A DISTURBING DISCOVERY

I have discovered on sound authority that the Nicolson Institute school library contains a book entitled: "Starting Out Lesbian and Gay Guide."

Is this good? Is this wholesome? Is this healthy? Is this to be supported, encouraged, applauded? Is this a heroic action in the cause for the promotion of the greater good?

Before the gasps of mock righteous indignation start, yes, I am aware there is a tiny fraction of the population who think this kind of thing is a laudable pastime. But I belong to that old-fashioned (a truly terrifying phrase to many) group who not only think it's wrong and against nature to promote such practices but actually believe God when he says:

FOR THIS CAUSE GOD GAVE THEM UP UNTO VILE AFFECTIONS: FOR EVEN THEIR WOMEN DID CHANGE THE NATURAL USE INTO THAT WHICH IS AGAINST NATURE: AND LIKEWISE ALSO THE MEN, LEAVING THE NATURAL USE OF THE WOMAN, BURNED IN THEIR LUST ONE TOWARD ANOTHER; MEN WITH MEN WORKING THAT WHICH IS UNSEEMLY, AND RECEIVING IN THEMSELVES THAT RECOMPENCE OF THEIR ERROR WHICH WAS MEET. AND EVEN AS THEY DID NOT LIKE TO RETAIN GOD IN THEIR KNOWLEDGE, GOD GAVE THEM OVER TO A REPROBATE MIND, TO DO THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT CONVENIENT. (Romans 1: 26-28).

Now, before anyone starts pointing the finger and uttering idiotic things like 'homophobic' I would just like to point out that these are not my words, they are God's. He wrote them. I've delivered his letter to you. So don't bother taking it up with me - I'm just the messenger. TAKE IT UP WITH THE AUTHOR - he's the one you have the problem with.

A MISTAKE

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620164

I think it's a mistake for William and Kate to seek to ban her topless pictures from being published. I mean, if she didn't want this to happen she should simply not have flashed herself in a place which was clearly risky.

This now just comes across as petulant and (dare I say it?) spoiled.

Hey Kate, just let it go. And in future - think before you flash.

OLYMPIC TORCH CARRYING? CRINGE-ABLY FARCICAL AND THIS PROVES IT

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18756050

Above is a link to a clip showing a lad being manhandled for riding his bike in the vicinity of the sacred Olympic torch.

Am I the only one who thinks this whole childish torch-carrying farce cringe-able?

Surely not. People badly need to grow up.

HOW SCRIPTURAL IS THIS NOTION OF A 'CLERGYMAN'?

"...WHEN YE COME TOGETHER, EVERY ONE OF YOU HATH A PSALM, HATH A DOCTRINE, HATH A TONGUE, HATH A REVELATION, HATH AN INTERPRETATION. LET ALL THINGS BE DONE UNTO EDIFYING...LET THE PROPHETS SPEAK TWO OR THREE, AND LET OTHER JUDGE. IF ANY THING BE REVEALED TO ANOTHER THAT SITTETH BY, LET THE FIRST HOLD HIS PEACE. FOR YE MAY ALL PROPHESY ONE BY ONE, THAT ALL MAY LEARN, AND ALL MAY BE COMFORTED." (1 Corinthians 14: 26, 29-31).

In established churches things are normally done in a very inflexible and precise manner. We usually have one minister set over a congregation who preaches week-in week-out year-in year-out to the same people.

Unsurprisingly, all too often, this has a deadening effect on congregations.

The question I would ask is, is this the correct way? Is this the way the Lord wishes us to do things?

The text quoted above, I would say, gives us another scenario. It gives us a picture of members of the congregation prophesying (speaking, preaching, teaching). It is easy to see why this is a better way than the 'same-guy-droning-on' system which many of us are stuck with. The really sad thing is that just because it's been like this for a long time congregations want it to remain the same. Trying to tell people that the way things are done may not be scriptural is like banging your head against a brick wall. They don't think - they don't want to think - and that's the problem.

Ministers ignore this part of scripture. On the one hand they will seemingly whole-heartedly assure you that they would never ignore any part of the Bible. But, sorry to say, on the other hand, the reality is quite different.

In Roman Catholicism the clergy has had a strangle-hold over their followers for many centuries. The priests have an entirely un-scriptural power over them. Let us not forget that this system sprang up in the midst of the true Church. It always grows here, because that's where Satan sows his seeds. It began because people ignored parts of scripture. And for the same reason these weeds of error will always sprout in the Church.

