Waymarks 48
Report of Open Air Preaching
December 6th LUTON T C. I don’t usually preach seasonal messages. In
the open air there is no point preaching structured sermons anyway. But today I
preached on Luke 2: 14. There is peace on earth. There is peace with God
through faith in Christ Jesus, right now , here on this earth. It is to every
repentant soul who trusts in Christ. The coming into this world of the Son of
God to be the Saviour of the world is the evidence of God’s goodwill to this
human race.
The words “Peace to all men and
women on earth who please him” (The
Message) impugn the very nature of God. Passers by were told there is
none on this planet, unconverted, who can please God. There is none good no not
one. The gospel is for all mankind. There is no peace saith my God to the
wicked. Bethlehem
tells you that you are a sinner on the way to hell. This is why Christ Jesus
came into the world; to save sinners.
But few were interested. None
stopped to hear more of the gospel. In fact none even turned to look in my
direction.
If they had read the lying verse
(Lk.2: 14, The Messenger) posted outside one
Gospel Hall in Luton they would
conclude that they had never pleased God so no point in stopping to listen now.
December 13th DUNSTABLE.
Ashton Square.
Preached the same message as on 6th December with the same effect.
January 10th LUTON T.C.
One man stood listening. I could just see him out of the corner of my eye. When
I finished preaching he approached me. He had the appearance of a dosser and spoke
like one. All dossers are philosophers and expert theologians so he picked me
up on a few points I had made. I had mentioned the myths of Valhalla
and Utopia, Reincarnation, Purgatory, and he knew all about these. He couldn’t
explain how they couldn’t all be right and seemed to grasp that the
resurrection of Christ showed up the fallacy of every world religion. Because
there are always Muslims listening I make sure the resurrection is emphasised.
It is an essential of the gospel of Christ.
January 17th LUTON T.C. Today
nobody stood listening but many heard. I ask myself how do so many
street preachers manage to get themselves arrested or at least assaulted by
passers by. Why I am I almost totally ignored? Is there something wrong with my
message, or my style, or myself? Then I read some comments by people (unsaved presumably) who had come up against
a street preacher. They had been harangued, shouted at, mocked, etc. They had
been offended by a variety of slogans on banners held high.
Well, I don’t use slogans.
“Sodomites will go to hell” may be true
but I believe the displayed Word of God carries more power in winning souls.
This after all must be the preacher’s earnest desire; to win souls for Christ. Abusive language has no part in the soul winner’s
ministry even when confronted by an angry Muslim or J.W.
We do have to be faithful in
reminding people of the consequences of their sin and I do not believe it is
wrong on occasion to name the sin. But we must preach Christ crucified ─the
sinner’s Saviour.
A loud hailer pushes the audience
farther back and angers them. I don’t use one because I want to be
approachable.
February 9th Heavy
snowfalls have kept me in over the past two days. I am reminded of a snowy day
25 years ago when I did go out and discovered a large open air rally taking
place in a recreational ground in central Luton.
About two thousand people were gathered in the falling snow to listen to their
union leaders.
Vauxhall Motors were about to lay
off a large number of workers and they were being told that there was no hope
for them. All remained in the park. None were seen sidling off. They remained
standing in the snow for about an hour.
Imagine inviting folk to come and
stand in a snowstorm for an hour to learn they had no hope for the future. This
is what they did!
Imagine inviting people to a
gospel meeting in the park in warm weather and chairs to sit on. Then tell them
there is a glorious future and eternal prosperity for the soul trusting in
Christ. So they don’t come!! The human race is soul-dead and brain damaged. (Yes,
sin DOES damage the brain.) The human race is now down to 10% efficiency as far
as brain power is concerned. Adam started at 100% efficiency. If you are an
evolutionist you will want to reverse these figures.
For years we have preached in the
parks of Beds/Bucks/Herts, in bad weather and good. Now and again a soul has
been saved. Most times we were under canvas but once when our tent was
destroyed during a riot in the town we preached in the open for the following
few weeks. We preached to people in the park, teen-agers mostly, who would
never have come into the tent.
AV Verses Vindicated
Isaiah 38: 8
Behold, I will bring
again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz,
ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was
gone down.
Most modern versions and parodies
of Scripture read similar to the GNB ─ “On the stairway built by King Ahaz, the
LORD will make the shadow go back ten steps. And the shadow moved back ten
steps.”
The Hebrew word translated
‘degrees’ is ma’alah (Str.4609).
