What is specifically wrong with new versions? Part 3

A comparison can be made between some verses in the Authorised Version and the corresponding verses in the new versions where the full extent of the attack that has been made upon the fundamental doctrines of the Word of God is demonstrated.

The nature of the changes.
1. The Deity of Christ.
1 Tim 3:16: 
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh… AV
No one can deny how great is the secret of our religion. He appeared in human form… GNB
Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body… NIV

Rom 14:10,12: But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. AV
You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.
So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God. NIV

These texts in the Authorised Version emphasis that Christ was God of very God. However, modern version change these verses thus removing the clear testimony of Scripture to the fact that Christ was God manifest in the flesh.

2. Eternal Sonship of Christ.
Micah 5:2:
… yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. AV
… But out of you I will bring a ruler for Israel, whose family line goes back to ancient times. GNB

… out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from old, from ancient times. NIV

'Ancient times' does not necessarily mean eternity past. This accommodates those who deny the eternal sonship of Christ. 

Hebrews 1:5:
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? AV

You are my Son; today I have become your Father. GNB

You are my Son, today I have become your Father. NIV

The eternal sonship of Christ is attacked here. God did not become His Father as these new versions state, He was always His Father.

3. The Virgin Birth.
Isa 7:14,
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. AV
A young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him 'Immanuel'. GNB
Behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name immanuel. RSV

Luke 2:33:
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. AV
The child's father and mother were amazed. GNB
The child's father and mother marvelled. NIV

There is a weakening of the evidence for the virgin birth. Joseph was not Christ's father. That is a blasphemy which undermines the whole work of redemption. If Christ was not safeguarded from original by virtue of His virgin birth then He could save no one but had his own sin to answer for.

4. The Atonement.
Col 1:14
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. AV
By whom we are set free, that is our sins are forgiven. GNB
In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. NIV

The reference to the blood of Christ which is essential to redemption is removed. The blood atonement was one particular doctrine hated by Westcott and Hort.

There are many of other places where changes like this occur. Surely this is no coincidence in the light of the fact that the revising committee set out to make doctrinal changes. They certainly accomplished their purpose.

The number of changes.
The text which the New International Version and the Good News Bible come from shows multitude of changes.

There are 481 changes which substantially affect the meaning. There are 44 changes which involve doctrine. There are 212 changes to the names of Deity, 75 changes to the name of Jesus, 44 to the name of Christ, 35 for Lord, 32 for God, 26 for other names of deity. More than 150 pronouns which refer to Deity are omitted. This cannot be incidental!

The Greek text underlying the New Testament in modern versions is approximately 2,500 words shorter than the Greek text underlying the New Testament in the Authorised Version. This is nearly 2% of the whole. It is the equivalent of removing 1 and 2 Peter from the Bible.

The sad conclusion to come to is that modern translations are corrupt Bibles because they come from corrupt manuscripts translated by corrupt men with corrupt motives.

No believer who loves the pure Word of God should have anything to do with them.

Why we use only the Authorised Version of the Scriptures Part 2

II. Why a raft of new translations? 

The lay person has his/her reason for new translations - the Scriptures must be made more understandable, more easily read etc. That is a false premise in itself for natural man will never understand the Scriptures by himself, no matter what versions are made available. The work of the Holy Spirit is needed.

But we need to dig a little deeper to find out the real reasons why new translations have come unto the market.

Over a period of years there were a number of new translations leading up to the A.V. 1611 and its editing of 1769. From then until the late 1800s there was no new translations. In 1881 a new Greek text was issued by Westcott and Hort and there followed what was known as the Revised Version. From then till now these new versions have multiplied. What were the real reasons for a new translation?

1. To facilitate ecumenism. At the time when the Revised Version appeared the Oxford Movement was in full flow with its Romanising tendencies. There was a clamour among ecumenists to have the Authorised Version superseded. The Revisionists by and large were in full sympathy with the Oxford Movement.

The Revised Version appeared in the form of a 'Common Bible', the first page said in large letters: AN ECUMENICAL BIBLE. The New English Bible which appeared sometime later stated in the preface that its goal was: the promotion of the ecumenical church and the oneness of the people of God in all sorts of Churches worldwide. The Authorised Version was too much a Protestant Bible and this would never do in the new ecumenical, Romanising climate that was developing.

Examples of this ecumenical facilitation is found in the way in which these new translations treat specific texts: The Good News Bible/Today's English Bible puts Peter as the rock. The New International Version has a footnote that says Peter is the rock. The New English Bible puts the word 'tradition' in 1 Cor 11:23 which gives justification for the mass.

2. A hatred of the truth. Westcott and Hort were the two main Revisioners. Hort gloried in the fact that a Unitarian had been invited unto the Committee. Had he been forced to resign when this became more widely known Westcott would have resigned with him. 

Both denied the vicarious atonement and the bodily resurrection of Christ. Hort called it 'an immoral counterfeit of the truth'. They both favoured the Larger Hope, Darwinism and O.T. Higher Criticism. Westcott said: No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. Hort said: I am inclined to think that no such state as Eden existed. They were on record as saying that they fully intended to bring about doctrinal changes by their revisions. Sodomites later on sat on the New International Version translation committee. 

