Mark Ward attacks English

Mark Ward seems to have turned his attention somewhat to both the idea of translating the Bible into every dialect, and yet in arguing that, is also venomously arguing that English is not special, there is no perfect English translation, etc.

I am sure God has a lot to do with English. Interestingly, for someone who claims usage determines meaning, there is a blindness to English usage for the Gospel determines or indicates God’s providence.

That God both made and designed all languages, yet somehow God has not designed English in any special way any more than any other, does that make sense? The same God who designs is the one who can use one above another. The clay cannot backchat the potter.

Providentially, we see both the wide use of English and that we have such a good Bible, the King James Version. How much better it is that we have English as a means of reaching more people everywhere, and how much benefit is it for this to occur, both naturally (i.e. for commerce) and spiritually (allowing others access to the best Bible in the world)? English has been used of God, and that the KJB is perfect, are not statements based on arrogance, but providence and, more importantly, Bible doctrine. Yes, there are verses and passages which point to these concepts. (I know full well that the modernistic methods of hermeneutics will of course seek to dissuade of this truth.)

And yes, while it has been laudable to bring translations and Bible teaching to the various nations and tribes in the past, it is true that the best Bible and the BEST THEOLOGY exists in English. So the nations of today into the future are being served better by this. God does choose instruments. You know very well that Jacob was preferred over Esau. So likewise the Jacobian Bible over the pride and so called “wisdom” of Edom.

Just because God used Hebrew, Syriack and Greek once upon a time does not mean or require continuous favour with those languages or manuscripts. No Scripture teaches that, and Providence itself shows the opposite. The Reformation was in fact all about translation, not retention of Latin or Greek, for then would not the Gospel preaching have been accompanied by teaching Greek and Latin etc. to the masses? But now those former things are left behind, they have waxed old and are ready to vanish away. What was before in multiple languages of Hebrew and Greek is now in one, English. The twain are made one, better than what we had before. The God who is able to speak any language (Acts 2) is also the God who has one message to be made known to the nations, and, as it says in Zephaniah 3:9, turn them to A pure language. Again, while Isaiah 28:11 is taken (as by Paul) to speak of the speaking in other tongues, it is also shown that the same passage says ANOTHER tongue, meaning one language. Ironically, the Pentecostal movement today both has arisen and perpetuates from one language group, being the English-speakers.

Also seeing that the languages of Hebrew, Syriack and Greek (and those places in the Gospel where it is clearly Hebrew not alleged “Aramaic”) are not spoken today, how more obvious is it to have God’s words in a living, present and powerful language: English?

Mark Ward admits, “You have to encounter God’s Word in translation.” And there is one key, blessed language: Biblical English. (This is not to say that other translations are evil, no, the God of grace has allowed imperfect translations, and that which has been helpful for the various non-English speakers of the world is not to be anathemised though the progress towards the universality of one English Bible as a final standard is coming to pass.)

To argue that other language groups have “claims on our conscience” is a perverted doctrine. Yes, the Gospel should go to nations, but that should not be a reason to disparage or wear a black arm band about English. That’s what woke people do, they apologise for English, they try to “revive” neo-Hebrew, Welsh or Australian Aboriginal constructs in line with an antichristian anti-English view. So to call God’s plan of the excellence of the Bible and the spreading of the Gospel in English as “arrogance” or “chauvinism” is surely misguided. As if to prove the common foundation of Infidelity behind wokery and this attack on English, we have Mark Ward suggesting something that sounds suspiciously like open borders and promoting illegal immigrants. This indicative leftwing ideology is antithetical to what is found in the proper interpretation of Scripture.

We note the reality of foreigners learning English, and the education of people who interact with Biblical English (the KJB), yet Mark Ward, driven by something (?!) admits that such views make him angry! All families/nations of the Earth are to be blessed, and Christ Jesus coming to the nations today is going to be a unitary Gospel which has, under God, its highest expression in the English-speaking peoples. This is evident both historically with missionary endeavours in recent centuries, but is also evident as far as what is the Holy Ghost destiny evident (or “manifest”) among us. Mark Ward’s call to arms to try to topple the supremacy of English is an attempt to attack the power of the truth in English in its world reaching power.

