"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?

"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).

Why do I love Jesus Christ?

Simply put; who offers me what He does?  Who comes even close to Him? Where in the world is there a promise that remotely compares to His? The Saviour Himself said "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." John 10.28.

The very  fact that He died for me; gave His life to save a monstrously wretched sinner like me, puts me in a place of eternal indebtedness that I simply cannot repay! I really have no 'funds' to do so! So I belong to Him; for on that cross He gave His life for me!

But! why do I believe this? Why do I (and all true blood bought believers) believe what the masses reject?

Who makes the difference? Most assuredly it cannot  be me! for the Bible says in no uncertain terms that "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2.14.

Why then do I believe? The apostle Paul answers the question further on in 1 Corinthians 4.7; "For Who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" (my emphasis).

This is God's free sovereign electing grace at work! The true believer believes only because God in Christ chose him!
As that great man of God J.C. Ryle said; "If God didn't choose me, I would never have chosen Him."
Says it all, really?

I have no doubt that many of God's true children have, and will be saved without a biblical knowledge of pre-destination/election; nevertheless, they must come to salvation by way of the cross! For God's word says "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh to the Father, but by Me." John 14.6.

Men, women and children can only be saved by believing on the blood of Christ alone, for God's word says "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4.12.

God bless.

Building your "house upon the sand" Matthew 7.26.

There is a literal interpretation of these God breathed words.

Reading the BBC news earlier today, I came across a story entitled "Hemsby cliff-top homes in precarious position." The photos are very graphic, and you can see a whole line of cliff-top properties about to disappear into the sea.
I quote the BBC verbatim "The cliffs at Hemsby are made of sand which has suffered erosion over many years..." The story goes on to describe the varying plights of the occupiers of these properties.

This coastal erosion is not an overnight phenomenon, and I am sure that the residents living there were well aware of the risks of living in that location, especially those who have settled there in recent years, at no doubt a discount rental or purchase price.

The builders that erected these properties were also no doubt knowledgeable of the foundations they were building upon, but nevertheless, a few hundred yards of cliff-top sand dropping into the sea was yet a 'great' many years hence! People are attracted to sea-views, I know because I have one myself-thankfully, up here in Lewis, we are on rocks, not sand!

As the Scripture says, it is "a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand." The Rock is Christ, and whomever will trust in Him alone is like the man "which built his house upon a rock." Matthew 7.24.

Billy Graham, an avowed enemy of Christ!

Dr Billy Graham was an avowed enemy of the cross of Christ. He was ecumenical, a friend of the pope and publicly proclaimed that those who believed in false gods, and atheists alike would be redeemed by His precious blood. If such non believers could be redeemed thus, then whatever was the point of the crucifixion? To believe and publicly proclaim such a 'gospel' is nothing short of blasphemous, completely and utterly negating the power of the cross! John 14.6, Acts 4.12 etc.

I see something of a parallel with Dr Graham and Judas: Before the great betrayal Judas was one of the twelve. It is said of him that he preached the Gospel, and yet where is he now? "And He (Jesus) ordained twelve, that they should be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach" Mark 3.14. In the "upper room" on the question of the betrayal, the twelve said "Lord is it I?" Matthew 26.22. The other eleven had absolutely no suspicions regarding Judas at all; none pointed a finger at him! How different the case with Billy Graham? The sobering fact is that God's Book tells us that Judas faithfully preached the only way of salvation, totally unlike Dr Graham!

Of Judas, the Lord said "Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" John 6.70. Of the betrayal of Jesus; considering the length of his ministry, is not the case against Billy Graham more "watertight" than against Judas? If Judas was doing the Devil's work, preaching the Gospel of Christ faithfully, how much more so Billy Graham?

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say now I again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1.8-9 (my emphasis).

The world and the false church received Billy Graham as one of their own, because he preached what they wanted to hear.

"Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! For so did their fathers to the false prophets." Luke 6.26.

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) on the six days of creation.

And there was evening and there was morning, one day. Genesis 1.5.

One day?

And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. Genesis 1.8.

A second day?

There was evening and there was morning, a third day. Genesis 1.13.

A third day?

There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. Genesis 1.19.

A fourth day?

There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. Genesis 1.23.

A fifth day?

And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Genesis 1.31.

The sixth day.

The NASB was influenced by the Revisers in 1884. Why they needed to deviate the wording from the faithful Authorized Version in the first five verses above, is quite beyond me!

"And there was evening and there was morning, one day." Could that not be said of any day? How much doubt does a seemingly innocuous change as this put into the mind of one reading the NASB?

On Genesis 1.5, the 1611 Authorized Version reads:

And the evening and the morning were the first day. (my emphasis). This was the "first day" of creation. The rules of basic grammar tell us that the "the" in "the first day" makes that day the definite article.

The Wisdom of Adolph Saphir

An extract from page 25 "Our Lord's Pattern for PRAYER"

The sincerity, spirituality, and strength of our prayer, is the measure of our self-discipline and of our walk; our attitude towards God determines our attitude to man; and our realisation of things unseen is the source of our self-denial and victory over the world.