Dr Gill describes the earth as a "terraqueous globe" in Genesis 1.1. He also speaks of the heavens as being in a "chaotic state". Is this not eisegesis? for it certainly isn't exegesis! How can any come to such a conclusion unless one has been deceived by the false heliocentric theory? Furthermore, Dr Gill's 'exposition' of the creation account in chapters 1.14-19 has much extra-biblical material, including reference to Sir Isaac Newton (and others) and his vast distances between the various heavenly bodies, and quotes Newton as saying that the sun is some 900,000 times bigger than the earth! (I assume Dr Gill believed all this?). Is it any wonder that the foundation stone of Scripture has come under such vicious attack when our best exegetes stray off from God's word and promote the wild theories of men in its place?
On the fourth day of creation (Genesis 1.14-19) Dr Gill writes;
"it seems rather, that the body of fire and light produced on the first day was now distributed and formed into several luminous bodies of sun, moon, and stars..." Am I reading this right? he is saying that the sun was created on the first day! and God declares it was created on the fourth day.
Dr Gill continues; "And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Made by the rotation of the earth on its own axis, in the space of twenty four hours..."
I have lifted the above quotes from Gill's "Exposition on the Bible" from https://biblestudytools.com for I am not in possession of any printed copy as I am in the case of Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, Jameson Fausset and Brown, and Halley's (whom I commented on their expositions on the Genesis verses here in question on March 4th), but I can only believe them to be Gill's words, as they are in general agreement with the other aforesaid expositors.
I still can't quite fathom out why all the mainstream creation ministries are so blinded to the fact that the vast distances required for the unbiblical heliocentric theory to work are a direct corollary for the vast ages of evolution! Creation Ministries International blocked me from further commenting on their website, (for trying to get believers to trust on God's word alone!) but then, maybe they don't want to investigate the truth because they so enjoy their 'hard won' current ecumenical status? Perhaps just teaching creation is bad enough, but as for the flat earth...don't go there!?
As a homeschooling family, we used CMI's, AIG's, materials to educate our daughter (born out of wedlock in 1995! when I was in complete darkness) how times have changed!? The heliocentric theory which came into being through Copernicus, Galileo, the Roman Catholic Church, and the help of the Hegelian Dialect is directly responsible for all the false science that is currently taught in schools, colleges and universities today. The popes, then are responsible for all the false science around today! now THAT sounds right, doesn't it? would any true Protestant say "nay"?
Friday, 18 May 2018
Thursday, 17 May 2018
Now The End Begins (NTEB)
Is Every 'Friend' of Israel, a Friend of God?
Dispensationalist Theology is "another gospel" Galatians 1.6.
There is an American evangelical, fundamentalist Christian website with an ever increasing following (judging by the many who comment there) ran by a certain Geoffrey Grider who holds to Dispensational theology, we may say a Hyper Dispensationalist. I quote from an article on his website under the heading "BIBLE BELIEVER: PASTOR ROBERT JEFFRESS NOT ASHAMED OF JESUS AT US EMBASSY OPENING, DRAWS FIRE FROM MORMON MITT ROMNEY" 15/05/2018;
"Salvation for the past 2000 years is found only in the redemptive work and shed blood of Jesus on the cross at Calvary..." (my emphasis).
What then of the previous 4000 years? This is but one branch of rotten fruit that emanates from errant Dispensational theology (capitalised because it has taken on a name for itself-a branch of false Christianity). Acts 4.12 declares "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved." The Saviour Himself said "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14.6.
I hardly need to mention the fact that out of all branches of Bible theology, salvation should be somewhere near the top. Nay! rather at the highest peak of the mountain of Bible theology-right at the TOP of the pinnacle! So lets get it right.
Is it true, what Dispensationalists assert, that a man can be saved by the keeping of the law; by the animal sacrifices of the blood of bulls and goats? On this, God's word says, "For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins." Hebrews 10.4 (RV).
What were the Old Testament saints; old Simeon and the prophetess Anna looking for in Luke chapter 2, were they not looking for the crucified Saviour? Simeon was "looking for the consolation of Israel....And it was revealed to him by the Holy Ghost that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ." Luke 2.25-26. He goes on to say, "Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace...For mine eyes have seen thy salvation." vs 29-30. Likewise, with Anna who "spake of Him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem." Luke 2.38. The same with John the Baptist, he too was looking for the Redeemer; "crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord" Matthew 3.2, see Luke 7.9, where the Baptist said "Art thou He that should come? or look we for another?" Simeon asked to "depart in peace" after he had seen the 8 day old Seed of the woman, (Genesis 3.15 first prophecy of the Messiah), and there on the same day at the temple, Anna was described as being "of a great age" Luke 2.36. The thrust of the scriptures quoted above leads us to believe Simeon and Anna departed long before the crucifixion, and we know that Herod beheaded the Baptist. Yet these eminent saints along with all the Old Testament saints were saved only by believing on Israel's Coming Messiah!
