Simply put; who offers me what He does? Who comes even close to Him? Where in the world is there a promise that remotely compares to His? The Saviour Himself said "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." John 10.28.
The very fact that He died for me; gave His life to save a monstrously wretched sinner like me, puts me in a place of eternal indebtedness that I simply cannot repay! I really have no 'funds' to do so! So I belong to Him; for on that cross He gave His life for me!
But! why do I believe this? Why do I (and all true blood bought believers) believe what the masses reject?
Who makes the difference? Most assuredly it cannot be me! for the Bible says in no uncertain terms that "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2.14.
Why then do I believe? The apostle Paul answers the question further on in 1 Corinthians 4.7; "For Who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" (my emphasis).
This is God's free sovereign electing grace at work! The true believer believes only because God in Christ chose him!
As that great man of God J.C. Ryle said; "If God didn't choose me, I would never have chosen Him."
Says it all, really?
I have no doubt that many of God's true children have, and will be saved without a biblical knowledge of pre-destination/election; nevertheless, they must come to salvation by way of the cross! For God's word says "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh to the Father, but by Me." John 14.6.
Men, women and children can only be saved by believing on the blood of Christ alone, for God's word says "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4.12.
God bless.
Friday 30 March 2018
Sunday 18 March 2018
Building your "house upon the sand" Matthew 7.26.
There is a literal interpretation of these God breathed words.
Reading the BBC news earlier today, I came across a story entitled "Hemsby cliff-top homes in precarious position." The photos are very graphic, and you can see a whole line of cliff-top properties about to disappear into the sea.
I quote the BBC verbatim "The cliffs at Hemsby are made of sand which has suffered erosion over many years..." The story goes on to describe the varying plights of the occupiers of these properties.
This coastal erosion is not an overnight phenomenon, and I am sure that the residents living there were well aware of the risks of living in that location, especially those who have settled there in recent years, at no doubt a discount rental or purchase price.
The builders that erected these properties were also no doubt knowledgeable of the foundations they were building upon, but nevertheless, a few hundred yards of cliff-top sand dropping into the sea was yet a 'great' many years hence! People are attracted to sea-views, I know because I have one myself-thankfully, up here in Lewis, we are on rocks, not sand!
As the Scripture says, it is "a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand." The Rock is Christ, and whomever will trust in Him alone is like the man "which built his house upon a rock." Matthew 7.24.
Reading the BBC news earlier today, I came across a story entitled "Hemsby cliff-top homes in precarious position." The photos are very graphic, and you can see a whole line of cliff-top properties about to disappear into the sea.
I quote the BBC verbatim "The cliffs at Hemsby are made of sand which has suffered erosion over many years..." The story goes on to describe the varying plights of the occupiers of these properties.
This coastal erosion is not an overnight phenomenon, and I am sure that the residents living there were well aware of the risks of living in that location, especially those who have settled there in recent years, at no doubt a discount rental or purchase price.
The builders that erected these properties were also no doubt knowledgeable of the foundations they were building upon, but nevertheless, a few hundred yards of cliff-top sand dropping into the sea was yet a 'great' many years hence! People are attracted to sea-views, I know because I have one myself-thankfully, up here in Lewis, we are on rocks, not sand!
As the Scripture says, it is "a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand." The Rock is Christ, and whomever will trust in Him alone is like the man "which built his house upon a rock." Matthew 7.24.
Wednesday 14 March 2018
Billy Graham, an avowed enemy of Christ!
Dr Billy Graham was an avowed enemy of the cross of Christ. He was ecumenical, a friend of the pope and publicly proclaimed that those who believed in false gods, and atheists alike would be redeemed by His precious blood. If such non believers could be redeemed thus, then whatever was the point of the crucifixion? To believe and publicly proclaim such a 'gospel' is nothing short of blasphemous, completely and utterly negating the power of the cross! John 14.6, Acts 4.12 etc.
I see something of a parallel with Dr Graham and Judas: Before the great betrayal Judas was one of the twelve. It is said of him that he preached the Gospel, and yet where is he now? "And He (Jesus) ordained twelve, that they should be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach" Mark 3.14. In the "upper room" on the question of the betrayal, the twelve said "Lord is it I?" Matthew 26.22. The other eleven had absolutely no suspicions regarding Judas at all; none pointed a finger at him! How different the case with Billy Graham? The sobering fact is that God's Book tells us that Judas faithfully preached the only way of salvation, totally unlike Dr Graham!
