Waymarks 52
Report of Open air Preaching
19th December LUTON
T. C. Christmas lights, unlit, hang
miserably along the street. There is no “Jingle Bell” music either, thankfully,
it being supposed that it could offend the ethnic minorities, who as it happens
simply adore Christmas. So it is quiet along the High Street and the gospel can
be preached. But the preacher is totally ignored today.
At last a lady approaches but takes a step past me to the
Big Issue boy standing next to me. Actually he got here first, but I’ve been
preaching here for 33 years now. “Have
you been blessed?” The lady asks the B I B. He hadn’t, apparently. She bought a
copy of Big Issue, and went on her way.
2nd January LUTON
T.C. I get a response to my preaching
today. A man shouts at me, “It’s all over”. I ignore him and continue preaching
so he repeats his cry. If he means God is no longer saving souls, he is very
much mistaken. The presence of a gospel preacher on the street is an indication
of God’s mercy and longsuffering. The presence of believers here on earth is an
indication the rapture has not yet taken place —all be it many are asleep.
16th January LUTON
T.C. Today somebody wants to talk to me. My first reaction was that I should
advise him to dispose of his can of lager lest he get arrested. I though better
of this as I would probably then lose any opportunity of preaching to him. He
wanted me to know that he had been brought up Catholic but had now become a
Christian. His main question was “what do I think of marriage?” I told him God instituted marriage for the
whole human race. He seemed pleased with
this reply and said he was worried about his relationship. He was living with
his pal’s girlfriend who was soon due out of prison. I told him to repent and
get right with God as soon as he could . At which he asked me to pray for him.
I asked his name. “Oscar”, he replied. I was about to pray for this man’s
conversion when two of his friends arrived. “Hallo Linden,” said one of them.
I learned they were all living rough and they seemed to me
to be the sort that go around kicking people’s heads in on a Saturday night.
Two of them accepted Way of Salvation booklets.
“While I was talking to the first man another man arrived
who wanted to speak to me. Oscar/Linden told him to clear off because he was
already talking to me.
12thFebruary LUTON
T.C. Preached for a while, beginning as
usual with John 3: 16. Then S— arrived, introducing herself as the sister of
P—. I didn’t recognise her but she seemed to know me well enough. Her sister,
P— has been to our Gospel Hall several times. Although R.C., she had taken a
lot of interest in the gospel but had never made a profession. She spent a
period in a psychiatric hospital and while there nominated me as her pastor.
This gave me any time access to the hospital.
S— accepted a Way of Salvation booklet.
Next three small children came and stood in front of me,
listening to the gospel. The oldest, about five years old, told me she liked my
story because she was Catholic. They were waiting for their mother who had gone
into a nearby shop, leaving them alone in the street. When she came out she
seemed not in the least concerned that they had been listening to a street
preacher!
AV Verses Vindicated
Mark 9: 42
And whosoever shall offend one of these little
ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged
about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Darby puts “in me” in square brackets, indicating his
objection to these words and casting doubt on their genuineness. They have
indeed been bracketed in the Critical Text and are now missing from some modern
versions, notably the NASV.
The manuscript evidence in favour of “in me” is massive. Their
removal is therefore malicious. To some it matters not what is believed as long
as one does not believe in Christ.
What confounds the critic is that not even the Codex
Vaticanus omits “in me” while its twin pillar of the critical Text has thrown
out these words.
Acts 20: 28
(a)
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock,
over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers....
“...in the which..” (RV, ESV, etc.).
David Oliver, in Truth and Tidings (Nov. 07) wrote,
The Authorized Version is
misleading in translating [this]verse,
It is assumed that the AV translators were unlettered clods.
Such is the crass ignorance of those who make such an assumption. The Greek
preposition en is translated “over” in the AV Bible at this verse. The
translators were well aware of the wide use of en as does the Bible
student who has learned to use his Greek lexicon. There are many words in the
English language that can be used legitimately to translate en besides
“in”. The choice depends on the context.
