For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the wale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matthew 12:40 (RV).
Many an unbeliever ridicule the account of Jonah and the whale, as they do Noah and his ark, and no doubt there are many who would claim to be Christian that don't literally believe the accounts of Noah and Jonah. They have a problem - for the Lord Jesus obviously believed and taught that these accounts were literal truth (Matthew 24:37-39, Jonah 12:39-41), likewise they mock the account of Daniel and the lions den, again the Lord verifies the book of Daniel (Matthew 24:15).
It is said that Jonah was "cast into the depth, in the heart of the seas" Jonah 2:3, and so the "depth" is very deep, not a shallow grave. Likewise the Saviour went down, very deep, but into "the heart of the earth." After the burial of His body in the tomb, the Lord's soul descended down into Hades, into the subterranean places. Referring to the text in Ephesians - "now in that He ascended, what is it that He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?" Eph.4:9. I have myself, visited the garden tomb, if indeed that was His burial place, for I noted that it is level with the earth as borne out by the Scripture in Luke 24:2; is it not then a stretch to believe all that is meant by "the heart of the earth" is a ground level burial chamber? Dr Gill thinks so, for he reasoned that because His tomb was "dug out of a rock" this then answers to "the heart of the earth".
B.W. Newton writes (Remarks on Mosaic Cosmogony and Genesis 2 verse 5 (1882)) from the sub-heading; Note on the locality of Hades.
"In the New Testament, Phil.2:10, we find a remarkable expression strongly corroborative of all that has been said, "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth". This is a very important passage. It evidently speaks not of things inanimate or unintelligent, but of beings capable of bowing the knee intelligently; and it expressly teaches not only that all intelligent beings on the earth, but that all intelligent beings in subterranean places, shall finally be made to bow; the latter indeed, not bowing the knee of allegiance, or of worship, but of forced unwilling acknowledgment.
I scarcely see how we could refuse to admit on the evidence of this passage alone , that the interior parts of the earth are at present the prison of certain souls - souls of the lost. Bishop Ellicott commenting on this passage says, "The three classes here mentioned are not to be understood with any ethical reference ...... but simply and plainly, angels and archangels in Heaven - men upon earth - and the departed under the earth."
He continues...
"Another strong evidence of the connexion of Hades with the earth is this, that when the Adamic earth is destroyed at the close of the millennium, when the new heavens and earth are created, then Hades is destroyed likewise. It is cast into the lake of fire. See Rev. xx.
As then the grave is regarded in Scripture as the prison-house of the body, so Hades is regarded as the prison - house of the dis-embodied soul; evidencing, consequently, the power of death. In order, therefore, to prove the completeness of His submission to the real power of death, and in fulfillment of His own words respecting being three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, the soul of our blessed Lord was in Hades during the time that His body was in the grave. The text from the Psalms quoted by Peter in the Acts, "Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades, Unquestionably proves this. The same truth is likewise taught in His words just quoted respecting His being "in the heart of the earth," - for, "heart of the earth" is not an expression that the Lord would apply only to the sepulchre in which His body was laid. If He had intended to refer only to the grave, He would no doubt have made especial reference to His body, saying, "the body of the Son of Man shall be three days in the earth;" whereas, His words are not so limited. "As Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matt.12:40) - words which cannot be understood so as to exclude reference to His soul, with which consciousness and feeling remained.
Whilst then the Scripture plainly declares that the soul of our Lord was in Hades during the time that His body was in the grave, it is equally evident that that part of Hades was not a place of torment, or of suffering. On the contrary, though it was a place of confinement bearing witness to the power of death, even as the grave is a place of confinement bearing witness to the power of death, yet to the soul of Jesus it was a place of rest, and peace, and communion with God. All the penal suffering that had to be borne for us by our great Substitute terminated at the cross when He bowed His head and said "It is finished." Then the cup of suffering that He had to drink for His people was drained to the dregs; and all after it was peace, rest and triumph. He soon proved that the gates of Hades had no strength to resist the mighty power of Him, whose soul, for a season, was enclosed within its bars.
Nor is the fact of the soul of our blessed Lord having been three days in Hades the only reason that we have for affirming that there was one part of Hades separated off from the rest, and allotted to the righteous.
In the parable of our Lord concerning the rich man and Lazarus, it is very evident that Abraham and Lazarus were in a state of blessedness, for it is expressly said that Lazarus was "comforted;" but Abraham and Lazarus are not spoken of as being in Heaven. On the contrary, they are spoken of as being separated by a vast and impassable chasm from the place in which the rich man was; and he is expressly said to have been in Hades in torment. Would the Lord have spoken this parable if there had not been (I do not say now is) in Hades a place of blessedness as well as a place of torment? That the expectation of the Old Testament saints was to go to Hades (Sh'ohl) is manifest from the words of Jacob when he mourned for the supposed death of Joseph. "All his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and said, For I will go down to Sh'ohl unto my son mourning." (Gen.xxxvii. 35) And again, "then shall ye bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to Sh'ohl." (Gen. xlii. 38). Yet in expecting to go into Hades they must have regarded it as a place (not to them of sorrow and torment) but of rest and blessedness: otherwise they could not have died, as they did, in peace. They regarded it too, as a temporary state in which their souls were to wait only for a season, for "they looked for a city that hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." I do not see, therefore, how we can avoid accepting the conclusion, that there was in Hades a division prepared for the souls of the blessed, and another division called "the lowest Hades" (Deut. xxxii. 22) assigned to the souls of the lost; and that the souls of those who died in the faith of a promised Saviour did, until the resurrection and ascension of that Saviour, remain in that division of Hades that was allotted to the souls of the blessed, being there sustained and comforted by the power of God, and proving the words of the Psalmist, "if I make my bed in Sh'ohl, behold thou [Jehovah] art there." (Ps.cxxxix. 8.)
Since, however, the ascension of our Lord into His glory, it is very evident that the souls of all believers at death depart to be with Him in Paradise: and that Paradise is not Hades (as some of the Fathers thought) is evident from this, that St. Paul speaks of Paradise as the third heavens. Compare second and fourth verses of 2 Cor. xii. Nor did St.Paul speak of Hades, when he said, "to depart and be with Christ is far better;" nor when He spoke of absence from the body being presence with the Lord. (2 Cor. v.8.) These texts put it beyond a question that the souls of believers do not now go to Hades, but are with their Lord in heaven, awaiting the resurrection hour.
Nor can there be any doubt that the souls of of the saints of the Old Testament are also in heaven. The Apostle in speaking of the one family of faith, speaks of it as divided into two parts only; namely, those still militant on earth, and those who are in the Heavens. "For this cause I bow my knees to unto the Father our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and on earth is named." Eph.3.14. He would not thus have written if that family had still been in Hades.
Nor is there any reason to doubt that when the Apostle, speaking of the ascension of the Lord, says, "When He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive," he did by these words refer to the Lord taking with Him into Heaven, as an evidence of His triumph over Hades, the souls of all His saints who had till that time been there detained; thus proving that He had the keys of Hades. Soon He will equally prove by raising their bodies from the grave, that He has the keys of death likewise-death being more especially connected with the grave, seeing that there its power is peculiarly shown in the dissolution and corruption of the body."
There are those who take the "three days and three nights" in the verse under discussion to mean a literal 72 hours, and certainly this would seem to be exactly what the Lord means from our present perspective, but is it necessarily so? Would we not be guilty of imposing our 21st century mindset, as it were, back on to the the Lord's meaning? The 24 hour clock as we now know it, was not used by the ancients back in the apostolic era; left to the Scripture alone, we could know absolutely nothing of a 24 hour day. The Bible only speaks of 12 hours in a day; there are some 365 days (plus an extra day for a 'leap year') in the solar (heliocentric) calendar, yet only 360 days in the biblical geocentric calendar. Both cannot be correct-do we believe what God says, or the invention of man? If we are to use the modern day clock as the basis of calculating the exact time that the Lord spent in Hades and the grave, assuming three full nights and full days as we know them to be; the resultant figure (72 hours) cannot therefore be correct-it is impossible.
John 11:9 unequivocally declares that there are only "twelve hours in a day"; are we to assume that within the day is the night also? In our present day, when we talk of the day, do we not also mean the night as well? For example, if I were to say to you, "I will see you in three days time" (God willing!) would you not assume that I meant the nights were also included within those days? I think you would! (you would not think that I meant a literal 72 hours, or would you?) It is interesting that a few verses prior to John 11:9, it is said that "He abode at that time two days in the place where He was." John 11:6 (RV). Is it not then incredulous therefore to suggest that nights were not included in those "two days"? The plain reading of the context fully supports this. It would seem to me, at any rate, that hours back in the NT era must have been approximately twice as long as they are computed today, but was the eleventh hour one hour (or more) before mid-day or mid-night, or both? Obviously the answer is neither, for the "eleventh hour" (Matt. 20:6-9) would have been within the last hour or so, of daylight before the sun went down.This then, is a variable point in any given day throughout the year-advancing toward the summer, and declining toward the winter months. If then, time wasn't regulated back in the apostolic age exactly as it is in our day, then is it not obvious that we cannot impose onto it our modern day manufactured (man-made) time constraints? In the apostolic age, the new day was reckoned from the time the sun went down, not from 12 o'clock mid-night; often many hours beforehand! To this very day observant and orthodox Jews observe the onset of the Saturday Seventh Day Sabbath in as they did in OT and NT times.
It is of considerable note that it was "upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread" Acts 20:7. Why didn't these Jewish believers do this on the Jewish Sabbath, instead of on our Sunday - the Lord's day; that is, why didn't they "break bread" on the Seventh day - as many so-called Messianic believers do in our day? They well knew its venerated significance. It is because God in Christ didn't rise on the Seventh day, He rose on "the first day of the week" Mark 16:9, as the Scripture of Truth testifies. The Old Testament, or Jewish Sabbath was never changed; unbelieving Jews regard this day to the present hour; but what of the first day when He was resurrected, do they believe on this - the Christian Sabbath (the Lord's day)? In the Lord's own words "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath." Mark 2:27, and this from the Man whom the Pharisees accused of desecrating the seventh day that He had made! (Matt. 12:2, 10, Luke 13:14 etc.)
The ancient, (and present day) observant Jews reckoned a part of one day (no matter how small, or large the part thereof) as a whole day.
On Matt. 12:40, Jamieson Fausset & Brown write; "The period during which He was to lie in the grave is here expressed in round numbers, according to the Jewish way of speaking, which was to regard any part of a day, however small, included within a period of days, as a full day. (See 1 Sam. 30:12, 13; Esther 4:16; 5:1; ch. 27:63, 64, etc.).
Dr. Gill writes regarding the time the Lord was entombed;
"It was on the sixth day of the week, we commonly call "Friday", towards the close, on the day of the preparation of the sabbath, and when the sabbath drew on, that the body of Christ was laid in the sepulchre; where it lay all the next day, which was the sabbath of the Jews, and what we commonly call "Saturday"; and early on the first day of the week, usually called "Sunday", or the Lord's day, He rose from the dead; so that He was but one whole day, and part of two, in the grave. To solve this difficulty, and set the matter in a clear light, let it be observed, that the three days and three nights, mean three natural days, consisting of day and night, or 24 hours, and are what the Greeks call "night days"; but the Jews have no other ways of expressing them, but as here; and with them it is a well known rule, and used on all occasions, as in the computations of their feasts and times of mourning, in the observance of the Passover, circumcision, and diverse purification's that "a part of a day is as the whole" and so, whatever was done before sun setting, or after, it was reckoned as the whole preceding, or following day; and whether this was in the night part, or day part of the night day, or natural day, it mattered not, it was accounted as the whole night day: by this rule, the case here is easily adjusted; Christ was laid in the grave towards the close of the sixth day, a little before sun setting, and this being a part of the night day preceding, is reckoned as the whole; He continued there the whole night day following, being the seventh day; and rose again early on the first day, which being after sun setting, though it might be even before sun rising, yet being a part of the night day following, is to be esteemed as the whole; and thus the Son of man was to be, and was three days and three nights in the grave; and which was very easy to be understood by the Jews; and it is a question whether Jonas was longer in the belly of the fish."
(Regarding 24 hours-Dr Gill was influenced heavily by the false RCC inspired heliocentric theory).
Matthew Poole, another reformed Bible expositor, is in full agreement with the above; regarding a part of the day being reckoned as a whole, also adding that "It appears by Gen. 1:5, that the evening and morning made up a day."
On the verse in question, it should be obvious that to insist upon a literal 24 hour night and day (not that the Bible knows of a 24 hour day), or for that matter, to insist upon three complete full days, would create insurmountable problems, denying plainly what is written in Mark 16:9, and the strong inference that the Lord rose early on the first day of the week as stated in Luke 24:1-3, John 20:1. Scripture doesn't reveal; but it may have been only a matter of minutes, or less than an hour or so between the Lord rising from the tomb and when the women "found not the body of the Lord Jesus."
As the apostle Paul said; "He rose the third day according to the Scriptures." 1 Cor. 15:4 (my emphasis).
Tuesday 19 November 2019
Monday 18 November 2019
Good Advice From A Bygone Saint.
Do nothing that you would not like God to see. Say nothing that you would not like God to hear. Write nothing that you would not like God to read. Go no place where you would not like God to find you. Read no book of which you would not like God to say, "show it to Me."
Never spend your time in such a way that you would not like to have God say, "What are you doing?"*
Bishop J.C. Ryle (1816-1900).
* The above confirms the timeless advice of this long departed saint, does it not? for in our present age the masses (professing Christians among them?) ever seem to be on their lap-tops, hand-held devices, touch-phones etc. I wonder; how much of what is transmitted and received on all this 'modern' technology today is truly God honouring? As for me, I think very little.
Never spend your time in such a way that you would not like to have God say, "What are you doing?"*
Bishop J.C. Ryle (1816-1900).
* The above confirms the timeless advice of this long departed saint, does it not? for in our present age the masses (professing Christians among them?) ever seem to be on their lap-tops, hand-held devices, touch-phones etc. I wonder; how much of what is transmitted and received on all this 'modern' technology today is truly God honouring? As for me, I think very little.
Monday 11 November 2019
The Total Depravity Of Man
From BBC News 10th November 2019:
Russian professor admits murder after woman's arms found in bag.
A well known Russian historian has confessed to murdering his lover - a former student - his lawyer says, after he was found in a river with a backpack containing a woman's arms.
Oleg Sokolov, 63, was drunk and fell into the river as he tried to dispose of body parts, local media said.
Police then found the decapitated body of Anastasia Yeshchenko, 24, at his home.
Prof Sokolov is a Napoleon expert who has received France's Legion d'Honneur."
The article goes on to say:
"The historian has written several books on Napoleon and also acted as a historical consultant on several films. He and Ms Yeshchenko had co-authored several works.
Both he and Ms Yeshchenko studied French history and enjoyed wearing period costumes, with Prof Sokolov dressing up as Napoleon.
Students described him as both a talented lecturer who spoke French and did impressions of Napoleon and as a "freak" who called his lover"Josephine" and asked to be addressed as "Sire" AFP reported.
He was also a member of France's Institute of Social Science, Economics and Politics (Issep), which on Saturday said it had removed him from his position on its scientific committee.
"We learn with horror...the atrocious crime of which Oleg Sokolov is guilty," it said in a statement.
"We could never imagine that he could commit such an odious act," the statement added.
I have emphasised the last couple of sentences because this is the way the worldling reasons. They say "We could never imagine..." this is because the Russian professor had awards and accreditation's heaped upon him by secular institutions, he was revered in his field of expertise. However, the true Christian knows full and well, that given the right circumstances, every unregenerate man and woman despite their learning, is capable of "such an odious act", and indeed far worse!
Prof. Sokolov practically worshipped the despotic Napoleon, imitating him in any way he knew how-he was practically possessed as it were by Napoleon's spirit! he knew well the barbarities, atrocities, call them what you will, that Napoleon committed, and was capable of committing, is it any wonder that an intelligent man of the world who worshipped such a 'hero', would go on to commit such a wicked act? he was to all intents and purposes, living out Napoleon's life in the present day.