I could find no manuscript variants. Modern versions accept this word but
translate it ‘steps’. The word ‘dial’ is also ma’alah which word is found translated ‘steps’ in Ex.20: 26, Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine
altar.
The modern translators therefore
jump to the conclusion that Ahaz’s sun dial was a succession of steps on which
the length of the shadow would indicate the hour. Actually a post knocked into
flat ground would have served the same purpose. The length of the shadow would
be measured more effectively.
But the modern men are making
gobble-de-gook of the Scripture. These mighty steps would need to be swung
through 180o at midday,
otherwise there would be no shadow at all for the rest of the day.
Persisting in this nonsense some
tell us that David’s songs of degrees (Psalms 120-134) were composed on these
steps. David lived more than 200 years before Ahaz.
The AV translators were well
aware that ma’alah has a variety of meanings. Here is a third; 1 Chron. 17: 17, a man of high degree.
The Egyptians had invented a sun
dial long before the days of Ahaz. Perhaps his sun dial was based on
theirs. It was ‘T’ shaped with a raised cross bar causing a shadow to fall on
the stem. This instrument lay flat on the ground and was rotated through 180o
at midday. (See sundial: Enc. Brit.)
Textual critics are proven
deceivers. Beware.
Pic missing
Even
if this really is a pic. of Ahaz’s sun
dial, we maintain the use of the word ‘steps’ remains misleading.
Matthew 28: 19
Baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
This should read “ ‘into the
name’, i.e. into the covenant relationship and communion with the triune God”
says P. Schaff in his introduction to The Revision of the English Version of
the New Testament; .Harpur & Brothers; 1873.
Well of course, the preposition
is eis which is commonly translated “into”. but he doesn’t let his
readers know that 20 to 30 other English words are used to translate eis including
“in”. Should we read “He came and dwelt into (eis) a city called Nazareth”?
Schaff’s change is governed by
his theology. He believed water could produce a living relationship with God.
Many still follow this pernicious error.
Acts2: 47
And the Lord added to the
church daily such as should be saved.
Modern versions omit “the church”
(ekklesia). The Lord used the
word first in Matt.16: 18, I will build my church;
showing that prior to this the
church did not exist. It was not to be Israel in new guise. The church was
not to be introduced solely because of Israel’s rejection of their
Messiah. It was in the mind of God from eternity.
In Acts 5: 11 we see an
established church. When we come to Acts 9 we find a multiplicity of churches
(v.31).
The word Ekklesia is found 115 times in the New
Testament. So why omit it in Acts 2? The reason is not hard to find; it
disturbs Covenant Theology which refuses to recognise the differences between
the Church and Israel..
1 Corinthians 10: 1
Moreover, brethren, I would
not that ye should be ignorant....
Preachers like their audience to
believe they are scholarly. To attain this they look up a few cross references
in Darby or Vine etc.
We have an example in 1 Cor. 10:
1. The preacher reads the verse then says “If you have a good translation it
will read ‘for’, and not ‘moreover’.”
Therefore a good translation will be Darby’s or the RV or the ASV not
forgetting the popish Douay/ Rheims version. A bad, bad translation will
be the AV of course.
The Greek word translated
‘moreover’ in the AV is de. It is a conjunction, found in the Greek
Received Text 2534 times and can also be translated but, and, also, now, then,
when, for, etc. (Yes, the AV translators were well aware that de may be
translated ‘for’. See Acts 17: 21.
you may find another example if you search hard enough.).
Our preacher never learned Greek.
I haven’t either (more is the pity) What
the preacher really wants you to know is if the Brethren didn’t produce it, it
isn’t any good. All hail, Vine, Wigram, Newberry, Tregelles etc. These are the
men who swallowed the Textual Criticism lie. As one has written elsewhere, most
preachers do not know the difference between a gerund and a gerbil.
Reading ‘for’ does not improve
the meaning of the verse one little bit. de lets the reader know that
Paul’s comment in v.1 builds on
what has gone immediately before.
By the Way....
“All that is necessary for the
triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke. Don’t we have a
Scripture that will speak even better than this wise saying? How about Watch
ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong. 1 Cor. 16: 13
There are still some good men
about. Some of them are men of action. In the spiritual warfare they will draw
the direct interest of the enemy of souls. He will try and silence them; to
bring them down; to destroy them. He will use all the weapons at his disposal
such as Pseudo-brethren, who will make a pretence of support but run in the
face of fire. Wimpering wives who can’t bear that their dearie will be ill
spoken of. Full frontal attack from the
local Diotrophese.
