Autumn 2001
No.26
Waymarks
“Let us walk by
the same rule, let us mind the same thing.”
Phil.3:16
|
Contents
Report of Open Air
Preaching.......................................2
The Integrity of the AV Bible.........................................5
Acts 1:18,19; 1 Cor. 7:15
Great Truths Abused......................................................6
Revised English Bible......................................................8
Scrivener on the Manuscripts.......................................11
Inspiration: of Thought or
Word?...............................13
Letters..............................................................................14
“The Book
Indeed”........................................................16
Report of Open Air Preaching
June 4th LUTON TOWN CENTRE. I preached for 45 minutes, aided
by a heckler who drew quite a crowd for me. There must have been about sixty
people standing or sitting, listening to the gospel. During this time a woman
came and stood in front of me, making the sign of the cross. At the end a man
who had listened throughout came over to tell me he was a Philippino, and would
I pray for the Philippines.
He told me he was a believer, a Roman Catholic. I assured him that I would
indeed pray for him and for the Philippines.
Throughout all this time a film crew from Luton University
were recording everything. This is the third time I have been filmed, so you
might pray for the lecturers as they repeatedly come under the sound (and
sight!) of the gospel.
I then went and sat on a bench so that others who wished to
talk might find it easier to approach me. Immediately, a young man came and sat
next to me. He too said he was a believer, a Roman Catholic from the South of
Ireland. We were able to discuss the gospel further with him.
June 6th LUTON T C. There were two enquirers today. The first was a young
lady, recently saved who was looking for a scriptural church. She had started
attending the local Strict
Baptist Church
but was not altogether happy there. While she was speaking to me a boy aged
about twelve interrupted. He wanted to know the time but said he could not tell
the time. I told him that time is short and eternity is long and it is time to
seek the Lord. I thought that would make him go away, but he really did want to
talk. He had been expelled from his school and no school in Luton
would accept him. He asked me if he had done a very bad thing, would God
forgive him? I was able to tell him this is what the gospel is about. He seemed
reassured about this and accepted some tracts. He told me his name, which led
me to believe that I knew his family through my time in special education. By
this time the young lady had departed.
June 12th LUTON T C. As I walked into the town centre a man drew level and
walked with me. I recognized him as one I had spoken to on a past occasion. He
wanted me to hear his version of salvation, assuring me he was a good ecumenical
Catholic, and I was doing a good thing preaching in the town. His religion was
what most people hold to, i.e. do your best, be sincere, and God would accept
you whether you were Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, or whatever. I put in a few “yes,
buts” to no avail as he kept up a quickfire
speech and was not to be “butted”. He left me when we arrived in the
high street. At least he has heard the gospel from me on other occasions.
I suspect that Catholics are being taught to be “nice” to
Christians in order to win them over. So unwary preachers are being invited
into RC schools etc., deluded into thinking they are preaching the gospel in
these places; all are pals together and it becomes impossible to expose the
sham and wickedness of Romanism. This is what R.C. ecumenicalism is all
about.
When I got to my stand I found a Marxist stall there. They
soon left however, and the street sweeper soon tore down all their posters.
Peter came by while I was preaching. It is several years
now since he made a profession of faith here in the street. I hoped he would
not stay long because I wanted to get on with preaching but then he told me he
always got a lot of help when he stopped to talk to me. I conclude that giving
counsel in a pedestrian precinct is part of my ministry. I do a lot of this.
While talking to Peter another man stopped by who had asked me to find a
retreat for him. He told me that the lady I had spoken to on Friday was his
landlady, and he had persuaded her to go to the local Baptist church.
June 20th LUTON T C. Another warm
day and plenty of people sitting listening. While I was preaching Peter arrived
and wanted to tell me all about his illnesses. Then Alan (who goes to the Parish Church,
sometimes) came and wanted to know if he could help. Yes, I replied, just stand
there and start a crowd. He obliged and soon there was a crowd. The retreat
seeking man (Michael) came, and then a man who got himself worked up because I
told him there was only one way to heaven. This man then started talking to
Alan and before long they were great pals.
