This man was not inspired
From Wasilla, the bastion of American Theological Thought (ironically, it’s pretty close to Scott Bailey so I imagine that he is to blame)…
Ron Hamman, a ‘pastor’ at an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church argues that a wife who does not give into her husband’s sexual demands can be forced, i.e., raped, and any such laws which are meant to prevent that will in turn prevent God from blessing America:
The truth is that God has given to us physical needs we commonly refer to as a “sex drive,” and he has designed for these to be met within the bounds of marriage. The trouble comes when one spouse or the other decides to exact retaliation against the other because of some offense and withholds him or herself from his or her mate. This is wickedness, and such is a violation of the spirit of marriage on the part of the withholder.
Thus, if these allegations of spousal rape are due to the wife withholding herself in attempt to control or punish her husband, she is out of line with God. And it doesn’t matter how many laws are passed, it will just be another reason why God will not bless America.
And he goes on to state that we are a bunch of luke-warm Christians because we have passed certain laws to prevent spousal abuse.
Hamman, who is KJV-Only (“While I remain staunch in my belief that the most important book for you to own, read and study is a good King James 1611 Bible, you would do well to have in your possession a small number of books to aid you in your study of God’s Word“) and obviously doesn’t believe in new words, or at least words no in Webster’s Dictionary of 1828, notes that the Antichrist will be a homosexual:
While the word “homosexual” is not in the Bible, the behavior of those who practice homosexuality, and God’s estimation of them, very definitely is. When the word came into existence I cannot tell you, but what we can say for sure is that when Noah Webster published his first dictionary in 1828, it was not included. This means that homosexuality is a modern word invented to replace the word Noah Webster did include, sodomy, defined as a crime against nature. This is historical revisionism in action.
….
But will the Antichrist be a homosexual? Having seen what the Bible says of sodomy, we have no further to look than the book of Daniel, chapter 11 to find our answer. It says, “Neither shall he [Antichrist] regard… the desire of women….” As I said at the onset, I am not the first to draw attention to this, but the verbiage is clear.
Oh, and the purpose of the Incarnation? To defeat ‘sodomy’:
And one more thing: Sodomy is the only sin for which God came down from heaven to destroy. Though God dealt with many other sins in various ways, there is no other for which he came down from heaven to verify and destroy. In the New Testament, sodomy is declared to be “against nature.” And of the men, Paul in Romans 1 says they leave “the natural use of the woman….” In effect, there is no greater sin against God than to reject how he made you, and no greater sin against women than to reject how God made them.
So many things blatantly wrong with that statement. So many things… which for starters, and I’ll let you handle the rest, there is no singular ANTICHRIST. Period. None.
Of course, his theological errors are matched by his historical errors. Here, he comments that private ownership of the bible was banned by the Roman Catholic Church (not true) and has been banned from the American Education System since 1964 (not true):
Consider first of all that the religion in power in Columbus’ day had banned private ownership of the Bible. Though it is true that the Bible had been forbidden for over 1,000 years by the time Columbus had come on the scene, it would not begin to get into the hands of the common folk until reformers like Martin Luther and William Tyndale would come on the scene. Hmm. Doesn’t this sound familiar? Hasn’t the Bible been banned from American public education since 1964? Wasn’t it banned as a result of the efforts of secular humanism, the religion of atheism?
He goes on to reinterpret certain passages according to today’s viewpoint (liberal!) (ht)
All of this makes me agree with Pope Innocent III in in 1199 wrote,
… to be reproved are those who translate into French the Gospels, the letters of Paul, the psalter, etc. They are moved by a certain love of Scripture in order to explain them clandestinely and to preach them to one another. The mysteries of the faith are not to explained rashly to anyone. Usually in fact, they cannot be understood by everyone but only by those who are qualified to understand them with informed intelligence. The depth of the divine Scriptures is such that not only the illiterate and uninitiated have difficulty understanding them, but also the educated and the gifted (Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum 770-771)
A quick note… I find it odd that an Independent Baptist would quote from a Seventh-Day Adventist (Vance Ferrell), but he does. Of course, it shouldn’t surprise me since it was the 7th Day Adventists which gave the world Creationism and KJV-Onlyism.
You can reach the pastor at:
Ron Hamman is pastor of Independent Baptist Church of Wasilla. Contact him at 357-4229 or ron.hamman@gci.net.
