Category Archives: Doctrine

GRACE AND TRUTH


Author: W.P. Mackay

Let us suppose that a convict, who has just finished his term of penal servitude, wishes to lead an honest life. He comes to a man who has a large jewelry establishment, and who requires a night-watchman. He is engaged to watch this house through the quiet hours of the night, when he has everything under him, and every opportunity to rob his employer. On the first evening of his watching he meets one of his old companions, who accosts him. “What are you doing here?”

‘I’m night-watchman.’

‘Over this jewelry shop’

‘Yes.’

‘Does he know what you are?’

‘No, no, be silent; if he knew, I should be dismissed.’

‘Suppose I let it out that you are a returned convict!’

‘Oh I pray don’t, it would be my last day here, and I wish to be honest.’

‘Well, you’ll require to give me some money to keep quiet.’

‘Very well, but don’t let any one know.’ Thus the poor man would be in sad feat and trembling, lest it should come to the ears of his employer what his previous character had been. He would be in terror lest he should meet any of his old friends, and lest his resources should be exhausted in keeping them quiet.

Let us suppose, however, that instead of the employer engaging the man in ignorance of his character, he went to the convict’s cell and said, ‘Now I know you, what you are, and what you’ve done, every robbery you’ve committed, and that you are worse than you believe yourself to be.  I am about to give you a chance of becoming honest, I’ll trust you as my night-watchman over my valuable goods.’ The man is faithful at his post. He meets old companion after old companion, who threaten to inform upon him. He asks, ‘What will you tell about me?’

‘That you were the ringleader of house-breakers.’

‘Yes, but my master knows all that better than you do, he knows me better than I know myself.’

Of course this silences them for ever.

 

This latter is — GRACE AND TRUTH

1 Comment

Filed under Doctrine

Man by Nature


Man by nature likes neither grace nor truth. He is satisfied neither with perfect justice nor perfect goodness.if John the Baptist comes in righteousness, he is hated, and men say he is too harsh, and not human, but hath a devil. If Christ comes in love, He is taunted with being a friend of sinners. So when the righteous requirements of God’s law are preached, many people are apt to turn and say, ‘Oh yes, but that is too strict; you must allow a little margin for our imperfection.’ God says, ‘Make no provision for the flesh.’ Alas! it will take far too much; but allow it nothing. When a sanctified walk, separated from the world and all its belongings is insisted on, a certain class are sure to call this legal preaching. And on the other hand, when the grace of God is preached, man’s wisdom makes it out to be toleration of evil and lawless licence.

Dr. Dr. W.P. Mackay, M.A

 

1 Comment

Filed under Doctrine

THE LAW


Author – Dr. W.P. Mackay, M. A  1903

 

‘The law was given by Moses: grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.’ The law showed what man ought to be. Christ showed what man is, and what God is. The law was given, but grace and truth came. The word translated ‘came’ is very strong in the original. It might be rendered ‘were impersonated’ in Him — always kept in due harmony and proportion. Calvary tells out fully what man’s true state is, what God’s truth is, and what grace means. The law is what man ought to be to God. Grace tells what God is for me. The first word of law is ‘Thou,’ the first of grace is ‘God’ so loved. But it is grace through truth. God has investigated everything, nothing has been overlooked. The greatest sin that any man could possibly commit has been committed, namely, the murder of God’s Son. At the same time the greatest grace of God has been manifested.

 

Wonderful, marvelous grace

1 Comment

Filed under Doctrine

Want


 

chāsēr

David writes in Psa_23:1, “The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.” After using God’s covenant name LORD and then picturing such a personal relationship by likening Him to a Shepherd, the first blessing David mentions receiving from his Shepherd is that he does not want for anything.

The Hebrew chāsēr (H2637) means “to be lacking or needy or to decrease.” The first two of its some twenty occurrences reflect that latter idea when the waters of the Flood “were abated” and “decreased” (Gen_8:3; Gen_8:5). The idea of lacking is apparent in the third occurrence when Abraham found a “lack” of righteous people in Sodom (Gen_18:28).

Our text, however, says that David did not lack for anything, that he was not needy, that there was no decrease of any necessary thing in his life. The most frequent use of chāsēr, in fact, is to show that God’s provision is sufficient to meet the needs of His people. As one might expect, we find this very word in the account of God feeding His people in the wilderness. God’s provision of manna was so miraculous that “he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; they gathered every man according to his eating” (Exo_16:18).

That is, indeed, the Shepherd’s promise. If we follow Him, we will want for nothing. As Spurgeon writes, “I shall not lack for temporal things. Does he not feed the ravens, and cause the lilies to grow? How, then, can he leave his children to starve? I shall not want for spirituals, I know that his grace will be sufficient for me. Resting in him he will say to me, ‘As thy day so shall thy strength be’ [Deu_33:25]. I may not possess all that I wish for, but ‘I shall not want.’”

