Why Waymarks exposes error.

The following is reprinted from Lifting Up the Standard by Bob Kirkland, Issue 43, November 14, 2014, http://www.fairhavensbaptist.net -- In Paul Chappell's Blog of November 8, 2014, he referred to, "spiritual leaders who become angry birds" (PaulChappell.com). He said, "They are restless and frustrated ... divisive ... sarcastic ... angry people ... always stirring an issue or picking a fight." Who Is He Writing about and What Have They Done Wrong? Brother Chappell's blog does not tell us who he is referring to or what they are guilty of. When the Holy Spirit inspired people to expose others for some error, they always made it plain who they were talking about and what they did that was wrong. In Matthew 3:7, when John the Baptist called some spiritual leaders "a generation of vipers," we were not left to wonder who he was talking about or what they were doing. In Matthew 12:24, when Jesus referred to some spiritual leaders as a "generation of vipers" we do not have to guess who He was talking about or what they were guilty of. In Matthew 23:23-24, when Jesus called some spiritual leaders "hypocrites," "blind guides," "blind," "whited sepulchres," "serpents," and "ye generation of vipers" we were not left to guess who He was talking about or what they were guilty of. In Galatians 2:11-14, Paul exposed Peter because he "walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel." Paul named him publicly, and God made sure it was recorded in His Word, like He did when Jesus rebuked Peter for caring about the things of this world.  Paul named Demas, Hymenaeus, Alexander and revealed the reason why.  John named Diotrephes; Jude exposed Balaam; and in both cases the reason for exposing them was made plain. Brother Chappell's Dangerous Generalities We are left to decide for ourselves who Brother Chappell's "angry birds" might be. It is a very dangerous thing to influence thousands of young followers with generalities about some unnamed "spiritual leaders" who are "frustrated ... divisive, sarcastic ... angry people who are always stirring an issue or picking a fight." Do We Get on the Angry Birds List for Simply Getting Angry? Psalm 7:11, "God is angry with the wicked every day." Mark 3:5, "He (Christ) had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts." Ephesians 4:26, "Be ye angry, and sin not." What Does One Do to Be Considered Frustrated? Was Jesus "frustrated" when He took the whip into the temple?  Was Moses frustrated when he exposed Balaam?  Was Paul frustrated when he said, "Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person"? (1 Corinthians 5:15). What Does One Do to Gender Strife? Was Jesus "gendering strife" when He warned people? Matthew 7:15, "Beware of false prophets." Matthew 10:17, "But beware of men." Matthew 16:6, "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." Matthew 16:6, "How is it that ye do not understand ... ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?" Was Peter "gendering strife" in Second Peter 3:17 when He warned, "beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness." I can't imagine Brother Chappell would have been referring to any of the above mentioned situations, so I am left to assume he was aiming to destroy the credibility and reputation of some unnamed "spiritual leaders" by associating them with his "angry birds." My guess is that he is referring to Brother David Cloud of Way of Life Ministries, and those who would publicly support his ministry. For the record, I support Brother Cloud and his ministry, and I'm not an "angry bird." I can also support Brother Chappell's ministry with the exception of some separation issues, especially concerning Contemporary Christian Music.  However, the difference is, when Brother Cloud has something to say we are not left to guess who or what he is talking about. I wish Brother Chappell would take the same Biblical stand. Note: Brother Chappell started his blog about "angry birds" comparing them to "some spiritual leaders" who "become like those birds." He said, "they hurl themselves into any situation that they perceive to be threatening or to be being handled differently than they would." However, the Angry Bird app describes the game saying, "The survival of the Angry Birds is at stake and they dish out revenge on the greedy pigs who stole their eggs." So the birds weren't angry because the pigs were just "handling things differently than they would." The destruction of their offsprings was the reason for their anger. Reprinted from Lifting Up the Standard by Bob Kirkland, Issue 43, November 14, 2014, http://www.fairhavensbaptist.net --  The article above has been downloaded from www.wayoflife.org where I first read it. -R S ___

John Ritchie Ltd continues to mock Scripture

David West besmirches the character of Mary Magdalene

Quote, from Believer’s Magazine,January 2015:-

….However, when the Lord Jesus said to Mary Magdalene, “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father”(Jn 20.17), the Greek word translated “Touch” means “to cling to, to lay hold of” and is used in the present, continuous tense, in the sense of “do not continue holding me”. The Lord indicated to Mary that his ascension would take place shortly, but “not yet” and that this would change her relationship to Him. It would no longer be a tangible, physical nearness, but a spiritual presence.