The object is “overseers”, one who oversees or superintends,
therefore the most suitable English preposition is “over”.
This in no way diminishes the fact the overseer is first a
brother among his brethren.
David Oliver presumably does not believe the Authorized
Version is the Holy Bible. He thinks the ESV is “more accurate”.
Galatians 5: 19
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these;
adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
We are not surprised that adultery is missing from modern
versions, from the RV onwards. Jeremiah tells us, They were as fed
horses in the morning: every one neighed after his neighbour’s wife. (Jer.
5: 8). This sin remains common practice throughout Christendom.
The NIV reads, “The acts of the sinful nature are
obvious” which is very vague for
whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
moicheia (adultery) is found in the majority of
cursive manuscripts. It is also quoted by three of the “Fathers”.
2 Thes.2:2.
….the day of Christ is at hand.
. Modern
versions change this to "the day of the Lord" being come. This
appears more suitable in relation to what the rest of scripture teaches
concerning the Day of the Lord, but the manuscript evidence for the change is
very poor. The vast majority of all manuscripts support "day of
Christ". Some Alexandrian manuscripts (i.e. found in Egypt where
early corruptions of the Scriptures are known to have taken place) support
"day of the Lord" *. So let us believe what the Bible says
and admit that maybe we do not fully understand the doctrine of the day of
Christ. The Thessalonians had no such problems and they most certainly read
"day of Christ".
The Day of
the Lord had been expounded in the first epistle to the Thessalonians. They
knew it would come as a thief in the night, unexpectedly, and that it would not
affect them (ch.5v.4) They knew that the Day of Christ would affect them
(2Thes.2v.5 and compare Phil.1v.10 & 2v.16) and that it would be preceded
by the great apostasy. If the Day of Christ had come ("at hand" means
that), then for a start they had missed the rapture. What troubled them was the
false teaching they were getting on the subject including apparently a letter
from Paul himself saying the Day had come. Note that! Falsified Scripture.
(N.B. 2Cor.2v.17) Thus we are warned in Scripture that men would from the
beginning seek to corrupt the Word of God. Note that the N.I.V. mutilates even
this verse to read "....we do not peddle the word of God for profit."
But that is what every modern version is about.
*The Hodges/Farstad MajorityText footnote for this verse
shows the consensus of Alexandrian manuscripts to have Kyrios, against the
majority of manuscripts which have Xristos.
For the Bible believer, this speaks for itself. It is the
battle of apostasy against faith.
Hebrews 12: 16,17
Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person,
as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
For ye know how that afterward, when he would have
inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance,
though he sort it carefully with tears.
ASV “....he found no place for a change of mind in
his father”.
CEV “....even
though he begged his father and cried.”
GW “....even
though he begged and cried for the blessing, he couldn’t do anything to change
what had happened.”
Those opposed to genuine heart repentance make a travesty of
this verse. The Scripture teaches us here that Esau lived and died an
unrepentant fornicator and profane person. He made a great show with his
crocodile tears and hoped there might be some way out of his mess but he was
never truly sorry for his deeds. He wished to repent on his own terms as many
do today.
There are many who show a degree of remorse. They wish they
could change things and they make a form of believing. They’ll do anything but
change their mind about their sin. They will even give it up BUT in their heart
they relish what they have done so they have not repented.
Esau was such a man. Suggesting it was his father who needed
to change his mind is an opinion not found in the text and it mocks God.
The Progress of Apostasy
The history of Textual Criticism is the story of Apostasy. A
study of the lives of modern textual critics from the 18th century
on will reveal this. Each rising generation of critics appear more apostate
than those who went before them, from Griesbach, and Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Westcott and Hort, Aland, Metzger, to Ehrmann who denies the faith entirely
because of his studies in Criticism.
It is not my intention to deal with apostasy generally but
to describe my own conflict with it as it is met in Gospel Halls today.
