The Day of Christ

In the same issue of Precious Seed as that quoted below we read a comment by John Stubbs. John has been a friend of mine for many decades and we have entertained him in our home on several occasions.

We must, however, take him to task, again,   for his comment,  “The Day of the Lord (‘Day of Christ’ KJV in verse 2 [2 Thess 2] should read ‘the Day of the Lord’ RV)

When Mr Stubbs made this statement while preaching at our hall in New Bradwell in 2008, he was instantly and publicly rebuked. It is a false statement, carrying no authority. It mocks my Bible and Christ. Its reappearance in the wretched Precious Seed magazine is therefore a matter of arrogance added to ignorance.

The change from the Received Text was made by the Westcott/Hort duo who were both perverted clerics. It is deeply regretted that men who purport to be our present Bible teachers should promote depraved parodies of Scripture.

I include, yet again, my notes on 2 Thess.2: 2

2 Thes.2:2.

….the day of Christ is at hand.   AV

“….asserting that the Day of the Lord has already come”.    NIV

. Modern versions change this to "the day of the Lord" being come. This appears more suitable in relation to what the rest of scripture teaches concerning the Day of the Lord, but the manuscript evidence for the change is very poor. The vast majority of all manuscripts support "day of Christ". Some Alexandrian manuscripts (i.e. found in Egypt where early corruptions of the Scriptures are known to have taken place) support "day of the Lord" ^*. So let us believe what the Bible says and admit that maybe we do not fully understand the doctrine of the day of Christ. The Thessalonians had no such problems and they most certainly read "day of Christ".

The Day of the Lord had been expounded in the first epistle to the Thessalonians. They knew it would come as a thief in the night, unexpectedly, and that it would not affect them (ch.5v.4) They knew that the Day of Christ would affect them (2Thes.2v.5 and compare Phil.1v.10 & 2v.16) and that it would be preceded by the great apostasy. If the Day of Christ had come ("at hand" means that), then for a start they had missed the Rapture. What troubled them was the false teaching they were getting on the subject including apparently a letter from Paul himself saying the Day had come. Note that! Falsified Scripture. (N.B. 2Cor.2v.17) Thus we are warned in Scripture that men would from the beginning seek to corrupt the Word of God. Note that the N.I.V. mutilates even this verse to read "....we do not peddle the word of God for profit." But that is what every modern version is about.

*The Hodges/Farstad MajorityText footnote for this verse shows the consensus of Alexandrian manuscripts to have Kyrios, against the majority of manuscripts which have Xristos.

For the Bible believer, this speaks for itself. It is the battle of apostasy against faith.

United We Stand – Divided We Fall

A review of the article appearing in Precious Seed, No.? by J Gibson.

Is Gibson writing concerning the problems within his church (Curzon Street Gospel Hall, Derby) or problems affecting a broader circle? The first sentence seems to clarify this;

Unity is at the heart of Christianity.

“Christianity” is not a Bible word. It stands for the conglomerate mass of Christendom, which includes Romanism, Protestantism, every denomination and every Christianised cult. Its unity is easy to define. It is being screamed out continually. It is Ecumenism.

It is this anti- truth mess that Gibson and Precious Seed is promoting. His war cry is John 13: 35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another.

The Lord taught that a hall-mark of the true believer is that  as a disciple of Christ he will love other disciples. A disciple is one who follows Christ and continues therefore in Apostolic teaching.

Gibson then goes on to write that,

Our capacity to fully comprehend divine truth is impaired, even though the indwelling Holy Spirit has been sent to ‘guide [us ] into all truth’, John 16: 13  

[my italics-R.S.]                

                              

We are to believe that not even the Holy Spirit can do what He has been sent to do, i.e. to produce a one mindedness among His people concerning Scripture truth.  There is no such thing as absolute truth?

If we remember controversies have raged for centuries  ̶

We will be more gracious when confronting the opposing camp.