How can men who openly opposed and ridiculed orthodox Christianity ever be trusted to compile a new translation of the Scriptures? The Scriptures ask: Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one, Job 14:4.

3. A hatred for the Authorised version. The new translation was never about updating the words. It stemmed from a hatred of the Authorised Version. In 1851 Hort called the Greek text that underlay the Authorised Version: the villainous Textus Receptus. The full quote reads: 

I had no idea until the last few weeks of the importance of texts having read so little Greek Testament and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus. Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late manuscripts.

This was said even though he had read very little of the Greek N.T. Hort is said by other critics to have organised his entire argument to depose the received Text which underlies the Authorised Version. The man was prejudiced against this Majority Text. He believed that the most accurate texts were those discovered in the Vatican and in a monastery on Mt Sinai. These were characterised by omissions. The reason they were the oldest was because they had been set aside as corrupt. Yet Westcott & Hort relied heavily upon them.

The modern translations come mainly from the manuscripts that had been discarded. A reading which has 80-90% support from the Received/Majority Text would be discarded in favour of a reading from these corrupt manuscripts just because it came from these manuscripts. Westcott & Hort showed a distinct prejudice against the Authorised Version from the very outset. The new translation wasn't an effort to provide a faithful translation it was a prejudiced attempt to discard the Authorised Version.

Free Presbyterian Church's official response to Peter Robinson's comments

The following statement has been issued by the Moderator and Clerk on behalf of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster:

In light of recent criticism the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster wishes to publicly reaffirm its opposition to the Roman Catholic service commonly termed ‘The Mass’. In this ecumenical age, the false notion is propagated that there is little difference between the Roman Catholic Mass and the simple Communion Service as practised by Protestants. However, there is a vast difference. The historic creeds of Protestant Churches underline this difference by referring to the Mass as ‘blasphemous’, ‘idolatry’ and ‘injurious to the work of Christ.’

The reason for these statements is that the Mass purports to be a continuation of the sacrifice of Christ. It leads sinners to trust in the priest, the Mass, and the church rather than in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Great High Priest who made the one perfect sacrifice for sins forever (Hebrews 10v12). His is the only sacrifice that can deliver from sin.

Our objection to attendance at the Mass has nothing to do with bigotry or lack of respect for others as our critics often claim. During the funeral service of Princess Diana, the Chief Rabbi, on a point of religious principle, declined to enter the Cathedral and was praised for showing his respect by going as far as the entrance. Yet we and other Evangelical Protestants are often castigated and denigrated when, out of love and loyalty to our Saviour, we cannot countenance the ‘sacrifice of the Mass.’

Moderator: Rev Ron Johnstone

Clerk: Rev Ian Brown


Update
Rev Thomas Martin, minister of Lisburn FPC, has also made some comments about this matter calling on Peter Robinson to reconsider his statement, as reported in the Newsletter, see here

Update [Friday 25th Feb]
The Newsletter have carried a report on the statement which the Officers of Presbytery released, see here

Someone else sees the folly of Peter Robinson's position

The news media are carrying the story that Peter Robinson has let it be known that he would attend a Roman Catholic mass.
To read more see Newsletter & Belfast Telegraph

Mr Wallace Thompson, a DUP member and former adviser to Nigel Dodds, on behalf of the Evangelical Protestant Society, released a statement which is on their website

NO EVANGELICAL PROTESTANT SHOULD EVER ATTEND THE POPISH MASS 

The Evangelical Protestant Society fully respects the principles of civil and religious liberty, but our long-standing position as a Society is that no evangelical Protestant should attend the Roman Catholic mass under any circumstances.  We hold to the mainstream historical view as summarised by, for example, the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Thirty-Nine Articles.

It will therefore come as no surprise that the Evangelical Protestant Society does not share the First Minister's position on this matter. 

We note that the First Minister has stressed that his decision is a personal one and that others of his colleagues might have a different view.  In light of this, we would therefore hope that no attempts will now be made by the usual suspects to demonise or persecute those evangelical Protestants who come to conclusions contrary to those of Mr Robinson.

21 February 2011

At least someone else sees the folly of this 'new politics'. It may please the Romanists and the ecumenists in society but it will not please God. Peter Robinson's new views and the historic Protestant position can't both be right. One or the other must be wrong and it is not the historic Protestant position. 

The 'Rubicon' was crossed in 2006 when Peter Robinson and others thought it all right to share power with those whose trade has been murder and mayhem in this Province for 40 years. With that sacrifice of principle the floodgates have opened. It will be one issue after another where historic Protestant Biblical positions are jettisoned. What will it be next: abortion, Sunday opening?

It is mere semantics for Peter Robinson to say that 'I wouldn’t be going as an act of worship, I would be going as an act of respect for the individual'. He may well indeed be paying his respects but he is also attending an act of worship. Every Roman Catholic funeral is a mass. The 39 articles of the Church of Ireland rightly state that the mass is 'a blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit'. No right thinking, God honouring, Bible believer would want to presence themselves where such a blasphemy was being enacted. 