Is there a prerequisite for such provision, or is it automatic no matter how one might live? As David makes clear elsewhere, “They that seek the LORD shall not want any good thing” (Psa_34:10; also Mat_6:25-34). In contrast, when God’s people turned to idol worship, “[They] wanted all things, and [were] consumed by the sword and by the famine” (Jer_44:18). While there are starving people in many places in the world, the problem is not a lack of resources, rather a wrong response to God, not a lack of food, rather a lack of faith.

Scriptures for Study: Read the following passages, noting the promise of God’s provision in each: Deu_8:3; Deu_8:9 (also Mat_4:4); Mat_6:25-34; Php_4:19. Is there ever a reason to doubt?

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under Doctrine

Soul and Spirit


Bob Hess has done some in depth research on Man’s Soul and Spirit. With consideration of the girl on life support because of a common operation, maybe this will give some people a little insight into a dilemma.

 

 

I had an individual who wanted me to do a lesson on “The Difference Between The Soul And The Spirit”.  I taught a Sunday School lesson on this over the weekend and will pass it on to you.  I hope this will answer questions that MANY Christians have had down through the years.

 

The secret to understanding this topic is the Biblical Terms that were used in talking about the Soul and Spirit.  I attempted to show this in my class.  My Sunday School class seemed to understand it, so I’ll give you a try.  Here it is.

 

 

1.  The Greek word Psuche is translated into the word SOUL and LIFE.

 

 

    a.  In the New Testament this term is used to speak of the immaterial part of man.  It is invisible and is contained inside of the flesh covering.

 

    b.  Man’s soul speaks of the INTERNAL LIFE ELEMENT of the man.

 

    c.  I know that this may set many back on their heals, but animals have a soul.  In Revelation 8:9 we read “And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died and the third part of the ships were destroyed”.  The word “life” is the Greek word Psuche or in the English, soul.

 

    d.  The difference between the animal and man is that the man was created with a soul that was made up with three elements.  Man’s soul consists of two additional elements that animals do not.  Man has a SPIRIT and a MIND that are part of the makeup of the human SOUL or PSUCHE.  Animal souls do NOT contain these two elements.  We will get into these two elements later.

 

    e.  In 1 Thessalonians 5:23 Paul speaks of this.  He says that when the Lord comes back, we will go to be with him as a whole person, body, spirit and soul.

 

    f.  In Genesis 2:7 we are told that God breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life.  the word soul in this verse the Hebrew word, nephesh.  This word means breaths.  Here it states that man became a living soul or a living, physical, breathing being.  The term corresponds with the Greek word Psuche which is translated as “life” in Revelation 8:9 and soul in other references that are too numerous to mention.  See also 1 Corinthians 15:45 where the term is translated as soul and in Acts 20:10 where it is translated as life.

 

 

2.  The word Greek word Pneuma is translated as SPIRIT.

 

 

    a.  As was stated in our look at Psuche, the human has an element within the soul that is called the spirit.  That is one element that is NOT found in animals or other created beings.

 

    b.  It is very important to realize that this is NOT the word that is used for a GHOST.  The KJV translates Pneuma as Ghost in speaking of the Holy Spirit.  “Ghost” is a completely different term in the Greek, which we will see later.  The third person of the Godhead is the HOLY SPIRIT and NOT the HOLY GHOST.

 

    c.  The SPIRIT of man is not a material element, but is, as the soul, immaterial.

 

    d.  This part of man makes the man aware of his body and his natural, physical environment.

 

    e.  It is the part of man that makes him like God in the respect that it (the spirit) is eternal (will NEVER go out of existence) and it can share that characteristic of God.

 

    f.  It is the part of man that can be given a new birth from God (John 3:3-7).  NOTE:  It is the SPIRIT (Pneuma) that is born again (from above by the Spirit of God) and not the soul (Psuche).  This new birth is made possible through placing one’s trust in Jesus as his

 

1 Comment

Filed under Doctrine

Piers Morgan: Bible, Constitution ‘Inherently Flawed’


Piers Morgan: Bible, Constitution 'Inherently Flawed'.

Leave a comment

Filed under Doctrine

Higgins Responds to Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s “Priorities” Written By Laurie Higgins


A very good article based on reason and logic and not emotional “gut” feelings.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel, with his finger ever on the pulse of “progressives”—I mean, Chicagoans—has discerned that two of the top three problems facing the city are the absence of casinos and legalized “same-sex marriage.”

The city’s failing schools, gang activity, murder rate, debt, unemployment, poverty, family breakdown, child abuse, and drug use pale in significance when compared to the absence of casinos. Perhaps Mayor Emanuel sees casinos as the solution to all those problems.