I confess I do not understand this statement.  How do I show my graciousness to men in the opposing camp? Where is this opposing camp? When some bring to us their doctrines of devils, as Paul warned they would, we refuse them. We are to refuse profane and old wives fables. How much more these outright satanic dogmas that men are thrusting on us. We believe some of these, held by and mentioned by Gibson include Calvinism, A-millennialism, etc.

I can be gracious but this will not include a handshake. Much less do wish to sit down and  break bread with them.  My responsibility is to show love to Christ and withdraw from such. Their “opposing camp” will not be found in our fellowship.

Gibson believes that “most disruptions in local churches boil down to nasty feelings and personality clashes”. This may be largely true because  doctrinal error is tolerated throughout Brethrenism.

The local church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3: 15). John wrote, I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. (1 John 2: 21)

We shall continue to withdraw from such who oppose truth,

Beware of the agnosticism and error of J Gibson and Precious Seed.

Gibson, with all P S contributors, holds the Authorized Version in contempt. Precious Seed Magazine must be treated with much suspicion.                                                                                                 

Two new AV Verses

 The following commentaries will be add to my AV Verses files.

Genesis 10: 11

Out of that land went therefore Asshur, and builded Nineveh…..

“From that land he went to Assyria. There he built Nineveh.”       NIV

Almost all versions agree with the NIV, which links “he” with Nimrod in v.8.  Nimrod’s father was Cush. Nimrod did not build Nineveh. He built Babylon.

Asshur was the second son of Shem.(V.22) Asshur built Nineveh.  He left the land of Shinar where was Babylon in order to build Nineveh.

There is no dispute in the Hebrew text and the Authorized Bible is plain in its translation, yet almost all scholars, historians, archeologists, etc  reject the AV reading. They have no authority for so doing.
The translators relegated the possibility of "he" to the margin, being satisfied that Asshur was the true reading.

This blind and stubborn rejection of inspired Scripture may have to do with the Hamitic background of Nimrod and the Semitic background of Asshur. No territory is to be acceded to the sons of Shem. God has other plans.

Ephesians 4: 19

Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

“They have become callous, and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity.”   ESV

Seeing that the word callous existed in the 14^th century, we ask why the AV translators did not use it. The reason is they knew it did not properly translate apalgeo. (found here only in GNT) Paul was teaching that the unconverted Gentiles were unable to feel the pain of their actions upon themselves.

Callousness is a hardened attitude to the needs of others. Thus the ESV is a false translation.

Sensuality is far too bland a word to use here. Lasciviousness involves sexual impurity, lechery, lewdness.

The School Visitor

A FTW wrote recently, “when I go on a school visit, I don’t go in both guns blazing”.

Paul wrote,  For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God, Acts 20: 27

Our FTW implies that he is holding back somewhat, One cannot tell an audience of mixed religions, We preach Christ crucified, and, neither is there salvation in any other.  (The very heart of the gospel!)

Our school visitors are required to preach another gospel, for which says the apostle, let him be accursed, Gal. 1: 8

The evidence of a false gospel preached is when the praise of ungodly men is given. Our FTW boasts how much he is appreciated by head teachers and staff.

Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! For so did their fathers to the false prophets. Luke 6: 26

Our FTW cares not that his “message” does not differ from that of the R.C., Methodist, Anglican, visitors.

A little bible story with a hint of a moral application does not keep a soul out of hell.

I also note that this FTW has a bible which does not agree with mine.

Beware Precious Seedism

In the year 1945 certain liberal minded brethren seized the title that pertains solely to the Word of God and gave the name to their magazine. It would be better called “Specious Weed”.

This magazine, through a current editor, John Bennett, denies separation and promotes Neo-Evangelicalism.

Mr Bennett begins his editorial in the Vol. 67 No. 2, 2012  issue by bemoaning the lack of love demonstrated by those who disagree with him. He part-quotes Gal.5: 22, ‘The fruit of the Spirit is love’, and ignores the other eight ingredients of this ONE fruit. He claims that “picking out just a few of the fruits of the Spirit we can see how practical it is” He also rejects the Authorized Version of 1 Cor. 13: 4, in favour of the NKJV because of its weak translation of agape.