Of Judas, the Lord said "Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" John 6.70. Of the betrayal of Jesus; considering the length of his ministry, is not the case against Billy Graham more "watertight" than against Judas? If Judas was doing the Devil's work, preaching the Gospel of Christ faithfully, how much more so Billy Graham?
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say now I again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1.8-9 (my emphasis).
The world and the false church received Billy Graham as one of their own, because he preached what they wanted to hear.
"Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! For so did their fathers to the false prophets." Luke 6.26.
I see something of a parallel with Dr Graham and Judas: Before the great betrayal Judas was one of the twelve. It is said of him that he preached the Gospel, and yet where is he now? "And He (Jesus) ordained twelve, that they should be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach" Mark 3.14. In the "upper room" on the question of the betrayal, the twelve said "Lord is it I?" Matthew 26.22. The other eleven had absolutely no suspicions regarding Judas at all; none pointed a finger at him! How different the case with Billy Graham? The sobering fact is that God's Book tells us that Judas faithfully preached the only way of salvation, totally unlike Dr Graham!
Of Judas, the Lord said "Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" John 6.70. Of the betrayal of Jesus; considering the length of his ministry, is not the case against Billy Graham more "watertight" than against Judas? If Judas was doing the Devil's work, preaching the Gospel of Christ faithfully, how much more so Billy Graham?
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say now I again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1.8-9 (my emphasis).
The world and the false church received Billy Graham as one of their own, because he preached what they wanted to hear.
"Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! For so did their fathers to the false prophets." Luke 6.26.
Tuesday 6 March 2018
The New American Standard Bible (NASB) on the six days of creation.
And there was evening and there was morning, one day. Genesis 1.5.
One day?
And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. Genesis 1.8.
A second day?
There was evening and there was morning, a third day. Genesis 1.13.
A third day?
There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. Genesis 1.19.
A fourth day?
There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. Genesis 1.23.
A fifth day?
And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Genesis 1.31.
The sixth day.
The NASB was influenced by the Revisers in 1884. Why they needed to deviate the wording from the faithful Authorized Version in the first five verses above, is quite beyond me!
"And there was evening and there was morning, one day." Could that not be said of any day? How much doubt does a seemingly innocuous change as this put into the mind of one reading the NASB?
On Genesis 1.5, the 1611 Authorized Version reads:
And the evening and the morning were the first day. (my emphasis). This was the "first day" of creation. The rules of basic grammar tell us that the "the" in "the first day" makes that day the definite article.
One day?
And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. Genesis 1.8.
A second day?
There was evening and there was morning, a third day. Genesis 1.13.
A third day?
There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. Genesis 1.19.
A fourth day?
There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. Genesis 1.23.
A fifth day?
And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Genesis 1.31.
The sixth day.
The NASB was influenced by the Revisers in 1884. Why they needed to deviate the wording from the faithful Authorized Version in the first five verses above, is quite beyond me!
"And there was evening and there was morning, one day." Could that not be said of any day? How much doubt does a seemingly innocuous change as this put into the mind of one reading the NASB?
On Genesis 1.5, the 1611 Authorized Version reads:
And the evening and the morning were the first day. (my emphasis). This was the "first day" of creation. The rules of basic grammar tell us that the "the" in "the first day" makes that day the definite article.
The Wisdom of Adolph Saphir
An extract from page 25 "Our Lord's Pattern for PRAYER"
The sincerity, spirituality, and strength of our prayer, is the measure of our self-discipline and of our walk; our attitude towards God determines our attitude to man; and our realisation of things unseen is the source of our self-denial and victory over the world.
The sincerity, spirituality, and strength of our prayer, is the measure of our self-discipline and of our walk; our attitude towards God determines our attitude to man; and our realisation of things unseen is the source of our self-denial and victory over the world.
Sunday 4 March 2018
Bible Commentaries on Genesis 1.1 & "the fourth day" Genesis 1.14-19.
