Waymarks 49
Report of Open Air Preaching
March 20th DUNSTABLE Ashton Square
This is not a very busy shopping centre when the market
isn’t here. I prefer to come on such days, when one is not so crowded in. Even
so I estimated 35 people a minute passing by and within earshot for an average
of 45 seconds. Stay for an hour and 2100 people have heard at least three or
four gospel texts.
One person shouted “shut up” but he may have been shouting
at his spouse. Another couple sat on the wall next to me for the whole time I
was preaching. They did not seem to notice me.
P- came by. His
grandfather (Malcolm Muggeridge) was an intellectual, a famous personality who
was responsible for “discovering” Mother Teresa. P- once attended a local Evangelical Church
and will always stop to talk when he sees me.
March 28th LUTON Town
Centre.
A lady was standing where I usually stand when I arrived
today so I stood two yards farther along. She invited me to come closer so I
assumed she recognized me as the street preacher. But it transpired she was
looking for work and maybe I could employ her. Well, I don’t agree with lady
preachers and I don’t employ assistants. She told me she was a carer. Do I
really appear that old and decrepit? I declined her offer and sought to weave
the gospel into our conversation. She listened and told me a little of her
background and how she had arrived from Pakistan in 1967. Was this the
first time she had heard the gospel, I wondered. She certainly was not hostile
to it.
After this lady moved on I preached for 15 minutes. A young
man giving out leaflets had stood nearby the whole time since I had arrived and
when I paused preaching he introduced himself. I thought his leaflets might be
offering a free holiday in the Bahamas
to all morons dialling 0906 but he gave me one and it advertised services at The
Redeemed Christian Church of God Victory Centre in Luton.
This is an international organisation
and it is a false cult. Its founder boasts of miracles and signs following his
ministry. Its gospel appears sound at first hearing but is seriously flawed,
having a Pentecostalist base. Evidence of salvation is seen in speaking in
tongues. The personality of the Holy Spirit is denied.
April 15th WOLVERTON. The Square.
It is Sunday evening.
Half an hour before our Gospel Meeting starts. We are ten minutes walk from the
hall. There are a few people in the square. One man sends his little boy over
for a tract and sits reading it while we preach. A youth asks are we JW or
Catholic? Neither, we reply. He is presumably unaware that these two
organisations do not engage in street preaching. He shouts out a few Bible
references as he walks away from us. We “amen”
all Bible verses. One is Ps. 83: 18 which he then corrects to John 83:
18.!! Maybe his parents are JW.
April 18th LUTON
T.C.
It was difficult to
find a place to stand today. The Victory Centre people were already there.
I emailed them to query a statement in
their leaflet, “Jesus said ‘You must be born again to return to heaven’ John 3:
3-8” and pointed out this was a false statement. I never had a reply.
I moved up to Market Hill. what a wonderful place to preach.
Alas a kiddies merry-go-round was there with accompanying din so I retraced my
path to the other end of George
Street and found a place by the War Memorial. Here
I had a good hearing and was within earshot of the VC pair. They departed
shortly after I began to preach. There was as usual no opposition but a few
were standing listening.
May 3rd DUNSTABLE Ashton Square.
After I finished preaching a lady wanted to shake my hand.
It was to give me some encouragement, she said. Well, after 33 years street
preaching I am still grateful for encouragement. It’s good to know some people
are listening. I asked the usual questions, “are you saved?”, “are you sure?” etc.
She was sure. But it didn’t take long to discover how confused this lady was.
She told me she was already experiencing Jordan and would soon be in the Holy Land. I did not know what she meant. I regret I have
a tendency to be facetious and mocking in these circumstances but on this
occasion I managed to control myself and just reminded her to be careful around
Jericho. She
looked very puzzled. Then we got on to “faith” or “miracle” healing. This
Baptist lady thought this was still being practiced as in apostolic days. I had no wish to pursue this line of
conversation. It is invariably a waste of time. I asked her why did Paul write,
Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick (2 Tim. 4: 20)? Was not that a very callous thing to do
for a man so gifted in miracle working, or had the gift left him by this time?
A further outcome of this conversation was her low regard
for Scripture. What the Bible says is not too relevant for our exciting times.
She said she would like to help me understand these things. She had after all
been “saved” for two years. Her bible (only it was not the Bible, it was a
NKJV) had contradictions in it. for example Matthew tells us Judas went out and
hanged himself but Acts tells us that he fell headlong and all his bowels
gushed out. she told me that Acts did not refer to Judas but to the man who
picked up the pieces of silver that Judas had flung down.