Eschatological students have long viewed Napoleon as a prototype of the coming "man of sin" 2 Thessalonians 2:3, the "Antichrist" 1 John 2:18; little wonder that a man immersing himself into the character of Napoleon went on to commit such an evil act, isn't it? and this to one who shared his passion.
The Bible is clear on the fact of man's totally depraved nature, left to himself, without the restraining hand of God, who knows what he is capable of?
Now, if Prof Sokolov had imitated Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1) instead of a type of the coming Antichrist....
Friday 8 November 2019
Vote For None Of The Above!
Can the true Christian put the X to any name in the ballot box in our day?
Further to my last couple of postings on the Brexit saga and politics in general, many professing Christians who lack a correct theological understanding of where they are in regard to the millennium, will err in their views on politics in this democratic age. The next age will be theocratic, the elect saints will be allocated their various positions of authority in the nations, ruling under the headship of Christ. The elect will know what is required of them to rule in righteousness and truth for they will have learned His laws and precepts in this age, having written His "laws into their hearts, and in their minds." Hebrews 8:10, 10:16, and this will apply likewise to unconverted Israel upon His return.
In my various discussions (in person) with Christians upon the topic of the millennium, I often get the reply "leave that to the theologians-let us just get on with doing good!" They have a zeal, but not according to knowledge, they carry on with their social gospel (which is no gospel at all) believing that somehow they will convert the world to Christ with their feverish activities-ignorant to the fact it is possible to do the wrong thing-such it was with the Pharisees! They think by their good works, people will see the love of Christ in them, and will want what they have-such futile thinking! the Lord of glory said to His disciples; "ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake" even "brother shall deliver up the brother to death..." Matthew 10:22 & 21. For crying out loud-they crucified our Lord! and "He went about doing good" Acts 10:38!!! I don't say we shouldn't do good works, for the Lord's brother said "faith without works is dead" James 2:20*. If we are Christians (both true and false professors alike) it will manifest itself to the unbelieving world by the way we interact with it; through our speech, and general behaviour. But what are good works exactly? is it not primarily to preach the true Gospel? i.e. to tell whomever to "repent and believe" Mark 1:15? But, how much of this is done today-don't we all fail miserably here? the whole world seems (to me, at any rate), glued to their mobile devices, walking, sitting and driving-such busy lives they lead!
The works that the Christian should do are basically wrapped up in the two great commandments (Matthew 22:38-40 the Decalogue) and being obedient to the law of the land (Romans 13:1-4) apart from when it conflicts with God's commandments, and have we not now entered the age where civil laws are increasingly at variance with God's?
We are not at present in the millennium, for Christ is little thought of in our day! ungodliness is ever in the ascendancy, Antichrist must needs come first in order for Christ to "destroy him with the brightness of His Coming." 2 Thessalonians 2:8. The Lord's Day is yet to come when "the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea." Habakkuk 2:14, Isaiah 11:9. These verses alone should dispel the post-millennial myth and confirm Christ's pre-millennial return to the earth, also rendering the amillennial theory false as well! For every word in the prophetical Scriptures shall be minutely fulfilled to the last jot and tittle.
*In James's letter, the reference to orphans and widows (James 1:27) were certainly singled out for especial help, but this was an age before big government, social welfare programmes, NHS, and so on. Everyone in our day is provided for from cradle to the grave (in the western nations at least!).
The welfare state has taken away personal responsibility from the people-such was the aim of the Marxist socialist Anuerin Bevan who was the mastermind behind the NHS!
Further to my last couple of postings on the Brexit saga and politics in general, many professing Christians who lack a correct theological understanding of where they are in regard to the millennium, will err in their views on politics in this democratic age. The next age will be theocratic, the elect saints will be allocated their various positions of authority in the nations, ruling under the headship of Christ. The elect will know what is required of them to rule in righteousness and truth for they will have learned His laws and precepts in this age, having written His "laws into their hearts, and in their minds." Hebrews 8:10, 10:16, and this will apply likewise to unconverted Israel upon His return.
In my various discussions (in person) with Christians upon the topic of the millennium, I often get the reply "leave that to the theologians-let us just get on with doing good!" They have a zeal, but not according to knowledge, they carry on with their social gospel (which is no gospel at all) believing that somehow they will convert the world to Christ with their feverish activities-ignorant to the fact it is possible to do the wrong thing-such it was with the Pharisees! They think by their good works, people will see the love of Christ in them, and will want what they have-such futile thinking! the Lord of glory said to His disciples; "ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake" even "brother shall deliver up the brother to death..." Matthew 10:22 & 21. For crying out loud-they crucified our Lord! and "He went about doing good" Acts 10:38!!! I don't say we shouldn't do good works, for the Lord's brother said "faith without works is dead" James 2:20*. If we are Christians (both true and false professors alike) it will manifest itself to the unbelieving world by the way we interact with it; through our speech, and general behaviour. But what are good works exactly? is it not primarily to preach the true Gospel? i.e. to tell whomever to "repent and believe" Mark 1:15? But, how much of this is done today-don't we all fail miserably here? the whole world seems (to me, at any rate), glued to their mobile devices, walking, sitting and driving-such busy lives they lead!
The works that the Christian should do are basically wrapped up in the two great commandments (Matthew 22:38-40 the Decalogue) and being obedient to the law of the land (Romans 13:1-4) apart from when it conflicts with God's commandments, and have we not now entered the age where civil laws are increasingly at variance with God's?
We are not at present in the millennium, for Christ is little thought of in our day! ungodliness is ever in the ascendancy, Antichrist must needs come first in order for Christ to "destroy him with the brightness of His Coming." 2 Thessalonians 2:8. The Lord's Day is yet to come when "the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea." Habakkuk 2:14, Isaiah 11:9. These verses alone should dispel the post-millennial myth and confirm Christ's pre-millennial return to the earth, also rendering the amillennial theory false as well! For every word in the prophetical Scriptures shall be minutely fulfilled to the last jot and tittle.
*In James's letter, the reference to orphans and widows (James 1:27) were certainly singled out for especial help, but this was an age before big government, social welfare programmes, NHS, and so on. Everyone in our day is provided for from cradle to the grave (in the western nations at least!).
The welfare state has taken away personal responsibility from the people-such was the aim of the Marxist socialist Anuerin Bevan who was the mastermind behind the NHS!
Should Christians Vote? A Very Brief Synopsis.
Many a professing Christian hasn't the least problem with voting in a general election, the reasoning goes something like this; "we can at least be an influence for the good". And indeed, there is some truth in this, for throughout history God has used, and is still using Christian influence to restrain the full torrent of godlessness which will at some future point be the hallmark of the last days coming upon the present age. After the long period known as the "Dark Ages" when the mighty Reformation took hold and brought great light upon the western nations, unshackling them from popery making the Bible freely available to the masses, it enabled true Christian influence to underpin the institutions of society wherever God permitted it to reach. John Calvin the great reformer put Christian teaching to the fore in his efforts in Geneva. His was a most admirable effort considering the great darkness that he hitherto emerged from (he was a Roman Catholic Priest!). However, the Bible teaches in no uncertain terms that it is God in Christ alone who will set up the kingdom on earth; man despite his best efforts has failed, and will ever fail miserably in his endeavours to rule righteously, such was Calvin's misunderstanding on this. We only have to listen to the vain and empty promises of our present day political leaders in the run up to the next general election! (how many do we need?) Haven't we heard it all before? Are Johnson, Corbyn, Swinson and Sturgeon any better than all who went before them? No! No! not only are they no better, they are a lot, lot worse! Lawlessness is increasing in these last days; the morality of the aforementioned leaders having been shaped by the ungodliness of those who went before them! they are only building upon their predecessors foundations, yet they see it not.
To any with the least modicum of biblical understanding, is it not clear that the Bible teaches true Christians are but "sheep"; how utterly absurd then is the notion that sheep can rule over baying wolves ready to eat us up alive? - what madness! If the world is full of wolves (and it is!) how can they submit to Christ's written word? Christians who would be politicians will only ever compromise with the world, and who knows what their last state will be? they are doomed to failure, instead of learning politics such so-called Christians would be better advised to study God's Book! The wolves will only submit to Him as defeated foes (Philippians 3:10) when He returns as conquering King to destroy the world system (Daniel 2:34-35). It is said of the writings of the Old Testament that "whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning.." Romans 15:4; this is the truth; is it then wrong to apply this verse to the mistakes of the last 500 years since the Reformation began? The Bible says that we are "one blood" Acts 17:26 (Genesis 3:20) so the Christian should learn to be in "the world" but not "of the world" John 17:15-18. We learn that only by trying to "live godly in Christ Jesus shall we suffer persecution." 2 Timothy 3:12! "Can two walk together except they be agreed?" Amos 3:3, the Christian cannot enter the political realm. It is evident that we who profess faith in Christ as Lord cannot walk without His guidance, is it not? Calvin,and all who would erect a Christian government on the earth cannot do so!
God's elect will be instrumental in the soon coming millennial reign (Luke 19:15). He alone it is who will tell his saints "have authority over ten cities" Luke 19:17! "The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein." Psalm 24:1, O! how little believed is this verse!
Let us take a brief recourse through the book of James at this juncture; if "pure" and "undefiled" and "unspotted" James 1:27 mean anything to the Christian in our day, can we have intercourse with the worlds pleasures, politics, and peoples without becoming defiled? Because of our new birth we have been taken out of the world, and according to other Scriptures, we are preserved from it by God. How then can we vote for people that support ungodliness, i.e. same sex marriage, sodomy, abortion, and the rest? I haven't voted in any election, of any kind in the last 15 years or more, for I could see the issues back then, I care not one whit about the expansion of airport runways, motorways, rail infrastructure improvements, housing, and the rest of it when the "first principles" Hebrews 5:12, that underpin society are cast aside as "filthy rags" Isaiah 64:6.
Sunday 3 November 2019
Brexit From A Biblical Standpoint
You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave!
The United Kingdom through a democratic process called a referendum in 2016 voted to leave the European Union, yet the will of the people has not prevailed - is this not the death of democracy? Sir Robert Anderson (1841-1918) Scotland Yard commissioner and Brethren scholar said "the full and final development of democracy will be despotism". And so it will be! it has to be, for Christ will destroy the "god of this world" and his puppet - "the man of sin" the Antichrist, by "the brightness of His coming" 2 Thess.2:8. Antichrist must needs come first in order for Christ to come and destroy him; ungodliness, therefore, in all its manifest forms (as we are witnessing today!) must increasingly abound.
How incredulous-the nation which hosts the so-called "mother of all parliaments" cannot carry out a simple mandate-to leave the EU! Great political pressure has been brought to bear from all sides to make sure that if we do leave, we must leave with a deal! How one-sided is this-imagine you go to buy a car, or whatever, and you are told that you can't walk away from it without doing a deal! the very essence of entering into a deal in the first place is to be able to walk away from it if the terms don't suit you. But such is the case-we have been pressured to believe that we cannot leave without a deal! For the UK to be a truly independent and sovereign union, she must leave without a deal, for is it not now obvious to all and sundry that the differences on both sides are truly irreconcilable - especially with regard to the backstop?
The Bible teaches the revived Roman empire (the fourth beast) is represented by the ten toes of Nebuchadnezzar's "great image" Dan.2:31, this image will be destroyed by Christ represented as "the stone cut out of the mountain without hands" Dan.2:45, we know that this happens at Christ's return in glory for the Scripture says "in the days of these kings (the ten toes) shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed." Dan.2:44. The demands of the resurgent beast are that all must bend to it, as England, Wales, the Scottish lowlands were occupied by the first Roman Empire which constitute the "ten toes" so it will be with the revived Roman empire, that will be in existence, in the height of its strength at the time of Christ's Second Coming in glory to destroy it. Of the final confederation of the revived Roman Empire; the"ten toes" it is said of it that it constitutes "part of iron and part of clay" Dan.2:33. Do we not presently see this in Brexit? is not the "clay" the reticent, and reluctant UK? I believe that once the dust has settled on the Brexit saga, the UK will be a major player in the reemerging Roman Empire: for it was once said of her "the sun never set on the British Empire". The emerging Roman Empire has "ten toes" not twenty seven! at some future time these "ten toes" will be clearly manifested, at least to those whom God has given the eyes to see.
Brexit didn't happen on October 31st, despite prime minister Boris Johnson saying he would "rather die in a ditch" than not leave on that date. An extension to the ongoing saga has been granted by our 'masters' in Brussels until 31st January 2020.
I believe that political chicanery will rule the eventual outcome of Brexit - a 'deal' will happen, and it will no doubt be sold as "win-win"! The nay sayers will be silenced, and the masses will be glad that the debacle has finally been 'settled', that is their unrealized and feared "worst case scenarios" of price rises, food scarcity, and whatever else is now behind them. Such is their great distrust of the Creator God of the whole earth of the Holy Bible! He alone is the Provider! "Jehovah Jireh" Gen.22:14, that is the Lord will provide.
"Can He provide flesh for His people?" Psalm 78:20.
The United Kingdom through a democratic process called a referendum in 2016 voted to leave the European Union, yet the will of the people has not prevailed - is this not the death of democracy? Sir Robert Anderson (1841-1918) Scotland Yard commissioner and Brethren scholar said "the full and final development of democracy will be despotism". And so it will be! it has to be, for Christ will destroy the "god of this world" and his puppet - "the man of sin" the Antichrist, by "the brightness of His coming" 2 Thess.2:8. Antichrist must needs come first in order for Christ to come and destroy him; ungodliness, therefore, in all its manifest forms (as we are witnessing today!) must increasingly abound.
How incredulous-the nation which hosts the so-called "mother of all parliaments" cannot carry out a simple mandate-to leave the EU! Great political pressure has been brought to bear from all sides to make sure that if we do leave, we must leave with a deal! How one-sided is this-imagine you go to buy a car, or whatever, and you are told that you can't walk away from it without doing a deal! the very essence of entering into a deal in the first place is to be able to walk away from it if the terms don't suit you. But such is the case-we have been pressured to believe that we cannot leave without a deal! For the UK to be a truly independent and sovereign union, she must leave without a deal, for is it not now obvious to all and sundry that the differences on both sides are truly irreconcilable - especially with regard to the backstop?
The Bible teaches the revived Roman empire (the fourth beast) is represented by the ten toes of Nebuchadnezzar's "great image" Dan.2:31, this image will be destroyed by Christ represented as "the stone cut out of the mountain without hands" Dan.2:45, we know that this happens at Christ's return in glory for the Scripture says "in the days of these kings (the ten toes) shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed." Dan.2:44. The demands of the resurgent beast are that all must bend to it, as England, Wales, the Scottish lowlands were occupied by the first Roman Empire which constitute the "ten toes" so it will be with the revived Roman empire, that will be in existence, in the height of its strength at the time of Christ's Second Coming in glory to destroy it. Of the final confederation of the revived Roman Empire; the"ten toes" it is said of it that it constitutes "part of iron and part of clay" Dan.2:33. Do we not presently see this in Brexit? is not the "clay" the reticent, and reluctant UK? I believe that once the dust has settled on the Brexit saga, the UK will be a major player in the reemerging Roman Empire: for it was once said of her "the sun never set on the British Empire". The emerging Roman Empire has "ten toes" not twenty seven! at some future time these "ten toes" will be clearly manifested, at least to those whom God has given the eyes to see.
Brexit didn't happen on October 31st, despite prime minister Boris Johnson saying he would "rather die in a ditch" than not leave on that date. An extension to the ongoing saga has been granted by our 'masters' in Brussels until 31st January 2020.
I believe that political chicanery will rule the eventual outcome of Brexit - a 'deal' will happen, and it will no doubt be sold as "win-win"! The nay sayers will be silenced, and the masses will be glad that the debacle has finally been 'settled', that is their unrealized and feared "worst case scenarios" of price rises, food scarcity, and whatever else is now behind them. Such is their great distrust of the Creator God of the whole earth of the Holy Bible! He alone is the Provider! "Jehovah Jireh" Gen.22:14, that is the Lord will provide.