Timothy Berg answered

Recently, Timothy Berg and Mark Ward made a video, and Timothy put a post up on his Facebook page about it.

I commented as follows:

There are multiple statements and implications from both The Translators to the Reader and the Epistle Dedicatory which point to the idea that the KJB makers thought their work was right, good and perfect. (Not made by special inspiration, but due to providence.)
Sadly, Mark Ward likes to engage in word games which includes trying to make out as if words written in 1611 do not mean what they mean.
Also, since Mark Ward has an agenda of undermining the correctness and reliability of the KJB, his motivation would be to ensure that the KJB men are not to be read as saying what they said, but perversely saying what Mark Ward wishes them to say (i.e. the opposite).
“Remember the advice of Nazianzene, It is a grievous thing (or dangerous) to neglect a great fair, and to seek to make markets afterward”.

Then Timothy Berg made a number of claims in two lengthy posts, beginning with this, I quote him here in italic typeface: I would love to see these “multiple statements and implications” that point to the idea that the KJB Translators “thought their work was … perfect.”

To which I made two replies (and I’ve corrected a few typos I made on Facebook):

The KJB makers state, “For by this means it cometh to pass, that whatsoever is sound already, … the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if any thing be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.”
Their translation was to keep that which was good from other translations, and to improve upon them, even making the analogy of gold being bright, rubbed and polished, hence, a picture of supremacy above all others at least, if not perfection.
And, again, they did not speak in the relativist terms of modernists, but spoke of having the truth set in place, in other words, full accuracy, and that surely is perfection of translation.
They write, “that out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own, and other foreign Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue”.
Now however you read, if one “more exact translation”, or “one more” “exact translation”, the meaning of the former means it was supreme to others, the latter means one more translation only, which is the exact translation. In either case, the word “exact” speaks of perfection, and if the KJB is “more exact” or else the “exact”, that is surely higher than and certainly counter to the view of modernists.
They also state, “And now at last, by the mercy of God, and the continuance of our labours, it being brought unto such a conclusion, as that we have great hopes that the Church of England shall reap good fruit thereby”.
From this we can see they did not expect to fail but rather see the increase, and that the conclusion being both the KJB and the fruits it would produce, is treated in a proto-millenarian light.
They write, “So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God’s holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness”.
Clearly, they disagreed with the Romanists, but the accusation is telling, for though apparently poor instruments, the outworking was to make God’s truth more and more known, meaning the level of increase and of alignment to accuracy, and supremacy, is obvious.
They also state, “Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the latter thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavour to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us.”
Notice here the reference to finishing the work of translation holistically. If Tyndale began, the KJB men finished. They use the word perfected, meaning that they thought it, well, perfect.
If the Bishops’ or Geneva was good, theirs was better, and better means superior. The KJB surmounted all. Since it perfected the former translations, it now cannot be improved upon.
Sometimes, those who have set themselves against the KJB like to quote this part: “Therefore as St Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good; yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”
This is not to be read to doubt the KJB maker’s work, but shows the principle that the KJB men themselves following, in consulting the Fathers, other translations, etc., to decided upon their work, and then, to set the variation in the margin so that the reader could check their work.
The KJB men spoke of “finding out of the sense”, which is really the opposite of the modernist approach. The modernist wants there to be multiplicity and only statistical certainty rather than singularity and absolute certainty. But the KJB men presented their work as the sense found out, so to speak, and as the clarification of doubtful places. (They didn’t hide these, they placed the variant translations in the margin.)
The translators conclude, “O receive not so great things in vain: O despise not so great salvation.”
A good, exact and perfect translation is indeed a great thing. To have the word of God properly in English is a great salvation indeed.
And, “It is a grievous thing (or dangerous) to neglect a great fair, and to seek to make markets afterwards”.
That is, upon having opportunity to partake of that which is actually providentially ordained of God, some foolishly have rejected the KJB’s rightness and perfection, seeking now to obtain after the day of visitation. Thus, the KJB men spoke prophetically of what the modernists have done, in that they say that all translations are but imperfect and having neglected the KJB, are now floundering in the famine of modernism and its idol of imperfection onlyism.

And the second post immediately following:

The modernist arguments against the KJB’s rightness, goodness, exactness and perfection are refutable.