I remember a man standing in the
congregation who told us the Lord was capable of any sin. I remained silent for
I was but a young man. That was my excuse for cowardice in the face of the
enemy. I saw a young man cast out of the gathering for opposing this blasphemer
several years later, and none stood by the young man. I saw a fellowship of 90+
dwindle to a handful in the months following this shameful night.
I saw a Man outcast, despised and
rejected and hanging upon a tree. A friend had betrayed Him and His other
friends had fled.
Men urge us now to forsake the
faith; to stand no more for the things we love. The cause is lost, they say,
and the battle done. Relax a while and have some fun. Besides, we live in a
different day; the world is not too bad at all. The strife laden Bible doctrines
of the past need not bother us, for evil now is good and good men gone.
If good men do nothing in the
fight against evil they become nothing.
To quit like men is not to run
away. Some leave their congregations because of difficulties. One leaves only
when staying means having fellowship with what God hates. Have no fellowship
with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. Eph.5:
11. Quitting like men is to act manly. Speaking against error is to act manly. Having
fellowship with fornicators and
adulterers (divorced and remarried persons are adulterers *) and
such like is forbidden in Scripture. 1 Cor. 6: 9.
* see my blog at www.waymarks.blogspot.com
J.B. Phillips (1906-1982)
a well-known Bible paraphraser, was a
straight-up heretic. His writings plainly reveal what he believed:
- The new birth is simply a "change of outlook" (When God Was Man, p. 28).
- Devils aren't spirit creatures, they are the "storm centre of the personality". (When God Was Man, p. 19).
- The Bible is not particularly inspired by God. "I should like to make it quite clear that I could not possibly hold the extreme `fundamentalist' position of so-called `verbal inspiration'" (Ring of Truth, p. 28). "...I felt bound to abandon the `God- dictated-every-word- from-cover-to-cover' attitude, and won an attitude which commends itself to my intelligence as well as my faith..." (The Price of Success, Wheaton: Harold Shaw Pub., 1984, p. 150).
- Satan does not have permanent existence. "If our critics mean that we believe in the permanent existence of Satan, the Devil or the powers of evil, they are wrong, for we do not." (Ring of Truth, p. 51).
- No such thing as miracles. "A `miracle' is, by definition, something to be wondered at, and in the past, when laws then unknown were being used, it was commonly assumed that divine intervention was the cause of the wonder. ... but I think that it is unlikely." (Ring of Truth, p. 93).
- Acension of Christ is a parable. In other words, it didn't really occur. (Ring of Truth, p. 107).
I was thrown off the Brethren
internet Scripture Forum by WALTER BOYD
for pointing out to subscribers that this Anglican cleric was a notorious
apostate.
More about Progressive Dispensationalism
(An open letter to Mr Norman
Mellish)
Dear Norman,
you recently spent three evenings
giving ministry on this subject to our assembly and one evening at a
neighbouring assembly. You mentioned several times a book that had influenced
you on the subject. It was The Greatness of the Kingdom by Alva Mcclain,.
It was originally published in 1968 by Moody Press, and 1974 by BMH Books. My
copy is the tenth printing, March 2005. It has 556 pages. I told you I would
obtain a copy and let you know what I thought about it. It was not difficult reading being largely
free of theological jargon etc but 556 pages took some reading. Did you read it
all? I have.
You based your ministry on this
book though I suspect that you have been seriously influenced by other persons.
Your ministry opposed the dispensational teaching that I have come to hold to
over half a century. You suggested that
any not too happy with your ministry had probably been influenced in the past
by “exclusive” writers. My inference from this remark is you believe the whole
Brethren Movement to be the product of Exclusive Brethrenism. Assemblies generally
have held to Traditional Dispensationalism. Do you blame J N Darby for this? As
for me it has been my practice from the day I was converted to check
references. I was influenced in early days by Dwight Pentecost, J Walvoord, and Charles
Ryrie but read very little of Scofield and Darby ( I have never coped with
Darby!) I checked the statements they made against Scripture and that meant I
didn’t necessarily accept everything they wrote.
Alarm bells rang before I opened
the cover of The Greatness of the Kingdom. The subtitle reads an Inductive Study of
the Kingdom of God. Why does it have to be an inductive study? Why
not an expository study? Why not take the verses of Scripture dealing with the
subject and examine them against each other by comparison and contrast.
Scripture is its own interpreter! Mcclain’s answer to this is found on page 17.
The Kingdom of God in Scripture is a concept not easily
handled by the conventional method of Systematic Theology..... Therefore it is
not enough to study a collation of texts on the subject; but the material must
be examined in relation to the movement of history and the progress of divine
revelation.