"Can He provide flesh for His people?" Psalm 78:20.
Sunday 27 October 2019
Satellites Do Not Exist.
If ever you needed proof that satellites do not exist, you only need read mainstream news media.
This morning (25/10/2019) on the BBC's news website I quote a few relevant sentences from an article under the heading; Mobile giants unveil plan to end rural 'not-spots':
"The Uk's four main mobile phone companies and the government have set out a £1bn plan to banish so-called "not-spots", areas of poor network coverage in rural areas.
The deal-which includes EE,O2, Three and Vodafone -aims to get 4G coverage to 95% of the UK by 2025.
Currently one third of the UK has patchy or non-existent mobile phone coverage. Under the proposals being put forward, an additional 280,000 homes and businesses and 16000km of roads will have coverage.
But wait! Aren't we told continuously by the lying space agencies, NASA, ESA and others that we have satellites orbiting our 'planet'; that space is littered with so-called "space-junk"? If we have satellites in orbit above, why don't the "mobile giants" have some in space so they can rectify the "not-spots" problem? In fact, why bother with those ugly mobile-phone masts at all-that now litter town and country alike? Back in 1969, didn't president Nixon talk to the astronaughts (intentional spelling mistake!) on the moon from the Oval Office in the White House? how simple then would it be some half a century later to have satellites up there beaming mobile phone signals, to and fro all over our 'planet'?
Start thinking! if you do believe that we have satellites high above us littering so-called space; what exactly are they doing up there, and what is their purpose? The only so-called satellites up there are supported by helium balloons for meteorological purposes. And if the ISS space station does exist (and I don't believe it does-only from a studio on earth) that too, would be held up by a giant helium balloon! Airplanes only stay airborne because they have engines to keep them in motion; so what on God's earth keeps these imaginary satellites afloat? Do you really believe the ISS 'space station' has been hovering about up there for some twenty years without any fuel to keep it in 'space', if we can't even use satellites to freely beam unhindered mobile phone signals all over the 'planet'?
Needless to say, the deception behind all this is satanic; the Copernican heliocentric theory which gained universal acceptance through the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church-based on ancient Greek 'wisdom', had the sole purpose of hiding God from mankind! Remember, the popes burned Bibles-they wanted to keep the masses in great darkness (and still do!). The heliocentric theory came to prominence in the "dark ages" when the masses were still steeped in great superstition and idolatry, (sadly the masses are going back that way helped no-doubt by the apostate churches). Nevertheless praise God for the Reformation, and the movement started by the great Reformers! People talk of the Reformation as though it were a finished work that expired many centuries ago, but we are still, even today unshackling ourselves from popery! Heliocentricism gave us millions and billions of miles, (even light years!) it reduced the earth to a microdot in the cosmos, and from these great distances came great periods of time (billions of years) which in the course of time gave rise to the now widely accepted theory of evolution. Certainly, without heliocentricism, evolution would never have came to be.
We are in a giant matrix as it were! under the firmament, put there by God in Christ. God's throne is directly above the firmament (Ezekiel 1:26) for "the earth is His footstool" Matthew 5:35, do you really think God would have a microdot of an insignificant 'planet' in listless 'outer space' as "His footstool"? The colour of the firmament is clear-"the terrible crystal" Ezekiel 1:22. In the RV margin the crystal is said to be ice, and this might well be true. Remember, there are "waters above the firmament" Genesis 1:7. I believe the reason the clear skies are coloured azure blue, is because of the pristine waters above the firmament-for there is no pollution up there! Without heliocentricism, the possibility of alien life existing in distant galaxies (that don't exist) would never have been entertained. Truly the Copernican system is directly responsible for the mass deception of mankind, leading people away from God in Christ.
This morning (25/10/2019) on the BBC's news website I quote a few relevant sentences from an article under the heading; Mobile giants unveil plan to end rural 'not-spots':
"The Uk's four main mobile phone companies and the government have set out a £1bn plan to banish so-called "not-spots", areas of poor network coverage in rural areas.
The deal-which includes EE,O2, Three and Vodafone -aims to get 4G coverage to 95% of the UK by 2025.
Currently one third of the UK has patchy or non-existent mobile phone coverage. Under the proposals being put forward, an additional 280,000 homes and businesses and 16000km of roads will have coverage.
But wait! Aren't we told continuously by the lying space agencies, NASA, ESA and others that we have satellites orbiting our 'planet'; that space is littered with so-called "space-junk"? If we have satellites in orbit above, why don't the "mobile giants" have some in space so they can rectify the "not-spots" problem? In fact, why bother with those ugly mobile-phone masts at all-that now litter town and country alike? Back in 1969, didn't president Nixon talk to the astronaughts (intentional spelling mistake!) on the moon from the Oval Office in the White House? how simple then would it be some half a century later to have satellites up there beaming mobile phone signals, to and fro all over our 'planet'?
Start thinking! if you do believe that we have satellites high above us littering so-called space; what exactly are they doing up there, and what is their purpose? The only so-called satellites up there are supported by helium balloons for meteorological purposes. And if the ISS space station does exist (and I don't believe it does-only from a studio on earth) that too, would be held up by a giant helium balloon! Airplanes only stay airborne because they have engines to keep them in motion; so what on God's earth keeps these imaginary satellites afloat? Do you really believe the ISS 'space station' has been hovering about up there for some twenty years without any fuel to keep it in 'space', if we can't even use satellites to freely beam unhindered mobile phone signals all over the 'planet'?
Needless to say, the deception behind all this is satanic; the Copernican heliocentric theory which gained universal acceptance through the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church-based on ancient Greek 'wisdom', had the sole purpose of hiding God from mankind! Remember, the popes burned Bibles-they wanted to keep the masses in great darkness (and still do!). The heliocentric theory came to prominence in the "dark ages" when the masses were still steeped in great superstition and idolatry, (sadly the masses are going back that way helped no-doubt by the apostate churches). Nevertheless praise God for the Reformation, and the movement started by the great Reformers! People talk of the Reformation as though it were a finished work that expired many centuries ago, but we are still, even today unshackling ourselves from popery! Heliocentricism gave us millions and billions of miles, (even light years!) it reduced the earth to a microdot in the cosmos, and from these great distances came great periods of time (billions of years) which in the course of time gave rise to the now widely accepted theory of evolution. Certainly, without heliocentricism, evolution would never have came to be.
We are in a giant matrix as it were! under the firmament, put there by God in Christ. God's throne is directly above the firmament (Ezekiel 1:26) for "the earth is His footstool" Matthew 5:35, do you really think God would have a microdot of an insignificant 'planet' in listless 'outer space' as "His footstool"? The colour of the firmament is clear-"the terrible crystal" Ezekiel 1:22. In the RV margin the crystal is said to be ice, and this might well be true. Remember, there are "waters above the firmament" Genesis 1:7. I believe the reason the clear skies are coloured azure blue, is because of the pristine waters above the firmament-for there is no pollution up there! Without heliocentricism, the possibility of alien life existing in distant galaxies (that don't exist) would never have been entertained. Truly the Copernican system is directly responsible for the mass deception of mankind, leading people away from God in Christ.
Sunday 20 October 2019
The Brain Conspiracy And The Tripartite (?) Nature Of Man.
We know that we see with our eyes for we can shut one and see out the other, or shut both and not see at all! Likewise with our ears, we can stop them from hearing, and so it is with our noses in regards to smell.
What of our brains? do you feel that your thoughts emanate from your head, or are they from someplace else?
I am well aware that people suffer concussion by taking a knock to the head, and their thoughts and senses pretty much leave them - however, it is clear that our thoughts and actions are put into place through what we see, hear, smell, and even touch, nevertheless, does our conscious intelligence, occur in what we know to be our brains, the so-called grey matter just underneath our scalp? Without doubt, the brain has been removed from the head and dissected by neurosurgeons the world over more times than I have had a hot dinner, nevertheless, what can they tell us about it? can they enter it as it were, and bring anything out of it? Absolutely not! The only thing that they can surmise is that it is a lump of grey matter; they can only theorize and speculate upon exactly what it does, and they can go no further.
Where do our thoughts, imaginations, lusts etc emanate from? in our heads, hearts, soul, spirit or some place else? Left to the Creator's Word alone, it would appear that there isn't a clear distinction.
I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts. Heb.8:10.
I will put my laws into their hearts, And in their minds will I write them. Heb.10:16.
Did the apostle slip up here? I think not! Where, then is the seat of consciousness? some would say the soul is the seat of our consciousness; is the soul in our hearts, and or minds?
The first mention of soul appears in Gen.2:7: And the LORD God formed the man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
On this verse I quote those ever helpful Bible expositors Jamieson, Fausset and Brown (JFB);
"Not that the Creator literally performed this act, but respiration being the medium and sign of life, this phrase is to show that man's life originated in a different way from his body-being implanted directly by God (Eccles.12:7) and hence in the new creation of the soul Christ breathed on His disciples (John 20:22)."
Quite why JFB should not believe that the Creator didn't literally perform the act of breathing into Adam's nostrils I am at a loss to know! Clearly Adam was fully formed, but was no more than a mannequin until God breathed into his nostrils, then he became a "living soul" as the Scripture teaches. The process is reversed at death, at this moment the breath of life departs, we are left with a body that decomposes and returns to the earth from whence it came. Man's life and soul it would seem is inseparable from his heart and mind, it is only his mortal body that dies, the soul never dies or sleeps, from whence come dreams in the night? it is only the physical body that needs sleep, for it gets tired through it's daily toils. As for the soul, it thinks, feels and hurts, even after the life has departed from the body (Rev.6:9-10), Luke 16:23-24). The invisible (to us at least) soul which is the life of man retains the bodily functions of the heart and mind, as is evidenced by the fact that the rich man and Lazarus, though now in a 'dis-embodied' state still have eyes, fingers and a tongue, they are complete with all their faculties, even though they are 'dead', but it is only the physical body that is dead, it awaits the "resurrection of life" for the righteous, and for the unrighteous; "the resurrection of damnation." John 5:29. What of man's spirit? Hebrews 4:12 tells us that it is intimately bound up with the believer's soul; it is only the Word of God that can "divide asunder soul and spirit". Every regenerate man, woman and child has a spirit, for it is only those who have the Spirit of Christ who are born again, for "if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His." Romans 8:9. There is therefore a people on earth, past, present and future, destitute of this vital life giving power without which no man can enter into eternal life in God's Kingdom. The unbeliever is "spiritually discerned" 1 Cor.2:14, the Revised Version (RV) reads judged, and in the margin examined; the apostle goes on to say in verse 16; "we have the mind of Christ." (Something the unbeliever is utterly devoid of - obviously!) The unbeliever, or unregenerate does indeed have a soul, for he is a living being, nevertheless he is only of the earth earthy, he cannot ascend upward to heaven- please read 1 Cor.15:47-49. Does the unbeliever (the non-elect) have a spirit? Certainly he doesn't have "the Spirit of Christ" (Rom.8:9) this much is obvious. However, we do read of "unclean spirits" in the New Testament (NT) (Matt.10:1, Mark 1:27, Luke 4:36 etc.) and these in the NT era were most certainly demons, that is fallen angels, permitted by God in Christ to possess certain individuals for the sole purpose of demonstrating God's omnipotent power over not just the earthly realm,but the heavenly also. But, do unregenerate men, women and children have a spirit? Certainly, we can say that the unregenerate are under the sway of the evil one, the Devil himself (for they "have not the Spirit of Christ"), but, is there now an actual spirit, a literal real and living spirit in the unbeliever? I don't believe so, as is evidenced by the Lord's words in John 3:6; "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." The "Spirit of Christ" is however a real and living Spirit that does indeed convict and guide the elect, without which there could be no hope of salvation. All of the negative spirits that now exist are such as "the spirit of bondage" Rom.8:15,"the spirit of slumber", Rom.11:8, "the spirit of the world" 1 Cor.2:12 are 'spirits' or rather effects that exist in a person that has not been born anew by God's Holy Spirit. In other words they are not possessed by demons, they are literally and truly only in the flesh. When the Lord Jesus said to the particular Pharisees in John 8:44 "Ye are of your father the devil" He could say such for He knew that they were not born from above, that they were in the flesh, and if not born again, then they were under the sway of "the god of this world" hence His naming their "father the devil", for what other universal "father" is there apart from the Father?
When the apostle Paul says "I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Thess.5:23, we must ever remember that he is talking to the Thessalonian believers, not to men in general. Surely only the regenerate can assume the status of a tripartite being; therefore the unregenerate are bipartite; possessing only body and soul, knowing nothing of the life giving Spirit from above. This issue has somewhat befuddled the very best of theologians. Eccl.3:21; "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth down to the earth?" Does a beast have a spirit? Two verses previously in 3:19; "For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man have no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity." (I have emphasized breath, for the RV margin reads "or spirit". Clearly, men and beasts alike, do indeed breathe? Otherwise they couldn't exist! We have seen that Adam's body couldn't live until God breathed into his nostrils*, similarly none can be "born again" without the very same "wind" which is the breath of God, see John 3:8 & 20:22. Men have indeed been classified as beasts in God's word; for the unregenerate are they who are "as brute beasts" Jude 10; have not such been created, or rather "reserved unto judgment" 2 Peter 2:4? and indeed are ever behaving as "Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame...to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever." Jude 13.
"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." Eccl.12:7. From Eccl.3:19 we have seen that the spirit is in the margin for breath. Certainly, regardless of whether one be elect or not, all men do as "dust return to the earth", and all shall stand before Christ in judgment Day; to the elect, it will be "the throne of grace" Heb.4:16, the non-elect will find their eternal destiny confirmed at the "great white throne" Rev.20:11. Regardless of whether spirit should be breath or not, as in Eccl.12:7 there is however a notable distinction in this verse, for it says in the affirmative, without distinction, that "the dust" (man) will "return to the earth as it was", and only "the spirit return unto God who gave it." So, all with God's Spirit will return to Him, for He came to "save His people from their sins." Matt.1:21, His elect people, not so those without "the Spirit of Christ." for their names are not written in "the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Rev.13:8.
*When God breathed into Adam's nostrils; though he was made perfect, he knew nothing of redemption, he was "of the earth, earthy" 1 Cor.15:47, this is why one "must be born again" John 3:7 in order to enter God's kingdom. The elect will "bear the image of the heavenly" 1 Cor.15:49. The natural/unregenerate man to all intents and purposes, no matter how good his morals and civility, is after all, no better than a beast (see 1 Cor.2:13-15). Therefore if a man is "spiritually discerned" does he even have a spirit? To have what the Scriptures teach to be the "Spirit of Christ" is God consciousness; if he has this; he has been born from above.
What of our brains? do you feel that your thoughts emanate from your head, or are they from someplace else?
I am well aware that people suffer concussion by taking a knock to the head, and their thoughts and senses pretty much leave them - however, it is clear that our thoughts and actions are put into place through what we see, hear, smell, and even touch, nevertheless, does our conscious intelligence, occur in what we know to be our brains, the so-called grey matter just underneath our scalp? Without doubt, the brain has been removed from the head and dissected by neurosurgeons the world over more times than I have had a hot dinner, nevertheless, what can they tell us about it? can they enter it as it were, and bring anything out of it? Absolutely not! The only thing that they can surmise is that it is a lump of grey matter; they can only theorize and speculate upon exactly what it does, and they can go no further.
Where do our thoughts, imaginations, lusts etc emanate from? in our heads, hearts, soul, spirit or some place else? Left to the Creator's Word alone, it would appear that there isn't a clear distinction.
I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts. Heb.8:10.
I will put my laws into their hearts, And in their minds will I write them. Heb.10:16.
Did the apostle slip up here? I think not! Where, then is the seat of consciousness? some would say the soul is the seat of our consciousness; is the soul in our hearts, and or minds?
The first mention of soul appears in Gen.2:7: And the LORD God formed the man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
On this verse I quote those ever helpful Bible expositors Jamieson, Fausset and Brown (JFB);
"Not that the Creator literally performed this act, but respiration being the medium and sign of life, this phrase is to show that man's life originated in a different way from his body-being implanted directly by God (Eccles.12:7) and hence in the new creation of the soul Christ breathed on His disciples (John 20:22)."
