An Examination of Biblical Precepts Involved in Issues at Hand |
There is little doubt that a primary reason many desire to
remove the Old Testament from God's word for us today is because
of the many distressing doctrines established there.
1 Kings 22 is one of the few places in Scripture where God gives
us a glimpse of what takes place behind the actions we see around
us today; it certainly is an unsettling scene for those who deny
that Divine Providence controls all history.
1 Kings 22 shows us a man who acquired wicked gain by lies (Naboth's
vineyard, chapter 21), and now meets his fate by lies. God has
a way of returning a man's ways upon him. They who live by the
sword shall surely die by the sword. Ahab lived by lies, and now
he dies by lies.
This chapter militates against any idea that God foreknew that
Ahab would be killed, and then acts according to his foreknowledge
of what Ahab would do. No doubt those who reject God's sovereign
control of all history through Divine Providence find this a hard
section with which to deal, so they say, "That is Old Testament."
The God who foreordains all events foreordained that Ahab would
fall at Ramothgilead, and here he requires ‘someone' to carry
out his foreordained plans. Is Ahab an exception, or is the secret
counsel of God active in every situation? (See Acts 2:23, 4:28,
Ephesians 1:11.)
1 Kings 22:6 (this chapter is almost word for word with 2 Chronicles
18.)
We know the story: Ahab, the king of Israel, in a war with Syria.
Ahab asks Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, to join him in battle
against Syria. Though Jehoshaphat is a godly man and knows better,
he agrees to go with Ahab.
Ahab and Jehoshaphat
3097d AM, 3807 JP, 907 BC, 8 SK, 12 NK
511. SK-Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab, king of Israel, married Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah. This union resulted from the marriage alliance Jehoshaphat made with Ahab. 2Ch 18:1 [L67] She had a son named Ahaziah who at the age of twenty-two succeeded Jehoram to the kingdom. 2Ki 8:18,26,27 2Ch 21:6 22:2
3104d AM, 3814 JP, 900 BC, 15 SK, 19 NK
514. NK-About a year later, Benhadad came up a second time as far as Aphek to fight against Israel. He was badly defeated and surrendered to Ahab. Ahab received him with all courtesy and honour, and after a while let him go in peace. Ahab made a pact of friendship with him, for which act God, through his prophet, pronounced judgment upon Ahab. 1Ki 20:1-43 However, as a result of this league, there were three years of peace between the two nations. 1Ki 22:1
3105 AM, 3815 JP, 899 BC, 16 SK, 20 NK
515. NK-When Ahab could not persuade Naboth to sell him his vineyard, he was depressed. His wife Jezebel engaged false witnesses and had Naboth condemned to death and stoned. Thus Ahab got possession of the vineyard. The prophet Elijah told him of the destruction which was to befall him, Jezebel and all his posterity, on account of this wicked deed. Ahab trembled at this, and because of his timely repentance, he obtained a respite from this judgment. 1Ki 21:1-29 [E47]
3106d AM, 3816 JP, 898 BC, 17 SK, 21 NK
516. SK-As Ahab had done, Jehoshaphat made his son, also called Jehoram, viceroy of the kingdom. Jehoram, the other son of Ahab, later succeeded his brother Ahaziah as king over the Israelites in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah. 2Ki 3:1 This Jehoram is said to have begun his reign in the second year of his brother-in-law Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat. 2Ki 1:17
517. NK-Ahab, in the seventeenth year of the reign of Jehoshaphat, made his son Ahaziah viceroy in the kingdom. 1Ki 22:51 [L68]
3107d AM, 3817 JP, 897 BC, 18 SK, 22,2 NK
518. SK-Jehoshaphat visited Ahab at the very end of the third year of the peace which Ahab had made with the Syrians. He was invited by Ahab to go with him to the siege of Ramothgilead. After being entreated, he agreed to join him, and barely escaped from there with his life. 1Ki 22:1-53 2Ch 18:1-34 When he returned home, the prophet Jehu, the son of Hanani, reproved him for helping such a wicked king. 2Ch 19:1,2
519. NK-After Ahab had convinced Jehoshaphat to go with him, he set out to besiege Ramothgilead. Before he went, he asked four hundred false prophets, as well as Micaiah, the true prophet of God, what the outcome of the war would be. They all told him he would do well, except Micaiah, who foretold his defeat. Ahab disguised himself, but was killed in the battle. He was buried in Samaria. 1Ki 22:1-53 2Ch 18:1-34 1
... Jehoshaphat's eldest son Jehoram married Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel. It does not appear how far Jehoshaphat encouraged that ill-starred union. The closeness of the alliance between the two kings is shown by many circumstances: Elijah's reluctance when in exile to set foot within the territory of Judah (Blunt, Undes. Coinc. ii. 19, p. 199); the identity of names given to the children of the two royal families; the admission of names compounded with the name of Jehovah into the family of Jezebel, the zealous worshipper of Baal; and the extreme alacrity with which Jehoshaphat afterwards accompanied Ahab to the field of battle. ... 2
Athaliah — Whom God afflicts.
1. The daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, and the wife of Jehoram, king of Judah 2Ki 8:18 who "walked in the ways of the house of Ahab" 2Ch 21:6 called "daughter" of Omri 2Ki 8:26 On the death of her husband and of her son Ahaziah, she resolved to seat herself on the vacant throne. She slew all Ahaziah's children except Joash, the youngest 2Ki 11:1,2 After a reign of six years she was put to death in an insurrection 2Ki 11:20 2Ch 21:6 2Ch 22:10-12 23:15 stirred up among the people in connection with Josiah's being crowned as king.3
Psalms 139:21, 22 required one to hate those who hate those who
hate the Lord, and thus avoid them. Jehoshaphat was soundly rebuked
for his actions in uniting with Ahab: 2 Chronicles 19:2 And Jehu
the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king
Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that
hate the LORD? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD.
For those who seek to dismiss this established Old Testament law
requiring avoiding the ungodly, what is acted out here with Jehoshaphat
and Ahab is firmly established by Paul: 1 Corinthians 15:33, 2
Corinthians 6:16, 17, Ephesians 5:11, 2 John 1:11.
The Battle
Jehoshaphat asks Ahab to call a prophet of God to see what God
says concerning the coming battle. Did he desire to see if he
could get God to confirm his uniting with ungodly Ahab?
Ahab calls together 400 men who claim to be prophets of the true
God. Pulpit Commentary tells us that these were probably 400 priests
of Bethel and Dan, who replaced the true priesthood at Jerusalem
when Israel split from Judah under Jeroboam's heretical proclamation:
"You can worship God just as well here in this manner at
the calves as you can in Jerusalem as God Requires."
The 400 speak with one voice: "Do it. God is with you. You
will prosper."
V. 7. Jehoshaphat does not trust the 400. (I don't know why he
was willing to go to war over Israel's cause, if he knew or had
enough doubt about the war that he would not trust these 400 men.
"If in doubt, throw it out" is good advice. How many
Christians are being influenced by the large numbers of false
teachers from today's "Christian" pulpits, e.g., Tim
LaHaye, Chuck Smith, Jack Van Impe, &c.? Let us not forget
J.N. Darby, C.I. Scofield and their followers.)
V. 8. Ahab says there is one other prophet, but he hates him,
for he always speaks badly of him—tells him the truth. He
is Micaiah - who is like Jehovah? (Not an unusual name in the
Old Testament. It is used at least three times.)
Vv. 9-12.
We find the 400 men carrying on like a bunch of mad men before
the kings sitting on their two thrones. They tell the kings what
they want to hear. Note their indignation when one of the kings
doubts their united testimony. Zedekiah (Justice of Jehovah) seems
to be the leader in opposing Micaiah. Zedekiah has the right name,
for God will have justice, but his message is wrong as sin.
Evidently, Micaiah had been in prison for not speaking in support
of the civil government. He was not "Politically Correct",
and thus imprisoned, v. 26. (See "Patriot Act" in this
issue.)
Vv. 12-16.
The man who brings Micaiah warns Micaiah to speak what the king
wants to hear. Micaiah says he will only speak what the Lord requires
of him.
V. 15, though his mind is made up, Ahab questions him. Obviously,
Ahab wants to be deceived.
Note: How many pastors are questioned by parishioners about what
the parishioner should do, but the mind is already made up. Did
the parishioner seek advice for appearance's sake? It surely was
not to know what the word of God said, for Scripture was ignored.
Micaiah gives Ahab the answer he wants, but in such a way that
the king knows he is being mocked. Ahab gets the answer he wants,
and he still is not happy.
V. 17. Micaiah tells the truth, but Ahab does not want to hear
the truth. So he dismisses the truth as just a personal attack
upon him. "Micaiah does not like me, so he is just saying
that to spoil my plans." (V. 18.)
Vv. 19-22, reveals one of the more interesting, as well as disconcerting,
facts in Scripture. Micaiah tells the kings what he saw taking
place in the secret counsels of God. And that secret counsel is
being carried out by God's servants right before the eyes of the
two kings. God's purpose was to use Syria to kill Ahab, and Micaiah
tells how that purpose is being accomplished. (Throughout history,
God has used the heathens to judge those who claimed to be his
people, e.g., Isaiah 10:24, 25, &c.)
V. 20. With all the host of heaven standing around the Lord, he
asks, Who shall persuade Ahab to go out and get himself killed?
Vv. 20-23. the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all
these thy prophets...
The Lord did not cause Ahab to believe the lies. Though confronted
with the truth, Ahab's self-will caused him to believe the lies:
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for
God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own
lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth
forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
(James 1.)
God raises up false teachers, e.g., Tim LaHaye, &c. (Cf.,
Daniel 4.) The fallen nature of their hearers permit them to gain
many followers who want to believe the false messages over what
the word of God says. They listen to the lying prophets while
rejecting the word of God, for they do not seriously search God's
word to see if those things be true. (See Luke 17:1, Deuteronomy
13.)
Vv. 24, 25, compared with 22:11, 12.
Zedekiah has a reputation to uphold. He had exalted himself as
the chief of the 400 false prophets, and Micaiah just called him
a liar. The charge has to bring a violent reaction if he would
keep his office. Neither king gets upset at Zedekiah for striking
Micaiah. As Zedekiah strikes Micaiah in the face, he ridicules
him as a prophet. Micaiah does not even answer other than "When
the time comes, we will know who is right – you or me."
Micaiah does not defend himself.
Vv. 26-28.
Ahab sends Micaiah back to prison to be held until Ahab returns
in victory. Does Ahab try to hold God's man hostage with –
"OK Lord. You give me the victory in this battle, let me
return in peace, and I will turn your prophet loose"?
Vv. 29, 30.
They go to battle. While disguising himself, Ahab convinces Jehoshaphat
to wear his royal robes into battle: Is he hoping for Jehoshaphat's
death, so Ahab's son-in-law could be king of Judah? – Is
Ahab here turning over the command of the united army to Jehoshaphat
out of fear or precaution over Micaiah's prophecy? – Is Ahab
hiding from God behind Jehoshaphat? – Is he taking precautions
in case his hostage plan does not work? – Is Ahab depending
on Jehoshaphat's relationship with the Lord to spare him? –
Why does Ahab take all of the precautions if he does not believe
Micaiah?
V. 31. The king of Syria is after only one person, Ahab. Why such
a hatred for Ahab?
1) Because of the humiliating defeat he, King Benhadad, had suffered
at Ahab's hands. (See chapter 20.)
2) Because God commanded Benhadad to kill Ahab. If God sent the
deceiving spirit to convince Ahab, then he no doubt sent the spirit
to urge Benhadad to war also. (V. 20, Who shall persuade Benhadad
to kill Ahab?)
Vv. 32, 33. Ahab's plan almost works. Syria pursues the royal
robe instead of Ahab. Jehoshaphat cries out. Does he cry out to
the Lord, or does he cry out of fear? All we know here is that
he cries out, and is spared. From what we see in v. 20, God is
the one who directed the battle, as a man with a chess board.
God spares Jehoshaphat in his mercy, for he was certainly in a
presumptuous sin here. (2 Chronicles 18:31.)
V. 34. Drew a bow at a venture, and smote Ahab. Ahab uses every
human means to avoid this event, but he can not. God's foreordained
purpose will be accomplished even at a venture. The bow to the
man is at a venture, but God holds the man's hands.
Vv. 35, 36.
Ahab is sorely wounded, but cannot not leave the battle, for the
battle is too hot and heavy. Jehoshaphat has enough, and after
the close call of v. 33, he gets out of the battle. V. 36, the
word goes out to Israel's army to go home.
Vv. 37-40. So the king died just as God said he would. The many
false prophets can cry out, and even cut themselves, but God's
word is true, and it will come to pass. (21:19.)
V. 41ff. God records the good reign of Jehoshaphat. However, in
2 Chronicles 20:35-37, we have the record of Jehoshaphat joining
with Ahab's son, Ahaziah, in building ships to bring back gold.
That venture with the ungodly also fails.
V. 44, Jehoshaphat made peace with the king of Israel for a profit.
1. An alliance with ungodly Ahab for mutual protection against
Syria.
2. An alliance with ungodly Ahaziah, Ahab's son, for mutual profit,
gold. (After all, was this not a family venture? Jehoshaphat's
son was married to Ahab's daughter.)
2 Chronicles 18:1-19:2, wrath from before the Lord. The lying
spirit comes to Ahab from before the Lord. Is it a spirit of wrath
from before the Lord against Jehoshaphat that makes him continue
to do destructive things?
2 Chronicles 20:35, the Lord hath broken thy works. Christians
by the score join with the ungodly for mutual protection and profit,
and wonder why things do not go as they want them to go. (Church
Incorporation??)
Note the inter-marriage — Ahab's son reigns after Ahab. Jehoshaphat's
son reigns after him, making the kings of Israel and Judah brothers-in-law.
Later when Athaliah assumes Judah's throne, we have brother and
sister reigning. The brother in Israel, and sister in Judah, and
both were the children of Ahab and Jezebel.
V. 43, the high places are a continual problem for Judah. They
are unauthorized places of sacrifices, yet the sacrifices are
supposed to be to the Lord God.
V. 49, evidently Jehoshaphat learns his lesson, and refuses to
join again with the king of Israel, no matter what the reward
might be.