Twenty minutes after I got saved I bought a Bible. It was an
Authorized Version. There were no other versions on the bookstand that night. All
the preachers read and quoted only from this Bible.
By the mid sixties certain men were telling us better
renderings were to be found in the RV or even JND. This they claimed was due to
a better scholarship. It was not long therefore before they were telling us how
much they upheld the inspiration and inerrancy of the original Scriptures. The
implication of this being that our present day Bibles could not be inspired and
inerrant. Some of us woke up at this point. We realized that these men who came
to our platforms were destroying faith in God’s written word. We began to read
what the critics were saying so that we might answer them.
So by the eighties were learned that the critics were
teaching the non-recoverability of the “originals”. This left them free to make
up their own bibles based on likely readings, or what they thought the writers
were trying to say. Formal translations were regarded as not possible and not
necessary.
The verbal inspiration of Scripture had gone and for the
last thirty years I have never heard it taught in any Gospel Hall.
Yet brethren will refer to the inspired word, while
privately believing there is no such thing.
The latest development in textual criticism is there were no
originals anyway. The critic tells us God did not inspire certain men to write
what He directed. They tell us that God did not really have anything to do with
the Bible anyway. What happened was that over a period of time stories were
passed on by word of mouth concerning the words and deeds of Jesus. Naturally
these were embellished as time went on to include miracles and resurrection
etc. Some disciples decided they had better write it all down using the
pseudonyms of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, etc. These were collected
together and the bible appeared.
Already we are hearing allusions to this from our
bible-teachers. Peter didn’t write the epistles by Peter! Apostasy is upon us. The Bible is out. Of
course our public men do not want to put themselves out of business so they
will give their little devotional talks, but they don’t need a Bible to do it.
The Brethren slumber on.
The Barrenness of the Brethren Gospel
I shall refer to one example of Brethren preaching that I
listened to recently. It is typical of so many I have heard over the years.
The meeting began with the singing of three gospel hymns.
They were “old time” hymns, sung from the Irish Gospel Hymn Book but
still popular today with N. I. Brethren and some G B assemblies. They were
hymns sung by most evangelical churches in the past. They were hymns I like to
sing.
Then came an opening prayer which lasted about one minute.
This is probably a good thing too if the desired audience should be made up of
unconverted folk, not used to lengthy theological prayers. The praying had been
done before the meeting started.
This was followed by the reading of the Bible and here he
trouble started. We were told that a few words would be read and they would be
applied out of context. They were “For how long shall thy journey be?” Neh. 2:
6.
There were no good gospel passages for the preacher to use
apparently. He indicated by his use of Scripture his low regard for it. His
message was to be a succession of semi-related anecdotes. He would not be
relying on Scripture to apply his message and he quoted no texts during his
preaching.
One appreciates that it is difficult to mention every gospel
word or phrase within the bounds of a 45 minute gospel message but to make no
mention at all of the cross? Not only was the cross ignored but also no mention
was made of Lord, Jesus, virgin birth, deity, resurrection, repentance, conversion, faith, trust, forgiveness, pardon
,lake of fire, eternal punishment, Scripture.
It was all a succession of anecdotes. Some were quite moving
and one felt one’s emotions being stirred. Some appeared totally irrelevant. We
were told of the surgeon who stopped to ask a drink at a house while out
walking. The little girl of the house brought him a glass of milk. Later the
little girl was taken ill and needed surgery. The surgeon, unrecognised,
performed the operation and as the family was poor he wrote on his bill, “Paid
in full —with one glass of milk.”
I missed what theological point this fulfilled. I think it
was we can gain salvation with as little as a glass of milk. Certainly not
“nothing to pay” because the little girl had done something to merit her bill
being paid.
The meeting closed with a short prayer for people to get
right with God and another gospel hymn.
Those present appeared to be impressed with this message.
None showed any concern that this did not relate to the gospel revealed in the
New Testament.
