Waymarks 42
Report of Open Air Preaching
A disability continues to prevent me spending much
time in open air preaching. The regular stands before the Gospel Meeting at New
Bradwell continue.
19th June. New Bradwell.
Facing the pub at the end of the road where our hall is situated. One young man
stood preaching, assisted by two or three visiting brethren. (I was on
holiday). The publican came out and asked the preacher if he wanted a fight. He
assured those present that he knew more of the Bible than any of them. Having
been assured that it was not the intention to “get at” his customers, but that
the site was the nearest suitable place to our hall, he calmed down and
returned to his pub. The preaching continued.
I learned of a brother who was frightened to go in the
open air to preach. (I think he preferred staying at home to watch his telly.)Well,
I am nervous every time I go out. When I first began open air preaching I was
often downright petrified. My mouth would go dry and I would stumble for words.
The very first time I went out to preach, all I could manage was a walk around
the block and straight home again. There is nothing to be ashamed of in being
frightened, but we need to remember that God
hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and love, and of a sound
mind (2 Tim. 1: 7) That is, if we do have a spirit of fear, we didn’t get
it from God. Soldiers displaying cowardice in battle were often summarily
executed. Soldiers of Christ receive the spirit of power when they enlist, so
they overcome their fears and join the conflict. But there are very few enemy
attacks in this UK war zone. It
may be that the enemy of souls finds there is not much to attack in the UK anyway so he
is busy in other war zones.
The wrong way to lead a soul to Christ.
We were returning to our airbase in Fife
after summer exercises. It was our last night before flying back and most of
the groundcrew had gone out to get drunk. Being a Christian I did not join
them. One other young man. L-, stayed behind, and when we were alone he told me
he wanted to be saved. But he wanted to wait until we were back home. I never
warned him that we might not get home —we were a few thousand miles away. The
following evening, as soon as we were in he came to me again and said he wanted
to be saved in the station church where it would be quiet and there would be an
air of peace. We went, and I struggled him through a sinners prayer. It was
very hard going. But he said he believed himself to be saved. The next day he
threw all his duty free cigarettes onto the hangar floor and there was a mad
scramble for them. His buddies were very impressed and hoped I would get a few
more people saved.
However two days later a colleague told me L- was
smoking again. Soon his sins were worse than before and the emptiness of his
profession was observed by all. I learned a lot from that experience, all be it
I had not long been saved myself. Never press for a conversion. Preach the
gospel, remind the hearer of his responsibility and the consequence of neglect,
and leave it at that.
By the Way…
When I first began along the Christian path half a
century ago, it was the practice to ask for chapter and verse for any teaching
presented to us. After a while I found certain men would tell us this was a
legalistic approach to the understanding of doctrine. Better men had gone
before us who had marked out the best course. These men were J N Darby, W
Kelly, W E Vine, Newberry, and co. No longer should we look for chapter and
verse. These men had done it all for us. They were scholars and I had arrived
among those who bow down to scholarship. (I do not despise learning; I was a
school-teacher for 30 years.). I was puzzled as to why these among whom I
sought fellowship “preferred” the RV and the J N Darby translation. The RV, the
product of Westcott and Hort, was never accepted by the Christian public. I
learnt in due course there existed an antipathy toward the Authorized Bible. It
was not the “Brethren” Bible, although almost all assemblies were established
on it.
The rationalistic approach of Brethren toward the
Bible has resulted in a deadness among us and has paved the way to apostasy.
Because of the rejection of Scripture by most public teachers, the presence of apostasy
itself is denied.
We have the classic example in 2 Thes. 2: 2,3, …be not soon shaken in mind, or be
troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the
day of Christ is at hand…..for that day
shall not come, except there come a falling away first.
So there must be apostasy before the day of Christ
arrives. This day presents a heavenly scene and must commence with the rapture
of the saints. Those alive on earth immediately prior to the rapture MUST
therefore witness at least the commencement of the great apostasy.
The critics, without authority, change the day of
Christ to the day of the Lord, doing the very thing Paul warned against in this
same verse, presenting false teaching in the name of the Apostle. The day of
the Lord presents an earthly scene, and
the falling away is then placed between the rapture and the commencement of the
day of the Lord, which may well be a long time after the rapture. So we don’t
have to worry about apostasy. I note many brethren have an “it can’t happen to
us mentality”. They believe the Brethren Movement is immune to this.