V. 50, Trapp gives a good comment on this verse, showing us the
dangers of close alliances with the wrong people:
And Jehoram his son.] His most wicked son, for so he proved, {#2Ch 21:6, &c.} being the worse doubtless for his wife Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab; between whom and good Jehoshaphat there was so great a league, that they gave the same names to each other's children: Jehoshaphat called his son Jehoram—marrying him to Ahab's daughter; and Jehoram called his son Ahaziah; and Ahab called his sons Ahaziah and Jehoram. Jehoshaphat also, by Ahab's example, made his son Jehoram Prorex: whence Jehoram the son of Ahab is said {#2Ki 1:17} to have begun to reign in the second year of Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah. (Online Bible.)
Observe:
First. God raises up and even sends false prophets, teachers,
to tell people what they want to hear. Why? For the same reason
he did it here—for the destruction of those who reject him
and his word. False preachers and teachers abound today, and God's
people love it—TO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION.
Those who willingly accept the words of the lying false prophets
over the clear teaching of God's word are under the same curse
as was Jehoshaphat who followed Ahab into battle. He listened
to the lying spirits from God who sent to deceive Ahab to his
death, despite the warning from God's word. The willing hearers
of the false prophets are sending Western Christian Culture to
a swift and sure destruction.
Second. Why did Jehoshaphat help Ahab?
1) Because of the "emotional" attachment with Ahab,
being in-laws. So why do Christians continue to follow those who
corrupt the word of God? No doubt because the corrupters' messages
sound good, and appeal to the emotions.
2) If Jehoshaphat condoned his son's uniting with the wicked daughter
of Ahab and Jezebel, then Jehoshaphat would see no problem uniting
with ungodly Ahab.
3) A result of that ungodly union permitted by Jehoshaphat is
the murder of Jehoshaphat's grandchildren by Athaliah.
Why do those who claim to love God totally ignore the warnings
of God's word and men, and allow their children to marry those
who openly hate God?
Third. A man's claim to be of God does not make him a preacher
of truth, for only God's word can support such a claim. How does
the message compare with God's word? Zedekiah's did not. Sadly,
surprisingly few hearers of our day compare the messages they
hear from the many false teachers with God's word. The lack of
allowing God's word to expose false teachers is a sure sign of
God's judgment against our society, and the sure destruction that
is on its way. Our prayer is that God will send a spirit of "revival",
a revival of love for his word (according to the AV, for the vast
majority of modern versions are perversions. See Rushdoony's article
in the winter 05 Examiner). Using a corrupt version must result
in a corrupt understanding and teaching.
It does not matter if the whole world lines up on one side and
says, Do it! If the word of God says NO, then NO it must be. Were
the 400 men prophets of Baal, prophets of the groves, or were
they simply ‘Fundamental' prophets who just did not happen
to see the need to go to Jerusalem to worship the Lord? Baal was
not worshiped at Bethel and Dan. Rather, the gold calves were
offered to Israel as another way to worship the Lord God, a way
just as good as the true way at Jerusalem. (1 Kings 12:25ff.)
However, Jezebel did have her prophets of Baal.
The majority has never been on God's side. God's side has always
been the minority. "Every one else is doing it this way"
is no reason for anything. What does Micaiah, the word of the
Lord say?
Fourth. How many people, even good people, search for churches
and preachers who will tell lies in convincing ways? Ahab wanted
God's man to tell the lie with as much force as the truth. The
400 false preachers were very sincere and convincing. Even when
the "searchers" get the truth, they, like Ahab, act
as though the truth were a lie, and proceed to do what their mind
was made up to do in the first place.
Micaiah's mockery was so obvious that though he did not want the
truth, Ahab says, "Tell me the truth." His mind was
made up — he was going to war anyway. We know many "Ahabs".
They say with their mouths, "I want the truth," but
they only want it if the "truth" will permit them to
continue on the way they want to go. They know the false prophets
are wrong, but they like being told, "Go thou and prosper."
Every pastor has had people ask for advice, and though they were
told what God required, their mind was made up, and they proceed
as though there was no word from God.
Fifth. Very seldom are we allowed a view into God's throne
room to see his secret counsels. I can think of only two: Job
chapters 1-3, and here, 1 Kings 22. There are other instances
where we see the spiritual movements of God, e.g., Isaiah 6, but
Job and Kings are two where we are shown the secret counsel of
God at work. Seeing these two instances makes me glad we are not
shown more. These two raise more questions than answers, for both
show that God is in control of even the evil that comes to pass
upon this earth.
Micaiah saw the Lord sitting on his throne, as Isaiah saw the
Lord sitting on his throne. When we see the Lord God Almighty
sitting on his throne, the prison house of an ungodly earthly
king does not look so bad. The main problem is that most preachers
have not seen the Lord at all, particularly on his throne. Or
they have seen him only on the cross or in a baby crib. Seeing
God's holiness and sovereignty should cause us to stand for him
even when confronting Ahab.
Sixth. There are several ways to look at the lying spirit
from God:
1. At God's prompting, Satan asked permission to destroy Job.
It was granted with the exception of his life.
2. Ezekiel 14:
4 Therefore speak unto them, and say unto them, Thus saith the
Lord GOD; Every man of the house of Israel that setteth up his
idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity
before his face, and cometh to the prophet; I the LORD will answer
him that cometh according to the multitude of his idols; 5 That
I may take the house of Israel in their own heart, because they
are all estranged from me through their idols. 6 Therefore say
unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Repent, and
turn yourselves from your idols; and turn away your faces from
all your abominations.
The Lord answers his people according to what is in their hearts.
In other words, he gives them what they want, so that he may justly
judge them according to their sin. (James 1.)
Ahab was determined to go to war, and God provided the false prophets
to assure him of victory, so he would go. Without God forcing
him, Ahab chose lies over truth. He was so committed to the lie
he wanted that he threw Micaiah in prison for telling the truth.
Ahab was determined to follow what he wanted to do, so God sent
prophets to say what he wanted to hear.
How many Christians today are so committed to the lies they desire
to hear that they readily depart from truthful preaching?
3. God is God. All we have here is simply a record of what happened
before his throne. We can neither explain nor understand God,
for we are not God, nor does God ask for us to approve his actions.
He does as he wills throughout history, and no one can say, What
doest thou? (Daniel 4:35, Romans 9:19, 20, 11:33ff.)
If 1 Kings 22 seems inconsistent with his Holy character, it is
only because we cannot understand it properly, or we do not have
all the facts.
Obviously, chapter 22 is an accurate account of what took place,
as far as God wants us to know. Any inconsistencies on our part
is due to a lack of understanding on our part, or a lack of all
the facts. Again, God has given us enough to show that we will
hear what we want to hear, and that we will reap what we sow.
Ahab lied about Naboth for personal gain. (21:10, 19.) Ahab is
now destroyed by lies. Ahab put the reaping in motion, and now
he gets a full crop as God permits the results to come to pass.
Ahab used lies to kill a man, and now lies are used to kill him.
No one can accuse God of being unjust because he allows Ahab to
reap what he has sown. Ahab is the one who used lies for his personal
gain. Thus, any fault at any door must be at Ahab's, not God's.
21:20-22, Ahab had been warned by God. 21:29, the warning ‘took
hold'. 22:1-4, Ahab forgets the warning. 22:20-23, God permits
him to pursue his own way, and now reap the crop he planted.
4) Commonly, men try to make a deal with God: See Psalms 66:13-20
– David said, I will pay thee my vows, Which my lips have
uttered, and my mouth hath spoken, when I was in trouble. If a
man after God's own heart would try to make a deal with the Lord,
how much more wicked Ahab?
A common practice among worshipers of false gods was, "If
you don't protect me, I will destroy you." The original insurance
deals were carried out at the pagan temples. They went to the
temple of whatever god covered that area of concern, e.g., shipping.
They offered an offering to that god, seeking his or her protection
for the voyage. If the god failed them, the next time they would
seek the protection from another until they found one that would
be the best protector. If they returned prosperous, they would
bring back some of the profits from the venture to the god –
male or female slaves as prostitutes from battle or money from
the trading venture. If they failed in the venture, they might
even come back and wreck the temple of that god.
I am sure this pagan manner of worship was part of Ahab's thinking,
as he tries to hold Micaiah hostage with the Lord.
How often do Christians do the same thing? They try to play "let's
make a deal" with the Lord God almighty. We too often serve
the god of Ahab and Jezebel, rather than the Lord God of Micaiah
— "I'll serve you Lord. I'll let you be my God if you
will work this out the way I think it should be – even if
it is contrary to your word. And if it does not work out Lord,
I will hold you and your man responsible."
Notice that Micaiah clearly told Ahab it would not work, but Ahab
is still going to hold Micaiah responsible — We warn our
people that what they are trying will not work, but they do it
anyway contrary to God's word. Then when it does not work out,
they try to blame God for not letting it work out. Are they not
trying to convince the Lord to be on their side, even though they
are contrary to his word?
The worst thing, though, is Jehoshaphat: Not believing Ahab's
false prophets, he requested the truth, Macaiah. Micaiah told
the truth, which did not have any effect on Jehoshaphat –
he went anyway. Why? His son married Ahab's daughter. Ungodly
alliance will get us into trouble every time.
God is not going to be held hostage. The Lord God Almighty will
answer to no man, especially to wicked Ahab. Many times in his
mercy, though, he will answer pleas of Psalms 66:13-26.
Micaiah says, "Ahab, if you will return with any kind of
victory at all, then you will know who is the false prophet: Zedekiah
or myself. Then I will deserve the prison."
Seventh. God's laws, whether Old Testament or New Testament, work
just as he tells us they will, no matter how many precautions
we may take. A man or nation will not avoid God's promised results.
7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth,
that shall he also reap. 8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall
of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit
shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. 9 And let us not be
weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint
not. 10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto
all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.
(Galatians 6:7.)
End Note:
1 The Annals of the World. Rev. Archbishop Ussher, 1658. Translated,
revised and updated by Larry & Marion Pierce, 2003. Master
Books, Inc., Green Forest, AR. For ease of reference, Larry has
numbered each paragraph in this massive work. Brother Pierce hopes
to release Annals on CD in the near future.
2 1999, Smith's Revised Bible Dictionary, sv. JEHOSH'APHAT. Online
Bible.
3 Easton's Revised Bible Dictionary. Online Bible
"Faith-Based" – in Big Government
By Matt Chancey
O.K., here goes. I'm going to get in trouble for saying this,
but I don't care. As a card-carrying member of the "Christian
Right" it is my responsibility to be an unbiased critic when
my friends go "off reservation."
With that caveat, allow me to express my shock at the conservative
pundits who are attacking fellow commentators Armstrong Williams
and Maggie Gallagher for accepting $240,000 and $41,000 respectively
in "bribe money" from the Bush administration to support
White House programs on education and marriage. Such criticism
represents the height of hypocrisy.
A couple months ago, it was reported that the Bush administration,
through its Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, has doled out millions
of dollars to conservative Christian organizations. Pat Robertson
received $1.5 million. Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship Ministries
was one of four groups selected to receive a $22.5 million grant.
Catholic Relief Services, World Vision and the Salvation Army
have all received pork from Uncle Sam; and Campus Crusade for
Christ, Samaritan's Purse (Billy Graham's son's ministry), and
other evangelical organizations have applied for access to the
government trough.
Now, don't get me wrong. I love supporting crises pregnancy centers
and other charities that promote abstinence and counsel women
against having abortions. I donate to them regularly. But I don't
see any provision in the U.S. Constitution that gives the President
of the United States the right to direct $ billions of taxpayer
money (our money) to the charities of his choice.
Perhaps the most frustrating fact about this "faith-based
fleecing" of American taxpayers is that the gate-keepers
of much of this government pork are the very organizations and
individuals who sought to "de-fund" leftist groups during
the Reagan/Bush/Clinton administrations.
A FOIA request revealed that the Bush Administration hired independent
experts to review grant applications for one of its abstinence
programs. Reading the list of grant reviewers is like reading
off a list of "who's who in the Religious Right." Summit
Ministries, Turning Point, the Family Research Council, Concerned
Women for America, the Christian Coalition, the Traditional Values
Coalition, and Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation, are all
gate-keepers in President Bush's faith-based welfare program.
So, why are conservatives angry at Armstrong Williams for accepting
a $240,000 bribe? If you ask me, Armstrong sold himself cheap.
Chuck Colson and Pat Robertson received millions to keep their
mouths shut. You didn't catch these men criticizing the Bush administration
during the fall of 2004 for his drunken sailor spending binge
during his first term of office. The simple, undeniable fact is
that President Bush has grown the size of the federal government
to levels President Clinton never dreamed of. Yet, we hear nothing
but crickets chirping from many leaders of the Religious Right.
And why shouldn't we? Why should these conservatives bite the
hand that feeds them?
The operating philosophy of conservative groups should not be
"Big Government is only bad when we don't control it."
The bedrock principle of conservatives—especially Christian
Conservatives—is that government is not God. Big Government,
no matter who is in control, is always, always, always BAD.
Christian conservative organizations fighting for so-called "individual
liberty and personal responsibility" disgrace their charters
by taking welfare from the Bush Administration. Paul Weyrich,
Chuck Colson, Pat Robertson, Beverly LaHaye, Lou Sheldon, and
Franklin Graham have all read the Constitution and should know
better. Government money always comes with strings attached. The
most obvious string evident in the faith-based funding farce is
a general gag order on critical statements against the Bush Administration.
Love of country and commitment to principle should animate conservative
leaders to boldly challenge any reckless, unconstitutional, or
just plain stupid policies coming from the Bush administration
(or any administration for that matter). If they really care about
their president, Christian conservative leaders will confront
him when he goes off reservation. They should stop accepting government
"hush money" and start demanding lower taxes, lower
spending, smaller government, less regulation, and constitutional
budgets. Fidelity to their principles requires nothing less.
Matt Chancey
http://mattchancey.blogspot.com/2005/02/faith-based-in-big-government.html
Old Age
Bettie's and my old age has not been a time of slowing down. It
seems there is more to do than ever before. I have been invited
to speak at Keweah, CA, Apl. 17, and then in Sparta NC, May 12.
