid licenses to sin).

Murder of Protestants (Bloody Mary’s Reign of Terror in England, the Anabaptists of Holland and Switzerland, St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in France, the Irish Massacre on the Feast of St. Ignatius Loyola in 1641, etc.)[17]

Deleting from Bible manuscripts (such as the Vaticanus deletion of the Pastoral Epistles and the entire Book of Revelation) contrary to Revelation 22:19.
The tortures of the Inquisition (northern Italy, southern France and all of Spain).

The stated purpose of the Jesuits to destroy Protestantism.[18]

Purgatory and prayers for the dead (found nowhere in the Bible).

What a coincidence, that Geisler (who sees no problem with the Catholic manuscripts that support such Bible versions as the NIV and the NASB) now sees no problem with the Roman Catholic Whore of Revelation 17.

Is it not interesting that Norman Geisler, who openly supports White’s book, The King James Only Controversy also supports the Roman Catholic Church? One of White’s main arguments is that there is no conspiracy to corrupt the Word of God. Yet Geisler’s endorsement of White’s work casts doubt on that argument.


Would the Vatican want to cast doubt on the KJV Bible?  Did not a Jesuit priest, Henry Garnet direct an assassination attempt (by Roman Catholic Guy Fawkes) on the staunch Protestant, King James I in 1605?[19]

Did not God bless the KJV in the language of the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession of 1689, the modern missionary movement started by William Carey and the preaching of men such as C.H. Spurgeon and D. Martin Lloyd Jones? Didn’t these creeds and men identify the Pope as Anti-Christ?

Did not God bless the King James Version in the founding of America by Calvinist Presbyterians such as James Madison (Father of the U.S. Constitution) and the Lee family of Virginia? Were not 2/3 of the population and more than half of all the American soldiers in the Revolutionary War Calvinists?[20]

Did not the Vatican officially denounce democracy and the American concepts of freedom of religion and freedom of the press?[21]  Have not the Popes always fought liberty, equality and separation of church and state?[22]

Hear the supposedly infallible Pope Martin V (1427-31) command the King of Poland to exterminate the Hussites (and his reasons why):

Know that the interests of the Holy See, and those of your crown, make it a duty to exterminate the Hussites. Remember that these impious persons dare proclaim principles of equality; they maintain that all Christians are brethren, and that God has not given to privileged men the right of the ruling the nations; they hold that Christ came on earth to abolish slavery; they call the people to liberty . . . .[23]

By what logic can White (or Geisler) argue that there is no plan, no conspiracy to corrupt the Word of God?! In the light of Genesis 3:1-5 we may safely conclude that satan and his minions have such a plan.

By the open animosity of the Vatican to King James and his Bible (and to the pure Gospel preaching and liberty it brought to early Protestant America) we can conclude that the Vatican has every reason to question, misquote and contradict the KJV by the making of new versions based on corrupt manuscripts.

Westcott and Hort changed the Majority text until it mirrored the Vaticanus (B) text.[24] Pope Pius XII then declared, Translations could be produced in cooperation with separated brethren.[25]

The four wheels driving the current United Bible Societies (U.B.S.) Greek New Testament, Aland, Black, Metzger and Wikgren, were being steered by a fifth wheel, in the driver’s seat, Roman Catholic Cardinal Carlo M. Martini.[26]

Cardinal Martini’s editorship appears only on the frontispiece of the edition for translators, lest Protestants panic.[27] Martini is a liberal Jesuit.[28]  His committee’s book, The Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament, admits that Westcott & Hort formed the basis for the present U.B.S. edition.[29]

Now both Protestant and Catholic versions are based on the same Vaticanus (B) minority Greek text.[30] The Nestle-Aland and U.B.S. texts are now identical. [31]


White argues that King James may have been a homosexual, but that did not make the KJV soft on homosexuality.[32] White’s argument is that a translator’s beliefs and moral conduct do not affect his translation of the Bible.[33]

Although that might be the case sometimes, White can in no way prove that it was the case all the time. The truth is that we are all swayed by our beliefs and moral conduct.
For example, homosexuals often seek jobs that put them near vulnerable children, jobs such as Public School Teachers and Boy Scout-Masters. They often do it with the secret intent of seducing the children under their influence.

