Title & Purpose

Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble:

for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand, Joel 2:1.


All quotations from the Scriptures will be from the Authorised Version - the best and most accurate English translation of the Scriptures.

Please see sermons down the left hand column of the Blog about why the Authorised Version is the best and most accurate English translation of the Scriptures

and why we reject the many perversions of the Scriptures, including those so beloved of many neo-evangelicals at present such as ESV & NKJV.

Beware of the Errors in The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible! 
Featured Sermon -

Monday, 23 May 2011

Deputy First Minister to be questioned about murder [Fancy that!!]

The Belfast Newsletter reported on Friday that the Historical Enquiries Team is about to question the Deputy First Minister about the murder of 29-year-old census worker Joanne Mathers in 1981.

For the full report click here

Martin McGuinness, who has openly stated that he is 'proud' to have been in the IRA, was the IRA’s commander in the city of Londonderry during much of the Troubles.

Up until now IRA/SinnFein have refused to co-operate with the Historical Inquiries Team. So much for their new supposed recognition and support of policing and justice that was peddled as the excuse for appointing McGuinness as Deputy First Minister in the first place!

In 1998 when David Trimble sought to share power with Martin McGuinness his terrorist past was said have made him unsuitable to hold any post in government never mind that of Deputy First Minister. 'Unscriptural, unethical and immoral' were the terms employed.

This report in the Newsletter is once again a reminder of McGuinness' past and proof that those words were very accurate.

The likelihood of McGuinness being called to account by the HET for his past is nil. However, although Martin McGuinness may escape the censure of any earthly court, there is one Judge and a coming day in which every murderer and supporter of murder will be called upon to answer for their deeds. The hidden things of darkness will then be brought to light.

The shedding of innocent blood is specifically said to be one of the seven things that God hates: Proverbs 6:16,17 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood…


The God of heaven will not be as easily deceived about McGuinness and his past, as multitudes in this Province have!

12 comments:

Gabriel said...

The shedding of innocent blood is specifically said to be one of the seven things that God hates: Proverbs 6:16,17 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood…

what's a proud look?

Would a lying tongue include say an MP saying under parliamentary privilege something that is false?

16These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

18An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

19A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

V17 and 19 seems to be repeating itself in respect of speaking lies.

So those are the 7 things that God Hates? I am sure that the homosexuals will be so glad to see that homosexuality is not mentioned.

Will we see the Free Presbyterian Church concentrating on these things that God hates, and leaving the homosexuals alone this year?

Or is homophobia addictive?

Rev Brian McClung said...

Gabriel

There is not a sin known to man but is included in the list. With respects to sodomy did you miss the opening words of v 18? It reads: An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations.

If you care to look at Romans ch 1:21-32 you will see there further reference to the imaginations of all sinners and sodomites are included.

All sin is addictive that is why it needs to be opposed. If not opposed it spreads.

Here is what the commentator John Gill said about 'a proud look':
"Or, "eyes elated"; scorning to look down upon others; or looking upon them with disdain; or reckoning them as unworthy to be looked upon, having an high opinion of their own worth and merit. Pride is the first of the hateful things mentioned; it being the first sin committed, as is probable, the sin of the angels, and of the first man; and is a predominant evil in human nature, and is directly opposite to God and to his nature, and against which he sets himself; for "he resisteth the proud", Jas 4:6; the pride of the heart shows itself in the eyes, or by the looks of a man; Gersom says, the phrase denotes impudence and haughtiness."

Everyone is required to speak the truth. If something is said that is later proved to be untrue it should certainly be withdrawn.

Verse 19 is not a repetition of v17 but an enlargement of it. It takes in another aspect of lying that is particularly offensive to God. V19 is dealing with lying under oath to get someone condemned or to escape punishment. It had reference to those who refuse to tell the truth about their past.

Brian McClung

Gabriel said...

I have a problem with your interpretation of what is said in Romans regarding my question about the Homosexual not being listed in the sins that God Hates. Also that you say that Verse 18 is applicable, An heart that deviseth Wicked imaginations. That could be anything that is wicked. it could be a heart that imagines how to con/defraud a neighbour our of possessions, stealing, or it could be applied to anything under the sun.

But back to Romans, Romans start Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, that is who is speaking, and To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints, that is who the material is addressed to. It is not from Christ or one of the Gods, it is from Paul, one of the apostles (called to be an apostle). No speaking on behalf of, or in place of Christ, for as we know with claims of the papacy, that would be antichrist. but a man writing a letter to other men and women who are believers.

verse 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Now there are many no doubt happy to be quick and say that as referring to homosexual men. Many who will see what they want to see, not necessarily what is there to see. But what they want to see.

The crucial criteria of that verse indicating that it refers to perverse heterosexuals is the use of the word 'leaving'. You cannot leave somewhere, or a state of mind unless you are there to begin with.