Quite why JFB should not believe that the Creator didn't literally perform the act of breathing into Adam's nostrils I am at a loss to know! Clearly Adam was fully formed, but was no more than a mannequin until God breathed into his nostrils, then he became a "living soul" as the Scripture teaches. The process is reversed at death, at this moment the breath of life departs, we are left with a body that decomposes and returns to the earth from whence it came. Man's life and soul it would seem is inseparable from his heart and mind, it is only his mortal body that dies, the soul never dies or sleeps, from whence come dreams in the night? it is only the physical body that needs sleep, for it gets tired through it's daily toils. As for the soul, it thinks, feels and hurts, even after the life has departed from the body (Rev.6:9-10), Luke 16:23-24). The invisible (to us at least) soul which is the life of man retains the bodily functions of the heart and mind, as is evidenced by the fact that the rich man and Lazarus, though now in a 'dis-embodied' state still have eyes, fingers and a tongue, they are complete with all their faculties, even though they are 'dead', but it is only the physical body that is dead, it awaits the "resurrection of life" for the righteous, and for the unrighteous; "the resurrection of damnation." John 5:29. What of man's spirit? Hebrews 4:12 tells us that it is intimately bound up with the believer's soul; it is only the Word of God that can "divide asunder soul and spirit". Every regenerate man, woman and child has a spirit, for it is only those who have the Spirit of Christ who are born again, for "if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His." Romans 8:9. There is therefore a people on earth, past, present and future, destitute of this vital life giving power without which no man can enter into eternal life in God's Kingdom. The unbeliever is "spiritually discerned" 1 Cor.2:14, the Revised Version (RV) reads judged, and in the margin examined; the apostle goes on to say in verse 16; "we have the mind of Christ." (Something the unbeliever is utterly devoid of - obviously!) The unbeliever, or unregenerate does indeed have a soul, for he is a living being, nevertheless he is only of the earth earthy, he cannot ascend upward to heaven- please read 1 Cor.15:47-49. Does the unbeliever (the non-elect) have a spirit? Certainly he doesn't have "the Spirit of Christ" (Rom.8:9) this much is obvious. However, we do read of "unclean spirits" in the New Testament (NT) (Matt.10:1, Mark 1:27, Luke 4:36 etc.) and these in the NT era were most certainly demons, that is fallen angels, permitted by God in Christ to possess certain individuals for the sole purpose of demonstrating God's omnipotent power over not just the earthly realm,but the heavenly also. But, do unregenerate men, women and children have a spirit? Certainly, we can say that the unregenerate are under the sway of the evil one, the Devil himself (for they "have not the Spirit of Christ"), but, is there now an actual spirit, a literal real and living spirit in the unbeliever? I don't believe so, as is evidenced by the Lord's words in John 3:6; "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." The "Spirit of Christ" is however a real and living Spirit that does indeed convict and guide the elect, without which there could be no hope of salvation. All of the negative spirits that now exist are such as "the spirit of bondage" Rom.8:15,"the spirit of slumber", Rom.11:8, "the spirit of the world" 1 Cor.2:12 are 'spirits' or rather effects that exist in a person that has not been born anew by God's Holy Spirit. In other words they are not possessed by demons, they are literally and truly only in the flesh. When the Lord Jesus said to the particular Pharisees in John 8:44 "Ye are of your father the devil" He could say such for He knew that they were not born from above, that they were in the flesh, and if not born again, then they were under the sway of "the god of this world" hence His naming their "father the devil", for what other universal "father" is there apart from the Father?
When the apostle Paul says "I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Thess.5:23, we must ever remember that he is talking to the Thessalonian believers, not to men in general. Surely only the regenerate can assume the status of a tripartite being; therefore the unregenerate are bipartite; possessing only body and soul, knowing nothing of the life giving Spirit from above. This issue has somewhat befuddled the very best of theologians. Eccl.3:21; "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth down to the earth?" Does a beast have a spirit? Two verses previously in 3:19; "For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man have no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity." (I have emphasized breath, for the RV margin reads "or spirit". Clearly, men and beasts alike, do indeed breathe? Otherwise they couldn't exist! We have seen that Adam's body couldn't live until God breathed into his nostrils*, similarly none can be "born again" without the very same "wind" which is the breath of God, see John 3:8 & 20:22. Men have indeed been classified as beasts in God's word; for the unregenerate are they who are "as brute beasts" Jude 10; have not such been created, or rather "reserved unto judgment" 2 Peter 2:4? and indeed are ever behaving as "Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame...to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever." Jude 13.
"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." Eccl.12:7. From Eccl.3:19 we have seen that the spirit is in the margin for breath. Certainly, regardless of whether one be elect or not, all men do as "dust return to the earth", and all shall stand before Christ in judgment Day; to the elect, it will be "the throne of grace" Heb.4:16, the non-elect will find their eternal destiny confirmed at the "great white throne" Rev.20:11. Regardless of whether spirit should be breath or not, as in Eccl.12:7 there is however a notable distinction in this verse, for it says in the affirmative, without distinction, that "the dust" (man) will "return to the earth as it was", and only "the spirit return unto God who gave it." So, all with God's Spirit will return to Him, for He came to "save His people from their sins." Matt.1:21, His elect people, not so those without "the Spirit of Christ." for their names are not written in "the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Rev.13:8.
*When God breathed into Adam's nostrils; though he was made perfect, he knew nothing of redemption, he was "of the earth, earthy" 1 Cor.15:47, this is why one "must be born again" John 3:7 in order to enter God's kingdom. The elect will "bear the image of the heavenly" 1 Cor.15:49. The natural/unregenerate man to all intents and purposes, no matter how good his morals and civility, is after all, no better than a beast (see 1 Cor.2:13-15). Therefore if a man is "spiritually discerned" does he even have a spirit? To have what the Scriptures teach to be the "Spirit of Christ" is God consciousness; if he has this; he has been born from above.
Saturday 19 October 2019
An Otherwise Good Read...
Law and Grace (J.N.D. Anderson, O.B.E., M.A., LL.D.)
Inter-Varsity Fellowship Press. Nov. 1954.
"Then is there no hope for those who have never heard the good news, who have had no real opportunity to embrace the gospel? That does not necessarily follow. It seems clear, indeed, that a Muslim, for instance, cannot be saved by trying to be a good Muslim, or a Confucianist by striving to be a consistent Confucianist. But then neither can a Baptist be saved by trying to be a good Baptist, nor an Anglican by striving to be a consistent churchman. But suppose the Muslim, the Confucianist or the pagan were to come to realize - by the gracious working of God's Spirit - that he is a sinner, and suppose he were to cast himself, in his sin and need, on the mercy of God, to the best of his knowledge? Does not the Scripture say that 'there is no distinction ... For, "everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved" '? (Rom.10:12,13, R.S.V.) Such would, of course, be saved through Christ, the only Saviour - just as the Old Testament saints were saved through Him alone. And if they should ever really hear the good news on earth, they would surely be among the company of those who accept the gospel with joy at its first hearing. But if they should never hear at all on earth, I suppose they would awake on the other side of the grave to know and worship the One to whom they owe their salvation. Is not this what St. Peter meant when he said, in the house of Cornelius, 'Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him'? (Acts 10:34,35 R.S.V.) Not, of course, that any one can earn acceptance by their good works. The teaching of Scripture is quite clear regarding this. But from the passage just quoted it would seem that men are accepted on the grounds of their 'fear' of God and their consequent abandonment of themselves to His mercy - an abandonment which, like the understanding faith of the Christian, must always issue in righteous living.
Two further points must be stressed. Firstly, this line of reasoning, if it be true, by no means lessens our missionary responsibility*. We need only remember how we ourselves were brought to this commitment of faith. Was it not by the appeal of the gospel story? And did not St. Paul, as soon as he had declared that 'Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved', immediately add: 'But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? ... And how are they to hear without a preacher?' (Rom. 10:13,14, R.S.V.) And if there be some who, like Cornelius, grope their way to an abandonment of themselves to God's mercy, is it not our privilege and responsibility, like that of John the Baptist, to 'go before the Lord to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins'? (Lk. 1:76,77, R.S.V.)
Nor secondly, does this lighten the responsibility of those who have heard the gospel message but not accepted it. On the contrary, it accentuates that responsibility - for such have no manner of excuse, and no semblance of alternative. There is no other Saviour, and no other way; there is a real salvation, but through grace alone; and that salvation, when truly experienced, must always show itself in practical obedience to the moral law."
The above is quoted verbatim from the last three pages of Professor Anderson's otherwise very helpful discourse on Dispensationalism; on how this aberrant theology separates law from grace and the consequences thereof. However, his handling of Acts 10:34-35, I find to be utterly opposed to what is the clear Scriptural meaning of these verses,** and I wasn't hitherto aware of theologians that teach "this line of reasoning" as he calls it. It is not too difficult to see how "this line of reasoning" energizes liberal theology, is it not? Of those who hadn't heard the Gospel Truth in this life Prof. Anderson says "I suppose they would awake on the other side of the grave to know and worship the One to whom they owe their salvation." (my emphasis) Now, I for one, would never restrict the free sovereign grace of God, for it is as wide, long and high as the heavens and the earth! Nevertheless, how could someone who wasn't brought down to his knees in this life ever feel indebted to God in Christ in the next? There is no forgiveness without repentance*** - perish the damnable thought that it should ever be otherwise! How could the Baptist's clarion call of "Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt.3:2) be understood aright? Likewise, would not Peter's inspiring and definitive call of "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins" (Acts 2:38) be rendered meaningless? "thrown under the bus" to borrow a modern secular proverb! Many, many, more examples from the Scriptures could be adduced, but these two will suffice. Could a soul ever really and truly appreciate the redemptive blood of Christ "on the other side of the grave"? How could such an one feel saved? To me, at any rate, salvation has lost its meaning if one were to "awake the other side of the grave" without knowing to Whom his salvation was due. Not only this, but if Anderson's "line of reasoning" was biblical truth, was the crucifixion even necessary? Hardly!
* I would wholeheartedly disagree! Why bother with any missionary endeavour if the same results can be attained regardless?
** These verses teach that in every nation, Jew and Gentile alike; those that come to fear Him (through the Gospel message-Rom.10:17 etc.) will upon repentance and faith in Him, through the blood of Christ alone be "acceptable to Him."
*** We often hear these days of Christian forgiveness; that is professing Christians forgiving men and women for all sorts of vile atrocities committed against them and their family members, and this is all very good, proper, and liberating. Nevertheless, it matters not one whit that a fellow man has forgiven the offender, what of God, has He? This is where the rubber really hits the road, as it were! does the offender think he is forgiven, regardless of whether or not he has "...repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." Acts 20:21? If this be his case, is not his "conscience seared with a hot iron" 1 Tim.4:2? What hope has he if he believes that he is forgiven by God through His erring representatives down here on earth?
Inter-Varsity Fellowship Press. Nov. 1954.
"Then is there no hope for those who have never heard the good news, who have had no real opportunity to embrace the gospel? That does not necessarily follow. It seems clear, indeed, that a Muslim, for instance, cannot be saved by trying to be a good Muslim, or a Confucianist by striving to be a consistent Confucianist. But then neither can a Baptist be saved by trying to be a good Baptist, nor an Anglican by striving to be a consistent churchman. But suppose the Muslim, the Confucianist or the pagan were to come to realize - by the gracious working of God's Spirit - that he is a sinner, and suppose he were to cast himself, in his sin and need, on the mercy of God, to the best of his knowledge? Does not the Scripture say that 'there is no distinction ... For, "everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved" '? (Rom.10:12,13, R.S.V.) Such would, of course, be saved through Christ, the only Saviour - just as the Old Testament saints were saved through Him alone. And if they should ever really hear the good news on earth, they would surely be among the company of those who accept the gospel with joy at its first hearing. But if they should never hear at all on earth, I suppose they would awake on the other side of the grave to know and worship the One to whom they owe their salvation. Is not this what St. Peter meant when he said, in the house of Cornelius, 'Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him'? (Acts 10:34,35 R.S.V.) Not, of course, that any one can earn acceptance by their good works. The teaching of Scripture is quite clear regarding this. But from the passage just quoted it would seem that men are accepted on the grounds of their 'fear' of God and their consequent abandonment of themselves to His mercy - an abandonment which, like the understanding faith of the Christian, must always issue in righteous living.
Two further points must be stressed. Firstly, this line of reasoning, if it be true, by no means lessens our missionary responsibility*. We need only remember how we ourselves were brought to this commitment of faith. Was it not by the appeal of the gospel story? And did not St. Paul, as soon as he had declared that 'Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved', immediately add: 'But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? ... And how are they to hear without a preacher?' (Rom. 10:13,14, R.S.V.) And if there be some who, like Cornelius, grope their way to an abandonment of themselves to God's mercy, is it not our privilege and responsibility, like that of John the Baptist, to 'go before the Lord to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins'? (Lk. 1:76,77, R.S.V.)
Nor secondly, does this lighten the responsibility of those who have heard the gospel message but not accepted it. On the contrary, it accentuates that responsibility - for such have no manner of excuse, and no semblance of alternative. There is no other Saviour, and no other way; there is a real salvation, but through grace alone; and that salvation, when truly experienced, must always show itself in practical obedience to the moral law."
The above is quoted verbatim from the last three pages of Professor Anderson's otherwise very helpful discourse on Dispensationalism; on how this aberrant theology separates law from grace and the consequences thereof. However, his handling of Acts 10:34-35, I find to be utterly opposed to what is the clear Scriptural meaning of these verses,** and I wasn't hitherto aware of theologians that teach "this line of reasoning" as he calls it. It is not too difficult to see how "this line of reasoning" energizes liberal theology, is it not? Of those who hadn't heard the Gospel Truth in this life Prof. Anderson says "I suppose they would awake on the other side of the grave to know and worship the One to whom they owe their salvation." (my emphasis) Now, I for one, would never restrict the free sovereign grace of God, for it is as wide, long and high as the heavens and the earth! Nevertheless, how could someone who wasn't brought down to his knees in this life ever feel indebted to God in Christ in the next? There is no forgiveness without repentance*** - perish the damnable thought that it should ever be otherwise! How could the Baptist's clarion call of "Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt.3:2) be understood aright? Likewise, would not Peter's inspiring and definitive call of "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins" (Acts 2:38) be rendered meaningless? "thrown under the bus" to borrow a modern secular proverb! Many, many, more examples from the Scriptures could be adduced, but these two will suffice. Could a soul ever really and truly appreciate the redemptive blood of Christ "on the other side of the grave"? How could such an one feel saved? To me, at any rate, salvation has lost its meaning if one were to "awake the other side of the grave" without knowing to Whom his salvation was due. Not only this, but if Anderson's "line of reasoning" was biblical truth, was the crucifixion even necessary? Hardly!
* I would wholeheartedly disagree! Why bother with any missionary endeavour if the same results can be attained regardless?
** These verses teach that in every nation, Jew and Gentile alike; those that come to fear Him (through the Gospel message-Rom.10:17 etc.) will upon repentance and faith in Him, through the blood of Christ alone be "acceptable to Him."
*** We often hear these days of Christian forgiveness; that is professing Christians forgiving men and women for all sorts of vile atrocities committed against them and their family members, and this is all very good, proper, and liberating. Nevertheless, it matters not one whit that a fellow man has forgiven the offender, what of God, has He? This is where the rubber really hits the road, as it were! does the offender think he is forgiven, regardless of whether or not he has "...repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." Acts 20:21? If this be his case, is not his "conscience seared with a hot iron" 1 Tim.4:2? What hope has he if he believes that he is forgiven by God through His erring representatives down here on earth?
Monday 7 October 2019
The Remarkable Prophecy Fulfilled In 2 Kings 23:16.
And as Josiah turned himself, he spied the sepulchres that were there in the mount, and he sent, and took the bones out of the sepulchres, and burned them upon the altar, and polluted it, according to the word of the LORD which the man of God proclaimed, who proclaimed these words. 2 Kings 23:16.