One of his top priorities is bringing casinos to the city, casinos that will disproportionately harm those of lesser incomes because they have less financial padding to sustain the ineluctable losses on which predatory casinos rely.

Judging from his letter to the Chicago Sun Times, his de facto top priority is same-sex marriage, which will further erode the institution of marriage, the erosion of which has already disproportionately harmed the black community.

But why should these inconvenient truths bother Emanuel when he’s got fat cat casino-backers and wealthy homosexuals in his corner.

Emanuel in a display of “progressive” ignorance and uncharacteristic mushiness claimed that “gays and lesbians are still denied one essential freedom: the right to make a lifelong commitment to the person they love.” Say what?

Every unmarried person of major age is free to marry as long as he or she is seeking to marry one person of the opposite sex who is not closely related by blood. Homosexuals are not denied the right to marry. They choose not to participate in this sexually complementary institution.

Homosexuals are simply not permitted to unilaterally jettison the central defining feature of legally sanctioned marriage: sexual complementarity.

Similarly, polyamorists may not unilaterally jettison the requirement regarding numbers of partners, and those in love with their siblings or parents may not unilaterally jettison the requirement pertaining to close blood kinship.

Moreover, homosexuals are not denied the right to make a lifelong commitment. Homosexuals may, indeed, love, have sex with, set up households with, and commit for life to any person they wish.

Mayor Emanuel seems to have adopted the view that marriage is an institution centrally or solely concerned with the loving feelings of those involved. But if that’s the case, if marriage is solely about love and has no intrinsic connection to procreation, then why does the government limit it to two people? And if marriage is solely about love, why not permit two loving brothers to marry?

If marriage were centrally or solely about the recognition of love, there would be absolutely no reason for the government to be involved. The government has no vested interest in “recognizing” subjective feelings. The government has a vested interest in the objective connection of sexually complementary coupling to procreating.

The government is in the marriage business because a two-person, sexually complementary union is how children are produced, and the government has a vested interest in recognizing, regulating, and promoting the type of relationship that can produce children—whether or not any particular couple has children.

In describing Chicago’s diversity, Mayor Emanuel paired race and “sexual orientation” revealing that he’s also bought into the intellectually vacuous comparison of race to homosexuality, which is the flawed analogy upon which the entire homosexuality-affirming house of cards is built. Whereas race is 100 percent heritable, in all cases immutable, and has no behavioral implications whatsoever, homosexuality is constituted by subjective feelings, volitional sexual acts that are legitimate objects of moral assessment, and is not 100 percent heritable.

Despite exploiting the language of the civil rights movement by trumpeting his defense of “equality,” Emanuel is not advocating for equality. He’s advocating for the unilateral redefinition of marriage by homosexuals to serve their desires.

Emanuel, envisioning himself as the Martin Luther King Jr. of the homosexual movement, proclaims “Marriage equality is the next step in our nation’s march forward. Illinois must lead the way.” Emanuel would do well to remember these words of Martin Luther King Jr.:

“How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law….An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.”

Illinois has certainly proved itself capable of leading the way, leading the way to fiscal insolvency, educational malpractice, and incomprehensible murder rates. Why not lead the way to the destruction of real marriage by pretend marriage.

Leave a comment

Filed under Doctrine, End Time Events

308 – Nov. 04 – THIS DAY IN BAPTIST HISTORY PAST


“He lost his position… when he… was immersed”

November 04, 1870 – Henry Novotny entered seminary in Switzerland, and in 1875 he married Anna Kastomlatska. In 1881 he went with his wife and two children to Edinburgh, Scotland, to study in the Free College. For some time he served in evangelism, but he lost his position as an evangelist when he embraced the Baptist position and was immersed on Feb. 12, 1885, in the largest Baptist church on the continent by Pastor Charles Ondra in Lodz, Russian-Poland. Returning to Prague, Bohemia, Novotny organized a Baptist church with 16 members near Prague. Mrs. Novotny was a hearty soul as well. She was immersed in the icy Vltava River when the ice had to be broken. Henry was called before the court numerous times. During one period he had to report to the local authorities every Monday morning to narrate his activities. He was happy to relate to them the sermon that he preached the Lord’s Day before. When the officials refused to allow them to meet in their building they moved to the pastor’s home. As the church grew they rented a building, then the officials said that they had to meet in a “dwelling place,” so he had one of his son’s sleep in the rented hall. Henry conducted seven services each Sunday. He also played the organ and conducted Sunday school. The work of the Baptists grew under such direction, and Novotny’s pen proved as strong as his pulpit ministry. His “literary work” was done under the pre-war [First World War] Austrian government, which strictly censored printed material…religious or otherwise. Hence Henry’s writings were often confiscated, and several times he had to pay heavy fines. By the time of his death his son Joseph followed him in the pastorate, and the work had so grown that there were Baptist churches in thirty Bohemian towns.