  1. It is argued by modernists that because the originals were viewed as perfect, a translation could not be perfect.
    However, the KJB men consistently treat the word translated as representing the very Word.
    Decades afterwards, the Westminster Puritans stated, “But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.”
    Thus, the view was that the translation represented the Scripture, for it was clearly the translation used in worship, etc., and the translation was called “Scriptures”.
    Seeing that the Puritans of the 1650s only officially printed the KJB, that is again providential evidence of what translation was accepted as representing, i.e. really being, Scripture.
  2. It is argued that the fact of “errors of translation” existing in former Protestant translations somehow negates any translation is, or that any translation could be, perfect. (And since Romanists said that the Vulgate was a perfect translation, surely their being wrong must make that any claim for a Protestant is wrong also.)
    I have in the previous post quoted the KJB men arguing that their work corrected former errors of translation.
    The view that essentially no translation can be perfect is a modernist maxim based on Enlightenment philosophy.
    And the Catholics were wrong to claim both textual and translational accuracy for the Vulgate, for they claimed inspiration for it, but the KJB men’s argument for the goodness, rightness, exactness, perfection and supremacy (to other translations) of their translation is based on a providentialist argument (or really providentialist matrix of arguments, in brief, that God is at work in history, that they are by their works bringing about improvement and that they believe that the good hand of the Lord was upon them, etc).
    The KJB men state, “we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.”
    (Thus, the reason why the Koran and the Vulgate are not perfect is because the KJB is. Whereas a modernist, formulating upon Enlightenment ideas, will say, “Translations of necessity have errors [so therefore all claims for] Textual Absolutism [and translational absolutism is and] was mistaken.”)
  3. That the KJB men identified “spots” in former translations is not a tacit admission of their expecting “spots” in their own work. They simply do not imply this is the case in any way any where in their Preface or Epistle.
    Instead, our interlocutor labours the point that Hebrew and Greek are being the sources of English translation, this being a point no one denies.
    The providentialist view is that even though Protestants can be found here and there to say that they think that Hebrew and Greek are masters to the English, the result has been that the KJB has become the sole heir. This is something which all the manifestations of Providence reveal.
    Whether some translator felt anything in the moment of doing his work is irrelevant. That he believed something, that grain of a seed that translating under King James a good thing, this has flourished to a tree which has far outgrown, indeed caused the entire supersuccession of, the former Hebrew and Greek masters.

Answers to questions about the King James Bible

1. Is the KJB the original Bible?

No, but it is the final one.

2. Why do they call it the King James Bible?

Because it was authorised by King James I and printed in 1611 under his authority.

3. Is the King James Bible accurate? Is the KJB good?

Yes, the King James Bible is based on the historical Hebrew, Greek and Latin texts. It is based on the majority of Greek texts which representative copies were collated and printed in the 16th century in what is called the Textus Receptus. The King James Bible builds on some other Protestant versions, and is considered the final text.

Yes, the King James Bible is a highly accurate translation that exactly presents the original languages in English.

Unlike modern versions and translations made as influenced by Enlightenment-based assumptions, the KJB has been well accepted by many Christians for many years.

4. What religion is the KJB?

Christian and Protestant.

5. Is the KJB Catholic? Is the KJV used by Catholics?

The KJB is not Catholic but can and is used by Catholics.

6. Why did King James change the Bible?

King James revised former translations to get an exactly correct Bible. He didn’t actually do it, but he ordered scholars and church leaders to do it. It was printed in 1611, and went on to displace all other Bibles in use.

7. What books did King James remove from the Bible?

None. The Apocrypha isn’t commonly printed, but that is not considered canonical Scripture.

8. Who made the KJB?

A large number of scholars and church leaders under King James.

9. Is the KJB inspired? Is the KJB perfect?

The King James Bible was not made by special inspiration, but because of it being at the right place and at the right time, people were able to make a good translation. Always a few people try to say there are mistakes here or there, but they say this largely because of the influence of Enlightenment-based reasoning. In fact the KJB is perfect, exact and precise. The King James Bible translators themselves indicated that they thought their work was right.

10. Why is the KJB so popular?

Mainly because it has been used by lots of Protestants for a long time, and it has been considered the standard, and is commonly used by committed Christians.

Believers and good works

The Word and Spirit movement has two sides of errors to deal with.