King James was raised a Calvinist Presbyterian. As King, he sought an accurate English translation of the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. He hand-picked the translators, and had the committees of translators periodically check each other’s work. He supported the translation from start to finish (1604-11).

It is unlikely that such a man as King James was a homosexual. The charge never came up during his lifetime. A known enemy, Anthony Weldon, first brought up the charge in 1650 (25 years after the death of King James).[34]

White observes that Erasmus was a Roman Catholic, yet that did not affect his manuscript upon which the KJV is based. But Erasmus was hardly a traditional Catholic and in many ways he agreed with Luther.[35] The writings of Erasmus were later banned by the Pope.[36]

We believe that the hatred of evangelical Christianity, stated by Westcott and Hort in their own writings (see above) had an effect on their manuscript. We believe the same to be true of heretics like Origen (c. 250 A.D.) of Alexandria.

Origen sought a blend between paganism and Christianity.[37] He did not believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God and he felt free to change the Word if he did not like what it said.[38] His Alexandrian school later provided us with the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrian and other texts uses by Westcott and Hort.


Paul and Barnabas taught the Church in Antioch of Syria and the disciples were first called Christians there (Acts 11:26). There soon arose a school of learned Christians in Antioch who taught the Literal-Historical approach to interpreting the Holy Scriptures.[39]  They avoided the allegorism of the Alexandrians.[40]

The Jews of Alexandria in Egypt gave us the first Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. They lived in a thoroughly Greek culture brought to Egypt by Ptolemy (a top general of Alexander the Great).

Many Jews were so impressed with the Greek culture of Alexandria that they accepted the teachings of Greek philosophy.[41]  The outstanding Jewish allegorist was Philo (c. 20 B.C. to 54 A.D.) who mixed Scripture with Greek philosophy.[42]

Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A textbook of Hermeneutics by Bernard Ramm is a standard textbook on the subject of Hermeneutics in many theological seminaries and Bible colleges. This book gives us some valuable insight into the schools of Alexandria and Antioch.

Ramm states, The allegorical system that arose among the pagan Greeks, copied by the Alexandrian Jews, was next adopted by the Christian church . . . with such notable exceptions as the Syrian school of Antioch . . . .[43]

The school of Antioch in Syria avoided both the letterism of the Jews and the allegorism of the Alexandrians.[44] They held to both figures of speech and plain speech. They fought Origen of Alexandria in particular as the inventor of the allegorical method.[45]


White writes, Most scholars today (in opposition to KJV Only advocates) would see the Alexandrian text-type as representing an earlier, and hence more accurate, form of text then the Byzantine text-type.[46]

White goes on to observe, KJV Only advocates disagree with this summary . . . The Textus Receptus, the Greek text form with the KJV New Testament was translated, is ‘Byzantine’ in character . . .

They explain the lack of ancient examples of the Byzantine text by theorizing that those manuscripts ‘wore out’ from excessive use over the years, while the ‘Alexandrian’ texts were quickly seen as corrupt . . . Such a theory, of course, defies proof by its very nature.[47]

There were extremely ancient (2nd Century) translations of the Bible into Syriac (the Aramaic Peshitto) and Old Latin (the Italic Bible of the Vaudois, later called Waldenses). Both tend to agree with the Byzantine text and not with the Alexandrian text.[48] White denies this[49] but many other scholars confirm it.[50]

This would give some credence to the KJV Only advocates’ position that the Byzantine text is indeed ancient and copies wore out with use. For if the oldest translations agree with the Byzantine text, then there were earlier copies which we no longer have. They probably wore out with use, persecution and climate.

Zane C. Hodges, who served as a Professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, in an article entitled The Greek Text of the King James Version, points out:
. . . all of our most ancient manuscripts derive basically from Egypt. This is due mainly to the circumstance that the climate of Egypt favors the preservation of ancient texts in a way that the climate of the rest of the Mediterranean world does not . . .