Peter, the apostle says "Concerning which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them." 1 Peter 1.10-11.
It should be very clear to any unprejudiced Christian mind that hasn't been blinded by false pre-tribulation Dispensational theology that God has been calling out of the world " (Greek Ekklesia) a people for His name " (Acts 15.14-17) from the time of Abel right through to the last saved sinner at the end of the soon coming millennial reign of Christ. All false theology is bad, but the particularly bad aspect of Dispensationalism is that it drives a wedge between law and grace, when as believers, we are under the law of Christ (Galatians 6.2), and saved by His free sovereign grace alone. The Saviour did not "destroy the law or the prophets" He came to "fulfill" them. Matthew 5.17. Such errant theology only leads to a very low view of the law; ultimately antinomianism. Also it teaches that the New Testament saints have a prior deliverance to the Lord's Second Coming, that is through a pre-tribulation rapture some seven years or more, before the "time of Jacob's trouble" Jeremiah 30.7. "Jacob's trouble" is an OT term for the coming great tribulation period of which the end times NT Church will have to go through, that is the last three and a half years of this present age, when the coming Antichrist will be doing his very worst, this period is described in Matthew 24, also in Daniel and the Revelation (times, time and half a time & "a thousand two hundred and threescore days").
I believe the Bible clearly and unequivocally teaches that the so-called rapture and the Second Coming are but one and the very same event. The Second Coming of Christ will be post tribulational.
Dispensational theology is a relatively new teaching (circa 1830) and in its earlier years was known as Darbyism (after J.N.Darby) subsequently it spread like wildfire (quite literally!) throughout the USA and beyond, being energised by the Scofield Reference Bible. It should be a matter of great concern to all true believers that false Dispensational theology will be the cause of much end times Christian deception. Apart from an any moment rapture and a seven year tribulation period, the theologians that teach this false theology are in little agreement on many of the manifest errors that flow from it.
Dispensationalist Theology is "another gospel" Galatians 1.6.
There is an American evangelical, fundamentalist Christian website with an ever increasing following (judging by the many who comment there) ran by a certain Geoffrey Grider who holds to Dispensational theology, we may say a Hyper Dispensationalist. I quote from an article on his website under the heading "BIBLE BELIEVER: PASTOR ROBERT JEFFRESS NOT ASHAMED OF JESUS AT US EMBASSY OPENING, DRAWS FIRE FROM MORMON MITT ROMNEY" 15/05/2018;
"Salvation for the past 2000 years is found only in the redemptive work and shed blood of Jesus on the cross at Calvary..." (my emphasis).
What then of the previous 4000 years? This is but one branch of rotten fruit that emanates from errant Dispensational theology (capitalised because it has taken on a name for itself-a branch of false Christianity). Acts 4.12 declares "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved." The Saviour Himself said "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14.6.
I hardly need to mention the fact that out of all branches of Bible theology, salvation should be somewhere near the top. Nay! rather at the highest peak of the mountain of Bible theology-right at the TOP of the pinnacle! So lets get it right.
Is it true, what Dispensationalists assert, that a man can be saved by the keeping of the law; by the animal sacrifices of the blood of bulls and goats? On this, God's word says, "For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins." Hebrews 10.4 (RV).
What were the Old Testament saints; old Simeon and the prophetess Anna looking for in Luke chapter 2, were they not looking for the crucified Saviour? Simeon was "looking for the consolation of Israel....And it was revealed to him by the Holy Ghost that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ." Luke 2.25-26. He goes on to say, "Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace...For mine eyes have seen thy salvation." vs 29-30. Likewise, with Anna who "spake of Him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem." Luke 2.38. The same with John the Baptist, he too was looking for the Redeemer; "crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord" Matthew 3.2, see Luke 7.9, where the Baptist said "Art thou He that should come? or look we for another?" Simeon asked to "depart in peace" after he had seen the 8 day old Seed of the woman, (Genesis 3.15 first prophecy of the Messiah), and there on the same day at the temple, Anna was described as being "of a great age" Luke 2.36. The thrust of the scriptures quoted above leads us to believe Simeon and Anna departed long before the crucifixion, and we know that Herod beheaded the Baptist. Yet these eminent saints along with all the Old Testament saints were saved only by believing on Israel's Coming Messiah!
Peter, the apostle says "Concerning which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them." 1 Peter 1.10-11.
