Monday, 27 October 2014

Waymarks 26



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