On one side, those who are so aware of the law of God, yet do not understand the message of salvation properly. A variety of traditional and mainline denominations represent salvation as if Christians are barely saved, as though a Christian is a forgiven sinner in the present tense.

On the other side are those who say they are so in the Spirit that they need not obey standards, hold doctrines or submit to any kind of constraints. Apparently, in the Spirit, they are free to do anything. All sins are forgiven so almost all things become permissible, as though Christians may call themselves righteous regardless of what they do.

Both these extremes are wrong, and both present dangers and lead people into error. On one side, a person may sin, be aware of it, but say it is because he is a sinner and console himself that God will overlook it. On the other side, a person may sin, be ware of it, but say that he is justified and the devil is just trying to condemn him with feelings of guilt. Both these views are extreme errors and are very troubling.

SINNERS SAVED BY GRACE ERROR

One famous Presbyterian minister wrote, “Christians have nothing to be smug about; we are not righteous people trying to correct the unrighteous. As one preacher said, “Evangelism is just one beggar telling another beggar where to find bread.” The chief difference between the believer and the unbeliever is forgiveness. The only thing that qualifies a person to be a minister in the name of Christ is that that person has experienced forgiveness and wants to tell of it to others.”

This quote is wrong doctrine on so many levels. First, actual Christians should not be in pride, so they should not be “smug”. Second, the Bible teaches very clearly that Christians should judge. Judgment should be right, and it is good. Third, Christianity is all about correction, both against the world and within the Church.

Fourth, true Christianity elevates Christians to be sons of God, to be seated in heavenly places, so Christian evangelism is not being done by “beggars”. Rather, to be Christian is to be righteous, to be good, to be elevated. The difference between the believer and the unbeliever is vast and stark.

Christ does not keep Christians in a beggarly condition, as salvation is of power to make the sinners righteous.

So then, Christians were sinners, but being saved, they are actually saved, not in the thing any more that was sending them to hell. As the old holiness preachers said, salvation is about saving people from doing the things that were damnable, not merely saving them from hell. Jesus came to save people from sin and from sinning.

FREE GRACE ERROR

There are those who teach in order to be saved, you don’t have to do anything. Apparently, no works are required at all. Since actually believing, or expending calories in praying aloud, or doing anything at all such as repenting of your former life is allegedly a “work”, they say that such things ought not be done.

Even though salvation is about submitting to the rule of Christ, there are those who deny that Jesus must be made one’s Lord.

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” (Romans 10:9, 10).

So clearly “grace” is not without some reciprocal action on our part. Laying hold of salvation is actually required, it doesn’t just fall on us by chance, or by just thinking that you agree to it.

If one should confess the “Lord Jesus” then that means recognising his mastership and rule in your life.

HYPERGRACE ERROR

As for Christian living, are we to obey God’s rules, or are we just “free in the Spirit” to do whatever we or allegedly He leads us to. (Allegedly He because it seems that in many cases people who live this way are really living after their own desires or listening to an evil spirit.)

The problem of no-effort and lack of sanctification has arisen in charismatic circles, and has robbed Christians of all kinds of blessings. Instead of growing up spiritually, this lying spirit will teach things like “you don’t have to tithe” and so on, which seems to accord with the satanic doctrine, “do as thou wilt”.

Being a son of God does not mean being free from obedience. When the Bible spoke of being free from the works of the law, it meant works to earn salvation. It did not mean that we should abandon standards or morality as Christians. On the contrary, the Bible states that we should “abound to every good work” (2 Cor. 9:8). Again, “That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work” (Col. 1:10). And again, that God “Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.” (2 Thess. 2:17).

Proper sanctification is the process of actual continuous obedience to the Gospel, which is to say, that sanctification leads to holiness.

LOW COMMITMENT CHRISTIANITY ERROR

Those who really wish to make the cost of following Christ cheap, to have no apparently onerous requirements, are falling into the error of being lukewarm. Lukewarm Christianity has taken over much of Evangelicalism, and it is a form of Christianity that has minimum requirements, little prayer and little Bible reading, and probably non-committal Church attendance.

Satan has been very accommodating. The COVID-19 lockdowns were a perfect excuse for people to quit Church. Yet the Bible stated, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is” (Heb. 10:25a). And again, “And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:62).

