Monday, 10 November 2014

Waymarks 42



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