--An answer to the arguments advanced in the

Dake Bible regarding women preachers --

Let me first respond to the arguments that are stated, and then I want to give a forthright account of the teaching of Scripture. Dake, you will remember, is a Pentecostal, and as such he writes in defense of his ecclesiology.

First, Dake presents his arguments for women preachers in his essay "Eight Reasons for Women Preachers." In the article, he first states "In the Gospels we read of several women messengers who proclaimed ‘good news.’ He then submits Matthew 28:1-10; Luke 24:9-11; John 4:28-30; and John 20:16-18 as his proofs.

Second, Dake asserts Joel 2:25-31 teaches God promised that He would pour out His Spirit upon women and they would prophesy—- to prophesy means to ‘speak to men to edification, exhortation and comfort. (I Cor. 14:4) Prophesying is for the Church and the general public." (I Cor. 12:1-3l; 14:1-6,12, 24-26, 28-33)

Third, Dake points out that in Acts 21:8,9, Philip the Evangelist

had 4 virgin daughters who were prophetesses, but he errs seriously when he says "that is, they were evangelists like their Father."

The daughters of Philip were renowned for their piety, their meekness and quietness which is in the sight of God of great price. (I Peter 3:4) My brother, do you know any woman preacher who is meek and who studies to be quiet, and who is in subjection to her husband? Philip’s daughters were prophetesses in that they spoke as those who had been born again in whom the Spirit of God dwelt.

Fourth, Dake points out that in Romans 16 a number of women are

mentioned as "servants" of the Lord among whom is Phoebe, Priscilla, Mary, etc. who were "laborers" in the Lord.

Fifth, Dake then proceeds to Philippians 4 and to Euodias and Syntyche whom he calls "leaders of the Church at Philippi."

Sixth, Dake next declares that women prophesied in the Church (I Cor. 11:4,5), and that Scripture used to condemn women preachers does not refer to preaching but to creating a disturbance in the church. They are allowed to preach "as long as they keep their place and do not usurp authority over man."

Seventh, Dake again mentions that the gifts of the Spirit including the gift of prophecy are for all members of the body of Christ: men and women.

Eighth, Dake gives as his final argument the fact that women were used of God in the Old Testament as prophetesses.

This brings me to the second part of this dissertation which is to give a brief account of the teaching of Scripture on the place God has ordained for women.

Genesis chapter one serves as a Comprehensive account of creation. The second chapter elaborates upon the creation of man. It is here stated that man was created in the image of God, while woman derived her being from man. The Hebrew word for man is "Ish", and the Hebrew word for "woman" is "Isha" meaning "from man."

In Genesis chapter 3 and in I Timothy 2 we are told the woman was deceived by the serpent in the Garden of Eden. For these two reasons: her place in the order of creation, and her part in being deceived in the Garden, the Apostle Paul wrote "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not (that is, ‘I allow not’) a woman to speak, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

Paul did not write this according to his own will --he wrote it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. His writings agree with the teaching of God’s Word elsewhere, for we read in I Corinthians 14:14 –‘Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak: but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the Law."

Scripture is explicitly clear except to those who want to alter the Word of God: "a bishop...must be the husband of one wife." (I Tim.3:2)

While Pastor Fellows taught these things to his various classes of black Baptist Pastors in Augusta for over twenty years, he has been very saddened to see so many of them give in to the prevailing apostasy of the day by allowing their wives to do that which the Scripture clearly forbids.

The final court date for Pastor Fellows was Tuesday, August 24. All thirteen criminal-trespassing charges against him were dropped since he said he would never go back to the mall again. We told the judge that we were not apologizing for previously witnessing at the Mall, but that, since they had so thoroughly rejected the Gospel and made such a clear stand against witnessing, we would leave them in the hands of God. There was no fine, no need of an attorney, no jail -- for which we are grateful. The Lord has not forgotten, though, nor will He bless such a place that has taken such a decided stand against the Gospel of Grace and Peace. We have been praying for God’s judgment against that mall.

back to top

"What happens to the man who wades through Liberal books trusting his own good judgment to take the good and leave the bad? The same thing that happens to the man who wades through a dumpster trusting his own good judgment to take the good and leave the bad -- At the very best, be comes away smelling like garbage. The Bible says, "Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners" (I Cor. 15:33). Are you deceived? Most people are. The Bible says, "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful" (Psalm 1:1). Are you deceived into thinking you are a blessed man when you take counsel from the ungodly, go the direction of sinners and sit under the teaching of fools? Samuel Smiles said, "A man is known by the books he reads as well as by the company he keeps: for there is a companionship of books as well as of men: and we should always live in the best company."