This is the key to the book. The
Bible is not sufficient in itself to give an understanding of the subject. The
events of history determine the meaning of the Scripture. We had always thought
that (prophetic) Scripture determined the events of history.
A definition of Inductive Study
is found in Dispensationalism Today by Charles Ryrie, published
in 1965 by Moody Press. He quotes D P Fuller─
The inductive
method of Bible study, which is nothing more than the scientific method, seeks
to gain all the facts before drawing some conclusion from them. ─p.95.
If all the facts are Bible facts,
all well and good. But the covenant theologians, with the progressive
dispensationalists superimpose their own scheme on the Bible. They may argue
the same for the traditional dispensationalist. The difference is TD takes a
literal face value approach to interpretation. No other system of theology can
claim this. This is the only effective way to understand the Bible.
When we read Romans 9: 3,4 we
accept the words at their face value. For I could wish that myself were
accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who
are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the
covenants, and the service of God , and the promises;
The covenants pertain to
Israelites, Paul’s kinsmen according to the flesh. They pertain to the Jewish
nation no matter what their present spiritual state. Whatever covenant is
spoken of in the Old Testament, it pertains to, relates to, belongs to the
earthly nation of Israel.
It belongs to Israel
in its entirety.
With the covenants come the
promises. Paul wrote that the OT promises are the property of Israel. But
some promises of course bring blessing to the Gentiles. (The Lord said salvation
is of the Jews, Jn. 4: 22).
So we come to Jeremiah 31: 31-35,
a prophecy that some tell us is fulfilled at least partially in the Church.
31. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD,
that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of
Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made
with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them
out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an
husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33. But this shall be
the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith
the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their
hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34. And they shall teach no
more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD:
for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them,
saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their
sin no more.
35. Thus saith the LORD, which
giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the
stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar;
The LORD of hosts is his name:
This covenant is explicit. It is
future, ─ I will make... It will
be with a specific nation, Israel/Judah. It will be infrangible, its law
written within them and in their hearts. It will be a regenerate nation with
iniquity forgiven and sin no more remembered. All will know the Lord. This new
covenant is yet in the future. It hasn’t been made yet seeing Israel is still
in unbelief.
This new covenant is not to be
confused with the BETTER COVENANT, Heb. 8 6, which is based on better promises
and is the new covenant on which the church rests. The mention of the first
covenant not being faultless is done so in Hebrews to show that it is
reasonable for a second to be introduced. The Christian readers of the book of
Hebrews need not be surprised therefore if God introduces something new and
better for them.
The church does not come into the
good of Israel’s
new covenant though that too must be ratified through the blood of Christ. Believers
discover that God’s laws are not put in their minds inevitably and written in
their hearts indelibly. They have to be learned. Teaching remains a necessity
in this dispensation. A great blessing
of Israel’s
New Covenant is that teachers are not required. This blessing plainly has not
become the property of the Church.
The church’s new covenant brings
every believer into the holiest by the blood of Jesus (Heb. 10: 19) as a priest of God
p.s. I have no real problem with
the inductive method of study as first set out by John Wycliffe in the 14th
Century. He wrote,
“It shall greatly helpe ye to understande
Scripture if ye mark,
Not only what is spoken or
written,
But of whom,
and to whom,
with what words,
at what time,
where,
to what intent,
with what circumstances,
considering what goeth before,,
and what followeth”.
The Holy Scriptures. Where are they?
Do we possess the Holy Scriptures
today or do we not? Many think not or if we do they are incomplete and
defective in many places. Many think furthermore that the original Scriptures
can never be fully recovered.
Bible believers will argue that
the Holy Scriptures have never been lost and are available today in many
languages.
The New Testament uses the term
“Holy Scriptures” twice and it is found in almost all modern versions except The
Message.
Rom. 1: 1,2. ....the gospel of
God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the Holy hagios
Scriptures.)
2 Tim. 3: 15. And that from a
child thou hast known the holy heiros Scriptures. Paul never wrote to Timothy, “you have
known the word of God”. He knew what had been written down and preserved as
under the inspiration of God.
Peter knew that Paul was writing
Scripture. 2 Peter 3: 16.
The term Scripture is used once
in the O.T., and refers to writings that are God given – The Scripture (kathab)
of truth Dan. 10: 21.
Kathab is translated several times
‘writing’ and refers to human writings.