This blasphemy is directed at Jesus Christ. The mass claims to be a reenactment of Calvary which the Bible teaches was a finished work needing no repetition. To attend the mass is therefore no insignificant matter. The honour of Jesus Christ and His finished work is at stake. 

It seems political calculation is more important than Bible principle!

Why we use only the Authorised Version of the Scriptures Part 1

This year marks the 400th anniversary of the completion and publication of the Authorised Version of the Bible. This mammoth task was commenced in 1603 and completed in 1611.

Nowadays in virtually every Christian Bookshop you enter you are meet with an array of versions of the Bible. There are a plethora of modern translations which have in the last century flooded unto the market. In most shops there is the Authorised [King James] Version, the New International Version, the Good News Bible, the New English Bible, the Revised Standard Version, the American Standard Version etc.

These new versions are supposedly produced with the professed intention of making the Scriptures more up to date and more modern. There are arguments about words and phrases and terminology. One claim the supporters of these modern translations make is that they are supposed to make the Scriptures more understandable and more easily acceptable.

However the question to be asked is: does it matter which of these versions an individual chooses to buy and read? After all are they not all the same with only variations in the use of words? Will it aid and assist someone in their understanding and acceptance of the Scriptures to use these modern translations?

They are not all the same. There is a fundamental difference between the Authorised Version and these others which we have mentioned. A difference so great that it takes these other versions outside the pale of what can be called a faithful copy of the Holy Scriptures.

In the Free Presbyterian Church we use only the AV. Not only that but we oppose the use of any other version of the Scriptures in the English language. We believe that the AV. is the most faithful English translation of the original manuscripts. Why should we change that which is most faithful to the original and use something inferior.

I. The importance of this subject

This is not a matter of personal taste. The issues involved go far beyond mere personal preference. It is vitally important that we have the true Word of God from error and corruption.

It is important because of the use and purpose of the Scriptures. Because of man’s fall into sin, we has lost the ability to discern and understand the God of heaven from the natural revelation, Psalm 19:1-6.

God in His mercy purposed to redeem a people to Himself but natural revelation will never reveal to man that glorious truth of saving grace. It is only by that special revelation which God has given in His Word that will bring man to a knowledge of his need and an understanding that salvation is found in Christ alone, Psalm 19:7-14, Romans 10:17.

It is this Book which reveals Christ as the only Saviour of sinners. It reveals the work which Christ has done. It reveals the need of saving faith in Christ alone. It is the Scriptures which do this. Any corruption of these things will therefore be fatal.

It is important because of the attack that will be mounted against God’s Word. Paul indicates the reality of this in 2 Cor 2:17: For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. Note what he teaches:

[1] Many will interfere with the Scriptures. 

[2] This interference will lead to the corruption of the written Word. ‘Corrupt’ = to adulterate [to water down]. 

[3] This was prevalent in Paul’s day. 

With the corruption of the Scriptures will come the corruption in the Church. We have got to realise that the Bible forewarns us of an attack upon the Scriptures. The modern form of that attack is seen in the glut of modern translations. There are the devil’s attack upon the Word of God.

To be continued

The foolishness of Romanism knows no end

Roman Catholic Church leaders are relying on the blood of late Pope John Paul II's to heal Robert Kubica and hasten his return to Formula 1 motor racing before the end of the season.

Click here to read the full story

It is utter nonsense to believe that the blood of any mere human being can help another. The blood of the last Pope or any other pope or supposed saint for that matter has no merit or efficaciousness. 

This was the nonsense that was rejected at the time of Protestant Reformation. J A Wylie's History of Protestantism is replete with details of the gimmicks Rome used in the past to deceive her people into thinking that the popes and saints could help them. 

As every individual is a sinner before God and unable to do any spiritual good of themselves they have no merit for themselves never mind have any to pass on to any one else. 

New Moderator announced

The Belfast Telegraph have announced that the next moderator of the Presbyterian Church will be Rev Ivan Patterson, minister of Newcastle Presbyterian Church, Co Down who has been nominated by 12 out of the 19 Presbyteries.

There follows a short biographical sketch of his life and achievements. One piece of information lacking is whether he preaches the gospel or not? Or will he be like the outgoing incumbent Norman Hamilton who is more at home running back from Africa to get introduced to the pope.

Church volunteer status saved

The Christian Institute is reporting a significant victory obtained in the supreme court today.

They report:
I am pleased to give you some good news about an issue supported by our Legal Defence Fund. Following an important ruling in the Court of Appeal, volunteer Sunday school teachers, church elders, deacons, prayer group leaders and all other church volunteers have been saved from an avalanche of equality diktats. The Christian Institute intervened in the case and urged the Court of Appeal not to treat volunteers as though they had the same rights as employees under a European Equal Treatment Directive.

Read more here

A telling headline!

Now some people are more equal than others: 

Despair of Christian hotel owners penalised 

for turning away gays

The Daily Mail reports on Peter & Hazelmary Bull losing their court case.

The Christian Institute has a number of reports:

1. Judge rules against Christians but allows appeal

2. Christian owner reacts to court ruling

Stats

Since May 2009 Blogger has added a new feature that provides stats for each blog.