This was not a case of the preaching of the cross; the cross
was not even mentioned. Eugene Higgins
certainly did not preach Christ crucified. The person of Christ, His deity etc.
was not mentioned. No instruction was given concerning the reality of hell. The
word hell was mentioned but very quickly passed over. No advice was given
concerning the responsibilities of the new convert. No suggestion that there
were things that would have to be given up. No one was made to feel
uncomfortable.
********
A blasphemous entry appears on the Hebron Hall, Bicester,
website:
All of this prefigured Christ, who by becoming man also became our
‘near-kinsman’ (Heb 2:11-17).
“That he might have a right to redeem man, He took upon Him human nature,
and thus became a kinsman of the great family of the human race, and thereby
possessed the right of redeeming that fallen nature of which He took part [sin
apart], and of buying back to man that inheritance which had been forfeited
by transgression.” Adam Clarke.
It seems this is the stated belief of those meeting at the
above Gospel Hall.—Christ took on Himself a fallen human nature. (But we doubt
if many at Hebron Hall have seen this website. It is largely the work of M
Penfold who has this same statement on his other website, webtruth.org)
For Christ to have a
fallen (i.e. sinful) nature, He must have had a human father. Adding to
Clarke’s quote the words [sin apart] only aggravates the issue, implying that
the Lord could sin because He had a fallen nature but chose not to.
The surprising thing about all this is that reputable
brethren visit this Gospel Hall with no qualms as to what they will be
associated with.
Devils or Demons? by will Kinney, and found on Steve van Nattan’s website (copyright lifted)
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines OF DEVILS." 1 Timothy 4:1There are a multitude of Bible critics who insist the King James Bible is in error when it translates the Greek word daimonion as "devils". They tell us this word should be translated as "demons" and not devils, because everyone knows there is only one Devil, that is Satan, and not many.
Let's do a little word study to see if there is any legitimacy to their claims.
The late Baptist pastor and King James Bible defender Bruce Lackey wrote a little book titled Why I Believe the Old King James Bible. On pages 44-48 he says regarding the use of the word devils and other alleged errors in the King James Bible: "Rather than treat these places as errors, why not remember that the King James translators were intelligent and reverent scholars, and try to find out why they did a particular thing in the way that they did?"
Mr Lackey writes: "The word Devils¹ is another word that the critics delight in pouncing on, as a wrong translation. Everyone knows, they say, that there is only one devil (Satan), but many demons. Also, the Greek word from which Odevils¹ comes (DAIMON, and cognates) is different from that which refers to Satan (DIABOLOS). Again, a little investigation will prove this charge to be foolish, to say the least, and ignorant, at the most. Consider:
"(1) The word translated devil,¹ when referring to Satan, does not always refer to him; DIABOLOS is translated slanderers¹ in 1 Timothy 3:11, and as false accusers¹ in 2 Timothy 3:3 and Titus 2:3. In all three places, it refers to human beings. Again, we see the necessity of translating in a manner which will be understood by the readers.
"(2) Devil in the English language has multiple meanings; it may refer to Satan, demons, a very wicked person, an unlucky person (that poor devil), a printer¹s devil (apprentice or errand boy) as any good English dictionary would show. To say that devil¹ is an erroneous translation, because it can only refer to Satan, is to ignore the dictionary!" - Mr. Bruce Lackey.
I might add that to affirm there is only one Devil and this is Satan is also incorrect. In the gospel of John, immediately after Peter said: "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God", the Lord Himself answered them: "Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you IS A DEVIL."
The Lord was obviously referring to Judas Iscariot, and mere man, yet He calls him a devil - DIABOLOS.
Let's look at some of the English dictionaries Mr. Lackey referred to.
Dictionary.Com, and the modern Webster's Dictionary define devil:
1. Devil - In many religions, the major personified spirit of evil, ruler of Hell, and foe of God. Used with the.
2. A subordinate evil spirit; a demon.
3. A wicked or malevolent person.
Demon - Likewise these dictionaries give the following definitions for "demon". Notice numbers 2 and 3.
