O what a to do among the Brethren now. Some mischievous bro of a certain ilk is spreading a most heinous lie. "If you can't remember the date of your conversion, you haven't had one".

Articles are being posted and letters are sent to editors. We must have this cleared up!We want to know.
The sages of Bee-Em have been approached and after taking down their dusty tomes have made the pronouncement, first presented in 1936 in the Witness of the day, "Never mind the date. Do you remember the experience?"
Mummies have been questioned. Yes dear, of course you are saved. You told me one evening when you were 4.75 years old, just as I was lifting you out of the bath. Don't you remember? Never mind, darling, I was there. I'll vouch for you at the Golden Gate.
Richard wishes he hadn't raised the issue with Precious Weed. Don't worry about it, he was told. Not many of us have had such an experience. Those who have usually prove to be fanatics and extremists.
Auntie says you get a warm glowing feeling when you have had the experience. My Dads sit glumly by the telly, just hoping when the kids said yes to Jesus at age 7.15 it will be good enough.

The fact is the preaching of repentance toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ is anathema among the Brethren and they are reaping the consequences with their 3rd, 4th, 5th generation of apostates.

The Brethren Magazine, Precious Seed*, announced in its May 2010 issue that “The Kingdom of God— mediatorial, not universal aspect—is presently in abeyance” in an article written by J Gibson, Derby.
This poor fellow, thinking himself a child of God no doubt, confesses he has no Mediator capable of reaching him. He is stating that God does not intervene on behalf of those who by faith in Christ are subject to Him.
The LORD hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all. Ps. 103: 19.
Gibson is teaching Progressive Dispensationalism and we trust his elders will bring him to task. God has not lost control and still intervenes on this earth.

There will be more on the subject in Waymarks 62, to be published in august.

*The name Precious Seed is a Scripture term for the Seed, God’s Word. It has no right to be appropriated by apostate publishers. This mag. Is known among brethren as Precious Weed.

An answer to the misleading article in Precious Seed Nov.09, titled, “I don’t know when I was saved – is my profession of salvation genuine?” by R Collings.

Collings speaks of his own experience: “No dramatic conversion took place and no radical change of behaviour was possible…..’getting saved’ was perceived as a necessary event – but humanly speaking it was far from being momentous”

We have to remind Mr Collings of words spoken by him a few years ago at the New Year conference held in Cowley Road Gospel Hall, Uxbridge.

I was invited to open the conference in prayer, during which I gave thanks on behalf of all for the day in which we were converted. Mr Collings, the first speaker, opened his ministry by assuring the congregation that he had never experienced a conversion. His words were not misunderstood. Some of us commented on his statement during the tea interval and I discussed it with the other speaker, Mr M Radcliffe. We thought he had committed spiritual Hari Kari. We thought he had signed himself out of the Ministering Brethren Fraternity. But no! He was invited back again to Uxbridge and has continued his unconverted career ever since. The Uxbridge Brethren thought it a trifling matter that the preacher had not been converted.

Conversions do not need to be “dramatic”. Mine certainly was not. I sat in my seat and trusted Christ at the end of a Gospel Meeting. I remember the day and the hour because of other happenings at that time.

All conversions are sudden, dynamic, supernatural. This is without exception. Certainly the actual date is somewhat irrelevant but the experience cannot be forgotten. It is the moment when the Holy Spirit takes up residence in the newly born soul.

Conversion is commanded in Acts 3. Repent ye therefore and be converted. Being saved is the ensuing and ongoing experience of the new born soul. One is not saved without the initial conversion.

Can an infant do this? Of course, if they are able to confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in their heart that God has raised Him from the dead. They will understand as did the Ethiopian that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. On the other hand we do not read in the New Testament of a single child conversion or even that infants were preached to.

Consider also the Lord’s words, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Matt. 18: 3. Note that becoming as little children is placed AFTER conversion. Some may argue themselves deeper into hell by insisting that a different Greek word is used in this verse. Just remember hat the Lord spoke Hebrew (always, we believe) and speaks to us in English. So, the unconverted remains outside of salvation.

A decisive conscious action is required on the part of all who respond to the gospel call. It is repent ye and believe the gospel. It happens at a given moment on a particular day.

We cannot take seriously Mr Colling’s issue in the title to his article. In the 54 years since I was converted I have not heard ONE soul claim that one has to remember when one was saved in order to have salvation. This is a red herring on his part to hide his lack.

The reality of a profession of faith begins with a decisive conversion. A change will be witnessed in the life of such a one. As far as visible works of righteousness are concerned, the tares cannot be distinguished from the wheat until the harvest. A believer will of course love the brethren. He will also love his neighbour. He will love his enemies. The unconverted tares may put up a good show but they fail at the end.

Colling’s final paragraph is most deceptive. I quote: “obviously there must have been a time when, and a place where, you first believed but it is not a requisite of salvation that you can recall either of them”

So one can just drift into salvation? Mr Collings woke up one fine morning and thought “Oh, I must have been saved”.Plainly, on his own confession, he had no vital experience of coming to Christ. There was no moment when he recognized his need to get right with God.

We say this again. Time and place are not so important that they must be remembered. I remember my conversion because I made a note of the date at the time . It was 15^th October 1955, at approx. 9.05 pm.

I do not remember where, other than it was in the town of Ipswich.

The experience of conversion CANNOT BE FORGOTTEN. If you cannot remember it you have not had one.

So now we have it. Our assemblies consist of a mixed multitude of converted and unconverted souls. And of course one can be a conference speaker and remain a child of hell, as all are who have failed to repent and be converted.

CT Retraction

Following my blog on February 17^th, the following submissions have been received from M. Platt, at Spencer Bridge Road GH, and P. Burditt at Osborne Road GH

Spencer Bridge Road GH. Northampton.

"We would like to make it clear;

1. We have no association with Churches Together and have not made any request to be listed on their website. Quite the reverse but our requests to be removed have been ignored to date.
2. We are not ‘linked’ in any way with Social Services and certainly do not promote a ‘social Gospel’. The ‘certificates’ which you refer to are perhaps our child protection policy statement regarding children in our care for children’s meetings and Sunday School."

Osborne Road GH, Northampton

"The Assembly at Osborne Road is not and never has been affiliated to or connected with 'Churches Together in Northampton'. It would appear that a directory has been compiled for the use of interested parties in the area. "

The secretary of Churches Together, Northampton, Rev. Ted Hales, assured me that no entries are made on the CTN

website without permission. An inspection of the CTN web site http://www.churches-together-northampton.org.uk/ctn.htm shows that this is not a complete list of churches in the area.

Churches Together —A Warning to my brethren

Churches Together is an organisation seeking to unite all churches to a common purpose in any particular town or district. It constitutes a horrid ecumenical mish-mash of apostasy. Some of its aims, as stated on the Churches Together in Northampton website are:

• to enable the churches, as pilgrims together, to develop growing relationships, to seek a common mind, and to make decisions together
• to encourage churches to worship, pray and reflect together on the nature and purpose ofnthe church in the light of its mission – each church sharing with others the treasures of its tradition
• to enable the churches to respond to the needs of society and to witness to the Gospel together.....to evangelise together.
• to provide a focus for relating to the local authority and other statutory bodies.......etc.

A list of affiliated churches is given on the above mentioned website. It includes:

Evangelical Baptists. This will delude some into thinking it can’t be all bad. But the first two mentioned are also members of the apostate Baptist Union and are linked to the Willow Creek Association. Discerning brethren will know the implications in this.

Also included are Anglican Churches, Charismatic Churches, Vineyard Churches, Greek Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, Methodists, Quakers (a very much pseudo Christian organisation) Roman Catholic Churches, and even Worldwide Church of God. This latter is a false cult, once led by H Armstrong and now desperate to be a “mainstream” denomination.