An unwillingness to contend for the faith shows no love to Christ.Those who do contend are described as making a “so-called ‘stand for the truth’”. So he mocks those who oppose error. He describes them as those who “bite and devour one another.”

If one must ‘stand for the truth’ we are informed, it must be done according to the dictates of those being corrected. A person who refuses to heed admonition unless it is done with an inane grin (proving love?), we say, is apostate. For that matter a person who rejects the AV Bible is also apostate.

Mr Bennett claims that those who do promote error, Paul describes as “my beloved brethren”. 1 Cor 15: 58. This requires a further abuse of Scripture on the part of Mr Bennett, when he writes that some in Corinth were denying the truth of the resurrection.

This is a double falsehood. Paul did not refer to “some of you”.  He asked “How say some among you?”

J B will not accept that “some have crept in unawares”. He will not accept that Paul elsewhere spoke of “false brethren”. 2 Cor. 11: 26, Gal. 2: 4. Rather, he will hold that any person holding Brethren Assembly membership is one of his beloved brethren. What a delusion! My brethren, and all of them beloved, are faithful brethren. Our fellowship is based on light (which means I love some brethren who are not in fellowship with us!)

J B‘s second false representation is this. These false teachers in fellowship at Corinth were not denying the truth of resurrection. Mr Bennett might have avoided this error had he read the passage carefully. They were denying an aspect of it.

Paul wrote, “How say some AMONG you that there is no resurrection of the dead?: 1 Cor. 15: 12. They were denying an aspect of resurrection. Personally I expect to attain to the resurrection without passing through the article of death. I am looking for the Rapture, which may be today. We have to ask at this point,is Mr Bennett an A-millennialist?

Tares AMONG the wheat doesn’t make them wheat.

An example of correcting in love.

Scene: High Street.

Mr B is about to step off the pavement into the path of an oncoming bus.

Loving Bro:  Er-hum, excuse me Mr B,sorry to intrude on you while you are busy. I’d like to draw your attention to the fact that if you continue along your present course of locomotion, you are likely, yes indeed I would say positively, you may, or certainly, ……. oh dear, poor Mr Ben. He’s been flattened.       Maybe I should just have shouted at him.          

 

 

 

 

Brethren and their wine.

The Brethren are free to consume intoxicating liquor. By authority of Gospel Hall.org.

The following statement is found on the North American brethren website, Gospel Hall.org.

“Since the grape harvest was in the Fall (the seventh month) and the Passover at which the Lord's Supper was instituted was in the Spring (the first month) and since there would have been no refrigeration to inhibit the process of fermentation, it is likely that the wine at the last Passover was fermented. In addition, the Lord made water wine (John 4:46). Timothy was told to drink wine (I Timothy 5:23). The word in both those cases is the same word used for wine that causes drunkenness (Ephesians 5:18).
We cannot insist that the loaf be unleavened bread or the cup unfermented wine.”
— D. Oliver

What a pity that David Oliver continues in his misleading statements. We understand he has the backing of his North American brethren for publishing this plain error. We recommend every believer to read Ancient Wine & the Bible by D R Brumbelow, published by Free Church Press, October 2011. This is a very readable and well documented book showing that the grape harvest extended over several months according to the variety of grape. Preservation of unfermented grape juice was practiced and did not depend on refrigeration It was also known how to preserve fresh grapes for six or seven months of the year.

Wine is a generic word and can mean fermented or unfermented wine, the context usually making the meaning clear.

The implication that the Lord produced intoxicating liquor at Cana in defiance of Proverbs 23: 31, Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth its colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright, is a wicked indictment against Him.

If alcoholic wine is right at the Lord’s Supper, it cannot be wrong at any other time. If the consumption of alcohol is wrong at the Lord’s Supper, and we submit that it is wrong, then may the brethren not be in error in many other practices?

And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand: and I took the grapes, and pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand. Genesis 40: 11. That is how the mighty Pharaoh drank his wine!