Paul assures us that the Holy
Scriptures existed in the past, giving promise of the gospel of God, and were
extant in Timothy’s day telling him they ARE able to make thee wise unto
salvation. We are compelled to acknowledge that Timothy’s was a copy many times
removed from the original.
The term “Scriptures” occurs 21
times, and 31 times “Scripture” in the AV New Testament. These translate the
Greek word graphe. The holy
Scriptures are the words of God given by inspiration and written down. The term
is synonymous therefore with “The Holy
Bible” . If it is holy there can be nothing in it that is erroneous. It is
sacred and pure from every form of defilement or it cannot be called Holy
Bible. Defilements are usually in the eye of the beholder
It would be very strange if God
gave the written Word only for it to be lost in a generation or so. We note
from the writing of Tregelles that he with all critics believe that the written
words of God did become lost.
But God has promised to preserve
His written word. The Scripture cannot be broken. John 10: 35. It cannot
be destroyed or dissolved. It is
permanently indelible.
Seeing that bible versions differ
materially in very many places, we ask which is Scripture?
Is it “God was manifest in the
flesh” (AV) or is it “He who was
manifested in the flesh” (RV,ASV), “He
appeared in his human nature” (GW). These three readings differ
significantly from each other. If all three are regarded as Scripture, then God
is charged with confusion and lies.
Critics will go to great lengths
to justify their various readings and we are not concerned with them here.
If we believe God had preserved
His word in holy Scripture ─and if we
don’t believe we are probably unregenerate ─we ask where shall we find it? The answer to
my mind is plain; we find the Scriptures in the hands of believers through the
ages from the beginning. These Scriptures, commonly held by believers, are of
one family, named as Byzantine, Majority, Received, and in our day as far as
English is concerned, The Authorized or King James Bible.
The practice from the beginning
has been to reject the false, the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, etc.
Those who have promoted their
variants have proved themselves so often to be apostate as far as their faith
is concerned. These have been men such as Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, and in more
recent times, Westcott and Hort, Metzger, Aland, and many others.
We have to ask ourselves, whom do
we follow, faithful men such as Tyndale, or those known to be apostate?
We have a Bible. It is holy. It is the preserved
word of God, it is holy Scripture. It is the Authorized Version.
Some may disagree with me. They
must go their own way. I shall not walk with them.
Samuel Prideaux Tregelles
Tregelles was the brother-in-law
of B W Newton. He was a great scholar though self taught. He produced a Greek
New Testament in the tradition of Greisbach and Lachmann which was much
applauded among the scholars and textual critics. Below is an excerpt from Samuel
Tregelles; Background to Modern Translations of the Bible by Hywel Jones
and presented at the annual lecture of the Evangelical Library, London, 1975.
Tregelles
tells us himself of the way in which he was drawn to this subject [textual
criticism]. In his own private study of the New Testament he saw the importance
of ascertaining the best text, i.e., nearest to the original, wherever there
was some variation in the manuscripts. Others had done work on this before him,
but in order to evaluate it he needed to be able to evaluate the authorities
they used. He saw that one of these editors named Scholz consistently rejected
the testimony of earlier manuscripts, and also that `a text might be formed,
which if not genuine, was at least ancient'. Another editor, Griesbach, was not
consistent in following the ancient copies. So Tregelles writes:
`There arose
before my mind an earnest desire that some scholar, possessed of the needful
qualifications, mental, moral and spiritual, and who had leisure for such a
work, would undertake an edition resting on ancient authorities only, and in
which the citations from MSS might be given as correctly as possible.'
He translated
his desire into actuality. From a specimen study on Colossians 2:2, he
proceeded in 1841-2 to edit the text of the Apocalypse which appeared in 1844.
He was particularly pleased that expositors who differed in their prophetic
teaching felt able to use the text, and he deduced from this that it was free
from bias. On the completion of this he announced his intention of editing the
Greek Testament. This work appeared in six parts in the twenty-eight years that
followed.
We must now
try to trace Tregelles' course, his plan and its accomplishment, in connection
with this his magnum opus. Our main source of material is his all-important
work entitled `An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, with
Remarks on its Revision upon Critical Principles, together with a Collation of
the Critical Texts of Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann and Tischendorf, with that in
common use'. We shall in future call this his Account. This was published in
1854, and the Library possesses B. W. Newton's copy. It was dedicated to the University of Saint Andrews `in grateful recognition
of encouragement bestowed on Biblical Studies', and appeared in 1854. The
reference here of course is to the honorary degree conferred upon him but note
his self-effacement.