These all “share” the treasures of its tradition with the other apostate members.

And tucked away in the midst of this apostate soup are two Gospel Halls:

1. Osborne Road Gospel Hall ; contact member, P Burditt.
2. “Gospel Hall”. This one choosing to hide its name but identified as Spencer Bridge Road Gospel Hall by the name of its contact, John Salisbury, tel; 01604792092

Avisit to Spencer Bridge Road Gospel Hall might suggest a reason why these people wish to be associated with the godless religionists of Northampton.; their building appears to be taken over by Social Services judging by the certificates on display. The purpose of CT is to promote Ecumenism and they do it through “relating to the local authority”.

Their “mission” is to preach a social gospel.

Come ye out from amongst them and be ye separate, saith the Lord.

Outside the Camp


We read in Present Truth, Vol.14; No. 168; October 2008, in the article entitled Is There A Biblical Pattern For The Church? these words —

At least two things are suggested by the phrase ‘gathered in (or unto*) my name’. First, identification with the Lord Jesus. That is the believer abandons all man-made ecclesiastical systems, and is identified with the rejected Christ. The epistle to the Hebrews urges this upon us all. “Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp, bearing his reproach” (Heb.13: 13. ‘The camp’ in that day was Judaism, and its modern equivalent is Christendom into which many of the features of Judaism have been absorbed. The believer is called to break his links with that, and be associated alone with the Man who is ‘outside the camp’, as one gathered to His name.

* In order to establish a link between being gathered and being outside the camp, the Scripture reading itself has to be altered. The word “unto” is not a suitable alternative to “in” in Matt. 18: 20 (see www.avbibleversesvindicated.blogspot.com ) The verse is misquoted anyway. The reading is For where two or three are gathered together in my name...

Those familiar with the Hebrew epistle will be aware that Christians were not being urged to separate themselves from some ecclesiastical system. They had already done it, as Heb. 10: 25 shows – not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together as the manner of some is. It is not possible to forsake something that does not already exist. When the letter to the Hebrews was written, believers were already meeting together in a scriptural manner, gathered together in His name. Further proof of this is found 13: 7 where the believers are exhorted to remember them who have the rule over them. They spoke the word of God (they were not preaching Judaism) and their faith was to be followed.
Then in 13: 17, these Hebrew Christians were to obey them that have the rule over them. Thus in the middle of a passage dealing with the right attitude to the elders in the assembly we have the “let us go forth” statement.
As Pink rightly points out, this has nothing to do with a foot exercise. It is a heart matter.
This is what Pink had to say on the subject:-
Hebrews 13:13 has ever been a great favorite with those who started "Come out" movements. It has been used, or rather misused, again and again by ambitious Diotrephes, who desired to head some new party or cause. It has been made a sop for the conscience’ by many a little group of discontented and disgruntled souls, who because of some grievance (fancied or real) against their religious leaders, church, or denomination, forsook them, and set up an independent banner of their own. It is a verse which has been called into the service of all separatists, who urged all whose confidence they could gain to turn away from—not the secular world, but their fellow-Christians, on the ground of trifling differences. That which these men urged their dupes to forsake was denounced as the God-abandoned and apostate "Camp," while the criticism they have (often justly) met with for their pharisaic conduct, has been smugly interpreted as "bearing Christ’s reproach."
Finally, the deceived are now easily drawn to become ardent propagators of their new tenets, zealous proselytizers, seeking to persuade others to leave the apostate "Camp" and join them on "the true scriptural ground." "Let any man of contrary opinion open his mouth to persuade them, and they close their ears: his reasons they weigh not, all is answered with ‘We are of God, He that knoweth God heareth us’ (1 John 4:6), as for the rest, ye are of the world" (Hooker). Such was the policy pursued by the "Fifth Monarchy men," the "Brownists,’ Thos. Cartwright and his following in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Such too was the course taken by John Kelly in Ireland, Alex. Campbell in Kentucky, more than a century ago—the latter founding "the Christian Church," denouncing all others as unscriptural. So that Mr. J.N. Darby followed a well-trodden path!

— from Exposition of Hebrews, ch.115 A W Pink.

The article in Present Truth appears to be promoting the movement described by Pink.
The “Camp” the writer to the Hebrews had in mind may well have been the camp in the wilderness as they surrounded the tabernacle. This was God appointed and God approved worship. It fulfilled its purpose and ceased to have purpose with the coming of Christ. But it was more than Judaism that killed the Lord. It was the whole world that crucified Him (see 1 Cor. 2: 8). Christendom didn’t crucify Him. Christendom, though maybe now deep into apostasy, has always acknowledged the person of Christ; His virgin birth, his death, burial, and resurrection.
“Going forth unto Him” is now a personal exercise of the heart for all those who have experienced a conversion and have been added to the local church. They are dead to the world (1 John 3: 1)
We have to point out that so many of those who regard the going forth as a matter of leaving the Baptists and Pentecostals, Presbyterians, and Methodists (mentioned in the article under consideration) have never had a conversion experience. The necessity of a conversion is played down among the Brethren and denied by many of them. We have heard a conference speaker tell his audience he had never been converted but such a confession had no impact on his preaching career. I have yet to discover a mention of the conversion of J N Darby in any biographical works concerning him.
I spent 20 years in an “Outside the Camp” assembly. It was an assembly marked by immorality from its establishment in the 1950’s until its collapse 50 years later. We saw adultery, fornication, sodomy, drunkenness practiced. A Bible class teacher spent evenings teaching the young men to play cards. An elder taught in the assembly that Christ could sin. We never though of leaving because “without were dogs”! However the dogma expressed by Present Truth was strongly adhered to. It was not an Exclusive assembly. It would have been termed by many as “open”.
One would expect “outside the camp” assemblies to be filled with “outside the camp” people!

Did you ever hear of a Muslim preacher who told his audience that the Koran was sprinkled with error? I have never heard of such a thing. But I have been in more than one gospel meeting where the preacher told his audience, “the Bible is wrong in this verse”. Such a man is either a dupe of Satan or is actively engaged in the service of Satan., determined to destroy faith.

This is what Sir Winston Churchill thought about Islam:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

—Sir Winston Churchill, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

No publisher would touch this stuff today. Their premises would be fire-bombed by our home grown allegedly moderate Muslims. Indeed, it appears that this passage has been expunged from the latest edition.

But the leopard cannot change his spots. Islam is as big an enemy as Rome ever was, without its subtlety. last week the daily telegraph reported that a government minister is urging that “children should be taught about the contribution Muslims have made to civilisation.” Islam remains the scourge of civilisation. We preach to these poor Muslims as they pass us in the street. It would be a very costly thing for one of them\to embrace Christ even in this land of the free.

□. Ford said history is bunkum but history has a tendency to repeat itself. If we do not learn from history we shall make the same mistakes. So because we do make the same mistakes history is ever cyclic. What about the mistakes in Jeremiah’s day? They are the errors of the 21^st Century.

We read, he that hath my word, let him speak faithfully. Jer. 23: 28. So spoke Jeremiah. Now the men that mount our platforms place their bible on the dais and read from it. They read (almost invariably) from the Authorized Version of the Scriptures and then they tell\us “the good old AV is wrong here”.

A sword is upon the liars, said Jeremiah. Of course, he was referring to the Chaldeans and Babylonians. Alas, we have too many such on our platforms. What are we to do? We must obey Scripture.

The men who claim to be our teachers today rely on the works of Westcott, Hort, and similar men. The Scripture says Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (Eph. 5: 11)

So we raise our voice against those who handle the word of God deceitfully. And we may need to do it publicly.