Here is an update on locations from which this blog is accessed since then.

Dancing in the Bible

There is a form of dancing that is Scriptural and a form of dancing that is sinful. 

William Wilson in his Old Testament Words Studies indicates that there are four Hebrew words associated with dancing in the Old Testament:

1. Chagag - 1 Sam 30:16 And when he had brought him down, behold, they were spread abroad upon all the earth, eating and drinking, and dancing, because of all the great spoil that they had taken out of the land of the Philistines, and out of the land of Judah.

Wilson defines this word to mean: moving with various turns and agitations in token of joy. 

2. Chowlah - Ex 15:20 And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.

He defines this word to mean: to turn or to twist, perhaps with music in distinction from that without music.

3. Karar - 2 Sam 6:14-16 And David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod. So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet. And as the ark of the LORD came into the city of David, Michal Saul’s daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the LORD; and she despised him in her heart. 

He defines this word to mean: to move nimbly.

4. Raqad - Job 21:11 They send forth their little ones like a flock, and their children dance.

He defines this word to mean: to leap, to skip. to dance for joy.

W. E. Vine in his expository dictionary of New Testament words indicates that there are two words associated with dancing in the New Testament. 

1. Orcheo - Matt 14:6 But when Herod’s birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod.

Vine defines this word to originally probably to mean: to lift up as of the feet, to leap with regularity of motion. 

2. Chorus - Luke 15:25 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing.

Vine defines this word to mean: an enclosure for dancing; hence a company of dancers and singers. 

1. Scriptural dancing

There is the dancing of Miriam and David, Ex 15:20; 2 Sam 6:14-16.

i. This type of dancing involves a rejoicing before the Lord. It is a jumping for joy. It says David leaped and danced before the Lord. 

ii. You never read of men and women dancing in this fashion together in the Bible. In fact the first place where dancing is mentioned in the Bible [Ex 15:20] it emphasises that Miriam led the women out to sing the same song that Moses had led the men in singing a little earlier. This also happened when David was returning from the defeat of Goliath, 1 Sam 18:6. It was single sex jubilation before God. 

iii. In one place it is a person dancing on their own, Jud 11:34.

iv. In some places it is the unmarried women who danced, Jud 21:21-23.

This is a long way short of what passes for dancing today among the ungodly.

2. Sinful dancing

This is the dancing of the Israelites at the foot of Mt Sinai when they were worshipping the golden calf, Ex 32:19 And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing…. This dancing was accompanied with nakedness, Ex 32:25 and denounced by Moses as sin, Ex 32:21. The Egyptians performed some of their religious rites in this indecent manner and the Israelites were now imitating them. 

This is the revelling of the Amalekites as they celebrate the conquest of Ziklag, 1 Sam 30:16 And when he had brought him down, behold, they were spread abroad upon all the earth, eating and drinking, and dancing, because of all the great spoil that they had taken out of the land of the Philistines, and out of the land of Judah.

This is the dancing of Herodias' daughter before Herod that pleased that wicked man and his male companions so well, Mark 6:22 And when the daughter of the said Herodias came in, and danced, and pleased Herod and them that sat with him, the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee.

There are certainly times when God so blesses His people that they leap for joy. However, the dancing that is associated with immodesty, revelry, lust and for entertainment ought to be avoided by the Christian as a manifestation of the pleasure crazes of this world. The Bible exhorts us to flee from the appearance of evil, 1 Thess 5:22.

Pleasure crazes of the world:

1. What is wrong with the Christian attending the cinema or the theatre?

2. Dancing

Thought for the day

Backsliders begin with dusty Bibles and end with filthy garments. ... C. H. Spurgeon

Tokens for good!

More often than not it seems that the stand for Christian values suffers setbacks. Thankfully here are two cases in which the opposite is true. We thank the Christian Institute for all their labours to defend and maintain our civil and religious liberties.

1. Birmingham street preacher wins wrongful arrest case

An autistic Christian street preacher who was handcuffed and arrested for speaking out against homosexuality and many other sins has been awarded £4,250 in damages following a court case against West Midlands Police. Read more on the Christian Institute website.

2. Cumbria Police payout for arrest of Christian

In a second similar case in recent days, a Christian street preacher has won £7,000 plus costs from Cumbria Police in settlement for a claim of wrongful arrest, unlawful imprisonment and breach of his human rights. Read more on the Christian Institute website.

Guesthouse owners sued over double bed policy

The Christian Institute has asked for prayer for owners of a Cornish Guesthouse who are due in court next court on Monday.

The owners of a Cornish guesthouse are due to appear in court on Monday because they restrict double bed accommodation to married couples.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull are being sued by homosexuals, Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall, who claim the policy is discriminatory.

The guesthouse is not just a business, it is also Mr and Mrs Bull's own home.

The case will be heard at Bristol County Court on Monday 13 December and is scheduled to last for two days.

The claim is brought under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations, the same laws that have caused faith-based adoption agencies to close down or drop their religious ethos.

If the claim against the guesthouse is successful, Mr and Mrs Bull may be ordered to pay up to £5,000 to Mr Preddy and Mr Hall for injury to their feelings.