In this book
he calls his method Comparative Criticism, and describes it as follows:
`I mean such
an investigation as shows what the character of a document is-not simply from
its age, whether known or supposed but from its actual readings being shown to
be in accordance or not with certain other documents.'
Using this
method he aimed to produce a text in which every word rested on ancient
authority. Three resolutions were made by him:-
‘lst To form
a text on the authority of ancient copies, without allowing the "received
text" any prescriptive right.
2nd To give
to the ancient versions a determining voice, as to the insertion or
non-insertion of CLAUSES etc.; letting the order or words, etc., rest wholly
upon MSS.
'rd-To give
the AUTHORITIES for the text, and for the various readings, clearly and
accurately so that the reader might at once see what rests upon ancient
evidence.'
Tregelles’ first resolution
sweeps away what Christians had relied upon and trusted from the 2nd
Cent. to the 19th Cent. viz., the Received Text. The vast majority
of mss are in line with the Received Text. Tregelles would reject these thousands
of mss for a few “ancient copies”.
The second resolution finds
emphasis given to ancient versions. These I could not find listed but they had
only a “determining voice” where they agreed with his preselected mss.
The third resolution gives the
game away. The mss are named and we find them to be those rejected by the early
churches; Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and one or two others.
Dr. Burgon wrote of Tregelles,
[He]
effectually persuaded himself that ‘eighty-nine ninetieths’ of our
extant manuscripts and other authorities may safely be rejected and lost sight
of when we come to amend the text and try to restore it to its primitive
purity. ─ Revision Revised; p.22.A G Hobbs Publications; Centennial Ed.
1983.
His
proceeding is exactly that of a man, who─in order that he may the better
explore a comparatively unknown region ─begins by putting out both his eyes;
and resolutely refuses the help of the natives to show him the way. ─ibid. p.243.
Tregelles
wrote concerning 1 John 5: 7, 1 Timothy 3: 16, Acts 20: 28,
Many
have shrunk from the results of criticism because of these three passages: they
are accustomed to them as setting forth theological verities; and they have
desired to cling to them; although they might have known that in argument they are
worthless, because opposers are full well aware how groundless or uncertain are
those readings of these passages which some have called orthodox. The
consequence unhappily has been, that the most essential and fundamental truths
of Christian doctrine have been supposed by some to rest on uncertain grounds.
Now, the same criticism which shows that particular readings are not genuine,
proves uncontestably that others are unquestionable; and thus no point of
orthodox truth is weakened, even though supports, which some have thought
sustained it, are found to differ from such supposed use and bearing. There are
undoubted passages enough (such as Matt. 1:23; John 1:1, 20:28; Rom.
9:5; Phil. 2:6; Heb. 1:8) which speak of the proper Godhead of Christ, without
our wishing to press into the same cause others for which we have no sufficient
evidence, and which were not required to establish that necessary truth in the
early controversies.
Criticism,
however, need not be at all feared; if it takes away on the one hand readings
which were thought to have some dogmatic value, it will give on the other quite
as much. Instances of this will be seen in two passages, John 1:18, and 1 Pet.
3:15.
We point out that Tregelles’s
criticisms were based on his pre-conceived notion that oldest is best, ignoring
all the evidence that existed then concerning these three verses.
This is what textual critics have
been doing ever since. Tregelles used practically the same method as Lachmann
although he protested that he didn’t perceive what Lachmann was doing as his
works were all in German.
In the year 2007 we find Bible
Teachers who have not examined the works of Tregelles or any other Textual
Critic for that matter, who repeatedly undermine the confidence of young
believers─and some older─in the Authorized Bible with its underlying Received
text. These men “prefer” modern versions crafted out of Greek Texts (they
cannot name which Greek Text) that rely on two or three seriously depraved
manuscripts.
They describe their ministry as ‘Sweet Thoughts of Jesus’ but they
ought rather to announce their purpose; it is to destroy faith.
Tregelles was a spiritual gypsy.
He started out with the Quakers, converted to Brethrenism, left after a few
years and then nobody is quite sure what happened to him after that. He became
either Presbyterian or Anglican.
He was on the Revised Version
committee and apparently had no problem fellowshipping with the Unitarian Smith
and with the Mariolaters, Westcott and Hort.
Comments on “tittle”.
“And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one
tittle of the law to fail”
Luke 16: 17
Dr T Srouse points out in the EBT Journal, Spring 2006:-
1.The
Oxford English
Dictionary traces the history of the occurrence of the word tittle to Wycliff’s
translation of the Bible in 1382. He rendered the Latin apex , for “point or tip,” in Matthew 5:18 and Luke 16:17 as titel
2.When the Lord employed the Greek work keraia He
was giving the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew chireq.