Then, Lord willing, spend some time in Lima, Peru. See letters
in this issue. Lima is kind of high, 22,000 feet, so breathing
might be difficult there for us older people.
Christina is finishing up her school work. As those of you who
have been with us for some time know, the illness and death of
her mother set her back some time, and turned both of our world's
upside down. However, Carol and I both agreed that it was all
in the Lord's hands, and he would receive the glory of it all.
After a year to "recuperate" from the illness and death,
Bettie and I married, and it has been non-stop since. (Bettie
slipped on a wet floor in a grocery store while pregnant with
her youngest daughter, and fell on her knee in such a way as to
later destroy the all the cartilage in her right knee. It has
left her with a very sore knee as she tries to walk. I often tell
her and others that I am glad she has a bad knee, or I would never
be able to keep up with her.)
Bettie and I were invited to an aircraft photographer's seminar
close to Dullis airport, not as photographers, but because of
the slide collection. She met several men she knew in the past
from Jeff's flying experiences. One photographer was there from
South Africa, who they met when Jeff was flying with the South
African AF. Jeff had a far reaching influence for the Lord.
Spring is coming quickly here. That means property to clean up
and maintain, which can be quite time consuming, as many of you
well know. Though the house here was designed by Bettie to be
very well insulated and passive solar heated, we still must light
the wood stove in the early mornings to get the chill off the
house. Once the sun comes up, though, the house is well heated
even with the temperature in the 30s and up outside.
Larry Pierce, Online Bible, has asked me to help him edit Philip
Mauro's "The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation"
for publishing, which is taking some time. It is the absolute
best treatment of Daniel's last 3 visions that I have read, and
am likely to read. (Philip Mauro was a brilliant lawyer who wrote
the brief for Bryan's winning argument in the 1925 "Scopes"
trial.) "The Seventy Weeks..." is on Online Bible.
Movie Review:
We obtained "Yours, Mine and Ours" from Netflix (they
have old movies, about 35,000 to chose from).
Staring Lucille Ball and Henry Fonda. It was as UN PC as any movie
could be (1968). The man was a widower with 10 children, and the
woman was a widow with 8 children. When he asked the blessing
at the dinner table, he prayed in Jesus' name. They marry and
the story is about the two families merging. Probably a key scene
is toward the end of the move after the two families have been
together for a while, a step brother is beating up his step brother's
boyfriend because he was doing some inappropriate things (we are
not shown what) to the girl in the living room after everyone
is asleep.
Mom is having their 19th child when the fight breaks out, and
as dad is getting mom ready to go to the hospital, the girl is
saying that the boyfriend has been telling her that everyone is
doing it, and if she loves him, she would let him also. Dad told
her that has been the line for multitudes of years. He points
out that "this is love", as he is rushing his wife out
of the house to the hospital. He clearly said that love is doing
the day by day things that support a family.
It is a very heart warming story of two families who each lost
one of their parents through death (not divorce), and how they
resisted the new parent. And how they came to accept their new
parent, either mother or father. It is worth seeing if you have
access to it. There are many things that can be taught to the
children through this move.
Another movie worth seeing is the original version of "Cheaper
by the Dozen".
It is based upon an actual event, and nothing like the modern
version, and, again, as UN-PC as any movie. It tells both the
ups and downs of a large family (6 boys, 6 girls). The mother
is stay at home, while she supports the father in his occupation.
The father dies unexpectedly, and mother, because she has been
by his side, is able to step in and complete his work. In the
actual story and in the movie, mom is voted "Woman of the
Year" in 1946.
It is another excellent story of the way a family was before WWII,
and the way God meant for a family to operate.
Another family friendly movie:
The expanded version of "The Incredibles" has an extra
disk. On this disk, the crew explains how the final version of
the story line came about. (The Pixar crew was all clean cut.)
They told of the opening lines they laid aside for the one used.
The opening they wanted to us was of the Mr. & Mrs. I at a
backyard cookout. When Mrs. I asked a neighbor what she did, the
lady glowed in her career. When the neighbor asked Mrs. I what
she did, and Mrs. I told her she was a stay-at-home mom and homemaker,
the neighbor's eyes glazed over and that was the end of the conversation
with Mrs. I. The neighbor then went to another group of neighbors
and poked fun at Mrs. I for staying at home.
The author of the story line told how when they had their first
child, they decided that his wife would stay home, and of the
ridicule she received for dropping out of the career lifestyle.
It was an excellent behind-the-scenes view of the family emphasis
of the final movie.
Slides
Going through the collection of slides that Jeff gathered over
the 25 years of his flying and writing career, I have been struck
by the many WW II pictures of women in the factories. It was that
event that changed the face of America forever. The women abandoned
their families, and went into the factories. They never came home,
and the average family has been destroyed. (I posted many: ww2color.com)
Your Phone Number
Google has implemented a new feature wherein you can type someone's
telephone number into the search bar and hit enter and then you
will be given a map to their house. Note that you can have your
phone number removed.
Before forwarding this, I tested it by typing my telephone number
in google.com. My phone number came up, and when I clicked on
the MapQuest link, it mapped out where I live. Quite scary. It
also contained information about my philatelic publications. Not
bad. All, just from my phone number.
Look up your own number. Read below for details. Think about it
. . . if a child, ANYONE, gives out his/her phone number, someone
can actually now look it up to find out where he/she lives. You
probably have your phone number on your checks or other documents
that are in use.
In order to test whether your phone number is mapped, go to: http://www.google.com/
Type in your phone number in the search bar (I.e. 555-555-1212)
and hit enter. If you want to BLOCK Google from divulging your
private information, simply click on the telephone icon next to
your phone number or your phone number whichever works. Removal
takes 48-hours.
If you are unlisted in the phone book, you might not be in there,
but it is a good idea just to check. If your number does come
up, if you hit map, it will show you a direct map to your house.
If you also think there is an alarming potential to this website
function, please forward this info on to friends and family.
(Forwarded from Robert Ford Porter.)
He Died Bringing You These Photos [ Post 293198986 ]
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=ll_chat&Number=293202085&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1&t=0#Post293202085
The photographer who took these photos was crushed under the debris
when the second tower was destroyed by "Controlled Demolition"
INC.
Please look at them carefully. Also note the construction of the
twin towers and note the core structure (which does not show the
concrete casing around the columns as it was sealed after the
photos).
INSANE
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to the Russian Academy of Sciences
See http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index697.htm
10 Voters on Panel Backing Pain Pills Had Industry Ties
By GARDINER HARRIS and ALEX BERENSON (NY Times, February 25, 2005)
Ten of the 32 government drug advisers who last week endorsed
continued marketing of the huge-selling pain pills Celebrex, Bextra
and Vioxx have consulted in recent years for the drugs' makers,
according to disclosures in medical journals and other public
records.
If the 10 advisers had not cast their votes, the committee would
have voted 12 to 8 that Bextra should be withdrawn and 14 to 8
that Vioxx should not return to the market. The 10 advisers with
company ties voted 9 to 1 to keep Bextra on the market and 9 to
1 for Vioxx's return.
The votes of the 10 did not substantially influence the committee's
decision on Celebrex because only one committee member voted that
Celebrex should be withdrawn. ...
******************
Check this out at snopes.com, and you will find it true.
The woman who signed below is a federal Budget Analyst in Washington,
D.C.
Did you ever wonder how much it costs a drug company for the active
ingredient in prescription medications? Some people think it must
cost lot, since many drugs sell for more than $2.00 per tablet.
We did a search of offshore chemical synthesizers that supply
the active ingredients found in drugs approved by the FDA. As
we have revealed in past issues of Life Extension, a significant
percentage of drugs sold in the United State contain active ingredients
made in other countries. In our independent investigation of how
much profit drug companies really make, we obtained the actual
price of active ingredients used in some of the most popular drugs
sold in America. The chart below speaks for itself.
Celebrex 100 mg * Consumer price (100 tablets): $130.27 * Cost
of general active ingredients: $0.60 * Percent markup: 21,712%.
Claritin 10 mg * Consumer Price (100 tablets): $215.17 * Cost
of general active ingredients: $0.71 * Percent markup: 30,306%.
Keflex 250 mg * Consumer Price (100 tablets): $157.39 * Cost of
general active ingredients: $1.88 * Percent markup: 8,372%. Lipitor
20 mg * Consumer Price (100 tablets): $272.37 * Cost of general
active ingredients: $5.80 * Percent markup: 4,696%. Norvasc 10
mg * Consumer price (100 tablets): $188.29 * Cost of general active
ingredients: $0.14 * Percent markup: 134,493%. Paxil 20 mg * Consumer
price (100 tablets): $220.27 * Cost of general active ingredients:
$7.60 * Percent markup: 2,898%. Prevacid 30 mg * Consumer price
(100 tablets): $44.77 * Cost of general active ingredients: $1.01
* Percent markup: 34,136%. Prilosec 20 mg * Consumer price (100
tablets): $360.97 * Cost of general active ingredients $0.52 *
Percent markup: 69,417%. Prozac 20 mg * Consumer price (100 tablets)
: $247.47 * Cost of general active ingredients: $0.11 * Percent
markup: 224,973%. Tenormin 50 mg * Consumer price (100 tablets):
$104.47 * Cost of general active ingredients: $0.13 * Percent
markup: 80,362%. Vasotec 10 mg * Consumer price (100 tablets):
$102.37 * Cost of general active ingredients: $0.20 * Percent
markup: 51,185%. Xanax 1 mg * Consumer price (100 tablets) : $136.79
* Cost of general active ingredients: $0.024 * Percent markup:
569,958%. Zestril 20 mg * Consumer price (100 tablets) $89.89
* Cost of general active ingredients $3.20 * Percent markup: 2,809%.
Zithromax 600 mg * Consumer price (100 tablets): $1,482.19 * Cost
of general active ingredients: $1878 * Percent markup: 7,892%.
Zocor 40 mg * Consumer price (100 tablets): $350.27 * Cost of
general active ingredients: $8.63 * Percent markup: 4,059%. Zoloft
50 mg * Consumer price: $206.87 * Cost of general active ingredients:
$1.75 * Percent markup: 11,821%.
Since the cost of prescription drugs is so outrageous, I thought
everyone I knew should know about this. Please read the following
and pass it on. It pays to shop around. This helps to solve the
mystery as to why they can afford to put a Walgreens on every
corner.
On Monday night, Steve Wilson, an investigative reporter for Channel
News in Detroit, did a story on generic drug price gouging by
pharmacies. He found in his investigation, that some of these
generic drugs were marked up as much as 3,000% or more. Yes, that's
not a typo ... three thousand percent! So often, we blame the
drug companies for the high cost of drugs, and usually rightfully
so. But in this case, the fault clearly lies with the pharmacies
themselves.
For example, if you had to buy a prescription drug, and bought
the name brand, you might pay $100 for 100 pills. The pharmacist
might tell you that if you get the generic equivalent, they would
only cost $80, making you
think you are "saving" $20. What the pharmacist is not
telling you is that those 100 generic pills may have only cost
him $10!
At the end of the report, one of the anchors asked Mr. Wilson
whether or not there were any pharmacies that did not adhere to
this practice, and he said that Costco consistently charged little
over their cost for the generic drugs. I went to the Costco site,
where you can look up any drug, and get its online price. It says
that the in-store prices are consistent with the online prices.
I was appalled.
Just to give you one example from my own experience, I had to
use the drug, Compazine, which helps prevent nausea in chemo patients.
I used the generic equivalent, which cost $54.99 for 60 pills
at CVS. I checked the price at Costco, and I could have bought
100 pills for $19.89.. For 145 of my pain pills, I paid $72.57.
I could have got 150 at Costco for $28.08. I would like to mention,
that although Costco is a "membership" type store, you
do NOT have to be a member to buy prescriptions there, as it is
a federally regulated substance. You just tell them at the door
that you wish to use the pharmacy, and they will let you in.
I am asking each of you to please help me by copying this letter,
and passing it into your own email, and send it to everyone you
know with an email address.
Editor's Note: Is it any wonder that there is such a big anti-cholesterol
push? They keep lowering the safe numbers to make everyone think
they are in grave danger of high cholesterol which might lead
to heart problems. Note the money to be made from such medication
— over a 4,000% markup. And mental health problems! Again,
look at the markup. There is an astounding amount of money to
be made by making everyone think they are sick. And Bush insisted
that the new drug bill could not permit shopping around for the
best price. Moreover, the FDA cried to high heaven about the safety
of Canadian drugs, yet Canada took drugs off the market that the
FDA ruled were safe. Smell the love of money here!!
***********
Things other people accomplished at your age.
Type in your age, and you will see: http://www.museumofconceptualart.com/accomplished/
****************
I will be speaking on "The History of Dispensationalism "
at the Lighthouse World Ministries Bible Conference, which runs
May 12 - 14. It is at Sparta, NC. See http://www.lighthouseproductionsllc.com/
for more information.
**********
Videos and Books
Warriors of Honor- The Faith and Legacies of Robert E. Lee and
Stonewall Jackson.
New Liberty Videos, DVD.
"The Revolutionary War united America. Less than one hundred
years later a bloody Civil War divided it. Most Americans believe
that Southerners fought to preserve slavery; however, a much deeper
divide existed between the North and South. Two drastically different
cultures had emerged on the American landscape.
This documentary places the war in its historical and cultural
context. It guides the viewer through the causes and the major
battles of the Civil War while providing insight into the lives
of two stalwart men who fought for the South. Both were masterful
generals, brilliant strategists and, above all, faithful Christians.
The faith of these "Warriors of Honor" governed their
lives on and off the battlefield, and their legacies continue
even today.
Order from The Biblical Examiner. $20 each, post paid. PO MO preferred
The Online Bible For Windows Ver 2.0
30 English Versions (34 in Deluxe) 40 Other Versions
There is so much new material this year that a second CD is added.
The English CD contains more than 30 English Bible versions including
the New King James Version, The Message, God's Word to the Nations
and The English Standard Version.