There is no good reason to suppose that the text found in Egypt give us an adequate sampling of texts of the same period found in other parts of the world. One might just as well affirm that to sample the flora and fauna of the Nile valley is to know the flora and fauna of Greece, or Turkey or Italy.[51]

Hodges goes on to observe, The manuscript tradition of an ancient book will . . . multiply in a reasonably regular fashion with the result that the copies nearest the autograph will normally have the largest number of descendants. . .

Hence, in a large tradition where a pronounced unity is observed between, let us say eighty per cent of the evidence, a very strong presumption is raised that this numerical preponderance is due to direct derivation from the very oldest sources . . .

Thus the Majority text, upon which the King James Version is based, has in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an authentic representation of the original text.[52]

Indeed, Helvidius, a northern Italian Bible scholar of the late 4th Century accused Jerome of using corrupt manuscripts to translate from Greek into a new version of Latin (the Latin Vulgate).[53]

Other 2nd Century Latin translations of the Bible (or portions thereof) used by the Christians of southern Gaul and (pre-Catholic, pre-Anglo-Saxon) Celtic Britain, also tend to agree with the Byzantine text against the Alexandrian.[54]

All these groups (Syrian Church, Greek Church, Waldenses, Albigenses, Welsh, Irish and Scottish Christians) were later in conflict with the Vatican over Scripture readings, dates, customs and the alleged authority of the Roman Bishop (later called the Pope).

All used Scriptures that tend to agree with the Byzantine text upon which the KJV is generally based. The Roman Catholics used the Latin Vulgate which is based mostly on Alexandrian texts. The Byzantine text may descend from the school of Antioch of Syria which opposed the Alexandrian school from earliest times.

White also claims that the earliest Church Fathers when quoting Scripture, tend to agree with the Alexandrian manuscripts. But we believe that a careful reading of men like Irenaeus and John Chrysostom will prove White wrong.

Furthermore, why would God hide his Greek text in a Vatican library or in a monastery trash heap near Mt. Sinai to be discovered only in the 19th Century?  Would he not rather preserve it in the Greek-speaking churches of the Byzantine era (312-1454 A.D.)?

At the fall of Constantinople, would not God send refugees bearing precious Greek manuscripts to Western Europe where the Byzantine text soon became the text of the Protestant Reformation? Scripture, history and logic compel us to see the Byzantine text as pure.


White, in referring to some omitted phrases in the modern Bible versions, argues, . . . .[55]  Is White correct?

Burton points out, Satan can’t change everything in the Bible . . . He’s too smart for that. Have you ever heard of a counterfeit dollar bill that is ORANGE?[56]
satan is a master of deceit. For example, in some places, the new Bible versions will affirm the Deity of Christ, but in others they will deny it. Origen of Alexandria denied the Deity of Christ in his writings.[57]  He also deleted [58]


As fellow KJVO believers, we applaud James White’s scholarship and desire to educate others in Bible translation and transmission facts. We appreciate his desire to avoid invective. Some of his arguments against the KJV Only position are very good.

But we strongly disagree with several of White’s assumptions and conclusions. We believe that some changes in the new Bible versions reflect theological changes not justified by the original languages. Therefore, we believe that the use of a certain Bible perversion (with no justifiable translational reason) can (and should) be a test of fellowship.

We believe that the words of our Lord Jesus in Matthew 5:17-18 and 24:35 support the KJV reading of Psalm 12:6-7 (and not the NIV reading that White uses to cast doubt on the KJV reading). God does preserve His Words in every generation.

We also disagree with White that a translator’s beliefs and moral conduct do not influence his translating of Scripture. We believe that satan has a plan to corrupt the Word of God (Genesis 3:1-5) and that his minions are taken captive by him at his will (2 Timothy 2:26).

We believe that the enmity the Vatican has displayed toward the Bible (especially the Byzantine text) in its long history of banning and burning translations (and those who read them) gives further evidence of this conspiracy.