Mr Preddy and Mr Hall's legal fees are being paid by the Government-funded Equality and Human Rights Commission. The Christian Institute is funding Mr and Mrs Bull's legal defence.

This case could determine whether Christians are permitted to operate B&Bs that restrict double bed accommodation to married couples.

Prayer is requested:

For Peter and Hazelmary Bull, that they will know God's love and support during this difficult time.

For the judge, that he will come to a just decision.

For our legal team, that they will present the case clearly and persuasively.

For the news media, that they will publish balanced and accurate reports.

For the staff of The Christian Institute, as we support and advise Peter and Hazelmary. 

For more information download a fact sheet about the case here.

The sabbath day under attack again

Social development minister Alex Attwood has said it is time to take a fresh look at the current 1pm to 6pm restrictions for larger shops in Northern Ireland. In doing so he hopes to boost the economy, benefit tourism and encourage regeneration of towns and city centres. Read the whole article here. 

The idea that extra opening hours will boost the economy, etc. is simply ludicrous. There will be no extra money spent by shoppers. It will just be spread over a longer shopping period. What is spent in larger shops will be taken away from smaller ones. There are also all the additional costs associated with longer opening hours.

Sadly this is simply another attack upon the sanctity of the Lord's day. The sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath. We are commanded to: Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. Man is robbing God when he takes the sabbath day and uses it for himself instead of setting it aside for the worship of the Lord. 

Sabbath desecration comes at a cost. The spiritual, physical and material well being of people will be aversely affected by neglecting the sabbath day. The closing chapter of Nehemiah illustrates the point very effectively:

In those days saw I in Judah some treading wine presses on the sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses; as also wine, grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the sabbath day: and I testified against them in the day wherein they sold victuals.
There dwelt men of Tyre also therein, which brought fish, and all manner of ware, and sold on the sabbath unto the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem.
Then I contended with the nobles of Judah, and said unto them, What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the sabbath day?
Did not your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city? yet ye bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the sabbath.
And it came to pass, that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened till after the sabbath: and some of my servants set I at the gates, that there should no burden be brought in on the sabbath day.
So the merchants and sellers of all kind of ware lodged without Jerusalem once or twice.
Then I testified against them, and said unto them, Why lodge ye about the wall? if ye do so again, I will lay hands on you. From that time forth came they no more on the sabbath.
And I commanded the Levites that they should cleanse themselves, and that they should come and keep the gates, to sanctify the sabbath day. Remember me, O my God, concerning this also, and spare me according to the greatness of thy mercy, Nehemiah 13:15-22.

We remember ....

Today is Remembrance day. 

We gladly honour the memory of those who by their death maintained our civil and religious liberties.

The tomb of the unknown soldier in Westminster Abbey

Response to Peter Robinson's comments on Education

I have been asked repeatedly over the weekend by a number of media outlets to comment on Peter Robinson's remarks about education.

Here is the full text of the response I gave to the Newsletter yesterday. They have included a little of what I said in a report in today's edition.

1. Peter Robinson is right to highlight the unjustifiable advantages, privileges and special arrangements that Romanism is given in the field of education in Northern Ireland. 100% funding is available to no other religious group that I know of.

2. His language about church schools being a ‘benign form of apartheid’ are however totally unacceptable, if he includes the FPC schools in that description.

i. If the state sector of education doesn’t offer an education in accordance with what the Word of God commands, then every Bible believing Christian has every right, and a duty, to stand apart and run their own system of education. This is not a ‘benign form of apartheid’ but obedience to the Word of God. 

ii. The state sector is presently secular, evolutionary, & man-centred in its ethos and therefore ultimately falls short of true education, For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding, Prov 2:6. True education begins with a knowledge of God as He has revealed Himself in His holy Word. 

iii. The Bible clearly teaches the principles of separation. This is a fundamental starting point for evangelical Christianity. The born again believer is in the world but not of the world. We are to stand apart, ecclesiastically, morally, and educationally. This has been the historic position of our Christian forefathers.

We have been here before. This is not a new idea. Dr Henry Cooke [A Presbyterian minister back in the mid 1800s] had a great controversy over the issue of joint education.

iv. It is disingenuous for Peter Robinson to equate race and faith based views. To segregate on the basis of race is unbiblical, God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth…, Acts 17:26. 

To stand apart on the issue of faith is the essence of Bible religion. In fact, God pronounces a blessing upon it: Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful, Ps 1:1.

3. Peter Robinson draws a parallel between the higher level education and primary or secondary schools.

i. He fails to appreciate the importance of education in these early formative years. The older someone grows the more they should be able to discern between what is truth and what is error. In early years there is the additional aspect of a pupils' character forming. 

ii. If there was a Christian University/College holding to evangelical principles then I would certainly encourage Christians to attend there. This is due to the fact that sinful example has a detrimental effect upon the youth. So much behaviour is learned by watching others. God commands us to be wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil, Rom 16:19; Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things, Phil 4:8. Sadly many state educational institutions fall far short of this exhortation.

