Waymarks 45
Report of Open Air Preaching
15th March
LUTON Town Centre. It was very cold but I
noticed one or two standing around listening. There are always one or two
Muslims listening, so the Muslims in Luton do
hear the gospel and it is not a watered down gospel in order to appease them. Luton was once a base for IRA thugs and murderers, with
its easy access and quick departure by motorway, air, mainline rail, and a good
route to the ferries. More recently it became a base for Islamic butchers. So
pray for these who hear the gospel.
There
was further opportunity to preach inside the Arndale Centre. On my way back to
the car park I met Peter. I hadn’t seen him for two years. He usually spends
his days sitting in the Arndale, though he has a flat just nearby. He asked me
if I had seen the Science programme on the “Telly”. I reminded him that being a
Christian, there is no telly in my house. There never has been. But I should
have seen this programme, he insisted. It showed how the earth was formed out
of the sun billions of years ago.
I
reminded him again that the TV industry is run by perverted filthy men whose
main aim is to pollute your mind and damn your soul. All involved in this scab
on the human race are evil godless men.
But
Peter felt they had supplied good evidence of evolution.
I now
had a wider audience.
So
the gospel was preached from Genesis 1: 1. A denial of the Creator God puts a
soul in the depths of hell. (I thought I heard applause from the Muslim
contingent). There can be no evolutionist in heaven, and this includes those ensnared
by Theistic Evolution and the Gap Theory.
Peter
claimed he had a simple faith. He professed faith in Christ in the street not
far from where we sat, when I preached to him 20 years ago. His wife had not
long walked out on him. Sadly he is easily swayed but I think I left him, and
maybe a few others nearby, a convicted Creationist.
22nd March LUTON
T C. I was handed a tract as soon as I arrived. The tract was reasonably sound
but I couldn’t understand a word the woman was saying.
Then
a man wanted to know if I had been here before. I replied that I was here last
Wednesday. He appeared a little irritated by my reply, so he asked again, had I
been here as someone else. I assured him that I always came as myself. At this
he got down to his business. I needed to know that the Lord had been
reincarnated. I do not take kindly to this kind of blasphemous nonsense so I
asked him if he suffered from some mental disorder. At this he went into a rage
right there on the pavement, confirming my suspicions that he was indeed
mentally deranged. With much finger jabbing he told me what would be my latter
end.
If
a man shows any concern for his soul and any respect for the word of God, I am
quite prepared to discuss the gospel with him. But if a man shows from the
beginning his contempt for Christ I will not be gentle with him. I take note of
how the Lord spoke to the Pharisees. There was never any attempt to win them
with kindness or to “build bridges”.
29th March LUTON
T C. S─ was waiting for me. He showed me
some tracts he had with him. I had given him the address of the supplier some
years ago and he was still getting tracts from this source. I began preaching
and S─ went and sat on a bench nearby. After a few minutes a young Nigerian
approached me. He seemed so much in earnest that I stopped preaching. He had
noted my disability and wanted to assure me that I should have instant healing.
He quoted one or two verses and I asked him if he knew 2 Timothy 4: 20, Trophimus have I left at
Miletum sick. He hadn’t come across
the verse. The question for this young man was why did not the apostle heal
him? If he had the gift of healing this was callousness on the part of the
apostle. If he had not the gift then it is arrogance and deception for men
today to pretend they have the gift denied to the apostle himself.
The
young man turned and walked away. Immediately S─, who holds to Pentecostalist
lies went after him and engaged him in conversation. Such is the work of the enemy
of souls.
During
all this time I was kept under observation (I am not becoming paranoic!). I
think they were two plain clothes detectives. They arrived a few minutes after
I began preaching and left when I left. S─ gave them each a tract which they read
and then carefully folded and put in their pockets.
30th March DUNSTABLE Ashton Square. There are not many people around, it being a
non-market day. But a group of noisy folk arrived, three young women with
push-chairs, and one youth also with push-chair. They shouted abuse but I
continued preaching for a while. Heckling assures me that folk are listening
and know what I am saying. I stopped and sat down on the wall of the Methodist Church immediately behind me. A woman
came out of the Cancer Research shop and told me not to take any notice of
those ill-mannered yobs, but urged me to continue preaching! It isn’t all
opposition in Dunstable.