One Evangelical minister from Wales stated, “If you do not desire to be holy I do not see that you have any right to think that you are a Christian. It is a part of God’s design that we be prepared unto good works.”

The whole of Christianity is about the works we do because of Christ.

A hard word on Gordon Fee’s legacy

Recently I heard that Gordon Fee had passed away. I saw Christians praising his theological work, so I thought it would be good to lay down a counter to this, and show the grave errors of Fee’s work.

One of the greatest compromisers who brought the enemy into the midst of the camp has been Gordon Fee. Gordon Fee, a Pentecostal theologian, has most famously written about “How to read the Bible for all its worth”. His other less known but equally misguided book is “How to choose a translation for all its worth”.

Besides various commentaries, Gordon Fee codified the entire unbelieving approach of modernist-influenced Evangelical-Pentecostal interpretation in his 1983 book “New Testament Exegesis”.

In reading the Bible, it needs to be interpreted. Fee’s approach is first to practice exegesis, which is to say, what did the transmitter intend to communicate. His second step is to practice the application and apply the relevance to the receiver. This would in some ways be acceptable. In Fee’s teachings, all of this comes under the broad unbelieving approach as tainted by modernist thinking called “hermeneutics”, which is to say, the field of study of modernist-influenced interpretation.

Let’s state two facts about the writing of Scripture, first that it is from God, and second that it was written by people at certain places at certain times. However, we cannot take a modernist-influenced view, which leans heavily towards natural elements and the human aspect, when in fact all things that exist in the natural are under the divine order of God. Pure modernism is purely naturalistic, which is not, of course, as far as Fee (and much of modern evangelical-Pentecostalism) has slidden.

Fee’s view, like much of modernist-influenced “orthodox evangelicalism”, exists between true belief and unbelief or Infidelity. As if to fulfil the very warning to the Laodicean Church, much of such theology exists in a middling, lukewarm place, that is neither cold nor hot. In this place we find people who do believe in Christ, who are probably saved, yet who have slipped not only in individual doctrines (whether it be on creation, Bible version and translation accuracy, Bible prophecy understanding, etc.) but more importantly on the very overarching approach and understanding of theology, Christian “philosophy”, the full counsel of God, universal learning, pansophy and attaining of wise counsel itself.

When you begin from “we cannot know the full truth because we are sinful, fallible, limited beings” type foundation, you are already defying myriads of scriptures and the work of the Holy Ghost Himself!

So then, Gordon Fee had a view about how to understand Scripture laced with the unbelieving leaven of naturalistic, human-based Enlightenment philosophy. And further, he taught his method, even as he had learned it from a variety of more advanced unbelieving masters (including the notorious Karl Barth).

In fact, Fee was just the latest espouser of unbelief drawn from a long line of compromisers with the German Rationalistic Unbelief (i.e. theological influenza).

To take a brief excursus, the modernistic error, known as “Biblical hermeneutics”, arose in the late 18th century, with the text-based Grammatical School of J. A. Ernesti, and the Historical School of J. S. Semler.

These German schools of thought deviated from proper interpretation in two ways. The Grammatical placed emphasis upon words in a robotic fashion (and ultimately in the original languages, therefore not in the received vernacular that Protestants had so long strived to provide), while the Historical practised historical revisionism by trying to read the Scripture in light of its contemporary audience (as Noah Webster himself indicated that since the early writers were ignorant of geography, then geographical statements were indicative of their ignorance, and scripture certainly not to be taken as ultimate truth).

These were men who were thoroughly infected with Deism and French Infidelity!

The rationalist German theologian Karl A. G. Keil followed Ernesti, and sought to read the Bible like any other book, but in the light of the Higher Critical ideas of Semler. This led to a mediation of both schools of thought to form the Historical-Grammatical School.

Schleiermacher, a theologian at the beginning of the 19th century, tried to accommodate the rationalist view while rejecting its excesses. In 1834, the two schools were drawn together in a new, eclectic position under the guidance of Schleiermacher (the father of Modern Liberal Theology).