On several occasions I have been told “you think you are the only one who is right.” Jeremiah was right. He stood almost alone in his day. But I thank God for so many today who are like-minded with myself and who do not consider the religious system to be higher than truth. The system says, “worship scholarship”.

□A shibboleth : Get your bible teacher to read aloud the last word in Revelation 1: 12. If it sounds like “lampstands” he speaks an alien language and is not a member of the Bible believing family.

□ We recently heard a preacher tell his audience that in the light of Genesis 6; 3, if they rejected the gospel, they might find “they have crossed the line” and God would no longer allow them to get saved. He taught that one could pass the point where it would be impossible to repent. He was not speaking of death and he was not speaking of dementia.

I inferred from his preaching that God’s longsuffering could run out while a man was still fit and well physically.

I do not know of a line that can be crossed because one has gone too long in unbelief. This is not what Genesis 6: 3 teaches.

And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Note: v.1 adam is plural. Men are spoken of. In v.3 adam is singular. The race is seen as one. What applies to one man in this context applies to all. The striving ceases for the whole human race. It is done because of his being flesh and therefore having limited time on this planet.

Note also: spirit is with a small s. The Holy Spirit is not mentioned in this verse. It is the breath God breathed in, as v.17 reveals. The breath of life.

The fact is we are born into disobedience and remain in it until we repent and trust Christ, or death takes us out of it. Only then does God’s grace cease towards the sinner. God’s pleading voice is heard through the gospel\ of Christ and not through emotional appeals or threats. a gospel preached on the wrong application of this verse leads to confusion and false professions of faith.

□D Oliver, in October’s Truth and Tidings, writes of , (I Quote) “the Biblical teaching of gathering to His name”. He knows very well that there is no such Biblical teaching. I challenge him to find one verse of Scripture that teaches this. All right, half a verse will do! Nowhere in my Bible do I read of “gathering to His name”. It is the rallying cry of the Exclusive brethren. They invented the term.

Oliver uses this phrase to suggest that one is not a fully submissive Christian unless one is gathering to His name, i.e one must be a member of the Brethren. I quote again, “.... a believer who does not submit to the Lordship of Christ [who is not Brethren] violates God’s Word and [marrying such] cannot be His will.

So we learn from him that marrying outside the Brethren is a denial of the Lordship of Christ and is outside God’s will. There are seemingly a lot of disobedient Christians among us and a lot of them appear to be happily married.

Marrying in the Lord is to marry one of like precious faith. We are well aware, however, that there are some who are members of a local assembly but have never experienced a conversion. For a believer to marry such would constitute an unequal yoke.

We await a BIBLICAL response from D Oliver.

□The Codex Sinaiticus can now be seen online at codex-siniaticus.net. This is the Greek manuscript found in a waste bin in a popish monastery. It was rejected by early Christians because of its being seriously depraved, but excited Westcott and Hort upon which they built their perverted RV.

I looked to see if the multitude of alterations are visible and sure enough they are —on every page.

This is admitted on the website where we read

“In the Codex, the text of both the Septuagint and the New Testament has been heavily annotated by a series of early correctors.” This speaks for itself. Its depravity remains visible. Despite this, the BBC reports that

“Fundamentalists, who believe every word in the Bible is true, may find these differences [found in the Codex Sinaiticus, and in conflict with every other manuscript} unsettling. Well, we would expect God-haters and latter-day scoffers to say this. If you found a filthy bit of paper in a dustbin and read on it that your mother was a whore, you would, in a rage, destroy your birth certificate, wouldn’t you?

The truth is, all that needs to be known about this manuscript was discovered more than 100 years ago and its uselessness was documented then by Bible believing scholars.

Roger Bolton, reporting for the BBC, concerning the digitising of this Codex, wrote

‘ "It [the Bible] should be regarded as a living text, something constantly changing as generation and generation tries to understand the mind of God," says David Parker, a Christian working on digitising the Codex.

Others may take it as more evidence that the Bible is the word of man, not God.’

What this long rejected popish relic has to do with the Bible I read, he failed to explain. I take this and similar codices to be evidence of the hatred of men toward the things of God.

□ I hadn’t thought until recently that believers would get hooked on internet pornography. There is so much Scripture that helps keep a believer away from this kind of stuff. for instance, As he thinketh in his heart, so he is (Prov. 23: 7).

According to comScore Media Metrix, there were 63.4 million unique visitors to adult websites in December of 2005, reaching 37.2% of the Internet audience.

Another online (unscientific and unsubstantiated) survey in 2006 reported that “50% of Christian men are addicted to pornography”.

It must be a disaster for any believer to get entangled with this evil practice.

An internet organisation known as Covenant Eyes provides a filtering system where the subscriber chooses a mentor who will be able to monitor all websites visited by the subscriber.

I asked the person who told me about this website why it was not sufficient to know the eye of the Lord was upon him.

He had no answer, but there is an answer given by Job, I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid? Job 31: 1.

Job did not make a covenant with any other person., who could then use the information gained to exercise power over him or even blackmail him. The covenant is made before God. It is the kind of covenant that is character forming.

The believer keeps himself conscious that he is ever in the presence of a thrice holy God.

We read some strange things on the Hebron Hall, Bicester, Assembly (Brethren)website.

This stuff is being taught in the Assembly Bible Class

Under “Articles” we find some paragraphs dealing with the humanity of Christ.

Penfold has taken a quote from Adam Clarke;

He took upon Him human nature, and thus became a kinsman of the great family of the human race, and thereby possessed the right of redeeming that fallen nature of which He took part [sin apart], and of buying back to man that inheritance which had been forfeited by transgression.” Adam Clarke.

Aware that this statement denigrates Christ, he has sanitised it by adding the words in square brackets, [sin apart] thereby declaring that though Christ possessed a sinful nature, he was able not to sin. Be fully persuaded that a fallen nature is a sinful nature.

Then he claims that the blood of Christ was indeed corruptible and no longer exists.

Referring to Mark 4: 38, 39, He writes that the Lord performed a miracle in His sleep. This merely shows Penfold hasn’t even bothered to read the passage.

He thinks weariness is an aspect of human nature and hasn’t noticed that animals get tired. They feel pain, get hungry and some can even cry real tears. (Elephants will weep at the death of one of their number.)

Human nature differentiates us from the animal kingdom. Made in the image of God, we have the ability to communicate with God.

There is also a serious alteration of Scripture, when he quotes Gal 4: 4 as “born of a woman”. There is utterly no authority for this. The Scripture tells us the Lord was MADE of a woman.

These are serious errors and believers need to have their attention drawn to them.

Read it for yourselves. Hebron Hall Bicester.

The Apostasy of the Brethren Gospel

I shall refer to one example of Brethren preaching that I listened to recently. It is typical of so many I have heard over the years.

The meeting began with the singing of three gospel hymns. They were “old time” hymns, sung from the Irish Gospel Hymn Book but still popular today with N. I. Brethren and some G B assemblies. They were hymns sung by most evangelical churches in the past. They were hymns I like to sing.

Then came an opening prayer which lasted about one minute. This is probably a good thing too if the desired audience should be made up of unconverted folk, not used to lengthy theological prayers. The praying had been done before the meeting started.

This was followed by the reading of the Bible and here he trouble started. We were told that a few words would be read and they would be applied out of context. They were “For how long shall thy journey be?” Neh. 2: 6.

There were no good gospel passages for the preacher to use apparently. He indicated by his use of Scripture his low regard for it. His message was to be a succession of semi-related anecdotes. He would not be relying on Scripture to apply his message and he quoted no texts during his preaching.