It should be very clear to any unprejudiced Christian mind that hasn't been blinded by false pre-tribulation Dispensational theology that God has been calling out of the world " (Greek Ekklesia) a people for His name " (Acts 15.14-17) from the time of Abel right through to the last saved sinner at the end of the soon coming millennial reign of Christ. All false theology is bad, but the particularly bad aspect of Dispensationalism is that it drives a wedge between law and grace, when as believers, we are under the law of Christ (Galatians 6.2), and saved by His free sovereign grace alone. The Saviour did not "destroy the law or the prophets" He came to "fulfill" them. Matthew 5.17. Such errant theology only leads to a very low view of the law; ultimately antinomianism. Also it teaches that the New Testament saints have a prior deliverance to the Lord's Second Coming, that is through a pre-tribulation rapture some seven years or more, before the "time of Jacob's trouble" Jeremiah 30.7. "Jacob's trouble" is an OT term for the coming great tribulation period of which the end times NT Church will have to go through, that is the last three and a half years of this present age, when the coming Antichrist will be doing his very worst, this period is described in Matthew 24, also in Daniel and the Revelation (times, time and half a time & "a thousand two hundred and threescore days").
I believe the Bible clearly and unequivocally teaches that the so-called rapture and the Second Coming are but one and the very same event. The Second Coming of Christ will be post tribulational.
Dispensational theology is a relatively new teaching (circa 1830) and in its earlier years was known as Darbyism (after J.N.Darby) subsequently it spread like wildfire (quite literally!) throughout the USA and beyond, being energised by the Scofield Reference Bible. It should be a matter of great concern to all true believers that false Dispensational theology will be the cause of much end times Christian deception. Apart from an any moment rapture and a seven year tribulation period, the theologians that teach this false theology are in little agreement on many of the manifest errors that flow from it.
Sunday, 13 May 2018
Time, what is it?
There is a paradox which I have recently discovered, but I am not too dismayed for I am assured that His ways are "past finding out" Job 9.10, Romans 11.33.
I believe the literal six-day creation account in the Genesis narrative (without any gap between the first two verses), but I had hitherto countenanced the strange notion that time didn't exist before the fall. For if we think about it; the clock didn't start ticking, so to speak, until the very moment that our first parents "took of the fruit"; it was only then that they would consequently begin to age and eventually go on to die. Time has no meaning in eternity, because the past, present, and future will co-exist contemporaneously in a fixed state of eternal blessedness for the elect, and the diametric opposite for the non-elect. Time, I had always believed to be a parenthesis, and I still do, as such, but I can't begin to understand how to reconcile the dilemma, if indeed there is one!
Indeed "day" and "night" and "evening and morning" are mentioned throughout the Genesis account many times before the fall of Adam, and "year" only once in verse 14. So, clearly time existed before the fall of man, but what meaning does time really have in eternity, for the two surely cannot co-exist, or can they?
One can say "Ah! but God knows the end from the beginning!" and so true that is, for as a believer in biblical pre-destination, I can certainly say that He knew the fall would take place* not many 'hours' after He first created man, and had therefore set up the system of time to regulate our lives thereafter until "the fullness of times" Ephesians 1.10. It is almost as if God stepped out of eternity into time to do His work of creation, for the Scripture says "God blessed the seventh day...because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made." Genesis 2.3.
Ecclesiastes 3.11 says God "hath set eternity in their heart" (RV margin), so although we are at present (at least those now alive in "the day of salvation" 2 Corinthians 6.2) creatures confined to time, we are in fact eternal beings. Even unbelievers believe that they will never die, (they are correct there!), yes many may say that this life is all there is but, what is their true expectation? (remember, "every man a liar" Romans 3.4?).
So, after "the fullness of times" when the millennial reign has ended,God will create a "new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness" 2 Peter 3.13, Isaiah 65.17. There will then be no sun or moon to regulate time for us for the Scripture says we will have "no need of the sun, neither of the moon" Revelation 21.23.
It is interesting to note that what Revelation 21.23 asserts, perfectly agrees with Genesis 1.3, when God said "let there be light: and there was light." For "there was light" four days before the sun was created! We can observe on a cloudless day that it remains light for sometimes as long as an hour after the sun has set! So, the sun and moon will not be needed in eternity, for "the Lamb is the light thereof" Revelation 21.23.
The sun and the moon are parenthetical, as will be time. They had a beginning and will have an end.
But eternity, it is forever!
Praise God in Christ.
*It is very important to understand that God is not the author of sin, yet in His decretive and secretive eternal counsels He ordained all events to come to pass as they did (Deuteronomy 29.29). Adam and Eve were in the garden, secure with the knowledge that all would be well if they obeyed the Divine fiat regarding the fruit "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" for He commanded "thou shalt not eat of it" Genesis 2.17.
Redemption in Christ Jesus, the Son of God is the grand thrust of Holy Writ, therefore is it any wonder that the angels "desire to look into" these things? 1 Peter 1.12, for they know nothing of redemption. Without God in Christ's grand scheme of redemption, would we be anything other than automatons? Think on these things!