Now I knew this poor woman was a Christ rejector on the way
to hell. (both references are true of Judas OF COURSE.)
May 15th LUTON
T.C.
I was here last Friday, by the entrance to theArndale, which
is my usual place for preaching in Luton. The
RAC man had his stall a few feet away and when I began to preach he hurled
obscenities at me. So I moved up to Market Hill.
Today there was a far better reception. (no RAC man). One
man sitting 20 yards away seemed to be listening intently. When a bench became vacant
nearer to me he moved across. When I had finished preaching he came over to
speak to me but I couldn’t understand him. Eventually I deduced he was Polish
and had been in the UK
one week. He already\had a job and was living with his married daughter in Luton. He told me it was a very good thing to hear God
spoken about in a public place. He had started attending the Polish Catholic
church in Dunstable.
I gave him The Way of Salvation which he received as
though I were giving him a large slab of gold. He told me his daughter would
help him read it. Pray for a whole Catholic family being reached with the
gospel. There are now 20,000 Poles in Luton.
There are 40,000 Muslims in Luton and recent
events indicate there are quite a few of them with terrorist connections.
Probably some of them pass by while I am preaching so pray for these too.
I hope these reports of open air preaching encourage others
to preach publicly. It need only be for
a few minutes at a time. Why not the next time the wife wants to drag you round
the shops tell her you will stay in the street to preach the gospel. This will
give you a couple of hours which otherwise would be wasted.
AV Verses Vindicated
Matthew 27:46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud
voice, saying, Eli,eli, lama sabachtani? that is to say, My God, My God, Why
hast thou forsaken me?
(Mark
15: 34 Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani?)
This has been changed to ' why didst thou forsake me'
by W Kelly and this has been taken up with some enthusiasm by some of our
brethren. However, we find the following all in agreement with the AV:-
Tyndale, JND, RSV, NIV, Doauy, and many others. So why change it? Because, we
are told, it is in the aorist tense and never mind the weight of evidence
against such a change. So I look it up in my Bagster's Analytical Greek Lexicon
and learn that it is in '2nd Pers.sing. Aorist Indic. Active.' and Mr Newberry
tells us the aorist is a 'point in the expanse of time'. So now we know. But
note 2 Tim.4:10, for Demas hath forsaken me. The same Greek word is used and is
also in the aorist tense. It may be that the act of forsaking took place in a
moment of time but the condition of being forsaken continued up to the time of
Paul's writing his second letter to Timothy
We believe the Lord was still forsaken as He uttered
those solemn words Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani. If not, then uncertainty is cast
on the efficacy of His atoning work, for Christ died for our sins and the words
why didst thou forsake me? suggest that the forsaking had ended before He died.
The AV translation is the only acceptable one.
The words from the cross are reported slightly
differently in Mark 15:34:- Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani? Which is, being
interpreted, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? This we are told, is in
the vernacular whereas the words in Matthew are given in Hebrew.
Four hundred years before the birth of Christ the
prevailing condition was this: Jews....had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab: And their
children spake half in the speech of Ashdod,
and could not speak in the Jews language, but according to the language of each
people. Neh.13:23,24.
Not all the
Jews had done this. There was always a faithful remnant. But many of those who
had returned after the captivity were of mixed marriage. Many didn't return
anyway. So there were very few left who could speak in the Jew's language. But
for a Jew not to speak in Hebrew was a disgrace before God. The offspring of
the unfaithful spoke half in the language of
Ashdod. Ashdod was a Philistine
town where was the house of Dagon the fish-god.
We digress for a moment. Christendom today worships
the fish-god, which is why his symbol of a fish is seen on the back of every
other car. Its speech is "half-Ashdod".
That is, when they pray it is no longer the language of the Bible, "Thou
art", etc. but "you are", etc as is found in all the
Philistinish bible versions.
Malachi was a contemporary of Nehemiah. Malachi was
the last of the OT prophets. There were no more until John the Baptist 400
years later. So conditions did not improve over those 400 years. God had
nothing to say. No Scripture was given; no prophet was raised up.
However, during these four centuries between the OT
and the NT era the Apocrypha was produced and, it is alleged, the Septuagint.
This latter was supposedly the OT in Greek. Seeing that God was silent during
this period in regard to His written word, and also in regard to His spoken
word via the prophet, the Apocrypha and the Septuagint clearly did not come
from God. They must both have come from the pit.
God broke His 400 years silence when John cried out
Repent ye: for the kingdom
of God is at
hand....prepare ye the way of the Lord. Mt.3:2,3. And there was a faithful
remnant waiting for Him. Do you think they were not of pure speech? Aramaic may
well have been the common language in Palestine
at the time as some allege, but Hebrew was still the speech of those who loved
the Lord.