2nd April NEW
BRADWELL. By the memorial. We had just finished preaching when a woman came out
of a house and began to shout at us. She raised the strangest objection. “This
is Sunday, a day of rest.” This was followed by a shouted obscenity. We
preached her again five weeks later but the shop is now vacant with a To Let
sign outside.
AV Verses Vindicated
Amos 3: 3
Can
two walk together except they be agreed?
Some
modern versions add “...to meet with each other” or similar words. The first
mention of “together”, yakh’-ad is
in Gen. 13: 6, the land was not able to bear them that they might dwell
together. The meaning is being with
each other, and not moving towards each other as modern versions teach. This
latter produces a false idea that distance (from God, or my brother) does not
matter as long as the intention is to meet up on some common ground. It is
based on Strong’s definition that the word carries an implication to meet.
Rather,
if there is to be continuing unity there has to be agreement on the course. If
there is disagreement on fundamentals there can
be no united testimony.
In
Amos the two are God and Israel. Israel should have been in
communion with her God but she was in disagreement because of her iniquities
and so the walk together was disrupted.
John 7: 39
(....for
the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet
glorified.)
Clarke
writes in his commentary, “Δεδομενον, “given” is added by the Codex
Vaticanus,(B) the Syriac, all the Persic, later Syriac with an asterisk, three
copies of the Slavonic, Vulgate, and all the Itala but three; and several of
the primitive fathers. The word seems necessary to the completion of the
sense.”
To
which last sentiment we concur.
The
AV translators were more faithful in that they put given in italics.
Italics in the AV are to show which English words have been necessarily added
to make sense of the Hebrew/Greek reading.
The
pedant, J N Darby, not finding given in the Greek, leaves the word out
of his translation. so he writes “the Spirit was not yet,” leaving his
readers to assume the Holy Ghost did not exist at that time.
Galatians 4: 4
God
sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.
A
few modern versions have “born of a woman, born under law”. Although there are 8000 changes made in the
Greek manuscripts, this verse stands firm in all. Every known Greek manuscript
has ginomai (=made). The change to “born” must be seen for what it is ─a
direct attack on the virgin birth.
Whoever
heard of a mortal man who was not born of a woman? This verse tells us of One
who was made without the assistance of man.
The
AV translators were well aware of the difference between made and born. We have
only to go down to v.29 and we read he that was born after the flesh
persecuted him that was born after the Spirit. The Greek word for
born is here gennao which emphasises the vital distinction made in v.4.
Where
natural birth is concerned we read of John the Baptist in Mtt.11:11, Among
them that are born (gennetos) of women there has not risen a
greater.
We
note that not even Darby had “born” in Gal.4: 4. He wrote “come of a woman”. We
also note that the Douay Version retains “made”.
If
ginomai may be translated born then a blasphemy would be introduced at
Galatians 3: 13, Christ.... being made (ginomai) a curse. (Born a curse)
We
end with a quote from Gill’s commentary:
"made", not created as
Adam was; nor begotten by man, as men in common are; nor is he said to be born,
though he truly was, but "made"; which word the Holy Ghost chooses,
to express the mighty power of God, in his mysterious incarnation, wonderful
conception, and birth. ─Gill
“Gap”
theory denies the gospel.
Gappists can hardly be Christian. By suggesting
a gap of perhaps millions of years exists between Genesis 1: 1 and 1: 2 is to
pander to the evolutionists. Some of our brethren have taught and are still
teaching that there was a pre-Adamic race that brought sin into the world,
causing it to become chaotic. Therefore God had to start again. They deny the
Scripture by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin Romans 5:
12.
The one man was Adam. Before
him there was no man and no death. The gappists deny this Scripture but on it
the gospel stands, and the whole of Paul’s presentation in ch. 5 collapses. (By
one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall
many be made righteous.) If there were not the first man sinning, then
there was no need for a second Man, the Lord from heaven. It seems one can
choose one’s own doctrines today. The important thing is not Truth, but getting
on with each other. So these doctrines of devils are tolerated among us. At all
costs, and at the expense of truth we must avoid the schisms of the early
Brethren in the Darby days. ─or so it seems.
My notes concerning Six Marks of a regenerate soul in John’s 1st Epistle
These
are evidences in which a true believer persists. They are not merely
occasional, but the occasional lapse does not indicate that one is not saved.
(If we sin we have an advocate with the Father.)