A Muslim then joined us, anxious to stress that we all
believe in the same God. He was told that the true and living God is the God
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and has no connection with Allah. He said
he would go to the mosque and get his Mullah to come and put me right. A lady
and her daughter stood listening to all this
so I gave them a booklet and a tract. Meanwhile the cross-signer arrived
and stood in front of me doing her little bit. I wasn’t sure whether she was
blessing me or invoking a curse.
Michael then asked me to come and speak to an old man who
was sitting nearby crying his eyes out. He wasn’t crying when I got to him but
I learned that he was a Ukrainian, and that he had just lost his wife and had
no friends in this country. Michael wanted to tell him how to get to heaven,
but I managed to give them a tract each. I was surprised how pointed Michael
had been in his speech, warning the old man of heaven and hell, because when I
arrived this afternoon I saw him puffing away on a cigarette. As soon as he saw
me he had gone off, reappearing a few minutes later.
This afternoon I exhausted my supply of tracts.
June 21st LEIGHTON BUZZARD, by the Cross. A group of teenagers
gathered around me, one wanting to impress his friends with his infantile
mockery. A few asked the usual silly questions. But one or two stood listening
and there was an opportunity to witness for fifteen minutes to these while they
waited for their teachers to arrive. One girl asked if she could come back and talk to me after they had
completed their school exercise but I felt it wise not to wait.
July 4th LUTON T C. Two young Muslims were waiting for me to arrive. As I
began to preach, they took out a bundle of leaflets and came over to speak to
me. They did not try to interrupt me but as I had just started to preach, I
thought they were just out to stop me by entering into a useless debate. They
walked a few yards away and began to offer leaflets to passers-by.
The young boy I had spoken to last month appeared again,
but now on a crutch. He had been attacked, he said, by a gang of older boys at
the school he had been now assigned to.
A young man wanted to know why everybody carried on sinning
when all were forgiven because of the cross. He was told that forgiveness is
conditional upon repentance and faith in Christ. The price of redemption has
been paid for the whole human race but repentance toward God and faith toward
our Lord Jesus Christ are needed on order to come into the good of redemption.
July 5th AYLESBURY, MARKET
SQUARE. Two women, a mother and her daughter stopped to listen to the
preaching. A man also stopped, but he stood three or four yards from me. When I
had finished, the women came over to me, and told me they were believers,
attending the local Vineyard
Church. The man came over
too and expressed an interest in the gospel. He asked if he could speak to me
privately, to which I agreed, but the two women would not allow us a private
conversation. The older woman decided to tell the man her testimony. I thought
maybe we could hear this and then move away.
Her testimony was that she couldn’t sell her house, and
while praying about it, she fell on her face and at that moment her pastor
arrived. She told him that her prayers were answered, and she wanted to be
baptized, which she said was the very next day. I didn’t want the man to think
that this was a true conversion story, so I asked her, if she had been praying
and had a pastor, was she already a Christian at that point. She didn’t know.
Her daughter seemed to doubt it as well. This couple seemed not to understand
what a Biblical conversion involved. It is extremely rare to meet any at all
who have experienced a Biblical conversion. The man took a gospel pack but the
women refused.
The Vineyard Church
system is a heretical cult. These women had left what they described as a dead Baptist Church to go there. The man who
described himself as a Roman (I think he was born in Rome) had been brought up RC but had
converted to Islam, and then had reconverted to C of E. He was on a legally
binding course of treatment for a mental disorder, but was extremely rational
and articulate. He spoke of times when Demon spirits were trying to tear him
apart. His name is Michele. He appeared to be an intelligent man but had
difficulty grasping the nature of the gospel. This was not helped by the two
women who interrupted almost every statement I made, They were not disagreeing
with me but they plainly felt that they were required to give a commentary on
everything I said. I longed to tell them to shut their silly mouths and be on
their way but Christian courtesy did not permit me such a liberty, and in any
case, I had come to the conclusion that they were as much in need of the gospel
as the man I was trying to speak to. When we parted, I was subjected to a Roman
style kiss on both cheeks.