We have documented from history why the Vatican would have every reason to want to cast doubt on the KJV today. We have also documented that White grossly understates and minimizes Westcott and Hort’s involvement in the occult.

We have shown that the Byzantine text readings are older than the Alexandrian texts. We have given many reasons why the Alexandrian texts are corrupt (a charge that White denies).

We have shown that God blessed the use of the Byzantine text readings in various Christian groups who opposed the Vatican (from the earliest times through the Protestant Reformation to the founding of Protestant America).

We disagree with White when he says that God also blessed the Latin Vulgate.[59] It was almost exclusively the property of the Catholic clergy, the same ones who burned both Bibles and Bible believers down through the centuries.

Based on our extended evaluation of some of White’s arguments and God’s promise to preserve His Words (Matthew 5:17-18 and 24:35) we believe that the King James Version is still the overall best translation available in the English language. We trust it as God’s preserved Word in English.

[1] James R. White, King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers,1995) page 7.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid, page 53.
[4] Ibid, page 5.
[5] Ibid, pp. 243-244.
[6] Ibid, page 92.
[7] Ibid, page 7.
[8] Ibid, page 93.
[9] Ibid, page 116.
[10] Ibid, page 146.
[11] Ibid, page 245.

[12] Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1968) page 273.[13] Ibid, page 271.

[14] G.A. Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist’s One World Religion (Ararat, VA: A.V. Publications Corporation, 1993) pp. 556-557.

[15] The Southern Cross, January 13, 1994. p. 11 quoted by Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast: The Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days (Eugene OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1994) page 406.

[16] Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast: The Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days (Eugene OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1994) pp. 346- 366.
[17] Ibid, pp. 243-307.

and Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, rev. ed. 1967) pp. 248-250; 275-278; 331-334.

and Jack Chick, Smokescreens (Chino, CA: Chick Publications, 1983) pp.7-32.

[18] Jack Chick, Smokescreens (Chino, CA: Chick Publications, 1983) pp. 75-90.

and Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, rev. ed. 1967) pp. 376-377.

[19] Samuel C. Gipp, The Answer Book: A Helpful Book for Christians (Bible & Literature Missionary Foundation, 1989) Chapter 3 (Was King James a Homosexual?) Online Version at

[20] Loraine Boettner, Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, NJ: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1981) pp. 382-384.

[21] Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast: The Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days pp. 127-131.
[22] Ibid, pp. 54-56.
[23] Ibid, page 247.

[24] Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist’s One World Religion , page 141.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.

[28] Profile: Cardinal Carlo Martini, Article on Internet by Peter Gould, BBC News, Rome

[29] Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist’s One World Religion , page 142.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid.

[32] White, King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations? , page 246.
[33] Ibid, pp. 244-245.

[34] Gipp, The Answer Book: A Helpful Book for Christians, Question 3 (Was King James a Homosexual?) Online Version at
[35] Ibid, Question 57 (Was Erasmus a good Catholic?).
[36] Ibid.

[37] Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist’s One World Religion, page 535.

[38] Barry Burton, Let’s Weigh the Evidence (Chino, CA: Chick Publications, 1983) pages 64-65.

[39] Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A textbook of Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 3rd ed., 1970) pp. 48-50.
[40] Ibid, p. 48.
[41] Ibid, p. 25-26.
[42] Ibid., p. 27..
[43] Ibid, p. 28.
[44] Ibid, p. 48.
[45] Ibid, p. 49.

[46] White, King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations?, page 43.
[47] Ibid, page 44.

[48] Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) quoted by David Otis Fuller, et al, Which Bible? (5th Edition) (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids Publications, 5th edition, 1975) pp. 194-215.

[49] James R. White, King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations?, page 153.

[50] Helvidius (4th Century) Tyndale, Olivetan and Beza (16th Century) Diodati and Leger (17th Century) Burgon and Bishop (19th Century) Fuller, Green, Hill, Hodges, Hoskier, Martin and Wilkinson (20th Century).