There are ten references to the Hebrew language in
the NT and none to the Aramaic language, (not even in Acts 2:8-11). Paul spoke
in the Hebrew tongue, Acts21:40. The risen Lord spoke to Paul in the Hebrew
tongue, Acts 26:14. The words on the cross were in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.
There were no Aramaic words written on the cross. Golgotha
is a Hebrew name, John19:17. This latter being refuted in the Oxford
Companion to the Bible, p.272. I quote,-
Several verses in the New
Testament appear at first sight [my italics] to refer to the Hebrew
language and the Greek word translated as "Hebrew" (hebraisti) does
indeed refer to that language in Rev.9:11 and 10:16. But it is also used of the Aramaic words Gabbatha
and Golgotha in John 19:13,17. and it probably
[my italics] denotes a Semitic (as distinct from Greek) language spoken by the
Jews, including both Hebrew and Aramaic, rather than referring to Hebrew in
distinction from Aramaic. Similarly the Aramaic expression Akeldama is said in
Acts 1:19 to be 'in their language', that is in the language of the people of Jerusalem."
But it doesn't say "in their
language" at Acts 1:19.
The correct reading is that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. And it
was not the people of Jerusalem
but the disciples who were speaking. See how these "scholars" are out
to deceive you? The disciples knew what was the proper tongue of those dwelling
in Jerusalem.
Their own language was Hebrew. If my Bible says Gabbatha and Golgotha are Hebrew names, then I believe at first,
second and thousandth sight. The man who wrote the article quoted above is J A
Emerton, Regius Professor of Hebrew, and fellow, St John's College,
University of Cambridge, England. I remain unimpressed. I
still would rather believe my Bible.
Emerton suggests there probably was a Semitic
language, not Greek, not pure Hebrew either, not even Aramaic, spoken by the
Jews at this time. Only, the professor doesn't know what it was! But it
certainly was not Aramaic, though there may have been a few Aramaic words in
use in those times. If the world's leading authority on the subject is
uncertain as to the precise language spoken by the Jews in first century Palestine, why challenge
the Biblical testimony to the use of Hebrew?
Scripture is twisted in modern versions to cater for
the view that other than pure Hebrew was spoken in NT times. Some have called
this hybrid Hebrew/Aramaic "the vernacular".
We conclude that the Lord spoke in Hebrew alone.
There is a coming day when all will speak a pure
language. That will be one language spoken by all nations. Zeph.3:9. It will be
pure, not a mixture of languages. It will not therefore be English, although
this is plainly God's world language for these last days. I am quite sure it
will not be Aramaic, Chaldee, Syriac, or Yiddish. It will be the language of
God's ancient people, Israel,
which is Hebrew. All will speak this language for a thousand years during the
soon coming earthly reign of Christ.
Romans 9: 29
And as Esaias said before,
Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been
made like unto Gomorrha
Paul was quoting Isaiah 1: 9, Except
the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as
Sodom, and we
should have been like unto Gomorrah.
D Kaus, in his book Choosing a
Bible, wites that Paul
uses the
Greek word that means “descendants” (sperma, “seed”) instead of
“survivors”, thereby inadvertantly changing the sense of the passage.
Kaus is stating that it is not
the AV that is wrongly translated here, rather that the apostle himself got it
wrong. It was a careless slip on his part, no doubt because he didn’t
understand Isaiah’s prophecy. How thankful we should be that this unconverted
critic can now help us!
He also wants us to understand
that the Bible is NOT verbally inspired. That God is NOT responsible for its
authorship, unless perhaps the Holy Spirit inadvertantly supplied the
wrong word.
Take warning — if you do
not believe in the verbal (word for word) inspiration of Holy Scripture, and if
you do not believe that God has supplied us with an inspired English Bible
today, there is little likelihood that you are a believer on the way to heaven.
Neither Paul nor Isaiah were speaking of mere survivors.
Joel 2: 32 is instructive; And
it shall come to pass, that whosoever
shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be
deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall
call.
Isaiah did not write of
those who managed to survive the judgment of Sodom by chance. They were those who were
called of God and responded to His call, and this is what Paul is writing
about. God’s survivors are those who are saved, delivered, from going down to
hell.
1 John 4: 1-3
Beloved, believe not
every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false
prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every
spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and
every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not
of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist.