I believe the literal six-day creation account in the Genesis narrative (without any gap between the first two verses), but I had hitherto countenanced the strange notion that time didn't exist before the fall. For if we think about it; the clock didn't start ticking, so to speak, until the very moment that our first parents "took of the fruit"; it was only then that they would consequently begin to age and eventually go on to die. Time has no meaning in eternity, because the past, present, and future will co-exist contemporaneously in a fixed state of eternal blessedness for the elect, and the diametric opposite for the non-elect. Time, I had always believed to be a parenthesis, and I still do, as such, but I can't begin to understand how to reconcile the dilemma, if indeed there is one!
Indeed "day" and "night" and "evening and morning" are mentioned throughout the Genesis account many times before the fall of Adam, and "year" only once in verse 14. So, clearly time existed before the fall of man, but what meaning does time really have in eternity, for the two surely cannot co-exist, or can they?
One can say "Ah! but God knows the end from the beginning!" and so true that is, for as a believer in biblical pre-destination, I can certainly say that He knew the fall would take place* not many 'hours' after He first created man, and had therefore set up the system of time to regulate our lives thereafter until "the fullness of times" Ephesians 1.10. It is almost as if God stepped out of eternity into time to do His work of creation, for the Scripture says "God blessed the seventh day...because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made." Genesis 2.3.
Ecclesiastes 3.11 says God "hath set eternity in their heart" (RV margin), so although we are at present (at least those now alive in "the day of salvation" 2 Corinthians 6.2) creatures confined to time, we are in fact eternal beings. Even unbelievers believe that they will never die, (they are correct there!), yes many may say that this life is all there is but, what is their true expectation? (remember, "every man a liar" Romans 3.4?).
So, after "the fullness of times" when the millennial reign has ended,God will create a "new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness" 2 Peter 3.13, Isaiah 65.17. There will then be no sun or moon to regulate time for us for the Scripture says we will have "no need of the sun, neither of the moon" Revelation 21.23.
It is interesting to note that what Revelation 21.23 asserts, perfectly agrees with Genesis 1.3, when God said "let there be light: and there was light." For "there was light" four days before the sun was created! We can observe on a cloudless day that it remains light for sometimes as long as an hour after the sun has set! So, the sun and moon will not be needed in eternity, for "the Lamb is the light thereof" Revelation 21.23.
The sun and the moon are parenthetical, as will be time. They had a beginning and will have an end.
But eternity, it is forever!
Praise God in Christ.
*It is very important to understand that God is not the author of sin, yet in His decretive and secretive eternal counsels He ordained all events to come to pass as they did (Deuteronomy 29.29). Adam and Eve were in the garden, secure with the knowledge that all would be well if they obeyed the Divine fiat regarding the fruit "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" for He commanded "thou shalt not eat of it" Genesis 2.17.
Redemption in Christ Jesus, the Son of God is the grand thrust of Holy Writ, therefore is it any wonder that the angels "desire to look into" these things? 1 Peter 1.12, for they know nothing of redemption. Without God in Christ's grand scheme of redemption, would we be anything other than automatons? Think on these things!
Wednesday, 9 May 2018
Early Radio History and the Geocentric Earth.
I found a very interesting article yesterday on earlyradiohistory.us/1915ATT1.htm from the Electrical Experimenter November 1915 page 321 where the original article is displayed, the heading and first sentence from page 321 reads as follows:
Wireless Telephony Now From Washington To Honolulu
The most wonderful feat in wireless telephony was accomplished on the night of Sept.29 last, when the human voice was projected through the ether from Washington, D.C., to Honolulu a distance of 4,900 miles!
But, I thought we needed satellites to transmit radio waves across vast distances because of the curvature of the Earth? How did this early feat happen if radio waves can't bend?
Just another "nail in the coffin" of the heliocentric spinning globe deception! the Earth is stationary (geocentric) and certainly does not orbit the sun. The length and breadth of the Earth is the same as the length and breadth of the first heaven (what unbelievers would call the universe), if we would only believe what God's word says in Genesis 1.1; "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." In the very first verse we can see that God is telling us that the earth is the antithesis of the heaven, that is the earth is down here where we walk, and the heaven is up above our heads, where the "fowl of the air" fly! Further on in Genesis 1.14-19 we learn that God created two "lights in the firmament" that is the sun and the earth. Listen to Him! for He put the sun and the moon "in the firmament of the heaven" Above the expanse of the earth He placed "two great lights; the greater to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night."
These two "great lights" then are "in the firmament" and they were created four days after the earth. They are if you like, servants of the earth, for God put them in place for our benefit; "for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years" (Genesis 1.14), not that we should worship them as many seem to do even within the realms of modern "science falsely so called." 1 Timothy 6.20.
Wireless Telephony Now From Washington To Honolulu
The most wonderful feat in wireless telephony was accomplished on the night of Sept.29 last, when the human voice was projected through the ether from Washington, D.C., to Honolulu a distance of 4,900 miles!