They are unaware they are in the midst of it, the
evidence being the rejection of the Authorized Bible. Whether the present
apostasy is the “great” one, or a worse yet to come before the coming again of
the Lord Jesus, we cannot tell.
Men cannot fall away after the rapture because there
will be nothing for them to fall away from. The Church will be gone. Apostate
Christendom will continue of course, but no doubt many gospel halls and
evangelical churches will remain open for business.
AV Verses Vindicated
Nehemiah 4: 23
None of us put off our clothes saving that everyone
put them off for washing.
JND
“none of us put off our garments; everyone had his weapon on his right side.”
(footnote: others [read]: “to the water”.)
NASB
“….each took his weapon to the water”.
RV
“everyone went with his weapon to the water.” (footnote: Some scholars emend
the MT reading “the waters” to “in his right hand” or “they held on the right
side”)
ESV
“each kept his weapon at his right hand”
JERUSALEM
BIBLE (Jewish) everyone brought his weapon with him, even to the water.”
NIV
“…each had his weapon, even when he went for water”. (footnote: The meaning of
the Hebrew for this clause is uncertain”.
There
are a number of versions and translations that agree with the AV. Among them
are the Bishops Bible, Geneva Bible, Newberry Bible, and also the Latin Vulgate
and RC Bibles. The RV footnote gives the
game away! It is not a matter of some Hebrew manuscripts having a different
reading —The Massoretic Text (MT) is accepted here but the scholars don’t like
it. Bear in mind that most of these scholars are unconverted men. The AV
translators had little problem with the text and the way the AV reads makes
perfect sense. The AV margin (Or, everyone
went with his weapon for water) shows that the translators were
aware of a possible alternative meaning but gave it less weight.
The
alterations to the AV made by the critics demonstrates that they do not trust
any Bible to be the inspired word of God.
Darby’s
reading implies that everyone was left-handed. They would have to be to draw
their weapon from their right side. Read Judges 3: 15,16, Ehud was a
left-handed man and had his dagger on his right thigh. It was one cubit in
length. It is not possible to draw such a weapon from the right side with the
right hand; even less so a full length sword. This is enough to show up Darby’s
ignorance. He made up his own reading.
Matthew 18: 15
Moreover if thy brother shall
trespass against thee
The
following is taken from AV Verses
Vindicated by R. smith
It is alleged that the words “against thee” should be
omitted from this verse. One reason given is that some Greek mss omit them. In
fact just two mss omit them, against the majority which keep them. These two
are the Sinaiticus (found in a rubbish bin in a Romish monastery by
Tischendorf) and the Vaticanus, (kept in the Vatican and never fully inspected
by any believer at any time in its history.) Newberry lists some of the mss
supporting 'against thee' but his list is by no means complete. JND keeps the
words without even a footnote. The RV keeps the words but has a footnote, as
also the NIV. Not even the Doauy-Rheims omits them. We have to come to the J.W.
New World Translation to find their omission.
The words are quoted by several of the so-called
Fathers long before the Sin. and Vat. were invented. They are inspired words of
Scripture. Their removal makes way for the Romish confessional box. Their
removal allows sin to be covered up, for I can go to a sinning brother, who has
sinned, not against me but against another brother, or maybe against his
neighbour and certainly against his God and if I can persuade him to stop then
no one else need know. We can sweep it under the carpet. We trust that is not
the reason why some of our dear brethren want the words wrested from Scripture.
Despite all the evidence in favour of the received
text, we read in a magazine, Truth and
Tidings: May, 2005, published on the internet - …”most of the manuscripts
from which our translations come either omit ‘against thee’ or note that it may
not have been in the original writings.” We wonder how such a writer (David
Oliver) can be so ignorant. Or is this a malicious intent to deceive?
The above comments will be published in Waymarks 42,
August 2005. You may wish to make a comment.
I received by email the following reply,
|
Dear Brother:
Thank you for your
very careful and thorough handling of the issue. If you knew our brother Oliver
well, you would not accuse him of being ignorant. Likewise, to call in question
his motive - "Is this a malicious intent to deceive" would be the last thing you would do. If I
remember correctly, Paul does warn against judging motives (1 Cor 4).