[51] Zane C. Hodges, The Greek Text of the King James Version, Bibliotheca Sacra (Dallas Theological Seminary) quoted by David Otis Fuller, et al, Which Bible? (5th Edition) (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids Publications, 5th edition, 1975) page 28.
[52] Ibid, page 37.

[53] Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) quoted by David Otis Fuller, et al, Which Bible? (5th Edition) (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids Publications, 5th edition, 1975) page 206.
[54] Ibid, pp. 196-197.

[55] White, King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations?, page 155.

[56] Burton, Let’s Weigh the Evidence , page 27.

[57] Ibid, pp. 64-65.

[58] Edward F. Hills, The Magnificent Burgon quoted by David Otis Fuller, et al, Which Bible? (5th Edition) (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids Publications, 5th edition, 1975) page 95.

[59] White, King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations?, page 247.

Beware Of James White’s False Teachings

by David J. Stewart | May 2015

Deuteronomy 4:2, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

        Dr. James R. White is a Calvinist theologian based out of Phoenix, Arizona . . .

White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a presuppositional apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He received a BA from Grand Canyon College, an MA from Fuller Theological Seminary, and a Th.M., a Th.D. and a D.M. from Columbia Evangelical Seminary (formerly Faraston Seminary). …

SOURCE: James White – Wikipedia

Unfortunately, James White is a big opponent (enemy) of King James Onlyism. White endorses using the modern corrupt Bible versions (although he admits he doesn’t support all of them). Nevertheless, James White is bad news for promoting counterfeit Bible versions (there are some YouTube videos of White debating the issue if you’d like to watch them). I’ve noticed that nearly all the apostate religious leaders who support the new Satanic counterfeit Bible versions also teach the heresy of Lordship Salvation. It makes sense, because it’s the new corrupted Bible versions which promote a false understanding of what it Biblically means to “repent.” Instead of “a change of mind” (which is Biblical), the new perversions redefine repentance to mean “a change of lifestyle.” This is human effort and a form of works salvation. Biblical salvation is a free gift, without works of self-righteousness, and is not a form of probation requiring our good behavior. The person who BELIEVES the Gospel has eternal life, which can never be forfeitesaved lost.

If you understand that salvation comes ONLY by the imputed righteousness of God in response to one’s faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then it becomes woefully clear just how Satanic and corrupt all these new Bible versions are. All modern versions attack the deity of Jesus Christ. Check what I say and you will discover it is true, that every religious leader (they aren’t Biblical Christians) who teach Lordship Salvation also support the corrupt modern Bible versions. I don’t know even one King James Bible Only preacher who teaches Lordship Salvation.

And don’t buy into the nonsense from any pastor or Bible college (e.g., Moody Bible SINstitute and Bob Jones PANTSiversity) who say they prefer and mainly use the King James Bible, but they’re ok with the new Satanic Bible PERversions!!! They are compromised and pulling on the same rope as the Devil. It is a big issue! If our spiritual milk and meat (food) is corrupted, then we are in BIG TROUBLE! If you are in a church that uses multiple Bible versions, get out of there before you’re corrupted!!! God only wrote one book, not 200 different English versions! Every month another new Bible version comes out of the pits of darkness!

I did not write this article to be unkind, nor do I have anything personal against James White. Albeit, as born-again Christians we are commanded in Jude 1:3 to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” There is nothing more important in this universe than the purity of God’sWords. Our text verse is a warning from God not to add or subtract from His Words. The King James Bible is unique, standing alone against all the Westcott and Hort modern translations from Hell. Westcott and Hort were unsaved heretics and pro-Catholics. Only the King James Bible hasn’t been tampered with!



White also teaches the heresy of Lordship Salvation and misrepresents the heart of the debate. In this video  White alleges that critics of Lordship Salvation don’t believe repentance is necessary for salvation. That is a gross misrepresentation of the issue, because I am 100% against Lordship Salvation and I absolutely DO believe that repentance is required for salvation. So anyone who tries to portray critics of the Lordship Salvation heresy as not believing in repentance is ignorant. Repentance is essential in order to be saved.