One appreciates that it is difficult to mention every gospel word or phrase within the bounds of a 45 minute gospel message but to make no mention at all of the cross? Not only was the cross ignored but also no mention was made of Lord, Jesus, virgin birth, the blood, deity, resurrection, repentance, conversion, faith, trust, forgiveness, pardon ,lake of fire, eternal punishment, baptism, Scripture.

It was all a succession of anecdotes. Some were quite moving and one felt one’s emotions being stirred. Some appeared totally irrelevant. We were told of the surgeon who stopped to ask a drink at a house while out walking. The little girl of the house brought him a glass of milk. Later the little girl was taken ill and needed surgery. The surgeon, unrecognised, performed the operation and as the family was poor he wrote on his bill, “Paid in full —with one glass of milk.”

I missed what theological point this fulfilled. I think it was we can gain salvation with as little as a glass of milk. Certainly not “nothing to pay” because the little girl had done something to merit her bill being paid.

The meeting closed with a short prayer for people to get right with God and another gospel hymn.

Those present appeared to be impressed with this message. None showed any concern that this did not relate to the gospel revealed in the New Testament.

This was not the preaching of the cross; it was not even mentioned! No suggestion was made that the convert would have to change his life style. Eugene Higgins certainly did not preach Christ crucified. It was not the Christian gospel.

Ron and Joyce, Ruby wedding anniversary, '02

The Biblical Teaching relating to Marriage


Gen. 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

This is the first verse that speaks of the marriage state.
The meaning of “cleaving” is as we understand it in Dt.10: 20; Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God; him shalt thou serve and to him shalt thou cleave.
This means to be joined to and to adhere to, to the exclusion of all other rivals and interests. Having left his parents the man cleaves to his wife. The cleaving is not consummation, which is a single act. Cleaving is a continuing condition. It is a joining in marriage. From this moment they are one flesh in the sight of God. God calls the two one flesh. Consummation is mentioned only once in Scrip-ture, at Daniel 9: 27, and has nothing to do with marriage.
The Lord quoted Gen 2: 24 and added a rider- Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Mtt. 19: 6 The joining is made by God when the two become man and wife and no man may put asunder. This will include the man himself regarding his wife. The joining has nothing to do with consummation because it is God Who does the joining. These two verses define “one flesh”. In this context it is a man and a woman joined in marriage and has nothing to do with joining to harlots or to casual relationships.
Illicit joining as mentioned in 1 Cor.6: 19, What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh is not marriage and does not break the marriage bond. This is a union that mocks and defiles the Biblical institution of marriage.

When Adam knew his wife, she conceived. Gen.4: 1 She was already his wife. They had already become one flesh. English law may permit the annulment of a marriage on the grounds of non-consummation but the Scriptures do not allow such. Such annulment is the putting asunder by man.
It is not reasonable to quote Levitical practices…..we are not subject to Mosaic law.

Are there any grounds whereby a believer may divorce their spouse?
The only ground given is that of Mt 5:32, But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adul-tery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
The first thing to notice about this verse is that it differen-tiates between fornication and adultery. They are not the same. There is no tautology in Scripture. Matt. 19: 9 , Gal. 5: 19, 1 Cor.6: 9 have these two mentioned together. Fornication includes all unlawful sexual intercourse while adultery involves married persons.

Divorce was permitted under Moses because of the hard-ness of their hearts. The Lord hardened the heart of Pha-roah. Hardness of heart is the mark of the unregenerate. Mark 6: 52, 8: 17. Therefore those seeking divorce demon-strate by their hardness of heart that they are unregenerate. Divorce ought not to be found among believers.

Saving for the cause of fornication must not be inter-preted in isolation. Other Scriptures relating to this subject must be taken into consideration. We read in Luke 16: 18,
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth anoth-er, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adul-tery.
Here there is no exclusion clause. The Lord was speaking to a company of Pharisees who were deriding Him. The Lord made this unequivocal statement: Remarriage for either partner constitutes adultery.
Also we read in Mark 10: 11,12, this time speaking pri-vately to His disciples, And he saith unto them, Whoso-ever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Again there is no exception clause. If there were to be an exception clause then we believe the Lord would have made it clear to His disciples. They did not ask Him if there were an exception clause.

It is sometimes argued that despite the Lord’s words, Deut. 24: 1 shows that God permits divorce and remar-riage. It must be noted that the woman in Deut. 24: 1 is not innocent. An earlier uncleanness has been discovered by her husband. If she having been divorced then marries another, v4 shows that she has been defiled by the second marriage and may under no circumstance return to her former husband. The prospect of a third husband is simply not countenanced in Scripture.
That Deut. 24: 1 does not imply that God approved of divorce and remarriage is seen in Deut. 21: 15, If a man have two wives… If God approves of divorce and remar-riage, He also approves of bigamy, and we must be just as free today to practice it. These practices, though wide-spread, were never according to the mind of God.

But what of the innocent previously unmarried man or woman who marries a divorced person and then gets divorced by this person? The argument is that God recog-nises only the first marriage. This later marriage which has ended wasn’t recognised by God so the innocent person is therefore free to marry. Those who use this argument make a play of the word “recognise”. The Bible says nothing about what God does or does not recognise.
The first marriage, God owns, as shown in Genesis 2. A second marriage is contrary to God’s will, but it is still a marriage and is a “one flesh” bond as 1 Cor.6: 19 shows. A person committing this sin and who is afterwards con-verted will need to break this sinful relationship and live apart.
One of the weirdest arguments in support of divorcees remarrying has been put out by M Penfold of Penfold Book and Bible House. Penfold, a severe critic of the AV Bible, claims that only the act of remarriage constitutes adultery. The pair still together the next day after their marriage are therefore NOT committing adultery. There-fore, he argues, they are fit for fellowship.
This argument is based on what he calls the ‘gnomic’ present. He writes,

….in Matthew 13v14 we are told the man “goeth and selleth….and buyeth that field.” Here are three present tenses, none of which refer to an ongoing series of events. The man was not always going, he was not always selling and certainly he was not always buying that field. It was, by the very nature of the story, a once for all transaction and yet it is related in the present tense. Such examples could be multiplied. Thye present tense is very frequent on statements of general principle and fact. Grammari-ans call such a tense the ‘gnomic’ present.

Penfold chooses to ignore the consequences of actions described in the present tense. The field remained the man’s purchased possession. The divorced person remar-rying remains in the adulterous relationship.

Maxims or aphorisms may be described as gnomic. Be-cause they are wise sayings and permanently true they are usually in the present tense. For example: “A rolling stone gathers no moss”.
These sayings, however, are not restricted to the present tense. Thus they have sown the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind (Hos 8: 7) may be regarded by some as a gnomic saying but has no present tense.
However, it debases the words of the Lord to reduce them to gnomic utterances (as the wisdom of gnomes) as though some of His words were maybe not so wise as to be considered “gnomic” I personally regard the inference as blasphemous
.
So moicatai found in Mtt.19: 9 and translated “committeth” is claimed to be gnomic and applies only to the act of marrying!
It is in any case a matter of opinion among the “scholars” as to whether the statement is gnomic. It remains an opinion which not many Bible believers will adhere to.