1.Does righteousness
Ye know that every one
that doeth righteousness is born of Him. 2: 29. 3: 37
Unbelievers cannot therefore
do righteousness however noble and kind they may appear. The believer’s actions
in righteousness display the quality that pertains to Christ. Righteous living
is the offspring of the new nature.
2. Does not practice
sin
Whosoever is born of God
doth not commit sin 3 9 and cf 2: 1
&5: 18
This is the converse of our
first point. Note that the verses do not teach that it is our new nature that
does not sin. It is the person possessing a new nature who does not practice
sin.
3. Loves
Everyone that loveth is born of God 4: 7 (3: 14, 19, 4: 12)
Again, unbelievers cannot
love each other. This is agape type of love, undemanding and self
sacrificing. Unbelievers are always full of hate. See Paul’s testimony, hateful
and hating one another. Titus 3: 3. They may show some natural affection
from time to time, but agape-love belongs solely the born again soul.
4. Overcomes
Whatsoever is born of God
overcometh the world 5: 4
The born again soul subdues
the world and has victory over it. He is not forever at the whim of every
passing fad. He is not given to the fashions of this world. He is not a slave
to worldly pursuits and pleasures. His ability to live victoriously is proof of
regeneration.
He who is not an overcomer is
without life. Unconverted. See also 2:
15, If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in
him.
5. Keeps himself
He that is begotten of God
keepeth himself 5: 18
The believer diligently
maintains a watch over himself in relation to the word of God. He guards
himself against the risk of sinning. Satan cannot touch him while this guard is
kept. His whispered lies fall on deaf ears. The shield of faith gives
protection against the evil one.
6. Believes Jesus is
Christ
Whosoever believeth that
Jesus is the Christ is born of God.
The person who believes that
the One known as Jesus, whose life is revealed in the Gospels, is the Anointed
One of God, that is, God’s only begotten Son, the promised Saviour of the
world, is born again.
Plainly one must reach an age
of understanding to take this in and act upon it.
These verses do not teach
sinless perfection.
And Six marks of the unregenerate.
These are characteristics of
the ungodly.
Loves the world 2: 15
Denies the Son 2: 23
Practices sin 3: 6
Hates his brother 3:
14
Ignores God’s servants 4: 6
Fearful 4: 18
My Notes on Sheol/Hades
Sheol
The
relation between sheol and hades is established in Acts 2: 27
where Peter quotes Psalm 16: 10.
These two verses teach us that sheol and hades are identical. The
former is the Hebrew word frequently, but not always, translated hell, and the
later is the usual Greek word for hell.
Considering
sheol first, the first reference is,
Genesis
37: 35 I will go down into the grave (sheol) unto my son. Jacob
spoke these words, thinking Joseph was dead. Later Jacob also said then
shall ye bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave. (42: 38). That
was his expectation and he repeated it several times. It was a dismal outlook
and links the physical grave with hell. This does not mean that Jacob actually
went down into hell, only he thought he would.
Our
next reference to consider is,
Numbers
16: 30 But if the LORD
make a new thing and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them (Korah and
his evil followes) up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go
down quick into the pit (sheol); then ye shall understand that these men
have provoked the LORD.
It
must be understood that this was a supernatural occurrence, the evidence of
divine judgment.
A
hole appearing in the ground into which a few men fall alive is no proof of
God’s anger. It might have been a natural disaster with no fault attached to
the victim. But these men descended living into hell itself. The pit is a term
for hell. We might note at this point that there is no indication here of hell
being compartmental. We’ll note the strange teaching that hell has an upstairs
and a downstairs next.
The
third reference for us is,
Deuteronomy
32: 22 For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest
hell (sheol).On the strength of one word, lowest, a doctrine of a
compartmental hell is built. So we read,
Sheol is reached by going down. It was the common
destiny of all the deceased. Yet there are indications that within the overall
realm of Sheol there was diversity of conditions for the righteous as opposed
to the wicked dead. The fire of God’s anger is linked with the “lowest Sheol”,
Deut.32: 22. ─Samuel J McBride; The
Glory of His Grace; Ch.13, Eternal Punishment, p.177; An Assembly
Testimony Publication; 2006.
Scofield taught the two compartment theory. An
upper chamber for the righteous dead and a lower for the ungodly. But here it
is the lowest, implying more than two regions! However, “unto” may be
translated, as far as, throughout the whole of, to the very depths of, etc..,
which is the sense in this verse. One Jewish theory is there are four
compartments.