-David E West

Dr West was lying when he wrote  “the greek word translated ‘touch’ means to cling to, to lay hold of. Our Bible translators knew very well it did not mean this. 

Quote, from AV Verses Vindicated by Ron Smith:-

John 20:17

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not;

"What He really said was, 'don't cling to me.' " says one of our preachers. The reason for abandoning the AV reading is, we are told, that the verb (haptomai) may be translated as "to cling to, to lay hold of”. But in the 36 times the word is used in the NT it is never used in this sense. An examination of some of the references shows that it cannot be used in this sense. Then touched he their eyes, Mt.8:29., He spit, and touched his tongue. Mk.7:33. He touched his ear. Lk.22:51.

The implication is that the Lord clung to their eyes, his tongue, and his ear.

In 1 Cor.7:1 the sense is it is good for a man to have not even the least physical contact with a woman. If here it means that clinging to a woman is what is in view, then lesser physical contact is by implication condoned.

We are satisfied that Mary never attempted to cling to the Lord. Why would she do after His resurrection what she most certainly would never have done before? Who dare say that Mary's touch would have been more than the touching of the Lord's feet in prostrated worship?

The insinuation of our Bible correctors is a smear on the character of Mary. They do no more than to slavishly repeat the savage attacks on Scripture by those critics who have gone before them.

Modern Versions pervert Truth....

....and Modern versions therefore affect Theology

“We’ve moved into a new era of approaching the bible, controversial Christian author and speaker Brian Maclaren says. It’s an era that could see Christians abandon the idea that there is one “right” way of interpreting Scripture – an era he calls Bible 3.0” ̶  Berean Call website.

It is claimed this is because of the unprecedented access readers of the Bible have to a broad range of readings and interpretations of the Bible through the internet. This may be so but the sea change began much earlier with the introduction of modern versions in the 19^th Century that were based on an altered Greek Text.

So we now have DIY Theology. J Stubbs provides an example of this in the Q & A column of the October 2013 issue of Believer’s Magazine, published by John Ritchie Ltd.  He wrote:

Greek scholars tell us that there is but one article with the two words "hope" and "appearing". Thus they are clearly connected. Then they are separated by a conjunction which not infrequently is followed by a word or phrase explanatory of that which precedes it. In such cases, and this is one of them, it is equivalent to "namely". Acts 23.6 is a good example: "The hope and [namely the] resurrection of the dead". So in our verse we have one event and one person. The Rapture of course is the preliminary of this event, but in this verse we believe the "blessed hope" of the child of God is not the Rapture, but the appearing in glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. We believe in the two stages or phases of the Second Coming. Christ will come first to the air to catch up the Church (1 Thess 4.13-18) and then, after an interval of at least seven years, He will descend from heaven to the earth to restore Israel and set up His millennial reign (Rev 19.11-21). We are happy to see the second stage of the Lord's coming in Titus 2.13.

For him the Blessed Hope is not to be realised at the rapture, but will be fulfilled at the Lord’s return to earth. He is unable to justify this from Scripture so he tells his readers it is what he believes. That is, it is no more than an opinion, but with serious results.

If Mr Stubbs is correct then hope is still needed in heaven, after the Rapture. The Bright and Morning Star, historically believed to be the Lord’s appearance at the Rapture is not to be the main attraction for believers.This will come after a period spent in heaven.

Mr Stubbs probably believes himself to be on safe ground with his proposition because  this is now the common view in evangelical circles. He declares the Blessed Hope is not to do with the Rapture. But we note He shall come to be glorified in His saints at his return to earth. 2Thess.1: 10

So the same idea is propounded by G McBride in Precious Seed .