So what about Matt.5: 32 and 19: 9. ? The verses must be understood within their own context. They cannot be in conflict with Mark and Luke. Matt.19: 3 helps us to grasp the context, The Pharisees also came unto him, tempt-ing him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? The Pharisees were tempting the Lord on a matter relating to Mosaic law. The passage has a Jewish context. The putting away on the ground of fornication had to do with the Jewish betrothal system, the fornication occurring during this period.
The engagement of a couple in our Western culture does not relate to Jewish betrothal. It is not to be seen as a modern equivalent. There is no moral, spiritual, or legal requirement for engagement. (This does not mean that it is wrong). This writer was never engaged to be married to his wife.
If a Christian should find that his or her spouse had com-mitted fornication ―that is, had been unfaithful before marriage―there is still no Scriptural ground for divorce. Deception, and dishonesty and lies would have been in-volved in cheating their partner, but the joining of the two was in the presence of God and may not be put asunder. However we do not think a believer would stoop to this evil level of deception, the Scriptures assuring us that those who persist in adultery and fornication are not saved, Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abus-ers of themselves with mankind (1 Cor.6: 9) such were some of you, the apostle goes on to say, demonstrating that what sins were practiced before conversion are not practiced subsequently. There were no divorced and re-married persons in fellowship at Corinth. One may not divorce on the ground that maybe the spouse was not saved. The bond remains.

A person who has been divorced and remarries is, in the words of the Lord, an adulterer. We may have sympathy with the presumed innocent partner but remarriage consti-tutes adultery and this state remains while the couple remain together. It will not be possible for believers to have fellowship with them either in the assembly or in the home.

Some are facing this problem with their own children and are compromising the truth for the sake of family relation-ships. We can have full sympathy with such in their sadnesses but faithfulness to God is paramount. Assembly life is damaged when remarried persons are brought in.

Where a firm and bold stand is taken then repentance and restoration may follow.

Waymarks 44 Spring 2006

Report of Open Air Preaching

16^th November LUTON TOWN CENTRE. Market Hill. Preached as usual, beginning by quoting John 3:16 – 19. A young girl came and stood next to me. As she didn’t interrupt, I turned to speak to her, which was a mistake. Her first question was “Have you considered the Church of the Latter Day Saints?” I think she called it by a different name, but I can’t remember it.

I explained that I came across this evil cult 50 years ago and I would like to ask her a question, “What think ye of Christ? Do you acknowledge Him to be the Son of God, eternal, uncreated?” “Oh yes” came the reply, “our church teaches that”. So you acknowledge Him to be in full possession of Deity, in equality with the Father, the fullness of the Godhead residing in Him?” “Definitely not” she replied. “So you just lied to me, didn’t you?” “Do you not know that Christ said, ‘before Abraham was, I Am’?”

I tried to warn her away from this pernicious cult and turn to Christ for salvation but she turned away, and her parting shot was, “I hope you soon find the way!” I just had time to tell her I found The Way more than 50 years ago.

I started to preach and again was interrupted. Two young men had a theological problem. It seemed they believed in Creation, but why didn’t\the Bible say more about it? “Isn’t there enough?” I asked. “How much does one need in order to believe it?”

They tried a different approach. “Why does the Bible talk about a man going about naked and causing trouble for his son?” I had to think about this one. “I think you are talking about Noah after the flood.” I replied. I explained this incident to them and told them why this record was given in Scripture. This seemed to satisfy them so they went on their way. I think they were Muslims.

8^th December DUNSTABLE Ashton Square. A woman tapped my arm as I was preaching. When I stopped she told me how God had spoken to her fifteen years ago, and had given her instructions as to how He was going to judge the world. She was not permitted to pass these instructions on lest she was recognized. I tried to tell her that God had written it all down for anybody to read,. She confessed she had never read the Bible. I started to tell her how she might avoid this judgment but it became clear that the poor woman had mental problems. The roadsweeper who stopped near to us was, she declared, a spy. He was searching the rubbish to collect evidence against her, she told me. However she did accept a copy of The Reason Why but she couldn’t understand why I was giving it to her. Her name is Mary. (I ask people their names so that I can pray for them.)

4^th January LTC. George Street. I began in my usual way by quoting John 3: 16 but was not half way through the verse when I was interrupted. A man wanted me to hear his life story. This I have discovered is often a prelude to a request for the bus fare home or for the price of a cup\of tea. It was bus fare in the case of this man. But he slipped up by telling me he was living rough. He was also clean shaven. However, as he had accepted a Reason Why from me, I thought a pound towards his fare might induce him to read it.

I did manage to give him a little of my life story ─ the bit where I got saved.

11^th January LTC. A young woman stood listening to the gospel. She appeared to approve of what she heard. When I finished she came over to speak to me, and asked me what were my ecclesiastical connections. I told her where I met with other Christians should she be interested in coming along. I took her to be a believer but then noticed that she was carrying a wad of papers and I could just see the heading on the top one. It read Our Lady, help of Christians. I thought therefore if she found no fault in my preaching I must be losing my grip. Then it struck me that she was seriously brainwashed, accepting all\my statements as within her own experience. That is, being RC she would believe herself to be “born again”, “converted” ,”saved” “on the way to heaven” “forgiven” or whatever. This is a ruse of popery. One must not think that a person who regularly attends mass, thereby blaspheming the name of Christ, could be a saved person.

1^st February LTC. When I began to preach several Asians came and sat nearby. It seemed a little ominous but they did not oppose me in any way. Of course, if they were faithful to the Koran they would kill me and along with all non-muslims. At present, in this country they are afraid of the consequences. But today they listened to the gospel and maybe one soul might be brought into the light. They heard today that the true and living God is the One Saviour God and is Father of the only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world.

We have to bear in mind that Muslims are brainwashed into their religion. Fear and violence are the tools used in brainwashing. More than one child told me when I was teaching, that they were beaten by the imams for not learning the Koran fast enough. The imams would knuckle them on their heads. This goes on in England today. One child told me her cousin received brain damage by this treatment. When the call comes we do not doubt that all the “peace loving” moderate Muslims will rise up.

Why did “moderate” Muslims stage a demonstration against a few cartoons that had been published months earlier? Why do they not demonstrate against Saudi Muslims who hold Mohammed in contempt?

AV Verses Vindicated

Matthew 9: 13

But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

“to repentance” is missing from modern versions. This explains why repentance is missing from modern preaching. The Lord said, except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish. The removal of repentance ensures that multitudes of false Christians will go to the lake of fire.

The words are well attested in the Greek manuscripts and were removed in a few spurious manuscripts.

We note that J N Darby chopped these Spirit given words from his own translation. This will account for the unwillingness to preach repentance by those who follow Darby today.

Matthew 12: 40

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Some do not like the idea of Jonah being swallowed by a whale. They have even suggested, quite falsely, that whales have never been known in the Mediterranean Sea. They think it was a great fish. The biggest fish, the whale shark, is incapable of swallowing anything but plankton. ketos (whale) is found here only in the New Testament and scholars are unable to determine its derivation. It is better then simply to believe the Bible.

The whale is mentioned in Gen. 1:21, and God created great whales (tanniyn = land or sea monster), Job 7: 2, Am I a sea, or a whale and the same Hebrew word is found again in Ezek. 32: 2 Thou art as a whale.

We learn in Jonah 1:17 The Lord had prepared a great fish and in 2: 10 The Lord spoke unto the fish and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry ground. (dag= fish; often used collectively-Strong). No fish can swallow a man whole. The word dag is inclusive. Its first usage in Gen. 9: 2 reveals this. Three classes of creatures are mentioned; beasts of the earth, fowls of the air, and fishes of the sea. Whales therefore must fit into one of these three categories. Believers do not swallow the great lie of evolution so they know whales are categorized with the fishes of the sea.

John 18: 5,6

I am he. (ego eime)

Those who claim this to be an expression of deity, and that he should be omitted from the reading will have to grant the same for the man who received his sight in John 9: 9.

He identified himself likewise with the words “I am he,” (ego eime)

See my notes on John 18: 5,6 in AV Verses Vindicated, Vol.1, Matt – Romans.

Acts 4: 24

And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:

Modern versions alter Thou art God to “thou art he”. Men do not like the deity of God to be acknowledged. The expression is in the Received Text.