Vision Forum

Howard Hughes, sponsored by Spencer Bridge Road Gospel Hall Assembly for prison work, has sent out his prayer letter.
There is much in it to rejoice over. We praise God for those he reaches in this gospel outreach, and we pray for many who have been influenced for good in this ministry.
But we bear in mind that this is an ecumenical work that can be carried out only through the office of the prison chaplaincy.
What gives concern about Howard’s  prayer letter is a link given to the Vision Forum website. This is a home schooling website. I see nothing intrinsically wrong with home schooling  but Vision Forum reveals a different mind-set entirely to the majority of believers in assembly fellowship.
This statement is found on their site:
“[The family] is God’s primary vehicle for communicating covenant promises to the next generation. It is the basic agency of dominion on earth.”  - Douglas W Phillips.
The statement is loaded with error. Home schoolers deny  the role of the local church. Their family and their philosophy is more important than assembly Bible teaching.
Covenant theology is false, denying the prophetic teaching of Scripture. Dispensational teaching is despised by those who hold to Covenant Theology..
Christians have no role in world dominion.
We trust that Howard’s elders will seek to re-educate him.

* We understand Mr Hughes and family have now (December 2012) withdrawn from fellowship at Spencerbridge Road Assembly, Northampton because of their holding to false doctrine.

Warm to the Wolves.

Never Smile at the Crocodile. Never Take a break with the Rattlesnake. Never Warm to the Wolves.

After all, we be brethren. Gen.13 8.

So says J Bennett, an editor of Precious Seed, He wrote,

“If there is one thing that has marred the testimony of the Lord’s people down through time it is the problem of personalities. Even a matter that involves the neglect or abandonment of a fundamental principle can and should be resolved without compromise, yet amicably, where there is a willingness to deal with it according to scripture and in the light of the fact that we are brethren and sisters in Christ. Yet, sadly, we persist in doing the adversary’s work by dividing brother from brother and assembly from assembly. The individual testimony is harmed or lost and the collective testimony is weakened or marred.”—Precious Seed; Nov. 2011; p.1

The term ‘Collective Testimony’ indicates that it is not the brethren comprising the body of Christ who are in view. It is The Brethren who are being considered.

I have many brethren, scattered throughout many denominations. Some of these have been a great blessing and encouragement to me over more than half a century. Alas, I do not feel free to join every one of them where they are, but I do love them.

I am surrounded by many of The Brethren and some of them are apostate. This is evident from their false doctrines and bad life style.

One of “my Brethren” believed the Lord was capable of any sin. J Bennett would have me sit down with the man and amicably deal with it. The Scripture tells me, Now I beseech you, brethren, mark those who cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them. Romans 16: 17.

The doctrine I learned concerning Christ is that He is eternally sinless. The Scripture commands me to avoid those who cause divisions and offences by denying the impeccability of Christ. I infer from J Bennett that if I withdraw and urge others to do the same I, and not this blaspheming man, am harming the testimony.

J Bennett, is speaking of harm to “the collective testimony” and here he reveals his motive.

This collective testimony is Brethrenism. Any manner of foul doctrines of devils must be entertained rather than weaken Brethrenism.

J Bennett also writes,

Are we quick to ‘write off’ our brethren and sisters? Do we criticize them publicly, or pray for them privately, and with deep conviction of soul?

Oh dear! The Apostle is in trouble again. He wrote, But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. Gal. 2: 11.

Paul let believers know for all time that Peter was in error. They needed to know.

When one in fellowship publicly commits error by false teaching, or evil practice,it must be exposed for the sake of the flock. If it is a private issue and does not directly concern the flock, then we do not make it a public issue. In this J Bennett again flies in the face of Scripture

Another Scripture to consider is this:

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderely, and not after the tradition which he received of us. 2 Thes. 3: 6

Paul is urging brethren to separate from one another. J Bennett is opposed to this Scripture.

Then we have:

If any man teach otherwise and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to holiness;….from such withdraw thyself. 1 Tim. 6: 3-5.

Those who preach the “collective testimony” of Brethrenism will not even acknowledge there are such false people within their fold. Those spoken of by Jude could never creep unawares into a Gospel Hall. They just walk in boldly.