Modern versions such as
NIV,ESV etc attempt to dodge the charge
of being antichrist by omitting “Christ come in the flesh”. They pretend that
they acknowledge Jesus and this is enough. What do they acknowledge? It may be
no more than believing a man lived 2000 years ago named Jesus and he lived a
good life. They think if they remain silent about the Anointed One foretold in
the Prophets to be born of a virgin in the City of David, named Jesus, demonstrated to be God
manifest in the flesh then they are not false spirits. The very omission of the
phrase declares the producers of these blasphemous versions to be antichrist.
Silence on this vital
issue will show the nature of the spirit to be that of antichrist. Thus the
platform man denying 1 Tim. 3: 16, God was manifest in the flesh lets his audience know he has come in the
spirit of antichrist.
John is teaching us
that Jesus did not become the Christ subsequent to His birth at Bethlehem. He is the One
Who came out from God, the eternal Son, the Lord from heaven. The men behind
the various parodies of Scripture do not believe this.
By the Way....
In a recent poll to find the most
popular books, the bible came out at No.6. This was not the AV or some other
verion. It was just the bible, a pudding stone comprising all perversions and parodies of
Scripture lumped together. The multi-million pound bible publishing
industry has succeeded in knocking the Bible
down from No.1. The AV Bible of course is not on the scale. It may be
Rupert Murdoch, publisher of the NIV, is
not too bothered with this. Much of his money comes from Myspace and
pornography.
Harry Potter came in at No.4 □
What is the doctrinal position of
the “Brethren”? If you want to know, visit “brethren on line”. A list of what
is commonly believed among brethren is posted there. Of course this is not an
official site any more than Believer’s Magazine is an official organ of
the Brethren Movement.
At the head of the list is:-
- verbal, plenary inspiration of the original manuscripts of the Bible.
To which we add our amen! This is
commonly believed among us. But, TAKE WARNING! this is a tacit denial that
inspiration of the Scriptures exists today. To this many of our brethren will
add their amen.
Our scholars and those who
worship at their feet have not seen an original manuscript. They have not seen
a copy of a copy of an original manuscript. Their statement is eyewash.
Impressive words are used to bamboozle the untaught. Most of our platform men
couldn’t even tell you what the word plenary means.
Here is what is at the head of my
list. I believe in the:-
- verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture.
Now, do you see the difference? Do
you see that the first statement is the cry of apostasy? It is a meaningless
statement because those original manuscripts have long since ceased to exist.
Brethrenism shares the view of apostate Christendom. It is all confusion, of
which God is not the author.
Until the middle of the last
century it was commonly believed among us that we were in possession of The
Scriptures, generally referred to as the Authorized Version for those of us who
speak English. We believed its internal evidence that All Scripture is given
by inspiration of God. One strong reason for believing this is that
conversion brings a soul into a living relationship with the Author. The
regenerate soul believes through the Scriptures that God pledged Himself to
preserve His word and not a jot or tittle (i.e. written words) would not be
lost.
Our modern brethren do not
believe God has preserved His word. We now learn that scholars can alter their bible to suit
their own views (they don’t alter MY Bible; it remains the AV) .
If my Bible is not inspired, it
is not Scripture. I had better put it in the dustbin straight away. It is
worthless.
Those original inspired Scripture
manuscripts were handed down and faithfully copied by Godly men through the
ages, therefore inspiration remained with those same words. Being God’s words
inspiration cannot be lost through translation.
I sometimes like to imagine if
copies had been made on transparencies from the original (Greek) up to our
present time and then laid on top of each other, individual alterations would
be greyed out as I looked through them and I would then see a standard text
throughout – I would read the original! It would not make any difference if the
first few got lost in the process.
Either we have a Bible we can
trust implicitly or we have not. Make up your mind, your soul depends on it .□
Another doctrine of the Brethren
was emphasised at a recent Bible Conference. The subject was “The New Testament
Assembly”. Mtt.18: 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there
am I in the midst of them was read and then the preacher spoke on being
gathered TO the name. There was no explanation for the change. We were to
understand only “B”rethren do this. The
rest of Christendom doesn’t gather TO the name. They all gather to their own
names. As Scripture nowhere teaches a gathering to the name it becomes a cult
slogan. My Bible has in which is
a faithful and accurate translation in this verse of the Greek preposition eis.
We begin to understand a little better the Brethren oppostion to the
Authorized Version.
We were later told that the local
assembly is the court of final appeal. Some of us thought the Scriptures were
the such. In practice if there should be conflict between the opinion of the
“oversight” and Scripture then the oversight must be obeyed.