By the Way....

I thought that What is wrong with the Brethren in issue No.43 would raise a few eyebrows if not objections. Only one person asked to be removed from my mailing list. At least I know that one person

So, a little more about our non-discerning teaching fraternity. One of them told me a long time ago that he did not ask questions concerning internal problems in any assembly he might visit. No of course not. One might not feel so free to visit an assembly if one knew a leading brother there thought the Lord capable of any sin. One’s engagements might dwindle if “judgments” are made.

There exists in Luton and Dunstable a Fellowship of Churches. There are two in fact that overlap. There is the united South Bedfordshire Missionary organisation, comprising Onslow Road Gospel Hall, Selbourne Gospel Hall, Birdsfoot Lane Felllowship, and Langdale Evangelical Church. This latter is also a member of Dunstable Fellowship of Evangelical Churches, together with West Street Baptist Church and Dunstable Baptist Church. Most of the Brethren “Teachers” have no qualms associating with this liberal neo-evangelical conglomeration. They tell me they don’t agree with it but maybe their ministry will have an impact. So they don’t really believe in separation.

A correspondent writes,

“I realize that some do not appreciate your critical style of writing, but if it promotes a study of the Scriptures, so that one might rightly divide them, and they become better workmen for Him, I cannot see why they raise so many objections.”

Those who object to my criticisms are usually supportive of the Critical Text! It is this CT, promoted by our teaching fraternity, that is the main object of my criticisms. Those who hold to the CT tend to be very uncritical of it, and very undiscerning. Very few have examined the issues involved. They hold to it with a blind and bigoted tenacity. The very foundation of the faith is a Bible we can trust implicitly from cover to cover. That is how it was for me fifty years ago. Now I have to make choices; do I believe my Bible or do I believe the preacher? It is often impossible to do both. But for me there is in fact no choice. Let God be true and every man a liar.

If a man criticises my Bible I shall be very wary of his doctrines. If I hear him do this once I shall not go and listen to him the second time.

We read in the Ritchie publication Believers Magazine, February 2006, these words, ''After the darkness of those three hours.-.. what joy, what relief it must have been to Him now to cry ''Father" taking His position again as the Son of God."

Thus Brethren now teach that for three hours Christ ceased to hold the position of the Son of God. The implication of this statement is Christ was not God’s Son for three hours.

The writer goes on, ".... Back from the Godforsaken position, back into the Father's hands...."

Was the Son of God ever out of the Father's hands?

Was Isaac on Moriah out of Abraham's hands? Did God the Father show less love to His S on than did Abraham to Isaac ? Did Isaac cease to be Abraham’s son for a while? Was Christ indeed only forsaken for the three hours of darkness? This view depends on the twisting of Scripture to read "Why didst Thou forsake me?"

The same expression occurs in 2 Tim. 4: 10, Demas hath forsaken me. I understand that the same Greek word and tense is used in both places. So perhaps Demas DID forsake Paul for a while but was restored by the time Paul wrote his epistle?

Campbell Morgan wrote concerning the three hours of darkness,

I submit thoughtfully that no interpretation of that darkness is to be trusted save that of the Lord who experienced it. Has He flung any light on the darkness which will enable us to apprehend the meaning of the darkness? Did any word escape His lips that will help us to explain those silent hours? I think the answer is to be found in these narratives, and to that teaching of the Lord we appeal in order that we may consider the meaning of the darkness, and the passing of the darkness, and thereafter attempt reverently to look back at the transaction in the darkness.

The Lord said This is your hour and the power of darkness. (Lk. 22: 53) God is light, and in him is no darkness at all (1 John 1: 5). What communion hath light with darkness? (2 Cor. 6: 14) Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness. (Eph. 5: 11)

Satan rules the darkness of this world (Eph. 6: 12). The kingdom of the beast is to be full\of darkness.

The awful darkness of those three hours was permitted by the Father. There is no Scripture that tells us what took place during those hours and therefore it is not for us to know.

Another strange teaching I heard recently is, I quote, “on earth the Lord laid aside his manifestations of deity”. If changing water into wine is not a manifestation of deity then it must have been some kind of conjuring trick. John tells us the miracle was a manifestation of His glory. Such glory, openly displayed there at Cana, was the glory pertaining to deity.

There in the New Bradwell Gospel Hall we heard a direct attack on the person of Christ. It was made by B Chapman, a trustee of the liberal Counties organisation which is interdenominational and promotes female preachers.

New Cambridge Paragraph Bible

We reviewed the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible in Issue no.40. We pointed out it is an attempt to return the AV to its pre-1629 condition. Thus all the typological errors have been replaced. Even obvious printers errors have been replaced.

We are rather surprised therefore to read a favourable review on Ian Paisley's Website .

Paisley wrote a book ''A plea for the old Sword '- A defence of the AV Bible which is well worth reading.

Now we learn that ' Some of the more antiquated aspects, have been 'eased out" And the Apocrypha has been' eased back in" . so what about Paisley’s “old Sword”. Does he think that after all, in line with all reformists, that it is a bit blunt after all? And it seems he is not so anti- Rome after all. The Apocrypha has been returned to this neo-AV Bible.

Inspiration and Infallibility of Scripture according to J N Darby

Darby was unswerving in his belief that the Bible was the inspired, infallible Word of God, absolutely authoritative and faithfully transmitted from the original autographs. If the world itself were to disappear and be annihilated, asserts Darby, "and the word of God alone remained as an invisible thread over the abyss, my soul would trust in it. After deep exercise of soul I was brought by grace to feel I could entirely. I never found it fail me since. I have often failed; but I never found it failed me." ─Larry V Crutchfield; John Nelson Darby; Defender of the Faith.

If Darby thought this about the Bible, why did he rewrite it? Or was he speaking of his own version?

Dishonour to the Holy Spirit according to W E Vine

(taken from The Mistaken Term, “The Brethren” by W E Vine)

[Those meeting in Gospel Halls] cannot help what others call them, but that any in such companies should tacitly accept this unscriptural title [of Brethren] is greatly to be deprecated. Its use is dishonouring to the Spirit of God and a falsification of the actual position of any Scripturally formed assembly. The flippant or jocular way in which the appellation, or some modification of it such as "the P.B.'s" or "the Plyms," is sometimes used, is also to be deprecated. The work of the Holy Spirit in enabling believers to gather according to the Scriptures, to be formed into local assemblies by His power and with the recognition of His rights and prerogatives to provide spiritual gifts for the care of each company, and to control and guide their worship, is all too sacred to permit of the use of such terms. There are those who do so who have never discovered the truth from the Word of God, and are ignorant of what the Scriptures teach as to assembly principles and of the way in which they are being maintained. Such epithets are part of the misunderstanding or taunts which those who are faithful to Christ have to endure, but let them never be accepted or used by any members of such assemblies themselves.

Any other forms of gathering than what is practiced by those “mistakenly called the brethren” is, wrote Vine, the traditions of the systems of Christendom. In other words, Baptists, Methodists, Free Evangelical Churchers, ets, dishonour the Holy Spirit by their very association. Their ecclesiastical practices have to be regarded as anathema and the true brother will shun them.

I happen to agree with what was taught by Vine and others concerning the local assembly of believers relating to most of our practices. I have been in assembly fellowship for 50 years and entered by deep personal conviction which is not the case for most. I am not considering going elsewhere. But there is an aspect that disturbs me very much concerning our leading brethren. I include those who were in at the beginning of the Gospel Hall era , Darby, Kelly, Wigram, up to present times. There is a united hostility to the Authorized Bible and there always has been. There is a united hostility to the preaching of repentance and there always has been. So can our leaders be trusted in what they teach?