Dr. Greg J. Dixon from: This Day in Baptist History Vol. I: Cummins Thompson /, pp. 458-59.

PERSONAL NOTE: My father was a missionary pastor in St. Louis, MO. His experience was this! – How important is “SCRIPTURAL” baptism? Important enough for Jesus to walk 60 miles to be baptized by the only one that had authority to baptize because John the Baptist had authority from heaven. Jesus would not settle for a substitute. As missionary pastor, my father experienced the reality of some that felt their baptism was not any good and asked for scripural baptism NOW. The mission did not have a baptistry so my father said Alton Lake was available. These people said yes and January we cut ice that was 9 inches thick to baptise. What a witness!

Leave a comment

Filed under Doctrine

CLOSE COMMUNION A CHURCH ORDINANCE


BY RICHARD M. DUDLEY, D.D.
(Editor’s Note: According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, “close” means “not open, confined to specific groups; restricted.” HLW)

“And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46)

This sermon is devoted to a discussion of the question of Close Communion. In one word, this is our plea: We ask, for ourselves, the simple liberty to administer the ordinances of the Lord’s House in such a way as our consciences tell us that His Word requires.

We ask the charity of others that they recognize our right to do this, and that they charge our course to this motive alone – not to bigotr, uncharitableness, or illiberality. We ask no more, and surely there will be granted no less, than this.

We do not arrogate to ourselves a wisdom or piety superior to others; but, “with malice towards none, and charity for all,” we ask that we be allowed to follow our conscentious convictions in all matters pertaining to the Kingdom of Heaven. As it is by the Word of God that we are to be approved or condemned, we feel bound to follow that Word just where it leads us.

Throughout the land there is an outcry against Baptists, because of their Close Communion. This is because their views and motives are misunderstood. There are persons who never will be brought to understand the true position of Baptists in this matter. Not that the position itself is difficult, or that the position itself is difficult, or that the persons lack the ability to understand, but they do not care to understand.

The cry of “Close Communion” is a convenient cudgel with which to pound Baptists; and a ringing rally-word with which to excite popular passion and prejudice against them. To reason with such persons if the idlest of idle tasks; and Baptists may as well make up their minds to endure their carping. But we are glad to believe that this class is a very small majority of their fellow Christians of other names honestly and really misunderstand. (JC note:There was a day when there was not one Baptist that did not believe and practice “close” or as we call it now, “closed” communion. This demands an explanation of why Baptist are practicing “open” communion now, were they wrong when all Baptists practiced “close or closed” communion or are they wrong now. Both practices can not be right.

Leave a comment

Filed under Doctrine

THE HOLY SPIRIT 1


Holy Spirit investigation

A request for an explanation of a particular passage of scripture relating to the Holy Spirit has sent me scurrying to New Testament references to the Holy Spirit so that I could do some comparison. Here is what I have found.

These scriptures use Holy Ghost and/or Spirit and are all translated from the same Greek words. They have been diligently compared in several translations. They are – KJV, ASV, CEV, ISV, MKJV, and the YLT. I found that all translated the Greek words haggios as holy and the Greek word pneuma as Ghost or Spirit.

Here are the passages I compared: Luke 4:1, 11:13; John 1:33, 7:39; Acts 1:5, 2:4;

1Co_7:34 There is difference also betweenG3307 a wifeG1135 andG2532 a virgin.G3933 TheG3588 unmarried womanG22 careth forG3309 the thingsG3588 of theG3588 Lord,G2962 thatG2443 she may beG5600 holyG40 bothG2532 in bodyG4983 andG2532 in spirit:G4151 butG1161 she that is marriedG1060 careth forG3309 the thingsG3588 of theG3588 world,G2889 howG4459 she may pleaseG700 her husband.G435

CEV (contemporary english version) translates spirit.g4151 into mind pure. I included this verse because of the strange rendering made here.

1Co_12:3 WhereforeG1352 I give you to understand,G1107 G5213 thatG3754 no manG3762 speakingG2980 byG1722 the SpiritG4151 of GodG2316 callethG3004 JesusG2424 accursed:G331 andG2532 that no manG3762 canG1410 sayG2036 that JesusG2424 is the Lord,G2962 butG1508 byG1722 the HolyG40 Ghost.G4151
CEV replaces but by the Holy Ghost into and you will never curse Jesus.
Another verse that has been mangled by the CEV

Eph. 1:13, 3:5, 4:30; I Thess. 4:8; Rev. 21:10

One thing I pray you see is a consistency of translation here.
We will pursue any deviation in the next posting.

Leave a comment

Filed under Doctrine