The Scripture gives guidance if
court appeals have to be made. 1 Cor. 6:
4 is the answer: if then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this
life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. □
CANDLESTICK v. LAMPSTAND
Any Bible Teacher referring to
the Seven Golden Candlesticks in his ministry today would be regarded as
old-fashioned, out of touch, an untaught ignoramus. To be acceptable one must
speak of the Lampstands, because, we are told, it is "where oil was burnt
for light as in the Tabernacle". But there is no mention of oil in
Revelation 1 to 3. But it is implied, we are told, because oil is a symbol of
the Holy Spirit, present in the 7 Lampstands. Well then, if interpretation of
scripture depends upon implications, you and I also may be free to infer
whatever we like from Scripture and we can invent our theology as we travel
along.
W. Scott would not even have the
stands in his "Exposition". The 7 churches were their own lights. (so
today the revisionists are their own gods. They worship their own scholarship).
We are aware that the five wise virgins took oil for their lamps and we do know
that the candlestick in the tabernacle held oil in its bowls. We know also that
this candlestick is spoken of in Heb.9:2 and is the same Greek word as we find
in Rev. 1: 12. We think that the A. V. translators, being linguists as yet
unsurpassed, knew all this too.
John saw a candle-stick. He did
not refer to any light, but to the light holder, so there is no need to change
the word at all. Wax candles were in common use in John's day, particularly
among the poorer classes. The church in Smyrna
was known for its poverty (Rev.2:9). I am persuaded therefore, that what John
saw was a candlestick.
We trust that those who so
dogmatically insist on "lampstands" never speak of
"chandeliers" hanging from their lounge ceilings if they are on
electricity.
|
“Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith;
(2 Corinthians 3: 5)
|
This box was published in The
Reformer March/April 2007. It is indescribably sad. These were two great
men of God but apparently neither of them has sufficient confidence in
Scripture to believe in the eternal security of the soul.
Reformism shows itself a doleful
and hopeless religion.
Reformism makes the apostle Paul
a presumptuous man, for he wrote, I know whom I have believed, an am
persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against
that day. 2 Tim. 1: 12.
He knew his soul was secure unto
coming again of the Saviour.
He also wrote unto us which
are saved 1 Cor. 1: 18. He didn’t hope he might be saved. He knew he was
saved. All those who are genuinely saved know it and do not doubt it. The
Reformists rarely speak of being saved. They do not understand it. There is no
salvation in Reformism.
Being in the faith is holding to
the word of God.
Inspiration
(From The Bible at the Bar by W.M. Robertson; P&
I; 1930)
1.The Whole, and every part of the Bible is Inspired.
This is a matter that can only be settled by the Scriptures themselves. As we
examine the Scripture testimony on any other doctrine, so we must on this. What
saith the Scripture as to the extent or fulness of inspiration ? Let no one
say that this is reasoning in a circle. "We take the testimony of a man
for himself, provided his testimony on all other matters is true, " and to
this test we are perfectly prepared to submit the Bible. Its testimony on other
matters has been certified and confirmed by experience, observation, and
scientific investigation. We have every warrant, therefore, for believing its
witness in this matter. It is full and final. In the passage we have already
considered, it is plainly stated that "ALL" Scripture is inspired of
God. It is idle to say that in handling historical matters the writers did not
require Divine assistance, because their data were obtainable from natural
sources. If they did not need inspiration in securing historical data, they
certainly required it in their selection of the same. One has only to compare
the Bible account of Creation, the fall, the flood, etc., with the Babylonian
and other traditions to see the force of this. Moreover, many of the historical
portions of the Bible are also prophetic in character. The history of Israel's
redemption from Egypt
and subsequent experiences are plainly typical, as is stated by Paul in I Cor.
10. 6-11. It would be impossible to ensure the religious infallibility of the
Bible, if we deny the inspiration of its historical parts.
2. The Inspiration of the Bible extends to its Words as
well as its Thoughts, the Form as well as the Substance. This is commonly termed the verbal theory of
inspiration, and is greatly assailed to-day. "No enlightened person,
" we are told, "can any longer hold to the verbal inerrancy of the
Bible. Scientific and Biblical research have for ever relegated this view to
the scrap-heap of out-worn ideas. To be sure, the Bible is inspired, but so are
the works of Tennyson, Browning, and other great writers. While the Bible
admittedly contains the highest spiritual teaching known to man, much also is
dross. While it contains God's Word, revelation is by no means complete in it.
