|
Winter 2001
No.27
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...................................................4
An Accurate Copy.....................................................................5
Anglican Bishop says Bible not the Word of God..................7
An Answer to an Article on Election.......................................7
Answers to a Correspondent’s Criticism..............................11
One Bible Only?......................................................................12
Letters......................................................................................14
“The Atonement”...................................................................16
Report of Open Air Preaching
September 10th LUTON TOWN
CENTRE. Yet again a group of young Muslims surrounded me. They always try the
same old approach, “Will you read Deuteronomy 18 please”. They are not open to
discussion. They will not and cannot see that the verses speak of Christ, so
all we can do is warn them against the lake of fire.
Because these confrontations are quite fierce, a few people stop to
listen, so I preach loudly for their benefit.
September 12th
LUTON TOWN CENTRE. The town is very deserted today. There
are hardly any Asian people to be seen. I stand in the centre of the Square
outside Debenham’s.
Because of the
Islamic atrocity in New York, we have a very searching text —Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in
Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that
dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all
likewise perish. Luke 13:4,5.
The Lord knew
the hearts of those eighteen. They were no worse than anybody else, but they
all went instantly to hell. Passers-by will perish in hell too, who reject
Christ and refuse to repent. Such preaching has an almost nil effect. Hardly a
head is turned. Only the flower shop woman came out—once again—to bellow at me.
So should we not warn the sinner of his ways? Ought we rather to wish them a
good day, as they hasten to the unquenchable flames of hell?
September 20th AYLESBURY
MARKET SQUARE. Within minutes a crowd of about fifty people stood
or sat around me to hear the gospel. I felt that they had stopped purposely to
listen. I preached on the greatest atrocity the world has ever seen—the Son of
God brutally done to death, for you and me. There was no heckling, not even
from a group of a dozen Asian youths who also stopped to listen. Afterwards
several people wanted to talk to me, and not a dissenter among them. I gave out
a number of tracts, and one old lady got a bit agitated because she thought she
wasn’t going to get one. Some young men wanted to talk. One, who is usually
seen selling the Big Issue, said he
longed to have peace with God. He admitted he was unsure whether as yet he was
ready to give up all his bad ways. All three expressed an interest in coming to
the gospel meetings. We’ll wait and see.
(Sun.23rd. They didn’t come).
September 17th AYLESBURY.
Market Square. How different from last week. It is another warm dry day, but
nobody wants to listen to the gospel, and nobody stops to speak. People soon
forget. We warn men of their coming day of calamity, Proverbs 1:6-8. What must
it be, to face death without a Saviour. There can be no greater calamity than
this.
October
4th AYLESBURY
Market Square. The weather is still mild
and dry, so again there were a few people on the square. A man came over to
talk. He didn’t try to interrupt my preaching so I stopped to speak to him. But
the fowls of the air were waiting to snatch away the seed. A woman who had been
sitting nearby immediately came over and started preaching to him. She advised
him to do an Alpha course. I suggested
that would not help him at all, so the woman wanted to know what is wrong with
Alpha courses. I told her I had come onto the square to preach the gospel and
had no wish to get involved in trivialities, whereupon she told me Jesus loved me and she would pray
for me. The man walked away. Another triumph to Satan. But the man did hear the
gospel, so we can pray for him.
October 15th
LUTON TOWN CENTRE. A young Portuguese man, a cabin crew member of a
Luton-based airline, wanted to know the answer to terrorism. He told me that
passengers were far more stressed since the September atrocity. It had made him
think about the uncertainty of life. He was very responsive to the gospel, and
acknowledged that he knew he was a sinner and that death was not the end. He
accepted a tract and a gospel booklet.
October 16th
HITCHIN MARKET SQUARE. Once again there were a
few people sitting in the square. One woman took exception to the preaching and
began to rage at me. I suggested to her that if she didn’t believe the message
to be true she would ignore it like most other people. She knew very well that
heaven and hell are realities. While I spoke to her another woman came up and
urged me to go on with the preaching. Later a third woman also said she was
very encouraged to hear the gospel being preached in public.