The Integrity of the AV Bible
Acts 1:18,19
Now this man purchased a field with the
reward of his iniquity....that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama,
that is to say, The field of blood.
Why change what is obvious
and for which there are no textual variations? Three times in these two verses
a field is referred to but some preachers like to appear to have special
knowledge. So we are told that our Bible is wrong when it speaks of a field. It
should be a farm. Luke couldn’t have been aware of this, assuming we don’t
believe in the verbal inspiration of Scripture anyway.
Judas bought a field and
it was still a field after he died for the name Aceldama
tells us so. He may have built a house on the land as verse 21 suggests, but
there is no authority for calling it a farm and there is no excuse for
contradicting the word of God. The ground had been known as the potter’s field
and the chief priests bought this land after Judas’s death, using the thirty
pieces of silver, and turned it into a burial ground for strangers.
Strangely, in a different
context, another preacher tells us that the Lord was born in a field—and
therefore not in Bethlehem
as Matt.2:1 so plainly tells us. We know very well that inns in NT times
usually had stables attached to them (often in the basement) and mangers would
be provided for the animals.
Scripture is being contradicted more and more
by our preachers who want to impress us with their “inside” knowledge. They
become modern day Gnostics.
1 Cor. 7:15
But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A
brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: But God hath called us to peace.
W S Stevely, in
an ambiguous letter to the editor of Believers’
Magazine, June 2001, by quoting Darby, appears to be promoting the view
that 1 Corinthians 7:15 allows for divorce. Verse 39 puts the lie to this. The
marriage bond remains until the death of one of the spouses. Bear in mind that
divorce is not implied in verse 27. Being loosed from a wife happens when the
wife dies.
The meaning of
this verse is quite plain, that if an unsaved spouse is determined to leave his
or her partner (presumably because the one has got saved since the marriage),
the believer has no moral or legal or spiritual obligation to prevent the
departure. Divorce is not mentioned.
The NIV weakens
the statement by making nine changes in this one verse. It reads, “But if the
unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such
circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.”
The change from under bondage to bound changes the
meaning and allows the verse to suggest a breaking of the marriage bond, for
the word bound occurs at verses 27 and 39 in this chapter
where a legal married bond is clearly indicated.
Darby in his New Translation also made the change to bound. But in his Synopsis he wrote,
If the unbeliever forsook the believer definitively, the latter (man
or woman) was free — "let him depart." The brother was no longer
bound to consider the one who had forsaken him as his wife.
Thus he adds his
interpretation to the passage. Therefore we are led to understand that if an
unbelieving spouse should leave the believing partner, he or she may regard
himself, or herself, as unmarried and the inference is that such a one could
then remarry.
J J Lias, in his
commentary on this verse points out what was the Romish view.
The Roman Catholic divines, e.g. à Lapide and Ambrosiaster, as well
as the Canon law, held that in the case of the heathen partner refusing to live
with the other when he or she embraced Christianity, the Christian was
justified in contracting a fresh marriage. —Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges; First
Epistle to the Corinthians.
*****
Great Truths Abused
We find a
further mutilation of Scripture occurring in the magazine mentioned above.
Under the heading, Great Truths of the
Bible (7), Propitiation, Scripture is twisted in order to give a warped and
Calvinistic view of propitiation. The verse so maligned is 1 John 2:2. And he is the propitiation for our sins:
and not for ours only, but also for the
sins of the whole world.
Concerning this
verse, P Coulson writes,
-does that mean a universal propitiation? A fair question indeed,
and one which is raised because of a rare but singularly inappropriate
inclusion by the respected translators of the AV.
