Wednesday, August 22, 2012

What is Biblical About Altar Calls? Nothing


I did not get saved going up to a front of a church. It was alone in prayer and in my bedroom. I am sure there SOME who legitimately DO. So do not get me wrong here, do I think everyone who answers an altar call is false? No, I do not, but I question what is a basic CROWD PSYCHOLOGY METHOD. I danced around this issue, on this older article: The Grahams: Easy Believism: Millions of Deceived.

Why do they call them ALTAR calls anyway? Remember what I wrote about ALTARS here. I have to admit, I don't like any methods that operate from CROWD MANIPULATION, that even impacts my opinion of all those single fingers pointed in the air. These preachers and others know how to work crowds, and know what works. Did the apostles and others preach to large crowds, sure they did, but there is a difference between preaching the truth and using crowd psychology to get a desired response.

Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls.

Act 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.


There is also the problem of instead of focusing on THE FAITH and BELIEVING, it has people focus on DOING SOMETHING. With the easy believism article, I pointed out how millions believed they were saved just by saying a "sinner's prayer", well unless the true inward believing and faith is there, that is just a rote action, same for GOING UP THE AISLE and sadly how many believe as a result of doing an altar call, that they are truly born again? There are no altar calls in the Bible. I believe there is definitely a link here to false professions and false confessions.

I only could find articles by Calvinists or Calvinist leading Baptists protesting altar calls, so didn't want to use any of those articles, but from reading their research, they all agreed Charles Finney, a Presbyterian pastor was the first to use it and that supposedly he was a pragmatic who focused on the numbers. We see that today, don't we? The focus on the numbers coming up. Preachers judging their own "success" by how many get up out of their seats and go up towards the front. My IFB used altar calls, usually towards the end of the service, people would go to the front to pray and kneel at the front of the church, this wasn't the big crowd production usually we had only very few new visitors because of the size of the church, but one can see that many of these huge conferences and popular preachers, like at Harvest Fest and Billy Graham used an altar call, kind of as the zenith to the whole program. How many times do we hear about the high numbers? How many of these pastors speak of the high numbers coming forward? I have read in various places and even today had a commenter talk about how often people at these "crusades" were often instructed to go up to the front, to help the program forward. Something is wrong with that.

Greg Laurie doing an altar call:



Acts 16:31
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

The "altar call" is hit and miss. It is hit if the person really did believe in Jesus as their Savior, then going up is harmless and a joy for them. It is miss if the person thinks the mere act of standing up and walking forward will get them in to heaven, then that would be works for salvation and would leave the person unsaved.

I have never heard even so much as one person that does altar calls, make these points clear. Not one.

A person can't be saved by getting out of a seat and walking forward. And even adding that to salvation, would be a false gospel. But if the person believed in Jesus as their Savior, and knew they didn't have to walk forward, but did so just for joy, then that is fine. I don't suspect that the majority who come forward, understand the difference.

It is also noteworthy that, the overwhelming majority of those that come forward at harvest crusades, are rededications. Nothing wrong with rededicating yourself to the Lord's service, but if the assumption is that they are all coming to faith, that assumption would be wrong. Most are rededications.

But yes, the word "altar" is catholic in context, and then again so is the word "crusade". Both words are loaded with catholic messages, and neither should be used. But who cares about doctrine, right?

Anonymous said...

This was something I posted on another thread, but wanted to repeat here:

The other main thing that drove me away from Greg Laurie was his comment that went "Wouldn't it be horrible to be 'almost' a Christian and then 'almost' miss heaven?"

That's works for salvation, which doesn't save. And it contradicts doing harvest crusades. If they come forward at a harvest crusade, and yet they might still miss heaven anyway, then why does he call anyone to come forward at all? And what are they coming forward then?

They can't make up their minds about what the Gospel even is.

Anonymous said...

You are so right about the herd mentality especially of the Harvest Crusades and Billy Graham.
The tendency of these events is that they stir the emotions and this is mistaken as the Holy Spirit.

As you say, there are people who are saved here when God's Word is used. But what happens to these people? What about discipleship? Harvest Crusades are broadcast over TBN and people who call in are directed to bad churches. Graham crusades have been known for a very long time to have cut a deal with the local RC priests to send anyone who claims to be Catholic right back to them. Shameful!!