October 18th AYLESBURY MARKET
SQUARE. There was more heckling and abuse today, which encouraged me somewhat.
I had thought my preaching was becoming stale. Two men wanted to know what I
thought of Rev.11:1. One of them had attended tent meetings we had held in
Wendover some years ago. Then two youths stopped to mock, one of them kneeling
down in front of me in mock prayer. I suggested to him that maybe his parents
had taught him to mock God. This upset him and he hastened to tell me they were
Christians. He agreed that heaven and hell were realities and that he should
think about eternity.
October 23rd LEIGHTON
BUZZARD, by the Cross. The old road sweeper stopped to listen to the preaching.
He always does. I was glad to see him today because, being half-term, a few
children were gathering, intent on disturbing the preaching. His presence
helped to subdue them to some extent. A man approached the road sweeper and
said to him, “you don’t believe this, do you?”.
The sweeper assured him most emphatically that he believed it all
because he wanted to get to heaven and avoid hell. The man quickly left.
October 26th AYLESBURY M
S. I was accosted by a group of Muslim youths while preaching. They were not
aggressive but they are severely indoctrinated and have false notions
concerning one they call Jesus the Prophet. They were unable to grasp that
their Jesus is not the Jesus known to me, Who is the eternal Son of God. All I
could do was to quote John 10:36 to them.
October 31st DUNSTABLE
MARKET. I thought some stall holders might object to my preaching but no
objections were raised. A young man who has often supported me in the open air
tells me a friend of his describes my preaching as “The gospel of
condemnation”. His friend should read John 3:18. We know that the
pseudo-brethren among us even object to the word “condemned” as it appears in
Scripture.
The objectors
are unconverted neo-evangelicals who don’t like their sins exposed. If a sinner
will not first of all repent of his sin
out of a broken and a contrite heart, then the gospel of the grace of
God is of no value to him. We preach in
vain.
There is no
Scriptural testimony in this town, the town of my birth.
November 5th LUTON T C. Salvadori came by today. He told me how he
got saved. When he was a young man, brought up as a R.C., much to his
astonishment, his priest gave him a Bible to read. Shortly afterward his nephew
was drowned in a tragic accident. Filled with grief Salvadori picked his Bible
up and it opened at John 11 where he read I
am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were
dead, yet shall he live. Confessing himself to be a sinner, he believed on
the Lord Jesus Christ. Before long he realized the falsity of Romanism and left
to find fellowship among true believers.
*****
The Integrity of the AV Bible
Matthew 23:24
Ye blind guides, which strain
at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
This should read “strain out a gnat” say the Bible critics. One of them,
W E Glenny, makes a great play over this phrase. He writes in relation to this
verse,
Most believers realize that
people can make mistakes in copying and printing the Bible; furthermore, they
believe that only the original autographs were inspired, not the KJV, or the
TR, or any other translation or edition. However, for the King James-Only advocate,
such differences are more than an embarrassment; they are a contradiction of
the King James-Only position. How can the KJV be inspired and yet have errors
in it that should be changed? If it has been changed, which edition is the
inspired edition? —One Bible Only? P.90.
The word translated strain at (diulizo) is used here only in the whole
of Scripture. In the 15th century it meant “to choke over/ to gag
at”. It never meant “to strive for” and doesn’t mean “to strain out”. The
Pharisees would choke over things of little consequence but would swallow the
more serious things without demur. F F Bruce tells us that Vine, in his
dictionary, relied on the definitions of Thayer, Moulton-Milligan, and Baur—all
of them unbelieving rationalists. So Vine falsely renders the word in question.
Now we see the degree to which Bible critics will go to attack God’s
Book. They reveal an innate hostility to the truth. The “Mistake” is with the
critic. There are no errors in the Bible, so these men must invent them.