The correct reading of this verse, based on the recognised original
texts is: “And he is the propitiation for our sins; but not for ours alone, but
also for the whole world”. It is important to understand the difference in
these two renderings. For the believer, the Lord Jesus is the propitiation for
our sins, personally and eternally, and He has satisfied the claims of God in
relation to our personal guilt with the outcome that we are forever delivered
from divine judgment. But that cannot be said of all men irrespective of their
attitude to divine things. John does say that Christ is also the propitiation
for the whole world, but he does not say for the sins of the whole world. If the AV rendering were correct,
then the whole world would be saved, and we know that is not the case. The
helpful comment in Vine’s Expository Dictionary is, “The italicised addition in
the AV. “the sins of” gives a wrong
interpretation. What is indicated is that provision is made for the whole
world, so that no one is, by Divine pre-determination, excluded from the scope
of God’s mercy; the efficacy of the propitiation, however, is made actual for
those who believe”...The Lord is the propitiation for the sins only of those
who believe.
P Coulson’s last
sentence contradicts his quote from Vine. Vine says the efficacy is made actual for
those who believe. Coulson suggests this means the propitiation is only for those who believe.
The inference we draw from Mr Coulson is
that while on the cross, Christ was the propitiation for NOBODY. At that moment
nobody believed.(apart from the womenfolk and John at the foot of the cross,
maybe).
When we were yet without strength, in due time Christ
died for the ungodly. Romans 5:5
While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8.
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he
loved us, and sent his Son to be the
propitiation for our sins. 1 John 4:10.
And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath
he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, Col.1:21,22
The four verses
above are enough to show that Christ became our propitiation on the cross. If
not then we assume that Christ in heaven must become a propitiation each time a
person believes. The thought is quite preposterous. Christ on the cross was the
propitiation for the sinner, and for every ungodly, God-hating, alienated and
wicked sinner, and still is. John didn’t say He was our propitiation, or
that He will be, the moment we believe; but that He is the propitiation. I came into the good of that propitiation the
moment I believed.
He is the
propitiation for OUR sins. John defines who is meant by “our” in 5:13 of this epistle; These things have I written unto you that
believe on the name of the Son of God. They are those who believed in
John’s day, and every believer since. The “whole world” is everyone else.
The AV does not
teach anywhere that the whole world will be saved. It is not implied in 1 John
2:2. Because of the once and for all atoning work of Christ upon the cross, all
who repent and believe the gospel can now receive forgiveness.
P Coulson refers
to the “recognised original texts”. He is very clever. No one else has
recognized them for they disappeared well nigh 2000 years ago. However, some of
us know what is the true text, because God has preserved it for us.
There is in fact
no debate over the Greek text, and there is no debate over the English
translation either. Dean Alford, who was no lover of the AV Bible, wrote more
than 140 years ago,
In the latter clause [of 1 John 2:2] there is an ellipsis very
common in ordinary speech in every language: “for the whole world” = “for the sins of the whole world.” —The Greek Testament; Vol.4.
We note that
even the NIV has “for the sins of” and it is not in italics either. The words
are in most other modern versions, including NEB and NRSV. The “Reformist” NKJV omits
them, showing once again that is not merely “the AV in modern English.”
Wycliffe in 1380
had “he is the for3yuenes for oure synnes; and not oneli for oure synnes, but also for the synnes of al the world.”
We see that the
reason for omitting “for the sins of” has nothing to do with textual criticism
or translation but has a lot to do with the promotion of Calvinism. It is a
dishonest omission, a willful corrupting of the word of God (2 Cor.2:17).
Attacks on the AV are seen to be malicious because they are attacks on the Bible.
We would not waste our time debating with men who suggest that the AV is not
the Bible, the word of God.
Alford’s
comments on this verse are worth reading and confirm the above point.
The reason of the insertion of the particular here [he has already
shown that insertion or omission makes utterly no difference to the meaning],
is well given by Luther: “It is a patent fact that thou too art a part of the whole world: so that thine heart cannot
deceive itself and think, The Lord died for Peter and Paul, but not for me”.
*****
Revised English Bible
There is a
growing tendency among our liberal brethren to quote from modern versions. The
RV, long since abandoned by most, is still quoted by some, while many now like
to quote from the NIV and the NKJV. These latter two are popular with the
neo-evangelicals.
Now we find that
John Ritchie Ltd, is promoting the REB in its publications. J Wesley Ferguson
quotes this version a number of times in his commentary on Genesis in Ritchie’s
What the Bible Teaches series.