But, I thought we needed satellites to transmit radio waves across vast distances because of the curvature of the Earth? How did this early feat happen if radio waves can't bend?
Just another "nail in the coffin" of the heliocentric spinning globe deception! the Earth is stationary (geocentric) and certainly does not orbit the sun. The length and breadth of the Earth is the same as the length and breadth of the first heaven (what unbelievers would call the universe), if we would only believe what God's word says in Genesis 1.1; "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." In the very first verse we can see that God is telling us that the earth is the antithesis of the heaven, that is the earth is down here where we walk, and the heaven is up above our heads, where the "fowl of the air" fly! Further on in Genesis 1.14-19 we learn that God created two "lights in the firmament" that is the sun and the earth. Listen to Him! for He put the sun and the moon "in the firmament of the heaven" Above the expanse of the earth He placed "two great lights; the greater to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night."
These two "great lights" then are "in the firmament" and they were created four days after the earth. They are if you like, servants of the earth, for God put them in place for our benefit; "for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years" (Genesis 1.14), not that we should worship them as many seem to do even within the realms of modern "science falsely so called." 1 Timothy 6.20.
Tuesday, 8 May 2018
Luck, chance and fortune.
The lot is cast into the lap;
But the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD. Proverbs 16.33.
Luck is but a heathen notion, and the true Christian should never put his hope in it. I would go further and say that it should form no part of his vocabulary, other than in a purely negative sense. Of the three words under discussion "chance" is the only one mentioned in the KJV 1611 and this some seven times in connection with events that to the natural mind 'appear' to be what we may think fortuitous, but a careful study will reveal the "hand of God" behind it all, for "He is upholding all things by the word of His power" Hebrews 1.3 (not some things!).
It is simply unbelievable (or is it now?) that many Christians utter these words without really thinking about what they are saying. For God doesn't play dice. The words luck, chance and fortune will no doubt be among those uttered, of whom the Lord Jesus chided in Matthew 12.36-37 "But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." How can any give God the glory through believing in luck?
I had cause to look up a church website the other day in the town near to where I used to live in the Cotswolds, and it says on the section "About our Church"; "The services tend to be traditional in nature, bible based and we are lucky to have a beautiful pipe organ." "Lucky"???
The church building is listed and some 180 years old, and according to their homepage it recently benefited from a lottery grant to replace some windows and a staircase (with a new stair lift). No doubt then that the leadership of this particular congregation trust in luck!
Should it not grieve any right thinking Christian that their meeting house is heavily subsidised by a lottery fund? think of all those poor, and shall we say unfortunate souls who twice weekly spend much of what they have on gambling for a 'better' future? As Christians isn't it incumbent on us to be an example of holiness to them? Some may think that I am being "over righteous about much" but do the ends justify the means? Churches up and down the length and breadth of the nation now have their raffles and various other fund raising schemes to raise money for 'good causes' but do not church raffles which appear seemingly innocuous, give a moral stamp of approval (or should I say Divine?) to the purchasing of lottery tickets and scratch cards? Does not "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" 1 Corinthians 5.6? Gambling, be it in whatever form has no doubt ruined many lives, I remember (some 30 years ago!) the ecstatic feeling I had when I 'won' £100 on a high stakes gaming machine only to plough the whole lot back in (and more beside!) and at the end of the evening went home flat broke feeling in the pits! But I craved that feeling of ecstasy again which comes from 'winning' and would gamble on occasions since, but thanks be to God in Christ, it didn't overwhelm me, because at that period of my life I had little spare time being much occupied in my business career.
In the words of Samuel Pike (1755) on gambling, most especially card playing:
The whole I have to say on this subject, is founded upon a plain, but too much neglected passage of sacred writ: Proverbs xvi. 33. The lot is cast into the lap; But the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD; that is, whenever a lot is cast, the entire decision or determination of it is from Jehovah Himself. He claims it as His sole prerogative. This proverb will appear to be true concerning all sorts of lots, whether civil or religious, wheresoever, howsoever, or whensoever they may be cast. For, in all cases whatsoever, when a lot is cast, and cast fairly, an event is thereby rendered casual and uncertain: and it is not within the reach of human skill or power to ascertain, foresee or determine the event; and, if it be beyond human contrivance or art to decide the affair, to whom then does it belong, or whose prerogative is it? Whoever therefore believes the universal providence of God , must of necessity acknowledge, that all events universally are under the divine direction, more especially those that are casual. And, if God is to be owned in those events that come upon us daily, unforeseen, unsuspected and undesigned by any creature; surely divine providence ought to be still more especially regarded by us, whensoever we voluntarily render an event uncertain and casual. We must therefore conclude from the above plain text, and the reasoning upon it, that we ought in no case designedly to render an event casual with respect to us, without some real dependence upon, and submission to, divine providence. With which frame of spirits lots may be cast or established upon proper occasions, without any harm or crime:* And, without some such frame of mind in casting or receiving a lot, we are really defective in our regard to Jehovah as a God of providence, even supposing the occasion of the lot to be proper and justifiable. But, if we venture to cast a lot upon trivial occasions, such occasions as it would be profaneness to address Jehovah in, we are then guilty of trifling with that, which ought to be treated with a serious regard to the Lord, as the supreme Decider of all events: and especially of those, whose decision we designedly put out of our own reach.