That being said, I do believe that if done properly a so-called "altar call" can be effective. I have seen people come under conviction by the Holy Spirit and through an invitation from the pulpit and get saved. They are prayed over and then properly discipled and grounded in the faith and given assurance of their salvation. But sadly that is probably the exception rather than the rule. Any preacher worth his salt will end with an invitation to receive Christ. And if a pastor is doing his job he is equipping the saints to be personal evangelists and not simply dragging people to church to get the preacher to present the Gospel.

It is important to note that it is NOT the "Sinner's Prayer" that saves anyone. It is simply a confirmation of what has already taken place in the heart in response to the Gospel message. All too often that is not clarified.

I shudder to think how many people have come forward in the Harvest Crusades (Laurie is only following his hero/mentor, Billy Graham) and how many false conversions are a result and how many genuine converts are saved only to be led astray.

I believe that there are still nondescript pastors who are doing it right and people are getting saved. But they won't be drawing crowds or boasting large numbers.

Marion said...

It is interesting that nowhere in the Gospel presentations is anyone commanded to "receive Christ"...rather to "believe" on Christ. It is the believers later on who are exhorted "As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:" (Col 2:6). We "receive" Christ by "believing on him"...the believing/receiving are intricately connected...those who merely "receive Christ", and not by grace through faith need to beware lest they have received "another Jesus, another gospel."

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (john 1:12-13)

(including might I add, not of a "decision" - which would be "of the will of man")

Anonymous said...

Marion, well said.

Believing is the key. That is the word most often used in Scripture. Why do people avoid using it? Because it isn't an ecumenical word.

An ecumenical word would be "commit", or "decision". These words fit the cults as well as any. So the preacher can draw a larger crowd and not offend the person that doesn't want to just believe.

Anonymous said...

Marion, you are quibbling over semantics. Whether one "believes" the Gospel message or "receives" the truth of the Gospel it amounts to the same thing.

Unless I misunderstand, you sound like a Calvinist when you state that a "decision" is wrong "which wuld be 'of the will of man'. One either accepts or rejects the Gospel message. It does call for a "decision". That is pretty simple. The wiles of the enemy is to waterdown the Gospel or complicate it or over-analyize it.

It is a fact that when the Holy Spirit convicts one of sin and the plan of salvation from God's Word is presented, one has a "decision" to make whether to "believe" it and apply it to oneself which consitutes an "acceptance". God knows the heart and He can certainly determine who is sincere and who is not.

Anonymous said...

To the person calling Marion's statements "semantics", I would suggest that they are not semantics at all. And I'm not a calvinist.

When a person is called to make a "decision for Christ", explain what that means. Deciding what? Deciding to believe in Jesus for eternal life? That's good. Deciding to serve Jesus, be good enough of a Christian, and get to heaven that way? No, that's not the Gospel.

But that second one, is what Greg Laurie means by the Gospel, since as I posed above, he's the one that says you could "almost" miss heaven by "almost" being a Christian. That's the "decision" we're not called to make, since works can't save.

So words matter.

We know that when we say Jesus, we mean Jesus Christ who is God. But when a mormon says Jesus, they mean someone who isn't God. So that's just a general example to show that words matter.

Bible Believer said...

I agree about marion's semantics...

Hey the phonies very well could be RECEIVING ANOTHER spirit.

We know from I warn about on this blog, there are many trusting in "another christ".

I do think there is a difference between biblical belief and RECEIVING too.

"those who merely "receive Christ", and not by grace through faith need to beware lest they have received "another Jesus, another gospel."

This is what I believe is happening.


I agree believe is avoided by the ecumenists, that is why they use 'decision' or commit". They leave God out of it as much as possible, where it is all man-made will....

BGEA even calls their magazine "DECISION".
I do not think it is Calvinist, what Marion is saying. I have written against Calvinism on this blog if a person credits people's own WILL for why they supposedly become born again, they have lost the plot. It is God's doing not in themselves. One thing about the false cults, like Calvinism is they will pick some truths and skew them and pair them with deceptions.