The truth is that there are two drastically different views of what it means to “repent.” And this is where the conflict arises today in the churches. I believe the problem has been caused by the hundreds of corrupt new Bible versions, which have redefined repentance from “a change of mind” to mean “a change of lifestyle.” Case in point, consider the Satanic “Easy-To-Read” Version of the Bible, which redefines the word “repent” in Mark 1:15 to require changing your life and your heart in order to be saved. That is total heresy! You change your mind about sin (John 3:20), admitting that you’re a guilty sinner (Romans 3:19), and you believe the Gospel to be saved (Mark 1:15).

Here is an excellent 17:21 minute video by Dr. Hank Lindstrom explaining the simple Gospel and how you can be saved without works. Beware of Dr. James White’s heresy of Lordship Salvation, which requires a change of lifestyle to seal and validate one’s salvation. In sharp contrast to the heresy of Paul Washer, John MacArthur and James White, please read the beautiful words of Romans 4:5-6 about the imputed righteousness of God, which is without works of any sort, “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.” Whew, that’s good stuff!!!

I do not believe that adherents of Lordship Salvation are saved, because they confuse salvation with discipleship. Acts 15:1, “And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” The false prophets in Acts 15:1 were not saved. They were still hellbound in their sins, advocates of a false plan of salvation. This is no different than the heresy of Lordship Salvation, which requires a person to follow Christ (discipleship) in order to be saved. Here are some helpful quotes between salvation and discipleship  END

Inside The Vatican

satan’s seed is identified as the “serpent”. Inside the Vatican we have two buildings constructed in the image of a snake; the Basilica and Paul VI Audience Hall.

The name basilica is connected to the Greek word “basiliskos” – the mythical Snake King. In ancient legends, the basilisk was a dragon that ruled the reptilian empire.

The Vatican itself is derived from the Latin “vates” which means “soothsayer”. In the book of Acts, Paul met a damsel possessed with a “spirit of divination”; a spirit that gave her mastery of the dark arts. The spirit of divination is literally translated “spirit of python” in the Greek and is connected to “divination” and the seat of the serpent is in Rome.

4436 Puthonos (pee’- thonos)

* From putho (the name of the region where Delphi, the seat of the famous oracle, was located) a python, i.e. (by analogy, with the supposed diviner there) inspiration (soothsaying) or witchcraft.


From: Collected Works of Watchman Nee, The (Set 1) Vol. 14: The Spiritual Man (3),

by Watchman Nee

Why are the believers’ minds so attacked by evil spirits? One answer is that the believers themselves afford evil spirits (also called demons) an opportunity to attack in their minds. We should realize that it is possible for the believers’ minds to suffer the demons’ attacks. This is proven by the experiences of many believers. The place the demons most often attack is the mind because the mind and evil spirits have a special rapport. The attacks of evil spirits on the believers’ minds produce the aforementioned phenomena. Parts or the whole of man’s mind have already isolated themselves from man’s sovereign rule and fallen into the hands of evil spirits. As a result, evil spirits are able to think and stop as they wish and ignore the believers’ own will. Although the mind still resides in the body, its sovereignty belongs to someone else. Even though the believers may oppose it, nothing will avail. In whatever aspect the believers give place to evil spirits, that aspect will not thereafter obey man’s own will. Instead, it will obey another will. When the believers give any ground in their minds to evil spirits, they have lost their sovereignty over their own minds. To put it in another way, if the mind of a believer has lost its sovereignty and is no longer able to rule over itself, the mind is already occupied by evil spirits. If evil spirits have not attacked the believer’s mind, his will should be able to rule over everything; he can think when he wants to think and stop when he wants to stop. He will not encounter any difficulty.
The minds of the believers are attacked by evil spirits because the believers have given place to evil spirits in their minds. Believers are prone to give more place in the mind to evil spirits because the mind is related to evil spirits in such a special way. These places become leverage in the believers’ minds upon which evil spirits freely work. We should remember that man’s mind is of man; if evil spirits do not have man’s consent, they cannot use his mind. If man does not volunteer—intentionally or unintentionally—to hand over the mind to evil spirits, they cannot infringe on man’s freedom. This does not mean that evil spirits will never tempt us in the mind (such will not happen in this life). But it means that when we exercise our will to oppose them, they will immediately stop. The problem today is that even though many believers exercise their own will to resist, temptations still do not stop. This should not happen; it is a proof of the work of evil spirits because it is done in disregard of man’s will.
After a believer has indeed yielded to evil spirits, his mind will inevitably be filled with the works of evil spirits. Evil spirits will work on him according to the ground he has given them. Since he has given ground to evil spirits in his mind, they can do whatever they want in his mind. The most important principle in the work of evil spirits is that one has to give ground for them to work. They can only work when they have the ground. Without the ground, they have no way to work. The amount of their work is determined by the amount of ground they receive. Whenever believers give ground in their minds to evil spirits, the evil spirits will work in the believers’ minds. There are six kinds of ground that believers can give to evil spirits. Let us consider each one of them briefly.