I am not writing to
defend, only to caution and to welcome helpful insights and comments without
the unnecessary innuendoes and suggestions. Our brother Oliver would be the
last to condone sin or to encourage the pathway you have warned against.
We welcome your
thoughts and appreciate your honesty and the time spent in writing.
Warmly in Him,
Sandy
Dr Higgins appears to assure us that when Mr Oliver
told his readers that most manuscripts reject “against thee” when in fact only
two popish manuscripts do, he knew what he was doing! The words “against thee”
are part of holy Scripture given by inspiration of God. It is a very serious
matter to tamper with the word of God. Mr Oliver has compounded his error with
his lie. All attacks on Scripture are malicious. They cannot be anything else.
Mr Oliver’s motives have not been questioned by me. I know not whether his
action springs out of pride, or the
desire to appear erudite, or contempt for the AV Bible which is the word of
God, or a desire to destroy the faith of many, or such.
We note that the error was not corrected in the next
issue of Truth and Tidings. Let its
readers remain misled!
Mr Oliver also attacked the virgin birth of Christ in
an earlier issue of Truth and Tidings. This was answered in Waymarks no. 28, repeated below.
A comment on this verse, Therefore the Lord himself
shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and
shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7: 14), found on the internet site Truth and
Tidings, for October 2001, reveals the inevitable fruit of textual
criticism. Readers are told that Isa.7:14 doesn’t mean what it plainly says,
that a virgin shall conceive and bear a son. The word “virgin” is clearly
understood by all to mean a pure young woman who has never known a man. But the
Truth and Tidings implication is that
the Hebrew almah is a vague word with more than one meaning. In which
case the Hebrew Bible lacks a word equating to our English virgin. almah
occurs at Gen. 24:43, Ex.2:8, Ps.68:25, Prov.30:19, S.of S.1:3, 6:8, and
Isa.7:14 only. If Isaiah meant only that a “young woman capable of bearing
children” conceived, all would reply, “some sign!”.
The Angel of the Lord told Joseph unequivocally, that
the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14
was to be fulfilled in the birth of Christ. Joseph clearly believed this.
Isaiah knew that the prophecy did not relate to himself. He never called his
son Immanuel. He did relate verse 15 to the subject of verse 14, without
allowing the possibility of double fulfillment. We have no problem with this
either. Luke tells us that the child grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled
with wisdom. (2:40). Luke
speaks of the Lord in His humanity; His growth as a child.
Truth and Tidings tells us this sign in Isaiah was for Ahaz.
It was not! Isaiah tells us it was for the whole House of David. (v.11) . To
Ahaz he says “Ask THEE (singular0 a sign.” Ahaz refused to hear it. The sign to
Ahaz would be the birth of Mahershalalhashbaz, born of Isaiah’s wife, and not a
virgin. So Isaiah turned and addressed the House of David; The Lord Himself
shall give YOU (plural) a sign. After this, in v.16, it is back to Thou
(Singular) with a prophecy in relation to Ahaz.
It is very regrettable that the crystal clear prophecy
of the virgin birth of Christ in Isaiah is now denied by those who regard
themselves as the fount of all truth.
Matthew 24: 36
But of that day and hour
knoweth no man, no, not the angels of
heaven, but my Father only.
Some modern versions, following a handful of
Alexandrian mss, interpolate “nor the son” after not the angels of heaven. The
majority of manuscripts do not have this phrase in Matthew. Neither the Son is found, correctly, in
the parallel passage, Mark 13: 32
The practice of the critics is to reject what they do
not understand, and Ehrman goes to great lengths trying to explain why the copyists
did not include /exclude both phrases. The believer does not have to understand
every word in his Bible before he judges it to be authentic. This is
rationalism. The child of God believes the word and waits for the Holy Spirit
to illumine his mind on what he reads.
Matthew is the gospel of the King. Mark is the gospel
of the Servant. J Moorman links the phrase in Mark with John 15: 15 The servant knoweth not what his lord doeth. -Early manuscripts and the Authorized Version; BFT; p.72
Luke 2: 33, 48
And Joseph and his mother
marveled at those things which were spoken of him. (v.33)
And when they saw him, they
were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with
us? Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. (v.48)
It is important to notice first that verse 33 is
Luke’s commentary, written under the inspiration of God. Verse 48 is a report
of Mary’s words, spoken at a time of deep stress, also given by inspiration of
God.