Main Entry: de·mon
Variant(s): or dae·mon
Etymology: Middle English demon, from Late Latin & Latin; Late Latin daemon evil spirit, from Latin, divinity, spirit, from Greek daimOn, 1 a. an evil spirit b. : a source or agent of evil, harm, distress, or ruin 2 usually daemon : an attendant power or spirit: Genius 3 usually daemon : a supernatural being of Greek mythology intermediate between gods and men
New Agers today refer to daemons as good spirits who guide us in this life. I have heard some of the lectures on the Power of Myth by the late Joseph Cambell. He frequently used the word "daemon" in a positive way as some sort of spiritual guide. I'm sure he now knows how wrong he was during his lifetime.
Shakespeare also used the word daemon (demon) is a positive way. Therefore, O Antony, stay not by his side. Thy demon, that thy spirit which keeps thee, is Noble, courageous, high, unmatchable Where Caesar's is not. But near him thy angel Becomes a fear, as being o'erpow'red. . . --Antony and Cleopatra, II.iii.18-22.
Basilides, in his book The Seven Sermons to the Dead, translated by Carl Jung (another New Ager) says: "The daemon of spirituality descends into our soul as the white bird. It is half human and appears as desire-thought... The White Bird is a half-celestial soul of man. He bids with the Mother."
Another point I have never seen raised by these modern version proponents who criticize the King James Bible has to do with the New Testament Greek itself. They love to "go to the Greek" to show us their expertise and convince us of the alleged errors in the Holy Bible.
Regarding the Greek words daimon, and daimonion, which are translated as "devils" in the King James Bible, and as "demons" in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, several Greek lexicons give us the following definitions.
Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon 17th edition 1878 says the verb daimonizomai means "to be possessed by a devil." It then goes on to define daimonion as "an inferior race of divine beings".
Thayer's Greek Lexicon says daimonion is 1. the Divine power, deity, divinity, and 2. a spirit, a being inferior to God, superior to man, in both a good and a bad sense.
Bauer, Arndt & Gingrich likewise tell us daimonion is 1. a deity, a divinity, 2. a demon, an evil spirit.
Kittel's massive work says of both daimon and daimonion that they are first used to denote gods. They can also refer to lesser deities or a protective deity. They also are "messengers between gods and men".
Many modern versions themselves are inconsistent. Versions like the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ASV, and Darby render the noun and verb (daimonion, daimonizomai) as "demons" and yet when they come to the adjective of this word in James 3:15 (daimoviwdns) they translate it as "devilish" or "of the devil". "This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, DEVILISH." - James 3:15.
The Greek New testament, no matter which one you choose with all the textual variations, all agree in Acts 17:18. Here we see from the New Testament Greek itself the relationship between daimonion and the gods. Remember, the word daimonion meant in Greek mythology an intermediate spirit between the gods and men.
In Acts 17:18 we read: "Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange GODS: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection."
The word here translated as "gods" is daimonion, the very same word translated as "devils" in the KJB and many others, and as "demons" in the RSV, NASB, NKJV, ESV, and NIV. Demons = gods.
Another Greek word found in the New Testament shows again this relationship between the daimonion (devils) and religion. In this same chapter (Acts 17:22) the apostle Paul walked around the city of Athens and observed their devotions and altars of pagan gods. Paul says to them: "Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too SUPERSTITIOUS."
For a more complete study on this verse and why the King James Bible is correct, please see my article http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Acts17-22.html
The word translated as "too superstitious" in the King James Bible is composed of two elements - Deisi and daimonesterous. The first part is the verb deido which means to fear, and the second part is an adjective from the noun daimon, which means devils or demons. The word daimon is used six times in the New Testament and is always translated as devils in the KJB.