These are the dots appearing under the consonants in the Hebrew text.
3.The
fallacious view that man invented the Hebrew vowel points has nothing to commend it. Is there any reason that Bible believers must countenance
the speculative view
that the Lord
God, the Creator of language,
disdains vowels, at least to the extent that He would
not preserve them in written form (Psalm 12:6-7; Matthew2:35)? After all, has not the Lord Jesus Christ
referred to Himself as the Alpha and Omega (Revelation 1:8; 21:6), the first and last vowels of the Greek language?
Words
need vowels otherwise they are nonsensical.
Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats? by C. H. Spurgeon
An evil is in the professed camp of the Lord, so gross in its impudence,
that the most shortsighted can hardly fail to notice it. During the past few
years, it has developed at an abnormal rate, even for evil. It has worked like
leaven until the whole lump ferments. The devil has seldom done a cleverer
thing than hinting to the church that part of their mission is to provide
entertainment for the people, with a view to winning them. From speaking out as
the Puritans did, the church has gradually toned down her testimony, then
winked at and excused the frivolities of the day. Then she tolerated them in
her borders. Now she has adopted them under the plea of reaching the masses. My
first contention is that providing amusement for the people is nowhere spoken
of in the Scriptures as a function of the church. If it is a Christian work, why
did not Christ speak of it? ?Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to
every creature? (Mark 16:15).
That is clear enough. So it would have been if he had added, ?and provide
amusement for those who do not relish the gospel.? No such words, however, are
to be found. It did not seem to occur to him. Then again, ?He gave some,
apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and
teachers ... for the work of the ministry? (Eph. 4:11-12). Where do
entertainers come in? The Holy Spirit is silent concerning them. Were the
prophets persecuted because they amused the people or because they refused? The
concert has no martyr roll. Again, providing amusement is in direct antagonism
to the teaching and life of Christ and all his apostles. What was the attitude
of the church to the world? ?Ye are the salt? (Matt. 5:13), not the sugar candy?something the world
will spit out, not swallow. Short and sharp was the utterance, ?Let the dead
bury their dead? (Matt. 8:22). He was in awful earnestness! Had Christ
introduced more of the bright and pleasant elements into his mission, he would
have been more popular when they went back, because of the searching nature of
his teaching. I do not hear him say, ?Run after these people, Peter, and tell
them we will have a different style of service tomorrow, something short and
attractive with little preaching. We will have a pleasant evening for the
people. Tell them they will be sure to enjoy it. Be quick, Peter, we must get
the people somehow.? Jesus pitied sinners, sighed and wept over them, but never
sought to amuse them. In vain will the Epistles be searched to find any trace
of the gospel of amusement. Their message is, ?Come out, keep out, keep clean
out!? Anything approaching fooling is conspicuous by its absence. They had
boundless confidence in the gospel and employed no other weapon. After Peter
and John were locked up for preaching, the church had a prayer meeting, but
they did not pray, ?Lord grant unto thy servants that by a wise and discriminating
use of innocent recreation we may show these people how happy we are.? If they
ceased not for preaching Christ, they had not time for arranging
entertainments. Scattered by persecution, they went everywhere preaching the
gospel. They ?turned the world upside down? (Acts 17:6). That is the only
difference! Lord, clear the church of all the rot and rubbish the devil has
imposed on her, and bring us back to apostolic methods. Lastly, the mission of
amusement fails to effect the end desired. It works havoc among young converts.
Let the careless and scoffers, who thank God because the church met them
halfway, speak and testify. Let the heavy laden who found peace through the
concert not keep silent! Let the drunkard to whom the dramatic entertainment
had been God's link in the chain of the conversion, stand up! There are none to
answer. The mission of amusement produces no converts. The need of the hour for
today's ministry is believing scholarship joined with earnest spirituality, the
one springing from the other as fruit from the root. The need is biblical
doctrine, so understood and felt, that it sets men on fire
Because so many gospel halls are now mere glorified social centres I
thought this much reprinted article worth yet another airing. I don’t suppose it will have much impact on
my fun loving brethren.
Wine and the Bible. Gleaned from an article by Greg Tyree.
The Lord’s first miracle, “turning water into wine,”
gives the wine advocates plenty of ammunition to defend their “right to drink.”
But did Jesus turn water into “fermented” wine? (Note: This miracle is not about “wine” but about Jesus’ credibility as the Messiah.