So 'leaving' the natural use of a woman is referring to men who have the natural attraction to women, Not homosexuals who do not possess that natural inclination.

I also have a problem with Paul's belief that women are for use. Was he what we would call today as a male chauvinist. There comes across many times in the writings after the 4 gospels the idea that Females are the subordinates of Males. For instance 1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

Which flies face in the contradictory statement Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. and again 1 Corinthians 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ and Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. Not ice it doesnt read and the men teaching and admonishing one another.

Do you not agree that many of the writers in the epistles have something against the women?

Rev Brian McClung said...

Gabriel

These verses in Proverbs are designed to included everything that God hates and some things in particular. That is the significance of the 'seven' things that God hates.

'Seven' is the perfect or complete number in the Scriptures. There are 'seven' days in the complete week. There were 'seven' feasts in the complete system of Old Testament worship. There are the 'seven' Spirits of God mentioned in the book of Revelation. There are periods of seven years mentioned in different places. This is only a few of the 'sevens' of the Bible. The concept of seven is found in nature as well. Another testimony to the Creator!

You are actually right that v18 includes 'anything' that is wicked. God hates every sin and His wrath will fall upon every unrepentant sinner.

Now unto the teaching of Romans ch 1…
This is not my interpretation of Romans. My interpretation doesn't matter one iota and if that is all that it is then it is to be forthwith rejected.

These verses in this opening chapter of Romans are most certainly dealing with the sin of sexual perversion among males and females. That is the long held orthodox understanding of these verses.

Paul is speaking by inspiration, 2 Tim 3:15,16. These are not his words but God's words. Peter acknowledged that Paul's writings were 'scripture' cf. 2 Peter 3:15,16:
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

What Paul taught he received directly from God, not from another Apostle like Peter, Gal 1:11,12:
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Your argument about Paul's writings therefore simply doesn't stand up.

Neither does it stand up with respect to the meaning of 'leaving the natural use'. Sodomy is most certainly a 'leaving'. It is elsewhere in this chapter described as 'unnatural', v26. God did not create men and women with unnatural lusts for those of the same sex. These unnatural lusts came in with sin. People are not born with a 'sodomy' gene. This is a 'learned' behaviour just the same as every other sin.

If you had noticed the language of v26 you would already have had an answer for your query about Paul viewing women as being of 'use'. In v26 he says the same with respect to women and men. Seems pretty equal to me! In fact he uses it first of women in relation to men. Maybe Paul should really be accused of having improper views of men!!

In the verses you quote about men and women you make the fundamental mistake of believing that they are speaking about the one and the same thing. They are not.

With respect to the matter of salvation there is no difference between male or female, Jew or Gentile, bond or free. All stand before God on the same basis, ie. the justifying righteousness of Jesus Christ.

With respect to office and function within marriage or the earthly gatherings of the church there is a difference. A husband/father is the head of his wife and their home. In the church because of this headship issue women are not to take on the office of teacher/minister/pastor, 1 Cor 14:34; 1 Tim 2:12:
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

It applies only to the offices of the Church. Women and men can indeed sing and pray together as you rightly allude to. This is God's order for His Church.

Brian McClung

Gabriel said...

People are not born with a 'sodomy' gene. This is a 'learned' behaviour just the same as every other sin.

What a line. a cracker!, the line that is not the writer. As you know I never mentioned Sodomy. I have been talking about homosexuals.

Sodomy is a very offensive word, as is sodomite. Many homosexuals feel ill at ease when people use these words, especially against them, and I know that for a fact.

Though if sodomite was correctly applied across the board it might not be such offensive, but most are reluctant to do so, and that might be through ignorance, where ignorance means devoid of intelligence. but to those who know the sins of sodom being selective in its application is disgraceful.

To me the term sodomite means 2 things, 1st historically the inhabitants of Sodom, and 2 those who today continue in the sins of Sodom.

We are not going to agree on 'leaving' so we shall disagree, we each have our opinions/definitions and yet that is all they are.

In relation to ' In the church because of this headship issue women are not to take on the office of teacher/minister/pastor, 1 Cor 14:34; 1 Tim 2:12:
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.'.....What would be wrong today in your opinion with a woman minister in your church?

Apart from what it says in the bible that is, after all today we use ASBO's probation and custodial terms to deal with out-of-control children whereas the bible says they should be killed. personaly ~I prefer the man-made solutions today whether they are effective or not, than the application of God's law.

Rev Brian McClung said...

Gabriel

The opening line of your second paragraph doesn't make sense so it is very difficult to respond to it.

Sodomy and homosexuality are one and the same. 'Sodomy' is the name for the particular sin that Sodom is renowned for in the Bible. 'Sodomite' is the term the Bible uses for those who practice this sin, cf. Deut 23:7; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7.

The term is appropriate because it highlights what God thinks of this particular sin. The name 'sodomy' for ever and a day will be associated with the city which came under destruction because of their sins.