‘the blessed hope ‘ and the ‘appearing of the glory’, JND, are best viewed as applying to the same event…. The thought is that when the Lord Jesus comes to earth again, there will be, in His person, a manifestation of glory.

So “Greek scholars tell us” but they are not named. Most we know to be apostate. What a pity Mr Stubbs does not turn to believing Greek scholars such as Tindale, John Bois, and every one of the AV translators.

Mr Stubbs knows all about Greek prepositions and conjunctions. If he is to be a credible commentator we need to know he has at the very least a 2 2 in the English Language.

There are no textual variations in Titus 2: 13. Any changes in versions are due therefore to interpretations of the same Greek text and a correct use of the English language. It must be understood that the translators of the Authorized Version were ALL masters of the English language. Most were multilingual.

In Titus 2: 13 the glorious appearing is changed to the appearing of the glory by the perverted Westcott and Hort in their depraved work, the Revised Version. Neither of these men were scholars.

A change of this nature robs us of what is fundamental to the faith.

When Mr Stubbs writes, “we believe” he does not tell us who “we” are. Who else holds to his heretical view? Why, just about all of apostate Christendom of course.

It was not always so.

Our modern men are out of kilter with the teachers who went before.

John Ritchie wrote:

His coming as Son of God to the air, is the proximate hope of the saints (1 Thessalonians 1:10). There is no predicted event which must occur, and no prophetic word that must be fulfilled, before the Lord's descent into the air, to call together His sleeping and His living people. His own word regarding this event, uttered from the throne above, is, "Surely I come quickly" (Revelation 22:20). No one can tell the day. Dates and numbers do not help us in the least regarding it. But the attitude of the saints is to be "Waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ " (1 Corinthians 1:7). "Looking for that blessed hope" (Titus 2:13). ̶  The Personal Return of the Lord Jesus

C H M wrote:

Finally, as if to complete the picture, he says, “when I come again.” He awakens in the heart by these last words, “the blessed hope” of seeing him again. What a lovely picture! And yet it is all a divine reality. It is the simple story of our blessed Jesus who, in His tender compassion, looked upon us in our low and utterly hopeless condition, left His eternal dwelling-place of light and love, took upon Himself the likeness of sinful flesh, was made of a woman, made under the law, lived a spotless life, and fulfilled a perfect ministry down here for 33 years, and finally died on the cross as a perfect atonement for sin so that God might be just and the Justifier of any poor, ungodly, convicted sinner that simply trusts in Jesus.

As for me, I continue to await the Rapture which is our Blessed Hope. Beware those who have abandoned the truths once held as precious. What a pity John Ritchie Ltd no longer believes John Ritchie.

RS

A Good Shuttle Service

I was sent this little verse in a letter received recently.

It is real poetry and not the doggerel you might read in Assembly Testimony, so I was quite impressed.

I considered that it was meant for me and that I should consider it carefully. I have done so and have read it several times.

Here it is:

The shuttles of His purpose move

To carry out His own design;

Seek not too soon to disapprove

His work, nor yet assign

Dark motives, when, with silent tread,

You view some sombre fold;

For lo, within each darker thread

There twines a thread of gold.

Spin cheerfully,

Not tearfully,

He knows the way you plod;

Spin carefully,

Spin prayerfully,

But leave the thread with God.

This verse is taken from the Canadian Home Journal, though my correspondent did not assign it to any source. In its context it relates to the spinner (working for the Lord), and is intended for encouragement to the soul who feels sometimes his work is in vain.

It gives me an opportunity to explain why I blog.

It is a superb means of communication with a global outreach. When one is totally ostracised and isolated by pseudo brethren, the world can still be reached.

The first step is to aim at being as professional as possible.

I put myself through a refresher course in the English Language.

I completed a self-taught Journalism course.

I studied law for journalists.

I read up on how to blog.

In my blogs I have no axe to grind. I have no chip on my shoulder. I do not hate “The Brethren”.

I believe Scripture must be obeyed. This includes contending earnestly for the faith,

It is no love to Christ, nor to my brethren, to smile sweetly and ignore the “dark threads”, blaming God for them.

R S