The flesh is always the place where evil spirits work. If the mind is not renewed, even if a person is regenerated in his spirit, evil spirits will still have a chance to work. Even though the minds of many believers were turned for a moment at the time of their repentance, it does not mean that their eyes, which have been blinded by Satan, were completely enlightened. Perhaps many areas are still “veiled.” Because these dark places were the working ground for evil spirits in past days, the fact that they are diminished today does not mean that they are altogether annihilated. Evil spirits still occupy these areas, from which they also direct their operations. It is very common to see evil spirits occupying the minds of men through sin. This happens before they are saved or even after they are saved. Even though some changes have taken place, the old ground has not been uncovered or removed. Therefore, evil spirits still occupy them as their base of operations.
Evil spirits are very careful in covering up their works. If a believer is fleshly, they will generate many thoughts through his mind which are similar to his character and condition. They will make him believe that these are his own thoughts and that they are natural. If such a person is seeking for the baptism of the Holy Spirit, they will counterfeit the work of the Holy Spirit and give him many supernatural revelations, convincing him that these are from God. Because evil spirits know that this kind of unrenewed mind is the best ground for their work, they obstruct the believer in many ways, causing him to become ignorant and not pursue the renewing of his mind. This is the most frequent ground given to evil spirits. But if there is only this kind of ground given, without the passivity spoken of below, the mind and memory will still not be weakened too severely.
Read from the full text of this book


According to perseverance means continuance in a state of grace to the end, leading to eternal salvation.

Don’t quit! Keep going! We need to learn to persevere, because God wants us to. As we persevere we become closer to God.  We persevere for a better life. The grace of God is a treasure. God is the treasure and all who ever need. Don’t leave it here. Spread God’s Word. The Grace of God is all we need.

My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;  Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.” (James 1:2-4)

By being tested we gain perseverance. Perseverance gains maturity and completeness.

“[3]And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
[4]And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
[5]And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.” (Romans 5:3-5)

Even suffering can lead to perseverance. Perseverance turns to character which turns to hope.

“[11]Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.” (James 5:11)

“[4]So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:
[5]Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:
[6]Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;” (2 Thessalonians 1:4-6)

“[5]And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
[6]And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
[7]And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.”
(2 Peter 1:5-7)

“[2]I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
[3]And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name’s sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.” (Revelation 2:2-3)

“[9]I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.” (Revelation 2:9)

Matthew 13:1-23 (The Parable of the Sower)
Matthew 13:24-30 (The Parable of Weeds)
Matthew 13:31-35 (The Parable of the Mustard Seed and the Yeast)
Matthew 13:36-43 (The Parable of the Weeds Explained)
Matthew 13:44-46 (The Parable of the Hidden Treasure and the Pearl)
Matthew 13:47-52 (The Parable of the Net)
Matthew 13:53-58 (A Prophet Without Honour)

Maintain contact with Christ (Christ alone is our security)
Maintain contact with other Christians
When we maintain contact with Christ we study the Word of God (KJV), We go to Him in prayer. We have a personal relationship with Christ. A lifelong commitment. We give our personal time all to Him.