Ehrman writes concerning these verses
Joseph is called Jesus' father twice in
Luke's birth narrative (2:33,
48). In both instances scribes have modified the text to eliminate what must
have appeared incongruous with the firmly entrenched notion that although
Joseph was Mary's betrothed, he was not the father of Jesus. Thus, Luke 2:33 states that Jesus' "father
and mother began to marvel" at the things being said about him. The
majority of Greek manuscripts, however, along with a number of Old Latin,
Syriac, and Coptic witnesses, have changed the text to read "Joseph and
his mother began to marvel." The change makes perfect sense, given the
orthodox view that Joseph was in fact not Jesus' father. There can be little
doubt that in this case the majority text represents a corruption rather than
the original reading: a wide range of early and superior manuscripts
consistently give the reading that is also more difficult. The wide attestation
of the variant reading and the confluence of ancient versions in its support,
however, do show that the text had been changed relatively early in the history
of its transmission, at least in the third century and more likely in the
second—precisely during the time of the adoptionist controversies.
The doctrine of the virgin birth is to Ehrman no more
than a firmly entrenched notion. He regards it as the view that had become “popular” by the
second or third century. Therefore scribes altered the earlier manuscripts
which spoke of the “father and mother” of the Lord, to accommodate the
prevailing view. Ehrman’s views are based on the doctrine that earliest is
best. The older a manuscript, the more faithful it is. He acknowledges that the
majority of witnesses carry the words we find in the received text. He fails to
point out Tatian, one of the early fathers, also quotes the “received” text!
But all of this he writes off as a “corruption rather than the original text”.
Many sound scholars have shown why the few apparently
early texts are false. The early church rejected them. They were discarded
early on only to be rediscovered around the 19th century. The true
manuscripts were repeatedly copied as they became worn out and so quite
obviously only later copies remain available.
It is worth noting that the child Jesus corrected his
mother’s slip by replying How is it that
ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business? (v.49)
His Father is the Father in Heaven and no other. If not then there was no
Christ and no Saviour. He would not have been able to confess I am the truth. Christianity collapses
and we would be forced to conclude that God also is a figment of our
imagination and maybe we ourselves do not actually exist.
1 John 3: 1
Behold, what manner of love
the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God:
The NASB reads “See how great a love the father has
bestowed upon us, that we should be called the children of God; and such we are.”
James R White tells us the words “and such we are” are
missing from the AV Bible because , I quote,
The King James was based upon a small number
of manuscripts representing the later
form of the text, the standard Greek of the twelfth through the fifteenth
centuries. Earlier manuscripts
contain the phrase “and such we are.” So why do the later manuscripts not
contain it? Because of the kind of visual error you and I have also made many
times. — Scripture Alone; Bethany House; 2004; p.141.
White persists in this lie. The words are
missing from the majority of manuscripts. White’s “earlier” manuscripts are
five in number, all Alexandrian in character are; Alpha A B C P. Yet strangely, he informs his readers there
“are only two readings for this phrase, and one of them is original”. What he means by original he cares not tell.
Does he mean there is a manuscript in existence which has been proven to be in
the handwriting of Paul himself?
These earlier manuscripts have been
preserved simply because the early churches regarded them as spurious and threw
them out. Otherwise they would have been worn out very quickly.
1 John 3: 4
sin is the transgression of
the law.
Those opposing Calvinism have problems with this
verse. They think the AV reading supports Calvinism by its reference to the law
and that the true reading should be “sin is lawlessness”. D Dunlap in his
book, Limiting Omnipotence, p.211, quotes J N Darby; “ ‘sin is the
transgression of the law’ This is really, I must say, a wicked subjection of
the Word to theology; the word anomia is never used for ‘transgesion of the
law’ anywhere else in the English translation of the Holy Scriptures…I call it
wicked because by it a human system denies what the Word of God carefully
insists on.
It is assumed that the AV translators were all
Calvinists and wickedly perverted the word of God to support their error.
But D H Sorenson points out that
The forty seven men appointed to be
translators of the King James Version were renowned not only as scholars but as
men of God as well. Some were thorough going Anglicans [none like them
today-R.S.], some were Calvinists, some were Puritans, and one may have been an
Arminian in his theology. But they were fervent Bible believers and stood
squarely upon the cardinal, orthodox doctrines of New Testament
Christianity. – Touch not the Unclean Thing-The text Issue and Separation.