This scripture is pretty obvious...

John 15:16

King James Version (KJV)

16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Salvation does not come from any works, not even a DECISION, but via FAITH.

Where does the FAITH come from?

Wow how many times did I quote this one to the Catholics...probably dozens.

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” -Ephesians 2:8,9

Anonymous said...

I fully support Ephesians 2:8,9. I resent being portrayed as someone who does not. Believing is not a work, it is an act of the will in response to the Holy Spirit's conviction of the need for a Savior. A gift is not forced on anyone, it has to be received which requires a surrender to the will of God.

The problem is not with the terminology, the problem is with the way God's message of salvation is presented. It can be twisted and watered down just as any of His truth. And that has happened with those who run these circuses that are called "crusades". In order to reach the masses it has to be compromised in some way. There is no argument there.

We can split hairs all day on terminology, but people are making false professions and being fooled into thinking they have settled their eternal destiny when in fact they are headed for hell.

That is the greater issue in my view. One can be saved by "accepting Christ as their Savior" or by "making a decision (choice) to receive God's gift of salvation, but what happens is in the heart between the individual and God Who is the only One Who knows whether the individual has truly been born again.

Just because BG uses the term "decision" does not mean that it is blatantly evil and not a valid term and a definite indication of ecumenism.

One has to look deeper than the terminology. BG uses the Bible also, but then turns around and blasphemes it by cooperating with Roman Catholics.

I truly hope that the voices here are praying for opportunities to share the uncompromised Gospel with those who will listen. And then take it upon themselves to see that new converts are discipled even if they have to do it personally due to the vast apostasy in the "organized" church.

In these last dark days we should be mindful of every lost soul who has never heard the true Gospel and intercede for them and ask God to use us in the time remaining.

Surely we can agree on that.

Anonymous said...

The reason that Billy Graham and Greg Laurie use the word "decision", is because it will appeal to catholics that are working for salvation. That's why the terminology matters. Nowhere in the Bible does the word "decision" ever get used in context of salvation. Since the word is believe most often (hundreds and hundreds of times), why don't these guys just use believe, since they claim to teach the Bible?

The reason is because catholics and works-based protestants don't want to just believe. They want to work. "Decision" fits the bill for them.

Anonymous said...

Joy

John the Babtist's wording was even less politically correct. "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is near."

Anonymous said...

Again you are putting emphasis on MAN'S words. It is the Word of GOD that is empowered by the Holy Spirit and does the convicting of the heart that results in receiving the truth and surrendering to the Gospel of Christ.

If you want to talk about using the word "believe" - well there can be problems with that as well. It can be construed that all that is needed is an intellectual belief in Christ rather than a personal surrender.

The Bible talks about making a choice and no matter what you call it, it calls for a conclusion, either to accept or reject the gift of salvation.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure why anyone would argue about the words here. Decision is a bad word to use. It isn't anywhere in the Bible in conjunction with salvation. Just say believe.

Jesus and the apostles weren't afraid of using the word believe, so I won't be afraid of it either. Jesus didn't even say that personal surrender was the meaning of believe, unless by personal surrender you mean agreeing that Jesus is the propitiation for our sins. Jesus defined believe, with the bronze serpent in John 3:14. Look to the bronze serpent, and you're healed. Believe in Jesus, and you're saved. No works permitted to be added to that.

But decision is a works-based word. That's why the false preachers avoid believe, and use decision.

Bible Believer said...

I went to look up decision in a KJV Bible search. Shows up once in OT referring to a valley of decision. Joel 3:14 The Word is BELIEVE, how many times does that show up in reference to salvation? Its over 140 times and I'd say at least 100 are the right CONTEXT we are discussing here.

1Jo 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Some may think we are nickeling and diming the words, but there IS a SUBTLE difference. Remember deception is often SUBTLE.

I never though that I arrogantly had anything to do with my own salvation. It was God's GIFT, even the FAITH was GOD's GIFT.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

This verse was so important to me as I was coming out of the RCC and realizing what true salvation had to do with.

Bible Believer said...

I wanted to comment on this:

"If you want to talk about using the word "believe" - well there can be problems with that as well. It can be construed that all that is needed is an intellectual belief in Christ rather than a personal surrender."