Hebrews 10:23
Let
us hold fast the profession of our faith
without wavering;
Critics insist
that the reading should be “the profession of our hope”, and that the
translators of the AV Bible made an awful blunder here which has been
perpetuated ever since. D Kutilek, in the book One Bible Only? Makes this statement:
Henry Alford (1810-1871), noted English
New Testament scholar and a member of the English Revised Version translation
committee, mentions in passing, the belief of some people whom he knew that the
KJV was infallible. In his comments on Hebrews 10:23, he remarks,
‘ We have an extraordinary example of the persistence of a blunder
through the centuries. The word “faith”, given here by the A.V., instead of hope ....was a mere mistake, hope being
the original, without any variety of reading, and hope being accordingly the rendering of all the English versions
previously to 1611. And yet this is the version which some would have us regard
as infallible, and receive as the written word of God.
The words quoted
by Kutilek are allegedly from The New
Testament for English Readers, vol.4 (reprint, Grand Rapids; Baker, 1983). These words are
not found in Alford’s Greek New Testament.
We can be sure
that for whatever the reason elpis was
translated as faith and not “hope”
as in every other instance, it was not a blunder. It was considered by a panel
of translators that faith would be
the better word in this verse. Faith and hope are intimately linked of course. Faith is the substance of things hoped for,
the evidence of things not seen. (Heb.11:1)
Our profession
is evidence that we are believers,
i.e. we have faith. Hope cannot be witnessed, it is all to do with the future. Faith, we think, is the better word
in Hebrews 10:23. Because it is there it is the correct word.
*****
An Accurate Copy
Critics like to tell us it is impossible
to copy a passage without making lots of mistakes. One of them laid down a
challenge to copy John’s Gospel and see the number of mistakes made. I tried
this (I’ve got as far as ch.10) and give below a typical page. I made five
mistakes in ten chapters. I spotted each one before I went on to the next page,
and corrected it. They all involved single letters within a word, and I would
never have issued my copy anyway without it being perfect.
I have deleted P6 to avoid a long download time. If you want a hard copy let me know.
John 3:35-4:13, copied long hand without mistakes.
(Revised
page 6. My apologies for a printers’ copying failure).
Anglican Bishop says Bible not the word of God
Taken from Friday
Church News Notes, August 3rd,2001(D
W Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service)
Retired Anglican bishop Derek Stanesby of
Rutland, United Kingdom, said in a sermon
recently, “The Bible helps point to the word of God, but it is not the word of
God.” This was published in the bulletin for the Society of Ordained
Scientists. When pressed to do something about this heresy, the Bishop of
Peterborough, Ian Cundy, justified Stanesby’s statement, calling it “entirely
reasonable.”
This heresy is
not confined to Anglican bishops. It is commonly believed among our own
teaching fraternity, who usually read from and give lip service to the AV
Bible, that no Bible can be called The Word of God. They tell us that it may contain much of the word of God, but the
Scripture itself is scattered through multitudes of ancient manuscripts. Who
then can tell us what is the true word of God, and where can we find it? The
“authorities” frequently quoted are, Darby, Newberry, and Vine. These three had
to draw from the same polluted source of Textual Criticism as did Westcott and
Hort. These latter relied on the rationalism of Lachmann and Greisbach.
Our Bible
Teachers today appear comfortable in the school of men opposed to everything
they supposedly hold dear. Those promoting the “Nebulous Word” theory of modern
versionism are deeply opposed to the evangelical faith. It is a matter of great
concern that our teachers find merit in their “scholarship”. There are two
reasons for this; firstly, scholarship is worshipped among us, and secondly,
many of the “Founding Fathers” of the Brethren (if you will excuse the
expression—I can find no better way of expressing it) were scholars and
committed to Textual Criticism.