Historically, many of the state schools and universities originally started out being run and funded by Churches. It is the state who are the recent converts to education and not Churches.

iii. It must be remembered that education is not neutral. All education must have an ethos which underpins it. Secular education seeks to send out into the world those who are of a secular outlook. This is unacceptable for a Bible believer. God commands the Christian to raise their children with a Biblical worldview, to fear God and to serve Jesus Christ. The born again believer who wants to obey God has presently no option but to stand apart and place their children in an environment that honours God and has the Bible as its foundational textbook.

iv. State education has in the past been used to further the aims of politicians in solving the ‘troubles’ in Northern Ireland. Education for Mutual Understanding was set up by the Department of Education with the purpose of eliminating differences and points of distinction on the foolish premise that this would solve Ulster’s troubles. It was an attack upon evangelical Christianity.

The state is not neutral, that is impossible for any form of education. The ethos of the state system of education is contrary to the evangelical Christianity. 

4. Christian legislators are required to rule by the Word of God and particularly the Moral Law of God, Rom 13:1-10 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 

If they fail to do so then it can be legitimately asked: what is the point of electing them in the first place if they acquiesce in or even push a secularist agenda?

Further apostasy by the Church of Ireland

A disturbing development at the Ploughing match in Co Kildare was the joint venture by the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Ireland within the archdiocese of Dublin. 

The further apostasy of the Church of Ireland is obvious from the blatant popish flavour of the presentation. Above the door to the marquee there was a bell with 'Ava Maria' or 'Hail Mary' on it. Inside there was a popish grotto set aside as a place to pray full of candles and a crucifix. In the literature handed out instructions are given for prayer. The first point is to make the sign of the cross. 

The Church of Ireland has given heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils, 1 Tim 4:1. How pathetic to watch them falling over themselves to unite with popery. 

The conduct of the Presbyterian moderator in joining with the pope for joint worship leaves Presbyterians with no excuse to remain within Presbyterianism. The conduct of the Church of Ireland leaves those who profess to be saved within this church no alternative but to obey Scripture and come out from among them. 

The Orange Order rejects the new parades legislation

Much to the annoyance no doubt of the political classes in Stormont the Orange Order is the latest body to join those rejecting the new proposed parades' legislation. 

It is being reported that the Order has snubbed a request from First Minister Peter Robinson to reconsider its stance on parades. The first minister it is reported wrote to Grand Lodge asking them to back the new proposals which resulted from the Hillsborough talks.

The Order rejected the plea with a spokesman saying members felt they had been taken for granted during the political negotiations at Hillsborough.

As previously highlighted on this blog the new proposed legislation on parades is an attack upon our civil and religious liberties. I trust that the Orange Order's objection is principled and not political maneuvering. 

The well being of the gospel in this province is at stake!

Protest against the Papal visit - Part 4

The last part of our protest against the Pope was a short service in Greyfriars Churchyard. This was the place where a number of the Covenanters were laid to rest.

The entrance to the churchyard

Assembling at James Renwick's memorial 

Rev Johnstone about to speak

The same old Rome

Rome's boast is that she does not change. The papal visit to Scotland was certainly an illustration of this. 

An open air mass was held at Bellahouston Park in Glasgow. In order to get a good turn out Rome sold an indulgence to all who would attend.

Here is the wording of the pdf document that can be found on the 'Bishops' Conference for Scotland' website. 

GAINING THE 

PLENARY 

INDULGENCE

Bellahouston – A Pilgrimage of Faith and Forgiveness

People will come from near and far to Bellahouston Park, Glasgow, to welcome Pope Benedict XVI to Scotland and to join with the Successor of Peter in the celebration of Holy Mass. This is truly a pilgrimage of faith. As with all genuine pilgrimages undertaken in an authentically religious spirit, Catholics who make the journey to Bellahouston Park for Mass with the Pope with devotion and trust in God may receive a Plenary Indulgence under the usual conditions.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “the doctrine and practice of indulgences are closely linked to the effects of the Sacrament of Penance”.

So what are indulgences? The Catechism explains: “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints” (CCC 1471).

Rather loosely and imperfectly but not altogether incorrectly, indulgences have been popularly described as “time off purgatory”.

Indulgences can be partial or plenary, and can be applied to the living or the dead (CCC 1472).

The usual conditions are: prayers for the intentions of the Pope, together with a good Confession and the reception of Holy Communion within a reasonable time.

Rome is once again hawking salvation. It was the sale of indulgences that prompted Martin Luther to nail his 95 thesis to the door of the church at Wittenburg on 31st October 1517. This event is taken as the beginning of the Reformation. 

So much for all those who tell us that Rome has changed and there is no need to continue standing for Reformation principles. 

The Word of God reminds us that salvation is without money and without price, Isa 55:1,2:

Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.

Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.

If we needed fresh justification for opposing Romanism and the papal visit this selling of indulgence gives it to us.

Protest against the Pope in London

Rev Richard Monteith has sent me some photos of the protest in London.

The protestors were placed right beside the Media Centre

Protest against the Papal visit - Part 3

The third aspect of our protest was a public gathering at the Grassmarket. This was the spot where many of the Covenanters were put to death during the 'Killing Times'.