In addition to all of the ready to use material on the CD there
are several versions that require royalty payment to unlock, notably
NIV, NAS, NRSV and NLT. These are included on the CD-ROM but cannot
be accessed until they are registered and the royalty of $15 ($22
Canadian) each is paid for the NIV or NASB or $5 ($7 Canadian)
for the NRSV or NLT.
This CD also contains 10 ancient languages texts (Greek, Hebrew,
Latin and Syriac), 3 sets of Greek and Hebrew Lexicons, 20 Dictionaries,
45 commentaries and more than 350 Devotional, Theological, Historical
and Creationist books as well as a set of Bible maps. (See total
list of everything on the first CD, http://www.biblicalexaminer.org/bible.shtml)
The program features an award winning search engine technology
that can instantly find a word, phrase or even a Strong's number
in a Bible version, book or commentary. With this program you
can do complex or simple searches, synchronize the Scripture with
the commentary and display as many versions as you wish at one
time.
The Message, King James Version, Bible in Basic English, 21st
Century KJV, J.N. Darby Translation, American Standard Version,
Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American
Standard Version, Green's Literal Translation, Young's Literal
Translation, Modern KJV, New King James Bible, Weymouth New Testament,
Jewish Publication Old Testament, New International Version, Revised
Webster Bible, J.B. Phillips New Testament, God's Word to the
Nations and The English Standard Version.
The Supplementary CD contains more than 400 Bible versions, Commentaries,
Lexicons and Books in 35 other languages.
French LSG, Geneve, Darby, Haitian Creole, 6 Dutch, 6 German,
2 Italian, Norwegian 3 Spanish, Finnish, Russian, Romanian, Turkish,
Hungarian, Greek, Portugese, Ukranian, Albanian, Danish, Vietnamese,
Arabic, Chinese, Equador, Swahili, Maori, Cebuano, 3 Indonesian,
Philippines, Afrikaans, plus Spanish RVR60 ($10/$14 royalty).
Online Bible 2005 2 CD package $40 (US) post paid. $50 in Canada.
With NIV, NAS, NRSV, NLT codes $69.95 $89.95 in Canada. From:
Biblical Examiner. PO Box 81. Bentonville VA 22610. PO MO preferred.
Guaranteed to be the best Bible Program on the market, or your
money back.
Complete list of books from Sprinkle Publications (2004)
Here is a chance to add to your library at a very good price.
For those of you who are not familiar with Sprinkle, his reprints
book that are quite old and are in public domain, primarily Southern,
or Confederate history books, as well as very sound theology books.
His books are sewn, hard back, cloth books that should last for
many years. (Being a lover of old books, he desires that his reprints
last for generations, and binds them accordingly. You will not
find a better bound book.) I can provide these at 20% discount
from retail, but you pay postage. If you are interested, I will
tell you the charge and the postage, and how to pay. Send me an
e mail.
See the 2004 Sprinkle publication list (a few titles may be missing),
http://www.biblicalexaminer.org/Sprinkle%20Books.html
Praise the Lord for Bush's Patriot Act. I feel so much safer.
And Here's Why
The Patriot Act: Targeting American Citizens
The party line often heard from Neo-Cons in their attempts to
defend the Patriot Act either circulate around the contention
that the use of the Patriot Act has never been abused or that
it isn't being used against American citizens.
Follow the links found at <http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/hs_arrest_vet.htm>
You will feel much safer knowing that Bush, in his all-wise sovereignty,
is protecting us from men like Dr. Tennant who called the VA one
too many times.
Homeland Security Arrests Veteran for Complaining Too Much
Now complaining too much can get you arrested by Homeland Security.
The veteran arrested in the article, Dr. Tennant was arrested
in front of his family for calling the VA too many times. He did
jail time for the offense of "harassing."
Homeland Security Agents Visit Toy Store
So far as she knows, Pufferbelly Toys owner Stephanie Cox hasn't
been passing any state secrets to sinister foreign governments,
or violating obscure clauses in the Patriot Act.
In Terror War, 2nd Track for Suspects
The Bush administration is developing a parallel legal system
in which terrorism suspects -- U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike
-- may be investigated, jailed, interrogated, tried and punished
without legal protections guaranteed by the ordinary system, lawyers
inside and outside the government say.
Court: U.S. Can Hold Citizens as Enemy Combatants
A federal appeals court today ruled that the government has properly
detained an American-born man captured with Taliban forces in
Afghanistan without an attorney and has legally declared him an
enemy combatant.
Patriot Act Being Used to Harass BlackBoxVoting.org website
It appears that they may be using the Patriot Act to circumvent
some of the civil rights protections laid down in the 60s. You
see, it is illegal for a government agency to go in and demand
the list of all the members of a group. And you can't investigate
leaks to journalists by going in and grabbing the reporter's computer.
Terrorism panic goes too far at Area 51
Chuck Clark wasn't even home when law enforcement personnel assigned
to the Joint Terrorism Task Force roared up to his rented trailer
in tiny Rachel, Nev., the other day. He didn't know about the
still-sealed search warrant until he returned from a road trip
and found that his files, photos and computer had been seized.
Secret Service Questions Students
Some teachers in Oakland are rallying behind two students who
were interrogated by the Secret Service. That followed remarks
the teenagers made about the President during a class discussion.
The incident has many people angry. It's good to see the real
terrorists are being hunted down.
Boy investigated by FBI for researching paper on Chesapeake Bay
Bridge
A 12-year-old kid at Boys' Latin researches a paper on the Bay
Bridge, and suddenly the Joint Terrorist Task Force shows up in
the headmaster's office.
Photographer Arrested "Under Patriot Act"
A Denver photographer was arrested while taking pictures in Denver,
during Vice President Dick Cheney's visit to the city. Denver
resident Mike Maginnis reports being physically assaulted by Denver
police.
FBI says Patriot Act used in Vegas strip club corruption probe
The FBI used the USA Patriot Act to obtain financial information
about key figures in a political corruption probe centered on
striptease club owner Michael Galardi, an agent said.
Webmaster Sherman Austin, Jailed under PATRIOT Act
Political prisoner Sherman Austin, who made headlines last year
after being targeted as one of the first casualties of the infamous
USA PATRIOT Act, was released from the Federal Corrections Institute
in Tucson and left Arizona July 12 to return to Los Angeles.
Patriot Act increasingly used against common criminals
In the two years since law enforcement agencies gained fresh powers
to help them track down and punish terrorists, police and prosecutors
have increasingly turned the force of the new laws not on al-Qaida
cells but on people charged with common crimes.
Patriot Act available against many types of criminals
Virtually unmentioned, however, is the fact that the Patriot Act
extended the government's powers well beyond the terrorism arena.
Patriot Act of 2001 casts wide net
Overall, the policy now allows evidence to be used for prosecuting
common criminals even when obtained under extraordinary anti-terrorism
powers and information-sharing between intelligence agencies and
the FBI.
Patriot Act's reach has gone beyond terrorism
The Bush administration, which calls the USA Patriot Act perhaps
its most essential tool in fighting terrorists, has begun using
the law with increasing frequency in many criminal investigations
that have little or no connection to terrorism.
Using The Patriot Act To Target Patriots
The Patriot Act has been used to obtain search warrants against
doctors and scientists who had been warning about the threat of
bioterrorism in the U.S.
Shopkeeper deported from South Carolina under PATRIOT Act killed
in Pakistan
After marrying a naturalized U.S. citizen, having two U.S.-born
children and running a Rock Hill convenience store for years,
Khan was rounded up in post-Sept. 11, 2001, sweeps that targeted
Muslim immigrants.
Art becomes the next suspect in America's 9/11 paranoia
On May 10 Steven Kurtz went to bed a married art professor. On
May 11 he woke up a widower. By the afternoon he was under federal
investigation for bioterrorism.
ARTISTS SUBPOENAED IN USA PATRIOT ACT CASE
Three artists have been served subpoenas to appear before a federal
grand jury that will consider bioterrorism charges against a university
professor whose art involves the use of simple biology equipment.
Patriot Act used to prosecute U.S. civilian
The CIA contract employee accused of abusing a prisoner in Afghanistan
is being prosecuted under the Patriot Act in what legal experts
are calling a surprising and to some, troubling application of
the new anti-terrorism law.
Patriot Act abuses plain
Where were you these past three years while, amid considerable
publicity, our government was imprisoning people without making
charges against them, holding them without trials, and not allowing
them to talk to attorneys?
British Journalist Detained, Harrassed On Trip To LA
When writer Elena Lappin flew to LA, she dreamed of a sunkissed,
laid-back city. But that was before airport officials decided
to detain her as a threat to security.
Now, don't you feel safer knowing Bush is moving to protect us
all from ourselves?
Peru letters go here, found elsewhere.
I gave them suggested topics for the meetings, including teaching
the book of Galatians. I must cut the exchange off here so I can
get this to the printer. WE WILL UP DATE THIS PERU SITUATION ON
OUR WEB SITE. CHECK IT OFTEN TO SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING.
These are my kind of Baptists, for they recognize the "pseudo
religious" problem, the very problem Spurgeon complained
about ("The Down Grade", this issue).
Few American Christians will admit to that problem. "Easy
Believeism, Hylesism" – pray this prayer, say these
magic words – as well as Scofieldism, has made major inroads
into Mexico and Central America, but we do not know if these people
have been part of that theology or not. (The Baptist Church in
Brazil where Bettie's sister attends sends missionaries to Peru,
and from what we saw and heard when we attended there, they seem
to be a Scofield [Plymouth Brethren] church.) My wife and I would
like to go to Peru to help these folks. Would you be willing to
help us with your prayers and finances.
What a privilege to have the opportunity to work with the descendants
of the Incas, who used to sacrifice humans to their gods.
We need funds to pay our way, a translator, opportunity, and a
united spirit there among the Christian leaders. If the trip fails
to materialize, funds designated for a Peru trip we will be returned.
I figure it will amount to around $1,000 each. There will be three
of us, plus a translator if needed.
Also, we provide the little booklet, "The Other jesus, The
Gospel Perverted", upon request.
[End]
Letter
Greetings Folks:
Just wanted you all to know that I appreciate you sending me the
Biblical Examiner. I really enjoy the articles, and I've learned
things and found answers to questions I've had. Thank you for
blessing me.
Several other brothers in here with me also enjoy reading the
newspaper. Anyway, we just wanted you to know that your paper
touches a number of folks here in this prison.
Take care, and may our God bless you all, and may he have mercy
on America.
For Faith and Freedom. Robert Crabb D79433, 3B-3-117, PO Box 3466,
Corcoran CA 93212
By Thomas Williamson
3131 S. Archer Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60608
In order to avoid the error of producing false professions of
faith in our ministry, it may be helpful to look at some of the
errors that have been promulgated by well-meaning soul-winning
evangelists of the past and present.
The most prominent evangelist of the mid-19th Century was Charles
G. Finney, a Presbyterian who developed the altar call as a device
to get decisions in his meetings. Ian Murray, in "Revivals
and Revivalism," says that Finney "believed that all
that was needed for conversion was a resolution signified by standing,
kneeling, or coming forward, and because the Holy Spirit always
acts when a sinner acts, the public resolution could be treated
as `identical with the miraculous inward change of sudden conversion."
Finney believed that conversions could be obtained by the "use
of means" to get people to walk the aisle, and he seemed
to get results. But many of his converts fell away soon after
making their "decision." One of his ministry associates,
in a letter to Finney, stated: "Let us look over the fields
where you and I have labored as ministers and what is now their
normal state? What was their state within 3 months after we left
them? I have visited and revisited many of these fields and groaned
in spirit to see the sad, frigid, carnal, and contentious state
into which the churches have fallen and fallen very soon after
we first departed from among them."
Something was wrong - people were making "decisions,"
but they were not demonstrating the fruits of salvation. More
recently, Roger Schultz, faculty member at Liberty University,
reported on a revival meeting he attended: "I recently heard
an evangelistic message that raised the bar for gimmickry. The
evangelist had a thrilling testimony, one that left me brushing
away tears. (But he never used the Bible, which is always a bad
sign). For the invitation, the evangelist insisted that he did
not want people to come forward. Rather, he wanted them to make
a decision in the ‘quietness of their hearts.' Later, he
asked all who had made decisions to ‘simply stand up.' A
little while later, he directed all those who had stood up ‘just
to come forward.' Had he been consulted about his deceitful methodology,
the evangelist would probably argue that he was simply breaking
down personal barriers and eliminating silly internal resistance
to the gospel. To me, it seemed like as neaky way of building
up to an altar call. The Holy Spirit doesn't need gimmicks."
Observers over the years have noted that Billy Graham, who is
considered to be America's premier evangelist, gets a lot of people
coming forward in his meetings, but few lasting conversions. Herman
Otten, editor of Christian News, stated that "The editor's
home congregation participated in the 1957 New York Billy Graham
crusade. . . . The editor's home congregation received about 28
[referral cards]. All were visited but none were interested in
joining the church. Surveys have shown that Graham's mass crusades
have resulted in few ever joining a church."
Christopher Cagan and John Waldrip, after attending Billy Graham's
San Diego crusade in 2003, presented a report which determined
that "Graham's sermons are an outgrowth of the theology and
methods of Charles G. Finney, the 19th Century evangelist who
changed the meaning of salvation from Biblical ‘conversion'
to the empty ‘decisionism,' which stopped historical revivals
and ultimately helped to empty the churches... . the sad truth
is that Graham's message converts an almost infinitesimally small
percentage of people who did not already consider themselves Christians
before they ever heard him preach. The third awful result of Graham's
meetings is that almost no one is added to the churches.... Dr.
Robert Ketcham of the GARBC (Regular Baptists) showed from hard-core
statistics that only 13 previously unchurched people were added
to the churches of San Francisco from a lengthy Billy Graham crusade."
Is there any answer to the dilemma of "conversions"
that do not last? One possibility is to examine the techniques
of those who have been successful in their soul-winning ministry.
One example of success is the Congregational evangelist Asahel
Nettleton, who won 30,000 converts during the years 1812-1822.
It was estimated that 90% of his converts were still faithful
Christians and active church members, 10 or 20 years after their
conversion.