There are some what we may call "household name" Bible commentaries, such as those by Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, Jameson Fausset and Brown, Halley's and others. These commentaries have much to commend them as they are great helps to those who wish to "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" 2 Peter 3.18.
However, for all the intrinsic and manifest worth of these commentaries, I am examining what they say in regard to the creation account as recorded in Genesis, given to Moses on Mt Sinai by the Creator God Himself. In this little study, I am examining what these commentaries say in particular about what God says happened on "the fourth day" Genesis 1.14-19. Until I came to believe in biblical geocentricism (the flat-earth by another name) I always struggled to visualise our 'tiny' earth spinning around at 1000mph orbiting a gigantic fireball of a sun not put into place until four days later! So, if this perplexed me, then I can quite well understand the unsurmountable difficulty Bible scholars and commentators were faced with trying to explain it all from their heliocentric solar-system viewpoint! But all difficulty disappears as a vapour in the night if we would only believe God's word as it is written.
It is a common saying today that "modern science has proved the Bible wrong." (the supposed moon landings et al). But is this so? I am a 100% confident that the moon landing hoax was nothing more than an elaborate satanically inspired American government sponsored perpetration to keep the masses in deception. For more on this, please read "Antarctica, Does It End? Hast thou comprehended the breadth of the earth? Declare if thou knowest it all."
Matthew Henry on Genesis 1.14-19, says "The sun is the greatest light of all, more than a million times greater than the earth".
Certainly Henry is correct to say "The sun is the greatest light", but "more than a million times greater than the earth"? Of the moon, he says it is but a "borrowed light."
The Bible knows nothing of these two assertions of his, for its sacred narrative only says that there are "two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night." (lesser in brightness not 'physical' size). His hypothesis that the sun is "a million times greater than the earth" has absolutely no foundation in the Scripture of Truth; but only in Copernicus's heliocentric deception. And the "borrowed light", we are assured is second-hand from the sun! The sun and moon both emit their own light.
On to that next great expositor Matthew Poole on Genesis 1.16; "The sun which is really and considerably greater than the moon, or any of the stars, or the whole earth." Certainly Poole is correct in saying the sun is greater in intensity of light than that of the moon, but of it's size? And what of "the whole earth"? When I read Genesis 1.1, God's word makes it very clear in no uncertain terms that He "created the heaven and the earth." From that very first verse alone, we learn (if we are not blinded by the theories and 'discoveries' of men) that the earth is the antithesis of the heaven. That is the heaven is above, the earth is below, it is that simple, if only we would believe God's straightforward narrative! From this first verse alone, we can know that the first earth is as long and wide as the first heaven.
Jameson Fausset and Brown's commentary says of "THE FIRST DAY
Whether the sun was created at the same time with, or long before the earth, the dense accumulation of fogs and vapours which enveloped the chaos had covered the globe (my emphasis) with a settled gloom."
On the fourth day in Genesis 1.14, this commentary says "the sun, moon, and stars were for the first time unveiled in all their glory in the cloudless sky; and they are described as "in the firmament" which to the eye they appear to be , though we know they are really at vast distances from it."
In other words, this commentary is saying that the sun, moon, and stars were made at the same time (or "long before"!?) as the heaven and the earth, but only became visible on the fourth day!
Halley's Bible Commentary says of the fourth day: "Sun, moon, stars,. They had been created "in the beginning." On the "first day" their light had penetrated the earth's mists. Now, due to the lessened density of the clouds (a result of the further cooling of the earth), they became visible on the earth.
It should become clear to any unprejudiced mind that the brief extracts quoted above show us that these authors were influenced by the Copernican heliocentric theory, otherwise they wouldn't have employed such language?
Left to God's word alone we could only ever know that the Earth is flat (or at least that it is not a spinning globe), and without the 'help' of Copernicus we would have no need to try and explain away plain statements of God's written word in the foundational book of Genesis.
Is it any wonder that the foundational book of the Bible is ridiculed by the world when some of its best expositors speak thus?
I ask any who happen upon this blog of mine; have the aforementioned done violence to God's word? Have they tried to make the Eternal Word say something that it doesn't? Thankfully, I believe that these Christian writers believed their salvation was only by God's grace alone; purchased through the blood of Christ alone!
