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.
Sunday 27 October 2019
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)