What was Nettleton's secret? According to Sam Horn of Northland
Baptist Bible College, "His meek and quiet spirit, his utter
dependence on God for results, and his rejection of man-induced
means were in stark contrast to the ministry of other evangelists
such as Finney who were gaining a reputation and a following by
introducing new methods for bringing revival to a church or community....
"His belief that revival was a God-centered sovereign intervention
of the Holy Spirit apart from the methods and machinations of
men was diametrically opposed to the new thinking represented
by Finney."
Asahel Nettleton was a Calvinist who never gave invitations or
conducted altar calls in his meetings. (This is not to say that
we must adopt these convictions in full, only that such convictions
did not in any way hinder Nettleton's soul-winning ministry. If
the power of God is working, it doesn't really matter whether
or not an altar call is used).
Of course, any man holding Nettleton's convictions today would
be denounced as an infidel and run off from most Baptist associations
and churches in America nowadays. (After all, it is a lot easier
to go hunting for "heretics" in our midst than to win
sinners to the Lord).
We prefer to depend, not on the power and sovereignty of God,
but on massive multi-million-dollar "festivals" and
media events, our worldly entertainment extravaganzas and minstrel
shows, and our psychological manipulation methods to get people
to walk the aisle, shake the preacher's hand, mumble a prayer,
"say these words after me or just follow along while I pray
for you," or "just ask Jesus into your heart,"
and then we wonder why most of our converts never join the church,
and most of those who do join a church turn out to be as mean
as the Devil and are interested only in tearing our churches apart.
If anybody today has a better solution to the dilemma of false
professions of faith that Asahel Nettleton had, and can get better
results that Nettleton did, we need to hear from them today.
What the Preachers Say About "Easy-Believism"
"Today, in the ranks of our Independent Baptist churches,
we are overcome by the super salesmen ‘soulwinners' who pull
professions out of lost souls with a promise that they will go
to heaven on the basis of a little prayer and a profession of
faith in Jesus. They follow the Hyles, Hutson, Gray, Vineyard,
statement of faith and never know the reality of passing from
death to life. The followers of these preachers of corruption
are promising lost souls liberty where there is not liberty. .
. . One "Easy-Believism" preacher, Jack Hyles of the
large First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, says that ‘sin
does not have to be repented of, only forgotten.'... I am afraid
these preachers want to hide their sins instead of forget them."
- Gaylon Wilson, "Last Baptist Church."
"To leave out or minimize repentance, no matter what sort
of a faith you preach, is to prepare a generation of professors
who are such in name only. I give it as my deliberate conviction,
founded on 25 years of ministerial observation, that the Christian
profession of today owes its lack of vital godliness, its want
of practical piety, its absence from the prayer meeting, its miserable
semblance of missionary life, very largely to the fact that old-fashioned
repentance is so little preached. You can't put a big house on
a little foundation. And no small part of such preaching comes
from a class of modern evangelists who desiring more for their
own glory to count a great number of converts than to lay deep
foundations, reduce the conditions of salvation by '/2 and make
the other half but some intellectual trick of the mind rather
than a radical spiritual change of the heart... . Such converts
know but little and care less about a system of doctrine. They
are prayerless, lifeless, and to all steady church work reprobate."
- B.H. Carroll, in "Repentance and Remission of Sins."
"It is easy to get children to hold up their hands to indicate
a decision, but that does not mean they are saved. The Bible says
that no one can be saved unless he repents. . . . Repentance is
being sorry enough for your sins to want to stop doing them."
- George Eager, "Winning Children to Christ."
"Shallow preaching that does not grapple with the terrible
fact of man's sinfulness and guilt, calling on ‘all men everywhere
to repent,' results in shallow conversions; and so we have a myriad
of glib-tongued professors today who give no evidence of regeneration.
Prating of salvation by grace, they manifest no grace in their
lives. Loudly declaring they are justified by faith alone, they
fail to remember that ‘faith without works is dead.'"
- Harry Ironside, "Except Ye Repent."
"Just now some professedly Christian teachers are misleading
many by saying that ‘repentance is only a change of mind.'
It is true that the original word does convey the idea of a change
of mind; but the whole teaching of Scripture concerning the repentance
which is not to be repented of is that it is a much more radical
and complete change than is implied by our common phrase about
changing one's mind. The repentance that does not include sincere
sorrow for sin is not the saving grace that is wrought by the
Holy Spirit." - Charles Haddon Spurgeon, "The Royal
Saviour."
"Can't you see what fools we are? We preach a man-made, plastic
gospel. We get people to come forward to `the altar' by bringing
psychological pressures that have nothing to do with God. We `lead
them' in a prayer that they are not yet convinced they need to
say. And then to top it all off, we give them `counseling,' telling
them it is a sin to doubt that they're really saved!" - Keith
Green.
"‘Easy-prayerism' ... is a methodology which focuses
on getting people to say a prayer.... What I am against is making
this the focus of our evangelistic activity. Repeating a prayer
is not necessarily salvation, and we must not confuse it with
such. Just because 50 people pray a prayer, or raise their hands
in a gospel meeting, or some other thing like this, is no evidence
whatsoever that those people have been saved. It is one thing
to show some interest in salvation; it is quite another thing
to be saved." - David Cloud.
"No doubt the NUMBER ONE lie among Bible-believing people
today is, ‘You must ask Jesus into your heart to be saved
and trust him to do that (come into your heart),' etc. But look
at what this is saying! ‘You are saved because you asked
Jesus into your heart.' There is no Scriptural support for this
false plan of salvation which is devastating to the cause of Christ;
it places the emphasis upon a prayer that is said and what the
sinner can do rather than upon what Christ has done." - Ovid
Need, in "The Other Jesus - The Gospel Perverted."
"One day I watched one of those trainees talk to a teenage
fellow. As I listened, it was evident the teenager did not understand
what he was doing and did not get saved. Yet when the counselor
was done, the young man believed that he was saved. That high
school student had no conviction of sin, no conception of Christ's
dying in his place to pay for his sin, no comprehension of trusting
in Christ alone for salvation. Rather, just about all he got was
that he was to bow his head and ask Jesus into his heart. . .
. That day, I doubted. I doubted that asking Jesus to come into
your heart was valid. That provoked me to study. Since then I
have come to the conclusion that the Bible does not teach that
a person gets saved by asking Jesus Christ to come into his heart
or into his life." - G. Michael Cocoris, in "Evangelism
- A Biblical Approach," Moody Press.
"Decisionism is the belief that a person is saved by coming
forward, raising the hand, saying a prayer, believing a doctrine,
making a lordship commitment, or some other external, human act,
which is taken as the equivalent to, and proof of, the miracle
of inward conversion. . . . Decisionism is purely human, carnal,
and natural. Conversion is from God.
Decisionism is from man. In decisionism a person does something
which takes the place of a saving encounter with Jesus but is,
in fact, not that at all. That is why so many people are unsaved
today." - R.L. Hymers, Jr. and Christopher Cagan, in "Today's
Apostasy."
"Just as 75% of the church is not saved, a full 50% of the
preachers are not either. . . . I have called the new way of getting
saved ‘easy believism.' In simpler words, all a person has
to do to be saved is to ‘accept Jesus Christ as your Savior.'
Walk down the aisle and tell the preacher you have accepted Christ.
He takes your word for it and admits you to church membership.
Show me that condition of being saved in God's Word? But what
started with Finney in the 1820's and picked upon by pastors,
missionaries and evangelists through the years has resulted in
the Local Church being filled with people who are not ‘converted,'
and thus resulting in the deplorable conditions that exist in
our churches today." - Morris Wright, in The Flaming Torch.
"When you ‘convert' a child (or an adult) by the process
of cheap methods, you do not convert him to Christ, but to a circus,
or at best to a movement. This type of convert will return to
his 'wallowing in the mire' as soon as the circus tent is taken
away. . . . If these men could compute the increase of number
they 'win' by these tactics they would know the number of false
professions they will accumulate during their life," - Forrest
Keener, in "Visions of Bubble Gum."
"The way of salvation is falsely defined. In most instances
the modern ‘evangelist' assures his congregation that all
any sinner has to do in order to escape hell and make sure of
heaven is to ‘receive Christ as his personal Savior.' But
such teaching is utterly misleading. No one can receive Christ
as his Savior while he rejects Him as Lord! It is true, the preacher
adds, that the one who accepts Christ should also surrender to
Him as Lord, but he at once spoils it by asserting that though
the convert fails to do so, nevertheless heaven is sure to him.
That is one of the devil's lies! ... Those preachers who tell
sinners that they may be saved without forsaking their idols,
without repenting, without surrendering to the Lordship of Christ,
are as erroneous and dangerous as others who insist that salvation
is by works, and that heaven must be earned by our own efforts."
- Arthur Pink, in "Present Day Evangelism."
"‘Easy believism' is mostly propagated by the Charismatic
movement and the ‘Christian' Rock movement. ‘Easy believism'
makes everyone a Christian that either speaks in tongues or simply
shows up to some kind of a religious meeting and waves their hands
around. This belief completely ignores repentance, humility, and
sorrow for sin and behaving like a Christian. It retards Christian
growth. This is how many liberal, compromising Christians get
their big numbers. They try to make everyone feel comfortable
in their sin and then they brag about their big numbers that they
claim to have converted." - Mark Finkbeiner, Richland Missionary
Baptist Church, Richland, Washington.
"Usually these Arminian Baptists (and their Protestant fellow-travelers)
describe the act on which they believe the new birth is predicated
in certain terms which are accepted among them. They often require
a ‘decision for Christ.' Sometimes they will speak of ‘praying
the sinner's prayer' or ‘making a decision for Christ.' Others
speak of ‘opening your heart's door to Jesus,' while some
instruct lost people to ‘invite Jesus into your heart.'...
But whatever exact term or terms may be used, the basic concept
is that there is something which a lost person must be induced
to do in order to bring about his or her new birth. I cannot see
any essential difference between baptismal regeneration (requiring
baptism in order to bring about the new birth) and decisional
regeneration (requiring a decision in order to bring about the
new birth). Both are fundamentally the same in that they require
an act on the part of a spiritually dead sinner in order for God
to make that sinner alive spiritually." - Curtis Pugh.
"Why then do we read such books as "50 Ways to Give
an Altar Call," "How to Draw in the Gospel Net"
and other God-dishonoring humanistic instructions about how to
get people ‘saved' by coming forward? We have made walking
the aisle the fundamentalist sacrament. . . . If we cause people
to understand that they were saved by walking the aisle, we'll-define
God's wonderful salvation. . .. We must never give the slightest
impression that people have to ‘do' something in order to
be saved." - Bill Jackson, Christians Evangelizing Catholics.
Thomas Williamson. 3131 S. Archer Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60608
After starting a new diet, I altered my drive to work to avoid
passing my favorite bakery.
I accidentally drove by the bakery this morning and there in the
window were a host of goodies. I felt this was no accident, so
I prayed, "Lord, it's up to you....if you want me to have
any of those delicious goodies, create a parking place for me
directly in front of the bakery."
And sure enough, He answered my prayer.... On the eighth time
around the block, there it was!
By David and Heather Ethell
God has a wonderful plan for marriage found in His word, and thankfully,
the Lord helped both of us follow Him in that design even after
years of doing things our way. Psalm 27:14 says, "Wait on
the Lord; be of good courage, and He shall strengthen your heart;
wait, I say, on the Lord!"
We believe God's pattern is for men and women to lean on Him for
their spouse and not leave their heart on the table for those
who they think might be the one. It was not until we became content
in what our Lord had for us in our single days that He brought
us together.
What does being content mean in your single days? Scripture reveals
to us in Titus chapter 2, verses 4 and 5 that young women are
to "love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet,
chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands."
So for the single woman, this means preparation for all these
areas. Rather than focusing her energies for a mate, young women
should focus their God-given energy on becoming what God wants
them to be as a mate.
Learning to love children, love the management of the home and
above all, to love and know the word of God is a consuming set
of tasks for young women in their single days. By concentrating
on these tasks we were designed to do we will grow in our walk
with the Lord while trusting Him for a godly husband in his timing.
Similarly, verses 6 to 8 of Titus 2 tell young men "to be
sober-minded in all things showing yourself to be a pattern of
good works; in doctrine showing integrity, reverence, incorruptibility,
sound speech that cannot be condemned, that one who is an opponent
may be ashamed, having nothing evil to say of you." So young
men are to spend their single days preparing for their life as
husbands, working hard and seriously, redeeming the time.
For both men and women, being content in singleness does not mean
building our life as if we will always be single. It means building
our life around God's pattern for marriage so that if and when
God calls us into that holy estate we are ready and well prepared.
So our story begins with Heather pulled by the hand of God away
from walking in the way of the world. Heather came to live with
Bettie Ethell when she was eighteen years old with a six month
old baby girl, Kelsea. Bettie had lost her husband, Jeff, just
two years earlier, and graciously offered to take Heather and
her baby in to learn what it means to be a godly woman.
David had been living with Bettie after his father's death to
take care of her and was just moving out. He had spent years trying
to make something happen in terms of finding a wife, and finally
realized that task should be left in God's hands. At the time
Heather came, David was busy laying the ground work for his life
as a husband, and had no idea God would lead him to Heather. Heather
spent that year with Bettie learning how to be a daughter of the
King, a mother and a keeper at home. Many times, Heather wanted
to break away from God's will, but God in His sovereignty kept
her under His wings.
During Heather's time with Bettie, Bettie encouraged her to make
a list of qualities that met the character of a godly man. Having
only known the faithless men of the world and growing up without
a father figure, these qualities seemed impossible to find in
a man. However, seeing the character in Bettie's life such as
was in her son and son-in-law gave Heather hope that God would
bring such a man in His time. Having a child who needed a father
figure now made it hard to be patient.
In the late Spring of the following year, God began to reveal
to David that Heather was God's choice for Him. David began to
see all the ways that God had prepared him to take on the responsibility
of being a father to a little girl who needed one, and a husband
to a young woman who needed a covering and godly head. 1 Corinthians
11:3 says that "the head of every man is Christ, the head
of every woman is man and the head of Christ is God." David
knew that Heather needed the protection and security of a husband
and through him, God's covering in Christ. He began to seek the
Lord for confirmation of this plan.