So must we NOT contend earnestly for the faith? No, says JB. This just divides brother from brother.

The Lord said, Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay, but rather division.

We are aware that doctrine divides. For this reason there is less and less appeal to Scripture. JB regards those who contend as troublemakers.

JB portrays the Lord as willing to overlook sin. Quote:

We find him weeping over Jerusalem, Luke 19:41.’ Love suffers long and is kind’, 1 Cor. 13: 4 NKJV [note the perversion of Scripture in this false translation-RS] This is unconditional love!

This last statement is wilfully misleading. Love does not ignore wickedness and wilful rebellion. Love to Christ will demand a firm and public stand against all evil.

An unwillingness to deal with error is the product of Neo-Evangelism. The result is the Brethren Movement is home for every fowl of the air. It is not only false teaching which is tolerated, but immorality also.

Pride also destroys obedience to the Scriptures.

Paul criticized the church at Corinth for their unwillingness to deal with error in their midst. It was serious immorality but the believers at Corinth regarded themselves as so spiritual, so understanding, so loving, they did not need to deal with it. Perhaps they were seeking to come to an “amicable” arrangement?

This Precious Seed editorial echoes the words written by the heretic F F Bruce in the Harvester May 1974. He wrote:

What Has been readers’ experience of the opportunity for Christian charity presented in a local church situation where a minority holds beliefs or engages in practices which the majority does not share —e.g. where a minority holds or practices household baptism or speaking in tongues or the public ministry of sisters? Does such a situation provoke division, or (as one might expect among Christians) toleration and brotherly love?

. Beware of the Neo-Evangelism and liberalism of Precious Seed. This journal also promotes Ecumenism and leads us back into Bruce’s mish-mash of error. See Bible Bytes, inside back cover of issue under discussion.

(Amongst Bruce’s heresies was the denial of a real hell.)

Gospel Hall Ecumenism

It appears that we at New Bradwell, MK, are now linked with Milton Keynes Mission Partnership. We may have been linked for some time. A brother in Christ has recently drawn my attention to this grievous fact.

On the MKMP website we find the telephone number of Mr Ronald Carter listed, making him the Caledonian Road Gospel Hall ecumenical representative.

Maybe Ron just wanted to keep abreast of the Northampton ecumenical assemblies, which are associated with Churches Together. Peter Burditt’s and John Salisbury’s  names, telephone numbers, and addresses are supplied on the NCT list, linking Spencer Bridge Road assembly and Osborne Road assembly with ecumenism.

The MK Mission Partnership includes Spiritists and Muslims and much else besides. They all work together in the destruction of the gospel and are fiercely antichrist.

And now they know where to find us. Thank you Ronald Carter.

System before truth, eh?

There is a brethren assembly (we have to let you know who we are writing about) where the elders are still firmly for the Authorized Bible. So they tell us!

When it comes to the Saturday Night speaker, one needs a Name that draws the folk in. So a man is invited who is a popular preacher. It matters not that he is hostile to the AV Bible and frequently condemns it from the platform.

So when Mr Elder tells me he is pro AV I know he is probably lying. Let’s hear him defend the Authorized Bible publicly. He will not do this if he is himself a circuit man. You won’t get the bookings you know.

Find this at a Gospel Hall near you.

Separation, even from Mr J Riddle

Scripture teaches separation

We separate as believers, from all forms of evil, even if it is advocated and practiced by leading brethren. This includes, particularly, false teaching.

A man that is a heretick after the first and second admonition reject. Titus 3: 7

This leads us to the false teaching of Limited Atonement, expressed by J Riddle, an acclaimed leader in the Brethren Movement, - I quote,

“[Christ] did not bear the sins of all men at Calvary.” - Forward to The Biblical Doctrine of Substitution; M Browne

1.This is a rank and blasphemous denial of the atoning work of Christ. It is heresy.