It is our duty to rip them up.

How do we rip them up? We do this by prayerful meditation in the scripture so that we are not ignoring any part, and by exhorting one another. And if we exclude the members of the congregation from speaking publicly, from a practical point of view, we are greatly depriving the Church of much good, in that we are not utilizing a God-appointed means of his conveying his will to his Church. Does the above text not make this plain?

There are other advantages to be had from obeying this part of the scripture. It would show us who has the gifts and who has not. The present system is so lacking it's painful. Let me explain.

A man decides for one reason or another, that he'd like to be a minister. He inquires about what's required. He discovers that apart from making a profession of being a Christian, he must have some sort of academic qualification before he can start even training to be a minister. He goes and gets it - it often takes years. Years of wasted time. He then spends some more years 'training' to be a minister. More wasted time. He is then 'licensed' to preach - licensed! In other words if you don't have a 'licence' you're breaking some law if you preach. How un-scriptural is that?

It all boils down to this. These so-called ministers have been accepted as spiritual leaders. As soon as they are accepted to train as ministers they're in - very often even before anyone has heard them preaching. It's nothing to do with whether they've been sent or not - gifts or ability don't enter into it.

They have been set in place not by God's rules, but by man's.

At this point, I can almost hear the indignant voices crying out in protest. But I ask, is it possible to 'train' someone to be a minister? I say no. You can train anyone to be anything, from a postman to a king, but, my friends, the Bible asks the question: '...how shall they preach, except they be sent?' It is an anointing, a being sent of God: a miraculous thing. As everything God does is. Who is man to interfere? And what scriptural warrant does he have for this idea? And how scriptural is this notion of a 'clergyman' anyway? A man often dressed up in a crazy uniform being paid a salary to uphold an old un-scriptural system.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Remember the pharisees.

LEGALISM AND THE SABBATH DAY

The fourth commandment states:

REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY, TO KEEP IT HOLY. (Exodus 20:8).

Is it possible to keep the Lord's day holy? The simple answer, I believe, is no.

Let me explain.

This commandment which deals with the keeping of the Sabbath day is part of the Decalogue - the Ten Commandments, and is therefore to be treated in exactly the same manner as the other nine.

The chief rule for the interpretation of scripture, is scripture itself, so, I will endeavour to explain my meaning by the Book.

The first text I would like to quote is:

THEREFORE BY THE DEEDS OF THE LAW THERE SHALL NO FLESH BE JUSTIFIED IN HIS SIGHT: FOR BY THE LAW IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN. (Romans 3: 20).

This text tells us that no matter what we do, we are utterly unable to keep God's law.

So bearing in mind that the fourth commandment is also part of God's law we ought to know that we cannot keep it.

Why then is it taken for granted and taught that we can actually keep the Lord's day?

This is pure legalism.

We do not and we can not keep the Sabbath Day holy.

While we do our best to keep it holy it is vital that we understand that we cannot. We are saved by grace - won for us by Christ's sacrifice. He kept the law for us.

We have a holy principle in our heart from the Holy Ghost which gives us a love for God and his law - and we desire to keep his law, by faith, which worketh by love. This is acceptable to God.

So when we read the following text we know that this high standard of God is too high for us to reach, but Christ has done it on our behalf.

IF THOU TURN THY FOOT FROM THE SABBATH, FROM DOING THY PLEASURE ON MY HOLY DAY; AND CALL THE SABBATH A DELIGHT, THE HOLY OF THE LORD, HONOURABLE; AND SHALT HONOUR HIM, NOT DOING THINE OWN WAYS, NOR FINDING THINE OWN PLEASURE, NOR SPEAKING THINE OWN WORDS: (Isaiah 58: 13).

The true spiritual desire is accepted for Christ's sake and is an evidence that the Holy Spirit resides in our heart.

Let us never imagine that we are keeping any part of God's law - we only break it continually.

There are two ways of keeping the Lord's day - by our own strength, or by God's.

One is right and one is wrong.

IS JESUS REALLY GOD?

Many argue that Jesus is not God. That he was just a man. A good man, even a man who was greatly used by God, but, just a mortal man.

The so-called Jehovah's Witnesses maintain this, as do the Muslims. The JW's claim to believe the Bible and the Muslims also give the Bible place as a holy book. It is common for people to give the Bible some place, and to pick and choose which parts they are prepared to believe. But, of course, if we don't believe the whole Bible, we don't actually believe any of it.