The poets, the scientists, and the philosophers also have a divine message,
and, though there may be a difference, it is a difference of degree, not of
kind. To believe, therefore, that every word of the Bible stands without error
as God's revelation to man is, for the modern mind, simply impossible. "
This is
characteristic of the attitude of a great many to-day. The objection, however,
to verbal inspiration arises very often from a mistaken notion as to what the
words imply. The opponents of verbal inspiration conjure up a picture of
mechanical transmission, after the manner of a gramophone record that has just
been impressed. and ever after reproduces the impressions that have been
received. It is difficult, in fact, to doubt that, with many, deliberate and
persistent misrepresentation is indulged in the more readily to discredit a
view that conflicts with their preconceived notions. The view we hold is as far
removed from a mechanical theory as can be. There were real ideas and rational
processes behind the utterances of the Bible writers, just as there are real
ideas and rational processes behind the utterances of ordinary men. Verbal
inspiration
simply
means that the language in which these ideas produced by normal rational
processes, and yet produced by God, are expressed, is an adequate and accurate
vehicle for their communication. If it were otherwise, how could God-given
ideas find authentic expression ? It is manifestly absurd to talk of the
thoughts or substance as inspired, but not the words or expression, because the
thoughts are embodied in the words, the expression conveys the truth; and we
know nothing of one except through the other, and as set forth by the other.
Consequently, if the words or expression are not inspired, the thoughts or
substance cannot be. This is in no way affected by the fact that God employed
human agents for His purpose in producing Scripture. The Holy Spirit of God so
operated on the finite spirit of man as to secure that what was written should
be an exact expression of His mind. In a word, "Inspiration is an activity
of God upon men, having for its object such an expression of thought in words
as shall reveal to the sons of men the eternal purpose of God. " Dean
Burgon's conclusion on this matter is worthy of the sanity and scholarship of
the man. He says: "You cannot dissect inspiration into substance and form.
As for thoughts being inspired apart from the words which give them expression,
you might as well talk of a tune without notes, or a sum without figures. No
such theory of inspiration is even intelligible. It is as illogical as it is
worthless, and cannot be too sternly put down. "
Robertson’s book The Bible at
the Bar, published by Pickering and Inglis, now out of print, shows that my
brethren once believed in the Verbal Inspiration of Scripture, though the
majority believes no longer. Scripture is synonymous with Holy Bible. P & I
were once a leading “Brethren”
publisher.
Questions for the AV Bible Critic
1. Since you're smart
enough to find "mistakes" in the KJV, why don't you correct them all
and give us a perfect Bible?
2. Do you have a perfect
Bible?
3. Since you do believe
"the Bible" is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice,
could you please show us where Jesus, Peter, James, Paul, or John ever practiced
your terminology ("the Greek text says...the Hebrew text says....the
originals say...a better rendering would be....older manuscripts read...."
etc.)?
4. Since you do not
profess to have a perfect Bible, why do you refer to it as "God's word"?
5. Remembering that the
Holy Spirit is the greatest Teacher (John 16:12-15; I John 2:27),
who taught you that the King James Bible was not infallible, the Holy Spirit or
man?
6. Since you do believe
in the degeneration of man and in the degeneration of the world system in
general, why is it that you believe education has somehow "evolved"
and that men are more qualified to translate God's word today than in 1611?
7. There is one true
God, yet many false gods. There is one true Church, consisting of true
born-again believers in Christ, yet there are many false churches. So why do
you think it's so wrong to teach that there is one true Bible, yet many false
"bibles"?
8. Isn't it true that
you believe God inspired His holy words in the "originals," but has
since lost them, since no one has a perfect Bible today?
9. Isn't it true that
when you use the term "the Greek text" you are being deceitful and
lying, since there are MANY Greek TEXTS (plural), rather than just one?
10. Before the first new
perversion was published in 1881 (the RV), the King James Bible was published,
preached, and taught throughout the world. God blessed these efforts and
hundreds of millions were saved. Today, with the many new translations on the
market, very few are being saved. The great revivals are over. Who has gained
the most from the new versions, God or Satan? — Taken from AV1611.org. copyright free.
Princess Diana is in hell
On the first anniversary of the death of Princess Diana a
Sunday School teacher informed his class that she had gone to hell. This caused
the inevitable furore from parents and those objecting to plain facts being
made known as revealed in the Scriptures.
The Archdeacon of Aston, the Ven John Barton, branded the
preaching barmy and perverted theology. He said, “Diana was fallible but she
tried to make a positive difference to the world.” No doubt this man was invited to comment
because of his hostility to the truth of Scripture.
If Diana did not go to hell she went to heaven. Repentance
toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ are essentials for entrance
into heaven and she displayed neither. Rather, she was an immoral young woman
and involved in Spiritism.
The Scripture tells us Know ye not that the unrighteous
shall not inherit the kingdom
of God? Be not
deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate,
nor abusers of themselves with mankind. 1 Cor.6: 9. The wicked shall be turned into hell. Ps.