And he cried against the altar by the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD: Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee. 1 Kings 13:2.
"In carrying out these proceedings, Josiah was prompted by his own intense hatred of idolatry. But it is remarkable that this act was predicted 326 years before his birth, and his name also was expressly mentioned, as well as the very place where it should be done (1 Kings 13:2)This is one of the most remarkable prophecies contained in the Bible." Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown (Bible expositors).
Many professing Christians rail with great vehemence against absolute pre-destination and election, and will not have it that the Most High can do as He will; that He is arbitrary in all of His ways.
Josiah was no doubt carrying out his 'free' will, yet all the while his 'free' will was under the sovereign hand of God! Truly, The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: He turneth it whithersoever He will. Proverbs 21:1.
It oftentimes bamboozles me that otherwise sound and earnest Christians cannot accept the doctrine of absolute pre-destination/election; if the Bible didn't clearly teach it in numerous places, the above account being only one example, how could future Bible prophecy ever be fulfilled? How, o how, would God's great plan of the ages be fulfilled in Christ if He were to be subject to our pathetic whims and vagaries?
Think on these things!
And he cried against the altar by the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD: Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee. 1 Kings 13:2.
"In carrying out these proceedings, Josiah was prompted by his own intense hatred of idolatry. But it is remarkable that this act was predicted 326 years before his birth, and his name also was expressly mentioned, as well as the very place where it should be done (1 Kings 13:2)This is one of the most remarkable prophecies contained in the Bible." Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown (Bible expositors).
Many professing Christians rail with great vehemence against absolute pre-destination and election, and will not have it that the Most High can do as He will; that He is arbitrary in all of His ways.
Josiah was no doubt carrying out his 'free' will, yet all the while his 'free' will was under the sovereign hand of God! Truly, The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: He turneth it whithersoever He will. Proverbs 21:1.
It oftentimes bamboozles me that otherwise sound and earnest Christians cannot accept the doctrine of absolute pre-destination/election; if the Bible didn't clearly teach it in numerous places, the above account being only one example, how could future Bible prophecy ever be fulfilled? How, o how, would God's great plan of the ages be fulfilled in Christ if He were to be subject to our pathetic whims and vagaries?
Think on these things!
Tuesday 1 October 2019
Ahab, Disobedient King. Elizabeth II Disobedient Queen?
Why did King Ahab follow Baal instead of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
I believe one of the reasons is that he became conformed to the pattern of his society.
As king he had authority; he was fully responsible for what he did. But he refused to stand against the tide of public opinion even though public opinion was wrong-it did not agree with the Word of God. God help us if public opinion rather than God's Word governs our lives.
Another reason; he was conquered by his passions. Baal worship was based upon sexual lust. This became the normal way of life for people. And thirdly he was controlled by his wife-the notorious Jezebel!
Rather than be God's king for the good of Israel he was influenced by Jezebel, turned against God, and gave approval for the execution of the prophets of God.
Elijah stood before the king and said, You are wrong. Because you have forsaken the commandments of God, because you have followed Baalim you have brought judgment upon your people. Then he commanded king Ahab: "Gather to me all Israel unto Mount Carmel, and the prophets of Baal four hundred and fifty, and the prophets of the groves four hundred...So Ahab sent unto all Israel, and gathered the prophets together unto Mount Carmel." 1 Kings 18:19-20.
Note the proportions: 850 to one! Can you imagine standing before 850 people who hated you, who wanted to kill you? King Ahab must have thought, How can I lose-850 to one!
Fast forward to the present hour in the 'United' Kingdom and we see a parallel with HM Queen Elizabeth II, don't we? Has she not become conformed to the pattern of our ungodly democratic society? As ungodliness increases with each passing generation, I should think it won't be long before the masses even know what a Bible is! Under her 'watch' the state education system has got rid of God's Book (in 1972 as an eleven year old I was given a Bible-not that I read it! nevertheless)...capital punishment has been abolished, abortion legalised etc. and this from everyone's favourite 'Christian' grandmother!
It is all very well and good to say that the queen is a Christian and has been let down by her advisers as indeed they do, but at the end of the day, God's Word says "it is appointed unto men once to die,but after this the judgment." Hebrews 9:27. Great and small alike; we all pass through the portal of death alone and without advisers! On judgment day how will the queen explain to the King her actions in giving royal assent to same-sex marriage in 2014 by putting her signature on that document-to approve what God has not joined together? I for one, would not want to be in her shoes-abdication would have been a far more preferential route! Is it so difficult to stick to basic biblical guidelines and principles, are they that hard to discern?
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this reason shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife." (not his husband!) Mark 10:6-7.
"Let Marriage be had in honour among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled: but fornicators and adulterers God will judge." Hebrews 13:4.
I am sure HM has read these verses? the sin of Sodom was not exclusively sodomy, but also pride (Ezekiel 16:49) nevertheless the two always come together in opposition to God, and unbelief is the one great sin, and in our day the LGBT movement has helped accelerate wickedness into warp drive!
A friend e-mailed me and said in regard to HM:
"You seem a little disappointed with her disloyalty to the Word-and her friendship with the world....
The queen has never been a true, spiritually regenerated Christian-all she has ever been is a broad road, 'cultural' christian."
The queen is at best a professing Christian, and to those that know the Truth, it is clear from her actions that she is none other than an impostor (2 Tim.3:13 RV) and a bad one at that! Nevertheless, as an evangelical Christian if I were ever to have an audience with her (and I can't see this happening anytime soon!), I would tell her to repent of her wicked acts, believe, and abdicate! I don't want any to perish, but nevertheless I know they will.
It is surprising (or is it? such is the deception of our age!), however, how many professing Christians believe that HM is a real Christian. To any true Christian with a little discernment, he or she would know that in the last days wickedness will increase greatly (1 Tim.4:1 ff, 2 Tim.3:1 ff etc) before Christ will destroy the Antichrist and the whole Anti-christian world with "the brightness of His coming." 2 Thess.2:8. So, how can the Antichrist ever come if the whole world was full of God fearing, Bible believing monarchs, prime ministers, presidents etc? Bible prophecy could never be fulfilled-so we need wickedness to be prevalent in high places! (Eph.6:12).
Just because we need increasing wickedness to happen, doesn't mean I want it to happen per se, but to paraphrase what that old pre-millennial saint, J.C. Ryle (1816-1900) said "If I didn't see ungodliness, wickedness, and unbelief increasing around me, I would believe the Bible not to be true." He said it back then!
Back in the late 1990s, in our unconverted days when we used to spasmodically attend our local Baptist Union Baptist Church, I noted that the minister and elders ever seemed to be praying to God to stop all the bad things that were going on in the world, yet despite their 'intercession' things only seemed to go from bad to worse! How many 'Christians' are ignorantly praying against His will to be done? Is it not incumbent on the true believer to have an intelligent understanding of what the prophetic Word says before praying to the Most High? We might find ourselves praying against Matthew 6:10! Let our words be few! read Eccl.5:1-3.
Christians cannot stem the tide as many errantly think; the Gospel is to be preached as a witness to His Name (Acts 1:8), not to convert the world to Christ! The Great Commission was to "make disciples of all the nations" Matt.28:19(RV). "To take out of them (the Gentiles) a people for His Name." Acts 15:14, Rom.9:24. He will do the converting and restoration upon His Return (Zech.12:10, 13:9, Acts 1:6-7 etc).
The revived Roman Empire is taking shape before our very eyes.
I believe one of the reasons is that he became conformed to the pattern of his society.
As king he had authority; he was fully responsible for what he did. But he refused to stand against the tide of public opinion even though public opinion was wrong-it did not agree with the Word of God. God help us if public opinion rather than God's Word governs our lives.
Another reason; he was conquered by his passions. Baal worship was based upon sexual lust. This became the normal way of life for people. And thirdly he was controlled by his wife-the notorious Jezebel!
Rather than be God's king for the good of Israel he was influenced by Jezebel, turned against God, and gave approval for the execution of the prophets of God.
Elijah stood before the king and said, You are wrong. Because you have forsaken the commandments of God, because you have followed Baalim you have brought judgment upon your people. Then he commanded king Ahab: "Gather to me all Israel unto Mount Carmel, and the prophets of Baal four hundred and fifty, and the prophets of the groves four hundred...So Ahab sent unto all Israel, and gathered the prophets together unto Mount Carmel." 1 Kings 18:19-20.
Note the proportions: 850 to one! Can you imagine standing before 850 people who hated you, who wanted to kill you? King Ahab must have thought, How can I lose-850 to one!
Fast forward to the present hour in the 'United' Kingdom and we see a parallel with HM Queen Elizabeth II, don't we? Has she not become conformed to the pattern of our ungodly democratic society? As ungodliness increases with each passing generation, I should think it won't be long before the masses even know what a Bible is! Under her 'watch' the state education system has got rid of God's Book (in 1972 as an eleven year old I was given a Bible-not that I read it! nevertheless)...capital punishment has been abolished, abortion legalised etc. and this from everyone's favourite 'Christian' grandmother!
It is all very well and good to say that the queen is a Christian and has been let down by her advisers as indeed they do, but at the end of the day, God's Word says "it is appointed unto men once to die,but after this the judgment." Hebrews 9:27. Great and small alike; we all pass through the portal of death alone and without advisers! On judgment day how will the queen explain to the King her actions in giving royal assent to same-sex marriage in 2014 by putting her signature on that document-to approve what God has not joined together? I for one, would not want to be in her shoes-abdication would have been a far more preferential route! Is it so difficult to stick to basic biblical guidelines and principles, are they that hard to discern?
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this reason shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife." (not his husband!) Mark 10:6-7.
"Let Marriage be had in honour among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled: but fornicators and adulterers God will judge." Hebrews 13:4.
I am sure HM has read these verses? the sin of Sodom was not exclusively sodomy, but also pride (Ezekiel 16:49) nevertheless the two always come together in opposition to God, and unbelief is the one great sin, and in our day the LGBT movement has helped accelerate wickedness into warp drive!
A friend e-mailed me and said in regard to HM:
"You seem a little disappointed with her disloyalty to the Word-and her friendship with the world....
The queen has never been a true, spiritually regenerated Christian-all she has ever been is a broad road, 'cultural' christian."
The queen is at best a professing Christian, and to those that know the Truth, it is clear from her actions that she is none other than an impostor (2 Tim.3:13 RV) and a bad one at that! Nevertheless, as an evangelical Christian if I were ever to have an audience with her (and I can't see this happening anytime soon!), I would tell her to repent of her wicked acts, believe, and abdicate! I don't want any to perish, but nevertheless I know they will.
It is surprising (or is it? such is the deception of our age!), however, how many professing Christians believe that HM is a real Christian. To any true Christian with a little discernment, he or she would know that in the last days wickedness will increase greatly (1 Tim.4:1 ff, 2 Tim.3:1 ff etc) before Christ will destroy the Antichrist and the whole Anti-christian world with "the brightness of His coming." 2 Thess.2:8. So, how can the Antichrist ever come if the whole world was full of God fearing, Bible believing monarchs, prime ministers, presidents etc? Bible prophecy could never be fulfilled-so we need wickedness to be prevalent in high places! (Eph.6:12).
Just because we need increasing wickedness to happen, doesn't mean I want it to happen per se, but to paraphrase what that old pre-millennial saint, J.C. Ryle (1816-1900) said "If I didn't see ungodliness, wickedness, and unbelief increasing around me, I would believe the Bible not to be true." He said it back then!
Back in the late 1990s, in our unconverted days when we used to spasmodically attend our local Baptist Union Baptist Church, I noted that the minister and elders ever seemed to be praying to God to stop all the bad things that were going on in the world, yet despite their 'intercession' things only seemed to go from bad to worse! How many 'Christians' are ignorantly praying against His will to be done? Is it not incumbent on the true believer to have an intelligent understanding of what the prophetic Word says before praying to the Most High? We might find ourselves praying against Matthew 6:10! Let our words be few! read Eccl.5:1-3.
Christians cannot stem the tide as many errantly think; the Gospel is to be preached as a witness to His Name (Acts 1:8), not to convert the world to Christ! The Great Commission was to "make disciples of all the nations" Matt.28:19(RV). "To take out of them (the Gentiles) a people for His Name." Acts 15:14, Rom.9:24. He will do the converting and restoration upon His Return (Zech.12:10, 13:9, Acts 1:6-7 etc).
The revived Roman Empire is taking shape before our very eyes.
Sunday 29 September 2019
The Objects of The Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony (London)
The objects of the Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony (London) are:
1. To teach the nearing approach of our Lord's return. James 5:8.
2. To hold forth the Truth and to expose and resist error. Jude 3.
3. To note passing events in the light of 'The Scripture of Truth.' 2 Peter 1:19.
4. To unfold the Word of God by comparing Scripture with Scripture. Acts 17:11.
5. To encourage missionary endeavour, and all service for Truth. Acts 1:8.
6. To comfort and strengthen those who seek to stand with the Lord, apart from abounding lawlessness. 2 Timothy 2:19.
7. To call for separation from false ecumenism. 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.
What sound Christian would disagree with the above?
1. To teach the nearing approach of our Lord's return. James 5:8.
2. To hold forth the Truth and to expose and resist error. Jude 3.
3. To note passing events in the light of 'The Scripture of Truth.' 2 Peter 1:19.
4. To unfold the Word of God by comparing Scripture with Scripture. Acts 17:11.
5. To encourage missionary endeavour, and all service for Truth. Acts 1:8.
6. To comfort and strengthen those who seek to stand with the Lord, apart from abounding lawlessness. 2 Timothy 2:19.
7. To call for separation from false ecumenism. 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.
What sound Christian would disagree with the above?
Mt. Sion or Mt Zion, or both?
Until digging deeper I had hitherto believed that Mt Zion and Mt Sion were interchangeable names for the very same location, much like, for example, Elijah and Elias, Isaiah and Esaias, Jonah and Jonas etc are interchangeable names in the OT and NT for the very same men; but is this so?
We all know where Mt Zion is, don't we? but what of Mt Sion?
"Mt Sion (the same is Hermon)" Deut.4:48 (RV).
Mt Sion was called "Sirion" by the Sidonians, see Deut.3:9, so Mt Sion is really an abbreviation for Mt Sirion which was also known as Mt Hermon as the Scripture teaches. The southern slopes of Mt Sion extend to the northern boundary of Israel, and as Dr Gill says in his commentary on Deut.4:48, "Here Hermon has another name Sion, and is to be carefully distinguished from Mount Zion near Jerusalem; it lying in a different country, and being written with a different letter in the Hebrew language. (My emphasis). "Carefully distinguished"? rightly so! why then did the revisers change the phrase Mt Sion to Mt Zion in the only two places this term is mentioned in the New Testament? (Heb.12:22 & Rev.14:1). The noun "Sion" is mentioned a total of nine times in the Authorized Version (Deut.4:48, Ps.65:1, Matt.21:5, Jn.12:15, Rom.9:33, 11:26, Heb.12:22, 1 Pet.2:6 & Rev.14:1), and apart from it's first mention in Deut.4:48, the revisers changed it to Zion. What is the justification for this? for they are two different names, and locations!
It has long been Christian tradition that the Mount where the Lord Jesus was "transfigured" (Matt.17:1-8, Mark 9:2-8, Luke 9:28-36) is Mt Tabor, however certain competent Bible expositors as Jamieson, Fausset and Brown write of the mount of transfiguration:
"A mountain-not Tabor, according to long tradition, with which the facts ill comport, but some one near the lake." (Emphasis mine).
Three apostles were with the Saviour when on the mount of transfiguration; James, John and Peter, and in the context of this event the Lord was teaching of His coming kingdom (Matt.16:28), so is it any wonder Peter was inspired to write "Behold I lay in Sion, a chief cornerstone, elect, precious.." 1 Pet.2:6? He saw the glorified Lord! Glorified in the same location as the mount contiguous with the heavenly Jerusalem! This is where the apostles "were eyewitnesses of His majesty" 2 Pet.1:16! Granted, he was citing Isaiah 28:16, where "Zion" is clearly delineated, yet Peter chose a different Hebrew name "Sion"! Similarly, John did the same in John 12:15 where the apostle cites from another OT prophet, Zechariah (quoting Zion-Zech.9:9) He writes "Fear not daughter of Sion: behold thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt."