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2.8 KJV.
However, for all the intrinsic and manifest worth of these commentaries, I am examining what they say in regard to the creation account as recorded in Genesis, given to Moses on Mt Sinai by the Creator God Himself. In this little study, I am examining what these commentaries say in particular about what God says happened on "the fourth day" Genesis 1.14-19. Until I came to believe in biblical geocentricism (the flat-earth by another name) I always struggled to visualise our 'tiny' earth spinning around at 1000mph orbiting a gigantic fireball of a sun not put into place until four days later! So, if this perplexed me, then I can quite well understand the unsurmountable difficulty Bible scholars and commentators were faced with trying to explain it all from their heliocentric solar-system viewpoint! But all difficulty disappears as a vapour in the night if we would only believe God's word as it is written.
It is a common saying today that "modern science has proved the Bible wrong." (the supposed moon landings et al). But is this so? I am a 100% confident that the moon landing hoax was nothing more than an elaborate satanically inspired American government sponsored perpetration to keep the masses in deception. For more on this, please read "Antarctica, Does It End? Hast thou comprehended the breadth of the earth? Declare if thou knowest it all."
Matthew Henry on Genesis 1.14-19, says "The sun is the greatest light of all, more than a million times greater than the earth".
Certainly Henry is correct to say "The sun is the greatest light", but "more than a million times greater than the earth"? Of the moon, he says it is but a "borrowed light."
The Bible knows nothing of these two assertions of his, for its sacred narrative only says that there are "two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night." (lesser in brightness not 'physical' size). His hypothesis that the sun is "a million times greater than the earth" has absolutely no foundation in the Scripture of Truth; but only in Copernicus's heliocentric deception. And the "borrowed light", we are assured is second-hand from the sun! The sun and moon both emit their own light.
On to that next great expositor Matthew Poole on Genesis 1.16; "The sun which is really and considerably greater than the moon, or any of the stars, or the whole earth." Certainly Poole is correct in saying the sun is greater in intensity of light than that of the moon, but of it's size? And what of "the whole earth"? When I read Genesis 1.1, God's word makes it very clear in no uncertain terms that He "created the heaven and the earth." From that very first verse alone, we learn (if we are not blinded by the theories and 'discoveries' of men) that the earth is the antithesis of the heaven. That is the heaven is above, the earth is below, it is that simple, if only we would believe God's straightforward narrative! From this first verse alone, we can know that the first earth is as long and wide as the first heaven.
Jameson Fausset and Brown's commentary says of "THE FIRST DAY
Whether the sun was created at the same time with, or long before the earth, the dense accumulation of fogs and vapours which enveloped the chaos had covered the globe (my emphasis) with a settled gloom."
On the fourth day in Genesis 1.14, this commentary says "the sun, moon, and stars were for the first time unveiled in all their glory in the cloudless sky; and they are described as "in the firmament" which to the eye they appear to be , though we know they are really at vast distances from it."
In other words, this commentary is saying that the sun, moon, and stars were made at the same time (or "long before"!?) as the heaven and the earth, but only became visible on the fourth day!
Halley's Bible Commentary says of the fourth day: "Sun, moon, stars,. They had been created "in the beginning." On the "first day" their light had penetrated the earth's mists. Now, due to the lessened density of the clouds (a result of the further cooling of the earth), they became visible on the earth.
It should become clear to any unprejudiced mind that the brief extracts quoted above show us that these authors were influenced by the Copernican heliocentric theory, otherwise they wouldn't have employed such language?
Left to God's word alone we could only ever know that the Earth is flat (or at least that it is not a spinning globe), and without the 'help' of Copernicus we would have no need to try and explain away plain statements of God's written word in the foundational book of Genesis.
Is it any wonder that the foundational book of the Bible is ridiculed by the world when some of its best expositors speak thus?
I ask any who happen upon this blog of mine; have the aforementioned done violence to God's word? Have they tried to make the Eternal Word say something that it doesn't? Thankfully, I believe that these Christian writers believed their salvation was only by God's grace alone; purchased through the blood of Christ alone!
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2.8 KJV.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)