There is definitely a difference between biblical belief and "intellectual belief"
Intellectual belief, is someone stating that they believe Jesus Christ is "real", this would be a lot of people in a church like the Catholic church though there obviously they worship a "false christ" via the Eucharist, a false gospel and more.


Bible Believer said...

Even with words like surrender and submission, be careful.

I find it interesting neither appear in the KJV Bible.

"Sorry! The word "surrender" doesn't occur in the KJV."

"Sorry! The word "submission" doesn't occur in the KJV."

Bible Believer said...

1Jo 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.

Anonymous said...

It is noteworthy that all the religious words "decision", "surrender", "submit", "commit", etc., don't exist in the KJV in connection with salvation.

It's just so simple to say believe, as Jesus and the apostles said.

Abbey said...

"Wouldn't it be horrible to be 'almost' a Christian and then 'almost' miss heaven?" ~Greg Laurie

This statement doesn't make sense. If you are "almost" a Christian, then you are NOT a Christian and "most" assuredly will miss Heaven. Yes, it would be horrible.

I hate the use of the word "Crusade" too. Many people who are against Christianity will often bring up the Crusades and the Inquisition. These atrocities were committed by the popes and the church of Rome but because they claim they are Christians, we all get lumped together and that's how the world sees us.

Supposedly the "altar call" and another practice, the "anxious seat" developed by Charles Finney, came into practice around the 1800's. It was designed to force a decision and get results. People were challenged and invited to come forward to be on the Lord's side. Obviously not Biblical.

Anonymous said...

In reponse to the last anon, please look up the following verses in the KJV:
As to DECISION: Joel 3:14
As to COMMIT:
2 Tim. 1:12;1 Peter 4:19;Romans 10:3;James 4:7
As to TRUST: I thess 2:4;1 Tim 5:5

Again, CONTENT, CONTEXT and MEANING trump the actual word. We can get all sidetracked in using the right terminology and miss the heart of the message.

What is dangerous is not necessarily the words, but the fact that the Word of God is watered down and key elements of the Gospel message are omitted to provide for "easy believism" that is so often used in "crusades". Preaching the "Gospel" to the masses as it is done today is not biblical because it is impossible to provide proper discipleship. This includes what passes on "Christian" TV as the Gospel.

Quoting Greg Laurie's misstatement does not nullify the fact that there are many false conversions and people who think they are saved when in fact they are not because they have been presented with an incomplete and false Gospel.




Anonymous said...

Abbey, you are right, that statement is why I no longer have anything to do with Greg Laurie. It is a false gospel.

Anonymous said...

The anonymous that is harping on words, still doesn't get it. Yes, context matters. But when the preachers are using "decision" and "commit", they are referring to doing works, not referring to deciding to believe in Jesus for salvation, or committing to believing in Jesus for salvation.

The poster brought up some Scriptures, but the poster took all of them out of context, they don't refer to salvation at all, but refer to committing to the Lord for rewards (2 Tim 1:12), another refers to deciding whether to follow antichrist in the day of the Lord, which is the tribulation (Joel 3:14, I mean, c'mon! Who is going to quote Joel 3:14 for salvation? Silly quote to try and throw in there). James 4:7 is about growing in the Lord, not about being saved.

1 Timothy 5:5 is about asking God for help, not about salvation. 1 Thessalonians 2:4 is about having the ministry in the Gospel, not about believing the Gospel yourself.

So the person that quoted all these, also doesn't understand. They twisted Scriptures that don't support their argument.

Just read John 3:16 and be done with it. That's what the false teachers also won't do. That's why the false teachers love "decision" and "commit", and won't just say believe. Jesus wasn't afraid of the word believe.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous that called the other anonymous a "harper" doesn't get it that we are to take the full counsel of God'Word. Just one example: the Scripture in Joel can refer to those who are in the "valley of decision" in terms of their eternal destiny.

Sadly the last anon wants to paint everyone with the same broad brush. That "harping" anon clearly stated that he/she does not approve of Greg Laurie, Billy Graham and "crusades" and is concerned that the Gospel message is perverted and twisted and watered-down and results in false confessions. Just because he/she is trying to bring some balance and a little different viewpoint into the equation he/she is treated like an unbeliever and someone who is promoting a false gospel.