Turning to Heb.12:22-23, we read that "ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and unto an innumerable hosts of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven..." Of Mt Sion, in Heb.12:18-20, it is said "ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them anymore..if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart." The elect are come to Mt Sion the heavenly city contiguous with where the Lord's glory was seen on earth, the believer puts his hope in the heavenly Sion, not the earthly Zion, for we are "strangers and pilgrims on the earth"; with Abraham we look for that heavenly city! (Heb.11:10-13).
Mount Sion then, is contiguous with the heavenly Jerusalem, as Mount Zion is to the earthly Jerusalem, they are two very different mounts. Mt Sion is associated with "the Jerusalem which is above" Gal.4:26, "the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven" Rev.3:12, 21:2, 21:10. Mt Sinai "answereth to the Jerusalem that now is" Gal.4:25, and therefore to the earthly Zion in Jerusalem.
It can be established, therefore, that Mt Sion is north of Jerusalem, and I believe the heavenly city* will be visible from the earth throughout the coming 1000 year reign of Christ, we will see its glory much as we presently see the glory of the sun and the moon. The heavenly city will be some 1500 miles square and high! this almost takes one's breath away! Dispensationalists have long taught (since circa 1830) that there is a distinction between the Church and Israel, whereas the truth is they are one in Christ. The King will rule the earth from the heavenly city with His glorified saints who will be given their various cities to reign over, (see Luke 19:12-27). The "church of the firstborn" Heb.12:23; the glorified bride of Christ, that is all those purchased by His blood from Abel to the first resurrection, at His Second Coming, will be able to enter the twelve gates of this city, and thereafter, those mortals on earth saved by His everlasting grace during the millennium. From the heavenly city, I believe the saints will be able to see the expanse of the entire earth, as the Lord Jesus did in Matt.4:8 & Luke 4:5. Yes, we are not on a tiny spinning globe. The mount which Satan took the Lord Jesus up to, I believe must have been of an otherworldly nature like the heavenly mt Sion/Jerusalem-"in the heavenly places" see Ephesians 1:3,20, 2:6, 3:10.
"Beautiful for elevation, the joy of the whole earth, Is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, The city of the great King." Ps.48:2.
"Beautiful for elevation", surely the "elevation" here spoken of can only be the heavenly city in Rev.21:2? That is "Mt.Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.." Heb.12:22. The earthly Mt. Sion is north of Jerusalem, but there is something in the words "the sides of the north" which seem to speak of great height as well as a compass point? And essentially, as has been observed, Sion and Zion seem to be nouns that are inextricably linked to the very same place, for when we "are come unto mount Sion" the resurrected glorified saint will have God's law forever written in his heart in the heavenly city where there is no temple (Rev.21:22), and "out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem." this from the earthly millennial temple to all the nations on the earth, Isa.2:3, Mic.4:2.
The true believer, as "the father of faith" Abraham ever has his sights on the heavenly city, are we not all "strangers and pilgrims on the earth" Heb.11:13? Do we feel we belong here? Perish the thought! Do you feel you belong here in this wicked world held under the sway of the devil? It is written, "Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." Jam.4:4. As Abraham did, we should also "look for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." Heb.11:10. We should "walk in the steps of of that faith of our father Abraham." Rom.4:12 (my emphasis). "The father of all them that believe." Rom.4:11.
*In this age of 'great knowledge' and scientific & technological 'advancement' it is passing strange that something as elementary as the shape of our earth is still up for debate, no? It can be seen with our own eyes that the sun and moon are disc-shaped, and the coming heavenly city is described as a perfect cube (Rev.21:16), essentially it is flat! is this a clue to the shape of our 'planet'?
We all know where Mt Zion is, don't we? but what of Mt Sion?
"Mt Sion (the same is Hermon)" Deut.4:48 (RV).
Mt Sion was called "Sirion" by the Sidonians, see Deut.3:9, so Mt Sion is really an abbreviation for Mt Sirion which was also known as Mt Hermon as the Scripture teaches. The southern slopes of Mt Sion extend to the northern boundary of Israel, and as Dr Gill says in his commentary on Deut.4:48, "Here Hermon has another name Sion, and is to be carefully distinguished from Mount Zion near Jerusalem; it lying in a different country, and being written with a different letter in the Hebrew language. (My emphasis). "Carefully distinguished"? rightly so! why then did the revisers change the phrase Mt Sion to Mt Zion in the only two places this term is mentioned in the New Testament? (Heb.12:22 & Rev.14:1). The noun "Sion" is mentioned a total of nine times in the Authorized Version (Deut.4:48, Ps.65:1, Matt.21:5, Jn.12:15, Rom.9:33, 11:26, Heb.12:22, 1 Pet.2:6 & Rev.14:1), and apart from it's first mention in Deut.4:48, the revisers changed it to Zion. What is the justification for this? for they are two different names, and locations!
It has long been Christian tradition that the Mount where the Lord Jesus was "transfigured" (Matt.17:1-8, Mark 9:2-8, Luke 9:28-36) is Mt Tabor, however certain competent Bible expositors as Jamieson, Fausset and Brown write of the mount of transfiguration:
"A mountain-not Tabor, according to long tradition, with which the facts ill comport, but some one near the lake." (Emphasis mine).
Three apostles were with the Saviour when on the mount of transfiguration; James, John and Peter, and in the context of this event the Lord was teaching of His coming kingdom (Matt.16:28), so is it any wonder Peter was inspired to write "Behold I lay in Sion, a chief cornerstone, elect, precious.." 1 Pet.2:6? He saw the glorified Lord! Glorified in the same location as the mount contiguous with the heavenly Jerusalem! This is where the apostles "were eyewitnesses of His majesty" 2 Pet.1:16! Granted, he was citing Isaiah 28:16, where "Zion" is clearly delineated, yet Peter chose a different Hebrew name "Sion"! Similarly, John did the same in John 12:15 where the apostle cites from another OT prophet, Zechariah (quoting Zion-Zech.9:9) He writes "Fear not daughter of Sion: behold thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt."
Turning to Heb.12:22-23, we read that "ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and unto an innumerable hosts of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven..." Of Mt Sion, in Heb.12:18-20, it is said "ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them anymore..if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart." The elect are come to Mt Sion the heavenly city contiguous with where the Lord's glory was seen on earth, the believer puts his hope in the heavenly Sion, not the earthly Zion, for we are "strangers and pilgrims on the earth"; with Abraham we look for that heavenly city! (Heb.11:10-13).
Mount Sion then, is contiguous with the heavenly Jerusalem, as Mount Zion is to the earthly Jerusalem, they are two very different mounts. Mt Sion is associated with "the Jerusalem which is above" Gal.4:26, "the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven" Rev.3:12, 21:2, 21:10. Mt Sinai "answereth to the Jerusalem that now is" Gal.4:25, and therefore to the earthly Zion in Jerusalem.
It can be established, therefore, that Mt Sion is north of Jerusalem, and I believe the heavenly city* will be visible from the earth throughout the coming 1000 year reign of Christ, we will see its glory much as we presently see the glory of the sun and the moon. The heavenly city will be some 1500 miles square and high! this almost takes one's breath away! Dispensationalists have long taught (since circa 1830) that there is a distinction between the Church and Israel, whereas the truth is they are one in Christ. The King will rule the earth from the heavenly city with His glorified saints who will be given their various cities to reign over, (see Luke 19:12-27). The "church of the firstborn" Heb.12:23; the glorified bride of Christ, that is all those purchased by His blood from Abel to the first resurrection, at His Second Coming, will be able to enter the twelve gates of this city, and thereafter, those mortals on earth saved by His everlasting grace during the millennium. From the heavenly city, I believe the saints will be able to see the expanse of the entire earth, as the Lord Jesus did in Matt.4:8 & Luke 4:5. Yes, we are not on a tiny spinning globe. The mount which Satan took the Lord Jesus up to, I believe must have been of an otherworldly nature like the heavenly mt Sion/Jerusalem-"in the heavenly places" see Ephesians 1:3,20, 2:6, 3:10.
"Beautiful for elevation, the joy of the whole earth, Is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, The city of the great King." Ps.48:2.
"Beautiful for elevation", surely the "elevation" here spoken of can only be the heavenly city in Rev.21:2? That is "Mt.Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.." Heb.12:22. The earthly Mt. Sion is north of Jerusalem, but there is something in the words "the sides of the north" which seem to speak of great height as well as a compass point? And essentially, as has been observed, Sion and Zion seem to be nouns that are inextricably linked to the very same place, for when we "are come unto mount Sion" the resurrected glorified saint will have God's law forever written in his heart in the heavenly city where there is no temple (Rev.21:22), and "out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem." this from the earthly millennial temple to all the nations on the earth, Isa.2:3, Mic.4:2.
The true believer, as "the father of faith" Abraham ever has his sights on the heavenly city, are we not all "strangers and pilgrims on the earth" Heb.11:13? Do we feel we belong here? Perish the thought! Do you feel you belong here in this wicked world held under the sway of the devil? It is written, "Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." Jam.4:4. As Abraham did, we should also "look for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." Heb.11:10. We should "walk in the steps of of that faith of our father Abraham." Rom.4:12 (my emphasis). "The father of all them that believe." Rom.4:11.
*In this age of 'great knowledge' and scientific & technological 'advancement' it is passing strange that something as elementary as the shape of our earth is still up for debate, no? It can be seen with our own eyes that the sun and moon are disc-shaped, and the coming heavenly city is described as a perfect cube (Rev.21:16), essentially it is flat! is this a clue to the shape of our 'planet'?
Tuesday 17 September 2019
Brexit!
I really cannot understand all the recent furore regarding Prime Minister Boris Johnson's actions shutting down parliament and whatever else he chooses to do regarding this stalemate on the people's vote to leave the EU back in 2016.
Johnson is Prime Minister! Let us look up what that little word "prime" actually means, shall we? Here goes!
"Of the first importance; demanding the fullest consideration: of the greatest relevance or significance." Dictionary.com (or any good dictionary) if words have any plain meaning, anymore!
As this man (or any other prime minister in times past, should he/she have done) has chosen to be bold enough to use the powers conferred upon him by the electorate, why then all the ongoing fuss about his so-called 'abuse' of said powers given to him? How then can a so-called 'supreme' court or any other court, or for that matter, or even Her Majesty the queen interfere on this? Johnson is the PRIME minister at this critical juncture of our history! For a court to overrule PM Johnson's decisions is to undermine the democratically elected position that he finds himself to be in! Granted, Johnson himself wasn't voted into power, per se, but the whole process which put him into this position as Prime Minister was entirely democratic!
Whatever is the point of having a prime minister elected by the people if he is under subjection to an unelected so-called 'supreme' court that no-one elected in the first place? A no brainer, no??
There is a "lot of water to pass under the bridge" before all hallows eve (Halloween) on October 31st 2019, when we as a 'united' nation are supposed to fully exit the European Union. Who knows what could happen before then (and after)? I know One who does know-the Almighty! There could be assassinations, and upheavals of all sorts, but rest assured, every minute detail recorded in the Scripture of truth will come to pass. The EU (Roman Empire) at the time of Christ's First Advent (ten toes) will be in full conformity as to all its workings prophesied in the future time of His Second Advent.
Johnson is Prime Minister! Let us look up what that little word "prime" actually means, shall we? Here goes!
"Of the first importance; demanding the fullest consideration: of the greatest relevance or significance." Dictionary.com (or any good dictionary) if words have any plain meaning, anymore!
As this man (or any other prime minister in times past, should he/she have done) has chosen to be bold enough to use the powers conferred upon him by the electorate, why then all the ongoing fuss about his so-called 'abuse' of said powers given to him? How then can a so-called 'supreme' court or any other court, or for that matter, or even Her Majesty the queen interfere on this? Johnson is the PRIME minister at this critical juncture of our history! For a court to overrule PM Johnson's decisions is to undermine the democratically elected position that he finds himself to be in! Granted, Johnson himself wasn't voted into power, per se, but the whole process which put him into this position as Prime Minister was entirely democratic!
Whatever is the point of having a prime minister elected by the people if he is under subjection to an unelected so-called 'supreme' court that no-one elected in the first place? A no brainer, no??
There is a "lot of water to pass under the bridge" before all hallows eve (Halloween) on October 31st 2019, when we as a 'united' nation are supposed to fully exit the European Union. Who knows what could happen before then (and after)? I know One who does know-the Almighty! There could be assassinations, and upheavals of all sorts, but rest assured, every minute detail recorded in the Scripture of truth will come to pass. The EU (Roman Empire) at the time of Christ's First Advent (ten toes) will be in full conformity as to all its workings prophesied in the future time of His Second Advent.
Thursday 29 August 2019
The Ever Hypocritical BBC...
From BBC News 29th August 2019.
Jo Brand battery acid joke 'went too far', BBC rules.
Jo Brand's controversial joke about throwing battery acid "went beyond what was appropriate" for a Radio 4 comedy show, the BBC has ruled.
The corporation has partially upheld complaints about the quip made by the comedian on Radio 4's Heresy in June.
Referring to political figures who had been hit by milkshakes, she said: "I'm thinking, why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid?"
But the BBC dismissed complaints that her remark amounted to incitement.
Following the broadcast, Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage, who had a milkshake thrown at him by protesters several weeks earlier, accused Brand of "inciting violence."
A BBC spokesperson said:
"We note the findings and that the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit concluded the comments did not condone violence and that no subject matter should be beyond the scope of comedy."
"The comments did not condone violence"
Does the BBC not have any grasp of the English language?
"No subject matter should be beyond the scope of comedy"?
Maybe Ms Brand would like to make a few quips about Allah or the prophet Mohammed; the Koran, and put the BBC to the test on this? methinks a fatwa would be coming her way..rather pronto!
But then, she is not so daft, for she knows that to go down the road of jesting about Islam is completely and utterly out of bounds, it is forbidden ground.
Perhaps when the spokesman-oops! sorry-spokesperson made this statement it was taken as read that Islam, LGBTQ, ethnic minority groups, militant disabled groups etc, etc, were excepted. We wouldn't want to hurt their sensibilities for the hate speech brigade would be out in force!
As for white European Caucasians and anything to do with the Christian Faith....are we not fair game? sitting ducks by another name!
It is widely known that the BBC has a great many LGBTQ and multi-cultural/diverse ethnic minority employees, of which no doubt many are Muslims. The head of religious programming is a Muslim....
Jo Brand battery acid joke 'went too far', BBC rules.
Jo Brand's controversial joke about throwing battery acid "went beyond what was appropriate" for a Radio 4 comedy show, the BBC has ruled.
The corporation has partially upheld complaints about the quip made by the comedian on Radio 4's Heresy in June.
Referring to political figures who had been hit by milkshakes, she said: "I'm thinking, why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid?"
But the BBC dismissed complaints that her remark amounted to incitement.
Following the broadcast, Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage, who had a milkshake thrown at him by protesters several weeks earlier, accused Brand of "inciting violence."
A BBC spokesperson said:
"We note the findings and that the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit concluded the comments did not condone violence and that no subject matter should be beyond the scope of comedy."
"The comments did not condone violence"
Does the BBC not have any grasp of the English language?
"No subject matter should be beyond the scope of comedy"?
Maybe Ms Brand would like to make a few quips about Allah or the prophet Mohammed; the Koran, and put the BBC to the test on this? methinks a fatwa would be coming her way..rather pronto!
But then, she is not so daft, for she knows that to go down the road of jesting about Islam is completely and utterly out of bounds, it is forbidden ground.
Perhaps when the spokesman-oops! sorry-spokesperson made this statement it was taken as read that Islam, LGBTQ, ethnic minority groups, militant disabled groups etc, etc, were excepted. We wouldn't want to hurt their sensibilities for the hate speech brigade would be out in force!
As for white European Caucasians and anything to do with the Christian Faith....are we not fair game? sitting ducks by another name!