There
is no verse that teaches sheol to be the common destiny of all the
deceased. OT saints expected to go to heaven. See Amos 9: 2, It is UP to heaven
and DOWN to hell. This was David’s expectation, to go up, so unlike Jacob’s. God
will redeem my soul from the power of the grave (sheol), for he shall
receive me Psalm 49: 15, Being redeemed from the power of the grave meant
it could not claim him for hell. Psalm 139:8 If I ascend up to heaven thou
art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. When
David said Thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell, Psalm 86:
13, he did not imply that he wasn’t delivered from the highest hell. There is
not a whisper of a verse that teaches any such thing. He would not be found in
hell, even to its lowest depths.
David
tells us in Psalm 49: 14 concerning the ungodly, Like sheep they are laid in
the grave (sheol); death shall feed on them. But....
No
godly, saved person ever descended into hell nor ever will. Psalm 9: 17 assures
us, the wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that
forget God. If one solitary
righteous soul should enter hell, this verse becomes meaningless. It would be a
lie. This is enough to tell us Christ NEVER descended into hell. This is a
popish lie.
Hell
is for evildoers. Let them (the wicked) go down quick into hell (sheol:
for wickedness is in their dwellings, and among them. As for me, I will
call upon God; and the LORD shall save me. Psalm 55: 15,16.
Again,
I cast him(Pharoah) down to hell (sheol) with them that
descend into the pit. Ezekiel 31: 16. Pharoah was not cast into the lwest
hell. It was just hell. The w hole of hell is a fearful place. Jealousy is cruel as the grave (sheol).Song
of Sol. 8:6. It is a hard cruel place. There is no mercy there. The implication
is the grave is associated with the body of the unconverted dead whose soul has
gone on to hell.
Hades
There
are only 11 references to hades in the New Testament. It is the Greek
form of sheol in the Old Testament. The word is consistently translated
hell apart from 1 Cor. 15: 55 (see under Grave below). It is therefore
the same place, continuing unchanged. The resurrection of Christ did not release
any from it.
The
Lord was never there. Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell. Acts 2: 27. His soul was not abandoned
into hell no not for one second. His soul was not left in hell v.31.
Only the wicked are turned into hell.
It
is a place and not a condition. And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in
torments. Luke 16: 23. This rich man had no doubt been orthodox in his
religion, believing in God and the Scriptures. But he found himself in hell
because in his life he had no time for God.
Hell
(hades) is temporary. Its cessation is described in Rev. 20: 13,14. Death
(body) and hell (soul) delivered up the dead which were in them. Death
and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This takes place at the Great
White Throne judgment at the end of time. This is for all unbelievers
throughout time.
Gehenna
geenna
is translated hell in the New
Testament, in eight places. The first ref. is Matt. 5: 22, whosoever shall
say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. See also,
Matt. 10: 28, fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
It
becomes clear that this hell is not synonymous with hade/hell. We understand that the unregenerate soul is
cast into hades, but the body must go to the grave. In geenna/hell,
body and soul are together.
Gehenna,
a valley west and south of Jerusalem,
which as the site of fire worship from the time of Ahaz, was desecrated by
Josiah and became a dumping place for the offal of the city. Later the name was
used as a symbol of the place of future punishment. Apart from the Lord’s
references to it only James uses the word.
In
Hebrew “Valley of
Hinnom” was where the
Jews offered their children to Moloch. (2 Kings 23: 10, Jeremiah 7: 31, 19: 2-6). The ever burning fires
were a picture of everlasting punishment.
The
Lord’s application shows Gehenna as not synonymous with hades, but with
the Lake of Fire. (Rev. 20)
People
at that time would understand what the Lord meant by the danger of hell-fire.
Plainly there was a belief in the punishment of everlasting fire before Revelation,
and the whole of the New Testament, was written.
The Grave
There are five words in the Old Testament translated grave, or burial place.
The usual words for a physical grave are qeber qibrah, give me a possession of a burial place Genesis 23: 4. These occur 67 times and are sometimes translated, sepulchre or grave.
sheol
is the usual word for the place of
the wicked departed. It may be translated grave, (see my comments above) or pit
or hell. The context makes the meaning plain. Those buried in the sheolgrave,
have by implication have gone to hell.
The
other words for grave are:
b’gee
Job 30: 24(grave)
k’voo-rah Genesis 47: 30 burying place)
shah’ghath Job 9: 31
(ditch/pit/grave), Psalm 49: 9 (corruption), Psalm 94: 13 (pit).