Anonymous said...

If you examine like a good Berean the word "believe" you may learn something:

The Hebrew word for believe is from the same Hebrew root as faith. It means to stand sure as a firm pillar.

Hebrew definition
H539 אמן ‘âman aw-man’
A primitive root; properly to build up or support; to foster as a parent or nurse; figuratively to render (or be) firm or faithful, to trust or believe, to be permanent or quiet; morally to be true or certain; once (in Isa_30:21; by interchange for H541) to go to the right hand: – hence assurance, believe, bring up, establish, + fail, be faithful (of long continuance, stedfast, sure, surely, trusty, verified), nurse, (-ing father), (put), trust, turn to the right.

Would the anon who said the other anon was "harping" think it is okay to use the word "trust" to "trust Christ"?

Anonymous said...

According the the Webster dictionary a synonym for the word "believe" is "accept". Is it wrong to use the phrase "accept Christ" as one's personal Savior?

I agree w/the anon who said CONTENT and MEANING supercede the actual literal word.

Anonymous said...

Jesus defined the word believe by looking at the bronze serpent. So I'll go with His definition of believe, instead of the definitions of self-appointed teachers who want to define believe as "commit", "decide", and so on.

Lisa Ruby said...

Anonymous wrote: "So I'll go with His definition of believe, instead of the definitions of self-appointed teachers who want to define believe as "commit", "decide", and so on."

Webster's 1828 dictionary:

"In theology, to believe sometimes expresses a mere assent of the understanding to the truths of the gospel; as in the case of Simon. Act.8. In others, the word implies, with this assent of the mind, a yielding of the will and affections, accompanied with a humble reliance on Christ for salvation. John 1.12. 3.15."

http://www.webster1828.com/websters1828/definition.aspx?word=Believe

Bible Believer said...

"Wouldn't it be horrible to be 'almost' a Christian and then 'almost' miss heaven?" ~Greg Laurie

Hi Abbey, the above statement is one of those double-trick sentences. It's also very ecumenical, as Rome teaches, that those who are "almost Christians" do make it to heaven. Makes my head hurt reading that. You either ARE a Christian and have been born again or are not.

Glad you hate the use of the term Crusade. Yes it bugs me. Too many Catholic terms used there.

I agree the altar call was designed to "get results" and visible ones especially later in the TV age at that.

Bible Believer said...



I agree with this statement:

" But when the preachers are using "decision" and "commit", they are referring to doing works, not referring to deciding to believe in Jesus for salvation, or committing to believing in Jesus for salvation. "

I know this may sound like some nitpicking, we are discussing regarding Believe and those who focus on the DECISION but those who think it's all about THEM and their *self will* and preachers who lead them down that road, that is a whole different story. I guess that is the main distinction I wanted to make. Even in Catholicism, I was told, the 'ritual" mattered more then any actual belief, this was why they went forth to confirm a young girl who wasn't even sure she believed in "god" and said so at the time. Here we see this with the altar calls, and rest. Even in the baptist world, I worry about those insistent on getting nonbelievers to recite the sinner's prayer, as if that "ritual" alone would get them to be born again. Can someone say a sinner's prayer in sincerity and be truly saved, Sure. This is the best way I have to explain all this.

Romans 10:9

King James Version (KJV)

9 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.







Anonymous said...

Bible Believer, you hit the nail on the head with your August 29, 2012 6:24 AM post.

It is likely your history in catholicism that helped you to see it. Like you said, the focus is on the doing, not on the believing.

Bible Believer said...

Thanks Anon.

Yes it was my history in Catholicism most definitely and I am the girl, mentioned above....:)

Praise God in showing me the truth.

Anonymous said...

On the one hand we have "ritual" and on the other hand we have "legalism". They are both wrong.

What I see here is a legalistic view of making sure the terminology is jsut exactly right. The problem is NOT with the terms, the problem is with the one who is using thet terms and their motives.