Sainte-Beuve said, "Tell me whom you admire, and I will tell you what you are."

The sins of the fathers which become the temptation and compromise of the sons, become the theological convictions of the grandsons. Selah.

----------

The preacher who makes a big deal correcting the Bible, and then says that the differences aren’t serious and don’t affect any doctrine anyway, is as big a fool as the preacher who begs people to come to church and then tells the people he has nothing to say; I guess the only bigger fools are the ones who keep coming back for more.

----------

"We live in a very profitable day for the servant of the Lord. The darkness is so great that even a little light shines brightly! May the Lord give each of us grace to shine brighter and brighter for His glory alone." -- Pastor Charles Alligood

back to top

It has been quite amazing to me how many times I have been in discussion with a person regarding a Biblical issue, and when it came down to one verse in the crux of the argument, the person would reject the individual wording of the Bible and would either quote from a different version, or claim support from the Greek or Hebrew which supposedly read differently.

It is a lie from the pit of hell to say that no doctrine of scripture is affected by any textual variant. This lie is passed off by putting

a difference between scripture and doctrine. Every word of scripture is doctrine, teaching, and it is profitable and authoritative, and it shall judge all those who would repudiate it.

What the "Jehovah’s Witnesses" do with John 1:1 is what many professing, fundamental, Bible-believers do with II Timothy 3:16 -- They correct it to support their own man-made heresy.

John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Now the JW’s will insert a little, tiny article in front of God to support their false and heretical views -- thereby reading, "the Word was a god." Even Fundamentalists can spot this deceitful handling of the Word of God, even though the JW’s claim that the Greek supports their correction. Fundamentalists stand on the individual wording of the KJV against those heretics who would like to make more than one God. In fact, a person need not know Greek to stand against the JW’s, because God has put the verse into English (something scholars today are unaware of).

II Timothy 3:16-17 says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of

God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished until all good works."

Now, the Fundamentalists are more subtle here than the JW’s are with John 1:1. The JW’s will blatantly include an "a" in front of the word God, but the Fundamentalists deceitfully and carefully in their interpretation make II Tim 3:16 read as if it really said "All scripture was given by inspiration of God." You see, they likewise have an agenda to push – that only the "original autographs" were inspired, and no scripture since that time can be said to be inspired. They likewise appeal to the Greek, and will even point out the italicized word which is in your KJV – is.

For a Fundamentalist to interpret the verse as it reads. "All Scripture IS given by inspiration of God," he has to make inspiration as presently a fact as the Scriptures are themselves. Many Fundamentalists therefore take advantage of the italicized word, is, and claim that since the literal word is not in the Greek, and the sentence is really only talking about the transmission of the original manuscripts (that’s their agenda), the word would better translated was. This allows them to make inspiration of the Scriptures a thing of the past, and only pertaining to the original manuscripts -- a heresy indeed, which, ironically, most "Fundamental" mission boards stand upon in their doctrinal statements -- (i.e. "We believe in the inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures in the original autographs"). Such is a faith that has no power, because it pertains to scriptures that we no longer have, and therefore can never be profited by.

Now that leads to the next problem Fundamentalists face -- inconsistency. You see, for them to make the first italicized is into a was, they must make the second italicized is into a was as well. This, they are unwilling to do, because if they make the second italicized is into a was, the verse would read, "All scripture was given by inspiration of God, and was profitable..." -- neither part of the verse would apply today, making it totally useless, However, if inspiration does not apply to the scripture today, then consistency would require that neither does the profitability of the scriptures apply today either, so the liberals are more consistent than the silly Fundamentalists.

