The Authorized Bible Believers Check list of Beliefs

By Chette Nichols Jr and George Anderson Jr

July 17, 2013

1)   Believes that the AV in English Contains the Preserved words of God for all generations

2)   Believes that the words in AV English are exactly what God meant for mankind

3)   Believes that they can hold in their hands a BOOK (the AV) that contains ALL of the words of God

4)   Believes that there are no problems with the text of the AV – some words or doctrines may be hard to understand, but there are no problems with the text

5)   Believes that the AV in English is Without Error

6)   Believes that the English words in the AV are Inspired

7)   Believes the AV English can correct the underlying Greek or Hebrew

8)   Believes that they don’t have to go to “the Greek” or “the Hebrew” to better understand the English

9)   Believes that the AV has a built in Dictionary to Define the English words used in the AV text

10) Believes that the AV has a divine built in cross-reference for establishing Bible Doctrine

11) Believes the Scriptures when they say: “It is written” or “Thus saith the Lord”

12) Believes they should use only AV terminology and words when establishing Bible Doctrine

13) Believes ALL other Bibles in English today are inferior to the AV text

14) Believes that no scripture is of private interpretation



By Dr Dave Reese

Centuries of discussion over what John Calvin taught or did not teach is a wonder to behold. Any attempt to defend or disprove John Calvin is a waste of time. Besides, he was a man who originated nothing; he merely took what other believers had held for centuries before him, added some ideas of his own and put it in his “Institutes”. Due to the hotbed reformation time in which he lived and the fact that printing and publishing was available to him, he put in print what others already agreed or disagreed upon, and got the credit or the blame.

The issues Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Arminius (plus scores of others) dealt with are the same everybody had to deal with after God called “the apostle to the Gentiles”, Paul. His ministry brought the relationship of Law and Grace and the difference between Israel and the Body of Christ to the test.

A consideration that is totally absent from Calvinism is that of the differences between the dispensations of Law and Grace. To my knowledge there has been no consideration by Calvin or anyone else of what effect “rightly dividing the word of truth” has upon the doctrines of election and predestination.

My study that follows takes the mainstream approach of Calvinism under examination in the light of right division and the difference Paul’s revelation of the Grace of God makes on the argument.

Those who read passages like “But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.” (Matthew 24:13) argue that a man is not eternally secure and must do certain work to be saved or remain saved.

On the other hand, passages like Ephesians 2:8-10

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.” are quoted by those who believe work by man does not save or keep you saved.

It is from there the battle of words begin. One group calls the other “Arminians” and that group calls the other “Calvinists”. Each one begins to set forth doctrines to prove their position.



By George Anderson Jr

The following are a few personal observations concerning the issue of so-called “same-sex marriage”.

Luke 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.


The debate, disagreement, and dispute over the government legalizing and legitimizing same-sex “marriage” is quite simple; and has its beginnings in the government bestowing certain “benefits” on a specific group of people (married couples) and denying those “benefits” to all others.

We have reached the point in the United States of America that, in order to be “fair” to all couples, government (city, state, or federal) has taken upon itself to redefine “marriage” rather than cease bestowing certain benefits to couples. The problem is IF, as the Holy Bible proclaims, “marriage” is the very first Institution devised and ordained by Almighty God; THEN, no institution devised or established by mankind (whether legislative, executive, or judicial) has the legitimate authority to CHANGE (or redefine) what God has ordained.When it comes to the issue of same-sex “marriage” there are certain so-called “conservative” talking-heads, commentators, and prognosticators that have little or no concern about the issue and dismiss it as being of minor importance. The problem with those so-called “conservative” commentators is that, while we (as Bible believers) may find ourselves in agreement with them on certain secular matters, when it comes to specific issues that are spiritually discerned, they have NO FINAL AUTHORITY other than their own opinions, which are solely based upon privately interpreting a matter.Glen Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Bernie Goldberg, Charles Krauthammer, et al, are informative concerning many secular issues of the day, but when it comes to “rightly dividing the word of truth” they either misinterpret it (Beck), ignore it (Goldberg & Krauthammer), dismiss it (O’Reilly), or even deny it (O’Reilly, Goldberg, and Krauthammer).

The private opinions of these men (and many others) have been heavily influenced by their personal upbringing, training, education, and beliefs. Glen Beck (a radio talk-show host) is a fairly recent convert to Mormonism; Bill O’Reilly (a journalist) is a Roman Catholic and readily dismisses whatever Bible truth he finds disagreeable as being just an “allegory”; Bernie Goldberg (a journalist) is Jewish and Charles Krauthammer (a psychiatrist) is Jewish, and while both men were born Jews, neither is considered “orthodox”, and they both dismiss any reference to Scripture or spiritual reasoning as having no relevance whatsoever to issues they consider to be solely secular.

The Lord Jesus Christ stated that those in authority over the Gentiles were called “BENEFACTORS”:

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary
BENEFAC’TOR, n. He who confers a benefit, especially one who makes charitable contributions
either for public institutions or for private use.

NOTICE: Christ did not say that those in authority over the Gentiles were genuine “benefactors”; He said that they “are CALLED BENEFACTORS”. Genuine “benefactors” take (collect or extract) from their own personal property, assets, or wealth and distribute such to those people that are in need; a poser (imposter and pretender) “taxes” – i.e. appropriates, confiscates, or steals from one group of people and redistributes the “benefits” to another group of people. The personal covetousness and greed of the vast majority of people in the world is manipulated and used in such a manner so as to privately “benefit” the personal covetousness and greed of those in authority – while all the while they appear to be “benefactors” to all those people to whom they confer “benefits” on – talk about a clever, cunning, and devilishly designed scheme to obtain and wield power and authority over people!However, no matter how clever the scheme may be, no one is exempt from Scriptural decrees:

1 Corinthians 15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.

Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Beware of “benefactors” bearing gifts (i.e. “benefits”). At some point they may come back and bite you when you least expect it. The “licensing” (i.e. incorporating) of churches in order for them to receive certain “benefits” from the government may some day lead to the government requiring that all churches conform to government mandated laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations – such as “same-sex marriage” – from which (since they are legally “licensed” by the government) they will be legally obliged to obey!

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.