W E Vine had no problems having fellowship with the Brethren apostate, F F Bruce. They were both scholars. Bruce, in his forward to Vine’s Dictionary, tells how Vine drew on the wells of infidelity to produce his Dictionary. He leaned heavily on the Nazi Kittel for definitions of Greek words. Kittel was a Nazi war criminal and was tried and found guilty at Nuremberg.

Vine thought that an educated godless Jew hater was of far more value than a saved ploughboy in touch with his God.

If our leaders are desperately wrong in fundamental issues how could they be so dogmatically right in how we meet together? I only ask because I would like to know. I can think of no matter more fundamental than whether God has given us a trustworthy Bible or not. The Brethren say “NOT”!

Who are the Overcomers?

The overcomers of Scripture are believers of course.

One of the clearest verses on this is 1 John 5: 4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

The born again believer overcomes the world. This is not merely a goal to aim at. It is a victory won and held on the grounds of faith. The non-overcomer is without faith.

1 John 5: 5. says Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God. The person who never overcomes the world does not believe Jesus to be the Son of God. We note that in the defective gospel now being preached there is no call to believe Jesus to be the Son of God. 9

The overcomers at Ephesus (Rev. 2) will eat of the tree of life. The non-overcomers therefore will not eat of the tree of life. I.e. they miss heaven.

At Smyrna the overcomer will not be hurt of the second death. The, non-overcomer therefore goes to the Lake of Fire.

Pergamos overcomers likewise will enjoy the blessings of eternal life throughout eternity and the overcomers will miss out. The Thyatiran overcomers marked by faithfulness, will sit in judgment over the nations. The Sardian overcomers will be clothed in white raiment and their names are secure in the book of life. The non-overcomer will perish, his name being excluded from the book of life. The Philadelphian overcomer has a secure place in heaven. The non-overcomer we believe has a place in hell.

Finally, at Laodicea the overcomer shares with Christ upon His throne.

In all these seven churches the overcoming is associated with the trials that had to be borne. Read also Re. 21: 7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. It is seen that the overcomer is the one with an inheritance and is among the sons of God.

The young men (believers) have overcome the wicked one 1 John 2: 13. They are not exhorted to overcome Satan, They have done it through being converted.

Little children (in the faith) have overcome the evil spirits with their false doctrines. 1 John 4: 4.

The converted soul is an overcomer. All true believers are overcomers. This does not teach sinless perfection but the converse denies the eternal security of the soul.

Why I pray using “Thee” and “Thou”

I pray privately and publicly using “thee” and “thou” because that is how I was taught when I first got saved in 1955. My teachers taught me by example. They were all young men under the age of 25 and they came from a variety of denominations. We were all servicemen.

In those days no one thought of praying differently. This was largely because we all held to the Authorized Bible. This version maintained the singular forms even though they had passed out of common usage in the English language before it was printed in 1611 AD. They were kept because they made an accurate translation from the Greek and Hebrew. Their usage in prayer gives a more reverent approach to the Father.

I pray using these singular personal pronouns not because of tradition . I was not brought up in Christian circles.

I was able to pray in this manner from the day I got saved. This had nothing to do with my education. I listened and learned.

I find that usually those who pray in modern style have little regard for the AV Bible and move in liberal neo-evangelical circles.

“Thee and thou” forms are still maintained in wedding services and other ceremonial occasions; e.g “I Tom Brown, take thee, Mary Jones, to be my lawful wedded wife”. There is a connotation of intimacy and affection in this.

I thank God for the English language which allows me to address deity in terms not found generally on the lips of the ungodly. If other languages do not allow this its users are that much the poorer.

A Lucky Dip Religion

Some people have a “lucky dip” religion. Their only recourse to a personal time of devotion is when they read their daily notes on the tear-off calendar. Or, in times of emergency they will open their bible at random in order to seek guidance.

Most of us know the story of one man who did this. In a crisis he opened his bible for advice and read, concerning Judas,”He went and hanged himself”. This was not quite what he wanted so he had another try. This time he read, “That thou doest, do quickly”.

Elective Grace

I have put in the box below every verse of Scripture relating to “elective grace”.

Elective grace is an old wive’s fable, derived from Calvinism. It is taught nowhere in Scripture and such a fable maligns the nature of God.

Critica Biblica

Critica Biblica, or Critical Notes on the Old testament Writings, was written by T K Cheyne, d.Litt., D.D,, Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford and Formerly Fellow of Balliol College, Canon of Rochester.

The humble ploughboy would have been deeply awed by such a learned gentleman. But we fear that as his book was published in 1904, he has long since been consigned to the everlasting flames of hell. The book reveals a burning hatred towards God and towards the work of the Holy Spirit.

I will give you but one example of his work and I think you will then agree with me as to his eternal fate. (unless he got converted at a later date. If he was converted he would no doubt have been at great pains to withdraw his blasphemous works from circulation.}

Cheynes comments on Jonah,

The story in the Book of Jonah is, in fact, most probably a Midrash on 2 Ki. xiv. 25, explaining how the capital of Jerahmeel escaped destruction. ....The story of the tempest and the lot-casting may have once had an independent existence, and referred to some other person than jonah. it looks much like folk-lore. The “great fish” seems an editorial edition in the style of the reference to the dragon in Jer. li. 34, 44; it implies the favourite dragon-myth.. In iii. 3 the editor [the reader must understand that Jonah didn’t write Jonah] fell into much error.

Those who deny the account in Jonah of his being swallowed by a whale, Mtt. 12: 40, deny Christ, His death and resurrection. Those who argue that the word should be fish will argue themselves into hell. Those who argue that there were/are no whales in the Mediterranean are too ignorant to bother with.

The second largest animal ever to have lived on this planet, the Fin Whale, is still seen in the Med. it grows up to 24 meters in length and weighs up to 80 tons. It feeds by swallowing large amounts at a time causing their throat furrows to expand.

The biggest fish is the Whale Shark which is a plankton eater (cannot swallow humans). The biggest fish do not have bellies as does the fin whale. Belly means hollow; cavity.

Cheynes was a mocker and today he has many sons and daughters.

******

QUOTE: “ When I go on a school visit I don’t go in with both guns blazing”.

"Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the
blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the
counsel of God." Acts 20:26-27

QUOTE: “We find that headteachers are very appreciative of our visits”.

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

Elder: Do you really believe your Bible from cover to cover?

Young man: Yes.

Elder: And do you believe it word for word?

Young man: Yes

Elder: And syllable by syllable?

Young man: Yes.

Elder: You’re obviously a KJV-Onlyer. A fanatic and an extremist. We won’t allow you to preach on our platform.

How not to defend the AVaccording to the English Churchman.

The English Churchman is a fortnightly newspaper. It carries a lot of anti-Rome news and is strongly Reformist. In the issue number 7679, 6^th & 13^th January 2006, E T Kirkland has an article “how not to defend the AV”.

He is angry with believers who believe the Authorized Version implicitly. These he describes as KJVOnlyers who “resort to neo-orthodox Bartianism (sic)”. Possibly he meant Barthianism. The article was very poorly proof-read.

Kirkland bases his argument in favour of a defective Authorized Bible on the grounds that there are two people who make outrageous claims for its perfection. These two are Ruckman and Riplinger. These two do indeed make strange claims for the AV and both are abusive towards those who disagree with them. They are extremists and their views are not shared by the majority of Bible believers. Kirkland knows this but they are useful to him in his attack.

Kirkland claims that God has preserved His word but not in modern versions. He does not go so far as to say the AV is the preserved word of God for then he would have to claim that God had preserved a lot of imperfections with it. The conclusion would be that the AV merely contains the word of God, or most of it, along with all the blemishes.