What we see here in the Greek language is that the words daimon, and daimonion can both carry the idea of a positive and beneficial spiritual entity. The King James translatos were aware of this, and correctly translated these words as "devils". The word "devils" is directly related to the Devil and we are in no doubt as to which side they are on.
Martin Luther was not confused about this issue when he composed his famous song, A Mighty Fortress is Our God. One of the lines of this great song is: "And though this world with DEVILS filled should threaten to undo us, we will not fear, for God hath willed, His truth to triumph through us."
Most modern versions have removed the word "devils" when it refers to unclean or evil spirits. These include the NKJV, RSV, NASB, NIV and the ESV.
However there are many Bible versions both before and after the King James Holy Bible that correctly translate this word as devils. Among these are the following:
Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version 1881, Webster's 1833 translation (Deut. 32:17; 2 Chron. 11:15), Douay Rheims 1950, Jerusalem Bible 1968, New American Bible 1970, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1933, the New English Bible 1970, J. B. Phillips (Luke 11:19), the KJV 21st Century, the Third Millenium Bible, the 2001 Easy to Read Version (Psalms 106:37 "God's people killed their own children and offered the children to those devils."), and the modern 2002 paraphrase called The Message - Isaiah 34:14, Matthew 12:27, 45; Luke 11:19 "but if you're slinging devil mud at me, calling me a devil who kicks out DEVILS, doesn't the same mud stick to your own exorcists?".
Those who criticize the King James Bible for using the word devils instead of demons apparently do not understand either the Greek or the English language very well. They are like those described in 1 Timothy 1:7 "Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm."
At the beginning of this little study we quoted 1 Timothy 4:1 where the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter days some would depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils.
Without exception, I have found that those who criticize our beloved King James Bible do not believe that any single text or Bible version, be it in Hebrew, Greek, English, Swahili or whatever, is the complete, inerrant, inspired, and pure words of God. In regards to the Bible version issue, the modern scholars have adopted the methods and beliefs of liberal apostates who tell us the Hebrew Masoretic texts have been corrupted and the Greek texts are uncertain and in need of constant research and updating. They have no infallible Holy Bible to give us and they ridicule those of us who believe God has preserved His pure words and that today and for almost 400 years they are found in the King James Holy Bible.
I have personally been called an ignorant fool, an apostate, and even demon possessed because I believe God meant what He said about heaven and earth shall pass away but His words would not pass away.
There are two basic views hotly debated among Christians today concerning the Bible version issue. You are on one side or the other.
#1. Believing God has kept His promises to preserve His words and has given us an inerrant Bible or #2. Believing there is no such thing as a complete, inerrant, and perfect Bible on the face of this earth?
Now which of these two views do you think is a doctrine of devils?
The Gospel
The Gospel is “Good News”.
It is good news to the human race. It is good news for this reason— it
is not inevitable that the sinner should go down into hell. There is a heaven
to be gained.
The gospel is God’s (Rom. 1: 1) and it is the gospel of
his Son (Rom. 1: 9). There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the
man Christ Jesus. (1 Tim. 2: 5)
There is therefore only
one gospel and all other gospels are false. All world religions have their
gospel but the total sum of this world’s religions stink in the nostrils of a
holy God. All roads do not lead to the God of heaven. They lead down into hell
and are lumped together under the title of “The Broad Way” (Matt. 7: 13)
God’s way declares mankind to be depraved and lost in sin.
This is the starting point, dear reader. do you think you have any natural
standing with God? Do you think He is
impressed by your puny attempts to do good? There is none that doeth good (Rom.
3: 12) whether he be a
pope, or she be a mother Teresa, all are spiritually bankrupt in the sight of
God. You must first acknowledge that your sins have come between you and your
God. The least of your great weight of sins damns you in the sight of God. If
you are unwilling to face up to this you remain lost and amongst the
hell-bound.
Attempts at self improvement are of no avail. You have
probably tried this course to no effect. You must accept God’s gospel or
perish.