Several times that year, Heather had wondered if David might be
the one God had for her, but finally dismissed it because David
seemed to be heading off in other directions. She became content
that it was not David, but that God would bring someone like Him.
Meanwhile, David's confirmation of God's call was growing. His
prayer life and time in the scriptures lead him more and more
to see the call of taking Heather as his wife and becoming a father
to Kelsea. As David became more convinced that this was God's
plan, he feared that he might falsely led Heather's heart before
it was time, so he actually began growing colder in his demeanor
to her, not in an effort to offend, but in an effort to protect
her heart and not raise her hopes should this not prove to be
God's plan. Heather saw that coldness, and wondered what had changed
in David when before he had always been so warm and friendly to
everyone. Now it seemed like he was deliberately ignoring or avoiding
her. Of course, he was!
Finally in May of that year, David laid a "fleece" before
the Lord in preparation for speaking to Heather about the possibility
of their marriage. He asked that the Lord bring one of his close
family members to him, with no prompting, to ask if the Lord might
have Heather as a wife for David. David asked that the Lord do
this by the end of the summer. Rather than waiting for months
through the summer, the Lord brought confirmation within a week.
A few days later, Bettie's children were gathering for a dinner
out, and Bettie said to them that she had something on her heart
to share. She prefaced her comments with the clear understanding
that she in no way wanted to influence David's life, but the Lord
had laid something on her heart that she just couldn't ignore
any longer. She said she had been impressed that David should
marry Heather. When just a few months before Bettie had thought
of the other young men in their church who might possibly become
a husband to Heather, God had brought her full circle to realize
that it might be her own son that would fill this role. While
none of them had ever thought that David would marry a woman who
had a child and had such a trying past, Heather's transformation
through God's grace had shown them that what God has called clean
is indeed clean.
After the others present at the dinner gave their thoughts, also
in confirmation of this idea, David could now speak with the assurance
God had brought him through answering his very specific prayer.
David shared how he, too, believed this was God's plan and had
been in prayer for several months about it now. Bettie wept with
joy that the Lord would plan such wonderful things right in their
home. David rejoiced at God's amazing hand that brought the woman
for him right to his door. Of course, it still remained to see
if this plan was also confirmed in Heather's heart.
Later that week David spoke to Heather about this possibility.
Since Heather had no father in her life and her mother was not
in a position of caring for Heather anymore, the conversation
was not what David had always envisioned of approaching the girl's
father for permission. So, with the agreement of his family and
his pastor that this could indeed be God's design, David directly
asked Heather if she would be interested in his courting her with
the intention of marriage. He explained that their time of courtship
would be a time for working through God's word together on what
marriage means, what their individual roles in the marriage should
be and other necessary issues such as God's plan for having children.
Heather was amazed and delighted. When she learned the reason
behind David's coldness of late, she understood what had been
happening. David had a growing affection for her in his heart
and yet guarded it so that she would not be defrauded. She told
David of the many things God had been preparing in her heart for
her life as a wife and that she did want David to court her with
the plan of seeking God's will for marriage between them.
The actual time of courtship was swift by many standards, lasting
only a few weeks. When God has laid the groundwork in two people's
hearts, however, the timing of events is much less important than
the sure confirmation of His word. We spent those weeks searching
the word and studying the foundations of marriage. We found we
were both in complete agreement about the glorious, but challenging
role of the wife as the keeper of the home and of the husband's
role as the keeper of his children's hearts. We were also in agreement
over letting God decide the number of children we would have rather
than setting a number in our minds.
In late June, in the empty sanctuary of our church, I asked Heather
to marry me. Heather had been sent on an errand to the church
thinking I was out of town, and I waited in a corner, guitar in
hand, to sing to her and propose. With the ring tied to an open
Bible, I read from Ecclesiastes 4, verses 9 through 12: "Two
are better than one, because they have a good reward for their
labor. For if they fall, one will lift up his companion. But woe
to him who is alone when he falls, for he has no one to help him
up. Again, if two lie down together, they will keep warm; but
how can one be warm alone? Though one may be overpowered by another,
two can withstand him. And a threefold cord is not quickly broken."
Heather accepted my proposal of marriage and three and a half
months later, in September, we were married. I jumped right into
fatherhood, having a 21 month old girl on day one. Since that
time we have had three children together, another girl and two
boys. God's rich design has been far beyond what either of us
could have imagined before. Truly, "unless the Lord builds
the house, they labor in vain that build it." But when the
Lord builds, His foundation is sure and His plan is far beyond
what we could plan on our own.
(Bettie Ethell Need's son and daughter-in-law live in the Shenandoah
Valley of Va, with their two daughters and two sons, on the other
side of Massanutten mountain and about 45 minutes from grammie
and gramdpa Need.)
Lewis Drummond's 1992 biography of Charles Spurgeon is called:
Spurgeon Prince of Preachers. The 895 page treatise on the London
pastor includes some well-known facts as well as some little-known
facts. One such fact is the woeful controversy involving Spurgeon
and the Baptist Union. It was sparked in 1887 when Spurgeon printed
a series of articles which were critical of liberal theology.
The controversy would end after Spurgeon withdrew from the Baptist
Union, an organization that he had helped build. He would live
five more years in virtual isolation and pass away in 1892 at
age 57.
In 1854, Spurgeon went to the New Park Street Baptist Church in
London as a supply preacher for six months and never left. He
pastored the church for the next 38 years—the rest of his
life. It was renamed Metropolitan Tabernacle in 1861 when the
church moved to a new location.
The "Down Grade", as Spurgeon called it, was a controversy
that developed over several years and erupted in 1887 in Spurgeon's
paper, The Sword and the Trowel. He said he feared that the Baptist
Union (same as an association or a fellowship in this country)
was on a down grade of liberal theology. He said the Parliament
had expelled Puritanism from the Church of England in the Act
of Uniformity in 1662 and replaced its Calvinistic doctrine with
Arminianism giving rise to independent Baptists. Spurgeon's first
article (March 1887) said that every single independent Baptist
church was established on Calvinistic doctrine but this changed
as several books were written to counter the Antinomianism of
Tobias Crisp, an eminent preacher. The books frightened a large
number of Baptists and put them on the "down grade,"
Spurgeon contended. We would call it an over-correction.
Spurgeon's second article (April 1887) said: "Arminianism,
which is only Pelagianism under another name, had, to a large
extent, eaten out the life of the Church of England, and Arianism
followed to further and complete destruction."
In the third article (June 1887) Spurgeon said: "By some
means or other, first the ministers, and then the Churches, got
on `the down grade,' and in some cases the descent was rapid,
and in all, very disastrous. In proportion as the ministers seceded
from the old Puritan godliness of life, and the old Calvinistic
form of doctrine, they commonly became less earnest and less simple
in their preaching, more speculative and less spiritual in the
matter of their discourses, and dwelt more on the moral teachings
of the New Testament, than on the great central truths of revelation."
The article did not attack the independent Baptists, but warned
that the same thing could happen to them. To leave Calvinistic
doctrine was to enter on a slippery slope into apostasy and disaster.
He said: "Those who turned from Calvinism may not have dreamed
of denying the proper deity of the Son of God, renouncing faith
in his atoning death and justifying righteousness, and denouncing
the doctrine of human depravity, the need of Divine renewal, and
the necessity for the Holy Spirit's gracious work, in order that
men might become new creatures, but dreaming or not dreaming,
this result became a reality."
Liberalism at Harvard University and Andover Seminary, a Baptist
institution, was used as an example of what had happened in America
when one gets on that slippery slope. Both of those schools were
instituted for the purpose of training ministers but had fallen
into doctrinal error. The reaction to these articles was not very
radical at first. Spurgeon wrote more articles in August, September
and October, 1887, in which he said: "The Atonement is scouted,
the inspiration of scripture is derided, the Holy Spirit is degraded
into an influence, the punishment of sin is turned into a fiction,
and the resurrection into a myth, and yet these enemies of our
faith expect us to call them brethren and maintain a confederacy
with them."
Spurgeon hoped the Baptist Union, meeting that year, would address
his concerns set forth in the six articles. He was disappointed.
The Union totally ignored his concerns. Some of the young men
used the occasion as a joke about an old man's senility. Few followed
Spurgeon's warnings. He withdrew from the Baptist Union in a letter
dated October 28, 1887.
The congregation of the Metropolitan Tabernacle passed a resolution
with the following wording: "...the church worshipping at
the Metropolitan Tabernacle in annual meeting assembled, desires
to express its hearty sympathy with its beloved pastor, C.H. Spurgeon
in the testimony for truth he has recently borne by his articles
upon ‘The Down Grade,' endorses his action in withdrawing
from the Baptist Union (follows him in the course he has taken)
and pledges itself to support him by believing prayer and devoted
service in his earnest contention for the faith once for all delivered
to all the saints."
This caused a furor in the Baptist community all over the world.
The press reveled in it. Charges and counter-charges were thrown
around. A delegation of Baptist ministers attempted to meet with
Spurgeon, but he would not see them because of declining health.
He eventually met with the council the next year. He would not
reconsider his resignation and pressed the Baptist Union to adopt
a statement of faith, which would have removed any doubt about
its theological position, but its members refused. The union wanted
Spurgeon to produce evidence of his accusations that men in the
association had departed from the faith. Spurgeon refused. The
association passed two resolutions: the first one accepted Spurgeon's
resignation and the second one became known as the "Vote
of Censure." Only five members voted against the measures.
In the February 1888 Sword and Trowel, Spurgeon gave his defense.
He gave no reason for keeping silent about the identity of those
he believed to have departed from the faith and argued that the
association had no means by which to expel them if he identified
them. It was later learned that those names had been supplied
to Spurgeon by the secretary of the association who had sworn
him to secrecy.
The entire controversy left Spurgeon with few friends and failing
health. The great preacher never recanted his Calvinistic convictions.
Someone said that God's servants are not called to win every battle,
but they are called to stand firmly on the truth. Such a man was
Charles Haddon Spurgeon.
Spurgeon's last sermon was delivered to the Pastor's College on
April 21, 1891. His text was John 16:14: "He shall glorify
me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you"
and called it "He Shall Glorify Me."
Spurgeon's last words: "If you wear the livery of Christ,
you will find Him so meek and lowly of heart that you will find
rest unto your souls. He is the most magnanimous of captains.
There never was His like among the choicest of princes. He is
always to be found in the thickest part of the battle. When the
wind blows cold He always takes the bleak side of the hill. The
heaviest end of the cross lies ever on His shoulders. If He bids
us carry a burden, He carries it also. If there is anything that
is gracious, generous, kind, and tender, yea, lavish and superabundant
in love, you always find it in Him. His service is life, peace,
joy. Oh, that you would enter on it at once! God help you to enlist
under the banner of Jesus Christ!"..
(From The Baptist Evangel. Pastor Jack Warren, editor. 228 Belmont, Saginaw, TX 76179.)
Editor's note: We desire our material be understood by the
average reader, so we will define some terms that are used in
the "Down Grade" articles. Bold emphasis is added, and
the "Note:" are the editor's comments. There will be
a few more terms introduced in the next Down-Grade article.
Arianism, Christian heresy founded by Arius in the 4th cent. It
was one of the most widespread and divisive heresies in the history
of Christianity. As a priest in Alexandria, Arius taught (c.318)
that God created, before all things, a Son who was the first creature,
but who was neither equal to nor coeternal with the Father. According
to Arius, Jesus was a supernatural creature not quite human and
not quite divine. In these ideas Arius followed the school of
Lucian of Antioch. (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/A/Arianism.asp)
Antinomianism, [Gr.,=against the law], the belief that Christians
are not bound by the moral law, particularly that of the Old Testament.
The idea was strong among the Gnostics, especially Marcion. Certain
heretical sects in the Middle Ages practiced sexual license as
an expression of Christian freedom. (See "Christian Liberty"
in the Winter 05 issue of TBE.) In the Protestant Reformation,
theoretical antinomian views were maintained by the Anabaptists
and Johann Agricola, and in the 17th cent. Anne Hutchinson was
persecuted for supposed antinomianism. Romans 6 is the usual refutation
for antinomianism. (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/a1/antinomi.asp)
How many do I know who deny they are antinomian, yet deny the
validity of the moral law of Moses, the Ten Commandments, for
New Testament Christians? Clearly, by definition, they are antinomian.
Socinianism: Anti-Trinitarian religious movement organized in Poland in the 16th cent. by Faustus Socinus. Antecedents of the movement were such Italian humanist reformers as Bernardino Ochino, Georgio Blandrata, and Laelius Socinus , who fled to Poland from persecution first in Italy and then in Calvinist Switzerland. Michael Servetus appears to have influenced their anti-Trinitarian views. Socinianist reformers organized (1556) the Minor Reformed Church of Poland and established Rakow as an intellectual center. Faustus went to Poland in 1579 and became the movement's leader and principal theologian. Socinianism represented an extreme attempt to reconcile Christianity with humanism. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity was rejected, the Scriptures were considered authoritative but were interpreted in the light of the new rationalism, and the sacraments were viewed as spiritual symbols. The Nicene and Athanasian creeds were rejected and Jesus was held to be only the human instrument of divine mercy and the Holy Spirit merely the activity of God. Under Faustus the movement became known as the Polish Brethren, and communities were formed in imitation of the early Christian church. Its members refused to hold serfs or to participate in war. Never strong, the movement dissolved (c.1638) in the face of severe Roman Catholic persecution. Some of its members settled in Holland and there played a part in liberalizing Reformed doctrine. Faustus's teachings were compiled by disciples as the Racovian Catechism (1605). Socinianism is sometimes called Old Unitarianism and, erroneously, Polish Arianism. (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/S/Socinian.asp)
Arminian: Arminius, Jacobus, 1560-1609, Dutch Reformed theologian, whose original name was Jacob Harmensen. He studied at Leiden, Marburg, Geneva, and Basel, and in 1588 became a pastor at Amsterdam. He undertook to defend the Calvinist doctrine of predestination against the attacks of Dirck Volckertszoon Coornhert, but as a result of the controversy he changed his own views of the doctrine. He was professor of theology at the Univ. of Leiden after 1603, and he engaged in violent theological debates, seeking to win the Dutch Reformed Church to his views. His teaching, known as Arminianism, was not yet fully developed, but he asserted the compatibility of divine sovereignty with human freedom, denied John Calvin's doctrine of irresistible grace, and thus modified the strict conception of predestination. In this respect his teaching resembled that of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent. Arminianism became a term of abuse among 17th-century Puritans. His ideas were formulated after his death into a definite system by his disciple, Simon Episcopius, who drew up the "Remonstrance" (see Remonstrants). Arminianism later was the doctrine of Charles and John Wesley and most of the Methodist churches. (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/a/arminiusj1.asp) Arminians are closer in doctrine to Rome than to Protestants.The points put forth by the Arminians were known as Arminianism. The Synod of Dort, Holland, November 13, 1618, was called to develop five points in response to the Arminians' points. The Synod was called 50 years after Calvin, but they named the system Calvinism, after the great French reformer, John Calvin (1509-1565). However, John Calvin had nothing to do with putting together these five points. (For a complete treatment of the Arminian/Calvinism development, see TBE, 8/02, http://biblicalexaminer.org/PDF/Aug02.pdf. I will send you a copy of that issue if you do not have web access.)