Admittedly some of his references are critical of the REB (why bother to quote
from it if it is wrong?), but he doesn’t suggest it is not Scripture as he does
with the AV, for he writes,
The expression which appears in the AV as “living soul” is identical
with that used of animals, in whose case the AV translates it “living creature”
(compare 1.21,24; 2.19). But Scripture [my
italics] is careful to record that man is different from the lower creatures,
for “God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”, which of course is not
said of any lower creature.
In fact the word
translated in the AV as “soul” is neh’-pesh,
the common word for “life”. So in Genesis 1:20,
we have the moving creature that hath life. “Life” is given in
the margin as Heb. soul, which would
be inappropriate in the reading.
It would be
wrong to translate Psalm 16:10
as “Thou wilt not leave my being (or creature) in hell”, and it would be false
to make it “thou wilt not abandon me to Sheol.” (NEB). The preposition “me” includes body,
soul, and spirit. It was the soul of Christ that never entered hell. His body
was placed in the tomb.
The context
shows quite clearly whether neh’-pesh should
be translated soul, life, creature, heart, persons, beast, dead, etc. and the
Authorized Holy Bible, being the word of God, is very clear in distinguishing
man from the animal kingdom. Modern versions obscure the truth. “Lower
creatures” is not a Scriptural term.
Now about the
REB.
The Oxford and Cambridge University Presses issued
this statement in 1989.
In 1974, the Joint Committee of the Churches, which had produced the
New English Bible, decided to begin a major revision of the text. The Roman
Catholic Church, with representatives from the hierarchies of England and Wales, of Scotland, and
of Ireland,
entered into full membership. The United Reformed Church, which was a recent
union of the Presbyterian Church of England and the Congregational Church, was
represented. Then representatives of the Salvation Army and the Moravian Church joined the committee.
There is enough in this first paragraph
to warn off any truly converted, Bible-believing child of God. The Quakers were
also full members of the committee. What believer could accept anything
produced with the united (ecumenical) stamp of Rome and apostate Christendom on it?
All the stranger that our scholarly
brethren, who of course will be fully conversant with the background and
history of this and other modern versions, should so gladly embrace it.
But we read
on,
The best available
texts of both Testaments were used.... Passages that appear in the manuscripts
used for the Authorized Version but left out of the Revised English Bible have
been reproduced in footnotes.
The “best available texts” are those
rejected by the early believers, as they are by present day believers.
For the Old Testament, a revision of
Kittel’s Hebrew text was followed. Kittel was a 19th century German
rationalist whose son produced the Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament but was tried and sentenced as a Nazi war
criminal before he could finish it. The revision is known as Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1967-77),
based on one manuscript, B19A, and is currently being re-revised by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
The Biblical
Hebraica Stuttgartensia is also referred to by some as the Masoretic text,
but this should not be confused with the Masoretic text upon which the AV Bible
is based.
The New Testament of the REB is based on
Kurt Aland’s Greek New Testament, 26th edition which relied heavily
on the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus, plus one or two other mss. The depravity
of these manuscripts was demonstrated by Nolan 200 years ago, and by Burgon
more than 100 years ago. So the REB, following Aland, wrests words of Scripture
from the text and relegates them to a footnote.
The whole work is, we are told, a radical
revision of the New English Bible. The Director of the NEB was C H Dodd who was a notorious
apostate of his day. The Director of the REB revision was Professor W D McHardy,
Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford
University. Prof. McHardy
died last year and a number of his books are now in my library. The revision
may have been radical but there is no evidence that he was a saved man or held
to a theology differing from C H Dodd.
The final paragraph reads,
The Joint
Committee commends this version with humility, but with confidence that God has
yet new light and truth to break forth from his word. The publishers consider
the Revised English Bible to be a radical revision of the New English Bible.
