WE are receiving so many letters and emails that it is impractical to publish them all in CETF. So, as of this issue, we may print abbreviated versions of some letters with links to our Web Site where you can read the expanded version. In other cases there may be no reference in CETF but your letters could be published in part or full. So please check it out and treat letters on the Web in the same way as those published in this journal. Feel free to follow up on any theme. Feasts _ Seven or Four?Vanguard Issue 14 2001 -- ProphecyDear Bro. Philip, Loving greetings in Christ.Thank you for the last copy ofVanguard. I always appreciate your material, and have long had a deep love and respect for you. But I cannot go along all the way with Ray Jones's article on the Levitical feasts. I agree with him that they are prophecies of Christian truths, but there were 3 feasts, not 7. Firstly, Passover was really the start of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, so they are part of the same feast. Secondly, the First-fruits (Lev. 23:9_14) were offered on the day after the Passover Sabbath and were part of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. It was followed 7 weeks later by the Feast of Weeks, as verses 15 & 16 show. Pentecost was the name given to the Feast of Weeks much later, when Greek influence spread in the land. So Passover, Unleavened Bread and First fruits all belong to the same series, all fulfilled in one week. I believe there was no Feast of Trumpets. The Bible nowhere calls it a feast. It was just a blowing of trumpets. Nor was the Day of Atonement a feast. It was the opposite. It was a time of repentance, sorrow for sin, not feasting. It was preparation for the Feast of Tabernacles, five days later. Only after this repentance could they come and feast, on the 15th day. Exodus 23:14_17 makes it clear that there were 3 feasts. Some of this is emphasised, I believe, in the fulfilments. Passover, on Abib 14th, when they killed the Passover lamb, was a prophecy of Christ's crucifixion on that day, and is thus a picture of our salvation, the first experience we can have. Three days later (Abib 17), Israel crossed the Red Sea and were out of Egypt. They were "baptised into Moses" that day, in the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10:2). Jesus rose that day, to newness of life, and in baptism we rise with Him, to walk in newness of life. That is experience number 2, for us — Christian baptism. Jesus was "the sheaf of the first-fruits", waved in triumph on the 3rd day - Lev. 23:10_11. Noah's Ark rested on Ararat on Abib 17th, and new life began for him after the Flood. In the 7th month there were 3 items, all closely related, in Lev. 23. 1. Blowing of trumpets on the 1st day. 2. Atonement. A day of repentance and afflicting their souls, not feasting, on the 10th day. 3. Tabernacles. A joyful 7-day feast.Because these took place in the 7th month, and 7 speaks of fulfilment and perfection, they clearly refer to the second coming of Christ. He is coming, for 3 classes of people.Day1. 1. His church. His saints. It will be a day of trumpet-blowing, the resurrection and Rapture of the saints, as stated in Matt. 24:31 & 1 Cor. 15:52.Day10. 2. The nation of Israel. He will deliver them from Gog (Ezekiel ch. 38), and when they look upon their Deliverer, they will see He has wounds in His hands. He will say, "You did it to me long ago." They will recognise Him, and repent, and be welcomed into His kingdom. This will be their Day of Atonement. Zech. Chs 12 & 13.3. Then He will turn to the nations. They will rise against Him, and the battle of Armageddon will take place, bringing them into submission. This will be their Day of Atonement.Day 15. Then, when all enemies are dealt with, and the world is in submission, Millennial blessing can begin, pictured by the rejoicing of the Feast of Tabernacles. I hope you don't mind my writing this. I'm sure you agree with most of it . God bless you. Your brother in Christ, E.J. WATSON Kingaroy, QLD, Australia A Questionable Tone?Dear Brother Siam Bhayro,I have just read the June 2001 issue of CETF and I am astonished and disappointed with the two paragraphs headed "We're all friends now!" and "From Pooh Bear to the Magic Roundabout". One of the things that has disenchanted me about the Faith Word groups, apart from the unbiblical teaching they hold to, is the way that they ridicule others. They will jeer and sneer at others in order to promote their erroneous points of view. They do this with sarcasm, which is at times quite vitriolic. Dear brother, it hardly becomes Christians to use the same sort of literary technique. The Pooh Bear and Magic Roundabout analogies may cause amusement in intellectual and religious circles but they have no place among the family of God. The Bible tells us to love even our enemies. If our doctrinal enemies want to use such sarcasm and other carnal weapons in order to shame people into silence and to create division then let them but let us not stoop to their gutter tactics. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but are spiritual to the pulling down of strongholds. Sarcasm is not likely to win over our opponents; it will in fact do the opposite and cause them to dig their heels further into unbiblical doctrinal muddles. Our task is to stand up boldly for the truth of the Bible and it is also our task to win others to Christ. There is an old saying that "more flies are caught with honey than with vinegar". If we are saved by grace through faith and filled with the charis/charm of the Holy Spirit then we can afford to be gracious, since we are on the victory side. Yours in Christ's love, SE NSW, Australia Dear Editor
We would like to thank both of you for your comments, which we understand are given sincerely and from a position of support for our agenda. We are truly sorry for any offence we may have caused, as this was not our aim. We do not use such literary techniques lightly, just for the point of ridiculing our opponents (even though they merit it). Please let me clarify one thing: what we did in those articles was not sarcasm but satire, i.e. there was a point behind the story, which was not lost on our readers or our opponents. As for whether Christians should use such techniques, please consider the following two examples from each testament. In 1 Kings 18:27, we read: "And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is God; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked." There is no way that Elijah actually believed that Baal was God (the Hebrew text here uses the same plural form usually reserved for the LORD). Yet he feigns belief for the express purpose of ridiculing his religious opponents. This is satire, in its basic and most glorious form, and it is delightful to see the prophet enjoying himself at the expense of the prophets of Baal! In Mark 12:35-40, we read: "And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly. And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces, And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts: Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation." In this passage, Jesus uses two methods to attack the Scribes. Before He attacks their conduct explicitly (vv 38-40), He first uses an inconsistency in their doctrine as an opportunity to ridicule them (vv s35-37). This was obviously not lost on His hearers, of whom the Bible says, they "heard him gladly". The Greek word here rendered "gladly" refers to great pleasure (our modern word hedonism derives from the same root). In view of these examples, we do not consider it ungodly to utilise such literary techniques. If satire were the sole characteristic of our writing, we would be in trouble. But it isn't and it never will be. We shall, however, continue to use it where appropriate. Sacrifices in the Millennium?This issue has evoked considerable response. Other letters on the subject are published at www.christian-witness.org/active/mail/y_lettrs.html. Some of the controversy relates to misunderstandings about the nature of the millennium as portrayed in Scripture. This is addressed in part in Siam Bhayro's reply published immediately following the letter, which criticises his view. Not everyone will agree with the literal interpretation of the quoted OT passages that is adopted in order to arrive at Siam Bhayro's conclusion. The issue at dispute relates to the degree to which one can legitimately appeal to the allegorical method of interpreting scripture as much as it relates to ones view of biblical prophecy. CWM considers that this is one of those subjects on which it's right to engage in discussion and even vigorous debate without needing to divide over disagreements. We all see through a glass darkly but that shouldn't stop us thinking about and forming opinions on issues that are controversial. Your further contributions are invited and will be published on our Web Site.(PP)