Any who have read The
Translators to the Reader and Translating for King James will appreciate the integrity of these men
and their faithfulness to the text. Not all of them were Calvinists Darby’s
words are a smear.
Darby’s theology was weak in in a number of areas. He
denied the baptism of believers by immersion for a start. He also thought
himself qualified to write his own bible. So maybe his theology which is
popular with the Brethren today is shaky on this ground also. He failed to
grasp John’s line of teaching.
Had not the translators written until
the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Rom.
5: 13 ? They were well
aware that sin existed before the giving of the law. They knew sin could not
therefore be imputed. But when the law came it put a name to sin and any sin
henceforth would have to be a transgression of that law.
Even within the context of 1 John 3 the translators
knew that sin existed before the law . They wrote in v. 8 The devil sinneth from the beginning.
John Rice, evangelist. How he got blacklisted.
Most revival efforts were concentrated in the
southland of America,
nicknamed the "Bible Belt." However, those revival were conducted
almost exclusively by Southern Baptist Convention evangelists, and not on a
year-round basis.
During the depression years of
the 1930's, charlatans using evangelism as a cloak of respectability and for a
paycheck brought true evangelism and
evangelists into degrading disrepute. Every evangelist became suspect until
proven honest, honorable and holy. Reformed theologians and pastors chilled the
spirit of evangelism nationwide. Men like Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, president of
Dallas Theological
Seminary, cataloged evangelists
as "false forces in evangelism" and charged that invitations to
accept Christ and confess Him in public services "implied salvation by
works." Evangelists were labeled "grafters,"
"racketeers" and "Elmer Gantrys." It was into this kind of
a religious climate that Dr. Rice entered full-time evangelism.
He was an ordained Southern
Baptist, trained in Convention schools. At first, invitations to conduct
campaigns came regularly. However his fundamental conscience was assailed by
the obvious unscriptural practices and teachings evidenced everywhere in his
denomination. Dr. Rice's characteristic outspoken opposition soon began to
close church door after church door. Shortly a committee of denominational
dignitaries called on him. An ultimatum was issued! Further infractions would
necessitate his being
blacklisted in the official denominational
magazine, The Baptist Standard, which, spelled in simple English, meant being
barred from Convention church pulpits!
Rather than buckle under, Dr.
Rice bolted! He could not serve Christ and denominational bosses -- and he
would not! In his characteristic, confident, in-Christ kind of spirit, Dr. Rice
asserted that if God could not open doors and could not give him places to
preach, could not provide for his family apart from the approval of
denominational leaden, then he would find another God to serve who could!
Dr. Sumner stated of that
separation with the Southern Baptists: "Following this break with the
denomination in which he was raised, saved, baptized, educated, ordained and
had served all his life, a surprising thing happened to him in his ministry.
Where he had formerly preached often to rather small congregations, now he
began to get great crowds of common people to hear him .... Where he had
previously ministered primarily to those already connected with the churches,
now he began to reach great masses of those on the outside."
For fifty years John R. Rice was
a living testimonial of the
great Bible truth -- "If God
be for us, who can be against us?" (Rom. 8:31).- taken from Higher
Praise Greatest Preachers.
The Myth of the Q Manuscript
Bible critics have been always critical to the
doctrine of divine inspiration of the word of God. They reject the possibility
of Scripture being God’s revelation to man. Thus they have to invent theories
relating to the origin of Scripture. The apparent similarity of passages in the
gospels is put down to folk-lore or the borrowing of the gospel writers from a
common source.
About 150 years ago a theory was developed that Matthew and Luke based their gospels on
Mark and a mythological document called Q. there remains not a shred of
evidence to support this view and even Westcott was sceptical of it.
Q is an utterly mythological invention, a product of
the Enlightenment. Nobody had heard of Q until the 19th Century.