* In cases of necessity and importance, where we cannot, without falling into destructive contentions, decide a point in question, the Lord graciously permits us to refer the decision of the affair to Himself by lot, provided we do it with a proper eye to Him, as the grand arbiter and disposer. "The lot causeth contentions to cease, and parteth between the mighty." Proverbs xviii.18.
From pages 37-38 "Cases of Conscience" Pike and Hayward. Bold type in the original.
Should any not see the connection between "lots" as described in the Bible and lottery tickets, where did the word lottery come from? Not too difficult to work out, I hope! So, God decides who 'wins' the lottery? yes! though the masses are ignorant to this very plain and scriptural truth.
Some errantly think that it was by chance that Matthias was chosen in Acts 1.26!
If as Mr Pike said above of Proverbs 16.33; it is "too much neglected a passage of sacred writ" in 1755, how much more so today?
But the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD. Proverbs 16.33.
Luck is but a heathen notion, and the true Christian should never put his hope in it. I would go further and say that it should form no part of his vocabulary, other than in a purely negative sense. Of the three words under discussion "chance" is the only one mentioned in the KJV 1611 and this some seven times in connection with events that to the natural mind 'appear' to be what we may think fortuitous, but a careful study will reveal the "hand of God" behind it all, for "He is upholding all things by the word of His power" Hebrews 1.3 (not some things!).
It is simply unbelievable (or is it now?) that many Christians utter these words without really thinking about what they are saying. For God doesn't play dice. The words luck, chance and fortune will no doubt be among those uttered, of whom the Lord Jesus chided in Matthew 12.36-37 "But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." How can any give God the glory through believing in luck?
I had cause to look up a church website the other day in the town near to where I used to live in the Cotswolds, and it says on the section "About our Church"; "The services tend to be traditional in nature, bible based and we are lucky to have a beautiful pipe organ." "Lucky"???
The church building is listed and some 180 years old, and according to their homepage it recently benefited from a lottery grant to replace some windows and a staircase (with a new stair lift). No doubt then that the leadership of this particular congregation trust in luck!
Should it not grieve any right thinking Christian that their meeting house is heavily subsidised by a lottery fund? think of all those poor, and shall we say unfortunate souls who twice weekly spend much of what they have on gambling for a 'better' future? As Christians isn't it incumbent on us to be an example of holiness to them? Some may think that I am being "over righteous about much" but do the ends justify the means? Churches up and down the length and breadth of the nation now have their raffles and various other fund raising schemes to raise money for 'good causes' but do not church raffles which appear seemingly innocuous, give a moral stamp of approval (or should I say Divine?) to the purchasing of lottery tickets and scratch cards? Does not "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" 1 Corinthians 5.6? Gambling, be it in whatever form has no doubt ruined many lives, I remember (some 30 years ago!) the ecstatic feeling I had when I 'won' £100 on a high stakes gaming machine only to plough the whole lot back in (and more beside!) and at the end of the evening went home flat broke feeling in the pits! But I craved that feeling of ecstasy again which comes from 'winning' and would gamble on occasions since, but thanks be to God in Christ, it didn't overwhelm me, because at that period of my life I had little spare time being much occupied in my business career.
In the words of Samuel Pike (1755) on gambling, most especially card playing:
The whole I have to say on this subject, is founded upon a plain, but too much neglected passage of sacred writ: Proverbs xvi. 33. The lot is cast into the lap; But the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD; that is, whenever a lot is cast, the entire decision or determination of it is from Jehovah Himself. He claims it as His sole prerogative. This proverb will appear to be true concerning all sorts of lots, whether civil or religious, wheresoever, howsoever, or whensoever they may be cast. For, in all cases whatsoever, when a lot is cast, and cast fairly, an event is thereby rendered casual and uncertain: and it is not within the reach of human skill or power to ascertain, foresee or determine the event; and, if it be beyond human contrivance or art to decide the affair, to whom then does it belong, or whose prerogative is it? Whoever therefore believes the universal providence of God , must of necessity acknowledge, that all events universally are under the divine direction, more especially those that are casual. And, if God is to be owned in those events that come upon us daily, unforeseen, unsuspected and undesigned by any creature; surely divine providence ought to be still more especially regarded by us, whensoever we voluntarily render an event uncertain and casual. We must therefore conclude from the above plain text, and the reasoning upon it, that we ought in no case designedly to render an event casual with respect to us, without some real dependence upon, and submission to, divine providence. With which frame of spirits lots may be cast or established upon proper occasions, without any harm or crime:* And, without some such frame of mind in casting or receiving a lot, we are really defective in our regard to Jehovah as a God of providence, even supposing the occasion of the lot to be proper and justifiable. But, if we venture to cast a lot upon trivial occasions, such occasions as it would be profaneness to address Jehovah in, we are then guilty of trifling with that, which ought to be treated with a serious regard to the Lord, as the supreme Decider of all events: and especially of those, whose decision we designedly put out of our own reach.