PLEASE NOTE: Philip Powell will start his series on the Five Points of Calvinism vis a vis the Five Points of Arminianism in the New Year. Any response to the following three letters will be considered for publication on our Web Site between CETF issues. We appreciate your patience. It is obviously an issue of concern to our readers and we consider it healthy that brethren can openly express conflicting views. Please watch for more at http://www.christian-witness.org/archmenu.html We like Tulips!(More on Calvinism)Dear Philip,I find both papers very informative and helpful especially in regard to the Lord's People. What I find lacking in many churches is the correct balance of doctrine and Spiritual Life; where good doctrine will curb the spiritual excesses of the charismatic side, and Spiritual life will curb the ritualistic tendencies of doctrine. Both sides, if I may use that terminology, balance each other so that the Christian is provided with a steady walk. This proves that doctrine and spirituality go hand in hand.I have no problem understanding RR's article The ABC's and XYZ's of Salvation: The Danger of "Easy Believism" (CETF Dec 2000 -- Issue 22). It is biblically sound. However, I would like the opportunity to comment as follows:Jacob Prasch (JP) has both misrepresented Calvinism in its historical accounts and its definition. He states that Calvinism was begun by Theodore Beza*1 and other remonstrants, and not by Calvin. Brother Jacob is partly right and partly wrong! True, Calvin did not invent Calvinism because it originates from the Apostle Paul - where Augustine took it from. Calvin consulted the writings of Augustine and compared that with what Paul taught. What Beza did, and various other remonstrants after Calvin's death, was to make Calvinism too metaphysical (abstract), which made it less Christ-centred. In other words, he was too philosophical! Effectively Beza introduced another form of Calvinism. This overemphasis led to the definition of the new type of Calvinism called Hyper-Calvinism (as it is known today). However, it is always True Calvinism that seems to be under attack and gets blamed for all the errors. The following is a quotation from a Roman Catholic source about the strength of Calvin's Doctrines:"It cannot be denied that Calvin was the greatest man of the Protestant rebellion. But for him Luther's movements would probably have died out with him and his associates. Calvin organized it, gave it form and consistency, and his spirit has sustained it to this day. If Luther preceded him, it is still by his name, rather than Luther's, that the rebellion should be called; and the only form of Protestantism that still shows any sign of life is unquestionably Calvinism. It is Calvinism that sustains Methodism, that gives what little it has to Lutheranism, and that prevents a very general return of Anglicans to the bosom of the church. It is hardly too much to say that no greater heresiarch than John Calvin has ever appeared, or a more daring, subtle, adroit, or successful enemy of the church of God ... Considering the end of man and the purposes of civil society, murder and robbery are light crimes, and the spread of epidemic disease of no consequence, in comparison with the crime which Luther and Calvin perpetrated when they revolted from the church."*2 It is said that when one's friends speak highly of one then that it is a good thing. When one's enemies speak highly of one then that is something exceptional. After this significant testimony I would like to quote one stanza from the lines written by Baptist W. Noel at the time of the passing of The Maynooth Grant:"Oh for an hour of Luther now!Oh for a frown from Calvin's brow!Once they broke the papal chain;Who shall break it now again?"Yes, who will indeed break the papal chain again? She is gathering her hordes in vast numbers. Where are the men who will stand against the rising power of Rome? Even friends are becoming enemies. It is claimed by many writers of the 18th and 19th centuries that it was Calvinism that dealt Roman Catholicism that fatal wound and that it is the lack of Calvinism that causes the rise to power of the Roman Catholic Church. Though many Arminians have done great evangelistic campaigns and converted many, yet have they failed to halt that downward slide of many "Christians" from sound Biblical doctrine towards the unbiblical pagan rituals and the teachings of Roman Catholicism! This is plain, historical fact.JP has also attempted to equate Calvinism with the "Inja-allah" beliefs of Islam. Actually Islam is basically an "enforced," corrupted version of Judaism (i.e. Abraham-Ishmael, instead of Abraham-Isaac). So one can see the similarities between Judaism and Islam and that these two are very close kin. Both are monotheistic religions. Josh McDowell has pointed out that Christ's Divinity and humanity can be proven from the Koran*3 - a fact that many Moslems do not even know! Calvinism bears no similarities with Islam. Let JP prove his statement!In addition to the above-mentioned concern, JP has forgotten a few other details in history as well. James (or Jacob) Arminius was not the founder of Arminianism but rather only the person whom the movement was named after. The Works of Arminius were not written by Arminius*4, as he was already dead. The position that became known as Arminianism was developed by his remonstrants after his death. On one occasion Arminius was asked by one of his followers for an explanation of Biblical Doctrine, to which he replied: "If you want to know the Bible read John Calvin."