Calvinism is growing in Assembly circles —as it is throughout Christendom— and its adherents are growing ever more bold in their assertions. The monthly Believer’s Magazine has become an organ for the promotion of Calvinism. This is not what its founder John Ritchie believed. He strongly refuted Calvinism in his book Contested Truths, published in 1917.

2. J Riddle also publicly corrects the Bible. He reads from the Authorized Version, except where he believes words or passages should be omitted. He does not read from modern versions and then warn of their depravity. Mr Riddle prefers the scholarship of proven apostates rather than the historic testimony of believers to the faithfulness and preservation of Scripture.

J Riddle’s ministry therefore undermines faith.

3. J Riddle displays a cult mentality. He believes that overseers must be obeyed under all circumstances, no matter whether their decision is seen to be false or not. Thus there are times when we must obey men rather than God.

Mr Riddle is a member of the Mill Lane Chapel, Cheshunt.

OUP. The scholars will damn you.

The Oxford Handbook of Evangelical Theology . a critique

The believer wishing to learn something of traditional systematic theology will need to look elsewhere. This volume is not for such.

The introduction announces “Evangelical theology has come of age…. [it] has accepted the collapse of foundationalism—the notion that there are, or should be, logical or rational grounds for belief.”

If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? Psalm 11: 3

This book is produced by the elite of the modern theologians with the intent of deposing God. It is edited by Gerald R McDermott, PhD, Professor of Religion at Roanoke College. AND what is not revealed in this book: His “expertise” includes Mormon-Evangelical Dialogue.

Emerging churchism is being presented in which absolutes do not exist and where a Jesus is revealed who bears no resemblance to the Christ of Scripture, being rather, a man who gradually became aware of his identitiy.(p.213)

Conversion becomes a process, and is certainly not a crisis experience. Baptism of the Spirit coincides with water baptism. We quote, “Might this be a way in which Charismatic and evangelical Christians can find common ground? Locate the baptism of the Spirit clearly and explicitly in the experience of water baptism.”.(p.218)

The thrust of this book is summed up in the statement,

The recent evangelical engagement with missional ecclesiology is but one sign of convergence—drawing together diverse historical traditions (catholic, charismatic, social-ethical, and evangelical), and distinct parties in today’s church (conciliar, Roman Catholic, evangelical, and so on)—to produce a more complete and convincing witness to the Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. —The Lausanne Movement and Contemporary Evangelical Mission Theology; OHET; p.351

There is no mention of the Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists in this statement, but they are involved in this drawing together. There is no mention of Fundamentists here but they are excluded and there is no conciliation offered to them.

Fundamentalists are essentially those who have experienced a biblical conversion and are Bible believers.

The Oxford Handbook of Evangelical Theology presents apostasy as “a more complete and convincing witness to the Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ”.

Published by OUP; 2010.

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 2 Cor. 6: 17

Gospel Hall garbage–continued

This is found on the London Road Gospel Hall website, Bognor Regis.

“We believe that Jesus is God’s only Son.”

Well, my Bible says, But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. John 1: 12

These Bognor folk do not believe the Bible, though they claim the divine inspiration of Holy Scriptures. And by this they reveal their arrogant high-mindedness. Knowing the Scriptures to be inspired of God they dare to alter it.

Presumably these people have never received Christ. They certainly do not believe on His name.

I believe in the only begotten Son of God. “Begotten” is part of the inspired word of God.

We further read, “The Bible teaches: The unity of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit in the Godhead.”

This statement is ambiguous to say the least. We hope not wilfully ambiguous because it can mean that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one person. Unitarianism is growing.

Far better for the simple statement -There are three persons in the Godhead; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

□ I read this on a link (Gospel Hall Hisory) from the Hill Street Gospel Hall, Coventry, website.:-

“We do not need to understand in order to believe; we believe and so we understand.”
This saying is quoted also on the covenantchristian.org website and attributed to Anselm (1033-1109).
Anselm, known as the father of scholasticism, was made “Doctor of the Church” by Pope Clement XI in 1710.
The statement quoted is at the heart of Calvinism and is a denial of the faith.
I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I could not do this without FIRST understanding that the gospel testimony of Jesus reveals a fulfilment of Scripture concerning the Messiah, Christ, the Anointed One.
Having believed, I spend my time learning more of Him.
But alas, the fruit of this Anselmic error remains with us. Our assemblies are full of people who “believed” when they were infants, without the faintest notion of what they believed.
If I believe the moon is made of green cheese, then I will understand that scientific theories to the contrary are mere guff.
My faith in Christ is based on realities, not moonshine.