* In cases of necessity and importance, where we cannot, without falling into destructive contentions, decide a point in question, the Lord graciously permits us to refer the decision of the affair to Himself by lot, provided we do it with a proper eye to Him, as the grand arbiter and disposer. "The lot causeth contentions to cease, and parteth between the mighty." Proverbs xviii.18.
From pages 37-38 "Cases of Conscience" Pike and Hayward. Bold type in the original.
Should any not see the connection between "lots" as described in the Bible and lottery tickets, where did the word lottery come from? Not too difficult to work out, I hope! So, God decides who 'wins' the lottery? yes! though the masses are ignorant to this very plain and scriptural truth.
Some errantly think that it was by chance that Matthias was chosen in Acts 1.26!
If as Mr Pike said above of Proverbs 16.33; it is "too much neglected a passage of sacred writ" in 1755, how much more so today?
Sunday, 29 April 2018
"Ye must be born again"
"Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." John 3.7 (or from above, RV margin).
These were the Saviour's words to Nicodemus the Pharisee upon being asked "How can a man be born when he is old?"
Reading the discourse between the Lord and Nicodemus, it is very strange that so many professing Christians believe it is through their own 'free-will' that they can become "born again"; that is through their own efforts to choose or reject God, is it not? For how can one be born again "from above" by his own efforts? Does not the Lord stress this point most vigorously? "Ye must be born from above." as the 1884 revisers correctly tell us. Without this Power from above, no man or woman could ever be saved.
The theology that contends for the truth as it is in Christ has become widely known by the dreaded name CALVINISM! This theology only merely asserts what the Lord Jesus says elsewhere, for example in John 6.44 "No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." There is an unseen work going on here, for the resurrected Lord says "the Father which hath sent Me" does the drawing, that is bringing the saved sinner into the everlasting kingdom of God. Is this an offensive teaching? apparently many think so. For if "the Father which hath sent Me" draws His names written in "the Lamb's book of life", (Revelation 13.8) then the flipside must of necessity mean that those who were passed by, or whom the Father did not "draw" toward His Son, were created to be destroyed. Is it not written "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4.12?
The apostle Paul exclaimed "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!" Romans 11.33 (my emphasis).
As was the case with Judas, so will it be with all whose names are not recorded in the Lamb's book of life, they will have none to blame but themselves. Without being "born from above", who could be saved?
These were the Saviour's words to Nicodemus the Pharisee upon being asked "How can a man be born when he is old?"
Reading the discourse between the Lord and Nicodemus, it is very strange that so many professing Christians believe it is through their own 'free-will' that they can become "born again"; that is through their own efforts to choose or reject God, is it not? For how can one be born again "from above" by his own efforts? Does not the Lord stress this point most vigorously? "Ye must be born from above." as the 1884 revisers correctly tell us. Without this Power from above, no man or woman could ever be saved.
The theology that contends for the truth as it is in Christ has become widely known by the dreaded name CALVINISM! This theology only merely asserts what the Lord Jesus says elsewhere, for example in John 6.44 "No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." There is an unseen work going on here, for the resurrected Lord says "the Father which hath sent Me" does the drawing, that is bringing the saved sinner into the everlasting kingdom of God. Is this an offensive teaching? apparently many think so. For if "the Father which hath sent Me" draws His names written in "the Lamb's book of life", (Revelation 13.8) then the flipside must of necessity mean that those who were passed by, or whom the Father did not "draw" toward His Son, were created to be destroyed. Is it not written "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4.12?
The apostle Paul exclaimed "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!" Romans 11.33 (my emphasis).
As was the case with Judas, so will it be with all whose names are not recorded in the Lamb's book of life, they will have none to blame but themselves. Without being "born from above", who could be saved?
Sunday, 15 April 2018
"Essentials and non-essentials"?
It is very common for professing Christians to draw a distinction between essentials and non-essentials in religion, and to infer that, if any fact or doctrine rightly belongs to the latter class, it must be a matter of very little importance, and may in practice be safely set at nought. The great bulk of men take their opinions on trust; they will not undergo the toil of thinking, searching, and reasoning about anything, and one of the most usual expedients adopted to save them the trouble of inquiry, and to turn aside the force of any disagreeable fact, is to meet it by saying, "The matter is not essential to salvation; therefore we need give ourselves little concern on the subject."