When we maintain contact with other Christians we give each other encouragement. We share the Word with each other. We help each other live a Christlike life. We fellowship together.

When we maintain contact with both Christ and other Christians we build a Spiritual hunger. A hunger to want to know more and seek more.

The Satanic Surge


For generations, mankind—including even nominal Christians—has debated the existence of satan. Charles Baudelaire, a French poet (9 April 1821 – 31 August 1867) made popular the adage that the greatest trick that satan plays on mankind is to make us believe that he does not exist, (“The devil’s finest trick is to persuade you that he does not exist.”)”.
Accordingly, national polls now indicate that the number of Americans who do not believe in satan’s existence is growing at a rapid pace. A 2003 Gallup poll showed that 68 percent of all Americans believed in the existence of satan. By 2013, a YouGov poll indicated that number had fallen to 57 percent.
Score one for the devil.
However, in a seeming contradiction, membership in pagan, occultist, and satanic worship organizations in America is on the rise. Three days following the 2016 presidential election, the satanic temple (established in 2013), announced a sudden surge in membership of 50,000 people, bringing their total numbers to around 100,000. Though, by policy, no official numbers are released by the much larger church of satan (founded in 1966), observers and former members estimate its membership at 4 million in the U.S. and at least 10 million worldwide.
In the meantime, interest in witchcraft, Wicca, and other forms of paganism has grown to epic proportions. A 2010 census revealed witchcraft as the fourth-largest religion in America, with approximately 200,000 registered witches and an estimated 8 million unregistered practitioners.
While paganists and the occultists promote a more indirect, and even at times unacknowledged worship of satan, satanism is thought to embrace him more openly. However, with a strong sense of irony—perhaps even a predictable one—both the temple of satan and the church of satan “officially” deny their namesake’s existence even as they commonly invoke his name in many of their “worship” rituals.
If Bishop Sheen was correct, perhaps it is only natural that the two largest organizations promoting satan’s beliefs and his adulation would actively disavow his reality, while at the same time depict him as a being deserving of our respect and admiration. Regardless of one’s beliefs, the fact is that satan has cleaned up his act—he is going “mainstream”—and is seen as admirable, cultivated, and even cool.
In that vein, we find the hit television show, “Lucifer,” of the Fox network (just recently renewed for its third season), where satan is depicted as a “devilishly” attractive and intelligent being who has abandoned his throne in hell and retired to Los Angeles to pursue his favorite indulgences: wine, women, and song. However, in the midst of his new life, he begins to develop feelings of compassion and empathy that motivate him to reach out with his “unique” brand of assistance to the LA police department.
Beyond “Lucifer,” a cursory glance at the daily offerings of entertainment on television or at the movies reveals an untold number of shows portraying some semblance of the demonic world in an exciting and fun fashion.
Beyond entertainment, satanists are becoming more involved socially. In 2014, the satanic temple launched its Protect Children Project, aimed at providing First Amendment protection in the form of legal assistance to children who were “victims” of corporal punishment (spanking) in schools across the nation.
Two years later, the same organization introduced the “After School satan Clubs,” an extracurricular program designed to counter what it roughly characterizes as the evangelical Christian influence on schools across America. According to its website:
“It’s important that children be given an opportunity to realize that the evangelical materials now creeping into their schools are representative of but one religious opinion amongst many. . . .”
After School satan Clubs” will focus on free inquiry and rationalism, the scientific basis for which we know what we know about the world around us. We prefer to give children an appreciation of the natural wonders surrounding them, not a fear of everlasting other-worldly horrors.
As we accelerate to the climactic end of this age, wisdom dictates that we stay close to our Creator and take heed to the growing influence of satan and his demonic horde (I Timothy 4:1; I John 4:1), not to mention his cunning efforts to deny his own existence while simultaneously rehabilitating his reputation (2 Corinthians 11:14; 2:11).
He is the master of all deception, but his time is growing short. As Paul writes, “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.” (Romans 16:20).