In the New Testament, the grave as a burial place
translates mnemeion . But in 1Cor. 15: 55 we find hades translated “grave”. Bible believers know this was not a mistake
on the part of the translators. O death, where is thy sting? O grave (hades)
, where is thy victory? The quote is from Hosea 13: 14 where sheol is
translated as “grave”. This again emphasises the strong link between the
physical grave and hell. The natural course is death and burial. Hell swallows
up its prey. But what a glorious prospect for the believer. The Rapture will
change everything. Death has lost its sting and the grave cannot secure a
believer in hell. Never for one moment can it be.
Paradise
There is no Scripture in the OT or the NT that teaches Paradise to be a compartment of sheol.
The
word appears three times in the New
Testament, Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise.
Luke 23: 43. He was caught up into Paradise 2 Cor.12: 4. Him that
overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the Paradise of God. Rev. 2: 7.
The
Lord never gave any teaching on the subject.
Paradise is not mentioned in the OT. However, garden is translated Paradise in the Septuagint (Genesis 2: 8). The Septuagint
is accepted even by its admirers as a very defective translation.
When
the Lord led captivity captive He did not transfer Paradise
from sheol to heaven. The captivity spoken of in Ephesians 4: 8 is the
power of sin Satan, the world and the grave. The victorious return of Christ to
heaven broke the bondage of all these.
Dr Roy Livesey’s Deception.
Dr
Livesey has written a thesis, 70pp A4,spiral bound, titled The King James
Bible The Reliable Version on English and the “King James Only” Deception from America;
first published 1993, reprinted 2006 with a new preface.
In
his book Livesey uses one or two extremist personalities in an attempt to prove
the AV Bible defective. He does not show in the book itself that the AV is
defective apart from three verses which he appears not to understand.
His
argument is that people are being deceived into a false perfectionist view of
the AV Bible because two people in particular have exaggerated “the merits of
the reliable translation, found in the AV”. The two people are Dr Ruckman and
Mrs Riplinger. Also Chick and Otis Fuller come in for a wigging.
Presenting
Ruckman as the father of AV-onlyism is a wicked deceit, designed to harm Bible
believers. I believed my Bible was perfect the day I got saved. No human being
taught me this. I did not come from a Christian background.
The
implication is that the translation of the AV is less than perfect but the AV
Bible is nevertheless reliable. (Actually Livesey claims that the AV is but the
most reliable version i.e. it is the best of a bad bunch.)
Livesey,
in line with most reformists, believes that God is either incapable or
unwilling to give His people a perfect Bible. Livesey believes in common with
most “scholars” that inspiration died with the first manuscripts. Therefore
there is no inspired Bible today.
I
have space here only to consider the three passages that Livesey considers
prove the defectiveness of the AV.
1.
2 Ki. 8: 26 and 2 Chron. 22: 2.
The
first verse, according to Livesey, tells us Ahaziah was 22 when he began to
reign, and the second verse tells us he was 42. This, we are told is a copyists
error. “now none of the original documents in our possession helps us at all,
so that it is evidently due to an error of a very early copyist ....[which] has
been perpetuated down to the present day.”
This
is a very serious charge against the integrity of God Who had promised, The
word of the Lord endureth for ever. Livesey denies this. His bible cannot
be infallible.
If
a man tells me we have no infallible Bible, I strongly suspect he has no
eternal life.
The Bible critics love
these verses as they seem (to them) to be a plain contradiction. The reason for
this contradiction (they say) is that some careless scribe made the error,
writing forty two instead of twenty two in 2 Chronicles.
“This is very strange
because most of the alterations in the manuscripts are made by scribes
correcting earlier errors (so they tell us). But they missed this one. So one
scribe got it wrong and for the next few millenia it was accepted as a known
error that nobody knew how to deal with until the NIV came along and changed it
without so much as a footnote to let you know that the word of God had been
altered.
There was no
possibility of a scribal error. Those who think so deny the verbal inspiration
of Scripture. The suggestion of scribal error is made out of ignorance because
the Jews and the Masoretes took a most exquisite care in copying the
manuscripts. Any mistake would have been instantly noted and the whole page
destroyed and rewritten. The same care was taken with the New Testament
documents.