*****
An Answer to an Article on Election
by P Coulson (Believers Magazine, Sept.2001)
The article begins with this sub-heading:
“Election unto salvation may offend human reasoning...”. We say election unto
salvation offends God’s reasoning also. We find no verse of Scripture quoted in
this article that justifies the view presented. Reference is made to Israel and to
certain individuals such as Esau, and attempts are made to draw conclusions
from these. Mr Jack Hunter is quoted as teaching “individual election” but
no source reference is given that this
might be verified. I will quote one who
opposed this teaching in Assembly
Testimony, No.236, Nov/Dec 1991—H T Kimber. There are many more of course,
notable brethren, who reject the notion of “election to salvation” (read the
booklet, Election by W N Benson,
published by Gospel Tract Publications, June 1998)
H T Kimber wrote
to correct an erroneous article on Election published in Assembly Testimony,
No.227.
If anyone cannot
agree with this view of election to salvation, we are told it will be because
of “severely limited capacity to
understand the mind and ways of God.... our minds are too small...we find it
impossible to reconcile the idea of sovereign choice with the equally
scriptural doctrine of man’s individual responsibility to obey the gospel. To
human thinking these two principles are diametrically opposed and
irreconcilable.”
But if the article speaks of “sovereign
choice” then there must be deliberate rejection as well as deliberate
acceptance, or choice does not exist. These contradictions “sit in perfect
accord in the mind of God”. That is, while the “natural mind” calls black black
and white white, and straight cannot be bent, it is different with our God. To
Him straight can be bent and black can be white.
It is assumed
only Calvinists (i.e. those who hold to any
part of TULIP theology) have the mind of God (note, mind of God is not a Scriptural term). But the believer is not governed by a natural mind. The believer
is renewed in the mind (Eph.4:22). Paul says, let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus (Phil.2:5),
with the mind I myself serve the law of
God (Rom.7:25), and We have the mind
of Christ (1 Cor.2:16). God does not
expect His children to go on in a state of confusion. Our God is not guilty of
double-talk, as the B M article will have us to believe.
Another amazing
statement is brought before the reader: “If it were possible in any way for the
harmony of these two principles to be expressed in words, then surely the Holy
Spirit would have done so in the Scriptures.” This is an admission that not even the Holy Spirit can reconcile
these two views.
The next
sub-heading is “...but it is in total harmony with human responsibility.”
Mtt.11.27 is then quoted, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and
no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father save
the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him”.
Despite there
being no mention, nor even an allusion, to election in this verse, we are
informed, “Such a verse makes a clear
statement (my italics) concerning the sovereign, elective will of God in
relation to individuals from among the race of men...to the unbiased mind this
is a crystal–clear declaration of individual election”.
The Lord also
said Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed
them unto babes. Mtt.11:7. The verses tell us that the child of God is
brought into divine knowledge, and this can in no way imply therefore that such
was sovereignly elected to salvation.
We ask what kind
of human responsibility is this that cannot respond to the gospel of Christ,
because of not being among the elect? The god of Calvinism commands the
repentance of all, but prevents the ability to perform it.
Another verse
quoted, and popular among Calvinists, is John 6:37. The writer quotes this,
“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me: (divine election) and him that cometh to me I will in no wise
cast out (human responsibility).”
The Father gives
to the Son all those who freely repent of their sins and trust in Christ. They
shall come to Him for no power in heaven or earth or below can prevent them
coming to Him. There is no election in that. What of those who will not come?
That is their responsibility, we are told. But we are not told that because they are therefore not elect they cannot come. The writer doesn’t
tell us that according to his doctrine God’s choice is to damn them without
opportunity to repent.
The third
sub-heading is “In relation to the salvation of the soul, election is always
individual...” We are next told “The
Scriptures teach, unequivocally (my
italics), that God has chosen certain individuals to be saved.... We can boldly assert this truth as both
scriptural and unassailable.” The example is then given of Jacob and Esau, “Jacob
have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” But this has nothing to do with salvation
or election of course. The writer tells us these are “the inspired words of
Paul to the Romans...based upon God’s sovereign dealings recorded in Genesis
25.23 and Exodus 33.19.” He does NOT tell his readers that Paul was quoting
Malachi 1:2,3 which was written centuries after both Jacob and Esau had died.