Kirkland’s god is indeed a god of blemishes. Kirkland appears never to have experienced a Biblical conversion. He writes, “the AV is the word of God, not because we say so, nor on the grounds of a mystical experience.” This is an ambiguous statement. We suspect he is referring to those who have been born again and hold to the Authorized Bible by faith. He is an ardent Calvinist.

The following issue of the EC continued to denigrate the AV Bible with an attack by W D Lewis. Most of his attack was based also on Ruckman and Riplinger. He also found fault with J Moorman over his article on the terms Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost as found in the AV Bible. Those who have read Moorman’s Conies, Brass & Easter (Lewis appears unaware this is a collection of articles) where this discussion is found, even if they do not agree with him (I do) will be compelled to admit this is an acceptable and balanced explanation of why the two terms are kept in the AV. Lewis scathingly points out that the Mormans use the AV, “and make a distinction between “Holy Ghost” and “Holy Spirit”. In Mormanism the “Holy Ghost” is a personage, or a god, but the “Holy Spirit” is an impersonal force. Of course, this very strange doctrine was never held by the early Church, and is not held by mainstream Christianity today.”

We note Lewis is unable to fault Dr Moorman’s exegesis. His remarks plainly do not relate to Dr Moorman’s words at all.

The English Churchman while containing much useful information, is committed to the errors of Calvinism and the denigration of the Authorized Bible. The Trinitarian Bible Society is in the same camp along with Bible League.

I have no problems believing an omnipotent God is able to preserve His word inerrantly between the covers of one Book. The blemishes are in the eye of the beholder.

The following article is taken from the Way of Life Website. It deals with an issue that is denied by many among us today. viz. that doctrine is not affected by changes in the modern versions.

DO THE MODERN VERSIONS CHANGE DOCTRINE?

[Distributed by Way of Life Literature?s Fundamental Baptist Information Service. Copyright by David W. Cloud. These articles cannot be stored on BBS or Internet sites and cannot be sold or placed by themselves or with other material in any electronic format for sale, but may be distributed for free by e-mail or by print. They must be left intact and nothing removed or changed, including these informational headers. This is a listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. Our goal is not devotional but is TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. If you desire to receive this type of material on a regular basis, e-mail us, give us your name, address, and the name of the church you are a member of, and request to be placed on the list.

Please note that this is not a free service. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and each subscriber is expected to participate. To unsubscribe or to submit a change of address, send your name and the request to fbns@wayoflife.org. This is not an automated list. Changes in the database often require two to four days to activate. Some of these articles are from O Timothy magazine. David W. Cloud, Editor. O Timothy is a monthly magazine in its 17th year of publication. Subscription is $20/yr. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site - http://www.wayoflife.org.]

February 11, 1996 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, fbns@wayoflife.org) - The following material first appeared in /O Timothy/ magazine, Volume 12, Issue 3, 1995.

Many contend that the modern Greek texts and the new versions do not change doctrine. These do not understand the nature of the changes which have been made. This is something akin to Neo-orthodoxy. The critical text is not a frontal attack on truth; it is a clever infiltration. The attack of the modern versions is not tanks blasting; it is termites eating. The modern versions don't wholly omit doctrines (unless it is the doctrine of fasting) but they undermine many doctrines, and doctrine in general, by deleting repetitious passages, omitting titles of Christ, deleting a key passage here and there, questioning other key passages—a little cut here, a little doubt there. It is easy to underestimate the overall effect. The eclectic Greek text upon which the modern versions are founded is a shorter text than the Received Text underlying the King James Bible. The modern text omits thousands of words and phrases, an amount of text equaling the entire books of 1 and 2 Peter.

The area of repetition is an interesting one. In Genesis 41:32 Joseph explains to Pharaoh why God repeated the dream. It was to reinforce the authority and impact of the message. Jesus Christ often used the term "verily, verily" to emphasize the importance of what He was saying. Many phrases are repeated almost to tediousness in the Bible. "They shall know that I am the Lord" in Ezekiel is an example. Peter's vision prior to his being sent to Cornelius shows how God uses repetition to reinforce a point. He repeated the vision three times. This is the purpose of biblical repetition. Yet the critical text and the modern versions reduce the repetition and thereby reduce the power and impact of God's Word in a subtle yet very real manner. For example, Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4 have the same warning that man lives by every word of God. That message is weakened in the modern versions by the omission of the last half of the verse in Luke 4:4. Christ's sermon on Hell in Mark 9 contains another example. That is a passage that shook me up before I was saved. It is probably the most powerful sermon on Hell in the Bible. Three times Christ repeated His warning that Hell is a place "where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (verses 44,46,48).

This sermon in the modern versions is not as hot. It is hot, because the fire is still there in verse 44, but it is not as hot as the sermon in the Received Text and the KJV, because verses 46 and 48 are omitted.

By removing some of the repetition of the Bible, the modern versions weaken the overall standard of doctrine. The critical text is shorter roughly by the amount of text equal to the entire books of 1 and 2 Peter. And the critical text is weak; it is soft; it is less forceful; overall it is more hesitant in presenting the great doctrines of the faith. It IS a theologically corrupt text.

See also "Bible Doctrines Affected by Modern Versions"

<../../articles/doctrine.htm>

TREGELLES AND CO

This statement is taken from brethren.org.nz/about the brethren.

A comparatively large proportion of the first generation of Brethren were well-trained biblical scholars. Many brought into the movement, and continued to build on, credible theological degrees. The contribution of some like G.V.Wigram and S.P.Tregelles to philology and textual criticism is still respected in academic circles today. This dependence on those who have offered their biblical scholarship in the service of our churches has continued though often publicly deprecated right up to today. W.E.Vine and F.F.Bruce are household names to my generation, not only to those who are Christian Brethren but also to evangelical households - globally. The recent calls for a return to the study of our biblical roots highlight the importance of all of us especially the full-time bible teachers amongst us digging deeper in serious study of the scriptures once more. The swing in New Zealand during the 1980s and 1990s to a merely subjective personal spiritual experience has proved inadequate as a foundation for effective faith. We are witnessing a fresh hunger for the objective, but personally experienced, teaching of the Word of God to give some depth to spiritual claims. This is an open invitation to re-present for the good of the whole Christian community what we claim to have known as central in our movement since the beginning.

The four men mentioned were scholars indeed. Their hostility to the Received Text has been well documented. Bruce’s hostility to evangelical truth is well known. These men have done much towards the apostasy of “Brethrenism” and, it seems, towards the apostasy of evangelical Christendom generally.

We note that a “subjective personal spiritual experience” is decried among New Zealand assemblies. Does this mean that in the 1980s and 1990s many false professions were being made? Does it mean that for 20 years those who got saved showed an opposition to the critical text brigade and now they have been overcome? I don’t know. A return to what these four men promoted will bring disaster.

"Shadows Changed"

See, the rows are emptied of their wards,

The cobwebs hang across the mildewed boards;

Windows are smashed; the door hangs off, and more—

A torn Youth Praise lies wretched on the floor.

"What made them go?” I whispered to my ancient guide.

"An evil spirit passed this way, and passing, lied.

Soughing low to that murmuring throng,

'You cannot trust your Bible for the wording is all wrong!'"

"They should not have listened!" I cried with dread.

My mentor shook his wizened head.

Mere lackeys to the Foe’s great force.

He charmed them into thinking they were wise,

Thus folly brought them to this sad demise."

"So all is lost?" I searched my friend's wan face.

"Not so!" he cried and pushed into my embrace

A Book. —The Old One, with language that we'd once adored.

I read; the shadows changed, and looking up, I saw my Lord.

R S

A paper copy of Waymarks can be sent to you if you email me. (UK only)

Ron

waymarks@ntlworld.com