9: 17
Those who think that Diana might have repented in her final
moments are ignorant of the gospel and do not understand the effects of shock.
Diana died two hours after being involved in a car crash.In
the accident she suffered severe damage to the left pulmonary vein resulting in
massive blood loss. Her heart was badly damaged and she was unconscious.
If she is now in heaven we must conclude that though
unconscious and rapidly dying she realized her sinful state and consciously
repented of it turning to Christ, and recognising him to be the Son of God
(essential for salvation) she put her trust in Him as her Lord and Saviour.
Enemies of the cross do not like these things taught
publicly. But these accounts serve well to bring souls under conviction of sin
and then to conversion.
The unbelief of J Ritchie Ltd* and its contributors
(See What the Bible Teaches; Judges; p. 327, C T
Lacey.)
I quote from WTBT:
“[Gideon] struggled with the Lord’s estimation of him as a
‘mighty man of valour’ (Judges 6: 12).”
False! The angel of
the Lord had said, the LORD is with thee, thou mighty man of valour. Gideon took this to mean the LORD is with his
people and not that the angel was buttering him up for a future task.
Quote again:
“As far as Gideon was concerned, his current activity hardly
warranted the description of a ‘mighty man of valour’, but God saw it
differently. He ‘threshed’ (knocked out – 2251) wheat by the winepress, to hide
it from the Midianites.....That Gideon was obliged to knock out his little
grain in [my italics] the winepress, a pit sunk in the ground or hewn in
the rock, implies the soreness of the Midianite oppression.
Perversions of Scripture, from JND's New Translation
(1878) onwards, and unbelieving commentaries (What the Bible teaches; Joshua,
Judges, Ruth, edited by W S Stevely and D E West) would have Gideon
threshing wheat IN the wine press, thus discrediting him and the angel of the
Lord. There would have been nothing particularly valiant in this. It would have
been physically impossible to THRESH wheat in a wine press, especially if he
were using a stick, as some suggest. He might have trodden out a few grains for
his own use but the reference to his valour tells us he was doing it for all
Israel.
No one else had sufficient courage to do what he was doing, for fear of the
Midianites. So he would need space. The Midianites would be watching the
threshing floors, so, it not being the time of the grape harvest, he threshed
BY the wine press. The Midianites would not think to look there.
Gideon, instructed by the LORD to throw down the altar of
Baal, because he feared his father’s household, and the men of the city,
that he could not do it by day, that he did it by night. Judges 6: 27.
The suggestion that Gideon was cowardly is an evil
insinuation. It was not a moral fear. If he attempted to throw the altar down
in daylight he would be seen and the
task would be made more difficult. He feared these men would try to stop him.
How wise of him to do it by night! He knew he would soon be identified in the
morning light anyway. He could hardly keep it a secret. He was at all times a
valiant man.
The scholars will tell us that the Hebrew preposition may
be translated "in" as well as "by", but they merely follow
that parody of Scripture, the Septuagint. The use of "in" here makes
a mockery of the truth. Reliable translations read "by".
Where oxen trod out the grain they were not to be muzzled.
*J Ritchie Ltd (owned by Lord’s Work Trust) sells The
Message, a seriously perverted parody of Scripture).Also The Greatness of
the Kingdom by Alva Mcclain. This book which lays the foundation of
Progressive Dispensationalism is described thus by Ritchie Ltd,—
“ This 531-page hardback has no equal. We are thrilled to be
able to offer to you this fully indexed volume. The Kingdom of God
is the grand central theme of all Holy Scripture.... This hard-to –find treasure will teach you
more about the Kingdom
of God than you thought
possible.”
Hard –to-find indeed. It took them 42 years to find it. Who
knows what Ritchie’s will produce 2049 AD?
For a critique on this subject, see Waymarks 47 and 48.
The New Evangelism
No longer is the gospel preached. This is because the
preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness. 1 Cor. 1: 18. We
do not want Mr and Mrs worldly Wise to
stay away from the Gospel\ Service so we shall catch them with our new
evangelism. When they come we can tell ourselves that we have made so many “contacts”. (They used to be called
converts.)
The modern gospel is found in School visits, Bible exhibitions,
Creation lectures, OAP tea meetings, Mum’s and Toddlers sessions, Hall coffee
mornings, YP’s Barbeques, Old Folks Home visits (must be a Sunday night of
course).
It is possible that at any of these things a soul may be
saved. One may be saved down a sewer.
Jonah was saved while in the depths of the ocean. But what a lot of
carnal energy is expended on these efforts.
