Confessing or professing?

Confessing and professing are not the same thing.

Sometimes the Bible says “confess”, with its meanings, and sometimes it says “profess”, with its meanings. Those words are not strictly interchangeable, but no doubt conceptually overlap.

In looking at the usages of these words, I would suggest that confess means to:
a. admit guilt
b. proclaim plainly agreement to a doctrine
c. reveal or disclose thoughts

Whereas profess means to:
a. claim, by speaking or proclamation
b. state one’s position or ability
c. lay hold in faith by speaking

Therefore, we can conclude that what some people call faith confessions (not to be confused with doctrinal confessions) really would better be called faith professions, like in this verse:

Mark 11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.

See the following:

1 Tim. 6:12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.

1 Tim. 6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Heb. 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)

Now, you can confess you agree with these Scriptures, but professing them means you act accordingly.

Eurasia and Oceania are at war

Charles Clover wrote in 2011, “the leader of the Eurasianist Movement, Alexander Dugin, … has worked to make dictatorship hip. … In Mr Dugin’s vision, a reborn Russia is a slightly retooled version of the Soviet Union with dystopian echoes of George Orwell’s 1984, where Eurasia was one of three continent-sized super states (Oceania and Eastasia being the other two) in perpetual war.”

In the Scripture, we find this prophecy, “And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.” (Daniel 11:40).

Sheikh Imran Hosein goads WW3

imran

Sheikh Imran Hosein, a leading Islamic eschatologist and bosom friend of Russian anagogical ideologue, Alexander Dugin, has “predicted” (like his Russian friend) that World War Three is coming. Hosein has instructed his followers to abandon money, but to return to gold and silver and to sell up and move to the country and begin to live off the land so as to survive the coming war. He teaches the Islamic view of the end times, including the Islamic view of a coming false pro-Jewish leader and the Mahdi (the great Muslim saviour). Hosein also advocates an alliance with Russia and the Eastern Orthodox religion.

Some Christians have bought into this view, claiming that the Islamic saviour is indeed coming, whom they are calling “antichrist”. They have tried to match the Muslim ideology into interpreting the End Times in the Bible. Accordingly, the dragon of Revelation might be viewed as representing Islamic nations. They are also trying to say that the coming antichrist is the same as what the Muslims are calling the Mahdi.

Those Christians are only half right. The proper way to understand Bible prophecy is to disregard any Islamic teachings altogether. When we begin from the Protestant tradition, we find that there is a view that there is a WESTERN and an EASTERN antichrist. This is explained in detail in the book, “Multiple Fulfilments of Bible Prophecy”, bibleprotector.com/prophecy

The Eastern Antichrist is spoken about in Daniel 8 and Daniel 11. This is not the same as the Western Antichrist of the end times.

The Eastern Antichrist has three stages:
1. Antiochus Epiphanes, the Hellenistic Syrian ruler who persecuted the Jews.
2. Mohammad and the history of Islam to 1967.
3. The coming leader of Russia, Gog.

We are rapidly approaching the third stage.

The facts today showing how the third and final Eastern antichrist of history is ready:

1. Russia is involved with Syria today, an Islamic nation.
2. Russia and Islam are connected, such as Russia’s backing of the Syrian dictatorship, the Iranian dictatorship, etc.
3. Russia’s leading spiritual leader, Alexander Dugin, is directly connected with Sheikh Imran Hosein, who are talking about eschatology and Gog and Magog.

The final events of the Eastern Antichrist are described in Ezekiel 38 and 39.

“And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.” (Matthew 24:11).

Of course, world war does come when the very same false prophets push it. But the Bible shows God ends their war, “And behold at eveningtide trouble; and before the morning he is not. This is the portion of them that spoil us, and the lot of them that rob us.” (Isaiah 17:14).

Quick review on “Is the KJB the only inspired Scripture on Earth today?” debate.

In late 2015, a written debate took place asking the question, “Is the King James Bible the Only Inspired Scripture on Earth Today?”

There are some who are so committed to an erroneous, non-faith view of Bible transmission, that they will stoop to any low (I have seen this consistently) in their attack on the King James Bible.

The very debate question itself is a falsehood. Those who uphold the King James Bible do not uphold it as the “only inspired Scripture on Earth today”.

This is because the Scripture was given by an inspiration process ONCE with the original writings. And second, all faithful transmission of Scripture is providing and preserving those inspired words. That means that someone who had a some Swahili translation back in the early 1800s must have had the inspired words of God, because the Scripture words are inspired, despite having passed from one language to another.

On this first basis some attack and wish to malign those who uphold the King James Bible, because several ignorant or misguided individuals have claimed a special inspiration for the King James Bible, as though it was made by inspiration from 1605-1611. That is, of course, nonsense.

So while the proponent of the King James Bible in the debate (Will Kinney) presented the case with Scriptures, those against spent all their time trying to make the KJB appear merely the product of men. They spared nothing to imply that the KJB must be wrong because of printing errors. Except, they argue, these weren’t printing errors, but deliberate choices by the translators that were wrong.