Preface
From Spurgeon's 1887 Sword and Trowel Annual Volume
When the reader receives this number of the magazine, the Editor
hopes to be travelling along the Corniche Road, which in some
places winds its wondrous way far above the sea. One gazes down
from above, and draws his breath. During the past year we have
often had to look down from the royal road of the truth upon those
craggy paths which others have chosen, which we fear will lead
them to destruction. We have had enough of The Down-Grade for
ourselves when we have looked down upon it. What havoc false doctrine
is making no tongue can tell. Assuredly the New Theology can do
no good towards God or man; it, has no adaptation for it. If it
were preached for a thousand years by all the most earnest men
of the school, it would never renew a soul, nor overcome pride
in a single human heart. We look down into the abyss of error,
and it almost makes our head swim to think of the perilous descent;
but the road of the gospel, to which we hope to keep by divine
grace, is a safe and happy way. Oh, that all would travel it!
Oh, that our earnest pleadings, which have brought upon our devoted
head so much of obloquy, would recall the churches to the good
old way!
Many of the papers in this volume have been reprinted, because
friends have thought them specially useful, and many more have
been translated to other magazines, which annexation we accept
as a compliment, even where the name of The Sword and the Trowel
has been inadvertently omitted. At the same time, borrowed articles
should be acknowledged as distinctly as possible, and the paper
in which they first appear should have the credit of them. In
America, in all sorts of newspapers and magazines, we find pieces
of our work, and we think, therefore, that our subscribers are
not badly catered for.
Note: How many preachers and authors use Spurgeon's thoughts and
ideas, never mentioning that the things they are saying are from
Spurgeon? They even change his messages to make Spurgeon support
things he militated against when he was alive.
Our band of friends and helpers has suffered serious diminution
by death during the last few months. The gaps in our ranks are
many and wide. We earnestly pray that others may be moved to take
the places of those who have gone home. Of course, our unflinching
faithfulness may have driven away a few friends, though we are
sure it has brought us more. Hitherto nothing has flagged. The
Orphanage, and its half a thousand children, has had its table
always supplied; the College has gone on educating men to preach
the faith once delivered to the saints; the Evangelists have traveled
from place to place, and God has made them as clouds that water
the earth; the Colporteurs have kept steadily to their useful
toil; and Mrs. Spurgeon's Book Fund has stocked poor ministers'
libraries in thousands of cases. To a large extent these works
are kept going by the generosity of friends who read the weekly
sermons and The Sword and the Trowel. Thanks, hearty and many,
to them all for their loving aid. They would do us great service
if they could increase the number of our subscribers, by inducing
friends to take in the magazine. Ask them to begin in January.
The Sword and Trowel have both been used this year with all our
might. We have built up the wall of the city, and we have tried
to smite the King's enemies. How could we help it? No loyal soldier
could endure to see his Lord's cause so grievously wronged by
traitors. Something will come of the struggle over The Down-Grade.
The Lord has designs in connection therewith which his adversaries
little dream of. Meanwhile, it behoves all who love the Lord Jesus
and his gospel to keep close together, and make common cause against
deadly error. There are thousands who are of one mind in the Lord;
let them break through all the separating lines of sect, and show
their unity in Christ, both by prayer and action. Especially do
we beg for the fervent prayers of all the faithful in Christ Jesus.
If our readers have hitherto counted us worthy, we again beg for
their loving, practical sympathy, as we have enjoyed it these
many years. The relationship between us and many of our readers
is such as will outlast life itself. Very tenderly have our friends
loved us. In the cup of human sympathy our God has brought us
draughts of heavenly consolation. The Lord recompense our faithful
helpers, and grant them mercy in that day!
So prays the reader's willing servant,
C. H. SPURGEON.
The Down Grade
From the March 1887 Sword and Trowel
"Earnest attention is requested for this paper. There is
need of such a warning as this history affords. We are going down
hill at breakneck speed."--Charles Spurgeon
This article, published anonymously, was written by Robert Shindler,
a Baptist pastor and close associate of Spurgeon's. Spurgeon gave
Shindler's article his unqualified endorsement, and the article
touched off a controversy that pursued Spurgeon to the grave.
The Act of Uniformity, which came into effect in 1662, accomplished
the purpose of its framers in expelling Puritanism from the Church
established by law in England and Wales. Puritanism was obnoxious
to King Charles II. and his court, and a large majority of the
men high in office in both Church and State, chiefly for the godliness
of living which it enjoined, and for the Calvinism of its teaching.
With the ejectment of the two thousand ministers who preferred
freedom and purity of conscience to the retention of their livings,
Calvinism was banished from the Church of England, excepting so
far as the Articles were concerned. Arminianism took its place.
Then the State Church, which the great reformers had planted,
and which some of them had watered with their blood, presented
the spectacle which went far to justify the sarcasm of an eminent
writer, that she possessed "A Popish Liturgy, a Calvinistic
Creed, and an Arminian Clergy." The ejected were Calvinists
almost to a man. Previous to this period, some few Free Churches
had been founded, and were Independent or Baptist, the latter
being mainly of the General section, and of Dutch origin.
Note: Liturgy is from Rome, not from the Reformers:
For the conduct of public worship Knox prepared a Book of Common
Order. To a great extent this order of worship was based on the
form for public worship used by the church of English refugees
in Geneva. That in turn was based on the form designed by Calvin.
This form of worship consisted in prayer, reading of Scripture,
the sermon, congregational singing, and the taking up of an offering.
The Book of Common Order contained prayers for special occasions.
They were models and their use was not compulsory. Ample room
was left for entirely free prayer. (Kuiper, The Church in History.
Erdmans, 1955.)
[End]
The ejected, who were in one sense alone the first Nonconformists,
were mainly Presbyterians; some, however, were Independents, and
a few Baptists. The Churches they established were all Calvinistic
in their faith, and such they remained for at least that generation.
It is a matter of veritable history, however, that such they did
not all continue for any great length of time. Some of them, in
the course of two or three generations, or even less, became either
Arian or Socinian. This was eventually the case with nearly all
the Presbyterians, and later on, with some of the Independents,
and with many of the General Baptist Communities. By some means
or other, first the ministers, and then the Churches, got on "the
down grade," and in some cases, the descent was rapid, and
in all, very disastrous. In proportion as the ministers seceded
from the old Puritan godliness of life, and the old Calvinistic
form of doctrine, they commonly became less earnest and less simple
in their preaching, more speculative and less spiritual in the
matter of their discourses, and dwelt more on the moral teachings
of the New Testament, than on the great central truths of revelation.
Natural theology frequently took the place which the great truths
of the gospel ought to have held, and the sermons became more
and more Christless. Corresponding results in the character and
life, first of the preachers and then of the people, were only
too plainly apparent.
Note: The descent, or Down-Grade, into unsound doctrine starts
with a departure from Biblical doctrine, Calvinism, and ends in
a Christless message.
The race of preachers which followed the first Nonconformists,
that is, the ejected ministers who became Nonconformists, retained
the soundness of doctrine, and purity of life, for which they
were everywhere remarkable. Their sermons were less lengthy, but
still long, and less burdened with divisions and sub-divisions.
The life, savor, and power of the gospel remained among them,
and the churches, walking in the fear of God and the comfort of
the Holy Ghost, were slowly increased.
The Presbyterians were the first to get on the down line. They
paid more attention to classical attainments and other branches
of learning in their ministry than the Independents, while the
Baptists had no academical institution of any kind. It would be
an easy step in the wrong direction to pay increased attention
to academical attainments in their ministers, and less to spiritual
qualifications; and to set a higher value on scholarship and oratory,
than on evangelical zeal and ability to rightly divide the word
of truth.
Note: As a former pastor, I can vouch for the above statement.
How many men have I known and do I know now who feel their classical
attainments qualify them to teach God's word, yet it is evident
they have no calling from God to pursue what they are attempting
to do. With Spurgeon's blessing, Robert Shindler laid the Down-Grade
at these men's doorstep. Sadly, these unqualified teachers refuse
to admit they are unqualified, particularly since they can get
others to follow them into the Down-Grade.
Some of the ministers retained their Calvinistic soundness and
their purity of character and life, and these, as a rule, gave
prominence to the doctrines of the gospel, and were zealous in
their ministry. But some embraced Arminian sentiments, while others
professed to take a middle path, and called themselves Baxterians.
These displayed, not only less zeal for the salvation of sinners,
and, in many cases, less purity or strictness of life, but they
adopted a different strain in preaching, dwelt more on general
principles of religion, and less on the vital truths of the gospel.
Ruin by sin, regeneration by the Holy Spirit, and redemption by
the blood of Christ— truths on the preaching of which God
has always set the seal of his approbation—were conspicuous
chiefly by their absence. In fact, the "wine on the lees
well refined" was so mixed with the muddy water of human
speculation, that it was no longer wine at all. (Arminianism vs.
Calvinism. See Aug. 02 issue of the Examiner, posted at http://biblicalexaminer.org/PDF/Aug02.pdf)
Note: How prevalent today. "Preachers" offer a simple
homely, rather than a searching, thought provoking, sound doctrinal
message. See "Smiling Preacher", this issue.
There was another section among the Presbyterians who, like the
former two, retained a nominal orthodoxy, and professed to believe,
though they seldom preached, evangelical sentiments. Men of this
stamp were chiefly remarkable for the extreme coldness of their
sermons, and the extreme dullness of their delivery.
Among those who called themselves Baxterians there was little
likeness to Baxter; and his zeal and earnestness, and his close,
penetrating preaching, and powerful appeals to the heart and conscience
were wholly wanting, except in a very few. This remark will apply
also to those who called themselves Arminians.
It would appear that the Arian and other heresies did not spread
at first so quickly in London as in the country. The author of
a manuscript written about 1730, professes to give the sentiments
of all the Nonconformist ministers in London at that time. Among
the Presbyterians there were, he says, nineteen Calvinists, thirteen
Arminians, and twelve Baxterians. All the Independents, he avows,
were Calvinists: "twenty-seven thoroughly, one somewhat dubious,
three inclined to Antinomianism, and two who were disorderly."
There were two Seventh-day Baptists—one a Calvinist, and
the other an Arminian. There were sixteen Baptists, of the Particular
order; of whom seven were Calvinists, and "nine inclined
to the Antinomian strain."
Antinomianism was the term applied to the teaching of Dr. Tobias
Crisp. Crisp had been an Arminian, but became an ardent Calvinist,
going, perhaps, a little beyond Calvin in some things. He died
in 1642, and his sermons were published by his son forty-five
years after his death. They were printed from short-hand notes
compared with Dr. Crisp's own notes, and therefore were lacking
in that correctness and finish which the author's own hand would
have given them. This will account for the crudeness of some of
his expressions. He was a man of strong faith, ardent zeal, holy
life, and great devotion and faithfulness in his ministerial work.
He was called an Antinomian, but the term was misapplied. Many
of his statements, however, while they will readily admit of an
orthodox sense, lie open to the charge of going beyond the truth.
The publication of his sermons awoke a fierce controversy, which
lasted some years, and did much mischief. Dr. Williams exposed
what he considered the errors and erroneous tendency of some of
his utterances; and even John Flavel was among those who denounced
his teaching as erroneous and Antinomian. There need not have
been such an outcry. The books written against Crisp, many of
them good in their way, had the effect of frightening the timid,
the doubtful, and the hesitating, who, to avoid Crispianism, as
it was called, went as far as they could to the opposite extreme.
They verged upon Arminianism, and some actually became Arminians.
The Arminianism of that day was a cold, dry, heartless thing,
and many who took that name proved that they were already on "the
down grade" towards Socinianism.
As is usual with people on an incline, some who got on "the
down grade" went further than they intended, showing that
it is easier to get on than to get off, and that where there is
no brake it is very difficult to stop. These who turned from Calvinism
may not have dreamed of denying the proper deity of the Son of
God, renouncing faith in his atoning death and justifying righteousness,
and denouncing the doctrine of human depravity, the need of Divine
renewal, and the necessity for the Holy Spirit's gracious work,
in order that men might become new creatures; but, dreaming or
not dreaming, this result became a reality.
Note: Those I know today who not only reject Biblical Calvinism,
but even militate against that doctrine, would not dream of denying
the Biblical doctrine of Christ, but history has proved that is
where Arminianism leads. Note also that once on a road of doctrine
not found in God's word, it is almost impossible to get off.
It is exceedingly painful to have to state—and the conduct
is no less censurable than pitiable—that among the two classes
into which those who held Arian sentiments may be divided, the
first were so mean and dishonest as to conceal their sentiments
under ambiguous phrases. They so expressed themselves that their
orthodox hearers might appropriate their statements in support
of their own views, while their Arian adherents could turn them
to support their scheme. It is stated on very good authority that
"many wore this disguise all their days, and the most cautious
carried the secret with them to the grave." This is terrible
to think of; men going down to the grave with a whole life of
the very worst kind of hypocrisy unconfessed, the basest deceit
and dishonesty unacknowledged, the life-long practice of a lie
unrepented of. Such a course is the very worst form of lying,
for it is telling lies in the name of the Lord. Others were only
a little less hardened in their career of falsehood; they prepared
a sermon, or other composition, revealing their true sentiments,
which was made public after their decease. Still more confided
their real sentiments to a small circle of adherents, who told
the tale of heresy to the world only when the grave had closed
over the teacher.