The believer accepts
the word of God as it stands. He may not always understand it and may not
always have a slick answer to explain away difficulties. But he does believe
it. We do not have to have an “answer” in order to believe what we read on the
holy page. We believe it and then wait for the Holy Spirit to teach us.
But the difficulty is
not so great with these verses. Here is one very simple explanation. The
Chronicler is obviously writing from a different viewpoint to that of the
writer of the book of Kings.
In 2 Kings 8:26
Ahaziah was anointed king at the age of twenty two but because of continuing
conflict he was not able to occupy the throne until he was forty two. And then
it was necessary for the inhabitants of Jerusalem
to intervene. A reason for this is given by Bullinger in his Companion Bible:-
Forty and two years
old = a son of forty-two years: i.e. of the house of Omri, on account of his
connection with it through his mother (832-790=42). In 2 Kings 8:26 Ahaziah¡¦s actual age
(twenty-two years) is given when he began to reign (790) during the two years
of his father¡¦s disease. His father, Jehoram, was thirty-two when he began to
reign with Jehoshaphat, two years before the latter¡¦s death (2 Kings 8:16). This was in 796. Jehoram
therefore was born in 828. Ahaziah, his son, being twenty-two when he began his
co-regency, was therefore born in 812; his father being sixteen years old.
Some like to tell us
that there were two Ahaziahs, uncle and nephew, and that sometimes close
relatives are counted as having the same parentage.
It has also been
pointed out that Ahaziah is sometimes referred to as Azariah and that 2
Chron.21:2 tells us of two Azariahs, both sons of Jehoshaphat. Bullinger¡¦s
explanation seems the most likely. In any case we know that the Bible is true.”─AV
Verses Vindicated; R Smith.
2. Psalm 12: 5-7,
Livesey tells us, does not refer to the
providential preservation of Scripture. He goes to great pains attempting to
show that “them” in v.12 refers to the upright people and not to the words of
the Lord. Infallibility of Scripture is denied, and now divine preservation of
Scripture is denied.
Incidentally in
copying these three verses Livesey made seven errors showing his careless
approach to the word of God. Yet he boasts of “a typically careless interpretation
of Scripture by King James Only followers”
3 Daniel 9: 27.
He shall confirm the covenant. This is
a correct reading, Livesey informs us. But here he points out that even when it
is correct, if one is a KJV-onlyer it will lead one into error. “the need is to
recognise that the standard is to be found only [my italics] in the
original Hebrew and Greek.”
No infallibilty, no
preservation, and not even a standard English Bible, or any wholly reliable
bible.
Livesey, being an
A-millenialist, thinks the covenant mentioned is the “greatest of all covenants
which Christ came to fulfil” He likes to quote from Gill, and had he done so
here, we would read, “[This] is not to be understood of the Messiah’s
confirming the covenant of grace with many....for this is not for one week
only.
Livesey attributes the
role of Antichrist to the Lord Jesus Christ. This shows the blasphemy of
A-millenialism. But beware he insinuates, being tied to the AV can turn one
into a dispensationalist.
.
Chiropractic
Chiropractic
is the brain-child of D D Palmer. Palmer was a student of magic and
metaphysics. He was also a practicing Spiritist, Occultist, and a Freemason.
In
1911 he wrote,
I occupy in chiropractic a similar position as did Mrs
Eddy in Christian Science. Mrs Eddy claimed to receive her ideas from then [sic]
other world and so do I. She founded thereon a religion, so may I. I am THE
ONLY ONE IN CHIROPRACTIC WHO CAN DO SO.
Ye [sic], Old Dad always has something new to
give to his followers. I have much new written for another edition, when this
one is sold.
.....we will have to build a boat similar to Christian
Science and hoist a religious flag. I have received chiropractic from the other
world, similar as did Mrs Eddy, Martin Luther and other [sic] who have
founded religions. I am the fountain head.
─quackfiles.com,
I
read this letter also on the website of J C Keating Phd., a prominent
Chiropractor.
Chiropractors
claim to reduce or correct subluxations. A subluxation, they claim, is
when one or more spinal bones move out of position. Despite their claims there
is no scientific evidence that such a state exists.
Palmer
claimed that misaligned bones (subluxations) interfered with the body’s
expression of “Innate Intelligence” –the “Soul, Spirit, or Spark of Life2 that
controlled the healing process.
There
have been a number of patients suffering a stroke within 24 hours of neck
manipulation by a Chiropractor. A number of court cases are in progress in the USA.