It is widely known that the BBC has a great many LGBTQ and multi-cultural/diverse ethnic minority employees, of which no doubt many are Muslims. The head of religious programming is a Muslim....
Sunday 11 August 2019
Its all random...isn't it?
This great 'theatre' that is taking place under the Almighty's feet; to the rank unbeliever and nominal Christian alike appears to all intents and purposes random and chaotic. However, to many that believe in biblical and absolute predestination; we see God's hand in every minute detail, in other-words, God's absolute predestination and election at work. Yet man is a 'free' agent to do as he will! Try outfoxing God-drive up to a junction planning to make a left turn, and then turn right in the last split second-I fooled you! you can change your mind as many times as you will, but God's sovereign rule will overrule man's 'free will' to bring His great prophetic plan of the ages to pass. Yes He will make the wrath of man to praise Him (Psalm 76:10, Exodus 9:16, Philippians 2:10). Shakespeare was right when he wrote "all the world's a stage." Many sing hymns in church and cathedral saying "how great Thou art" or "Almighty God" and such, yet think Him not so almighty as to order all events down to the last minuscule jot! Mighty, but not that mighty! When we say God in Christ is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, is this only in a partial sense? to listen to some, you would think so! Some Christians are even offended at the thought of God micro managing everything, but to those with the eyes to see it, it is everyplace in God's Book. Haman put a noose around his very own neck, yet he knew not that God had ordered it so! (Esther 7:10)*.
There is a secular proverb that contains much wisdom (many of them do!) "it is not what you know, but who you know". This is said in regard to perceived fortuitous events where gain, be it financial, or fame, or both, can be had due to the fact that you are within a circle of influence. Oftentimes in the past I would bemoan the fact that I had lost out, not through any perceived lack of skill or knowledge on my part, but because I didn't have the right contacts. For some reason, I wasn't within their circle or network as it were, and try as I would to be in it, somehow it just didn't happen. It is in "the old boys network" so to speak where in the upper echelons of society; friendships and acquaintances are formed through the private/public schools and universities where you "rub shoulders" with the 'right' people. This is the top (one percent?) of society where your background and privileged upbringing make all the difference, many contacts are formed within the elite private/public school network. At the present moment some two thirds of prime minister Johnson's cabinet went to fee-paying private schools such as Eton. Is this any accident? Certainly, some 'break the ranks' from the state system and rub shoulders with these elites, but the truth is, they are never accepted as "one of the boys", they remain outsiders. Back in the mid 1980's I fell on the wrong side of the law, and needed to enlist a barrister, whom my solicitor employed from London (there were only two Barrister houses back then-London & Cardiff; for England & Wales). 'Fortunately' having gotten ahead financially early on in my business, the cost wasn't a problem to me, but it was only then that it hit me how different I was to the solicitor/barrister class! I distinctly felt different, that they were almost looking at me as if I were a piece of dirt on their shoes! They spoke in a different way, used words I had never learned, had certain airs and graces which I never did (or have), I subsequently learned that they were the product of private and university education, to all intents and purposes, they were aliens to me! listening to them converse, they just as well had been speaking in Hebrew-I was Shibbolethed! (Judges 12:6).Having had a state-education from a working class background, you really are in a different class to these people, and they know it, and we feel it.
But, for all this 'advantage' "not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty, and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in His presence." 1 Cor.1:26-29.
Let us praise God for this!
It is no easy thing for a 'successful' worldling to humble himself and "become as little children..to..enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matt.18:3. Many years back I was a guest on a few occasions to a Masonic lodge for an evening black tie event; the masons would have "worshipful brother" and "worshipful master" prefixed to their name cards at dinner! What a way to become pumped up with pride!?
There is no school like God's school: "The truth shall make you free." John 8:32.
It can be clearly seen from Scripture that the "grace and favour" of the world is a major stumbling-block to entering God's mansions in the kingdom of heaven. God doesn't play dice, and "The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD." Prov.16:33.
I remember my mother telling me that a great, great grand mother on her side of the family was a French noble-woman that was executed by guillotine in the French Revolution. It mattered not how you would disguise yourself to escape the revolutionaries, as soon as you opened your mouth, or they looked at your hands to see whether they had been worked-they knew! I have never bothered to search the family tree, to what end? A neighbour once told me some years ago that he went to Somerset House in London to see how far back his lineage went, to which I said "don't waste your time, we all came from Adam and Eve!" As Del Boy would say "do you Adam and Eve it?"
*God is not mentioned by name in this book, yet we see His unseen hand throughout. If Saul had obeyed God and executed Agag, Haman the Jewish adversary would never have been born! (1 Sam.15:3). I believe the only other book He is not mentioned by name is Song of Solomon.
There is a secular proverb that contains much wisdom (many of them do!) "it is not what you know, but who you know". This is said in regard to perceived fortuitous events where gain, be it financial, or fame, or both, can be had due to the fact that you are within a circle of influence. Oftentimes in the past I would bemoan the fact that I had lost out, not through any perceived lack of skill or knowledge on my part, but because I didn't have the right contacts. For some reason, I wasn't within their circle or network as it were, and try as I would to be in it, somehow it just didn't happen. It is in "the old boys network" so to speak where in the upper echelons of society; friendships and acquaintances are formed through the private/public schools and universities where you "rub shoulders" with the 'right' people. This is the top (one percent?) of society where your background and privileged upbringing make all the difference, many contacts are formed within the elite private/public school network. At the present moment some two thirds of prime minister Johnson's cabinet went to fee-paying private schools such as Eton. Is this any accident? Certainly, some 'break the ranks' from the state system and rub shoulders with these elites, but the truth is, they are never accepted as "one of the boys", they remain outsiders. Back in the mid 1980's I fell on the wrong side of the law, and needed to enlist a barrister, whom my solicitor employed from London (there were only two Barrister houses back then-London & Cardiff; for England & Wales). 'Fortunately' having gotten ahead financially early on in my business, the cost wasn't a problem to me, but it was only then that it hit me how different I was to the solicitor/barrister class! I distinctly felt different, that they were almost looking at me as if I were a piece of dirt on their shoes! They spoke in a different way, used words I had never learned, had certain airs and graces which I never did (or have), I subsequently learned that they were the product of private and university education, to all intents and purposes, they were aliens to me! listening to them converse, they just as well had been speaking in Hebrew-I was Shibbolethed! (Judges 12:6).Having had a state-education from a working class background, you really are in a different class to these people, and they know it, and we feel it.
But, for all this 'advantage' "not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty, and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in His presence." 1 Cor.1:26-29.
Let us praise God for this!
It is no easy thing for a 'successful' worldling to humble himself and "become as little children..to..enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matt.18:3. Many years back I was a guest on a few occasions to a Masonic lodge for an evening black tie event; the masons would have "worshipful brother" and "worshipful master" prefixed to their name cards at dinner! What a way to become pumped up with pride!?
There is no school like God's school: "The truth shall make you free." John 8:32.
It can be clearly seen from Scripture that the "grace and favour" of the world is a major stumbling-block to entering God's mansions in the kingdom of heaven. God doesn't play dice, and "The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD." Prov.16:33.
I remember my mother telling me that a great, great grand mother on her side of the family was a French noble-woman that was executed by guillotine in the French Revolution. It mattered not how you would disguise yourself to escape the revolutionaries, as soon as you opened your mouth, or they looked at your hands to see whether they had been worked-they knew! I have never bothered to search the family tree, to what end? A neighbour once told me some years ago that he went to Somerset House in London to see how far back his lineage went, to which I said "don't waste your time, we all came from Adam and Eve!" As Del Boy would say "do you Adam and Eve it?"
*God is not mentioned by name in this book, yet we see His unseen hand throughout. If Saul had obeyed God and executed Agag, Haman the Jewish adversary would never have been born! (1 Sam.15:3). I believe the only other book He is not mentioned by name is Song of Solomon.
Thursday 8 August 2019
Jephthah's vow, and why we shouldn't be rash when making promises, especially to God!
What a barmy vow from the ninth judge of Israel?
Whatever 'possessed' him to say it to the Almighty God?
"And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, if thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, then it shall be that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall surely be the LORD'S, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering."
Judges 11:30-31.
The biblical narrative then goes on to say that "the LORD delivered them (Ammon) into his hand."
Job done, Jephthah journeys triumphantly back home...
"And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter. And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me, for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back."
Judges 11:34-35.
Mizpeh/Mizpah-(watchtower/lookout) is a town in Gilead.
Now, I know not what sort of household Jephthah maintained in Mizpeh, but I can only believe that being the 'king' of all Israel that it was not an insignificant dwelling place (not bedsit land!). He would have had many servants running the place, and it may be that he thought it would be one of these 'dispensable' hirelings that may have come "to meet me". Perhaps he had never once seen his only child near the front of his mansion? it may be that upon going to war with Ammon, he commissioned a guard to protect his household-a sentry at the front door? The guards may have allowed Jephthah's daughter to have the run of the place, ever having their watchful eye over her, but on the day of his return, she heard the returning cavalry, and the guards let her enthusiastically go out to meet her father? We can speculate on these things, but the Bible doesn't tell us any more than it does; in any event, Jephthah should never have made such a rash vow.
Our words have consequences, oftentimes things we say in jest come true! hence the secular proverb "many a true word spoken in jest." Certainly, the true Christian should have few words and choose them wisely (especially when praying to God), and before making any promissory undertaking to whomever, verbal or written, should make sure he can fulfill it.
"I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Matt.12:36-37.
These "things were written aforetime were written for our learning .." Rom.15:4. "Now all these things happened unto them by way of example; and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come." 1 Cor.10:11 (RV).
Commentators are divided as to whether Jephthah actually offered up his daughter to the LORD for a "burnt offering" for such an "offering" was not prescribed in God's law, and would be an abomination to Him. Such sacrifices were pagan and were offered to Molech. Idolatry prevailed at the time of the Judges, Having said this, verse 39 says Jephthah "did with her according to his vow which he had vowed." Some think that Jephthah had a house built for his daughter where she lived in isolation perpetually "bewailing her virginity"; it is said that the convents were built to house nuns in the Romish tradition came from this account.
Whatever 'possessed' him to say it to the Almighty God?
"And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, if thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, then it shall be that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall surely be the LORD'S, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering."
Judges 11:30-31.
The biblical narrative then goes on to say that "the LORD delivered them (Ammon) into his hand."
Job done, Jephthah journeys triumphantly back home...
"And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter. And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me, for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back."
Judges 11:34-35.
Mizpeh/Mizpah-(watchtower/lookout) is a town in Gilead.
Now, I know not what sort of household Jephthah maintained in Mizpeh, but I can only believe that being the 'king' of all Israel that it was not an insignificant dwelling place (not bedsit land!). He would have had many servants running the place, and it may be that he thought it would be one of these 'dispensable' hirelings that may have come "to meet me". Perhaps he had never once seen his only child near the front of his mansion? it may be that upon going to war with Ammon, he commissioned a guard to protect his household-a sentry at the front door? The guards may have allowed Jephthah's daughter to have the run of the place, ever having their watchful eye over her, but on the day of his return, she heard the returning cavalry, and the guards let her enthusiastically go out to meet her father? We can speculate on these things, but the Bible doesn't tell us any more than it does; in any event, Jephthah should never have made such a rash vow.
Our words have consequences, oftentimes things we say in jest come true! hence the secular proverb "many a true word spoken in jest." Certainly, the true Christian should have few words and choose them wisely (especially when praying to God), and before making any promissory undertaking to whomever, verbal or written, should make sure he can fulfill it.
"I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Matt.12:36-37.
These "things were written aforetime were written for our learning .." Rom.15:4. "Now all these things happened unto them by way of example; and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come." 1 Cor.10:11 (RV).
Commentators are divided as to whether Jephthah actually offered up his daughter to the LORD for a "burnt offering" for such an "offering" was not prescribed in God's law, and would be an abomination to Him. Such sacrifices were pagan and were offered to Molech. Idolatry prevailed at the time of the Judges, Having said this, verse 39 says Jephthah "did with her according to his vow which he had vowed." Some think that Jephthah had a house built for his daughter where she lived in isolation perpetually "bewailing her virginity"; it is said that the convents were built to house nuns in the Romish tradition came from this account.
Sunday 21 July 2019
Medical advice only half right?
Further to my last post, the following is an excerpt from the New York Times March 16th 2003.
DR. Lisa Sanders, M.D. writes:
"A decade ago, I stood alongside my 99 fellow freshmen as we were welcomed into the ranks of medicine in a 'white coat ceremony.' Here, on our first day of med school, we were presented with the short white coats that proclaimed us part of the mystery and the discipline of medicine. During that ceremony, the dean said something that was repeated throughout my education: half of what we teach you here is wrong-unfortunately, we don't know which half. At the time it was hard to believe. Within those walls, in the anatomy lab, in the lecture hall, you feel that you are being shown the secrets of how the body is put together, how it lives, how it works, how it dies. It has the feel of authority and certainty. Like math, it has a feeling of inevitability. But now, as a practicing doctor and teacher of residents, I relive that dean's aphorism daily. Medicine is, and always has been, an evolving discipline. And this necessarily means that what we know about medicine is constantly changing; that medicine is forever putting forth, and simultaneously upending assumptions. This is particularly true at this moment. Virtually all of our medical therapeutic options are being questioned, evaluated and re-evaluated by researchers across the globe."
Dr. Sanders admits that some top professors in medical school acknowledge that "half" of what they teach may be wrong. So in which "half" are you going to put your faith?
It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. Psalm 118:8.
THINK!
Seventy percent of doctors treating Medicare patients flunked an exam on their knowledge of prescribing for older adults (Public Citizen Newsletter, July 2002).
In 2013, of the 43,982 drug overdose deaths in the United States, 22,767 (51.8%) were related to pharmaceuticals ("Prescription Drug Overdose in the United States: Fact Sheet." CDC.gov, March 2, 2015).
Doctors with the worst malpractice records keep treating patients: Among the nearly 100,000 doctors who made payments to resolve malpractice claims from 2001 to 2011, roughly 800 were responsible for all the dollars paid and their total payouts averaged about $5.2 million per doctor. Yet fewer than one in five faced any sort of licensure action by their state medical boards ("Thousands of doctors practicing despite errors, misconduct." USA Today, August 20, 2013).
The cost of drug-related injuries and deaths in the U.S. are estimated at $136 billion annually, with ADRs (Adverse Drug Reactions) occurring for about 5-20% of hospital patients (Modern Pharmaceutical Industry: A Primer, 2010).
And I am sure things are no better this side of the pond!
DR. Lisa Sanders, M.D. writes:
"A decade ago, I stood alongside my 99 fellow freshmen as we were welcomed into the ranks of medicine in a 'white coat ceremony.' Here, on our first day of med school, we were presented with the short white coats that proclaimed us part of the mystery and the discipline of medicine. During that ceremony, the dean said something that was repeated throughout my education: half of what we teach you here is wrong-unfortunately, we don't know which half. At the time it was hard to believe. Within those walls, in the anatomy lab, in the lecture hall, you feel that you are being shown the secrets of how the body is put together, how it lives, how it works, how it dies. It has the feel of authority and certainty. Like math, it has a feeling of inevitability. But now, as a practicing doctor and teacher of residents, I relive that dean's aphorism daily. Medicine is, and always has been, an evolving discipline. And this necessarily means that what we know about medicine is constantly changing; that medicine is forever putting forth, and simultaneously upending assumptions. This is particularly true at this moment. Virtually all of our medical therapeutic options are being questioned, evaluated and re-evaluated by researchers across the globe."
Dr. Sanders admits that some top professors in medical school acknowledge that "half" of what they teach may be wrong. So in which "half" are you going to put your faith?
It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. Psalm 118:8.
THINK!
Seventy percent of doctors treating Medicare patients flunked an exam on their knowledge of prescribing for older adults (Public Citizen Newsletter, July 2002).
In 2013, of the 43,982 drug overdose deaths in the United States, 22,767 (51.8%) were related to pharmaceuticals ("Prescription Drug Overdose in the United States: Fact Sheet." CDC.gov, March 2, 2015).