These ungodly and unconverted men think
that their effort brings new light (that has never shone before) and new truth
(unknown from the beginning of time until 1989)! They call this humility. We
must be very wary of men who question whether God has fully spoken to us by His
Son (Heb.1:2) and who pour doubt on the settled word of God. The Athenians were
always wanting to hear some new thing. Very few of them wanted the gospel.
Archbishop Tutu, at the launch of the REB
in South Africa
in 1990, said “[This] could not have been published at a more significant time
in the country’s history.... The ecumenical nature of the publication of a new
Bible translation was very important”.
Tutu denies most fundamental Christian
doctrines, including the virgin birth if Christ, specifically casting doubt on
Mary’s morality.
The REB denies the prophecy of a coming
Redeemer in Gen. 3:15 by the rendering “I shall put enmity between you and the
woman, between your brood and hers. They will strike at your head, and you will
strike at their heel.”
The Lord is reduced to a created being in
Heb. 1:5 with the words “You are my son: today I have become your father.”
Instead of Who hath believed our report? in Isaiah 53:1, an excuse is made for
Jewish unbelief by the words “Who could have believed what we have heard?” It
is not surprising to read therefore in verse three and four, concerning the prophecy of a suffering Christ, that He
was “afflicted by disease” and “struck down by disease and misery”.
In these verses the cross of Christ is in view and the
judgment of God which befell Him as He suffered on our behalf.
Matt.8:16,17 declares unambiguously how
Isaiah’s prophecy was initially fulfilled when the Lord healed the sick. But
the cross brings a present healing from sin, by whose stripes ye were healed, (1 Pet.2:24), and a future
healing from disease. Romans 8 assures us of all removal of disease at the
redemption of the body
One might as well quote from the JW bible as from the REB. After all, they
are from the same source.
*****
Scrivener on the Manuscripts
Dr F H A Scrivener served on the committee which produced the
Revised Version. He was concerned that the Received Text was not given proper
consideration but was repeatedly out-voted by the rest of the committee, led by
Westcott and Hort, who were following their own agenda.
After the Revised Version was published, Scrivener wrote A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the
New Testament. This was published in 1883 by George Bell & Sons, and I
quote below from the fourth edition, published in 1894 and edited by Edward
Miller.
Scrivener made these comments on the Greek manuscripts used by the
Revisers:
a (Aleph). CODEX SINAITICUS.
From the number of errors, one cannot affirm that it is very
carefully written. ...The whole manuscript is disfigured by corrections.....It
lends its grave authority, now to one and now to another, as to convince us
more than ever of the futility of seeking to derive the genuine text of the New
Testament from any one copy.
A.
CODEX ALEXANDRINUS.
The Codex Alexandrinus has been judged to be carelessly written.
This manuscript is of the very greatest importance to the critic, inasmuch as
it exhibits (especially in the gospels) a text more nearly approaching that
found in later copies than is read in others of its high antiquity, although
some of its errors are portentous enough.
B.
CODEX VATICANUS.
Tischendorf says truly enough that something like a history might be
written of the futile attempts to collate Cod. B, and a very unprofitable
history it would be. ....Those who agree the most unreservedly respecting the
age of the Codex Vaticanus, vary widely in their estimate of its critical
value. By some it has been held in such undue esteem that its readings, if
probable in themselves, and supported (or even thought not supported) by two or
three other copies and versions, have been accepted in preference to the united
testimony of all authorities besides: while others, admitting the interest due
to age, have spoken of its text as one of the most vicious extant.
One marked feature, characteristic of this copy, is the great number
of omissions, which has induced Dr Dobbin to speak of it as presenting ‘an
abbreviated text of the New Testament.
C.
CODEX EPHRAEMI.
The ancient writing is barely legible, having been almost removed about the twelfth
century to receive some Greek words of St Ephraem, the great Syrian Father
[299-378].
None but those who have seen Cod. C can appreciate the difficulty of
deciphering some parts of it.
Two correctors have been very busily at work on it, greatly to the
perplexity of the critical collator....the earliest....are for some cause
regarded by Dr hort as almost equally valuable for critical purposes with the
manuscript itself.
D.
OF THE GOSPELS AND ACTS. CODEX
BEZAE.