For a Fundamentalist to rearrange the first part grammatically to read, "All scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable" he would have to play with the verse so as to change what was a sentence in the beginning into a subject with a qualifying modifier; and he would have to remove the "and," so that the reworded sentence promotes the rankly Liberal belief that all scripture not given by inspiration of God is not profitable. And notice, this Liberal rewording puts a difference between Scripture and Doctrine!

There are a few things that "trouble the about the knowledge you claim to possess. You say that I John 5:7 is not truly Scripture. You say that the beloved Apostle John did not write I John 5:7 at all. You say that the way I John 5:7 got into our Bibles was by "the church of Rome holding a gun at Erasmus’ head." You claim to be very certain about your allegation; in fact, you claim that it is very simple and easy to understand. Your own followers can even be heard to ask one another, "Does anyone really believe I John 5:7 anymore?" But there is a great and dreadful cause for my concern.

Why is it still in your Bible? After all you have done to discover its fraudulency; after all your cries in the most vehement language about its illegitimacy; you have done a great and horrible hypocrisy – you have left it in perfect form, untouched, in your own volume which reads, "Holy Bible."

Not only that, but you have gone further to give away copies and recommend reading in that book, and have failed to remove what you claim is an apocryphal addition which God did not write. Will you next give away copies of the Apocrypha as Scripture?

Are you so foolish to forget that a little child might just pick up your "Bible" and upon reading I John 5:7,be deceived into thinking that there are indeed three that bear record in heaven. The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one? What judgment you must face when you stand before God!

Stop! Right now, go to that book which reads, "Holy Bible" and once and for all, cut I John 5:7 out! How dare you leave what you say is a lie on the pages of Holy Writ? Who’s holding a gun to your head? How dare you say it is false, yet not have the guts or courage or the simple plain consistency to cut it out and circumcise that which has made your Bible unholy! You fraud! You deceiver! Would you allow an addition to the Word of God, knowingly? Would you keep words in your "Bible" which are not Words of God? Whose side are you on oh thou who speakest as a learned man, but behavest as a fool!

--a concerned friend

_________________________________

Dear Preacher,

We feel that it is important to bring to your attention that there are some dangerous, ax-murdering, kidnapping thugs living in your neighborhood, and we want you to be aware of their threat. Now, if we mentioned names, some of you might actually know whom we were talking about, and we wouldn’t want to judge! So please protect yourselves and your families! --Your friends

back to top

Scholars who advocate the use of new bible versions often rebuke the KJV for referring to the Holy Spirit as an "it". For example, in John 1:32 the KJV says:

John 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. Notice it says "it" abode upon Him. This is supposed to shock the Christian into buying an NAS. (The NAS calls the Spirit "He" in Jn. 1:32). The scholar then tells the Christian how terrible "IT" is to refer to God as an "it".

The KJV is not bound by many of the narrow rules of grammar that men came up with in later generations. Even today, one may go to the home of any KJV rejecting scholar and knock on his door. Unless he is wise to your game, he will immediately answer, "Who is IT?" You can then answer, "IT is I". Doesn’t he know that "it" is only to be applied to non-personal things? Let the reader notice that the new bibles often forget their rule. First notice the KJV:

Mt 14:26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. 27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid. 28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.

"IT" is in all three verses. Notice the NAS:

Matthew 14: [26] And when the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were frightened, saying, "It is a ghost!" And they cried out for fear. [27] But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, "Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid." [28] And Peter answered Him and said, "Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water."

Again, "it" is found in all three verses.

The NIV also dares to call a child an "it": Revelation 12: [4] His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment *it* was born.

Conclusion? Keep reading your KJV. It shows you abundantly, in many places that the Spirit is God and not an impersonal thing.

-- Kingdom Alert, Joey Faust

What is the difference between the Liberal who says that his KJV contains the Word of God, and the Fundamentalist who behaves as if his KJV contains the Word of God? The former is honest; the latter is a hypocrite.