If the distinction here specified is safe, the inference drawn from it is certainly dangerous. To say that, because a fact of Divine revelation is not essential to salvation, it must of necessity be unimportant, and may or may not be received by us, is to assert a principle, the application of which would make havoc of our Christianity. For, what are the truths essential to salvation? Are they not these: That there is a God; that all men are sinners; that the Son of God died upon the cross to make atonement for the guilty; and that whosoever believes on the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved? There is good reason for believing that not a few souls are now in happiness, who in life knew little more than these-the first principles of the oracles of God-the very alphabet of the Christian system; and if so, no other Divine truths can be counted absolutely essential to salvation. But if all the other truths of revelation are unimportant, because they happen to be non-essentials, it follows that the Word of God itself is in the main unimportant; for by far the greatest portion is occupied with matters, the knowledge of which, in the case supposed, is not absolutely indispensable to the everlasting happiness of men. Nor does it alter the case, if we regard the number of fundamental truths to be much greater. Let a man once persuade himself that importance attaches only to what he is pleased to call essentials, whatever their number, and he will, no doubt, shorten his creed and cut away the foundation of many controversies; but he will practically set aside all except a very small part of the Scriptures. If such a principle does not mutilate the Bible, it stigmatises much of it as trivial. Revelation is all gold for preciousness and purity, but the very touch of such a principle would transmute the most of it into dross.
Pages 11-12 "The Apostolic Church , Which is it?" Thomas Whitherow (1824-1890) Irish Presbyterian minister and professor of Church history, Londonderry.
I have often heard in this day and age the words "essentials and non-essentials" bandied about (almost exclusively in the main, by Arminian churches and theologians) and could never myself understand the distinction. Of course, knowing the "way of salvation" is what we may say the first principle, as for example, the "thief on the cross" didn't have a great deal of time thereafter to partake in Wednesday evening Bible study classes! How can we "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" 2 Peter 3.18 with such an attitude?
Did not Paul say "For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God" acts 20.27? To "set at nought" vast swathes of Divine revelation as Mr Witherow says, is surely a dangerous thing for the Christian to do, is it not? The woeful state of Christendom today no doubt owes much to the dividing of "essentials" from so-called "non-essentials".
"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." Romans 15.4.
"Every scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3.6 (my emphasis).
If the distinction here specified is safe, the inference drawn from it is certainly dangerous. To say that, because a fact of Divine revelation is not essential to salvation, it must of necessity be unimportant, and may or may not be received by us, is to assert a principle, the application of which would make havoc of our Christianity. For, what are the truths essential to salvation? Are they not these: That there is a God; that all men are sinners; that the Son of God died upon the cross to make atonement for the guilty; and that whosoever believes on the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved? There is good reason for believing that not a few souls are now in happiness, who in life knew little more than these-the first principles of the oracles of God-the very alphabet of the Christian system; and if so, no other Divine truths can be counted absolutely essential to salvation. But if all the other truths of revelation are unimportant, because they happen to be non-essentials, it follows that the Word of God itself is in the main unimportant; for by far the greatest portion is occupied with matters, the knowledge of which, in the case supposed, is not absolutely indispensable to the everlasting happiness of men. Nor does it alter the case, if we regard the number of fundamental truths to be much greater. Let a man once persuade himself that importance attaches only to what he is pleased to call essentials, whatever their number, and he will, no doubt, shorten his creed and cut away the foundation of many controversies; but he will practically set aside all except a very small part of the Scriptures. If such a principle does not mutilate the Bible, it stigmatises much of it as trivial. Revelation is all gold for preciousness and purity, but the very touch of such a principle would transmute the most of it into dross.
Pages 11-12 "The Apostolic Church , Which is it?" Thomas Whitherow (1824-1890) Irish Presbyterian minister and professor of Church history, Londonderry.
I have often heard in this day and age the words "essentials and non-essentials" bandied about (almost exclusively in the main, by Arminian churches and theologians) and could never myself understand the distinction. Of course, knowing the "way of salvation" is what we may say the first principle, as for example, the "thief on the cross" didn't have a great deal of time thereafter to partake in Wednesday evening Bible study classes! How can we "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" 2 Peter 3.18 with such an attitude?
Did not Paul say "For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God" acts 20.27? To "set at nought" vast swathes of Divine revelation as Mr Witherow says, is surely a dangerous thing for the Christian to do, is it not? The woeful state of Christendom today no doubt owes much to the dividing of "essentials" from so-called "non-essentials".
"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." Romans 15.4.
"Every scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3.6 (my emphasis).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)