Doctors with the worst malpractice records keep treating patients: Among the nearly 100,000 doctors who made payments to resolve malpractice claims from 2001 to 2011, roughly 800 were responsible for all the dollars paid and their total payouts averaged about $5.2 million per doctor. Yet fewer than one in five faced any sort of licensure action by their state medical boards ("Thousands of doctors practicing despite errors, misconduct." USA Today, August 20, 2013).
The cost of drug-related injuries and deaths in the U.S. are estimated at $136 billion annually, with ADRs (Adverse Drug Reactions) occurring for about 5-20% of hospital patients (Modern Pharmaceutical Industry: A Primer, 2010).
And I am sure things are no better this side of the pond!
Medical doctors and science: have they gone beyond their remit?
Medical doctors and science: have they gone beyond their remit?
I truly believe so!
Does the Bible speak well of doctors (physicians)? In the Old Testament they were only able to embalm a dead body (Gen.50:2) and they couldn't even heal good king Asa's feet (2 Chron.16:12). In the New Testament they are mentioned some six times (Matt.9:12, Mark 2:17, 5:26, Luke 4:23, 5:31, 8:43) and this in an entirely negative context, as contrasted with the Saviour's healing mission; "healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people." Matt.4:23. His success rate was nothing short of one hundred percent! In Col.4:14, Luke is mentioned as "the beloved physician", but this commendation was not said for his abilities as a doctor (in the natural, his ability would be the same as the rest), only that he was a constant and faithful companion of Paul's on his missionary journeys. Luke would have been addressed as "the beloved shoemaker" if that were his occupation.
"And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any." Luke 8:43. Is it any different today? Does it not appear something of a lottery whether or not men and women gain any brief respite from their ailments from their visits to doctors surgeries? But, when the woman "touched the border of His garment: immediately her issue of blood stanched." Luke 8:44, such was the power of the Physician! People feel they have to do something, for example; it is a fact that people die when they do have chemotherapy, they also die if they don't, and vice versa. Those that have undergone chemotherapy who receive the "all clear" will never know whether or not they would have survived without this 'treatment', yet no doubt they will believe their 'survival' or remission, rather, was entirely due to the course of action they undertook. Every man, woman, and child that has ever lived, and will yet live, has a precise appointment with death that cannot be circumvented. The time appointed and the circumstances thereof are fixed in God's eternal counsels; "declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure." Isaiah 46:10. "It is appointed unto men once to die" (Heb.9:27a), on this verse Dr Gill writes;
"Not a moral, or what is commonly called a spiritual death, nor an eternal one, but a corporeal one; which does not arise from the constitution of nature, but from the sin of man, and God's decree on account of it, by which it is fixed that men shall die, and how long they shall live, and when they shall die; so that they cannot die sooner nor later; all things antecedent to death, which lead on to it, and issue in it, are appointed by God, and so death is itself, with all its circumstances; men's days can neither be lengthened or shortened either by Christ himself, or others: and this statute and appointment of God concerns men, not angels, and reaches to all men, wicked and righteous.."*
Is it not a sad and sorry sight to behold, when you see very old and frail people making regular visits to their Medical Doctor's (MD) in the vain hope that they will somehow come up with a course of medication/drugs to cure them, or an "elixir of youth" as it were, to reverse their aging process? for that is what they are really looking for, otherwise why visit physicians? Much is made these days of "progress" in the field of medical science and technology, yet, where is it? Is man any nearer to "cracking cancer" today than he was 100 years ago? Cancer, along with all other forms of diseases will daily claim their victims until the grand consummation. The pharmaceutical giants (or should we say the corporate sorcerers?) continue to rake in the money from governments worldwide, getting ever richer on the promise of a false dawn that will never appear. In Matt.9:12 the Lord said to the Pharisees "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.", and who isn't sick? all outside of Christ are sick, yet they know it not! (Isaiah 1:5-6). None would apply to the Physician, unless "the Father which hath sent Me draw him." John 6:44. and it is here, on this pivotal point that the great controversy on salvation in the Church of Christ ever rumbles on-why choose him? why not her? why me? and on it goes! but, on this, here I digress.
I recollect reading an article in the New York Times some years back that had a profound effect on me (March 16th 2003) as written by Dr Lisa Sanders MD (she was one of the 99 freshmen present in the white coat ceremony); the freshmen as they were inducted into medical college were told by the dean, "We know that half of what we teach you here will be wrong, but unfortunately we don't know which half!"
"There is no new thing under the sun." as the preacher of old said.
It should be remembered that drugs are mentioned in the Bible, 'masked' as it were, by the English word sorcery, which comes from the Greek word pharmakeia, from which the word pharmacy originated, from whence people obtain their so-called 'medications'! (see Gal.5:20 (witchcraft), Rev.9:21 & 18:23). Witchcraft and sorcery are words that evoke images of old hags with pointed hats mixing herbs, spices, dead rats, and what have you, in a great boiling cauldron casting curses as they go! And is it any different in today's 'sanitised' pharmaceutical world? for the same results are produced-mind altering drugs! People without faith, and to a lesser extent those with little faith are heavily reliant upon drugs. It is reported that "Scotland has the highest number of drug related deaths in Europe and the numbers are continuing to rise at an alarming speed." (BBC News 17/07/19). It is not just illegal drugs that is the cause of these deaths and suffering, the report highlights prescription drugs as being a significant factor. This report makes depressing reading; David Liddell, of the Scottish Drugs Forum;
"We estimate around half of those on methadone (heroin substitute)** are on too low a dose, so what is happening for individuals is they are then forced to top up on street drugs. Thats fuelling the poly-drug use problem that we have and leading to deaths as a result."
I have witnessed unbelieving elderly relatives who right up to the very last cling to the vain and sad hope that their MD's would somehow defeat death on their behalf, but alas, as always, their hopes were in vain, for "it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" Heb.9:27.
The particular relatives in question, my wife and I would on many occasions witness the Truth to them, yet I believe it was to no avail. Let us remember that the Gospel of Christ has the effect of hardening hearts as well as softening them: "For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: to the one we are the savour of death unto death;and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?" 2 Cor.2:15-16. (my emphasis). Some words never escape your memory; I recollect a Pentecostal preacher saying "how can you get through to a fence-post?" True-we can't! it is only God's Holy Spirit alone that can do it. Only God's Holy Spirit can savingly lead a sick (even 'healthy' sinners are sick!) sinner to the great salvation through the blood of the Master Physician. The Physician Himself said "They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Mark 2:17. The AV is correct on "the physician, for the RV changed it to "a physician". As if any old physician could do what He does! All others "are all physicians of no value." as Job exclaimed! (Job 13:4). The word physician is only mentioned Eleven times in the AV, and the one other place it occurs that I haven't mentioned is in Jeremiah 8:22, where Dr Gill observes correctly that "Christ is the alone physician". Yes, prophets in the Old Testament pointed sinners to the coming Redeemer in the-one Church of Christ in all dispensations.
What then is the remit that physicians in our day operate within?
They would tell you that there is none-for boundaries (in their view) are being constantly extended.
In my opinion, they can do no more than embalming, setting broken bones, stitching and healing wounds, applying soothing ointments, treating severe burns, amputations, and very basic surgery. These things, and no doubt some more, they can do with a high rate of success, but when compared to the Physician their best efforts are as abysmal as trying to kill an elephant with a child's toy water pistol!
There was a time in our nation when Christian Physicians were allowed to point their patients in the direction of the Master Physician, but alas, no more, if they were to do so today, they will find themselves struck off the medical register.
Each Christian has to make up his own mind as to how far he should go with man's devices. As Christians grow in faith they will learn to seek God's will on how to deal with matters pertaining to health and well-being through prayer. Each of us has the personal responsibility to use medical help according to our understanding and our faith-not someone else's. And God's word tells us "whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Rom.14:23.
*Dr Gill goes on to write about two notable exceptions, Enoch and Elijah, yet, if these saints are the "two witnesses" in Rev.11 then even these two saints will be appointed to die before being resurrected (see Rev.11:7-11).
The Scripture also teaches that there will be those saints who will not taste death, for at the Lord's Second Coming "we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them (those who were dead in Christ-v.16) in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.." 1 Thess.4:17. Those alive at His Coming will be "changed" see 1 Cor.15:51-52.
**Back in 1979-80 I was prescribed methadone to help me with my heroin addiction. By rights I should have sunk further into the abyss, but thanks be to God in Christ for His saving grace He pulled me out of it, though at the time I knew it not.
I truly believe so!
Does the Bible speak well of doctors (physicians)? In the Old Testament they were only able to embalm a dead body (Gen.50:2) and they couldn't even heal good king Asa's feet (2 Chron.16:12). In the New Testament they are mentioned some six times (Matt.9:12, Mark 2:17, 5:26, Luke 4:23, 5:31, 8:43) and this in an entirely negative context, as contrasted with the Saviour's healing mission; "healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people." Matt.4:23. His success rate was nothing short of one hundred percent! In Col.4:14, Luke is mentioned as "the beloved physician", but this commendation was not said for his abilities as a doctor (in the natural, his ability would be the same as the rest), only that he was a constant and faithful companion of Paul's on his missionary journeys. Luke would have been addressed as "the beloved shoemaker" if that were his occupation.
"And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any." Luke 8:43. Is it any different today? Does it not appear something of a lottery whether or not men and women gain any brief respite from their ailments from their visits to doctors surgeries? But, when the woman "touched the border of His garment: immediately her issue of blood stanched." Luke 8:44, such was the power of the Physician! People feel they have to do something, for example; it is a fact that people die when they do have chemotherapy, they also die if they don't, and vice versa. Those that have undergone chemotherapy who receive the "all clear" will never know whether or not they would have survived without this 'treatment', yet no doubt they will believe their 'survival' or remission, rather, was entirely due to the course of action they undertook. Every man, woman, and child that has ever lived, and will yet live, has a precise appointment with death that cannot be circumvented. The time appointed and the circumstances thereof are fixed in God's eternal counsels; "declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure." Isaiah 46:10. "It is appointed unto men once to die" (Heb.9:27a), on this verse Dr Gill writes;
"Not a moral, or what is commonly called a spiritual death, nor an eternal one, but a corporeal one; which does not arise from the constitution of nature, but from the sin of man, and God's decree on account of it, by which it is fixed that men shall die, and how long they shall live, and when they shall die; so that they cannot die sooner nor later; all things antecedent to death, which lead on to it, and issue in it, are appointed by God, and so death is itself, with all its circumstances; men's days can neither be lengthened or shortened either by Christ himself, or others: and this statute and appointment of God concerns men, not angels, and reaches to all men, wicked and righteous.."*
Is it not a sad and sorry sight to behold, when you see very old and frail people making regular visits to their Medical Doctor's (MD) in the vain hope that they will somehow come up with a course of medication/drugs to cure them, or an "elixir of youth" as it were, to reverse their aging process? for that is what they are really looking for, otherwise why visit physicians? Much is made these days of "progress" in the field of medical science and technology, yet, where is it? Is man any nearer to "cracking cancer" today than he was 100 years ago? Cancer, along with all other forms of diseases will daily claim their victims until the grand consummation. The pharmaceutical giants (or should we say the corporate sorcerers?) continue to rake in the money from governments worldwide, getting ever richer on the promise of a false dawn that will never appear. In Matt.9:12 the Lord said to the Pharisees "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.", and who isn't sick? all outside of Christ are sick, yet they know it not! (Isaiah 1:5-6). None would apply to the Physician, unless "the Father which hath sent Me draw him." John 6:44. and it is here, on this pivotal point that the great controversy on salvation in the Church of Christ ever rumbles on-why choose him? why not her? why me? and on it goes! but, on this, here I digress.
I recollect reading an article in the New York Times some years back that had a profound effect on me (March 16th 2003) as written by Dr Lisa Sanders MD (she was one of the 99 freshmen present in the white coat ceremony); the freshmen as they were inducted into medical college were told by the dean, "We know that half of what we teach you here will be wrong, but unfortunately we don't know which half!"
"There is no new thing under the sun." as the preacher of old said.
It should be remembered that drugs are mentioned in the Bible, 'masked' as it were, by the English word sorcery, which comes from the Greek word pharmakeia, from which the word pharmacy originated, from whence people obtain their so-called 'medications'! (see Gal.5:20 (witchcraft), Rev.9:21 & 18:23). Witchcraft and sorcery are words that evoke images of old hags with pointed hats mixing herbs, spices, dead rats, and what have you, in a great boiling cauldron casting curses as they go! And is it any different in today's 'sanitised' pharmaceutical world? for the same results are produced-mind altering drugs! People without faith, and to a lesser extent those with little faith are heavily reliant upon drugs. It is reported that "Scotland has the highest number of drug related deaths in Europe and the numbers are continuing to rise at an alarming speed." (BBC News 17/07/19). It is not just illegal drugs that is the cause of these deaths and suffering, the report highlights prescription drugs as being a significant factor. This report makes depressing reading; David Liddell, of the Scottish Drugs Forum;
"We estimate around half of those on methadone (heroin substitute)** are on too low a dose, so what is happening for individuals is they are then forced to top up on street drugs. Thats fuelling the poly-drug use problem that we have and leading to deaths as a result."
I have witnessed unbelieving elderly relatives who right up to the very last cling to the vain and sad hope that their MD's would somehow defeat death on their behalf, but alas, as always, their hopes were in vain, for "it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" Heb.9:27.
The particular relatives in question, my wife and I would on many occasions witness the Truth to them, yet I believe it was to no avail. Let us remember that the Gospel of Christ has the effect of hardening hearts as well as softening them: "For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: to the one we are the savour of death unto death;and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?" 2 Cor.2:15-16. (my emphasis). Some words never escape your memory; I recollect a Pentecostal preacher saying "how can you get through to a fence-post?" True-we can't! it is only God's Holy Spirit alone that can do it. Only God's Holy Spirit can savingly lead a sick (even 'healthy' sinners are sick!) sinner to the great salvation through the blood of the Master Physician. The Physician Himself said "They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Mark 2:17. The AV is correct on "the physician, for the RV changed it to "a physician". As if any old physician could do what He does! All others "are all physicians of no value." as Job exclaimed! (Job 13:4). The word physician is only mentioned Eleven times in the AV, and the one other place it occurs that I haven't mentioned is in Jeremiah 8:22, where Dr Gill observes correctly that "Christ is the alone physician". Yes, prophets in the Old Testament pointed sinners to the coming Redeemer in the-one Church of Christ in all dispensations.
What then is the remit that physicians in our day operate within?
They would tell you that there is none-for boundaries (in their view) are being constantly extended.
In my opinion, they can do no more than embalming, setting broken bones, stitching and healing wounds, applying soothing ointments, treating severe burns, amputations, and very basic surgery. These things, and no doubt some more, they can do with a high rate of success, but when compared to the Physician their best efforts are as abysmal as trying to kill an elephant with a child's toy water pistol!
There was a time in our nation when Christian Physicians were allowed to point their patients in the direction of the Master Physician, but alas, no more, if they were to do so today, they will find themselves struck off the medical register.
Each Christian has to make up his own mind as to how far he should go with man's devices. As Christians grow in faith they will learn to seek God's will on how to deal with matters pertaining to health and well-being through prayer. Each of us has the personal responsibility to use medical help according to our understanding and our faith-not someone else's. And God's word tells us "whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Rom.14:23.
*Dr Gill goes on to write about two notable exceptions, Enoch and Elijah, yet, if these saints are the "two witnesses" in Rev.11 then even these two saints will be appointed to die before being resurrected (see Rev.11:7-11).
The Scripture also teaches that there will be those saints who will not taste death, for at the Lord's Second Coming "we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them (those who were dead in Christ-v.16) in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.." 1 Thess.4:17. Those alive at His Coming will be "changed" see 1 Cor.15:51-52.
**Back in 1979-80 I was prescribed methadone to help me with my heroin addiction. By rights I should have sunk further into the abyss, but thanks be to God in Christ for His saving grace He pulled me out of it, though at the time I knew it not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)