If you are not a religionist you may be an atheist. There is
no sincere atheist. You do not KNOW there is no God. You merely pretend there
is no God because you know if you acknowledge a God your life must be condemned. It is anyway. All
unbelievers are condemned already.
The
true and living God is seen in creation.
Because that which may be known of God is manifest
in them; for God hath shewed it unto
them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they
are without excuse: Romans 1:
19,20
Evolutionists wilfully deny God. The evidence is there in
creation. No evolutionist will ever get to heaven.
A personal knowledge of God can come only through Jesus
Christ. The Scripture says concerning Him; God was manifest in the flesh. 1
Tim.3: 16. He proved Himself to be God by His miraculous entry into this world;
by means of the virgin’s womb; By His sinless life; by His death, burial, and
resurrection.
He came to redeem you and me by dying on a Roman cross.
The good news therefore is Repent ye and believe the
gospel. Mark 1: 15. His
death opens up the way for the repentant believing soul to gain heaven and
avoid hell. Christ died for our sins.
Repentance precedes conversion. Repent ye therefore and
be converted. Repentance is not remorse, regret, or feeling sorry for
oneself. It is a change of mind which produces a change of behaviour. If you
carry on loving the world then you haven’t repented.
Believing means trusting Christ and receiving Him as the
eternal Son of God, the Saviour of the world. Wrong thoughs of Christ will take
you into hell
Conversion involves the work of the Holy Spirit. The soul
becomes new-born. Eternal life is gained. This is an irreversible condition
that will take you eventually into heaven.
The Bible Text Issue
Son of
Deceased Apostate Textual "Scholar" Hails Father as Ecumenical
Pioneer Who Greatly Contributed to Worldwide "Church Unity"
Dr. Bruce Metzger’s name is well known in
Biblical textual circles, since he was one of the most prominent liberal
scholars in the textual field for more than sixty years. A religious apostate,
Metzger often cloaked his unbelief with conservative terminology. In a tribute to his father that appeared in the Volume XXVII Number 1 issue (2007) issue of The Princeton Seminary Bulletin, his son John M. Metzger hailed his father as an ecumenical pioneer. Metzger wrote: "One aspect of Dad’s scholarly work that has sometimes not been sufficiently recognized or appreciated is that his work has brought Christian believers together and has encouraged unity and understanding within the ecumenical church at a fundamental Biblical level…"
"By 1967, however, in a review of the Jerusalem Bible, Dad wrote that ‘during the past generation the differences between the results of Protestant and Roman Catholic Biblical scholarship have been reduced almost to the vanishing point…
Indeed, Dad’s biblical scholarship has significantly advanced the ecumenical movement, for example, in May 1973, when he and several others presented a specially bound copy of the Collins RSV ‘Common’ Bible to Pope Paul VI…When these additional texts were published on May 19, 1977, in the New Oxford Annotated Bible, with the Apocrypha, it could at last be said that ‘Now for the first time since the Reformation, one edition of the Bible had received the blessings of leaders of Protestant, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches alike.’"
"Dad’s high-level ecumenical contacts continued when, in Advent 1991, he and several others presented a Roman Catholic Edition…of the New Revised Standard Version [NRSV] in white calf to Pope John Paul II, who expressed his appreciation that such an edition was now available. Dad’s efforts in developing a single edition of the scriptures that is acceptable to all major branches of Christianity is truly a major contribution to church unity."
Ed: Despite his supposed evangelical beliefs, Metzger was a blatant apostate. The writer has beside him a copy of The Oxford Annotated Bible, RSV edition of which Metzger was a co-editor. In this volume, Metzger boldly denied the verbal inspiration of Scripture calling the Pentateuch a "matrix of myth, legend and history." (p. xxi) The book of Job was portrayed as an "ancient folktale" (p. 613), while Jonah was declared to a "didactic narrative" that was taken from "popular legend." (p. 1120)
In a chapter at the book’s conclusion entitled "How to Read the Bible with Understanding," Metzger stated on p. 1513: "The opening chapters of the O. T. deal with human origin. They are not to be read as history." Metzger also believed that the KJV had "grave defects" (Preface, p. ix) and that it "was based on a text that was marred by mistakes (Ibid, p. xii)."