We were permitted by the Police to unfurl our banner and walk from Magdalen Chapel to the Grassmarket.  At the Grassmarket Rev Ron Johnstone spoke.

Leaving Magdalen Chapel on our way to the Grassmarket

The Officebearers of Presbytery at the Grassmarket during the singing of 

'I'm not ashamed to own my Lord, Or to defend His cause …'

Rev Johnstone [Moderator of Presbytery] addressing the crowd gathered at the Grassmarket. 

Protest against the Papal visit - Part 2

The second part of the protest was a special service in Magdalen Chapel in Edinburgh. As the Pope was being received the Queen and representatives of the government we were marking the 450th anniversary of the overthrow of Pope in Scotland by John Knox in 1560. The first Reformed Church presbytery' meeting took place in Magdalen Chapel.

Rev Ron Johnstone, Moderator of Presbytery, preached on Psalm 20 v 5 We will rejoice in thy salvation, and in the name of our God we will set up our banners…

Outside the Magdalen Chapel

Ministers, elders, students & the Press outside Magdalen Chapel

Praise being offered to the Lord

Rev Ron Johnstone [Moderator] preaching

Protest against the Papal visit - Part 1

The first part of the protest against the papal visit was a Protestant rally held in out Rutherglen church in Glasgow on Wednesday evening. The meeting was advertised in the Glasgow Herald and there were some visitors at the service.

Rev John Greer preached on Christ the Mediator.

Outside of Rutherglen Free Presbyterian Church, Glasgow

Ministers, elders & students among the congregation

Preacher: Rev John Greer

No Pope here!

Reasons for opposing the papal visit to Scotland & England of Pope Benedict XVI

Primary grounds for objection

5. Spiritual. History is replete with the statements made by different Popes or else made by others about the Papacy. They were never shy in stating their claims. Rome might be a little embarrassed in modern times but these claims have never been denied or disowned. 

Cardinal Manning in a sermon in the Pro Cathedral, Kensington, and reported in the Tablet [weekly Catholic newspaper] Oct 9, 1864 said: [speaking the name of the Pope which was a rhetorical device]

I acknowledge no civil superior, I am the subject of no prince, and I claim more than this, I claim to be the supreme judge on earth and director of the consciences of men, I am the last supreme judge of what is right and wrong. 

The R.C. New York catechism stated: 

The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth…by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth. 

The Pope claims specific titles which belong alone to the persons of the Godhead. 

The Pope takes titles belonging to God the Father. 

[1] In past times the pope has styled himself as ‘our Lord God the Pope’. These words appear in Roman Canon Law: 

To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical. This feeds into the ancient idea that the Pope is God on earth. 

Pope Pius V [who excommunicated Elizabeth I] said: 

The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and earth. 

Pope Nicholas I declared that:
the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, being God, cannot be judged by man. 

Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical ‘The reunion of Christendom’ declared that the Pope holds: 

upon this earth the place of God Almighty. 

[2] The Pope styles himself as ‘Holy Father’. The title ‘Pope’ comes from the Greek and Latin word for 'father'. On the website detailing the itinerary of the visit this title is used for the pope: 

The Holy Father will then be based in London for the remainder of the visit. 

The Pope therefore usurps titles belonging to God the Father in the Scriptures, John 17:11:

And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

The Pope takes titles belonging to God the Son. 

[1] He styles himself the ‘supreme pontiff of the universal church’. The Catechism of the Catholic Church No 882 states: 

For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire church has full, supreme and universal power over the whole church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.

On a gate to the Vatican there is inscribed in Latin: Benedict XVI, Supreme Pontiff, in the year of Our Lord 2005, in the first year of his pontificate. The words ‘Supreme Pontiff’ in Latin are 'Pontifex Maximus'. 

This title means the Pope claims to rule over every church and over every Christian within every church without exception. He is not coming to Britain as head of the Roman Catholics. He comes claiming to the head of every professing Christian. 

Let me give you one example of the reach of this claim The Catholic Encyclopedia states the Pope: 

… has the right to interpret authentically the natural law. Thus, it is his to say what is lawful or unlawful in regard to social and family life. 

The Pope goes as far as to claim that he is the directer of men’s consciences. 

This title 'Pontifex Maximius' is a form of an old title that comes from pagan Rome. This title: Pontifex Maximus was the high priest of the College of Pontiffs in ancient Rome. It was the most important position in the ancient Pagan Roman religion. 

[2] He styles himself as the way to God. An address made by the archbishops and bishops of Ireland to the pope in 1949 makes interesting reading: 

We the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland, prostrate at the feet of your Holiness, humbly offer you our warmest congratulations on the occasion of the Golden Jubilee of your ordination to the priesthood… our thoughts go back to that great event fifty years ago by which your Holiness was taken from amongst men and appointed for men in the things that pertain to God, was made a minister of Christ and a dispenser of His mysteries, received power over the real and mystical body of our Saviour and became a mediator between God and man - another Christ. It is worth noting that these words are addressed to him as a Priest and not just as the pope. This is how Rome views every priest. Pope Pius IX said: I alone despite my unworthiness, am the successor of the Apostles, the Vicar of Jesus Christ; I alone have the mission to guide and direct the barque of Peter; I am the way, the Truth and the life. 