The entire flimsy argumentation that they employed against the King James Bible basically tries to make out that the drafts of the KJB show that the KJB translators’ work is not the work we have today. This is an entire fabrication. One alleged draft document was known in the time of Westcott, a leading agent against the King James Bible in 1881, yet Westcott described this alleged draft as in fact a comparison work between old versions. We read from first hand examiners (e.g. Ward Allen) that there are many annotations in that copy which were never printed in the KJB at any time.

Really what happens is those against the KJB turn to every source that takes an unbelieving, naturalistic interpretation: they will heed David Norton when he alleges changes to the KJB, such as the totally obvious typographical error at Hosea 6:5 “Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets” which in 1611 was accidentally printed “shewed”. Apparently (like some sort of elaborate conspiracy), it was really supposed to be “shewed”.

This is the level of those who dishonestly and unashamedly attack the grand old King James Bible. They wish us to be some sort of hill-billies while they, with their “science falsely so called”, wish to tear and abuse the KJB at any cost.

What the Apostle Paul said should be prophesied

Why don’t the people who are called prophets tell the Jews this?

“Convert to Protestant Christianity, ‘But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.’ (Romans 10:19), we’re here to ‘provoke them to jealousy’ (Romans 11:11). We know that ‘these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.’ (Romans 11:31). This is the mercy, hear us; this is the refreshing, join us.”

The battle between believing the Bible and modernistic thinking

I asked some ardent modernists the following:

What is the Scriptural basis for arguing that the original source texts are more authoritative than present copies, and what in Scripture-based doctrine indicates any specific divine sanction to Greek or Hebrew MSS?

The answer? Basically, they say, it is because the science of textual criticism says so, that the Scripture doesn’t say anything about textual criticism/transmission and that the science is valid because after all, the Bible fails to address elements of things like evolution, Einstein’s special relativity, etc.

My response to these kind of folks is as follows:

You are, incidentally, confirming that this debate is between an Enlightenment-based philosophy versus a Biblical doctrine interpretation of Scripture. That is, the debate is between reasoning as though the Scripture says nothing on Biblical transmission versus an interpretation of Scripture where many such references are identified.

I can also understand how people can then start from some point out of the Scripture, and arrive at all kinds of views such as evolution, Einsteinian special relativity, etc., which are thoroughly un- and anti-Biblical. I do not want to say it belligerently, but I think your side’s modern bible textual criticism view falls into that category, alongside the unbelief of higher criticism.

The foundational issue is to then question why do I see references to the Reformation, perfection of the KJB, nature of transmission of the Bible, etc., in Scripture, while you do not interpret so. I think it is because of a vastly different hermeneutical presupposition.

Continue reading

The Eureka flag is a symbol of rebellion

Whether used by unionists, anti-muslim groups or anyone else, the Eureka flag is a flag of rebellion.

Eureka Flag

This flag was used by militant Catholics and Irish rebels in 1854 to revolt against the Victorian Government.

Australians are undergoing a siege of historical revisionism, where on every front, history is being rewritten. Every bad event is elevated to something good, and every good is made bad. This is the agenda of the left, in its fierce, anti-patriotic spirit.

A succinct explanation of the proper Reformation-based view of the KJB

Here’s a statement I made recently on an anti-King James Bible only forum,

The Reformation was not about going to the original languages specifically as such, but about believing Scripture was available and to be rightly understood, and that Romanism was corrupt. This means that the emphasis was on the Scripture coming into English above the emphasis of accepting Greek witness of Scripture which had come to hand. It assumed Scripture was available and readings recoverable rather than the modern anguished Greek-centric critical analytical view which is still grappling about with the Greek rather than having any resolution that things are right in English. The modern approach is essentially anti-Reformation because it denies that having a fixed Bible is a common possession, instead, like Romanism, full truth is locked away in another language, and only select individuals are “authorised” to deal with (and expound) it. While Greek was the main vehicle for NT early transmission, neither that language (though used by Apostles) is any more special, nor are surviving MSS any more venerable, than having Scripture common at hand properly in a resolved English form. I know what was communicated in Greek because we believers have a correct text (readings) and translation of it. The real Protestant Reformation-derived view is not “what do we think God said and meant in Greek”, but “what does God say exactly”. This necessarily leads to the conflict between the believing view of Prov. 22:20, 21 versus the “grammatical-historical” (i.e. revisionist) approach of modernistic hermeneutics. Foundationally behind all this is whether one starts from Scripture at hand and the doctrine therein to identify a correct providentially supplied copy, or whether one begins under the influence of Enlightenment-derived philosophy of external investigations into MSS, readings, probability, weight, empirical analyses, rationalisation, subjective opinion and the assumption that error prevails (in transmission and in recovery). This is an ideological battle between faith and antichristian modernism in the Protestant churches. Sadly, many good Chistians have been influenced (e.g. modern versions) by the other side. This is the great conflict for English-speaking Civilisation in our time.

Sadly, those against the King James Bible’s perfection are resorting to a deistic kind of view where perfection was only in the original inspiration, and that error has interfered in both the transmission and the recovery (modern textual critical) process. In other words, they are saying it is basically a law that you can’t have a perfect Bible ever.