That is, God did not make that statement during their lifetime. In any case,
while it is true that God may deal with individuals as He pleases there is no
example in Scripture where an individual is elected, foreordained, or
predestined to do evil against his own will. It is convoluted thinking that
concludes because God deals with certain individuals according to His own will,
therefore God has elected from eternity other individuals to salvation.
It is boldly
asserted that, “The truth of individual election is emphatically taught in the
parenthetic section of the Roman epistle, chs. 9-11. Indeed, if we fail to see
that, we miss the whole point of that part of the doctrine of the gospel.” No such thing is taught of course, and the
writer doesn’t refer to any particular words to justify his statement. Maybe he
it is who doesn’t understand the gospel.
Romans 9-11,
shows us that God will have mercy on whom He will, and therefore the gospel
must go out to the Gentiles, so that whosoever among these may believe the
gospel and be saved.
This is seen in
practice in Acts 13:46-48 (quoted in the article but not commented upon). And as many as were ordained to eternal
life believed. These were Gentiles who had gladly received the word and had
glorified it). They were not foreordained
to eternal life. They were not elected
to eternal life. They were not predestined
to eternal life. God has ordained (purposed,
appointed) eternal life to be the blessing for as many as rightly respond to
the gospel of Christ. It was not to remain the prerogative of the Jew. These
Gentiles accordingly believed.
The fourth
sub-heading is, “....but there is a corporate aspect in relation to Israel’s
blessing as a nation.”
“God’s
statement, ‘Israel
is my son’ (Ex.422), shows that their election and sonship were collective....”
But we can find
no reference to this corporate, collective election of Israel
mentioned in Scripture. Rather the opposite is stated by Paul in Rom.9;6, They are not all Israel, which are of Israel. Inclusion in the blessing of the nation
will be on the grounds of personal and individual faith on the part of the Jew.
The term corporate election is one invented by
certain men to bring into derision those holding to the Scriptural doctrine of
election. Election is not to salvation, but those trusting in Christ are chosen before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without
blame before him in love. (Eph.1:4). God has chosen those who get saved to
be holy and without blame.
The closing
words are, “You and I are not elect because we are in the Church, we are in the
Church because we are the elect of God, sovereignly, gloriously, wonderfully
chosen by God to be saved by His grace! Should we not humbly and thankfully
adopt the attitude of Abraham’s servant? ‘and the man bowed down his head, and
worshipped the Lord’ (Gen 24.6)”
This is not how
Paul prayed. He wrote, I have great
heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were
accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsman according to the flesh. Rom.9:2,3.
Moses also prayed, yet now if thou wilt
forgive their sin—; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which
thou hast written. Ex.32:32.
It is with great
dismay that we find the Believers
Magazine given over to the promotion of Calvinism.
For those not
aware what five-point (TULIP) Calvinism is, I give a summary below.
TOTAL DEPRAVITY— Man is
totally dead to God and cannot of his own will respond to the gospel.
UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION—God
from eternity unconditionally chose a certain few out of the human race to be
saved.
LIMITED ATONEMENT—Christ
died only for those previously elected. His propitionary sacrifice does not
reach to all men.
IRRESISTABLE GRACE—God
overpowers the will of the elect sinner, granting him faith and then repentance
to believe on Jesus Christ.
PERSEVERANCE OF THE
SAINTS—All the elect will persevere in the faith and ultimately die in a state
of grace. (None can be sure they are elect until they die).
L M Vance shows
in his book The Other Side of Calvinism, that
these five points are intimately related, so it is inconsistent to reject any
one point and hold to others. But we reject them all as being contrary to the
teaching of Scripture.