Pope Boniface VIII said: 

We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. 

These titles are not Biblical. We reject the pope’s blasphemous claims. He is usurping titles of the second person of the Trinity. We proclaim Jesus Christ as the sole King and only Head of the Church, Eph 5:22,23; 5:23; Col 1:18. Jesus Christ alone is the way to God, John 14:6. 

The Pope takes titles belonging to God the Holy Spirit. 

He styles himself the ‘vicar of Christ’. The word ‘vicar’ means ‘instead of’. The Catechism of the Catholic Church No 882 & 937 state respectively: 

For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, … ; 

The pope enjoys by divine institution supreme, full, immediate and universal power in the care of souls.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states regarding this title: 

A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ.… the title Vicar of Christ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth, which he bears in virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him. 

The Catholic church elevates the Pope to the position of ‘supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful’. The Pope claims to be the representative of Christ on earth, to act in His place and with His authority. 

The Popes first claimed to be ‘the vicar of Cæsar’. Imperial Rome moved the Emperor’s seat of government from Rome to Constantinople. The Pope claimed to take his place. In the 5th century they claimed to be ‘the vicar of prince of the apostles’. In the 8th century they went still further and styled themselves the ‘vicar of Christ’; and that on the basis of a document that was a forgery. 

This title was one of the three which formed what was known as the ‘The triple tiara’. It consisted of three crowns symbolising the triple power of the Pope: father of kings [temporal power], governor of the world [universal jurisdiction] and Vicar of Christ [universal pastor]. 

It is interesting that the last three popes have not been crowned in this fashion. At the end of the second session of the Second Vatican Council in 1963, Pope Paul VI descended the steps of the papal throne in St. Peter's Basilica and laid the tiara on the altar. He was supposedly renouncing his claims. Since then, none of his successors has worn a tiara. However Rome still claims that the Pope is the vicar of Christ. 

This is a title usurped from the Holy Spirit. He alone is the true vicar of Christ. To Him the care of souls has been entrusted by the second person of the Trinity. He has been sent in Christ’s name not the Pope, John 14:26; 15:26:

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.

A fitting conclusion is the quotation for the Westminster Confession of Faith: 

There is no other head of the Church, but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God. Chapter 25, section 6.

These blasphemous claims of the Pope must be resisted. They cannot be allowed to go by unchallenged. Let others remain silent if they must, it is the duty of Bible believers to speak out and say this is a denial of the Word of God. 

We therefore primarily protest against the Pope’s visit in fidelity to our God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Faithfulness to God requires that we speak out against this ‘blasphemous bachelor on the Tiber’ as W P Nicholson called many years ago. 

God has commissioned His people to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. We are not to stand by and let an idolator like Benedict XVI steal titles, and offices from God and apply them to himself. 

No Pope here!

Reasons for opposing the papal visit to Scotland & England by Pope Benedict XVI

4. Procedural. One of the reasons for the papal visit is the beautification of John Henry Newman.

Newman was originally an evangelical minister in the Church of England. In 1816 at the age of fifteen, during his last year at school, he professed to be have been converted. He later wrote that it was ‘more certain than that I have hands or feet’. He went on to be ordained into the Anglican Church in 1824 and professed to be a Calvinist, and held that the Pope was Antichrist. 

Over the next 8 years or so his views began to change and assume a High Church tone. He fervently opposed Non-conformity. 

Newman became a major figure in the Oxford Movement. Over these number of years he drifted towards High Church Anglicanism and on towards Romanism in his views. 'Tracts for the Times' became the publishing arm of the Oxford movement, which wished to return the Church of England to many High Church beliefs and forms of worship. Sometimes it was known as ‘Tractarianism’. 

He continued his work as a High Anglican controversialist until he had published, in 1841, Tract 90, the last of the series, which was a detailed examination of the Thirty-Nine Articles, suggesting that their oppositions were not directed against the authorised creed of Roman Catholics, but only against popular errors and exaggerations. 

Newman eventually converted to Roman Catholicism in 1840s. In February 1843, he published, as an advertisement in the Oxford Conservative Journal, an anonymous but otherwise formal retractation of all the hard things he had said against Rome In 1845 he opening converted to Romanism

He subsequently was made a Cardinal - 'a son of the Church'.

In 1991, Newman was proclaimed venerable by the Roman Church. This was after a thorough examination of his life and work by the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints. One miracle was investigated and confirmed by the Vatican, so he will be able to be beatified on 19th September 2010. A second miracle would then be necessary for his canonisation.

We repudiate this popish nonsense of making saints in this way. God alone is to be venerated. Peter would have no veneration when in Acts 10:25,26 he told Cornelius to stand up: 

And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

It is Christ that a sinner needs to help them and no one. Newman or any other saint or Mary or any pope are useless. The New Testament message is forgiveness through Jesus Christ alone, Acts 13:38,39:

Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Jesus Christ justifies from all things. If that is so, and it is, then there is no need for the help of any worthless saint like Newman. 

Saints are not made this way. In fact every believer is a saint of equal standing for there is no respecting of persons with God.