But we can reach the children by visiting the school, so we
are told. Yes, you can get in with the approval of ungodly headteachers (very
very few are believers). You dare not preach the truth when you do get in, or
you will never get back again. (NB. 1 Thess. 2: 6, John 12: 43). I note that my brethren do not have a
distinctive message. It differs not from the “message” of SDA’s Anglicans,
Evangelicals etc.
My great-nephew was for a time a paid school visitor, paid
by his local Baptist Union church. He has not the slightest comprehension of
what it is to be saved. But he could give a nice little Bible story with one or
two points made.
How can we reach the children then? They live all around the
hall. Go and knock on their doors. Speak to the parents.
Many years ago an assembly wanted to start a Sunday School.
Two or three young sisters decided to go door knocking. It was not long before
the assembly was running three Sunday Schools, each with 100 children attending
regularly.□
ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY REJECTS THE
"FUNDAMENTALIST" APPROACH TO SCRIPTURE (Friday Church News Notes,
April 27, 2007, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - In a
lecture in Toronto, Ontario, on April 16, Rowan Williams, Archbishop of
Canterbury, rejected the "fundamentalist" approach to Scripture,
calling it "rootless" and "limited" in what "it can
contribute to the church." The lecture, "The Bible Today: Reading and
Hearing," was delivered at an event jointly sponsored by Wycliffe and
Trinity theological colleges. Williams said it is wrong to treat the Scripture
as an "inspired supernatural guide for individual conduct"
("Archbishop of Canterbury: Church Needs to Listen Properly to the
Bible," Anglican Church of Canada News, April 16, 2007). Williams implied that the Bible
is not in all parts equally "the Word of the Lord." He gave two
examples of the alleged wrong use of Scripture. The first was John 14:6, which
he said "could not be used simply as a trump card in discussions with
other faiths." The other was Romans 1:27, which he said could not be used as
a "definite proof text" against the morality of homosexuality. In
this lecture Williams quoted many heretics approvingly, including Karl Barth
and Soren Kierkegaard. He said that critical biblical scholarship is an
"underappreciated gift." Williams said it is wrong to read the Bible
in a fragmentary manner and to ignore its context, but the fact is that the
fundamentalist approach is not guilty of this. We understand very well that the
Bible must be interpreted first by its context and second by comparing
Scripture with Scripture. These are foundational fundamentalist principles of
Bible interpretation. What Williams is promoting is something far different
from this. He is using historic theological terms but redefining them by his
liberal dictionary. When you remove the theological mumbo-jumbo from his
lecture, what you have is a man who does not believe that the Bible is divinely
inspired in a verbal-plenary, infallible sense. You have a religious politician
who wants to chart a compromising middle-of-the-road course in the midst of
end-time apostasy. "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power
thereof: from such turn away" (2 Timothy 3:5). Taken from FCNN emailed 27/04/07.
This lecture can be read at www.trinity.utoronto.ca/News_Events/News/archbishop.htm
John 14 begins with the words Let not your heart be
troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. Whatever these faithful
believing godly disciples believed concerning the revealed nature of God,
revealed to them by the power of the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures, Jesus
Christ said, believe the same in Me. What a trump card!! The words of Christ
show up the lies and deceit of all world religions. Here is a Man in whom
dwells the fullness of the Godhead. Williams is exposed as a leader among the
sons of hell.
My Bible and I
We have travelled
together, my Bible and I.
Through tempest and
sunshine I still kept thee nigh.
Though dark were the
days, thy comforts were strong,
"Fear not, I am
with thee" I still made my song.
My solace and comfort
when trouble was nigh.
We were still close
together, my Bible and I .
My stay and my
comfort, by day and by night,
My treasure, my
succour, my comfort, delight;
My solid foundation
from earth's rudest shock,
I am safe in the
shadow of thee, blessed rock.
With thee for my
guide, I can Satan defy;
We will hold to each
other, my Bible and I .
Thou sword of the Spirit,
revealer and guide,
My doubts are
dispelled when I've thee by my side.
The Master, Himself,
soon put Satan to flight
When appearing to him
as an angel of light.
With thee I can
conquer, and Satan defy,
We'll keep closer
together, my Bible and I.
So now who shall part
us, my Bible and I ?
Shall Satan's
temptations when age dims the eye?
Come storm or come
sunshine, come sleet or come rain,
My stay in the past,
I will trust thee again.
Be my song in the
night, if preparing to die,
We will still be
companions, my Bible and I.
SELECTED.
This poem is found on the last
page of The Bible at the Bar.
No comments:
Post a Comment