When I came across references to Q in my studies half a century ago I took it
to be what it is—a rationalistic invention of the higher critics of the 19th
C. designed to destroy faith in the inspired word of God. I thought it was no
more than a fad of the 19th C. But this thing is again growing in
popularity among the scholars. We shall soon have our devout conservative Bible
teachers quoting it as an authority. You will know there is a movement in this
direction when the public men begin referring to the “Synoptic Gospels” Synoptic
means sean together, and relates to the first three gospels. From there you go
to the common source view. The believer knows the common source is the Spirit
of God and will then include John. The synopticists reject God and trust in
their own creation of fables.
The Q myth has now been trumped by Thomas L Brodie. He
tells us that there is a better source and more reliable than Q. He calls it Proto-Luke .It is based on the
Septuagint. (The Birthing of the New Testament; Sheffield Pheonix Press;
2004).He writes:
In the long term, Proto-Luke
works better [than Q]. It accounts for almost all Q texts, either directly
,indirectly (through its influence on the Mathew and canonical Luke0, or in
conjunction with Matthew’s Logia. And it accounts for far more gospel data, beginning
with Mark’s gospel. Inother words, it solves more problems than Q and does so
more comprehensively.
The modern ploughboy, particularly if he is a born
again Bible believer, will know this to be mere scholarly claptrap. The Spirit
of God gave the word which we now have in our own tongue. I only bother to
include this nonsense because in short time our eminent brethren will be
quoting it from the platforms.
It must follow that if the early gospel accounts were
produced from some yet undiscovered source, be it Q or Proto-Luke, there is no
reason why they should not be further modified as new “discoveries” are made.
Modern textual critics regard the verbal inspiration of Scripture as a
discredited theory and if there ever was such it could apply only to the
autographs. These disappeared almost as soon as the ink was dry so nobody can
be too sure about anything today. Hence theories as to the transmission of
Scripture abound.
Bart D. Ehrman has his theory. He has written about it
in his book The Orthodox Corruption of
Scripture; the Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of
Scripture; OUP;1993.
He
writes
Theological disputes,
specifically disputes over Christology, prompted Christian scribes to alter the
words of Scripture in order to make them more serviceable for the polemical
task. Scribes modified their manuscripts to make them more patently “orthodox”
and less susceptible to “abuse” by the opponents of orthodoxy.
The Orthodox in early church history were those who
predominated against the Heretical. Ehrman
insists that it is not a matter of which party was right; he does not
wish to make a judgment. It is just that the stronger side were officially the
Orthodox. So they changed the Scriptures to accommodate their theology. Thus
they produced the Byzantine text so-called to which our AV Bible is so closely
related. We conclude therefore that they must be the heretical who in our day
are so furiously changing the text back —to what we call the Alexandrian text.
These “heretics” which include Metzger, Aland, those mentioned above, and many
others, are now the Orthodox and born again Bible believers are the heretics.
But saved scribes would never have altered the text.
They believed in the verbal inspiration of Scripture and knew from the
beginning what was inspired and what not because the apostles knew and would
have taught them thus. (2 Peter 3: 16) Saved men and women do NOT set out to
deceive. Those first Christian copyists had a deep reverence for the word of
God and believed every jot and tittle to be given of God. There is no way they
would have thought to improve on what God had given.
It would not be feasible for one scribe to make his
alteration and this to be found in all the copies of the “Orthodox”! The vast
majority of the manuscripts of the “Orthodox” agree with each other. Only a few
such as the Vaticanus and the Siniaticus show themselves to be seriously
mutilated. The only way universal agreement could have been obtained (if God
had not given the word in the first place) would be by the collusion of all
copyists. This is more or less what Westcott and Hort thought had happened when
they invented their recension theory —a
theory which was very quickly discredited.
Believers would not consider altering the text because
they believe God’s word was settled in heaven. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. (Ps.119: 89).
Believers seek to continue in the faith grounded and settled, (Col.1: 23) and
there is nothing more unsettling to faith than to be told that the Bible is
defective in so many places, so much of it having been changed.
Believers do not accept an evolving Bible but this is
the warp and woof of textual criticism. Ehrman begins his book with these
words,
The one level I will be
concerned with in the present study involves manuscripts of the evolving
Christian Scriptures—what would eventually be called the New Testament.
Ehrman, as far as I can determine, has never made a
claim to being saved. Not many Textual Critics are saved. A settled definitive
Bible is a fundamental to the faith. Without it faith cannot exist. His bible
may be freely altered, as all modern versions are. We are now getting updates
of updates.