I gave Mr Coulson the opportunity to
answer the objections raised by me against “Election to Salvation” before
publication. His reply is in the letters section
*****
Answers to a D Clapham’s Criticisms of Waymarks
(Mr Clapham is not
on my list of subscribers to Waymarks)
"Your
note....I hope will not lead to the polarising of the saints”....
Polarisation
began when the first copies of the R.V. were brought into the assembly. The
recovery of assembly truth in the 19th century was made through the only
available version, the A.V. There was no other bible used. This Newsletter is
intended to bring saints back to a united stand.
I understand you
to mean that my urging believers to hold to the AV Bible is divisive. This is a
very serious charge to make, but it is aimed essentially against the word of
God. We know that some of our leading Bible expositors are declaring the AV
Bible not to be the word of God. There is only one thing we can do with these
men and that is to shun them. I do not sit under the ministry of men who fault
my Bible.
"No-one has any right to tell another what bible
they should use"
Not even elders
in the assembly? Must we tolerate confusion? Must we say nothing when we know
that modern versions are the work of unregenerate men who have used lies and
deceit to produce their work? If the elders in the assembly may not speak on
such a fundamental matter, what may they speak on?
"If [the AV Bible] leads to defective
understanding of the mind of God, then one who is better taught may well, in
love, seek to enlighten, as Aquilla
and Priscilla or Apollos.
No child of God
was ever led to a defective understanding because he read the A.V. Bible. That
the Bible God has used and blessed for 400 years could lead a saint astray in
any respect is a thought that sullies the mind. In 46 years of Christian
experience I have yet to meet one individual better taught through the use of
modern versions. Note also that Aquilla, Priscilla and Apollos used the same
Masoretic text-based Hebrew Scripture; (that on which the A.V. is based). There
is no evidence that they read the Greek Septuagint.
"In those countries where English is spoken,
although I have no figures to back up the supposition, it would not surprise me
if souls were brought to the faith by other means than by the A.V. of 1611, in
greater numbers than by that revered translation.
What are these
"other means"? Appeals, squashes, youth nights, coffee mornings,
ladies tea-parties, pentecostalist froth and bubble? Or do you mean "other
versions", though after 400 years the A.V. is still the world's best
seller. Agreed, God is sovereign and a soul might come across a fragment of the
pure Word of God amongst the 5000 changes made in every modern version, and be
saved by it.
"It might surprise us greatly to know just what
translation God has been pleased to use in people's salvation, and to feed them
with spiritual food."
Well, never mind
the Reformation! Just think of the mighty revivals of the 19th century. There
have been no revivals since the modern versions began to proliferate.
"God is not restricted. Who can tell Him what He
ought to use?
But may we not
expect God to use His own Word—that which was settled in heaven before the
world was made? Would He use the words of lying men, as Westcott and Hort have
been shown to be?
"The language (Paul and his company) spoke was
"colloquial", for they aimed to reach the people"
I cannot find
evidence of this. The N.I.V. uses colloquial speech with grievous results. I
would certainly never preach in colloquial English, for this would cheapen the
gospel and I want people to understand what I am saying.
"It is the content of the message that
counts....A postman would lose his job if he decided he would only deliver
packages of a certain colour."
He might lose
his job more quickly if he started to deliver unauthorised mail !!
*****
One Bible Only?
The attack
on the King James (AV) Bible continues unabated. There is a faction within the
so-called evangelical world which is not
content with promoting modern versions of the Bible, but is resolved to destroy
our time-honoured Bible together with those who hold to it. These men are
neither Romanists, nor Russellites but
wish to be known as conservative, fundamentalist, evangelical Christians. Many
of them prove to be neo-evangelical ecumenists.
Some of
these have issued a book, One Bible
Only?; Kregel; 2001., containing articles by D R McLachlan, K T Bauder, D K
Kutilek, R E Beacham, R W Milliman, L D Pettegrew. All of these are associated
with the Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Plymouth, Minnesota.
