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).

ANOTHER SHOCKING EXAMPLE OF NO JUSTICE

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-18070507

Above is a link to a news story about the murder of a little boy by a truly evil and deranged man.

We are regularly disgusted by certain crimes we read about in the news. This one easily ranks amongst the worst of them, but it is only one of two crimes committed here. The other one is the so-called sentence of 'life' given to the murderer.

Every right-minded person knows that murderers ought to be put to death.

WHOSO SHEDDETH MAN'S BLOOD, BY MAN SHALL HIS BLOOD BE SHED: FOR IN THE IMAGE OF GOD MADE HE MAN. (Genesis 9: 6).

It's not 'life' they should get but 'death'.

WE MIGHT AS WELL DRESS UP LIKE THIS GUY

'FOR CHRIST SENT ME NOT TO BAPTIZE, BUT TO PREACH THE GOSPEL: NOT WITH WISDOM OF WORDS, LEST THE CROSS OF CHRIST SHOULD BE MADE OF NONE EFFECT.'

(1 Corinthians 1: 17).

Long ago, during the time of the apostles, when the Christian church was being established, there was no such thing as 'academic requirements' in the Church. In those days it was all about the power of the Holy Ghost. The words, 'wisdom of words' in our text can be put as: 'clever talking'.

So going by what we read here, if we depend on clever talking in our preaching instead of the power of the Spirit we will make the cross of Christ of none effect.

What does this mean?

It means that the word of God which you are attempting to preach will not benefit your hearers because it will not be accompanied by the power of God.

That's bad.

This has a demoralizing effect - some of you might know what I'm talking about. It happens in many many churches up and down the land - especially the large established ones. So-called ministers preaching week-in week-out, year-in year-out and doing nothing but demoralizing their hearers.

In my view, it also encourages legalism, because people use it like the Roman Catholics use self flagellation - the more unpleasant or even painful the experience, the more points they think they score with God. So if they have spent their whole life coming and going to church in that manner then they imagine they must be onto a good thing (no pain, no gain).

Friends, this ought not to be.

The root cause of the problem is in the ordination of ministers. There is a myth which has been in existence for centuries - that ministers must be 'educated' this is utterly unscriptural. The reason it is so readily accepted is because it makes sense in the natural world. And yes, it does - in the natural world. But when we are talking about the preaching of the gospel we no longer occupy the natural plain. We have entered God's domain - where our rules do not apply.

This problem of requiring academic attainment for ministers proves that the people making the demands are depending on the abilities of mere men to bring people to God instead of God himself.

This is nothing new and it can never work.

We might as well dress up like the geezer in the picture for all the good it'll do.

...TO OBEY IS BETTER THAN SACRIFICE, AND TO HEARKEN THAN THE FAT OF RAMS.

(1 Samuel 15: 22).

HAVE YOU EVER ARRIVED AT YOUR CAR TO FIND ALL FOUR OF YOUR TYRES SLASHED?

No? well I did.

We've passed midnight now, so it was yesterday morning I discovered it.

I know who did it. The same guy who recently deliberately broke the windscreen of my Transit Luton. Oh, he's denying it - asking me if I've got any proof.

This has been going on for a number of weeks now. It all started with me being woken out of my sleep at about 3 o'clock in the morning by angry banging on the front door. I felt sure it must have been a case of mistaken identity - some drunk had obviously come to the wrong house.

Well, not exactly...

I stuck my head out of the window and shouted, 'What's the problem?' The reply was, 'You've got 20 seconds to get your a**e down here before I pan your windows in!'

I could hardly believe my ears. I said, 'Slow down. Don't do anything, I'm coming down.'

When I got down, he started to rant at me about parking my car deliberately in the way of his van so that he couldn't get it out. Actually, it isn't even his van, it's his stepfather's van.

It was then that I realized what I'd done. When all the parking spaces were used up I would often just park my car in front of my van and partially in front of whatever vehicle happened to be parked beside it. I can truthfully say that my intention was never to show annoyance at the parkers. I was simply parking conveniently. Whenever anyone wanted out, they knew where I lived and simply knocked on the door and I moved my car and let them out - no problem. Normally, I would always park further away before I went to bed if all the spaces were used up. This time, I forgot.

For him, it was a red rag to a bull.

I should really point out, this fellow seems to be OK when he's sober. But when he's drunk he's a complete...och, words fail me - you know what I mean.

He's in his early to mid twenties and has a respectable (and quite senior) job in town. To see him at his work dealing with customers you'd think butter wouldn't melt in his mouth, but he's a real Jeckyll and Hyde character. Once he gets at all drunk - look out.

He'd been on the booze that night. I had no idea who he was. He stood there yapping incessantly at me about me having parked my car in front of 'his' van so that he couldn't get it out because I was annoyed about not getting my space. I told him that I knew what it looked like, but I assured him that it was not actually the case - I had simply forgotten to park my car properly before going to bed.

He wouldn't listen to a word. He just continued to yap at me.

I could feel my temper which I had managed to keep in check up to this point, beginning to rise. I said, 'Look mate, you want to switch your brain on, because if you go around speaking to people like that, you'll only make them angry.'