A Reply to Michael Browne

A Reply to the article, Did the Jews accuse the Lord of being “born of fornication” (John 8: 41)?.

This article, written by Michael Browne, was published in Believers Magazine, issued Nov. 2010.

Mr Browne wrote,

“Not only is such a suggestion [that the Jews did imply that Christ was born of fornication] repugnant as a thought applied to our beloved Lord Jesus—it is purely speculative and unworthy of public expression”.

Of course it is a blasphemous slur against Christ and not the only one made by the Jews. The y called Him Beelzebub, the dung –god. Matt. 10: 25. Ought not one to demur at this also?

A careful read of John 8: 41 reveals exactly what the Jews thought of Christ. Their retort began with the demonstrative pronoun We. When we is used it always means “we, and not you”. The Jews were actually saying “We , not you, be not born of fornication.” The suggestion that spiritual fornication is meant is shown to be a nonsense and robs Scripture of its integrity.

Oliver Cromwell demanded that his portrait be painted, warts and all.

The warts of God’s enemies are painted into Scripture and assure us of its verbal inspiration. Men do not like the bad things to be recorded and would blot them out.

Mr Browne “adjusts” the meaning of Matt. 1: 19. He does so in order to defend his imagined view that the Jews , quote, “had not the slightest suspicion that Jesus was anything other than the son of Joseph and Mary, and brother to his Nazareth home siblings”.

Matt.1: 19 reads Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

The BM article assures their readers:-

“The incident in Matthew 1. 18-19 is clear evidence that the pregnancy of Mary was not a “public” scandal, and in order to keep it that way Joseph…..was minded to quietly hide her away somewhere”.

If Joseph and Mary were already married and the populace considered them to be so, why ever would he think to hide her away?

The fact is the couple were in the Jewish state of betrothal, and had not formally come together. The betrothal was binding but divorce was permitted at this stage but forbidden after the coming together. See Matt. 19: 9.

The putting away is in Greek apoluo. And is the same word in Matt.1: 19 as in Matt. 19: 9.

Browne’s “hiding away” is an abuse of Scripture. It is divorce in view.

This may be the stumbling block today for those who allow divorce and remarriage today. They attempt to apply Matt.19: 9 to modern marriage practice and ignore the distinction between betrothal and marriage in Jewish custom. This opens the way for divorce due to fornication/adultery being accepted by some today. We suggest this is what prompted the writing of this strange BM article.

The “taking unto him” of Mary (Matt. 1: 24) was the formal act of marriage, following the betrothal. It was not done in secret.

In order to deflect criticism from those better taught, Mr Browne wrote “there is not one whit of evidence to support such an offensive construction [that the Jews were taunting Christ with His supposed illegitimate birth]”

Here is the evidence that Mr Browne chose to ignore. Are all these guilty of offensive construction?

1. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics

John 8:41 . Even the insult of Jesus’ enemies shows that the circumstances of his birth had stirred general gossip, as might be expected if the story spread. Jesus said to them, “ ‘You are doing the things your own father [Satan] does.’ ‘We are not illegitimate children,’ they protested. ‘The only Father we have is God himself.” The Jews may have simply been responding defensively to Jesus’ attack on their misplaced confidence in the fatherhood of Abraham. If so, it is an odd rejoinder. But it makes perfect sense if they were turning the argument back on Jesus’ own legitimacy. Even Joseph had needed an angelic visitation to be convinced Mary’s purity ( Matt. 1:20 ). He and Mary likely faced a continuing shadow on their reputations. But Jesus faced the matter boldly in responding to his sniggering accusers, “Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?” ( John 8:46 ).