Ehrman mentions many alleged scribal interpolations.
Some of these have been dealt within past issues of Waymarks. There is not one interpolation in my Bible.
Here is one evidence out of many listed by Ehrman
where he believes the “orthodox” corrupted the text. It is in relation to the
virgin birth of Christ. See my comments above, AV Verses Vindicated, Lk. 2:
33,48.
Ps.11:3 If the
foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?
The foundation of our faith is settled in the word of
God. Eph. 2: 20 tells believers that they are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ
himself being the chief corner stone.
If harm is to be done to the cause of Christ and to His people, Satan must do
it through attacks upon the foundations. The Scriptures must be destroyed.
This, the believer knows, is an impossibility for the word of God endureth for
ever. But believers must be urged to question its authenticity—“hath God said?”
was Satan’s first lie, right back in the Garden of Eden.
Satan has many apostate scholars in his employ who
will impugn the word of God, but he knows believers will take little notice of
them so he must use men who use the Conservative⁄ Fundamental label. He uses
good, well taught Bible preachers.
PREACHING THE GOSPEL
An
answer to M.S. Stavely; The Greatness of the Gospel; Precious Seed, May/July 1996;
p.69. (This article was first published in Waymarks No. 5
August 1996. Gospel preaching has deteriorated very much more in
the last nine years).
There is a view
being presented, and it is by no means new; I quote from M S Staveley, "that
more souls are saved by the presentation of positive blessing in grace and
mercy than by dire warnings of eternal punishment." So judgment and hell
if mentioned at all, should be only lightly touched upon. I am well aware that
one is black-listed from most gospel halls if hell is more than lightly touched
upon and that all we hear today is "positive" preaching so I ask why
then are our gospel halls empty? If the "positive" preachers have got
it right, why do the folk not come flocking in? The reason must be plainly that
the blessings of the gospel have no appeal to the sinner in his pursuit of the
pleasures of sin. Until he is awakened to his soul's need and his dire plight
he will not be impressed with the glories of Christ and telling him of them is
casting pearls before swine.
The preacher who is more concerned with soul-winning
than having his diary full will preach according to the Scriptures and will
obey the Lord's command and preach repentance (Lk.24:47). That requires more
than the occasional allusion to it. There is nothing negative in that. That is
real positive preaching. The message must be designed to awaken feelings of
guilt leading to conviction of sin and repentance toward God. If we are to
teach that men need to be saved, how can we do that without first setting out
as plainly as possible that which they are to be saved from? It is not a
subject to be lightly touched upon and hurried over. That is unfaithfulness to
Christ.
The notion that the apostles did not preach judgment
to come is false. We note Peter's preaching on the day of Pentecost. The people
were pronounced guilty. Him,....ye have taken, and by wicked hands have
crucified and slain.(Acts2:23). They were then warned that He would return to
make His foes His footstool. They came under conviction of sin, realising
themselves guilty before God and then were told, Repent. They were told nothing
about the blessings of the Christian faith. They needed to save themselves from
the crooked generation of which they were members. Why? Because that wicked
generation, like all generations, was under the judgment of God. So, because
they repented they gladly received his word.
The next gospel message is found in Acts 3.
The people were told, ye denied
the Holy One and the Just and desired a
murderer to be granted unto you;
And killed the Prince of life.......Repent ye
therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be
blotted out.....It shall come to pass, that every soul.
which will
not hear that prophet [Christ], shall be destroyed from among the people.
Peter did not wait to see what the response might be to his preaching on this
occasion but told the people bluntly,
"Repent and be converted or be destroyed!"
Acts 10. Even devout Cornelius is informed He
commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was
ordained to be the Judge of quick and dead. To him give all the prophets
witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him (Judge here, not
Saviour) shall receive remission of sins. Did Cornelius really need to be told
that? Not according to our own preachers of the modern smooth cross.
Acts 13 Paul, preaching the death, burial and resurrection
of Christ did not wait for a response before saying this to his audience Beware
therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets; Behold,
ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work
which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you. (vv.40,41
)
Acts 17 On Mars Hill, Paul preached that God now
commandeth all men every where to repent; and the reason why it is essential
urgent, because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world
in righteousness... So again it is repent or be judged.
Acts 20 / have kept back nothing (would to God our
brethren could say the same) ...Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks,
repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. And that is the
very essence of the gospel.