*5 In contrast to Arminius, Calvin wrote all his sermons, commentaries, the Institutes and treatises - they were not written by his remonstrants. I believe that Brother Prasch has it wrong in this respect, very wrong, and is charging all Calvinists with a nonexistent error!Even Charles Haddon Spurgeon was a Calvinist, which is a part of Spurgeon so many would like to forget and he fought against Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism. In Spurgeon's opinion both these positions produced the same effect on evangelism. This is why so many Baptists hated Spurgeon - they admired the man but despised his doctrines. So hated they the man that they intentionally maligned his preached sermons and writings. They have tried to separate from Spurgeon his Calvinistic view and even have tried to remove Calvinism from his sermons. In addition to this, they wrote false facts in their versions of Spurgeon's biography.*6 Spurgeon believed that Calvinism was a coherent whole, not something that could be broken up into small incoherent chunks (i.e., like The Five points of Calvinism*7). He believed that it was a faith held by Paul the Apostle, Augustine, Calvin, and himself.*8 All this can be proven historically by the relevant documentation.*9 Brother Jacob has declared a new "ism" called Finneyism. He declared that Finney was a virtual Pelagian. According to three different books*10 Charles Finney was an Arminian-Calvinist but more basically an Arminian. Unless, of course, JP has his own definitions? Finney believed in the Doctrine of Original Sin. A fact that JP has wrong. JP attacks Finney for his Semi-Pelagian view yet forgets that Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism are identical except for the inversion of the order of Election and Grace. Finney went to great lengths trying to explain the role of God's Sovereignty and sovereignty of man's freewill in his Lecture on Revival (1835) but failed to do so. Finney has generated more confusion. Finney also taught Christian Perfection, i.e. Christians can go many days, even many months without sinning - some today still preach this idea. A Calvinist would never claim, or believe, that he could attain sinless perfection because he knows he is a terrible sinner and no better than any other. The Calvinist knows that he is in need of Salvation, which comes from the Lord only. So, Finneyism and Calvinism cannot be opposite errors, as JP has attempted to link together, because that would make Arminianism and Wesleyan Arminianism erroneous as well - seeing Finney was an Arminian. Even Semi-Pelagianism affirms original sin. Thus, Semi-Pelagians and Arminians are the same.If all that others say about Finney are lies, as claimed by Bernie Koerselman (BK), then I have to wonder who is telling the truth and who is telling the lie. For both sides, that is Calvinists and Arminians, have both praised Finney, as well as rejected Finney at the same time. We see this in the article by RR where he calls Finney a brilliant man, theologian, and evangelist and yet points out Finney's own admission of failure.*11 What is wrong with that? BK uses the word "wholesale", for which I feel that he himself discredits Finney by making a wrong choice of words, which creates the idea that Finney was a salesman who was selling the faith cheaply. The Bible states that the Faith is precious which does indicate that Faith is rare, special, and hard to find.*12 I suggest that BK reads 1 Co 11:23 and asks himself the question, `Was Finney crucified for you? Or were you baptised in the name of Finney?" Precisely!!! I sense that somehow we are worried about "political correctness" here instead of the hard cold facts. For even Finney could see that the majority of "decisions" were meaningless. Unless, of course, BK knew Finney personally, knew the exact history of that man, and knew that every single person that heard Finney was saved. This leads to a tendency by BK to believe in that dreaded doctrine (which he hates) once saved always saved, only when it suits him. BK should be reminded that we are all unprofitable servants, regardless of whether our name is Finney, Edwards, Augustine, Calvin, Wesley, Kroll, Luther, Prasch, Riffe, Sheehan, Paul the Apostle, Ezekiel, Douven, and etc.; the most important point is that God is not a respecter of persons.And if BK is holding to what Billy Graham has said about Finney's ministerial successes to be gospel, well I would like to suggest otherwise! Mr. Graham's word cannot be trusted because he calls the Pope a "good Christian man." In addition to this, Mr. Graham has said in an interview on Christian Television (TBN)*13 that a man will go to heaven without knowing Jesus Christ. I wonder where Billy Graham got this idea??? The pagan religions like Hinduism, perhaps? The