The Swiss theologian Cellerier attempted to formalise the Grammatico-Historical School (1852), though his work was so tainted by the unbelief of German Criticism that Fairbairn criticised it, but the influence filtered through. And so the virus spread: Fairbairn (1859), Doedes (1862), Immer (1877), after which came Farrar (1886), Terry (1890), Tenney (1957), Mickelsen (1963), Ramm (1967), Berkhof (1969), Kaiser (1981), Fee (1983), Carson (1984), Moo (1986), Osborne (1991), Tate (1991), Zuck (1991), Klein (1993), Silva (1994), etc.

Sitting down the line in this unillustrious company was none other than Gordon Fee, who had learned somewhat poorly from his masters, for Fee wrongly called the application of Scripture “hermeneutics”, which in fact was the term to be used for the entire science and art of interpretation of Scripture.

Therefore, we are left with two positions, either the believing interpretation of Scripture or the art and science of hermeneutics. Essentially hermeneutics is in contradiction to believing interpretation.

Now in brief, because of the unbelief and assumptions of Infidelity, Fee and many other Christians were adamant that there was no exact text or textual reconstruction of Scripture, likewise that there was no precise translation of Scripture. There was not, in their view, one final English Bible, nor could there be.

Modernism says you can choose your translation, which slips too often to post-modernism which is, I will make the scripture say what I wish it to say (and I will chose a translation accordingly). Once on the slippery slope, people like Fee had no everlasting arms upon which to rely in order to stop the full slide into humanistic atheism.

So when these people say that the culture of Bible times differs to our own, we may easily counter: the Holy Ghost was communicating truth to us when the Scripture was written. The Bible was written for us, not merely for the contemporary audience. The Holy Ghost is able to communicate to us today, and the Scripture has been designed as such. In fact, in whatever was written, the Holy Ghost had us, future believers, in mind! (That’s what Paul said.)

This comes to a greater view, that Scripture not only was prewritten by God in Heaven before it was ever inspired on Earth, which itself counters all the unbelieving interpretation-clouding imposed by modernistic hermeneuticists, but in fact, Scripture existed in the mind of God before, beyond and outside of all creation.

That’s why I believe in the manifestation in history of a perfect 66 book Bible version, translation and edition. I believe that this answers inside of creation to the concept of the perfect God having the full knowledge of the perfect Scripture outside of these temporal bounds.

When Jesus said “Ye shall know the truth” (John 8:32), He really meant it. He actually meant it in two ways. First that we should know or have the perfect Scripture ultimately before the end of creation come about. And second, that the Holy Ghost speaks to each person to have them be the best dispenser of the love of God they can be, as manifested in the grown up Church (see the Book of Ephesians throughout).

There is no limit on advancing to perfectibility, because the enemies of Christ are through time being made His footstool (see Psalm 110). Therefore, there are two works of God through history. One is the work of His perfect word and it being made known to the nations. This is what the Historicist interpretation of the first half of Revelation is all about. The other is that His work is in perfecting the saints, the perfectly functioning Church, which is seen in the victory of the saints in the second half of the Book of Revelation.

Gordon Fee did not believe in the perfect text, perfect translation or perfect interpretation. He was of a whole panoply which is intrinsically against ultimate perfection.

I believe a mighty and spiritual hail is coming to destroy all such unbelief, Infidelity and Left-wing ideology.

I believe in the day of visitation and the latter days glory of the saints.

A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:

To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.

(Proverbs 1:5, 6).

Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge,

That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?

(Proverbs 22:20, 21).

Separation of church and state? – part 2

Is there a separation of church and state? Those who advocate for Christians getting involved in politics means they don’t believe in a separation. Yet, strangely, some such lobbyists and organisers say they do believe in the separation of church and state.

Political organiser Dave Pellowe claims that the separation “is only rightly understood as a synonym for religious liberty, not Christian political suppression.” What he is doing is using the wrong terminology, “the separation” to describe the free marketplace, free concourse and neutrality view of the Australian Constitution.

The Australian Constitution is open to religion, religion in politics, politics in religion, just not to making specific laws about establishing a religion, imposing religion, prohibiting religion or religious tests. All of that does not prohibit or disallow religion, nor does it stop any steps to endorse and support a religion, as long as it does not strictly violate Section 116, The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

It is disturbing that in his quest to promote religion in politics, Dave Pellowe turns to the most unlikely source, the social agitator and dubious activist, Martin Luther King Jnr, who could hardly be a good representative for the Christian Right.

