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* We understand Mr Hughes and family have now (December 2012) withdrawn from fellowship at Spencerbridge Road Assembly, Northampton because of their holding to false doctrine.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

Accountability

Acts 13 describes the sending forth of two men, Barnabas and Saul, for the spread of he gospel. They were called and sent forth by the Holy Spirit. Their call was revealed to certain named men in the church at Antioch. They were not called, selected, appointed, or ordained by any member of the church. They were to be separated, released from, all commitments in the church at Antioch.

The manner of this calling can hardly be a template for all further exercises in missionary endeavour. We do not believe the Holy Spirit reveals to a select company within the church, however godly, gifted, and faithful, what are His purposes for other brethren and what they are, authoritatively, to do about it.

This passage, however, is used by certain Brethren to justify what they call “Commending to the Work”. This is a practice which allows a rigid control over any who wish to serve the Lord in a full time capacity. But our Brethren go far beyond what we read in Acts 13.

So we read in Truth and Tidings,

“With Barnabas and Saul, the Spirit of God used the leadership in the commending assembly to recognize that God called these individuals (Acts 13:1-4). In a special sense, the workers commended from Antioch were accountable to that assembly to inform them about how they had fulfilled their work (14:26, 27). A report of their work to another assembly would not have that same specific focus on "fulfilling" their work. Barnabas and Saul were particularly accountable to the Antioch assembly, because through that assembly, the Lord confirmed their work. [my italics –RS]

A present-day worker may become part of an assembly the Lord has planted through his labours. In this case, he definitely should retain accountability to his commending assembly. An assembly planted through his labours may find it difficult to carry out responsibilities associated with accountability for either doctrinal error or moral misbehaviour. As devastating as such a case would be for this relatively new assembly, having to confront a father in the faith and deal with such a matter could divide and destroy this assembly. In addition, some believers might question the objectivity of the worker’s own spiritual "children."

In a different scenario, a commended worker may move to an established, mature assembly. Even in this case, the commending assembly still seems to bear some unique responsibility for commending that individual. If, for instance, the assembly to which he has moved decides that the worker needs to limit his work or that he should be removed from the work, that assembly would hardly negate his letter. That assembly’s elders would contact the commending assembly. Altering his letter would be the commending assembly’s responsibility; they signed it. [my italics-RS] The principle of Christian courtesy (1 Peter 3:8) would require that consideration! Even Paul would not make a decision in a matter that was Philemon’s responsibility (Phe 14)”—David Oliver..

It appears that the “commended worker” will carry a letter; his licence to preach, a kind of work permit which will detail the kind of work and where he is to perform it.

Here is another departure from Acts 13. We cannot believe that Paul and Barnabas carried with them a “letter of commendation”. As they were engaged in pioneer work, to whom would they have presented it?

To whom are the commending brethren accountable? They will answer, “we are accountable to the Lord”. But they will not allow this for the Lord’s servants. The commending Brethren are the elders and they answer to none but themselves.

Guidance
I have heard some say that it is very difficult to know God’s guidance. Would God wish to make it difficult for us to know His guidance in our live? I think not. The difficulty is often within ourselves. We have already made up our minds what we want the outcome to be concerning some future circumstance. We mould our prayer requests around the required answer.

The answers to all guidance lie in the Bible. There is one answer to all circumstances and I is found in Proverbs 3: 5,6 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

Keep close to the Lord. Don’t trust your own wisdom. Make sure the course of your life is consistent with Scripture. He will do the rest.
A believer, in tune with the Lord, doesn’t need to pray about every little detail along the way. Paul didn’t. He purposed to return through Macedonia. Acts 20: 3. He made up his own mind about it. He had the mind of the Lord and was free to make his own decisions within the purposes of God.

Some may yet ask, “how do I know that the Lord is directing my path?” This is the cry of doubt. The Lord has pledged Himself to this. Don’t be a Gideon in this. He put out his fleece only because he was unsure of the Lord’s word to him.
Believers must not tempt the Lord their God, even though He was patient with Gideon. Gideon was a valiant man, but the Lord had already told him what was required of him.

The travellers had long and arduous journey ahead of them. They awaited their guide who was familiar with the terrain before them. Thy knew he would direct their path so they did one thing. They stuck close to him.
Of course, if one’s time is taken up with worldly pursuits and pleasures, the guide will be lost sight of.

Lastly,God has given us free will. He has created us with the ability to think and to make decisions. As believers we have the indwelling Holy Spirit Who is teaching us all things..

I came across an article recently, while doing a book search, titled ContradictionsinBible (sic).
It became apparent that this was a blind bigotted attack on Scripture before I had got past the first page.
This is what I read:
“Every word of God proves true.” says the Bible, Proverbs 30: 5. KJ version). Is the Bible, then, entirely the word of God? Does every word prove true?....
The writer, K E Nahigian of Sacramento assumes that his readers, being Cretins, would not think for a moment to pick up a Bible and read for themselves.
If they do, they will read at Proverbs 30: 5 in the English King James Bible, Every word of God is pure.
We do not waste our time reading the rantings of sin-laden theological scholars so the thing was dumped immediately. The man had nothing to say that related to truth.
We are not concerned with answering every smear against our Holy Spirit given Bible. We are not anxious to convert the soul sitting in the gathering with his perversion of Scripture on his knee. We are concerned with strengthening the faith of those who know and love the true Bible.
□ Another book: The Invisible War caught my attention while reading an article by E Wilson. Written by Donald Grey Barnhouse, it describes the conflict between good and evil. Barnhouse was an outstanding theologian but alas, I discovered in the first few pages that he held to the “Gap Theory” and much of his work was based on this error. I discarded the book.

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!