The scriptures describe him as 'The only begotten Son of God'. These words on their own tell us who he is. If he is the 'only begotten' this means that he came forth from God in a unique way. We know he is higher than the angels as Hebrews 1: 6 tells us: '...LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.' So if he's higher than the angels - who is he? And, only God is to be worshipped. Verse 8 tells us: '...UNTO THE SON HE SAITH, THY THRONE, O GOD, IS FOR EVER AND EVER'. And Matthew 1: 23: '...THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME EMMANUEL, WHICH BEING INTERPRETED IS, GOD WITH US.

So I'm sure you can see from the very few quotes offered here how ridiculous it is to maintain that Christ is not God.

If Christ had not been God he couldn't have saved anyone - not even himself. The first person he delivered from death was himself. There was no effort involved in this, as Acts 2: 24 tells us: '...HAVING LOOSED THE PAINS OF DEATH: BECAUSE IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE THAT HE SHOULD BE HOLDEN OF IT. Not possible. Why not possible? Because he is God. The infinitely holy and righteous God, who cannot die and cannot suffer.

But he did suffer, I hear you say. Yes, he did - but therein lies the mystery.

He had to become man to suffer and to die. He suffered and died as a man, but he was, and is, God and man - both.

In Genesis 2: 7 we read: 'AND THE LORD GOD FORMED MAN OF THE DUST OF THE GROUND'. When Jesus Christ became man he was formed of the same dust in the virgin Mary's womb. After he died and rose again he ascended into heaven with the same body which had been formed from this very same dust. So, it is quite true to say that the dust of the earth sits upon heaven's throne.

What is the point of all this?

The point is this. It would have been impossible for God to save anyone if Jesus Christ had not done this. Because in that God is infinitely righteous, it means that it is impossible for him to sin. '...HE CANNOT DENY HIMSELF.' (2 Timothy 2: 13). He cannot break his own laws. That is impossible. He must punish sin. Mankind's sin must be punished. If God saved without punishing sin it would be sinful. If you or I are to be punished for our sin, because it is against an infinitely holy God it therefore requires an infinite punishment. Our souls are immortal, the punishment must be of infinite duration - it will never end.

Herein steps Christ.

When the Son of God was nailed to the cross, enduring the infinite agonies of his passion, God the Father was the one unleashing the worst of his fury upon him for the sin of mankind. Even if only one sinner were to be saved, or if he was being punished for only one sin - he would still have had to endure all of God's wrath.

Who can enter into those awful immortal words from Mark 15: 34: 'MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAS THOU FORSAKEN ME?'

This was the Son, beloved of the father from all eternity, without beginning or end, enduring all of God's wrath for sin - nothing spared. This is deeply, deeply spiritual.

If God opens this up to you, you'll experience something like nothing you've ever known before, and you'll be thankful. Very, very thankful - though you know nothing about it now.

Do you know what the greatest sin is? It is to ignore God's command to look to the Son that you would be saved. This is treating him with contempt. You won't if you're wise.

'HOW SHALL WE ESCAPE, IF WE NEGLECT SO GREAT SALVATION...' (Hebrews 2: 3).

How can I be saved? How do I find God?

'BUT THOU, WHEN THOU PRAYEST, ENTER INTO THY CLOSET, AND WHEN THOU HAST SHUT THY DOOR, PRAY TO THY FATHER WHICH IS IN SECRET; AND THY FATHER WHICH SEETH IN SECRET SHALL REWARD THEE OPENLY.' (Matthew 6: 6).

Ask. Do it now.

YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF NO JUSTICE

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18082606

The above link is a report about a man deemed 'insane' who committed murder.

Because he's deemed insane, it's reckoned that he's not responsible for the murder.

Then, forgive me for asking - who is? Because someone is, and as sure as apples - it's him.

So, let's think about this, shall we? The guy flies into a rage, hatches a plan to commit murder, finds himself a knife, commits the crime - and because he's deemed mad, he's not responsible (I think he might just know something about this).

Strange.

Isn't every murderer mad? I mean, don't you have to have a particular problem with your mind to commit murder anyway?

If it was up to me he'd be under the ground where all murderers belong.

Mad or not.

'...THE MURDERER SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH.' (Numbers 35: 16).