I jumped into the car and parked it. When I arrived back after parking, he said, 'I really must apologize, I overreacted.' I was delighted to hear this, and said, Och, that's OK, we all get angry and do stupid things at times', and went back into the house relieved that that was the end of it.

Ha, dream on!

Well, I'm getting tired now, and it's getting late (or early), so I'm off to bed.

THE SAGA OF THE TYRE SLASHING NEIGHBOUR - CONTINUED.

So, after hearing his apology, I naturally thought that would be the end of it. Well, a couple of weeks or so later at about 11.30 at night I popped out to post a letter. As I reached my car which was parked in the same area as the above picture, I noticed a hooded figure walking past. He was obviously drunk. I wondered if it was our friend. He looked at me and I saw that it was him. I quickly looked away and got into the car. The fact that he noticed me looking at him was enough to light the touchpaper. He turned back, approaching the car as I reversed, glaring menacingly at me through the window. He was clearly looking for trouble. The temptation from the old man within was to get out and grab him by the scruff of the neck and deck him if need be. But these desires must be resisted. I ignored him and drove off to post my letter hoping that he would be gone by the time I returned. When I arrived back, he was gone. I breathed a sigh of relief, had a quick check inside the house to make sure he wasn't lurking anywhere there and went to bed.

A couple of days later one of the kids came into the house saying, "Dad, someone's broken the window of the van." I didn't need three guesses - I knew immediately who had done it.

I was fuming. I went to his house to speak to him (he lives very close by) and was told by his younger brother that he was at work. So I went to his place of work.

When I accused him he made no denial but said that he could not remember doing it. After I gave him a good row he said that he would pay for the windscreen. I was content with that, and wasn't going to call the cops. That was on the 17th March.

The next thing that happened was the tyres being slashed.

Now, it's important that I point out one or two things at this juncture. The first thing is that it was not only my tyres that were slashed. No. Lots of other cars in the area were also done on the same night. At the last count to reach my ears the total number was put at as many as 12. Now, at this point you may well be saying, 'Maybe it wasn't him then?'

Now, this is where you can don your Columbo coat and test your detective abilities.

All of the other cars which had their tyres slashed that night, only had one of their tyres done - all four of mine were slashed.

OK, what does that tell you?

Don't know?

It tells you that I was the target. My car was singled out for special attention. The rest of the cars which were done between the Cearns and Grant Square were only done as a distraction - a smoke screen to confuse the issue - to throw the scent.

He wasn't too drunk to realize that the first plonker I would suspect would be him - so he took measures - what a genius! No wonder they made him a prefect in the Nici.

Anyway, in the morning, when I made my discovery, I got that sinking feeling in my stomach, and thought, 'Aw no, here we go again.' At just before 12 noon I knocked his door again. His mother answered the door in her dressing gown. When I asked if he was in, I was told that he was in his bed. I asked if he had been on the booze the night before. She answered 'yes'. As soon as I said, 'I think he's slashed all four of my tyres', she burst into floods of tears and started wailing and sobbing, saying I just don't know what to do with him, he's such a problem...I'm so sorry, I'll pay for your tyres, I'm so sorry, and so on.

She knew very well this was typical - immediately believing what I said.

I was content that the tyres were going to be paid for and also felt sorry for her. So I said, 'I was going to call the cops, but now I think that might be just adding insult to injury.' Before leaving I told her that I would have to talk to her son.

Not long afterwards, I was standing at the car telling a neighbour about it when the man himself came striding arrogantly towards me from the house saying, 'What basis of proof do you have to support this?'

That annoyed me.

I said, 'Listen mate, between you and me - I'm sure you slashed my tyres.' He asked me to come into the house to hear what his mother had to say. When I arrived in their kitchen the mother had completely changed her tune.

He had manipulated her mind. She was now singing from his hymn sheet.

I knew that he had been very drunk the night before because my mother had been speaking to a relative of his on the phone and had been told all about the problems they'd been having with him that night. When I reminded him that he himself had told me that he doesn't remember things after being drunk - so how did he know?, he said, 'But I only had a couple of pints last night.' His mother also backed up his story.

They were both lying through their teeth. I no longer felt sorry for her.

This is significant because it is well known that this man has a big problem with drink - every time he gets even a little drunk he goes off his head and does something insane. He and his mother know very well that if it gets out that he was drunk that night people only have to put two and two together.

He even had the brass neck to be quite cheeky about it. I said to him, 'You know, you've got a bad attitude.'

He replied, 'Your own attitude isn't exactly sterling either', and started to go on about me parking my car in a way that was supposed to be malicious. To him, this thing which only exists in his own warped mind is tantamount to the cardinal sin.

Boy, did I feel like laying him out at that point.

OK then, I said, 'Seeing that you're denying it, I have no option but to call the cops,' and left.

The thing that really annoys me about this is the way he went around slashing the tyres of other people he didn't even know in an attempt to cover his tracks just so that he could slash my tyres in his private little fit of insane drink-fuelled hatred.

As I write this, the police investigation is ongoing.

I'll keep you posted.