Believers
who submit to Chiropractic may be unaware of its occult background and the
spiritual damage that may ensue. The argument that if it works it must be all
right is a very dangerous one. One can argue that black magic, ju-jitsu,
romanism etc work so why not follow them? Submission may weaken faith in God.
Christians
need to think carefully about what they
submit to in every realm, whether it be spititual, medical, educational,
musical, social, etc. Many of these contain pitfalls and dangers for the
believer. It is unwise to suggest that there is no harm in it. Behind the
systems of this world evil spirits operate. Not to believe this is to reject
Scripture. We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against
principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this
world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Eph. 6: 2
Therefore we watch and pray. And we test the spirits.
Don’t be a Dhimmi
“A dhimmi
(also zimmi, Arabic ذمي, usually translated as "protected", plural: ahl
al-dhimma) is a non-Muslim subject of a state governed in accordance with sharia—
Islamic law. The word dhimmi is an adjective derived from the noun
"dhimma", which means "tutelage" and denotes the
legal relationship between a dhimmi and the Islamic state. It applied mostly to
non-polytheists who were conquered by a Muslim state and allowed to retain
their religion.
Dhimmis were
guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying
a special capitation tax known as the jizya and accepting various
restrictions and legal disabilities. These provisions of sharia limited the
ability of dhimmis to visibly practice their rituals, expand and repair places
of worship. Dhimmis were not allowed to testify in cases involving a Muslim;
dhimmi men were prohibited from marrying Muslim women. Some restrictions
imposed on dhimmis from time to time were largely symbolic in nature and were
designed to highlight the inferiority of dhimmis compared to Muslims. These
regulations included, among others, requirements to wear distinctive clothing
and prohibitions on riding horses and camels.
The
conditions of dhimma resulted in a gradual acceptance of Islam by most
Middle Eastern Christians and Zoroastrians living under the Muslim rule”. ─Wikipedia [online encyclopaedia]
”I've written about dhimmitude periodically, lo, these many years since Sept.11, but it takes time to sink in. Dhimmitude is the coinage of a brilliant historian, Bat Ye'or, whose pioneering studies of the dhimmi, populations of Jews and Christians vanquished by Islamic jihad, have led her to conclude
that a common culture has existed through the centuries among the varied dhimmi populations. From Egypt and Palestine to Iraq and Syria, from Morocco and Algeria to Spain, Sicily and Greece, from Armenia and the Balkans to the Caucasus: Wherever Islam conquered, surrendering dhimmi, known to Muslims as "people of the book (the Bible)," were tolerated, allowed to practice their religion, but at a dehumanizing cost.” ─ Berean Call 14.13.2006
We
have been warned. Fear of giving offence to men, particularly Muslim, will lose
us our Christian heritage and bring us into servitude.
If
it be possible, as much as lieth within you, live peaceably with all men. Romans 12: 8. We endeavour to do this but we dare not
remain silent when the truth of God’s word is attacked. The sword is not a
defensive weapon.
Pretending
that Islam is essentially a peaceful religion is gross ignorance. This scourge
upon humanity is intent, not only to wipe out Christianity, but to destroy
Civilization itself.
Imagine....
1st
sister: “Do you think the widow who gave two mites died laughing?”
2nd
sister: “what do you mean?”
1st
sister: “well, my bible says that the Lord loves a hilarious giver.” (hilaros.
2 Cor.9: 7)
Young
man: “I think God scored an ‘own goal’ at Babel.”
Elder:
“What are you talking about?”
Young
man: “There was but one language prior to the building of the tower at Babel. After that there
became a multiplicity of languages.”
Elder:
“go on..”.
Young
man: “You said no language can be translated with 100% accuracy, and we have to
go back to the original to get the truth”.
Elder:
“Quite so!”
Young
man: “Most of us cannot go back to the original language, and God apparently
cannot speak our languages with 100% accuracy”.
“So
God slipped up at Babel.
With His own goal He has also put the human race out of play. God can no longer
effectively reach all men. When you say something is lost in translation you
leave God out of your reckoning. I find it unsafe to listen to you.”
Letters
“Just a note to thank you for
your Magazine. I do think it is the only one left worth reading. We continue to
pray God’s blessing on it.” –R; Scotland
“There is no longer the need for you to send a
copy to the assembly meeting place” P; ─Cornwall
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)
No comments:
Post a Comment