Bible says: John 14:6 _ "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."This is contrary to what Mr. Graham {apparently} believes! What has BK to say about the treason to the Faith of which Mr. Graham is guilty? Or do we excuse Mr. Graham on the basis of what he has done previously? He has sold himself to the RCC. What saith the Scriptures (Eze 3:15-21, especially v. 20)? And regarding the ministerial successes of certain individuals, I would suggest that BK read about Jonathan Edwards and his sermon, "Sinners in the hand of an Angry God"*14 or that he read about George Whitefield's sermons, or even the Wesley's; or John Knox - the one whom Queen Mary feared more than the armies of men; or dare I suggest Spurgeon's sermons and newsletter, who had between 30,000 and 50,000 attend his preaching. If BK's faith depends on the success of men, then I fear that he may lose faith completely. Has BK even read Calvin's Institutes and sermons? Our weapons and methods used in the war are not the weapons and methods of this world. It is man who measures success according to the abundance of possessions he has. This is not God's way of measuring success! Remember, Jesus Christ died on the cross in apparent weakness yet, "having spoiled principalities and powers, He made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it" Colossians 2:15.Now concerning T & C T comment {CETF Vol 7.1 p 18 centre} that the statement by RR, that "the list of the saved was decided before the foundation of the world," is inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus and the Bible as a whole is totally incorrect! The Scriptures state explicitly:Eph 1:3: - "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: (4) According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: (5) Having predestined us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, (6) To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. Our Lord Jesus Christ says the following: John 17:6: - "I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word."He does not say "because they have kept your word they were yours and now you gave them to me." Look at the next Scripture: Rev 13:8: "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."When was the Lamb of God slain? Maybe T & C T would like to study these Scriptures. Since it is only God who knows who is on that list (no one else does), would it make any difference to us because-we-do not know? To us it would seem as if we have some choice but it is not so. To have the attitude, "what is the point of evangelising if there is a fixed list," is to be like that lazy servant, who buried his talent in the ground, which his Lord had given him to do the work of his Lord. It is through preaching, evangelising, and witnessing that the Lord calls His People to Salvation, as it is said in the Scriptures: Rom 10: 17 _ "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."This is how God calls His people out. We must work the work of God just like those good and faithful servants, who had received their talents from their Lord, went out and produced much fruit. Remember the warning! Lest we be charged with laziness and our Lord say unto us, "Thou wicked servant ..." For it is written: Luke 12:47-48 _ "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. (48) But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."Consider the following comment of our Lord when He said to the Apostles:John 14:2 _ "In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you."Did our Lord say that there were an unknown number of rooms? Here, the English translations vary somewhat. The AV has it as mansions; the NIV has it as rooms. The Greek ... means mansions or abodes rather than rooms. Ever seen a hotel with an unlimited number of rooms? Common sense tells you that there is a fixed number of rooms in the Father's house but that the number is determined by God alone: and we, the servants, should not worry about how many rooms there are. Rather, we should rejoice that our names are written on the list.May the Lord be merciful to all that seek him! Blessings to all Brothers and Sisters in Christ JD Kyneton VIC, Australia Dear Philip, Many thanks for your letter. Of course, it should be noted (just to prevent any irate Armenians writing in) that there have been many godly Armenians too! On a more serious point, you have written concerning the issue of fruit, which is very important. To those who try to justify the heretics we expose by highlighting their "miracles", or "good works", we ask, "Can a spring bring forth both fresh and salt water?" Of course it can't, and if a man's doctrine is so antichrist in nature, then it is not the Holy Spirit at work in him. (SB) Dear Mr Bhayro England, UK *1 Calvin's son-in-law. Appeared in Issue CETF 7.2 January 2002 |
-Last revised-