Pellowe agrees with King, quoting him favourably, “The Church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the State, but rather the conscience of the State. It must be the guide and the critic of the State, and never its tool.”

In the USA there is a strong doctrinal and philosophical doctrine against the dominion of any specific brand of Christianity in the political system. The fact that the Church is demoted from being an authority or having mastery is to pander to the French Infidel approach. That’s the view of the Left too.

Why would Australian Christian lobbyists/activists who are pushing ostensibly for a Right-leaning view draw upon or allow the poison of a Left-leaning ideology?

We must take a much stronger view. One where a more authoritarian Christianity thrives under the liberty of the state. We need to turn back to our direct roots, rather than to the USA, as a starting point.

In Bobrick’s book on the Cromwellian era Puritans, Wide as the Waters Be, he wrote that, “the Church had been looked upon primarily as an instrument for securing, by moral and religious influences, the social and political ends of the State. Under the Commonwealth, the State, in its turn, was regarded primarily as an instrument for securing through its social and political influences the moral and religious ends of the Church. The aim of the Puritan had been to set up a visible kingdom of God upon earth. In the Puritan theory, Englishmen were ‘the Lord’s people’; a people dedicated to Him by a solemn Covenant, and whose end as a nation was to carry out His will. For such an end it was needful that rulers as well as people should be ‘godly men’. Godliness became necessarily the chief qualification for public employment.”

In the Elizabethan, Stuart, Jacobite and British Empire view, the Church was a partner with the state. As with the Eastern Roman Empire, the Church and the Empire were inextricably linked.

In the Puritan view, it was the common faith, which was partner with the state. The common faith manifested as a particular brand of Christianity with tolerance or openness toward a wider practice of various Protestant beliefs.

In the Australian Constitution the Protestant toleration view has moved far to total religious toleration. That no doubt could include Wiccans, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and so forth.

If a particular brand of Christianity is truly right and truly empowered of God, then it will prevail. That’s what the Australian Constitution allows. It allows that every member of society and government can all be part of the same religion. As long as no laws are being made specifically to enforce or bar, it could be so.

In order to defeat Infidelity’s leavening of society (and the Left’s long march through the institutions), then Christians have to understand the national implications of its message. No more should Christians fear fake labels put on them like “dominionism”, “Trumpism”, “triumphalism”, “Christian nationalism”, “theocracy”, “fundamentalism” and so forth.

It is estimated that only 10% of the British population were Cromwellians, yet they ruled the day in the 1650s. There is a broad minority which today has “values” in Australia, including Hindus, Catholics, Mormons and Protestant groups. Of that minority, there are a minority of Christian activist types, Evangelicals and Pentecostals, who are trying to take political participation to the next level. Good on them for wanting to participate in democratic processes, of course, but in the big picture such movements are generally weak, talking about “separation”, quoting Martin Luther King Jnr., upholding Bonhoeffer and being obsessed over single social issues.

Let Christians and Christianity get itself right before it does anything too much in the democratic free market of politics. Current Christians are really so chaotic and largely in an identity crisis that to take them as they are and have them make a real change through political activity is undesirable. The Christianity that has the right and the power to become THE Christianity in Australia is not yet openly manifest. Until such a Christianity is birthed, any major reforms through Christians having constructive influence in politics is going to be negligible. People may mean well and do good, but the capacity of rising bad examples is just as real.

A theological revolution around Christ’s enemies being made his footstool is required. Until adherents know how to press into the kingdom and believe in establishing a national church with particular beliefs, then the current blunderbuss of religious conservatism will suffice as a broad front of influence.

Until the coming bishops and the superior Christians are at hand, there is still the need for the ongoing preparations for this day of visitation. As it is, the current system itself would be incapable of producing the King Arthur-like “last” Christians. The answer therefore does not depend upon slick Christian political websites, the talent pool of well funded mega-churches or the online and travelling fame circuit. It is much more that out of the desert the prophets come.

“Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty.” (Psalm 45:3).

Separation of church and state? – part 1

In recent times, generic Christian political speakers have been discussing issues around the influence of Marxism in society and how Christians should be more politically engaged and involved in politics.

In the 1840s, the only politics was Catholics versus Protestants. Proto-Victoria’s fledgling political democracy was the battleground around fundamentally religious issues. How far things have fallen!