Acts 24 Paul before Felix, reasoned of righteousness,
temperance, and judgment to come causing Felix to tremble. Our modern preachers
would not want people trembling in their pews. That is why they will not preach
in the apostolic tradition.
Acts 26 Paul before Agrippa, reminds him that his
preaching to all men was that they should repent and turn to God, and do works
meet for repentance. So why should our preaching be different?
It is strange that some should think that the
preaching of judgment is hardly mentioned in the book of Acts!
IF WE DO NOT WARN
OF JUDGMENT TO COME, MEN WILL NOT REPENT. IF MEN
DO NOT REPENT, THEY WILL PERISH FOR EVER IN THE UNQUENCHABLE FLAMES
OF HELL..
There are those amongst us who know this to be true
but do not want it to be made known publicly. They are enemies of the cross of
Christ.
Gospel preaching must be based on the understanding
that the human race is in a state of total depravity and all men are aleniated
from God by wicked works, and are dead in trespasses and sins. Therefore all
the world is guilty before Cod. We must preach in order that men, brought under
conviction of sin by the Holy Spirit, will come weeping to the foot of the
cross, pleading for mercy and there discovering a forgiving, pardoning
Saviour-God. This, we say again, is what the gospel is about. Subsequently the
converted soul will learn the blessings of salvation. .
Some Facts about John Burgon
1. Burgon defended the Bible against
rationalism. He stood for the integrity of the Word of God as the church
had received it.
2. Burgon stood fast against Dr. Temple, a bishop in his
Anglican Church. Temple
was a writer of apostate ideas for Essays and Reviews. When Burgon was
fifty-seven years of age, he stood against Temple. Affection for the man was not
allowed to prevail where the maintenance of the faith was concerned. 3. Burgon battled against the Unitarian, Dr. Vance Smith, of the 1881 English Revised Version Committee of the Bible. Smith's views were intolerable. Burgon even wrote Bishop Ellicott, the Chairman, and suggested that he get that man off the revision committee or get off himself! Burgon said,
"You have knowingly associated yourself with one who has openly denied the Eternal Godhead of our Lord and the inspiration of the Word."
4. Burgon protested the removal of the Athanasian Creed as the theological basis for his church.
5. Burgon opposed Dean Stanley, who wanted to be a teacher at Oxford, because he was a rationalist and a Latitudinarian. A Latitudinarian is one who seeks to destroy revealed truth.
6. Burgon opposed the Romanizing of the Anglican church. He was against the apostasy of his own church and against those who were seeking to have it adopt doctrines and practices of Roman Catholicism.
7. Burgon opposed one of his church's publications on prophecy because the author believed that prophecy by Biblical writers (defined as knowledge of events before they happened) was impossible.
8. Burgon opposed Oxford University's test bill. The University was trying to remove the Church of England's Thirty-Nine Articles of Faith as a test for every student. Only the divinity students had to agree to it not the others.
9. Burgon was against the Darwinian theory of evolution.
10. Burgon did not approve of the spiritualization of Genesis by Professor Prichard who wrote that the Genesis creation was only a "poem." Burgon contended that Genesis was history in the strictest sense.
11. Burgon was against the New Reformation that attempted to change theology and Biblical interpretation.
“The Bible’s Pedigree”
The Bible is, we plainly see;
Then it must have a pedigree.
It either is a Book divine,
Or men to make it did combine.
Suppose the latter, then they must
Either be wicked men or just;
Take either case and you will see
A proof of its divinity.
If wicked men composed this Book,
Surely their senses they forsook;
For they the righteous man defend,
And curse the bad man from end to end.
If righteous, then they change their name,
For they the authorship disclaim,
And often say, “Thus saith the Lord,”
And testify, “It is His word.”
If it be not they tell a lie
And all their righteousness deny.
Anon
Waymarks
is published quarterly. 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 who
love Christ but it is not love to Christ to condone error or to ignore it.
Waymarks is a personal exercise and is sent out free
of charge. It may be freely copied without alteration and acknowledgements
should be made. All articles are mine unless otherwise stated.
Please
address all correspondence to Ron
Smith
Newbury Close
Luton
Beds
LU4
9QJ
U K
Email: waymarks@ntlworld.com
No comments:
Post a Comment