Metzger also served as editor of the New Revised Standard Version [NRSV]. Speaking about Christ’s humanity in Luke 2:33, the NRSV blasphemously states that "the child’s [Jesus] father and mother were amazed at what was being said about him." The above article conclusively proves that there is a decisive link between the ecumenical movement and unreliable modern Bible translations!
God’s
Providential Preservation of the Perfect Scriptures
In the Aug. 2007 issue of the Plains
Baptist Challenger, E. L. Bynum penned an incisive article entitled
"On the Fence" in which he asserted that middle-of-the road
compromisers were straddling the fences on numerous vital religious issues
including Biblical preservation. In his article Bynum vigorously defended God’s preservation of His Holy Scriptures, declaring that in II Peter 1:19-21 "Peter said ‘WE HAVE a more sure word,’ and he did not say ‘we once had.’ He spoke in the present tense, yet much of the Bible was more than 1,500 years old and they did not have the original manuscripts in his day.
In the previous verses Peter is telling us about his wonderful experience on the mount of transfiguration (Matt. 17:1-8). However, he now tells us that the Bible is a more sure word of prophecy. On the mount, Peter had an experience, but in the Bible he had a divinely inspired, God-breathed revelation from God.
Some will say, ‘yes, we believe that, but we don’t have the original manuscripts.’ If that is the test, then no one, living or dead, had on this earth an infallible, inspired Bible. No man ever had all the original manuscripts. According to this theory, they were all polluted and contained errors the first time they were copied or translated.
Why would God give an inspired and infallible book, if it would only be available for the immediate writer and the few that might be able to read it? You may serve that kind of God, but I do not. The proposition is simple, either God gave His perfect word and kept it pure, or we have no Bible today.
If our Bible today is filled with errors as the modern translators tell us [Ed: That’s what Bruce Metzger alleged!], then we have no dependable Bible in the first place. If that be so, we are as bad off as the modernists who believe that a lot of the Bible is the ideas of man. Brother, get off the fence and stand for the total trustworthiness of our KJV Bible." To E. L. Bynum’s statement, the F.D. editor adds a hearty "amen."
—The two articles above are taken from The Fundamentalist Digest; Oct/Nov 2007
Interpretations
He was a quiet brother. meaning He never spoke a word for the Lord.
We don’t know whether he’s saved. “
He never spoke a word for the Lord.
We don’t know whether he is saved. “
He’s unmoved by gospel preaching.
He doesn’t show much interest. “
He sleeps through the meetings.
He’s a carnal believer. “
He asks questions of the oversight.
He’s a great scholar. “
He thinks the Bible is full of error.
He’s very gifted. “
He has two cars and a big house.
He’s a fine preacher. “ His ministry never touches me.
He’s a humble brother “
He doesn’t earn half what I do.
He has a simple faith. “
He never reads his Bible.
He attends the meetings regularly “
He comes Sunday mornings only.
He’s a powerful preacher “
He never calls for repentance.
His wife is a “mother in Israel”. “
His wife rules the Assembly.
We are not sure where his children stand .
“ His children run wild.
He wants
to be the church secretary
“ He understands the
“book me-book you” system.
“It must be from God”
The Holy Bible must have been
Inspired of God and not of men
I could not, if I would, believe
That good men wrote it to deceive,
and bad men could not if they would.,
and surely would not if they could,
Proceed to write a book so good.
and certainly no crazy man
could e’er conceive its wondrous plan,
And pray, what other kinds of men
Than do these three groups comprehend?
Hence it must be that God inspired
The Word which souls of prophets fired.
Author Unknown
No comments:
Post a Comment