The gist of this book is that it is erroneous
to believe that the word of God exists in total any one version or translation
of the Bible. They insist that the true word of God lies scattered through
multitudes of manuscripts. They say God never intended that His word would be
preserved within the covers of one Bible. However, they assure us that any bible can safely be regarded as the
word of God as the differences between them are of little consequence. One fly
in the ointment is for them a trivial thing.
They go on
to say that those they describe as belonging to the King James Only Movement
are ignorant, controversialist, divisive, heretics, unorthodox in doctrine and
practice (these are their words), and ought to be excommunicated.
But they cannot excommunicate those who have
never been in fellowship with them.. Modern versionism goes hand in hand with
worldliness and liberalism, and those who love the world are not saved. We do
not seek fellowship with them.
We think
these men are disturbed by the growing number of students applying to their
seminary who hold to the AV Bible, and this is what lies behind the publication
of this book.
They use
the same attack as the Mohammedans: “The Bible has been changed.” (I’ve spoken
to a number of these people about this, and not one could tell me how, where,
or what has been changed in the Bible). Our scholars allege that the AV Bible
has been changed in thousands of places. They include in this the thousands of
spelling changes where the ‘f’ is changed to the modern ‘s’.
They insist
that there is no faithful Masoretic text because of errors in copying. This we
show to be another lie. The care of the scribes and the Masorites in copying
the Hebrew Scriptures was exquisite to the extreme.
These
writers accuse Bible believers of “demonizing” Westcott and Hort. The evidence
is that they “demonized” themselves. All the quotes I have read concerning
these two men originate from their own pens. They admitted to experimenting
with Spiritism. They have not been quoted out of context. Origen too is to be
held in admiration because he was a scholar. This is the man who taught that
the Lord was a created angel.
We come to
the heart of the matter in relation to the doctrine of Verbal Inspiration. The
modernist view is that inspiration applies only to the autographs (the original manuscripts) and when they
disappeared then inspiration ended.
The fact that zealous but misguided men of the past have ascribed
inspiration and infallibility—a quality possessed by only the original
Scriptures—to translations in Greek, Aramaic, Latin, Syriac, and German would
lead us to suspect that some people might be inclined to make similar unfounded
claims regarding some English Bible version.
P.42.
Yet even in
the preface of One Bible Only? We
find quoted all Scripture is given by
inspiration of God. Why do they not say what they believe, —All
Scripture WAS given by inspiration of God. The clear implication of the AV
statement is that the Scripture, given by inspiration of God, still exists.
Kutilek regards this as a heresy. The original manuscripts do not exist but God
did not abandon His word to the sleight of men such as Origen, Lachmann,
Tischendorf, Westcott, Hort, Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Darby as is alleged. The
inspired word of God was carried forth by ordinary faithful believers through
the centuries and none of it has been lost in translation. Otherwise the words all Scripture is given by inspiration of
God are meaningless, and Scripture does not exist today anywhere.
Letters
Dear
brother Ron,
Your self-styled ‘response’ to my
article on Election in the Believers Magazine is as misrepresentative and
malign as your 'response’ to an earlier contribution on the subject of
Propitiation. I would be grateful if you would append to your forthcoming
‘response’ a note from myself stating that I utterly refute your uncharitable
and untrue accusation that I am a ‘Calvinist’ or that I support or teach the
false ‘TULIP’ doctrine.
With
thanks,
Phil
Coulson
I am puzzled by the words “self-styled”.
My answer is Bible-styled. Col.4:6, 2 Tim.4:2. Jude 3. I do only that which is
incumbent upon all believers. Whether my answer is misrepresentative, readers
can judge for themselves. As to being malign, I seek only to establish the
truth. The tenets of Calvinism are NOT commonly held among us and must be
strongly resisted. There was no malignity intended on my part and I certainly
do not feel it. I love my brother in the Lord, and believe that he was sincere
in his articles, and sought to set forth the things that he firmly believes.