There are not a few hiatus both in the Greek and Latin texts.[This
is a parallel Greek/Latin ms. Whole passages are missing throughout]
The internal character of the Cod. Bezae is a most difficult and
indeed an almost inexhaustible theme. No known manuscript contains so many bold
and extensive interpolations (six hundred, it is said, in the Acts alone),
countenanced, where they are not absolutely unsupported, chiefly by the Old
Latin and the Curetonian Version: its own parallel Latin translation is to servilely
accommodated to the Greek text to be regarded as an independent authority, save
where the corresponding Greek is lost.
Mr Rendel Harris infers that the Greek has been made up from the
Latin.
These four
manuscripts, aABCD, were given undue weight in the production of the Revised
Version, as they still are in the modern versions. The great majority of
manuscripts, which happen to agree with the Received, or Byzantine, Text have
been ignored. But these four, as Scrivener demonstrated so long ago, are very
unreliable and frequently they do not agree among themselves. The evidence
against them was known for the whole of the last century but it makes no
difference to those who are determined even yet to follow their own agenda.
Seeing that the
Bible is a divinely given Book, we should not be surprised to find it the
target of Satanic attack. We have to ask ourselves what form of attack is most
likely, and the answer will be, the form that induces the believer to think
that the Bible he has is imperfect. Satan will tell us there are errors and
alterations and we can never be absolutely certain that the Bible we have is
identical to the word of God as it was first delivered.
Our God is
faithful and He is able to perform that which He has spoken.
*****
Inspiration: of Thought or Word?
Many years ago the publishers, Pickering & Inglis, published a series of books called Every Christian’s Library. These books can often be found on the shelves of second hand booksellers and are well worth obtaining. Among the several that I have is one titled God Spake all these Words, by Dr James H Brookes.
In this book Dr
Brookes wrote,
It is a convenient dodge of those who are not willing to accept the
words of Scripture as true, to say that they believe in the inspiration of the
“concept” or thought; and it is enough to answer in the language of the late
Dean Burgon, one of the most scholarly men in the Church of England, “As for
thoughts being inspired, apart from the words which give them expression, you
might as well talk of a tune without notes or a sum without figures. No such
dream can abide the daylight for a moment. No such theory of inspiration is
even intelligible. It is illogical as it is worthless, and cannot be too
sternly put down.”
Alas, P & I
have long since been “swallowed up” but the publisher J Ritchie continues, and
we note with dismay that their selected authors do not believe in verbal
inspiration. The old way of handling Scripture is gone.
The new series of What the Bible Teaches marks a departure from the verse by verse
exposition of the old series, replaced by a commentary giving the concept of
each passage. The fruits of the old series are now ripened for in that series
no Bible could be quoted as the authoritative, definitive word of God. One
version was played against another, especially if there should be an
opportunity to denigrate the Authorized Version.
In this new
series, therefore, words are uncertain. We cannot be sure whether they should
be there or not, so the contributors can do no more than pass on the “thought”
of the passage.
*****
Letters
Dear Mr Smith
....do you mean you don’t believe in Calvinism and the
Doctrines of Grace? I find it incredible indeed if you don’t dear brother in
Christ (?).
Why? Because the whole Bible, from Genesis to
Revelation teaches and supports Calvinism or Free Grace and Election.... “If
you are a genuine christian, then you will not mind me sharing with you the
things I’ve wrote [sic] about”.
....God is a paradox....
K W M. Lancs.
Dear K,
Thank you for
your kind and lengthy letter. Space does
not permit me to include it all here. I appreciate the effort you have taken in
writing to me. I can’t write personally to you because my last Waymarks brought
quite a flurry of responses, and in any case you never commented on any point
which I had raised.
I find no
mention of Calvinism in my Bible. I do believe in the grace taught in Scripture
and I have been a recipient of much of God’s grace over the years. “Doctrines
of Grace” is just another term for Reformed Theology, which again is not found
taught in Scripture. I do believe in what the Bible teaches about election.