Margaret Keech runs an organisation promoting Christians being involved in politics. But she says Christian Left or Christian Right doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter?! Her own partner in her “ministry”, Dave Pellowe, has called fake conservative moderates “Marxists”. There is not much room for the “Left” according to Dave Pellowe.

City on a Hill, an Anglican Church sub-movement which began its Geelong operation in a pub recently promoted a series of political lectures. They took a mixed look at issues like illegal immigration. One of their own leaders was famously fired from a football club for his involvement with City on a Hill, with that leader saying he disagreed with his own church on fundamental issues. This lack of clarity or conviction on standing with the Christian Right is concerning.

Dave Pellowe tries to explain that he believes in the separation of church and state. He’s not the only Christian political activist to claim to believe that. Today that separation is said to mean (by secularists) no spirituality and no religion in politics. That’s the French meaning. But historically in the USA it meant that no single denomination, as in a state church, like the Anglican Church, should be part of the political apparatus.

Pellowe has an Australian-specific definition, because he uses that term to mean something entirely different than how it has been used. He uses it to mean he supports what the Australian Constitution says about religion. However, it is actually misleading to use such terminology to describe an Australian meaning, when the other secular and traditional US meanings are known.

If a Christian in Australia is saying they believe in the separation, it seems to be cover for them to appear to agree with the secularists, or at least to believe what the American Baptists and American founding father’s believed, viz., that no single religion should have total political control.

In fact, we should reject those meanings altogether, and say we reject the separation of church and state.

Pellowe is really meaning that he supports these words from the Australian Constitution, known as Section 116, The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

The first notion, of not establishing any religion, is the American doctrine (as opposed to the French secularist doctrine of anti-religion). The second notion, of imposing, seems close to the French view, but is a historical secularist view, which essentially is based upon religious neutrality. The third, on prohibiting, makes that clear. The final corollary that no religious test be required was designed to undo the limitation against Catholics, which was a long time practised method, by certain oaths (not believing in the central Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation), having hindered Catholics from public office.

The Australian traditionally-based religious neutral-secularist approach is one for allowing open grounds to both truth and error.

Dave Pellowe is wrong to use the terminology of separation of church and state because the Australian Constitution allows all, any or no religion, and therefore religion is not separate to the state.

Therefore to espouse a “separation” is to firmly place Christianity as not having its rightful place in Australia. But the constitution does not affirm a separation at all!

What is scramble-brained about those who claim to support separation while promoting religion in politics and talking about politics in church is that there is no separation at all. They should get this word “separation” out of the way, since it is not right, and not mentioned in the Constitution at all in any way in Section 116.

These Christian political lobbyists have a choice. Either they really are promoting Christianity, or they are promoting compromise.

Surely, the real and underlying motives of such Christians in politics is all about making politics Christian? Being honest would go a long way. Who of them will say, “I want Australia to be a Christian nation. Christian from the top to the bottom,” or similar?

If we treated the Australian Constitution as a providential document, and said that the words of 116 ought not be altered, then what does it mean?

First that the Commonwealth does not have to make a law, yet it may be that all the people in political office were in one brand of Christianity, and that the authority of such was placed in bishops, not in laws of some parliament. Second, that outside of Commonwealth laws, the executive power (e.g. the Governor General or the Sovereign) could establish without Parliamentary laws a particular brand of Christianity. Third, that any or all states could establish and make laws, meaning that the State Parliaments with State Governors could establish a particular brand of Christianity.

Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance. Psalm 33:12

The Repairer of the Breach

Book by Matthew Verschuur
THE REPAIRER OF THE BREACH, THE RESTORER OF PATHS TO DWELL IN
An application in Historicist millenarianism and Eastern Futurism

This book is freely available!

Is everything going downhill for the end of the world, or is there supposed to be a massive comeback for Christianity?

Is Russia important in the near future, and what impact is it going to have on world events?

Is there one culture which is more linked to Christianity, and is it still connected to the destiny of Christian impact into the future?

Find out! Download this book by Matthew Verschuur:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vQghIZNFXm6vz5vEUplirW5leIwLnuPJ/view?usp=sharing

Some other books are also listed here:

http://www.bibleprotector.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=9