What is the difference between the Liberal who says that the KJV is the Word of God when it speaks in matters pertaining to salvation and theology, but can err when it speaks in matters pertaining to science and history -- and the Fundamentalist who says that the KJV is the Word of God when it speaks in matters pertaining to salvation and doctrine, but can err when it speaks in matters that are not related to doctrine or matters already mentioned in other places of the Bible? I don’t know – I thought every word of Scripture was doctrine, even when God said something more than once.

What is the difference between a believer and an unbeliever? One of them believes, and the other one does not believe.

What is the difference between a wolf and a wolf in sheep’s clothing? The first one is genuine; the second is a fraud.

I spent the week of July 5-8, holding up posters for people to read as they drove by, and for Fundamentalists to read as they entered and exited the Bob Jones University campus. By standing beside the front gates of BJU, I was able to reach most everyone from the inside and thousands of people on the outside, thus reaching more people than any speaker at the WCF.

My signs regarding the Bible issue were -- "Can Fundamentalists PREACH from their ‘Infallible Bible’?" "BJU does NOT have an ‘Infallible Bible.’" and "How many mistakes are in YOUR Bible?"

There were some who would wave and smile and hold up their Bible with confidence. When I asked, "How many mistakes are in YOUR Bible?" They would shout, "Zero!" confidently. However, if they looked cold and dead, I would begin to count on my fingers -- and then all the hypocrites had to laugh.

One honest lady drove by and read the sign, "Can Fundamentalists PREACH from their ‘Infallible Bible’?" and she muttered, "There isn’t any!" and drove on inside. We forgot to tell her that the entire WCF was sponsored by the International Testimony to an Infallible Bible!

One man was so angry with me, that he stopped his vehicle, blocking traffic in front of the welcome center, and demanded that I give him my sign and almost assaulted me. I guess he was a "fighting fundamentalist." He got mad because he said I was dividing Fundamentalism. I said BJU was going Neo-Evangelical, and that’s what really made him mad. He told me I should be out witnessing to the lost. I told him that I was. When he came at me, I asked him if he would also burn me at the stake. He backed off then.

One day, we were interviewed in front of the school by a local news station. Oh boy, were people mad?! Here were two guys protesting the World Congress and getting covered by the news for it! We had policemen stop and talk to us just to know what was going on. I spoke with one policeman for fifteen minutes in front of the school. Most days, I was all by myself-- One man, one graduate against a whole school and a whole movement. But Dr. Bob Jones Sr. said, "One man plus God equals a majority."

I had many opportunities to talk with many people. It was interesting how many Germans spoke against me. A couple of guys from England and N. Ireland came out and spoke with me. The one was from a church out of Paisley’s. They took a picture of me and we spoke in agreement about the decline in Fundamentalism on the Bible issue. They remarked sadly, how they had just had a debate with a member of the BJU Bible faculty the day before, where he told them that he was bringing up his daughters on the NIV, his wife on the NASB, and using yet another version for witnessing (I believe the NKJV). That was very saddening to me considering that the man has one of the best BJU churches in Greenville.

I asked the guy from N. Ireland whether he thought Paisley would dare to preach a strong message Thursday evening on the preservation issue -- which thing could have split Fundamentalism. He told me Paisley wouldn’t do it -- and he didn’t. That made me sad. He had his opportunity! They did let me know that come the next WCF, there will be many protesters outside -- that is, if it hasn’t completely split by then, or God sends a true Awakening.

One thing I noticed very well was that the BJU young girls were the most rude, proud, arrogant and disrespectful. A good number of the older, visiting, well-dressed preachers were among the most polite, respectful and confident of their Bible.

As I looked at the faces of the Fundamentalists driving onto the campus of BJU, I had to ask myself, "would these people really face persecution for the Gospel’s sake?" I didn’t think so. "Would they willingly be burned at the stake for their textual variant?" Not in a million years. By the Grace of God, I will stand on and for the absolute, infallibly-preserved Word of God if I must be burned at the stake all alone!

I also protested against BJU for favoring some abortions, and for teaching its history students to leave their Christianity out in the hall. I guess that’s why their halls are so hallowed?