Such were the crafty devices of the men of "broad views,"
and "free thought," and "advanced sentiments,"
in those days of "rebuke and blasphemy." The almost
blasphemous utterances of Mr. Voysey, daring and frightful as
they are (see "Fortnightly Review" for Jan., 1887),
have the one redeeming feature of honesty. He puts the mark of
unbelief in large characters on his own brow, and does not seek
in the least to hide it from any one, but rather to glory in it,
that he has set himself to deny and denounce all that is sacred,
and true, and holy in the gospel of our salvation. But these men
deepened their own condemnation, and promoted the everlasting
ruin of many of their followers by their hypocrisy and deceit;
professing to be the ambassadors of Christ, and the heralds of
his glorious gospel, their aim was to ignore his claims, deny
him his rights, lower his character, rend the glorious vesture
of his salvation, and trample his crown in the dust.
The second, and less numerous, class of Arian preachers were more
honest. They boldly avowed their sentiments to their congregations,
who as readily received them. In most cases, in both preachers
and hearers, it was only a short step down from the Arianism which
makes the eternal Son of God a super-angelic being to the Socinianism
(miscalled Unitarianism) which makes him a man only, denying alike
original sin, human depravity, the mediation of Christ, the personality
and work of the eternal Spirit, and that new birth without which
divine truth has declared no one can see the kingdom of God.
Note: Arminianism denies total human depravity, leaving man with
the ability to choose God. Thus, it is the first step toward Arianism,
Socinianism and then Unitarianism. Though Arminian teachers may
themselves not down-grade to Unitarianism, they lay the foundation
for that heresy by denying total depravity.
The descent of some few was less gradual, but more commonly, when
once on "the down grade" their progress was slow, though
unhappily sure. The central truth of Calvinism, as of the Gospel,
is the person and work and offices of the Lord Jesus Christ. We
love to use this Pauline and inspired description of our divine
Savior and royal Master, and so to "give unto the Lord the
glory due unto his name." When men begin to hesitate about,
and hold back the truth in relation to him, it is a sign of an
unhealthy state of soul; and when these truths are diluted, omitted,
or otherwise tampered with, it is a sign which in plain words
means "Beware."
The remark of a writer of reliable ability in reference to these
times is worthy of quotation:—
"The deficiency of evangelical principles in some, and the
coldness with which they came from the lips of others, seem to
have prepared the way for the relinquishment of them, and for
the introduction, first of Arminianism, and then of Arianism."
Those who were really orthodox in their sentiments were too often
lax and unfaithful as to the introduction of heretical ministers
into their pulpits, either as assistants or occasional preachers.
In this way the Arian and Socinian heresies were introduced into
the Presbyterian congregations in the city of Exeter. The Rev.
Stephen Towgood and Mr. Walrond, the ministers, were both reputed
as orthodox, but the Rev. Micaiah Towgood, an avowed Arian, was
chosen their assistant. The old ministers preached evangelical
doctrine, but they complied all too readily with the wishes of
their new colleague, and ceased to require a declaration of faith
in the divinity of Christ in those who sought admission to the
Lord's table. Sad to say, they continued to labor on in peace,
the older men dealing out the "wine of the kingdom,"
and the "Living Bread," while the younger minister intermixed
his rationalistic concoctions and his Socinian leaven. A similar
case occurred in London. Dr. William Harris, an avowed Calvinist,
and whose preaching was in accordance with Calvinistic doctrine,
had for his assistant, during the last twenty years of his life,
an avowed though not strongly pronounced Socinian, Dr. Lardner,
who took the afternoon lectureship. When Dr. Harris died, Dr.
Lardner was elected to be his successor. For some reason he declined,
when Dr. Benson, another Socinian, succeeded to the pastorate.
Thus, the old, old proverb was again proved true, "The fathers
have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge."
[Note: Thus, it has only been since the late 1800s that Presbyterians
allowed admission to the Lord's table without a declaration of
faith in the divinity of Christ. It seems to be a common practice
among far too many today, not only among Presbyterians, but among
all non-popish denominations. Here "the Down-Grade"
is rightly attributed to the very unbiblical practice of admittance
to the Lord's table without a solid profession of faith in the
key elements of Christian doctrine, whether children or adults.
We must also say that not only can the spiritual Down-Grade be
attributed to such a practice, but also the social Down-Grade,
as well as a rise of illness among believers. Do they not eat
and drink damnation to themselves? (1 Corinthians 11:26ff.)]
This down-grade course was, we have said, more rapid, more general,
and more fatal among the Presbyterians than among the Independents
and General Baptists. We say General Baptists, for the deadening
doctrines of Socinianism had made little inroad upon the Particular
Baptists. We could not point to a single case of perversion to
Socinianism during more than two centuries, though other and less
vital errors have dealt much mischief among the churches of that
order. Will our children and grandchildren be able to say as much
of this and the next generation in fifty years time? Who can tell?
But we pray and hope that they will be.
The principal cause of the quicker descent on "the down grade"
among the Presbyterians than among other Nonconformists, may be
traced, not so much to their more scholarly ministry, nor altogether
to their renunciation of Puritan habits, but to their rule of
admitting to the privileges of Church membership. Of course their
children received the rite of baptism, according to their views
of baptism, in infancy. They were thereby received—so the
ministers taught, and so the people believed—into covenant
with God, and had a right to the Lord's table, without any other
qualification than a moral life. Many such children grew up unregenerate,
and strangers to the work of renewing grace; yet they claimed
to be Christians, and to be admitted to all the privileges of
the church, and their claim was not disallowed. To such the earnest
appeals of faithful ministers of Christ would be irksome and unpalatable.
The broader road and easier way of the "men of reason and
culture," which admitted of laxity of discipline and pliancy
of sentiments and habits, was far more agreeable to their tastes
and ideas, while the homage paid to reason and understanding,
at the expense of revelation, gratified their pride, and left
them free to walk after their own hearts in things pertaining
to religion. Thus they chose them pastors after their own hearts,
men who could, and would, and did, cry "Peace, peace,"
when the only way of peace was ignored or denied.
[Note: Observe the point made above—the ministers permit
a practice that is not according to revelation, but according
to sentiments and habits. These practices gratify pride, leaving
the people free to walk according to their own desires. And the
people sought out such ministers and teachers, as they ignore
or deny the only true way to peace, faith in Christ, denied by
admittance to the Lord's table without valid profession of faith
in Christ. Referred to above is the revival of liturgy, which
came not out of the reformation, but from Rome. Its use is not
required by revelation, but by the desires of the ministers and
teachers.]
These facts furnish a lesson for the present times, when, as in
some cases, it is all too plainly apparent men are willing to
forego the old for the sake of the new. But commonly it is found
in theology that that which is true is not new, and that which
is new is not true.
In another paper we propose to trace "the down grade"
course among other Protestants in this country—a sad piece
of business, but one which must needs be done. Oh that it might
act as a warning to the unsettled and unsettling spirits of our
own day!
(See http://www.biblebb.com/files/spurgeon/dg01.htm)
We will cover the second article in the next Examiner.
Doctors
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health &Human Services.
Now think about this:
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. Yes, that
is 80 million.
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year all age groups
is = 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous
than gun owners. Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors
do."
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST
ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban
doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!
Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics
on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and
seek medical attention.
--copied
[We are hearing a lot about high malpractice insurance. My experience,
as well as others I know, tells me that many doctors and hospitals
are being sued with good reason. From what I understand, the doctors
who lose the malpractice suits are not listed anywhere a prospective
patient can check and avoid them. I believe that simply letting
the patients know what kind of doctors they are dealing with will
put the bad doctors out of business, and thus lower the insurance
rates.]
What's really wrong with public schools?
The usual argument against public education is very convincing.
And very wrong. It runs something like this: Public schools have
become breeding grounds for violence and sexual promiscuity; they
often are outlets for socialist propaganda; they now constitute
a formidable enemy of Christianity (by teaching evolution and
prohibiting prayer and Bible reading) and of the family (by teaching
sex education and deriding traditional authority structures).
And so on — which is not an unmitigated tragedy, since it
is being used, under the providence of God, to lead more and more
Christians to abandon the system of public education. No matter
what the reason, that is certainly a good result.
Unfortunately, the argument above is not as principled as it looks.
It is not an argument against state education, but only against
certain perceived ills of public schools as they now exist. Thus,
even among Christians who agree with the argument, you will find
the following attitudes: (1) "The real problems exist in
the inner-city schools, but there's nothing wrong with public
schools in a rural, Christian community with traditional values";
(2) "We should work to make public schools more moral, by
pressuring our legislators to reinstitute prayer and abolish sex-education";
(3) "We should try to force the public schools to give Creation
‘equal time' with Evolution." These and similar positions
all attest to the fact that much of the opposition to public schools
is merely pragmatic: we are very willing for the state to control
education, as long as we can be reasonably sure our children won't
be beaten, drugged or raped in the library. To put it bluntly,
we want our socialism, but we want it clean. If only the public
schools would teach what we want them to teach, we would be happy
to have our children's education funded by legalized theft. Quite
an interesting position, philosophically: we'll give our children
a "moral" upbringing by robbing our neighbors to pay
for it.
As Christians, we do not argue against abortion simply by citing
the dangers of malpractice; nor should we consider it sufficient
to oppose state education simply because of its evil consequences.
We do not work for safer methods of abortion; nor should we work
to improve public schools. The basic biblical argument, you see,
is that the very existence of state schools is immoral —
regardless of the level of "morality" contained in them.
According to the Bible (see, e.g., Rom 13:4), the state has an
extremely limited function, which maybe summed up in two points:
punishing criminals (as defined by God's law) and protecting the
law-abiding. That's it. God has appointed civil rulers as His
ministers, and their responsibility is to administer His laws.
The Bible severely limits the powers of the state — and just
in case rulers might misunderstand the extent of their commission,
God built a "strict constructionist" interpretation
right into the law: the ruler "may not turn aside from the
commandment, to the right or to the left" (Deut 17:20). The
Bible does not give rulers the power to educate children; that
responsibility belongs to the family. State schools are therefore
immoral in principle. They exist only because God's laws have
been violated — by greedy rulers who covet the powers of
deity, and by greedy citizens who covet "free" education
at their neighbors' expense. Viewed in this light, it is no wonder
that the public school system has spawned a generation of illiterate
criminals who assume the world owes them a living. Why not? According
to their parents, the world owed them an education; they're just
extending the logic.
The rise in public-school crime and violence is nothing but the
humanistic super-structure built on a rotten foundation. It is
quite predictable; in fact, it was predicted in Deuteronomy 28,
the list of the curses which necessarily fall upon a culture that
departs from God's law. If our educational principles are not
founded on God's word, we have shut God out of our system of knowledge
— and committed cultural suicide. Romans 1:28-32 tells us
what happens to people who will not have God in their knowledge:
it reads like a modem report card on "citizenship."
"But," it may be objected, "if the state doesn't
provide education and force citizens to submit to it, some parents
won't bother to do it themselves." This is true. It is also
true that some people don't brush their teeth. We should therefore
provide free dental care and send bureaucrats to each home every
morning and evening, armed with dental floss, to enforce oral
hygiene on the population. Right? Where do you draw the line?
You draw the line where God draws it: in His law. God has defined
the responsibilities and limits of the state, and whenever it
falls short of those responsibilities, or transgresses those limits,
it is playing god. The inevitable result is national damnation.
No matter what objection you have to all this, it fails the ultimate
test: conformity to God's law. When you say the rural, "moral,"
community-oriented public schools are still OK, all you're saying
is that the full harvest of apostasy hasn't caught up with them
yet. But the fact that none of your bad checks have returned is
no justification of forgery. Those wonderful schools are possible
only by the illegitimate beneficence of a deified state which
plunders your neighbors to give your kids a free lunch. There's
just no way around it. Public schools are immoral, and always
have been — even in the bygone, halcyon days of old, when
students got regular doses of birch rods and McGuffey readers.
Look at yourself for a prime example. You went to a "nice"
public school, and you didn't turn out so badly. You didn't take
LSD in 5th grade, you didn't carry a switchblade in Jr. High,
and you were a virgin on Graduation Day. State education didn't
pervert you. Or did it? Consider your reaction to this essay.
(Never mind that I'm begging the question for a minute.) Regardless
of the biblical evidence, you still find it hard to swallow that
the state shouldn't do something beyond God's requirements. You
think the argument that public education involves theft is somewhat
"abstract." Face it: you're a socialist. Many of your
ideas about the proper role of government were fed to you from
K through 12, and it's like pulling teeth to get rid of them.
I'm constantly running into sincere Christians who are absolutely
aghast at the thought of abolishing unbiblical government regulation.
("How will the mail get delivered?") I even heard one
theologian boldly assert that the value of gold and silver comes
from the paper money behind it!
The real problem with public schools is that they exist in the
first place. They are an ungodly, unlawful, collectivist institution.
The many evils now spewing out of them derive from the curse of
God inflicted on all institutions that defy Him. He has commanded
parents to educate their children in terms of His law; that cannot
be done in a public school. If we want our children to fear Him,
to grow into diligent workers for His kingdom, we cannot afford
to train them in an institution which has as its fundamental presupposition
that I am entitled to as much money as I can vote out of my neighbor's
pocket.
Prayer doesn't belong in a public school (Proverbs 28:9). Your
money doesn't belong in a public school. Most of all, your children
don't belong in a public school. Institutions premised on sin
must not be redeemed, but abandoned. We cannot send young maidens
into brothels in the interests of "equal time for chastity."
As the light of the world, we must set the standard. Our Lord
never called His people to help build the tower of Babel in the
hope of getting a Bible study in the basement. He commanded us
to build our own city on a hill.
David H. Chilton. Taken from the ICE newsletter: The Biblical
Educator (Vol. III, No. 3).
From Bob McCurry's ‘newsletter.'