I
haven’t at any time accused Mr Coulson of being a “Calvinist” so the charges of
being uncharitable and untrue are invalid. However, readers of Believers Magazine will largely be aware
that the statements in the quoted B M articles do represent the doctrines of Calvinism.
And it would be a matter of spiritual
arrogance for me to thank God for saving me while my neighbour is damned
without hope of salvation.
*****
Dear brother in the Lord,
Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
I find your comments about the omission of the words
“the sins of” in the translation of 1 John 2:2 in the NKJV, on page 8 of
“Waymarks” No 26, quite extraordinary. These words are in italics in the AV
because there are no words equivalent to them in the Greek of this verse in the
Textus Receptus. How then can NOT including them in a translation of it be “a
dishonest omission” ?
You advise that Alford “has already shown that
insertion or omission makes utterly no difference to the meaning”. If Alford is
correct how can the omission of the words “the sins of” in the translation of 1
John 2:2 in the NKJV, be “a willful corrupting of the word of God”?
Yours sincerely,
L J Norwich
Dear L J
All the words in
my Bible, including words in italics, are the word of God. The italics are
needed, usually, to give the full sense of the Hebrew or Greek. In the verse
under consideration it is established that the sense isn’t affected either by
exclusion or inclusion of the words the
sins of. The translators included them for the sake of clarity. We believe this to be an overruling of the Spirit of God
in the translation so that no aspersion might be made against the universal
propitiation of Christ. I do not believe the Authorized Bible was a freshly
inspired translation, but I do believe that the Holy Spirit superintended the
translation.
Where the words the sins of are omitted in modern
versions, a conscious decision has been made to that end. The omission in the
NKJV is particularly dishonest because it claims to be no more than an updating
of the alleged archaic language of the AV.
Mr J, you have
in the past claimed to uphold the Authorized Bible but when it conflicts with
your Calvinistic doctrine you find fault with it.
Yours, R S.
*****
Dear Mr Smith,
I am writing to inform you that I no longer wish to
receive your magazine ‘Waymarks’.
I am disappointed at the extreme and uncharitable line
which your otherwise commendable defence of the A.V. has taken.
Yours Sincerely,
R A., Co. Armagh
Dear R A,
You don’t tell
me what in particular offends you, so it is difficult to give an answer. My
business, which is the business of all believers, is to contend earnestly for
the faith. In speaking against error, inevitably those who hold to it will
regard any criticism as uncharitable.
Sadly, we live in a day when men remain silent in the face of error, and excuse
themselves on the ground of charity. But it is not love to Christ.
I quote the
words of a 19th century writer, F W Grant:
[Satan] says to one person, be humble,
don’t imagine that your opinion is better than anyone else’s, and to another,
be charitable: good men differ about these things, and to another, don’t
contend for this: you will make enemies, you will lose your friends, and to
another, you are not learned: don’t occupy yourself with what requires a
theologian to decide, ...and to another, surely there are mistakes in the
Bible: you do not mean to contend for verbal inspiration?
The easy-going apathy of Christians is amazing, that will allow
their best blessings to be stolen from under their eyes.
Taken from the STEM CD Rom; various\DIVMOV.DOC
Yours, R S.
The Atonement
What means a universal call
If
there be not enough for all?
As
if the Saviour passed some by
While
He for others’ sins did die,
And
that, though all are told to come,
There’s
but provision made for some;
Or
that in some mysterious way,
God
means not what the Scriptures say.
Let
hampered minds their thoughts expand,
Nor
on such narrow footing stand:
The
mighty work of Jesus scan —
He
“tasted death for every man.”
He
“died for all” that they who live
Back
to Himself that life should give.
He
has for all atonement made —
For
all mankind the ransom paid.
God
loved the world; and when He gave
His
Son. It was the world to save.
And
though He knew some would not take
Of
the provision He would make,
The
foreseen choice of self-willed man
Changed
not Heaven’s universal plan.
From The
Atonement by William Blaine.
(taken from Election; W N Benson)
_____________________________________________________________________
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