When those here can't even acknowledge the Hebrew meaning for "believe" and also the terminology of "trusting Christ" as legitimate, and are more concerned about terminology than substance, that is cause for concern.

The Holy Spirit draws and convicts through God's Word. That is what is important rather than splitting hairs over this term or that term.

Identify the false teachers and their motives, but realize that those with sincere motives may use those same words with an honest heart and God can and does bless their efforts to reach the lost.

They don't have "altar calls" in the Catholic Church because they don't preach the Gospel. It is a works-oriented belief system. Of course BB knows this, but it seems that it is worth mentioning.

To imply that an "altar" is unbiblical because Rome uses it to blaspheme the Lord does not make an "altar" wrong. There is an "altar" of the heart that is not physical. It is symbolic. Just because a false religion uses a term or misuses or abuses a word does not render the word worthless or wrong.

I know the evil works of Rome and also the compromise of false teachers and abhor it. But this calls for wisdom.

Yes, some preachers manipulate and use "altar calls" and a "sinners prayer" incorrectly. But the Bible says that one must confess with their mouth what is believed in the heart. That could be considered a biblical "sinner's prayer" and as an aid for the convert to verbalize what has already occured in their heart. It can be a confirmation. If used correctly, the prayer does not save anyone, it is simply a confirmation and verbalization. Just because some use it wrongly and slap a label on it does not negate the concept.

Anonymous said...

Believe is to be examined in Greek, since the New Testament is Greek. But again, Jesus defined believe by comparing believing to looking at the bronze serpent. So, Jesus' definition wins over any poster here. That simple, that easy.

Anonymous said...

Last Anon,please look at the Greek meaning. Really, pretty much parallels the other definition I cited.

http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4100

For some odd reason you seem to be hung up on the "bronze serpent" thing and ignore the other verses.
Strange indeed.

Anonymous said...

I'm "hung up" on the bronze serpent, because Jesus used it as His example.

2000 years before "studylight" posted their own opinions on the definition of believe.

Jesus already gave the definition, so I don't need "studylight" and the words of man.

Anonymous said...

Anon, have you ever studied the Greek language? This link of "studylight" was not an opinion or statement of doctrine, it was stating the meaning of the word in Greek. I am sorry, but you are really showing your ignorance here. There are Bible tools online that will assist you in understanding this. They simply state fact. One does not have to a Greek scholar or an intellectual go grasp this. I am a simple person and this really boils down to a simple answer.


The greek word for believe is pisteuo(pist-yoo'o) and means to have faith, to trust in. To believe, as in faith is far different than simply to believe in something. For instance, the devils believe God exists, and fear him, but it does not save. The scriptures uses the terms to "believe in" and "to believe on". To believe on connotes trust. To believe in simply agrees that something is.




Anonymous said...

Anon, the KJV calls what you refer to as a "bronze serpent" as a "serpent of brass".

Yes, the serpent is a type of Christ as He is the unlikely Healer of the venom of sin. Sorry to say, but you are causing confusion here and need to fully explain yourself.

Anonymous said...

Just because "studylight" is defining the word believe that way, doesn't mean their definition is correct. I don't care what they say. You have a "authority" fallacy at work in your mind. Someone claims to be a "scholarly authority", so you believe them.

I care only what the Bible says.

Jesus said, just as whoever looked at the bronze serpent, so whoever believes in Him, has eternal life.

I believe Jesus.

You're welcome to believe whoever you want.

Max Powers said...

www.HolyBibleVerse.com is a powerful advanced online (no software of apps needed) Bible search tool (also read, listen, compare and/or visualize the Bible verse by verse or chapter by chapter). Some fun stuff thrown in to make Bible study more enjoyable.

Esteves francisco Rebelo said...

John the baptised was preaching to the nation of israel ... Acts 13 : 24 kjv christ was frist manifested to israel john 1 : 31 kjv jesus himself said he was sent only to the lost sheep of israel matthew 15 : 24 kjv and jesus himself told his disciples to not go to the gentles but to the lost sheep of israel matthew 10 : 5 - 6 kjv people have failed too see differences in the bible ; thats why there is much confusion in the churches they dont teach Rightly dividing the word of truth 2 timothy 2 : 15 kjv