2. Waymarks Contender. No.63; Nov.2010

. Matthew 1: 25

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn (protokos) son.  AVB

“but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son” NRSV

This NRSV rendering is ambiguous and not only because “firstborn” is omitted. It allows the possibility of extra-marital relations in the form of fornication. This was the slander of the Pharisees, We be not born of fornication (Jn. 8: 41. The NRSV also mistranslates this verse.)

The virgin birth of Christ is questioned by the NRSV and most other modern versions. It is no longer believed by modern clerics and theologians. Archbishop Tutu has publicly questioned Mary’s morality. It is however a fundamental truth essential to our salvation.

protokos is well attested, being found in the majority of manuscripts and in ancient versions.

3. The Virgin Birth of Christ by Gresham Machen

Jesus according to this Jewish Polemic was really the fruit of an adulterous relationship with a certain soldier whose name was Pantheras. (p.10)

4.International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Ed. Geoffrey Bromily. P.992

In Jn. 78: 41Jesus’ opponents insist ”we were not born of fornication.” Here “we” is emphatic, perhaps by way of contrast: “not we, but you?” Thus Jn. 8: 41 may reflect early suspicions about Jesus’ parentage, which Jewish polemics later made explicit.

5. Robertson’s Word Pictures, Mat. 1 19

The Talmud openly charges this sin [fornication] against Mary

Mr Browne’s article is not a fair and accurate presentation of the truth

Received by Email
Dear Ron,
I just noticed in John Grant's article on Egypt in page 15 of Jan 2011 BM that he states that the Old Kingdom (which followed the Early DYnastic period) started in BC 2700.
That places it a few centuries before the Flood (following Ussher or other conservative bible-believing chronologists).
So how did he arrive at that?
Just wondering.
best wishes
S—
************
My reply
***********
Dear S—
I suspect that JG has a copy of the rationalistic and evolutionary Chronological Study Bible, where we read on p.2,  "Later pharaohs of the Old Kingdom, beginning about 2700 .C., became famous for their pyramids."
It is a great tragedy that men who purport to be leaders and teachers of God's people draw so freely from the wells of infidelity. I don't suppose more than one or two readers of BM were aware of this piece of nonsense. I must confess I hadn't bothered to read it. Thank you for alerting me.  
kind regards,
Ron 

(Answers in Genesis places the Flood in the year 2304 B.C. There is little spiritual value in the 'Egypt' article in BM )

King James Bible Trust. Beware

This year marks the 400^th anniversary of the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible. The anniversary is being celebrated by various organisations. One we need to take note of with much caution is the King James Bible Trust.

This trust has Prince Charles as its patron. We need hardly make further comment! Charles is pagan in outlook and is a notorious adulterer. He has no love for the Scriptures. The vice patron is Richard Chartres, Bishop of London.

The trustees include several active members of Bible Society, an organisation hostile to the Authorized Bible and its underlying text.

The aims of the King James Bible Trust are;

1. To promote the cultural importance of the KJB.
2. To understand the politics of the KJB
3. To illustrate Christianity’s hand in developing our society.

Events will be taking place at various locations during the year.

Richard Dawkins, Andrew Motion, and Patricia Routledge will be reading from the KJB on You Tube.

The aims of KJBT reveal its rejection of any spiritual significance or value to the Bible. It’s supernatural origin is treated with scorn. The “old” Bible is a glorious museum piece. Its worth is solely in its literary value, but it can be used now for political and social gain.

That Dawkins is giving his support to this endeavour is highly significant. He is the nation’s leading God-hater.

A 1611 AD Authorized Bible is being republished to celebrate the 400th anniversary. It is being reprinted “with all its original errors”. We think one purpose behind this is to cause doubt in the minds of present day Bible believers.

There were indeed many typological errors in the first edition. These were corrected and later many spellings were corrected and the use of u for v, and f for s in printing were changed.

There was never anything wrong with the text or its translation.

Go to You Tube and watch David Cloud on the History of the King James Bible if you want a reliable account.