However, since wine advocates always refer to
this text, we shall consider it for our purposes here.) Let’s consider
the text in John 2:1-11:
Remember that the word “wine” does not have to
mean “fermented.”The context determines that this is not fermented wine for the
following reasons:
1) The
same God (Jesus) who wrote that “wine is a mocker” (Prov. 20:1: Wine is a
mocker ,strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not
wise.) would not have “created” that same kind of fermented wine of which
He was so critical.
2) The
wedding feast had been going on for three days (the Greek in verse one strongly
suggests this, as well as the fact they had
run out of wine. The Jewish wedding feasts ran for about seven days). If fermented wine was being
consumed here then Jesus was contributing to a drunken brawl! Imagine what the
atmosphere would have been like had they been “drinking” for three days.
3) A lot of the “wine”
had been consumed since the host “ran out.” The fact that everyone seems “rational” and “functional” implies that they
were drinking something other than alcohol.
4) Jesus “made” about 135 gallons of “wine.” Ask yourself
if Jesus made 135 gallons (possibly 2000 servings!), in addition to the three
days of wine they had already consumed.
5) Most
hosts would serve the best quality of wine at the beginning of a feast, and
when the guests had consumed enough to deaden
the taste buds (thus, “well drunk”- KJV) they would serve the lower quality of wine. If the guests were
drinking alcohol, they would not have been able to distinguish between
the two. In other words, Jesus’ “pure, sweet, and fresh” wine was so good, even taste buds that had been
“desensitized” by much consumption could tell the difference!
6) Jesus
took His mother to the wedding feast. Jesus was a “gentleman.” Jesus would not
have taken His mother to
a drunken party.
In
relation to the Lord’s supper, read Matthew 26:26-30
This is perhaps the most critical of all the texts
considered, for here Jesus establishes an ordinance that must be carried out
until He returns! The question is, “Did Jesus use fermented wine to establish
the Lord’s Supper; and if so does He expect us to do the same today?”
Let’s be honest. If Jesus did use fermented wine to
establish “Communion,” then we should- no, we must-
also use fermented wine. Who are we to change the substance of the elements
that we are commanded to use?
But there is no need to do that. We shall see here that
Jesus did not use fermented wine to establish the Last Supper, nor do we need to
utilize it now. Indeed, we must reject the thought altogether. Here are some reasons:
1) This
happened at the Passover. God forbade even the presence of “bharm” (yeast,
leaven, ferment) at the Passover, because it
is the cause of putrefaction(Ex. 34; Lev. 10).
2) Jesus’ words here,
and Paul’s reiteration of them in 1 Corinthians, do not include the word “wine.” (Note: Not one New Testament
passage of the Lord’s Supper uses the word wine. Just a thought.)
3) Jesus describes what He is using as “fruit of the
vine.” This does not require that it be fermented wine, and may preclude it from being
intoxicating wine. The vine does not bear intoxicating drink.
4) The
Jewish Mishna teaches that four cups of wine is to be consumed by everyone 12
years and up. If this was fermented, it would
have been the equivalent of 6 ounces of pure alcohol, or 12 ounces of proof spirit (Kanoy, page 12).
5) Jesus
is our High Priest. We have already established that Priests were not to drink
alcohol.
6) If leaven represents
sin, how can fermentation(leaven) or fermented wine possibly represent the blood of Christ!?
7) Why
would God require unfermented bread but allow fermented wine?
Add to this that in today’s environment, churches that
use fermented wine in communion expose alcoholics
with the worst kind of temptation. You may argue, “But our church gives a
choice.” Consider this: is communion
the time to establish a “difference” between people (i.e., drinkers and
non-drinkers)?
Shouldn’t communion
eliminate differences? Also, as both “choices” are being passed to the congregation, won’t the wine, even if declined,
be a “stumbling block” to the one who is tempted? This could even cause them to fall. Shame in us for
such a flippant and uncompassionate attitude about the most sacred of
ordinances!
6. Jot and Tittle
Not a jot shall there fail.
Nor tittle may pass,
'Till the heavens have fled
and sea be all glass.
For the Lord hath decreed;
The Law shall e’er stand.
Iota and keraia
Remain hand in hand.
For once they were given
To ‘stablish the word,
That thundered from Sinai
So Law might be heard
Without jot and tittle
The sense would be dark;
The way be tempestuous,
The soul miss the mark.
So nought be there added
And nought be removed..
The vowels and the letters
Are all of them proved.
r s
No comments:
Post a Comment