On the issue of 'leaving' - it is God Himself who describes it thus. Your quarrel is with the Word of God and not with me!

What is wrong with women ministers is simply that it is a denial of the teaching of the New Testament. There is no point in professing to follow Christ and refusing to keep His commandments as contained in the New Testament. He did say: if ye love me keep my commandments, John 14:15. It can't any more important than that!

Referring to those who are office bearers in the Church the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that they are to be the husband of one wife:
1Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Titus 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

Pretty difficult to fit a women minister in here!

I have already explained why this is so with respect to the headship issue. Another verse worth noticing is 1 Cor 11:3:
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

I fail to understand your last paragraph in the light of New Testament teaching. Maybe you could elaborate.

Brian McClung

Gabriel said...

Sodomy and homosexuality are one and the same. 'Sodomy' is the name for the particular sin that Sodom is renowned for in the Bible. 'Sodomite' is the term the Bible uses for those who practice this sin, cf. Deut 23:7; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7.

The name 'sodomy' for ever and a day will be associated with the city which came under destruction because of their sins.

let me see what you said brian

24And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

12And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

46And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.

7And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.

What is the point in giving Bible verses to back up a statement have have nothing to do with the statement being made?

none of those verses mention sodomy or homosexuality or in any way hint at either.

notice the term 'And the remnant of the sodomites' here we have 1st Kings 22:46 indicating that God's destruction of Sodom Genesis 19 was not complete, a few escaped. Or did many escape.? Or did it happen at all?

Now here is the big question you say "The name 'sodomy' for ever and a day will be associated with the city which came under destruction because of their sins." and you say also "Sodomy and homosexuality are one and the same." Are you suggesting to me that both my son and my daughter in law are Homosexuals or Sodomites, having engaged in the sin of Sodom = your term 'Sodomy', one of the results of which was my first grandson?

Very Interested to hear your answer, and I am sure they will be also

Gabriel said...

my last paragraph refers to Gods punishment for young offenders, which You no doubt believe in. (especially as 'The Bible hasnt changed' (said on talkback by one of your fellow ministers)). Punishment for the young offenders Deuteronomy 21:18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

so I say again ~I prefer the man-made solutions today whether they are effective or not, than the application of God's law. I am so glad that contrary to the previously stated opinion of a then elected politician that it was the governments role to uphold God's law, that our Government does not uphold God's law or enforce it,

and I am sure in hindsight that she is happy that the Government does not enforce God's Law either as Leviticus 20:10And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

I assume you are in support of the death penalty for young people when God's law dictates it, The bible hasn't changed, sure it hasn't!

Gabriel said...

If the women are good enough, despite "I suffer not a woman to teach', to teach in Sunday School, surely they are good enough to teach elsewhere?

So for example, in an offshore Island community where there are a few Christians left and they are elderly, when there are no men left who will take the meetings, the women should close the church rather than one or 2 of them take the meetings.

rather than contravene the views of men who lived nearly 200o years ago, Christ never suggested anything would be wrong with it.

Rev Brian McClung said...

Gabriel

The references I gave back up the Scripture usage of the term 'sodomite' for the sin that is today called: 'homosexuality'. The terms 'homosexual' or 'homosexuality' are of recent origin if you care to look in any English etymological dictionary. It originated in the late 19th century.

What was this sin, or practice as you might like to describe it, called before then? I think you will discover that it was generally called 'sodomy'. So lets set aside the semantics.

[Like some others who visit this site and post comments you are pretty good at asking/raising points but not very good at answering or facing up to what the Scriptures teach. You just move on to the next point]

The sin of 'sodomy' springs up all the time. It is usually a mark of apostasy if you care to study the subject through the Bible. No where in the Bible does it ever claim that every practitioner of this sin was destroyed. Even if they were it would spring up again for such is the wickedness in the heart of mankind.

As to the point about your son and daughter in law I haven't got a clue what you are trying to say. If you want me to address a point then you may speak a little clearer but still with some degree of decency if you want the comment posted.

Brian McClung

Rev Brian McClung said...

Gabriel

If you cared to read the Bible just a little more closely you might discover the weakness in your argument.

Have you ever asked yourself which section of the Old Testament law the verses you quoted fit into? There are three different aspects to the 'Law of God' in the Old Testament.

I will await you naming them and then to suggest which one these verses that you quoted are to be placed. Then we can have a discussion about the points you raise.

Brian McClung

Rev Brian McClung said...

Gabriel

Teaching Sunday School is a world away from exercising the office of a 'teaching elder' in the work of God. So says the New Testament. Your quarrel is with the New Testament, not with me.

Who ever said that the scenario you present was wrong? The Bible forbids someone formally taking on the office of 'teaching elder'. It does not forbid a woman to speak or pray in a meeting.

Brian McClung