You write that
the whole Bible teaches and supports Calvinism etc. but you failed to give a
single example. You followed the JW approach and brushed my comments aside and
attacked my person, questioning my salvation because I do not believe the same
things that you hold to.
You stated that
God is a paradox. That is quite a serious charge to make. You are in fact
describing God as an oxymoron. Calvinism compels you to come to such a
conclusion. How can a Lord who instructs me to let my yeas be yea, and my nays
nay not be Himself singular in speech, and plain in His meaning?
Yours,
Ron Smith
Dear Brother in the Lord,
Do you fully understand what takes place in a GENUINE
CONVERSION?
l., Norwich.
Dear L,
I take it that
you have full understanding on the ground that you are a Calvinist? You quoted
several verses without explaining what you think they mean, so I can assure you
that I believe them all. But I repudiate Calvinism. As with other
correspondents you have yet to respond to any of the points that I have raised.
I do know that I
experienced a genuine conversion on the night that I willingly and freely
repented of my sins and trusted Christ. That was at 9:05pm on 15th October 1955 at the end of a
gospel meeting. I remember it as though it were yesterday. I am fully
acquainted with the biblical teaching concerning conversion and I believe what
I read.
Yours,
Ron Smith
Dear Mr Smith
Thankyou for sending me ‘Waymarks’. Your reports of
open-air-preaching are an encouragement. I also appreciate your stand for the
KJAV. My regards to you.
M C.
Ps I pass Waymarks on.
Dear M C,
Thank you for
your card and the several print-outs. The ones on modern versions are
particularly useful. I fully endorse your leaflet regarding Billy Graham. He
preaches “another gospel” which is not the gospel of Christ. He is in cahoots
with a number of enemies of the truth.
Your leaflet
titled “Corrupt Arminians....and their corrupt gospel” I find puzzling. Have
you read anything of Arminius that was not presented to you by Calvinists? I
have discovered that Calvinists writing against Arminius deliberately lie about
what he taught and believed. (Read L Vance’s book, The Other Side of Calvinism)
In your leaflet you state,
Arminians or “free willers” generally
have a hatred of the doctrines of election and predestination.
Have you read The Works of James Arminius; Baker Book
House; 1986? It might cause you to change your mind. He was orthodox in his
theology.
I have never
come across any believer with a hatred of the doctrines of election and
predestination. I believe these doctrines fully. They are clearly taught in
Scripture. However, I do not believe the erroneous “Reformed” views put out on
these truths.
Yours,
Ron Smith
Ps. You never
commented on any point that I have ever raised in Waymarks.
(Note. None of
these recent letters came from persons in assembly fellowship. We do know
however, that Calvinistic error is now being taught from many Gospel Hall
platforms.)
*****
The Book Indeed
The
Bible; that’s the Book. The Book indeed,
The
Book of Books;
On
which who looks,
As
he should do aright, shall never need
Wish
for a better light
To
guide him in the night....
God’s
cabinet of reveal’d counsel ‘tis;
Where
weal and woe
Are
ordered so
That
every man may know.
Nor
can he be mistook
That
speaketh by this Book.
It
is the Book of God. What if should
Say,
god of books?
Christopher Harvey 1640. (ed.
A B Grosart, 1874)
______________________________________________________________________________________
Waymarks is published quarterly and is
sent out as a tract. Its purpose is to encourage open-air preaching and also to
establish the confidence of the Lord’s people in the Authorized Bible as being
the true and only Holy Bible in the English language.
We are
sometimes accused by those of differing views of showing a lack of love and of
being critical of the saints. We love all those who love Christ but it is not
love to Christ to condone error or to ignore it. It is also necessary to
identify sources of information so that statements made may be verified by my
readers.
Further
copies may be obtained upon request. This publication is a personal exercise
and is made free of charge. Waymarks may be freely copied without alteration but acknowledgments should be
given.
http://members.aol.com/waymarks/ All
Correspondence to:- Ron Smith
c/o
Waymarks
email: waymarks@aol.com
8 Newbury Close
Luton
Beds
LU4 9QJ
No comments:
Post a Comment